1. POLICY
   
   A romantic (amorous) relationship or sexual relationship freely entered into between two members of the University community generally are not addressed here and are not at issue. Certain romantic or sexual relationships, however, may arise in circumstances which involve an inherent conflict of interest and present a recognized potential for sexual harassment/ discrimination, or charges thereof. Those include relationships in which the following circumstances co-exist:
   
   
   • A romantic or sexual relationship between two members of the University community, and
     
     
   • One person in that relationship has actual or apparent authority to supervise, evaluate, or make decision(s) or recommendation(s) regarding the other person in respect to the other person's employment, education, or instruction at the University, or as to his or her advancement, participation, benefits or privileges in connection with or relating thereto.
     
     
   1. Duty: If and when those stated circumstances co-exist, regardless of which occurs first, the person in position of authority is required to do the following forthwith: (1) discontinue exercising any authority over the other person; (2) report the relevant facts to his or her own supervisor as set forth in the PROCEDURES portion of this Policy; and (3) confer with his /her own supervisor in respect to transfer of that authority to another. Prompt action is required in fulfilling those mandatory requirements.
      
      
   2. Violation of Duty: If the person in authority fails to fully or timely comply with those requirements, he or she will have violated this policy and will be subject to disciplinary sanctions, up to and including dismissal from employment by the University. This policy has University-wide application including without limitation relationships between faculty/student, faculty/faculty, administrator/faculty, administrator/staff, administrator/student, advisor/advisee, or supervisor/supervisee. In this context, the term "administrator" includes the non-faculty classifications of executive, administrator, and professional.
      
      
2. PROCEDURES
   
   
   1. Self-reporting:
      
      
      1. The policy requires that the person in authority in such a relationship report the relevant facts to his or her own immediate supervisor. If the immediate supervisor is not readily available, report shall be made to the next available higher supervisor (e.g., faculty ordinarily would report to chair/dean/AVP as customary and appropriate; non-faculty would report to his or her supervisor/director/vice president, as customary and appropriate).
         
         
      2. If for any reason the transfer of authority is not or cannot be accomplished by the supervisor to whom report is made, that supervisor should act promptly to refer such matter to a higher level or levels of authority to obtain direction and resolution of the matter.
         
         
      3. Persons receiving such self-reported information are expected to maintain confidentiality by limiting communication of such self-reported information to those having a need or right to know, thereby encouraging prompt and voluntary self-reporting of such matters.
         
         
   2. Reports By Others: Reports or allegations by any other person that the circumstances referenced in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the policy co-exist as to another member of the Gonzaga community, should be directed to the University's vice president having supervision of the departmental area in which that member is employed. That vice president will then coordinate with that member's immediate supervisor (and/or higher supervisors) to consider or effect any further action deemed appropriate. Prompt, accurate, honest and forthright reporting in good faith is encouraged and needed if the objectives of this policy are to be achieved. Conversely, reports or allegations made in bad faith without any foundation in fact are counter-productive to those goals and itself could give rise to serious consequences, including disciplinary action.
      
      
   3. Discipline: Disciplinary procedures and sanctions, if any, for violation of this policy will be (a) pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual if the alleged violation is by a non-faculty person, and (b) pursuant to Section Three, Paragraphs 306.01 to 306.23 of the Faculty Handbook if the alleged violation is by a faculty member. Enforcement and sanctions will seek to take into consideration all relevant factors including without limitation whether the matter was self-reported, to what extent the mandatory requirements were complied with, and the timing thereof.
      
      
3. COMMENTARY
   
   
   1. This commentary provides information as to background and context for the foregoing policy. However, this commentary is not intended to constitute an addition to or a modification of the Policy (or Procedures relating thereto). Any conflict or inconsistency between this information and that set forth in the policy or procedures is to be controlled by the language of the policy and/or procedures set forth in Sections I and II above.</
   2. A romantic or sexual relationship between two members of the University community gives rise to issues of special concern for the University when, by reason of an instructional or supervising relationship, one of the participants has authority over the other in matters relating to either instruction or employment. Romantic or sexual relationships in those circumstances are recognized to entail an inherent conflict of interest. Continuation of such can result in irreparable injury and may give rise to serious legal and financial consequences for both the University and for the participants. Accordingly, a number of colleges and universities have adopted policies addressing such relationships.
      
      
   3. Such relationships involve heightened financial risks because of known, real potential for (a)claims that a quid pro quo ("this for that") exchange was required or was implicit, and (b) claims that the University has legal responsibility for quid pro quo acts of the supervisory-person even though no one in the University (other than the participants) had any knowledge or notice of the romantic nature of the relationship. For example, a recent Washington decision, Thompson v. Berta Enterprises, 72 Wn. App. 531 (Div I, 1994) held the employer "strictly liable for its supervisor's quid pro quo harassment of an employee" even though the only persons in the company having actual knowledge or notice of the relationship were the two persons who were intimately involved.
      
      
   4. The power of persons in authority greatly restricts the freedom of subordinate students and employees to reject romantic or sexual advances. Typically, authority to give or withhold rewards such as evaluations, grades, advancements, and recommendations limits the extent to which a romantic or sexual relationship between individuals can be considered consensual. Even if a student or subordinate employee does not appear to object to participation in the relationship, this does not mean that the individual welcomes (or will continue to welcome) the relationship. Romances sometimes turn sour -- and, in circumstances in which a power imbalance exists, the person having authority may become highly vulnerable and defenseless against exaggerated accusations, especially in a factual dispute between the participants as to whether quid pro quo consideration was required or implied. Moreover, a third party may claim that the participant in a consenting relationship unduly received preferential treatment and may file a complaint of discrimination against the person having power or authority. This policy seeks to avoid or minimize those risks and concerns.
      
      
   5. Relationship of This Policy to the University's Sexual Harassment Policy: A consensual, romantic relationship does not necessarily include or entail the elements of sexual harassment. Indeed, an essential element of sexual harassment is that the sexual conduct was not welcomed. One purpose of the present policy is to head-off and deter high-risk relationships which can give rise to accusations of the quid pro quo form of sexual harassment. Accordingly, this policy is not considered as an amendment to the University's sexual harassment policy but as preventative and as complementary to the sexual harassment policy.
      
      
   6. Married Persons: This policy is also considered as complementary to the University's existing policy entitled "Employment of Relatives" which appears in the University's Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual. Such policy provides as follows: Employment of Relatives - Relatives of University employees may be hired or transferred except where either would: 1) have authority or practical power to supervise, appoint, remove, or discipline the other; 2) audit the other's work; 3) participate significantly in hiring or internal promotion; 4) be placed in circumstances where the relationship would lead to actual or potential conflict of interest; 5) create the reality or appearance of improper influence or favor. When marriage of employees would create a prohibited situation, a change in employee placement will be required.

Approved by the Board of Trustees July 7, 1995