FROM: University Faculty Personnel Committee
We are responsible for evaluating each candidate in the Retention, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) process. In addition, we are charged with ensuring that the procedures and standards of Appendix J are met. In carrying out these duties, we have a continuing concern regarding compliance with Appendix J.
President McCrone's Lack of Compliance with Appendix J
The Committee is profoundly concerned that the President has failed to comply adequately with Appendix J (VII.D.3.c.) which states in part:
In the event that the President overturns a recommendation of the UFPC, the President shall give reasons that are specific for the individual case and sufficient to persuade any reasonable, disinterested person that the UFPC's recommendation should be overturned.
This year the President overturned recommendations of the UFPC. In compliance with Appendix J, the Committee formally requested specific reasons from the President explaining his decisions. The President's response was insulting in its cavalier treatment of the Committee and its concerns. More importantly, the President's failure to fulfill his duty as clearly delineated in Appendix J undermines Humboldt State University's long-established RTP process.
Our recommendations regarding RTP are based upon Appendix J which requires excellence in teaching. Appendix J is clear that no amount of activity in the three ancillary areas will suffice for eventual tenure or promotion when a deficiency in teaching exists. The UFPC recommendations for tenure or promotion are based upon Appendix J.
Another significant concern this year is that some of the letters in the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) imply that it is necessary for a candidate to have a significant level of activity in each and every one of the three ancillary activities. However, according to Appendix J (VIII.A.1.): "A record of teaching/librarian excellence, combined with a reasonable level of performance in the three non-teaching/librarian areas, shall be taken as a strong justification for RTP." The Dean and personnel committee members evaluating the three ancillary areas should take note that Appendix J (VIII.A.2.) emphasizes that:
The three areas other than teaching/librarian effectiveness shall be considered equally in weight and compensatory in combination. . . . "Compensatory in combination" is intended to convey that candidates' strengths may be concentrated in one category, even to the almost complete exclusion of the others, and that they should not suffer by comparison as a consequence. . . . "Compensatory" means that a candidate may compensate for lack of strength in any of the three non-teaching areas by strength in another of them." (emphases added)
Thus, evaluators must avoid any suggestion that a candidate should increase activity in any one specific area as a requirement for RTP, lest the impression be made that the lack of such activity will adversely affect the candidate's chances for retention, tenure or promotion.
Early Tenure
Appendix J, Section IV, states that the normal probationary period is six years. This section further provides for the awarding of early tenure to faculty for reasons above and beyond the standard RTP criteria of merit and whose tenure would constitute a clear advantage to the University. Previously, the members of the UFPC have communicated that early tenure will occur only in rare and extraordinary situations. We believe that this is a correct interpretation of Appendix J. As recently as April 5, 2000, at our workshop for department chairs and department personnel committees, we stated that the granting of early tenure would occur only in these exceptional situations.
However, this year we were quite surprised that President McCrone was more willing to award early tenure than in past years. We are following the criteria established in Appendix J. At this point, we do not know what criteria the President and Vice President for Academic Affairs are using in determining early tenure.
Process of Reviewing Files
It has been a pleasure to read the many excellent files this year, and we are impressed with the quality of the faculty on this campus. Before we began our review of each set of files, we reviewed Appendix J and discussed the appropriate criteria for RTP. All files were read specifically and thoroughly by all committee members. Each file was assigned a primary reader and a secondary reader who had the lead responsibility in determining compliance with all relevant documents and presenting the file to the entire committee. The primary reader led the often vigorous discussion on each file and wrote the drafts of the letters containing our recommendations. We found this to be a very effective process, particularly because each member of the committee was diligent in the study of the files.
We have attached a copy of a checklist that we utilize to assure compliance with Appendix J. We encourage all reviewing committees to use such a form.
In order to assist members of the UFPC in scheduling courses, we are continuing the established practice that the UFPC will meet Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 10 a.m. to 12 noon during the next academic year.
Collegial Review of Candidates
Appendix J states that the evaluation of candidates is based primarily on the written statements of colleagues. Such evaluations are the most significant portion of a file if the evaluations include observed and reported assessment of teaching/librarianship and of activities in the three ancillary areas. Letters should be current, especially in cases of tenure and promotion reviews. Letters also should be signed by the author.
Collegial and personnel committee letters sometimes ignore weaknesses in teaching that are evident from the study of student evaluations. Appendix J requires assessment by colleagues to be substantiated by other evidence, such as student evaluations. If these weaknesses are not addressed by the respective initiating units and by department colleagues, subsequent reviewing committees will formulate their own interpretation without the benefit of candidate and collegial assistance.
Departments are urged to insure that candidates are mentored before and during the process of assembling their files. This mentoring should include file preparation, assistance in letter procurement, and frank appraisal of professional performance.Faculty reviewing a candidate's file should be aware that Humboldt State University has a policy on nepotism which states that no employee may vote, make recommendations, or in any way participate in any decisions about any personnel matter which may directly affect RTP of any "close relative." "Close relative" is defined as husband, wife, mother, father, son, daughter, sister, brother, step relative, or in-laws.
All personnel committee members must be elected. Only tenured faculty members with full time appointments may serve. Faculty who are members of personnel committees evaluating candidates for promotion must be of a higher rank than the candidate being evaluated. Faculty who are participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program cannot serve on personnel committees. If a department chair serves on a committee, the chair must not write a separate letter of recommendation. The fact that the chair is not writing a separate letter should be noted by the chair in a memo placed in the WPAF. Members of personnel committees may, and should, write separate letters of evaluation based upon observation of the candidate's performance. A faculty member shall not serve on more than one level of review.
We are very concerned that department and college personnel committees are not paying attention to the requirements of Appendix J. Please be certain to use the version of Appendix J issued in Fall 1998. Section V provides specific information on WPAF contents; Section VII delineates peer review committee obligations, and Sections VIII and IX state the criteria for retention, tenure, and promotion.
Collegial Interactions of RTP Candidates
We are observing a disturbingly large number of collegial letters regarding RTP candidates stating that candidates are engaging in unprofessional behaviors toward colleagues including disrespectful dialogue, offensive communications, or an unwillingness to respect diversity of opinion. We wish to remind candidates that eventual tenure and promotion require the highest respect from fellow faculty members (Appendix J, IX.A.1.)
RTP Calendar for AY 2000-01
We are in the process of completing our recommended deadlines for RTP and are recommending a significant change from prior years by shifting the 6th year reappointments to early in the process and the 3rd year reappointments to the period when candidates for 6th reappointment previously were reviewed. The purpose of this shift is to provide feedback to 6th year candidates as early as possible to aid them in preparation for their subsequent tenure review year. We also have added dates for review of lecturers because Appendix K will be in effect next year. Therefore, all faculty will want to examine closely the "RTP Action Dates: 2000-01" document when distributed later this academic year.
Student Evaluations of Teaching
Appendix J requires that at least two classes be evaluated by students each year and encourages all candidates to have all classes evaluated for one year prior to their candidacy. All completed evaluations should be included, rather than the candidates selectively submitting only a portion. However, we urge all faculty in the RTP process to have all classes evaluated each semester and to include those evaluations in the WPAF. The information from these evaluations provides a more accurate perspective of teaching upon which to base our recommendations.
Student evaluations would be more beneficial if the number of students enrolled in a class and the number of students responding were provided for each set of evaluations in the WPAF. Departments and colleges would benefit greatly by careful review of their student evaluation forms to ensure that the questions are relevant.
Service Credit
Candidates receiving service credit have had their opportunity for review shortened. Candidates who have received two years of service credit should be aware that by the time the UFPC reviews their WPAF, the candidate is well into the fourth year of service. This means that corrective action recommended by the UFPC must occur quickly because the candidate will have a very short time prior to submitting a WPAF for tenure and promotion.
Under normal circumstances, service credit can be awarded only at the time of appointment. However, this year particular candidates were awarded retroactive service credit based upon specific circumstances. Candidates may want to check with the Office of Faculty Personnel Services to learn if they are eligible for retroactive service credit.
Time to Promotion for Tenured Faculty
The Collective Bargaining Agreement contains a provision that should be noted by tenured faculty members who will be seeking promotion to Professor. Section 14.3 states that promotion of a tenured faculty member shall normally be effective at the beginning of the sixth year after appointment to current rank. This means that such candidates will be submitting their WPAF for review in their fifth year.
The quality of the presentation of the WPAF varies tremendously, even though Appendix J is clear on format and content. We encourage all candidates to become familiar with Appendix J and to seek mentoring in file preparation. The following matters are of particular importance:
No person should ever remove any item from the WPAF during the review cycle.
All materials in the file, including each letter of evaluation by a personnel committee, dean, or chair, must be seen by the candidate prior to being added to the WPAF. Please be certain that all such materials contain acknowledgement by the candidate indicating that the candidate has seen the document and has had an opportunity to respond to its contents. A candidate has the right to request the deletion or removal of material that is not accurate, relevant, or timely.
The candidate should use the complete Personnel Data Sheet (PDS) form even if some portion is not applicable. If a section is not applicable, so note as "N/A."
Candidates should explain thoroughly the contents of their file. Mere listings of items cause difficulties for subsequent evaluating committees. The PDS offers the opportunity to clarify and expand on the file's contents. Also, the inclusion of a teaching philosophy in the PDS is helpful to evaluating committees in understanding the pedagogical styles of candidates.
MidSemester Evaluation Program materials were not intended nor are they appropriate for inclusion in the WPAF. The candidate may include written verification of participation in the program and may comment on how teaching effectiveness is enhanced. Under no circumstances shall any documentation contain details of the evaluation process itself or of its conclusions or recommendations.
Do not "double-count" activities in the WPAF. If an activity might fall within more than one category (e.g., service to the university and service to the community), list the item in only one place and make cross references in other sections if necessary for clarity.
Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the WPAF (evidence of scholarship/creative activities, service to the university, and service to the community) often contain no information. We encourage candidates to submit evaluative evidence of such activity. If letters have been received from colleagues evaluating such activity, those letters should be contained in section 6 of the WPAF. Therefore, in sections 8, 9, and 10, the candidate should include a cross-reference listing of the letters contained in section 6 that are evaluative of the particular section, as well as other relevant information such as letters from off-campus parties who have observed the candidate's work, program announcements, or media releases.
Do not include such things as manuscripts, copies of articles, or works of art in the WPAF. If the candidate wishes to have these items evaluated, the items should be placed in a separate file under the control of the file custodian and made available for review by colleagues and personnel committees.
The WPAF should contain all appointment, reappointment, prior committee, and prior student letters from the date of appointment or from the date of last promotion (Appendix J, V.E.). Section 2 of the WPAF should contain all of the review letters from previous years within the current cycle. Section 5 should contain only the letters from the current year.
The binder containing the WPAF should be clearly labelled on its spine indicating the candidate's name and action under review (e.g., "Reappointment to Fifth Year").
Respectfully submitted,
Ben T. Allen, Chair
Simon R. Green
Mervin Hanson
Kay LaBahn
Mimi Mace
ufpc\anlreprt.s00