MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, MARCH 9, 1998

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., March 9, 1998,
in Room 115 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building.

Professor Jim Applegate, Chairperson of the Senate Council presided.

Members absent were: Debra Aaron, Laila Akhlaghi, Jim Albisetti, M.
Mukhtar Ali, Leon Assael, Anthony Baxter, Douglas Boyd, Fitzgerald
Bramwell, James Brennan*, Scott Brown, Geza Bruckner*, Johnny Cailleteau,
Brad Canon*, Ben Carr, Edward Carter, Jordan Cohen, Raymond Cox*, Melanie
Cruz, Susan DeCarvalho, Philip deSimone, Lee Edgerton, Robert Farquhar,
Juanita Fleming, Donald Frazier, William Freehling, Richard Furst, Kim
Glenn, Jonathan Golding*, Ottfried Hahn*, David Hamilton*, Patrick Herring,
James Holsinger, Rick Hoyle, Mark Ison, Raleigh Jones, Jamshed Kanga, Jill
Kelemen, Craig Koontz, Philipp Kraemer, Alan Leech, Thomas Lester, C. Oran
Little, Marianne Lorensen, Steven Middendorf, Mark Miller, Josh Mitchell,
David Mohney, Wolfgang Natter, Anthony Newberry, Michael Nietzel, Shirley
Raines, Randall Ratliff, Dan Reedy, Thomas Robinson, Donald Sands, Horst
Schach, David Shipley, Steven Skinner*, Edward Soltis, David Stockham,
Louis Swift*, Henry Vasconez, Retia Walker*, Jesse Weil, Emery Wilson,
Charles Wethington*, William Witt, Ernest Yanarella*, Elisabeth Zinser*.

* Absence Explained

The Chair stated that the minutes from February had been distributed.
There were no corrections or amendments. The minutes were approved as
distributed.

Chairperson Applegate made the following announcements:

The April 1998 Senate Meeting will be held in the new library. There will
be tours offered afterwards. You will be getting more information on this
meeting.

On March 23, 1998 (which is the next Senate Council meeting after Spring
break). We have a lot of inquiries and questions from many of you about
the new system. We have talked to the President about this and we will be
meeting with Vice-President DeBin about the new =93It=92s About Staff=94 sys=
tem
being implemented. If you have specific questions or concerns that you
want the Council to ask or address in our meeting with Vice-President DeBin
please feel free to e-mail me or contact us through the Web site. My
e-mail address is japple@pop.uky.edu. We will make sure those questions
are asked and give feedback on the meeting.

Some of you may have seen the legislative update that I sent out by e-mail.
I will simply mention that your Senate Council and also the Coalition of
Senate Faculty Leaders which represents faculty regents, trustees, senate
leaders, and AAUP representatives from around the state under the
leadership of Loys Mather has been busy interacting with our legislature.
At the Senate Council meeting once a week there is legislation we act on
since waiting a month to decide would probably be too late. A number of
things have happened. The Senate Council sent forth a resolution to the
House and Senate leadership supporting a bill that places a staff member on
the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees. We have also discussed at
some length and ultimately succeeded at having withdrawn a bill that would
impose a particular form of post-tenure review on all state universities.
We also sent forward a statement of general support with a series of
concerns related to original version of the Shaunessey Karem Merit
Scholarship Bill. We wanted to ensure needy students needs were addressed
before scholarships were given to less needy students. There have been a
number of changes in that bill over the last several weeks.

There was a meeting of COSFL on Saturday in which there was a decision for
individual institutions to decide on reaction to the collective bargaining
bill for public employees which is still swirling about in the legislature
although the prognosis is not positive.

COSFL has been extremely active in a number of ways; we have been meeting
by compressed video with all eight universities on a regular basis.
Largely because of that activity and success there will be a small news
item in the Chronicle of Higher Education about the fact that despite what
the recent shared governance article said. There are some good things
happening in Kentucky in regard to shared governanace at academic senates.

As a last note, it has been suggested that rather than distribute the full
form of the minutes to all senators, it be posted on the WEB site, kept in
the Senate Council Office, and made available upon request. While as a
matter of course we distribute to the full senate an abbreviated set of
minutes which basically, per Robert=92s rules, are a record of motions
introduced, reports made, actions taken, and votes cast. There was no
objection to the suggestion.

ACTION ITEM 1: Consideration of proposal to revise University Senate
Rules, Section I - 1.2.2, Composition of the University Senate

Proposal: {The language to be eliminated is in brackets[]; new language is
underlined}

1.2.2 COMPOSITION
As specified in the Governing Regulations, Part IV, the University Senate
is composed of both elected and ex officio membership. The elected
membership shall number [104] 113, of which [85] 94 members shall represent
the faculty, 18 shall represent the student body, and one shall represent
the emeriti faculty. (US:10/12/81 and BofT:4/6/82; US: 3/20/89 and BofT:
8/22/89)

1.2.2.1 Elected Faculty Membership The [85] 94 elected faculty members
shall be apportioned each spring among the colleges and the University
Libraries according to the following two equally weighted factors based on
data for the preceding fall semester: (1) the number of full-time faculty,
except those appointed in the extension series (although they are eligible
for election to membership), research title series, Medical Center clinical
titles series, and visiting series, with the rank of assistant professor or
higher in the college or the University Libraries; and (2) the number of
full time students enrolled in the college, computed so that students
enrolled in the Graduate School shall be assigned to the college in which
they are pursuing their studies. (US: 10/12/81 and BofT:4/6/82; BofT:
12/11/84) Ideally, the fraction of the total faculty Senate seats which
would be apportioned to an academic unit would be obtained by using the
following formula:

1/2 (Fu/Fe + Su/Se)

where Fu and Su are respectively the number of eligible faculty and the
number of full-time students in the unit, and Fe and Se are the total
eligible faculty and students, respectively, in all units. Usually the
portion of the total faculty seats which would be ideally assigned to a
unit will not be a whole number. For each unit a certain inequity will
result, this being the non-negative deviation of a unit's actual percentage
from its ideal percentage of the seats. The seats shall be apportioned to
the units in a manner which minimizes the total inequity, subject to the
condition that each unit gets at least one seat. (If two units have
identical ideal percentages and the minimum would be attained by giving
them different representations, then the extra seat shall be allocated to
one of them by a random process.) An administrative title below that of
Dean shall not automatically make the holder ineligible.

* Faculty members with administrative assignments of an academic nature
which constitute no more than half of their current duties--the rest
composed of teaching and/or research--will be construed as meeting the
requirements of "full time faculty." (RC: 4/2/76)

C Terms; Vacancies: As specified in the Governing Regulations, each elected
faculty member shall serve for a term of three years. Ideally, the terms of
the representatives of each academic unit or sub-unit should be staggered
so that one-third of them will be elected at each election. To this end the
faculty of the academic unit represented, may, for any election, specify
that a number of representatives be elected for two-year terms. If such
action is taken, the dean of the academic unit involved shall notify the
Secretary of the Senate of such intent in advance of the upcoming election.
When more than one number is to be elected from a unit or sub-unit, those
receiving the greater number of votes will serve three-year terms and those
elected receiving the lesser number of votes will serve two-year terms.

1.2.2.2 Elected Student Membership The 18 elected student membership shall
consist of and represent the members of the full-time student body in the
various colleges including Lexington Community College and the Graduate
School of the University System. The colleges and the Graduate School each
shall have one student representative. Students with no declared major
shall be represented through the College of Arts and Sciences. (US:10/12/81
and BofT:4/6/82)

A Eligibility: Each elected student member shall be a junior, senior, or
graduate or professional student, or in the case of LCC, sophomore
standing, and shall not be on either academic or disciplinary probation.

B Election: The election shall be conducted during the second semester by
the Student Government Association under procedures approved by the Senate
Council.

C Terms; Vacancies: As specified in the Governing Regulations, each elected
student member shall serve for a term of one year and shall be eligible for
reelection as long as the student remains a full-time undergraduate,
graduate, or professional student in the University System. If a student
should at any time become ineligible to serve (e.g., by relinquishing his
or her position as a full-time student, being placed on academic probation
or violating the Senate attendance regulations), the administrative head
of the group represented shall declare a vacancy and designate that member
from the eligible student body who at the last election received the next
highest vote to serve for the duration of the elected student member's
ineligibility. The Secretary of the Senate shall maintain attendance
records and shall notify the administrative head of the college represented
when the representative of that college has been absent without explanation
from three meetings of the Senate during the academic year. A student
member shall become ineligible to serve on purgation from the Student
Senate. (US:10/8/79)

Newly elected student members of the Senate shall take their seats at the
first meeting of the Senate in the fall, or any special meeting called
during the preceding summer.

Background and Rationale:
This proposal is an accommodation to legally mandated changes passed during
the special session of the legislature in May of 1997 requiring integration
of the operations and governance of the Lexington Community College (LCC)
with that of the University of Kentucky while splitting off the rest of the
Community College system under a separate Board. The Senate Council
supports the creation of a unified Senate to facilitate academic
coordination and the creation of a system of collaboration that serves as a
model for Universities and Community Colleges across the nation. Numerous
academic/governance issues will need to be addressed in the coming months
and the creation of a unified Senate will facilitate discussion of those
issues.

The number of faculty Senators added is consistent with the number that
should represent LCC faculty given their numbers and the current formula
for calculating representation found in Senate Rule I - 1.2.2.1. Though a
student representative is being added from LCC this does not increase the
size of the Senate by a 10th member since Senate membership as defined in
the current regulations reflects one MORE student senator than has actually
served in the Senate since the merger of the College of Library Science and
the College of Communications. The merger resulted in the actual reduction
of number of student senators by one but the number in the regulations was
never changed. This change is to ensure student representation from the
Lexington Community College. A sophomore student would be a more senior
member of the student community.

If approved, this proposal will be forwarded to the administration for
inclusion in the Governing Regulations.

Implementation Date: 1 July 1998

The motion passed in a voice vote.

ACTION ITEM 2: Reconsideration of proposal to revise University Senate
Rules, Section I - 1.5.1.1, Authority Relative to Appointment of President

Proposal: { The language to be eliminated is in brackets new language
is underlined)

1.5.1.1 Authority Relative to Appointment of President The Governing
Regulations adopted by the Board of Trustees May 5, 1970 and amended
February, 1972, and October, 1987 provide: "in the event of a vacancy in
the Office of President or disability of the President, the Vice President
for Administration shall exercise the functions of the President in the
absence of the appointment of an Interim President by the Board. If the
Board finds it desirable to appoint an Interim President it shall seek
advice from a joint Board-Faculty Committee to recommend the appointment of
a President if such has been constituted or, if the committee has not been
constituted, from the University Senate Council. The President of the
University is appointed by the Board of Trustees with the advice of a joint
committee of the Board, faculty, and student body. The committee shall
consist of five members of the Board appointed by its chair; [three] four
[members of the full-time teaching and/or research faculty of the
University System] University faculty eligible to serve on the University
Senate, selected by a procedure determined by the University Senate; [one
member of the full-time teaching faculty of the Community College System
selected by a procedure determined by the Community College System
Council;] and one full-time student appointed by the chair of the Board.
The committee shall provide opportunity for discussion between
representative administrative, faculty, and student groups and prospective
presidential candidates."

1.5.1.2 Procedures In the event of a vacancy, or official announcement of
an impending vacancy in the Office of President, the following procedure
shall be utilized in selecting the [three] four faculty members of the
University System to serve on the Search Committee:

A The University Senate shall serve as the nominating body. Nominations
shall take place at a regular or special meeting of the Senate.

B Each voting member of the Senate will be provided with a complete list of
[the full-time teaching and/or research faculty --] the same faculty
members who are eligible to be elected to the Senate.

C The University Senate shall proceed to nominate six (6) candidates. (An
addressed sealed envelope containing two smaller envelopes will be given to
each member of the Senate present. One of the smaller envelopes will
contain four cards which the members will use in voting on the first ballot
and the second smaller envelope will contain six cards to be used by the
members in voting on the second ballot.) The Senators shall include both
the first and last name or initials of the persons for whom they vote to
avoid confusion.

1. Each member, using the list of those eligible for election, shall vote
for no more or no less than four (4) persons.

2. Only voting members of the Senate shall be eligible to vote in the
nominations. An ad hoc committee of the Senate appointed by the Senate
Council chair shall count the votes immediately and announce the names of
the twelve (12) individuals receiving the highest number of votes, plus any
ties for the 12th position. No nominating speeches will be allowed.

3. The Senators shall then vote for no more or no less than six (6) of
these candidates.

4. Each Senator will sign his or her name in the upper left-hand corner of
the envelopes containing ballots.

5. The six candidates receiving the highest number of votes, plus any ties
for the 6th position, shall be declared nominated. The chair of the Senate
Council will check on each of the nominees to determine that he or she is
available and willing to serve before the six names are placed on the
election ballot. If any of the six or more is unwilling or unable to serve,
the person receiving the next highest number of votes on the second
nominating ballot will serve as replacement. In the event of ties, decision
by lot will be reached.

D The Secretary of the Senate shall then conduct a mail election ballot on
the nominees. Those eligible to vote on this ballot shall be the same as
those eligible to be elected to the Senate.

* Each faculty member shall vote for no more or no less than [three (3)]
four (4) of these candidates. No ballot containing more or less than [3]
[4] names shall be counted. (RC: 4/14/86).

E The [three] four nominees receiving the highest number of votes shall be
recommended to the chair of the Board of Trustees for appointment to the
Board-Faculty Committee. Ties shall be broken by lot.

Background and Rationale:
The Senate Council felt that despite the separation of faculty from all but
one of the Community Colleges it was important to retain four faculty
representatives on the committee to maintain a strong and diverse faculty
voice in this important process. Lexington Community College faculty
eligible for Senate membership would be eligible for selection to the
committee in the same way faculty on the Lexington and Medical Center
Campuses would be.

Implementation Date: 1 July 1998

The item passed in an unanimous voice vote.

The next item is for discussion only. There will be no action taken today.
Amendments and changes can be proposed, but we will not vote on those
today. We felt that this was an important enough issue that it warranted
discussion. Since this is a discussion item only, I'll give you a little
of the background on this. As you remember we are in the process this year
of dealing with a series of recommendations that came from a task force,
looking at our whole promotion and tenure system that worked last year
under the able leadership of then chair of psychology, now Graduate Dean,
Mike Nietzel and Mary Witt from the College of Agriculture. We have passed
and it is now about to be approved by the President and placed into the
rules the elimination of the old prior service system. The approved
interruption of service proposal has been forwarded to the President for
consideration by the Administration as well. We are hopeful that will
receive a favorable review. This current proposal is by far the largest of
those we have considered. Having been the Senate Council=92s liaison with
Mary Witt's subcommittee, which looked at this part very heavily, I share
with you a couple of things that they were trying to do here. One was to
open up the terms we use to think about promotion and tenure, the types of
scholarship that we acknowledge and reward for excellence and with
promotion and tenure. The second element of this was to work to reinstate
the role of disciplines in articulating down from the general university
requirements the way the criteria for excellence and promotion and teaching
and service translate into different disciplinary context. The third issue
was some redefinition and clarification of the way we define what it means
to be an assistant professor, an associate professor, and a full professor.

The floor was open for discussion.

FOR DISCUSSION ONLY: Criteria for Privilege and Tenure

CURRENT: From the Current Administrative Regulations=20
AR II-1.0-1

V. Criteria of Evaluation for Appointment and Promotion in the Regular
Title Series

PROPOSED: (a new section A is added)

V. Criteria of Evaluation for Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and
Tenure

A. Introduction
In order to:
1. assure teaching, research and other creative activity, and service are
of high quality;
2. maintain a diverse university faculty
3. support the faculty in preparing students to participate effectively in
a democratic and pluralistic society;
4. foster rigorous professional standards; and
5. maintain a high quality of shared academic governance;
the University of Kentucky adheres to the following general system for
determining academic appointment, tenure, and rank.

The University of Kentucky is distinguished as the state=92s flagship
institution for research, teaching and service. The research scholarship of
a dedicated and creative faculty enhances the teaching and service missions
of this land grant university.

The balance of emphasis between scholarship and other assigned activities
varies from one faculty position to another. Forms of scholarship
appropriate to each unit=92s specific mission within the University should b=
e
clearly written as guidelines by the unit=92s faculty, taking into
consideration the full range of UK academic and civic mandates.

Objective and systematic appraisal of faculty candidates for initial and
continued reappointment, promotion in academic rank, and granting of tenure
is essential. The land grant mission and guidelines listed below provide
common criteria applicable to all University of Kentucky faculty in the
professorial rank.

CURRENT:

A. Areas of Activity

Four areas of activity are important in the evaluation of faculty for
appointment and promotion in the regular title series: (1) teaching,
including both formal classroom activities and informal influence on
students' growth; (2) research and other creative productivity; (3)
professional status and activity; and (4) University and public service.

Since all appointments and promotions shall be made on the basis of merit,
the following detailed statements regarding each of these areas will serve
as a guide to review committees evaluating the accomplishments of a faculty
member.

PROPOSED: (section A becomes B and is changed)

B. Areas of Activity

Participation in any or all of these scholastic areas is appropriate in the
evaluation of faculty at all ranks: (1) research and other creative
activity; (2) teaching, advising and other instructional activities; (3)
professional, University and public service.

Each of these areas is essential to the successful mission of a land grant
university. The level of a faculty member=92s participation should be
commensurate with his/her specified allocation for each area. Excellence in
research and creative scholarship, teaching, advising and other
instructional activities, and in professional, University and community
service should be rewarded. It is critical that all scholarly activities be
well documented and recognized as positive evidence for promotion and=
tenure.

CURRENT:

2. Research and Other Creative Activity

The individual under consideration must show evidence of continuing
research or creative activity in the particular field of assignment.
Normally, publication in the form considered appropriate for the field will
constitute this evidence. Evaluation of the quality of such publication is
imperative, and specialists in the field from both inside and outside the
University should be called upon to attest to the value of the individual's
research. Since certain types of research or creative work require a longer
period of development before publication than do others, evaluation also
should be made of work in progress, particularly in cases where retention
is involved. It should be understood that in certain activities,
"publication" as used in this document may be achieved in modes different
from those of the sciences and the book-based disciplines.

PROPOSED: (this becomes section 1 and is changed)

1. Research and Other Creative Activity

University faculty have a responsibility for the creation of knowledge--not
simply the dissemination of current practice. Faculty members should
document their scholarship related to research and/or creative endeavors.
Common to all endeavors is that the work is original, of high quality, and
validated by rigorous peer review. Moreover, communication of the work=92s
significance to the scholarly community and to the public at large is a
component of the mission of a land grant university and, therefore, its
evaluation is an integral part of the promotion and tenure process.

Evidence of recognition of research and creative activity and its
long-lasting merit and worth is valued. The impact of a person=92s research
or creative work will be assessed by the intellectual and creative
traditions of his/her discipline, as stated by unit guidelines.

In addition to the more traditional methods of presentation, examples of
creative scholarship include public performances and exhibitions, audio and
visual recordings, applications of technical innovations, and both exterior
and interior contributions to the built environment. This work must be
evaluated for originality, significance, quality, and must be communicated
to others. For example, the value of creative works can be determined
through adjudicated productions using outside reviewers and/or peer review,
publication of critical reviews of performances or exhibitions, and invited
or juried shows or exhibitions.

CURRENT:

1. Teaching and Student Relations

Markedly superior teaching and advising are distinct values and should be
recognized in appointment or promotion. Recognition also should be given to
a faculty member's contribution to student welfare through service on
student-faculty committees or as an advisor to student organizations.

Objective evidence of the quality of teaching shall be included in the
final dossier. Such evidence should include: (a) reports by colleagues
qualified in the field; (b) evaluations by students and, if available,
graduates; and (c) when appropriate, the subsequent accomplishments of
graduates whose major work has been supervised by the individual under
consideration.

Colleges shall evaluate the quality as well as the quantity of academic
advising done by each faculty member. The results of this evaluation shall
be considered in the annual performance review and in the decisions
concerning retention and/or promotion of each faculty member.

PROPOSED: ( this becomes section 2 - after research - and is changed)

2. Teaching, Advising and Other Instructional Activities

Teaching involves creating a learning environment, as well as transmitting,
transforming and extending knowledge. Excellence in teaching and advising
are distinct values that are recognized in appointment and promotion.
Themes for the teaching mission are to encourage students to:

=95 maximize use of their intellect;
=95 practice problem-solving;
=95 demonstrate the ability to think creatively; and
=95 foster inquiry, imagination, initiative and integrity.
=95 foster students' accomplishment of academic and career goals
=95 create an inclusive learning community in which students understand and
value diversity
=95 of perspectives

A faculty member's contributions may be demonstrated in a diversity of
ways. For faculty whose assignment includes teaching, evidence of
successful fulfillment of these duties is critical for appointment and
promotion. Teaching (and advising activities, where applicable) must be
documented through the teaching portfolio. Educational activities extend
far beyond the classroom, and the University of Kentucky acknowledges the
importance of educating citizens of Kentucky, both on and off campus, as
part of its land grant mission. Appropriate methods of documenting outreach
activities and scholarly contributions to the state will be elaborated in
unit guidelines.

CURRENT:

3. Professional Status and Activity

The demonstration that the abilities of the individual under consideration
are recognized outside the University is important in evaluation, but such
recognition must be weighted according to rank. Obviously, a candidate for
the lowest rank will not be likely to have achieved wide recognition. There
are many ways in which extramural recognition may be evidenced, and those
entrusted with evaluation will use the kind of evidence appropriate to
their fields. Qualitative rather than quantitative judgments should be made.

4. University and Public Service

Effective participation in activities appropriate to the formation of
educational policy and faculty governance and effective performance of
administrative duties shall be taken into consideration in the evaluative
process. A service component is a normal part of a faculty members
obligation to the University.

Service to the community, state, and nation also must be recognized as
positive evidence for promotion, provided that this service emanates from
the special competence of the individual in an assigned field and is an
extension of the individual's role as a scholar-teacher. In the colleges of
the Medical Center, patient care is recognized as a special competence in
an assigned field and is an integral part of the service component. Public
service unrelated to the individual's role as a scholar-teacher does not
constitute evidence for appointment, promotion, or salary increase.

PROPOSED: (sections 3&4 are collapsed into section 3 and changed)

3. Professional, University and Public Service

The activities and contributions of faculty to their professional field are
important in the evaluation process. Active interest in professional groups
of colleagues and practitioners contributes to regional, national and/or
international intellectual networks which supports the creation and
dissemination of knowledge in a field. Further, contributions to this
professional networking establish the faculty member=92s reputation outside
the university and contribute to the overall image of the university.
Documented evidence of professional leadership, activities, contributions
and recognitions should be recognized as positive evidence for promotion
and tenure.

Effective participation in activities appropriate to the formation of
educational policy and faculty governance, and effective performance of
administrative duties, will be taken into consideration in the evaluation
process. A service component is a normal part of a faculty member=92s
obligation to the University.

Faculty members are expected to engage in service related to their
professional role as scholar for the benefit and development of the broader
community. This includes local, state, national and international
populations, and the University community. Documented scholarship related
to service that is directly associated with one=92s special field of
knowledge, expertise, and professional role within the University will be
recognized as positive evidence for promotion and tenure.

Citizenship activities of faculty members and projects unrelated to faculty
members professional roles in the University, while laudable, do not
constitute evidence for academic tenure and rank.

CURRENT:

B. Balance and Intellectual Attainment

A major consideration in any appointment or promotion with tenure is
superior achievement in the various activities discussed in the preceding
paragraphs. While the proportion of these activities may vary in terms of
the individual's assignments and specialty, it must be recognized that
superior intellectual attainment is evidenced both by the quality of the
individual's teaching and the quality of the individual's research or other
creative activity. Ideally, individuals selected for tenure should
demonstrate superiority in all of the major criteria discussed here and,
while special circumstances may cause the weight of emphasis on each to
vary, care must be taken to insure that outstanding performance in a single
activity does not obliterate the other factors that should be considered in
evaluating academic excellence.

PROPOSED: (C&D are added following B above which is unchanged)

C. Evaluation of Collaborative Efforts

The products of collaborative efforts in teaching, research, and service
shall be
considered as evidence of scholarship by the candidate. The candidate shall
document the contribution he/she has made to the collective project and
appraisal of the candidate's effectiveness as part of the collaborative
effort should include statements by co-members.

D. Implementation at Unit Levels

Each unit is required to develop guidelines related to its criteria of
evaluation for initial and continued reappointment, promotion, and tenure
consistent with this document.

CURRENT:

C. General Criteria for Ranks

Although it is impossible to specify the exact criteria for judging an
appointment or promotion to any one particular rank, the following general
statements are guides for review committees.

1. Assistant Professor

Appointment or promotion to the rank of assistant professor shall be made
after it has been determined that the individual has earned the terminal
degree appropriate to the field of assignment and has a current capability
for good teaching, research, and University service and a potential for
significant growth in these areas.

2. Associate Professor

Appointment or promotion to associate professor shall be made only after an
indication of continuous improvement and contribution by an individual both
in teaching and research or other creative activity. Furthermore, the
individual should have earned some regional recognition for excellence
appropriate to the field of assignment.

3. Professor

Appointment or promotion to the rank of professor is an indication that, in
the opinion of colleagues, an individual is outstanding in teaching and in
research or other creative activity and, in addition, has earned national
and, perhaps, international recognition. It should be stressed further that
this rank is recognition of attainment rather than of length of service.

PROPOSED:

E. General Criteria for Ranks

The following general criteria for appointment and promotion serve as
guidelines for persons involved in the decision process.

Assistant Professor

Appointment or promotion to the rank of assistant professor shall be made
after it has been determined that the individual has earned the terminal
degree appropriate to the field of assignment as recognized by the academic
discipline, has capability for excellent scholarship and teaching, and
demonstrates potential for significant growth.

Associate Professor

Appointment or promotion to associate professor shall be made only after a
candidate has met the criteria for assistant professor and has demonstrated
high scholarly achievements commensurate with his/her assignment in areas
of. (1) research and other creative activity; (2) teaching, advising and
other instructional activities; (3) professional, university and public
service. Particularly, an indication of continuous improvement and
scholastic contributions should be evident as documented by the candidate.
Further, the individual should have earned external recognition for
excellence in her/his scholarly activities. Where appropriate, this
recognition should be on a regional level in the field of assignment.

Professor

Appointment or promotion to full professor shall be made only after a
candidate has met the criteria for associate professor and has demonstrated
high scholarly achievements commensurate with his/her assignment in areas
of. (1) research and other creative activity; (2) teaching, advising, and
other instructional activities; (3) professional, university and public
service. Particularly, such an appointment implies that, in the opinion of
colleagues, the candidate=92s scholarship is excellent and, in addition, s/h=
e
has earned a high level of professional recognition. Where appropriate,
this recognition should be on a national or international level in the
field of assignment. It should be stressed further that this rank is in
recognition of attainment rather than length of service.

Add:
FACULTY HANDBOOK ADDITION:

Information on Policies and Procedures

Promotion and Tenure

Dossier and Considerations

The candidate and unit chairperson develop a dossier for each
recommendation to promote and/or grant tenure. Such a dossier contains
materials from the Standard Personnel file although ordinarily only
materials since the last promotion or appointment are included in addition
to the following material:
=95 a statement specifying whether the unit chairperson has or has not
recommended the faculty member for promotion and tenure; the written
judgment of each faculty member consulted in the unit; written evidence of
consultation with and related materials submitted by appropriate
undergraduate, graduate, and professional student advisory groups;
=95 at least three letters of evaluation from qualified persons outside the
University, which the unit chairperson requests directly from appropriately
qualified persons;
=95 the recommendation of the director of each multidisciplinary research
center or institute with which the appointee is associated;
=95 the recommendation of each multidisciplinary research center or institut=
e
with which the appointee is associated;
=95 an updated curriculum vitae;
=95 a teaching portfolio; (excluding faculty in the Clinical, Extension, and
Research Title Series)
=95 a bibliography of all published research articles and articles accepted
for publication in refereed professional journals, patents, writings and a
listing of other creative or professional productivity; - copies of
publications and published reviews or letters concerning publications and
copies of materials related to creative productivity;
=95 copies of Distribution of Effort forms;
=95 copies of faculty performance reviews.
Contents of the file must include documentation related to teaching and
student relations as well as advising. To document teaching efforts, the
following are required:
=95 a brief reflective statement by the instructor which describes teaching
and advising assignments, sets forth philosophies or objectives, and
provides whatever information may be necessary to provide colleagues with a
context for interpreting and understanding the other valuative information;
=95 for each semester under review, a list of all courses taught, with the
title, course number, number of students enrolled and -for each different
course - a short description;
=95 representative course syllabi; and
=95 a quantitative and qualitative summary of student evaluations since the
last review or promotion. (For considerations of promotion and tenure, but
not of regular performance evaluation, department and/or college norms and
rating scale must be included.)
The following are suggested but not required:
=95 materials prepared for teaching activities, such as assignments,
exercises, handouts, examinations or other assessment materials;
=95 indicators of student learning, such as examples of graded work,
reference to students who succeed in advanced courses of study and/or who
earn academic awards, accomplishments of former students, and evidence of
learning by the use of pre- and post-testing procedures;
=95 evidence of peer regard: colleague class visitation reports, and peer
evaluations of course content, materials, assignments, and practices;
=95 documentation of teaching-related activity: curriculum and course
development, consulting work, innovative teaching methods, participation in
teaching programs of other units or at other universities;
=95 evidence of recognition: teaching-related grants, publications related t=
o
teaching and advising, teaching awards and honors; and
=95 enumeration and description of work with individual students: supervisio=
n
of Honors students, independent or experiential learning, consultation with
students outside the department.

Where advising is a portion of the faculty member's usual assignment,
evaluation should include the extent of advising and its quality along with
an indication of the grounds for evaluation, including the following
required items:
=95 a section of the reflective statement which describes the nature and
extent of advising and any other information necessary to provide
colleagues with a context for evaluation of advising;
=95 for each semester under review, the number and level of undergraduate an=
d
graduate program advisees, and a list of masters and doctoral students for
whom the instructor served as a member of a thesis or advisory committee;
=95 a list of those students for whom the professor served as preceptor, or
director of a thesis or dissertation; and
=95 a summary of activities associated with student organizations and servic=
e
on student-faculty committees.
Suggested, but not required are:
=95 student evaluation of advising; and
=95 evaluation of advising by unit colleagues or administrators.

Add:
Illustrations of possible activities to be included in the dossier and
evaluated

To illustrate activities which help fulfill the tripartite mission of the
land grant university and which could be incorporated into criteria for
evaluation of promotion and tenure dossiers for faculty the following is
provided. These criteria must be tailored to the opportunities for
scholarship that exist within each unit or field.

Appendix

To illustrate activities which help fulfill the tripartite mission of this
land grant university, academic units should consider the following in
developing their guidelines for initial and continued reappointment,
promotion in academic rank, and granting of tenure. These criteria should
be tailored to the opportunities for scholarship that exist within each
unit=92s field.

Research and Other Creative Activity

Examples of research and other creative activity include, but are not
limited to:

=95 publication of work in appropriate outlets;
=95 invitations to present work at colloquial symposia, workshops, and
conferences;
=95 publication of review articles and book chapters;
=95 authorship or editorship of books;
=95 citation of person=92s work by other scholars;
=95 garnering competitive research grants and contracts, as well as
documenting extramural proposals which reflect scholarly quality;
=95 the creation and archiving of research data, technology, materials or
procedures;
=95 development of intellectual property, such as inventions, patents,
release of plant varieties, etc.; and
=95 documented evidence that one s research has been applied by others.

Teaching, Advising, and Other Instructional Activities

Examples of teaching, advising, and other instructional activities include,
but are not limited to:

=95 contributions to faculty governance of curriculum;
=95 academic program development and administration;
=95 classroom instructional performance;
=95 innovative pedagogy;
=95 creative delivery of teaching programs independent of time and location,
to reach diverse or non-traditional student populations;
=95 academic advising and career counseling;
=95 integrative scholarship;
=95 student-faculty relations and welfare through service on student-faculty
committees or as advisor to student=92s honor and professional
organizations;
=95 recruitment and mentoring undergraduate and graduate students;
=95 independent study programs for students;
=95 critiques of fine, applied, and performing arts projects;
=95 extending University programs and expertise to public;
=95 counseling practitioners in their field of expertise; and
=95 leadership to improve instructional programming, techniques and learning
aids.
=95 directing research of graduate students, postdoctoral personnel, and
visiting scholars.

Professional, University, and Public Service Activities

Examples of professional, University, and public service activities
include, but are not limited to:

=95 evidence of professional activities, contributions, and leadership;
=95 awards and honors received from international, national, regional, and
local peers, or professional organizations for scholarly work;
=95 international, national, regional, and local awards and honors received
by graduate and undergraduate students who do research, teaching, or
service activities while under the candidate=92s direction;
=95 editorial service or other invitations to review or adjudicate the work
of others;
=95 Extension programming;
=95 clinical service;
=95 diagnostic and analytical services;
=95 information services;
=95 unsalaried service as consultant, advisor, or expert participant;
=95 preparation of public information materials and commentary, including
public lectures;
=95 service to the public through contributions to public policy;
=95 enhancement of community and state programs;
=95 assistance with solving problems of communities or the state;
=95 of knowledge or technology which leads to new applications or
interpretations of research data and/or helps solve problems;
=95 international development;
=95 contributions to public relations of the University;
=95 contributions to public awareness of teaching, research and service
programs; and
=95 involvement in faculty governance.

Background and Rationale

The Senate Task Force on Promotion and Tenure devoted academic year 1996-97
to a review of the promotion and tenure system at the University. Their
report provided a number of proposed revisions which the Senate Council has
reviewed and forwarded to the Senate over the course of this academic year.
This proposal is a significant revision in the criteria for promotion and
tenure. The task force intended to broaden and make more explicit the types
of scholarship (e.g., the scholarship of discovery, teaching, application)
that could be evaluated as a basis for promotion and tenure. In addition it
sought to provide better guidance, to those seeking promotion and tenure.
Finally, it sought to make explicit the role of the academic unit and the
University respectively in the process.

If approved, this proposal will be forwarded to the administration for
inclusion in the Governing Regulations.

Implementation Date: 1 July 1998

The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.




Donald Witt
Secretary, University Senate