The hearing panel of the Professional Conduct Review Committee (PCRC) has decided it can consider complaints of professional misconduct filed by Dean of the college of Arts and Sciences Clayton Koppes and Associate Professor of Neuroscience David Holtzman.
At the General Faculty (GF) meeting March 25, the General Faculty Council (GFC) will present a proposal clarifying how a faculty member can bring a formal complaint against the dean of the College, according to Secretary of the College Robert Haslun. The document containing the GFC proposal will also include a proposal from Professor of Biology Richard Levin, Holtzman's faculty adviser for the internal College investigative processes, addressing the same issue.
Holtzman's courseload for the semester was cancelled for the semester after complaints of inappropriate sexual conversation, inappropriate physical misconduct and drug use filed by students and staff membes resulted in Holtzman's placement on paid leave after review by the College Faculty Council (CFC), GFC and consultation with the American Association of University Professors.
In late August, Holtzman filed charges against Koppes, former acting dean of the College of Arts and Sciences James Helm and Neuroscience Program Director Catherine McCormick. On Sept. 11, Koppes filed charges against Holtzman. Because the charges revolved around the same issue, Haslun decided to have one panel investigate all of the charges rather than have four panels meet seperately. Haslun is in charge of convening the PCRC.
Four members of the nine member PCRC constitute the investigative panel, while the other five membrs constitute the hearing panel. The investigative panel determines whether the issue under investigation is serious enough to warrant the attention of the hearing panel, which will decide the seriousness of the offense.
However, according to Professor of Biology Richard Levin, Holtzman's faculty adviser for the internal College investigative processes, the hearing panel will only consider Holtzman's complaints against McCormick, not Helm or Koppes. Levin said, "It's hardly a compromise. That's a very loaded proposal, and if I were Holtzman I'd turn it down cold."
Koppes said that the hearing committee's proposal is agreeable to him and President Nancy Dye. Holtzman was unavailable for comment.
Levin filed a complaint against Koppes with the PCRC after a letter - later removed - was placed in his personnel file stating that he had participated in a disruption of an Intro. to Neuroscience class on Sept. 3 by accompanying Holtzman to the class. Holtzman said his courses were cancelled without his consent and he was not officially notifed of their cancellation. The PCRC investigative panel found that though letters exchanged between Koppes and Holtzman during the last week of August raised the issue of his not teaching, Holtzman did not agree to separate from the College, nor did the College accept his terms for resignation.
The letter Dye sent Holtzman informing him he would not be allowed to teach was dated Sept. 5, two days after the beginning of classes. The PCRC investigative panel concluded, "By that time, classes had begun. In the absence of formal notice to the contrary, it was not unreasonable for Holtzman to attempt to teach his classes. The allegation of Acting Dean Koppes that Holtzman was adding to his list of delicts by disrupting classes in Neuroscience sounds disingenuous. For it would have been unprofessional conduct for a faculty member not informed otherwise to have failed to meet his classes."
The investigative panel for Levin's complaint decided it could not investigate misconduct charges against administrators, and that Koppes, though a tenured member of the faculty, was acting in his capacity as an administrator. Four members of the investigative panel for Levin's complaint serve on the hearing panel for the Holtzman/Koppes complaints, while four members of the investigative panel for the Holtzman/Koppes complaint serve on the hearing panel for the Levin complaint. Though the final investigative report of the PCRC, dated Nov. 27, recommended that the charges placed before it be forwarded to the hearing panel of the PCRC, the panel did not decide to consider the charges until last week.
"The same people have been the roadblock," Levin said.
The PCRC asked the GFC to come up with a plan for dealing with complaints against administrators.
Levin and Professor of Economics Robert Piron said they feel that the PCRC's duties, as outlined in Appendix H of the faculty guide, are clear. They both pointed to the statement "The General Faculty shall have a Professional Conduct Review Committee which shall consider formal complaints about professional conduct made against any individual holding a faculty appointment at Oberlin College" in the Faculty Guide. Levin said, "One part of the committee did its job very well, and one part of the committee said it couldn't hear anything, even though the procedure is very clear that a charge can be brought against any individual ... " He said he felt his investigative panel was "derelict in its responsibilities."
Levin said he feels that there is a way to make a minor amendment to Appendix H and solve the problem of where faculty members go with a formal complaint against a dean "without jumping through 30 hoops."
Piron said he feels that the part of Appendix H requiring the appropriate divisional deans to participate in meetings of the hearing panel can be amended by adding that when the divisional dean is a principal, the other divisional dean shall participate in panel meetings. He said that the GFC has no structure for hearing cases. "The committee is not constituted as a professional conduct committee by the
Related Story:
