OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION
MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
ROOM A, BUILDING 34
CHEMEKETA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
November 17, 2000
CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the State Board of Higher Education Executive Committee was called to order by President VanLuvanee at 12:13 p.m.
On roll call, the following Executive Committee members answered present:
Mr. Jim Lussier
Mr. Tom Imeson
Mr. Jim Willis
Mr. Don VanLuvanee
Ms. Leslie Lehmann arrived at 12:35 p.m.
Other Board members present: Dr. Geri Richmond, Ms. Phyllis Wustenberg, Mr. Tim Young
Staff: Bob Bruce, Shirley Clark, Joe Cox (via telephone), Ben Rawlins, Lynda Rose, Lynda Swanson, Diane Vines
Others: Suad Cox (SOU), Silvia Gonzalez-Martinez, Lesley Hallick (OHSU), Charles Lane (SOU-via telephone), Dick Pratt (PSU), Elliot Orreu, Wendy Robinson (DOJ), Rikki Schoenthal (PSU), Bruce Shepard (EOU), Mary Kay Tetreault (PSU-via telephone), Gary Tiedeman (IFS), Betty Youngblood (WOU-via telephone)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Imeson moved and Mr. Willis seconded the motion to approve the September 15, 2000, Executive Committee meeting minutes as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Imeson, Lussier, Willis, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none. (Ms. Lehmann had not yet arrived.)
GRIEVANCE-RIKKI SCHOENTHAL, PSU
OUS Director of Legal Services Ben Rawlins explained the interim process for examining grievances, pending revisions yet to be approved by the Board. Dr. Lesley Hallick, provost and vice president for Academic Affairs at OHSU, was selected by the Board as its designee to review the case.
Dr. Hallick highlighted her findings of the appeal, which was related to allegations of procedural error in an appeal process of a grievance filed by Ms. Schoenthal. This case, she explained, involved workplace issues between the grievant and her supervisor, and did not reflect on the ability to serve students by either. Indicating that, while it appeared to be a very challenging and prolonged situation to which all parties worked diligently to resolve, Dr. Hallick found no evidence of wrongdoing by the University, and thereby recommended that the Board uphold President Bernstine's decision to deny the grievance submitted by Ms. Schoenthal (a copy of Dr. Hallick's report is on file in the Board's office).
Asking for clarification on what were two grievances ultimately distilled into one, Mr. Lussier confirmed the date the original grievance was filed. He also questioned if the appointment of a second peer hearing group provided reasonable due process in the case. Dr. Hallick responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Lehmann asked if the decision by the faculty review committee was unanimous. While unsure about the exact vote, Dr. Hallick reported that overall comments were mixed, and the final decision was not in favor of Ms. Schoenthal.
Mr. Lussier moved and Mr. Imeson seconded the decision to support the decision by President Bernstine. The following voted in favor: Directors Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier, Willis, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none.
Mr. VanLuvanee extended his appreciation to Dr. Hallick for her work on researching the grievance and making recommendations based on her findings to the Board.
GRIEVANCE-SILVIA GONZALEZ- MARTINEZ, SOU
Dr. Bruce Shepard, provost and vice president for Academic Affairs at EOU, was selected by the Board as its designee to review the case, which related to a decision by the SOU Provost not to reappoint Dr. Gonzalez-Martinez.
Dr. Shepard highlighted his findings of the appeal filed by Dr. Gonzalez-Martinez. He pointed out that the award of tenure is based on performance that is "sufficiently outstanding" to warrant what is often a lifetime commitment for a university. Indicating that support for nonrenewal of the appointment to Dr. Gonzalez-Martinez was unanimous at all levels of review, Dr. Shepard concluded that Dr. Gonzalez-Martinez had not met her burden to overcome the president's decision, and thereby recommended that the Board uphold President Hopkins-Powell's decision to deny the appeal (a copy of Dr. Shepard's report is on file in the Board's office).
Mr. Lussier asked if the president's involvement in the case when she was provost was the only basis upon which the grievant indicated there was procedural error. Dr. Shepard indicated there were other issues cited as well.
With respect to the appropriateness of the president being involved initially as the provost in the case, Mr. Imeson asked Mr. Rawlins if he agreed with Provost Shepard's assessment of the situation in his report. Mr. Rawlins indicated that, procedurally, Dr. Hopkins-Powell acted appropriately.
Mr. Imeson moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the decision to support the decision by President Hopkins-Powell. The following voted in favor: Directors Imeson, Lehmann, Lussier, Willis, and VanLuvanee. Those voting no: none.
ITEMS FROM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Ms. Lehmann asked that the Board consider at some point developing a policy for addressing the situation of interim presidents who become candidates for permanent president at an institution. She noted that many other institutions nationwide have such a policy in place. President VanLuvanee said that he'd ask Chancellor's Office staff to examine the issue.
The Executive Committee meeting adjourned at 1 p.m.
Secretary of the Board
President of the Board