November 27, 2005

I was surprised by the lack of balance and context in the story headlined "University fires charter critic" in the Nov. 17 edition of the Daily Progress, and the implication that the University took a personnel action in reaction to an employee's expression of her views, rather than in reaction to her conduct. There were three key errors of omission in the story -- things I discussed with the reporter, but none of which was included in it. All would have given your readers a deeper understanding of the larger picture.

1. Facts of the dismissal. While it is true that state law prohibits my disclosing the specific details related to personnel actions, I discussed with the reporter how the process works. Employees subject to dismissal receive a written explanation of why they have been dismissed; they also have access to the University's grievance procedure and also to the state's. And employees have the right to disclose this information. Your reporter could have requested the document from the individual in question before rushing to publication, but instead, it appears the Progress elected to base its report on hearsay alone.

To think that the University, as an employer that is subject to all of the legal and procedural remedies that the state and we afford to employees, would dismiss an employee for simply expressing a contrary opinion is naïve. The University's record speaks for itself - terminations are rare and only in the case of serious offenses. Serious reflection and careful investigation precede any personnel action, as they did in this instance.

Your story contained no reference to this contextual information.

2. Was this person acting as a representative of the University? As I told the reporter, personal e-mail exchanges are an accepted part of everyday business life. But e-mail representing itself as official University communication differs profoundly from e-mail sent and clearly represented as an individual's personal communication. At least one staff member who received the original e-mail believed it to be an official University message, and accordingly he forwarded it to all staff in the College of Arts and Sciences.

When this recipient learned that the message was a misrepresentation - and not University business -- he quickly sent an apology to his colleagues, along with an additional e-mail correction of some of the misinformation contained in the original e-mail.

His message read, in part: " . . .Had these documents not come under the pretense of Human Resources, I would not have forwarded them without further investigation. Please accept my apologies for any confusion and anxiety the e-mail distributed last week may have caused."

Your reporter had both of these e-mails, but referenced neither in the story. The decision to omit this critical information is troubling in that your readers are being given only half-truths.

3. The University's openness to discussion on Restructuring, a new partnership between higher education and the Commonwealth. I reminded your reporter of how the University welcomed employee input on the Higher Education Restructuring Act, and that U.Va. held six highly publicized employee briefings -- more than any other university in the state -- between September and November 2004 in order to listen to employee concerns. These sessions, all of which were open to the public and continue to be accessible via audio and videotape on the University's Web site, were well attended and included healthy -- and often heated -- debate on the issues. We took the concerns of our employees seriously, and they helped to shape the final legislation submitted to the General Assembly.

Again, no reference to this in the story. And again, your readers are left with more questions than answers, and wondering what the real story is.

While I understand the deadline pressures the staff of a newspaper faces on a daily basis, I would have expected more care and sensitivity from Daily Progress reporters and editors when dealing with an issue as complex and sensitive as an individual's livelihood. This is a story that deserved more thorough reporting in an effort to represent all sides.

With regards, 


Carol Wood
assistant vice president for University Relations