TLA

Tenure Summit Minutes Summer 2007

The reform of the tenure process is the product of Valencia's shared governance process.  All matters concerning tenure are endorsed by the Faculty Association and approved by the College Learning Council.  The development of the tenure process relied on highly collaborative 'Tenure Summits' involving all the stakeholders. These summit meetings are a dynamic, open collaborative decision-making forums, where difficult issues are resolved expediently. 

 

Tenure Summit June 11, 2007, Submitted by Helen Clarke and College Learning Council Co-Chairs: Dr. Kaye Walter and Ms. Rose Watson. Faculty Council: President Rose Watson, Vice-President Michael Shugg and President Ex-officio Tom Byrnes.

Attendees: Ruth Prather, Helen Clarke, Mildred Franceschi, Aida Diaz, Dennis Weeks, Joyce Romano, Kim Long, Joe Lynn Look, Michele McArdle, Susan Craig, Joe Livingston, Shaw Robinson, Martha Williams, Michelle Foster, Jennifer Page, Linda Swaine, Della Paul, Cheryl Robinson, Chris Klinger, Karen Blondeau, Stan Stone, Jared Graber, Nasser Hedayat, Tom Byrnes, Rose Watson, Kaye Walter, Joseph Bivins, Bill Mullowney, Dan Dutkofski, Michael Shugg, Maryke Lee, Lisa Armour, Dale Husbands

I. POLICY AND PROCEDURE NUMBER: 6HX28:08-10 AWARD OF TENURE AND EVALUATION OF TENURED AND TENURE-TRACK FACULTY

4.b. Professional Performance: Student Assessment of Instruction

II. PROCESSES FOR EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTING THE TENURE PROCESS REPORTING SYSTEM

A. Tenure Review Committee (TRC) Role: A n advisory committee composed of two elected, tenured faculty members working with the dean on tenure recommendations, providing comments to the record.

B. Guiding principles: Collaboration, inclusiveness, and transparency.

•  TRC Issues Decided:

1. Performance-related documents 'to the record' that are considered by one person must be considered by all members of the TRC. That is, dean and faculty committee members should consider all information relevant to tenure process. Information used to make tenure decisions must be in writing.

2. People who participate on TRCs must follow the procedures as described in the Handbook for Tenure Committee Members.

3. Tenure Review Committee members will sign an Ethics Statement and complete the TRC training before they serve on a committee. Training should clearly emphasize the TRC members realize the sensitivity and confidentiality of information.

4. Deans should inform the candidates when their final portfolio is approved.

 5. Candidates should be informed as soon as possible in cases where tenure is not recommended, either because of an unacceptable portfolio, Tenure Review Committee decision, or provost/VP decision.

• The College takes legal responsibility for TRC members. TRC members, who blatantly disregard TRC confidentiality, may lose indemnity.

III. OTHER CONCERNS

  A. Appropriate orientation and training for deans, other supervisors and members of Tenure Review Committees to enhance understanding of the legal environment as well as participation and procedure related to tenure review and recommendation. In this context, specific workshops may be scheduled as part of next year's Legal Issues Conference or provided through the Office of the General Counsel.

IV.  FURTHER NOTE OF CLARIFICATION:

ILP APPEALS: should an ILP Review Panel disapprove of a candidate's work on his or her ILP, the Faculty Association has established an appeals process.   The relevant passage reads as follows:

Completion of an 'acceptable' portfolio is a necessary prerequisite for tenure.  Therefore, an unacceptable portfolio disqualifies the candidate from further consideration for tenure.  A candidate whose final portfolio is considered 'unacceptable' by his or her ILP Review Panel may appeal to the Tenure Review Committee, which would refer the matter to another ILP Review Panel for consideration.  The candidate's portfolio would then be reviewed by the second ILP Review Panel.  The second panel would consist of one dean and three tenured faculty members selected by the Tenure Review Committee from the pool of trained ILP reviewers.  None of the members of the candidate's original ILP Review Panel would be eligible to serve on the second panel.  If the second panel found the candidate's portfolio to be 'acceptable,' that prerequisite for tenure would be considered met.  The candidate's official record would include both the original ILP Review Panel's report and the second panel's report.

 Tenure Review Committees therefore have an important role in this appeals process, and must reassign the review of an ILP under appeal to a new set of ILP reviewers.

Note on composition of Tenure Review Committees, from Tenure Summit Final Notes:

In cases where the described configuration for the Tenure Review Committee is not feasible, equivalent arrangements can be made.  For example, some departments do not have two tenured faculty members, or some departments have so many tenure candidates that it would not be feasible for two tenured faculty members to provide written remarks for all of them.  It is suggested that the Chief Learning Officer, Provost, Faculty Association Board, or College Learning Council serve to approve equivalent arrangements of the Tenure Review Committee.

Note on definition of holistic:  Evaluation of professional work in which the judgment is based on the overall quality of the artifact or performance rather than the individual elements of performance.