Senate Bill 11-12-05
| Bill ID: | 11-12-05 |
| Name: | Proposal to Encourage Mediation as a Method for Resolving Sexual Harassment Complaints |
| Proposed: | 07/25/2011 |
| Sponsor: | Jack Tossell, Professor Emeritus |
| Proposal: | At present, all complaints of sexual harassment at UMCP are treated purely legalistically, as either informal or formal complaints, which are usually handled by University lawyers. All decisions as to severity of offense and punishment are made by the lawyers. In fact, any attempt by a faculty colleague to Intervene in or mediate a sexual harassment dispute is concerned a violation of university policy and may be punishable. At many other universities mediation by non-lawyer professionals is an accepted, even recommended method, for dealing with such disputes. This procedure typically produces results more transparent to both the complainant and the alleged offender while protecting the rights of both. Section VI-1.20A of UM policy and Procedures should be modified to explicitly recognize mediation as an acceptable procedure for resolving sexual harassment complaints along with the informal and formal complaint procedures already described. Mediation would be performed by supervisors or by the ombudspersons of the university. University lawyers need not be involved. It should also be noted in the policy statement that the present informal complaint procedure does not involve peer evaluation of actions and penalties and is not subject to appeal. The alleged offender should have the right to refuse to respond to an informal complaint and demand that the complaint be made formal to insure their due process protections. Such changes could simply be announced and placed in the Policy and Procedures documents available online. No new personnel would need to be established. I have examined the procedures for dealing with sexual harassment at a number of other institutions. Attached are the UMCP procedures and the Washington University at St. Louis procedures. Although there are numerous small differences in policy from one university to another, all the universities I've examined except UMCP provide for an administrative or mediation (non-legalistic) option in the treatment of such cases. In many cases this option is recommended or required as a first step. The sexual harassment procedures at UMCP were developed in 1991 (in apparent response to the Clarence Thomas -- Anita Hill controversy) and have not been seriously updated since. The version promulgated by Acting President Farvardin on Oct. 20, 2010 is very similar to the 1991 version. I have discussed possible changes in sexual harassment policy with Ms. Susan Bayly, General Counsel of UMCP. Although she does not endorse my proposed changes she believes that it is appropriate for the University Senate to consider them. |
| Active? | No |
| Policy: | http://president.umd.edu/policies/vi120a.html |
Status
| Status: | Completed |
| Completed On: | 04/19/2012 |
History
| Status: | Complete |
| Reviewer: | Senate |
| Received: | 2012-04-12 |
| Decision Date: | 2012-04-19 |
| Related Files: |
| Status: | Complete |
| Reviewer: | Senate Executive Committee (SEC) |
| Received: | 2012-03-30 |
| Decision Date: | 2012-04-05 |
| Decision: | The SEC voted to place the item on the April 19, 2012 Senate meeting agenda as an informational item. |
| Actions: | It was noted that President Loh is creating a task force to review all existing policies and procedures related to sexual harassment at the University. Therefore, the SEC decided not to re-charge the EDI Committee with further review of the current appeal processes and opportunities for cases of sexual harassment at the University. The SEC voted to send a letter to President Loh welcoming the creation of a joint Presidential/Senate Task Force to review the University policies and procedures on sexual harassment. |
| Next Step: | Senate Review |
| Related Files: |
| Status: | Complete |
| Reviewer: | Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion (EDI) Committee |
| Received: | 2011-09-28 |
| Decision Date: | 2012-03-29 |
| Decision Due By: | 2012-03-30 |
| Decision: | To recommend that no changes regarding mediation or other processes of voluntary dispute resolution should be made to the VI-1.20(A) University of Maryland Policy and Procedures on Sexual Harassment at this time. |
| Actions: | The Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion (EDI) Committee reviewed this proposal and charge at its meeting on October 5, 2011. EDI met with the proposer, John Tossell, on November 14, 2011 to further discuss this proposal. EDI also consulted with Roger Candelaria, Campus Compliance Officer, on information related to this charge. The EDI Committee researched sexual harassment policies at peer institutions to identify whether mediation is used as a means to handling cases of alleged sexual harassment. The EDI Committee also sought legal counsel on this issue from the President's Legal Office. Based on its extensive research and legal advice, in February 2011, a large majority of committee members unanimously voted in favor of not recommending or inserting any new language to the text of the current policy at this time. The focus of the EDI Committee during this review was on whether mediation options would be appropriate for complaints of sexual harassment, as instructed by its charge. However, the proposal also briefly mentioned the lack of appeal opportunities for respondents in cases of sexual harassment complaints. As such, the EDI Committee also voted to request that it be charged with further review of the current appeal processes and opportunities for cases of sexual harassment at the University. |
| Next Step: | SEC Review |
| Related Files: |
| Status: | Complete |
| Reviewer: | Senate Executive Committee (SEC) |
| Received: | 2011-08-31 |
| Decision Date: | 2011-09-07 |
| Decision: | The SEC voted to charge the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Committee with reviewing the proposal. |
| Actions: | The SEC review this proposal at its meeting on September 7, 2011. |
| Next Step: | EDI Review |
| Related Files: |