Faculty Forum: March 5, 2008 Shall the Collected Rules and Regulations be revised to adopt the revised Pilot Faculty Grievance Procedure recommended by MU Faculty Council?

History (2004?) It was recommended by Chancellor Deaton, endorsed by President Floyd, recommended by the Academic and Student Affairs Committee, moved by Curator Walsworth and seconded by Curator Bennett, that the following action be approved: That the proposed Academic Grievance Procedure for the University of Missouri-Columbia (as on file with the minutes of this meeting) be added to the Collected Rules and Regulations as section and serve as a pilot grievance process for the University of Missouri-Columbia, instead of , for a period of three years. Prior to the end of the trial period, the University of Missouri-Columbia will review section , share the results of the review with the other campuses and then all four campuses will use the information derived from the pilot to craft a common grievance procedure for all campuses for consideration by the Board of Curators by the end of the academic year.

Time Line Pilot Grievance Process passed by UMC faculty (~2004) Revised Pilot Passed by Faculty Council (2/14/08), amended (2/28/08) Faculty Forum (3/5/08) Faculty Vote (March 21, 2008) Not Approved Grievance Procedures revert to “old” process (CRR ) Approved  Request made to Curators for 1 year extension of Pilot Process  Grievance Document forwarded to IFC/VP for Academic Affairs  Discussion by Faculty senates/administration of UMKC, MST, UMSL  Revised Document to UM System  Curators adopt into CRR for all campuses

(150 days) F. Processing a Grievance 1. Chancellor appoints an administrator to serve as Academic Grievance Officer (GO) G. Review Process 2b1a. Chair of Faculty Council, and GO select Grievance Hearing Panel (12-16) from Hearing Committee members. Grievant and Respondent may strike 3 names each from list. 2b3a. Chancellor or designee convenes Hearing Panel for initial meeting. 2b3b. Chancellor provides copies of reports, communications, recommendations, etc for the case to the Hearing Panel. 2b3c. Grievant and Respondent provide materials to support their respective cases. 2b3d. Hearing Panel reviews statements and evidence and decides if a grievance exists. 2b3j. Following receipt of Panel report, Chancellor may meet with Grievant or Respondent. Chancellor should rule within 30 days but if not possible, new date set for decision. 2a. If determination by Chancellor is not satisfactory to Grievant, appeal to President. Recommend 30 days for decision but if not practical, new date set for decision (340 days) Impartial Investigating Officer. Chancellor and Faculty Council determine method of selection of IO, appointment, termination and reappointment. Collects all evidence (requested and non- requested), statements and testimonials. Faculty Council appoints Co-Chairs of Standing Committee from the Faculty. Standing Committee formed into units of 5 for Hearing Panels. Co-Chairs determine if grievance meets timeliness and defining criteria (does not address merits of the case). Stops at the Chancellor unless Respondent is System Level. Clear time lines established.

Comparisons Pilot Cases since 9/1/2005: 15 In Process: 4 Finished by full Process: 5 Cases Not Accepted: 1 Cases No Decision: 1 Cases Informally Resolved by IO: 4 CRR (Old Process) Cases from 5/30/03-Pilot: 7 1.Respondent: 2 months 2.Respondent: 3 days 3.Grievant: 16 days 4.Grievant: 1 month 5.Grievant: 5 days 6.Grievant: 6 days 7.Grievant: 1 month CRR (Pilot Process) 1.Grievant 2/5, others modified: 10 months 2.Grievant 1/3: 12 months 3.Grievant 4/5 all with modifications:15 months 4.Grievant 1/5, one other with modifications: 14 months 5.Delays sent this to Trial: 14 months 1 2 3

Changes to MU Pilot Project: Grievance Document Accepting, Filing and Processing a Grievance (Sections A-K) Exclude grievances claiming inadequate consideration in tenure decisions; grievances claiming violation of academic freedom and EEO issues maintained as part of process (page 1, B). Added section recommending the grievant seek administrative relief prior to filing a grievance (page 3,G). Mention EEOC in section where mediation is encouraged prior to filing of a grievance (page 3, H). Included opportunity at any point in grievance process for informal resolution attempts to be made by Standing Committee Co-Chairs or Investigating Officer (page 3, H). Changed wording to allow additional time for stays (page 5, J7). Defined more specifically how stays are granted and added rules for the IO asking for stays (page 5, K2).

Report by Investigating Officer (Section L) Added a step after the Respondent is named where he or she can ask the Grievance Committee Co-Chairs for reconsideration based on either definitional or timeliness criteria (page 6, L2). Eliminate Joint Informal Conference (10 days) and instead substitute suggested reconsideration step above. Joint Informal Conference was ineffective. Established page limits for preliminary and final statements and rebuttal statement to 10 pages/count (page 6, L3a and page 8, L7a). Instructions for relevance of evidence to be mentioned clearly and tabbed to statements (page 6, L3b and c). Extended the time for the Investigating Officer to collect evidence (60 days versus 30 days) (page 6, L4). Specified that IO can collect evidence that he/she deems relevant, even if parties do not request this evidence in their statements (page 6, L4a).Investigating Officer will decide on relevance of requested evidence and collect only those items she/he deems relevant. This process would include two levels of appeal: 1) to the Investigating Officer initially and 2) if rejected, to the Grievance Committee Co-Chairs (page 6, L4b). Changes to MU Pilot Project: Grievance Document

Report of the Faculty Hearing Panel (Section M: 1-12) Reversed the order of Items 4 and 5 that describe the authority of the Hearing Panel (page 10, M4, 5). Added a clause that prohibits anonymous testimony (page 10, M5d) Added a clause that directs the Hearing Panel to write a follow-up report, following the Chancellors decision, that summarizes the remedies upheld or not. The panel will have 30 days to complete its report (not counted in total time line of process) (page 11, M11). Information regarding unethical conduct issues (by Hearing Panel members, Grievant or Respondent) will be limited to the Grievance Committee Co-Chairs and Investigating Officer (not the entire committee of 30 members) (page 11, M12). Changes to MU Pilot Project: Grievance Document

Report of the Faculty Hearing Panel: The Chancellor (M: 13-15) Established rules for communication between Chancellor and parties involved (page 12, M14). Time line for Chancellor’s decision set at 60 days following receipt of Hearing Panel’s decision (down from 70-days). Added optional 30 day stay that requires a written explanation provided to the Hearing Panel, the Grievant, the Respondent, the IO, and the Standing Committee Co-Chairs (total decision time 90 days). Should the Chancellor not be able to rule within 90 days, a written explanation will be provided to the Hearing Panel, the Grievant, Respondent, IO and Co-Chairs and include a new decision date to be set within 14 days. (page 12, M15). In the event the Chancellor requests additional information in his/her determination letter, the Chancellor shall set a reasonable time-line (preferably no longer than 30 days) for the collection of this material. Upon receipt of said additional materials, the Chancellor shall render a final decision within 30 days (page 12, M15). Changes to MU Pilot Project: Grievance Document

Other Procedures (Sections O-P, Appendix) For system-level grievances, substitute President for Chancellor (page 13, O). Added Provost Office and Chancellor’s Office to list of recipients of the yearly grievance report from the Co-Chairs and IO (page 13, P). Provide the option for the Grievance Committee Co-Chairs to convene a Hearing Panel with 3 members when 5 cannot be seated in a timely manner (page 15, Appendix A: 5f). Changes to MU Pilot Project: Grievance Document