Search News


Browse Archives

News

Turning a Blind Eye

September 11, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Amid a wave of complaints about Robert Felner, a former University of Louisville dean who is now under federal investigation, administrators supported the embattled dean and even bankrolled a lawyer to defend him from faculty critics. While the university’s president and provost have recently apologized for backing Felner for so long, details emerging from the controversy show a broken grievance process at Louisville that many say favors administrators and leaves professors unprotected from retaliation.

Felner left Louisville in June to become chancellor at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, only to back out of that position when news of the federal investigation into allegations of misappropriated grant money became public. Asked about Felner's departure, Louisville's provost let linger the possibility that he was ultimately pressured to leave, even though Felner retained public support from the president throughout the saga.

“Things that are personnel-related we don’t talk about, and anything we might have done [can't be discussed],” says Shirley Willihnganz, the provost. "Dean Felner did leave, taking a job at a much smaller place with a $50,000 less salary.”

During his five-year tenure as dean of the College of Education and Human Development at Louisville, Felner earned a reputation as a divisive force, building alliances with a core group of faculty and administrators, while punishing those who didn’t pledge their loyalty to him. Complaints from faculty, revealed through public records, contain multiple allegations of harassment and retaliation, characterizing Felner as a “cruel man who enjoys ridiculing others.” But despite an accumulation of 4 formal grievances and 27 informal complaints about Felner, the dean retained the support of his superiors and always managed to come out clean.

“I think the salient question is how does a dean get so thoroughly, completely out of control for five years and get away with it?” says Bryant Stamford, a former faculty member who served under Felner at Louisville.

Faculty within the College of Education and Human Development voted “no confidence” in Felner in March 2006. But Felner retained his position more than two years later, and Louisville President James Ramsey said he was "deeply indebted" to Felner in an e-mail sent June 2, after he was appointed chancellor at Parkside. In the e-mail sent to Felner, Ramsey added that he was worried about “letting the Indians get back in control of the reservation” after Felner’s resignation.

While Felner ran afoul of some faculty, he was credited with helping his college improve its rankings and expand research enterprise, moves that fit within Ramsey's larger vision of transforming Louisville into a major metropolitan research university.

"In light of these accomplishments, we believed early concerns about the dean's leadership style stemmed from the rapid change and heavy demands he had placed on his faculty," Ramsey wrote in an August 22 letter sent to faculty.

Louisville Supplies Counsel

Felner, whom the university provided with legal counsel, always fared well in the faculty grievance process. Of the four cases that came before the University Faculty Grievance Committee, which is made up of faculty members selected by their units, the dean was never found to be at fault. But a number of the complaints about Felner never made it into the grievance process, in part because faculty members said they felt intimidated or were told their concerns couldn’t be handled in a process designed to address policy or procedure violations.

“The grievance process, as it stands, doesn’t have room for [addressing] people being jerks,” says Beth Boehm, the outgoing Faculty Senate chair, who is working with a committee to revise the process.

Willihnganz, provost at Louisville, defends the decision to keep Felner in office, saying she received positive feedback about him as well as negative reviews. She adds, "It's not like 30 complaints came forward at the same time.”

 

Felner’s staying power at Louisville may also be attributable to the university’s overt efforts to defend him, even as a steady stream of complaints trickled in about the dean. Between 2003 and 2007, the university paid $27,558.97 in legal fees for issues related to the College of Education and Human Development, where Felner was dean for that period. Of that money, about $25,000 is estimated by university officials to have been specifically used to hire outside counsel to defend Felner in faculty grievance cases. That figure does not capture, however, any consultation Felner may have received from Louisville’s own in-house counsel.

Faculty are also entitled to legal counsel during the grievance process, but the university doesn’t pay for their lawyers.

Cases against Felner kept the university’s grievance officer busy, even though most of them never made it to the point of formal hearings. Indeed, 6 of the 18 consultations the grievance officer handled in 2007 came from Felner's college, according to a report filed by the officer.

Felner’s current lawyer, Scott Cox, says the former dean would not comment for this article. Cox, who declined to comment on the status of the investigation, has previously told news organizations that his client denies any wrongdoing.

The investigation into Felner concerns, in part, allegations that a $694,000 grant wasn’t spent on the No Child Left Behind Center for which it was awarded. Citing e-mails and documents, the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Felner directed $130,000 in university money to a financially struggling center in Rhode Island that he created prior to coming to Louisville.

No charges have been filed against Felner, but the investigation is continuing.

None of the complaints faculty made against Felner, as summarized by the university, addressed allegations of misusing grant money.

Complaints Dismissed Repeatedly

While a number of faculty steered clear of the grievance process, it’s not as if they didn’t make their concerns known to administrators. Take the case of Ellen McIntyre, who spent four years complaining about Felner before she finally resigned in 2007. McIntyre, who was on the faculty at Louisville for 17 years, says she sent her concerns about an “environment of fear and retaliation” up the chain of command, eventually as high as the provost’s office.

According to McIntyre, she met once with her department head in 2003. She says she twice met with Felner himself, once in 2004, and again in 2005, in the company of an associate dean. McIntyre had two additional meetings with the provost about Felner, and says she conveyed her concerns again in two signed letters sent to the provost in the spring and fall of 2004.

But McIntyre’s complaints fell on deaf ears, and she saw no real remedy in the grievance process as defined at Louisville.

“It’s more about ethics than policies. It’s more about morale, and respect -- the kind of stuff that you really can’t grieve,” says McIntyre, who has since found a job on faculty elsewhere.

But Willinghanz, the provost, maintains that the mixed reviews her office received made the case against Felner unclear.

“If I knew then what I know now I would have handled things differently,” she says.

Quickly Awarded Degree Raises Questions

While many complaints about Felner didn't allege specific policy violations, new reports about a degree awarded to a school superintendent with connections to Felner raise questions about whether university policies were followed. As the Louisville Courier-Journal reported Wednesday, Felner oversaw the dissertation of a Ph.D. student who managed to earn a doctoral degree from the university after just a single semester of study at Louisville. The student, John Deasy, had steered a $375,000 contract toward Felner's center two years earlier, when Deasy was superintendent of California's Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, the Courier-Journal reported.

Louisville's student graduate handbook notes that "at least two years of study must be spent at the University of Louisville" to earn a Ph.D., but the university "made the exception" in this case, according to Willinghanz, the provost.

John White, a spokesman for Prince George's County Public Schools in Maryland, where Deasy is superintendent, said Wednesday that Deasy transferred prior credits from other institutions and had legitimately earned the doctorate.

"They awarded the doctorate," he says. "It’s hanging on the wall… He did his work, he got his doctorate, the university approved it, and if [reporters] have questions about the process they need to ask the university.”

Asked about the degree awarded to Deasy, Willinghanz acknowledges that the university is now looking at everything that happened under Felner with a skeptical eye.

“I think it makes us curious about looking into everything," she says.

On Wednesday, Louisville President James Ramsey announced the formation of a blue-ribbon committee to examine how the Ph.D. was awarded, calling it "an issue that strikes at the heart of our institutional integrity."

Faculty Feared Retaliation

For all of the complaining about Felner, faculty members say that the public grievances were only the tip of the iceberg. Many never filed grievances because -- they say -- they feared retaliation. Dozens of unsigned complaints were sent to administrators, but they appeared to carry little weight. In a now-notorious interview, President James Ramsey referred to such complaints as “anonymous crap."

The stories of faculty who experienced retaliation after coming forward without anonymity became commonplace at Louisville during Felner’s tenure. Bryant Stamford, who left Louisville for Hanover College in 2005, brought a formal grievance against Felner based on a student’s complaint that Felner was sexually harassing her.

Stamford says he was duty-bound to report the harassment case, but he attests that Felner retaliated against him, freezing the budget of a health and wellness program so Stamford couldn’t pay newly hired staff members. Felner had previously been a big supporter of the program -- “we were getting everything we wanted,” Stamford says -- but the dean sought to drain the program of resources after Stamford filed his grievance.

“He did the Russian mafia thing: If I can’t kill you, I’m going to kill everybody you care about,” says Stamford, who says the Felner affair prompted him to resign after 32 years at Louisville.

Stamford says he was not allowed to disclose the outcome of the grievance, but a summary of faculty grievance rulings shows that just one sexual harassment case made it through the grievance process. In that case, “insufficient evidence” was found to establish a violation of university policy.

Three years before Ramsey dismissed anonymous complaints as “crap,” Stamford says he alerted administrators to Felner’s propensity for retaliation.

“I go to the administration and say, ‘Hey, this isn’t right. I reported this [sexual harassment] -- I did my duty -- and I’m being crucified here,’ ” he recalls.

Stamford is now professor and chair of the Department of Exercise Science at Hanover, in Indiana. Along with 20 other former Louisville faculty members, he signed a letter sent to the university’s Board of Trustees last month, lamenting that faculty concerns hadn’t been taken seriously or protected.

Fairness of Hearings Questioned

The failure to protect faculty from retaliation is just one of the reasons the grievance process has problems at Louisville, according to Suzanne Meeks, who ended a three-year stint as the university’s faculty grievance officer in 2007. During her years in the grievance office, Meeks says she found the process to be unfair, noting that “in general the cards tended to be stacked against the faculty member.”

“It’s pretty rare at the University of Louisville for an administrator to lose a grievance,” says Meeks, who articulated her concerns in a 2007 report. “At the University of Louisville, the administration has legal counsel that they don’t have to pay for. I’d say that’s favoring them.”

Felner faced four formally filed grievances while at Louisville, and in at least two circumstances the university provided him with legal counsel, officials say.

Andrew Kemp, a former faculty member at Louisville, says he was disinclined to continue with the grievance process when he learned Felner was provided with university-funded legal representation.

“The reason I really didn’t go through with it was when Felner walked into that meeting, he walked in with a lawyer that was hired by the university, and I knew from the get-go that I didn’t have chance,” says Kemp, who was disputing an unfavorable tenure ruling and says he couldn’t afford his own lawyer.

According to university bylaws, parties on both sides of grievance hearings can bring lawyers, but the lawyers are not permitted to question witnesses in the court-style proceedings. Even so, lawyers are permitted to coach their clients, directing them toward particular lines of questioning or assisting in evidence gathering.

Louisville’s Faculty Senate is undergoing a review of the grievance process and is expected to recommend changes by November. The university’s practice of providing lawyers to administrators, and not to faculty, “may be something we need to look at” in the interest of fairness, says Willihnganz.

A Common Problem

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, says that the grievance process has widespread problems across higher education, particularly at universities like Louisville that don’t have union representation.

“I am just impressed by the widespread fact that on many, many campuses -- especially those without collective bargaining -- the grievance process for faculty has deteriorated to a point of non-existence,” he says.

Despite the problems, faculty aren’t likely to get worked up about a failed grievance system, unless they’re directly affected by it, Nelson adds.

“Faculty tend to take much more notice of problems that affect all of them or that represent the faculty’s authority in general,” he says. “But when some particular faculty member is abused, it’s pretty hard to get people to take notice unless they themselves are affected.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Turning a Blind Eye

  • Failure to communicate?
  • Posted by L.L. on September 11, 2008 at 5:05am EDT
  • The late Peter Drucker made a small fortune, pointing out the obvious to colleges and other non-profits. He would ask -- "what do you do? Why?"

    The obvious:

    * Culture of endless complaint -- so, when a real problem develops, real problems get lost in all the on-going, everyday noise.

    * Public-sector managers (most with a tenured fall-back position) with very little incentive to actively engage.

    The public knows what is going on. They're not surprised. Charles Murray, John McCain, Sarah "Six Colleges" Palin, David Horowitz, and others are also making small fortunes from this.

  • Why did he remain so long?
  • Posted by Diogenes on September 11, 2008 at 7:55am EDT
  • TRADITION!

    Repeat my answer for any school with a similar problem. Bad administrators stick to the system like glue. When they finally are let go, they end up in a cushy job with no work load at tax payers expense for the remainder of their contracts half the time. The closer they are to the top, the more pillows are at the bottom of the drop.

  • Fish rot from the head down
  • Posted by ex-prof on September 11, 2008 at 7:55am EDT
  • This article makes clear that Felner's sins of commission were enabled if not encouraged by Ramsey's and Willihnganz's sins of omission. Its clear that neither of these administrators ever took any of the complaints they received seriously, and are still only concerned about the matters under criminal investigation, not the fact that Felner was a demoralizing force in the institution. Moreover, Willihnghanz appears to be as contemptuous of others as Felner was of his faculty. What, other than a belief in the stupidity of her audience, could have led her to so absurdly claim that she didn't realize there was a problem because all 30-some complaints didn't come to her at once? And in light of what Ramsey wrote to Felner about the "Indians" under him, its clear that Felner was simply behaving as Ramsey wished him to. The racism of that comment alone speaks volumes about Ramsey. Both of these characters ought to be summarily fired by their school's board of trustees.

  • Posted by Dexter Alexander on September 11, 2008 at 9:08am EDT
  • According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, UofL President Ramsey yesterday appointed an "impartial" committe of faculty, a student, and community leaders to investigate the "Desay option" PhD track. One of the members President Ramsey appointed to this impartial committee "was a member of the committee that approved Deasy's dissertation in April 2004, and he spoke in Felner's behalf at a March 2006 meeting at which faculty in the education college voted they had no confidence in Felner's leadership."

    An outside peer group investigative committee sounds like a better idea to me; but President Ramsey continues to fight a rear-guard action as he retreats further and further into the mysteries of higher education administration. President Ramsey should resign, or should be fired.

  • Bizarre Piece
  • Posted by dean dad on September 11, 2008 at 9:40am EDT
  • I don't understand this piece. It notes that of the four cases heard by the faculty-led grievance committee, the dean went four-for-four. From this it concludes that the dean was in the wrong?

    Alternate interpretation: this was a case of mobbing.

    I don't know Felner, and I don't know if he actually misappropriated money (a serious offense) or retaliated (also a serious offense). If he did, by all means, have at him. But to trot out acquittals, and cases that weren't even filed, as if they proved guilt is simply irresponsible. Where there's smoke there may or may not be fire; there may just be someone blowing smoke where it ought not to go.

  • LONG pattern
  • Posted by ex-student on September 11, 2008 at 11:30am EDT
  • This pattern of bullying, harrassment, and abuse of power has been going on since he was a Professor at Yale University. And, as we so often do in the academy, it has been a game of pass the garbage ever since.

  • Posted by UofHell Escapee on September 11, 2008 at 11:45am EDT
  • This story is one of incompetence and cronyism in the central administration at the UofHell, which enabled the corrupt and unethical behavior of Felner and his "losership" team in the College of Education.

    If you want to connect the dots read the stories at http://pageonekentucky.com/category/robert-felner/

  • Retaliation at the college
  • Posted by Not only faculty , Dr. at ACCC on September 11, 2008 at 11:50am EDT
  • Well, it isn't only faculty who feel the brunt of retaliation and intimidation. Support staff and mid-managers are at the "mercy" of Deans. And, they stick together, even if the complaintant has a bonafied concern.

    What would be the outcome of a complaint of retaliation and intimidation if it were directed at a staff member of faculty member? Dismissal at the most, suspension without pay for a period of time at the least.

    It is a shame that institutions of higher learning haven't learned the basics of common decency and respect!!

  • And another thing...
  • Posted by Charles Bittner on September 11, 2008 at 11:50am EDT
  • Especially in today’s culture of corruption, one can easily understand illegal redirection of funding to personal projects, revelations of inept and abusive administrative practices, and even accusations of sexual harassment. However, when the president of a major university displays such blatant racism in his statement, “letting the Indians get back in control of the reservation,” it becomes crystal clear that there are more profound and fundamental problems the institution should address.

    And I assume this statement disqualifies James Ramsey from this year’s President’s Diversity Vision Award granted for, “cumulative efforts to advance diversity and inclusion at the University of Louisville.”

  • Been there
  • Posted by Been there , Registrar at Lenoir Community College on September 11, 2008 at 1:45pm EDT
  • I was a victim of someone like Felner when I worked in the registrar’s office at one of the largest female colleges in the southeast. I finally left after my grievances were ignored and laughed at. She is still working for the college even though there have been six others who have complained and either moved to another office or left the college. All these people have left in the span of less than two years, but yet she continues on. The administration refuses to admit there is a problem, and the grievance process is a complete sham/joke especially given the fact that the HR director is a friend of hers.

    Yes, women can be and are harassers—not just men. And I am a woman!

  • An Ethics Crisis in Higher Education Management
  • Posted by Prof Ed on September 11, 2008 at 2:55pm EDT
  • The behavior described here reads like the "code of silence" in corrupt police departments and police states. Abusers there also repeatedly escape convictions and get a pass at hearings. That system keeps them in positions where they can cause damage.

    The frequent articles in IHE on abuses of power that range from the granting of bogus degrees to vindictive behavior makes obvious that we need better screening for university leaders and perhaps professors as well.

    Those who have not yet learned to handle power should never be in charge of other people. Vindictiveness and intimidation destroy an institution and the people in it, whether or not deemed "illegal." There is every good reason that disrespect of others, robbing them of dignity and intimidation should be grounds for reprimand and eventual dismissal if the individual cannot get control of themselves after fair warning and support in getting help. I have no sympathy for dean dad's being an apologist for the system that places over-40 adolescents into management positions.

    The rampant lack of will and courage to deal with ethical problems in Higher Education is how we get stories like this.

  • Posted by SK on September 11, 2008 at 5:40pm EDT
  • The U of L system for handling grievances could be the "poster child" for how to screw faculty members and protect their own. I am currently trying to access the system in order to pursue a grievance against a dean there and I am getting nothing but pushback from the administration. The tactics they employ to create a disadvantage for me are reprehensible, which I believe clearly show that the administration has no interest whatsoever in protecting the rights of faculty members. It is all about keeping the "Indians" where they belong, right?

  • The rule rather than the exception, I think
  • Posted by Anon on September 12, 2008 at 5:40am EDT
  • Every institution in the country could do with targeted scrutiny on just this set of issues, focusing on provosts, deans, and chairs/heads. This situation with Louisville is identical to one current in a research-1 institution in this country with a duration three times longer than this (I can't identify it in public).

    Nominally this kind of thing should get picked up by the re-accreditation process, but those committees don't touch things like this--they have explicitly abdicated this aspect of their mission. Nothing will change without oversight of the management of these institutions.

  • The William and Mary Example
  • Posted by Jim Jones , Not in Academia on September 12, 2008 at 3:50pm EDT
  • This seems to be an unfortunately common occurence in academia, which apparently cannot always police itself. I believe it is clear that we saw this process running amok at Duke during the lacrosse team scandal, and in my opinion, we also saw it in action at William and Mary during the now-ended Presidency of Gene Ray Nichol.

    I was the spokesman for a group that worked hard to end the Nichol Presidency at William and Mary, an action which the Board of Visitors opted to take, though not without a great deal of turmoil.

    I was dismayed to see the reaction of many faculty when it came to even DISCUSSING the Nichol Presidency in any sort of rational way. The prevailing thinking was that because Nichol had removed a cross, anyone who opposed Nichol was therefore a right-wing nutjob. There was little further discussion beyond that on the part of many faculty. I have several communications from faculty that were never made public, which stated that many agreed with us on the need for Nichol to go, but fear of retribution kept Nichol opponents within the faculty, especially untenured tenure-track faculty, from expressing their opinion. I was told on many occasions that Nichol demanded and enforced absolute loyalty. The chilling effect on free speech and public debate was obvious to all who paid attention.

    The Department of Philosophy sustained a significant amount of damage as a result of Nichol's Presidency, from which it has not recovered. The actions taken by the Dean of Arts & Sciences, Carl Strikwerda, with the support of the Provost, Geoffrey Feiss, are almost inexplicable when a study is made of the events that transpired and the evidence that exists. When one takes away the "political explanations," there remains no logical basis for the decisions taken.

    Inside Higher Ed reported the story (Scott Jaschik's article found at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/25/junior) and it is a fair presentation of the facts and of the controversy.

    To make a long story short, the Department was placed into receivership. Curiously, the removed Chairman, Noah Lemos, had spoken out against the faculty petition in support of Mr. Nichol (which was, essentially, "we support everything Mr. Nichol does"), and the new Chair brought in to run the Department, English Professor Terry Meyers, was one of the sponsors of said petition. Strikwerda and Feiss insisted that there was no connection. So it was merely an amazing coincidence -- one of many amazing coincidences of the Nichol Presidency -- there was no revenge motive; Terry Meyers was simply the best person to run the Philosophy Department out of all the W&M professors that could have been tapped.

    Professors George Harris and Paul Davies suggested strongly that the cause was what they refer to as the "hospitality norm" -- in which senior professors ought to be more hospitable and supportive of junior professors, even to the extent that high academic standards should be overridden by the need to be hospitable. I am not putting it as eloquently as they have, but this is the gist of it. The Department needed to be put into receivership in order to force it into compliance.

    I am confident that both of these scenarios are likely, but that at least one of the two scenarios is the real reason this action was taken.

    The reason I am convinced is that under the last FOIA on the Philosphy Department matter that our group received, there was a memo from Dean Strikwerda that had not been previously released, which stated that he (Strikwerda) had reviewed the report of the outside evaluators and while he was not pleased with what was in the reports, he had found no urgent issues that required his immediate action, and that the normal departmental review process would be followed. So it came as something of a surprise to the Department that they were soon thereafter put into receivership. Chairman Lemos and Professor James Harris (not George Harris) wrote rebuttals of the external review which our group also got as part of the FOIA package in which they, like George Harris and Davies, vigorously defended the Department. There may have been internal dissention within the members of this very strong and nationally-known Department, but all members of the Department wanted to work out the issues themselves as the published review process directs (inexplicably waived by Strikwerda). On that, they could all agree. Perhaps they needed a facilitator and perhaps a "work it out and report back, or else" private word from the Dean, but they did not require a receiver.

    The Department fought back strongly, but given that their chain-of-command was Dean Strikwerda, Provost Feiss, and finally President Nichol, their case got nowhere, and in the end, the Board of Visitors did not agree to hear the case, perhaps because they had not seen the Strikwerda memo we saw, or perhaps because they felt it was an issue of academic freedom for them to get involved, or perhaps because they did not want to add to the turmoil on campus.

    To this day, the Department remains in receivership, with the reputation of the Department and of several of the Professors in it, most notably George Harris and Paul Davies, having sustained significant damage.

    Now that we have a new President, who is no longer "interim," it is our hope that he will take another look at the shenanigans that went on and help to repair the damage done to the Department.

  • Not Just at the University Level
  • Posted by Karen Horwitz on September 13, 2008 at 2:05pm EDT
  • What this article describes is precisely what is going on in K-12 Education - the force that has ruined our schools, or what I call White Chalk Crime. As a former teacher, I recently wrote a book on this topic because our entire education system is failing due to a culture of special interests that oppose our democracy's need for effective education. The superintendent who apparently bought his Phd is but the tip of the iceberg of what is going on in education. Read White Chalk Crime: The REAL Reason Schools Fail, available also at Amazon.com and help build a voice to stop the destruction of democracy. This abuse of power is rotting our society via education, the lifeline of our culture.

  • To Karen
  • Posted by DFS on September 15, 2008 at 4:45pm EDT
  • Yes, we used to teach facts, that is, our subject.

    Now, we teach crap, that is, all of the other assessable information deemed necessary, like "general education" stuff forced into our syllabi.

    What ever happened to Higher Education?

  • hisrory & languages
  • Posted by Scott , Professor Emeritus on September 15, 2008 at 9:55pm EDT
  • You folks just do not get it! The problem is not Deasy, nor is it Felner. This situation can exist only when the very top is rotten to the core. If UL gets its accreditation suspended, perhaps the Board will demand the resignation of the heart of the problem--Ramsay.

  • John Deasy and Robert Felner
  • Posted by Richard Day on October 25, 2008 at 11:15am EDT
  • The $375,000 in Malibu grant money John Deasy awarded to indicted former UofL Dean Robert Felner has been found. According to the federal indictment it was funneled through a shell corporation and right into Felner's bank account.

    http://theprincipal.blogspot.com/2008/09/need-doctorate-hire-felner-let-him.html