The functions of the Faculty Status Committee include the conciliation and adjudication of disputes within the faculty and between members of the faculty and the administration. Any member of the faculty may bring a problem to the attention of the Faculty Status Committee. Temporary faculty also have access to advice from the Faculty Status Committee.
The Faculty Status Committee is responsible to the faculty. It has nine elected members, each serving for three years. The Faculty Status Committee has the power to elect its own officers, fix dates of its meetings, make its own rules of procedure, designate other members of the faculty to assist in its work, and make reports and recommendations to the faculty and to the President. The Faculty Status Committee periodically reports to the Senate and to the faculty concerning its operations.
Types of Disputes
The following are examples of the types of disputes that might be brought to the attention of the Faculty Status Committee. In each case, the Faculty Status Committee may decide to investigate the case or not and may decide to make a recommendation or not.
Tenure Progress Decisions. When the results of a tenure progress review lead to nonreappointment, the faculty member may, within 30 days after notification of nonreappointment, petition the Faculty Status Committee to review the decision.
Tenure Denial Decisions. A faculty member who has been denied tenure may, within 30 days after notification of nonreappointment, petition the Faculty Status Committee to review the decision.
Promotion deferral. A faculty member who has received a decision to defer promotion may petition the Faculty Status Committee to review the decision.
Disciplinary Problems. Examples of disciplinary problems include incompetence, deliberate and repeated neglect of duty, dishonesty, violation of University policies and regulations concerning freedom and responsibility, and deliberate and repeated acts of discrimination. The chair of the department (or immediate administrative official, if no chair) or, if called upon, the University Ombudsman, should attempt to resolve a disciplinary problem. If this is unsuccessful, the faculty member may refer the case to the Faculty Status Committee which shall attempt to reach a satisfactory resolution of the matter through conciliation.
Position elimination. A tenured person whose position has been eliminated also has the right of appeal to the Faculty Status Committee.
Other. Other types of cases, such as actions that a petitioner believes to be contrary to the policies or procedures of the Faculty Manual or to other procedural norms, may also be brought to the attention of the Faculty Status Committee.
Filing an Appeal
To ask to have a decision investigated, send a letter or e-mail to the Chair of the Faculty Status Committee. Include the following in your letter:
-
a summary of the issue, decision, or problem.
-
a statement of which of the following you believe occurred (if appropriate to the case):
-
procedural errors,
-
inadequate consideration, or
-
violation of academic freedom.
-
-
documentation in support of the appeal, including materials that will help the Committee understand your case.
-
a prioritized list of people that you feel the Faculty Status Committee should consider interviewing to understand the case, along with a brief description of why you have listed each person (for example: Dr. xx, a member of my mentoring committee).
-
a statement granting permission to the Faculty Status Committee to review your university records.
The Faculty Status Committee may use these materials to decide whether to investigate the case or not.
Typical Process of an Appeal
This is a "generic" description of how the Faculty Status Committee might proceed in reviewing a decision to deny tenure. Faculty Status Committee investigations of other types of appeals, such as tenure progress decisions, promotion deferrals, and nonreappointments, are commonly handled similarly.
This is not an official account of the Committee's operating guidelines. It is presented to give appellants and potential appellants a general idea of how the Committee operates and an understanding of what to expect and what not to expect.
After receiving an appeal of a tenure denial decision and deciding to investigate the case, the Chair of the Faculty Status Committee appoints a subcommittee to investigate the case. The subcommittee sets its own rules for operating. Subcommittee members typically begin by reviewing the materials supplied by the appellant. Members interview the appellant and other appropriate people, but may not interview everyone of the appellant's list. These interviews may be conducted by phone or in person. Subcommittee members review tenure documents, including ballots and supporting letters.
The Faculty Status Committee discusses the investigation with the subcommittee. The Faculty Status Committee examines, if appropriate, whether the procedures of the University were followed. If the Committee concludes that these procedures were not followed, the Committee then considers whether the procedural errors may have prejudiced the case against the appellant. In some cases, the Committee may conclude that procedural errors occurred, but the decision was not materially influenced by the errors; in such a case the Committee could recommend that the decision remain unchanged.
Similar discussions are held on allegations of inadequate consideration and violation of academic freedom, if appropriate. If the Committee concludes, for example, that a candidate's record was not given adequate consideration, the Committee then considers the possible ramifications. The Committee may conclude that inadequate consideration MAY have affected the decision to deny tenure, but the Committee does NOT make conclusions regarding whether the oversight was sufficient to justify a different decision. The Committee does not replace the judgment of those who were involved in the initial decision-making process. It is important to understand that the Faculty Status Committee does NOT make recommendations that an appellant be granted tenure.
A final report of the findings of the investigation is prepared for the President of the university. This report typically includes a recommendation to set the decision to deny tenure aside or to leave the decision to deny in place. In some cases, the report may not include a specific recommendation. When the Faculty Status Committee has approved the report, the Chair prepares a memorandum to the President summarizing the findings. A copy of this memorandum is sent to the appellant. According to the Faculty Manual, the Faculty Status Committee is expected to complete this process within 90 days, counted only during the academic year. With the current, spring semester release of final tenure decisions, this may mean that the Committee will not conclude its investigation until early in the fall.
The President reviews the findings of the Faculty Status Committee and responds within 30 days of receiving the report. If the President should decide that the decision be set aside, it becomes important to understand what that typically means. Setting the decision to deny tenure aside does NOT mean granting tenure. It means that the appellant may continue in his or her current position while the entire process to decide on tenure is repeated, with the procedural violations corrected and with adequate consideration being given. Thus, the candidate is typically asked to prepare another packet, with updated materials, new ballots are prepared, and new outside letters of recommendation are sought.
Recent FSC Reports to the Faculty Senate and the Faculty:
-
2004-2005 Not avaialble
-
2005-2006 Not avaialble
-
2006-2007 Not avaialble
-
2007-2008 Not Available
Current Faculty Status Committee Members:
|
Name |
Term |
|---|---|
|
Liddell, K'Nona, Co-Chair |
2010 |
|
Ursula Mazur,
Co-Chair |
2010 |
|
Rachel Halverson |
2010 |
|
Marvin Pitts |
2010 |
|
Lisa Fournier |
2011 |
|
Darcy Miller |
2011 |
|
Tom Rotolo |
2011 |
|
Douglas Call |
2012 |
|
Judith McDonald |
2012 |
|
Lisa Shipley |
2012 |