Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1964 [PAGE 1225]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

1180

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

[May 20

pointee's answer to the charges, to receive evidence, and to hear arguments presented by each side. Under existing University Statutes, the appointee against whom charges are filed is already entitled to a hearing before this Senate Committee but the tentatively approved revisions will formalize the Committee procedures for such hearing. A new requirement is that the appointee must file an answer to the charges if he requests a hearing before the Committee. It is noted that, by reason of the times specified for notices and hearings before the Senate Committee and the Board, a minimum of sixty-five days will elapse between the time the President files charges with the Senate and the commencement of the hearing before the Board of Trustees. This minimum contemplates consultation, hearing, consideration, and decision by the President and the Senate Committee on the first day at each stage of the proceedings. It is apparent that, in practice, such immediate disposition will not be possible, and that the interval between the filing of charges and the Board hearing will substantially exceed sixty-five days. Substantive Matters The amendments to the Statutes proposed by the Board of Trustees in its April 15, 1964, action contain some substantive changes in the revisions initiated in the Senates and received by the Board in June of 1963. T h e most significant of these are in the Board's proposed modifications in the Coordinating Council's Section 38 (d) definition of "due cause for dismissal" and the new Section 38 (e) (8) relating to suspensions. Additionally, the Board has proposed a substantial amendment to Section 39 (b) dealing with a faculty member's role as a citizen, which Section was not the subject of a recommendation by the Coordinating Council. 1. Due Cause for Dismissal Existing Section 38 (d) reads as follows: "(d) Cause for discharge shall consist of conduct seriously prejudicial to the University through deliberate infraction of law or commonly accepted standards of morality, neglect of duty, inefficiency or incompetency. T h e enumeration of causes for discharge shall not be deemed exclusive, and the Board of Trustees reserves the power to discharge for other causes, but it is to be distinctly understood that this power will be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and then only for conduct which is clearly prejudicial to the best interests of the University." The Coordinating Council rewrote the definition of due cause for dismissal with considerable changes in language and emphasis. The amendments to Section 38 (d) proposed by the April IS, 1964, actioii of the Board of Trustees adopt the basic approach and concepts of the Council's version but would modify the Council's language slightly to read (the matter deleted from Council version shown within brackets with lines through the deletions, and matters added to Council version shown by italics): "(d) Due cause for dismissal shall be deemed to exist only if [, with all duo regard for the freedoms and protections provided for in Section 30 of these Statutes,] a faculty member's conduct is found to demonstrate clearly and convincingly either that (1) he has been grossly neglectful of, or grossly inefficient in, the performance of his University duties, or that (2) he can [no longer] not be relied upon to perform his University duties and functions, or otherwise to conduct himself, in a manner consonant with professional standards of conduct, competence, and responsibility." The phrase "with all due regard for the freedoms and protections provided in Section 39 of these Statutes" has been eliminated to avoid possible confusion in interpretation between Section 38 (d), in which the causes for dismissal are defined, and Section 39, in which is stated the University's policy to encourage, promote, and maintain academic freedom within the limits therein set forth. A reference to "freedoms and protections provided for in Section 39" would necessitate a similar reference to the "responsibilities" required by that Section. It is clear that certain responsibilities set forth in Section 39 are of a nature that violation of them will result in dismissal. F o r example, Section 39 (c), in which no change has been recommended, must be interpreted as meaning that to advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government by force or violence is unprofessional conduct, per se, and that one indulging in such advocacy will be dismissed.