e court held that the Chancellor is not permitted under UC policy to revisit the fact-finding that was done by P&T and relied on its interpretation of APM 016 and Bylaw 336. The court held that the Chancellor exceeded his authority by interpreting the Faculty Code of Conduct differently from the way P&T had. The committee discussed the decision with considerable input from Attorney Adviser Meltzer. The Chair asked that Mr. Meltzer keep the committee apprised on the developments.
At UCD, there was a case where the chancellor recommended a letter of censure and a reduction in pay for three months for a faculty member. The professor brought a lawsuit challenging the chancellor’s decision and the court found in favor of the professor. The
The Vice Chair (who is from the Davis division) sought the input of the committee on the question of how to conduct simultaneous merit and misconduct cases. These circumstances arose in at least three instances on the Davis campus. She explained that the Davis administration had taken upon itself to sometimes inform the department chairs, to include information in dossiers, and also would occasionally engage in some “foot dragging” to slow and stall the promotion process. She asked if credible allegations exist regarding serious misconduct, should the administration have the ability to pause a personnel action. Vice Chair Simon also noted that the requirements to put a faculty member on paid administrative leave are quite stringen
Glasp is a social web highlighter that people can highlight and organize quotes and thoughts from the web, and access other like-minded people’s learning.