DATE: March 2, 1999

Recently, several faculty received a stapled packet containing three items - 1) a copy of a letter that I sent to John Bonnell, in which I explained why the Union did not support his request to grieve two actions of the administration; 2) a copy of a letter purported to be from John to me (No such letter has. been sent to me, so I cannot authenticate the author, the content, or the purpose of this "letter."); and, 3) a copy of a memo dated March 4, 1998, titled Obscene and Vulgar Speech. This material was not distributed by MCCFO. In fact, I found a copy of the packet in my academic mailbox. I do not know who put it there nor why it was distributed in such a manner.
 
There has been considerable publicity and discussion related to the student complaint mentioned in the material. Rumor, gossip, and misinformation have been wide spread. As a result, several members are confused and have asked why the Union has not publicized its involvement, its deliberations, or its findings. There are two reasons. First, the contract requires that care must be taken to preserve confidentiality during the entire student complaint process. Second, it has been the practice of the Union to keep confidential the names of faculty who are accused of inappropriate behavior and not to reveal the particulars of any such accusation or any resultant discipline in order to avoid public embarrassment. Unfortunately, the actions of others have dramatically changed the situation for this particular case. There is no more confidentiality to preserve other than the name of the student who originally submitted the complaint.
 
Here are the facts:
1. A student submitted a written complaint alleging that vulgar, offensive language was used by John Bonnell in one of his composition classes.
2. As a result of its investigation of the complaint, the administration disciplined John by imposing a three-day suspension for having violated Board policy. John had Union representation throughout the complaint process. Indeed, because of the serious nature of the allegations and their possible connection to external law regarding sexual harassment,
MCCFO's attorney was not only consulted but was asked to be present representing John and MCCFO in the proceedings.
3. The administration also gave John a privacy directive which barred him from discussing the case with his students.
4. John petitioned the MCCFO Senate to file two grievances - one against the three-day suspension and another against the privacy directive.
5. The Senate, with our attorney, met with John in private to honor our confidentiality obligation and practice. After hearing the facts and consulting our attorney on the relevant law, the Senate decided not to support either of the two requests to grieve. A letter was sent to John. It explained that the Union's decision was based primarily on the opinion that the actions of the administration did not violate our contract. The letter was intended to be confidential and for John only, but, as mentioned above, has been publicly distributed. The contents of the letter need no further explanation.
6. Subsequent to the privacy directive, the administration imposed an indefinite suspension, with pay and benefits, while it is conducting an investigation of some activities that followed the three day suspension and privacy directive.
7. The Union is monitoring the current suspension and is providing John with MCCFO representation during the investigative stages. So far there have been three postponements in scheduling a hearing - one requested by MCCFO because our attorney was not available and two requested by outside attorneys who have been hired by John. The hearing is rescheduled for March 11.
 
I assure you that MCCFO has been fulfilling its responsibility to give fair representation to John Bonnell. In response to the stapled packet being distributed, I see no benefit in becoming involved in a public debate in which the Union is accused of errors, inaccuracies, and siding with the administration against one of our members. Our record should speak for itself. Disagreement does not mean personal hostility. We have seen enough of publicized one-sided semantic arguments, inflated rhetoric, and opinionated lecturing on contract provisions and constitutional rights. It is my opinion that such activities undermine the Union as an institution and show disregard for the interests of the Union.