Term ending 5/98:
Thomas Cetas, Chair, Radiation Oncology and Electrical and Computer Engineering
Jody Glittenberg, Nursing
Donna Iams, Gerontological Studies (retiring from the University)
Nina Janic, Music and Dance
Adrianne Lehrer, Linguistics
Jane Williams (deceased)

Term ending 5/99:
Nathan Buras, Vice Chair, Hydrology and Water Resources
Li-Zhi Fang, Physics
Shitala Mishra, Special Education and Rehabilitation
Hamid Saadatmanesh, Civil Engineering

Term ending 5/00:
Albrecht Classen, German Studies
Jeffrey Haskell, Music
Juan Heinrich, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
Allan Matthias, Soil, Water and Environmental Science

Term ending 5/01:
Victoria Mills, Library
Marek Rychlik, Mathematics
Edward Williams, Political Science
Amy Williamsen, Spanish and Portuguese

Ad Hoc:
Anne Baldwin, Physiology
Richard Cortner, Political Science
Alice Paul, Teaching and Teacher Education
Steven Goldman, Cardiology, VA and UA
Patricia Hoyer, Physiology
Philip Kanof, Psychiatry, VA and UA
Margaret Kidwell, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Gail Manke, Nursing
Alfred Quiroz, Art
Mark Smith, Chemistry
Leslie Tolbert, Neurobiology, ARL
Mary Wetzel, Psychology

Charge:
The Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure shall have jurisdiction to make inquiry and to conduct hearings in two general areas, namely: in regard to those matters contained in the Conditions of Service dealing with the contractual employment relationship between the General Faculty member and the University/Board of Regents; and in regard to any internal matters relating to grievances against or by any member of the General Faculty. The Committee shall consider the protection of academic freedom and tenure as a principal obligation. (Constitution of the General Faculty of the University of Arizona, Art. V, Sect. 9b.).

Further, according the University Handbook for Appointed Personnel, second edition, 1995, section 2.13.09, the following excerpt is noted. For purposes of this policy "misconduct" means (1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other serious deviations from accepted practice in proposing, conducting or disseminating the results of research, scholarship or creative endeavor, (2) material failure to comply with federal and other requirements for protecting researchers, human subjects and the public or for ensuring the welfare for laboratory animals; and (3) failure to meet other material legal requirements governing research, scholarship and creative endeavors.

Cases Requiring Panels: (Six panels were formed. One case did not go to hearing and one case required two panels.)
1. P&T - five member panel formed - complainant died of stroke before hearing convened. Preliminary activity spanned at least three years before a formal procedure was initiated by CAFT.

2. P&T - heard before five member panel, case to be resolved shortly. Again preliminary complaints, appeals to administrators and reviews by the Committee on Conciliation (CoC) and especially the Office of Affirmative Action had all taken place.

3. Post tenure review dispute - issue regarding annual reviews and arbitrary administrative actions - heard before three member panel. Issue arose when new department head chose to pursue new direction for the department.

4. Scientific Misconduct - five, then seven, member investigatory panel formed to determine charges based "upon reason to believe misconduct occurred" resulting from preliminary inquiry by University Committee on Ethics and Commitment (UCEC). Upon formulation of charges, a second panel was convened to hear publicly the case presented by the first panel and defended by the respondent. Recommendations of the hearing panel have been forwarded to President Likens for his final decision.

5. P&T - five member panel formed, hearings underway. Again the issue has been around for some time and was subject to review by the Office of Affirmative Action. A decision was made by the Chair of the Faculty, the Chair of CAFT and the Chair of CoC to refer such cases directly to CAFT in the future rather than prolong the process by a pass through CoC.

Informal Actions: (All required two to several hours of discussion and counseling, mostly between the complainant and the Chair of CAFT and/or other "ombudsmen" such as the Chair of the Faculty. It is only after an initial interview or so that involvement of other CAFT faculty becomes appropriate.)

1. Dispute between two faculty members in a department which was referred to CAFT by the Dean of their College. Arbitrated privately by the CAFT chair; the resolution was signed by the disputing parties and was accepted by Dean and Department Head. Resolution document is held in confidential CAFT files only.

2. Dispute between a demoted department head and his Dean. The issue was negotiated by the CAFT chair, members of the UA Attorney's Office and by the principal parties. No final results were communicated to CAFT and the issue is presumed to be resolved.

3. Dispute between a faculty member and his research center director involving duties and "hard money" support. The CAFT chair expressed interest. The College involved choose not to open the issue for precedent, but chose to negotiate an agreement with the faculty member. There was significant involvement of the Chair of the Faculty and University Attorneys.

4. Dispute between a teaching faculty member and his department and Dean. After a long discussion, he was referred to the Committee on Conciliation who helped parties arrive at an acceptable resolution. Kudos to CoC!

5. Three other faculty complaints on failure to achieve promotion and tenure. Counsel and discussion by CAFT chair with complainants. In the end, the complainants choose not to further pursue their matters - or at least, they did not come back to CAFT.

6. Issue regarding a dispute over a negotiated compensation contract between a former department head (who, several years ago, was forced to step down and became a part time faculty member) and his college and department. The issue determined to be a matter of contract outside the purview of CAFT. Court action is underway.

7. Issue involving the dismissal of a faculty member from Arizona International University. It was resolved by negotiation mediated by the Chair of the Faculty. Uncertainty arose over whether CAFT had jurisdiction and from where appropriate, unconflicted counsel could be found to advise CAFT.

Other Matters:
1. Discussions between the Chairs of CAFT and Conciliation, Chair of the Faculty and the Director of Affirmative Action led to the working decision to refer all matters regarding failure to attain promotion and tenure directly to CAFT without prior referral to the Committee on Conciliation. The decision was based upon ambiguity and inconsistency in the various guideline documents (ABOR, UHAP, Faculty Bylaws) regarding jurisdiction and the fact that a complainant would have already had been through several panel reviews. Conciliation was deemed to be impossible at this late stage and so referral to CoC merely results in an unnecessary delay to due process. Issues for CAFT are to be based on whether there existed a lack of due process in the P&T review or perhaps peripheral, inappropriate issues were influential in the review. The merits of the complainant's case for tenure were not to be considered by CAFT. The presumed outcome in most such cases, if the complainant prevailed, would be an additional year of employment and an additional independent review of the tenure decision on its merits. Determination of policy in this regard is referred to the Senate for final resolution.

2. Lack of long term "CAFT" memory is a problem with regard to understanding and interpreting regulations and precedent. A strength of CAFT is its intense faculty participation and continually rotating leadership. This policy keeps CAFT from becoming institutionalized and bureaucratized. The negative aspect of this feature of continual renewal is that each year a new Chair must learn, from scratch, the regulations and determine how to interpret them. Hence it is very difficult to speak with authority to faculty members who come for help, especially at the beginning of the term of the new Chair. An example of the difficulty related to case mentioned above regarding the AIC. Others came up as well. The University Attorney's Office should have an attorney to advise the CAFT Chair and perhaps others to assist or advise panel chairs when multiple cases are underway simultaneously.

The role of University Attorney's Office is perceived as first to defend and advise the University. This is interpreted usually by the UAO to advise, represent and defend the Administration. Such an interpretation is reasonable when the challenge is from outside the University. Until such time, it is more reasonable that the Attorney's office not assume a role of advisor or advocate to a Department Head or Dean in a dispute. The faculty member frequently seeks outside legal counsel in such matters. It is appropriate for a Department Head to receive support for legal advice, but this counsel should be from an outside attorney, not conflicted with interpreting policy to University committees. The converse, that of having an outside attorney serve as interpreter of ABOR and University policies to University committees, seems far less reasonable and less stable with respect to providing the long term memory for the committee.

3. The process of dealing with cases involving allegations of scientific misconduct must be modified. The nature of such a case is that whistleblowers bring forth accusations that something is wrong. But these are not fully developed charges as would be expected from a complainant with a grievance. Rather, the whistleblower is referred to UCEC, a committee which performs an informal inquiry to determine if a full investigation is warranted. If it is warranted, the question arises as to whom should conduct the investigation. It is appropriate that a CAFT panel hear the case presented by the investigators and report to the President of the University. That is well within the defined guidelines of the CAFT. An investigation of scientific misconduct requires several features. First, there must be professional guidance in carrying out investigations. Faculty members do not have training or experience, in general, in these investigations. On the other hand, it is essential that faculty with special expertise in areas close to the scientific field of the respondent be part of the investigation in order to understand and determine whether fabrication, falsification or plagiarism occurred. In the case this year, a CAFT panel was formed with the goal of being able to do both, but it became apparent during the course of the proceedings that a second adjudicatory panel would be necessary. It is appropriate that the Faculty Senate revise the written procedures so that when another case comes forward, these two separate functions - investigation with its attendant formulation of charges and adjudication with the responsibility of advising the President - be in place and recognized from the beginning.

Regarding the investigation, both elements are necessary - legal guidance and experience in conducting investigations and faculty participation with relevant scientific expertise. The question lies in where the authority and responsibility for the investigation should reside. One course is to place it under the Research Integrity Officer within the Administration. Another is to form an ad hoc faculty committee under the auspices of the Faculty Chair or Faculty Senate with advice and counsel to be provided by the University Attorneys Office.

4. Finally, it was noticed that some departments (colleges) have more problems than others. Does this arise from the lack of administrative skills of the Department Head and/or Dean? Are some faculty and faculty disciplines particularly contentious? Or is this just another reflection of the cluster phenomenon in statistics? Clearly none of us want as our chiefs professional administrators who lack qualifications in our disciplines. But scholarship does not necessarily beget administrative ability nor does scholarliness necessarily preclude enlightened administration. Attitude seems to be important here, both in the chiefs and the laborers - in Department Heads and the faculty.

BACK

This site maintained by The University of Arizona Faculty Center
1216 E. Mabel Street PO Box 210456
Tucson, AZ 85721-0456
VOICE 520-621-1342    FAX 520-621-8844
facsen@u.arizona.edu
last updated 08/05/09