"All the details of our deliberations are inthe letter," she said.
The Docket Committee also addressed Berkowitz'sallegation that Thompson, with whom Berkowitz hasclashed on matters of scholarship, might haveexercised undue influence in his tenure review.This claim is based on two conditions ofThompson's position at the University.
First, according to Berkowitz, the potentialfor procedural impropriety in his tenure reviewarose from Thompson's serving both as a governmentdepartment Faculty member-and thus as a collegialreviewer of Berkowitz's candidacy-and in anadministrative capacity at the University.
Second, Berkowitz stated in his grievance,Thompson compromised his review because he is thehusband of Associate Dean for Academic AffairsCarol J. Thompson, whose duties includeadministrative functions related to Facultyappointments.
"We are not aware of any published rule thatrequires a member of a departmental faculty whoalso holds an official position in the Universityto excuse himself or herself from the obligationimposed on members of a department to expresstheir views regarding tenure candidates in theirdepartment," the elected members said in theirletter.
They also rejected Berkowitz's claim thatThompson's spousal relationship with the associatedean-someone over whom the associate provost couldexercise authority, according toBerkowitz-violates the University's publishedSexual Harassment and Unprofessional ConductGuidelines in FAS.
In his response, Berkowitz reiterated thecharge stated in his original grievance filingthat the associate provost's "multiple andfar-ranging tasks" created a conflict of interestfor Thompson in the tenure review of a colleaguewhose promotion he opposed.
In addition to providing Berkowitz with anexplanation of their dismissal of his complaint,the elected members stated in their letter thatthey had conducted an investigation of thefunction and jurisdiction of their committee.
"We are told that your written formal grievanceappears to be the first one ever presented to theelected members under the Guidelines," the electedmembers said.
They said they therefore relied on "independentlegal counsel."
Berkowitz first learned that the DocketCommittee had retained an outside attorney whenSecretary of the Faculty John B. Fox Jr. '59 senthim an e-mail message in early May. Berkowitz saidhe was surprised to see that the message had been"c.ed" to Jeffrey P. Swope '67 of the Boston lawfirm Palmer & Dodge.
Some members of the Berkowitz camp said theybelieve attorneys produced the Docket Committee'sletter.
"It is clearly a document that was long inpreparation, and it was prepared with a highdegree of professionalism," Nesson said. "It waswritten by a lawyer."
Nesson, a lawyer himself, also expressedconcern about the precedent set by the DocketCommittee in their dismissal. He and anotherFaculty member who wished to remain anonymous bothsuggested that the committee might block futuregrievances from receiving a fair hearing.
Fox, however, offered a differentinterpretation. Explaining why this was the firsttime a Docket Committee had evaluated a formalcomplaint under the FAS Guidelines, the secretarycalled the procedures that Berkowitz followed "alast resort."
"Within the Faculty," Fox said, "there are somany ways to discuss these things that theyordinarily get resolved long before anybody looksup these procedures, much less actually usesthem.