(Latest Revision: Sun Feb 18 23:38:28 PST 2001 )
From email@example.com Wed Nov 22 01:05:31 2000 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:05:20 -0800 (PST) From: John Sarraille <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Grounds for dismissal Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Title 5 education code grounds for firing academic (and other) employees of the university were mentioned at the last AS meeting. I was intrigued. Here is a quote I found: 89535. Any permanent or probationary employee may be dismissed, demoted, or suspended for the following causes: (a) Immoral conduct. (b) Unprofessional conduct. (c) Dishonesty. (d) Incompetency. (e) Addiction to the use of controlled substances. (f) Failure or refusal to perform the normal and reasonable duties of the position. (g) Conviction of a felony or conviction of any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. (h) Fraud in securing appointment. (i) Drunkenness on duty. 89536. Any permanent or probationary employee who is physically or mentally unfit for the position occupied may be suspended, demoted, or dismissed pursuant to the provisions of Sections 89538, 89539, and 89540. 89537. "Unprofessional conduct" as used in Section 89535 includes, but is not limited to, willful advocacy of the overthrow of the government of the United States or of the state, by force, violence or other unlawful means, either on or off the campus. If you are interested in seeing more of the title 5 code, you might look here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=89001-90000&file=89530-89546 which of course is part of this site: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/ I didn't see guidelines there for how the university should determine if there exist grounds for dismissal, suspension, or reprimand of an employee. I wonder if there is sufficient interest in creating a task force for developing guidelines for correcting problems of bad faculty independent of the post tenure review (PTR) process. The PTR process might be viewed as presumptive that the faculty member is good. The faculty member would only have to create a simple report based on course evaluations. The process would be purely advisory, developmental, and even congenial -- along the lines of Sam Oppenheim's suggestion, or of idea #2 from FAC. I understand these proposals will soon be posted on facnet. Completely separately, those interested in rooting out bad faculty could work on writing up a set of guidelines for gathering evidence, building up a case, making corrective suggestions, issuing reprimands, imposing sanctions, and/or taking actions. I guess it would be useful to have such a set of guidelines in place. In theory having procedures in advance would help insure that cool heads would prevail ... that all the considered due processes be faithfully carried out -- a scrupulously fair trial and all that ... The advantage of this dichotomy would be that good faculty would be minimally inconvenienced or stressed by PTR demands. There would be little possibility that faculty would feel that the PTR process was being used to "get" them. It would be well understood that there is a completely separate procedure for "getting" bad faculty. Possibly the AS can more quickly adopt a wholly benign PTR procedure, as described, and more rapidly move on to the important work that lies ahead. Those who want to do so can re-group and take up the more contentious issue of how to deal with bad faculty. I guess they can proceed unrushed: presumably the PTR issue has to be finished quickly due to some perceived pressure from the administration validated by the contract language mandating PTR. However I can find no contract or title 5 language mandating a continuing investigation into allegations of faculty misconduct. I think folks can take their time and when ready, submit their proposed guidelines to the AS. The AS can then, if it likes, pass a resolution blessing the guidelines. These guidelines would be a purely local product, under the control of this faculty, modifiable by us at our will. I think this is more preserving of faculty self-determination than would be similar guidelines inserted into the language implementing the PTR language in our contract.