Faculty Senate	Minutes	Senate home | Comments
Tuesday, 17 February 2004   See Agenda   Meeting 04-06

Roll call

Absent: Chen (History), Collins (Curricular Studies), Dodd (Biology), Emslie (Biology; Buildings & Grounds Committee), Gamble (Earth Sciences), Hurdle (Social Work), Monahan (Film Studies), Seiple (CAS), Simmons (Anthropology), Tan (Political Science), Usilton (History), Walker (Curricular Studies), Webster (Biology)

Approval of minutes

January minutes were approved.

Individual reports

1. Chancellor Rosemary DePaolo reported as follows:
   • Proposed campus-based tuition increases were the main topic at last week's Board of Governors meeting. Students, while opposing the increase, also lament the budget cuts that are affecting their education. She is making the student-published booklet "Personal Stories" available to faculty through Senate President Noland.
   • The Board is very receptive to the need for faculty salary increases. Chair Brad Wilson delivered an address on the need for increases that was "one of the most powerful talks I have ever heard." The Board believes that the state should be supporting us more, but that maintaining quality is paramount. The Board will consider the increases next month.
   • UNCW student government opposes our tuition-increase request. She agrees with their contention that students should have been consulted earlier in the process of deciding on the increase. She is instituting an ongoing tuition committee with significant student representation.
   • The view of many politicians who oppose greater funding for the university is that higher education is a private benefit rather than a public good. This view is mistaken and shortsighted. She agreed with a questioner that the pay increase recently given to most chancellors (not her) did not help the cause.
   • UNCW has lost $17 million in state funding the last few years and may have to revert 2% this year.
   • Repair funds have been held back; we hope $7 million will be released to us for that purpose.
   • She has asked Vice Chancellor for Information Technology Bob Tyndall to analyze Public Service & Extended Education, which seems to be the division with the least coherence. It will undergo major reshaping both to increase UNCW's public-service contribution and to expand extended education. UNCW-TV will also be examined. Once the study is completed, we will hire a new vice chancellor. Advancement is also being asked to plan the restructuring of that division. 

Committee reports

1. Director of Budgets Bob Russell gave a presentation for the Budget Committee explaining the budget process. This and other explanations of UNCW's finances are available on the Web.
    
2. The University Curriculum Committee report resulted in the passing of two motions:
    
   1. [Motion 04-06-16; approve course for Basic Studies; carried]: That MUS 106 (Exploring Music) be approved for Basic Studies under Fine Arts.
       
   2. [Motion 04-06-23; refer CHAMPS courses to CAS Curriculum Committee; carried]: That the three CHAMPS/Life Skills courses proposed by HAHS (HEA 292, 303, 402) be referred to the College of Arts and Sciences Curricular Committee for action.

[In discussion, it was remarked that Athletics proposed these NCAA-mandated courses last year, but the Senate requested a revised proposal with these courses offered by an academic department which would select faculty and ensure academic standards. That having now been done, the CAS curriculum committee is the appropriate body to decide whether to authorize them.]

3. The following motion by the Steering Committee was amended by the addition of the section marked in blue below, but final action on the entire motion (and subsequent motions in the agenda) was postponed until the March meeting:
    
   1. [Motion 04-06-17; revise the RTP process document; deferred to March] That the RTP process document in the Faculty Handbook be revised as marked below [additions, deletions] to effect the following:
      • require a vote of senior faculty and require the numerical results to be recorded with the chairperson's recommendation.
      • allow a majority of senior faculty, at their option, to forward a separate recommendation if they disagree with the chairperson's recommendation.
      • provide for the forwarding of negative as well as positive RTP recommendations. Currently a single negative recommendation can stop the process.
      • require timely notification to the faculty member of the recommendation at each level.
      • change the order of recommendations to: chair > dean > CRTP > Provost > Chancellor > BOT. Currently, deans recommend after the CRTP. The change brings consistency by making university-level recommendations subsequent to more local recommendations. Also, the recent granting of "management flexibility" to UNCW means final approval now rests with the Board of Trustees (previously the Board of Governors gave final approval).
      • specify who may not participate in deliberations and recommendations.

      ---

      RTP process

      Timetable

      Typically, candidates for tenure and promotion are reviewed in the fall, and candidates for reappointment are reviewed in the spring. However, an individual a faculty member hired with a start date in January must may be reviewed no later than the semester mandated for reappointment in the fall or for tenure and promotion in the spring if that semester is the mandatory final semester for review. All mandatory reviews are scheduled as follows:

      • An assistant professor with an initial 4-year contract must be reviewed for reappointment no later than early in the 6th semester of employment.
      • An assistant professor with a second 3-year contract must be reviewed for tenure and promotion no later than early in the 3rd semester of that contract (11th semester of employment).
      • For an assistant professor who previously held the rank of instructor at UNCW, the mandatory review period is the same as for other assistant professors, except that it is measured from the first semester of employment as instructor.
      • An associate professor with an initial 5-year contract must be reviewed for tenure no later than early in the 7th semester of employment.
      • Discretionary reviews, whether for tenure (with or without promotion) after the required two-year probationary period but prior to the mandatory time for review or for promotion of a tenured faculty member, may be conducted either fall or spring semester.

      Academic Affairs distributes a description of the RTP process and a calendar of the process to all faculty at the beginning of the fall semester. Academic Affairs convenes and charges the Committee on Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (CRTP) during the first three weeks of the fall semester.
      

      Process for faculty RTP applications

      Except in the case of a recommendation for promotion or tenure an RTP application of a department chairperson or of a faculty member of the School of Nursing, recommendations for promotion or tenure reappointment, tenure, or promotion are initiated by the department chairperson after consultation with the assembled senior faculty of the department involved. Procedures vary across departments and schools, but in each case, there must be some assembly of and consultation with senior faculty the chairperson, prior to writing an evaluation, must assemble, consult with, and take an advisory vote of the senior faculty. Along with writing a detailed evaluation of the candidate, the chairperson must report the numerical results of the vote and state the chairperson's recommendation for or against the RTP action. At least five business days prior to forwarding the candidate's dossier to the dean, the chairperson must notify the senior faculty, by either written or electronic means, whether the recommendation is for or against the action. If a majority of the department's senior faculty disagree with the recommendation of the chairperson, they have the option to submit a separate elaborated recommendation. Only one such recommendation from senior faculty may be submitted, and it must be signed by a majority of the department's senior faculty. The chairperson's recommendation and a separate senior-faculty recommendation, if any, are forwarded as part of the faculty member's RTP dossier.

      Neither the faculty member nor any person related to or having a romantic relationship with the faculty member may deliberate or recommend on an RTP action. Other persons may also recuse themselves if they believe their relationship with the faculty member prevents them from fair and objective consideration of the application.

Positive recommendations are transmitted by the chairperson to the appropriate dean, by the deans to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and by the Provost to the university-wide faculty Committee on Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (CRTP). The CRTP forwards its unelaborated recommendations (without supporting documentation) to deans (with a copy to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs); deans forward their recommendations, reasons for the recommendations, and supporting documentation to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The faculty member's RTP dossier consists of the application, supporting documentation, and the recommendations of the deliberative entities. Dossiers are evaluated and recommendations made in the following sequence: the faculty member's chairperson; the appropriate dean; the university-wide faculty Committee on Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (CRTP); the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs; the Chancellor; and the Board of Trustees. Prior to evaluation by the CRTP, the dean transmits all materials to Academic Affairs, which is responsible for ascertaining that the applications are complete, that the required format has been used, and that dossiers are present for all faculty mandated for review. Academic Affairs then transmits copies of the dossiers to the CRTP.

All recommendations, whether positive or negative, are forwarded to the next deliberative entity. However, if the majority vote of the senior faculty and the recommendations of both the chairperson and the dean are all negative, the process stops and the faculty member's RTP application is denied. The faculty member may withdraw the application at any stage of the process. The chairperson and dean must elaborate the reasons for their recommendations, but subsequent deliberative entities may forward their recommendations with or without elaboration. The chairperson, dean, and Provost must each transmit written notification of their recommendations to the faculty member within ten business days of the recommendation. All such communications become part of the candidate's RTP dossier and are available to subsequent deliberative entities in the process.

Process for Nursing faculty RTP applications

Recommendations for promotion or tenure Applications for reappointment, tenure, or promotion of a faculty member of the School of Nursing follow the same process as for other faculty except that recommendations are initiated by a School of Nursing RTP committee appointed by the Dean of the School of Nursing, which shall consist of the senior faculty of the School of Nursing and such other faculty as the Dean of the School of Nursing shall appoint. The numerical results of a vote of the Nursing RTP committee must be reported along with its recommendation. Positive rRecommendations, whether positive or negative, follow the same route, described in the preceding paragraph, as those forwarded by a department chairperson. However, if the majority vote of the Nursing RTP committee and the recommendation of the dean are both negative, the process stops and the faculty member's RTP application is denied.

Process for Cameron School of Business faculty RTP applications

Applications for reappointment, tenure, or promotion of a faculty member of the Cameron School of Business follow the same process as for other faculty except at the school level the dean, prior to writing an evaluation, must assemble, consult with, and take an advisory vote of the committee of senior Cameron faculty elected by tenured Cameron faculty. The dean shall report the numerical results of any vote. If a majority of the school’s committee disagrees with the recommendation of the dean, they have the option to submit a separate elaborated recommendation to the university-wide faculty committee on Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (CRTP). The school will establish and publish a process to assure completion of this additional step within the time frame set for submission to the CRTP.

Process for department chairperson RTP applications

Recommendations for promotion or tenure Applications for tenure or promotion of a department chairperson follow the same process as for other faculty except that recommendations are initiated by the chairperson's dean after consultation with the assembled senior faculty of the department involved. The dean must report the numerical results of the senior-faculty vote along with the dean's recommendation. A majority of the department's senior faculty may, at their option, submit a separate elaborated recommendation, according to the procedure stated above. Positive recommendations are transmitted by the dean to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and by the Provost to the CRTP. The CRTP forwards its unelaborated recommendation to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Recommendations, whether positive or negative, then follow the same route route as for other faculty. However, if the majority vote of the senior faculty and the recommendation of the dean are both negative, the process stops and the chairperson's RTP application is denied.

Final action

The Provost forwards recommendations to the Chancellor. Following this, recommendations for reappointment, tenure, or promotion or tenure are forwarded to the Board of Trustees and then to the Office of the President for final action; recommendations for reappointment are forwarded to the Board of Trustees for final action. The Chancellor transmits written notification of his or her recommendation to the faculty member within ten business days. The Provost provides the faculty member with timely written notification of the final action.

A description of this process and a calendar of the process are distributed to all faculty at the beginning of the fall semester.

[An amendment to the preceding motion that would require deliberative entities subsequent to the dean to elaborate their recommendations was being considered when time expired and the meeting was adjourned.]

Adjournment

Minutes by Richard Veit, Senate Secretary