Faculty Meeting Minutes
September 20, 2000
President Pierce called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. in McIntyre 103. Fifty-one voting
members of the faculty were present.
Minutes of the September 5 faculty meeting were approved as distributed.
There were no announcements other than President Pierce’s pointing out that the David Lupherrequested cookies were here for today’s meeting, but probably not for future ones.
President Pierce had no report.
Dean Cooney had no report.
Faculty Senate Chair Bill Haltom had no report.
We turned to the main agenda item, continued discussion of the Faculty Code. President Pierce
suggested that we proceed by (1) reviewing the report of the Faculty Senate distributed as an
attachment to a September 15, 2000 email message to all faculty (the September 15 report is
attached to these minutes), (2) defining where there is and where there is not agreement on
remaining items, and (3) moving discussion of items where there is not agreement to a
conference committee. She suggested that the faculty seek clarity on its position on the latter
items so that the faculty’s position can be represented in a conference committee.
Senate Chair Haltom reviewed the eight code items one by one that were included in the
September 15 report. The September 15 report was the result of the work of the Faculty Senate
at its September 11, 2000 meeting in response to the charge from the full faculty at the
September 5, 2000 meeting. In each case, Chair Haltom read the text of the issue and the
Senate’s recommendation to the faculty, and explained the basis for the Senate’s
recommendation.
Issue One: Should the faculty remove the term “general” from the proposed Chapter II, Section 1,
c: “Schools, department, and programs shall develop criteria for all faculty appointments and
work closely with the president and the dean in developing general policies in this area? (Please
see page 1 of Chapter II in “Side-by-Side” Code text, available at
http://www.ups.edu/dean/facgov/revisions.html).
Faculty Senate’s Recommendation: The faculty should advise the trustees that the faculty will
accede to the trustees on this issue. When they formally respond to the faculty’s amendment, the
trustees’ refusal to agree to the insertion of “general” should occasion little disagreement from
members of a conference committee or the faculty as a whole.
The faculty accepted this recommendation by consensus.
Issue Two: Should the faculty develop a proposal for amending “Chapter II, Section 4 – Initial
Appointment Procedure” (Please see pages 4-6 of Chapter II in “Side-by-Side” Code text) section
that would keep a few fundamental assertions about search procedure in the Code and remove
detailed discussion to another document that could more easily change over time (e.g., the
Faculty Recruitment Guidelines document, which has been used since 1995-1996)?
Faculty Senate’s Recommendation: The senators postponed this issue for a later meeting.
There was no discussion.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
September 20, 2000, Page 2
Issue Three: Should the faculty change Chapter III, Section 2 and Section 2.a (Page 1 of Chapter
III of “Side-by-Side” Code text) to clarify which provisions apply to all faculty as opposed to tenureline faculty only? One version of such language might read: “Faculty shall be evaluated at
specified points in their careers with the university, in the manner provided in this chapter. a.
Evaluation shall occur prior to all decisions to: (1) promote a faculty member; (2) grant or deny
tenure to a faculty member without tenure; and (3) not reappoint a tenure-line faculty member
without tenure.”
Faculty Senate’s Recommendation: The faculty should advise the trustees that the faculty will
accede to the trustees on this issue. Elimination of “tenure-line” from the start of section 2 and
addition of “faculty member without tenure” in two places in section 2a may clarify the code and
will work neither discernible nor discernable hardship on the university.
The faculty accepted this recommendation by consensus.
Issue Four: Should the faculty add “normally” to clarify Chapter III, Section 2, final paragraph
(Page 2 of Chapter III of “Side-by-Side’ Code text) that if an evaluation is delayed by
circumstances, that delay is not a violation of the Faculty Code? Such a revision might read:
“Persons in the rank of instructor, assistant professor, and associate professor normally shall be
evaluated every three years, and professors normally shall be evaluated every five years unless
an earlier evaluation is requested by the faculty member, the head office, or the dean.”
Faculty Senate’s Recommendation: The faculty should advise the trustees that the faculty will
accede to the trustees on this issue. Addition of “normally” to the final paragraph of Section 2 of
Chapter III would improve the language proposed by the faculty.
The faculty accepted this recommendation by consensus.
Issue Five: Shall the faculty add the words “consistent with the provisions of Section 4.b(4)” as
noted in the left column below?
Faculty Senate’s Recommendation: The faculty should advise the trustees that in both cases
below, the alternative formulations are preferable to the first stated emendations. Faculty should
further recommend insertion of “to the Faculty Advancement Committee” to each alternative
version directly before the final comma and last two words [“if desired”] of each.
The attached document contains the rationale for the trustees’ recommendation and the rationale
for the senators’ response, as well as the column containing the proposed wording.
The faculty accepted the recommendation of the Faculty Senate by consensus.
Issue Six: Should the faculty make less strict the requirement in Chapter III, Section 4.d (1)
(Page 15 of Chapter III of “Side-by-Side” Code text) for a head officer to review with an evaluee
the results of an evaluation, so that a month-plus-one-day evaluation discussion is not a violation
of the Faculty Code?
Faculty Senate’s Recommendation: The faculty should agree with the trustees but recommend
that the passage read “a reasonable period, but no later than four months.” In addition, the faculty
should not mandate the content of the conversation beyond the requirement that the head officer
review with the evaluee the product(s) of the evaluation.
Chair Haltom reviewed text from the September 15 document (attached) reporting that Dean Kris
Bartanen had suggested to the Senate that six months be allowed for the head officer to discuss
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
September 20, 2000, Page 3
the review with the evaluee, but that the Senate preferred four months, allowing for the length of
the summer plus one month.
The faculty accepted the recommendation of the Faculty Senate by consensus.
Issue Seven: Should the faculty, having incorporated language that pertains to instructors into the
proposed amendment to the Faculty Code, delete Appendix A?
Faculty Senate’s Recommendation: Senators need to discuss the deletion further and so have
no recommendation for the faculty at this time.
There was no discussion.
Issue Eight: Should the faculty add language to or otherwise amend Chapter III, Section 4 and
Section 6, j; Chapter VI, Section 4 (Pages 4 and 23-24 of Chapter III, and page 6 of Chapter VI of
“Side-by-Side” Code text) the Code to limit challenges based in technical violations of procedure
that do not affect the fairness of an evaluation to the processes for appeal contained within the
Code?
Faculty Senate’s Recommendation: Senators did not get to this issue and have as yet crafted
no suggestions for faculty or trustees.
There was no discussion, and that was the end of Senate Chair Haltom’s report of Senate action
in response to the charge from the full faculty.
Anne Wood M/S/P “to accept the Senate’s recommendations on Issues 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6,
including the alternative version of Issue 5.” Bill Beardsley asked if a vote was to be taken as
the sense of the faculty, and President Pierce responded yes, that a positive vote would mean that
the sense of the faculty is that if these changes come back from the trustees in the final version of
their response to the faculty, the faculty will accept them. Wood’s motion passed on a unanimous
voice vote.
We moved to a discussion of Issue 2, dealing with hiring guidelines. President Pierce suggested
moving the hiring guidelines outside the code, with the code specifying that the guidelines cannot
be changed without the approval of the faculty and in lieu of the trustees (as is currently the case),
the dean and the president. Keith Maxwell asked whether we could even discuss substantive
changes to the code at today’s meeting. President Pierce responded that she thought we could
discuss this issue because the trustees made their recommendation in response to the faculty’s
recommendation of phase one (non-substantive) revisions. She thought that if we did not discuss
it, it would come back to us in a conference committee.
Paul Loeb suggested that instead of saying to trustees that we refuse to discuss the issue, we
suggest that this is an important issue that the faculty want to discuss, but that because it is so
important, we prefer to do so in phase two discussions of code revisions. Loeb M/S/vote
reported later “to postpone discussion of Issue 2 on hiring guidelines to phase two, with a
promise that the faculty will include the issue in phase two.”
Suzanne Barnett asked why this issue could not come up in the conference committee as a way
to get the discussion going. Loeb responded that the trustees recognized there would be a phase
two consideration of code revisions and that we are simply saying that’s where we think
discussion of this issue belongs. In response to a request for clarification from President Pierce,
Loeb said the purpose of the motion is to move to phase two a discussion of moving hiring
guidelines outside the code, not discussion of changes in the hiring guidelines themselves. Dean
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
September 20, 2000, Page 4
Bartanen reminded us that the original ad hoc code committee made recommendations that could
serve as a starting point for phase two discussions. Beardsley said we need some mechanism
such as a faculty handbook for integrating the code with other documents, such as one containing
hiring guidelines, and Dean Cooney agreed.
There being no further discussion, the Loeb motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.
We began discussion of Issue 7, on deleting Appendix A. Dean Cooney suggested that the legal
standing of Appendix A is unclear and that its relationship to the code needs to be clarified,
because Appendix A was not adopted through the process required by the Code to amend the
Code. Rather it was adopted through a memorandum of understanding between the trustees and
the faculty. He suggested that we ask the Faculty Senate to examine the content of Appendix A
and then to integrate its principles into the Code itself if they are not already so incorporated. In
response to encouragement from others, Dean Cooney M/S/vote reported later “that the
faculty ask the Faculty Senate to review the content of Appendix A and attempt to
incorporate within the code itself the principles contained in Appendix A if that has not
already been accomplished.”
Juli McGruder argued that paragraph two of Appendix A should in particular not be incorporated
into the code because it implies, for example, that lower division teaching is more difficult than
upper division teaching. Chair Haltom agreed that the Senate would be in a bind responding to
the motion because they probably could not incorporate paragraph two into the code without
changing paragraph two which, in its current form, is confusing in its meaning. He said the
Senate cannot make substantive changes at this point.
John Hanson argued that the Senate is not necessarily in a logical bind, because it can either (1)
conclude that the issue is substantive and defer it to phase two, or (2) incorporate it within the
code and then deal with it again later as a substantive change in phase two. Barry Goldstein
suggested that the Professional Standards Committee might clarify what paragraph two means in
Appendix B. Dean Cooney pointed out that Appendix B interpretations require trustee approval
with the result that we might be back in a conference committee to deal with the issue.
Keith Ward asked how Appendix A came into existence. Dean Cooney answered that the new
1976 core curriculum created the need for many more lower division courses in English,
communication, and mathematics, and that the new faculty rank of instructor was created to help
teach them. He said the faculty voted to support this in a memorandum of understanding with
trustees, which was demanded by faculty who wanted to restrict the use of instructors. President
Pierce added that at that time the trustees put a cap on the number of tenure-line positions that
could be filled with the result that the University added instructors to meet some of the teaching
needs. Ted Taranovski added that instructor positions gave the university more flexibility as staff
needs changed. President Pierce noted that Puget Sound is one of the few institutions that has
added tenure line positions rather than relying on instructors and adjunct faculty to teach classes.
McGruder asked where the code interpretation could be found that describes how evaluation is
different for instructors, and Cooney responded it is on page 33 of the Faculty Code, dated May,
1986.
Alva Butcher M/S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate passed on a voice vote.
The Cooney motion then passed on a unanimous voice vote.
We then began discussion of Issue 8 on the evaluation process. President Pierce said that she
was persuaded that it might be good to delete the last two sentences in the paragraph beginning
“Although all participants . . . .” (see attached document). She said this would eliminate the
“exclusive remedy” language that had worried so many faculty. Loeb M/S/vote reported later
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
September 20, 2000, Page 5
“to delete the last two sentences of the paragraph beginning “’Although all participants . . .
.’ and to eliminate entirely the proposed change to chapter VI.”
David Tinsley said the motion presented a difficult issue for him because he had no idea what the
legal ramifications would be one way or the other. McGruder asked if the university would pay for
legal advice. Haltom responded that if the university paid for the advice, the attorney would be
representing the university rather than the faculty. President Pierce said she learned that the
university could assign an attorney to the faculty, to whom the attorney’s allegiance would be
bound. However, she noted that such a step might not be reassuring to faculty who would
nevertheless be nervous about such an arrangement.
Martin Jackson proposed as a friendly amendment “to amend the motion by taking all the
proposed language off the table.” Loeb declined to accept the amendment, and Eric Orlin M/S/P
to close debate. The motion to close debate passed on a voice vote. The Loeb motion
then passed on a unanimous voice vote.
President Pierce asked if we should schedule another faculty meeting before the trustees meet in
October, and the consensus was that we should. That meeting has been scheduled for
Wednesday, October 4, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. in McIntyre 103.
Loeb M/S/motion withdrawn later “to charge the Senate to examine carefully Chapter III of
the faculty’s proposed revised code and to replace with fairness language all existing code
violation language.”
Nancy Bristow, with reference to trustees’ proposed language in Chapter III, said we need to be
cautious about including language like this and Peter Wimberger said we should not be dealing
with substantive changes.
At this point the faculty voted to extend the meeting beyond the normal 5:30 adjournment time.
Jackson argued that we should put this off until phase II. Taranovski urged Loeb to withdraw his
motion. He argued that we should instead work to improve evaluation procedures using the
trustees’ proposal as an opportunity to discuss them without needing to appear to be
confrontational. Loeb withdrew his motion, saying that the discussion had convinced him that
this was too substantive an issue to proceed in this way at this point.
We adjourned at 5:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Finney
Secretary of the Faculty
Issues for Informal Consultation between Trustees and Faculty
September 2000
The following document updates Vice President Batanen’s memorandum of 6 September, distributed to the faculty as an attachment to
Vice President Cooney’s e-mail of 8 September. Issues arise in the order in which they were listed in the Bartanen memorandum.
The response of the Faculty Senate follows immediately the statement of each issue. If suitable, the rationale of the Faculty Senate or
background from the decision-making of 1997-1998 is included. Please recall that this task was delegated to the Faculty Senate by the
faculty meet as a whole on 5 September 2000.
⇒Issue One: Should the faculty remove the term “general” from the proposed Chapter II, Section 1, c: “Schools, department, and
programs shall develop criteria for all faculty appointments and work closely with the president and the dean in developing general
policies in this area? (Please see page 1 of Chapter II in “Side-by-Side” Code text, available at
http://www.ups.edu/dean/facgov/revisions.html).
⇒Senate:
The faculty should advise the trustees that the faculty will accede to the trustees on this issue. When they formally
respond to the faculty’s amendment, the trustees’ refusal to agree to the insertion of “general” should occasion little disagreement
from members of a conference committee or the faculty as a whole.
Senators’ Rationale: Senators agreed with Professors Sandler and Nagy that “policies” should by definition be
general. The clarification that the faculty attempted in 1998 might be read to be redundant.
Language Proposed by Faculty May 1998
Existing Language
CHAPTER II – DRAFT
CHAPTER II
FACULTY APPOINTMENTS
APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION
Section 1 - General Rules
PART A – APPOINTMENTS
Rules governing all appointments are:
Section 1 - General Rules
…
…
c.
Schools, departments and programs shall develop criteria for all faculty appointments and
work closely with the president and the dean in developing general policies in this area.
c.
Schools, departments and programs shall develop criteria for all faculty appointments and
work closely with the president and the dean in developing policies in this area.
Issues for Informal Consultation between Trustees and Faculty
Faculty Senate
September 2000
⇒Issue Two: Should the faculty develop a proposal for amending “Chapter II, Section 4 – Initial Appointment Procedure” (Please
see pages 4-6 of Chapter II in “Side-by-Side” Code text) section that would keep a few fundamental assertions about search procedure
in the Code and remove detailed discussion to another document that could more easily change over time (e.g., the Faculty
Recruitment Guidelines document, which has been used since 1995-1996)?
⇒Senate:
Senators postponed this issue for a later meeting.
Committee Background: The Code Revision Committee originally proposed removal of Section 1.c. in order to
clarify the organization of Chapter II. Section 1.c seemed to apply to search procedures, which are discussed under
Section 4. Under Section 4 – Initial Appointment Procedure, the CRC proposed, in an effort to streamline the Code by
removing detailed guidelines regarding searches from the Code, the revisions on the LEFT below. On April 28, 1998,
the faculty passed a motion forwarded by Kirchner/Bristow to retain existing language (on the RIGHT below) and to
defer consideration of the proposed changes, which had raised some controversy in the faculty, until Phase Two of the
Code revision procedure.
a.
Language Proposed by Faculty May 1998
Schools, departments and programs shall work closely with the dean to define qualifications
and responsibilities for each faculty appointment.
b.
When the dean has approved the search, faculty recruitment will proceed using guidelines
recommended by the dean and approved by the Professional Standards Committee.
(Alternative: . . . and approved by the Faculty.)
c.
When the head officer is to be hired, the dean, in consultation with the school/department,
may designate a search committee. The search committee will include at least one faculty
member from within the department and at least one faculty member from outside the
department or school.
d.
At the conclusion of the search, the head officer or search committee chairperson, in
consultation with department faculty and students, should select an individual and make a
recommendation to the dean and the president. The president shall normally adopt the
recommendation of the head officer or search committee chairperson. If such adoption is not
forthcoming, the president shall forward the reason for not doing so to the school,
department, program or search committee. After further review, the head officer or search
committee chairperson shall resubmit a recommendation from the school, department,
program or search committee. The president will be responsible for the final decision and
shall approve each initial appointment.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Existing Language
Before the search begins, the head officer (refers to a department chairperson, school
director, director of a program or a dean of a school) must consult the dean concerning: (1)
the level of the appointment; (2) appropriate salary range and fringe benefits; (3) a job
description, including the areas of expertise needed and course load; and (4) possible
recruitment activities, attempting to identify recruitment sources which might effectively
generate minority and female candidates in addition to traditional recruitment sources.
When the dean has approved the search, the head officer advises the Director of Human
Resources and Affirmative Action of the need to begin a search, presenting the position
description (a.(3) above) to be used for the position vacancy announcement and the proposed
recruitment plan (a. (4) above). The Human Resources Office will prepare and distribute all
position vacancy announcements and will place advertisements in newspapers or professional
publications. If the head officer and/or other members of the department send letters to
colleagues requesting referrals, copies of these letters should be forwarded to the Human
Resources Office for recruitment documentation.
When a head officer is to be hired, the dean, in consultation with the school/department, may
designate a search committee. In a large department/school, a search committee may be
designated from within the department/school. In a small department/school, the dean, in
consultation with the department/school, may augment department/school personnel with
other faculty.
Candidates will be advised to submit their credentials to the Human Resources Office. The
Human Resources Office will record relevant data for auditing purposes, forward the
credentials to the head officer or chairperson of a search committee and send letters
acknowledging receipt of credentials to the candidates.
The department/school or search committee shall submit the files of the top eight to ten
candidates in the order of priority to the dean for his review; the dean will then meet with the
head officer or search committee chairperson to select the top three or four candidates for
interview.
The head officer or chairperson of the search committee should make arrangements for
2
Issues for Informal Consultation between Trustees and Faculty
Faculty Senate
September 2000
g.
h.
campus interviews of the top candidates. The schedule is to include: (1) An open talk/lecture
on campus; (2) meetings with members of the department, interested members in related
departments, students in the department, the benefits coordinator in the Human Resources
Office, the dean and the president; and (3) an informal meeting open to all members of the
university community.
The head officer or search committee chairperson, in consultation with department faculty
and students, should select an individual and make a recommendation to the dean and the
president. The president shall normally adopt the recommendation of the head officer or
search committee chairperson. If such adoption is not forthcoming, the president shall
forward the reason for not doing so to the school, department, program or search committee.
After further review, the head officer or search committee chairperson shall resubmit a
recommendation from the school, department, program or search committee. The president
will be responsible for the final decision.
When the employment process is complete, all candidates’ credentials are to be returned to
the Human Resources Office. If offers of employment are made to more than one person,
candidates’ reasons for nonacceptance of the offers are to be documented as well as reasons
for not hiring candidates interviewed but not offered employment. All search-related data
will be maintained by the Human Resources Office for two years as required by federal law.
⇒Issue Three:
Should the faculty change Chapter III, Section 2 and Section 2.a (Page 1 of Chapter III of “Side-by-Side” Code text)
to clarify which provisions apply to all faculty as opposed to tenure-line faculty only? One version of such language might read: “Faculty
shall be evaluated at specified points in their careers with the university, in the manner provided in this chapter. a. Evaluation shall
occur prior to all decisions to: (1) promote a faculty member; (2) grant or deny tenure to a faculty member without tenure; and (3) not
reappoint a tenure-line faculty member without tenure.”
⇒Senate:
The faculty should advise the trustees that the faculty will accede to the trustees on this issue. Elimination of “tenureline” from the start of section 2 and addition of “faculty member without tenure” in two places in section 2a may clarify the code and
will work neither discernible nor discernable hardship on the university.
Language Proposed by Faculty May 1998
Existing Language
Section 2 - When Faculty are Evaluated
Section 2 - When Faculty are Evaluated
Tenure-line faculty shall be evaluated at specified points in their careers with the university, in the
manner provided in this chapter.
Tenure-line faculty shall be evaluated at certain points in their careers with the university, in the
manner provided in this chapter.
a.
a.
Evaluation shall occur prior to all decisions to: (1) promote a faculty member; (2) grant
or deny tenure to a non-tenured faculty member; and (3) not reappoint a non-tenured faculty
member.
Evaluation shall occur prior to all decisions to: (1) promote a faculty member;
(2) grant or deny tenure to a faculty member without tenure; and
(3) not reappoint a faculty member without tenure.
3
Issues for Informal Consultation between Trustees and Faculty
Faculty Senate
September 2000
⇒Issue Four: Should the faculty add “normally” to clarify Chapter III, Section 2, final paragraph (Page 2 of Chapter III of “Side-by-Side’
Code text) that if an evaluation is delayed by circumstances, that delay is not a violation of the Faculty Code? Such a revision might read:
“Persons in the rank of instructor, assistant professor, and associate professor normally shall be evaluated every three years, and
professors normally shall be evaluated every five years unless an earlier evaluation is requested by the faculty member, the head
office, or the dean.”
⇒Senate:
The faculty should advise the trustees that the faculty will accede to the trustees on this issue. Addition of “normally”
to the final paragraph of Section 2 of Chapter III would improve the language proposed by the faculty.
Language Proposed by Faculty May 1998
Existing Language
Section 2 - When Faculty are Evaluated
Section 2 - When Faculty are Evaluated
Tenure-line faculty shall be evaluated at specified points in their careers with the university, in the
manner provided in this chapter.
Tenure-line faculty shall be evaluated at certain points in their careers with the university, in the
manner provided in this chapter.
a.
a.
Evaluation shall occur prior to all decisions to: (1) promote a faculty member;
(2) grant or deny tenure to a faculty member without tenure; and
(3) not reappoint a faculty member without tenure.
…
Persons in the rank of instructor, assistant professor, and associate professors shall be evaluated
every three years, and professors shall be evaluated every five years unless an earlier evaluation is
requested by the faculty member, the head officer, or the dean. Unless a more frequent evaluation
schedule is specified in the initial appointment letter, evaluations after the third year of
employment normally will not be undertaken at intervals shorter than three years. At least one
year shall pass between the completion of a normally scheduled evaluation and any new evaluation
undertaken solely at the request of the evaluee.
Evaluation shall occur prior to all decisions to: (1) promote a faculty member; (2) grant
or deny tenure to a non-tenured faculty member; and (3) not reappoint a non-tenured
faculty member.
…
c.
Persons in the rank of assistant and associate professors shall be evaluated every three
years, and professors shall be evaluated every five years unless an earlier evaluation is
requested by the faculty member, the head officer, or the dean.
4
Issues for Informal Consultation between Trustees and Faculty
Faculty Senate
September 2000
⇒Issue Five: Shall the faculty add the words “consistent with the provisions of Section 4.b(4)” as noted in the left column below?
Trustees’ Rationale: The purpose of this change would be to clarify that the opportunity for an evaluee to write the
Advancement Committee following receipt of a revised summary of departmental letters, or a summary of letters sent directly
to the FAC, is based in his/her perception that he/she has been unfairly or inadequately evaluated by the department, school or
program, or by persons submitting letters directly to the FAC.
⇒Senate:
The faculty should advise the trustees that in both cases below, the alternative formulations are preferable to the first
stated emendations. Faculty should further recommend insertion of “to the Faculty Advancement Committee” to each alternative
version directly before the final comma and last two words [“if desired”] of each.
Senators’ Rationale: Rather than referring readers to other parts of the code, the text should state clearly the options of the
evaluee. Section 4.b(4) as proposed by the faculty (and not amended by the trustees) allots evaluees ten working days in which
to notify the Advancement Committee that evaluees feel that the file as it left the department, school, or program is in some
respects unfair or inadequate. As proposed by the faculty, section 4.c(2) allots evaluees five working days in which to respond
to any revision of the summary letter. The emendation proposed by trustees would add “consistent with the provisions of
4.b.(4)” to 4.c.(2) and 4.c.(3). Senators feared that citing back to the passage with a ten-day allotment from a passage with a
five-day allotment might mislead evaluees. The alternative formulation removes this difficulty and states the deadlines for
notification elegantly.
Emendation of Language Proposed by Trustees December 1999
and Alternative Formulations
4.b(4) If, within ten (10) working days of reviewing the file (non-confidential letters) or reviewing
the file and receiving the head officer’s summary of letters (confidential letters) the individual
faculty member feels that he or she has been unfairly or inadequately evaluated by the department,
school or program, that individual has the right to notify, in writing, the Advancement Committee.
4.c (1) In cases with confidential letters, including a claim under Chapter III, Section 4.b.(4), the
Advancement Committee must make the affirmative determination that the head officer’s summary
of the departmental letters is a fair and accurate reflection of the letters involved. If necessary, the
Committee may consult with the head officer and evaluee concerning changes in the summary, and
shall inform the evaluee when the summary is determined to be fair and adequate.
Language Proposed by Faculty May 1998 and Existing Language
Faculty in May 1998 proposed to preserve text in existing Code.
Faculty in May 1998 proposed to preserve text in existing Code.
4.c(2) The Committee shall provide the evaluee with the revised summary and the evaluee shall
have five working days after receipt of this summary to issue notification in writing, if desired,
consistent with the provisions of Section 4.b.(4).
Alternative: The Committee shall provide the evaluee with the revised summary and, if the
evaluee feels that he or she has been unfairly or inadequately evaluated by the department, school
Deleted: write a response
The Committee shall also provide the evaluee with the revised summary and a summary of letters
sent directly to the Advancement Committee.
5
Issues for Informal Consultation between Trustees and Faculty
Faculty Senate
September 2000
or program, he or she shall have five working days after receipt of this summary to issue
notification in writing to the Faculty Advancement Committee, if desired.
4.c (3) The Committee shall provide the evaluee with a summary of letters sent directly to the
Advancement Committee. The evaluee shall have five working days after receipt of this summary
of letters to issue notification in writing , if desired, consistent with the provisions of Section 4.b
(4). Letters sent directly to the Advancement Committee and received after the due date of the file
shall not be included in the file.
Deleted: write a response
Alternative: The Committee shall provide the evaluee with a summary of letters sent directly to
the Advancement Committee. If the evaluee feels that he or she has been unfairly or inadequately
evaluated by one or more of these letter writers, he or she shall have five working days after receipt
of this summary to issue notification in writing to the Faculty Advancement Committee, if desired.
⇒Issue Six: Should the faculty make less strict the requirement in Chapter III, Section 4.d (1) (Page 15 of Chapter III of “Side-bySide” Code text) for a head officer to review with an evaluee the results of an evaluation, so that a month-plus-one-day evaluation
discussion is not a violation of the Faculty Code?
Based on discussion at the 5 September meeting of the faculty, Vice President Bartanen suggested the following amended
language to the faculty: “Since a primary function of the evaluation process is to develop and maintain a high degree of professional
competence in the individual faculty member, timely and accurate feedback is essential. Within a reasonable period, but no later than
six months after receiving the report of the evaluation from the Advancement Committee—or in the case of a tenure decision, upon
report of a favorable decision by the Board of Trustees—the head officer shall review with each evaluee the results of the evaluation.”
Senate:
The faculty should agree with the trustees but recommend that the passage read “a reasonable period, but no later than
four months.” In addition, the faculty should not mandate the content of the conversation beyond the requirement that the head officer
review with the evaluee the product(s) of the evaluation.
Senators’ Rationale: Senators could think of only one circumstance in which the meeting with the head officer could be both
reasonably timely and delayed more than a month  when an evaluation issued from the Advancement Committee in May and
summer intervened to make a meeting impracticable. Senators therefore decided that four months would be an acceptable
outside figure for feedback from and dialog with the head officer. Senators suspected that goals, objectives, standards, and
needs might be part of a discussion of an evaluation but need not be features of such a discussion.
Language Proposed by Faculty May 1998
Since a primary function of the evaluation process is to develop and maintain a high degree of
professional competence in the individual faculty member, timely and accurate feedback is
Existing Language
Since the primary function of the evaluation is to develop and maintain a high degree of
professional excellence in the individual faculty member, timely and accurate feedback is essential.
6
Deleted: one month
Deleted: of
Deleted: and agree upon goals and objectives for
the coming three or five years, in light of the
standards and needs of the department, school, or
program and the university
Issues for Informal Consultation between Trustees and Faculty
Faculty Senate
September 2000
essential. Within one month of receiving the report of the evaluation from the Advancement
Committee--or in the case of a tenure decision, upon report of a favorable decision by the Board of
Trustees—the head officer shall review with each evaluee the results of the evaluation and agree
upon goals and objectives for the coming three or five years, in light of the standards and needs of
the department, school, or program and the university.
Within one month of receiving the report of the evaluation from the Advancement Committee, the
head officer shall review with each evaluee the results of the evaluation and agree upon goals and
objectives for the coming three or five years, in light of the standards and needs of the department,
school, program and the university.
⇒Issue Seven: Should the faculty, having incorporated language that pertains to instructors into the proposed amendment to the
Faculty Code, delete Appendix A?
⇒Senate:
Senators need to discuss the deletion further and so have no recommendation for the faculty at this time.
Senators’ Reasoning: Senators professed confusion about what the second numbered paragraph in Appendix A meant or
might be taken to mean. Unable to state the meaning of that passage, the senators decided that elimination of Appendix A
would be a premature decision.
APPENDIX A
A memorandum of agreement - clarifying terms and conditions of employment of Instructors as defined in Chapter II, Part A, Section 2, "Categories of Faculty." (p.7).
1.Instructor appointments occur only in departments, schools or programs where class load requires teaching service greater than can be accommodated by an appropriate distribution of lower and
upper level teaching assignments among the department's tenure-line faculty. Such load distribution will be agreed upon by the department and the dean, subject to annual review by the Academic
Standards Committee.
2.Because instructors are to be utilized teaching lower level or prerequisite courses where teaching skills are of prime
and compensation are comparable to tenure-line faculty teaching similar courses.
importance, academic preparation, search procedures, performance standards
3.Instructors' roles, rights and responsibilities are the same as those of career faculty as described in this code with the exception that they are not eligible for promotion, do not have tenure, but can be
continued with annual contracts beyond 7 years.
7
Issues for Informal Consultation between Trustees and Faculty
Faculty Senate
September 2000
⇒ Issue Eight: Should the faculty add language to or otherwise amend Chapter III, Section 4 and Section 6, j; Chapter VI, Section 4
(Pages 4 and 23-24 of Chapter III, and page 6 of Chapter VI of “Side-by-Side” Code text) the Code to limit challenges based in
technical violations of procedure that do not affect the fairness of an evaluation to the processes for appeal contained within the Code?
⇒ Senate:
Senators did not get to this issue and have as yet crafted no suggestions for faculty or trustees.
Trustee Proposal, May 2000
Trustee Proposal, Fall 1999
Chapter III, Section 4
Chapter III, Section 4
Evaluation begins at the department, school, or program level and proceeds through the Faculty
Advancement Committee and the dean to the president. When Board action is required, the
president forwards a recommendation and the evaluation file to the Academic and Student
Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees. The evaluation process is designed to provide a
substantial body of credible evidence in writing as the basis for a fair and impartial review.
Evaluation begins at the department, school, or program level and proceeds through the Faculty
Advancement Committee and the dean to the president. When Board action is required, the
president forwards a recommendation and the evaluation file to the Academic and Student
Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees. The evaluation process is designed to provide a
substantial body of credible evidence in writing as the basis for a fair and impartial review.
The evaluation process should ensure that adequate consideration is given the faculty member
involved. Adequate consideration shall be achieved consistent with the criteria and procedures
outlined in Chapter III, Sections 2-4.
The evaluation process should ensure that adequate consideration is given the faculty member
involved. Adequate consideration shall be achieved consistent with the criteria and procedures
outlines in Chapter III, Sections 2-4.
Although all participants in the evaluation process should act with due respect for their
professional responsibilities and the guidelines for evaluation outlined in this Code, departures
from departmental or University procedures that do not impede the fairness of the evaluation as
determined through the processes provided within this document may not be considered
violations of this Faculty Code or of the faculty member’s contract with the University. In
addition, the provisions for challenges, appeals, and hearings set forth in this chapter, primarily in
Section 5, shall be the exclusive remedy for alleged violations of evaluation procedures, and such
claims may not be the basis for legal claims in a court of law. This exclusive remedy provision
applies only to claims of violation of the procedural provisions of Chapter III of the Faculty Code
and does not apply to claims of unlawful discrimination or to rights created by state or federal
laws.
Although all participants in the evaluation process should act with due respect for the
professional responsibilities and the guidelines for evaluation outlined in this Code, departures
from departmental or University procedures that do not impede the fairness of the evaluation as
determined through the processes provided within this document may not be considered
violations of this Faculty Code or of the faculty member’s contract with the University.
Chapter III, Section 6.j
Within ten (10) working days after completion of the hearing, the Board shall make its decision.
The decision shall be based on whether the evidence in the record and that received at the hearing
clearly shows that there have been violations of the code as alleged by the appellant. Departures
from departmental or University procedures that in the judgment of the hearing board did not
impede the fairness of the evaluation may not be considered violations of this Faculty Code.
Chapter VI, Section 4, new section 11
And Chapter I, add Part G:
This Faculty Code provides procedures for resolving alleged violations of the Faculty Code.
Those procedures are set forth in Chapter VI, Grievances, and Chapter III, Evaluation of Faculty.
These procedures for grievances, hearings, and appeals, shall be the exclusive remedy for any
alleged violations of the Faculty Code. A final determination of any grievance or appeal, as set
forth in the Faculty Code, shall not provide the basis for a legal claim or private right of action
and may not be challenged in any court proceeding.
Chapter III, Section 6.j
Within ten (10) working days after completion of the hearing, the Board shall make its decision.
The decision shall be based on whether the evidence in the record and that received at the hearing
clearly shows that there have been violations of the code as alleged by the appellant. Departures
from departmental or University procedures that in the judgment of the hearing board did not
impede the fairness of the evaluation may not be considered violations of this Faculty Code.
The procedures for grievance hearings set forth in this chapter provide a framework that includes
multiple steps and a series of timetables. Although every effort shall be made to adhere to these
provisions, a variance from procedure or from an established time limit that does not alter the
structure or impede the fairness of the process shall not be grounds for further complaint or legal
claim.
8