TALKING POINTS ON PROCEDURE Questions have been raised concerning whether the proper procedures have been followed in the suspension and initiation of termination procedures against Dr. Frank Glamser and Dr. Gary Stringer. Specifically, the Faculty Senate and AAUP union have made these claims without citing any rule or policy that has been violated. In our continuing effort to keep everyone informed of the TRUTH, I want to clarify the rules and the procedures being followed in this matter: *Department Level: It has been claimed that I should have consulted with the department chairs concerning this action. Chapter XI, Section 9.1 of the current Faculty Handbook clearly states that "Departmental Personnel Authorities do not deliberate or transmit to responsible college deans personnel recommendations regarding renewal/nonrenewal of employment, dismissal from employment, or termination of employment."
*Deans: Chapter XI, Section 16 of the current Faculty Handbook states that "deans may originate at their discretion personnel actions involving members of the academic staffs of their respective colleges... Normally, however, college deans function de novo, reviewing departmental personnel evaluations, reviews and recommendations" I did not involve the deans in this matter because I did not want to expose them to the unfair unwarranted criticism to which I have been subjected.
*Provost: Chapter XI, Section 19 of the current Faculty Handbook states that "the Provost may initiate personnel actions." Chapter XII, Section 2.6 also provides that the provosts may handle appeals involving dismissal or termination of employment. I did not involve the Provosts in this decision for the same reason that I did not involve the deans.
*President: Chapter XI, Section 22 of the current Faculty Handbook states that "the University President may initiate personnel actions involving members of the instructional staff." I exercised this discretion based upon my conviction that it was in the best interests of the students, faculty, and the University.
*Proposed Handbook Changes: You heard much debate through last summer and fall about the revision of the Faculty Handbook and, in particular, the procedures for termination of tenured faculty contained in the now famous "Section 11.3." What you did not hear was that in the initial draft I proposed to the Faculty Handbook Committee, I wanted to transfer much of that authority to the department chairs and the deans, and to provide an appeal process to the deans, the provosts, and ultimately to me. The Faculty Senate and the AAUP union adamantly rejected this proposal. Dr. Myron Henry, president of the Faculty Senate and its representative on the Faculty Handbook Committee, insisted that these provisions be removed. Myron Henry insisted that even the Provosts should not have the authority to initiate termination proceedings against tenured faculty. Myron Henry insisted that only the President should have the authority to initiate termination proceedings against tenured faculty. That is how the final draft of the Faculty Handbook reads.
*Suspension: Issues have been raised concerning my authority to suspend Drs. Glamser and Stringer WITH PAY. It is claimed that I had no authority to do this unless they posed a danger to the students. Chapter X, section 6.2 of the current Faculty Handbook states that "The employment contracts of parties dismissed for malfeasance, for inefficiency, for [insubordination], or for cause may be [terminated] by the Board at any time with the dismissed party retaining no right to continued employment for any period of time. At the discretion of the University President, the contracted remuneration of such parties may be paid or not paid, and the dismissed party may be allowed to retain or required to relinquish teaching duties, assignments, appointments, and privileges, pending an institutional hearing or upon dismissal for the reasons stated above."
*Hearing: The Faculty Handbook and the IHL Board Policies and Bylaws contain identical provisions concerning the hearing to be conducted. Both state as follows:
Termination for cause of a tenured faculty member or the dismissal for cause of a faculty member prior to the expiration of a term appointment shall not be recommended by the Institutional Executive Officer until the faculty member has been afforded the opportunity for a hearing. In no event shall the contract of a tenured faculty member be terminated for cause without the faculty member being afforded the opportunity for a hearing.
In all cases the faculty member shall be informed in writing of the proposed action against him/her and that he/she has the opportunity to be heard in his/her own defense. Within ten (10) calendar days of notification of the proposed action and opportunity to be heard, the faculty member shall state in writing his/her desire to have a hearing. He/she shall be permitted to have with him/her an advisor of his/her own choosing who may be an attorney. The institution is directed to record (suitable for transcription) all hearings. In the hearing of charges of incompetence, the testimony shall include that of faculty and other scholars.
The University has followed, and will continue to follow all University and IHL Board rules and regulations.
I am not sure what of this is actually true regarding the Faculty Handbook, but I do know that they WERE NOT informed in writing before they were locked out of their offices. Meaning the university has NOT followed ALL guidelines. Plus, Thames originally TERMINATED them, THEN "suspended them WITHOUT pay, THEN suspended with pay. See how stupid he thinks USM employees, students, and alumni are?