Prof Sarah Alyn-Stacey and Chair of the Fellows Cliona O’Farrelly have clashed over a petition that called for Alyn-Stacey to be allowed to run for Provost, after the interview committee deemed her ineligible to run.
O’Farrelly emailed the Fellows on February 12th – after the petition was circulated to them – saying that “to the best of my knowledge” the procedures for the elections “are being followed appropriately”.
“In summary”, she added, “the procedures laid out in the Statutes have been followed; the Appeals Committee and Visitors have upheld the decision of the Interview Committee. There is no other provision in the Statutes to have the decision of the Interview Committee reversed”.
Earlier this month, Alyn-Stacey was deemed ineligible to stand in the Provost election, with the Interview Committee saying she did not meet two of the three criteria required.
But in a statement to her nominators at the time – seen by The University Times – Alyn-Stacey alleged that the interview committee and HR “took it upon themselves to apply a different test from the statutorily-mandated prima facie test”.
“The procedures laid out in the Statutes have been followed”, O’Farrelly wrote. “The Appeals Committee and Visitors have upheld the decision of the Interview Committee. There is no other provision in the Statutes to have the decision of the Interview Committee reversed.”
In an email circulated to Fellows this afternoon, Alyn-Stacey said: “In the light of the Chair’s public statement, I find myself bound to engage publicly with this matter.”
“It is true that the interview committee determines whether an applicant meets the criteria for candidature. However it must fairly apply the criteria set out in the statutes”, she said.
“Contrary to what is stated in the Chair’s email the interview committee did not apply the criteria set out in the statutes. This is no doubt an unwitting error on the part of the Chair.”
“The statutes mandate a prima facie test. In this case the interview committee applied a different test.”
Alyn-Stacey and O’Farrelly both did not provide this newspaper with a comment on the disagreement.
On January 18th, the appeals committee invited Alyn-Stacey to an oral meeting to be held within hours of the invitation. She declined, saying to her nominators that “the short notice and the failure to point up the status of the hearing were not encouraging”.
The appeals committee said that it did not have the power to reverse the interview committee’s decision. The appeals committee added that it had found the “procedures and standards including the rating system and indicators of what is expected under each of the three criteria as outlined in the Interview Guide were fair, consistently applied and in accordance with the Statutes”.
The appeals committee, Alyn-Stacey said, sent her the new criteria, which was “not set down in the Statutes and which neither I, nor Board, nor the election’s Organising Committee or its Steering Committee had seen or approved”, and which did not reference the “prima facie test mandated by the Statutes”.
Alyn-Stacey then made a submission to the Visitors – Trinity’s final decision makers on appeals – regarding the decision, and a hearing was convened. The Visitors rejected her appeal.
Alyn-Stacey said that it was her understanding that HR had been “instrumental in fashioning the rating criteria set down in the ‘Interview Guide’ sent to me by the Appeals Committee on 25 January and not approved by Board, the election’s Organising Committee, and Steering Committee”.
In an email statement to The University Times after Alyn-Stacey’s disqualification was reported, Molloy said: “While it would be wrong to comment on any individual application, the University is completely satisfied that the process meets the necessary criteria.”
“The steering committee, appointed by the Board under the statutes and which is chaired by the Registrar, has closely scrutinised the process on behalf of college to ensure that the process is transparent, fair and fully compliant with the college statutes.”
“The process as laid down in the statutes includes an interview committee appointed by the Board. The interview committee conducted the process in accordance with the statutes. Candidates may appeal a decision of the interview committee to the appeals committee, also appointed by the Board.”
“Under the statutes, candidates may also take a case to the Visitors: the Chancellor Dr Mary McAleese and the Judicial Visitor, Judge George Birmingham.”
“Finally, HR’s expertise in managing senior appointments was naturally used in the process to ensure that the criteria listed in the statutes was reflected in the interview process.”
Cormac Watson also contributed reporting to this piece.
