MINUTES OF THE FACULTY HANDBOOK REVISION COMMITTEE

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2008

Mason Hall, room D1; 1:00 – 2:45 p.m.

Present: Kevin Avruch, Associate Director and Professor of Conflict Resolution, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution; Lorraine Brown, Professor of English, College of Humanities and Social Sciences; Dave Harr, Senior Associate Dean, School of Management; Suzanne Slayden, Associate Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, College of Science.

In the absence of Rick Coffinberger, the meeting was chaired by Kevin Avruch.

Minutes of January 14, 2008: Please review for any changes or corrections – if small, let Meg know, if more substantial, for further discussion by the committee.

Provost to Attend FHC Meeting: The Provost will attend our April 3^rd meeting to discuss institutes.

Discussion: 2.10.2.4 Dismissal of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Members for Cause

· To incorporate as (x) in second paragraph: “a finding of research or scholarship misconduct (University Policy 4007: Misconduct in Research and Scholarship” to clarify February 14, 2008 revision.

· Removal of “informal” in Section d.5 as not appropriate, parallel to earlier language.

· Where do “sides” come from? First - faculty member, second - administration, third - Hearing Committees to substitute “the parties” for “both sides”.

· Section (f) revisions:

• (f 1) Right of legal representation may be part of Virginia code, do not wish to remove.
• (f 2) Noted present language relies on AAUP.
• (f 3) To obtain University Counsel’s opinion. Key guarantee that faculty member has right to bring legal representative.“The Hearing Committee will decide whether or not the hearing will be open to the public. In making this decision they will consult with the President and with the accused faculty member.”
• (f 4) Remove “typewritten,” but to keep “verbatim”. Burden of report (placed) on the administration. “A verbatim record of the complete hearing will be made. If the faculty member so requests, a typewritten copy will be provided without cost.”
• (revised f 5) (1994) f 6 becomes revised f 5 with change in word order from: “The administration will make every reasonable effort to assure the availability of documents and witnesses under its control.” to The administration will make every reasonable effort to assure the availability of witnesses and documents under its control.
• (revised f 6) (1994) f 5 becomes revised f 6 – needs substitute for “unexpected: “The hearing will be adjourned when necessary to enable either party to investigate unexpected evidence.” What is the motivation for unexpected evidence? Newly discovered evidence may not actually be new. Akin to legal discovery process? To keep language as neutral as possible.
• (f 7) Misconduct policy makes provision for outside witnesses; to review Misconduct Policy sections to use as template. Because dismissal goes further than Misconduct Policy, to have protections at least as strong as found there. Stringent procedures; experts on campus may too close to the case; or may have already used up inside people in case of finding of misconduct. Also to replace: “Both parties have the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses.” with “Both parties have the right to examine all documents and question all witnesses.”
• (f 8) Use of witness vs. observer in (f 2). Why to limit only to accrediting organization? May be purity issue; leave as is.
• (f 9) Seems desirable that all parties act in good faith and are civil. Does it apply to an open meeting as well as a closed meeting?
• (f 10) Like Misconduct Policy, not a legal procedure. New text from AAUP Statement on Professional Standards: All the evidence should be duly recorded. Unless special circumstances warrant, it should not be necessary to follow formal rules of court procedures. (from AAUP: Statement on Professional Standards, p. 14).
• Consensus among committee members present to ask University Counsel about legal implications in general sense in lieu of exact wording for revisions.

2.10.2.4 Dismissal of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Members for Cause (Section F)

6. The Hearing Committee will observe the following procedures:
1. The accused faculty member may choose academic and /or legal representatives to be present at the hearing. The administrative representative will enjoy the same rights
2. At the request of either party or on the initiative of the Hearing Committee, representatives of one or more recognized educational associations may be present as observers.
3. The Hearing Committee will decide whether or not the hearing will be open to the public. In making this decision they will consult wit the President and with the accused faculty member.
4. A verbatim record of the complete hearing will be made. If the faculty member so requests, a typewritten copy will be provided without cost.
5. The administration will make every reasonable effort to assure the availability of witnesses and documents under its control
6. The hearing will be adjourned when necessary to enable either party to investigate unexpected evidence.
7. Both parties have the right to confront and cross-examine all documents and question all witnesses.
8. Faculty members or administrators from any institution of higher education accredited by a regional accrediting association may act as witnesses.
9. The accused faculty member, the administration, and the Hearing Committee are to avoid publicity about the case until the proceedings have been completed by the Board of Visitors. Only necessary announcements such as hearing time and place are permitted.
10. All the evidence should be duly recorded. Unless special circumstances warrant, it should not be necessary to follow formal rules of court procedures. (from AAUP: Statement on Professional Standards, p. 14) The Hearing Committee must use every source of reliable evidence but is not bound by the strict rules of legal evidence.

Subsequent revisions to follow logic of process as based on recommendations made by Hearing Committee, President, and the BOV only where necessary:

7. The decision of the Hearing Committee must be based only on the complete record of the hearing considered as a whole. The burden of proof that adequate grounds exist for dismissal must rests with the Administration. The Hearing Committee reports to the President, normally with one of the following recommendations:
1. cause has not been established and the faculty member should not be dismissed exonerated.
2. cause has been established and the faculty member should be dismissed
3. cause has been established, but a lesser academic penalty than dismissal is appropriate.

8. If the President accepts the recommendation of the Hearing Committee that no cause has been established, then the process of dismissal is concluded.
9. If the President accepts the recommendation of the Hearing Committee that cause has been established and the faculty member should be dismissed, then the President’s recommendation of this action to the Board of Visitors must include a record of the case.
10. If the President accepts the recommendation of the Hearing Committee that cause has been established but a lesser academic penalty than dismissal is appropriate, then such lesser penalties will be determined administratively
11. Should the President not accept the recommendation of the Hearing Committee that cause for dismissal has not been established, then the President must state his reasons for non-acceptance in writing to the Hearing Committee and the faculty member. In addition, all parties must be afforded an opportunity to respond to this before the President forwards a recommendation for dismissal to the Board of Visitors.
12. Should the President not accept reject the recommendation of the Hearing Committee that cause has been established and therefore a recommendation for dismissal will not be forwarded, then the President will must state the his reasons for non-acceptance in writing to the Hearing Committee and to the accused faculty member.
13. The Board of Visitors will evaluate the President's recommendation for dismissal, using the record of the hearing. It may at its discretion also afford an opportunity for the parties to present their arguments orally or in writing. If the Board of Visitors does not accept the President’s recommendation for dismissal, then the hearing process is concluded. The Board of Visitors renders the final decision.
14. Normally the faculty member will remain at his or her usual duties until the final decision is reached by the Board of Visitors. The faculty member may be suspended only if the President determines that continued work threatens immediate harm to self or others (See Section 2.11.10). Any such suspension is to be with pay. When dismissal charges are brought against a faculty member who fails to perform specified duties during the course of dismissal proceedings, the President can withhold a portion of the faculty member's salary prorated to the duties not performed.

Replacing and expanding upon 1994 Handbook text below:

8. Should the President reject the recommendation of the Hearing Committee, the President will state the reasons in writing to the Hearing Committee and to the accused. Each must be afforded an opportunity to respond before the President forwards a recommendation to the Board of Visitors.
9. The President may find in favor of the accused and terminate the proceedings. If the President recommends dismissal or any other penalty, the President's recommendation to the Board of Visitors must include a record of the case. Lesser penalties, agreed upon by the President and the accused, are handled administratively with no further recourse available to either party.
10. The Board of Visitors will evaluate the President's recommendation, using the record of the hearing. It may at its discretion also afford an opportunity for both parties to present their arguments orally or in writing, or both. If the Board of Visitors does not sustain the Hearing Committee's decision, the proceedings of the hearing are to be returned to the Committee with specific objections. The Hearing Committee must reconsider the matter, the objections, and any new evidence that may be available. A final recommendation is then to be made by the Hearing Committee to the Board of Visitors. The Board of Visitors will then render the final decision.
11. Normally the faculty member will remain at his or her usual duties until the final decision is reached by the Board of Visitors. The faculty member may be suspended only if the President determines that continued work threatens immediate harm to self or others. Any such suspension is to be with pay. When dismissal charges are brought against a faculty member who fails to perform specified duties during the course of dismissal proceedings, the President can withhold a portion of the faculty member's salary prorated to the duties not performed.

Discussion: 2.11.9.2 Full Time Instructional Faculty Teaching at Other Institutions

• A 9-month instructional faculty member wishing to teach at another institution over the summer was told this was not permitted.
• Differences among committee members about interpretation of text.
• Removal of statement where applies also to faculty on partial or full study leaves because they should already be governed by study leave policy in effect. Faculty may need to teach additional course(s) to earn money to pay for living expenses in expensive locales such as Cambridge, MA. Situation analogous to post docs, even if very senior faculty. May have prohibition-type effect, (financial) need creating violators; insults judgment of faculty member.

2.11.9.2 Full Time Instructional Faculty Teaching at Other Institutions: Policy as posted on the Provost Office website; adopted by the Faculty Senate at its meeting March 20, 2002. Bold text on note at the end from original text.

Full-time instructional faculty are expected to teach full course loads (as determined by their respective unit) unless they are granted release time for research, administrative and service functions or "buy down" their effort through sponsored program activities. Normally, this precludes teaching as “instructor of record” for another educational institution during the academic year. This stipulation excludes Summer employment for nine-month faculty is not covered by this policy.

Requests for exceptions, generally for reasons of professional growth, must be submitted well in advance to the local academic unit head and the respective Dean/Director. Approval, if granted, will normally apply only for one or two semesters. As noted in the Faculty Handbook (section 2.11.8, page 32), “full-time faculty who are consulting or who are teaching part-time at another institution may not at the same time teach overload courses.” Approval of the request would be made with the understanding that the outside teaching effort does not compromise the faculty member's professional responsibilities to George Mason University or create a conflict of interest. This policy also applies to faculty on partial or full study leaves.

NOTE: FT research and administrative/professional faculty must inform their supervisor and obtain approval, prior to accepting outside employment. Hence, the above policy also applies to these employee categories

Respectfully submitted,

Meg Caniano

Clerk, Faculty Senate