Loyola University Chicago

2002-2003: No 3

Members Absent: Ms. Joyce Knight, Dr. Robert Mittendorf

Review Minutes from April 25 Meeting:

The Committee reviewed the minutes from the April 25, 2003 meeting. They discussed the process through which the committee will direct their recommendations. It was noted that the Committee's recommendations would be forwarded to the president. The Committee further discussed the means through which the tuition policy recommendation would be decided. The Committee decided it would review a final version for approval, and submit its recommendation.

The Committee also recommended the following changes to the minutes: the inclusion of a header, which indicated the page number, title and date of the minutes, correcting the spelling of rationale on the first page, and removing the appointment of chairpersons by the Rank and Tenure committee on the third page. It was noted that the senior academic officer would make the appointment of departmental chairpersons.

Review policies and procedures for Rank and Tenure and Faculty Development Review School Level Committees

The Committee discussed the need to outline policies and procedures for the new Rank and Tenure (R&T) and Faculty Development Review Committees (FDRC) at the school/college level.

The Committee also discussed the election process, noting that while the mixed model voting process, which allows for multiple votes for the same position, was difficult to count, it did provide a very accurate means of determining who should serve. The Committee did note that while elections were preferred, the option of a Committee of the Whole should be entertained for those smaller departments and schools.

It was stressed that there is a strong need for well articulated school guidelines on how departmental committees would be structured and formulated for the purpose of promotion, tenure and leaves. It was noted that the purpose of school guidelines would not be to change the requirements of each department, but to articulate current procedures and processes. The Committee further discussed the validity of the election process. It was noted that currently, on the university wide level, the process does not seek nominations. This was seen as being a potential problem, because sometimes those elected may not wish to serve. The possible solution of allowing for both elected and appointed positions was suggested. The further question was asked regarding who would be eligible to vote, and who would be eligible to serve.

It was decided that each Dean would develop a school level committee, and that they would work with the faculty in the school to decide what set up would work best for their particular environment.

Each school wide committee should be representative of their faculty, with selection to the committee to be decided by each school.

It was also noted that each person should also only vote at the appropriate departmental level, and that votes should not be held for use at a higher level. This prevents a potential skewing of the vote. It was noted that at the Medical School, an individual has neither voice, nor vote when a departmental member is up for consideration, to avoid this issue. This issue was tabled for further discussion at the next meeting.

It was stressed that these committees would be advisory to the Dean, and their recommendations, along with the departments and the dean's should be forwarded through the appropriate channels.

Each school would present to the Faculty Affairs UPC for its approval a procedural document outlining the process for election, voting, terms and guidelines for their school. The Committee stressed that the entire process of both developing and implementing the school wide committees should be an open process, whereby the faculty would be able to voice their opinions and participate in its development.

The Faculty Affairs UPC made the following recommendations regarding the structure of the school wide committees: That membership for the Rank & Tenure committee be limited to full-time tenured faculty. They also recommended that all members with voting rights should be eligible for election voting for committee.

The question of having one or two separate committees to consider rank & tenure questions and leaves was raised. It was noted that for some smaller schools having two committees for both requests might be redundant. The Committee suggested that each school submit in their proposed guidelines their desire for one or two committees for review.

It was further noted that sufficient time should be provided to the schools to allow for development of these committees. It was decided that academic year 2004-2005 would be sufficient for implementation, and would allow for appropriate adjustment of departmental deadlines for requesting and gathering the appropriate information for rank and tenure packets. This would also allow enough time for each school to formulate an adequate procedure and implement appropriate electoral processes, if necessary.

University Rank & Tenure and Faculty Development Review Committees The Committee discussed the documents they would forward to the new university R&T and Faculty Development Review Committees (FDRC) to help get them started. These documents would serve as developmental tools for the Committee.

The Committee's written recommendations and the reports from lower committees should be forwarded to university committees. The university-wide committee would present a combined document as part of their recommendation to the Provost, outlining its reasoning behind them. The Committee discussed how to handle applications for leave of absence without pay. It was agreed they should come from Chairs, be forwarded to Deans, who would then forward them directly to the Provost for a final decision. Unpaid leave applications will not normally flow through the FDRC. It was decided that language relating to administrative leaves be struck from the document, since administrative leaves are not automatic. Administrators must follow the same guidelines as normal faculty in applying for leaves.

It was noted that each committee may determine their own method for voting on leave applications. However, for each committee, outlining the reasoning for each vote was seen as paramount. Applicants should be clearly ranked. Relating to requests for reconsideration, it was noted that while deliberations are confidential decisions are not. It was noted that the procedures for appeals would be taken up in future meetings. For the moment, the language referring to external appeals from the FDRC should be removed. It was further noted that appeals are different than grievances, and that it would be possible to address the issue of appeals in different committees.

Faculty Salary Study

The Provost provided initial comparative salary data for the Committee to review in relation to the Faculty Salary Study mentioned in the previous meeting. This information could be reviewed and discussed at upcoming meetings.

The meeting adjourned at 11:23 a.m.

Respectfully submitted by: Mr. Kevin Diebold