Meeting Date: 
March 7, 2018
Date: 
Wed, 2018-03-07 14:00 to 15:00
Location: 
213 Pharmacy
Event Description: 

A PDF of the agenda can be found here.

A PDF of the minutes can be found here.

Agenda: 
  1. Updates
  • Promotion & Tenure (P&T) guidelines for Non-Tenure Track instructors 
  • Update of research and scholarship description for Faculty Research Assistants (FRAs)
  • Addition of allowance for a Senior Instructor on Faculty Senate P&T committee
  • Out-of-Cycle rank and tenure processes
  1. Discussion Items
  • Guidelines for addition of material to faculty P&T dossiers
    • Forward change to Procedural Guidelines as previously proposed for inclusion
    • Update of changes to Faculty Dossier by current committee as noted for inclusion
  • Inclusion of Diversity as a required component of position descriptions
  • Proposal to include Faculty representation on University level P&T committee (*Survey of selected institutions below)
  • Suggested language for wavier of access to student letters. 
  1. Potential Future Discussion Items
  • Guidelines for online faculty promotion and tenure 
  • FRA promotion and tenure guidelines

*Institutional Survey of University level P&T committee composition

UGA:            Faculty (full professors from related disciplines) committee, advisory to Provost

TAMU:           Provost review, with consultation from other university administrators

CSU:             Provost and University administrators; files not clean reviewed by Council of Deans

Columbia:      Provost moderates a College Faculty Standing Committee; President has final vote

CU:              Provost and Vice Chancellors advisory committee (comprised of senior Deans)

Auburn:         Provost with faculty on committee for Tenure Track (TT) (non-TT stop at Dean level)

Minutes: 

Voting members present: Gary DeLander, Theo Dreher, Janet Lee, Darlene Russ-Eft
Voting members absent: None

 

Updates

  1. Faculty Senate Executive Committee has asked Gary to meet with them on March 26th to discuss a few items. Currently identified are Guidelines for Non-Tenure Track instructors and inclusion of a faculty member on the University Promotion & Tenure review committee. No specific discussion points on these items are identified and additional opportunity to discuss items from this meeting’s discussion may be possible. 
  1. Gary received a communication from Raven Chakerian, Chair Faculty Senate Online Education Committee, regarding work that committee is doing on guidelines for online teaching contributions in the process for faculty promotion and tenure. She will forward them for review when their work is completed.
  1. No comment has been received from the Executive Committee regarding other action items from the last meeting (update of research description for FRAs; Addition of Instructor to committee; note regarding application of appropriate procedures for out-of-cycle rank and tenure decisions).

Items Discussed

  1. Guidelines for Addition of Material to Faculty Promotion & Tenure Dossiers

As noted, these changes had been proposed by a previous committee, but not implemented. Following additional discussion: (See inclusions in Appendix A)

Actions:

  • Motion to approve the previous change for inclusion in ‘Procedural Guidelines’ in the Faculty Handbook; motion seconded and passed.
  • Motion to approve the previous change to ‘Faculty Dossier’ in the Faculty Handbook, with a modest wording change that allows for additions to be proposed by the candidate or unit supervisor; motion seconded and passed.

2.  Optional Waivers to be Included in the Dossier

The committee was asked to propose language for the requirement that separate waivers be requested for ‘external reviewers’ and ‘student reviewers’. (See Appendix B)

Action: Motion to approve language describing procedure for waivers for insertion into Faculty Handbook; motion seconded and passed.

3.  Diversity as a Required Component in Faculty Reviews

Discussed at the last meeting, the committee is supportive of the inclusion of language in position descriptions that asks for a review of faculty commitment to diversity. Discussions at this meeting centered on the difficulty of defining language appropriate to varied roles of faculty. For example, some faculty roles may easily include scholarship specific to diversity concerns, while another may most appropriately display a commitment to diversity in how course content or lectures within their discipline are developed and delivered, and others may choose to attend a seminar or workshop to enhance their understanding of diversity concerns.

The goal is to assure that a commitment to diversity is demonstrated, discussed in reviews, and a component of promotion; while allowing for units to define how a commitment to diversity is demonstrated in individual faculty roles. The Committee will continue to explore specific language that could be used.

  1. Inclusion of a Faculty Member on the University Promotion & Tenure Committee

Committee members conducted a non-scientific survey of selected institutions known to committee members to gain a stronger sense of how institutional level promotion and tenure committees are organized. Examples are below:

  • UGA: Faculty committee (full professors from related disciplines), advisory to Provost
  • TAMU: Provost review, with consultation from other university administrators
  • CSU: Provost and University administrators; files not clean reviewed by Council of Deans
  • Columbia: Provost moderates a College Faculty Standing Committee; President has final vote
  • CU: Provost and Vice Chancellors advisory committee (comprised of senior Deans)
  • Auburn: Provost with faculty on committee for Tenure Track (non-Tenure Track stop at Dean level)

The prevailing observation is that there is significant variance ranging from committees that are strictly administrators, like our own, to committees with only senior faculty.

The committee remains supportive of the inclusion of a senior faculty member on the institutional review committee. The current process of having a representative of the Faculty Senate Promotion and Tenure Committee sit in on discussions for rank and tenure, when the decision is not clear, is acknowledged and appreciated. The continuing concern is that entering discussions late does not allow for full participation or perhaps a full understanding of deliberations. In addition, due to the ad hoc nature of Faculty Senate committee member participation, there are instances in which a committee member has not been available to participate.

Action: The committee supports having at least one senior faculty member added to the institutional promotion and tenure committee; motion seconded and passed.

Other Items for Discussion

  1. Consistency in Dossier Preparation

A concern was expressed that dossiers sent to external reviewers may not be consistent across campus with regard to what materials are included. Following discussion, it was felt that instructions for dossier preparation should be adequate. It was recognized that different units’ preparation of dossiers for external review may vary slightly across units on campus, but that there should be an expectation of consistency within units.

Appendices:

Appendix A

Guidelines for addition of material to faculty P & T dossiers

Pertains to section PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE, Tenure Unit Review and Recommendation Policy, Report to the Candidate

Addition:

The unit supervisor is required to confer with the candidate to share the outcomes of the unit reviews prior to the dossier being forwarded to the next level for review. The candidate will receive a copy of the complete dossier forwarded to the college, with the exception of material covered in the waiver of access. The candidate has one week after receiving all unit level reviews to add, if the candidate desires, a written statement regarding these reviews, to be included in the dossier. If there were any disagreements between the candidate and the supervisor of the tenure unit about inclusion of material after the certification of completeness was signed, the candidate has the option to address such disagreements in the statement regarding the reviews.

Pertains to section FACULTY DOSSIERS, Compilation of the Dossier.

New (Replacement proposed by 2018 committee)

Prior to the dossier receiving its first formal review by the department P&T committee, the candidate must sign and date a certification that the open part of the dossier is complete. Should the candidate and the supervisor of the tenure unit disagree on the inclusion of some materials, the candidate may indicate their objection in the statement of certification. After the dossier is certified, the only materials to be added automatically will be the letters of committee and administrative reviews, and in some cases the candidate's response, if any, to an evaluation as described in the following section. Additional material that further demonstrates significant achievements may be added at any time during the process. These modifications to the dossier can be made only if agreed upon by the candidate and if the supervisor of the tenure unit. If evaluators discussing an amended dossier decide that these changes or additions could have altered decisions made earlier in the process, they may choose to request to give all previous committees and administrators an opportunity to reassess their evaluation of the dossier. Additional material should be placed in section X and should be clearly labeled with their date of inclusion.

Old

Prior to the dossier receiving its first formal review by the department P&T committee, the candidate must sign and date a certification that the open part of the dossier is complete. Should the candidate and the supervisor of the tenure unit disagree on the inclusion of some materials, the candidate may indicate his or her objection in the statement of certification. Once the dossier is certified, the only materials to be added subsequently will be the letters of committee and administrative review, and in some cases the candidate's response to an evaluation as described in the following section. If manuscripts are accepted for publication after the dossier is certified, it is the faculty member’s responsibility to inform his or her supervisor. That information will then be considered in the review.

Materials linked from the March 7, 2018 Promotion and Tenure Committee.

Appendix B

Optional Waivers to be included in the dossier

New (Replacement proposed by 2018 committee)

III. CONFIDENTIALITY WAIVERS (optional)

All faculty have the option of signing a “Waiver of Access” form for outside letters of evaluation. The signed original should be included in this section. . Execution of the waiver is voluntary.

All faculty have the option of signing a “Waiver of Access” form for student letters of evaluation. The signed original should be included in this section.  Execution of the waiver is voluntary.

A separate “Waiver of Access” form should be used for outside letters of evaluation and for student letters of evaluation.  If the candidate chooses not to sign one or both waiver of access forms, include a statement to that effect in this section.

Old

III. CONFIDENTIALITY WAIVER (optional)

All faculty have the option of signing a “Waiver of Access” form for outside letters of evaluation. The signed original should be included in this section. . Execution of the waiver is voluntary. If the candidate chooses not to sign the waiver of access, include a statement to that effect in this section.