To:  Henry Sayre, President, Faculty Senate
From:  Jennifer Cornell and Philippe Rossignol, Co-Chairs, Faculty Grievance
Committee
Cc: Faculty Senate Executive Committee; Vickie Nunnemaker
Subject: Faculty Grievance Committee, Annual Report 2000-01

As Co-Chairs of the Faculty Grievance Committee, Dr. Rossignol and I met
with Faculty Senate President Henry Sayre on November 10th, 2000 to discuss
the activities and concerns of the FGC. Among them were proposed changes to
the Standing Rules which govern the Committee, and to OAR 580-021-0055,
which governs the grievance procedure.

The FGC met subsequently with representatives of the AAUP (13 February 01)
and the Faculty Mediation Committee (12 March 01) for further discussion of
these and related matters. Informed by these discussions, we proposed (in
an memo sent on 6 April 01) to meet again with Dr. Sayre and, if convenient,
the full EC.

Specifically, we asked:
* to be notified of and involved in future discussions of the proposed
changes to the grievance procedure (OAR 580-021-0055) prior to the final
vote on the issue then scheduled for April 16th 2001 in order to:

* express our view that the Faculty Grievance Committee should be the
final arbiter of grievances in much the same way as the Student Conduct and
Mediation Committee is now the final arbiter of alleged violations of the
Student Conduct Code;

* reiterate our opinion that, in the absence of a FGC with the power
to decide cases, all but eliminating the possibility of appeal to the Board
removes an important degree of accountability from the process currently in
use;

* revise our suggestion that the proposed "Grievance Officer" be
appointed by the Faculty Senate. Instead, we suggest that a pool of
Grievance Officers be elected from among tenured teaching and research
faculty, ideally with prior FGC experience, by democratic vote of all
eligible faculty;

* urge that Grievance Officers so elected serve for a maximum of six
years;

* recommend amending OAR 580-021-0050(8) as follows: "If the grievance
officer rejects or modifies the recommendations of the faculty hearing
committee, the reasons shall be stated in writing, and a copy provided to
the grievant and to the Faculty Grievance Committee.";

* recommend amending OAR 580-021-0050(9) as follows: "The grievant may
appeal the decision of the grievance officer to the president pursuant to
OAR 580-021-0055. If no appeal is filed, the decision of the grievance
officer shall be final."

We also requested the opportunity to:

* remind the FSEC that "the right to representation for each party"
referred to in OAR 580-021-0050(5)(c) is nominal, given the unequal
resources available to institutions and individuals;

* seek the Faculty Senate's support for a proposal by the AAUP to
establish a "legal defense fund" based on an annual contribution of $12 from
all faculty, which would generate sufficient resources to pay for an
Ombudsman or equivalent legal resource within five years;

* respond to Gordon Matzke's October 13th 2000 memo to Susan Tonquist,
Chair of the Graduate Council, and to reiterate our recommendation that the
Dean of the appropriate College review and approve all decisions by Chairs
to remove a tenure-track faculty member's graduate status for reasons other
than termination or retirement;

* develop with the FSEC a mechanism through which to encourage greater
use of the Faculty Mediation Committee so that the need for a formal
grievance procedure may be reduced; and

* suggest that faculty with a primarily supervisory administrative
position (and who are, as such, potentially the subject of a grievance), not
be appointed to the Committee in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict
of interest, or of favoring an administrative perspective. With these
concerns in mind we proposed to make changes to the Standing Rules which
govern the FGC (attached).

We received no response from Henry Sayre to our memo, however, nor
were we able to schedule a meeting with the Faculty Senate Executive
Committee prior to the April 16th deadline. As a consequence the FGC was
excluded from a discussion of issues essential to its mission, and vital to
the welfare of faculty on this campus.

On April 27th the Board of Higher Education amended OAR
580-021-0055. As of June 8th, however, no Grievance Officer had been
appointed at OSU. Dr. Rossignol and I then sought a meeting with the FSEC
to outline our concerns and recommendations while the subject was still
under discussion. Coincidentally, our meeting on the 13th corresponded with
the release on June 11th of a letter from President Risser summarizing his
review of and response to the amendments. Our presentation to the FSEC
therefore focussed on the following:

* the President's view that the grievance officer is an "optional"
step in the process. The amended OAR 580-021-005(3)(b) states unequivocally
that "[The institutions' grievance procedures shall:] include both formal
and informal steps. The formal steps shall include an appropriate
administrator, a faculty committee (at the option of the grievant) and the
girevance officer." In other words, appointment of this position is
mandatory, not optional;

* the President's view that "the addition of a grievance officer step"
would not "add anything that is not already present in the current process."
The amendments adopted by the BHE all but eliminated the opportunity to
appeal a President's decision to the Board. The addition of a grievance
officer whose decisions may be appealed restores that lost step, albeit at a
less influential point in the process. Its implementation is therefore
essential;

* the President's desire to retain his power to modify or overturn the
recommendations of the FGC. The amendments to the OAR specify that the
Grievance Officer would review and rule on the recommendations of the FGC.
Should the grievant be satisfied with that ruling, the grievance would
proceed no further. In other words, the President would not be not be
involved in the process unless the grievant chose to appeal the Grievance
Officer's decision to him. While we understand the basis for the
President's objection to this arrangement, we believe that it is in the best
interests of faculty. It is for this reason that the FGC objects so
strenuously to the appointment of grievance officers by the President, and
advocates filling the position by democratic vote of all eligible faculty;

* the FSEC's recommendation, made verbally to the President by Henry
Sayre without consultation with or notification of the FGC, that a pool of
grievance officers be appointed by the President from among past Presidents
of the Faculty Senate. Past Presidents are former elected representatives
of the faculty, and suspicion of their relationship with the administration
may be unwarranted; nevertheless, their ability to objectively represent
faculty interests is widely perceived to be compromised. For this reason we
disapprove of the FSEC's recommendation, and reiterate our own (see above).

President Risser has described the peer review of grievances by faculty
committee as "key" to the process. We agree. With this in mind, we
encourage the Committee on Committees, to whom a copy of the proposed
changes has been forwarded, and the Faculty Senate to approve changes to the
Standing Rules which govern the FGC (attached). It is our view that these
amendments, if adopted, will help to ensure the independence and objectivity
of the FGC within the current process.

That said, we stress that our preference is for a fully independent Faculty
Grievance Committee with decision-making powers, whose rulings could be
appealed to the President only if the grievant so wished. We also support
the FSEC's recommendation to appoint a Grievance Officer to the Board of
Higher Education who could be solely responsible for hearing appeals to
decisions made by institutional presidents.

Submitted 22nd June 2001.

Jennifer C Cornell, Co-Chair, Faculty Grievance Committee

Philippe Rossignol, Co-Chair, Faculty Grievance Committee

Proposed changes to Standing Rules (submitted on 9 April 2001; resubmitted
18 June 2001):

FACULTY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

The Faculty Grievance Committee, as an instrument of the "Faculty Grievance
Procedure," shall meet with University faculty members to consider
grievances that are not resolved through informal processes. The role,
activities, and responsibilities of the committee are defined in the "O.S.U.
Faculty Grievance Procedure," referenced in the Oregon Administrative Rules.
The Committee consists of five academic employees, at least one of whom
shall be female, chosen by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee. The
Faculty Grievance Committee shall include one member with professional
title, one with a fixed-term appointment, and, whenever possible, one
minority. As much as possible, members should be selected from different
colleges. In order to avoid apparent conflicts of interest, faculty with a
primarily supervisory administrative appointment (and who therefore are
potentially subjects of a grievance) should not be appointed to the
Committee. Any academic employee with Faculty rank or professional title
may submit nominations to the Executive Committee for consideration. The
Chair of the Committee shall be selected at the end of each academic year by
the current membership of the Committee from among its continuing members.
Three members of the Faculty Grievance Committee shall constitute a quorum.

(It is recommended that at least one member of the Committee has legal
training.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippe A. Rossignol, Professor
Oregon State University E-mail: rossignp@bcc.orst.edu
Department of Entomology
Corvallis, OR, 97331
------------------------------------------------------------------------