Faculty Governance Takes a Blow in the CoB - USM Forum -- Message Board

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

Faculty Governance Takes a Blow in the CoB

Interested onlooker · Status: Offline

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "chair plus two" committee (option 2? in a former life) was used for many years in various liberal arts departments. It must still be an option in the handbook if EFIB chose it. If thehandbook specifies that the faculty votes on the options, shouldn't the vote be binding?

Cossack · Status: Offline

While the statement was made by the Chairman that he had legal advice, he acknowledged that he did not have it writing. It was not clear to me who had issued the legal advice to the Chairman. I would find it unusual that a University Attorney would make such an ad hoc ruling on an important provision in the Faculty Handbook.

CoBster in Residence · Status: Offline

Interested onlooker wrote:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "chair plus two" committee (option 2? in a former life) was used for many years in various liberal arts departments. It must still be an option in the handbook if EFIB chose it. If thehandbook specifies that the faculty votes on the options, shouldn't the vote be binding?

The vote should be binding. This is another example of how administrators in the CoB behave when someone threatens to expose their bull**** activities. From what I've been told, Carter didn't want to share information with the other two committee members, so he pulled this stunt to get around the will of the faculty. By the time the re-vote occurred, he had an opportunity to hand out $15-20k of Doty's "fun money" to buy some support from young faculty who have no perspective on what they're doing.

ram · Status: Offline

Cossack wrote:

While the statement was made by the Chairman that he had legal advice, he acknowledged that he did not have it writing.

"The law" just ain't as simple and direct as the rules printed inside a Scrabble box. "The law" is usually developing in a changing tension between competing interests. One law has even been described as hardly more than an interesting preface to the catalog of its exceptions.

Most of the time, when someone says they have received "legal advice" they are (a) trying to hide behind the absent lawyer, (b) arguing with an "appeal to authority," or (c) both of the above. Unless the lawyer rendering the opinion is wearing a black dress (i.e., is a judge) or is the attorney general, who gives a rip what the opinion is? Lawyers are paid to have opinions consistent with the perceived best interests of their clients. That's why there is a lawyer on BOTH sides of every legal controversy.

Curmudgeon · Status: Offline

Interested onlooker wrote:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "chair plus two" committee (option 2? in a former life) was used for many years in various liberal arts departments. It must still be an option in the handbook if EFIB chose it. If the handbook specifies that the faculty votes on the options, shouldn't the vote be binding?

Yes, the vote is binding. The two faculty members should proceed without the chair to handle the appropriate personnel matters. The chair and the dean should provide the necessary documents and notifications to allow them to complete their work. If the chair would prefer not to participate, that's his call. The committee has been formed for a year. In the interest of safeguarding faculty participation in other departments, the two faculty members initially elected should really dig in their heels on this one. Otherwise, any chair can easily scuttle this governance option.

Also, the Faculty Senate should investigate this situation as a violation of the Faculty Handbook.

stephen judd · Status: Offline

I've abstracted the original post and sent it on to the executive committee. We have a lot of irons in the fire but this certainly is important if the events are as described.

Polyonymous · Status: Offline

"With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost."

William Lloyd Garrison

Wonder if ol' Will considered that unreasonable, inhumane, tyrranical men could be found everywhere.

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

Stephen,

The events are worse than described. Now Doty has sent out an email to the provost, the CoB, and the faculty senate supporting the revote, even though he admits that he isn't fully informed of the facts. I ask the USM Faculty Senate to consider this situation. Documentation can be provided for distribution to the entire Senate. If allowed to stand, all a chair needs is some "good reason" (by whose standards??) to dissolve an Option 2 committee and effectively reduce the USM Handbook faculty governance options from three to two.

DVN

stephen judd · Status: Offline

Got it. Thanks . . . . I'll raise it with exec committee and talk to the senators from COB.

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

stephen judd wrote:

Got it. Thanks . . . . I'll raise it with exec committee and talk to the senators from COB.

Thanks, Stephen.

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

Stephen Judd,

You've got a Private Message.

DVN

stephen judd · Status: Offline

OK

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

Here's an interesting update.

One of the two professors who was most vocal against Carter's coup d'etat has received a 5 day-a-week teaching (MWF and Tues night at Hattiesburg and Thurs afternoon at USMGC -- three preparations (2 of these new preparations)) schedule from Chairman Carter for the Spring Semester. This schedule is clearly out of line with the assignments given to other faculty with much less research productivity. To the best of my knowledge, this particular faculty member has published over 100 scholarly articles in his 12-year USM career, has won the CoB biennial research award three times (roughly every time he was eligible to win it), and was the CoB's "Aubrey and Ella Lucas Teaching Excellence Award" nominee two years ago.

George Carter is "off the rails" on this one and has demonstrated his instability by blatantly punishing those who practice academic free speech in his department. Those faculty who opposed his power grab are being publicly flogged at every opportunity. Doty is now openly and vocally supporting Carter's efforts to regain the status quo.

-- Edited by Dr VanNostren at 01:36, 2006-10-05

-- Edited by Dr VanNostren at 01:37, 2006-10-05

LVN · Status: Offline

When faculty are punished, it's students who suffer. The faculty member, ultimately, has the option to leave. Most USM students do not.

Addendum:

Does anyone know of a USM faculty member who has left for a worse position? When you review cece/babbs' lists, it looks as if almost everyone has improved his or her situation. Administrators might be mindful of that fact as well.

-- Edited by LVN at 10:42, 2006-10-05

Incredulous · Status: Offline

Actually, it is very easy for a student to transfer out and even easier to enroll somewhere else in the first place. It is no accident that USM Hattiesburg enrollment has been in decline for three years. That said, many USM students are place bound for family or economic reasons. Others lack the confidence to go far from home. For most of our students, USM is where you go after junior college.

Voter · Status: Offline

Incredulous wrote:

For most of our students, USM is where you go after junior college.

Correction, Incredulous: it's where they go FOR junior college.

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

To update:

One of the two "Chair Plus Two" committee members who was duly elected by EFIB faculty and then removed illegitimately by Carter has filed a grievance over the issue. Carter orchestrated the illegitimate action because he was offended at anonymous writings supposedly authored by some EFIB faculty member; Carter stated that he couldn't trust other members of the department. In short, somebody's right to free speech offended him, so he dissolved the departmental governance committee to punish free speech. Carter has no evidence that anyone associated with EFIB authored the document that offended him.

CoB Dean Harold Doty's response is that the issue doesn't "meet the minimal sufficiency requirements for initiating a faculty grievance." The fact is that the USM Faculty Handbook explicitly lists issues of academic freedom as legitimate bases for grievance procedures. Doty is wrong on this issue, especially as the grievance has significant bases in legitimate issues other than academic freedom.

Doty supported Carter's actions even while admitting in writing that he didn't understand all of the issues or have all of the facts. Ask yourself some questions: Why don't Carter and Doty want duly elected faculty members participating in shared governance? Why does Doty attempt to squelch shared governance even when he admits to not having all the facts?