February 29, 2008

Dear Makau and Jim, I have enclosed the Status Report and Self-Assessment you requested. My interim evaluations of the R&W programs personnel are a separate document, also enclosed.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey

February 29, 2008

Dear Makau, Im writing this letter because I want to be careful to put my thoughts into the right words and at the same time share them with the other members of the Academic Planning and Policy Committee (APPC). Im in favor of the planning process and the reforms you have advocated. I think they are long overdue. Also, Im in favor of dialogue and now I realize that I didnt have in place a vehicle for the instructors to give me constructive criticism in a way that would encourage open communication. Having said that, the way you and Jim went about soliciting feedback from the instructors was inappropriate and unprofessional. I dont think you should have discussed my performance with my colleagues without me present and I dont think you should have asked them to write up secret reports on me concurrently with the personnel evaluations you asked me to write upon them. If they unexpectedly began complaining about me, I think you should have stopped them and asked the question that Melinda and I always ask students who come to us with complaints have you addressed this concern with the teacher? If not, why not? Unless the complaint deals with dishonesty or harassment, the protocol in any workplace is for the employee to discuss the matter with the supervisor before taking it up with the supervisors supervisor. You and Jim did not follow this protocol, and have significantly disrupted the operation of the program. If I may summarize my findings on the quality and professionalism of the staff, I can affirm to you that there is not a crisis in the legal writing program, other than an explosion of anxiety and frustration over its staffing. All of the current legal writing professors are operating at an adequate professional level, meeting their classes to teach the curriculum I designed, and grading their papers. Up until last year, I could not have made that blanket statement. If they were on long term contracts, there would not be any question about disciplining or terminating any of them. I have to point out that the administration has long been ambivalent about the program and has underfunded it; as a result, I have had to assemble and train a competent group of legal writing professors at a salary that is $20,000 below what they deserve to make. I do not think that any of them honestly want me to change the type of supervision I have been giving them, although I recognize that you and Jim seem to be of the opinion that I have been too passive in my oversight. Although I disagree with you and dont think it was appropriate for me to put any more pressure than I did on such underpaid, unappreciated, disenfranchised, and overworked teachers, I intend to respond to your new marching orders, since you are now running this institution, and tighten my supervisory practices. I have started by asking them to submit to me copies of all their office memo

problems from the past three years so that I may review them for consistency with my curricular goals and keep them on file, and also so that I may ensure that they are not recycled again. In addition, I have asked them to collect and give to me copies of the first drafts of all this semesters appellate briefs so that I may look at the written feedback in order to assess its adequacy. Finally, I have told them that I need them to judge up to three rounds of the LRW moot court this year which is something they should probably be doing anyway because of a shortage of volunteers. In light of the current mood, they have let me know that they think these actions are punitive and retaliatory and that they may or may not comply, depending on how they feel as a group. Going further, one of them implied to me that if the administration does not submit to their demands, they may create a crisis for us by failing to report to work next fall. I was hired by the faculty to the rank of clinical associate professor, and two years ago the Promotion and Tenure Committee approved me to continue doing my job on a long term basis at the rank of full clinical professor. My 405(c)-protected status was conferred after a searching inquiry into my performance and qualifications; in fact, before I was awarded the long term contract, less than two years ago, Sue Mangold went door to door, asking each of the legal writing professors in complete confidence whether he or she had any criticisms or complaints to relate about me and Sue has told me that she came away with nothing to report but positive comments. What Im asking of you is to confirm that I have your unqualified support. I would also like you to convey to the members of the legal writing faculty your expectation that they will continue to work cooperatively and constructively as a team under the new administrations auspices for the benefit of the students.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey

cc: APPC members - 2008