- How Do I?
- Add Student To Degree List
- College and Department Rules
- Create Senate Proposal
- Ex Officio Voting Rights
- Faculty-Related Links
- Faculty's Evaluation of the President
- Learn About University Senate
- University Senate Rules
- University Ad Hoc Committees
- Newsletter Archives
- Deans & Chairs
Currently Under Review:
Comments recieved through close of business on Friday, May 9, 2008 were submitted to Provost Subbaswamy.
The University Senate transmittal regarding IMPORTANT FACULTY POLICY REVISIONS was posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008. Comments and suggestions
should be emailed to Kaveh Tagavi by Friday, May 9, 2008. If you have any questions, please call 257-5871.
In December of 2007, Provost Subbaswamy issued a white paper titled “Aligning Faculty Classification and Tenure Policies with Top 20 Goals: A White Paper.” The white paper discussed two broad topics, each with many underlying issues: 1. categories for tenure-eligible title series; and 2. suggested changes to UK’s promotion and tenure review policies, procedures and
The Senate Council and the Provost agreed that a joint task force would be the best vehicle for working through all the issues related to UK’s current tenure-eligible title series system (#1 above). As long as the task force is making positive, forward movement, neither I nor the Provost object to thorough and thoughtful deliberations.
However, we agreed that proposed changes to UK’s promotion and tenure review policies, procedures and practices (#2 above) could be vetted more expeditiously, but with the same dedication to thoughtfulness. The subsequent release of the document “Top 20 Faculty Policies – A Discussion Paper” presented an expanded discussion of promotion and tenure review policies, procedures and practices; and it is on this latter document that the Senate Council focused its immediate attention.
In mid-February, the SC instructed me to solicit comments from senators and faculty councils regarding the possible changes to UK’s promotion and tenure review policies, etc. The comments received were subsequently organized according to subject matter/numbered item. A handful of SC members each took the responsibility for one numbered item in the document,
and summarized the faculty comments for that item.
At several SC meetings this semester, SC members have discussed each numbered item and the faculty comments associated with it. The discussion on each numbered item ended with a formal vote by the SC on a recommendation, informed by the faculty feedback and SC discussions, to the Provost.
Comments and suggestions should be emailed to Kaveh Tagavi by Friday, May 9, 2008.
Courses to Review:
Programs to Review: