|
|
Dr. Bonnie Zimmerman
Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs
Dear Bonnie:
I am responding to your letter of January 28, 2004, in which you express certain concerns that have arisen from the 2003-04 proceedings of the Personnel Committee of the Civil and Environmental Engineering department, which I chair. It is unfortunate that a small incident such as the one that you detail in your letter should be ventilated at your level. However, having received your letter, I am compelled to respond to the charges which Dr. Gurol has made against me regarding my decisions as Committee Chair.
Dr. Gurol did not attend a Personnel Committee meeting on October 23, 2003, in which two personnel decision regarding reappointments were made (Drs. Badriyha and Büyüksönmez). As you correctly note, the reason for her absence at the meeting may a subject of speculation, but the fact is that she was not present at that meeting. I note that the rest of the eligible members were present, except for Dr. Sharabi, who chose not to attend.
Dr. Gurol argues that I could have looked for her or called her. At the time, I felt she must have a reason for not attending,
as Dr. Sharabi had. The time of the meeting was originally set for 1-3 pm, but was later changed to
Now, the decision of a peer review committee is a deliberative decision (See SDSU Policy File: Personnel Decision, Recommendation Procedures for, Item 3.0). A deliberation is a "discusion and consideration by a number of persons of the reasons for and against a measure" (See Webster's Third New International Dictionary). Deliberation requires all parties to be present. Therefore, once Dr. Gurol failed to show up at the meeting, however excusable her absence, she forfeited her right to further participate in the decision taken at that meeting. It is not fair to the candidate and it is a lack of due process to furnish unilateral opinions about a candidates's strengths or weaknesses outside of the deliberative process. Robert's Rules of Order is patently clear on this matter: "The committee's report can contain only that which has been agreed to by a majority vote at a meeting of which every member has been notified." Furthermore, Dr. Gurol's argument that her opinion was important because she is an expert in environmental engineering misses the point; as committee member, she is only one of several peers, not more, not less, and the issue of lack of deliberation clearly takes precedence.
I further state that to the best of my knowledge, it is established practice in our department to respect the integrity of the deliberative process. A case in point: Last academic year, in October 2002, I had a professional, out-of-town commitment which impeded me from attending the Personnel Committee deliberations, chaired by Dr. Chou. I communicated to him in a timely fashion that I was unable, due to a prior commitment, to attend the meeting. Neither Dr. Chou nor I sought to exchange information about the decision after it had taken place. Furthermore, I cannot remember a time when I have missed a meeting and my opinion been sought or considered after the meeting.
Dr. Gurol communicated to me her concern that "she had not been allowed" to participate on October 30, 2004, after the letters had been completed and forwarded to the next higher level. I note that there is usually a tight schedule for these proceedings, and timing is of the essence. The committee met on Thursdays for three weeks (October 16, 23, and 30) to consider five personnel actions. As committee chair, it is my purview to decide whether to call or not to call a meeting after a pondered review of the circumstances. In this case, I did not feel it was necessary to withdraw the letters of recommendation and schedule another meeting to redeliberate the decision, particularly since the Badriyha and Büyüksönmez decisions were such clearcut decisions, with both gentlemen having been unanimously recommended. As you note correctly, one committee member (Dr. Westermo) e-mailed me regarding his opinion on the matter, but only on November 6, and this was clearly after the fact.
Regarding the last point of your letter, let me say that I have tried my best to work with staff to make sure that the many required signatures of the RTP process are executed in a timely fashion. If there is a perception that I have been derelict on my duties, I respectfully disagree. I am a very busy person (I am on the Faculty Senate, member of several departmental, college, and university committees, teach three classes every semester, author several papers every year, have two funded research projects, one current and another finishing up, and have recently submitted two grant proposals for a total amount of $156,000), and nobody is perfect. Throughout my 23 years at SDSU, I have always tried to do my level best in all areas, and the record clearly shows this.
Sincerely yours,
Victor M. Ponce
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
|
|