By Emily Bruzzo, Staff Writer

Published in print Nov.12, 2014

As UNC-Greensboro attempts to navigate this period of dissension and change facing its community, faculty senators met last Wednesday in the Virginia Dare Room to discuss a new resolution that calls for a “comprehensive review of the campus culture and decision making processes.”   

After the recent scandal surrounding the terminations and arrests of three former university relations employees— an incident that’s been deemed the “UR3 scandal”— the Greensboro community at large has scrutinized the university’s every move.

UNCG faculty senators also have been watching closely. As the search for a new chancellor is on, and the communal discussion about budget, tuition and fees is underway, many faculty senators feel it’s time for a serious discourse with administration.

The new resolution is the product of a group of several faculty senators who demand stronger “shared-governance” with administration.

Susan Dennison, the faculty senator who agreed to present the resolution, said to her colleagues: “I think part of the rationale behind this, is that faculty are feeling the need to acknowledge some of the places where our campus is broken. We need to review those areas and fix them.”

“This is an opportunity for us to say: ‘We want to have a proactive role in how things get reviewed and repaired on this campus.’ And I believe that, that is really the rationale for why this resolution is being put forward,” Dennison asserted.

The resolution has taken two forms so far. The original resolution called for various items such as: an audit of Human Resources, regular policy review forums, publishing administrative academic initiatives and the assignment of faculty members to the chancellor search committee.

In the amended resolution, which was presented at Wednesday’s meeting, item groups were consolidated into three overarching subject areas: the review and repair of faculty support systems on campus, the enforcement of shared-governance and faculty involvement in the chancellor search.

Dennison said in an email that the decision to amend the resolution was the result of several faculty senators requesting a more generalized format so colleagues could contribute the specifics over time.

However, the amended resolution’s lack of specificity and allegedly biased language aimed at recent events such as the “UR3 scandal” has some faculty senators concerned.

Ian Beatty, a faculty senator from the physics department, said during the meeting, “I’m nervous by the fact that this strikes me as a large omnibus collection of dissatisfactions and complaints.”

Beatty later said in an email: “What I object to is a laundry list of accumulated disgruntlements…tied to a set of ill-specific demands. Such a resolution is impossible to analyze and discuss rationally, and simply polarizes people: ‘You’re either with us, or you’re with the administration.’ I don’t think that’s a particularly constructive approach.”

Bill Karper, a faculty senator from the kinesiology department, declared during the meeting, “I don’t think that faculty, except for a small, core group, will respond to this.”

Karper said in an email: “The resolution seemed to me to cover numerous points where some faculty might be in favor of some of the points and not others. Therefore, the resolution as presented would likely be voted down.  It just seemed sensible to address each point separately—in other words, bring a group of resolutions forward.”

Creating a group of separate resolutions is exactly what might happen, Dennison explained in an email.

“That is definitely the plan at this point,” Dennison asserted. “So there will be at least three separate resolutions and we are starting with the one regarding the type of search for the next chancellor and the composition of the search committee.”

Dennison said the faculty senate hopes to be able to vote on a resolution specific to the chancellor search at its Nov. 19 meeting, when the president of the UNC system, Tom Ross, will come to address faculty senators in an open forum that will be held in the Virginia Dare Room at 3:00 p.m. 

Concerning the language of the resolution, Wade Maki, a faculty senator from the philosophy department, said to his colleagues: “What you’re talking about are values: shared governance, participation and the welfare of faculty. I think those are great things to write resolutions about.”

“But I think those resolutions would be more powerful,” Maki continued, “If they were written in a positive fashion starting from the premise of the shared values that we have, rather than including references to laundry lists of grievances that not everybody agrees upon or knows enough about…”

Maki’s declaration was met with applause from his colleagues, but one faculty senator disagreed.

Elizabeth Keathley, a faculty senator from the music studies and women’s and gender studies departments, retorted by saying that it was important to mention issues that create a low morale and investigate said issues.

Keathley said, “That is the nature of history: to avoid those things in the future, you have to see what happened…Having some kind of review of like: ‘how did those decisions get made’ and ‘why did it turn out that way’— I don’t think that’s a laundry list of grievances.”

Regarding support of the resolution, faculty senators weren’t the only ones to jump on the bandwagon.

Chancellor Linda Brady, in her opening remarks to the faculty senate, addressed the original resolution’s various items with a type of candor that had some faculty senators surprised.

Brady began by saying, “We all know that differences of opinions and a certain amount of conflict are to be found on any university campus in America. In fact, that’s part of what universities are about.”

“I hope many of you will understand the difficult environment in which we have had to work since 2008,” Brady said in reference to budget cuts, the absence of salary increases, many of her administration’s contentious initiatives and the U.S. recession that marked the beginning of her tenure at UNCG.

Brady also refused to shy away from the “UR3 scandal,” saying, “I am sorry that this situation has created so much tension and uncertainty on the campus.”

“But it is critically important that we focus on the future. We are damaging this institution and putting the search for a new chancellor at risk if we continue down this potentially self-destructive path,” Brady said.

“I ask that we set aside personal differences and join together to be a positive force in moving this university into the future,” Brady said.

With regards to the original resolution’s checklist of items, Brady checked every box, surprising many faculty senators with her support.

“This is a critical point for this university,” Brady said. “I believe it is time now for all of us to move forward with mutual respect and commitment.” 

Provost Dana Dunn spoke at the meeting about the request for a faculty ombudsperson office— a confidential office established to aid faculty members dealing with stressful working conditions, and questions regarding conflict of interest and secondary employment.

Dunn said in a phone interview that Sam Miller, associate dean in the School of Education for Academic Affairs and Student Services, would act as a confidential liaison between faculty members and the provost’s office. 

She also said that an administrator at UNC-Chapel Hill has been contacted about establishing an ombudsperson office at UNCG.

Faculty senators have often critiqued administrators for their supposedly lacking responses to campus concerns and frustrations, but Dunn seems anxious to correct that.

Dunn said it had become apparent, after the confusion and paranoia about protocol that was incited by the “UR3 scandal,” that administration needed to work harder to connect with and better inform faculty members.

“I think it’s a positive step,” Dunn said. “I think it’s always good for people to have someone to talk to.