GF votes down proposed amendments to PCRC

Despite failure, faculty in favor of reform

Tuesday the General Faculty (GF) voted down a proposal that would amend Appendix H, the section of the Faculty Guide that describes the duties and processes of the Professional Conduct Review Committee (PCRC). The final vote was 28 in favor and 44 opposed, with nine abstentions.

The proposal was co-authored by Professor of Biology Richard Levin, Professor of English Robert Longsworth, Professor of Economics Robert Piron and Professor of Politics Ben Schiff.

Section D of Appendix H states: "Normally, before the filing of a formal complaint, efforts must have been undertaken previously to resolve the complaint informally. In cases involving complaints of sexual misconduct, see Appendix G. In other cases, the divisional dean should be involved in the informal resolution of the complaint, if it has not been resolved at the departmental level." To that, the proposal would have added the following clause: "However, should a charge of professional misconduct be directed against the dean, the other divisional dean should assume this function."

The proposal would also have amended Section D, part 9, which states: "The appropriate divisional dean shall participate in all meetings of the Hearing Panel." To this, the proposal would have added: … "unless that dean has been charge with professional misconduct, in which case the other divisional dean should assume this function."

Those who brought the proposal to the floor had hoped to clarify who the PCRC legislation applies.

The proposal states: "The easiest way to resolve the apparent ambiguity of Appendix H is to make explicit its application to administrators holding faculty appointments." The only administrators specifically mentioned by the proposed changes were the two divisional deans.

Uncertainty about who can be charged under the PCRC legislation arose after the PCRC ruled it could not move forward with complaints filed against Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Clayton Koppes and former acting Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences James Helm because they were both - though tenured members of the faculty - acting in their capacity as administrators.

Levin filed a complaint against Koppes with the PCRC in September, and Associate Professor of Neuroscience David Holtzman filed complaints against Helm and Koppes with the PCRC around that time. Levin's complaint was thrown out by his investigative panel last fall, while the GFC just recently sent a recommendation to the PCRC about how to deal with Holtzman's complaint. (see related story, page 3) As a result of the uncertainty, Levin's complaint was never heard and where Holtzman's complaint should be heard has been debated and discussed by the GFC.

Levin and Holtzman have pointed to the statement "The General Faculty shall have a Professional Conduct Review Committee which shall consider formal complaints about professional conduct made against any individual holding a faculty appointment at Oberlin College" in the Faculty Guide. They say this statement clearly applies Appendix H to Koppes and Helm, since both are administrators with faculty appointments.

In February President Dye said, "When a dean is acting as dean, he is acting as dean and not as a professor." She said there are plenty of ways people can have their complaints against the dean addressed, and such complaints are usually handled informally. She added, "It's not like anytime there's a complaint there's no possibility … Still there ought to be a formal process … We've got to have some mechanism in place for when the informal dispute mechanism does not work."

Because there is no formal way to bring a charge of professional misconduct against a dean, many members of the faculty - including those who voted the proposal down - perceive a procedural gap that needs to be addressed by the GF.

Debate at the GF meeting ran until for around 2 hours. Those who supported the proposal said it was a simple solution that would close the procedural gap, while opponents named a variety of reason for why they were electing not to vote for the proposal.

Levin introduced the proposal. "The time has passed for haste," he said. "We now have a need for an orderly procedure. I would urge the General Faculty to support this motion … Let us make sure a fair judgment is made that will close the gap which case due process aside."

After Levin concluded his introduction, Professor of Philosophy Dan Merrill read a prepared speech which shaped much of the discussion that followed.

Merrill opposed the proposal for three reasons. He said it would make the wording of the PCRC legislation "extremely vague and, in the extreme case, disastrously broad." Merrill cited the first paragraph of the PCRC legislation, which states that the PCRC "shall consider formal complaints about professional conduct made against any individual holding a faculty appointment at Oberlin College." Merrill said that the motion does not make the PCRC legislation explicit to administrators holding faculty appointments because the clauses only concern the actions of two administrators, the divisional deans.

Merrill also said that the PCRC is not the body that should handle formal complaints against administrators because it does not include administrators on the panels and the clauses only apply to administrators who hold teaching appointments.

Merrill also said he feels that there should be no one, general procedure for handling complaints against administrators, but several systems.

Professor of History Marcia Colish spoke on behalf of the proposal. "The proposed amendment," Colish began, "says nothing that changes the description of professional misconduct. [The proposed legislation] may be vague, but [the PCRC legislation without the amended clauses] would still be vague."

She also said that other appendices in the Faculty Guide cover certain types of misconduct. The PCRC legislation, Colish said, excludes the types of misconduct covered in other appendices.

Colish called the proposal a "simple, elegant solution."

Associate of Professor Computer Science said that he was concerned over the phrase "faculty appointment." He asked whether the proposal applies to administrators who have faculty appointments but not to those who do not.

Levin said that Merrill and Geitz were "essentially attacking the faculty guide" and not his proposal. He said he felt their comments were "inappropriate and out of order."

Merrill responded by saying, "I don't feel they're out of order at all." He said that the "de facto result" of implementing the proposal would be to vastly broaden the legislation.

Professor of History Gary Kornbluth asked whether the proposal would be "closing a gap when what we've seen here is a huge opening."

Schiff said the intent of Appendix H is clear. The legislation covers anyone with a faculty appointment, Schiff said, and "To be a member of the faculty brings with it responsibilities, privileges and benefits."

Director of Client Services Kevin Weidenbaum, a member of the Administrative and Professional Staff who sits on GF, asked whether the proposal would apply to him.

Piron assured Weidenbaum that the PCRC legislation does not apply to him. "You need not fear being brought up on charges," Piron said.

Associate Professor of History Len Smith said it seemed strange to him that once you're a member of the faculty "that's your cast."

Piron asked Merrill if he felt a complaint against an administrator could not be handled fairly by the PCRC.

Merril said he felt it could be, but also felt it could be handled better if handled differently.

Most faculty members spoke about the need for a formal procedure. After stating that he intended to vote against the proposal, Smith said he feels a procedure is needed.

Professor of Classics Tom Van Nortwick, who spoke against the proposal, did, too. "At the same," Van Nortwick said, "I think it's good to have a procedure … If we don't have one, let's get one."

Levin said he was a little surprised by the faculty's final vote. "At the meeting on Tuesday, a simple proposal to close the gap described by some scholars," Levin said, "was attacked by an interesting technique involving the overpowering assumption, the earnest evasion, the artful equivocation and no concern at all for due process."

He said people were attacking Appendix H, not his proposal, and should have been called out of order.

Levin said he felt there would be more discussion about the issues articulated at the GF meeting "when the College does not feel it's in an embarrassing position. The College is clearly in no hurry."

Colish agreed. She said the proposal did not open the door to other kinds of administrators. "I thought there were a lot of false issues that distracted a lot of people," Colish said.

Merrill said he is suggesting a major overhaul of the procedure, and thinks that Levin is probably thinking about the legislation more in terms of its formal wording.

Merrill said he feels it is a nontrivial task to devise a procedure for formal complaints. "I think some people are going to have to devote some thought to it," he said.