(Latest Revision: Sun Feb 18 23:38:28 PST 2001 )
gettingBadFaculty
gettingBadFaculty
From owner-asnet@wiz.csustan.edu Wed Nov 22 01:05:31 2000
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:05:20 -0800 (PST)
From: John Sarraille <john@ishi.csustan.edu>
To: asnet@wiz.csustan.edu
Subject: Re: Grounds for dismissal
Cc: facnet@wiz.csustan.edu
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.