STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL REPORT OF INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS Allegations of Violation of the University of California Policy on Sexual Harassment ‘September 26, 2014 1. Background and Allegations Complainant III aloged that her coworker, Respondent Philp Loya, subjected her to unwelcome touching on several occasions, from December 2072 10 ‘April 2014. and Loya are both UC Berkeley staff members in the| HRI atege0 that during a happy hour event in December 2012 with other coworkers, Loya placed his hand on her thigh undemeath a table, and began moving it upward unt moved his hand away. In May 2013, she spoke with Loya privately and asked him to stop touching her, and he agreed. Subsequently, ‘leged that Loya touched her on the back or shoulder three more times: in Fall2013, January 2014, and while taking @ group photo in April 204 |. Procedural History complained about Loya’s unwanted touching to her direct supervisor twice. Onthe second occasion in ato July 2014, I provided wih resources, incudng the contact information for HR represenatve Jenee Jackson. contacted Jackson, and discussed the allagation wih her on August 14, 2014. The same day, Jackson referred legations tothe Ofice forthe Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHO) for potential further investgation, On August 19, 2016, OPHO took the lead role in investigating I alegations. ‘The case was assigned to Complaint Resolution Officer Paula Raffaelli (the “investigator on August 28,2014 Ml, Interim Remedi Loya moved farther away trom [IH on September 14, 2014 ‘The Investigator cenfirmed wih ‘on Septomber 10,2014, that I and LLoya wil not work on any projects one-on-one, and that all communications between them will be through email or in staff meetings with other colleagues present. The Investigator also confirmed with [I on September 10, 2014, that Loya would not be placed inthe interim director postion while i s I The aInvestigator confirmed that II. an satfrmember, was announced as interim director on September 13, 2014. IV. Jurisdiction ‘The Office forthe Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination has campus-wide responsiblity for responding to sex discrimination complaints and implementation of the University of California Policy on Sexual Harassment’, which includes the investigation and resolution of complaints received against faculy, staffand students, V. Applicable Policy ‘The University of California Policy on Sexual Harassment defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors, ard other verbal of physical ‘conduct ofa sexual nature, when submission to or rejection ofthis conduct explicitly or implicity affects a person's employment or education, unreasonably interferes with a person's work or educational performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working of learning environment. In the interest af preventing sexual harassment, the University will respond to reports of any such conduct. ‘Sexual harassment may include incidents between any members of the University Community, including faculty and other academic appointees, staf, coaches, housestaff, students, and non-student or non-employee participants in University programs, such as vendors, contractors, visitors, and patients. Sexual harassment may occur in hierarchical relationships or between peers, or between persons of the same sex or opposite sex. In determining whether the reported conduct constitutes sexual harassment, Consideration shall be given to the record of the conduct as a whole and to the totality of the circumstances, including the context in whch the conduct occurred. Vi. Summary of Fi ings ‘Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Respordent, Philip Loya, violated the UC Policy on Sexual Harassment. A detailed discussion of the findings is included In Section Vil "ns ote was epiaces on Febru’ 25,204 wth combined Seal Harassment ond Sexual Vier Poly. tacos te malory ofthe benavir sides toy soured proto February 25,2018, the aegaions analyst under the then-astingpoey quotes heen, However, the anys an outcome would beh ame ‘nde ee poly, 2VIL The Investigation PHD Complaint Resoluten Offeer, Paula Rafaeli (the Investigator’) conducted the administrative investigation. She interviewed Complainant IMM on September 3, 2014 and conducted a follow-up interview September 11, 2014, She interviewed Respondent Loya on September 8, 2014, and did afolow-up interview on September 22,2014. She interviewed Winess con September 10,2014. She also reviewed email communications between and I and between and Jenee Jackson, and photos and text messages provided by both and Loya ‘A. Statements 1. Compuinants Statement HERE: 2 UC Berkeley stat member in he m: ‘a'smail office with only about staff members. ‘and Loya work together at HBB. Unti Mey 2013, Loya was stationed in Los Angeles, but he often traveled up to Berkeley. (INI said that until December 2012, she noticed she gota lot of hugs id not nk anything was wrong. She said that around July 2012, er supervisor IEE and III husband went to a movie. She fet Loya's hand brush her Bigh and she moved her leg away. But she assumed this was an accident and dina feel the need to say anything. However, in December 2012, (II, Loya, and he rest ofthe MI team went toa happy hour event at Pappy’s, @ sports bar on Telegraph Ave. was sitting next to Loya at a long table withthe ces of th staff ‘who joined them - about 18 people total. Loya placed his hand on under the table, and began to move his hand up toward NM crotch grabbed his hand and pushed it away from her thigh, She did not look at Loya and neither I nor Loya soi anything. IH said she wasn shock" Over the subsequent winter break, III grew anxious because she was scheduled to fly to Los Angeles alone ‘o support Loya on a work project and she did not want to go alone. In January 2013, she decided to speak with her supervisor IN. She {old MJ about the Pappy’s incident, as well asthe earlier movie incident from July 2012, which she decided to bring up in ight of her discomfort after the Pappy's incident HEE 01 RI tat she anc other female statf members would jin her on Ihe tip to LA in February 2013, and the MH ofthem drove down to LA together in a van. At their January 2013 meeting, a also told III. “I encourage you to talk to [Loyal.” In May 2013, II epote with Loya privately. Sho told him that che aid not want him to touch her, thatthe touching made her uncomfortable, that she didnot “ke how 3you touch me,” and she wanted him to stop. She did not give him any specific ‘examples of unwelcome touching. Loya responded, "This is how | am” and ‘! am just a touchy person.” She told him not to touch her more than necessary fora professional ‘teeing, The meeting lasted approximately seven minutes. ‘After the May 2013 discussion, II said that Loya touched her three more times. First, around Fall 2013, he touched heron the back but he "iti go” because she assumed Loya ‘forgot that he was not supposed to touch her. In January 2014, while she and other coworkers were waking oulside to get coffee at Strada, Fe rubbed ot “caressed” her back while they were beginning o cross the street. The third time was in late April 2014 during a work event. White staf and others were pesng fr a photo, Loya placed his hands on I back. (On July 28,2014, II spoke with IN again. She told MJ about the three incidents discussed above, and told her that duo to her discomfort with Loya she had cliinated herself rom social gatherings with coworkers and didnot “esl a pat ofthe] team, ‘also expressed concems that her own relationship with IM had deteriorated. AL this meeting, told [I that Loya “touches me too, but 'm mmaried.” IMJ asked, "You're okay with im touching you?” and I responded, He didn't touch me lke he touched you” understood the latter statement f refer to the Pappy’ incident. she Wanted to eppl 10 be inte director, but decined. (IIMIM explained that because of he incidents with Loya and her subsequent elimination from group events, her confidence is low, and she didnot feel appreciated or thatthe team valued her. asked [IY how she would feel i Loya became the inte director, and responded that she would not ke it. INH said he could te the interim director, but could not report to him, ‘Atthe time of the September 3 interview with the Investigator, INI and Loya were This made [II uncorvortable even though she “zones out and she does not krow what he i dong. She sald he has not touched her since Apri 2014 IEE sometimes uses the III office to get work done 2. Respondent's Statement Phitp Loy2 is a UC Berkeley staff member inthe Hehas worked wit il since November 2008, In 2010, he moved tl to do outreach with students, He moved back to in May 2013. His ft inceation of a problem with IM was when they had their one-on-one conversatten somewhere “between March and June 2013.” tld him that she 4fett uncomfortable when he touched her. Specialy, she sad it ade him uncomfortable when he touched her arm or back. He was taken aback because they often took photos together, and because theif staff was close. He noted that had previously picked him up from the ior andor they would goto dinner together. Though he was taken aback, he understood she could be uncomfortable. He could tel she was newous and he was too, and he agreed not to touch her anymore. He apciogzed and sad ne would gve ner tne space she needs, and ne tet hat the short meeting ended on @ good note. He was confused about wy I was upset because she dé not ge any specific examples, bu he dd nt wantto probe futher or tak o anyone else aboyt. He denied saying anything along the lines of “thsi how t am” or “I am just a touchy person.” ‘Alter this talk, Loya spoke with II. I cid Loya to be careful in his approach With [III and to ensure that other people were around them. She did not tell him of ‘any spectfc incidents Subsequently, Loya remembers that his relationship with went back to normal. He specifically remembers making an effort to wave goodbye to} rather than hug her at a May/June 2013 retirement party for former director. He remembers that during this time their work did not realy coincide and that they taked casually. He does ‘not remember any physical touching after the May 2013 conversation, Loya spoke with MINIM again in August 2014. He sald that al this meetin told him that was uncomfortable because he touched her on her arm or elbow and also at a graduation event called the in ate Apri 2014. He does ‘not remember touching [III on either occasion. also told him that HEE complained about an incident where several people went o see a move for thelr coleague IE bithday,Loya placed his hand on MI knee, and took his hand and moved it away. Loya does not remember his incident {aking place. He remembers going to see a movie fr MM birthday in May 2013, but he does nat remember being there. He tod he fetbad and asked what he could do. Told him tobe hyperaware of his actions When asked about the December 2012 Pappy's incident, Loya said he had no memory ofthe specific night, and that he did not touch III leg. He said he did not know how his hand would even be on her thigh, andor sure I would not do that with outside of my significant oer He coud not thnk of any explanation oy ‘would claim he did it. When asked if perhaps IMI was confating the movie cident and the Pappy’s incident, Loya stated that he didnot remember touching Mon the eg in either event, and gid not understand why I was making these allegations.Loya aso denied touching after she spoke wih him in May 2013. He denied placing his hand on her back and rubbing her back, and stated tha thats not Something he typcaly does: instead, he is a “hugger anda higher.” Regarding the ‘Apr. 2014 photo touch, he does not remember touching I back, but he acknowledged that he "could've" touched her back or shoulder. 3. Witness Statement isthe [III She sai that Loya is very comfortable around people and has puthis hands on her shoulders, but notin an uncomfortable way. She fee's any touching from Loya was very casual, meaning that he did nat "inger fr any inappropriate ime or ouch at any inappropriate times. first spoke with III around summer of 2013. She remembers that told her about an incident that happened while other sit went tothe moves, in May or summer of 2013, She remembers tellng her that at the movies, Loya placed his hand on leo, was uncomfortable and pushed his hand away, and then Loya pt his hand ‘back on her leg. [IM] was unsure exactly what the details or timing was on this incident, but speculated that it was in summer 2013 when IE. Loya and two other colleagues went fora colleague's IM birthday. ‘She spoke with Loya shorty after told him to stop touching her in May 2013, ‘She told Loya about the mova ineident allegation. She remembers that Loya was surprised because he and IM had gone out to dinrer before and she had picked hhim up fom the airport. But he understood that J could be uncomfortable. pre spoke with INI 2 second time, I toc that afer Told Loyato stop touching her, he touched her shoulder on one ‘ceasion, ner back on a second, and her back again whie a photo was being taken for ) In August 2014, II followed-up with Loya after this second complaint, and told him that[ complained about three addtional incidents. Loya to he could not remember intentionally touching NM. He was concemed and surprised but not defensive, said she didnot remember hearing about the Peppy's incident, or any incidents {hat happened in 2012. She didnot have eny memory o speaking wit I rior to summer 2013; her memory i that her fist tak wit was in May or summer 012013, [II also aid not remember teing| tat she would jon her on a trp to Los angeles in February 2013 so that she would ot need to go alone;recollection is that there was never a plan for I 10 go alone and thatthe plan was always fora group of people too. ‘When asked about whether she tod He hasn't fouched me the wayhe touched you. cid not remember making the statement. But she believes that f she did say 8, she would have been refering tthe “movie incident” in which sie understood Loye placed his hand on I le. B. Documentary Evidence Enails: The Investigator reviewed emails ce one yes In an email dated Friday, May 24, 2013, wrote to | wanted to give you a heads up regarding i sal acs rt Conversation with (Loyal. | met with (Loya} in office at 1:20p today. Our conversation last{ed] 7 minutes. | dig Tet him know that rim touching me outside a greeting gesture made me uncomfortable. | aso formed him that you and | had talked about his inappropriate touching, During our meeting he was respectful. | am okay with you following up with him. Thank you again for your support. Se | wanted to follow. a” the conversation that we had on Monday, July In an email dated Tuesday, August 12, 201 28°, regarding continued inappropriate touching (3 incidents since ‘our one-on-one meeting around July 2014") and the impact it has had on ‘my work performance, inclusivity of the | Team, and my concems of feeling safe around him. | would lke to resolve this matter as soon as ppossible and will appreciate any guidance you can give me on what | need {o.do forthe next steps. Thank you for your time and support. HIB «e:ponded on August 12: "Thank you for following up and sharing the situation wihhme, |can'imagine how dificult twas to carry it for so long and deal with by yourselt” IM provided II with information and contacts forthe staf Ombuds offee, CARE services, and HR. 2. Photos: The Investigator reviewed three photos IM submited from the Apri 2014 III. The photos show squattingeaning down in the front row, and Loya placing one or both hands on] back while he is standing behind her. ‘The Investigator reviewed several photos Loye provided of various events where he and SHIN es ran erat to Jno Jctson on Thursday, August 14, 2014 hat she inadvertent wre ly 201 but meant M2013,andior other members off staff were photographed. Three photos show and Loya close together, wih their heads touching or thee arms around one nother. The photos of IM and Loya next to each other are dated May 4, 2012, May 18, 2012, and October 15, 2013; those photos precede [IM May 2013 talk with Loya 3._Text Messages: The Invesigator reviewed text messages IM sent ‘about Loya on May 13, 2014, “shorty after the ij siaff was moved ag: * In the messages ‘expresses her discomfort with refers to II 2s Loya's “work “Itis so uncomfortable when he get [sic] too close or gives me 100 much attention.” Finally, the Investigator reviewed Facebook and text messages between [I and Loya from July 2012, when [MI wishes Loya a happy birthday, and December 2012 where they wish each ather & happy new year. Vill. Factual Findings and Analysis, ‘A. Standard of Evidence: Preponderance of the Evidence Findings inthis investigation report are based on a "preponderance ofthe evidence” standard. In other words, after reviewing all the evidence, including the relative credibility ofthe parties and their statements during interviews, whether itis more Kkely {or probable) than not thatthe conduct occurred as alleged. ifthe conduct did occur as alleged, then an analysis is completed to determine whether the conduct violated University policy. Please note: the report's findings do not reach conclusions whether the alleged conduct violated state or federal laws, but instead address whether the University’s policies were violated. B, FactFinding 1, Did Loya rub his hand on I thigh at Pappy's sports bar in December 2012 alloged that while she, Loya, and others from the if ssf were at a happy nour event at Pappy’ sports bar in December 2012, Loya rubbed his hand up her thigh, She aloged that no one else saw this because it was undemeath able, that she grabbed Loya's hand and moved it away from her high, and that ether she nor Loya said anything and she didnot look at him, She said that she was epset about this incident, and fold her supervisor in January 2013 about i, in part because she was Scheduled to go o LA by herself o suppor Loys Loya said he doesnot remember touching Ii this manner, and said, Yor sue | ‘would not do that wth anyone | know outside ofmy significant other” He also saidthere was ‘no way he] would have done that and not remembered." He didnot remember tha \Was intially scheduled to fly to LA alone in February 2013, and stated that any time il staff came to LA it was always in groups. [III cis no: remember speaking to IM in January 2013 and did nol remember ‘anything about an incident taking place at Pappy's or any complained-aboutincidents {ror 2012 in general. She also did not remember that was scheduled toy to LA alone in February 2013, Yet she described feling her about an incident she believed took place ata movie theater, in May oF summer af 2013, where Loya placed his hand on III eo, III was uncomfortable and pushed his hand away, and ther Loya put hs Nand back on her leg. She also explained that she confronted Loya with this allegation, and Loya confimed ina follow-up intendew that ‘ekedhim about touching leg ata movie night fr thet coleague Eee isco sc ME over ovo, te NEE {loya remembered| attending a movie righ or MMP bithday in Nay 2013, (Loya confirmed that| birthday is in May). ‘The Investigator found [I o be more credible in her description of events “Though there are conficing accounts about where and when Loya placed his hand on thio, iis clear that I complained to about Loya puting his hand on her thigh in any event, a8 al pates confirmed ths. And in either account (happened in December 2012, complained in January 2013) or] account (happened in May 2013, complained in May 2013), IN complained about the touching ina short period of ime after it happened. Further, the descripton that HEE provided is strikingly similar to the description provided of the events a1Pappy's. Because MII said she also tla in January 2013 about an incident at the movies where Loya brushed his hang on her thigh prior to the Pappy's incident, itis plausible tha I confated the two events when she spoke to Loya about them. Solstering IM crecibity isthe fact hat IM and Loya had atendly relationship prt tothe Pappy’s incident and, based onthe photos Loya provide, they often put their hands around one another's shoulders or touched their heads together during photos. But IM) did not bring any concems to her supervisor's attention Until the touching escalated to Loya puting his hand on her thigh. Further, Laya stated that he felt there was a “shift” in is interactions with MH around Janvary 2013, though he believed it was because he made a snide comment to her during work. After reviewing the credibity ofthe parties, the context in which this incident allegedly ‘occured, and the flat of the circumstances, itis determined that tis more fkaly than not thet Loya rubbed his hand up I thigh at Pappy's in December 2012.2. Did Loya touch| slop touching her HIE 21d that Loya touched her in Fal 2013, he rubbed or “caressed her back in ‘January 2014, and that he touched her on her back in Agri! 2014. Loya denied that he touched IEE since tot hin to stop touching herin the May 2013 discussion, and he stated that he purposely kept adstance from INN and opted to wave goodbye to her rather than hug her goodbye. But he acknowledged i was “possible” that he touched her on her back during the photo forthe Apri 2014 I ‘The photos [II proved clearly show Loya with his hands on I back during the Apr 201+ I. ter reviewing the credibility ofthe parties and the totally ofthe circumstances tf determined that itis more likely than not that Loya touched ‘on the other two occasions [NM aleged. The Investigator finds more credible, in part because she complaines to IM that Loya touched her thee ies since she told him to stop touching her in May 2015, and she documented ths in an emai to II dated August 12,2014. II aso stated that[III told her about Loya touching her three additonal times, once on her shoulder, once on her back, and again on her back during the J photo. 80 provided the photographic evidence showing that Loya touched her Cuiing te I after she told him to stop, which lends crecbity to her claim that he touched heron other occasions three additional times after she told him to May 20137 C. Did the Alleged Behavior Constitute Sexual Harassment in Violation of the Uc Policy? ‘The University of Calfornia Policy on Sexual Harassment defines sexual harassment as ‘unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other verbal of physical Conduct of @ sexual nature, when submission to or rejecton ofthis conduct expliily or Implicit affects a person's employment or education, unreasonably interferes with a person's work or educational performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or leaming environment. In determining whether reported conduct constitutes sexual harassment, consideration shall be given to the record of the conduct as a whole ard to the totality of the circumstances, including the context in which the conduct occurred 1, Was the Conduct Unwelcome? Yes, [III twice told her supervisor that she was uncomfortable with Leya touching her fst in January 2013 and again on July 28,2014. I said she was “in shock” hen Loya placed his hand on her thigh at Pappy's. She told Loya directly that she was. 10tuncomforable wth Fim touching her, and he does nat depute that. She addtionally provided emails between her ard] demonstrating that she was uncomfortable With Loya's touching, She further provided text messages where she ol! that she was uncomfortable around Loya. 2. Was the Conduct of a Sexual or Gendered Nature? Yes. Loya’s action ef rubbing his hand up I thigh i sexualized conduct. Simi, I described Loya placing ns hand on her back and rubbing tin a “earessing' motion. Unie simply pacing his hand on her back as ito say hello, oro perhaps guide her across the street, the rubbing, “caressing” motion makes this a Ssexvalized act. ‘3. Was the conduct severe andlor pervasive and objectively, offensive? Loya’s action of plachg his hand on thigh and moving it upward toward her crotch is arguably severe conduct. Tad to physically remove Loya's hand from her thigh, and described being in shock" when it happened. Even ifnot viewed as severe conduct, however, the Pappy's incident coupled with the three additional unwelcome touches demonstrates pervasive conduct. In Loya's favor, these four incidents are spread out over a one and one-halt-year period. Additonal, the three addtional touches were not as egregious as placing a hand upon I thigh and ‘moving it upward, But the Pappys incident is particularly troubling, and the remaining three incidents occured ater IM explicitly told Loya to stop touching her. On balance, Loya's continued unwanted touching of II was pervasive conduct. 4. Did submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly. sffect I employment, unreasonably interfere with her work performance, or create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment? Loya's unwanted touching of II interfered with her work performance. eliminated herself rom social gatherings with ij staff, and she didnot fe! like she was a ‘part ofthe] team’ after the unwelcome touching from Loya. She explained — inal asked her if she was interested in the interim director position, but a fedned tobe considered because, as a resul of her discomfort around Loya, her coniidence was low and she did nt fee thatthe team valued her anymore. She stated that before the incidents with Loya she would have been interested inthe interim director positon. She expressed that sometimes she opted to do her workin il afoe than at her own desk because of her discomfort with having Loy (where he was located at the time of the September 3, 2014 hterview wilh ine Invesigalor). She also explained that after the aPappy's incident, she began looking fora diferent job because she was too uncomfortable in her work environment. When she applied to but did not get a diferent jb, she fet that her relationship with IM also changed, and she noted that did not check in on her as often and began forwarding her job announcements. 1K. Conclusion ‘The Investigator evaluated the record of the allegations as a whole and gave consideration tothe total of the circumstances, including the contetin which the alleged incidents occured. The standard by which the evidence was weighed wes “more kay than not.” The evidence gathered aupports the conclusion that Respondent Philp Loya more tkely than not subjected Complainent EI to pervesive, unwanted touching, Therefor, itis determined that Loya did vate the University of California Policy on Sexual HarassmentUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Benue, Carona segezr2 Noveenber 12,2014 Re: Letter of Warning Dear Philip, In accordance with Policy 62 of Personnel Policies for Staff Members iPPSM), this Is a letter of warning, {or inappropriate and unwanted contact with another co-worker. Mere specially the Office forthe Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPH) found you i vieation ofthe University of California Policy on Sexual Harassment. As. result ofthat finding, am issuing this letter of warning. y on invesition ondicted by 040 in complaints mace a sisted to unwelcome ouhig the cc sral on seealccee a ‘2nd April 2014. Based on the evidence gathered by OPHD, the investigator concluded that you more ely an not ceil prvi umante touching, Ts betavior wl not be alerted Inthe Reset ond SudeRseces Prone Rar In adion wo his eter of warning you must complet the Prevent Ssul Harassment fr non: supervisor training found atthe folowing lnk. raining. neumedialearning.com/osh/ucberkeley/choic ‘Theresa 15 question test at the end ofthe traning and you must show your mastery by correctly answering enough of the questionsin order to receive the certificate of mastery. You must successfully ‘complete this training by Friday, December 5, 2014 a 5:00 pm, and provide me the certificate, which wil be kept in your employee file as proof that you passed the tralningand are aware othe applicable ‘aws and polices. Additionally, | ask that you write a summary of this ining, highlighting the insights YOU gained as to why itis necessary that Student Affairs professionals, such as yourself, be cognizant of sexual harassment issues. This summary shouldbe three to five pages ands due to me by Wednesday, December 10, 2014 a 5:00 pm.Your behavior has a diretimpact EEE nd you are expected to conduct yourself professional and nine wth the (RSSP) Respect and Clty Statement. You may not ergbge in any inappropriate contact with any member ofthe University of Calfrnia Berkeley commurity, vistors, or vendors. Failure to meet these requements will result in further discipinary action, up to and induding alsmsal. You have 8 right to request review ofthis action under Polley 70: Complain Resolution. Sincerely, C Stephen C. Sutton, 4.0. ‘Assistant Vice Chancellor “Attachments: RSSP Respect and Civility Statement ce: Employee Personnel File Interim Director Brienna Wright "have received this letter and am aware of my right to request review of this action under Policy 70: ‘Complaint ResolutionRSSP Respect and Civility Statement Residential and Student Service Programs is an organization comprised of over 2,000 full and parttime staff members who provide students "a fife-enriching experience based on the tradition of academic excellence at the University of Califomia, Berketey.” ‘4s we serve our students and each other, iti vital we embrace the values of RSSP and model them at al levels. Respect: * Our staf treats each other with a sense of worth and excellence of a person ‘+ We will share in each others success and support each other in challenging times. Communication: ‘+ Our communications wit be clear, honest, timely, respectful, and above all polite. + We will direct our concerns to the source for elarifcetion and resolution. ‘+ We will isten to others’ points of view and remain open minded with respect to understanding cultural differences and work styles. Involvement: ‘+ Our work reflects the mission and goals of RSSP. + We value and expect input from all levels of the organization. ‘+ We actively and posttvely participate n creating the future of RSSP. Teamwork: ‘+ We promote teamwork by sharing workload, information, and ideas. ‘+ We assist each other to achieve our goals Cultural Understanding: ‘+ We promote, encourage and invite an exchange of ideas, customs and beliefs with each other and our students, + We will earn more about the cultures of those around us and share our awn culture with them.