To:
IPFW Faculty Senate From: Indiana University Faculty Board of Review
Dipak Chowdhury
Mark Crouch
Michael Nusbaumer
Mary Helen Thuente, chair
Cheryl Truesdell Subj: Faculty Grievance Process Date: February 26, 1998
Report of 1997-98 Indiana University Faculty Board of
Review
[The evidence summarized in square brackets is based on the grievances
brought by Professors Edlyn Jones and Gail Hickey, both Indiana University
faculty members in the School of Education]
1. The IPFW administration and the Office of the Indiana University
Counsel have attempted to deny IU faculty members their right, as outlined
in the Indiana University Academic Handbook, to file grievances
with the Indiana University Faculty Board of Review over issues of academic
freedom and conditions of work.
[On 4/22/97 IU Counsel Dorothy Frapwell sent Chancellor Michael Wartell
a memo stating that the grievance of Professor Gail Hickey of the School
of Education "should be decided using the Purdue University grievance procedures,"
and on 4/25/97 IU Counsel Sharon Groeger sent the Board a memo stating
that the Hickey grievance "should proceed, if at all, pursuant to the Purdue
University procedures." On 4/29/97 Chancellor Wartell requested that the
Hickey grievance hearing scheduled for 4/30/97 be delayed because of "problems.
. . regarding university jurisdiction." In a memo of 5/16/97 Ms. Frapwell
questioned the IU Faculty Board of Review's authority on the Hickey or
any other case. By his apparent silence and inaction, the Chancellor did
not uphold the Indiana University faculty's rights to a grievance process
as guaranteed in the Indiana University Academic Handbook. Professor Michael
Downs, not the Chancellor, eventually worked out an agreement by which,
according to an 8/8/97 memo from Ms. Frapwell, the Hickey grievance was
allowed to proceed according to Indiana University procedures. The hearing
for the Hickey grievance finally occurred on 9/26/97; it was filed in early
February 1997.]
2. During this Board of Review's year of service, the Board
has had its authority and efforts inappropriately challenged and thwarted
by the IPFW administration which has obstructed the Board's efforts to
exercise its authority in investigating grievances and in preparing for
hearings in a timely and appropriate manner.
[The Board of Review never received all of the information that it felt
was relevant to hearing the grievances of Professors Gail Hickey and Edlyn
Jones of the School of Education, despite repeated memos to VCAA Walter
Branson (3/25/97) , Chancellor Wartell (4/2/97 and, when first memo went
unanswered, on 4/15/97), and Sharon Groeger (4/21/97). After one member
of the Board spent most of a weekend researching Access to Public Records
laws, the Board sent a memo to VCAA Branson citing a 1981 Indiana Attorney
General Opinion in the Indiana Code urging him to provide one of the items
denied. He did provide that item which pertained to overload pay, but the
Board never received the information we requested about School of Education
promotion and tenure cases, reappointments, and some faculty assignments
and activities. Some promotion and tenure information was provided to the
Purdue Grievance Board last spring. Such promotion and tenure information
has been submitted as evidence by the administration for their case in
a grievance from the School of Education currently pending before the Board.
At a spring Academic Officers Committee meeting, at which one member of
the Board happened to be present, VCAA Fenwick English announced to the
Deans and others that they did not have to provide information requested
by the IU Faculty Board of Review. The Board did not receive the materials
that the administration wished us to examine for the Hickey grievance hearing
until the morning of the hearing and several days after the deadline the
Board had set. Although the administration then promised to provide any
information referred to in those materials that arrived too late for Board
members to read prior to the hearing, they did not fulfill that promise,
particularly in regard to the School of Education faculty's performance
review of School of Education Dean Betty Steffy in spring 1997. Chancellor
Wartell, after rendering his decision on the Hickey grievance on 12/1/97,
on 2/18/98, referred the issue of academic freedom, on which the Board
had ruled in its 10/31/97 report, to the local chapter of the American
Association of University Professors for its opinion. The Board considers
this referral to AAUP to be a direct attempt to undermine the faculty governance
structure and the authority of the elected Indiana University Faculty Board
of Review. ]
3. When the Indiana University Faculty Board of Review heard
the grievance of Edlyn Jones the two administrators named in the grievance
did not appear at the hearing to present testimony and to be questioned.
[Neither VCAA English, former Dean of the School of Education, nor Dean
of the School of Education Betty Steffy appeared at the grievance hearing
of Edlyn Jones on May 8, 1997. Sharon Groeger represented the administration.]
4. In the Hickey grievance, an administrator named in the
grievance filed a formal Complaint of Harassment under Purdue Executive
Memorandum No. C-33 against the faculty member who filed a grievance, claiming,
among other points, that a faculty grievance was a form of harassment.
[On 7/30/97 School of Education Dean Steffy sent Chancellor Wartell
a formal Complaint of Harassment against Professor Hickey and referred
him to her attorneys. The Chancellor referred the Complaint to an intake
reviewer who recommended the appointment of a panel to investigate the
Complaint. On August 22, 1997, the Chancellor approved that recommendation.
In part, the Complaint charged that the Hickey grievance, which the Board
of Review had approved as meriting a grievance hearing in spring 1997,
was "nothing more than a disguised attempt to personally attack, defame
and harass me," and that "many of the issues and facts alleged in the grievance
should {not} be allowed to be presented before the IU Faculty Review Board
or any other faculty institution." Despite this interference with what
it considered due process, the Board nevertheless proceeded with its ongoing
attempts to re-schedule the delayed Hickey hearing for the fall. Chancellor
James Yackel of Purdue University Calumet, who was appointed by President
Beering to replace Chancellor Wartell in the investigation of Dean Steffy's
Complaint of Harassment, did not agree to consider Dean Steffy's allegations
that a faculty grievance was a form of harassment.]
5. The Indiana University Faculty Board of Review charged with hearing
the Hickey grievance was named in that formal Complaint of Harassment as
a party to the harassment because of a hearing it attempted to hold on
April 30,1997, which the administration chose not to inform the Board that
it would not attend.
[Dean Steffy's Complaint of Harassment charged that when the Board convened
on April 30, 1997, for the purpose of hearing Professor Hickey's grievance,
the meeting was "not a properly convened administrative proceeding in that
neither I nor anyone from the University appearing on my behalf were present
at this meeting," and that "slanderous" statements were made about her
at that time. After receiving no response from the administration to the
Board's willingness to grant a delay in the Hickey hearing under three
conditions, including the condition that the administration agree that
Indiana University faculty have the right to file grievances under Indiana
University procedures, the Board began the 4/30/97 hearing as scheduled
and canceled it only after the administration failed to appear. After Dean
Steffy's Complaint of Harassment was referred by President Beering to Purdue
University Calumet Chancellor Yackel, he did not consider Dean Steffy's
allegations against the Board of Review. Because the Board was concerned
about being indemnified after receiving a certified letter on 9/18/97 from
the attorneys for Dean Steffy who had already filed the Complaint of Harassment
which named the Board of Review, and because the Board feared it might
be named in a lawsuit, the Board requested IU Counsel Dorothy Frapwell
to assign a university counsel to the Board and she did. The Board was
advised by IU Counsel Michael Klein on several occasions in fall 1997 as
it proceed with the Hickey hearing and preparing its report of 10/31/97.
Mr. Klein expressed shock and dismay that a Purdue University Complaint
of Harassment had been filed in response to an Indiana University faculty
grievance.]
Conclusion
The faculty grievance process has thus been seriously challenged
and, as a consequence, our service on the Indiana University Faculty Board
of Review has been inordinately and unnecessarily time-consuming and stressful.
The record shows that Board meetings and the grievance hearings totaled
about 550 person hours of faculty time. The record shows that over 800
emails were exchanged about the two grievances, not counting the reading
of documents, the reading and writing of drafts and memos sent to the faculty,
administrators and attorneys involved, telephone conversations, and research
on such matters as access to public records. The administration should
recognize that Indiana University faculty members have the right to the
grievance procedure outlined in the Indiana University Academic Handbook
and in the bylaws of the IPFW Faculty Senate, and should cooperate with
the authority that resides in the IU Faculty Board of Review. The Board
regrets that its authority and efforts have been challenged and thwarted
by the IPFW administration, as well as the office of the Indiana University
Counsel, and that faculty who have participated in the grievance process
overseen by the 1997-98 Indiana University Faculty Board of Review have
been subjected to harassment and intimidation. The 1997-98 Indiana University
Faculty Board of Review urges the IPFW administration to recognize the
authority of and cooperate in good faith with future Indiana University
Faculty Boards of Review.
