Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Faculty Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regents hear recommendation to dismiss UCLA faculty member; board to deliberate in closed session
Summary
Presenters told the Board of Regents that a UCLA faculty member, Professor Amra Sekare, was found by faculty hearing committees to have violated the faculty code of conduct and recommended dismissal; the board moved to deliberate the recommendation in closed session and no public final action was recorded.
Regents received a public presentation on January 21 recommending dismissal of a UCLA faculty member after multiple faculty hearing committees and campus officials concluded that the faculty member violated the university’s faculty code of conduct.
Deputy Counsel Woodall opened the session by explaining procedural steps and said Professor Amra Sekare requested that the matter be heard in open session and declined to attend. Provost Newman outlined the governing policies (APM 15 and APM 16) and described the multi-step review process that leads to disciplinary recommendations. Vice Provost Monica Varsanyi summarized the hearing committees’ findings and repeatedly referenced the committee’s standard: she told the regents the committee found “clear and convincing evidence” that the faculty member had violated multiple provisions of the faculty code of conduct, including harassment and discrimination of colleagues, breaches of confidentiality in personnel matters, intentional disruption of university functions, and conduct that interfered with departmental operations.
Varsanyi said the hearing committee found the faculty member had previously been disciplined in 2022 (suspension and salary reduction) and that a different P&T hearing committee unanimously found the more recent violations. She said the committee’s findings included allegations that the faculty member made repeated, unsubstantiated public accusations about colleagues and released confidential disciplinary materials, which the committee concluded misrepresented events and impaired university functions.
Chancellor Julio Frenk summarized the campus view that dismissal is warranted, saying the misconduct had caused institutional harm: faculty stepped down from leadership roles, governance suffered and departmental operations were hindered. He told regents he saw no reason to expect more opportunities for correction would succeed and that allowing a return to prior duties would expose colleagues and students to ongoing harm.
Regents asked questions about due process and prior complaints; Vice Chancellor Michael Levine confirmed that the earlier discrimination complaint was processed and did not result in findings that discrimination had occurred. After the public presentation and questions, the board recessed into closed session to deliberate. No public deliberative vote or final public action was recorded in the meeting transcript provided.
The materials provided to the regents and the presenters’ summaries referenced Regents Bylaw 40.3 and APM policy sections that govern discipline and dismissal for academic appointees. The board’s authority to approve dismissal was reiterated; the transcript shows the panel presentations and the board’s move to closed session but not the outcome of that closed deliberation.
