On Jan. 14, the Faculty Senate took a step in the right direction.
Without many objections, members of the senate voted in favor of a resolution that will now allow a committee of faculty members to act as a check to unnecessary pressure in the process of the faculty grievance procedure. The resolution, as reported in the Jan. 15 issue of The News, calls for the implementation of an oversight of due process into the procedure as it concerns suspension of faculty without pay. Provost Stephen Director will have the ultimate approval or disapproval of the resolution.
Currently, when a complaint reaches Donnie Perkins, dean and director for the Office of Affirmative Action and Diversity, he conducts a confidential investigation of the matter. Perkins then makes a recommendation to Director, who judges the outcome based on the proposal and can issue sanctions as severe as dismissal or suspension of a faculty member for a year without pay.
In the past, concerns about the lack of transparency with the total confidentiality in the current system arose among faculty members because they said they felt the procedure made it impossible to affirm that due process was followed. On the upside, the new system will allow for transparency with faculty oversight in the process to assure that due process is followed.
Also in the past, the Faculty Senate has made requests to President Joseph Aoun and the provost to work with faculty to ensure ‘greater transparency’ within the university. When President Aoun’s administration has acted transparently in the past, it has rarely done so without outside prompting. The Faculty Senate had to push for the ability to staff the Provost Search Committee, according to a Dec. 3, 2007 editorial in The Northeastern News.
In November 2007, the Provost Search Committee held two forums with students and faculty to discuss the search process for a new provost. Although the meetings were created as an open forum to discuss a variety of issues, a majority of the questions posed by attendees regarded the search committee’s methods, according to the editorial.
If the Provost Search Committee had worked harder to create a more transparent method and provided the university with more information about it prior to the meeting, the committee could have heard more important concerns about the selection of the next provost like the qualities and traits the university community felt the new provost should have possessed.’
Similarly, mathematics Professor David Massey was suspended March 3, 2008 through Fall 2008 for undisclosed reasons relating to the university’s equal opportunity policy, as reported in a June 4, 2008 article of The News. Students, staff, faculty and parents questioned whether the administration followed appropriate procedures when making the decision to suspend him, the article said, and the details of the case were not made public.
With the new procedure, once Perkins makes a recommendation to the provost, a committee of faculty members will review the facts of the case, interview the grievant and make a subsequent recommendation to the provost. Once the process has been completed, the provost will act on the information. Another change in the process will also provide for the ability for faculty to retain legal counsel at hearings, which was not the case before.
We have always advocated and asked for more transparency within the faculty grievance procedure. Aoun’s administration and the Faculty Senate have now demonstrated their desire for a change in the process.
Now it is up to the provost to maintain the requests of members of the administration, faculty and students.