ANNUAL REPORT TO THE FACULTY SENATE

CAFT Members:

Term ending 5/00
Dr. Albrecht Classen, German Studies
Dr. Jeffrey R. Haskell, School of Music
Dr Juan C. Heinrich, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (Chair 1/00-5/00)
Dr. Allan Matthias, Soil, Water and Environmental Science (Chair 6/99-11/99)

Term ending 5/01
Ms. Victoria Mills, University Library
Dr. Marek Rychlik, Mathematics
Dr. Edward Williams, Political Science
Dr. Amy Williamsen, Spanish and Portuguese (Vice-Chair and Acting Chair 12/99-1/00)

Term ending 5/02
Dr. Adela de la Torre, Mexican American Studies
Dr. Elizabeth Glisky, Psychology
Dr. C. John Maré, Veterinary Science and Microbiology
Dr. Joseph (Jay) Stauss, American Indian Studies

Term ending 5/03
Dr. Don Bourque, Biochemistry
Dr. Dana Fox, Language, Reading and Culture
Prof. R. Mark Isaac, Economics
Dr. James Ratner, Law Instruction

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, Article V, Section 9b).

In May 1999 CAFT received a case in which a faculty member complained against his dean. Since the complainant requested an informal panel rather than a formal hearing, a three-member panel was appointed to conduct an investigation and make a recommendation to the President; no hearing took place. The President acted on the CAFT report and a compromise was reached.

In January 2000 a faculty member filed a complaint against his director, dean and two other members of his college. A five-member panel was formed to hear this case, which is still ongoing.

There was one inquiry on a denied promotion case that has not been formally submitted to CAFT.
There was an inquiry on a previous CAFT case, and that matter was handled by the President.

Other Items:

1) CAFT is suffering from the lack of an integrated and coherent faculty grievance process--this has been a source of confusion and can lead to expensive litigation. The Committee has also been strongly affected by the ASU-Kimball Supreme Court decision that allows full representation by counsel in administrative hearings. There has been strong sentiment from the committee members against the issue of representation. However, at this time CAFT is proceeding under the assumption that in matters relating to grievances against or by any member of the faculty, the faculty member will have the right to full representation by counsel at CAFT hearings if they desire to exercise that option.

One of the basic problems created by the above mentioned situations is that CAFT members are not lawyers but faculty, and their approach is to try to resolve conflicts in an academic setting, not a legal forum. To help mitigate their potential adverse effect of the required changes on CAFT, two actions will be taken by all future CAFT panels:

Hearings will be recorded by a court reporter to ensure accurate transcripts in addition to the tape recording of the sessions.

Prior to submission to the President, CAFT reports will be examined by an outside counsel to CAFT, who will advise CAFT on the potential legal implications.

In its meeting of September 8, 1999, CAFT was requested by the chair of the Committee of Eleven to consider the following four questions:

Should the U. A. have two six-member committees instead of the current twelve-member CAFT committee?

How should CAFT select its members?

What is the role of CAFT in research misconduct cases?

How should grievances be referred to CAFT?

CAFT held three special meetings, on October 1, October 29 and December 15 of 1999 to address these issues, the results of which are:

CAFT members decided against the two-committee ASU model and for retaining the larger twelve-member CAFT committee, which they feel reflects greater diversity and enables broader discussion and easier empanelling.

The committee members proposed a revision to the Bylaws on how to select its members. This was presented to the Faculty Senate on the February 7 meeting. No action was taken, pending proposals from other committees that may supersede CAFT recommendations.

CAFT members are in agreement with the role of CAFT as the hearing body for research misconduct cases, as set forth on page 15 of the 8-30-99 Draft Policy on Ethics and Procedures for Investigation of Research Misconduct.

The committee members endorsed the idea of creating a grievance clearing house committee as in the ASU model. They also agreed that they would like to see an ombudsman committee formalized to assume a greater role in conciliation efforts and would like to take a closer look at the role, structure and effectiveness of the Committee on Conciliation.

Respectfully submitted
J. C. Heinrich, Chair
April 17, 2000

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