Drug and Alcohol Policy - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 19, 2004

Drug and Alcohol Policy

Date: Dec 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Amy Young's letter to the editor, on a previous thread, reminds that I haven't learned at least one important piece of Thames regime history. What are the main rules of the new drug and alcohol policy? Whose idea was it, how was it enacted, and why did Thames decide to impose it on USM? Robert Campbell PS. A former Provost at Clemson, after wearing out his welcome here, became the President of a university in a different part of the country. He imposed an alcohol policy there that was so unpopular that it led to his early retirement."

Robert-

Mea Culpa (I chair that committee). A draft has been written--and I have received feedback from about half the committee (okay, you slackers know who you are). The committee has the FS president on it, staff reps, people affilaited with AAUP, community reps and on and on and on. I also ran it by a couple of faculty with legal backgrounds, and these people are sticklers. They strongly suggest we run it by the AG and an attorney with expertise in this area who is not affiliated with the university. The central administration really wants us to finish the task ASAP, so a draft needs to be forwarded to the university community very soon. We are trying to formulate a policy that is humane, respectful, and meets compliance requirements. State just modified their policy, so I need to see what they have done. This fun editing task is one of my to-do Christmas Break jobs.

Date: Dec 19, 2004

The policy Mitch's committee is working on is not the one Amy is talking about. The original one which was the source of great controversy appeared in December, 2003.

Date: Dec 19, 2004

Mitch and Shadow,

It's good news that there's a prospect of replacing the drug and alcohol policy that Thames imposed.

But what were the terms of the one he imposed? (I don't think anyone on this board uses the word "draconian" lightly.)

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 19, 2004

I once hear a rumor that a former administrator had someone check the police blotter each Monday morning. I don't remember if I read that in Exit 13 or if somebody told me that.

Date: Dec 19, 2004

As I remember the policy, it basically stated that anyone could be tested at any time during normal working hours and without notice. It was a "zero-tolerance' policy in that if ANY DETECTABLE amount of either alcohol or drugs were found, termination proceedings would begin.

Date: Dec 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: The Youngest Doobie Brother
"if ANY DETECTABLE amount of either alcohol or drugs were found, termination proceedings would begin."

That would mean we would have to stop gargling with Listerine!

Date: Dec 19, 2004

YDB,

Whoa!

Were there any attempts to enforce the policy as written?

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 19, 2004

I believe Hanbury copied the first D&A policy from a sample that appeared on the DEA web site. What he "forgot" was the procedure that went with the sample policy. The procedure had several steps including "employee meetings" and “input” to establishing the policy decision.

Date: Dec 19, 2004

RC--

Not to my knowledge, but that's probably because the backlash was so strong. We heard rumors that it was another method devised by Hanbury to fire some tenured faculty who, on non-teaching days might partake of a glass of wine with lunch.

YDB

Date: Dec 19, 2004

My own memory of the drug and alcohol policy is admittedly imperfect. I no longer have the text of the policy, but I do recall that late last fall copies of it appeared in faculty mailboxes with the request that we affix our signature as a sign that we agreed to it, and to any future amendments.

As I recall, and perhaps someone with documentary evidence can check this, the policy made no provision for rehabilitation (a bedrock requirement under government regulations) and--as least as the word went on the street--wasn't going to be strictly enforced for athletes but was apparently binding on faculty and other lower life forms. If enforced to the letter, it could mean that a tenured faculty member taking a cold remedy could be fired, and we had no reason not to suspect it was going in place as a short-cut to dismissing troublesome faculty. I'm pretty sure that the AAUP actually went to a local attorney to see if a federal injunction could be brought to stop the policy from going into force. I just checked the AAUP archives and don't immediately see anything there. Perhaps something could be posted for posterity, as we surely have extensive records on it.

What I'm sure about is how angry I got at the request that I agree not only to the silly policy as proposed but to giving the administration a blank check to make any further inroads into liberties that were paid for in blood by our American forebears. Sorry, folks, but I'm not giving up the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights just because some administrator leaves a couple sheets of paper in my inbox.

Jameela

Date: Dec 19, 2004

This letter from From Professor Glamser, then USM AAUP chapter president, should shed a great deal of light on this discussion. AAUP/Glamser acted swiftly in this matter. As I recall the timeline, it was not very long afterwards that Glamser was targeted and the email monitoring came to light.

Dear USM Faculty Member,

The AAUP executive committee is very concerned about the ramifications of the recently announced drug and alcohol policy and the total lack of faculty input into its formulation. Rest assured that AAUP will be looking into this issue in consultation with our membership and the national headquarters. A cursory review of the document suggests that signing the acknowledgment may put faculty members at risk of waiving their due process rights. As soon as we have a definitive opinion on this, it will be shared with the faculty. You can also see why the AAUP is so concerned about the inclusion of due process in the faculty handbook treatment of faculty termination.

This issue is only the most recent which demonstrates the importance of a strong AAUP chapter on campus. I urge you to join our organization if you have not already done so. I also encourage all faculty members to fill out and return our recent survey on university governance.

Frank Glamser
President
AAUP-USM

Date: Dec 19, 2004

Here is an old article about it.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/state/7319895.htm

Date: Dec 19, 2004

Jameela,

Thanks for your clarifications. Once again, you are so right.

Date: Dec 19, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Jameela Lares
"it appeared in faculty mailboxes with the request that we affix our signature as a sign that we agreed to it, and to any future amendments.

...and to any future ammendments? They must think our brains are fried on eggs.

Date: Dec 19, 2004

Proof has it that Dana and Daddy could not have passed the original mandates. Do what I say, not what I do.

Date: Dec 19, 2004

brain fried on eggs posted: ...and to any future ammendments? They must think our brains are fried on eggs.

Just legaleze, my boy. Designed to amaze, confuse, befudddle.

Date: Dec 19, 2004

My thanks to everyone who dug through the archives on this issue.

No wonder Hanbury was fired by the state Attorney General (or Thames was ordered to fire him). Clemson's university attorney didn't interpret the Drug Free Workplace Act that way. Obviously, neither has Miss State's attorney.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 19, 2004

A couple more things about the policy. In my department we were asked to sign it in front of a designated witness, and it said that we could be fired for not signing it. So we were supposed to agree to draconian policies that could get us fired for nothing or be fired. AND when Pood came to our department to talk about it, he wouldn't tell us whether or not to sign it, and wouldn't go up the chain of command and fight for our rights. He just talked round and round in circles and said nothing. One of my colleagues had been giving Pood the benefit of the doubt until that point, and afterwards turned to me, rolled his eyes and said, "slimeball."

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Arnold
"A couple more things about the policy. In my department we were asked to sign it in front of a designated witness, and it said that we could be fired for not signing it. So we were supposed to agree to draconian policies that could get us fired for nothing or be fired. AND when Pood came to our department to talk about it, he wouldn't tell us whether or not to sign it, and wouldn't go up the chain of command and fight for our rights. He just talked round and round in circles and said nothing. One of my colleagues had been giving Pood the benefit of the doubt until that point, and afterwards turned to me, rolled his eyes and said, "slimeball.""

Just to put a final note on this Hanbury generated policy: it was boilerplate generated from the ATA website. On the website, the ATA presenta a policy that would comply with Federal regulations and presents a number of options for testing, valiadating results, etc. Hanbury essentially took the most draconian solution in every instance, although the ATA website clearly presented these as options that were be be tailored to different working environments.

Materials did go out to the various departments but there was such a hulabaloo the President rescinded the policy for further study. He was pressed numerous times by the Senate to be clear about whether the policy would reappear in this form and eventually conceded that it would not. It was sometimes after the Glamser/Stringer debacle that Mitch's committee was formed. The group doing that work is solid and there are a number of folks on it (including Mitch) who have expertise in the area. Lee Gore, the UNiversity lawyer, was also present to consult. I think they will come up with something that will be workable and fair.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

stephen,

Thank you for the clarifications.

When did Shelby beat his retreat on the drug and alcohol policy (without clearly stating that it was officially withdrawn)?

There is at least a reasonable chance that SFT will accept a revised drug and alcohol policy. And I gather that this is something that everyone has to sign and return, once a year--although a witness to the signature is not required at any other university I've heard of.

So it's not like the email snooping issue. I take it that Thames' computer use policy remains in force, and that the faculty has only his promise to the PC/PUC not to read faculty members' email without putting the issue in front of a committee first. I hope everyone knows what that promise is worth.

I still think the Faculty Senate is making a major error not proposing a computer use policy of its own (one that includes penalties for any administrator who violates it)--then challenging Thames to accep it. Let Thames go before the media and "explain" why he needs the authority to read everyone's email.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"stephen, Thank you for the clarifications. When did Shelby beat his retreat on the drug and alcohol policy (without clearly stating that it was officially withdrawn)? There is at least a reasonable chance that SFT will accept a revised drug and alcohol policy. And I gather that this is something that everyone has to sign and return, once a year--although a witness to the signature is not required at any other university I've heard of. So it's not like the email snooping issue. I take it that Thames' computer use policy remains in force, and that the faculty has only his promise to the PC/PUC not to read faculty members' email without putting the issue in front of a committee first. I hope everyone knows what that promise is worth. I still think the Faculty Senate is making a major error not proposing a computer use policy of its own (one that includes penalties for any administrator who violates it)--then challenging Thames to accep it. Let Thames go before the media and "explain" why he needs the authority to read everyone's email. Robert Campbell"

My memory is that the policy was "rescinded" before G&S affair. That a commmittee would be appointed to oversee the development of a new policy was, I believe announced at an early meeting of the PUC. Some of you with better memories might help me on this.

I'm in agreement with you on the email policy -- as far as I know right now the promised "review" committee which would oversee requests from the administration for monitoring has not been formed. If it has I haven't heard about it. So we really are not any more protected than we were going into last January.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

As BOGUS is not dependent on federal funding, our drug & alcohol policy requires that our staff stay loaded as much as possible.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"I still think the Faculty Senate is making a major error not proposing a computer use policy of its own (one that includes penalties for any administrator who violates it)--then challenging Thames to accep it. Let Thames go before the media and "explain" why he needs the authority to read everyone's email."

The university's "technology problems" began when Horace Fleming brought in John ("I know more about technology than ANYBODY on campus") McGowan as "Chief Technology Officer" and he set up OTR (the Office of Technology Resources, popularly known as "Office of Take all the Resources), then started to make "top-down" mandates, without bothering to ask "the user community" about their needs, or of their opinions concerning the OTR announcements.

First, there was an unannounced decision that "from now on, ALL university computers must be purchased from Dell, Gateway 2000, or Apple", with that decision being discovered by faculty when the USM Purchasing Department began rejecting Purchase Requisitions. COS&T faculty working with UNIX/Linux objected strenuously to that dictate, which forced OTR to realize that "computer servers" and "Internet activities" were NOT the same as Windows/Intel "desktop computing." However, the policy was not changed; merely that "waivers" were granted to individual faculty who agreed that "OTR assumes no responsibility for support of this computer hardware."

Then, there was the OTR (later known as iTech) policy that stated "any university computer can be confiscated for any reason" should it be used for "unapproved activities." Neither the scope of "unapproved activities" nor the legal remedies to this possible confiscation were specified in this document. Faculty pointed out that this violated due process, the chain-of-custody rules for evidence, and the fact that many "technology-using" faculty had provided their own computers (at their own expense) for their offices, so the ramifications of seizure of computers without USM property stickers had not been considered.

The Faculty Senate Technology Committee objected to both these dictates, and the entire Senate passed a resolution stating that, in the opinion of the faculty, "computers used for illegal purposes could be impounded by the university, pending an investigation and legal action" was a more-reasonable approach to these concerns.

If memory serves, this resolution was passed to the Dome, and then ignored (this was in Horace's time of complaining that "faculty don't come to me with their problems, before putting stories in the newspaper.") Since this was pre-Thames, pre-Provost times, I doubt that anything passed by the current Faculty Senate would be paid any attention by the current "higher administration."

Date: Dec 20, 2004

oldtimer,

Thank you for the background on the computer-use policy. Apparently SFT had some bad precedents to build on.

One difference between now and the Fleming days is that USM is getting plenty of media attention. I'll bet that Fleming's computer use policy was never the subject of a political cartoon in the Clarion-Ledger--but Thames' email snooping has been.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"oldtimer, Thank you for the background on the computer-use policy. Apparently SFT had some bad precedents to build on. One difference between now and the Fleming days is that USM is getting plenty of media attention. I'll bet that Fleming's computer use policy was never the subject of a political cartoon in the Clarion-Ledger--but Thames' email snooping has been. Robert Campbell"

Robert Campbell, there is a wealth of information in the two "archive" sections of the USM AAUP website. You are probably already aware of that, but I just learned of their existance yesterday. A goldmine of history is located there.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: oldtimer
" The university's "technology problems" began when Horace Fleming brought in John ("I know more about technology than ANYBODY on campus") McGowan as "Chief Technology Officer" and he set up OTR (the Office of Technology Resources, popularly known as "Office of Take all the Resources), then started to make "top-down" mandates, without bothering to ask "the user community" about their needs, or of their opinions concerning the OTR announcements. First, there was an unannounced decision that "from now on, ALL university computers must be purchased from Dell, Gateway 2000, or Apple", with that decision being discovered by faculty when the USM Purchasing Department began rejecting Purchase Requisitions. COS&T faculty working with UNIX/Linux objected strenuously to that dictate, which forced OTR to realize that "computer servers" and "Internet activities" were NOT the same as Windows/Intel "desktop computing." However, the policy was not changed; merely that "waivers" were granted to individual faculty who agreed that "OTR assumes no responsibility for support of this computer hardware." Then, there was the OTR (later known as iTech) policy that stated "any university computer can be confiscated for any reason" should it be used for "unapproved activities." Neither the scope of "unapproved activities" nor the legal remedies to this possible confiscation were specified in this document. Faculty pointed out that this violated due process, the chain-of-custody rules for evidence, and the fact that many "technology-using" faculty had provided their own computers (at their own expense) for their offices, so the ramifications of seizure of computers without USM property stickers had not been considered. The Faculty Senate Technology Committee objected to both these dictates, and the entire Senate passed a resolution stating that, in the opinion of the faculty, "computers used for illegal purposes could be impounded by the university, pending an investigation and legal action" was a more-reasonable approach to these concerns. If memory serves, this resolution was passed to the Dome, and then ignored (this was in Horace's time of complaining that "faculty don't come to me with their problems, before putting stories in the newspaper.") Since this was pre-Thames, pre-Provost times, I doubt that anything passed by the current Faculty Senate would be paid any attention by the current "higher administration." "

With some exceptions, it appears to me that in numerous ways USM has been a cesspool of administrative inepness ever since the McCain era.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Amateur Historian
"Robert Campbell, there is a wealth of information in the two "archive" sections of the USM AAUP website. You are probably already aware of that, but I just learned of their existance yesterday. A goldmine of history is located there."

Well, considering how infrequently USM seems to update their Web pages and "purge" the obsolete information, there may be another "deep archive" available at www.usm.edu, just by using the right search terms (like "OTR" and "McGowan"). Of course, that it if I haven't just "tipped off" iTech into doing their own search, as others have noted here that the "sanitization of information" has been done by SFT and his minions.