Minutes
Faculty
Governance Committee Meeting
October
14, 2009. 3:00 PM, Rawl Annex 142.
The
meeting was called to order at 3:06 PM.
The
minutes were approved without dissent.
A. Appeals of Denial
of Early Tenure:
The committee members discussed the section of Appendix D that deals with appeals
of denial of early tenure. It was noted that the UNC GA says that the UNC Board
of Governors does not hear denials of early tenure. This means that the process
can’t go as we had it written. UNC GA suggests that we make it part of our
faculty grievance procedures (607).
Dr. Hughes expressed reservations,
noting that previously members of the committee consulted with UNC GA and that UNC
GA failed to respond to the committee’s questions in a timely manner. It also was noted that at the Faculty Senate
meeting the University Attorney expressed concerns about this part if D, which
is one reason it was pulled from the Senate agenda at the time.
University
Attorney Payne noted that the UNC GA contemplates that the UNC Board of
Governors only will review faculty employment issues when a faculty member will
loose his or her job. Section 607 of the UNC Code is designed to address any
significant complaints about employment, including denial of promotion or
tenure but not coupled with the loss of employment. If the chancellor gives someone more time on
tenure-track after a denial of tenure this cannot be appealed to the UNC Board
of Governors since the person is still employed. The timing
of this unfortunate. The version of D reviewed by the University
Attorney is not the version that was before Senate; it is a version for which a
sentence did change ECU’s provision. One version says that a faculty member can
appeal and the other version says not. Also, when we sent the PTR policy to UNC
GA they said some points were not addressed, something we noticed before
sending it. On Oct. 1 UNC GA abolished one attorney position – giving the work
to another – so things will not get faster in terms of review in the next six
months.
Dr.
Martinez: “OK, well, so, I think that at this point the best way is to give Dr.
Hughes the floor.”
Dr.
Hughes said this was a procedural matter. He said that since we have not heard
from UNC GA or from Charles we should wait until get clarification. He noted
that early tenure, if granted, means you will not be further considered for
reappointment. 607 allows you to go to any EEO
question/process with a hearing under Y. He noted that 604 is just a review of the
process which is all we should allow and that any question of tenure should be
limited to the 4 impermissible reasons and MPI.
Ms.
Payne remarked that there are two scenarios where it is useful to have review
of denial of early tenure application – where you are only person in protected
class ever denied and where there is evidence of systematic discrimination. If
it is procedural – if a chair is doing something inappropriate, you need a way
to address that.
Dr.
Hughes said that this is all included under the impermissibles
and that a hearing would be ranted automatically. He said that item 6 and 8 are
internally inconsistent and that we will have to re-write D V and this one once
we get decision from UNC General Administration. UNC GA will only hear an appeal
when it is related to non-reappointment. So they will ask us to revamp 607 to
hear all tenure decisions not associated with re-employment. They need to let
us limit the basis for appeal. In 607 one can bring up any reason. Dr. Hughes
said that he does not believe the university wants those kind
of issues brought out.
Ms.
Payne said that the university attorney can say no due process. She would
rather defend cases under 607.
Dr.
Martinez asked if UNC GA
would let us make it part of 604.
Dr.
Hughes said that if it’s an early decision then the chancellor’s decision is
final. This does not violate the spirit of giving a faculty member a hearing.
Dr.
Roberts asked early tenure is akin to reappointment….but is not expiration of a
fixed term of
service.
Dr.
Hughes said that is why the UNC Board of Governors does not want to hear early tenure
alone, as they only want to hear a joint – what we are suggesting applies to
604 due to the limited grounds of the basis for appeal.
Dr.
Roberts said that if so you cannot reconcile early ten with the expiration of the
term of service. He asked how does this idea of early tenure fit with what 604
applies to – a decision not to reappoint – since the term has not expired – so
can not be 604.
Dr.
Hughes asked: “where do you fine the tenure
question come up in 607 at all?” He said that he wants early tenure to go into
607.
Ms.
Payne said that 607 is a catch all and that’s why it is there.
Dr.
Walker said “but the ground different in 607,”
Dr.
Martinez said: “since I could not
understand this I went to different faculty manuals in the UNC System to see
how others deal with this. I found most of them are absolutely void of mention
of early tenure. They say it exists but have
no procedures for how to do it or anything like that. I realize how faculty grievances
work all over system very differently. If we accept the idea we will have to
change Y completely. It will not work as Y is written. Also, 607 says we can retain procedures we
have in place if we like but we will have to rewrite Y as it allows for
mediation which is not appropriate for early tenure decisions - so the implications
are many.
Dr.
Hughes: “it can go to 607 if we rewrite it. That is rewrite
Y.” But I am not sure we can limit the basis for an appeal.”
Dr.
Martinez: “I think Dr. Hughes is correct but if we say the decision of the board
is final if we can do it through hearing committee rather than faculty
grievance.”
Dr.
Wilson: “my question is how often … all the time I have been here there has never
been a case of early tenure - how common is it?”
Dr.
Martinez: “there are three possibilities: put in early tenure and eliminate the process of appeal
so let the person figure it out on her own. This is a solution since so few
cases. Next, will UNC GA let us do it under
604 or last rewrite appendix Y?”
Dr.
Hughes: “UNC GA is going to have to say something.”
Dr.
Wilson: “doesn’t Y say its for anything that does not
have procedures somewhere else?”
Dr.
Hughes: “have a standing committee that has specific charges for Y …limited to
promotion so all you can get into so you have to change the structure around Y
and D and rewrite Y if we can stay with what we
have.’
Ms.
Payne: “why is the appeal of early tenure different from promotion?”
Dr.
Hughes: “tenure is only mentioned in D not in 607 or 101.32. It is mentioned 101.31 which is 604.5 - this is the only time tenure is mentioned.”
Dr.
Mageean: “if you can make a document refer to it then you solve problem so why
not append one of the documents?”
Dr.
Martinez: “that is the question: do we amend D or Y?”
Dr.
Mageean: “which ever
one is the easiest.”
Dr.
Roberts” “its like putting gasoline on the campfire. I
may be the only one who does not know this is not the case. Is going up for early
tenure a right?”
Dr.
Hughes: “one of first meeting was on how to revise first paragraph. We had the
question “do you have to ask the question to go up?” so e said if you want to go
up on you own but you changed that then got hooked on how do you appeal denial of
early tenure.”
Ms.
Payne: – “Privilege vs. right? Everything you grieve, almost, is about
privilege - its
how you grieve it were you treated unfairly. A discretionary grievance process lets faculty
review that and work it out in a self-governing sort of way. Part of working it through using 607 - part
of an employment situation that I think will work.”
Dr.
Roberts makes a joke about which status is better, big office or wet something or the
other?
Dr.
Martinez mentions that about the first time she met Dr. Sheerer it was in a hearing
that was a grievance by faculty member removed from a corner office.
Dr.
Hughes noted that Dr. Sheerer once had to deal with a grievance for putting a
broken chair in an office, adding that such grievances justifiable in Appendix
Y “bring them in and we will hear them.”
Dr
Matinez: “one
of the reasons why I went to hearings and the nature of the hearings we had
were so different from denial of tenure tat one will be better served if…”
Dr.
Hughes: “if just take one thing in D in hearing - you can have non-participant
counsel - in Y no one is in the room but the grievant and the respondent so a different
perspective. The hearing committee is better equipped to hear denial of early
tenure than the grievance committee. I understand why we might have to do it by
607 but if we can maintain it via appendix D then if I have to think about it so
that it seems to me putting those two things together this is a conceptual level
- just my point - I understand if it violates something in the code or is just an
interpretation they are making since we do not want appeals going to UNC Board
of Governors and staying there forever.”
Dr.
Wilson: “can we craft a paragraph next time and run this by UNC General
Administration? This is what my committee wants to do.:
Ms.
Payne: “it’s a weaker argument for faculty complaining…”
Dr.
Hughes: “not only that, but 0131 says the
only reason the UNC Board of Governors wants to hear it is to determine if the
institution has something wrong with its procedures.”
Dr.
Rigsby: “then all we have to do is take out the 1st sentence and put those that
say you cannot appeal as its already say you can’t go to the UNC Board of
Governors so you already have it in D - not saying you can’t appeal,
just that you can’t appeal to the Bog.”
Ms.
Payne: “If you do under 607 does it go to the trustees?”
Dr.
Rigsby: “we will not say you can’t appeal - leave the sentence that says you cannot
go to the UNC Board of Governors.”
Dr.
Hughes: “leave the other thing that is more draconian and pull our section on it and
it solves the whole problem if D does not address…”
Dr.
Martinez: “ok, but
then do we need to - I am sorry I do not
have the document in front of me - I did not know Lori would not be here today -
so would not have things on the screen as I would like to before we make a
motion on what we will do with this - then we can move and discuss getting feedback.”
Dr.
Hughes: “We already have the question in front of UNC General Administration, we are just waiting for an answer.”
Ms.
Payne leaves the room to call someone at the UNC General Administration.
Dr.
Martinez: “my impression - I am not going - how to get back to my
suggestion - not a motion - thinking of saying - leave that in there- go to the footnote and look at footnote and …”
Dr.
Roberts: “you need juice to get them on phone!.”
Dr.
Rigsby: “in footnote 3 - yes go up one page - right there – if we remove the
last sentence that says you can’t…”
Dr.
Hughes: “nom, you have to pull all that stuff out…”
Dr.
Wilson: “the whole thing?”
Dr.
Rigsby: “just the last sentence.”
Dr.
Martinez: “I thought about that too but only way I could…”
Everyone
stares at D on the screen for awhile.
Dr.
Hughes: “remove the footnote that says
denial of early tenure but wait until she gets UNC attorney…”
Dr.
Rigsby: “just saying you know where to put it in the document - I did not realize the
whole footnote, just early tenure, had to be held to the same standards.”
Dr.
Martinez: “you are supposed to be extraordinary.”
Dr.
Sheerer: “just deny when it does not meet the standards.”
Dr.
Wilson: “what issues come up in denial of early tenure? I am trying to imagine
where someone goes up and does not get it.”
Dr.
Hornes: “Why take out the first sentence. I do not
see what the conflict of interest would be.”
Dr.
Hughes: “the question is, who will deny the request?”
Dr.
Mageean: “they can still go ahead.”
Dr.
Hughes: “in this case tell them they should seek consultation. How does
consultation take place in a formal meeting of a personnel committee with vote?”
Dr.
Rigsby: “if we get rid of the second
sentence that’s the most important one for me. If they are smart enough to see
if it will fly we are giving given them warning “we are giving you this counsel
now and everything will stay in your file if you change your mind.”
Ms.
Payne returns from phoning Charles and says Mabe is
VP and Charles cannot predict what Mabe will agree to.
We can send trial
language but must allow
604 basis (or was that 607?).
The
discussion continued in this vein for a considerable while longer.
Dr.
Rigsby stresses that we need to talk to UNC General Administration.
Dr.
Bailey stops typing and says “two things are clear, early tenure is possible
and you cannot appeal denial to the UNC Board of Governors. What is the
problem?
Dr.
Hughes: “in 604 appeal
is just procedural; in 607 the committee can reevaluate case.
Dr.
Hornes: “sounds like something else Charles is
thinking, from the phone conversation, they see early tenure denial differently
from tenure denial sincethey do not believe there
should be restriction on what can be complained about.
Dr.
Martinez (after yet further discussion): “delete footnote leave it at that.”
After yet more discussion, Dr. Roberts points out that
expiration of a fixed term if employment falls under 604 and the other under
607.
In
jest, Dr. Bailey suggests the creation of a new committee – the “denial of
early tenure appeals” committee.
Dr.
Martinez moves that in footnote 3 we delete the sentence and not add anything.
Dr.
Roberts observesL “if we
needed her to help transplant a kidney or something…”
Dr.
Martinez says: “we will be silent about where it goes in Y.”
Dr.
Hughes” “we are not being silent saying it goes in 607.”
The
discussion goes on in this way for yet more time.
Ms.
Ingalls notes that if someone is denied early tenure then what we produce wioll show them how to appeal ….someone must know what the
answer is; someone has to have an answer for them.
Dr.
Martinez: “I made motion because we need to decide what to do about this. The
motion is to delete the sentence in footnote 3 that says “because faculty
members etc. until the end and ask Brenda…. …just delete that sentence.
The motion to delete “Because a faculty
member will be considered for permanent tenure if he or she reaches the end of
the probationary term, denials of requests for permanent tenure made before
then end of the probationary term are not subject to appeal.” passes.
Dr.
Walker agrees to talk to Dr. Killingsworth to obtain council from Dr. Mabe on whether the deletion of the sentence is sufficient
to address the UNC General Administration’s concerns about appeals of denials
early tenure and the difference between sections 607and 604.
The
discussion of denials of early tenure continues, the UNC
General Administration’s position on the motion the committee just passed and
whether the ECU Board of Trustees must approve what was just done continues
apace. Eventually, the subject turns to the ECU policy on joint appointments.
B. Policy on Joint Appointments: Dr. Martinez: “we have a few minutes
and it would be worthwhile for Dr. Rigsby to give us an overview of the report she
just sent me. She did not have time to send it to you as she just created it.
It’s a 28 page document regarding joint appointments and because of the length
of the report no one has had a chance to review it. Dr. Rigsby can give us
overview of what she has done.”
Dr.
Rigsby: “I can correct typos ……in 2005 or 2004 we reviewed the joint
appointment policy and there was a lot of discussion in the beginning and not a
lot of agreement in common and different makeup even vice chancellors differed
– anyway a very diff committee. ECU is hiring more faculty on joint
appointments and problems have been experienced by faculty and administrators
so a sub-committee was appointed and we did 10 or 12 pages of research and
looked at the policies of other universities in the system and country and we
looked at the UNC Code and we took it upon ourselves to do a non-scientific
faculty poll mainly of department heads and directors of centers and instructors
that have joint appointments. The first part of the document is a summary of
processes and next a laundry list of what we heard and part is adopted from the
University of Missouri issues to think about when doing joint t appointments. Issues
were considered such as what if one wants out? What unit is the vita in, and so
on. We adopted from UNC Charlotte and the University
of Michigan and other places sections on best practices. We have recommendations
designed to thrill everyone.”
After
Dr. Rigsby’s introductory remarks, there followed a
stimulating discussion of the conceptual and practical aspects of joint
appointments.
Dr.
Martinez said to Dr. Mageean “can you clarify for us? I have lost track of this
since the time 5 yrs ago, since I lost
track of what happened - do we have joint appointments right now in which
someone has an appointment in two academic units? What type do we have now?”
Dr.
Mageean replied: “what prompted questions from me was
wanting a standard policy for people appointed in centers and departments. To
protect faculty members and so that everyone has the same ground rules and so it
is clear to people what happens if a center goes belly up. We need to have a clear polity which we did
not have this year. I cam from a joint appointment center and we had memorandum
of understanding and that worked extremely well - other ones I cannot really
speak to.”
Dr.
Rigsby observed that in some places all centers off campus.
Dr.
Mageean discussed who things were being done in CRM and ICMR and that different contracts were
working in that joint appointment faculty had their tenure and voting rights in
the department in which they were 51%. Dr. Mageean argued that the positions
should be assigned to the since centers usually were brought into being for
interdisciplinary projects and might not endure or might turn into a department
but may not last long. Centers needs flexibility to put someone, for example, example searching for a coastal policy person,
this person could be in planning, geology, economics, sociology, anthropology.
They would be interviewed and then dept personnel committee has the right to
vote on them. Give 51% of their salary to the department but take it back if the
person leaves as they may go to a different department - so you do not want the position assigned to the
department in which they are 51% rather than to the center. Dr. Mageean said
that her concern is if we have lines and money there should be some input into
whole process - some models have joint appointments where the department
personnel committee and the center faculty vote on the faculty member’s progress.
These are some of the issues.
The
discussion of where the position should be located continued for awhile.
Dr.
Roberts: “isn’t it an inherent disadvantage to put the line in a center when the
faculty member is 51% in depatment? Why 51% in Anthropology if all the money comes from the center?”
Der.
Mageean replied that to have tenure you have to be in a department.
Dr.
Roberts: “You are putting the line in a center but you are tenured in a
department?”
This
discuss continued, with Dr. Mageean noting that you do not want to tenure
someone who is not succeeding in both places, so both groups must agree that
the person is doing a good job.
Dr.
Martinez: “centers do not have personnel committees so who work out
recommendations if centers do not have personnel committees? How will we do
that?”
Dr.
Mageean: “you could have joint personnel committees - people from a center
working with the home department as we do when we not have sufficient numbers
on the personnel committee - anyway these are tenured professors so
they can work together with the home department on joint appointments.
Dr.Rigsby replied that this was only done at a very few
universities and often it was viewed as unfair to the faculty member and the
unit.
This
discussion of personnel committees continued for awhile.
Dr.
Rigsby: “if the center goes away, the department can be stuck with the faculty
member.”
Dr.
Mageean: “but we are not hiring governor Easley’s wife of anything like that.
You always visit extreme worse case examples …do people who don’t
work out in departments stop you from hiring …?”
Dr.
Walker: “why not all read the report and come back to it.”
Dr.
Matrinez: “Dr. Hughes will send a copy of his email
to Brenda I will send her an email tomorrow at 9:00 AM and a copy to the
university attorney.”
Dr.
Wilson: “can we say for another how . . .”
The
committee adjourns without any official action. This is only noted because at
some point earlier Dr. Roberts moved to adjourn but no one paid any attention.
So now Dr. Roberts says “so moved” to himself but everyone is talking so only
the secretary hears this.
The
time is 5:00 PM on the dot. Two hours well spent!
Dutifully
recorded: G Bailey