April 24, 2008
Faculty have resources for the resolution of disputes
The faculty of the University of Washington, some 4,000 strong, is a wonderful thing to behold. From my perch as Secretary of this faculty, I see and hear, daily, evidence of its excellence, its potential and its achievements, in education, scholarship, creative performance and service. It is a productive, engaged and dynamic force, not only on its three campuses, but in its influence throughout the state of Washington, indeed throughout the world.
As with any such large, complex and consequential group of people there are inevitable tensions, within the work and lives of individuals, and between individuals. One way those tensions are manifested is in disputes: disputes between and among faculty; with students, staff, external partners and adversaries; and between faculty and administration. When I mentioned to one highly-placed administrator at the University that not a week went by that I did not sit down with a faculty member who expressed concern that they had been mistreated through some administrative action or inaction, the administrator said, wryly, “If it’s only once a week, we must be doing pretty well,” and of course, I could only answer, “fair enough.”
On occasion the concerns I hear do rise to a level that suggests that matters might not, in the particular case, be “fair enough.” When that happens, when a member of the faculty feels they have been treated unfairly in a tenure or promotion, or other, decision, or if a faculty member finds herself or himself entangled in a conflict with a colleague that seems to defy resolution, to whom, or to what process, might a faculty member turn?
The Faculty Code, in its considerable wisdom, provides an answer to the question of where a faculty member might turn to seek help in resolving a dispute with a colleague or the administration. The Code devotes a good part of one chapter, 25, and two full chapters, 27 and 28, to an exposition of the resources available. It mentions four. Each of these is designed to address a particular and distinctive need and together these four provide a system of resources to which a faculty member can turn for help.
A brief overview of these resources is provided in Chapter 25-62, with further development in 25-63, 64, and 71. Chapter 27 is devoted to Administrative Proceedings and Conciliatory Proceedings. These are considered informal processes of dispute resolution, as is seeking advice through the Ombudsman, whose function is described in 12-25.II. When Administrative or Conciliatory Proceedings do not produce the desired resolution of a troubling matter, a final process of appeal is Adjudication, the sole subject of Chapter 28.
The resources mentioned above, and others, are described in a newly revised and posted brochure that is available online at the Web page for the Secretary of the Faculty. This brochure, A Faculty Guide to Dispute Resolution at the University of Washington, is available <a href=http://www.washington.edu/faculty/sharedgov/ombudd.html>here</a>, where you will also find a Summary Table of Options. The brochure and summary table provide a compact overview of places and people to whom to turn, with some indication of what one might find at each place. They also provide in schematic form a concise outline of the system of resources that is available. It is a carefully thought out system and worthy of the attention of any faculty member, even those not presently contemplating seeking advice.
As secretary of the faculty, it is one of my responsibilities to advise faculty as to the advantages of each option that is available. When I sit down with an inquiring colleague, I always have at hand these formulations of the system of available resources. Usually as we talk through these options, the faculty member seeking help finds in one or more of these a resource that might prove to be useful. Although the elected leaders of the faculty, the Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs and other concerned faculty continue to consider ways we can improve the dispute resolution process here, I am pleased to comment that our present system is now fully functional and available to those who determine they have a need for it.
