The president of the Faculty Senate declined at Tuesday’s meeting to release a copy of a cryptic letter, from the university president, that he read to the assembly. The letter seemed to fulfill the university president’s obligation to inform the senate of a decision regarding a particular faculty member, but the nature of the matter was not clear and the faculty member involved was not identified.
Rob Catlett, the Faculty Senate president and assistant professor of economics, asked that no mention of the letter appear in The Bulletin’s coverage. He gave no explanation after the meeting, other than to say it was a matter he was forbidden from discussing.
On Wednesday, The Bulletin filed by email an Open Records Act Request to Catlett for the letter. After insisting during a phone conversation Wednesday that he was “absolutely certain” that the letter was not subject to the state’s open records law, and protesting that producing the letter would cause him a personal inconvenience because he was attending a Hornet basketball game, Catlett sent an email of the letter at 8:03 p.m.
The Bulletin’s attorney, Max Kautsch of Lawrence, said earlier Wednesday that he believed the letter was clearly subject to the Kansas Open Records Act.
“There is no public policy reason to refuse to disclose the letter, given that it was read at an open meeting,” Kautsch said.
In the letter, President Allison Garrett seemed to be fulfilling her obligation under the University Policy Manual to communicate a decision about a faculty member involved in a grievance or disciplinary hearing. The faculty member was not named in Garrett’s letter. There were also no details provided about the matter in question.
A grievance hearing can be called by the university to internally settle a dispute with a faculty member over grades, conduct, or other matters.
“I confirm that I provided a notice of this section to the faculty member, who by written notice advised me to notify you that a decision had been rendered,” Garrett said in the letter, which was conveyed in email to Catlett on Dec. 22. “The faculty member did not wish for a copy of the decision to be provided to you.”
After providing The Bulletin with a copy of the letter, Wednesday night, Catlett declined to be interviewed.
When Catlett read the letter at Tuesday’s meeting, many found it difficult to understand the text because of the noise in the room, the speed at which it was read and the lack of explanation about the letter before or after it was read. There were no questions asked about the letter, and Catlett said afterward that if anyone had asked a question, he would have had to “sit there in silence.”
Although Garrett’s letter did not make it clear which sections of the University Policy Manual was being referred to in citing the 20 day time limit, the only section in the manual with similar language is the grievance policy.
“The University President shall, within 20 days of receipt of the report from the Grievance Committee, provide to all parties to the grievance and the Grievance Committee a written memorandum setting forth his/her decision and the reasons for that decision,” according to the manual’s section on dispute resolution. “The University President shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the Grievance Committee in making his/her decision.”
The language quoted above is from the university manual section on disputes, grievances, and mediation. Under the policy, a wide range of problems on campus can be subject to formal action, including professional and academic misconduct.