I. Faculty Personnel Decisions at Wittenberg

A. Introduction

Decisions regarding appointment to the faculty, tenure, and promotion, are among the most critical made by the university. Such decisions require effective, frank, and collegial communication between Faculty, Departments/Programs, the Faculty Personnel Board, and the Provost and the President.
The policies that follow are designed to foster such communication by providing clear criteria and processes through which such decisions can be made. While the criteria and the processes are intended to be objective, the application of them is necessarily a subjective endeavor. The policies that follow cannot and should not produce uniformity of final judgments, but they do attempt to guarantee consistency and fairness in criteria and process.
The policies and procedures that follow were adopted and approved by the President in 1996, in a process that both revised previous policies and combined several older policy statements into one new document. Therefore many provisions that follow had been policy before 1995, even though in some cases the dates of earlier approval have been deleted. Those wishing to trace the pre-1995 evolution of these policies should consult the Faculty Manuals of 1995-96 and before.

B. Governance and Roles

Faculty personnel decisions and the policies that govern them are subject to the authority of the Constitution of the University, the Bylaws of the Board of Directors, and the Bylaws of the Faculty, all found elsewhere in this Manual. The most relevant sections of these are:

Article IV, Section 2: Faculty, in the Constitution of Wittenberg University

Article VI: Faculty Tenure Policy, in the Bylaws of the Board of Directors

Section I.J.1.b. Faculty Personnel Board and Section II: Department Chairpersons, in the Bylaws of the Faculty

The policies that follow in this document are subordinate to the governing documents cited above. Some of the key principles found in those documents are these:

the authority to grant tenure and to advance faculty members in rank rests with the Board of Directors;

the President, upon the recommendation of the Provost, makes annual probationary appointments to the faculty, and the President and the Provost make tenure and promotion recommendations to the Board of Directors (through the Board's Committee on Academic Affairs).

the Faculty are entitled to participate in faculty personnel decisions; faculty participation in such decisions lies largely with the administration's consultation with departments (through their chairs or representatives), and the Faculty Personnel Board, both of whose responsibilities are explained in the faculty Bylaws.

The roles of the individual members of the faculty, the department, the Faculty Personnel Board, & the Provost and the President vary according to the specific task at hand, as detailed in the Appointment, Tenure, and Promotion sections that follow. Some of those responsibilities are summarized here:

Everyone involved in faculty personnel decisions, from the President to the Candidate, must be familiar with and abide by the relevant portions of the governing documents above and the policies outlined below.

Candidates for Tenure or Promotion are responsible for cooperating with and supplying relevant information to the department and/or the Faculty Personnel Board to assist the university's assessment of the candidate.

Students are responsible for assisting in the evaluation of faculty members for tenure and promotion, primarily through course evaluations, and also through open student meetings.

Departments are responsible for involving the appropriate department members in decision-making and for forwarding to the appropriate persons collective, carefully documented recommendations for appointment to the faculty, tenure, and promotion.

The Faculty Personnel Board's primary responsibility is to make recommendations to the Provost and the President, on behalf of the entire faculty, concerning the professional merits of candidates for tenure and promotion, as outlined in the Faculty Manual. (The FPB also participates in interviewing candidates for appointment, reviewing faculty salaries, and considering applications for sabbaticals and other leaves of absence--all covered elsewhere in the Faculty Manual). As the chief faculty governance body involved in faculty personnel decisions, the Faculty Personnel Board does bear the responsibility of monitoring and maintaining the integrity of the process.

In addition to many other tasks, the President and Provost are responsible for making tenure and promotion recommendations to the Board of Directors after consultation with the relevant Departments and the Faculty Personnel Board; as chief academic officer the Provost works with and receives recommendations from departments concerning appointment, tenure, and promotion; works with the Faculty Personnel Board as they develop their recommendations concerning tenure and promotion; and submits to the President recommendations for appointments, tenure, and advancement in rank. The President and Provost base their tenure recommendations on the recommendations of the department and the FPB, their own judgment of the professional qualifications of the candidate, and curricular, budgetary, or enrollment considerations.

The Bylaws of the Faculty stipulate that formal grievances that arise from personnel processes are heard by the Faculty Hearing Board on Academic Freedom and Tenure.

II. Faculty Appointments

A. Procedures for Appointment to Tenure-Track Positions

Appointments to the Wittenberg Faculty are made by the President upon recommendation of the Provost. The Provost's recommendation is informed by the departmental evaluation which is forwarded to the Provost by the department chair.

l. In formulating recommendations to the Provost for tenure track positions, chairs should consult members of the academic department by arranging for them to:

1. review dossiers in order to participate in deciding who should be interviewed further and/or invited to campus for interviews; *
2. interview candidates; *
3. meet to share their judgments about who should be appointed; *

2. When the description of the faculty position includes responsibilities for teaching in an interdepartmental program, the chair of that program or her/his designated representative should be included in the interview processes and be consulted by the department chair regarding the candidates' potentials for meeting the interdepartmental program responsibilities of the position.

3. When the description of an administrative/staff position includes responsibilities for teaching in an academic department or interdepartmental program, the chair of that department/program or her/his designated representative should be included in the interview processes and should be consulted by the relevant administrator regarding his candidates' potentials for meeting the departmental or program responsibilities of the position.

4. After consulting with faculty members as described in steps 1-3, the chair should communicate the department's recommendation to the Provost.

5. Time considerations may not allow for the use of these procedures in making temporary or part-time appointments, but their use is encouraged.

*In the cases of larger departments, some or all of these functions may need to be carried out by a search committee or some similar, agreed upon procedure.

B. The College's Guidelines for Appointment of Faculty to the Ranks of Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, and Adjunct Professors

To the rank of Instructor, an individual should have the master's degree, or its equivalent in graduate study.

To the rank of Assistant Professor, an individual should have the doctorate.

To the ranks of Associate Professor or Professor, the individual should meet the guidelines established for promotion to that rank within the College.

To the rank of Adjunct Professor. This academic rank may be used to describe purely honorific status, or part-time employment. If a faculty member has taught six consecutive years before moving to the position of "adjunct professor" and teaches two-thirds time, but less than full-time, he or she shall be entitled to any fringe benefits previously held.

C. Exceptions to the College's Appointment Guidelines in Art; Health, Fitness & Sport; the Library; Management; Music; and Theatre & Dance

The Department of Art

To the rank of Instructor: An individual should have the master of fine arts degree or its equivalent in graduate study.

To the rank of Assistant Professor: An individual should have the master of fine arts degree or its equivalent in graduate study, with evidence of effective teaching or professional experience in his/her field.

To the ranks of Associate Professor or Professor: The individual should meet the guidelines established for promotion to that rank within the Department of Art. (See promotion guidelines).

The Department of English (Approved at February 10, 2004 Faculty meeting)

For faculty whose field is creative writing and/or journalism, the masters’ degree (M.A. or M.F.A..) in creative writing or journalism is considered a terminal degree in those fields and is acceptable for appointment at any level.

The Department of Health, Fitness, and Sport

(l) For appointment or promotion to the rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor, formal graduate study beyond the master's degree in a sub-disciplinary area of health and physical education is required and may be substituted for specific study toward or achievement of the doctorate.

(2) For coaches, effective coaching as evidenced by:

1. Professional growth as indicated by creative and scholarly performance
2. Effective teaching and advising
3. Significant contributions to the University and community

Performance in these three areas will be evaluated according to "Criteria for Coaching Evaluation" which have been approved by the Health, Fitness, and Sport faculty and are on file with the Faculty Personnel Board.

The Library:
(Approved by the Faculty on April 9, 2002)

To the rank of Assistant Professor:: The individual should have a master's degree from an American Library Association accredited graduate library school. This is the terminal degree for librarianship. In the unlikely event that an individual lacking the appropriate degree is conditionally appointed, the instructor rank will be used.

To the rank of Associate Professor or Professor: The individual should meet the guidelines established for promotion to that rank for library faculty. (See promotion guidelines).

The Department of Management:

For appointment to the rank of Instructor: MBA or equivalent from an accredited institution.

For appointment or promotion to the rank of Assistant Professor:

1. JD, LLB or equivalent from an accredited law school, or
2. MBA or equivalent plus work experience in a managerial capacity and evidence of course work on the doctorate (PhD, DCS, DBA, EdD), or
3. Considerable managerial work experience and completion of a professional degree (CPA or the like).

The Department of Music:

To the rank of Instructor: An individual should have the Master of Music degree or its equivalent.

To the rank of Assistant Professor: An individual should have a doctorate in music and have demonstrated his/her effectiveness as a teacher and professional musician.

Exceptions to the requirements of the doctorate may be justified when the individual has acquired an educational background equivalent to the doctorate or where the individual has already achieved such a degree of distinction in the field of performance or composition that his/her qualifications cannot be in doubt.

To the ranks of Associate Professor or Professor: The individual should meet the guidelines established for promotion to that rank in the Department of Music, as noted below and in the college guidelines.

The Department of Theatre and Dance:

To the rank of Instructor: An individual should have the M.A. or M.F.A.

To the rank of Assistant Professor: An individual should have the master of fine arts degree or doctorate, with evidence of effective teaching or professional experience in his/her particular field.

To the ranks of Associate Professor or Professor, the individual should meet the guidelines established for promotion to that rank within the Department of Theatre and Dance. (See promotion guidelines).

(By Faculty Action, October 10, 1981; revised January, 1999)

D.  Policy  on Shared Appointments

A shared appointment is defined as two individuals who share the duties, responsibilities, salary, and fringe benefits of a faculty position more traditionally held by one individual. Each of the individuals is qualified to assume responsibility for the full-time position. Each individual is a voting member of the faculty. In annual evaluations, merit salary reviews, and tenure and promotion reviews the work of each is assessed separately with reference to the individual’s portion of the position and with reference to the usual standards of kinds and quality of work. Annual evaluations and tenure and promotion reviews of each individual occur on the same schedule as for other faculty.

Conditions
Should one of the individuals for any reason (including denial of tenure) fail to assume the duties of the shared appointment, the remaining person will be obligated to assume all the duties of the position or relinquish it.

Faculty members holding shared appointments are eligible to carry teaching overloads, but these overloads will be available only in exceptional circumstances. An overload assignment must be approved by the Provost upon the recommendation of the department chair. As is the case for all faculty, retirement plan payments are not available on overload compensation.

Change in Appointment
A person holding a shared appointment has the opportunity to apply for a full-time position in the University once a search to fill the position has begun. Should the individual be appointed to a full-time position, the other person would be expected either to assume the full load of the shared position or to surrender the appointment. A tenured faculty member in a shared position retains tenure if hired to a full-time faculty position.

The overload compensation for an individual holding a shared position is determined according to the overload compensation schedule for full-time faculty.

Professional Development Opportunities
The sabbatical leave policy for full-time faculty applies to the shared position. Each faculty member sharing the position may elect one of the following: 1) one semester of leave at 100% of her or his portion of the position’s salary; 2) two consecutive semesters of leave at 75% of his or her portion of the position’s salary; or 3) two separate semesters within a seven year period at 75% of her or his portion of the position’s salary for each semester. All salary compensation percentages apply for the sabbatical terms only.

Each individual receives the full amount of the professional travel funds allocated to each faculty member in the university. Faculty development funds are available to each individual on the same basis as to all other faculty.

Benefits
Fringe benefits are accorded to the shared position and not to the individuals in the position. They are otherwise consistent with all full-time faculty benefit policies listed in the Faculty Manual (see the Benefits section for a full description).

In the event that any benefit policy is undefined here, unclear, or subject to more than one interpretation, the policy applications shall be made by the Provost in a case by case basis.

The salary of an individual in a shared position is based on rank and the individual’s portion of the position. Several of the benefits are linked to the amount of compensation an individual receives in his or her paycheck. The amount of benefit accorded to an individual in a shared position must be calculated in this way for these benefits. For example, the level of benefit an individual can receive from the Ohio Workers’ Compensation Fund is determined in part by the amount of wages he or she receives. Benefits that are linked to the amount of compensation earned by the employee include group term life insurance, long term disability, TIAA-CREF Retirement Plan contributions, unemployment insurance, and workers compensation.

Other benefits are accorded to full-time faculty regardless of paycheck amount, and these benefits will be provided to each individual in the shared position as well. They include bereavement leave, child care opportunities, court duty leave, dependent care assistance, maternity leave, participation in Flexible Benefits Plan, the group blood assurance benefit, and military service rights.

Fringe benefits that are divided between the persons sharing a position are described below:

• Group Health and Dental Plan. Each individual in the shared position is entitled to participate in the University’s Group health and Dental Plan under the terms of the plan then in effect. At the present time, the University pays a portion of the premium owed by each plan participant.
• Moving Expenses. The shared position, not each individual, is entitled to receive the amount of the moving expenses paid by the University under its existing faculty policy. The prorated amount to be paid to each individual shall be determined by them, in consultation with the Provost.
• Paid Sick Leave. The shared position (not each individual) is entitled to two months paid sick leave immediately upon the two persons’ entering active service. Thereafter, the position accrues one month, defined as 24 days, of paid sick leave for each year they are employed in the full-time, shared position up to a maximum of six months. Either of the individuals or the two together may use the total accumulated paid sick leave, as they shall determine in consultation with the Provost.
• Tuition Remission and Scholarship Plans: See these plans in the Appendix section of this Manual.
• Unpaid Family and medical leave (FMLA leave). See the University’s FMLA Policy in the Appendix Section of this Manual. Under this policy, employees are eligible if they have worked for at least 1,250 hours during a specified 12 month period. For salaried employees, whether the 1,250 threshold has been met is determined by the supervisor in writing. The FMLA Policy also includes a spousal exception that entitles a husband and wife who are both employed by the University to receive a total of 12 work weeks of FMLA leave during a 12-month period if the leave is taken for birth, placement for adoption, or foster care. This limitation for spouses does not apply to leave taken by either spouse to care for the other who is seriously ill and unable to work, to care for a child with a serious health condition, or for his or her own serious illness

E. Policy For Adjunct Faculty

Adjunct Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor

A. A person is eligible for promotion to the rank of adjunct assistant professor when he or she has taught, as an adjunct instructor at Wittenberg, a pattern of credit courses for several years, the number of which equals that taught for five years by a full-time faculty member.

An adjunct assistant professor is eligible for promotion to the rank of adjunct associate professor when he or she has taught a pattern of credit courses, the number of which equals that taught for five years by a full-time faculty member.

An adjunct associate professor is eligible for promotion to the rank of adjunct professor when he or she has been in rank for at least six years and has taught the number of credit courses which equals that taught over five years by a full-time faculty member.

In addition, the person must meet the criteria for promotion to assistant, associate, or full professor as stated in the guidelines for promotion noted in the Faculty Manual. The eligible adjunct faculty member may initiate the request for promotion with the appropriate department chair. A recommendation would follow the normal procedures for promotion.

B. An adjunct assistant, associate, or full professor may teach one or more courses in an academic year. In addition to teaching, responsibilities include advising, holding regular office hours and participating in committee work.

C. The salary of an adjunct assistant, associate, or full professor will be a prorated amount, depending upon the number of courses taught for the academic year, of a sum deemed equitable for a full-time faculty member with comparable training and experience. The adjunct assistant professor will receive any annual salary increments prorated from the base full- time salary.

D. Adjunct assistant, associate, or full professors may participate proportionately to their teaching loads in the fringe benefits program. For example, if one is teaching 1/2 of a full-time load, then Wittenberg would contribute 1/2 toward the person’s total costs of the various fringe benefits. The adjunct assistant professor is eligible to participate in the retirement plan, group life and health insurance plans, and in the following professional growth opportunities: research and travel funds.

E. Adjunct assistant, associate, or full professors will enjoy the same guarantee of academic freedom and rights of appeal accorded the full-time faculty of the University.

F. Adjunct assistant, associate, or full professors are not eligible for appointment with tenure as adjuncts.

G.  Policy for Visiting Faculty Appointments

l. There are five sets of circumstances in which it is appropriate to make a visiting faculty appointment:

1. When the search for filling a faculty position does not provide a pool of applicants which will adequately fill the needs of or meet the qualifications for the position;
2. When a vacancy occurs too late in the academic year to allow for a search that would result in a pool of applicants with optimal qualifications;
3. When it is necessary to replace a faculty member who has been granted a leave of absence or a sabbatical leave;
4. When a decision is pending concerning the continuation of a position or the establishment of the position as a tenure-track position;
5. When the decision is made to appoint an established teacher/scholar for a limited term.

2. A visiting faculty appointment is a one-year appointment; a visiting faculty member’s appointment may be renewed annually for a total of no more than three years.  Visiting faculty members whose appointments are eleigible to be renewed in the following year should be evaluated annually, in writing, by their department chairperson.  Others may request a written evaluation by their department chairperson.  For visiting faculty whose contracts are renewable for up to three years or who are likely to be renewed, the evaluation should be filed with the Provost prior to reappointment.

 

The following stipulations apply:

1.  
   
   1. Department chairpersons should model reviews of visiting faculty members on the procedures stipulated for the normal first and second year reviews for probationary faculty members on tenure-track appointments.
   2. The Faculty Personnel Board normally does not consider evaluations of visiting faculty members.
   3. If the visiting faculty member later becomes a probationary (tenure-track) faculty member, these evaluations may be used as a part of any later reviews.

3. Any person receiving such an appointment is eligible to reapply for consideration in an extended search to fill a vacant position. To become part of the expanded pool of applicants under consideration, formal reapplication is mandatory.

4. A visiting faculty member has voice but not vote in meetings of the Faculty of Wittenberg University.  In other regards, a visiting faculty member has the same rights and privileges to which all full-time faculty members are entitled.  (Benefits for which visiting faculty members qualify are explained elsewhere.5. Full-time service as a visiting faculty member may be credited toward tenure. However, no more than a total of 3 years full-time service at another institution or as a visiting faculty member at Wittenberg may be credited toward tenure.

(Adopted by Faculty, May 11, 1982 - Revision to #5. at May 26, 1992 Faculty Meeting.)

H. Guidelines and Procedures for Appointment Faculty Members To Named and Endowed Chairs

l. The Provost will inform the appropriate department chairs of the vacancy in a named chair and request the recommendation of one or more nominees to fill it.

2. Each nominee must have achieved the following:

1. Tenure
2. Rank of professor or associate professor clearly qualified to be promoted to the rank of professor
3. Distinguished teaching
4. Scholarly and/or professional achievement
5. Significant contributions to church, community, and/or society

3. The chair or professorship will normally be filled from within Wittenberg University. However, if, in exceptional cases, the position is to be filled from outside the University, the nominee must recently have met all of the above guidelines at some other institution of higher learning.

4. A decision to waive any of these guidelines will be made in consultation with the Faculty Personnel Board.

5. The appropriate department chair should send nominations to the Provost which will be forwarded with the Provost's recommendations, to the President. The President may nominate one person for the professorship or chair to the Board's Academic Affairs Committee which may submit the name of the nominee to the Board for its vote.

6. The Provost and/or President may recommend approval or disapproval, may pass that name forward without recommendation, or may refuse to pass a name forward. The Academic Affairs Committee and the Board may approve or disapprove.

7. The person holding a chair or professorship will be expected to adhere to the guidelines formulated for that position with respect to teaching and/or research obligations, and to the length of appointment to that position.

8. Special Guidelines for the The Kenneth E. Wray Chair in the Humanities follow below. (Originally adopted May 28, 1980)

Criteria:
(Added to the Faculty Manual , Fall, 2001 - Recommended by a Committee of Humanities Faculty and Approved by the President, Fall, 2000)

These guidelines are based on the Wittenberg’s “Guidelines and Procedures for Appointing Faculty Members to Named and Endowed chairs.” The chair is called the Kenneth E. Wray Chair in the Humanities. The appointment is permanent - that is, continuing for the duration of the individual’s tenure at Wittenberg. The individual will be selected from among Wittenberg faculty holding the rank of Professor in the departments of English, history, modern languages, philosophy, and religion. These criteria determine the selection: demonstrated teaching excellence; breadth and excellence of scholarship; and a distinguished record of publication. A selection committee will recommend the appointment to the Provost and the President. The committee will be composed of individuals who are not eligible for the chair, one from each of the humanities departments; in its deliberations the committee will gather and weigh information it deems pertinent to making an informed recommendation. The faculty member holding the chair will receive an annual travel/supplies/materials allowance and an annual stipend. During the first year after an individual is appointed to the chair, the University will sponsor an “inaugural” event to honor the individual and to bring attention to the Wray Chair.

I. Tenure and Appointment to Administrative Positions

a. Guidelines for Tenure for Administration

The Faculty, at its meeting of May 2, 1978, adopted the following recommended guidelines, which were amended at the April 9, 1991 faculty meeting:

The Personnel Board recommends that, with the exception of the chief academic officer, an administrator neither be hired with tenure as a faculty member nor advanced to tenure during his/her term of service as an administrator.

 

b. Policy for Tenured Faculty Who Accept Full-Time Administrative Positions

Should a tenured faculty member at Wittenberg University accept an administrative appointment, AAUP guidelines regarding tenure will apply. The "1972 Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure" state that all regulations regarding tenure "apply to administrative personnel who hold academic rank, but only in their capacity as faculty members."

As of September l, 1982, tenured faculty members who accept full-time administrative positions will be subject to the following:

l. Such a full-time administrator will lose academic rank if during three consecutive academic years in an administrative role the person does not teach or administer an academic program.

2. Such a full-time administrator will retain academic rank if he/she is engaged in some teaching or academic administration, but no guarantee of a teaching position can be given after three years unless there is a position available at the time the person wishes to return to full-time teaching.

3. If such a person loses academic rank and wishes to return to the department after three years, that department and the administration may at their discretion, rehire with tenure and rank.

(Adopted May 25, 1982)

III.  Professional and Ethical Responsibilities of the Faculty

A.  Professional Responsibilities of the Faculty of Wittenberg University

1.  Teaching, Curriculum Development, and Advising

(a) Teaching

Good teaching is a sine qua non for tenure and advancement in rank. Good teaching includes:

• effective classroom performance (clear expression, organized presentation, current content),
• rigorous content and performance standards,
• opportunities for teacher/student consultation outside the classroom,
• prompt feedback to students on their performance,
• teaching methods appropriate to class size and level, and
• general concern for the student's well-being.

(b) Curriculum Development

Faculty members share corporate faculty responsibility for curriculum development. Such responsibility implies the faculty member will cooperate with other members of the department/ program in

• regular evaluation and revision of requirements for departmental or cross-disciplinary majors and minors,
• regular evaluation and revision of courses in the department/program, both those that serve general education and that serve the major,
• the incorporation of appropriate new materials and teaching techniques into existing courses,
• periodic development of new courses within or between departments.

It is expected that in the performance of these duties, faculty members will be interested in and supportive of disciplines other than their own and will display a strong commitment to liberal arts education.

(c) Advising

The faculty member should demonstrate effective advising to non-majors and majors.

Effective advising requires:

• availability to students.
• ability to relate the concept of a liberal arts education to the advisee's educational needs.
• familiarity with the academic requirements, policies, regulations, and services of the department/program and of the university, as well as with the student support services of the university.
• knowledge of current graduate school and professional opportunities in the adviser's field.

2. Although first and foremost a teacher, the Wittenberg faculty member is expected to engage significantly in professional activity beyond the campus. While it cannot be demanded that all faculty members publish extensively, it is expected at the very least that they will stay current in their fields. Beyond this, Wittenberg faculty members should be scholars seriously interested in and contributing to their disciplines, establishing and maintaining a professional identity beyond the Wittenberg community.

Means by which this end may be achieved include:

• publication;
• the presentation of professional papers;
• the creation, public performance, or exhibition of artistic works;
• service as discussants or session chairs at professional conferences;
• service as an officer of a professional association;
• completion of significant research, consulting, or artistic projects;
• submission or administration of grants;
• and similar activities which enhance the professional stature of the faculty and contribute to the quality of education at Wittenberg.

3. The Wittenberg faculty member is expected to participate, in a collegial* manner, in other activities that benefit the university community.

Such activities should include:

• appropriate participation in departmental governance and in the implementation of departmental programs
• appropriate participation in university governance, such as faculty meetings and committee work.

Such activities could include:

• coordinating or contributing to campus groups/events
• assisting in the efforts of other university offices, such as admissions, the chapel, advancement.

Such activities could also include, if accompanied by an explanation of their contribution to Wittenberg:

• coordinating or contributing to community groups/events

*"Collegial participation" includes the freedom to express dissent. (See University Policy on Dissent and Disorder, Appendix 4-6).

4. Professional Conduct

The Wittenberg faculty member is expected to act in accordance with the standards of conduct in the Statement of Professional Ethics.

B.  Statement of Professional Ethics

. In matters pertaining to the professional role of the faculty where there are no institutional rules for guidance, the following statement serves as a guide for the Professional behavior of Wittenberg faculty.

Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end professors devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although professors may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry.

As teachers, professors encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They hold before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline. Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to assure that their evaluations of students reflect each student’s true merit. They respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students. They acknowledge significant academic or scholarly assistance from them. They protect their academic freedom.

As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas professors show due respect for the opinions of others. Professors acknowledge academic debt and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. Professors accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution.

As members of an academic institution, professors seek above all to be effective teachers and scholars. Although professors observe the stated regulations of the institution, provided the regulations do not contravene academic freedom, they maintain their right to criticize and seek revision. Professors give due regard to their paramount responsibilities within their institution in determining the amount and character of work done outside it. When considering the interruption or termination of their service, professors recognize the effect of their decision upon the program of the institution and give due notice of their intentions.

As members of their community, professors have the rights and obligations of other citizens. Professors measure the urgency of these obligations in the light of their responsibilities to their subject, to the students, to their profession, and to their institutions. When they speak or act as private persons they avoid creating the impression of speaking or acting for their college or university. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom.

[Endorsed by the Seventy-Third Annual Meeting of the American Association Of University Professors.]

IV.  Tenure and the Tenure Process

A. Introduction: Tenure, Tenure-Track, and Non renewal of Appointments

. An appointment to permanent tenure is an act of faith. In making such an appointment an institution is expressing its confidence that a faculty member is, and will continue to be for the rest of his/her professional life, a valuable asset to the institution. The future effectiveness of the institution's program may depend, in large part, upon the degree to which appointments to permanent tenure are made wisely. Such decisions must be based on reliable evaluations of the candidate at work in the academic situation over an extended period of time.

For these reasons, probationary appointments (commonly referred to as "tenure-track") are essential to preserving the integrity of the tenure system. Such appointments carry with them neither the same securities as tenure nor the guarantee of such at a future date, but they nonetheless imply a greater commitment on the part of the university than would a one-year appointment. For example, both the visiting/temporary faculty member and the probationary/tenure-track faculty member are on year-to-year contracts. But, unlike the visiting one-year appointee, the probationary/tenure-track appointee must be notified of non renewal of the contract for the following year. Such notice must be given in writing not later than March l in the first year of teaching at Wittenberg and not later than December 15 during the second year; twelve months notice is required for non-renewal after two years of service.* (See Article VI of the Constitution and Bylaws of Wittenberg & Adopted, May, 1999)

During the probationary period, those who are responsible for the evaluation should show continuing concern for the progress of the faculty member and give all reasonable guidance, assistance, and encouragement. But at the end of the probationary period, if tenure is recommended, the burden of proof rests with the candidate and those recommending tenure.

The ultimate power to make, renew, or not to renew appointments to the Wittenberg Faculty rests solely with the President, the Provost, and the Board of Directors, and not with the faculty, whose constitutional authority is limited to a right to participate in such decisions. When a probationary contract is not renewed, the faculty member should be notified of the reasons for the decision in writing. Common reasons the University may choose not to renew a probationary/tenure-track appointment or not to grant tenure include the following:

1) Professional Qualifications and Performance. The university judges the professional performance of the candidate as inadequate or unsatisfactory. (See the Guidelines for Assessing Professional Qualifications for Tenure, the Statement of Professional Responsibilities of Wittenberg Faculty, and The Statement on Professional Ethics). If such a decision not to reappoint occurs before the fifth year of probationary service, it typically involves consultation between the department and the Provost. The Provost should inform the Faculty Personnel Board of the decision not to renew the probationary faculty member's contract, but otherwise FPB consultation is not required.

If a decision not to reappoint or not to recommend tenure occurs late enough that the candidate will remain on faculty during what would be the tenure-decision year (usually the sixth year, except when prior service has been credited), then the probationary candidate still may be reviewed by the FPB, if the candidate so requests.

2) Elimination/Redefinition of the Faculty Line. The university eliminates the faculty member's line or redefines the line due to curricular, financial, or enrollment concerns. Such redefinition or elimination should not occur without consultation with the Educational Policies Committee and the relevant department. The faculty does not envision other circumstances in which non renewal of a probationary contract or failure to grant tenure would occur. But if such other circumstances should arise, the decision should be made in consultation with the appropriate faculty body. If the matter does not fall under the purview of other committees, the Faculty Executive Board should be consulted.

The faculty has no formal decision-making power over non-renewals of probationary contracts for reasons related to elimination/redefinition of the line, but in consultations related to such non renewals the faculty expects that the faculty consultative bodies:

1. will notify the faculty at the initiation of the consultative process
2. will have adequate access to pertinent data
3. will determine if they agree or disagree with the course of action taken, and will be free to propose alternative courses of action
4. will report on these consultations, with explanations, at the faculty meeting following their conclusion.

While observing these principles and this procedure will not guarantee that all probationary/tenure-track appointments are maintained, such will ensure that the Wittenberg community better understands decisions that interrupt the tenure process. While the final decisions will rest with the President and the Provost, these procedures help to preserve confidence in the integrity of the process. Through them the faculty can participate in difficult decisions without necessarily consenting to the outcome.

 

B. Guidelines for Assessing Professional Qualifications for Tenures

1. Brief Guidelines for Appointment to Permanent Tenure

Briefly stated, appointment to tenure on the Wittenberg Faculty should occur when the faculty member has completed the appropriate terminal degree necessary for the rank of Assistant Professor and has demonstrated:

1. excellence of pertinent professional preparation
2. effective teaching and advising
3. scholarly and/or professional achievement
4. appropriate service to the department, the university, and/or the academic community
5. strong indications of promise for continued professional growth in the above qualities and of the capacity for making significant contributions to the department, the institution, and the academic community.

For a fuller explanation of the meanings of criteria 1-4, see the statement of "Professional Responsibilities of the Faculty of Wittenberg University." (Note: Not everything found therein will apply to tenure decisions). Some guidelines may not apply to some fields; exceptions for specific departments follow in a subsequent section. Moreover, care must be taken lest guidelines which represent modification of past policy should be applied automatically and inappropriately to faculty who were appointed before such guidelines were in effect.

For various reasons, departments may occasionally make recommendations that depart from the guidelines, but such recommendations require compelling reasons and substantiation.

Tenure decisions for librarians will be based on the guidelines listed above, with the understanding that librarians’ educational role may be fulfilled through means other than direct classroom teaching and advising. Librarians participate in formal research and publication to a lesser degree than classroom faculty due to the nature of librarians’ responsibilities and work schedules.

2. Faculty and Course Evaluations by Students

(Revised by Faculty April, 2004)

Student evaluations of teaching serve three distinct but interdependent purposes (described in A-C). They provide feedback to the instructor for the purpose of course improvement; information regarding teaching effectiveness for the purpose of making personnel decisions; and information to help students make informed decisions about course selection.

A.  To improve teaching instructors are strongly encouraged to solicit feedback from students during the semester.  Questions for  "formative evaluation" forms  may be obtained from the Faculty Development Administrator.  This information is to be used in personnel decisions only if presented by the candidate.

B.  To assess teaching effectiveness, every instructor is required to evaluate each course using forms that contain at least some standardized questions. This "summative evaluation" form includes items consistent with descriptors of effective teaching.  Students respond to each item and may also make written comments. These forms and the information derived from them will be used in the personnel review process. Common Learning evaluations will not be used  in the personnel review process

C. To provide other students with course selection of information, students will complete a "student questionnaire." These student questionnaires will be filed in the library for student access.  They may be consulted in the personnel review process, but only as a supplement to the evaluations described in B above.

 

Policy Governing Administration of Instructional Course Evaluations

l. All courses, whether taught by non-tenured or tenured faculty members, must be evaluated. 

    a)   Faculty are strongly encouraged to use their own formative evaluation forms or those available through the Faculty Development Administrator.  Such optional evaluations are confidential and the property of the instructor; they may be used for personnel decisions only with the instructor's permission.

     b)  All courses must be evaluated using the summative evaluation form.  This form must indicate that summative evaluation results will be used in personnel review.

     c) The student questionnaire must be completed for all courses.  It should be administered at the same time as the summative evaluation. This form must indicate that it may be used in personnel review.

     d)  Administration of summative evaluations:

      1)  The summative evaluation forms and student questionnaires should be administered following a standardized procedure.  Instructions will be included when the forms are distributed to the faculty member.

      2)  The summative evaluations and student questionnaires should be administered during the last two weeks of the semester.  Courses that meet less than a full semester should be evaluated during the final week of the course.

     3)  The summative evaluation forms and the student questionnaires will be distributed to instructors in envelopes marked with the course's four-digit call number.

2.    The student questionnaires and comment section of the summative evaluation forms will be scanned to ensure security of the forms

3.  The summative evaluation forms and statistical reports will be sent to department chairs no later than the beginning of the following semester and filed in the departmental offices.  The evaluations will be kept in department files six years for non-tenured faculty and three years for tenured faculty. Then, they will be returned to individual faculty. 

4.   Access to student questionnaires, summative evaluation forms, and statistical reports will be as follows:

      a)  Students, faculty, and administrators may access student questionnaires at the library.

      b)  Summative evaluation forms and statistical reports may be accessed by the individual faculty

             member, department chair, Faculty Personnel Board members, the Provost, and the President.

             i.  Department chairs will distribute summative evaluation forms and statistical reports to

                 each individual faculty member to examine and then return to the chair.

           ii.  The summative evaluation forms and statistical reports will be used for personnel review.

                The department chair is responsible for making this information available to the faculty and

                and administrators directly involved in making personnel decisions at the appropriate times,

                such as during annual reviews or evaluations for tenure or promotion.

 

C.  The Tenure Process

1. The Six-Year Schedule

(The following text and grid were approved by Faculty Action October 20, 2000 Faculty Meeting)

Tenure-track faculty members are reviewed annually during their probationary service, which normally lasts six years. Candidates for tenure may receive up to three years’ credit toward those six years for full-time teaching at other colleges/universities. Such a decision is made by the candidate, in consultation with the department chair and the Provost, at the time of appointment. In such cases, the schedule of annual reviews is modified accordingly. The language used below to denote the reviews, however, assumes the normal process culminating in a tenure decision at the end of the sixth year. In effect, candidates with credit toward tenure skip the initial year(s) of the process, although all candidates participate in the Third-Year Review process. If granted, tenure becomes effective at the beginning of the seventh year.

All annual reviews are conducted by the department, include classroom visits prearranged with the candidate, and are reviewed by the Provost. Of special significance are the Third-Year Review, in which the department must give the candidate a frank assessment of the prospects for tenure, and the Sixth-Year Review, in which the department must recommend to the Faculty Personnel Board whether the candidate be tenured. (A tenure candidate who remains in service into the sixth year is eligible for this latter, extensive review, even if already notified that the department will not recommend the candidate for tenure, subject to the stipulations outlined in Section IV .A above.) The Faculty Personnel Board evaluates the special Third- and Sixth-year Reviews before forwarding it s recommendations to the Provost. Copies of the Third-, Fourth-, and Fifth-Year Reviews should accompany the tenure recommendation.

The First-, Second-, Fourth-, and Fifth-year Reviews are due by July 1. For candidates with one year or less credit toward tenure, the Third-year Review is due by March 15. For candidates with two or three years' credit toward tenure, this review if due by October 1 following the candidate’s first year of tenure-track service at Wittenberg.  The Tenure recommendation, which is the Sixth-year Review, is due by November 1.

If a faculty member (whether male or female) qualifies for a paid or unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993(FMLA) [Appendix, pg. 9] or Wittenberg maternity policy guidelines [Benefits, cp. 5] he or she is entitled to stop the tenure clock or extend the probationary period, with or without taking a full or partial leave of absence.  The tenure clock may be stopped for up to one year for each event and no more than twice during the probationary period. A candidate granted an extended probationary period under these criteria will be reviewed under the same academic standards as a candidate who has not extended the probationary period. The institution will not impose greater demands on the candidate as a consequence of the longer probationary period. The proposed policy is based on "qualification" for FMLA leave rather than acceptance of paid or unpaid leave. Qualifications for FMLA and a change in the tenure clock will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the Provost and Human Resources (Approved by Faculty, Provost and Faculty Personnel Board, April 2004 Faculty Meeting)

If a candidate’s contract will not be renewed, the candidate must be so informed in writing by the following deadlines, regardless of any credit toward tenure for service elsewhere:

1. March 1, for candidates in their first year at Wittenberg,
2. December 15, for candidates in their second year at Wittenberg, and
3. 12 months prior to the beginning of fall semester, for candidates with more than two years’ service at Wittenberg.

A chart that outlines the six-year schedule is presented below:

Review Year	Review initiated by	Includes classroom visits?	Sent to and Reviewed by	Deadline for Dept's Report	Deadline to notify Candidate of Non renewal for Next Year
First	Department	Yes	Provost	July 1	March 1
Second	Department	Yes	Provost	July 1	Dec. 15 or March 1 (See above)
Third	Department	Yes	Provost, FPB	March 15 or October 1 (see above)	12 months notice, Dec. 15, or March 1 (see above)
Fourth	Department	Yes	Provost	July 1	12 months notice, Dec. 15 or March 1 (see above)
Fifth	Department	Yes	Provost	July 1	12 months notice or December 15 (see above)
Sixth	Department	Yes	Provost, FPB	November 1	12 months notice

 2.  The Responsibilities and Roles of the Department, the Department Chair, and peers During These Years:  Some Basic Principles

The Chair

The Board of Directors Bylaws require the President to consult with the Provost, a faculty personnel committee, and "the appropriate departmental chair or representative as specified in the Bylaws of the Faculty" when developing recommendations for tenure (VI.1.A) The Faculty Bylaws designate the chair as the chief administrative officer of the department, one who is required to consult with colleagues on departmental business. (Faculty Bylaws, II.B) In particular, the chair is required to "make recommendations to the Provost and the Faculty Personnel Board relative to selection, retention, promotion, tenure, and salaries of department members.(Faculty Bylaws, II.B.2)

The chair is responsible for communicating to the candidate what "probationary/tenure-track" means and for conveying departmental and university expectations of tenure candidates. (This responsibility is shared by the FPB members involved in the search and by the Provost). However, the candidate bears the ultimate responsibility for learning and meeting these expectations and for asking questions when clarification is needed.

As the "chief administrative officer" of the department, the chair serves as representative of the department in both administrative and governance processes. As described below, the chair may or may not be chosen as the departmental representative in tenure cases, but if and when preparing reports relative to the tenure process as chair, the chair must act purely as a representative of the department and should not represent merely her/his own opinion or evaluation of the candidate. Any tenured member of the department, including the chair, may submit an additional written evaluation, but such an evaluation, even when written by a faculty member serving as chair, shall not be considered as the department chair's/representative's evaluation that is called for in the Board of Directors Bylaws.

Great weight is placed on departmental evaluations and recommendations in the tenure process. Moreover, such departmental evaluations of a candidate may be consulted not only by the Faculty Personnel Board, but also by the Provost, the President, the Board Committee on Academic Affairs, and even the Board of Directors. Therefore, it is essential that these formal written reports and recommendations concerning a tenure candidate be departmental evaluations, not chair evaluations.

Peer Review

Peer review is a crucial component in the tenure process. Broadly construed, it can refer to all of the ways Wittenberg involves other faculty members in the process of evaluating tenure candidates. The practices of requiring full departmental evaluation and of inviting input from the rest of the faculty are both forms of "peer review." The items that follow here refer only to peer review in the tenure process.

Peer review of tenure candidates requires the participation of all the tenured department members, though it may also include voluntary input from non-tenured members. Department members need not necessarily all do the same things; for example, some may visit the classroom, while others may become more knowledgeable about the candidate's professional development. But the departmental judgments about probationary/tenure-track candidates must be made by the tenured members of the department, and they must be knowledgeable about the candidate's strengths and weaknesses.

A critical component of peer review is yearly visits (with written reports) to the classes or other on-site teaching locations of a tenure candidate by tenured members of the faculty. Such visits should begin the first year of a six-year track (when the purpose is primarily formative) and continue through the probationary period. Such visits should be coordinated with the candidate and should include tenured faculty members from both inside and outside the candidate's department.

The evaluator will discuss his/her conclusions with the faculty member, using the evaluator’s written summary as the basis for discussion. That summary and any written response the faculty member wishes to add should be copied to the department chair for subsequent use in the tenure process.

Some forms of peer review are not required at Wittenberg and may not be required unilaterally by the department, such as letters of evaluation from outside Wittenberg, or confidential evaluations of teaching. Such may be used if the candidate and the department both agree on their use.

Candidates also are encouraged to use formative peer reviews that remain off the record, unless offered by the candidate.

A chair should consult with department members and students in making an annual review and evaluation for each untenured member of the department. Individual faculty members who deem it advisable should feel free to communicate directly with the Faculty Personnel Board on personnel matters. It is the ongoing responsibility of individual faculty members to provide their chairs with information that may be relevant to their status.

NOTE: A copy of the recommendation form (found on next page) should be sent to the Provost’s Office by July 1

Download First and Second Year Review Form (http://www4.wittenberg.edu/facstaff/faculty_manual/06-07/documents/first...)

4.   The Third Year Review

Like the second-year review, the third-year review is conducted by the department, and includes classroom visits as a part of peer review. In addition, it includes supporting materials provided by the candidate and the department. These materials should include summative course evaluations and statistical summaries.

The Third-Year review is normally due by March 15; for candidates with two or three years’ credit toward tenure, this review is due by October 1 following the candidate’s first year of tenure-track service at Wittenberg. The third-year review also must be forwarded to the Faculty Personnel Board which reviews the document and responds candidly in writing to it, with copies going to the department, the candidate, and the Provost by June 1.

The third-year review is intended to give the candidate a clear sense of his/her progress toward tenure and should include a frank assessment of the candidate's potential for tenure. This assessment must be frank and candid enough to be useful; at the same time, the university does not and cannot commit to tenure at this stage. If the Faculty Personnel Board finds the department's review to be vague or incomplete, it will require a revised review.

The formal written third-year review documents should represent the majority view of the tenured members of the department. The review should be signed by all tenured members of the department to demonstrate that they have read it. (Exceptions are allowed for faculty members who cannot participate due to leave or illness). The preparation of such reviews must include a joint meeting of the tenured members of the department and should address the qualifications for tenure described in the Faculty Manual.

In most cases, the chair will present the department's recommendation in a single letter. In some cases, other tenured members may wish to append to this letter additional letters in order to more fully convey the range of views within the department; in these cases the chair's letter and the appended letters will constitute the departmental evaluation. In extreme circumstances, when it proves impossible to represent the view of the department, the tenured members of a department may opt to write only individual letters and to write no single departmental evaluation; in such cases, all these letters together will constitute the departmental evaluation to be used in compliance with the Board Bylaws (VI.I.A) If the chair is in the minority, the majority may choose to assign to one of its own members the task of preparing the report.

In writing the review, the "Form for Third Year Review of Probationary Faculty" should be used. A current vita, a list of courses taught each year by the candidate at Wittenberg, and the candidate’s response should be attached to the review. Eight copies of the review and attachments should be sent to the faculty secretary, Rosie Burley, (seven for the FPB and one for the Provost); Peer revaluations and student evaluations of teaching and advising should be placed on FPB reserve in the library as well as any publications or other professional materials.

Download Third Year Review Form(http://www4.wittenberg.edu/facstaff/faculty_manual/06-07/documents/third...)

5. The Fourth and Fifth Year Reviews

The third-year review serves as a baseline for future evaluations. It is especially important that fourth and fifth-year reviews provide updates on information recorded in the third-year review. Although generally not reviewed by the Faculty Personnel Board, these reviews are shared with the Board as information. Under unusual circumstances, the FPB may respond to the fourth-year review, but it will not respond to the fifth-year review. Choosing not to respond does not imply agreement or disagreement with the review.

A copy of the recommendation form and the candidate’s response should be sent to the Provost’s Office no later than July 1.

Download Fourth and Fifth Year Review Form (http://www4.wittenberg.edu/facstaff/faculty_manual/06-07/documents/fourt...)

6. The Sixth-Year (Tenure-Year) Review

a.  The Schedule of Deadlines

 The President and the Provost will notify the candidate immediately in the event that they determine that a significant possibility exists that tenure may be denied for reasons other than professional qualifications. Such notification may or may not occur before November 1. Consultations will be required, in accordance with section IV .A. If this process has not concluded by November 1 , the FPB should proceed to evaluate tenure recommendations.

October 15: The department should have completed its review and voted on what recommendation to make, and it should notify, briefly and in writing, the candidate, the Provost, and the Faculty Personnel Board of its intentions.

October 25: Deadline for a candidate not recommended by the department to request review by the Faculty Personnel Board.

November 1: The Faculty Personnel Board, the Provost, and the President should receive formal recommendation (positive or negative) from the department. (This deadline is extended to December 1 for a candidate not recommended for tenure by the department but who requests review by the FPB).

February 15: Faculty Personnel Board notifies the President and Provost, briefly and in writing of its intentions, with copies to the candidate and departmental chair. If the FPB’s recommendation differs from the department’s, the FPB should offer to meet with the tenured members of the department to discuss the matter.

March 10: The FPB's complete recommendations must be forwarded to the President and Provost.

March 31: The President and Provost inform the Faculty Personnel Board of their intentions regarding tenure recommendations. (Other consultations may be required, in accordance with section IV .A).

 

b.  Process:  The Department

As with the written third-year review, the tenure-year review documents should represent the majority view of the tenured members of the department. In addition, the tenure-year review documents must include the departmental vote. The review should be signed by all tenured members of the department to demonstrate that they have read it. (Exceptions can be made for faculty members who cannot participate, e.g. due to leave or illness). The preparation of such reviews must include a joint meeting of the tenured members of the department and a meeting with students.

In most cases, the chair will present the department's recommendation in a single letter. In some cases, other tenured members may wish to append to this letter additional letters in order to convey more fully the range of views within the department; in these cases the chair's letter and the appended letters will constitute the departmental evaluation. In extreme circumstances, when it proves impossible to represent the view of the department, the tenured members of a department may opt to write only individual letters and to write no single departmental evaluation; in such cases, all these letters together will constitute the departmental evaluation to be used in compliance with the Board Bylaws (VI.I.A) If the chair is in the minority, the majority may choose to assign to one of its own members the task of preparing the report.

Tenure packages prepared by departments may vary. In preparing tenure-review documents, the following protocol is recommended:

During the spring before tenure-decision year,

The department should hold an open meeting for students to meet with members of the department to convey their impressions of the candidate. All department majors should be notified in writing of this meeting, and the student body at large should be notified through appropriate means (e.g., an announcement in The Torch or on computer news, a letter to all students in the candidate's classes and past students who are currently enrolled). Such notice should include the date, time, and purposes of the open meeting. The notice also should invite written responses or verbal conversations, noting that such responses cannot be assured of confidentiality.

The department chair should meet with the candidate to describe exactly what materials he or she will be expected to provide at the beginning of the next academic year.

Fall of Tenure-Decision Year, the department chair should

notify all faculty, staff, and students the candidate will be considered for tenure this year and invite written responses evaluating the candidate. (Such written responses cannot be guaranteed confidentiality).

request of the candidate materials to be used in the evaluation.

make evaluation materials available to tenured members of the department.

hold a meeting with tenured members of the department to determine whether the department will recommend the candidate for tenure and to draft a rough outline of the recommendation. (The departmental vote will be reported to the FPB in the departmental recommendation). If the chair will not be writing the recommendation, the person who will do so should be chosen at this meeting.

inform the candidate of the departmental decision.

Provide to the candidate a copy of the department recommendation

put all supporting materials requested by the Faculty Personnel Board on restricted reserve in the library by the requested date. Required supporting materials include: peer reviews of teaching, student evaluations of teaching and advising; all letters received in response to the department's request for such input; summative teaching evaluations; statistical analyses of summative teaching evaluations that compare the candidate with the department and the university; copies of the candidate's professional work where appropriate/possible.

file eight copies of the department's recommendation, the candidate’s response, a current vita, a list of courses taught each year at Wittenberg and copies of the third, fourth, and fifth-year reviews, with the Faculty Secretary, Rosie Burley, by the requested date.

Download Tenure Recommendation Form (http://www4.wittenberg.edu/facstaff/faculty_manual/06-07/documents/tenur...)

Ground Rules

1. Basis for Evaluation: The Personnel Board shall discuss tenure cases thoroughly and confidentially in official meetings prior to forwarding a positive or negative recommendation to the Provost and the President. The FPB shall follow the "Guidelines for Assessing Professional Qualifications for Tenure" and shall follow the schedule outlined above. (See IV.C.6.a.)

2. Confidentiality: While the internal conversations about the merits of a tenure case are confidential, all materials consulted or received by the FPB, directly or indirectly, shall be made available to the candidate and to the department representative who presented the department's recommendation. While the FPB will receive additional materials after the deadline for tenure recommendations, it cannot guarantee that such late materials will be utilized in rendering judgments.

3. Voting: The FPB's decision to recommend a candidate for tenure requires a simple majority vote, determined in a secret ballot; the actual vote will be shared only with the FPB members. Otherwise, the results of such FPB votes will remain confidential. FPB members are not expected to recuse themselves in cases related to their own departments.

4. Ranking: The FPB shall not provide a ranking of candidates for tenure.

Process

1. Before discussing actual tenure candidacies, the FPB and the Provost will meet and review the criteria for tenure.

2. After receiving departmental recommendations the FPB will conduct preliminary discussions concerning each tenure candidacy, using the materials presented by the department, student evaluations, and any other materials submitted by interested students, faculty, and the candidate.

3. The members of the FPB and the Provost then will engage in frank and complete discussions on each candidacy in order to understand the full range of views on the professional qualifications of each candidate. In such meetings, all the participants should convey to one another any information relevant to the assessment of a candidate's professional qualifications for tenure, their own tentative assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of tenure candidacies, and any concerns about issues pertinent to the evaluation of such candidacies.

4. The FPB then will meet for final discussions and voting. If the FPB's recommendation differs from that of a department, the FPB will offer to meet with the tenured members of the department to discuss the differences before proceeding to the next step. After this meeting, the department representative will have the opportunity to append to the departmental recommendation a response to the FPB recommendation, before both recommendations go to the Provost and the President. (The department's recommendation cannot be changed at this point). (The provision for an FPB-department meeting at this stage does not preclude such a meeting at an earlier stage).

5. The FPB will forward to the Provost and the President its written recommendations, positive or negative, concerning each candidate for tenure. If the FPB forwards a positive recommendation in a case in which the department did not recommend the candidate, the FPB’s recommendation must include a thorough statement of the candidate’s qualifications for tenure. At the same time, the FPB will send a written summary of its recommendation to the department representative and to the candidate.

6. After a period of time to allow for the President and the Provost to consult, the FPB will meet with the President and the Provost to address any remaining questions about the FPB's recommendations.

7. After the President and Provost have determined their recommendation to the Board Committee on Academic Affairs, they will inform the FPB of their recommendation in writing. (The FPB is not at liberty to reveal the President's and Provost's recommendation to other parties before the meeting of the full Board of Directors).

If, at this time, the FPB learns that the administration’s recommendation differs from that of the FPB, the FPB will prepare a written response. If the reasons for the differing recommendations include matters other than professional qualifications, the FPB will request from the appropriate board or committee (usually the EPC) its recommendation. The FPB will consider this additional information when framing its response.

8. The Board Committee on Academic Affairs will receive copies of the FPB’s recommendations and responses, as well as the department’s recommendation, when the President and Provost present their report and their recommendations to the BCAA.

9. The Provost will inform the candidate, the department, and the FPB of the Board of Directors' final decision.

V.  Eligibility, Criteria, and Process
(Approved by the Faculty on February 26, 2002)

Promotion in academic rank recognizes publicly the work faculty members do in a variety of contexts, including teaching in the classroom, mentoring independent study, evaluating students’ work, meeting with students and advisees, pursuing, presenting, and publishing personal research and research conducted with students, administering programs and serving on committees, among other activities. Promotion thus honors those who fulfill the tenets of the statement on “Professional and Ethical Responsibilities of the Faculty ” (Faculty Manual, Faculty Appointment and Review Policies, 11-13) over a period of years, and is not granted lightly or automatically for longevity of service. To that end, the process outlined below, which roughly parallels that for tenure, seeks a true measure of the substance of the career in question while allowing for interpretation of that career in the context of a specific discipline and a particular set of individual circumstances and assuring comparable expectations of well-roundedness.

A. Eligibility for Promotion
Full-time faculty who posses the appropriate terminal degree are appointed at the rank of Assistant Professor of higher. Those who have not completed the appropriate terminal degree are usually appointed at the rank of Instructor. Tenured faculty who do not possess the appropriate terminal degree are not normally considered for promotion.

Candidates for promotion may be reviewed during the year in which they meet the eligibility requirement (i.e., by earning the terminal degree and completing the minimum years in rank). The promotion, if granted, takes effect the following year.

Promotion to the rank of Assistant Professor
Eligibility: Completion of the terminal degree, usually the Ph.D., is required. Promotion to the rank of Assistant Professor is usually effective the year after the completion of the degree, contingent upon the reappointment of the candidate to the faculty. These promotions need to be reviewed by the Faculty Personnel Board but are handled administratively by the candidate, the department, and the Provost.

Promotion to the rank of Associate Professor

Eligibility: Completion of a minimum of six years in the rank of Instructor or Assistant Professor at Wittenberg and/or a comparable institution, with no more than two years at the rank of Instructor counted toward the six years.*

*The maximum number of years at Instructor provision will apply to librarians beginning Fall 2007. This exception can be removed from the Faculty Manual at the start of the 2008-2009 academic year.

Promotion to the rank of Professor

Eligibility: Completion of a minimum of seven years in the rank of Associate Professor at Wittenberg or a comparable institution.

B. Criteria for Promotion

Normal Criteria for Promotion

Wittenberg University is first and foremost an institution that emphasizes excellence in teaching. While promotion decisions are approached holistically, the primary criterion is continued teaching effectiveness. Members of the Wittenberg faculty are teacher-scholars. Professional activity and institutional involvement and service are also important criteria for advancement in rank. Somewhat more emphasis is placed on professional activity and service in promotion decisions (especially to the rank of Professor) than in tenure decisions. There are a variety of ways by which one’s professional identity can be established, including but not limited to publication, the presentation of professional papers, and the creation, public performance, or exhibition of artistic works. For all levels of promotion, the burden of proof that the candidate has met the criteria rests with the candidate and those recommending advancement.

Promotion to the rank of Assistant Professor

Criteria: Effective teaching and advising.

Promotion to the rank of Associate Professor

 

Criteria:

1. Continued effective teaching, advising, and curriculum development.
2. Professional growth as indicated especially by a continuing pattern of scholarly, artistic, scientific, or similar professional achievement.
3. Service appropriate to the faculty member’s time to Wittenberg.

Promotion to the rank of Professor

Criteria:

1. Continued effective teaching, advising, and curriculum development.
2. Professional growth as indicated especially by a continuing pattern of artistic, scholarly, scientific, or similar professional achievement that is recognized by the candidate’s peers beyond the Wittenberg University community.
3. A pattern of significant service to the department, the institution, and/or the broader academic community.

NOTE: The relative amounts of time faculty members spend on teaching, professional work, and service will vary from person to person and from year to year. Requiring “patterns” of professional achievement or service does not mandate equal contribution in all areas at all times.

Exceptions to the Normal Criteria for Promotion

The Library: The criteria for promotion are as listed above with the following exceptions.

To the rank of Associate Professor:

1. Normally, a second graduate degree. A librarian lacking a second graduate degree may achieve tenure but will be promoted to Associate Professor only if making extraordinary contributions to library services.
2. Application of knowledge of information resources evidenced by the selection and management of those resources or by instruction about them. Creative development in a specific area of the work of the library. Effective contribution to the library’s educational role.
3. Professional growth as indicated by participation in/contributions to library professional affair.
4. Service to one’s institution through job performance and additional campus activity.

To the rank of Professor:

1. professional growth as evidenced by the vigorous pursuit and accomplishment of significant library improvements through research, resourcefulness, and breadth of vision, or by equivalent efforts in an academic discipline. Proven ability to articulate library problems and solutions to peers in the library community and to faculty and administrators outside of the library.
2. Outstanding work performance and leadership; outstanding contributions to the library and the University.

 

The Department of Health, Fitness, and Sport follows the college “Guidelines” except as noted:

1. For promotion to the rank of Assistant Professor or Associate Professor, formal graduate study beyond the master’s degree in a sub-disciplinary area of health and physical education is required and may be substituted for specific study toward or achievement of the doctorate.
2. For coaches, effective coaching as evidenced by:
   
   1. Professional growth as indicated by creative and scholarly performance.
   2. Effective teaching and advising.
   3. Significant contributions to the University and community.

Performance in these three areas will be evaluated according to “Criteria for Coaching Evaluation” which have been approved by the Health, Fitness, and Sport faculty and are on file with the Faculty Personnel Board.

C.  The Promotion Process: The Department’s Role, Self-nomination, and Review of Candidates for Promotion to the Rank of Professor

Typically, nominations and recommendations for advancement in rank are made by departments according to the process outlined below. However, it is possible for individuals to self-nominate for advancement in rank when, contrary to the view held by the majority of the tenured members of a department, they feel that they meet the relevant criteria. The procedure for self-nomination is described in the section following the process for departmental nominations.

Preparing the Department Recommendation

Promotion recommendations prepared by departments may vary. However, in preparing promotion recommendations, the following protocol should be followed:

1. Faculty members should know when they have achieved eligibility for promotion based on years in rank, and department chairs should also keep themselves up to date on the eligibility of people in their departments. At the suggestion of either party, the department chair and the faculty member should discuss the decision to be considered for promotion, including a consideration of the likelihood for departmental recommendation and strategies for presenting the case. In cases where the department chair believes, contrary to the candidate, that promotion is inappropriate at that time, the chair is still obliged to meet with the tenured members of the department to discuss the candidate’s prospects for promotion. Typically, these discussions would occur before April 1 prior to the year when the faculty member is being considered for promotion.
2. If the faculty member decides to be considered for promotion, the department chair should advise him or her about what materials the department and the Faculty Personnel Board will need to support the case.
3. The department shall invite the candidate to prepare a statement to support the nomination.
4. The department chair should notify all faculty, staff, and students that the candidate will be considered for promotion and invite written responses evaluating the candidate. Such responses cannot be guaranteed confidentiality. Typically, this would occur before September 15 of the year when the faculty member is being considered for promotion.
5. All materials related to a candidate’s promotion case should be addressed to the relevant department chair or the appropriate department representative.
6. The department chair should announce the time and place of an open student meeting for the purpose of discussing the candidate’s qualifications for promotion, notifying department majors in writing and the student body at large by appropriate means (by letter to the candidate’s past and current students, a computer announcement, notification in The Torch, etc.). Such notice should also invite written responses or verbal conversations, noting that such responses cannot be assured of confidentiality. Typically, such a meeting would occur in the prior spring semester, but not later than October 1 of the year when the faculty member is being considered for promotion.
7. Once the candidate’s materials, teaching evaluations, and responses to the announcements to faculty, staff, and students, have been assembled, the department chair must make these evaluation materials available to tenured members of the department and the candidate to view but not copy. Typically, materials should be made available to tenured members of the department and the candidate prior to October 15 of the year when the faculty member is being considered for promotion. A candidate may choose to compose a written response to the collected supporting materials at this time.
8. The department chair must then hold a meeting with tenured members of the department to determine whether the department will recommend the candidate for promotion and to draft a rough outline of the recommendation. The promotion recommendation should represent the majority vote of the tenured members of the department. If the chair will not be writing the recommendation, the person who will do so should be chosen at this meeting. Recommendations must be signed by all tenured members of the department to demonstrate that they have read it. Exceptions can be made for faculty members who cannot participate, e.g., due to leave or illness.
9. The department chair must then inform the candidate of the departmental decision. In most cases, the chair will represent the department’s recommendation in a single letter. In some cases, other tenured members may wish to append to this letter additional letters in order to convey more fully the range of views within the department. In these cases, the chair’s letter and the appended letters will constitute the departmental evaluation.
10. In extreme circumstances, when it proves impossible to represent the view of the department, the tenured members of a department may opt to write only individual letters and to write no single departmental evaluation; in such cases, all these letters together will constitute the departmental evaluation to be used in compliance with the Board Bylaws (VI.I.A). If the chair is in the minority, the majority may choose to assign to one of its own members the task of preparing the report.
11. If the department declines to recommend promotion, the candidate may consider the option of self-nomination (see process below). In cases where the department declines to recommend promotion, the department chair must inform the candidate with a letter that details the reasons for the department’s decision. Copies of this letter should be sent to the Faculty Personnel Board and the Provost. Candidates for promotion should be notified of the departmental decision no later than November 1.
12. The department chair must put all supporting materials requested by the Faculty Personnel Board on restricted reserve in the library by the requested date, usually November 1. Required supporting materials include:
    
    1. peer reviews of teaching
    2. student evaluations of teaching (i.e., the summative forms or copies of the Student Questionnaire forms accompanied by an explanation as to why the latter forms are being submitted; Student Questionnaire forms may be submitted in addition to the summative forms at the request of the candidate) for the last four years including statistical analyses of summative teaching evaluations that compare the candidate with the department and the University.
    3. all letters received in response to the department’s request for such input
    4. copies of the candidate’s professional work where appropriate/possible
    5. a current vita for the candidate
13. The department chair or department representative must send a copy of the recommendation to the candidate and file eight copies of the department’s recommendation along with the candidate’s current vita and a list of courses taught at Wittenberg with the Faculty Secretary, Rosie Burley, by the requested date, usually November 1.

Self-nomination

In preparing self-nominations the following protocol should be followed:

1. A candidate whose department declines to recommend him or her for promotion after the meetings typically held prior to April 1 between the candidate and the chair and the tenured members of the department may choose to self-nominate for promotion. The candidate is responsible for arranging an open student meeting to be monitored by another faculty member, for composing a letter of self-recommendation to be sent to the Faculty Personnel Board, and for placing all supporting materials requested by the Faculty Personnel Board on restricted reserve in the library by the requested date, usually November 1.
2. A candidate whose department declines to recommend him or her for promotion in the fall, prior to November 1 should inform the department chair, the Faculty Personnel Board, and the Provost of his or her intention to self-nominate with a letter to be delivered no later than November 15. The candidate is then given direct access to all the materials gathered as part of the process described above.
3. The candidate will then compose a letter of self-recommendation and place all relevant supporting materials requested by the Faculty Personnel Board on restricted reserve in the library no later than December 1. The candidate’s letter of self-recommendation is to be copied to the department chair, and the Provost. Tenured members of the department will be granted access to the supporting materials on restricted reserve in the library.
4. If the department chooses to respond to the candidate’s self-recommendation, it must do so in a letter to the Faculty Personnel Board and the Provost no later than January 15. This letter must be copied to the candidate.
5. If the candidate chooses to respond finally to the department, he or she must do so in a letter to the Faculty Personnel Board and the Provost no later than February 1. This letter must be copied to the department chair.
6. If a self-nominated candidate is denied promotion, he or she may self-nominate in subsequent years after the department again declines to recommend the candidate for promotion, only if the candidate demonstrates convincingly to the Faculty Personnel Board that significant changes in his or her record have occurred since the last review. When compelling evidence is not present, the Faculty Personnel Board may refuse to consider the self-nomination.

 

D.  The Promotion Process: The Faculty Personnel Board, the Department, the Provost, and the President

Ground Rules

1. Basis for Evaluation: The Faculty Personnel Board shall discuss promotion cases thoroughly and confidentially in official meetings prior to forwarding a positive or negative recommendation to the Provost and the President. Typically, members of the Faculty Personnel Board should not be recommended for promotion.
2. Members of the Faculty Personnel Board who are close relatives (e.g., spouses), partners of persons who are recommended for promotion, or have other substantive conflicts of interest with candidates for promotion must recuse themselves from discussions of those cases and are ineligible to vote. In the event of a possible substantive conflict of interest, the other members of the Faculty Personnel Board shall determine by a simple majority vote whether the situation constitutes a substantive conflict of interest. Faculty Personnel Board members are not expected to recuse themselves in cases related to their own departments.
3. Confidentiality: While the internal conversations about the merits of a promotion case are confidential, all materials consulted or received by the Faculty Personnel Board, directly or indirectly, shall be made available to the candidate and to the departmental representative who presented the department’s recommendation. While the Faculty Personnel Board will receive additional materials after the deadline for promotion recommendations, it cannot guarantee that such late materials will be utilized in rendering judgments
4. Voting: The Faculty Personnel Board’s decision to recommend a candidate for promotion requires a simple majority of those eligible to vote determined in a secret ballot; the actual vote count will be shared only with members of the Board. Otherwise, the results of such Faculty Personnel Board votes will remain confidential.
5. Ranking: The Faculty Personnel Board shall not provide a ranking of candidates for promotion.

Process

1. Before discussing actual promotion candidacies, the Faculty Personnel Board and the Provost will meet and review the criteria for promotion.
2. After receiving departmental recommendations, the Faculty Personnel Board will conduct preliminary discussions concerning each promotion candidacy, using the materials presented by the department, teaching evaluations, and any other materials submitted by the candidate.
3. The members of the Faculty Personnel Board and the Provost will then engage in full and frank discussions on each candidacy in order to understand the full range of views on the professional qualifications of each candidate. In such meetings, all the participants should convey to one another any information relevant to the assessment of a candidate’s professional qualifications for promotion, their own tentative assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of promotion candidacies, and any concerns about issues pertinent to the evaluation of such candidacies.
4. The FPB then will meet for final discussions and voting. If the FPB’s recommendation differs from that of a department, the FPB will offer to meet with tenured members of the department to discuss the differences before proceeding to the next step. After this meeting, the department representative will have the opportunity to append to the departmental recommendation a response to the FPB recommendation, before both responses go to the Provost and the President. (The department’s recommendation cannot be changed at this point.) (The provision for an FPB-department meeting at this stage does not preclude such a meeting at an earlier stage.) Typically, these tasks should be completed by March 15.
5. The FPB will forward to the Provost and the President its written recommendations, positive or negative, concerning each candidate for promotion. If the FPB forwards a positive recommendation in a case in which the department did not recommend the candidate, the FPB’s recommendation must include a thorough statement of the candidate’s qualifications for promotion. At the same time, the FPB will send a written summary of its recommendation to the department representative and to the candidate.
6. After a period of time to allow the President and the Provost to consult, the Faculty Personnel Board will meet with the President and the Provost to address any remaining questions about the Faculty Personnel Board’s recommendations. The President and/or Provost may also elect to meet directly with the department, its representative, or the candidate to address remaining questions if they so desire.
7. After the President and Provost have determined their recommendation to the Board Committee on Academic Affairs, they will inform the FPB of their recommendation in writing. (The FPB is not at liberty to reveal the President’s and Provost’s recommendation to other parties before the meeting of the full Board of Directors.)
8. The Board Committee on Academic Affairs will receive a copy of the Faculty Personnel Board’s recommendations and responses when the President and Provost present their report and their recommendations to the Board committee on Academic Affairs.
9. The Provost will inform the candidate, the department, and the FPB of the Board of Director’s final decision.