Is this is a new function of the BOT?

New language: specifies that the grievance. The grievance "must allege that the decision was in violation of a right or privilege based on federal or state law, UNC Policy or Regulation, university policies or regulations, and that the faculty member was negatively affected by such a decision."

New language excludes grievances related to "disputes between faculty colleagues; between faculty and staff; between faculty and students"; and regarding decisions that don't "directly affect" the faculty member's employment, teaching loads/assignments, or resource decisions other than compensation."

Additions: 1. failure to respond to communications from supervisors; 2. failure to report to their assignment (or continuing to be absent for more than 14 days unexcused); (All only relevant if they clearly impair the faculty member's ability to perform essential duties.)

What's the deal here? (Ask if this means that "personal malice" is now a permissible grounds for denial of PTR.) What's the effect, and how is it operationalized?

WHOSE "malice" toward WHOM? Does this refer to the malice of the candidate or the malice of others toward the candidate?

See p. 61 of (https://www2.ecu.edu/facultysenate/fsagenda/2023/part12_draft_agendaprep.pdf)

Doesn't this deletion remove a legitimate method of recourse for a faculty member who has not only been found innocent of a charged harassment violation, but has suffered a "hostile work environment" or other harm resulting from the charge?

Does our appeals process offer this faculty member any recourse, using the normal appellate procedure, OR does this deletion specifically eliminate recourse that would otherwise be available?

true, but…thin on substance? These two modifiers are dazzlers: they amplify but don't precisely characterize the problem. What precise idea do you mean to advance with each? "Massive" suggests that you're talking about the scale of the problem. But on what measure: its financial scale, its geographic scale, its moral scale, the scale of its specific harms to NC ecosystems? "Overwhelming" characterizes not the size of the problem, but humans' affective or attitudinal or perceptual response to the problem. So it's a very different category of qualification. But it too could be taken in several different ways: do you mean that each individual reader/potential responder to this problem feels unequipped to respond to it? Ill-equipped even to grasp it? Or are you claiming that as a group, we (humans, or North Carolinians, or people interested in gardening or the environment) struggle to grasp it, or are demoralized in the face of it? (I hope you see what I mean when I suggest that each of these terms is all heat but no light.)