INTRODUCTION AND CHARGE TO TASK FORCE

At the Faculty Senate meeting of November 15, 2000, members of the Department of Educational Leadership and Cultural Studies (ELCS) in the College of Education presented their concerns regarding the manner in which the new Chair of the ELCS department had been selected during Fall 2000.  The actions taken led to a vote of no confidence in the Dean that was supported by a majority of ELCS faculty.  Following discussion, the Senate passed the following motion that constitutes the charge to this Task Force:

That the Faculty Affairs Committee, at the request of the department, review the actions of the Dean and report back to the Faculty Senate as to whether there is a violation of both the sprit and policy of the institution in the areas of shared governance and affirmative action.

To fulfill this mission, a Faculty Senate Task Force of the Faculty Affairs Committee (hereafter called the Task Force) was appointed.  Over the past few months, the Task Force has ;conducted more than a dozen extended interviews that included meetings with most ELCS department members, the present and former Deans, the Chair of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and the Head of the Affirmative Action office.  In addition, the Task Force has been provided with detailed chronologies of events as they unfolded and has also examined relevant College of Education bylaws, AAUP guidelines and other documents.

In this report, the Task Force has chosen not to recapitulate the chronology of events as summarized for us both by the Department and Dean Wimpelberg.  We have divided our findings into specific areas as presented below:

STATUS OF DEPARTMENT; REMOVAL OF RICHARD HOOKER AS CHAIR

The Task Force heard considerable testimony that pointed to significant problems in the ELCS department that made it reasonable for the Dean to consider a change in leadership.   There was a strong consensus that Dr. Hooker was a dedicated Chair who was well liked by the departmental faculty and who worked hard on their behalf.  Nonetheless, some faculty and administrators expressed the opinion that his performance as Department Chair was problematic.  The 1999 visit of the National Council for Accreditation for Teacher Education resulted in a report that placed the ELCS department on probation and was especially critical of the large number of Ed.D. students and the small number of faculty to supervise them. The department did not appear to have responded effectively to this situation. Moreover, the department has had a recent history of being unable to attract and keep new faculty.  There was also testimony the Dr. Hooker was unable to delegate tasks to department faculty and the faculty were not united in moving the department forward.  In this regard, the Task Force gained the impression that faculty members were also culpable in contributing to the state of the department.

HIRING OF RICHARD FOSSEY AS PROFESSOR AND CHAIR

Shared Governance

The chronology shows that the process that led to the installation of Dr. Fossey as Chair occurred over a period about three months.  The Task Force found that lack of collective faculty input during this period undoubtedly contributed to the opposition that developed in the Department.  Soon after he arrived at UH, Dean Wimpelberg learned that Dr. Fossey was available and undertook vigorous actions to attract him to UH.  Dean Wimpelberg clearly was impressed with Dr. Fossey’s credentials and saw this as a unique opportunity to rejuvenate and to give new direction to the ELCS department.

The AAUP Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities (see Appendix) makes it clear that faculty status, including appointments, is: “primarily a faculty responsibility” and that a Chair: “should be selected either by department election or by appointment following consultation with members of the department---“.  The Statement continues: “appointments should normally be in conformity with department members’ judgment.”  The College of Education bylaws (part of Bylaw 1) state: “Appointment to and continuance in the chairperson role is dependent upon the confidence and support of both the department faculty and the Dean of the College.  Recommendation for appointment of Chairs shall be made by the Dean only after the faculty of the department has been provided with an opportunity to express its opinions and desires. These expressions are advisory, but the above principle applies.”  Both statements stress the importance of consultation between faculty and administration, but the College bylaws clearly imply that the Dean has the authority under certain circumstances to select a departmental Chair.

In this regard, Dean Wimpelberg did consult with individual faculty over a period of several weeks and held one meeting with the department as a whole.  Nonetheless, the Task Force concludes there was inadequate consultation with the department as a whole regarding the appointment of Dr. Fossey at the level of professor or in the role of chair.  In his haste to secure Dr. Fossey, the Dean bears responsibility for fostering an atmosphere of distrust that has developed within the department.

It is significant that twice in the past the department had considered Dr. Fossey as a viable faculty candidate and that at least one formal offer was extended to him at the level of Associate Professor.  Although it is our understanding that Dr. Fossey has augmented his academic record in the intervening period, the ELCS faculty was not given the opportunity to re-evaluate his record in order to determine his suitability for appointment as a Professor.

The Task Force could find no indication that the Dean presented a rationale for his actions to the entire ELCS faculty and provided them sufficient time for a considered departmental response.  Instead, information about plans for Dr. Fossey’s hiring seemed to seep out, which resulted in the majority of the faculty coming to feel disenfranchised.  In addition, the Dean failed to justify adequately to the faculty the reasons for Dr. Hooker’s removal.  The situation was exacerbated because the Dean himself was new and something of an unknown quantity to the department.  Overall, the Senate Task Force feels that the Dean underestimated the difficulties he would encounter in the course he pursued and that he is primarily responsible for a major breakdown in communications between the faculty of the ELCS department and himself.

 Finally, to place these events somewhat in context, it is worth pointing out that during this same time period, another department Chair in the College of Education was chosen in accordance with established policies of that department and the College.

 The University of Houston maintains a record of women and minorities within each department.  This record also includes such data at the national level for similar departments and disciplines to be used for comparison and guidance.  According to Dr. Ileana Trevino, review of the statistics (which she shared with the task force) indicated there was no imbalance regarding either women or minorities in the ELCS department.  It is also not unusual for a Dean to select members of his management team, in the view of the Equal Employment Opportunity Office. The decision to give Affirmative Action approval was reached only after consultation with Dean Wimpelberg and Associate Provost Elaine Charlson and a review of affirmative action statistical data.  Thus, hiring Dr. Fossey was within the University guidelines and posed no Affirmative Action concerns. The fact that Dr. Fossey had been previously considered for a faculty appointment in the ELCS department on two separate occasions was deemed not relevant from the perspective of Affirmative Action to his eligibility for the position of Professor and Chair.  The task force found no evidence of a violation of affirmative action policy in the hiring of Dr. Fossey as part of the college management team.  However, it recognizes as legitimate the concern on the part of several ELCS department faculty that a formal national search for a faculty member was not conducted.  In this regard, the Task Force feels it is appropriate to quote from existing tenure track and clinical faculty hiring procedures as laid down by the UH administration: “It is important to note that a faculty member may not be appointed to a tenure track position without a national search.” (Item 9 under To Initiate a Search; URL:  www.uh.edu/provost/documents/hiring_pro.html; present as of 3/21/01)

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Task Force concludes that the spirit of shared faculty governance was violated due to the lack of communication and collective faculty participation through open discussion prior to the decision to hire Dr. Fossey.  It recommends to the Faculty Senate that it undertake steps designed to clarify with all Administrators the importance of open discussion and formal input through a search committee in making faculty hiring decisions.

2. Based on existing policies, the Task Force found no evidence that a violation of the Affirmative Action guidelines, as promulgated and followed by the University, took place.

3.  The Task Force is unaware of the existence of an established institutional policy that endorses the principle of shared governance between administration and faculty at all levels of decision making in the university.  The Task Force recommends that the Faculty Senate take the lead in formulating such a policy that should conform to AAUP guidelines.
 

ADDENDUM