[CAFR-L] Re: [artsci-council-l] Dean of Arts and Science Appointment Committee - Nomination Form

O'Donnell, Dan daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca
Tue Jan 10 18:54:09 MST 2012

The grandfathering clause specifically indicates that it it applies to "this" article (i.e. IV E 1b). If they had meant that it applied to other articles as well, they'd have to say so somewhere--you can't infer a broader restriction from something that is self-limiting in scope. The language in the other articles about open searches is not identical, moreover, meaning you can't assume they meant "and all the other places we say this"--and there's no way they could have meant "current members of the administration are exempt from this article and other places where these same kinds of ideas arguably appear albeit in other words." 

If you don't read it the way I propose, moreover, then there is no procedure in the bylaws for considering a third or subsequent term reappointment: there's language that says what to do if it is a first term, language that says what to do if it is for a second term, but if you read E 1b as referring to the requirement for an open search for an incumbent seeking a third or subsequent term, there there is simply no mechanism for considering it.

So I think the easiest way of understanding it is to do what it says and remove the entire article from consideration for administrators currently in office. And then having done that apply all the articles that are not specifically grandfathered. And since everything but the "third terms shall not be granted" language is stated without qualification elsewhere, deleting IV E 1b only eliminates the assumption that there must be a positive legislative bias against third and subsequent terms in the committee's term of reference (note also, BTW, that removing this article from consideration also only removes the /requirement/ that a committee be biased against third terms; it doesn't indicate they now have to be biased in favour of third terms, or even that they can't use the fact that somebody has been in office for two or more terms already as a factor to argue against reappointment... it just removes the requirement that they /must/ consider the fact that they've served for two or more terms already against them.).
From: Bryson Brown [brown at uleth.ca]
Sent: January-10-12 5:59 PM
To: O'Donnell, Dan; cafr-l, MailList
Subject: Re: [CAFR-L] Re: [artsci-council-l] Dean of Arts and Science   Appointment Committee - Nomination Form

This is very interesting-- the tension between the grandfathering
clause, its apparent scope and the description of the committee process
is palpable.  Surely they would have thought this through? Or perhaps

My suspicion is that the grandfathering clause really is intended to
allow the committee to consider a current incumbent for a third term
before moving to an open search.  But on a 'minimize inconsistency'
reading, I think Dan is right-- the scope of the grandfathering could be
limited to the 'discouraging' bit without any conflict with the
description of the committee process.


On 10/01/2012 5:44 PM, Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
> Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated
> list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their
> messages.
> --------------------
> Hi all,
> Some clarifications (I'd written to Linda and Andy and Mike late last
> week to ask about the committee; Andy gave me very clear answers,
> though some of this is my own contribution).
> 1) The new GFC bylaws call for an appointment committee and require it
> to be formed at least a month before the incumbent is required to
> indicate his/her intentions regarding reappointment (IV B 4).
> 2) In this case, an announcement about whether the committee will also
> be considering the incumbent is expected in "March or April". The
> deadline for notification of intentions as to whether an incumbent
> wishes to stand for reappointment is 14 months before the end of the
> contract (IV B 19). This is presumably April 30th this year, though I
> had heard that it might be March.
> 3) The committee will probably begin to be active in September 2012,
> meaning, I assume, that people on leave in 2011-2012 probably can
> consider standing.
> 4) The question of what kind of committee it is remains, despite the
> work on the bylaws, arguably open to interpretation: according to IV C
> 2-4 it must, unambiguously, be an open search committee (rather than a
> "reappointment committee")--i.e. one that that solicits external and
> internal candidates and strives to interview more than one person.
>> 2. If the incumbent is seeking a third or subsequent term, or has
>> resigned, or has not declared an interest in seeking an additional
>> term, or has vacated the office, or the Board has not offered the
>> incumbent a contract for an additional term, or the incumbent has
>> not accepted the terms of a contract for an additional term, the
>> Committee once constituted shall then conduct itself as a Search
>> Committee for the position.
> > 3. The Committee shall solicit
>> nominations or applications for the position through advertisement,
>> use of a search consultant or by any other means the Committee deems
>> appropriate. The Committee shall solicit nominations or applications
>> from both internal and external candidates simultaneously. An
>> incumbent may be a candidate.
> > 4. The Committee shall review the
>> applications received, shall solicit such other input as may be
>> deemed necessary, and shall endeavour to interview more than one (1)
>> candidate for 20 the office.
> Unfortunately, E 1 b arguably complicates things a little: it
> reintroduces the idea of third and subsequent terms being different by
> indicating that senior admin will not normally be granted a third term
> and that if they do seek a third term it will be in open
> competition... but then it grandfathers everybody already in office as
> of November 2011:
> > Term Lengths and Limits
> > 1. For the following positions: President,
> > Vice-President (Academic), Vice-President (Research), Deans, and
> > Librarian.
> > a. The term length shall be five years, assuming a start
> > date of July 1. If the start date is not July 1st then the
> > appointment shall be four years and however many months so as to end
> > on June 30.
> > b. These administrators are not normally granted a third
> > term. If such individuals do seek a third term, it will be in open
> > competition. Time served as acting in the position does not count
> > towards the limit. This section does not apply to the specific
> > individuals holding these positions as of November 7, 2011.
> I say it only arguably complicates things, however, because IV C 2 and
> IV E 1 b actually do make sense if you assume that the grandfathering
> applies only to the idea that administrators shall not normally be
> granted a third term (i.e. the new information in the article).
> If they had intended the grandfathering to apply to the whole process
> of conducting an open search for third and subsequent terms, on the
> other hand, they would have to have put the same grandfathering
> language in IV C 2, and all of IV D, which is explicitly labelled
> "Procedure When an Incumbent is Seeking a Second Term."
> In other words, since there is no language countenancing a
> reappointment procedure (as opposed to an open search) for anybody
> other than an incumbent seeking a /second/ term, GFC must have meant
> a) that requests for a third term must adjudicated, from now on and
> without exception, by an open search involving more than one
> candidate; and b) third term reappointments are to be actively
> discouraged once incumbents in office in November have left their
> current positions.

Bryson Brown
Professor of Philosophy
University of Lethbridge
4401 University Dr.
Lethbridge, AB T1K3M4
(403) 329-2506 (W)
(403) 381-6888 (H)
brown at uleth.ca

More information about the cafr-l mailing list