1. THE VALUE OF UMKC CRR’S AND SENATE UPDATING 420, 370 AND 320 APRIL 7, 2015 Richard J Arend Professor of Strategy & Entrepreneurship

2. Your Job and Mine  UMKC is dependent on its Research Faculty, not its Administrators, to differentiate itself from a JuCo  The job of any form of Administration, including the Senate, is to make the Faculty’s jobs (in research, teaching and service) easier, not harder  That requires integrity, and an attitude towards resolution, fair play, innocence until guilt proven, due process, and an attempt at competence  It involves integrity and truth above all… none of which it has shown to be capable of in my experience

3. The Value of the CRRs  The set of CRRs are worthless without an effective grievance process, substantial penalties, and external oversight… at present, they are worthless, as more rules are broken in processing than are at stake  As such, the integrity of this University is at stake, because the CRRs exist to protect the Faculty from corrupt forces that jeopardize the ability of good Faculty to do their jobs  Examples include 420 (research misconduct), 370 (grievances), and 320 (P&T processing)

4. 420 – defining ‘research misconduct’  It is NOT author ordering (by Federal mandate), and it is not applicable to unpublished work [VOTE*]  It IS very much applicable to the range of issues raised by the KC Star articles on Bloch School Activities [VOTE*].

5. 420 corrections  Current [PROPOSED] language:420.010.A.3:  Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results IN PUBLISHED WORK. (a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. (b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. (c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. (d) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion, OR AUTHOR ORDERING OR CREDIT DISPUTES.

6. 370 – proper oversight of process  There is NO oversight of the GRP, despite Senate’s duties to provide it (seen this multiple times).  There are no appeals.  The GRP can high-jack the process without repercussions, and they have, multiple times.  The GRP is not trained in law, has no concept of due process, rules of evidence, findings of fact, investigative procedures, … and, this gross incompetence shows in the harms that it does... and that must stop.

7. 370 – new serious oversight  370.010 preface: The success of this procedure is contingent upon the good faith effort of all participants. It is the responsibility of the Faculty Council, Senate and Campus Administration, and the University President to encourage and sustain such efforts, and to ensure that the procedure is followed in its entirety in its spirit as well as letter... The Faculty Council/Senate Oversight Committee will monitor this process, as per 370.010 C.11.c. Allegations of violations of this process will be investigated by an external law firm. Any party violating the process will immediately lose any administrative duties, and pay compensation to those harmed. Any GRP exceeding the narrow scope of the original filing’s specific allegations, for example, in an attempt to defame any party, will face dismissal for cause.

8. 320 – P&T process integrity  At present, any person in the process can libel a candidate without facing a penalty (e.g., under-report a Candidate’s true publication count).  At present, any party can attach unverified, unvetted materials to a Candidate’s file without any approval.  These are ‘illegal’ activities and must be stopped.  UMKC provides procedures to Students in similar circumstances (for course grades, experiences); it is paramount that the same care is taken with Faculty at P&T time.

9. 320 – appeals with resolution  320.025.A.5: Integrity of Process: All recommendations must be true to the contents of the file – beginning with a factual statement of all of its contents. Any inaccuracies noted by the Candidate will be investigated and resolved prior to the next step in the process by an external law firm. Any parties involved in writing inaccurate ‘facts’ will be immediately stripped of administrative duties, pay compensation to those harmed, and face disciplinary procedures made public to the academic unit involved.

10. Time to Get to Work  I hope that my experience has been unusual here, and that four years of vindicated whistle-blowing provided an unusual target of corrupt administrators.  However, the forcing out of many of the diverse Faculty at Bloch and the rewarding of fraudulent and damaging administrators recently has been very disturbing… and it is time for Senate to act, perhaps prior to other (external) parties getting involved…  Thank you for your time. Any questions?