I. Principles of Community for the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth (“Geisel”)
As an academic community of faculty, staff and learners, we commit to the precept that all members of our community must be able to access and benefit from the opportunities this institution provides. To this end, while specific language may vary among the different governing documents for the entities that comprise our academic medical center (Dartmouth College, or “Dartmouth”, Dartmouth-Hitchcock, or “D-H”, and White River Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center, or “WRJ-VAMC”), all faculty, non-faculty academic (NFA) appointees (as defined in the document entitled, Appointments Promotions and Titles at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, or “APT Document”), and other non-NFA staff at Geisel (referred to in this Policy as “Covered Persons”) are expected to adhere to the principle of equal opportunity for all current and prospective students, faculty members, and staff affiliated with Geisel. Moreover, no member of the Geisel community may engage in any form of discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, gender identity or expression, pregnancy, age, sexual orientation, marital or parental status, national origin, citizenship, disability, genetic information, military or veteran status, or any other legally protected status.
II. Professionalism: Expectations for Covered Persons in Roles Related to Their Geisel Responsibilities and Activities
It is Geisel’s expectation that all Covered Persons will, in their professional capacities, behave in accordance with the following principles:
- Be honest and act with integrity.
- Treat others with dignity, respect, and fairness.
- Perform their academic responsibilities to a high standard of professional excellence.
- Demonstrate collegiality and a commitment to professional development.
- Support the education and mentoring of our students and peers.
While each individual’s responsibilities may vary, the following behaviors are characteristic of the principles outlined above. They are not intended to be inclusive, nor are individual variations necessarily evidence of an overall lack of professionalism. Nonetheless, to the extent required by law or other policy, and otherwise to the greatest extent possible, Geisel expects Covered Persons to reasonably adhere to the following guidelines:
- The principle of respect and fairness includes respect for diversity in values, culture, race, color, citizenship, national origin, regional origin, religion/spirituality (and atheism), sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital or parental status, disease state, age, disability, genetic information, military or veteran status, political affiliation, or any other legally protected status. To this end, it is Geisel’s expectation that, within the context of one’s professional responsibilities, the community’s commitment to diversity, inclusion and equity will be reflected in one’s treatment of others in the classroom, in active learning environments, in research environments, and in oral, written, or visual presentations (e.g., syllabi, PowerPoints, abstracts, manuscripts).
- Ensure that to the best of one’s ability and in accordance with Geisel’s obligations under applicable law, the presentation of material within the context of one’s professional responsibilities is accessible to those with disabilities.
- Respectfully express beliefs and opinions in person in the workplace, through email, or on social (or other online) media, whether as an identified individual or anonymously, so as not to infringe on the rights of others. Commit to interpersonal communication with colleagues, learners, visitors, and patients, whether orally, in writing, or physically, that facilitates our ability to work effectively and respectfully.
- Not bully or misuse use one’s position of power to:
- Impose work on others outside of their own defined professional responsibilities;
- Demand or intimate any quid pro quo, inclusive of, but not limited to, specific laws and policies prohibiting these actions (e.g., Title IX);
- Create an environment in which those of less powerful professional standing or those in protected groups feel inhibited in asking questions with respect to professional obligations or expressing concerns and or grievances.
- Refrain from retaliation with respect to any protected activity, such as the good faith reporting of a suspected violation of applicable laws, government or Dartmouth regulations, government or industrial contract and grant requirements, or Dartmouth’s Code of Ethical Business conduct. Retaliation means engaging in conduct that may reasonably be perceived to:
- Adversely affect a person's educational, living, or work environment because of their good faith participation in protected activities;
- Discourage another person from making a report (e.g., on professionalism) or participating in any review or other investigative activities associated with such reports.
- Demonstrate collegiality and, when asked to do so as part of one’s institutional responsibilities, work appropriately with others across our academic community to advance our shared missions and vision.
- Provide full, truthful and accurate information in reports and representations including, but not limited to, scholarship, proposals (grants and contracts), evaluations of student performance/conduct and actions of colleagues, financial and reporting obligations, and performance assessments.
- Provide full, truthful and accurate attribution of work done by others both with respect to research/scholarship and more generally in giving credit where credit is due in daily activities in the workplace and classroom. Adhere to foundational principles of ethical research beyond those addressed under specific institutional policies on research misconduct and authorship and provide appropriate attribution for ideas and/or work done by others (g., as set out in the ICMJE guidelines incorporated into the APT Document). Although these guidelines are specific to attribution in published work, it is the expectation at Geisel that similar principles will govern attribution in proposals for grants/contracts, in all professional forums (for example, but not limited to, seminars and invited talks) and in all media (for example, but not limited to, PowerPoint presentations and OpEd pieces).
- Embrace precepts of ethical conduct towards learners.
- Be accountable for meeting one’s professional obligations in a timely and collegial fashion with respect to teaching, research, and service. Ensure that all teaching obligations appropriately requested by course directors (under the authority of Chairs or the Dean) are accorded thoroughness in planning and presentation so as to meet Geisel’s expectations for excellence as teachers, whether in the classroom, the laboratory, or the clinic.
- Recognize that all members of our community may occasionally encounter professional challenges, and provide respectful, constructive feedback to foster professional development and when needed to address performance deficiencies.
- Demonstrate responsible stewardship of institutional resources. Have respect for persons, property, laws, policies, and our buildings, grounds, resources, and environment.
- Respect confidentiality and privacy of individuals and of institutional information when mandated by law or institutional policy.
- Adhere to other professional expectations and any prescribed professional restrictions, including, without limitation, conflicts of commitment, as set out in other governing documents (e.g., APT Document).
- Seek to avoid all conflicts of interest (or appearance of conflicts) where one’s professional responsibilities and obligations may be compromised by self-interest or personal gain. Appropriately comply with all mandated conflict of interest reporting.
- Not engage in conduct or use alcohol, drugs, or other substances in violation of applicable law and/or Dartmouth policy, in a manner that compromises professional responsibilities or puts Dartmouth community members at risk. Take personal responsibility to report any issues that may impact one’s ability to fulfill professional obligations in accordance with the applicable institutional procedures.
III. Institutional Policies, Foundational Laws, and Ethical Codes
As noted above, these principles of community and expectations for professional behavior rest on other foundational laws, policies, and ethical codes at Dartmouth and/or Geisel’s primary clinical affiliates (D-H and the WRJ-VAMC) that both set out expectations and proscribe specific behaviors. Behaviors prohibited under the provisions of this Policy may also constitute violations of broader institutional policies or the law. Such violations should be reported to appropriate authorities, and those implicated in such prohibited behaviors may be subject to provisions both under this Policy and institutional or extramural processes. All Covered Persons are also expected to read, understand, and adhere to these foundational principles, policies, and laws (as applicable).
Specifically, all expectations and processes in this Policy are subject to all applicable institutional policies and procedures, ethical codes and federal, state and local laws, which may have more restrictive requirements, including without limitation the following:
- Sexual and Gender-Based Misconduct Policy and Procedures (Dartmouth) and any equivalent policies at D-H and WRJ-VAMC
- EO/AA and non-discrimination policies (Dartmouth); Notice of Non-discrimination in Health Programs (D-H); Equal Employment Opportunity, Diversity and Inclusion, No FEAR and Whistleblower Rights and Protection Statement (WRJ-VAMC)
- Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures (Dartmouth); Research Compliance (D-H); and Research Misconduct (WRJ-VAMC)
- Code of Ethical Conduct and policies on Clinical Consultation (D-H) and Code of Ethical Business Conduct (Dartmouth)
- Privacy rights (D-H)
- Learning Environment Policy: Expectations and mechanisms for reporting positive contributions to the learning environment and mistreatment
- Professionalism Policy-Undergraduate Medical Education Program
- Confidentiality of Financial Systems and Confidentiality of Business Information (Dartmouth)
- Conflict of Interest Policy (Dartmouth) and any equivalent policies at D-H and WRJ-VAMC
- Policy on Employment Relationships Involving Relatives/Nepotism (Geisel) and any equivalent policies at D-H and WRJ-VAMC
- Procedures governing review and disciplinary actions for UME staff (Geisel) and GME staff (D-H)
- Policies of the Human Resource Offices or other offices at Dartmouth, D-H, and the WRJ-VAMC
Note: policies and procedures set out in documents for Dartmouth, D-H and/or the WRJ-VAMC may supersede Geisel policies when activities are outside the scope of Geisel-specific responsibilities and may apply, in addition to Geisel policies, when overlap of authority exists.
Expectations for professional conduct of Covered Persons are broad and made more complex by the multiple employers of our academic medical center community members and the additional ethical and legal considerations related to activities of those who provide clinical care.
Despite the complexities in the scope of work of our community members and in the multiplicity of employers, we commit to a shared set of principles and expectations for those engaged with Geisel’s academic missions and a commitment to ethical conduct in the scope of these Geisel-related responsibilities and activities. This policy outlines expectations with regard to actions and behaviors in which Covered Persons are engaged in connection with their role(s) at Geisel, avenues for reporting alleged breaches in professional conduct, and mechanisms of review, as well as potential remediation and/or sanctions for Geisel faculty, NFAs and staff.
IV. Procedures for Reporting and Resolution of Complaints under this Policy
All Covered Persons are expected to adhere to the principles and applicable institutional policies described above. The following procedures will cover all complaints when a Covered Person is alleged to have violated one or more of the principles defining professional behavior set out in this Policy in connection with their role at Geisel, with the exceptions of complaints of sexual or gender-based misconduct or research misconduct, which will be covered by the respective institutional procedures specifically applicable to such matters. If at any time in the course of implementing this procedure the individual to whom a complaint has been referred becomes aware of reported conduct within the scope of the Dartmouth Sexual and Gender-Based Misconduct Policy, they will make an immediate referral to the Title IX Coordinator, who will determine whether that Policy applies to the reported conduct. Likewise, if at any time the individual to whom a complaint has been referred becomes aware of reported conduct that may meet the definition of Research Misconduct as defined in the Dartmouth College Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures, they will make an immediate referral to the Provost or the Vice Provost for Research, who will review the complaint in accordance with the requirements of the Policy and Procedures.
A complaint of unprofessional behavior in connection with a Covered Person’s Geisel role may be raised by anyone (a “Complainant”), including without limitation other Covered Persons, a faculty member, NFA, or staff member from Geisel or another Dartmouth school, a student, alumnus/a, volunteer, or third party not affiliated with Dartmouth. Reports may be made orally or in writing to the individuals or offices noted below. Students may initiate complaints against a Covered Person through multiple avenues, including through the Associate Deans and Staff in the Office of Student Affairs (Undergraduate Medical Education (UME) Program); directors of their respective MS, MPH or PhD graduate programs, the Dean or Associate Deans at Geisel; and Deans and/or staff members in the Guarini School of Graduate and Advanced Studies. Regardless of how a complaint is initiated, complaints alleging unprofessional behavior by faculty, NFAs or staff members at Geisel will be resolved in accordance with Policy.
Reports may also be made via confidential hotlines (including but not limited to, EthicsPoint or Safety and Security at Dartmouth, or to Dartmouth Human Resources when the Respondent is a Dartmouth employee). In some cases, and as appropriate for the nature of the complaint, individuals may also wish to report to recognized confidential resources (e.g., individuals identified as such by Dartmouth’s Title IX Office).
For faculty members covered under the Agreement Concerning Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Responsibility of Faculty Members (the “Agreement”) as set forth in the Organization of the Faculty of Dartmouth College (OFDC), these procedures do not replace, modify, or supersede the Agreement. All disciplinary action for covered Dartmouth faculty, as established in the Agreement, that may arise from these procedures will continue to be covered by the Agreement, as applicable.
All Dartmouth community members are expected to provide truthful information in any report or proceeding under this Policy and are further expected to cooperate with Dartmouth in any such proceeding. Submitting or providing false or misleading information in bad faith or with a view to personal gain or intentional harm to another in connection with an incident of prohibited conduct is prohibited and itself may constitute a violation of this policy subject to disciplinary sanctions. This provision does not apply to reports made or information provided in good faith, even if the facts alleged in the report are not later substantiated or no policy violation is found to have occurred.
- When possible, reports of unprofessional behavior should be referred to and resolved at the level of the Chair(s) of the Department(s) of the Respondent(s), in order to insure that an appropriate and fair review is undertaken and appropriate follow-up actions, if warranted, are implemented. It is the expectation that complaints will be handled with sensitivity, discretion, and fairness, with due regard for the interests of all parties and witnesses. For complaints of unprofessional conduct that can be resolved by the Departmental Chair(s) without a formal faculty sanction or disciplinary action, the Department(s) will retain a local record of the complaint and the outcome.
- If a Complainant has reason to think that the primary Departmental Chair may have a personal or professional conflict of interest or bias that would compromise that individual’s objectivity with respect to the complaint or any of the parties involved in the complaint, the Complainant may bring the initial complaint to a different Departmental Chair (e.g., secondary department) or to other members of the senior leadership team at Geisel.
- In those instances where: (i) the nature of the complaint, if true, may warrant sanctions or disciplinary action against the Respondent and/or (ii) the Departmental Chair wishes to engage the Dean’s Office in resolving the complaint, the complaint will be referred to the following individuals depending on the position of the Respondent:
- The Dean of Faculty Affairs (if the Respondent is faculty)
- The Chief of Staff at Geisel (if the Respondent is staff)
- The Dean of Faculty Affairs and the Chief of Staff together (if the Respondent is a NFA)
Each of these individuals (Departmental Chair, Dean of Faculty Affairs, and/or Chief of Staff, as applicable), referred to in these procedures as the “Reviewer(s),” will conduct an Initial Assessment as set out in Section III.B. below. Where the Respondent is a Dartmouth staff member, the Chief of Staff will also consult, when necessary, with a representative from Dartmouth’s Human Resources Office to complete the Initial Assessment. In addition, a record of the complaint and the outcome will also be retained in the personnel file of the Covered Person in accordance with standard procedures of the applicable offices.
- The Dean of Faculty Affairs and/or the Chief of Staff may also engage the following individuals and/or offices, as appropriate:
- The Executive Dean for Administration and Finance for any complaints regarding inappropriate use of Geisel/Dartmouth resources (whether garnered from internal or external sources);
- The Executive Dean for Administration and Finance for any complaints arising from the community outside of Dartmouth or with respect to correspondence to external entities, press/media that engenders complaints against Geisel, or members of the Geisel community;
- The Senior Associate Dean of Clinical Affairs at D-H if the Respondent is an employee of Dartmouth-Hitchcock;
- The Chief of Staff at the WRJ-VAMC if the Respondent is an employee of the WRJ-VAMC;
- The Dean of the Guarini School of Graduate and Advanced Studies if the Complainant is a PhD or Masters student;
- The Associate Dean for Student Affairs if the Complainant is a medical student (UME);
- The Director of Education for TDI if the Complainant is an MPH student;
These individuals may also apprise, as needed, other officers at Geisel (e.g., Associate Deans in the UME Program, the Director of Finance) and/or appropriate officers in the Provost’s/President’s Offices (e.g., Controller) at Dartmouth.
- Should a Complainant request confidentiality, the Reviewer(s) will take all reasonable steps to honor that request and to act upon the complaint consistent with that request, but their ability to do so may be limited based on the nature of the complaint and the nature of the request for confidentiality. For instance, the identity of the Complainant will generally need to be disclosed in order to initiate the procedures described in Section IV below for complaints against faculty members that may be resolved through potential disciplinary action. In addition, action will generally not be taken under these procedures on complaints that are submitted anonymously.
- Following the initial report, if a Respondent or Complainant has reason to think that any Reviewer who would normally have responsibility in connection with the Initial Assessment may have a personal or professional conflict of interest or bias with respect to the complaint or any of the parties involved in the complaint that would compromise the Reviewer’s objectivity, the Respondent or Complainant may make a request to the Dean to appoint an alternate Reviewer. Such requests should be made in writing to the Dean normally within five (5) days of making or being made aware of the complaint, respectively. The Dean may choose to meet with any of the party(ies) to hear their reasons for asking a Reviewer to be replaced or the party(ies) making the request may provide their concerns in writing to the Dean. The Dean will determine if the conflict/bias is valid and will issue a written determination to the parties regarding any such request, and that determination will be final.
B. Initial Assessment and Options for Action.
The Reviewer(s) will determine whether to take action on a complaint and, if so, appropriate options for action:
- If the Reviewer(s) determine to take no action, they will so notify the Complainant in writing, and will notify the Respondent to the extent consistent with any request by the Complainant for confidentiality. An appeal from the Reviewer’s decision may only be granted based on substantial new material, evidence of procedural error or bias that materially affected the determination of the Reviewer or new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the Reviewer’s determination.
- If the Reviewer(s) determine(s) to refer a complaint elsewhere—for example, to the Dean of another Dartmouth school, to the Dartmouth Title IX Coordinator, or to the Research Integrity Officer—the Reviewer(s) will so notify the Complainant in writing. (Should a Complainant be a third party unaffiliated with Dartmouth, the Reviewer will have the discretion to make a notification as appropriate in the event of no action upon or referral of the complaint). The Reviewer(s) will make any referral in writing and will request the Recipient of the referral to report to the Reviewer in writing any disposition of the complaint, at which time the Reviewer will determine whether any further action is appropriate under this procedure or any other applicable Dartmouth policy or process. Notifications to the Complainant and/or the Respondent following the referral will be the responsibility of the office or individual to which the referral occurs.
- If the Reviewer(s) determine that action is warranted, different courses of action may be appropriate.
- The parties, with or without the assistance of the Reviewer(s), may agree upon a resolution that does not involve disciplinary action against the Respondent(s) and that the Reviewer(s) determine(s) is appropriate. In those instances where lapses in professional conduct by a Covered Person require intervention by individuals in positions of leadership, the Reviewer(s) may consider whether collaborative processes (e.g., mediation, restorative justice) may be the most appropriate routes to address the behavior. In these instances, leaders are encouraged to reach out to the Dean and/or other relevant offices including, but not limited to, Dartmouth Human Resources and other officers within Dartmouth who have expertise in mediation, restorative justice, and other approaches that may both inform the Respondent of how their behavior should change and provide restoration to the Complainant or other affected party. Note: such processes may be used alone when there is no need to impose a sanction on the Respondent, but reconciliation and remediation may also be used in conjunction with formal sanctioning as further set out below and/or in accordance with other applicable policies.
- The Reviewer(s) may determine that, if the allegations are true, they could be the basis for potential disciplinary action against the Respondent(s). In that case, the Reviewer(s) will (i) follow the procedures described in Section IV below where the Respondent(s) is/are a faculty member(s), or (ii) refer the matter to Dartmouth Human Resources if the Respondent(s) is/are a staff member(s) or NFA(s) at Dartmouth.
Regardless of how a Complaint reaches the Reviewer(s) and the medium in which the Complaint is made, the Reviewer(s) will document every complaint, any actions taken in response to the complaint, and the resolution by one of the two methods described below, and will retain copies of all reports generated as a result of any investigation. These records will be kept private to the extent required or permitted by law. Complainants and Respondents will have access to their respective records to the extent mandated by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act for access to education records, New Hampshire legal requirements for access to personnel records, and any other applicable laws.
V. Resolution of Complaints Against Faculty Members
A. Review Process
For allegations that could result in sanctions or other disciplinary action if substantiated, the Reviewer(s) will notify the Complainant and Respondent in writing, normally within thirty days of receiving the complaint. If there are multiple Complainants, the Reviewer(s) has(ve) the discretion to determine whether this initial notification and all subsequent communications should occur with individual Complainants or to the Complainants as a group or multiple sub-groups, depending on the nature of the complaint.
The Reviewer’s(s’) initial notification to the Complainant and the Respondent will include: the names of the Complainant and Respondent; a description of the allegations in the complaint, including the date, location, and nature of the alleged conduct; an invitation to provide any information relevant to the Complaint and the names of any witnesses with relevant firsthand knowledge of the alleged conduct; a prohibition against retaliation; a direction to preserve any potentially relevant information; and an instruction to keep the matter strictly confidential. The Reviewer’s(s’) initial notification to the Respondent will also include an invitation to provide a written response to the allegations in the complaint within thirty days (vide infra, footnote 3) of the date of the notification, and will further include a description of the steps the Dean’s Office may take to investigate and resolve a complaint, as outlined below; and a statement that, while the Dean refrains from prejudging the outcome of the investigation, Respondent will have access to all rights conferred by the Agreement (as defined above), as applicable, in the event of any disciplinary action that the Dean imposes or recommends as well as the right to an advisor/observer as described below.
Based on the parties’ responses to the Reviewer’s(s’) initial notification, the Dean’s Office may undertake inquiries or other steps as the Dean’s Office determines to be appropriate in seeking to investigate and resolve a complaint, including but not limited to: consulting with any other Dartmouth office on a confidential basis; meeting with one or both of the parties, reviewing records from one or both of the parties, or meeting with witnesses identified by one or both of the parties or by other Dartmouth offices; establishing an internal committee to review the Complaint and be advisory to the Dean with respect to a finding of responsibility and potential sanctions; or appointing a trained internal or external investigator to conduct a confidential, prompt, thorough, fair, and impartial investigation resulting in written findings of fact and determinations, based on a preponderance of the evidence, of the violation of any applicable law or any Dartmouth policy or standard.
During this process, the parties have the right to be accompanied to meetings or conversations with the Dean’s Office or the investigator by a single advisor/observer who is not otherwise involved in the circumstances underlying the complaint, or responsible—for example, by virtue of a position at Geisel or membership on a committee—for taking current or future action in response to the complaint. Advisors/observers may not actively participate by answering questions or making presentations on behalf of the parties, and are limited to advising the parties privately. Advisors/observers are subject to the same confidentiality obligations applicable to the parties.
If the Dean decides to appoint an investigator, the Dean will notify the parties of the name of the investigator in writing and will give the parties the opportunity to challenge the selection of the investigator by making a written submission within five days describing any conflict of interest or bias that would compromise that individual’s objectivity. The Dean will issue a written determination to the parties regarding the outcome of any such challenge, and that determination will be final. An investigation will normally be completed within sixty days from the notification to the parties of the selection of the investigator or the Dean’s disposition of any challenges to the selection of the investigator. Throughout the investigation process, the investigator will provide the parties with the following, along with reasonable time frames for the completion of each step:
- The opportunity to submit information, and/or the names of witnesses with relevant firsthand knowledge, supporting their position;
- The opportunity to review information from the other party, to the extent permitted by FERPA, HIPAA, and/or other applicable laws, and to submit questions to be posed to the other party’s witness(es) through the investigator;
- The opportunity to be notified of substantial new factual allegations and to respond with additional information and/or witnesses;
- The opportunity to be notified of any alleged violation of applicable law or Dartmouth policy or standard and to respond; and
- The opportunity to review the investigator’s preliminary factual findings and determinations of any violation of law or Dartmouth policy or standard, and to provide written responses that the investigator will consider in producing the final version of such findings and determinations.
The investigator’s final report will be in writing and will include findings of fact and determinations, based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, of the violation of any applicable law or any Dartmouth policy or standard. The investigator will issue the final report simultaneously to the Dean and both parties.
Within thirty days of the issuance of the final report, the Dean will notify both parties in writing of any action by the Dean based on the report. If that action by the Dean includes any disciplinary action, the notification to the party subject to disciplinary action shall include the rights conferred by the Agreement (as defined above). Section B below contains a non-exhaustive list of potential disciplinary actions.
If the Respondent(s) are found not responsible for the complained of conduct, the Dean will at the Respondent’s request inform third parties who have been made aware of the complaint in the course of proceedings under these procedures of this outcome.
B. Potential Disciplinary Actions
The Agreement governs disciplinary actions against a faculty member, which may be effected only for adequate cause as defined in the Agreement and via the procedures described in the Agreement. In recommending or taking a disciplinary action, the Dean will include an indication of whether the action will be considered as part of the faculty member’s subsequent reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion.
Pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, the Dean may place a faculty member on temporary leave from College duties, with pay and benefits; such leave is not itself a disciplinary action against a member of the faculty. The Dean may also require a faculty member to participate in an educational program, which is not a disciplinary action.
For faculty members potential sanctions for violations of the Geisel Professionalism Policy are subject to the terms and processes specified by the Agreement and/or any other applicable policies or requirements. They include, but are not limited to, the following,:
- Termination of an appointment with tenure
- Termination of a nontenured appointment before the end of its specified term
- Suspension without pay from Dartmouth duties, with or without conditions
- Letter of reprimand
- Special monitoring of future work
- Probation, with or without conditions
- Removal or exclusion from Dartmouth housing, research/laboratory space, or other property
- Exclusion from Dartmouth-sponsored activities (either in toto or select locations, roles and/or activities, e.g., the cessation of PI eligibility)
- Prohibition against sponsoring/interacting with trainees (for example, but not limited to, graduate students, residents, fellows, medical students)
- Prohibition to purchasing specific reagents (e.g., isotopes, hazardous chemicals)
- Prohibition to use Dartmouth College p-Cards or other organizational billing mechanisms
- Reduction in or elimination of access to research, development, or other faculty support funds
- Restitution as appropriate
- Demotion in rank
- Removal of endowed chair
- Removal of administrative position or change in work assignment
- Reduction in salary
- Withholding of merit increase in salary
- Prohibition against participation in Remote Work Agreement(s) (as set out in the APT document) to be granted for defined period
- Prohibition against participation in Outside Professional Activities (as set out in the APT document) for defined period
V. Maintenance of Record of Proceedings
In addition to the retention of records described above in Section III.C for all complaints, the Dean will issue a written notification of the report’s findings and determinations and any action by the Dean to the following offices, as appropriate, based on the source and/or nature of the complaint:
- To the Director of Risk and Internal Controls Services, if the complaint originated through the EthicsPoint hotline;
- To the Director of the Office of Institutional Diversity and Equity, if the complaint was initially submitted to that office;
- To the Dean of the applicable Dartmouth school, if the complaint was initially submitted to such other office;
- To the Chief Human Resource Officer, if the complaint was initially submitted to the Office of Human Resources; and
- To the Title IX Coordinator, if the complaint was initially submitted to the Title IX Office.
- To the Provost or the Vice Provost for Research, if the complaint was initially submitted to their office.
Those offices will maintain the Dean’s written notification in accordance with their applicable record retention policies.
Approved by Faculty Council and Dean’s Academic Board. Final date of approval January 21, 2021
 Non-faculty academics include Research Fellows (who may not be classified as employees) as well as employees in the categories of Research Associates and Research Scientists. With respect to this policy, all NFAs are considered “staff”.
 Geisel is committed to responsibility and integrity, and values an environment where open, honest communications are the expectation, not the exception. We encourage you to speak with your supervisor, management or other campus officials in instances where you believe violations of law, policies or standards have occurred. In situations where you prefer to place an anonymous confidential report, we advise you to use this hotline, hosted by a third party, EthicsPoint. The information you provide will be sent to us by EthicsPoint on a confidential and anonymous basis unless you wish to disclose your identity, though you are under no obligation to do so.
 Voted by the Board of Trustees (January 15, 1971) after approval by the Faculty (October 19, 1970) as amended June 12, 2009, and as amended in the future
 Departmental Chair includes Chairs of both Foundational and Clinical Departments, the Director of the Norris Cotton Cancer Center, and the Director of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice (TDI).
 All references to “writing” or “written” includes transmission by electronic mail as well as hard-copy transmission.
 While these procedures designate time frames with the goal of achieving a reasonably prompt resolution of complaints, Geisel may extend any time frame for good cause, which will be documented in writing and will become part of the complaint records that are retained in the Dean’s Office as described above. All references are to calendar days.
 All references to the “Dean” throughout this procedure refer to the Dean of Geisel School of Medicine, and will include the Dean’s designee, whom the Dean will identify in writing to serve in that capacity for the purpose of this procedure. With the exception of authority reserved for exercise by the Provost, the Dean may further appoint a designee to exercise the authority of any other individual exercising authority under these procedures. If a Respondent has a true joint appointments or adjunct appointments at multiple Dartmouth schools, the responsibility will fall to the school (Dean) who was the primary hiring school and who holds financial responsibility for the faculty member unless otherwise agreed upon by the Deans of the sponsoring schools. If a Covered Person against whom a complaint has been made has a joint appointment in a school and in an office outside that school, the Dean will confer with the head of that office’s division or department to determine who will address that complaint; if the Deans cannot reach agreement, they will notify the Provost, who will decide whether the Dean or the division/department head will address the complaint. For complaints against the Dean, all references to the “Dean” throughout this procedure will be replaced by the “Provost,” and will include the Provost’s designee, whom the Provost will identify in writing to serve in that capacity for the purpose of this procedure; for such complaints, all references to the “Dean’s Office” throughout this Grievance Process will refer to the Provost or the Provost’s designee. Likewise, where a Respondent or Complainant has reason to think that the Dean may have a personal or professional conflict of interest with respect to the complaint or any of the parties involved in the complaint, such party may challenge the ability of the Dean to conduct the review as set out in this section by making a written submission to the Provost within five (5) days describing any conflict of interest or bias that would compromise that individual’s objectivity and requesting that the review be conducted by the Provost. The Provost will issue a written determination to the parties regarding the outcome of any such challenge, and that determination will be final.