Both AAUP-WSU and the administration wish to change Article 15, Suspension and Removal of Tenure. The parties exchanged their proposals on February 1; see the table immediately below. Current language proposed for deletion is shown in the strikethrough format, and proposed new language is shown in the red underlined format. For comparison, you may wish to view the entire current CBA and this article in particular.

For more about bargaining now under way toward a successor of our current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), please see our Negotiations page. There, you will find rosters of our Bargaining Council and Negotiating Team, a table showing the status of each article (those in the current CBA and new ones, too), and also reports about each negotiating session.

For reports on negotiations regarding this article, click here (or scroll to the bottom of the table immediately below).

Reports on Negotiations about Article 15, Suspension and Removal of Tenure

Friday, April 25

The administration withdrew the changes it had proposed on March 21.

Friday, April 18

Our Negotiating Team reported that we had consulted with our attorney about the language the administration proposed on March 21 for part (f) of section 15.3. Her evaluation was that this language was overly broad, and to ask what acts meriting tenure removal (etc.) would be covered by the administration’s language but not by the language in our initial proposal for (f). That is what our team did, offering to consider any such acts that the administration would name. We asked, at the least, to know why the administration wanted the expansive list in its March 21 proposal for 15.3 (f). The administration’s reply was not directly responsive; the administration argued that both parties might eventually regret having specified very narrow circumstances under which tenure removal could be initiated. It pointed out that the language in 15.3 was permissive, allowing tenure removal to be initiated but not requiring it.

The administration also asked that we re-consider our opposition to removing existing section 15.12 providing that an accused faculty member can appear before the Board of Trustees.

Friday, March 21

The administration suggested two changes in section 15.3, the first of which was minor and accepted by our Negotiating Team; the section will begin, “A Member of the Bargaining Unit may be suspended without pay and/or terminated for... .” The second proposed change pertained to part (f) and read,

(f) conviction of a felony, or conviction of any misdemeanor involving violence or a threat of violence, or of theft of University property or resources. For the purposes of Section 15.3(f), the term “conviction” shall include conviction, a plea of guilty, a plea of no contest or its equivalent. The reasons set forth in this Section 15.3 are independent, and no single subsection shall be interpreted to limit any other subsection.

Our Negotiating Team questioned whether conviction of a misdemeanor was appropriate, asking for example what could occur if a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member took WSU-purchased pens and paper home; could that be theft? Could then an administrator maliciously trump up charges and initiate tenure removal proceedings? Our team also noted the specific criminal acts listed in 2901.01 (A)(9)(a) of the Ohio Revised Code (those alluded to by our proposed language, conviction for which apparently implies legally mandatory dismissal as in Ohio Revised Code 3345.23), vs. the substantially broader language proposed by the administration, presumably including Disorderly Conduct (O.R.C. 2917.11), Failure to Disperse (O.R.C. 2917.04), and other acts that might occur in the context of civil disobedience, protests against (say) the administration, etc. The administration noted our concerns, stating that its objective was to be able to respond appropriately in the face of seriously objectionable actions. Our team will certainly have to consult our attorney about this matter.

The administration proposed adding the following sentence to the end of section 15.6: “The informal hearing need not be held at the option of the University in cases where the Faculty Member is incarcerated.” Our team pointed out that in most cases it will be to the administration’s advantage to hold the informal hearing, and also that this proposal will probably be acceptable, pending our consulting our attorney.

Friday, March 7

At this session, the parties amended language for section 15.9 (see the February 29 report below) to read as follows:

15.9 The President or designee shall notify in writing the accused Bargaining Unit Faculty Member and the administrator initiating charges of the intended hearing and of the composition of the Hearing Board, including alternate members. Within ten calendar days after receiving notice of the intended hearing, the accused Member is entitled to remove at most two members of the Hearing Board selected by AAUP-WSU and at most two selected by the University. After the Member has been given the opportunity to exercise his or her right to remove members or alternate members of the Hearing Board as specified above, the Hearing Board will be convened by the President of AAUP-WSU (or designee) and the Provost (or designee). At this time the Committee will elect a Chair or Co-Chairs and determine the rules governing the hearing. The Hearing Board shall communicate in writing the scheduled date, place, and time of the hearing and provide to all parties concerned an explanation of the rules under which the hearing shall be conducted.

The next-to-last sentence in 15.11 (again, see the February 29 report) was changed to read, “The hearing shall be conducted in private with only the AAUP-WSU and the University representatives, the Member’s counsel (if the Member chooses to be represented by counsel) and those summoned as witnesses or directly involved in the dispute present.” In 15.12, the word “removal” will be replaced by “termination ” for consistency.

Friday, February 29

The administration accepted the changes we proposed for sections 15.6 and 15.7. As to our proposal for section section 15.8 (the essence of which had already been approved by the administration), the parties tentatively agreed upon the following language:

15.8 The Hearing Board shall be created in the following manner: the AAUP-WSU and the University shall form a Hearing Board consisting of three tenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Members selected by the AAUP-WSU and three department chairs, assistant or associate deans who are also tenured faculty selected by the University. In addition, the AAUP-WSU and the University will each appoint two alternate members to the Board. The AAUP-WSU and the University shall select the members of this Board on the basis of their objectivity and competence and of the regard in which they are held in the academic community.

Continuing to section 15.9, the parties agreed that there was no need for the administration to be able to challenge members of the Hearing Board. They therefore tentatively adopted this language:

15.9 The President or designee shall notify in writing the accused Bargaining Unit Faculty Member and the administrator initiating charges of the intended hearing and of the composition of the Hearing Board, including alternate members. Within ten calendar days after receiving notice of the intended hearing, the accused Member is entitled to remove at most two members of the Hearing Board selected by AAUP-WSU and at most two selected by the University. The scheduled date, place, and time of the hearing shall be communicated in writing to all parties concerned accompanied by an explanation of the rules under which the hearing shall be conducted.

Regarding our proposed addition to section 15.9, the parties agreed tentatively on language below, deciding to renumber as shown:

15.10 The University will provide access to all available evidence and give the names of all potential witnesses to the accused Member, the Member’s counsel (who, here and elsewhere in the Article, shall be at the Member’s expense), and AAUP-WSU in a timely manner.

Likewise, the parties expect to renumber the existing section 15.10 and to have it read like this:

15.11 Both the accused Bargaining Unit Faculty Member and the administrator initiating charges may be represented by counsel, confront and cross-examine witnesses, present and summon witnesses, and be present to hear all evidence and arguments given at all meetings of the Hearing Board. Both the AAUP-WSU and the University are entitled to have representatives present at any hearing. The accused Bargaining Unit Faculty Member may choose not to testify or answer questions at this hearing. However, such failure may be taken into consideration by the Hearing Board. Members of the Hearing Board may question all witnesses appearing before the Board. The charging party has the burden of proving to the Hearing Board that, on the basis of clear and convincing evidence, the charges are true. The hearing shall be conducted in private with only the AAUP-WSU and the University representatives and those summoned as witnesses or directly involved in the dispute present. Subject to the approval of the accused, the charging party, and the Hearing Board, observers can be present at the hearing.

Existing section 15.11 will presumably be re-numbered as 15.12 but otherwise stay as is.

After hearing our objections to no longer guaranteeing a faculty member’s right to appear before the Board of Trustees (see the language proposed for striking in the existing section 15.12), the administration withdrew that part of its proposal. The parties expect that the final sections will read as follows:

15.13 Within twenty (20) working days after receiving the recommendation of the Hearing Board, the President will (a) recommend to the Board of Trustees that the accused be either suspended without pay for an identified period of time or terminated, (b) dismiss the charges, or (c) impose a specified lesser penalty. Both the accused Member and AAUP-WSU will be promptly notified.

15.14 Before the Board of Trustees approves either suspension without pay or termination, the accused shall have the right to appear before the Board with counsel and a representative of the AAUP-WSU.

15.15 Should the final decision be for removal, termination shall not become effective until the end of the academic or fiscal year, except where otherwise ordered by the University Board of Trustees, which can require severance of the Bargaining Unit Faculty Member's relationship with students and the University prior to the end of the academic or fiscal appointment when it finds the conduct or situation to be of extreme gravity. A penalty of suspension without pay shall not exceed one year, and during this year a suspended Bargaining Unit Faculty Member may purchase benefits from the University at his or her own expense.

15.16 At the sole discretion of the AAUP-WSU, the final decision of the Board of Trustees may be taken directly to binding arbitration. The timelines, procedures and the costs of arbitration will be governed by the provisions concerning arbitration in Section 16.6.

Friday, February 15

The parties began negotiations about the proposals above with the administration’s addition to section 15.3 (c). Our Negotiating Team expressed concern over this addition: it is vague, and “harassment or discrimination” comes in many kinds and in many degrees of severity, some of which might not merit sanctions as severe as suspension or termination. Our team likewise explained that the new language 15.3 (f) in our proposal is taken directly from section 3345.23 of the Ohio Revised Code, subsection (D). After some discussion, the parties seemed to agree upon the following language:

15.3 A Member of the Bargaining Unit may be suspended without pay or terminated for (a) fraudulent credentials pertaining to employment at WSU, (b) demonstrated incompetence or dishonesty in teaching or scholarship; (c) substantial and manifest neglect of duty; (d) personal conduct which presents a serious threat to health or safety of any person in the University community, manifests severe and continuing harassment or discrimination, or otherwise substantially impairs the Bargaining Unit Faculty Member's fulfillment of the institutional responsibilities, (e) malicious conduct which directly obstructs the performance of instructional or scholarly programs authorized or permitted by the University, or (f) conviction of a crime involving an offense of violence as defined in division (A)(9)(a) of section 2901.01 of the Ohio Revised Code as of January 1, 2008 or a substantially equivalent offense under a municipal ordinance.

Next, about our proposal for section 15.8, our team explained that our objective was to simplify the process for forming a Hearing Board: we no longer have a standing board since history shows that one is rarely needed; we remove the Faculty Senate from the process; and, we use a selection procedure akin to that now in place for Promotion and Tenure appeals. The administration stated that it accepted the “basic idea” of this proposal.

The administration stated that it too wanted to simplify the process, one means of doing which was to remove the Board of Trustees from the process (see the language proposed for striking in the existing section 15.12).

Returning to the first two sections, the parties tentatively agreed to the following language:

15.1 Subject to the provisions of Section 13.6 and Article 17, the University has and retains the right to terminate the employment of a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member. In addition, a Member of the Bargaining Unit may be suspended without pay or terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Article 15.

15.2 Termination of a tenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Member pursuant to this Article 15 automatically includes the removal of that Member’s tenure.

Section 13.6, cited in the language above, is (as of this writing) expected to read as follows; please see our Article 13 page for more.

13.6 Termination of an untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Member

13.6.1 An untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Member who

• fails to obtain tenure during the probationary period; or
• fails to complete, within one year of the initial appointment date, any degree specified as required in the appointment letter

will be terminated after one additional year of service, during which the Member will not be considered for tenure. Moreover, the completion of any degree will not reverse the termination.

13.6.2 An untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Member may be terminated because of

• deficient performance in teaching, scholarship or service (13.6.3);
• offenses defined in Section 13.6.4; or
• retrenchment (Article 17).

13.6.3 The Dean may terminate an untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Member for deficient performance in teaching, scholarship or service. Before deciding to do so, the Dean must consult with the Department Promotion and Tenure Committee. The Committee will have the opportunity to meet, to discuss the case, and to make recommendations to the Dean before the Dean makes any decision regarding termination for deficient performance.

13.6.3.1 If the Dean does terminate an untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Member for deficient performance, the Dean will notify the Member in writing, with a copy to AAUP-WSU.

13.6.3.2 If the written notice of the termination for deficient performance is made by February 1 of the probationary period’s first year, no further requirements apply. Otherwise, the termination for deficient performance can occur only if (1) such deficient performance was specified in a written evaluation, (2) at least two academic quarters were given to address any deficiency, and (3) any deficient performance continued; and, the written notice shall be made at least twelve months in advance of termination of employment.

13.6.4 Untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Members can also be terminated pursuant to Article 15 for any of the reasons set forth in section 15.3.

13.6.4.1 A Bargaining Unit Faculty Member who has been charged with one or more offenses defined in Section 15.3 shall not receive tenure before the process prescribed by Article 15 (including external arbitration pursuant to Section 15.14 if applicable) has run to completion. If a Member is exonerated and the charges delayed her or his grant of tenure, the tenure (and promotion, if applicable) shall be made retroactive to the date it would otherwise have taken effect. If the Member is not exonerated, tenure will be denied and the Member terminated pursuant to Article 15.

The parties discussed an inconsistency in the current CBA: section 14.1.2 implies that paid suspension can be applied as a disciplinary matter only via section 14.3 or the full process of Article 15, whereas 14.5.4 implies otherwise. Our Negotiating Team agreed with the administration that paid suspension can be applied without the Article 15 process.

Turning to section 15.4, in which we had proposed one small wording change, the parties seemed to agree upon the following:

15.4 Charges may be brought against a Member of the Bargaining Unit by an administrator who is a tenured faculty member outside the Bargaining Unit. Such charges shall be made in writing with reasonable particularity of the grounds for removal termination or suspension without pay within based on one or more of the categories in Section 15.3 and shall be presented to the President of the University.

In addition, the parties are likely to change the name of this article, perhaps to “Termination and Unpaid Suspension.”

Return to the AAUP-WSU home page.

This page was last modified on April 27, 2008. Corrections, comments, and suggestions are most welcome. Contact the webmaster for this page (Jim Vance) at jvance@math.wright.edu, telephone 937-775-2206.