[COSEAfaculty] How to be civil, and how to complain...

[Grady P Blount]

Good afternoon:

 

Below is an email sent by Dr. Peer on the topic of complaints and grievances. He has asked the deans to discuss this issue with our faculty. So here goes…. 

 

In a nutshell, his office is being swamped by anonymous complaints being submitted through the Ethics Point system while our existing procedure for dealing with problems are being largely ignored.

 

Please have a look at the facts cited in Dr. Peer’s note below and let’s have a discussion about the most appropriate and efficient ways to deal with conflict.

 

While I appreciate the fact that there may be situations where anonymity is appropriate, I want to state categorically that in this college there will never be retaliation, revenge, or any other untoward response to a faculty or staff grievance. Ever. Part of our job is peer review and that means having open and unfettered discussions about all things - including those where we may disagree. The concern Dr. Peer expressed (and with which I concur) is that the anonymous complaint system may be driving a wedge into what is supposed to be an open field of free discussion.

 

I believe in our published policies and procedures and will do everything in my power to make sure those rules are applied evenly and without taint. And again, for reference, my door is always open. You public or private feedback on this email would be GREATLY appreciated.

 

Sunlight is a wonderful antiseptic.

 

-Grady

 

===============================================
Grady Price Blount (근덕), Ph.D., Professor of Physics and Dean
College of Science, Engineering & Agriculture (CoSEA)
Texas A&M University-Commerce
Commerce, Texas 75429-3011
Telephones:  903-886-5781 (office)      325-716-0450 (cell)
===============================================
Talent hits a target no one else can hit.

Genius hits a target no one else can see.

                                    -Schopenhauer

 

From: Gary Peer 
Subject: Faculty Complaints/Grievances

 

An early observation of the System’s new Ethics Point policy/procedures involves the potential its whistle-blower, anonymity feature may encourage faculty to “overload” the new system with complaints, grievances, etc., that the system did not intend.  Because Ethics Point requires the establishment of one or more “report specific”, formal committees to determine the factual basis of the “Reports”, when more than one or two Reports are filed in the same academic department, or when a dozen or more are filed (?), the disruption in the department can be well beyond acceptable bounds and a major distraction from our core mission, the delivery of instruction.

 

One way we can mitigate this problem is to provide System staff in College Station suggestions for a finer, more discriminating selection of which “Reports” merit campus follow-up, something I’d like you to think about and discuss with me at future meetings of the Academic Council.   Another way is for we in academic leadership roles to take a stronger, clearer,  perhaps more consistent position on how we both expect (and have prepared for) faculty to deal with their professional complaints, grievances “in-house”, e.g.- as members of an “academic community”, “community of scholars”, etc.  In that spirit, please take a look at TAMUC’s Rule 12.01.99.RO.01, Academic Freedom, Tenure, Promotion and Post Tenure Review, specifically Section 2, pp. 15-17, Academic Freedom, Ethics and Responsibility; and Section 6, pp. 34-42, Due Process Procedures. 

 

You will note in 2.2, p. 15, reference to our ethical responsibilities to numerous parties, including fellow faculty members, which are elaborated upon on p. 16 in 2.2.2.  Later on p. 17, 2.2.5 talks about our ethical obligations to the public at large and how our behavior can and does impact society’s view of us.  

 

>From that foundation, move on to Section 6., p. 34, where we find this language; “..Any faculty member who has a grievance, which cannot be resolved by reasoned discussion within the normal administrative channels of the university, is entitled to have this grievance reviewed by an elected committee of peers.  Depending on the nature of the grievance, the reviewing body will either be the Advisory Committee or the Hearing Committee.”  We have such a committee; it is reconstituted every year, and exists in part for the very purpose of providing faculty due process in complaints and grievances. 

 

The next two sections; 6.1.2 and 6.1.3., then outline which kinds of cases are heard by the two committees.  Please note in particular, 6.1.3.3., “All other grievances not previously identified.”  

 

It is my view that Section 2 and 6 provide an adequate framework for dealing with faculty complaints, grievances and warrants our collective promotion as such with and among faculty.  It is further my view that while the Ethics Point System is another avenue for reporting concerns, complaints, etc.,  as professionals, we have an individual and collective responsibility as an academic community to seek resolution of our differences within and among ourselves, and to do so openly and transparently. 

 

I look forward to enjoining you in this conversation, and believe it to be an important one to expand to the larger campus community at some point and in some fashion to be later determined.

 

Thanks

Gary 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.tamuc.edu/pipermail/coseafaculty/attachments/20121009/3ec4fd89/attachment.htm