Supposedly, the COB faculty member who served on the University committee has received a severe tougue-lashing from the Associate Dean, who likes nothing more than to bully wounded prey.

Anyway, why in the world would the Associate Dean be dealing with the Dean's responsibility?

pardon me too wrote:

---

I just caught up here, and now we get this from "another element."  I don't believe what you say is true about the associate dean.  I don't think he has met with either person.  Just give this a few days more, and the associate dean will eliminate the dean.  The evidence is in a shoe box.  The dust will settle. 

---

The evidence is in a shoe box????  Come on....

hello wrote:

---

What don't you understand about "among the critera"? 

---

Just pointing out the selective use of rules by your side of this argument. If it helps your cause, bring it up. If it doesn't help, then bury it.

I am quite sure that nobody needed to be reminded about the criterion commonly referred to as "collegiality".

How did everyone in the CoB find out about the letter of agreement between Doty and the applicant for full? The answer to who made it it public may be enlightening as to participant motives. Was is made public by Doty, the chair (which I doubt), or the applicant?

There has been confusion on this post about the nature of an agreement between a faculty member and a dean regarding promotion or tenure. If there is a written quid pro quad agreement where the dean enumerates what the faculty member must do to get his/her support, it is in the faculty member’s interest that it be made public. This is particular the case if the agreement is made many months before the decision. The information must be spread wide so that dean’s wishes become widely known by any potential member of the evaluation committee. Once it becomes known, there can be no claim of confidentiality. Such was the case in CBA. The motive for making sure that potential committee members know of the agreement is to influence those members when they vote. Many will view the letter as a contract rather than just another letter of support. Indeed, the actual letter of support by the dean likely will not refer to the previous communication. The letter will closely resemble letters written for other faculty who are going, or will go, through the process.

This plan often works at the college level, particularly if the dean has demonstrated a willingness to be vindictive. In the recent case in CBA, that willingness was carried out in a letter accusing the faculty representative of revealing confidential information in a personal matter. Of course the charge is silly since what was revealed was knowledge widely known. You would have had to be completely isolated to have avoided knowing. Fortunately, a dean cannot include a University Committee in the agreement. Most University wide members are savvy about deans and not intimidated. Moreover, at the University level, the faculty member from the college of a candidate being considered has little to no input. Sometimes the committee has the faculty member from the college leave the room. Sometimes the faculty member cannot enter into the discussion except to answer questions of other members. Decisions at the University level are handled very professionally. In the case that is being discussed on this Board, the University Committee held fast to their standards in evaluating research, teaching, and service. As usually happens, a candidate who does not have the credentials that the committee expects is denied regardless of the Dean’s support and the college’s support.

The moral of the story is that regardless of how powerful they imagine themselves to be, a college dean ultimately is subject to the will of the faculty. Also, a faculty member who relies on the good will of faculty committees and administrators, rather than meeting the standards for teaching, research and service does so at his/her peril.

curious and confused wrote:

---

Cossack, I agree completely.  The applicant for full in the CBA case apparently made no secret about the letter of understanding (contract, deal, whatever you want to call it) and appeared willing to ride it as far as it would take him.  You cannot blame the guy for trying.  However,  when you take that approach and it does not work due to a much less than adequate research record, you should not act surprised and wounded.

---

The breach of confidentiality was is not as much about the disclosure of the letter of understanding as it is about the informing of numerous faculty about the decision of the committee and the nature of the dicsussion pertaining to the applicant.  All this information was being shared BEFORE the applicant had even been informed about the negative outcome.  Try as you might to overlook or justify the breach of confidentality, it did occur.  Now the question is how the applicant and the University will respond. 

 If the COB committee representative wanted to discuss the vote publicly, he should have first contacted the applicant, informed him of the vote, and asked his permission to make the outcome public.  Having not done so is clearly a violation of confidentiality.  No amount of spin will make it otherwise.

Cossack wrote:

---

The moral of the story is that regardless of how powerful they imagine themselves to be, a college dean ultimately is subject to the will of the faculty. Also, a faculty member who relies on the good will of faculty committees and administrators, rather than meeting the standards for teaching, research and service does so at his/her peril.

---

Not necessarily so...I don't know how it is at USM, but at many schools the faculty vote or faculty T&P Committee vote is "advisory" to the dean.  The faculty get a vote, dept chair, dean and VP of AA all get votes...in my experience the VPAA generally votes with the dean since he/she probably doesn't know the faculty member or his/her performance.  The dept head and dean generally chat about T&P issues and reach agreement before actually casting their votes.  So, the practical result of all of this is that the faculty vote may be ignored.  I have seen cases where the faculty vote was overwhelmingly one way on a tenure or promotion decision, and the dept chair, dean and VPAA votes went the other way...so, the dean vote is oftentimes the most important vote.  If a dean makes a "deal" with a faculty member it, in effect, becomes a contractual arrangement.

 

Case in point...faculty T&P Committee voted 14-2 against tenure ... the dean had made an "arrangement" with the faculty member that 3 refereed publications (any journal in Cabell's) would get him tenure.  The 3 publications were, at best, D quality ...accept rates above 50%.  What would you guess?  Did this person get tenure?

Outside Observer wrote:

---

Cossack wrote:
The moral of the story is that regardless of how powerful they imagine themselves to be, a college dean ultimately is subject to the will of the faculty. Also, a faculty member who relies on the good will of faculty committees and administrators, rather than meeting the standards for teaching, research and service does so at his/her peril.

Not necessarily so...I don't know how it is at USM, but at many schools the faculty vote or faculty T&P Committee vote is "advisory" to the dean.  The faculty get a vote, dept chair, dean and VP of AA all get votes...in my experience the VPAA generally votes with the dean since he/she probably doesn't know the faculty member or his/her performance.  The dept head and dean generally chat about T&P issues and reach agreement before actually casting their votes.  So, the practical result of all of this is that the faculty vote may be ignored.  I have seen cases where the faculty vote was overwhelmingly one way on a tenure or promotion decision, and the dept chair, dean and VPAA votes went the other way...so, the dean vote is oftentimes the most important vote.  If a dean makes a "deal" with a faculty member it, in effect, becomes a contractual arrangement.
 
Case in point...faculty T&P Committee voted 14-2 against tenure ... the dean had made an "arrangement" with the faculty member that 3 refereed publications (any journal in Cabell's) would get him tenure.  The 3 publications were, at best, D quality ...accept rates above 50%.  What would you guess?  Did this person get tenure?

---

For those who choose to contract with a dean for promotion and/or tenure, the process is a form of indentured servitude that depends on the benevolence of the dean. In this case, at least one long-time COB administrator (not the dean) expected the applicant's petition to be denied by the VPAA and the President, as well as the University Advisory Committee. That tells me that the contract was a mechanism to control one faculty member's loyalty for a period of time and not a genuine agreement. Translation: the dean wanted an indentured servant who had no chance of earning his own freedom.

Despite what any of the pro-dean factions may say, having such a contract lowers the requirements for promotion and tenure in the CoB for EVERYONE who applies hence. Faculty in the CoB have a right to be upset with Doty. He has just torpedoed long-standing efforts to improve the quality of the college's research profile incrementally by requiring incremental improvement (rather than the regression favored by Doty) from iterations of promotion and tenure decisions over a period of years. Making this type of contact is exactly what helps keep Kim Chaze living in the style to which he has become accustomed.

not so wrote:

---

Cossack,
Are you arguing that the confidentiality requirement contained in the USM Faculty Handbook is merely a triviality and something not to be concerned about?  In Chapter 2, "The proceedings of the College Adviosry Committees are strictly confidential and are subject to the same policies that govern the proceedings of the Department Personnel Committees."  Prior to this statement in the section on the University Advisory Committee, "In this [recusal] and all other matters the committee is subject to the same policies that govern Departmental and College Advisory Committees."
Just because some faculty choose to ignore the confidentiality requirement, does not make the practice right or ethical.   Perhaps this episode will constitute a wake-up call.
 

---

Chapter 10 of the USM Faculty Handbook provides guidelines for promotion and tenure decision making. Nowhere in Chapter 10 does the word "confidential" appear.

Also, from my study of the Faculty Handbook, nowhere in the entirety of the document does the concept of "contracting for promotion" or other similar notion appear, nor does the document grant the deac of any college the power to bias or pervert the departmental and CAC processes as was done here.

All this is beside the point and is just another pitiful attempt to deflect blame. I wonder what 12 individuals without knowledge of the vagaries of academia would think about a boss who makes a flawed special contract with one employee and then, when another employee points out the result of that fault, threatens the whistleblower. That's not going to play well given written documentation I've seen with my own two eyes. I would think that 12 "men" might be especially turned off when a pattern of unethical behavior on the boss' part might be established.

Southern Justice wrote:

---

not so wrote: Cossack, Are you arguing that the confidentiality requirement contained in the USM Faculty Handbook is merely a triviality and something not to be concerned about?  In Chapter 2, "The proceedings of the College Adviosry Committees are strictly confidential and are subject to the same policies that govern the proceedings of the Department Personnel Committees."  Prior to this statement in the section on the University Advisory Committee, "In this [recusal] and all other matters the committee is subject to the same policies that govern Departmental and College Advisory Committees." Just because some faculty choose to ignore the confidentiality requirement, does not make the practice right or ethical.   Perhaps this episode will constitute a wake-up call.   Chapter 10 of the USM Faculty Handbook provides guidelines for promotion and tenure decision making. Nowhere in Chapter 10 does the word "confidential" appear. Also, from my study of the Faculty Handbook, nowhere in the entirety of the document does the concept of "contracting for promotion" or other similar notion appear, nor does the document grant the deac of any college the power to bias or pervert the departmental and CAC processes as was done here. All this is beside the point and is just another pitiful attempt to deflect blame. I wonder what 12 individuals without knowledge of the vagaries of academia would think about a boss who makes a flawed special contract with one employee and then, when another employee points out the result of that fault, threatens the whistleblower. That's not going to play well given written documentation I've seen with my own two eyes. I would think that 12 "men" might be especially turned off when a pattern of unethical behavior on the boss' part might be established.

---

Justice,

So because confidentiality is NOT reiterated in Chapter 10 (actually it is Chapter 9 that you are referring to), the "strictly confidential" admonition in Chapter 8 (Faculty Evaluation Procedures)can be ignored?  What nonsense!

The remainder of your post is completely off message.

Southern Justice wrote:

---

Ah, the truth. It's such a strange thing. FACT: The Faculty Handbook provides guidance on usual and customary matters. FACT: The promotion action taken by the applicant in question is (and can be established as) neither usual nor customary. By following this unusual and uncustomary procedure, both the applicant and the dean took the process outside of the straightforward policies and procedures that govern usual and customary actions. Your points are logical fallacies. When you begin the process with disregard for policy and procedure, you have little remedy later having policy and procedure applied to another part of the process. You're basically saying that a driver of an automobile is faultless when involved in an accident, even if that driver's BAC is above the legal limit. It's just a false argument. Again, let's poll 12 average joes on how they feel about a boss who constantly shows preference to one type of employee over another and then attempts to punish a whistleblower who calls him on it. I wonder if the caretaker of Chaze's Hattiesburg residence has lit the pilot light yet. Without the vagaries of academia clouding the issue, this would be a slam-dunk for the whistleblower.

---

Souther Justice, are you making this up as you go?  The "fact" I put in bold is pure B.S.  No wonder you are upset--you haven't studied the Handbook and don't know what is legal.  It isn't up to you to decide what is leagl.  Again I did your homework for you to show what normal procedures are legal. I quote the Handbook below:

9.5            DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION PROCEDURES

 

9.5.1                Application and Dossier.  Written instructions for the preparation of promotion dossiers are distributed to the heads of academic units by the Provost and may be obtained from the department offices or from the Office of the Provost.  Members of the academic staff wishing to be evaluated for promotion in academic rank must prepare and submit their dossiers to the chair of the academic department in which they hold academic appointment no later than the last day of the first full week of the fall semester.  Candidates may supplement their dossiers with additional relevant information before the Personnel Committee completes its evaluation of the candidate.

 

  

9.8            DECANAL ACTIONS ON PROMOTION AND THE AWARD OF TENURE

 

9.8.1                  General.  All employment decisions regarding promotion and the award of tenure must ultimately be made by the Board of Trustees.  However, recommendations for promotion and tenure normally originate at the department level and are submitted by department chairs to the responsible college deans.   These recommendations are then reviewed by the deans and college advisory committees before being submitted to the Provost.  Deans may at their discretion initiate promotion and tenure award proceedings, and may at their discretion initiate any personnel action except the termination of the employment of a faculty member.  Normally, however, deans exercise de novo jurisdiction over applications for promotion and the award of tenure, reviewing the written recommendations advanced by departmental personnel committees, department chairs, and college advisory committees.  In either event, deans submit the dossiers of faculty members being considered for promotion in rank and award of tenure to College Advisory Committees.  This section addresses procedures governing applications for promotion and the award of tenure, and reviews thereof, above the departmental level.

 

 

From your selection:

"Normally, however, deans exercise de novo jurisdiction over applications for promotion and the award of tenure, reviewing the written recommendations advanced by departmental personnel committees, department chairs, and college advisory committees."

In this instance, the dean did, in fact, not exercise de novo jurisdiction, which by the terms above, makes the so called process abnormal. Not only did the dean make the agreement but also allowed the applicant to publicize the agreement [this is factual, not hearsay]. The dean biased the departmental and college votes with his recorded agreement. His involvement was prejudicial to the process and therefore invalidates this so called process.

Left ASAP, you sound like a jailhouse lawyer trying to find a reason to punish a whistleblower who exposed corruption rather than punish the corrupt. If you allow the veil of confidentiality to be as broad as anyone would like, then there would be no crime -- everything anybody does would be covered under some sort of confidentiality. Just keep your mouth shut and you'll be rewarded.

How odd for the person who made the breech of confidentiality, thus causing the only "harm" involved here - the harm to the candidate - to claim "whistleblower" status.  Frankly, it's absurd.

Southern Justice wrote:

---

... Left ASAP, you sound like a jailhouse lawyer trying to find a reason to punish a whistleblower who exposed corruption rather than punish the corrupt. If you allow the veil of confidentiality to be as broad as anyone would like, then there would be no crime -- everything anybody does would be covered under some sort of confidentiality. Just keep your mouth shut and you'll be rewarded.

---

No, Southern Justice, I have no dog in the fight.  All I did was read the Handbook and see that your statements didn't match what is the stated there.  Your "interpretations" are a stretch at best.  In this system there are ways to appeal, if you have a dog in the fight, and find out if your "interpretations" have merit.  I hope you get that chance. But just because you call a document written by the Dean a "contract", doesn't make it true. 

 

I had many discussions with my chair, dean and assistant dean (not in CoB) concerning decisions that would benefit my promotion and/or tenure.  Some were via email.   Do you consider those "contracts"?  My dept Committee didn't and considered some activities to be more important to our department than the dean considered and some of the dean's suggestions not in the best interest our department.  Shared Governance sometimes makes it hard to please everyone, but in the end the faculty position stood up in my case.