Minutes of the Instructional Academic Staff Career Progression Committee


 Wednesday, December 10th, 2008

7:45 am, 258 CC


Present:                                Elise Denlinger, David Howard, George Arimond, Melissa Wallace, Kerri Hoar.


1.      Approval of minutes. Minutes for 05/02/08 were unanimously approved.  


2.      Election of Chair and Recorder.  Kerri Hoar was chosen as Chair; Melissa Wallace will continue to be Recorder. Grateful acknowledgement was expressed to David Howard for his hard work and leadership for our first year.


3.      Review of work schedule / important dates / setting of upcoming meetings.  The following table of meeting times was agreed upon by all present:


January 2nd


Date by which we presumably will have access to portfolios

January 23rd


Non-binding scores must be in.

Tuesday, January 27th

2:15 – 3:30. Back-up time if we need to continue: 5:00-6:00.

Discussion meeting.

Thursday, January 29th


Initial ballot.

Tuesday, February 3rd

2:15 – 3:30

Reconsideration meeting (if necessary)

Thursday, February 5th.


Reconsideration ballot.

Friday, February 6th


Letter with final recommendations due to Provost.



4.      Revision and modification of worksheet that we use for evaluating candidates.  Suggested modifications include, but are not limited to: a) removing “Title at Hire” from the top boxes and adding “IDP included”; b) removing numbers 5 and 6 from the “Professional Development / Creative Activity / Scholarship and Service” box in order to come up with a 60/40 balance, lending more weight to teaching. From the “Teaching Effectiveness Measures” worksheet, remove “committee” from “Departmental Promotion (Committee) letter*” and enlarge the “Other” box to make room for more comments.


5.      Revision of our procedures and guidelines.


a.      Regarding the “Most Recent Merit” box: if candidate was considered for merit, note in the box. If not, this should be addressed in the Chair’s or Committee’s letter.


b.      Discussion of IDPs. The IAS committee continues to work on modifying them so that they more closely resemble that of faculty. The one currently in use was taken from classified staff and is problematic.


6.      Other business

·        Membership of the IAS CPC Committee.  How were / are committee members selected? Our previous understanding from Carmen Wilson was that two faculty members would rotate off in order to be replaced by IAS. Why did this not happen?  Kerrie will address this in the final report. Will membership rotate to all IAS for Fall 2010?  Are there an adequate number of higher ranked IAS to make this trasnsition possible?  The IAS Liaison emails and the IAS website could be used to recruit more IAS to volunteer to serve on the CPC. A discussion relating to possible changes/additions to the CPC committee makeup. Is six an adequate number, or should membership be increased?  A suggestion was made to add representation from upper administration to help with clarification of policy, etc.  Perhaps ad hoc representatives from each Dean’s office would be sufficient.  They could then provide oral input during discussion of portfolios, but would not vote.  Discussions will continue at a later meeting in order to include any recommendation in the CPC’s final report to Faculty Senate.

·        Reminder to Dean.  As noted in section 5.3.1 of the Career Progression Guidelines, each dean should submit only a statement noting support/non-support with each portfolio – not a letter of support.  If he/she does not support the application for progression, then a list of reason would also be included.  A reminder should be sent to each dean regarding this.

·        Makeup of CPC Committee. Articles and by-laws. The committee discussed changes to the Guide to IAS Career Progression and Portfolio Development at UW-La Crosse. These changes will be forwarded to Faculty Senate for final approval.

                                                               i.      Appendix A section 2: The members shall give fair and full consideration to all relevant materials that are presented on the candidate's behalf.  A written unpublished record of the deliberations shall be maintained. The unpublished records shall be destroyed at termination of the committee year or after resolution of all appeals. The committee shall provide the provost a list of those recommended and not recommended for career progression no later than the first Friday of February. Separate lists shall be provided for each series title.  Within seven days of the committee’s decision on a candidate for progression, the chairperson of the CPC shall communicate the decision in writing to the candidate and to the appropriate department chairperson.  A candidate who is not recommended for promotion shall receive the reasons for the negative decision as part of this written notification.  M/S/P

                                                             ii.      Appendix B, section 2e ii: Within seven days of receiving the written reasons for a negative decision, the candidate may, by writing to the department chairperson, request reconsideration by the departmental committee that made the decision. The reconsideration review shall take place within 10 days of the filing date. The IAS member shall be given at least 7 days notice of such review. The IAS member shall be allowed an opportunity to respond to the written reasons, to present written or oral evidence or arguments relevant to the decision, and/or to use witnesses. Reconsideration shall be non-adversarial in nature. The committee shall give fair and full consideration to all relevant materials. Written notice of the reconsideration decision shall be transmitted to the candidate within seven days.  If a positive decision was made during reconsideration, this decision shall be forwarded to the dean within seven days.  If a negative decision was made, no further consideration shall occur and the candidate’s file shall not be forwarded to the dean.  M/S/P

                                                            iii.      Appendix B, section 5: Appeal of Negative Career Progression Committee Appeals Decision.

1.       Within 7 days of receiving the written reasons for a negative CPC progression decision, the candidate may, by writing to the Career Progression Committee chair, appeal the CPC recommendation. An appeal review shall take place within 14 days of the filing date. The IAS member shall be given at least 7 days notice of such review. The burden of proof in such an appeal shall be on the IAS member, and the scope of the review shall be limited to the question of whether the decision was based in any significant degree upon one or more of the following factors, with material prejudice to the individual:

a.       Conduct, expressions, or beliefs that are constitutionally protected, or protected by the principles of academic freedom, or

b.       Factors proscribed by applicable state or federal law regarding fair employment practices, or

c.       Improper consideration of qualifications for promotion. For purposes of this section, "improper consideration" shall be deemed to have been given to the qualifications of a IAS member in question if material prejudice resulted because of any of the following:

                                                                                                                                       i.      The procedures required by rules of the faculty or board were not followed, or

2.       Available data bearing materially on the quality of performance were not considered, or

3.       Unfounded, arbitrary or irrelevant assumptions of fact were made about work or conduct.

Written notice of the results of the appeal shall be transmitted to the candidate and appropriate department chair within seven days.  M/S/P

                                                            iv.      Appendix B, section 6: Responsibilities of the Provost and Office of Human Resources.

1.       Within fourteen days of the provost's decision on a candidate for career progression, the provost shall communicate the decision in writing to the Office of Human Resources.

2.       Within seven days of receiving the provost's written decision, the Office of Human Resources shall communicate this decision in writing to the candidate, the appropriate department chair, and the Career Progression Committee chair. 

A career progression candidate who was denied advancement by the provost but recommended for career progression by the Career Progression Committee may request shall receive from the provost written reasons for the denial. The provost shall provide the written reasons within seven days of the request. There is no provision for appeal of the Provost's decision.  M/S/P


Meeting was adjourned at 8:50 am.


Respectfully submitted,

Melissa Wallace & Kerrie Hoar