GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE
SPECIAL MEETING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE FACULTY HANDBOOK
March 23, 2011
Robinson Hall B113, 3:00 – 4:15 p.m.
Senators Present: Heibatollah Baghi, Jim Bennett, Alok Berry, John Cantiello, Rick Coffinberger, Jose Cortina, Daniel Garrison, Margret Hjalmarson, Mark Houck, Dan Joyce, Howard Kurtz, Adam Mossoff, Star Muir, Peter Pober, Pierre Rodgers, Jim Sanford, Joe Scimecca, Suzanne Slayden, Ray Sommer, June Tangney, Susan Trencher, Nigel Waters, Harry Wechsler, Phil Wiest, Stanley Zoltek.
Senators Absent: Ernest Barreto, Sheryl Beach, Doris Bitler, Jack Censer, Vikas Chandhoke, Lloyd Cohen, Maggie Daniels, Nicole Darnall, Yvonne Demory, Betsy DeMulder, Robert Dudley, Kelly Dunne, Mark Ginsberg, Jack Goldstone, Lloyd Griffiths, Jorge Haddock, Frances Harbour, Susan Hirsch, Dimitrios Ioannou, David Kuebrich, Alan Merten, Linda Monson, Jean Moore, Janette Muir, James Olds, Paula Petrik, Frank Philpot, Daniel Polsby, William Reeder, Earle Reybold, Edward Rhodes, Suzanne Scott, Thomas Speller, Peter Stearns, Eva Thorp, Shirley Travis, Iosif Vaisman, John Zenelis.
Visitors Present: Deborah Boehm-Davis, Professor and Chair, Psychology; Dolores Gomez-Roman, University Ombudsman; Renate Guilford, Assistant Provost, Enrollment Planning and Administration; Heather Groves Hannan, Chair, Librarians’ Council; LeRoy LaFleur, Vice Chair, Librarians’ Council; Michelle Lim, Human Resources Faculty Liaison; Sharon Pitt, Executive Director, DOIT; Linda Schwartzstein, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs/Vice President for Enrollment Services; Brian Walther, Senior Associate University Counsel.
Note: Only business included in the agenda can be transacted at the Special Meeting.
I. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 3:07 p.m. No quorum present. Chair of the Senate, Professor Peter Pober noted distribution of notice of President Merten’s retirement, effective June 2012, and Rector Volgenau’s announcement of the creation of an ad hoc (BOV) committee to establish criteria for a presidential search committee. The ad hoc committee’s report is due April 13th, and Professor Pober encouraged the Nominations Committee to be as ready as possible to elect faculty representatives to the search committee as soon as possible once the ad hoc committee report is published. Initial discussions indicated five or six faculty representatives would be elected. Professor Pober confirmed that President Merten’s retirement is a year prior to end of contract, and that Provost Stearns will stay through 2013. Professor Jim Bennett and the Nominations Committee will move forward on the election of faculty representatives to the President’s search committee The meeting was turned over to Professor Rick Coffinberger, Chair of the Faculty Handbook Revision Committee.
II. New Business
That the Faculty Senate approve the proposed changes to the Faculty Handbook with no further revisions at this time other than those necessary to correct typographical and grammatical errors.
[Note: A motion to "refer to the Faculty Handbook Committee with instructions" is in order.]
The purpose of this meeting is to consider the proposed revisions to the Faculty Handbook (2009). The revisions, which are available on the Faculty Senate website (http://www.gmu.edu/resources/facstaff/senate/FacultyHandbook/fac-hndbk-rev-2011.htm ) appear as deletions (strikethrough) and insertions (underlined) to the current text. The new text as it would appear if the revisions are approved is also provided.
This paragraph was included in the background material submitted to the Faculty Senate for its special meeting in Fall, 2008 to approve the Faculty Handbook:
"… Such approval does not mean that future changes cannot be considered from time to time as needed. With modern technology and using the procedures described in the revised Handbook, it is now possible to treat the Handbook as a living, evolving document that can be updated and improved with relative ease on an ongoing basis."
Two groups have been meeting this last year to propose revisions to the Faculty Handbook. One group was convened by Brian Walther, Senior Associate University Counsel, and consisted of representatives from the Provost's Office, Human Resources, and the faculty. The other group was the Faculty Handbook Revision Committee, a University Committee that reports to the Faculty Senate. Each group reviewed the other group's proposed revisions, and the Provost has reviewed and approved all of them.
It remains for the Faculty Senate to approve the changes.
All revisions approved by both the administration and the Faculty Senate will then be submitted to the Board of Visitors for final approval.
Chair of Committee Coffinberger: In Fall 2008 the Senate approved a complete revision of the Faculty Handbook, with the intent that it be a living document.
(A Senator entered and a quorum was in place)
Professor Coffinberger: Last year, the Faculty Senate created a three person committee (Senators Coffinberger, Bennett and Slayden) to look over the Faculty Handbook . On behalf of the administration, Brian Walther of the University Counsel’s Office put together a committee which included Professor Slayden, to look at issues from the administrative side. We endorse the recommendations of both committees. Brian Walther and the Provost have reviewed our recommendations and endorsed them.
Each section will be gone through for comments on whether to endorse or not.
Committee Member Bennett comment: We’ve changed a few dates to make things work better, not a de novo do-over thus sees the suggestions as a clean up rather than any major change.
Brian Walther, University Counsel’s Office: Agreed that this was also his view.
Proposed revisions are set out below page by page. Additional comments/questions are included at the bottom of each template in bold italics.
Purpose of Edit
Clarifies the role of the General Faculty in process of considering a sitting president for reappointment and/or an extension of the term of his or her employment contract.
Clarifies that faculty must have the opportunity to meet with administrators who are considered for reappointment as well as with finalist candidates for the position.
1.2.5 Faculty Participation in the Selection of Certain Members of the Central Administration
The faculty plays a vital role in the appointment and reappointment of senior academic administrators and other leadership positions related to the academic mission of the university.
The Board of Visitors provides for participation on presidential
The President provides for faculty participation on search and reappointment committees for the Provost by faculty who are elected by the General Faculty. The search and selection process must include opportunities for the General Faculty to meet with the Provost or with candidates who are finalists for the Provost position.
The Provost provides for participation on search and reappointment committees for college, school, or institute deans and directors by faculty who are elected from and by the faculty of the college, school, or institute in which the appointment will occur. The search and selection process must include opportunities for the college, school, or institute faculty to meet with the dean /director or with candidates who are finalists for the position.
The Faculty Senate will assist in conducting elections by the General Faculty.
Clarifies that voting members of General Faculty must be full-time.
1.3.1 The General Faculty
The General Faculty participates in governance at the university level. All members of the University community may attend meetings of the General Faculty and participate in the debate of matters that come before it. The voting membership of the General Faculty consists of all faculty who have full-time instructional tenured or tenure-track appointments or who have full-time term instructional, research, or clinical appointments. This terminology replaces such previous terms as “probationary”, “contract”, or “restricted” appointments.
Without relinquishing the generality of its powers, the General Faculty delegates by Charter to the Faculty Senate the responsibility for governance at the university level. Only those faculty who have instructional appointments – tenured, tenure-track, term, or adjunct – may be elected to the Faculty Senate.
The General Faculty is required to meet at least once each semester. Meetings are scheduled by the President of the University, who serves as presiding officer. Additional meetings may be scheduled at the President's discretion. If at least 10% of the voting membership petitions for a called meeting of the General Faculty, the President is obliged to schedule it within thirty days, or within ten days if the purpose of the call is to modify the authority the General Faculty has granted the Faculty Senate, or to reverse specific decisions of the Senate, or to amend the Senate charter.
a) Renumbering: move all of 2.1.6 to be incorporated with 1.3.6
(b) reorganize 1.3.6 into definition of LAU and Primary Affiliation
1.3.6 Definitions of Local Academic Units (LAU) and Primary Affiliation
The term "local academic unit" refers to an academic department or to an academic institute, school, or college without departments. In this Handbook the chief administrative officers of local academic units are generically called "local unit administrators."
Although a faculty member's tenure resides in the University as a whole (see Section 2.1.1), in recognition of disciplinary qualifications and for purposes of governance, tenure-track and tenured faculty are appointed directly and specifically to one or more local academic units. Term faculty are also appointed directly and specifically to one or more local academic units. The status established by such an appointment to a local academic unit is called "primary affiliation." Primary affiliation in one local academic unit does not preclude the possibility of additional part-time or full-time assignments to other local academic units. An appointment to primary affiliation requires the concurrence of the faculty of the local academic unit to which the appointment is to be made and may not be transferred from one local academic unit to another except with the concurrence of the faculty of the unit to which a transfer is proposed.
Senator Question: Does the original academic unit have any say in a person moving to another unit?
Chair of Committee Coffinberger responded that he does not believe the Faculty Handbook addresses it; and does not believe it could be addressed in an administrative fashion.
Senator Comment: Previous experience on this issue suggests that faculty as “commodities” can be shifted to other units as long as there is payment for the contract.
Senator Comment: If I go to a different university, I don’t take my salary to another university.
Chair of Committee Coffinberger: has seen within SOM where folks showed up with a huge salary. Doesn’t know what resolution is – more a trust of administrative colleagues to trust us.
(a) remove URL
(b) Clarify that Center Director appointment need not only be for fixed term
A center is a unit of the University
intended to advance the University's mission of research and/or public
service. Normally housed within a department, college/school or academic
institute, a center does not develop or administer academic degree programs,
nor does it possess instructional faculty appointed to primary affiliation
with it. From time to time, centers with large grants or contracts may
require the presence of research, clinical, and/or professional faculty whose
affiliation with the center is coterminous with the life of the grant or
contract. Faculty appointed to a center under externally funded grants or
contracts may not receive tenure-track or tenured appointments through the
center. A center is chartered for a specific period of time by the Provost on
the recommendation of appropriate faculty and dean(s) or institute
director(s). Renewal of a center's charter, when called for, is subject to
favorable review of a center's performance and accomplishments.
center is administered by a director who is appointed
University Attorney Walther: Clarification that Center Directors term of contracts can be very variable.
(a) Clarify definition of Part-Time Faculty, and separate out definition (to new section 188.8.131.52), to reflect reality of the breadth of existing part-time faculty positions.
(b) Clarify that PT Faculty do not have voting rights but are otherwise governed by the Handbook
2.1.4 Part-Time Appointment
Part-time faculty are not
Senator Question: Wouldn’t a part-time faculty member include adjunct faculty?
Linda Schwartzstein responded that adjunct faculty are different. Part-time (faculty) term contracts spans more than a semester. Adjunct faculty (contracts) per course per term per semester.
Committee Member Slayden : “Term” as definitionable in itself.
Insert New Adjunct Definition
[New Section] 184.108.40.206 Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct Faculty are employees appointed to fulfill the teaching and advising responsibilities associated with a specific course (or a set of specified courses) in a specific semester.
Adjunct Faculty are not voting members of the General Faculty and are not covered by the provisions of this Handbook.
Insert New postdoctoral research fellow definition
[New Section] 220.127.116.11 Postdoctoral Research Fellows
Postdoctoral Research Fellows are employees governed by the Postdoctoral Research Fellows Policy. Postdoctoral Research Fellows are not covered by the provisions of the Faculty Handbook.
(a) Renumbering: move section 2.1.7 to NEW 2.1.11.
(b) Remove leave policies that are governed instead by HR policy
(c) Clarify language
Academic Year Appointments (9 Months)
weeks after the end of classes.
Fiscal Year Appointments (12 months)
Faculty who are required to perform
duties year-round are placed on 12-month or fiscal year appointments
University Attorney Walther: Section rearranged to make easier to read, Human Resources has its own leave policy issued for every kind of employee in the university; easier to administer if changes (made to policies).
Senator question: Only Human Resources governs leave?
Mr. Walther: All leave policies are subject to the Board of Visitors.
Senator question: Who is qualified to receive benefits if determined by Human Resources?
Mr. Walther: Ultimately it is a Board decision.
Chair of Committee Coffinberger: We do have faculty representatives to the Board to raise objections if there are some.
Senator question: Re “Governor’s Consolidated Salary Authorization”: Does this mean that faculty are obligated to work two weeks before the semester begins and two weeks after the semester ends, which amounts to working 10 months on a 9 month contract?
Chair of Committee Coffinberger: “Available” has been discussed before.
Senator follow-up: Many academic units have meetings before the semester. Faculty is then potentially at work two weeks before the pay period begins and two weeks after the pay period ends. What is the legal base for the legality of the “Governor’s Consolidated Salary Authorization”?
Chair of Senate Pober noted that this issue is beyond the purview of the Handbook Committee and was not raised prior to this set of meetings, but asked if Mr. Walther would respond. Mr Walther will review this and report back at the next meeting.
Committee Member Slayden: Noted the insertion of “instructional: in sentence with “Governor’s Consolidated Salary Authorization.”
Renumber section 2.1.8 to NEW 2.1.12
Faculty possess governance responsibilities in local academic units in which they hold primary affiliation and in the larger units of which their local academic units are a part. Local academic units and collegiate units may also choose to extend voting rights to other faculty who are employed in those units. For purposes of participation in governance beyond the local and collegiate levels, the General Faculty is defined in Section 1.3.1.
(a) Move language (regarding stopping the tenure clock) to new Section 18.104.22.168
(b) remove web reference
2.2.8 Administrators Holding Faculty Rank
Each person appointed to an administrative/professional faculty position is assigned an academic rank. Initial appointment will normally be at the rank of Instructor. Individuals holding a terminal degree may be appointed at the rank of Assistant Professor. An academic unit and the Provost may together confer academic rank beyond Assistant Professor when appropriate. As exceptions, certain senior administrative positions will be assigned the rank of at least Associate Professor in keeping with the executive status of their position. Assignment of rank must be in accordance with The Commonwealth of Virginia’s Consolidated Salary Authorization for Faculty Positions in Institutions of Higher Education, 2001-2002. (The assignment of rank to administrative/professional faculty does not confer, nor does time assigned to administrative/professional duties contribute to, tenure.)
Instructional faculty who are appointed to administrative/professional faculty positions, if tenured, retain their tenured status while so serving.
If on a term appointment, the faculty member has no automatic right to return to his or her previous instructional, research, or clinical faculty position.
(a) Remove reference to postdoctoral research fellows (they are not covered by FH by definition)
(b) Revise the timeline for notification to be given to term faculty, in advance of issuing a new contract.
(c) Add definition of “reappointment” and “reappoint”
2.3.3 Criteria and Procedures for Appointment, Reappointment, and Promotion of Term Faculty
Full-time instructional, research, or clinical faculty on fixed-term, non-tenure-track appointments are known as Term Faculty. At the discretion of the respective Dean or Director, and after appropriate faculty review, such faculty may be offered single-year or multi-year contracts that expire automatically at the end of the contract period. There is no guarantee or right to reappointment from one contract to the next, whether multi-year or single-year. If a multi-year appointment is offered to a faculty member whose position relies entirely or partially on non- state appropriated funding, then a multi-year contract may be established subject to the continuing availability of funding throughout the contract period.
Term Faculty appointments will be explicitly designated as such, and offer letters must clearly state the type and length of appointment, as well as the focus of the appointment, whether teaching, research, or clinical. Some specific administrative or service functions may be attached to the teaching, research, or clinical focus. Multi-year appointments must be made at the rank appropriate to the credentials of the individual. Initial appointments cannot exceed three years for Term Assistant Professors and five years for Term Associate and Full Professors. Multi-year Term Faculty normally hold a terminal degree, as defined by standards in the discipline. Exceptions to either contract length or terminal degree requirements must be approved by the Provost.
A Senator proposed changing
"Term Associate and Full Professors" to Term Associate Professors
and Term Professors." The reason is that there is no rank called
full professor. The professorial ranks are
A faculty member holding this type of appointment can subsequently be considered for a tenure- track appointment or a tenured appointment; however, prior service on a fixed-term externally funded appointment is not applied to consideration for tenure unless this is specified in the letter of appointment to tenure-track status.
A maximum of 35% of all Instructional Term Faculty may be on multi-year contracts and a maximum of 25% of all full-time Instructional Faculty may be Term Faculty.
Chair of Senate Pober noted that we have received the above statistics from Kris Smith, Associate Provost for Institutional Research and Reporting.
Criteria for reappointment will
emphasize strong performance in areas designated in the initial contract
Instructional, Research, and
Clinical Term Faculty on single-year
contracts will be evaluated annually for reappointment. The terms “reappoint” or
“reappointment” in this Handbook mean offering a term faculty member an
additional contract for an additional term or terms, which may include the
same or different duties and responsibilities. Instructional Term Faculty will be
Term Faculty on multi-year contracts will be evaluated for reappointment during the final year of their initial appointments.
a. Based on that evaluation and
programmatic needs, and after appropriate faculty review, the respective Dean
or Director will recommend
b. If the decision is made to reappoint,
c. In the Term Faculty member’s sixth year or thereafter, he or she may be (i) considered for promotion, normally to the rank of Term associate professor, and reappointment to a contract of up to five years or (ii) for reappointment to a contract of up to three years at his/her current rank. Candidates for promotion to associate professor must demonstrate at least high competence in the focus area (teaching, research, or clinical) by the standards developed locally and approved by the Provost. Candidates for promotion to full professor must demonstrate genuine excellence in the focus area (teaching, research, or clinical) by the standards developed locally and approved by the Provost. The recommendation for promotion is due to the Provost by November 1st of the faculty member’s final year of the current, multi-year contract.
d. By the end of fall semester of the final year of the current multi-year contract (no later than December 15th), the Provost will notify the Term Faculty member, in writing, of a decision to recommend promotion or reappointment at the current rank.
e. Term Faculty who are promoted will be announced to the Board of Visitors and may be appointed to a contract of up to five years at their new rank.
f. Term Associate Professors will be evaluated for reappointment to additional contracts in the final year of each contract, following the same time frame and procedures outlined above. They may also be considered for promotion to Term Full Professors.
g. Both the University and the Term Faculty member retain the option to request a change from a multi-year contract to a single-year contract. This action must be endorsed by the respective Dean/Director and approved by the Provost.
h. Term faculty cannot move to a tenure-track position without prior approval of the Provost and after appropriate faculty review. Normally this must involve a search process.
i. Tenure-track faculty cannot move to a term position without prior approval of the Provost and appropriate faculty review. This procedure will only be considered in exceptional circumstances and normally would involve a search process.
Moved to section 2.7.3 a., which details the procedures for promotion and tenure.
2.4 Criteria for Evaluation of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
Recommendations on matters of faculty status (e.g., initial appointment, renewal, promotion, the conferral of tenure, and termination) are in large measure a faculty responsibility. The faculty's role in these personnel actions is based upon the essentiality of its judgment to sound educational policy, and upon the fact that scholars in a particular field have the chief competence for judging the work of their colleagues. An additional reason for the faculty's role in these matters is the general competence of experienced faculty personnel committees with a broader charge that encompasses the evaluation of teaching and service. Implicit in such competence is the acknowledgment that responsibility exists for both adverse and favorable judgments.
in these matters originate through faculty action in accordance with
established procedures; are reviewed by senior academic administrators; and
presented to the Board for final approval.
Candidates for reappointment, promotion and tenure will be evaluated in light of the missions of the University which are teaching, research and scholarship, both theoretical and applied, and service (as defined in Section 2.4.3). Peer review plays a central role in the evaluation of individual achievement in each of these areas. Although candidates are not expected to have equal levels of commitment or equal responsibilities in each of these areas, high competence is expected. Genuine excellence must be exhibited in the areas of teaching or research and scholarship and high competence must be exhibited in both. The primary consideration in the evaluation of the candidate’s achievements will be the extent to which these continue to improve the academic quality of the University.
Levels of expectation will vary with the type of decision. While tenure-track appointments will, to some extent, recognize perceived potential rather than achievement, appointment without term or promotion in rank will be based on achievement rather than potential. Appointment without term should leave no doubt about the candidate's value to the University over an extended period.
As defined above, candidates need to exhibit levels of competence and excellence in teaching, research and scholarship, and service. In addition, candidates for tenure and promotion to the rank of associate professor must provide evidence that their contributions in their area(s) of genuine excellence have had some significant impact beyond the boundaries of this University. If the primary strength is teaching, there should be evidence that the candidate's contributions have influence beyond the immediate classroom; if in theoretical or applied research and scholarship, there should be evidence that the candidate's contributions have significant influence on colleagues at other institutions in this country, and where applicable, abroad.
Candidates seeking promotion to the rank of full professor must maintain high competence in teaching, research and scholarship, and service while also maintaining genuine excellence in teaching and/or research and scholarship. In addition, evidence of significant impact beyond the boundaries of the University must be much more substantial than in cases involving tenure or promotion to the rank of associate professor. Clear and convincing evidence must be provided of an established external reputation in the primary field, based on consequential achievements in teaching, research and scholarship, or professional activities directly related to teaching and research and scholarship.
In addition, evaluation for promotion or tenure should consider the candidate's adherence to professional ethics (see Section 2.10.2). Only the criteria described in this handbook can be used in evaluations of instructional, research, and clinical faculty.
Purpose of Edit
(a) Add definition of “renew” and “renewal”
(b) Clarify language regarding tenure track review
(c) Make clear that if faculty member chooses no evaluation, contract will end at the end of that term
2.7.2 Procedures for
Faculty in tenure-track positions
receive an initial three-year appointment
a. Tenure-track faculty will be
evaluated during the third year of their initial appointment
d. If a faculty member is not renewed, the appeal procedure outlined in the Faculty Handbook Section 2.8 may be used.
Paragraph moved here from Section 2.4
Provides for notification of recommendations.
2.7.3 Procedures for Promotion and Tenure
The Faculty Handbook Revision Committee and the BW Committee agreed to take Section 2.7.3 back to committee for further review. It will not be included in the proposed revisions for the May 4th BOV meeting.
Senator Question: What does it mean by “overturning faculty recommendations? What if you had a “high-4” and an abstention which was overturned subsequently?
Committee Member Slayden: Not really change in language, but we changed proposed revision to “differ from” not overturn. Another language clean-up: faculty make recommendations not decisions.
Senator Question: Do we have any statistics on how many decisions pro or con are overturned by administrators or vice versa?
Committee Member Slayden: There used to be statistics in CAS. As the university got larger, deans and directors have taken on these decisions. We find it is getting hard to get information; need for an overall view of what’s going on.
A Senator also noticed a typo
in 2nd para. under “f”> remove “is” from 1st
sentence, second para. so that the revised sentence begins: If the Provost’s
Candidacy for tenure or promotion is normally initiated by the local unit administrator, with the faculty member's concurrence. Self-nomination is also permitted. Dossiers are to be prepared in accordance with the format provided by the collegiate dean or institute director. Except for external references, the candidate is responsible for the content of the dossier. The local unit administrator is responsible for ensuring that items the University is required to provide for the candidate's dossier are completed in a timely manner.
In cases of joint primary affiliation, recommendations for promotion and/or tenure may be initiated by either/any of the units in which the faculty member is (or is to be) appointed to primary affiliation. Separate evaluations leading to separate recommendations and decisions will be made with respect to the multiple primary affiliations held by the candidate. A favorable action by one local academic unit does not obligate the other local academic unit(s) to act favorably. It is required, however, that in each/all of the evaluation processes the committee(s) involved must solicit and consider evaluations from the other units in which the candidate has been employed. All evaluations become part of the candidate's dossier (see Section 2.7.2). The procedure for considering promotion and tenure cases is as follows:
a. In all cases of promotion and/or tenure, there are two levels of faculty review. At both levels evaluations are carried out by tenured faculty in accordance with Sections 2.4 and 2.5. In addition to considering the dossier prepared by the candidate, faculty committees on promotion and tenure examine all relevant evidence and testimony offered to them by members of the academic community and others with direct knowledge of the candidate's professional qualifications and achievements.
The administration should overturn faculty personnel recommendations rarely, and only when it is clear that peer faculty have not applied high standards, or when the University's long- term programmatic needs are an overriding consideration. Only in extraordinary circumstances and for clear and compelling reasons should administrators substitute their own judgment of the value of scholarly accomplishments for judgments made by professionals in the discipline. In such cases both the candidate and the faculty bodies participating in the decision-making process are entitled to know the reasons administrators give to the President in recommending that faculty judgment be overturned.
The review process is carried out as follows:
1. In departmentalized schools, colleges, or institutes, the first level of review is departmental and the second is conducted by a peer-elected committee of the school or college. The second-level review committee can include elected members from outside the school, college, or institute.
2. In non-departmentalized local academic units (i.e., schools, colleges, institutes) which are subdivided into programs, provided that no program faculty in the unit is smaller than the smallest department of the University, the first level of review is carried out by the program faculty to which the candidate belongs and the second level of review is carried out by a peer-elected committee of the school, college, or institute. The second-level review committee can include elected members from outside the school, college, or institute. In order to qualify to operate under the provisions stated in this paragraph, however, the aforesaid program faculties cannot exist solely to make personnel evaluations.
3. In non-departmentalized local academic units (i.e., schools, colleges, institutes) which are not further subdivided, the first level review is carried out by eligible faculty in the candidate's LAU, and the second level of review is carried out by a peer-elected committee of the school, college, or institute. The second level review committee can include elected members from outside the school, college, or institute. In order to qualify to operate under the provisions stated in this paragraph, however, the aforesaid program faculties cannot exist solely to make personnel evaluations.
4. The School of Law is exempt from the provisions specified in the above paragraphs, but it is not exempt from the requirement for two-level peer review.
b. In the case of departmental review, the local promotion and tenure committee - which may be a committee of the whole - transmits its recommendations, including a report of the division of the vote by the tenured members of the department (full professors only in cases involving promotion to the rank of professor), to the department chair. The department chair transmits to the school, college, or institute promotion and tenure review committee: (1) the candidate's dossier and related materials; (2) the recommendation of the departmental committee with appropriate justifications; and (3) his/her own recommendation and justification. Notification of recommendations generated at the level of the local academic unit are sent to members of the faculty who participated in the preceding deliberations and to the candidate. Copies of accompanying justifications are also supplied to the candidate, and to the faculty who participated in the deliberations. The candidate is evaluated in like manner by the promotion and tenure committee of the school or college, which forwards its recommendation along with all preceding reports and recommendations to the collegiate or school dean. Notification of the recommendation of the school or college committee is sent to each member of the department who participated in making the departmental recommendation. Copies of the statement of justification are sent to the candidate and the department chair.
The process is analogous for faculty who hold primary affiliation in
non-departmentalized units, except that the role assigned in the preceding
paragraph to department chairs is omitted.
d. If a candidate for noncompetitive appointment is to be tenured upon appointment, he or she must be reviewed by both the first-and second-level promotion and tenure committees. The first-level review by eligible faculty requires a majority positive vote for tenure separate from the vote to accept the candidate into the program. If the first-level votes are positive, and with the approval of the chair where applicable, the dossier is then sent to the second-level promotion and tenure committee. If the second-level review committee’s recommendation differs from that of the first-level review committee, the second-level review committee’s recommendation and accompanying justification are sent concurrently to the first-level review committee and the dean/director.
As with all tenure reviews, independent external letters from recognized experts in the candidate’s field must be obtained in a manner consistent with other tenure reviews, and candidates are held to the same standards as other candidates in that LAU. Since noncompetitive appointments may be made outside the normal annual tenure cycle, college, school, and institute promotion and tenure committees must develop and follow procedures for reviewing candidates out of cycle.
e. All materials
are reviewed by the dean
If the dean/director’s recommendation differs from that of the second-level review committee, the reasons for that variance should be specified in the recommendation, which is sent concurrently to the candidate, to the faculty bodies participating in the decision-making process, and to the Provost.
All relevant materials are reviewed by the Provost. Before making a
recommendation to the President, the Provost may consult with other academic
administrators who have direct knowledge of one or more aspects of the
candidate's professional performance. Notification of the Provost's
recommendation is sent to the faculty who participated in deliberations at
If the Provost’s recommendation is differs from that of the second-level review committee, the reasons for that variance should be specified in the recommendation, which is sent concurrently to the candidate, to the faculty bodies participating in the decision-making process, and to the President.
The candidate's vita with all previously generated recommendations and
justifications is forwarded to the President. The President’s
h. A faculty member will be notified in writing
on or before
i. Tenure and promotion are never granted by default, only by action of the Board of Visitors. If one or more of the steps in the procedure outlined above is omitted by error, the proper remedy is review of the candidate as early as possible under this procedure.
Transfer language from 2.2.8 to create NEW section 22.214.171.124 on tenure-clock extension process for administrative/professional faculty
[New Section] 126.96.36.199 Tenure Clock Extension for Administrative/Professional Faculty
Tenure-track faculty members who are appointed to an administrative/professional faculty position may continue on their tenure-track appointment while serving in that capacity. The tenure-track faculty member may request that the tenure clock be stopped during the term of the administrative appointment. Such request must be made to the Office of the Provost.
Change dates to make reconsideration and appeal process more efficient.
Provides for timely notification of negative decisions
2.7.5 Procedure for Reconsideration
1. On or before May 15 during
2. Within seven days, the local unit
3. At each level of review, including
Senator Question re moving the date to May 15th during time of final exams, when faculty leave.
Committee Member Slayden: The candidate will know long before May 15th. LAU administrators for the most part are working during the summer. Recognize problem, but also harder to get a new job.
Senator Follow Up: Procedurally faculty could be notified on May 14th or even May 15th deadline.
Chair of Committee Coffinberger: Recognizes problem, but highly unlikely this would happen.
In recent times the Board has always met before May 15th
Change title of section to more accurately identify its focus.
2.8 Criteria for Appeal
2.8 Appeal Procedure for Negative Decisions in
(a) Clarify that appeal process for renewal does not apply to term faculty appointments
(b) fix incorrect reference to “reappointment”
2.8 Appeal Procedure for Negative Decisions in
The University recognizes the need
for an appeal procedure for faculty who fail to gain
1. material procedural irregularity; 2. violation of federal or state law or university policy; 3. inadequate or faulty consideration of evidence.
The intent of the appeal procedure is to provide fair and competent review of the petition. Any material included in a reconsideration process (see Sections 2.7.4 and 2.7.5) will be made available for the appeal process.
The decision whether to appoint or reappoint a Term Faculty member may not be appealed.
Chair of Committee Coffinberger: Term faculty cannot appeal but could file a grievance if had grounds to do so. Section 2.8.1 describes procedures.
Provides for timely notification to all parties.
Provides for all possible outcomes of appeal board vote.
2.8.1 Appeal Board
The petition for appeal should be filed as early as possible and no later than September 1 with the
chair of the Faculty Senate and the Provost
The appeal board will include three tenured members of the faculty, none of whom participated in the original decision. The petitioner selects one appeal board member, who must be a tenured academic administrator that is at the level of department chair or above. The Provost selects a full-time faculty member who is not an academic administrator. These two appeal board members then select a third member, from among the faculty, who becomes the chair. The names of the three board members are not revealed until all have been chosen.
In any appeal alleging discrimination in violation of federal or state law or University regulations, the appeal board must consult and be advised by the Office of Equity and Diversity Services.
The appeal board has the authority to require the submission of sufficient evidence to determine if the allegation appears to have merit. The board must decide upon this issue by majority vote before proceeding with a consideration of the case. The burden of proof rests with the petitioner. At the conclusion of its deliberations, the appeal board will simultaneously forward its report to the President, the chair of the Faculty Senate, and the petitioner.
the appeal board unanimously supports the administration,
If the appeal board unanimously
supports the petitioner, or i
a. deny the appeal for lack of merit; the chair must report a summary of the decision as a matter of information to the Committee at its next regularly scheduled meeting; the Committee may decide to take up the case if it wishes.
b. find that there appears to be merit in the appeal, and remand it to the appropriate level(s) within the University for reconsideration, giving specific instructions as to how the problems cited in the appeal should be addressed.
c. bring the case to the Academic Standards, Diversity, and University Community Committee of the Board of Visitors, which can take option (a) or (b) above, or can submit the case to the full Board of Visitors.
The decision of the Chair of the Board's Academic Standards, Diversity, and University Community Committee, of the full Committee, or of the full Board, will be transmitted in writing to the President, the chair of the Faculty Senate, and the petitioner, and is final.
Chair of the Senate Peter Pober asked if there were any last questions on the process? Timeline for individual future changes?
Chair of Committee Coffinberger: My thoughts on policy are that we already have additional items from faculty and administrators to work on – not provident to go to the Board more than once a year. In all probability we will go through this procedure next year, to take changes to the BOV.
Senator Question: This is quite a complex issue. Do we have any statistics on “lose” histories? (numbers of faculty turned down for tenure)
Committee Member Slayden: Only the President would have those statistics. Faculty Senate Chairs change.
Chair of Committee Coffinberger: We can request information from the President, we do not have such data.
Chair of Senate Pober: Commented that over the last few years, there have been a number of appeals 1, maybe 2 a year, if that.
Committee Member Slayden: The number of appeals does not reflect the number of those who removed themselves from the process.
Senator Question: Are there benefits for those faculty between .5 FTE and less than 1.0 FTE
Response: These faculty members are eligible for benefits, but benefits are not paid for by the university.
Chair of the Senate Pober: The quorum has been lost thus the changes cannot be voted on. Is it the will of those present that we bring it back the next meeting?
Committee Chair Coffinberger: The Faculty Handbook Committee will move forward.
Chair of the Senate Pober: We will add this to the next Faculty Senate meeting agenda. Without a quorum there cannot be a vote.
In response to concern about a second meeting on the same issues due to lack of the quorum the Chair of the Senate will request that faculty carefully read the Faculty Handbook Revisions and minutes of this meeting before the next meeting of the Senate..
No vote was held.
III. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 3:56 p.m.