A tenured faculty member was referred to the Professional Development Plan (PDP) in Spring 2016. The Department Chair had previously demonstrated a strong bias against the faculty member, one instance of which was successfully grieved. Based upon that bias, the faculty member submitted a request of the Dean to designate someone other than the Department Chair to serve in the Department Chair's role in the development and support of the PDP. An alternate faculty member was assigned, and the alternate faculty member reviewed and advised that he supported the PDP as developed by the faculty member.
The Dean, however, referred the PDP back to the true department chair, who then requested changes to it, and sought to veto the support the faculty member requested. There was a long period of significant confusion regarding the role of the department chair, whether the PDP was approved, and whether the alternate faculty member was granted the authority needed to serve in the department chairs role pursuant to Article IX of the Post Tenure Review Guidelines.
PSU-AAUP drafted a grievance that cited the procedural defects in the development pursuant to PTR Guidelines Article IX. With the grievance in hand but without filing it, PSU-AAUP sought upper administration intervention on the following: the Dean approve the PDP plan as submitted; the Dean exclude the department chair as originally agreed; and the Dean approve the support requested for the PDP. After upper administration intervention, the Dean and faculty member met and reached agreement on all points requested. The need to file the grievance was averted.