The University of Minnesota is redrafting its sexual misconduct policy.

As part of a presentation to the Board of Regents on Thursday, the U’s Office for Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action said it is working with the school’s Office of the General Counsel on a policy requiring all university employees to report to the Title IX office any sexual misconduct involving students “that they learn about.”

Title IX is the 1972 federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities at schools receiving federal money. Recent interpretation includes sexual misconduct and harassment among violations.

The new policy also would combine the school’s sexual harassment and misconduct policies. According to documents provided to regents, a new policy will be presented to the President’s Policy Committee on March 2.

In 2014, the U implemented policy making school employees who serve as student advisers or staff supervisors mandatory reporters of sexual misconduct. Since then, reports of sexual misconduct to the EOAA office rose from 51 in fiscal year 2014-15 to 107 in 2015-16.

During that time, the school also increased efforts to educate staff and students on sexual misconduct, particularly in the athletics department. That department has been the center of a sexual assault allegation that last week resulted in the expulsion of four football players and suspension of two others after an EOAA investigation.

During an appeals process, suspensions were overturned for four players accused of being peripherally involved in the incident. Friday is the deadline to appeal the decisions to the school’s Office of the Provost.

Regent Laura Brod said the EOAA presentation has been planned since August to kick-start a conversation about oversight of an office that operates — in some cases by law — almost entirely behind the scenes.

The football scandal made oversight of the EOAA a public, and heated, issue. Attorneys for the suspended players have accused the EOAA of unfair treatment, or what they call a “lack of due process.” Brod said the timing of Thursday’s presentation is coincidental.

“This is not about litigating the most recent incident,” she said. “This is about making sure we get it right for all students; I don’t care who they are. First, we need to know what the EOAA does as it relates to structure, oversight and process.”

The school’s decision to alter its sexual misconduct policy has been in the works for several months, the recommendation of a panel convened by U President Eric Kaler in December 2015 to review an independent audit of the athletics department in the wake of former athletics director Norwood Teague’s resignation in August 2015.

Teague quit after it was revealed he groped two peers at a school leadership retreat and send lewd text messages to another.

If implemented, the new policy would apply to the entire school.

Of the 107 cases of reported sexual misconduct in 2015-16, 32 were investigated, resulting in 24 findings of sexual misconduct violations, according to documents supplied to the Regents. Under school policy, if a reporter — or in the case of a third-party report, an alleged victim — declines to pursue an investigation, the case is dropped.

The independent audit team recommended the EOAA adopt a policy to investigate all reports sexual harassment even if the reporter declines, but the president’s review team declined to follow it, saying the school’s current policy better adheres to federal guidelines.

Brod said she anticipates the issue of EOAA oversight to be taken up more actively by the regents’ Audit and Compliance Committee, a six-person group Brod chairs.

“The conversation today was about what we do,” she said. “I expect and hope that moving forward, the conversation will be about what we should do.”