Questions and Answers

First, utilizing University resources for Education, Research, Patient Care or University business would generally not be considered "hogging" electronic resources. Using resources in a manner that hinders or prevents others from using resources is considered inappropriate use. Some examples of inappropriate use are:

• Storing large volumes of personal music and video files. The storage requirements compete with the requirements of files needed for University business.
• Peer to peer file sharing. The network capacity used competes with all legitimate University business needs of the network (and, in all likelihood this results in a copyright violation).
• Printing excessive copies of large documents. This is an example of legitimate use, but results in both waste of paper/toner and prevents others from printing.

Unidentified inappropriate use often leads to wasteful spending. When money is invested in information resources to provide more disk space or network capacity, and the reason disk space is low or the network is slow is because of inappropriate use, University financial resources have been wasted.

John Hurdle is the Chair and retains final authority on IRB governance issues. Dennis O'Rourke is the Co-Chair and is responsible for addressing issues from main campus. His responsibilities are to assist with policy development for main campus IRB issues, sign protocols for social and behavioral disciplines, and serve as a liaison for main campus with the IRB. They oversee the 4 IRB panels. They work with John Stillman who is the Director of the IRB. We also now have 5 Vice Chairs, including 2 from main campus.

The departmental administrator should report any problems with these accounts to the Department Chair who should then help deal with the PI.

To what extent should Department Chairs be involved in monitoring the financial activities of accounts assigned to faculty P.I.s?

The departmental administrator should report any problems with these accounts to the Department Chair who should then help deal with the PI.

It is not possible to speculate on our obligation to an employee with ADHD until a review has been completed by the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (OEO/AA), which includes obtaining information from the employee's health care provider and evaluating the impact of ADHD on fulfilling the responsibilities of each specific job. Therefore, managers and administrators should refer the person to the OEO/AA to request an accommodation. If the employee chooses not to request an accommodation, then their performance should be evaluated without regard to their ADHD. Also, any accommodation granted would not impact an evaluation of the employee's conduct or performance prior to the request-the ADA is not retroactive. Whenever such a situation arises, I recommend you call the OEO/AA and consult regarding the particulars of the case.

Every request by a manager to take disciplinary action goes through a review process. The assigned Employee Relations (ER) Specialist will consider all information from the department before making a recommendation. As needed, they will request additional information, documentation and evidence. University policy provides a mechanism for employees to grieve any disciplinary action that they deem is unfair or baseless. This process is in Policy 5-210. If there is any reason for fear of physical danger, we refer the individual immediately to Public Safety.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the "essential functions" of a job include those duties which the position exists to perform. For example, a filing clerk may be asked on occasion to help cover phones during the lunch hour. This would not be an essential function of the job. On the other hand, for the receptionist it is an essential function. There are some duties that may occur infrequently but are none the less essential. For example, a nurse may seldom be called upon to deal with a medical emergency, but it is an essential function that s/he be able to do so.

There is no issue regarding the consensual relationships policy as long as one person does not have institutional power over another. So if you are the Director of a Department having a relationship with someone in a separate department, there is probably no concern. However, it would be problematic if you are, for example, a Dean or VP having a relationship with someone in a department in a reporting line to you, even if they are not in your specific department.

Employees have access to their personnel file(s) at the University of Utah. Any file kept on an employee, including any "private" file a supervisor may be keeping, may be viewed by the employee. Supervisors may choose to put notes regarding an employee in a file without giving the employee a copy, but this is a practice we discourage. However, any letter considered a level of progressive discipline (warning, final written warning) must be given to the employee, which may then be grieved.

If the behavior involves a form of sexual harassment or illegal discrimination, the matter should be reported to the OEO/AA. If not, I recommend the employee contact Employee Relations for advice. For Directors, if the behavior violates University policy, then ER can work with the appropriate higher level administrator to take appropriate disciplinary action. This is more difficult with a Dean, who is a tenured faculty member. In such cases, we can discuss alternatives. Sometimes we will coordinate with the appropriate faculty administrator to identify strategies for resolving the situation. In all cases, Human Resources offers a free mediation service that is an effective way to resolve difficulties in the workplace. Contact the OEO/AA at x1-8365 for more information.

Plant Operations places a priority on snow removal and requests that hazardous conditions be reported as soon as possible at 581-7221, so they may address snow removal efforts effectively. The University maintains miles of sidewalks, ramps, stairs and parking lots. Snow and ice removal are particular challenges, depending upon the time of day the snow falls, for example. It is difficult to keep sidewalks snow free during a snow fall; it is difficult to provide ice free surfaces and protect the environment and operate within our state allocated budget (environmentally friendly ice melts is expensive, cheap ice melt is harmful to the environment). That said, the University operates in a mountain environment. We will get snow. Personal preparation in a snowy environment is equally important - see boots as fashionable! Good slip resistant snow shoes/boots should be part of every Utahan's winter wardrobe.

Two things: Continue to avoid the area or process if the hazard still exists, while continuing to press for an answer. Options for pursuing an answer may include:

1. Requesting a written response from Environmental Health and Safety (EHS),
2. If EHS is the unit not responding, addressing a written request for a response to the Vice President for Administrative Services.
3. While the University prides itself for responding appropriately and in a timely fashion when hazards are reported, it is every employees right to contact Utah OSHA when:
1. a workplace hazard exists,
2. has been reported as outlined in Policy 3-300 (through supervisory channels)
3. but is not being adequately addressed.

OSHA will either conduct an investigation or request the Environmental Health and Safety conduct a formal investigation and provide a written response.

Sometimes the condition is not changed because:

1. Upon evaluation by campus safety and health professionals there is not agreement that change is warranted; for example, if the hazard exists because a system, process or piece of equipment is being used inappropriately. Using said system, etc., properly may be perceived to be cumbersome, thus a short cut is used which is hazardous. This would not be justification for changes.
2. The cost (a fix costs more than would be justified by the degree of solution provided). It is acceptable to discontinue a practice or process that is determined to be hazardous, because it costs too much to repair.

In any case, it is not unreasonable for the individual requesting to know what's happening.

Any allegation of fraud in the billing process must be investigated, regardless of the underlying motivation or circumstances. The manager must cooperate fully in the investigation. Meanwhile, unless the manager's supervisory authority has been suspended, the manager should proceed with any appropriate disciplinary action up to and including termination, without regard to the billing concern having been raised. In other words, the billing concern should neither encourage nor discourage the appropriate disciplinary decisions.

The Utah Public Officers' and Employees' Ethics Act (the "Act") generally prohibits accepting a gift that 1) might cause the employee to depart from the faithful and impartial discharge of their duties; 2) is given primarily to reward the employee for official action taken; or 3) is given to an employee who recently has been or will be involved in a transaction with the person giving the gift, unless there is appropriate disclosure. The statute does not apply to "an occasional non pecuniary gift, having a value of not in excess of $50." The statute also permits acceptance of gifts exceeding the $50 limit so long as the person accepting the gift makes disclosure to their supervisor, the University's Board of Trustees, the University's President, and the Attorney General's Office.

The lunches are "gifts" under the Act. In the example given, it is not a stretch to believe that vendors provide lunches to individuals involved with purchasing for the purpose of encouraging those individuals to do business/continue doing business with the vendor. Thus, if the lunches are too frequent or exceed the $50.00 limit, they will violate the Act. An occasional lunch with a value of less than $50.00 would not violate the Act.

To our knowledge, no laws prohibit vendors from throwing Christmas parties and inviting University employees. However, any items received by a person at a vendor Christmas party (food, beverages, gifts, favors, free parking) would be considered gifts under the Act. It is likely that Christmas parties given for University purchasing officers are given to encourage those individuals to do business/continue doing business with the vendor. If an employee accepts food, gifts, etc. at a Christmas party with an aggregate value exceeding $50 and without proper disclosure under the Act, the employee will have violated the Act.

If we understand the question correctly, travel vendors hired to provide trip packages for our donors (e.g. to attend out-of-state athletics events) supply the University with free cruises/trips depending upon the vendors' sales volumes. It is likely that these vendors provide free cruises/trips as incentives for the University to continue selecting that vendor for University events. If the free cruises/trips are given to employees involved in selecting the vendor, those cruises/trips will violate the statute absent disclosure under the statute. On the other hand, if the cruises/trips are given to the University, rather than to specific individuals, the Act will not be violated. The University's decision to award or not award the cruises/trips to its employees is not governed by the Act.

We assume that this question is asking whether University departments may award $25 dollar gift certificates to University employees as incentives for meeting marketing goals. These activities are not governed by the Act and, therefore, would not violate the Act. Other internal University policies may, however, govern this type of reward/bonus.

Under GRAMA, the University's records of the following information about current and former University employees are deemed public and therefore available to anyone:

Under GRAMA, only the names of donors or prospective donors to the University who request anonymity in writing are deemed protected.

The Act prohibits gifts given for official action taken. If there is no legitimate business purpose for University employees to visit the site of the vendor, the trips would likely be construed as "gifts," would certainly exceed the $50 limit and would likely violate the Act absent disclosure. If, however, there is a good business reason for employees to visit the vendor's site, then the airfare and expenses would simply be part of the negotiated business transaction and not be "gifts" under the Act.

Documents should only be destroyed in accordance with document retention schedules. The University is developing a policy on retention of email. In the interim, there is no requirement that emails be retained unless there is imminent or pending litigation or a subpoena related to the subject matter of the email.