UI general counsel’s role in process draws discussion
University of Idaho Faculty Senate members discussed concerns regarding the Faculty Appeals Hearing Board process Tuesday, following a presentation by Sarah Nelson, the board’s chair.
The Faculty Appeals Hearing Board (FAHB) is in place to advise UI President Chuck Staben in instances where faculty members disagree with institutional decisions, Nelson said.
Nelson said the process for making appeals and the hearing itself is concerning to some faculty.
“There’s a feeling when faculty come to the FAHB … that we’re somehow an arm of the university upper administration,” Nelson said.
The point of concern among many was centered on how involved UI’s general counsel is in the hearing processes.
Three particular points of concern Faculty Senate members addressed were where legal counsel are seated in hearings, who can be present at the deliberative process and how the report is presented to Staben.
Nelson, who has been a member of FAHB for three years, said the seating arrangements for legal counsel have differed over the years. Nelson said typically, UI General Counsel Kent Nelson represents the FAHB panel during the hearing and UI Senior Associate Debra Ellers represents Katherine Aiken, UI provost, who presents the administration’s point of view.
“I think that there seems to be a lot of lawyers in the room,” Nelson said. “The person who’s bringing the appeal sort of feels like the only person that doesn’t have their lawyer.”
The seating arrangement for the counsel was brought into question, suggesting seating the counsel in a secondary row to suggest their advisory position so it doesn’t appear as though there are lawyers stacked against the faculty member.
Aiken said the counsel should be put in the front because of the role they play in the hearing. The counsel provides notes, keeps time and is available for questions during the hearing.
“If they were sitting behind us, they couldn’t do any of that,” Aiken said.
Nelson questioned the necessity of having counsel present at all.
“I feel there could be more distance between the way the faculty hearing board proceeds and the counsel’s office,” Nelson said.
Nelson said appeals hearings take about two hours and are followed by private deliberation of the panel. UI Counsel is only present if questions arise, which she said does not happen often.
Don Crowley, faculty secretary asked why a representative from UI was allowed to enter and present opinions during deliberation if a representative for the faculty member was not.
Allan Caplan, Faculty Senate member, said inviting UI Counsel into the room could bring into question how much influence the counsel had on the board’s decisions.
Nelson said it might be favorable for the FABH hearing process to not involve counsel in its current format.
When it comes time for the board to provide advice to Staben, Nelson said the panel does not have rules about a majority or unanimous decision, but rather the board writes reports to reflect how the panel felt. The written report of their thoughts is then delivered to Staben’s office.
Faculty Senate members discussed having a representative explain the FAHB’s advice to Staben in person. Caplan said someone from the counsel or an ombudsman would be logical choices.
“Your perception of a case when it’s presented to you in person versus reading a two to three page report is different,” Nelson said.
Cowley said if it is determined there are necessary changes needed for the FAHB policy, committees would draft the changes and present them to Faculty Senate.
Katelyn Hilsenbeck can be reached at [email protected]