CHAPTER III - RULES GOVERNING FACULTY APPOINTMENTS UNDER UWS 3, WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

(Approved by Board of Regents on October 5, 1979 and amended February 5, 1982)

Recruitment and initial appointment.
1. When an academic department is authorized to recruit a faculty member, the department shall:
  1. define the duties and responsibilities of the position,
  2. establish the minimum qualifications of the appointee,
  3. propose the rank or ranks and salary range within which the appointment is to be made,
  4. comply with university policies and recruitment methods,
  5. select a candidate to be offered the position, and
  6. assist in drafting the letter of appointment.
2. In addition to the items listed in UWS 3.03 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, an appointment letter offering a probationary appointment shall include:
  1. a statement of the maximum probationary period,
  2. if the maximum probationary period has been reduced under III, (1), (c), 2 of these rules, a statement of how much prior service has been credited and a statement that acceptance of the appointment as offered constitutes acceptance of the computation of prior service and the maximum probationary period,
  3. the approximate date of the first departmental review of the faculty member
  4. and, by attachment, the criteria which will be employed in the first review of the faculty member, with a notice that other criteria may be established, in accordance with these rules and UWS 3.06, (1), (b) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, for subsequent reviews.
3. In order that the university may comply with both state law and the accepted standards of academic practice defined by the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors, the maximum probationary period of a faculty member shall be determined as follows:
  1. The maximum probationary period of a faculty member without prior service as defined in III, (1), (c), 2 of these rules shall be 7 years in a full time appointment and 10 years in an appointment which is at least half time but not full time.
  2. For a faculty member who has reported and been credited with prior full time service as a teacher or investigator in any institution of higher education, the maximum probationary period shall be reduced as follows:
  1. if the faculty member's position is to be full time, the maximum probationary period shall be reduced by 1 year for each year of credited full time prior service, but need not be reduced more than 3 years;
  2. if the faculty member's position is to be at least half time but not full time, the maximum probationary period shall be reduced by 1 year for each year of credited full time prior service, but need not be reduced more than 4 years.
4. An initial appointment may be a tenure appointment.
5. The offer of a concurrent faculty appointment to a limited or academic staff appointee may be proposed by the appointing authority, the appointee, or an academic department either during negotiation of the limited or academic staff appointment or at any time thereafter. The decision whether to recommend such an appointment shall be made in the same manner as a decision to offer any other initial appointment. Probationary service in such a concurrent appointment shall be counted from the time when the appointee begins to serve in the faculty appointment at least half time, if it is a full time appointment, or to the full extent of the appointment, if it is at least half time but not full time.
6. Initial faculty appointments shall be made only upon the affirmative recommendation of the appropriate academic department and the chancellor. If the faculty of a college so directs, the affirmative recommendation of the college shall also be required for initial appointments which are tenure appointments. The decision for the college about tenure appointments shall be made by a committee of tenure faculty elected by the faculty of the college, or by the dean of the college, or by such a committee with the advice of the dean, or by the dean with the advice of such a committee, as the faculty of the college shall choose.
Renewal of probationary appointments and recommendations of tenure.
1. Decisionmakers
  1. Except as provided in UWS 3.10 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code and in III, (6) of these rules, faculty appointments shall be renewed only on the affirmative recommendation of the same decisionmakers required for the recommendation of initial faculty appointments by UWS 3.06, (1), (a) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code and III, (1), (f) of these rules.
  2. Except as provided in UWS 3.08, (3) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code and III (6) of these rules, a negative decision by any decisionmaker terminates the consideration of a proposed reappointment.
2. Types of decisions.
  1. Decision whether to renew a probationary appointment. A decision to renew a probationary appointment is a decision to reappoint for a specific period which is within the maximum probationary period of the faculty member. It does not confer tenure. A decision not to renew a probationary appointment is a nonrenewal decision.
  2. Mandatory tenure decision. When a probationary appointment has been renewed through the end of the maximum probationary period of the faculty member, a decision whether to recommend tenure must be made during the review of the faculty member which immediately precedes the deadline for notice of reappointment/nonreappointment for the period following the maximum probationary period. If a mandatory tenure decision is negative, it is a nonrenewal decision.
  3. Optional tenure decision. A department may choose to decide whether to recommend tenure at any other time. This is an optional tenure decision. If it does so recommend, a decision whether to recommend tenure by a college tenure committee or the chancellor which results from its decision is also an optional tenure decision. If negative, an optional tenure decision is not a nonrenewal decision. It has no effect on an existing probationary appointment, does not affect nor is it affected by a prior, simultaneous, or subsequent decision to renew a probationary appointment, and is not inconsistent with a prior or subsequent decision to recommend tenure. A faculty member has, in respect to it, no right to request reasons or reconsideration, or to appeal under UWS 3 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code or III of these rules.
3. Departmental review.
  1. A departmental review shall be conducted by the departmental reappointment committee which shall have at least 3 members and shall be composed of the entire tenure faculty of the department, or tenure faculty of the department elected by tenure faculty of the department, or tenure faculty of the department elected by the faculty of the department, as the faculty of the department shall choose.
  2. If a department does not have sufficient tenure faculty available to review a faculty member to make a quorum of the reappointment committee, the dean of the college shall appoint sufficient tenure faculty of related disciplines to the departmental reappointment committee to bring the number of persons to conduct the review to a quorum. Such appointed members shall participate only in the review or reviews which they are appointed to conduct and any reconsideration under UWS 3.07, (1), (b) or UWS 3.08, (3) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code and III, (4), (c) of these rules
  3. A quorum of a departmental reappointment committee shall be 3, or more than one-half the regular membership, whichever is greater.
4. Notice of review.
  The faculty member being reviewed shall receive at least 20 days notice of a departmental review and at least 7 days notice of a review by a college, and a copy of the notice shall be posted in a public place regularly used for the posting of notices by the department or college, as the case may be, at least 7 days before the review. The notice shall include:
  1. the time and place of the review,
  2. the period of service to be evaluated,
  3. identification of the definitions of functions, standards of evaluation, and criteria for decision which will be used in the review,
  4. the decision to be made,
  5. that the faculty member may present information orally or in writing,
  6. that any other person may present information in writing or, with the consent of the committee, orally, and
  7. that the review will be conducted in accordance with UWS 3.06 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, these rules, and applicable state law governing meetings of public bodies.
5. Evaluation required.
  No decision about renewal of appointment shall be made until the decisionmaker has evaluated the performance by the faculty member of the functions of teaching, research, and professional and public service and contribution to the university. In any review for a tenure decision, the period of service to be evaluated shall be the entire period of service in the university and all service prior to appointment in the university. For reviews not involving a tenure decision, the period of service to be evaluated for a first review shall be the period since appointment and, for a subsequent review, the period since the last previous evaluation by the decisionmaker. However, no department shall evaluate the service of a faculty member in another department of the university, and no college shall evaluate the service of a faculty member in another college of the university. For procedures for the review of faculty holding positions in more than one department, see III, (6) of these rules.
6. Review procedures.
  1. Development of definitions of functions for evaluation, standards for evaluation, weighing of functions in overall evaluation, and written criteria for reappointment decisions.
    1. The faculty or Faculty Senate may provide for development of definitions of the activities, skills, and qualifications embraced in each of the functions to be evaluated, definitions of standards of evaluation, weighing of functions in overall evaluation, and written criteria for reappointment decisions. In doing so, the faculty or Faculty Senate may establish or authorize distinctions between classes of faculty, or between groups of faculty holding different classes of positions, provided that the bases for such distinctions are reasonable and appropriate to the missions and needs of the university and its colleges and departments.
    2. Effective one year after the effective date of these rules, the standards of evaluation and written criteria for decision employed in any review of a probationary faculty member by a department or the chancellor shall have been established and published in the minutes of the body establishing them prior to the beginning of the period of university service being evaluated at the review in which they are employed, and the standards and criteria employed by a college shall have been established and published at least one year before the review in which they are employed.
  2. In evaluating a faculty member's performance, decision-makers shall consider:
    1. student assessments of the faculty member's teaching, gathered in accordance with rules and procedures established by the Faculty Senate,
    2. any information submitted by the faculty member, orally or in writing, and
    3. any other information, including information personally known to a decisionmaker, which is relevant to the evaluation and of reasonable probative value, provided that information not personally known to a decisionmaker must be in writing and signed unless the decisionmaker consents to its oral presentation, in which case it must be summarized with the name of the person presenting it in the record of the review.
  3. A college shall consider all evaluations of the faculty member by the department and the chancellor in all previous reviews of the faculty member.
  4. When a decisionmaker is a committee, each member may evaluate a faculty member independently or several or all members may evaluate a faculty member jointly, as they choose.
  5. The evaluation of a faculty member's performance of teaching, research, professional and public service and contribution to the university is necessary both to the decision whether to recommend reappointment and to the counseling of a probationary faculty member about how performance of these functions might be improved. Therefore, the evaluation must be recorded with an explanation which sets forth both the more and less satisfactory aspects of performance and ways in which performance may be improved. Further, decisionmakers must make their evaluations comprehensive, and subsequent decisionmakers must consider each evaluation as a whole and as evidence of the extent and rate of progress of the faculty member, and not respond to an evaluation solely in terms of a single positive or negative comment.
  6. The record of evaluation, including an explanation of each rating of each function, shall be included in the record of review by attachment.
  7. When a decisionmaker is a committee, an affirmative decision requires the affirmative votes of a majority of the members participating in the review. An abstention shall be counted and recorded as a negative vote.
  8. A review of a faculty member shall be conducted in accordance with applicable state laws governing meetings of public bodies.
7. Record of review. A decisionmaker shall make a record of the review of a faculty member, which shall include:
  1. the name(s) of the person(s) conducting the review,
  2. identification of the definitions of functions, standards of evaluation, and criteria for decision which will be used in the review,
  3. a summary of any information presented orally by any person other than a decisionmaker, with the name of the person presenting it,
  4. any decision made about the relevance of information presented,
  5. the decision whether to recommend reappointment and the number of votes for and against it,
  6. the reasons for any nonrenewal decision, which shall refer to specific criteria for decision and, if relevant, to the evaluation of specific functions and the explanations of them, and,
  7. by attachment:
  1. the notice of the review,
  2. any information submitted in writing, and
  3. the record of evaluation.
8. Report of decision. Each decisionmaker shall prepare a report of the decision made which shall be signed by the decisionmaker or the chair of the decisionmaking committee.
  1. If the decision is affirmative, a copy of this report shall be delivered to the faculty member within 7 days of the review, with a notice of any additional reviews and decisions which are required by III, (2), (a) of these rules to make the decision effective, except that the chancellor may employ a reappointment letter to notify a faculty member of the decision made by the chancellor.
  2. If the decision was an optional tenure decision and it was negative, a copy of the report of the decision shall be delivered to the faculty member within 7 days, with a notice that the decision is not a nonrenewal decision and that the faculty member has, in respect to it, no right to ask reasons or reconsideration, or to appeal under UWS 3 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code or III of these rules.
  3. If the decision was a nonrenewal decision, a copy of the report of the decision shall be delivered to the faculty member within 20 days of the review, with a copy of UWS 3.07 and 3.08 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code and III, (4) and (5) of these rules, and with a notice of nonreappointment.
9. Procedures following a review. The chancellor may devise instructions for the administrative processing of records of reviews and reports of decisions, consistent with UWS 3 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code and these rules, and with state laws governing preservation of and access to public records and confidentiality of personnel records, including:
1. provisions for administrative review of records and reports prior to delivery of a copy of the report of decision to the faculty member, in order to discover whether these documents are complete and correct and to secure their completion or correction,
2. provisions for administrative review of records of reviews which result in nonrenewal decisions to discover whether any nonrenewal decision is based in any significant degree on one of the factors listed in UWS 3.08, (1), (a), (b), and (c) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, with material prejudice to the faculty member,
3. provisions for the delivery of these documents from one decisionmaker to another when an affirmative decision is made and for the secure custody of them as confidential personnel records,
4. provisions which regulate access to these documents and provide for their disposition when they cease to be administratively useful or necessary, and
5. provision for the chancellor to request that a decisionmaker review a faculty member anew, and make a new decision, when the chancellor has reason to believe that the decision would be found invalid if appealed under the provisions of UWS 3.08 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Counseling of probationary faculty member after a reappointment decision.
The faculty or Faculty Senate may establish, with the approval of the chancellor, means for the counseling of a probationary faculty member whose probationary appointment has been renewed, in order that the faculty member may receive sufficient information about the evaluations of the faculty member's performance and the explanations of them to improve that performance further, but there shall be no disclosure to the faculty member of the source of any information used in evaluation, except student assessments of teaching, or of the identity of any individual evaluator.
Rights of a faculty member following a nonrenewal decision.
1. When a faculty member has a right which must be exercised within a limited period after delivery to the faculty member of a document, the period for exercise of the option shall be extended by 5 days if delivery of the document is by first class mail and publication.
2. Having received a copy of a report of a nonrenewal decision, a probationary faculty member may, within 10 days of delivery of the notice, request in writing the reasons for the nonrenewal decision. This request shall be made to the decisionmaker. Upon receipt of such a timely request, the decisionmaker shall copy, from the record of the review which resulted in the nonrenewal decision, the reasons for the decision, and shall deliver them to the faculty member.
1. Having received the reasons for a nonrenewal decision, a probationary faculty member may, within 10 days of the delivery of the reasons, request in writing that the decisionmaker reconsider.
2. The reconsideration shall be conducted in the same manner as a review by the decisionmaker, except that:
  1. the reconsideration shall be conducted within 14 days of receipt of the timely written request and with at least 3 days notice of the faculty member, or on a date agreed to by both the faculty member and the decisionmaker;
  2. the faculty member's response to the reasons for the nonrenewal decision shall be the first order of business at the review;
  3. the faculty member may be assisted by a person of his/her choice;
  4. the record of the review already conducted shall be attached to the record of the reconsideration; and
  5. if the nonrenewal decision is affirmed upon reconsideration, the reasons for the decision shall be included in the report of the decision.
3. Procedures following the reconsideration shall be the same if it were an original review, except that, if the decisionmaker affirms the nonrenewal decision, the faculty member shall receive, within 20 days of the decision, a copy of the report of the decision and a copy of the record of the first review and the record of the reconsideration.
4. If the nonrenewal decision is reversed upon reconsideration, a copy of the report of the decision upon reconsideration shall be attached to the copy of the reasons for the original nonrenewal decision in the personnel file of the faculty member.
Appeal of a nonrenewal decision.
1. The faculty or Faculty Senate shall establish a University Review Committee of tenure faculty to hear appeals of nonrenewal decisions under UWS 3.08 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code and these rules.
2. Upon receipt of a report of affirmation of a nonrenewal decision upon reconsideration, a probationary faculty member may, within 20 days after delivery of the report, appeal the nonrenewal decision to the University Review Committee. An appeal must:
  1. be in writing,
  2. specify the decisionmaker whose decision is appealed,
  3. state the grounds of the appeal by reference to some part of UWS 3.08, (1) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code and by reference to the record of the review and/or reconsideration, and
  4. be delivered to the decisionmaker.
3. Upon receipt of a timely appeal of a nonrenewal decision, the decisionmaker shall deliver the appeal and the record of the appealed review to the University Review Committee.
4. The University Review Committee shall schedule the review of nonrenewal decision and give the faculty member notice of it in accordance with UWS 3.08 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
5. The review of the nonrenewal decision shall be conducted in accordance with UWS 3.08 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, and the faculty member shall receive a copy of the University Review Committee's report.
6. If the University Review Committee directs a reconsideration by the decisionmaker, the decisionmaker shall deliver the record of the reconsideration and report of decision upon reconsideration to the University Review Committee.
7. The record of the review of the nonrenewal decision and the report of the University Review Committee shall be filed with the appointment records of the faculty member.
8. A faculty member whose appeal of a nonrenewal decision is denied by the University Review Committee, upon written application to the chair of the University Review Committee shall be allowed to copy all documents and the sound recording or other transcript of oral testimony or argument heard by the committee.
9. If the nonrenewal decision also involves the denial of tenure, and if the appeal of the nonrenewal decision is supported by the University Review Committee, then the appellant may choose to continue the appeals process under the rules stated below in (7) The Appeal of a Decision to Deny Tenure.
Review of a probationary faculty member holding positions in more than one academic department.
1. For every probationary faculty member who, on the effective date of these rules, holds positions in more than one academic department, the chancellor, in consultation with the departments and the dean or deans involved, and with the faculty member, shall determine how cases in which the departments disagree about the reappointment of the faculty member of colleges disagree about recommending tenure appointment of the faculty member shall be resolved.
2. When an initial appointment letter offers an appointment involving service in more than one academic department, or when a probationary faculty member is offered re-assignment to more than one department, the appointment letter or offer of re-assignment shall state how such disagreements will be resolved. This matter shall be decided by the chancellor after consultation with the departments and the dean or deans involved.
The Appeal of a Decision to Deny Tenure (Procedures required by Wisconsin Statutes, 36.13 (2) (b),and as adopted by Faculty Senate May 12, 1993.)
1. The Chancellor may recommend the grant of tenure to the Board of Regents without the positive decision by the appellants academic department or functional equivalent if the following conditions are met.
  1. The University Review Committee has found that the decision of the academic department or its functional equivalent was based upon impermissible factors as defined by Wisconsin Administrative Code, UWS 3.08.
  2. The Ad-hoc University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Tenure Appeals Committee decides, according to its assigned responsibilities, that the appellant satisfies all relevant UW-Whitewater criteria for tenure.
2. Composition and Formation of the Ad-hoc Tenure Appeals Committee
  1. The Committee shall, with the advice of the appropriate college Dean, be selected by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, upon the receipt of a written request from the appellant. The request must be filed no later than ten calendar days following the publication of the University Review Committee decision.
  2. A request to form a Tenure Appeals Committee is permitted only if the University Review Committee had elected not to remand the case back to the academic department or functional equivalent under UWS 3.08 (c), or if, after a remand to the academic department or functional equivalent, the University Review Committee finds that the academic department or functional equivalent continues to base its decision upon impermissible factors defined under UWS 3.08.
  3. The Committee shall consist of five members from the appellant's discipline or from substantially allied disciplines. Three members shall be tenured faculty members employed at UW-Whitewater. The remaining two members shall be tenured faculty members employed at other accredited universities, and must have academic credentials and qualifications that reside within the appellant's discipline.
  4. No member of the appellant's department or its functional equivalent may serve on the Committee.
  5. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee shall name a committee chair from among the UW-Whitewater membership.
  6. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee shall have twenty calendar days from the receipt of the appellant's request to form the Committee.
3. Functions of the Tenure Appeals Committee
  1. The Committee shall review the documentary evidence used in the tenure decision and in the reconsideration of the decision by the appellant's academic department or functional equivalent.
  2. In its review of the evidence, the Committee shall not base its decisions upon "impermissible factors," as defined by UWS 3.08."
  3. The Committee shall provide answers to the following questions.
    1. Do the academic qualifications and credentials satisfy all relevant credential requirements at UW-Whitewater?
    2. Does the appellant's professional performance satisfy the performance standards for tenure as defined by the UW-Whitewater Faculty Personnel Rules?
  4. The Tenure Appeals Committee shall reports its findings and conclusions.
    If the answer to either question, a. or b., is negative, the Committee shall report to the Chancellor, to the appellant, to the appellant's academic department or functional equivalent, and to the University Review Committee that the appellant is not qualified for tenure. The Committee report shall include rationale for the findings and conclusions of the Committee.
    An affirmative answer to both questions constitutes a positive Committee recommendation that tenure be granted. The Committee shall make its report of findings and conclusions to the Chancellor. The Chancellor may subsequently recommend to the Board of Regents that a tenured appointment be granted without a concurring recommendation from the appellant's academic department or functional equivalent.
  5. The report of the Tenure Appeals Committee shall be included in the appellant's official personnel file.
  6. If a negative decision is made by the Tenure Appeals Committee, the appellant is, upon written application to the Chair of the Committee, allowed to copy all documents, transcripts and audio recordings possessed by the Committee.
  7. The Committee shall complete its work within thirty calendar days from the date of publication of the Committee membership.
4. Responsibilities of the Chancellor
  1. Upon receipt of the report of a positive decision by the Tenure Appeals Committee, the Chancellor may recommend to the Board of Regents that tenure be granted. If the Chancellor declines to recommend a tenured appointment, the Chancellor shall report that decision to the appellant, to the Tenure Appeals Committee, to the University Review Committee and to the appellant's academic department or functional equivalent. Upon the request of the appellant, the Chancellor must provide reasons for his decision to deny tenure.
  2. Upon receipt of the report of a negative decision by the Tenure Appeals Committee, the Chancellor may not recommend that the Board of Regents grant tenure.
  3. The decision of the Chancellor on all appeals shall be final.
  4. The Campus Administration shall be responsible for the compensation of legitimate travel expenses incurred by members of the Tenure Appeals Committee who come from other institutions. Compensation shall be limited to transport, lodging and meals.
5. Jurisdiction
Responsibility for the proper operation and conduct of the Tenure Appeals Committee rests with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee which retains jurisdiction until the Tenure Appeals Committee recommendations are submitted to the Chancellor.
Annual Review

It shall be the responsibility of each academic department, subject to such rules, policies, and procedures as shall be established by the faculty of the college or by the Faculty Senate, to provide for the annual review of the performance of every faculty member in the department.

Actions of the Faculty Senate Implementing Chapter III of the Faculty Personnel Rules

Definitions of Functions to be Evaluated.
The following definitions of functions to be evaluated in the review of probationary faculty are established pursuant to III, (2), (f), 1, a, of the University Faculty Personnel Rules:
1. Teaching. The function of teaching includes formal instruction and other instructional activities.
  1. Formal instruction includes all activities directly related to the offering of instruction for credit, of which the following are examples but not an inclusive list: establishing the objectives of a course, assisting students in a course to solve individual learning problems, testing and evaluating student learning in a course, and acquiring and maintaining knowledge and skills employed in these activities. In Learning Resources it also includes: acquiring, organizing, locating, and delivering information for use by instructors offering, or students receiving, formal instruction, and for use in research; informal instruction of students, faculty, and others in the techniques of finding information; and participation in the management of Learning Resources. It also includes the acquisition and maintenance of knowledge and skills used in these activities.
  2. Other instructional activities would include all other work that faculty engage in to enhance and improve their teaching. It would include, but is not limited to: student contact that is related to the instructional activity outside of class, professional development activities, participation in Teaching Enhancement Center programs, and work in or participation in professional organizations with a focus on improved instruction.
2. Research. ("Discipline," as used in this definition of research, means "discipline, art, or profession.") Research is creative activity evidenced by contributions to the knowledge, works, techniques, or principles, or by demonstrations of one's mastery of the techniques or principles, of one's discipline, in media appropriate to it, which are or were available to critical evaluation by one's peers within the discipline. Such contributions or demonstrations may be in the process of completion, provided they are so far advanced as to be capable of being evaluated. The fact that such contributions or demonstrations have been made in connection with the attainment of education or training, or as a public or professional service, shall not bar their being evaluated as research. Contributions or demonstrations which are the work of more than one person may be considered in the evaluation of the research of one of the individuals participating in their production if those performing the evaluation are able to identify the significant results of the participation of the individual being evaluated.
3. Professional and Public Service and Contribution to the University.
1. Professional and public service consists of contributions to one's discipline, art, or profession, or to society, provided that such contributions are made as a practitioner of one's discipline, art, or profession or as a representative of the University or University System. Mere membership in an organization of practitioners of a discipline, art, or profession does not in and of itself constitute professional or public service. Voluntarily developing formal instruction to meet the expressed needs of persons who would not otherwise be students at the University and offering formal instruction at unusual times or off-campus to meet expressed needs of a group of prospective students constitute public service. Performing applied research to meet an expressed need of a disciplinary organization or a portion of society also constitutes public service. In such cases, the formal instruction offered or research performed shall be evaluated as teaching or research, as the case may be, and its having been developed, offered under unusual circumstances, and performed in response to an expressed need shall be evaluated as professional or public service.
2. Contribution to the University includes contributions to the governance, administration, operation, reputation, or advantage of the University or University System not defined as teaching, research, or professional or public service. Examples of University service include election or appointment to University, college, and department committees and other managerial responsibilities; advising and counseling students or prospective students; and evaluating students in respect to their overall performance (as opposed to that in a particular course).
Criteria for Evaluation.
The following criteria for evaluation of probationary faculty are established pursuant to III, (2), (f), 1, a, of the University Faculty Personnel Rules:
1. Performance ratings defined
  Performance in each of the three evaluation categories of Teaching, Research, and Professional and Public Service/Contributions to the University is accorded one of four ratings: 1, 2, 3 or 4.
  A rating of 1 in a category means that performance in that category is judged by the department to be far enough above the average standard of performance in that department as to be worthy of special recognition.
  A rating of 2 in a category means that performance in that category is judged by the department to be at or above the average standard of performance in that department.
  A rating of 3 in a category means that performance in that category is judged by the department to be below the average standard of performance in that department, but contained in that judgment is the recognition that there is potential for future improvement to a rating of 2.
  A rating of 4 in a category means that performance in that category is judged by the department to be below the average standard of performance in that department, with little expectation of early improvement to a rating of two or better.
2. Teaching: Does this faculty member's teaching (as defined in I, A, above) merit a rating of 1, 2, 3 or 4? In addressing this question, the department or the appropriate committee might take into account such circumstances as these:
  1. The department has established specific, measurable objectives for a basic course taught by many or most members of the department. This faculty member's students achieve those objectives to a greater degree than (or to a lesser degree than, or to about the same degree as) students on the average.
  2. The faculty member possesses unusual and useful qualifications, compared to other departmental faculty, to teach, or is unusually effective as a teacher for, an identifiable group of students who have distinctive needs (e.g., graduate students, majors, poorly prepared students, older students, students with disabilities, members of minority groups, women, students pursuing a particular emphasis within a major.)
  3. The faculty member possesses unusual qualifications for, or is especially effective in, teaching a particular course or course sequence of importance to the department, other departments, or the University is general.
  4. The faculty member's background, education, approach to the discipline, or other personal quality significantly affecting the faculty member's impact on students and colleagues, broadens and enriches the department's teaching in a unique way.
  5. The faculty member is unusually effective in "other instructional activity." (see I, A, 2 above)
  6. Student assessments of the faculty member's formal instruction justify a particular rating. These are only examples, not an exhaustive list of grounds for a particular rating.
  In any case, the methods of gathering information about teaching and the grounds for the evaluation must be clearly stated and documented and the rating justified in sufficient detail to enable reviewers and decision-makers at higher levels to understand its basis and test its justification.
3. Research: Has the faculty member engaged in research (as defined in I, B, above) during the review period? If not, the faculty member must be rated 4 in this category. Otherwise research accomplished is rated according to the definitions above (paragraph A).
  In arriving at and justifying the rating, the department or appropriate committee may take into account the average quantity and quality of research conducted by faculty in the department or in corresponding departments at University Cluster and similar institutions. The methods of gathering information about research and the grounds for the evaluation must be clearly stated and documented and the rating justified in sufficient detail to enable reviewers and decision-makers at higher levels to understand its basis and test its justification.
4. Professional and Public Service and Contributions to the University: Has the faculty member engaged in services (as defined in I, C, above) during the review period? If not, the faculty member must be rated 4 in this category. Otherwise service accomplished is rated according to the definitions above (paragraph A).
  In arriving at and justifying the rating, the department or the appropriate committee might bear the following in mind:
  1. No faculty member need be expected to perform, in any one review period, significant service to the profession, the public, the University, the constituency, and the department; however, it is expected that every faculty member will perform at least some service in any one period.
  2. The faculty member should be evaluated on the total effect of his/her service at all levels.
  3. In arriving at and justifying the rating, the department or appropriate committee may take into account the average quantity and importance of service undertaken by faculty in the department, the constituency, the University, or other University Cluster of similar institutions.
  The grounds for the evaluation must be clearly stated and documented and the rating justified in sufficient detail to enable reviewers and decision-makers at higher levels to understand its basis and test its justification.
5. Criteria for Probationary Reappointment:
  1. A probationary faculty member receiving ratings of 1, 2, and 3 must, subject to the limitations of E, 3 and 4 below, be recommended for renewal. A probationary faculty member receiving one or more ratings of 4 must be recommended for nonrenewal.
  2. During the first year of probationary service at this university the department may choose not to rate the faculty member in the category of research or in that of service or in both. A rating must, however, be given for teaching.
  3. A probationary faculty member who has received three ratings of 3 in the teaching category, or who has received two ratings of 3 in the teaching category in consecutive review periods, may be recommended for nonrenewal. (Note that extenuation may be offered under III. A. 4 or III. B. 4 below.)
  4. There are no other grounds related to job performance for nonrenewal of a probationary faculty member. ("Job performance" means performance of the functions defined in I.A, B, and C above.)
6. Criteria for reappointment with tenure: To be recommended for tenure, a faculty member must receive ratings of 1 or 2 in all three functions in the last review period.
7. Implementation of UWS 3.04: Permissible Delays in the Completion of Probationary Service and the Tenure Decision
1. Approved leaves of absence, sabbatical leaves and teacher improvement assignments are allowed to interrupt, but not to shorten the probationary period.
  In addition, any one or more of the following special circumstances, when recognized as impediments to the progress toward tenure of a probationary faculty member, may serve as a sufficient reason for UW-Whitewater to grant an interruption in the normal passage of the probationary period.
  1. Responsibilities with respect to childbirth or adoption;
  2. Responsibilities with respect to elder or dependent care obligations;
  3. Disability or chronic illness; and
  4. Circumstances beyond the control of the faculty member, when those circumstances impede the faculty member's progress toward achieving tenure.
2. Procedures for Requesting an Interruption in the Probationary Period for Special Circumstances.
  1. The request must be initiated by the faculty member, be for no more than one year, and be submitted to the faculty member's department or program supervisor.
  2. The request must be documented and supported by credible justification.
  3. Within twenty days of the submission of the request, the department or program supervisor shall submit the department or program recommendation to the dean. Within fourteen days the dean shall submit his or her recommendation, along with the department or program recommendation, to the provost.
  4. Within fourteen days of the submission of the request, the provost shall decide whether or not to grant the request.
  5. A negative decision must be based upon clear and convincing reasons, and those reasons shall be communicated in writing to the faculty member by the provost.
3. The tenure decision will be delayed by one semester for an interruption of one semester or less, and will be delayed for one year for an interruption that is longer than one semester.
4. Appeal of a Negative Decision
  1. Upon receiving notice from the provost of a denial of the request for an interruption in the progress of the probationary period, the faculty member may, within ten days, appeal to the Faculty Appeals and Grievance Committee for a hearing.
  2. Following consideration of the appeal, the Faculty Appeals and Grievance Committee shall make its report and recommendation to the Chancellor. The Faculty Appeals and Grievance Committee has thirty days from receipt of the appeal to hold its hearing and report to the Chancellor.
  3. The decision of the Chancellor is final.
5. Limitations.
1. Favorable action upon more than one request is permitted, provided that the aggregate grant of time is no more than one year. Exceptions to this rule are permitted, but must have the concurrence of department or program personnel committee, department or program supervisor, dean, and provost.
2. Any performance data gathered during the interruption of the probationary period shall be used, only at the discretion of the faculty member, in reappointment and tenure decisions.
3. If any faculty member has been in probationary status for more than seven years, the faculty member shall be evaluated as if he or she had been on probationary status for 7 years.
4. No application for an interruption of the probationary period due to special circumstances will be accepted during the twenty day interval preceding a scheduled reappointment review.
Criteria for Decisions.
The following written criteria for decisions about renewal of appointments of probationary faculty are established pursuant to III, (2), (f), a, of the University Faculty Personnel Rules:
1. Criteria for Renewal of Probationary Appointment
  1. Does the evaluation of the faculty member's overall performance meet the criteria identified in II, E. above? If answer is "No," see#4.
  2. Has the faculty member attained the education and training appropriately expected of tenure faculty in the discipline, or is the faculty member progressing toward its attainment at a rate which justifies the expectation that it will be attained before a mandatory tenure decision is made? If answer is "No,"see#4.
  3. Do the staffing plans of the University, the College, and the Department provide for the employment, during the period for which re-appointment is being considered, of a faculty member with the disciplinary specialization of the candidate? If answer is "No," see#4.
  4. In the absence of affirmative answers to all three of these questions, are there compelling reasons for the re-appointment of the faculty member? An affirmative answer must be justified. A "No" answer to#1, or#2, or#3, along with a "No" answer to#4 precludes a decision to renew a probationary appointment.
2. Criteria for Recommendation of Tenure
1. Does the evaluation of the faculty member's overall performance meet the criteria identified in II,F. above? If answer is "No," see#4
2. Has the faculty member attained the education and training appropriately expected of tenure faculty in the discipline? If answer is "No," see#4.
3. Do the staffing plans of the University, the College, and the Department provide for the tenure appointment of a faculty member with the disciplinary specialization of the candidate? If answer is "No," see#4.
4. If the answer to#1,#2, or#3 is "No," are there compelling reasons for the tenure appointment of the candidate? A "No" answer to#1,#2, or#2, along with a "No" answer to#4, precludes a decision to recommend tenure. A "Yes" answer to#4 must be justified.
College and Departmental Standards and Criteria.
Pursuant to III, (2), (f), 1, a, of the University Faculty Personnel Rules, the tenure faculty of a college may establish higher standards for evaluation, and additional criteria for decisions about the renewal of appointments, of faculty holding positions in the college, and the tenure faculty of a department may do so for faculty holding positions in the department. In so doing, the tenure faculty of a college or department may establish or authorize distinctions between classes of faculty, or between groups of faculty holding different classes of positions, provided that the bases for such distinctions are reasonable and appropriate to the missions and needs of the college or department. Provided that, within 30 days after exercising its authority under this paragraph, the tenure faculty of a college or department shall report its action to the Faculty Senate, which may within 90 days after the report rescind the action taken. (College and departmental standards and criteria adopted under this authority are subject to III, (2), (f), 1, b, of the Faculty Personnel Rules.)
Rules and Procedures for Gathering Information for Use in the Evaluation of Teaching.
1. Student Assessments of Teaching
  Pursuant to III, (2), (f), 2, a, of the University Faculty Personnel Rules, and in order that student assessments of teaching may be properly employed in the evaluation of probationary faculty, and in order that student assessment of teaching for that purpose shall not become a means for prescribing methods of instruction, no student assessment shall be employed in the evaluation of a probationary faculty member under III, (2), (f), of the University Faculty Personnel Rules which has not been gathered in accordance with the following rules:
  1. The means employed to elicit student assessments of formal instruction shall allow students to assess the overall performance of the faculty member as a teacher in a course in which the students have been enrolled.
  2. The means employed shall protect the anonymity of individual student respondents.
  3. The means employed shall give every student in a class a reasonable opportunity to participate, which condition shall be satisfied if the assessments are collected during a regularly scheduled meeting of the class, with or without prior announcement.
  4. The means employed shall insure that student assessments of teaching are based on a reasonable amount of experience with the formal instruction of the faculty member, which condition shall be satisfied if the assessments are collected after at least one-half of all scheduled class meetings have occurred and after at least one examination or other assignments has been graded and returned to the students.
  5. The means employed for gathering, analyzing, and reporting student assessments of formal instruction shall protect the accuracy and reliability of the assessments against bias, tampering, or misinterpretation.
  6. The means employed shall insure that students who assess a faculty member's formal instruction are told why the assessments are being gathered and are instructed to assess the faculty member's overall performance as a teacher in the class.
  7. Only student responses which assess the faculty member's overall performance as a teacher in a class shall be reported to evaluators of the faculty member, unless the faculty member reports them.
  8. A copy of the instrument used for gathering student assessments of teaching and the procedures governing their collection, analysis, and reporting shall be available for examination by any person in the departmental office.
2. Departmental and College Rules Governing Student Assessments.
  Additional rules and procedures governing student assessment of formal instruction, for use in the evaluation of probationary faculty in accordance with III, (2), (f), of the University Faculty Personnel Rules, may be established by the faculty of a college, or in the absence of action by a college faculty or with its authorization, by a department, provided that such rules and procedures are not inconsistent with these rules, the University Faculty Personnel Rules, or UWS 3 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
3. Other Information About Teaching.
1. Pursuant to III, (2), (f), 2, b of the University Faculty Personnel Rules, each department shall develop a plan which in addition to student evaluation will gather information about the teaching of probationary faculty members through the use of peer evaluations (such as but not limited to class visitation, inspection of syllabi and tests, and statements of objectives) and/or any other methods not prohibited by law or the UWS or UWW personnel rules. Such plan must be lodged with the dean of the respective department's college. Each probationary faculty member will receive a copy of this plan.
2. The information gathered by the department may be either information about the learning achieved by students in classes taught by the faculty member or information about the faculty member's teaching methods and behavior.
3. Methods which a department may adopt for gathering information about the learning achieved by students taught by the faculty member include but are not limited to the following:
  1. comparing the success in advanced courses of students taught in elementary courses by the faculty member to the success in advanced courses of students taught in elementary courses by others.
  2. comparing the performance on a common test of students taught by the faculty member and students taught by others.
4. Methods by which a department may gather information about a faculty member's teaching methods and behavior shall be comprehensive, not limited to a single visit to the faculty member's classroom or to a single aspect of teaching such as grades awarded, methods of examination, or the like.
Counseling of a Probationary Faculty Member after a Decision to Reappoint.
1. Pursuant to III, (3) of the University Faculty Personnel Rules, following delivery to a probationary faculty member of a notice that the renewal of the faculty member's probationary appointment has been recommended by the department and the chancellor, a member of the departmental agency who participated in the review and has been assigned this duty by the agency shall counsel the faculty member about the evaluation of the faculty member's performance, including aspects of the performance which ought to be maintained, those which can be improved, and ways in which the faculty member may improve or get assistance in improving his or her performance. The counselor may employ student assessments other than those which assess the effectiveness of the faculty member's teaching overall.
  A written summary of the conclusions shall be prepared by the counselor and signed by both the counselor and the probationary faculty member. The signatures shall signify only that the consultation has occurred and that the list of subjects discussed is accurate. The summary statement shall be retained by the department office. A copy of the summary shall be given to the probationary faculty member.
2. It is understood that a final rating of 1 or 2 indicates that any shortcomings that resulted in a previous rating of 3 have been remedied.
3. Nothing the counselor says in the counseling session shall constitute an assurance that the faculty member will be again reappointed or obtain tenure by accepting the counselor's recommendations or by improving his or her performance in specified ways or to a specified extent. The counselor shall, at the outset, inform the faculty member of this rule.
Appeal of Nonrenewal for Probationary or Tenure Faculty Member

See Faculty Personnel Rules (Handbook, Section VI-F) Chapter III (4), (5), and (6). Also see Handbook, Section VIII-B for Faculty Appeals Committee and Faculty Disciplinary Hearing Committee.