Trustees strip faculty of appeals capacity

BY ANNA DOUGLAS
 

Faculty cannot appeal President Anthony DiGiorgio’s decisions to the Board of Trustees, except for those related to tenure and promotion, according to the board’s amendment to their bylaws in June and November 2009.
 

The Winthrop faculty conference recently voted unanimously to send a resolution to the Board of Trustees expressing their disappointment in the board for not reversing its decision during the board’s February retreat.
 

“On the final day of the retreat, the board voted to leave their bylaws in place but said they would review the bylaws every two years,” said Faculty Representative to the Board Marsha Bollinger during the Feb. 26 faculty meeting.

Faculty concerns

Jennifer Solomon, sociology and anthropology professor, said the question of why the Board of Trustees changed its bylaws to begin with has never been answered.
 

Solomon said the option to appeal any decision has not been used during her 20 years at Winthrop.
 

At the August faculty conference meeting, Solomon asked DiGiorgio why the Board of Trustees changed its by laws to eliminate the faculty’s right to appeal.
 

DiGiorgio responded to Solomon’s question by saying he didn’t speak for the Board of Trustees, according to faculty conference meeting minutes.
 

“What would bring the right of the faculty to appeal to the Board of Trustees to the attention of the members of Board of Trustees now,” Solomon said, after the
 

February faculty meeting.  “The president responded with an explanation, but not one that answered my question. It was obvious to others that he didn’t want to answer the question. Several people told me, ‘he didn’t answer your question.’”

President’s response

The Johnsonian requested an interview by e-mailing DiGiorgio directly, but his Assistant for Public Affairs Rebecca Masters responded by e-mail instead.
 

The president’s primary responsibilities at this time of the year are meeting “with other university presidents and with governmental officials who have major influence in the public-funding process for Winthrop,” Masters wrote in an e-mail.
 

Masters said DiGiorgio authorized this statement for use:
 

“Matters such as this are the trustees’ purview, in keeping with their responsibilities for long-term stewardship of the institution, and also informed by their experiences running businesses and serving in their respective professions. It is general custom and practice among higher education boards that trustees seek the perspectives of the president on such a matter, but that perspective is not determinative to the policy decisions trustees make as a group.   

Likewise, trustees indicated they felt current board practice — particularly having the chair of Faculty Conference sit with the board to represent faculty views — provides fulsome opportunity for the faculty to have a voice in the trustees’ deliberations — though again, also not a determinative one.”

Legislative body

The absence of a formal appeals process could be detrimental to the faculty conferences’ role as a legislative body, some faculty members said during their February meeting.
 

“This puts the president up there as kind of a king,” Solomon said before the faculty meeting.  “We have no recourse.”
 

The change to the board’s bylaws does not seem to be in response or in retaliation, Solomon said.  The amendment could be a pre-emptive move, she said.
 

Bollinger said the board offered no explanation for the amendment during her meeting with them at the board’s retreat.  Bollinger added that it appeared to be a routine change.
 

There were about 45 minutes of conversation concerning the faculty’s request for the board to review its bylaw change, she said.
 

“We had quiet reading time,” she said, “and I know they read the resolution (from faculty).”
The board’s response to the request was “thoughtful,” but members were not persuaded, Bollinger said.

Speaking to the faculty, she paraphrased board members’ statements on the matter.
 

The university needs a leader who has autonomy, some issues do not need to be debated by the entire campus and it is not appropriate for the board to micro-manage the president, Bollinger said in summarizing the trustees’ words.

Exclusion of faculty’s resolution in board packet

Board members generally receive an agenda and relevant documents about one week before they formally meet, Bollinger said.  The faculty representative said she sent a copy of the faculty’s request to Board of

Trustees chair Kathy Bigham in January 2010.
 

When Bollinger received her retreat packet, however, the resolution asking board members to reconsider their bylaw amendment was not included, she said.
 

Bigham said she does not know why the resolution was not in the board’s packet.  She said Bollinger’s presentation to the board during its retreat was stronger than the board simply reading the document in the packet anyway.
 

At February’s faculty meeting, English professor John Bird said he is not pleased with the board chair’s exclusion of the information in the board’s packet.  He also proposed the resolution expressing frustration on the decision.
 

“I’m extremely disappointed that the Board of Trustees took no action on a measure that was passed unanimously by faculty,” Bird said.
 

Bigham said the board would continue to receive information from faculty pertaining to the appeals process, but the board members thought they made “a good decision.”
 

“I felt that the board was very comfortable (with the decision not to have an appeals process),” Bigham said.
 

The change in bylaws will not affect the faculty conference as a strong body, Bigham said.  The faculty conference can still send its faculty representative to the board and communicate that way.  The representative is “allowed and encouraged” to bring any issue, including those related to any of the president’s decisions, to the board, she said.
 

“They (the faculty) have always sent their best and brightest (representative),” Bigham said.

Change in faculty bylaws

Joe Prus, chair of Winthrop’s psychology department, said it might be more productive for the faculty to “use what (they’ve) been given” instead of passing a resolution that might put the board at odds with the faculty.
 

Ginger Williams, associate history professor, said she thought there were other avenues of communication with the board other than the recently removed appeals process.  She also said it was “irresponsible” of the Board of

Trustees chair not to send the members related documents before their meeting.
 

In addition to voting to send another resolution to the Board of Trustees, faculty members also voted to amend their own bylaws to reflect a lack of an appeals process.  The bylaws amendment passed with a 54-14 vote.