Attachment (b)
"...moving this discussion from the venue of personal email message to one of wide open public discussion..."
From Mary Layoun
Date 5/11/2006 10:29:55 PM
To Gary Sandefur
Subject: Re: Comparative Literature
Dear Gary,
Thank you for your email of May 8, 2006 . I respectfully decline to voluntarily close down the Department of Comparative Literature. As I mentioned in an earlier email ( 5/5/06 ), I have a counter proposal, outlined below.
In addition, as specified below, I request that you provide an account of the Academic Planning Council's procedures for judging the Department of Comparative Literature to be a low priority for the College. My request is based on our firm commitment to the principles of due process, shared governance, and fairness in the apportionment of resources in the College.
For the full record, I will soon submit documentation concerning the College's handling of this as concerns the Department of Comparative Literature. At present I draw your attention to the May 7, 2003 Ad -Hoc Review Committee's Report on the Department of Comparative Literature. That Report includes the following recommendations:
L&S administration should authorize the hiring of 1 senior faculty member of outstanding quality, capable and willing of assuming the position of department chair, effective no later than fall 2005. . . . When budget permits, CL should be allowed to hire 1 junior faculty (p. 8, emphasis in the original). There is no record to indicate that Dean Certain ever submitted the Ad-Hoc Review Committee's Report to the APC for due deliberation. Further, at no time were we in the Department of Comparative Literature consulted or invited to discuss with the APC the momentous judgement which you now state they made. Indeed, the APC minutes for the year, filed with the L&S Faculty Senate, note nothing about the Department of Comparative Literature. Are we to surmise that you have a document ? minutes, a statement, a memorandum ? which has not been disclosed? I request your written response to the following: (1) What was the specific occasion of the 2003-04 APC's judgement and advice? (2) What was the basis for the current (2005-06) APC's advice to you? I request complete documentation of the APC procedures.