Notes:
Rules governing Academic Staff are found in the Academic Staff Personnel Rules.
This chapter is intentionally left blank.
Please see UWS Chapter 1 for definitions of terms used in Chapters 1-6.
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 Sections (click on section heading to jump to that section):
1. General policies
2. Department standards committee
3. Constituency standards committee
4. University Standards Committee
5. Faculty Senate
6. Implementation of Standards
1. Authorization: A department seeking authorization to recruit a faculty member shall, in consultation with the dean
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
4. When the Assistant to the Chancellor for Affirmative Action approvesthe recruitment procedures, the department or its search committee shall
5. Selection of candidates
6. Interview
7. Recommendation of candidate
8. Initial appointments
9. Offer of employment
10. Appointment letter:The Chancellor’s appointment letter shall include
1. General policies
2. Types of decisions
3. Faculty member’s responsibilities
4. Department’s responsibilities
5. Dean’s responsibilities
6. Constituency standards committee’s responsibilities:
7. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs’ responsibilities
8. Chancellor’s responsibilities
1. Appellant’s responsibilities:
2. Faculty Senate chair’s and/or the Faculty Senate chair’s designee’s responsibilities:
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
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
3. For each year period presented in the portfolio, the following basic documentation should be included:
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
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.
Any instructor hired or assigned to teach a college-credit course must meet the following qualifications:
2. Assistant Professor:
3. Associate Professor:To be eligible for promotion to the rank of associate professor, the faculty member must:
4. Professor:To be eligible for promotion to the rank of professor, the faculty member must:
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.
1. Educational preparation codes and requirements
Educational Education Preparation Code Requirement Code
*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
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
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
Once approved by the Faculty Senate and Chancellor, the Faculty Layoff Policy will go here.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
4. Investigation and Effort at Resolution by the Grievance Officer:
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.
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.
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.
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
UW-Whitewater does not have an institution-specific policy for this chapter.
UW-Whitewater does not have an institution-specific policy for this chapter.
Constituency: Any of the five faculty constituencies: The colleges of Arts and Communication, Business and Economics, Education and Professional Studies, and Letters and Sciences and a fifth constituency made up of all faculty members whose appointment lies outside an academic department.
Dean: The administrative head of a constituency. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs performs the function of a dean for the faculty in the University Library and any other faculty whose tenure appointment does not reside in any other unit.
Department: The organizational unit within the constituency that has the responsibility for making recommendations and decisions related to recruitment, reappointment, tenure, promotion, post-tenure review, and merit.
Document of Intent: The faculty member writes a Document of Intent for each review period of appointment. A Document of Intent indicates the proportion of effort that the faculty member intends to invest in the areas of teaching, administration, service, and research and creative activity during the next review period. These documents describe those tasks, projects, or other performance indicators encompassed by this investment (III, G of these rules). The term intent is used in these rules to indicate that in some instances faculty will meet unexpected circumstances requiring modification of the initial intentions.
Home Department: Houses the faculty member’s departmental records and initiates and oversees the reappointment, tenure and/or promotion process as written in III. B. 8 . c. (1).
Portfolio: The common university format as defined by the University Standards Committee and approved by Faculty Senate for submission of performance evaluation materials (III, F of these rules).The portfolio contains a copy of the department, constituency, and university standards.
Procedure: A rule that governs how standards shall be applied in making recruitment, initial appointment, reappointment, tenure, promotion, merit, and post-tenure review decisions. For actions taken under UWS 3.08, procedure shall be deemed equivalent to “procedures required by rules of the faculty or board” as defined in UWS 3.08 (1), (c) 1.
Rebuttal: A statement to address any part of the department Report of Decision or any Report of Recommended Action. This statement may only reference materials already included in and may not introduce any new materials without the explicit written consent of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Standard: The level of performance to be met (See UWS 3.06 (1), (b)). For actions taken under UWS 3.08, standards shall be deemed equivalent to “qualifications” as used in UWS 3.08 (1), (c). Individual reviewers shall use department, constituency, and university standards to make decisions or recommendations for reappointment, tenure and/or promotion regardless of comparisons among candidates or individual preferences.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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
|
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.
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)).