In the past 10 years, MU has tried three grievance policies, each ending with unsatisfactory results in the eyes of faculty members. Last week, Faculty Council gave its recommendation to make the pilot program that has been in place since 2008 the university’s official policy.
A grievance policy is in place to protect faculty from rule infractions by other faculty members or administrators. Faculty Council members approved the current policy in 2008 because they felt it was an improvement from the previous one, which had drawn out the process of filing a grievance, Faculty Council Chairwoman Leona Rubin said.
“It took too long,” Rubin said about the previous plan. “Sometimes cases took over a year and there was no Oversight Committee to see if recommendations by the committee were actually followed through.”
The grievance policy outlines the grievance process, the different parties involved and their roles during the process.
After a faculty member files a grievance, it goes before the Grievance Resolution Panel, who will investigate the case, listen to all parties involved and make the final decision. But first, they decide if it’s a grievance case.
“Some of the conditions are that is has to actually be a rule violation,” Rubin said. “And it has to be filed within 180 days of the incident. Sometimes it’s difficult to tell if they’ve actually violated a rule until they start investigating.”
The Oversight Committee, which is comprised of only faculty members, monitors the process to ensure the grievance process is fair. They report back to Faculty Council on a consistent basis and are also responsible for making sure any recommendations made by the GRP are followed through.
“The goal of this pilot is really is to bring all the parties to the table and solve the problems, and not have it drag it for a year, and have people not grossly angry and unhappy with each other,” Rubin said. “They address it quickly, and if it’s not addressable, it’s done quickly enough that it can go to the courts. I think it’s a good process to try to solve problems.”
Rubin said there is some opposition to the policy because the GRP is comprised of two faculty members and one administrator, which is the main source of the discontent.
“The authors of this process, when we were working on this two years ago in 2008, felt that this was important that both parties be rep and accountable,” Rubin said. “We feel accountability is only there if everybody is part of that process.”
Electrical engineering professor Greg Engel, who was suspended from teaching last semester after multiple student complaints came from one of his classes, said he was against the grievance process.
“The grievance process, in my opinion, is skewed to the admin,” Engel said. “Basically, whatever comes out of the panel is only a recommendation. As long as the chancellor has the final say without being made to address the grievance panel, then it’s pointless.”
One allegation against Engel is that he discriminated against students on the basis of sex and race. Engel was also removed from the head of a Navy research project awarded to him last semester.
He said a few changes could be made to make the grievance process fairer.
“Getting administration off of the panel is a good idea,” Engel said. “Weighting the grievance panel decision by making it more than a recommendation is a big step in the right direction, because there has to be faculty government. The admin can’t control everything and faculty can’t control everything.”
He said Chancellor Brady Deaton’s role in the process should be reduced.
“They should make it so the chancellor just can’t override it,” Engel said. “Make it so he can’t have ultimate say. He’s a king. He’s an emperor. He’s a tyrant.”
Rubin said the chancellor always has the last word in grievances, but only has control of the budget and facilities.
“Because we have an administrator on the panel, Chancellor Deaton has said he feels much more comfortable with the possible outcomes of these panels, since he knows there is someone on board who knows what is possible and who will keep him informed if necessary,” Rubin said. “That was part of the goal of having an administrator on the panel.”
Previously, the chancellor would have spent months reviewing documents and the case before making the final decision, Rubin said.
So far, the GRP has only reviewed two cases, in which they did not see in favor of the grievances. Another two are in the process and four were not reviewed at all.
Rubin said because the process is only two years old, there’s still time to work out the details.
