December 3, 2007

Inquiry into the denial of tenure to a faculty member in the School of Engineering and Technology whose spouse was denied tenure the previous year.

On November 6, 2007, the Senate passed a motion requesting that the president of the Senate and the president of CCSU-AAUP conduct an inquiry into the denial of tenure to a faculty member in the School of Engineering and Technology whose spouse was also denied tenure.

We are including two separate reports.  We have restricted our findings to verifiable facts and have refrained from passing judgment on the merits of either case.

Tim Craine, President of the Faculty Senate reports the following:

1. This faculty member was denied tenure in his penultimate year, Spring 2007. He was the only member recommended for tenure by the Promotion and Tenure Committee who was denied tenure by the President that year.  Similarly, in Spring 2006 his wife was the only member recommended for tenure by the Promotion and Tenure Committee who was denied tenure by the President.  Both he and his wife have given written permission to have the information contained in this report released to the Senate.

2. The faculty member’s application for tenure was supported by a majority of his DEC and by the University Promotion and Tenure Committee.

His application for tenure was opposed by a minority member of his DEC, his department chair, the dean of his school, and the president.  The grounds for denial varied.  The minority member of the DEC and the department chair cited Articles 4.11.9.1, 4.11.9.2, and 4.11.9.3.  The dean cited 4.11.9.1.  The president in his initial letter dated April 13, 2007, did not cite any provision of the contract, but, after being reminded that Article 4.11.14 requires that an explanation be given in writing, wrote another letter to the faculty member on April 30, 2007, in which he cited Articles 4.11.9.1 and 4.11.9.2.

3. On October 5, 2007, the faculty member filed a complaint with the CHRO on the grounds of discrimination based on religion, national origin, and retaliation for his spouse’s complaint of discrimination.

4. An examination of the letters which led to the renewal of his contracts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, revealed the following.

The dean’s first three letters (2002, 2003, 2004) recommending reappointment were generally positive.  In his letter of April 30, 2004, the dean used the phrase “good quality” to describe his teaching and indicated that the faculty member was “highly evaluated” in the area of creative activity.

In the renewal letter of April 26, 2005, the dean recommended that some of the faculty member’s lab experiments needed “revisiting.”

In 2006 the DEC wrote a more critical letter but nevertheless recommended renewal.  The three members of the DEC signed their letter on April 11, four days before the April 15 deadline.  The department chair signed the DEC letter on April 18.  Previous DEC letters had not included the department chair’s signature. 

On April 13, 2006, the President wrote a letter to the faculty member’s spouse indicating that he was denying her tenure.  Copies were sent via campus mail to members of the Promotion and Tenure Committee.  Because of the holiday weekend these members of the P&T may have received the letter on or about Tuesday, April 18.  The faculty member’s department chair was a member of the P&T Committee at that time.

On April 19, 2006, the faculty member’s department chair wrote a letter to the dean reversing her position of the previous day and recommending against renewal. 

On May 9, 2006, the faculty member and the AAUP signed an agreement allowing the dean to extend his deadline for submitting his recommendation regarding renewal from May 1 to May 15, 2006.

On May 13, 2006, the dean wrote a letter to the president in which he recommended “with reservations” that the faculty member’s contract be renewed.

The faculty member alleges in his CHRO complaint that his department chair’s letter of April 19, 2006, was influenced by the President’s decision denying tenure to his spouse and that subsequently negative recommendations in the 2006-07 academic year were “in retaliation” for his spouse’s CHRO complaint.

Michael Gendron, President of CCSU-AAUP reports the following:

1. Both the husband and wife were denied tenure

2. Wife

a. 2006-2007 was her final appointment year at CCSU.

b. She filed a grievance over the negative tenure decision which was settled at Step 2.

c. She has filed a CHRO discrimination complaint.

§ The complaint is at the fact-finding step.

§ The CHRO Fact Finder will make a determination regarding whether the evidence supports the complaint going to the full CHRO panel.

§ AAUP assisted the member with filing this complaint, and continues to support her.

3. Husband

a. 2007-2008 is his terminal year.

b. The President failed to write a letter of explanation pursuant to Article 4.11.14.

c. AAUP informed the president of his obligation under this article.

d. Subsequently, the President issued his letter of explanation.

e. In AAUP’s opinion there were no apparent, additional, procedural violations when the negative tenure decision was made, therefore no grievance was filed.

4. Both the wife and husband have venues in which to file discrimination complaints, including the CRHO and the EEOC.

5. AAUP cannot file a grievance over the charge of discrimination.