DRAFT MINUTES OF
THE FACULTY HANDBOOK REVISION
COMMITTEE
Thursday October
30, 2008
Mason Hall, room
D5; 1:00 � 3:00 p.m.
Present:� Kevin Avruch, Associate Director and Professor of Conflict Resolution, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution; Lorraine Brown, Professor of English, College of Humanities and Social Sciences; Rick Coffinberger, Associate Professor of Business and Legal Studies, School of Management, Chair; Martin Ford, Senior Associate Dean, College of Education and Human Development;. Dave Harr, Senior Associate Dean, School of Management; Suzanne Slayden, Associate Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, College of Science.�
Discussion:� Post-approval revision
suggestions to the Faculty Handbook:� Some
of the following revisions were proposed by the Handbook Committee (FHC) to
correct usage/grammatical/factual errors or to insure internal
consistency.� A resolution passed by the
faculty of the School of Law on October 8, 2008� contained revisions in addition to its rationale recommending the
proposed Handbook not be approved at the October 15th Faculty Senate
Special Meeting (SOL Resolution); and a set of additional draft changes
proposed by the School of Law contained in a memorandum October 8, 2008 from
Professor Lloyd Cohen and Professor Allison Hayward, Senators from the School
of Law, (SOL Draft Changes) were also considered.
Preface � 2009 Revision, p. 3 (FHC):� Paragraph four, phrase at end of first
sentence:� �elected� replaced
�appointed� �...consisting of three
faculty elected appointed
by the Faculty Senate�. �The second sentence �Arrangements must assure an expeditious meeting in
cases of urgency.� �was moved to
become� the third sentence in the
paragraph.� �In
the new second sentence (formerly third sentence), the phrase �one of the
elected faculty members as� is inserted between �appoints� and �committee
chair� : and the phrase� �from the three faculty members� was
deleted.� The revised sentence reads: �The
chair of the Faculty Senate appoints one of the elected faculty members as the
committee chair from the three faculty members.
Preface � 2009 Revision, p. 3 � (FHC): �Paragraph five, phrase at end of second
sentence:� ��for� replaced �from�� �..or
who have filed a written request with his or her dean or director to be
evaluated for from the award of
tenure.�
Preface � 2009
Revision, p. 4 (FHC): Paragraph
one:� Removal of possessive
adjective �.. then the Provost and
the Faculty Senate's� Executive Committee...�.� �Website� inserted in last sentence of penultimate paragraph between
�these� and �for� so that revised sentence reads:� �Please refer to these websites for issues not addressed in the Faculty
Handbook.��
Preface
� 2009 Revision, p. 4 (SOL Resolution):� Key - Deletions
are indicated by underscore and brackets []; Additions are indicated by bold-faced
italics; Explanatory notes are in regular italics.)
�When a policy or procedure
described in this Handbook is reasonably subject to
alternative interpretations,
then the Provost and the Faculty Senate�s Executive Committee will
meet and confer [be the designated body] to
resolve the matter in writing, which shall be
published to all members of
the faculty [disagreement]�;
provided, however, that no such
resolution shall operate to
change materially the substantive rights of any faculty member as
otherwise provided herein.
Explanatory Note1
This amendment is designed to
insure that the �interpretation� function is not subverted
into a sub rosa method of
amending the Handbook. Accordingly, it provides that the
interpretative power must be
invoked reasonably and with accountability, and that any such
interpretations are not
treated as the equivalent of the operative legal language of the Faculty
Handbook in setting forth the
respective contractual obligations of the faculty member and the
University. Interpretations
by administrators or others may be considered, but should not be
taken as legally binding by a
reviewing court in the event of litigation.
OUTCOME:� The Handbook Committee did not make any changes to this paragraph
because both the Committee and the University Counsel judged it to be
clearer and fully adequate in its original form.
Table of Contents
� 2009 Revision, p. 7� (FHC) �
Section 2.7.2 Procedures for Renewal
(Reappointment) retitled as 2.7.2
Procedures for Reappointment (Contract Renewal) for
greater clarity.
1.2.3 Executive Council and President's
Council � 2009 Revision, p. 13 (FHC):� In first sentence,� �of the University� deleted:� The Executive Council of the
University is the President�s advisory group.
1.2.5 Faculty
Participation in the Selection of Certain Members of the Central Administration
� 2009 Revision, p. 15� (FHC):�
addition
of �must� in the last sentence of
paragraphs 2, 3, and 4;� revised as
follows:� (paragraph 2):� The search and selection process must includes
opportunities for the General Faculty to meet with candidates who are finalists for the presidency.
(paragraph 3):� The search and selection process must includes opportunities
for the General Faculty to meet with candidates who are finalists for the Provost position.
(paragraph 4):� The search and selection process must includes opportunities
for the college, school, or institute faculty to meet with
candidates who are
finalists for the position.
1.3.2 The Faculty Senate � 2009 Revision, p. 18 (SOL Draft
Changes):� Paragraph two, sentence
two, proposed deletion of � in accord� with sections 40.1-57.2 and 40.1-57.3 of the Code of Virginia�
�
�The principal function of the Faculty Senate is to represent the faculty
on all academic and governance issues not internal to any single school,
college, or academic institute, This including
but is not limited to,
curricular matters, matters concerning terms and conditions of faculty
employment in accord� with
sections 40.1-57.2 and 40.1-57.3 of the Code of
Virginia, and matters of academic organization and
institutional change.�
Explanation:� These
citations to the Code were inserted at the 8/6/08 handbook committee meeting at
the University Counsel�s request.� We do
not understand why it is desirable to cross reference collective bargaining law
here.� Moreover, to the extent the terms
of these statutes change over time, the terms of the Handbook change without
the faculty knowing it.
OUTCOME:� The Handbook
Committee accepted this revision within the parameters approved by the
University Counsel.� Additional FHC revision
replaced� �This includes, but is not
limited to� with �..including, but not limited to...� .
1.3.3 Colleges and Schools � 2009 Revision, p. 19� (FHC): �Paragraph two (iii):� to add �academic�
before programs, and �other activities� after programs for consistency
with Section 1.3.4..� (iii) it has an instructional budget that
includes FTE funds for the payment of its faculty's salaries as well as funds
for goods and services in support of its academic programs and other
activities;
1.3.5
Academic Departments � 2009 Revision, p. 22 (FHC):� Paragraph one,
sentence two:� to replace �on� with
�out�.� Departments are established
to carry out on programs
of instruction, research and scholarship...
1.3.6 Definition of Local Academic Units� (LAU) � 2009 Revision, p. 23� (SOL Draft Changes):� Paragraph two, last sentence:� to add �post-tenure review� �They play a primary role in such matters of
faculty status as the recruitment and initial appointment of new faculty; the
reappointment, promotion, tenure decisions
, and post-tenure review of members; and in the case of departments, the
selection of the department chair�.
OUTCOME:� The Handbook Committee accepted this
revision and also deleted �decisions�.
�1.3.8 The Graduate Council � 2009 Revision,
p. 26 (FHC):� Paragraph two, last sentence:� Replaced �listed� with �set forth�:� �Like colleges, schools, institutes
and departments, however, it must act within the guidelines set forth listed in Section 1.3.3.�
1.3.9
Multidisciplinary or Interdisciplinary Programs � 2009 Revision, p. 28
(FHC):� Paragraph two, first sentence:� To insert �academic� between �local� and
�unit�:� Some
multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary programs are offered by faculties drawn
from more than a single local academic unit.
Paragraph four, last sentence:� Replaced �listed� with �set forth: �Together
with their directors, they determine the procedures of governance they will
employ, but all program faculties must act within the guidelines set forth
listed� in
Section 1.3.3.�
CHAPTER TWO
2.1.7 Academic Year Appointments and Fiscal Year
Appointments - 2009 Revision to FIG Text, p. 10 (FHC):� Paragraph one, second sentence:� After some discussion, the committee
replaced �available� with �are earned�:�
�For administrative purposes,
the academic-year for instructional faculty is the 9-month period from
August 25 through May 24.� This is the
period during which faculty are paid and benefits available are earned.
2.3.2 Procedures for Recruitment and Appointment of Tenured
and Tenure-Track Faculty � 2009 Revision, pp. 24-25 (SOL Draft Changes):� Language
on both pages: The appointment process moves forward only when a majority of
the LAU faculty who are eligible to vote accept the candidate.
Explanation:� As it reads now, appointments may only move
forward if a majority of the entire tenured faculty approve.� It is more conventional to require a
majority of those present and voting (and a quorum) not a majority of all eligible voters.� The Minutes from January 23 suggest that the
Senate meant only that the tenure vote should be by faculty eligible to vote on
tenure, but the transmitted text did not preserve that concept.� In any case the unit�s existing procedure
for approval should govern.
Revision:
The appointment process moves forward only after approval by the tenured LAU
faculty.� when a majority of the
LAU faculty who are eligible to vote accept the candidate.
OUTCOME:� �The
Handbook Committee rejected this revision since the original wording allows
units flexibility in that units can decide to make physical presence a
condition of eligibility (or not).
2.3.2.1 Awarding of Tenure at the Time of Appointment in
Competitive Searches � 2009 Revision, p. 25 (FHC):� Paragraph two, first sentence:�
to add �institute-� If the candidate is nominated for tenure upon appointment,
he or she must also be reviewed by the college-, school-, or
institute-level promotion and tenure committee.�
2.4 Criteria for
Evaluation of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
�2009 Revision, p. 29 (SOL Draft Changes)�
Language:�
Recommendations 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. 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.
Explanation:� This passage is internally
inconsistent.� Do administrators get to
overturn faculty evaluations alone?�
When does the President get to weigh in?
Revision: The
administration should recommend rejecting
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�
OUTCOME:� The Handbook Committee rejected this
revision because it is less relevant than the original wording.� The admonition to administrators refers most
critically to instances when they do in fact have the power to �overturn.��
Committee
Responses to SOL Proposals relating to 2.6.2 Post-Tenure Review
2.6.2 Post Tenure Review Policies and Procedures � 2009 Revision,
p. 41 (SOL Resolution A):
(A) Page 41, in the �POLICY�
subdivision, paragraph 1 c):
�c) In accordance with the
principles of peer judgment, the faculty of each local academic
unit
(LAU) will establish its
criteria for �unsatisfactory performance.�
Explanatory Note
This amendment clarifies that
LAUs act through their respective voting faculties, and
focuses the prescribed
criteria on �unsatisfactory performance,� which is the term of art used
elsewhere in � 2.6.2, as a
predicate for termination or other disciplinary action.
OUTCOME:� The Handbook Committee accepted the revision
while also retaining the word �satisfactory�.�
2.6.2 Post Tenure Review Policies and Procedures � 2009 Revision, p.
42 (SOL Resolution B):
�B) Page 42, in the
�PROCEDURE� subdivision, paragraph 3:
�3. The LAU administrator and
the Office of the Provost will address relevant issues in
subsequent annual evaluations
during the rolling four year period. Tenured faculty members who
receive two overall
�unsatisfactory� ratings in a four-year period will be required to submit a
summary of activities and
accomplishments in teaching, research, and service, as appropriate,
during the four-year period,
along with copies of annual evaluation results for that four-year
period to the school/college/institute
Promotion and Tenure Committee (i.e., the body authorized
to conduct second-level
review under the provisions of section 2.7.3), serving as an Evaluation
Committee.
Explanatory Note
The first change is
designed to clarify that, in some schools, second-level tenure review
may not be conducted by the
school�s Promotion and Tenure Committee. In the School of Law,
for example, second-level
review is conducted by the tenured law faculty, acting as a committee
of the whole.
OUTCOME:� The Handbook Committee accepted the first
proposed revision (change) to Section 2.6.2 Procedures B.� 3.�
The Evaluation Committee will
not use the standards associated with the awarding of tenure and
promotion to conduct this
evaluation. Instead, the Evaluation Committee will focus on whether
there is [evidence of]
sustained overall unsatisfactory performance (such as [including
but not
limited to] incompetence and
lack of appropriate expertise) that renders the faculty member
professionally unfit to perform the minimum duties of his or her
position.�
The second change of
striking the phrase �evidence of� is designed to remove the
ambiguity of such a provision
in a legal document. In law, �evidence� means only some
evidence, not adequate proof.
The intent of this provision is presumably to require that some
standard of proof be met, but
burdens of proof are more aptly stated in the context of a dueprocess
hearing, which is nowhere
provided in the current proposal (though it would be restored
by proposed amendments 2(D)
and 3, below).
OUTCOME:� The Handbook Committee rejected the second
proposed revision (change) to Section 2.6.2 Procedures B. 3 as it is
inconsistent with the intent of the committee to avoid the legally problematic
equating of unsatisfactory performance with professional �unfitness.�
The third change of
inserting the word �overall� is intended to conform with the phrase
as used elsewhere in this
section, such as in the preceding paragraph. Using two different
phrases to mean the same
thing is an invitation to ambiguity and misunderstanding.
OUTCOME:� The Handbook Committee accepted the third
proposed revision (change) to Section 2.6.2 Procedures B. 3.�
The fourth change
replaces the ambiguous legalism �including but not limited to� with
the legally preferable �such
as,� in order to make it clear that �sustained overall unsatisfactory
performance� must comprise
something very much like the examples of incompetence or lack of
appropriate expertise, rather
than something very dissimilar, which might be permitted by the
�not limited to� language.
OUTCOME:� The Handbook Committee rejected the fourth
proposed revision (change) to Section 2.6.2 Procedures B. 3 because it was
judged to reduce, not increase clarity.
The fifth change of
adding the provisions at the end of the paragraph is one of a series
(including amendments 2(D)
and 3) designed to link this �post-tenure review� process more
closely to the pre-existing
law of academic tenure, so as to avoid a dilution of George Mason
faculty members� legal tenure
rights.
OUTCOME:� The Handbook Committee accepted the SOL concept that the procedures
for conducting the peer evaluation component of post-tenure review needed to be
more formally specified, especially with regard to procedures related to
academic due process.� However, the
Committee rejected the reorganization
proposal in the fifth proposed revision (change) to Section 2.6.2
Procedures B. 3 as it is inconsistent with the intent of the committee to avoid
the legally and professionally problematic equating of unsatisfactory
performance with immoral and criminal conduct.�
The Handbook Committee also rejected the assertion that this section
�dilutes� the rights of those tenured at GMU.�
In fact, this section now incorporates additional protections for GMU�s
tenured faculty.�
The
more formal procedural specifications added to the post-tenure review
procedures are as follows:
4.�� The Evaluation
Committee will operate according to the following procedures:
a.�� The
Provost will initiate the evaluation process with a written communication to
the faculty member (the �Notice�).� The
Notice shall include:�
1.� A
statement explaining the current employment status of the faculty member and
how that could change as a result of post-tenure review.
2.� The
procedural rights, in detail, of the faculty member (as outlined below).
3.� A
statement that to maintain employment the faculty member must submit a
portfolio summarizing activities and accomplishments in teaching, research, and
service, as appropriate, during the period spanning the two unsatisfactory
evaluations.� The statement should
explicitly note that there is no limit on the amount or type of documentation
the faculty member may submit, but that the submitted documentation must
include copies of annual evaluation results during the period spanning the two
unsatisfactory evaluations.
4.� A
statement that if the faculty member fails to submit a portfolio within one
calendar month of the date the Notice was transmitted, the Provost will make a
recommendation for termination to the Board of Visitors without benefit of a
committee report.
b.��
Submitted materials will be reviewed by the Evaluation Committee to
determine if the faculty member under review has discharged the duties
associated with his or her position conscientiously and with basic professional
competence.� The Evaluation Committee
will not use the standards associated with the awarding of tenure and
promotion to conduct this evaluation.�
Instead, the Evaluation Committee will focus on whether there is evidence
of sustained overall unsatisfactory performance
(including but not limited to incompetence
and lack of appropriate expertise).
c.�� The Evaluation Committee may seek
additional clarification from those who made or contributed to the
unsatisfactory evaluations that led to the convening of the committee.� Any response to such a request must be made
in writing to the committee and shared with the faculty member under review.
d.�� After the committee has received any
additional clarifying information, the faculty member under review must be
given an opportunity to formally meet with the committee as part of the
evaluation process if so requested.�
Such requests must be made in writing by the faculty member to the Chair
of the Evaluation Committee .�� If the
faculty member under review does elect to meet with the Evaluation Committee, a
verbatim record of the entire meeting will be made.� If the faculty member so requests, a copy will be provided
without cost.�
���
e.�� The faculty member under review must also
be given an opportunity to have other individuals speak on his or her behalf to
the committee if so requested.� Such
requests must be made in writing by the faculty member to the Chair of the
Evaluation Committee.� If a meeting is
held in which others speak on behalf of the faculty member, a verbatim record
of that meeting will be made.� If the
faculty member so requests, a copy will be provided without cost.
f.�� In the interest of avoiding unnecessary
expense and to promote a prompt resolution, the Evaluation Committee may set
reasonable time limits on speakers.�����
g.�� The
recommendation of the Evaluation Committee must be based only on the complete
record as presented to the committee following the above steps, and must be
conveyed to the Provost in writing along with a recorded vote.���
2.6.2 Post Tenure Review Policies and Procedures � 2009 Revision, p.
43 (SOL Resolution C):
�C)
Page 43, in the �PROCEDURE� subdivision, paragraph 4:
�4. Outcomes from the
evaluation procedure may include: (a) postponement of sanctions, with
another peer review to be
conducted within one calendar year; (b) a determination that no
sanctions are necessary, with
appropriate professional development recommendations; (c) a
change in the faculty
member�s assignment that is better aligned with his or her strengths; (d)
imposition of appropriate
sanctions other than termination; or (e) termination of employment.
Outcome (c) may be
recommended in conjunction with outcome (a) or (b). Termination can only
be considered by the provost
if a two-thirds majority of those [making] authorized to
make a
recommendation to the provost
vote to recommend termination. If termination is recommended
and the provost endorses this
recommendation, the faculty member undergoing review must be
given at least six months
notice before termination can take effect.
Explanatory Note
These changes are intended to
create a two-thirds super-majority requirement (of those
authorized to vote) for
dismissal recommendations, and thus to protect faculty members against
a politicized environment or
the manipulation of committee membership or committee meeting
schedules. If in fact a
tenured faculty member�s dismissal is to be recommended, this should be
based on a peer consensus,
and not a bare committee majority, or a bare majority of a committee
meeting.
There is a good case to
require an even higher super-majority (like the 5 of 6 minimum in
some civil jury trials), or
even unanimity (as required in criminal jury trials); the two-thirds
requirement is analogous to court-martial procedure.
OUTCOME:� The Handbook Committee and the Provost rejected the proposed revisions (changes) to Section 2.6.2 Procedure C. 4 in an effort to maintain a more appropriate balance between individual and organizational interests.� Further, the analogy of post-tenure review to criminal trials and court-martial procedures was judged to be misguided.� This proposal would have incorporated legalistic formalities and burdens of proof of a nature the committee rejected during the revision process.�
2.6.2 Post Tenure Review Policies and Procedures � 2009 Revision ,
p. 43 (SOL Resolution D):
�D)
Page 43, in the �PROCEDURE� subdivision, paragraph 6:
(D) Page 43, paragraph 6:
�6. In the event the faculty
member�s employment is to be terminated in accordance with [the
procedures of ] this section,
such termination shall not be final until the procedures of
[and]
Section 2.9.3 are met [shall
not apply]. In such a case, the particulars of the faculty member�s
sustained overall unsatisfactory
performance shall constitute the charges drafted by the
President. However, nothing in this
section shall act to prevent or prohibit termination of
employment of a faculty
member for other causes in accordance with the
procedure set forth in
Section 2.9.3."
Explanatory Note
Both this amendment and
amendment 3 below are intended to complete the re-linking of
the post-tenure review
provisions back to the existing substantive legal protections of tenure, in
terms of both grounds for
dismissal for cause and procedural protections for the faculty member.
Post-tenure review should not
be used to change the definition of academic tenure, but
only to provide a process for
ongoing review. In contrast, the bulk of the current draft proposal
is focused on establishing an
independent mechanism for termination. The Law Faculty believes
that de-linking the
termination mechanism from the pre-existing provisions for dismissal with
cause violates both the legal
definition of tenure and the due process rights of affected
individuals. This amendment
proposes to rectify those violations.
OUTCOME:� The Handbook
Committee rejected the proposed revisions (changes) to Section 2.6.2 Procedure
D.6� as it is inconsistent with the
intent of the committee to avoid the legally and professionally problematic
equating of unsatisfactory performance with immoral and criminal conduct.� �
Note-In accordance with this
proposed change, a conforming amendment must to made to
proposed � 2.9.3, to restore
the ground of termination for professional unfitness, as follows:
2.9.3 Termination of
Appointment of Tenured, Tenure-Track, and Term Faculty Members
for Cause (Pages 69-72 of Template 2)
(conforming amendment to implement 2(D)).
On page 69, at the end of the
second full paragraph, add the following new sentence:
Adequate cause also may
include sustained overall unsatisfactory performance that renders
the faculty member
professionally unfit to perform the minimum duties of his or her position,
but only if such charges are
formulated and screened in accordance with Section 2.6.2. In
such cases, referral to the
University Grievance committee is not required, and the procedures
shall begin with the
President�s decision pursuant to subsection c below.
Explanatory Note
This is conforming amendment,
for the reasons noted under amendment 2(D) above.
Readers should take note,
however, that its provisions are necessitated by changes in the general
termination procedures to
remove local peer faculty screening from that process. The general
wisdom of that change also is
questionable.
OUTCOME:� The Handbook
Committee rejected the proposed revisions (changes) to Section 2.9.3 as it is
inconsistent with the intent of the committee to avoid the legally and
professionally problematic equating of unsatisfactory performance with immoral
and criminal conduct.� �
2.6.2 Post Tenure
Review Policies and Procedures � 2009 � p. 41 Policy (FHC/BW): Delete the first sentence of� 4): Tenured faculty members who receive
an annual overall unsatisfactory evaluation rating twice in four years
will meet with the appropriate dean, institute director, or vice-president.�� The revised 4) �Tenured faculty members who
receive an annual overall unsatisfactory evaluation rating twice in four
years will meet with the appropriate dean, institute director, or
vice-president.�
Tenured faculty members who receive two overall �unsatisfactory�
ratings in a four-year period will undergo a peer evaluation process
to determine if continued employment with the university is appropriate (as
described in the following section).
2.6.2
Post Tenure Review Policies and Procedures � 2009 � p. 42 Procedure (FHC/BW):
1)� In the first sentence, insert �but do not
meet the criterion stated in paragraph 3 below� between �annual review� and
�will meet�:� �1.� Tenured
faculty who receive an overall unsatisfactory rating during any annual
review but do not meet the criterion stated in paragraph 3 below will meet
with the appropriate LAU administrator to establish a written plan of
action.� The plan will include a
timetable.�
2) In the paragraph following d):� first sentence:� insert �and� and remove �;� between �faculty member� and �one
copy� and delete the phrase �and if the faculty member has received a second
�unsatisfactory� rating in any four-year period, one copy will be filed with
the Office of the Provost.�� �Insert �In addition, the Provost will be
notified that the faculty member was given an unsatisfactory evaluation.� as
the second sentence of 2).� Move the
first sentence of the first paragraph in 3) to become the third sentence of 2): The LAU administrator and the Office of the Provost
will address relevant issues in subsequent annual evaluations during the
rolling five
four-year period.
The
full paragraph� following d) as revised:
��One
copy of the plan of action will be retained by the faculty member and
one copy will be placed in the faculty member�s personnel file in the
office of the LAU administrator. and if the faculty member has received a second �unsatisfactory�
rating in any four-year period, one copy will be filed with the Office of the
Provost.�� In addition,
the Provost will be notified that the faculty member was given an
unsatisfactory evaluation.� The LAU administrator and the Office of the Provost
will address relevant issues in subsequent annual evaluations during the
rolling five
four-year period.� Faculty
members pursuing a plan of action for correcting unsatisfactory performance
will be encouraged to avail themselves of university resources designed to
assist all faculty in professional development.
3) In paragraph one,
add as final sentence:� �For faculty not
specifically affiliated with a specific LAU, the Evaluation Committee will be
the Promotion and Tenure Committee of the school/college/institute most closely
aligned with the faculty member�s areas of expertise, as judged by the faculty
member.�� The revised paragraph: 3.� Tenured faculty members who receive two
overall �unsatisfactory� ratings in a four-year period will be required to
submit a summary of activities and accomplishments in teaching, research, and
service, as appropriate, during the four-year period, along with copies of
annual evaluation results for that four-year period to the school/college/institute
Promotion and Tenure Committee (i.e., the body authorized to conduct
second-level review under the provisions of Section 2.7.3), serving as an
Evaluation Committee.� For faculty not
specifically affiliated with a specific LAU, the Evaluation Committee will be
the Promotion and Tenure Committee of the school/college/institute most closely
aligned with the faculty member�s areas of expertise, as judged by the faculty
member.
3) Paragraphs two
and three were incorporated in a complete revision of 4); 4)� p. 43 becomes 5).�
4.�� The Evaluation Committee will operate
according to the following procedures:
a.�� The
Provost will initiate the evaluation process with a written communication to
the faculty member (the �Notice�).� The
Notice shall include:�
1.� A
statement explaining the current employment status of the faculty member and
how that could change as a result of post-tenure review.
2.� The
procedural rights, in detail, of the faculty member (as outlined below).
3.� A
statement that to maintain employment the faculty member must submit a
portfolio summarizing activities and accomplishments in teaching, research, and
service, as appropriate, during the period spanning the two unsatisfactory
evaluations.� The statement should
explicitly note that there is no limit on the amount or type of documentation
the faculty member may submit, but that the submitted documentation must
include copies of annual evaluation results during the period spanning the two
unsatisfactory evaluations.
4.� A
statement that if the faculty member fails to submit a portfolio within one
calendar month of the date the Notice was transmitted, the Provost will make a
recommendation for termination to the Board of Visitors without benefit of a
committee report.
b.��
Submitted materials will be reviewed by the Evaluation Committee to
determine if the faculty member under review has discharged the duties
associated with his or her position conscientiously and with basic professional
competence.� The Evaluation Committee
will not use the standards associated with the awarding of tenure and
promotion to conduct this evaluation.�
Instead, the Evaluation Committee will focus on whether there is
evidence of sustained overall unsatisfactory
performance (including but not limited to
incompetence and lack of appropriate expertise).
c.�� The Evaluation Committee may seek
additional clarification from those who made or contributed to the
unsatisfactory evaluations that led to the convening of the committee.� Any response to such a request must be made
in writing to the committee and shared with the faculty member under review.
d.�� After the committee has received any
additional clarifying information, the faculty member under review must be
given an opportunity to formally meet with the committee as part of the
evaluation process if so requested.�
Such requests must be made in writing by the faculty member to the Chair
of the Evaluation Committee .�� If the
faculty member under review does elect to meet with the Evaluation Committee, a
verbatim record of the entire meeting will be made.� If the faculty member so requests, a copy will be provided
without cost.�
���
e.�� The faculty member under review must also
be given an opportunity to have other individuals speak on his or her behalf to
the committee if so requested.� Such
requests must be made in writing by the faculty member to the Chair of the
Evaluation Committee.� If a meeting is
held in which others speak on behalf of the faculty member, a verbatim record
of that meeting will be made.� If the
faculty member so requests, a copy will be provided without cost.
f.�� In the interest of avoiding unnecessary
expense and to promote a prompt resolution, the Evaluation Committee may set
reasonable time limits on speakers.�����
h.�� The
recommendation of the Evaluation Committee must be based only on the complete
record as presented to the committee following the above steps, and must be
conveyed to the Provost in writing along with a recorded vote.���
New 5) Sentence
2:�� Insert �or (d)�after (a) or (b);
remove �or� and insert comma between (a) and (b)..� Insert� new third
sentence:� �In the event of any outcome
other than (e), the faculty member will meet with the appropriate LAU
administrator to establish a written plan of action following the guidelines
specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of these procedures.� In the last sentence, add
�written� between �six months� and �notice�.��
5)� Outcomes from the
evaluation procedure may include:� (a)
postponement of sanctions, with another peer review to be conducted within one
calendar year; (b) a determination that no sanctions are necessary, with
appropriate professional development recommendations; (c) a change in the
faculty member�s assignment that is better aligned with his or her strengths;
(d) imposition of appropriate sanctions other than termination; or (e)
termination of employment. Outcome (c) may be recommended in conjunction with
outcome (a), (b), or (d).� In the event
of any outcome other than (e), the faculty member will meet with the appropriate
LAU administrator to establish a written plan of action following the
guidelines specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of these procedures.� Termination can only be considered by the
Provost if a majority of those making a recommendation to the Provost vote to
recommend termination.� If termination
is recommended and the Provost endorses this recommendation, the faculty member
undergoing review must be given at least six months written notice before
termination can take effect.�
Please note:� 4) e-g, 5), 6), and 7) form a new page 44 in
Master Template Chapter Two.
2.7.2 Procedures for Reappointment (Contract Renewal)
2009 Revision � p. 50 (FHC)� As
noted in the Tables of Contents in Chapter One, �Section 2.7.2 Procedures for Renewal
(Reappointment) has
been retitled as 2.7.2 Procedures for Reappointment (Contract
Renewal) for greater clarity.
2.7.2
Procedures for Reappointment (Contract Renewal) 2009 Revision � p. 50 (FHC) In paragraph e.� �term� was inserted between �one-year� and �appointment� in order
to eliminate any misunderstandings that may arise should non-renewed faculty
member fail to comprehend one-year appointment is terminal (final), useful
redundancy:��
�e.� If the decision
reached is for non-renewal, the faculty member will receive a terminal,
one-year term appointment following the completion of the initial
three-year tenure-track appointment, contingent on the faculty member having
submitted an appropriate and timely portfolio of materials for the purpose of
seeking tenure-track contract renewal.�
2.7.2 Procedures for Reappointment (Contract Renewal) 2009 Revision � p.
51 (FHC), Paragraph
one, last sentence: �term� inserted for reasons described above (p. 49):� : � In the event of non-renewal at any
stage of this process, the faculty member will receive a terminal, one-year term
appointment following the decision for non-renewal assuming that an
appropriate and timely portfolio of supporting materials has been submitted.�
2.7.2 Procedures for Reappointment (Contract Renewal) 2009 Revision � p.
51 (FHC):� Paragraph two was moved to
form the first sentence of 2.7.3 Procedures for Promotion and Tenure �
2009 Revision � p. 54 , Section H: ��A
faculty member in the sixth year of
service will be notified in writing on
or before July 1 by the President of a decision not to recommend for tenure.
�The phrase �in the sixth year of service� was also
deleted.
2.7.3
Procedures for Promotion and Tenure � 2009 Revision,� p. 53 (FHC):� To accommodate two tier
review procedure at the School of Law, �above� was inserted between �the� and
�paragraphs� and references to previous paragraphs deleted.�
4.�� The School of Law is exempt from the
provisions specified in the above paragraphs (1) and (2), but it is not exempt from the requirement for
two-level peer review.
�
2.7.3.2 Tenure Clock Extension for Serious
Illness � NEW 2009, p. 58 (FHC)� The
following sentence was added as the final sentence of� last paragraph, adapted from 2.7.3.1 Tenure Clock Extension for
New Parents:� �Extensions due to
serious illness are independent of study leaves.�
2.7.3.3 Tenure Clock
Extension for Military Service � NEW 2009, p. 59 (FHC):� The following two sentences were adatped from
2.7.3.2 Tenure Clock Extnesion for Serious Illness and added to the end of the
last paragraph:� �At the time of tenure
consideration, a faculty member will be considered using the same criteria as
those applied to other faculty in the college, school, or institute. Extensions due to military service are independent of
study leaves.�� The phrase, �for example� was added to the third
sentence: �Therefore, for example, an active duty assignment lasting
between 4 through 15 months will earn a one-year extension, 16 through 27
months will earn a two-year extension�.
2.9.2 Discontinuation of
Degree Programs � 2009 Revision, p. 68 (FHC):�
�In the third sentence, �and� was inserted between �program�
and �holding�: ��Faculty adversely
affected by the discontinuation of a degree program and holding multi-year
term appointments will be given at least one academic year's notice of the
decision to discontinue a program.�.� In
the last sentence, �the� was inserted between �appointment in� and
�face�:� �Procedures and safeguards
will parallel those provided for termination of appointment in the face
of financial exigency, where applicable (see Section 2.9.1).�
2.9.3
Termination of Appointment of Tenured, Tenure-Track, and Term Faculty Members
for Cause � 2009 Revision, p. 71 (FHC):�
The
reference to an AAUP document was removed from
�10.� All the
evidence should be duly recorded.�� It
is not necessary to follow formal rules of court procedures (from AAUP:�
Statement on Procedural Standards, p. 12).� as its pagination and
title may change.�
2.10.6 Political
Candidacy � 2009 Revision, p. 82 (SOL Draft Changes):�
Language:� �Members of the academic community who
consider running for political office must notify the President�.�
Explanation:
We assume that �members� are limited to individuals governed by the Handbook,
but it would be clearer if this section stated that explicitly.� But what is a �political office?�� Elective office?� Do party positions count?�
Do campaigns for nonpartisan office count?
Revision:� Faculty who run for elective office must
notify the President in advance� Members of the academic community who
consider running for political office must notify the President�.�
OUTCOME:� The Faculty Handbook Committee accepted the
proposed revision with one change: �to
retain �inform� in lieu of �notify� as suggested by University Counsel:� Faculty who run �for elective office must inform
the President in advance...�Members of
the academic community who consider running for political...
2.11.1
Academic Freedom and Civil Liberties � 2009 Revision, p. 87 (SOL Draft
Changes):
Language: One of the vital activities of a university is the critical examination
of ideologies and institutions. It is essential that faculty members have the
right to express their views responsibly, and the University is committed to
upholding the principles of academic freedom to protect the expression of
faculty members without fear of censorship or retaliation�.
Faculty personnel actions,
including initial appointment, reappointment, and promotion and tenure will
not be affected by non- academic considerations such
as the exercise of academic freedom and civil liberties.
Explanation:� �Responsible� is subjective and open to
different perspectives, which makes the protection in this clause
unreliable.� Moreover, how can exercise
of academic freedom be �non-academic?�� Also, faculty personnel decisions are influenced by non-academic
considerations � for instance the suspension of faculty convicted of a felony.
Revision: One
of the vital activities of a university is the critical examination of
ideologies and institutions. It is essential that faculty members have the
right to express their views responsibly, and the University is
committed to upholding the principles of academic freedom to protect the
expression of faculty members without fear of censorship or retaliation�.
OUTCOME:� The Handbook Committee accepted the proposed
revision to delete �responsibly�.
2.11.1 Academic Freedom and Civil Liberties � 2009 Revision, p. 87
(SOL Draft Changes):
Faculty
personnel actions, including initial appointment, reappointment, and
promotion and tenure will not be affected by non-academic considerations
such as the exercise of academic freedom
and civil liberties.
OUTCOME:� The Handbook Committee did not accept the
proposed revision to delete the entire final paragraph of 2.11.1 as noted
above; however the phrase �non-academic� was deleted so that the revised
paragraph reads:� �Faculty
personnel actions, including initial appointment, reappointment, and
promotion and tenure will not be affected by non-academic considerations such as the exercise of
academic freedom and civil liberties.�
CHAPTER THREE
3.2 SALARY INCREASES �
2009 Revision � p. 2 (FHC):� To replace �dispersed� with �disbursed� at the end of
the last sentence of paragraph two: it is the
responsibility of the University to ensure such funds are disbursed dispersed accordingly.
�3.6 Faculty Development � 2009 Revision � p. 6 (FHC): To
insert �among other opportunities� at the beginning of the final sentence.� �These
may include, among other opportunities, departmental study leaves, competitive
awards in the form of summer stipends and University study leaves,
opportunities to consider new approaches to teaching and the assessment of
teaching (e.g. portfolio development), and assisting faculty with the
application of new technologies to instruction.�
3.6.1 Study Leave for Tenure-Track Faculty -� 2009 � p. 7 (FHC):� In the first sentence, to�
insert� �at some point� between
�leave� and �during� to further clarify:�
�All assistant and or
associate professors appointed to their first tenure-track positions will be
granted a one-semester study leave at some point during the first five
years of the tenure-track cycle.��
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Caniano
Clerk, Faculty Senate
�