Calendar/Events
Directory
Libraries
Current Students
- Canvas
- Email
- WINS
- Navigate
- One-Stop Resources
Faculty/Staff
- Canvas
- Email
- WINS
- Navigate
- My Wisconsin Portal
- More Resources
Alumni
Español

Faculty Senate

UW-Whitewater Faculty Personnel Rules

Notes:

It is convention that the UW-W Personnel Rules align in naming with the parallel chapters of Wisconsin Administrative Code UWS Chapter 36.
Additional information relevant to personnel rules may be found in:
- Section 20 of the UW System Board of Regents policies.
- Other Faculty Senate approved UW-W policies related to faculty personnel.
Faculty Portfolios (Purple Books) only need to include Chapter 3 of these Personnel Rules.
University, college, and departmental tenure & promotion stanards are different from the rules listed here.
Rules governing Academic Staff are found in the Academic Staff Personnel Rules.

Chapter 1: Definitions

This chapter is intentionally left blank.

Please see UWS Chapter 1 for definitions of terms used in Chapters 1-6.

Chapter 2: Faculty Rules; Coverage & Delegation

Refer to Wisconsin Administrative Code UWS CHAPTER 2, FACULTY RULES; COVERAGE AND DELEGATION, which authorizes the faculty of each institution to write rules and procedures pursuant to chapters UWS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Chapter 3: Faculty Appointments

Chapter 3 Sections (click on section heading to jump to that section):

Section A. Development and Revision of Standards and Procedures for Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion
Section B. Authorization, Recruitment, and Initial Appointment
Section C. Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion
Section D. Rebuttals
Section E. Appeals
Section F. The Portfolio
Section G. Standard Classification of Performance Data
Section H. University Minimum requirements for Appointment, Reappointment, Tenure, and/or Promotion
Section I. Educational Preparation Code
Section J. Review, Reappointment, and Tenure Timeline

A. Development and Revision of Standards and Procedures for Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion

1. General policies

a. Standards and procedures must be consistent with state and university reappointment, tenure, and promotion policies as defined by and procedures.
b. Department, constituency, and university standards of evaluation for purposes of reappointment, tenure and/or promotion shall be in effect one year after the Faculty Senate and the Chancellor approve the standards.
c. Pending approval of constituency standards, the university standards shall be used in lieu of approved constituency standards. Similarly, pending approval of department standards, constituency standards shall be used in lieu of approved department standards.
d. Schedules for reappointment, tenure, and promotion shall be in accordance with UW System and UW-Whitewater policy. Timelines (III, I of these rules) for reviews shall be published by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs on or before the first contract day of the academic year.
e. All materials submitted for review shall adhere to a common university format, referred to in these rules as the portfolio (III, F of these rules).
f. The dean of each respective constituency shall provide faculty members with the format instructions for submitting portfolios.

2. Department standards committee

a. Formation: Each department shall establish a committee to develop standards and procedures for reappointment, tenure, and promotion decisions.
b. Functions
- (1) Write
  - (a) Write department standards that are consistent with the constituency and university standards and the mission and goals of the department, constituency, and university. Since probationary faculty shall demonstrate substantial progress toward meeting the standards for tenure and/or promotion, the committee may wish to write intermediate or formative standards for probationary faculty.
  - (b) Write department procedures that are consistent with these rules to be used when making reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion decisions.
  - (c) Define any elements of the format for submitting reappointment, tenure and/or promotion materials that are unique to the department. These elements must be consistent with the portfolio established by the University Standards Committee (III, C, 1, f, (1) - (3) and III, F of these rules).
- (2) Review: Assure that the content of the Document of Intent (III, C, 1, c and d; III, C, 4, a; and III, F, 2 - 4 of these rules) indicates the probationary faculty member’s commitment to make substantial progress toward meeting the department standards for tenure and/or promotion.
- (3) Report
  - (a) Submit the standards and procedures to the tenured faculty in the department for approval.
  - (b) Submit department’s approved standards and procedures to the constituency standards committee for review, possible negotiation and adjustment (III, A, 3, b, (4), (a) of these rules), and approval.
  - (c) After the constituency standards committee approves the department standards, submit department’s standards and procedures to the Chancellor for review.
    - i) The focus of the Chancellor’s review shall be to identify inconsistencies among the department standards and procedures and the constituency and university standards and procedures and/or the mission and goals of the department, constituency, and university.
    - ii) If the Chancellor finds inconsistencies among the department standards and procedures and the constituency standards and procedures and/or the mission and goals of the department and constituency, then the Chancellor shall request negotiation with the department (III, A, 2, b, (4), (b) of these rules).
    - iii) The request for negotiation shall be in writing and shall specify the inconsistencies the Chancellor has identified. The request shall be delivered to the chair of the department standards committee.
  - (d) Following the Chancellor’s review and any needed negotiations, submit the department standards and procedures to the constituency standards committee for approval and inclusion in the final standards and procedures package to be submitted to the Faculty Senate for approval. Official Faculty Senate actions shall go to the Chancellor for approval.
  - (e) When all required approvals have been granted (III, A, 1, b of these rules), forward copies of the department standards and procedures to the department, the constituency standards committee, the dean, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the Chancellor for reference during reappointment and tenure and/or promotion procedures.
- (4) Negotiate
  - (a) If the constituency standards committee finds that these department standards do not show parity with other department standards within the constituency or in some way are not consistent with the constituency standards, the university standards, or the goals and mission of the department, constituency, or university, then the department standards committee shall
    - i) negotiate these differences with the constituency standards committee,
    - ii) submit a copy of the adjusted standards produced by these negotiations to the department for approval, and
    - iii) upon approval by the tenured faculty of the department, follow procedures listed in III, A, 2, b, (3), (b) through (e) of these rules.
  - (b) If the Chancellor or Chancellor’s designee finds that these department standards are not consistent with the constituency standards, the university standards, or the goals and mission of the department, constituency, or university, then the department standards committee and a representative from the constituency standards committee shall
    - i) negotiate with the Chancellor or Chancellor’s designee to seek resolution of these differences,
    - ii) submit a copy of the adjusted standards produced by the negotiations to the tenured faculty of the department for approval, and
    - iii) if approved by the tenured faculty of the department, follow procedures listed in III, A, 2, b, (3), (b) through (e) of these rules.
  - (c) If, after twelve months’ negotiation, the parties are unable to resolve differences (III, A, 2, b, (4), (a) and/or (b) of these rules), either of the differing parties may request that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee identify an individual to serve as a mediator. This individual must be external to the university and acceptable to both of the differing parties. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall make arrangements for the mediator and mediation session(s).

3. Constituency standards committee

a. Formation: Each constituency shall have a constituency standards committee composed of at least one tenured faculty member from each department. The total membership of the committee shall include proportionate representation from all departments within the constituency.
- (1) The tenured faculty from each constituency shall determine
  - (a) the total number of representatives on this committee,
  - (b) the basis for defining proportionate representation, and
  - (c) percentage of committee members that constitutes a quorum.
- (2) Each department’s faculty shall elect its representative(s) to this committee.
- (3) Departments without tenured faculty shall elect their representative(s) from the tenured faculty of other department(s) within the constituency.
b. Functions
- (1) Write
  - (a) In consultation with the constituency dean, write constituency standards that are consistent with the university standards and the mission and goals of the departments, constituency, and university.
  - (b) Prescribe the format for writing and submitting department standards and procedures.
- (2) Review
  - (a) Review departments’ standards and procedures to appraise
    - i) the compatibility of these standards with the constituency’s approved standards, the university standards, and the mission and goals of the department, constituency, and university,
    - ii) the degree of parity among them, and
    - iii) their consistency with procedures specified in III, C, D, and E of these rules.
  - (b) Review the portfolios of faculty members who are applying for reappointment, promotion, or promotion and tenure.
- (3) Report
  - (a) Present the constituency standards and procedures to the tenured faculty of the constituency for approval.
  - (b) Submit a copy of the constituency’s approved standards and procedures to the University Standards Committee for review and approval.
  - (c) After the University Standards Committee approves the constituency standards, submit constituency’s standards and procedures to the Chancellor for review.
    - i) The focus of the Chancellor’s review shall be to identify inconsistencies among the constituency standards and procedures and the university standards and procedures and/or the mission and goals of the constituency and/or university.
    - ii) If the Chancellor finds inconsistencies among the constituency standards and procedures and the university standards and procedures and/or the mission and goals of the constituency and university, then the Chancellor shall request negotiation with the constituency (III, A, 3, b, (4), (b) of these rules).
    - iii) The request for negotiation shall be in writing and shall specify the inconsistencies the Chancellor has identified. The request shall be delivered to the chair of the constituency standards committee.
  - (d) Following the Chancellor’s review and any needed negotiations, submit the constituency standards and procedures to the University Standards Committee for approval and inclusion in the final standards and procedures package to be submitted to the Faculty Senate for approval. Official Faculty Senate actions shall go to the Chancellor for approval.
  - (e) When all required approvals have been granted (III, A, 1, b of these rules), forward copies of the constituency standards and procedures to the departments, the constituency standards committee, the dean, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the Chancellor for reference during reappointment and tenure and/or promotion procedures.
- (4) Negotiate
  - (a) To support making changes to be approved by the tenured faculty of each respective department (III, A, 2, b, (3), (a) through (e) of these rules), consult with the department standards committees to negotiate (III, A, 2, b, (4), (a) of these rules) adjustments in standards and procedures to achieve
    - i) conformity with the approved format for the submission of standards (III, A, 3, b, (1),(b) of these rules),
    - ii) parity among the departments’ standards and procedures,
    - iii) consistency with the department, constituency, and university goals and missions.
  - (b) If the Chancellor or Chancellor’s designee finds that the constituency standards are not consistent with the university standards or the goals and mission of the constituency or university, then the constituency standards committee and a representative from the University Standards Committee shall
    - i) negotiate with the Chancellor or Chancellor’s designee to seek resolution of these differences,
    - ii) submit the adjusted standards produced by these negotiations to the tenured faculty of the constituency for approval, and
    - iii) upon approval by the tenured faculty of the constituency, follow procedures listed in I, III, A, 3, b, (3), (b) through (e) of these rules.
  - (c) If, after twelve months’ negotiation, the parties are unable to resolve differences (III, A, 3, b, (4), (a) or (b) of these rules), either of the differing parties may request that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee identify an individual to serve as a mediator. This individual must be external to the university and acceptable to both of the differing parties. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall make arrangements for the mediator and mediation session(s).

4. University Standards Committee

a. Formation: The faculty of the university shall elect a University Standards Committee composed of an equal number of representatives from each constituency. The Elections Committee shall conduct this election (UW-Whitewater Handbook - Faculty Committees).
b. Functions
- (1) Write: In consultation with the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs,
  - (a) write university standards that are consistent with the university mission and goals,
  - (b) make revisions of the timeline (III, I of these rules) as needed,
  - (c) identify the types of evidence required in the portfolio (III, F of these rules), and
  - (d) prescribe the format for the portfolio.
- (2) Review: Review constituency standards and procedures to appraise
  - (a) the compatibility of these standards and procedures with the university standards and the mission and goals of the constituency and the university,
  - (b) the degree of parity among them, and
  - (c) their consistency with the procedures specified in III, C, D, and E of these rules.
- (3) Report
  - (a) Present recommendations as specified in III, A, 4, b, (1) of these rules to the Faculty Senate for approval. Official Faculty Senate actions shall go to the Chancellor for approval.
  - (b) Present the final standards and procedures documents to the Faculty Senate for approval. Official Faculty Senate actions shall go to the Chancellor for approval.
  - (c) When all required approvals have been granted (III, A, 1, b of these rules), forward copies of the university standards and procedures to the department standards committees, the constituency standards committees, the dean, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the Chancellor for reference during reappointment and tenure and/or promotion procedures.
- (4) Negotiate
  - (a) To support making changes to be approved by the tenured faculty of each respective constituency (III, A, 3, b, (3), (a) through (e) of these rules), consult with constituency standards committees to negotiate adjustments in standards and procedures to achieve
    - i) parity among constituencies and
    - ii) consistency with the standards, procedures, and missions and goals of the constituencies and the university.
  - (b) If the Chancellor or Chancellor’s designee finds that the university standards and procedures cannot be approved because of inconsistency with the goals and mission of the university, then
    - i) the University Standards Committee and a representative elected by the Faculty Senate shall negotiate with the Chancellor or Chancellor’s designee to seek resolution of these differences,
    - ii) submit the adjusted standards produced by these negotiations to the Faculty Senate for approval,
    - iii) upon approval by the Faculty Senate, follow procedures listed in (III, A, 4, b, (3), (b) and (c) of these rules).
  - (c) If, after twelve months’ negotiation, the parties are unable to resolve differences (III, A, 2, b, (4), (a) or (b) of these rules), either of the differing parties may request that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee identify an individual who is external to the university to serve as a mediator. This individual must be acceptable to both of the differing parties. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall make arrangements for the mediator and mediation session(s).

5. Faculty Senate

a. Consider resolutions presented to it by the University Standards Committee.
b. Report
- (1) Forward copies of all resolutions concerning reappointment, tenure and/or promotion decisions to the Chancellor for approval.
- (2) Forward copies of all resolutions concerning reappointment, tenure and/or promotion decisions to the university archives for storage.
- (3) Forward copies of resolutions concerning reappointment, tenure and/or promotion decisions to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for reference and dissemination to affected parties.
c. Elect a representative as needed in negotiations with the Chancellor or the Chancellor’s designee and the University Standards Committee (III, A, 4, b, (4), (b) of these rules).
d. Faculty Senate Executive Committee shall identify a mediator (III, A, 2, b, (4), (c); III, A, 3, b, (4), (c) and III, A, 4, b, (4), (c) of these rules).

6. Implementation of Standards

a. Standards shall become effective at the beginning of the next academic year following approval by the Chancellor.
b. For reappointment and tenure/promotion to associate professor,
- (1) The probationary faculty member shall use the standards in effect at the time of initial appointment, or
- (2) Any subsequently approved standards if the probationary faculty member notifies the department by e-mail and/or in writing prior to submission of the portfolio of their desire to use the subsequently approved standards.
c. For promotion of a tenured assistant professor to associate professor,
- (1) The faculty member shall use the standards in effect three years prior to the application for promotion, or
- (2) Any subsequently approved standards if the faculty member notifies the department by e-mail and/or in writing prior to submission of the portfolio of their desire to use the subsequently approved standards.
d. For promotion to professor,
- (1) The faculty member shall use the standards in effect three years prior to the application for promotion, or
- (2) Any subsequently approved standards if the faculty member notifies the department by e-mail and/or in writing prior to submission of the portfolio of their desire to use the subsequently approved standards.
e. The department shall be responsible for determining that the applicable university standards, constituency standards and department standards are included in the portfolio.

Section B. Authorization, Recruitment, and Initial Appointment

1. Authorization: A department seeking authorization to recruit a faculty member shall, in consultation with the dean

a. describe duties and responsibilities of the position,
b. define required and desired applicant qualifications, and
c. determine rank(s) (UWS 3.01) and salary range(s) for the position.

2. The dean shall submit the request for authorizationto recruit a faculty member to the Chancellor for approval.

3. Recruitment:A department authorized to recruit a faculty member

a. may define a search committee by open and fair procedures previously agreed upon by the department members and dean which, through its composition and/or procedures, shall demonstrate the university’s commitment to diversity and provide for faculty and student participation in the recruitment and selection processes. (This search committee will act on behalf of the department in those functions determined by the department),
b. shall meet with the Assistant to the Chancellor for Affirmative Action to establish the guidelines for recruitment procedures,
c. shall establish recruitment procedures, and
d. shall submit the recruitment procedures, position description, and advertisement to the Assistant to the Chancellor for Affirmative Action to assure that they are consistent with federal, state, UW System, and UW-Whitewater policies.

4. When the Assistant to the Chancellor for Affirmative Action approvesthe recruitment procedures, the department or its search committee shall

a. distribute advertisements for the position, making every effort to identify and attract a diverse pool of applicants,
b. establish the process and criteria for reviewing credentials, and
c. determine the method for selection of candidates.

5. Selection of candidates

a. The department or its search committee shall
- (1) review applicants’ credentials,
- (2) create a list of candidates for approval by the Assistant to the Chancellor for Affirmative Action and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for initial interview,
- (3) provide a list of the remaining applicants and the reason(s) each was not recommended for immediate interview, and
- (4) forward the search packet to the dean.
b. The dean shall
- (1) review the list of candidates submitted by the department or its search committee to ascertain if the established procedures have been implemented in accordance with III, B, 3 and 4 of these rules, and
- (2) based on this review, either
  - (a) sign the Recruitment Sign-off Sheet and forward it to the Assistant to the Chancellor for Affirmative Action and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, or
  - (b) negotiate suggested changes with the department or its search committee and then sign the Recruitment Sign-off Sheet.
c. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Assistant to the Chancellor for Affirmative Action shall
- (1) review the candidates’ qualifications to certify that the candidates’ qualifications conform to the position description as advertised, and
- (2) forward the certified list to the department or its search committee.

6. Interview

a. The department or its search committee shall interview each candidate to determine the candidate’s qualifications for appointment. If the appointment is to be at a rank higher than assistant professor, then additional interviews are required.
- (1) The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs also shall interview any candidate to be considered for appointment at the associate professor rank.
- (2) The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Chancellor also shall interview any candidate to be considered for appointment at the professor rank.
b. The department chair shall interview all candidates and inform them of department policies and procedures.
c. The dean shall interview all candidates and inform them of constituency policies and procedures.
d. At each interview level, the same core questions and format must be used during the interview of all candidates.

7. Recommendation of candidate

8. Initial appointments

9. Offer of employment

a. If the Chancellor or the Chancellor’s designee supports the candidate and the conditions in III, B,7, a, (1), (b) of these rules, the dean
- (1) contacts the candidate to make an unofficial offer according to the terms in III, B, 7, a, (1),(b) of these rules;
- (2) sends the candidate a memorandum of understanding specifying the terms agreed upon under III, B, 9, a, (1) of these rules with copies to the department or its search committee and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
b. If the Chancellor or the Chancellor’s designee supports the candidate, but does not support the conditions in III, B, 7, a, (1), (b) of these rules, then the department or its search committee and the dean negotiate the terms at issue with Chancellor or the Chancellor’s designee. The dean then
- (1) contacts the candidate to make an unofficial offer according to the negotiated terms, and
- (2) sends the candidate a memorandum of understanding specifying the terms agreed upon under III, B, 9, b, (1) of these rules with copies to the department or its search committee and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
c. If the Chancellor or the Chancellor’s designee does not support the candidate or satisfactory terms cannot be negotiated under III, B, 9, b of these rules or the candidate declines the offer, then the department or its search committee and the dean shall
- (1) submit the name of another acceptable candidate, or
- (2) submit the name(s) of additional candidate(s) to be invited for campus interview(s), or
- (3) request permission of the Assistant to the Chancellor for Affirmative Action to continue the search, or
- (4) request permission of the Assistant to the Chancellor for Affirmative Action to terminate the search.

10. Appointment letter:The Chancellor’s appointment letter shall include

a. items listed in UWS 3.03,
b. the approximate date of first review,
c. assignment of home department (III, C, 9, a, (1) of these rules),
d. department standards for tenure and promotion,
e. notice that for subsequent reviews, other standards may be established in accordance with UWS 3.06, (1), (b),
f. statement of the number of years of credited prior service, if any,
g. credited prior service used to set the mandatory tenure decision, if any,
h. years of teaching experience that may be used for promotion eligibility,
i. the date of mandatory tenure decision, if applicable, and
j. a statement that acceptance of the appointment is an acceptance of all stated employment conditions.

Section C. Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion

1. General policies

2. Types of decisions

3. Faculty member’s responsibilities

a. Assemble the portfolio organized according to the university format (III, F and III, G of these rules). The portfolio is a cumulative record of the faculty member’s performance at UW-Whitewater.
b. Write a Document of Intent (Appendix A, paragraph D of these rules) so that its fulfillment would represent significant progress toward satisfying the department, constituency, and university standards for tenure and/or promotion. Probationary faculty members shall submit a Document of Intent for each review period to the department standards committee for review. Generally the probationary faculty member will write the Document of Intent in consultation with the supervisor, i.e., department chair, department standards committee, or other appropriate person(s) specified by the department
- (1) by the third Friday in September for new faculty members, or
- (2) within 10 (ten) business days of the department consultation during non-review years, or
- (3) within 10 (ten) business days of the department consultation following the review and decision by the department.
c. Place a copy of the approved and signed Document of Intent in the portfolio and submits a copy to the supervisor. Subsequent performance consultations and reviews assess progress in fulfilling the indicators of quality identified in the Document of Intent.
d. Satisfy the department requirements.

4. Department’s responsibilities

5. Dean’s responsibilities

a. The dean shall review and evaluate the faculty member’s portfolio to ascertain that the department’s Report of Decision or Reconsideration Report of Decision shows
- (1) conformity with department(s), constituency, and university standards and procedures
- (2) consistency with the data in the portfolio, and
- (3) fulfillment of the Document of Intent.
b. When reviewing the faculty member’s portfolio, the dean may request further explanation or clarification of materials in or referred to in the portfolio from the faculty member and/or department(s). The request must be in writing and copied to all parties. The response to the request must be in writing and copied to all parties.
c. The dean shall
- (1) write a Report of Recommended Action using standards-based reasons to support or refute the department’s Report of Decision or Reconsideration Report of Decision, and include a statement informing the faculty member that he or she has the right to submit a written rebuttal to the dean’s Report of Recommended Action (III, D of these rules).
- (2) add the Report of Recommended Action to the portfolio, provide a hard copy to the faculty member, and send a copy as an email attachment to the faculty member and department.
- (3) ensure that any rebuttal is placed in the portfolio behind the Report of Recommended Action,
- (4) deliver the portfolio to the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs or, when applicable, to the Constituency Standards Committee Chair for review.

6. Constituency standards committee’s responsibilities:

a. A review shall be conducted by the constituency standards committee which shall be constituted according to III, A, 3, a of these rules.
b. The constituency standards committee shall review and evaluate the faculty member’s portfolio to ascertain that the department’s Report of Decision or Reconsideration Report of Decision, and the dean’s Report of Recommended Action show
- (1) conformity with department, constituency, and university standards and procedures
- (2) consistency with the data in the portfolio, and
- (3) fulfillment of the Document of Intent.
c. When reviewing the faculty member’s portfolio, the constituency standards committee may request further explanation or clarification of materials in or referred to in the portfolio from the faculty member, department(s) and/or dean(s). The request must be in writing and copied to all parties. The response to the request must be in writing and copies to all parties.
d. The constituency standards committee shall
- (1) write a Report of Recommended Action using standards-based reasons to support or refute the department’s Report of Decision or Reconsideration Report of Decision and/or the dean’s Report of Recommended Action, and including
  - (a) date and time of the meeting,
  - (b) members of the constituency standards committee present, and
  - (c) statement informing the faculty member that he or she has the right to submit a written rebuttal to the constituency standards committee’s Report of Recommended Action (III, D of these rules).
- (2) add the Report of Recommended Action to the portfolio, provide a hard copy to the faculty member, and send a copy as an email attachment to the faculty member, department, and dean.
- (3) ensure that any rebuttal is placed in the portfolio behind the Report of Recommended Action and
- (4) deliver the portfolio to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for review.

7. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs’ responsibilities

a. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall review and evaluate the faculty member’s portfolio to ascertain that the department’s Report of Decision or Reconsideration Report of Decision, the dean’s Report of Recommended Action and, when applicable, the constituency standard committee’s Report of Recommended Action show
- (1) conformity with department, constituency, and university standards and procedures,
- (2) consistency with the data in the portfolio, and
- (3) fulfillment of the Document of Intent.
b. When reviewing the faculty member’s portfolio, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs may request further explanation or clarification of materials in or referred to in the portfolio from the faculty member, department(s), dean(s), and/or constituency standards committee(s). The request must be in writing and copied to all the parties. The response to the request must be in writing and copied to all parties. c. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall:
- (1) write a Report of Recommended Action using standards-based reasons to support or refute the department’s Report of Decision or Reconsideration Report of Decision, dean’s Report of Recommended Action and/or constituency standards committee’s Report of Recommended Action; and including a statement informing the faculty member that he or she has the right to submit a written rebuttal (III, D of these rules) to the Vice Chancellor’s Report of Recommended Action.
- (2) add the Report of Recommended Action to the portfolio, provide a hard copy to the faculty member, and send a copy as an email attachment to the faculty member, department, dean, and, when applicable, constituency standards committee chair.,
  - (a) ensure that any rebuttal is placed in the portfolio behind the Report of Recommended Action, and
  - (b) deliver the portfolio to the Chancellor for review and decision no earlier than 3 (three) business days after the emailed date of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Report of Recommended Action to the faculty member.

8. Chancellor’s responsibilities

Section D. Rebuttals

A faculty member may submit a written rebuttal to the department’s Report of Decision (III, C, 4, f, (2); III, C, 4, g, (2), (a), vi) of these rules) and/or to any or all Reports of Recommended Action (III, C, 5, a - c; III, C, 6, b - d; III, C, 7, c, and III, C, 8, e of these rules).
Within 3 (three) business days of the emailed date of the Report of Decision and/or Reports of Recommended Action, the faculty member must notify the review party of the intent to write a rebuttal.
The rebuttal must be received by the review body within 7 (seven) business days after the emailed date of the Report of Decision and/or Report of Recommended Action being rebutted.
Such rebuttals shall be placed in the portfolio behind the Report of Decision or Report of Recommended Action being rebutted.
The portfolio is then forwarded on to the next review body.
The faculty member shall understand that the writing of rebuttal(s) may alter the timeline for reappointment and/or tenure and promotion decisions.

Section E. Appeals

1. Appellant’s responsibilities:

a. Submit a valid appeal to the chair of the Faculty Senate.
b. To be valid, the appeal must
- (1) be in writing,
- (2) specify the decision(s) which is being appealed (III, C, 4, f, (2); III, C, 4, g, (2), (a), vi); and III, C, 8, b of these rules),
- (3) state the grounds of the appeal by reference to some part of UWS 3.08, (1) and by reference to the relevant records of review and reports of decision, and reconsideration, (III, C, 4, f, (2); III, C, 4, g, (2), (a), vi), and III, C, 8, e of these rules), and
- (4) The faculty member shall be allowed to request only one panel during any given academic year’s review sequence, and
- (5) be delivered to the chair of the Faculty Senate prior to the time that materials are to be delivered to the next level in the review process (See timeline, III, I of these rules).
c. The appellant may submit evidence or argument to the appeal panel from the Faculty Appeals, Grievances, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee.
d. The appellant may be assisted by a person of his or her choice.
e. The burden of proof is on the appellant.
f. A faculty member may withdraw the appeal at any time. Upon receipt of a written request to withdraw an appeal, the chair of the appeal panel or the Faculty Senate chair if the panel has not been assembled shall forward an email copy of the request to the department(s), dean(s), and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and, when applicable, constituency standards committee chair(s); and the portfolio to the faculty member. Such withdrawal terminates consideration of the faculty member’s application for reappointment, tenure and/or promotion.

2. Faculty Senate chair’s and/or the Faculty Senate chair’s designee’s responsibilities:

a. Upon receipt of an appeal, the chair shall determine whether or not the appeal is valid (see UWW III, E, 1, b).
b. If the appeal is determined to be valid, the chair and/or the chair’s designee shall form a Faculty Appeals and Grievance Committee panel.
c. If the appeal is determined not to be valid, the chair and/or the chair’s designee shall inform the appellant, specifying why the appeal was not valid, and request that an amended appeal be submitted within three business days. If an amended appeal is not submitted in a timely fashion, the chair or the chair’s designee shall forward the portfolio to the appropriate review agent.
- (1) If an amended appeal is submitted, the chair and/or the chair’s designee shall determine if the amended appeal is valid.
- (2) If the amended appeal is determined to be valid, the chair and/or the chair’s designee shall form a Faculty Appeals and Grievance Committee panel.
- (3) If the amended appeal is determined still not to be valid, the chair and/or the chair’s designee shall inform the appellant and the portfolio shall be forwarded to the appropriate review agent.
d. The finding that an appeal is not valid is not to be construed as a negative Report of Findings and Recommended Action(s) (see UWW, III, E, 2, f, (6)). The appellant, in this instance, shall not have exhausted all avenues of appeal as would occur with a negative Report of Findings and Recommended Action(s) (see III, E, 2, f, (6), (c) and (e)).
e. The Faculty Senate chair shall appoint a designee to determine whether or not an appeal is valid if the chair is in the same department as the appellant or if the chair perceives that there is a conflict of interest.

3. The composition and responsibilities of the appeal panel from the Faculty Appeals, Grievances, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee

4. Ad hoc credential review committee’s composition and responsibilities

Section F. The Portfolio

1. Disposition of the Portfolio:In so far as the portfolio is a synthesis of a faculty member’s professional performance, it belongs to the faculty member. Once the faculty member has submitted the portfolio to the department for review, the only materials that shall be added to the portfolio are those specified in these rules (III, C, 5, d; III, C, 6, f; III, D; and III, F, 4). Documents shall not be removed from the portfolio without the consent of the faculty member. Likewise, the faculty member may not add or remove documents specified in these rules without the explicit consent of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. In case of negative decisions for reappointment or tenure, the Chancellor shall secure copies of all relevant documents including the portfolio, reports of decision, requests for a reconsideration and/or an appeal, reports of recommended action, and rebuttals produced during the review sequence for possible use as required by law.

2. General Guidelines for Preparation of the Portfolio

a. Use Times New Roman, 12 point typeface for body of text.
b. Develop a table of contents for each year under consideration and label each item for easy location and identification.
c. Include a written narrative for each year. Use a maximum of three pages for this narrative. Because the department goals and mission are consistent with those of the college and university as well as the university strategic plan, in the narrative concisely describe your
- (1) approach to teaching and how it is consistent with the select mission of the department and/or strategic plan of the university;
- (2) research agenda, current projects, and accomplishments and in what way this agenda and the projects are consistent the select mission of the department and/or the strategic plan of the University
- (3) service activities and how they help support the fulfillment of the select mission of the department and/or the strategic plan of the University.
- (4) Include only accomplishments during the time period covered by the Document of Intent.

3. For each year period presented in the portfolio, the following basic documentation should be included:

a. Updated table of contents with blanks for signatures from the faculty member and all reviewing bodies attesting to the integrity of the portfolio’s contents as listed in the table of contents.
b. Updated vita
c. Document of Intent
d. Faculty member’s narrative
e. Performance Evaluation Form prepared by candidate, using standard classification of performance data
f. Department evaluation
g. Reports of Decision(s)
h. Reports of Recommended Action
i. Representative evidence of teaching/job performance, research/creative activities, and professional and public service activities. The evidence included in the portfolio shall be representative, and thus, limited to one or two examples in each category for each year of review. However, the faculty member should have complete documentation available upon request.
j. Any documents produced through an appeal process or other reviews should be included in the portfolio

Section G. Standard Classification of Performance Data

1. Guidelines for using the standard classification of performance data

When preparing the portfolio, the faculty member is expected to use the standard classification scheme to determine where various activities should be listed. The extent of the list is not intended to suggest that any one faculty member should have an example of each type of listed activity; the intent is to indicate where to place the wide variety of teaching, scholarly, and professional and public service enterprises in which the faculty engage.

2. Changes in the standard classification

a. Departments and units responsible for performance evaluations may add items of performance to a category, but may not remove an item from the standard classification.
b. Departments and units responsible for performance evaluations may not move items among categories for the standard classification.
c. The Faculty Senate is responsible for revisions of the standard classification. At the time the Faculty Senate approves revisions of the standard classification, it also shall define the effective date of the revisions to insure reasonable and just lead time.
d. In the narrative statement, the faculty member should discuss the activities included in an order that suits the coherence and enhances the meaning of the narrative, not the order in which the activities are listed in this classification scheme. This narrative should establish the context of the faculty member’s position and the relevance and importance of the activities in fulfilling the responsibilities associated with the position.

3. Since the major purpose of the portfolio is to chronicle the development of a faculty member throughout his or her professional career, the relative emphasis given to the different categories may change over time which would be reflected in the order in which the activities are considered in the narrative statement.

4. The standard classification is used for all performance reviews, i.e. for reappointment, tenure and/or promotion decisions.

a. Teaching Activities
- (1) Instructional Methodology
  - (a) Course syllabi
  - (b) Design and development of innovative teaching methods or media
  - (c) Student assignments, presentations, projects
  - (d) Methods of assessing and evaluating student progress
  - (e) Edited video tapes of classroom instruction
- (2) Evaluation
  - (a) Peer observation and review (See Appendix B, part C of these rules.)
    - i) Presentation of material during peer observation sessions
    - ii) Student participation during peer observation sessions
    - iii) Communication with students during peer observation sessions
    - iv) Student evaluation of course and instructional approach (See Appendix B, parts A and B of these rules.)
  - (b) Exit evaluations by students upon completion of the program
- (3) Service to Students
  - (a) Advising and mentoring students
  - (b) Student evaluation of advising and mentoring
  - (c) Supervision of student research projects and independent studies
  - (d) Supervision and consultation on graduate projects, theses, and independent studies
  - (e) Assistance with job or graduate school placement
  - (f) Writing letters of recommendation for credential files, graduate school applications, internships, and scholarships
  - (g) Organizing student attendance and participation in student and/or professional conferences
  - (h) Using varied forms of electronic media to support instructor accessibility, e.g., e- mail, class lists, bulletin boards
- (4) Enhancement of Teaching Skills
  - (a) Participation in programs and/or conferences for improving teaching
  - (b) Peer consultation or mentoring
  - (c) Team or collaborative teaching
  - (d) Faculty exchanges
  - (e) Observation of master teachers
  - (f) Changes in classroom approach that are connected to peer observations
  - (g) Changes in classroom approach that are based on student performance on assessments
  - (h) Changes in classroom approach that result from personal analysis of one’s own teaching in the light of review of research, literature, or interactions with in- service personnel.
- (5) Student Performance
  - (a) Student performance on assessments prepared by agents external to the immediate classroom
  - (b) Student performance on assessments prepared by the instructor
- (6) Support for Department Goals
  - (a) Curriculum development
  - (b) Developing new programs and/or licensure authorizations
  - (c) Off-campus teaching
  - (d) Participation in distance education
  - (e) Preparing and delivering testimony in the State Legislature related to the goals of the college and department
  - (f) Working with in-service professionals to provide on-site opportunities and exchanges for students as part of campus based classroom experiences
- (7) Course Load
  - (a) Undergraduate and graduate courses taught
  - (b) Factors influencing the course load
    - i) Class sizes
    - ii) Number of preparations per semester
    - iii) Number of times the faculty member has taught the course
    - iv) Number of new instructional materials introduced in the course, e.g., using a new textbook, reader, or format
    - v) Collaborative or team teaching involved in the course load
    - vi) Types of courses taught: proficiency, common core, required for a major program, general education, elective, laboratory, studio, clinical or field program
- (8) Honors and Awards
  - (a) Grants for the improvement of teaching
  - (b) Awards recognizing teaching excellence by any level from a student organization through an international professional organization Performance of Faculty with Non-teaching Assignments
b. Job
- (1) Skill and Knowledge
  - (a) Knowledge of job assignment
  - (b) Organization skills
  - (c) Communication skills
- (2) Management skills
  - (a) Responsible fiscal planning and budget management
  - (b) Curriculum and program scheduling
  - (c) Resource and technology planning
- (3) Professional Effort
  - (a) Participation in programs for professional improvement
  - (b) Efficiency of operation
  - (c) Support for the unit staff
  - (d) Participation in the development of effective and efficient operational practices
  - (e) Support of university goals and mission
  - (f) Support of unit/service area goals and mission
- (4) Leadership
  - (a) Work with faculty and professional staff in defining context relevant goals and long term plans
  - (b) Coordination and marshaling of resources to achieve goals
c. Research and Creative Activity
- (1) Published/Reviewed/Refereed/Invited Works
  - (a) Articles
    - i) Book or literature review
    - ii) Bibliography
    - iii) Essay or paper in an anthology
    - iv) Professional journal article
    - v) Proceedings
    - vi) Public/Trade journal article
    - vii) Article translation
  - (b) Books
    - i) Chapter in a book
    - ii) Book
    - iii) Monograph
    - iv) Book edited or translated
    - v) Instructional materials, e.g., readers for courses, state curriculum guides, test banks, instructor’s manuals
  - (c) Grant Proposals
    - i) Grant proposals accepted for funding
    - ii) Grant proposals for which the funding decision is pending
    - iii) Grant proposals submitted for funding
  - (d) Performance and Artistic Works
    - i) Short story, poem, dramatic work
    - ii) Musical composition or arrangement
    - iii) Choreography
    - iv) Exhibition of works of art, graphics, crafts, and design
    - v) Performances and recitals, plays, and readings
    - vi) Master classes and workshops
    - v) Direction of works in the performance arts
    - vi) Recorded works in the performance arts
  - (e) Electronic Media
    - i) Computer software development
    - ii) Multimedia production
    - iii) Web based graphic design generating virtual reality options
    - iv) Broadcast, film, electronic media design and production
  - (f) Conferences
    - i) Papers
    - ii) Presentations
    - iii) Panels
    - iv) Workshops
    - v) Scholarly consultations or seminars related to one’s area of expertise
  - (g) Works Not Refereed or Not Adjudicated: Presentations, papers, panels, workshops, or performances at a professional meeting without a review policy
- (2) Honors and Awards: Awards recognizing outstanding research and creative activity by any level from a department through an international professional organization.
d. Professional and Public Service Activities
- (1) Service to the Profession
  - (a) Editor of a professional journal
  - (b) Adjudicator of exhibit, performance, design, program, i.e., serving as a member of a program, agency, or school evaluation team for an accrediting agency
  - (c) Reviewer of conference proposals or journal manuscripts
  - (d) Reviewer of grant proposals for funding agency
  - (e) Reviewer of promotion or personnel files as a member of an ad hoc credential review committee
  - (f) Reviewer/mentor of research in progress.
  - (g) Discipline-related consultant
  - (h) Officer of or service to a professional association
  - (i) Attendance at professional meeting or conference
  - (j) Provider of non-credit continuing education
  - (k) Cooperative sharing of expertise with campus colleagues
  - (l) Presenter of in-service programs for faculty and staff
  - (m) Member of a state, regional, national, or international committee associated with one’s discipline
  - (n) Officer in a state, regional, national, or international organization associated with one’s discipline.
- (2) Service to Department, Constituency, University, and/or System
  - (a) Member of a department, constituency, university, or system committee
  - (b) Officer of a department, constituency, or university committee
  - (c) Contributor to department, constituency, or university reports, i.e., audit, accreditation, self-study
  - (d) Assigned mentor or advisor to a probationary faculty member
  - (e) Advisor to a student group
  - (f) Participant in a campus activity requiring frequent, regular or extended investment of time and effort, e. g., serving as the Men’s Faculty Athletic Representative for the NCAA
  - (g) Advisor, consultant, or judge for a student organized activity or event on campus, e. g., judging homecoming floats or candidates
  - (h) Organizer for a campus sponsored conference
  - (i) Support staff member for a campus sponsored conference
- (3) Public Service
  - (a) Discipline-related presentation or service to a local, regional, or national agency or group
  - (b) Discipline-related service to community organizations
  - (4) Honors and Awards
  - (a) Department, constituency, or university service awards
  - (b) Service award from a discipline-related professional organization

Section H. University Minimum Requirements for Appointment, Reappointment, Tenure, and/or Promotion

1. Instructor:

Any instructor hired or assigned to teach a college-credit course must meet the following qualifications:

a. Instructors teaching courses for undergraduate-level credit must hold a Master’s degree or higher in the discipline or subfield associated with the courses to be taught. If the instructor holds a Master’s degree or higher in a discipline or subfield other than that in which he or she is teaching, that faculty member must have completed a minimum of 18 graduate credit hours in the discipline or subfield associated with the courses to be taught and have minimum educational code 3. These qualifications apply to all situations where an instructor or faculty member is assigned to teach an undergraduate college-credit course, including, overloads, Winterim/Summer courses, and dual-enrollment courses taught in high schools and other settings.
- i. Tested experience may substitute for an earned degree or portions thereof. The qualification of instructors on the basis of tested experience must be performed on a case-by-case basis. The experience must be deemed to be equivalent to the degree otherwise required for teaching the courses, and it must include a breadth and depth of experience outside of the classroom in real-world situations relevant to the discipline or subfield of the courses to be taught.
- ii. Years of experience in teaching a course cannot be the sole basis for qualifying an instructor to teach—other factors and types of relevant experience must be involved.
- iii. When using tested experience as the qualification, the experience must satisfy the minimum qualifications and threshold for experience specified for the advertised position or for the course to be taught. It is the responsibility of the academic department or other hiring authority to specify the minimum qualifications and levels of experience and to document how the instructor meets those in the appointment process.
- iv. In determining that tested experience is sufficient, approval is required by the department chair associated with the hire or course assignments, and by the dean. It is best practice that the department chair makes his/her decision in consultation with faculty in the discipline or subfield as much as is practical given the timeline needed to conduct the hire or course assignment.
b. Instructors teaching courses for graduate-level credit must hold the terminal degree determined by the discipline and have a record of research, scholarship or achievement appropriate for the graduate program associated with the course and meet the requirements of educational code 1. If the instructor is not a member of the Graduate Faculty of UW-Whitewater, then an approved exception must be granted per Sections 5 and 6 of the Constitution of the Graduate Faculty. Graduate-level courses can be assigned to instructors who do not hold terminal degrees if the instructors qualify on the basis of tested experience (see III H.1.a.i-iv above).

2. Assistant Professor:

a. Must hold a Ph.D. or other terminal degree appropriate to the discipline and also meet the qualifications for teaching courses explained in H.1 above.
- i. The Ph.D. or other terminal degree must be from a college or university that has regional accreditation or equivalent national or international accreditation, but no one shall be disqualified on this account if they were hired to a faculty line at UW-Whitewater prior to May 1, 1996 and served in a faculty line at UW-Whitewater continuously since then.
- ii. An M.F.A., MLS or other terminal degree (other than Ph.D.) must be deemed appropriate preparation for a faculty line in the discipline as determined by three bodies, for example, a professional organization, the university, and the area of specialization.
b. Candidates who are A.B.D. (all but dissertation completed, in their terminal degree) can be hired at the rank of Assistant Professor, on a one-year contract, if they have a written agreement to complete their dissertation by the date of the scheduled review for reappointment. If the Ph.D. or other terminal degree is not officially completed by the scheduled review date, the appointment is terminated at the end of the first year (See Section III J. Review, Reappointment, and Tenure Timeline of these rules). The agreement to complete the dissertation must be submitted before the date of initial appointment and signed by the candidate, the department chair of the hiring department, and by the dean. The A.B.D. period and all accomplishments therein will count as part of the probationary period for purposes of reappointment, tenure, and promotion reviews.

3. Associate Professor:To be eligible for promotion to the rank of associate professor, the faculty member must:

a. satisfy the minimum requirements listed above for instructor and for assistant professor,
b. have at least four years of full-time college or university teaching and/or appropriate experience at the rank of assistant professor, and
c. have a minimum of three academic years in rank of assistant professor at this university before the effective date of the promotion to the rank of associate professor.

4. Professor:To be eligible for promotion to the rank of professor, the faculty member must:

a. satisfy the minimum requirements listed above for instructor and for assistant professor;
b. have at least ten total years of full-time college or university teaching or other appropriate experience; and
c. have a minimum of three academic years in the rank of associate professor if the faculty member was appointed or promoted to associate professor on this campus before the effective date of the promotion to the rank of professor.

Exceptions to the above requirements may be made if a candidate’s unusual qualifications are judged to possess exceptional merit. The burden of proof of such merit shall be on the applicant and the department originating the application. The constituency standards committee makes the final decision on making exceptions to the university minimum requirements policy.

Section I. Educational Preparation Code

1. Educational preparation codes and requirements

Educational Education Preparation Code Requirement Code

Ph.D., Ed.D. Earned doctorate equivalent to the Ph.D. or Ed.D. requiring the minimum equivalent of three full years of graduate study beyond the baccalaureate degree.
A refereed** terminal degree in the area of specialization, e. g., M.F.A. in studio arts.
Earned degree requiring a minimum equivalent of three full years of graduate study beyond the baccalaureate degree. All requirements for the doctorate met with the exception of the completion of the dissertation (ABD).
A Master’s degree in the discipline or subfield relevant to the courses to be taught plus one full year of graduate study as measured by the institution where graduate work is applicable in a degree program, or a Master’s degree in the discipline or subfield relevant to the courses to be taught, or a Master’s degree in another discipline and completion of a minimum of 18 graduate credits in the discipline or subfield relevant to the courses to be taught.
A Master’s degree in another discipline plus tested experience in the discipline or subfield relevant to the courses to be taught.
Baccalaureate degree plus tested experience equivalent to a Master’s degree in the discipline or subfield relevant to the courses to be taught.

*Only doctorates from accredited (regional accreditation associations, or equivalent national or international accreditation) colleges and universities will entitle a faculty member to Educational Code 1, but no one granted Educational Code 1 prior to May 1, 1996, shall lose Educational Code 1 on this account.
**Refereed as determined by three bodies, for example, a professional organization, the university, and the area of specialization.

2. Unresolved questions concerning the assignment of Educational Code shall be submitted to the University Standards Committee for decision

Section J. Review, Reappointment, and Tenure Timeline

1. Submission of a rebuttal to a Report of Decision from a department and/or to any Report of Recommended Action may delay the forwarding of the portfolio to the next review body by a maximum of 7 (seven) business days.

2. Exceptions to this timeline shall be made in cases of faculty members who are on leave at the time of the deadline. These exceptions shall accommodate for the leave period while also allowing the individual to complete their review within the academic year. Upon returning from leave, the faculty member shall begin their review cycle within two weeks. This applies to FMLA/WFMLA or unpaid leaves of absence.

3. Timeline grid

First Class Day of the Second Week of Classes	All faculty members scheduled for a review and decision granting reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion submit their portfolios to the departments (See consultation/review schedule chart, Appendix C of these rules). At least 20 days prior to the date of review, the departments must give these candidates Notice of Review (UWS 3.06(c)).
First Friday in October	All faculty members scheduled for a department consultation shall submit their portfolios to the departments, i.e., those faculty members who are in their third and fifth years on campus. (See consultation/review schedule chart, Appendix C of these rules).
Fourth Monday in October	Departments forward all reappointment portfolios and reports of decisions to the constituency dean(s). (See consultation/review schedule chart, Appendix C of these rules). The portfolio shall be forwarded to the constituency dean(s) only after the department holds a requested reconsideration. When the department completes a reconsideration, its Reconsideration Report of Decision shall replace the original Report of Decision in the portfolio to be forwarded to the constituency dean(s) for review.
November First	The constituency dean(s) shall forward to the Constituency Standards Committee (CSC) all portfolios of persons in their second year of initial contract and who, due to their years of credited service, are within two years of their mandatory tenure decision. November Fifteenth
November Fifteenth	The constituency dean(s) shall forward to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs all portfolios, reports of decision, reports of recommended action, and rebuttals affecting faculty scheduled for second year reviews. The CSC shall forward to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs all portfolios of persons in their second year of initial contract and who, due to their years of credited service, are within two years of their mandatory tenure decision.
December First	The constituency dean(s) shall forward to the Constituency Standards Committee (CSC) all portfolios, reports of decision, reports of recommended action, and rebuttals for the reviewed faculty members a) who are in their fourth year, b) who applied for tenure or promotion with tenure, or c) who applied for promotion to professor. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall forward to the Chancellor all portfolios, reports of decision, reports of recommended action, and rebuttals affecting faculty scheduled for second year reviews.
December Fifteenth	In accordance with UWS 3.09, (1), (a), the Chancellor shall notify second year probationary faculty of reappointment decisions. The Chancellor also shall inform the probationary faculty of the date of their next reappointment review and decision. This date will be determined by the department decision to offer a two year or a one year contract.
January First	The constituency dean shall place a Report of Recommended Action in the portfolio of faculty members in their third and fifth year scheduled for a review and forward copies to the faculty members and the department. Constituency dean forwards portfolios to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Second Friday in January	All ABD faculty members scheduled for a first year review and decision granting reappointment must submit their portfolios to the departments (See consultation/review schedule chart, Appendix C of these rules). At least 20 days prior to the date of review, the departments must give these candidates Notice of Review (UWS 3.06(c)).
Fourth Monday in January	The CSC shall have completed preparation of Reports of Recommended Action for the reviewed faculty members a) who are in their fourth year, b) who applied for tenure or promotion with tenure, or c) who applied for promotion to professor. The CSC shall place the committee’s Report of Recommended Action in each reviewed faculty member’s portfolio. The CSC shall deliver a copy of the Report of Recommended Action to the faculty member and the department. The CSC shall forward to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs all portfolios including report of decision, recommended actions, and rebuttals.
Fourth Friday in January	Departments forward all probationary first year ABD Faculty reappointment portfolios and reports of decisions to the constituency dean(s). (See consultation/review schedule chart, Appendix C of these rules). The portfolio shall be forwarded to the constituency dean(s) only after the department holds a requested reconsideration. When the department completes a reconsideration, its Reconsideration Report of Decision shall replace the original Report of Decision in the portfolio to be forwarded to the constituency dean(s) for review.
First Friday in February	The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall place a Report of Recommended Action in the portfolio of faculty members in their third or fifth year scheduled for a review and forward copies to the faculty members, department and constituency dean. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs forwards portfolios to the Chancellor.
Second Friday in February	The constituency dean(s) shall forward to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs all portfolios, reports of decision, reports of recommended action, and rebuttals affecting ABD faculty scheduled for first year reviews.
Third Friday in February	Consultations with first year faculty must be completed. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall review the portfolios for first year probationary faculty members hired as ABD. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall prepare a Report of Recommended Action, place a copy of the report in the portfolio, and send a copy of the report to the faculty member, the faculty member’s department, and constituency dean(s). The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs forwards portfolios including all reports of decisions, recommended actions, and rebuttals to the Chancellor for review and decision.
	The Chancellor shall prepare a Report of Decision for faculty members in their third or fifth year scheduled for a review. The Chancellor shall forward a copy of the Report of Decision to the faculty member, the department, Constituency Dean and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
	The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall review the portfolios for the reviewed faculty members a) who are in their fourth year, b) who applied for tenure or promotion with tenure, or c) who applied for promotion to professor. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall prepare a Report of Recommended Action, place a copy of the report in the portfolio, and send a copy of the report to the faculty member and the faculty member’s department, CSC, and dean(s). The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs forwards portfolios including all reports of decisions, recommended actions, and rebuttals to the Chancellor for review and decision. In accordance with UWS 3.09, (1), (a), the Chancellor shall notify first year probationary faculty hired as ABD of reappointment decisions. The Chancellor shall prepare a written, standards-based Report of Decision for ABD faculty members in their first year review. The Chancellor also shall inform the probationary faculty of the date of their next reappointment review and decision. This date will be determined by the department decision to offer a one year contract. The Chancellor shall forward a copy of the Report of Decision to the faculty member, the department, Constituency Dean and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
	The Chancellor shall prepare a written, standards-based summary of the portfolio review and decision. The Chancellor shall forward a copy of this summary to the faculty member, the department, the CSC, and the dean(s).
Timeline Summary (UWS 3.09 (1) (a-c))	Persons hired as ABD in their first year of initial contract are reviewed in year 1 by the specific timeline for year 1 probationary faculty (department, dean, Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, Chancellor) Persons in their second year of initial contract with no years of credited service are reviewed by the specific timeline for second year persons (department, dean, Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, Chancellor) *Persons in their second year of initial contract with two or three years of credited service are reviewed by December 15thby the department, dean, CSC, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Chancellor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Approved by the Faculty Senate on 2021-05-04

Approved by the Chancellor on 2021-06-07

Chapter 4: Procedures for Faculty Dismissal & For Dismissal & Discipline in Title IX Cases

Hearing Examiner & Hearing Committee Policy For Title IX Faculty Dismissal And Discipline Cases

Should the need for a Title IX hearing involving any faculty members arise, the Chancellor should procure a hearing examiner from the UW System pool of Title IX trained Administrative Law Judges. The hearing examiner will manage the case and the hearing, including oversight of logistics, provision of legal support, and identification of possible consequences when appropriate.

After the hearing examiner is named (and no objections to this person are submitted see below), the Chancellor, Provost, Faculty Senate Chair, Faculty Senate Secretary, and hearing examiner shall convene a meeting. These individuals will review the scope of the case. This conversation should include anticipated duration, financial cost, potential legal issues, severity of possible outcomes, whether the hearing will be open or closed, and other relevant logistics, but it should not include the details of the case itself. This shall be a closed meeting. The meeting shall conclude when the group of individuals comes to a consensus about whether the case should be heard by the hearing examiner alone or a hearing committee.

If it is determined that the case should be heard by the hearing examiner alone, the hearing examiner would review the case and transmit their final finding/recommendation to the Chancellor according to the rules outlined in Chapter 4, Subchapter 3 (linked above). If the complainant(s) or respondent(s) object to the hearing examiner, they may appeal to the Chancellor for a final decision. A hearing examiner vacancy will be filled by the Chancellor choosing from the pool of UW System Administrative Law Judges (as described above).

If it is determined that the case should be heard by a hearing committee, members for that committee should be selected from the faculty currently elected to the standing Faculty Appeals, Grievances, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee according to the normal practices of that committee. Members selected for this committee should receive training on Title IX and victim support services. Members of this committee, excluding the hearing examiner, would participate in making a final finding/recommendation about the case. The hearing examiner would then transmit the committee’s final ruling/recommendation to the Chancellor according to the rules outlined in Chapter 4, Subchapter 3 (linked above).

During the formation of the committee, if any members selected for a Title IX hearing committee find themselves with a conflict of interest or unable to serve for other reasons, they should recuse themselves as soon as possible. If the complainant(s) or respondent(s) object to any members of the committee, they should follow the rules of the standing Faculty Appeals, Grievances, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee. Any committee vacancies will be filled according to the rules of the standing Faculty Appeals, Grievances, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee.

If the labor required for hearing this case becomes substantial (as defined by a vote of the Faculty Senate) or occurs during any off contract period, members of the committee should be compensated for their work.

~~~~~~~~~~

Approved by the Faculty Senate on 2022-03-08

Approved by the Chancellor on 2022-03-31

Chapter 5: Layoff & Termination for Reasons of Financial Emergency

Once approved by the Faculty Senate and Chancellor, the Faculty Layoff Policy will go here.

Chapter 6: Complaints & Grievances

Chapter 6 Sections (click on section heading to jump to that section):

Section A. General Principles and Definitions
Section B. Complaints Against Faculty
Section C. Complaints of Misconduct in Science
Section D. Grievances of Faculty Members

SECTION A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND DEFINITIONS

1. Definitions:

2. General Principles:

3. Class Reassignment of Student:

During the proceedings herein, if an administrator seeks to reassign a student from a faculty member’s class to a comparable class taught by another faculty member, the administrator will make every reasonable effort to obtain the verbal consent of the student and receiving faculty member unless reassignment is necessary to address a health or safety concern of the student or faculty member. The administrator, or his or her designee, shall inform the faculty member under investigation, his or her department chair and dean of the college of the basis for the reassignment. All reasonable efforts shall be taken to ensure that the reassignment does not disadvantage the student or the receiving faculty member.

4. Voluntary Resolution:

At any point during the process, the Chancellor, complainant or faculty member may initiate a mutually acceptable resolution of the complaint. If a resolution is considered, the Chancellor and faculty member shall agree to such resolution in writing and stipulate to a mutually agreeable extension of any deadlines herein. Any agreement to seek conflict resolution shall be voluntary in nature, uncoerced and without precondition as to outcome. If necessary, a facilitator may be assigned by the Chancellor to assist the parties in seeking a mutual resolution.

SECTION B. COMPLAINTS AGAINST FACULTY

1. Receipt of a Complaint:

2. Investigation:

a. The Chancellor will assign an individual to conduct an investigation into the allegations contained in the complaint. The investigation shall be completed within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days from the date it is assigned to the investigator, unless additional time is required to conduct a thorough and complete investigation. During the investigation, the investigator will provide the complainant, pertinent witnesses and the faculty member with an opportunity to provide verbal or written information related to the allegations within a twenty-one (21) calendar day period. At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator will submit his or her findings in writing to the Chancellor with the following: i) a summary of the allegations; ii) the names of all individuals interviewed; iii) findings of fact based on the evidence considered; and iv) copies of all documents that were relied upon for the findings of facts.
b. Within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of the investigative report, the Chancellor shall either dismiss the complaint or issue a Statement of Charge(s) against the faculty member. If the Chancellor dismisses the complaint in light of the investigative findings, the Chancellor will notify the complainant and faculty member by email and first class mail to last known residence of the decision with the stated reasons for dismissal. The complainant shall be notified of any rights to appeal the decision under any applicable university or system policy or procedure. If the Chancellor determines that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the faculty member’s conduct violates university rules or policies or adversely affects the faculty member’s performance of his or her obligation to the university, a Statement of Charge(s) shall be issued in accordance with subsection 3 below.

3. Statement of Charge(s):

If the Chancellor determines that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the faculty member’s conduct violates university rules or policies or adversely affects the faculty member’s
performance of his or her obligation to the university, the Chancellor shall prepare a written Statement of Charge(s) to be delivered to the faculty member’s official university email account and by U.S. First Class mail to the faculty member’s last known home address. The Statement of Charge(s) shall include
the following:

a. A description of the conduct alleged in the complaint;
b. The university rule or policy that the faculty member’s alleged conduct or pattern of conduct violated;
c. A description of how the faculty member’s alleged conduct or pattern of conduct adversely affected the faculty member’s performance of his or her obligation to the university;
d. The name of the complainant(s)(unless there is a privacy or safety concern that would prevent the disclosure of personal information of the complainant or other individuals);
e. The name of the individual who investigated the allegation(s), if applicable;
f. The names of any individuals who may have pertinent information in relation to the charge;
g. A copy of non-redacted documents or materials that were relied upon by the Chancellor to issue or support the charge, unless privacy laws require redaction;
h. The Chancellor’s initial determination as to whether the charge seeks disciplinary action pursuant to UWS 6 and UW-Whitewater Ch. VI, Section B rather than UWS 4;
i. A description of any penalty and/or remedy;
j. The faculty member’s right to an advocate or legal representation at his or her own expense at any point in the process; and
k. The faculty member’s right to request a hearing before the Faculty Appeals, Grievance and Disciplinary Hearing Committee in regard to either the findings and/or the penalties or remedies no later than twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date of the Statement of Charge(s).

4. Response by Faculty Member:

Within twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date of the Statement of Charge(s), the faculty member may submit a written request for a hearing to the Chancellor. Failure to file a written request for a hearing within the timeframe herein shall result in the charge(s) being final and any penalties and/or remedies may be immediately imposed against the faculty member.

5. Request for Hearing:

If a faculty member submits a written request to the Chancellor for a hearing within the timeframe herein, then the Chancellor shall stay any penalty or remedy until the hearing process is concluded. The Chancellor shall contact the Faculty Senate Chair and request that a five (5) member hearing panel be formed (plus 2 alternative members) from the membership of the Faculty Appeals, Grievance and Disciplinary Hearing Committee. The Chancellor shall provide the Faculty Senate Chair with a copy of the Statement of Charge(s) (with attachments).

6. Composition of Hearing Panel:

a. Within twenty-one (21) calendar days from receipt of the Chancellor’s request for a hearing panel, the Faculty Senate Chair shall select five (5) eligible Faculty Appeals, Grievance and Disciplinary Hearing Committee members and two (2) alternatives to serve as the Hearing Panel. Upon the Faculty Senate Chair’s receipt of each selected member’s confirmation of their availability to serve as a Hearing Panel member, the Faculty Senate Chair will submit the member’s and alternate’s names and titles in writing to the Chancellor and faculty member.
b. The Chancellor or the faculty member may each object to one Hearing Panel member or alternate, in which case a new panel member may be chosen.
c. No Hearing Panel member or alternate shall be a member of the faculty member’s department, nor shall a member or alternate have a conflict of interest or personal relationship which would impact the member’s or alternate’s ability to be an impartial and unbiased Hearing Panel member.

7. Initial Meeting of Hearing Panel:

Within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the official composition of the Hearing Panel, the Faculty Senate Chair shall meet with the Hearing Panel in person or by teleconference and provide the Hearing Panel with a copy of the Statement of Charge(s) and attachments. During this meeting, the Hearing Panel shall appoint a Chairperson to officiate the hearing proceedings, conduct all necessary communication with the parties during the process and respond to any procedural matters on behalf of the Hearing Panel.

8. Legal Advisor to Hearing Panel:

Upon the Hearing Panel’s request to the Chancellor, an attorney from the UW System Office of General Counsel may be assigned to work with the Hearing Panel in regard to procedural matters and/or drafting of written communications during the hearing process. The function of legal counsel shall be to advise the Hearing Panel, consult with Hearing Panel members on legal matters, and such other responsibilities as shall be determined by the Hearing Panel within the provisions of these rules and procedures.

9. Confidential Materials:

During this hearing process, all documents received by the Faculty Senate Chair and Hearing Panel shall be considered confidential in nature. Only individuals who are involved in the hearing proceedings shall have access to the information contained therein as necessary to participate in the hearing, unless otherwise subject to disclosure by law.

10. Preliminary Meeting:

a. Procedural Issues: Within thirty (30) calendar days from the initial meeting between the Faculty Senate Chair and the Hearing Panel, the Chair of Hearing Panel shall meet with the parties for a preliminary meeting (in person or by teleconference) in order to determine the following:
- i. The date, time and location of the hearing;
- ii. The order in which the parties will present their cases and the time allotted for such presentations;
- iii. Submission and exchange of any documents that the parties would like the Hearing Panel to consider;
- iv. A date in which the disclosure and exchange of the names and contact information of any witnesses will be provided to the Chair of the Hearing Panel and parties;
- v. The names and contact information of any advocate or legal representative, if any, that will be assisting either party during the hearing proceedings;
- vi. The method of recording the hearing;
- vii. Whether the hearing shall be conducted in open or closed session; and
- viii. Any objections or concerns from either party related to the hearing process.
b. Substantive Procedural Errors: If the faculty member alleges, through credible information, that there has been one or more significant procedural errors in the process, the Chair of the Hearing Panel, in consultation with UW System Office of General Counsel, shall review the alleged error and determine whether such error is substantial enough to prevent a fair, prompt and impartial proceeding. If so, the Chair of the Hearing Panel shall suspend further proceedings and issue a written statement to the Chancellor for consideration within seven (7) calendar days of the date of the allegations. Upon receipt of said statement, and within ten (10) calendar days, the Chancellor shall review said information and issue a determination as to whether, in light of such information, the charge(s) should be dismissed, modified or remain as written. The Chancellor’s determination shall be issued in writing to the faculty member and Chair of the Hearing Panel. If the charge(s) are not dismissed, the Chair of the Hearing Panel shall proceed to the hearing stage of this process.

11. Hearing Proceedings:

12. Hearing Panel’s Report:

Within twenty-one (21) calendar days from the conclusion of the Hearing Panel’s deliberations, the Chair of the Hearing Panel shall prepare a written report to the Chancellor, with a copy to the faculty member by email and First Class mail to last known residence, which includes the Hearing Panel’s findings of facts, conclusions and recommendations in regard to each of the Chancellor’s charge(s), penalties and/or remedies contained in the Statement of Charge(s).

13. Chancellor’s Decision:

Within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of the Hearing Panel’s report, the Chancellor shall issue a final decision. The Chancellor may impose a lessor or different penalty and/or different remedy than originally proposed. The Chancellor’s decision shall be final except that the Board of Regents may, at its discretion, grant a review on the record in accordance with UWS 6.01(5).

14. Retention of Records:

All documentation (including hard copies, email communications, photos, videos, cell phone messages, etc…) that was a part of the evidentiary record considered by the Hearing Panel, including the recording of the hearing, shall be submitted to the Faculty Senate Chair for collection and secure forwarding to the Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs to be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file and in the University Archives.

SECTION C. COMPLAINTS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE

1. Definitions and Policy:

Recognizing that honesty in the conduct of academic research is fundamental to its integrity and credibility, and to the maintenance of public trust in the university, the UW-Whitewater adopts these policies and procedures for reviewing and investigating allegations of scientific misconduct. For purposes of these policies and procedures, "misconduct in science" or "misconduct" means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. Misconduct in science is prohibited at the UW-Whitewater, and may be cause for discipline or dismissal.

2. Initial Inquiry and Evaluation or Other Evidence of Possible Misconduct:

3. Investigation of Reported Misconduct in Science:

4. Reporting to the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) Where research is Funded by PHS Grants, or Where Research is Funded by an Agency within PHS:

5. Other Action Following Completion of Investigation:

a. If the allegation of scientific misconduct is substantiated by the investigation, the Vice Chancellor shall notify the agency, if any, sponsoring the research project of the result of the investigation. In such a case, the individual involved will be asked to withdraw all pending abstracts and papers emanating from the scientific misconduct, and the Vice Chancellor will notify editors of journals in which relevant papers appeared. In addition, other institutions and sponsoring agencies with which the individual has been affiliated shall be notified if, based on the results of the investigation, it is believed that the validity of previous research by the individual under investigation is questionable.
b. Where scientific misconduct is substantiated, the UW-Whitewater will take appropriate action, which may include discipline or dismissal, with regard to the employment status of the individual or individuals involved. Applicable personnel rules, policies and procedures set forth in Chapters UWS 4, 6, 11 and 13, Wisconsin Administration Code and related university policies shall govern discipline or dismissal actions resulting from an investigation of scientific misconduct.
c. Where allegations of scientific misconduct are not substantiated by the investigation, the UW-Whitewater shall make diligent efforts, as appropriate, to restore the reputations of persons alleged to have engaged in misconduct, and to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, made the allegations.

SECTION D. GRIEVANCES OF FACULTY MEMBERS

1. Definition:

For purposes of these rules, a grievance of a faculty member is a claim that an act of an employee of the university in his or her capacity as an employee, which affected the faculty member in his or her capacity as a faculty member, was unfair, improper, or contrary to law or the university rules or policies, or interfered with the faculty member's performance of university responsibilities, provided that if formal appeal procedures have been established by the faculty and the chancellor for acts of the type complained of, the act shall not be subject to these grievance procedures unless the rules establishing the formal appeal procedures specifically allow resort both to the formal appeal procedures and to these grievance procedures in the same matter.

2. Responsibility for Initial Investigation and Effort to Remedy a Grievance of a Faculty Member:

a. The dean of a college is responsible for dealing with grievances against the acts of employees and committees of the college, except the dean.
b. The vice chancellor is responsible for dealing with grievances against the acts of deans of colleges, employees in the division of academic affairs not in any college, except the vice chancellor, and university faculty committees.
c. An assistant chancellor is responsible for dealing with grievances against the acts of employees under the supervision of the assistant chancellor.
d. The chancellor is responsible for dealing with grievances against the vice chancellor or an assistant chancellor and against any employee or agency of the university not otherwise provided for; if any doubt or dispute exists as to the responsibility for dealing with any grievance, it shall be decided by the chancellor.

3. Presentation, investigation, and resolution of a grievance of a faculty member:

a. A faculty member with a grievance shall present it to the responsible officer, or to the chancellor for referral to the appropriate responsible officer, in a written statement which tells what act is complained of and why and what the faculty member has done to resolve the problem.
b. If the responsible officer believes that he or she can promptly remedy a grievance or satisfy a faculty member that a grievance is not well founded, without resort to the formal procedures here provided, the responsible officer may attempt to do so, but shall not delay the initiation of formal grievance procedures more than 7 days without the consent of the aggrieved faculty member.
c. If informal resolution is not achieved in this manner, a grievance officer shall be appointed by agreement between the faculty member and the responsible officer. If they cannot agree, the faculty member shall select one of three or more persons proposed by the responsible officer from a list of persons established by the Faculty Senate.

4. Investigation and Effort at Resolution by the Grievance Officer:

5. Duties and Authority of the Responsible Officer When Not Personally Acting as Grievance Officer:

a. The responsible officer shall give the grievance officer such advice as the responsible officer deems appropriate.
b. The responsible officer shall give the grievance officer clerical assistance.

6. Referral of a Grievance to the University Grievance Committee:

a. When a grievance officer is discharged in accordance with VI, C, (4), (i) of these rules, the grievance shall be referred to the University Grievance Committee unless the aggrieved faculty member and the responsible officer agree either;
- i. that the grievance has been remedied, or
- ii. that another grievance officer shall be appointed.
b. The responsible officer shall refer a grievance to the University Grievance Committee by delivering the statement of the grievance, and the final report of the grievance officer with all accompanying papers to the chairperson of the University Grievance Committee, but if the grievance officer fails to present a final report promptly, the responsible officer shall refer the grievance by delivering the statement of grievance along with copies of any papers in the responsible officer's possession which relate to the matter.

7. University Grievance Committee: Formation and Functions:

A University Grievance Committee shall be established or designated in accordance with the rules of the faculty governing the establishment of and assignment of duties to standing committees, but pending or in the absence of such action to establish or designate a University Grievance Committee the Faculty Senate shall establish a University Grievance Committee.

8. Investigation and Effort at Resolution of a Grievance by the University Grievance Committee:

When a grievance is referred to the University Grievance Committee under these rules, the committee shall investigate it and attempt to remedy it if it is well founded, and shall have all powers and responsibilities of a grievance officer under these rules, but shall report to the chancellor rather than to the responsible officer and shall retain jurisdiction over any grievance referred to it until it presents its final report to the aggrieved faculty member.

9. Recommendation by University Grievance Committee:

The University Grievance Committee may recommend a remedy for a grievance to the board of regents if the grievance is not resolved or cannot be resolved at the university.

10. Final Report:

Upon completion of its investigation of and attempt to resolve a grievance, the University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Approved by the Faculty Senate on 2016-8-8

Approved by the Chancellor on 2016-8-19

Approved by the Board of Regents on 2016-10-07

Previous versions: Approved by Board of Regents on 1982-2-5 and 2006-8-18

Chapter 7: Procedures for Faculty Dismissal in Special Cases

UW-Whitewater does not have an institution-specific policy for this chapter.

Chapter 8: Unclassified Staff Code of Ethics

UW-Whitewater does not have an institution-specific policy for this chapter.

Appendix A: Definitions

Appendix B: Rules and Procedures for Gathering Information for Use in the Evaluation of Teaching

Evaluation of Teaching

Pursuant to Chapter III, C, and Chapter III, G, 2 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 Chapter III, C of the University Faculty Personnel Rules which has not been gathered in accordance with the following rules:

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.
The means employed shall protect the anonymity of individual student respondents.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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 Chapter III, C 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 or the Wisconsin Administrative Code.

Other information about teaching

Pursuant to Chapter III, C 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.

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.

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:

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.
Comparing the performance on a common test of students taught by the faculty member and students taught by others.

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 or examination, or the like.

Appendix C: Review, Reappointment and Tenure Decision Schedules

1. This table displays the impact of years of credited experience on the review and reappointment schedule, it lists only the department actions in each year. The remainder of the reappointment review structure during the decision years includes reviews and written, standards-based recommendations by the constituency dean, the constituency standards committee, and the vice chancellor for academic affairs. Each of these recommendations, any rebuttals, the department decision(s), and appeal panel record (if appeal filed) become a part of the portfolio for the year in question. Similarly, the record of consultation without decision and relevant materials for the years in which consultation is held within the department become a part of the portfolio for the year in which the consultation occurs.

1. Review, Reappointment, and Tenure Schedule Including a Maximum of Three Years of Experience Credited

Years in Probationary Cycle	1st year	2nd year	3rd year	4th year	5th year	6th year
0 years credited experience	Department consultation following first semester on campus Department decision for ABD	*Department decision; fall of second year on campus	Department consultation or decision; fall of third year on campus	Department decision; fall of fourth year on campus	Department consultation or decision; fall of fifth year on campus	Mandatory tenure decision; fall of sixth year on campus
1 year credited experience	Department consultation; following first semester on campus	*Department decision; fall of second year on campus- one year contract to align with tenure review in 4th year	Credited year of experience applied	Department decision; fall of third year on campus	Department consultation or decision; fall of fourth year on campus	Mandatory tenure decision; fall of fifth year on campus
2 years credited experience	Department consultation; following first semester on campus	*Department decision; fall of second year on campus- one or two year contract could be given	Credited year of experience applied	Credited year of experience applied	Department consultation or decision; fall of third year on campus	Mandatory tenure decision; fall of fourth year on campus
3 years credited experience	Department consultation; following first semester on campus	*Department decision; fall of second year on campus- one year contract only as next year is the mandatory tenure decision	Credited year of experience applied	Credited year of experience applied	Credited year of experience applied	Mandatory tenure decision; fall of third year on campus

*review is to be completed by December 15

2. Mandatory Six-Year Tenure/Promotion Decision and Recommendation Schedule, All Decisions and Recommendations Positive (assuming no credited prior years of service)

	1st year	2nd year	3rd year	4th year	5th year	6th year	7th year
Department	Consultation, two year contract	Decision2	Consultation or decision1	Decision	Consultation3 or decision1	Decision, positive	No action
Dean	No action, two year contract	Recommendation2	No action2, or recommenda tion	Recommendation	No action, or recommendation	Recommendation	No action
Constituency Standards Committee	No action, two year contract	No action	No action	Recommendation	No action, or recommendation	Recommendation	No action
Provost	No action, two year contract	Recommendation2	No action 2, or recommenda tion	Recommendation	No action, or recommendation	Recommendation	No action
Appeal Panel from Faculty Appeals, Grievances and Disciplinary Hearing Committee	No action, two year contract	No action	No action	No action	No action	No action	No action
Chancellor	No action, two year contract	Decision²	No action¹, or decision²	Decision	No action, or decision	Decision, positive	No action
Board of Regents	No action	No action	No action	No action	No action	Decision, positive	No action

1If a two-year contract, no decision, but consultation within department. If a one-year contract, decision.

2If a two-year contract, no action. If a one-year contract, a recommendation.

3. This table indicates the actions taken by the different agents in the review process for cases in which a mandatory tenure review results in a negative decision. When faculty members have two or three years of credited experience, the mandatory tenure decision would occur in the third, fourth, or fifth year on campus, thus the process in the third, fourth, and fifth years would follow the sixth year structure shown in this table. Negative mandatory tenure decisions would follow the seventh year structure shown in this table which would occur in the fourth, fifth, and sixth year which corresponds to the respective mandatory tenure decision year.

3 Mandatory Tenure or Tenure/Promotion Decision and Recommendation Schedule, Negative Decision in Mandatory Tenure Decision

	1st year	2nd year	3rd year	4th year	5th year	6th year	7th year
Department						Decision, negative following reconsideration (UWS 3.07, (1), (b))	If appeal panel returns materials with instruction, review and make decision
Dean						Recommendation¹	No actoin
Constituency Standards Committee						Recommendation1	No action
Provost						Recommendation¹	No action
Appeal Panel from Faculty Appeals, Grievances, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee						If an appeal is filed, Chair of Faculty Senate receives valid appeal and Faculty Senate Executive Board empanels five member appeal panel from the Faculty Appeals, Grievances and Disciplinary Hearing Committee. Panel begins hearing appeal in Spring term.	Complete hearing appeal; may return materials to department with instructions or may request that a Notestein committee be empaneled.
Chancellor						Decision²	Decision²
Board of Regents						No action	Decision/No action pending Chancellor’s decision2

1 Rebuttals may be filed by the faculty member being reviewed following recommendations. Such rebuttals shall become a part of the portfolio.

2 Since both the department and chancellor’s decisions must be positive to award tenure (UWS 3.06, 1, (a)), the negative decision from the department in the sixth year automatically leads to non-renewal, thus terminates employment. Because this non-renewal decision occurs after the second year, the faculty member shall be offered a one year contract for the seventh year (UWS 3.06, 1, (a) and UWS 3.09, 1, (c)). Appeals may be processed during the seventh year. Without a positive recommendation from the university appeal panel with instruction to the department to review the sixth year materials again or to submit the sixth year materials to a Notestein committee, the sixth year negative department decision would be sustained. “The decision of the Chancellor will be final on such matters (UWS 3.08 (3)).