Southeast Missouri State University faculty members are concerned over the procedure of three dean reviews that were completed in February. They currently are calling for a meeting and a review of what came out of the dean reviews.

During the reviews, one of the final steps laid out in the faculty handbook was skipped. Before sending the final recommendation to the president, the provost was supposed to meet with the faculty of each college whose dean was reviewed to go over the outcome of the review.

Dr. Gerald McDougall, who was interim provost at the time, said due to a lack of response to wanting to meet as a department, his duties to meet with faculty were fulfilled by sending out an email to the faculty saying he already had recommended to the president that their appointments be extended by three years.

McDougall said on a survey form sent to faculty members to review their respective dean, there was a question asking if the faculty member would like the provost to meet with their department about the review findings. He said by doing that, he is able to identify where the interest is to meet and for it to be easier to organize.

"There is that opportunity within the departments if there is interest, reflected in the majority of the faculty wanting to have that," McDougall said. "Otherwise, I communicated that via an email so that everybody would be aware that the provost's recommendation is this."

Dr. Carl Bloom, faculty senate chair, said the meetings with individual departments are optional in the faculty handbook, but that the meeting with the full college later in the process is mandatory.

"This is a public institution and when decisions are made here that affect all of us, we need at least some level of transparency," Bloom said. "I know that there's sometimes sensitive personal information, especially in a review, but overall these reviews were formed by faculty giving their input along with other input, and we would like some feedback on what was done."

Bloom said that, in past reviews, general strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement were identified and shared with faculty members to show that the administration had taken those factors into consideration and that everyone was on the same page.

McDougall said this process was how dean reviews have been handled traditionally, saying that meeting with the faculty is infeasible.

"While the policy says that the provost will meet with the college, given the provost calendar, given the calendar by the process and given the faculty calendars, I speculate ... that it would be very difficult to find one meeting date for those who are particularly interested," McDougall said.

Bloom said the faculty handbook is the policies and procedures for all academic processes. He explained that it has consequences for faculty members who don't follow it. Bloom gave the example that he has to have office hours even if finds that the majority of his students don't care if he does.

"I don't think the provost office had any ill intentions, I think they're just reading this document differently than we are," Bloom said. "But I think it very clearly in one place says 'department' and very clearly in another place says 'college faculty.'"

Dr. Debra Lee-Distefano, a former faculty senate chair, said reviews are like students' evaluations of instructors. They are meant to be a constructive and productive way for people to say what has worked and what needs some improvements.

"The problem is that when we go through these reviews and the data is not brought back, one -- people becomes suspect of the reviews, wondering is the data not being brought back, why are we not seeing what's coming out? And two -- they either become apathetic and they don't want to fill out a review anymore, or they become afraid to," Lee-Distefano said.

Bloom said many faculty members are upset and confused about what happened and that faculty senate is still working on finding a solution.

"Now that this is done, I've requested President Vargas to go back and look at this and see if there is anything that can be done to fulfill step eight, even though it is kind of out of the process," Bloom said.

Current provost, Dr. Karl Kunkel, began his duties at Southeast four days after McDougall sent out the email saying the review process had been completed. Kunkel said he researched what happened, but has decided not to reopen the reviews.

"My position on this was that Dr. McDougall, when he was interim provost, made a decision and decided to handle the process in a way that he saw fit," Kunkel said. "It seemed to be in line with past practice and the spirit of the guidelines in the faculty handbook. So I don't think it's a good practice for me to then go reopen that."

Kunkel added that he doesn't feel he could have a fair meeting with the faculty and be able to answer their specific questions about the reviews because he was not a part of the process.

"I can see where Provost Kunkel is coming from," Bloom said. "It's almost as if a faculty member has given a grade in a course and then another faculty member has to come and explain why you got that grade in that course. No faculty member wants to be in that position, and I understand he doesn't want to be in that position, however, that does not mean we have to just skip the process."