2008 Woodie Awards
Board amends proposal for changing faculty appeals
Trustee is concerned about faculty affiliations overriding objective decisions.
By Julie Ann Sanchez
Last update: 5/17/06 at 8:24 AM CST
- Page 1 of 1
|
At the March 23 regular board meeting, trustees rejected a proposed policy change for termination of tenured faculty.
In a 6-3 vote, the board instead approved a revamped guideline that would have two representatives from each campus and one district representative in a "faculty pool" that would oversee the appeals process for a tenured faculty member in the event a hearing is requested.
The original policy called for five representatives from the home college and one representative from the remaining four colleges.
For months, a committee, consisting of district administrators and college presidents, has met to discuss and tweak a policy change proposal.
The proposal added sexual harassment to professional incompetence, moral turpitude and gross neglect of professional responsibility as reasons of termination for tenured faculty and revised the structure of the faculty panel to nine with five from the home campus and four from the other colleges.
At the board meeting, District 1 trustee Bernard Weiner was vocal in seeking to change the faculty pool to two members from each campus and one district representative.
Weiner's concern over the revamped policy was the potential for home college allegiance to the faculty member requesting an appeals hearing.
"This doesn't change a thing. The home college still has the majority of the vote," Weiner said. "All this does it put some lipstick on that pig, but is doesn't change the pig."
Weiner's and the board's frustrations arose from a 2001 case involving chemistry Professor Bill Miller.
Miller filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the district, which also cited breach of contract and due process and resulted in the district paying $150,000 in legal fees.
The appeals committee in June found in Miller's favor and recommended his reinstatement.
The board rejected that recommendation, and Miller filed a second wrongful termination suit in August. That suit is still pending.
District 6 trustee Gene Sprague, who voted against the change, said during the March 23 meeting, "I understand the position of my fellow board members. This board went through a very bad experience."
Acting Chancellor Daniel Derrico said the board should not assume a five-member panel from the home campus would automatically vote in favor of a colleague.
Biology Professor Ellen Brennan, who served on the faculty panel, said she didn't agree with Weiner's position that a majority of representatives from the home campus would have an allegiance toward their colleague in the event of an appeals hearing.
"The issue was what had been done. The district did not go through the proper procedures; both policy and procedure were violated," Brennan said.
"I think it's window dressing to make some people feel better," Brennan said in regard to the policy change.
General counsel Martha McCabe said at the meeting "the wheel has turned" since the Miller case, and the board should focus on the many hours that went into revamping the policy and getting approval from administration and faculty.
Finally, the board voted for two representatives from each campus and one district representative as a tie breaker.
District 4 trustee Marcelo Casillas and District 5 trustee Roberto Zarate also voted against the change.
This is an open forum for the readers of TheRanger.org. Abusive, inflammatory, slanderous, obscene and libelous language will not be tolerated. Please be considerate of other readers when posting comments. This is not the place for personal attacks. The staff of The Ranger.org reserves the right to deny publication of any posts. The comments posted here do not reflect the opinions of The Ranger staff, San Antonio College or the Alamo Community College District.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
anonymous1010
anonymous1010
posted 4/04/06 @ 4:58 PM CST
Did the board have any concern about the message they were sending the faculty? One, they discounted the work the committee had put into coming up with the changes to the old policy, by rushing to amend the configuration of the hearing panel. (Continued…)
Post a Comment