21 April 2004
To: General Faculty,
From: University Faculty Personnel Committee
RE: 2003-04 Annual Report
Members of the University
Faculty Personnel Committee (UFPC) again were very pleased and impressed with
the fine work being conducted by the approximately 75 candidates whose files we
reviewed in the 2003-04 Retention, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) cycle.
We
remind all faculty interested in the personnel process of the UFPC website (http://www.humboldt.edu/~acadsen/UFPC/ufpcindex.htm). Among other items, this site includes a copy
of the revised Personnel Data Sheet (PDS) that can be downloaded, a copy of
Appendix J, a checklist for preparing a Working Personnel Action Files (WPAF),
UFPC annual reports starting with 1998-99, recent UFPC newsletters, and the
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
Based
on the past five UFPC annual reports, we noted that concerns about a fair and
equitable application of the “equal in weight and compensatory in combination”
language of Appendix J (Section VIII.2.) were addressed in all five of the most
recent reports; concerns about the criteria used for evaluating or advocating
for consideration of early tenure and promotion occurred in four of the last
five reports; concerns about both the importance of collegial evaluations and
student evaluations in the RTP process were addressed in four reports; and
concerns about preparation of the WPAF occurred in four of the reports (and was
dealt with extensively in the May 2002 report).
We shared these same concerns in the current RTP cycle. While seeking to minimize redundancy with
past reports, we will highlight some of these concerns.
The
nature of our report cannot help but be influenced by the realization that
Appendix J is undergoing a careful and thorough evaluation by the Faculty
Affairs Committee (FAC). The FAC has
presented a revision of the frequency and nature of evaluations for the RTP
process for faculty consideration. Some
of the criteria, including the “equal in weight” and “compensatory in
combination” language as well as the criteria for early tenure (and promotion)
are scheduled to be reassessed in this next academic year. However, the current Appendix J, generated by
the faculty, provides the guidelines for the RTP process, and it is the
document we and all evaluating bodies are bound to honor (Appendix J. Section
I. E.) until changes have been approved by faculty vote. Thus we encourage a thoughtful and honest
involvement by all faculty in contributing their best ideas to the FAC for
improving this document that affects us all so substantially.
The
issue of awarding early tenure (and promotion) has received increasing
attention among faculty and administrators.
As most are aware, two separate issues are involved: tenure and
promotion. Promotion is based primarily
on the merit of a candidate’s contributions in teaching and the ancillary areas
(Appendix J. Section IX.); some candidates may develop impressive files very
quickly after joining the faculty, library, or counseling center and could be
very competitive for (early) promotion.
However, promotion is closely linked to the granting of tenure.
Appendix
J (Section IV. G.) and the CBA (14.2) make clear that a probationary faculty
member normally is considered for
promotion at the time s/he is considered for tenure, rather than before tenure
is conferred. The President may award
early tenure to faculty unit employees (CBA 13.18); however, early tenure is
justified for reasons above and beyond the standard RTP criteria of merit and
when such tenure would constitute a clear advantage to the University (Appendix
J. Section IV.E.5.). Historically at
HSU, faculty RTP committees have interpreted the intent of Appendix J to mean
that requests for early tenure (and promotion) are relatively rare, and it has
been expected that those candidates and IUPCs have the responsibility for
making a persuasive case that a particular candidate’s tenure is of clear
advantage to the University (and implicitly that withholding tenure is a
disadvantage to the University). It has
been understood that merit alone is not a persuasive criterion.
The
new administration seems to be encouraging requests for early tenure (and
promotion); in part, the President may be considering merit alone to be of
significant advantage to the University.
Thus early tenure candidates may be disappointed or frustrated to find
their files being assessed by the UFPC and other committees using the
traditional criteria of Appendix J in which merit alone is not considered
sufficient for early tenure. We
encourage the faculty to participate fully with the FAC work on Appendix J in
clarifying how they wish to be assessed for RTP, including possible changes in
the standards used to assess early tenure (and promotion). Whatever the resulting document, we trust
that all evaluating committees and administrators will implement it faithfully
(Appendix J. Section I. E.).
Although
an apparent increasing emphasis among administrators and some departments on
the greater importance of scholarship in comparison to other ancillary areas
remains of some concern to the UFPC, we have little new to add to this dilemma
and encourage interested readers to note concerns and suggestions on this topic
in previous UFPC annual reports (http://www.humboldt.edu/~acadsen/UFPC/ufpcindex.htm). We affirm that faculty have ultimate
responsibility for the standards they believe most appropriate for RTP. Any changes in those standards must result
from a faculty vote. For example, the
FAC is proposing revisions to Appendix J for faculty consideration; all faculty
are encouraged to participate in this process.
There
were some cases of the same individual serving on both an IUPC and College
Personnel Committee due to a shortage of available faculty for RTP process;
such individuals reportedly recused themselves in College deliberations from
cases in which they contributed at the IUPC level. We recognize and empathize with the
difficulty of finding candidates both qualified and willing to serve on
committees for which there can be considerable work and minimal compensation,
but we are quite concerned that, even with recusing, such cases are in
violation of Appendix J. (Section VII.A.2.b.1.) and the CBA (15.36). Our experience is that, in the rare cases in
which grievances occur, they rarely are resolved by broad principles of
justice; rather they most commonly are resolved by technicalities such as
this. We strongly encourage each college
to make every effort to ensure that it has adequate personnel to serve at all
levels. We remind departments that they
may elect IUPC members from closely related departments if there is a shortage
of eligible department faculty to serve.
We affirm the importance of thoughtful collegial evaluations of teaching based on direct, repeated classroom observations, as well as the value of collegial evaluations of scholarship and other ancillary areas. (Appendix J. Section VIII. B.1.a.). Collegial evaluations of teaching are the most important source of information used to assess teaching excellence. However, sometimes disparities occur between collegial evaluations and student perceptions (Appendix J. Section VIII. B.1.a. (1)). In some cases these disparities may result from unusual circumstances not likely to occur again. However, if these disparities have occurred more regularly, it is important that they be carefully addressed by the candidate, IUPC, and department chair. We remind IUPCs that they are called upon to serve as evaluators rather than advocates for RTP candidates (Appendix J. Section VII. B. 1. a.).
It
is essential that departments give candidates adequate opportunities to fulfill
pertinent criteria for tenure/promotion.
For example, one criterion for associate professor is that “Associate
professors must be capable of presenting courses in their disciplines with a
high degree of competence, at the advanced undergraduate level” (Appendix J.
Section IX. A. 2.); likewise, criteria for promotion to the rank of professor
include the statement that “Professors must be capable of presenting courses in
their disciplines at the advanced undergraduate and graduate levels and of
directing research or stimulating creative activity at those levels, with the
highest degree of competence” (Appendix J. Section IX. A. 1.). Where candidates are not fulfilling these
criteria, departments must argue convincingly that the candidates can fulfill
these criteria, or make clear why these criteria should not apply in their
specific cases.
Due
Dates. There was confusion on due dates among some
candidates and departments. Generally,
where two RTP schedules may be involved (e.g., 6th year
reappointment and early tenure/promotion), the earlier set of dates should be
used by candidates and IUPCs. In
deference to proposed changes in the RTP process being developed by the FAC for
faculty vote, the UFPC is not recommending significant changes in the timing of
personnel deadlines for the 2004-05 academic year.
Assessing the amount and value of work accomplished. In most cases, members of the UFPC and other evaluating bodies depend on the candidates to report, and colleagues in closely allied fields to interpret and assess, the amount and value of work accomplished. We remind all contributors to be as honest and forthright as possible in reporting hours spent with various committees, interpreting the weight and merit of accomplishments, etc.
The
UFPC will hold a meeting for the general faculty to summarize the recent
2003-04 RTP cycle and in preparation for the 2004-05 RTP cycle on May 3, 2004,
in Founders Hall 125. We encourage
candidates and IUPC chairs, as well as others interested in the personnel
process, to attend. The committee also
will conduct informational meetings early in the fall semester for candidates,
personnel committee members, and department chairs.
We
appreciated having had the opportunity to serve the University as members of
this committee.
Richard
G. Botzler, Chair
Susan
G. Bennett
Sharon
S. Chadwick
Steve
R. Martin
William
F. Wood