Faculty ask board to override Wendler

Several faculty members told the Board of Trustees Thursday that they believe the chancellor has violated the trust of the University community by denying six of nine appeals for promotion and tenure since 2001. Three faculty members from departments across campus urged the board to take the matter into its own hands during the public comment portion of the board's monthly meeting in the Student Center.

"If Chancellor Wendler decisions are allowed to continue without the intervention of the board, there will be serious adverse consequences to the University," law professor Leonard Gross said. From 1990 to 2000, there have been 20 appeals. In Wendler's 3 1/2 years as SIUC's chief administrator, there have been 12 appeals. "We are not asking that everybody be promoted; what we are asking is that the decision can be fairly appealed," said Marvin Zeman, Faculty Association president. "This chancellor has demonstrated that he does not take the appeals process seriously."

All proposals for promotion and tenure must be approved by the provost. According to the guidelines for promotion and tenure, the provost reviews the proposals with the standards set by the department and University to make his recommendation. Faculty members who are denied tenure are essentially fired. Those faculty members who are denied either promotion or tenure can appeal the decision by going through the Judicial Review Board, where a three-member panel is nominated. The provost and the faculty member filing the grievance are allowed to nominate one person each to the panel. The Faculty Senate appoints the third member. Then, the board reviews the information and if it finds due process and standards were not followed makes a recommendation to confirm or reject provost's decision. If the board overturns the rejection, it moves to the chancellor, who has the final ruling.

Last year, Provost John Dunn rejected five proposals, and the judicial review board, which includes the person nominated by the provost, unanimously overturned all of the decisions. However, Wendler has denied four of the five appeals for promotion. Gross said when the chancellor overturns the board's decisions, it sends a clear message to the provost that Wendler agrees with Dunn's recommendations. Dunn, who was criticized throughout the public comment portion, defended his decisions after the meeting.

"I am proud of my record," Dunn said. In the press conference after the Thursday meeting, Wendler said he reviews each proposal on a case-by-case basis. The chancellor also said he is not completely familiar with the review process. "The processes are complicated; this is why there are multiple levels of review," Wendler said. "If they were simple cases, we wouldn't be reviewing them. I judge them on their own merits, not any sort of track record." During the meeting, Gross said the upper administration has invented standards and misapplied rules. Gross urged the board to intervene and express to the chancellor the importance of the appeals process.

Zeman said the Judicial Review Board is like the appellate court for faculty. "If people have no confidence in their appeals to get a fair shake, that becomes a very serious problem," Zeman said. "At least with a court, you have some chance to win." Pat Kelley, a law professor who has advised and represented faculty and administrators in this process, told the board the promise of justice normally found in the Judicial Review Board's decisions has been disregarded repeatedly. Kelley said it is imperative that the board intervenes because he believes there is no one in SIUC's administration who will stop what is happening.

"Morale depends on justice, on the belief that somewhere in the system, there is one in authority who is a 'stopper' - who, if informed of all the facts, will recognize when a wrong is being done and who will stop it," Kelley said. "No one I know believes there is a stopper in this administration. Until there is one, you as the Board of Trustees must fill that role." In order for the board to address the matter, it must first be submitted to the president's office and then passed on to the board. The next meeting of the Judicial Review Board is March 23.