Faculty Affairs and Grievance Committee
The Faculty Handbook Committee reviewed a proposal to revise Section 2.2.3 - Faculty Affairs and Grievance Committee, submitted to the Committee by Dr. Rachel Serianz, Faculty Assembly Chair and Chair, Faculty Affairs and Grievance Committee. With two suggested changes, we decided to circulate the proposal to faculty on February 22, 2004, and collect their responses. You may find the proposal circulated here.
The Committee met with Dr. Rachel Serianz on March 4, 2004, to discuss the comments made by faculty. Based on this discussion, Dr. Serianz has created a second revision proposal. Please click here for the updated proposal. We think that we have addressed all the comments made on the first draft - "pleasant" remains in the first sentence, but we did include "productive" in the sentence, too. Please review the proposal and send any comments to Jon Stauff at your convenience. The Handbook Committee will discuss this revision shortly.
Comments on the first draft of the proposal have been listed below:
Comment #1 - please click here for comments inserted into the proposal text.
Comment #2 - This looks really good to me. I have only one question: in 2.2.3.3.2.4.2, sentence 3, the word "personal" appears. Should it be "personnel"? I think that is the intent, but was not entirely sure.
Comment #3 - I read the policy in a hurry, so perhaps I
missed some things, but here are the things I came up with for the committee to
think about:
1. Membership: should be two from A&S?
2. What happens if a student is giving a faculty member enough trouble, as
defined here, for a grievance?
3. Does a faculty member (or others) have the right to have a lawyer at
the formal proceeding?
4. Can the faculty member (or others) appeal outside the institution, and
should that be mentioned (I know we would rather not mention that)?
Comment #4 - I have read the proposed handbook entry for the Grievance procedure and committee. Two questions. First, should it be made clear that this committee is a standing committee with members already and always in place, even though no action is pending? I think it should. Second, it says that unless extraordinary circumstances occur the faculty chair is chair of this committee. But should it say who, and by what process, a replacement chair for the committee is selected? I think this committee needs to avoid all ambiguities so I would put a line of succession clause in the process.
Comment #5 - please click here for comments inserted into the proposed text.
Comment #6 - I do not see in the grievance procedure a way to deal with harassment. [The document] mentions sexual harassment but I believe we have many more cases of harassment (not related to sex/gender). The Grievance Committee should deal with this if informal measures fail.
Comment #7 - Just a very small -- and, indeed, picky point -- concerning the draft proposal for the Faculty Grievance Committee. I think the choice of the word "pleasant" in the very first sentence should be re-thought. Perhaps "productive" or "effective" would be better alternatives. The word "pleasant," especially in the first sentence, suggests too high an ideal. Overall, however, I think the proposal is very good: clear, coherent, and effective in setting out steps that would be fair to all parties.
(Revised: 3/18/04)