David Finley, 1131018:40 AM

-0800, Question One: Revised

S.O1-12

X-Sender: finley @popserver.sfu.ca

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 200108:40:23 -0800

.

To: watt@sfu.ca

, bgrant@sfu.ca

From: David Finley <finley@sfu.ca

>

Subject: Question One: Revised

Question Number One

The issue of Administrator responsibility for disciplinary actions has

recently been raised by various professors accusing administrators of

misconduct in their dealings with them and with others.

There are specific mechanisms for punishing students who go astray as we

well know. There seem to be a variety of policies for punishing erring

professors on top of which the Administration also assumes the right to use

ad hoc procedures when the others are too burdensome or fail to fit. There

are also procedures for disciplining staffpersons. Yet I am not aware of

any such procedures for disciplining Administrators who abuse or violate

the rights of their employees.

Questions

(a)

Is there any mechanism accessible to the faculty or staff for

charging, investigating, and disciplining administrators who violate the

rights of employees or students?

(b)

What are the circumstances where administrators need to account to the

public and possible victims for allegations of misconduct in administering

disciplinary procedures?

David Finley

Simon Fraser University (604-291-4604)

David Finley, 1/3/019:30 AM -0800, Question Number Two: Revised

X-Sender: finley@popserver.sfu.ca

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 200109:30:55 -0800

To: watt@sfu.ca,

bgrant@sfu.ca

From: David Finley <finley @ sfu.ca

>

Subject: Question Number Two: Revised

Question Number Two

This concerns the Donnelly case. This case resulted in an innocent person

being publicly denounced as being guilty of sexual assault and fired with

cause after his case had been pending for 18 months. During this time the

administration had ample opportunity to determine whether the case against

him was sound. Yet within ten weeks of Donnelly's dismissal, the

Administration conceded that there had been major procedural

irregularities, which were known to the Administration and withheld from

Donnelly.

The Administration also conceded that the principal accuser had made

inconsistent statements in her submissions and therefore could not be

considered a credible witness. Moreover, a careful reading of the Panel

Report reveals that evidence of Donnelly's guilt was conspicious by its

absence and that improper reasoning, bogus evidence, and prejudice against

the accused were conspiciously present. Further it is apparent that all

the above information was known or should have been known to the

Administration, since none of it depended on anything subsequently

introduced by Donnelly.

The above information would indicate, not only that the case was grossly

mishandled, but would strongly suggest that there was serious and possibly

egregious misconduct on the part of the Administrators dealing with this

case. In view of these circumstances, I am asking the following:

(a)

Why has there been no independent investigation to determine what went

wrong?

(b)

Why has there been no public reporting of what went wrong and why has

the Administration reneged on its previous pledge (made by then President

Stubbs) to provide a full explanation?

(c)

Why has there been no effort to identify and punish those responsible

for this ethical failure?

(d)

Why has there been no institutional apology to Donnelly for both the

unwarranted finding of guilt and the numerous willful violations of his

rights perpetrated by the Administration?

(e)

Why has Donnelly received no compensation for suffering (which must

have been substantial), where in contrast, even dubious sexual harassment

complainants have been liberally compensated?

(f)

Are there any plans to consider any of the actions implied by the

above questions?

.

.

a

---

Quc,,:^Iion

iroct

Albert Chan,28

0101_10:37 PM

-0700,Question for Senate's February meeting..

?

1

p ?

X-Apparently-From: <aytchan@yahoo.com

>

•

?

From: "Albert Chan" <aytchan@yahoo.com >

To: "Alison Watt' <Alison_Watt@ sfu.ca

>, <bgrant@sfu.ca >

Subject: Question for Senate's February meeting

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:37:41 -0700

MIME-Version: 1.0

X-Priority:

3 (Normal)

X-MSMaiI-Priority: Normal

Importance: Normal

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600

Dear Alison and Bobbie,

I plan to raise the following item in person for the Question Period of the

February Senate meeting:

Pursuant to Senate Rules and the University Act, Senators should be

informed on the significant issues affecting the university. Underfunding

is one of our serious problems. As a convocation senator, I regret to

realize that our own university was forced into an arbitration with our

student society over a maintenance cost dispute on the rental agreement of

the Maggie Benston Building. Money was spent by both sides on unnecessary

costs, instead of spending on endeavours that could be more beneficial for

the university community. Fortunately, the arbitrator has concluded the

dispute and apparently seems to rule in favour of our university. My

question for Mr. Chair is how much money have we spent on resolving this

issue? Is the dispute finalized? Also, could Mr. Chair or another member of

. ?

the administration please explain to us the background of this dispute and

disclose all available information, particularly factual details, except

those marked confidential?'

Best regards,

Albert

Albert Chan,30 01

01

6:55

PM

-0700,Second question for Feb. Senate meeting.. ?

1

X-Apparently-From: <aytchan@yahoo.com >

• ?

From: Albert Chan' <aytchan@yahoo.com

>

To: "Alison Watt <Alison_Watt@sfu.ca

>, <bgrant@ sfu.ca >

Subject: Second question for Feb. Senate meeting....

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:55:09 -0700

MIME-Version: 1.0

X-Priority: 3 (Normal)

X-MSMa1I-Priority: Normal

Importance: Normal

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600

This question is related to the five year capital plan and the robotic book

storage system for the library.

Our university's capital budget has been frozen by the government for over

five years. In July 2000, the Board of Governors approved the newest

capital plan, which included a robotic storage system for the library. The

plan was submitted to the provincial government for consideration. Could

Mr. Chair report on the status of our capital plan and whether there is any

progress for new capital funding allocation?

The Senate Library Committee had some discussion on the robot system in

1998. With the assumption that no money was secured for any library

expansion project and that the robotic book storage system costs only a

portion of a conventional library system, the SLC encouraged the library

administration to pursue this endeavour.

However, many library users, including faculty members, students and

librarians are not happy with the fact that this new library expansion

approach diminishes their ability to browse through books on the shelves.

Our overall book collection is already the lowest among other benchmark

institutions according to the library annual report. We are currently

highly depended on inter-library loans to supplement our research needs.

Building a robotic storage system, instead of constructing a new library

building could mean further enlarge our competitive disadvantage. Besides,

it is always a good idea to aim at a higher and better target.

Given that we have a new senior university administration and that we may

face a new provincial government in the near future, what is our

administration's view on this subject matter?

What are the administration's lobbying and fund-raising directions? Is the

administration ready to revisit the robotic storage idea and perhaps try to

lobby for more capital development funding on building a new library,

similar to what UBC did when it built its new Koerner library?

Best regards,

Albert Chan

Convocation Senator

----------------------------------------------

Do You Yahoo!?