Minutes of the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee
for March 26, 2004

Attending: Profs. Allen, Christoph, Fossum, Gellott, Holmes, Mayer (chair), Norton, Walter (members) and Prof. Feldt (Secretary of the Faculty).

Guests: Profs. McCann, Haller, Hansen, St. Jean , Duetsch (emeritus), K. Larson, H. Miles. Excused: Prof. Shailor

The meeting was convened at 10:04 AM in Union 106.

1. The minutes as distributed, with the addition of the room in which the meeting was held, were approved unanimously

2. The Chair reported that informal discussion and mediation in the matter of the grievance by Prof. Wang had been exhausted, and that the Committee must move on to the next step of the process. There was some discussion of what the correct procedure is. The Chair urged the Committee members to read UWPF 7.17-7.20 on grievances, and also UWPF 7.02-7.06 on complaints, which might provide some guidance.

3. The Committee then again took up the appeal by Prof. McCann of a non-renewal decision by the Executive Committee of the Department of Computer Science, Prof. Fossum again recusing himself for this portion of the meeting. The Chair noted that additional documents requested by the Committee had been made available. These included an email (which was included in Prof. McCann’s original submission), and Executive Committee minutes kindly supplied by Prof. Fossum. In addition, Prof. Fossum had given to the Committee a memorandum on the case, and Prof. McCann provided a written appraisal of his views on material prejudice, with an addendum addressing some points in Prof. Fossum’s memorandum. The Committee examined these materials, some of which had only been received that morning.

4. The Committee then began its deliberations. Prof. Mayer began by noting that three questions needed to be answered. First, whether “procedures required by the rules of the Board or the Faculty were not followed.” Second, if required procedures were not followed, did “material prejudice” to the appellant result therefrom. Prof. Mayer stated that his understanding was that material prejudice would have occurred if there is a substantial probability that the result would have been different had the required procedures been followed. Prof. Feldt added that his research had found that a standard legal definition of “material” was “relevant and significant”. Third, if there was material prejudice, what form of remedy is appropriate. Prof. Mayer added that he did not believe we need resolve all eight issues raised by Prof. McCann if we found that one was dispositive.

5. An analog tape recording was made of the proceedings, and is available in the Secretary of the Faculty’s office. In addition to members of the Committee and Prof. Feldt, comments were made by or sought from Profs. Fossum, Haller, McCann, and Duetsch.

6. Discussion centered on point 3 of Prof. McCann’s submission, which alleged failure to follow UWPF 6.04(4) concerning annual statements of progress towards tenure. Some members argued that there was a possibility of failure to follow required procedure resulting in material prejudice with regard to points 1 or 2 of Prof McCann’s submission, but no member argued that material prejudice resulted from points 4-8.

7. Prof. Mayer moved, seconded by Prof Christoph, that the Committee finds that there was a failure to follow required procedures, in particular UWPF 6.04(4), and that material prejudice to Prof. McCann resulted therefrom. The motion was adopted unanimously.

8. Discussion of potential remedies then began. Prof. Feldt had determined authoritatively from UW System Chief Counsel that extension of the probationary period was not an option. Members sought a remedy that would be fair to Prof. McCann, while at the same time expressing their conviction that the Computer Science Executive Committee had not acted out of malice, and they could not specifically find that remand would serve no useful purpose (see UWPF 6.08(3)).

9. Prof. Christoph moved, seconded by Prof. Allen, that the case be remanded for reconsideration to the Computer Science Executive Committee.

Prof. Gellott moved, seconded by Prof. Mayer, to amend the motion so that the Computer Science Executive Committee be instructed that in reconsidering Prof. McCann’s tenure case, the Executive Committee cannot expect him to have done what he was not told, in writing, to do. The amendment was adopted on a vote of 6 in favor, 1 opposed.

Prof. Christoph moved, seconded by Prof. Gellott, to amend the motion so that the Computer Science Executive Committee be instructed that a member of the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee be allowed as a guest at both open and closed sessions at which Prof. McCann’s case is reconsidered. The amendment was adopted unanimously.

Prof. Christoph’s original motion as twice amended was adopted unanimously.

10. During the discussion, some questions had arisen as to the proper composition of the Computer Science Executive Committee; indeed, Prof. McCann had raised this issue as point 8 of his submission. Prof. Mayer moved, seconded by Prof. Walter, that the University Committee determine immediately the proper composition of the Computer Science Executive Committee. The motion was adopted unanimously.

11. Twice during the meeting the adjournment time had been extended by unanimous consent, once with a recess so that members could inform students and colleagues. The adjournment time as extended having been reached, the Committee adjourned.