I. Procedures
II. Adjudication by the Standing Committee on Discipline
III. Advisory Board of the Medical Faculty
IV. Appeals
V. Office of the General Counsel
VI. Exclusivity of Procedure For a printable version, click here.
The School of Medicine is an institution dedicated to truth in pursuit of knowledge through biomedical research, to the transmission of knowledge through teaching, and to the application of medical knowledge to patient care. A spirit of mutual respect and a broad trust that all faculty members, students, and staff share this dedication to the truth are essential to the function of the School. On occasion, however, it is necessary for the School to respond to evidence or complaints of unsatisfactory performance of professional duties or unacceptable behavior. The procedures outlined here were developed to provide a fair and orderly means of handling allegations of professional misconduct raised against members of the faculty and senior administrative staff of the School of Medicine. It is not intended that the proceedings be adversarial. Rather, all phases of the procedure should be conducted in the spirit of peer review. The University and School of Medicine will not have legal counsel present routinely during meetings of inquiring, investigative, or adjudicative bodies. Likewise, no accused person and no accuser may appear before an internal review panel with legal counsel. The School firmly believes that duly constituted boards and committees of the faculty should be free to meet directly with a member of the academic community on the business of the School, without counsel present. Professional misconduct is intentional deception or dishonesty in the professional conduct of academic duties such as, but not limited to, teaching, provision of medical care, or research activities (other than scientific misconduct); unsatisfactory performance of professional responsibilities; behavior generally unacceptable to the academic community; or failure to comply with published institutional policies or procedures, state or federal laws or regulations. Allegations of research misconduct are addressed by a separate policy entitled "Procedures for Dealing With Issues of Research Misconduct." If, in the course of investigating allegations of research misconduct, evidence of other professional misconduct is discovered, the ad hoc committee conducting the research misconduct investigation may carry out an investigation of the allegations of other professional misconduct. [Return to Top]
I. PROCEDURES Faculty, students and staff have an obligation to inform their supervisors if they suspect professional misconduct on the part of any member of the faculty or the senior administrative staff of the School of Medicine. The suspicion should initially be discussed with the relevant department chair in confidence; or if an allegation concerns a department chair, it may be reported directly to the Dean's Office. The initial responsibility to review complaints or allegations and to attempt to resolve evidence or complaints of professional misconduct rests with the relevant department director. The method used for resolution may be an informal process with minimal record keeping requirements. If the department director is unable to resolve the complaint to the satisfaction of either the accused or the complainant, or the department chair believes further resolution is required, the complaint may be formally submitted in writing to the Dean for review. Upon receipt of a written charge of possible professional misconduct, the Dean and/or the Dean’s designee will attempt to resolve the matter in a timely manner. A preliminary inquiry will be made to collect information to resolve the matter. After an appropriate inquiry, resolution by the Dean can take several forms: A. The Dean can find there is no basis for the charge and close the matter. B. The Dean can find the charge to be upheld. If the accused does not contest the charge, and the Dean considers the misconduct to represent a minor infraction, a letter of reprimand may be issued. The matter will then be closed when all stipulations (if any) of the reprimand are met. C. The Dean can find the charge to be upheld and judge it to be a serious infraction. If the accused does not contest the findings, the case will be referred to the Standing Committee on Discipline for adjudication. D. The Dean can find the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily through a preliminary inquiry, or the accused contests the finding of the Dean's review. An ad hoc committee will be appointed by the Dean to review the issue(s) through the proceedings outlined below. E. The person(s) accused of professional misconduct will be informed of the allegations no later than the close of the inquiry. The Dean will determine whether and to what extent it is necessary or appropriate to involve the accused person in the inquiry at an earlier stage for clarification purposes.
At the Dean's discretion, the Dean may initiate a formal investigation into charges of professional misconduct and notify the Provost of the investigation. The Dean will appoint an ad hoc committee consisting of three or more faculty members from The Johns Hopkins University to conduct a careful review of the allegations. The accused and individuals who have information relevant to the charge will be given an opportunity to present information to the committee, either in writing or through an interview process. The Ad Hoc Committee will assemble evidence of the alleged professional misconduct. Data collection by the faculty panel is to be as objective, independent, unbiased, and complete as possible. The investigation should conclude whether professional misconduct occurred, as determined by the preponderance of evidence. The Ad Hoc Committee will follow the following procedures in the conduct of its formal investigation: A. Each person accused of professional misconduct will be informed in writing of all of the charges raised, the source of the accusation, and the fact that an investigation will take place. B. Each person accused will be notified of the identify of the Ad Hoc Committee appointed by the Dean to conduct the investigation. The accused person may request that the Dean replace a member of the committee for reasons of potential bias or conflict of interest. C. The Ad Hoc Committee will schedule a meeting (or meetings) at which the accused person may appear and provide testimony. Every effort will be made to schedule such meetings at a mutually convenient time. The initial meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee will not take place less than seven (7) days after the accused person receives the Committee's request to appear, unless the accused person waives the seven day requirement. The accused person may request a rescheduling of the meeting(s) with the Ad Hoc Committee for good cause. The accused person's failure or refusal to meet with the Ad Hoc Committee will not deter the progress of the investigation. D. All relevant materials and documents for the investigation will be secured in the office of the Dean or another designated secure location at the earliest opportunity. E. At the beginning of the investigation, the accused person will be given the chance to consult with an uninvolved senior faculty member of his choice (e.g. a former member of the Standing Committee on Discipline, who is knowledgeable about the proceedings). This person will serve as "ombudsman" to the accused person. The role of the ombudsman will be to offer advice and guidance regarding the procedural aspects of the investigation. The ombudsman will be appointed by the Dean, subject to approval by the accused person. The ombudsman may, if the accused wishes, accompany the accused person to meetings with investigating and/or adjudicating committees. The role of the ombudsman is limited to advising the accused person in the proceedings, and the ombudsman shall not participate as an advocate on behalf of the accused person. F. All meetings at which testimony is given to the Ad Hoc Committee will be recorded verbatim or transcribed by a qualified court reporter. Copies of the recordings or the court reporter's transcription may be furnished to the accused person, upon request. The accused person may submit corrections in spelling on errata sheets provided with the transcript but may not otherwise edit the manuscript. G. The accused person will be invited to present a written statement at the start and close of the Ad Hoc Committee's investigation. He may request that the Committee interview certain individuals with relevant information concerning the matter under investigation and may suggest to the Committee any avenues of inquiry that he believes are likely to produce relevant evidence. The accused person may request an opportunity to question his accuser at a Committee meeting before the Committee completes its final report. If, in the Dean's judgment, this would impose undue hardship on the individuals involved, the Dean may decline to honor the request for a face-to-face meeting. H. The Ad Hoc Committee will prepare a written report of its findings and the significance assigned by the Committee to such findings, and will not include recommendations as to disciplinary action. The report will be given to the Dean and a copy given to the accused person. I. At any stage of the investigation, the Dean, after consultation with the Ad Hoc Committee, may take steps to notify other parties who, in the Dean ’s judgment, should be informed of the on-going investigation.
If the Ad Hoc Committee's investigation concludes that no professional misconduct has occurred, and if the Dean concurs with these findings, the matter will be closed. Appropriate action will be taken to restore the reputation of those under investigation and there will be continued protection of the accuser(s) from retaliation. The Dean will notify the chairman of the Standing Committee on Discipline and the relevant department chair of the finding of no professional misconduct. The Dean will retain the records of the investigation, including the findings of the Ad Hoc Committee, in a confidential, sequestered file. If, with due regard to whistleblower protections, the Ad Hoc Committee finds the allegations of professional misconduct have been maliciously motivated, or based on fraudulent evidence, the Dean may take appropriate disciplinary against those responsible. If, in the judgment of the Ad Hoc Committee, the allegations, however incorrect or unsupportable, were made in good faith, no retaliatory or disciplinary action will be taken against the accuser(s) and appropriate measures will be taken to protect the accuser(s) from retaliation. If the Ad Hoc Committee's report to the Dean concludes that professional misconduct occurred, and the Dean concurs with the findings, the Dean will refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Discipline (SCD). The accused will be notified in writing that the matter has been referred to the SCD for adjudication. A copy of the investigation report may be provided to the accuser at the Dean's discretion. [Return to Top]
II. ADJUDICATION BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON DISCIPLINE The role of the SCD is to review the investigation report to determine whether disciplinary action is indicated. It will consider whether there are any extenuating or aggravating circumstances, and consider any rebuttals submitted by the faculty member alleged to have engaged in professional misconduct. The accused person and the accuser(s) will be given an opportunity to appear before and/or submit written comments to the SCD. They may state their views on why the findings of the Dean or the Ad Hoc Investigation Committee should be accepted or rejected in whole or in part. Comments on the Ad Hoc Committee's report by the accused or accuser should be received by the SCD within ten days of receipt of the report. The SCD may accept or reject the Ad Hoc Investigation Committee's report, in whole or in part. At the conclusion of its review, it will recommend to the Advisory Board of the Medical Faculty (ABMF) those sanctions or remedial actions, if any, which the SCD may consider appropriate to the circumstances concerning the professional misconduct. The SCD's recommendations to the ABMF may include, but are not limited to, the following sanctions: A. a letter of reprimand (with stipulations as appropriate) from the Dean to be placed in the accused person's personnel file; B. suspension for a specified period of time, or other alteration in employment status; C. remedial training or counseling; D. restitution of misappropriated funds; E. termination, whether the faculty member or senior staff member is appointed under a fixed term contract, or has a contract to retirement.
[Return to Top]
III. ADVISORY BOARD OF THE MEDICAL FACULTY The SCD will forward its report and recommendations to the full ABMF. The ABMF will, in executive session, consider the case and decide what, if any, disciplinary action to take. The accused person may ask other persons (including faculty, staff, or department chairs) to be allowed to appear before the ABMF, or to submit a written statement or materials relevant to the disposition of the case. The ABMF reserves the right to decline this request. The ABMF will report its decision to the Dean and to the accused person. All records of the proceedings will be maintained in confidence by the Dean. [Return to Top]
IV. APPEALS The accused person may take an appeal of the ABMF's decision to the Dean within fourteen days (14) of notification of the decision. In the event that the Dean upholds the ABMF's decision, the accused may appeal the decision to the Provost of the University within fourteen (14) days. The appeal review of the Dean and Provost will be limited to the adequacy of the procedures followed and the appropriateness of the disciplinary action taken. [Return to Top]
V. OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL The responsibilities of the Office of the General Counsel include: A. Ensuring compliance with all applicable laws and regulations B. Monitoring the progress of the resolution of each allegation of professional misconduct to ensure adherence to the established School and University procedures C. General supervision of proceedings for the purpose of affording procedural fairness to the accused, the accuser and witnesses
The Office of the General Counsel will not act as the prosecutor or defender of the accused person, but will act as an impartial legal advisor to the Administration of the School of Medicine and University. Procedural questions from the accused person, accuser or prospective witnesses should be referred through the Dean's staff to the Office of the General Counsel. The Office of the General Counsel is available to render advice to department or division directors, the Dean or the Dean’s designee, the Standing Committee on Discipline, ad hoc investigation committees, and the ABMF at any step in the proceedings. Individuals serving in any of these capacities are encouraged to seek legal guidance regarding any procedural question, particularly in connection with the preparation of written reports or actions taken, or before any action is taken with respect to any person believed to have made an accusation of professional misconduct in bad faith. Any contact or inquiry to the University or School of Medicine from a lawyer outside the University, including contacts and inquiries emanating from legal representatives of a federal, state, or local agency, must be referred to the Office of the General Counsel. [Return to Top]
VI. EXCLUSIVITY OF PROCEDURE This procedure for the resolution of allegations of professional misconduct is the exclusive mechanism within the School of Medicine for adjudication of questions of this nature. A person disciplined under this procedure may not invoke the School's grievance procedure in an effort to gain a readjudication of the charge. [Return to Top] | 
