[Senate letterhead]
DRAFT
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
January __, 2014
Domenico Grasso, Provost
Office of the Provost
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
Re: Complaint
Dear Provost Grasso:
We send this letter to express our concern over certain violations of policy and procedures that we believe occurred in the Lerner College of Business & Economics and the College of Engineering with respect to the adoption of the PhD program in Financial Services Analytics last fall semester. For the reasons set forth below, we believe that there is a strong basis for a complaint to the Faculty Senate Committee on Welfare and Privileges. Because any decision of the Faculty Welfare and Privileges Committee ultimately will come to you for resolution, we wish to first raise these issues with you outside the formal complaint process. That may allow us to achieve our objective (preventing such violations in the future) in a more confidential setting.
Violation of Faculty Governance in Approving PhD Proposal
As you know, the Lerner College of Business & Economics and the College of Engineering brought a proposal for a new PhD program to the Faculty Senate for approval last semester. This graduate degree program will be administered jointly by the deans of the two colleges, a faculty committee, and the program director. It was the understanding of the members of the Graduate Studies Committee, the Coordinating Committee on Education, and the Executive Committee that the proposal had been properly approved by the faculty of the two colleges prior to its submission to the Faculty Senate for consideration. Unfortunately, it appears that neither college followed its own bylaws in approving the proposal at the college level before sending it on to the Senate for approval. This is a serious violation of policy and procedure as well as Senate protocol. In addition, such a failure to obtain the approval of the faculty of these colleges is a departure from principles of faculty governance.
First, consider the approval process in the Lerner College. The proposal for this new academic program was not submitted to the faculty of those departments in the Lerner College that will be implementing the new PhD program, as required by the Bylaws of the Lerner College. Instead, the proposal for the PhD program was only submitted to a vote of the faculty of the College, and there are questions as to the validity of that vote as well (as discussed further below). The proposal came to the faculty of the Lerner College from the Graduate Programs Committee, which is established by Article V.E of the Bylaws of the Lerner College. This committee is charged with the duty to “oversee and review all graduate courses and programs” in the College—other than the MBA program, which is governed by a separate faculty committee. The Graduate Programs Committee has the authority to “originate, receive, review, and approve for submission to the College faculty” all proposals for graduate programs. This provision of the Bylaws further provides that:
Proposals originated and approved in the Committee may be submitted for consideration by the College faculty if and only if they have received a positive vote from the majority of faculty in each College department that will be responsible for implementing the proposed changes, if approved. [emphasis added]
Contrary to the requirements of this provision, none of the four College departments responsible for “implementing” the proposed PhD program (i.e., teaching the courses in such program) was even given the opportunity to vote on such proposal. (Those departments are: Finance, Economics, Accounting & MIS, and Business Administration.) As such, none of these departments approved the proposal. We understand that several senior faculty in one of these departments requested a vote on the proposal but were denied the opportunity to so vote. Such vote was not discretionary but is required by the College Bylaws.
It should be noted that under the Bylaws of the Lerner College, proposals for new graduate programs may also “originate” at the department level rather than in the Graduate Programs Committee. In such a case, the Bylaws also provide that the proposal must have a “positive vote from the majority of department faculty and the Committee prior to their submission to the College faculty.” As such, a majority of the department faculty always must approve a proposal for a new graduate program that is to be implemented by that department. There is nothing wrong with a proposal for a new graduate program originating in the Dean’s Office, as was the case here; however, such a proposal still must be approved by a majority of the faculty in these four departments before it is approved by the Graduate Programs Committee and then sent to the College faculty for a vote. There is no exception to this procedure for proposals that originate in the Dean’s Office. As such, this proposal was never approved by the Lerner College. It is possible that a majority of the faculty in these four departments would have approved the proposal if a vote had been held, but that is mere speculation as no such vote was taken.
Furthermore, it is also unclear whether the requirement for a quorum was satisfied by the Lerner College faculty vote. The Bylaws of the Lerner College provide that one-third of the voting members of the Lerner College faculty not on leave are necessary for a quorum. It is possible that one-third of the voting members of the College faculty participated in the vote at the College level and the quorum requirement was satisfied; however, that was never certified. As the presiding officer of the faculty of the Lerner College, the task of certification falls to the dean. Since we do not know the number of those eligible to vote, it is impossible to determine whether the quorum requirement was satisfied. It should be noted that administrators are eligible to vote at the college level. Even still, given the low participation by faculty in in the college vote, it is possible that this requirement was not satisfied.
Equally serious, the faculty of
the College of Engineering did not vote at all on this academic proposal, which
includes courses offered and under the control of that college. That was a violation of the bylaws of that college. Article I. F of the Bylaws of the College of
Engineering provides that:
The following items must be discussed in a regular or special faculty
meeting, and brought to a vote by the entire College Faculty: creation or elimination of programs or
departments, relocation of existing programs or departments into or out of the
College, merger of existing programs or departments in the College, changes in
names of departments, and resolutions or
motions which have effect upon the University, colleges or departments of the
University other than the College of Engineering or its departments. The
proposed action will be considered to have been recommended by the Faculty if
it has the support of a majority of the voting members of the College Faculty
as determined in a secret mail ballot. The tally should be noted clearly in any
related proposals going from the College to the University. [emphasis
added]
Article III. A of the Bylaws of the
College of Engineering further provides that:
Changes in the required courses of curricula, and establishing or deleting curricula shall require the approval of a
majority of the entire College Faculty by mail ballot, and the action of the
Dean of Engineering. Any such
recommendation, along with any recommendation by the Dean of the College, then
is submitted to the University Faculty Senate, the President of the University
and the Board of Trustees for action. [emphasis
added]
Because no such meeting was held and
no vote of the “entire College Faculty” was ever taken for this proposal for
this new PhD program, such proposal was not properly approved by that College either
before it was sent to the Faculty Senate.
Any argument that the faculty in that college were not required to vote
on the proposal for this new PhD program (which is jointly administered by the
dean of the College of Engineering and includes courses located in the college
and taught by the faculty in that college) on the grounds that it is not solely within that college is contrary
to the plain language of these provisions in that college’s bylaws. By implication of such logic, a new PhD
program such as this, which is jointly administered by two separate colleges,
does not need to be approved by the faculty of either college because it is not solely within either college.
Obviously, that would be a violation of the bylaws of both of these
colleges as well as the general principle of faculty governance.
Remedy
sought:
We respectfully request that you
discuss with both deans these violations of the procedures in their colleges
for adopting new academic programs. Both
deans should inform the faculty in their colleges that their bylaws were not properly
followed with respect to securing the requisite faculty approvals for the new
PhD program. All required votes should
then be conducted. If the proposal is
passed by the faculty of both colleges according to the procedures set forth in
their respective bylaws, then the program can go forward. If not, the program cannot be
implemented. Furthermore, both deans
should give their assurances that bylaws and procedures of faculty governance
will be followed with respect to all future proposals for new academic programs
or curriculum matters.
We sincerely hope that you will consider this matter and that we can reach an amicable resolution for the good of the faculty and both the Lerner College of Business & Economics and the College of Engineering. Thank you for your consideration.
Very
truly yours,
Executive
Committee
Faculty
Senate