4)
:
Faculty Ombudsman Ad oc Committee Report to the Faculty Senate
Cherif Amor, C enevieve Dur m, Audra Morse, Nancy Reed, and Gene Wilde
9 May 2007
SUMMARY
At the 14 March 2007 rr eeting of the F culty Senate, Senate President James Smith appoted an
ad hoc committee to invstigate potent" 1 need and benefits of establishing the position ot
Faculty Ombudsman at Texas Tech Un versity.
The Faculty Ombudsman Ad Hoc Con nittee has researched this issue via the internet, h—
interviewed acting ombidsmen at oth universities, and has considered the report of 5cr tor
Cherif Amor who attenced the annual eeting of the International Ombudsman Associat xi last
month. In consideratior of this info tion:
It is the unanimous recommendation if the Committee that the Faculty Senate endors the
establishment of a Faculty Ombudsm n at Texas Tech University.
Numerous universities have establish
resolving faculty disputes. Among Bi
the University of Nebraska, the Univ
University of Nebraska formerly had
exigency (their Faculty Senate has re
Faculty Ombudspersons to act as neutral agents
-12 Universities, all have a Faculty Ombudsman cept
sity of Missouri, and Texas Tech University. Th
Faculty Ombudsman, which was lost due to finat ial
mmended the position be reinstituted). The Uni sity of
Missouri has, on campus, a dispute r • lution center that has been cited by their Faculty Senate
as adequate to resolve existing disput ; nevertheless, motions are periodically made by reexamine this issue.
•
The role of a Faculty Cmbudsman is t informally assist faculty in resolving concerns o
problems related to issnes of faculty rights and responsibilities. The Faculty Ombudsmi should
41
serve as a confidential and informal res urce for information and communication, and as
facilitator for dispute resAution. The F culty Ombudsman should foster communication
between members of the campus co
nity, particularly between the faculty and
administration, and promotes the valu
of fairness, equity, justice, and mutual respect.
The Faculty Ombudsmal Ad Hoc Co
ittee considered first the questions of whether th e was
need for a Faculty Ombudsman and w t benefits might derive from such a position. hit iews
with the current staff (N nhanael Hadd x) and student (Kathryn Quilliam) ombudsperso
indicate they consult with approximate
6 to 12 faculty per year. Numerous anecdotes s ggest
that faculty, particularly untenured fac lty, are unwilling to use formal procedures of add sing
disputes except as a meE sure of last r
rt. Current procedures for addressing disputes d not
provide means for addressing issues be ween two faculty members, or between faculty d staff
or students. Based on committee disc sions and our conversations with acting ombudsens,
the Faculty Ombudsmar. Ad Hoc Co
ttee believes that establishment of a Faculty
Ombudsman will contrbute to early re olution of issues, increased faculty retention, and an
improvement in the academic climate t Texas Tech University. We have specifically
questioned acting ombudspersons abo
issues that might escalate because a faculty member
consulted with an ombudsman, rather t an using other means of addressing their concern , angl
have identified no such issues.
Establishment of a Fact lty Ombudsm
at Texas Tech should not restrict the faculty's a 'ess to
existing means of addressing grievan
, such as Texas Tech Operating Policy (OP) 32.
Faculty Grievance Procedures or estab ished procedures for appealing tenure decisions.
,ather,
the Faculty Ombudsmai provides an a ditional, parallel means of resolving disputes. T this
end, the committee ma mmends that
y OP establishing a Faculty Ombudsman at Tex
Tech
prominently feature wording similar t that currently in OP 70.23: Ombudsman for No faculty
Employees, Section 2.d.(3), which sta es:
The ombudsman supplements, ut does not replace, any steps required in formal
•
internal or external procedures Use of the Ombudsman Office is not a required
any grievance process or orgathzational policy.
•
The Faculty Ombudsman Ad Hoc Committee also discussed how the Faculty Ombudsman
position should be strucbured: specifically, should the Faculty Ombudsman should be a full- or
part-time position. In cc nversations at the International Ombudsman Association meeting,
Senator Amor was advised that we should initially consider appointment of a part-time Faculty
Ombudsman. If there was sufficient demand for services of the Ombudsman, the position could
later be expanded to full-time.
Alternatively, initial appointment of a full-time Faculty Ombudsman would allow greater access
by faculty to the service ; of Ombudsman, instead of working around class, lab, and studio
schedules. A full-time ippointment wculd also facilitate efforts of the Ombudsman to undertake
training/certification in dispute resolution, mediation, and other necessary skills.
A part-time Ombudsman could meet faculty in his/her office, as there would be the possit ility
that the visit was related to shared academic or research interests. In the case of a full-time
•
Ombudsman, there wou_d be little possibility that a faculty visit was related to shared academic
or research interests and a confidential office site would be required.
There are several mode U for reporting and supervision of faculty ombudsmen. At Texas Tech, it
would probably be mosi appropriate for the ombudsman to report to the Provost. The Faculty
Ombudsman Ad Hoc Committee suggests that funding for the ombudsperson be transferred to a
Faculty Senate account and that selection and hiring of a Faculty Ombudsman be initiated by a
committee appointed by the Faculty Senate, with concurrence of the Provost, and that annual
performance reviews be conducted joir tly by the Senate and the Provost.
The Faculty Ombudsmen Ad Hoc Committee believes that a Faculty Ombudsman, if appointed,
should be required to obtain membersf ip in the International Ombudsman Association
Chtlp://www.ombudsasgociation.ore) and abide by the Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics
of that organization. Thz appointee should undertake training necessary to result in her o his
•
certification by the Inte-national Ombudsman Association. The International Ombudsman
Association sponsors courses and workshops that lead to certification.
rd•
•
The Faculty Ombudsman Ad Hoc Corn ittee recommends the following steps in establis
ga
faculty Ombudsman at Texas Tech Uni ersity:
STEP 1: VOTE ON COMMITTEEI RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH
OMBUDSMAN (May 20 7)
Record of favorable vot should be provided to President Whitmore, Provo St
Marcy, and Chancellor H ce.
E
IF STEP 1 IS PASSED:
STEP 2: FACULTN OMBUDSM N AD HOC COMMITTEE DRAFTS POSITIO:1
DOCUMENTS (Summer 007)
•
Draft posit on descriptio
Develop budget and offic
Develop reporting and bu
Develop a ?rocedure for
Draft OP for Faculty Om
for a part-time and full-time Faculty Ombudsm
needs
get ing procedures
culty oversight
udsman, in cooperation with the Provost's Office
STEP 3: DISSEMINATE ABOVE MATERIALS TO THE SENATE FOR DISCUS$ ION
AND ACTION (Septemb and October 2007)
STEP 4: FINALIZE POSITION D SCRIPTION AND CONDUCT SEARCH (Fall
07)
Form Seanh Committee
Recruit candidates
Screen cardidates and m e recommendation to the Senate and Provost
STEP 5: ESTABLI3H FACULT OMBUDSMAN OFFICE (Spring 2008)
The Facull y Ombudsma Office would be established in early spring 2008
The Ombt dsman would egin training, as possible, that eventually will lead to
professional certification
•