Recently, the Faculty Senate called an ad-hoc Governance Committee to look into different forms of faculty government used at other universities. On March 29, a survey was distributed via e-mail to the faculty. The survey touched off a series of events that led up to a closed meeting of the Faculty Senate, during which legal counsel was obtained, and a vote of no confidence in Provost G.P. “Bud” Peterson was brought up, but was tabled until next Wednesday’s meeting.
The survey sent out to the faculty was fairly varied. Questions asked for opinions on statements ranging from “The student body should have elected representation on the Rensselaer Board of Trustees” to “If all attempts to repair a worsening situation fail, I would support organizing the RPI faculty.”
Two days later, the provost sent out a memo to the entire faculty saying the survey’s “distribution is legally problematic and I ask that you disregard and not respond to this survey.”
The memo continued, saying, that while he respected and recognized the rights of the Faculty Senate to conduct surveys, “Our attorneys are concerned that distribution of this survey with questions 9, 10, and 11, while not perhaps intentional, could be construed as an improper attempt to solicit support for an outside organization and as such, is a potential violation of the National Labor Relations Act and the holdings of the Yeshiva line of cases under the Act.”
In February of 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a five-to-four ruling in a case involving the National Labor Relations Board and Yeshiva University. The case established a legal precedent which effectively prohibits faculty at private universities from unionizing, as the Court held that they were managerial workers.
Those three questions alluded to in the provost’s memo sought the opinion of trying out legal work actions such as “work-to-rule” to send a message, and another asked for opinions on bringing in an outside mediator. The last of the three was the question that asked about organizing the faculty.
Peterson’s memo also stated that the survey’s distribution violated an Institute Human Resources policy regarding “no solicitation/no distribution.” The policy forbids faculty or employees from soliciting or promoting support of “any cause or organization during his or her working time or during the working time of the faculty or employee at whom such activity is directed.”
Many events soon transpired. According to a source close to the situation, the provost had a letter of reprimand put in Faculty Senate President Professor Bruce Nauman’s file and asked Francine Fredette, who runs the administrative office for the Senate, to destroy the results collected from the survey.
The Faculty Senate closed its April 6 meeting to administrators and the press. According to the Senate’s publicly available unapproved minutes, many different motions were passed ranging from hiring legal representation for the Senate and its committees to a motion condemning the destruction of the governance survey results. Two motions were also tabled until the April 20 meeting. One of these called for the survey to be reissued in its original form. The second was a motion to vote no confidence in the provost. Most of the votes were 13-0 votes. According to Nauman, quorum for the body is 12.
As stated in Peterson’s memo, a meeting was held last Friday, April 8, with members of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and Governance Committee, the provost, the vice president for human resources, the secretary and general counsel for the Institute, and RPI’s labor law counsel.
A memo sent by Peterson to all faculty members later that day stated the meeting was held “to discuss the rationale for my actions,” alluding to his “decision to withdraw the Faculty Governance Survey.”
According to Nauman, nothing has changed as a result of the subsequent meetings. He also said that the representation was hired to look into whether the survey did or did not violate any laws. Another meeting is scheduled for today with Peterson, members of the Senate Executive and Governance Committees, and the academic leadership team to discuss the situation.
The anonymous source also pointed out that the irony in all of this is that the survey was merely aimed at gathering data. The source classified the follow-up as a “strong overreaction” and said that this may have actually proven “there is no proper governance at RPI,” adding that this says, “there is no open free speech on this campus.” They also stated that their legal counsel feels that the survey did not violate any laws.
The source pointed out that governance is an important issue on campus at this time. RPI is going through reaccreditation by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and faculty government is an area that they consider. The individual said it would be “most unfortunate” if this affected reaccreditation. Part of the reason the committee was formed, they said, was to ensure that governance was working as effectively as possible.
At the same time, though, the source said that they feel it is “never too late” for both sides involved to say “let’s not escalate this further.”
In response to the tabled vote of no confidence, Peterson said, “I think my record speaks for itself…we’ve made tremendous progress in the past several years.” He said that that these issues will continue to be worked on and discussed.
