A committee to review internal investigations by the administration in light of alleged misconduct will take shape this semester, as per a resolution passed at Wednesday’s University Senate meeting.

‘The purpose of this resolution is to say OK, let’s get somebody outside of the administration, look at how you do things, and maybe make recommendations that would improve it,’ said Craig Dudczak, co-author of the resolution.

Dudczak, associate professor of communication and rhetorical studies, and Pat Cihon, associate professor of law and public policy, introduced the resolution, which was developed in response to the university’s handling of the Bernie Fine investigation and previous internal investigations involving alleged misconduct. A 40-minute discussion followed, focusing on who will sit on the committee, what practices and procedures are subject to review, and the specificity of the resolution. Several senate members expressed concern at the level of detachment between the administration and the nominating committee.

The scope of the committee is to determine whether university policies include the following things: adequate procedures for a full and fair investigation; rules in place to notify the proper authorities when civil or criminal crimes are involved; adequate time to inform university governance bodies of administrative proceedings; and due process for all involved.

Not all investigations follow the same procedures and members of the SU community want a greater role in evaluating the strength and success of current practices.

‘There’s a certain hidden black box quality to it,’ Dudczak said. ‘What exactly was the investigation? What did we do? And I mean that’s a question a lot of people in the university community have.’

Four members of the Senate Agenda Committee will nominate members to the ad hoc committee. The size and composition of the committee was not explicitly laid out in the resolution and will be up to the nominating committee.

Also at the meeting, Don Mitchell, faculty representative to the Board of Trustees, informed the senate of a similar initiative by the board to review policies and practices of investigations by the administration. Mitchell stressed that the two committees were not in conflict or competition with each other and are both valuable means of improving university practices.

‘My own sense is there actually can’t be too much scrutiny of these issues,’ Mitchell said.

When discussion began on the resolution for an ad hoc committee, word choice and clarity of language dominated the concerns voiced by senate members. The purpose was changed to allow the scope of investigations to include allegations against any university personnel.

Robert Van Gulick, a philosophy professor, said he felt the resolution’s stated purpose of ‘reviewing administrative policies and practices’ was too broad. It did not, he said, specifically state the main reason for the resolution: to deal with investigations into inappropriate conduct.

‘I think we all know what this is about, but it doesn’t quite say it,’ Van Gulick said. The resolution was amended to say the committee would review policies and practices ‘regarding internal investigations of alleged misconduct.’

Martha Hanson, co-chairwoman of the Women’s Concerns Committee, raised the last question regarding the resolution. She expressed concern that the administration might have unintended influence over the nominations because several administrators serve on the Agenda Committee. Although the administration would not formally be involved in the nomination process, Hanson worried the connection between the two could sway appearances.

Chancellor Nancy Cantor, Vice Chancellor and Provost Eric Spina, and Thomas Wolfe, senior vice president and dean of student affairs, serve on the 15-member Agenda Committee.

Samuel Gorovitz, a philosophy professor, suggested the solution to this would be ensuring that the administration had no presence during nominations or any knowledge of the process as it is unfolding. The credibility of the committee’s findings depends fully on its independence from the administration, he said.

‘If there are even conversations about the membership of this committee, there is a potential for influence and intimidation,’ Gorovitz said. ‘And that’s exactly the kind of thing that gave rise to the desire to have an independent inquiry in the first place.’

Cantor scoffed at the notion that the administration might attempt to exert influence over the makeup of the committee. ‘I’ve never been very successful at intimidation. Nonetheless, I and all members of my cabinet would be glad to recluse ourselves and not be involved,’ she said in response to Gorovitz.

‘No problem whatsoever with that.’

kronayne@syr.edu 

Published on January 18, 2012 at 12:00 pm