October 30th, 2006

Present: Judith Anderson (Chair), Simon Brassell, Sandra Dolby, Hal Evans, Roger Levesque (Recorder), Rosemary Lloyd, Patrick McNaughton, and Pamela Walters

[Please note that we welcome your comments on our new Policy on Appointment and Tenure of Unit Chairs or Directors (2006). The policy is provided below.]

The meeting was convened at 4:13 pm.

We discussed and approved, without amendment, the minutes from our October 23rd meeting.

Judith briefed us on responses from administrators who had received her letters and statements detailing the core values of the humanities. All responses, again, were quite positive and encouraging. We considered faculty comments in response to our proposed revisions of the Policy on Suspension and Restoration of Faculty Governance in Departments (21 November 1996). We found the comments helpful and, where appropriate, incorporated suggestions into our final draft.

We returned to our effort to revise policies concerning clinical faculty and non-tenure track faculty categories of Lecturer and Senior Lecturer.

David Zaret joined the meeting at 4:34. He briefly clarified some of the points he had sent us over e-mails that related to our efforts to develop our Policy on the Appointment and Tenure of Unit Chairs and Directors. He agreed that there was a need to provide workable guidelines for departments to follow when they advise the Dean on the appointment and tenure of their department chairs. He also agreed that including program directors in the policy would be appropriate, but only when their programs have affiliated faculty.

We spent most of our time with David discussing issues relating to non-tenure track lecturers and clinical faculty. David highlighted three general reasons for having this important group of faculty. The first reason is to provide job security and full benefits to instructors who have been employed by their department for a long time, in several cases over 10 years, and who have been making important contributions. The second reason relates to the increasing need to make spousal accommodations. The last reason involves the College’s commitment to offering, and meeting the high demand for, foreign languages. David also provided convincing evidence for converting adjunct or visiting positions to full-time lecturer positions when departmental needs warrant them. Among other reasons, it makes sense to provide our colleagues with greater job security and full benefits. In addition, lecturers actually do not replace tenure-track lines, a concern often voiced by departments declining to pursue more full-time lectureships. Rather, having lecturers allows departments to address teaching demands for which tenure-track faculty are either unavailable or which they are reluctant to meet.

We also had a lively discussion about the roles and responsibilities of full-time, non-tenure track faculty. We agreed that efforts should be made to ensure, where appropriate, that they are well integrated into their departments. Most notably, we agreed that departments would benefit from having them attend faculty meetings and have ample opportunity to participate in the intellectual life of their departments. It would, of course, not be appropriate to have them vote on issues relating to tenure and promotion; but it seems to make little sense not to have them participate in other areas of faculty governance, especially when they often teach a very high number of students (the typical teaching loads for lecturers is 3-3). David indicated that the need for non-tenure-track faculty is also connected to the complex issue regarding the optimal size of graduate programs. Program quality and needs may not mean that the departments should be larger in their number of graduate students or tenure-track faculty. We expect to continue this discussion the next time we meet. David left at 5:27.

We continued our discussion of the various policies addressing non-tenure track ("NTT") positions. We have begun to identify and differentiate key issues. We expect to address (1) the nature of NTT faculty members’ rights; (2) their roles in their department’s mission; and (3) pursuant to BFC mandates, the maximum number of NTT FTEs compared to tenure track FTEs within departments and other units. Although all issues are related, we spent much of our time on the third issue which essentially involves deriving an NTT quota.

Some CPC members argue that tabulations to determine the appropriate percentage of NTTs within units should include all non-tenure track personnel who teach students. Others argue that tabulations should only include those with full-time teaching appointments. The difference is of significance. Some departments, for example, make more use of part-time NTTs, including graduate students. As a result, including only full-time NTTs certainly makes some departments look as though they rely a lot less on NTTs than they do if we included part-time NTTs. That difference, in turn, gains significance, for example, if we consider the number of credit hours NTTs teach. These issues certainly factor into our concern that we must address the role of NTTs within units and that units should clarify NTT faculty member’s roles in furthering their unit’s academic mission.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:16.

Roger Levesque, Recorder

Questions or comments regarding the minutes and actions of the College Policy Committee may be addressed to its Chair, Judith Anderson (anders@indiana.edu – 855-3845). Past minutes and College Policy Statements can be found at the CPC web page: www.indiana.edu/~college/faculty/policy/policies.shtml.

Policy on Appointment and Tenure of Unit Chairs or Directors (2006)

The strong tradition of faculty governance within the College includes a role in the selection Chairs or Directors of Programs, Centers, and Institutes with affiliated faculty (hereafter included in the term Chairs). Chairs assume responsibilities for the day-to-day business of their units, and act as the leading representatives of their units in interactions with the College. Chair appointments are the prerogative of the Dean, but by tradition and practice they are made after discussion with the faculty, in concert with Article II, Section 2.2. B of the Bloomington Faculty Council Constitution (http://www.indiana.edu/~bfc/) "appointments of faculty to . . . the Chair of the unit, should be made only after consultation with the members of the unit."

Procedures for Appointment of Chairs.

All units should employ confidential procedures for expressing their preference for appointment of their Chair. The process must include an open forum for faculty discussion and a secret ballot, although the precise methods for selection of candidates chosen from the tenured faculty and the practices for ballots and voting will vary among units. The preference(s) expressed by faculty balloting should be conveyed to the Dean, and may include statements regarding the basis for support of individual candidates. It is rare that the Dean will not appoint a candidate preferred by a clear majority of the faculty for the position of Chair, and it is reasonable to expect some explanation under such circumstances. However, in instances when opinion is closely divided, the Dean's prerogative holds sway. When the position of Chair is filled by a new hire, faculty preference is expressed in the recommendation for appointment to the Dean.

The typical term of appointment of a Chair is three or four years, and consultation with the faculty within the department or unit in accordance with procedures described in the preceding paragraph is expected prior to the reappointment of a Chair, or any extension of the term of service.

Annual Departmental Review of Chairs.

Every year each unit should submit a report to the Dean that reviews their Chair's performance in research, teaching and service, with especial consideration of his/her effectiveness in the execution of the responsibilities of a Chair. An appropriate departmental faculty committee that is not appointed by the Chair, such as an elected policy committee, or a merit review committee, should undertake this task. The committee must invite confidential comments on the Chair's performance from faculty, and ensure that their report both describes and considers the full spectrum of substantive faculty views. It is expected that the Dean will respond to the committee in the rare instance that serious concerns with the Chair's leadership are expressed.

Procedures for Dismissal of Chairs.

Under exceptional circumstances members of the faculty within a unit may collectively ask that a chair be dismissed as an expression of faculty governance through articulation of explicit reasons pertaining to questions of leadership. The annual departmental review of a Chair provides one mechanism for such a request to be made to the Dean; alternatively, it may be based on a majority vote of no confidence using a confidential protocol, perhaps one similar to that adopted in expressing a preference for a Chair. In such rare instances it is expected that the Dean would consult with the faculty further to ascertain the basis for the request, the extent of support for a change in Chair, and to determine the expressed preference for a new Chair. Only in exceptional circumstances would the Chair not be replaced when a substantial majority of the faculty requests dismissal.

A Chair may also be dismissed on the Dean's authority. The Dean must consult with the College Policy Committee before dismissal. The dismissal of a Chair does not in and of itself constitute formal suspension of faculty governance as such (see Policy on Suspension and Restoration of Faculty Governance in Departments and Other Units), and normal procedures for faculty to express their preference for appointment of a new Chair should be followed as soon as possible thereafter.