SPECIAL FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, February 15, 2007
Senate
Members: L.
Atkinson, G. Boudreaux, B. Butler, K. Cole, P. Downes, M. Harvey, H. Holt, B.
Hook,
S. Judson, B. Larson, D. Lisnerski, J. McClain, C. McKenzie, M.
Moseley, G. Nallan,
B. Sabo, J. Wood; K. Whatley.
Excused: B. Wilson.
Guests: Chancellor
Visitors: ~120
present
I. Call
to Order
Dr. Nallan
displayed a list of the powers and duties in the Faculty Senate Constitution,
referring specifically to these responsibilities:
·
p) Participate in institutional development by providing
input into the ongoing planning and budgetary process;
·
(q) Maintain and promote the welfare of all members of the
University community;
·
(r) Advise and counsel the administration upon any matters
that the administration or the Senate may wish to present and to act upon any
matters presented by the administration when action is appropriate.
Dr.
Nallan said that the recent termination of the UNCA staff member who has served
our students for nearly three decades has angered and saddened many members of
our learning community. This termination
was one of a long series of terminations and, in many of the cases, the person
being terminated was someone whose service we measure in number of decades, whereas
the person doing the terminating was someone whose service we measure in number
of months. The recent termination was,
in his opinion, cruel and unethical.
And, in his opinion, this termination was counter to UNCA’s core values
as articulated in our mission statement and in other documents. In the strongest possible terms he recommends
that the appropriate administrative authorities either reverse the termination
of Maggie Weshner and reinstate her in her role as director of our
Chancellor Ponder thanked everyone for
coming and those who had communicated with her individually. Dr. Ponder addressed some areas that she and
Dr. Nallan disagreed about: Gary decided
to take a position on email in advance of talking with anyone and pledged
himself to do everything in his power to reverse this decision instead of
taking what she thought might be a good neutral role to facilitate the faculty
voice on this topic. When he came to see
her individually he requested – almost warned her – that Maggie Weshner be
reinstated and we disagree about that too.
We discussed whether this topic was so important that it should be
discussed when she was present; he agreed on Monday before last Thursday to
hold the Faculty Senate meeting at a time when she could be present, or to defer
the topic until she could be – and did not do so. We disagree about that. The consultation she did with the Faculty
Senate about a year ago about separating Student Affairs and reorganizing it seemed
to her the right moment for faculty consultation.
Chancellor Ponder said her goal for the
meeting and afterward is to help us see if we can, as a University community, learn
to disagree better. I am responding
individually, either in person or by letter, to each of the people who has
talked with me or communicated with me about this. I would like to thank the many of you who
communicated and met with me, especially those who met with me and talked with me
about your own disagreement.
I would suggest that as we are doing
the strategic plan of the University as we start to gather that advice and set
priorities, we won’t all agree about what the most important things are. The current group of about two dozen is
majority faculty, including all of the members of the Institutional Development
Committee (IDC). There may be a way to
take that process and to create or recreate a version of the University
Planning Council (UPC) as a way to engage on those topics. I suggested when I met with the Faculty
Senate Executive Committee and others that I think creating a position of
Director of Social Equity (that could help both with listening and analysis of
some of the employment practices and personnel issues) might be productive, and
I would be happy to imagine what other ways there may be for that.
Chancellor Ponder provided an initial
framework: About a year ago we discussed
as a community and brought in some consultants who helped us decide that combining
Academic Affairs and Student Affairs had made those relationships closer. But we did not have someone at the senior
staff table who went to sleep every night and got up every morning thinking
about students and we needed to do that.
In addition we needed to update and create what we were doing. We hired a Vice Chancellor and a Dean of
Students and a Director of Campus Life and stretched our student fee money and
housing fees in order to do that.
This year we began with an adjustment
in philosophy that focused – not primarily on residence hall and behavior and
capacity management – but on what students learn and how our professionals may
work with them in that way. So the
changes in resident life and citizenship education and work on a student code
of conduct which is underway are involved there. The reorganization and combination of student
health and counseling is exactly in the same vein as other things we are
undertaking to create an optimal Student Affairs area. Many public and private institutions combine
health and counseling under a single administrator and it essentially
eliminates the arbitrary boundary between the emotional and physical health for
students. That is what we have been
thinking about in Student Affairs. For
some of the particulars of how that is conceived and what we are up to, and in hope
of anticipating some of your questions (if there are questions in addition to
statements that you have), Bill Haggard and Calvin Kelly are here. I will turn it over to Bill Haggard at this
point.
I am Bill Haggard, Vice Chancellor for
Student Affairs. As the Chancellor has
so eloquently framed what we are trying to do in the area of health and
counseling, I am going to speak to questions and concerns about how exactly this
is going to work and how this will be different than what already exists.
Dr. Haggard explained that student
psychological and medical issues have become more complex over the years. Our students are coming to college, both traditional
age and nontraditional students, with more complex issues that cannot be easily
compartmentalized into different departments, especially the psychological and
the medical. It is a leading edge best
practice to combine these two functional areas into one administrative unit for
several reasons: to provide a more
integrated and more seamless experience for the students’ to have enhanced
collaboration and continuity of care between the medical providers and the
counselors; and to address some of the administrative concerns with people who
are administrators rather than doctors or counseling psychologists. In other words, to bundle some of those
administrative tasks together so that those who are trained in the delivery of
those services can do that.
This reorganization also involved an
employment decision and a personnel action.
Those two decisions are very closely intertwined and many of the
questions that people have are related to the personnel decision. He noted there were very real and true legal,
ethical and moral reasons he cannot share about that personnel decision. There have been many questions. A common question among those who have cared
a great deal is – even if there was a reorganization, and even if Maggie was
not to be director, why couldn’t Maggie stay on as a counselor? Again, that is a decision he made weighing
all of the facts and information he has, including the context that Maggie has
served this institution for a long time and is the only director of the
Counseling Services that many of you have known. We are moving in a different direction in how
those services will be delivered. And
that fact, in and of itself, did contribute to the decision. Other than that, it is impossible for me to
tell you more, although many of you would like to know more.
There have been questions about
exactly what the model is going to look like.
As I told the Faculty Senate Executive Committee a couple of weeks ago, I
want the existing staff in those areas to experience participation and have
ownership in the development of the day-to-day operation and how that will
work. There is no plan to outsource
counseling services. We have begun
evaluating and will be addressing the greater demand at all college and
university campuses to provide shorter-term care and to refer longer-term care
to other providers in the community.
Colleges and universities do not have the luxury of setting up a
practice that resembles a private practice where there can be longer-term care
because that longer-term care restricts the opportunity for other students to
walk in and receive services as soon as they need them. That is one of the things that is being
discussed and examined; unfortunately it was interpreted by some to be a plan
to outsource, and that is not the case. Also,
we will be looking at the administrative functions in the Center to best
utilize the current administrative support staff in that area, to maybe
centralize some of the administrative functions and services in a more
efficient manner. So those are some of
the elements of the model and the direction we are moving.
In the interim we are currently a
newly combined unit of Health and Counseling.
It is one administrative unit today.
We will be searching for a new full-time administrative director of that
unit. Currently Dr. Calvin Kelly is
providing interim direction for that unit.
Questions and comments were taken from
the audience.
·
Dr.
Ted Seitz: You planted a seed in my mind
-- what exactly did you say about legal and moral … malfeasance, perhaps?
o
Dr.
Haggard: What I said was, when it comes
to the discussion of personnel actions, there are legal, ethical and moral
issues why I cannot discuss those in this type of forum.
·
Dr.
Seitz: Within the profession we have
many processes and methods of dealing with possible ethical dilemmas. What it is that you are saying about
Maggie? What are you suggesting about
personnel matters?
o
Dr.
Haggard: I was not suggesting anything
in my statement. I was stating what I
believe to be true about the discussion of personnel matters. That was not a statement about Maggie
Weshner.
·
Dr.
Seitz: Then there is no redress; there
is no review of what it is you’ve decided if these matters cannot be discussed.
o
Dr.
Haggard: There is a hierarchy that I am
accountable to. I report to the
Chancellor.
·
Dr.
Seitz: You are not suggesting an
unethical thing though are you?
o
Dr.
Haggard: Not at all. I was giving reasons for why I cannot speak
to personnel matters.
·
Ms.
Martha Marshall: It sounded as if you
were saying initially that Maggie was fired because you were doing a
reorganization. Is that correct?
o
Dr.
Haggard: No – it is the reason why I
cannot discuss this.
·
Ms.
Marshall: So you are saying that Maggie
has done something which you cannot discuss because it is a personnel issue.
o
Dr.
Haggard: I am not saying that. I am saying the personnel issue cannot be
discussed.
·
Ms.
Marshall: You fired Maggie because you
are reorganizing, and she has done something that you are not allowed to talk to
us about?
o
Dr.
Haggard: That is not what I am
saying. I’m saying that the
reorganization and the personnel action were related and were the right thing
to do considering all of the facts and the directions that we needed to go at
this time.
·
Ms.
Marshall: And who do the students go to for
counseling until you find someone to replace her?
o
Dr.
Haggard: There are still staff in the
center.
·
Ms.
Marshall: And you guys are really
convinced that you are the ones who know what is best for the students and that
is all you can tell us?
o
Dr.
Haggard: I am the administrator held
accountable for that, yes.
·
Dr.
Melissa Burchard: Dr. Haggard, you said
that the fact that Maggie has been here a long time and is the only director of
the
o
Dr.
Haggard: No. If I may clarify – that was in response to
the question people have asked as to why not maintain Maggie as a counselor
present in the Center.
·
Dr.
Burchard; It is the same question. She’s been here too long, so we are not going
to keep her even as counselor, even though her record seems to show that she is
a very good counselor. She is very good
at what she does, but we can’t keep her because we are moving in a new
direction that is going to be better for students.
o
Dr.
Haggard: I did not say that Maggie has
been here too long. I did not say that.
·
Dr.
Burchard: You said that the fact that
Maggie has been the only
o
Dr.
Calvin Kelly: Can I clarify that Bill? I’m Calvin Kelly, Director for Campus
Life. The “we” Bill was referring to
were not faculty and staff, it was more about the
·
Dr.
Burchard: No, it doesn’t. He said “we” to this whole group here. I take a “we” to mean this whole group
here. Is that what you meant Dr. Haggard
– just the
o
Dr.
Haggard: That there are extremely strong
loyalties to Maggie and it would be more difficult for all involved if there
were a new leader present with the former leader present in the same
setting.
·
Ms.
Dot Sulock: I have three questions. 1- How long have you been here? 2- How long has Dr. Kelly been here? 3- You are saying extreme loyalties to Maggie
is a disadvantage but it would seem to me that extreme loyalties to someone
shows they are a very excellent person.
o
Dr.
Haggard: I’ve been here 7 months.
o
Dr.
Kelly: I’ve been here 14 months.
·
Ms.
Sulock: And, how is having extreme loyalties to someone bad for that
person? It shows that the person is very
competent and wonderful, that the staff has extreme loyalties to her.
o
Dr.
Haggard: It would be similar to a model
of a new president of the
·
Ms.
o
Dr.
Haggard: No -- absolutely not.
·
Ms.
Marilyn Lonon. I’m Marilyn Lonon – I
retired in December. I would submit that
based on my research, in the last 15 months 25 people that I know about have
been fired, retired under duress, moved to another position under duress, left
for another job (it might have been a better job but they wouldn’t have been
looking if they had felt like they were safe here and valued) – nearly 450 years
of experience in 15 months. Is it a
pattern?
·
Dr.
Burchard: Dr. Haggard, did Maggie have a
chance to consider the new move and to give any input as to whether she would
be willing to cooperate with the new program?
o
Dr.
Haggard: I cannot and will not speak to
the conversations that occurred that were part of the personnel action.
·
Mr.
Mike Honeycutt: I’m confused, given the
proximity of Counseling and Health Services in Weizenblatt. That relationship has been there for
years. In fact, in the past they all
reported to Dr. Keith Ray and they now all report to Dr. Kelly. I don’t understand how funding yet another
high paid administrator is going to change that situation. Can you speak to that?
o
Dr.
Haggard: Yes, you are right. There has been communication between those
two units in the past and there has been some coordination of care. But I believe that we have the opportunity to
enhance that coordination of care, to put into place some more consistent,
better practice.
·
Mr.
Honeycutt: Any examples of what that
might entail? I don’t understand how
they can be any closer.
o
Dr.
Haggard: Well, better communication or
coordination of care on certain cases for instance.
·
Dr.
Burchard: You are implying that the
o
Dr.
Haggard: I am not implying that. I am implying that there is always room for
improvement and better practice. An
institution in higher education is a place where there should constantly be a review
of best practice and always an attempt to be on the leading edge of delivery of
the best services and best practices.
·
Dr.
Bill Sabo: Do you figure there is a
relationship between a student’s academic experiences embodied by the
curriculum and a student’s other experiences at UNCA – something we could lump
together under student life?
o
Dr.
Haggard: Yes.
·
Dr.
Sabo: You’ve talked about a plan of
changing the services, that there is always room for improvement, we always
need to update. These changing services
that you are referring to – I assume they have something to do with Student
Life. These plans, these ideas, where
are they?
o
Dr.
Haggard: What do you mean where are the
plans and the ideas?
·
Dr.
Sabo: The Chancellor stressed at the
beginning, as she has a number of times, the importance of the strategic
planning process. I think all my
colleagues accept this. We all think
that it is significant and important to have a vision and to know where you are
headed, particularly the policies that you are going to adopt to achieve the
desired outcomes embodied in that mission and vision. My concern, and I think the concern of a
number of Senators, is what these plans are.
You’ve said that it is always important to improve, to judge. I’ve found it impossible to make decisions
about whether actions are good or bad until we know what the plans are. You said that the two decisions were “closely
intertwined” – that it was a personnel and a policy decision. But I have no clue yet what the policy is and
how it fits in the big picture.
The
first we heard about it was last Thursday – one week ago – when the President
of the Student Government told us what this plan was. When I asked you what the plan was at the end
of January you said we will be embarking on conversations on this in the next
couple of weeks. Assuming the student
body president was correct – that you had in fact informed him of the plan – referral
is the new pattern. We may have inferred
that it was outsourcing but we were led to that conclusion. Between that first meeting and this next
meeting a plan was developed and established.
As far as I know there was no consultation with anyone. The Chancellor referred earlier to the
consultant’s report. I’d like to see
that consultant’s report. The reason I
am bringing these points up is quite simply this, I disagree with the Chancellor’s
goal. She said “my goal is to disagree
better.” I prefer discussions where
disagreements merge and we find a common ground.
You’ve
admitted that the faculty does have a responsibility here. According to the Senate Constitution and according
to the Faculty Assembly’s guidelines on shared governance, this is an area
where the faculty has appropriate interest.
An appropriate interest precludes giving us a fait accompli and then
hiding behind some vague explanation.
The explanation that we got at the end of January was that it was
reorganization. Now that is being
supplemented. I am still looking for the
reorganization plan. I still don’t know
what the goal is. We are not in a
position as an institution to do the things you say we need to do – to judge,
to move ahead – unless we know what the plan is, unless we understand the
consistency between the plan and the vision.
That is at the core of this difficulty.
I
don’t think anyone here would argue that you have discretion to implement
things that you think need to be done.
However, that discretion is not unlimited – it is limited by the plans, the
vision, and the values of the University that have been discussed and around
which agreement has been reached. I
don’t think we can survive as an institution unless we agree on this. To make decisions, we need to assess whether
the institution is proceeding in the intended direction. We cannot do that if we don’t know what the
plans are. We cannot do that if we do
not know what the standards are. And we
cannot do that unless people like yourself are willing to explain your exercise
of discretion. That is what I am so
frustrated about.
·
Dr.
William Bruce: I am a professor in psychology
and along with Dr. Seitz and Dr. Himelein, am a licensed psychologist in
The
second point is that having known Dr. Weshner for all the years that she has
been here, she is nothing if not flexible.
She is very flexible and she likes new things. I can’t really think that if a new direction
is underway involving a connection of biological and medical health and
emotional health that she wouldn’t be supportive of that and would be flexible
enough to work within that model without undermining it. For my money, that was a missed call if that
was part of your decision to think she would somehow undermine it.
The
third one is – It is very out of keeping with our community tradition to so
abruptly terminate a person who has given good service all those years. (applause)
I don’t think anyone has questioned her skill as a counselor and her
interest in the other human beings that are part of the campus. The Tucker Cooke email letter about how she
pulled him back from a really dangerous predicament personally is probably just
the tip of an iceberg. She has been a
valuable member of our community and she has done well in her most essential
function. I felt sick about all this,
especially when I thought of a single mother with two adopted kids.
·
Dr.
Don Lisnerski: There are a number of
different issues being discussed here.
One of the issues is a planning process that is still taking place – a
strategic planning process – which a lot of us are waiting to be finalized so
things can move forward. The reorganization,
as well as a number of other reorganizations that have taken place, are based
on a plan that does not exist. It is not
just this reorganization. Another issue is the treatment of long-term employees
that seems to be based on reorganizations that are based on plans that have not
been finalized.
One of the crucial issues that needs
to be ironed out is the administration’s view of faculty input. Where is the role of faculty input in the
decision-making process? Is there a role
for the faculty? If so, what is the
perception of that role? That needs to
be discussed with administration. Decisions
are being made, reorganizations take place, and we are informed after the
fact. This continues from the previous
administration. The fact that you do
have a reorganization plan – what role have faculty had in that, if any? There are at least four major issues, some of
which you can speak to and some you can’t.
These are issues that need to be addressed – and faculty input is
one. We are here because we believe
faculty should have input and we need to have input because it affects
students.
§
Dr.
Haggard: I hear that and I hear it
clearly. I also agree with that. I know that the follow up question will be
why didn’t I do it within this case. And
again, the complex nature of this particular situation was because it also
involved a personnel action. Typically
you don’t consult a community about a personnel action. I am very interested in working with you to
figure out the ways to have a better connection between the faculty and what we
do in Student Affairs.
·
Maggie
Saucier: It is interesting that it is
being brought up about the inflexibility about Maggie. The irony is she is one of the ones who told
the consultants that it would be a good idea to combine those departments. It is interesting that there is a theme that
she would not be open to that change. As
a member of the
§
Dr.
Haggard: That is a concern for any
organization when there is a change of long-term leadership. That was the context of my comment. I did not ever say the word “inflexibility.”
·
Dr.
Brian Hook: But you do realize the
balancing that you are playing here – that it is both a specific decision that
can’t be discussed with respect to a particular person but it is a concern that
would exist in any organization. Do you
see you are playing both ends against the middle? You’ve cited personnel over and over
again. We understand that. However, there is nothing in Maggie’s file –
and she was not given a reason that had anything to do with a personnel
matter. There may be things that you
know but you apparently didn’t share them with her. They don’t appear in her folder; she asked
several Senate members to read it. In
this particular response, you don’t address Maggie’s ability to fit into the situation. You say it would be a concern in any
organization. We are not talking about
any organization. We are talking about
ours – Maggie – this situation here. Not
any generic situation. And you are
citing that to not answer a specific question.
o
Dr.
Haggard: I understand what you are
saying.
·
Dr.
Hook: Could you respond to it?
o
Dr.
Haggard: I am not going to make any
further comments on the personnel decision that I made.
·
Ms.
Kim Kessaris: I want to comment on what
this feels like. I’m an alum who
graduated in 1994. I’ve spent the last
17 years of my life involved in this institution – the past nine years working
here as an EPA non-faculty member. We
are talking about the termination of long-term staff. I am one of those people. For the last two or three weeks I’ve been living
pretty much in fear, feeling very uncomfortable when I am on campus, very unhappy
being here. A lot of the staff I talk to
are terrified, talking about “my kid’s health insurance, my mortgage.” We are afraid. How are we supposed to be doing our jobs? I can’t concentrate. I love what I am doing. I am very passionate about what I do and I
think I do a good job. But I get the
feeling that it really doesn’t matter. I
can come into work tomorrow and someone can say we are restructuring and we don’t
really care what you think – goodbye! I’m really upset and I’m really angry. (applause)
·
Dr.
Ann Weber: How many of you have been
here as long as Maggie? (A few people
raise their hands.) There is a history
here. I am a social psychologist, so I
am not going to address or discuss the aspects of terminating a counselor’s
position in the middle of therapy for clients.
I think that a lot of us are aiming questions at you (Dr. Haggard) because
you are standing in the center of the room and we’ve got to aim some
place. A lot of us are worried about the
very same thing – which is trust – and lack of it. It isn’t so much that maybe there are bad
reasons why Maggie was terminated or there aren’t enough good reasons – but we
don’t know what they are, so we feel stupid.
But we are academics and we don’t like to feel stupid.
Also,
this isn’t an organization – this is an academic community. We don’t run like a business. We relate to each other in the same ways that
people relate to each other in all other aspects of everyday life – which is, we
make some assumptions and we want to communicate. Then we find out we were wrong about
something and we find out we can’t make plans about our careers. I didn’t even know there was going to be a
restructuring. I didn’t even know you
were here! I’ve never even seen you
before today!
What
I want to bring out is the elephant in the room which is – a lot of us are
feeling a great deal of mistrust and concern about a community that we want to
love. And that we have loved. And that community is made of people. I know there will be policies, but I don’t
see how policies and people can merely be intertwined. My personal value system starts with the
people and where we are trying to take the people. That is a big part of why a lot of us are so
concerned and why we are here.
(applause)
·
Dr.
Seitz: I am going to set aside the
possibility you are planting an idea that Maggie raped some student. Let’s set that professional ethics question
to one side – because I hope that you would appeal, then, to her professional
organizations to manage that.
My
name is Ted Seitz and I’ve been around here since 1973 – William Highsmith
hired me. Talk about taking a liberal
arts value system over into the creation of a community of persons – that was a
man who knew how to do it. I have one real
major source of pride in my work here over the 19 years I was chairman of
psychology, and that is what William and I managed to recruit in great faculty
– tremendous persons – in our departmental faculty. That is my one source of major pride – not my
publications, not anything else about my work here.
We
are recruiting for faculty constantly, and you are concerned about that you
say. If a possible faculty member was
interviewing here right now and sat in on this meeting – would they choose this
school over a different school to accept our offer? Listening to Maggie’s case – what would they make
of that? Listening to what you have said
– that you cannot say about Maggie – how would they trust our
administration? The faculty here are stuck
with an administration. But if you don’t
see personnel matters in a better light than this we can’t recruit good faculty
or staff. And the faculty’s life depends
on the staff here and it always has.
That is why there is so much concern and upset over this staff
issue. Recruitment of new faculty – what
are you contributing to it?
o
Dr.
Haggard: is that a direct question to
me?
·
Dr.
Seitz: I don’t think any of our present
faculty would accept a position here if they sat in and listened to this
meeting.
·
Dr.
Karin Peterson – I teach in the sociology department. I’ve been here seven years. In my tenure letter two years ago I said UNCA
is my home. It is our home, and yes, we
are strident about our home. And I am
tired of being told that I am a strident friend of Maggie’s. This is not just about Maggie – this is about
our home. I have two questions. Maggie almost got to serve her 30 years.
My
second question is – who is responsible?
Who is responsible if a student, after Maggie leaves, is in crisis and
does something to harm him or herself or another student? Who is responsible, and who is calling that
parent and saying, “I’m sorry. We were
restructuring and it just wasn’t worth it to keep her for three more months so
that your student didn’t have to figure out how to reveal a whole slew of
history one more time to a new therapist?”
That trust did not happen over night.
And I want to know who is responsible and who is calling that parent and
saying, “I’m sorry this happened to your kid – we couldn’t keep Maggie for two
more months.”
o
Dr.
Haggard: In response to your first
question, an employee’s term of employment is public and Maggie is on active
pay status until December 31, 2007.
·
Dr.
Peterson: That is not the same thing as
honoring her in a 30 year retirement.
How did we celebrate Tucker Cooke?
We don’t get to celebrate Maggie.
o
Dr.
Haggard: I hear you. The second question I will defer to Dr. Kelly
who has responsibility over that unit right now.
o
Dr.
Kelly: I know this doesn’t answer
directly your question but we are in the process of hiring an interim person to
fill in so that there is no gap in service.
·
Dr.
Burchard: I have to respond to
that. You can’t be serious!
o
Dr.
Kelly: Very much so.
·
Dr.
Burchard: You can’t be serious that
whoever the decision-makers were in this particular case – you can’t really
mean that you thought it wise to terminate the long-term wonderful staff person
in the beginning of a semester before you had the plans in place for the
restructuring, before you have had any transparency with this community, and
before you’ve got someone to put into place to make sure that our students are
served in the ethical and professional way that they need to be. You are telling us that your concern is all
about the services to the students and that’s why we need to restructure. Well here’s a really important case in point
– the students are going to suffer through this move. That is not an improvement. Now, maybe we do need to restructure but this
is a bad way of going about it. And
given the goals that you have stated – the improvement of student services –
you cannot possibly, honestly believe that this was wise.
o
Dr.
Haggard: I do believe that this was wise
or I would not have made the decision. Also
I would like to say that there are three highly competent staff members who are
still on staff and I trust their work with the students they will be seeing.
·
Dr.
Marcia Ghidina: Three staff are staying
through May, in addition to the interim you are hiring. Is that right?
o
Dr.
Haggard: Correct.
·
Dr.
Ghidina: On the basis of the
restructuring, you mentioned that it is always good to improve – that every
staff in the office can improve. Do you
also believe that student satisfaction in student related offices is an
important basis of evaluation?
o
Dr.
Haggard: Yes.
·
Dr.
Ghidina: The last senior satisfaction
survey ranked Health Services and the
o
Dr.
Haggard: One, because I don’t think
student satisfaction is the only measure.
And student satisfaction on that particular senior survey is based on
one question, one item. I think most of
the researchers in this room would agree that that has its limitations. And I was looking at much more information
than just that.
·
Dr.
Ghidina: Does that include the
consultant’s report you looked at in restructuring?
o
Dr.
Haggard: It includes all the information that was
available to me.
·
Dr.
Ghidina: Is the consultant’s report one
of the things you looked at?
o
Dr.
Haggard: There is a consultant’s report
from 2002 that I looked at.
·
Dr.
Ghidina: I believe in this discussion,
at one point, the most recent consultant’s report you have suggested creating
your position was much more recent. I
wonder if that report talked about merging these offices.
o
Dr.
Haggard: I have not personally seen that
report.
·
Ms.
Lonon: I believe when those consultants
were here that report was going to be verbal only. Is that not true? There is no written report for that?
o
Chancellor
Ponder: That is correct.
·
Dr.
Ghidina: Why is the report only verbal
and not written if it was fairly important for the restructuring of Student
Affairs?
o
Dr.
Haggard: I was not here when that report
was ordered so I can’t answer that question.
o
Chancellor
Ponder: Calvin, talk a little bit more
about how the transition for student-client is being handled so that is
clear. Maggie’s clients and the University’s
clients are the same thing, and to do that while we are in an academic semester
– talk about how that will be handled.
o
Dr.
Kelly: One of the things we have done is
that Maggie Weshner has made an attempt to contact all of her clients. In that effort, we are asking the clients to
come in to go through the termination process with her so that we can
adequately address their needs and their concerns. And we are also asking them throughout this
process, if they need to transition to another counselor, that they do so. If there is a need for further services, they
actually transition to another counselor that is currently working in the
·
Ms.
Sulock: I want to read the names: Cindy Branton, Freda Cooper, Mike Honeycutt,
Marilyn Lonon, Jolene Moody, Maggi Saucier, Carol Schramm, Becky Sensabaugh,
John Sexton, Judy Waycaster, Lloyd Weinberg, Maggie Weshner, Nancy Williams –
these were competent friends of mine.
UNCA has always been a special school where most faculty and staff work
creatively beyond expectations, with joy, motivated by love of UNCA as well as
love of students, love of education, and love of each other. Not all schools are like that. In some schools the faculty and staff just
get by, uninspired by the institution.
The incomprehensible loss of our talented colleagues is destroying our
joy, camaraderie, and will adversely affect UNCA and its mission. (applause)
·
Ms.
Kelley Wolfe: If our students are going
to be referred to another counselor, does their clock start over? They are allowed only so many sessions. Since they have already established a
relationship with Maggie, they will have to re-establish another. Do they get that extra time?
o
Dr.
Kelly: We do have a 12 session time
limit which is above average for most college campuses across the country. One of the things that the
·
Dr.
Weber: I would just like to ask in
general and I don’t know where to direct this question – Now what? And did this matter? Now that we have had this meeting, does
anything change? Does anything get
considered? Does it get passed to a
board? Does it get written in a report,
stuck in a file, and put on a shelf? I
would really like to leave here today with a sense of what next? What next in terms of process or what next in
terms whatever can be directed?
·
Dr.
Bruce: Perhaps the Chancellor can
respond to that. What do you think we
ought to do next?
o
Chancellor
Ponder: Thank you. I think that what we ought to do next is
imagine how to go forward in a way that will do what
·
Dr.
Melissa Himelein: Since we disagree
clearly about the termination, would a compromise position for the well-being of
our students be to extend Maggie’s tenure through May? It is a more reasonable rhythm with the
semester. It would give students a
better period of time in which to make this transition. As I made my concerns clear to you all and to
Tom Lawton, that would help the University avoid a legal liability it clearly
retains at this point as to any harm done to students who were clients of
Maggie’s in the next few months. The
bottom line of ethical standard is, “Above all, do no harm.” As I’ve asked you before, I have a very hard
time seeing how harm to our students is minimized in Maggie’s absence. It seems to me that harm to our students is
minimized with her presence. If we could
allow her to stay through May, we would be embracing many of the opinions in
this room as best as we can and then perhaps we could offer her that
celebration that so many of us would very much like to give her.
·
Dr.
Nallan: That was the gist of the second
sentence of the Senate of the Senate Resolution passed one week ago which I
hand-delivered to the Chancellor on Monday.
o
Dr.
Haggard: Dr. Kelly has been working with
the staff on the transition issues related to Maggie’s clients and in the best
interests of the students we did, as you know, extend that period of time from
two weeks to four weeks, but I will not be extending that time any
further.
·
Dr.
Alice Weldon: Melissa Himelein’s
suggestion seems to me to really get at the heart of what is going on. If the
people involved in this decision, Chancellor Ponder, Dr. Haggard, Dr. Kelly and
whoever else is involved were able to show the staff and the faculty and the
rest of the administration – to show all of us – that yes indeed you have
heard. It’s not that we are dictating; the
other parts of this institution are dictating personnel decision. But you’ve heard about the fear and the lack
of trust and the morale. What better way
to make a very strong statement that yes, we hear you, and yes, we do want to
work together.
o
Chancellor
Ponder: Let me make a couple of
suggestions if I might. I wonder if we
might, recognizing the transfer and transition for Maggie’s clients, ask
Calvin, without name or reference to students, to summarize the transition plan
and share that with anybody that wants to see it – so there is a sense, for those
of you who are professionally or otherwise concerned, that student well-being
and making those transitions (since they need to happen) are actually
accomplished during the academic year. That
is one piece. In terms of the climate of
fear and trust issues – trust and communication are actually relational values
and so require not just the good intent of the Chancellor but also a strong
desire to engage meaningfully. It was my
intention by declaring my goal for this meeting to invite that and to suggest
some specific ways in which we might do that better. So, to that extent I would suggest that I
have heard you.
·
Mr.
Louis Toms: I am with the Office of
Sponsored Scholarships and Programs. For
the record, what I am about to state are my perceptions of the current
environment at the University. Because
of my connection with the
·
Dr.
Jane Hartsfield: This is my first year
here as a faculty member. I don’t know
any of these people who have been let go.
But this comes down to, would I want to be treated the way it seems like
we are treating them? I want to relate
to you an experience I had. This is my
second or third career. I started my
career with IBM – big corporate monster.
I put in eleven years there and I was part of a restructuring at IBM,
which basically meant they offered me the option to find another job somewhere
within the company if I wanted. But I
was given months to make that transition out of my job and to find another
job. It was tough – even though I was a
good employee and had months to make the transition. It was a tough thing to be on the receiving
end, and I can’t imagine being asked to do that with just a couple of
weeks. I only had eleven years in and at
that point if you cut me I would bleed blue – I was so loyal to IBM. But I can tell you – and this is the impersonal
corporate monster – it was not a caring family campus that I believe UNCA
is. The end result to IBM of a lot of
this restructuring was two-fold – they lost a lot of assets in terms of the
people and the experience those people had, and they lost the sense of loyalty
to that company. People now work there for
a year or two then move on to a better offer.
They use it as a training ground.
It is not a place you go to anymore to do your career and to really
invest yourself in. I just want to be
sure that UNC-Asheville continues to be the place in which I accepted a job
offer a year ago.
·
Dr.
Merritt Moseley: I would like to speak
to the broader issues raised here. I
think the
·
Dr.
Peg Downes: The conversation is going to
continue and I don’t think the Maggie issue is settled. I did hear what everybody said. I heard the Chancellor reflect what
·
Dr.
·
Ms.
Janet Ferguson: I also have concerns
about the student welfare and the restructuring. When you say that students are going to get
shorter term care and therefore we will be able to see more of them – is that a
quantity versus quality situation? It is
very important to define what you mean by shorter term care. Are we talking one appointment? Are we talking three appointments? Counseling is not something that is usually cut
and dried in one or two sessions – “Okay, you’re cured. Thank you for coming in.” It is much more delicate than that. If longer term clients are going to be
referred to the larger community, the larger counseling community is a system
that is already burdened. New Vistas in
town closed not long ago. In some of the
agencies, students seeking services might well incur a cost. And it is a population that we know does not
have a lot of money to spare to see counselors and things like this. Also, almost everyone knows that students are
at peak age for risk of suicide. Their
counseling and their care is paramount and we really need to speak to their
welfare. It is also true that students
that seek counseling when they are in college – their problems are specific to
and endemic to college life and it is usually treated on a college campus and
contained within that area. If they seek
treatment in the larger community they actually go into the system and that
record is kept throughout their lives.
We are talking about a short-term college experience and the records
staying therein as opposed to actually being entered into a system and it becoming
part of a permanent record for the rest of their lives. This deserves consideration, and since we
don’t know much about the restructuring it needs to be thought about and
addressed.
·
Dr.
Ghidina: I would like to call attention
again to the Faculty Senate Resolution passed last week to keep Maggie Weshner
here as a counselor until May. That
seems like a win-win situation. It is
definitely a win for the students in not having to transition to a new
counselor. It is a win for expressing
some respect for a long-term employee. It
is a win for the campus. It is a win for
the staff because they may feel a little more cared for and heard. It is a win for all of us because it is
another reflection of hearing and listening and flexibility on both sides. This was a unanimous Faculty Senate
resolution.
·
Dr.
Duane Davis: I want to reiterate where
we began. You had the opportunity to reverse
that decision and you still have that opportunity. It is hard to admit sometimes that a mistake
has been made. But I have not heard an
explanation today, a compelling reason, or any justification for the direction
that administration took in this case.
The
larger issue for me is the way that staff members continue to be treated. The pattern continues. The people who do such hard work, that we depend
on to do our jobs as teachers, I’m here to support them. I need to hear a lot more reasons for why this
harm was done to this individual and her career. Hearing from experts in the field, from
colleagues in the department, the harm that is going to be done to students (in
the name of an ill-defined, abstract plan), the possibility of hiring an
interim replacement: I don’t hear it. You have the chance to admit that a mistake
has been made, to set an example that would create the trust that you say you
want. I hope you will avail yourself to
that opportunity. (applause)
·
Dr.
Bill Haas: I’ve seen Chancellors and
Vice Chancellors in Academic Affairs come and go. The tenure now is about five to seven
years. I understand that. It is not a problem.
The
problem I have is that when I have a student who stands up in class last
semester and announces that they are psychotic and hearing voices, I called
Maggie. When I had my book order screwed
up this semester – before I used to call John and John would magically get it
done. I could go on for all these other
people that got it done, and I didn’t call the Chancellor’s office. It’s wonderful when Chancellors build new
buildings and increase endowment. But if
what they do is shake up mid-management and staff members that I rely on – and
then they go on to their new job – that is a problem for me. Build buildings, build our endowment – but
don’t take away people that I have relied upon.
I go along with my colleagues – this is a half-assed explanation. Let’s get down to it – you want to have a
seamless situation. I happen to know
that Maggie used to walk upstairs to see the medical folks and the medical
folks would walk down and see Maggie. I
knew that Maggie and the medical folks would actually have social occasions
together. That sounds pretty seamless to
me. It wasn’t like they were at opposite
ends of the campus. If you need to have
one administrator over both departments and since the doc isn’t going to be it
– the doc is keeping his job, why can’t Maggie keep her job? Find somebody to make sure the two things
integrate. But right now, we don’t have
Maggie. When I’ve got that student that
announces they are hearing voices in class and all my other students are
looking around and I don’t know if this student is dangerous or not, then I don’t
have a resource. It is a mistake,
period. And it was a mistake with many
other people, period. And as I told you
before in another meeting – when you get a curmudgeon like me who comes out of
the woodwork – someone who never comes and talks at Faculty Senate meetings –
someone who never writes emails – you’re starting to piss people off. Sorry for not being eloquent. I just think what has happened is wrong. (applause)
·
Dr.
Shirley Browning: I’m not arguing for
keeping anyone here who has been the subject of the conversation today. I know Maggie – I saw her come. She and I have had a personal and a professional
relationship at one point in time and I appreciate that. I am not going to question the restructuring issue
in terms of its detail. We have
Chancellors and Vice Chancellors to serve us, and to serve the staff, and to
serve the students. We don’t serve
you. I’ve been an Associate Vice
Chancellor and I know what happens when people get grumpy.
What
am I concerned about? I’m concerned
about the atmosphere. I’m concerned
about the issues that Professor Sabo raised, that Professor Moseley raised, and
some other people have raised. This is not
about who is right or wrong. There has
to be some hierarchy and on this campus, at least locally, it stops at the Chancellor’s
desk ultimately, unless you want to go to the Trustees or to the system
president.
One
thing that has kept me here for almost four decades is that sense of community. I have experienced both sides of what is
going on. And I am very distressed. This has been my life – not just my
professional life, it has been the bulk of my life. I have enjoyed it here; it has been good to
me and I have grown somewhat as a result of it.
As I get closer to retirement I’m going to depart like Professor Seitz. I’d like to think back very positively about
this place, as a place to say to potential students, to parents of those
students, to potential employees – it’s a good organization. There will be disagreements, there will be
agreements, but you can work together. At the end of the day you can still work
together. Now I’m beginning to wonder
about that. I’ve heard lots of words but
no substance. If we are going to reach
our potential, the Chancellor is going to lead us to be an even better
institution than we have been and are at present. We can’t treat each other badly. I’ve turned people down for tenure; it’s not
fun. I’ve seen people get positive
results – I’ve seen people get negative results. It happens in any organization, but it is how
you go about it. If you don’t go about
it with a little style, a little grace, and a little humility, then you’ve
destroyed a community. So I am asking those
who are in charge of this system and this campus -- let’s make sure that when I
retire that I feel good about this place.
And when everyone else retires they feel good about the place even
though they don’t agree with everything that has happened. If we are going to live the liberal arts in
the classroom we’d better live it with each other. I don’t see that happening. (applause)
·
Dr.
Burchard: The Chancellor said that this
is the University’s community and that we have to learn to disagree
better. I think that is right. The way I talk about that is learning to
fight without breaking the relationship.
And I think we do need to do a better job of learning to fight without
breaking a relationship. But that is
moving ahead. I do think we need to move
ahead but, before I move ahead, I still want answers. And I don’t think we’ve been answered. We have asked many direct questions but we
have not gotten many direct answers. It
feels to me like that is part of our problem.
Stonewalling is what it feels like to me, and that doesn’t encourage
communication and trust but rather discourages communication and trust. And if we are a community, that actually
means a really important thing. I know I
am a moralist but I just want to remind everybody that that means we are a
moral community. And that means we have
to look to each other for checks on whether our understanding of things is
morally adequate or not. The faculty and
many staff are here today saying the understanding about this decision was not
morally adequate – not just professionally, but not morally adequate. Not in terms of the values that this
community has put down on paper and on the web.
So, this is exactly the group of people who needs to say, something has
gone wrong. And according to our shared
values, it ought to be corrected because nobody is above question, and nobody
is above the values, and nobody is above correction, and nobody is above
reproach in a moral community.
·
Ms.
Marshall: I am addressing this to the
Chancellor. I’m asking you to think very
carefully about what people have said today and the things they said to you
individually. And I want you to remember
that you are building a legacy. I want
you to feel confident in whatever decision you make so that five-ten years from
now, you will look back on the decision you made and the people here that I
hope you respect and you’ll feel very pleased and proud of that decision.
Dr.
Nallan adjourned the meeting at 4:55pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra
Gravely