Moved from Forum: posted April 20, 2023 at 12:27 pm

Here is a document that aims to explain the events that prompted the Resolution of Condemnation, along with details of the events that prompted the earlier resolution directed at the Provost’s office (the “Resolution Regarding Transparency and Accountability of A & P Appointments within the Division of Academic Affairs”). It was the Provost’s response to the latter (in front of the JMU Faculty Senate) that generated the former.

– – –
The events that have led to the two resolutions currently before the Faculty Senate—the “Resolution Regarding Transparency and Accountability of A & P Appointments within the Division of Academic Affairs,” and the “Resolution of Condemnation of Recent Actions of JMU’s Provost,” may not be known to some faculty at JMU. This brief document is intended to explain the origins of these resolutions.

It’s necessary to begin with the “Resolution Regarding Transparency and Accountability” (hereafter RRTA); initially, this was the only resolution directed at the Provost’s office. It emerged after the College of Science and Mathematics (CSM) Dean search of 2022 concluded, and the resolution focused on a series of decision-points in that search which raised legitimate and serious questions about the process used to conduct that search and, moreover, about violations of confidentiality by the Provost office and what might be inferred as threats from that office.

As the RRTA indicates, one concern faculty raised in the CSM Dean search was the dismissal of ALL qualitative feedback and that search committee members were not permitted to see the qualitative feedback. The search chair, in email to CSM members, claimed “there were … many instances of comments that were inappropriate or irrelevant, as well as instances of single individuals completing the survey multiple times.” The Provost’s office failed to provide any evidence to sustain these claims and failed to implement a less severe response, such as redacting the parts of the evaluations that were deemed “inappropriate” or “unusable,” or those identified as duplicates.

That action alone might not have prompted the resolution; it was the actions prior to it, along with the suppression of the evaluations of the three candidates, that prompted the resolution.

To understand why, it’s important to know that one of the finalists for the CSM Dean position was at the time the interim Dean of CSM. Roughly one month after the search committee had been formed by the provost’s office, the interim CSM Dean appointed a member of the search committee to be interim head of an academic department at JMU. The concern was that at the very least, a conflict of interest could be perceived, as the interim Dean—if made permanent—would have the authority to make the interim AUH a permanent AUH. Dr. Hala Nelson, co-chair of the Hiring Task force and chair of CSM College Council, raised a concern on behalf of multiple faculty in CSM and sent Provost Coltman a private email expressing concern that this action by the interim Dean posed a potential conflict of interest. In response to that private email, the Provost responded that the interim AUH’s was “not a conflict of interest”, but provided no argument, and cited no policy, to defend that decision. Rather, the Provost simply stated that there was no conflict of interest and that she had “entrusted and empowered ”the interim AUH “to serve as a member of the dean search committee.”

More troubling, perhaps, was the fact that in her email reply to Dr. Nelson, Provost Coltman cc’d both the interim Dean and the interim AUH. It’s worth remembering that the interim Dean was Dr. Nelson’s Dean; whether intended or not, one could infer a threat in the Provost’s sharing of what Dr. Nelson reasonably assumed would be a confidential email. Moreover, by cc’ing only the internal candidate and failing to cc the two external CSM dean candidates, the Provost undermined faith in the hiring process, as her actions raised concerns about favoritism.

It should again be noted that concerns about this search were deemed by many faculty, including the author(s) of the RRTA, to fit a long-standing pattern of conduct in the Provost’s office—namely, the professed commitment to “transparency” and “shared governance” belied by policies, such as overly broad non-disclosure confidentiality agreements, which in fact make faculty input in academic policies and hiring more form than substance. That, anyway, was the belief of the RRTA’s author(s).

An effort to introduce the RRTA in the Faculty Senate in May of 2022 was unsuccessful, as that special meeting—the last of the 2021-2022 academic year—was not accepting new business. Accordingly, plans were made to introduce the resolution in the September 1st 2022 meeting. The Provost was aware of the resolution; in her opening remarks to the Senate she stated that content revealed in the RRTA constituted a possible breach of confidentiality and warned that an investigation might be conducted to discover the RRTA’s author(s). She added that legal action for libel and an investigation of faculty misconduct and subsequent sanction might follow. Based on evidence shared with Faculty Senate, neither of the Provost’s concerns have merit.

These warnings were followed by private meetings with at least two different faculty members during which the Provost “demanded” that they reveal the RRTA’s author(s).

The Provost sent an email to the Speaker of the Faculty Senate, pointing to Dr. Nelson in particular as a potential author of the RRTA. The false naming of Dr. Nelson prompted Dr Nelson to seek the advice of a more senior administrator and to consider securing legal counsel.

It was the Provost’s repeated threats and efforts to intimidate faculty which led to the writing of the second resolution.

It should be noted, again, that were these actions in isolation, it is unlikely the second resolution—the Resolution of Condemnation of Recent Actions (RCRA)—would have emerged. But as the RCRA indicates, these actions were deemed to fit what some faculty perceive to be a long-standing pattern of conduct in the Provost’s office to engage in behavior that fosters a culture of fear and intimidation on campus. It should be stressed that at no time was the outcome of the CSM Dean search questioned by faculty; their concern was with the process. The fact that faculty were told by the Provost that questioning the process of a search was subject to discipline and even potential loss of employment, and the fact that the Provost was willing to voice that threat publicly to the entire Faculty Senate, was taken by the members of the Senate as an affront to academic freedom and in contradiction to the true meaning of shared governance and transparency. That is what prompted RCRA.

LikeLike

moved from Forum: posted April 26, 2023 at 10:17 am

The provost’s callous response to the condemnation tried to blame faculty for the resolution. She said that she wears the condemnation like a badge of honor. To her, it means that she is slowly awakening faculty from the doldrums of ignorance. Leading is hard and often unappreciated, according to her.

It doesn’t have to be that way if you are a true leader.

LikeLike