UW-Whitewater Faculty 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):

• 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

• a. At the close of the interview process, the department or its search committee, the department chair, and the dean shall meet to consider the respective views of the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses, the department’s needs, and proposed terms of employment. At the close of this consideration, the department or its search committee and the dean shall
  • (1) prepare a written document including:
    • (a) statement of their recommendation of the candidate to be offered the position,
    • (b) list of the terms of employment including terms of initial appointment (III, B, 8 of these rules) including
      • i) rank
      • ii) credited prior service used to set the mandatory tenure decision, if any
      • iii) years of teaching experience that may be used for promotion eligibility (III, B, 8, d, (3) & (4) of these rules), and
      • iv) conditions for conversion to faculty status, if necessary (III, B, 8, a, (3) of these rules).
    • (c) signatures of all members of the department or its search committee and the dean participating in this consideration process.
  • (2) If the department or its search committee and dean do not reach consensus to recommend any of the candidates, then the department or its search committee shall file a written
    • (a) request with the Assistant to the Chancellor for Affirmative Action and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs asking that they meet with the department or its search committee, department chair, and the dean to again work toward consensus to recommend a finalist, or
    • (b) request with the Assistant to the Chancellor for Affirmative Action that the search be continued, or
    • (c) recommendation with the Assistant to the Chancellor for Affirmative Action that the search be terminated.
• b. When the actions specified in III, B, 7, a of these rules have been concluded, the dean submits the document prepared in III, B, 7, a, (1) of these rules to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs who shall forward the document and name of the finalist to the Chancellor for his recommendation.
• c. If the Chancellor agrees with the recommendation prepared in III, B, 7, a, (1) of these rules, then the Chancellor shall request that the dean
  • (1) contact the finalist and
  • (2) negotiate what would be an acceptable offer of employment following the terms described in III, B, 7, a, (1), (b) of these rules.
• d. If the Chancellor agrees with the recommendation prepared in III, B, 7, a, (1) of these rules, but the dean was unable to negotiate with the candidate an acceptable offer of employment following the terms described in III, B, 7, a, (1), (b) of these rules, then the dean shall meet with the department or its search committee and the department chair to either
  • (1) recommend one of the other candidates as determined in III, B, 7, a, of these rules, and prepare a written recommendation of the candidate as in III, B, 7, a, (1) of these rules, or
  • (2) request continuation or termination of the search (III, B, 7, a, (2) of these rules).
• e. If the Chancellor disagrees with the recommendation prepared in III, B, 7, a, (1) of these rules, the Chancellor shall request that the dean meet with the department or its search committee and the department chair to
  • (1) recommend one of the other candidates as determined in III, B, 7, a, of these rules, and prepare a written recommendation of the candidate as in III, B, 7, a, (1) of these rules, or
  • (2) request continuation or termination of the search (III, B, 7, a, (2) of these rules).

8. Initial appointments

• a. Type of appointment
  • (1) Probationary faculty appointment: The initial faculty appointment shall be for two years and the candidate must meet the minimum requirements for appointment specified in these Rules (III.H.1-2).
  • (2) ABD probationary faculty appointment: The initial appointment shall be for one year and the candidate must meet the minimum requirements for appointment specified in these Rules (III.H. 1-2).
  • (3) Tenured faculty appointment: The initial appointment may be with tenure if the department finds that the candidate has met the department standards for tenure and both the department and Chancellor recommend granting tenure. The candidate must meet the minimum requirements for appointment at the appropriate rank as specified in these Rules (III.H).
• b. Rank at the time of initial faculty appointment shall be as determined in III, B, 1 of these rules and advertised (III, B, 4, a of these rules).
  • (1) Assistant professor only on the affirmative recommendation of the department (III, B, 7, a of these rules).
  • (2) Associate professor only on the affirmative recommendations of the department and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (III, B, 7, a, (1) of these rules).
  • (3) Professor only on the affirmative recommendations of the department, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the Chancellor (III, B, 7, a, (2) of these rules).
• c. Appointment in more than one academic department
  • ( 1 ) At the time of the initial appointment or reassignment to faculty status in more than one department, the departments, in consultation with dean(s), and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, shall negotiate the terms of the joint appointment including
    • (a) assignment of a home department, and
    • (b) standards to be used in evaluations for reappointment, tenure and/or promotion, and department responsibilities.
    • (c) procedure that shall be used to resolve disagreements regarding reappointment, tenure and/or promotion decisions,
  • (2) The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall report the negotiated terms of joint appointment to the Chancellor.
    • (a) If the Chancellor does not approve the terms of appointment, then the Chancellor shall request that the faculty member, departments, dean(s) and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs renegotiate the terms of appointment.
    • (b) If the Chancellor approves all aspects of the terms of joint appointment, including the method for resolving disagreements regarding reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion decisions, then the Chancellor shall record the terms of the joint appointment in the faculty member’s appointment or reassignment letter (III, B, 10 of these rules)
  • (3) The academic departments, respective college dean(s) and the constituency standards committees, when applicable, in which a probationary or a tenured faculty member holds an appointment shall review the faculty member’s performance for reappointment, tenure and/or promotion
• d. Probationary periods: In accordance with both state law and the accepted standards of academic practice defined by the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors, the length of the probationary period of a faculty member shall be determined using the following principles:
  • (1) The maximum probationary period of a faculty member without prior service credit shall be 7 years in a full-time appointment and 10 years in an appointment which is at least half-time, but less than full-time (UWS 3.04, (1)).
  • (2) A candidate may request credit for up to three years of prior service at the rate of one year for each year of full-time faculty or equivalent service at UW-Whitewater and/or at other colleges or universities. Acting upon the department’s recommendation, the Chancellor may grant prior service credit to the candidate (III, B, 10, f of these rules). Such creditable service shall be
    • (a) subsequent to completion of the terminal degree and
    • (b) in positions that have expectations for productivity in the areas of research and creative activity and public and professional service as well as teaching.
  • (3) For a candidate who receives credit for prior service, at the discretion of the department and with the approval of the probationary faculty member, a full review may be held for two full years before the mandatory tenure and/or promotion decision. This review may take place even if no decision for reappointment is necessary. Probationary faculty in the first year of a two year contract who receive a strong appraisal in this review, the recommendation of the department, and agreement of the chancellor, may be offered a two year contract so that
    • (a) a consultation is done in the next year and
    • (b) the mandatory tenure and/or promotion review arrives in the year their contract is to be reviewed.
  • (4) A candidate whose term of employment begins at the associate professor rank may request credit for up to three years for the purpose of determining the time of the mandatory tenure decision. However, once the minimum number of years in rank has been achieved and tenure has been granted, the faculty member may request that up to seven of their years of full-time faculty service at other colleges or universities and/or at UW-Whitewater be used to determine eligibility for promotion to professor.
  • (5) A candidate whose term of employment begins at the assistant professor rank may request credit for up to three years for the purpose of determining the time of the mandatory tenure decision. However, once the minimum number of years in rank has been achieved and tenure has been granted, the faculty member may request that up to three of their years of full-time faculty service at other colleges or universities and/or at UW-Whitewater be used to determine eligibility for promotion to associate professor.
  • (6) A candidate whose term of employment begins at the rank of instructional academic staff in a faculty line (III, B, 8, a, (3) of these rules) and who completes all requirements of a terminal degree during an academic year shall complete that year as an instructional academic staff member. Their mandatory probationary period will begin in the fall of the subsequent academic year; however, such a candidate may wish to request an early tenure decision (III, C, 2, c of these rules).
• e. When a faculty member begins service in the spring semester, the faculty member shall select one of the following options:
  • (1) Accept an appointment as academic staff for the initial semester upon receipt of a letter from the Chancellor stipulating that
    • (a) the salary during the initial semester shall be that of a faculty member of the rank appropriate to the candidate’s qualifications in the salary line assigned to the position,
    • (b) appointment as faculty commences in the fall subsequent to the spring appointment,
    • (c) the date of the first reappointment decision and of the mandatory tenure decision shall be based on an appointment as faculty in the fall subsequent to the initial spring appointment, and
    • (d) the first reappointment decision shall include performance data from all semesters of full-time instructional service at UW-Whitewater beginning with the date of initial appointment as determined in III, B, 10 of these rules.
  • (2) Accept an appointment as faculty for the initial semester upon receipt of a letter from the Chancellor stipulating that
    • (a) appointment as faculty commences in the spring,
    • (b) the date of the first reappointment decision and of the mandatory tenure decision shall be based on an appointment as faculty in the fall prior to the initial spring appointment, and
    • (c) the first reappointment decision shall include performance data from all semesters under contract at UWW.

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

• a. Faculty appointments shall be renewed only on the affirmative decision of the department and Chancellor as required by UWS 3.06, (1), (a) except as provided in UWS 3.07, (1), (b); UWS 3.08, (1)-(3).
• b. Tenure is an appointment for an unlimited period, granted to a faculty member by the Board of Regents upon the affirmative decision of the appropriate academic department, or its functional equivalent, and the Chancellor of an institution via the president of the system. At UW-Whitewater, tenure may be granted either as a condition of initial appointment, or upon successful completion of the probationary period in accordance with UWS 3.04 and 3.06 and III, C, 2, b or c and III, C, 4, e, (2), (b) and III, C, 4, e, (4) of these rules.
• c. Performance reviews for teaching faculty are based upon the major evaluation categories of teaching, research and creative activity, and professional and public service as weighted by agreement between the probationary faculty member and the department as recorded in the Document of Intent (III, C,3, b and Appendix A, paragraph D of these rules). Performance reviews for faculty with non-teaching assignments are based upon the major evaluation categories of job performance, research and creative activity, and professional and public service as weighted by agreement between the probationary faculty member and the department as recorded in the Document of Intent.
• d. Reappointment, tenure and/or promotion is recommended for those who, in the judgment of their peers, satisfy the department’s discipline-related standards and the constituency and university standards. Such judgment shall take into account the weighting of performance in each category as agreed upon by the faculty member and the department as recorded in the Document of Intent.
• e. Since the portfolio (Appendix A, paragraph E and III, F of these rules) is a cumulative record of performance, deficiencies in performance identified in earlier reviews that have been designated by the department as corrected shall not be held against the candidate in subsequent reappointment and tenure and/or promotion decisions.
• f. The Standard Classification of Performance Data (III, G of these rules) provided in the portfolio shall be used for all reviews.
  • (1) Not all performance data need to be part of a performance review, but any performance datum listed is eligible for inclusion.
  • (2) Department standards committees may add performance data to an evaluation category, but may not remove an item from the standard classification or move it to a different category.
  • (3) The University Standards Committee recommends revisions of the Standard Classification of Performance Data to the Faculty Senat e for approval.

2. Types of decisions

• a. Decisions within the probationary appointment period
  • (1) Affirmative or reappointment for additional academic year(s) within the probationary term. This decision does not confer tenure. See consultation and review schedule chart in Appendix C.
  • (2) Negative or non-reappointment. When negative decisions are made during the probationary period, the conclusion of the contract period in which the negative decision was rendered represents the termination of the appointment, but the time requirements for written notification of non-reappointment given in UWS 3.09 apply.
• b. Decisions at the end of the maximum probationary appointment period: A decision to reappoint at the end of the maximum probationary period (III, B, 10, g & I of these rules) is a decision to recommend tenure. The decision must be made during the review which immediately precedes the deadline for notice of reappointment/non-reappointment for the period following the maximum probationary period. If the decision is negative, the faculty member will be offered a terminal contract for one additional academic or fiscal year, whichever is appropriate (UWS 3.09, (c)).
• c. Optional early tenure decisions: The length of the mandatory probationary period is established at the time of the initial appointment (III, B, 7, a, (1), (b), ii); III, B, 8, d; and III, B, 10, g & I of these rules), but may be changed as provided in UWS 3.04, (1). Faculty members who have had a total of four or more years of full-time instructional service or the equivalent at UW-Whitewater and/or at other colleges or universities may request consideration for an early tenure or early tenure and promotion decision (III, B, 8, e, (1), (e) of these rules).
  • (1) A faculty member who wishes to apply for an early tenure or early tenure and promotion decision must present a written request for the early decision to the department chair or equivalent by the end of the semester prior to the academic year during which the decision is to be made.
  • (2) When the department denies tenure and/or promotion in early decision cases, the department must cite the standards which have not been met (III, C, 4, f, (1), (g)of these rules).
  • (3) If a faculty member’s request for early tenure or early tenure and promotion is denied, then the faculty member may not request
    • (a) a reconsideration (III, C, 4, f, (3), (b)of these rules) or appeal (III, E of these rules). However, the faculty member may request that the dean review the department’s decision and procedures as specified in III, C, 4, f, (h) (iii)or these rules), or
    • (b) an additional early tenure and/or promotion consideration prior to the end of the mandatory probationary period established at the time of initial appointment.
  • (4) Denial of early tenure or early tenure and promotion shall not prejudice action on the tenure and/or promotion decision to be made at the completion of the mandatory probationary period established at the time of the initial appointment.
• d. Promotion
  • (1) Associate Professor: As of May, 1999, promotion to the rank of associate professor is concomitant with the tenure decision (FS989-48). Any probationary faculty member holding the rank of assistant professor who is granted tenure is also promoted to the rank of associate professor. Assistant professors tenured prior to May, 1999, may apply for promotion to associate professor when they have met the minimum university requirements for education and time in rank (III, H, 1 of these rules).
  • (2) Professor: Associate professors may apply for promotion to professor when they have met the minimum university requirement for education and time in rank (III, H, 1 of these rules).

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

• a. Document of Intent. Within 10 (ten) business days from the time the faculty member submits the Document of Intent to the department, the department standards committee shall review a probationary faculty member’s annual Document of Intent to insure that its fulfillment would represent significant, continuous progress toward a reasonable expectation, but not a guarantee, of an affirmative tenure and/or promotion decision. If needed, the department standards committee negotiates adjustments in the Document of Intent with the probationary faculty member. The department chair and a representative of the department standards committee shall sign the faculty member’s approved Document of Intent.
• b. Notice of performance consultation or performance review and decision. See consultation and review schedule chart in Appendix C of these rules.
  • (1) The faculty member being reviewed shall receive a written notice at least 15 (fifteen) business days prior to the department review. The department shall post a notice of the review at least 5 (five) business days in advance in a public place regularly used for posting of notices by the department.
  • (2) The notice shall include
    • (a) time and place of the review,
    • (b) decision to be made,
    • (c) period of performance to be evaluated,
    • (d) standards and procedures to be used,
    • (e) notice that the faculty member may present information orally or in writing,
    • (f) notice that other persons may present information in writing or, with the consent of the committee, orally,
    • (g) statement that the review will be conducted in accordance with UWS 3.06; and III, C, 4, b-f of these rules, and applicable state law governing meetings of public bodies,
    • (h) statement informing the faculty member that he or she has the right to submit a written rebuttal to the department’s reports of decision and/or subsequent reports of recommended action (III, D of these rules)
    • (i) statement informing the faculty member that he or she has the right to request a reconsideration (UWS 3.07, (1), (b) or UWS 3.08, (3) and III, C, 4, f, (3) (h) and (i), III, C, 4, f, (3), (b) of these rules) and the right to request an appeal (UWS 3.08; III, C, 4, f, (3), (a) and (c); and III, E of these rules) of any report of decision,
• c. Department performance consultation (See consultation and review schedule chart in Appendix C of these rules.)
  • (1) In consultation years (See consultation and review schedule chart in Appendix C of these rules), a consultation shall be conducted by a subset of the tenured faculty in the department. This subset shall consist of the department chair and at least one other member. At least one of these two shall have observed the probationary faculty member’s teaching (See Appendix B of these rules).
  • (2) This committee shall
    • (a) consult with the probationary faculty member on the progress made in fulfilling the indicators of quality identified in the Document of Intent, and
    • (b) write a summary of the consultation session.
  • (3) The probationary faculty member and the committee members shall sign the summary indicating that they have reviewed its contents.
  • (4) The probationary faculty member shall place the summary in the portfolio for that year.
  • (5) With the probationary faculty member, the committee shall consider the content of the Document of Intent for the subsequent year.
• d. Department performance review with decisions. Refer to the review schedule in Appendix C of these rules.
  • (1) A review shall be conducted by a department committee which shall have at least 3 members, one of whom is the department chair. The faculty of the department (III, C, 4, e, (3) of these rules) shall choose the composition of this committee within the following parameters:
    • (a) the entire tenured faculty of the department, or
    • (b) tenured faculty of the department selected by the tenured faculty of the department, or
    • (c) tenured faculty of the department selected by the faculty of the department.
  • (2) A quorum of this committee shall be 3, or more than one-half the regular membership, whichever is greater.
  • (3) If a department does not have sufficient tenured faculty available for a quorum, then the dean of the constituency shall appoint tenured faculty of related disciplines to the department committee so that there are sufficient tenured faculty to constitute a quorum. Such appointed members shall participate only in the review(s) which they are appointed to conduct and any reconsideration under UWS 3.07, (1), (b) or UWS 3.08, (3) and III, C, 4, d, (3) of these rules.
• e. Review procedures
  • (1) Periods of review
    • (a) Probationary reappointment: The initial review shall include the period since the initial appointment as a faculty member. For subsequent reviews, the period considered shall be the period since the previous review.
    • (b) Tenure: For granting tenure, the period to be considered shall be the probationary faculty member’s entire period of credited service except as provided in III, C, 2, c. and III, H,1, e of these rules.
    • (c) Promotion: For promotion the period of review shall be the faculty member’s time of service in the current rank up to the time the faculty member submits the portfolio to the department for review. Accomplishments after the faculty member submits the portfolio for review by the department shall count toward subsequent promotion applications.
  • (2) No faculty member shall review the portfolio of a faculty member in another department of the university, except as provided in III, C, 4, d, (3) and III, B, 8, c. of these rules and as provided for as a member of the constituency standards committee (III, C, 6 of these rules) or as a member of an appeal panel drawn from the Faculty Appeals, Grievances, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee (III, E, 2, b. and c. of these rules) or as a member of an ad hoc credential review committee (III, E, 3, c of these rules).
  • (3) A decision about reappointment, tenure and/or promotion shall be made only after the department has evaluated the faculty member’s performance in relation to established department, constituency, and university standards and procedures established according to: III, A of these rules; annual Document of Intent (Appendix A, paragraph D of these rules); Board of Regents Policy 74-13; Student Evaluation of Instruction (Appendix B, parts A & B of these rules); and Peer Evaluation (Appendix B, part C of these rules). Such judgments shall take into account the weighting of performance in each category as agreed upon by the faculty member and the department as recorded in the Document of Intent.
  • (4) The department may consider any information that is relevant, of reasonable probative value, and recorded as part of the Report of Decision (III, C, 4, f, (1) of these rules).
  • (5) The department may request further information, explanation or clarification from the faculty member.
  • (6) During the faculty member’s first review, i.e., fall of the second year on campus (See consultation/review schedule chart of these rules.), the department shall make two decisions, one for reappointment and a second to determine the length of contract to be offered, i.e., a contract for one year or a contract for two years. In the case of faculty members who were granted three years of credited experience at the time of the initial appointment, the department shall make only the reappointment decision in the second year on campus because the mandatory tenure decision would occur in the fall of the third year on campus.
  • (7) During all subsequent reviews, the department shall make two decisions, one for reappointment and a second to determine the length of contract to be offered, i.e., a contract for one year or a contract for two years.
  • (8) Procedures for the review of faculty holding positions in more than one department are described in III, B, 8, c. of these rules.
  • (9) An affirmative decision requires the affirmative votes of a majority of the members participating in the review.
    • (a) A participant is defined as any individual who is a qualified decision-maker or a tenured member of the department and who is
      • i) present during the review and discussion of the faculty member’s documented performance, and
      • ii) free of disqualifying conflicts of interest (as defined in UWS 8.03, 8.04, Regent Policy 91-8, and UW-Whitewater, Consensual Relationship Policy, 1997).
    • (b) Because an affirmative decision requires the affirmative votes of the majority of the members participating in the review, a participant’s abstention has the effect of a negative vote.
    • (c) The chair of the meeting, if a tenured faculty member, shall participate in the discussion and shall vote according to the above
    • (d) The chair of the department, if a tenured faculty member and also a member of the review committee, shall participate in the discussion and shall vote according to the above.
• f. Document requirements and disposition
  • (1) The department’s Report of Decision for a faculty member shall be a single document and include
    • (a) date and time of meeting
    • (b) members of the review committee present
    • (c) list of procedures followed during the review, for example, whether the review was conducted as an open or a closed meeting according to Wisconsin Statutes 19.81-19.98
    • (d) summaries of any oral presentation by the faculty member and any oral presentation(s) by any other person(s) with the consent of the tenured faculty
    • (e) subjects considered under III, C, 4, b, (2), (c)-(f) and III, C, 4, e (4)-(6) of these rules
    • (f) statements of the decision made, including motions and roll call votes. A roll call vote is required to decide if the meeting will be held in closed session. The only roll call vote required is the vote to go into closed session.
    • (g) standards-based reasons supporting the decision made (UWS 3.07, (1), (a),
    • (h) for an affirmative decision, a statement informing the faculty member that he or she has the right to submit a written rebuttal to the department’s Report of Decision or to the Reconsideration Report of Decision (III, D of these rules)
    • (i) For a negative decision, a statement informing the faculty member of his or her right to request a reconsideration (III, C, 4, f, (3), (a-b) of these rules) and the right to request an appeal (III, C, 4, f, (3), (a) and (c) of these rules)
    • (j) by attachment, the notice of review
    • (k) within 10 (ten) business days of the review, the department shall email and send a hard copy to the faculty member of the Report of Decision and deliver the portfolio to the dean for review
  • (2) Affirmative Decisions
    • (a) Feedback session following affirmative decision for reappointment
      • i) The tenured faculty of each department shall establish procedures for advising faculty whose application for reappointment was approved by the department.
      • ii) During the feedback session, tenured faculty member(s) shall
        • a) discuss the faculty member’s performance evaluation and
        • b) identify and discuss specific areas of concern that may influence the Document of Intent for the next review period (III, C, 3, b and III, C, 4, a of these rules).
    • (b) Documentation of the feedback session. Each feedback session must be documented with:
      • i) Date
      • ii) Participants
      • iii) Record of the topics discussed including the areas of concern
      • iv) Signatures of faculty member and the department representative(s) which acknowledge that the feedback session occurred and that the record is an accurate account of the topics discussed.
      • v) The record of the feedback session shall be placed in the faculty member’s departmental personnel file and a copy placed in the portfolio behind the Report of Decision by the faculty member once the review process is completed.
  • (3) Negative decisions:
    • (a) Within 10 (ten) business days, the department chair shall email and send a hard copy to the faculty member of the Report of Decision containing the statement of the decision made and the standards-based reasons supporting the decision (UWS 3.07, (1), (a)). Along with the Report of Decision, the department chair shall inform the faculty member in writing of the right to request a reconsideration (UWS 3.07,(1), (b) or UWS 3.08, (3) and III, C, 4, f, (3), (a-b) of these rules) and the right to request an appeal (UWS 3.08; III, C, 4, f, (3), (a and c); III, E of these rules).
    • (b) If the faculty member chooses to request a reconsideration, then the faculty member must file a written request for the reconsideration with the department chair. The request for a reconsideration must be filed within 10 (ten) business days from the emailed date of the Report of Decision from the department chair.
    • (c) Following the reconsideration, if the faculty member chooses to file an appeal, then the request for an appeal must be filed in writing with the Chair of the Faculty Senate. Appeals of department decisions must be filed within 15 (fifteen) business days of the emailed date of the Reconsideration Report of Decision (UWS 3.08, (1)).
    • (d) The faculty member may request that an appeal panel be drawn from the Faculty Appeals, Grievances, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee (UWS 3.08, and III, E, 1 of these rules) to appeal the decision of the department (III, E, 1of these rules). The department chair shall hold the portfolio and all relevant documents. Following the reconsideration, the department chair shall forward the portfolio and all relevant documents produced during the review sequence to the appropriate review agent, e.g., the chair of the Faculty Senate if a valid appeal has been filed (III, E, 1, b of these rules) or the dean.
    • (e) For reappointment, tenure, and/or tenure and promotion, the faculty member may withdraw his or her reconsideration at any time prior to its completion. Such withdrawal terminates consideration of the faculty member’s current application for reappointment, tenure and/or promotion.
    • (f) Upon receipt of the written request to withdraw from a reconsideration or an appeal, the department chair shall
      • i) send copies of the written request to the dean, the constituency standards committee, and the Chancellor, and
      • ii) forward the portfolio to the Chancellor who shall secure copies of all relevant produced during the review sequence for possible use as required by law and return the originals to the faculty member.
    • (g) When the department makes a negative decision on applications for reappointment or tenure or tenure and promotion, if the faculty member
      • i) does not request a reconsideration, then the department chair shall forward the portfolio to the Chancellor who shall secure copies of all relevant documents produced during the review sequence for possible use as required by law and return the originals to the faculty member, or
      • ii) does request a reconsideration, then upon completion of the reconsideration, the department chair shall forward the portfolio and all relevant documents produced during the review sequence to the appropriate review agent, i.e., the chair of the Faculty Senate if a valid appeal has been filed (III, E, 1, b of these rules) or the dean.
    • (h) When the department makes a negative decision on applications for promotion only, if the faculty member
      • i) does not request a reconsideration, but submits a written request that the portfolio be forwarded to the dean for review, then the department chair shall forward the portfolio, including the Report of Decision, to the dean, or
      • ii) does not request a reconsideration, then the department chair shall return the portfolio to the faculty member, or
      • iii) does request a reconsideration, then, upon completion of the reconsideration, the department chair shall forward the portfolio and all relevant documents produced during the review sequence to the appropriate review agent, i.e., the chair of the Faculty Senate if a valid appeal has been filed (III, E, 1, b of these rules) or the dean.
    • (i) Procedures following a negative decision for reappointment, tenure, or tenure and promotion
      • i) Reconsideration of a negative decision
        • a) The purpose of the reconsideration process is to provide an opportunity for the faculty member to address the reasons for the negative decision and to ensure that all relevant material is considered.
        • b) Within 10 (ten) business days of receiving a negative Report of Decision, the faculty member may file a written request for a reconsideration with the department chair (UWS 3.07, (1), (b) and (III, C, 4, f, (3), (a), of these rules).
        • c) If the faculty member does request a reconsideration, the department shall conduct the reconsideration within 10 (ten) business days of receipt of the written request and with at least 3 (three) business days’ notice to the faculty member requesting reconsideration or on a date mutually agreed upon by the faculty member requesting reconsideration and the department.
        • d) The faculty members participating in the reconsideration session shall be the same faculty members who participated in the initial review session with the exception of faculty members who may have resigned or retired (excepted) since the initial review session. Faculty members who are unavailable to meet in a timely manner may be excepted if mutually agreed upon by the faculty member requesting the reconsideration and the department. In the absence of a quorum (III, C, 4, d, of these rules), excepted faculty members may be replaced if mutually agreed upon by the faculty member requesting the reconsideration and the department. (The definition of department can be found in Appendix A of the Personnel Rules).
        • e) At the reconsideration, the faculty member may be assisted by a person of his or her choice.
        • f) Within 15 (fifteen) business days of the reconsideration, a Reconsideration Report of Decision, including the standards-based reasons for the decision , shall be provided to the faculty member in the form of a hard copy and an email attachment. Copies of the report also shall be filed in the department office and placed in the faculty member’s portfolio, which is then forwarded to the appropriate review agent, i.e., the chair of the Faculty Senate if a valid appeal has been filed (III, E, 1, b of these rules) or the dean if the reconsideration decision is affirmative.
      • ii) The faculty member shall have the right to request an appeal panel from the Faculty Appeals, Grievances, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee. If the faculty member requests an appeal panel, the department decisions shall be submitted to this panel for consideration (III, E, 2, a of these rules).
      • iii) In case of a negative decision for reappointment, following completion of a reconsideration, if the faculty member
        • a) does not request an appeal, the department chair shall forward the portfolio and all relevant documents including the reports of decision, and rebuttals produced during the review sequence to the dean.
        • b) does request an appeal, the department chair shall forward the portfolio and all relevant documents including the reports of decision, requests for a reconsideration and/or an appeal, and rebuttals produced during the review sequence to the chair of the Faculty Senate who shall deliver the documents to the chair of the appeals panel (III, E, 2, c, (1) of these rules).
      • iv) In case of a negative decision for tenure or tenure and promotion, following completion of a requested reconsideration, if the faculty member
        • a) does not request an appeal, the department chair shall forward the portfolio and all relevant documents including the reports of decision, and rebuttal produced during the review sequence to the dean.
        • b) does request an appeal, the department chair shall forward the portfolio and all relevant documents including the reports of decision, requests for a reconsideration and/or an appeal, reports of recommended action, and rebuttals produced during the review sequence to the chair of the Faculty Senate who shall deliver the documents to the chair of the appeals panel (III, E, 2, c, (1) of these rules).
      • v) In case of a negative decision for promotion only, if the faculty member
        • a) does not request a reconsideration, but submits a written request that the portfolio be forwarded to the dean for review, then the department chair shall forward the portfolio and all relevant documents including the Report of Decision, and rebuttals to the dean, or
        • b) does not request a reconsideration or forwarding of the portfolio for further consideration, then the department chair shall return the portfolio to the faculty member, or
        • c) does request a reconsideration, then, upon completion of the reconsideration, the department chair shall forward the portfolio and all relevant documents including the request for a reconsideration, reports of decision, and rebuttals produced during the review sequence to the dean.

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

• a. For all decisions regarding reappointment, tenure, or tenure and promotion, the Chancellor shall follow the notice periods listed in UWS 3.09.
• b. When reviewing the faculty member’s portfolio, the Chancellor may request further explanation or clarification of materials in or referred to in the portfolio from the faculty member, department(s), dean(s), constituency standards committee(s), and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. 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. Affirmative decisions: The Chancellor shall:
  • (1) write a Report of Decision using standards based reasons;
  • (2) add the Report of Decision to the portfolio, provide a hard copy to the faculty member and send a copy as an email attachment to the faculty member, department(s), dean(s), and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and, when applicable, constituency standards committee chair(s) and
  • (3) submit a written Report of Recommended Action to the Board of Regents for all faculty recommended for tenure or tenure and promotion.
• d. Negative decisions:
  • (1) In cases of promotion only, the Chancellor’s decision is final and the Chancellor shall
    • (a) write a Report of Decision using standards-based reasons;
    • (b) add the Report of Decision to the portfolio, provide a hard copy to the faculty member and send a copy as an email attachment to the faculty member, department(s), dean(s), and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and, when applicable, constituency standards committee chair(s);
    • (c) place copies of all reports of decisions and reports of recommended actions in the faculty member’s personnel file, and
    • (d) return the portfolio to the faculty member upon completion of all personnel actions.
  • (2) In cases of reappointment, tenure, or tenure and promotion, the Chancellor shall
    • (a) write a Report of Decision using standards-based reasons and including a statement informing the faculty member that he or she has the right to request a reconsideration (UWS 3.07,(1), (b) or UWS 3.08, (3) and III, C, 4, g, (2), (a) of these rules) and the right to request an appeal (UWS 3.08; III, C, 4, g, (2), (b); and III, E of these rules). If the faculty member chooses to request a reconsideration, then the faculty member must file a written request for reconsideration with the Chancellor. The request for a reconsideration must be filed within 7 (seven) business days from the emailed date of the Chancellor’s Report of Decision.
    • (b) add the Report of Decision to the portfolio, provide a hard copy to the faculty member and send a copy as an email attachment to the faculty member, department(s), dean(s), and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and, when applicable, constituency standards committee chair(s);
    • (c) place copies of all reports of decisions and reports of recommended actions in the faculty member’s personnel file and
    • (d) secure copies of all relevant documents incl u ding 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 in an appeal of the Chancellor’s decision or as required by law.
  • (3) In cases of reappointment, tenure, or tenure and promotion, if the faculty member chooses to request a reconsideration of the Chancellor’s decision, the faculty member must file a written request for the reconsideration with the Chancellor. The request for a reconsideration must be filed within 7 (seven) business days from the emailed date of the Chancellor’s Report of Decision.
    • (a) In the reconsideration, the Chancellor shall review all relevant material and write a Reconsideration Report of Decision using standards-based reasons,
    • (b) add the Reconsideration Report of Decision 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 Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, and, when applicable, constituency standards committee chair, and
    • (c) place a copy of the Reconsideration Report of Decision in the faculty member’s personnel file.
    • (d) If the Chancellor’s original decision is sustained, the Reconsideration Report of Decision shall include a statement informing the faculty member of his or her right to appeal, and 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 in an appeal of the Chancellor’s decision or as required by law.
    • (e) Following the reconsideration, if the faculty member chooses to file an appeal, then the request for an appeal must be filed in writing with the Chair of the Faculty Senate. Appeals of Chancellor’s decision must be filed within 15 (fifteen) business days of the emailed date of the Reconsideration Report of Decision (UWS 3.08, (1)).
    • (f) Upon completion of the appeal process, the appeal panel chair shall send copies of its Report of Findings and recommended Action(s) to the appellant, department(s), deans (s), constituency standards committee(s), if applicable, Faculty Senate Chair, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and to the Chancellor. The decision of the Chancellor is final. The Chancellor shall return all documents to the faculty member.
    • (g) If the Chancellor’s original decision is reversed, the Chancellor shall submit a written Report of Recommended Action to the Board of Regents for tenure or tenure and promotion.
    • (h) If the faculty member does not request a reconsideration when the Chancellor makes a negative decision on applications for reappointment, tenure, or tenure and promotion, the decision of the Chancellor will be final (UWS 3.08, (3)). The Chancellor shall return all documents to the faculty member.

---

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

• a. An appeal panel from the Faculty Appeals, Grievances, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee hears an appeal when a faculty member files a valid appeal (III, E, 1, b of these rules) of negative reappointment, promotion, or mandatory tenure and/or promotion decision(s) (III, C, 4, f, (2); III,C, 4, g, (2), (a), vi) of these rules).
• b. Composition
  • (1) Upon receiving a valid appeal (III, E, 1, b of these rules), the Faculty Senate Chair shall assemble a five-member appeal panel from the Faculty Appeals, Grievances, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee to review the appellant’s portfolio and all relevant materials.
  • (2) An appeal panel shall not include a member of the appellant’s department(s) or constituency standards committee.
  • (3) The panel shall elect a chair by simple majority vote.
• c. Proceedings
  • (1) The Faculty Senate Chair shall deliver the appellant’s portfolio and other relevant documents including reports of decision, requests for a reconsideration and/or an appeal, reports of recommended action, and rebuttals produced during the review sequence to the chair of the appeal panel.
  • (2) The appeal panel shall schedule the review of the decision(s) being appealed and give the appellant notice that the
    • (a) review shall be in accordance with UWS 3.08,
    • (b) appellant may submit evidence or argument to the panel, and
    • (c) appellant may be assisted by a person of his or her choice, and
    • (d) burden of proof is on the appellant.
  • (3) The review of the decision(s) being appealed shall be conducted in accordance with UWS 3.08.
  • (4) Material, information, and evidence to be considered by the appeal panel
    • (a) The appeal panel shall review the decision(s) of the department (III, C, 4, f (1) and (2) or III, C, 4, g, (2), (a), vi) of these rules) and/or the Chancellor (III, C, 8, a of these rules) for evidence that any negative decision was based in any significant degree upon impermissible factors, as defined in UWS 3.08, with material prejudice to the faculty member.
    • (b) The appeal panel may hear any witnesses and consider any evidence relevant to issues addressed in UWS 3.08 offered by either the appellant or the respondent(s). The panel may request additional relevant evidence or testimony for its consideration.
  • (5) The findings and recommended action of the appeal panel shall be determined by simple majority vote of the panel.
  • (6) The appeal panel shall issue a written Report of Findings and Recommended Action(s) within 15 (fifteen) business days of receipt of the portfolio. This time limit may be extended by mutual agreement of the appeal panel and the appellant.
  • (7) The appeal panel shall retain jurisdiction during the pendency of any reconsideration (III, E, 2, e, (1) and (2) of these rules).
  • (8) Following any reconsideration initiated under III, E, 2, e, (1) and (2) of these rules, the appeal panel shall review the report of the reconsideration process. The panel shall issue a second report stating either
    • (a) the panel supports the reconsideration decision, or
    • (b) the panel finds that such reconsideration decision is based in significant degree upon impermissible factors (UWS 3.08).
• d. Record of Proceedings
  • (1) A Record of Proceedings shall be made throughout the appeal process. The chair of the appeal panel shall maintain the integrity of this record.
  • (2) The record of proceedings shall contain the following items
    • (a) date and time of meetings, correspondence, or other relevant communication,
    • (b) members of the appeal panel present,
    • (c) list of motions made and voted upon during the appeal, including any vote to go into closed sessions according the Wisconsin Statutes 19.81-19.98.
    • (d) documentation of testimony or evidence presented,
    • (e) statement of the findings and recommended action made, and
    • (f) standards-based reasons supporting the findings and recommended action made.
• e. Types of Recommended Actions
  • (1) Affirmative recommended actions involving promotion or reappointment: The report of the appeal panel shall include an explanation of how the decision(s) was/were based in any significant degree upon impermissible factors, as defined in UWS 3.08, with material prejudice to the faculty member; and either
    • (a) include, with or without instructions, a remand to the deciding body at whichever level the appealed decision was based in any significant degree upon impermissible factors. In such case, the chair of the appeal panel shall return the portfolio and all relevant documents including the reports of decision, requests for a reconsideration and/or an appeal, reports of recommended action, and rebuttals produced during the review sequence along with the panel’s Report of Findings and Recommended Action(s) to the appropriate deciding body which shall reconsider under UWS 3.08, (3) and report its consequent decision to the appeal panel or
    • (b) include a statement explaining why such remand would serve or has served no useful purpose. In such case, the recommended action by the appeal panel shall be considered to be an affirmative recommended action for reappointment or promotion. Depending on the decision appealed, the chair of the appeal panel shall forward the portfolio and all relevant documents including the reports of decision, requests for are consideration and/or an appeal, reports of recommended action, and rebuttals produced during the review sequence along with the panel’s Report of Findings and Recommended Action(s) to the agent that would be in line to make the next recommendation or decision in the review sequence.
  • (2) Affirmative recommended actions involving mandatory tenure: The report of the appeal panel shall include an explanation of how a decision for tenure was based in any significant degree upon impermissible factors, as defined in UWS 3.08, with material prejudice to the faculty member. And such report shall either
    • (a) include, with or without instructions, a remand to the deciding body at whichever level the tenure denial was based in any significant degree upon impermissible factors. In such case, the appropriate deciding body shall reconsider under UWS 3.08, (3) and report its consequent decision to the appeal panel
    • (b) or all of the following
      • i) a statement that such remand would serve or has served no useful purpose, and
      • ii) direction to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to appoint an ad hoc credential review committee, sometimes referred to as a “Notestein committee” (Wisconsin Statutes 36.13 (2) (b))–except that in the case of an appeal of the Chancellor’s decision, the panel from the Faculty Appeals, Grievances, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee shall continue in the place of and fulfilling the role of an ad hoc credential review committee, deliberating and reporting by the procedures specified in III, E, 3,d-h of these rules,
      • iii) a list of credential materials the ad hoc credential review committee is to consider, and
      • iv) notice to the appellant that the appellant may submit a written request to the Faculty Senate Chair to terminate the process at any time.
  • (3) Negative decisions involving reappointment, tenure and/or promotion: The committee shall make a written report of its findings and decision. Such report shall include a statement that the appealed decision was not based in any significant degree on any impermissible factors as defined in UWS 3.08 with material prejudice to the faculty member. The chair of the appeal panel shall forward the portfolio and all relevant documents including the reports of decision, requests for a reconsideration and/or an appeal, reports of recommended action, and rebuttals produced during the review sequence to the Chancellor who shall secure copies of all documents for possible use as required by law.
• f. Report and disposition of the Report of Findings and Recommended Action(s), records, and documents
  • (1) The appeal panel chair shall forward the Record of Proceedings to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs to be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file. At the end of five years, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall send the personnel file to the University Archives for permanent storage.
  • (2) The appeal panel chair shall send copies of its Report of Findings and Recommended Action(s) to the appellant, department(s), dean(s), constituency standards committee(s) if applicable, Faculty Senate Chair, and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for reference. The appeal panel chair also shall place one copy of the Report of Findings and Recommended Action in the appellant’s portfolio.
  • (3) In cases of an appeal of a tenure decision, if the appeal panel directs that an ad hoc credential review committee be formed, the appeal panel chair shall forward all materials to the Faculty Senate Chair, including any materials to be considered by the ad hoc credential review committee (III, E, 2, e, (2), (b), iii) and III, E, 3 of these rules).
  • (4) If the Faculty Senate Chair, Faculty Senate Secretary, or any member of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee participated in any level of the review process, then she or he shall not participate in identifying, appointing, or administering the ad hoc credential review committee.
  • (5) When the appeal panel makes an affirmative Report of Findings and Recommended Action(s) in a promotion or reappointment case and does not remand the case to the deciding or recommending body at whichever level the appealed decision or recommended action was made, the appeal panel chair shall place a copy of the Report of Findings and Recommended Action(s) in the portfolio and forward the portfolio to the appropriate review agent, i.e., the dean or the chair of the constituency standards committee, or the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for review and decision. Refer to the review schedule in Appendix C of these rules.
  • (6) When the appeal panel makes a negative Report of Findings and Recommended Action(s)
    • (a) The appeal panel chair forwards copies of the report of the appeal panel findings and Report of Findings and Recommended Action(s) to the appellant, department(s), dean(s), the constituency standards chair(s) if applicable, Faculty Senate Chair, and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
    • (b) If the appellant submits a written withdrawal of the appeal, the appeal panel chair shall return the portfolio and attached materials to the appellant and forward copies of the written request to withdraw to the
      • i) department,
      • ii) Faculty Senate Chair, and
      • iii) Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
    • (c) In a reappointment or mandatory tenure decision, since there are no further appeals possible, the appeal panel chair shall deliver the portfolio to the office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs where it shall be retained with the faculty member’s personnel file. At the end of five years, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall send the personnel file and portfolio to the University Archives for permanent storage.
    • (d) Upon written request to the appeal panel chair, an appellant whose appeal of a non-renewal decision is denied by the appeal panel shall be allowed to copy all documents, recordings, or other transcripts of oral testimony or argument heard by the appeal panel.
    • (e) In a promotion decision affecting a tenured faculty member, since there are no further appeals possible, the appeal panel chair shall return the portfolio to the appellant.

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

• a. This section complies with Wisconsin Statutes 36.13, (2), (b), when the Faculty Appeal and Grievance Committee appeal panel
  • (1) finds that a denial of tenure was based in a significant degree upon impermissible factors as defined in UWS 3.08 with material prejudice to the faculty member, and
  • (2) directs the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to appoint an ad hoc credential review committee (III, E, 2, e, (2), (b), ii) of these rules).
• b. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee administers proper operation of the ad hoc credential review committee and retains jurisdiction over all conduct, proceedings, and materials until the committee submits its report to the Chancellor.
• c. Composition
  • (1) At the direction of the Faculty Appeals, Grievances, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee appeal panel, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee shall select the ad hoc credential review committee.
  • (2) The ad hoc credential review committee shall consist of five members from the appellant’s discipline or from substantially allied disciplines.
    • (a) Three members shall be tenured faculty members employed at UW-Whitewater, but no member shall be from the appellant’s department(s) or its equivalent.
    • (b) Two members shall be tenured faculty members employed at other accredited universities, and must have academic credentials and qualifications that reside within the appellant’s discipline.
  • (3) The Faculty Senate Executive Committee shall name a committee chair from among the UW-Whitewater membership.
  • (4) The Faculty Senate Executive Committee shall have 20 (twenty) business days from the receipt of the appeal panel’s direction to form the ad hoc credential review committee.
• d. Proceedings
  • (1) All members of the ad hoc credential review committee shall review the documentary evidence as specified in Wisconsin Statutes 36.13, (2), (b).
  • (2) All members of the ad hoc credential review committee shall discuss their review of the faculty member’s performance as represented by the portfolio contents via synchronous electronic exchange or a face-to-face meeting at least one time during their deliberations.
  • (3) The ad hoc credential review committee shall determine if the faculty member qualifies for tenure under all applicable UW-Whitewater department standards and Board of Regents Policy 74-13, Student Evaluation of Instruction.
  • (4) The ad hoc credential review committee shall not base its decisions upon impermissible factors as defined by UWS 3.08.
  • (5) The ad hoc credential review committee shall complete its work within 20 (twenty) business days from the date of publication (Wisconsin Statutes 19.81-19.98) of the ad hoc credential review committee’s membership.
  • (6) A Record of Proceedings shall be made throughout the appeal process. The chair of the appeal panel shall maintain the integrity of this record.
• e. Record of Proceedings: The Record of Proceedings shall contain the following items
  • (1) date and time of meetings, correspondence, or other relevant communication,
  • (2) members of the appeal panel present,
  • (3) list of motions made and voted upon during the appeal, including any votes to go into closed sessions according the Wisconsin Statutes 19.81-19.98.
  • (4) documentation of testimony or evidence presented,
  • (5) written Report of Findings and Decision, and
  • (6) written, standards-based reasons supporting the findings and decision.
• f. Types of decision
  • (1) Affirmative decision supporting the award of tenure: If the ad hoc credential review committee finds that the faculty member does meet the qualifications for tenure, then in its Report of Findings and Decision, the ad hoc credential review committee shall include an explicit, standards-based rationale for its findings
  • (2) Negative decision supporting the denial of tenure: If the ad hoc credential review committee finds that the faculty member does not meet the qualifications for tenure, then in its Report of Findings and Decision, the ad hoc credential review committee shall include an explicit, standards-based rationale for its findings, specific instances in which the faculty member’s performance as documented in the credentials had not met one or more applicable standard.
• g. Report and disposition of findings, decision, records, and documents
  • (1) The ad hoc credential review committee shall submit a written Report of Findings and Decision to the
    • (a) Chancellor,
    • (b) appellant,
    • (c) appellant’s academic department(s),
    • (d) chair of the constituency standards committee,
    • (e) dean,
    • (f) Faculty Senate Chair, and
    • (g) chair of the appeal panel from the Faculty Appeals, Grievances, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee.
  • (2) The ad hoc credential review committee shall submit all materials to the office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall place the Report of Findings and Decision of the ad hoc credential review committee in the appellant’s official personnel file.
• h. Actions based on the findings and decision of the ad hoc credential review committee
  • (1) If the ad hoc credential review committee makes an affirmative decision, the Chancellor subsequently may recommend to the Board of Regents that a tenured appointment be granted without a concurring recommended action from the appellant’s academic department(s) or functional equivalent. The Chancellor’s decision is final (UWS 3.08, (3)). Such action is in accord with Wisconsin Statutes 36.13 (2) (b).
  • (2) If the ad hoc credential review committee makes a negative decision,
    • (a) the appellant is, upon written application to the chair of the ad hoc credential review committee, allowed to copy all documents, transcripts and audio recordings possessed by the ad hoc credential review committee.
    • (b) the Chancellor may not recommend that the Board of Regents grant tenure.
• i. The campus administration shall reimburse the Faculty Senate account for the compensation of legitimate travel expenses incurred by the ad hoc credential review committee members who come from other institutions. Compensation shall be limited to transportation, lodging, and meals.

---

Section F. The Portfolio

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

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

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:

• a. Statement of Charge(s): A written statement issued by the Chancellor in response to a complaint filed against a faculty member that directs specific disciplinary action and penalties against said faculty member. The charge(s) shall describe the conduct alleged in the complaint, the university rule or policy that the faculty member’s alleged conduct or pattern of conduct violated, and/or how the faculty member’s alleged conduct or pattern of conduct adversely affected the faculty member’s performance of his or her obligations to the university. [Note: Any complaint against a faculty member for conduct described in Section C shall be defined therein and subject to the regulations of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (See 42 C.F.R., Part 50.102)]
• b. Complaint: A formal allegation of conduct against a faculty member which violates university rules or policies or which adversely affects the faculty member’s performance of his or her obligation to the university and could lead to discipline or dismissal under UWS 4 or UWS 6.
• c. Conflict Resolution: A voluntary alternative means of resolving disputes by which a neutral third party facilitates a mutually acceptable resolution between the complainant and faculty member to resolve all outstanding complaints, grievances, disputes or concerns.
• d. Grievance: An allegation of dissatisfaction or wrongdoing in regard to a faculty member’s working conditions, unfair treatment or dispute that does not rise to the level of a formal complaint. A grievance generally seeks some form of corrective resolution for the alleged conduct rather than punitive or disciplinary action.
• e. Penalty or Remedy: As a part of the disciplinary process under this Chapter, the Chancellor may impose a penalty or remedy (or a combination thereof) as stated below which shall be included in the Statement of Charge(s):
  • i. Reprimand: A written warning by the Chancellor that the faculty member must cease the specified conduct which violated university rules or policies or adversely
    affected the faculty member’s performance of his/her contractual obligations to the university.
  • ii. Corrective intervention: Counseling, training, or other appropriate and reasonable remedies which would support necessary changes in behavior.
  • iii. Fine: A one-time forfeiture of up to but not to exceed 10% of the faculty member’s annual base salary.
  • iv. Reduction of base salary: A reduction of up to but not to exceed 5% of the faculty member’s annual base salary.
  • v. Suspension without pay: Suspension without pay from all employment by the university and suspension of all rights and privileges derived from faculty appointment
    or rank or from departmental or college faculty membership up to but not more than a period equal to one contractual year.

2. General Principles:

• a. Sections B and C of these rules shall apply when a complaint is filed against a faculty member by a student, university staff, academic staff, faculty member, administrator or member of the public. In cases involving allegations of misconduct related to research, Section C will apply. For all other complaints against faculty members, Section B will apply.
• b. Section D of these rules shall apply when a faculty member files a grievance during his or her employment at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. These rules shall ensure a fair, just, and timely process in regard to the proceedings herein.
• c. No person shall be denied recourse to the other means of relief specified in these rules, for example, conflict resolution. At any time in the process, the complainant, faculty member, and Chancellor by mutual written consent may choose to engage in a conflict resolution process.
• d. Any complaint or grievance that would violate a faculty member’s constitutional rights or protections or negatively impact the principles of academic freedom shall be dismissed, in whole or in part.
• e. Any dispute, complaint or grievance filed by a student against a faculty member for a grade dispute or appeal shall be referred to the applicable provisions under UWS Chs. 14, 17 or the UW-Whitewater handbook for student grade appeals.
• f. All proceedings shall be conducted in a climate of presumed innocence. Every effort shall be made to preserve the rights and dignity of all parties.
• g. If disciplinary action is imposed against a faculty member under Section B or C of this Chapter, the faculty member may not be disciplined twice for the original conduct under which the original complaint was made. This does not prevent the Chancellor from taking additional disciplinary action against a faculty member for conduct that was not considered during the original disciplinary charges, penalties or remedies.
• h. During the pendency of the disciplinary process under Section B or C of this Chapter, the Chancellor may place a faculty member on administrative leave with pay or reassign the faculty member to different duties or obligations. Said action does not constitute disciplinary action (e.g. a penalty or remedy) under this Chapter.
• i. Unless specifically stated otherwise during proceedings under Section B or C of this Chapter, a faculty member shall remain employed and fulfill his or her contractual obligations to the University during the proceedings under Section B, unless immediate suspension without pay is initiated under UWS 4 or 7.

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:

• a. Time to File: A complaint must be signed by the complainant (or his or her representative) and filed with the Chancellor’s Office within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days of the alleged acts or omissions that led to the complaint unless said allegations are a part of a consistent and continuing pattern of similar behavior(s) that occurred prior to the 120 calendar day period.
• b. Notice to Faculty Member: Within twenty-one (21) calendar days from the Chancellor’s receipt of a complaint against a faculty member, the Chancellor, or his or her designee, shall notify the faculty member in writing by email and first class mail to last known residence that a complaint has been received. The Chancellor, or his or her designee, shall provide the faculty member with a copy of the complaint or in the alternative, a written summary of the allegations contained in the complaint.
• c. Initial Action by Chancellor: Upon consideration of the complaint, the Chancellor may request additional information from the complainant, dismiss the complaint for lack of merit or untimeliness, or initiate an investigation into the allegations through the use of an investigator to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to issue a Statement of Charge(s).
  • i. If the Chancellor dismisses the complaint for lack of merit or untimeliness, the Chancellor will notify the complainant and faculty member in writing of the
    decision within twenty-one (21) calendar days with the stated reasons for dismissal. The complainant shall be notified of any rights to appeal said decision
    under any applicable university or system policy or procedure.
  • ii. If the Chancellor concludes that an investigation is necessary to determine whether to file a charge, the process under subsection B.2 below will be initiated.
  • iii. If the faculty member admits to all of the allegations contained in the complaint, then the Chancellor may proceed to issuing a Statement of Charge(s) pursuant to subsection B.3.
• d. At any time during this process under Section B, either the complainant and/or the faculty member may request that the Chancellor assign an impartial administrator or employee of the university to serve as an advocate for either party throughout the process to ensure that all rights and responsibilities are clearly understood.
• e. In accordance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, if a complaint or allegation involves sexual harassment, sexual assault, domestic or dating violence or stalking, the complainant or person who was allegedly subjected to said conduct shall have all procedural rights and protections provided to the faculty member during the process, including a right to be simultaneously notified of any action, decision or appeal rights that the faculty member receives from the Chancellor, or designee.

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:

• a. Hearing Date: A hearing shall be conducted within sixty (60) calendar days from the initial meeting between the Faculty Senate Chair and the Hearing Panel. The Chair of the Hearing Panel shall notify all parties of the date, time and location of the hearing by email and First Class mail to the last known residence no less than five (5) calendar days prior to the hearing. The Chair of the Hearing Panel, in consultation with the parties, may extend the hearing date due to a break in the academic calendar, the unavailability of Hearing Panel members, parties or pertinent witnesses, or other extenuating circumstances.
• b. Procedural Rights: During the hearing, the faculty member shall have the following procedural rights and protections:
  • i. A fair and impartial hearing;
  • ii. Reasonable access to all documents presented in evidence;
  • iii. Be represented by a university advocate or legal counsel (at the party’s expense). Said advocate or legal counsel may speak on behalf of the party and present the
    case on behalf of the party;
  • iv. Be heard on the party’s own behalf;
  • v. Present witnesses to testify on behalf of the party;
  • vi. Receive a reasonable opportunity to cross examine any witnesses called by the other party;
  • vii. Request a temporary recess if necessary, to consider new evidence or information not previously known or reasonably discovered prior to the hearing; and
  • viii. Upon request, obtain a copy of any transcript or recording of the hearing at the party’s expense, if applicable.
• c. Open Meetings Law: The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law pursuant to Wis. Stat. Ch. 19.85, et. al. The faculty member may request that the hearing be conducted in either open or closed session. However, the Chair of the Hearing Panel shall determine whether to grant said request, considering both the personnel nature of the proceedings and the sensitive information that may be disclosed through testimony during the proceedings. All deliberations of the Hearing Panel shall be conducted in closed session.
• d. Documentation: No less than three (3) calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties shall submit an electronic copy of all documentation that the parties intend to submit to the Hearing Panel for consideration (labeled with numbers and a table of contents), a list of all potential witnesses that either party intends to call to testify during the hearing and the name of each party’s representative(s) or legal counsel, if applicable.
• e. Hearing Procedures and Rules of Evidence: The Hearing Panel shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence and may admit evidence having reasonable probative value but shall exclude immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious testimony, and shall give effect to recognized legal privileges. The Hearing Panel may take reasonable steps to maintain order, and to adopt procedures for conducting the hearing in a manner that will provide a reasonable opportunity for both parties to present their cases and question witnesses, provided, however, whatever procedure is adopted, the parties are allowed to effectively present and refute evidence.
• f. Recording of Hearing: The Chair of the Hearing Panel shall be responsible for creating a recording of the hearing with a reliable recording device. If the hearing is conducted in open session, any person may record the open meeting unless said recording unduly interferes with the hearing proceedings. If the hearing is conducted in closed session, the Chair of the Hearing Panel shall be responsible for securing the record to prevent any improper disclosure. Either party may request a copy of the recording at their own expense which shall be provided as soon as reasonably practicable.
• g. Burden of Proof: The Chancellor shall have the burden of proof to present evidence that proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegations contained in the Statement of Charge(s) occurred.
• h. Failure to Appear: If either party fails to appear at the hearing, the Chair of the Hearing Panel may proceed with the hearing in their absence or postpone the hearing to a later date.
• i. Witnesses: During the hearing, either party may call to testify any individual who is reasonably likely to have relevant or material information that is pertinent to the substantive issues contained in the Statement of Charge. Any witness who is an employee of the University may appear, upon request by either party, but said attendance is voluntary and no discipline shall be imposed against an employee for failing or refusing to appear as a witness at the hearing. If an employee appears at the hearing, the supervisor shall excuse the employee from work to attend the hearing. If either party is unable to secure a witness to attend the hearing, the Chair of the Hearing Panel may consider alternative options of receiving any relevant information the witness may have, such as a video conference or teleconference.
• j. Evidence Considered: During the hearing, the Hearing Panel shall accept evidence in the form of statements by the parties, testimony by witnesses and written documentation submitted prior to or during the hearing. The Hearing Panel shall only consider evidence that is credible, relevant and probative in value. The Hearing Panel shall not consider any evidence that it determines to be redundant, immaterial or lacking in probative value. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Panel shall deliberate in closed session to consider the evidence and issue its findings of facts and recommendations. At the conclusion of the deliberations, the Hearing Panel members shall take a vote to affirm or oppose each charge listed in the Chancellor’s statement of charge letter and affirm, oppose or propose a lesser penalty and/or remedy contained in the Statement of Charge(s). An affirmative vote of a simple majority of the Hearing Panel members shall be required to sustain a motion.

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:

• a. Informal allegations or reports of possible misconduct in science shall be directed initially to the person with immediate responsibility for the work of the individual against whom the allegations or reports have been made. The person receiving such an informal report or allegation is responsible for either resolving the matter or encouraging the submission of a formal allegation or report. Upon receipt of formal allegations or reports of scientific misconduct, the person with immediate responsibility for the work of the individual against whom the allegations or reports have been made shall immediately inform, in writing, the Vice Chancellor.
• b. The Vice Chancellor shall appoint an individual or individuals to conduct a prompt inquiry into the allegation or report of misconduct.
  • i. The individual or individuals conducting the inquiry shall prepare a written report for the Vice Chancellor describing the evidence reviewed, summarizing relevant interviews and including the conclusions of the inquiry.
  • ii. The inquiry must be completed within 30 calendar days of its initiation unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than 30 days to
    complete, the reasons for exceeding the 30-day period shall be documented and included with the record.
  • iii. The individual against whom the allegation was made shall be given a copy of the report of the inquiry by the Vice Chancellor, and shall have an opportunity to respond to the
    report within 10 days of receipt. Any response must be in writing, and will become a part of the record of the inquiry.
  • iv. To protect the privacy and reputation of all individuals involved, including the individual in good faith reporting possible misconduct and the individual against whom the
    report is made, information concerning the initial report, the inquiry and any resulting investigation shall be kept confidential and shall be released only to those having a legitimate need to know about the matter. [Note: Following Chapter VI Rules Governing Complaints Against and Grievances of Faculty Under UWS 6 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code as outlined in Section VI-F of the University Handbook the accused person shall be considered a person with a legitimate need to know.]
• c. If the inquiry concludes that the allegation of misconduct is unsubstantiated and if the inquiry concludes that an investigation is not warranted, then the reasons and supporting documentation for this conclusion shall be reported to the Vice Chancellor, who shall be responsible for reviewing the conclusion of the inquiry. If the Vice Chancellor concurs in the conclusion that an investigation is not warranted, his or her determination, and all other supporting documentation from the inquiry shall be recorded and the record maintained confidentially for a period of three years after the termination of the inquiry. If the inquiry or the Vice Chancellor determines that an investigation is warranted, the procedure in paragraph (2) shall be followed.

3. Investigation of Reported Misconduct in Science:

• a. If an investigation is determined to be warranted under paragraph (1), the Vice Chancellor shall so inform the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall immediately appoint a committee to conduct the investigation. The committee shall be composed of impartial faculty members possessing appropriate competence and research expertise for the conduct of the investigation, and no faculty member having responsibility for the research under investigation, or having any other conflict with the university's interest in securing a fair and objective investigation, may serve on the investigating committee. If necessary, individuals possessing the requisite competence and research expertise who are not affiliated with UW-Whitewater may be asked to serve as consultants to the investigating committee.
• b. The investigation must be initiated within 20 days of the completion of the inquiry. The investigation normally will include examination of all documentation, including but not necessarily limited to relevant research data and proposals, publications, correspondence, and memoranda of telephone calls. Interviews should be conducted of all individuals involved either in making the allegation or against whom the allegation is made, as well as others who might have information regarding the allegations. Summaries of interviews conducted shall be prepared and provided to the parties interviewed for their comment or revision. These summaries shall be made a part of the record of the investigation.
• c. The individual making the allegation and the individual against whom the allegation is made, and all others having relevant information, shall cooperate fully with the work of the investigating committee, and shall make available all relevant documents and materials associated with the research under investigation.
• d. The investigation should ordinarily be completed within 60 days of its initiation. This includes conducting the investigation, preparing the report of the findings, making that report available for comment by the subjects of the investigation, and submitting the report to the Chancellor. If the investigating committee determines that it cannot complete the investigation within the 60-day period, it shall submit to the Chancellor a written request for an extension explaining the need for delay and providing an estimated date of completion. If the research under investigation is funded by an agency within the Public Health Service (PHS), the procedures under paragraph (3)(d) of this policy shall also apply.
• e. The report of the investigation should include a description of the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, information obtained and the sources of such information, an accurate summary of the position of the individual under investigation, the findings of the committee, including the bases for its findings, and the committee's recommendation to the Chancellor concerning whether the evidence or scientific misconduct is sufficient to warrant discipline or dismissal under the applicable faculty or academic staff personnel rules. Upon completion of the investigation, all documentation substantiating the findings and recommendation of the investigating committee, together with all other information comprising the record of the investigation, shall be transmitted to the Chancellor with the report.
• f. A copy of the investigating committee's report shall be provided to the individual being investigated. Before taking action under paragraph (3) of this policy, the Chancellor or appropriate administrative officer shall afford the individual under investigation an opportunity to discuss the matter.

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:

• a. A determination that an investigation should be initiated under paragraph (1) (c) must be reported by the Vice Chancellor in writing to the OSI Director on or before the date the investigation begins. The notification should state the name of the individuals against whom the allegations of scientific misconduct have been made, the general nature of the allegations, and the PHS application or grant numbers involved.
• b. During the course of the investigation, the granting agency should be apprised of any significant findings that might affect current or potential funding of the individual under investigation or that might require agency interpretation of funding regulations.
• c. The OSI must be notified at any stage of an inquiry or investigation if the university determines that any of the following conditions exist:
  • i. There is an immediate health hazard involved;
  • ii. There is an immediate need to protect federal funds or equipment;
  • iii. There is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person making the allegations or of the individual who is the subject of the allegations as well as his
    or her co-investigators and associates, if any;
  • iv. It is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly;
  • v. There is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation. In that instance, the university must inform OSI within 24 hours of obtaining that information.
• d. If the university is unable to complete the investigation within the 60-day period, as described above, the Vice Chancellor must submit to OSI a written request for an extension and an explanation of the delay, including an interim progress report and an estimated date of completion of the investigation. If the request is granted, the institution must file periodic progress reports as requested by the OSI. If satisfactory progress is not made in the institution's investigation, the OSI may undertake an investigation of its own.
• e. If the university plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason within completing all the relevant requirements, a report of such planned termination, including a description of the reasons for such termination, shall be made by the Vice Chancellor to OSI, which will then decide whether further investigation should be undertaken.
• f. Upon completion of the investigation, the Vice Chancellor will notify OSI of the outcome, in a report which shall include the information and documentation specified in paragraph (2)(e) of this policy.

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:

• a. The grievance officer shall make inquiries of persons having knowledge of the grievance, examine university records relevant to it, and gather information useful in the determination of whether it is in whole or in part well founded. In the process of this investigation the grievance officer may, with the consent of the aggrieved faculty member, amend the statement of the grievance to clarify or correct it. The grievance officer shall determine that the grievance is well founded if he or she finds that the act complained of was in fact done and that is constitutes a grievance as defined in VI, C, (1) of these rules. If the grievance officer finds that the faculty member's grievance is not well founded even in part, the grievance officer shall so report to the faculty member in writing, with the reasons for the finding.
• b. If the grievance officer determines that the grievance is at least in part well founded, he or she shall so report in writing to the aggrieved faculty member and to the employee complained of, with the reasons for the finding; and the grievance officer shall, after consulting the aggrieved faculty member and the employee complained of, attempt to devise a remedy, including, if possible, a particular remedy for the injury done the aggrieved faculty member with a schedule for its accomplishment, and, when appropriate, a general remedy to prevent a recurrence of the basis for the grievance. If the grievance officer can devise a particular remedy, he or she shall propose it in writing to the aggrieved faculty member and to the employee whose act constitutes the basis for the grievance.
• c. An employee whose act constitutes the basis for a grievance shall respond to the proposal of a particular remedy within 10 days, either by agreeing to accomplish the remedy, or by refusing to do so, in which case the reasons for the refusal shall be stated, or by proposing an equivalent alternative remedy, or by setting date by which one of these responses will be made, with the reasons for the delay.
• d. If a grievance officer devises a general remedy for a grievance, he or she shall propose it to the employee whose act constitutes the basis for the grievance, to the responsible officer, to the aggrieved faculty member, and to any officer or agency of the university which has the authority to implement the general remedy or the consent of which is required for its implementation.
• e. If the grievance officer can devise no particular remedy for a well-founded grievance, he or she shall so report in writing to the aggrieved faculty member and to the responsible officer with the reasons for the inability.
• f. If the grievance officer proposes a particular remedy for a grievance, the grievance officer shall consider the response of the employee to the proposal, and shall monitor the compliance of the employee with the proposed remedy, until the grievance officer concludes that the proposed remedy or an equivalent alternative remedy has been accomplished in a timely manner, or that the employee has not responded or accomplished the remedy in a timely manner. Upon reaching any of these conclusions, the grievance officer shall report it in writing to the aggrieved faculty member, to the employee, and to the responsible officer.
• g. Prior to being discharged of duty in the matter, a grievance officer may withdraw or modify any finding, conclusion, or proposed remedy.
• h. If the grievance officer is unable for any reason to perform the duties of a grievance officer, he or she shall so report to the responsible officer and the aggrieved faculty member, with the reason for the inability.
• i. A grievance officer shall present to the responsible officer a final report and all papers gathered in the course of the investigation of and effort to resolve the grievance, deliver a copy of the final report to the faculty member, and be discharged from duty as a grievance officer in the matter, when:
  • i. the grievance officer reports that the grievance is not well founded even in part; or
  • ii. the grievance officer reports that he or she can devise no particular remedy for the grievance; or
  • iii. the grievance officer concludes that the proposed particular remedy or an equivalent alternative remedy has been accomplished in a timely manner; or,
  • iv. the grievance officer concludes that the employee whose act forms the basis for the grievance has not responded to the proposed remedy or accomplished the
    remedy in a timely manner; or
  • v. the grievance officer has reported to the responsible officer and the faculty member his or her inability to perform the duties of a grievance officer; or
  • vi. the aggrieved faculty member requests in writing to the responsible officer that the grievance officer be discharged; or
  • vii. the responsible officer directs the grievance officer to do so.
• j. The grievance officer's final report shall briefly describe what he or she has done in the matter and what findings, proposals, or conclusions have been made, and shall be accompanied by all papers gathered by the grievance officer and by all correspondence of the grievance officer.
• k. A grievance officer shall act independently in the interest of the university and justice, and not merely as the agent of the aggrieved faculty member or the responsible officer. Service as a grievance officer by any faculty member other than the responsible officer or an assistant to the responsible officer shall be considered a contribution to the university.

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

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

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

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:

1. Comparing the success in advanced courses of students taught in elementary courses by the faculty member to the success in advanced courses of students taught in elementary courses by others.
2. Comparing the performance on a common test of students taught by the faculty member and students taught by others.

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.

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 4 th  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

---