One UVA Faculty: Proposed Recommendations on Career Advancement and Job Security Provost’s Non-Tenure Track Faculty Task Force,

Meeting process Presenters – Lois Shepherd, School of Medicine/Law – Bill Sherman, School of Architecture – Jeff Holt, College of Arts and Sciences min. presentation Discussion at tables—three questions – Find attractive, find concerning, challenges to implementation? Report out—3 minutes per table Group discussion

Task Force Convened in August tenured/tenure track 6 non-tenure track faculty 7 ex officio members Charge: to raise and examine a broad range of issues related to the various groups that comprise the non-tenure track faculty ranks Terminology: “General Faculty”

Information Provided by the Vice Provost for Faculty Recruitment and Retention

For further information about the composition of the General Faculty, see

Actions to date Period of study – Meetings with prior task force, GFC, deans (interviews), targeted outreach Early recommendations – Clearinghouse of policies – College task force End of year report Recent recommendations on governance and cultural climate Recent recommendations on governance and cultural climate

General aim of recommendations (including those in proposal stage) To build, through recruitment, retention and reassignment, the most engaged, productive faculty who are fully invested in the success and mission of the University.

Existing concerns Lack of voice/feelings of exclusion Lack of clarity/transparency Differential application of policies among schools/departments Lack of career advancement opportunities – For some General Faculty members – Inflexible structures (or perceptions of such) Reduced opportunities for ECE eligibility

Core Principles All faculty should have clear career advancement opportunities available to them, appropriate mentoring, and regular (at least annual) review of performance. All full-time faculty should be fully invested in the aims of the University and share in its governance. Consistency across schools/units on matters of faculty status and opportunity are important for fundamental fairness and also perceptions of fairness, although flexibility for schools/units is also important. Any changes adopted should facilitate rather than hinder cross- disciplinary/interdisciplinary hires. We should work hard to develop a culture of appreciation, inclusion, and transparency.

Part I: Governance and Cultural Climate Submitted to Provost by Task Force on March 24, Work together as One Faculty Communications/ distribution lists inclusive of all faculty Broad inclusion in faculty meetings Broad voting rights in matters related to duties unless rational basis for limitations; bylaws and/or policies specifying voting rights Eligibility to serve on school and department committees as relating to scope of appointment; eligibility to serve as chair of departments; service should count for purposes of compensation, and evaluation of job performance).

Part II: Career Advancement and Job Security The topics for today’s meeting Our work is still in progress—we seek your feedback

Current faculty structure Tenure-eligible faculty Tenure-ineligible—wide variation – Lecturers – Assistant, Associate, Full Professors – With Expectation of Continuing Employment/Without – Professors of Practice – Research Faculty – Wage Faculty – Professional Faculty – Administrative Faculty

Proposal Faculty tracks that match abilities/interests of faculty with needs of University in teaching, research, service Clear and consistent criteria for advancement A more consistent structure to ensure job security that is tied to career advancement

General Faculty tracks—PROPOSAL for going forward Tracks would be recognized by the Provost’s Office for faculty appointment designations at professorial rank. Tracks would offer ladder for advancement for assistant, associate, full. The position of “lecturer” in the future would be reserved for part-time/short-term appointments.

Criteria for advancement in General Faculty tracks Schools would develop written criteria in conjunction with the Provost’s office. – Opportunities for schools to develop distinct tracks to meet needs. (e.g., SOM) Some tracks might focus more on teaching, or on research, or professional activities. Promotion would involve peer, department, school, and Provost review.

Career advancement structure Assistant professors on the General Faculty would be eligible for promotion review in their sixth year Upon promotion to associate professor (normally in the 6 th year), faculty would be awarded an “evergreen” contract (usually 3 years; sometimes 5) Faculty may continue as an assistant professor on a conventional contract basis

An evergreen contract Meaning of “evergreen”: A contract provision that automatically renews the length of the agreement after a predetermined period, unless notice for termination is given. Most General Faculty contracts are three years; proposal is for annual renewal upon satisfactory performance review.

Default Proposal is that the evergreen contract would normally be renewed on an annual basis “so long as the services of the University continue to be the type and scope requiring the faculty member’s high level of professional skills and the annual performance review reveals job performance has been judged to be at a high level of productivity and effectiveness.” (ECE language from current employment policy)

Current ECE policy and practice Current ECE policy allows faculty members to be hired under terms in which ECE is waived. Many schools have stopped offering ECE eligibility to new hires. There is current confusion about meaning and implementation of ECE. In proposal, current faculty with ECE or eligibility for ECE would not lose existing status.

Comparison Current ECE PolicyProposal External peer reviewNo peer review required; review by supervisor, appropriate vice president Promotion to Associate Professor (which comes with evergreen contract) requires peer review WaiverEligibility for ECE and ECE status may be waived Opportunity for promotion to Associate Professor cannot be waived Notice required in situation of abolition of position At most, 12 months’ notice for non-renewal Associate and full professors would be given 2 years’ notice of abolition of position (for those on 3 year evergreen contract) Appeals process in event of denial Separate appeals process for ECE denial per policy Appeals process would be the same as for tenure- eligible faculty members Consequence of denialUp or outFaculty may continue as an assistant professor on contract

Proposed flexibility for movement between tracks With agreement of chair and dean, faculty might move either way between tenure-eligible and tenure-ineligible tracks. Recommendation for further study of teaching and research specific tenure tracks.

Administrative and Professional Faculty Professional faculty who have substantial teaching or research responsibilities may be assigned to a teaching or research faculty track. Some professional faculty may fit in a future General Faculty professional track. Review of some current professional faculty positions may result in re-classification as University staff (as done in the past).

Questions to consider What do you find attractive about the proposal? What do you find concerning? What challenges do you see to implementation?