FACULTY SENATE AGENDA
August 28, 2001
3:30pm—Ferguson Forum
Role Call and Quorum Check (Keith Woodbury)
Presentation of President Sorensen and his Executive Staff
Approval/Corrections to the Minutes for May 15 (Keith Woodbury)
Action Items
Greek Desegregation Resolution
Constitution Reform Seminar Proposal (a short proposal will be available at the meeting)
Modifications to the Mediation and Grievance Document
President’s Report (Norm Baldwin)
Faculty Priorities Survey
Ad Hoc Committee on the Evaluation of Deans and Chairs
Vice President’s Report (Steve Miller)
Secretary’s Report (Keith Woodbury)
Reports from Senate Committees
Academic Affairs (Don Desmet and Beth Macauley)
Posting (on the web) of student evaluations
Inconsistent tenure and promotion standards between departments and colleges
Faculty Life (Jerry Rosiek)
Employment statement that includes gender and sexual orientation
Maternity leave policy for the Faculty Handbook
Emeritus College
Financial Affairs (Terry Royed)
Intellectual Property Rights proposal
Health insurance for graduate students
Joining the Worker’s Rights Consortium (moving from the FLA)
Test Services and other units passing on expenses to the academic side of the University
Planning and Operations (Bill Keel and John Mason)
Fall break
Final Exams: Tuesday due date for final exam grades; Saturday finals when Test Services are closed; Move Saturday finals up a week.
ACHE data presentation (instructional/non-instructional split; TA data)
Environmental Audit—should we do one?
Research and Service (Bing Blewitt)
Library fines and book replacement policy for faculty
Student Affairs (Dexter Gordon and Alvin Winters)
Greek desegregation resolution
Potential rent-gouging of Mallet Assembly members (resolved)
Senate Operations (Steve Miller and Harry Price)
Mediation and Grievance Document
Ombudsman language for the Bylaws
Implementation of "Shared Governance Document" principles
Clarification of Senate Eligibility and Senate Reapportionment (before next election)
Reports from University Standing and Other Committees
New Business
Old Business
Announcements
senateagenda
A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR DESEGREGATION OF THE GREEK SYSTEM AND THE MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS END
Whereas
integration of the student body at The University of Alabama has not ensured that the structures and organizations within the University are desegregated, andWhereas the most egregious failure to achieve desegregation within the University occurs in a system of 36 all-white Greek social fraternities and sororities with approximately 3,000 members, and
Whereas desegregation of the white Greek system was addressed in Student Affairs in the 1970s and has been focus of Faculty Senate legislation in the mid-1980s, the early 1990s, and the year 2000. And whereas the goal of the Greek Accreditation Program was to end segregation in the Greek system by 1996, and
Whereas none of these efforts or other efforts by the Administration and students have resulted in a single African-American joining an all-white fraternity or sorority, and
Whereas a segregated Greek system is especially offensive to and discriminatory of African-American citizens and students who, as taxpayers, share in the ownership of the state property on which these race-exclusive organizations reside, and
Whereas a segregated Greek system is especially pernicious and threatening to the rights of minorities because the system exists on state property, thus giving race-exclusive organizations the implicit approval by the state, and
Whereas failure to desegregate the white Greek systems relegates African-Americans to a second class citizenship through denying them the equality, freedom, and respect called for in the Constitutional and moral frameworks that shape our country, state, culture, and University, and
Whereas desegregation better prepares students for work environments and societal structures that are increasingly multiracial, multicultural, and international, and
Whereas the Faculty Senate believes that the majority of our students are not racists; that students desire an integrated Greek system; that a minority of racist students, alumni, citizens, and administrators obstruct desegregation of the Greek system; and that various structures, policies, traditions, and practices of the Greek system cause an "institutional" racism that inhibits the desegregation of the system. And, whereas this institutional racism includes segregated rush; blackball and recommendation systems, and reward structures that fail to encourage faculty and staff to work with Greek organizations to become more inclusive, and
Whereas desegregation of the Greek system affords The University of Alabama a rare, profound, and historic opportunity to turn the page on our racially divided past and to write a new chapter in the racial history of our University.
Therefore be it resolved that the Faculty Senate calls for a desegregated Greek system at The University of Alabama that transcends token integration to realize a racial inclusivity that will bear the test of time and serve as a model of excellence for other institutions of higher learning. We call for a Greek system that will be a beacon to all that The University of Alabama is a sanctuary where minorities are welcomed, included, protected, and celebrated in all aspects of university life. To this end, the that Faculty Senate advocates the following approaches to achieving a desegregated Greek system:
MEANS TO ACHIEVING A DESEGREGATED GREEK SYSTEM
Unified Rush.
Be it resolved that the Greeks and Administration work together to develop a system of unified, or integrated, rush that ensures that African-Americans are exposed to the White fraternities and sororities and that Whites are exposed to African-American fraternities and sororities. Such a system will enhance appreciation and understanding of the diversity of Greek organizations, identify who is interested and capable of pledging, broaden choices for rushees, and make a clear statement that the University has one Greek system, not two racially bifurcated systems.
Be it resolved that racial differences in rush systems, rush traditions, and threats to the financial viability of fraternities and sororities are unacceptable justifications for failing to develop and implement a unified system of rush. Let the Administration make clear that allowing minorities to realize their social equality, freedom, and self worth overrides short-run inconveniences and other morally shallow objections to a unified system of rush. Let the Greeks make clear that the success of unified system of rush is contingent upon their meaningful participation in the development of the system. Be it further resolved that the Faculty Senate sees no reason for failing to implement a system of unified rush beginning in the 2002-2003 academic year.
Modifications to Blackball Systems and Recommendation Systems.
Be it further resolved that fraternities and sororities implement modification to selection practices, such as blackball systems, that would allow a small number of racially motivated Greeks to prevent a worthy minority from receiving an invitation to join a fraternity or sorority. Be it further resolved that sororities implement modifications to the practice of requiring recommendations from sorority alumni in order for a prospective minority to receive a bid to join a sorority. Given that African-Americans and other minorities have never been a part of the white Greek system at the University of Alabama, they cannot be expected to have the network of Greek alumni support that white rushees have.
C. Zero Tolerance for Alumni and Citizen Threats and Actions
Be it further resolved that the University should not accept financial donations to the University that are contingent upon maintaining a racially segregated Greek system. Be it further resolved that University not waver in its commitment to desegregate the Greek system when alumni and citizens threaten to send or follow through with sending their children to other institutions because of desegregation efforts. We recommend that the University adopt a policy of zero tolerance for the bigotry of those who attempt to hold the University hostage by threatening to withdraw or following through with withdrawing their children or financial support if the University proceeds with Greek desegregation.
D. Sanctions for Racial Discrimination in Selection and for Social Boycotts
While sanctions should be reserved for extreme and recurring problems, denying an individual admission to a fraternity or sorority because of their minority status is an invidious act that should be met with University sanctions. Threats to socially boycott (e.g., refuse to date members of or hold social functions with) fraternities or sororities that want to integrate and actions that coerce individuals to socially boycott fraternities or sororities that do integrate are also invidious acts that should be met with sanctions.
E. Faculty Involvement and Rewards for Involvement
Be it further resolved that we the faculty extend ourselves beyond our admonitions to desegregate the Greek system to become a part of the team to help implement the changes necessary for desegregating the Greek system. We implore the faculty to attend Greek functions, to become advisors to Greek houses, to help identify students who might be interested in integrating fraternities or sororities, and to inspire inclusiveness by setting an example of inclusiveness. We further encourage the administration to demonstrate its commitment to the desegregation of the Greek system by rewarding faculty and staff who become involved in this important cause.
F. Greek Accreditation
Be it further resolved that the University re-institute the Greek Accreditation Program in which fraternities and sororities are expected to make progress toward racial inclusiveness within a timeframe. Timeframes should be sensitive to the genuine efforts and progress of Greek organizations and to the historical passivity of some Greek organizations. Failure to make efforts or progress within reasonable timeframes should result in measures commensurate with the seriousness of the failure. Measures might include increased Student Life assistance in and oversight of desegregation efforts, more aggressive plans for desegregation, reductions in social functions (parties), limits on participation in intramural sports, and suspension from campus. Suspension from campus should be reserved for fraternities and sororities that are the most passive and resistant to desegregating the Greek system and for fraternity and sororities that arbitrarily discriminate against minorities. Although the Faculty Senate prefers that Greek desegregation occurs without force or sanctions, we recognize that, without such means as a final resort, desegregation has not occurred and minority rushees have been subjected to discrimination.
G. Commendations for Outreach
Recognizing that Greek organizations at the University of Alabama have increased their interracial outreach in recent years, the Faculty Senate commends the interracial Greek Week teams, the interracial philanthropic activities, and the interracial dinner swaps among Greeks. We commend Alpha Phi Alpha, Delta Kappa Epsilon, Omega Psi Phi, and Phi Pi Kappa Phi for their interracial social events. We commend the white sororities that participated in National Pan-Hellenic Council step show and the fraternity and sororities that have eliminated their blackball systems. We also commend the Dean of Student’s Office for its advice and inspiration for many of these activities and for conducting diversity training of Greek Presidents and recruitment officers over the past two years. We especially commend the racial integration that has occurred in the African-American fraternities and sororities in past years and the Dean of Students’ Office efforts to identify and cultivate existing Greek organizations that are committed to integration, students who might be willing integrate the white Greek system, and new fraternities and sororities that would colonize at UA as a racially integrated organizations.
H. Concluding Charge
Believing that the majority of our student are not racist, the Faculty Senate implores our Greeks to let their conscience rise to the level of voice and action against the individuals, policies, and structures that prevent African-American and other minorities from realizing their rightful status on our campus. We implore the Greeks to stand tall against the forces of racism in the Greek system and to let no one stand alone in this struggle. And to this end, the Faculty Senate pledges its support and calls on Greek alumni, the national Greek organizations, University administrators and staff, and the citizens of our State to stand alongside the Greeks who step forward to bring about the changes necessary for desegregating the Greek system. Let us unite to open all the doors within the University of Alabama so that no student will fear or experience rejection because of the color of their skin or any other arbitrary physical characteristic. Let us unite to show all the people that the racially divisive forces that tarnished the image and reputation of the University of Alabama in the 20th century will not be permitted to restrain the open arms and warm embrace of The University of Alabama in the 21st century.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: The Faculty Senate
From: Senate Operations Committee
Re: Modifications of the Mediation and Grievance System
Date: 8.24.01
The process of proposing changes to the Mediation Document (Appendix B of the Faculty Handbook) has been a long one. The following proposal merges desires of the Provost and desires of the Faculty. The Faculty Senate understands that Dean Rogers, speaking for the Deans’ Council, has accepted and will support the principles of these changes. (This proposal replaces one which passed the Senate and was circulated to the Provost and the Deans in the winter and spring of 2000-01.)
The first change streamlines the process of selecting the panel from which Hearing Tribunals are chosen by the parties to a grievance. The Provost desired to replace the burdensome mechanism of selecting a large number of faculty panelists from the Faculty Directory at random each August. The faculty considers the Mediation and Grievance Process a faculty process, and notes that the Provost and President, in review of a Tribunal’s decision, acting for the administration, can always correct any perceived pro-faculty bias. Under the proposal, the Faculty Senate will elect a 21-member Board of tenured faculty, each serving a three-year nonrenewable term, from whom Tribunal panels will be chosen. Concomitantly, the number of panel members on any Tribunal has been lowered from 5 to 3, responding to another request from the Provost to lessen the amount of time taken up from faculty as a whole in the grievance process.
The second change satisfies the desires of the Provost, and a large number of faculty, to eliminate professional attorney participation in the grievance Tribunal stage of the process, to the extent possible. Under the proposal, attorneys, acting as attorneys, will be allowed only in a grievance concerning the dismissal of a faculty member or the imposition of a severe sanction. Many have found the presence of attorneys at hearings to be harsh, confusing, productive of delay and an excess of adversariness, and unhelpful. The proposal encourages academics to deal with difficult academic problems within an academic context, and thus encourages faculty governance. It also establishes a process for a Tribunal to select an attorney if it wishes, in a relatively cost-free manner.
The third change eliminates the confusion surrounding "sanctions" and the dismissal of faculty members. It collects all of the pertinent provisions in one place, eliminates the terms "petitioner" and "respondent" and resulting confusion, clarifies matters of procedure and burden of proof, and confirms that the grievance process is a faculty matter. The bulk of these changes have been strongly desired by the Provost and faculty, while other changes have been made to clarify the system and protect faculty interests.
The fourth change, a relatively minor one, requires the University to provide a copy of any transcript of a hearing, without cost (but does NOT require a transcript of each Hearing), and requires the University to bear the cost burden of a Tribunal (but NOT the cost of any attorney of a faculty member, where permitted).
The fifth change adds a section in which compelling instances of faculty-to-faculty grievances are handled in the Mediation and Grievance System. The purpose of this section is to codify situations that have been handled in an ad hoc manner in the past, and is to be used only as a last resort when all else fails and the administrators involved are unable to resolve the situation.
P R O P O S E D C H A N G E S
A. Delete the entire Part II.C.2, pp. 89-90 ("Constituting Hearing Tribunals"), and replace it with the following:
2. Constituting Hearing Tribunals
Each hearing Tribunal will consist of three members selected by the processes described below.
At the April meeting of the Faculty Senate next following adoption of this language, the Faculty Senate shall select 21 tenured members of the faculty of The University of Alabama, each of whose FTE in teaching and/or research is 0.5 or greater, to be Tribunal Board members. The 21 should then be divided by lot into groups of 7 members each. The three groups shall serve terms of three, two, or one year(s) respectively[, commencing May 1]. At each succeeding April meeting of the Faculty Senate, the Faculty Senate shall select 7 tenured faculty members (as above) to serve three-year terms as Tribunal Board members. [A Tribunal Board member whose FTE in teaching and/or research drops below 0.5 shall immediately vacate the position.] The Senate shall fill any vacancies by selecting similarly qualified faculty members, who shall serve out the remainder of the term(s) vacated.
The members of the Tribunal Board shall elect a chair to serve a one year term, and shall fill vacancies in the chair for the remainder of the term vacated.
Upon completion of a term (or portion of a term) of service on the Tribunal Board, a faculty member shall be ineligible for reelection to that Board for a period of three years.
When it becomes necessary to have a Tribunal, the University Mediation Committee shall inform the chair of the Tribunal Board about the pertinent grievance. Tribunal Board members after discussion and consideration may recuse themselves, but the central importance of faculty participation in University governance requires that Board members recuse themselves only for compelling reasons such as bias or interest.
The parties to the grievance shall choose the Tribunal members from those Tribunal Board members remaining. Beginning with the faculty party, each party shall alternately strike a name from the list until only three remain. If either party declines to strike, the other party may continue. If both parties cease to strike, the Tribunal shall be completed by lot, from the names remaining.
The three Tribunal members shall select their chair.
No person may serve on more than one Tribunal at a time.
A person who leaves the University’s employment during the course of a grievance may retain his or her seat on a Tribunal. In the event the person leaving the University chooses not to retain his/her seat, or if a Tribunal member is otherwise unable to continue, the member is replaced with a remaining person who was not struck or, if none exists, the last struck member. Any person selected to a Tribunal may serve on the Tribunal until the work of the Tribunal is completed.
Advisors appointed by the Mediation Committee may continue to assist the parties at their request, but otherwise than as herein stated the Mediation Committee shall have no further role in the proceedings of a Tribunal. The chair of the Tribunal Board will notify the office of Academic Affairs of the needs of the Tribunal, and will act as liaison from the Tribunal to the administration, in order to arrange locations, timetables, and the availability of desired and/or required resources which the University may or must provide. The chair of the Tribunal Board shall maintain a model set of timetables for Tribunals to consider when adopting their rules and procedures.
B. Amend Part I.C.1, p. 85 ("The Role of Attorneys") by replacing the whole with the following, concomitantly deleting the first paragraph, and the third (and longest) sentence of the second paragraph, of Part II.C.3, p. 90 ("Procedures in Cases Involving Formal Hearings"):
1. The Role of Attorneys
In order to further collegiality, to have grievances of faculty which relate to the academic world dealt with by faculty, to lessen time spent in the grievance process, to minimize the adversarial nature of both mediation and proceedings before hearing Tribunals, and to eliminate the harshness which attorneys may bring to the resolution of grievances, the use of attorneys in the Mediation and Grievance System at The University of Alabama is discouraged.
During the mediation stage, the parties to a grievance may be neither represented nor accompanied by any attorney at any of the meetings called as part of the mediation process, though they are free to consult attorneys before or after such meetings.
With the exceptions mentioned below, during any post-mediation proceedings in the system, including those before hearing Tribunals, no party may be represented by an attorney, although an attorney may be present as an observer. An observer may not address the Tribunal. Attorneys may not be consulted by any party when a hearing Tribunal is sitting, nor may a recess be obtained for the purpose of consulting an attorney; nor may any party consult an attorney during the process of selecting a Tribunal. Any party may consult an attorney before or after any hearing, Tribunal selection, or other process which forms part of the post-mediation proceedings. This paragraph also applies if the parties choose not to engage in the mediation stage.
The exceptions are (1) the instance of the attempted revocation of the tenure of a tenured faculty member for adequate cause, where a dispute exists as to the facts or the adequacy of the cause presented (see Chapter Two, Part XIV); (2) the instance of an administrator seeking to dismiss a probationary faculty member or a full-time temporary faculty member before the end of the term of employment specified either by the Faculty Handbook or by a contract between the University and the individual; and (3) the instance of a faculty grievance against the imposition of a severe sanction. In any such instance, if a hearing before a Tribunal is scheduled, the faculty member has the option of deciding whether the parties may be represented or accompanied by attorneys during proceedings before the Tribunal; the opposing party may not be represented or accompanied by an attorney during proceedings before the Tribunal unless the faculty member exercises this privilege. Special procedures and rules apply to such hearings. (See below, Part II.C.4, "Special Rules and Procedures in Cases Involving Severe Sanctions, Tenure Termination, or Early Dismissal.")
A Tribunal may choose to be represented by an attorney, or to have its observer be an attorney. In such an instance, the attorney may be present at all sessions, including any prehearing sessions, but may only advise the Tribunal or any member of it and shall not participate in the proceedings otherwise. The Tribunal Board shall maintain a list of attorneys on the University faculty. A Tribunal that desires counsel shall canvass the persons on the list, in any order it chooses, to ascertain the willingness of any of them to help the Tribunal. If the Tribunal is unable to obtain the services of an attorney on the University faculty, it shall negotiate the matter of its counsel directly with the Provost’s office, taking the chance that it will be unrepresented by counsel, with each Tribunal member retaining the option of resignation from the Tribunal. No member of the Office of University Counsel may serve a Tribunal as its attorney or observer.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a faculty member who is an attorney from bringing a grievance, nor an administrator who is an attorney from being a party to a grievance.
C. Delete Part I.C.3, p. 85 ("Sanctions by Administrators"); delete the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of Part II.C.1, pp. 88-89 ("Requirements for Formal Hearings"); replace the word "petitioner" with the word "grievant," and replace the word "respondent" with the words "opposing party," at each place those words appear in the 3rd and 11th paragraphs of Part II.C.3, pp. 90-91 ("Procedures in Cases Involving Formal Hearings"), and in what is now Part II.C.5, p. 92 ("Findings and Reports of Hearing Tribunals"); delete the parenthesis in the 3rd paragraph of Part II.C.3, above; add a new Part II.C.4 ("Special Rules and Procedures in Cases Involving Severe Sanction, Tenure Termination, or Early Dismissal"), as follows, on p. 91; renumber the presently numbered parts II.C.4-6 respectively as Parts II.C.5-7, pp. 91-92; and renumber the reference in what is now II.C.5 to "Section II.C.4" as "Section II.C.5" (p. 92):
4. Special Rules and Procedures in Cases Involving Severe Sanctions, Tenure Termination, or Early Dismissal
The following special rules and procedures apply to cases involving severe sanctions, the attempted termination of the tenure of a tenured faculty member for adequate cause, or the instance of an administrator seeking to dismiss a probationary faculty member or a full-time temporary faculty member before the end of the term of employment specified either by the Faculty Handbook or by a contract between the University and the individual. Unless a situation is covered herein, the rules and procedures stated elsewhere in this Appendix B apply.
Severe sanction.* An administrator may choose to impose a severe sanction on a faculty member. Any of the following shall constitute a severe sanction: suspension of a faculty member from service for a stated period, relieving a faculty member from teaching duties in other than extraordinary circumstances (see Chapter Two, Part XIV), reduction in academic year salary (unless all faculty members have their salaries reduced pro rata due to emergency), or violation of a written and duly approved departmental, divisional, or University policy, rule, or regulation that has a negative impact on the faculty member. Other actions may constitute a severe sanction, but decisions made by administrators in the ordinary course of their administration that do not discriminate unfairly against a faculty member will not be considered severe sanctions for these purposes.
If a faculty member thinks that an action taken against him or her by an administrator constitutes a severe sanction, the faculty member will so notify the Mediation Committee in writing within two work weeks after having been notified of the action.
The Mediation Committee will decide whether an action taken by an administrator, other than those specified above, constitutes a severe sanction. A decision adverse to the faculty member may be reversed upon immediate appeal to the Provost, who will in writing so notify the administrator. If the Committee agrees with the faculty member, it will in writing so notify the administrator. In this instance, or the instance of a reversal by the Provost, the administrator who does not decide to withdraw the severe sanction will then expeditiously follow the steps set forth herein, commencing by putting the severe sanction in writing (see below).
Hearing Tribunal Option Required. The University is required to provide to the affected faculty member the option of a formal hearing before a Tribunal in instances when an administrator decides to impose a severe sanction, or to terminate a tenured faculty member for adequate cause where a dispute exists as to the facts or the adequacy of the cause presented (or both), or to dismiss a probationary faculty member or full-time temporary faculty member before the end of the term of employment specified either by the Faculty Handbook or by a contract between the University and the individual.
Written notification; settlement. To commence any such action as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the administrator wishing to invoke a severe sanction, dismiss such a probationary or full-time temporary faculty member, or terminate the tenure of a tenured faculty member for cause, will notify the faculty member in writing of the action to be taken[, with a summary of the reasons and charges made]. The faculty member and appropriate administrative officers will then discuss the matter, looking toward a mutual settlement. If during the process, at this or any future stage, the parties reach agreement, no further steps are necessary.
If the faculty member is not so notified in writing, no such severe sanction, dismissal, or termination of tenure may be made.
Written statement; rebuttal. If a mutual settlement is not achieved within a reasonable time following such notification to the faculty member, the administrator will expeditiously provide to the faculty member and to the Mediation Committee a full written statement of reasons and charges, framed with reasonable detail and particularity. If the faculty member disputes the sufficiency of the detail and particularity of this notice, he or she will so notify the Mediation Committee, which will deal with issues of the required amount of detail and particularity, and can require the administrator to amplify the statement of reasons and charges. Within a reasonable time after receipt of a proper full written statement (no less than two work weeks, unless the faculty member opts to submit it sooner), the faculty member shall submit a written rebuttal of the full written statement to the administrator and the Mediation Committee.
Additional requirements and provisions in an attempted termination of tenure. In the instance of attempted termination of a tenured faculty member, normally the termination date will be set at least one calendar year in the future. The written statement (just mentioned) shall state the cause or causes deemed adequate, in detail, with supporting facts. The administrator shall also deliver to the faculty member copies of all supporting documents, plus other material deemed relevant by the administrator. All documents and other items merely referred to in the writing will be provided to the faculty member immediately upon request to the administrator.
When a faculty member does not dispute either the facts or the adequacy of the cause, the faculty member may resign immediately or receive immediate termination, or may serve out all or a portion of the period specified, as the parties may agree.
The faculty member may dispute either the facts or the adequacy of the cause (or both), by filing a written rebuttal with both the administrator and the Mediation Committee within a reasonable time (not less than two work weeks, unless the faculty member opts to file sooner) after receipt of the full written statement of reasons and charges and the supporting documentation.
Committee determination. Within a reasonable time after the rebuttal has been received, the Mediation Committee will expeditiously undertake an informal inquiry to determine whether in its opinion proceedings should be continued, and shall communicate its opinion to both the administrator and the faculty member, without its opinion being binding on either. (In divisions which have a regular standing committee of faculty members elected by the faculty for this purpose, or elected by the faculty to serve as advisors to the dean, the administrator may ask such committee to undertake the informal inquiry in the place of the Mediation Committee, by delivering a copy of the full written statement of reasons and charges and the faculty member’s rebuttal to that committee, simultaneously notifying the Mediation Committee in writing.)
Waiver. If the administrator decides to proceed after receiving the opinion of the committee, the Mediation Committee will inquire whether the faculty member waives the right to a hearing Tribunal. If the faculty member waives this right, the University may impose the penalty requested by the administrator, or any lesser penalty (including, in the instance of the termination of a tenured faculty member, a period of continued teaching or service). Otherwise, the Mediation Committee will proceed to the establishment of a Tribunal.
Posture of the Grievance. The faculty member will be considered to grieve the written statement of reasons and charges presented by the administrator. The party with the burden of proof will put on evidence first.
Burden of Proof. In instances of attempted termination of a tenured faculty member, or a severe sanction of reduction in academic year salary, the burden of proof will be upon the administrator, to be satisfied by clear and convincing evidence in cases of attempted termination and a preponderance of the evidence in cases of severe sanction.
Findings. The hearing Tribunal will make written findings of fact concerning each reason and charge stated by the administrator, and will decide whether an allegation has been rebutted, or, when the burden of proof is on the administrator, established, by a preponderance of the evidence. The Tribunal will also make written recommendations.
*A severe sanction and a minor sanction are differentiated in Section Seven of the 1990 Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure, on page 27 of the AAUP Policy Documents and Reports (2001 Edition).
D. Add to the end of the 5th paragraph of Part II.C.3 ("Procedures in Cases Involving Formal Hearings"), p. 90, the following:
Otherwise, if the University makes a transcript of any Tribunal hearing, it will provide a copy without cost to the faculty party. All paper and other costs generated by a Tribunal, except the cost of the faculty member’s attorney if any, shall be borne by the University. Each member is allowed to bring a recorder or make an independent record of the proceeding. The Tribunal is responsible for making the official record of the proceedings. The Tribunal will make a transcript of the hearing whenever the hearing concerns charges brought by an administrator.
E. Add a new subsection 3 to Part I.C (Additional Aspects of the System), as follows; also, add the words and commas ", faculty member," between the words "administrator" and "or faculty committee" in the 2nd paragraph of Part I.B (Scope and Purpose of the System), in the 1st paragraph of Part II.A (Administrative Resolution of Grievances), and in the 2nd paragraph of Part II.B (Mediation of Grievances):
3. Grievances by One Faculty Member Against Another
It happens infrequently that one faculty member perceives that another faculty member is abusing his or her position as a faculty member to the prejudice of the first faculty member in an academically-related matter. Where process and remedy for such perceived abuse are set forth elsewhere in this Handbook, the Mediation and Grievance System shall not apply. (See, for example, Appendix I, Sexual Harassment Policy, and Appendix L, Policy on Academic Misconduct in Scholarly Activities.)
It is a part of the task of administrators to resolve such problems properly and fairly. Few such perceived abuses – and only those resulting in grave prejudice, or of primary importance to the academic community – should be brought into the Mediation and Grievance System.
It may be that the appropriate administrator is unable to resolve the problem, or that the nature of the problem, involving an untenured faculty member, renders it seemingly inadvisable for the problem to be brought to the appropriate administrator. The faculty member may appeal to the Mediation Committee, which will then follow its usual procedures (see Part II.B, Mediation of Grievances, below). The Committee’s standard of acceptability is higher in such instances: the action of the allegedly offending faculty member must have been gravely prejudicial, or the matter must be of primary importance to the academic community, or the actions of the administrator(s) to resolve the matter are deemed inappropriate.
The word "faculty member" as usually used in this Document means the grievant not the allegedly offending faculty member.