CAS Minutes - March 2013

Nominations:
Prior to the meeting, the following colleagues were nominated via email to fill the following committee slots (2-year terms, 2012-13 & 2013-14):

            Humanities
                English, Pearson
                History, Abbott
                Modern Languages, Xiao
                Philosophy, Drake
                Religious Studies, Lakeland
                VPA, Nash
                At-Large, Theil

            Natural Sciences & Mathematics
                Biology, Klug
                Chemistry & BC, Weddle
                Math & CS, Rafalski
                Physics, Winn

            Social & Behavioral Sciences
                Communications, Pagano
                Economics, Lane
                Politics, Leatherman
                Psychology, Primavera
                Sociology & Anthropology, Lacy

The Chair opened the floor for nominations for two at-large positions (Natural Sciences & Mathematics and Social & Behavioral Sciences).

Professor Winn self-NOMINATED, and was ELECTED by acclamation to the 2012-2014 at-large position of the Merit Review Committee for Natural Sciences & Mathematics.

With no additional nominees or volunteers coming forward, Prof. Lakeland MOVED to leave open the business of nominating the final remaining Merit Review Committee member (at-large Social & Behavioral Sciences) because insufficient numbers of faculty members present were willing to serve. Prof. Minors SECONDED the motion.

The Chair opened the floor to discuss Prof. Lakeland’s motion.

Prof. Keenan spoke against the motion and encouraged colleagues to continue with the election; he noted that the task of the Merit Review Committee is not an onerous one, and that it was faculty members who created this process.

Prof. Rafalski asked how much time is required to fulfill Merit Review Committee work. Various colleagues who have served on this committee explained that the annual work load is approximately 30 minutes.

Associate Dean Im CALLED THE QUESTION.

The motion FAILS (4-37-0).

The Chair asked, once more, for nominations to fill the final Merit Review Committee slot (at-large Social & Behavioral Sciences). Prof. Patton NOMINATED Prof. Vasquez.

The Chair tentatively accepted the nomination, but chose to postpone electing Prof. Vasquez by acclamation until he has the opportunity to accept or decline this nomination. The CAS Secretary will ask Vasquez if he accepts prior to adding his name to the roster.

Prof. Nash presented the Summary Recommendations and Report by the Subcommittee.

She explained that the committee was proposed by the A&S Planning Committee in September 2012. The ASPC charged the committee with the following tasks:
1.    Review University Rank and Tenure guidelines
2.    Consider whether any College level procedures and guidelines may be needed
3.    Draft recommendations for consideration by the CAS faculty

The subcommittee consists of tenure-track faculty members from the College, including at least one member from each rank (Assistant, Associate, Full), and with at least two members having prior experience on the Rank and Tenure Committee.

At the October 2012 CAS faculty meeting, College faculty created the subcommittee; the subcommittee subsequently elected Prof. DeWitt as subcommittee chair.

Subcommittee Members: DeWitt, Chair; Fernandez; Nash; Simon.

Prof. Nash reiterated that the Merit Review process is faculty driven. She summarized key findings and recommendations as described in the subcommittee report (Appendix B).

As outlined in its summary of recommendations, the subcommittee organized their recommendations into three categories: issues for CAS governance documents; a proposed annual “tenure and promotion summary document”; and issues for the university Rank & Tenure Committee. Subcommittee recommendations are outlined further in Appendix B, but are summarized as follows:

Question One
No changes recommended (current language on “appropriate faculty”

Question Two
The subcommittee recommends the proposed CAS Tenure and Promotion Policies Summary note that, consistent with the Faculty Handbook and Journal of Record, (i) faculty who fall under the definition of “appropriate faculty” have a professional obligation to write letters evaluating applications for tenure and/or promotion, and (ii) while our governance documents do not anticipate faculty other than those defined as the “appropriate faculty writing letters,” there may be cases where it is reasonable for such faculty to write.

Question Three
The subcommittee recommends the CAS Tenure and Promotion Policies Summary note that (i) for reasons of confidentiality, the department Chair not be informed whether individual appropriate faculty have or have not written letters; (ii) that the Dean inform the Chair before the November 8 deadline whether or not all letters have been received; and (iii) when necessary, the Chair should send a reminder to all appropriate faculty of their professional obligation to submit letters by the November 8 deadline.

Question Four
The subcommittee recommends the CAS Tenure and Promotion Policies Summary note that, in cases in which the Chair is a candidate for promotion, the “chair letter” be submitted by:
(i) A department member, selected by the department, who has recently served as department Chair;
(ii) In cases where (i) does not fulfill the need, a tenured department member selected by the department in consultation with the Dean;
(iii) In cases where neither (i) nor (ii) fulfill the need, a willing and tenured member of another department, preferably from a related department, selected by the department in consultation with the Dean.

Question Five
The subcommittee recommends the CAS Tenure and Promotion Policies Summary state that in cases when the department Chair does not hold the rank sought by a candidate, the Chair nonetheless writes the required letter from the Chair.

Question Six
The subcommittee recommends the CAS not pursue additional college-wide or departmental standards for tenure and/or promotion.

Question Seven
The subcommittee recommends the CAS Tenure and Promotion Policies Summary include statements that (i) other than the Dean and department Chair, faculty members may not have access to letters from outside reviewers; (ii) if the Chair shares with the department the general assessments found in the outside letters, it must be done in such a way as to assure that the identity and institutional affiliation of the authors remain confidential; and (iii) faculty cannot be required and may not be pressured to share their letters of evaluation with the department Chair.

Question Eight
The subcommittee recommends the CAS faculty take no action on this at this time. Rather, this is an item the subcommittee views as appropriate to send to the Rank and Tenure Committee, for consideration as to whether to recommend the Academic Council approve minor Journal of Record changes clarifying the matter.

Question Nine
The subcommittee recommends the CAS Tenure and Promotion Policies Summary include the statement that when a faculty member informs the Dean in May that she/he wishes to apply for tenure and/or promotion, a copy of the candidate’s CV should be included along with the other materials required by the Journal of Record

Question Ten
The subcommittee recommends the CAS faculty take no action on this at this time. Rather, this is an issue the subcommittee views as appropriate to send to the Rank and Tenure Committee, including a recommendation for updating our policies in light of the increasing use of electronic dossiers.

Question Eleven
The subcommittee recommends the CAS Tenure and Promotion Policies Summary note that (i) Deans may, when appropriate, make recommendations for strengthening a candidate’s application, and (ii) that a candidate may make changes to the dossier up to the December 1 deadline for submitting the dossier to the SVPAA office.

Question Twelve
The subcommittee recommends the CAS faculty take no action on this at this time. Rather, this is an item the subcommittee views as appropriate to send to the Rank and Tenure Committee, for consideration on whether to recommend the Academic Council approve
Faculty Handbook changes to make Fairfield University’s policies more in line with AAUP recommendations.

Question Thirteen
The subcommittee recommends no action be taken on this at the college level. The subcommittee will send this issue to the Rank and Tenure Committee and ask that it pursue language to clarify this issue.

Following Prof. Nash’s overview of the recommendations, Assoc. Dean Simon added that a key issue for these considerations is the issue of an associate professor ushering a senior colleague through the process for promotion to full professor. He reported that there were four such cases this year, and that there are an average of 1-2 similar cases every year. He summed up the primary purpose of the subcommittee recommendations: seeking cross-program consistency for Rank & Tenure procedures and policies.

Prof. Epstein MOVED to approve the recommendations of the subcommittee, SECONDED by Prof. Patton.

    The Chair opened the floor to discussion.

Prof. Bucki expressed concerns about the recommendations and the confidentiality of senior faculty letters evaluating colleagues who are up for promotion or tenure.

Associate Dean Simon responded: different departments have different traditions, and the process honors that fact. For example, some departments might meet and compose a group letter, while others require individual letters from each senior colleague; the proposed changes respect these unique approaches.

Associate Dean Im added that it is in every department’s best interest to have consistent by-laws for this procedure (evaluation process for colleagues who are applying for promotion or tenure).

Prof. Rosivach asked where these recommendations and policies would be placed in existing CAS governance documents. He added that the CAS has no Journal of Record, and as such, he did not advise passing the proposed motion.

Associate Dean Simon responded that all recommendations were available on the web, including the one-page handout distributed with the March CAS Agenda Packet. He asserted that the CAS website serves as a defacto Journal of Record for the College.

Prof. Gannet said that other institutions for which she has worked provided senior colleagues with copies of outside reviewers’ letters, which she found to be helpful resources for writing promotion letters for colleagues.

Prof. Nash responded that department chairs may summarize outside letters to share any key ideas or points from the outside letters, but the summaries must maintain the confidentiality of the individual outside letter writers. She added that the Fairfield process for seeking outside reviewers guarantees confidentiality to the letter writers.

Prof. Minors asked what would happen if the CAS faculty votes to approve the recommendations of the subcommittee.

Prof. Nash responded. After approved through a CAS faculty vote, the subcommittee would draft a memo to present to the ASPC (Planning Committee). Ultimately, said vote would adopt all recommendations of the subcommittee, and the ASPC would review the draft memo and could choose to refer the document to the General Faculty.

Several faculty members expressed concern that one of the recommendations in the summary of recommendations conflicts with current handbook language.

The line in question (third bullet from the bottom, item two - see above)
   "Faculty are not required to share their letters with the department chair."

Assoc. Dean Simon responded that the subcommittee worked hard to reconcile all relevant governance documents and policies. As such, he said that striking the line in question would be appropriate.

Prof. Rakowitz MOVED to amend Prof. Epstein’s motion to approve. The amended motion would approve the recommendations of the subcommittee, while striking one bullet point from the summary of recommendations: “Faculty are not required to share their letters with the department chair.” Prof. Keenan SECONDED the motion to amend.

The Chair opened the floor to discussion.

Prof. Bucki asked why the CAS faculty should pass it now. She suggested leaving the document as is, and using it more as a guide rather than proscribed policy.

Prof. Lakeland responded that taking out the bullet point identified in the amended motion would suffice because that line is something the Rank & Tenure Committee is currently adjudicating. Their conclusion will become policy.

The Chair called a vote on amending the motion. Motion PASSED (49-1-3).

The Chair called a vote to approve the amended motion. Motion PASSED (51– 0 – 2).