Amid the growing conflict between faculty and administrators at the University of Tampa, one extreme individual incident occurred last semester when a criminology professor proposed a motion of no confidence against the UT provost.
At a late January Faculty Senate meeting, Sean Maddan, an associate professor of criminology, introduced a motion for a vote of no confidence against provost Janet McNew. As provost, McNew is second-in-command in the university’s administrative hierarchy, overseeing the school’s four colleges and various other academic programs.
A no-confidence vote is a symbolic measure of discontent, implying that an elected body has lost faith in a ruling official.
Maddan’s no-confidence motion cited what he perceived as 17 “serious violations,” including McNew’s decision to place “an armed guard” at an investigatory department meeting, utilizing attorneys in situations not sanctioned by the faculty handbook, making “derogatory statements” about faculty, “actively creating a hostile work environment to dispose of qualified faculty” and “fostering an atmosphere among the faculty and staff of hostility, low morale and distrust.”
During the January 2011 Faculty Senate meeting, the senators, in a 16-12 vote, decided not to discuss Maddan’s proposed motion of no confidence. However, because the disapproval did not obtain a two-thirds majority, Maddan was eligible to re-introduce his motion at a later date.
While McNew said she could not discuss personnel matters, she said, “I had nothing to do with [the vote of no confidence]. I knew that there was one there, and also knew that it was withdrawn. That’s really what I know about that.”
Maddan initiated the motion of no confidence after authoring a “process-violation grievance against the provost.” In the grievance, he laid out one specific situation that motivated the motion.
Early in the grievance, Maddan recounted an instance in which McNew installed an armed guard outside a room in a campus building during a mandatory meeting regarding “an alleged incident of harassment” within the criminology department.
Provost McNew, CSSME Dean Anne Gormly, CAL Dean Haig Mardirosian, and all criminology faculty attended the meeting, along with local attorney Mike Malfitano. The meeting, which Maddan noted “was recorded and lasted approximately nine minutes,” centered on confidential information regarding alleged faculty harassment. According to Maddan’s grievance, “Those interviewed would not be permitted to bring witnesses or have their own counsel, and the interviews would be recorded.”
Maddan objected strongly to the presence of a lawyer; the perceived denial of legal counsel for faculty; the use of audio recording in a situation in which it is “not specified” for use by the faculty handbook; and that “no person [had] been identified as the object of the grievance.” He also objected to the armed security guard nearby. “It was an intimidation tactic, period,” Maddan said later in an interview.
However, Evan Chipouras, an associate biology professor and president of the faculty senate, said he believed Maddan’s complaints regarding the armed guard were not substantial. Instead, Chipouras felt this specific criticism was designed to “get a rise out of the faculty about ‘how mean’ [the] administration was.”
Chipouras said he was “disturbed by [faculty] violations of confidentiality” in the disclosure of information regarding the meeting. He also regarded some of this information release as “intentionally incomplete,” presented to the senate to influence the no-confidence vote.
Maddan said much of the “incompleteness” was due to the fact that he attempted to work within the university’s confidentiality rules. “In fairness, the material was confidential,” he said. “I mean, understand, that the motion of no confidence, the grievance against the provost, I mean, I had to walk a very tight rope on crafting those things [into the motion of no confidence] to where I wasn’t giving off confidential information. I know I’m right there on the edge and in some cases probably stepping right over that line, but it’s not that it’s intentionally vague.”
Some sources with knowledge of the meeting have indicated that the provost installed the armed guard simply as a safety precaution against possible violence, as suggested by the nature of the alleged harassment. The move was also apparently a reaction to the then-recent shooting at the University of Alabama-Huntsville in which a professor fatally shot three colleagues and injured others after being denied tenure.
Maddan said those concerns were not explained to faculty attending the meeting. He also questioned, if the administrators feared possible violence, “Why put us all in the same room in the first place?”
Emilio Toro, an associate professor of mathematics, seconded Maddan’s motion to discuss a no-confidence vote against McNew. “That motion that Dr. Maddan made seemed to be an opportunity to discuss some of the members of the administration,” Toro said in a recent interview. “What is it that they are doing for the university, and how are faculty relating to them? And what is faculty’s opinion of these members of the administration? So, in making that second at that moment, I didn’t intend to turn that into an antagonistic relation, but an opportunity to discuss.” Toro said that seconding the motion should not be seen as an indication of whether he would have ultimately approved Maddan’s specific cited violations.
Maddan, scheduled to re-introduce his motion of no confidence at a mid-May faculty senate meeting, abruptly withdrew it. Maddan said — in part due to his involvement in a separate confidential grievance brought against him — he was fatigued with grievance processes and decided he would rather leave the university.
“[The motion of no confidence] could have stimulated quite a bit of change, but I was taking a lot of heat,” Maddan said. “For me, the fight wasn’t worth it. . . . I basically was like, ‘Whatever, fine, keep it. I’m going to get a new job starting next year and start searching.’” He compared voicing concerns with administrators to “trying to fight Hulk Hogan or something with two legs and one arm tied behind my back.”
Some faculty perceived the no-confidence motion to be too personalized and vindictive. “Obviously it had to have a personal tinge to it,” Maddan said in response. “There’s no way around that. But it also had a larger meaning for the rest of the faculty. At least when I was senate exec still, I was like, ‘I can’t let another faculty member have to go through this crap. I can’t let another faculty member come into a closed meeting with an armed guard at the door.’”
Maddan maintains his disdain for McNew, calling her “an authoritarian leader,” and saying, “UT started to change when she showed up, and not in a good way.”
Faculty senate president Chipouras called the behavior of some criminology faculty during the time period in which the proposed no-confidence motion and subsequent grievances were put forth, “the most juvenile, unprofessional, ugly situation I’ve seen in my entire career. It’s almost unfathomable to me that colleagues treat each other the way they do.” He also said, “The reason I’m angry about . . . the larger situation is it has wasted an incredible amount of administrative and faculty time.”
Mikey Angelo Rumore can be reached michealangelorumore@gmail.com.
Richard Solomon can be reached at richard.solomon@spartans.ut.edu.
This article appears to be one sided in its coverage of Sean Maddan. Where is the voice from other faculty in his department? Where are the interviews from other faculty at the University? The article suggests a “growing conflict” but does not survey all UT faculty to get a true pulse of this perceived “conflict.” It would appear that the “conflict” is between Maddan and administration. It would be interesting to see if there was similar “conflict” between Maddan and administrators/faculty at his previous institution. It would also be interesting to have access to Maddan’s personnel file regarding behavior at the University of Tampa.
As a reader I can’t help but question Maddan’s true purpose in releasing information to the Minaret. He acknowledges that he is on the job market. Perhaps he is trying to restructure his image to look better for potential employers because he is not looked highly upon at UT…… Just a thought
Occupy UT!!! We need to do something or our school will just go to the crapper. If Vaugh won’t listen to the faculty, maybe a sit in or some other protest will open his eyes. If you keep brushing it off, it will continue.
Article says….”Maddan maintains his disdain for McNew, calling her “an authoritarian leader,” and saying, “UT started to change when she showed up, and not in a good way.”
Here, Here….
…faculty-adminstration relations have gone seriously downhill since McNew’s arrival….and UT pays roughly a quarter of a million per year for the privilege of having this autocratic and arrogant individual at UT….what a deal, eh?
However, you all are silly think that Ron Vaughn would ever do anything; his pattern of inaction is notorious at this point.
I “used” to love UT; but not any longer. Apparently faculty have been complaining about McNew since she first came on board (many, many complaints), but Vaughn either doesn’t care about the complaints, or ignores them. Faculty quietly (sometimes not quietly–as in this case)–leave one by one. Why stay when they are treated like crap? Vaughn doesn’t care, doesn’t look for the reason why, apparently doesn’t ask. My guess is he doesn’t even know who these faculty members are…let alone care. All fungible, as far as he and McNew is concerned. Then when ex-students, alum, and faculty (current and old) stop giving, the alumni office scratches their heads and says “must be because UT no longer has a football team.” No, its because the administration alienates (and sometimes forces to leave or retire–either directly or indirectly) those that have made the UT experience so memorable for many ex-students, including myself. Gheesh, you’d think they’d get the picture?
Janet McNew has done nothing but hurt the University of Tampa since she came on board. From slashing study abroad programs at a time when they can be a huge competitive advantage for a university, to truly trying to damage certain faculty members’ reputations, she has only stirred up negativity and discontent. Why does President Vaughn and the University of Tampa still allow her to harm our school? Certainly something needs to be discussed about her seeing as the vote was 16-12. Besides, what’s the harm in discussing? As a university community aren’t we suppose to encourage active and participative discussions? This world would not rotate if everyone just sat there with a closed mouth. Change for the better can not be made by staying quiet! What kind of rules say you have to have everyone’s “ok” before you can speak your mind and discuss a concern? Regardless of all the petty he said/she said details, the answer is obvious…McNew needs to walk the plank!!!
With Dr. Beckman leaving due to hostile conditions and now Dr. Madden, two of the college’s most accessible and dedicated professors, you would think the administration would try to remedy the situation rather than just run to the side of an incompetent provost!
Is Evan Chipouras an advocate for faculty and students, or just the provost’s little punkass beeeyatch? I think it is clear it is the latter.
Holding faculty hostage with armed guards is not “substantial?” Threatening them with lawyers is not “substantial?” Recording them in violation of state law is not “substantial?”
How much is the safety of UT faculty, students and staff at risk if armed guards are needed at meetings? Are there faculty members with histories of mental health issues, or serious criminal histories bringing weapons to campus?
Are students and parents aware that a Gateways instructor was stalking a student and the university actually posted warning posters in the dorms, only to remove them, the morning when parents arrived?
Keep digging, guys, you are merely scratching the surface of what is actually happening on the campus. You may also want to contact the trustees. Where the hell are they in all of this? Do they have any clue whatsoever about what actually happens on campus? The lousy facilities, overcrowded classes, bedbug-ridden rooms, a lack of commitment to the top students to travel or participate in tournaments and research. It is supposed to be a university, not a personal fiefdom for Ron Vaughn and “Lucky” McNew to make ruinous, arbitrary decisions and pick up their ridiculous salaries.
Time to stop paying Ivy League prices for a community college education.
The loss of Professor Beckman was a big down fall to UT, and now that all this is coming to life, there sure will be a shift in student sentiment and the willingness to attend UT
I love Chipouras, he’s an awesome and intelligent guy, but I’m concerned with how dismissive he is of the issue between administration and faculty. As a student, I see or hear of stupid, arbitrary things the administration gets away with almost daily – I can’t imagine what must be circulating within the staff. Of course, the journalists have no way of ascertaining both sides of the story completely, but I believe that if one or two faculty members are this unhappy then there must be others frustrated with the direction the University is going.
I’ve had a lot of bad stuff to say about the Minaret since leaving the office but you guys have pulled it back together. Great piece. Vintage Victor, Steve, and Peter work.
First we lost Prof. Beckman, and now we are losing Prof. Madden? This is a sad time for students who wish to really learn law and criminology.