Minutes

Faculty Senate Executive Committee Meeting

July 12, 2005

The 2004-2005 Faculty Senate Executive Committee and the 2005-2006 Faculty Senate Executive Committee voted to request written answers to the following questions from the university counsel. The request will be sent to Dr. Jauquita Hargus, Chair of the CAFRT hearing committee, with a copy to Dr. Stephen Hensley.

1. Use of East Texas State University – Texarkana Rules and Procedures

Until June of 2005, TAMU-T’s website referred to specific portions of the ETSU-T handbook.

In June 2005, the above references were pulled from the website. The university website now states “available soon” under the caption 12.01.99 H1.  In a meeting on June 17, 2005 with the Faculty Senate President, Dr. Hensley stated that these rules and procedures were never approved by the system. As Dr. Hensley’s email dated June 21, 2005 states, “rules must be approved by the president of the university and the A&M system. Rules do not exist until they have been approved through this process.”

Therefore, has TAMU-T been operating for the past eleven years with no TAMU-T rules regarding academic freedom, responsibility and tenure?

2. Procedures relating to System Policy 12.01.6 “Faculty Dismissals for Cause”

System Policy System Policy 12.01.6 “Faculty Dismissals for Cause” states:

6. FACULTY DISMISSALS FOR CAUSE

Components shall establish proper procedures for dismissal of faculty for cause...

Whereas TAMU-T has never had any procedures for the dismissal of faculty other than procedures contained in the ETSU-T Policy Manual, has this policy been appropriately applied at TAMU-T?

3. Pre-termination Hearings – System Policy 12.01.8.2 and 12.01.6.3

6.3 Unless a faculty member is summarily dismissed pursuant to Paragraph 8.1, a faculty member may be reassigned or suspended during the pendency of termination proceedings

If a faculty member is suspended, does that indicate that they have not been summarily dismissed?

8.2 Pre-termination Hearing

8.2.1 Unless summary dismissal procedures are invoked, each component shall provide a faculty member to be dismissed for cause with notice of the charges and an opportunity for a fair and impartial hearing by a faculty committee.

If a faculty member has not been summarily dismissed, are they entitled to a pre-termination hearing?

3. Right to Representation System Policy 12.01.8.2

System Policy 12.01.6.4 states  

6.4 In any of these proceedings the faculty member and the administration shall have the right to representation.

Is the question and answer period with an investigator part of the proceedings?  

4. Appropriate access to facilities while suspended System Policy 12.01.6.3

6.3 Unless a faculty member is summarily dismissed pursuant to Paragraph 8.1, a faculty member may be reassigned or suspended during the pendency of termination proceedings; however, suspension of the faculty member is justified only if the welfare of the faculty member or that of students, colleagues or other institutional employees is threatened by continuance, or if the continued presence of the faculty member would be materially and substantially disruptive of the regular operations of the component. Any such suspension should be with pay and with appropriate provisions for useful duties including appropriate access to classrooms, laboratories, libraries and other facilities.

Does appropriate access include access to the suspended faculty member’s university email account?  Does the suspended faculty member have the right to enter their office and retrieve course material, personal items, computer files, CDs etc.?

5. When can Procedures be Changed

According to Dr. Hensley’s email dated June 21, 2005, university procedures must conform to university rules and the A&M System policies” and that “procedures may be changed at any time it is deemed necessary for the operation of the university.”  It is our understanding that procedures do not have to be approved by the A&M System.

East Texas State University – Texarkana (ETSU-T) Procedures in effect when the university became a part of A&M have been applied in the past. The 1999  Mazer/Gandy Grievance committee specifically stated that the ETSU-T procedures were followed. Until June of 2005, TAMU-T’s website referred to specific portions of the ETSU-T handbook.

ETSU-T due process procedures B-2-T paragraph 7 state, “the Hearing Committee will be an ad hoc committee appointed by the Faculty Council Chair and subject to ratification by the full Faculty Council…The Chairperson, who retains full rights of discussion and voting, is elected by the Committee members themselves.”  The new TAMU-T procedures dated June 16, 2005 state “The President (of the university) appoints the CRAFT and names the chair…”

Can due process procedures be changed in the middle of a grievance?  If the procedures can be changed in the middle of the process, does the university have an obligation to notify the affected faculty member and provide a copy of the new procedures?