Presentation on theme: "Special Faculty Senate Meeting February 19, 2015."— Presentation transcript:
Special Faculty Senate Meeting February 19, 2015
Agenda I. Call to Order and Roll Call - Steven Grant, Secretary II.Title IX Procedures M. Mormile, President-Elect for M. Bohner, President III.Adjourn
Agenda I. Call to Order and Roll Call - Steven Grant, Secretary II.Title IX Procedures – M. Mormile for M. Bohner III.Adjourn
II. Title IX procedures A. A motion indicating support of the Missouri S&T Faculty Senate members for the changes which are outlined in the Amendment (to the Title IX procedures) presented by Frank Bowman at the Board of Curators Meeting on February 5 th
Investigator → Interviews → Report Notice within 7 bus. Days, Complete: 30 business days Harassment or Discrimination Complaint Provost or Designee No violation: end Investigator Provost or Designee Reasonable person finding? Possible violation Conflict ResolutionHearing Panel 3-person (1-2 faculty) Admin. Resolution by Provost Designee Complete: 60 business days if parties agree Separate meetings Preponderance Finding No violation: end Sanctions by Provost Hearing Preponderance Finding No violation: end Sanctions by Provost See CRR 600.040 for complete process Either party may appeal to Chancellor based on error, new evidence
Days Prior (at least) Event 7Notice of hearing (allegation, panel members, policies, time and place) 4Parties provide lists of witness and evidence, may object to panelists 2Investigator’s witness names, documentary evidence, and report to parties 2Parties may request alternative attendance or questioning mechanisms See CRR 600.040 for complete process
Conduct of Hearing 1.Investigator reports, subject to questioning by all parties 2.Investigator may call witnesses, subject to questioning by all parties 3.Complainant may testify (not directly questioned by accused), call witnesses, witnesses subject to questioning by all parties 4.Accused may testify, (not directly questioned by complainant), call witnesses, witnesses subject to questioning by all parties 5.Panel may call additional witnesses 6.Panel deliberates in closed session, determines based on preponderance if accused responsible 7.If finding of violation, panel proposes sanctions Panel determines relevancy and admissibility, may dismiss anyone interfering with hearing Chair resolves objections to panelists, presides, prepares report of finding
Sanctions Provost determines: warning, improvement plan, counseling, training, lose pay raise, lose supervisory responsibility, suspension without pay, or initiate existing dismissal for cause process
Office of Civil Rights guidance document, qa-20140 “If the school permits one party to have lawyers or other advisors at any stage of the proceedings, it must do so equally for both parties. Any school-imposed restrictions on the ability of lawyers or other advisors to speak or otherwise participate in the proceedings must also apply equally.” “OCR strongly discourages a school from allowing the parties to personally question or cross-examine each other during a hearing on alleged sexual violence. … A school may choose, instead, to allow the parties to submit questions to a trained third party (e.g., the hearing panel) to ask the questions on their behalf. OCR recommends that the third party screen the questions submitted by the parties and only ask those it deems appropriate and relevant to the case. ”
e-mail’s main claimsComment …strips faculty members of a vital procedural protection they enjoyed before last Thursday. Maybe true at MU, no such right at S&T …justifications advanced for deprivation of a right the faculty formerly enjoyed are unconvincing. Convincing = opinion, no such deprivation – never had that right Expecting either party to act as an effective oral advocate for him or herself is unreasonable IFC approach is hearing panel searching for truth, not determining who “wins” Further, this is an employment decision. Accused should speak on their own defense.
Letter’s claimsComment …during the critical fact- finding phase of the adjudicative hearing, neither the accused faculty member nor the complainant has a right to the active assistance of an advisor. Advisor explicitly gives advice, quietly …while tenured faculty members will have the right to active advisors in the penalty phase of the dismissal process, advisors will have no meaningful opportunity to participate in the fact-finding phase of the case… Advisor can do anything except directly address witnesses, including awkward passing of notes and whispering
Letter’s claimsComment …faculty accused of professional incompetence, research misconduct, academic irresponsibility, lying to or stealing from the university, or even physical violence (so long as unmotivated by racial or sexual animus) will have a right to the active assistance of an advisor… At S&T only for research misconduct. We have no rules about hearings for professional incompetence, research misconduct, academic irresponsibility, lying to or stealing from the university, or even physical violence unless leading to loss of tenure
Letter’s claimsComment The point of creating the new Title IX bureaucracy is to identify, investigate, and root out persons who engage in prohibited acts of harassment or discrimination. The point is to not lose federal funding by doing what OCR seems to require. Once a case goes to panel hearing, the Title IX investigator’s sympathies will in all but rare cases be allied with the victim and her skills will be engaged to present a cogent case against the accused. A reasonable concern. The investigator has likely prepared a report from which the Provost concluded that something did happen. Investigator is trained to present the investigation, not to come to a conclusion.
Letter’s claimsComment The essence of successful advocacy lies not in asking the fact-finder to accept your opinion, but in structuring the case so that the verdict you seek is the only reasonable inference from the evidence you present. The point of a hearing is to reveal the facts rather than to listen to a constructed argument.
But we may be wrong. Review of rules and processes in 18-24 months by non-involved external expert. 600.040 allows for rapid modification by Executive Order prior to Feb 2017 By the way, System memory is that only one case of tenure removal was initiated in the last twenty years across the System’s roughly 6,000 faculty
II. Title IX procedures B. a motion to respectfully advise the Board of Curators that the Missouri S&T Faculty Senate (i) voiced significant concerns about and did not vote to approve the Title IX procedures adopted by the Board on February 5 th and (ii) respectfully requests that the Board consider duly formulated future improvements which might lead to a more equitable process for both the accused and the complainants.