Who are you guys talking about?  Can you give initials or something?

this is a serious matter indeed. i spoke with my university advisory committee representative this afternoon about one of our candidates for tenure. my uac rep described the fraud doty attempted to perpetrate on the university with his "contract for promotion" though that's not what my uac rep called it. i don't think i've ever heard of such a thing in my college. such a blatant attempt to circumvent rules cannot stand.

old sport wrote:

---

I think it would be a misrepresentation to call the "letter of agreement" a "contract" or even a "deal". As I told the professor in question, Dean Doty was well within his rights to pen such a letter. I believe the Dean and I are in agreement in that we as faculty are completely advisory to the Dean; he can even make stand-alone recommendations regarding tenure and promotion initiated at his level.

---

old sport, can departmental chairs pen "letters of agreement" with individual faculty members?  Better yet, can University Advisory Council members pen such letters with faculty in the various colleges?

I am amazed at this thread.  Do you Doty bashers really believe that it is improper for a Dean to have a conversation with a faculty member about what the faculty member needs to do to receive his support for promotion?  In the case being discussed the faculty member's chair (a person whose ethical standards are impeccable) was in the loop and concurred with the guidance being offered by the Dean.  Doty followed up on the conversation with a letter reiterating the substance of that conversation.

The letter was not a "deal" (what was the quid pro quo other than the faculty member had to achieve the productivity level specified); it was not a contract; it did not require any faculty member in the promotion process to vote for promotion; it was not, to my knowledge, ever accompanied by pressure from the Dean to vote "yes." 

The logic of those who are haranguing about this situation absolutely escapes me.  I cannot imagine a well-run organization that would preclude a supervisor sitting down with an employee and offering guidance for reaching some goal.  Putting this guidance in writing so that there is no misunderstanding is also acceptable.

I understand that some people are unhappy with Dean Doty, but in this case, his critics are completely off base.  (On the other hand, I would agree that it would be wrong to punish a faculty member who disagreed with the conditions for promotion set out by Doty and therefore opposed the promotion.)

 

 

You Ain't Heard Nothing Yet wrote:

---

It is not improper for a dean to provide general guidance about tenure and promotion to a professor. It is improper for those guidelines to take the form of a series of written memos that specify exactly how many articles, proceedings, and presentations the faculty member must get to gain the dean's support. It is also improper for such a written agreement to be circulated prior to having the usual and customary faculty votes according to University policy and procedure. Publicizing this agreement may have swayed votes in a college known for its vindictive dean -- cross the dean and you're an outcast. In processes such as tenure and promotion, any irregularity will become the cause of possible legal action by those who may seek tenure and promotion in the future and by those who may have been denied tenure and promotion in the past. There was no quid pro quo? If you think that then you're only kidding yourself. The professor who made the deal was one of the dean's most vocal supporters in issues such as the online MBA program proposal (in fact he was the "parliamentarian" who attempted to cut off discussion and questions raised against his dean's proposed program) and has become one of the dean's most ardent hallway monitors and solicitors. Every faculty member in the college knows about the deal. Doty even has his ministers of disinformation at work already -- such as the "Thought I'd Heard Everything" post, and some untruths have already been spread to support this most indefensible of actions by Doty. Thought I'd Heard Everything, I'd like you to explain how several violations of University tenure and promotion guidelines have all occurred in the Management area -- Doty's home area -- and not in other areas of the college. Why is it that his home area is somehow exempt from the rules governing everyone else? Why is it that that area (Management) is so rife with money whores that will sell out ethics for the promise of a few thousand dollars? A faculty member exposed Doty's violation of University policy and procedure and now is being punished by Doty for it. Doty has a pattern of such violations and if they are ever read back to him in court they will sound just as bad as they truly are. He would not be able to bully a jury the way he bullies his faculty.

---

Your definition of what is "proper" in this context is only your opinion.   I have heard scores of faculty complain that when they ask for guidance about what needs to be done to win the dean's or chair's support, they are met with meaningless generalities.  In this case, the Dean was willing to be specific about what he would require to be supportive.  BIG DEAL!

As to your "facts," there was not a series of memos, only one, and as I stated, concurred to by the chair.

Your impugning the reputation of the faculty member is disgusting.  Anyone who knows this individual well will attest that he calls things as he sees them, sometimes to his detriment.  He is an honest, ethical individual, and you should be ashamed of letting your dislike of Doty lead to you to make such comments about this person.

As to your allegations about other improprieties in the management area, they don't justify an ad hominem attack on a fellow faculty member. 

I'll bet Will Rogers never met you!

 

Adapted From: WordNet 2.0 Copyright 2003 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.





deal

A
noun


1 
deal


 








2 



 








3 


 








4 
bargain, deal


 

an agreement between parties (usually arrived at after discussion) fixing obligations of each

 

The "agreement" was a "deal."

I know nothing abou tthe specifics of this "deal."  However, what would bother me more than just the existence of a letter from a dean saying "do this and this and you'll get tenure," is that the requirements specified in the letter are consistent with what others have had to achieve to receive tenure and promotion...and that this seems to take faculty out of the process?  Doesn't the COB have a T&P faculty committee?  Do they not spend time looking over credentials and voting on tenure and promotion?

Outside Observer wrote:

---

I know nothing abou tthe specifics of this "deal."  However, what would bother me more than just the existence of a letter from a dean saying "do this and this and you'll get tenure," is that the requirements specified in the letter are consistent with what others have had to achieve to receive tenure and promotion...and that this seems to take faculty out of the process?  Doesn't the COB have a T&P faculty committee?  Do they not spend time looking over credentials and voting on tenure and promotion?

---

The issue here is not tenure and promotion, the issue is promotion to full professor.  As I understand it, the research record in question is not adequate for the rank of full. In fact, under current standards his research would not get him tenure. This has nothing to do with the individual, who is a very honorable and valued member of the faculty.  His service record is quite extensive, both at the university and college level.  Why his dept chair and dean would allow him to be drug over the coals in this fashion is a mystery.  Let's leave this issue alone, and let those involved heal, after perhaps learning from the experience.

q and a wrote:

---

Outside Observer wrote: I know nothing abou tthe specifics of this "deal."  However, what would bother me more than just the existence of a letter from a dean saying "do this and this and you'll get tenure," is that the requirements specified in the letter are consistent with what others have had to achieve to receive tenure and promotion...and that this seems to take faculty out of the process?  Doesn't the COB have a T&P faculty committee?  Do they not spend time looking over credentials and voting on tenure and promotion? I'm certainly not in any loop, but I thought that the Doty didn't say in the memo "do this and this and you'll get tenure".  I thought it was something like "do this and this and I'll support your tenure application".  If this is in fact what was said, then there was no foul as I see it.  Just because he laid what it would take for his support doesn't seem to be anything more than providing a clear understanding of what it would take "for his support". The T&P committee can vote as they choose.  There is nothing wrong with that.

---

q and a,

Your take on the situation is correct.

Thanks!

Wait a minute, q & a and others. The contract did specify exactly what was needed to get Doty's support. That's not really a problem if Doty is willing to do the same for every faculty member at every stage of the tenure/promotion system.

What is apparently being overlooked is that the contract was circulated prior to faculty votes. Given what I've read on this board about Doty, I cannot say that I would have felt comfortable voting against this candidate under these circumstances. Stated plainly, I don't think anyone can trust Doty to do the right thing. I don't think one can trust him to allow free faculty votes, and I certainly don't think one can expect fair treatment if one doesn't play ball.

One thing I have to constantly remind myself of is that Thames hired Doty just like Thames hired all of the other deans. Like attracts like, and Thames has attracted deans that could have been made in his own image.

q and a wrote:

---

Another conspiracy!!  You have now closed the loop.  After jumping to two conclusions, you jump to a third.  Honestly -  this is what this board has devolved to - a bunch of half truths that are then spun into some conspiracy. Again and again.  I have to say that hate reigns within this board.  And posters are willing to buy into it.  I'm not saying that Doty or Thames are right or wrong, but the idea that you can somehow connect these dots is ridiculous. 
 
q and a

---

Watch it there, hoss. Despite what you lot think, "this board" is not solely about the COB. Your statements apply mostly to the COB threads, which many avoid.
You folks can start your own board any time you want.

Let me add some friendly information on a point or two.

From reports I have gotten from individuals who saw the piece of paper, the contract involved an applicant and his chairman directly and the dean indirectly (the dean was clearly "in the loop" as to the agreement and was, in material fact, abviously a player in the agreement). This agreement was a major part of discussions at the department level and the college level (it reportedly surfaced as part of the dossier). This revelation was before either group voted, which no doubt swayed some portion of the votes of each group. It is my sources' belief that this was the intended outcome -- let everyone know where the dean stood.

At the university level (from what little I can gather), the agreement had no impact on the applicant's status. The university committee reportedly received a strong and fair (i.e., representative) presentation from the CoB representative, reviewed the dossier fairly, and voted accordingly without consideration for the agreement. Subsequently, however, the university committee discussed the nature of the agreement, its place in the process, etc.

To the best of my understanding, the faculty member who exposed the dean's deal did not intend to either embarass the applicant, rather to expose the dean for setting the applicant up for a fall. This exposer apparently believes that the applicant was wronged by the dean's deal. After repeatedly meeting with the dean, however, the applicant now has been set against the exposer by the dean.

CoB insiders tell me that this is an effort by the dean to set faculty against each other and draw attention away from his own actions, the result of which should be some sort of action -- divide and conquer. Assume hypothetically that the agreement was allowable under university policies and procedures (of which I am not convinced). To allow the agreement to bias the process was disingenuous on the dean's part. According to my CoB insiders, this type of activity on the dean's part is not surprising.

According to my sources, there has been nothing said by the exposer that has besmirched the reputation of the applicant. Rather, the exposer has made statements of fact (which are undeniable) and statements of his/her own opinion (which were overwhelmingly positive in the applicant's favor). My sources tell me there is a paper trail that documents the fact that the exposer's issue was with the dean and not with the applicant. There are apparently some CoB faculty who are using this to cultivate favor with the dean and (again, apparently) set themselves up as loyal supporters worthy of a raise, should it materialize.

Those who must deal with the dean would do well to remember that he has continually operated in a manner of self-preservation above all else. He is apparently willing to use a loyal supporter to save his own skin. Can anybody really trust him?

Thought I'd Heard Everything wrote:

---

 A lot of faculty in the COB, along with the administration of the college, need to take a deep breath and start to  discuss how to keep the college from becoming  dysfunctional.  The exsiting animosity is pitting department against department, faculty against faculty, and faculty against adminstration in an extremely debilitating way.  And sadly, it is severely damaging the reputation of the college.

---

 How to keep the college from becoming dysfunctional????  I think that ship has already sailed.

soothsayer wrote:

---

Let me add some friendly information on a point or two. From reports I have gotten from individuals who saw the piece of paper, the contract involved an applicant and his chairman directly and the dean indirectly (the dean was clearly "in the loop" as to the agreement and was, in material fact, abviously a player in the agreement). This agreement was a major part of discussions at the department level and the college level (it reportedly surfaced as part of the dossier). This revelation was before either group voted, which no doubt swayed some portion of the votes of each group. It is my sources' belief that this was the intended outcome -- let everyone know where the dean stood. At the university level (from what little I can gather), the agreement had no impact on the applicant's status. The university committee reportedly received a strong and fair (i.e., representative) presentation from the CoB representative, reviewed the dossier fairly, and voted accordingly without consideration for the agreement. Subsequently, however, the university committee discussed the nature of the agreement, its place in the process, etc. To the best of my understanding, the faculty member who exposed the dean's deal did not intend to either embarass the applicant, rather to expose the dean for setting the applicant up for a fall. This exposer apparently believes that the applicant was wronged by the dean's deal. After repeatedly meeting with the dean, however, the applicant now has been set against the exposer by the dean. CoB insiders tell me that this is an effort by the dean to set faculty against each other and draw attention away from his own actions, the result of which should be some sort of action -- divide and conquer. Assume hypothetically that the agreement was allowable under university policies and procedures (of which I am not convinced). To allow the agreement to bias the process was disingenuous on the dean's part. According to my CoB insiders, this type of activity on the dean's part is not surprising. According to my sources, there has been nothing said by the exposer that has besmirched the reputation of the applicant. Rather, the exposer has made statements of fact (which are undeniable) and statements of his/her own opinion (which were overwhelmingly positive in the applicant's favor). My sources tell me there is a paper trail that documents the fact that the exposer's issue was with the dean and not with the applicant. There are apparently some CoB faculty who are using this to cultivate favor with the dean and (again, apparently) set themselves up as loyal supporters worthy of a raise, should it materialize. Those who must deal with the dean would do well to remember that he has continually operated in a manner of self-preservation above all else. He is apparently willing to use a loyal supporter to save his own skin. Can anybody really trust him?

---

Soothsayer,

"Soothsayer" is a great name since there is more conjuring than fact reporting in your post.

The letter of understanding was from the dean and initialed by the chair.  Prior to furnishing the letter, the dean consulted  with the University Attorney who okayed it since  in no way did the correspondence constitute a contract.

The letter was NOT a major part of the discussion within the COB.  You state "To allow the letter to bias the process was  disingenuous on the dean's part."  What in the world does "To allow the letter to bias the process" mean?  What would you have had the dean do?  Post a big sign exclaiming, "don't pay any attention to the letter"?

The "exposer" as you call him was exposing what?  You have reported that the letter was a major part of the deliberations within the college.  

What the "exposer" did is to violate his obligation of confidentiality.  The applicant learned of the University committee vote from a colleague who had received an e-mail from the "exposer" berating the dean for making such an "agreement."

Your post is very uninformed.