AGENDA
University of Nevada, Reno
2012-13 Faculty Senate
November 15, 2012 1:15 p.m.
RSJ 304
All times are approximate
1:15
1.
Roll Call and Introductions
1:20
2.
Visit with President Johnson
Information/Discussion
1:50
3.
Vice President for HR - Tim McFarling: Extra Duty
Assignments for Summer Research and Teaching
Information/Enclosure/
Discussion
2:20
4.
Request to Approve the October 18, 2012 Meeting
Minutes
Action/Enclosure
2:30
5.
Chair’s Report
Information/Discussion
2:50
6.
Salary Resolution
Action/Enclosure
3:00
Break
3:10
7.
Visit with Executive Vice President & Provost Heather
Hardy (Chair’s Stipend)
Information/Discussion
3:40
8.
General Education Curriculum Voting
Action/Enclosure
4:00
9.
Action/Enclosure
Academic Standard Committee Recommendations
4:10
10.
Nevada State Education Association – Nick DiArchangel,
Director of Communication NSEA
Information/Discussion
4:30
11.
New Business
Information/Discussion
12.
Information Items
Chairs Task Force Report
General Education - Silver and Blue Alternatives
Campus Affairs Administrative Response to RFA
UNR Bylaws
Adjourn
Future Senate Meetings
UNR Faculty Senate Website
December 12, 2012
Future Board of Regents Meetings
NSHE Website
November 29 & 30, 2012 UNLV
RSJ 304
January 17, 2013
RSJ 304
January 11, 2013 Tentative Special Meeting
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
November 15, 2012
Agenda Item #3
Extra Duty Assignments for Summer Research and Teaching
2,695: Additional Compensation, Supplemental Pay, and Overloads
Last Revised: June 2010
Administrative Faculty:
1. Teaching at UNR: Administrative faculty who want to engage in teaching activities at the request of an
instructional unit of the University of Nevada Reno, including Continuing Education/Extended Studies, may do
so upon approval of their immediate supervisors. The faculty member may request additional compensation if
the instructional activity is not in the faculty member's home department and is in addition to his/her regular
work duty. Where additional compensation may be paid, the following procedures apply:
a. the administrative faculty member's regular job requirements will be maintained and fulfilled;
b. the administrative faculty member may teach no more than one class per semester, summer session
included. The one class may carry up to five credits, but not more than five. Consistent with policy for
academic faculty, several courses taught through Extended Studies may be considered 'one class,' but only up
to a total of three credits. If the teaching or teaching-related activity does not carry formal credits, the activity
will be assigned a "credit equivalency" under the following guidelines:
1 credit equivalency = 16 contact hours (workshops, seminars, etc.)
1 credit equivalency = 32-48 lab/hands-on experience hours
Extended Studies Credit Equivalency Rates for hands-on experience programs
4 hours (1/2 day) session = 1/10 credit equivalency
8 hours (1 day) session = 2/10 credit equivalency
16 hours (2 day) session = 4/10 credit equivalency
5 day session = 1 credit equivalency
c. the administrative faculty member must submit a Request for Instructional Compensation form to his/her
supervisor for approval, after having obtained signature from the requesting department chair or dean (the form
may be obtained on the Human Resources website );
d. the academic unit or Extended Studies must submit a PAF and Terms of Employment contract with the
approved request form to Human Resources for processing. Compensation for instructional activities will be
the same as that for Letters of Appointment. The department in which the instruction takes place is responsible
for the additional compensation except for Extended Studies. If the faculty member is less than 100% FTE, the
FTE will be increased; any pay exceeding 100% of base would be processed as an overload. The PAF for a
faculty member who is less than 100% FTE should be prepared through the faculty member's home
department.
2. Teaching within NSHE: Administrative faculty who engage in teaching activities for other components of
the Nevada System of Higher Education may do so upon approval of their immediate supervisors. The faculty
member may request additional compensation if the instructional activity is in addition to his/her regular work
duty. Where additional compensation may be paid, the same procedures as pertain to teaching at UNR apply
(paragraph 1 above) with the exception that there is no limit on the number of courses or credits taught per
semester.
Academic Faculty:
1. The following guidelines apply to earning additional compensation from university administered funds for
providing specialized professional services and shall be interpreted consistently with those established in the
federal government's Circular A-21.
a. Administrative stipends: "A" contract and "B" contract academic faculty members may receive additional
compensation in the form of administrative stipends as approved through the stipend policy (see section
2,550).
b. Over-load teaching during the contract year: In special cases, the dean or director may grant special
permission for an "A" contract or "B" contract academic faculty member to teach and receive additional
compensation during the contract year for additional course(s) per semester either in the faculty member's
home department or another academic department including Extended Studies. The maximum overload for a
full time member of the academic faculty is a three-credit course per semester. Exceptions must be approved
by the Provost's Office. Several courses taught through Extended Studies may be considered 'one class,' but
only up to a total of three credits. If the teaching or teaching-related activity does not carry formal credits, the
activity will be assigned a "credit equivalency" under the following guidelines:
1 credit equivalency = 16 contact hours (workshops, seminars, etc.)
1 credit equivalency = 32-48 lab/hands-on experience hours
Extended Studies Credit Equivalency Rates for hands-on experience programs
4 hours (1/2 day) session = 1/10 credit equivalency
8 hours (1 day) session = 2/10 credit equivalency
16 hours (2 day) session = 4/10 credit equivalency
5 day session = 1 credit equivalency
c. General Provisions for additional compensation for “B” contract faculty:
Overload Earnings – Earnings on non-contract days which are not eligible for retirement contributions (payroll
earnings code – OVL).
Extra Duty Assignment – Earnings on non-contract days which are eligible for retirement contributions (payroll
earnings code – EDA). The faculty member must match the required contribution.
The definition of the contract year for purposes of this section is consistent with the definitions found in
sections 2,509 and 2,550 and means all contractual days during the period identified in the university calendar
from the beginning of a semester to the end of a semester, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
d. Additional compensation on non-contract days during Winter and Spring break- "B" contract
faculty:
"B" contract faculty may earn additional compensation (Overload) from university administered funds on days
they are not on contract during Winter and Spring break. A Personnel Action Form (PAF) indicating the OVL
earnings code must be submitted for each break period when work is performed. Winter and Spring break
periods are not eligible for EDA earnings (retirement contribution).
e. “B” Contract Faculty Engaged in Research or Creative Activities During Summer Break (No
Teaching)
Faculty Working More Than .5 Full-Time Equivalency
To be eligible for retirement on summer earnings, the faculty member must work at least .5 full-time
equivalency (FTE) in the period when work is performed. If the faculty member satisfies the .5 FTE
requirement, earnings for that period will be considered extra duty assignment (EDA) and the funding source
must contribute the required retirement percentage of salary. The faculty member is eligible for EDA earnings
(if .5 FTE is achieved) in one or both of the periods.


Period 1 - begins on the first non-contract day after Spring semester and ends on June 30.
Period 2 - begins on July 1 and ends on the Friday before the first contract day of Fall semester.
To be eligible for the retirement contribution on Summer earnings and to be paid appropriately, the faculty
member must do the following:
 Work at least .5 FTE in non-teaching activities for either Period 1 or Period 2.
 Submit one Personnel Action Form (PAF) using the EDA earnings code for the entire period. (In order
to receive the retirement contributions, the work of the entire period must be recorded on one PAF).
“B” Contract Faculty Working Less than .5 FTE
Faculty who work less than .5 FTE in Period 1 or Period 2 are eligible for overload (OVL) earnings but may not
receive retirement contributions for those earnings.
To be eligible for overload earnings, the faculty member must do the following:
 Work less than .5 FTE in research or creative activities for either Period 1 or Period 2.
 Submit Personnel Action Form(s) (PAF) using the OVL earnings code.
f. “B” Contract Faculty Engaged in Teaching During Summer Break (No Research or Creative
Activities)
Faculty Teaching More Than .5 Full-Time Equivalency (8 or more credit hours)
In order to be eligible for Extra Duty Assignment (EDA – retirement contribution) for teaching during Summer
break, the faculty member must teach at least 8 credit hours over the three Summer sessions.
To be eligible for the retirement contribution on Summer earnings and to be paid appropriately, the faculty
member must do the following:
 Teach at least 8 credit hours over the three Summer sessions.
 Submit one Personnel Action Form (PAF) using the EDA earnings code for the entire Summer (all
three sessions). In order to receive the retirement contributions, all classes must be listed on one PAF.
Faculty Teaching Less Than .5 Full-Time Equivalency (8 or more credit hours)
Faculty who teach less than 8 credit hours combined over all three Summer Semesters are eligible for
overload (OVL) earnings but may not receive retirement contributions for those earnings.
To be eligible for overload earnings, the faculty member must do the following:
 Teach less than .5 FTE (8 credit hours) for the three summer sessions combined.
 Submit Personnel Action Form(s) (PAF) using the OVL earnings code.
g. “B” Contract Faculty Engaged in Both Research/Creative Activities and Teaching During Summer
Break (No Research or Creative Activities)
Faculty Working and Teaching More Than .5 Full-Time Equivalency (Combined Teaching and Research Days)
To be eligible for the retirement contribution on summer earnings and to be paid appropriately, the faculty
member must do the following:
 Follow the normal approval and scheduling process for teaching summer session classes.
 Alert Extended Studies Division that you will be teaching and conducting research which will result in
you being .50 FTE or above for the summer.
 Extended Studies will prepare a PAF using EDA as the earnings code and provide the PAF to the
faculty member.
 The faculty member must obtain the PAF from Extended Studies which states the number of credit
hours to be taught during all Summer sessions. See the chart below for converting credit hours to
days.
 The faculty member must ensure an additional PAF is prepared for the research/creative activities for
both Summer periods. The total of teaching and research/creative activities must equal at least . 5
FTE (32 days) for the entire summer.
 The PAF for teaching and the PAF for research/creative activity must be submitted together to Human
Resources.
 No retroactive actions or changes to earnings code (OVL or EDA) will be processed.
FTE
6.25
12.5
18.75
25
31.25
37.5
43.75
50
56.25
62.50
68.75
75
82.5
88.75
95
100
Full Time Equivalency Conversion for Academic and Research Days for Summer Work
Credit Hours
Equivalency in Days
1
4
2
8
3
12
4
16
5
20
6
24
7
28
8
32
9
36
19
40
11
44
12
48
13
52
14
56
15
60
16
64
Faculty Working and Teaching Less Than .5 Full-Time Equivalency (Combined Teaching and Research Days)
Faculty who have less than .5 FTE for teaching and research/creative activities during the entire Summer are
eligible for overload (OVL) earnings but may not receive retirement contributions for those earnings.
To be eligible for overload earnings, the faculty member must do the following:
 Teach/work less than .5 FTE (Combined teaching and research Days) for the three summer sessions
combined.
 Submit Personnel Action Form(s) (PAF) using the OVL earnings code.
2. Maximum amount of additional compensation (OVL and EDA earnings code) from university
administered funds:
a. "B" contract faculty are permitted to earn a maximum of 50% of their base salary as additional compensation
(typically from stipends, overload teaching and non-contract days) paid through university administered funds
from July 1 through June 30 of each year. In special situations, faculty members may request, through the
respective Dean, approval for an exception to the 50% additional earnings policy.
b. "A" contract faculty are permitted to earn a maximum of 30% of their base salary as additional compensation
(typically from stipends and overload teaching) paid through university administered funds from July 1 through
June 30 of each year. . In special situations, faculty members may request, through the respective Dean,
approval for an exception to the 30% additional earnings policy.
c. Payment of additional compensation is made via a personnel/payroll action form (PAF) and Terms of
Employment contract. The reason for the additional compensation must be stated clearly in the "comment
section".
Deadlines For Sponsored Projects Effort Reporting
All effort extended during non-contract periods must be confirmed via the effort reporting process. It is the
responsibility of the PI to submit a PAF in accordance with the deadlines stated below. Late PAFs will not be
processed.
May Reporting Term: "B" Faculty working during their non-contract days in December, January, and Spring
Break must submit a PAF to Human Resources no later than the 1st business day in April.
September Reporting Term: "B" Faculty working during their non-contract days in May, June, July and/or
August must submit a PAF to Human Resources no later than the 1st business day in September.
It is not acceptable to store effort from a semester and pay overload during a non-contract day. Semester effort
must be reported on a semester effort report. Overload must be earned during non-contract days.
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
November 15, 2012
Agenda Item #4
Request to Approve the October 18, 2012 Meeting Minutes
1. Roll Call and Introduction:
Gerald Ackerman (SOM), Jamie Anderson (SOM), Rafik Beekun (COBA), Todd Borman (IT), John Dell (DHS),
Sue Donaldson (UNCE), Patricia Ellison (CABNR), Mariah Evans (CLA), Catherine Goring (SOM), Keith
Hackett (PRES),Jodi Herzik (PROV), Gwen Hullman (CLA), Chad Leonard for Stephanie Woolf (VPR),
Rosemary McCarthy (JO), Glenn Miller (CABNR), Swatee Naik (COS), Elissa Palmer (SOM), Elissa Palmer for
Robert Wang (SOM), Ania Panorska (COS), Ania Panorska for Pat Arnott (COS), Crystal Parrish IDEV), Chuck
Price (SS), Todd Renwick (A & F), David Ryfe (Ex-Officio), Amy Shannon (LIB), David Sanders (EN), Shanon
Taylor (COE), George Thomas (CLA), George Thomas for Leah Wilds (CLA), Claudene Wharton (PRES),
David Zeh (Chair).
Absent: Paul Neill (COS), Deborah Shindell (DHS).
Guests: John Carothers (DEV), Adam Garcia (A & F), Cary Groth (PRES), Paula Lee Hobson (Grad Student,
COE), Marc Johnson (PRES), Bruce Mack (A & F), Jean Perry (PRES).
Opening Remarks and Quote from Senate Chair David Zeh:
“The time is always right to do what is right.” Martin Luther King, Jr. Today’s meeting would be relatively short
as both November and December meetings would be long. Zeh reported that Regent Page was unable to
attend the October meeting. Reports from Athletics and Police Services were required annually to the Senate.
Zeh introduced the new senators and asked them to briefly speak about themselves. Jodi Herzik (Prov) runs
the day to day operations of the Redfield Campus. Gwen Hullman (CLA) was the Communication Studies
Chair and works with Conflict Resolution and Mediation and her department was also home for the Debate
Team. Paul Neill who was unable to attend today is in Physics in the College of Science.
2. Visit with President Marc Johnson:
President Marc Johnson thanked senators and faculty for participating in the provost search interviews and
comment period. He was currently in the negotiation phase and once that was completed he would make an
announcement. Johnson said that all the candidates were qualified and he would have been happy with any of
them. He also said that the reputation of UNR attracted such accomplished candidates.
The President spoke about the pre-proposal to have shared leadership between Agriculture Experiment
Station (AES), College of Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR) and College of Cooperative
Extension (UNCE). Last spring, he said that it would be useful to reorganize and consolidate those units. We
learned that in 1993 when considering reorganization in Agriculture, Regents said there were four agencies in
the public service division of the system, three were AES, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology and
Cooperative Extension. Regents said Cooperative Extension was a separate (meaning they could write their
own bylaws) university-wide program led by a director. In 1993 the director of Cooperative Extension continued
to report to the Dean of Agriculture. Five years later the university put out a job description for a dean and
director for the Cooperative Extension Program. We are headed toward a proposal that says that a single
dean of Agriculture, who also serves as director of AES, can also be the director of Cooperative Extension.
Cooperative Extension would remain a university-wide organization. All three will retain their budget integrity,
but the leadership position can be in one person. The hypothesis is that leadership of one person in this roll
allows combined traditional land grant functions so there is joint planning and implementation of programs
across AES, CABNR, and UNCE.
All extension faculty came together for a meeting and at the end, they voted against the change. Johnson felt
that it was a preliminary vote as they did not yet have a proposal. A proposal was being drafted by committee
composed of three dept chairs and one faculty members in CABNR and 3 area directors and 1 faculty
member from UNCE working with a facilitator to come together to write a viable proposal for combined
leadership. Executive Vice President and Provost Heather Hardy asked them to think of all pros and all cons
and what the conditions would be for this to work. Once the proposal was written, it would be the starting point
for faculty forums and county advisory boards. Ultimately the proposal would then come thru the Senate for
discussion and recommendation.
Zeh asked if Johnson had the opportunity to talk with the Chancellor or Chairman regarding this going before
the Regents. Johnson responded that he spoke with the northern delegation, but felt it was inappropriate to
share this with the Senate. He also said that this proposal would not go to the Regents.
Discussion:
 They were in both Elko and Humboldt counties and he felt there was support from the counties for this
consolidation.
 By the proposal not going to the Regents it would be able to happen in a shortened time frame.
 There were many models across the nation for land grant institutions. The committee would look at the
different models.
 This is not merging, so what are we calling it? It is a dual leadership structure.
 Was there any thought to putting Extended Studies in the consolidation? No, but it could be something
to consider in the future.
 Were the CABNR faculty polled to see what they felt about this? Johnson did not believe that CABNR
faculty were polled, but the CABNR advisory board was supportive of the consolidation.
 Would there be a collapse of the administrative structure? That would be determined by their
leadership.
 Would the reputation of Cooperative Extension be diminished by the consolidation? They were not
planning on changing the formal nature of Cooperative Extension. Stature was built by their service to
the community; perhaps this consolidation could enhance their stature.
 Should we still be in the agriculture business and if there is curricular review again will they become the
sacrificial lamb? CABNR was pretty diverse; they closed the two departments that were not attracting
many students. Those units that gave the most in curricular review would not have to give more. At this
point, administration did not anticipate any more cuts. If we were allowed to keep our tuition and fees,
we would have the resources to stabilize and grow.
3. Visit with John Carothers, Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations:
Vice President John Carothers introduced Associate Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations
Bruce Mack. Carothers asked the President if he wanted to say anything. Johnson responded that we have not
had a capital campaign for a long time and we have lost some momentum. A capital campaign brings focus to
the campus and the public. The energy that comes out of a campaign was important. All deans and vice
presidents were asked to engage the faculty in fine tuning of the strategic objectives and convert those desires
into gifting goals.
Vice President John Carothers said that when he was out the community talking with alumni, they talked about
the faculty and the people who transformed their lives and he wanted to thank faculty for their work. He
discussed the capital campaign process for the university and that the timeframe would be 2013 to 2020.
Campaigns usually are done over a seven year period. The campaign would only include private gifts and
would have a set of feature objectives. The campaign features ways that people can give, such as
endowments or capital gifts. The institution’s priorities were used and a feasibility study would be done and
then they could begin crafting the campaign.
Ten years ago, we receive 80% of the money from 20% of the people, but now that is down to less than 5% of
the people giving 95% of the money.
Carothers spends two days per month in Las Vegas for fundraising purposes; we have alumni and friends
there. We do receive some funds from corporations and they are considered private money. For the bricks and
mortar, what land would they look at? Some money could be for land acquisition, some is for repurposing of
buildings, such as demolishing Getchell and building two new buildings. There was discussion of enlarging
interdisciplinary programs, but it seems that the request went only to separate colleges. That was the starting
place, because that is where the advisory boards are, however part of the process would be the deans bringing
forward these ideas and the provost would craft into interdisciplinary programs.
4. Athletic Director Cary Groth and Faculty Athletics’ Representative Jean Perry:
Link to the PowerPoint:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/12-13/Agendas/Athletics_presentation10-18-12.pdf
Athletic Director Cary Groth reported that the university was involved in the Governor’s Series which would
celebrate a rivalry with UNLV. This series would include all of the athletic programs’ sports and it included an
emphasis on academic performance and recognition of sportsmanship and citizenship by student athletes. NV
Energy was offering a $30,000 for scholarships for the winner. http://www.nevadawolfpack.com/governorsseries
Groth also discussed the budget, that 4% of the university budget was athletics, 1% came from either state or
institutional dollars and the other 82% was generated by athletics. Athletics lost 13 positions and $1.2 million in
the budget cutting cycle. State or institutional money did not go to facilities. Athletics was working on stabilizing
their income. Stable funding included: Conference and tuition dollars, unstable funding was: ticket sales, seat
premiums, game guarantees, and donor funding. By going to the Mountain West Conference they would
increase their TV revenue and increase the amount of time that the university could be on national TV which
was good advertising for the university. The Nevada Brand, licensing revenue ranked number two in the
Mountain West and sixty in all CLC universities. Last year, Athletics brought in approximately $20 million to the
local economy. The graduation success rate of student athletes was close to 78%. Approximately 3% of the
student athletes were in STEM degrees; about 5% of student athletes enter graduate school.
5. Visit with Director for Police Services Adam Garcia:
Link to the Annual Security and Fire Safety Report:
http://www.unr.edu/Documents/administration-finance/Police/2011-Annual-Report.pdf
Most of the crimes on campus are quality of life, such as alcohol abuse. There was discussion about the
staffing and that Police Services would like to reestablish back to 32 officers instead of the 20 they currently
have. They were also hoping to get a supervisor for the SOM Las Vegas area. Some senators commented on
the effectiveness of the officers and the collaboration with the community. There was discussion regarding the
process to carry a concealed weapon. This was passed by the Board of Regents at their September 2012
meeting.
The Committee on video Surveillance has met twice this year.
6. Chair’s Report:
 Senators could bring information forward to the Senate under New Business, using the Senate
listserv, request an agenda item for a future Senate meeting, or ask the Provost to include the
information in her weekly announcements.
 Being a senator was a two way communication path, you should communicate with constituents
and they should communicate with you.
 Zeh reported that the Executive Vice President and Provost Candidate interviews and forums were
completed. Zeh thanked Senate Manager Michelle Hritz for the speed that she sent the information
from the survey to the President.
 Zeh gave an update of the UNCE meeting with administration and said that he received a request
for the Faculty Senate to ask the Board of Regents to review the proposal to consolidate UNCE,
CABNR, and AES. He felt that there was strong opposition and that the Senate needed to be aware
of this. In the vote, 35 faculty were against the consolidation.
 The Executive Board met with Tim McFarling, Vice President for Human Resources and discussed
the Children in the Workplace UAM revision. The final version would come back to the Senate.
 Additional inquires were made regarding the chair’s stipend and Zeh stated that in May 2012
President Johnson spoke to this. Provost Heather Hardy would be asked to come to the Senate and
provide a historical account.
 The Access and Affordability Group was looking at the affordability of education at UNR. The
Tuition and Fees were low, but income was also low. For families in the bottom quartile of income, it
would require 57% of their income after receiving financial aid. The group would be proposing





amendments to the code which included: restricting funds for students who are perpetual students
and charging fees for students in extra credits.
Last week the Governor’s Chief of Staff announced that the elimination of furloughs and the
restoration of pay cuts might be in jeopardy, due to the financial demands of Medicaid and the
Health Care Reform Act. The NSHE Budget was created with pay restoration treated
independently from the main budget. While the relationship between NSHE and the Governor has
improved, the Governor did not want to raise taxes. UNLV has passed a resolution and Zeh asked if
the Senate would be interested in passing one as well. The Executive Board would bring forward a
resolution for the November meeting.
The General Education Curriculum voting issues discussion will be on the November Senate
agenda.
The next Campus Conversation would be October 30, 2012 in the Knowledge Center Room 422.
There was poor turnout at the last one and Zeh would like senators to notify their constituents to
attend.
Zeh would be holding a forum where the funding formula and merit possibilities would be discussed.
He would be sending out an invitation to see if faculty were interested in attending.
A Performance Task Force has been named. The Performance pool carve out would be 0% in the
first year and would increase yearly by 5% increments up to 20%. TMCC Faculty Senate Chair Brad
Summerhill and TMCC President Maria Sheehan would be on the task force.
7. Consent Agenda:
Chair David Zeh reminded the Senate that if they had issues with items on the consent agenda that those
items could be pulled and discussed and the remainder of the Consent Agenda passed. There were
corrections made to the Research and Grants Committee and the Academic Standards Committee Charge.
If there is no objection then the consent agenda is passed. There were no objections.
8. New Business:
Claudene Wharton asked about the issue of decreasing the amount of annual leave that could be carried over,
she had not heard if there was a decision. This issue would have to be determined by a vote of the Board of
Regents, which the Senate would be made aware of.
Meeting adjourned 4:10 pm.
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
November 15, 2012
Agenda Item #6
Salary Resolution
Senate Salary Resolution
"Despite significant increases in student enrollment, state appropriations to the University of Nevada, Reno
have been cut by 33% over the last two biennia. These draconian reductions have resulted in the loss of
hundreds of faculty and staff positions, including layoffs to scores of tenured and tenure-track faculty. In
addition, salaries to existing faculty have been cut, furloughs imposed, and cost of living and merit increases
eliminated. We now have fewer, more productive faculty who are serving more students but being paid less.
While employee sacrifices have carried the University through a difficult financial period, the current system is
unsustainable. Nevada is rapidly falling behind its regional competitors in terms of its capacity to attract and
retain high quality faculty and staff.
In this new global economy, never has a university education been more important, and never has the
economic prosperity of our state been so closely tied to the strength of our system of higher education. NSHE
can only be successful if faculty and staff are adequately compensated for their increasingly demanding
responsibilities to educate our students and prepare them for successful careers as business leaders,
entrepreneurs, engineers, health care professionals, scientists and teachers. The University of Nevada, Reno
faculty therefore resolves that the
restoration of pay cuts, the elimination of furloughs, and the reinstatement of merit pay be a top priority in
budget negotiations with the 2013 Nevada Legislature."
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
November 15, 2012
Agenda Item #9
Academic Standard Committee Recommendations
2012-13 Academic Standards Committee
Resolution of Conflicts with the UAM, Academic Standards Policy and 2012-13 Catalog - Final Grade
Appeal Resulting From a Sanction of Academic Integrity
Recommendation 1: Change the University Administrative Manual, the Academic Standards Policies and
Procedures and the 2012-13 Catalog as presented, removing the circular reference and conflicts between
information in the three documents. The Faculty Senate Executive Board will review and approve any final
changes to these made by Administration or the UAM Committee, for immediate implementation, and will
report any changes back to the Senate. This revision also includes the title change, throughout the document,
from the Director of the Office of Student Conduct to the Assistant Dean of Conduct.
AS-proposal-packet Link:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/12-13/Agendas/AS-proposal-packet.doc
AND
Recommendation 2: Add the Undergraduate Academic Integrity Grade Appeal Process Flowchart as a link
within the University Administrative Manual. Also post the flow chart link within the Academic Standards Policy
found on the website of the Office of Student Conduct and in the 2012-13 Catalog.
ASC UG Flowchart Link:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/12-13/Agendas/ASC%20UG%20Flowchart.doc
OR
Alternative: Should the Faculty Senate disagree with Recommendations 1 and 2 above and support a Final
Grade Appeal Process resulting from an academic integrity charge to be resolved separately from the regular
Grade Appeal Process,
THEN
i) Request immediate implementation of the proposed resolution in recommendations 1 and 2 above to
resolve the immediate issue.
AND
ii) Request to charge the Academic Standards Committee to provide an appeal process within the Academic
Standards Policy to mirror the Graduate Student Process, ending with a final decision by the Executive Vice
President and Provost.
Background: Earlier this semester, Carol Millie, Office of Student Conduct, presented a conflict between new
language (July 2012) in the University Administrative Manual regarding the Grade Appeal Process that was in
direct conflict with the Academic Standards Policy for Academic Integrity resolution, creating both policies
pointing to each other (infinite loop) for grade appeal of a sanction. Since a previous Academic Standards
Committee requested the proposed UAM change, the current committee was charged to correct the conflict by
the end of the semester, if possible.
In creating a solution to the issue, a situation was realized that the Academic Standards Policy was not clear
regarding the differences between an academic sanction and a disciplinary sanction AND who imposes them.
The Undergraduate Academic Integrity Resolution and Final Grade Appeal Process Flowchart was created to
clearly show the differences between academic and disciplinary sanctions, including who can currently
implement them.
Recommendation 3: Approve the Faculty Senate Process for Executive Board selection of Academic Faculty
to the Academic Integrity Board, per the Academic Standards Policy.
Background: This includes the change of faculty to academic faculty in the composition of an Academic
Integrity Board, both in the Academic Standards Policy and the 2012-13 catalog. It is desired that Academic
Integrity Board members be academic. This is generally the de facto practice of Executive Boards and should
be included in the policy.
Academic-integrity-board-procedures Link:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/12-13/Agendas/academic-integrity-board-procedures.doc
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
November 15, 2012
Agenda Items #12
Information Items
Chairs Task Force Report
Report of the Department Chair Task Force – May 3, 2008
University of Nevada, Reno
Submitted by Dana Edberg (Chair), Heather Hardy, Jack Hayes, Christine Cheney, Mary Wilson, Stephen
Rock, Manos Maragakis
The Role of the Department Chair in a Research University
The role of the department chair in higher education is critically important and inherently challenging. It is
widely recognized that the job has changed and become more difficult over time. Public institutions in
particular are requiring greater accountability and reporting, and increasingly are pushing down to departments
activities that used to be performed at higher levels in the administrative structure. The chair’s role is often
described as that of “first among equals (primus inter pares),” a designation that points both to the importance
of the position and to its chief challenge. The challenge is that department chairs must play a dual role: (1)
Regular faculty member with teaching and research responsibilities; and (2) administrator with managerial and
supervisory responsibilities who must aid the dean in advancing the mission of the college. To fulfill this
demanding role, chairs must be adequately supported and compensated or it will become increasingly difficult
to find qualified individuals willing to serve. Institutions cannot thrive without good department chairs, and
departments, rightly or wrongly, are often judged by the way their chair represents them to other constituents.
It is critical to the future success of the University of Nevada, Reno that all chairs at the university are
adequately supported and compensated, not just those in some colleges, and that all departments are
empowered to recruit effective chairs. Further, the university’s culture must demonstrably recognize
and respect the importance of the position of chair in a large, public research institution.
Committee Charge
After a series of discussions between the deans and the provost in 2006-2007, the provost formed a
Department Chair Task Force to review the status of department chairs on campus and recommend ways to
better compensate and support chairs in order to improve this critical level of campus leadership. In early April
2007, Provost Frederick charged the committee to investigate campus practices with respect to the role of
department chair. Those issues included:
1. The leadership profile and the role of the department chair.
2. The appropriate length of terms for chairs, including such issues as: (a) whether or not there should be
university-wide policies with respect to normal length of terms as there are at many institutions; (b)
whether a department “head” model is preferable to elected chairs recommended to the dean for
appointment; and (c) whether elective processes should be standardized within colleges.
3. The evaluation process for department chairs. The committee was asked to identify how chairs are
evaluated and whether the process should be better standardized.
4. Eligibility of faculty to serve as chairs (i.e., potential problems associated with widespread use of
associate professors as chairs in some colleges).
5. Succession plans for internal chairs and the problem of small departments and constraints against
hiring external chairs in some colleges.
6. Appropriate compensation for chairs (including stipends, lengthened contracts, course releases, service
on non-contract days, etc.).
The task force was charged with identifying solutions to these challenges and determining which solutions
require changes in the various guiding documents of the university. As the committee brainstormed the issues
relevant to the current status of chairs and what best practices might be, it expanded the discussion to include:
7. Ways the institution could help chairs be more effective and successful and, in particular, the role of
deans in this process.
Process followed to complete charges
Initial brainstorming of committee members led us to some general conclusions that shaped the subsequent
process. The first is that well-prepared, effective chairs, who view themselves as leaders and are fairly
compensated for their effort, are crucial to the success and advancement of the university. This view was
echoed by the deans’ discussions and reflected in the faculty morale study. Secondly, it soon became obvious
that the context for chairs differs radically across colleges and that a “one-size-fits-all” approach would likely
not work. We needed to know the specifics of what these variations were and we needed to hear from deans
and chairs their view of the situation and how it could be improved.
Because we wished to make recommendations based on the best available information, we took a number of
steps to gather information:
 We consulted colleagues at other institutions and references on chairing the academic department. We
strove to identify best practices (e.g., in terms, in compensation models, in selection, and evaluation and
training) and what resources are available for professional development of chairs.
 We reviewed the recommendations of the Stipend Committee.
 We developed, distributed, and summarized a questionnaire for deans about how chairs are evaluated in
the colleges.
 We developed and distributed via the web a survey for chairs that attempted to address the many issues
that had been identified about the role of chairs and what could be done to improve the situation for chairs.
We received responses from 27 department chairs at the university and we were able to discern clear
themes from those responses that helped us identify key problems shared by department chairs.
After identifying the problems, we defined possible solutions. We compiled a list of representative duties from
a number of sources and identified knowledge, skills, abilities, and qualities that equip chairs to be effective in
their role.
The remaining sections of this report will describe the key issues identified by the committee and provide
recommendations for solutions to those issues.
Description and Analysis of Issues
The committee’s information gathering process resulted in the identification of a number of issues surrounding
the role of department chair at UNR. The issues were distilled into five themes: (1) lack of definition of the role
of department chair; (2) inconsistent evaluation of department chairs across the university; (3) variation in the
reasons that faculty seek chair positions; (4) variation in the perceived value of the role of department chair;
and (5) lack of entry and exit routes to becoming a department chair. Each of the themes is discussed below
along with the reasons that they present problems for the university.
Theme 1: The job of department chair varies among departments and colleges and is not clearly
defined.
The most obvious outcome of both informal discussion with chairs and the survey (n = 27) was that the role of
department chair at UNR varies considerably and has no defined job description. The variation occurs within
and across colleges and can be at least partially attributed to the wide range of variables that affect each
department: greatly varying levels of responsibilities, resources and support infrastructure, the numbers of
faculty (tenure track, part time, soft money), degree programs and students, support staff, grant funding, and
whether there are centers and sub-units, labs and facilities, professional licensure and accreditation,
interdisciplinary programs, or direct service centers.
Related to the variation in the working conditions for department chairs are the differences in expectations from
deans and departmental faculty of the leadership roles chairs are expected to play. This variation is reflected in
the contracts, role statements, and length of terms for department chairs, the process by which they are
appointed, how they are evaluated, whether support positions are in place, and who is eligible to become
department chair. Results of the survey of department chairs highlight these differences (survey respondents
only are included in the numbers below):

27% of chairs are on A contracts and 69% are on B contracts

Role statements for chairs vary from 80% administrative responsibilities to 5% (with 50% as the mode)

Terms for chairs also range from 1 year to unspecified. Generally, terms are 3 years (50% of
departments)

Internal department support structures also vary with 16 departments reporting compensated positions
such as vice or associate chairs, directors of graduate or undergraduate study, or center directors

Most chairs are elected by their departmental faculty and appointed by the dean (70%). However,
others were hired for the role (15%) or appointed without election (10%).

Generally, chairs are evaluated by their department personnel committees and by the deans, although
some are evaluated by the dean only. Faculty input into the evaluation is usually in the form of an
anonymous survey and/or direct comments to the personnel committee.

On the issue of criteria for becoming chair, departments appear to be evenly split among those that
require tenure (associate professors and above) and those that have fewer or no restrictions for
eligibility.
This variability in the role of department chair has implications for the institution. To appropriately develop,
support, evaluate and retain effective department chairs, thoughtful policies and procedures are needed. Since
departmental structures vary considerably across and within colleges, each college and/or each department
need explicit statements and policies so that all stakeholders understand the role of department chair in that
unit.
It is clear from the data gathered that no one solution would address the needs of all chairs and departments,
but that each college and department should be able to create appropriate solutions if given the discretion to
do so.
Theme 2: Department chairs are not consistently evaluated on their role as department chair.
Parallel to the wide variation in responsibilities among department chairs are the broad differences among
colleges in evaluation practices for department chairs. While some colleges have similar evaluation processes
established through bylaws, including peer (departmental, possibly college) and dean evaluation, the actual
use of those processes varies more widely. A majority of the chairs reported that faculty are surveyed (either
formally or informally) as part of the evaluation process.
Some chairs reported that faculty are not aware of the role/responsibilities of the chair and are not able to
effectively evaluate the performance of a department chair. These chairs reported being evaluated primarily
on their role as faculty member, with the traditional measures of teaching, research and service activities.
Others reported that faculty use the evaluation process as a way to air “specific gripes.” A few chairs also
reported that the evaluation from the dean was relatively perfunctory and did not highlight the role of the
department chair. Some chairs reported that the dean did not provide a formal, written evaluation of the
department chair.
Research has shown that people usually focus on that which is measured. If department chairs are evaluated
primarily by their peer faculty in the department, then they will probably strive to satisfy those faculty with their
performance. If the university seeks to encourage chairs to assume a greater leadership role, and that means
that the chair’s actions may not always be in direct alignment with the goals of faculty in a given department,
then the university must develop more comprehensive and reliable methods of evaluating the performance of
department chairs and all the deans must take seriously their responsibilities as supervisors.
Theme 3: There is great variation in the reasons a faculty member becomes department chair.
Faculty members become chairs for a variety of reasons. As mentioned above, a few were hired for the
position at the time of employment; however, the majority were faculty members appointed to the role from
within departmental ranks. In the narrative comments collected in the survey, several chairs mentioned that
they were attracted to the challenge of leading or strengthening their departments and programs. Several
others mentioned that they hoped to heal divisions or bridge factions within the department. A large number
indicated that they were the logical choice and took the role as a service obligation. The comments highlight
the sense of duty and responsibility these faculty members have taken for the units. Few respondents
mentioned personal motives such as need for a career change or an opportunity to move into other
administrative positions.
Why do faculty choose to serve as department chairs? Overwhelmingly, survey respondents stated desirable
aspects to serving as department chair were more intrinsic, such as the opportunity to establish goals and lead
the department to accomplish those goals, to influence the research and teaching in the department, and to
mentor junior faculty and help students.
The responses to this portion of the survey emphasize that attracting faculty to the role of department chair
cannot be a “one size fits all” approach. The university needs to create a menu of incentives to encourage
faculty to become department chairs and to provide guidelines for deans to help them create compensation
plans for department chairs.
Theme 4: There is poor alignment within the university community between the perception of the value
of a department chair and the actual need/value of a department chair.
Respondents to the department chair survey were mixed in their perceptions as to whether they believed a
department chair is a well-respected position at UNR. Of the 27 responses, 33% said the department chair
was not a respected job at UNR, and another 25% said that it was somewhat respected. 37% of the
respondents said that they thought the position was well respected. Chairs also expressed that they felt a lack
of respect from central administration for the difficulty of the job they perform and were very vocal in stating
that the increasing demand for reports, signatures, and data from central administration with no additional help
placed a large burden on their departments.
Chairs indicated there is also little communication between central administration and department chairs.
Several remarked that central administration has made policy changes, delegating work to the departments
once done by university offices without considering the impact additional duties have on the function of an
academic department. Some chairs stated that the endless repetitive paperwork, accreditation reports, budget
uncertainties, and personnel problems make the job highly undesirable. They also stated they receive a lot of
data reports about student enrollment, FTE, etc., but often the data are not accurate or are incomplete, making
it difficult to make decisions in the department’s best interest. Some chairs stated there are no perks related to
the job and many expressed that they felt overworked and undercompensated as department chair.
One respondent characterized the department chair’s role as, “Responsibility without authority, responsibility
without resources, and responsibility without rewards.” While this response reflects a single individual’s
opinion, in general the responses suggested that an appreciable fraction of the university chairs feel
insufficiently valued.
Theme 5: There are no defined entry and exit paths for department chairs.
There is no clearly defined entry path for department chairs, with survey respondents reporting no clear
prerequisite requirements nor any required knowledge or skills to become a department chair at UNR. Thirtythree percent responded that any faculty member, who has greater than a 0.5 FTE and is tenured, is eligible to
be department chair. Some departments required that the faculty member be tenured associate or full
professors but, overwhelmingly, there were no other requirements to become department chair. It seems to be
perceived that there are no special knowledge and/or skills that contribute to the effectiveness of a department
chair.
There is also no defined way to facilitate the transition from department chair to a return to the faculty (or move
into another role). This contributes to the negative perception of the department chair role. Faculty hesitate to
take on a managerial role that will consume their productivity for a period of time and then delay scholarly
output for a time after returning to the faculty. Some commented that it takes one year to learn the job, while
others stated that three years are needed to learn the job. It was also stated that with a three-year term (as
opposed to longer), more faculty are willing to consider taking a turn serving as chair, as this amount of time is
not seen as inevitably forcing one to make a decision to give up an academic career for an administrative one.
However, if the university is undergoing significant changes in procedure or if one hasn’t had a lot of
administrative experience, it could be argued that a term should be longer than three years. Still, the longer the
term, the fewer faculty are willing to serve because the cost to their careers and lives is too high. Currently,
there are also a high percentage of associate professors serving as chairs at UNR, especially in some
colleges, which is seen as a hindrance to the advancement of their careers, thus slowing their promotion to full
professor.
Recommendations
Department chairs are vital members of the university’s leadership team. The current organizational culture
does not do enough to foster the success of department chairs. The committee thinks that vigorous efforts and
investment are needed to address this issue. Investing in the success of chairs will require resources, but an
investment in improving the role of chairs and promoting greater equity in the treatment of chairs is likely to
yield major, long-term benefits to the university.
Recommendation 1: Create a basic job description for a department chair.
While theme 1 in the prior section makes it clear that there is no “one-size-fits-all” answer to the role of a
department chair, we believe that there should be a basic job description that is included in the university
bylaws. A basic job description will help define the core responsibilities of all department chairs and help
deans work with faculty to develop the knowledge and skills necessary to fulfill those responsibilities. We
believe the following job description is suitable for inclusion in the university bylaws:
The department chair manages the department and is responsible for its success. The chair keeps
the department informed and engages the faculty and staff in the efficient and effective use of the
department’s resources. The chair anticipates and plans for the evolving role of the department, the
departmental stakeholders, and the work force needs or professions potentially served by the
graduates of the department. The chair manages all department resources including personnel,
budget, space, and other resources. The chair implements departmental, college, university, and
system bylaws, policies and procedures. The chair advises the dean and serves as the liaison
between the department faculty and the dean and other members of the administration. The chair is
the lead advocate for the department’s faculty, staff, and students.
Appendix A provides an expanded description of the role of a department chair. It also includes the
characteristics of a successful department chair. Since we found that the relative emphasis on these
responsibilities differs among colleges, and even among departments within colleges, our next set of
recommendations identifies ways to help the university cope with the widely varying responsibilities of a
department chair.
Recommendation 2: Appoint chairs for a pre-defined minimum time period.
Research and surveys say that it takes a lengthy period of time to learn how to be an effective department
chair. While it depends on the size and scope of a given department and the chair’s prior managerial
experience, it can take between one and three years to learn how to manage the resources of a department,
interface with all stakeholders, and implement departmental plans. We recommend that a department chair be
appointed for a minimum time period of three years, but we suggest that the time period of five years would be
most effective.
The selection process should be formalized to a greater degree in some departments. The dean should first
provide departments with a list of desirable qualifications of the successful candidate. Before departments vote
to recommend a candidate to the dean, the candidate(s) for the position should at least write a letter of interest
and preferably a vision statement or statement of purpose. Ideally, they should present themselves to the
department in an open forum for a question and answer session. They should certainly be interviewed by the
dean prior to their recommendation and formal appointment.
Recommendation 3: Negotiate an appropriate role statement and compensation package when a
department chair is appointed.
There should be a clear recognition that serving as a department chair is a new and different position for most
faculty members. We believe that highlighting the new role of a faculty member when appointed to the position
of department chair will help change the perception that the role is of limited importance to the university. To
accomplish this, we recommend that there be no “standard” role and compensation package offered to newly
appointed department chairs. We do not recommend that all chairs be moved to an “A” contract, nor do we
recommend that all departments shift to a “departmental head” model of leadership. We believe that the dean
(or relevant head of the unit) should have the discretion to develop an appropriate compensation package and
role for the department chairs in his/her unit.
We recommend that the appointment process include a meeting with the dean to specify the components of
the role and compensation package. During the appointment process, a chair should meet with the dean to
discuss a range of issues including compensation package (e.g., salary and/or stipend), expectations and
workload as defined by percentages in the role statement, personnel infrastructure support, discretionary
funding, transition support for returning to the faculty (sabbatical and/or development leave), and other forms of
institutional support. Each of these areas is described in more detail in Appendix B. A sample negotiated
compensation package is included in Appendix C.
We recommend that the role statement and compensation package be clearly stated in written form and that
they be approved initially by the faculty member becoming department chair, the dean and the provost.
Recommendation 4: Define performance expectations when a department chair is appointed.
Some chairs are expected to serve primarily as administrators, helping their units to function effectively with
only minor enhancements necessary to ensure ongoing success. Other chairs must take responsibility for
leading their units to set and accomplish challenging new goals. Some chairs must cope with a difficult
environment and are expected to make hard decisions that may negatively impact faculty morale, at least in
the short term, while others may have the opportunity to serve in a less turbulent environment. Some chairs
may be expected to fulfill a caretaking role, while others must serve as a strong, dynamic leader. Sometimes
the situation and role may change during a chair’s tenure.
It is the responsibility of the dean and the chair to identify clear goals and establish performance expectations
when a chair is appointed and on a periodic basis during the chair’s tenure. Both the chair and dean must
understand and agree to those expectations. We recommend that the yearly role statement for a department
chair include those expectations and be made available to other parties, such as the provost and departmental
faculty, as necessary.
Recommendation 5: Develop an initial and ongoing training program for department chairs.
The university could do much more to foster the success of chairs. In pursuing this goal it is essential that
training be effective and extremely time efficient. Training should not be an additional chore. Some chairs will
need very little training while others may need considerable training.
From the survey, it seems that chairs who responded were in favor of training in areas such as budget,
evaluation, and interpersonal issues such as conflict resolution. Any training programs need to reflect the busy
nature of the chair’s role and the relatively new regulations for 40 hours of training within three years for those
who supervise classified staff (which probably applies to all chairs). Training in the top areas of interest for
chairs should count toward the required 40 hours of training, should be available in varying formats (such as
web-based training), easily accessible, and carefully evaluated for effectiveness. We recommend that those in
administration who devise training programs do an annual survey of existing chairs to identify appropriate
training opportunities.
Recommendation 6: Evaluate deans’ performance based on their efforts to mentor, train, and support
department chairs.
The dean is responsible for negotiating the role statement with a chair and establishing the short-and long-term
administrative goals for the chair. Thus, it is the dean’s responsibility to take input from faculty and others and
evaluate the performance of the department chair. In aid of this, chairs should be encouraged to provide
detailed accountings of their accomplishments as chair relative to their goals in their merit applications for
distribution to the Personnel Committee and/or faculty, as well as the dean. To ensure more consistent actual
practices across the university, we recommend that a key part of the deans’ evaluation by the provost be
based on their fulfilling their supervisory and mentoring responsibility in order to produce effective and
successful department chairs.
Recommendation 7: Acknowledge the work of department chairs.
Chairs perform a challenging and critical level of leadership on our campus with relatively little compensation.
Chairs promote their faculty for awards in teaching, research, and service; they nominate classified staff for
awards; and they write reference letters for students, graduate assistants, and staff. We recommend that a
“best department chair” award be created and awarded at the yearly “Honor the Best” ceremony. This could
help elevate the profile of the leadership activities of chairs and make the role more visible within the university
community.
Appendix A:
Description and Definition of Department Chair Responsibilities
Department Chair Job Description
The chair manages the department and is responsible for its success. The chair critically evaluates the
department’s strengths and weaknesses. The chair keeps the department informed and engages the faculty
and staff in the efficient and effective use of the department’s resources. The chair anticipates and plans for
the evolving role of the department and the professions potentially served by the graduates of the department.
The chair manages personnel, finances, space, and other resources. The chair implements departmental,
college, university, and system bylaws, policies and procedures. The chair advises the dean and serves as the
liaison between the department faculty and the dean and other members of the administration. The chair is the
lead advocate for the department’s faculty, staff, and students.
Department Chair Responsibilities
1.
Manage personnel (faculty, graduate assistants, and staff). Duties include:











2.
helping faculty define role statements that are appropriate to the overall mission and workload of
the department and ensuring equitable workloads across faculty;
evaluating faculty annually for performance, merit, tenure and promotion;
providing assistance to help faculty achieve work-related goals;
developing work performance standards with classified staff;
evaluating classified staff in accordance with work performance standards;
helping classified staff balance and prioritize workload;
answering questions for faculty and staff about university, college, and department policies;
providing advice about issues/problems with others;
hiring and supervising graduate assistants;
hiring and supervising part-time instructors and temporary faculty;
hiring and mentoring tenure-track or other continuing faculty.
Manage financial resources. Duties include:







developing a department/project budget or budgets;
supervising expenditures and budgets according to university policy;
reporting on the differences between a budget and the actual expenditures on given accounts or
projects as necessary;
advocating with college personnel for adequate resources;
leading department in determining hiring priorities and making requests for new faculty;
managing searches, and negotiating start up in collaboration with the dean and vice president for
research;
ensuring that expenditures by faculty, staff, and students are consistent with relevant policies and
guidelines.
3.
Manage other resources, including such things as sales accounts, fee accounts, foundation accounts,
program development accounts, equipment inventory and upgrades, laboratory and office space, vehicles,
major equipment, etc.
4.
Manage space. This includes identifying, allocating, developing, and controlling space requirements for
teaching, offices, and laboratories.
5.
Manage conflict. Mediate conflicts between faculty members, between faculty and students, and refer
individuals to appropriate university offices as necessary. Establish and implement departmental policies to
ensure fairness.
6.
Manage delivery of instruction. Schedule classes; evaluate staffing needs for full-time and part-time
faculty; oversee teaching quality; oversee and coordinate the curriculum development process (new courses,
changes to courses, process for developing or changing programs; oversee corrections, changes or additions
to the university catalog); provide oversight of departmental assessment activities.
7.
Provide leadership. Advance the department’s mission, goals, and reputation. Guide departmental
planning efforts; work with deans and other department chairs to align department and college goals; review
plans for effectiveness and work to improve efficiencies and raise standards where appropriate; in consultation
with the faculty, set expectations for scholarship and creative activity. Lead department in identifying and
implementing priorities.
8.
Raise funds. Look for opportunities to develop new revenue streams (be entrepreneurial where
possible). Work with the college development officer to set departmental fund raising priorities; engage in
stewardship; and cultivate donors.
9.
Manage communication. Keep faculty and dean informed of departmental issues and faculty informed
of college issues and priorities. Keep the dean informed of departmental challenges and opportunities,
especially matters of urgency. Serve as the primary advocate for the department in the college, university, and
external constituencies. Department chairs should be the department’s biggest cheerleader in public, and its
most critical evaluator in private. Serve on department, college, university committees and other committees
as assigned or in order to elevate visibility of the department, as the public “face” of the department.
10.
Manage information and documentation. Create and compile reports as requested in a timely manner
(i.e., impact reports, strategic plans, etc.)
Characteristics of successful department chair
1.
Good communication skills, including good listening and good writing skills.
2.
Motivated by successes of others and enables others to be successful.
3.
Well-organized and has good time-management skills.
4.
Ability to prioritize diverse tasks and handle in a timely manner.
5.
Ability to collaborate as well as exercise independent judgment.
6.
Ability to run effective meetings.
7.
Ability to motivate others to work for the good of the department and university.
8.
Approachable and available to listen to faculty, staff, and students.
9.
Ability to look forward and identify emerging opportunities.
10.
Has a strong vision of what he or she wants to accomplish.
11.
Strong work ethic that enables chair to maintain individual professional activities required for his or her
credibility despite administrative demands on his or her time.
12.
Strongly goal oriented.
13.
Able to encourage social functions to enhance a sense of community.
14.
Good administration skills: can create a budget, can summarize expenditures, and can create effective
reports.
15.
Knowledge of university policies and procedures and/or can find the correct resource to identify
appropriate policies and procedures.
16.
Works well with other people; can compromise and negotiate.
17.
Delegates duties as appropriate.
18.
Helps the department create a vision and set priorities and keeps department on track, working toward
those goals.
19.
Is firm, fair, and consistent. Not afraid to make tough or unpopular decisions, but does so only when
needed.
20.
Has good values, and demonstrates honesty and integrity.
21.
Ability “to keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you.”
Appendix B:
Negotiation Issues for Department Chair
The role of the department chair or head varies significantly across campus. Likewise, chairs vary enormously
in their career paths. For example, some chairs are recently promoted associate professors while others have
been full professors for many years. Consequently, what it takes to make chairs successful is highly
individualized. Some chairs will need little support, whereas others will need considerable support so that they
can be successful leaders and still continue to progress in their individual development as academics.
The following list includes some of many possible options for promoting, supporting, and compensating chairs.
Ideally, each chair and their supervisor should negotiate support that ensures the success of both the
department and the chair. Deans should be given the authority and resources to perform this function.


Salary and/or Stipend
o B contract chairs should receive additional salary for what would otherwise be off contract days.
This could be two weeks salary, one month salary, a shift to an A contract, or whatever is
appropriate, given the size and complexity of the unit.
o The committee strongly recommends that chairs not be asked to perform summer work without
compensation.
o Stipends should reflect responsibilities of the positions, market differentials, and other factors as
appropriate.
o The range of stipends should be appropriately large to reflect the diversity of departments within
the university.
o The university should make the stipend range available so that chairs and deans can negotiate
the appropriate compensation for the position.
Role statement
o Role statements should reflect the actual demands of the position. If the actual demands are
inconsistent with an existing constraint, such as departmental or other bylaws, those bylaws
should be revisited.
o Chair should adjust expectations for research, teaching, or both to account for their
administrative responsibilities.
o




Teaching releases should be considered for most chairs, although some chairs may prefer to
reduce their scholarly expectations and maintain their teaching load.
Personnel support
o Departments should be staffed to ensure the success of the chair and to minimize the time that
the chair spends on routine activities that are more appropriately handled by support staff.
Depending on the circumstances, one or more of the following types of personnel support may
be appropriate:
 Student helper
 Administrative assistant
 Office or department manager
 Graduate assistant
 Technician
 Assistant/associate/vice chair
 Program directors (e.g., for undergraduate studies, graduate studies)
 Facilities, building, or lab manager
o Chairs may also need support for their individual teaching, research, or creative activity.
Depending on the circumstances, one or more of the following types of personnel support may
be appropriate:
 Undergraduate assistant
 Technician
 Graduate assistant
 Postdoctoral associate
Discretionary funding
Chairs all need some discretionary funds to enable them to be successful. Depending on the
circumstances, one or more of the following types of discretionary funding may be appropriate:
o Funding for individual productivity tools (e.g., Blackberry, voice mail, shredder, scanner)
o Funding for training (leadership, management, organizational, financial, computer)
o Funding to support the chair’s individual efforts in research or creative activity
o Funding that enables the chair to improve the department
Sabbaticals and development leave
o Service as chair impacts the teaching and research or creative activity of most chairs.
Enhancing sabbaticals or development leaves is one mechanism to enable them to overcome
long-term effects of these negative impacts.
o Chairs who serve a lengthy term (perhaps four or more years) might be offered guaranteed
leaves
o Time between sabbaticals/development leaves might be accelerated to less than the standard
seven-year interval
o Chairs taking 12-months leave might receive more than the standard two-thirds of base salary.
(For example, chairs might receive an extra 5 to 10% per year after serving at least two years
as chair, or something along those lines.)
Other institutional support
o Chairs need institutional backing from the dean, provost, and elsewhere that empowers the
chair to lead and to enable them to make difficult or unpopular decisions
Appendix C:
Sample Compensation Package
Assume that the faculty member who is becoming department chair is on a “B” contract and wishes to maintain
that contract while department chair. However, the position will require some work during off-contract times to
support the departmental goals. The dean and department chair have determined that there will be
approximately 6-8 weeks a year of additional full-time work. Assume also that the faculty member is an
Associate Professor and hopes to be promoted to full Professor sometime in the future. The department has
20 faculty members, three undergraduate degrees, two graduate programs, and a few sponsored grant
projects.
This might be a negotiated compensation package for a department chair:
Yearly salary stipend: 1.5 months salary1
Development leave: If the faculty member remains as chair for longer than five years, then he/she is
guaranteed a one-year faculty development leave in the year following the last as department chair. The
faculty member will receive an additional 5% of base salary beyond the standard 2/3 of base salary (up to a
maximum of 100%) for each year served as department chair for the development leave year.
Graduate Assistant: A full-time (20 hours) graduate assistant will be assigned to the department chair.
Faculty member should work with administration to determine how a “month” will be calculated for a given compensation package.
A “month” of salary may be calculated differently in each of the academic units, so this must be clearly defined in the compensation
package description.
1
General Education - Silver and Blue Alternatives
http://taskforce.blogs.unr.edu/discussions-2/silver-and-blue-alternatives/
Campus Affairs Administrative Response to RFA
Campus Affairs Administrative Response to the 2011-12 Committee Request for Action Link:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/12-13/Agendas/CA-RFA-president-10-30-12.pdf.pdf
UNR Bylaws
UNR Bylaws approved by the President and Chancellor as indicated in the workflow document have been
incorporated and added to UNR’s Bylaws Repository, found at the following link:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/bylaws/UNR%20Bylaws/unr-bylaws-10-11-2012.pdf
Link to the workflow document:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/12-13/Agendas/UNR%20-%20workflow-10-11-12.pdf