Datasets:

quarkymatter

/

PolicyPro_dataset

like 0

<s>[INST] 1st Draft Rewrite of Termination Due to Financially Contingent Situations.txt [/INST] Termination Due to Financially Contingent Situations and Resource Allocation Termination of a tenured faculty member or, prior to the end of the term of appointment, of a tenure-track faculty member may occur because of the declaration of a financially contingent situation as described below. Criteria The criteria to be employed in financially contingent situations in allocating resources to University programs and services fall under three headings: Mission, Cost Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality. These will at times compete and at other times converge. If and when Ohio Wesleyan University meets contingencies that require institutional contraction and reorganization, these sets of criteria will be used in complementary fashion as guidelines. The order of their enumeration should not be taken to indicate their order of priority. Neither should it be presumed that all three will be weighed equally in making particular decisions. Particular circumstances may encourage the assignment of greater weight to one or another in particular cases, even though in financially contingent situations it is to be expected that fiscal pressure may emphasize reference to the criterion of cost effectiveness. What is important is that the campus community, in considering contingency reductions, identify and grapple directly with what are likely to be very difficult choices from among options that all carry significant costs and/or benefits in terms of Mission, Cost Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality. The objective must be to arrive at wise judgments. MISSION Because Ohio Wesleyan University is a specific private university with a specific heritage, a major consideration associated with any reduction or change in size will be to preserve its essential character by maintaining those programs and activities judged to be more central to that character. To do so will require reference to several questions. How closely does the program or service in question fit the stated mission of Ohio Wesleyan University? How importantly does it contribute toward a non-curricular campus ambience vital to Ohio Wesleyan's liberal arts heritage? Is it essential in serving other programs? COST EFFECTIVENESS & MARKETABILITY Attentiveness to the cost effectiveness and marketability of programs and services is a key characteristic of a well-run institution. Cost-effectiveness must be one guideline in determining staffing levels and whether or not to maintain programs or services. The University must therefore be sensitive to the constituencies it serves and to their preferences. While Ohio Wesleyan cannot mindlessly add or subtract staff or programs or services to track short-term fluctuations in cost effectiveness, neither can it ignore longer term or more profound shifts as it decides which subject areas, programs, or services to maintain and at what staffing levels. The following non-prescriptive questions related to cost effectiveness and marketability must be asked: What is the relationship between direct expenses and revenues in a given area? What is the actual and relative cost of a graduation unit (or, in the case of non-academic areas, other service unit)? What is the trend line for both, and for enrollments and student/staff ratio? Is the program or service a "native recruiter?" Is it duplicative? What is the present and future demand for the program among existing and potential student populations as measured by internal data sets (e.g., enrollments, numbers of majors, programs served, etc.), labor market projections, external stakeholder feedback, and national and state policy/economic projections and placement data? QUALITY Since the primary purpose of Ohio Wesleyan University is to provide excellent instruction in the liberal arts and selected career options, and comparable quality in non-academic services, it must consider program or service quality in making program, service, and faculty staffing decisions. In dealing with any financially contingent situation, it will seek to retain its best personnel, programs, and services, as one top priority. It will strive to adjust programs and services and retain or retrain individuals so as to maintain the best possible teaching and learning environment. Major issues associated with this guideline are complex and difficult. Among them are the following: Is the program or service and its staff faculty generally perceived by Faculty (staff, where non-academic services may be involved), students, and alumni to be of high quality? Do students, in or associated with it, perform throughout the University at average or higher levels? Is the staff faculty versatile as well as strong? The guidelines of Mission, Cost Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality are contradictory. Any one of them used exclusively could lead to very serious imbalances in the focus and operation of the University. Recognition that each of these three needs to be considered and that each provides an outward boundary for the decision process will encourage an intelligent and equitable response to financially contingent situations as well as to ordinary conditions. Making Contingency Decisions If financially contingent situations require reductions in personnel and/or academic departments or programs resulting in the termination of faculty appointments or services , the University will balance a need for timely action with the need for shared decision-making. In both determining whether such a situation exists and in shaping difficult decisions that contingencies might require, the President will engage in extensive consultation with appropriate faculty committees, administrators, and where conditions allow, students, before making a recommendation to the Board of Trustees as follows: Determination of Financial Contingency When a financial contingent situation exists or is imminent that might require reductions in academic departments or programs, the President will present to the Committee on University Governance evidence supporting the President’s assessment that a financial contingent situation exists or is imminent and that reasonable means for coping with the situation have been exhausted without resorting to the elimination of faculty positions. The Committee on University Governance will review the evidence within the time prescribed by the President and transmit to the President and Board of Trustees either: An endorsement of the President’s assessment; or Its own assessment, explicitly stating its point(s) of disagreement with the President. The Board of Trustees will not make a determination on whether a financial contingent situation exists or is imminent until it has received the report from the Committee on University Governance or the deadline prescribed by the President has elapsed. These determinations and resulting document(s) shall be considered private and confidential unless the Board of Trustees agrees to make all or portions of them public. After completing the above steps, the Board of Trustees shall determine whether a financial contingent situation exists or is imminent and retains ultimate authority for declaring that a financially contingent situation exists or is imminent. Framing of Proposal to Address Financial Contingent Situation Responsibility for framing a proposal for program or services and/or personnel reductions to deal with a financially contingent situation will rest with the President. The proposal, when it pertains to academic programs and/or personnel, will be referred to the Committee on Academic Programs as to curricular impact, to the Academic Planning and Allocation Committee as to the implications for the academic plan, to the Faculty Personnel Committee as to personnel implications, and to the affected programs. When the proposal pertains to non-academic programs, services, and/or personnel, it will be forwarded to the Governance Committee and the Senior Leadership Team Cabinet for consideration. These bodies will hold hearings as part of their deliberations. At the discretion of the President, an advisory student committee may also be created. These groups will severally consider the proposal(s) and in doing so may consult widely with faculty, students, and, where appropriate, with staff. They are to complete their deliberations within 30 calendar days of receipt of the President's proposal(s) and report their findings and recommendations to the President immediately upon finishing their deliberations. They may recommend acceptance, alteration, or otherwise, of the President's proposal(s). If and when they are unable to achieve concurrence with the President, and the President yet judges that reductions must be made, the President will report to the Board of Trustees the proposed course of action. If there is a difference of views between the President and the committees, the President will ensure that the committees' proposals are forwarded to the Trustees with the President’s proposal(s). The Board of Trustees retains ultimate authority for approving proposals as to program and position reductions and terminations responding to a financially contingent situation. After the completion and implementation of decisions for institutional contraction to deal with a financially contingent situation, the President will make available to the campus community a full report on the actions taken. In the event that the Board of Trustees declares that a financial contingent situation exists or is imminent, the President shall be responsible for framing a proposal for addressing the situation. If the proposal might require reductions in academic departments or interdisciplinary programs and the termination of faculty positions, the President, prior to framing the proposal, shall engage in an extensive academic program review process. Academic Program Review Process Step 1: The initial step in the Academic Program Review process will be the development by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness of a Dashboard that provides extensive quantitative data relating to all academic programs at the University. The Dashboard will be made available transparently to all faculty. Step 2. Following the publication of the Dashboard, each academic department will be charged by Academic Affairs to complete self-studies, following criteria set by the Academic Planning and Allocation Committee (APAC). Step 3. Following receipt of the department self-studies, APAC will evaluate each department in relation to Mission, Cost-Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality (see above) and issue a report to the President. Step 4. The President shall convene a Joint Committee comprised of eight faculty members elected by the faculty (or appointed by the Executive Committee if an election is unsuccessful) from individuals serving on each of the following faculty committees: University Governance Committee (UGC), Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC), Committee on Academic Programs (CAP), and Academic Planning and Allocation Committee (APAC). In addition, the Joint Committee shall include the Provost and appropriate academic administrators responsible for data and curriculum as designated by the Provost. After considering the department self-studies and APAC report, the Joint Committee shall: Develop recommendations for the appropriate number and size of departments and interdisciplinary programs, as well as the appropriate number of majors and minors; Identify opportunities for program enhancement; and Suggest the optimal configuration of departments and interdisciplinary programs. In addressing these areas, the committee’s recommendations may include (a) the discontinuation and/or reduction of departments, interdisciplinary programs, majors, and minors; (b) the elimination of faculty positions; (c) recommendations about reconfiguring departments, interdisciplinary programs, majors, and minors by reassigning positions; (d) enhancement of programs, and (e) changes in policies and procedures that would improve the functioning or efficiency of the academic program. The President, in consultation with the Executive Committee of the Faculty, will determine the date by which the Joint Committee’s recommendations to the President must be provided. Following its deliberations, the Joint Committee shall issue its formal recommendations in writing to the President. Step 5. The President will review the Joint Committee report and issue a written proposal to the members of the faculty addressing the financially contingent situation. The President’s written proposal will also be referred to CAP as to curricular impact, to APAC as to the implications for the academic plan, to the FPC as to personnel implications, and to the affected programs identified in the proposal, each of which will have the opportunity to hold hearings over a 30-day period. The manner in which the hearings are held are at the discretion of the respective committees. Step 6. Following the hearings, the respective committees and programs may submit to the President written recommendations for changes to the proposal. The President will consider the recommendations. If consensus can be reached regarding the final proposal, the President will forward to the Board of Trustees a final report reflecting that consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, the President will transmit to the Board of Trustees both the President’s final proposal and the alternative proposal(s) prepared by the faculty committees and program. The Board of Trustees shall approve the final plan to address the financial contingent situation and retains ultimate authority for approving proposals as to department or interdisciplinary program and position reductions and terminations responding to a financially contingent situation. Step 7. If the Board approved plan includes the discontinuation and/or reduction of departments, interdisciplinary programs, majors, and minors, the Faculty Personnel Committee, in consultation with the Provost, shall recommend to the President which individual positions, and therefore appointments, should be terminated. In developing recommendations, the committee will be guided by following sequence: Consideration of attrition resulting from resignation, retirement, or other severance actions. Termination of Part-time and Visiting faculty positions within the affected department(s) or interdisciplinary program(s). Termination of tenure-track and/or tenured positions within the affected department(s) or interdisciplinary program(s). In the case of a reduction of a department or interdisciplinary program, as opposed to a discontinuation, the appointment of a faculty member with tenure within the same department or program will not be terminated in favor of retaining a full-time tenure-track faculty member, except in circumstances where a serious distortion of the department or interdisciplinary program would otherwise result. In making recommendations, the following criteria, in no particular order of priority, will be considered by the Faculty Personnel Committee: Education and professional credentials; The length of the faculty member’s service to the University; The quality of the faculty member’s service to the University; The abilities of the individual faculty member in relation to the needs of the University and the potentially affected department or interdisciplinary program. Step 8. The President shall render the final decision on terminations for reasons of financial contingency and notify the faculty member(s) involved in accordance with the Notification provisions below. Step 9. After the completion and implementation of decisions for institutional contraction to deal with a financially contingent situation, the President will make available to the campus community a full report on the actions taken. Notification Notification of termination will be sent from the President to the faculty member. The notice will specify the reasons for such termination, the effective date of termination, the faculty member's right to retraining (if applicable), and right to an appeal. In all cases of termination of appointment because of financial exigency, full-time non-tenure faculty members will be given notice or severance salary in accordance with Section 3.13.3.1. Tenured faculty will be provided with termination payments in accordance with Section 3.13.5.1. Appeals If the administration issues notice to a particular faculty member of an intention to terminate the appointment because of financial exigency, the faculty member will have the right to file a grievance in accordance with Section 3.14.3. The issues in this hearing may include the following: The existence and extent of the condition of financial exigency. The burden will rest on the administration to prove the existence and extent of the condition. The findings of a faculty committee in a previous proceeding involving the same issue may be introduced. The validity of the educational judgments and the criteria for identification for termination; but the recommendations of a faculty committee on these matters will be considered presumptively valid. Whether the criteria are being properly applied in the individual case. Reassignment and Retraining Subject to a review of qualifications (see Section 3.4.5 - Faculty Qualification) and retraining possibilities (see Section 3.10.3 – Retraining Leave), tenured and tenure track faculty members in positions to be eliminated will be considered for suitable vacancies at the University in administrative or teaching positions. See Section 3.13.5.1 below. Reinstatement Rights When a tenured faculty position is terminated for a financial contingent situation, the position will not be filled by a new appointee with the same areas of specialization as the terminated faculty member within a period of three years, unless the released faculty member has been offered reinstatement and at least thirty days in which to accept or decline it.</s>

<s>[INST] 1st Draft Rewrite Program Discontinuation.txt [/INST] 2. Program or Department Discontinuance Due to Educational Decisions Termination of an appointment with tenure, or of a tenure track faculty member before the end of the specified term, may occur as a result of a bona fide formal discontinuance of a program or department of instruction due to educational considerations not related to a financially contingent situation. Criteria The decision to discontinue an academic program or department of instruction will be based on long-range judgements that the educational mission of the University as whole will be enhanced by the discontinuance of an academic program or department. Such a decision will not be based upon cyclical or temporary variations in enrollment. For purposes of this policy, academic programs and departments are defined as an academic department or program offering majors and minors that existed prior to the decision to discontinue them. The term program means a group of courses leading to a major or minor, a sequence of courses with a common prefix, a service, or support area, or any curriculum area identified as such. Making Academic Program or Department Discontinuation Decisions A proposal to discontinue formally a program or department of instruction may be initiated by the Academic Planning and Allocation Committee, the Committee on Academic Programs, the Provost, or the President. The decision to discontinue a program or department of instruction will be based essentially upon educational considerations, as determined according to the Academic Program Review Process procedures in the Termination Due to Financially Contingent Situations and Resource Allocation Policy (see Section 3.13.5(2)(b)(2) above). Reassignment and Retraining Before the President issues notice to a tenure line faculty member of the University’s intention to terminate an appointment because of a formal discontinuance of a program or department, the University will, subject to a review of qualifications (see Section 3.4.5 - Faculty Qualification) and retraining possibilities (see Section 3.10.3 – Retraining Leave), consider the faculty member for suitable administrative or teaching position vacations within the University. See Section 3.13.5.1 below for additional information. When a suitable position is not available within the University, with or without retraining, and the faculty member is not agreeable to any optional alternative courses of action (i.e., change in status to part-time), the faculty member’s appointment may be terminated. Notice Notification of termination will be sent from the President to the faculty member. The notice will specify the reasons for such termination, the effective date of termination, the faculty member's right to retraining (if applicable), and right to an appeal. Full-time non-tenured faculty members will be given notice or severance salary in accordance with Section 3.13.3.1. Tenured faculty will be provided with termination payments in accordance with Section 3.13.5.1. Appeal If the administration issues notice to a tenure line faculty member of an intention to terminate the appointment because of the formal discontinuance of a program or department of instruction due to educational considerations, the faculty member will have the right to file a grievance in accordance with Section 3.14.3. -End Alternative Text-</s>

<s>[INST] 2.13 Review Team Meeting Proposed Agenda.txt [/INST] Agenda – 2.13 Meeting Barbara’s Suggesting re: Timeline Meetings for Separation Meeting for FMLA/Parental Leave Attorney or HR Rep Present *NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL OPEN MEETINGS. WILL DO FACULY SURVEY * Communication from Team on this? Committee Service Expectations and Chair Stipend Suggestion See John’s 2/3 Email and SL’s Response 2/4/6 Evaluation Model Pre-Tenure Faculty Meeting Workload/Remote Teaching Barbara’s Comments? Department Chair Stipends – “may” Salary Scale and Equity Issues – See Anonymous Spreadsheet Contract APAC Comments Table Program Review? 3.14.1 Appeals Procedure in Non-Renewal Review “Hybrid” Rewrite 3.13.4 – Dismissal for Cause Remove “Charge Involving Moral Turpitude” Step 3: Reverse Order of Listing Step 6: Modify Panel Composition? Thomas More Example: The committee of faculty members to conduct the hearing and reach findings of fact and recommendations to the President shall be appointed by the Faculty Coordinating Committee within five (5) academic days of the President’s submission of charges. The committee shall consist of five (5) impartial senior members of the faculty. The choice of members of the hearing committee shall be on the basis of their objectivity and competence and of the regard in which they are held in the academic community. The committee shall elect its own chair. Move Panel Member Challenges Text from Step 8 to 6? Step 13: Add back the AAUP Rep Text? Step 14: Strike University Text from Next Draft? 3.13.5: Revise Alternative Text to Give FM Advance Notice Article IV of Faculty Bylaws: Staffing Ad Hoc Committees See Sections 4 and 5. 3.6.1.6 - Presence on Campus See Barbara’s 2.14 email Phased Retirement Remove Heading?</s>

<s>[INST] 2.4 IT Policies (2nd Draft).txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] 2.9 Review Team Meeting Proposed Agenda.txt [/INST] Agenda – 2.9 Meeting Barbara’s Suggesting re: Timeline Meetings for Separation Meeting for FMLA/Parental Leave Attorney or HR Rep Present Committee Service Expectations and Chair Stipend Suggestion See John’s 2/3 Email and SL’s Response APAC Comments Table Program Review? 3.14.1 Appeals Procedure in Non-Renewal Review “Hybrid” Rewrite 3.13.4 – Dismissal for Cause Remove “Charge Involving Moral Turpitude” Step 3: Reverse Order of Listing Step 6: Modify Panel Composition? Thomas More Example: The committee of faculty members to conduct the hearing and reach findings of fact and recommendations to the President shall be appointed by the Faculty Coordinating Committee within five (5) academic days of the President’s submission of charges. The committee shall consist of five (5) impartial senior members of the faculty. The choice of members of the hearing committee shall be on the basis of their objectivity and competence and of the regard in which they are held in the academic community. The committee shall elect its own chair. Move Panel Member Challenges Text from Step 8 to 6? Step 13: Add back the AAUP Rep Text? Step 14: Strike University Text from Next Draft? 3.13.5: Revise Alternative Text to Give FM Advance Notice Article IV of Faculty Bylaws: Staffing Ad Hoc Committees See Sections 4 and 5.</s>

<s>[INST] 2022.02.16 Proposal A 4.1.1 (SS Comments & Revisions)-1-1.txt [/INST] February 16, 2022 To: Faculty Welfare Committee From: Jamie Caridi, Interim President Joe Lane, Provost Bill Kiefer RE: Manual Revision #1 – 4.0 and 4.1.1 Purpose – To clarify the opening section of the Manual regarding the classifications of faculty and the privileges and duties of each group. In particular, the proposed section will clarify the status of faculty with administrative duties and “pro rata” faculty hired to contracts for specific programs and purposes. It is intended to cover certain faculty members who would be hired under contract for the proposed graduate programs. Presented as a replacement to existing language. NB: Throughout these sections, the language regarding the Chief Academic Officer language has been changed to replace references to the Vice President for Academic Affairs with references to the Provost (and Dean of the Faculty). This change reflects current usage at Bethany and would be applied throughout the manual to provide consistency. We hope this change would be considered editorial and uncontroversial. Proposed Language Introduction Volume IV contains general policies and procedures relating to faculty members and faculty status which are intended to guarantee for the institution a faculty of as high a quality as possible and for the individual faculty member a maximum degree of fairness. The policies and procedures herein result from action by the Board of Trustees, the Administration and the faculty acting through the Faculty Welfare Committee. It is expected that faculty members will be aware of the contents of Volume IV and will make a conscientious effort to abide by the information contained therein. Effort has been made in this Volume IV to avoid duplication of information which appears in other documents, viz. Volumes II, III, V, VI and VII. Faculty members shall become familiar with the contents of those documents that have significance for their professional performance. This Volume IV is incorporated by reference into the individual faculty appointment agreements of each faculty member. Where the terms and provisions of an individual appointment agreement of a faculty member are inconsistent with the general policies contained herein, the provisions of the individual appointment agreement shall control. Otherwise, the provisions of this Volume IV will remain in effect until changed by the procedures contained in this Volume IV. Should there be any misapplication, misinterpretation or violation of specific provisions in this Volume, the faculty member involved should report the circumstance to the Provost. The administrative or staff responsibilities of faculty members with administrative or staff duties are specified in the individual appointment letters of such faculty members. Faculty members with substantive administrative duties may include senior administrators (the President, Provost, Directors, or others), librarians or members of the Learning Center administration with appropriate credentials, or other members of the College staff who have appropriate credentials, teach classes as part of their assigned duties, or previously held academic appointments at other institutions. Definition of Faculty Status, Faculty Rank and Criteria for Advancement in Rank Faculty Status Full-time Faculty A full-time faculty member is any full-time employee of Bethany College who is qualified for and currently holds an appointment to one of the academic ranks listed in Subsection 4.1.2. A full-time faculty member fulfills the duties and responsibilities of a faculty member and ordinarily has: teaching and academic advising duties, which are enriched by scholarship, creative, and professional development, and service activities in support of the mission of the College (see Section --) equivalent to a full-time teaching load (see Section --- ); or teaching and other duties (e.g., research, academic administration, counseling, library duties, athletic department duties) equivalent to a full-time teaching load and equivalent to a full-time teaching load (see Section ---). A full-time faculty member who has continuously taught at Bethany College for at least six years is eligible to apply for sabbatical (see Subsection 4.10.2). All full-time faculty members are considered full voting members of the faculty and may be appointed pursuant to a term, notice (tenure track or non-tenure track), or tenure agreement (see Subsection 4.2.1). Pro-rata Faculty A pro-rata faculty member is a contractual employee of the College appointed pursuant to a term or notice appointment (see paragraphs 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2, respectively), who is qualified for appointment to one of the academic ranks listed in Subsection 4.1.2 and whose primary duties are defined by the teaching of a course load determined by the Department Chair and/or the Provost. The appropriate course-load is normally specified in the faculty member’s letter of employment and may include graduate or undergraduate teaching (or a mixture thereof), but the sum total of duties assigned to such faculty would normally be equivalent to at least a half-time appointment. A pro-rata faculty member is not an Adjunct/Per-course faculty member. A pro-rata faculty member has pro-rata contractual rights and may be eligible for advancement in rank and fringe benefits. A pro-rata faculty member may have, on a pro-rata basis, responsibilities for advising, serving on committees, and other responsibilities of full-time faculty members as well as eligibility for a sabbatical, all as set forth in his or her employment agreement with the College. Adjunct Faculty/Per Unit/Per Course Faculty An Adjunct, Per Unit, or Per Course faculty member is employed pursuant to a short-term appointment (see paragraph 4.2.1.1) and carries no rank. A Per-course faculty member may carry as many as eight or fewer credit hours per semester at the College and no more than twelve credits on an adjunct basis in any given year (a full-time teaching/advising load is defined as at least 12 hours per semester). An Adjunct, Per Unit, or Per Course faculty member usually has no other faculty duties or responsibilities (i.e., committee obligations, advising, research, etc.), except for those specified by the department and agreed to by the faculty member accepting the Adjunct, Per Unit, or Per Course appointment. An Adjunct, Per Unit, or Per Course faculty member does not accrue time towards sabbatical. Reappointment of Adjunct, Per Unit, or Per Course faculty is at the discretion of the College and successive reappointments do not confer continuing employment status and imply no employment rights beyond the duration of the term of employment set forth in the faculty member’s short-term appointment agreement. Appointment to an Adjunct, Per Unit, or Per Course position does not confer membership in the Faculty. Accordingly, Adjunct, Per Unit, or Per Course Faculty are not considered full voting members of the faculty. They are, however, invited to attend the meetings of the Faculty, with voice, but not vote. In addition, Adjunct, Per Unit, or Per Course faculty do not normally participate in the Faculty or University Standing or ad hoc committee structure. Because student enrollment and Full-time Faculty loads may not be determined until after the date that an Adjunct, Per Unit, or Per Course faculty member signs an appointment agreement, an Adjunct, Per Unit, or Per Course faculty member’s appointment is contingent upon sufficient student enrollment for the course to be taught and upon that course not being assigned as part of a Full-time Faculty member’s required teaching load. If there is insufficient course enrollment or the course is assigned as part of a Full-time Faculty member’s required teaching load, the University reserves the right to void the Adjunct, Per Unit, or Per Course faculty member’s appointment. Administrators with Faculty Rank An Administrator with Faculty Rank is a full-time or pro-rata employee who functions in an instructional capacity outside the classroom (e.g., some librarians and learning resources faculty), or performs a combination of faculty, staff, and professional duties. An Administrator with Faculty Rank is subject to all responsibilities and standards of teaching performance that apply to other full-time or pro-rata faculty and receives the same academic freedom as other faculty members. With regard to the non-academic aspects of an administrator’s duties, an administrator is governed by the provisions of Volume V (Personnel Policies for Staff) of the Policy Manual. 4.1.1.5 President and Provost Duly appointed officers of the College holding the positions of President and Provost (or Dean of the Faculty, Vice President of Academic Affairs, or other title for the Chief Academic Officer) hold their faculty ranks by Board appointment as specified in the By-Laws of Bethany College and Manual 1.6. Normally the President carries the title of the M.M. Cochran Professor of Leadership Studies and the Provost carries the title of the Sarah B. Cochran Professor of the appropriate academic discipline. These positions may be hired with tenure at the discretion of the Board. Special Appointment Faculty Special Appointment Faculty participate in one of the College’s academic programs and make a substantial contribution to the academic activities of the University’s various academic department, but whose professional activities do not span the full range of responsibilities of the Full-time Faculty. Special Appointment Faculty are temporary employees of the College and perform those duties and responsibilities as stated in their respective appointment agreements. Reappointment of Special Appointment Faculty is at the discretion of the College and successive reappointments do not confer continuing employment status and imply no employment rights beyond the duration of the term of employment set forth in the appointment agreement. Special Appointment Faculty shall fulfill those duties and responsibilities related to teaching, as well as other duties as stated in the faculty member’s individual term appointment agreement. The use of a rank designation for Special Appointment Faculty shall not be construed as eligibility for promotion in rank; Special Appointment Faculty are ineligible for promotion in rank. Appointment to a Special Appointment Faculty position does not confer membership or voting rights in the Full-tine Faculty. A Special Appointment Faculty are, however, invited to attend the meetings of the Faculty, with voice, but not vote. In addition, Special Appointment Faculty do not participate in the Faculty or University standing or ad hoc committee structure. A Special Appointment Faculty member may apply for a posted full-time Ranked Faculty position with the University in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 4.3.1(3). If a Special Appointment Faculty member applies for a posted Full-time Faculty position and is offered the position, the Special Appointment may negotiate credit for full-time time service at Bethany College. In accordance with University policy, the individual must meet the minimum residency requirement as a Full-time Faculty member at the College before applying for promotion to a higher rank or tenure as applicable. Artist/Writer/Scholar-in-Residence/Visiting Ranked Faculty Bethany College may appoint artists, writers, scholars, and other distinguished individuals to the special faculty status of Artist/Writer/Scholar-in-Residence/Visiting Ranked Faculty. Such appointments are awarded for a specific period of time and may be full-time or pro-rata depending upon the needs of Bethany College. An Artist/Writer/Scholar-in-Residence/Visiting Ranked faculty member is appointed by the President in consultation with the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of Faculty. The appointment is made pursuant to a term agreement for a limited period of time with no intent of on-going employment. The appointment may be full-time, pro-rata, or per-course based on the needs of the College. Replacement Faculty The College may appoint a replacement faculty member to full-time status for a specific period of time. Time served under the appointment does not count towards promotion in rank or sabbatical leave unless so indicated by the President of the College at the time of hire or at the time of conversion to a tenure-track appointment. A temporary replacement may be appointed for a faculty member who is on sabbatical, on leave, or who has retired or resigned. The replacement faculty member may be appointed on a full-time, pro-rata, or per-course basis until such time as the regular faculty member returns or a permanent replacement is found. Emeriti Faculty In recognition of unusual and meritorious service to the College, on the recommendation of the Faculty, Retention, Tenure and Promotion Committee and the Provost and the President of the College, and subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees, a faculty member upon retirement from active full-time faculty service may receive Emeritus rank. Specific eligibility criteria and procedures for application may be found in 1.6.3.1.1 The following materials shall be reviewed by the Faculty, Retention, Tenure and Promotion Committee: Nomination by a current faculty member, including a rationale for consideration, highlighting significant contributions to the College, and Current vitae. Emeritus Rank will entitle holders to the privileges listed in section 1.6.3.1.1. Visiting Appointments Visiting appointments are reserved for faculty members of other institutions, professors emeriti, and persons distinguished in their fields. Visiting faculty members are appointed by the President of the College after consultation with the Provost and Dean of Faculty. Visiting faculty members will carry the rank they hold from their most recent employer or will be assigned a rank based on the criteria listed in Subsection 4.1.2. Visiting appointments may be held for no more than three consecutive academic years.</s>

<s>[INST] 2022.02.16 Proposal C 4.2.1 (SS Comments).txt [/INST] February 16, 2022 To: Faculty Welfare Committee From: Jamie Caridi, Interim President Joe Lane, Provost Bill Kiefer RE: Manual Revision C – Proposed Language for new language in section 4.2.1 regarding types of contracts, terms of appointment, and conversion from contract positions to the tenure track Purpose: The proposed section clears up several areas of recent confusion, provides rules to govern contracts and re-appointment of pro-rata faculty members (as that category is expanded in proposal for 4.1), and clarifies the process for moving from a contract appointment to the tenure track. The proposed language below also alters sections of 4.3.1.3 regarding search procedures. Proposed Language Policies Pertaining to Faculty Appointments Types of Faculty Appointments Term Appointments Term appointments are issued for a clearly defined, limited period to pro-rata, adjunct/per-unit/per-course, visiting and special appointment faculty members. Term appointments may also be issued to full-time faculty members in special circumstances with the approval of the President of the College for short-term curricular needs of the College. Term appointments do not confer upon a faculty member an expectation for continued employment after the term specified in the contract expires. No notice or action by the College is required to effectuate such expiration. Re-employment of the faculty member after expiration of the term of the appointment is solely within the discretion of the College and no other procedures apply. Notice Appointments Faculty members with notice appointments may expect the appointment to be renewed pursuant to the progressive schedules described below unless otherwise notified pursuant to the terms of the applicable appointment agreement. The initial appointment is for one year. Notice appointments are subject to the policies and procedures found in Section 4.8 (Separation) of the Policy Manual, or other specific provisions with regard to Separation contained in their appointment, which specific provisions shall supersede the provisions of Section 4.8 of the Policy Manual. Appointment, Tenure Track A full-time faculty member with a terminal degree or a professional background that may be considered equivalent to a doctorate or terminal degree, who is hired into a tenure track position, may expect the appointment to be renewed annually unless otherwise notified pursuant to the terms of the applicable appointment agreement. A person on a tenure track appointment is eligible to apply for tenure after completing a tenure track period of six years (See Section 4.7). The tenure track period may be reduced by the President of the College after receiving the recommendation of the Faculty, Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Committee and the Provost. A faculty member on a tenure track appointment is subject to annual review according to established procedures and criteria outlined under Section 4.5 – Faculty Evaluation. If tenure is not granted or the faculty member elects not to apply for tenure after completing a tenure track period of six years, the faculty member is to be given notice of release and a one-year terminal appointment. Appointment, Non-tenure Track The College offers notice appointments to full-time and pro-rata faculty members appointed to Non-Tenure Track positions. Faculty members receiving a non-tenure track appointment agreement are not eligible to apply for tenure status. Faculty members with a non-tenure track notice appointment may expect the appointment to be renewed unless otherwise notified pursuant to the terms of the applicable appointment. An initial non-tenure track notice appointment may be for a period of one or more academic years at the discretion of the College. Thereafter, additional appointments of one or two years may follow. Non-tenure-track, full-time, pro-rata faculty members continuing beyond the first six years of service at the College (or as otherwise set forth in the appointment) are eligible to receive successive three-year notice appointments beginning in their seventh year of employment at the College. All notice appointments are subject to the policy and procedures found in Section 4.8 (Separation) of this Policy Manual, except to the extent that the conclusion of their most recent three-year contract or specific circumstances defined in their letter of appointment provide otherwise. Non-tenure track faculty members are also subject to the evaluation provisions of Section 4.5. Moving to Tenure Track If an appropriate tenure-track position opens at Bethany, a non-tenure track faculty member may apply for that position. The position would normally be expected to be filled in accordance with the Search and Appointment procedures as specified in Subsection 4.3.1. In the event that the department chair of the relevant program and the Provost concur that a demonstrated record of successful teaching, advising, service, and scholarship support the conclusion that the immediate conversion of a current non-tenure track faculty to a tenurable line will serve both the program and the College well, they may prepare a recommendation to that effect and ask the Faculty Retention, Tenure, and Promotion (FRTP) Committee to conduct an interview with that faculty member and to make a recommendation on whether that faculty member should be converted to tenure-track. The recommendations of the department chair, Provost, and FRTP should be forwarded to the President who may make then authorize the Provost to make such a conversion to a tenure-track line. The Provost will communicate this decision to the faculty member and department chair. The tenure track appointment will officially commence in the next academic year. If a sitting faculty member is converted into a tenure track appointment, whether after a good faith search has been conducted or at the conclusion of the process described above, some or all of the faculty member’s years of service at the College may, at the discretion of Provost, on written notice from the faculty member, count toward the time by which a tenure decision is due. If a transfer is granted, application for tenure must be made when the faculty member becomes eligible. If tenure is not granted or the faculty member elects not to apply for tenure after completing a tenure track period of six years, the faculty member is to be given notice of release and a one-year terminal appointment Tenure Tenured faculty members are entitled to annual appointment renewal and shall be subject to the terms and conditions of employment that exist at the time of each annual renewal and are further subject to the separation policies in Section 4.8. Terminal Appointment A terminal appointment is the final appointment issued to a faculty member in the case of denial of tenure, non-renewal, resignation or cases of mutual agreement, including retirement. 4.3.1.3 In the event that there is an acceptable candidate already holding a faculty appointment, and if the Department Chair, the Provost, and the President concur that this candidate should receive the appointment, such acceptable candidate may be appointed to fill the vacancy without a search, eliminating the need for the steps set forth in paragragh 4 through 6 hereof. Otherwise the position is advertised in appropriate academic media. Any such advertisements are to be in accordance with Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity guidelines (see Volume II, Subsection 2.1.1).</s>

<s>[INST] 2022.02.16 Proposal D 4.2.3 (SS Comments).txt [/INST] February 16, 2022 To: Faculty Welfare Committee From: Jamie Caridi, Interim President Joe Lane, Provost Bill Kiefer RE: Manual Revision #4 – Proposed Language for new language in section 4.2.3 regarding the dates of appointment letters Purpose: The proposed section changes the release date for faculty appointment letters and contracts to reconcile the internal tension in the current language. Recent years have repeatedly demonstrated that the April 15 date cannot be met if letters are going to be “pursuant to a Board-approved budget” as the language indicates. Under the new terms, the Board will be responsible for passing a budget by their early May meeting each year. Contracts will follow immediately thereafter and no later than the end of May so that agreements may be returned by no later than June 14 (10 business days after their delivery to faculty members). It is essential that contracts be secured by no later than mid-June to assure that the College can appropriately plan for course coverage for the Fall semester. A clause has been added to indicate that potential COLA, raises, and merit pay (but only increases in salary) may be issues after the Fall Census to be effective on January 1. Moving future increases to a calendar year basis will make it possible to adjust salaries when sufficient enrollment makes such increases possible. Proposed Language Issuance and Receipt of Appointment Agreements Ranked, full-time faculty appointment offers for an upcoming academic year are normally to be issued on or before May 31 and become void if not signed and returned within ten working days. Pro-rata appointments are generally issued on this date, but they may be issued on other schedules on an individual basis as the necessity arises. All per-course adjunct appointments are issued on an individual basis by the Provost in advance of the semester for which they are required. Salaries of the members of the faculty other than the President of the College shall be fixed by the President of the College within the Board of Trustees’ approved budget for the upcoming academic year. The appointment becomes official when the written agreement offered by the President of the College to the prospective faculty member is signed in triplicate by both parties. A copy is retained on file in the Office of Human Resources, the second copy is retained on file in the Office of Provost, and the third copy is returned to the appointee. Increases in salary for members of the faculty may be issued with the annual contracts in May, but increases (whether COLA, across-the-board increases, or merit increases for particular faculty members) may be based on the Fall semester census and released following the Board of Trustees fall meeting. Such increases will normally be effective on January 1 of the academic year for which they are issued and will be considered to increase the expected base pay for subsequent academic years unless otherwise specifically noted.</s>

<s>[INST] 2022.02.16 Proposal E 4.8 (Layoff) (SS Comments).txt [/INST] February 16, 2022 To: Faculty Welfare Committee From: Jamie Caridi, Interim President Joe Lane, Provost Bill Kiefer RE: Manual Revision #5 – Proposed Language for new language in section 4.8 regarding academic reorganization, order of lay-offs, etc. Purpose: The revision of this section is intended to provide an orderly process by which the administration may initiate an orderly process for assessing academic programs in cases in which changes may be needed without risking the reputational damage to the College that declarations of exigency or enrollment emergency may incur. The proposed revisions are aimed to provide a fair process, timely decisions, and relatively expedited resolution of any necessary separations. Proposed Language 4.8.5. Layoffs Layoff is a severance action by which the College terminates the services of a faculty member before the expiration of the faculty member’s current appointment, without prejudice as to the faculty member’s performance. Decisions about layoffs are recommended by the President of the College to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees may also mandate or recommend such changes, under its fiduciary responsibility, through the President of the College. Such mandate or recommendation will proceed in consultation with the Provost, the appropriate Department Chair, and the Faculty Welfare Committee in cases of enrollment emergency and financial exigency. 4.8.5.1 Curricular Changes or Academic Program Reorganization Layoff of a full-time academic unit faculty member appointed pursuant to notice or tenure appointment agreements may occur as a result of a curricular change, including reorganization or discontinuation of a curricular requirement or an academic program in whole or in part. The Provost will make decisions regarding such changes after consultation with the Department Chair of the impacted department(s). The decision to implement a curricular change that results in the layoff of full-time faculty member rests with the Board of Trustees. Such a decision will be based upon educational considerations that reflect long-range judgments that the mission of the College as a whole will be served by the curricular change. In reaching such a decision, the President will consult with the Faculty Welfare Committee, the Provost, and others to form a task force to review the academic program offering(s) and make recommendations regarding the aligning of programs and faculty staffing. The task force shall normally complete its review within 120 days of formation (excluding the period [June 15-August 15]) unless an extension is agreeable to both the President and Faculty Welfare Committee and is expressed in writing. The task force report will advise the Provost, who in turn will prepare a program and staffing strategy to guide personnel decisions. The Provost’s staffing report will be forwarded to the Faculty Welfare Committee, President of the College, and Board of Trustees, with final approval resting with the Board. When systemic disruptions in the College’s enrollment patterns, total enrollment (current or expected), and operating environment requires substantial and immediate curricular changes resulting in the reorganization or discontinuation of an academic program(s), the President may modify the timelines or procedures set forth above for good cause shown. In such cases, the President must communicate clearly with the Faculty Welfare Community and any affected departments to explain the reasons for the curricular changes or program reorganization. Individual layoff decisions impacting full-time faculty resulting from curricular changes will follow the “Order of Layoff procedures” described in paragraph 4.8.5.4 below. Full-time Faculty that are laid off under a curricular change will receive notice according to the schedule in paragraph 4.8.5.4. Faculty on a tenure appointment will receive one year’s notice or an appropriate financial agreement equal to or greater than one year’s salary as deemed appropriate by the President and the Board. The College will, except in unusual circumstances, end such program and the faculty member’s relationship with the College at the end of an academic semester or year. Faculty laid off under this paragraph have the same rights as those terminated under Enrollment Emergency or Financial Exigency policies as delineated in paragraphs 4.8.5.2 and 4.8.5.3. Enrollment Emergency An enrollment emergency is an unplanned decline in student enrollment, the detrimental financial effects of which are either too great, too systemic, or too rapid to be offset by normal procedures outlined in Volume IV of this Policy Manual. When a decline in enrollment, or loss of funding in whole or in part are of such a nature that the College’s projected budget for a given academic year or future academic years as determined by reasonable projections cannot be balanced and clearly indicates that no other alternatives except by academic program reorganizations or cuts, the President of the College, after consultation with the Provost and Faculty Welfare Committee, will make a written recommendation to the Board of Trustees whether an internal declaration that the College is in a state of enrollment emergency should be declared. An enrollment emergency is based upon the number of FTE students as calculated by the Registrar’s Office. The Board of Trustees to declare an enrollment emergency rests with the Board of Trustees. Once the Board of Trustees decides that an enrollment emergency exits, the President of the College, in consultation with the Provost, the Department Chairs, and the Faculty Welfare Committee, and after receiving approval from the Board of Trustees, shall recommend appropriate action in terms of individual layoff decisions. Layoff decisions resulting from a financial exigency will normally follow the “Order of Layoff” procedures described in paragraph 4.8.5.4. The President of the College and the Board of Trustees have final authority in all matters related to enrollment emergencies after following the procedures listed herein. Financial Exigency “Financial Exigency” is an urgent need to reorder the nature and magnitude of financial obligations due to an imminent financial crisis in such a way as to restore or preserve the financial ability of the institution and which cannot be alleviated by less drastic means. “Financial ability,” as defined by the College, means the ability to provide from current income, both cash and accrued, the funds necessary to meet current expenses, including current debt payment and reserves, without invading or depleting capital. The Board of Trustees, upon recommendation of the President of the College, who will previously have consulted with the Provost and the Faculty Welfare Committee, shall advise if a financial crisis that meets the criteria of a financial exigency exists and should be declared. The above groups shall also advise the Board of Trustees of suggested options to alleviate this condition. Once the Board of Trustees decides that a financial exigency exits, the President of the College, in consultation with the Provost, the Department Chairs, and the Faculty Welfare Committee, and after receiving approval from the Board of Trustees, shall recommend appropriate action in terms of individual layoff decisions. Layoff decisions resulting from a financial exigency will normally follow the “Order of Layoff” procedures described in paragraph 4.8.5.4. The President of the College and the Board of Trustees have final authority in all matters related to financial exigency after following the procedures listed herein. Order of Layoff within a Department The President of the College, in consultation with the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of Faculty and the Faculty Welfare Committee, shall determine the layoff of specific faculty members in a particular department according to the guidelines outlined below. The President of the College makes the final decision. Such action shall be grounded in educational considerations and attention to maintaining the quality instruction and the programmatic integrity of the academic curriculum should be a primary consideration. In making a decision about ending the appointment of a faculty member, program integrity is paramount. Rank and seniority will also be considered. When qualifications are equal, time of service from the date of original appointment will determine which faculty members are laid off. The original appointment shall mean the date of the first appointment to College service followed by continuous and uninterrupted service within the College up to the time of reduction and abolishment of positions. Authorized leave of absence shall not be deemed an interruption of service within the College. In the event a faculty member believes such date has been incorrectly determined, the faculty member shall so advise the College and indicate the appropriate date. Prior to layoffs, the institution, with faculty participation, will make a demonstrated and documented effort to place the faculty member concerned in another suitable position within the institution. Further, voluntary measures shall be considered, such as the possibility of voluntary, early, or phased retirements. If the institution terminates appointments pursuant to Subsection 4.8.5, it will not at the same time make new appointments except in extraordinary circumstances where a serious distortion in the academic program would otherwise result. Faculty will be laid off according to the following guidelines, except as necessary to avoid distortion of department or academic program integrity: All administrators with faculty rank shall be laid off from teaching within the department, except as necessary to avoid distortion of program integrity. All faculty members with term appointments shall then be eliminated within the department, except as necessary to avoid distortion of program integrity. Next, non-tenure track faculty members shall be terminated within the department, except as necessary to avoid distortion of program integrity. A faculty member with tenure will not be terminated in favor of retaining a faculty member without tenure, except in demonstrated extraordinary circumstances where a distortion of the department or academic program would otherwise result. The recommendation of extraordinary circumstance to the President of the College will be made by the Provost. The Provost shall provide the Faculty and interested parties with appropriate documentation supporting program integrity, as well as rank, degrees, and seniority. General Notice Procedures Regarding Layoff Layoff of Non-Tenured Faculty If the College determines to terminate the appointment of a notice faculty member pursuant to Subsection 4.8.5, the faculty member shall be notified, to the extent feasible, in accordance with the following guidelines: In the case of termination due to financial exigency or enrollment emergency, not fewer than 180 calendar days after the effective date of the financial exigency or enrollment emergency; and In the case of termination due to reorganization, elimination, or curtailment of academic programs of the College, not fewer than 180 calendar days after the effective date of the reorganization, elimination, or curtailment. In all cases, faculty members affected will be able to complete the semester in which notice is given. Layoff of Tenured Faculty If the College determines to terminate the appointment of a tenured faculty member pursuant to Subsection 4.8.5, notice shall be given, to the extent feasible, in accordance with the following guidelines: In the case of financial exigency or enrollment emergency, where short notices and effective action are necessary, all tenured faculty will receive one semester of notice from the date of officially receiving the decision of the Board of Trustees; In the case of a curricular change, including reorganization or discontinuation of a curricular requirement or an academic program in whole or in part, all tenured faculty will receive one year’s notice from the date of officially receiving the decision of the Board of Trustees; Tenured faculty who have been laid off shall be offered a severance package that will include at least one year of salary in remuneration. The College will attempt to, and document efforts to, assist displaced tenured faculty to find employment in industry, government, or in other educational institutions. Content of Notice The notice shall specify the cause of the layoff, provide a summary description of the facts relied on by the College, and reference the faculty member’s right to file an exception or exceptions through Section 4.13. Notice shall be sufficient if placed in the U.S. mail, First Class, postage prepaid, and addressed to the faculty member at the last address provided by the faculty member to the Director of Human Resources. It shall be the duty of a laid off faculty member to keep the College informed of the faculty member’s current address. Transfer Eligibility Faculty members who are laid off will be eligible to transfer to any other vacant position on the faculty for which the faculty member is qualified, subject to the terms and conditions of employment attendant to that position. A faculty member’s qualification for a formally advertised position shall be reviewed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of Faculty based on the job description for the position, after consultation with the appropriate Department Chair. A faculty member who exercises the rights accorded under this paragraph and who is determined by the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of Faculty to be qualified shall be eligible for the position over any other applicant except another faculty member exercising eligibility accorded under this paragraph who is also qualified and has greater length of service with the College. Length of service will be equivalent to the years of service credited to the faculty member by the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of Faculty. Re-employment If a faculty member is to be laid off for reasons described in this Subsection 4.8.5, the place of the faculty member concerned will not be filled by a replacement within a period of three years, unless the released faculty member has been offered reappointment under conditions comparable to those held at the time of layoff. A faculty member laid off shall be offered re-employment in the same or similar position provided that the opening occurs within a three- year period and that the faculty member is qualified by fitness and ability. The faculty member must accept such offer, which shall be sent by Certified Mail, within fifteen days after such offer is extended or the College can revoke the offer. Appeals on Layoff If the College issues notice to a particular faculty member of an intention to non-renew or layoff a faculty member because of the reasons discussed in paragraphs 4.8.5.1, 4.8.5.2 and 4.8.5.3, the faculty member will have the right to an appeal pursuant to the grievance procedures set forth in Section 4.13. In such a hearing, the College’s determination that a financial exigency or enrollment emergency exists or that an academic program is to be reduced or discontinued due to educational considerations will be considered presumptively valid; but unlike a typical grievance hearing where the burden of proof rests with the grievant, the burden of proof on whether the procedures in the Layoff Policy were adhered to will rest on the College.</s>

<s>[INST] 2022.02.16 Proposal F (Dismissal) 4.8.5 (SS Comments).txt [/INST] February 16, 2022 To: Faculty Welfare Committee From: Jamie Caridi, Interim President Joe Lane, Provost Bill Kiefer RE: Manual Revision #6 – Proposed Language for new language in section 4.8.6 and 4.13 regarding the appeal of grievances and disputes Purpose: The proposed changes are designed to clarify causes for dismissals as well as to provide for a fair and orderly process for resolving related disputes without lengthy internal processes that may be difficult to complete with current staffing and course of unnecessary conflict and confusion. Proposed Language Dismissal for Cause Dismissal for cause is a severance action by which Bethany College terminates its appointment with the faculty member for cause. Any faculty member is subject to action under this subsection. Dismissal for cause must be directly and substantially related to the fitness of a faculty member to continue their professional capacity. Dismissal shall not be used to restrain a faculty member’s academic freedom. Grounds for Dismissal Dismissal for cause may be effected by the institution in specific circumstances that must be documented. Some examples of “cause” are: Consistent failure to discharge responsibilities, including but not limited to professional incompetence, documented failure to perform expected duties, or repeated failures to comply with institutionally approved improvement plans. Violations of academic freedom of others. Active and voluntary participation in activities deliberately and specifically designed to discredit the College. Obvious and repeated misconduct or failure in the performance of academic duties, in spite of oral and written warnings or development plans. Holding a full-time academic appointment at another academic institution. Serious personal misconduct; including but not limited to committing of a criminal act, harassment or other discriminatory behavior, including violations of the Title IX Policy* of the College, or any federal or state laws related to the prohibition of discrimination Academic misconduct; including but not limited to, plagiarism or theft of intellectual property. Deliberate and serious violation of the rights and freedoms of fellow faculty members, administrators, or students. Statements that may be fairly construed as threats to the safety, rights, and freedoms of fellow faculty members, administrators, students, or members of the community may constitute such a violation. Admission or conviction of a crime related to the faculty member’s fitness to effectively serve as a member of the Bethany College faculty. If the crime is a felony or punishable by incarceration for more than one year are by definition crimes that are to be violative of this clause. Serious failure to follow the professional ethics of the individual’s academic discipline. Falsification of credentials and experience; and/or failure, after oral and written warnings, to follow standards of Bethany College as designated in the Policy Manual. Flagrant violations of or persistent neglect to comply College and/or department policies, procedures, rules, or regulations. Inability to perform an essential functions of the faculty position, given reasonable accommodation if requested pursuant to the College’s ADAA Policy;. Loss of professional licensure if licensure is required for the performance of the faculty member’s duties. Note: The above listing is not intended to be exhaustive. *Allegations of discrimination, harassment, and sexual and gender-based misconduct against a faculty member will be investigated and resolved pursuant to the College’s Title IX Policy. Dismissal Proceedings Removal proceedings may be initiated by the President of the College and the Provost, or the department through its chair. The dismissal action will be preceded by discussion between the faculty member, the chair, and appropriate administrative officers (the faculty member always being involved in the discussions) with the object of finding a mutual settlement. The matter may be terminated by mutual consent at this point. If a resolution does not result, the President of the College shall submit to the faculty member a written statement of charges framed with reasonable particularity. When the above procedure fails to resolve the issue, (except in cases arising under 4.8.6.1 subsection 6, which matters are subject to the College’s Title IX procedure and not this section, or where there has been a determination by trial or guilty plea, plea of nolo contender, or an Allen Plea to a criminal matter, which matters shall not be subject to this section) the President of the College (or designee) or the faculty member may request that the matter be referred to an appropriate arbitrator selected from a list of trained arbitrators from a list provided by the American Arbitration Association or the Federal Mediation and Reconciliation Board. Both the College and the faculty member will provide the arbitrator with requested information and cooperation. The appointed arbitrator will submit their written findings of fact and recommendations to the President and the faculty member. Findings of fact and recommendations will be based solely on the hearing record and the rulings of the arbitrator. The ruling of the arbitrator will be considered final and binding. The President of the College may then accept the ruling of the arbitrator, in which case the process is concluded, or may refer the case to the Board of Trustees for final decision with the full record of the arbitrator’s proceedings and the President’s own recommendation in writing. The faculty member will be provided with a copy of the President’s communication to the Board, and if the faculty member disagrees with the findings, the faculty member may submit to the Board of Trustees a written statement. The Board of Trustees will consider the written record, the findings and recommendations of the arbitrator, the recommendations of the President of the College, and any statement submitted by the faculty member. If the Board decides to remove the faculty member, its decision shall be final and the faculty member’s termination shall be effective on that date of the Board’s decision. If the Board decides against removing the faculty member, it shall reinstate the individual. Unless there has been a finding that deliberate misconduct justified dismissal, the faculty member will receive salary or notice in accordance with the schedule of notice to which the faculty member is entitled under paragraph 4.8.3.2, or if the faculty member has tenure, for no more than one year. If at any point the faculty member should institute legal proceedings, the procedure outlined herein will nonetheless continue to its normal conclusion. Model #1 4.8.6.2 - Dismissal Proceedings Removal of full-time faculty proceedings may be initiated by the President of the College and the Provost or the department through its chair. The dismissal action will be preceded by discussion between the faculty member, the chair, and appropriate administrative officers (the faculty member always being involved in the discussions) with the object of finding a mutual settlement. The matter may be terminated by mutual consent at this point. If a resolution does not result, the President of the College may elect to submit to the faculty member a written statement of charges framed with reasonable particularity. Within five (5) academic days of the President’s submission of charges, the Faculty Welfare Committee shall appoint three full-time tenured faculty members from outside the faculty member’s department to an Ad Hoc Hearing Committee, which shall conduct a hearing during which the faculty member shall be entitled to be present. Service of notice of hearing with specific charges in writing will be made at least ten business days prior to the hearing. The Committee shall adopt procedures that it deems appropriate. No administrative officer or faculty member serving as an administrative officer shall serve on the Ad-Hoc Faculty Hearing Committee. The Faculty will provide for alternatives or for some other means of filling vacancies resulting from disqualification, challenges without stated cause, illness, resignation, or other reason. A member shall self-disqualify for bias or interest. Members of the individual’s department will be deemed to have an interest and therefore will be disqualified to sit as a member of the Committee for a hearing. Each party will have a maximum of two challenges without stated cause. At any time during the Dismissal process, the President of the College may suspend the faculty member, with pay, pending the procedure listed below if (1) immediate harm to the faculty member, the College, or others is threatened by the individual’s continuance or (2) the faculty member’s continued functioning in the position would substantially impair or disrupt the regular functions of the College. Hearings will be conducted in private and the individuals involved will make no public statements during the course of the hearings or thereafter except that nothing in this paragraph shall restrict the right of either party to pursue public legal proceedings against the other or to make statements in the course of those proceedings. A documented and demonstrable effort will be made to obtain the most reliable evidence available; however, the Committee will not be bound by evidentiary rules applicable in courts of law. The Committee may make such rulings and orders as the interests of justice and the College community may require. The determination of the Committee, however, shall have no value as precedent within the College. A verbatim record of the hearing or hearings will be taken and a copy will be made available to the faculty member without charge upon request. A copy of the record will be filed in the Office of the President at the conclusion of the hearing. At the discretion of the Ad-Hoc Faculty Hearing Committee, the testimony may include that of qualified faculty members from this or other institutions of higher education. At the request of the faculty member, the Administration, or the Committee, a representative of a responsible educational association shall be permitted to attend the proceedings as an observer. However, participation by legal counsel at the hearing for either party is not permitted. Within five (5) academic days of conclusion of the hearing, the Ad-Hoc Faculty Hearing Committee will submit its written findings of fact and recommendations to the President and the faculty member. Findings of fact and recommendations will be based solely on the hearing record. The committee report must contain written findings of fact and a recommendation based on the preponderance of the evidence standard . The committee’s written findings of fact and recommendation shall be based on a simple majority vote. Any dissenting opinions will be included with the committee’s written findings of fact and recommendation. Within five (5) academic days after receipt of the committee’s findings and recommendations, the President, using the preponderance of the evidence standard, will issue an independent written decision on the matter, with copies to the committee, the faculty member, and the Provost. If the President concludes that the administration has not established adequate cause for dismissal by the preponderance of the evidence, the matter will be dismissed. If the President concludes that the administration has established adequate cause for a dismissal by the preponderance of the evidence, but that a sanction(s) less than dismissal would be more appropriate, the sanction(s) will be stated in the President’s letter with supporting reasons. If the President concludes that the administration has established adequate cause for dismissal by the preponderance of the evidence, the President’s letter will state the effective date and terms of the dismissal. If the President determines that additional consideration by the committee is necessary, the President will remand the case back to the committee with specifications for further findings and recommendations. In matters where the faculty member is not tenured, the President’s written decision shall be final. In matters involving allegations rendered against a Tenured Faculty member, the President’s letter will include text indicating that the faculty member may file an appeal with the Board of Trustees within ten (10) working days of delivery. Notes: The Provost, after consultation with the affected faculty member, may modify the timelines set forth above in extraordinary circumstances and for good cause shown to achieve a full and fair evaluation or resolution of the matter. In addition, the timeframes provided above may be extended by the Provost for good cause based on factors such as, but not limited to, schedule and availability of witnesses, holidays or semester breaks, etc. If at any point the faculty member should institute legal proceedings, the procedure outlined above will nonetheless continue to its normal conclusion. Appeal to Board of Trustees If a tenured faculty member elects to file an appeal with the Board, the President will transmit the faculty member’s written request, as well as the record of the case, to the Chair of the Board of Trustees. The tenured faculty member’s written request for review by the Board of Trustees must be based on one or more of the following reasons: Material procedural irregularity governing the termination for cause process as specified in this Volume IV of the Policy Manual; and/or Inadequate consideration of evidence. Determining whether “inadequate consideration” was given refers to procedural rather than to substantive issues. Inadequate consideration occurs if the hearing committee or President (i) violated the stated procedures for including relevant evidence or using that evidence as a basis for judgment in the review and (ii) it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appellant would have been reached had adequate consideration been given to the proper evidence. Alternatively, inadequate consideration occurs when a decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Board of Trustees’ review (or committee thereof) will be based on the record of the committee recommendation and the President’s decision. The Board of Trustees’ review (or committee thereof) will endeavor to render a final decision on the matter within 15 working days of receipt of the appeal. If the Board decides to remove the faculty member, its decision shall be final and the faculty member’s termination shall be effective on that date of the Board’s decision. If the Board decides against removing the faculty member, it shall reinstate the individual. If, in reviewing the matter, the Board of Trustees (or committee) determines that there is need for additional evidence, it may return the case to the ad hoc hearing committee for further consideration. If remanded, the Board of Trustees (or committee) shall make a final decision whether to reverse or modify the termination after considering the revised report of the ad hoc hearing committee. Throughout this process, the VPAA may serve as adviser to the Board of Trustees if the Board so desires. The President of the College will then refer the case to the Board of Trustees for final decision with the President’s own recommendation in writing. The faculty member will be provided with a copy of the President’s recommendation. If the faculty member disagrees with the findings, the faculty member may submit to the Board of Trustees a written statement. The Board of Trustees will consider the written record, the findings and recommendations of the Committee, the recommendations of the President of the College, and any statement submitted by the faculty member. If the Board decides to remove the faculty member, its decision shall be final and the faculty member’s termination shall be effective on that date of the Board’s decision. If the Board decides against removing the faculty member, it shall reinstate the individual. Unless there has been a finding that deliberate misconduct justified dismissal, the faculty member will receive salary or notice in accordance with the schedule of notice to which the faculty member is entitled under paragraph 4.8.3.2, or if the faculty member has tenure, for at least one year. On the recommendation of the Ad-Hoc Faculty Hearing Committee and/or the President of the College, the Board of Trustees in determining what if any payments will be made beyond the effective date of dismissal, may take into account the length and quality of service of the faculty member. The Committee may, as the result of its deliberations, recommend suspension for a stated period with an appropriate reduction in salary as a legitimate lesser measure than dismissal. If the report of the Committee does not recommend dismissal or other disciplinary action, and if the President of the College does not disagree with the Committee’s report, the findings of the Committee will be accepted as final and the President will give notice to the faculty member of such determination. If at any point the faculty member should institute legal proceedings, the procedure outlined herein will nonetheless continue to its normal conclusion. Model #2 As noted in my email. I developed a streamlined policy for the University of St. Thomas recently. Please see Section 3.7.4 in the following link: https://www.stu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Faculty-handbook-final-2020.pdf. If the College would like to consider this model, please let me know and I will tailor the policy to Bethany. Grievance Policy Procedures Step 1 The person considered to be the aggrieved party (the complainant) shall bring the matter to the attention of the person or committee considered to be causing the grievance (the respondent) by initiating a discussion of the issues involved. Should this discussion fail to resolve the issues in dispute, the complainant may seek resolution by referring the grievance to the respondent’s immediate supervisor. When the respondent is a committee of the faculty, the respondent’s immediate supervisor is considered to be the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of Faculty. If the respondent is the President of the College, the grievance may be submitted at this point to the Faculty Welfare Committee (as outlined in Step 3). The discussion required in this paragraph shall be documented by a dated written response from the respondent within 10 days following the discussion between complainant and respondent on the grievance. Step 2 The complainant’s presentation of the grievance to the respondent’s supervisor must be in writing and must be delivered within 10 days of receipt of the dated written response from respondent referred to in 4.13.2.1 Step 1 above. A copy of this document must also be delivered to the respondent. The presentation shall explain the nature of the dispute and its significance and request intervention by the supervisor. Supporting materials may be attached. Within three days of receiving the copy of this document, the respondent may also write to the supervisor responding to the complainant's presentation. After reviewing the written presentations, the supervisor may seek additional information from the parties involved or from other College personnel. Within ten days of receiving the complainant’s presentation, the supervisor must decide on the issues and present to the parties involved a written statement of the decision and the reasons for it. If the complainant is not satisfied with the decision, a request may be made to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. The arbitrator should be selected from a list from a list provided by the American Arbitration Association or the Federal Mediation and Reconciliation Board. The arbitration should be scheduled as soon as possible, but no later than the date on which the request is communicated to the President of Bethany College. .Step 3 The appointed arbitrator is to make a recommendation for the final disposition of the grievance within two weeks of the conclusion of any hearings or consideration they deem appropriate. A report from the arbitrator is to be transmitted to the President of the College. The report is to include the statement of findings and recommendations in written form, all materials collected on the matter, the file of documents collected during consideration of the matter, and the recording of any testimony offered to the arbitrator. Copies of the statement of findings and recommendations are to be transmitted at the same time to the complainant and respondent. .Step 4 The final disposition of the grievance is to be made by the President of the College within ten days of receiving the report from the arbitrator. The President’s decision to accept or revise the decision of the arbitrator is to be formulated in writing. Copies are to be transmitted to the complainant and the respondent. The decision of the President of the College may be appealed to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees will consider the written record, the findings and recommendations of the arbitrator, the recommendations of the President of the College, and any statement submitted by the faculty member. The decision of the Board is binding and final. The recorded proceedings of the hearing and all written documents pertaining to the arbitration of a grievance in the possession of the President of the College at the time the final disposition of the grievance is made are to be filed in the President’s Office for a period of seven years, and then destroyed.</s>

<s>[INST] 2022.02.16 Proposal G 4.11.1 (SS Comments).txt [/INST] February 16, 2022 To: Faculty Welfare Committee From: Jamie Caridi, Interim President Joe Lane, Provost Bill Kiefer RE: Manual Revision #7 – Proposed Language for new language in section 4.11.1. regarding teaching loads Purpose: The proposed changes are meant to clarify and provide flexibility in the calculation of teaching load to allow more flexibility in the assignment of instructors to a variety of duties and support faculty members who carry heavy student credit hour teaching loads. Proposed Language 4.11Faculty Workload and Working Conditions Policies Faculty Workload Policies Normal Teaching Assignments Full-time members of the faculty normally expected to carry a teaching load equivalent to 10-12 credit-hours of instruction each semester. Faculty members who teach two semesters per year on nine-month contracts are normally expected to complete 21-24 credit hours each contract year. Faculty members who teach three semester per year on a twelve-month contract are generally expected to complete 32-34 credit hours each contract year. Credit hours within range should reflect substantive courses taught. Normally, sections with fewer than five students enrolled may not be considered a full course. In disciplines in which lower enrollment courses are necessary at the 300- and 400-level, average class sizes may be considered. Normally, faculty members with fewer than 120 student credit hours taught per semester (a threshold which may be pro-rated if the assigned course load is lower for administrative duties) are normally not eligible for overload pay. As part of the teaching load, the faculty member will be expected to undertake, relative to the faculty member’s academic rank and professional goals, the following activities: Academic advising activities; College service activities, including but not limited to: Active membership on a standing committee or task force; and Attendance at college and department faculty meetings. Community service activities. Scholarly, creative, and professional activities. Additionally, this normal teaching load also includes supervising senior projects and directing independent studies. The principal factors considered in determining the teaching loads of individual faculty members are general College needs, curricular needs of the students, department needs, faculty interests, total number of preparations, and number of students enrolled in courses. The Provost may authorize reductions of the teaching load in writing on a probationary basis for new faculty members in their first year of hire as well as for faculty members assigned specific administrative, recruiting, or advising duties that are determined to be equivalent in contractual non-classroom activities. The formula for determining teaching credit hours for laboratory courses will be 1 credit hour for each section the faculty member supervises and ½ credit hour for each in-class hour beyond one hour that course normally meets per week. E.g., A lab normally scheduled for three hours per week will count as 2 credit hours taught. When an equivalency is not pre-established, the Provost, after receiving and considering the recommendation of the appropriate Department Chair, and in consultation with the INSERT NAME OF FACULTY Committee, determines teaching equivalencies for service load assignments according to the following considerations: The number of student contact hours and extent of faculty preparation required; The number of student course credits generated; Curricular requirements in effect, such as internships, practicums, and field experiences; Standards promulgated by accrediting agencies, professional organizations, or disciplinary bodies; and Responsibility for organized instructional activities. Teaching Overload Occasionally a member of the full-time faculty may teach a course which increases the teaching load beyond twelve credit-hours in a semester. This is permissible with the written recommendation of the Chair of the department in which the course is offered and the written approval of the Provost. Faculty overloads are calculated on the same basis as are normal loads. Overloads (and underloads) may be offset by agreement with the Provost to correct the balance in a specifically designated future semester. When the needs of the College require that a course be assigned to a member of the faculty beyond the normal teaching load (and the faculty member agrees), the Provost will authorize additional compensation for the excess beyond the normal twelve credit-hours at the standard rate at the time. Currently the standard rate is $1000 per credit-hour. Normally, faculty members who receive release time for administrative duties and other duties should not be simultaneously combined with overload pay.</s>

<s>[INST] 2022.10.13 Clean Copy.txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] 2nd Draft Rewrite of Termination Due to Financially Contingent Situations.txt [/INST] Termination Due to Financially Contingent Situations and Resource Allocation Termination of a tenured faculty member or, prior to the end of the term of appointment, of a tenure-track faculty member may occur because of the declaration of a financially contingent situation as described below. Criteria The criteria to be employed in financially contingent situations in allocating resources to University programs and services fall under three headings: Mission, Cost Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality. These will at times compete and at other times converge. If and when Ohio Wesleyan University meets contingencies that require institutional contraction and reorganization, these sets of criteria will be used in complementary fashion as guidelines. The order of their enumeration should not be taken to indicate their order of priority. Neither should it be presumed that all three will be weighed equally in making particular decisions. Particular circumstances may encourage the assignment of greater weight to one or another in particular cases, even though in financially contingent situations it is to be expected that fiscal pressure may emphasize reference to the criterion of cost effectiveness. What is important is that the campus community, in considering contingency reductions, identify and grapple directly with what are likely to be very difficult choices from among options that all carry significant costs and/or benefits in terms of Mission, Cost Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality. The objective must be to arrive at wise judgments. MISSION Because Ohio Wesleyan University is a specific private university with a specific heritage, a major consideration associated with any reduction or change in size will be to preserve its essential character by maintaining those programs and activities judged to be more central to that character. To do so will require reference to several questions. How closely does the program or service in question fit the stated mission of Ohio Wesleyan University? How importantly does it contribute toward a non-curricular campus ambience vital to Ohio Wesleyan's liberal arts heritage? Is it essential in serving other programs? COST EFFECTIVENESS & MARKETABILITY Attentiveness to the cost effectiveness and marketability of programs and services is a key characteristic of a well-run institution. Cost-effectiveness must be one guideline in determining staffing levels and whether or not to maintain programs or services. The University must therefore be sensitive to the constituencies it serves and to their preferences. While Ohio Wesleyan cannot mindlessly add or subtract staff or programs or services to track short-term fluctuations in cost effectiveness, neither can it ignore longer term or more profound shifts as it decides which subject areas, programs, or services to maintain and at what staffing levels. The following non-prescriptive questions related to cost effectiveness and marketability must be asked: What is the relationship between direct expenses and revenues in a given area? What is the actual and relative cost of a graduation unit (or, in the case of non-academic areas, other service unit)? What is the trend line for both, and for enrollments and student/staff ratio? Is the program or service a "native recruiter?" Is it duplicative? What is the present and future demand for the program among existing and potential student populations as measured by internal data sets (e.g., enrollments, numbers of majors, programs served, etc.), labor market projections, external stakeholder feedback, and national and state policy/economic projections and placement data? QUALITY Since the primary purpose of Ohio Wesleyan University is to provide excellent instruction in the liberal arts and selected career options, and comparable quality in non-academic services, it must consider program or service quality in making program, service, and faculty staffing decisions. In dealing with any financially contingent situation, it will seek to retain its best personnel, programs, and services, as one top priority. It will strive to adjust programs and services and retain or retrain individuals so as to maintain the best possible teaching and learning environment. Major issues associated with this guideline are complex and difficult. Among them are the following: Is the program or service and its staff faculty generally perceived by Faculty (staff, where non-academic services may be involved), students, and alumni to be of high quality? Do students, in or associated with it, perform throughout the University at average or higher levels? Is the staff faculty versatile as well as strong? The guidelines of Mission, Cost Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality are contradictory. Any one of them used exclusively could lead to very serious imbalances in the focus and operation of the University. Recognition that each of these three needs to be considered and that each provides an outward boundary for the decision process will encourage an intelligent and equitable response to financially contingent situations as well as to ordinary conditions. Making Contingency Decisions If financially contingent situations require reductions in personnel and/or academic departments or programs resulting in the termination of faculty appointments or services , the University will balance a need for timely action with the need for shared decision-making. In both determining whether such a situation exists and in shaping difficult decisions that contingencies might require, the President will engage in extensive consultation with appropriate faculty committees, administrators, and where conditions allow, students, before making a recommendation to the Board of Trustees as follows: Determination of Financial Contingent Situation The Board of Regents is solely authorized to determine that a financial contingent situation exists or is imminent. Such decision shall be made only after a presentation of relevant financial data by the President to the Committee of University Governance (UGC) that a financial contingent situation exists or is imminent and that reasonable means for coping with the situation have been exhausted without resorting to the elimination of tenured faculty positions. Framing of Proposal to Address Financial Contingent Situation Responsibility for framing a proposal for program or services and/or personnel reductions to deal with a financially contingent situation will rest with the President. The proposal, when it pertains to academic programs and/or personnel, will be referred to the Committee on Academic Programs as to curricular impact, to the Academic Planning and Allocation Committee as to the implications for the academic plan, to the Faculty Personnel Committee as to personnel implications, and to the affected programs. When the proposal pertains to non-academic programs, services, and/or personnel, it will be forwarded to the Governance Committee and the Senior Leadership Team Cabinet for consideration. These bodies will hold hearings as part of their deliberations. At the discretion of the President, an advisory student committee may also be created. These groups will severally consider the proposal(s) and in doing so may consult widely with faculty, students, and, where appropriate, with staff. They are to complete their deliberations within 30 calendar days of receipt of the President's proposal(s) and report their findings and recommendations to the President immediately upon finishing their deliberations. They may recommend acceptance, alteration, or otherwise, of the President's proposal(s). If and when they are unable to achieve concurrence with the President, and the President yet judges that reductions must be made, the President will report to the Board of Trustees the proposed course of action. If there is a difference of views between the President and the committees, the President will ensure that the committees' proposals are forwarded to the Trustees with the President’s proposal(s). The Board of Trustees retains ultimate authority for approving proposals as to program and position reductions and terminations responding to a financially contingent situation. After the completion and implementation of decisions for institutional contraction to deal with a financially contingent situation, the President will make available to the campus community a full report on the actions taken. In the event that the Board of Trustees declares that a financial contingent situation exists or is imminent, the President shall be responsible for framing a proposal for addressing the situation. If the proposal might require reductions in academic departments or interdisciplinary programs and the termination of faculty positions, the President, prior to framing the proposal, shall engage in an extensive academic program review process. Academic Program Review Process Step 1: The initial step in the Academic Program Review process will be the development by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness of a set of common quantitative data for all academic programs at the University showing trends in course enrollments, student credits delivered, graduated majors, declared majors, direct instructional expense, and other performance metrics agreed upon by Academic Affairs, Academic Planning and Allocation Committee (APAC), and UGC. The data will be made available transparently to all faculty through appropriate means such as live data dashboards. Step 2. Following the publication of the data, each academic department and interdisciplinary program will be charged by Academic Affairs to complete self-studies, following criteria set by APAC. Step 3. Following receipt of the department and program self-studies, APAC will evaluate each department in relation to Mission, Cost-Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality (see above) and issue a report to the President. Step 4. The President shall convene a Joint Committee comprised of eight faculty members, six of which are elected by the faculty (or appointed by the Executive Committee if an election is unsuccessful) and two of which are appointed by the President from individuals serving on each of the following faculty committees: UGC, Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC), Committee on Academic Programs (CAP), and APAC. In addition, the Joint Committee shall include the Provost and appropriate academic administrators responsible for data and curriculum as designated by the Provost. After considering the department self-studies and APAC report, the Joint Committee shall: Develop recommendations for the appropriate number and size of departments and interdisciplinary programs, as well as the appropriate number of majors and minors; Identify opportunities for program enhancement; and Suggest the optimal configuration of departments and interdisciplinary programs. In addressing these areas, the committee’s recommendations may include (a) the discontinuation and/or reduction of departments, interdisciplinary programs, majors, and minors; (b) the elimination of faculty positions; (c) recommendations about reconfiguring departments, interdisciplinary programs, majors, and minors by reassigning positions; (d) enhancement of programs, and (e) changes in policies and procedures that would improve the functioning or efficiency of the academic program. The President, in consultation with the Executive Committee of the Faculty, will determine the date by which the Joint Committee’s recommendations to the President must be provided. Following its deliberations, the Joint Committee shall issue its formal recommendations in writing to the President. Step 5. The President will review the Joint Committee report and issue a written proposal to the members of the faculty addressing the financially contingent situation. The President’s written proposal will also be referred to CAP as to curricular impact, to APAC as to the implications for the academic plan, to the FPC as to personnel implications, and to the affected programs identified in the proposal, each of which will have the opportunity to hold hearings over a 30-day period. The manner in which the hearings are held are at the discretion of the respective committees. Step 6. Following the hearings, the respective committees and programs may submit to the President written recommendations for changes to the proposal. The President will consider the recommendations. If consensus can be reached regarding the final proposal, the President will forward to the Board of Trustees a final report reflecting that consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, the President will transmit to the Board of Trustees both the President’s final proposal and the alternative proposal(s) prepared by the faculty committees and program. The Board of Trustees shall approve the final plan to address the financial contingent situation and retains ultimate authority for approving proposals as to department or interdisciplinary program and position reductions and terminations responding to a financially contingent situation. Step 7. If the Board approved plan includes the discontinuation, reduction, and/or reconfiguration of departments, interdisciplinary programs, majors, and minors, FPC, in consultation with the Provost, shall recommend to the President which individual positions, and therefore appointments, should be terminated. In developing recommendations, the committee will be guided by following sequence: Consideration of faculty attrition resulting from resignation, retirement, or other severance actions. Termination of Part-time and Visiting faculty positions within the affected department(s) or interdisciplinary program(s). Termination of tenure-track and/or tenured positions within the affected department(s) or interdisciplinary program(s). In the case of a reduction of a department or interdisciplinary program, as opposed to a discontinuation, the appointment of a faculty member with tenure within the same department or program will not be terminated in favor of retaining a full-time tenure-track faculty member, except in circumstances where a serious distortion of the department or interdisciplinary program would otherwise result. In making recommendations, the following criteria, in no particular order of priority, will be considered by FPC: Education and professional credentials; The length of the faculty member’s service to the University; The quality of the faculty member’s service to the University; The abilities of the individual faculty member in relation to the needs of the University and the potentially affected department or interdisciplinary program. Step 8. The President shall render the final decision on terminations for reasons of financial contingency and notify the faculty member(s) involved in accordance with the Notification provisions below. Step 9. After the completion and implementation of decisions for institutional contraction to deal with a financially contingent situation, the President will make available to the campus community a full report on the actions taken. Notification Notification of termination will be sent from the President to the faculty member. The notice will specify the reasons for such termination, the effective date of termination, the faculty member's right to retraining (if applicable), and right to an appeal. In all cases of termination of appointment because of financial exigency, full-time non-tenure faculty members will be given notice or severance salary in accordance with Section 3.13.3.1. Tenured faculty will be provided with termination payments in accordance with Section 3.13.5.1. Appeals If the administration issues notice to a particular faculty member of an intention to terminate the appointment because of financial exigency, the faculty member will have the right to file a grievance in accordance with Section 3.14.3. The issues in this hearing may include the following: The existence and extent of the condition of financial exigency. The burden will rest on the administration to prove the existence and extent of the condition. The findings of a faculty committee in a previous proceeding involving the same issue may be introduced. The validity of the educational judgments and the criteria for identification for termination; but the recommendations of a faculty committee on these matters will be considered presumptively valid. Whether the criteria are being properly applied in the individual case. Reassignment and Retraining Subject to a review of qualifications (see Section 3.4.5 - Faculty Qualification) and retraining possibilities (see Section 3.10.3 – Retraining Leave), tenured and tenure track faculty members in positions to be eliminated will be considered for suitable vacancies at the University in administrative or teaching positions. See Section 3.13.5.1 below. Reinstatement Rights When a tenured faculty position is terminated for a financial contingent situation, the position will not be filled by a new appointee with the same areas of specialization as the terminated faculty member within a period of three years, unless the released faculty member has been offered reinstatement and at least thirty days in which to accept or decline it.</s>

<s>[INST] 2nd DRAFT TITLE IX.txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] 2nd Pre-Draft Table of Contents.txt [/INST] Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE: UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE 1 1.1 Code of Regulations of the Trustees of the Ohio Wesleyan University 1 1.2 The Faculty – Faculty Bylaws and Descriptions of Faculty Committees 2 1.2.1 Faculty Bylaws 2 1.2.2 Descriptions of Faculty Committees 6 1.3 Academic Departments and Department Chairs 18 1.3.1 Contractual Obligations of Department Chairs 18 1.4 Amendments to the Faculty Handbook 18 2 CHAPTER TWO: FACULTY PERSONNEL POLICIES 19 2.1 Preamble and General Policy 19 2.1.1 Faculty Committee Advice 20 2.1.2 Sanction of Board of Trustees 20 2.2 Kinds of Faculty Positions 20 2.2.1 Tenure Track Faculty 21 2.2.2 Term Faculty 21 2.2.3 Adjunct Professors 22 2.2.4 Administrative Faculty 23 2.2.5 Professional Librarians 23 2.2.6 Honorific Faculty 23 2.3 Kinds of Appointments 24 2.3.1 Full-time Appointments 25 2.3.2 Part-time Appointments 26 2.4 Faculty Contracts 32 2.4.1 Annual Contract Period 32 2.4.2 Contract Terms 32 2.4.3 Area of Appointment 32 2.4.4 Joint Appointments 33 2.5 Faculty Recruitment, Initial Appointment, and Placement in Rank 34 2.5.1 Rank and Salary of Initial Appointment 34 2.5.2 Faculty Credentials 34 2.5.3 Appointment of Foreign Nationals 34 2.5.4 External Candidate Appointed as Provost and Granted Tenure with That Appointment 34 2.6 Faculty Rights and Standards of Professional Conduct 35 2.6.1 Academic Freedom 35 2.6.2 Professional Ethics 36 2.6.3 Statement on Plagiarism 37 2.6.4 Observance of University Policies 37 2.6.5 Conflict of Interest – Faculty Specific Activities 38 2.6.6 Outside Activities 39 2.6.7 Faculty-Student Relationships 41 2.6.8 Prohibition of Harassment and Unlawful Discrimination 41 2.6.9 Violations of Faculty Rights, Academic Freedom and Professional Ethics 42 2.7 Contractual Obligations of a Faculty Member 42 2.7.1 Teaching 42 2.7.2 Scholarly or Creative Work Contributions 48 2.7.3 Service to the University and Community 48 2.7.4 Contributions to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion 48 2.8 Personnel Records 49 2.9 Faculty Evaluation 50 2.9.1 Evaluation Criteria for Personnel Decisions 50 2.9.2 Evaluation Components and Review Materials 55 2.9.3 Annual Evaluation for Reappointment 59 2.9.4 Evaluation for Tenure 64 2.9.5 Evaluation for Promotion 68 2.9.6 Evaluation for Merit Increments 70 2.9.7 Faculty Personnel Committee Minutes 70 2.10 Faculty Professional Development 70 2.10.1 Pre-Tenure Regular Paid (Sabbatical) Leave for Full-Time Faculty 70 2.10.2 Regular Paid Leaves (Sabbatical) for Tenured Full-Time Faculty 71 2.10.3 Special Released Time for Scholarly Production 72 2.10.4 Retraining Leaves 73 2.10.5 Professional Development Leave Without Pay 73 2.10.6 Assistance With Travel and Other Professional Expenses 74 2.11 Faculty Awards for Teaching and Scholarly or Artistic Achievement 75 2.11.1 The Welch Meritorious Teaching Award 75 2.11.2 The Sherwood Dodge Shankland Award for Encouragement of Teachers 76 2.11.3 The Welch Award for Scholarly or Artistic Achievement 77 2.12 Faculty Compensation, Benefits, and Leaves 77 2.12.1 Salary 77 2.12.2 Benefits 78 2.12.3 Faculty Leaves 85 2.13 Separation from Service 86 2.13.1 Retirement and Voluntary Separation 86 2.13.2 Nonrenewal of Appointment 86 2.13.3 Policies and Procedures Governing Dismissal For Cause 86 2.13.4 Policies and Procedures Governing Imposition of Sanctions Other than Dismissal for Cause* 90 2.13.5 Termination 91 2.14 Faculty Grievances 96 3 Chapter Three: Part-time Faculty Personnel Policies 99 3.1 Preamble and General Policy 99 3.2 Academic Titles for Part-Time Faculty 99 3.3 Recruitment and Initial Appointment of Part-Time Faculty 99 3.3.1 Establishment of Need for Part-Time Faculty 99 3.4 Terms of Part-Time Appointments 99 3.5 Rights and Privileges of Part-Time Faculty 105 4 Chapter Four: Allocation and Review of Faculty Positions 105 4.1 Preamble and General Policy 105 4.2 Initial Authorization of Positions 106 4.3 Re-authorization of Vacant Positions 106 4.4 Review of Tenure Track Positions 106 4.5 Faculty Selected for Administrative Positions 108 Appendices 111 Appendix A: Faculty Personnel Forms 111 Appendix B: Guidelines for Allocation and Review of Faculty Positions 111 Appendix C: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Policy 111 Appendix D. Policy Statement on Appointment of Librarians 111</s>

<s>[INST] 3rd Draft Rewrite of Termination Due to Financially Contingent Situations.Rock's Edits and Questions.txt [/INST] Termination Due to Financially Contingent Situations and Resource Allocation Termination of a tenured faculty member or, prior to the end of the term of appointment, of a tenure-track faculty member may occur because of the declaration of a financially contingent situation as described below. Criteria The criteria to be employed in financially contingent situations in allocating resources to University programs and services fall under three headings: Mission, Cost Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality. These will at times compete and at other times converge. If and when Ohio Wesleyan University meets contingencies that require institutional contraction and reorganization, these sets of criteria will be used in complementary fashion as guidelines. The order of their enumeration should not be taken to indicate their order of priority. Neither should it be presumed that all three will be weighed equally in making particular decisions. Particular circumstances may encourage the assignment of greater weight to one or another in particular cases, even though in financially contingent situations it is to be expected that fiscal pressure may emphasize reference to the criterion of cost effectiveness. What is important is that the campus community, in considering contingency reductions, identify and grapple directly with what are likely to be very difficult choices from among options that all carry significant costs and/or benefits in terms of Mission, Cost Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality. The objective must be to arrive at wise judgments. MISSION Because Ohio Wesleyan University is a specific private university with a specific heritage, a major consideration associated with any reduction or change in size will be to preserve its essential character by maintaining those programs and activities judged to be more central to that character. To do so will require reference to several questions. How closely does the program or service in question fit the stated mission of Ohio Wesleyan University? How importantly does it contribute toward a non-curricular campus ambience vital to Ohio Wesleyan's liberal arts heritage? Is it essential in serving other programs? COST EFFECTIVENESS & MARKETABILITY Attentiveness to the cost effectiveness and marketability of programs and services is a key characteristic of a well-run institution. Cost-effectiveness must be one guideline in determining staffing levels and whether or not to maintain programs or services. The University must therefore be sensitive to the constituencies it serves and to their preferences. While Ohio Wesleyan cannot mindlessly add or subtract staff or programs or services to track short-term fluctuations in cost effectiveness, neither can it ignore longer term or more profound shifts as it decides which subject areas, programs, or services to maintain and at what staffing levels. The following non-prescriptive questions related to cost effectiveness and marketability must be asked: What is the relationship between direct expenses and revenues in a given area? What is the actual and relative cost of a graduation unit (or, in the case of non-academic areas, other service unit)? What is the trend line for both, and for enrollments and student/staff ratio? Is the program or service a "native recruiter?" Is it duplicative? What is the present and future demand for the program among existing and potential student populations as measured by internal data sets (e.g., enrollments, numbers of majors, programs served, etc.), labor market projections, external stakeholder feedback, and national and state policy/economic projections and placement data? QUALITY Since the primary purpose of Ohio Wesleyan University is to provide excellent instruction in the liberal arts and selected career options, and comparable quality in non-academic services, it must consider program or service quality in making program, service, and faculty staffing decisions. In dealing with any financially contingent situation, it will seek to retain its best personnel, programs, and services, as one top priority. It will strive to adjust programs and services and retain or retrain individuals so as to maintain the best possible teaching and learning environment. Major issues associated with this guideline are complex and difficult. Among them are the following: Is the program or service and its staff faculty generally perceived by Faculty (staff, where non-academic services may be involved), students, and alumni to be of high quality? Do students, in or associated with it, perform throughout the University at average or higher levels? Is the staff faculty versatile as well as strong? The guidelines of Mission, Cost Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality are contradictory. Any one of them used exclusively could lead to very serious imbalances in the focus and operation of the University. Recognition that each of these three needs to be considered and that each provides an outward boundary for the decision process will encourage an intelligent and equitable response to financially contingent situations as well as to ordinary conditions. Making Contingency Decisions If financially contingent situations require reductions in personnel and/or academic departments or programs resulting in the termination of faculty appointments or services , the University will balance a need for timely action with the need for shared decision-making. In both determining whether such a situation exists and in shaping difficult decisions that contingencies might require, the President will engage in extensive consultation with appropriate faculty committees, administrators, and where conditions allow, students, before making a recommendation to the Board of Trustees as follows: Determination of Financial Contingent Situation The Board of Trustees is solely authorized to determine that a financial contingent situation exists or is imminent. The President shall present relevant financial data to and consult with the Committee of University Governance (UGC) that a financial contingent situation exists or is imminent, and that reasonable means for coping with the situation have been exhausted without resorting to the elimination of faculty positions. Framing of Proposal to Address Financial Contingent Situation Responsibility for framing a proposal for program or services and/or personnel reductions to deal with a financially contingent situation will rest with the President. The proposal, when it pertains to academic programs and/or personnel, will be referred to the Committee on Academic Programs as to curricular impact, to the Academic Planning and Allocation Committee as to the implications for the academic plan, to the Faculty Personnel Committee as to personnel implications, and to the affected programs. When the proposal pertains to non-academic programs, services, and/or personnel, it will be forwarded to the Governance Committee and the Senior Leadership Team Cabinet for consideration. These bodies will hold hearings as part of their deliberations. At the discretion of the President, an advisory student committee may also be created. These groups will severally consider the proposal(s) and in doing so may consult widely with faculty, students, and, where appropriate, with staff. They are to complete their deliberations within 30 calendar days of receipt of the President's proposal(s) and report their findings and recommendations to the President immediately upon finishing their deliberations. They may recommend acceptance, alteration, or otherwise, of the President's proposal(s). If and when they are unable to achieve concurrence with the President, and the President yet judges that reductions must be made, the President will report to the Board of Trustees the proposed course of action. If there is a difference of views between the President and the committees, the President will ensure that the committees' proposals are forwarded to the Trustees with the President’s proposal(s). The Board of Trustees retains ultimate authority for approving proposals as to program and position reductions and terminations responding to a financially contingent situation. After the completion and implementation of decisions for institutional contraction to deal with a financially contingent situation, the President will make available to the campus community a full report on the actions taken. In the event that the Board of Trustees declares that a financial contingent situation exists or is imminent, the President shall be responsible for framing a proposal for addressing the situation. If the proposal might require reductions in academic departments or interdisciplinary programs and the termination of faculty positions, the President, prior to framing the proposal, shall engage in an extensive academic program review process. Academic Program Review Process Step 1: The initial step in the Academic Program Review process will be the development by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness of a set of common quantitative data for all academic programs at the University showing trends in course enrollments, student credits delivered, graduated majors, declared majors, direct instructional expense, and other performance metrics agreed upon by Academic Affairs, Academic Planning and Allocation Committee (APAC), and UGC. The data will be made available transparently to all faculty through appropriate means such as live data dashboards. Step 2. Following the publication of the data, each academic department and interdisciplinary program will be charged by Academic Affairs to complete self-studies, following criteria set by APAC. Step 3. Following receipt of the department and program self-studies, APAC will evaluate each department in relation to Mission, Cost-Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality (see above) and issue a report to the President. Step 4. The President shall convene a Joint Committee comprised of eight faculty members, six of which are elected by the faculty (or appointed by the Executive Committee if an election is unsuccessful) from individuals serving on each of the following faculty committees: UGC, Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC), Committee on Academic Programs (CAP), and APAC; and two of which are appointed by the President from the tenure-line faculty. In addition, the Joint Committee shall include the Provost and appropriate academic administrators responsible for data and curriculum as designated by the Provost. From the faculty membership, the President shall appoint the convener of the Joint Committee. After considering the department self-studies and APAC report, the Joint Committee shall: Develop recommendations for the appropriate number and size of departments and interdisciplinary programs, as well as the appropriate number of majors and minors; Identify opportunities for program enhancement; and Suggest the optimal configuration of departments and interdisciplinary programs. In addressing these areas, the committee’s recommendations may include (a) the discontinuation and/or reduction of departments, interdisciplinary programs, majors, and minors; (b) the elimination of faculty positions; (c) recommendations about reconfiguring departments, interdisciplinary programs, majors, and minors by reassigning positions; (d) enhancement of programs, and (e) changes in policies and procedures that would improve the functioning or efficiency of the academic program. The President, following consultation with the Executive Committee of the Faculty, will determine the date by which the Joint Committee’s recommendations to the President must be provided. Following its deliberations, the Joint Committee shall issue its formal recommendations in writing to the President. Step 5. The President will review the Joint Committee report and issue a written proposal to the members of the faculty addressing the financially contingent situation. The President’s written proposal will also be referred to CAP as to curricular impact, to APAC as to the implications for the academic plan, to the FPC as to personnel implications, and to the affected departments and interdisciplinary programs identified in the proposal. Each committee and affected department and interdisciplinary program will have a 30-day period to develop their recommendations to the President. The manner in which the committees and affected departments and interdisciplinary programs arrive at their recommendations is at their respective discretion. Step 6. Following the hearings, the respective committees and affected departments and interdisciplinary programs may submit to the President written recommendations for changes to the proposal. The President will consider the recommendations. If consensus can be reached among the respective committees and programs and Presidents regarding the final proposal, If the President adopts the recommendations, the President will incorporate them into the final plan submitted to the Board of Trustees. If the President does not adopt the recommendations, the President will transmit to the Board of Trustees both the President’s final proposal and the alternative proposal(s) prepared by the faculty committees and affected departments and interdisciplinary programs. The Board of Trustees shall approve the final plan to address the financial contingent situation and retains ultimate authority for approving proposals as to department or interdisciplinary program and position reductions and terminations responding to a financially contingent situation. Step 7. The President shall render the final decision on terminations for reasons of financial contingency and notify the faculty member(s) involved in accordance with the Notification provisions below. Step 8. After the completion and implementation of decisions for institutional contraction to deal with a financially contingent situation, the President will make available to the campus community a full report on the actions taken. Priorities In making recommendations and final decisions on individual faculty reductions in accordance with the Academic Program Review Process procedures above, the following sequence and criteria shall apply: Sequence: Consideration of faculty attrition resulting from resignation, retirement, or other severance actions. Termination of Part-time and Visiting faculty positions within the affected department(s) or interdisciplinary program(s). Termination of tenure-track and/or tenured positions within the affected department(s) or interdisciplinary program(s). The appointment of a faculty member with tenure within the same department or program will not be terminated in favor of retaining a full-time tenure-track faculty member, except in circumstances where a serious distortion of the department or interdisciplinary program would otherwise result. Criteria: The qualifications of faculty members as documented in official personnel files and as judged relative to the needs of the University and the potentially affected department or interdisciplinary program Given relatively equal standing as determined in a above, seniority as determined by length of service at the University Notification Notification of termination will be sent from the President to the faculty member. The notice will specify the reasons for such termination, the effective date of termination, the faculty member's right to retraining (if applicable), and right to an appeal. In all cases of termination of appointment because of financial contingency, full-time non-tenure faculty members will be given notice or severance salary in accordance with Section 3.13.3.1. Tenured faculty will be provided with termination payments in accordance with Section 3.13.5.1. Appeals If the administration issues notice to a particular faculty member of an intention to terminate the appointment because of financial contingency, the faculty member will have the right to file a grievance in accordance with Section 3.14.3. The issues in this hearing may include the following: The existence and extent of the condition of financial contingency. The burden will rest on the administration to prove the existence and extent of the condition. The findings of a faculty committee in a previous proceeding involving the same issue may be introduced. The validity of the educational judgments and the criteria for identification for position elimination; but the recommendations of the Joint Committee or the faculty committees to the President on these matters during the Academic Program Review Process will be considered presumptively valid. Whether the criteria are being properly applied in the individual case. Reassignment and Retraining Subject to a review of qualifications (see Section 3.4.5 - Faculty Qualification) and retraining possibilities (see Section 3.10.3 – Retraining Leave), tenured and tenure track faculty members in positions to be eliminated will be considered for suitable vacancies at the University in administrative or teaching positions. See Section 3.13.5.1 below. Reinstatement Rights When a tenured faculty position is terminated for a financial contingent situation, the position will not be filled by a new appointee with the same areas of specialization as the terminated faculty member within a period of three years, unless the released faculty member has been offered reinstatement and at least thirty days in which to accept or decline it.</s>

<s>[INST] 4th Draft Rewrite of Termination Due to Financially Contingent Situations.Rock's Edits and Questions.txt [/INST] Termination Due to Financially Contingent Situations and Resource Allocation Termination of a tenured faculty member or, prior to the end of the term of appointment, of a tenure-track faculty member may occur because of the declaration of a financially contingent situation as described below. Criteria The criteria to be employed in financially contingent situations in allocating resources to University programs and services fall under three headings: Mission, Cost Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality. These will at times compete and at other times converge. If and when Ohio Wesleyan University meets contingencies that require institutional contraction and reorganization, these sets of criteria will be used in complementary fashion as guidelines. The order of their enumeration should not be taken to indicate their order of priority. Neither should it be presumed that all three will be weighed equally in making particular decisions. Particular circumstances may encourage the assignment of greater weight to one or another in particular cases, even though in financially contingent situations it is to be expected that fiscal pressure may emphasize reference to the criterion of cost effectiveness. What is important is that the campus community, in considering contingency reductions, identify and grapple directly with what are likely to be very difficult choices from among options that all carry significant costs and/or benefits in terms of Mission, Cost Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality. The objective must be to arrive at wise judgments. MISSION Because Ohio Wesleyan University is a specific private university with a specific heritage, a major consideration associated with any reduction or change in size will be to preserve its essential character by maintaining those programs and activities judged to be more central to that character. To do so will require reference to several questions. How closely does the program or service in question fit the stated mission of Ohio Wesleyan University? How importantly does it contribute toward a non-curricular campus ambience vital to Ohio Wesleyan's liberal arts heritage? Is it essential in serving other programs? COST EFFECTIVENESS & MARKETABILITY Attentiveness to the cost effectiveness and marketability of programs and services is a key characteristic of a well-run institution. Cost-effectiveness must be one guideline in determining staffing levels and whether or not to maintain programs or services. The University must therefore be sensitive to the constituencies it serves and to their preferences. While Ohio Wesleyan cannot mindlessly add or subtract staff or programs or services to track short-term fluctuations in cost effectiveness, neither can it ignore longer term or more profound shifts as it decides which subject areas, programs, or services to maintain and at what staffing levels. The following non-prescriptive questions related to cost effectiveness and marketability must be asked: What is the relationship between direct expenses and revenues in a given area? What is the actual and relative cost of a graduation unit (or, in the case of non-academic areas, other service unit)? What is the trend line for both, and for enrollments and student/staff ratio? Is the program or service a "native recruiter?" Is it duplicative? What is the present and future demand for the program among existing and potential student populations as measured by internal data sets (e.g., enrollments, numbers of majors, programs served, etc.), labor market projections, external stakeholder feedback, and national and state policy/economic projections and placement data? QUALITY Since the primary purpose of Ohio Wesleyan University is to provide excellent instruction in the liberal arts and selected career options, and comparable quality in non-academic services, it must consider program or service quality in making program, service, and faculty staffing decisions. In dealing with any financially contingent situation, it will seek to retain its best personnel, programs, and services, as one top priority. It will strive to adjust programs and services and retain or retrain individuals so as to maintain the best possible teaching and learning environment. Major issues associated with this guideline are complex and difficult. Among them are the following: Is the program or service and its staff faculty generally perceived by Faculty (staff, where non-academic services may be involved), students, and alumni to be of high quality? Do students, in or associated with it, perform throughout the University at average or higher levels? Is the staff faculty versatile as well as strong? The guidelines of Mission, Cost Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality are contradictory. Any one of them used exclusively could lead to very serious imbalances in the focus and operation of the University. Recognition that each of these three needs to be considered and that each provides an outward boundary for the decision process will encourage an intelligent and equitable response to financially contingent situations as well as to ordinary conditions. Making Contingency Decisions If financially contingent situations require reductions in personnel and/or academic departments or programs resulting in the termination of faculty appointments or services , the University will balance a need for timely action with the need for shared decision-making. In both determining whether such a situation exists and in shaping difficult decisions that contingencies might require, the President will engage in extensive consultation with appropriate faculty committees, administrators, and where conditions allow, students, before making a recommendation to the Board of Trustees as follows: Determination of Financial Contingent Situation The Board of Trustees is solely authorized to determine that a financial contingent situation exists or is imminent. The President shall present relevant financial data to and consult with the Committee of University Governance (UGC) that a financial contingent situation exists or is imminent, and that reasonable means for coping with the situation have been exhausted without resorting to the elimination of faculty positions. Framing of Proposal to Address Financial Contingent Situation Responsibility for framing a proposal for program or services and/or personnel reductions to deal with a financially contingent situation will rest with the President. The proposal, when it pertains to academic programs and/or personnel, will be referred to the Committee on Academic Programs as to curricular impact, to the Academic Planning and Allocation Committee as to the implications for the academic plan, to the Faculty Personnel Committee as to personnel implications, and to the affected programs. When the proposal pertains to non-academic programs, services, and/or personnel, it will be forwarded to the Governance Committee and the Senior Leadership Team Cabinet for consideration. These bodies will hold hearings as part of their deliberations. At the discretion of the President, an advisory student committee may also be created. These groups will severally consider the proposal(s) and in doing so may consult widely with faculty, students, and, where appropriate, with staff. They are to complete their deliberations within 30 calendar days of receipt of the President's proposal(s) and report their findings and recommendations to the President immediately upon finishing their deliberations. They may recommend acceptance, alteration, or otherwise, of the President's proposal(s). If and when they are unable to achieve concurrence with the President, and the President yet judges that reductions must be made, the President will report to the Board of Trustees the proposed course of action. If there is a difference of views between the President and the committees, the President will ensure that the committees' proposals are forwarded to the Trustees with the President’s proposal(s). The Board of Trustees retains ultimate authority for approving proposals as to program and position reductions and terminations responding to a financially contingent situation. After the completion and implementation of decisions for institutional contraction to deal with a financially contingent situation, the President will make available to the campus community a full report on the actions taken. In the event that the Board of Trustees declares that a financial contingent situation exists or is imminent, the President shall be responsible for framing a proposal for addressing the situation. If the proposal might require reductions in academic departments or interdisciplinary programs and the termination of faculty positions, the President, prior to framing the proposal, shall engage in an extensive academic program review process. Academic Program Review Process Step 1: The initial step in the Academic Program Review process will be the development by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness of a set of common quantitative data for all academic programs at the University showing trends in course enrollments, student credits delivered, graduated majors, declared majors, direct instructional expense, and other performance metrics agreed upon by Academic Affairs, Academic Planning and Allocation Committee (APAC), and UGC. The data will be made available transparently to all faculty through appropriate means such as live data dashboards. Step 2. Following the publication of the data, each academic department and interdisciplinary program will be charged by Academic Affairs to complete self-studies, following criteria set by APAC. Step 3. Following receipt of the department and program self-studies, APAC will evaluate each department in relation to Mission, Cost-Effectiveness and Marketability, and Quality (see above) and issue a report to the President. Step 4. The President shall convene a Joint Committee comprised of eight faculty members, six of which are elected by the faculty (or appointed by the Executive Committee if an election is unsuccessful) from individuals serving on each of the following faculty committees: UGC, Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC), Committee on Academic Programs (CAP), and APAC; and two of which are appointed by the President from the tenure-line faculty. In addition, the Joint Committee shall include the Provost and appropriate academic administrators responsible for data and curriculum as designated by the Provost. From the faculty membership, the President shall appoint the convener of the Joint Committee. After considering the department self-studies and APAC report, the Joint Committee shall: Develop recommendations for the appropriate number and size of departments and interdisciplinary programs, as well as the appropriate number of majors and minors; Identify opportunities for program enhancement; and Suggest the optimal configuration of departments and interdisciplinary programs. In addressing these areas, the committee’s recommendations may include (a) the discontinuation and/or reduction of departments, interdisciplinary programs, majors, and minors; (b) the elimination of faculty positions; (c) recommendations about reconfiguring departments, interdisciplinary programs, majors, and minors by reassigning positions; (d) enhancement of programs, and (e) changes in policies and procedures that would improve the functioning or efficiency of the academic program. The President, following consultation with the Executive Committee of the Faculty, will determine the date by which the Joint Committee’s recommendations to the President must be provided. Following its deliberations, the Joint Committee shall issue its formal recommendations in writing to the President. Step 5. The President will review the Joint Committee report and issue a written proposal to the members of the faculty addressing the financially contingent situation. The President’s written proposal will also be referred to CAP as to curricular impact, to APAC as to the implications for the academic plan, to the FPC as to personnel implications, and to the affected departments and interdisciplinary programs identified in the proposal. Each committee and affected department and interdisciplinary program will have a 30-day period to develop their recommendations to the President. The manner in which the committees and affected departments and interdisciplinary programs arrive at their recommendations is at their respective discretion. Step 6. Following the hearings, the respective committees and affected departments and interdisciplinary programs may submit to the President written recommendations for changes to the proposal. The President will consider the recommendations. If the President adopts the recommendations, the President will incorporate them into the final plan submitted to the Board of Trustees. If the President does not adopt the recommendations, the President will transmit to the Board of Trustees both the President’s final proposal and the alternative proposal(s) prepared by the faculty committees and affected departments and interdisciplinary programs. The Board of Trustees shall approve the final plan to address the financial contingent situation and retains ultimate authority for approving proposals as to department or interdisciplinary program and position reductions and terminations responding to a financially contingent situation. Step 7. The President shall render the final decision on terminations for reasons of financial contingency and notify the faculty member(s) involved in accordance with the Notification provisions below. Step 8. After the completion and implementation of decisions for institutional contraction to deal with a financially contingent situation, the President will make available to the campus community a full report on the actions taken. Priorities In making recommendations and final decisions on individual faculty reductions in accordance with the Academic Program Review Process procedures above, the following sequence and criteria shall apply: Sequence: Consideration of faculty attrition resulting from resignation, retirement, or other severance actions. Termination of Part-time and Visiting faculty positions within the affected department(s) or interdisciplinary program(s). Termination of tenure-track and/or tenured positions within the affected department(s) or interdisciplinary program(s). The appointment of a faculty member with tenure within the same department or program will not be terminated in favor of retaining a full-time tenure-track faculty member, except in circumstances where a serious distortion of the department or interdisciplinary program would otherwise result. Criteria: The qualifications of faculty members as documented in official personnel files and as judged relative to the needs of the University and the potentially affected department or interdisciplinary program Given relatively equal standing as determined in a above, seniority as determined by length of service at the University Notification Notification of termination will be sent from the President to the faculty member. The notice will specify the reasons for such termination, the effective date of termination, the faculty member's right to retraining (if applicable), and right to an appeal. In all cases of termination of appointment because of financial contingency, full-time non-tenure faculty members will be given notice or severance salary in accordance with Section 3.13.3.1. Tenured faculty will be provided with termination payments in accordance with Section 3.13.5.1. Appeals If the administration issues notice to a particular faculty member of an intention to terminate the appointment because of financial contingency, the faculty member will have the right to file a grievance in accordance with Section 3.14.3. Reassignment and Retraining Subject to a review of qualifications (see Section 3.4.5 - Faculty Qualification) and retraining possibilities (see Section 3.10.3 – Retraining Leave), tenured and tenure track faculty members in positions to be eliminated will be considered for suitable vacancies at the University in administrative or teaching positions. See Section 3.13.5.1 below. Reinstatement Rights When a tenured faculty position is terminated for a financial contingent situation, the position will not be filled by a new appointee with the same areas of specialization as the terminated faculty member within a period of three years, unless the released faculty member has been offered reinstatement and at least thirty days in which to accept or decline it.</s>

<s>[INST] 5 ARTICLES V & VI - Wheaton College Bylaws (Recommendations to SG) (1.23).txt [/INST] Article V Visiting Faculty Appointments and Provisions This Article sets forth policies, responsibilities, duties, rights, and privileges pertaining to Visiting faculty. Visiting Faculty Academic Titles The College should continue to use the following ranks: Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. ““Assistant”” and ““Lecturer” should have special uses under condition which normally preclude the assignment of regular ranks. [May 13, 1963, p. 2715; Minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting, October 26, 1963, pp. 1055-57; November 18, 1963, pp. 2728-29] The Visiting Faculty title is used with one of the four academic ranks (i.e., Visiting Instructor, Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, Visiting Professor). The initial title for each Visiting faculty member shall be determined by the Provost in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair/Program Coordinator. [May 29, 1980, p. 3469; May 3, 1985, p. 3678] The Provost, in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair/Program Coordinator, shall determine whether or not an individual Visiting Faculty member’s appointment constitutes half-time teaching (i.e., an appointment with a teaching load that is fifty percent or more, but less than one hundred percent of full-time teaching as defined in the Employee Handbook for Faculty). Each letter of appointment or reappointment shall clearly state the results of this determination. Voting Rights Members of the faculty who teach at Wheaton less than half-time have no vote at department or faculty meetings. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Visiting Faculty members who have taught at Wheaton half-time or more for three consecutive years are eligible for service on faculty committees and have a full vote in department or academic program and faculty meetings. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Duration of Appointment and Notice of Termination 1. The College will observe the following guidelines for Visiting Faculty ranks and duration of appointments: ··Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Visiting Instructors. Those who have completed their professional training will ordinarily be appointed Visiting Assistant Professors. Visiting Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Visiting Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. ··The initial appointment of Visiting Faculty will be for one semester, one, two or three years. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Full-time Visiting Faculty will be appointed annually pursuant to a term contract for a semester or a year, for a period not to exceed two years. Part-time Visiting Faculty will be appointed pursuant to a term contract to teach on a part-time or per-course basis. Issuance of another term contract is solely within the discretion of the College and no other procedures apply. ··Replacements for faculty members on leave and other temporary personnel will receive appointments of appropriate rank and duration. ··Visiting faculty members who have taught at Wheaton half-time or more for five years are entitled to contracts ranging from two to five years in length. Other part-time faculty may be given a one- year terminal appointment. In such a case, the standards of notification as described in Paragraph 2 below will be observed. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] 2. The following paragraph applies to reappointment of Visiting Faculty, excluding those who are replacements for faculty on leave or are appointed to teach a single course in one semester or are on terminal contracts. By March 1 of the last year of contract, part-time teaching personnel shall receive letters informing them of their reappointment or non-reappointment. If the College cannot provide them with this information by March 1, they will receive a letter that explains why the reappointment decision has not yet been reached and provides a date by which the decision will be made. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Resignation Professional ethics obligate the individual faculty member to notify the College as early as possible of an his or her intention to resign. [April 9, 1976, p. 3237] Compensation Compensation for Visiting Faculty is determined at the time of hire by the Provost [May 4, 2007, p. 4642] Benefits Prorated Benefits for eligible faculty members are determined by Human Resources guidelines. [May 4, 2007, p. 4642] Policies and Procedures Respecting Recruitment and Appointment, Reappointment, and Termination of Visiting Faculty Recruitment, Appointment, Reappointment, and Evaluation For recruitment of full-time Visiting Faculty, the procedures for recruitment and appointment of full-time faculty shall be followed, except that the Chair of the Search Committee may limit advertisement provided that a suitable pool of applicants is obtained in keeping with the College’s policy as an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer. For such appointments, the Chair may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73In all cases where a Visiting Faculty member is retained for more than one year, the Department Chair/Program Coordinator shall review the faculty member’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to perform. Promotion: Criteria: Procedures and Responsibilities for Carrying them On Promotion of part-time faculty members shall be by the same procedures as those for full-time faculty members. The Provost, in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair, shall determine when a part-time faculty member shall be eligible for consideration for promotion. [May 29, 1980, p. 3469; May 3, 1985, p. 3678] Termination of Visiting Faculty Appointments by the College If the College seeks a dismissal for adequate cause prior to the expiration of the faculty member’s contract term, the procedures specific in Article IV, Section 8.2.1 shall be followed. Academic Freedom and Responsibility All members of the Faculty, whether tenured or not, are entitled to academic freedom as set forth in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, formulated by the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors, and as modified by the 1970 Interpretive Comments developed by representatives of the same two bodies. See Article III, Section 1. All members of the Faculty are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the 1966 Statement on Professional Ethics formulated by the American Association of University Professors. See Article III, Section 2. Miscellaneous Visiting Faculty Grievances 1. A Visiting Faculty member who feels that he or she has cause for grievance may have such grievance reviewed in accordance with the College’s then current “Review and Appeals Procedures for Certain Faculty Grievances” (see Article IV, Section 9). [May 4, 2007, p. 4643] 2. The Policies and Procedures set forth herein shall go into effect in accordance with the Enabling Section, as separately provided. 3. The Faculty may at any time or from time to time amend or revise the Policies and Procedures herein set forth, subject to each instance to the approval of the President of the College and of the Board of Trustees. 4. The Board of Trustees has final authority for acts under the Policies and Procedures herein set forth, subject to the delegations of authority to the Faculty under this legislation and to the President under the By-Laws; Article III. [March 17, 1978, pp. 3354-63] Article VI. Amendments to Faculty Bylaws The Faculty Bylaws Policies and Procedures set forth herein shall go into effect in accordance with the Enabling Section, as separately provided. The Faculty may at any time or from time to time amend or revise these Faculty Bylaws the Policies and Procedures herein set forth. Amendments or revisions to Articles II through VI of these Faculty Bylaws are subject in each instance to the approval of the President of the College and of the Board of Trustees. Amendments to the Faculty Bylaws may be initiated by either the Faculty, the President (or the President’s delegee), or the Administration. A proposal from a member of the Faculty or standing committee to amend the Faculty Bylaws will be referred to the Committee on Committees and Agenda. The Committee on Committees and Agenda will publish all proposed amendments to the Faculty, which will then vote on the matter after a period of deliberation. If a proposed amendment to Articles II through VI of the Faculty Bylaws is initiated by the President or other member of the Administration, the Faculty shall vote on the matter within 120 days of receiving the proposed amendment (excluding the period of time between the end of the traditional nine-month full-time faculty contract period and the beginning of the new nine-month full-time faculty contract period), unless an extension is agreeable to both the President or Board of Trustees and the Committee on Committees and Agenda and is expressed in writing. A proposed amendment that was initially referred by the President or member of the Administration and not voted upon by the Faculty within the time prescribed or that was not approved by Faculty may, at the option of the President, move forward to the Board of Trustees. In such a case, both the Faculty and the President shall have the right to provide the Board of Trustees with memoranda setting forth their positions on the proposed amendment. An affirmative vote of more than one-fourth of the entire voting faculty at duly constituted meeting of the Faculty is required to approve a proposed amendment. The Board of Trustees has final authority for acts under Articles II through VI the Faculty Bylaws Policies and Procedures herein set forth, subject to the delegations of authority to the Faculty under this legislation and to the President under the Bylaws; Article III. [March 17, 1978, pp. 3354-63] Conflict with Federal, State or Local Law: If any provision of the Faculty Bylaws is in conflict with federal, State, or local law, or is otherwise illegal, the remainder of the Faculty Bylaws shall not be affected. The Faculty shall make it a priority to meet and resolve the conflict in conjunction with the Administration. Wheaton College Faculty Bylaws – Page 2</s>

<s>[INST] AAUP 1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure.txt [/INST] AAUP 1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure In the United States, academic freedom is generally defined by the "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure," jointly authored by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Association of American Colleges and Universities. These principles state that Teachers are entitled to: freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject; and freedom in research and in the publication of the results. The principles further states that Tenure is the primary means of protecting academic freedom. Principles then sets forth baseline procedures to protect tenure: The probationary period Dismissal for adequate cause, and Termination due to financial exigency (must be demonstrably bona fide). Common Practice Data OWU’s current Faculty Handbook adopts the principles set forth in the 1940 AAUP Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure. Consistent with Higher Ed Practice: Endorsed by more than 250 disciplinary societies and educational associations Per 2020 study of over 250 Faculty Handbooks/Faculty Bylaws: 73% of four-year institutions with a tenure system base their academic freedom policy directly on the 1940 Statement, and more than half cite the AAUP specifically as the source. Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure AAUP publishes model Regulations outlining recommended institutional processes that enable institutions to protect academic freedom, tenure, and to ensure academic due process. The Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure sets forth proposed rules are derive from the chief provisions and interpretations of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure  My guess is that the faculty will be pushing for the adoption of some of the recommended regulations set forth in the financial exigency section of the AAUP’s Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Current OWU Termination Policy allows termination of tenure due to Financial Contingencies but does not define financial contingency. 2020 AAUP Study 95 percent of four-year institutions with a tenure system have financial exigency policies that allow for the termination of appointments 55 percent of institutions do not define those conditions and simply state that appointments can be terminated for “financial exigency,” “fiscal emergency,” or similar conditions AAUP Financial Exigency definition found in 13 percent of handbooks and contracts Other definitions that often provide less protection than the definition provided by the AAUP can be found at 33 percent of institutions</s>

<s>[INST] AAUP Related Text.txt [/INST] AAUP Related Text However, in cases where differences occur between the Saint Mary's College Faculty Handbook and procedures and policies of the AAUP, the Saint Mary's College Faculty Handbook takes precedence. Santa Clara 3.11 Revisions of the Faculty Handbook Any revisions of Chapter 3, the contractual section of this Handbook, must be reviewed by the Faculty Senate and approved by both the President and the Board of Trustees. See U of Pacific Faculty Authority/Shared Governance Benefits Holy Cross - https://www.holycross.edu/statutes-faculty/chapter-v-faculty-benefits-and-privileges Full-time faculty are entitled to faculty and College benefits during the term of their appointment. At the termination of their appointment the College has no continuing obligation with respect to these benefits.   Faculty fringe benefits and College employee benefits can be found in the Faculty Handbook and on the Human Resources website. Any changes to these benefits will be communicated to faculty at least one month in advance of the effective date of the change.   At the termination of their appointment, faculty members should consult with the Benefits coordinator in Human Resources to determine what legal rights they might have to continue some of these benefits at their own expense.</s>

<s>[INST] Academic Division Evaluation Guidelines.txt [/INST] [Academic Divisions or Colleges/Schools] are responsible for providing approved guidelines that define levels of performance in the four evaluation categories that inform the evaluation of candidates for promotion and tenure. The division guidelines will be used by the department faculty, Chair, Dean, ART Committee, Provost, President, and Board in their respective evaluation of candidates. Establishment and Approval of Academic Division Evaluation Guidelines The Faculty and Dean of each academic division are responsible for adopting, reviewing, and publishing division evaluation guidelines that define levels of performance in the four evaluation categories that inform the evaluation of candidates for promotion and tenure. The guidelines developed by the division Faculty and Dean must be flexible and allow a range of options for meeting each evaluation category. Moreover, the guidelines must be compatible with the University-level evaluation criteria published in the Faculty Policies Handbook and delineate what the discipline values in teaching, advising/mentoring, scholarship/creative endeavor (i.e., the number and/or type of publications, presentations, exhibitions, shows, or performances that are expected of candidates seeking tenure and/or promotion; listing of discipline-specific peer-reviewed journals, presses, or creative venues; etc.), and service. In developing the guidelines, the division Faculty and Dean are encouraged to take into consideration California Lutheran University’s mission, the applicable College or School’s mission, the academic division’s mission, principles of academic freedom, and, if appropriate, accepted practices in professional discipline-specific associations. Adopted division guidelines are reviewed by the ART Committee and Provost to ensure appropriate consistency in protection of academic freedom, rigor, equity, and balance across academic divisions. If necessary, the ART Committee and Provost may elect to return the guidelines to the appropriate Dean with questions and/or suggestions for revisions. The ART Committee and Provost shall strive to provide joint recommendations to the President whenever possible, but if disagreement exists, separate recommendations and supporting information should be provided to the President. The Provost will forward the proposed division guidelines, decisions, and related information to the President for final approval. The President will authorize the final version of the division guidelines. Distribution of Division Guidelines The Provost is responsible for distributing approved division guidelines to the respective Deans and Department Chairs, as well as the Office of Faculty Affairs and the ART Committee.. The Dean shall provide a copy of the division guidelines to each faculty member at the time of appointment Effective Dates for Changes in Evaluation Criteria Approved by Academic Council, Provost, Faculty; revised April 16, 2014, Revised and approved by Academic Council on November 10, 2016, by the Faculty on December 13, 2016 and by the Provost on February 14, 2017 If a change in the standards occurs prior to the year of a candidate's tenure and/or promotion review, the decision will be based on the standard at date-of-hire unless professional accreditation of programs require a prompt change or the candidate chooses the new standards. Promotion to full professor review will follow the new standards if changes to standards occur outside of the two years prior to the candidates promotion to full professor. This policy also applies to approved revisions of unit guidelines. When changes are made either at the University level or at the unit level, the unit must assist faculty to make the transition to the new standards in an equitable manner.</s>

<s>[INST] ACCEPTABLE USE OF COLLEGE COMPUTER AND NETWORK SYSTEMS POLICY.txt [/INST] ACCEPTABLE USE OF COLLEGE COMPUTER AND NETWORK SYSTEMS POLICY Effective Date: May 8, 2017 Policy Number: II – 2.4.1 Supersedes: Not Applicable. Issuing Authority: President Responsible Officer: Chief Information Officer Applicability:     All students, staff, faculty, contractors, consultants, and other workers at Canisius college, including all personnel affiliated with third parties. This policy applies to all college-owned or college-leased information systems, including but not limited to, computer and network systems. History:   PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to outline the acceptable use of the college’s information systems, including but not limited to, its computer and network systems and to promote the efficient, ethical, and lawful use of the college’s information systems and equipment. POLICY Canisius College information systems, including but not limited to its computer and network systems (hereinafter collectively referred to as “information systems”), are intended for use in college-related research, instruction, learning, enrichment, and administrative activities. Authorized Users must use only those information systems that they are authorized to use and are permitted to use them only in the manner and to the extent authorized. Ability to access such systems does not, by itself, imply authorization to do so. Authorized Users are responsible for ascertaining what authorizations are necessary and for obtaining them before proceeding. See the Access Control Policy for additional information. Further, the college expects college employees, students, and other Authorized Users to utilize the college’s information systems and resources in a lawful and responsible manner consistent with the college’s mission of education, research, and service. While the college makes its information systems available primarily for use in college-related research, instruction, learning, enrichment, and administrative activities, it realizes the need for personal use of its systems for the convenience of the campus community. Any personal use of these systems may not violate any college practice or policy, including but not limited to the procedures and policy guidelines set forth in this policy. Moreover, the use of the college’s systems by employees for purposes unrelated to their college positions, however, must be limited and not interfere with their official responsibilities or college functions. It is the responsibility of college employees to consult their supervisors if they have any questions in this respect. The college recognizes that Authorized Users may use personal devices when conducting college business or accessing the college’s information systems. Authorized Users are still responsible for following the Acceptable Use Policy when using personal devices. See also the Mobile Device and Support Policy for more information. If an Authorized User is not clear as to what constitutes an appropriate use, the user should contact the college’s chief information officer to determine whether a particular activity is permissible. DEFINITIONS Authorized User—are all individuals, including, but not limited to, employees, temporary employees, faculty, students, alumni, trustees, campus visitors, contractors, vendors, consultants and their related personnel, and other individuals authorized by the college to access a college computer, the college network(s), or information systems that collect, process, maintain, use, share, disseminate or dispose of College Data. Cardholder Data - full magnetic stripe or the Primary Account Number (PAN) plus any of the following: cardholder name; expiration date; service code; CVC2/CVV2/CID (a three- or four-digit number displayed on the signature panel of the card or, in the case of American Express, on the face of the card. College Data— any information collected, manipulated, stored, reported, or presented in any format, on any medium, at any location by any department, program or office of the college in support of the college’s mission. College Information System—a set of information resources organized expressly for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination, or disposition of information. The term system is used throughout this policy to represent all types of computing platforms that can process, store, or transmit College Data. College Personnel—Canisius College trustees, executive officers, administrators, faculty, staff, student employees, contractors, and others who act on behalf of the college. Computer and Network Systems—any college-owned or leased computer, mobile device, or software, as well as any part of the college’s computer, data, voice or video networks (including all information systems) physically located on any college owned, leased, or rented property or located on the property of any third-party with the permission of the college. This includes devices on such networks assigned any routable and non-routable IP addresses and applies to the college’s wireless network and the network serving the college’s student residence housing and any other vendor supplied network made available to the college community. Covered Data and Information—means all Non-Public Personnel Information of customers required to be protected under the Title V of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999 (“GLBA”), including Student Financial Information. In addition to this coverage, which is required under federal law, the college chooses as a matter of policy to also include in this definition any Cardholder Data received in the course of business by the college, whether or not such Cardholder Data is covered by GLBA. Covered Data and Information includes both paper and electronic records. Covered Data and Information is classified as Private, Highly Restricted College Data pursuant to the Data Classification Policy. Data Custodians—the custodian of College Data is generally responsible for the processing and storage of College Data. The custodian is responsible for the administration of controls as specified by the Data Owner. By definition, Data Custodians are also Authorized Users. Data Owners—the owner of a collection of College Data is usually the manager responsible for the creation of that data or the primary user of that information. This role often corresponds with the management of department. In this context, ownership does not signify proprietary interest, and ownership may be shared. By definition, Data Owners are also Authorized Users. Media—includes, but is not limited to, paper, hard drives, random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), disks, flash drives, memory devices, phones, Mobile Devices, networking devices, and all-in-one printers. Members of the College Community—includes any person who is a student, college employee, volunteer, trustee, alumni, as well as college organizations, clubs, groups, and teams. This definition also includes all college departments, offices and programs. Mobile Device— any handheld or portable computing device including running an operating system optimized or designed for mobile computing.  Any device running a full desktop version operating system is not included in this definition. Non-Public Personal Information—any personally identifiable financial or other personal information, not otherwise publicly available, that the college has obtained from a customer in the process of offering a financial product or service; such information provided to the college by another financial institution; such information otherwise obtained by the college in connection with providing a financial product or service; or any list, description, or other grouping of customers (and publicly available information pertaining to them) that is derived using any information listed above that is not publicly available. Examples of personally identifiable financial information include names, date and place of birth, mother’s maiden name, biometric records, addresses, telephone numbers, bank and credit card account numbers, income and credit histories, tax returns, asset statements, and social security numbers, both in paper and electronic form. Personally Identifiable Information or PII—any information about an individual that (i) can be used to distinguish or trace an individual’s identity, such as name, date and place of birth, mother’s maiden name or biometric records, (ii) is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial and employment information, which if lost, compromised or disclosed without authorization, could result in harm to that individual; and (iii) is protected by federal, state or local laws and regulations or industry standards. Private College Data—any College Data classified as Private-Highly Restricted and Private-Restricted pursuant to this policy. By definition, Private College Data includes, but is not limited to, Covered Data and Information, Student Financial Information, Personally Identifiable Information, Student Education Records, Human Subjects Research Data or Other Sensitive Research Data, Protected Health Information, Cardholder Data, and Sensitive Authentication Data. See the College Data Classification Policy for additional information. Public College Data—College Data that by law are available to the public upon request, and that the loss of the data would not cause significant personal, institutional, or other harm. Sensitive Authentication Data—Full track data (magnetic strip data or equivalent on a chip, CAV2/CVC2/CVV2/CID, and PINs/PIN blocks. Software—any programs used to operate computers and related devices. Software is frequently divided into two categories: system software and application software. System software includes the operating system and the utilities that enable the computer or device to operate. Application software consists of programs that perform productive work for users. Application software includes such items as word processors (e.g., Word, WordPerfect), spreadsheets (e.g.: Excel), graphic and data management programs (e.g.: Photoshop, Access), and statistical packages. Student Education Records—as defined by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), student education records are all records which contain information directly related to a student and maintained by the college, including those files, documents, and other materials (in handwriting, print, computer media, video or audio tape, film, microfilm, and microfiche) that contain information directly related to a student which are maintained by the college or by a person acting for the college pursuant to college or department policy. Information that is captured as a result of a student’s various activities at the college is part of the student record. This information includes, but may not be limited to, logs, databases or other records of: websites the student has visited, purchases made at college facilities, entry day/time into college facilities, library use and biometric records. Student Financial Information—information the college or its affiliates have obtained from a student in the process of offering a financial product or service, or such information provided to the college by another financial institution. Offering a financial product or service includes offering student loans to students, receiving income tax information from a student’s parent when offering a financial aid package, and other miscellaneous financial services as defined in 12 CRF §225.28. Examples of student financial information include addresses, phone numbers, bank and credit card account numbers, income and credit histories and Social Security numbers, in both paper and electronic format. PROCEDURES/GUIDELINES I. Conditions of Use In using the college’s information systems, Authorized Users agree to the following conditions of use: Authorized Users of the college’s information systems do so subject to applicable laws and the college’s policies and procedures; The college will endeavor to safeguard the confidentiality of Authorized Users and the possibility of loss of information within the college’s information systems but will not be liable to the user in the event of any such loss. The user must take all reasonable measures to further safeguard against any loss of information within the college’s information systems; Authorized Users of the college’s information systems recognize that when they cease to be formally associated with the college (e.g., no longer an employee, student, contractor, or visitor to the college), their information/data may be removed from the college’s information systems without notice. Exceptions will be reviewed by the chief information officer; The college reserves the right to limit permanently or restrict any Authorized User’s usage of the college’s information systems; to copy, remove, or otherwise alter any information/data or system that may undermine the authorized use of the college’s information systems; and to do so with or without notice to the user in order to protect the integrity of the college’s information systems against unauthorized or improper use, and to protect authorized users from the effects of unauthorized or improper usage; The college, through authorized individuals, reserves the right to periodically check and monitor its information systems, including but not limited to the right to review, access, audit and monitor files/messages on Authorized Users’ assigned computers, mobile devices, and emails; The college reserves the right to take emergency action to safeguard the integrity and security of its information systems. This includes but is not limited to the termination of a program, job, or on-line session, or the temporary alteration of Authorized User account names and passwords.  Canisius College disclaims any responsibility and/or warranties for information and materials residing on non-college information systems or available over publicly accessible networks, except where such responsibility is formally expressed. Such materials do not necessarily reflect the attitudes, opinions, or values of the college, its employees, or students. II. Acceptable Uses A. General Guidelines General guidelines for the acceptable use of college information systems are based on the following principles and Authorized Users are expected to: Behave in a manner consistent with the college’s mission and comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and college policies, as well as applicable licensing and contractual agreements; Behave responsibly and respect the name of the college and the integrity and security of college information systems at all times; Respect the rights and property of others, including privacy of person-to-person communication in all forms, including voice (telephone), text (electronic mail and file transfer), and images (graphics and video), confidentiality, and intellectual property (e.g. do not violate copyright laws or use software procured with academic use licenses for commercial applications or development, unless the license explicitly permits such use); Use college information systems for the activities or purposes for which they are assigned (e.g., college information systems are not to be used for personal commercial purposes without written authorization from the college); Guard against abuses that disrupt or threaten the viability of any college information systems, including those at the college and those on networks to which the college’s information systems are connected or accessible; Abuses include but are not limited to the use of unauthorized equipment such as wireless access points, wireless routers, cable routers, etc. or utilizing shared resources such as CPU cycles or network bandwidth to a degree that adversely impacts academic or research activities; Comply with information technology security policies and associated controls employed by the college and protect assigned accounts and non-public College Data from unauthorized access by others; and Report violations of this policy to the chief information officer. If an Authorized User is not clear on what constitutes an appropriate use, the user is expected to contact Information Technology Services (“ITS”) to determine whether a particular activity is permissible. B. Security Habits In addition to the above, Authorized Users are expected to adhere to reasonable and necessary security habits when using college resources.  These habits include: Accessing Private College Data only to conduct college business and only as authorized by the applicable Data Owner; Keeping account information, including passwords, confidential; Logging out of computers or using a password-protected screensaver when leaving the office; Running college-provided antivirus and antispyware software; Installing operating system updates when prompted; Using caution when opening email attachments and other unexpected data; Storing Private College Data, whenever feasible, on a centrally managed server, rather than a local hard drive or portable device (see the Media Protection Policy); In cases when an Authorized User must create or store Private College Data on a local hard drive or a portable device such as a laptop computer, tablet computer, smart phone, or other mobile device, the Authorized User must ensure the data is encrypted in accordance with System and Communication Protection, Media Protection, and Mobile Device Use and Support policies; Encrypting Private College Data during transmission over an unsecured network; Email sent to and received from college email accounts are automatically encrypted. ITS provides tools and processes for Authorized Users to send encrypted data over unsecured networks to and from other locations; Authorized Users who store College Data using commercial cloud services must use services provided or sanctioned by College, rather than personally obtained cloud services; Disconnecting devices determined by ITS to lack required security software or otherwise pose a threat to college information systems; Returning all college information systems that are no longer being used productively for college business to ITS for reallocation, repair, or disposal. Authorized Users may not directly give, lend, rent, donate, or dispose of college information systems. See also the Media Protection and Mobile Device Use and Support policies; Authorized Users in units approved to accept and/or access Cardholder Data or utilize devices or systems that store or access Cardholder Data must adhere to the standards and controls; Adhering to the standards and controls set forth in the Payment Card Information Security Policy; and Adhering to the standards of outside resources accessed from the Canisius network. III. Privacy and Personal Use Since the college’s communication systems are the property of the college, all communications are subject to review by appropriate and authorized employees at any time. Data may be retained in backup systems, even after its apparent deletion. Users should be aware that personal privacy in their use of the college’s information systems sent to or from, or stored in, the college’s systems cannot be guaranteed in the event of legal or disciplinary proceedings. Authorized Users are responsible for exercising good judgment regarding the personal use of the college’s information systems. If there is any uncertainty regarding personal use of the college’s information systems, users should consult the ITS Help Desk. College personnel may also consult with their supervisor or manager. At no time should the college’s information systems be used in a way that is at odds with college policy or applicable state or federal law. IV. Unacceptable Use Certain actions are strictly forbidden when an Authorized User is granted access to a college information systems.  Under no circumstances shall a user of the Canisius College’s information systems: Engage in any illegal activity using college information systems assets; Engage in any activity contrary to college policy using College information systems assets; Introduce malicious software into the campus information systems; Reveal college information or allow the unauthorized use of college information systems by people outside of the Canisius community; Attempt to breach, disrupt, eavesdrop on, circumvent the security of, or otherwise tamper with network communications, the personal devices of others in use at the college, or technology external to the college; Access a college information systems using another user’s account information; Use college information systems to violate intellectual property laws; Use Canisius College information systems assets for personal commercial or for-profit activities, or to promote political causes; Use Canisius equipment or network resources for viewing or exchanging pornography or sexually explicit materials except when engaged in the study of such material as part of an approved academic activity; Acquire college information systems assets on behalf of the college, whether by purchasing, licensing, or subscribing to them, or by donating or accepting donations, whether their use is for a fee or free. In addition, users may not unilaterally dispose of college technology resources. See the Computer Asset Disposal and Computer Replacement policies for more information; Contact information technology vendors seeking additional products or services on behalf of the college except for individuals authorized to do so as part of an approved ITS project or activity and faculty exploring instructional technologies to enhance individual courses. All additions and changes to college information systems (especially systems and software) are to be governed by an organized methodology; Attempt to modify or repair college information systems, or arrange with technology vendors or private individuals for modifications or repairs. Authorized Users must contact the ITS Help Desk promptly to report problems with technology; Connect personal equipment (e.g. networking equipment, keyboards, monitors, printers, scanners, etc.) to information systems assets at college locations, with the exception of external storage devices; Give, loan, or relocate college information systems assets without ITS approval; Use any software on personal devices connected to college information systems that provides network or file services to others (such as web servers, file servers, network protocols); Use the college’s information systems to assume the identity of another (e.g., by sending forged electronic mail); Utilize the college’s information systems to interfere with the proper functioning or the ability of others to make use of such systems, of others’ personal technology, or of technologies external to the college; Utilize the college’s information systems to engage in any conduct that is likely to result in retaliation against the information systems, the personal devices of others, or technology external to the college, including engaging in behavior that results in any server being the target of a denial of service attack; and Attempt to decrypt encrypted information unless they are authorized staff performing security reviews or investigations. The use of network “sniffers” is restricted to authorized system administrators or contractors tasked with solving network problems or conducting security audits. Network tools must not be used to monitor or track any individual’s network activity except under special authorization by the chief information officer. Canisius College strongly protects the right of all members of the college community to be free from any form of electronic harassment or abuse. Members of the college community receiving any such unwanted or threatening electronic messages should immediately contact ITS so that appropriate disciplinary and/or legal action may be taken. In the event of an incident of Sexual or Gender-based Misconduct, the college’s Title IX coordinator may be contacted. Responsible Employees who become aware of such incidents are required to report the incident to the Title IX coordinator. See the college’s Sexual and Gender-Based Misconduct Policy for additional information, including confidential reporting procedures. V. Withdrawal of Access Access to the college’s information systems, from both remote and on campus site, is a privilege granted to Authorized Users. Access to college’s information systems may be granted, limited, or withdrawn by the college at any time. A partial list of possible factors for termination include: Observance of relevant college policies and associated controls, guidelines, laws, and contractual obligations; The requester’s need to know; The information’s sensitivity; System load; Availability of training; Risk of damage to or loss by the college; and The person’s Authorized User’s previous history of use. The College reserves the right to monitor, extend, limit, restrict, or deny privileges and access to its information systems for any reason at any time. If it appears that the integrity, security, or functionality of the college’s information systems are at risk, Canisius College reserves the right to take any necessary action to investigate and remediate the problem. This action may include monitoring network activity, viewing user-generated files, and/or terminating access. In such cases, a written report of the findings will be forwarded to the appropriate college officials. In order to assure continuity for academic and administrative departments, similar procedures may be used after an employee is separated from the college or no longer able to perform required duties. VI. Use of College Email Systems A. Access to College Email System(s) 1. Account Creation College email accounts are created based on the official name of the employee as reflected in Human Resource records. Student and alumni accounts are created based on the name on file with the Registrar. Requests for name changes to correct a discrepancy between an email account name and official college records will be processed, in which case the email account name will be corrected. Requests for email aliases based on name preference, middle name, etc., are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Employees or departments may request temporary email privileges for individuals outside of the college (i.e., guests, third-party contractors, volunteers). Such requests must be approved in writing by the appropriate area vice president or designee. 2. Account Termination Individuals may leave the college for a variety of reasons, which gives rise to differing situations regarding the length of electronic mail privileges or expiration of electronic mail accounts. Guidelines governing those privileges are set forth below. Notwithstanding the guidelines below, access to college’s email system(s) may be limited or withdrawn by the college at any time. Faculty who leave before retirement–full-time faculty who leave before retirement may keep their electronic mail account for one year from the end of the last term in which they taught. If such separation is for cause, email privileges may be immediately revoked without notice. Staff who leave before retirement– staff who leave the college will have email privileges removed effective on their last worked day. If such separation is for cause, email privileges may be immediately revoked without notice. Retired Faculty– full-time faculty who have retired from the college will be permitted to retain their email privileges if their account remains active. All email accounts that are inactive for a period of one year will be removed. Retired Staff–staff who have retired from the college will have email privileges removed effective on their last worked day. Volunteers and Guests-volunteers and guest who leave the college will have email privileges removed effective on their last day with the college. If such separation is for cause, email privileges may be immediately revoked without notice. Students who leave before graduation–students who leave the college without completion of their degree or other program may keep their email privileges for one academic year from the last term when they were registered. Expelled students-if a student is expelled from the college, email privileges will be terminated immediately. Alumni– students who have graduated from the college will be permitted to retain their email privileges if their account remains active. All email accounts that are inactive for a period of one year will be removed. Alumni wishing to reconnect with the college may request an account and one may be provided to them. B. Acceptable Use of College Email Systems Authorized Users are expected to read their college email on a regular basis and manage their email accounts appropriately. Authorized Users are presumed to have received and read all email messages sent to their official college email account. Authorized Users must ascertain, understand, and to use their accounts in accordance with the acceptable use policies outlined above and other applicable college policies, as well as those laws, regulations, contracts, and licenses applicable to the use of email systems and accounts. To avoid confusing official college business with personal communications, college employees may not use non-college email accounts to conduct college business. Authorized Users must comply with security measures employed by the college and protect assigned electronic mail accounts from access by others. College email accounts may not be used to send mass emailing or commercial solicitations (a.k.a “spam”) to individuals, newsgroups, or mailing lists where such content is not part of the purpose of the group or list or for the purpose of college business (see the Mass Email Policy). Microsoft Exchange email accounts are subject to the same retention policy as paper records and the college’s Email Retention Policy. Authorized Users who receive a notice of a legal hold are responsible for keeping copies of all relevant documents, including email. If an Authorized User is not clear on what constitutes an appropriate use, the user is expected to contact his/her supervisor or ITS to determine whether a particular activity is permissible. Note: Authorized Users who use email communications with persons in countries outside the United States should be aware that they may be subject to the laws of those other countries and the rules and policies on other systems and networks. C. Unacceptable Uses of College Email Systems The following specific actions and uses of college email systems are improper: Any use of a college email account that interferes with college activities and functions or does not respect the mission, image, and reputation of the college; Alteration of a source or destination address of email; Use of a college email account for commercial or private business purposes that have not been approved in writing by the appropriate area vice president; Use of a college email account in violation of college policy or applicable laws and regulations; Use of a college email account to harass, threaten, incite violence, threaten violence, defraud, or defame other individuals; Use of a college email account to infringe on another person’s copyright, trade or service mark, patent, or other property right or is intended to assist others in defeating those protections; Email content that violates, or encourages the violation of, the legal rights of others or federal and state laws; Use of a college email account to intentionally distribute viruses, worms, Trojan horses, malware, corrupted files, hoaxes, or other items of a destructive or deceptive nature; Purposefully interfering with the use of the college’s email system(s), or the equipment used to provide the email services by customers, authorized resellers, or other Authorized Users; Purposefully altering, disabling, interfering with, or circumventing any aspect of the college’s email system(s); Testing or reverse-engineering the college’s email system(s) in order to find limitations, vulnerabilities or evade filtering capabilities; Use of a college email account to create a risk to a person’s safety or health, create a risk to public safety or health, compromise national security, or interfere with an investigation by law enforcement; Use of a college email account to improperly expose trade secrets or other confidential or proprietary information of another person; Sending unsolicited email messages, junk mail, spam, or advertising material to individuals who did not specifically request such material, as well as sending mass or chain messages in violation of the Mass Email Policy; Forging or the unauthorized use of email header information; Use of a college email account to unlawfully discriminate against another individual on the basis of age, race, religion or creed, color, sex, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, marital status, military status, genetic predisposition or carrier status, gender identity, gender expression, familial status, domestic violence victim status, pregnancy, citizenship or immigration status, disability, criminal conviction or any other status protected by local, state or federal law; Sending, viewing, or downloading offensive content of any kind, including pornographic material or messages of a sexist, obscene, harassing, threatening, or racist nature; Sending, viewing, or downloading messages of a political nature for the purpose of proselytizing and/or soliciting funds or donations; Creating or forwarding chain letters, Ponzi, or other pyramid schemes of any type; Transmitting Private College Data, including but not limited to Cardholder Data, without appropriate encryption protection (see the System and Communications Protection Policy); and Use of a college email account for illegal gambling. Authorized Users are responsible for the content of their email messages and must understand that others can use such content as evidence against them. Any questions as to whether the use of a college email account for academic, research, or educational purposes could violate the spirit of this policy should be brought to the attention of the user’s supervisor or ITS. VII. Enforcement ITS is responsible for the appropriate enforcement of this policy. During the course of any investigation of alleged inappropriate or unauthorized use, it may be necessary to temporarily suspend a user’s system privileges, but only after determining there is at least a prima facie case against the individual, as well as a risk to college’s information systems if privileges are not revoked. This is a necessary action taken to prevent further misuse and does not presume that the account holder initiated the misuse. Unsubstantiated reports of abuse will not result in the suspension of user account or network access unless sufficient evidence is provided to show that inappropriate activity occurred. Any employee found to have violated this policy may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Any student found to have violated this policy will be subject to disciplinary action through the Community Standards. Visitors and others third party users who violate the provisions of the policy are subject to loss of access to the college’s information systems. They may also be subject to criminal and/or civil proceedings. In addition, the vice president for business and finance may administer other appropriate sanctions. VIII. Notification Users must report any identified weakness in college computer security and any incident of possible misuse or violation of this policy to ITS. RELATED POLICIES Access Control Policy Acquisition and Disposal Policy Audit and Accountability Control Policy Cloud Computing Policy Configuration Management Policy Copyright and Intellectual Property Policy Data Classification Policy Email Retention Policy Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Policy Identification and Authentication Policy Incident Response Policy Information Security Program Information Technology Personnel Security Policy Information Technology Physical and Environmental Protection Policy Information Technology Security Awareness and Training Policy Mass Email Policy Media Protection Policy Mobile Device Use and Support Policy Passwords Policy Payment Card Information Security Policy Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Policy Political Activities and Speakers Policy Record Retention and Disposal Policy Remote Access Policy Risk and Security Assessment Policy Sexual and Gender-Based Misconduct Policy Social Media Policy System and Data Integrity Policy Standards of Ethical Conduct Student Records (FERPA) Policy Wireless Access Points Policy</s>

<s>[INST] Action Short of Dimissal.txt [/INST] https://hope.edu/offices/human-resources/employee/handbooks-policies/faculty.html Procedures for Disciplining Short of Dismissal Where disciplinary action short of dismissal for cause is sought, the dean, after consultation with the Provost, shall provide the faculty member with written notice of the cause for disciplinary action, the anticipated disciplinary action, and an opportunity to respond prior to a specific and reasonable deadline before the imposition of any disciplinary action. After receiving the response from the faculty member or if the faculty member fails to respond, the dean shall make a decision regarding the disciplinary action and notify the faculty member in writing. The faculty member may challenge the imposition of any disciplinary action by the dean by filing a grievance under provisions of the Faculty Grievance Policy and Procedure. Disciplinary action may include but is not limited to verbal or written reprimand; suspension with or without pay; reassignment of duties, office or lab space; denial of salary increase(s); denial of summer appointment(s); denial or revocation of a sabbatical leave; denial of travel or other University support or funds; and mandatory counseling and/or monitoring of behavior and performance. Suspension without pay during the academic year may not exceed one semester. Suspension without pay during the academic year would normally not be imposed until the grievance process is completed (if a grievance is filed). A. MINOR DISCIPLINE The University recognizes that it is the unit administrator who has primary responsibility for supervising faculty members. It is the role of the unit administrator to monitor faculty performance and communicate concerns to faculty members and to the dean. However, the dean is primarily responsible for making disciplinary decisions and may impose discipline in place of the unit administrator according to the following process:  Where the unit administrator, in consultation with the dean, seeks to impose minor disciplinary action, the unit administrator shall first meet with the faculty member to discuss the administrator’s concern and the potential for discipline. The administrator will notify the faculty member during that meeting of the right and opportunity to request a consultation with the department/school faculty advisory committee, its chair, or the chair of the UCFA personnel subcommittee8 before the administrator proceeds with any disciplinary action. The purpose of such informal consultation is to reconcile disputes early and informally, when that is appropriate, by clarifying the issues involved, resolving misunderstandings, considering alternatives, and noting applicable bylaws. The unit administrator and faculty member, if requested by the faculty member, will consult with the department/school faculty advisory committee, its chair, or with the chair of the UCFA personnel subcommittee in a prompt fashion to discuss the administrator’s concern and the potential for discipline.  Should the unit administrator still wish to proceed with disciplinary action after that consultation, the administrator must consult with the dean and the Office of the Associate Provost to discuss the proposed disciplinary action. If the proposed discipline is authorized by those offices, the unit administrator shall provide the faculty member with written notice of the cause for disciplinary action in sufficient detail for the faculty member to address the specifics of the charges, and an opportunity to respond in writing prior to the imposition of any disciplinary action, within seven (7) days9 of receipt of the unit administrator’s written notice. The dean must be copied on the written notice. The written response by the faculty member, if any, will be provided to the unit administrator, the dean and the Office of the Associate Provost for further comment. The unit administrator, in consultation with the dean, and after considering the written response and further comments, if any, shall make a decision regarding the disciplinary action and notify the faculty member in writing. The discipline will then take effect.</s>

<s>[INST] ADMISSION OF APPLICANTS WITH PRIOR HISTORY OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR CONDUCT.txt [/INST] ADMISSION OF APPLICANTS WITH PRIOR HISTORY OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR CONDUCT Effective Date: Policy Number: V – Supersedes: Issuing Authority: Responsible Officer: Applicability: All persons enrolled or seeking admission to Canisius College. History: PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to protect the college community where admission of an applicant with a prior history of criminal behavior or disciplinary action for conduct may endanger the health, safety or welfare of others. POLICY It is the policy of Canisius College to reserve the right to deny or place conditions on admission, continued enrollment, or re-enrollment of applicants, students or former students whose personal history and background, including their criminal record, indicates that their presence at the college may endanger the health, safety, welfare or property of members of the college community or interfere with the orderly and effective performance of the college's functions. Applicants for admission to the college are required to disclose any prior criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, as well as any past disciplinary suspensions or dismissals from higher educational institutions on the application for enrollment. Additional review may be required for those applicants seeking admission to the following academic programs: [LIST PROGRAMS THAT REQUIRE FORMAL SCREENING]. Prior criminal or disciplinary actions are not an automatic bar to admission to the college. The college recognizes that automatically depriving past offenders of an education may not be in the best interest of the individual, the educational mission of the college, or society at large. However, this recognition must be balanced against the college’s need to carefully evaluate and determine the possibility that admission or presence of the student on campus may endanger the health, safety, welfare or property of members of the college community or interfere with the orderly and effective performance of the college's functions. In determining whether or not to admit the applicant based on the evidence, the [ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT OR ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE] will adhere to the procedures and factors set forth in the Procedures/Guidelines section of this policy. While the [ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT OR ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE] will exercise its judgment in a reasonable manner, the decision of the college as to whether or not to admit the applicant is in the college’s absolute and sole discretion. Applicants who fail to give complete and accurate responses to the conduct section of the admission application may be subject to denial of admission, disciplinary action, invalidation of credits or degrees earned and rescission of admission upon discovery of the misstatement or omission. All records, reports, and proceedings are considered private by the college and shared only as reasonably necessary for review of the applicant’s request for admission, subject to any applicable state or federal laws that may compel disclosure of all or part of such records. The college reserves the right to deny admission to any applicant and to deny and/or rescind admission to any applicant consistent with college policies, including for applicants who provide false or misleading information to the college. DEFINITIONS Not Applicable. PROCEDURES/GUIDELINES I. Review Procedures The [ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT OR ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE] will review the information provided by the applicant and make a determination as to whether or not to offer admission to the applicant, assuming all other application requirements are satisfied. Factors considered by the [ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT OR ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE] as part of the past crime or disciplinary offense review process include, but are not limited to: Amount of time that has passed since crime or offense; Successful completion of sentence; Severity of the crime or offense; Nature of the crime or offense; Other educational programs attended since time of crime or offense; and Nature of the academic program in which the applicant seeks to enroll. Admission may be denied to an applicant based on prior criminal convictions, including but not limited to in instances where admission creates a risk to the safety or welfare of the college community, to specific individuals or to the public, or where admission poses a potential risk to property. After evaluating all information provided by the applicant as well as other information available to the [ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT OR ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE], the [ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT OR ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE] will make a determination as to whether or not the applicant will be eligible to enroll to the college. The applicant will be informed of the college’s decision in writing. Applicants who are denied admission by the college may appeal the determination in accordance with Section IV below. II. Conditions Applicable to all Applicants Determined Eligible to Enroll If the [ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT OR ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE] decides the applicant is eligible to enroll, the following conditions apply to all applicants who enroll at the college: The applicant must not be charged with any further crimes pursued by a prosecuting jurisdiction; The applicant must complete all court ordered requirements (as applicable); The applicant must meet with the Senior Associate Dean of Students, no later than one week prior to the academic semester, to discuss and comply with any additional conditions. Such condition may include, for example, the following: A probationary period for all or part of enrollment with or without stipulations; Participation in a drug and alcohol evaluation or counseling support; and Restriction on housing, activities, and/or employment on campus. If an applicant fails to comply with these or any other admission conditions prior to enrollment, the college may revoke its prior determination and make the applicant not eligible to enroll. If the applicant fails to comply with admission conditions after enrollment, it is a potential violation of the Community Standards and the case will be referred to the Senior Associate Dean of Students. III. Registered Sex Offenders If the college determines a registered sex offender is eligible to enroll, the [ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT OR ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE] will determine whether the applicant is eligible to reside in college housing. Such decision will be communicated to the student in writing. If an admitted sex offender is allowed to reside on campus, individual must comply with any and all registration requirements per state law, in addition to registering with the college’s Public Safety Department. IV. Appeals Applicants who are denied admission by the [ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT OR ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE] may appeal this determination to the Vice President for Enrollment Management as follows: An appeal must be submitted in writing to the Vice President for Enrollment Management within ten (10) days of receiving the [ADMISSIONS DEPARTMENT OR ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE]'s determination. The appeal will be reviewed by the Vice President for Enrollment Management, additional potentially relevant information may be obtained, and a decision will be made within a reasonable amount of time given the individual circumstances. The Vice President for Enrollment Management may consult with the Vice President for Student Affairs and other campus official as appropriate in reaching a determination. The applicant will be informed of the outcome of the appeal in writing. The Vice President for Enrollment Management’s decision is final and is not appealable. RELATED POLICIES Community Standards</s>

<s>[INST] Albright Faculty Handbook Proposal - First Draft.txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] Alternative Academic Freedom Statement.txt [/INST] Alternative Academic Freedom Statement As an institution “forever be conducted on the most liberal principles, accessible to all religious denominations and designed for the benefit of our citizens in general,” Ohio Wesleyan University is committed to the belief that the essential purpose of an academic community is to promote knowledge through the search for truth and to express truth without interference or harassment. In order that this purpose be clearly understood in the context of academic freedom and freedom of expression, the following policy shall apply: Members of the Ohio Wesleyan University faculty are entitled to academic freedom in the classroom, in research and publication, and in all educational activities. In exercising academic freedom, the ideas of different members of the University community may conflict, but it is not the proper role of the University to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they do not agree with or find offensive. When exchanging ideas and opinions, faculty members share responsibility for showing due respect for others; however, concerns about mutual respect can never be used as a justification for limiting discussion of ideas. The freedom to exchange ideas and engage in meaningful debate does not mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, whenever they wish. The University may restrict expression that is illegal, defamatory, harassing or threatening, or violative of substantial privacy or confidentiality interests. Such exceptions, however, may not be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the University’s commitment to academic freedom or the free expression of ideas. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, faculty have a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and expression. Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views of others, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it. Portions of this statement are reprinted from the University of Chicago Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression.</s>

<s>[INST] Alternative approaches would be to.txt [/INST] Alternative approaches would be to: classify these faculty as “Visiting Faculty” and slightly modify the College’s current text to mirror Mary Washington’s definition (https://publications.umw.edu/facultyhandbook/section_3/visiting/); modify the notice of non-reappointment dates that is inconsistent with AAUP recommended policy the College currently adheres to; adopt a “Temporary” faculty classification; or adopt an Instructor/Clinical Faculty and/or Lecturer track(s) (have no scholarship responsibilities). Temporary Faculty: Temporary faculty are appointed pursuant to term appointments for short duration, usually a year. Some schools will cap the renewal of such appointments to three years. For example, DePaul allows the use of term appointments for full-time faculty for a variety of reasons, including staffing a new and developing academic program. It should be noted that DePaul’s handbook clearly states that the use of term appointments should not be used to permanently replace a tenure-line position or avoid adding new tenure line positions Examples: https://arts-sciences.und.edu/_files/docs/tempfacappt.pdf https://www.etsu.edu/senate/facultyhandbook/section2.php Instructor Faculty/Lecturers: There are representative examples of schools that issue term appointment contracts to the faculty appointed to these types of tracks. Examples: https://www.albright.edu/academic/faculty-resources/faculty-handbook/contracts-and-ranks/ (See Section III.A.3) https://offices.depaul.edu/secretary/policies-procedures/policies/Documents/Appendices/Chapter%202%20(7-1-21%20Edition).pdf#page6: DePaul allows the use of term appointments for full-time faculty for a variety of reasons, including staffing a new and developing academic program. These faculty are assigned the rank of Instructor or Lecturer. It should be noted that DePaul’s handbook clearly states that the use of term appointments should not be used to permanently replace a tenure-line position or avoid adding new tenure line positions.</s>

<s>[INST] Alternative Dismissal Proceedings.txt [/INST] Alternative Dismissal Proceedings If the matter is not terminated by mutual consent, the President and the Advisory Committee will begin preliminary proceedings. During these proceedings the role of the President (or the President’s delegate) is to represent the College as it brings possible charges against the faculty member; the role of the Advisory Committee is to represent the interests of the faculty at large and to assist the parties in finding a resolution. If the President believes that there are reasonable grounds to pursue the procedures of dismissal for cause, the preliminary proceedings begin with the President convening the Advisory Committee and presenting a written summary of the College's reasons, such summary having been previously given to the faculty member. The Committee then undertakes an inquiry consisting of an informal meeting with the appropriate administrative officer, an informal meeting (without the presence of College administrative officers) with the faculty member unless the faculty member declines, and informal meetings with any others the Committee deems necessary. The chair of the Advisory Committee chairs this informal inquiry. Any member of the Committee who is a member of the same department as the faculty colleague may not participate in the meetings. The completion of the informal inquiry must occur within five (5) working days of the date the President presented the summary to the Advisory Committee and will result in a resolution of the matter agreeable to all parties or, failing a resolution, recommendations to the President of ways to resolve the situation. Within three (3) working days of receiving the Advisory Committee's recommendations, the President will either notify in writing the faculty member that no formal charges will be brought, or communicate those charges to the faculty member as described in (b)(1) below. The President may seek the assistance of the Advisory Committee in formulating a statement of the charges. Adequate cause for a dismissal will be related, directly and substantially, to the fitness of faculty members in their professional capacities as teachers or researchers. Dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights of American citizens Examples of conduct that may raise questions regarding a faculty member’s fitness as a teacher or researcher include, but not necessarily limited to: demonstrated professional incompetence or dishonesty in teaching or research; continued neglect of faculty responsibilities as set forth in this handbook despite oral and/or written warnings; serious personal misconduct which substantially impairs the individual’s fulfillment of institutional responsibilities; deliberate and serious violation of the rights and freedom of fellow faculty members, administrators, or students; conviction of any felony; conviction of a crime directly related to the faculty member’s fitness to practice their profession; inability to perform the essential functions of the position despite reasonable accommodation (if requested pursuant to the University’s ADA Policy);* theft or willful destruction of property; serious failure to follow the canons and professional ethics of one’s discipline and those set down in the “Professional Ethics and Relations” section of this handbook; falsification of credentials and experience; failure to meet the performance standards set forth in the “Faculty Responsibilities” section of this handbook after oral and/or written warnings; sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination of a student, University employee, or member of the University community (e.g., volunteer, vendor, etc.).** * Dismissals because of a mental or physical disability for which no reasonable accommodation can be made are resolved pursuant to the Mental or Physical Disability Policy. ** Allegations of unlawful discrimination, harassment, and sexual and gender-based misconduct against a faculty member will be investigated and resolved pursuant to the Policy on Sexual Harassment Prohibited by Title IX, HR Policy 006 - Harassment, Discrimination, Biased Conduct and Retaliation Prohibition or the Freedom from Harassment Policy, as may be applicable. b. Steps Prior to Dismissal: Dismissal of a faculty member with continuous tenure, or with a probationary or other nontenured appointment before the end of the specified term, will be preceded by (1) discussions, including a documented history thereof, between the faculty member and appropriate administrative officers looking toward a mutual settlement (2) informal inquiry by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, which may, if it fails to effect an adjustment, determine whether in its opinion dismissal proceedings should be undertaken, without its opinion being binding upon the president; (3) a statement of charges, framed with reasonable particularity by the president or the president’s delegate. (1) The Dean’s Consultation with the Faculty Member If the faculty member’s Dean has evidence that the faculty member has demonstrated or is demonstrating conduct that may constitute adequate cause for dismissal as specified above, then the Dean will meet with the faculty member to discuss the concerns and to consider the faculty member’s response. If requested by the faculty member, the Dean will provide the faculty member with a written statement of concerns. The Dean may request further investigation into the matter by other appropriate University personnel (i.e., human resources, Title IX Coordinator, etc.) before or after meeting with the faculty member. However, before moving beyond this stage in these procedures, the Dean will afford the faculty member a reasonable opportunity to respond to any information that the Dean believes would constitute adequate cause for dismissal and, if possible, arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement. (2) Informal Consultation with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee If the matter cannot be resolved through consultation with the faculty member and if the Dean believes that adequate cause for dismissal exists, the Dean forwards a recommendation for dismissal or severe sanction to the Provost. The Provost may meet with the faculty member, at the Provost’s discretion. At any time, if the Provost and the faculty member reach a mutually agreeable settlement, the matter will be concluded. If the Provost believes that the faculty member has demonstrated or is demonstrating conduct that may constitute adequate cause for dismissal and a mutual settlement is not possible, the Provost will consult with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to informally and confidentially consider the Dean’s recommendation for dismissal or severe sanction. The faculty member will be notified of this action by the Provost. The role of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee is to consider the Dean’s recommendation and consult with the Provost regarding the allegations. The committee does not serve a fact-finding role. No later than five academic days after consulting with the Provost, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee may recommend a settlement acceptable to both the faculty member and the Provost, administrative disciplinary actions short of dismissal, that no administrative action be taken, that further investigation be undertaken, or that dismissal proceedings be initiated. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee’s recommendation is not binding on the Provost. After considering the recommendations of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, the Provost notifies in writing the faculty member: that no action will be taken and the matter is concluded; that further investigation into the matter by other appropriate University personnel (i.e., human resources, Title IX Coordinator, etc.) is warranted; that the Provost intends to impose sanctions short of dismissal (see Alternatives to Dismissal section); or that the Provost intends to issue a statement of charges that provides grounds for dismissal under the procedures specified below. (3) Statement of Charges If the Provost intends to seek the faculty member’s dismissal, the Provost will provide the faculty member with a written statement of charges, framed with reasonable particularity, indicating the charges that provide grounds for the proposed dismissal action. At the same time, the Provost will inform the faculty member that a formal review hearing before the Faculty Affairs Committee will be initiated as specified below. c. Referral to Faculty Affairs Committee: A dismissal, as defined in Regulation 1a, will be preceded by a statement of charges, and the individual concerned will have the right to be heard initially by the Faculty Affairs Committee.10 Members of the committee deeming themselves disqualified for bias or interest will remove themselves from the case, either at the request of the chair of the committee or on their own initiative. When assembling the Dismissal Panel from the membership of the Faculty Affairs Committee, each party to the dismissal will have a maximum of one challenge without stated cause.11 After recusals and removals, the remaining members who will be adjudicating the case will hereafter be referred to as the hearing committee or Dismissal Panel. If there are not enough remaining members to form a panel the chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee will contact the Committee on Committees to request additional members, ideally selected from faculty in elected positions. (1) Suspension: Pending a final decision by the hearing committee, the faculty member will be suspended, or assigned to other duties in lieu of suspension, by the President (or the President’s designee) only if immediate harm to the faculty member or others is threatened by continuance or the continued functioning of the faculty member in the position would substantially impair or disrupt the regular functions of the University. Except for emergency, life threatening situations, before suspending a faculty member, pending an ultimate determination of the faculty member’s status through the institution’s hearing procedures, the administration President (or the President’s designee) will consult with the Provost and Faculty Affairs Committee concerning the propriety, the length, and the other conditions of the suspension. A suspension that is intended to be final is a dismissal and will be treated as such. Salary will continue during the period of the suspension. (2) The hearing committee may, with the consent of the parties concerned, hold joint prehearing meetings with the parties in order to (i) simplify the issues, (ii) effect stipulations of facts, (iii) provide for the exchange of documentary or other information, and (iv) achieve such other appropriate prehearing objectives as will make the hearing fair, effective, and expeditious, including but not limited to setting additional time for the gathering of documentary or other evidence. (3) Service of notice of hearing with specific charges in writing will be made at least twenty days prior to the hearing. The faculty member may waive a hearing or may respond to the charges in writing at any time before the hearing. If the faculty member waives a hearing, but denies the charges or asserts that the charges do not support a finding of adequate cause, the hearing committee will evaluate all available evidence and rest its recommendation upon the evidence in the record. Prior to issuing a recommendation, the committee may obtain testimony from witnesses and documentary or other evidence. If the faculty member fails to attend the review hearing without reasonable cause and does not deny the charges or assert that the charges do not support a finding of adequate cause, then the hearing will not take place, the chair of the hearing committee will refer the matter to the President for final disposition, and the faculty member will have waived all grievance rights pertaining to the dismissal action. (4) The hearing committee, in consultation with the President and the faculty member, will exercise its judgment as to whether the hearing should be public or private. Alternative Text for Consideration The proceedings will be closed and confidential, subject only to the need of the faculty member or the administration to comply with the procedures specified herein or to present evidence concerning the case in other judicial or administrative proceedings. Except for such simple announcements as may be required, covering the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements and publicity about the case by either the faculty member or administrative officers will be avoided so far as possible. (5) During the proceedings the faculty member will be permitted to have an academic adviser and counsel of the faculty member’s choice. Neither the advisor nor legal counsel may actively participate in any aspect of the dismissal process (i.e., address the committee, question witnesses, raise objections, etc.), including but not limited to the hearing. The President (or President’s designee) will appoint a non-attorney administrator(s) to present the University’s case for dismissal. (6) At the request of either party or the hearing committee, a representative of a responsible educational association will be permitted to attend the proceedings as an observer. (7) A verbatim record of the hearing or hearings will be taken, and a copy will be made available to the faculty member without cost, at the faculty member’s request. The [Office of Human Resources] shall be the repository of the record. The record shall be considered confidential and only the parties to the case may access it. (8) The burden of proof that adequate cause exists rests with the institution and will be satisfied only by clear and convincing the preponderance of the evidence in the record considered as a whole. (9) The hearing committee will grant reasonable adjournments to enable either party to investigate evidence as to which a valid claim of surprise is made. (10) The faculty member will be afforded an opportunity to obtain necessary witnesses and documentary or other evidence. The administration Provost (or Provost’s designee) and other administrators as may be applicable will cooperate with the hearing committee in securing witnesses and in making available documentary and other evidence. (11) The faculty member and the administration administrator(s) appointed by the President to present the case for dismissal will have the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses. Where the witnesses cannot or will not appear, but the committee determines that the interests of justice require admission of their statements, the committee will identify the witnesses, disclose their statements, and, if possible, provide for interrogatories. (12) In the hearing of charges of incompetence, the testimony will include that of qualified faculty members from this or other institutions of higher education. (13) The hearing committee will not be bound by strict rules of legal evidence and may admit any evidence which is of probative value in determining the issues involved. Every possible effort will be made to obtain the most reliable evidence available. (14) The findings of fact and the decision will be based solely on the hearing record. (15) Except for such simple announcements as may be required, covering the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements and publicity about the case by either the faculty member or administrative officers will be avoided so far as possible until the proceedings have been completed, including consideration by the governing board of the University. The President, Provost, and the faculty member will be notified of the decision in writing and will be given a copy of the record of the hearing. (16) If the hearing committee concludes that adequate cause for dismissal has not been established by the evidence in the record, it will so report to the president. If the president rejects the report, the president will state the reasons for doing so, in writing, to the hearing committee and to the faculty member and provide an opportunity for the filing of a grievance response before transmitting the case to the governing board. If the hearing committee concludes that adequate cause for a dismissal has been established, but that an academic penalty less than dismissal would be more appropriate, it will so recommend, with supporting reasons. Alternative Text for Consideration Within [five (5) academic days of conclusion of the hearing, the Chair of the hearing committee will present to the President written findings of fact and recommendations as to the review of the faculty member's dismissal; copies must at the same time be sent to the faculty member and the Provost. The committee report must contain written findings of fact and a recommendation whether the dismissal for cause action was warranted in light of the documented evidence The committee’s written findings of fact and recommendation shall be based on a simple majority vote Any dissenting opinions will be included in the written findings of fact and recommendation President’s Independent Review and Decision Within five (5) academic days after receipt of the hearing committee’s findings and recommendations, the President, in light of the documented evidence and hearing record, will issue an independent written decision on the matter, with copies to the committee, the faculty member, and the Provost. If the President sustains the hearing committee recommendation that adequate cause to dismiss the faculty member does not exist, the matter will be concluded, If the President determines that additional consideration by the committee is necessary, the President will remand the case back to the committee with specific objections. If the President concludes that the administration has established adequate cause for a dismissal, but that a sanction(s) less than dismissal would be more appropriate, the sanction(s) and effective date of sanction(s) will be stated in the President’s letter with supporting reasons. If the President concludes that the administration has established adequate cause for a dismissal and agrees that dismissal is appropriate, the effective date of the dismissal will be stated in the President’s letter with supporting reasons. The President’s decision will be final, pending the faculty member’s filing of a grievance in accordance with the Complaint and Grievance Procedures section of this handbook. Grievance Rights The President’s decision may be the basis of a formal grievance. Such grievance shall be limited to questions of inadequate consideration and/or whether the procedures set forth in this Dismissal for Adequate Cause Policy have been followed in the faculty member’s case. The grievance must be filed in writing within ten academic days of receiving written notification from the President of the final decision. The grievance committee will not substitute its judgment on the merits of the case, but rather determine whether the decision was the result of adequate consideration. Action by the Governing Board If dismissal or other severe sanction is recommended, the president will, on request of the faculty member, transmit to the governing board the record of the case. The governing board’s review will be based on the record of the committee hearing, and it will provide opportunity for argument, oral or written or both, by the principals at the hearing or by their represen­tatives. The decision of the hearing committee will either be sustained or the proceedings returned to the committee with specific objections. The committee will then reconsider, taking into account the stated objec­tions and receiving new evidence, if necessary. The governing board will make a final decision only after study of the committee’s reconsideration.</s>

<s>[INST] Alternative Model - Required External Reviews.txt [/INST] Alternative Model – Required External Review for Tenure and Full Professor Reviews When members of the full-time faculty are evaluated for tenure or promotion to Full Professor, their scholarly or creative work must be reviewed by external evaluators who have professional knowledge of their academic field. External letters are solicited by the Provost in accordance with the procedures set forth below. External evaluators send their letter directly to the Provost for inclusion in the Faculty Personnel Committee evaluation file without being reviewed by the faculty member. The identity of the reviewer submitting the letter is not revealed to the faculty member being reviewed. Procedures for Solicitation for External Letters In the academic year preceding evaluation for tenure or promotion to Full Professor, the faculty member shall produce a list of external scholars who have already agreed to serve as external reviewers. The list shall consist of at least five (5) scholars who are qualified experts from the faculty member’s area of specialty with whom there is no close personal or professional relationship (e.g., friend, family member, mentor, etc.). The faculty member shall send the list of potential external reviewers to the Provost by January 13 using the External Review Request Form. The faculty member shall send to the Provost three copies of materials that will be sent to the external evaluators for review. Using the list submitted by the faculty member, the Provost will attempt to find at least two reviewers willing to submit a letter. Reviewers will be asked to submit their letters by [INSERT DATE]. The Provost will send to each reviewer the scholarly material provided by the faculty member, a copy of the faculty member’s CV, and a letter clarifying the scope of the desired information and that Ohio Wesleyan University does not seek the reviewer’s input or opinion as to whether the candidate should receive tenure or promotion. In addition, external reviewers will be sent a brief description of the University and the resources available to faculty, and the teaching load and service responsibilities of the faculty member. In the letter, the reviewer will be asked to address: if or how the reviewer knows the candidate; the quality and importance of the candidate’s scholarly or creative activity (publications, performances, professional engagement, etc.); the standards, quality, appropriateness, and standing of the venues in which the work was presented, displayed, performed, or published; and the significance of other contributions to the profession (leadership positions, editorships, etc.) Letters received as part of this process will be added to the faculty member’s personnel file, and the identity of those who submit letters will not be disclosed to the faculty member. Around May 1, the Provost will inform the faculty member of how many external review letters were received and added to their Faculty Personnel Committee evaluation file. The faculty member continues to have the right to supplement the Faculty Personnel Committee evaluation file using options 1 and/or 2 above. All letters must be submitted by mid-October. -End of Alternative Text- GLCA Research Optional: Antioch, Allegheny, and Albion allow for optional external reviews similar to OWU’s current policy. Mandatory: College of Wooster, Oberlin, Kenyon, Denison, Wabash, and Earlham each require external reviews. Silent: Kalamazoo and Hope’s handbooks are unclear. Misc: DePauw requires an external review on committee request. Text Examples of Required External Reviews Below are policy excerpts from GLCA schools that require external reviews.   Ursinus is also included. Wooster Below is text from Wooster’s handbook addressing external letters. LETTERS FROM EXTERNAL EXPERTS Statements from external experts are helpful in evaluating faculty performance and potential. External reviewers are contacted by the Provost and requested to comment on the quality of the candidates’ scholarly work. At least one external evaluation is expected for faculty during their 4th-year review at the College (usually during the fourth year of service); and at least two evaluations are expected for faculty being considered for tenure and/or promotion to associate professor (usually during the sixth year of service). Faculty members are not expected to have an external evaluation during their 2nd-year review. Faculty members undergoing their 4th-year review or a tenure and/or promotion review, are asked to submit a list of 8-10 experts in their field who can comment on the quality of their professional work and activity. Faculty are strongly encouraged to include, when possible, colleagues who already hold the same or higher rank as that for which you are applying, and people who have experience in a liberal arts college, as they may have a better idea of the many demands in such a setting. You may also wish to consider someone whose work is tied to your research who does not hold an academic appointment. Please note that the external reviewers will be asked to submit a c.v. along with their evaluation. Therefore, you should select experts whose c.v. will reflect a commensurate record of professional accomplishments. For each possible reviewer, faculty should include: Name and contact information (including current e-mail address and phone number) A brief description of why they believe each person is appropriate to evaluate their work, including their area of research and its relation to the candidate’s. Include recent noteworthy publications if this is not readily identifiable on the reviewer’s public web page. For each reviewer, an indication of the relationship the faculty has with them (e.g., met at a conference, served together on a panel, have not met but familiar with my work, have never met, etc.). Faculty should not include their dissertation advisor, members of the dissertation committee, friends, untenured assistant professors, or previous or current collaborators. Faculty are not to contact their reviewers regarding this matter. The Provost will select and contact reviewers from the list to evaluate the materials submitted. For reviews of colleagues in joint positions or interdisciplinary hires, the Provost will aim to ensure that external letters represent multiple disciplinary perspectives. Faculty should upload all materials they wish to provide to external reviewers to FacultyFolio in the folder corresponding to their current review, such as “[LastName] [Year] – 4yr External Reviewer Materials.” These should include: Curriculum Vitae Published Research (such as articles, book chapters, encyclopedia entries, creative work) As applicable, faculty may also wish to include: Book Proposals Submitted manuscripts (clearly indicating status of submission) Grant proposals Book Reviews Links to digital scholarship If candidates wish to submit materials in hard copy due to the nature of the work, they should provide copies to Academic Affairs and indicate that they are for external review. Denison Note: Denison’s Faculty HB does not clearly outline its external review process. There are clauses throughout the “Procedures Pertaining to Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion” that reference the role of external reviews. Those are reprinted below. b. Responsibilities of the Candidate 6. Candidates for tenure and promotion shall provide a list of individuals who can recommend external reviewers qualified to make expert and objective evaluations of the candidate's scholarship d. Responsibilities of Department Chair 9. Department chairs are responsible for asking candidates for tenure and promotion to provide a list of individuals who can recommend external reviewers qualified to make expert and objective evaluation of the candidate's scholarship. The department chair and the candidate shall forward the list of individuals to the Provost. The candidate should also submit a list of people who are disqualified from serving as external reviewers because of their familiarity with the candidate. Reviewers should not include anyone whom the candidate knows personally or professionally in such a way that the reviewer's opinion of the candidate's work might be predicted on the basis of their relationship. 10. In cases of tenure and promotion where outside reviewers submit evaluations of scholarship or creative works, tenured members of the department may read those reviews, and department chairs must read those reviews, but only after the department letter is completed. Colleagues who, after reading these reviews, wish to write an amendment to their letters addressing issues raised by the external reviews may do so. However, these amendments must be submitted to the chair who must then write an amendment to the departmental letter, following the procedures for approval of the draft departmental letter and sharing the completed amendment with the candidate as described below. Candidates in turn may submit a response to the amendment through the chair. In other words, all amendments to individual and departmental letters must follow the same procedures as those for departmental letters. Kenyon At Kenyon, external review letters are included in the promotion and tenure dossier. Below is the clause addressing the inclusion of external review letters in the dossier. 3. Three evaluators from outside the College. The candidate submits five names and addresses, along with a rationale for each selection. The rationale should provide a brief description of the expertise of the external reviewers, and should explain the nature and extent of the member's relationship with them, so that TPC members will be aware of this context when reading the external evaluations of scholarly/artistic engagement. Candidates should not nominate evaluators with whom they share close personal relationships, who have served as their direct supervisors, or with whom they have closely collaborated on a creative or scholarly project since their last review. The Associate Provost selects three outside evaluators from whom to solicit letters. Three letters are required to complete the dossier. Any questions about this process should be directed to the Associate Provost. Oberlin Below is text from Oberlin’s Procedures for Tenure addressing the role of external reviews. The evaluation of a candidate for tenure is expected to proceed along the following steps: a. The candidate completes a Personal Information Report, which includes an optional self- evaluation component, and assembles materials that will be part of the tenure dossier, including a current curriculum vitae and copies of any scholarly or artistic work that the candidate wishes to include for evaluation. b. The candidate compiles a list of scholars who might serve as external evaluators of the candidate’s scholarship or artistic activity. The department creates its own, similar, list of external evaluators. Friends, former teachers, or close collaborators of the candidate may not be among the external evaluators. Any level of collaboration or friendship should be disclosed by the candidate. It is desirable, but not necessary, to include among the external evaluators at least one person with experience teaching at a liberal arts college. However, the primary consideration in selection of evaluators is their professional expertise and ability to assess the quality and importance of the work under review. c. The candidate compiles a list of Oberlin College Faculty outside of the candidate’s department who might serve as observers of the departmental deliberations concerning the tenure case. These observers will have complete access to materials used by the department and are to receive copies of the Department Report and the Chair’s Report (see paragraph h below). They are to submit, independently, letters to the Dean attesting to the fairness of the departmental process, or noting any manner in which the department may have failed to follow proper procedure in considering the tenure case. It is not the role of these outside observers to comment on the merits of the tenure case. Any tenured member of the Faculty (excluding those serving on the College Faculty Council or the General Faculty Council) may serve in the role of observer. The candidate should discuss the choice of observers with the chair or with the Dean. The two observers must be mutually acceptable to the candidate and the department. d. The Dean meets with the candidate and the Chair of the department to discuss the tenure evaluation process, giving special attention to the materials to be included in the dossier. If the process is expected to deviate in any way from the normal process outlined here (e.g., if specific evidence of scholarly or artistic productivity is to be presented outside of the normal review process) the Dean, the candidate, and the Chair must agree on this departure and state such agreement in writing. A ranked list of potential external evaluators is agreed upon at this time, but the Dean has authority to make the final choice of evaluators. e. The Chair secures agreement from three external evaluators and sends materials to them, together with a cover letter outlining their responsibilities. The cover letter is to follow the format provided by the Dean’s Office. The names of the external evaluators are not shared with the candidate. The Chair also secures agreement from two persons to serve as observers. f. The Chair arranges for former students to be surveyed (perhaps by electronic means) for their assessment of the teaching and mentoring abilities of the candidate. (Note that this surveying is conducted entirely by the faculty, not by students.) The department is expected to provide qualitative and quantitative summaries of the survey results. g. The Chair compiles the tenure dossier that, in addition to the items mentioned above, includes all student evaluation of teaching forms collected while the candidate has been on the Oberlin Faculty and all progress toward tenure reports previously generated by the department or by the divisional Faculty Council. The department is expected to provide qualitative and quantitative summaries of these forms. h. After letters have been received from the external evaluators and other materials are in place and have been reviewed by members of the department, the department meets to discuss the case, in the presence of the observers. A vote is taken openly2 on the question of whether or not the candidate should be recommended for tenure. Only persons who have reviewed the materials and have participated in the deliberations are permitted to vote, although this participation may be via telephone or video conferencing. The Chair then writes the Department Report, presenting the committee’s assessment of the performance of the candidate in each of several areas. All other committee members review the Department Report for accuracy and completeness. The Chair also prepares the Chair’s Report, which reports the committee vote, presents any minority views within the committee, and certifies the process that was followed in committee deliberations. The Chair’s report will be made available to the candidate and should not include the names of any committee members when reporting the votes. i. The final versions of the Department Report and the Chair’s Report are given to the candidate and department at least one week before being sent, with the dossier, to the divisional Faculty Council. This is to insure for the candidate the opportunity to provide the Council with additional information if he or she feels such information is advisable. A copy of this information is to be given to the Department for its response. j. The divisional Faculty Council reviews the tenure dossier. It may ask for clarification or for additional input from the department and/or the candidate. k. If after consideration of a recommendation regarding tenure it becomes apparent that the divisional Faculty Council may take an action to decide against the recommendation submitted by the department, or against the awarding of tenure, the Council shall delay action on the case until the Dean has informed the candidate and the department Chair about the concerns of the Council and subsequently informed the Council about whatever views may have been expressed in response by the persons who were consulted. l. The divisional Faculty Council votes in favor of or against recommending tenure for the candidate. A majority of at least two votes is required for the adoption by the Faculty Council of a decision to recommend the award of tenure. Abstentions do not affect the outcome of voting. If a total of three or more Faculty Council members withdraw or abstain from voting on a tenure recommendation, then only a simple majority is required for a positive recommendation. m. If the vote of the divisional Faculty Council is positive, the decision is forwarded to the General Faculty Council, which makes its own recommendation. n. The President presents to the Trustees the cases of those candidates being recommended for tenure. The Trustees have the power to ratify a positive recommendation and award an appointment with continuous tenure or to deny the awarding of tenure. For Faculty members appointed as Associate Professors or Professors, a tenure decision may be made at the time of appointment or a short probationary period may be specified in the initial appointment letter. If a tenure decision is made in conjunction with an offer of appointment, parts (a) - (l) of the process outlined above will be modified through discussions between the department and the Council. Typically, the department will evaluate the record of scholarship, augmenting its judgment with that of external sources where possible. The department will also assess teaching ability through the review of student evaluations of teaching collected at the candidate’s current institution. After reviewing the evidence, the department will send a recommendation to the Council. Earlham Below is text addressing the external review of scholarship from Earlham’s Evaluation Process for Teaching Faculty Contract Renewal and for Tenure Recommendations policy. f) External Review of Scholarship As part of the four-year review and the tenure review file, each faculty member is asked to suggest up to five outside individuals who might be asked to review the file, along with a brief explanation for each choice. People with whom the faculty member has had direct experience, for example, a dissertation advisor, or a co-author should not be members of the list. The Academic Dean will select two for the fourth year review and three for the tenure review and has the option to ask for additional names from which to choose. The reviewers will be invited to read a package of the candidate’s work, which will include the self-evaluation, a cv, and anything the faculty member would like to submit for consideration. Individuals hired before 2013 who are on tenure track have the option of taking advantage of this opportunity. Faculty will have the opportunity to respond to the evaluation of outside reviewers and that response will also become part of the file. The external review of scholarship contributes to the evaluation of Quality of Mind, but other indicators also remain important to demonstrating Quality of Mind (see section B – Appointment and Renewal Criteria, subsection 2.b. Quality of Mind). “Scholarship” for this external review could include not only books, monographs, and published articles, but also conference papers, external grants, performances, exhibitions, and products of student-faculty collaborations as appropriate to the faculty member’s position at Earlham. There is no specific numerical quota for the amount of scholarship that must be in the file; the emphasis instead is on the quality of that scholarship, as a demonstration of scholarly engagement within a faculty member’s field and of overall Quality of Mind. Wabash Below is the clause from Wabash’s Tenure policy addressing external reviews. 3. The faculty member will identify four outside evaluators of his or her research or creative work and will provide their names and contact information to the Dean of the College’s office by June 15 preceding the semester of the tenure review. The faculty member will also provide a brief rationale for the appropriateness of the persons submitted as potential reviewers. The Dean of the College, after consultation with the Department Chair and the appropriate Division Chair, will select two evaluators. At the date established on the review timetable (which is generally aligned near the first day of fall classes), the Dean will send the evaluators the faculty member’s up-to-date CV, copies of the candidate’s research or creative work, the Faculty Handbook statement on the expectation of faculty excellence (section 2.1), and a letter indicating that the College seeks an assessment of the quality, originality, and significance of the faculty member’s research or creative work. (A copy of the Dean’s letter will be included in the review dossier.) While the evaluators’ reports are shared only with the department review committee and the Academic Personnel Committee, their contents will be summarized in the discussion with the faculty member after the review is completed. Ursinus In preparation for tenure review, candidates shall submit the following to the Dean: (1) list of external reviewers of the professional product(s); (2) professional product(s) for review; and (3) the candidate’s professional dossier. 1. External Reviewers: By May 1 of the academic year preceding the tenure review, and without making contact with any of the individuals, the candidate submits to the Dean the names of four outside evaluators (other than professional collaborators or co-authors) who are qualified to judge the quality of the candidate's professional work. The candidate should also submit to the Dean a prospective list of materials to be reviewed. • The candidate should identify each name by position, title, address, email address, telephone numbers, professional or other relationship, if any, with the candidate, and a brief description of the qualifications for reviewing the candidate's work. • The Dean will consult with the Faculty Review Committee (FRC) chair to construct a list of four additional persons with a strong record of accomplishment in the candidate's field of expertise. • The candidate may veto two names from this list. From this combined list of at least six names, the Dean in consultation with the Promotion and Tenure Committee, will choose three names, normally two of whom must be selected from the candidate's list. • It is the responsibility of the Dean to establish contact with the selected individuals, send them the materials to be reviewed, and solicit confidential reviews from them.</s>

<s>[INST] Alternative Model Listing.txt [/INST] Alternative Model Listing 3.2: Faculty Classifications 3.9: Faculty Evaluation 3.9.1: Evaluation Criteria for Personnel Decisions Retain Weighted Percentages vs. Non-Weighted Approach</s>

<s>[INST] Alternative Models Not Used in First Draft.txt [/INST] Alternative Models Not Used in First Draft Model #2 In keeping with its mission and ELCA values, California Lutheran University is committed to maintaining a diverse and inclusive community that strives for equity and equal opportunity. Accordingly, diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts (DEI) related to teaching, advising and/or mentoring, scholarly or creative productivity, and service activities are recognized as having value within the California Lutheran University community. Examples of such efforts include, but are not limited to, activities such as curricular development that furthers DEI; pedagogical practices that promote inclusivity; mentoring and advising students, faculty, and staff on DEI-related issues; mentoring and advising students, faculty, and staff from underrepresented or underserved groups; and scholarly or creative productivity that examines and furthers knowledge and understanding related to DEI. The University acknowledges that additional time and effort are required for involvement in such activities and is committed to recognizing these efforts. In particular, faculty performance evaluations shall recognize DEI activities as an indication of a commitment to effective teaching, effectiveness as an advisor and/or mentor, scholarly or creative productivity, and service to the University and profession. Contributions to promote DEI should therefore be documented in the Annual Faculty Report, as well as in promotion and tenure dossiers. Annual Faculty Report Each Spring semester, faculty members, utilizing the Annual Faculty Report Form, assess their performance in the areas of teaching, academic advising and/or mentoring, scholarship and creative work, and service pursuant to the University-wide evaluation criteria [INSERT LINK TO SECTION], as well as any supplemental evaluation guidelines established by the faculty member’s [Academic Division or College/School]. In addition, faculty members are also expected to address the faculty member’s progress of achieving the goals identified in the faculty member’s prior Annual Faculty Report Form, as well as propose measurable goals for the following academic year. The report must address the period from June 1 to May 31. Faculty members are required to submit a completed Annual Faculty Report Form each year, except in years when the faculty member is undergoing a second or fourth-year review, has initiated candidacy for promotion or tenure, or is on leave. In lieu of an Annual Faculty Report, faculty members undergoing a second or fourth-year, promotion or tenure review are required to submit a dossier, as described in the Promotion and Tenure section below [INSERT HYPERLINK]. The completed, signed, and dated Annual Faculty Report Form, as well as a copy of the faculty member’s current curriculum vitae, and any documentation submitted by the faculty member in support of the faculty member’s Annual Faculty Report Form, must be submitted by the faculty member to the Department Chair/Program Director on or before May 31st. Note: In those departments/programs where the Department Chair/Program Director is not tenured, the Dean (or a tenured designee of the Dean) will annually evaluate the tenured faculty members of the department. In such departments, tenured faculty should submit the Annual Faculty Report Form to the Dean. Establishing Goals Faculty member goals are a fundamental component of the evaluation process and, therefore, it is important that the faculty member, in consultation with the Department Chair/Program Director, carefully prepare them. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to clearly articulate in writing specific goals related to the faculty member’s professional development and responsibilities (i.e., Teaching, Advising and/or Mentoring, Scholarly or Creative Productivity, and Service). The goals selected should meet or exceed the expectations of the faculty member’s current academic rank, as well as assist in the preparation for the next level of promotion (if applicable). Goals need not be equally distributed across the four categories of evaluation. The Department Chair/Program Chair, in reviewing the goals, should consider the merit and quality of the faculty member's stated goals within the context of the [Academic Division or College/School] evaluation guidelines and the expectations of the faculty member specified in the faculty member's appointment contract. During the annual evaluation process, the Department Chair/Program Chair will assess how the faculty member’s proposed goals relate to the faculty member’s professional development and responsibilities (i.e., Teaching and Academic Advising, Scholarly/Creative/Professional Development, and Service), align with University, College/School, and department goals, the faculty member’s academic rank, and [Academic Division or School/College] evaluation guidelines. If the Department Chair and faculty member cannot reach agreement on any part of the goal-setting process, the matter will be referred to the Dean for final resolution. Note: New faculty members at California Lutheran University attend an individual goals conference with the Department Chair/Program Director in early September to establish goals for current academic year. Goal Setting Guidelines The faculty member, in formulating proposed goals for the following academic year, are encouraged to consider the following guidelines: Goals should reflect the department, College/School, and University missions; Goals should contribute to the faculty member’s development as an effective faculty member and be designed to meet or exceed current academic rank expectations; Goals should be attainable within the capabilities and resources of the individual and the University; Goals should specify actions to be taken or tasks to be accomplished. At the time of evaluation, it should be clear whether a particular goal has been achieved or is progressing towards being achieved; and Goals should be described in such a way that their completion may be objectively evaluated. Department Chair/Program Director Annual Evaluation To supply continuous and useful means to assist faculty members to improve their teaching, academic advising and/or mentoring, scholarship or creative productivity, and service, each faculty member is evaluated annually by the Department Chair/Program Director, except in years when the faculty member is undergoing a second or fourth-year review, has initiated candidacy for promotion or tenure, or is on leave. In those departments where the Department Chair/Program Director is not tenured, the Dean (or the Dean’s designee) will annually evaluate the tenured faculty members of the department. Similarly, Department Chairs and Program Directors faculty responsibilities are evaluated annually by the Dean (or the Dean’s designee). In performing the evaluation, the Dean (or the Dean’s designee) will be substituted for the role of the Department Chair/Program Director but otherwise adhere to the procedures set forth below. The Department Chair/Program Director’s evaluation focuses upon the faculty member’s performance in teaching, academic advising and/or mentoring, scholarship or creative productivity, and service pursuant to the university-wide evaluation criteria [INSERT LINK TO SECTION] and the supplemental evaluation guidelines established by the faculty member’s [Academic Division or College/School]. In addition, the Department Chair/Program Director will consider the faculty member’s progress towards achieving the goals identified during the prior annual evaluation process. The Department Chair/Program Director’s evaluation will address the period from June 1 to May 31. Items Reviewed: The following items are reviewed by the Department Chair/Program Director as part of the annual evaluation: the faculty member’s current Faculty Self-Assessment Form the faculty member’s current curriculum vitae any documentation submitted by the faculty member in support of the faculty member’s Annual Faculty Report Form student course and instruction evaluation summaries since the faculty member’s last annual evaluation. After completing the review of the submitted materials and utilizing the aforementioned evaluation criteria and guidelines, the Department Chair/Program Director will document a preliminary evaluation of the faculty member’s professional performance during the evaluation period and submit it electronically to the faculty member on or before TBD. Included in the draft of the evaluation will be a brief written discussion of the faculty member’s strengths and potential areas of improvement in each of the four categories of evaluation and an assessment of the faculty member’s progress towards meeting the goals established in the most recent annual evaluation. Moreover, the Department Chair/Program Director will assess the faculty member’s proposed goals for the following academic year (see the Goal Setting section above [INSERT LINK]). The Department Chair/Program Director and faculty member will then meet either in person or via videoconference to discuss the draft evaluation and review and amend as necessary the faculty member’s proposed goals for the following academic year. As noted in the goals section above [INSERT LINK], if the Department Chair and faculty member cannot reach agreement on any part of the goal-setting process, the matter will be referred to the Dean for final resolution. Following the meeting, the Department Chair/Program Director will finalize the evaluation and submit it electronically to the faculty member on or before [TBD]. The faculty member will then be requested to sign the final version of the evaluation, signifying that the evaluation has been read. The faculty member’s signature, however, does not indicate agreement with the Department Chair/Program Director’s final evaluation. If the faculty member disagrees with any aspect of the evaluation, the faculty member may submit a written response to the evaluation, which will be appended to the Department Chair/Program Director’s evaluation. The faculty member’s reply must be filed with the Department Chair/Program within five academic days of electronic receipt of final version of the evaluation. Evidence of the faculty member’s opportunity to review the final version of the evaluation, together with any written comment the faculty member might choose to file, will be attached to the Department Chair/Program Director evaluation, which is then forwarded to the Dean on or before [TBD]. Evaluation of Faculty by the Dean Non-tenured faculty in their first six years of service at California Lutheran will be evaluated annually by the Dean or the Dean’s designee (hereinafter “Dean”). After tenure, faculty may be evaluated by the Dean if requested by the individual. Items Reviewed: The following items are reviewed by the Dean as part of the annual evaluation: The faculty member’s current Faculty Self-Assessment Form; The faculty member’s current curriculum vitae; Any documentation submitted by the faculty member in support of the faculty member’s Annual Faculty Report Form; Student course evaluation summaries since the faculty member’s last annual evaluation; and The Department Chair/Program Director’s written annual evaluation. After completing the review of the submitted materials and utilizing the aforementioned evaluation criteria and guidelines, the Dean will prepare a written evaluation of the faculty member’s professional performance during the evaluation period. The draft will be submitted electronically in draft form to the faculty member on or before [TBD]. The College Dean and faculty member will then discuss the draft evaluation either in person or virtually. Following the discussion, the Dean will finalize the evaluation and submit it electronically to the faculty member. The faculty member will then be requested to sign the final version of the evaluation, signifying that the document has been received and read. The faculty member’s signature, however, does not indicate agreement with the Dean’s evaluation. If the faculty member disagrees with any aspect of the Dean’s written evaluation, the faculty member shall have five academic days to submit to the Dean a written response to the report. Evidence of the faculty member’s opportunity to review the evaluation, together with any written comment the faculty member might choose to append, must be attached by the Dean to the evaluation. The Dean will then submit both the Department Chair/Program Director evaluation and the Dean’s own evaluation to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, which will to be included in the faculty member’s personnel file.</s>

<s>[INST] Alternative Program D.txt [/INST] Alternative Program D/C Procedures Such an action may be proposed by a standing faculty committee, by the Provost, the President, or the Board of Trustees. Upon receipt of a proposed action, the President shall call together a joint committee, comprising the Committee on Academic Programs and the Academic Planning and Allocation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Committee), which shall evaluate the proposal considering criteria used in the normal, periodic review of academic programs and departments. As part of the evaluation, the Joint Committee will consult with the faculty of the impacted program or department. The recommendations of the Joint Committee concerning discontinuance of an academic program or department, which shall include the faculty of the impacted program or department and other evidence bearing on the issue, will be reported to the Faculty as a whole for review. The Faculty shall make a final recommendation on the matter to the Provost. In the event the Provost disagrees with that recommendation, the Provost shall meet with the Faculty to discuss the reasons for such disagreement, before making a final recommendation on the matter to the President. The Provost will then communicate a final decision and the reasons therefor in writing to the Faculty. Having considered the recommendations above and considered the vote of the Faculty, the Provost will make a final written recommendation to the President on the matter. If the Provost disagreed with the Faculty’s recommendation, the Provost will ensure that the Faculty proposal is forwarded to the President. The President will then forward the above recommendations, along with the President’s independent recommendation, to the Board of Trustees for final action. If the Board of Trustees approves the discontinuation of the program or department, the President will charge the Provost, in consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committee, to recommend names of faculty members to be reduced. The President shall render the final decision on terminations for reduction in force for reasons of formal reduction or discontinuance of a degree or program area and shall notify the faculty member(s). Such an action may be proposed by the Committee on Academic Programs, by the Provost, the President, or Board of Trustees. A proposal will be considered first by the Committee on Academic Programs, which will evaluate the proposal in light of criteria used in the normal, periodic review of departments and programs. As part of the evaluation, the Committee on Academic Programs and Provost will consult with the program or department that would be affected to test the reasons for the proposed action and to determine the probable consequences should it occur. The recommendations of the Committee on Academic Programs concerning discontinuance of an academic program or department will be reported to the Faculty for action and to the Provost. The results of the Faculty vote will be forwarded to the Provost. Having considered the recommendations of the individuals and committees noted in Steps (2) and (3), the Provost will make the administrative decision, with the concurrence of the President. In the event either the Provost or President disagrees with the Faculty recommendation, the Provost, President or both will meet with the Faculty to discuss the reasons for such disagreement. If formal discontinuance of an existing academic program or department area does not require reduction in faculty appointments, the President will submit the proposal to reduce or discontinue, together with any recommendations of the President, to the Board of Trustees for its action. If formal discontinuance requires reduction in faculty appointments, then the President will charge the Provost, in consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committee, to recommend names of faculty members to be reduced. The President will render the final decision on terminations for reasons of discontinuance of an academic program or department and notify the faculty member(s) in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.10.5.3.3. In the event the Provost disagrees with that recommendation, the Provost shall meet with the Faculty to discuss the reasons for such disagreement, before making a final recommendation on the matter to the President. The Provost will then communicate a final decision and the reasons therefor in writing to the Faculty. Having considered the recommendations above and considered the vote of the Faculty, the Provost will make a final written recommendation to the President on the matter. If the Provost disagrees with the Faculty’s recommendation, the Provost will communicate the reasons therefore in the written recommendation to the President. The President will then refer the above recommendations, along with the President’s independent recommendation, to the Board of Trustees for final action. All proposals will be referred to the Committee on Academic Programs as to curricular impact, to the Academic Planning and Allocation Committee as to the implications for the academic plan, to the Faculty Personnel Committee as to personnel implications, and to the affected programs or departments. These bodies will hold hearings as part of their deliberations. At the discretion of the President, an advisory student committee may also be created. These groups will severally consider the proposal(s) and in doing so may consult widely with faculty, students, and, where appropriate, with staff. They are to complete their deliberations within 30 calendar days of receipt of the proposal(s) and report their findings and recommendations to the President immediately upon finishing their deliberations. They may recommend acceptance, alteration, or otherwise, of the initial proposal(s). If and when they are unable to achieve concurrence with the President, and the President determines that a an academic program or department should be discontinued, the President will report to the Board of Trustees the proposed course of action. If there is a difference of views between the President and the committees, the President will ensure that the committees' proposals are forwarded to the Trustees with the President’s proposal(s). The Board of Trustees retains ultimate authority for approving proposals as to discontinue an academic program or department and position reductions and terminations. After the completion and implementation of decisions for program discontinuation, the President will make available to the campus community a full report on the actions taken.</s>

<s>[INST] Alternative Reauthorization Model.txt [/INST] Alternative Model  When a position on the full-time faculty shall become vacant for any reason, except paid or unpaid leaves, the position must be re-authorized before it can be filled.  For purposes of this policy, a Visiting Faculty position shall be considered vacant at the expiration of its stated period of authorization.  In addition, a tenure-line position of a faculty member participating in the Phased Retirement Program (Section 3.11.2.1) shall be considered vacant when the faculty member enters the program.   The department may request authorization to fill the vacant position by submitting to the Provost a written request to recruit a replacement. The department should be prepared to explain the need to maintain the position within the department. Should a question arise concerning the department’s continued need for the position, the Provost shall discuss such concern with the members of the department and the Academic Planning and Allocation Committee. The Provost will then make a written recommendation to the President regarding whether the vacant position should be re-authorized and, if so, whether it should be designated as tenure track or visiting. The President shall then make a final decision on whether the position should be reauthorized and, if so, whether it should tenure track or visiting.</s>

<s>[INST] Alternative Text - No Weight Percentage.txt [/INST] Alternative Text – No Weight Percentages Of the three categories of performance, teaching effectiveness is the most important. Achievements in the other categories of performance, no matter how significant they may be, cannot compensate for a failure to demonstrate effective teaching. While teaching is given precedence in the evaluation procedure, a record demonstrating scholarly or creative contributions as evidenced through research, publication, and professional participation, as well as effective service are expected of all full-time faculty members. Exceptional performance in one of the three categories does not compensate for poor performance in the others. Of the three categories, teaching effectiveness is the most important and scholarship and creative contributions are valued above service by the University. Such activities will be evaluated according to the University-wide evaluation criteria set forth below, as well as any applicable department-specific descriptions of appropriate forms of scholarly and/or artistic productivity (e.g., professional engagement activities) documented in a Memorandum of Understanding between the department and Provost, in consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committee. In situations where a faculty member’s position will differ significantly from others on the tenure track due to administrative responsibilities, departments and the Provost, in consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committee, will develop an individualized Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement. The MOU agreements will outline modified evaluation criteria for reappointment, tenure, promotion, and merit for faculty who are serving in joint administrative and faculty positions and provide specific examples of what work will be evaluated during the reappointment, promotion, tenure and merit processes. Specifically, the MOU agreement will make clear: The reason for the modified evaluation criteria; How the impact of the faculty member’s work will be measured; What unique contributions or activities will be included in the evaluation; and Which duties will be considered “administrative” in nature. -End of Alternative Text- Additional Alternative Approach Some schools permit variations in evaluation weightings for individual faculty members.  This is commonly done via written agreement between the faculty member and the Department Chair or Provost within specified ranges or documentation in the Self-Report or as part of an annual goals setting process (typically as part of annual evaluation conducted by Department Chairs).  Two brief examples of such an approach are set forth below: Kenyon: “All reviews where merit pay is a possible outcome, including pre-tenure, tenure, post-tenure, and promotion, shall count teaching at 55 percent. Scholarship and artistic engagement shall count 30 percent, and college citizenship 15 percent. However, in view of the varying career patterns of individuals throughout their stays at Kenyon, it shall be permissible to increase the scholarship and artistic engagement count to 35 percent or to decrease it to 25 percent and, correspondingly, to increase the college citizenship count to 20 percent or to decrease it to 10 percent, the sum always being 100 percent. The corresponding increases and decreases in the scholarship and citizenship counts must be arranged in advance by agreement with and permission of the Provost. Only the dossier is to be evaluated and the merit standard is to be strictly adhered to. Merit decisions are to be entirely separate from administrative adjustments and the considerations relevant to them.” UNC-Pembroke: For faculty with a regular 12-hour teaching load, these percentages must conform to the following ranges: teaching, 50% - 70%; scholarship, 10% - 40%; and service, 10% - 40%. For any given academic year, the sum of these weights must equal 100%. Faculty members with unusual teaching loads are to adjust the ranges appropriately. [Note: The ranges are documented in an annual self-report and discussed with Department Chair.]</s>

<s>[INST] Analysis Text Removed from HR Memo.txt [/INST] Per the Faculty Constitution, the faculty is delegated “primary responsibility for governance of such fundamental areas as curriculum; subject matter and methods of instruction; research; faculty status; and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process.” The AAUP/AGB/ACE Joint Statement on the Government of Colleges and Universities defines “faculty status” to include “faculty appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal.” Consistent with the Faculty Constitution, the University’s ADRI Charts reflects that the faculty recommends appointment, promotion and tenure categories and approves the criteria thereunder, approves recommendations for individual faculty regarding promotion and tenure, develops sabbatical policies, and recommends faculty terminations without cause and non-renewals. According to the ADRI chart, Employee Handbook and General Human Resources policies are decided by the cabinet and approved by the President, with input from faculty and staff. University benefits are decided by either managers or the cabinet and approved by either the cabinet, president or board depending on the benefit. Thus, many, if not all, of the human resource and campus community policies currently published in the Faculty Policies Handbook do not address matters of faculty status or cover an area that the ADRI Chart requires an approval, decision, or recommendation from the faculty. The Faculty Bylaw amendment process outlined in the Faculty Constitution, however, requires an affirmative faculty vote for all amendments to the Faculty Policies Handbook. This ostensibly includes those published in the Appendix to the handbook.</s>

<s>[INST] Appeals of Negative Faculty Review Decisions.txt [/INST] Appeals of Negative Faculty Review Decisions A full-time faculty member may appeal on procedural grounds a negative personnel review decision concerning reappointment, tenure, or promotion. If an appeal reveals that prejudicial error did occur or that the decision resulted from inadequate consideration, then the President will reconsider that decision in light of the findings of the appeal and will take corrective measures as warranted. Note: All references to periods of time in this policy shall be calculated, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, as "in session" time. In session days are those from the first day of classes through the last day of the final examination period of the regular academic terms, including weekends. Vacation days (fall and spring breaks, the summer period) are not counted. Filing An Appeal A full-time faculty member seeking to appeal a negative personnel decision (the “complainant”) must file a written appeal with the Provost within fifteen (15) in session days of receiving written notice of the negative decision. A complainant who does not file a written appeal within the indicated period of time forfeits any further right of appeal. Grounds for Appeal The complainant’s written appeal must include a detailed statement of the grounds for appealing and an explicit waiver of any right to nondisclosure of the grounds for the decision. It is intended that the disclosure be restricted to the members of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee. There are only two grounds on which a review decision may be appealed. The complainant’s written appeal must allege facts sufficient to establish either: Prejudicial error in the form of procedural error, violation of University policy, or violation of contract, or Inadequate consideration. The term prejudicial (a) does not refer to the state of mind of the members of the Faculty Personnel Committee, the Provost or, in the case of a tenure or promotion to full professor decision, the President; rather, it refers to an assessment of the likely effect of an error in procedure on a review decision. An error is prejudicial if it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the complainant would have been reached in the absence of the error. Inadequate consideration occurs if the Faculty Personnel Committee, the Provost or, in the case of a tenure or promotion to full professor decision, the President (a) violated the stated procedures for including relevant evidence in the Faculty Personnel Committee evaluation file or using that evidence as a basis for judgment in the review and (b) it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appellant would have been reached had adequate consideration been given to the proper evidence. Alternatively, inadequate consideration occurs when a decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the Faculty Personnel Committee evaluation file. The Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee Preliminary Review Within two days of receiving the complainant’s appeal, the Provost will provide the members of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee a copy of the complainant’s written appeal. Within seven days of receipt of the complainant’s written appeal, the Provost will convene the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee. Upon being convened, the members of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee will determine whether any member wishes to self-recuse from further participation because of bias or conflict of interest. Any vacancies created by a self-recusal will be filled by lot from the alternate members of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee who are standing by at the time the committee is convened. A replacement will serve for that case only (unless independently selected later for another specific case). Should the chair of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee self-recuse, an acting chair will be elected from the non-alternate members. Following the election of the chair, the committee will conduct a preliminary inquiry. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether the facts alleged in the written appeal establish a prima facie case in terms of the grounds for appeal specified above. If the committee by majority vote finds that the written appeal does not establish a prima facie case that appealable error occurred in the review, then the chair of the committee will report this finding in writing to the complainant, Provost and President and the appeal will be closed. If the committee finds that the appeal petition does establish a prima facie case that appealable error occurred in the review, the chair of the committee will notify the complainant, Provost, and President of the decision. The Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee will then formally investigated the matter in accordance with the procedures set forth below. Formal Investigation of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee The Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee will have investigative powers and will invite testimony, whether written or oral, from the complainant and an official spokesperson from the Faculty Personnel Committee, normally the chair, either of who may be accompanied by a faculty advisor. The Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee may invite others to testify or provide written statements, including the Provost or President in cases where their disposition of the recommendation of the Faculty Personnel Committee is at issue. No faculty member of the Faculty Personnel Committee except the official spokesperson and the advisor shall testify as a member of the Faculty Personnel Committee, and no one shall be required to disclose confidential sources. The Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee shall not reveal to the complainant or others the content or authorship of confidential evaluation materials used by the Faculty Personnel Committee in its deliberations, and the spokesperson for the Faculty Personnel Committee shall not reveal the views of individual members of the Faculty Personnel Committee. All such testimony, whether written or oral, shall be documented and included in the faculty member’s permanent evaluative file. In all cases which it reviews, the Committee’s task is to determine whether the grounds for appeal have been established by the complainant based on the preponderance of the evidence. In making its decision, the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee may not substitute its own judgment for that of the Faculty Personnel Committee, the Provost, or, if applicable, the President on the merits of whether the complainant should be reappointed, awarded tenure, or promoted to full Professor. Rather, the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee must presume that the persons responsible for the original decision were in the best position to make it and therefore must give that decision the benefit of every reasonable inference. Therefore, the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee will uphold the appeal only if it concludes that the preponderance of the evidence establishes: The negative decision resulted from prejudicial error in the form of procedural error, or The negative decision resulted from inadequate consideration, as defined above. Otherwise, the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee will deny the appeal. Following its deliberations, the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee will prepare a written report for the President, with copies to the complainant, the Faculty Personnel Committee, Provost, and President within 30 days of receiving the faculty member’s written appeal. The report will include findings of fact and conclusions with respect to the grounds alleged on appeal and, where appropriate, will make recommendations for remedial action. The finding of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee, together with any accompanying evidence or explanation, shall become a part of the faculty member’s permanent evaluative file. At the conclusion of the investigation and by majority vote, the Committee will determine its findings of fact and recommendations. If the Committee upholds the appeal, it may recommend (a) the matter be remanded to the lowest level at which the procedural error was made or at which there was inadequate consideration of evidence or (b) a reversal of the original decision. The Chair of the Committee will provide to the President a written report of the Committee’s findings and recommendations, as well as the reasons justifying those findings and recommendations. President’s Decision Within ten (10) working days of receiving the Committee’s report, the President will decide upon appropriate action and will provide a written report of the decision to the complainant, the Provost, the Chair of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee, and the Chair of the Faculty Personnel Committee. If the President’s final decision is against Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee’s recommendation, the President’s reasons will be stated in the letter. The decision of the President may not be appealed. If the President determines that the matter should be remanded, the Chair of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee will be tasked with submitting (1) the complainants’ written appeal, (2) the evaluative file, and (2) the written report outlining the basis for the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee’s decision and recommendations for corrective action, to the lowest level at which the procedural error was made or at which there was inadequate consideration of evidence. At that level and each subsequent level, the case shall be evaluated by the designated body as they are constituted at the time of the remand, and by the individuals holding the relevant administrative positions at the time of the remand. At each level, a recommendation will be completed within ten days and forwarded to the next level. No case may be remanded more than once, and the remand must consider the decision of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee. The President of the University is delegated by the Board of Trustees to exercise the final administrative responsibility for all decisions affecting faculty status. Accordingly, on remand back to the President, the President’s decision shall be final and stated in a letter to the faculty member, with copies to the complainant, Provost, Faculty Personnel Committee, Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee, and the faculty member’s permanent file. All matters of interpretation of this appeals procedure shall be resolved on behalf of the Faculty by the Executive Committee of the Faculty. Model 2 Appeals of Negative Faculty Review Decisions A full-time faculty member may appeal on procedural grounds a negative personnel review decision concerning reappointment, tenure, or promotion. If an appeal reveals that prejudicial error did occur or that the decision resulted from inadequate consideration, then the President will reconsider that decision in light of the findings of the appeal and will take corrective measures as warranted. Note: All references to periods of time in this policy shall be calculated, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, as "in session" time. In session days are those from the first day of classes through the last day of the final examination period of the regular academic terms, including weekends. Vacation days (fall and spring breaks, the summer period) are not counted. Filing An Appeal A full-time faculty member seeking to appeal a negative personnel decision (the “complainant”) must file a written appeal with the Provost within fifteen (15) in session days of receiving written notice of the negative decision. A complainant who does not file a written appeal within the indicated period of time forfeits any further right of appeal. Grounds for Appeal The complainant’s written appeal must include a detailed statement of the grounds for appealing and an explicit waiver of any right to nondisclosure of the grounds for the decision. It is intended that the disclosure be restricted to the members of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee. There are only two grounds on which a review decision may be appealed. The complainant’s written appeal must allege facts sufficient to establish either: Prejudicial error in the form of procedural error, violation of University policy, or violation of contract, or Inadequate consideration. The term prejudicial (a) does not refer to the state of mind of the members of the Faculty Personnel Committee, the Provost or, in the case of a tenure or promotion to full professor decision, the President; rather, it refers to an assessment of the likely effect of an error in procedure on a review decision. An error is prejudicial if it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the complainant would have been reached in the absence of the error. Inadequate consideration occurs if the Faculty Personnel Committee, the Provost or, in the case of a tenure or promotion to full professor decision, the President (a) violated the stated procedures for including relevant evidence in the Faculty Personnel Committee evaluation file or using that evidence as a basis for judgment in the review and (b) it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appellant would have been reached had adequate consideration been given to the proper evidence. Alternatively, inadequate consideration occurs when a decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the Faculty Personnel Committee evaluation file. The Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee Preliminary Review Within two days of receiving the complainant’s appeal, the Provost will provide the members of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee a copy of the complainant’s written appeal. Within seven days of receipt of the complainant’s written appeal, the Provost will convene the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee. Upon being convened, the members of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee will determine whether any member wishes to self-recuse from further participation because of bias or conflict of interest. Any vacancies created by a self-recusal will be filled by lot from the alternate members of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee who are standing by at the time the committee is convened. A replacement will serve for that case only (unless independently selected later for another specific case). Should the chair of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee self-recuse, an acting chair will be elected from the non-alternate members. Following the election of the chair, the committee will conduct a preliminary inquiry. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether the facts alleged in the written appeal establish a prima facie case in terms of the grounds for appeal specified above. If the committee by majority vote finds that the written appeal does not establish a prima facie case that appealable error occurred in the review, then the chair of the committee will report this finding in writing to the complainant, Provost and President and the appeal will be closed. If the committee finds that the written appeal does establish a prima facie case that appealable error occurred in the review, the chair of the Committee will notify the complainant, Provost, and President of the decision and formally investigate the matter in accordance with the procedures set forth below. Formal Investigation of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee The Chair of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee shall invite the complainant to meet with the Committee within seven days of the preliminary inquiry for the purpose of assuring the Committee's understanding of the nature of the appeal. If the appeal is directed at the recommendation of the Faculty Personnel Committee, the chair shall within 10 days of the initial session above submit the complainant's written appeal, with any clarifying information obtained in 1 above, to the Faculty Personnel Committee which shall, within seven days, provide the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee with (a) a written response to the statement, (b) a written statement of the procedures followed and the persons consulted in reaching the decision, and (c) access to all documents employed by the Faculty Personnel Committee as a whole in its deliberations leading to the disputed recommendation. If the complaint is directed at the Provost or President's disposition of the recommendation of the Faculty Personnel Committee, the procedures in this paragraph will apply also to the Provost or President. The Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee will promptly schedule a hearing for the purpose of oral argument and for the presentation of additional information. The hearing shall be held on campus at a time and place designated by the chair after consultation with the complainant and Provost. The following procedures shall apply in all hearings: The burden of proof shall, based on the preponderance of the evidence, rest with the complainant, i.e., the responsibility for affirmatively establishing disputed facts bearing on issues described in 8 below. The hearing will be closed and the proceedings confidential. Invited for separate appearances shall be the complainant, who may be accompanied by an advisor from the Faculty, and an official spokesperson from the Faculty Personnel Committee, normally the chair, who may be accompanied by an advisor from the Faculty Personnel Committee. The Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee may invite others to testify, including the President in cases where the President’s disposition of the recommendation of the Faculty Personnel Committee is at issue. No faculty member of the Faculty Personnel Committee except the official spokesperson and the advisor may testify as a member of the Faculty Personnel Committee, and confidential sources may not be disclosed. The Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee shall not reveal to the complainant or others the content or authorship of confidential evaluation materials used by the Faculty Personnel Committee in its deliberations, and the spokesperson for the Faculty Personnel Committee shall not reveal the views of individual members of the Faculty Personnel Committee. The Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee shall not be bound by strict rules of legal evidence, but the findings shall be based on the documents it has considered and on the testimony provided at the hearing. During and after the formal hearing, the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee will restrict its inquiry to the following questions: Were there deviations from existing evaluation procedures legislation governing relevant personnel procedures which could well have affected the decision being appealed? (The Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee shall not look for minute deviations here, but significant deviations which reasonable observers would judge to have influenced the decision.) Was any material evidence ignored? (The question is not whether all possible relevant evidence was present, but whether materials were lacking which ought to have been considered according to established procedures of the University and which could well have worked in the interests of the complainant.) Was any improper evidence considered? (The question here is whether evidence was considered which was not a kind understood to be relevant under established procedures and policies of the University and which could well have worked against the interests of the complainant.) Given the evidence, was the decision an unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious one? (The Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee shall not substitute its judgment on the merits of the case for that of the Faculty Personnel Committee. The question is whether the decision was based on a reasonable evaluation of the evidence before the Faculty Personnel Committee, not whether the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee agrees or disagrees with the decision.) The hearing shall be completed within 31 days of the Provost's convening of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee. Within three days thereafter the Committee shall report its findings to the complainant, the Faculty Personnel Committee, the Provost, and the President. If the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee finds the answers to any of the questions in 8 to be "yes," it shall so report together with the reasons for its finding, and the case shall be considered again by the Faculty Personnel Committee (when its recommendation is at issue) or by the President (when the President’s decision is at issue). In the former kind of case, the recommendation by the Faculty Personnel Committee to the President shall represent the final faculty position on the matter. The Faculty Personnel Committee or the President will complete the reconsideration of the case within 14 days. The complainant and all members of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee shall be notified of the disposition of the case by the Faculty Personnel Committee and the President. The Complainant can make a final appeal to the President. The appeal must be made within 14 days of notification described at the end of #9, and is to be limited to procedural grounds only. All matters of interpretation of this appeals procedure shall be resolved on behalf of the Faculty by the Executive Committee of the Faculty. Within five days of receipt of the written appeal, the chair of the Faculty Reappointment Appeals Committee will convene the committee for a preliminary inquiry. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether the facts alleged in the written appeal establish a prima facie case in terms of the grounds for appeal specified above. If the committee by majority vote at a meeting where a quorum exists finds that the written appeal does not establish a prima facie case that appealable error occurred in the review, then the chair of the committee will report this finding in writing to the President and the appeal is closed. The President then notifies the appellant and the Provost. If the committee finds that the appeal petition does establish a prima facie case that appealable error occurred in the review, the Chair of the Appeals Board will so notify the President, the Chair of the Assembly, the appellant, and the Provost. Within five (5) working days of receiving notice of the Appeals Board’s decision, the Provost will provide to the Appeals Board a written response to the appellant’s petition, a list of three (3) members of the tenured faculty or senior regular term faculty who meet the criteria specified below (§3.10.10.5) and are acceptable to the Provost as members of the Appeal Committee and a list of proposed witnesses. The Chair of the Appeals Board forwards a copy of the Provost’s written response to the appellant. The Evaluation Review and Appeals Committee will have investigative powers and may interview persons in the evaluation process who it believes may have information potentially relevant to the appeal. Moreover, the affected faculty member and the Vice President for Academic Affairs have the right to make a statement (either oral or written, or both) to the Committee. Similarly, the Chair of the Committee on Faculty Status and the President may choose to explain their respective findings in person before the Evaluation Review and Appeals Committee. All such testimony, whether written or oral, shall be documented and included in the faculty member’s permanent evaluative file. In all cases which it reviews, the Committee’s task is to determine whether the grounds for appeal have been established by the faculty member based on the greater weight of the evidence. When the faculty member’s appeal is based on an allegation of material procedural irregularity or inadequate consideration on the part of the Committee on Faculty Status, the Evaluation Review and Appeals Committee’s initial presumption shall be that the decision of the Committee on Faculty Status is reasonable, and is therefore to be left standing. Thus, the Evaluation Review and Appeals Committee shall find in favor of the decision of the Committee on Faculty Status unless it is persuaded that the decision cannot be reasonably defended on procedural and/or substantive grounds. Following its deliberations, the Evaluation Review and Appeals Committee will prepare a written report for the President, with copies to the faculty member, Committee on Faculty Status, and the Dean within 30 days of receiving the faculty member’s written appeal. The report will include findings of fact and conclusions with respect to the grounds alleged on appeal and, where appropriate, will make recommendations for corrective action. The finding of the Evaluation Review and Appeals Committee, together with any accompanying evidence or explanation, shall become a part of the faculty member’s permanent evaluative file. The faculty member will have the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s review within fifteen calendar days. Evidence of the faculty member’s opportunity to review the Committee’s finding, together with any written comment the faculty member might choose to append, shall be attached to the finding and be included in the faculty member’s permanent evaluative file. If the Committee determines that the faculty member has established by the greater weight of the evidence that the appeal has merit and should be remanded, the Chair of the Committee will submit (1) the faculty member’s written appeal, (2) the evaluative file, and (2) the written report outlining the basis for the Committee’s decision and recommendations for corrective action, to the lowest level at which the procedural error was made or at which there was inadequate consideration of evidence. At that level and each subsequent level, the case shall be evaluated by the designated body as they are constituted at the time of the remand, and by the individuals holding the relevant administrative positions at the time of the remand. At each level, a recommendation will be completed within fourteen calendar days and forwarded to the next level. No case may be remanded more than once, and the remand must consider the decision of the Evaluation Review and Appeals Committee. The President of the College is delegated by the Board of Trustees, which bears the ultimate responsibility for the actions of the College, to exercise the final administrative responsibility for all decisions affecting faculty status. Accordingly, on remand back to the President, the President’s decision shall be final and stated in a letter to the faculty member, with copies to the Committee on Faculty Status, the Evaluation Review and Appeals Committee and the faculty member’s permanent file. If the President’s final decision is against the Committee on Faculty Status’ recommendation, the President’s reasons will be stated in the letter. All matters of interpretation of this appeals procedure shall be resolved on behalf of the Faculty by the Executive Committee of the Faculty If one or more members of the committee believe that a grievable issue may exist, the chair of the committee shall arrange steps for a formal hearing before the committee. The burden of proof shall, based on the preponderance of the evidence, rest with the complainant, i.e., the responsibility for affirmatively establishing disputed facts bearing on issue The focus of the Appeal Panel is to determine whether the grounds for appeal have been established by the faculty member based on the preponderance of the evidence. The Appeal Panel will have investigative powers and may interview persons in the evaluation process who it believes may have information potentially relevant to the appeal. Moreover, the affected faculty member and a representative from the administration have the right to make a statement (either oral or written, or both) to the panel. Similarly, the Chair of the University Promotion and Tenure Committee and the VPAA may choose to explain their respective findings in person before the panel. All such testimony, whether written or oral, shall be documented and included in the faculty member’s personnel file. Within 30 calendar days of receiving the appeal, the panel will issue a report addressed to the candidate, the Provost and the President. The committee’s report will include findings of fact and conclusions with respect to the grounds alleged on appeal and, where appropriate, will make recommendations for corrective action. If no infractions of process are discerned, the original decision stands. If infractions are discovered, the committee’s report will include recommendations for resolution to the President. The President’s decision as to whether to sustain or deny the appeal based on the panel’s recommendations will be final. The President may not grant promotion or tenure as an outcome of the appeal process. If the appeal is sustained, the VPAA will remand the case to where the error occurred for further evaluation under the established promotion and tenure evaluation process. This review will take place during the first semester of the following academic year. The VPAA’s decision and rationale will be transmitted in writing to the candidate, the Appeals Panel, and the President within 7 calendar days of receiving the committee’s findings and recommendations. Within two (2) working days of receiving the appeal petition, the Chair of the Appeals Board provides a copy of the petition to the Provost and notifies the other members of the Appeals Board. The Chair also notifies the President and Chair of the Assembly that an appeal has been filed and by whom. At that time, the Office of Academic Affairs will provide the Appeals Board copies of the following documents: the Faculty Review Committee’s recommendation to the Dean, the Dean’s recommendation to the Provost, the Provost’s letter to the candidate (appellant). The Appeals Board also will have access to the review dossier to clarify issues of fact, if necessary. Any member of the Appeals Board who has a conflict of interest or bias with regard to an appeal or has substantial prior involvement in the current review (e.g., has contributed a letter of evaluation) must self-recuse from the consideration of that appeal. Within seven (7) working days of receiving an appeal, a quorum of the Appeals Board meets to determine by a majority of those present and voting whether the facts alleged in the petition establish a prima facie case in terms of the grounds for appeal specified above. If the Appeals Board finds that the appeal petition does not establish a prima facie case that appealable error occurred in the review, then the Chair of the Appeals Board will report this finding in writing to the President and the Chair of the Assembly, and the appeal is closed. The President then notifies the appellant and the Provost, reviews the Provost’s original recommendation, along with the reports of the Faculty Review Committee and the Dean, and refers the Administration’s decision to the Board as indicated in §3.10.9. If the Appeals Board finds that the appeal petition does establish a prima facie case that appealable error occurred in the review, the Chair of the Appeals Board will so notify the President, the Chair of the Assembly, the appellant, and the Provost. Within five (5) working days of receiving notice of the Appeals Board’s decision, the Provost will provide to the Appeals Board a written response to the appellant’s petition, a list of three (3) members of the tenured faculty or senior regular term faculty who meet the criteria specified below (§3.10.10.5) and are acceptable to the Provost as members of the Appeal Committee and a list of proposed witnesses. The Chair of the Appeals Board forwards a copy of the Provost’s written response to the appellant. 3.10.10.5 The Appeal Committee Formation of the Appeal Committee After receiving the above-indicated materials from the Provost, the Appeals Board will meet to name a three-person Appeal Committee—a Chair selected from among the members of the Appeals Board and two at-large members. One of the at-large members will be selected from the list of three eligible faculty members provided by the appellant; the other will be selected from the list of three eligible faculty members provided by the Provost. Eligibility for service on an Appeal Committee - prohibition of conflict of interest or bias The Appeals Board will disqualify from the Appeal Committee any faculty member who has a conflict of interest or bias (§3.10.6) with regard to an appeal or has substantial prior involvement in the current review (e.g., has contributed a letter of evaluation). Any person selected to serve on an Appeal Committee must disclose to the Chair of the Appeals Board any prior involvement in the review or other potential conflict of interest or bias. If suitable at-large faculty members cannot be selected from the lists provided by the appellant and Provost, then the Appeals Board will select at-large members from among the tenured faculty as they deem appropriate. The Charge to the Appeal Committee The members of the Appeal Committee will not act as advocates for either party to the appeal but rather, to the best of their abilities, will conduct an impartial investigation into the allegations contained in the appeal petition in light of the review procedures specified in this Handbook. The Appeal Committee will not be bound by strict rules of legal evidence and may consider any information that is of probative value in evaluating the merits of the appeal. In making its decision, the Appeal Committee may not substitute its own judgment for that of the Faculty Review Committee, the Dean, or the Provost on the merits of whether the appellant should be reappointed, given tenure, promoted, or receive a positive senior review. Rather, the Appeal Committee must presume that the persons responsible for the original decision were in the best position to make it and therefore must give that decision the benefit of every reasonable inference. Therefore, the Appeal Committee will uphold the appeal only if it concludes that a) the negative decision resulted from prejudicial error in the form of procedural error, violation of University policy, or violation of contract, or b) the negative decision resulted from inadequate consideration, as specified in §3.10.10.3. Otherwise, the Appeal Committee will deny the appeal. 3.10.10.7 The Appeal Hearing The Appeal Committee will meet and set a date so that the hearing will begin within five (5) working days from the formation of the Appeal Committee unless a principal to the case is unavailable for sound reasons, in which case the hearing may be postponed for a period not to exceed twenty (20) working days. The Appeal Committee will review the appeal petition, the response from the Provost, the Faculty Review Committee’s recommendation to the Dean, the Dean’s recommendation to the Provost, the Provost’s letter to the candidate (appellant), the report (if any) of the EEO Manager, and the lists of proposed witnesses provided by the appellant and the Provost. The Appeal Committee will have access to the review dossier and to other documents as it deems necessary. The appellant and the Provost are entitled to appear in person before the Appeal Committee. The Appeal Committee may call other witnesses at its discretion. Both principals and witnesses must appear at the hearing if called by the Appeal Committee. The appellant may be accompanied to the hearing by an advisor who is an employee of the University. The advisor may be present only when the appellant is present, may speak only with the appellant, and may not address the Appeal Committee on the appellant’s behalf. The advisor may not be called as a witness in the appeal but may answer direct questions from the Appeal Committee. Should an advisor violate or attempt to violate any of these conditions, the Appeal Committee may excuse the advisor from the hearing at its discretion. The members of the Appeal Committee are bound by the same rules of confidentiality that apply throughout the faculty review process (§3.10.6, above). The hearing will be conducted in strictest confidence, and no party to the appeal may disclose any information regarding the hearing unless such disclosure is specified in these procedures or in the final decision. No party to the appeal may be present when any other party or witness is appearing before the Appeal Committee. No member of the Appeal Committee may unilaterally seek or accept information regarding the appeal; only the Chair of the Appeal Committee may confer individually with a party or witness to the appeal. 3 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 8 The Appeal Committee’s Recommendation; the President’s Decision At the conclusion of the hearing and by majority vote, the Committee will determine its findings of fact and recommendations in accordance with its charge. If the Committee upholds the appeal, it may recommend a rehearing of the review or a reversal of the original decision. The Chair of the Appeal Committee will provide to the President a written report of the Committee’s findings and recommendations, as well as the reasons justifying those findings and recommendations. All members of the Appeal Committee will sign the report. Within ten (10) working days of receiving the Appeal Committee’s report, the President will decide upon appropriate action and will provide a written report of his or her decision to the appellant, the Provost, the Dean of record, the Chair of the Appeals Board, and the Chair of the Faculty Review Committee. The decision of the President may not be appealed.</s>

<s>[INST] Appendix 3.6.txt [/INST] Evaluation of Provost As part of the annual evaluation process of the University Provost, the following university leaders will complete an evaluation of the Provost: College of Arts and Sciences, Elliott School of Nursing, Patton College of Education, and Coleman College of Business. Please submit the evaluation to the President no later than December 1. Evaluator Name: Date: Evaluator Title: Office/Division: ______________________________________________________________________ Employee Name: Date: Position Title: Provost Office/Division: Office of the Provost Describe areas of accomplishment you have experienced and observed by the Provost. How can the Provost better meet the needs at the University of Pikeville? Describe areas of growth and opportunity. What specific areas of the university can the Provost spend additional time and effort during the next academic year? Describe the needs and how this would benefit the mission of University of Pikeville. Please evaluate the Provost on the following characteristics. (4) Outstanding (3) Very Competent or High Level (2) Satisfactory (1) Inexperienced or Improvement Needed Moral Character (truthful, honest, sincere, integrity) Stewardship Humility as a Leader Listening Collaboration and Teamwork Professionalism (punctuality, attendance, conduct, responsiveness, and follow through) Communication (verbal and written) Innovation or Creativity Time Management and Organization Skills Interpersonal Skills (positive attitude, ability to collaborate with co-workers) Budget Management Quality of Work (comprehensive, accurate, timely, etc.) Support of co-curricular activities at UPIKE (athletics, theatre productions, WuW, etc.) Collaboration and Professional Relationship with Supervisor Collaboration and Professional Relationship with Colleagues and Peers For any items noted a 2 (Satisfactory) or 1 (Inexperienced or Improvement Needed), please provide additional comments and feedback. How has the Provost promoted student success and student engagement within their capacity as a leader? How has the Provost promoted faculty success and faculty engagement within their capacity as a leader? Any additional comments would be appreciated.</s>

<s>[INST] Appt Types Draft.txt [/INST] Faculty Classifications Full-Time Teaching Faculty The Full-time Teaching Faculty at Ohio Wesleyan University is comprised of those individuals appointed to either a Tenure-Line or Term (Non-Tenure Track) position in one of the University’s academic departments or programmatic areas. Members of the full-time teaching faculty have teaching, scholarship or creative work, and service responsibilities equal to a full-time teaching load as defined in Section - . Positions are classified as Tenure Line or Term by the President in consultation with established faculty governance processes (See Handbook, Section IV). Tenure-Line Faculty Tenure-Line faculty are full-time teaching faculty members who either hold a tenure-track or tenured appointment and are appointed to the rank of Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor. Tenure Track Faculty Tenure-track faculty members hold regular appointments, which include a University commitment for a probationary period of service leading to permanent tenure on the teaching faculty unless the appointment is terminated by the appointee or by action of the University as hereinafter provided. At the time of initial appointment to Ohio Wesleyan University, tenure track faculty members are issued an initial contract that is subject to renewal after two years of service. Subsequent contracts are issued annually. Reappointments are preceded by an evaluation by the Faculty Personnel Committee and Provost. Tenured Faculty Tenured faculty hold tenured appointments at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. A tenure appointment, once conferred by the Board of Trustees, is subject only to modifications pertaining to rank, salary, and academic assignments in accordance with the provisions of this Faculty Handbook. A Full-time faculty member with a tenure appointment has the right to continuous appointments until death, resignation, retirement, failure to accept a written assignment of appropriate duties for the ensuing academic year within sixty days following receipt of such assignment, or discontinuance of the individual's teaching position. Non-Tenure Track Term Faculty Non-tenure track term faculty hold full-time temporary appointments approved for a specifically limited time, normally one to three years, and are appointed to the academic title of Visiting Faculty or Faculty-in-Residence. Individuals appointed to a non-tenure track term position are not eligible for tenure, promotion, or sabbatical; however, they otherwise enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as their Tenure-Line colleagues. Non-tenure track term appointments are renewable only to the expiration date of the position approval and in no case are renewable as a temporary appointment beyond the individual's seventh year of full-time faculty service at the University. Renewal of appointment is preceded by an evaluation by the Faculty Personnel Committee and Provost. If the appointment is not renewed prior to expiration date of the position approval, the University will provide notice as specified in Section --. Visiting Faculty The title of Visiting Faculty is accorded to a term faculty member appointed on a temporary basis to fill a need for a short-term full-time teaching position, serve as a leave replacement, or teach courses when time has not permitted a full search to conducted or the search has not yielded a suitably regular tenure-trach appointee. The University reserves the right to make temporary appointments as Visiting Instructor, Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, or Visiting Professor in accordance with qualifications and ranks earned through review at a comparable regionally accredited four- year college or university. Faculty-in-Residence The title of Faculty-in-Residence is accorded to a term faculty member appointed on a temporary basis to teach courses within an area of special expertise or training. This designation is reserved for individuals whose research, publication, or other accomplishments are recognized as authoritative in such areas as the arts, industry, politics, or other domains outside the academic profession. Examples of Faculty-in-Residence include, but are not limited to, Scholar-in-Residence, Writer-in-Residence, Artist-in-Residence, and Pastor-in-Residence. Continuation of Faculty in Term Positions Seen in the light of the University's general responsibility to hire and keep the best Faculty available, the following policy shall apply: If a person appointed to a full-time non-tenure track term position wishes to be appointed to a vacant regular tenure track position, the individual must apply as a candidate and compete in a search for the best qualified person to fill the position. This policy will apply when the vacant position is the result of "converting" the term position presently occupied by the individual into a regular tenure track position, as well as when it is a new tenure track position or one created by retirement, resignation, or dismissal for adequate cause. The Provost, in consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committee and the department concerned, may in special cases approve exceptions to the above policy such that a non-tenure track term faculty member may be simply appointed to the tenure track position without competing in a search. Such exceptions will be considered only after the tenure track vacancy has been approved, and will require convincing evidence that the individual in all likelihood is the best available person for the position. The thoroughness of the search which resulted in hiring the individual, including its adequacy in reaching a diverse and inclusive pool of candidates minorities and women, will be a consideration. If awarded a tenure-track appointment, the individual's maximum probationary period will be stated in the initial contract of employment. This policy will not necessarily apply when a term position is reestablished as a "new" term position. In such cases the occupant of the position may, by simple renewal of appointment, be appointed. Rationale: Some faculty members are appointed to positions which are scheduled to terminate at a definite time. It is reasonable to assume that such an appointment, being by definition temporary, is less desirable from the faculty member's point of view than is a regular appointment. It follows that on the average the pool of applicants will be smaller for such positions and that some potential candidates who are of such quality as to be able to secure regular positions elsewhere will not be in the pool. Part-Time Faculty Part-time faculty members are appointed on a part-time term contractual basis, teaching less than a normal full-time faculty teaching load over the course of an academic year as determined by the Provost, and having total responsibilities that are partial rather than full. They are appointed to the rank of Part-time Instructor, Lecturer, or Senior Lecturer. Part-time appointments are subject to the approval of the department and the Provost. Before any part-time faculty may be appointed to teach, the department(s) or program(s) seeking faculty for part-time teaching must have submitted to the Provost and received approval of a statement of need for part-time support for the semester or term the appointment would cover. Part-time faculty members are not tenurable and they are not eligible for sabbatical. When eligibility requirements are met, they may be promoted to the ranks of Lecturer and Senior Lecturer as specified in Chapter IV. All initial part-time appointments are made to Part-Time Instructorships. See Chapter IV for additional information regarding the terms, rights, and responsibilities applicable to part-time faculty. Appointment to a part-time position does not confer membership in the Faculty as defined in the Faculty Bylaws. Accordingly, part-time faculty are not voting members of the Faculty. They are, however, invited to attend the Faculty and department meetings, with voice, but not vote. In addition, part-time faculty do not participate in the Faculty or University standing committee structure. Part-time Instructor The title of Part-time Instructor is accorded to a person who teaches courses limited to a specific area of expertise. To be appointed as an instructor, an individual must hold a minimum of the master's degree in the discipline that they will be teaching, or a master’s in another related discipline, with at least 18 semester hours of graduate work in the discipline that they will be teaching; in special cases the Provost may grant an exception to this degree requirement based on “tested experience” (see Faculty Qualifications). Lecturer The title of Lecturer is accorded to a person who has served effectively as a Part-Time Instructor at the University for a period of six years and completed a minimum of twelve regular units of teaching. Senior Lecturer The title of Senior Lecturer is accorded to a person who has served effectively as a Lecturer at the University for a period of six years and completed a minimum of twelve regular units of teaching since their last promotion. Administrators with Faculty Status Pursuant to Article I, Section 1 of the Faculty Bylaws, the following administrators are members of the Faculty: President Provost Vice Presidents Chaplain The above individuals are considered administrators for employment purposes, under terms and conditions of employment as stated in the University’s staff personnel policies. However, they have the privilege of vote at meetings of the Faculty in accordance with Article I, Section 1 of the Faculty Bylaws. Librarians The policies and provisions described in the paragraphs with respect to a member of the teaching faculty shall apply to a faculty member engaged in fulltime professional service on the staff of the University Library, professional library service being substituted for teaching services wherever mentioned. University librarians are members of the University’s professional staff and are guided by those policies applicable to staff as set forth in the Staff Employee Handbook. However, given the close involvement of librarians in support of the faculty's teaching and the student's learning, professional librarians at the University are afforded voting privileges at Faculty meetings and are eligible for election to Faculty standing committees. In addition, librarians may use the appropriate appeal process in the Faculty Handbook for cases involving alleged violations of their academic freedom. See the Policy Statement on Appointment of Librarians in the Appendix. Adjunct Faculty The main duties of an Adjunct Professor are to give advice to students who have professional goals in or related to the expertise of the Adjunct Professor and to serve as a resource person with whom both staff and students can consult. Adjunct Professors are permitted to supervise departmental honors programs and independent study projects and to serve in the apprenticeship program. Selection, Appointment, and Review Departments may make application on behalf of the person they wish to recruit. The application is to include the regular Ohio Wesleyan University application form, a vita, and a supporting document from the department. The application is to be presented for approval to the Provost and to the Faculty Personnel Committee. All Adjunct Professorships shall be reviewed by the Faculty Personnel Committee every three years. Compensation Normally, Adjunct Professors will serve without remuneration. However, if lectures or courses are given by the Adjunct Professor, separate honoraria or part-time contracts can be arranged as they exist for visiting and part-time personnel from outside the University. Fringe benefits are not included in such arrangements. Privileges Adjunct Professors are listed in the University catalog and directory, are placed on faculty mailing lists, and are admitted to general university activities during their period of appointment. Adjunct Professors can be admitted to may attend faculty and committee meetings and to appropriate committees by invitation. Honorific Faculty Professor Emeritus/a The special status of Professor Emeritus/a is awarded by the Board of Trustees to those persons who meet the following qualifications: Have completed at least ten (10) academic years of ranked faculty service to Ohio Wesleyan and held the rank of Associate Professor or Professor at retirement (in exceptional circumstances, documented by the appropriate Department Chair Provost, candidates may be advanced who do not meet these qualifications); Have fulfilled the responsibilities of a faculty member with consistency and effectiveness; Have received a positive recommendation for such appointment from the appropriate department, the Faculty Personnel Committee, the Provost, and the University President. Professor Emeritus/a are not considered employees of the University and therefore are not entitled to fringe benefits. As members of the broader University community, Professor Emeritus/a are welcome to advise the community in all University assemblies, colloquia, and other academic events. However, they are not afforded voting privileges in faculty governance. Professor Emeritus/a faculty are entitled to the following recognitions and privileges: Listing in the Catalog and other University publications and directories that collectively list the Faculty, The right to participate in formal and informal academic events and other University events and social functions with other faculty colleagues, Use of the University Library with faculty privileges. Use of office space and/or laboratories if recommended by the Department Chair and approved by the Provost. Use of University identification card and parking permit, and Attendance at University events and use of services under the same conditions and at the same cost as other regular appointment faculty. Revocation of Status Once awarded, Professor Emeritus/a status continues in perpetuity unless the recipient either requests to have status rescinded or violates the intent and spirit of emeritus/a status by engaging in serious dishonorable conduct in violation of law, rule, or policy and/or causes harm to the University’s reputation. To revoke Professor Emeritus/a status without the consent of the individual, a petition must be made by a member of the University community to the President, and subsequently to the Board of Trustees, which has the final authority to revoke the individual’s Professor Emeritus/a status. Actions or conduct protected by academic freedom and unlawful discrimination shall not be used to revoke such status. Endowed or Named Chairs The University reserves the right to make faculty appointments that carry the additional title of endowed or named chair. The holder of an endowed or named chair must satisfy the conditions associated with the chair. Appointments to endowed chairs are made by the President with the advice of the Provost and Faculty Personnel Committee and expire at the conclusion of the specified term. The terms of the appointment to an endowed or named chair will be specified in the chair holder’s letter of initial appointment to the chair. A tenure track or tenured faculty member currently employed by the University retains rank and tenure upon appointment to the chaired position. Types of Faculty Contracts The following types of contracts are issued to individuals granted faculty status at Ohio Wesleyan University: Tenure-Track Contracts, Regular Appointments Tenure-Line faculty members eligible for tenure receive tenure-track contracts and hold a regular appointment until they either receive tenure or separate from the University. A probationary appointment is made with the understanding that both the University and the faculty member will engage in a period of mutual evaluation—the probationary period—leading to the tenure decision. A tenure-track appointment is normally renewable up to a total of seven (7) years—i.e., a maximum of six (6) years prior to and including the year of the tenure decision, plus one (1) additional terminal year in the case of a negative tenure decision. A tenure-track faculty member’s time to the tenure decision will be stated in the initial letter of appointment. Faculty members holding tenure-track contracts undergo reappointment review as specified in Section --. A faculty member undergoing an unsuccessful tenure review will receive notice and will be allowed to complete the final year of the probationary appointment pursuant to a Terminal contract. Tenured Contracts Tenure contracts are awarded to full-time tenure track faculty who have attained tenured status (see Section -). The granting of tenure can only be effected by the procedures specified in the University’s Tenure Policy (see Section ) and upon the affirmative vote of the Board of Trustees. A tenure contract is subject only to annual modifications pertaining to academic rank, salary, and academic and/or administrative assignments in accordance with the provisions of this Faculty Handbook. Full-Time Term Contracts Full-time term contracts are offered to faculty members holding temporary appointments in a Non-Tenure Track Term position and are limited to the term of employment outlined in the contract. Term appointments do not confer upon the faculty member an expectation of tenure or a right of continuing employment beyond the expiration date of the position approval. A term contract may also be issued to a faculty member holding a tenure track position where the appointee serves as a leave replacement, or when time has not permitted a full search to be conducted or the search has not yielded a suitable regular appointee. In latter kinds of cases, a new search will be conducted the next year, in which search the temporary appointee may compete. Part-Time Term Contracts Part-time term contracts are issued to part-time faculty for a designated period or course and automatically expires at the end of that period. Reemployment of the faculty member after expiration of the contract is solely within the discretion of the University. Terminal Contracts A terminal contract is a final annual term contract issued to a full-time faculty member following notice of non-renewal of appointment or denial of tenure.</s>

<s>[INST] ART Feedback.txt [/INST] Hi Veronica,   I wanted to pass these on to you as head of the ART task force. There are other things that came up over my time with/as Jr. Faculty but here are the big concerns I wanted to make sure were passed on. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions about anything.   Thanks, XXX   ART thoughts/ concerns that were shared with me    The ART guidelines are very open, the same documents can be submitted in different years and could have different outcomes. This is not a committee where the outcomes should base on feelings or emotions, and definitely not on who is a member of the committee. (I’m not sure how true this is but it feels like this is true).    The department and the chair have a major impact on how someone moves through the process. If the chair is good as shepherding someone through and they are supportive it’s great, if not, (chairs do not seeing teaching, chairs or departments not “liking” the person, learning things from other Jr. Fac in the class who hear things from their chairs so people feel left out or abandon) it can be a very different process. The junior faculty need a system of support that is separate from the department, as the process of tenure should also be separate from the department. This is not to say that the department should not have input, but it should not be the deciding or a heavily weighing factor. – (In reality I don't know how much it is, but people feel this)   The deans have impact on the process in a major (?) way. Different deans have different levels of knowledge and understanding about what the candidates know/do. Some deans are very supportive, some are just regurgitating what the chair/dossier said, some don’t really know their Jr. faculty. There can also be a problem when the dean wants someone to focus on something that is not really valued by ART. An example, someone was told to teach first year experience, this person was active in the school, but the dean told them that teaching FYE was helpful and they should do it. When the person didn’t do it, the dean chose to write about this in their letter to ART, even though teaching FYE is not something that ART told the individual to do. The disconcert with a dean was also shared by another person who was told their research was not appropriate, by the Dean but not by ART. When the dean is the person you see more often than “ART” this could lead individuals off the path that ART told them to follow in year 2 or 4. At Cal Lutheran it takes a village to get through tenure and when people are actively working against you that takes so much additional bandwidth and labor that there need to be paths to tell ART about this without Deans and departments knowing, which can lead to blowback, sanctions, and additional problems.   CLU claims to be a teaching institution and yet we have no official weights or percentages for what aspects of the dossier are worth what (example teaching 50%, service 20%, scholarship 30%). It was expressed to me that these numbers vary as people move through the process at other institutions depending on the year and their negotiated contract.  We also do not have a solid program of continuing review and feedback around teaching. An example of this would be two people come in and observe the same classroom day of a first year teacher in first semester. That feedback and a conversation around what could be done better is then shared with the candidate and a plan for improvement implemented. Second semester people come in and observe class also, a conversation is also had documentation of all of these things creates a substantial record of teaching expectations and plan. The candidate would also have the option, if one of the class days was truly horrible, a student went off the rails, the teacher had a migraine, anyone of a number of extenuating circumstances occurred - to request a different observation day. By having two separate observers in the same classroom, on the same day, it helps eliminate bias and give a more holistic view of the events. This would also set up teachers to learn grow and change instead of feeling that the ART process was to eliminate them and judge them.</s>

<s>[INST] ART Task Force Memo (Final).txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] ART Task Force Memo Draft 1.txt [/INST] ART Task Force Memorandum To: FSEC & FAC Members From: ART Task Force Introduction During the recent faculty forums, several colleagues raised concerns regarding the campus citizenship clause and introduction of a formal professional development plan process to the Post-Tenure/Post Six-Year Review Policy. Below, we outline why both clauses were initially recommended, how they align with best practices and AAUP guidance, and the reasoning why we believe both should be adopted by our colleagues. Campus Citizenship Why the Clause was Initially Developed During the interview stage of the Task Force’s process, faculty members were asked to provide commentary on what is and what is not working well with the University’s present faculty evaluation system. In response to the question, a few attendees in the chairs, deans, and former ART committee sessions expressed interest in whether the University should formally evaluate collegiality. Based in part upon this request, the Task Force reviewed the Faculty Handbooks of our peer institutions to gain a deeper understanding of their faculty evaluation practices. This analysis revealed that several peer institutions affirmatively consider campus citizenship or collegiality as part of their promotion and tenure evaluation process. Table: Peer Campus Collegiality/Campus Citizenship Clauses Campus Citizenship or Collegiality Clause Separate Criterion or Considered as Part of Teaching, Scholarship & Service Categories University of Redlands Section 3.5 states in part, “no set of rules or code of conduct can either guarantee or take the place of the personal and professional integrity of faculty members and administrators as members of the professoriate, participants in extended disciplinary communities, citizens of the University, and individual moral agents. Therefore, in addition to being familiar with and abiding by the University’s policies and procedures, faculty members are expected to be cognizant of and regulate their behavior according to the prevailing professional and ethical standards of their disciplines and the teaching profession as a whole.” For promotion & tenure, candidates are expected to “exhibit conduct in accordance with professional standards as defined in Section 3.5.” University of the Pacific Yes – “Consideration of citizenship in the University is part of the established evaluation areas of teaching, scholarship or artistic performance, and service and is not to be evaluated as a separate area. Responsible citizenship consists of attitudes and actions which show respect for one's faculty and staff colleagues as well as students and which help other faculty and staff members so that as a learning community we further Pacific goals of excellent teaching and advising for students, rigorous scholarship, and productive service. Faculty should acknowledge that a deficiency in or complete lack of citizenship can directly and negatively impact their performance in teaching, scholarship or artistic performance, and service.” Part of the established evaluation areas St. Edwards University Yes; collegial relations are considered as an element of service. “At St. Edward's University the faculty is expected to render service. This may include service within and/or outside of the university community. Both of these categories are evaluated according to two criteria. The first criterion considers what service is rendered, i.e., responsibility, while the second considers the spirit in which it is rendered, i.e., collegial relations. Both are considered important aspects of service and must be included as part of the evaluation” Considered as part of the service category. Pacific Lutheran University No N/A Valparaiso University Yes “VU values and expects a “collegial relationship among its faculty.” This includes civility in discourse and a willingness to “carry one’s share of the load” in teaching, advising, research, committee work, and other forms of university service. The focus is on quality of contributions…” Separate Criterion Chapman University No N/A Santa Clara University Yes Collegiality is not a distinct capacity to be assessed independently of the traditional triumvirate of scholarship, teaching, and service. It is rather a quality whose value is expressed in the successful execution of these three functions. Collegiality means that faculty members cooperate with one another in sharing the common burdens related to discharging their responsibilities of teaching, scholarship or creative work, and service, and do so in a conscientious and professional manner. Collegiality is not the same as conformity or intellectual agreement and may not be interpreted in a way that violates the principles of academic freedom. In those rare instances in which lack of collegiality becomes an issue in the evaluation of faculty for promotion and tenure, it may be considered only insofar as it has a negative effect on the functioning of the department, college or school, or University.” Part of the established evaluation areas Loyola Marymount Yes. “Collegiality is an individual responsibility of every faculty member at Loyola Marymount University. All faculty are expected to adhere to the tenets given in the AAUP Statement on Professional Ethics, specifically in regard to collegiality.” Listed as a Faculty Responsibility. As part of P&T process, the chairs and deans respectively assess the candidate’s “contribution to the effective operation of the [Department/College/School/University] responsibilities, including overall performance in contributing to a quality working environment”… Based on the interview results and analysis of the promotion and tenure evaluation standards in place at several of our peer institutions, the Task Force issued the following draft recommendation to the faculty: Recommendation #8: Develop a new “collegiality” or “campus citizenship” evaluation category, which is consistent with the University’s values. Supporting details: The text should emphasize that the evaluator’s focus with respect to this evaluation category solely relates to collaboration and constructive cooperation associated with a faculty member’s overall performance. The text should also note that an assessment of collegiality must not be confused with conformity, sociability, or likability and may not be interpreted in a way that violates the principles of academic freedom. The above recommendation was discussed during the faculty forums held in late October. As there was not significant opposition to the recommendation expressed during the forums, the Task Force kept the recommendation in place and proceeded with developing a corresponding policy for the faculty’s consideration. Overview of Campus Citizenship Clause The final version of the Campus Citizenship clause, which has undergone several iterations based on feedback received from the Deans, Chairs, FSEC, FAC, and faculty who attended the April faculty forums, is reprinted below: Teaching, scholarship, and service constitute the three major criteria for promotion and tenure, but those categories are affected by a faculty member’s interaction with colleagues, staff, administrators, and students. Campus citizenship, therefore, is not a distinct capacity to be assessed independently, but rather it should be understood as a part of the established evaluation areas of teaching, scholarly/creative productivity, and service. As a hallmark of professional ethics (see Code of Professional Ethics Policy above [LINK TO POLICY), faculty members are expected to work cooperatively and constructively with their colleagues and to treat staff members, administrators, and students with respect. Tolerance for differing points of view and the capacity to give civil expression to one′s own position are highly prized. The University affirms that campus citizenship does not preclude vigorous debate, dissent, or protest in academic and/or intellectual matters and in issues concerning the governance of the institution—these are all vital components of a healthy intellectual environment. No parties to the tenure and promotion process (colleagues, immediate administrative supervisors, the ART Committee, the Provost, President, or the Board of Trustees) shall appeal to campus citizenship as a reason not to support a candidate because the candidate has academic views or has spoken critically about instructional matters in line with their rights and responsibilities as a faculty member. In developing the clause, the Task Force sought to align with the AAUP “Statement on Collegiality as a Criterion for Faculty Evaluation,” which reads in part: Few, if any, responsible faculty members would deny that collegiality, in the sense of collaboration and constructive cooperation, identifies important aspects of a faculty member’s overall performance. A faculty member may legitimately be called upon to participate in the development of curricula and standards for the evaluation of teaching, as well as in peer review of the teaching of colleagues. Much research, depending on the nature of the particular discipline, is by its nature collaborative and requires teamwork as well as the ability to engage in independent investigation. And committee service of a more general description, relating to the life of the institution as a whole, is a logical outgrowth of the Association’s view that a faculty member is an “officer” of the college or university in which he or she fulfills professional duties. Understood in this way, collegiality is not a distinct capacity to be assessed independently of the traditional triumvirate of teaching, scholarship, and service. Evaluation in these three areas will encompass the contributions that the virtue of collegiality may pertinently add to a faculty member’s career…. Based on this guidance, the clause does not include campus citizenship as a separate, fourth category of evaluation; rather, it embeds considerations of campus citizenship within the three evaluation categories of teaching, scholarly and creative productivity, and service. Thus, for example, a candidate’s lack of campus citizenship may be addressed in the teaching effectiveness category when it impinges on the faculty member’s ability to work with colleagues in mentoring students or in preparing them for prerequisites for more advanced courses, or in preparing them for group activities required of the academic discipline; or in scholarly or creative productivity when it impinges on the candidate’s ability to work collaboratively or respectively with colleagues in developing research grant proposals or organizing conferences; or in service when it prevents committees or programs from functioning as they should In addition, the clause aligns with University’s current Code of Professional Ethics Policy in defining campus citizenship, which includes taking on one’s fair and collaborative role in the work of the University, taking part in shared governance, supporting the academic freedom of one’s peers, and showing due respect for the opinion of others. We have also placed an emphasis on tolerance for differing points of view and the capacity to give civil expression to one′s own position. Finally, the Task Force has included text affirming that campus citizenship does not preclude vigorous debate, dissent, or protest in academic and/or intellectual matters and in issues concerning the governance of the institution, all of which we believe are vital components of a healthy intellectual environment. The policy specifically prohibits parties to the tenure and promotion process (colleagues, immediate administrative supervisors, the ART Committee, the Provost, President, or the Board of Trustees) to appeal to campus citizenship as a reason not to support a candidate because the candidate has academic views or has spoken critically about instructional matters in line with their rights and responsibilities as a faculty member. Conclusion The Task Force advocates for the adoption of the campus citizenship clause, which in our view aligns with the standard of professionalism presently set forth in the Faculty Policies Handbook’s Code of Professional Ethics Policy, AAUP guidance, and the practice of many of our peer institutions. The adoption of such a clause will serve to formally codify conditions that already exist undefined in our current promotion and tenure process, allowing for a more transparent process. At present, the ART Committee and other evaluators participating in the promotion and tenure evaluation process implicitly consider campus citizenship/collegiality matters given the inclusion of the Department/School Contribution Evaluation Form in the candidate’s confidential file. Pursuant to the form, departmental colleagues of a candidate are asked the following questions, four of which touch directly upon campus citizenship/collegiality matters: Acceptance of department assignments. (Does the faculty member accept department assignments willingly? Does he/she volunteer occasionally?) Performance on department assignments. (Does the faculty member complete assignments thoroughly and on time? What is the quality of his/her performance?) Professionalism. (Does he/she take a professional attitude toward human relations and personnel or student problems?) Cooperation (Does the faculty member act in the best interest of the department and the college with regard to non-teaching activities/tasks? Is he/she a good team member?) Overall Contribution. (Does he/she contribute positively to the overall energy, morale and accomplishments of the department? Any specific noteworthy contributions?) Given the above questions are posed and ostensibly considered by promotion and tenure evaluators, we believe the better practice is to fully define campus citizenship and formally articulate the way in which it will and will not be considered during the promotion and tenure evaluation process. If the clause is adopted, campus citizenship will not be assessed independently, but rather it will be understood as a part of the established evaluation areas of teaching, scholarly/creative productivity, and service. Moreover, evaluators will be precluded from citing campus citizenship as a reason not to support a candidate because of academic views or criticism about instructional matters that have been expressed in line with the faculty member’s rights and responsibilities. The Task Force fully acknowledges the very valid concerns that considerations of campus citizenship are too subjective, may stifle dissent, vigorous debate, or protest, and can possibly be “weaponized” by evaluators. The Task Force carefully weighed these considerations and counter that a more explicit policy developed and approved by the faculty with appropriate constraints to address such concerns is more effective than an undefined, implicit practice with no official guidance and limitations. In short, the adoption of a campus citizenship clause, in the Task Force’s judgement, will provide formal guidance to candidate and evaluators, as well as help restrict the reach of non-campus citizenship claims. Post-Tenure/Post-Six Year Review – Professional Development Plan & Other Suggested Additions Why the Professional Development Plan Clause was Developed As noted earlier, during the interview stage of the Task Force’s process, faculty members were asked to provide commentary on what is and what is not working well with the University’s present faculty evaluation system. With respect to the Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year Review Policy, some observed that the University’s current policy did not sufficiently encourage a faculty member to improve performance if the ART Committee determined improvement was necessary. Others noted that the current policy does not delineate the consequences of a positive review. Current policy requires members of the faculty to be peer-reviewed by the ART Committee every six years from the granting of tenure, or six years from the most recent promotion or sixth-year review. Central to the process is the ART Committee’s review of the faculty member’s dossier and confidential file based on the Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year review criteria. Following its review, the committee communicates to the faculty member in writing its evaluation and “suggestions for improvement where improvement is deemed necessary.” Per current policy, faculty are “expected to take the recommendations of the ART Committee seriously and implement suggestions as necessary.” As part of its deliberative process, the Task Force also analyzed the post-tenure evaluation practices of its peer institutions, which are summarized in the Table below: Table – Summary of Peer Institutions’ Post-Tenure Evaluation Policies Post-Tenure Review Professional Development Plan Commendation for Positive Reviews University of Redlands Yes -Every 6 Years 2 Year Prof. Development Plan Yes University of the Pacific Yes -Every 5 Years Unit Dependent Silent St. Edwards University Yes – Every 6 Years 2 Year Improvement Plan No Pacific Lutheran University Yes - Every 4 to 5 Years (depending on rank) by chair or dean Referral to Rank & Tenure Committee before dismissal proceedings if negative review Silent Valparaiso University Triggered Comprehensive Evaluations Based on two or more successive unsatisfactory annual evaluations by dean Performance Improvement Plan. Faculty member will have a minimum of one and a maximum of years in which to accomplish the plan’s goals. No Chapman University Tenured Faculty evaluated annually for promotion to full-professor and / or merit pay N/A N/A Santa Clara University Evaluated periodically by the department chair on different cycles as determined by each college or school Unit Dependent? Not addressed in Faculty HB Silent Loyola Marymount Tenured Faculty evaluated annually for merit pay N/A N/A As reflected above, there are two types of post-tenure reviews systems in place at the University’s peer institutions: those, like CLU’s current system, that evaluate every tenured faculty member periodically and those that are “triggered” by multiple years of substandard performance on annual evaluations. The Task Force considered both approaches and, in the end, decided against a “triggered” approach, primarily because introducing formal annual evaluations for tenured faculty would create additional workload for administrative supervisors. Moreover, there was concern that peer review is initially lacking in a “triggered” post-tenure review system tied to annual evaluations. Based on the results of the interviews and a review of the above peer institutions’ policies, the Task Force recommended that the University’s current policy be supplemented to (a) provide a mechanisms for recognizing distinguished faculty performance and (b) a means of assisting faculty members who are experiencing difficulties in achieving their expectations. (See Task Force Recommendation #18). The recommendations were presented at the Faculty Forum meetings held in October. While a faculty member during one of the forums expressed reservations about the introduction of a development plan process, the Task Force elected to keep the recommendation in place given the results of the interviews and peer analysis and proceeded with supplementing the University’s current policy accordingly. Overview of Recommended Additions The final version of proposed Post-Tenure/Post Six-Year Evaluation Policy, which has undergone several iterations, is reprinted in the Appendix for ease of reference. With respect to adding a mechanism for recognizing distinguished faculty performance, the Task Force recommended that the following suggested text be adopted: If the committee determines that the faculty member’s performance exceeds the applicable standard in all evaluation categories, the report will include a commendation for distinguished performance. The addition of the above text is in keeping with Standard 4 of the Minimum Standards for Good Practice recommended in the AAUP’s Post-Tenure Review: An AAUP Response report (see Table below). In determining the best approach to assist faculty members who have been determined by the ART to need improvement in a particular area(s), the Task Force elected to develop a professional development plan process. The Task Force’s decisions in this regard was based on guidance set forth in Standards 7 through 10 of the Minimum Standards for Good Practice recommended in the AAUP’s Post-Tenure Review: An AAUP Response report (https://www.aaup.org/report/post-tenure-review-aaup-response), as well as the University of Redlands Post-Tenure Review policy (https://sites.redlands.edu/globalassets/depts/office-of-the-provost/docs/2021/faculty-handbook-updated-december-2020.pdf). In the Table below, we outline how the proposed revisions to the Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year Policy align with the minimum standards advocated by the AAUP. AAUP Minimum Standards Text Responsive to AAUP Recommended Minimum Standards 1. Post-tenure review must ensure the protection of academic freedom as defined in the 1940 Statement of Principles. The application of its procedures, therefore, should not intrude on an individual faculty member’s proper sphere of professional self-direction, nor should it be used as a subterfuge for effecting programmatic change. Such a review must not become the occasion for a wide-ranging “fishing expedition” in an attempt to dredge up negative evidence 2. Post-tenure review must not be a reevaluation or revalidation of tenured status as defined in the 1940 Statement. In no case should post-tenure review be used to shift the burden of proof from the institution’s administration (to show cause why a tenured faculty member should be dismissed) to the individual faculty member (to show cause why he or she should be retained). Per the University’s policy, the purposes of the post-tenure/6th Year review are to “nurture faculty growth and development, to maintain quality teaching and advising, and to sustain meaningful contributions on the part of each faculty member to the life of the University community. The post-tenure/post-sixth year review provides an opportunity for faculty to engage in regular self-reflection on their academic career and to receive feedback from peers in order that these purposes may be achieved.” In addition, the Task Force has added the following text: “The post-tenure/post-sixth year review is not a re-evaluation of tenure or rolling contract status and is not undertaken for the purposes of discipline or dismissal.” 3. The written standards and criteria by which faculty members are evaluated in post-tenure review should be developed and periodically reviewed by the faculty. The faculty should also conduct the actual review process. The basic standard for appraisal should be whether the faculty member under review discharges conscientiously and with professional competence the duties appropriately associated with his or her position, not whether the faculty member meets the current standards for the award of tenure as those might have changed since the initial granting of tenure Per the University’s policy, the ART conducts the evaluation. Standard for Appraisal: Candidates for Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year review are expected to demonstrate that in the past six years they have: fulfilled the faculty responsibilities outlined in the “Faculty Responsibilities” portion of this handbook; maintained their teaching effectiveness, scholarly or creative productivity, and University/professional/community service at a level appropriate to the faculty member’s academic rank. In areas other than teaching, the committee will recognize that post-tenure/post-6th year faculty may reapportion their productivity, based on their talents and interests, to include greater contribution in either scholarly or creative work or University service and leadership within faculty governance. 4. Post-tenure review should be developmental and supported by institutional resources for professional development or a change of professional direction. In the event that an institution decides to invest the time and resources required for comprehensive or “blanket” review, it should also offer tangible recognition to those faculty members who have demonstrated high or improved performance. Please refer to the “purposes” text referenced earlier regarding the development aspect of the review. In addition, the Task Force has added the following text in Section B of the policy in response to standard 4: If the committee determines that the faculty member’s performance exceeds the applicable standard in all evaluation categories, the report will include a commendation for distinguished performance. Professional Development Plan If the ART subcommittee determines that a faculty member’s performance does not meet the applicable standard in an evaluation category, the faculty member will design, in consultation with the Dean, a two-year professional development plan to address the area(s) in need of improvement. It is the responsibility of the Dean to assist the faculty member not only in designing the plan but also in identifying University resources that can be used to support it. If an agreement on the plan’s goals cannot be reached, the Provost will be consulted. 5. Post-tenure review should be flexible enough to acknowledge different expectations in different disciplines and changing expectations at different stages of faculty careers Please see the following text, reprinted from the Standards for Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year Review section the University’s policy: In areas other than teaching, the committee will recognize that post-tenure/post-6th year faculty may reapportion their productivity, based on their talents and interests, to include greater contribution in either scholarly or creative work or University service and leadership within faculty governance. 6. Except when faculty appeals procedures direct that files be available to aggrieved faculty members, the outcome of evaluations should be confidential, that is, confined to the appropriate college or university persons or bodies and the faculty member being evaluated, released otherwise only at the discretion, or with the consent of, the faculty member All faculty evaluations are confidential. Please refer to the following text developed by the Task Force in the Introduction section of the evaluation document: To preserve the integrity of the evaluation process, those who are involved in it are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with Code of Professional Ethics [INSERT LINK], inclusiveness, and confidentiality, as well as meet all established deadlines. (Emphasis added) 7. If the system of post-tenure review is supplemented, or supplanted, by the option of a formal development plan, that plan cannot be imposed on the faculty member unilaterally, but must be a product of mutual negotiation. It should respect academic freedom and professional self-direction, and it should be flexible enough to allow for subsequent alteration or even its own abandonment. The standard here should be that of good faith on both sides—a commitment to improvement by the faculty member and to the adequate support of that improvement by the institution—rather than the literal fulfillment of a set of nonnegotiable demands or rigid expectations, quantitative or otherwise. The Development Plan section developed by the Task Force requires that the plan be designed by the faculty in consultation with the Dean. If the ART subcommittee determines that a faculty member’s performance does not meet the applicable standard in an evaluation category, the faculty member will design, in consultation with the Dean, a two-year professional development plan to address the area(s) in need of improvement. It is the responsibility of the Dean to assist the faculty member not only in designing the plan but also in identifying University resources that can be used to support it. If an agreement on the plan’s goals cannot be reached, the Provost will be consulted. 8. A faculty member should have the right to comment in response to evaluations, and to challenge the findings and correct the record by appeal to an elected faculty grievance committee.. he or she should have the same rights of comment and appeal concerning the manner in which any individualized development plan is formulated, the plan’s content, and any resulting evaluation The University’s current appeals policy stated that the faculty member appeal “if they feel the process has been unfair.” The Task Force is recommending that the text be replaced with a more comprehensive policy permits a faculty member to appeal at any point during the post-tenure/post-six year evaluation process: Faculty members may appeal the ART Committee’s initial Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year Review decision, the requirements of the Professional Development Plan, and/or final action resulting from the follow-up review process. Definitions have also been added that align with the promotion and tenure appeals process. 9. In the event that recurring evaluations reveal continuing and persistent problems with a faculty member’s performance that do not lend themselves to improvement after several efforts, and that call into question his or her ability to function in that position, then other possibilities, such as a mutually agreeable reassignment to other duties or separation, should be explored. If these are not practicable, or if no other solution acceptable to the parties can be found, then the administration should invoke peer consideration regarding any contemplated sanctions The Task Force has developed text that align with standard 9. Specifically, if the ART determines in a follow-up review that the faculty member has not met the goals of the development plan, then the faculty member and Provost may negotiate other possibilities, such as a mutually agreeable reassignment to other duties or separation. If the committee finds by majority vote that the faculty member has not met the goals of the plan, the committee will conclude its work by explaining that finding in a written report to the faculty member. The faculty member will be afforded an opportunity to submit a written response to the Chair of the committee within ten academic days of submission of the report. Thereafter, the ART Committee’s report, along with the faculty member’s responses (if any), and evaluative file will be submitted to the Provost. The faculty member and the Provost will then meet to negotiate a mutually acceptable course of action responsive to the issues identified in the committee’s follow-up review report. Options may include a nonstandard faculty workload profile, reassignment of the faculty member to other duties within the University, some other mutually acceptable plan or course of action, or voluntary separation. Note: The text regarding President resolving a disagreement between the faculty member and provost has been stricken. 10. The standard for dismissal or other severe sanction remains that of adequate cause, and the mere fact of successive negative reviews does not in any way diminish the obligation of the institution to show such cause in a separate forum before an appropriately constituted hearing body of peers convened for that purpose. Evaluation records may be admissible but rebuttable as to accuracy. Even if they are accurate, the administration is still required to bear the burden of proof and demonstrate through an adversarial proceeding not only that the negative evaluations rest on fact, but also that the facts rise to the level of adequate cause for dismissal or other severe sanction. The faculty member must be afforded the full procedural safeguards set forth in the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings and the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which include, among other safeguards, the opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. The Task Force has added text in the policy that affirms that the post-tenure/post-six year evaluation process is separate and distinct from dismissal or severe sanction. Introduction Section: “The post-tenure/post-sixth year review is not a re-evaluation of tenure or rolling contract status and is not undertaken for the purposes of discipline or dismissal.” B. Evaluation and Action (at the end of Follow-Up Review subsection) Note: The procedures for dismissing or severely sanctioning faculty for cause are separate from these policies and may only be invoked pursuant to the Suspension or Dismissal for Cause Policy [INSERT LINK]. Conclusion The Task Force has introduced several proposed revisions that better align the University’s Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year Policy with higher education best practice. As outlined above, care has been taken to address the standards for good practice set forth in the AAUP’s Post-Tenure Review: An AAUP Response report. Moreover, the revisions address two specific concerns raised by some faculty during the interview process. Most importantly, the Task Force views the introduction of a professional development plan component in the best interest of the faculty. As presently written, our policy is silent with respect to what occurs should a faculty member choose not to take the recommendations of the ART Committee seriously and implement suggestions as necessary. The introduction of a development plan, which must be a product of mutual negotiation between the faculty member and Dean and is subject to appeal, affords a faculty member the opportunity to address an area of concern identified by the ART Committee, making it less likely that the Suspension or Dismissal for Cause Policy will be invoked prematurely by the administration. Appendix Post-tenure/Post-6th Year Review Policy and Procedures Following the 2/4/6-year review process, faculty are reviewed by the ART Committee every six years. The purposes of this review are to nurture faculty growth and development, to maintain quality teaching and advising, and to sustain meaningful contributions on the part of each faculty member to the life of the University community. The post-tenure/post-sixth year review provides an opportunity for faculty to engage in regular self-reflection on their academic career and to receive feedback from peers in order that these purposes may be achieved. The post-tenure/post-sixth year review is not a re-evaluation of tenure or rolling contract status and is not undertaken for the purposes of discipline or dismissal. Eligibility for Post-tenure/Post-6th Year Review Members of the faculty will be reviewed every six years from the granting of tenure, or six years from the most recent promotion or most recent sixth-year review, whichever is later. If a faculty member is a member of the ART Committee at the time they are eligible for Post Tenure/Post-6th Year review, the review will be postponed until the year after the faculty member leaves the ART Committee. Deans are exempt from the review while they are serving in their administrative posts. Additionally, faculty members who are on leave during the prescribed year of review will ordinarily be reviewed the year after returning. Exceptions to participating in the Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year review may also be granted at the discretion of the Provost if the faculty member has submitted a letter of intent to retire, resign, or apply for early retirement to be effective within two years from the academic year of the review. Finally, a faculty member may postpone a scheduled Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year review for extenuating circumstances, such as health problems, upon the approval of the Provost. Standards for Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year Review Candidates for Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year review are expected to demonstrate that in the past six years they have: fulfilled the faculty responsibilities outlined in the “Faculty Responsibilities” portion of this handbook; and maintained their teaching effectiveness, scholarly or creative productivity, and University/professional/community service at a level appropriate to the faculty member’s academic rank. In areas other than teaching, the committee will recognize that post-tenure/post-6th year faculty may reapportion their productivity, based on their talents and interests, to include greater contribution in either scholarly or creative work or University service and leadership within faculty governance. Procedures A. Initiation of Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year Review Academic Affairs will notify faculty by September 15 of the review year of their responsibility for compiling a dossier based on guidelines provided to them. Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year Review Files: An evaluation by the ART Committee will be based on a Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth Year review dossier. The file will consist of two parts: a dossier, prepared by the faculty member in accordance with forms and guidelines provided by the ART Committee and kept on file with the Office of Academic Affairs. The dossier should include: a personal statement a current curriculum vitae sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the faculty member meets or exceeds the standards for post-tenure/post-sixth- year review Materials added to the dossier by the Office of Academic Affairs: copies of all of the faculty member's California Lutheran University course evaluations course loads, enrollment and grade distributions evaluations from student advisees and/or mentees a current copy of the faculty member’s academic unit evaluation guidelines a confidential file that contains evaluations solicited by Academic Affairs on behalf of the ART Committee. These evaluations include: evaluations by faculty inside of the department evaluations by the immediate administrative supervisor and Dean No unsolicited material will be accepted for this file and this part of the file is closed to the faculty member under review. To maintain the collegial working relationships of small departments and academic units that might be placed at risk should the contents of individual evaluations be disclosed, the University expects the authors of all evaluation recommendations listed above to treat those evaluations as confidential, to be read only by the applicable administrative evaluators and ART Committee. Candidates undergoing review will not have access to these written evaluations and individual evaluators may not share them with the candidate. B. Evaluation and Action The ART subcommittee reviews all the information in the dossier and the confidential file. Thereafter, the committee evaluates whether the faculty member has met the applicable standard for Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year review, utilizing the general faculty evaluation criteria and academic unit guidelines. The elected faculty members of the ART Committee submit their evaluation in each case to the Provost, indicating whether the faculty member has met the applicable standards for Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year review. The committee’s conclusions shall be based on a simple majority vote. A committee member in the minority has the discretion to submit an anonymous written dissenting opinion, which will be included in the report. The ART Committee will communicate to the faculty member in writing its evaluation. If the committee determines that the faculty member’s performance exceeds the applicable standard in all evaluation categories, the report will include a commendation for distinguished performance. If the ART subcommittee determines that the faculty member’s performance does not meet the applicable standard in an evaluation category, the report will include suggestions for improvement where improvement is deemed necessary. Faculty are expected to take the recommendations of the ART Committee seriously and implement suggestions as necessary by developing a professional development plan in consultation with the faculty member’s Dean. Professional Development Plan If the ART subcommittee determines that a faculty member’s performance does not meet the applicable standard in an evaluation category, the faculty member will design, in consultation with the Dean, a two-year professional development plan to address the area(s) in need of improvement. It is the responsibility of the Dean to assist the faculty member not only in designing the plan but also in identifying University resources that can be used to support it. If an agreement on the plan’s goals cannot be reached, the Provost will be consulted. The Follow-up Review In the spring of the second year subsequent to the Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year review, the faculty member will undergo a follow-up review by the ART Committee to determine whether the goals outlined in the professional development plan have been met. The Dean and the faculty member will agree, in advance, upon the scope of the follow-up review and the composition of the dossier that will be assembled. Although the dossier may include evidence that the faculty member has been meeting the applicable standards in all evaluation categories, the follow-up review will focus more narrowly on the issues raised in the previous Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year review. The dossier will typically include a self-evaluation and a letter from the Dean that evaluates the quality of the faculty member’s responses to the issues raised in the previous review, and any other evidence documenting progress the faculty member has made while implementing the professional development plan. The completed dossier will be evaluated by the ART Committee, which will determine whether the faculty member has achieved the goals identified in the professional development plan. If the committee finds by majority vote that the faculty member has met the goals of the plan, the process is complete, and a new Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year cycle will begin in the next appointment year. Copies of the professional development plan and the assessment of the progress achieved by the end of the development period will be submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs to be added to the faculty member’s personnel file. If the committee finds by majority vote that the faculty member has not met the goals of the plan, the committee will conclude its work by explaining that finding in a written report to the faculty member. The faculty member will be afforded an opportunity to submit a written response to the Chair of the committee within ten academic days of submission of the report. Thereafter, the ART Committee’s report, along with the faculty member’s responses (if any), and evaluative file will be submitted to the Provost. The faculty member and the Provost will then meet to negotiate a mutually acceptable course of action responsive to the issues identified in the committee’s follow-up review report. Options may include a nonstandard faculty workload profile, reassignment of the faculty member to other duties within the University, some other mutually acceptable plan or course of action, or voluntary separation. Note: The procedures for dismissing or severely sanctioning faculty for cause are separate from these policies and may only be invoked pursuant to the Suspension or Dismissal for Cause Policy [INSERT LINK]. C. Appeals Faculty members may appeal the ART Committee’s initial Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year Review decision, the requirements of the Professional Development Plan, and/or final action resulting from the follow-up review process. The faculty member’s appeal letter and all documentation and evidence in support of it must be submitted in writing to the Provost within [ten academic days] of the submission of initial Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year Review decision, the Provost's final approval of the Professional Development Plan, or the Provost's final follow-up review decision. By filing a grievance, the faculty is asking the Grievance Committee to review the process and advise the Provost regarding whether or not the process has been fair. Comparable to appeals emanating from promotion and tenure evaluations, formal appeals may be made only on procedural, not substantive grounds (i.e., prejudicial error or inadequate consideration). The Grievance Committee will not substitute its judgment on the merits of the case for promotion/tenure but rather determine whether the decision was the result of adequate consideration. (See Step III of Grievance Procedures.) The term prejudicial does not refer to the state of mind of the members of the ART Committee or administrative evaluator; rather, it refers to an assessment of the likely effect of an error in procedure on a review decision. An error is prejudicial if it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appellant would have been reached in the absence of the error. The term “inadequate consideration” refers to procedural rather than substantive issues related to the Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year Review evaluation process. Inadequate consideration occurs if the ART Committee or administrative evaluators (i) violated the stated procedures for including relevant evidence in the promotion and tenure file or using that evidence as a basis for judgment in the review and (ii) it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appellant would have been reached had adequate consideration been given to the proper evidence. Alternatively, inadequate consideration occurs when a decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the evaluation file. Note: An allegation that a decision emanating from Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year Review represents an instance of unlawful discrimination will be referred to the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources. Allegations of unlawful discrimination will be considered and resolved before an appeal on procedural grounds is considered. 2</s>

<s>[INST] ART Task Force Memo Draft 2.txt [/INST] ART Task Force Memorandum To: FSEC & FAC Members From: ART Task Force Introduction During the recent faculty forums, several colleagues raised concerns regarding the campus citizenship clause and introduction of a formal professional development plan process to the Post-Tenure/Post Six-Year Review Policy. Below, we outline why both clauses were initially recommended, how they align with peer institution practices and AAUP guidance, and the reasoning why we believe both should be adopted by our colleagues. Campus Citizenship Why the Clause was Initially Developed During the interview stage of the Task Force’s process, faculty members were asked to provide commentary on what is and what is not working well with the University’s present faculty evaluation system. In response to the question, a few attendees in the chairs, deans, and former ART committee sessions expressed interest in whether the University should formally evaluate collegiality. Based in part upon this request, the Task Force reviewed the Faculty Handbooks of our peer institutions to gain a deeper understanding of their faculty evaluation practices. This analysis revealed that several peer institutions affirmatively consider campus citizenship or collegiality as part of their promotion and tenure evaluation process. Table: Peer Campus Collegiality/Campus Citizenship Clauses Campus Citizenship or Collegiality Clause Separate Criterion or Considered as Part of Teaching, Scholarship & Service Categories University of Redlands Section 3.5 states in part, “no set of rules or code of conduct can either guarantee or take the place of the personal and professional integrity of faculty members and administrators as members of the professoriate, participants in extended disciplinary communities, citizens of the University, and individual moral agents. Therefore, in addition to being familiar with and abiding by the University’s policies and procedures, faculty members are expected to be cognizant of and regulate their behavior according to the prevailing professional and ethical standards of their disciplines and the teaching profession as a whole.” For promotion & tenure, candidates are expected to “exhibit conduct in accordance with professional standards as defined in Section 3.5.” University of the Pacific Yes – “Consideration of citizenship in the University is part of the established evaluation areas of teaching, scholarship or artistic performance, and service and is not to be evaluated as a separate area. Responsible citizenship consists of attitudes and actions which show respect for one's faculty and staff colleagues as well as students and which help other faculty and staff members so that as a learning community we further Pacific goals of excellent teaching and advising for students, rigorous scholarship, and productive service. Faculty should acknowledge that a deficiency in or complete lack of citizenship can directly and negatively impact their performance in teaching, scholarship or artistic performance, and service.” Part of the established evaluation areas St. Edwards University Yes; collegial relations are considered as an element of service. “At St. Edward's University the faculty is expected to render service. This may include service within and/or outside of the university community. Both of these categories are evaluated according to two criteria. The first criterion considers what service is rendered, i.e., responsibility, while the second considers the spirit in which it is rendered, i.e., collegial relations. Both are considered important aspects of service and must be included as part of the evaluation” Considered as part of the service category. Pacific Lutheran University No N/A Valparaiso University Yes “VU values and expects a “collegial relationship among its faculty.” This includes civility in discourse and a willingness to “carry one’s share of the load” in teaching, advising, research, committee work, and other forms of university service. The focus is on quality of contributions…” Separate Criterion Chapman University No N/A Santa Clara University Yes Collegiality is not a distinct capacity to be assessed independently of the traditional triumvirate of scholarship, teaching, and service. It is rather a quality whose value is expressed in the successful execution of these three functions. Collegiality means that faculty members cooperate with one another in sharing the common burdens related to discharging their responsibilities of teaching, scholarship or creative work, and service, and do so in a conscientious and professional manner. Collegiality is not the same as conformity or intellectual agreement and may not be interpreted in a way that violates the principles of academic freedom. In those rare instances in which lack of collegiality becomes an issue in the evaluation of faculty for promotion and tenure, it may be considered only insofar as it has a negative effect on the functioning of the department, college or school, or University.” Part of the established evaluation areas Loyola Marymount Yes. “Collegiality is an individual responsibility of every faculty member at Loyola Marymount University. All faculty are expected to adhere to the tenets given in the AAUP Statement on Professional Ethics, specifically in regard to collegiality.” Listed as a Faculty Responsibility. As part of P&T process, the chairs and deans respectively assess the candidate’s “contribution to the effective operation of the [Department/College/School/University] responsibilities, including overall performance in contributing to a quality working environment”… Based on the interview results and analysis of the promotion and tenure evaluation standards in place at several peer institutions, the Task Force issued the following draft recommendation to the faculty: Recommendation #8: Develop a new “collegiality” or “campus citizenship” evaluation category, which is consistent with the University’s values. Supporting details: The text should emphasize that the evaluator’s focus with respect to this evaluation category solely relates to collaboration and constructive cooperation associated with a faculty member’s overall performance. The text should also note that an assessment of collegiality must not be confused with conformity, sociability, or likability and may not be interpreted in a way that violates the principles of academic freedom. The above recommendation was discussed during the faculty forums held in late October. As there was not significant opposition to the recommendation expressed during the forums, the Task Force kept the recommendation in place and proceeded with developing a corresponding policy for the faculty’s consideration. Overview of Campus Citizenship Clause The final version of the Campus Citizenship clause, which has undergone several iterations based on feedback received from the Deans, Chairs, FSEC, FAC, and faculty who attended the April faculty forums, is reprinted below: Teaching, scholarship, and service constitute the three major criteria for promotion and tenure, but those categories are affected by a faculty member’s interaction with colleagues, staff, administrators, and students. Campus citizenship, therefore, is not a distinct capacity to be assessed independently, but rather it should be understood as a part of the established evaluation areas of teaching, scholarly/creative productivity, and service. As a hallmark of professional ethics (see Code of Professional Ethics Policy above [LINK TO POLICY), faculty members are expected to work constructively with their colleagues and to treat faculty, staff, administrators, and students with respect. Tolerance for differing points of view and the capacity to give civil expression to one′s own position are highly prized. The University affirms that campus citizenship does not preclude vigorous debate, dissent, or protest in academic and/or intellectual matters and in issues concerning the governance of the institution—these are all vital components of a healthy intellectual environment. Campus citizenship may not be interpreted in a way that violates the principles of academic freedom. No parties to the tenure and promotion process (colleagues, immediate administrative supervisors, the ART Committee, the Provost, President, or the Board of Trustees) shall appeal to campus citizenship as a reason not to support a candidate because the candidate has expressed views or spoken critically about matters within their rights and responsibilities as a faculty member. In developing the clause, the Task Force sought to align with the AAUP “Statement on Collegiality as a Criterion for Faculty Evaluation,” which reads in part: Few, if any, responsible faculty members would deny that collegiality, in the sense of collaboration and constructive cooperation, identifies important aspects of a faculty member’s overall performance. A faculty member may legitimately be called upon to participate in the development of curricula and standards for the evaluation of teaching, as well as in peer review of the teaching of colleagues. Much research, depending on the nature of the particular discipline, is by its nature collaborative and requires teamwork as well as the ability to engage in independent investigation. And committee service of a more general description, relating to the life of the institution as a whole, is a logical outgrowth of the Association’s view that a faculty member is an “officer” of the college or university in which he or she fulfills professional duties. Understood in this way, collegiality is not a distinct capacity to be assessed independently of the traditional triumvirate of teaching, scholarship, and service. Evaluation in these three areas will encompass the contributions that the virtue of collegiality may pertinently add to a faculty member’s career…. Based on this guidance, the clause does not include campus citizenship as a separate, fourth category of evaluation; rather, it embeds considerations of campus citizenship within the three evaluation categories of teaching, scholarly and creative productivity, and service. Thus, for example, a candidate’s lack of campus citizenship may be addressed in the teaching effectiveness category when it impinges on the faculty member’s ability to work with colleagues in mentoring students or in preparing them for prerequisites for more advanced courses, or in preparing them for group activities required of the academic discipline; or in scholarly or creative productivity when it impinges on the candidate’s ability to work collaboratively or respectively with colleagues in developing research grant proposals or organizing conferences; or in service when it prevents committees or programs from functioning as they should In addition, the clause aligns with University’s current Code of Professional Ethics Policy in defining campus citizenship, which includes taking on one’s fair and collaborative role in the work of the University, taking part in shared governance, supporting the academic freedom of one’s peers, and showing due respect for the opinion of others. We have also placed an emphasis on tolerance for differing points of view and the capacity to give civil expression to one′s own position. Finally, the Task Force has included text affirming that campus citizenship does not preclude vigorous debate, dissent, or protest in academic and/or intellectual matters and in issues concerning the governance of the institution, all of which we believe are vital components of a healthy intellectual environment. The policy specifically prohibits parties to the tenure and promotion process (colleagues, immediate administrative supervisors, the ART Committee, the Provost, President, or the Board of Trustees) to appeal to campus citizenship as a reason not to support a candidate because the candidate has expressed views or has spoken critically about matters within their rights and responsibilities as a faculty member. Conclusion The Task Force advocates for the adoption of the campus citizenship clause, which in our view aligns with the standard of professionalism presently set forth in the Faculty Policies Handbook’s Code of Professional Ethics Policy, AAUP guidance, and the practice of some of our peer institutions. The adoption of such a clause will serve to formally codify conditions that already exist undefined in our current promotion and tenure process, allowing for a more transparent process. At present, the ART Committee and other evaluators participating in the promotion and tenure evaluation process implicitly consider campus citizenship/collegiality matters given the inclusion of the Department/School Contribution Evaluation Form in the candidate’s confidential file. Pursuant to the form, departmental colleagues of a candidate are asked the following questions, four of which touch directly upon campus citizenship/collegiality matters: Acceptance of department assignments. (Does the faculty member accept department assignments willingly? Does he/she volunteer occasionally?) Performance on department assignments. (Does the faculty member complete assignments thoroughly and on time? What is the quality of his/her performance?) Professionalism. (Does he/she take a professional attitude toward human relations and personnel or student problems?) Cooperation (Does the faculty member act in the best interest of the department and the college with regard to non-teaching activities/tasks? Is he/she a good team member?) Overall Contribution. (Does he/she contribute positively to the overall energy, morale and accomplishments of the department? Any specific noteworthy contributions?) Given the above questions are posed and ostensibly considered by promotion and tenure evaluators, we believe the better practice is to fully define campus citizenship and formally articulate the way in which it will and will not be considered during the promotion and tenure evaluation process. If the clause is adopted, campus citizenship will not be assessed independently, but rather it will be understood as a part of the established evaluation areas of teaching, scholarly/creative productivity, and service. Moreover, evaluators will be precluded from citing campus citizenship as a reason not to support a candidate because of academic views or criticism about instructional matters that have been expressed in line with the faculty member’s rights and responsibilities. The Task Force fully acknowledges the very valid concerns that considerations of campus citizenship are too subjective, may stifle dissent, vigorous debate, or protest, and can possibly be “weaponized” by evaluators. The Task Force carefully weighed these considerations and counter that a more explicit policy developed and approved by the faculty with appropriate constraints to address such concerns is more effective than an undefined, implicit practice with no official guidance and limitations. In short, the adoption of a campus citizenship clause, in the Task Force’s judgement, will provide formal guidance to candidate and evaluators, as well as help restrict the reach of non-campus citizenship claims. Post-Tenure/Post-Six Year Review – Professional Development Plan & Other Suggested Additions Why the Professional Development Plan Clause was Developed As noted earlier, during the interview stage of the Task Force’s process, faculty members were asked to provide commentary on what is and what is not working well with the University’s present faculty evaluation system. With respect to the Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year Review Policy, some observed that the University’s current policy did not sufficiently encourage a faculty member to improve performance if the ART Committee determined improvement was necessary. Others noted that the current policy does not delineate the consequences of a positive review. Current policy requires members of the faculty to be peer-reviewed by the ART Committee every six years from the granting of tenure, or six years from the most recent promotion or sixth-year review. Central to the process is the ART Committee’s review of the faculty member’s dossier and confidential file based on the Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year review criteria. Following its review, the committee communicates to the faculty member in writing its evaluation and “suggestions for improvement where improvement is deemed necessary.” Per current policy, faculty are “expected to take the recommendations of the ART Committee seriously and implement suggestions as necessary.” As part of its deliberative process, the Task Force also analyzed the post-tenure evaluation practices of its peer institutions, which are summarized in the Table below: Table – Summary of Peer Institutions’ Post-Tenure Evaluation Policies Post-Tenure Review Professional Development Plan Commendation for Positive Reviews University of Redlands Yes -Every 6 Years 2 Year Prof. Development Plan Yes University of the Pacific Yes -Every 5 Years Unit Dependent Silent St. Edwards University Yes – Every 6 Years 2 Year Improvement Plan No Pacific Lutheran University Yes - Every 4 to 5 Years (depending on rank) by chair or dean Referral to Rank & Tenure Committee before dismissal proceedings if negative review Silent Valparaiso University Triggered Comprehensive Evaluations Based on two or more successive unsatisfactory annual evaluations by dean Performance Improvement Plan. Faculty member will have a minimum of one and a maximum of years in which to accomplish the plan’s goals. No Chapman University Tenured Faculty evaluated annually for promotion to full-professor and / or merit pay N/A N/A Santa Clara University Evaluated periodically by the department chair on different cycles as determined by each college or school Unit Dependent? Not addressed in Faculty HB Silent Loyola Marymount Tenured Faculty evaluated annually for merit pay N/A N/A As reflected above, there are two types of post-tenure reviews systems in place at the University’s peer institutions: those, like CLU’s current system, that evaluate every tenured faculty member periodically and those that are “triggered” by multiple years of substandard performance on annual evaluations. The Task Force considered both approaches and, in the end, decided against a “triggered” approach, primarily because introducing formal annual evaluations for tenured faculty would create additional workload for administrative supervisors. Moreover, there was concern that peer review is initially lacking in a “triggered” post-tenure review system tied to annual evaluations. Based on the results of the interviews and a review of the above peer institutions’ policies, the Task Force recommended that the University’s current policy be supplemented to (a) provide a mechanisms for recognizing distinguished faculty performance and (b) a means of assisting faculty members who are experiencing difficulties in achieving their expectations. (See Task Force Recommendation #18). The recommendations were presented at the Faculty Forum meetings held in October. While a faculty member during one of the forums expressed reservations about the introduction of a development plan process, the Task Force elected to keep the recommendation in place given the results of the interviews and peer analysis and proceeded with supplementing the University’s current policy accordingly. Overview of Recommended Additions The final version of proposed Post-Tenure/Post Six-Year Evaluation Policy, which has undergone several iterations, is reprinted in the Appendix for ease of reference. With respect to adding a mechanism for recognizing distinguished faculty performance, the Task Force recommended that the following suggested text be adopted: If the committee determines that the faculty member’s performance exceeds the applicable standard in all evaluation categories, the report will include a commendation for distinguished performance. The addition of the above text is in keeping with Standard 4 of the Minimum Standards for Good Practice recommended in the AAUP’s Post-Tenure Review: An AAUP Response report (see Table below). In determining the best approach to assist faculty members who have been determined by the ART to need improvement in a particular area(s), the Task Force elected to develop a professional development plan process. The Task Force’s decisions in this regard was based on guidance set forth in Standards 7 through 10 of the Minimum Standards for Good Practice recommended in the AAUP’s Post-Tenure Review: An AAUP Response report (https://www.aaup.org/report/post-tenure-review-aaup-response), as well as the University of Redlands Post-Tenure Review policy (https://sites.redlands.edu/globalassets/depts/office-of-the-provost/docs/2021/faculty-handbook-updated-december-2020.pdf). In the Table below, we outline how the proposed revisions to the Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year Policy align with the minimum standards advocated by the AAUP. AAUP Minimum Standards Text Responsive to AAUP Recommended Minimum Standards 1. Post-tenure review must ensure the protection of academic freedom as defined in the 1940 Statement of Principles. The application of its procedures, therefore, should not intrude on an individual faculty member’s proper sphere of professional self-direction, nor should it be used as a subterfuge for effecting programmatic change. Such a review must not become the occasion for a wide-ranging “fishing expedition” in an attempt to dredge up negative evidence 2. Post-tenure review must not be a reevaluation or revalidation of tenured status as defined in the 1940 Statement. In no case should post-tenure review be used to shift the burden of proof from the institution’s administration (to show cause why a tenured faculty member should be dismissed) to the individual faculty member (to show cause why he or she should be retained). Per the University’s policy, the purposes of the post-tenure/6th Year review are to “nurture faculty growth and development, to maintain quality teaching and advising, and to sustain meaningful contributions on the part of each faculty member to the life of the University community. The post-tenure/post-sixth year review provides an opportunity for faculty to engage in regular self-reflection on their academic career and to receive feedback from peers in order that these purposes may be achieved.” In addition, the Task Force has added the following text: “The post-tenure/post-sixth year review is not a re-evaluation of tenure or rolling contract status and is not undertaken for the purposes of discipline or dismissal.” 3. The written standards and criteria by which faculty members are evaluated in post-tenure review should be developed and periodically reviewed by the faculty. The faculty should also conduct the actual review process. The basic standard for appraisal should be whether the faculty member under review discharges conscientiously and with professional competence the duties appropriately associated with his or her position, not whether the faculty member meets the current standards for the award of tenure as those might have changed since the initial granting of tenure Per the University’s policy, the ART conducts the evaluation. Standard for Appraisal: Candidates for Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year review are expected to demonstrate that in the past six years they have: fulfilled the faculty responsibilities outlined in the “Faculty Responsibilities” portion of this handbook; maintained their teaching effectiveness, scholarly or creative productivity, and University/professional/community service at a level appropriate to the faculty member’s academic rank. In areas other than teaching, the committee will recognize that post-tenure/post-6th year faculty may reapportion their productivity, based on their talents and interests, to include greater contribution in either scholarly or creative work or University service and leadership within faculty governance. 4. Post-tenure review should be developmental and supported by institutional resources for professional development or a change of professional direction. In the event that an institution decides to invest the time and resources required for comprehensive or “blanket” review, it should also offer tangible recognition to those faculty members who have demonstrated high or improved performance. Please refer to the “purposes” text referenced earlier regarding the development aspect of the review. In addition, the Task Force has added the following text in Section B of the policy in response to standard 4: If the committee determines that the faculty member’s performance exceeds the applicable standard in all evaluation categories, the report will include a commendation for distinguished performance. Professional Development Plan If the ART subcommittee determines that a faculty member’s performance does not meet the applicable standard in an evaluation category, the faculty member will design, in consultation with the Dean, a two-year professional development plan to address the area(s) in need of improvement. It is the responsibility of the Dean to assist the faculty member not only in designing the plan but also in identifying University resources that can be used to support it. If an agreement on the plan’s goals cannot be reached, the Provost will be consulted. 5. Post-tenure review should be flexible enough to acknowledge different expectations in different disciplines and changing expectations at different stages of faculty careers Please see the following text, reprinted from the Standards for Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year Review section the University’s policy: In areas other than teaching, the committee will recognize that post-tenure/post-6th year faculty may reapportion their productivity, based on their talents and interests, to include greater contribution in either scholarly or creative work or University service and leadership within faculty governance. 6. Except when faculty appeals procedures direct that files be available to aggrieved faculty members, the outcome of evaluations should be confidential, that is, confined to the appropriate college or university persons or bodies and the faculty member being evaluated, released otherwise only at the discretion, or with the consent of, the faculty member All faculty evaluations are confidential. Please refer to the following text developed by the Task Force in the Introduction section of the evaluation document: To preserve the integrity of the evaluation process, those who are involved in it are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with Code of Professional Ethics [INSERT LINK], inclusiveness, and confidentiality, as well as meet all established deadlines. (Emphasis added) 7. If the system of post-tenure review is supplemented, or supplanted, by the option of a formal development plan, that plan cannot be imposed on the faculty member unilaterally, but must be a product of mutual negotiation. It should respect academic freedom and professional self-direction, and it should be flexible enough to allow for subsequent alteration or even its own abandonment. The standard here should be that of good faith on both sides—a commitment to improvement by the faculty member and to the adequate support of that improvement by the institution—rather than the literal fulfillment of a set of nonnegotiable demands or rigid expectations, quantitative or otherwise. The Development Plan section developed by the Task Force requires that the plan be designed by the faculty in consultation with the Dean. If the ART subcommittee determines that a faculty member’s performance does not meet the applicable standard in an evaluation category, the faculty member will design, in consultation with the Dean, a two-year professional development plan to address the area(s) in need of improvement. It is the responsibility of the Dean to assist the faculty member not only in designing the plan but also in identifying University resources that can be used to support it. If an agreement on the plan’s goals cannot be reached, the Provost will be consulted. 8. A faculty member should have the right to comment in response to evaluations, and to challenge the findings and correct the record by appeal to an elected faculty grievance committee.. he or she should have the same rights of comment and appeal concerning the manner in which any individualized development plan is formulated, the plan’s content, and any resulting evaluation The University’s current appeals policy stated that the faculty member appeal “if they feel the process has been unfair.” The Task Force is recommending that the text be replaced with a more comprehensive policy permits a faculty member to appeal at any point during the post-tenure/post-six year evaluation process: Faculty members may appeal the ART Committee’s initial Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year Review decision, the requirements of the Professional Development Plan, and/or final action resulting from the follow-up review process. Definitions have also been added that align with the promotion and tenure appeals process. 9. In the event that recurring evaluations reveal continuing and persistent problems with a faculty member’s performance that do not lend themselves to improvement after several efforts, and that call into question his or her ability to function in that position, then other possibilities, such as a mutually agreeable reassignment to other duties or separation, should be explored. If these are not practicable, or if no other solution acceptable to the parties can be found, then the administration should invoke peer consideration regarding any contemplated sanctions The Task Force has developed text that align with standard 9. Specifically, if the ART determines in a follow-up review that the faculty member has not met the goals of the development plan, then the faculty member and Provost may negotiate other possibilities, such as a mutually agreeable reassignment to other duties or separation. If the committee finds by majority vote that the faculty member has not met the goals of the plan, the committee will conclude its work by explaining that finding in a written report to the faculty member. The faculty member will be afforded an opportunity to submit a written response to the Chair of the committee within ten academic days of submission of the report. Thereafter, the ART Committee’s report, along with the faculty member’s responses (if any), and evaluative file will be submitted to the Provost. The faculty member and the Provost will then meet to negotiate a mutually acceptable course of action responsive to the issues identified in the committee’s follow-up review report. Options may include a nonstandard faculty workload profile, reassignment of the faculty member to other duties within the University, some other mutually acceptable plan or course of action, or voluntary separation. Note: The text regarding President resolving a disagreement between the faculty member and provost has been stricken. 10. The standard for dismissal or other severe sanction remains that of adequate cause, and the mere fact of successive negative reviews does not in any way diminish the obligation of the institution to show such cause in a separate forum before an appropriately constituted hearing body of peers convened for that purpose. Evaluation records may be admissible but rebuttable as to accuracy. Even if they are accurate, the administration is still required to bear the burden of proof and demonstrate through an adversarial proceeding not only that the negative evaluations rest on fact, but also that the facts rise to the level of adequate cause for dismissal or other severe sanction. The faculty member must be afforded the full procedural safeguards set forth in the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings and the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which include, among other safeguards, the opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. The Task Force has added text in the policy that affirms that the post-tenure/post-six year evaluation process is separate and distinct from dismissal or severe sanction. Introduction Section: “The post-tenure/post-sixth year review is not a re-evaluation of tenure or rolling contract status and is not undertaken for the purposes of discipline or dismissal.” B. Evaluation and Action (at the end of Follow-Up Review subsection) Note: The procedures for dismissing or severely sanctioning faculty for cause are separate from these policies and may only be invoked pursuant to the Suspension or Dismissal for Cause Policy [INSERT LINK]. Conclusion The Task Force has introduced several proposed revisions that better align the University’s Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year Policy with common higher education practice. As outlined above, care has been taken to address the standards for good practice set forth in the AAUP’s Post-Tenure Review: An AAUP Response report. Moreover, the revisions address two specific concerns raised by some faculty during the interview process. Most importantly, the Task Force views the introduction of a professional development plan component in the best interest of the faculty. As presently written, our policy is silent with respect to what occurs should a faculty member choose not to take the recommendations of the ART Committee seriously and implement suggestions as necessary. The introduction of a development plan, which must be a product of mutual negotiation between the faculty member and Dean and is subject to appeal, affords a faculty member the opportunity to address an area of concern identified by the ART Committee, making it less likely that the Suspension or Dismissal for Cause Policy will be invoked prematurely by the administration. Appendix Post-tenure/Post-6th Year Review Policy and Procedures Following the 2/4/6-year review process, faculty are reviewed by the ART Committee every six years. The purposes of this review are to nurture faculty growth and development, to maintain quality teaching and advising, and to sustain meaningful contributions on the part of each faculty member to the life of the University community. The post-tenure/post-sixth year review provides an opportunity for faculty to engage in regular self-reflection on their academic career and to receive feedback from peers in order that these purposes may be achieved. The post-tenure/post-sixth year review is not a re-evaluation of tenure or rolling contract status and is not undertaken for the purposes of discipline or dismissal. Eligibility for Post-tenure/Post-6th Year Review Members of the faculty will be reviewed every six years from the granting of tenure, or six years from the most recent promotion or most recent sixth-year review, whichever is later. If a faculty member is a member of the ART Committee at the time they are eligible for Post Tenure/Post-6th Year review, the review will be postponed until the year after the faculty member leaves the ART Committee. Deans are exempt from the review while they are serving in their administrative posts. Additionally, faculty members who are on leave during the prescribed year of review will ordinarily be reviewed the year after returning. Exceptions to participating in the Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year review may also be granted at the discretion of the Provost if the faculty member has submitted a letter of intent to retire, resign, or apply for early retirement to be effective within two years from the academic year of the review. Finally, a faculty member may postpone a scheduled Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year review for extenuating circumstances, such as health problems, upon the approval of the Provost. Standards for Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year Review Candidates for Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year review are expected to demonstrate that in the past six years they have: fulfilled the faculty responsibilities outlined in the “Faculty Responsibilities” portion of this handbook; and maintained their teaching effectiveness, scholarly or creative productivity, and University/professional/community service at a level appropriate to the faculty member’s academic rank. In areas other than teaching, the committee will recognize that post-tenure/post-6th year faculty may reapportion their productivity, based on their talents and interests, to include greater contribution in either scholarly or creative work or University service and leadership within faculty governance. Procedures A. Initiation of Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year Review Academic Affairs will notify faculty by September 15 of the review year of their responsibility for compiling a dossier based on guidelines provided to them. Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year Review Files: An evaluation by the ART Committee will be based on a Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth Year review dossier. The file will consist of two parts: a dossier, prepared by the faculty member in accordance with forms and guidelines provided by the ART Committee and kept on file with the Office of Academic Affairs. The dossier should include: a personal statement a current curriculum vitae sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the faculty member meets or exceeds the standards for post-tenure/post-sixth- year review Materials added to the dossier by the Office of Academic Affairs: copies of all of the faculty member's California Lutheran University course evaluations course loads, enrollment and grade distributions evaluations from student advisees and/or mentees a current copy of the faculty member’s academic unit evaluation guidelines a confidential file that contains evaluations solicited by Academic Affairs on behalf of the ART Committee. These evaluations include: evaluations by faculty inside of the department evaluations by the immediate administrative supervisor and Dean No unsolicited material will be accepted for this file and this part of the file is closed to the faculty member under review. To maintain the collegial working relationships of small departments and academic units that might be placed at risk should the contents of individual evaluations be disclosed, the University expects the authors of all evaluation recommendations listed above to treat those evaluations as confidential, to be read only by the applicable administrative evaluators and ART Committee. Candidates undergoing review will not have access to these written evaluations and individual evaluators may not share them with the candidate. B. Evaluation and Action The ART subcommittee reviews all the information in the dossier and the confidential file. Thereafter, the committee evaluates whether the faculty member has met the applicable standard for Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year review, utilizing the general faculty evaluation criteria and academic unit guidelines. The elected faculty members of the ART Committee submit their evaluation in each case to the Provost, indicating whether the faculty member has met the applicable standards for Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year review. The committee’s conclusions shall be based on a simple majority vote. A committee member in the minority has the discretion to submit an anonymous written dissenting opinion, which will be included in the report. The ART Committee will communicate to the faculty member in writing its evaluation. If the committee determines that the faculty member’s performance exceeds the applicable standard in all evaluation categories, the report will include a commendation for distinguished performance. If the ART subcommittee determines that the faculty member’s performance does not meet the applicable standard in an evaluation category, the report will include suggestions for improvement where improvement is deemed necessary. Faculty are expected to take the recommendations of the ART Committee seriously and implement suggestions as necessary by developing a professional development plan in consultation with the faculty member’s Dean. Professional Development Plan If the ART subcommittee determines that a faculty member’s performance does not meet the applicable standard in an evaluation category, the faculty member will design, in consultation with the Dean, a two-year professional development plan to address the area(s) in need of improvement. It is the responsibility of the Dean to assist the faculty member not only in designing the plan but also in identifying University resources that can be used to support it. If an agreement on the plan’s goals cannot be reached, the Provost will be consulted. The Follow-up Review In the spring of the second year subsequent to the Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year review, the faculty member will undergo a follow-up review by the ART Committee to determine whether the goals outlined in the professional development plan have been met. The Dean and the faculty member will agree, in advance, upon the scope of the follow-up review and the composition of the dossier that will be assembled. Although the dossier may include evidence that the faculty member has been meeting the applicable standards in all evaluation categories, the follow-up review will focus more narrowly on the issues raised in the previous Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year review. The dossier will typically include a self-evaluation and a letter from the Dean that evaluates the quality of the faculty member’s responses to the issues raised in the previous review, and any other evidence documenting progress the faculty member has made while implementing the professional development plan. The completed dossier will be evaluated by the ART Committee, which will determine whether the faculty member has achieved the goals identified in the professional development plan. If the committee finds by majority vote that the faculty member has met the goals of the plan, the process is complete, and a new Post-Tenure/Post-6th Year cycle will begin in the next appointment year. Copies of the professional development plan and the assessment of the progress achieved by the end of the development period will be submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs to be added to the faculty member’s personnel file. If the committee finds by majority vote that the faculty member has not met the goals of the plan, the committee will conclude its work by explaining that finding in a written report to the faculty member. The faculty member will be afforded an opportunity to submit a written response to the Chair of the committee within ten academic days of submission of the report. Thereafter, the ART Committee’s report, along with the faculty member’s responses (if any), and evaluative file will be submitted to the Provost. The faculty member and the Provost will then meet to negotiate a mutually acceptable course of action responsive to the issues identified in the committee’s follow-up review report. Options may include a nonstandard faculty workload profile, reassignment of the faculty member to other duties within the University, some other mutually acceptable plan or course of action, or voluntary separation. Note: The procedures for dismissing or severely sanctioning faculty for cause are separate from these policies and may only be invoked pursuant to the Suspension or Dismissal for Cause Policy [INSERT LINK]. C. Appeals Faculty members may appeal the ART Committee’s initial Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year Review decision, the requirements of the Professional Development Plan, and/or final action resulting from the follow-up review process. The faculty member’s appeal letter and all documentation and evidence in support of it must be submitted in writing to the Provost within [ten academic days] of the submission of initial Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year Review decision, the Provost's final approval of the Professional Development Plan, or the Provost's final follow-up review decision. By filing a grievance, the faculty is asking the Grievance Committee to review the process and advise the Provost regarding whether or not the process has been fair. Comparable to appeals emanating from promotion and tenure evaluations, formal appeals may be made only on procedural, not substantive grounds (i.e., prejudicial error or inadequate consideration). The Grievance Committee will not substitute its judgment on the merits of the case for promotion/tenure but rather determine whether the decision was the result of adequate consideration. (See Step III of Grievance Procedures.) The term prejudicial does not refer to the state of mind of the members of the ART Committee or administrative evaluator; rather, it refers to an assessment of the likely effect of an error in procedure on a review decision. An error is prejudicial if it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appellant would have been reached in the absence of the error. The term “inadequate consideration” refers to procedural rather than substantive issues related to the Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year Review evaluation process. Inadequate consideration occurs if the ART Committee or administrative evaluators (i) violated the stated procedures for including relevant evidence in the promotion and tenure file or using that evidence as a basis for judgment in the review and (ii) it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appellant would have been reached had adequate consideration been given to the proper evidence. Alternatively, inadequate consideration occurs when a decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the evaluation file. Note: An allegation that a decision emanating from Post-Tenure/Post-Sixth-Year Review represents an instance of unlawful discrimination will be referred to the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources. Allegations of unlawful discrimination will be considered and resolved before an appeal on procedural grounds is considered. 2</s>

<s>[INST] ART Task Force Recommendations .txt [/INST] ART Task Force Preliminary Recommendations The ART Task Force is pleased to share a draft of our preliminary recommendations for revising Cal Lutheran’s faculty evaluation policies. We wanted to share these in advance of the faculty forums, scheduled on Oct. 27th & Nov. 2nd. These recommendations have been drafted after receiving the insightful results from our faculty survey and the consultant-led interviews, as well as following our consultant-led meetings on our institution’s ART policies and procedures. In addition, the task force has studied the scholarly literature and reviewed the tenure and review procedures used at our peer and other institutions.  We look forward to discussing these items in more detail during the forums and there will be additional opportunities to provide feedback on how these potential recommendations, as well as others, may be implemented. The goal of the task force is to present a final proposal to FAC for Handbook changes by the end of February 2022. Draft Recommendation #1: Develop a policy requiring each academic division or school to develop supplemental guidelines for tenure and promotion to account for differences in the nature of teaching effectiveness, scholarly productivity/professional service/creative works, and service across academic divisions or schools. Supporting details: The policy text should require that the division or school guidelines (a) conform to the general University evaluation categories published in the Faculty Policies Handbook; (b) make clear what each discipline values in pedagogy, scholarly productivity/professional service/creative works, and service; and (c) be used by all evaluators in the annual, promotion, and tenure evaluation processes. Moreover, procedural guidance regarding the development and approval of the academic division guidelines should be also developed. Draft recommendation #2: Refine the “Teaching Effectiveness” category to more clearly define and provide examples of “teaching effectiveness” and develop a corresponding teaching evaluation rubric for publication in the ART Guidelines document. Supporting details: For example, this would be comparable to the standards and rubric developed by the University of Kansas: https://cte.ku.edu/benchmarks-teaching-effectiveness-project Draft Recommendation #3: Modify the current "Effectiveness as an Advisor" category to include mentoring and also include a list of corresponding examples of activities.  Draft Recommendation #4: Refine the University "Scholarly Activity and Professional Service" category to clearly define “scholarship” and “professional service” and augment with a list of additional examples of acceptable forms of corresponding activities. Draft Recommendation #5: Refine the "Service" category by developing formal definitions of "university service" and “community service,” and providing examples of corresponding activities. (note to consider department service). Draft Recommendation #6: Develop guidelines to account for each candidate’s administrative workload assignments during promotion and tenure evaluations as may be applicable.  Supporting details: For example, if a candidate’s workload assignment requires more administrative service (such as serving as department chair/program director, director of a center, etc.) and less teaching and scholarly activities, the expectation for teaching effectiveness and scholarship or creative work shall not be compromised, but the expected volume of teaching and research may be reduced and taken into consideration by promotion and tenure evaluators. Draft Recommendation #7: Develop a new “Contributions to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)” evaluation category.   Supporting Details: Faculty should be required to submit personal statements in the Annual Activity Report and promotion and tenure dossiers detailing their specific individual and/or collaborative activities aimed at supporting diversity, equity, an inclusion, discussing the context, importance, and impact of their contributions in teaching, scholarly productivity/professional service/creative works, and service activities during the evaluation period. Note: We recommend that the University adopt a staged roll-out of the DEI criteria and provide DEI training to both faculty and evaluators. Draft recommendation #8: Develop a new “Collegiality” or “Campus Citizenship” evaluation category, which is consistent with the University’s values.  Supporting details: The text should emphasize that the evaluator’s focus with respect to this evaluation category solely relates to collaboration and constructive cooperation associated with a faculty member’s overall performance. The text should also note that an assessment of collegiality must not be confused with conformity, sociability, or likability and may not be interpreted in a way that violates the principles of academic freedom. Draft Recommendation #9: Retain our current 2/4/6-year faculty evaluation system (as opposed to using an annual/mid-probationary system), but with a strengthened annual reflection component emphasizing formative feedback and goal setting. Draft Recommendation #10: Develop a comprehensive peer and administrator teaching evaluation policy that clearly delineates the frequency of teaching observations and outlines in procedural detail how peer evaluators and courses to be observed are selected, and how the data will be shared during the faculty review process. Draft Recommendation #11: Supplement the second- and fourth-year review evaluation procedures to provide more narrative detail explaining the current step-wise process and develop new text that highlights the formative aspect of these evaluations. Supporting details: For example, the text should address in greater detail the department chair/program director evaluation and ART Committee deliberations and reporting requirements, etc. The ART Committee evaluation should discuss the faculty member’s strengths and weaknesses and identify areas that require development for continued progress toward tenure (if any).The Dean (or Provost) should discuss the written evaluation with the faculty member. Draft Recommendation #12: Refine the “Criteria for Promotion to Rank” category by clearly articulating and defining the standards that must be met for each academic rank. Draft Recommendation #13: Supplement the “Institutional Need Requirement and Tenure Quota” policy with detailed procedures addressing how such determinations are made and implemented. Draft Recommendation #14: Refine the “Eligibility for Inclusion” category by developing more inclusive policies to address early tenure application as well as the pausing of the “tenure clock.” Draft Recommendation #15: For formative purposes, modify the University's current policy regarding an applicant's access to the content of the Confidential file. Draft Recommendation #16: Supplement the “Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Review” category to provide more narrative detail regarding the current stepwise evaluation process. Supporting details: For example, develop procedural text that clearly explains how tenured faculty inside and outside the department conduct their evaluations, the role of external evaluators, how the department chair/program director and dean conduct their respective evaluations and document the results,as well as outline the way the ART Committee arrives at and documents its Draft Recommendation, etc. Draft Recommendation #17: Include a clause in the “Evaluation and Action” subsection indicating that all evaluators are expected to evaluate candidates based solely on the content of the evaluation file (dossier and confidential file) and the results of candidate interviews (as applicable). Supporting details: If the ART Committee seeks additional content, the faculty member will be notified and be afforded an opportunity to respond. Draft Recommendation #18: Supplement the “Post-tenure/Post-6th Year Review Policy and Procedures” to provide a mechanism for recognizing distinguished faculty performance, as well as a means of assisting faculty members who are experiencing difficulties in achieving their expectations. Draft Recommendation #19: Develop a policy that addresses evaluator conflict of interest. 1</s>

<s>[INST] Article I Feedback.txt [/INST] I. Governance and Economic Security of the Faculty AAUP In Article 1, the document generally does well in observing AAUP guidelines or recommendations for governance. However, in Article 5, there are objectionable limitations to the faculty role with regard to shared decision-making around compensation and benefits, which is in clear opposition to AAUP guidelines or recommendations with regard to salary and compensation. Global Comments (Not Sure Who From): Ok on Visiting profs—both rank and not voting BUT a Professor of the Practice has a term limited contract, potentially similar to that of a visiting prof. ¿no? Sure, different intention but still.  What would be the clause addressing faculty meeting attendance? Why Faculty Bylaws instead of legislation? Article 1 Section 1 Niederstadt - Section 1 This may fall under copy editing but I think “Tenure Line” should be hyphenated as “Tenure-line”. Does “Associate Librarian” exist as a staff role? My understanding is that the library leadership consists of the Dean of the Library and several directors. While I don’t know their exact titles, they include: Ellen Kane, Kelly Faulkner, Thomas San Filippo, and, previously, Kate Boylan. In recent years, who held the “faculty-status” role became an issue of contention. UFO – Section 1 Why are Professors of Practice and Senior Professors of Practices separated Instructors? Section 2 UFO - Section 2: What is the definition of “half-time?” UFO: CoCA already has a very full charge. Why not have the Provost office keep a roster of committee membership, in collaboration with CoCA, since there are many ad hoc and working groups that don’t fall under the purview of the committee? Service in the UFO and the Faculty Collective are supposed to count equally towards service but CoCA doesn’t keep track of coordinators. Section 3 AAUP - 3.1, 3.2 If we are still following Robert’s Rules for faculty meetings, I recommend using language from Robert’s Rules when discussing the person chairing meetings or handling business meetings in the absence of the President— the President’s designee, I think. Perhaps something such as, in the President’s absence, the Provost or the President’s designee. This leaves options for situations in which neither the president or provost can preside. Niederstadt - 3.1 If a faculty member, e.g., member of CoCA, co-facilitates the faculty meeting with the President, would they – or CoCA? – also have the right to restrict attending to voting members? Similarly, throughout when reference is made to the President or the Provost taking a certain action, could the faculty co-facilitator do the same? UFO - 3.1 The second sentence is inconsistent with Section 2, in which administrative officers are also listed as Voting Members. I would like to retain the term ‘chair’ but clarify it as ‘chair of CoCA’. Niederstadt - Section 3.3. Procedure at Meetings Is it worth spelling out how voting will occur – i.e., using the green “yes” button on Zoom instead of thumbs-up emoji? Asking b/c the lack of clarity has caused confusion in recent years. UFO – 3.3 I disagree with the statement that the president or the provost will decide the format of the meeting. Although I would like these meetings to be in-person, I would like the current system to continue where majority preferences of the faculty decides the format of the meeting. AAUP - 3.5 b.3 My understanding of an abstaining vote is that the person abstaining is stating profound disagreement with the voting procedural process itself, or reluctance to engage in the process for some reason. In either case, abstaining is not simply a vote of “no.” While it’s true that abstentions mean that the person did not cast a vote, nonetheless abstaining votes signal that persons are, in fact, using their voice and, as such, are abstaining votes are generally symbolic for the record.  UFO – 3.5 (SS) What is the difference between legislation vs. bylaws? Why are we making the switch? UFO – 3.5 (WJ) Because the necessary number of votes (e.g., “more than one-fourth of the entire voting faculty”) is noted and significant, shouldn’t there be a clearer sense of how to quantify the votes in digital meetings? That is, are “ayes” and emoji hands the official metric? Should there be better records of the vote? Perhaps addressed in the minutes (3.8)? I’m not sure abstentions should register as a non-vote for “matters other than a change to Faculty Bylaws.” It creates a zero-sum scenario for voters who simply have concerns that haven’t been addressed yet, and can potentially lead to more contentious votes. Niederstadt - Section 3.5. Necessary Number of Votes Out of curiosity, why two weeks instead of one, especially in the age of digital communications? Similarly, why would fewer than two weeks’ notice require unanimous consent as opposed to two-thirds or three-quarters? Niederstadt - Section 3.9 I think Educational Council needs to be modified to indicate that it is a body of the Student Government Association (SGA) Section 4 President – 4.1: Remove certifications.  “Leading to one or more major/degrees…” Add a sentence there that says the Provost is responsible for the organization of all academic units. For student services in many places, add “if available and willing”  UFO - Section 4.1 (WJ) The explanation of departments, programs, and academic units might benefit from incorporating some language related to faculty definitions established in section 1 (and again in Article II). That is, how are faculty related to departments and programs? More plainly, I just recommend some clarifications about the relationships between faculty and departments/programs, especially for non-tenured faculty and PoPs who can be associated with both in tenuous ways, e.g., a program or dept may subsequently be reconfigured without the faculty member’s intradepartmental say but as of now they nonetheless rely largely on departments/program coordinators for assessment, review, promotions, tenure, reappointments, searches, etc. (This is also a point relevant to Article II and the types of appointments and contracts described as well as the details of “joint appointments” in Article II 2.5 and termination in Article IV 8.2.) UFO Section 4.2.1 General (SS) There is no mention of annual evaluations of untenured faculty and Professors of Practice UFO Section 4.2.1 #2: (SS) The added section gives a broad authority to the president without any criteria on what can be credible basis for removal, such as, what does “failure to carry out duties and responsibilities” look like. Will a faculty with 20-25 advisees refusing to take on MAP cohort be considered dereliction of duties? UFO Section 4.2.1 #4 (SS) It is unclear what indicators will be used to identify sufficient labor. Recently, the administration has used the number of hours as a way to determine remuneration or course release for additional labor. This approach doesn’t take into account that most of the work we do requires considerable coordination and deliberation with colleagues across campus. We are being transformed from salaried employees to hourly wage earners. Curriculum Committee - 4.2. Department Chairs/4.2.1. Selection and Term of Office/4. Do we have a sense on how many folks take a course release versus a stipend? I’ve only known the former and would be curious if this is a standard practice in other departments/programs. If it is not, where is the interest to have this included? Curriculum Committee - 4.2.2. Responsibilities and Authority/1. Do we want to spell out in more detail what it means to be the “official channel” b/t dept and administration? Curriculum Committee 4.2.2. Responsibilities and Authority/6. Is there any more one could say about what this annual assessment should be comprised of? Section 5 AAUP - Section 5: 5. Standing and Ad Hoc Committees of the Faculty It’s odd to have the ad hoc committees mentioned in the proposed Bylaws alongside the standing committees without general operating rules for why those ad hoc committees might be convened, by whom, and for how long? In past years (and according to Robert’s Rules, I think), there has been an interest to curtail the proliferation of committees at Wheaton with the understanding that too many committees obstruct good governance.    #2 With regard to the composition of committees by racial and gender categories, I think the umbrella term “diverse and inclusive representation” makes sense. However, there seems to be a contradiction by the working group in that “gender diversity” is explicitly allowed and written into the charge of the Appeals and Hearing Committee. If explicitly acknowledging gender diversity remains a value at the College, then perhaps explicitly acknowledging racial and ethnic diversity on standing committees whenever possible should also be valued based on the statements the College has made about adopting and valuing racial and ethnic diversity in the faculty.  UFO (SS) There are no guidelines for Professors of Practice and Senior Professors of Practice to serve on Standing and Ad Hoc Committees. I recommend adding Professor of Practice being eligible for positions allocated for untenured faculty and Senior Professors of Practice are eligible for positions allocated to tenured faculty from respective divisions. UFO (SS) - Section 5 #1: The new addition is too vague. There might be personal medical issues or caregiving issues that might preclude someone from serving on committees. The added section is too broad. UFO Section 5.1 #2 (SS) I’m assuming this refers to changes in College policies, not policies for the ad-hoc committee? Currently, I like that ad-hoc committees can make changes to policies about their committee. For instance, UFO recently changed our policy to always have non-tenure-track and tenure-track Co-Coordinators. With many of the committees having representation of “untenured faculty,” we need a clear definition of this earlier in our ByLaws to show that it includes both tenure-track and non-tenure-track. (ie: Untenured faculty are all faculty members who have not been awarded tenure.) AAUP: 5.1, 3 a–d I don’t understand the verbosity of this section. Why not simply state that committee members have an obligation to abide by [or observe] standards of professional conduct as specified in the Bylaws governing professional ethics and conflicts of interest [Article 3, Section 2]? UFO - Section 5.1 #3 (SS): The inclusion of vague terms that are open to interpretation, BIAS, is problematic. As a faculty of color, some of my departmental colleagues have directly accused me of bias when advocating for equitable practices in the department. The use of the term ‘bias’ as a criteria to remove faculty from committees, while no such provision exists for the provost or the president, is VERY problematic. I am confused as to what problem this entire section (a through d) is trying to address. For example, are committee members not supposed to bring their preexisting views (bias) to their roles as committee members? President: 5.1.3.c Remove it, d is enough Niederstadt - Section 5.1  Given the recent challenges of filling committees and that the term is 2-3 years for most committees, is four years to long a period of ineligibility? What are the responsibilities involved in being in a Reserve Members Group? Niederstadt -Section 5.1 3. d. Should this read “A potential conflict of interest must be disclosed…” Niederstadt - Section 5.1 4 Is a parental or FMLA leave considered a “leave of absence”. If not, should they be included/spelled out? President: 5.1.9  Add “digital recording with consent and in accordance with Massachusetts law” Niederstadt - Section 5.1 10 Who is defined as a member of the college community? Does it include alumni? Parents? Students? Norton residents who take courses at Wheaton? UFO Section 5.1 #10 (SS): What about minutes of the Appeals and Hearing committee when they discuss specific faculty member’s concerns? Niederstadt - Section 5.12 Could we add that the list must clearly identify who is serving as chair? AAUP: 5.2  I support the departmental representative continuing to vote on the tenure case, as a vote on behalf of the department.  Niederstadt - Section 5.2.   How/when is “academic division” defined? 5.2.1 (p. 9) uses “Tenure Committee” instead of “Committee on Tenure” President: 5.2.1: Remove President as a member of the Committee on Tenure Niederstadt - Section 5.2.1 I know that in the past, History has counted as both humanities and social science. I think this needs to be addressed. For example, should History of Art then count as both? What about faculty who are trained in one academic division but appointed in another? How should they “count” for elections? The suggestion re: newly tenured faculty is confusing b/c it doesn’t distinguish between colleagues who may be on a committee pre-tenure, then tenured and continuing service on the committee vs. what I think is being suggested, which is that anyone not currently on a committee is now allowed to serve on a committee as a tenured representative unless they have been tenured for at least one year.  What if the Provost is a member of the candidate’s department/program? I saw that this is addressed on page 10, but is it worth addressing here (halfway down page 9), too? Should it read “one full-time teaching member…”? On page 9: What qualifies as “actively teaching”? For example, if I have a course release and am not teaching a course but am running the collection, hosting class visits, teaching during those visits, and advising, training, and/or mentoring students and work-study students, am I “actively teaching”? Should “not on leave” be substituted for “actively teaching”? This may not be addressed in this article or section, but my understanding is that a candidate for tenure can choose to be represented by someone other than a member of their department. Is that addressed elsewhere? With regard to the question as to whether or not the candidate’s representative should vote, I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which they would vote against the candidate (as long as the candidate can choose to be represented by someone other than the department chair or program coordinator should they wish to do so). It is not entirely analogous and consequences are certainly different, but in the museum field, anyone proposing an acquisition of an object is not allowed to vote on the proposal. What do our peer institutions do? UFO - Section 5.2.1 (SS): There is no mention of whether the preference of the untenured faculty will have any weight on the decision who will represent their tenure case. Again, the language of bias is problematic. See above. UFO - Section 5.2.2: the term “untenured faculty” is used. Later in most other committees, the term “non-tenured members of the teaching faculty” is used. Why aren’t these consistent, and are they defined differently? If so, we need clear definitions, as mentioned above. SS - We have three divisions; one representative from each division plus two untenured faculty will make five members in the provost advisory committee Niederstadt – Section 5.2.3. b. vii.  Yes, I think the frequency of the reviews should be defined Niederstadt –Section 5.2.3. b. xii And a list of committee members with indication of chairs? As mentioned above, we may need to add text here re: role of CoCA in co-facilitating the faculty meeting with the President. UFP - Section 5.2.3, # xii (SS): The provost office should be responsible for keeping an official list of all voting members of the faculty in each academic year since they are in-charge of renewing contracts. Niederstadt –Section 5.2.4. c.  Yes, I think similar text should be added to the description of the Educational Policy Committee (EdPol). Niederstadt –Section 5.2.5 Yes, I think standing subcommittees and addressing curriculum should be added to charge for EdPol Curriculum Committee - 5.2.5 - Committee on Education Policy/b/i. The wording “new courses (including but not limited to 1⁄2 credit courses)” sounds weird to me. I get why it was added, since it was in the documentation previously, but what about wording it: “all new courses” UFO - Section 5.2.5.b.i & 5.2.11.c: Why the need to specify about 1⁄2 credit courses? What about 1⁄4 credit ones? By only saying “new courses of all credit sizes” (or something similar) wouldn’t that cover courses of any credit amount? Niederstadt – Section 5.2.5 iv It is sometimes unclear which changes require review and/or approval from EdPol. Faculty Bylaws is unlikely the place to provide clarity on this but it’s a concern.  For example, if a department wants to count courses from another department for its major, does that require EdPol approval?  What changes to a major or minor require review and approval vs. those that do not? Section 5.2.5 viii To what does size or structure refer (particularly the former)? Is it number of faculty or majors or enrolled students? President: 5.2.6 Remove “gender” before diversity (so that all kinds of diversity are considered) Niederstadt –Section 5.2.6 How will the members of the Committee on Tenure, the Committee on Faculty Scholarship and Promotions and the Advisory Committee be chosen for the Appeals and Hearing Committee. Curriculum Committee - 5.2.6 Appeals and Hearing Committee What does it mean when you say gender diversity? And what does it mean to be considered? UFO - Section 5.2.6 (SS): Only gender diversity is listed as a factor to consider on the Appeals and Hearing Committee. Diversity is quite broad and other demographic factors should also be considered. Niederstadt –Section 5.2.8 a. As mentioned above, what if the candidate for promotion wants to be represented by someone from outside their department? UFO - Section 5.2.8.a (first paragraph): Why is the term “teaching members of the faculty” rather than simply “faculty” to avoid confusion? UFO - Section 5.2.8.a (last paragraph): Why must the advocate be tenured? I could envision someone wanting a Senior Professor of Practice as their advocate. Why limit who someone can choose? Niederstadt –Section 5.2.9 b. It is worth mentioning who determines the comparison group of colleges?  UFO - Section 5.2.9 (SS): Unclear who the 4th committee member will be in the Committee on Faculty Workload and Economic Status. President: 5.2.9.v Remove “ensure” and replace with “advocate” Niederstadt –Section 5.2.10 - Committee on Library, Technology, and Learning This relates to my second comment above (on page 1) re: Associate Librarian. Niederstadt –Section 5.2.11 - The Curriculum Committee I don’t that that Executive Dean of Student Success still exists as a title. (It’s not Dolores title.) UFO - SS – The committee that is no longer active, Faculty Planning and Priorities Committee, has a charge to meet with the executive committees of the BoTs at least once a year. Something like this will be very valuable. Is there another faculty committee that can take on this charge? AAUP General Comment on Committee Composition: After the full discussion at this year’s September AAUP meeting, it is strange to see that the standing committees did not voluntarily reduce their committee numbers. Five and six faculty members sitting on nearly all 12 standing committees is unsustainable. I think many of the committees, excluding the tenure committee and perhaps the Educational Policy Committee, should be composed of 3 teaching faculty representing each of the three divisions with at least one of the faculty a tenured professor. If the working group has the authority to recommend an adjustment to the number of faculty serving on standing committees, it should do so.</s>

<s>[INST] ARTICLE II - Wheaton College Bylaws (Recommendations to SG)(1.13.23).txt [/INST] Article II. Faculty Status, Contracts, and Initial Appointments Faculty Status – Types of Faculty Appointments The College appoints faculty members to one of the following types of faculty appointments: Full-time Teaching Faculty Tenure-Line Faculty Tenure Track Faculty Tenured Faculty Professors of the Practice Visiting Faculty The College also reserves the right to assign faculty status to certain administrators (see Article II, Section 1.3) and to acknowledge faculty members who have separated from service with the College following distinguished careers with the honorary designation of Associate Professor or Professor Emeritus (Emerita) (see Article II, Section 1.4). 1.1. Full-Time Teaching Faculty Full-time faculty teaching appointments are made to either a Tenure-Line or Professor of the Practice position in one of the College’s academic departments or program areas. Regardless of the type of appointment line, members of the full-time teaching faculty have duties equivalent to a full-time workload (see the Employee Handbook for Faculty) in accordance with the duties and responsibilities delineated in the faculty member’s appointment contract. Members of the full-time teaching faculty enjoy the rights and protections set forth in these Faculty Bylaws. Moreover, they are afforded full voting privileges at faculty and academic department or program meetings. They also may serve on standing and ad hoc committees and task forces for which they are eligible. Full-time teaching faculty are expected to adhere to the responsibilities and policies outlined in the Employee Handbook for Faculty and these Faculty Bylaws, as well as observe other College policies applicable to them to the extent they do not violate academic freedom. To be appointed to the full-time teaching faculty, candidates must possess the appropriate academic credentials and/or equivalent professional experience to teach courses in their academic discipline(s). Tenure-Line Faculty Tenure-Line faculty are full-time teaching faculty members who either hold a Tenure-Track probationary appointment or Tenured (continuous) appointment. Tenure-Track Faculty Tenure-track faculty are full-time teaching faculty members who normally hold probationary appointments to one of two academic ranks: Instructor or Assistant Professor. In rare circumstances, an initial appointment may be made at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. Tenure-track faculty are eligible to stand for tenure (see Article IV, Section 4) at the conclusion of the candidate’s probationary period. Tenured Faculty Tenured faculty are full-time teaching faculty who hold tenured (continued) appointments (see Article IV, Section 4) at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. Professors of the Practice Professors of the Practice are members of the full-time teaching faculty who possess expertise and achievements in a relevant field of instruction. Duties entail the equivalent of a standard full-time teaching load (see Article IV, Section 1.1.1) and service activities (see Article IV, Section 1.3). Specific responsibilities entailing course equivalencies will be detailed in individual appointment letters. Individuals appointed to the Professor of the Practice line are assigned the academic title of Professor of the Practice or Senior Professor of the Practice. Professors of the Practice share equal standing in departments and programs with their Tenure-Line colleagues and have the following rights: Voting rights in faculty and department/program meetings Protection under the standards of notification for non-reappointment Eligibility for service on committees Access to and protection under the grievance procedures Academic freedom Faculty benefits and raises Access to faculty development funds Appointment to the Professor of the Practice line, however, does not include eligibility for tenure, promotion to any tenure-seeking academic rank, or sabbatical leave, regardless of length of employment. Professors of the Practice are offered initial annual term contracts, followed by eligibility for multi-year contracts of two- and three-year durations as specified in the Duration of Appointment section of these Faculty Bylaws (see Article II, Section 2.2.1). Professor of the Practice appointments must be externally posted and searched nationally through faculty search committees with approval by the Provost in accordance with Article II, Section 3.1. In all instances, Professors of the Practice are subject to the evaluation policies and procedures described in Article IV, Section 2.3. Professors of the Practice may apply for open Tenure-Track positions. If selected and appointed to a Tenure-Track position, credit for time spent as a Professor of the Practice at Wheaton College for promotion in rank and tenure review purposes will be negotiated and determined by the Provost in consultation with the chair of the Tenure Committee. Visiting Faculty Visiting Faculty are appointed for a fixed term on a full or part-time basis to carry out instructional and any other responsibilities as delineated in the individual faculty member’s appointment letter. Full-time Visiting Faculty may be appointed annually, for a semester, or a year, for a period not to exceed two years. The visiting designation is used with one of the four academic ranks reserved for Tenure-Line Faculty (Visiting Instructor, Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, or Visiting Professor). Visiting Faculty are not eligible for tenure, promotion, or sabbatical leave; however, they have the same academic freedom and access to and protection under the grievance procedures as their Tenure-Line colleagues. See Article V of the Faculty Bylaws for additional information regarding the terms, rights, and responsibilities applicable to Visiting Faculty. Visiting Faculty may apply for open Tenure-Track positions. If selected and appointed to a Tenure-Track position, credit for time spent as a Visiting Faculty member at Wheaton College for promotion in rank and tenure review purposes will be negotiated and determined by the Provost in consultation with the chair of the Tenure Committee. Faculty Legislation Visiting Faculty Definition (Part One, Section III.a(2)) A faculty member is considered visiting when the individual’s appointment (full-time) is for a period normally not to exceed one year. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486; May 4, 2007, p. 4640] For such appointments, the Department Chair may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73] In all cases where a faculty member is retained for more than one year on a full-time basis – whether the individual has a multiple year contract or a one-year contract that is being renewed – the Department Chair shall annually review the individual’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to do. A copy of this evaluation shall be shared with the faculty member and placed in the individual’s faculty personnel file. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486] Administrative Faculty Pursuant to Article I, Section 1 of these Faculty Bylaws, administrative faculty include administrators who serve in one of the following positions: College President Provost Dean of Students Dean of Advising Dean of Library Services Associate Librarian Dean of Admission Registrar Administrative Faculty are considered administrators for employment purposes, under terms and conditions of employment as stated in the College’s staff personnel policies. Administrative Faculty have the privilege of vote and voice in accordance with the provisions stated in Article I, Section 2. Faculty Rank and Retreat Rights for Administrative Faculty The President has the authority to assign Administrative Faculty a faculty rank that was earned through a faculty review at a comparable accredited or internationally recognized institution. At its discretion, the Board of Trustees may assign an appropriate faculty rank, either at the time of appointment or subsequently. Administrative Faculty holding academic rank are ineligible for promotion in rank during their terms of administrative service. Administrative Faculty who are not already tenured faculty members at Wheaton College do not ordinarily receive tenure during their administrative term. However, the President or Board of Trustees has the authority to assign retreat rights at the time of initial appointment. Administrative Faculty hired with retreat rights are eligible to assume a faculty position and, in some cases, subsequently stand for tenure after the probationary period. Prior to such an action, the President or Provost will consult with the relevant department or program to enable the department or program to review the candidate’s academic credentials, to meet with the candidate (if possible), and to make a recommendation. When an Administrative Faculty member is granted retreat rights, the President will state in the initial appointment letter the conditions under which the individual may join the faculty at the conclusion of the administrative faculty appointment. Faculty Members Who Accept Administrative Appointments Full-time teaching faculty accepting full-time administrative appointments move automatically to the administrative appointment at the same rank classification. Tenured faculty retain also tenure while holding the administrative appointment. At the time of the initial administrative appointment, the President (or President’s designee) will state in the administrative appointment contract the conditions under which the person will return to the full-time teaching faculty and whether the time spent as an administrator will count toward promotion, tenure, or the next sabbatical leave. Faculty members holding full-time administrative appointments who continue teaching and research or creative activities are eligible for certain academic promotions during their terms of administrative service and as assessed by the relevant faculty committees governing the process. Faculty Emeriti Emerita or emeritus status honors a faculty member's distinguished service and contributions during a career at the College, as well as the faculty member’s interest in an ongoing and meaningful connection with Wheaton. A retiring Tenured or Senior Professor of the Practice faculty member’s department or program may request emerita or emeritus status for that colleague via a letter from the Department Chair or Program Coordinator to the Provost. That letter should indicate that the department or program supports the request and outline the reasons why the department or program believes the faculty member’s contributions merit emeriti status. Following the recommendation of the department/program, the Provost will review the received nomination and make a written recommendation to the Board of Trustees to either confer/not confer emerita/emeritus status. This recommendation shall not be subject to appeal. The Board of Trustees officially confers emeritus status. Faculty who retire at the Associate Professor level may, at the Provost’s discretion, be recommended for emeritus status. The Chair or Program Coordinator’s letter to the Provost may make such a request, along with any recommendations for title. Emeriti Faculty are not considered employees of the College and therefore are not entitled to benefits. They are considered members of the broader Wheaton community. Emeriti Status Recognitions Emeriti Faculty are entitled to the following recognitions: Award of an inscribed seal of the College. Listing in the College Catalog and other College publications that collectively list the Faculty. Emeriti Status Privileges Emeriti faculty are entitled to the following privileges: Regular and on-line library and learning management software privileges it in accordance with applicable licensing agreements. Email address and support including listing in Wheaton College directories. Membership to athletic, fitness, and recreational facilities on campus. Participation in College public ceremonies. Revocation of Status Once awarded, emeritus status continues in perpetuity unless the recipient either requests to have status rescinded or violates the intent and spirit of emeritus status by engaging in serious dishonorable conduct in violation of law, rule, or policy and/or causes harm to the College’s reputation. To revoke emeriti status without the consent of the individual, a written petition must be made by a member of the College to the President, and subsequently to the Board of Trustees, which has the final authority to revoke the individual’s emeritus status. Actions or conduct protected by academic freedom and unlawful discrimination shall not be used to revoke emeriti status. Academic Rank and Faculty Titles The College recognizes the following academic ranks and titles: Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Professor of the Practice, Senior Professor of the Practice, and Visiting Faculty. [May 13, 1963, p. 2715; Minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting, October 26, 1963, pp. 1055-57; November 18, 1963, pp. 2728-29] Eight specific full-time teaching positions are titled Associate Faculty, as explained in Section O. [November 3, 2006, p. 4608] At the time of initial appointment, the President or Provost shall approve the faculty rank after receiving and considering the recommendation from the search committee. Appointment to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor is subject to a formal vote of approval by the Board of Trustees. Initial faculty rank is assigned on the basis of the information below, which indicates the minimum qualifications for appointment to the rank. Instructor Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or equivalent terminal degree from an accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Instructors. Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. Assistant Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility. In addition to academic or exceptional alternative equivalent experience qualifications, applicants seeking an initial appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor must demonstrate qualities that indicate potential and promise as an effective educator. Associate Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Associate Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility and, generally, six (6) years of full–time ranked teaching or a minimum of five (5) years of full–time teaching at the rank of Assistant Professor. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.1.1). Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.1.1). Professor of the Practice The minimum qualification for appointment to the academic title of Professor of the Practice is the appropriate degree from a regionally accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or the equivalent professional expertise and achievement in a relevant field of professional practice. Senior Professor of the Practice The minimum qualification for appointment to the academic title of Senior Professor of the Practice is the appropriate degree from a regionally accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or the equivalent professional expertise and achievement in a relevant field of professional practice. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.2.1). Faculty Contracts A faculty contract is a written mutual agreement between an individual granted faculty status and the College. The contractual terms (appointment type, academic department/program, rank, salary, length of appointment, etc.) of every faculty appointment will be stated in writing only by the President or the Provost to the faculty member. Academic departments and/or programs authorized to fill an open faculty position shall recommend candidates for appointment by the President or the Provost. Under no circumstance is a faculty member or College employee authorized to offer an appointment or to enter a faculty appointment contract. Any subsequent extensions or modifications of an appointment, and any special understandings, or any notices incumbent upon either party to provide, will be stated or confirmed in writing, and a copy will be given to the faculty member. Types of Faculty Contracts The following types of contracts are issued to individuals granted faculty status at Wheaton College: Tenure Track Contracts, Probationary Appointments Tenure-Line faculty members eligible for tenure receive tenure-track contracts and hold probationary appointments until they either receive tenure or separate from the College. A probationary appointment is made with the understanding that both the College and the probationary faculty member will engage in a period of mutual evaluation—the probationary period—leading to the tenure decision. Faculty members eligible for tenure may be appointed to the rank of Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor, upon consideration of their qualifications and experience relative to the standards for appointment in rank. A tenure-track appointment is normally renewable up to a total of seven (7) years of full-time service—i.e., a maximum of six (6) years prior to and including the year of the tenure decision, plus one (1) additional terminal year in the case of a negative tenure decision—unless the probationary period is either accelerated or extended in accordance with Article IV, Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, respectively. Faculty members holding tenure-track contracts undergo annual and reappointment reviews as specified in Article IV, Section 2.2. A faculty member undergoing an unsuccessful tenure review will receive notice and will be allowed to complete a final year of the probationary appointment pursuant to a terminal contract (see Section 2.1.4 below). Tenured Contracts Tenured contracts are awarded to Tenure Line Faculty who have attained tenured status (see Article IV, Section 4). The granting of tenure can only be effected by the procedures specified in the College’s Tenure Policy (see Article IV, Section 4) and upon the affirmative vote of the Board of Trustees. De facto tenure is not awarded at Wheaton College. A tenured faculty member has the contractual right to continuous appointments until the faculty member resigns, is dismissed for adequate cause (see Article IV, Section 8.2.1), or is terminated as a result of a reduction in force due to a bona fide financial exigency or program discontinuation (see Article IV, Section 8.2.2 and 8.2.3, respectively). Term Contracts Term contracts are offered to Professors of the Practice and Visiting Faculty and are limited to the term of employment outlined in the appointment contract. Subject to College need, another term contract may be offered subject to the limitations set forth in these Faculty Bylaws. Issuance of another term contract is solely within the discretion of the College and no other procedures apply. Terminal Contracts A Terminal contract is the final annual contract issued to Tenure Track faculty whose contract will not be renewed or who have been denied tenure. Duration of Appointments and Notice of Termination The College will observe the following guidelines for rank and duration of appointments and notice of terminations: Duration of Appointments Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Instructors. Those who have completed their professional training will ordinarily be appointed Assistant Professors. Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. The initial term of appointment for Tenure-Track Faculty will be either for one or two years as set forth in the individual faculty member’s appointment contract. Professors of the Practice will receive one-year appointments in the first two years of appointment. At the end of the second annual contract year, a Professor of the Practice will be considered for a two-year contract. When the fiscal and programmatic needs of the College permit, a summative review by the Committee on Faculty Scholarship and Promotions at the end of the two-year contract will assess eligibility for a three-year term contract. Review at the end of the three-year contract will determine eligibility for a successive three-year contract. See Article IV, Section 2.3.2 for additional information. Overall, a Professor of the Practice’s employment is governed by the individual’s appointment contract. The College may elect not to re-appoint the faculty member at the College’s discretion, regardless of the positive outcome of any review, if curricular needs change and/or enrollment declines. Visiting Faculty will receive appointments on a per-course, semester, or annual basis. [February 4, 2005, p. 4492] Replacements for faculty members on leave and other temporary personnel will receive appointments of appropriate rank and duration. Regardless of rank or duration of previous appointments, any non-tenure track member of the faculty or Professor of the Practice with two or more years of service at Wheaton may be given a one-year terminal contract. In such a case, the standards of notification as described in Article II, Section 2.2.2 below will be observed. Notice of Termination In decisions regarding reappointment or non-reappointment of full-time Tenure Track and Professors of the Practice faculty members, care will be taken to observe the following standards of notification (or salary in lieu of notice) endorsed in 1964 as the official policy of the American Association of University Professors: Not later than March 1 of the first academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if a one-year appointment ends during the academic year, at least three months in advance of its termination. Not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of the year; or, if an initial two-year appointment ends during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination. At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years of service. The notice provisions set forth above do not apply to Tenure-Track faculty and Professors of the Practice that have been issued a Terminal Appointment contract. Annual Contract Period The period of employment under a full-time faculty contract shall be for the 12-month period beginning July 1 and ending June 30, during which the individual shall receive salary and benefits. The contract will cover the duties associated with the position performed during the period which begins the week before classes begin through the week after Commencement and is known as the "academic year." Primary Area of Appointment All faculty appointment contracts designate a department or academic program as the faculty member’s primary faculty appointment location. It is from this department(s) or program(s) that recommendations for reappointment, promotion, tenure, and other actions concerning a Full-Time Teaching Faculty member are initiated. A faculty member’s primary faculty appointment may be changed by the President (or President’s designee) to meet the curricular and organizational needs of the College. Joint Appointments When a faculty member’s contractual responsibilities require a significant portion of teaching and professional activity responsibilities be devoted to either multiple departments, interdisciplinary programs, areas of instruction, or other academic entities engaged in or responsible for the delivery of the curriculum, the faculty member may receive a joint appointment to a department and a specified program or to two departments. A joint appointment may be established at any stage of faculty employment. In making a joint appointment, a primary and secondary department or program will be clearly designated by the Provost in the faculty member’s appointment contract. Such designation may be revised at any stage of employment by the President (or the President’s designee) to meet the curricular or organizational needs of the College. The primary department or program will serve as the faculty member’s administrative home, which will take the lead responsibility on personnel issues, central human resources reporting, appointment, promotions, tenure, coordination of annual performance review, conflict resolution, and changes in employment. Often, but not always, the administrative home will be the department or program with the higher appointment fraction. The nature of a joint appointment varies and the assignment of duties in the secondary department or program will differ by department/program and candidate. The details of the assignment of duties, the allocation of salary, departmental/program governance rights, and provision for office and laboratory space as applicable to both the primary and secondary departments/program will be communicated in a signed written memorandum of understanding signed by the two Department Chairs/Program Coordinators, the faculty member, and the Provost. Additionally, negotiated changes to those details will be evidenced in a signed memorandum of understanding. The Department Chair/Program Coordinator of the secondary department/program must provide input for every evaluation for a jointly appointed faculty member. In the case of promotion or tenure review, the secondary Department Chair/Program Coordinator must provide a written evaluation describing the nature and extent of the candidate’s involvement in, and contribution to, the secondary department/program. In the faculty member’s tenure application, it is important to document how the candidate’s time is being spent, and contributions to each department/program need to be clearly documented. It is recognized that new opportunities, changes in faculty interest, faculty performance, changes in the College’s curricular needs or enrollments or other issues with the joint appointment may require review, renegotiation, or discontinuation of the original joint appointment. If possible, a faculty member with a joint appointment will have the option of retreating to a full appointment at the primary department or program. If retreat is not a possibility, the Provost is responsible for ensuring that the faculty member is made fully aware of the existing options. Further, a short-term plan must be put in place to ensure a smooth transition with minimum disruption to the initiatives, projects, and teaching, that were the responsibility of the faculty member with the joint appointment. Recruitment and Appointment Recruitment and Appointment of Full-Time Teaching Faculty Vacancies shall be advertised in as many ways as are necessary in order to obtain a suitable pool of applicants in keeping with Wheaton's policy as an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer; for example: in professional journals, job rosters, etc. Advertisements shall include a statement that the College is an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer. The Department or Program/Search Committee may also want to write to graduate schools. For legal purposes, records pertaining to the hiring process shall be retained in accordance with the College’s Record Retention schedule. Normally departments/programs will establish their own search committee. In the exceptional case of no continuing tenured member, the Provost will consult with the Advisory Committee. The Provost will then ask the Committee on Committees and Agenda to set up the search committee. The Search Committee shall review applications to determine who should be interviewed. Candidates may be interviewed at professional meetings to narrow the field. All members of the Search Committee will receive anti-bias training. Moreover, the committee chair is expected to consult with the Office of Human Resources for interview guidance. After consulting with the Provost, the Chair of the Search Committee shall invite several candidates to visit the College. The candidates shall be interviewed by members of the department, the Provost and/or the President, and students when possible. During these interviews, candidates will be notified that any job offer is contingent upon successful completion of employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks, as well documentation of U.S. citizenship or upon maintaining the appropriate visa status and work authorization. Moreover, notice of the availability of the College’s Annual Security Report will be provided to the interviewee, if the position was externally advertised. The Search Committee Chair shall send to the Provost a written recommendation from the Search Committee which shall state its majority opinion and indicate any disagreements within the Search Committee. The written recommendation shall verify that the candidate’s preparation and qualifications are appropriate to the nature of the teaching assignment. Candidate qualifications shall normally be measured, as applicable to the position, by advanced degrees held, evidence of scholarship, advanced study, creative activities, and teaching abilities, as well as relevant professional experience, training, and credentials. Exceptions may be made for individuals who do not hold advanced degrees but who are considered by the College to possess other demonstrated competencies and professional achievements that provide evidence to support excellent teaching and student achievement in the discipline. If the Provost or the President has reservations about following the recommendation for appointment, one or both shall consult with the Chair and may request that the Search Committee continue the search process. If the recommendation for appointment is approved by the President or the Provost, after consultation with the Chair, the Provost shall make a written offer of appointment to the appointee, stating the precise terms and conditions of the appointment. Such offer shall refer to, and be accompanied by, either a copy or a link to these Faculty Bylaws as then in effect. In the written offer, the Provost may, after receiving and considering recommendations from the search committee, award credit toward the fulfillment of promotion and/or tenure eligibility based upon the candidate’s past professional experience at another higher education institution. The decision to grant prior service credit takes into account the relevancy of the prior service to the College’s needs, the type of institution(s) at which service was provided, and the nature of the position being filled by the appointee. Evidence as to the quality of the prior service will be entered into the candidate’s file. The offer is contingent upon verification of the candidate’s academic credentials or alternative experience qualifications credentials and the successful completion of requisite employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks. Moreover, an initial written offer of appointment to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure or Professor with tenure shall also indicate that the offer is subject to a formal vote of approval by the Board of Trustees, action on which is pending. Notice of such Trustee action shall be sent to the candidate. Each such offer shall also specify that it may be accepted only in writing. If it is so accepted, the President or the Provost shall furnish copies of the offer and acceptance to the Chair for the department or program’s records. All data submitted by appointee in connection with the application for appointment shall be retained in the Provost's records indefinitely. As soon as a vacancy has been filled, the Chair shall so advise the unsuccessful candidate(s) selected to be interviewed in writing. Human Resources will advise all other applicants. Note: Since years in academic rank are calculated based on full academic years, in the rare instance that a Tenure-Line Faculty and Professors of the Practice joins the College after November 1, the faculty member’s first year in rank or title will be calculated starting with the succeeding full academic year. Recruitment and Appointment of Visiting Faculty A faculty member is considered visiting when his or her appointment (full-time) is for a period normally not to exceed one year. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486; May 4, 2007, p. 4640] For such Visiting Faculty appointments, the Department Chair or Program Coordinator may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures set forth above in Article II, Section 3.1, provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons or less under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73]. In all instances, however, the Department Chair or Program Coordinator shall verify that the final candidate’s preparation and qualifications are appropriate to the nature of the teaching assignment. Candidates for a Visiting Faculty position that are selected for interviews will be notified that any job offer is contingent upon successful completion of employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks, as well documentation of U.S. citizenship or upon maintaining the appropriate visa status and work authorization. Moreover, notice of the availability of the College’s Annual Security Report will be provided to the interviewee, if the position was externally advertised. Any offer of appointment is contingent upon verification of the candidate’s academic credentials or alternative experience qualifications credentials and the successful completion of requisite employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks. In all cases where a Visiting Faculty member is retained for more than one year on a full-time basis – whether the faculty member has a multiple year contract, a one-year contract that is being renewed for another term or a new semester or per course term contract – the Department Chair/Program Coordinator shall annually review the faculty member’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to do. A copy of this evaluation shall be shared with the faculty member and placed in the faculty member’s faculty personnel file. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486] Appointment of Foreign Nationals The College welcomes international faculty of high qualifications and assists faculty members whenever possible in securing visas and permanent residency. Non-U.S. nationals who have secured a faculty position must maintain current legal status in the appropriate visa category and notify the College of any anticipated change of status. Moreover, Tenure-Line Faculty are expected to seek permanent residency as soon as possible after beginning their service to the College. The loss of appropriate authorization to work in the United States may result in automatic termination of the faculty appointment, regardless of contractual status or type. All international faculty are requested to consult with Human Resources before accepting salaries, stipends, or honoraria from any other institution to ensure compliance with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Department of State (J-visa program) regulations. Wheaton College Faculty Bylaws – Page 33</s>

<s>[INST] ARTICLE II - Wheaton College Bylaws (Recommendations to SG)(1.23).txt [/INST] Article II. Faculty Status, Contracts, and Initial Appointments Faculty Status – Types of Faculty Appointments The College appoints faculty members to one of the following types of faculty appointments: Full-time Teaching Faculty Tenure-Line Faculty Tenure Track Faculty Tenured Faculty Professors of the Practice Visiting Faculty The College also reserves the right to assign faculty status to certain administrators (see Article II, Section 1.3) and to acknowledge faculty members who have separated from service with the College following distinguished careers with the honorary designation of Associate Professor or Professor Emeritus (Emerita) (see Article II, Section 1.4). 1.1. Full-Time Teaching Faculty Full-time faculty teaching appointments are made to either a Tenure-Line or Professor of the Practice position in one of the College’s academic departments or program areas. Regardless of the type of appointment line, members of the full-time teaching faculty have duties equivalent to a full-time workload (see the Employee Handbook for Faculty) in accordance with the duties and responsibilities delineated in the faculty member’s appointment contract. Members of the full-time teaching faculty enjoy the rights and protections set forth in these Faculty Bylaws. Moreover, they are afforded full voting privileges at faculty and academic department or program meetings. They also may serve on standing and ad hoc committees and task forces for which they are eligible. Full-time teaching faculty are expected to adhere to the responsibilities and policies outlined in the Employee Handbook for Faculty and these Faculty Bylaws, as well as observe other College policies applicable to them to the extent they do not violate academic freedom. To be appointed to the full-time teaching faculty, candidates must possess the appropriate academic credentials and/or equivalent professional experience to teach courses in their academic discipline(s). Tenure-Line Faculty Tenure-Line faculty are full-time teaching faculty members who either hold a Tenure-Track probationary appointment or Tenured (continuous) appointment. Tenure-Track Faculty Tenure-track faculty are full-time teaching faculty members who normally hold probationary appointments to one of two academic ranks: Instructor or Assistant Professor. In rare circumstances, an initial appointment may be made at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. Tenure-track faculty are eligible to stand for tenure (see Article IV, Section 4) at the conclusion of the candidate’s probationary period. Tenured Faculty Tenured faculty are full-time teaching faculty who hold tenured (continued) appointments (see Article IV, Section 4) at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. Professors of the Practice Professors of the Practice are members of the full-time teaching faculty who possess expertise and achievements in a relevant field of instruction. Duties entail the equivalent of a standard full-time teaching load (see Article IV, Section 1.1.1) and service activities (see Article IV, Section 1.3). Specific responsibilities entailing course equivalencies will be detailed in individual appointment letters. Individuals appointed to the Professor of the Practice line are assigned the academic title of Professor of the Practice or Senior Professor of the Practice. Professors of the Practice share equal standing in departments and programs with their Tenure-Line colleagues and have the following rights: Voting rights in faculty and department/program meetings Protection under the standards of notification for non-reappointment Eligibility for service on committees Access to and protection under the grievance procedures Academic freedom Faculty benefits and raises Access to faculty development funds Appointment to the Professor of the Practice line, however, does not include eligibility for tenure, promotion to any tenure-seeking academic rank, or sabbatical leave, regardless of length of employment. Professors of the Practice are offered initial annual term contracts, followed by eligibility for multi-year contracts of two- and three-year durations as specified in the Duration of Appointment section of these Faculty Bylaws (see Article II, Section 2.2.1). Professor of the Practice appointments must be externally posted and searched nationally through faculty search committees with approval by the Provost in accordance with Article II, Section 3.1. In all instances, Professors of the Practice are subject to the evaluation policies and procedures described in Article IV, Section 2.3. Professors of the Practice may apply for open Tenure-Track positions. If selected and appointed to a Tenure-Track position, credit for time spent as a Professor of the Practice at Wheaton College for promotion in rank and tenure review purposes will be negotiated and determined by the Provost in consultation with the chair of the Tenure Committee. Visiting Faculty Visiting Faculty are appointed for a fixed term on a full, part-time, or per-course basis to carry out instructional and any other responsibilities as delineated in the individual faculty member’s appointment letter. Full-time Visiting Faculty may be appointed annually, for a semester, or a year, for a period not to exceed two years. The visiting designation is used with one of the four academic ranks reserved for Tenure-Line Faculty (Visiting Instructor, Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, or Visiting Professor). Visiting Faculty are not eligible for tenure, promotion, or sabbatical leave; however, they have the same academic freedom and access to and protection under the grievance procedures as their Tenure-Line colleagues. See Article V of the Faculty Bylaws for additional information regarding the terms, rights, and responsibilities applicable to Visiting Faculty. Visiting Faculty may apply for open Tenure-Track positions. If selected and appointed to a Tenure-Track position, credit for time spent as a Visiting Faculty member at Wheaton College for promotion in rank and tenure review purposes will be negotiated and determined by the Provost in consultation with the chair of the Tenure Committee. Faculty Legislation Visiting Faculty Definition (Part One, Section III.a(2)) A faculty member is considered visiting when the individual’s appointment (full-time) is for a period normally not to exceed one year. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486; May 4, 2007, p. 4640] For such appointments, the Department Chair may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73] In all cases where a faculty member is retained for more than one year on a full-time basis – whether the individual has a multiple year contract or a one-year contract that is being renewed – the Department Chair shall annually review the individual’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to do. A copy of this evaluation shall be shared with the faculty member and placed in the individual’s faculty personnel file. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486] Administrative Faculty Pursuant to Article I, Section 1 of these Faculty Bylaws, administrative faculty include administrators who serve in one of the following positions: College President Provost Dean of Students Dean of Advising Dean of Library Services Associate Librarian Dean of Admission Registrar Administrative Faculty are considered administrators for employment purposes, under terms and conditions of employment as stated in the College’s staff personnel policies. Administrative Faculty have the privilege of vote and voice in accordance with the provisions stated in Article I, Section 2. Faculty Rank and Retreat Rights for Administrative Faculty The President has the authority to assign Administrative Faculty a faculty rank that was earned through a faculty review at a comparable accredited or internationally recognized institution. At its discretion, the Board of Trustees may assign an appropriate faculty rank, either at the time of appointment or subsequently. Administrative Faculty holding academic rank are ineligible for promotion in rank during their terms of administrative service. Administrative Faculty who are not already tenured faculty members at Wheaton College do not ordinarily receive tenure during their administrative term. However, the President or Board of Trustees has the authority to assign retreat rights at the time of initial appointment. Administrative Faculty hired with retreat rights are eligible to assume a faculty position and, in some cases, subsequently stand for tenure after the probationary period. Prior to such an action, the President or Provost will consult with the relevant department or program to enable the department or program to review the candidate’s academic credentials, to meet with the candidate (if possible), and to make a recommendation. When an Administrative Faculty member is granted retreat rights, the President will state in the initial appointment letter the conditions under which the individual may join the faculty at the conclusion of the administrative faculty appointment. Faculty Members Who Accept Administrative Appointments Full-time teaching faculty accepting full-time administrative appointments move automatically to the administrative appointment at the same rank classification. Tenured faculty retain also tenure while holding the administrative appointment. At the time of the initial administrative appointment, the President (or President’s designee) will state in the administrative appointment contract the conditions under which the person will return to the full-time teaching faculty and whether the time spent as an administrator will count toward promotion, tenure, or the next sabbatical leave. Faculty members holding full-time administrative appointments who continue teaching and research or creative activities are eligible for certain academic promotions during their terms of administrative service and as assessed by the relevant faculty committees governing the process. Faculty Emeriti Emerita or emeritus status honors a faculty member's distinguished service and contributions during a career at the College, as well as the faculty member’s interest in an ongoing and meaningful connection with Wheaton. A retiring Tenured or Senior Professor of the Practice faculty member’s department or program may request emerita or emeritus status for that colleague via a letter from the Department Chair or Program Coordinator to the Provost. That letter should indicate that the department or program supports the request and outline the reasons why the department or program believes the faculty member’s contributions merit emeriti status. Following the recommendation of the department/program, the Provost will review the received nomination and make a written recommendation to the Board of Trustees to either confer/not confer emerita/emeritus status. This recommendation shall not be subject to appeal. The Board of Trustees officially confers emeritus status. Faculty who retire at the Associate Professor level may, at the Provost’s discretion, be recommended for emeritus status. The Chair or Program Coordinator’s letter to the Provost may make such a request, along with any recommendations for title. Emeriti Faculty are not considered employees of the College and therefore are not entitled to benefits. They are considered members of the broader Wheaton community. Emeriti Status Recognitions Emeriti Faculty are entitled to the following recognitions: Award of an inscribed seal of the College. Listing in the College Catalog and other College publications that collectively list the Faculty. Emeriti Status Privileges Emeriti faculty are entitled to the following privileges: Regular and on-line library and learning management software privileges it in accordance with applicable licensing agreements. Email address and support including listing in Wheaton College directories. Membership to athletic, fitness, and recreational facilities on campus. Participation in College public ceremonies. Revocation of Status Once awarded, emeritus status continues in perpetuity unless the recipient either requests to have status rescinded or violates the intent and spirit of emeritus status by engaging in serious dishonorable conduct in violation of law, rule, or policy and/or causes harm to the College’s reputation. To revoke emeriti status without the consent of the individual, a written petition must be made by a member of the College to the President, and subsequently to the Board of Trustees, which has the final authority to revoke the individual’s emeritus status. Actions or conduct protected by academic freedom and unlawful discrimination shall not be used to revoke emeriti status. Academic Rank and Faculty Titles The College recognizes the following academic ranks and titles: Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Professor of the Practice, Senior Professor of the Practice, and Visiting Faculty. [May 13, 1963, p. 2715; Minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting, October 26, 1963, pp. 1055-57; November 18, 1963, pp. 2728-29] Eight specific full-time teaching positions are titled Associate Faculty, as explained in Section O. [November 3, 2006, p. 4608] At the time of initial appointment, the President or Provost shall approve the faculty rank after receiving and considering the recommendation from the search committee. Appointment to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor is subject to a formal vote of approval by the Board of Trustees. Initial faculty rank is assigned on the basis of the information below, which indicates the minimum qualifications for appointment to the rank. Instructor Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or equivalent terminal degree from an accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Instructors. Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. Assistant Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility. In addition to academic or exceptional alternative equivalent experience qualifications, applicants seeking an initial appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor must demonstrate qualities that indicate potential and promise as an effective educator. Associate Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Associate Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility and, generally, six (6) years of full–time ranked teaching or a minimum of five (5) years of full–time teaching at the rank of Assistant Professor. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.1.1). Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.1.1). Professor of the Practice The minimum qualification for appointment to the academic title of Professor of the Practice is the appropriate degree from a regionally accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or the equivalent professional expertise and achievement in a relevant field of professional practice. Senior Professor of the Practice The minimum qualification for appointment to the academic title of Senior Professor of the Practice is the appropriate degree from a regionally accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or the equivalent professional expertise and achievement in a relevant field of professional practice. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.2.1). Faculty Contracts A faculty contract is a written mutual agreement between an individual granted faculty status and the College. The contractual terms (appointment type, academic department/program, rank, salary, length of appointment, etc.) of every faculty appointment will be stated in writing only by the President or the Provost to the faculty member. Academic departments and/or programs authorized to fill an open faculty position shall recommend candidates for appointment by the President or the Provost. Under no circumstance is a faculty member or College employee authorized to offer an appointment or to enter a faculty appointment contract. Any subsequent extensions or modifications of an appointment, and any special understandings, or any notices incumbent upon either party to provide, will be stated or confirmed in writing, and a copy will be given to the faculty member. Types of Faculty Contracts The following types of contracts are issued to individuals granted faculty status at Wheaton College: Tenure Track Contracts, Probationary Appointments Tenure-Line faculty members eligible for tenure receive tenure-track contracts and hold probationary appointments until they either receive tenure or separate from the College. A probationary appointment is made with the understanding that both the College and the probationary faculty member will engage in a period of mutual evaluation—the probationary period—leading to the tenure decision. Faculty members eligible for tenure may be appointed to the rank of Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor, upon consideration of their qualifications and experience relative to the standards for appointment in rank. A tenure-track appointment is normally renewable up to a total of seven (7) years of full-time service—i.e., a maximum of six (6) years prior to and including the year of the tenure decision, plus one (1) additional terminal year in the case of a negative tenure decision—unless the probationary period is either accelerated or extended in accordance with Article IV, Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, respectively. Faculty members holding tenure-track contracts undergo annual and reappointment reviews as specified in Article IV, Section 2.2. A faculty member undergoing an unsuccessful tenure review will receive notice and will be allowed to complete a final year of the probationary appointment pursuant to a terminal contract (see Section 2.1.4 below). Tenured Contracts Tenured contracts are awarded to Tenure Line Faculty who have attained tenured status (see Article IV, Section 4). The granting of tenure can only be effected by the procedures specified in the College’s Tenure Policy (see Article IV, Section 4) and upon the affirmative vote of the Board of Trustees. De facto tenure is not awarded at Wheaton College. A tenured faculty member has the contractual right to continuous appointments until the faculty member resigns, is dismissed for adequate cause (see Article IV, Section 8.2.1), or is terminated as a result of a reduction in force due to a bona fide financial exigency or program discontinuation (see Article IV, Section 8.2.2 and 8.2.3, respectively). Term Contracts Term contracts are offered to Professors of the Practice and Visiting Faculty and are limited to the term of employment outlined in the appointment contract. Subject to College need, another term contract may be offered subject to the limitations set forth in these Faculty Bylaws. Issuance of another term contract is solely within the discretion of the College and no other procedures apply. Terminal Contracts A Terminal contract is the final annual contract issued to Tenure Track faculty whose contract will not be renewed or who have been denied tenure. Duration of Appointments and Notice of Termination The College will observe the following guidelines for rank and duration of appointments and notice of terminations: Duration of Appointments Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Instructors. Those who have completed their professional training will ordinarily be appointed Assistant Professors. Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. The initial term of appointment for Tenure-Track Faculty will be either for one or two years as set forth in the individual faculty member’s appointment contract. Professors of the Practice will receive one-year appointments in the first two years of appointment. At the end of the second annual contract year, a Professor of the Practice will be considered for a two-year contract. When the fiscal and programmatic needs of the College permit, a summative review by the Committee on Faculty Scholarship and Promotions at the end of the two-year contract will assess eligibility for a three-year term contract. Review at the end of the three-year contract will determine eligibility for a successive three-year contract. See Article IV, Section 2.3.2 for additional information. Overall, a Professor of the Practice’s employment is governed by the individual’s appointment contract. The College may elect not to re-appoint the faculty member at the College’s discretion, regardless of the positive outcome of any review, if curricular needs change and/or enrollment declines. Visiting Faculty will receive appointments on a per-course, semester, or annual basis. [February 4, 2005, p. 4492] Replacements for faculty members on leave and other temporary personnel will receive appointments of appropriate rank and duration. Regardless of rank or duration of previous appointments, any non-tenure track member of the faculty or Professor of the Practice with two or more years of service at Wheaton may be given a one-year terminal contract. In such a case, the standards of notification as described in Article II, Section 2.2.2 below will be observed. Notice of Termination In decisions regarding reappointment or non-reappointment of full-time Tenure Track and Professors of the Practice faculty members, care will be taken to observe the following standards of notification (or salary in lieu of notice) endorsed in 1964 as the official policy of the American Association of University Professors: Not later than March 1 of the first academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if a one-year appointment ends during the academic year, at least three months in advance of its termination. Not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of the year; or, if an initial two-year appointment ends during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination. At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years of service. The notice provisions set forth above do not apply to Tenure-Track faculty and Professors of the Practice that have been issued a Terminal Appointment contract. Annual Contract Period The period of employment under a full-time faculty contract shall be for the 12-month period beginning July 1 and ending June 30, during which the individual shall receive salary and benefits. The contract will cover the duties associated with the position performed during the period which begins the week before classes begin through the week after Commencement and is known as the "academic year." Primary Area of Appointment All faculty appointment contracts designate a department or academic program as the faculty member’s primary faculty appointment location. It is from this department(s) or program(s) that recommendations for reappointment, promotion, tenure, and other actions concerning a Full-Time Teaching Faculty member are initiated. A faculty member’s primary faculty appointment may be changed by the President (or President’s designee) to meet the curricular and organizational needs of the College. Joint Appointments When a faculty member’s contractual responsibilities require a significant portion of teaching and professional activity responsibilities be devoted to either multiple departments, interdisciplinary programs, areas of instruction, or other academic entities engaged in or responsible for the delivery of the curriculum, the faculty member may receive a joint appointment to a department and a specified program or to two departments. A joint appointment may be established at any stage of faculty employment. In making a joint appointment, a primary and secondary department or program will be clearly designated by the Provost in the faculty member’s appointment contract. Such designation may be revised at any stage of employment by the President (or the President’s designee) to meet the curricular or organizational needs of the College. The primary department or program will serve as the faculty member’s administrative home, which will take the lead responsibility on personnel issues, central human resources reporting, appointment, promotions, tenure, coordination of annual performance review, conflict resolution, and changes in employment. Often, but not always, the administrative home will be the department or program with the higher appointment fraction. The nature of a joint appointment varies and the assignment of duties in the secondary department or program will differ by department/program and candidate. The details of the assignment of duties, the allocation of salary, departmental/program governance rights, and provision for office and laboratory space as applicable to both the primary and secondary departments/program will be communicated in a signed written memorandum of understanding signed by the two Department Chairs/Program Coordinators, the faculty member, and the Provost. Additionally, negotiated changes to those details will be evidenced in a signed memorandum of understanding. The Department Chair/Program Coordinator of the secondary department/program must provide input for every evaluation for a jointly appointed faculty member. In the case of promotion or tenure review, the secondary Department Chair/Program Coordinator must provide a written evaluation describing the nature and extent of the candidate’s involvement in, and contribution to, the secondary department/program. In the faculty member’s tenure application, it is important to document how the candidate’s time is being spent, and contributions to each department/program need to be clearly documented. It is recognized that new opportunities, changes in faculty interest, faculty performance, changes in the College’s curricular needs or enrollments or other issues with the joint appointment may require review, renegotiation, or discontinuation of the original joint appointment. If possible, a faculty member with a joint appointment will have the option of retreating to a full appointment at the primary department or program. If retreat is not a possibility, the Provost is responsible for ensuring that the faculty member is made fully aware of the existing options. Further, a short-term plan must be put in place to ensure a smooth transition with minimum disruption to the initiatives, projects, and teaching, that were the responsibility of the faculty member with the joint appointment. Recruitment and Appointment Recruitment and Appointment of Full-Time Teaching Faculty Vacancies shall be advertised in as many ways as are necessary in order to obtain a suitable pool of applicants in keeping with Wheaton's policy as an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer; for example: in professional journals, job rosters, etc. Advertisements shall include a statement that the College is an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer. The Department or Program/Search Committee may also want to write to graduate schools. For legal purposes, records pertaining to the hiring process shall be retained in accordance with the College’s Record Retention schedule. Normally departments/programs will establish their own search committee. In the exceptional case of no continuing tenured member, the Provost will consult with the Advisory Committee. The Provost will then ask the Committee on Committees and Agenda to set up the search committee. The Search Committee shall review applications to determine who should be interviewed. Candidates may be interviewed at professional meetings to narrow the field. All members of the Search Committee will receive anti-bias training. Moreover, the committee chair is expected to consult with the Office of Human Resources for interview guidance. After consulting with the Provost, the Chair of the Search Committee shall invite several candidates to visit the College. The candidates shall be interviewed by members of the department, the Provost and/or the President, and students when possible. During these interviews, candidates will be notified that any job offer is contingent upon successful completion of employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks, as well documentation of U.S. citizenship or upon maintaining the appropriate visa status and work authorization. Moreover, notice of the availability of the College’s Annual Security Report will be provided to the interviewee, if the position was externally advertised. The Search Committee Chair shall send to the Provost a written recommendation from the Search Committee which shall state its majority opinion and indicate any disagreements within the Search Committee. The written recommendation shall verify that the candidate’s preparation and qualifications are appropriate to the nature of the teaching assignment. Candidate qualifications shall normally be measured, as applicable to the position, by advanced degrees held, evidence of scholarship, advanced study, creative activities, and teaching abilities, as well as relevant professional experience, training, and credentials. Exceptions may be made for individuals who do not hold advanced degrees but who are considered by the College to possess other demonstrated competencies and professional achievements that provide evidence to support excellent teaching and student achievement in the discipline. If the Provost or the President has reservations about following the recommendation for appointment, one or both shall consult with the Chair and may request that the Search Committee continue the search process. If the recommendation for appointment is approved by the President or the Provost, after consultation with the Chair, the Provost shall make a written offer of appointment to the appointee, stating the precise terms and conditions of the appointment. Such offer shall refer to, and be accompanied by, either a copy or a link to these Faculty Bylaws as then in effect. In the written offer, the Provost may, after receiving and considering recommendations from the search committee, award credit toward the fulfillment of promotion and/or tenure eligibility based upon the candidate’s past professional experience at another higher education institution. The decision to grant prior service credit takes into account the relevancy of the prior service to the College’s needs, the type of institution(s) at which service was provided, and the nature of the position being filled by the appointee. Evidence as to the quality of the prior service will be entered into the candidate’s file. The offer is contingent upon verification of the candidate’s academic credentials or alternative experience qualifications credentials and the successful completion of requisite employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks. Moreover, an initial written offer of appointment to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure or Professor with tenure shall also indicate that the offer is subject to a formal vote of approval by the Board of Trustees, action on which is pending. Notice of such Trustee action shall be sent to the candidate. Each such offer shall also specify that it may be accepted only in writing. If it is so accepted, the President or the Provost shall furnish copies of the offer and acceptance to the Chair for the department or program’s records. All data submitted by appointee in connection with the application for appointment shall be retained in the Provost's records indefinitely. As soon as a vacancy has been filled, the Chair shall so advise the unsuccessful candidate(s) selected to be interviewed in writing. Human Resources will advise all other applicants. Note: Since years in academic rank are calculated based on full academic years, in the rare instance that a Tenure-Line Faculty and Professors of the Practice joins the College after November 1, the faculty member’s first year in rank or title will be calculated starting with the succeeding full academic year. Recruitment and Appointment of Visiting Faculty A faculty member is considered visiting when his or her appointment (full-time) is for a period normally not to exceed one year. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486; May 4, 2007, p. 4640] For such Visiting Faculty appointments, the Department Chair or Program Coordinator may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures set forth above in Article II, Section 3.1, provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons or less under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73]. In all instances, however, the Department Chair or Program Coordinator shall verify that the final candidate’s preparation and qualifications are appropriate to the nature of the teaching assignment. Candidates for a Visiting Faculty position that are selected for interviews will be notified that any job offer is contingent upon successful completion of employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks, as well documentation of U.S. citizenship or upon maintaining the appropriate visa status and work authorization. Moreover, notice of the availability of the College’s Annual Security Report will be provided to the interviewee, if the position was externally advertised. Any offer of appointment is contingent upon verification of the candidate’s academic credentials or alternative experience qualifications credentials and the successful completion of requisite employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks. In all cases where a Visiting Faculty member is retained for more than one year on a full-time basis – whether the faculty member has a multiple year contract, a one-year contract that is being renewed for another term or a new semester or per course term contract – the Department Chair/Program Coordinator shall annually review the faculty member’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to do. A copy of this evaluation shall be shared with the faculty member and placed in the faculty member’s faculty personnel file. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486] Appointment of Foreign Nationals The College welcomes international faculty of high qualifications and assists faculty members whenever possible in securing visas and permanent residency. Non-U.S. nationals who have secured a faculty position must maintain current legal status in the appropriate visa category and notify the College of any anticipated change of status. Moreover, Tenure-Line Faculty are expected to seek permanent residency as soon as possible after beginning their service to the College. The loss of appropriate authorization to work in the United States may result in automatic termination of the faculty appointment, regardless of contractual status or type. All international faculty are requested to consult with Human Resources before accepting salaries, stipends, or honoraria from any other institution to ensure compliance with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Department of State (J-visa program) regulations. Wheaton College Faculty Bylaws – Page 33</s>

<s>[INST] ARTICLE II - Wheaton College Bylaws (Recommendations to SG)(12.22).txt [/INST] Article II. Faculty Status, Contracts, and Initial Appointments Faculty Status – Types of Faculty Appointments The College appoints faculty members to one of the following types of faculty appointments: Full-time Teaching Faculty Tenure-Line Faculty Tenure Track Faculty Tenured Faculty Professor of the Practice Visiting Faculty The College also reserves the right to assign faculty status to certain administrators (see Article II, Section 1.3) and to acknowledge faculty members who have separated from service with the College following distinguished careers with the honorary designation of Associate Professor or Professor Emeritus (Emerita) (see Article II, Section 1.4). 1.1. Full-Time Teaching Faculty Full-time faculty teaching appointments are made to either a Tenure-Line or Professor of the Practice position in one of the College’s academic departments or program areas. Regardless of the type of appointment line, members of the full-time teaching faculty have duties equivalent to a full-time workload (see the Employee Handbook for Faculty) in accordance with the duties and responsibilities delineated in the faculty member’s appointment contract. Members of the full-time teaching faculty enjoy the rights and protections set forth in these Faculty Bylaws. Moreover, they are afforded full voting privileges at faculty and academic department or program meetings. They also may serve on standing and ad hoc committees and task forces for which they are eligible. Full-time teaching faculty are expected to adhere to the responsibilities and policies outlined in the Employee Handbook for Faculty and these Faculty Bylaws, as well as observe other College policies applicable to them to the extent they do not violate academic freedom. To be appointed to the full-time teaching faculty, candidates must possess the appropriate academic credentials and/or equivalent professional experience to teach courses in their academic discipline(s). Tenure-Line Faculty Tenure-Line faculty are full-time teaching faculty members who either hold a Tenure-Track probationary appointment or Tenured (continuous) appointment. Tenure Track Faculty Tenure-Track faculty are full-time teaching faculty members who normally hold probationary appointments to one of two academic ranks: Instructor or Assistant Professor. In rare circumstances, an initial appointment may be made at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. Tenure-Track faculty are eligible to stand for tenure (see Article IV, Section 4) at the conclusion of the candidate’s probationary period. Tenured Faculty Tenured faculty are full-time teaching faculty who hold tenured (continued) appointments (see Article IV, Section 4) at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. Professors of the Practice Professors of the Practice are members of the full-time teaching faculty who possess expertise and achievements in a relevant field of instruction. Duties entail the equivalent of a standard full-time teaching load (see Article IV, Section 1.1.1) and service activities (see Article IV, Section 1.3). Specific responsibilities entailing course equivalencies will be detailed in individual appointment letters. Individuals appointed to the Professor of the Practice line are assigned the academic title of Professor of the Practice or Senior Professor of the Practice. Professors of the Practice share equal standing in departments and programs with their Tenure-Line colleagues and have the following rights: Voting rights in faculty and department/program meetings Protection under the standards of notification for non-reappointment Eligibility for service on committees Access to and protection under the grievance procedures Academic freedom Faculty benefits and raises Access to faculty development funds Appointment to the Professor of the Practice line, however, does not include eligibility for tenure or promotion to any tenure-seeking academic rank, regardless of length of employment. Professors of the Practice are offered initial annual term contracts, followed by eligibility for multi-year contracts of two- and three-year durations as specified in the Duration of Appointment section of these Faculty Bylaws (see Article II, Section 2.2.1). Professor of the Practice appointments must be externally posted and searched nationally through faculty search committees with approval by the Provost in accordance with Article II, Section 3.1. In all instances, Professors of the Practice are subject to the evaluation policies and procedures described in Article IV, Section 2.3. Professors of the Practice may apply for open Tenure-Track positions. If selected and appointed to a Tenure-Track position, credit for time spent as a Professor of the Practice at Wheaton College may be negotiated for promotion in rank and tenure review purposes. Visiting Faculty Visiting Faculty are appointed for a fixed term on a full, part-time, or per-course basis to carry out instructional and any other responsibilities as delineated in the individual faculty member’s appointment letter. Full-time Visiting Faculty may be appointed annually, for a semester, or a year, for a period not to exceed two years. The visiting designation is used with one of the four academic ranks reserved for Tenure-Line Faculty (Visiting Instructor, Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, or Visiting Professor). Visiting Faculty are not eligible for tenure, promotion, or sabbatical leave; however, they have the same academic freedom and access to and protection under the grievance procedures as their Tenure-Line colleagues. See Article V of the Faculty Bylaws for additional information regarding the terms, rights, and responsibilities applicable to Visiting Faculty. Visiting Faculty may apply for open Tenure-Track positions. If selected and appointed to a Tenure-Track position, credit for time spent as a Professor of the Practice at Wheaton College may be negotiated for promotion in rank and tenure review purposes. Faculty Legislation Visiting Faculty Definition (Part One, Section III.a(2)) A faculty member is considered visiting when the individual’s appointment (full-time) is for a period normally not to exceed one year. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486; May 4, 2007, p. 4640] For such appointments, the Department Chair may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73] In all cases where a faculty member is retained for more than one year on a full-time basis – whether the individual has a multiple year contract or a one-year contract that is being renewed – the Department Chair shall annually review the individual’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to do. A copy of this evaluation shall be shared with the faculty member and placed in the individual’s faculty personnel file. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486] Administrative Faculty Pursuant to Article I, Section 1 of these Faculty Bylaws, administrative faculty include administrators who serve in one of the following positions: College President Provost Dean of Students Dean of Advising Dean of Library Services Associate Librarian Dean of Admission Registrar Administrative Faculty are considered administrators for employment purposes, under terms and conditions of employment as stated in the College’s staff personnel policies. Administrative Faculty have the privilege of vote and voice in accordance with the provisions stated in Article I, Section 2. Faculty Rank and Retreat Rights for Administrative Faculty The President has the authority to assign Administrative Faculty a faculty rank that was earned through a faculty review at a comparable accredited or internationally recognized four-year institution. At its discretion, the Board of Trustees may assign an appropriate faculty rank, either at the time of appointment or subsequently. Administrative Faculty holding academic rank are ineligible for promotion in rank during their terms of administrative service. Administrative Faculty who are not already tenured faculty members at Wheaton College do not ordinarily receive tenure during their administrative term. However, the President or Board of Trustees has the authority to assign retreat rights at the time of initial appointment. Administrative Faculty hired with retreat rights are eligible to assume a faculty position and, in some cases, subsequently stand for tenure after the probationary period. Prior to such an action, the President or Provost will consult with the relevant department or program to enable the department or program to review the candidate’s academic credentials, to meet with the candidate (if possible), and to make a recommendation. When an Administrative Faculty member is granted retreat rights, the President will state in the initial appointment letter the conditions under which the individual may join the faculty at the conclusion of the administrative faculty appointment. Faculty Members Who Accept Administrative Appointments Full-time teaching faculty accepting full-time administrative appointments move automatically to the administrative appointment at the same rank classification. Tenured faculty retain also tenure while holding the administrative appointment. At the time of the initial administrative appointment, the President (or President’s designee) will state in the administrative appointment contract the conditions under which the person will return to the full-time teaching faculty and whether the time spent as an administrator will count toward promotion, tenure, or the next sabbatical leave. Faculty members holding full-time administrative appointments who continue teaching and research or creative activities are eligible for certain academic promotions during their terms of administrative service and as assessed by the relevant faculty committees governing the process. Faculty Emeriti Emerita or emeritus status honors a full-time teaching faculty member's distinguished service and contributions during a career at the College, as well as the faculty member’s interest in an ongoing and meaningful connection with Wheaton. A retiring full-time teaching faculty member’s department/program may request emerita or emeritus status for that colleague via a letter from the Department Chair or Program Coordinator to the Provost. That letter should indicate that the department or program supports the request and outline the reasons why the department believes the faculty member’s contributions merit emeriti status. Following the recommendation of the department/program, the Provost will review the received nomination and make a written recommendation to the Board of Trustees to either confer/not confer emerita/emeritus status. This recommendation shall not be subject to appeal. The Board of Trustees officially confers emeritus status. Faculty who retire at the Associate Professor level may, at the Provost’s discretion, be recommended for the status of Professor Emerita/Emeritus. The Chair or Program Coordinator’s letter to the Provost may make such a request, along with any recommendations for title. Emeriti Faculty are not considered employees of the College and therefore are not entitled to benefits. They are considered members of the broader Wheaton community and are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with College policy. As members of the broader Wheaton community, Emeriti Faculty are welcome to participate in all College assemblies, colloquia, and other academic events. Emeriti Status Recognitions Emeriti Faculty are entitled to the following recognitions: Award of an inscribed seal of the College. Listing in the College Catalog and other College publications that collectively list the Faculty. The right to participate in College events and social functions with other faculty colleagues. Emeriti Status Privileges Emeriti faculty are entitled to the following privileges: Regular and on-line library and learning management software privileges it in accordance with applicable licensing agreements. Email address and support including listing in Wheaton College directories. Membership to athletic, fitness, and recreational facilities on campus. Participation in College public ceremonies. Revocation of Status Once awarded, emeriti status continues in perpetuity unless the recipient either requests to have status rescinded or violates the intent and spirit of emeritus status by engaging in serious dishonorable conduct in violation of law, rule, or policy and/or causes harm to the College’s reputation. To revoke emeriti status without the consent of the individual, a written petition must be made by a member of the College to the President, and subsequently to the Board of Trustees, which has the final authority to revoke the individual’s emeriti status. Actions or conduct protected by academic freedom and unlawful discrimination shall not be used to revoke emeriti status. Academic Rank and Faculty Titles The College recognizes the following academic ranks and titles: Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Professor of the Practice, Senior Professor of the Practice, and Visiting Faculty. [May 13, 1963, p. 2715; Minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting, October 26, 1963, pp. 1055-57; November 18, 1963, pp. 2728-29] Eight specific full-time teaching positions are titled Associate Faculty, as explained in Section O. [November 3, 2006, p. 4608] At the time of initial appointment, the President or Provost shall approve the faculty rank for all Full-Time Teaching faculty after receiving and considering the recommendation from the search committee. Appointment to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor is subject to a formal vote of approval by the Board of Trustees. Initial faculty rank is assigned on the basis of the information below, which indicates the minimum qualifications for appointment to the rank. Instructor Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or equivalent terminal degree from an accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Instructors. Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. Assistant Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility. In addition to academic or exceptional alternative equivalent experience qualifications, applicants seeking an initial appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor must demonstrate qualities that indicate potential and promise as an effective educator. Associate Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Associate Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility and, generally, six (6) years of full–time ranked teaching or a minimum of five (5) years of full–time teaching at the rank of Assistant Professor. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.1.1). Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.2). Professor of the Practice The minimum qualification for appointment to the academic title of Professor of the Practice is the appropriate degree from a regionally accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or the equivalent professional expertise and achievement in a relevant field of professional practice. Faculty Contracts A faculty contract is a written mutual agreement between an individual granted faculty status and the College. The contractual terms (appointment type, academic department/program, rank, salary, length of appointment, etc.) of every faculty appointment will be stated in writing only by the President or the Provost to the faculty member. Academic departments and/or programs authorized to fill an open faculty position shall recommend candidates for appointment by the President or the Provost. Under no circumstance is a faculty member or College employee authorized to offer an appointment or to enter a faculty appointment contract. Any subsequent extensions or modifications of an appointment, and any special understandings, or any notices incumbent upon either party to provide, will be stated or confirmed in writing, and a copy will be given to the faculty member. Types of Faculty Contracts The following types of contracts are issued to individuals granted faculty status at Wheaton College: Tenure Track Contracts, Probationary Appointments Tenure-Line faculty members eligible for tenure receive tenure-track contracts and hold probationary appointments until they either receive tenure or separate from the College. A probationary appointment is made with the understanding that both the College and the probationary faculty member will engage in a period of mutual evaluation—the probationary period—leading to the tenure decision. Faculty members eligible for tenure may be appointed to the rank of Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor, upon consideration of their qualifications and experience relative to the standards for appointment in rank. A tenure-track appointment is normally renewable up to a total of seven (7) years of full-time service—i.e., a maximum of six (6) years prior to and including the year of the tenure decision, plus one (1) additional terminal year in the case of a negative tenure decision—unless the probationary period is either accelerated or extended in accordance with Article IV, Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, respectively. Faculty members holding tenure-track contracts undergo annual and reappointment reviews as specified in Article IV, Section 2.2. A faculty member undergoing an unsuccessful tenure review will receive notice and will be allowed to complete the final year of the probationary appointment pursuant to a Terminal contract (see Section 2.1.4 below). Tenured Contracts Tenured contracts are awarded to Full-time Tenure Line Teaching Faculty who have attained tenured status (see Article IV, Section 4). The granting of tenure can only be effected by the procedures specified in the College’s Tenure Policy (see Article IV, Section 4) and upon the affirmative vote of the Board of Trustees. De facto tenure is not awarded at Wheaton College. A tenured faculty member has the contractual right to continuous appointments until the faculty member resigns, is dismissed for adequate cause (see Article IV, Section 8.2.1), or is terminated as a result of a reduction in force due to a bona fide financial exigency or program discontinuation (see Article IV, Section 8.2.2 and 8.2.3, respectively). Term Contracts Term contracts are offered to Professors of the Practice and Visiting Faculty and are limited to the term of employment outlined in the appointment contract. Subject to College need, another term contract may be offered subject to the limitations set forth in these Faculty Bylaws. Issuance of another term contract is solely within the discretion of the College and no other procedures apply. Terminal Contracts A Terminal contract is the final annual contract issued to Tenure Track faculty whose contracts will not be renewed or who have been denied tenure. Duration of Appointments and Notice of Termination The College will observe the following guidelines for rank and duration of appointments and notice of terminations: Duration of Appointments Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Instructors. Those who have completed their professional training will ordinarily be appointed Assistant Professors. Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. The initial term of appointment for Tenure Track Faculty will be either for one or two years as set forth in the individual faculty member’s appointment contract. Professors of the Practice will receive one-year appointments in the first two years of appointment. At the end of the second annual contract year, a Professor of the Practice will be considered for a two-year contract. When the fiscal and programmatic needs of the College permit, a summative review by the Committee on Faculty Scholarship and Promotions at the end of the two-year contract will assess eligibility for a three-year term contract. Review at the end of the three-year contract will determine eligibility for a successive three-year contract. See Article IV, Section 2.3.2 for additional information. Overall, a Professor of the Practice’s employment is governed by the individual’s appointment contract. The College may elect not to re-appoint the faculty member at the College’s discretion, regardless of the positive outcome of any review, if curricular needs change and/or enrollment declines. Visiting Faculty will receive appointments on a per-course, semester, or annual basis. [February 4, 2005, p. 4492] Replacements for faculty members on leave and other temporary personnel will receive appointments of appropriate rank and duration. Regardless of rank or duration of previous appointments, any non-tenure track member of the faculty or Professor of the Practice with two or more years of service at Wheaton may be given a one-year terminal contract. In such a case, the standards of notification as described in Article II, Section 2.2.2 below will be observed. Notice of Termination In decisions regarding reappointment or non-reappointment of full-time Tenure Track and Professors of the Practice faculty members, care will be taken to observe the following standards of notification (or salary in lieu of notice) endorsed in 1964 as the official policy of the American Association of University Professors: Not later than March 1 of the first academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if a one-year appointment ends during the academic year, at least three months in advance of its termination. Not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of the year; or, if an initial two-year appointment ends during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination. At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years of service. The notice provisions set forth above do not apply to Tenure Track faculty and Professors of the Practice that have been issued a Terminal Appointment contract. Annual Contract Period The period of employment under a full-time faculty contract shall be for the 12-month period beginning July 1st and ending June 30th, during which the individual shall receive salary and benefits. The contract will cover the duties associated with the position performed during the period which begins the week before classes begin through the week after Commencement and is known as the "academic year." Primary Area of Appointment All faculty appointment contracts designate a department or academic program as the faculty member’s primary faculty appointment location. It is from this department(s) or program(s) that recommendations for reappointment, promotion, tenure, and other actions concerning a Full-Time Teaching Faculty member are initiated. A Full-Time Teaching Faculty member’s primary faculty appointment may be changed by the President (or President’s designee) to meet the curricular and organizational needs of the College. Joint Appointments When a faculty member’s contractual responsibilities require a significant portion of teaching and professional activity responsibilities be devoted to either multiple departments, interdisciplinary programs, areas of instruction, or other academic entities engaged in or responsible for the delivery of the curriculum, the faculty member may receive a joint appointment to a department and a specified program or to two departments. A joint appointment may be established at any stage of faculty employment. In making a joint appointment, a primary and secondary department or program will be clearly designated by the Provost in the faculty member’s appointment contract. Such designation may be revised at any stage of employment by the President (or the President’s designee) to meet the curricular or organizational needs of the College. The primary department or program will serve as the faculty member’s administrative home, which will take the lead responsibility on personnel issues, central human resources reporting, appointment, promotions, tenure, coordination of annual performance review, conflict resolution, and changes in employment. Often, but not always, the administrative home will be the department or program with the higher appointment fraction. The nature of a joint appointment varies and the assignment of duties in the secondary department or program will differ by department/program and candidate. The details of the assignment of duties, the allocation of salary, departmental/program governance rights, and provision for office and laboratory space as applicable to both the primary and secondary departments/program will be communicated in a signed written memorandum of understanding signed by the two Department Chairs/Program Coordinators, the faculty member, and the Provost. Additionally, negotiated changes to those details will be evidenced in a signed memorandum of understanding. The Department Chair/Program Coordinator of the secondary department/program must provide input for every evaluation for a jointly appointed faculty member. In the case of promotion or tenure review, the secondary Department Chair/Program Coordinator must provide a written evaluation describing the nature and extent of the candidate’s involvement in, and contribution to, the secondary department/program. In the faculty member’s tenure application, it is important to document how the candidate’s time is being spent, and contributions to each department/program need to be clearly documented. It is recognized that new opportunities, changes in faculty interest, faculty performance, changes in the College’s curricular needs or enrollments or other issues with the joint appointment may require review, renegotiation, or discontinuation of the original joint appointment. If possible, a faculty member with a joint appointment will have the option of retreating to a full appointment at the primary department or program. If retreat is not a possibility, the Provost is responsible for ensuring that the faculty member is made fully aware of the existing options. Further, a short-term plan must be put in place to ensure a smooth transition with minimum disruption to the initiatives, projects, and teaching, that were the responsibility of the faculty member with the joint appointment. Recruitment and Appointment Full-Time Teaching Faculty Vacancies shall be advertised in as many ways as are necessary in order to obtain a suitable pool of applicants in keeping with Wheaton's policy as an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer; for example: in professional journals, job rosters, etc. Advertisements shall include a statement that the College is an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer. The Department or Program/Search Committee may also want to write to graduate schools. For legal purposes, records pertaining to the hiring process shall be retained in accordance with the College’s Record Retention schedule. Normally departments/programs will establish their own search committee. In the exceptional case of no continuing tenured member, the Provost will consult with the Advisory Committee. The Provost will then ask the Committee on Committees and Agenda to set up the search committee. The Search Committee shall review applications to determine who should be interviewed. Candidates may be interviewed at professional meetings to narrow the field. All members of the Search Committee will receive anti-bias training. Moreover, the committee chair is expected to consult with the Office of Human Resources for interview guidance. After consulting with the Provost, the Chair of the Search Committee shall invite several candidates to visit the College. The candidates shall be interviewed by members of the department, the Provost and/or the President, and students when possible. During these interviews, candidates will be notified that any job offer is contingent upon successful completion of employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks, as well documentation of U.S. citizenship or upon maintaining the appropriate visa status and work authorization. Moreover, notice of the availability of the College’s Annual Security Report will be provided to the interviewee, if the position was externally advertised. The Search Committee Chair shall send to the Provost a written recommendation from the Search Committee which shall state its majority opinion and indicate any disagreements within the Search Committee. The written recommendation shall verify that the candidate’s preparation and qualifications are appropriate to the nature of the teaching assignment. Candidate qualifications shall normally be measured, as applicable to the position, by advanced degrees held, evidence of scholarship, advanced study, creative activities, and teaching abilities, as well as relevant professional experience, training, and credentials. Exceptions may be made for individuals who do not hold advanced degrees but who are considered by the College to possess other demonstrated competencies and professional achievements that provide evidence to support excellent teaching and student achievement in the discipline. If the Provost or the President has reservations about following the recommendation for appointment, one or both shall consult with the Chair and may request that the Search Committee continue the search process. If the recommendation for appointment is approved by the President or the Provost, after consultation with the Chair, the Provost shall make a written offer of appointment to the appointee, stating the precise terms and conditions of the appointment. Such offer shall refer to, and be accompanied by, either a copy or a link to these Faculty Bylaws as then in effect. In the written offer, the Provost may, after receiving and considering recommendations from the search committee, award credit toward the fulfillment of promotion and/or tenure eligibility based upon the candidate’s past professional experience at another higher education institution. The decision to grant prior service credit takes into account the relevancy of the prior service to the College’s needs, the type of institution(s) at which service was provided, and the nature of the position being filled by the appointee. Evidence as to the quality of the prior service will be entered into the candidate’s file. The offer is contingent upon verification of the candidate’s academic credentials or alternative experience qualifications credentials and the successful completion of requisite employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks. Moreover, an initial written offer of appointment to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor shall also indicate that the offer is subject to a formal vote of approval by the Board of Trustees, action on which is pending. Notice of such Trustee action shall be sent to the candidate. Each such offer shall also specify that it may be accepted only in writing. If it is so accepted, the President or the Provost shall furnish copies of the offer and acceptance to the Chair for the department or program's records. All data submitted by appointee in connection with the application for appointment shall be retained in the Provost's records indefinitely. As soon as a vacancy has been filled, the Chair shall so advise the unsuccessful candidate(s) selected to be interviewed in writing. Human Resources will advise all other applicants. Note: Since years in academic rank are calculated based on full academic years, in the rare instance that a Tenure-Line Faculty and Professors of the Practice joins the College after November 1, the faculty member’s first year in rank or title will be calculated starting with the succeeding full academic year. Visiting Faculty A faculty member is considered visiting when his or her appointment (full-time) is for a period normally not to exceed one year. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486; May 4, 2007, p. 4640] For such Visiting Faculty appointments, the Department Chair or Program Coordinator may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures set forth above in Article II, Section 3.1, provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons or less under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73]. In all instances, however, the Department Chair or Program Coordinator shall verify that the final candidate’s preparation and qualifications are appropriate to the nature of the teaching assignment. Candidates for a Visiting Faculty position that are selected for interviews will be notified that any job offer is contingent upon successful completion of employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks, as well documentation of U.S. citizenship or upon maintaining the appropriate visa status and work authorization. Moreover, notice of the availability of the College’s Annual Security Report will be provided to the interviewee, if the position was externally advertised. Any offer of appointment is contingent upon verification of the candidate’s academic credentials or alternative experience qualifications credentials and the successful completion of requisite employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks. In all cases where a Visiting Faculty member is retained for more than one year on a full-time basis – whether the faculty member has a multiple year contract, a one-year contract that is being renewed for another term or a new per course term contract – the Department Chair/Program Coordinator shall annually review the faculty member’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to do. A copy of this evaluation shall be shared with the faculty member and placed in the faculty member’s faculty personnel file. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486] Appointment of Foreign Nationals The College welcomes international faculty of high qualifications and assists faculty members whenever possible in securing visas and permanent residency. Non-U.S. nationals who have secured a faculty position must maintain current legal status in the appropriate visa category and notify the College of any anticipated change of status. Moreover, Tenure-Line Faculty are expected to seek permanent residency as soon as possible after beginning their service to the College. The loss of appropriate authorization to work in the United States may result in automatic termination of the faculty appointment, regardless of contractual status or type. All international faculty are requested to consult with Human Resources before accepting salaries, stipends, or honoraria from any other institution to ensure compliance with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Department of State (J-visa program) regulations. Wheaton College Faculty Bylaws – Page 2</s>

<s>[INST] ARTICLE II - Wheaton College Bylaws - Faculty Draft (No Highlights)(March 23).txt [/INST] Article II. Faculty Status, Contracts, and Initial Appointments Faculty Status – Types of Faculty Appointments The College appoints faculty members to one of the following types of faculty appointments: Full-time Teaching Faculty Tenure-line Faculty Tenure Track Faculty Tenured Faculty Professors of the Practice-line Faculty Professors of the Practice Senior Professors of the Practice Visiting Faculty The College also reserves the right to assign faculty status to certain administrators (see Article II, Section 1.3) and to acknowledge faculty members who have separated from service with the College following distinguished careers with the honorary designation of Associate Professor or Professor Emerita (see Article II, Section 1.4). 1.1. Full-Time Teaching Faculty Full-time faculty teaching appointments are made to either Tenure-line (see Article II, Section 1.1.1) or Professor of the Practice-line (see Article II, Section 1.1.2) positions in one of the College’s academic departments or program areas. Members of the full-time teaching faculty have a full-time teaching load as defined in the Wheaton College Employee Handbook for Faculty, as well as other applicable duties and responsibilities delineated in the faculty member’s appointment contract and these Faculty Bylaws. To be appointed to the full-time teaching faculty, candidates must possess the appropriate academic credentials and/or equivalent professional experience to teach courses in their academic discipline(s). Tenure-line Faculty Tenure-line faculty are full-time teaching faculty members who either hold a Tenure-Track (see Section 1.1.1.1) or Tenured (see Section 1.1.1.1) appointment. Members of the Tenure-line faculty enjoy the rights and protections set forth in these Faculty Bylaws. Moreover, they are afforded full voting privileges at faculty and academic department or program meetings. Tenure-Track Faculty Tenure-track faculty are full-time teaching faculty members who normally hold probationary appointments to one of two academic ranks: Instructor or Assistant Professor. An initial appointment may also be made at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. Tenure-track faculty are eligible to stand for tenure (see Article IV, Section 4) at the conclusion of the candidate’s probationary period. Tenured Faculty Tenured faculty are full-time teaching faculty who hold tenured (continued) appointments (see Article IV, Section 4) at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. Professors of the Practice Line Faculty appointed to the Professors of the Practice-line are members of the full-time teaching faculty who possess expertise and achievements in a relevant field of instruction. Duties entail the equivalent of a standard full-time teaching load as defined in the Wheaton College Employee Handbook for Faculty and service activities following the first year of appointment (see Article IV, Section 1.3). Individuals appointed to the Professor of the Practice line are assigned the academic title of Professor of the Practice or Senior Professor of the Practice. Professors of the Practice share equal standing in departments and programs with their Tenure-line colleagues and have the following rights: Voting rights in faculty and department/program meetings Protection under the standards of notification for non-reappointment Eligibility for election or appointment to those standing committees for which they are eligible to serve Access to and protection under the grievance procedures Academic freedom Faculty benefits and raises Access to faculty development funds Appointment to the Professor of the Practice line, however, does not include eligibility for tenure, promotion to any tenure-seeking academic rank, or sabbatical leave, regardless of length of employment. Professors of the Practice are initially offered annual term contracts, followed by eligibility for multi-year contracts of two- and three-years as specified in the Duration of Appointment section of these Faculty Bylaws (see Article II, Section 2.2.1). Professor of the Practice appointments must be externally posted and searched nationally through faculty search committees with approval by the Provost in accordance with Article II, Section 3.1. In all instances, Professors of the Practice are subject to the evaluation policies and procedures described in Article IV, Section 2.3. Professors of the Practice may apply for open Tenure-Track positions. If selected and appointed to a Tenure-Track position, credit for time spent as a Professor of the Practice at Wheaton College for promotion in rank and tenure review purposes will be negotiated and determined by the Provost in consultation with the candidate's Department Chair/Program Coordinator, utilizing the same criteria for determining whether prior service credit is awarded to Tenure-line faculty (see Article II, Section 3.1). In all cases, a maximum of up to two years of full-time teaching in a Professor of the Practice-line position at the College may be excluded from the probationary period (see Article IV, Section 4.1.1). Visiting Faculty Visiting Faculty are appointed for a fixed contractual term (see Article II, Section 2.1.3) on a full or part-time basis to carry out instructional and any other responsibilities as delineated in the individual faculty member’s appointment letter. Full-time Visiting Faculty may be appointed annually, for a semester, or a year, for a period not to exceed two years. The visiting designation is used with one of the four academic ranks reserved for Tenure-line Faculty (Visiting Instructor, Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, or Visiting Professor). Visiting Faculty are not eligible for tenure, promotion, or sabbatical leave; however, they have the same academic freedom, as well as access to and protection under the grievance procedures. See Article V of the Faculty Bylaws for additional information regarding the terms, rights, and responsibilities applicable to Visiting Faculty. Visiting Faculty may apply for open Tenure-Track positions. If selected and appointed to a Tenure-Track position, credit for time spent as a Visiting Faculty member at Wheaton College for promotion in rank and tenure review purposes will be negotiated and determined by the Provost in consultation with the Department Chair/Program Coordinator, utilizing the same criteria for determining whether prior service credit is awarded to Tenure-line faculty (see Article II, Section 3.1). In all cases, a maximum of up to two years of full-time teaching in a Visiting faculty position at the College may be excluded from the probationary period (see Article IV, Section 4.1.1). Faculty Legislation Visiting Faculty Definition (Part One, Section III.a(2)) A faculty member is considered visiting when the individual’s appointment (full-time) is for a period normally not to exceed one year. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486; May 4, 2007, p. 4640] For such appointments, the Department Chair may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73] In all cases where a faculty member is retained for more than one year on a full-time basis – whether the individual has a multiple year contract or a one-year contract that is being renewed – the Department Chair shall annually review the individual’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to do. A copy of this evaluation shall be shared with the faculty member and placed in the individual’s faculty personnel file. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486] Administrative Faculty Pursuant to Article I, Section 1 of these Faculty Bylaws, administrative faculty include administrators who serve in one of the following positions: College President Provost Dean of Students Dean of Advising Dean of Library Services Dean of Global Education Dean of Admission Registrar Administrative Faculty are considered administrators for employment purposes, under terms and conditions of employment as stated in the College’s staff personnel policies. Administrative Faculty have the privilege of vote and voice in accordance with the provisions stated in Article I, Section 2. Faculty Rank and Retreat Rights for Administrative Faculty At the time of initial appointment to the administrative position, the President, subject to Board of Trustee approval, has the authority to assign the administrator a faculty rank that was earned through a faculty review at a comparable accredited or internationally recognized institution. In addition, the appointment may be made with tenure (see Article II, Section 3.1.1). Administrative Faculty holding academic rank, however, are ineligible to apply for tenure or promotion in rank during their terms of administrative service at Wheaton College. The President or Board of Trustees has the authority to assign Administrative Faculty retreat rights to a position on the faculty following the conclusion of administrative service (“retreat rights”). Administrative Faculty hired with retreat rights are eligible to assume a faculty position and, in some cases, subsequently stand for tenure after serving a probationary period. Prior to the assigning of retreat rights, the President or Provost will consult with the faculty of the cognizant department or program to enable the department or program to review the candidate’s academic credentials, to meet with the candidate (if possible), and to make a recommendation to the President as to whether the candidate possesses the appropriate academic credentials and/or equivalent professional experience to teach courses in their academic discipline(s). When an Administrative Faculty member is granted retreat rights, the President will state in the initial appointment letter the conditions under which the individual may join the faculty at the conclusion of the administrative faculty appointment. Faculty Members Who Accept Administrative Appointments Full-time teaching faculty accepting full-time administrative appointments move automatically to the administrative appointment at the same rank classification. Tenured faculty retain also tenure while holding the administrative appointment. At the time of the initial administrative appointment, the President (or President’s designee) will state in the administrative appointment contract the conditions under which the person will return to the full-time teaching faculty and whether the time spent as an administrator will count toward promotion, tenure, or the next sabbatical leave. Faculty members holding full-time administrative appointments who continue teaching and research or creative activities are eligible for certain academic promotions during their terms of administrative service and as assessed by the relevant faculty committees governing the process. Faculty Emeriti Emerita or emeritus status honors a faculty member's distinguished service and contributions during a career at the College, as well as the faculty member’s interest in an ongoing and meaningful connection with Wheaton. This status is open to all full-time teaching faculty members who have contributed meaningfully to the college for more than 20 years. A retiring Tenured or Senior Professor of the Practice-line faculty member’s department or program may request emerita or emeritus status for that colleague via a letter from the Department Chair or Program Coordinator to the Provost. That letter should indicate that the department or program supports the request and outline the reasons why the department or program believes the faculty member’s contributions merit emeriti status. Following the recommendation of the department/program, the Provost will review the received nomination and make a written recommendation to the Board of Trustees to either confer/not confer emerita/emeritus status. This recommendation shall not be subject to appeal. The Board of Trustees officially confers emeritus status. Emeriti Faculty are not considered employees of the College and therefore are not entitled to benefits. They are considered members of the broader Wheaton community. Emeriti Status Privileges Privileges of Emeriti Faculty are outlined in the Emeriti Faculty Guidelines in the Wheaton College Employee Handbook for Faculty. Revocation of Status Once awarded, emeritus status continues in perpetuity unless the recipient either requests to have status rescinded or violates the intent and spirit of emeritus status by engaging in serious dishonorable conduct in violation of law, rule, or policy and/or causes harm to the College’s reputation. To revoke emeriti status without the consent of the individual, a written petition must be made by the President to the Board of Trustees, which has the final authority to revoke the individual’s emeritus status. Actions or conduct protected by academic freedom shall not be used to revoke emeriti status. Academic Rank and Faculty Titles The College recognizes the following academic ranks and titles: Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Professor of the Practice, Senior Professor of the Practice, and Visiting Faculty. [May 13, 1963, p. 2715; Minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting, October 26, 1963, pp. 1055-57; November 18, 1963, pp. 2728-29] Eight specific full-time teaching positions are titled Associate Faculty, as explained in Section O. [November 3, 2006, p. 4608] At the time of initial appointment, the President or Provost shall approve the faculty rank after receiving and considering the recommendation from the search committee. In the case of an initial appointment to the rank of Associate Professor, the Committee on Tenure shall also offer a recommendation to the President. For an initial appointment to the rank of Professor or Senior Professor of the Practice, the Committee on Faculty Scholarship and Promotions will provide a recommendation to the President. Appointment to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor is further subject to a formal vote of approval by the Board of Trustees. Initial faculty rank is assigned on the basis of the information below, which indicates the minimum qualifications for appointment to the applicable rank. Instructor Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or equivalent terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Instructors. Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. Assistant Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility. In addition to academic or exceptional alternative equivalent experience qualifications, applicants seeking an initial appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor must demonstrate qualities that indicate potential and promise as an effective educator. Associate Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Associate Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility and, generally, six (6) years of full–time ranked teaching or a minimum of five (5) years of full–time teaching at the rank of Assistant Professor. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.1.1). Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.1.1). Professor of the Practice The minimum qualification for appointment to the academic title of Professor of the Practice is the appropriate degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or the equivalent professional expertise and achievement in a relevant field of professional practice. Senior Professor of the Practice The minimum qualification for appointment to the academic title of Senior Professor of the Practice is the appropriate degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or the equivalent professional expertise and achievement in a relevant field of professional practice. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.2.1). Faculty Contracts A faculty contract is a written mutual agreement between an individual granted faculty status and the College. The contractual terms (appointment type, academic department/program, rank, salary, length of appointment, etc.) of every faculty appointment will be stated in writing only by the President or the Provost to the faculty member. Academic departments and/or programs authorized to fill an open faculty position shall recommend candidates for appointment by the President or the Provost. Under no circumstance is a faculty member or College employee authorized to offer an appointment or to enter a faculty appointment contract. Any subsequent extensions or modifications of an appointment, and any special understandings, or any notices incumbent upon either party to provide, will be stated or confirmed in writing, and a copy will be given to the faculty member. Types of Faculty Contracts The following types of contracts are issued to individuals granted faculty status at Wheaton College: Tenure Track Contracts, Probationary Appointments Tenure-line faculty members eligible for tenure receive tenure-track contracts and hold probationary appointments until they either receive tenure or separate from the College. A probationary appointment is made with the understanding that both the College and the probationary faculty member will engage in a period of mutual evaluation—the probationary period—leading to the tenure decision. Faculty members eligible for tenure may be appointed to the rank of Instructor and Assistant Professor upon consideration of their qualifications and experience relative to the standards for appointment in rank. A tenure-track appointment is normally renewable up to a total of seven (7) years of full-time service—i.e., a maximum of six (6) years prior to and including the year of the tenure decision, plus one (1) additional terminal year in the case of a negative tenure decision—unless the probationary period is either accelerated or extended in accordance with Article IV, Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, respectively. Faculty members holding tenure-track contracts undergo annual and reappointment reviews as specified in Article IV, Section 2.2. A faculty member undergoing an unsuccessful tenure review will receive notice and will be allowed to complete a final year of the probationary appointment pursuant to a terminal contract (see Section 2.1.4 below). Tenured Contracts Tenured contracts are awarded to Tenure-line Faculty who have attained tenured status (see Article IV, Section 4). The granting of tenure can only be effected by the procedures specified in the College’s Tenure Policy (see Article IV, Section 4) and upon the affirmative vote of the Board of Trustees. De facto tenure is not awarded at Wheaton College. A tenured faculty member has the contractual right to continuous appointments until the faculty member resigns, is dismissed for adequate cause (see Article IV, Section 8.2.1), or is terminated as a result of a reduction in force due to fide financial exigency or program discontinuation (see Article IV, Section 8.2.2 and 8.2.3, respectively). Term Contracts Term contracts are offered to Professors of the Practice-line and Visiting faculty and are limited to the term of employment outlined in the appointment contract. Subject to College need, another term contract may be offered subject to the limitations set forth in these Faculty Bylaws. Issuance of another term contract is solely within the discretion of the College and no other procedures apply. Terminal Contracts A Terminal contract is the final annual contract issued to Tenure Track faculty whose contract will not be renewed or who have been denied tenure. Duration of Appointments and Notice of Termination The College will observe the following guidelines for rank and duration of appointments and notice of terminations: Duration of Appointments Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Instructors. Those who have completed their professional training will ordinarily be appointed Assistant Professors. Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. The initial term of appointment for Tenure-Track Faculty will be either for one or two years as set forth in the individual faculty member’s appointment contract. Professors of the Practice will receive one-year appointments in the first two years of service at the College. After two years of full-time teaching at the College, Professors of the Practice are eligible to receive a two-year appointment. Review in May of the first year of a two-year contract will determine eligibility for a subsequent two-year contract if the Professor of the Practice does not choose to be considered for a promotion to Senior Professor of the Practice. After four years of full-time teaching at the College, Professors of the Practice are eligible for promotion to Senior Professor of the Practice and a three-year appointment. Review in May of the second year of a three-year contract will determine eligibility for a subsequent three-year contract. See Article IV, Section 2.3.2 for additional information. Overall, a Professor of the Practice’s employment is governed by the individual’s appointment contract. The College may elect not to re-appoint the faculty member at the College’s discretion, regardless of the positive outcome of any review, if curricular needs change and/or enrollment declines. Visiting Faculty will receive appointments on a per-course, semester, or annual basis. [February 4, 2005, p. 4492] Replacements for faculty members on leave and other temporary personnel will receive appointments of appropriate rank and duration. Regardless of rank or duration of previous appointments, any non-tenure track member of the faculty or Professor of the Practice with two or more years of service at Wheaton may be given a one-year terminal contract. In such a case, the standards of notification as described in Article II, Section 2.2.2 below will be observed. Notice of Termination In decisions regarding reappointment or non-reappointment of full-time Tenure Track and Professors of the Practice-line faculty members, care will be taken to observe the following standards of notification (or salary in lieu of notice) endorsed in 1964 as the official policy of the American Association of University Professors: Not later than May 1 of the first academic or second academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if a one-year appointment ends during the academic year, at least three months in advance of its termination. Not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of the year; or, if an initial two-year appointment ends during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination. At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years of service. The notice provisions set forth above do not apply to Tenure-Track faculty that have been issued a Terminal Appointment contract. Annual Contract Period The period of employment under a full-time faculty contract shall be for the 12-month period beginning July 1 and ending June 30, during which the individual shall receive salary and benefits. The contract will cover the duties associated with the position performed during the period which begins the week before classes begin through the week after Commencement and is known as the "academic year." Primary Area of Appointment All faculty appointment contracts designate a department or academic program as the faculty member’s primary faculty appointment location. It is from this department(s) or program(s) that recommendations for reappointment, promotion, tenure, and other actions concerning a Full-Time Teaching Faculty member are initiated. A faculty member’s primary faculty appointment may be changed by the President (or President’s designee) to meet the curricular and organizational needs of the College. Joint Appointments When a faculty member’s contractual responsibilities require a significant portion of teaching and professional activity responsibilities be devoted to either multiple departments, interdisciplinary programs, areas of instruction, or other academic entities engaged in or responsible for the delivery of the curriculum, the faculty member may receive a joint appointment to a department and a specified program or to two departments. A joint appointment may be established at any stage of faculty employment. In making a joint appointment, a primary and secondary department or program will be clearly designated by the Provost in the faculty member’s appointment contract. Such designation may be revised at any stage of employment by the President (or the President’s designee) to meet the curricular or organizational needs of the College. The primary department or program will serve as the faculty member’s administrative home, which will take the lead responsibility on personnel issues, central human resources reporting, appointment, promotions, tenure, coordination of annual performance review, conflict resolution, and changes in employment. Often, but not always, the administrative home will be the department or program with the higher appointment fraction. The nature of a joint appointment varies and the assignment of duties in the secondary department or program will differ by department/program and candidate. The details of the assignment of duties, the allocation of salary, departmental/program governance rights, and provision for office and laboratory space as applicable to both the primary and secondary departments/program will be communicated in a signed written memorandum of understanding signed by the two Department Chairs/Program Coordinators, the faculty member, and the Provost. Additionally, negotiated changes to those details will be evidenced in a signed memorandum of understanding. The Department Chair/Program Coordinator of the secondary department/program must provide input for every evaluation for a jointly appointed faculty member. In the case of promotion or tenure review, the secondary Department Chair/Program Coordinator must provide a written evaluation describing the nature and extent of the candidate’s involvement in, and contribution to, the secondary department/program. In the faculty member’s tenure application, it is important to document how the candidate’s time is being spent, and contributions to each department/program need to be clearly documented. It is recognized that new opportunities, changes in faculty interest, faculty performance, changes in the College’s curricular needs or enrollments or other issues with the joint appointment may require review, renegotiation, or discontinuation of the original joint appointment. If possible, a faculty member with a joint appointment will have the option of retreating to a full appointment at the primary department or program. If retreat is not a possibility, the Provost is responsible for ensuring that the faculty member is made fully aware of the existing options. Further, a short-term plan must be put in place to ensure a smooth transition with minimum disruption to the initiatives, projects, and teaching, that were the responsibility of the faculty member with the joint appointment. Recruitment and Appointment Recruitment and Appointment of Full-Time Teaching Faculty Vacancies shall be advertised in as many ways as are necessary in order to obtain a suitable pool of applicants in keeping with Wheaton's commitment to Equity and Belonging values and its policy as an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer; for example: in professional journals, job rosters, etc. Advertisements shall include a statement that the College is an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer. The Department or Program/Search Committee may also want to write to graduate schools. For legal purposes, records pertaining to the hiring process shall be retained in accordance with the College’s Record Retention schedule (see Inside Wheaton). Normally departments/programs will establish their own search committee. In the exceptional case of no continuing tenured member, the Provost will consult with the Advisory Committee. The Provost will then ask the Committee on Committees and Agenda to set up the search committee. The Search Committee shall review applications to determine who should be interviewed. Candidates may be interviewed at professional meetings to narrow the field. All members of the Search Committee will receive anti-bias training. Moreover, the committee chair is expected to consult with the Office of Human Resources for interview guidance. After consulting with the Provost, the Chair of the Search Committee shall invite several candidates to visit the College. The candidates shall be interviewed by members of the department, the Provost and/or the President, and students when possible. During these interviews, candidates will be notified that any job offer is contingent upon successful completion of employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks, as well documentation of U.S. citizenship or upon maintaining the appropriate visa status and work authorization. Moreover, notice of the availability of the College’s Annual Security Report will be provided to the interviewee, if the position was externally advertised. The Search Committee Chair shall send to the Provost a written recommendation from the Search Committee which shall state its majority opinion and indicate any disagreements within the Search Committee. The written recommendation shall verify that the candidate’s preparation and qualifications are appropriate to the nature of the teaching assignment. Candidate qualifications shall normally be measured, as applicable to the position, by advanced degrees held, evidence of scholarship, advanced study, creative activities, and teaching abilities, as well as relevant professional experience, training, and credentials. Exceptions may be made for individuals who do not hold advanced degrees but who are considered by the College to possess other demonstrated competencies and professional achievements that provide evidence to support excellent teaching and student achievement in the discipline. If the Provost or the President has reservations about following the recommendation for appointment, one or both shall consult with the Chair and may request that the Search Committee continue the search process. If the recommendation for appointment is approved by the President or the Provost, after consultation with the Chair, the Provost shall make a written offer of appointment to the appointee, stating the precise terms and conditions of the appointment. Such offer shall refer to, and be accompanied by, either a copy or a link to these Faculty Bylaws as then in effect. In the written offer, the Provost may, after receiving and considering recommendations from the search committee and the candidate’s Department Chair/Program Coordinator, award credit toward the fulfillment of promotion and/or tenure eligibility based upon the candidate’s past teaching and scholarly or creative work achievements at another accredited higher education institution. In all cases, a maximum of up to two years of full-time teaching at an accredited higher education institution may be excluded from the probationary period (see Article IV, Section 4.1.1). The offer is contingent upon verification of the candidate’s academic credentials or alternative experience qualifications credentials and the successful completion of requisite employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks. Moreover, an initial written offer of appointment to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure or Professor with tenure shall also indicate that the offer is subject to a formal vote of approval by the Board of Trustees, action on which is pending. Notice of such Trustee action shall be sent to the candidate. Each such offer shall also specify that it may be accepted only in writing. If it is so accepted, the President or the Provost shall furnish copies of the offer and acceptance to the Chair for the department or program’s records. All data submitted by appointee in connection with the application for appointment shall be retained in the Provost's records indefinitely. As soon as a vacancy has been filled, the Chair shall so advise the unsuccessful candidate(s) selected to be interviewed in writing. Human Resources will advise all other applicants. Note: Since years in academic rank are calculated based on full academic years, in the rare instance that a Tenure-line Faculty and Professors of the Practice joins the College after November 1, the faculty member’s first year in rank or title will be calculated starting with the succeeding full academic year. Initial Appointments with Tenure On occasion, the College may wish to hire a faculty member or academic administrator who already holds tenure at another accredited institution of higher education and who would not accept appointment at the College without tenure transfer. In such cases, after review of scholarly or creative materials and teaching philosophy, and in consultation with the Provost, applicable Department Chair or Program Coordinator, and Committee on Tenure, the President forwards the recommendation for tenure to the Board of Trustees. The Board renders a decision that is final. The College will only appoint candidates with tenure transfer at the same rank conferred by the candidate's previous institution. Recruitment and Appointment of Visiting Faculty A faculty member is considered visiting when his or her appointment (full-time) is for a period normally not to exceed one year. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486; May 4, 2007, p. 4640] For such Visiting Faculty appointments, the Department Chair or Program Coordinator may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures set forth above in Article II, Section 3.1, provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons or less under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73]. In all instances, however, the Department Chair or Program Coordinator shall verify that the final candidate’s preparation and qualifications are appropriate to the nature of the teaching assignment. Candidates for a Visiting Faculty position that are selected for interviews will be notified that any job offer is contingent upon successful completion of employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks, as well documentation of U.S. citizenship or upon maintaining the appropriate visa status and work authorization. Moreover, notice of the availability of the College’s Annual Security Report will be provided to the interviewee, if the position was externally advertised. Any offer of appointment is contingent upon verification of the candidate’s academic credentials or alternative experience qualifications credentials and the successful completion of requisite employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks. In all cases where a Visiting Faculty member is retained for more than one year on a full-time basis – whether the faculty member has a multiple year contract, a one-year contract that is being renewed for another term or a new semester or per course term contract – the Department Chair/Program Coordinator shall annually review the faculty member’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to do. A copy of this evaluation shall be shared with the faculty member and placed in the faculty member’s faculty personnel file. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486] Wheaton College Faculty Bylaws – Page 34</s>

<s>[INST] ARTICLE II - Wheaton College Bylaws - Faculty Draft (No Highlights).txt [/INST] Article II. Faculty Status, Contracts, and Initial Appointments Faculty Status – Types of Faculty Appointments The College appoints faculty members to one of the following types of faculty appointments: Full-time Teaching Faculty Tenure-line Faculty Tenure Track Faculty Tenured Faculty Professors of the Practice-line Faculty Professors of the Practice Senior Professors of the Practice Visiting Faculty The College also reserves the right to assign faculty status to certain administrators (see Article II, Section 1.3) and to acknowledge faculty members who have separated from service with the College following distinguished careers with the honorary designation of Associate Professor or Professor Emerita (see Article II, Section 1.4). 1.1. Full-Time Teaching Faculty Full-time faculty teaching appointments are made to either Tenure-line (see Article II, Section 1.1.1) or Professor of the Practice-line (see Article II, Section 1.1.2) positions in one of the College’s academic departments or program areas. Members of the full-time teaching faculty have a full-time teaching load as defined in the Wheaton College Employee Handbook for Faculty, as well as other applicable duties and responsibilities delineated in the faculty member’s appointment contract and these Faculty Bylaws. To be appointed to the full-time teaching faculty, candidates must possess the appropriate academic credentials and/or equivalent professional experience to teach courses in their academic discipline(s). Tenure-line Faculty Tenure-line faculty are full-time teaching faculty members who either hold a Tenure-Track (see Section 1.1.1.1) or Tenured (see Section 1.1.1.1) appointment. Members of the Tenure-line faculty enjoy the rights and protections set forth in these Faculty Bylaws. Moreover, they are afforded full voting privileges at faculty and academic department or program meetings. Tenure-Track Faculty Tenure-track faculty are full-time teaching faculty members who normally hold probationary appointments to one of two academic ranks: Instructor or Assistant Professor. An initial appointment may also be made at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. Tenure-track faculty are eligible to stand for tenure (see Article IV, Section 4) at the conclusion of the candidate’s probationary period. Tenured Faculty Tenured faculty are full-time teaching faculty who hold tenured (continued) appointments (see Article IV, Section 4) at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. Professors of the Practice Line Faculty appointed to the Professors of the Practice line are members of the full-time teaching faculty who possess expertise and achievements in a relevant field of instruction. Duties entail the equivalent of a standard full-time teaching load as defined in the Wheaton College Employee Handbook for Faculty and service activities following the first year of appointment (see Article IV, Section 1.3). Individuals appointed to the Professor of the Practice line are assigned the academic title of Professor of the Practice or Senior Professor of the Practice. Professors of the Practice share equal standing in departments and programs with their Tenure-line colleagues and have the following rights: Voting rights in faculty and department/program meetings Protection under the standards of notification for non-reappointment Eligibility for election or appointment to those standing committees for which they are eligible to serve Access to and protection under the grievance procedures Academic freedom Faculty benefits and raises Access to faculty development funds Appointment to the Professor of the Practice line, however, does not include eligibility for tenure, promotion to any tenure-seeking academic rank, or sabbatical leave, regardless of length of employment. Professors of the Practice are initially offered annual term contracts, followed by eligibility for multi-year contracts of two- and three-year durations as specified in the Duration of Appointment section of these Faculty Bylaws (see Article II, Section 2.2.1). Professor of the Practice appointments must be externally posted and searched nationally through faculty search committees with approval by the Provost in accordance with Article II, Section 3.1. In all instances, Professors of the Practice are subject to the evaluation policies and procedures described in Article IV, Section 2.3. Professors of the Practice may apply for open Tenure-Track positions. If selected and appointed to a Tenure-Track position, credit for time spent as a Professor of the Practice at Wheaton College for promotion in rank and tenure review purposes will be negotiated and determined by the Provost in consultation with the candidate's Department Chair/Program Coordinator, utilizing the same criteria for determining whether prior service credit is awarded to Tenure-line faculty (see Article II, Section 3.1). In all cases, a maximum of up to two years of full-time teaching in a Professor of the Practice-line position at the College may be excluded from the probationary period (see Article IV, Section 4.1.1). Visiting Faculty Visiting Faculty are appointed for a fixed contractual term (see Article II, Section 2.1.3) on a full or part-time basis to carry out instructional and any other responsibilities as delineated in the individual faculty member’s appointment letter. Full-time Visiting Faculty may be appointed annually, for a semester, or a year, for a period not to exceed two years. The visiting designation is used with one of the four academic ranks reserved for Tenure-line Faculty (Visiting Instructor, Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, or Visiting Professor). Visiting Faculty are not eligible for tenure, promotion, or sabbatical leave; however, they have the same academic freedom, as well as access to and protection under the grievance procedures. See Article V of the Faculty Bylaws for additional information regarding the terms, rights, and responsibilities applicable to Visiting Faculty. Visiting Faculty may apply for open Tenure-Track positions. If selected and appointed to a Tenure-Track position, credit for time spent as a Visiting Faculty member at Wheaton College for promotion in rank and tenure review purposes will be negotiated and determined by the Provost in consultation with the Department Chair/Program Coordinator, utilizing the same criteria for determining whether prior service credit is awarded to Tenure-line faculty (see Article II, Section 3.1). In all cases, a maximum of up to two years of full-time teaching in a Visiting faculty position at the College may be excluded from the probationary period (see Article IV, Section 4.1.1). Faculty Legislation Visiting Faculty Definition (Part One, Section III.a(2)) A faculty member is considered visiting when the individual’s appointment (full-time) is for a period normally not to exceed one year. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486; May 4, 2007, p. 4640] For such appointments, the Department Chair may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73] In all cases where a faculty member is retained for more than one year on a full-time basis – whether the individual has a multiple year contract or a one-year contract that is being renewed – the Department Chair shall annually review the individual’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to do. A copy of this evaluation shall be shared with the faculty member and placed in the individual’s faculty personnel file. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486] Administrative Faculty Pursuant to Article I, Section 1 of these Faculty Bylaws, administrative faculty include administrators who serve in one of the following positions: College President Provost Dean of Students Dean of Advising Dean of Library Services Dean of Global Education Dean of Admission Registrar Administrative Faculty are considered administrators for employment purposes, under terms and conditions of employment as stated in the College’s staff personnel policies. Administrative Faculty have the privilege of vote and voice in accordance with the provisions stated in Article I, Section 2. Faculty Rank and Retreat Rights for Administrative Faculty At the time of initial appointment to the administrative position, the President, subject to Board of Trustee approval, has the authority to assign the administrator a faculty rank that was earned through a faculty review at a comparable accredited or internationally recognized institution. In addition, the appointment may be made with tenure (see Article II, Section 3.1.1). Administrative Faculty holding academic rank, however, are ineligible to apply for tenure or promotion in rank during their terms of administrative service at Wheaton College. The President or Board of Trustees has the authority to assign Administrative Faculty retreat rights to a position on the faculty following the conclusion of administrative service (“retreat rights”). Administrative Faculty hired with retreat rights are eligible to assume a faculty position and, in some cases, subsequently stand for tenure after serving a probationary period. Prior to the assigning of retreat rights, the President or Provost will consult with the faculty of the cognizant department or program to enable the department or program to review the candidate’s academic credentials, to meet with the candidate (if possible), and to make a recommendation to the President as to whether the candidate possesses the appropriate academic credentials and/or equivalent professional experience to teach courses in their academic discipline(s). When an Administrative Faculty member is granted retreat rights, the President will state in the initial appointment letter the conditions under which the individual may join the faculty at the conclusion of the administrative faculty appointment. Faculty Members Who Accept Administrative Appointments Full-time teaching faculty accepting full-time administrative appointments move automatically to the administrative appointment at the same rank classification. Tenured faculty retain also tenure while holding the administrative appointment. At the time of the initial administrative appointment, the President (or President’s designee) will state in the administrative appointment contract the conditions under which the person will return to the full-time teaching faculty and whether the time spent as an administrator will count toward promotion, tenure, or the next sabbatical leave. Faculty members holding full-time administrative appointments who continue teaching and research or creative activities are eligible for certain academic promotions during their terms of administrative service and as assessed by the relevant faculty committees governing the process. Faculty Emeriti Emerita or emeritus status honors a faculty member's distinguished service and contributions during a career at the College, as well as the faculty member’s interest in an ongoing and meaningful connection with Wheaton. This status is open to all full-time teaching faculty members who have contributed meaningfully to the college for more than 20 years. A retiring Tenured or Senior Professor of the Practice-line faculty member’s department or program may request emerita or emeritus status for that colleague via a letter from the Department Chair or Program Coordinator to the Provost. That letter should indicate that the department or program supports the request and outline the reasons why the department or program believes the faculty member’s contributions merit emeriti status. Following the recommendation of the department/program, the Provost will review the received nomination and make a written recommendation to the Board of Trustees to either confer/not confer emerita/emeritus status. This recommendation shall not be subject to appeal. The Board of Trustees officially confers emeritus status. Emeriti Faculty are not considered employees of the College and therefore are not entitled to benefits. They are considered members of the broader Wheaton community. Emeriti Status Privileges Privileges of Emeriti Faculty are outlined in the Emeriti Faculty Guidelines in the Wheaton College Employee Handbook for Faculty. Revocation of Status Once awarded, emeritus status continues in perpetuity unless the recipient either requests to have status rescinded or violates the intent and spirit of emeritus status by engaging in serious dishonorable conduct in violation of law, rule, or policy and/or causes harm to the College’s reputation. To revoke emeriti status without the consent of the individual, a written petition must be made by the President to the Board of Trustees, which has the final authority to revoke the individual’s emeritus status. Actions or conduct protected by academic freedom shall not be used to revoke emeriti status. Academic Rank and Faculty Titles The College recognizes the following academic ranks and titles: Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Professor of the Practice, Senior Professor of the Practice, and Visiting Faculty. [May 13, 1963, p. 2715; Minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting, October 26, 1963, pp. 1055-57; November 18, 1963, pp. 2728-29] Eight specific full-time teaching positions are titled Associate Faculty, as explained in Section O. [November 3, 2006, p. 4608] At the time of initial appointment, the President or Provost shall approve the faculty rank after receiving and considering the recommendation from the search committee. In the case of an initial appointment to the rank of Associate Professor, the Committee on Tenure shall also offer a recommendation to the President. For an initial appointment to the rank of Professor or Senior Professor of the Practice, the Committee on Faculty Scholarship and Promotions will provide a recommendation to the President. Appointment to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor is further subject to a formal vote of approval by the Board of Trustees. Initial faculty rank is assigned on the basis of the information below, which indicates the minimum qualifications for appointment to the applicable rank. Instructor Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or equivalent terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Instructors. Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. Assistant Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility. In addition to academic or exceptional alternative equivalent experience qualifications, applicants seeking an initial appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor must demonstrate qualities that indicate potential and promise as an effective educator. Associate Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Associate Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility and, generally, six (6) years of full–time ranked teaching or a minimum of five (5) years of full–time teaching at the rank of Assistant Professor. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.1.1). Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.1.1). Professor of the Practice The minimum qualification for appointment to the academic title of Professor of the Practice is the appropriate degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or the equivalent professional expertise and achievement in a relevant field of professional practice. Senior Professor of the Practice The minimum qualification for appointment to the academic title of Senior Professor of the Practice is the appropriate degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or the equivalent professional expertise and achievement in a relevant field of professional practice. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.2.1). Faculty Contracts A faculty contract is a written mutual agreement between an individual granted faculty status and the College. The contractual terms (appointment type, academic department/program, rank, salary, length of appointment, etc.) of every faculty appointment will be stated in writing only by the President or the Provost to the faculty member. Academic departments and/or programs authorized to fill an open faculty position shall recommend candidates for appointment by the President or the Provost. Under no circumstance is a faculty member or College employee authorized to offer an appointment or to enter a faculty appointment contract. Any subsequent extensions or modifications of an appointment, and any special understandings, or any notices incumbent upon either party to provide, will be stated or confirmed in writing, and a copy will be given to the faculty member. Types of Faculty Contracts The following types of contracts are issued to individuals granted faculty status at Wheaton College: Tenure Track Contracts, Probationary Appointments Tenure-line faculty members eligible for tenure receive tenure-track contracts and hold probationary appointments until they either receive tenure or separate from the College. A probationary appointment is made with the understanding that both the College and the probationary faculty member will engage in a period of mutual evaluation—the probationary period—leading to the tenure decision. Faculty members eligible for tenure may be appointed to the rank of Instructor and Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor, upon consideration of their qualifications and experience relative to the standards for appointment in rank. A tenure-track appointment is normally renewable up to a total of seven (7) years of full-time service—i.e., a maximum of six (6) years prior to and including the year of the tenure decision, plus one (1) additional terminal year in the case of a negative tenure decision—unless the probationary period is either accelerated or extended in accordance with Article IV, Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, respectively. Faculty members holding tenure-track contracts undergo annual and reappointment reviews as specified in Article IV, Section 2.2. A faculty member undergoing an unsuccessful tenure review will receive notice and will be allowed to complete a final year of the probationary appointment pursuant to a terminal contract (see Section 2.1.4 below). Tenured Contracts Tenured contracts are awarded to Tenure-line Faculty who have attained tenured status (see Article IV, Section 4). The granting of tenure can only be effected by the procedures specified in the College’s Tenure Policy (see Article IV, Section 4) and upon the affirmative vote of the Board of Trustees. De facto tenure is not awarded at Wheaton College. A tenured faculty member has the contractual right to continuous appointments until the faculty member resigns, is dismissed for adequate cause (see Article IV, Section 8.2.1), or is terminated as a result of a reduction in force due to fide financial exigency or program discontinuation (see Article IV, Section 8.2.2 and 8.2.3, respectively). Term Contracts Term contracts are offered to Professors of the Practice-line and Visiting faculty and are limited to the term of employment outlined in the appointment contract. Subject to College need, another term contract may be offered subject to the limitations set forth in these Faculty Bylaws. Issuance of another term contract is solely within the discretion of the College and no other procedures apply. Terminal Contracts A Terminal contract is the final annual contract issued to Tenure Track faculty whose contract will not be renewed or who have been denied tenure. Duration of Appointments and Notice of Termination The College will observe the following guidelines for rank and duration of appointments and notice of terminations: Duration of Appointments Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Instructors. Those who have completed their professional training will ordinarily be appointed Assistant Professors. Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. The initial term of appointment for Tenure-Track Faculty will be either for one or two years as set forth in the individual faculty member’s appointment contract. Professors of the Practice will receive one-year appointments in the first two years of service at the College. At the end of the second annual contract year, a Professor of the Practice will be considered for a two-year contract. When the fiscal and programmatic needs of the College permit, a summative review by the Committee on Faculty Scholarship and Promotions in May of the first year of the two-year contract will assess eligibility for a three-year term contract. Review in May of second year of a three-year contract will determine eligibility for a successive three-year contract. See Article IV, Section 2.3.2 for additional information. Overall, a Professor of the Practice’s employment is governed by the individual’s appointment contract. The College may elect not to re-appoint the faculty member at the College’s discretion, regardless of the positive outcome of any review, if curricular needs change and/or enrollment declines. Visiting Faculty will receive appointments on a per-course, semester, or annual basis. [February 4, 2005, p. 4492] Replacements for faculty members on leave and other temporary personnel will receive appointments of appropriate rank and duration. Regardless of rank or duration of previous appointments, any non-tenure track member of the faculty or Professor of the Practice with two or more years of service at Wheaton may be given a one-year terminal contract. In such a case, the standards of notification as described in Article II, Section 2.2.2 below will be observed. Notice of Termination In decisions regarding reappointment or non-reappointment of full-time Tenure Track and Professors of the Practice-faculty members, care will be taken to observe the following standards of notification (or salary in lieu of notice) endorsed in 1964 as the official policy of the American Association of University Professors: Not later than May 1 of the first academic or second academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if a one-year appointment ends during the academic year, at least three months in advance of its termination. Not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of the year; or, if an initial two-year appointment ends during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination. At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years of service. The notice provisions set forth above do not apply to Tenure-Track faculty and Professors of the Practice-line faculty that have been issued a Terminal Appointment contract. Annual Contract Period The period of employment under a full-time faculty contract shall be for the 12-month period beginning July 1 and ending June 30, during which the individual shall receive salary and benefits. The contract will cover the duties associated with the position performed during the period which begins the week before classes begin through the week after Commencement and is known as the "academic year." Primary Area of Appointment All faculty appointment contracts designate a department or academic program as the faculty member’s primary faculty appointment location. It is from this department(s) or program(s) that recommendations for reappointment, promotion, tenure, and other actions concerning a Full-Time Teaching Faculty member are initiated. A faculty member’s primary faculty appointment may be changed by the President (or President’s designee) to meet the curricular and organizational needs of the College. Joint Appointments When a faculty member’s contractual responsibilities require a significant portion of teaching and professional activity responsibilities be devoted to either multiple departments, interdisciplinary programs, areas of instruction, or other academic entities engaged in or responsible for the delivery of the curriculum, the faculty member may receive a joint appointment to a department and a specified program or to two departments. A joint appointment may be established at any stage of faculty employment. In making a joint appointment, a primary and secondary department or program will be clearly designated by the Provost in the faculty member’s appointment contract. Such designation may be revised at any stage of employment by the President (or the President’s designee) to meet the curricular or organizational needs of the College. The primary department or program will serve as the faculty member’s administrative home, which will take the lead responsibility on personnel issues, central human resources reporting, appointment, promotions, tenure, coordination of annual performance review, conflict resolution, and changes in employment. Often, but not always, the administrative home will be the department or program with the higher appointment fraction. The nature of a joint appointment varies and the assignment of duties in the secondary department or program will differ by department/program and candidate. The details of the assignment of duties, the allocation of salary, departmental/program governance rights, and provision for office and laboratory space as applicable to both the primary and secondary departments/program will be communicated in a signed written memorandum of understanding signed by the two Department Chairs/Program Coordinators, the faculty member, and the Provost. Additionally, negotiated changes to those details will be evidenced in a signed memorandum of understanding. The Department Chair/Program Coordinator of the secondary department/program must provide input for every evaluation for a jointly appointed faculty member. In the case of promotion or tenure review, the secondary Department Chair/Program Coordinator must provide a written evaluation describing the nature and extent of the candidate’s involvement in, and contribution to, the secondary department/program. In the faculty member’s tenure application, it is important to document how the candidate’s time is being spent, and contributions to each department/program need to be clearly documented. It is recognized that new opportunities, changes in faculty interest, faculty performance, changes in the College’s curricular needs or enrollments or other issues with the joint appointment may require review, renegotiation, or discontinuation of the original joint appointment. If possible, a faculty member with a joint appointment will have the option of retreating to a full appointment at the primary department or program. If retreat is not a possibility, the Provost is responsible for ensuring that the faculty member is made fully aware of the existing options. Further, a short-term plan must be put in place to ensure a smooth transition with minimum disruption to the initiatives, projects, and teaching, that were the responsibility of the faculty member with the joint appointment. Recruitment and Appointment Recruitment and Appointment of Full-Time Teaching Faculty Vacancies shall be advertised in as many ways as are necessary in order to obtain a suitable pool of applicants in keeping with Wheaton's commitment to Equity and Belonging values and its policy as an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer; for example: in professional journals, job rosters, etc. Advertisements shall include a statement that the College is an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer. The Department or Program/Search Committee may also want to write to graduate schools. For legal purposes, records pertaining to the hiring process shall be retained in accordance with the College’s Record Retention schedule (see Inside Wheaton). Normally departments/programs will establish their own search committee. In the exceptional case of no continuing tenured member, the Provost will consult with the Advisory Committee. The Provost will then ask the Committee on Committees and Agenda to set up the search committee. The Search Committee shall review applications to determine who should be interviewed. Candidates may be interviewed at professional meetings to narrow the field. All members of the Search Committee will receive anti-bias training. Moreover, the committee chair is expected to consult with the Office of Human Resources for interview guidance. After consulting with the Provost, the Chair of the Search Committee shall invite several candidates to visit the College. The candidates shall be interviewed by members of the department, the Provost and/or the President, and students when possible. During these interviews, candidates will be notified that any job offer is contingent upon successful completion of employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks, as well documentation of U.S. citizenship or upon maintaining the appropriate visa status and work authorization. Moreover, notice of the availability of the College’s Annual Security Report will be provided to the interviewee, if the position was externally advertised. The Search Committee Chair shall send to the Provost a written recommendation from the Search Committee which shall state its majority opinion and indicate any disagreements within the Search Committee. The written recommendation shall verify that the candidate’s preparation and qualifications are appropriate to the nature of the teaching assignment. Candidate qualifications shall normally be measured, as applicable to the position, by advanced degrees held, evidence of scholarship, advanced study, creative activities, and teaching abilities, as well as relevant professional experience, training, and credentials. Exceptions may be made for individuals who do not hold advanced degrees but who are considered by the College to possess other demonstrated competencies and professional achievements that provide evidence to support excellent teaching and student achievement in the discipline. If the Provost or the President has reservations about following the recommendation for appointment, one or both shall consult with the Chair and may request that the Search Committee continue the search process. If the recommendation for appointment is approved by the President or the Provost, after consultation with the Chair, the Provost shall make a written offer of appointment to the appointee, stating the precise terms and conditions of the appointment. Such offer shall refer to, and be accompanied by, either a copy or a link to these Faculty Bylaws as then in effect. In the written offer, the Provost may, after receiving and considering recommendations from the search committee and the candidate’s Department Chair/Program Coordinator, award credit toward the fulfillment of promotion and/or tenure eligibility based upon the candidate’s past teaching and scholarly or creative work achievements at another accredited higher education institution. In all cases, a maximum of up to two years of full-time teaching at an accredited higher education institution may be excluded from the probationary period (see Article IV, Section 4.1.1). The offer is contingent upon verification of the candidate’s academic credentials or alternative experience qualifications credentials and the successful completion of requisite employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks. Moreover, an initial written offer of appointment to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure or Professor with tenure shall also indicate that the offer is subject to a formal vote of approval by the Board of Trustees, action on which is pending. Notice of such Trustee action shall be sent to the candidate. Each such offer shall also specify that it may be accepted only in writing. If it is so accepted, the President or the Provost shall furnish copies of the offer and acceptance to the Chair for the department or program’s records. All data submitted by appointee in connection with the application for appointment shall be retained in the Provost's records indefinitely. As soon as a vacancy has been filled, the Chair shall so advise the unsuccessful candidate(s) selected to be interviewed in writing. Human Resources will advise all other applicants. Note: Since years in academic rank are calculated based on full academic years, in the rare instance that a Tenure-line Faculty and Professors of the Practice joins the College after November 1, the faculty member’s first year in rank or title will be calculated starting with the succeeding full academic year. Initial Appointments with Tenure On occasion, the College may wish to hire a faculty member or academic administrator who already holds tenure at another accredited institution of higher education and who would not accept appointment at the College without tenure transfer. In such cases, after review of scholarly or creative materials and teaching philosophy, and in consultation with the Provost, applicable Department Chair or Program Coordinator, and Committee on Tenure, the President forwards the recommendation for tenure to the Board of Trustees. The Board renders a decision that is final. The College will only appoint candidates with tenure transfer at the same rank conferred by the candidate's previous institution. Recruitment and Appointment of Visiting Faculty A faculty member is considered visiting when his or her appointment (full-time) is for a period normally not to exceed one year. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486; May 4, 2007, p. 4640] For such Visiting Faculty appointments, the Department Chair or Program Coordinator may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures set forth above in Article II, Section 3.1, provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons or less under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73]. In all instances, however, the Department Chair or Program Coordinator shall verify that the final candidate’s preparation and qualifications are appropriate to the nature of the teaching assignment. Candidates for a Visiting Faculty position that are selected for interviews will be notified that any job offer is contingent upon successful completion of employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks, as well documentation of U.S. citizenship or upon maintaining the appropriate visa status and work authorization. Moreover, notice of the availability of the College’s Annual Security Report will be provided to the interviewee, if the position was externally advertised. Any offer of appointment is contingent upon verification of the candidate’s academic credentials or alternative experience qualifications credentials and the successful completion of requisite employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks. In all cases where a Visiting Faculty member is retained for more than one year on a full-time basis – whether the faculty member has a multiple year contract, a one-year contract that is being renewed for another term or a new semester or per course term contract – the Department Chair/Program Coordinator shall annually review the faculty member’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to do. A copy of this evaluation shall be shared with the faculty member and placed in the faculty member’s faculty personnel file. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486] Wheaton College Faculty Bylaws – Page 34</s>

<s>[INST] ARTICLE II - Wheaton College Bylaws - Faculty Draft.txt [/INST] Article II. Faculty Status, Contracts, and Initial Appointments Faculty Status – Types of Faculty Appointments The College appoints faculty members to one of the following types of faculty appointments: Full-time Teaching Faculty Tenure-line Faculty Tenure Track Faculty Tenured Faculty Professors of the Practice-line Faculty Professors of the Practice Senior Professors of the Practice Visiting Faculty The College also reserves the right to assign faculty status to certain administrators (see Article II, Section 1.3) and to acknowledge faculty members who have separated from service with the College following distinguished careers with the honorary designation of Associate Professor or Professor Emerita (see Article II, Section 1.4). 1.1. Full-Time Teaching Faculty Full-time faculty teaching appointments are made to either Tenure-line (see Article II, Section 1.1.1) or Professor of the Practice-line (see Article II, Section 1.1.2) positions in one of the College’s academic departments or program areas. Members of the full-time teaching faculty have a full-time teaching load as defined in the Wheaton College Employee Handbook for Faculty, as well as other applicable duties and responsibilities delineated in the faculty member’s appointment contract and these Faculty Bylaws. To be appointed to the full-time teaching faculty, candidates must possess the appropriate academic credentials and/or equivalent professional experience to teach courses in their academic discipline(s). Tenure-line Faculty Tenure-line faculty are full-time teaching faculty members who either hold a Tenure-Track (see Section 1.1.1.1) or Tenured (see Section 1.1.1.1) appointment. Members of the Tenure-line faculty enjoy the rights and protections set forth in these Faculty Bylaws. Moreover, they are afforded full voting privileges at faculty and academic department or program meetings. Tenure-Track Faculty Tenure-track faculty are full-time teaching faculty members who normally hold probationary appointments to one of two academic ranks: Instructor or Assistant Professor. An initial appointment may also be made at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. Tenure-track faculty are eligible to stand for tenure (see Article IV, Section 4) at the conclusion of the candidate’s probationary period. Tenured Faculty Tenured faculty are full-time teaching faculty who hold tenured (continued) appointments (see Article IV, Section 4) at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. Professors of the Practice-line Faculty appointed to the Professors of the Practice-line are members of the full-time teaching faculty who possess expertise and achievements in a relevant field of instruction. Duties entail the equivalent of a standard full-time teaching load as defined in the Wheaton College Employee Handbook for Faculty and service activities following the first year of appointment (see Article IV, Section 1.3). Individuals appointed to the Professor of the Practice line are assigned the academic title of Professor of the Practice or Senior Professor of the Practice. Professors of the Practice share equal standing in departments and programs with their Tenure-line colleagues and have the following rights: Voting rights in faculty and department/program meetings Protection under the standards of notification for non-reappointment Eligibility for election or appointment to those standing committees for which they are eligible to serve Access to and protection under the grievance procedures Academic freedom Faculty benefits and raises Access to faculty development funds Appointment to the Professor of the Practice line, however, does not include eligibility for tenure, promotion to any tenure-seeking academic rank, or sabbatical leave, regardless of length of employment. Professors of the Practice are initially offered annual term contracts, followed by eligibility for multi-year contracts of two- and three-years as specified in the Duration of Appointment section of these Faculty Bylaws (see Article II, Section 2.2.1). Professor of the Practice appointments must be externally posted and searched nationally through faculty search committees with approval by the Provost in accordance with Article II, Section 3.1. In all instances, Professors of the Practice are subject to the evaluation policies and procedures described in Article IV, Section 2.3. Professors of the Practice may apply for open Tenure-Track positions. If selected and appointed to a Tenure-Track position, credit for time spent as a Professor of the Practice at Wheaton College for promotion in rank and tenure review purposes will be negotiated and determined by the Provost in consultation with the candidate's Department Chair/Program Coordinator, utilizing the same criteria for determining whether prior service credit is awarded to Tenure-line faculty (see Article II, Section 3.1). In all cases, a maximum of up to three years of full-time teaching in a Professor of the Practice-line position at the College may be excluded from the probationary period (see Article IV, Section 4.1.1). Visiting Faculty Visiting Faculty are appointed for a fixed contractual term (see Article II, Section 2.1.3) on a full or part-time basis to carry out instructional and any other responsibilities as delineated in the individual faculty member’s appointment letter. Full-time Visiting Faculty may be appointed annually, for a semester, or a year, for a period not to exceed two years. The visiting designation is used with one of the four academic ranks reserved for Tenure-line Faculty (Visiting Instructor, Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, or Visiting Professor). Visiting Faculty are not eligible for tenure, promotion, or sabbatical leave; however, they have the same academic freedom, as well as access to and protection under the grievance procedures. See Article V of the Faculty Bylaws for additional information regarding the terms, rights, and responsibilities applicable to Visiting Faculty. Visiting Faculty may apply for open Tenure-Track positions. If selected and appointed to a Tenure-Track position, credit for time spent as a Visiting Faculty member at Wheaton College for promotion in rank and tenure review purposes will be negotiated and determined by the Provost in consultation with the Department Chair/Program Coordinator, utilizing the same criteria for determining whether prior service credit is awarded to Tenure-line faculty (see Article II, Section 3.1). In all cases, a maximum of up to three years of full-time teaching in a Visiting faculty position at the College may be excluded from the probationary period (see Article IV, Section 4.1.1). Faculty Legislation Visiting Faculty Definition (Part One, Section III.a(2)) A faculty member is considered visiting when the individual’s appointment (full-time) is for a period normally not to exceed one year. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486; May 4, 2007, p. 4640] For such appointments, the Department Chair may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73] In all cases where a faculty member is retained for more than one year on a full-time basis – whether the individual has a multiple year contract or a one-year contract that is being renewed – the Department Chair shall annually review the individual’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to do. A copy of this evaluation shall be shared with the faculty member and placed in the individual’s faculty personnel file. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486] Administrative Faculty Pursuant to Article I, Section 1 of these Faculty Bylaws, administrative faculty include administrators who serve in one of the following positions: College President Provost Dean of Students Dean of Advising Dean of Library Services Dean of Global Education Dean of Admission Registrar Administrative Faculty are considered administrators for employment purposes, under terms and conditions of employment as stated in the College’s staff personnel policies. Administrative Faculty have the privilege of vote and voice in accordance with the provisions stated in Article I, Section 2. Faculty Rank and Retreat Rights for Administrative Faculty At the time of initial appointment to the administrative position, the President, subject to Board of Trustee approval, has the authority to assign the administrator a faculty rank that was earned through a faculty review at a comparable accredited or internationally recognized institution. In addition, the appointment may be made with tenure (see Article II, Section 3.1.1). Administrative Faculty holding academic rank, however, are ineligible to apply for tenure or promotion in rank during their terms of administrative service at Wheaton College. The President or Board of Trustees has the authority to assign Administrative Faculty retreat rights to a position on the faculty following the conclusion of administrative service (“retreat rights”). Administrative Faculty hired with retreat rights are eligible to assume a faculty position and, in some cases, subsequently stand for tenure after serving a probationary period. Prior to the assigning of retreat rights, the President or Provost will consult with the faculty of the cognizant department or program to enable the department or program to review the candidate’s academic credentials, to meet with the candidate (if possible), and to make a recommendation to the President as to whether the candidate possesses the appropriate academic credentials and/or equivalent professional experience to teach courses in their academic discipline(s). When an Administrative Faculty member is granted retreat rights, the President will state in the initial appointment letter the conditions under which the individual may join the faculty at the conclusion of the administrative faculty appointment. Faculty Members Who Accept Administrative Appointments Full-time teaching faculty accepting full-time administrative appointments move automatically to the administrative appointment at the same rank classification. Tenured faculty retain also tenure while holding the administrative appointment. At the time of the initial administrative appointment, the President (or President’s designee) will state in the administrative appointment contract the conditions under which the person will return to the full-time teaching faculty and whether the time spent as an administrator will count toward promotion, tenure, or the next sabbatical leave. Faculty members holding full-time administrative appointments who continue teaching and research or creative activities are eligible for certain academic promotions during their terms of administrative service and as assessed by the relevant faculty committees governing the process. Faculty Emeriti Emerita or emeritus status honors a faculty member's distinguished service and contributions during a career at the College, as well as the faculty member’s interest in an ongoing and meaningful connection with Wheaton. This status is open to all full-time teaching faculty members who have contributed meaningfully to the college for more than 20 years. A retiring Tenured or Senior Professor of the Practice-line faculty member’s department or program may request emerita or emeritus status for that colleague via a letter from the Department Chair or Program Coordinator to the Provost. That letter should indicate that the department or program supports the request and outline the reasons why the department or program believes the faculty member’s contributions merit emeriti status. Following the recommendation of the department/program, the Provost will review the received nomination and make a written recommendation to the Board of Trustees to either confer/not confer emerita/emeritus status. This recommendation shall not be subject to appeal. The Board of Trustees officially confers emeritus status. Emeriti Faculty are not considered employees of the College and therefore are not entitled to benefits. They are considered members of the broader Wheaton community. Emeriti Status Privileges Privileges of Emeriti Faculty are outlined in the Emeriti Faculty Guidelines in the Wheaton College Employee Handbook for Faculty. Revocation of Status Once awarded, emeritus status continues in perpetuity unless the recipient either requests to have status rescinded or violates the intent and spirit of emeritus status by engaging in serious dishonorable conduct in violation of law, rule, or policy and/or causes harm to the College’s reputation. To revoke emeriti status without the consent of the individual, a written petition must be made by the President to the Board of Trustees, which has the final authority to revoke the individual’s emeritus status. Actions or conduct protected by academic freedom shall not be used to revoke emeriti status. Academic Rank and Faculty Titles The College recognizes the following academic ranks and titles: Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Professor of the Practice, Senior Professor of the Practice, and Visiting Faculty. [May 13, 1963, p. 2715; Minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting, October 26, 1963, pp. 1055-57; November 18, 1963, pp. 2728-29] Eight specific full-time teaching positions are titled Associate Faculty, as explained in Section O. [November 3, 2006, p. 4608] At the time of initial appointment, the President or Provost shall approve the faculty rank after receiving and considering the recommendation from the search committee. In the case of an initial appointment to the rank of Associate Professor, the Committee on Tenure shall also offer a recommendation to the President. For an initial appointment to the rank of Professor or Senior Professor of the Practice, the Committee on Faculty Scholarship and Promotions will provide a recommendation to the President. Appointment to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor is further subject to a formal vote of approval by the Board of Trustees. Initial faculty rank is assigned on the basis of the information below, which indicates the minimum qualifications for appointment to the applicable rank. Instructor Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or equivalent terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Instructors. Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. Assistant Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility. In addition to academic or exceptional alternative equivalent experience qualifications, applicants seeking an initial appointment to the rank of Assistant Professor must demonstrate qualities that indicate potential and promise as an effective educator. Associate Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Associate Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility and, generally, six (6) years of full–time ranked teaching or a minimum of five (5) years of full–time teaching at the rank of Assistant Professor. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.1.1). Professor The minimum qualification for appointment to the rank of Professor is the appropriate terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or foreign institution or its professional equivalent in a discipline directly related to the individual's area of responsibility. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.1.1). Professor of the Practice The minimum qualification for appointment to the academic title of Professor of the Practice is the appropriate degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or the equivalent professional expertise and achievement in a relevant field of professional practice. Senior Professor of the Practice The minimum qualification for appointment to the academic title of Senior Professor of the Practice is the appropriate degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or the equivalent professional expertise and achievement in a relevant field of professional practice. Appointment further requires that the person meet the standards for promotion to this rank (see Article IV, Section 3.2.1). Faculty Contracts A faculty contract is a written mutual agreement between an individual granted faculty status and the College. The contractual terms (appointment type, academic department/program, rank, salary, length of appointment, etc.) of every faculty appointment will be stated in writing only by the President or the Provost to the faculty member. Academic departments and/or programs authorized to fill an open faculty position shall recommend candidates for appointment by the President or the Provost. Under no circumstance is a faculty member or College employee authorized to offer an appointment or to enter a faculty appointment contract. Any subsequent extensions or modifications of an appointment, and any special understandings, or any notices incumbent upon either party to provide, will be stated or confirmed in writing, and a copy will be given to the faculty member. Types of Faculty Contracts The following types of contracts are issued to individuals granted faculty status at Wheaton College: Tenure Track Contracts, Probationary Appointments Tenure-line faculty members eligible for tenure receive tenure-track contracts and hold probationary appointments until they either receive tenure or separate from the College. A probationary appointment is made with the understanding that both the College and the probationary faculty member will engage in a period of mutual evaluation—the probationary period—leading to the tenure decision. Faculty members eligible for tenure may be appointed to the rank of Instructor and Assistant Professor upon consideration of their qualifications and experience relative to the standards for appointment in rank. A tenure-track appointment is normally renewable up to a total of seven (7) years of full-time service—i.e., a maximum of six (6) years prior to and including the year of the tenure decision, plus one (1) additional terminal year in the case of a negative tenure decision—unless the probationary period is either accelerated or extended in accordance with Article IV, Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, respectively. Faculty members holding tenure-track contracts undergo annual and reappointment reviews as specified in Article IV, Section 2.2. A faculty member undergoing an unsuccessful tenure review will receive notice and will be allowed to complete a final year of the probationary appointment pursuant to a terminal contract (see Section 2.1.4 below). Tenured Contracts Tenured contracts are awarded to Tenure-line Faculty who have attained tenured status (see Article IV, Section 4). The granting of tenure can only be effected by the procedures specified in the College’s Tenure Policy (see Article IV, Section 4) and upon the affirmative vote of the Board of Trustees. De facto tenure is not awarded at Wheaton College. A tenured faculty member has the contractual right to continuous appointments until the faculty member resigns, is dismissed for adequate cause (see Article IV, Section 8.2.1), or is terminated as a result of a reduction in force due to fide financial exigency or program discontinuation (see Article IV, Section 8.2.2 and 8.2.3, respectively). Term Contracts Term contracts are offered to Professors of the Practice-line and Visiting faculty and are limited to the term of employment outlined in the appointment contract. Subject to College need, another term contract may be offered subject to the limitations set forth in these Faculty Bylaws. Issuance of another term contract is solely within the discretion of the College and no other procedures apply. Terminal Contracts A Terminal contract is the final annual contract issued to Tenure Track faculty whose contract will not be renewed or who have been denied tenure. Duration of Appointments and Notice of Termination The College will observe the following guidelines for rank and duration of appointments and notice of terminations: Duration of Appointments Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Instructors. Those who have completed their professional training will ordinarily be appointed Assistant Professors. Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. The initial term of appointment for Tenure-Track Faculty will be either for one or two years as set forth in the individual faculty member’s appointment contract. Professors of the Practice will receive one-year appointments in the first two years of service at the College. After two years of full-time teaching at the College, Professors of the Practice are eligible to receive a two-year appointment. Review in May of the first year of a two-year contract will determine eligibility for a subsequent two-year contract if the Professor of the Practice does not choose to be considered for a promotion to Senior Professor of the Practice. After four years of full-time teaching at the College, Professors of the Practice are eligible for promotion to Senior Professor of the Practice and a three-year appointment. Review in May of the second year of a three-year contract will determine eligibility for a subsequent three-year contract. See Article IV, Section 2.3.2 for additional information. Overall, a Professor of the Practice’s employment is governed by the individual’s appointment contract. The College may elect not to re-appoint the faculty member at the College’s discretion, regardless of the positive outcome of any review, if curricular needs change and/or enrollment declines. Visiting Faculty will receive appointments on a per-course, semester, or annual basis. [February 4, 2005, p. 4492] Replacements for faculty members on leave and other temporary personnel will receive appointments of appropriate rank and duration. Regardless of rank or duration of previous appointments, any non-tenure track member of the faculty or Professor of the Practice with two or more years of service at Wheaton may be given a one-year terminal contract. In such a case, the standards of notification as described in Article II, Section 2.2.2 below will be observed. Notice of Termination In decisions regarding reappointment or non-reappointment of full-time Tenure Track and Professors of the Practice-line faculty members, care will be taken to observe the following standards of notification (or salary in lieu of notice) endorsed in 1964 as the official policy of the American Association of University Professors: Not later than May 1 of the first academic or second academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if a one-year appointment ends during the academic year, at least three months in advance of its termination. Not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of the year; or, if an initial two-year appointment ends during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination. At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years of service. The notice provisions set forth above do not apply to Tenure-Track faculty that have been issued a Terminal Appointment contract. Annual Contract Period The period of employment under a full-time faculty contract shall be for the 12-month period beginning July 1 and ending June 30, during which the individual shall receive salary and benefits. The contract will cover the duties associated with the position performed during the period which begins the week before classes begin through the week after Commencement and is known as the "academic year." Primary Area of Appointment All faculty appointment contracts designate a department or academic program as the faculty member’s primary faculty appointment location. It is from this department(s) or program(s) that recommendations for reappointment, promotion, tenure, and other actions concerning a Full-Time Teaching Faculty member are initiated. A faculty member’s primary faculty appointment may be changed by the President (or President’s designee) to meet the curricular and organizational needs of the College. Joint Appointments When a faculty member’s contractual responsibilities require a significant portion of teaching and professional activity responsibilities be devoted to either multiple departments, interdisciplinary programs, areas of instruction, or other academic entities engaged in or responsible for the delivery of the curriculum, the faculty member may receive a joint appointment to a department and a specified program or to two departments. A joint appointment may be established at any stage of faculty employment. In making a joint appointment, a primary and secondary department or program will be clearly designated by the Provost in the faculty member’s appointment contract. Such designation may be revised at any stage of employment by the President (or the President’s designee) to meet the curricular or organizational needs of the College. The primary department or program will serve as the faculty member’s administrative home, which will take the lead responsibility on personnel issues, central human resources reporting, appointment, promotions, tenure, coordination of annual performance review, conflict resolution, and changes in employment. Often, but not always, the administrative home will be the department or program with the higher appointment fraction. The nature of a joint appointment varies and the assignment of duties in the secondary department or program will differ by department/program and candidate. The details of the assignment of duties, the allocation of salary, departmental/program governance rights, and provision for office and laboratory space as applicable to both the primary and secondary departments/program will be communicated in a signed written memorandum of understanding signed by the two Department Chairs/Program Coordinators, the faculty member, and the Provost. Additionally, negotiated changes to those details will be evidenced in a signed memorandum of understanding. The Department Chair/Program Coordinator of the secondary department/program must provide input for every evaluation for a jointly appointed faculty member. In the case of promotion or tenure review, the secondary Department Chair/Program Coordinator must provide a written evaluation describing the nature and extent of the candidate’s involvement in, and contribution to, the secondary department/program. In the faculty member’s tenure application, it is important to document how the candidate’s time is being spent, and contributions to each department/program need to be clearly documented. It is recognized that new opportunities, changes in faculty interest, faculty performance, changes in the College’s curricular needs or enrollments or other issues with the joint appointment may require review, renegotiation, or discontinuation of the original joint appointment. If possible, a faculty member with a joint appointment will have the option of retreating to a full appointment at the primary department or program. If retreat is not a possibility, the Provost is responsible for ensuring that the faculty member is made fully aware of the existing options. Further, a short-term plan must be put in place to ensure a smooth transition with minimum disruption to the initiatives, projects, and teaching, that were the responsibility of the faculty member with the joint appointment. Recruitment and Appointment Recruitment and Appointment of Full-Time Teaching Faculty Vacancies shall be advertised in as many ways as are necessary in order to obtain a suitable pool of applicants in keeping with Wheaton's commitment to Equity and Belonging values and its policy as an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer; for example: in professional journals, job rosters, etc. Advertisements shall include a statement that the College is an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer. The Department or Program/Search Committee may also want to write to graduate schools. For legal purposes, records pertaining to the hiring process shall be retained in accordance with the College’s Record Retention schedule (see Inside Wheaton). Normally departments/programs will establish their own search committee. In the exceptional case of no continuing tenured member, the Provost will consult with the Advisory Committee. The Provost will then ask the Committee on Committees and Agenda to set up the search committee. The Search Committee shall review applications to determine who should be interviewed. Candidates may be interviewed at professional meetings to narrow the field. All members of the Search Committee will receive anti-bias training. Moreover, the committee chair is expected to consult with the Office of Human Resources for interview guidance. After consulting with the Provost, the Chair of the Search Committee shall invite several candidates to visit the College. The candidates shall be interviewed by members of the department, the Provost and/or the President, and students when possible. During these interviews, candidates will be notified that any job offer is contingent upon successful completion of employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks, as well documentation of U.S. citizenship or upon maintaining the appropriate visa status and work authorization. Moreover, notice of the availability of the College’s Annual Security Report will be provided to the interviewee, if the position was externally advertised. The Search Committee Chair shall send to the Provost a written recommendation from the Search Committee which shall state its majority opinion and indicate any disagreements within the Search Committee. The written recommendation shall verify that the candidate’s preparation and qualifications are appropriate to the nature of the teaching assignment. Candidate qualifications shall normally be measured, as applicable to the position, by advanced degrees held, evidence of scholarship, advanced study, creative activities, and teaching abilities, as well as relevant professional experience, training, and credentials. Exceptions may be made for individuals who do not hold advanced degrees but who are considered by the College to possess other demonstrated competencies and professional achievements that provide evidence to support excellent teaching and student achievement in the discipline. If the Provost or the President has reservations about following the recommendation for appointment, one or both shall consult with the Chair and may request that the Search Committee continue the search process. If the recommendation for appointment is approved by the President or the Provost, after consultation with the Chair, the Provost shall make a written offer of appointment to the appointee, stating the precise terms and conditions of the appointment. Such offer shall refer to, and be accompanied by, either a copy or a link to these Faculty Bylaws as then in effect. In the written offer, the Provost may, after receiving and considering recommendations from the search committee and the candidate’s Department Chair/Program Coordinator, award credit toward the fulfillment of promotion and/or tenure eligibility based upon the candidate’s past teaching and scholarly or creative work achievements at another accredited higher education institution. In all cases, a maximum of up to two years of full-time teaching at an accredited higher education institution may be excluded from the probationary period (see Article IV, Section 4.1.1). The offer is contingent upon verification of the candidate’s academic credentials or alternative experience qualifications credentials and the successful completion of requisite employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks. Moreover, an initial written offer of appointment to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure or Professor with tenure shall also indicate that the offer is subject to a formal vote of approval by the Board of Trustees, action on which is pending. Notice of such Trustee action shall be sent to the candidate. Each such offer shall also specify that it may be accepted only in writing. If it is so accepted, the President or the Provost shall furnish copies of the offer and acceptance to the Chair for the department or program’s records. All data submitted by appointee in connection with the application for appointment shall be retained in the Provost's records indefinitely. As soon as a vacancy has been filled, the Chair shall so advise the unsuccessful candidate(s) selected to be interviewed in writing. Human Resources will advise all other applicants. Note: Since years in academic rank are calculated based on full academic years, in the rare instance that a Tenure-line Faculty and Professors of the Practice joins the College after November 1, the faculty member’s first year in rank or title will be calculated starting with the succeeding full academic year. Initial Appointments with Tenure On occasion, the College may wish to hire a faculty member or academic administrator who already holds tenure at another accredited institution of higher education and who would not accept appointment at the College without tenure transfer. In such cases, after review of scholarly or creative materials and teaching philosophy, and in consultation with the Provost, applicable Department Chair or Program Coordinator, and Committee on Tenure, the President forwards the recommendation for tenure to the Board of Trustees. The Board renders a decision that is final. The College will only appoint candidates with tenure transfer at the same rank conferred by the candidate's previous institution. Recruitment and Appointment of Visiting Faculty A faculty member is considered visiting when his or her appointment (full-time) is for a period normally not to exceed one year. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486; May 4, 2007, p. 4640] For such Visiting Faculty appointments, the Department Chair or Program Coordinator may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures set forth above in Article II, Section 3.1, provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons or less under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73]. In all instances, however, the Department Chair or Program Coordinator shall verify that the final candidate’s preparation and qualifications are appropriate to the nature of the teaching assignment. Candidates for a Visiting Faculty position that are selected for interviews will be notified that any job offer is contingent upon successful completion of employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks, as well documentation of U.S. citizenship or upon maintaining the appropriate visa status and work authorization. Moreover, notice of the availability of the College’s Annual Security Report will be provided to the interviewee, if the position was externally advertised. Any offer of appointment is contingent upon verification of the candidate’s academic credentials or alternative experience qualifications credentials and the successful completion of requisite employment eligibility verification, background, and reference checks. In all cases where a Visiting Faculty member is retained for more than one year on a full-time basis – whether the faculty member has a multiple year contract, a one-year contract that is being renewed for another term or a new semester or per course term contract – the Department Chair/Program Coordinator shall annually review the faculty member’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to do. A copy of this evaluation shall be shared with the faculty member and placed in the faculty member’s faculty personnel file. [November 5, 2004, p. 4486] Wheaton College Faculty Bylaws – Page 34</s>

<s>[INST] Article III Feedback.txt [/INST] Article III AAUP – No Comments Curriculum – No Comments Global (Alba) - No Comments President – No Comments Section 1: AAUP Academic Freedom Statement - UFO (SS) The language around teaching ‘controversial matter’ is very problematic. How will the faculty or the administration decide what is ‘controversial’? Who will determine this? Again, the sentence - “Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment” is too broad and might actually be used to limit academic freedom.” Section 5 – Conflicts of Interest - UFO (WJ) Conflict of interest is defined here, in Article 1 5.1.3.a., and in the Employee Handbook for Faculty in varied ways. On one hand, I wholly believe each piece contributes to a holistic view of determining misconduct, but ultimately it leads to unnecessary ambiguity. For instance, none of the sources define “immediate family member” but the Handbook makes more explicit reference to other relationships that could cause a conflict (but largely in financial circumstances). It just may be more helpful to consider a cohesive more consistent approach to this language. Section 5.3 - UFO (WJ) What about consulting services that have nothing to do with the College? I only ask since Section 5.5 specifies it is allowed when done in a personal capacity, but it doesn’t specify here. Many PoPs, SPops, and others consult to pay the bills and keep their expertise updated and current. Section 5.4 – Advisory Should this also apply to work on behalf of themselves personally? And to asking staff to do work on behalf of an outside agency or for the faculty member personally if the work is unrelated to research or their other roles as faculty? Section 6 – Outside Employment - UFO (WJ) Looking through the Faculty Handbook, I did not see anything covering this. Is the handbook currently being updated?</s>

<s>[INST] Article IV Feedback.txt [/INST] Article IV President General Comments: I have been reading through the documents and I'll share some specific points of feedback with the provost.  One issue that I think you should address is tenure transfer.  This is particularly important if the college seeks to recruit an external provost, a senior member of the faculty, or even a president who has held tenure. Here is some sample language to consider:  On occasion, the College may wish to hire a faculty member or academic administrator who already holds tenure at another accredited institution of higher education and who would not accept appointment at the College without tenure transfer.  In such cases, after review of scholarly materials and teaching philosophy, and in consultation with the provost, division head or chair, and committee on tenure, the president forwards the recommendation for tenure to the Board of Trustees.  The Board renders a decision that is final.  The College will only appoint candidates with tenure transfer at the same rank conferred by the candidate's previous institution.   AAUP General Comments: Written rules for tenure-line faculty and professors of the practice with regard to faculty rights and professional conduct are necessary, and the rules in Article 2 and Article 3 seem reasonable. However, throughout Article 4 and parts of Article 5, the professional standards with regard to faculty interactions with students goes well beyond the faculty role, according to the AAUP and perhaps federal laws with regard to compliance (or “making referrals"). This language also potentially leaves an individual faculty member, regardless of their perceptions of competency, vulnerable to risk in advising students on complicated "personal problems" without a full history of the student's personal situation. For example: the highlighted sections in the following rules are objectionable.  UFO General Comments WJ - How are faculty duties and responsibilities outlined as four distinct categories in Section 1 but evaluation categories in Section 2 only include 3? Frankly, this presents DEI contributions as ostensibly performative. Notably, the three categories of evaluation are prevalent throughout this article, whereas the DEI duty and responsibility seems to have no bearing outside of Section 1. This leads to an issue especially in Section 7 when “neglect of obligations and responsibilities” can lead to disciplinary action. Does this include neglect of diversity equity and inclusion responsibilities? Section 1 – Duties and Responsibilities – UFO Comment Section 1 (Paragraph 2) - Again, reviewing the current Faculty Handbook linked from insideWheaton does not contain this verbiage as stated as I don’t see Professor of Practice anywhere in the handbook, so is a new version coming that the working group has had access to, but is not public yet? 1.2 -Scholarly or Creative Activity – President 3rd line: “… by maintaining active involvement in scholarly and creative….” 1.3 – Service – UFO SS: What is “a fair share of student advisees”? 1.4 Contributions to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion – AAUP Comments I support social justice and anti-discrimination wholeheartedly. However, mandating DEI work, as written here without the language included in your marginal comment, is a violation of academic freedom. I recommend adapting American University's resolution on academic freedom and diversity, which the AAC&U commends in this article, https://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/articles/academic-freedom-and-the-challenge-of-diversity-upholding-two-core-values-essential-to-the-pursuit-of-the-common-good. American University's resolution reads, The Faculty Senate remains committed to initiatives being developed, to provide more mentors from diverse groups, sensitize colleagues to the needs of our campus’ communities, cultivate empathy and civility across our community, and reinforce the strengths we all gain from the broadest exposure to the human experience. . . . At the same time, increased attention to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion need not come at the expense of academic freedom. In fact, a central purpose of academic freedom is precisely to support diversity, equity, and inclusion. The right to dissent—in a civil and respectful manner—must remain sacrosanct in the classroom. . . . Inclusion and academic freedom go hand in hand at institutions of higher learning in free societies aspiring to generate knowledge and wisdom (quoted in the article linked above). UFO Comments I love adding this section and keeping it broad enough that we won’t outgrow it. SS - The addition of this section is a welcome change but there is an assumption we all know what meaning engagement with DEIB work looks like. There is no information in the subsequent evaluation section on how DEIB work will be evaluated. Also, criteria for evaluation is not specified. Finally, this addition only applies for those submitting YESE. What about other faculty who don’t have to go through any evaluation process? Section 2 – Evaluation of Full-time Faculty 2.1: Evaluation Categories - President 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence: “A faculty member’s scholarly activities…” 2.1.1.1: Teaching Criteria President Comments It would be important to be explicit about inclusive pedagogy, maybe in the introductory paragraph UFO (SS) Comments Tenure Committee’s guidelines are subject to change and changes are not required to be voted on by the full faculty. Therefore, how student course feedback is used in teaching evaluation is dependent on the views of tenure committee members. Therefore, I highly recommend that recent changes that have lead to decentering of student evaluations, that may disproportionately and negatively impact faculty of color, female faculty and faculty who teach topics that are hot button issues, be adopted in the current version of the bylaws. 2.1.1.2: Scholarship and Creative Activity - FdAlba Evaluation: Page 7 (47 in the whole doc). Does editorial work include: Anonymous reader for journals and publishers. Also, there is no mention of program evaluator, or referee for tenure cases. Nobody asks you to read papers or manuscripts if you are not up to the literature and scholarship. I know that this can be included in service to the profession but still. More detail is never a bad thing because it is setting possibilities and professional expectations.   Also, impact is hard to measure in the humanities in the terms presented in this description. Often, the impact in the humanities is harder to gauge since citations work in a different way and that the impact happens over much longer period of time. Another note on this could be helpful to remind everyone of discipline specific forms of impact. 2.1.1.3 Service Criteria President Comments Categories of service, 3rd line from the bottom, insert “tenured” before “faculty member’s record of service.” AAUP Comments "Advising includes such activities as assisting students in planning academic programs, helping students make career plans, providing feedback to students regarding academic performance and progress, writing letters of recommendation, making referrals to support services which may be helpful to a student, and, as faculty feel competent and comfortable, helping students work through academic or personal problems."  I recommend using AAUP guidelines for faculty professional responsibilities to students throughout these Bylaws, which seemingly have proposed standardizing at Wheaton the in loco parentis legal responsibilities governing elementary and secondary education teachers— and also seemingly shifting clinical-type work to the faculty.  UFO Comments (SS) Why is there an exception for committee service and advising? If I am working on a large research project or am developing multiple new courses in a semester, I might consider not serving on committees. Also, not all faculty are good advisors. I have had multiple conversations with students, whose advisors do not give them enough time for advising or don’t offer time. Administrative Service - Chairing a large department/program is a high workload. So, we need to revisit compensation for large departments/programs along with a course release. Section 2.1.2: Academic Unit Evaluation Criteria Advisory Comments: I would be in favor of allowing departments/programs to develop evaluation criteria for scholarly/creative work and that these be considered in tenure/promotion but that they are not the only standard for evaluating scholarly/creative work. In other words, the Committee on Tenure and the Committee on Faculty Promotion and Scholarship should also take into account other factors/standards so the department/program’s criteria is not the prescriptive (or “be all, end all”) standard with regard to this category of faculty performance in the tenure or promotion process. This is important for several reasons: Disciplinary standards can vary quite widely which raises an equity issue. If one department/program requires a manuscript and another requires peer-reviewed articles and a third requires a major grant, such as an NSF or NEH grant. Over the course of their careers, faculty may shift their scholarship/creative work in directions that differ from those of the “standard/traditional” expectations or criteria for their discipline/program/department. Faculty may be hired into department or programs that differ from their own primary discipline or may have an interdisciplinary focus to their creative/scholarship work. Both are applicable to my own situation as an anthropologist (social scientist) appointed in Visual Art/History of Art (humanities). While I recognize that this is rare, it does occasionally happen. What constitutes “accepted” venues for or forms of scholarship may shift rapidly, as is the case with the rise of online, peer-reviewed platforms.  Again, I experienced this as a pre-tenure faculty member. A peer-reviewed online publication was questioned and what I considered to be problematic language (regarding the publication’s validity) was left unchanged in the departmental response to my YESE, although a brief footnote was added. The value/role of public scholarship (for lack of a better term) should also be considered for faculty who choose to direct some of their efforts in this direction. I personally would strongly argue that the general/overall guidelines for teaching and for advising and other forms service should be consistent across departments/programs/divisions, taking into account, of course, the fact that some departments/programs will focus their advising on majors as opposed to MAP advisees. Based on our current organizational model, programs/departments make sense as the academic unit, although I could see an argument for programs/departments within similar divisions having broader conversations about these criteria. I would be in favor of such conversations, if only to better understand how expectations for scholarship and creative work vary.  For example, it may be challenging for some colleagues to understand how an exhibition constitutes scholarly and creative work but conversations may help to clarify this.   Should we ever restructure into larger units, e.g., Creative Arts, and dissolve departmental or programmatic divisions, then those could determine the criteria while also taking into account more “traditional” departmental or programmatic expectations re: creative and scholarly work. I support the proposal to review the criteria regularly. FdAlba Comments: ¿Academic Unit? This is the first time I have seen this language used in the new bylaws. Is the faculty asking for this? If not, who? I would love to see a rationale explaining the need for this new organization. I do not oppose the idea. Simply, I would like more clarity on the purpose of this change that, to my knowledge, no faculty member is asking for. I understand the issue as presented, the relative lack of flexibility of “divisions.” That said, it seems that while the concept of “academic divisions” has a history (and a reason), “academic unit” is a way to organize departments in a “creative” way. Would the administration create these “academic units”? If this is the case, why is the Working Group willing to offer the work of their colleague to do the work we are not paid to do?  In sum, I can´t offer an opinion on an empty organizational concept without seeing first what and how the academic units would be formed. [After reading the whole section, it seems necessary that, if academic units are deployed (meaning, if Wheaton’s departments and programs are reorganized), new positions of faculty with administrative responsibilities be created to oversee the process of creating evaluation criteria, etc. In the current financial environment, can we afford it?] What is the rationale to introduce another level of administration and of evaluation criteria? Is it necessary to introduce more work into the process?  To have academic units formed by one department and academic units formed by several departments of programs does not sound like a fair system. While a 1 academic unit/1 department is easy to align and negotiation evaluations criteria, a 1 academic unit / several departments and programs have to work and negotiate a set of common criteria.  UFO Comments: No strong feeling for or against this. It gives the power to add additional criteria but does not require it. SS -We have been told that we will be voting on the entire bylaws document as one document and articles or sections are not voted on separately. So, I am against adding new provisions in this document without any meaningful dialogue among faculty. My reaction to this addition is the same as the addition of draft provisions for Professors and Practice and senior Professors of Practice as if they have been finalized. Please remove this section and bring this forward as a separate item for discussion and deliberation. 2.1.2.1: Establishment and Approval of Academic Unit Criteria- President Comments: Remove “in three categories.” First full paragraph in next page, remove “(perhaps due to external circumstances)” and replace with “highly placed with national recognition” FdAlba Comments: See above. In the bylaws, there seems to be two levels: departments, then academic units with specific standards each that, hopefully, are negotiated so they match. Is this necessary at a small institution like Wheaton? I fail to see the usefulness of introducing new levels of complexity and layers of bureaucracy, especially when faculty is already maxed out and underpaid. I can also see potential conflict as departments within a same academic unit would have to unify their standards. I can also see the positive aspect in the standardization of best practices across departments.  I am concern that this changes the current tenure process by including a new set of (non-departmental) expectations that, at this point, do not seem aligned with the tenure committee ones. I understand that the goal is that everything seamlessly matches but I wonder who is going to fall through the cracks of the transition period.  On response to comment sl11: Candid thought regarding this comment. The Working Group proposes something (academic units) that, as far as I know, nobody in the faculty has asked for.  Apparently unable to work through the concept and make it into a full proposal, it defaults to other faculty members who are new to the idea to give it content and shape. If the Working Group thinks that this is the way to move forward, please present a rationale and a working concept for this new organizational structure. Page 50, lower paragraph, the language “academic area” is used. This is confusing. “Academic area” or “academic unit”?  2.2: Evaluation of Tenure Track Faculty – FdAlba Comments I totally agree. Promise is subjective at best. Promise, for instance, is a book contract and/or a number of published articles. Promise is a list of conferences attended and panels organized that assure that the candidate is known in the profession and presenting research findings. Promise is a reasonable and logic research agenda for the future, meaning, research project that will be shared via a second book or articles, etc. A book manuscript is not promise, per se. Several articles send the year before tenure do not represent promise in my opinion as do not show the steady rhythm of academic production and publication.  Growth as a scholar or an artist is also fluffy if not explained. One could grow and learn a lot with no publication record. UFO Comments SS - Section 2.2: I did not see the term “degree of accessibility to students and colleagues in section 2.1.1”. Some departments do not share their written feedback on untenured faculty’s YESE until months after they are due to the provost’s office. Therefore, the deadline for when the signed annual evaluation is submitted to the provost office needs to be strengthened. The term “typically by the 3rd Thursday of June” is too lenient. The untenured faculty shouldn’t have to sign a document they don’t agree with. Therefore, a separate signation section needs to be added that clarifies the untenured faculty is just signing for receipt of the department’s statement with the added response from the untenured faculty. I am very confused, an untenured faculty can be dismissed just because the needs of the department changes, completely separate from their performance. SS - Section 2.2, #5: Does the provost oversee the academic programs and staff? So, the reappointment information should come from the provost, in consultation with the president. 2.2.1: Evaluation of Tenure Track Faculty President Comments P.12, 1st full paragraph should not say “self-evaluation” but only “evaluation” UFO Comments Section 2.2.1 (Paragraph 5) - Why is there no input from Senior Professors of Practice? 2.2 1. c.: Evaluation of Tenure Track Faculty – Advisory [See paragraph c of standards]: How will success as a student academic advisor be measured/determined?  Not surprisingly, I am very much in favor of recognizing, measuring, and evaluating our role as advisors, as I believe it is critical to our students’ success and to the success of our institution.  Given this dual importance, how do we recognize, measure, and evaluate effective and successful advising?  Equally importantly, how do we also help colleagues work toward both valuing and becoming strong advisors? [See Paragraph re Materials Reviewed]: Who is responsible for maintaining the current vita? [See current text re: DC and Faculty Member Meeting]: Given Senior Week and Commencement and Reunion activities, could the ten-day deadline (bottom of p. 51) be extended? And is it ten business days or ten calendar days? (NOTE: Chris, this is an issue throughout as in some places business days is explicitly stated; in others, it is not.) 2.3.1: Annual Evaluations of Professors of Practice – Advisory Comments What about evidence of (successful) advising and other forms of service? UFO Comments SS: Please add a firm deadline for when the departmental evaluation needs to be submitted to the provost office. The June 30th deadline for an appointment letter is too late. The evaluation timeline needs to be done earlier to provide more time for our colleagues to get another job. The length of time for Senior Professor of Practice is still under negotiation. 2.4: Merit Evaluation - Advisory Merit “increases” reads as if these will be added to base salary, which is not my understanding of the current plan. Perhaps “bonus”? (I recognize the policy has not yet been developed.) 3.1.1.: Standards for Promotion in Rank - Advisory In response to the comments, I agree that this requires some additional clarity and is confusing. Given the financial incentive in holding Associate Professor rank (based on our current salary threshold policy), this requires some additional attention. 3.1.2: Review Procedures for Promotion to Professor Advisory Comments: (p. 60) If the candidate for Full Professor may choose their advocate, I can’t imagine them voting against the candidate.  It is not entirely analogous and consequences are certainly different, but in the museum field, anyone proposing an acquisition of an object is not allowed to vote on the proposal.  What do our peer institutions do with regard to this question? FdAlba Comments: What is the rationale to take the “advocate” to promotion to full professor out of the candidate’s department/program? There has always been the possibility to do this but this establishes a different process more “free for all.”  I do not oppose the idea but I would like to know why this change, which was always an option, if necessary.  “Public intellectual” is the first (and only) time that appears in this document. Why now? Why assistant professors or associate professor cannot be “public intellectuals” for their promotions?   Sl29 Comment: This is a confusing question. The advocate, as proposed here, is not a representative of the department/program. It is an advocate for the candidate. Sure, it channels the department support for the promotion but the fact is that in the proposed process the candidate selects the advocate that then (with the department blessing) decides if promotion is a go. If this is the case, I would not count the advocate for the final vote. It seems that the advocate should be, from the moment that the promotion process starts, a positive vote for the candidate. It would seem strange that someone agrees to be an advocate, embarks in the process after reviewing the materials and then votes “no” on the candidate. UFO Comments SS - Section 3.1.2: I do not see an inherent conflict of interest with the representative of the department serving as a voting member. The end of the section states “if promotion is not recommended, the candidate may request clarification of the decision”. There is no information on how this clarification can be sought and from whom. Please add necessary guidelines or point to where such guidelines exist. 3.1.3: Board of Trustees Review – FdAbla Comments I support the idea that Wheaton should be able to attract faculty by offering a position at the associate level directly. That said, the notion that the President can simply go to the BoT and ask for the rank for someone I find very problematic. I don’t think anybody would like to be accused of nepotism and yet, this may open the door to that. Why the Committee on Faculty Scholarship and Promotion only makes a recommendation for promotion to full? I think the CFSP should be consulted every single time this process is about the be taken so there is a check on the quality and standards of the candidate. UFO Comments SS - The first sentence is unclear - when might this situation arise? What does ‘separate from regular tenure review’ look like? This addition bypasses shared governance structure completely. 3.2.1: Standard for Promotion to Senior Professor of the Practice - UFO SS - Again, the term extension for Senior Professor of Practice is still under consideration. 4.1.1: Tenure Probationary Period Advisory Comments If the 4th year of teaching includes the year in which a candidate comes up for tenure, I would argue for keeping the requirement at 4 years, to allow at least 3 years (assuming a pre-tenure, one-semester sabbatical) of teaching, service, and scholarly/creative work to be evaluated.  It can take time for colleagues to learn and to navigate our campus culture and also for us to gain a sense of them as a community member, colleague, teacher, advisor, etc.  Given this, parental leaves and any sabbatical longer than one semester would necessitate delaying the tenure clock if a candidate had two years of “credit” toward tenure review, correct? Does this need to be spelled out more clearly?  As worded, it says “a year” but does that mean a calendar year? An academic year? Isn’t the issue really that someone cannot take more than one semester of leave (parental, research, other) without automatically delaying the tenure clock?  As written, that’s not clear here, nor in 4.1.3. Extending the Probationary Period. “…a full-time leave for an entire year” does not read the same as “two (or more) one-semester leaves” UFO Comments I am not in agreement with giving more latitude to the provost and the president without any guidelines that allows for equitable negotiations with potential new employees. Also, tenure guidelines only take into consideration work completed at Wheaton. Unless we revise the tenure guidelines, this change will not be in the best interest of new incoming faculty. 4.14: Tenure Decision – UFO What is the recourse if the BofT does not act favorably on the recommendation of the tenure committee? Please add guidelines or direct faculty to existing guidelines. 4.1.6: Tenure Additional Guidelines - FdAlba Wait, so one faculty member’s professional conduct is “questioned on any ground” and it goes to dismissal without investigation? Really? What about “proven”? 🡪 what about a reference to 8.2.1.1 4.3: Structure of the Committee Advisory Comments: I commented similarly above but my understanding is that candidates can request to be represented to the Committee on Tenure by someone other than their department chair or program coordinator. For comment s153, my response is affirmative that candidates should be allowed to express a preference and for someone outside the department. Which is not to say that the person for whom a preference is expressed must agree to serve in that role. Should that person not agree, the department chair or program coordinator or ranking tenured member of the department (or as otherwise provided elsewhere in the bylaws) should serve in that role.  This then raises the question of would a candidate be allowed (entitled?) to appeal a negative tenure review based on representation if they were not represented by their “preferred” advocate. FdAlba Comments: It was my understanding that there was always a “escape hatch” in cases in which the candidate thought that the department would not represent them fairly. Therefore, I believe this contingency should be contemplated by offering the option.  See my previous comments on the voting rights of the “advocate.” A department / program representative, I think, plays a similar but also different role and, maybe, it should be allowed to vote. That said, for consistency’s sake, the same should be done in both cases. In any case, a department representative that, voicing the department’s will to grant tenure, votes against the candidate would be strange.  5.1: Sabbatical Leave – Advisory Comments Comments163 and the related phrase seem at odds with 4.1.1. in which candidates are only granted TWO years of “credit” toward progress toward tenure. Unless the faculty agrees that colleagues can receive more than two years of “credit” toward tenure, the text is a potential inconsistency. The Post-Tenure Sabbatical Leave section is a bit unclear about the immediate (first) post-tenure sabbatical. My understanding is that this can occur after the faculty member’s first year of full-time post-tenure employment and then the clock “resets” toward the second post-tenure sabbatical.  UFO Comments: Disappointing to see no mention of sabbaticals for Senior Professors of Practice who many would welcome the chance to “...enhancing the value of the recipient’s further contribution to the College through scholarly, creative, or pedagogical work, to solve an administrative problem(s) in consultation with and the support of the appropriate administrative office(s), or broaden the scope of knowledge in the faculty member’s discipline or field of research.” 5.2.1: Professional Leave - Advisory Should it read “Leaves of absence may be used…” 6.1 Compensation  AAUP Comments The language of this rule, with its various qualifiers, shows no commitment to compensation consistent with the cost of living in New England and the Northeast. The faculty is essential to the existence of this institution and its mission as a higher education nonprofit working for the common good and, as such, faculty wellbeing should be a priority. I recommend revising and keeping the spirit of the existing language, which has been struck from the proposed Bylaws. Importantly, the option given to administrators to choose when or if the administration should consult with the Committee on Faculty Workload and Economic Status about the review of compensation contradicts the charge to the Committee on Faculty Workload and Economic Status—and goes against AAUP guidelines. It’s strange to find the principles governing pay raises enshrined in the Bylaws as rules when these general principles normally are shaped by individual senior administrators in consultation with the faculty. Overall, the highlighted language is objectionable and this rule alone makes it difficult to support passing these Bylaws.  “The salaries of full-time faculty members are determined by the College based upon rank, length of service, and merit, as well as the financial condition of the College. It is the objective of the College to provide salary levels reasonably competitive with other private colleges of similar size. Accordingly, faculty salary ranges are evaluated periodically for effectiveness, fairness, and internal and external equity. Such reviews are conducted by the administration, who may consult the Committee on Faculty Workload and Economic Status, and approved by the Board of Trustees. However, the amount available for increases and cost of living adjustments each year is dependent on the total financial resources, considering other competing demands.” UFO Comments: SS - The last sentence of the first paragraph sets up a stage where faculty/staff will not get a raise in the new future. I am against the addition of this sentence. 6.2: Faculty Benefits – UFO SS: Do changes in the faculty handbook need a vote of the faculty? If so, removal of the entire faculty benefits section from the legislation/bylaws puts these benefits at the whim of the administration. Section 7 – Disciplinary Action Short of Dismissal UFO Comments SS: I don’t see any accountability built into this section to deter the administration from abusing the authority outlined in this section to silence those who disagree or question the actions of the administration. For example, we can require the provost to consult with the PAC Or Appeals and Hearing committee before initiating a written reprimand. Perhaps a standing committee can mediate the conversations around a reprimand. There needs to be strong stopgap measures added in this section to protect the faculty from retaliation. I am quite struck by how this revision is being used to strengthen the administration’s hand with no consultation with faculty governance - both the advisory and appeals and hearing committees are already charged with mediating issues with the administration. I wonder if the administration can use either one of these committees to help mediate reprimand of a faculty member. Section 8 - Faculty Separation 8.2: Termination of Appointment by College – UFO SS: Add Senior Professor of Practice in the first line of the paragraph. Also, what is the process of discontinuation of a department/program? 8.2.1: Dismissal for Adequate Cause – Advisory Comments: What constitutes “Demonstrated professional incompetence” 8.2.1. 4. What about emotional harassment/abuse or manipulation?  8.2.1.1 a. 3. No, I don’t think pre-tenure faculty should serve on the Advisory Committee (for the purposes of review) if the faculty member under review for dismissal is tenured. If a pre-tenure or PoP/SPoP faculty member is under review for dismissal, I would offer pre-tenure faculty members on Advisory Committee the choice regarding serving during the review. If the review involves a PoP and no PoP or SPoP serves on the Advisory Committee at that time, I would suggest asking a SPoP to do so. FdAlba Comments: Comment on sl75. What would be the reason to remove non-tenure? And, what does “non tenured” mean here, tenure-track and PoP? I am very hesitant to agree with PoPs serving on standing committees (or in sensitive ad-hoc committees) when they have term limited contracts. While most will act according to the best interest of the college and their conscience, we cannot ignore the fact that their professional fate depends on others who have tenure or more power than they do. Therefore, are we placing PoPs on the difficult situation of a “political minefield.” The solution of a subcommittee seems a reasonable one. UFO Comments: SS: Again, add Senior Professor of Practice in the first line of this section. SS - Section 8.2.1, #3: Are there guidelines to determine “serious neglect of basic duties or responsibilities? Article IV, Section 1 is vague. SS - Section 8.2.1, #5: How might this statement run afoul of ADA? SS - Section 8.2.1, #6: “Deliberate and serious violation of the rights and academic freedom of fellow ......” is too vague. Need more guidelines to avoid abuse of this clause. 8.2.2.1: Procedures - UFO SS - Section 8.2.1.1, #3: Here again, the language around bias is too broad. At the end of the section, there is a note that the advisory’s recommendation is not binding. Since a lot of labor goes into completing these preliminary inquiries, as I found when a case with a very different issue was brought in front of the advisory last year, it is frustrating that recommendations from the faculty may not have any impact on the final decision. 8.2.2: Termination of Appointment due to Financial Exigency – Advisory Comments Step 1: Should the same considerations as listed immediately above apply to the Advisory Committee and Educational Policy Committee if the Joint Committee is formed? In other words, how should the participation of pre-tenure faculty and PoP/SPoP on the Joint Committee be modified, if at all? Step 4: I agree with the suggestion in comments184. Additional Guidelines - 2. & 3 What constitutes serious distortion? For example, would a pre-tenure faculty member in a major or program consistently serving large numbers of students be retained over a tenured Full Professor in a department with a small number of majors? Additional Guidelines - 4: Questions will arise regarding how moving a faculty member to another role within the institution save the institution money, unless it’s to cover a role vacated by attrition (as mentioned in 1.) or a critical staff vacancy.  UFO Comments Step 4.2 (SS): How might age and length of service be used to decide appointments to be terminated? Will faculty who have been at the institution longer, hence, potentially paid more, be on the chopping block? Additional guidelines, #5: The severance salary is not included in the Article II, subsection 2.2.2 but is referenced in this guideline. Please clarify what type of severance packet will be offered to faculty members who receive a notice of termination as a result of institution declaring financial exigency. 8.2.3: Termination of Appointment due to Program Discontinuation Advisory Comments Same question as above re: role of pre-tenure and PoP/SPoP colleagues serving on Joint Committee if formed for the purpose of modifying or discontinuing a department or program. FdAlba Comments What about an “academic unit”? Could it be discontinued? Whereas academic divisions cannot because they are larger umbrellas, “academic units,” as proposed in this document could be formed by as little as one department.  UFO Comments (SS) The level of staffing of academic programs and departments ought to be in the purview of the provost since that office oversees all academic personnel. I understand that the president’s office sits above that of the provost, but if we allow the president to oversee discontinuation of programs, the provost office will be considerably weakened. Section 8.2.3, #2: We don’t have “criteria used in the normal periodic review of academic programs and departments”. Are these posted someplace? Section 9: Appeals 9.2 and 9.3 3. and 9.4 – Advisory Calendar or business days? (For references to thirty and ten days) General note for Article IV - Advisory Pp. 47 and 70 use “Tenure Committee” instead of “Committee on Tenure”</s>

<s>[INST] ARTICLES V & VI - Wheaton College Bylaws (Recommendations to SG) (1.13.23).txt [/INST] Article V Visiting Faculty Appointments and Provisions This Article sets forth policies, responsibilities, duties, rights, and privileges pertaining to Visiting faculty. Visiting Faculty Academic Titles The College should continue to use the following ranks: Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. ““Assistant”” and ““Lecturer” should have special uses under condition which normally preclude the assignment of regular ranks. [May 13, 1963, p. 2715; Minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting, October 26, 1963, pp. 1055-57; November 18, 1963, pp. 2728-29] The Visiting Faculty title is used with one of the four academic ranks (i.e., Visiting Instructor, Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, Visiting Professor). The initial title for each Visiting faculty member shall be determined by the Provost in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair/Program Coordinator. [May 29, 1980, p. 3469; May 3, 1985, p. 3678] The Provost, in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair/Program Coordinator, shall determine whether or not an individual Visiting Faculty member’s appointment constitutes half-time teaching. The parameters that define “part-time” and “half-time” are outlined in the Wheaton College Employee Handbook for Faculty and are used for human resource purposes. Each letter of appointment or reappointment shall clearly state the results of this determination. Voting Rights Members of the faculty who teach at Wheaton less than half-time have no vote at department or faculty meetings. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Visiting Faculty members who have taught at Wheaton half-time or more for three consecutive years are eligible for service on faculty committees and have a full vote in department or academic program and faculty meetings. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Duration of Appointment and Notice of Termination 1. The College will observe the following guidelines for Visiting Faculty ranks and duration of appointments: ··Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Visiting Instructors. Those who have completed their professional training will ordinarily be appointed Visiting Assistant Professors. Visiting Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Visiting Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. ··The initial appointment of Visiting Faculty will be for one semester, one, two or three years. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Full-time Visiting Faculty will be appointed annually pursuant to a term contract for a semester or a year, for a period not to exceed two years. Part-time Visiting Faculty will be appointed pursuant to a term contract to teach on a part-time or per-course basis. Issuance of another term contract is solely within the discretion of the College and no other procedures apply. ··Replacements for faculty members on leave and other temporary personnel will receive appointments of appropriate rank and duration. ··Visiting faculty members who have taught at Wheaton half-time or more for five years are entitled to contracts ranging from two to five years in length. Other part-time faculty may be given a one- year terminal appointment. In such a case, the standards of notification as described in Paragraph 2 below will be observed. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] 2. The following paragraph applies to reappointment of Visiting Faculty, excluding those who are replacements for faculty on leave or are appointed to teach a single course in one semester or are on terminal contracts. By March 1 of the last year of contract, part-time teaching personnel shall receive letters informing them of their reappointment or non-reappointment. If the College cannot provide them with this information by March 1, they will receive a letter that explains why the reappointment decision has not yet been reached and provides a date by which the decision will be made. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Resignation Professional ethics obligate the individual faculty member to notify the College as early as possible of an his or her intention to resign. [April 9, 1976, p. 3237] Compensation Compensation for Visiting Faculty is determined at the time of hire by the Provost [May 4, 2007, p. 4642] Benefits Prorated Benefits for eligible faculty members are determined by Human Resources guidelines. [May 4, 2007, p. 4642] Policies and Procedures Respecting Recruitment and Appointment, Reappointment, and Termination of Visiting Faculty Recruitment, Appointment, Reappointment, and Evaluation For recruitment of full-time Visiting Faculty, the procedures for recruitment and appointment of full-time faculty shall be followed, except that the Chair of the Search Committee may limit advertisement provided that a suitable pool of applicants is obtained in keeping with the College’s policy as an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer. For such appointments, the Chair may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73 In all cases where a Visiting Faculty member is retained for more than one year, the Department Chair/Program Coordinator shall review the faculty member’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to perform. Promotion: Criteria: Procedures and Responsibilities for Carrying them On Promotion of part-time faculty members shall be by the same procedures as those for full-time faculty members. The Provost, in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair, shall determine when a part-time faculty member shall be eligible for consideration for promotion. [May 29, 1980, p. 3469; May 3, 1985, p. 3678] Termination of Visiting Faculty Appointments by the College If the College seeks a dismissal for adequate cause prior to the expiration of the faculty member’s contract term, the procedures specific in Article IV, Section 8.2.1 shall be followed. Academic Freedom and Responsibility All members of the Faculty, whether tenured or not, are entitled to academic freedom as set forth in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, formulated by the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors, and as modified by the 1970 Interpretive Comments developed by representatives of the same two bodies. See Article III, Section 1. All members of the Faculty are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the 1966 Statement on Professional Ethics formulated by the American Association of University Professors. See Article III, Section 2. Miscellaneous Visiting Faculty Grievances 1. A Visiting Faculty member who feels that he or she has cause for grievance may have such grievance reviewed in accordance with the College’s then current “Review and Appeals Procedures for Certain Faculty Grievances” (see Article IV, Section 9). [May 4, 2007, p. 4643] 2. The Policies and Procedures set forth herein shall go into effect in accordance with the Enabling Section, as separately provided. 3. The Faculty may at any time or from time to time amend or revise the Policies and Procedures herein set forth, subject to each instance to the approval of the President of the College and of the Board of Trustees. 4. The Board of Trustees has final authority for acts under the Policies and Procedures herein set forth, subject to the delegations of authority to the Faculty under this legislation and to the President under the By-Laws; Article III. [March 17, 1978, pp. 3354-63] Article VI. Amendments to Faculty Bylaws The Faculty Bylaws Policies and Procedures set forth herein shall go into effect in accordance with the Enabling Section, as separately provided. The Faculty may at any time or from time to time amend or revise these Faculty Bylaws the Policies and Procedures herein set forth. Amendments or revisions to Articles II through VI of these Faculty Bylaws are subject in each instance to the approval of the President of the College and of the Board of Trustees. Amendments to the Faculty Bylaws may be initiated by any individual with faculty status as defined in Article I or a standing committee of the faculty (see Article I, Section 3.7). A proposal from a member of the Faculty or standing committee to amend the Faculty Bylaws will be referred to the Committee on Committees and Agenda. If a proposed amendment to Articles II through VI of the Faculty Bylaws is introduced, the Faculty shall vote on the matter within 90 days of receiving the proposed amendment (excluding the period of time between the end of the traditional nine-month full-time faculty contract period and the beginning of the new nine-month full-time faculty contract period). An affirmative vote of the majority in attendance and at least one-fourth of the entire voting faculty at duly constituted meeting of the Faculty is required to approve a proposed amendment. The Board of Trustees has final authority for acts under Articles II through VI the Faculty Bylaws Policies and Procedures herein set forth, subject to the delegations of authority to the Faculty under this legislation and to the President under the Bylaws; Article III. [March 17, 1978, pp. 3354-63] Conflict with Federal, State or Local Law: If any provision of the Faculty Bylaws is in conflict with federal, State, or local law, or is otherwise illegal, the remainder of the Faculty Bylaws shall not be affected. The Faculty shall make it a priority to meet and resolve the conflict in conjunction with the Administration. Wheaton College Faculty Bylaws – Page 2</s>

<s>[INST] ARTICLES V & VI - Wheaton College Bylaws (Recommendations to SG) (1.23).txt [/INST] Article V Visiting Faculty Appointments and Provisions This Article sets forth policies, responsibilities, duties, rights, and privileges pertaining to Visiting faculty. Visiting Faculty Academic Titles The College should continue to use the following ranks: Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. ““Assistant”” and ““Lecturer” should have special uses under condition which normally preclude the assignment of regular ranks. [May 13, 1963, p. 2715; Minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting, October 26, 1963, pp. 1055-57; November 18, 1963, pp. 2728-29] The Visiting Faculty title is used with one of the four academic ranks (i.e., Visiting Instructor, Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, Visiting Professor). The initial title for each Visiting faculty member shall be determined by the Provost in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair/Program Coordinator. [May 29, 1980, p. 3469; May 3, 1985, p. 3678] The Provost, in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair/Program Coordinator, shall determine whether or not an individual Visiting Faculty member’s appointment constitutes half-time teaching. The parameters that define “part-time” and “half-time” are outlined in the Wheaton College Employee Handbook for Faculty and are used for human resource purposes. Each letter of appointment or reappointment shall clearly state the results of this determination. Voting Rights Members of the faculty who teach at Wheaton less than half-time have no vote at department or faculty meetings. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Visiting Faculty members who have taught at Wheaton half-time or more for three consecutive years are eligible for service on faculty committees and have a full vote in department or academic program and faculty meetings. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Duration of Appointment and Notice of Termination 1. The College will observe the following guidelines for Visiting Faculty ranks and duration of appointments: ··Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Visiting Instructors. Those who have completed their professional training will ordinarily be appointed Visiting Assistant Professors. Visiting Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Visiting Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. ··The initial appointment of Visiting Faculty will be for one semester, one, two or three years. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Full-time Visiting Faculty will be appointed annually pursuant to a term contract for a semester or a year, for a period not to exceed two years. Part-time Visiting Faculty will be appointed pursuant to a term contract to teach on a part-time or per-course basis. Issuance of another term contract is solely within the discretion of the College and no other procedures apply. ··Replacements for faculty members on leave and other temporary personnel will receive appointments of appropriate rank and duration. ··Visiting faculty members who have taught at Wheaton half-time or more for five years are entitled to contracts ranging from two to five years in length. Other part-time faculty may be given a one- year terminal appointment. In such a case, the standards of notification as described in Paragraph 2 below will be observed. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] 2. The following paragraph applies to reappointment of Visiting Faculty, excluding those who are replacements for faculty on leave or are appointed to teach a single course in one semester or are on terminal contracts. By March 1 of the last year of contract, part-time teaching personnel shall receive letters informing them of their reappointment or non-reappointment. If the College cannot provide them with this information by March 1, they will receive a letter that explains why the reappointment decision has not yet been reached and provides a date by which the decision will be made. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Resignation Professional ethics obligate the individual faculty member to notify the College as early as possible of an his or her intention to resign. [April 9, 1976, p. 3237] Compensation Compensation for Visiting Faculty is determined at the time of hire by the Provost [May 4, 2007, p. 4642] Benefits Prorated Benefits for eligible faculty members are determined by Human Resources guidelines. [May 4, 2007, p. 4642] Policies and Procedures Respecting Recruitment and Appointment, Reappointment, and Termination of Visiting Faculty Recruitment, Appointment, Reappointment, and Evaluation For recruitment of full-time Visiting Faculty, the procedures for recruitment and appointment of full-time faculty shall be followed, except that the Chair of the Search Committee may limit advertisement provided that a suitable pool of applicants is obtained in keeping with the College’s policy as an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer. For such appointments, the Chair may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73 In all cases where a Visiting Faculty member is retained for more than one year, the Department Chair/Program Coordinator shall review the faculty member’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to perform. Promotion: Criteria: Procedures and Responsibilities for Carrying them On Promotion of part-time faculty members shall be by the same procedures as those for full-time faculty members. The Provost, in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair, shall determine when a part-time faculty member shall be eligible for consideration for promotion. [May 29, 1980, p. 3469; May 3, 1985, p. 3678] Termination of Visiting Faculty Appointments by the College If the College seeks a dismissal for adequate cause prior to the expiration of the faculty member’s contract term, the procedures specific in Article IV, Section 8.2.1 shall be followed. Academic Freedom and Responsibility All members of the Faculty, whether tenured or not, are entitled to academic freedom as set forth in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, formulated by the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors, and as modified by the 1970 Interpretive Comments developed by representatives of the same two bodies. See Article III, Section 1. All members of the Faculty are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the 1966 Statement on Professional Ethics formulated by the American Association of University Professors. See Article III, Section 2. Miscellaneous Visiting Faculty Grievances 1. A Visiting Faculty member who feels that he or she has cause for grievance may have such grievance reviewed in accordance with the College’s then current “Review and Appeals Procedures for Certain Faculty Grievances” (see Article IV, Section 9). [May 4, 2007, p. 4643] 2. The Policies and Procedures set forth herein shall go into effect in accordance with the Enabling Section, as separately provided. 3. The Faculty may at any time or from time to time amend or revise the Policies and Procedures herein set forth, subject to each instance to the approval of the President of the College and of the Board of Trustees. 4. The Board of Trustees has final authority for acts under the Policies and Procedures herein set forth, subject to the delegations of authority to the Faculty under this legislation and to the President under the By-Laws; Article III. [March 17, 1978, pp. 3354-63] Article VI. Amendments to Faculty Bylaws The Faculty Bylaws Policies and Procedures set forth herein shall go into effect in accordance with the Enabling Section, as separately provided. The Faculty may at any time or from time to time amend or revise these Faculty Bylaws the Policies and Procedures herein set forth. Amendments or revisions to Articles II through VI of these Faculty Bylaws are subject in each instance to the approval of the President of the College and of the Board of Trustees. Amendments to the Faculty Bylaws may be initiated by any individual with faculty status as defined in Article I or a standing committee of the faculty (see Article I, Section 3.7). A proposal from a member of the Faculty or standing committee to amend the Faculty Bylaws will be referred to the Committee on Committees and Agenda. If a proposed amendment to Articles II through VI of the Faculty Bylaws is introduced, the Faculty shall vote on the matter within 90 days of receiving the proposed amendment (excluding the period of time between the end of the traditional nine-month full-time faculty contract period and the beginning of the new nine-month full-time faculty contract period). An affirmative vote of the majority in attendance and at least one-fourth of the entire voting faculty at duly constituted meeting of the Faculty is required to approve a proposed amendment. The Board of Trustees has final authority for acts under Articles II through VI the Faculty Bylaws Policies and Procedures herein set forth, subject to the delegations of authority to the Faculty under this legislation and to the President under the Bylaws; Article III. [March 17, 1978, pp. 3354-63] Conflict with Federal, State or Local Law: If any provision of the Faculty Bylaws is in conflict with federal, State, or local law, or is otherwise illegal, the remainder of the Faculty Bylaws shall not be affected. The Faculty shall make it a priority to meet and resolve the conflict in conjunction with the Administration. Wheaton College Faculty Bylaws – Page 2</s>

<s>[INST] ARTICLES V & VI - Wheaton College Bylaws - Faculty Draft (No Highlights).txt [/INST] Article V Visiting Faculty Appointments and Provisions This Article sets forth policies, responsibilities, duties, rights, and privileges pertaining to Visiting faculty. Visiting Faculty Academic Titles The College should continue to use the following ranks: Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. ““Assistant”” and ““Lecturer” should have special uses under condition which normally preclude the assignment of regular ranks. [May 13, 1963, p. 2715; Minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting, October 26, 1963, pp. 1055-57; November 18, 1963, pp. 2728-29] The Visiting Faculty title is used with one of the four academic ranks (i.e., Visiting Instructor, Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, Visiting Professor). The initial title for each Visiting faculty member shall be determined by the Provost in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair/Program Coordinator. [May 29, 1980, p. 3469; May 3, 1985, p. 3678] The Provost, in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair/Program Coordinator, shall determine whether or not an individual Visiting faculty member’s appointment constitutes full or part-time teaching. The parameters that define “part-time” and “full-time” teaching are outlined in the Wheaton College Employee Handbook for Faculty and are used for human resource purposes. Each letter of appointment or reappointment shall clearly state the results of this determination. Voting Rights Members of the faculty Part-time Visiting faculty who teach at Wheaton less than half-time have no vote at department or faculty meetings. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641]. Part-time Visiting faculty members who have taught at Wheaton half-time or more for three consecutive years are eligible for service on faculty committees and have a full vote in department or academic program and faculty meetings. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] The Provost, in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair/Program Coordinator, shall determine whether or not an individual Visiting faculty member’s appointment constitutes half-time teaching for purposes of determining voting right eligibility. For purposes of this policy, half-time is defined as a teaching load that is fifty percent or more, but less than one hundred percent of a full-time teaching load as defined in the Employee Handbook for Faculty. Duration of Appointment and Notice of Termination 1. The College will observe the following guidelines for Visiting Faculty ranks and duration of appointments: ··Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or equivalent terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Visiting Instructors. Those who have completed their professional training will ordinarily be appointed Visiting Assistant Professors. Visiting Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Visiting Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. ··The initial appointment of Visiting Faculty will be for one semester, one, two or three years. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Full-time Visiting Faculty will be appointed annually pursuant to a term contract for a semester or a year, for a period not to exceed two years. Part-time Visiting Faculty will be appointed pursuant to a term contract to teach on a part-time or per-course basis. Issuance of another term contract is solely within the discretion of the College and no other procedures apply. ··Replacements for faculty members on leave and other temporary personnel will receive appointments of appropriate rank and duration. ··Visiting faculty members who have taught at Wheaton half-time or more for five years are entitled to contracts ranging from two to five years in length. Other part-time faculty may be given a one- year terminal appointment. In such a case, the standards of notification as described in Paragraph 2 below will be observed. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] 2. The following paragraph applies to reappointment of Visiting Faculty, excluding those who are replacements for faculty on leave or are appointed to teach a single course in one semester or are on terminal contracts. By March 1 of the last year of contract, part-time teaching personnel shall receive letters informing them of their reappointment or non-reappointment. If the College cannot provide them with this information by March 1, they will receive a letter that explains why the reappointment decision has not yet been reached and provides a date by which the decision will be made. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Resignation Professional ethics obligate the individual faculty member to notify the College as early as possible of an his or her intention to resign. [April 9, 1976, p. 3237] Compensation Compensation for Visiting Faculty is determined at the time of hire by the Provost [May 4, 2007, p. 4642] Benefits Prorated Benefits for eligible faculty members are determined by Human Resources guidelines. [May 4, 2007, p. 4642] Policies and Procedures Respecting Recruitment and Appointment, Reappointment, and Termination of Visiting Faculty Recruitment, Appointment, Reappointment, and Evaluation For recruitment of full-time Visiting Faculty, the procedures for recruitment and appointment of full-time faculty shall be followed, except that the Chair of the Search Committee may limit advertisement provided that a suitable pool of applicants is obtained in keeping with the College’s policy as an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer. For such appointments, the Chair may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73 In all cases where a Visiting Faculty member is retained for more than one year, the Department Chair/Program Coordinator shall review the faculty member’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to perform. Promotion: Criteria: Procedures and Responsibilities for Carrying them On Promotion of part-time faculty members shall be by the same procedures as those for full-time faculty members. The Provost, in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair, shall determine when a part-time faculty member shall be eligible for consideration for promotion. [May 29, 1980, p. 3469; May 3, 1985, p. 3678] Termination of Visiting Faculty Appointments by the College If the College seeks a dismissal for adequate cause prior to the expiration of the faculty member’s contract term, the procedures specific in Article IV, Section 8.2.1 shall be followed. Academic Freedom and Responsibility All members of the Faculty, whether tenured or not, are entitled to academic freedom as set forth in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, formulated by the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors, and as modified by the 1970 Interpretive Comments developed by representatives of the same two bodies. See Article III, Section 1. All members of the Faculty are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the 1966 Statement on Professional Ethics formulated by the American Association of University Professors. See Article III, Section 2. Miscellaneous Visiting Faculty Grievances 1. A Visiting Faculty member who feels that he or she has cause for grievance may have such grievance reviewed in accordance with the College’s then current “Review and Appeals Procedures for Certain Faculty Grievances” (see Article IV, Section 9). [May 4, 2007, p. 4643] 2. The Policies and Procedures set forth herein shall go into effect in accordance with the Enabling Section, as separately provided. 3. The Faculty may at any time or from time to time amend or revise the Policies and Procedures herein set forth, subject to each instance to the approval of the President of the College and of the Board of Trustees. 4. The Board of Trustees has final authority for acts under the Policies and Procedures herein set forth, subject to the delegations of authority to the Faculty under this legislation and to the President under the By-Laws; Article III. [March 17, 1978, pp. 3354-63] Article VI. Amendments to Faculty Bylaws The Faculty Bylaws Policies and Procedures set forth herein shall go into effect in accordance with the Enabling Section, as separately provided. The Faculty may at any time or from time to time amend or revise these Faculty Bylaws the Policies and Procedures herein set forth. Amendments or revisions to Articles II through VI of these Faculty Bylaws are subject in each instance to the approval of the President of the College and of the Board of Trustees. Amendments to the Faculty Bylaws may be initiated by any individual with faculty status as defined in Article I or a standing committee of the faculty (see Article I, Section 3.7). A proposal from a member of the Faculty or standing committee to amend the Faculty Bylaws will be referred to the Committee on Committees and Agenda, in consultation with the President and the Provost, as consensus among this group is necessary to bring the amendment to faculty for a vote. If a proposed amendment to Articles II through VI of the Faculty Bylaws is introduced, the Faculty shall vote on the matter within 90 days of receiving the proposed amendment (excluding the period of time between the end of the traditional nine-month full-time faculty contract period and the beginning of the new nine-month full-time faculty contract period). An affirmative vote of the majority in attendance and at least one-fourth of the entire voting faculty at duly constituted meeting of the Faculty is required to approve a proposed amendment. The Board of Trustees has final authority for acts under Articles II through VI the Faculty Bylaws Policies and Procedures herein set forth, subject to the delegations of authority to the Faculty under this legislation and to the President under the Bylaws; Article III. [March 17, 1978, pp. 3354-63] Conflict with Federal, State or Local Law: If any provision of the Faculty Bylaws is in conflict with federal, State, or local law, or is otherwise illegal, the remainder of the Faculty Bylaws shall not be affected. The Faculty shall make it a priority to meet and resolve the conflict in conjunction with the Administration. Wheaton College Faculty Bylaws – Page 114</s>

<s>[INST] ARTICLES V & VI - Wheaton College Bylaws - Faculty Draft.txt [/INST] Article V Visiting Faculty Appointments and Provisions This Article sets forth policies, responsibilities, duties, rights, and privileges pertaining to Visiting faculty. Visiting Faculty Academic Titles The College should continue to use the following ranks: Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. ““Assistant”” and ““Lecturer” should have special uses under condition which normally preclude the assignment of regular ranks. [May 13, 1963, p. 2715; Minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting, October 26, 1963, pp. 1055-57; November 18, 1963, pp. 2728-29] The Visiting Faculty title is used with one of the four academic ranks (i.e., Visiting Instructor, Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, Visiting Professor). The initial title for each Visiting faculty member shall be determined by the Provost in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair/Program Coordinator. [May 29, 1980, p. 3469; May 3, 1985, p. 3678] The Provost, in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair/Program Coordinator, shall determine whether or not an individual Visiting faculty member’s appointment constitutes full or part-time teaching. The parameters that define “part-time” and “full-time” teaching are outlined in the Wheaton College Employee Handbook for Faculty and are used for human resource purposes. Each letter of appointment or reappointment shall clearly state the results of this determination. Voting Rights Members of the faculty Part-time Visiting faculty who teach at Wheaton less than half-time have no vote at department or faculty meetings. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641]. Part-time Visiting faculty members who have taught at Wheaton half-time or more for three consecutive years are eligible for service on faculty committees and have a full vote in department or academic program and faculty meetings. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] The Provost, in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair/Program Coordinator, shall determine whether or not an individual Visiting faculty member’s appointment constitutes half-time teaching for purposes of determining voting right eligibility. For purposes of this policy, half-time is defined as a teaching load that is fifty percent or more, but less than one hundred percent of a full-time teaching load as defined in the Employee Handbook for Faculty. Duration of Appointment and Notice of Termination 1. The College will observe the following guidelines for Visiting Faculty ranks and duration of appointments: ··Candidates without the Ph.D. degree or equivalent terminal degree from a comparable accredited post-secondary institution or comparable foreign institution or its professional equivalent will ordinarily be appointed Visiting Instructors. Those who have completed their professional training will ordinarily be appointed Visiting Assistant Professors. Visiting Instructors who complete their training during an appointment will be promoted to Visiting Assistant Professor effective the following academic year. ··The initial appointment of Visiting Faculty will be for one semester, one, two or three years. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Full-time Visiting Faculty will be appointed annually pursuant to a term contract for a semester or a year, for a period not to exceed two years. Part-time Visiting Faculty will be appointed pursuant to a term contract to teach on a part-time or per-course basis. Issuance of another term contract is solely within the discretion of the College and no other procedures apply. ··Replacements for faculty members on leave and other temporary personnel will receive appointments of appropriate rank and duration. ··Visiting faculty members who have taught at Wheaton half-time or more for five years are entitled to contracts ranging from two to five years in length. Other part-time faculty may be given a one- year terminal appointment. In such a case, the standards of notification as described in Paragraph 2 below will be observed. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] 2. The following paragraph applies to reappointment of Visiting Faculty, excluding those who are replacements for faculty on leave or are appointed to teach a single course in one semester or are on terminal contracts. By March 1 of the last year of contract, part-time teaching personnel shall receive letters informing them of their reappointment or non-reappointment. If the College cannot provide them with this information by March 1, they will receive a letter that explains why the reappointment decision has not yet been reached and provides a date by which the decision will be made. [May 4, 2007, p. 4641] Resignation Professional ethics obligate the individual faculty member to notify the College as early as possible of an his or her intention to resign. [April 9, 1976, p. 3237] Compensation Compensation for Visiting Faculty is determined at the time of hire by the Provost [May 4, 2007, p. 4642] Benefits Prorated Benefits for eligible faculty members are determined by Human Resources guidelines. [May 4, 2007, p. 4642] Policies and Procedures Respecting Recruitment and Appointment, Reappointment, and Termination of Visiting Faculty Recruitment, Appointment, Reappointment, and Evaluation For recruitment of full-time Visiting Faculty, the procedures for recruitment and appointment of full-time faculty shall be followed, except that the Chair of the Search Committee may limit advertisement provided that a suitable pool of applicants is obtained in keeping with the College’s policy as an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer. For such appointments, the Chair may modify the usual recruitment and appointment procedures provided that a suitable pool of candidates is obtained. A suitable pool might be as few as two persons under some circumstances. [March 6, 1992, pp. 3872-73 In all cases where a Visiting Faculty member is retained for more than one year, the Department Chair/Program Coordinator shall review the faculty member’s teaching performance and whatever other services the faculty member in question was contracted to perform. Promotion: Criteria: Procedures and Responsibilities for Carrying them On Promotion of part-time faculty members shall be by the same procedures as those for full-time faculty members. The Provost, in consultation with the appropriate Department Chair, shall determine when a part-time faculty member shall be eligible for consideration for promotion. [May 29, 1980, p. 3469; May 3, 1985, p. 3678] Termination of Visiting Faculty Appointments by the College If the College seeks a dismissal for adequate cause prior to the expiration of the faculty member’s contract term, the procedures specific in Article IV, Section 8.2.1 shall be followed. Academic Freedom and Responsibility All members of the Faculty, whether tenured or not, are entitled to academic freedom as set forth in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, formulated by the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors, and as modified by the 1970 Interpretive Comments developed by representatives of the same two bodies. See Article III, Section 1. All members of the Faculty are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the 1966 Statement on Professional Ethics formulated by the American Association of University Professors. See Article III, Section 2. Miscellaneous Visiting Faculty Grievances 1. A Visiting Faculty member who feels that he or she has cause for grievance may have such grievance reviewed in accordance with the College’s then current “Review and Appeals Procedures for Certain Faculty Grievances” (see Article IV, Section 9). [May 4, 2007, p. 4643] 2. The Policies and Procedures set forth herein shall go into effect in accordance with the Enabling Section, as separately provided. 3. The Faculty may at any time or from time to time amend or revise the Policies and Procedures herein set forth, subject to each instance to the approval of the President of the College and of the Board of Trustees. 4. The Board of Trustees has final authority for acts under the Policies and Procedures herein set forth, subject to the delegations of authority to the Faculty under this legislation and to the President under the By-Laws; Article III. [March 17, 1978, pp. 3354-63] Article VI. Amendments to Faculty Bylaws The Faculty Bylaws Policies and Procedures set forth herein shall go into effect in accordance with the Enabling Section, as separately provided. The Faculty may at any time or from time to time amend or revise these Faculty Bylaws the Policies and Procedures herein set forth. Amendments or revisions to Articles II through VI of these Faculty Bylaws are subject in each instance to the approval of the President of the College and of the Board of Trustees. Amendments to the Faculty Bylaws may be initiated by any individual with faculty status as defined in Article I or a standing committee of the faculty (see Article I, Section 3.7). A proposal from a member of the Faculty or standing committee to amend the Faculty Bylaws will be referred to the Committee on Committees and Agenda, in consultation with the President and the Provost, as consensus among this group is necessary to bring the amendment to faculty for a vote. If a proposed amendment to Articles II through VI of the Faculty Bylaws is introduced, the Faculty shall vote on the matter within 90 days of receiving the proposed amendment (excluding the period of time between the end of the traditional nine-month full-time faculty contract period and the beginning of the new nine-month full-time faculty contract period). An affirmative vote of the majority in attendance and at least one-fourth of the entire voting faculty at duly constituted meeting of the Faculty is required to approve a proposed amendment. The Board of Trustees has final authority for acts under Articles II through VI the Faculty Bylaws Policies and Procedures herein set forth, subject to the delegations of authority to the Faculty under this legislation and to the President under the Bylaws; Article III. [March 17, 1978, pp. 3354-63] Conflict with Federal, State or Local Law: If any provision of the Faculty Bylaws is in conflict with federal, State, or local law, or is otherwise illegal, the remainder of the Faculty Bylaws shall not be affected. The Faculty shall make it a priority to meet and resolve the conflict in conjunction with the Administration. Wheaton College Faculty Bylaws – Page 114</s>

<s>[INST] ATI.txt [/INST] ATI Each class has a number of hours We pay 40 dollars per hour –refer to administrative bulletins Full time Required 23 contact hours plus 2 hours lab maintenance hours Fall Spring [Legacy] Professors don’t have to work summer The other guys were meant to work both summers but they fell through a crack and only one summer. Same deal … 23 hours per week plus 2 hours lab maintenance plus 5 office hours See admin bulletin</s>

<s>[INST] AUDIT & ACCOUNTABLITY CONTROL POLICY.txt [/INST] AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY CONTROL POLICY Effective Date: Policy Number: Supersedes: Not Applicable Issuing Authority: President Responsible Officer: Chief Information Officer Applicability: All College Information Systems that collect, process, maintain, use, share, disseminate or dispose of College Data (“applicable information system(s)”), as well as all Authorized Users who access, use, or handle those resources. History: ______________________________________________________________________________ PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to adapt and maintain a formal documented program for the monitoring, management, and review of applicable information systems and associated Authorized User activity. POLICY It is the policy of Canisius College to configure applicable information systems to produce, store, and retain audit records for the specific resource and Authorized User activity. Under the leadership of the chief information officer, applicable resources are routinely reviewed to determine if such resources provide the necessary means whereby the Information Technology Services (“ITS”) may audit and establish individual accountability for any auditable event that can potentially cause access to, generation of, modification of, or affect the release of Private College Data. DEFINITIONS Authorized User—are all individuals, including, but not limited to, employees, temporary employees, faculty, students, alumni, trustees, campus visitors, contractors, vendors, consultants and their related personnel, and other individuals authorized by the college to access a college computer, the college network(s), or information systems that collect, process, maintain, use, share, disseminate or dispose of College Data. Audit Event—any observable occurrence within a College Information System that is significant and relevant to the security of the system and the environment in which it operates in order to meet specific and ongoing audit needs. Audit events include any auditable event required by applicable local, state, and federal laws. Audit events can include, for example, password changes, failed logons, or failed accesses related to information systems, etc. Cardholder Data - full magnetic stripe or the Primary Account Number (PAN) plus any of the following: cardholder name; expiration date; service code; CVC2/CVV2/CID (a three- or four-digit number displayed on the signature panel of the card or, in the case of American Express, on the face of the card. College Data— any information collected, manipulated, stored, reported, or presented in any format, on any medium, at any location by any department, program or office of the college in support of the college’s mission. College Employees—includes Canisius College executive officers, administrators, faculty, staff, student employees, contractors, and others who act on behalf of the college. College Information System—a set of information resources organized expressly for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination, or disposition of information. The term system is used throughout this policy to represent all types of computing platforms that can process, store, or transmit College Data. Covered Data and Information—means all Non-Public Personnel Information of customers required to be protected under the Title V of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999 (“GLBA”), including Student Financial Information. In addition to this coverage, which is required under federal law, the college chooses as a matter of policy to also include in this definition any Cardholder Data received in the course of business by the college, whether or not such Cardholder Data is covered by GLBA. Covered Data and Information includes both paper and electronic records. Covered Data and Information is classified as Private, Highly Restricted College Data pursuant to the College Data Classification Policy. Data Custodians—the custodian of College Data is generally responsible for the processing and storage of College Data. The custodian is responsible for the administration of controls as specified by the Data Owner. By definition, Data Custodians are also Authorized Users. Data Owners—the owner of a collection of College Data is usually the manager responsible for the creation of that data or the primary user of that information. This role often corresponds with the management of department. In this context, ownership does not signify proprietary interest, and ownership may be shared. By definition, Data Owners are also Authorized Users. Members of the College Community—includes any person who is a student, college employee, volunteer, trustee, alumni, as well as college organizations, clubs, groups, and teams. This definition also includes all college departments, offices and programs. Mobile Device—any handheld or portable computing device including running an operating system optimized or designed for mobile computing. Any device running a full desktop version operating system is not included in this definition. Non-Public Personal Information—any personally identifiable financial or other personal information, not otherwise publicly available, that the college has obtained from a customer in the process of offering a financial product or service; such information provided to the college by another financial institution; such information otherwise obtained by the college in connection with providing a financial product or service; or any list, description, or other grouping of customers (and publicly available information pertaining to them) that is derived using any information listed above that is not publicly available. Examples of personally identifiable financial information include names, date and place of birth, mother’s maiden name, biometric records, addresses, telephone numbers, bank and credit card account numbers, income and credit histories, tax returns, asset statements, and social security numbers, both in paper and electronic form. Personally Identifiable Information or PII—any information about an individual that (i) can be used to distinguish or trace an individual’s identity, such as name, date and place of birth, mother’s maiden name or biometric records, (ii) is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial and employment information, which if lost, compromised or disclosed without authorization, could result in harm to that individual; and (iii) is protected by federal, state or local laws and regulations or industry standards. Private College Data—any College Data classified as Private-Highly Restricted and Private-Restricted pursuant to this policy. By definition, Private College Data includes, but is not limited to, Covered Data and Information, Student Financial Information, Personally Identifiable Information, Student Education Records, Human Subjects Research Data or Other Sensitive Research Data, Protected Health Information, Cardholder Data, and Sensitive Authentication Data. See the College Data Classification Policy for additional information. Public College Data—College Data that by law are available to the public upon request, and that the loss of the data would not cause significant personal, institutional, or other harm. Security Incident—occurs when there is a serious threat of or unauthorized access or acquisition to a College Information System or an Authorized User’s computerized data that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of the data, including Private College Data. A Security Incident also occurs where there has been unauthorized access or acquisition of encrypted data and the confidential process or key to the encryption is also compromised. Security Incidents can range from the unauthorized use of another Authorized User’s account or system privileges to the execution of malicious code, viruses, worms, Trojan horses, cracking utilities, or attacks by crackers or hackers. Security Incidents may also involve the physical theft of a college information system, a component thereof, or an Authorized User’s technology, such as a computer, mobile device, or other electronic media, or may occur as the result of a weakness in information systems or components (e.g., hardware design or system security procedures). A non-exhaustive list of symptoms of incidents that qualify as Security Incidents include: A system alarm or similar indication from an intrusion detection tool; Suspicious entries in a system or network accounting; Accounting discrepancies; unexplained new user accounts or file names; Unexplained modification or deletion of data; system crashes or poor system performance; Unusual time of usage; and Unusual usage patterns. Sensitive Authentication Data—Full track data (magnetic strip data or equivalent on a chip, CAV2/CVC2/CVV2/CID, and PINs/PIN blocks. Student Education Records—as defined by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), student education records are all records which contain information directly related to a student and maintained by the college, including those files, documents, and other materials (in handwriting, print, computer media, video or audio tape, film, microfilm, and microfiche) that contain information directly related to a student which are maintained by the college or by a person acting for the college pursuant to college or department policy. Information that is captured as a result of a student’s various activities at the college is part of the student record. This information includes, but may not be limited to, logs, databases or other records of: websites the student has visited, purchases made at college facilities, entry day/time into college facilities, library use and biometric records. Student Financial Information—information the college or its affiliates have obtained from a student in the process of offering a financial product or service, or such information provided to the college by another financial institution. Offering a financial product or service includes offering student loans to students, receiving income tax information from a student’s parent when offering a financial aid package, and other miscellaneous financial services as defined in 12 CRF §225.28. Examples of student financial information include addresses, phone numbers, bank and credit card account numbers, income and credit histories and Social Security numbers, in both paper and electronic format. PROCEDURES/GUIDELINES I. Auditable Events Information systems designated by ITS as requiring authentication are configured to generate an audit record for a pre-defined set of events that are adequate to support after-the-fact Security Incident investigations. At a minimum, applicable resources will be configured to record: Authorized User identification; Type of event; Date; Timestamp; Logon/logoff; Identity or name of resource/data/system component; All system and data interactions concerning Private College Data, including failed access attempts for operating systems, databases, devices, and applications that collect, process, maintain, use, share, disseminate, or dispose of Private College Data; Administrative access functions, including changes in the status of auditable events; Creation of new accounts and elevation of privileges; and All changes, additions, or deletions to accounts with root or administrative privileges. When resources or technology allows, ITS will configure applicable resources to audit the following additional events: Change of password; Switching accounts or running administrator access functions from another account; Subset of security administrator commands while logged on in an administrator access role; Subset of system administrator commands while logged on in the Authorized User role; Access to all audit functions; Clearing of the audit log file; Startup, pausing, and shutdown of audit functions; Change of file or Authorized User permissions or privileges; Remote access outside of college network communications channels (e.g., dedicated virtual private network) and all dial-in access to the system; Changes made to an application or database by a batch file; Application critical record changes; Creation and deletion of system-level objects; Changes to database or application records, where the application is bypassed to produce the change (via a file or other database utility); and Additional platform specific events may also be required, based on the outcome of the risk assessment required by the Risk Assessment and Security Policy. A. Auditable Events Review Auditable events and review frequencies are documented by ITS. The documentation is evaluated on an annual basis by the chief information officer (or his/her designee) and updates to the audit and accountability program are introduced as necessary. B. Changes by Authorized Individuals Only authorized personnel designated by the chief information officer (or his/her designee) are permitted to make changes to the audit system. Changes to the audit system may include adjustments to capture more or less information to comply with investigation requirements, as well as modifications that would facilitate audit reduction, analysis, and reporting. II. Content of Audit Records As noted above, applicable information systems designated by ITS as requiring authentication must have the capability to create audit records. ITS is responsible for ensuring that such records contain sufficient information to, at a minimum establish what events occurred, when (date and time) the events occurred, the source of the events, the source of the event, the identity of any user associated with the event, and the event outcome. Applicable resources may also include additional defined requirements in the audit records for audit events identified by type, location, or subject. An example of detailed information that the college may require in audit records is full-text recording of privileged commands or the individual identities of group account users. ITS centrally manages the content of audit records, including those records generated by all web servers, database servers, messaging servers, file servers, print servers, middleware servers, DNS servers, routers, firewalls, IDS/IPS, and VoIP servers. Such records are maintained in accordance with the Record Retention Policy and Schedule. The following information is never included in the audit records maintained by ITS: Unencrypted Private College Data; Session identification values (consider replacing with a hashed value if needed to track session specific events); Access tokens (except nonce URLs that grant limited, specific purpose access); Clear text authentication credentials (e.g., passwords); Database connection strings; Encryption keys; and Information it is illegal to collect in the relevant jurisdiction. III. Audit Storage Capacity ITS is responsible for ensuring that applicable information systems requiring authentication have a sufficient amount of storage capacity allocated for audit records. ITS configures such systems to: Reduce the likelihood of audit records exceeding storage capacity; and Allow the records to be maintained for a period as designated by ITS. When possible, ITS will off-load audit records onto a different information system than the one that is being audited to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of the audit records. IV. Response to Audit Processing Failures When possible, applicable information systems requiring authentication shall provide the capability to generate system alerts and send them to appropriate ITS staff in the event of an audit failure or audit storage capacity being reached. In the event of an audit processing failure, when possible, the system will be configured by ITS to shut down or provide limited functionality. ITS will then attempt to remediate logging discrepancies. V. Audit Review, Analysis and Reporting Authority Audit records are regularly reviewed and analyzed by ITS staff to identify unauthorized, inappropriate, unusual, suspicious activity, or other Security Incidents (see the Incident Response Policy). Such activities are investigated by ITS staff and reported to the chief information officer, in accordance with the Incident Response Policy. A. Frequency of Review and Analysis Assigned ITS staff review audit records for applicable resources and associated components to identify anomalies or suspicious activity as follows: The following audit records are reviewed by ITS at least daily: All security events; Logs of all system components that store, process, or transmit cardholder data, or that could impact the security of Private College Data, including Cardholder Data; Logs of all critical system components; and Logs of all servers and system components that perform security functions. As applicable, this includes, but is not limited to: Firewalls; Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS); Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS); Authentication servers (e.g., Active Directory domain controllers); and E-commerce redirection servers; ITS staff reviews other audit records in accordance with the annual risk assessment (see the Risk Assessment and Security Policy); and ITS staff report exceptions and anomalies identified during the review process to the chief information officer (or his/her designee) and follow sup as appropriate. B. Risk Escalation If there is an increased risk to operating systems, databases or applications, review and analysis will be performed more frequently. See the Risk Assessment and Security Policy. C. Integrate Alert Processes Audit review, analysis, and reporting processes are integrated to support investigations and subsequent responses to suspicious activities. D. Correlate Audit Repositories Audit records are analyzed and correlated across different repositories by ITS to gain organizational situational awareness. VI. Time Stamps ITS is responsible for ensuring that applicable information systems are configured to use internal system clocks to generate time stamps for audit records. Time stamps generated by the system include both date and time. The time may be expressed in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), a modern continuation of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), or local time with an offset from UTC. Data Owners must ensure that the time stamps on applicable resources they are responsible for are configured properly and validate the following: The applicable resource is configured to synchronize time with college servers; The applicable resource has the correct and consistent time; and Time data is protected from unauthorized modification. VII. Audit Information Protection Audit records are protected from unauthorized modification, access, or deletion while online and during offline storage as follows: Only authorized Data Owners and Custodians with administrative access credentials, as well as select staff from ITS are permitted access to audit logs and audit tools; Audit logs containing Private College Data are encrypted in accordance with the System and Communications Protection Policy; Audit files are protected from unauthorized modifications via the use of Login ID and authentication; ITS is responsible for ensuring that applicable resources are configured to either allow real-time backup or audit the transfer of trail files to a centralized log server or media that is difficult to alter; ITS is responsible for ensuring that applicable resources are configured to write logs for external-facing technologies onto a secure, centralized, internal log server or media devices; and Where feasible, ITS implements File Integrity Monitoring (FIM) or change-detection software on logs to ensure that existing log data cannot be changed without generating alerts. VIII. Audit Record Retention The college retains audit records for a time sufficient to provide support after-the-fact security investigations as determined by the chief information officer (or his/her designee) and to meet regulatory and applicable college record retention requirements as delineated in the Record Retention Policy and Schedule. Note: Per the PCI-DDS requirements, the college retains Cardholder Data Environment related audit records for at least one (1) year, with a minimum of three (3) months immediately available for analysis. IX. Exception Requests For details on requesting an exception request to this Policy, please contact the chief information officer. RELATED POLICIES Access Control Policy Acquisition and Disposal Policy Configuration Management Policy Data Classification Policy Incident Response Policy Information Security Program Information Technology Configuration Management Policy Media Protection Policy Passwords Policy Payment Card Security Policy Record Retention Policy Risk and Security Assessment Policy System and Communication Protection Policy System and Information Integrity Policy</s>

<s>[INST] Authority of the Faculty-SS Comments.txt [/INST] Currently in the Faculty Constitution: The Authority of the Faculty 1. The President delegates to the Faculty primary responsibility for governance of such fundamental areas as curriculum; subject matter and methods of instruction; research; faculty status; and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process.   2. The Faculty, in collaboration with the Provost, recommends standards, criteria, and procedures for hiring, retention, promotion, and tenure of faculty members and for evaluating teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service.   3. The Faculty is consulted and offers informed advice with respect to issues that affect the Faculty’s primary areas of responsibility, including but not limited to faculty workload and working conditions, strategic planning, budgeting and academic resource allocation, improvements in physical and technological resources, and the selection of academic administrators.   4. The President has the option to appeal to the Board of Regents in the event that a decision, policy, or process instituted by the Faculty is deemed contrary to the mission or goals of the university.  In such an instance, the Faculty shall be informed of the President’s appeal and given an opportunity to present, before the Board of Regents, Faculty arguments regarding the decision, policy, or process.   Proposed Change (Approved recently by the Senate and Assembly): The Authority of the Faculty   1. The President delegates to the Faculty primary responsibility for governance of such fundamental areas as curriculum; subject matter and methods of instruction; research; faculty status; and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process. Such responsibilities are subject to the power of approval lodged in the Board of Regents or delegated by it to the President. 2-The Faculty, in collaboration with the Provost, recommends standards, criteria, and procedures for hiring, retention, promotion, and tenure of faculty members and for evaluating teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service. This area includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal. The primary responsibility of the faculty for such matters is based upon the fact that its expertise is central to general educational policy and specialized knowledge is needed to understand and evaluate scholarship and creative works.   3. The Faculty is consulted and offers informed advice with respect to issues that affect the Faculty’s primary areas of responsibility, including but not limited to faculty workload and working conditions, strategic planning, budgeting and academic resource allocation, improvements in physical and technological resources, and the selection of academic administrators.    4-The President has the option to appeal to the Board of Regents in the event that a decision, policy, or process instituted by the Faculty is deemed contrary to the mission or goals of the university. This action should be used in rare and exceptional circumstances. In such an instance, the President will inform the Faculty Senate and FSEC of the President’s appeal in detail, in writing and in a timely manner. Following such communication, Faculty should have the opportunity to present arguments regarding Faculty’s views on their decision, policy, or process to the President and the Board of Regents. Alternative Text On these matters the power of review or final decision lodged in the Board of Regents or delegated by it to the President should be exercised adversely only in exceptional circumstances, and for reasons communicated to the faculty. It is desirable that the faculty should, following such communication, have opportunity for further consideration and further transmittal of its views to the President or Board. Budgets, personnel limitations, the time element, and the policies of other groups, bodies, and agencies having jurisdiction over the institution may set limits to realization of faculty advice   Comparison of Cal Lutheran’s faculty handbook language with the language from University of Laverne’s faculty handbook: Currently in the Faculty Constitution: Proposed Change: Univ of Laverne’s handbook 1. The President delegates to the Faculty primary responsibility for governance of such fundamental areas as curriculum; subject matter and methods of instruction; research; faculty status; and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process. 1. The President delegates to the Faculty primary responsibility for governance of such fundamental areas as curriculum; subject matter and methods of instruction; research; faculty status; and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process. The President delegates to the faculty primary responsibility for governance of such fundamental areas as curriculum; subject matter and methods of instruction; research; faculty status; and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process. The President avoids overturning faculty judgment in those areas in which the faculty has been delegated primary responsibility. 2. The Faculty, in collaboration with the Provost, recommends standards, criteria, and procedures for hiring, retention, promotion, and tenure of faculty members and for evaluating teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service. 2-The Faculty, in collaboration with the Provost, recommends standards, criteria, and procedures for hiring, retention, promotion, and tenure of faculty members and for evaluating teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service. This area includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal. The primary responsibility of the faculty for such matters is based upon the fact that its expertise is central to general educational policy and specialized knowledge is needed to understand and evaluate scholarship and creative works. The faculty, in collaboration with the Provost, recommends standards, criteria, and procedures for hiring, retention, promotion, and tenure of faculty members and for evaluating teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service. It is the function of the faculty: • to form such organization of the entire teaching staff, adopt such rules of procedure, and establish such committees as appropriate; • to initiate and recommend to the Trustees, or to approve directly or through its constituted committees, all policies and actions directly affecting the curriculum and other educational matters, including the establishment or discontinuance of new courses or fields of instruction, faculty compensation, admissions and financial aid standards, academic calendars, academic advising procedures, faculty load policies, and criteria for promotion, tenure, and dismissal of faculty, all such action being subject to review and approval by the Board of Trustees; 3. The Faculty is consulted and offers informed advice with respect to issues that affect the Faculty’s primary areas of responsibility, including but not limited to faculty workload and working conditions, strategic planning, budgeting and academic resource allocation, improvements in physical and technological resources, and the selection of academic administrators. 3. The Faculty is consulted and offers informed advice with respect to issues that affect the Faculty’s primary areas of responsibility, including but not limited to faculty workload and working conditions, strategic planning, budgeting and academic resource allocation, improvements in physical and technological resources, and the selection of academic administrators. The faculty is consulted and offers informed advice with respect to issues that affect the Faculty’s primary areas of responsibility, including, but not limited to, faculty workload and working conditions, strategic planning, budgeting and academic resource allocation, improvements in physical and technological resources, and the selection of academic administrators. 4. The President has the option to appeal to the Board of Regents in the event that a decision, policy, or process instituted by the Faculty is deemed contrary to the mission or goals of the university.  In such an instance, the Faculty shall be informed of the President’s appeal and given an opportunity to present, before the Board of Regents, Faculty arguments regarding the decision, policy, or process.    4-The President has the option to appeal to the Board of Regents in the event that a decision, policy, or process instituted by the Faculty is deemed contrary to the mission or goals of the university. This action should be used in rare and exceptional circumstances. In such an instance, the President will inform the Faculty Senate and FSEC of the President’s appeal in detail, in writing and in a timely manner. Following such communication, Faculty should have the opportunity to present arguments regarding Faculty’s views on their decision, policy, or process to the President and the Board of Regents.   The President has the power to veto the decisions of Faculty Senate, provided, however, that Faculty Senate is notified within one week of said action and the reasons are given in writing to the President of Faculty Senate and the Secretary of the Board. The right of appeal to the Board is granted to Faculty Senate, upon two-thirds vote of Faculty Senate, provided such a vote is taken at the next scheduled Faculty Senate meeting. If requested by the Faculty, the President or the Board shall reconsider the action and shall inform the Faculty of its decision on reconsideration in writing within thirty days of receipt of the Faculty’s request for review.</s>

<s>[INST] Authority of the Faculty.txt [/INST] Currently in the Faculty Constitution: The Authority of the Faculty 1. The President delegates to the Faculty primary responsibility for governance of such fundamental areas as curriculum; subject matter and methods of instruction; research; faculty status; and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process.   2. The Faculty, in collaboration with the Provost, recommends standards, criteria, and procedures for hiring, retention, promotion, and tenure of faculty members and for evaluating teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service.   3. The Faculty is consulted and offers informed advice with respect to issues that affect the Faculty’s primary areas of responsibility, including but not limited to faculty workload and working conditions, strategic planning, budgeting and academic resource allocation, improvements in physical and technological resources, and the selection of academic administrators.   4. The President has the option to appeal to the Board of Regents in the event that a decision, policy, or process instituted by the Faculty is deemed contrary to the mission or goals of the university.  In such an instance, the Faculty shall be informed of the President’s appeal and given an opportunity to present, before the Board of Regents, Faculty arguments regarding the decision, policy, or process.   Proposed Change (Approved recently by the Senate and Assembly): The Authority of the Faculty   1. The President delegates to the Faculty primary responsibility for governance of such fundamental areas as curriculum; subject matter and methods of instruction; research; faculty status; and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process.     2-The Faculty, in collaboration with the Provost, recommends standards, criteria, and procedures for hiring, retention, promotion, and tenure of faculty members and for evaluating teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service. This area includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal. The primary responsibility of the faculty for such matters is based upon the fact that its expertise is central to general educational policy and specialized knowledge is needed to understand and evaluate scholarship and creative works.   3. The Faculty is consulted and offers informed advice with respect to issues that affect the Faculty’s primary areas of responsibility, including but not limited to faculty workload and working conditions, strategic planning, budgeting and academic resource allocation, improvements in physical and technological resources, and the selection of academic administrators.    4-The President has the option to appeal to the Board of Regents in the event that a decision, policy, or process instituted by the Faculty is deemed contrary to the mission or goals of the university. This action should be used in rare and exceptional circumstances. In such an instance, the President will inform the Faculty Senate and FSEC of the President’s appeal in detail, in writing and in a timely manner. Following such communication, Faculty should have the opportunity to present arguments regarding Faculty’s views on their decision, policy, or process to the President and the Board of Regents. Alternative Text On these matters the power of review or final decision lodged in the Board of Regents or delegated by it to the President should be exercised adversely only in exceptional circumstances, and for reasons communicated to the faculty. It is desirable that the faculty should, following such communication, have opportunity for further consideration and further transmittal of its views to the President or Board. Budgets, personnel limitations, the time element, and the policies of other groups, bodies, and agencies having jurisdiction over the institution may set limits to realization of faculty advice  Comparison of Cal Lutheran’s faculty handbook language with the language from University of Laverne’s faculty handbook: Currently in the Faculty Constitution: Proposed Change: Univ of Laverne’s handbook 1. The President delegates to the Faculty primary responsibility for governance of such fundamental areas as curriculum; subject matter and methods of instruction; research; faculty status; and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process. 1. The President delegates to the Faculty primary responsibility for governance of such fundamental areas as curriculum; subject matter and methods of instruction; research; faculty status; and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process. The President delegates to the faculty primary responsibility for governance of such fundamental areas as curriculum; subject matter and methods of instruction; research; faculty status; and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process. The President avoids overturning faculty judgment in those areas in which the faculty has been delegated primary responsibility. 2. The Faculty, in collaboration with the Provost, recommends standards, criteria, and procedures for hiring, retention, promotion, and tenure of faculty members and for evaluating teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service. 2-The Faculty, in collaboration with the Provost, recommends standards, criteria, and procedures for hiring, retention, promotion, and tenure of faculty members and for evaluating teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service. This area includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal. The primary responsibility of the faculty for such matters is based upon the fact that its expertise is central to general educational policy and specialized knowledge is needed to understand and evaluate scholarship and creative works. The faculty, in collaboration with the Provost, recommends standards, criteria, and procedures for hiring, retention, promotion, and tenure of faculty members and for evaluating teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service. It is the function of the faculty: • to form such organization of the entire teaching staff, adopt such rules of procedure, and establish such committees as appropriate; • to initiate and recommend to the Trustees, or to approve directly or through its constituted committees, all policies and actions directly affecting the curriculum and other educational matters, including the establishment or discontinuance of new courses or fields of instruction, faculty compensation, admissions and financial aid standards, academic calendars, academic advising procedures, faculty load policies, and criteria for promotion, tenure, and dismissal of faculty, all such action being subject to review and approval by the Board of Trustees; 3. The Faculty is consulted and offers informed advice with respect to issues that affect the Faculty’s primary areas of responsibility, including but not limited to faculty workload and working conditions, strategic planning, budgeting and academic resource allocation, improvements in physical and technological resources, and the selection of academic administrators. 3. The Faculty is consulted and offers informed advice with respect to issues that affect the Faculty’s primary areas of responsibility, including but not limited to faculty workload and working conditions, strategic planning, budgeting and academic resource allocation, improvements in physical and technological resources, and the selection of academic administrators. The faculty is consulted and offers informed advice with respect to issues that affect the Faculty’s primary areas of responsibility, including, but not limited to, faculty workload and working conditions, strategic planning, budgeting and academic resource allocation, improvements in physical and technological resources, and the selection of academic administrators. 4. The President has the option to appeal to the Board of Regents in the event that a decision, policy, or process instituted by the Faculty is deemed contrary to the mission or goals of the university.  In such an instance, the Faculty shall be informed of the President’s appeal and given an opportunity to present, before the Board of Regents, Faculty arguments regarding the decision, policy, or process.    4-The President has the option to appeal to the Board of Regents in the event that a decision, policy, or process instituted by the Faculty is deemed contrary to the mission or goals of the university. This action should be used in rare and exceptional circumstances. In such an instance, the President will inform the Faculty Senate and FSEC of the President’s appeal in detail, in writing and in a timely manner. Following such communication, Faculty should have the opportunity to present arguments regarding Faculty’s views on their decision, policy, or process to the President and the Board of Regents.   The President has the power to veto the decisions of Faculty Senate, provided, however, that Faculty Senate is notified within one week of said action and the reasons are given in writing to the President of Faculty Senate and the Secretary of the Board. The right of appeal to the Board is granted to Faculty Senate, upon two-thirds vote of Faculty Senate, provided such a vote is taken at the next scheduled Faculty Senate meeting. If requested by the Faculty, the President or the Board shall reconsider the action and shall inform the Faculty of its decision on reconsideration in writing within thirty days of receipt of the Faculty’s request for review.</s>

<s>[INST] B&F (2nd Draft)(3.20).txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] Back Up Policies.txt [/INST] Back Up Policies https://www.du.edu/it/about/it-policies/backup https://ww1.odu.edu/about/policiesandprocedures/computing/standards/06/10 https://www.stmarytx.edu/policies/it-services/data-server-backup/ https://brocku.ca/policies/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/IT-Backup-Policy.pdf https://confluence.rowan.edu/display/POLICY/Data+Backup</s>

<s>[INST] Benchmarks Evaluation Form (updated 1-24-21).txt [/INST] Benchmarks for Teaching Effectiveness posits that effective teaching involves the alignment of course goals and instructional practices, the creation of motivating and inclusive learning climates, and consistent attention to and reflection on student learning and feedback. Evaluation form for Benchmarks for Teaching Excellence CTE@KU Updated 27 January 2021 What is this? This document is a guide for evaluating faculty members using the Benchmarks for Teaching Excellence framework. It provides short forms for evaluators to use in providing feedback to instructors on each of the seven dimensions of teaching in the Benchmarks framework: Goals, content and alignment Teaching practices Class climate Achievement of learning outcomes Reflection and iterative growth Mentoring and advising Involvement in teaching service, scholarship or community Each section has a list of questions to consider in evaluating an instructor’s materials and a list of information sources where an evaluator can find appropriate evidence. For annual evaluations, the process could be streamlined by focusing on a subset of the dimensions and cycling through them over 2-3 years (some could be essential and others rotating). This document is intended to be used alongside the Benchmarks for Teaching Excellence rubric. That rubric (see p. 6) provides further guidance, including language that an evaluator can use in deciding whether an instructor’s teaching contributions fit into the developing, proficient or expert levels. The proficient level is where most instructors will fit. The expert level requires exceptional work in all the dimensions of teaching. Departments must identify expectations for achievement of the rubric levels for evaluation purposes. Best Practices-Departments should build consensus on: Expectations on rubric for instructors at different career phases (e.g., “for junior faculty to meet expectations, most ratings should be in the proficient category.”) Adaptations of rubric language and criteria to fit discipline The relative weights of the seven teaching dimensions What is this? This document is a guide for evaluating faculty members using the Benchmarks for Teaching Excellence framework. It provides short forms for evaluators to use in providing feedback to instructors on each of the seven dimensions of teaching in the Benchmarks framework: Goals, content and alignment Teaching practices Class climate Achievement of learning outcomes Reflection and iterative growth Mentoring and advising Involvement in teaching service, scholarship or community Each section has a list of questions to consider in evaluating an instructor’s materials and a list of information sources where an evaluator can find appropriate evidence. For annual evaluations, the process could be streamlined by focusing on a subset of the dimensions and cycling through them over 2-3 years (some could be essential and others rotating). This document is intended to be used alongside the Benchmarks for Teaching Excellence rubric. That rubric (see p. 6) provides further guidance, including language that an evaluator can use in deciding whether an instructor’s teaching contributions fit into the developing, proficient or expert levels. The proficient level is where most instructors will fit. The expert level requires exceptional work in all the dimensions of teaching. Departments must identify expectations for achievement of the rubric levels for evaluation purposes. Best Practices-Departments should build consensus on: Expectations on rubric for instructors at different career phases (e.g., “for junior faculty to meet expectations, most ratings should be in the proficient category.”) Adaptations of rubric language and criteria to fit discipline The relative weights of the seven teaching dimensions Where do I find evidence? The Benchmarks framework draws on evidence from the instructor, peers, and students. Here are examples of what each can provide. From the instructor Statements explaining: Approaches and techniques related to each Benchmarks dimension (pointing to evidence in course materials and student work) Successes or challenges in the approaches used, and evidence of those What changes the instructor will consider in the future Syllabi from classes Sample course materials, including assignments, rubrics and other materials used for evaluating student learning Samples of student work and representations of student learning From peers Evaluations of course materials Discussions with the instructor Class visits, or review of online site (Blackboard, Canvas) and related interaction sites (like Teams) Results from observation protocols (e.g., the COPUS observation protocol) From students Results and comments from student surveys Instructor-gathered feedback (and instructor reflection on it) Letters from alumni Where do I find evidence? The Benchmarks framework draws on evidence from the instructor, peers, and students. Here are examples of what each can provide. From the instructor Statements explaining: Approaches and techniques related to each Benchmarks dimension (pointing to evidence in course materials and student work) Successes or challenges in the approaches used, and evidence of those What changes the instructor will consider in the future Syllabi from classes Sample course materials, including assignments, rubrics and other materials used for evaluating student learning Samples of student work and representations of student learning From peers Evaluations of course materials Discussions with the instructor Class visits, or review of online site (Blackboard, Canvas) and related interaction sites (like Teams) Results from observation protocols (e.g., the COPUS observation protocol) From students Results and comments from student surveys Instructor-gathered feedback (and instructor reflection on it) Letters from alumni 1. Goals, content and alignment Focus on what the instructor expects students to learn and why. Are course goals well-articulated, relevant to students and clearly connected to program or curricular goals? Is course content appropriately challenging or innovative and related to current issues in the field? Are course topics well-integrated and of appropriate range and depth? Are course materials of high quality and aligned with course goals? Does course reflect diverse perspectives and promote critical reflection on diverse perspectives? Where to look Instructor: □ Instructor statement □ Course goals from syllabus □ Sample course materials (e.g., rubrics, assignment sheets, readings), □ Modules in LMS Peer: □ Peer Review Students: □ Student survey □ Instructor gathered feedback Other________________________ 1. Goals, content and alignment Focus on what the instructor expects students to learn and why. Are course goals well-articulated, relevant to students and clearly connected to program or curricular goals? Is course content appropriately challenging or innovative and related to current issues in the field? Are course topics well-integrated and of appropriate range and depth? Are course materials of high quality and aligned with course goals? Does course reflect diverse perspectives and promote critical reflection on diverse perspectives? Where to look Instructor: □ Instructor statement □ Course goals from syllabus □ Sample course materials (e.g., rubrics, assignment sheets, readings), □ Modules in LMS Peer: □ Peer Review Students: □ Student survey □ Instructor gathered feedback Other________________________ Strengths Areas for improvement Rubric level Strengths Areas for improvement Rubric level Strengths Areas for improvement Rubric level Strengths Areas for improvement Rubric level 2. Teaching practices Focus on the instructor’s use of in- and out-of-class time. Are courses well-planned and integrated, reflecting commitment to providing meaningful assignments and assessments? Does the instructor use inclusive and effective or innovative methods to support learning in all students? Do in- and out-of-class activities provide opportunities for practice and feedback on important skills and concepts? Do students show high levels of engagement? Are assessments and assignments varied, allowing students to demonstrate knowledge through multiple approaches? Where to look Instructor: □ Instructor statement □ Syllabus or course schedule □ Sample class activities and assignments □ Modules in Blackboard or Canvas □ Lesson plans □ Examples of feedback on student work Peers: □ Peer observations □ COPUS observation □ Peer Review Students: □ Student survey □ Instructor gathered feedback Other: 2. Teaching practices Focus on the instructor’s use of in- and out-of-class time. Are courses well-planned and integrated, reflecting commitment to providing meaningful assignments and assessments? Does the instructor use inclusive and effective or innovative methods to support learning in all students? Do in- and out-of-class activities provide opportunities for practice and feedback on important skills and concepts? Do students show high levels of engagement? Are assessments and assignments varied, allowing students to demonstrate knowledge through multiple approaches? Where to look Instructor: □ Instructor statement □ Syllabus or course schedule □ Sample class activities and assignments □ Modules in Blackboard or Canvas □ Lesson plans □ Examples of feedback on student work Peers: □ Peer observations □ COPUS observation □ Peer Review Students: □ Student survey □ Instructor gathered feedback Other: Strengths Areas for improvement Rubric level Strengths Areas for improvement Rubric level 4. Achievement of learning outcomes Focus on the impact of the instructor’s courses on learners. Are standards for evaluating learning clear and connected to program, curriculum or professional expectations? What is the evidence of student learning? Does the instructor use it to inform teaching? Does the quality of learning support success in other contexts? Are there efforts to make achievement equitable? Where to look Instructor: □ Instructor statement □ Rubrics and samples of student work (assignments, projects, journals, blogs, etc.) □ Summaries/analysis of performance on rubrics or other indicators of student achievement □ Item analysis of exam questions that are connected to learning goals Peers: □ Peer review Students: □ Student perceptions of learning Other____________________________________________________ 4. Achievement of learning outcomes Focus on the impact of the instructor’s courses on learners. Are standards for evaluating learning clear and connected to program, curriculum or professional expectations? What is the evidence of student learning? Does the instructor use it to inform teaching? Does the quality of learning support success in other contexts? Are there efforts to make achievement equitable? Where to look Instructor: □ Instructor statement □ Rubrics and samples of student work (assignments, projects, journals, blogs, etc.) □ Summaries/analysis of performance on rubrics or other indicators of student achievement □ Item analysis of exam questions that are connected to learning goals Peers: □ Peer review Students: □ Student perceptions of learning Other____________________________________________________ 3. Class climate Focus on the sort of climate for learning the instructor creates. Is the climate respectful, open and inclusive? Does it promote student-student and student-teacher dialogue? Does it foster motivation, self-efficacy and ownership of learning? Does the instructor model inclusive language and behavior? What are students’ views of their learning experience and their instructor’s accessibility? How has the instructor sought student feedback and how has feedback informed teaching? Where to look Instructor: □ Syllabus (diversity or climate statement) □ LMS site □ Lesson plans or sample activities □ Instructor statement □ Results of syllabus review tool, along with changes made to course Peers: □ Peer observation □ Peer review Students: □ Student survey of teaching □ Instructor-gathered feedback from students, along with instructor reflection Other_____________________________ 3. Class climate Focus on the sort of climate for learning the instructor creates. Is the climate respectful, open and inclusive? Does it promote student-student and student-teacher dialogue? Does it foster motivation, self-efficacy and ownership of learning? Does the instructor model inclusive language and behavior? What are students’ views of their learning experience and their instructor’s accessibility? How has the instructor sought student feedback and how has feedback informed teaching? Where to look Instructor: □ Syllabus (diversity or climate statement) □ LMS site □ Lesson plans or sample activities □ Instructor statement □ Results of syllabus review tool, along with changes made to course Peers: □ Peer observation □ Peer review Students: □ Student survey of teaching □ Instructor-gathered feedback from students, along with instructor reflection Other_____________________________ Strengths Areas for improvement Rubric level Strengths Areas for improvement Rubric level Strengths Areas for improvement Rubric level Strengths Areas for improvement Rubric level 5. Reflection and Iterative growth Focus on how the instructor’s teaching has changed over time. How and why have the instructor’s teaching, and the student learning experience, changed over time? How have adjustments been informed by reflection on student learning evidence, within or across semesters? By feedback from students and/or peers? By other factors (e.g., contextual) prompting adaptation? Are student achievement or other outcomes improving over time? Where to look Instructor: □ Instructor statement □ Syllabi highlighting changes over time □ Annotated screenshots from learning management system □ Sample assignments or examples of student work that highlight changes in the course □ Changes in student achievement (e.g., assignment or exam performance, improvements in a rubric dimension) Peers: □ Peer review Students: □ Changes in student feedback Other ________________________ 5. Reflection and Iterative growth Focus on how the instructor’s teaching has changed over time. How and why have the instructor’s teaching, and the student learning experience, changed over time? How have adjustments been informed by reflection on student learning evidence, within or across semesters? By feedback from students and/or peers? By other factors (e.g., contextual) prompting adaptation? Are student achievement or other outcomes improving over time? Where to look Instructor: □ Instructor statement □ Syllabi highlighting changes over time □ Annotated screenshots from learning management system □ Sample assignments or examples of student work that highlight changes in the course □ Changes in student achievement (e.g., assignment or exam performance, improvements in a rubric dimension) Peers: □ Peer review Students: □ Changes in student feedback Other ________________________ Strengths Areas for improvement Rubric level Strengths Areas for improvement Rubric level 6. Mentoring and advising How effectively has the instructor worked individually with undergraduates or graduate students? (define expectations as appropriate for discipline and department) Where to look Instructor: □ Instructor statement □ CV (e.g., thesis or dissertation committees; directed study; awards) Students: □ Letters from students or alumni □ Examples of student achievement or awards Other____________________________________________________ 6. Mentoring and advising How effectively has the instructor worked individually with undergraduates or graduate students? (define expectations as appropriate for discipline and department) Where to look Instructor: □ Instructor statement □ CV (e.g., thesis or dissertation committees; directed study; awards) Students: □ Letters from students or alumni □ Examples of student achievement or awards Other____________________________________________________ Strengths Areas for improvement Rubric level Strengths Areas for improvement Rubric level 6. Involvement in teaching service, scholarship, or community How has the instructor contributed to the teaching and learning culture in the department or institution (e.g., curriculum committees, program assessment, co-curricular activities)? How has the instructor engaged with peers on teaching, on or off campus (e.g., participation in teaching communities, workshops, peer reviews)? Has the instructor engaged in educational leadership activities (e.g., leading teaching communities or workshops, internal or external presentations or publications of teaching, internal or external grants related to teaching)? Where to look Instructor: □ Instructor statement □ CV (workshops, presentations, articles or work done in other media, social media posts, participation in committees) □ Public Artifacts: Publications or other public repositories of teaching practices/results Other____________________________________________________ 6. Involvement in teaching service, scholarship, or community How has the instructor contributed to the teaching and learning culture in the department or institution (e.g., curriculum committees, program assessment, co-curricular activities)? How has the instructor engaged with peers on teaching, on or off campus (e.g., participation in teaching communities, workshops, peer reviews)? Has the instructor engaged in educational leadership activities (e.g., leading teaching communities or workshops, internal or external presentations or publications of teaching, internal or external grants related to teaching)? Where to look Instructor: □ Instructor statement □ CV (workshops, presentations, articles or work done in other media, social media posts, participation in committees) □ Public Artifacts: Publications or other public repositories of teaching practices/results Other____________________________________________________ (revised Oct 2020) Developing Proficient Expert Goals, content, and alignment What are students expected to learn? Are course goals appropriate? Is content aligned with the curriculum? Does content represent diverse perspectives? Course goals are not articulated, or are unclear, inappropriate or marginally related to curriculum Content and materials are outdated or unsuitable for students in the course Range of topics is too narrow or too broad Content is not clearly aligned with curriculum or institutional expectations Content does not reflect diverse perspectives Course goals are articulated and appropriate for curriculum Content is current and appropriate for topic, students, and curriculum Course topics have appropriate range Standard, intellectually sound materials Course materials reflect diverse perspectives Course goals are well-articulated, high quality, relevant to all students, and clearly connected to program or curricular goals Content is challenging and innovative or related to current issues and developments in field Topics are well-integrated and of appropriate range and depth High-quality materials, well-aligned with course goals Course materials reflect diverse perspectives and promote critical reflection on these diverse perspectives Teaching practices How is in-class and out-of-class time used? What assignments, assessments, and learning activities are implemented to help students learn? Are students engaged in the learning process? Courses are not sufficiently planned or organized Practices are not well-executed and show little development over time Students lack opportunities to practice critical skills embedded in course goals Student engagement is generally low Assessments and assignments are at inappropriate difficulty level or not well-aligned with course goals Courses are well-planned and organized Standard course practices; follows conventions of discipline and institution Students have some opportunities to practice skills embedded in course goals Students are consistently engaged Assessments/assignments are appropriately challenging and tied to course goals Courses are well-planned and integrated, and reflect commitment to providing meaningful assignments and assessments Uses inclusive and effective or innovative methods to support learning in all students In- and out-of-class activities provide opportunities for practice and feedback on important skills and concepts Students show high levels of engagement Assessments and assignments are varied and allow students to demonstrate knowledge through multiple modalities Class climate What sort of climate for learning does the instructor create? What are students’ views of their learning experience and how has this informed teaching? Class climate does not promote respect or sense of belonging among all students Class climate discourages student motivation or self-efficacy Consistently negative student reports of teacher accessibility or interaction skills Little attempt to address concerns voiced by students Class climate is inclusive and promotes respect Class climate encourages student motivation No consistently negative student ratings of teacher accessibility or interaction skills Instructor articulates some lessons learned through student feedback Class climate is respectful, open, and inclusive; promotes both student-student and student-teacher dialogue. Climate fosters motivation, self-efficacy, ownership of learning Instructor models inclusive language and behavior Student feedback on teacher accessibility and interaction is generally positive Instructor seeks and is responsive to student feedback Achievement of learning outcomes What impact do courses have on learners? What is the evidence of student learning? Are there efforts to make achievement equitable? Insufficient attention to student understanding; quality of learning is not described or analyzed with clear standards Evidence of inadequate learning or inequities in learning without clear attempts to improve Quality of learning is insufficient to support success in other contexts Standards for evaluating the quality of student understanding are clear Student learning meets dept. expectations Some use of evidence of student learning to inform teaching Quality of learning is not a barrier to success in other contexts Standards for evaluating understanding are clear and connected to program, curriculum, or professional expectations Consistently attends to student learning, uses it to inform teaching Quality of learning supports success in other contexts (e.g., subsequent courses or relevant non-classroom venues) Efforts to support learning in all students by examining possible inequities in performance across groups and making adjustments Reflection and iterative growth How has the instructor’s teaching changed over time? How has this been informed by student learning evidence? Little or no indication of having reflected upon or learned from prior teaching, evidence of student learning, or peer or student feedback Little or no indication of efforts to develop as a teacher despite evidence of need Continued competent teaching, possibly with minor reflection based on input from peers and/or students Articulates some lessons learned or changes informed by prior teaching, student learning, or feedback Regularly adjusts teaching based on reflection on student learning, within or across semesters Examines student performance following adjustments Reports improved student achievement of learning goals and/or improved equity in outcomes based on past course modifications Mentoring & advising How effectively has the instructor worked individually with UG or grad students? No indication of effective advising or mentoring (but expected in department) Some evidence of effective advising and mentoring (define as appropriate for discipline) Evidence of exceptional quality and time commitment to advising and mentoring (define as appropriate for discipline) Involvement in teaching service, scholarship, or community How has the instructor contributed to the broader teaching community, both on and off campus? Little or no evidence of positive contributions to teaching and learning culture in department or institution Little or no interaction with teaching community Practices and results of teaching are not shared with others Some positive contributions to teaching and learning culture in department or institution Some engagement with peers on teaching Has shared teaching practices or results with others (e.g., presentation, workshop, essay) Consistently positive contributions to teaching and learning culture in department or institution (e.g., curriculum committees, program assessment, co-curricular activities) Regular engagement with peers on teaching (e.g., teaching-related presentations or workshops, peer reviews of teaching) Presentations or publications to share practices or results of teaching with multiple audiences Scholarly publications or grant applications related to teaching</s>

<s>[INST] Benchmarks Instructor Guide AnRev 15Feb21.txt [/INST] KU Benchmarks Instructor Guide: Annual/Multi-Term Review of Teaching 4 An Instructor Guide for Documenting Your Teaching (for Annual Review or Multi-Term Review) KU Center for Teaching Excellence (Last updated 15 February 2021) T his guide is intended to help instructors identify and organize the information they provide for review and evaluation of their teaching. To support effective documentation and evaluation of teaching, CTE developed a framework called Benchmarks for Teaching Effectiveness. This guide is designed to help you use the framework to document and represent your own teaching. Part I gives an overview of what material you as an instructor can submit to document your teaching. Part II provides two possible tools that can help you provide statements, evidence and reflections related to the Benchmarks framework. About Benchmarks Benchmarks for Teaching Effectiveness posits that effective teaching involves the alignment of course goals and instructional practices, the creation of motivating and inclusive learning climates, and consistent attention to and reflection on student learning and feedback. Benchmarks identifies seven dimensions of teaching to capture the full range of faculty teaching activities. A rubric articulates criteria for each dimension: Goals, content and alignment Teaching practices Class climate Achievement of learning outcomes Reflection and iterative growth Mentoring and advising Involvement in teaching service, scholarship or community The framework also specifies evidence that can speak to each dimension, including information from the instructor, peers, and students. Per KU policy, faculty evaluation should draw on these multiple sources. This guide focuses on the information provided by you, the instructor. Benchmarks was initially developed in 2016 based on the literature on teaching effectiveness, with input from CTE Department Ambassadors, department chairs and pilot departments. But because Benchmarks is designed to capture the intellectual work of designing and redesigning course components, it is well-suited to documenting and rewarding faculty efforts to adapt their teaching during the pandemic. CTE has a collaborative NSF grant to explore how we can use this framework to improve teaching evaluation at KU, CU Boulder and UMass Amherst. I. What Material Can You Use to Document Your Teaching? We recommend two components: instructor statements and supporting documentation. Component 1: Instructor Statement(s). This is centerpiece of instructors’ documentation of their teaching. The statement(s) should go beyond philosophy of teaching. Use it to explain what and how you teach, giving specific examples to illustrate why you use the approaches you do and (very importantly) how you know whether those approaches are effective (i.e., the intellectual work involved in teaching). The Benchmarks dimensions and rubric can structure these reflective statements. Here are two approaches (Part II provides tools to guide both): A single integrated statement describing how and why you have designed, implemented and adjusted or improved the courses you teach, how you approach mentoring, and your contributions to teaching community and leadership. The Self-Reflection Narrative Guide in Part II can help you create a statement. Short individual statements on each Benchmarks dimension (or bullet points, if acceptable to your department). The Self-Reflection Short Form in Part II can help you generate these statements. This approach may be easier for both instructors and reviewers, especially if a department elects to focus on a subset of dimensions each year, cycling through all over them over time. Component 2: Supporting documentation. Materials from your courses can provide supporting evidence and examples related to your responses to the Benchmarks prompts. The tools in Part II provides a list of possible supporting documentation or evidence relevant to each Benchmarks dimension. In your statement, point the reviewer to the relevant supporting documentation. Here are three recommendations for supporting documentation of increasing depth and informativeness. Basic Documentation. Include a syllabus for each course mentioned Moderate Documentation: For an example course (or courses if, for instance, you teach a graduate course and a large undergraduate course, include: Syllabus (or screenshots from course LMS) Sample course materials, such as a sample assignment with rubrics or criteria, and a sample instructional activity that helps students acquire the skills/knowledge needed for the assignment. Even better… include: Representations of student learning, such as summaries of student achievement on different rubric dimensions, or annotated samples of student work (see this consent form for permission to use student work). See this guide on how to represent student learning for teaching evaluation. Student feedback (if available) and your reflections on it Thorough Documentation: A Course Portfolio that provides examples and evidence for one or more example courses. The Course Portfolio organizes the above information into a coherent package framed by a brief narrative): A course narrative (1/2 page or less) that provides a guide to the rest of the materials. Key framing questions include: What are your goals for students in this course? What assignments and activities do you use to accomplish these goals? How do you create a motivating and inclusive environment for students to progress toward course goals? How do you know if students are meeting your goals? What future changes will you consider and why? Syllabus (or screenshots from course LMS) Sample course materials, such as a sample assignment with rubrics or grading criteria, and a sample instructional activity that helps students acquire the skills/knowledge needed for the assignment. Representations of student learning, such as summaries of student achievement on different rubric dimensions, or annotated samples of student work (see this consent form for permission to use student work). See this guide on how to represent student learning for teaching evaluation. Student feedback (if available) and your reflections on it Part II: How to Produce Statements and Documentation Here are two guides that can help you produce statements and documentation of your teaching. The Self Reflection Narrative Guide can help you produce a single integrated statement about your teaching, and the Self Reflection Short Form can help you produce short statements and documentation about individual dimensions of teaching. Self-Reflection Narrative Guide The prompts below can help you think through how to write about your teaching related to each of the Benchmarks dimensions. You can use this document alongside the Benchmarks for Teaching Excellence rubric, which provides further details and language for representing teaching contributions. Feel free to use the language from the rubric in your narrative, but it will be important that you also point to specific examples and evidence along with that language. Therefore, for each dimension of teaching, we’ve also included suggestions of the sorts of materials that could speak to that dimension (ideally, these materials could be organized into a brief “course portfolio”). How many courses should you write about? This may depend on the expectations set by your department, and the similarity in approaches you use across the courses you teach. One recommendation is to address each prompt with a response that is representative of your approach across all of your teaching, and then provide examples and evidence from one sample course, or two sample courses if you’d like to highlight very different approaches. Start with an overview of your teaching responsibilities: What courses do you teach? For each one, what is the typical enrollment? Who takes the course and why? What role does it play in the program? Goals, Content, and Alignment. What are students expected to learn in your course(s) and why? What content and materials do you use and why? Evidence/ Examples could come from □ Course goals in syllabus □ Sample course materials (e.g., Teaching Practices. What activities and assignments do you use in and out of class time to help students reach those learning goals? How do these activities and assignments provide opportunities for practice and feedback on important skills and concepts? What strategies do you use to help all students feel engaged and included? Evidence/ Examples could come from □ Syllabus or course schedule □ Sample class activities and assignments □ Lesson plans □ Examples of feedback on student work Class Climate. How do you encourage motivation, inclusion, and a sense of belonging among your students? Are there things you are doing to enable students to interact with each other? To build a sense of community? To support struggling students? How has student feedback informed the way you teach? Evidence/ Examples could come from □ Syllabus (diversity or climate statement) □ Lesson plans or sample activities □ Reflections on student feedback Achievement of Learning Outcomes. How do you know how well your approaches to teaching are working? Which assignments are most central and best illustrate student learning (particularly in relation to the goals you have already articulated)? Does the student work on these assignments meet your (or other stakeholders’) expectations and course learning goals? How do you know? Evidence/ Examples could come from □ Rubrics and samples of student work (assignments, blogs, etc.) □ Summaries/ analysis of performance on rubrics or other indicators of student achievement □ Item analysis of exam questions that are connected to learning goals □ Reflections on student learning This guide on how to represent student learning for teaching evaluation may help you address this section. Reflection and Iterative Growth. Have your approaches to teaching described above changed over time, either within a semester or from one semester to another? If so, what prompted the changes? Did they yield the outcomes you wanted? Are there things you’d like to change in future versions of your course? Evidence/ Examples could come from □ Syllabi □ Sample assignments or examples of student work that highlight changes in course □ Changes in student achievement (e.g., assignment or exam performance, improvement in a rubric dimension) □ Reflections on student feedback Mentoring and advising. Describe your mentoring or advising of students for academic and career choices and for scholarship. How do you make yourself available and communicate with students? How do you support students’ professional development? Are there other ways in which you have supported students? Evidence/ Examples could come from □ # of undergraduate mentees □ # of graduate mentees and status □ Service on graduate committees □ Letters of recommendation written for students □ Nomination of students for awards, grants scholarships □ presentations or publications with student co-authors □ letters from or surveys of student advisees Service, scholarship and participation in teaching community. In what ways do you participate in or contribute to the broader teaching community, both on and off campus (e.g., participation in CTE, CODL or IT workshops- see evidence/examples for more ideas)? Evidence/ Examples could come from □Teaching/assessment committees □ Participation or supervision of co-curricular activities or experiential learning □ Participation in teaching community or development opportunities (e.g., CTE, CODL, IT workshops, teaching-focused conferences or networks) □ Leadership roles in teaching communities or development opportunities. □ Internal or external presentations or publications on teaching □ Internal or external grant applications related to teaching Self-Reflection Short Form The prompts below can help you produce short statements (or bullet points, if acceptable to your department) about each of the Benchmarks dimensions (or a selected subset of them). In your response, you can point reviewers to examples or additional materials (ideally these could be organized into a short Course Portfolio, as suggested above). For each Benchmarks dimension, we’ve included suggestions of the sorts of materials that could speak to that dimension. You can use this document alongside the Benchmarks for Teaching Excellence rubric, which provides language for representing teaching contributions. Feel free to use the language from the rubric in your responses, but it will be important that you also point to specific examples and evidence along with that language. Course number(s) and name(s) that are the focus of this report: For each course, what is the typical enrollment? Who takes the course and why? What role does it play in the program? Draw Evidence/ Examples from □ Course goals in syllabus □ Sample course materials (e.g., rubrics, assignment sheets, readings) Draw Evidence/ Examples from □ Course goals in syllabus □ Sample course materials (e.g., rubrics, assignment sheets, readings) 1. Goals, Content, and Alignment. What are students expected to learn in your course(s) and why? What content and materials do you use and why? If you want to go deeper How are your goals related to department, university, or discipline goals? Do they match your students’ needs? What perspectives do course material represent? Draw Evidence/ Examples from □ Syllabus or course schedule □ Sample class activities and assignments □ Lesson plans □ Examples of feedback on student work Draw Evidence/ Examples from □ Syllabus or course schedule □ Sample class activities and assignments □ Lesson plans □ Examples of feedback on student work 2. Teaching Practices. What activities and assignments do you use in and out of class time to help students reach learning goals? If you want to go deeper How do these activities and assignments provide opportunities for practice and feedback on important skills and concepts? What strategies do you use to help all students feel engaged and included? Draw Evidence/ Examples from □ Syllabus (diversity or climate statement) □ Lesson plans or sample activities □ Reflections on student feedback Draw Evidence/ Examples from □ Syllabus (diversity or climate statement) □ Lesson plans or sample activities □ Reflections on student feedback 3. Class Climate. How do you encourage motivation, inclusion, and a sense of belonging among your students? If you want to go deeper What strategies do you use to communicate with students? How do students interact with each other? Are there things you are doing to build a sense of community? Are there things you are doing to support struggling students? How has student feedback informed the way you teach? Draw Evidence/ Examples from □ Rubrics and samples of student work (assignments, blogs, etc.) □ Summaries/ analysis of performance on rubrics or other indicators of student achievement □ Item analysis of exam questions that are connected to learning goals □ Reflections on student learning Draw Evidence/ Examples from □ Rubrics and samples of student work (assignments, blogs, etc.) □ Summaries/ analysis of performance on rubrics or other indicators of student achievement □ Item analysis of exam questions that are connected to learning goals □ Reflections on student learning 4. Achievement of Learning Outcomes. Does the student work on these assignments meet your (or other stakeholders’) expectations and course learning goals? How do you know? If you want to go deeper Which assignments are most central to the course and best illustrate student learning? Do you know if there are any inequities in student performance? If so, have you taken any steps to address them? This guide on how to represent student learning for teaching evaluation may help you address this section. Draw Evidence/ Examples from □ Syllabi □ Sample assignments or examples of student work that highlight changes in course □ Changes in student achievement (e.g., assignment or exam performance, improvement in a rubric dimension) □ Reflections on student feedback Draw Evidence/ Examples from □ Syllabi □ Sample assignments or examples of student work that highlight changes in course □ Changes in student achievement (e.g., assignment or exam performance, improvement in a rubric dimension) □ Reflections on student feedback 5. Reflection and Iterative Growth. Have you changed your teaching over time, either within a semester or from one semester to another? If so, what prompted the changes? How did you adapt your teaching because of the pandemic? How effective were the changes you made? Did you learn or try anything that you will continue to do post-COVID? If you want to go deeper How has student feedback or evidence of student learning informed your teaching? What changes have you made in this course from previous semesters? Why? Did the changes yield the outcomes you wanted? Are there things you’d like to change in a future version of the course? Draw Evidence/ Examples from □ # of undergraduate mentees □ # of graduate mentees and status □ Service on graduate committees □ Letters of recommendation written for students □ Nomination of students for awards, grants scholarships □ presentations or publications with student co-authors □ letters from or surveys of student advisees Draw Evidence/ Examples from □ # of undergraduate mentees □ # of graduate mentees and status □ Service on graduate committees □ Letters of recommendation written for students □ Nomination of students for awards, grants scholarships □ presentations or publications with student co-authors □ letters from or surveys of student advisees6. Mentoring and advising. Describe your mentoring or advising of students for academic and career choices and for scholarship. How do you make yourself available and communicate with students? How do you support students’ professional development? Are there other ways in which you have supported students (particularly during the pandemic)? Draw Evidence/ Examples from □Teaching/assessment committees □ Participation or supervision of co-curricular activities or experiential learning □ Participation in teaching community or development opportunities (e.g., CTE, CODL, IT workshops, teaching-focused conferences or networks) □ Leadership roles in teaching communities or development opportunities. □ Internal or external presentations or publications on teaching □ Internal or external grant applications related to teaching Draw Evidence/ Examples from □Teaching/assessment committees □ Participation or supervision of co-curricular activities or experiential learning □ Participation in teaching community or development opportunities (e.g., CTE, CODL, IT workshops, teaching-focused conferences or networks) □ Leadership roles in teaching communities or development opportunities. □ Internal or external presentations or publications on teaching □ Internal or external grant applications related to teaching7. Service, scholarship and participation in teaching community. In what ways do you participate in or contribute to the broader teaching community, both on and off campus (e.g., participation in CTE, CODL or IT workshops- see evidence/examples for more ideas)?</s>

<s>[INST] Benefits.txt [/INST] Benefits Medaille C. Salary and Benefits The faculty, through its Faculty Compensation Committee, shall be a participant in discussions with the President and/or the VPAA on matters regarding faculty salaries and benefits. The Faculty Compensation Committee shall recommend guidelines for the compensation of faculty members for overloads and teaching graduate courses. Benefits that pertain to all Medaille employees can be found in General Institutional Employment Policies/Volume III of the Medaille College Policy Manual. Questions regarding salary or benefits may be made to the Director of Human Resources. Washington and Jefferson Faculty Handbook 2019-2020 - Washington & Jefferson ... https://wiki.washjeff.edu › download › attachments PDF Academic advising is a central part of the teaching mission of Washington & Jefferson College and fosters the development of the whole student. Through ongoing  While the Bylaws make clear the delegation of authority to the President and administrative officers and the duty of the Faculty, organizational mechanisms and structures must be adopted to facilitate the operations of the College in accordance with these provisions. In the tradition and spirit of collegiality so vital to the effectiveness of a college community, these mechanisms and structures must provide for the substantial participation of the multiple campus constituencies—students, faculty and administration— in the operational processes by which the College works to achieves it overall mission. The basic structure by which this shared participation of the multiple constituencies is facilitated is a series of committees. The types of committees comprising the governance structure and the particular features of each are specified in Article II of this policy. The particular membership provisions and charges of the individual committees are enumerated in Articles III, IV, V, and VIII.</s>

<s>[INST] Best Practice Citations (Final).txt [/INST] 1 2 Faculty Evaluation Citations Prepared for: California Lutheran University By Stevens Strategy®, LLC September 3, 2021 Introduction Below we have listed citations to resources, academic literature and task force reports that may inform the work of the ART Task Force. The initial set of citations focus on key elements associated with successful faculty evaluation systems. Thereafter, we provide citations to materials addressing the evaluation of teaching effectiveness, scholarship/research/creative activity, advising, and service activities, respectively. Finally, we provide citations to resources addressing the integration of mission and commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the faculty evaluation process. Where available, we provide hyperlinks to all citations. General Faculty Evaluation Citations Buller, J. L. (2012). Best practices in faculty evaluation: A practical guide for academic leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers Note: Part Four may be of particular interest to the Task Force. Chapters 10 and 11 in Part Four explore a quantitative vs. qualitative approach to faculty evaluation; Chapter 12 outlines two possible integrative approaches. American Council on Education, American Association of University Professors, and United Educators. (2000) Good practice in tenure evaluation: Advice for tenured faculty, department chairs, and academic administrators. https://blogs.umflint.edu/aaup/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2016/11/App2d-Good-Practice-in-Tenure-Evaluation.pdf Miller, J. E. & Seldin, P. (2014). Changing Practices in Faculty Evaluation. Academe, 100(3), 35-38. Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education. (2014). Benchmark Best Practices: Tenure & Promotion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. https://coache.gse.harvard.edu/files/gse-coache/files/coache-tenure.pdf Rethinking Tenure, A Chronicle of Higher Education publication. (2021) https://store.chronicle.com/a/downloads/-/8d3b703e907a4f69/2155472588c46789 Note: I believe a total of two (2) additional downloads are available via the link above. Please feel free to use them. This Chronicle publication is a collection of essays addressing tenure in general, including sections addressing tenure evaluation and criteria. The following essays are especially pertinent: “Faculty Evaluation After the Pandemic’ (pp 35-39) “Diversity, Inclusion, and Tenure,” (pp 54-55) “How to Create More Equitable Tenure Policies,” (pp 56-57) Junior Faculty Don’t Need More Time, Senior Faculty Need More Imagination: A template for Change (pp 62-63) Note: This section discusses teaching load issues and suggests redefining what constitutes “publication,” including a model department scholarly work evaluation rubric. “Tenure by the Book: Revising Tenure Expectations is on the Table. We should take caution” (pp 64- 65) “Bringing the Humanities to the Public — and the Public to the Humanities (85-86) a case for valuing and rewarding public scholars/ intellectuals Channing, J. (2017). Faculty Evaluations: Contentious Bothers or Important Tools for Faculty Growth? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 41:11, 757-760 DOI: 10.1080/10668926.2016.1241197 Cadez, S., Dimovski, V., & Groff, M. Z (2017). Research, teaching and performance evaluation in academia: The salience of quality. Studies in Higher Education, 42:8, 1455-1473 DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1104659 Qualitative vs Quantitative vs Hybrid Evaluation Models See Part Four, Chapters 10 - 12 of “Best practices in faculty evaluation: A practical guide for academic leaders (cited above)” for a summary of these respective models. Below are citations to the seminal publications highlighted in Chapters 10 and 11: Qualitative: Arreola, R. A. (2007). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A guide to designing, building, and operating large-scale faculty evaluation systems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Anker. Quantitative: Seldin, P. (2006). Evaluating faculty performance: A practical guide to assessing teaching, research, and service. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Anker. Seldin, P., Miller, J. E., & Seldin, C. A. (2010). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance and promotion/tenure decisions (4th ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Teaching Effectiveness AAUP. Statement on teaching evaluation. In Policy Documents and Reports. 11th ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 219-22. https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-teaching-evaluation “Statement on Student Evaluations of Teaching,” American Sociological Association, August 2019 https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/asa_statement_on_student_evaluations_of_teaching_feb132020.pdf Benton, S. L., & Young, S. (2018). Best Practices in the Evaluation of Teaching. IDEA Paper, 69. https://www.ideaedu.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/IDEA%20Papers/IDEA%20Papers/IDEA_Paper_69.pdf Blumberg, P. (2014). Assessing and Improving Your Teaching: Strategies and Rubrics for Faculty Growth and Student Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Doerer, K. (2019) “Colleges Are Getting Smarter About Student Evaluations. Here’s How. Chronicle of Higher Education, January 13, 2019 https://www.chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Are-Getting- Smarter/245457 Follmer Greenhoot, A., Ward, D., Bernstein, D., Patterson, M. M., & Colyott, K. (2020). Benchmarks for Teaching Effectiveness. (Revised 2020). https://cte.ku.edu/sites/cte.ku.edu/files/docs/KU%20Benchmarks%20Framework%202020update.pdf https://cte.ku.edu/benchmarks-teaching-effectiveness-project Linse, A.R. (2017), “Interpreting and using student ratings data: Guidance for faculty serving as administrators and on evaluation committees,” Studies in Educational Evaluation, Volume 54, September 2017, Pages 94-106 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.12.004 Poproski, R., Greene, R. (2018) Metrics and Measures of Teaching Effectiveness https://ctl.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/documents/poproski_greene_2018_metrics_and_measures_of_teaching_effectiveness.pdf Uttl, B., White, C.A., Gonzalez, D.W. (2017) “Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related,” Studies in Educational Evaluation, Volume 54, September 2017, Pages 22-42, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0191491X/54/supp/C Wieman, Carl (2015) A Better Way to Evaluate Undergraduate Teaching, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47:1, 6-15 DOI: 10.1080/00091383.2015.996077 Task Force Reports The following task force reports include recent academic literature references germane to the evaluation of teaching, as well as recommendations that the ART Task Force may want to consider in formulating its own recommendations: University of California Academic Council Teaching Evaluation Task Force Report (2020) https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/kkb-divs-teaching-evaluation-task-force-report.pdf Iowa State Joint Task Force on Teaching Assessment and Evaluation (2019) http://www.facsen.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/Senate%20Presentations/Teaching%20Task%20Force%20report%20FINAL.pdf Georgia Tech University Task Force on Teaching Effectiveness https://academiceffectiveness.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/2021-03/Teaching-Effectiveness-Final-Report-Sept-2019.pdf Research, Scholarship, Creative Activity Boyer, E.L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990 Report of the MLA Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion -MLA Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion (2007 by The Modern Language Association of America) https://www.mla.org/content/download/3362/81802/taskforcereport0608.pdf Note: Although this report was produced over 14 years ago, the findings, insights and recommendations remain relevant and applicable to addressing the evaluation of scholarship in a broad range of disciplines. The Modern Language Association, Guidelines for Evaluating Work in Digital Humanities and Digital Media https://www.mla.org/About-Us/Governance/Committees/Committee-Listings/Professional- Issues/Committee-on-Information-Technology/Guidelines-for-Evaluating-Work-in-Digital- Humanities-and-Digital-Media Ringuette, D. We Need to Talk: Scholarship, Tenure, and Promotion in the Balance Source: Profession, 2008, (2008), pp. 185-193 Published by: Modern Language Association Stable https://www.jstor.org/stable/25595893 The College Art Association (CAA), Case Studies and Examples for Evaluating Digital Scholarship http://www.collegeart.org/news/2016/02/23/case-studies-and-examples-for-evaluating-digital- scholarship/ American Historical Association, Suggested Guidelines for Evaluating Digital Media Activities in Tenure, Review, and Promotion: An AAHC Document http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/october- 2001/suggested-guidelines-for-evaluating-digital-media-activities-in-tenure-review-and- promotion-an-aahc-document Benchmarking Analysis: Faculty Research and Scholarship (2020 by Hanover Research) (Will email PDF) Task Force Report Baruch College Provost’s Faculty Task Force on Research https://provost.baruch.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/11/TaskForceResearchFINAL.pdf Other Literature Citations Bouwma-Gearhart, Jana, Cindy Lenhart, Rich Carter, Karl Mundorff, Holly Cho, and Jessica Knoch. 2021. "Inclusively Recognizing Faculty Innovation and Entrepreneurship Impact within Promotion and Tenure Considerations" Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 7, no. 3: 182. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7030182 Diamond, R. (1999). Aligning faculty rewards with institutional mission: Statements, policies, and guidelines. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc. O’Meara, K. (2002). Uncovering the values in faculty evaluation of service as scholarship. Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 57-80. O’Meara, K., Eatman, T. & Peterson, S. (2015). Advancing Engaged Scholarship in Promotion and Tenure: A Roadmap and Call for Reform. Liberal Education, 101(3). http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/2015/summer/o'meara O’Meara, K., & Rice, R. E. (Eds.) (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. O’Meara, K. (2010). Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship: Promotion and tenure. In H. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship, volume 1: Institutional change (pp. 271-294). East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52aa1677e4b069d1317f42d0/t/5a00dd82ec212da4fc4aa244/1510006146723/OMeara+%282010%29+Rewarding+Multiple+Forms+of+Scholarship_Promotion+and+Tenure-2-24.pdf Schimanski LA and Alperin JP. The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future. F1000Research 2018, 7:1605 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6325612/ Service Baker, Diane F.; Neely, Walter P.; Prenshaw, Penelope J.; Taylor, Patrick A. (2015). Developing a Multi-Dimensional Evaluation Framework for Faculty Teaching and Service Performance. Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education, v11 n2 p29-41 Fall 2015 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1139200.pdf “Based on the literature review, the most commonly used factors to assess faculty service performance are service to the department, service to the college and/or university, professional activities, service to the community, academic advising, and consulting. There are no studies describing or evaluating the way in which participation in these activities are assessed.” O’Meara, K. (1997). Rewarding faculty professional service, New England Resource Center for Higher Education publications. Paper 17. http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016& context=nerche_pubs O’Meara, K. (2002). Uncovering the values in faculty evaluation of service as scholarship. Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 57-80. Hanasono, L. K., Broido, E. M., Yacobucci, M. M., Root, K. V., Peña, S., & O'Neil, D. A. (2019). Secret service: Revealing gender biases in the visibility and value of faculty service. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000081 Ward, K. (2003). Faculty service roles and the scholarship of engagement (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No 29-5.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Advising Ye He, Bryant Hutson; Assessment for Faculty Advising: Beyond the Service Component. NACADA Journal 1 January 2017; 37 (2): 66–75. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-16-028 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity Laursen, S. L., & Austin, A. E. (2014). Strategic intervention brief #6: Equitable processes of tenure and promotion. In S. L. Laursen and A. E. Austin, strategic Toolkit: Strategies for effecting gender equity and intuitional change. Boulder, CO, and East Lansing, MI. www.strategictoolkit.org https://www.colorado.edu/eer/sites/default/files/attached-files/6_tenurepromotionbrief123015.pdf Trainer, S., & Miguel, A., & Jacoby, J. M., & O'Brien, J., Seattle University ADVANCE: Institutional Diversity Requires Recognizing and Rewarding Faculty Hidden Work, NCURA magazine, October/November 2020, page 72 https://www.seattleu.edu/media/advance/NCURA-Article_SU-ADVANCE.pdf Trainer, S., & Miguel, A., & Jacoby, J. M., & O'Brien, J. (2021, January), Exploring the Gendered Impacts of COVID-19 on Faculty Paper presented at 2021 CoNECD https://peer.asee.org/36087 Chávez, Kerry, and Kristina M. W. Mitchell. 2020. “Exploring Bias in Student Evaluations: Gender, Race, and Ethnicity.” PS: Political Science & Politics 53(2):270–74. Gonzalez, Leslie and Kimberly Ann Griffin. 2020. Supporting Faculty during & after COVID-19: Don't Let Go of Equity. Washington, DC: Aspire Alliance Lisnic R, Zajicek A, Morimoto S. Gender and Race Differences in Faculty Assessment of Tenure Clarity: The Influence of Departmental Relationships and Practices. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. 2019; 5(2):244-260. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2332649218756137 Malisch, Jessica L., Breanna N. Harris, Shanen M. Sherrer, Kristy A. Lewis, Stephanie L. Shepherd, Pumtiwitt C. McCarthy, Jessica L. Spott, Elizabeth P. Karam, Naima Moustaid- Moussa, and Jessica McCrory Calarco. 2020. “Opinion: In the Wake of COVID-19, “Academia Needs New Solutions to Ensure Gender Equity.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(27):15378–15381. Matthew, P.A. Written/Unwritten: Diversity and the Hidden Truths of Tenure; University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-4696-2773-1. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oKMwDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=fdDKVJue42&sig=7q7ee7J0MPbPDsNYORO8uRZOsR0#v=onepage&q&f=false Tierney, William G., and Estela Mara Bensimon. 1996. Promotion and Tenure: Community and Socialization in Academe. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Weisshaar, Katherine. 2017. “Publish and Perish? An Assessment of Gender Gaps in Promotion to Tenure in Academia.” Social Forces 96(2):529–60. Examples of How Some Schools are Addressing DEI in Faculty Evaluation Policies Seattle University: Seattle University is poised to make significant changes to its promotion and tenure reviews because of the work of its SU ADVANCE Program, an NSF grant-funded research program focused on equity issues among Seattle University faculty. Of note, the program focused on inequities in faculty workloads and promotion guidelines. Please visit the following link to review the changes being proposed (see green font): https://www.seattleu.edu/media/advance/documents/Approved-Revised-Promotion-Guidelines_6-3-21.pdf Chapman University: A Chapman University working group of faculty and staff recently issued a steering document addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion. On pages 6-7 of the document, the working group advocates that the University develop a robust system for documentation, recognition, and reward for faculty professional activity in diversity, equity, and inclusion. https://www.chapman.edu/diversity/_files/dei--roadmap-to-best-practices_september2020_compressed.pdf University of Illinois: The University of Illinois recently made several major revisions to its P&T evaluation policy (Communication 9) to (a) indicate that DEI efforts are valued and (b) incorporate such efforts into the evaluation of candidates: The introduction to Communication 9 states that the University values DEI and contributions along these lines are evaluated and recognized (p. 4). A new section (II.C.7) was drafted addressing the evaluation of DEI contributions (p. 14). In the section, candidates describe their DEI contributions in terms of research, teaching, and service. Instructions were developed for internal evaluations of candidates’ DEI efforts in the internal service and research evaluations (e.g., p. 13 and 14) (p. 14). See https://uofi.app.box.com/s/doyhfhr0534ffeym5u95j02grlwijcjl for text. University of Denver: The University of Denver is exploring ways in which to value DEI achievements in promotion decisions. The following citation advocates for DEI achievement to be valued in promotion decisions and outlines examples of DEI achievements in the areas of teaching, research productivity/creative work, and service: https://duvpfa.du.edu/blog/2021/05/27/making-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-promotion-tenure-and-re-appointment-decisions-visible/ University of Delaware: A faculty task force at the University of Delaware recently issued a report addressing equity in faculty evaluation. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.udel.edu/dist/9/2591/files/2021/02/Equity-in-Faculty-Evaluations-Task-Force-Report_2-11-21.pdf Recent DEI Articles in the Press https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/08/24/academe-should-determine-what-specific-systemic-changes-are-needed-dei-opinion https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/05/14/iupui-creates-path-promotion-and-tenure-based-dei-work Mission Integration Diamond, R. (1999). Aligning faculty rewards with institutional mission: Statements, policies, and guidelines. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc. Ellison, J. & Eatman, T. K. (2008). Scholarship in public: Knowledge creation and tenure policy in the engaged university. Syracuse, NY: Imagining America. Zahorski, K.J. (2005) Redefining scholarship: A small liberal arts college’s journey. In K. O’Meara & R. E. Rice (Eds.), Faculty Priorities Reconsidered: Rewarding Multiple Forms of Scholarship, pp. 6-65. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wagner, Joan, "The Distinctive Mission of Catholic Colleges & Universities and Faculty Reward Policies for Community Engagement: Aspirational or Operational?" (2017). Graduate College Dissertations and Theses. 749. https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/graddis/749 Note: When we gather data on comparison institutions later in Phase One, we will also provide models examples of how some schools have attempted to align their faculty evaluation policies with the institution’s mission. In the interim, the Wagner dissertation cited above is worth reviewing as it explores, in part, to what extent the faculty tenure and promotion policies of the Catholic schools studied reflected institutional mission through a commitment to community engaged teaching, scholarship and service.</s>

<s>[INST] Best Practice Citations.txt [/INST] 26 Faculty Evaluation Citations from Stevens Strategy®, LLC September 2021 Introduction Below we have listed citations to resources and academic literature that address faculty evaluation best practices and emerging trends. The initial set of citations focus on key elements associated with successful faculty evaluation systems. Thereafter, we provide citations to literature addressing the evaluation of teaching effectiveness, scholarship/research/creative activity, and service activities, respectively. Finally, we provide citations to resources addressing the integration of mission and commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the faculty evaluation process. Where available, we provide hyperlinks to citations. Faculty Evaluation Citations General Faculty Evaluation Citations Buller, J. L. (2012). Best practices in faculty evaluation: A practical guide for academic leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers Note: Part Four may be of particular interest to the Task Force. Chapters 10 and 11 in Part Four explore a quantitative vs. qualitative approach to faculty evaluation; Chapter 12 outlines two possible integrative approaches. American Council on Education, American Association of University Professors, and United Educators. (2000) Good practice in tenure evaluation: Advice for tenured faculty, department chairs, and academic administrators. https://blogs.umflint.edu/aaup/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2016/11/App2d-Good-Practice-in-Tenure-Evaluation.pdf Miller, J. E. & Seldin, P. (2014). Changing Practices in Faculty Evaluation. Academe, 100(3), 35-38. Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education. (2014). Benchmark Best Practices: Tenure & Promotion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. https://coache.gse.harvard.edu/files/gse-coache/files/coache-tenure.pdf Rethinking Tenure, A Chronicle of Higher Education publication. (2021) https://store.chronicle.com/a/downloads/-/8d3b703e907a4f69/2155472588c46789 Note: I believe a total of two (2) additional downloads are available via the link above. Please feel free to use them. This Chronicle publication is a collection of essays addressing tenure in general, including sections addressing tenure evaluation and criteria. The following essays are especially pertinent: “Faculty Evaluation After the Pandemic’ (pp 35-39); “Diversity, Inclusion, and Tenure,” (pp 54-55); “How to Create More Equitable Tenure Policies,” (pp 56-57). Junior Faculty Don’t Need More Time, Senior Faculty Need More Imagination: A template for Change (pp 62-63): Note: This section discusses teaching load issues and suggests redefining what constitutes “publication,” including a model department scholarly work evaluation rubric. “Tenure by the Book: Revising Tenure Expectations is on the Table. We should take caution” (pp 64- 65) “Bringing the Humanities to the Public — and the Public to the Humanities (85-86) a case for valuing and rewarding public scholars/ intellectuals Jill Channing (2017) Faculty Evaluations: Contentious Bothers or Important Tools for Faculty Growth?, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 41:11, 757-760 DOI: 10.1080/10668926.2016.1241197 Simon Cadez, Vlado Dimovski & Maja Zaman Groff (2017) Research, teaching and performance evaluation in academia: the salience of quality, Studies in Higher Education,42:8, 1455-1473 DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1104659 Qualitative vs Quantitative vs Hybrid Evaluation Models Qualitative: Arreola, R. A. (2007). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A guide to designing, building, and operating large-scale faculty evaluation systems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Anker. Quantitative: Seldin, P. (2006). Evaluating faculty performance: A practical guide to assessing teaching, research, and service. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Anker. Seldin, P., Miller, J. E., & Seldin, C. A. (2010). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance and promotion/tenure decisions (4th ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hybrid Buller, J. L. (2012). Best practices in faculty evaluation: A practical guide for academic leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers Evaluation Criteria Teaching Effectiveness AAUP. Statement on teaching evaluation. In Policy Documents and Reports. 11th ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 219-22. https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-teaching-evaluation "Statement on Student Evaluations of Teaching," American Sociological Association, August 2019 https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/asa_statement_on_student_evaluations_of_teaching_feb132020.pdf Benton, S. L., & Young, S. (2018). Best Practices in the Evaluation of Teaching. IDEA Paper, 69. https://www.ideaedu.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/IDEA%20Papers/IDEA%20Papers/IDEA_Paper_69.pdf Blumberg, P. (2014). Assessing and Improving Your Teaching: Strategies and Rubrics for Faculty Growth and Student Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Doerer, K. (2019) “Colleges Are Getting Smarter About Student Evaluations. Here’s How., Chronicle of Higher Education, January 13, 2019 https://www.chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Are-Getting- Smarter/245457 Follmer Greenhoot, A., Ward, D., Bernstein, D., Patterson, M. M., & Colyott, K. (2020). Benchmarks for Teaching Effectiveness. (Revised 2020). https://cte.ku.edu/sites/cte.ku.edu/files/docs/KU%20Benchmarks%20Framework%202020update.pdf https://cte.ku.edu/benchmarks-teaching-effectiveness-project Linse, A.R. (2017), “Interpreting and using student ratings data: Guidance for faculty serving as administrators and on evaluation committees,” Studies in Educational Evaluation, Volume 54, September 2017, Pages 94-106 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.12.004 Poproski, R., Greene, R. (2018) Metrics and Measures of Teaching Effectiveness https://ctl.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/documents/poproski_greene_2018_metrics_and_measures_of_teaching_effectiveness.pdf Uttl, B., White, C.A., Gonzalez, D.W. (2017) “Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related,” Studies in Educational Evaluation, Volume 54, September 2017, Pages 22-42, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0191491X/54/supp/C Wieman, Carl (2015) A Better Way to Evaluate Undergraduate Teaching, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47:1, 6-15 DOI: 10.1080/00091383.2015.996077 Scholarship, Creative Activity Boyer, E.L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990 Report of the MLA Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion -MLA Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion (2007 by The Modern Language Association of America) https://www.mla.org/content/download/3362/81802/taskforcereport0608.pdf Note: Although this report was produced over 14 years ago, the findings, insights and recommendations remain relevant and applicable to addressing the evaluation of scholarship in a broad range of disciplines The Modern Language Association, Guidelines for Evaluating Work in Digital Humanities and Digital Media https://www.mla.org/About-Us/Governance/Committees/Committee-Listings/Professional- Issues/Committee-on-Information-Technology/Guidelines-for-Evaluating-Work-in-Digital- Humanities-and-Digital-Media The College Art Association (CAA), Case Studies and Examples for Evaluating Digital Scholarship http://www.collegeart.org/news/2016/02/23/case-studies-and-examples-for-evaluating-digital- scholarship/ American Historical Association, Suggested Guidelines for Evaluating Digital Media Activities in Tenure, Review, and Promotion: An AAHC Document http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/october- 2001/suggested-guidelines-for-evaluating-digital-media-activities-in-tenure-review-and- promotion-an-aahc-document Benchmarking Analysis: Faculty Research and Scholarship (2020 by Hanover Research) (Will email PDF) Other Literature Citations Bouwma-Gearhart, Jana, Cindy Lenhart, Rich Carter, Karl Mundorff, Holly Cho, and Jessica Knoch. 2021. "Inclusively Recognizing Faculty Innovation and Entrepreneurship Impact within Promotion and Tenure Considerations" Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 7, no. 3: 182. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7030182 Diamond, R. (1999). Aligning faculty rewards with institutional mission: Statements, policies, and guidelines. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc. O’Meara, K. (2002). Uncovering the values in faculty evaluation of service as scholarship. Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 57-80. O’Meara, K., Eatman, T. & Peterson, S. (2015). Advancing Engaged Scholarship in Promotion and Tenure: A Roadmap and Call for Reform. Liberal Education, 101(3). http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/2015/summer/o'meara O’Meara, K., & Rice, R. E. (Eds.) (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. O’Meara, K. (2010). Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship: Promotion and tenure. In H. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship, volume 1: Institutional change (pp. 271-294). East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52aa1677e4b069d1317f42d0/t/5a00dd82ec212da4fc4aa244/1510006146723/OMeara+%282010%29+Rewarding+Multiple+Forms+of+Scholarship_Promotion+and+Tenure-2-24.pdf Schimanski LA and Alperin JP. The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future. F1000Research 2018, 7:1605 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6325612/ Service Baker, Diane F.; Neely, Walter P.; Prenshaw, Penelope J.; Taylor, Patrick A. (2015). Developing a Multi-Dimensional Evaluation Framework for Faculty Teaching and Service Performance. Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education, v11 n2 p29-41 Fall 2015 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1139200.pdf “Based on the literature review, the most commonly used factors to assess faculty service performance are service to the department, service to the college and/or university, professional activities, service to the community, academic advising, and consulting. There are no studies describing or evaluating the way in which participation in these activities are assessed.” O’Meara, K. (1997). Rewarding faculty professional service, New England Resource Center for Higher Education publications. Paper 17. http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016& context=nerche_pubs O’Meara, K. (2002). Uncovering the values in faculty evaluation of service as scholarship. Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 57-80. Hanasono, L. K., Broido, E. M., Yacobucci, M. M., Root, K. V., Peña, S., & O'Neil, D. A. (2019). Secret service: Revealing gender biases in the visibility and value of faculty service. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000081 Ward, K. (2003). Faculty service roles and the scholarship of engagement (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No 29-5.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Advising Ye He, Bryant Hutson; Assessment for Faculty Advising: Beyond the Service Component. NACADA Journal 1 January 2017; 37 (2): 66–75. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-16-028 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity Laursen, S. L., & Austin, A. E. (2014). Strategic intervention brief #6: Equitable processes of tenure and promotion. In S. L. Laursen and A. E. Austin, strategic Toolkit: Strategies for effecting gender equity and intuitional change. Boulder, CO, and East Lansing, MI. www.strategictoolkit.org https://www.colorado.edu/eer/sites/default/files/attached-files/6_tenurepromotionbrief123015.pdf Trainer, S., & Miguel, A., & Jacoby, J. M., & O'Brien, J., Seattle University ADVANCE: Institutional Diversity Requires Recognizing and Rewarding Faculty Hidden Work, NCURA magazine, October/November 2020, page 72 https://www.seattleu.edu/media/advance/NCURA-Article_SU-ADVANCE.pdf Trainer, S., & Miguel, A., & Jacoby, J. M., & O'Brien, J. (2021, January), Exploring the Gendered Impacts of COVID-19 on Faculty Paper presented at 2021 CoNECD https://peer.asee.org/36087 Chávez, Kerry, and Kristina M. W. Mitchell. 2020. “Exploring Bias in Student Evaluations: Gender, Race, and Ethnicity.” PS: Political Science & Politics 53(2):270–74. Gonzalez, Leslie and Kimberly Ann Griffin. 2020. Supporting Faculty during & after COVID-19: Don't Let Go of Equity. Washington, DC: Aspire Alliance Lisnic R, Zajicek A, Morimoto S. Gender and Race Differences in Faculty Assessment of Tenure Clarity: The Influence of Departmental Relationships and Practices. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. 2019;5(2):244-260. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2332649218756137 Malisch, Jessica L., Breanna N. Harris, Shanen M. Sherrer, Kristy A. Lewis, Stephanie L. Shepherd, Pumtiwitt C. McCarthy, Jessica L. Spott, Elizabeth P. Karam, Naima Moustaid- Moussa, and Jessica McCrory Calarco. 2020. “Opinion: In the Wake of COVID-19, “Academia Needs New Solutions to Ensure Gender Equity.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(27):15378–15381. Matthew, P.A. Written/Unwritten: Diversity and the Hidden Truths of Tenure; University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-4696-2773-1. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oKMwDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=fdDKVJue42&sig=7q7ee7J0MPbPDsNYORO8uRZOsR0#v=onepage&q&f=false Tierney, William G., and Estela Mara Bensimon. 1996. Promotion and Tenure: Community and Socialization in Academe. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Weisshaar, Katherine. 2017. “Publish and Perish? An Assessment of Gender Gaps in Promotion to Tenure in Academia.” Social Forces 96(2):529–60. Recent DEI Article in the Press https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/08/24/academe-should-determine-what-specific-systemic-changes-are-needed-dei-opinion https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/05/14/iupui-creates-path-promotion-and-tenure-based-dei-work Examples of How Some Schools are Addressing DEI in Faculty Evaluation Policies Seattle University: Seattle University is poised to make significant changes to its promotion and tenure reviews because of the work of its SU ADVANCE Program, an NSF grant-funded research program focused on equity issues among Seattle University faculty. Of note, the program focused on inequities in faculty workloads and promotion guidelines. Please visit the following link to review the changes being proposed (see green font): https://www.seattleu.edu/media/advance/documents/Approved-Revised-Promotion-Guidelines_6-3-21.pdf Chapman University: A Chapman University working group of faculty and staff recently issued a steering document addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion. On pages 6-7 of the document, the working group advocates that the University develop a robust system for documentation, recognition, and reward for faculty professional activity in diversity, equity, and inclusion. https://www.chapman.edu/diversity/_files/dei--roadmap-to-best-practices_september2020_compressed.pdf University of Illinois: The University of Illinois recently made several major revisions to its P&T evaluation policy (Communication 9) to (a) indicate that DEI efforts are valued and (b) incorporate such efforts into the evaluation of candidates: The introduction to Communication 9 states that the University values DEI and contributions along these lines are evaluated and recognized (p. 4). A new section (II.C.7) was drafted addressing the evaluation of DEI contributions (p. 14). In the section, candidates describe their DEI contributions in terms of research, teaching, and service. Instructions were developed for internal evaluations of candidates’ DEI efforts in the internal service and research evaluations (e.g., p. 13 and 14) (p. 14). https://uofi.app.box.com/s/doyhfhr0534ffeym5u95j02grlwijcjl for specific text. University of Denver: The University of Denver is exploring ways in which to value DEI achievements in promotion decisions. The following blog advocates for DEI achievement to be valued in promotion decisions and outlined examples DEI achievements in the areas of teaching, research productivity/creative work, and service: https://duvpfa.du.edu/blog/2021/05/27/making-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-promotion-tenure-and-re-appointment-decisions-visible/ University of Delaware: A faculty task force at the University of Delaware recently issued a report addressing equity in faculty evaluation. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.udel.edu/dist/9/2591/files/2021/02/Equity-in-Faculty-Evaluations-Task-Force-Report_2-11-21.pdf Mission Diamond, R. (1999). Aligning faculty rewards with institutional mission: Statements, policies, and guidelines. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc. Ellison, J. & Eatman, T. K. (2008). Scholarship in public: Knowledge creation and tenure policy in the engaged university. Syracuse, NY: Imagining America. Zahorski, K.J. (2005) Redefining scholarship: A small liberal arts college’s journey. In K. O’Meara & R. E. Rice (Eds.), Faculty Priorities Reconsidered: Rewarding Multiple Forms of Scholarship, pp. 6-65. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wagner, Joan, "The Distinctive Mission of Catholic Colleges & Universities and Faculty Reward Policies for Community Engagement: Aspirational or Operational?" (2017). Graduate College Dissertations and Theses. 749. https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/graddis/749 Note: When we gather data on comparison institutions later in Phase One, we will also provide models examples of how some schools have attempted to align their faculty evaluation policies with the institution’s mission. In the interim, the Wagner dissertation cited above is worth reviewing as it explores, in part, to what extent the faculty tenure and promotion policies of the Catholic schools studied reflected institutional mission through a commitment to community engaged teaching, scholarship and service.</s>

<s>[INST] Bethany Alternative Text.txt [/INST] Bethany Alternative Text Alternative Text: Assuming the College wants to keep its current notice provisions, I would suggest the following text for this subsection:  If the College determines to terminate the appointment of a notice faculty member pursuant to Subsection 4.8.5, the faculty member shall be notified, to the extent feasible, in accordance with the following guidelines: In the case of termination due to financial exigency or enrollment emergency, the faculty member will receive notice or severance salary in accordance with the following schedule: a. At least three months prior to the date of termination for the individual who has served less than eighteen months at Bethany; b. At least six months or one semester, whichever is greater, prior to the date of termination for the individual who has served at least eighteen months at Bethany. In the case of termination due to reorganization, elimination, or curtailment of academic programs of the College, the faculty member will receive notice or severance salary in accordance with the following schedule: a. At least three months prior to the date of termination for the individual who has served less than eighteen months at Bethany; b. At least six months or one semester, whichever is greater, prior to the date of termination for the individual who has served at least eighteen months at Bethany. In all cases, faculty members affected will be able to complete the semester in which notice is given.</s>

<s>[INST] Bethany IWPM Pro.txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] BJU Intellectual Property Rights Policies 02 24 2022.txt [/INST] Intellectual Property Rights and Ownership BJU’s Intellectual Property Rights and Ownership Policy governs the protection and administration of intellectual property developed in support of the University’s mission. It applies to all university faculty, employees and students who make use of BJU facilities, equipment or other resources. Definitions “Intellectual Property” is defined as any original work created by an individual or group of individuals. This work might be written, oral, visual, recorded or digital. Content considered intellectual property includes any works that are or may be protected by copyright law or patent law. “Work for Hire” is a legal term defined in the Copyright Act as “a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment.” This definition includes works prepared by employees in satisfaction of sponsored agreements between BJU and outside agencies. Certain commissioned works also are works for hire if the parties so agree in writing. Duty to Disclose Inventions Patentable inventions and other marketable forms of intellectual property may result from BJU-related activities. Inventions conceived and/or reduced to practice which were made or conceived utilizing BJU facilities, equipment, funds or other contributions of the University or were made or conceived during a university-administered program or research project or under a university contract must be disclosed fully and in good faith to the provost or the vice president for business and finance. Ownership of Intellectual Property Works written or composed by a BJU employee under commission from BJU and/or on work time and works prepared as “work for hire” become the property of BJU, and the writer or composer needs to secure university approval to reproduce the work. Textbooks, as distinguished from manuals, syllabi, etc., have a potential market outside BJU through the textbook division of BJU Press. Textbooks written by BJU faculty/staff are to be published and marketed by BJU Press if used in BJU classrooms. Faculty members will not receive any royalty or bonuses from any book or pamphlet used in their own classes but may receive royalties or bonuses for books or pamphlets used in campus classrooms other than their own. When BJU pays a faculty member to develop a distance learning course, the faculty member will need approval from BJU to use course materials in distance learning teaching for another Universityor university. In addition, as identified below, certain circumstances may give rise to a claim of ownership or other rights by BJU. Intellectual property ownership is related to factors including: Whether the author/creator was hired specifically to produce intellectual property “work for hire”; Whether the author/creator engaged in a collaborative effort to produce intellectual property (in which case intellectual property might be shared); Whether or not the intellectual property was created as part of sponsored research. Author/Creator Owns Intellectual Property The following intellectual property will generally be considered author/creator-owned: Works, other than textbooks, written or composed by BJU employees on their own unpaid time and without BJU resources. BJU Owns Intellectual Property The following intellectual property will generally be considered BJU-owned: 1. Intellectual property created as a “work for hire” or pursuant to a written agreement with the University providing for the transfer of any intellectual property or ownership to BJU; 2. Intellectual property developed in the course of, or pursuant to, BJU-sponsored research or other university agreement (as determined according to the terms of such agreement); and/or 3. Intellectual property that is made or conceived utilizing the facilities, equipment, funds or other contributions of BJU to a degree that is substantially in excess of what is normally provided. For example, BJU may require assignment of an ownership interest in intellectual property in the following circumstances: Publication Subvention: When BJU pays the full or a substantial part of the cost of publication (including such costs as printing, editing, etc., but excluding the salary of the primary author(s)). In such case, BJU may request that a formal agreement concerning the ownership of the copyright and the division of applicable royalties be made to ensure that rights, responsibilities and prospective revenues are shared equitably between the author/creator and BJU. Software and Digital Resources. The development of software and other digital resources (such as website development, video production and digital content materials) developed for the classroom typically receives extensive support from BJU and is made possible through the use of BJU resources. In this circumstance, the tangible works developed (i.e., the website or the video production) are owned by BJU. The tangible educational materials owned by BJU may be used by the creator while still employed by the University. For use of these educational materials outside BJU, however, specific written permission of the University is required. To encourage the development of technology-based educational materials, BJU may, at its sole discretion, choose not to exercise its claim to such intellectual property. In particular, BJU may not require assignment of ownership for basic webpages or entries in a course management system that are created and maintained without substantial assistance and that simply provide information (including, but not limited to, reading assignments, other course requirements and links to relevant external Internet resources) specific to a faculty member’s course(s) and/or information about or copies of publications and other professional activities of a faculty member. Reconveyance of Copyright to the Creator When intellectual property is assigned to BJU because of the provisions of this policy, the creator of the copyrighted material may make a request to the provost that ownership be reconveyed back to the creator. Such a request can, at the discretion of the provost, be granted if it does not: (i) violate any legal obligations of or to BJU, (ii) limit appropriate university uses of the materials, (iii) create a real or potential conflict of interest for the creator, or (iv) otherwise conflict with BJU goals or principles. Licensing and Income Sharing Licensing: Computer databases, software and firmware and other copyrightable works owned by BJU are licensed through Information Technologies. The vice president for business and finance must approve in advance exceptions to this procedure. Assignments No assignment, license or other agreement may be entered into or will be considered valid with respect to copyrighted works owned by BJU except by an official specifically authorized by the president or Board of Trustees to do so. Consulting If a faculty or staff member is involved in consulting activities relating to the use of intellectual property developed with BJU resources, any consulting agreement must be reviewed in advance by the provost or the vice president for business and finance. Consulting contracts cannot restrain University-related activities, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Non-compete clauses that may hinder faculty from pursuing BJU-related work; or 2. Clauses which restrain or inordinately delay publication of BJU-related work, publications or intellectual property. Use of the BJU Name in Copyright Notices The following notice should be placed on BJU-owned materials: Copyright © [year] Bob Jones University. All Rights Reserved. No other institutional or departmental name is to be used in the copyright notice, although the name and address of the department to which readers can direct inquiries may be listed. The date in the notice should be the year in which the work is first published, i.e., distributed to the public or any sizable audience. Additionally, works may be registered with the United States Copyright Office using its official forms (http://www.copyright.gov/forms) Student Intellectual Property The term “intellectual property” refers to creative works, such as works of an artistic nature (literature, art, music, performances, broadcasts, etc.), software, inventions, trademarks, etc. For the most part, students own the intellectual property they generate in the course of their studies at Bob Jones University (BJU). There are a few exceptions to this, such as: 1. If the student was paid by BJU to produce the work in question as part of BJU employment or through grant or contract funding secured through BJU, then that intellectual property would be owned by BJU; or 2. If the student and BJU entered in an agreement defining ownership of student intellectual property as not the student’s. Such an agreement would need to have been entered into before any work started. This is done in certain cases where there is a corporate sponsor of student class projects. For such cases the student needs to be aware of what rights he/she has to use the intellectual property he/she generates as part of the sponsored project. Use of Student Intellectual Property BJU cannot use student-owned intellectual property without first obtaining permission from the student other than for reviewing and providing feedback and marking assignments the student submits as part of course and other project work and use of such student work for the purpose of assessing courses and programs. Students as Creators of BJU Intellectual Property There are situations where intellectual property developed by a student would be owned by BJU. This would occur if the student was paid by BJU to perform certain work and was the inventor or author of a creative work that came or resulted from that paid work. The student, as the inventor or author of BJU-owned intellectual property, would be covered by the BJU Intellectual Property Rights and Ownership Policy in such cases. Ownership of Copyrightable Materials and Intellectual Property The purpose of this policy is to describe Bob Jones University’s policies and associated administrative procedures regarding the ownership of patentable and copyrightable works created by Bob Jones University (“BJU”) employees and students, as well as other individuals conducting activities under the supervision of BJU employees. POLICY STATEMENT The University endorses the development of patentable and copyrightable works and, through this policy, endeavors to assist the its employees and students to utilize their talent and knowledge to realize discoveries and inventions for the benefit of themselves, BJU, and the general public. Ownership of patentable and copyrightable works created by BJU employees and students, as well as other individuals conducting activities under the supervision of BJU employees, will be determined in accordance with policies set forth in the Procedures/Guidelines section below. Additionally, the revenues from patentable and copyrightable works owned by BJU will be distributed according to the formula set forth in the Procedures/Guidelines below. If any portion of this policy conflicts with a signed agreement between BJU and a creator (an inventor or any other person who assists in the creation of patentable and copyrightable works) or between the BJU and an external funding agency or other entity such as another university with a collaborative research agreement with BJU, the terms of the signed agreement will prevail. BJU may grant a waiver of any provision of this policy on a case-by-case basis. All waivers must be approved in writing and signed by the President of the University or the President’s authorized designee. Any decision by the President to grant a waiver will take into account the best interests of BJU and the facts of the particular situation involved. Any waiver granted pursuant to this paragraph will apply only to obligations imposed on the creator of the patentable and copyrightable work, unless otherwise agreed to by the creator. DEFINITIONS Author: the creator of an original expression in a work of authorship that is subject to copyright protection. Copyright: an original work of authorship that has been fixed in any tangible medium of expression from which it can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Copyright includes a bundle of rights: the right to make reproductions of the work, the right to distribute copies of it, the right to make derivative works that borrow substantially from a copyrighted work, and the right to make public performances or displays of most works. Creator: any inventor, developer, or author, of Intellectual Property covered by this policy, including faculty, students, and staff of the University. Directed Works: include works that are specifically funded by BJU (including, but not limited to, Works for Hire). Employee: any individual employed by BJU, including any faculty member, administrator, staff member, or student employee. Intellectual Property: any original work created by an individual or group of individuals that is or may be patentable, copyrightable, or otherwise marketable. Examples include, but are not limited to, inventions, books, articles, study guides, syllabi, workbooks or manuals, bibliographies, instructional packages, tests, video or audio productions, films, charts, digital materials, graphic materials, photographic or similar visual materials, multi-media materials, three-dimensional materials, exhibits, and digital files and software. Institutional Work: include works that are supported by a specific allocation of Bob Jones University funds or that are created at the direction of Bob Jones University for a specific Bob Jones University purpose. Institutional Works also include works whose authorship cannot be attributed to one or a discrete number of authors but rather result from simultaneous or sequential contributions over time by multiple faculty and students. Personal Time: time other than that devoted to normal or assigned functions in teaching, University service, or direction or conduct of research on BJU premises or utilizing University facilities or assets. Significant Use: the utilization of BJU facilities, equipment, personnel, or other resources beyond that which is normally provided to carry out one’s assigned duties. Normal use of assigned office space, office equipment, library resources, or administrative staff is not considered “Significant Use.” Sponsored or Externally Contracted Works: any type of intellectual property developed using funds supplied under a contract, grant, or other arrangement between BJU and third parties, including sponsored research agreements. Student Works: papers, computer programs, theses, artistic and musical works, and other creative works made by BJU students. Traditional Works or Non-Directed Works: a pedagogical, scholarly, literary, or aesthetic (artistic) work originated by a faculty or other employee resulting from non-directed effort. (Such works may include textbooks, manuscripts, scholarly works, fixed lecture notes, works of art or design, musical scores, poems, films, videos, audio recordings, or other works of the kind that have historically been deemed in academic communities to be the property of their creator.) University Facilities or Assets: any facility or asset, including equipment, resources and material, available to the inventor as a direct result of the inventor's affiliation with BJU, and which would not be available to a non-BJU individual on the same basis. Work for Hire: a legal term defined in the Copyright Act as “a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment” or a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. POLICY AND PROCEDURES I. Copyright Ownership With respect to determining ownership of copyright, BJU’s policy addresses works by category of copyrightable work (including Traditional or Non-Directed Works, Directed Work, and Sponsored or Externally Contracted Works). Ownership of copyrighted subject matter is dependent on which category of work and which category of author, pertain to the copyrightable work at issue. A. Works by Faculty: Traditional Works or Non-Directed Works: The creator of traditional works or non-directed works is entitled to ownership of copyright and royalties, unless it is a directed work, sponsored work, or a work for hire described in a written agreement between the work’s creator and BJU (see below). BJU does not claim ownership to pedagogical, scholarly or artistic works, regardless of their form of expression, and such works are not directed works. These copyrighted works include, but are not limited to, textbooks, presentations, course materials, refereed literature, etc. Furthermore, BJU claims no ownership in popular nonfiction, novels, poems, musical compositions, digital media, software, games, or other works of artistic imagination. Electronic Courses: With respect to faculty materials produced for online instructions, copyright ownership is treated no differently than faculty materials produced for the classroom. If the materials are not directed works, the faculty member owns the copyright for those materials created for online use. Licensing of Traditional Works or Non-Directed Works for BJU Courses: Faculty members who create teaching and classroom materials (including electronic courses), such as class notes, syllabi, curriculum guides, or laboratory notebooks, or online learning modules shall grant BJU a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, display, copy, distribute, and prepare derivative works for administrative use, as well as use in educational programs and courses provided directly by BJU to its students for the duration of time that the faculty member is employed by BJU. The details of the licensing agreement will specify, among other things, the end of the licensing agreement, for example when an originator of traditional works or non-directed works used in an online course retires or ceases to be employed by BJU. Directed Works: Ownership of directed works resides with BJU. This includes all copyrighted works, including but not limited to educational software and electronic courses, that are specifically funded by the University under a formal contractual arrangement with BJU to develop and/or revise courses or as a result of the terms of the individual’s employment or hiring agreement. BJU may release or transfer its authorship rights to the work’s creator under a written agreement negotiated between the creator and BJU. The parties may also negotiate for joint ownership of such works, with the written approval of the President or the President’s designee. Sponsored or Externally Contracted Works: Whenever research or a related activity is subject to an agreement between a sponsor and BJU that contains restrictions concerning copyright or the use of copyrighted materials, all materials will be handled in accordance with such agreement. In negotiating with sponsors or contractors, project directors and BJU should strive to obtain the greatest latitude and rights for the individual author and BJU consistent with the public interest and this policy. B. Works by Staff/Administrators Whenever copyrightable work is created by a member of the non-teaching staff or administration as part of the individual’s university responsibilities, the work shall be treated as a work-for-hire under the terms of the Copyright Act of 1976, and the ownership will ordinarily be retained by BJU. In special cases, BJU may enter into an agreement in advance that the staff/administrative employee shall own the copyright. In addition, the President may waive institutional ownership. C. Works by Independent Contractors Works by independent contractors engaged by BJU will be owned in accordance with the contract under which the work was created. BJU will ensure that there is a written contract for work by an independent contractor specifying institutional ownership. D. Works by Students Ownership of the copyright to these works belongs to the student unless the work falls within one of the exceptions described below: Sponsored or Externally Contracted Works: Ownership will be in accordance with the section of this policy on sponsored or externally contracted works made by faculty. Works for Hire: Student works created by students in the course of their employment with the University will be considered to fall within the scope of Work for Hire in accordance with the section of this policy on works for hire made by staff. Rights in student works may be transferred between the student and BJU. In such cases, a written assignment agreement will specify the respective rights and obligations of the parties. The parties may also negotiate for joint ownership of such works, with the approval of the Provost. Copyright is the ownership and control of the Intellectual Property in original works of authorship that are subject to Copyright law. It is the general policy of BJU that all rights in Copyright shall remain with the creator of the work, with certain stated exceptions. The exceptions to this policy that shall vest ownership of the copyright in a work with BJU, rather than with the creator, are: If the work is a Work-for-Hire as defined by United States copyright law; If the work is defined as an Institutional Work: Institutional works include works that are supported by a specific allocation of Bob Jones University funds or that are created at the direction of Bob Jones University for a specific Bob Jones University purpose. Institutional Works also include works whose authorship cannot be attributed to one or a discrete number of authors but rather result from simultaneous or sequential contributions over time by multiple faculty and students. For example, software tools developed and improved over time by multiple faculty and students where authorship is not appropriately attributed to a single or defined group of authors would constitute an institutional work. The mere fact that multiple individuals have contributed to the creation of a work shall not cause the work to constitute an institutional work; If the work is commissioned by Bob Jones University; If the work makes Significant Use of Bob Jones University resources or personnel. Bob Jones University resources are to be used solely for Bob Jones University purposes and not for personal gain or personal commercial advantage, nor for any other non-University purposes. Therefore, if the creator of a copyrightable work makes Significant Use of the services of Bob Jones University non-faculty employees or Bob Jones University resources to create the work, the creator shall disclose the work to the Provost/Academic Dean and assign title to Bob Jones University. Examples of non-significant use include ordinary use of desktop computers, the Library, and limited secretarial or administrative resources; If the work is otherwise subject to contractual obligations; If the work is an audio, video, photographic or any form of digital reproduction of a class, course, or presentation made by Bob Jones University faculty, staff, or students. Courses taught and coursewares developed for teaching at Bob Jones University belong to Bob Jones University. Courses, which are videotaped or recorded using any other media, are Bob Jones University property, and may not be further distributed without permission from the Provost/Academic Dean; If the work includes images of Bob Jones University-owned facilities, buildings, or property for purposes other than scholarly research and publication; If the work includes the name, seal, logo, insignia, trademark or watermark of Bob Jones University as an endorsement, enhancement, or sanction for a product or service. With respect to the foregoing works, Bob Jones University shall be the owner of the copyright in the work. As such, the University may decide to assign its copyright to the author or authors of the work on a case-by-case basis. Electronic Courses: With respect to faculty materials produced for online instructions, copyright ownership is treated no differently than faculty materials produced for the classroom. If the materials are not Institutional Works or developed via the significant use of University resources, the faculty member owns the copyright for those materials created for online use. Any electronic course materials that are Institutional Works or created or developed by faculty with the use of significant use of University resources will be considered the property of Bob Jones University. This applies to electronic course material whether or not it was, is or may be eligible for copyright or patent. Licensing: Faculty members who create teaching and classroom materials, such as class notes, syllabi, curriculum guides, or laboratory notebooks, or online learning modules shall grant the University a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, display, copy, distribute, and prepare derivative works for administrative use, as well as use in educational programs and courses provided directly by the University to its students for the duration of time that the faculty member is employed by the University. The details of the licensing agreement will specify, among other things, the end of the licensing agreement, for example when an originator of the used in an online course retires or ceases to be employed by the University. B. Contractual Obligations of Bob Jones University This policy shall not be interpreted to limit Bob Jones University’s ability to meet its obligations for deliverables under any contract, grant, or other arrangement with third parties, including sponsored research agreements, license agreements and the like. Copyrightable works that are subject to sponsored research agreements or other contractual obligations of Bob Jones University shall be owned by Bob Jones University, so that Bob Jones University may satisfy its contractual obligations. C. Reconveyance of Copyright to the Creator When copyright is assigned to the Bob Jones University because of the provisions of this policy, the creator of the copyrighted material may make a request to the President of the University that ownership be reconveyed back to the creator. Such a request may, at the discretion of the President, be granted if it does not: Violate any legal obligations of or to Bob Jones University; Limit appropriate University uses of the materials; Create a real or potential conflict of interest for the creator; Otherwise conflict with Bob Jones University’ goals or principles. D. Administration of Copyright Policy Determination of Ownership and Policy: The President will resolve any questions of ownership or other matters pertaining to materials covered by this policy. Licensing: The University seeks the most effective means of technology transfer for public use and benefit and, toward that end, handles the evaluation, marketing, negotiations and licensing of Bob Jones University-owned inventions or copyrightable materials with commercial potential. Computer databases, software and firmware, and other copyrightable works owned by Bob Jones University, are licensed through the President. The President must approve in advance exceptions to this procedure; Royalty Distribution: The President will allocate royalties assigned to Bob Jones University. If copyright protection alone is claimed, royalties normally will be allocated in a similar manner, with the “inventor’s share” allocated among individuals identified by the investigator (or department head if not under a sponsored agreement), based on their relative contributions to the work. Where royalty distribution to individuals would be impracticable or inequitable (for example, when the copyrightable material has been developed as a laboratory project, or where individual royalty distribution could distort academic priorities), the “inventor’s share” may be allocated to a research or educational account in the laboratory where the copyrightable material was developed. Assignments: No assignment, license or other agreement may be entered into or will be considered valid with respect to copyrighted works owned by Bob Jones University except by an official specifically authorized to do so; Use of the Bob Jones University Name in Copyright Notices: The following notice should be placed on Bob Jones University-owned materials in order to protect the copyright: Copyright © [year]. The Board of Trustees of Bob Jones University. All Rights Reserved. No other institutional or departmental name is to be used in the copyright notice, although the name and address of the department to which readers can direct inquiries may be listed below the copyright notice. The date in the notice should be the year in which the work is first published, i.e., distributed to the public or any sizable audience. Additionally, works may be registered with the United States Copyright Office using its official forms. III. Intellectual Property Bob Jones University’s Intellectual Property Policy applies to all patentable inventions conceived or first reduced to practice by BJU faculty, administrators, staff, and students, or any other persons performing research or engaging in work at the University where such inventions may be created or discovered. A. Ownership University Ownership Ownership on a worldwide basis in any patentable invention conceived, developed, or reduced to practice by BJU faculty, staff, administrators, and students under either of the following conditions shall reside with the University: During normal or assigned activities related to the creator’s employment or student responsibilities (e.g., teaching, performing University service, pursuing coursework, directing or conducting research, etc.); or With the support of BJU facilities or assets, including equipment, material, personnel or any other resource available to the creator as a direct result of the creator’s affiliation with BJU and which would not be available to a non-BJU community member on the same basis. As a condition of employment or enrollment, all BJU faculty, staff, administrators, and students assign ownership of all inventions (or parts thereof) described above to the University. BJU, through the President, shall have the sole right to determine the disposition of Intellectual Property in which the University has a proprietary interest. A decision to exercise this right will be transmitted in writing to the creator within 60 days of the date of disclosure of the invention (or parts thereof). If the University decides to pursue a patent, it may recommend that the University alone, or with the assistance of an external organization such as a technology transfer company, make applications for letters of patent. Title to all such patent applications and resulting patents will be held by the Board of Trustees of the University; however, BJU will share licensing revenues with the creator(s) according to Section VI of this policy. If the University decides not to patent an invention, or not to commercialize a patented invention, the University will release to the creator its interest in the invention. Inventions Made on Personal Time Intellectual Property made BJU employees or students on their personal time and not involving the use of BJU facilities or assets are the property of the creator except in case of conflict with any applicable agreement between the University and a sponsoring agency. Creators who claim that Intellectual Property is made on personal time have the responsibility to demonstrate that intellectual property was invented based on independent efforts. All such Intellectual Property must be disclosed in accordance with the University’s disclosure procedures (see Section II.B) and demonstrate the basis of the creator’s claim that only personal time was utilized. Inventions Arising from Sponsored Research When Intellectual Property is developed through a sponsored grant or contract, the special provision contained in the grant or contract will prevail. In the absence of such special provisions, the University’s policy will apply. Generally, while the University is assigned the rights to Intellectual Property generated during the course of sponsored research activities, the sponsor retains the option to claim ownership under certain circumstances. In the event that the sponsor does not exercise its option and regardless of ownership, the government retains a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide license to the Intellectual Property produced under government sponsorship. B. Procedures for Reporting Intellectual Property Faculty, staff, and students are obligated to promptly and fully report to the University in a manner stipulated by the Provost any discovery, invention, possible device, or potentially useful biological or chemical material the individual has made and has reason to believe might be patentable or otherwise protectable. This is to be done regardless of whether BJU funds or funds from an external source provided the immediate support for the work from which the invention resulted or if the intellectual property was developed on personal time. C. Dispute Resolution A dispute concerning application of any aspect of this policy must be submitted in writing to the Provost. The dispute will be reviewed by the Committee on Intellectual Property, which will prepare a report of its findings and make a recommendation to the Provost. See Section – below for additional information. Royalty and Revenue Sharing The University assumes financial responsibility for intellectual property to which it takes ownership. This responsibility may include, for example, the costs of assessing patentability, filing and prosecuting patents, registering copyrights, marketing and licensing traditional works or non-directed works, electronic courses, and copyrighted works, and paying royalties for the use of copyrighted works in its courses. The University is not, however, obligated to protect or commercialize any particular invention or copyrighted work unless it has made an explicit contractual commitment to do so. The Provost is charged with the responsibility of using BJU’s resources carefully, with a view to promoting the fiduciary interest of the institution as a whole. Through the provisions of this policy, BJU maintains a right of first refusal to patents, directed works and work for hire developed by its employees; however, at anytime it may elect not to pursue intellectual property and will accordingly assign the rights to the inventor or originator. The Provost, after considering the recommendation of the Committee on Intellectual Property, will adjudicate conflicts between employers and BJU to enable that creative works to enrich the public good. All fees, legal and otherwise, associated with development of the invention and patent application shall be assumed by BJU but all such costs must be fully recovered by income generated by the invention before any net revenue accrues. The net income resulting from Intellectual Property to which BJU is afforded title will be divided as follows: Creator 50% Creator’s Department 15% Provost Office 10% General Fund 25% Half the department’s share is to be used as determined by the creator so long as they remain at BJU. Where there is more than one creator, distribution shall be prorated according to the contribution of each as may be agreed in writing between the parties, or, if an agreement cannot be reached, then according to the Provost, after considering the recommendation of the Intellectual Property Committee. Final appeals may be filed with the President. Creators may arrange for their personal share to be retained by BJU (e.g., to support their research). The Creators’ share will continue even if the inventors have left BJU. The portion of the department's share will normally follow a creator who has transferred to another part of BJU. However, it will not follow a creator who has left BJU. In cases of large sums of income, departments are encouraged to arrange with BJU for the capitalization of their shares to create an endowment for support of their activities. The department and Provost’s shares will be used to support research-related activities, as well as technology transfer programs which may serve to maximize the effect of such income. Royalties are payable to creators only upon actual receipt by BJU and after expenses have been paid, however, the Provost will provide detail and evidence of the expenses upon request to the creator. After all costs are fully recovered, royalty distribution payments will be paid immediately to the creator. In the case of the death of a creator, all royalty distributions which would have been due to such a person shall be paid to the creator’s estate. Committee on Intellectual Property The Committee on Intellectual Property (“the Committee”) will be composed of rotating and permanent members. The rotating members consist of [INSERT MEMBERSHIP], and the Provost, who will serve as a non-voting member and chair. At the time of initial appointment or election, each non-permanent member shall be designated as serving a one-, two- , or three-year term, staggered so that the term of one faculty committee member will expire each year. After the first appointment subsequent members shall serve staggered three-year terms, commencing July 1 and terminating on June 30. Committee members may serve one additional three-year term consecutively. The Committee may also appoint additional faculty, staff or students on an ad hoc, non-voting basis with observer status. The committee will receive and consider disputes over ownership, and its attendant rights, of intellectual property. The committee shall make a recommendation to the Provost as to whether the University or any other party has rights to the invention or other creation, and, if so, the basis and extent of those rights. The Committee shall also make recommendations to the Provost on competing faculty, staff, or student claims to ownership when the parties cannot reach an agreement on their own. The Committee will review the merits of patent-pending inventions and other creations and make recommendations to the Provost for their management. The Provost shall decide all such disputes. Decisions by the Provost may be appealed in writing to the President, who has final authority concerning University policies on intellectual property.</s>

<s>[INST] Board Code of Regulations - Faculty Article Memo - HR Policies.txt [/INST] Page | 2 April 27, 2022 TO: Board of Trustees, President Jones, & Provost Crowley FROM: Stephen Lazarus Sr. Consultant Stevens Strategy RE: Faculty Article of the Code of Regulations In the sections that follow, I outline our firm’s general position on the inclusion of human resource and campus community policies of general applicability in faculty handbooks. Thereafter, I review each of the policies referenced above, offering my professional judgment (see bold text) regarding whether they should remain in the Faculty Policies Handbook, as is, or in an edited form. Finally, at the end of the document, I provide policy and content recommendations the Task Force may want to consider as it continues its work to update the Faculty Policies Handbook. I. Inclusion of Human Resource and Campus Community Policies While many universities and colleges publish select employment and campus-community policies in their faculty handbooks, they do so at the risk of publishing contradictory policies by addressing a topic in more than one policy publication. Indeed, oftentimes a revision to a general human resources or campus community policy will not find its way into the Faculty Handbook. This is a risk management issue that could possibly expose an institution to legal liability. Moreover, the tradition of publishing select general human resource and campus community policies in faculty handbooks emanates from a time when policies were not published online and therefore were often included for ease of reference. With today’s technology, this is no longer a concern. Also, faculty handbooks typically only include a small portion of the institutional policies applicable to the faculty. This may give rise to the misimpression that only the policies published in the faculty handbook are applicable to the faculty. A faculty handbook should not be intended to state all institutional employment and campus community policies. Another key question for purposes of determining which policies should be published in a faculty handbook is whether the policy addresses a faculty personnel matter that falls within an area of primary faculty responsibility, a unique faculty right, or a policy that only applies to the faculty. If the policy does not fall within one of these areas, I believe the better practice is either not to publish it in the faculty handbook or link to such policies and adopt text comparable to the following clause from the University of Redlands Faculty Handbook’s “Changes to this Handbook” policy: Other University policies included in this Handbook by reference (e.g., the Policy Prohibiting Illegal Discrimination and Harassment), some of which are provided as Appendices, may be subject to change by procedures other than those required to change the policies and procedures of this Handbook proper. See Section 1.4 of the University of Redlands’ Faculty Handbook. Note: If the above model is utilized, it should be tailored to California Lutheran University by referencing the ADRI Chart. Adopting either approach provides greater clarity regarding which policies must be approved by the faculty via the handbook amendment policy. The determination regarding whether a policy falls within an area of faculty responsibility or unique faculty right is guided by the institution’s overarching governance documents. At California Lutheran, these include the Amended and Restated Bylaws of the University, Faculty Constitution, and ADRI Charts. Based on the above, I recommend that faculty handbooks generally be limited in scope to matters designated as a primary faculty responsibility (i.e., faculty status matters) as delineated in the University’s governance documents and other personnel matters applicable to a faculty right (e.g., sabbatical leave, faculty grievances, professional development leaves applicable only to faculty, etc.). Policies that do not fall within the above areas should either be removed or linked to the primary policy source. Adopting this approach lessens the legal risk of the institution adopting contradictory policy statements and provide greater clarity regarding which policies must be decided or approved by the faculty. Of course, such a practice does not diminish the faculty’s ability to provide consultative recommendations or input on policy matters outside of the above in accordance with the ADRI Charts. Such consultative input is typically provided via Faculty Senate resolutions, faculty membership on standing university committees and task forces, and constructive dialogue with university administrators. In addition, the Senate may consider matters of professional interest and faculty welfare, make recommendations to the president and other administrative officers as reflected in the Faculty Senate section of the Faculty Policies Handbook. II. Specific Policies Requested to be Reviewed Consensual Relations Schools are split on whether they publish a Consensual Relations Policy in the faculty handbook. The decision is primarily based on whether the institution’s policy in this area applies only to faculty or all university employees. Since consensual relations is not addressed in the Employee Handbook or any other University policy publication that I am aware of, I believe the current policy should remain in the Faculty Policies Handbook. However, it is my recommendation that the University consider adopting a consensual relations policy that applies to all employees for publication in the Employee Handbook. There is no reason the same principles set forth in the Faculty Policies Handbook Consensual Relations Policy should not apply to administrators, staff, and coaches. In terms of other revisions, I suggest that the Task Force supplement the “Consensual Relationships in the Instructional Context” clause to also prohibit a faculty member from exercising academic responsibility over a student with whom the faculty member has had a consensual relationship in the past. The same conflicts of interest concerns that pertain to current students also apply to situations where the instructor and student had a former relationship. For example, if the relationship did not end well, the instructor’s objectivity may be clouded, giving rise to a potential conflict of interest. In addition, the Task Force may want to add a cross-reference to HR Policy-006, which prohibits employees from engaging in “sexual harassment” of students. The policy defines sexual harassment as: “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature, made by someone from or in the work or educational setting, under any of the following conditions: (a) submission to the conduct is explicitly or implicitly made a term or a condition of a student’s employment, academic status, or progress; (b) submission to, or rejection of, the conduct by a student is used as the basis of academic decisions affecting the individual; (c) the conduct has the purpose or effect of having a negative impact upon the student’s academic performance, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment; (d) submission to, or rejection of, the conduct by a student is used as the basis for any decision affecting a student regarding benefits and services, honors, programs, or activities available at or through the educational institution.” Compensation It is common to have a brief section in a stand-alone section of the faculty handbook proper (i.e., not in the Appendix) that addresses faculty-specific compensation matters only. References to salary targets and/or compensation rates are usually stated in general terms given they are subject to revision due to market realities and are traditionally a legally reserved authority of the board (or delegated by the Board to the president, who may in turn delegate to the provost) to establish and approve. Pursuant to shared governance principles, however, such ranges are developed in consultation with the Provost and a faculty standing committee or task force; or via faculty membership on an appropriate university standing committee. See Chapman University’s Faculty Manual (Section VII) and Loyola Marymount University’s Handbook for examples of model text in this regard. Based on the above, I recommend that the Task Force include a brief compensation section in the main body of the Faculty Policies Handbook that (1) includes a clause that refers and links to Section V of the Employee Handbook; (2) addresses the salary schedule and compensation rates in general terms as outlined above; (3) delineates the manner in which the Provost solicits input from the appropriate faculty committee on salary schedule and compensation rates; and (4) includes a clause stating that matters of faculty and staff grade levels, starting salary, and salary adjustments are delegated by the Board to the President, who, in turn, may delegate them to the appropriate vice president (see the ADRI Chart). Fringe Benefits Some schools opt not to reprint Fringe Benefits in the handbook (see e.g., University of Redlands, Chapman University, Pacific Lutheran University) given these are within the board delegated purview of the administration, while other elect to include a benefit section. For those that do include a benefit section, it is common for many to link to those benefits that are not unique to the faculty (see e.g., University of Santa Clara) rather than reprint the policy in totality. Some institutions will reprint the benefit policies, but add a clause indicating the benefits, unless otherwise noted, are approved by the administration after appropriate notice and advisory consultation with the faculty. See the University of Pacific Faculty Handbook for an example of this latter approach. Of course, there are also representative examples where the benefit policies are reprinted without such a caveat. Consistent with the Section I comments, I recommend that the fringe benefit policies currently reprinted in the Faculty Policies Handbook that apply to all eligible university employees be linked to the Employee Handbook or removed altogether. My suggestion in this regard is based primarily on the ADRI Chart, which reflects that the faculty does not provide input on university benefits. Conflicts of Interest The Conflicts of Interest Policy published in the Faculty Policies Handbook applies to all university employees. It essentially mirrors the version of the policy in the Employee Handbook; however, the two policies are not identical. Thus, this is an example where publishing two policies in more than one publication can result in disparate policy statements. Based on the above, I recommend the policy be removed from the Faculty Policies Handbook and replaced with a link to the Conflicts of Interest Policy published in the Employee Handbook. Of note, the Task Force may also want to add a clause referring the reader to conflicts of interest in the sponsored research setting. If the University does not have a policy in this regard, I advocate that such a policy be developed. See the following examples of such policies: https://www.fordham.edu/info/23841/financial_conflict_of_interest_in_research/5128/university_policy https://www.stmarytx.edu/policies/academic-affairs/conflicts-of-interest-policy-for-sponsored-research/ https://www.ithaca.edu/sponsored-research/conflict-interest-and-disclosure Traditionally, the above policy is published either in a research manual, academic policy manual, or on the Office of Sponsored Research’s webpage. Political Activity and Public Statements Political activity is addressed in a subsection of the Outside Employment and Professional Activity Policy in the current Faculty Policies Handbook. It is not unusual for some schools to include a political activities clause in the faculty handbook that is based on the AAUP Statement on Professors and Political Activity. For those universities that do opt to include an outside activities policy in the faculty handbook, many will commonly reprint the policy under the Faculty Responsibility heading. Since political activities is not addressed in the Employee Policies Handbook, I recommend that the clause remain in the current Faculty Policies Handbook. I further advocate that text be developed indicating that if a leave of absence is required to accommodate the faculty member’s political activity, such leave should be formally approved pursuant to the Employee Handbook’s Personal Leave without Pay Policy. Moreover, I advise that a sentence be added specifying that the terms of any approved leave (i.e., impact on probationary period, years in rank requirements for promotion, etc.) are documented and approved by either the Dean or Provost. External Relations Policy There are three policies reprinted under the External Relations Policy: Controversial Issues or Speakers; Solicitations, Recognitions and Honors, and Access to Donor Lists. Each of these policies are either campus community or employee policies and I therefore recommend that they be removed from the Faculty Policies Handbook or linked to the appropriate policy source. Of note, there is a Workplace Solicitation/Distribution policy in the current Employee Handbook that does not mirror the text in the Faculty Policies Handbook. I could not locate where the University publishes the Controversial Issues or Speakers Policy. However, this is a policy that applies (or should apply) to the entire campus community, including student organizations. I recommend that the administration consider adopting a campus community webpage or campus community manual that publishes policies such as this, as well as other broad ranging policies that impact everyone on campus (i.e., security, IT, Environmental Health and Safety, etc.). III. Other Recommendations Although outside of the scope of the policies Dr. Heresco requested I review and comment upon, below I provide policy and content recommendations the Task Force may want to consider developing as it continues its work to update the Faculty Policies Handbook. Adherence to University Policies Under the Faculty Responsibilities section of the handbook, paragraph 6 states that faculty members are responsible for “knowing and abiding by the policies and procedures published in the current version of the Faculty Governance Handbook, this Faculty Policies Handbook, and the undergraduate and graduate catalogs.” I believe adding the Employee Handbook to the listing is appropriate since there are policies in that document that apply to faculty. Also, there are other University policies that apply to faculty, including but not limited to the Policy on Sexual Harassment and Title IX, HR Policy 006, the Alcohol & Drug Free Policy, etc. As such, I advise that consideration be given to amending paragraph 6 as follows: 6. knowing and abiding by University policies that apply to them, including but not limited to the policies and procedures published in the current version of the Faculty Governance Handbook, this Faculty Policies Handbook, and the undergraduate and graduate catalogs, and the Employee Handbook. Freedom from Harassment Policy I recommend that this policy be removed and replaced with a link to the Freedom from Harassment policy published in the Employee Handbook. Also, links to the Policy on Sexual Harassment Prohibited by Title IX and HR Policy 006 - Harassment, Discrimination, Biased Conduct and Retaliation Prohibition should be added. In this regard, I advise that the Task Force collaborate with Human Resources to develop appropriate text under the Freedom from Harassment (and Discrimination) heading that affirms the University’s commitment to a workplace environment free from unlawful harassment and discrimination and references and links to the policies referenced above. Working Conditions, Library and Computer Use, Expense Reimbursement, Chapel and Convocation I recommend that these policies be removed from the Handbook for the reasons set forth in Section I of this memorandum. If, however, the Task Force elects to keep the policies in the handbook for ease of reference, I recommend that the policies be replaced with links to the extent they are published in other university policy publications. Research and Publication I recommend that the University consider developing an academic policy manual that houses relevant policies addressing issues such as program reviews and approvals, academic research misconduct, IRB, Animal Research, Sponsored Research Conflict of Interests, and the like. Academic Honesty Policy I recommend that this policy be removed from the Handbook for the reasons set forth in Section I of this memorandum. If, however, the Task Force elects to keep the policy in the handbook for ease of reference, I recommend that it be replaced with a link to the version of the policy in the Undergraduate Catalog. Additional Policy Statements and Recommendations Develop an Introduction Statement I recommend that the Task Force develop an introductory clause at the beginning of the handbook. Below is a sample from a prior client’s handbook for consideration; however, the Task Force should develop a tailored statement unique to California Lutheran University: The purpose of the Faculty Policies Handbook is to provide members of the Faculty as defined herein with information regarding the policies, procedures and regulations of the College as they pertain to matters of faculty status and rights. It supersedes all previous faculty personnel policies and procedures published in prior Faculty Policies Handbooks. Official publications of the University are considered to be supplemental to the Faculty Policies Handbook. These publications include but are not limited to the Amended and Restated Bylaws of California Lutheran University, the Employee Handbook, the Catalog, the Student Handbook, and other campus community and employee policies published by the administration. Faculty members are responsible for being familiar with the contents of these and other University policy statements that have significance for their professional performance. Revisions to the Faculty Policies Handbook will be made in accordance with the Faculty Constitution, subject to the final approval of the Board of Regents. Develop a Faculty Policies Handbook Amendment Policy The Task Force may want to consider supplementing the Faculty Constitution’s Amendments to the Bylaws of the Faculty Constitution with a policy addressing procedurally how the Faculty Policies Handbook is amended. I recommend such a policy be included at the end of the Faculty Policies Handbook (before the Appendix if it remains). Faculty Handbook amendment policies typically identify who may submit or recommend proposed amendments (i.e., individual faculty member, Faculty Senate, faculty committee/task force, Deans, Provost, President, etc.) and the steps that must be followed to develop, vet, and revise the proposed amendment. Further, such policies commonly outline the approval steps that must be followed. If the Deans, Provost, or President, proposes an amendment or recommends that a policy be developed by the faculty, I also recommend that the following Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities best practice be implemented: Boards and presidents should plan reasonable time for consultative and decision-making processes and establish deadlines for their conclusion with the clear understanding that failure to act in accordance with these deadlines will mean that the next highest level in the governance process will have to proceed with decision making. Even in the context of academic governance, a single individual or group should not be allowed to impede decisions through inaction. Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities Statement on Board Responsibility for Institutional Governance, January 2010. Model text can be provided upon request. Develop a Policy Addressing Administrators with Faculty Rank The Faculty Policies Handbook does not address administrators with faculty rank. Such a policy is typically published in the Definition of Faculty section of a faculty handbook and includes a clause addressing retreat rights to join the faculty following the successful completion of the administrative assignment. I recommended that a clause addressing this issue be developed by the Task Force. Develop a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Faculty Responsibility Policy I recommend that a clause be adopted for publication under the Faculty Responsibilities section of the handbook codifying that all faculty members are responsible for engaging in activities that enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) at the University. The text should align with the Contributions to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion clause developed by the ART Task Force (assuming the ART Task Force clause is adopted by the faculty and approved by the Board of Regents). Reference Background Screens, Credential Verification in the Appointment of Faculty Section Some schools will include clauses in the Appointment Policies section of a faculty handbook indicating that candidates must successfully complete a background screen and have their academic credentials verified before final appointment. The Department of Education also requires the University to provide a notice of the availability of the annual security report to those individuals it interviews if it solicits applications for a faculty position through an external advertisement. Develop a Terminal Contract Clause I advocate that the Task Force develop a policy statement addressing Terminal Contracts under the Types of Contract section. Terminal contracts are issued to probationary faculty who are not awarded tenure. Organizational Suggestions Finally, I believe the Task Force should consider moving the Appointment of Faculty section to a different location in the handbook. Faculty appointment policies are normally published earlier in a faculty handbook, following the definition of faculty and faculty contract sections. The Faculty Grievance Policy might also be better placed either under the Faculty Rights section or following the Faculty Separation section. Finally, to help better navigate the document and more easily reference policies, I propose that an automated numbering system be introduced to the handbook. P.O. Box 72 12 Island View Grantham, NH 03753 phone: 603.863.4704 fax: 603.863.0531 web: stevensstrategy.com</s>

<s>[INST] Board Code of Regulations - Faculty Article Memo.txt [/INST] Page | 2 April 27, 2022 TO: Board of Trustees, President Jones, & Provost Crowley FROM: Stephen Lazarus Sr. Consultant Stevens Strategy RE: Faculty Article of the Code of Regulations The Ohio Wesleyan Board of Trustees has requested that the University’s Faculty Handbook be reviewed and updated since it has been several years since the document has been substantively amended. Based on dialogue with President Jones and Provost Crowley, it is our understanding that one area of particular interest to the Board centers upon best practices with respect to whether human resource content such as leaves, salary level determinations, benefits, etc. should be included in the updated Faculty Handbook and, hence, subject to the Faculty approval. A comprehensive review of the University’s constitutional documents, including the Code of Regulations, Faculty Handbook, and any other applicable shared governance-related policy statements is therefore warranted. Accordingly, for this segment of the engagement, Dr. Stevens and Mr. Lazarus will analyze the above referenced constitutional documents to gain a clear understanding of the current delegation of responsibilities and decision-making authorities in place at the University and then issue a report as to whether these current practices align with best shared governance practices. If, in our professional judgement, there is misalignment with best shared governance practices, we will highlight those areas and outline at a high-level the changes we recommend be introduced to these documents so that they may better align with best practice and more clearly codify shared governance decision making authority at the University. We will then meet virtually with the Board’s Faculty Handbook Task Force to share the results of our report and recommendations In the sections that follow, I outline our firm’s general position on the inclusion of human resource and campus community policies of general applicability in faculty handbooks. Thereafter, I review each of the policy areas referenced above, offering my professional judgment (see bold text) regarding whether they should remain in the Faculty Handbook. I. Analysis of Ohio Wesleyan’s Code of Regulations The answer to the above question centers primarily upon what authority has been delegated by the Board of Trustees to the Faculty and the President. Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 2(d) of the of the University’s Code of Regulations, the Board of Trustees has delegated to the faculty primary responsibility, in part, for “faculty employment, promotions, tenure, merit increases, leaves of absences, and grants-in-aid for research.”   The above will undoubtedly be cited by the faculty if the administration or Board presses for the removal of the salary and leave of absence policies from the Faculty Handbook.  While the faculty has been granted primary responsibility in the above referenced areas, such responsibilities are subject to the review procedures provided elsewhere in the Code.  Primary responsibility does not equate to exclusive responsibility and the matters delegated to faculty are still subject to review by either the President or Board as delineated in the Code.  This raises the question, is the Board familiar with the above article vis-a-vis merit increases and leaves of absences and has it given consideration to amending the clause 2(d) to more closely align with the AUP/AGB/ACE Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities?   The proposed revisions more closely align the article with the AAUP/AGB/ACE Joint Statement on the Government of Colleges and Universities (“Joint Statement”), which can be found here:  https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities.  The pertinent clause in the Join Statement is found in Paragraph 5, which states in part: The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process. With respect to faculty status matters, the Joint Statement states: Faculty status and related matters are primarily a faculty responsibility; this area includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal. The primary responsibility of the faculty for such matters is based upon the fact that its judgment is central to general educational policy. Furthermore, scholars in a particular field or activity have the chief competence for judging the work of their colleagues; in such competence it is implicit that responsibility exists for both adverse and favorable judgments. Likewise, there is the more general competence of experienced faculty personnel committees having a broader charge. Determinations in these matters should first be by faculty action through established procedures, reviewed by the chief academic officers with the concurrence of the board. The governing board and president should, on questions of faculty status, as in other matters where the faculty has primary responsibility, concur with the faculty judgment except in rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail. As you can see from the above, it is apparent that the text in Article VIII - Faculty of the University’s Code of Regulations was informed by the Joint Statement; however, the listings of faculty responsibilities does not fully mirror the statement insomuch as it references merit increases and leaves of absences.   As I mentioned in my March 21st email, the Joint Statement does advocate later in Paragraph 5 that the faculty participate in the determination of "policies and procedures governing salary increases.”  The fact that salary increases is not included in the listing of “primary” faculty responsibilities, however, is an important distinction because the term “primary responsibility” as used in Paragraph 5 of the Joint Statement imparts that the power of review or final decision lodged in the governing board or delegated by it to the president should be exercised adversely only in "exceptional circumstances, and for reasons communicated to the faculty.”  Nonetheless, the Board should be prepared for the faculty to cite the salary increase clause from the Joint Statement if the Board elects to no longer delegate to the faculty responsibility for merit increases.  For this reason, I am suggesting that the Code’s clause be supplemented to state the faculty will have primary responsibility for “evaluation criteria for merit increases…” or words to this effect.  I think the key consideration is that the Board does not want to give faculty primary authority to set meet increase salaries.  Of course, as part of the shared governance process, the administration and faculty may work together to establish salary bands. Like salary increases, faculty leaves are not listed as an area of primary faculty responsibility in Paragraph 5 of the Joint Statement.  Regardless, the faculty will more than likely cite the AAUP "Statement of the Principles on Leaves of Absence” (“Statement”) in opposition to the removal of leaves of absences from their delegated responsibilities (see attached for the AAUP statement).  The AAUP’s statement in this regard advocates that faculty leave policies and procedures "be developed with full faculty participation."  The primary focus of the AAUP statement centers upon leaves that support the professional development of faculty members.  However, there is a sentence in the Statement indicating that faculty leaves should also be granted for “illness, recovery, and maternity.”  Regarding the latter, it is important to note that the Statement was written in 1972 - well before the introduction of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which legislatively addresses these matters.   Based on the above, I am recommending that Article VIII of the Code be further amended to state that the faculty will have primarily responsibility for “professional development leave of absences.”   This, however, may be too generous and will need to be carefully weighed by the Board and President. It may be best to remove the reference to leaves altogether as it rare to see faculty leaves listed an area of primary responsibility in Board Bylaws in my experience. Out of curiosity, were the leaves set forth in the Faculty Handbook approved by the President or Board of Trustees?  I need to gain a better understanding of how policies in the handbook are approved as I do not see a Faculty Handbook amendment clause in the current Faculty Handbook.    With respect to how other schools address this issue outside of the Bylaws, leaves specifically applicable to faculty typically are published in Faculty Handbooks.  This includes sabbatical and other academic-related leaves.  Some also include faculty parental leave policies their handbooks.  For all other leaves generally available to benefit eligible employees (i.e., FMLA leaves, Bereavement, etc.), most faculty handbooks simply summarize the titles of the leaves and then reference or link to where they are published.   As I become more familiar with the handbook, it is apparent to me that any revisions or attempts to remove certain leaves from the handbook will be met with significant resistance.  Many of the leave policies are weighted heavily in favor of the faculty and in some instances are either mandatory (Pre and Post Tenure Regular Paid Leaves) or subject to faculty as opposed to administrative approval (i.e., Leaves without Pay).   We have discussed possibly connecting with the University’s attorney on the contract issue. It may also be useful to converse with her on revising the Code.  From a political standpoint, if revisions to the Code are advocated by legal counsel, there may perhaps be less pushback against the administration and Board.   II. Inclusion of Human Resource and Campus Community Policies While many universities and colleges publish select employment and campus-community policies in their faculty handbooks, they do so at the risk of publishing contradictory policies by addressing a topic in more than one policy publication. Indeed, oftentimes a revision to a general human resources or campus community policy will not find its way into the Faculty Handbook. This is a risk management issue that could possibly expose an institution to legal liability. Moreover, the tradition of publishing select general human resource and campus community policies in faculty handbooks emanates from a time when policies were not published online and therefore were often included for ease of reference. With today’s technology, this is no longer a concern. Also, faculty handbooks typically only include a small portion of the institutional policies applicable to the faculty. This may give rise to the misimpression that only the policies published in the faculty handbook are applicable to the faculty. A faculty handbook should not be intended to state all institutional employment and campus community policies. Another key question for purposes of determining which policies should be published in a faculty handbook is whether the policy addresses a faculty personnel matter that falls within an area of primary faculty responsibility, a unique faculty right, or a policy that only applies to the faculty. If the policy does not fall within one of these areas, I believe the better practice is either not to publish it in the faculty handbook or link to such policies and adopt text comparable to the following clause from the University of Redlands Faculty Handbook’s “Changes to this Handbook” policy: Other University policies included in this Handbook by reference (e.g., the Policy Prohibiting Illegal Discrimination and Harassment), some of which are provided as Appendices, may be subject to change by procedures other than those required to change the policies and procedures of this Handbook proper. See Section 1.4 of the University of Redlands’ Faculty Handbook. Note: If the above model is utilized, it should be tailored to California Lutheran University by referencing the ADRI Chart. Adopting either approach provides greater clarity regarding which policies must be approved by the faculty via the handbook amendment policy. The determination regarding whether a policy falls within an area of faculty responsibility or unique faculty right is guided by the institution’s overarching governance documents. At California Lutheran, these include the Amended and Restated Bylaws of the University, Faculty Constitution, and ADRI Charts. Based on the above, I recommend that faculty handbooks generally be limited in scope to matters designated as a primary faculty responsibility (i.e., faculty status matters) as delineated in the University’s governance documents and other personnel matters applicable to a faculty right (e.g., sabbatical leave, faculty grievances, professional development leaves applicable only to faculty, etc.). Policies that do not fall within the above areas should either be removed or linked to the primary policy source. Adopting this approach lessens the legal risk of the institution adopting contradictory policy statements and provide greater clarity regarding which policies must be decided or approved by the faculty. Of course, such a practice does not diminish the faculty’s ability to provide consultative recommendations or input on policy matters outside of the above in accordance with the ADRI Charts. Such consultative input is typically provided via Faculty Senate resolutions, faculty membership on standing university committees and task forces, and constructive dialogue with university administrators. In addition, the Senate may consider matters of professional interest and faculty welfare, make recommendations to the president and other administrative officers as reflected in the Faculty Senate section of the Faculty Policies Handbook. II. Specific Policies Requested to be Reviewed . Finally, I note that the Board has a Joint Trustee-Faculty Liaison Committee.  Does this committee need to play a role in revising Article VIII?  Consensual Relations Schools are split on whether they publish a Consensual Relations Policy in the faculty handbook. The decision is primarily based on whether the institution’s policy in this area applies only to faculty or all university employees. Since consensual relations is not addressed in the Employee Handbook or any other University policy publication that I am aware of, I believe the current policy should remain in the Faculty Policies Handbook. However, it is my recommendation that the University consider adopting a consensual relations policy that applies to all employees for publication in the Employee Handbook. There is no reason the same principles set forth in the Faculty Policies Handbook Consensual Relations Policy should not apply to administrators, staff, and coaches. In terms of other revisions, I suggest that the Task Force supplement the “Consensual Relationships in the Instructional Context” clause to also prohibit a faculty member from exercising academic responsibility over a student with whom the faculty member has had a consensual relationship in the past. The same conflicts of interest concerns that pertain to current students also apply to situations where the instructor and student had a former relationship. For example, if the relationship did not end well, the instructor’s objectivity may be clouded, giving rise to a potential conflict of interest. In addition, the Task Force may want to add a cross-reference to HR Policy-006, which prohibits employees from engaging in “sexual harassment” of students. The policy defines sexual harassment as: “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature, made by someone from or in the work or educational setting, under any of the following conditions: (a) submission to the conduct is explicitly or implicitly made a term or a condition of a student’s employment, academic status, or progress; (b) submission to, or rejection of, the conduct by a student is used as the basis of academic decisions affecting the individual; (c) the conduct has the purpose or effect of having a negative impact upon the student’s academic performance, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment; (d) submission to, or rejection of, the conduct by a student is used as the basis for any decision affecting a student regarding benefits and services, honors, programs, or activities available at or through the educational institution.” Compensation It is common to have a brief section in a stand-alone section of the faculty handbook proper (i.e., not in the Appendix) that addresses faculty-specific compensation matters only. References to salary targets and/or compensation rates are usually stated in general terms given they are subject to revision due to market realities and are traditionally a legally reserved authority of the board (or delegated by the Board to the president, who may in turn delegate to the provost) to establish and approve. Pursuant to shared governance principles, however, such ranges are developed in consultation with the Provost and a faculty standing committee or task force; or via faculty membership on an appropriate university standing committee. See Chapman University’s Faculty Manual (Section VII) and Loyola Marymount University’s Handbook for examples of model text in this regard. Based on the above, I recommend that the Task Force include a brief compensation section in the main body of the Faculty Policies Handbook that (1) includes a clause that refers and links to Section V of the Employee Handbook; (2) addresses the salary schedule and compensation rates in general terms as outlined above; (3) delineates the manner in which the Provost solicits input from the appropriate faculty committee on salary schedule and compensation rates; and (4) includes a clause stating that matters of faculty and staff grade levels, starting salary, and salary adjustments are delegated by the Board to the President, who, in turn, may delegate them to the appropriate vice president (see the ADRI Chart). Fringe Benefits Some schools opt not to reprint Fringe Benefits in the handbook (see e.g., University of Redlands, Chapman University, Pacific Lutheran University) given these are within the board delegated purview of the administration, while other elect to include a benefit section. For those that do include a benefit section, it is common for many to link to those benefits that are not unique to the faculty (see e.g., University of Santa Clara) rather than reprint the policy in totality. Some institutions will reprint the benefit policies, but add a clause indicating the benefits, unless otherwise noted, are approved by the administration after appropriate notice and advisory consultation with the faculty. See the University of Pacific Faculty Handbook for an example of this latter approach. Of course, there are also representative examples where the benefit policies are reprinted without such a caveat. Consistent with the Section I comments, I recommend that the fringe benefit policies currently reprinted in the Faculty Policies Handbook that apply to all eligible university employees be linked to the Employee Handbook or removed altogether. My suggestion in this regard is based primarily on the ADRI Chart, which reflects that the faculty does not provide input on university benefits. Conflicts of Interest The Conflicts of Interest Policy published in the Faculty Policies Handbook applies to all university employees. It essentially mirrors the version of the policy in the Employee Handbook; however, the two policies are not identical. Thus, this is an example where publishing two policies in more than one publication can result in disparate policy statements. Based on the above, I recommend the policy be removed from the Faculty Policies Handbook and replaced with a link to the Conflicts of Interest Policy published in the Employee Handbook. Of note, the Task Force may also want to add a clause referring the reader to conflicts of interest in the sponsored research setting. If the University does not have a policy in this regard, I advocate that such a policy be developed. See the following examples of such policies: https://www.fordham.edu/info/23841/financial_conflict_of_interest_in_research/5128/university_policy https://www.stmarytx.edu/policies/academic-affairs/conflicts-of-interest-policy-for-sponsored-research/ https://www.ithaca.edu/sponsored-research/conflict-interest-and-disclosure Traditionally, the above policy is published either in a research manual, academic policy manual, or on the Office of Sponsored Research’s webpage. Political Activity and Public Statements Political activity is addressed in a subsection of the Outside Employment and Professional Activity Policy in the current Faculty Policies Handbook. It is not unusual for some schools to include a political activities clause in the faculty handbook that is based on the AAUP Statement on Professors and Political Activity. For those universities that do opt to include an outside activities policy in the faculty handbook, many will commonly reprint the policy under the Faculty Responsibility heading. Since political activities is not addressed in the Employee Policies Handbook, I recommend that the clause remain in the current Faculty Policies Handbook. I further advocate that text be developed indicating that if a leave of absence is required to accommodate the faculty member’s political activity, such leave should be formally approved pursuant to the Employee Handbook’s Personal Leave without Pay Policy. Moreover, I advise that a sentence be added specifying that the terms of any approved leave (i.e., impact on probationary period, years in rank requirements for promotion, etc.) are documented and approved by either the Dean or Provost. External Relations Policy There are three policies reprinted under the External Relations Policy: Controversial Issues or Speakers; Solicitations, Recognitions and Honors, and Access to Donor Lists. Each of these policies are either campus community or employee policies and I therefore recommend that they be removed from the Faculty Policies Handbook or linked to the appropriate policy source. Of note, there is a Workplace Solicitation/Distribution policy in the current Employee Handbook that does not mirror the text in the Faculty Policies Handbook. I could not locate where the University publishes the Controversial Issues or Speakers Policy. However, this is a policy that applies (or should apply) to the entire campus community, including student organizations. I recommend that the administration consider adopting a campus community webpage or campus community manual that publishes policies such as this, as well as other broad ranging policies that impact everyone on campus (i.e., security, IT, Environmental Health and Safety, etc.). III. Other Recommendations Although outside of the scope of the policies Dr. Heresco requested I review and comment upon, below I provide policy and content recommendations the Task Force may want to consider developing as it continues its work to update the Faculty Policies Handbook. Adherence to University Policies Under the Faculty Responsibilities section of the handbook, paragraph 6 states that faculty members are responsible for “knowing and abiding by the policies and procedures published in the current version of the Faculty Governance Handbook, this Faculty Policies Handbook, and the undergraduate and graduate catalogs.” I believe adding the Employee Handbook to the listing is appropriate since there are policies in that document that apply to faculty. Also, there are other University policies that apply to faculty, including but not limited to the Policy on Sexual Harassment and Title IX, HR Policy 006, the Alcohol & Drug Free Policy, etc. As such, I advise that consideration be given to amending paragraph 6 as follows: 6. knowing and abiding by University policies that apply to them, including but not limited to the policies and procedures published in the current version of the Faculty Governance Handbook, this Faculty Policies Handbook, and the undergraduate and graduate catalogs, and the Employee Handbook. Freedom from Harassment Policy I recommend that this policy be removed and replaced with a link to the Freedom from Harassment policy published in the Employee Handbook. Also, links to the Policy on Sexual Harassment Prohibited by Title IX and HR Policy 006 - Harassment, Discrimination, Biased Conduct and Retaliation Prohibition should be added. In this regard, I advise that the Task Force collaborate with Human Resources to develop appropriate text under the Freedom from Harassment (and Discrimination) heading that affirms the University’s commitment to a workplace environment free from unlawful harassment and discrimination and references and links to the policies referenced above. Working Conditions, Library and Computer Use, Expense Reimbursement, Chapel and Convocation I recommend that these policies be removed from the Handbook for the reasons set forth in Section I of this memorandum. If, however, the Task Force elects to keep the policies in the handbook for ease of reference, I recommend that the policies be replaced with links to the extent they are published in other university policy publications. Research and Publication I recommend that the University consider developing an academic policy manual that houses relevant policies addressing issues such as program reviews and approvals, academic research misconduct, IRB, Animal Research, Sponsored Research Conflict of Interests, and the like. Academic Honesty Policy I recommend that this policy be removed from the Handbook for the reasons set forth in Section I of this memorandum. If, however, the Task Force elects to keep the policy in the handbook for ease of reference, I recommend that it be replaced with a link to the version of the policy in the Undergraduate Catalog. Additional Policy Statements and Recommendations Develop an Introduction Statement I recommend that the Task Force develop an introductory clause at the beginning of the handbook. Below is a sample from a prior client’s handbook for consideration; however, the Task Force should develop a tailored statement unique to California Lutheran University: The purpose of the Faculty Policies Handbook is to provide members of the Faculty as defined herein with information regarding the policies, procedures and regulations of the College as they pertain to matters of faculty status and rights. It supersedes all previous faculty personnel policies and procedures published in prior Faculty Policies Handbooks. Official publications of the University are considered to be supplemental to the Faculty Policies Handbook. These publications include but are not limited to the Amended and Restated Bylaws of California Lutheran University, the Employee Handbook, the Catalog, the Student Handbook, and other campus community and employee policies published by the administration. Faculty members are responsible for being familiar with the contents of these and other University policy statements that have significance for their professional performance. Revisions to the Faculty Policies Handbook will be made in accordance with the Faculty Constitution, subject to the final approval of the Board of Regents. Develop a Faculty Policies Handbook Amendment Policy The Task Force may want to consider supplementing the Faculty Constitution’s Amendments to the Bylaws of the Faculty Constitution with a policy addressing procedurally how the Faculty Policies Handbook is amended. I recommend such a policy be included at the end of the Faculty Policies Handbook (before the Appendix if it remains). Faculty Handbook amendment policies typically identify who may submit or recommend proposed amendments (i.e., individual faculty member, Faculty Senate, faculty committee/task force, Deans, Provost, President, etc.) and the steps that must be followed to develop, vet, and revise the proposed amendment. Further, such policies commonly outline the approval steps that must be followed. If the Deans, Provost, or President, proposes an amendment or recommends that a policy be developed by the faculty, I also recommend that the following Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities best practice be implemented: Boards and presidents should plan reasonable time for consultative and decision-making processes and establish deadlines for their conclusion with the clear understanding that failure to act in accordance with these deadlines will mean that the next highest level in the governance process will have to proceed with decision making. Even in the context of academic governance, a single individual or group should not be allowed to impede decisions through inaction. Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities Statement on Board Responsibility for Institutional Governance, January 2010. Model text can be provided upon request. Develop a Policy Addressing Administrators with Faculty Rank The Faculty Policies Handbook does not address administrators with faculty rank. Such a policy is typically published in the Definition of Faculty section of a faculty handbook and includes a clause addressing retreat rights to join the faculty following the successful completion of the administrative assignment. I recommended that a clause addressing this issue be developed by the Task Force. Develop a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Faculty Responsibility Policy I recommend that a clause be adopted for publication under the Faculty Responsibilities section of the handbook codifying that all faculty members are responsible for engaging in activities that enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) at the University. The text should align with the Contributions to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion clause developed by the ART Task Force (assuming the ART Task Force clause is adopted by the faculty and approved by the Board of Regents). Reference Background Screens, Credential Verification in the Appointment of Faculty Section Some schools will include clauses in the Appointment Policies section of a faculty handbook indicating that candidates must successfully complete a background screen and have their academic credentials verified before final appointment. The Department of Education also requires the University to provide a notice of the availability of the annual security report to those individuals it interviews if it solicits applications for a faculty position through an external advertisement. Develop a Terminal Contract Clause I advocate that the Task Force develop a policy statement addressing Terminal Contracts under the Types of Contract section. Terminal contracts are issued to probationary faculty who are not awarded tenure. Organizational Suggestions Finally, I believe the Task Force should consider moving the Appointment of Faculty section to a different location in the handbook. Faculty appointment policies are normally published earlier in a faculty handbook, following the definition of faculty and faculty contract sections. The Faculty Grievance Policy might also be better placed either under the Faculty Rights section or following the Faculty Separation section. Finally, to help better navigate the document and more easily reference policies, I propose that an automated numbering system be introduced to the handbook. P.O. Box 72 12 Island View Grantham, NH 03753 phone: 603.863.4704 fax: 603.863.0531 web: stevensstrategy.com</s>

<s>[INST] Board Talking Points.txt [/INST] Board Bylaw Changes Middle States Guidance Middle States Standard 4, which is reprinted below, addresses expectations regarding an accredited institution’s system of governance. Middle States Standard 4: Leadership and Governance: “The institution’s system of governance clearly defines the roles of institutional constituencies in policy development and decision-making. The governance structure includes an active governing body with sufficient autonomy to assure institutional integrity and to fulfill its responsibilities of policy and resource development, consistent with the mission of the institution.” The standard is more fully explained in Middle States’ written narrative describing the standard, as well as in the section entitled “Fundamental Elements of Leadership and Governance”, which is reprinted below. Fundamental Elements of Leadership and Governance: “An accredited institution is expected to possess or demonstrate the following attributes or activities: written governing documents, such as a constitution, by-laws, enabling legislation, charter or other similar documents, that: delineate the governance structure and provide for collegial governance, and the structure’s composition, duties and responsibilities. In proprietary, corporate and similar types of institutions, a separate document may establish the duties and responsibilities of the governing body as well as the selection process; assign authority and accountability for policy development and decision making, including a process for the involvement of appropriate institutional constituencies in policy development and decision making; provide for the selection process for governing body members.” As set forth above, Middle States expects an accredited institution to possess bylaws that delineate the board’s duties and responsibilities. The extent to which the Bylaws state specific duties and responsibilities admittedly varies amongst higher education institutions. Dr. Robert O’Neil’s comments in the 2012 AGB publication, “Updating Board Bylaws: A Guide for Colleges and Universities” highlights this disparity in practice amongst higher education institutions: “A higher education institution’s bylaws give formal shape to the board’s responsibilities as a governing body. Most bylaws give the board broadly specified powers to oversee and act on behalf of the institution, which allows the board to delegate responsibility as needed and provides flexibility in times of crisis. Because this simple language offers little guidance about the respective responsibilities of the board and administration, however, some bylaws might outline the powers of the board more specifically…. Occasionally, the bylaws outline specific responsibilities that reside with the board, thus enabling the board to understand its relationship with other governing authorities (such as the state, university system, or state higher education agency) and/or with the administration (most notably the president and occasionally the faculty).” We believe the better practice is for the bylaws to state the board’s powers in broad terms, but also list specific essential reserved powers so as to provide increased clarity and transparency. Hence, we have provided suggested text in Article V of the Bylaws that delineates specific governing board duties referenced by Middle States in its written narrative describing Standard 4. Faculty Handbook Middle States Guidance: As noted earlier, Middle States Standard 4 specifically addresses the Board’s role in overseeing personnel policy. In its written narrative describing the requirements of the standard, Middle States’ notes that it is often the role of the governing body to “establish personnel policies and procedures (including salary schedules.)” AGB Guidance: The Association of Governing Boards also offers guidance with respect to the Board’s role in setting policy. “In the simplest terms, policy setting is the responsibility of the board, and administration is the business of the chief executive, whether he or she is called president or chancellor.” “Typical examples of areas in which boards set policies include mission, degree requirements, tuition, affirmative action, executive compensation, conflict of interest, personnel matters, investment and budget guidelines, and descriptions of how the board will manage its own affairs. Trustees are responsible for developing policy (often—and appropriately—at the initiative of administrators) and approving or adopting policies developed by administrators.” Source: Policy Making and Administrative Oversight, AGB Board Basics Series: The Fundamentals, Terrence J. MacTaggart AAUP Guidance: The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), in its Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, also recognizes the governing board’s role in policy approval. “One of the governing board’s important tasks is to ensure the publication of codified statements that define the overall policies and procedures of the institution under its jurisdiction. The board plays a central role in relating the likely needs of the future to predictable resources; it has the responsibility for husbanding the endowment; it is responsible for obtaining needed capital and operating funds; and in the broadest sense of the term it should pay attention to personnel policy.” With respect to policy specifically addressing faculty status and related matters, such as those policies set forth in the Faculty Handbook, the AAUP statement reads: “Faculty status and related matters are primarily a faculty responsibility; this area includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal. The primary responsibility of the faculty for such matters is based upon the fact that its judgment is central to general educational policy. Furthermore, scholars in a particular field or activity have the chief competence for judging the work of their colleagues; in such competence it is implicit that responsibility exists for both adverse and favorable judgments. Likewise, there is the more general competence of experienced faculty personnel committees having a broader charge. Determinations in these matters should first be by faculty action through established procedures, reviewed by the chief academic officers with the concurrence of the board. The governing board and president should, on questions of faculty status, as in other matters where the faculty has primary responsibility, concur with the faculty judgment except in rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail.” Finally, it is also important to note that the Gwyendd-Mercy governing board has traditionally approved the Faculty Handbook in the past. The 2011 version of the Faculty Handbook provided to Stevens Strategy at the onset of our engagement reflects that either Board or the Academic Affairs Committee has approved prior iterations of the document in 1988, 1998, and 2006. We would advocate that the Board not abdicate this past practice for all of the reasons delineated above.</s>

<s>[INST] Bob Jones University IWPM Proposal.txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] Boyer Scholarship Model.txt [/INST] All faculty members should be productive scholars, for scholarship is an intrinsic element of academic life at the University. Scholarship involves on-going learning within one’s field of study, the creation of new knowledge and expressions of those new skills and knowledge, and active commitment to and participation in one’s affiliated profession. To acknowledge that scholarly productivity is an essential component of a faculty member’s duties is not to diminish the importance of excellent teaching, but rather to ensure that teaching is able to draw upon the intellectual richness that typically characterizes a community of scholars. Scholarship encompasses five basic types of scholarship as follows: Scholarship of Discovery (Traditional Disciplinary Research): The Scholarship of Discovery involves rigorous investigation aimed at the discovery of new knowledge within a focused area of expertise, in its broadest sense. It includes, but is not limited to, what is sometimes referred to as basic or original research. Such scholarship includes recognition of the faculty member by peers as an independent, original, and substantive researcher who contributes to the field, as evidenced by: Publication of original research in rigorously refereed major journals; A record of externally-funded research awarded through peer review; National or international prizes or awards; Invitation to hold lectureships; Invited lectures, particularly at major professional meetings; Documented testimonials of research excellence; Postings to peer-reviewed, professionally affiliated websites and electronic databases; The creation of peer-reviewed, research-oriented websites; Evidence of seminal work. Scholarship of Integration: The Scholarship of Integration emphasizes fitting one’s own research -- or the research of others -- into larger intellectual patterns. Such scholarship makes meaningful connections between previously unrelated topics, facts, or observations, such as cross-disciplinary synthesis or an integrative framework within a discipline that results in a publication or presentation in a suitable forum. Examples of such endeavors include: Authoring or co-authoring publications in peer reviewed journals; Serving as a principal investigator of externally-funded research; Presentations at professional meetings with refereed publication in the proceedings, where the participants are from outside the faculty member’s discipline and the forum is outside of the faculty member’s discipline; The publication of peer-reviewed works of synthesis conveying or summarizing knowledge for specialists outside of the faculty member’s discipline; Conference participation as a panelist, discussant, or session chair where the forum is outside of the faculty member’s discipline; Participation as a panelist or speaker in campus colloquia and open seminars; Service as a referee for articles, extended reviews, editorial boards; Professional awards and recognition for such efforts. Scholarship of Application: The Scholarship of Application encompasses scholarly activities that seek to relate the knowledge in one’s field to the affairs of society. Such scholarship includes the acquisition of knowledge through practice and the responsible application of knowledge to the solution of practical problems. The scholarship of application can be measured by impact on the discipline and/or community, the scope of the project, the originality of design and methodology, the extent to which results can be generalized, the connection to industry, visibility gained for the researcher and the University through the dissemination process, the significance of the work to the discipline, and the peer review processes. Examples of such scholarship include: Publications or juried presentations that focus on applications or practical problems in the field; The development of new inventions, products, processes, or significant software; Activities to acquire or maintain certification/licensure for disciplinary specialties as outlined by the respective professional organization; The provision of peer-reviewed technical assistance to outside constituencies; Giving workshops to train other faculty members in a certain method or approach; The award of external funding, including successful grant applications for projects that focus on application problems; Professional awards and recognition for such efforts. Scholarship of Teaching: The Scholarship of Teaching encompasses scholarly activities that focus on transforming and extending knowledge about pedagogy. The scholarship of teaching is not equivalent to teaching. Conversely, classroom teaching and remaining current in the discipline are not relevant criteria for evaluating teaching scholarship. Examples of such scholarship include: Peer-reviewed publications, presentations at professional conferences, or being a speaker at an invited talk related to pedagogy in one’s area; Authoring textbooks; Participation in formal course work beyond the doctorate or terminal degree, special courses, and/or workshops to improve upon or acquire professional competencies in content-pedagogy, including emerging technologies; Writing extended reviews of recent books and/or articles in the content-pedagogy of the faculty member’s discipline, either for peer-reviewed publication or internal review as tangible evidence of remaining abreast of the successful instructional strategies of one's discipline; The creation and implementation of an innovative, original course with content-specific goals and a method for external assessment which is publicly documented; Professional awards and recognition for such efforts. Scholarship of Artistic Endeavor: The Scholarship of Artistic Endeavor encompasses scholarly activities which are directly related to the creative process, especially in the fine or applied arts. Such scholarship may seek to bring about new artistic creations or to present existing works. Examples of such scholarship include: Stage presentations (both drama and music); Exhibitions; New editions of music or visual art; Musical performances; Art exhibits; The creation of new art forms or new techniques within an art form. Assessment of Scholarship The evaluation of scholarship includes, but is not necessarily limited to, whether the work is well expressed, innovative, comprehensive, and visible, and whether it has been favorably reviewed by, and has influenced others according to the following criteria: Well Expressed: Scholarship is well expressed if it effectively communicates the content of the work. At a minimum, the work must be appropriately organized and presented through a suitable medium. The clarity of the work is typically an important consideration. Innovative: Scholarship is innovative if it is original in a meaningful sense. The originality of the work may relate to the content of the work, its mode of dissemination, its source, and perhaps to other matters as well. For instance, a written work may be innovative if it addresses a previously uncharted topic or brings a new perspective to bear upon previously identified ideas or issues; because it carries a message to a new audience or employs a new medium; or because it requires scholars to extend a personal range of scholarly competence. Comprehensive: Scholarship is comprehensive if its presentation reflects a broad appreciation of existing information, relevant issues, and possible alternatives. Whether the scholar has placed a work into context is a significant consideration. Another important factor is whether the work has an appropriate degree of complexity in light of applicable limitations, such as those relating to space, time, or resources. The comprehensiveness of the work is enhanced to the degree that the work is interdisciplinary. Visible: Scholarship is visible if it is communicated to an audience in a manner that is likely to enhance the reputation of the individual scholar and the University. The size and nature of the audience reached by the work is relevant to this determination. In addition, in the case of written works, consideration should be given to the prestige of the publisher and the prominence given to the work. Similar considerations apply to the appraisal of non-written works. For instance, in the case of artistic endeavors, the prestige of a museum or concert hall and the prominence given to the work is relevant to this determination. Reviewed: Scholarship is reviewed when it is subject to scrutiny by others. Review of a work may occur at several stages: (i) pre-dissemination; (ii) during the dissemination process; and (iii) post-dissemination. Prior to dissemination, drafts and other tentative forms of a work may be evaluated by peers or others within or outside the University for the purpose of soliciting guidance. During the dissemination process, potential publishers and others may evaluate the merits of a work with a view toward determining whether it deserves a forum. After dissemination, the work may be the subject of reviews, which evaluate the final product of the scholarship. Influential: Scholarship is influential if it affects the conduct or work of others. For instance, there is evidence that a work is influential if a book is adopted for use in others’ classrooms or a visual art is displayed in a museum.</s>

<s>[INST] Bylaw Template.txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] Bylaws Memo Final Draft.txt [/INST] Colleagues, This memorandum sets forth the reasons why the Working Group believes it critical to update current Faculty Legislation at this moment and highlights select sections within the Faculty Bylaws that serve to protect faculty interests and the College as a whole. For transparency, we have also identified policies in current Legislation that are not included in the Faculty Bylaws. We encourage our colleagues to carefully review this latest iteration of the Faculty Bylaws, which have been revised based on feedback provided during the various open meetings held earlier this month and entries to the Question/Feedback Form. All newly introduced changes to the Bylaws are highlighted in blue text for ease of reference and are often accompanied by a “Final Draft” comment note explaining the rationale for the change. Also, please note that the Working Group has provided responses to colleague comments in the Question/Feedback Form. Why Update Legislation Documentation of Accreditation Compliance Wheaton's Five-Year Interim Report is due to NECHE in early Spring 2024. Below, we list those Articles and/or sections within the proposed Faculty Bylaws that, if adopted, may be cited in the Five-Year Interim Report to demonstrate compliance with applicable accreditation standards. Article II, Section 1: Faculty Status-Types of Appointments This section of Article II is new and was drafted to formally define and codify the various types of faculty appointments in place at Wheaton, including but not limited to the newly approved Professors of Practice-line and Visiting Faculty categories. Per NECHE Standard 6.1, the college is expected to clearly define all faculty categories, including the role of each category in fulfilling the college’s mission. Current Legislation does not include any references to either of the new faculty categories, nor does it address Administrative Faculty or Emeriti Faculty status. Note: Both the Professors of Practice-line and Visiting Faculty categories have replaced the Associate and Non-Tenure Track Continuing Faculty sections of the current Legislation document. Article III – Faculty Rights and Standards of Professional Conduct Per NECHE Standard 6.9, the College is expected to have in place a “statement of expectations and processes to ensure that faculty act responsibly and ethically, observe the established conditions of their employment, and otherwise function in a manner consistent with the mission and purposes of the institution.” Article III was developed by the Working Group to address this standard. If adopted, this Article, as well as relevant policies in the Wheaton College Employee Handbook for Faculty, may be cited in the college’s Interim Report as evidence of compliance with NECHE Standard 6.9. Article IV, Section 1 – Duties and Responsibilities of the Full-time Teaching Faculty NECHE Standard 6.8 requires the College, in either a handbook or other written documents, to define “the responsibilities of faculty and other members of the instructional team; the criteria for their recruitment, appointment, retention, evaluation, promotion, and, if applicable, tenure; and policies for resolving grievances.” Article IV, Section 1 has been developed by the Working Group to address the first element of the standard (i.e., the responsibilities of faculty). In addition to Article IV, Section 1, the following sections and/or policies in the proposed Faculty Bylaws may be cited to further demonstrating compliance with Standard 6.8. These include, but are not limited to: Article IV, Section 2.1 – Evaluation Criteria (New Section) Article IV, Section 2.1.2 – Academic Unit Evaluation Criteria (New Section) Article IV, Section 2.2 – Evaluation of Tenure Track Faculty for Reappointment (Amended to Include Detailed Evaluation Criterion and Align with YESE Form) Article IV, Section 2.3 – Annual Evaluation of Professor of the Practice-line Faculty for Reappointment (New Section) Article IV, Section 3.1.1 – Criteria for Promotion in Academic Rank (Amended to Provide More Detailed Criteria for Promotion to Full Professor) Article IV, Section 4.2 – Criteria for the Awarding of Tenure (Amended to Provide More Detailed Criteria for Awarding Tenure) Article IV, Section 1.2 – Scholarly or Creative Activity Per NECHE Standard 6.11, the College is expected to “clearly define the scholarly expectations for faculty in a manner consistent with its mission and purposes and the level of degrees offered.” The standard further requires that faculty, through their scholarly pursuits, “be current in the theory, knowledge, skills, and pedagogy of their discipline or profession.” Per the standard, scholarship and instruction are mutually supportive. Based on the above standard, the Working Group developed the text in Article IV, Section 1.2 addressing the responsibility of full-time teaching faculty to engage in scholarly and creative work activities. While scholarly and creative activity is addressed in current Legislation as part of the criterion for promotion and tenure, the Working Group believes that this section more clearly articulates faculty responsibilities in this area. See also the detailed evaluation criteria in Article IV, Subsection 2.1.1.2, which may similarly be cited in the Interim Report as evidence of compliance with the standard. Article IV, Sections 2, 3, and 4 Per NECHE Standard 6.10, the College is expected to “employ effective procedures for the regular evaluation of appointments, performance and retention.” The standard further states that evaluative criteria should “reflect the mission and purposes of the institution and the importance it attaches to the various responsibilities of, e.g., teaching, advising, assessment, scholarship, creative activities, research, and professional and community service.” Expectations in these areas should be “stated clearly and weighted appropriately.” Based on this standard, and in keeping with best practice, the Working Group has developed general evaluation criteria for each category of performance, as well as adopted text permitting academic units to develop discipline-specific criteria (see Article IV, Section 2.1.2). Clearly documented evaluation criteria, in the Working Group’s view, will allows for greater transparency, clarity, and consistency of application. In addition to the above, the Working Group has developed more fully defined criteria for the awarding of tenure (see Article IV, Section 4.2) and promotion to full Professor (see Article IV, Section 3.1.1). We have also more fully defined criteria for reappointment (see Article IV, Sections 2.2 and 2.3). It is also important to note that DEI literature advocates for transparency and clarity with respect to faculty evaluations, including clearly defined evaluation criteria. See the following white papers for further information: https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Equity-Minded-Faculty-Evaluation-Reform.pdf https://www.luminafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/equity-minded-faculty-evaluation-principles.pdf Protect All of Wheaton's Faculty Current Legislation does not include and thus does not protect several important categories of faculty positions at Wheaton: e.g., faculty who hold joint appointments, Professor of the Practice-line faculty, faculty who support programs that do not have department status. They are scholars, scientists, artists, and practitioners who deliver crucial aspects of the Wheaton curriculum. Below we list several areas within the proposed Faculty Bylaws that serve to protect Professor of the Practice-line faculty, as well as faculty who hold joint appointments and who support programs that do not have department status. Article I, Section 4.1 – Academic Departments and Programs: Defines academic department and programs and addresses joint appointments and faculty members who hold appointments in a non-departmental academic program. Article II, Section 1.1.2 - Professor of the Practice-line Faculty: Defines the Professor of the Practice-line faculty and references associated duties, rights, and protections. Article II, Section 1.5 – Academic Ranks and Titles: Defines that various academic ranks and titles and associated qualifications of all full-time teaching faculty, including but not limited to Professors of the Practice-line faculty. Article II, Section 2.2.1(2) - Duration of Appointment: Paragraph 2 delineates the duration of contracts issued to Professors of the Practice-line faculty. Article II, Section 2.5 - Joint Appointments: Addresses joint appointments at the college. It contemplates the identification of a home department or program, as well as the use of MOU’s to clarify assignment of duties, the allocation of salary, departmental/program governance rights, and provision for office and laboratory space as applicable to both the primary and secondary department/program. Article IV, Section 2.3 – Annual Evaluation of Professor of the Practice-line Faculty for Reappointment: Sets forth detailed procedures and criteria for the annual evaluation of Professor of the Practice-line faculty members. Article IV, Section 3.2 – Promotion to Senior Professor of the Practice: Sets forth detailed procedures and criteria for promotion to Senior Professor of the Practice. Article IV, Section 5.2 – Full-Time Teaching Faculty Professional Development Funds: Codifies current college policy of providing annual professional developments funds to all full-time teaching faculty, including Professor of the Practice-line faculty. In addition to the above, it is important to note that several other new policies and/or amendments to current Legislation have been introduced in the Faculty Bylaws to protect all full-time teaching faculty members. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: Article II, Section 2 – Faculty Contracts (New Section) Article IV, Section 5.2 – Full-Time Teaching Faculty Professional Development Funds (New Policy) Article IV, Section 7 – Disciplinary Action Short of Suspension or Dismissal (New Policy) Article IV, Section 8.2.1 – Dismissal for Adequate Cause (Amended to More Fully Define Adequate Cause and Introduce Additional Best Practices) Article IV, Section 8.2.3 – Termination of Appointment Due to Program Discontinuation (Amended to More Fully Define Educational Consideration and to More Fully Define Role of the Joint Committee) Article IV, Section 9.4 – Faculty Grievances: Cases in Which Improper Procedure or Inadequate Consideration is Alleged (Amended to Define Prejudicial Error and Inadequate Consideration) Article VI – Amendments to Faculty Bylaws (New Policy Developed to Provide Clarity Re: How Bylaws Will Be Updated) Removal of Gender Pronouns and Updating of Titles The Working Group has updated current Legislation text to remove reference to all gender pronouns. It has also updated outdated administrative titles and offices. Current Legislation Not Included in Bylaws For transparency, we list below current Legislation that is not included in the Faculty Bylaws: Article I.O - Associate Faculty: The Associate Faculty and Non-Tenure Track Continuing Faculty designations are being replaced going forward with the Professor of Practice-line and Visiting Faculty categories. Text defining these new categories has been developed by the Working Group in accordance with the Full-time Faculty Contract Proposal and PoP Framework documents provided to the group by the Provost’s Office. Given the College’s anticipated adoption of the new Professor of Practice-line and Visiting Faculty categories, the Working Group has not reprinted the Associate and Non-Tenure Track Continuing Faculty legislation in the Faculty Bylaws. Article I.P - Non-Tenure Track Continuing Faculty: see comment above. Part Two - The Classroom: The Working Group recommends that the Faculty Bylaws be limited in scope to ‘faculty status’ matters, as well as other policies that address unique faculty rights or responsibilities. As such, the Working Group recommends that the academic policies in Part Two of our current Legislation either be solely reprinted in the academic catalog or as a stand-alone Academic Policy Manual, which houses not only academic policy, but also policies addressing academic program administration and research related policies (i.e., approval/modification of academic programs, assigning of courses, academic program review, IRB and animal research, research misconduct, conflicts of interest in federal sponsored research, etc.). Part Three - Honor Code and Judicial Procedures: The Working Group recommends that the Part Three of current Legislation not be reprinted in the Faculty Bylaws under the same reasoning as not reprinting the academic policies (i.e., not faculty status policy and the Judicial Code is published in other College policy documents). 1</s>

<s>[INST] Bylaws Memo.txt [/INST] Below is an executive summary of the final draft of the Faculty Bylaws. The Working Group has organized the summary as follows: Summary of New Policies: In this section of the summary, the Working Group lists new policies that were not addressed in our current Legislation. Current Legislation Not Included in Bylaws: In this section of the summary, the Working Group identifies current Legislation that was not incorporated into the Faculty Bylaws. Substantive Revisions to Current Legislation: In this section of the summary, the Working Group what it considers to be substantive revisions to current Legislation. The Working Group acknowledges that this listing is subjective and urges our colleagues to carefully read the entirety of the Bylaws so that independent judgements regarding substantive judgements may be made. Current Legislation “Migrated” to Other Articles/Sections of the Bylaws: In this section of the summary, the Working Group lists policies addressed in our current Legislation that have been moved to new locations within the Faculty Bylaws. Colleagues, This memorandum sets forth the reasons why the Working Group believes it critical to update current Faculty Legislation at this moment and highlights select sections within the Faculty Bylaws that serve to protect faculty interests and the College as a whole. For transparency, we have also identified policies in current Legislation that are not included in the Faculty Bylaws. We encourage our colleagues to carefully review this latest iteration of the Faculty Bylaws, which have been revised based on feedback provided during the various open meetings held earlier this month and comments entered in the Question/Feedback Form. All newly introduced changes to the Bylaws are highlighted in blue text for ease of reference and are often accompanied by a “7th Draft” comment note explaining the rationale for the change. Also, please note that the Working Group has provided responses to each comment submitted in the Question/Feedback Form. Why Update Legislation The Working Group believes that there are several reasons why updating Faculty Legislation is critical to the future of Wheaton College and serves to protect our colleagues. Documentation of Accreditation Compliance Wheaton's Five-Year Interim Report is due to NECHE in early Spring 2024. In documenting compliance within the Interim Report, it will be necessary to include Faculty Legislation citations to demonstrate compliance with several NECHE accreditation standards. Below, we list several Articles and/or sections within the proposed Faculty Bylaws that, if adopted, may be cited in the Five-Year Interim Report to demonstrate compliance with applicable accreditation standards. Article II, Section 1: Faculty Status-Types of Appointments This section of Article II is new and was drafted to formally define and codify the various types of faculty appointments in place at Wheaton, including but not limited to the newly approved Professors of Practice-line and Visiting Faculty categories. Current Legislation is silent regarding the PoP-line. Per NECHE Standard 6.1, the college is expected to clearly define all faculty categories, including the role of each category in fulfilling the college’s mission. Current Legislation does not include any references to either of the new faculty categories, not does it address Administrative Faculty or Emeriti Faculty status. Article II of Bylaws define all faculty categories and, if adopted, may be cited in to demonstrated compliance with NECHE Standard 6.1. Note: Both the Professors of Practice-line and Visiting Faculty categories have replaced the Associate and Non-Tenure Track Continuing Faculty sections of the current Legislation document. Article III – Faculty Rights and Standards of Professional Conduct Per NECHE Standard 6.9, the College is expected to have in place a “statement of expectations and processes to ensure that faculty act responsibly and ethically, observe the established conditions of their employment, and otherwise function in a manner consistent with the mission and purposes of the institution.” Article III has been developed by the Working Group to address this standard. If adopted, this Article, as well as the Wheaton College Employee Handbook for Faculty, may be cited in the Interim Report as evidence of compliance with NECHE Standard 6.9. Article IV, Section 1 – Duties and Responsibilities of the Full-time Teaching Faculty NECHE Standard 6.8 requires the College, in either a handbook or other written documents, to define “the responsibilities of faculty and other members of the instructional team; the criteria for their recruitment, appointment, retention, evaluation, promotion, and, if applicable, tenure; and policies for resolving grievances.” Article IV, Section 1 has been developed by the Working Group to address the first element of the standard (i.e., the responsibilities of faculty…). Other sections of the Bylaws, including those set forth in Article IV, should also be cited to demonstrate compliance with Standard 6.8. Article IV, Section 1.2 – Scholarly or Creative Activity Per NECHE Standard 6.11, the College is expected to “clearly define the scholarly expectations for faculty in a manner consistent with its mission and purposes and the level of degrees offered.” The standard further requires that faculty, through their scholarly pursuits, “be current in the theory, knowledge, skills, and pedagogy of their discipline or profession.” Per the standard, scholarship and instruction, per the standard, are mutually supportive. Based on the above standard, the Working Group developed affirmative text addressing the responsibility of full-time teaching faculty to engage in scholarly and creative work activities. While scholarly and creative activity is addressed in current Legislation a part of the criterion for promotion and tenure, the Working Group believes that this section more clearly articulates faculty responsibilities in this area. See also the detailed evaluation criteria in Article IV, Subsection 2.1.1.2, which may similarly be cited in the Interim Report as evidence of compliance with the standard. Article IV, Section 2.1 – Evaluation Criteria Per NECHE Standard 6.10, the College is expected to “employ effective procedures for the regular evaluation of appointments, performance and retention.” The standard further states that evaluative criteria should “reflect the mission and purposes of the institution and the importance it attaches to the various responsibilities of, e.g., teaching, advising, assessment, scholarship, creative activities, research, and professional and community service.” Expectations in these areas should be “stated clearly and weighted appropriately.” Based on this standard, and in keeping with best practice, the Working Group has developed general evaluation criteria for each category of performance. Moreover, as noted above, adoption of such criteria, will assist the College in documenting compliance with NECHE Standard 6.10. Current Legislation, as well as the current procedural guidelines for both promotion and tenure, do not formally define college-wide criteria for each category of performance. Clearly documented evaluation criteria, in the Working Group’s view, will allows for greater transparency, clarity, and consistency of application. It is also important to note that DEI literature advocates for transparency and clarity with respect to faculty evaluations. See the following white papers for further information: https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Equity-Minded-Faculty-Evaluation-Reform.pdf https://www.luminafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/equity-minded-faculty-evaluation-principles.pdf Protect all of Wheaton's Faculty Current Legislation does not include and thus does not protect several important categories of faculty positions at Wheaton: e.g., faculty who hold joint appointments, Professor of the Practice-line faculty, faculty who support programs that do not have department status. They are scholars, scientists, artists, and practitioners who deliver crucial aspects of the Wheaton curriculum. Below we list several areas within the proposed Faculty Bylaws that serve to protect faculty who hold joint appointments, Professor of the Practice-line faculty, and faculty who support programs that do not have department status. Article II, Section 1.1.2 - Professor of the Practice-line Faculty This section formally defines the Professor of the Practice-line Faculty and references associated duties, rights, and protections. Article II, Section 1.5 – Academic Ranks and Titles This section defines that various academic ranks and titles and associated qualifications that will be in use at the college going forward, including but not limited to Professors of the Practice and Senior Professors of the Practice. Article II, Section 2.2.1(2) - Duration of Appointment Paragraph 2 of this section delineates the duration of contracts Professors of the Practice-line faculty will receive during their employment relationship with the college. Article II, Section 2.5 - Joint Appointments This new policy addresses joint appointments at the college. It contemplates the identification of a home department or program, as well as the use of MOU’s to clarify assignment of duties, the allocation of salary, departmental/program governance rights, and provision for office and laboratory space as applicable to both the primary and secondary department/program. Article IV, Section 2.3 – Annual Evaluation of Professor of the Practice-line Faculty for Reappointment Section 2.3 sets forth detailed procedures and criteria for the annual evaluation of Professor of the Practice-line faculty members. Article IV, Section 3.2 – Promotion to Senior Professor of the Practice Section 2.3 sets forth detailed procedures and criteria for promotion to Senior Professor of the Practice. Article IV, Section 5.2 – Full-Time Teaching Faculty Professional Development Funds This new policy codifies current college policy of providing annual professional developments funds to all full-time teaching faculty, which includes Professor of the Practice-line faculty. In addition to the above, it is important to note that several new policies and/or amendments to current policy have been introduced to protect all full-time teaching faculty members. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: Article IV, Section 7 – Disciplinary Action Short of Suspension or Dismissal (New Policy) Current Legislation Not Included in Bylaws Article I.O - Associate Faculty: The Associate Faculty and Non-Tenure Track Continuing Faculty designations are being replaced going forward with the Professor of Practice-line and Visiting Faculty categories. Text defining these new categories has been developed by the Working Group in accordance with the Full-time Faculty Contract Proposal and PoP Framework documents provided to the group by the Provost’s Office. Given the College’s anticipated adoption of the new Professor of Practice-line and Visiting Faculty categories, the Working Group has not reprinted the Associate and Non-Tenure Track Continuing Faculty legislation in the Faculty Bylaws. Article I.P - Non-Tenure Track Continuing Faculty: see comment above. Part Two - The Classroom: The Working Group recommends that the Faculty Bylaws be limited in scope to ‘faculty status’ matters, as well as other policies that address unique faculty rights or responsibilities. As such, the Working Group recommends that the academic policies in Part Two of our current Legislation either be solely reprinted in the academic catalog or as a stand-alone Academic Policy Manual, which houses not only academic policy, but also policies addressing academic program administration and research related policies (i.e., approval/modification of academic programs, assigning of courses, academic program review, IRB and animal research, research misconduct, conflicts of interest in federal sponsored research, etc.). Part Three - Honor Code and Judicial Procedures: The Working Group recommends that the Part Three of current Legislation not be reprinted in the Faculty Bylaws under the same reasoning as not reprinting the academic policies (i.e., not faculty status policy and the Judicial Code is published in other College policy documents). 1</s>

<s>[INST] Cal Luth Faculty HB Task Force Proposal - Final.txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] Cal Luth P&T Revised Proposal - Final.txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] Cal Luth P&T Revised Proposal.txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] Calendar (5.11.22).txt [/INST] PROJECT CALENDAR Proposed Date Completion Date Phase I – Introduction, Identify Needs, and Document Collection Project Manager is appointed. April 15th Members appointed to the Review Team. Week of May 9 University posts all applicable internal faculty status-related documents (i.e., promotion and tenure guidelines, academic unit guidelines, etc.) and forms (e.g., evaluation forms), as well as a listing of peer schools. Week of May 9 May 3rd Consultant meets with Review Team on campus to provide overview of process, project goals, answer questions and gain an understanding of current handbook’s strengths and opportunities for development. Week of May 30th [Exact Day TBD] Phase II – Faculty Handbook Updating Consultant analyzes Faculty Handbook. During this time frame, the consultant may send questions to the Review Team regarding current University processes June 1 – July 15 Consultant meets with Review Team to solicit the team’s feedback on select topics. Week of July 18 [Exact Date TBD] Consultants deliver the first draft of the updated Faculty Handbook. August 17 Review Team members review first draft & prepares for the consultant-run facilitation meetings. August 17 – September 2 Consultant visits campus to facilitate the Review Team’s review of the 1st draft. Two full days will be required; however, these can be split up between two trips. Many clients prefer to schedule two half-day sessions over the course of two days for each trip. Some of these meetings can be held virtually if preferable. Time should be reserved at the end of the two-week window to hold a virtual meeting(s) in the event we do complete the review during the campus meetings. September 5 – September 16 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant implements Review Team’s requested revisions and delivers 2nd draft. October 3 Review Team members individually review the 2nd draft and prepare for the consultant-run facilitation meetings. October 3-7 Consultant facilitates Review Team’s review of 2nd draft via a series of 2-hour virtual meetings. October 10-11 – October 17 – 21 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant delivers 3rd draft to Review Team. November 7 Review Team and consultant meet virtually to approve/implement changes to handbook in anticipation of delivery of the 4th draft to selected faculty governance committees and President for comments. Week of November 14 [Exact Date(s) TBD] Consultant delivers 4th draft, which is distributed to selected faculty governance committees and President for comments. November 28 Faculty governance committees and President deliver their respective comments to the Review Team and consultant. December 16 Virtual meeting(s) is held with Review Team to review stakeholders’ comments. Week of January 9 Consultant delivers 5th Draft for Review Team’s final approval. January 19 Virtual meeting(s) held with Review Team to approve 5th draft. Week of January 23 [Exact Date(s) TBD] Consultant delivers 5th draft and executive summary of key changes to the Board of Trustees’ Faculty Handbook Task Force. January 30 Board Faculty Handbook Task Force delivers comments/requested changes to consultant. February 6 Consultant and Review Team meet virtually to discuss/implement any revisions requested by the Board Faculty Handbook Task Force. February 6 – 17 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant delivers final draft of the handbook, which is distributed to the Faculty at start of Phase III. February 17 Phase III – Approval Process Projected Date Completion Date Review Team approved draft is submitted to the Faculty. February 17 Review Team holds faculty forum(s) to review key changes to the handbook and answer questions. Consultant will attend forum upon client request. Week of March 6 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant facilitates virtual meeting(s) with Review Team to discuss any issues raised during faculty forum(s). Week of March 20 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant implements changes requested by the Review Team and delivers final version of the handbook. Following delivery, the handbook will be submitted to Project Manager for distribution to the Faculty. The faculty and administration will then work independently from Stevens Strategy towards obtaining Faculty, President, and ultimately Board approval. March 31 Page 4 Page 1</s>

<s>[INST] Calendar (5.16.22) REVISED.txt [/INST] PROJECT CALENDAR Proposed Date Completion Date Phase I – Introduction, Identify Needs, and Document Collection Project Manager is appointed. April 15th Members appointed to the Review Team. Week of May 9 University posts all applicable internal faculty status-related documents (i.e., promotion and tenure guidelines, academic unit guidelines, etc.) and forms (e.g., evaluation forms), as well as a listing of peer schools. Week of May 9 May 3rd Consultant meets with Review Team on campus to provide overview of process, project goals, answer questions and gain an understanding of current handbook’s strengths and opportunities for development. Week of May 30th [Exact Day TBD] Phase II – Faculty Handbook Updating Consultant analyzes Faculty Handbook. During this time frame, the consultant may send questions to the Review Team regarding current University processes. June 1 – July 15 Consultant meets with Review Team to solicit the team’s feedback on select topics. Week of July 18 [Exact Date TBD] Consultants deliver the first draft of the updated Faculty Handbook. August 17 Review Team members review first draft & prepares for the consultant-run facilitation meetings. August 17 – September 2 Consultant visits campus to facilitate the Review Team’s review of the 1st draft. Two full days will be required; however, these can be split up between two trips. Many clients prefer to schedule two half-day sessions over the course of two days for each trip. Some of these meetings can be held virtually if preferable. Time should be reserved at the end of the two-week window to hold a virtual meeting(s) in the event we do complete the review during the campus meetings. September 5 – September 16 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant implements Review Team’s requested revisions and delivers 2nd draft. October 3 Review Team members individually review the 2nd draft and prepare for the consultant-run facilitation meetings. October 3-7 Consultant facilitates Review Team’s review of 2nd draft via a series of 2-hour virtual meetings. October 10 - 11 – October 17 – 21 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant delivers 3rd draft to Review Team. November 7 Review Team and consultant meet virtually to approve/implement changes to handbook in anticipation of delivery of the 4th draft to selected faculty governance committees and President for comments. Week of November 14 [Exact Date(s) TBD] Consultant delivers 4th draft, which is distributed to selected faculty governance committees and President for comments. November 28 Faculty governance committees and President deliver their respective comments to the Review Team and consultant. December 16 Virtual meeting(s) is held with Review Team to review stakeholders’ comments. Week of January 9 Consultant delivers 5th Draft for Review Team’s final approval. January 19 Virtual meeting(s) held with Review Team to approve 5th draft. Week of January 23 [Exact Date(s) TBD] Consultant delivers 5th draft to legal counsel. January 30 Legal counsel delivers comments/requested changes to consultant. February 6 Consultant and Review Team meet virtually to discuss/implement any revisions requested by legal counsel. February 6 – 10 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant delivers legal counsel reviewed draft of the handbook and an executive summary to the Board of Trustees’ Faculty Handbook Task Force at start of Phase III. February 17 Phase III – Approval Process Projected Date Completion Date Board of Trustees’ Faculty Handbook Task Force submits comments to Consultant and Review Team. February 24 Final draft submitted to Faculty. March 3 Review Team holds faculty forum(s) to review key changes to the handbook and answer questions. Consultant will attend forum upon client request. Week of March 20 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant facilitates virtual meeting(s) with Review Team to discuss any issues raised during faculty forum(s). March 27 - 29 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant delivers final version of the handbook. Following delivery, the handbook will be submitted to Project Manager for distribution to the Faculty. The faculty and administration will then work independently from Stevens Strategy towards obtaining Faculty, President, and ultimately Board approval. April 3 Page 4 Page 1</s>

<s>[INST] Calendar (5.16.22).txt [/INST] PROJECT CALENDAR Proposed Date Completion Date Phase I – Introduction, Identify Needs, and Document Collection Project Manager is appointed. April 15th Members appointed to the Review Team. Week of May 9 University posts all applicable internal faculty status-related documents (i.e., promotion and tenure guidelines, academic unit guidelines, etc.) and forms (e.g., evaluation forms), as well as a listing of peer schools. Week of May 9 May 3rd Consultant meets with Review Team on campus to provide overview of process, project goals, answer questions and gain an understanding of current handbook’s strengths and opportunities for development. Week of May 30th [Exact Day TBD] Phase II – Faculty Handbook Updating Consultant analyzes Faculty Handbook. During this time frame, the consultant may send questions to the Review Team regarding current University processes. June 1 – July 15 Consultant meets with Review Team to solicit the team’s feedback on select topics. Week of July 18 [Exact Date TBD] Consultants deliver the first draft of the updated Faculty Handbook. August 17 Review Team members review first draft & prepares for the consultant-run facilitation meetings. August 17 – September 2 Consultant visits campus to facilitate the Review Team’s review of the 1st draft. Two full days will be required; however, these can be split up between two trips. Many clients prefer to schedule two half-day sessions over the course of two days for each trip. Some of these meetings can be held virtually if preferable. Time should be reserved at the end of the two-week window to hold a virtual meeting(s) in the event we do complete the review during the campus meetings. September 5 – September 16 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant implements Review Team’s requested revisions and delivers 2nd draft. October 3 Review Team members individually review the 2nd draft and prepare for the consultant-run facilitation meetings. October 3-7 Consultant facilitates Review Team’s review of 2nd draft via a series of 2-hour virtual meetings. October 10 - 11 – October 17 – 21 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant delivers 3rd draft to Review Team. November 7 Review Team and consultant meet virtually to approve/implement changes to handbook in anticipation of delivery of the 4th draft to selected faculty governance committees and President for comments. Week of November 14 [Exact Date(s) TBD] Consultant delivers 4th draft, which is distributed to selected faculty governance committees and President for comments. November 28 Faculty governance committees and President deliver their respective comments to the Review Team and consultant. December 16 Virtual meeting(s) is held with Review Team to review stakeholders’ comments. Week of January 9 Consultant delivers 5th Draft for Review Team’s final approval. January 19 Virtual meeting(s) held with Review Team to approve 5th draft. Week of January 23 [Exact Date(s) TBD] Consultant delivers 5th draft to legal counsel. January 30 Legal counsel delivers comments/requested changes to consultant. February 6 Consultant and Review Team meet virtually to discuss/implement any revisions requested by legal counsel. February 6 – 10 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant delivers legal counsel reviewed draft of the handbook and an executive summary to the Board of Trustees’ Faculty Handbook Task Force at start of Phase III. February 17 Phase III – Approval Process Projected Date Completion Date Board of Trustees’ Faculty Handbook Task Force submits comments to Consultant and Review Team. February 24 Final draft submitted to Faculty. March 3 Review Team holds faculty forum(s) to review key changes to the handbook and answer questions. Consultant will attend forum upon client request. Week of March 20 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant facilitates virtual meeting(s) with Review Team to discuss any issues raised during faculty forum(s). March 27 - 29 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant delivers final version of the handbook. Following delivery, the handbook will be submitted to Project Manager for distribution to the Faculty. The faculty and administration will then work independently from Stevens Strategy towards obtaining Faculty, President, and ultimately Board approval. April 3 Page 4 Page 1</s>

<s>[INST] Calendar (5.17.22).txt [/INST] PROJECT CALENDAR Proposed Date Completion Date Phase I – Introduction, Identify Needs, and Document Collection Project Manager is appointed. April 15th Members appointed to the Review Team. Week of May 9 University posts all applicable internal faculty status-related documents (i.e., promotion and tenure guidelines, academic unit guidelines, etc.) and forms (e.g., evaluation forms), as well as a listing of peer schools. Week of May 9 May 3rd Consultant meets with Review Team on campus to provide overview of process, project goals, answer questions and gain an understanding of current handbook’s strengths and opportunities for development. Week of May 30th [Exact Day TBD] Phase II – Faculty Handbook Updating Consultant analyzes Faculty Handbook. During this time frame, the consultant may send questions to the Review Team regarding current University processes. June 1 – July 15 Consultant meets with Review Team to solicit the team’s feedback on select topics. Week of July 18 [Exact Date TBD] Consultants deliver the first draft of the updated Faculty Handbook. August 17 Review Team members review first draft & prepares for the consultant-run facilitation meetings. August 17 – September 2 Consultant visits campus to facilitate the Review Team’s review of the 1st draft. Two full days will be required; however, these can be split up between two trips. Many clients prefer to schedule two half-day sessions over the course of two days for each trip. Some of these meetings can be held virtually if preferable. Time should be reserved at the end of the two-week window to hold a virtual meeting(s) in the event we do complete the review during the campus meetings. September 5 – September 16 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant implements Review Team’s requested revisions and delivers 2nd draft. October 10 Review Team members individually review the 2nd draft and prepare for the consultant-run facilitation meetings. October 10-17 Consultant facilitates Review Team’s review of 2nd draft via a series of 2-hour virtual meetings. October 17 – 28 [Exact Dates TBD] Consultant delivers 3rd draft to Review Team, faculty governance committees, and President for comments. November 7 Review Team, Faculty governance committees, and President deliver their respective comments to the Review Team and consultant. November 18 Virtual meeting(s) is held with Review Team to review stakeholders’ comments. November 21 & 22 & November 28 – December 2 Consultant implements Review Team’s requested changes and delivers 4th Draft to Legal Counsel. December 15 Legal counsel delivers comments/requested changes to Review Team and consultant. January 2 Consultant and Review Team meet to discuss/implement any revisions requested by legal counsel. Week of January 9 Consultant delivers 5th Draft. January 20 Virtual meeting(s) held with Review Team to approve 5th draft. January 23 - 25 Consultant delivers legal counsel reviewed draft of the handbook and an executive summary to the Board of Trustees’ Faculty Handbook Task Force at start of Phase III. January 30 Board Faculty Handbook Task Force delivers comments/requested changes to consultant and Review Team. February 6 Consultant and Review Team meet virtually to discuss/implement any revisions requested by the Board Faculty Handbook Task Force. February 6-10 Consultant delivers final draft of the handbook, which is distributed to Faculty at start of Phase III. February 17 Phase III – Approval Process Projected Date Completion Date Review Team approved draft is submitted to the Faculty. February 17 Review Team holds faculty forum(s) to review key changes to the handbook and answer questions. Consultant will attend forum upon client request. Week of March 6 Consultant facilitates virtual meeting(s) with Review Team to discuss any issues raised during faculty forum(s). Week of March 20 Consultant delivers final version of the handbook. Following delivery, the handbook will be submitted to Project Manager for distribution to the Faculty. The faculty and administration will then work independently from Stevens Strategy towards obtaining Faculty, President, and ultimately Board approval. March 31 Page 4 Page 1</s>

<s>[INST] Calendar (Proposed Revision)(12.21) .txt [/INST] PROJECT CALENDAR Proposed Date Completion Date Draft 4 is submitted to Working Group, Stakeholder Group, and President. January 16 Stakeholder Group and President delivers comments to the Working Group. February 3 Virtual meetings with the Working Group (and President if she wishes to attend) to discuss and address Stakeholder Group’s comments. February 6-17 Consultant implements requested changes and delivers Draft 5 of the Bylaws to Working Group, Stakeholder Group, and President. February 24 Working Group, Stakeholder Group, and President provide any final requested changes to consultant. March 10 Consultant delivers final drafts (one marked and one “clean”) to Working Group for distribution to Faculty. March 17 Phase III – Approval Process Projected Date Completion Date Final Draft distributed to Faculty by Working Group and President. March 17 Faculty forums held to answer any questions regarding the updated Faculty Bylaws document. Note: Per our contract, the engagement ends at this step. If the College requires our assistance in implementing changes to the Bylaws based on feedback received during the Forum meetings, we can enter into an hourly contract agreement. April 3-7 Working Group, in consultation with the Provost and President, implements changes to address feedback received during the Forum meetings and distributed final version to Faculty in advance of the May 5th faculty meeting. April 17 Faculty vote on Bylaws. May 5th Page 1 Page 2</s>

<s>[INST] Calendar (Propsoed Revision)(12.21) .txt [/INST] PROJECT CALENDAR Proposed Date Completion Date Draft 4 is submitted to Working Group, Stakeholder Group, and President. January 13 Stakeholder Group and President delivers comments to the Working Group. February 3 Virtual meetings with the Working Group (and President if she wishes to attend) to discuss and address Stakeholder Group’s comments. February 6-17 Consultant implements requested changes and delivers Draft 5 of the Bylaws to Working Group, Stakeholder Group, and President. February 24 Working Group, Stakeholder Group, and President provide any final requested changes to consultant. March 10 Consultant delivers final drafts (one marked and one “clean”) to Working Group for distribution to Faculty. March 17 Phase III – Approval Process Projected Date Completion Date Final Draft distributed to Faculty by Working Group and President. March 17 Faculty forums held to answer any questions regarding the updated Faculty Bylaws document. Note: Per our contract, the engagement ends at this step. If the College requires our assistance in implementing changes to the Bylaws based on feedback received during the Forum meetings, we can enter into an hourly contract agreement. April 3-7 Working Group, in consultation with the Provost and President, implements changes to address feedback received during the Forum meetings and distributed final version to Faculty in advance of the May 5th faculty meeting. April 17 Faculty vote on Bylaws. May 5th Page 1 Page 2</s>

<s>[INST] Calendar (Revised) .txt [/INST] PROJECT CALENDAR Proposed Date Completion Date Phase I – Introduction, Identify Needs, and Document Collection Project Manager is appointed. March 10 Members appointed to the Working Group. Week of May 2nd May 20 University posts all applicable internal faculty status-related documents (i.e., promotion and tenure guidelines, academic unit guidelines, etc.) and forms (e.g., evaluation forms), as well as a listing of peer schools. Week of May 2nd April 20 Consultant meets with Working Group to provide overview of process, project goals, answer question, gain an understanding of current Faculty Legislation document’s strengths and opportunities for development. Week of May 9 [Exact Date TBD] May 25 Consultant presents overview of process at Faculty Meeting. May 19 May 19 Phase II – Faculty Handbook Preparation Consultant delivers first draft of updated Faculty Handbook. June 20 June 20 Working Group members review first draft & prepares for the consultant-run facilitation meetings. June 20 – June 27 June 20 – June 27 Consultant facilitates the Working Group’s review of the 1st draft. These meetings should be scheduled in two-to-three-hour increments and will take roughly 18 to 24 hours to complete. We will have a better sense of this after delivery of the first draft. June 27 – July 1 July 18 – 22 August 22 & 26 June 29, 30, 15, 19, 20, 26; August 22 & 26 Consultant implements Working Group’s requested revisions and delivers 2nd draft. September 9 Working Group members individually review the 2nd draft and prepare for the consultant-run facilitation meetings. September 12 - 25 Consultant facilitates Working Group’s review of 2nd draft via campus visit and virtual meetings. September 26 & 27 October 3 – 7 (Virtual) Consultant delivers 3rd draft to Working Group. October 21 Consultant facilitates Working Group’s review of 3rd draft via a series of 2-hour virtual meetings. November 7 - 18 Draft 4 is submitted to Stakeholder Group. December 5 Stakeholder Group submits comments and suggested revisions to Working Group. December 16 Working Group and consultant meet virtually to discuss and address President’s comments. If the Working Group disagrees with a revisions requested by the President, consultant will facilitate dialogue between parties. January 16 - 20 Phase III – Approval Process Projected Date Completion Date Draft 5 is submitted to the President. December 5 President submits comments and suggested revisions to Working Group. December 16 Working Group and consultant meet virtually to discuss and address President’s comments. If the Working Group disagrees with a revisions requested by the President, consultant will facilitate dialogue between parties. January 16 - 20 Consultant implements changes requested by the Working Group and delivers final version of the handbook, which is distributed to the Faculty. February 3rd The consultant will, upon the College’s request, virtually attend a Faculty forums or meetings to answer any questions regarding the updated Faculty Bylaws document. Late March Page 1 Page 2</s>

<s>[INST] Calendar (Revised-Final) .txt [/INST] PROJECT CALENDAR Proposed Date Completion Date Phase I – Introduction, Identify Needs, and Document Collection Project Manager is appointed. March 10 Members appointed to the Working Group. Week of May 2nd May 20 University posts all applicable internal faculty status-related documents (i.e., promotion and tenure guidelines, academic unit guidelines, etc.) and forms (e.g., evaluation forms), as well as a listing of peer schools. Week of May 2nd April 20 Consultant meets with Working Group to provide overview of process, project goals, answer question, gain an understanding of current Faculty Legislation document’s strengths and opportunities for development. Week of May 9 [Exact Date TBD] May 25 Consultant presents overview of process at Faculty Meeting. May 19 May 19 Phase II – Faculty Handbook Preparation Consultant delivers first draft of updated Faculty Handbook. June 20 June 20 Working Group members review first draft & prepares for the consultant-run facilitation meetings. June 20 – June 27 June 20 – June 27 Consultant facilitates the Working Group’s review of the 1st draft. These meetings should be scheduled in two-to-three-hour increments and will take roughly 18 to 24 hours to complete. We will have a better sense of this after delivery of the first draft. June 27 – July 1 July 18 – 22 August 22 & 26 June 29, 30, 15, 19, 20, 26; August 22 & 26 Consultant implements Working Group’s requested revisions and delivers 2nd draft. September 9 September 9 Working Group members individually review the 2nd draft and prepare for the consultant-run facilitation meetings. September 12 - 25 Consultant facilitates Working Group’s review of 2nd draft via virtual meetings. September 26 & 27 October 3 – 7 (Virtual) Consultant delivers 3rd draft to the Working Group and President. October 21 President delivers 3rd draft comments to Working Group. October 28 Consultant facilitates the Working Group’s review of 3rd draft via a series of 2-hour virtual meetings. November 7 - 18 Draft 4 is submitted to Working Group and Stakeholder Group. December 5 Stakeholder Group delivers comments to the Working Group and President. January 13 Virtual meetings with the Working Group (and President if she wishes to attend) to discuss and address Stakeholder Group’s comments. January 16 - 20 Consultant implements requested changes and delivers Draft 5 of the Bylaws to Working Group, Stakeholder Group, and President. January 27 Working Group, Stakeholder Group, and President provide any final requested changes to consultant. February 3rd Consultant delivers final drafts (one marked and one “clean”) to Working Group for distribution to Faculty. February 13 Phase III – Approval Process Projected Date Completion Date Final Draft distributed to Faculty by Working Group and President. February 13 Faculty forums held to answer any questions regarding the updated Faculty Bylaws document. Note: Per our contract, the engagement ends at this step. If the College requires our assistance in implementing changes to the Bylaws based on feedback received during the Forum meetings, we can enter into an hourly contract agreement. Week of March 6th Working Group, in consultation with the Provost and President, implements changes to address feedback received during the Forum meetings and distributed final version to Faculty in advance of the April 7th faculty meeting. March 27 Faculty vote on Bylaws. April 7th Page 1 Page 2</s>

<s>[INST] Calendar (Revised-Final)(9.26) .txt [/INST] PROJECT CALENDAR Proposed Date Completion Date Phase I – Introduction, Identify Needs, and Document Collection Project Manager is appointed. March 10 Members appointed to the Working Group. Week of May 2nd May 20 University posts all applicable internal faculty status-related documents (i.e., promotion and tenure guidelines, academic unit guidelines, etc.) and forms (e.g., evaluation forms), as well as a listing of peer schools. Week of May 2nd April 20 Consultant meets with Working Group to provide overview of process, project goals, answer question, gain an understanding of current Faculty Legislation document’s strengths and opportunities for development. Week of May 9 [Exact Date TBD] May 25 Consultant presents overview of process at Faculty Meeting. May 19 May 19 Phase II – Faculty Handbook Preparation Consultant delivers first draft of updated Faculty Handbook. June 20 June 20 Working Group members review first draft & prepares for the consultant-run facilitation meetings. June 20 – June 27 June 20 – June 27 Consultant facilitates the Working Group’s review of the 1st draft. These meetings should be scheduled in two-to-three-hour increments and will take roughly 18 to 24 hours to complete. We will have a better sense of this after delivery of the first draft. June 27 – July 1 July 18 – 22 August 22 & 26 June 29, 30, 15, 19, 20, 26; August 22 & 26 Consultant implements Working Group’s requested revisions and delivers 2nd draft. September 9 September 9 Working Group members individually review the 2nd draft and prepare for the consultant-run facilitation meetings. September 12 - 25 Consultant facilitates Working Group’s review of 2nd draft via virtual meetings. September 26 & 27 October 3 – 7 (Virtual) Consultant delivers 3rd draft to the Working Group and President. October 21 President delivers 3rd draft comments to Working Group. October 28 Consultant facilitates the Working Group’s review of 3rd draft via a series of 2-hour virtual meetings. November 7 - 18 Draft 4 is submitted to Working Group and Stakeholder Group. November 28 Stakeholder Group delivers comments to the Working Group and President. January 13 Virtual meetings with the Working Group (and President if she wishes to attend) to discuss and address Stakeholder Group’s comments. January 16 - 20 Consultant implements requested changes and delivers Draft 5 of the Bylaws to Working Group, Stakeholder Group, and President. January 27 Working Group, Stakeholder Group, and President provide any final requested changes to consultant. February 3rd Consultant delivers final drafts (one marked and one “clean”) to Working Group for distribution to Faculty. February 13 Phase III – Approval Process Projected Date Completion Date Final Draft distributed to Faculty by Working Group and President. February 13 Faculty forums held to answer any questions regarding the updated Faculty Bylaws document. Note: Per our contract, the engagement ends at this step. If the College requires our assistance in implementing changes to the Bylaws based on feedback received during the Forum meetings, we can enter into an hourly contract agreement. Week of March 6th Working Group, in consultation with the Provost and President, implements changes to address feedback received during the Forum meetings and distributed final version to Faculty in advance of the April 7th faculty meeting. March 27 Faculty vote on Bylaws. April 7th Page 1 Page 2</s>

<s>[INST] CAMPUS COMMUNITY DEFINITIONS.txt [/INST] CAMPUS COMMUNITY DEFINITIONS A Aid Animals: include Service and Emotional Support Animals. Accessible: means that individuals with disabilities are able to independently acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services within the same timeframe as individuals without disabilities, with substantially equivalent ease and effectiveness of use. Alcohol or Alcoholic Beverage: any liquid suitable for drinking by human beings, except prescription drugs or over-the-counter medications, which contains one-half of one percent or more of alcohol by volume. Artistic Expression: includes but is not limited to the fine arts, the performing arts, the graphic arts or less traditional forms of creative expression, i.e., electronic, computer, etc. Audit Event: any observable occurrence within an applicable information system that is significant and relevant to the security of the system and the environment in which it operates in order to meet specific and ongoing audit needs. Audit events include any auditable event required by applicable local, state, and federal laws. Audit events can include, for example, password changes, failed logons, or failed accesses related to information systems, etc. Authorized Users: individuals, including, but not limited to, employees, temporary employees, faculty, students, alumni, trustees, campus visitors, contractors, vendors, consultants and their related personnel authorized by the College to access College Computing Equipment or Information Systems that collect, process, maintain, use, share, disseminate or dispose of College Data. B Baseless Claim: an allegation made with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Bookmaking Activities: accepting the bets of others on the outcome of sports or other contests. C Campus Security Authority: College employees that have significant responsibility for student and campus activities, and as such are trained by the College to report certain crimes occurring on campus or at College sanctioned events to the Department of Public Safety for inclusion in the College’s Annual Security and Fire Report. Cardholder Data: any personal information of the cardholder. This could be an account number, expiration date, name, address, telephone number, social security number, card validation code (CVC), or any other cardholder identifying information. Cardholder Information Security Program (CISP): a program originally established by Visa USA. Implemented in June of 2001, the program was created to ensure the security of cardholder information. This information must be secure as it is being processed and stored by merchants and service providers. CISP has since been superseded in favor of the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard. Child Abuse: means the non-accidental commission of any act by a caretaker upon a Minor Child which causes or creates a substantial risk of physical or emotional injury; or any act by a caretaker involving a Minor Child that constitutes a sexual offense under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; or any sexual contact between a caretaker and a Minor Child under the care of that individual. Child Neglect: means failure by a caretaker, either deliberately or through negligence or inability, to take those actions necessary to provide a child with minimally adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, supervision, emotional stability and growth, or other essential care. Cloud Computing/Cloud Computing Environment: encompasses utilizing any external computing, software services, or hosting environment that is not directly controlled by the College. College Activities with Minor Children: means services, programs, or activities that Olin College operates or sponsors, or in which College students or employees engage in through their College roles and through which they will have contact with Minor Children. Examples of College Activities include: residential and non-residential programs operated by Olin College on campus; off-campus programs operated or formally facilitated by the Olin College; and programs which Olin College does not operate, sponsor, or formally facilitate but in which College students or employees participate in their capacity as students or employees. College Activities do not include programs or activities that College students or staff engage in on their own time and that are not related to their College role or status. College Data: any information collected, manipulated, stored, reported, or presented in any format, on any medium, at any location by any department, program or office of the College in support of Olin College’s mission. There are three types of College Data: Confidential College Data: College Data which is legally regulated and data that would provide access to confidential or restricted data. Restricted College Data: College Data which the Data Managers have decided NOT to publish or make public and data protected by contractual obligations. Public College Data: College Data which there is no expectation for privacy or confidentiality (i.e., is available to the public) and that the loss of such data would not cause significant personal, institutional, or other harm. College Information System(s): a set of information resources organized expressly for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination, or disposition of information. The term system is used throughout this policy to represent all types of computing equipment and platforms that can process, store, or transmit College Data. Commercial Solicitation: means peddling or otherwise selling, purchasing or offering goods and services for sale or purchase, distributing advertising materials, circulars or product samples, or engaging in any other conduct relating to any outside business interests or for profit or personal economic benefit on College property or using College resources. Communicable Diseases: any disease that can be transmitted from one individual directly to another individual. Some communicable diseases can be spread by casual contact. For example, colds, flu, and tuberculosis can be spread from respiratory droplets that may be transmitted through coughing, sneezing, or a runny nose. Other communicable diseases require contact with an infected individual’s blood, body fluids, or genitalia, such as Hepatitis B, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (the virus that causes AIDS), chlamydia, genital herpes, and syphilis. College policy is concerned only with those communicable diseases that pose a significant threat to the life or health of others, and all references to “communicable diseases” are to be understood as having that more restricted meaning. Computing Equipment: any Olin or non-Olin desktop, laptop, or portable device or system. Controlled Substance: a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended). Convicted Sex Offender—a person convicted of a crime involving a sexual offense that is required to register with government authorities. Copyright: copyright grants to the author or originator of a work of original authorship, art or a work that conveys information or ideas, the right to control how the work is used. Copyright grants to the author or originator the sole and exclusive privilege of creating multiple copies of literary or artistic productions and publishing and selling them. Copyright protection exists for original works fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including: literary works; musical works, including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including any accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic work; pictorial, graphic, and sculpture work; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; and sound recordings. Covered Data and Information: means all Non-Public Personal Information of customers required to be protected under the Title V of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999 (“GLBA”), including Student Financial Information. In addition to this coverage, which is required under federal law, the college chooses as a matter of policy to also include in this definition any Cardholder Data received in the course of business by the college, whether or not such Cardholder Data is covered by GLBA. Covered Data and Information includes both paper and electronic records. Covered Federal Official: includes covered legislative branch officials and covered executive branch officials. A covered legislative branch official is defined as any of the following: members of Congress; an elected officer of either House of Congress; an employee of a member of Congress, a committee of either House of Congress, the leadership staff of either House of Congress, a joining committee of Congress, and a working group or caucus organized to provide legislative services or other assistance to members of Congress; all officers of the House and Senate (Clerk of the House, Secretary of the Senate, etc.), and other highly compensated employees ($114,200 and above for 2008). Please check with us if uncertain about eligibility. Those designated in section 109(13) of the Ethics in Government Act as an “officer or employee of the Congress.” A covered executive branch official is defined as any of the following: the President; the Vice President; any officer or employee in the Executive Office of the President; generally the top three levels in an agency (agency Heads, Deputies, Assistant Secretaries, Assistant Administrators) but there are exceptions; any officer or employee serving in a position in Level I-V of the Executive Schedule; all Generals and Admirals; any member of the uniformed armed services whose pay grade is at or above O-7; "Schedule C" employees (positions in which the incumbent serves at the pleasure of the agency head, such as an Undersecretary or Director); and political appointees regardless of title. D Data Administration: Olin College is considered the data owner of all College Data; individual units or departments may have stewardship responsibilities for portions of the data. Data Custodians: an individual who has administrative and/or operational responsibility over the specific College Data sets delegated to them by a Data Manager. Data Managers: College officials who have planning and policy-level responsibilities for College Data in their functional areas. Data Ownership: Olin College is considered the data owner of all College Data; individual units or departments may have stewardship responsibilities for portions of the data. Data Request(s): a request for information about Olin College students, courses, faculty, finances, research, units, department that is used to support the administration of the College or its programs. Data Security Standards: standards developed by the PCI Council to assure consumers that their brands and credit cards are reliable and secure. These standards include controls for safe handling of sensitive consumer information. Deadly Weapon: any instrument, device, or thing, including a firearm, designed, made, adapted, or used, for the purpose of inflicting death or serious physical injury. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (P.L. 105-304): a 1998 amendment to the Copyright Act of 1976 that establishes certain limitations of copyright infringement liability for online service providers (OSPs), including Colleges and universities, when certain requirements are met by the OSP. The Act contains a number of other provisions, including prohibitions on circumvention of technological protection measures among others. Disability: a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the Major Life Activities of an individual; and a record of such an impairment. A sensory, mental, or physical impairment that (i) Is medically cognizable or diagnosable; or (ii) Exists as a record or history. A physical or mental chronic or episodic condition, including, without limitation, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, epilepsy, seizure disorder, diabetes, clinical depression, bipolar disorder, multiple sclerosis, and heart disease, that limit one or more major life activities of an individual. Whether the individual’s physical or mental condition limits a major lift activity shall be determined without respect to any mitigating measures, such as medication, unless the mitigating measure itself limits a Major Life Activity. Discrimination: conduct directed at a specific individual or group of individuals that subjects the individual or group to treatment that adversely affects their employment or education at the College because of their race, color, citizenship status, national origin or ancestry, sex, sexual orientation or preference, age, religion, physical or mental disability, of a qualified individual, pregnancy or pregnancy-related condition, genetic information, membership in Uniformed Services, veteran status, or any other legally protected status (“protected characteristic”). Divisions Safety Officers (DSO): those individuals responsible for monitoring and assessing safety hazards or unsafe conditions within a division that conducts academic teaching or research activities; facilities support functions; or other activities that utilize hazardous materials or equipment. A DSO is appointed by the area vice president or dean and has delegated authority to coordinate division safety program implementation with IDENTIFY DEPARTMENT. DMCA Notice or Takedown Request: a warning or request issued from a copyright holder or a representative of the copyright holder. These copyright holders have identified computers on the College’s Network as having potentially violated the DMCA and issue warnings regarding the particular infringement to the College. E E-cigarette: means any electronic oral device, such as one composed of a heating element, battery, and/or electronic circuit, which provides a vapor of nicotine or any other substances, and the use or inhalation of which simulates smoking.  The term shall include any such device, whether manufactured, distributed, marketed, or sold as an e-cigarette, e-cigar, e-pipe, or under any other product name or descriptor.  Electronic Mail Account: the “olin.edu” electronic mail account assigned to an Authorized User by the Division of Information Services. Electronic Mail System: the “olin.edu” enterprise electronic mail system managed by Information Technology. Emergency Notification—a communication triggered when there is confirmation of a dangerous situation or emergency with immediate impact to life or property at the College. Emotional Injury: means an impairment to or disorder of the intellectual or psychological capacity of a Minor Child as evidenced by observable and substantial reduction in the Minor Child’s ability to function within a normal range of performance and behavior. Emotional Support Animal: an animal that provides comfort to an individual with a disability upon the recommendation of a healthcare or mental health professional. An Assistance Animal does not assist a person with a disability with activities of daily living, is not required to be trained to perform work or tasks, and does not accompany a person with a disability at all times. An Emotional Support Animal can be species other than dogs. The role of the assistance animal is to live with a student and alleviate the symptoms of an individual’s disability to provide equal opportunities to use and enjoy College housing. An Emotional Support Animal is not considered to be a Service Animal under applicable law. Endorse: public statements of opinion and/or contributions, monetary, in-kind, or otherwise, to political campaigns. Equally Effective Alternative Access: means an alternative format, medium or other aid that accurately and in a timely manner communicates the same content as does the original format or medium, and which is appropriate to an individual’s disability. To provide equally effective alternative access, the College need not ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities achieve the identical result or level of achievement as individuals without disabilities, but the College must provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services as necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to obtain the same result, gain the same benefit or reach the same level of achievement, in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. In providing equally effective alternative access, the College may rely on any commonly accepted standard or combination of standards provided the remainder of this definition is met. The College is not required to take any action that results in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program or activity, or in undue financial and administrative burden, but must nevertheless ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that qualified individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the College. F Fair Use: Fair Use limits the exclusive rights of copyright owners and gives the user rights to reproduce in copies or phonorecords for “purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.” Fire: any instance of open flame or other burning in a place not intended to contain the burning or in an uncontrolled manner. Fire Safety System: any mechanism or system related to the detection of a fire, the warning resulting from a fire, or the control of a fire. This may include sprinkler systems or other fire extinguishing systems, fire detection devices, stand-alone smoke alarms, devices that alert one to the presence of a fire, such as horns, bells, or strobe lights; smoke-control and reduction mechanisms; and fire doors and walls that reduce the spread of a fire. G Gambling: playing a game of chance, with an uncertain outcome, for money or some other valuable item. Good Faith Report: an allegation of Wrongful Conduct made by an individual who believes that Wrongful Conduct may have occurred. However, an allegation is not in Good Faith if it is made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation. Guest Speakers and Performers: a person or group neither attending the College, nor otherwise employed by the College, who is invited to make a public address or give a public performance or lecture outside of the classroom environment. H High Risk Area: includes any area with hazardous levels of radiation; hazardous chemicals or substances; hazardous biological agents or vectors; or hazardous equipment or processes. Examples of areas with these characteristics include, but are not limited to: laboratories; machine shops, woodworking shops, or similar workshop areas; mechanical rooms; boiler rooms; construction areas; maintenance garages; animal care or animal research facilities; food preparation areas; sensitive areas such as college data processing center(s), data equipment closets, and areas that house systems that store, process, or transmit College Data classified as Restricted pursuant to Policy No. : Data Classification . Hostile Environment Harassment: as a form of unlawful Discrimination, Hostile Environment Harassment is defined as the unlawful harassment against an individual on the basis of the individual or group’s race, color, citizenship status, national origin or ancestry, sex, sexual orientation or preference, age, religion, physical or mental disability, of a qualified individual, pregnancy or pregnancy-related condition, genetic information, membership in Uniformed Services, veteran status, or any other legally protected status (“protected characteristic”) when such conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to have the purpose or effect of interfering with an individual or group's academic or work performance; or of creating a hostile academic or work environment. The determination of whether an environment is “hostile” must be based on all of the circumstances, giving consideration to whether a reasonable person in a similar situation would have perceived the conduct as objectively offensive. A single or isolated incident of Hostile Environment Harassment may create a hostile environment if the incident is sufficiently severe. The more severe the conduct, the less need there is to show a repetitive series of incidents to provide a hostile environment, particularly if the Hostile Environment Harassment is physical in nature. Depending upon the circumstances, examples of unlawful Discrimination and/or Hostile Environment Harassment could include the following types of conduct: Epithets, slurs, negative stereotyping, jokes, or threatening, intimidating or hostile acts that relate to a protected characteristic; Verbal abuse or innuendo or use of derogatory words, which is continued or repeated, concerning a protected characteristic; An open display of objects or pictures offensive to another person’s protected characteristic; Making decisions about an employee’s employment or student’s admission to a College program or activity based upon the individual’s protected characteristic. The above listing is not exhaustive. The listing provides some examples of conduct which could constitute unlawful discrimination and/or harassment, depending upon the circumstances. In addition, behaviors similar to those described above, depending on the circumstances, may not rise to the level of unlawful harassment or discrimination within the meaning of state and federal law, but are nonetheless inappropriate for the workplace or academic environment. Such inappropriate conduct may result in disciplinary action under this Policy regardless of whether the conduct is unlawful. I Independent Contractor: an individual or firm engaged in an established business, trade or profession who provides services to the College and the fees are reported on the IRS Form 1099-MISC. An Independent Contractor is not an employee of the College; an Independent Contractor is a worker who: (a) is engaged in an independently established profession or business; (b) provides a service outside of the College’s usual course of business; and (c) is free from the College’s control or direction when providing services. Information and Communication Technologies: includes any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment that is used in the creation, conversion, or duplication of data or information, including but not limited to, the internet and intranet websites, content delivered in digital form, electronic books and electronic book reading systems, search engines and databases, learning management systems, classroom technology and multimedia, personal response systems (“clickers”), and office equipment such as classroom podiums, copiers and fax machines. It also includes any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment that is used in the automatic acquisition, creation, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information. This term includes telecommunications products (such as telephones), information kiosks, Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) transaction machines, computers, ancillary equipment, software, firmware and similar procedures, services (including support services), and related resources. Information Security Officer: College official who has oversight responsibility for the College’s data security program as well as compliance with relevant regulations, security policies, standards and guidelines Information System: a set of Information Technology Resources organized expressly for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination, or disposition of information. The term system is used throughout this policy to represent all types of computing platforms that can process, store, or transmit College Data. Information Technology Resources: computing resources, information technologies, networks, voice messaging equipment, computer software, data networking systems, including remote and wireless and electronically stored institutional data and messages owned, controlled, or managed by the College. Information Technology Security Incident: occurs when there is a serious threat of or unauthorized access or acquisition to a College Information System or an Authorized User’s computerized data that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of the data, including Restricted and Confidential Data. A Security Incident also occurs where there has been unauthorized access or acquisition of encrypted data and the confidential process or key to the encryption is also compromised. Security Incidents can range from the unauthorized use of another Authorized User’s account or system privileges to the execution of malicious code, viruses, worms, Trojan horses, cracking utilities, or attacks by crackers or hackers. Security Incidents may also involve the physical theft of a college information system, a component thereof, or an Authorized User’s technology, such as a computer, mobile device, or other electronic media, or may occur as the result of a weakness in information systems or components (e.g., hardware design or system security procedures). A non-exhaustive list of symptoms of incidents that qualify as Security Incidents include: A system alarm or similar indication from an intrusion detection tool; Suspicious entries in a system or network accounting; Accounting discrepancies; unexplained new user accounts or file names; Unexplained modification or deletion of data; system crashes or poor system performance; Unusual time of usage; and Unusual usage patterns. Intellectual Property: property of an intellectual nature belonging to an individual or an entity, including, but not limited to, proprietary information that is protected by patent, copyright, trademark, or a non-disclosure agreement. Intimidation: implied threats or acts that cause an unreasonable fear of harm in another. J K L Legal Name: the name that is recorded on an individual's legal identification and used on formal legal records at the College. Listserv: an Internet communication tool that offers its members the opportunity to exchange ideas, make suggestions, or ask questions to a large number of people at the same time. Lobbying Activities: are lobbying contacts and efforts in support of such contacts, including preparation and planning activities, research and other background work that is intended, at the time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination with the lobbying activities of others. Lobbying Contacts: include letters, phone calls, emails, and face-to-face meetings made on behalf of the College with covered executive branch and legislative branch officials intended to influence a covered official on appropriations; specific legislation; legislative proposals, rules, regulations; Executive Orders; programs, policies, or positions of the U.S. government; administration or execution of federal programs or policies (including federal contracts and grants); and nomination or confirmation of a person for a position subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Lobbying contacts do not include contacts made as part of a professional association. M Mandated Reporters: Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 119, §§ 51A-E, Mandated Reporters include but are not limited to: Physicians; Psychologists; Clinical social workers; Medical interns; Dentists; Teachers; Counselors; Police officers; Allied mental health and licensed human services professionals; Early childhood education and childcare staff; and Clergy members. Mass Electronic Mail Message: any unsolicited electronic mailing sent to more than 50 addressees. Media: includes, but is not limited to, paper, hard drives, random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), disks, flash drives, memory devices, phones, Mobile Devices, networking devices, and all-in-one printers. Merchant Account: an account established for a unit by a bank to credit sale amounts and debit processing fees. Merchant: an organization, department, institution or unit that accepts credit cards as a method payment for goods, services, information, or gifts. Minor Child: means any person under the age of 18 who is not a matriculated Olin College student or employee and who is unaccompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Missing Student: a student may be considered to be a missing person if the person’s absence is contrary to his/her usual pattern of behavior and unusual circumstances may have caused the absence. Such circumstances could include, but not be limited to, a report or suspicion that the missing person may be the victim of foul play, has expressed suicidal thoughts, is drug dependent, is in a life-threatening situation, or has been with persons who may endanger the student’s welfare. Mobile Device: any handheld or portable computing device including running an operating system optimized or designed for mobile computing. Any device running a full desktop version operating system is not included in this definition. N Non-Forcible Sex Offense—unlawful, non-forcible sexual intercourse: a) incest – non-forcible sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law, and b) statutory rape – non-forcible sexual intercourse with a person who is under the statutory age of consent. O Official Electronic Mail Message: an electronic mail message which alerts the College Community to substantial changes in governance, policy, or practice; to immediate threats to health, safety, property, or research; to computer or telecommunications issues; and to shared community interests. P Payment Card Industry Council (PCI): a group formed by the credit card industry (VISA, MasterCard, Discover and American Express to establish Data Security Standards (DSS) for the industry. https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org. Payment Card Information: as regulated by the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), Payment Card Information is defined as Cardholder Data or Sensitive Authentication Payment Data: Cardholder Data: full magnetic stripe or the Primary Account Number (PAN) plus any of the following: cardholder name; expiration date; service code; CVC2/CVV2/CID (a three- or four-digit number displayed on the signature panel of the card or, in the case of American Express, on the face of the card; and Sensitive Authentication Data: magnetic strip data or equivalent on a chip, CAV2/CVC2/CVV2/CID, and PINs/PIN blocks. Personal Items: any personal effects, including items such as: money, books, decorations, clothing, electronic devices, or other items that are kept in offices, desks, or personal vehicles, either on campus. Personally Identifiable Information or PII—any information about an individual that (i) can be used to distinguish or trace an individual’s identity, such as name, date and place of birth, mother’s maiden name or biometric records, (ii) is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial and employment information, which if lost, compromised or disclosed without authorization, could result in harm to that individual; and (iii) is protected by federal, state or local laws and regulations or industry standards. Physical Injury: means death, fracture of bone, a subdural hematoma, burns, impairment of any organ, any other nontrivial injury, soft tissue swelling or skin bruising, addiction to a drug, or failure to thrive. Political Activity/Political Activities: activity, including oral or written statements and financial support, that is directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for election in a partisan political campaign for public office, a partisan political group or ballot initiative. Political Campaign: a race between candidates for elective office, or other organized effort towards a particular election result, including for ballot initiatives. Preferred Name: the name by which a person wishes to be known and to have appear in College systems and when conducting day-to-day College business because it affirms that individual’s gender, culture and other aspects of social identity. The Preferred Name will consist of a preferred first name, and preferred middle name when provided. The Preferred Name does not affect the individual’s last name, which must remain the person’s legal name. Private Areas: areas in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, including, but not limited to non-common areas of residence halls, residence hall corridors, bathrooms, shower areas, locker and changing rooms and other areas where a reasonable person might change clothes. Additionally, areas designed for the personal comfort of College employees or the safeguarding of their possessions, such as lounges and locker rooms, and areas dedicated to medical, physical, or mental therapy or treatment are considered private areas. Protected Disclosure: communication about actual or suspected unethical behavior or Wrongful Conduct engaged in by a member of the College community based on a good faith and reasonable belief that the conduct has both occurred and is wrongful under applicable law and/or College policy. Protected Health Information: “Protected Health Information” or PHI is all individually identifiable information that relates to the health or health care of an individual and is protected under federal or state law. Public Areas: areas made available for use by the public, including, but not limited to, campus grounds, parking areas, building exteriors, loading docks, areas of ingress and egress, classrooms, lecture halls, study rooms, lobbies, theaters, libraries, dining halls, gymnasiums, recreation areas, and retail establishments. Areas of the College in which persons would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but to which access is restricted to certain College employees, such as storage areas, are also be considered public areas. Public Facing Content: means any content that is intended for access by the general public, without restrictions. Content that is not public-facing is termed “controlled” content, and encompasses content where authentication or authorization is required for access, and/or content is targeted to and delivered for those enrolled in specific programs, majors or classes. Q Qualified Machine: A “Qualified Machine” is a computing device located in a secure facility that is managed by IT or has access control protections that meet Olin’s IT standards. R Reasonable Accommodations: modifications or adjustments that enable an individual with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of access to a campus event as enjoyed by similarly situated individual without a disability. Regulation Monitors: College officials who have oversight responsibility for one or more regulations. Regulation monitors stay abreast of updates to their respective regulations, ensure policies are up to date and notify the Information Security Officer and Data Managers about changes. The Compliance group meets on a regular basis. Retaliation: taking adverse action against an individual making a complaint under a College policy or against any person cooperating in the investigation of a complaint under a College policy. Retaliation includes intimidation, threats, harassment, and other adverse action including adverse job action and adverse academic action against any such complainant or third party. S Self-Assessment Questionnaire: The PCI Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) is a validation tool that is primarily used by merchants to demonstrate compliance to the PCI DSS. The current version of the SAQ is based on the current version of the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standard (DSS). The document can be found at https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/security_standards/documents.php?category=saqs. Sensitive Data: include the account number, magnetic stripe data, CVV2/CVC2, and expiration date. Service Animal: the American with Disabilities Act (ADAAA) defines a service animal as “any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability.” The work or tasks performed by a Service Animal must be directly related to the individual’s disability. Sexual Misconduct: a broad term used to encompass a range of behaviors including but not limited to sex discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual coercion, sexual exploitation, relationship violence (domestic violence and dating violence), stalking and/or acts perpetrated against a person’s will or when a person is incapable of giving consent. All such acts of Sexual Misconduct are prohibited by Olin College. Sexual Misconduct can occur between individuals who know each other, have an established relationship, have previously engaged in consensual sexual activity, and/or between individuals who do not know each other. Sexual Misconduct can be committed by persons of any gender identity, and can occur between people of the same or different biological sex or gender identity. See Policy No. - : Sexual Misconduct for additional information. Smoking: means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, including a hookah pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, including hookahs and marijuana, whether natural or synthetic, in any manner or in any form.  Smoking also includes the use of an E-cigarette which creates an aerosol or vapor, in any manner or in any form, or the use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of Smoking in Policy No. - : Smoking and Tobacco Use.  Solicitation: includes, canvassing, soliciting or seeking to obtain membership in or support for any organization, requesting contributions, and posting or distributing handbills, pamphlets, petitions, and the like of any kind on College property or using College resources (including without limitation bulletin boards, computers, mail, e-mail and telecommunication systems, photocopiers and telephone lists and databases). Student Records: “Student Records” are those that are required to be maintained as non-public by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Student Records include Olin-held student transcripts (official and unofficial), and Olin-held records related to (i) academic advising, (ii) health/disability, (iii) academic probation and/or suspension, (iv) conduct (including disciplinary actions), and (v) directory information maintained by the Registrar’s Office and requested to be kept confidential by the student. Applications for student admission are not considered to be Student Records unless and until the student attends Olin College. Student Financial Information: information the College or its affiliates have obtained from a student in the process of offering a financial product or service, or such information provided to the college by another financial institution. Offering a financial product or service includes offering student loans to students, receiving income tax information from a student’s parent when offering a financial aid package, and other miscellaneous financial services as defined in 12 CRF §225.28. Examples of student financial information include addresses, phone numbers, bank and credit card account numbers, income and credit histories and Social Security numbers, in both paper and electronic format. T Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act (TEACH Act) (Section 110(2) of the U.S. copyright law): a copyright exemption that addresses teaching conducted through digital transmission. Threats: any conduct which causes another person to believe that their physical safety, or the security of College property, is endangered. Timely Warning: a communication triggered when a crime is reported and the College determines there is a continuing threat to the campus community. Crime reports do not always require an Emergency Notification, but are released once the pertinent information is available.. Tobacco Product: means any substance containing tobacco leaf, including but not limited to, cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, hookah tobacco, snuff, chewing tobacco, dipping tobacco, bidis, blunts, clove cigarettes, or any other preparation of tobacco; and any product or formulation of matter containing biologically active amounts of nicotine that is manufactured, sold, offered for sale, or otherwise distributed with the expectation that the product or matter will be introduced into the human body.  “Tobacco Product” does not include any cessation product specifically approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in treating nicotine or tobacco dependence. U Undue Administrative Burden: are created when a proposed course of action causes significant difficulty. Because the College must consider all resources available when reviewing claims of undue administrative burdens, the decision to invoke undue administrative burdens will be carefully weighed, sufficiently documented and ultimately authorized by the Cabinet. In situations where undue administrative burdens can be documented, equally effective alternative access must still be provided. Unfounded Reports: reports that have been fully investigated by sworn or commissioned law enforcement personnel who, based on the results of this full investigation and evidence, have made formal determination that the crime report is false or baseless. Recovery of stolen property, stolen property that is of low value, the refusal of a victim to cooperate with law enforcement or the failure to make an arrest do not justify classifying a report as “unfounded.” Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS): commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard, which include a Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, a ground-based controller, and a system of communications between the two. The operation of a UAS is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) V Violence: includes threatening, harassing, and/or violent behavior that causes a disruption to the work environment and leads a reasonable person to fear for their physical safety; physical conduct that results in harm to people or property; possession of deadly weapons on College property; and/or use of College property or resources to engage in threatening, harassing, or violent behavior. Violent Behavior: the use of physical force, violence, or other actions that have the capacity to inflict harm or to endanger the physical safety of another person or the property of the College. Violent Crimes: For purposes of Clery Act reporting, violent crimes are those offenses which involve force or threat of force including murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. W Wheeled Vehicles: with the exception of the use of mobility devices by individuals with disabilities, means all motorized and wheeled vehicles, including: bicycles (traditional and motorized), delivery/maintenance and landscaping cars, trucks, and carts, electric carts, inline and roller skates, scooters, Segway® personal mobility devices or transporter, skateboards, and/or hoverboards, and other similar conveyances. Willful Infringement: the action of one who has been told by College authorities (i.e., the CIO or librarians) that a proposed action is an infringement of the US Copyright Law – but does it anyway. Work Areas: all areas of the College in which regular College activity takes place, including without limitation offices, classrooms, lecture halls, libraries, dining areas, etc. Work Time: that time when an employee is scheduled and expected to be properly engaged in performing work tasks. Work time does not include break time, meal periods, or other periods during which an employee is not required to perform their job duties. Wrongful Conduct: violations of applicable state and federal laws or regulations, fraud, accounting irregularities, auditing abuse, falsification or records, improper destruction of College records, conflicts of interest, impeding a College or law enforcement investigation, violation of a government contract or grant requirement, research misconduct, serious violation of College policy, or the use of College property, resources, or authority for personal gain or other non-College related purpose except as provided under College policy. X Y Z</s>

<s>[INST] Campus Community Policies (2nd Draft).txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] Canisius College IWPM Proposal (2.16).txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] Canisius College Proposal (2.16).txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] Canisius Policy Update Listing.txt [/INST] 2018-2019 2.2.4: Smoking and Tobacco Use 2.4.1: Acceptable Use of College Computer and Network Systems 2.4.2: Access Control Policy 2.4.3: Cloud Computing Policy 2.4.4: Computer Asset Disposal Policy 2.4.5: Computer Asset Replacement Policy 2.4.6: Electronic Accessibility Policy 2.4.8: Information Security Program 2.4.9 Information Technology Change Control Policy 2.4.11 Mobile Device Use and Support Policy 2.4.12 Password Policy 2.4.15 IT Maintenance Policy 2.4.16 Wireless Access Points Policy 2.6.3 Contact with Government Agencies Policy 2.6.5 Photography, Digital Recording, and Filming Policy 2.6.6 Social Media Policy 3.2.7: Work Authorization and Immigration Sponsorship Policy 3.3.13: Outside Activities (Staff) Policy 3.3.15: Reportable Business Relationships Policy 3.4.2: FMLA Policy 3.5.7: Moving Expenses Policy 3.5.8: Employee Campus Housing Policy 3.6.7: Secondary Assignments Policy New Policies College Intern Policy Website Privacy Policy Audit and Accountability Control Policy Configuration Management Policy ITS Personnel Security Policy Data Classification Policy Identification and Authentication Policy Media Protection Policy Information Security and Awareness Policy IT Physical and Environmental Protection Policy Updated Director Questionnaire Admission of Applicant with Prior History of Criminal Behavior or Disciplinary Action For Conduct Human Subjects Research 2019-2020 Sexual Misconduct (Updated for new Title IX regulations) Workers Compensation Light Duty Policy Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Sexual Harassment Prevention Policy Emergency Responder Leave Community Standards Staff Disciplinary Action and Termination Policy Staff Remote Work and Telecommuting Policy Contract Policy Fundraising and Gift Acceptance Policy 2021-2021 Information Technology Incident Response Policy Payment Card Information Security Policy Student Identity Verification Policy Alcohol and Drug Prevention Program Policy Catastrophic Events and Continuity of Operations Policy Updated ITS Contingency Plan document Employee Covid Vaccine Policy 2021-2022 DEI Materials Transcript Holds (to comply with NY law)</s>

<s>[INST] CATASTROPHIC EVENTS AND CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS.txt [/INST] CATASTROPHIC EVENTS AND CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS Effective Date: Policy Number: II – Supersedes: Not Applicable. Issuing Authority: President Responsible Officer: PLEASE INSERT Applicability: All Canisius College employees. History:   The purpose of this policy is to define standard methods for a safe and efficient response to catastrophic events that impact the college’s operations. POLICY It is the policy of Canisius College Crisis to mitigate the impact of crisis situations and operational disruptions on its campus community through implementing policies and procedures that provide for continuity of operations in cases of a catastrophic event. DEFINITIONS Catastrophic Event—a catastrophic casualty loss suffered due to a terrorist attack, fire, or natural disaster that results in operational disruptions. College Data— any information collected, manipulated, stored, reported, or presented in any format, on any medium, at any location by any department, program or office of the college in support of the college’s mission. College Information System—a set of information resources organized expressly for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination, or disposition of information. The term system is used throughout this policy to represent all types of computing platforms that can process, store, or transmit College Data. PROCEDURES/GUIDELINES I. Continuity of Operations A. Operational Systems The college’s administrative software systems, as well as its educational technologies such as [LIST], are hosted in the “cloud” to minimize the likelihood of noticeable service interruption. Further, the college’s Information Security Program and associated policies have been developed to protect College Information Systems from vulnerabilities, as well as secure and back up College Data. B. Policies Ensuring Continuity of Operations & Emergency/Crisis Response The following Canisius College policies are also intended to help mitigate the impact of emergency, catastrophic events on College operations:  Information Security Program and Information Security Policies: The College’s Information Security Program and associated information security policies provide guidance for ensuring the integrity, confidentiality, and security of College Data received or maintained during college business operations. These policies include, but are not limited to: Access Control Policy Acceptable Use of College Computer and Network Systems Policy Audit and Accountability Control Policy Computer Assets Disposal Policy Computer Asset Replacement Policy Confidential Information Policy Configuration Management Policy Data Classification Policy Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Policy Identification and Authentication Policy Identity Theft Prevention Policy Information Technology Incident Response Policy Information Technology Personnel Security Policy Information Technology Physical and Environmental Protection Policy Information Technology Security Awareness and Training Policy Media Protection Policy Mobile Device Use and Support Policy Payment Card Information Security Policy Risk and Security Assessment Policy Student Records (FERPA) Policy System and Communication Protection Policy System and Information Integrity Policy Refund Policies: The college’s refund policies provide guidance for ensuring that financial refunds are processed timely and consistently and in accordance with college policy, and applicable federal, state and accreditation requirements. In the event a catastrophic event occurs, the college maintains the authority to enact additional financial refunds to students that are deemed appropriate during such circumstances. Canisius College Crisis Response Plan: The college’s Crisis Response Plan provides detailed emergency instructions for the college community to ensure safety and protection of property during fire, severe weather, loss of utilities, and other emergencies. II. Program Discontinuances  In the unlikely event that the college cannot deliver the instruction for which students have enrolled, the college will develop an appropriate courses of action on a case by case. Possible outcomes may include, but are not limited to: Providing a reasonable alternative for delivering instruction and/or services for which students have paid as approved by the Board of Trustees; Providing reasonable financial refund for the education students did not receive as may be applicable; Providing assistance for transferring earned credits to other institutions. Canisius College students will be notified by the administration and then counseled about their options by their advisors. In accordance with institutional accreditation requirements, a teach-out plan may be adopted. RELATED POLICIES See Procedures/Guidelines section</s>

<s>[INST] CC Annual Update Proposal - Final.txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] CC Annual Update Proposal.txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] CC V.1 (Final Draft)(4.2017).txt [/INST] </s>

<s>[INST] CC V.1 (Final)(4.2017).txt [/INST] </s>