[Senate letterhead]

DRAFT

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

January __, 2014

Bruce Weber, Dean

Lerner College of Business & Economics

University of Delaware

Newark, DE 19716

Babatunde Ogunnaike, Dean

College of Engineering

University of Delaware

Newark, DE 19716

Re: Complaint

Dear Deans Weber and Ogunnaike:

We send this letter to express our dissatisfaction with certain violations of policy and procedures that we believe occurred in the Lerner College of Business & Economics and the College of Engineering with respect to the adoption of the PhD program in Financial Services Analytics last fall semester. For the reasons set forth below, we believe that there is a strong basis for a complaint to the Faculty Senate Committee on Welfare and Privileges. The goal is to prevent such violations in the future.

We copy the Provost on this letter because a complaint brought before the Faculty Welfare and Privileges Committee ultimately goes to him for resolution if we cannot otherwise reach an accord with you both. We also copy the chair of the Faculty Welfare and Privileges Committee so that he is fully aware of these matters. For the same reason, we are sending copies to the Grievance Officer and the Contract Maintenance Officer of the UD-AAUP.

Complaint: Violation of Faculty Governance in Approving PhD Proposal

The Lerner College and the College of Engineering recently brought a proposal for a new PhD program to the Faculty Senate for approval. This graduate degree program will be administered jointly by the deans of the two colleges, a faculty committee, and the program director. It was the understanding of the members of the Graduate Studies Committee and the Coordinating Committee on Education that the proposal was approved by the faculty of the two colleges prior to its submission to the Faculty Senate for consideration. Unfortunately, it appears that neither college followed its own bylaws in approving the proposal at the college level before sending it on to the Senate for approval. This is a serious violation of policy and procedure as well as Senate protocol. In addition, such a failure to obtain the approval of the faculty of these colleges is a departure from principles of faculty governance.

The proposal for this new academic program was not submitted to the faculty of those departments in the Lerner College that will be implementing the new PhD program, as is required by the Bylaws of the Lerner College. Instead, the proposal for the PhD program was only submitted to a vote of the faculty of the College. The proposal came to the faculty of the College from the Graduate Programs Committee, which is established by Article V.E of the Bylaws of the Lerner College. This committee is charged with the duty to “oversee and review all graduate courses and programs” in the College—other than the MBA program, which is governed by a separate faculty committee. The Graduate Programs Committee has the authority to “originate, receive, review, and approve for submission to the College faculty” all proposals for graduate programs. This provision of the Bylaws further provides that:

Proposals originated and approved in the Committee may be submitted for consideration by the College faculty if and only if they have received a positive vote from the majority of faculty in each College department that will be responsible for implementing the proposed changes, if approved. [emphasis added]

None of the four College departments responsible for “implementing” the proposed PhD program (i.e., teaching the courses in such program) was given the opportunity to vote on such proposal. Those departments are: Finance, Economics, Accounting & MIS, and Business Administration. None of these departments approved the proposal. We understand that several senior faculty in one of these departments requested a vote on the proposal but were denied the opportunity to so vote. Such vote was not discretionary but required by the College Bylaws.

It should be noted that under the Lerner College Bylaws, proposals for new graduate programs may also “originate” at the department level rather than in the Graduate Programs Committee. In such a case, the Bylaws provide that the proposal must have a “positive vote from the majority of department faculty and the Committee prior to their submission to the College faculty.” As such, a majority of the department faculty always must approve a proposal for a new graduate program that is to be implemented by that department. There is nothing wrong with a proposal for a new graduate program originating in the Dean’s Office, as was the case here; however, such a proposal still must be approved by a majority of the faculty in these four departments before it is approved by the Graduate Programs Committee and then sent to the College faculty for a vote. There is no exception to this procedure for proposals that originate in the Dean’s Office. As such, this proposal was never approved by the Lerner College. It is possible that a majority of the faculty in these four departments would have approved the proposal if a vote had been held, but that is mere speculation as no such vote was taken.

Furthermore, it is also unclear whether the requirement for a quorum was satisfied by the Lerner College faculty vote. The Bylaws provide that one-third of the voting members of the Lerner College faculty not on leave are necessary for a quorum. It is possible that one-third of the voting members of the College faculty participated in the vote at the College level and the quorum requirement was satisfied; however, that was never certified. As the presiding officer of the faculty of the Lerner College, the task of certification falls to the dean. Since we do not know the number of members of the College faculty eligible to vote, it is impossible to determine whether the quorum requirement was satisfied. Again, it is possible that the requirement was satisfied since administrators also are eligible to vote at the college level. However, given the low participation by faculty in in the college vote, it is also possible that this requirement was also not satisfied.

Equally serious, the faculty of the College of Engineering did not vote at all on this academic proposal, which includes courses offered and under the control of that college. That was a violation of the bylaws of that college. Article I. F of the Bylaws of the College of Engineering provides that:

The following items must be discussed in a regular or special faculty meeting, and brought to a vote by the entire College Faculty: creation or elimination of programs or departments, relocation of existing programs or departments into or out of the College, merger of existing programs or departments in the College, changes in names of departments, and resolutions or motions which have effect upon the University, colleges or departments of the University other than the College of Engineering or its departments. The proposed action will be considered to have been recommended by the Faculty if it has the support of a majority of the voting members of the College Faculty as determined in a secret mail ballot. The tally should be noted clearly in any related proposals going from the College to the University.

Article III. A of the Bylaws of the College of Engineering further provides that:

Changes in the required courses of curricula, and establishing or deleting curricula shall require the approval of a majority of the entire College Faculty by mail ballot, and the action of the Dean of Engineering. Any such recommendation, along with any recommendation by the Dean of the College, then is submitted to the University Faculty Senate, the President of the University and the Board of Trustees for action.

Because no such meeting was held and no vote of the “entire College Faculty” was ever taken for this proposal for this new PhD program, such proposal was not properly approved by that College either before it was sent to the Faculty Senate. Any argument that the faculty in that college were not required to vote on the proposal for a new PhD program (which is jointly administered by the dean of the College of Engineering and includes courses located in the college and taught by the faculty in that college) on the grounds that it is not solely within that college is contrary to the plain language of these provisions in that college’s bylaws. By implication of such logic, a new PhD program that is jointly administered by two separate colleges does not need to be approved by the faculty of either college because it is not solely within either college. Obviously, that would be a clear violation of the bylaws of both of these colleges as well as the general principle of faculty governance.

Remedy sought:

We respectfully request that the deans of both colleges inform their faculty that their college bylaws were not followed with respect to securing the required faculty approvals for the new PhD program. All required votes should then be conducted. If the proposal is passed by the faculty of both colleges according to the procedures set forth in their respective bylaws, then the program can go forward. If not, the program cannot be implemented. Furthermore, both deans should give their assurances that bylaws and procedures of faculty governance will be followed with respect to all future proposals for new academic programs or curriculum changes.

We sincerely hope that you will consider these matters and that we can resolve them amicably for the good of the faculty and both the Lerner College and the College of Engineering. Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly yours,

Executive Committee

Faculty Senate

cc: Domenico Grasso, Provost

University of Delaware

John Courtright, Chair

Faculty Welfare and Privileges Committee

Brian Hanson, Grievance Officer

UD-AAUP

Gerry Turkel, Contract Maintenance Officer

UD-AAUP