Earlier in the month, The Polytechnic reported that the Faculty Senate had considered a motion to vote no confidence in Provost G. P. “Bud” Peterson and tabled it until their next regular meeting. Last Wednesday, following the announcement of results for the faculty elections, the Senate again closed their meeting to only non-administrative faculty. During this section of the meeting, a deeply divided Faculty Senate voted very narrowly, and perhaps in conflict with its constitution, to express no confidence in Peterson.
Though Senate President Bruce Nauman declined to give the actual vote count, a source indicated that the vote was 4 in favor, 4 opposed, and 2 abstaining. As per the rules of the Faculty Senate, the tie was broken by the chair of the meeting, Nauman. In an e-mail to all faculty over the last weekend, Nauman announced the passage of that vote and two others. In addition to the vote of no confidence, the Senate also called a special general faculty meeting for next Wednesday, May 4, “to discuss the vote of no confidence and its ramifications,” and decided to send out background information relating to the lead-up to the no confidence vote.
The vote itself seems to be controversial. According to the Faculty Senate Constitution, “Two thirds of the members of the Senate shall constitute a quorum.” The Faculty Senate website currently lists 19 members and only 11 people voted on the no confidence motion.
Senate Vice President Achille Messac, who will become president of the Faculty Senate after its last meeting this year, said he has “serious concerns about the constitutionality of the vote.” He stated, “There seems to have not been a quorum,” and also pointed out that a strict reading of the constitution indicates that a clause about the need for open meetings may have been violated.
The Senate’s constitution requires that “all formal action taken by the Senate shall take place at open meetings previously announced to the faculty.” Nauman stated that the meetings were, however, open—to all faculty except those in the administration.
One faculty member said that many e-mails have recently been exchanged between the faculty, and that there is a “great deal of confusion and misinformation going around” on this issue. The individual said that there seem to be people taking all sides on the issue. Many, however, seemed reluctant to discuss the issue with the press. Peterson declined to comment on the actual vote of no confidence.
When the Faculty Senate conducted its Chain of Command Satisfaction Survey at the end of last fall, Peterson was rated the highest in terms of overall satisfaction amongst those administrators who were rated individually.
The special general faculty meeting called by the Faculty Senate last week is scheduled for next Wednesday, May 4. Nauman said “We hope to have a positive outcome reflecting the faculty’s desires for improved governance without recrimination or procedural squabbles.”
The events leading up to this point comprise a lengthy list. In early March, the Faculty Senate called an ad-hoc governance committee which soon distributed a survey via e-mail to the faculty.
While the survey sent out to the faculty was varied, three questions stirred a controversy. One 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 sent out a memo to all faculty on the last day of March saying the survey’s “distribution is legally problematic and I ask that you disregard and not respond to this survey.” In addition to citing potential problems with the National Labor Relations Act, specifically dealing with the Yeshiva case, which involved the ability of faculty at another private university to unionize, he also said that the survey’s distribution violated an Institute Human Resources policy regarding “no solicitation/no distribution.”
Peterson also directed Francine Fredette, who runs the administrative office for the Senate, to destroy the results collected from the survey and wrote a letter reprimanding Nauman for the distribution of the survey. The letter said, “The nature of this action as President of the Faculty Senate has placed Rensselaer in a difficult position from a legal perspective, and as a result, regard this as a written reprimand for your inappropriate conduct, which is being placed in your personnel file.”
Following this, the Faculty Senate held its regularly scheduled April 6 meeting during which legal counsel for the Senate and Nauman was retained and the motion of no confidence in Peterson was first raised. Two days later, April 8, members of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and Governance Committee, met with the provost, the vice president for human resources, the secretary and general counsel for the Institute, and RPI’s labor law counsel, Kristine Grady Derewicz.
Derewicz stated that just having the results of the survey around could be construed as the beginnings of a union —petitioning and perhaps an election. She also stated that directing for the data to be destroyed was legal. Nauman commented on the meeting, “We walked into a meeting where the administration had denied our own counsel but brought in their own Philadelphia lawyer. It was not the nicest thing they could have done.”
On April 11, the attorney retained by the Faculty Senate, Harvey Randall, Esq., for itself and Nauman wrote to Peterson demanding that by April 19, the letter of reprimand be rescinded and that a written apology be sent to Nauman. It refuted the letter of reprimand and held that the survey in no way violated neither the National Labor Relations act nor the RPI Human Resources policy. It also stated that Nauman was not given due process.
After that letter went unanswered, Randall sent a letter to President Shirley Ann Jackson on April 19 asking for a reply by April 29. The letter discusses the prior communications and asks Jackson to recuse herself from adjudicating the grievance. It states, “Under the circumstances, Professor Nauman’s grievance must be submitted to arbitration and the arbitrator asked to determine the following issue: Did Provost Peterson improperly impose discipline on Professor Nauman for the reasons he set out in his March 31, 2005, Memorandum and if so, what shall be the remedy?”
As of press time, no replies had been received stemming from either of Randall’s letters. Peterson declined to comment on the letters. The last meeting of the Faculty Senate was scheduled for next Wednesday, May 4, but this will instead be the special general faculty meeting at which the no confidence vote and its ramifications will be discussed.
