I am responding to the article of Jan. 28 (“HP officials remove Kelly
from class”). Students in the PA program sit in class for at least 24
hours weekly. It is the habit of most of the faculty, and a number of
student leaders and administrators, to take 5 to 10 minutes at the
beginning of class to make announcements of interest to all, or to
“check-in” with the class about important issues. This is a cohort
class; a smallish group of students and professors who are together all
of the time. What is “class time” and not “class time” sometimes
becomes blurred. All of the discussion is about matters of professional
concern to future PAs. The issue of a letter to the accreditation
agency, and an upcoming newspaper article, is certainly of professional
concern. It is not as though the discussion was about nonprofessional
issues.

In the middle of my three-hour psychiatry class, after a long (and
likely tedious) PowerPoint presentation, we had a short 5 to 10 minute
break (shorter than what the normal passing time for a three-hour class
would be). George Bottomley, the new program director, had addressed
the students earlier in the day concerning the newspaper article. As
one of the cosigners of the letter to the accreditors, I asked the
students if they had any questions of me, and if they minded addressing
it then. They had questions, and no one objected. I went on to reassure
them that they were a great class, that I was very proud of them, and
that they would make good PAs. I also said there was no way the
accreditation status of CMU would be put in danger by an evaluation;
that the administration was very supportive of the program, and would
do whatever it needed to do to set it right; that the best and worst
that would happen is that more faculty would be added. I did share with
the class that I was fearful of speaking out, and that my tenure status
might not protect me. They were surprised.

I continued to answer questions; a student made an announcement
concerning clinical year issues, and then class resumed (unfortunately
interrupted by a technical malfunction). End of case … no different
than thousands of other class sessions that I have attended here at CMU
since 1996.

In terms of the “faculty meetings” that preceded my reassignment,
there are only three persons, including myself, currently in the PA
program who are eligible under our bylaws to vote on personnel issues,
besides myself. My deliberate exclusion from the vote would disqualify
it. The program director has been at CMU for three weeks, and clearly
is reliant on the administration for his information.
Additionally, the issue was not publicized 24 hours prior, as required
by our bylaws. There was no legal “recommendation of the faculty” to
the dean, as required by the Faculty Association agreement. This was
purely an administrative decision and had nothing to do with teaching
competence. My side of the story was not requested or evaluated. I
learned about my new work load arrangements from a Central Michigan
Life reporter, as well as the fact that there was a “faculty meeting”
last week to decide it. His search for minutes or an agenda for these
meetings, which occurred in secret when I was physically present at the
university, were fruitless. Other faculty should be very frightened.

I thank CM Life for bringing these matters to light.

E-mail the author: defaultuser