Employee Conduct

This policy was posted for public comment from April 9 – May 11, 2026

Comments have been condensed and reformatted.

Responses

Overarching Comments

Multiple Commenters suggested reformatting the policy and procedure to make it more consistent in approach and to improve its practical applicability in real-world situations. This policy works best as a high-level framework in which SLCC sets expectations for conduct that adheres to policies. The more it duplicates or paraphrases other policies, the greater the risk when it comes time to apply cleanly and consistently. Suggestion that when a separate policy exists that governs an area in greater detail, the Employee Conduct Policy should primarily refer employees to that policy and avoid restating or partially redefining expectations here.

Thank you for your comment. The intent of this policy is in many ways to be a collector of the other policies that address employee conduct issues. We have attempted to use these suggestions to create alignment and consistency in how these are presented.

The policy contains substantial sections that primarily direct readers to other policies, creating large blocks of cross‑referenced material rather than standalone guidance. Overall, the policy reads as a compilation or "hub" of numerous existing policies rather than a cohesive conduct standard. Clarification may be helpful as to whether this hub‑style approach is intentional, and, if so, how this policy is intended to function alongside the referenced policies without creating redundancy or confusion.

Thank you for the comment. You are correct; this hub approach is intentional and intended to be a place where employees can find all policies that have significant employee conduct implications.

I was grateful for clarity on recordings needing permissions.

Excellent!

1. Policy Statement

The committee questioned limiting the final sentence to 'full-time faculty members,' noting that part-time faculty also have academic freedom and professional responsibility obligations, and that not all full-time faculty are tenure-track. Several members felt it would be clearer and more accurate to simply state that faculty members are also bound by the AFPRT Policy.

Thank you for your comment. The policy has been updated.

3. Definitions

The term "political activities" is used in the policy but is not defined. Given its significance and potential for varied interpretation, the committee recommends adding a clear definition.

Thank you for your comment. Political activities can include a broad spectrum of conduct that is too broad to place in a singular definition.

Personnel Definitions: The committee observed that the policy relies on Personnel Definitions without indicating which specific definitions apply. Identifying the relevant definitions would improve clarity and usability. The committee recommends clarifying whether and how the Personnel Definitions apply to this policy.

Thank you for the comment. The Personnel Definitions apply to this policy and are provided for clarity in PWC policies.

4.B Standards of Conduct

4.B.1 – Consider whether the phrase "including termination" needs to be stated explicitly. Calling it out expressly may make the provision sound more punitive or threatening than necessary, particularly since termination is generally understood to be a potential outcome of corrective action.

Thank you for the recommendation. The "including termination" has been left in the procedure.

4.B.2.a – This section appears internally inconsistent. The first sentence states that employees who use personal devices for work-related activities must sign a Records on Personal Devices Agreement, while the second sentence limits that requirement to employees receiving a communications allowance. This should be clarified to specify which employees are required to sign the agreement.

Thank you for this feedback. The intent is that all employees who use personal devices for work-related items must sign the Records on Personal Devices Agreement.

4.B.2.c – The term "communications allowance" could be clarified. Some readers initially understood this phrase to mean permission to communicate rather than a reimbursement or funding concept.

Thank you for this recommendation. The communication allowance form has been hyperlinked to create clarity.

4.B.2.d – The policy should clarify that only work-related files and communications on personal devices are subject to review or to Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) requests. Without this clarification, the language could be read to suggest that personal content on an employee’s device may be subject to search simply because the device was used for some college business.

Thank you for this response. 4.B.2.d. states, "Any digital work-related files and communications may be subject to GRAMA."

Consider reversing the order of 4.B.4.a & b so that 4.B.4.b is listed first. Additionally, it seems likely that 4.B.4.b will already include much of what’s listed in 4.B.4.a.

Thank you for your comment. The hyperlinks are listed at the end of each section consistently throughout the policy.

Regarding 4.B.4.a & b – Suggestion to revise and to eliminate duplication of content between this policy and the Drug and Alcohol Free Workplace Policy. Multiple commenters suggested that clarification is needed regarding the addition of the word "illegal" before "controlled substance." Consider revising the language to more clearly address impairment regardless of the substance’s legal status. One commenter expressed concern that employees should not be operating vehicles or equipment while under the influence of any controlled substance, legal or illegal.

Thank you for your comment. The policy was updated to note the restriction on illegal controlled substances.

4.B.6 – Criminal Offense Reporting. Multiple comments suggested that clarification is needed regarding the scope of the criminal offense reporting requirement. Additionally, consider whether there is any flexibility in reporting requirements, particularly where no criminal conviction has occurred.

Thank you for your comment. This policy is in alignment with the Background Check and Drug and Alcohol Free Workplace policies.

4.B.6&7 – These sections seem redundant with the Background Check policy. Are they needed?

Thank you for your comment. The Conduct Policy intentionally includes or references various other policies.

4.B.8 – The terms "lewdness" and "pornography" can be subjective and may be interpreted differently by readers. Consider providing definitions or clearer standards, whether by reference to specific statutory definitions or by clarifying how these terms are intended to be applied in the employment context.

Thank you for the comment.

4.B.8.a – The reference to "the Utah Code" is vague. Consider specifying which provision(s) of the Utah Code are being referenced to improve clarity and avoid ambiguity.

Thank you for your comment. The procedure has been changed to clarify "the Utah Criminal Code," which is Title 76 of the Utah Code.

4.B.8.c – Clarification is needed regarding the two business day reporting requirement. The policy does not explain the rationale for this timeframe. Consider whether this deadline is necessary and whether flexibility is appropriate depending on the circumstances.

Thank you for your comment. This timeframe is to align with Title IX and Anti-Discrimination Policies.

4.B.9 – Great to see this included. Are there other policies this section should link to? Perhaps Title IX or Campus Security Authority? Other comments: Consider whether this provision could create issues related to how individuals identify themselves, including the use of names, gender identity, or pronouns. Additional clarification may be needed to ensure the policy is applied in a way that is inclusive and does not unintentionally conflict with identity or expression considerations.

Thank you for your comment. We have added a reference to the Title IX Policy and Anti-Discrimination Policies.

4.B.10.a.(1) – Consider whether this provision could conflict with state or institutional restrictions related to DEI related requirements. Clarification may be needed to ensure the language aligns with applicable anti DEI laws or directives and does not create unintended compliance concerns.

Thank you for this comment. This section is current federal law.

4.B.10.b. – Consider whether the language following the word "respect" is necessary. Much of the remaining text appears redundant of subsection 4.B.10.a.(1). Streamlining this provision could reduce repetition while preserving the intended standard of conduct.

Thank you for your suggestion. This line has been removed.

4.B.11 – Consider why this provision is addressed separately from subsection 4.B.10.c. The relationship between these sections is unclear, and there may be overlap in subject matter.

Thank you for your comment. The respective policies have been consolidated under each respective area.

4.B.12.c – Subsection (c) appears to negate or undermine subsection (b). Clarification is needed to ensure these provisions are consistent and do not create conflicting expectations regarding proper use.

Thank you for this comment.

4.B.15 – Consider adding a reference to the Conflict of Interest Policy.

Thank you for this comment. The Conflict of Interest policy has been added to this section.

4.B.18 – Clarification may be needed regarding whether participation in or expressions related to Pride events or Pride related activities are considered "political activities" under this section. Without clarification, it is unclear how this provision would apply to Pride related advocacy, celebrations, or expressions.

Thank you for your comment. Employees are free to participate in Pride and Pride-related events and are not considered political activities.

4.B.18.b – For faculty, the concept of "work hours" is unclear. Faculty schedules often do not align with standard hourly work structures, particularly for those with flexible, hybrid, or non-traditional assignments. Clarification may be needed regarding how "work hours" are defined and applied to faculty in the context of this provision.

Thank you for your comment. You are correct that for staff it is much clearer what constitutes work hours. As an example, if a faculty is scheduled to teach from 8 AM to Noon, and has scheduled office hours or departmental meeting from 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM, it would not be appropriate to engage in political activities during the times for the faculty during the scheduled times for courses or office hours/departmental meetings.

4.B.18.e – Multiple comments that this subsection seems vague, difficult to enforce, and easy to abuse. How do you prove intent with "attempting to sway" coworkers' political views? How do you define what a "political view" is? What does "attempt to sway" mean, and who gets to define that? What if it were more like, "Employees are prohibited from campaigning on matters of politics" or "Employees are prohibited from targeting employees for political purposes"? However, there's got to be something in here about it being unwanted conversation. Simply discussing politics is fine and is a mark of a civically engaged population. People should be able to say they don't want to discuss it, and then after that it should stop. If it doesn't, then that's a problem and what the policy should address.

Thank you for your comment.

4.B.20 – This provision appears to restate obligations that are already addressed under FERPA and existing employment or confidentiality laws. Consider whether this section is necessary as a standalone requirement, or whether it could be clarified as a cross-reference to applicable laws and policies to avoid redundancy.

Thank you for your comment

4.B.22 – "Recording Employee Communications and Meetings." Consider whether beginning this section with a blanket prohibition is appropriate. I don't understand the problem this is trying to solve. This is fundamentally an accessibility issue. If I'm in a difficult meeting, say, with my supervisor, or in an informal resolution process, and I want to be able to pay attention and make sure I remember things from the meeting, I should be able to record it as long as I disclose that I am doing so.

Thank you for your comment. This section has been reverted to the existing policy language, "Employees must not secretly record communications between employees and other college community members."

4.B.24-25 – Consider structuring these sections with more detailed subsections, similar to other parts of this policy. Adding subsection formatting could improve clarity, readability, and consistency across the policy.

Thank you for the comment.

Technical Suggestions

4.B.2.c – the "Records on Personal Devices Agreement" hyperlink is missing.

Thank you for the comment. This agreement is being created. Once it's been reviewed and approved by legal, it will be hyperlinked.

4.B.7 – the "Professional Boundaries and Relationships Policy" hyperlink is missing.

Thank you for the comment. The hyperlink will be added after the Professional Boundaries and Relationships Policy is approved by the Board of Trustees.

4.B.8.c – There is a typo, consider inserting "Culture" to the end of "Senior Director for People and Workplace".

Thank you for the comment. Revision accepted.

4.B.22.b(1) – Missing link: "Utah Open and Public Meetings Act"

Thank you this has been added to the references.

Comments

Hi, I have a couple of points of feedback: "Employees are prohibited from attempting to sway their coworkers' political views or voting choices. Employees cannot be forced to participate in or disclose information about their political activities." This feels too "mushy" and is at risk of being weaponized. What dose it mean to "attempt to sway" and who gets to define that? Does one have to say "I'd like you to sway your political view or voting choice" or is someone just talking about politics attempting to sway? I understand the intent, but I think this is risky language. If the purpose is to remove political talk, then just come out and say, "employees are prohibited from discussing politics during working hours" but that's entirely troubling. What if it were more like, "Employees are prohibited from campaigning on matters of politics" or "Employees are prohibited from targeting employees for political purposes" or...not sure. But, there's got to be something in here about it being unwanted conversation. To simply discuss politics is fine and is a mark of a civically engaged population. People should be able to say they don't want to discuss it, and then after that it should stop. If it doesn't, then that's a problem and what the policy should address. But, this wording is going to open up a huge can of worms. "Recording Employee Communications and Meetings." I'm not understanding the problem this is trying to solve as long as intent to record is out in the open. As long as it's disclosed, it should be permitted. This is, fundamentally an accessibilty issue. If I'm in a difficult meeting, say, with my supervisor, or in an informal resolution process, and I want to be able to pay attention and make sure I remember things from the meeting, I should be able to record it as long as i disclose that I am doing so. This policy point should require disclousre, and, perhaps, sharing of the recording with the other members of the conversation. Allowing this will also build trust into the different processes we have for resolving employee conflict. Disallowing recording (if disclosed) foments suspicion and distrust.
Missing link: "Records on Personal Devices Agreement" (4B2c) I think 4B4b should come before 4B4a (e.g. switch order). Likely 4B4b already includes much of what's held in 4B4a. Missing link: "Professional Boundaries and Relationships Policy." (4B7) 4B9 - Great to see this incldued. Are there other policies to link to? Title IX? Campus Security Authority? 4B22B(1) - Missing link: "Utah Open and Public Meetings Act" I was grateful for clarity on recordings needing permissions.
I appreciate the work that has gone into revising the Employee Conduct Policy. I do want to raise what I suppose is a "point of order" that comes from my work experience applying and interpreting policy language in real situations. This draft takes a somewhat inconsistent approach to defining employee conduct, referring employees to other governing policies, or doing both at once. In some sections, the policy appropriately points the reader to a separate policy that contains the relevant detail. For example, Section 4.B.4.b states that employees must comply with the Drug and Alcohol Free Workplace Policy. That approach works well. The Employee Conduct Policy establishes the expectation, and the specialized policy it refers to provides the details, definitions, procedures, and enforcement framework. That approach is not used consistently elsewhere. For example, Section 4.B.3, covering conflicts of interest, lays out a series of expectations and prohibitions but does not reference the separate Conflict of Interest Policy, which already exists, goes into far greater detail, and covers other types of conflict of interest such as outside employment and consulting that are not mentioned in this policy. There is also a third pattern in the policy where detailed conduct standards are defined here and then the reader is also referred to another policy. For example, Section 4.B.11 defines workplace bullying in substantial detail, including intent, harm, and severity thresholds, and then refers the reader to the Workplace Bullying Policy for complaints and guidelines. From a practical standpoint, this creates problems. An employee reading this policy might reasonably assume that it represents the full set of the college’s expectations, and may be unaware that additional requirements exist elsewhere. It also increases the risk that similar concepts are defined differently across policies. Even small differences in wording can become significant during corrective action, grievance, or hearing processes. This mixed approach also makes it unclear which policy should be treated as the primary authority if language differs or evolves over time. When multiple policies regulate the same behavior independently (as in the example of the conflict of interest that I noted above), there is a risk of drift as policies are reviewed and revised at different times. I would suggest a more consistent structure across this policy. When a separate policy exists that governs an area in greater detail, the Employee Conduct Policy should primarily refer employees to that policy and avoid restating or partially redefining expectations here. Keeping detailed conduct standards centralized in the policies designed for that purpose would reduce confusion and limit the risk of conflicting interpretations over time. This policy works best as a high-level framework where SLCC sets the expectation for conduct that adheres to policies. The more it duplicates or paraphrases other policies, the greate the risk when it comes time to apply cleanly and consistently.
re: 4B6 Criminal Offense Reporting. While there are certainly times it would be appropriate for the college to be aware of an ongoing trial (say a budget center manager charged with embezzlement elsewhere, or a driver getting charged with a DUI), I see a number of issues with this policy. It's vague at what level a charge or conviction should be disclosed. Do you want to know about my speeding ticket? What about if an employee is arrested while peacefully protesting? Plus as a state institution it seems to fly against the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. Lastly, it's antithetical to the SLCC Values of Inclusivity, Trust, and Integrity. So I would propose the policy be amended to strike "in any form" and state something along the lines of "when the charge or conviction prevents the employee from completing their assigned duties, or risks harm to the SLCC community."
4.18.e: "Employees are prohibited from attempting to sway their coworkers' political views or voting choices." This seems vague, difficult to enforce, and easy to abuse. Countless topics are politicized, even things as innocuous as tree planting and landscaping, where certain building types can go, even just when we as employees can retire. How do you prove intent with "attempting to sway" coworker's political views? How do you define what a "political view" is? How do we prevent this clause from being so broad and so vague that we're apprehensive to talk about anything with our coworkers, even just things that are affecting our everyday lives like medical bills, student loans, potholes, public transportation, cost of living, etc.? Or even talking about laws relevant to our work, like FERPA, GRAMA, ADA? Or discussing proposed bills that impact higher education during future legislative sessions?
I agree with many of the statements here, so I won't restate. I will add regarding [4.b.4.a & b] "operate a college motor vehicle or equipment while under the influence of an illegal controlled substance or alcohol". Employees should not be operating vehicles or equipment while under the influence of any controlled substance, legal or illegal. IE if a faculty is prescribed a controlled substance (ie opioid, benzo, cannabis, etc) they should not be operating a motor vehicle or equipment if under the influence of these legally obtained and used controlled substances. This is similar in the Drug and Alcohol Free Workplace policy, where it doesn't necessarily address legal controlled substances use leading to accident or injury. I would argue this is problematic. This also get's to what [another commenter] was discussing. If both policies exist stating the college stance on controlled substances, and one is updated to my recommendation (that a college vehicle or college equipment should not be used while under the influence of any controlled substance or alcohol) but the other is not there could be issues. For example, a faculty is using a forklift while under the influence of a prescribed benzodiazepine (legal controlled substance) and causes damage or injury there is then conflicting policies, one allowing their use of this equipment and one not allowing their use of the equipment while under the influence of this medication.
General Comments: Consider linking all policies cited. The policy contains substantial sections that primarily direct readers to other policies, creating large blocks of cross‑referenced material rather than standalone guidance. Overall, the policy reads as a compilation or 'hub' of numerous existing policies rather than a cohesive conduct standard. Clarification may be helpful as to whether this hub‑style approach is intentional, and, if so, how this policy is intended to function alongside the referenced policies without creating redundancy or confusion.
1. Policy The committee questioned limiting the final sentence to "full-time faculty members," noting that part-time faculty also have academic freedom and professional responsibility obligations, and that not all full-time faculty are tenure-track. The committee also questioned the inclusion of the phrase stating that the Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility, and Tenure (AFPRT) Policy "takes precedence over" this policy. Several members felt it would be clearer and more accurate to simply state that faculty members are also bound by the AFPRT Policy. The committee recommends removing the 'takes precedence over' language unless a direct conflict is specifically intended.
2. References n/a
3. Definitions The committee noted that the term "political activities" is used in the policy but is not defined. Given its significance and potential for varied interpretation, the committee recommends adding a clear definition. The committee observed that the policy relies on Personnel Definitions without indicating which specific definitions apply. Identifying the relevant definitions would improve clarity and usability. The committee further noted that the Personnel Definitions state they apply to People and Workplace Culture policies and procedures. It is unclear whether those definitions are intended to apply outside that context. The committee recommends clarifying whether and how the Personnel Definitions apply to this policy.
4. Procedures 4.B.1. Consider whether the phrase "including termination" needs to be stated explicitly. Calling it out expressly may make the provision sound more punitive or threatening than necessary, particularly since termination is generally understood to be a potential outcome of corrective action. 4.B.2.a. This section appears internally inconsistent. The first sentence states that employees who use personal devices for work related activities must sign a Records on Personal Devices Agreement, while the second sentence limits that requirement to employees receiving a communications allowance. This should be clarified to specify which employees are required to sign the agreement. 4.B.2.c. The term "communications allowance" could be clarified. Some readers initially understood this phrase to mean permission to communicate rather than a reimbursement or funding concept. If the intent is to reference the college's cell phone reimbursement or allowance program, the language should make that explicit. 4.B.2.d. The policy should clarify that only work related files and communications on personal devices are subject to review or to Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) requests. Without this clarification, the language could be read to suggest that personal content on an employee's device may be subject to search simply because the device was used for some college business. 4.B.4.a.(2). Clarification is needed regarding the addition of the word "illegal" before "controlled substance." As written, the provision could be read to permit impairment from legal substances, even where such impairment could affect safety or job performance. Consider revising the language to more clearly address impairment regardless of the substance's legal status. 4.B.6. Clarification is needed regarding the scope of the criminal offense reporting requirement. It is unclear whether arrests or actions by federal immigration authorities (e.g., ICE) are intended to be included. Additionally, consider whether there is any flexibility in reporting requirements, particularly where no criminal conviction has occurred. 4.B.6. The policy does not clearly describe the reporting process. It would be helpful to specify how and to whom employees are required to make a report, including any procedural steps or timelines, to ensure the requirement is clear and consistently applied. 4.B.6. This requirement appears to overlap with the Background Check Policy. Consider whether this provision is necessary, or whether the issue is already adequately addressed elsewhere. Eliminating redundancy could reduce confusion and improve clarity regarding reporting obligations. 4.B.7. This too seems redundant with the Background Check policy. 4.B.8. The terms "lewdness" and "pornography" can be subjective and may be interpreted differently by readers. Consider providing definitions or clearer standards, whether by reference to specific statutory definitions or by clarifying how these terms are intended to be applied in the employment context. 4.B.8.a. The reference to "the Utah Code" is vague. Consider specifying which provision(s) of the Utah Code are being referenced to improve clarity and avoid ambiguity. 4.B.8.c. Clarification is needed regarding the two business day reporting requirement. The policy does not explain the rationale for this timeframe. Consider whether this deadline is necessary and whether flexibility is appropriate depending on the circumstances. There is a typo, consider inserting "Culture" to the end of "Senior Director for People and Workplace". 4.B.9. Consider whether this provision could create issues related to how individuals identify themselves, including the use of names, gender identity, or pronouns. Additional clarification may be needed to ensure the policy is applied in a way that is inclusive and does not unintentionally conflict with identity or expression considerations. 4.10.a.(1) Consider whether this provision could conflict with state or institutional restrictions related to DEI related requirements. Clarification may be needed to ensure the language aligns with applicable anti DEI laws or directives and does not create unintended compliance concerns. 4.B.10.b. Consider whether the language following the word 'respect' is necessary. Much of the remaining text appears redundant of subsection 4.B.10.a.(1). Streamlining this provision could reduce repetition while preserving the intended standard of conduct. 4.B.11. Consider why this provision is addressed separately from subsection 4.B.10.c. The relationship between these sections is unclear, and there may be overlap in subject matter. Clarifying the distinction, or consolidating the provisions if appropriate, could improve organization and reduce redundancy. 4.B.12.c Subsection (c) appears to negate or undermine subsection (b). Clarification is needed to ensure these provisions are consistent and do not create conflicting expectations regarding proper use. 4.B.15. Consider adding a reference to the Conflict of Interest Policy. Cross referencing the applicable policy would improve clarity, ensure consistency, and help employees understand how this provision aligns with existing conflict of interest requirements. 4.B.18. The term 'political activities' is used in this section but is not defined. Consider adding a definition to ensure clarity and consistent interpretation, particularly given the restrictions and expectations outlined in this provision. 4.B.18. Clarification may be needed regarding whether participation in or expressions related to Pride events or Pride related activities are considered 'political activities' under this section. Without clarification, it is unclear how this provision would apply to Pride related advocacy, celebrations, or expressions. 4.B.18.b. For faculty, the concept of "work hours" is unclear. Faculty schedules often do not align with standard hourly work structures, particularly for those with flexible, hybrid, or non traditional assignments. Clarification may be needed regarding how "work hours" are defined and applied to faculty in the context of this provision. 4.B.20. This provision appears to restate obligations that are already addressed under FERPA and existing employment or confidentiality laws. Consider whether this section is necessary as a standalone requirement, or whether it could be clarified as a cross reference to applicable laws and policies to avoid redundancy. 4.B.22. Consider whether beginning this section with a blanket prohibition is appropriate. A more narrowly tailored approach, such as identifying permitted conduct with specific limitations or exceptions, may provide clearer guidance and better align with the varied contexts in which this section may apply. 4.B.24-25. Consider structuring these sections with more detailed subsections, similar to other parts of this policy. Adding subsection formatting could improve clarity, readability, and consistency across the policy.