Conflicts of Interest Guidelines for Senate Faculty Searches for Academic Year 2026/27

Faculty searches are formal hiring processes at UC Berkeley. As a public institution, Berkeley is governed by university, state, and federal policies, laws, and regulations that require providing equal employment opportunity to all applicants for faculty jobs.

The conflict of interest guidelines set forth here present the minimum requirements necessary for mitigating risks and preserving fair processes in considering candidates who have current or prior personal, business or commercial, mentoring, or collaborative relationships with Berkeley faculty. All candidates who apply for faculty positions at Berkeley must be treated fairly, and hiring units may not compromise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of the search process either by advantaging or disadvantaging candidates due to preexisting relationships. The guidelines are intended to avoid a failed search or meritorious litigation against the university. 

Departments may choose to create additional procedures beyond what are described here to reduce risk. We encourage departments to review and consider implementing the recommended best practices outlined in Appendix A. Note that individual faculty are free to recuse themselves completely from participation at any step.

OFEW is available to consult on unique situations that may require additional guidance to maintain procedures that are fair to all applicants, compliant with campus, UC, and state and federal policies and laws, and limit risk to the University.

Appendix B lists the UC policies, and state and federal laws and regulations that ground the requirements that follow.

I. Categories of conflict of interest

A. Complete recusal

These relationships require complete recusal from the search process, including voting:

1. Personal relationships: Near relative1 to a candidate (or applicant) – a faculty member’s child, parent, spouse, domestic partner, sibling, in-law, step relative, and other persons residing in the faculty member’s household. This category also includes current and former romantic partners.

2. Business or commercial relationships: A current/active business or commercial relationship with a financial interest or connection between the faculty member and the candidate.2

1 APM-520

2 CA Political Reform Act 1974, CA tit. 2 § 11103

B. Partial recusal

These relationships require modified participation during the search process:

1. Personal relationships: Friend

2. Mentor relationships: A mentoring relationship with a candidate, such as the doctoral or postdoctoral advisor or advisee within the last five years. Exceptions include mentor relationships in which a faculty member served on a current or recent qualifying or dissertation committee in a very limited role and with no actual or expected mentoring relationship.

3. Collaborative relationships: Current or former collaborators on academic work within the last five years (e.g., articles, essays, chapters, co-edited volumes of articles, contributions to conference proceedings, books, creative work, grant applications in progress or submitted, software, technology, and intellectual property).  Exceptions include single grant applications that were unsuccessful; and co-publications where the author list is large and each person’s contribution to the project was independent.

Collaborations that occurred at any time and resulted in a pivotal work for either the faculty member or the candidate require partial recusal.

4. Business or commercial relationships: As opposed to above (i.e., complete recusal, which is required when there is a current financial interest or connection), partial recusal is required when there is a current business or commercial relationship between the faculty member and the candidate with no financial interest or connection; or when there has been a prior business or commercial relationship within the last five years with or without a financial interest or connection.

II. Search processes

The following guidelines describe the steps required for managing conflicts of interest in senate faculty searches, based on relationships as described above.

A. Search plan

All senate faculty search plans must require that search committee members review these conflicts of interest guidelines and agree to follow them.

B. Candidate assessment before campus visit

1. Identifying conflicts of interest: Once the full applicant pool is available, and before candidate materials are assigned for review, search committee members must disclose to the search committee chair and AP analyst which candidates they have a relationship with, if any, and the nature of the relationship(s). The committee chair and AP analyst determine whether the relationship constitutes a conflict of interest based on the definitions above and, if so, whether complete or partial recusal is required.

Committee members with a conflict of interest that requires complete recusal as described above must recuse themselves from the entire search process.

The remaining procedures describe participation allowed in instances where partial recusal is required.

2. First round of review: Committee members with a conflict of interest requiring partial recusal may participate in the initial review process but may not review candidates with whom they have a conflict of interest.

Should the candidate be eliminated at this stage, the committee member may return to full participation in the following stages.

3. Determining the long list (if discussion is held): Committee members with a conflict of interest requiring partial recusal may participate in non-comparative discussion of all candidates with whom they do not have a conflict of interest. They may also participate in comparative discussion that does not include the conflict of interest candidate(s), but must leave the room (physical or remote) when any discussion includes the conflict of interest candidate. This generally allows the rest of the search committee to engage in full and open discussion of the candidate.

Should the candidate be eliminated at this stage, the committee member may return to full participation in the following stages.

4. Determining the medium list, zoom list, short list: If a candidate with whom a committee member has a conflict of interest is advanced to the next round of review, the committee member with a conflict of interest requiring partial recusal may participate in non-comparative discussion of all candidates with whom they do not have a conflict of interest. They may also participate in comparative discussion that does not include the conflict of interest candidate(s), but must leave the room (physical or remote) when any discussion includes the conflict of interest candidate. This generally allows the rest of the search committee to engage in full and open discussion of the candidate.

For departments/units that meet for faculty discussion on the search committee’s short list recommendations, all faculty should be polled in advance regarding their relationships with candidates, and the Chair should determine whether the relationship constitutes a conflict of interest and, if so, whether the faculty member should be completely recused or whether partial recusal is warranted.

Should the candidate be eliminated at this stage, the committee member may return to full participation in the following stages.

5. Once the short list is selected: Should a candidate with whom a search committee member has a conflict requiring partial recusal advance to the short list, the committee member with the conflict of interest must step down from the committee for the remainder of the committee’s activities. (See section 4a below for participation options for that faculty member during subsequent post-campus visit departmental discussions and selection/voting processes.)

A memo must accompany all proposed short lists for faculty candidates, disclosing all conflicts of interest among search committee members and explaining how they were handled (uploaded into AP Recruit with the short list report).

Should the candidate be eliminated at this stage, the committee member may return to full participation in the following stages.

C. Campus visit

Faculty members who have been fully recused may not participate in campus visits. Faculty with conflicts of interest that require partial recusal may attend the candidate’s job talk, but cannot participate in one-on-one meetings or interviews with that finalist. They may participate in the full campus visits of all other candidates.

D. Departmental discussions and voting on appointment

In advance of the departmental discussion and voting, all faculty must be polled regarding their relationships with candidates, and the Chair should determine whether the relationship constitutes a conflict of interest and, if so, whether the faculty member should be completely recused or whether partial recusal is warranted.

1. Discussion: Faculty with a conflict of interest that requires partial recusal may attend the search committee’s presentation of the finalists and may participate in non-comparative discussion of all candidates with whom they do not have a conflict of interest, but must leave the room (physical or remote) during all discussion of the conflict of interest candidate (whether comparative or noncomparative). This allows the faculty to engage in full and open discussion of the group of finalists.

Should the search committee or department faculty determine that consultation is needed about the finalists and there are very few or no available faculty with the necessary expertise other than the faculty member with the conflict requiring partial recusal, the faculty member with the conflict of interest may participate in one of two ways, as requested by the committee: Provide brief noncomparative written comments on one or more candidates on the shortlist; or attend a committee or department/unit discussion to address specific questions posed by the committee (or the faculty) regarding their assessment of a candidate’s scholarship, methodology, etc.

2. Voting: If a unit holds a vote of all faculty to decide who among the finalists will receive an offer (e.g., ranking the finalists, or voting yes/no on the top candidate and any alternates), faculty with a conflict of interest that requires partial recusal may vote. However, to avoid undue influence, any such vote must be by secret ballot.

III. Guidance for individuals with particular roles in faculty searches

A. Department chair

Department chairs must be neutral arbiters of the faculty search process, departmental discussion, and vote. They also present the department’s recommendation in the appointment case. In searches where a department chair has a conflict of interest with a candidate as defined above, an in lieu chair must be assigned by the Dean to advise the search committee (e.g., for questions, concerns, procedural issues, etc.), lead the departmental discussion and vote, and prepare the appointment case.

B. Search committee chair

Faculty who are fully recused as defined above may not serve on the committee. For other conflicts of interest, a search committee chair must be replaced at the point that the search committee engages in comparative discussion of candidates (e.g., to select the long list, medium list, or short list) because the chair leads the discussion. The committee chair may continue to serve as a member of the committee, following the steps described above, and can return to the role of chair if the candidate with the conflict of interest is eliminated from consideration.

C. Faculty Equity Advisor

Faculty who are fully recused as defined above may not serve as the faculty equity advisor for the search. For other conflicts of interest, and whether or not the faculty equity advisor is on the committee or a liaison to it, they must be replaced at the point that the search committee engages in comparative discussion of candidates (e.g., to select the long list, medium list, or short list).

D. Graduate student

A graduate student member of the search committee with any conflict of interest must be replaced. A graduate student with a conflict of interest may not attend campus visit meetings with the COI candidate or provide feedback on the COI candidate (if sought by the search committee).

Appendix A: Additional considerations and recommendations for best practices

Recognizing the variability across departments and disciplines, a one-size-fits-all approach may not always ensure fairness. The following represent additional situations that units encounter and recommendations that have proven successful.

A. Participation in comparative discussion of non-conflict of interest candidates

A faculty member with a conflict of interest that requires partial recusal may intentionally or inadvertently downgrade the candidacy of other candidates without explicitly comparing them to the candidate they have the conflict of interest with. A recommended strategy is to have that faculty member leave the room for all comparative discussions.

B. Writing letters of reference

Faculty who write a letter of reference for a candidate and serve on the search committee (or participate in comparative departmental discussion) could be viewed as advocating for the candidate. The best practice is to assume that writing a letter of reference constitutes a conflict of interest and manage it through the partial recusal process as described in the guidelines. This also reduces the likelihood that faculty in the department are unduly influenced by the recommendation of their colleague.

C. Relationships more than five years ago

A five-year cutoff for mentoring, business, and collaborative relationships may be arbitrarily short for certain relationships. For example, faculty who collaborated closely with a candidate, resulting in multiple grants and publications, but ended this work more than five years ago may be unable to hold an objective opinion about the candidate. Similarly, a faculty member who was the mentor of a candidate more than five years ago may continue to support their career by advising them informally, writing letters of recommendation, making connections to opportunities in the field, etc., and therefore not be objective about their candidacy. Faculty who had a business or commercial relationship with a candidate more than five years ago may continue to be influenced by them. A recommended approach is to increase the cut-off time period.

D. Active participation in Job Talk or Chalk Talk Q&A

Faculty who have relationships with candidates may purposely or inadvertently advantage or disadvantage candidates by posing questions or making comments based on inside knowledge. A recommendation is that faculty with conflicts of interest attend the job talk and/or chalk talk but refrain from active participation (i.e., posing questions or making comments).

E. Attending candidate dinners hosted by the department

Candidate dinners are part of the formal search process. Faculty who have relationships with candidates may purposely or inadvertently advantage or disadvantage candidates in these settings by creating a more comfortable atmosphere than other candidates receive, praising the candidate to colleagues based on inside knowledge or information, or otherwise influencing the course of conversation. A recommendation is for faculty with conflicts of interest to not attend these events.

Appendix B: Applicable UC policies, and state and federal laws and regulations

A. UC Berkeley Office of Ethics, Risk, and Compliance Services

  • “A conflict of interest exists whenever an employee’s personal, professional, commercial, or financial interests or activities outside of the University have the possibility (whether potential, real, or perceived) of:
    • Compromising the employee’s judgment;
    • Biasing the nature or direction of scholarship;
    • Influencing the employee’s decision or behavior with respect to teaching, student affairs, promotions and appointments, use of campus resources, interaction with human subjects, or other matters of interest to the University; or
    • Resulting in personal or a family member’s gain or advancement at the expense of the University.
  • The conflict exists by virtue of a relationship that could result in an undue influence on the employee’s professional judgment. You do not have to do anything improper to have a conflict of interest; it is strictly situational.”

More information available at the Office of Ethics, Risk, and Compliance Services.

B. UC Regents Policy 1111: Policy on Statement of Ethical Values and Standards of Ethical Conduct

  • “Pursuit of the University of California mission of teaching, research and public service requires a shared commitment to the core values of the University as well as a commitment to the ethical conduct of all University activities. In that spirit, the Standards of Ethical Conduct are a statement of our belief in ethical, legal, and professional behavior in all of our dealings inside and outside the University.”
  • “In all matters, community members are expected to take appropriate steps, including consultation if issues are unclear, to avoid both conflicts of interest and the appearance of such conflicts.”

More information available at the UC Board of Regents.

C. APM 520: Employment of near relatives

  • “A member of the University staff shall not participate in the processes of review and decision-making on any matter concerning appointment, promotion, salary, retention, or termination of a near relative.”
  • “A near relative is defined as an appointee’s child (including the child of a domestic partner (same sex or opposite sex), parent, spouse, domestic partner, or sibling. In-laws or step relatives in the relationships listed, including relatives of the domestic partner who would be covered if the domestic partner were the appointee’s spouse, are also so defined. This provision also covers other persons residing in the appointee’s household.”

More information available in the APM.

D. UC Berkeley guidelines for internal and external reviewers (BMAP)

  • “Academic personnel appraisals need to be free of bias, either in favor or against candidates. Although most people who serve as reviewers, whether on ad hoc committees or as external letter writers, endeavor to fulfill those roles with an appropriate level of impartiality, there are circumstances when such impartiality could be difficult or in which someone could perceive that a strong potential for bias exists.”
  • Groups “with a strong potential for bias” include: Individuals with an emotional relationship to the candidate; individuals with a significant business or commercial relationship; the candidate’s doctoral or postdoctoral advisor; former doctoral students or postdoctoral scholars; and recent, current, and prospective collaborators.

More information available in BMAP.

E. UC Senate Bylaw 55, Departmental Voting Rights

More information available in the Bylaws of the Academic Senate. 

F. Financial Conflict of Interest and Disqualification Rules under the CA Political Reform Act

  • “Under the State of California Political Reform Act of 1974, all University employees are disqualified from participating in or attempting to influence University business decisions when their personal financial or economic interests may be affected by those decisions.

More information available at the Office of Ethics, Risk, and Compliance Services

G. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 2, § 11103 - Nondiscrimination Program

  • “A nondiscrimination program is a set of specific and result-oriented procedures to which a contractor or subcontractor commits itself for the purpose of ensuring equal employment opportunity for all employees or applicants for employment.”

More information available at the Legal Information Institute.

H. U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (OFCCP)

  • Federal contractors must provide equal employment opportunity in candidate selection (information currently unavailable online due to changes under review by the current federal administration), prohibiting preferential treatment of candidates for any reason.

More information available at the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.