Professional Responsibilities and Procedures Committee (PRPC)

Professional Responsibilities and Procedures Committee (PRPC)

Report to Faculty Senate

December 5, 2005

Proposed Code Amendments

1. A faculty member proposed codification of an exclusion from external review for lecturers going up for promotion, and offered draft language. Such exclusions were felt to be appropriate when teaching constitutes the majority of the appointment, and are apparently now routinely made on a case-by-case basis by the provost. After discussion regarding the percentage teaching that would trigger the exclusion, PRPC proposed language that could be added to the code. PRPC requests the Senate decide whether or not such language should be added to the code. See PRPC Attachment 1.

2. A senator proposed codifying a requirement that all committees of the Faculty Senate meet regularly. The sense of PRPC members was that committee meetings should be required to meet the duties of a particular committee, or be called by written request of the chair, committee members or the FSEC. Such language exists to some extent with reference to AFT, BFW, and PRPC, but could be moved to apply to all Senate committees. PRPC requests that the Senate decide whether or not PRPC should draft such code.

3. A faculty member proposed codifying repercussions for members of the Senate who violate standards of conduct that are noted in Code 403.3. PRPC proposes changes that could be made to two sections of the code. One change (Code 403.3) would highlight the current standards of conduct for all faculty, and the other would codify repercussions for serious infractions (Code 402.3). PRPC member did, however, feel the bar should be high, and recommended a two-thirds majority agree before any action is taken. See PRPC Attachment 2. PRPC requests the Senate decide whether or not PRPC should proceed with drafting such code.

4. A faculty member expressed concern to the PRPC that language regarding the annual meeting of tenure advisory committees needed further definition, specifically to clarify if the meeting be strictly physical, or may members (e.g., on sabbatical) participate in other ways. Here is a sample of the language that is currently used:

“405.7.1 (2) Evaluation and recommendation by the tenure advisory committee.

After the initial meeting, the tenure advisory committee shall meet with the candidate at least annually and review the candidate's file and supplementary material to evaluate progress toward tenure.”

The question is as follows: What is the definition of “meet”? The sense of the PRPC committee was that all tenure advisory committee members should be required to participate in the meeting, but that electronic participation was already in common use and should be allowed. PRPC drafted language clarifying the meaning of “meet”. See PRPC Attachment 3.

5. A faculty member expressed concern to PRPC that tenure advisory committees are continuing to be used by deans to review the files of candidates for tenure, although these committees are not specified as part of the tenure and promotion process. The sense of the PRPC was that in large colleges, deans may need assistance in reviewing candidates’ files, but that such a committee should report their recommendations in a letter signed by all members with a copy provided to the candidate, as is the case with other such reports [Code 405.7.1(2) and 405.7.2(2)]. PRPC requests that the Senate decide whether or not PRPC should draft such code.

6. A faculty member expressed concern to PRPC with language in Code 407.7.2 (Reasons for Non-Renewal) that reads: “There are only three reasons for non-renewal: cessation of extramural funding, unsatisfactory performance of the faculty member's assigned role (policies 405.6.1 and 11.1) or failure to satisfy the criteria for the award of tenure.” The concern was that “cessation of extramural funding” could be read very strictly to mean the loss of an insignificant amount of funding was grounds for non-renewal. PRPC agreed some further definition of the phrase “cessation of extramural funding” was desirable, and requests that the Senate decide whether or not PRPC should draft such code.