B. Proposed Revisions to UT HOP 3.16 Threatened Faculty Retrenchment (D 8009- 8012)— Janet Staiger (professor, radio- television-film and committee chair).

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Renee L. Wallace Associate Vice President Academic Personnel Services August 8, 2013.
Advertisements

Tenure is awarded when the candidate successfully demonstrates meritorious performance in teaching, research/scholarly/creative accomplishment and service.
Promotion and Tenure Faculty Senate May 8, To be voted on.
UNLV FACULTY SENATE TENURE & PROMOTION FORUM Oct. 2, 2012 Oct. 2, 2012 Thanks to the Past Chairs: Dr. John Filler Dr. Ceci Maldonado Dr. Nasser Daneshvary.
Contract Faculty Evaluations. AGENDA Review of Information Packet Ground Rules Purpose of Evaluation Evaluation Procedures Evaluation Criteria Time Line.
Sexual Harassment Seminar Mechanisms in Lingnan University to deal with sexual harassment Presented by Li Kam-kee, Director of Administration.
W HAT IS M UTUAL AGREEMENT AND P ARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE ? Dr. Eric Oifer Randy Lawson August 26, 2010.
Proposal for the Process of Faculty Selection to Committees in the School of Undergraduate Studies History As the School of Undergraduate Studies (UGS)
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN Old and New A & P Grievance Procedures.
Faculty Forum: March 5, 2008 Shall the Collected Rules and Regulations be revised to adopt the revised Pilot Faculty Grievance Procedure recommended by.
The Florida College System House Bill 7135: Relating to Postsecondary Education Julie Alexander & Carrie Henderson April 20,
CLA RTP amendments 1. Align with December 10 vote to allow up to 2 members of same academic area to serve at different ranks 2. Specify that two members.
Proposed Revisions to Section 5 (Review & Evaluation of Faculty Performance) of the Faculty Handbook Spring, T&P Oversight Committee Office.
Jenn Nichols, AAUP This PowerPoint Presentation was initially designed by long-time AAUP activist Glenn Howze ( ) Faculty Governance: Definitions.
Using Your Faculty Manual …Talking Manual With Your Chair - Dr. Rasoul Saneifard.
New Academic Administrators Workshop August 8, 2013 FACULTY EVALUATION ANNUAL AND COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWS.
Origins, Development, and Current Structure. Origins President Swain’s weekly faculty meetings l Student absences and misbehavior discussed l Trial of.
Margaret Crowder, Chair Jennifer Hanley, Vice Chair Heidi Alvarez, Secretary Western Kentucky University Senate.
2015 Workshop Permanent Status and Promotion Policy and Procedures Overview.
Area Commissions Purpose Area commissions are established to afford additional voluntary citizen participation in decision-making in an advisory.
Update 11/9. Academic Senate University Appointments and Promotions Committee Policies and Procedures (approved ASLC 10/20/10)
Reappointment, Tenure & Promotion Procedures Faculty Relations UBC Vancouver October 2008.
AS /AA Clarification of the Formation, Dissolution, Merger or Movement of an Academic Department- Resubmission.
Shared Governance at ASU Arizona Revised Statutes guarantees that university faculty “... shall share responsibility for academic and educational.
Joerg Tiede, Assembly of State Conferences/Committee A Liaison.
FACULTY EVALUATION ANNUAL AND COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWS Janet Dukerich, Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs August 18, 2014.
School Councils 101 Fall School Council Orientation Forum YRDSB 2009.
INDIANA UNIVERSITY Graduate and Professional Student Organization Elected Officers.
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH RPT Workshop March 28, :30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. Intermountain Network Scientific CC (INSCC) Building, room 110.
The Campaign for McMaster University Environmental & Occupational Health Support Services and Central Joint Health and Safety Committee Developed from.
Getting to Know Your Academic Senate A Guide for Faculty, Staff, and Students of SJSU Why you need to know about the SJSU Academic Senate.
Faculty Senate Orientation October 10, 2011 Faculty Senate.
Promotion and Tenure for Chairs, Heads, & Administrators: Twin Cities Arlene Carney Vice Provost for Faculty & Academic Affairs.
Promotion and Tenure Faculty Senate June 12, 2014.
ACADEMIC SENATE ORIENTATION 9/3/09 Welcome New and Returning Senators!
EMPOWERING LOCAL SENATES Kevin Bontenbal, South Representative Stephanie Dumont, Area D Representative.
Proposed Bylaws Revisions Faculty Senate – June 12, 2014.
Promotion Process A how-to for DEOs. How is a promotion review initiated? Required in the final probationary year of a tenure track appointment (year.
The Facts About Schoolsite Councils The Roles and Responsibilities of a Schoolsite Council.
Chairperson’s Evaluation of Faculty Training Session April 11, 2006 (The YSU/YSU-OEA Agreement is the definitive source on the chairperson’s evaluation.
Local Assessment of Code of Conduct Complaints. Background  On 08 May 2008 – the local assessment of Code of Conduct complaints was implemented due to.
Faculty Governance Origins, Development, and Current Structure.
Purificación Martínez President, NC AAUP UNC Faculty Assembly January 21, 2011.
Service Opportunities & Shared Governance P. Johnelle Sparks Associate Professor Department of Demography Friend of the Faculty Senate
Page  ASME 2013 Standards and Certification Training Module B – Process B7. The Appeals Process.
POST-TENURE REVIEW University Senate July 8, 2008.
Resolution on selection, duties, and term of Department Heads/Chairs Steering Committee Resolution Information Item.
Report of the Ethics Committee Eighteenth Board Meeting, 7-8 November 2008.
CHAIRS AND DIRECTORS ORIENTATION August 16, 2016.
REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION AND TENURE AUGUST 26, 2016 SUE OTT ROWLANDS, PROVOST.
Tenure and Promotion at University of Toledo
Tenure: How to Prepare for It
Procedure for the resolution of grievances in the ILO
Sexual Harassment Seminar
Promotion to Full Professor: Regulations and Procedures
NSHE proposed CODE Revisions
Evaluation of Tenure-Accruing Faculty
2017 Workshop Tenure and Promotion Policy and Procedures Overview
We’re going to follow the chronological order of the process.
Tenure Policies Q & A Session
Faculty Performance Reviews at MSU
2016 Tenure and Promotion Workshop Policy and Procedures Overview
PROVISIONS OF H.R
Promotion Tenure and Reappointment
How the College Council Works:
Promotion to Full Professor: Regulations and Procedures
Promotion and Tenure.
Roles and Responsibilities
Faculty Governance at NU
Promotion Tenure and Reappointment
Presentation transcript:

B. Proposed Revisions to UT HOP 3.16 Threatened Faculty Retrenchment (D )— Janet Staiger (professor, radio- television-film and committee chair).

Current “Financial Exigency” Policy Sec Threatened Faculty Retrenchment Whenever there is reason to anticipate that the University is sufficiently threatened by financial exigency, declines in enrollment, or changes in educational needs to endanger the continuance of the University’s obligations to faculty members with tenure or those on regular academic appointments, the President at the earliest date possible shall inform the President’s Advisory Council, the Faculty Council, the Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility, and all potentially affected budgetary units about the threatening problem. The President shall consult with these faculty groups to determine the nature and seriousness of the problem, the most appropriate of the possible courses of action to be taken, and the means of safeguarding faculty rights and interests, including tenure rights. (continued)

The Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility shall advise, monitor, and make recommendations with respect to the protection of the rights of faculty members throughout the process of planning and effecting the solution to the problem. In solving such a problem, The University shall make every reasonable effort to reassign affected faculty members to other suitable work and to aid them in finding other employment.

Proposed Revisions to HOP 3.16 Declaration that UT-Austin will follow new policy of Regents’ Rules in Rule Discussion of two types of situations: —1. Abandonment of academic positions or programs for academic reasons —2. Abandonment of academic positions or programs because of an institutional financial exigency

I. Abandonment for Academic Reasons President will consult with budgetary units and faculty council to determine —Bona fide academic reasons —Most appropriate of possible courses of actions —Means to safeguard faculty rights and interests, including tenure rights Faculty in the unit(s) will have opportunity to participate in the review

I. (continued) President will appoint a review committee of at least 7 members. At least one-half will be faculty. The faculty will be chosen from nominations by the Faculty Council. A written report will be presented to the President for his/her decision. Any faculty terminated may request a hearing through the UT Faculty Grievance process (HOP 3.18).

II. Abandonment for Institutional Financial Exigency The Regents’ Rules will define “financial exigency” as “a demonstrably bona fide financial crisis that adversely affects the institution as a whole and that, after considering other cost-reducing measures, including ways to cut faculty costs, requires consideration of terminating appointments held by tenured faculty.”

II. (continued): Steps in the Process The President will inform the Faculty Council and budgetary units of the financial exigency. The President will consult with the Faculty Council and budgetary units about the problem and possible courses of action. “If reductions in faculty are unavoidable, the University will make every reasonable effort to reassign affected faculty members to other suitable work....”

II. Steps in the Process (continued) The President will write an Initial Declaration of Financial Exigency. The President will submit the Declaration to the Faculty Council for advice and concurrence. Majority vote by the council members is necessary for concurrence; however, if concurrence is not possible, the President and Faculty Council will still proceed to create a joint Faculty Council-Presidential Exigency plan.

II. Steps in the Process (continued) The joint exigency plan will include a formula for membership for the Exigency committee to make recommendations: —The committee will have a least 7 members, at least ½ of which will be faculty without administrative duties. —Faculty appointees will come from list of nominations from the faculty council. —At least ½ of nominees will be tenured faculty.

II. Steps in the Process (continued) The Exigency committee will review academic programs and records of possible faculty to be terminated. The proposed policy includes a list of what should be considered in the review. Recommendations will be in writing.

Procedure for Appeal Faculty members whose positions will be eliminated may appeal using the UT-Austin Faculty Grievance process (HOP 3.18), subject to the Regents’ Rules section 3.8 which also permits arguing about —The existence and extent of the exigency —The criteria for termination used by the Exigency Committee —The application of the criteria for termination

Additional Points Terminated faculty members will be given “reasonable time to close down research or other such facilities in a non-destructive way.” “Terminated faculty will have right to first consideration” for newly opened positions as specified in Regents’ Rule section 3.6.

Four Amendments to Posted Policy 1. In section I: Addition of the word “budget” for clarity I. Abandonment of Academic Positions or Programs for Academic and Budget Reasons An academic program under consideration for abandonment or an academic position that is under consideration for elimination for bona fide academic and budget reasons should be reviewed in depth through a procedure determined by the President in consultation with the Faculty Council. The President shall consult with the Faculty Council and the affected budgetary units to determine the bona fide academic and budget reasons, the most appropriate of the possible courses of action to be taken, and the means of safeguarding faculty rights and interests, including tenure rights.

2. In section I: Clarification that all faculty will be notified and permitted to contribute to the review process [ Tenured ] Faculty in a program that is under consideration for abandonment or in an academic position that is under consideration for elimination will be notified and afforded an opportunity to contribute to the review process. The President will appoint a Review Committee, at least one-half of which will have membership of faculty members without current administrative duties. The Faculty Council shall provide the nominations for the faculty members and will supply at least twice the number of faculty nominations as required for the Review Committee.

3. In Section I: definition of “program” added. A program shall be defined as a planned, coordinated group of courses for a specific curricular goal.

4.In Section II, revision of language to conform to AAUP guidelines regarding tenured faculty In sections 3.3, Review Consideration, and 3.4, Tenure Preference. The Exigency Committee next recommends specific positions to be eliminated. These recommendations should also be contained in a written report. The recommendations should be related to the Exigency Committee’s assessment of programs. If other officers of the university, such as deans or program chairs, are involved in identifying individuals whose appointments are to be terminated, the process for obtaining these recommendations should be described in the report. (continued)

The Exigency Committee will have available the personnel records of those being considered including current curriculum vitas, annual reports for the past six years, promotion committee reports and recommendations, and results of periodic performance reviews. It will have access to full personnel files. ( The tenure status of a faculty member shall not be a consideration in the determination of whether a particular position shall be eliminated except as permitted in Section 3.4 below.) The appointment of a faculty member with tenure will not be terminated in favor of retaining a faculty member without tenure, except in extraordinary circumstances where a serious distortion of the academic program would otherwise result. (continued)

Faculty whose positions would be jeopardized by the proposed actions will be provided the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the Committee’s review process, including the ability to respond in writing to the recommendations. ( For section 3.4, Tenure Preference. If, in the opinion of the committee, two or more faculty members are equally qualified and capable of performing a particular teaching role, the faculty member or members having tenure shall be given preference over non-tenured faculty. However, if such faculty member has the same tenure status, consideration will be given to other documented needs of the institution.)