Promotion, Tenure, and Salary Committee Report and Recommendations, Part II

2006-2007 Academic year

 

(Members: Joe “Big Boy Pants” Anderson, T.J. Brooks, Pat Dirocco, Anne Galbraith [Chair], Mark Headington, David Koster, Sandra Krajewski, Richard Pinnell, Mark Sandheinrich)

 

Part of our committee’s charge this year included the following from Senate Chair Carmen Wilson:

 

 

In addition, we received a document regarding tenure practices from the Provost’s Office (Appendix A) to review. Because these two charges were related, we tackled both at the same time, with the report due date changed to April 5, 2007.

 

Method of Review

  1. We reviewed the tenure document and used the expertise of the three Chairs on our committee to help initially determine the standard practices of retention and tenure decisions.
  2. We invited Betsy Morgan, the author of the proposed changes from the Provost’s Office, to explain the historical context of the draft document, including its proposed purpose.
  3. Three members of the committee who represent each of the three Colleges attended Chairs Meetings where a discussion of this draft document was part of the agenda. Feedback was elicited from Chairs and reported back to the PTS Committee.

 

Issues Raised During Our Investigation

  1. The specificity of the language is not appropriate for UWL 3.06 as these by-laws should remain general.
  2. There is no university-wide retention and tenure committee. In addition, retention and tenure are not the same as promotion. Therefore, using Joint Promotion Committee guidelines for retention and tenure decisions is not ideal since department requirements might be different from JPC requirements further eroding department autonomy.
  3. Although writing narrative statements may be a useful exercise for probationary faculty, departments have their own guidelines for retention and tenure that should be honored. The PTS Committee noted that some departments already require their faculty to provide narrative statements and other documentation listed in the draft document (Appendix A).
  4. Currently, when due dates for retention and tenure decisions draw near, Deans request a list of specific items from Chairs who pass this request on to probationary faculty. If some probationary faculty are unaware of the documentation required for these events, providing a summary list of these items that is readily accessible to probationary faculty may be useful.

 

 

Recommendations from the PTS Committee

  1. Do not change the language of UWL 3.06 as indicated in the attached document (Appendix A).
  2. Allow departments to specify the documents that are required of probationary faculty for retention and tenure decisions. Departments should then provide letters of recommendation to the Dean that specifically outline reasons for their decisions on retention or tenure for each probationary faculty member. The PTS Committee believes that this is current practice, but if it is not universal, then departments should be strongly encouraged to adhere to these minimal requirements by their respective Dean’s Offices.
  3. College web sites should include the standard list of retention and tenure items that are requested by each Dean so that this information is readily available to all probationary faculty regardless of their College affiliation.

 

 

FINAL REPORT

We have addressed all charges presented to us except for one which we will save for next year’s committee if they are so charged:

 

All other charges have been addressed, and recommendations made, either in this document, or in the previous report (Part I) presented to Senate on February 1, 2007.

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Anne Galbraith

Promotion, Tenure, and Salary Chair


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A

 

RETENTION/TENURE MATERIALS – UW-L (draft F 2006)

 

FROM THE CANDIDATE

 

FROM THE DEPARTMENT

 

FROM THE DEAN

 

CHANCELLOR

(or Chancellor designee)

v      A current CV  (Once we are electronic – activities entered into the electronic portfolio from date of hire at UW-L and if applicant wishes to he/she can attach CV from previous institution)

v      A faculty activities report from the most recent year since the last review.

v      Representative sample syllabi

v      Evidence of teaching development

v      Evidence of scholarship (include copies of submitted work, etc)

v      Evidence of service (department, college, university, professional)*

IF we follow promotion guidelines

(starting in the 3rd year?)

v      Narrative statements: 3 pages teaching; 2 pages scholarship; 2 pages service on work since date of hire at UW-L as ranked faculty.

HOLD evidence to same “amount” allowed by JPC

 


 

+ Any additional evidence appropriate to written departmental criteria

 

v Department letter of recommendation with vote

 

v SEI scores with departmental comparison – minimum, maximum, median and rank

 

v Merit evaluation data  (score and rank within department OR category and # of individuals within each category)

Note: since date of hire at UW-L as ranked faculty.

 

 

 

 

+ Any additional evidence appropriate to written departmental criteria

  

 

 

 


 

v      Dean's letter of recommendation

 

 

Below you will see UWS 3.06 and UWL 3.06 – note “recommended” changes in italics and underlined to UWL 3.06

UWS 3.06 Renewal of appointments and granting of tenure.

(1)(a) General. Appointments may be granted only upon the affirmative recommendation of the appropriate academic department, or its functional equivalent, and the chancellor of an institution. When specified by the board, the institutional recommendation shall be transmitted by the president of the system with a recommendation to the board for action. Tenure appointments may be granted to any ranked faculty member who holds or will hold a half-time appointment or more. The proportion of time provided for in the appointment may not be diminished or increased without the mutual consent of the faculty member and the institution, unless the faculty member is dismissed for just cause, pursuant to s. 36.13 (5), Stats., or is terminated or laid off pursuant to s. 36.21, Stats.

(b) Criteria. Decisions relating to renewal of appointments or recommending of tenure shall be made in accordance with institutional rules and procedures which shall require an evaluation of teaching, research, and professional and public service and contribution to the institution. The relative importance of these functions in the evaluation process shall be decided by departmental, school, college, and institutional faculties in accordance with the mission and needs of the particular institution and its component parts. Written criteria for these decisions shall be developed by the appropriate institutional faculty bodies. Written criteria shall provide that if any faculty member has been in probationary status for more than 7 years because of one or more of the reasons set forth in s. UWS 3.04 (2) or (3), the faculty member shall be evaluated as if he or she had been in probationary status for 7 years.

 

(c) Procedures. The faculty and chancellor of each institution, after consultation with appropriate students, shall establish rules governing the procedures for renewal or probationary appointments and for recommending tenure. These rules shall provide for written notice of the departmental review to the faculty member at least 20 days prior to the date of the departmental review, and an opportunity to present information on the faculty member's behalf. The probationary faculty member shall be notified in writing within 20 days after each decision at each reviewing level. In the event that a decision is made resulting in nonrenewal, the procedures specified in s. UWS 3.07 shall be followed.

History: Cr. Register, January, 1975, No. 229, eff. 2-1-75; am. (1) (b), Register, February, 1994, No. 458, eff. 3-1-94; correction in (1) (a) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 5, Stats., Register, February, 1994, No. 458.

UWL 3.06 Renewal of appointments and granting of tenure.

(1) Renewal of appointments and granting of tenure require probationary faculty to be reviewed at three levels in the following order: 1) department; 2) college dean; and 3) chancellor. The process advances as the department's decision and the dean's recommendations are forwarded, in writing, to the chancellor. The timing of the reviews is determined by the university's Personnel Schedule Deadlines.

(2) The probationary faculty member shall be notified in writing within seven days after each decision or recommendation at each reviewing level.

(3) When a negative renewal/tenure decision or recommendation is made at any reviewing level, the provisions of UWS 3.07/UWL 3.07 on reconsideration and UWS 3.08/UWL 3.08 on appeal shall apply.

(4) The initial review of probationary faculty shall be conducted by the tenured faculty of the appropriate department in a manner determined by the tenured members. If there are no tenured members in the department, the appropriate supervisor who is tenured shall make the determination. Department procedures for review, criteria for retention and tenure, and the weighting of criteria shall be documented and on file in the appropriate dean's office. Any changes to department procedures, criteria, and their weighting during the six month period preceding the review shall not be applicable to the review.

(5) The probationary faculty member should provide an up-to-date CV and narrative statements on teaching, scholarship, and service and evidence in support of renewal following the most recent Joint Promotion Committee guidelines.  Narrative statements should be included starting in the 3rd year or the tenure year whichever comes earliest.  These materials shall reflect faculty activities since date of hire at UW-L as a ranked faculty member.  Additional materials particular to departmental criteria should also be included.

(6) The department chair shall give written notice of the department review to the probationary faculty member at least 20 days prior to the date of the review. The probationary faculty member may present written and oral support for renewal. The requirements of sub chapter IV of Chapter 19, Wisconsin Statutes concerning open meeting of governmental bodies shall apply.

(7) An affirmative decision by the department or a successful reconsideration by the department that reverses an earlier nonrenewal decision is required for renewal and tenure.

(8) The department shall forward the decision and the vote results to the appropriate dean (or other administrative officer).  In addition, the department shall forward a letter from the department chair regarding the faculty member, and the faculty member’s student evaluation numbers and merit numbers from date of hire at UW-L as a ranked faculty member following the most recent Joint Promotion Committee guidelines.  Additional materials particular to departmental criteria should also be included.  The dean shall submit to the chancellor a written recommendation either affirming or not affirming the department decision. The dean's criteria for renewal and tenure shall be consistent with department criteria. Further, the dean shall take the magnitude of the faculty vote into account when making the recommendation.

(9) Following a nonrevewal decision at the department level, and reconsideration and appeal that do not reverse the decision, the department's decision and the vote results shall be forwarded to the appropriate dean (or other administrative officer). The dean shall submit to the chancellor a recommendation either affirming or not affirming the department decision. The dean's criteria for renewal and tenure shall be consistent with department criteria. Further, the dean shall take the magnitude of the faculty vote into account when making the recommendation.

(10) Following an affirmative decision at the department level, but a nonrenewal recommendation at the dean level and reconsideration and appeal that do not reverse the recommendation, the process advances to the chancellor.

(11) If the department's decision and the dean's recommendations are both positive the chancellor's decision should be positive unless there are compelling reasons for a negative decision. A faculty member who is denied renewal/tenure at this stage may request the reasons in writing within 10 days. Written reasons shall be provided to the faculty member within 10 days of the receipt of the request. The reasons then become part of the official file of the faculty member.

UWL 3.06 was revised and approved by the Faculty Senate, approved by Chancellor Kuipers on April 15, 1998 and approved by the Board of Regents on June 5, 1998.