MINUTES OF THE FACULTY HANDBOOK REVISION COMMITTEE

Wednesday, February 28, 2007; Mason Hall, D5 – 8:30 – 10:00 a.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; Marilyn Mobley, Associate Provost for Education Programs and Associate Professor of English; Suzanne Slayden, Associate Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, College of Science.

Absent: David Rossell, Associate Provost for Personnel and Budget, ex-officio.

Correction to FHC Minutes February 21, 2007: Replace “these” with “this” and changes from plural to singular usage in second paragraph, second sentence, 2.3.2 Procedures for Recruitment and Appointment of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty so that the revised sentence reads: After receiving appropriate training from the Office of Equity and Diversity Services, this committee reviews applicant credentials and makes recommendations regarding potential finalists for the position.

Noncompetitive (Waived Search) Hire Policy was approved with some changes by the Faculty Senate at its February 21^st meeting; the approved policy was distributed to the committee and is reproduced below:

Noncompetitive (Waived Search) Hire Policy – Motion from the Faculty Matters Committee as amended and approved by the Faculty Senate 2-21-07

Policy. In keeping with Section 1.3 of the Faculty Handbook that states, “In accordance with the best traditions of American universities, the faculty plays a primary role in…faculty personnel actions,” the faculty role in noncompetitive hires is equal to that in competitive searches and hires. This policy concerns all noncompetitive hires of instructional term, tenured, and tenure-track faculty.

Noncompetitive or direct hires are hires in which the search process is waived. When hiring term, tenured and tenure-track faculty, competitive searches should be used except in very special circumstances. These circumstances are normally limited to situations (a) when the candidate has already established a national/international reputation, the program has a unique opportunity to hire the targeted candidate, and the area of specialization complements those of faculty already in the program; (b) when the candidate is a spouse or partner of a candidate being hired through formal search procedures and the university is attempting to accommodate her or him; and (c) when an administrator is hired and is considered for acceptance in a specific local academic unit (LAU). While an administrator is normally hired using a competitive process at the administrative level, this policy applies because s/he is not part of a competitive process at the level of the LAU. Instructional term faculty may also be hired without a search when classes must be staffed immediately due to an unexpected resignation, death, or illness of a member of the teaching faculty. Waiver of a search in this situation is only valid for one year.

Procedures. Faculty in the LAU review the credentials of any individual who is a candidate for noncompetitive hire using the same procedures as review of competitive hire candidates. These include at a minimum the opportunity to examine a curriculum vitae, meet with the candidate, attend a job seminar or formal presentation by the candidate, and review letters of reference. The LAU faculty then vote to accept or reject the candidate. The hiring process moves forward only when a majority of the LAU faculty who are eligible to vote accept the candidate.

If a candidate for noncompetitive hire is to be tenured upon hiring, s/he must be reviewed by both the LAU faculty and the college- or school-level promotion and tenure committee. The LAU review requires a majority positive vote by eligible faculty for tenure in addition to the vote to accept the candidate into the program. If the LAU faculty vote is positive and the chair approves of the candidate, the dossier is then sent to the college or school promotion and tenure committee. 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 hires may be made outside the normal annual promotion and tenure cycle, college and school promotion and tenure committees must develop procedures for reviewing candidates out of cycle.

Employment of Family Members – draft policy: Rick shared with Jim Sanford our discussion about the draft policy at our last meeting; the draft will be distributed later today as part of the Faculty Senate agenda for March 7, 2007 meeting. Rick has also looked at policies in other Faculty Handbooks, in particular the draft policy under consideration for the William and Mary Faculty Handbook, which uses “consensual amorous relationship.” An outdated Sexual Harassment Policy statement is contained in Appendix A of the present Faculty Handbook; a more recent brochure was published in 1998. Some committee members supported its inclusion in the Faculty Handbook. some support alternative suggestion that we point directly to the 1998 booklet and/or Equity Office for more information, as it is a rather volatile area in employment law. The law is also volatile because uneven in its use now as relates to relationships – who can be married. When you sit on search committees, people with partners (heterosexual or homosexual) want partner to come. Consensual amorous relationships not recognized by law. Even if declare as partners and not recognized by law, can have legal ramifications in the Faculty Handbook. The committee will look at Equity Office policy.

Code of Ethics Policy Requests/Research Misconduct Committee: Rick recently received a listserv email request to share code of ethics policies among schools which have them. Are the AAUP Guidelines sufficient? They will also be sent to the Research Misconduct Committee.

Concerns about Equity Office

Concerns about continuity and sharing of data were expressed. When you hire a full-time faculty or staff member, you must use the E-Work system, in which applicants are asked (but not required) to provide demographic data. The IRR has lots of data and a new head, Chris Smith. They take snapshots of demographic data all the time; difference between not having data and not analyzing data you have. Data exists now, very complete, systemic. Equity Office has been understaffed, only recently hired replacement for employee dismissed in 2004; and only recently began training for search committees. In fairness to Equity Office, (they) complain bitterly and repeatedly about lack of interest and communication in the University community; there is not a lot of support for what they need to do.

2.3.3. Procedures for Recruitment and Appointment of Other Faculty: Recommended to delete everything in this section of the current Handbook and substitute with Procedures for Appointment and Reappointment of Term Faculty (Addendum to the Faculty Handbook approved jointly by the Provost and the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate, effective 7/1/03) – copied below. Suggested deletions appear in yellow; additions in red.

Addendum to the Faculty Handbook (approved jointly by the Provost and the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate).[1]

Procedures for Appointment and Reappointment of Term Faculty

Full-time faculty, whether instructional or research, on fixed-term, non tenure track appointments are will be 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 with the caveat that this funding must be available 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, either teaching or research. Some specific administrative or service functions may be attached to the teaching or research focus. Multi-year appointments will be made at the rank appropriate to the credentials of the individual, often at the rank of Term Assistant Professor with an initial contract period of three years. Multi-year Term Faculty will 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.

By agreement with the Board of Visitors and the Faculty Senate, a maximum of 35% of all Term Faculty may be on multi-year contracts and a maximum of 25% of all full-time Instructional Faculty within colleges, schools, or institutes may be Term Faculty.

Criteria for reappointment will emphasize strong performance in teaching or research, as designated in the initial contract letter. The reappointment process outlined below is not applicable for Instructors without a terminal degree or postdoctoral appointments.

Single-year Contracts

Term Faculty on single-year contracts will be evaluated annually for reappointment and notified in writing by March 1^st in the first year of their initial contracts and by December 15^th in reappointment contract years. In the fifth year of five consecutive, single-year contracts, a Term Faculty member must be evaluated using the procedure outlined below for Term Faculty on multi-year contracts in the final year of their initial, three-year contracts, and must be notified in writing of the decision to reappoint or not to reappoint.

Multi-year Contracts

Term Faculty on multi-year contracts will be evaluated for reappointment during the final year of their initial appointments. (See Attachment # 1 for the required materials.)

Based on that evaluation and programmatic needs, and after appropriate faculty review, the respective Dean or Director will recommend reappointment or non-reappointment. This recommendation is due to the Provost by November 1st of the faculty member’s final year of the current, multi-year contract. The Provost will make the final determination and advise the Term Faculty member, in writing, by the end of that fall semester (no later than December 15th).

If the decision is made for reappointment, the faculty member may either receive a second, three-year appointment or a single-year appointment.

In the Term Faculty member’s sixth year, s/he may be considered for promotion, normally to the rank of Term Associate Professor, and reappointment to a three or five-year contract or for reappointment to a one or three-year contract at his/her current rank. Candidates for promotion must demonstrate at least high competence in the focus area (teaching or research) and by the standards (such as service) developed locally and approved by the Provost. (See Attachment # 2 for the recommended casebook materials.) The recommendation for promotion is due to the Provost by November 1^st of the faculty member’s final year of the current, multi-year contract.

Term Faculty not recommended for promotion in their sixth year may be recommended for another three-year term at their current rank. They then may be recommended for promotion in their ninth year, but may not remain on multi-year appointments if not promoted at that time.

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.

Term Faculty who are promoted will be announced to the Board of Visitors and will be appointed to either a three or five-year contract at their new rank. The length of reappointment contracts for research faculty may be less than five years, depending on the funding available, without impact on rank.

Thereafter, Term Faculty holding the rank of Term Associate Professor will be evaluated for reappointment to additional three or five-year 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.

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.

At the initial implementation of this process, faculty members currently on one-year contracts, but being offered multi-year contracts, may request that prior years of service be counted in consideration for reappointment/promotion,[2]and units must respond with explicit recommendations to the Provost regarding the stage of appointment. The Provost will make the final determination.

(Note: Atttachment 1 “Term Faculty on Multi-year Contracts Reappointment Recommendation Template” (Memo from Dean/Director to Provost) and Attachment 2 “Recommended Casebook Promotion Template for Term Faculty on Multiyear Contracts” not reproduced here.

First needs to have conceptual discussion, extremely complicated as written.
Very good about timing, need to have early notification in December, not April, that you no longer have a job.
What to do about part-time faculty?
Two-year appointments? Five-year appointments? Should they be allowed? Cannot get as initial appointment – if renewed, provision for automatic term, after 6 six years, if not, after 9 years – need to be terminated, or at least revised, one-year intervals, vs. not letting them roll over for years and years. If you do not put yourself up for promotion after the 9^th year, you’re out.

Is there an office in the University with data on the number of term faculty? How many multi-year? How many terminated? Term faculty are sometimes discontinued for budgetary purposes.
Concern/suspicion about increased use of term faculty as a way to decrease tenured faculty. Agreement with BOV and Faculty Senate states that a maximum of 35% of all Term Faculty may be on multi-year contracts and a maximum of 25% of all full-time Instructional Faculty may be Term Faculty.
Instructional Term Faculty and Research Term Faculty (are) not second-class citizens, they have their job. Focus different than for tenure-track. Old five-year limit on term faculty may have existed as exploitative issue, some here longer (10 years). Nor do term faculty consider themselves exploited.
Old five year limit moot, gone; now you can renew people forever. Continuation of position generally assumed given (satisfactory) performance, budget, need for position, etc. Use of policy transformed how people looked at term faculty; not intrinsically temps anymore.
CEHD pays term and instructional faculty the same, have the same benefits. In ICAR, same situation; some term faculty (earn) more based on their experience.
Report on out-of-cycle raises presented to the Faculty Senate last week. Raises included term faculty who got the floor raise, was shocked at how many they were – almost 15% of 1,000 were that low.
Concern about percentages, need for some limits. Without limits, university-wide could have a college with almost all term faculty – not good for university; also under control of dean. Dean will have to make decisions, averaging across university. CEHD term faculty around 25% level, around 25% term faculty also in SOM. May reflect need to get specialized people.
Not getting full time faculty you request from dean as they invest resources elsewhere.
Who conducts searches for new (term faculty) hires? Searches may be competitive, possibly non-competitive, often local. In CEHD background for teaching in northern Virginia required. In SOM basic accounting positions advertised in various journals, may advertise nationally, often ends up bringing in local folks. Good for individual situations, sometimes a qualified applicant comes directly from industry into academia. Compensation for term faculty lower, less likely to move here from afar.
Various percentages discussed: 25%, 33%, 50% seen as too high. Part-time instructional faculty (.5 FTE) do not count in this.
Multi-year contracts: some wish to remove 35% limit. If we wish to shore up tenure, not to do away with quota number, would hurt aim. Term faculty also give financial flexibility within the unit.
The first time (CEHD) initiated renewal of term faculty: as a multi-year term faculty or as in 5^th year in single-year term contract: term faculty defined as instructional or research faculty, not evaluated in other area. If you performed work in other area, not evaluated there. In some situations term faculty wish to become tenure-track. Be careful what you wish for, if you don’t meet very high standards, you’ll fail; insecurity of tenure-track vs. security of term position.
For promotion to full term professor, need to have genuine excellence in the one area, more than high competence. For non-tenure track faculty to advance in rank, will get promoted for years of solid service. Inequitable for us not to do so; to keep assistant term professors for ten years is not good; title does matter.
Compensation issue noted, and questioned why brought up here.
Discussion of ratios: to remove fixed percentage caps would undermine tenure. To make this more attractive to those who do not do research doesn’t yield a great university. Some faculty do not have doctorates, are highly experienced practitioners. If you do not have a PhD, cannot have multi-year contract. (Many) good term faculty members wish to have multi-year contracts. Not against changing numbers, but need to come back to what appropriate numbers are at a later time.
Need for feedback from Provost – not just numbers in a unit, but academic integrity. If you are a major research university, number of tenured faculty important.
Should service requirements be included for term faculty? In some places term faculty do perform service. Worry that local unit director would load term faculty down with service, removing from tenure-track faculty the experience they need, pernicious. Also affects faculty governance at lower level – those who do the work but cannot vote. Is there a way to do this for reward without turning into second-class citizenship, not to require for promotion. In some schools faculty complain there are not enough service opportunities at a high level; service could include program development. Another way to address: when you need to renew/promote – this person does so much, we need them; can’t always make the argument re teaching/research. For those who wish to pursue promotion to full term professor, where is the leadership contribution to the university?
Is there some sort of audit for number of term faculty promoted to single-year or multi-year contracts?
Suggested revision to Paragraph c: Multi Year Contracts: to add (in RED) (middle sentence)

Candidates for promotion must demonstrate at least high competence in the focus area (teaching or research) and by the standards (such as service) developed locally and approved by the Provost.

To continue discussion next week.

Respectfully submitted,

Meg Caniano

Clerk, Faculty Senate

[1] Since Term Appointments also apply to Research Faculty, the George Mason University Research Personnel Policies and Procedures will also be updated to include these procedures.

[2] 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. Conversely, tenure track faculty cannot move to a term position without prior approval of the Provost and appropriate faculty review. This procedure will be exceptional.