1. The burden of proof in an appeal of a nonrenewal decision shall be on the faculty member concerned, and the scope of the review shall be limited to the question of whether the nonrenewal decision was based in any significant degree upon one or more of the following factors, resulting in material prejudice to the faculty member concerned:
(a) Conduct, expressions, or beliefs which are constitutionally protected, or protected by the principles of academic freedom; or
(b) Factors proscribed by applicable State or Federal law regarding fair employment practices; or
(c) Improper consideration of qualifications for reappointment or renewal. For purposes of this section, "improper consideration" shall be deemed to have been given to the qualifications of a faculty member if material prejudice to the faculty member resulted from any of the following:
1. The procedures required by the rules of the Board or of the Faculty were not followed; or
2. Available information bearing materially on the quality of performance was not considered; or
3. Unfounded, arbitrary, or irrelevant assumptions of the fact were made about work or conduct.
2. The petitioner must provide the Committee with any relevant information that he/she wishes considered.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2, the Committee reserves the right to gather whatever information it decides is relevant, including the entire record of the case to date, so that a fair and honest decision might be made on the validity of the appeal. The petitioner shall be given access to all information being considered and an opportunity to respond to that information.
4. The petitioner may choose between a personal review before the Committee or a review on the written record only. In either case, the petitioner shall be given full access to his/her file and may add any relevant new information that has become available since the reconsideration took place.
5. If the petitioner elects a personal review he/she may be accompanied at that review by legal counsel. The Committee must be notified in advance if legal counsel will be present so that the Committee has an opportunity to request the presence of University Counsel if desired. The role of both counsels shall be limited to observing the review and advising the parties.
6. A complete and verbatim account of all proceedings will be kept by the Committee. The Committee will be the sole judge of the form of such an account.
7. (a) A member of the Committee must disassociate himself/herself from an appeal of a decision in which he or she has been involved at any point during the evaluation process.
(b) Replacement for members who disassociate themselves from an appeal shall be made by the University Committee on a case-by-case basis. Such temporary members shall serve only for the duration of the case.*
8. All Committee decisions on the validity of an appeal will be reached by a simple majority of the Committee members present during the hearing.
9. All cases in which the Committee finds prejudicial error shall be remanded for reconsideration to the Committee or official who made the non-renewal decision, unless the Committee specifically believes with respect to a particular case that remand would serve no useful purpose. In that circumstance a recommendation shall be made to the next higher appointing level.
10. In addition to determining the validity of the appeal, the Committee will include in its report to the body making the non-renewal decision, to the appropriate Dean and to the Chancellor the actual reasons for the basis of its ruling.
11. The Committee shall retain jurisdiction of an appeal throughout the reconsideration process.