Faculty Handbook Review Committee Revision Summary

The Faculty Handbook Review Committee recommended revisions to merge sections, eliminate redundancies, and enhance clarity in the annual tenure review policy. The process involved surveys, comparative analysis, and drafting revisions for Senate consideration. Chairs were responsible for conducting reviews and ensuring transparent processes.

• Faculty Handbook
• Committee Revision
• Tenure Review
• University Senate
• Policy Revision

bri_ba Follow

Uploaded on Sep 10, 2024 | 1 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Presentation Transcript

1. Faculty Handbook Review Committee Proposed revision to 3.7.1 and 3.7.2

2. Background A motion was made in the University Senate on April 2, 2013 to delete 3.7.2 from the Faculty Handbook, a new policy on annual tenure review. The Senate voted to refer the matter to the FHRC. In December of 2013, Senate Chair Larry Crowley formally charged the FHRC.

3. The Charge To see how each college and school at Auburn is conducting their review so as to minimize the time commitment on the effort; To study what advantages this review provides our pre- tenured faculty and at what cost to the tenured faculty; To see how other universities provide that input; If changes in the handbook are warranted, please provide suggested language.

4. FHRC 2013-14 Chair: Barbara Bishop (Library) We conducted internal surveys and studied the procedures used by 19 peer institutions, revealing much variation (details available on request). As a result of our study, we made two recommendations: Recommendation 1: Fold 3.7.2 into 3.7.1 to improve clarity and concision, to remove redundancies and logical inconsistencies, and to give responsibility for implementation to departments, schools and colleges to fit their needs. Recommendation 2: Remove from Provost s website obsolete Annual Tenure Review Guidelines (revised May 6, 2009).

5. Reasons for Recommended Change Head/chair conducts annual review using all available data Thorough review in large departments laborious Streamlined review (e.g. based on c.v.) based on incomplete data Candidates who desire tenured faculty input can request through chair P&T criteria for all units more transparent than when idea first arose Individual departments best able to determine needs

6. Drafting Process Last year s FHRC forwarded a draft to the Steering Committee, which made recommendations; This year the new FHRC revised the draft further in response to these and later recommendations; The FHRC forwarded to Senate leadership the final draft of its proposed revision.

7. FHRC 2014-15 James Goldstein, English (Chair) James Barbaree, Biological Sciences Dawn Boothe, Veterinary Medicine Hulya Kirkici, Engineering Peter Livant, Chemistry Robert Weigel, Foreign Languages and Literatures Emmett Winn, Provost s Office (Continuing)