University Bylaws Committee Report Faculty Senate March 20

University Bylaws Committee Report Faculty Senate March 20, 2018

UBC Composition • University Bylaws Committee (3/10) q 4 Faculty Senate Representatives elected from the Faculty Senate ØSenators Bunker, Kindred, Opfer, Wasden q 1 Academic faculty from each degree granting college and school q 1 Librarian q 1 Representative from the Administrative Faculty Unit q 1 Vice President and General Counsel (non-voting ex-officio)

UBC Bylaw Amendments • Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter III, Section 8. Annual Evaluation of Academic Faculty and Nonacademic Faculty – Section 8. 3 Evaluation by Administrator (Peer Review Committee Amendment) – UBC meetings 11 -7 -16, 12 -5 -16, and 2 -2 -17 • Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter II, Section 10. Selection of Members of System and Institutional Committees – Section 10. 8. Selection of Department Chairs, Associate/Assistant Deans, and School Directors (Annual Evaluation of Associate/Assistant Deans) – UBC meetings 11 -7 -16 and 12 -5 -17

UBC Bylaw Amendments • Amendments of Faculty Senate Constitution – Section 2. Membership (Membership Expansion) – UBC meeting 2 -2 -17 • Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter III, Section 20. Grievances – Section 20. 2. Filing of Grievances (Grievance Extensions) – UBC meetings 2 -2 -17, 3 -2 -17, and 5 -4 -17 • Amendments of Faculty Senate Bylaws, Appendix 3, Section IV. Grievances – Section IV. Committee Review of Grievances (Grievance Extensions) – UBC meetings 2 -2 -17, 3 -2 -17, and 5 -4 -17 • Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter I, Section 4. 3. 4 Tenure Standards and Procedures and Chapter III, Section 6. 1. B. College/School Personnel Procedures Authorized (Voting Clarification) – UBC meetings 3 -2 -17 and 4 -6 -17

Today’s Bylaw Amendments • Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter I, Section 4. 3 Tenure – UBC meetings 3 -15 -18, 2 -15 -18, 1 -25 -18, 12 -7 -17 • Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter III, Section 8. 2 Evaluation Rating Terms – UBC meetings 3 -15 -18, 1 -25 -18 • Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter III, Section 16 Guidelines for Promotion or appointment to Academic Rank – UBC meetings 11 -9 -17, 10 -19 -17

Peer Institution: San Diego State University Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion: Criteria (Excluding Library Faculty and Student Affairs Faculty) 1. 0 The State of California Master Plan for Higher Education designates teaching as the California State University’s primary responsibility and recognizes research, scholarship, and creative activity and service as essential to meeting our responsibilities to our students and to the public interest. Accordingly, San Diego State University faculty shall be committed to excellence in teaching and shall conduct research, scholarship, and creative activity because of their intrinsic worth to society, because they may bring additional resources to the campus, and because they enhance and contribute to excellence in teaching.

Peer Institution: San Diego State University Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion: Criteria (Excluding Library Faculty and Student Affairs Faculty) 3. 0 Probationary and tenured faculty shall be evaluated on their achievements and contributions in (a) teaching, (b) research, scholarship, and creative activities, and (c) service activities to the university, the profession, and the community that enhance the mission of the university.

Peer Institution: San Diego State University Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion: Criteria (Excluding Library Faculty and Student Affairs Faculty) 3. 1 Teaching Effectiveness: The primary qualification for reappointment, tenure, or promotion shall be a demonstration of continuing excellence in teaching.

Aspirational Institution: Arizona State University Process Guide for Promotion and/or Tenure • Candidate completes the Confirmation of Publications/Creative Materials Selections by listing up to four publication titles or descriptions of creative activity reflecting his/her research, scholarship, and/or creative activities; please include citation information as applicable and PDF page numbers on the form. A creative activities portfolio documenting overall professional activity may be submitted as one piece of evidence.

Aspirational Institution: Arizona State University Process Guide for Promotion and/or Tenure • Evidence of Excellence in Teaching and Mentoring. Candidates should work with their unit chair/director to identify appropriate materials that would effectively demonstrate an engaged effort to improve/sustain excellence in teaching and mentoring. The dossier should include at least three (3) different types of evidence of teaching excellence, one of which must be candidate’s Summary of Student Evaluations …

The Promotion and Tenure Process Policies, Procedures, and Best Practices Deborah Clarke Vice Provost for Academic Personnel Spring 2017

LEVELS OF PERSONNEL REVIEWS • Unit-level review – Unit Personnel Committee – Unit Chair/Director • College-level review – College Personnel Committee – Dean • University-level review – University Promotion and Tenure Committee – University Provost – President

FACULTY PERSONNEL REVIEWS • Annual Performance Review – Unit level, with review by dean only at college level • Progress towards tenure – Unit level, with review by dean only at college level • Third-year Probationary Review – Unit and college levels (positive and conditional reviews end with dean; negative comes to Provost) • Tenure and/or Promotion – Reviews at unit, college, and university levels

CRITERIA FOR TENURE The university criteria for tenure are given in ACD 506 -04: Tenure is awarded on the basis of excellence and the promise of continued excellence, which is measured not only by individual achievement but also by contributions to the academic unit’s and university’s current and future mission and objectives; thus the tenure review process of necessity takes into account the mission and objectives of each academic unit and the university during the assessment of the professional accomplishments of the faculty under review.

CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION The university criteria for promotion are given in ACD 506 -05: • The purpose of promotion is to recognize and reward accomplishment. Promotion is awarded on the basis of proven excellence. … • Promotion to associate professor requires an overall record of excellence and the promise of continued excellence. • Promotion to full professor must be based on an overall record of excellence in the performance of responsibilities. The candidate must also demonstrate continued effectiveness in teaching, research, scholarship and/or creative activities, and service since the promotion to associate professor and evidence of contributions at a level beyond that reflected in the promotion decision to associate professor. Generally, an overall record of excellence requires national and/or international recognition for scholarly and/or creative achievement.

What does “excellence” mean? • Look at careers of candidates who have been recently granted promotion or tenure in your unit • Identify the peer and aspirational peer departments for your unit – Consider those departments as a comparison group – Review the performance records (CVs, etc. ) from recently-tenured colleagues at these institutions

Today’s Bylaw Amendments • Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter I, Section 4. 3 Tenure – UBC meetings 3 -15 -18, 2 -15 -18, 1 -25 -18, 12 -717 • Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter III, Section 8. 2 Evaluation Rating Terms – UBC meetings 3 -15 -18, 1 -25 -18

Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter I, Section 4. 3 Tenure 4. 3. 2 Tenure Standards and Procedures. Granting of tenure shall require a rating of “excellent” in research, scholarship, creative, entrepreneurial or other equivalent activity; a rating of at least “commendable” in teaching (or other assigned duties that do not include instruction); and a rating of at least “satisfactory” in service. The faculty of each department/school/college shall establish tenure criteria and procedures as appropriate to the discipline and in compliance with these bylaws and the NSHE Code.

Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter I, Section 4. 3 Tenure 4. 3. 2 Tenure Standards and Procedures. The faculty of each department/school/college shall establish criteria appropriate to the discipline(s) that define excellent performance and sustained effectiveness in 1) teaching or other assigned duties that do not include instruction, 2) research, scholarship, creative, or entrepreneurial activity, and 3) service. In compliance with these bylaws and the NSHE Code, the unit will set standards of rigor and assessment procedures for recommendation to tenure. These guidelines will be presented to all tenure-track faculty at time of hire.

Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter I, Section 4. 3 Tenure • Rationale: Approved 12 -0 by UBC (2 -15 -18) ① Consistent with language of peer and aspirational institutions ② Increases and does not decrease degrees of freedom for university faculty hiring ③ Faculty A: Excellent in Research; Satisfactory in Teaching q Negative Tenure Decision ④ Faculty B: Excellent in Teaching; Commendable in Research q Negative Tenure Decision

Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter I, Section 4. 3 Tenure ⑤ If approved, this Senate Action Item q Would emphasize to the community the roles of university faculty in research at the expense of teaching q May serve to inflate unit standards q Shared goal of student success as stated in Top Tier Goals would likely suffer q Does not solve our “one vote” problem (4. 3. 3. 2)

Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter I, Section 4. 3 Tenure represents a commitment by the university to support academic and intellectual freedom of the faculty, understood to be essential for excellent institutions of higher education. Tenure rewards achievement and commitment to continued excellence in scholarship, teaching and service, The granting of tenure is AND AN acknowledgement by FACULTY peers and the University of significant contributions and sustained effectiveness within a discipline.

Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter I, Section 4. 3 Tenure 4. 3. 3. 2 Only faculty who hold tenure at UNLV may evaluate and vote on the application of a candidate for tenure and only once in the deliberative processes. 4. 3. 3. 3 At each academic level (department/school/college) tenured faculty will deliberate and vote for or against tenure. A recommendation with voting tally will be added to the dossier before forwarding to the unit supervisor (chair/director/dean) who will also provide a recommendation supporting or opposing tenure. The dossier moves through applicable faculty and administrative channels to the University Tenure and Promotion Committee.

Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter I, Section 4. 3 Tenure • Rationale: Approved by UBC (3 -15 -18) ① Section 4. 3. 3. 2 excludes Rank 0, 1, and 2 faculty from participating in tenure decision meetings ② Section 4. 3. 3. 2 is inconsistent therefore with Chapter III, Section 6. 1. A ③ Section 4. 3. 3. 2 and 4. 3. 3. 3 are similar ④ Tenure-track faculty benefit from attending tenure meetings where “evaluations and deliberations” are conducted

Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter III, Section 8. 2 Evaluation Rating Terms 8. 3. 3 Separate from annual evaluations, progress toward tenure and/or promotion shall be assessed every three years, as applicable. This shall be a narrative appraisal prepared in consultation with the appropriate faculty based on the standards and procedures of the unit. Progress assessments may consider annual evaluations but annual evaluations may not be supplanted by these assessments.

Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter III, Section 8. 2 Evaluation Rating Terms 8. 3. 3 Separate from annual evaluations, progress toward tenure and/or promotion shall be assessed every three years, as applicable. This shall be a narrative appraisal prepared in consultation with the appropriate faculty based on the standards and procedures of the unit. Progress assessments may consider annual evaluations but annual evaluations may not be supplanted by these assessments.

Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter III, Section 8. 2 Evaluation Rating Terms • Rationale: Approved 10 -0 by UBC (2 -15 -18) ① Unnecessary and possibly punitive post-tenure review ② Negative 3 year review may affect annual reviews ③ Faculty Associate Professor: Satisfactory Overall Annual Review q Associate Professor Declines Opportunity of 3 -Year Review q Next Administrative Steps? ④ Top tier goals not dependent on forcing long-term associate professors to submit promotion dossier

Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter III, Section 8. 2 Evaluation Rating Terms ⑤ Only one chance to apply for tenure ⑥ Many opportunities to apply for promotion ⑦ Faculty can best decide when to apply for promotion ⑧ Meaning of “as applicable”

Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter III, Section 8. 2 Evaluation Rating Terms ⑨ Why is this language removed? q In annual evaluations, and with reference to the UNLV Bylaws, Chapter III, Section 8. 1, the evaluee must be given an "unsatisfactory" rating if performance falls below minimum standards. ⑩ UBC recommends striking “and 1” q 8. 2. 2 Annual evaluation for tenured faculty and all faculty in ranks 0 and 1 shall include an overall rating of either satisfactory or unsatisfactory, as set forth in the NSHE Code, based upon the assigned workload.

Amendments of UNLV Bylaws Chapter III, Section 8. 2 Evaluation Rating Terms • Alternative Language to Consider: q 8. 2. 3 Separate from annual evaluations, progress toward tenure and/or promotion may be assessed every three years, as applicable. Faculty requesting promotion to Rank IV shall be entitled to a narrative appraisal prepared in consultation with the appropriate unit faculty personnel committees using the standards and procedures of the unit. Requested progress assessments may consider annual evaluations but shall not supplant or affect annual evaluations.