Faculty Council

FACULTY COUNCIL

Minutes

January27, 2005

Present:Devendra K. Agrawal,Laura C. Barritt, Olaf E. Bohlke, Laura L. Bruce, Murray J. Casey, Delie Roselyn Cerutis, Tom Coffey, Keith Christensen, Christina A. Clark, Jean-Claude Desmangles, Barbara J. Dilly, Ronald E. Flinn, Merry E. Foyt, Linda S. Gabriel Franc, Caroline Goulet, Helene L. Goldstein-Lohman, Philip J. Meeks, Rita Meyer, Chandra K. Nair, Neil S. Norton, Debra L. Ponec, Thomas H. Quinn, Russell R. Reno, Jeanne A. Schuler, Margaret A. Scofield, Garrett A. Soukup, Mary Helen Stefaniak, Patrick C. Swanson, Kathryn A. Thomas, A. Joseph Threlkeld, Lorie A. Vanchena, Jozef V.M. Welie,Marlene K. Wilken, John A. Yee, andJimnei Yuan.

Excused:Richard J. Baltaro (proxy, Stephen Cavalieri),Brenda Bergman-Evans (proxy, Mary Parson), Martha W. Habash (proxy, George McNary), Michael C. Makoid (proxy,Victor Padron), Eugene C. Rich (proxy, Anna Maio), and Mary Ann Vinton (proxy, Donald B. Gibbs).

Absent:Julia Belian, Lei-Da Chen, Laura A. Hansen, Kenneth J. Mellili, Aryan V. Mooss, and Patricio F. Reyes.

Call to Order:

Faculty Council President Tom Coffey called the Januarymeeting of the Faculty Council for the 2004-2005 Academic Year to order at 3:00 P.M.

Approval of the Minutes:

A motion to approve the minutes of November18, 2004as distributed was made and seconded. Faculty Council Secretary Neil S. Norton reiterated the policy on proxies. He announced that when a proxy is needed, that proxy must not be a faculty member that is an Assistant Dean or higher in their School/College's administration. The motion to approve theminutescarried unanimously.

Presentation of Proposed revisions to the Handbook for Faculty and University Statutes:

Tom Coffey gave a brief background that the 9 proposed revisions whichwere part of the work of the Ad Hoc Rank & Tenure Committee that was formed by the Faculty Council to address the original 12 points brought to the Faculty Council by the University Rank & Tenure Committee. Tom Coffey, acting on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee, sent these nine items to the Committee on Faculty Handbook and University Statutes. These items were passed by the Faculty Handbook Committee and are being presented in their future Faculty Handbook form for discussion at this Faculty Council meeting and the Academic Council meeting (as Attachment C) which follows.

Amendment 1 (Definition of Emeritus):

Handbook for Faculty, Article III. The University Faculty, A. Membership, 8. Emeritus Faculty, a. Definition:

The Emeritus Faculty are faculty members who are Professors and Associate Professors from the Teaching-Research, Clinician-Educator, Adjunct Facultyor Contributed-Service Faculties, or University Professors, who have retired and have been designated Emeritus by the President upon the recommendation of the Committee on Rank and Tenure.

This revision is for the Handbook For Faculty. Currently, Contributed Service Faculty are eligible for Emeritus status, while Adjunct Faculty and full-time Assistant Professors in the Teaching-Research Faculty and Clinician-Educator Faculty are not. This change seeks to address this situation. This amendment was passed by the Faculty Council.

Amendment 2 (Definition of Emeritus):

University Statutes, Article III. Section 1. The University Faculty: Definition, A. Membership, 8. Emeritus Faculty, a. Definition

This wording of this amendment is the same change as Amendment 1. The changes presented for Amendment 2 are for the University Statutes. The amendment was passed by the Faculty Council.

Amendment 3 (Probationary Status):

Handbook for Faculty, Article III. The University Faculty, G. Promotion and Tenure, 1.Probationary Status

1. Probationary Status

A faculty member without tenure serves in a probationary status andbut has the same academic freedom as tenured faculty members. The probationary period for Teaching-Research and Clinician-Educator Faculty normally extends through seven years unless a shorter period was negotiated at the time of initial appointment. Because of termination notice requirements, faculty members should recognize that tenure review shall precede the seventh year. A faculty member not granted tenure by the end of his or her sixth year (or earlier if so negotiated at the time of initial appointment) will be given a one-year terminal contract. During the period of this terminal contract, the faculty member may reapply for the granting of tenure. If this faculty member is not granted tenure during this terminal contract year, the faculty member will not be continued in service after the expiration of this terminal contract.

This amendment was discussed and passed by the Faculty Council.

Amendment 4 (Application for Emeritus):

Handbook for Faculty, Article III. The University Faculty, G. Promotion and Tenure, 6. Review Process, b. Review for Emeritus Status, ii. Candidates for Associate Professor Emeritus or Professor Emeritus

ii. Candidates for Associate Professor Emeritus or ProfessorFaculty Emeritus statusshall be recommended for this honor on the basis of long and/or outstanding performance in any of the areas of teaching,or scholarship,or clinical activity (if applicable) or service to the University. Application for Emeritus status shall be initiated by the candidate or the candidate’s Chair. The recommendation shall be based on a cover letter from the Dean, indicating support or lack of support and a recent curriculum vitae.They shall be recommended byTthe Dean of the appropriate College or School shall forward the cover letter and curriculum vitae via the appropriate Vice President to the President for approval.to the University Committee on Rank and Tenure. This recommendation shall not require the submission of a complete dossier, but shall be based on a letter outlining the most significant contributions of the faculty member to the University and the discipline, and current curriculum vitae as outlined in 7.b.The University Committee on Rank and Tenure shall make its recommendation on any such candidate to the President.

This amendment was explained as a way to streamline the Emeritus status applications.Last year there were no Emeritus candidates and in some Colleges/Schools there has been confusion about the process. This amendment was passed by the Faculty Council.

Amendment 5 (Contact Information for Peers):

Handbook for Faculty, Article III. The University Faculty, G. Promotion and Tenure, 7. Procedures, e. Evaluation through Peer References

e. Evaluation through Peer References

The candidate shall add to the dossier the names of at least six, but not more than twelve references from among peers appropriate to the discipline, at least two of which must be outside the University. The candidate shall supply the name, title, affiliation, mailing address and phone number of the submitted peers. The Dean or the Dean’s delegate shall request the references chosen by the candidate to evaluate critically the scholarly, teaching, service and/or clinical activity of the candidate. These peer evaluations shall become a part of the candidate’s dossier. Based on its discretion, the University Committee on Rank and Tenure may consult additional referees of their own choosing, in which case the applicant shall be notified beforehand of the names of referees chosen and be given an opportunity to comment in writing. Recommendations received from all referees shall become a part of the candidate’s dossier.

This amendment was discussed and passed by the Faculty Council.

Amendment 6 (Verification of completeness of dossier and Reporting of College/School vote):

Handbook for Faculty, Article III. The University Faculty, G. Promotion and Tenure, 7. Procedures, f. Evaluation by the College or School Rank and Tenure Committee

f. Evaluation by the College or School Rank and Tenure Committee

The Dean shall submit the candidate’s dossier to the appropriate College or School Committee on Rank and Tenure for evaluation in accordance with Sections G.5, 6 and 7. Before consideration by the College or School Committee on Rank and Tenure, that Committee shall appoint a member or other competent individual to ensure that the dossier is complete, conforms to required norms, and contains no improper materials.The written recommendation of the College or School Committee on Rank and Tenure, including the vote of this Committee, shall become a part of the candidate’s dossier.

Currently, there is nothing requiring that the vote of the College or School Rank and Tenure Committee report their vote to the President. This amendment also provides for someone to be appointed to ensure the completeness of the dossier. This would also make sure that no additional materials, such as unsolicited letters, are included in the dossier. The amendment was passed by the Faculty Council.

Amendment 7 (Reporting of University vote):

Handbook for Faculty, Article III. The University Faculty, G. Promotion and Tenure, 7. Procedures, h. Reviewby the University Committee on Rank and Tenure

h. Review by the University Committee on Rank and Tenure

The Dean of each College or School shall pass each candidate’s dossier on to the Chair of the University Committee on Rank and Tenure. The University Committee on Rank and Tenure shall review the dossier of each candidate in accordance with Sections G.5, 6, and 7. The written recommendation of the University Committee on Rank and Tenure, including the vote of this Committee, shall become a part of the candidate’s dossier.

Currently, there is nothing requiring that the University Rank and Tenure Committee report their vote to the President. The amendment was passed by the Faculty Council.

Amendment 8 (Title of Document):

Handbook for Faculty, Article III. The University Faculty, G. Promotion and Tenure, 7. Procedures, i. Other Guidelines on Rank and Tenure

i. Other Guidelines on Rank and TenureSuggestions for Preparing Dossiers

This amendment was discussed and passed by the Faculty Council.

Amendment 9 (Grievance):

Handbook for Faculty, Article III. The University Faculty, G. Promotion and Tenure, 7. Procedures, 1.Grievance

l. Grievance

For information on the filing of a formal grievance, see Faculty Handbook, sections III.H.1. and III.J.

This amendment was discussed and passed by the Faculty Council.

Proposal of Definition for Tenure and Promotion by the Ad Hoc Rank & Tenure Review Committee:

Tom Coffey informed the Faculty Council that with the previous nine amendments, members of the Ad Hoc Rank & Tenure Committee were now able to turn their attention to the final "point," which dealt with the definition of promotion and tenure. Two handouts were provided to the Faculty Council. The first sheet contained the current wording in the Handbook for Faculty and the motion that the Faculty Council passed at the April 2004 meeting. The second sheet was the Ad Hoc Committee's work to incorporate the motion into the Handbook for Faculty. This sheet consisted of three points:

1.Definition of Tenure,

2.Definition of Promotion, and

3.The Relationship between Tenure and Promotion

Most of the discussion centered on the definition of tenure. Some members of the Faculty Council felt that the current language was too rigid and that tenure is a creation of academic life. Others pointed out that tenure is a property right designed for the protection of the faculty member. It was pointed out that many of the cases presented in The Chronicle of Higher Education detail the lost lawsuits by the administration failing to hold up the rights of the faculty member. Members pointed out that the language used in the sheet was passed unanimously by the Faculty Council at the April 2004 meeting. Concern was expressed that the current language did not seem to allow for being hired with tenure.

Discussion concerning the definition of promotion and the relationship between tenure and promotion was brief due to the constraints of time. A straw vote was taken to get a sense of whether the Faculty Council was pleased with the direction be taken by the Ad Hoc Committee. The three points (Definition of Tenure, Definition of Promotion, and the Relationship between Tenure and Promotion) were supported by the Faculty Council by a 39-2 vote on each point.

Old Business:

Due to time constraints there was no old business.

New Business:

Due to time constraints there was no new business.

Adjournment:

The Faculty Council was adjourned at 3:59P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil S. Norton

Secretary, Faculty Council