February 28, 2008
Dr. Brown:
The Hoffeditz Grievance Investigation Panel (GIP) has completed its investigation, which has
included two hearings each of Drs. Milliman and Hoffeditz. Please find attached the final
assessment of our deliberations of this case.
The Faculty Handbook stipulates that, “The disposition of the grievance by the panel will take
the form of findings of fact and conclusions and a recommended disposition to the President and
will be issued (15) working days after completion of the hearing” (p. 76). The GIP officially
completed the hearing of witnesses on Feb 13, 2008.
In order to adhere to the instructions of the Faculty Handbook as well as to carry out the task with
which you charged us in August of 2007, we have ordered our evaluation according to (1)
findings of fact, (2) conclusions, and (3) disposition.
The findings of fact and conclusions represent the unanimous consensus of all five members of
the GIP.
Dr. Chuck Dolph, Chair
Dr. Kevin Heath
Dr. Tom Mach
Dr. Diane Merchant
Dr. Bob Parr
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Faculty Handbook does not provide for a specific, consistent protocol for the
severance of a tenured faculty member before severance occurs.
2. The faculty is responsible to meet some standards that are not in the Faculty Handbook.
The governing documents and requirements for faculty are scattered in different sites and
documents, some of which do not pertain to faculty.
3. The Faculty Handbook provides for a grievance process which is sparsely discussed. The
University attorney has had significant influence on the process designed by the GIP. The
dual role of the University attorney, serving as counsel to both the University and the
GIP, gives rise to conflict of interest concerns for the GIP.
4. The University’s documents do not directly define “collegiality.”
5. Dr. Hoffeditz received positive recommendations in his tenure review letters. Tenure
policy was amended by the Board of Trustees in its interview with Dr. Hoffeditz. There
is no provision in the Faculty Handbook for delaying a tenure decision or for meeting a
second time with the Board. The Faculty Handbook specifies that the Board of Trustees
“Within fourteen calendar days … through the Academic Vice President, shall provide an
eligible tenure-track faculty member with five or more years of probationary service a
definite written statement as to whether or not tenure has been granted” (p 43).
6. Dr. Hoffeditz experienced extraordinary difficulty in receiving tenure from his
department and in receiving tenure from the Board of Trustees.
7. There was no written documentation of any communication between Dr. Hoffeditz and
Dr. Milliman, the Board of Trustees, or any administrator/supervisor, prior to termination.
The administration did not issue written reprimands, warnings, or plans of correction.
The Faculty Handbook neither authorizes nor prohibits interventions. But the University
asserts on its webpage that “The recent personnel actions come only after every other
option has been exhausted.”
8. Dr. Hoffeditz expressed that once he was tenured and promoted that the issue was settled.
When combined with reassuring comments of his chair and dean, the absence of face-toface
confrontation with the Academic Vice President over the course of 16 months, and
two additional contracts plus a pay raise, he concluded that he was secure.
9. The administrative chain of command and channels of communication were not sound.
As the situation developed, Dr. Milliman grew increasingly distrustful of his Dean and
Chair of the Bible Department.
10. Over a two-year period, Dr. Hoffeditz received mixed messages about the security of his
employment at CU from the administration and the Board of Trustees.
11. Often the testimonies of Dr. Milliman and Dr. Hoffeditz did not agree with one another
and sometimes they directly contradicted one another in their accounts of the same
incident.
12. The University alleges that Dr Hoffeditz “advocated a position contrary to the
University’s Doctrinal Statement,” but the GIP concludes that Dr. Hoffeditz did not
violate the University Doctrinal Statement nor did he deny any specific points in the
doctrinal statement. The GIP understands the University position to be that Dr. Hoffeditz
insisted that his colleagues adhere to doctrinal positions that are not in the doctrinal
statement and in so doing he promotes a departure from the Doctrinal Statement.
13. Uncorroborated, single-witness testimony has been submitted to the GIP as evidence in
support of the University’s termination of Dr. Hoffeditz. The University provided no
witnesses and relatively little direct evidence in the form of signed statements. The GIP
invited two Trustees as witnesses, but they declined to appear.
14. Assuming that testimony accounts are accurate, Dr. Hoffeditz has inappropriately
criticized University policy and fellow faculty by going outside designated channels for
the registering of his concerns.
15. The University gathered information to sever Dr. Hoffeditz but did not confront him with
it or give him an opportunity to respond or to file a pre-severance grievance, according to
the Faculty Handbook XIX, E, “Procedure for Handling a Grievance” (pp. 75-76.)
16. Dr. Hoffeditz overstated his case in some instances and could have been more forthright
in his presentation.
17. Personnel matters are always confidential, yet there is an alleged breach of security
regarding a leak of privileged information regarding the awarding of a new contract to Dr.
Hoffeditz.
18. In respect to employee conflict, discipline, and severance issues, the University’s
Associate Vice President for Human Resources assumes an active leadership role for staff
personnel but not for faculty.
19. The University made a request for information that would have compelled the GIP to
violate its own rules and procedures which were acknowledged three months previously
by both parties.
GIP CONCLUSIONS
The members of the Grievance Investigation Panel (GIP) have grieved as we have sorted through
the morass of issues raised in this investigation. The Hoffeditz case is as unflattering as it is
complex. It is situated in a unique period of turbulence at Cedarville University and was given
root by a Bible department unable to resolve its longstanding interpersonal and philosophical
differences, essentially forcing a young administration to commandeer a thorny, multidimensional
problem in order to solve it.
The case has had a debilitating effect on the CU community and threatens to keep the institution
on a collision course with itself for the foreseeable future: due in part to the adversarial nature of
the grievance process neither side will admit wrongdoing. Therefore no one pursues
reconciliation and the GIP must choose between two erring parties. The nature of this
unresolved conflict reflects poorly upon the University, upon the parties involved, and upon the
name and honor of Christ. In this particular case, a Christ-centered community we are not.
The GIP agrees that the Faculty Handbook does nothing to provide the University with a protocol
by which patience, kindness, mercy, and a quality of order and accord might be maximized
before, during, or after a faculty severance case. This may be the most serious deficiency
illuminated by the case: that the University risks failing to fulfill the higher law if its governing
documents do not prescribe policies and procedures that clearly, systematically articulate how
followers of Christ are to manage, resolve, or conclude conflict in a manner that brings honor to
God, preserves organizational health, and maintains the professional integrity of the University.
Likewise, the GIP believes that the University must reconsider the position of the Associate Vice
President for Human Resources so that it aligns with current best practices in higher education
and ensures that this important role is taken full advantage of. A Vice President for Human
Resources should be the key asset in unifying policy, in norming managerial practice, and in
adjudicating grievance proceedings for all employees of the University.
In conclusion, the GIP believes that both parties have at times acted uncharitably and
unprofessionally, to what degree and as a basis for what conclusion has been the crux of our
individual decisions regarding the case. There are those of us who contend that, regarding its
actions toward Dr. Hoffeditz, the University administration gave sufficient warning, had
sufficient evidence, and acted in compliance with the guidelines of the Handbook. There are
those of us who contend that the institution betrayed its core values in the management of Dr.
Hoffeditz and by presenting a case based on scant documentation that went “over the top” in
making ungrounded allegations and vilifying the adversary.
DISPOSITION
In a split decision the GIP is disposed to find for Dr. HoffeditzP report, click here

Completed by representative faculty from the University