4. A major exception has come with the emergence of conciliation negotiations of the faculty and the resulting collective agreements, with institutions such as USF and others that form the Florida State University system for the resolution of disputes through arbitration. In these cases, the arbitration procedure is used to determine the adequacy of the case rather than an adjudicative hearing before a faculty hearing body, as required by the 1958 declaration. See atheUp`s 1983 report, “Arbitration in Cases of Dismissal,” Policy Documents and Reports, 9th ed. (Washington, D.C: American Association of University Professors, 2001), 92-93. The USF-UFF collective agreement invited faculty members to “indicate, if necessary, that one is not an institutional representative.” The fact that the standards of sound academic practice might require such an assertion would generally be the exceptional case in which role confusions might occur otherwise, i.e., one could be considered a “spokesperson” or “representative” of any kind. There was certainly no such probability here. The intention of the parties in exercising their responsibility to negotiate the terms of employment of the members of the bargaining unit is to promote the quality and effectiveness of education at the FAU and to maintain high standards of academic excellence at all stages of teaching, research and service. The parties consider that these objectives are facilitated by an amicable adjustment of issues of mutual interest. The parties recognize that the mutual benefits must be derived from the continuous improvement of mowing and that the involvement of teachers and technical staff in formulating the policies in which they provide their services is from a good educational point of view. Under the provisions of the 1958 declaration, two steps must be taken before the charges that constitute grounds for the proposed dismissal are decided and communicated to the faculty member whose suitability to prosecute is called into question. The USF-United Faculty of Florida collective agreement did not require these steps, but it does not appear to have ruled out that they were taken. The first is that the appropriate directors discuss the matter with the faculty member to explore the possibility of an out-of-court settlement.
No such discussion appears to have been attempted with Professor Al-Arian; he did not receive advance notice of the lawsuit against him. If the first step does not lead to an adaptation, the second step is to seek the advice of the administration by an elected faculty committee, which examines the situation informally, examines the possibility of accommodation and, if it does not, decide whether to initiate a formal procedure.5 It is only after consultation with this faculty advisory committee that the administration should proceed with the administration. , with or without the committee`s consent. to take further action. In January 1996, the USF retained William Reese Smith Jr,, a former president of the American Bar Association, to investigate the agreements between USF and WISE.
