From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part V)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 20:57:11 GMT


Appendix 4

CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY         DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

November 18, 1991

TO:       Dr. M. N. S. Swamy, Chairman, Faculty Personnel Committee
          Faculty of Engineering & Computer Science
FROM:     M. O. M. Osman, Chairman, Department of Mechanical
          Engineering

            Re:  Reappointment of Dr. V. I. Fabrikant

I am forwarding to you the dossier of Dr. V. I. Fabrikant submitted
by him for consideration for reappointment.  I am also attaching
the reasoned report containing the recommendation of the Department
Personnel Committee.

encls
cc:  Dr. V. I. Fabrikant
     Members of Department Personnel Committee



CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY         DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

      Department Personnel Committee (DPC) Reasoned Report
        on its Recommendation concerning Reappointment of
                       Dr. V. I. Fabrikant
Preamble:

Prior to June 1990, Dr. V. I. Fabrikant was a Research Associate
Professor hired under the program d'actions structurantes with
research as his main workload.  Upon the successful completion of
d'actions structurantes program, the DPC made a positive
recommendation concerning the appointment of Dr. V. I. Fabrikant to
a tenure track position at the rank of Associate Professor,
effective l June 1990.  The DPC's recommendation was based mainly
on Dr. Fabrikant's research performance and a limited component of
teaching.  Despite this recommendation and the fact that his
previous contract of 1988 entitled him to use all his years of
service at the university towards tenure consideration, the Vice-
Rector Academic made an offer of probationary appointment with a
condition that he would be eligible for tenure consideration only
after three years of service from l June 1990.  Our interpretation
of his contract is that Dr. Fabrikant's appointment as an Associate
Professor was a new appointment because the contract stated that he
was only eligible for tenure after 3 years, meaning that his
previous years of academic service in the University would not be
counted.  The fact that he applied for a Faculty Research
Development Program (FRDP) grant as a new faculty researcher,
confirms that he also understood that his appointment was a new
appointment.  In accepting the 1990 offer of appointment, Dr.
Fabrikant compromised on his original demands and accepted the
offer which included this major change in the condition of tenure
eligibility.

Since the time Dr. Fabrikant began his association with Concordia
University, many members of the university community have been
subjected to his allegations, offensive actions and disruptive
behavior which interfered with the normal operation of their work,
details of which are elaborated on in other parts of this report. 
Further, from the time of his probationary appointment, Dr.
Fabrikant has shown a pattern of repeated attempts to evade his
teaching responsibilities, the details of which are also presented
later.

When Dr. Fabrikant was appointed in June 1990, the DPC had made its
recommendation on his previous performance which was mainly his
research activity.  At this time of considering Dr. Fabrikant's
contract renewal, the DPC is assessing Dr. Fabrikant as an
educator.  It should be noted that the membership of the DPC at
this time of contract renewal is the same as the membership which
made the recommendation for Dr. Fabrikant's initial probationary
appointment in June 1990.

          ASSESSMENT OF DR. FABRIKANT'S PERFORMANCE FOR
                  HIS REAPPOINTMENT APPLICATION

For the purpose of reappointment, the DPC assessed Dr. Fabrikant as
per the collective agreement under Article 14 "Reappointment and
Promotion of Faculty."

In light of the preamble outlined above, the DPC made its
assessment based mainly on Article 14.01 and in particular on the
second paragraph which states, "The evaluation of full-time faculty
shall be based upon the consideration of professional competence
and potential for fulfilling academic responsibilities as defined
in Article 16."

Herein Dr. Fabrikant's professional competence and potential for
fulfilling academic responsibilities will be examined in detail as
follows:

l.  Professional Competence:

While the professional competence of a professor not only includes
his (her) capacity to teach and to carry out research activities,
it also has bearing on his (her) ethical and moral conduct, his
(her) professionalism as an academic/educator, his (her) role model
for students to emulate, and his (her) ability to gain respect from
students, colleagues and the public.  Peer judgment is the tool
with which these qualities are assessed, and the lack of these
qualities, especially if they interfere with the performance of
other members of the University and with the department in
achieving its objectives cannot be tolerated and must be seriously
taken into consideration in evaluating professional competence.

Over the past several years, Dr. Fabrikant has constantly made
allegations and harassments to many members of the University
community.  The details of these are outlined as follows:

1.   A letter from the then Chairman of the Department of
     Mechanical Engineering to the then Vice-Rector Academic both
     of whom indicated certain questionable and implied individual
     behavior patterns of Dr. Fabrikant.  (Exhibit #1).

2.   Correspondence relating to Dr. V. Fabrikant and Manager,
     Purchasing Services.  (Exhibit #2.1, 2.2).

3.   Additional correspondence related to the said letter in item
     2.  (Exhibits #3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and #4).

4.   Many persons inside and outside the university have been
     subjected to harassment, threats, blackmail and allegations by
     Dr. Fabrikant.  Many of the above persons can testify to this
     statement.

5.   Most recently, on October 14, 1991, Dr. Fabrikant wrote a
     letter in which he accused a faculty member of using grant
     funds to pay someone else to teach his assigned course. 
     (Exhibit #5.1, 5.2, 5.3).  The faculty member concerned wrote
     a letter indicating that Dr. Fabrikant lied and has committed
     slander (Exhibit #6.1, 6.2).

In addition to the above, Dr. Fabrikant constantly showed bad
judgment.  Following is one example (Exhibit #7).  Dr. Fabrikant
wrote a letter dated October 2, 1991 to the Chairman of the
Department in which he requested to purchase release from teaching
duties, (2 courses in Dynamics for the next semester) using the
FRDP grant he recently received from the university.  Upon receipt
of Dr. Fabrikant's letter of October 2, 1991, the Chairman of the
department telephoned Dr. Fabrikant and advised him to withdraw the
letter since it would reflect bad judgment on his part.  Dr.
Fabrikant replied "Are you trying to scare me?  I am not scared. 
I wrote a letter, and I want a written reply".  Later, he insisted
again and again for an apology and continued to challenge the
interpretation of the Chairman.

Dr. Fabrikant, in his continual arguments to purchase release from
teaching, wrote a memo on October 14, 1991 (Exhibit #5.1, 5.2,
5.3).  This memo contained an unfounded accusation of a faculty
member paying another person from his grant to teach a course
assigned to him.  Further, the memo was circulated to some members
of the department without any identification of circulator.  Part
of this anonymously circulated material included a confidential
memo from the Chairman to Dr. Fabrikant (Exhibit #8).  Because of
the nature of the content of the memo from Dr. Fabrikant (Exhibit
#5.1, 5.2, 5.3), and the circumstances under which this memo was
circulated, the Chairman convened a meeting (Exhibit #9) of senior
faculty members on October 25, 1991 to discuss the content of Dr.
Fabrikant's memo (Exhibit #5.1, 5.2, 5.3).

The DPC's observation of the pattern of behavior of Dr. Fabrikant
outlined above, was confirmed by a part of the motions passed in
the meeting of the senior faculty members of the department on
October 25, 1991 (Exhibit #10.1, 10.2, 10.3), which states:

     ". . . we perceive Dr. Fabrikant's attitude as expressed in
     his . . . letter to be detrimental to the . . . spirit of
     harmonious relationship between department members."

     "Therefore, we strongly urge the department and the university
     to stand up to such practices and to take appropriate action."

Many respected and important people from outside the University
have also been disturbed by Dr. Fabrikant's behavior.  This has
tarnished the reputation of the University.  This has also
interfered with the objective of the department and of the
University in projecting its image of professionalism to the
outside community.

Dr. Fabrikant has maintained that he held professorial positions in
the Soviet Union and that he was unable to get any official
documents to support his claim due to the political situation that
prevailed there all those years.  Considering his lack of
professional competence described above, it is of paramount
importance that Dr. Fabrikant provide proof of his professorial
positions in the U.S.S.R. and his academic credentials, especially
his Ph.D. degree certificate.

2.  Potential for fulfilling academic responsibilities:

After considerable deliberations on Dr. Fabrikant's teaching,
research, and other activities as it would be for any other
professor holding a probationary appointment, the DPC focused on
Dr. Fabrikant's potential for fulfilling academic responsibilities
as per Article 16 of the Collective Agreement, and, in particular
to teaching.

Since the initial probationary appointment, Dr. Fabrikant has
demonstrated lack of interest in carrying out his teaching
responsibilities including engagement in, promotion and enhancement
of the on-going process of curricula development of the department.

Continuous attempts to evade teaching responsibilities are
illustrated below:

a)     Continuous arguments for eligibility for sabbatical leave
although he has been told repeatedly that he is not eligible.

b)     Demand for teaching load reduction to concentrate only on
research despite the Chairman's continual reminders to him of his
teaching responsibility.  The Chairman has repeatedly emphasized to
him that teaching is a very important responsibility of a professor
and that he should not consider teaching as a hindrance to his
academic pursuits.

c)     When he was unsuccessful in persuading the Chairman to
reduce his teaching load, Dr. Fabrikant produced an undated memo
(Exhibit #11), received at the Chairman's office on May 17, 1991,
indicating that a Laboratory for Materials & Structures of Civil
Engineering in France had offered him a visiting research position
with a salary of approximately $4500.00/month.  Dr. Fabrikant
requested a paid leave for four months (Sept. 91-Dec. 91).  The
Chairman denied his request but recommended that he could make
arrangements to go to France in the summer (Exhibit #12).  The
Chairman also suggested to Dr. Fabrikant, if he so wished, that he
could take an unpaid leave.  However, Dr. Fabrikant insisted that
only a paid leave was acceptable, and this was refused by the
Chairman.

d)     In order to help ease Dr. Fabrikant's teaching load, the
Chairman made considerations and assigned Dr. Fabrikant two
sections of the same course "Dynamics" for Winter Term 91, instead
of two different courses.  In spite of such considerations,
however, on October 2, 1991, Dr. Fabrikant wrote a memo to the
Chairman requesting to purchase release from teaching these courses
with his FRDP grant (Exhibit #7).  Upon receipt of this memo, the
Chairman told him that this is unacceptable and if it were
possible, every professor in the department could purchase release
time from their courses even with money from their own pockets. 
The Chairman also reminded Dr. Fabrikant about Dr. Stuart Smith's
recent report on teaching where it was lamented how many professors
neglect the importance of teaching while placing too much emphasis
on research.  The reply of Dr. Fabrikant to the Chairman was "Are
you trying to scare me?  I am not scared.  I wrote a letter and I
want a written reply."  The Chairman was stunned at this abnormal
and illogical reply reflecting bad judgment, especially when Dr.
Fabrikant did compromise at the time of his initial probationary
appointment with respect to the change in the condition of his
tenure eligibility.

e)     In spite of the Chairman's request through his memos
(Exhibits #13, #14.1, and #14.2) to Dr. Fabrikant requesting him to
supply further clarifications related to his teaching and to his
research activity supporting the research focus of CONCAVE
(Concordia Computer Aided Vehicle Engineering) Research Center as
stated in his contract, Dr. Fabrikant did not respond to these
memos within the given deadline.  However, in another memo to the
Chairman (Exhibit #15.1, 15.2), on a different subject, he
described those requests in exhibits #14.1 and #14.2 as "strange
letters", and then he presented his arguments in an incoherent and
illogical manner.

f)     At a meeting on October 25, 1991, the senior faculty members
of the department made a motion (Exhibit #10) which contained the
following statement

          "We perceive the spirit of Dr. Fabrikant's above
          mentioned letter (letter dated October 14, 1991) as being
          idle arguments intended to justify his shirking of
          academic responsibilities, especially with reference to
          purchasing release of teaching time and his eligibility
          for sabbatical"

Based upon the above considerations, and after 8 meetings on
October 17, 25, 28, 30, November 4, 8, 13 and 14, 1991, lasting a
total of over 30 hours of extensive deliberations, the DPC made and
voted by secret ballot on the following motions:

Motion 1:
Dr. V. I. Fabrikant be recommended for a two year appointment from
June 1, 1992 until May 3l, 1994.
     Motion was defeated unanimously.

Motion 2:
Dr. V. I. Fabrikant be recommended for a one year appointment from
June l, 1992 until May 31, 1993.
     Motion was defeated unanimously.

Motion 3:
Dr. V. I. Fabrikant not be reappointed as of l June 1992.
     Motion passed unanimously.


S. Sankar, Chairman                Mo. O. M. Osman, Chairman
Department Personnel Committee     Dept. Mechanical Engineering

S. V. Hoa, Member                  S. Lin, Member
Department Personnel Committee     Department Personnel Committee

cc:  Dr. V. I. Fabrikant
     Members of DPC
     DPC File

Newsgroups: sci.research.careers