A draft policy encouraging reporting of misconduct and providing guidelines for how the university will respond to delayed misconduct complaints was introduced at the September meeting of the Board of Regents and will be considered by the Board at its November meeting.

The proposed policy encourages prompt reporting because of the problems that can be created by delay. But the policy also makes clear that complaints will be assessed and ongoing impacts will be addressed regardless of when alleged misconduct occurred.

The policy would also establish a three-year window for individuals to bring complaints forward. During that period, standard processes would be followed to determine whether to formally investigate. Complaints received outside the three-year window would not normally be investigated. However, UA would assess and address any ongoing impacts. In addition, investigation of older complaints could go forward if a specific finding is made that doing so is in the best interests of the university community. Considerations would include the ability to provide due process, any ongoing impacts on the safety and inclusivity of the university environment, as well as impacts on university operations.

The policy does not modify employee reporting and response obligations or the university's ability to pursue investigations and remedies independent of complaints.

University administration believes this approach provides for appropriate responses to all types of misconduct complaints, focuses intensive efforts on issues that are more likely to have ongoing impact and which can more likely be remedied, and ensures that investigative processes can be fundamentally fair. Though not limited to Title IX complaints, this approach is consistent with President Johnsen’s discussions with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) regarding UA’s response to Title IX complaints.

A first reading of the policy occurred during the September Board of Regents meeting. The proposed policy is currently under review by UA governance groups and university leadership. Formal approval of the policy will be considered at the November meeting. Feedback can be provided via representative governance groups, via the policy feedback form or during Board of Regents public testimony. To participate in public testimony, call 1-866-726-0757 between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Monday Oct. 29.

Why are we creating this policy?

Prompt reporting of complaints is critical for a variety of reasons including the availability of evidence, witnesses, and the ability to provide due process to all parties. At the same time, the university needs to know about past instances of misconduct that may have ongoing impacts on individuals or on the campus community. This policy would provide a framework for addressing these difficult issues.

Why was three years chosen as the window for routine processing?

Because UA is an educational institution and employer, not an adjudicative agency, there are many reasons to focus on misconduct that impacts current campus environment. Any delay in bringing a complaint forward creates a risk that evidence will be lost and that the university will be unable to adequately investigate, maintain jurisdiction over parties, or prevent or fix ongoing issues. We believe that three years appropriately balances those concerns with sometimes compelling reasons for delay in reporting, particularly in light of the flexibility in the policy. For context, agencies whose sole mission is to investigate civil rights claims limit complaint filing to 180-300 days; court actions for personal injury must be brought in two years and for breach of contract in three years.

What if my complaint concerns something that happened more than three years ago?

UA would assess and address any ongoing impacts, regardless of when the alleged misconduct occurred. In addition, the policy would provide the flexibility to investigate older complaints if doing so would be in the best interests of the university community.

Considerations would include the ability to provide due process, any ongoing impacts on the safety and inclusivity of the university environment, as well as impacts on university operations. Finally, UA could pursue remedies independent of an individual’s complaint.