Ad Hoc Grievance Process Review Committee

Ad Hoc Grievance Process Review Committee Report

January 14, 2009

I. BACKGROUND

On July 18, 2008, University of Louisville’s President Ramsey charged the Chair of the Faculty Senate with “reviewing our grievance process so that those who believe university policies have been violated will feel comfortable bringing those concerns forward through approved and sanctioned university procedures.” Working with this charge, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee proposed a committee composition and process that was presented to the Faculty Senate on September 3, 2008. The Faculty Senate adopted the recommendations of the Executive Committee with minor changes. The recommendations of the Executive Committee, as amended, are included in this report as Attachment A. The members of the Grievance Process Review Committee (GPRC) were selected by the Faculty Senate to serve on the Committee at the September 2008 meeting. The final composition of the committee is Carrie Donald and Melissa Laning (Co-Chairs), Elizabeth Bonham, Pamela Feldhoff, James H. Graham, Saeed Jortani, David Simpson, Robert Staat, David Willis, and William Weinberg. Beth Boehm was originally appointed to the committee but resigned to chair the Ad Hoc Administrative Policies for Collegial Governance Committee. The committee held its first meeting on September 10, 2008, and met on an almost weekly basis throughout the Fall Semester. All members of the committee signed Confidentiality Statements to ensure the integrity of the process. The Confidentiality Statement is included as Attachment B. II. SUMMARY

After careful examination of the current environment for faculty dispute resolution at the University of Louisville, the GPRC believes there is a both a critical need for change and a remarkable opportunity for faculty and administration to partner in making that happen.

The following report proposes nineteen recommendations that the committee unanimously supports as strategies for achieving our shared goal of excellence.

1 III. COMMITTEE REVIEW PROCESS The committee’s work had three distinct phases. The first phase was a review of UofL dispute resolution policies and similar policies of other institutions. Initially, the committee identified a list of UofL policies related to faculty disputes and their resolution to gain a better understanding of the processes currently available to faculty who perceive they have a dispute with a colleague or administrator. During this phase, committee members also looked at dispute resolution processes at the university’s seventeen benchmark institutions and a smaller group selected from some of the major universities throughout the nation. A complete list of institutions the committee reviewed is included as Attachment C.

The second phase consisted of a series of structured interviews with selected university administrators and faculty. These interviews were with individuals who have an official role related to dispute resolution at the University, and were designed to gain a better understanding of the current system’s strengths and weaknesses. The individuals interviewed were:

 Robert M. Barker – Chair, Faculty Grievance Committee  Edward C. Halperin – Dean, School of Medicine  J. Blaine Hudson – Dean, College of Arts & Sciences  Harvey Johnson - Director, Affirmative Action/Employee Relations  Angela Koshewa – University Counsel  Suzanne Meeks - Former Faculty Grievance Officer & Former Chair, Faculty Grievance Committee  John Ralston – Associate Vice President, Human Resources  David M. Simpson – Faculty Grievance Officer  Terry L. Singer – Dean, Kent School of Social Work  Shirley Willihnganz – Executive Vice President and University Provost

The final phase of the Committee’s review process was a faculty survey. Committee members also held follow-up interviews with a small subset of respondents. The invitation to participate and the survey instrument sent to all faculty members are included as Attachment D. The committee received 110 substantive responses which the committee took into consideration while reaching its conclusions about the grievance process. Numerous other faculty members responded that they were either uninformed about the grievance process or had no need to utilize the process. After receiving the responses, six faculty members from three different units were interviewed. They were selected because their comments reflected one of five themes that emerged from the surveys. Unfortunately, a number of faculty members who had constructive responses to the survey either did not identify themselves for purposes of interviews or were not available to meet with the committee. Nevertheless, the faculty written comments, and the administrator and faculty interviews provided us with a comprehensive set of data. More importantly, the major themes that emerged from the comments were not isolated

2 but were repeated across our different sources. Thus, through the committee’s data collection strategies, the important findings emerged. The GPRC did not undertake a review of the staff or student grievance procedures. Nevertheless, the interviews did touch upon the staff grievance policies, and the general view of the Committee was that the suggested revisions now under review will strengthen the process.

IV. GENERAL FINDINGS Many of the faculty respondents either reported unfamiliarity with the grievance process or stated they had no reason to use the University’s dispute resolution procedures. Other respondents noted that when they did have a conflict with colleagues or administrators, the issues were resolved on their own through very informal means. Those who had more serious disputes or conflicts, however, expressed that the current system of handling disputes at the University is not working well for either faculty or the university administration. As one person noted during our interviews, there is not much value added by existing procedures. Consequently, respondents observed that many disputes are either never initiated or resolved, leading to further hostility among the parties and breakdown in communications. The Felner case – regarding grievances, retribution, harassment and faculty governance issues -- was a particularly egregious set of problems that led to this Committee’s work. However, the respondents to our surveys and interviews indicate that certain problems with faculty dispute resolution at UofL are systemic, and not simply the result of one person’s behavior.

It should be noted that not all the comments from individuals who have participated in the grievance process were negative. The FGO position and its recent incumbents were praised by a number of respondents for their attempts to bring appropriate closure to disputes. The Faculty Grievance Committee Chairs and members also received praise for their impartiality and knowledge of procedures.

V. SPECIFIC ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS

The issues or problem areas identified in the data set collected by the GPRC are broken down into the following categories: access, process, education, resolution, and enforcement. Thus, all levels of the grievance process are in need of reform. A. ACCESS

One specific area of concern is the difficulty faculty members encounter when attempting to engage in the dispute resolution process. A real fear was expressed that anyone who voiced a dissenting opinion, requested mediation or used other informal

3 attempts to resolve a dispute would face some form of retaliation, often of a very subtle nature. They told us they feared participation in any attempts to resolve a dispute would be detrimental to their careers. This concern was repeated throughout the data gathered by the GPRC and was especially an issue for part-time, term or probationary faculty who have no access to dispute resolution processes at the university. In response to this concern, many faculty members expressed the view that they would like an avenue to make anonymous or confidential complaints in an informal setting in order to settle the matter in a non-adversarial forum.

Another access issue was related to the disparity in resources available to faculty and the administration. Faculty who had participated in the grievance process indicated they felt the need to hire outside counsel to even the playing field against the Administration’s “hired guns,” but were then burdened with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. For most faculty members, this prospect is prohibitive if not exclusionary.

Lastly under the access heading, faculty members who responded to our survey expressed the belief that the administration will “circle the wagons” around administrators, regardless of the particular facts of any given case.

The access issues specifically identified and their proposed solutions are as follows:

1. ISSUE: There needs to be an office where off-the-record, confidential matters can be heard by a neutral person. Many of the benchmark institutions the GPRC reviewed and all the institutions reviewed for best practices have such an office that is designed to provide a range of dispute resolution services and would promote early, informal and mutually satisfactory resolution to issues whenever possible. Many faculty members voiced frustration and being hindered by a grievance system that identifies them as the one bringing the complaint. This frustration is legitimatized by the widespread fear of retaliation and being ostracized.

RECOMMENDATION: Create an Ombuds Office for such off-the record, anonymous complaints to be addressed and remedied. Our committee strongly urges the creation of an Office staffed by at least one professionally trained Ombuds and necessary staff support. An Ombuds is an independent, informal, neutral and confidential resource who provides assistance to members of the University community in exploring options to resolve problems, complaints and conflicts in the place of normal processes and procedures which often do not work satisfactorily. This assistance is an alternative to formal administrative channels, supplementing them but not replacing them. The Ombuds Office would serve as a resource for those who seek guidance on policies, procedures and regulations affecting faculty, students and staff. Ombuds can refer individuals to persons able to resolve problems or handle issues at the lowest possible level. Where appropriate, Ombuds can also facilitate communication between parties who find themselves in a dispute.

4 The GPRC believes that the creation of this office could address many of the problem areas the committee identified as part of our review; however “getting it right” is going to be crucial to its success in terms of credibility and the ability to achieve results. The Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice of The International Ombudsman Association must be followed by this Office. It is recommended that a national search be conducted for an appropriately trained Ombuds. This Office could be supplemented with retired faculty who could assist the Ombuds, as well as the Faculty and Staff Grievance Officers who assist individuals who wish to use that process. These services should be available to all faculty members and would provide part-time faculty with channels for dispute resolution outside of their reporting lines. An important responsibility of this office would be grievance prevention.

This Office should be independent of any other administrative office and should report regularly to the President and the Faculty Senate. The Ombuds should have office hours at least one day a week at the Health Sciences Campus.

2. ISSUE: Part-time faculty members are not allowed to participate in the grievance process. The current processes available to part-time faculty are very limited and do not provide for any review outside of the chain of command.

RECOMMENDATION: Give part-time faculty some access to the dispute resolution system by being allowed to make confidential complaints to the Office of Ombuds.

3. ISSUE: Fear of retaliation exists for filing a grievance or participating in the process as a witness. This fear of retaliation, along with specific examples provided to the GPRC by faculty members, undermines the entire dispute resolution process. Intimidation has no place in the academy.

RECOMMENDATION: Add an anti-retaliation clause needs to be added to the grievance process of The Redbook which provides that alleged retaliators, if proven to have so acted, are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge. It is imperative that there be strong anti-retaliation measures with strong sanctions. Otherwise, the grievance process is useless and ineffective. The anti-retaliation measure needs to be one of “no tolerance.”

4. ISSUE: The system favors the administration and provides unequal access to resources. The most common theme of the survey responses was that the structure of the grievance process is too closely aligned with the administrative structure, thereby inherently favoring administrators. Faculty members, to pursue their grievance rights, often pay outside counsel tens of thousands of dollars for representation. Administrators, on the other hand, are advised by University Counsel. A review of Faculty Grievance Officer (FGO) reports over the past five years demonstrates that the majority of people who consult the FGO

5 do not follow through with formal grievances, and this access issue is likely one of the primary reasons.

RECOMMENDATION: Create an Office of Faculty Advocate, who is legally trained, in order to level the playing field. This Advocate should not be in Human Resources, but should report to the President and the Faculty Senate on a regular basis. It is envisioned this would be provided on a contract basis.

In addition, a part of the annual review of each administrator should cover whether the person works effectively and respectfully during any dispute resolution and grievance procedure. An administrator who did not work professionally during the grievance process should have such matter addressed as part of the annual review. This review must specifically include a report of the dispute resolution skills of the administrator.

5. ISSUE: Outside counsel is hired by a grievant, but the attorney cannot actively participate in the process. “Whispering counsel” provides a barrier to the grievant being fully represented in the proceeding in a situation where a hearing and the hearing procedures are often foreign and confusing to the grievant.

RECOMMENDATION: Allow attorneys to participate fully in the process if present at hearings. Grievants often do not know what questions to ask and bring in extraneous, immaterial matters, merely adding wasted time to the process, whereas attorneys are more strategic, having been trained in how to be effective advocates.

B. PROCESS ISSUES

Many of those interviewed as well as those who responded to the survey indicated that the formal grievance process is overly complex and a considerable waste of time and energy for the grievants, the respondents and the members of the faculty grievance committee. A typical grievance involves excessive amounts of documentation often of questionable relevance and deadlines that are not met, creating overly long time-lines. The available mediation processes that would allow participants a simpler route for dispute resolution are routinely rejected by administrators. Therefore, faculty members with a simple complaint have no recourse to a resolution other than a comprehensive grievance which can take months, if not years, to bring to fruition.

The process issues identified and their proposed solutions are as follows:

1. ISSUE: The grievance definition is unduly complicated. Under The Redbook, Section 4. 4. 2., a grievance is defined as follows:  To be considered as a grievance, a complaint must claim one or more of the following conditions:

6 o that there was substantial prejudice to the grievant resulting from a material departure from policy or procedure or an unjustified deviation from the usual practice or custom of the unit;

o that there is significant evidence of improper bias which influenced the decision maker's judgment to the material detriment of the faculty member (improper bias may include inappropriate considerations in addition to the legally impermissible use of race, gender, age, religion, national origin or disability of an otherwise qualified person); or

o that the decision or its consequences resulted in material disadvantage to the grievant because of treatment different from the uniform practice of the unit without an appropriate justification (e. g., with respect to teaching assignments, support services, disciplinary sanctions, supplementary compensation).

RECOMMENDATION: Charge the Ombuds and the Faculty Grievance Officer with the development of a simplified definition of “grievance” to be completed within six months of this report. The definition should be referred initially to the Redbook Committee of the Faculty Senate.

2. ISSUE: The Grievance Process involves too much paper work.

RECOMMENDATION: Develop an online grievance form in which the statement of the case is limited to 1000 words and the remedy sought is limited to 250 words. The online form should be sent to the Faculty Grievance Officer and to the Chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee.

3. ISSUE: The Grievance Process at the University-wide Grievance Committee level is too slow and cumbersome. In recent years, the committee chair has had considerable difficulty convening a panel of three people (from a committee of twelve) to hear grievances. This is particularly true during the summer months when many grievances are filed.

RECOMMENDATION: Establish timelines for every phase of the grievance process, not just the initial filing. Such timelines are often seen in grievance procedures. If both sides do not agree on an extension for any deadline, then the party who missed the deadline will lose the grievance. In addition, the Faculty Grievance Committee shall comply with the timelines assigned to the Committee. The Grievance Committee Chair needs to receive a stipend the same as the Faculty Grievance Officer, and the Committee members need to be paid X-Pay for grievances heard in the summer if operating under a 10-

7 month contract.

4. ISSUE: Some faculty abuse the process. The system is not well-equipped to handle frivolous or duplicative grievances.

RECOMMENDATION: Charge the Faculty Advocate with discouraging faculty members from bringing frivolous and duplicative grievances. Education concerning the issues properly defined as grievances can assist in ameliorating this problem. In addition, the Office of Ombuds may be able to filter and prevent such items from becoming grievances.

5. ISSUE: Mediation is not being used effectively. Mediation is a structured problem-solving process in which a neutral third person assists the parties in a dispute to reach a voluntary agreement. The mediator facilitates the negotiations, but does not impose a personal view of what the agreement should be. Mediation is a dispute resolution method that allows a conflict to be resolved without resorting to a full blown grievance hearing.

The mediation process does not work at the University because administrators will not participate. The University Administration has invested in a mediation process which is very successful when used. Nevertheless, most administrators have ignored the process, resulting in faculty being required to participate in time-consuming grievance hearings or being faced with the possibility of dropping legitimate grievances. There is a sense that it will take too long to use the formal grievance procedure to be of use or that the formal nature of the grievance procedures tends to escalate rather than resolve problems. When grievances are filed, the protracted hearing process is difficult for all parties involved.

RECOMMENDATION: Make the mediation process mandatory as an initial phase of dispute resolution except in termination cases. Mediation, when utilized, is a very effective, less time consuming and a more informal dispute resolution process.

6. ISSUE: Grievance committee service is onerous and it is difficult to find faculty who are willing to serve during the summer when many grievances should be heard.

RECOMMENDATION: Provide a stipend for the Grievance Committee Chair and to faculty on ten-month contracts who are involved with a grievance review during the summer.

C. EDUCATION ISSUES Many faculty respondents expressed a lack of knowledge about the grievance policy at the University. Some faculty members were frustrated by trying to locate

8 policies and procedures governing different aspects of campus life. As the committee members attempted to locate UofL dispute resolution policies, they quickly discovered that someone must search in multiple sources to locate what relevant policy applied.

Other faculty members complained that administrators were ill-equipped to resolve conflict and often translated any dissent or differences in perspective to be a threat to their authority. Workplace conflict exists in all organizations, and disagreement concerning issues is a normal part of workplace interaction. Respecting differing opinions from faculty members is part of creating value within an organization. Effective assertiveness is not a negative trait and should not be perceived as such in the shared governance model.

The education issues identified and their proposed solutions are as follows:

1. ISSUE: Faculty relations and development is not the number one priority of any one office on campus. In many of the institutions reviewed by the committee, faculty relations and faculty development are prominently identified as a high priority.

RECOMMENDATION: Create an Associate Provost for Faculty Relations. The GPRC continues to see a need for this position to focus on policy, faculty orientation, and continuing education needs. We also would urge each academic unit to have a Faculty Relations person who would work closely with the Provost’s Office to ensure policies related to faculty welfare are understood and being followed. The position should also report at least annually to the Faculty Senate.

2. ISSUE: A lack of knowledge exists on the part of Deans, Department Chairs, the Faculty Grievance Committee Members and Grievants which contributes to system inoperability. A large variation exists in the knowledge, training, abilities and desire among administrators to resolve disputes informally. One of the predominant themes in the survey responses is that many faculty members do not know what resources are available to them at the University or have a misunderstanding of the policies and procedures for acting on complaints. This impression was bolstered by the comments of the current and former Faculty Grievance Officers.

RECOMMENDATION: Provide extensive and comprehensive training throughout the University about the grievance procedure. In addition, the Faculty Grievance Officer (FGO), needs to attend a faculty meeting of each unit on an annual basis to explain the grievance process. The FGO needs to be appropriately compensated for this outreach work.

In addition, every Administrator, current as well as new hires, needs to demonstrate competence, perhaps in the form of a course, in dispute/conflict resolution and in the dispute resolution and grievance policies of the

9 University.

3. ISSUE: Faculty Grievance Committee members receive little training in proper grievance handling measures, processes and procedures.

RECOMMENDATION: Develop a comprehensive course in grievance handling, processes, and procedures, including information related to the formal grievance hearings.

4. ISSUE: It is difficult to navigate all the different resources available to faculty members on campus. Currently, policies, resources and other matters related to faculty life at the University of Louisville are located on many different web sites and are not easily accessible. Many Universities have comprehensive online Faculty Handbooks.

RECOMMENDATION: Develop a comprehensive, online Faculty Handbook. Organizing and updating this information should be assigned to a permanent office. Additionally, there should be a web page, either as part of the Ombuds or the Faculty Advocate Office, that has all the information, policies or links to policies along with clearly described definitions and procedures that would allow faculty, staff and students to easily obtain information that might pertain to their situation.

D. RESOLUTION ISSUES The survey respondents and interviewees expressed concerns that there often are undercurrents of inappropriate administrator conduct which do not rise to a ruling against the administrator in a particular grievance. Often, there is an inappropriate and repeated practice below ethical and proper standards of behavior. Also, respondents and interviewees who had participated in the grievance procedure complained that gains made through a favorable ruling by the Faculty Grievance Committee were erased in the never-ending appeals process. Faculty governance implies that faith must be placed in the deliberative, well-reasoned decisions by one’s peers as being binding on the University. The resolution issues identified and their proposed solutions are as follows:

1. ISSUE: Underlying issues in grievances that form a troubling pattern in practice need to be addressed.

RECOMMENDATION: Have the Faculty Advocate, the Ombuds or some other neutral observer attend all grievance hearings to determine and bring to light abuses that become evident as part of the hearing even if they are not the main

10 focus of the grievance. Addressing such issues must be done in a manner to protect confidentiality.

2. ISSUE: Despite the lengthy process undertaken by the Faculty Grievance Committee, the committee’s deliberations are only advisory, and are frequently appealed or become the basis of other grievances. In summary, the process often does not lead to a firm resolution, and the matter is often appealed to the Provost or President on the basis that the Faculty Grievance Committee decision is “arbitrary or capricious” or a “misrepresentation of material fact.”

RECOMMENDATION: Make the decision of the Faculty Grievance Committee final, except in promotion and/or tenure cases. There shall be no appeal beyond the Committee.

E. ENFORCEMENT ISSUE

After the successful completion of the grievance process, a grievant is sometimes not informed of the implementation of the grievance ruling. A feeling exists that the administrator charged with the implementation of the ruling will not be forthcoming in its execution. A concern voiced was that the grievant was not involved in the ruling implementation.

The enforcement issue identified and its proposed solution is as follows:

1. ISSUE: There is no follow through to ensure remedies imposed through the grievance process are enforced. When decisions are made, there is no oversight of whether changes are implemented or if other negative consequences result.

RECOMMENDATION: Copy the Faculty Grievance Officer on all grievance and mediation settlements and orders of the Faculty Grievance Committee. Provide the FGO with the authority to ensure that grievance outcomes are implemented within a 30 day period after the conclusion of the grievance. Each Grievant needs to be informed of the settlement or ruling implementation.

F. CONCLUSIONS

The GPRC believes that behavioral and policy changes can and should be made to improve the dispute resolution procedures at the University. These changes will allow conflict to be viewed as legitimate and as an opportunity to improve the effectiveness of the organization. We believe that in a collegial shared governance environment, dissent should be not only respected, but welcomed. Additionally, we believe these recommendations help us move toward a culture where the “University” describes not only the Administration, but includes all of us—administrators, faculty, staff, and students—in a shared governance model.

11 As the University moves forward and implements the recommendations described above, the whole process needs to be renamed the “University Dispute Resolution Process.” With the addition of the University Ombuds and other measures, the “grievance process” is just one part of the dispute resolution system. Language does matter, especially to bring about cultural changes in which dispute resolution is considered a healthy part of our work environment. The majority of the recommendations made in this report are aimed at grievance prevention. Our current policies and procedures give lip service to informal resolution of disputes; however actual practice seems to make that very difficult to pursue in any meaningful way. Thus, many of our recommendations are designed to improve the organizational infrastructure and policies that promote and reward the attempts at informal resolution of most disputes. Most disputes can, and should, be resolved by reasonable people, given properly trained personnel and a supportive environment. The central improvement the university could make in this regard is the creation of the Ombuds Office. Requiring participants in a dispute (except in termination cases) to participate in some type of facilitated/mediated discussion before a formal grievance could be filed would also be extremely beneficial. These, and the other recommended measures, could significantly reduce the need for formal grievances. There will always be a need for formal grievance procedures, however, and a number of recommendations focus on this phase of the dispute resolution continuum. Providing an advocate service, reducing the complexity of the definition and placing limits on the process are the priority recommendations for enhancing the current system. The GPRC realizes that there are costs associated with many of our proposals. However, doing nothing to improve a broken dispute resolution system costs even more. The creation of an Office of Ombuds and an Office of Faculty Advocate are the minimum steps to make the grievance situation operable. The Office of Ombuds can save funds through the opportunities to settle matters in an informal manner. By creating a “one-stop” location for all manner of disputes for faculty, students and staff, efficiencies are realized through the consolidation of information, resources and expertise. In addition, increased use of the mediation process should operate as a cost saving measure for the University, with disputes being settled on a more informal basis. The University Administration and the faculty share responsibility for effecting change. Faculty members must take a more active role in insuring that their faculty colleagues use the process appropriately and that they are committed to a mutually satisfactory resolution of honest differences. A single report cannot solve all the problems it identifies. The real work is just beginning. The university needs to develop and promote an organizational culture that supports and confirms faculty and administration working together as partners to work through the sometimes contentious issues faced in a dynamic academic environment. We recommend that the Faculty Senate appoint an ad hoc committee to monitor and report implementation of recommended solutions of this and other reports that have

12 resulted from the “Felner Affair.” This ad hoc committee should report progress in meeting the recommendations at each Senate meeting until the Senate decides to disband the committee.

13 Attachment A

Process for Reviewing Grievance Policy & Procedures August 28, 2008

On July 18, 2008, President Ramsey charged the chair of the Faculty Senate with the task of “reviewing our grievance process so that those who believe university policies have been violated will feel comfortable bringing those concerns forward through approved and sanctioned university procedures.” The Faculty Senate Executive Committee proposes to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Grievance Process in response to the President’s request.

Composition of the committee:

 Senate Past Chair, Chair, and Vice-chair (Boehm, Laning, Staat)  Senate Redbook Chair or Designee  Senate Planning & Budget Chair or Designee  Faculty Grievance Officer (FGO)  Five senators elected from the floor of the senate

The final composition of the committee should have no more than two senators a unit.

Review Process:

 Review of relevant documents, including: o Redbook 4.4 (Grievance Procedure) o Grievance procedures at other institutions o Mediation policy o U of L policies governing faculty & administrative behavior housed at http://louisville.edu/compliance/policies - particularly the sections on Ethical & Responsible Conduct, Respect for Others in the Workplace, Responsible Reporting of Suspected Violations and Institutional Response and Non-retaliation/Non-retribution policy

 Possible interviews with individuals/groups: o Faculty members o Deans/VPs o University Counsel o Current and past FGO o Current committee chairs/members o University Compliance Officer o Affirmative Action Officer o Just Solutions personnel or whoever supplies mediation services to U of L o Institutional Research

14 Timetable: Work completed by November 30, 2008. Work Products to include:

 Report with recommendations about organizational, policy and procedural changes to President Ramsey  Public distribution of report

15 Attachment B

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT

WHEREAS, I, the Undersigned, am a member of the Grievance Process Review Committee (hereinafter the “GPRC”) of the University of Louisville; and

WHEREAS, the GPRC may review and discuss many ideas, proposals, and concepts which may or may not be accepted by the GPRC; and

WHEREAS, the GPRC may receive private and confidential information concerning certain employees of the University of Louisville through interview and other processes of the GPRC;

NOW THEREFORE, as a GPRC member, I agree to the following:

1. Not to disclose any of the information described above to any person not serving on the GPRC. 2. To take all steps reasonably necessary to protect the confidential information, and to prevent the confidential information from falling into the public domain or into the possession of unauthorized persons. 3. Not to distribute and/or reproduce any record or information outside the intended and approved use of the GPRC, except to the extent required by law. 4. To appropriately maintain and protect the confidentiality of any information or data to which I may have access, including personnel information or data. 5. To not personally benefit or permit others to personally benefit from any University of Louisville data or information that I may encounter during my work as a member of the GPRC. 6. Not to alter confidential information. 7. To not intentionally or negligently mishandle or destroy any confidential information.

I have read and agree to comply with the terms of this Confidentiality Statement.

Name:______Please Print

Signature/Date:______/______Please sign Date

16 Attachment C

Clemson University** Stanford University** Stony Brook University* SUNY at Buffalo* Temple University* University of Alabama – Birmingham* University of California – Irvine* University of California – Los Angeles** University of California – San Diego* University of Cincinnati* University of Colorado** University of Illinois – Chicago* University of Iowa* University of Kansas** University of Michigan** University of New Mexico* University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill* University of Pittsburgh* University of South Carolina – Columbia* University of South Florida* University of Utah* Virginia Commonwealth University* Wayne State University*

*Benchmark institution **Identified for best practices in collegial governance and faculty/administration relationships

17 Attachment D

Invitation to Participate in the Review of the University of Louisville Grievance Policy and Procedure

BACKGROUND: On July 18, 2008, President James Ramsey established the Grievance Process Review Committee (GPRC) with the charge to “review the grievance process so that those who believe the university policies have been violated will feel comfortable bringing those concerns forward through approved and sanctioned university procedures”.

To assist the GPRC with our charge we invite you to participate in an online, anonymous and one-time confidential survey to describe your experience with the grievance processes at the U of L. Responses are due by Nov. 7, 2008.

In 250 words or less, please answer the following questions:

1. What was your experience with the dispute resolution process (grievance/mediation) at the university? 2. What worked well? 3. How would you change the procedure?

CONFIDENTIALITY: Your response to the questions posed by the GPRC will be kept confidential to the extent possible under Kentucky law.

DISCLAIMER: This information-gathering process is not a substitute for the grievance procedure. If you feel that you have a valid grievance, you must follow the process set out in Article 4.4 of The Redbook. Further, your communication with the GPRC does not and will not constitute notice to the University of any claim or matter. If you require further information or assistance in how to report a claim or matter, you may contact the Faculty Grievance Officer at 852-8019, the Affirmative Action Office at 852-6688, or the Compliance Helpline at 1-877-852-1167.

If you would like to be considered for an in-person interview with the Committee, please submit your university email address below.

______

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this process!

Grievance Process Review Committee

Melissa Laning, Carrie Donald, CoChairs