MINUTES OF THE FACULTY HANDBOOK REVISION COMMITTEE
Thursday, October
9, 2008
Research I, room
91, 11:30 a.m. – 1:30 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.
Visitors: Allison Hayward, Assistant Professor and Faculty Senator, School of Law; Jeffrey Parker, Professor of Law, School of Law.
·
Legitimacy of Faculty Handbook Committee – agreed to by
the Provost and authorized by the Faculty Senate; to demonstrate why revision
of 1994 Handbook necessary.
·
Did not include research faculty as well as new
clinical faculty – to verify statistics with IRR.
·
All policies necessarily have to be incorporated into
the Faculty Handbook.
·
Since 1994 the Faculty Senate has passed a number of
substantive motions referring to conditions of employment or governance
issues.
·
A number of changes in federal and state law such as
FMLA, Sexual Harassment, and USERRA.
·
Actual provisions where committee has improved upon
faculty protections.
·
Change in BOV Mission Statement.
·
Resolved ambiguities about institutes, graduate
faculty.
·
Changes to Academic Institutes, Research Institutes.
·
New Handbook as a dynamic document.
Procedural discussion about changes proposed by the Law
School:
· Provost and University Counsel both need to review changes.
· Motion for approval of Faculty Handbook distributed yesterday (October 8th).
· To recommend separate entity to study changes to post-tenure review procedure as criticized by SOL.
· Not to make further changes to templates distributed for FS Meeting at this time. To consider inclusion of proposed changes subsequent to Faculty Senate meeting, as well as other changes suggested at October 15th meeting.
· Acknowledgement that SOL faculty considered revision seriously, holding a meeting to vote on it, and developed two documents with proposed revisions. (See Appendices 1 and 2)
Arrival of Professors Hayward and Parker; Resolution of the Law School Faculty (Appendix 1) was presented as it was unanimously adopted at a meeting of the Law School faculty October 8, 2008. While not a Senator, Professor Parker was selected to represent the Law School faculty. In his remarks, he noted that the Law School faculty in general thinks there are enough issues concerning this proposal to call for a pause to rethink. Notion that the best is often the enemy of the good, particularly with respect to the Faculty Handbook, which is not just our employment contract but (also) our constitution. It places constraints around administrators. In essence a political fad of a decade ago where state legislatures wanted post-tenure review. The Virginia General Assembly jumped onto bandwagon. A very small piece – only statutory language we have – is short and open-ended. No detailed tenure statutes exist in VA, based on general case law in academic tenure matters. In 1996 account, the appropriation of funds was made conditional on post-tenure review. A review commission was established in Virginia, akin to an administrative body – more like a permanent study committee. A report on Post Tenure Review at all public (VA?) universities (2004) found GMU in complete compliance. So if we make changes, we lose settled expectation of having an approved program.
Senators Allison Hayward and Lloyd Cohen also prepared a list of recommended edits to the Handbook draft as friendly amendments (see Appendix 2).
Chair Rick Coffinberger thanked Professor Parker and Professor Hayward for their attendance at today’s meeting. A brief discussion about the logistics of room B113 Robinson Hall followed their departure.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Caniano
Clerk, Faculty Senate
_________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX 1
Resolution of the Law Faculty concerning
the Proposed 2009 Revision of the Faculty Handbook
The sense of the Law Faculty is that a
general revision of the Faculty Handbook is unwarranted at this time. There is
no indication of any major problems in the operation of the 1994 Handbook. As the source of the contractual arrangement
between the University and its faculty, and the fundamental rules of University
governance and the accountability of officers, the Handbook should not be
subject to revision for light or transient causes. Stability is more important than perfection, and wholesale
revision is likely to create more problems than it solves.
Regarding the current proposed draft,
there are a number of provisions that, in the judgment of the Law Faculty, are
unwise or unclear, or both. For these
reasons, the Law Faculty is opposed to going forward with the current draft,
and recommends that the Faculty Senate recommit the proposal for further
study.
However, in the event that the Faculty
Senate determines to continue with the current proposal, the Law Faculty wishes
to call the Faculty Senate’s attention to certain provisions, most notably
those concerning post-tenure review, that will materially reduce the
protections of academic tenure in a way that appears to us inconsistent with
the standards prevailing elsewhere, including other Virginia universities, and
is no way required by Virginia statute law.
Accordingly, it is hereby Resolved by the
Law Faculty that the proposed 2009 Revision be further amended as follows:
Law Faculty’s Proposed Amendments to the draft of a revised Faculty Handbook:
Key: Deletions are indicated by underscore and brackets []; Additions are indicated by boldfaced italics
�.1. Preface (page 4 of
Template 1):
�.“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.
�.2.
Post-Tenure Review (pages 41-43 of Template 2; § 2.6.2):
�.(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.”
�.(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.
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..
(B) Page 43, 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 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.
(C) 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."
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.
2
_________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX 2
DRAFT
October
8, 2008
To: Faculty Senate
Fr: Lloyd Cohen, Senator, SOL
Allison Hayward, Senator, SOL
Re: Additional
Recommended Edits to Handbook Draft
The
Faculty of the Law School recommends several drafting changes to the Draft 2009
Faculty Handbook Revisions Template of September 2, 2008, circulated to the
faculty in advance of the Senate’s October 15 meeting.
Below
we list the language as it currently exists, a brief explanation of the reason
for our recommended change, and our proposed revision. We are happy to elaborate on any of
these. The page numbers reference the
template for each chapter.
CHAPTER 1
p. 18
Language: 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 includes, 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.
Proposal:
This includes, 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
p. 23
Language: The local
level of governance is the most important in the University
for the faculty's direct exercise of
professional and peer judgment.
Faculties of local academic units actively
participate in decision-
making about academic matters,
matters of faculty status, and
organizational and institutional
change. They have primary
responsibility for such academic
matters as unit reorganization, the
design of programs, development and
alteration of the curriculum,
standards for admission to programs,
and requirements in the major.
They play a primary role in such
matters of faculty status as
recruitment and initial appointment of
new faculty; the reappointment,
promotion and tenure decisions
of members; and in the case of
departments, the selection of the
department chair.
Explanation: To conform with post
tenure review, add “post tenure review” here.
Revision: … recruitment and initial appointment of new faculty; the
reappointment,
promotion, tenure decisions and
post-tenure review of members…
CHAPTER 2
P. 24 & 25
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.
p. 29
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
personnell
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
personnell
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…
p.
81:
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….
p.
86
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….
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 3
No suggested
revisions.