y Department of Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures :: WRAC By-Laws
Michigan State University
Michigan State University
College of Arts and Letters Logo
Department of Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures
Department of Writing
Rhetoric & American Cultures

 

BYLAWS

Department of Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures

Revisions last approved on October 28, 2011

The most current version of the WRAC Bylaws can be found here: WRAC BYLAWS 3-4-16.pdf

Section 1

Unit Academic Governance

2

 

 

 

Section 2

Composition of the Faculty and Voting Procedures

3

 

 

 

Section 3

Department Organization

5

 

 

 

Section 4

Committees of the Department Faculty

12

 

 

 

Section 5

Personnel Procedures

15

 

 

 

Section 6

Merit Raise Policy and Procedures

26

 

 

 

Section 7

Parliamentary Authority

31

 

 

 

Section 8

Interpretation of Bylaws

31

 

 

 

Section 9

Amendment Procedures

32

 

 

 

Section 10

Faculty Grievance Procedures

32

 

 

 

Section 11

Student Grievance Procedures

33

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A

Academic Grievance Hearing Procedures for Graduate Students

34

 

 

 

Appendix B

Variable Work Assignment Policy

39

 

 



Section 1. Unit Academic Governance

 

 

 

 

1.1.

The voting faculty of the Department has shared responsibility with the Department Chair to adopt and publish bylaws, provided they conform with the current Bylaws for Academic Governance (hereafter BAG; http://www.msu.edu/~acadgov/bylaws/index.html).

 

1.2.

Unit bylaws recognize the binding governance of the following documents over its faculty as well as accept the Department's jurisdiction over matters granted it under these documents. These are: Rights and Responsibilities of the Faculty at Michigan State University, Academic Freedom for Students at Michigan State University, Faculty Handbook, Faculty Grievance Procedure, Bylaws of the College of Arts & Letters, and any other documents that may apply.

 

1.3.

Instructors in the Department are required to follow the University’s Code of Teaching Responsibility (http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/codeofteaching.htm).

 

 

1.3.1.

Instructors are expected to post and hold a minimum of four (4) office hours per week for student conferences.

 

 

 

 

Section 2. Composition of the Faculty and Voting Procedures

 

 

 

 

2.1.

The composition of the voting faculty in the Department shall be as follows: all tenure-system faculty and all fixed-term faculty who have full-time appointments of at least one year in length. Titles and designations of faculty shall be consistent with University stipulations and regulations.

 

 

2.1.1.

The fixed-term members of the voting faculty may be prohibited from voting for membership of any committee having a role in the appointment or evaluation of fixed-term faculty by virtue of other contractual stipulations in force at any given time.

 

2.2.

The Department faculty shall meet once a semester (excluding summer semester) and as determined by the Chair. All matters introduced at faculty meetings are informational; all substantive matters require a written vote.

 

2.3.

Voting procedures.

 

 

2.3.1.

On recommendations for selection of a Department Chair, nomination and election to the Advisory Council, Reappointment Promotion Tenure (RPT) Committee, the Appointments and Equal Opportunity Committee, any elected committee representative, amendments to the bylaws, and changes in Department curriculum, voting shall be by written ballot, except for provisions to fill vacancies as specified in sections 3.3.2.5., 4.4.4., and 4.4.5.

 

 

2.3.2.

Department members unable to serve a full term on adjunct or standing committees must inform the Department Chair or the Chair of the Bylaws and Elections Committee of the reason in writing at least three (3) days before balloting begins.

 

 

2.3.3.

Provisions shall be made by the Department Chair to allow faculty members on leave to vote, subject to election deadlines.

 

 

2.3.4.

The Department Bylaws and Elections Committee shall prepare all ballots, supervise balloting, count all ballots, and report the results of all elections to the faculty.

 

 

 

 

 

Section 3. Department Organization

 

 

 

3.1.

The Chair of the Department shall be appointed and serve in conformity with University and College bylaws and shall be responsible for educational, research, and service programs; budgetary matters; physical facilities; and personnel matters, seeking the counsel of faculty members as outlined in these bylaws. The Chair has a special obligation to build a Department strong in scholarship, teaching capacity, creative endeavor, and public service.

 

 

3.1.1.

The Chair shall normally serve no more than two consecutive terms in office.

 

 

3.1.2.

The Department shall have shared responsibility with the Dean of the College on review procedures for the Department Chair.

 

 

3.1.3.

The Chair shall be reviewed at intervals not to exceed five (5) years. In this process, the Department faculty shall have shared responsibility with the Dean on procedures for review. As part of that review process, there shall be a poll of the faculty on the satisfactory performance of the Chair, the results of which shall be communicated to the Dean.

 

 

3.1.4.

The Chair shall choose his or her Assistant or Associate Chair(s).

 

 

3.1.5.

The Assistant or Associate Chair(s) shall serve at the pleasure of the Chair and be responsible to the Chair.

 

3.2.

During the next-to-last year of the Chair's last term in office, when it is clear and evident that the Chair shall not be continuing in office, the elected faculty of the Advisory Council shall recommend to the Chair and to the Dean the structure, membership, and procedures for a special Search Committee. Upon approval from the Dean, the Search Committee shall begin the search procedure.

 

 

3.2.1.

An initial step in any search procedure should be a poll of the Department faculty for the purpose of collecting nominees of suitable candidates from within and from outside the Department.

 

 

3.2.2.

The list of nominees obtained from the Department faculty shall be added to any nominees collected from local and/or national advertising and from nominees submitted by other persons on campus.

 

 

3.2.3.

The Search Committee shall negotiate with the Dean for a specific date beyond which no further nominees shall be accepted.

 

 

3.2.4.

The Search Committee shall assume responsibility for contacting all nominees to determine their willingness to be candidates for the position of Department Chair.

 

 

3.2.5.

The Search Committee shall assume responsibility for collecting all dossiers, vita, and references, and maintaining files on each candidate. These files shall be available only to members of the Search Committee during the period of the search and until such time as it is appropriate for any information to be made public.

 

 

3.2.6.

In accordance with agreements reached with the office of the Dean, the Search Committee shall narrow the list of candidates to a final list for interviews and invitations to campus visits. In consultation with the office of the Dean, the Search Committee shall arrange for transportation, housing, and interview meetings for each candidate to be invited.

 

 

3.2.7.

When this list of candidates is determined, and after campus visits and interviews have been conducted, the Department faculty shall be given the opportunity to express a preference among the several candidates. The results of the preferential poll shall be presented along with the final list of candidates to the Dean, who has the final responsibility for appointment of the new Department Chair.

 

 

3.2.8.

If the search process does not result in the selection of a new Chair, or in the event of a sudden vacancy in the Department Chair due to resignation, involuntary departure, illness, disability, or death, the Advisory Council shall meet with the Dean on the procedure for identifying a suitable nominee for Interim (or Acting) Chair. Such Interim (or Acting) Chair shall serve during the period of time necessary to develop procedures for a search for a permanent replacement. The Department faculty shall be kept informed and apprised throughout all steps of this process and shall have a voice in the selection both of an Interim (or Acting) Chair and in the search for a permanent replacement.

 

3.3.

Department advisory procedures and faculty organization.

 

 

3.3.1.

The Department voting faculty, as defined in 2.1., is understood to have delegated its authority to the Advisory Council to advise the Department Chair with respect to Departmental matters, including those of promotion, appointments, and the preparation of Departmental program plans.

 

 

 

3.3.1.1.

The voting faculty of the Department shall review its bylaws at regular intervals not to exceed 5 years.

 

 

3.3.2.

The Advisory Council.

 

 

 

3.3.2.1.

The elected Advisory Council shall consist of seven voting faculty members. Five shall be from the tenure system, and at least one of these must be an assistant professor. One of the two remaining elected members shall be a fixed-term faculty member, and the other shall be an Academic Specialist. There shall be one graduate student representative, with voice but no vote, selected according to the bylaws of the Rhetoric & Writing graduate student organization.

 

 

 

 

3.3.2.1.1.

All Advisory Council members shall be elected by the voting faculty of the Department.

 

 

 

 

3.3.2.1.2.

 

Length of term: For tenured faculty, a term consists of two consecutive academic years. For untenured assistant professors and for fixed-term faculty, a term consists of one academic year.

 

 

 

 

3.3.2.1.3.

Number of terms: Faculty shall serve no more than two consecutive terms. That is, for tenured faculty, four (4) years, and for untenured and fixed-term faculty, two (2) years.

 

 

 

3.3.2.2.

Persons with an approved leave of absence of more than one semester, or who are otherwise unable to serve throughout the academic year, are ineligible for election to the Council, as are ex-officio members.

 

 

 

3.3.2.3.

There shall be no limit on the number of terms a faculty member may serve on the Council, except that no member shall serve more than two full terms consecutively.

 

 

 

3.3.2.4.

Nomination and election of Advisory Council members.

 

 

 

 

3.3.2.4.1.

Each spring semester, the Chair shall notify the faculty of those Advisory Council members whose terms expire fall semester. Faculty members eligible for vacancies on the Council shall constitute a slate of nominees. Voting for the new Council members shall take place during the spring semester, and newly elected representatives will assume their positions on August 16.

 

 

 

 

3.3.2.4.2.

Each voting faculty member may nominate as many eligible individuals as there are vacancies.

 

 

 

 

3.3.2.4.3.

The number of candidates on the final slate shall be double the number of vacancies, except when ties require a larger number. The Bylaws and Elections Committee shall list the candidates in alphabetical order and distribute the list to the voting faculty.

 

 

 

 

3.3.2.4.4.

Each faculty member may vote for as many candidates as there are vacancies. In the event of a tie, a run-off election shall be held.

 

 

 

3.3.2.5.

Vacancies on the Council of more than one semester’s duration shall be filled, for the remainder of the member’s term, by the election procedure specified above; a vacancy of one semester shall be filled by the Chair’s appointment, with the approval of the Council, of a faculty member in the same category as that of a member being replaced.

 

 

3.3.3.

Advisory Council procedures.

 

 

 

3.3.3.1.

The Department Chair shall assist the elected Chair of the Council in drawing up the agenda for the Council meetings.

 

 

 

3.3.3.2.

The Associate Chairs shall serve ex officio on the Advisory Council.

 

 

 

3.3.3.3.

The Advisory Council will meet regularly (at least once a month) during the academic year, and at such other times as deemed necessary, at the request of the Chair, or per a majority of the elected members. All regular meetings shall be considered open to the faculty as observers except when the Council is considering personnel matters.

 

 

 

 

3.3.3.3.1.

No votes will be taken in the Advisory Council unless there is a quorum. A quorum shall consist of a simple majority of voting members.

 

 

 

3.3.3.4.

The Advisory Council, if it deems necessary, may hold open meetings without the Chair of the Department.

 

 

 

 

3.3.3.4.1.

As a matter of professional courtesy, the Department Chair shall be notified in advance of such a meeting.

 

 

 

 

3.3.3.4.2.

It shall be the responsibility of the Chair of the Advisory Council to confer with the Department Chair upon conclusion of the meeting to bring to the Chair’s attention any matters of departmental concern resulting from the open meeting.

 

 

 

3.3.3.5.

Minutes of all Advisory Council meetings will be taken and distributed to the entire faculty of the Department.

 

 

3.3.4.

Referendum procedures. Recognizing the advisory nature and function of the Advisory Council and its essentially representative role, it may be necessary to explore the preferences and knowledge of the collective faculty of the Department. The following referendum procedure may be used.

 

 

 

3.3.4.1.

If desired before the Advisory Council or Chair takes a position, the Department’s voting faculty shall be polled for an expression of sentiment on the posed question.

 

 

 

3.3.4.2.

Petition by one-third of the voting faculty of the Department shall require polling the faculty for an expression of sentiment on the question of amending Department policy.

 

 

 

3.3.4.3.

The above procedures do not prevent the Chair from seeking voting faculty sentiment on any question and in any matter the Chair desires.

 

 

 

3.3.4.4.

Referendum proceedings shall not refer to personnel actions (except as provided for in section 5.5.2. of these bylaws).

 

3.4.

Rhetoric & Writing Graduate Program.

The Rhetoric & Writing graduate program shall be directed by the Graduate Director of Rhetoric & Writing, who shall report directly to the Chair of WRAC. The Graduate Director will be advised and guided by the Rhetoric & Writing Graduate Committee (RWGC) and by the two Assistant Directors (one each for CSLP and for DRPW).

 

 

3.4.1.

The Graduate Director of Rhetoric & Writing shall be the administrator responsible for overseeing the graduate program in Rhetoric & Writing. Responsibilities include advising of graduate students on both the masters and doctoral levels; supervision of graduate students in their progress towards degree; recruitment and retention of R&W graduate students; orientation of new graduate students; overseeing graduate student participation in college and unit fellowship competitions (establishing procedures, reviewing proposals); program course scheduling; service on appropriate college committees; promotion of the graduate program; outreach and engagement activities; program assessment; and management of program budget. The Graduate Director shall be assisted in all of these responsibilities by RWGC. The Graduate Director shall be expected to maintain an appropriately active research program related to Rhetoric & Writing. The Graduate Director shall, at the time of appointment, hold a tenure-system appointment in WRAC.

 

 

 

3.4.1.1.

The Graduate Director may be assisted in advising by the MA-DRPW & MA-CSLP Assistant Directors.

 

 

 

 

3.4.1.1.1.

The Assistant Director for the DRPW MA is directly responsible for advising all DRPW-MA students in the first-year of their program, and advising and assisting the Director and DRPW-MA students’ individual Advisory Committee Chairs concerning internships and placement.

 

 

 

 

3.4.1.1.2.

The Assistant Director for the CSLP MA is directly responsible for advising all CSLP-MA students in the first-year of their program, and advising & assisting the Director and CSLP-MA students’ individual Advisory Committee Chairs concerning internships and placement.

 

 

 

3.4.1.2.

The Graduate Director shall be responsible for decisions about curriculum, graduate student admission, graduate student fellowship nominations, awarding of GAships, and recommendations about affiliate faculty status. The Graduate Director will consult with RWGC on these matters.

 

 

3.4.2.

The Rhetoric & Writing Graduate Committee (RWGC).

RWGC shall meet regularly with the Graduate Director and the Assistant Directors to provide advice on, among other matters, program curriculum, graduate student admissions, graduate student financial support and awards, graduation certification, programming, and program expenditures. RWGC may adopt internal procedures, including the appointment of subcommittees to accomplish these tasks.

 

 

 

3.4.2.1.

Faculty representation on RWGC. 

RWGC shall include five (5) faculty members, plus the Graduate Director of Rhetoric & Writing, the Assistant Director for the CSLP MA, and the Assistant Director for the DRPW MA.

 

 

 

 

3.4.2.1.1.

The Chair of WRAC shall appoint the faculty to be included on RWGC for the following academic year annually in April, based on recommendations from the Graduate Director of Rhetoric & Writing, from that year’s RWGC committee, and from the faculty as a whole.

 

 

 

 

3.4.2.1.2.

An effort will be made to include among the five faculty members at least one affiliate faculty member of the R&W Program.

 

 

 

 

3.4.2.1.3.

The committee membership should reflect the various emphases of the graduate program, including CSLP, cultural rhetorics, and digital and professional writing.

 

 

 

 

3.4.2.1.4.

Length of term: Committee assignments shall be made for a period of one year. Every effort will be made to insure that there is strong continuity of representation from year to year.

 

 

 

3.4.2.2.

Graduate student representation on RWGC. 

The RWGC Committee shall include two graduate students: an MA student chosen from among the MA students in CSLP and DRPW, and a PhD student chosen from among all Rhetoric & Writing doctoral students.

 

 

 

 

3.4.2.2.1.

Student representatives shall be full voting members of RWGC, except in cases noted in section 3.4.2.2.5. below.

 

 

 

 

3.4.2.2.2.

The MA and PhD students shall select their representatives to RWGC for the following academic year late in the spring semester, according to the bylaws of the Rhetoric & Writing graduate student organization.

 

 

 

 

3.4.2.2.3.

The representatives shall serve a one-year term. (Representatives may serve a maximum of two terms during their graduate program.)

 

 

 

 

3.4.2.2.4.

To be eligible for election, a candidate must be a student in good standing (e.g., must not be on provisional status) and must be making satisfactory progress toward her/his degree.

 

 

 

 

3.4.2.2.5.

Student participation must follow regulations found in BAG Section 1.2.3 Student Participation in Academic Governance (http://www.msu.edu/~acadgov/bylaws/index.html).

In addition, graduate student representatives should recuse themselves whenever they have reason to believe that their participation in such deliberations creates a conflict of interest or constitutes an ethical dilemma in regards to other students (or potential students) in the program. Graduate student representatives should not participate in or vote on matters involving evaluation or review of current graduate students in the program.

 

 

 

3.4.2.3.

The Graduate Director of Rhetoric & Writing shall serve as Chair of RWGC, ex officio.

 

 

3.4.3.

Appointment and review of the Graduate Director.

 

 

 

3.4.3.1.

Length of term: The Graduate Director of Rhetoric & Writing shall be appointed to serve by the Chair of WRAC, after consultation with the WRAC faculty and R&W affiliate and students, typically for an appointment period of three (3) years.

 

 

 

3.4.3.2.

Early in the final semester of the Director’s appointment period, s/he should let the Chair know whether s/he wishes to continue serving for a second administrative term.

 

 

 

3.4.3.3.

Search for New Graduate Director

If the Chair chooses not to reappoint the current director, or if the current director does not wish to continue in her/his administrative appointment, then the Chair shall initiate a search for a new Director.

 

 

3.4.4.

Definition of Affiliate Graduate Faculty.

 

 

 

3.4.4.1.

RWGC shall determine who will be invited to become affiliate faculty in the program. Affiliate faculty members are those full-time MSU faculty in other units whose area of expertise is in a field or discipline related to writing and/or rhetoric/composition (e.g., Education, American Studies, Linguistics, English, TESOL, Digital Media Arts & Technology, Journalism) and who express willingness to work with Rhetoric & Writing graduate students as teacher or committee member. A faculty member may nominate someone to be an affiliate faculty member of the program. Once a candidate is nominated, RWGC reviews that faculty member’s credentials to determine whether she/he should be invited to become an affiliate faculty member. Candidates shall be approved by 2/3 of the votes cast in order to be invited to become affiliate faculty.

 

 

 

3.4.4.2.

Affiliate faculty must follow the Graduate School’s Procedure to Have Non-Regular MSU Faculty, Academic Specialists, and Non-MSU Individuals Serve on Graduate Student Committees (found at the Non-Tenure Faculty on Committees link at http://grad.msu.edu/forms/).

 

 

3.4.5.

Admissions.

RWGC shall be responsible for implementing a process that meets the requirements of the University to review applicants to the graduate programs, and makes recommendations to the Graduate Director about which applicants will be admitted to the graduate programs; which admitted applicants will be nominated for fellowships; and which admitted applicants will be granted program teaching assistantships.

 

 

3.4.6.

Rhetoric & Writing Graduate Program Handbook and Web Site.

Policies and procedures pertaining to graduate program students and curriculum are listed in the Rhetoric & Writing Graduate Handbook and on the departmental web site.

 

 

 

 

 

Section 4. Committees of the Department Faculty

 

 

 

4.1.

Adjunct committees of the Advisory Council.

 

 

4.1.1.

An adjunct committee is one made up of some members of the Advisory Council, together with other faculty elected or chosen to serve by other means from among the voting faculty. The Associate Chairs may also be elected or chosen to serve on the adjunct committees.

 

 

 

4.1.1.2.

The Merit Review Advisory Committee shall consist of four (4) tenure stream members of the Advisory Council selected by the Council and the Academic Specialist member, supplemented by a minimum of two (2) tenure-system faculty members chosen by the end of the fall semester, who shall be chosen from a regular rotation and who shall serve for one year. The Merit Review Committee shall form subcommittees, one for the review of tenure-system faculty, another for non-tenure-system faculty. The Academic Specialist is to participate only in the review of Academic Specialists. 

 

4.2.

Standing committees of the Department.

 

 

4.2.1.

A standing committee is composed of faculty and students who meet on a regular basis. Standing committees are advisory to the Chair. The Associate Chairs may sit with the standing committees ex-officio.

 

 

4.2.2.

Voting for elected standing committees to serve for the following academic year shall take place during the last half of the preceding spring semester after the election of the Advisory Council. A vacancy of one semester shall be filled by the Chair’s appointment, with the approval of the Council, of a faculty member in the same category as that of the member being replaced.

 

 

4.2.3.

Membership of standing committees shall be drawn from all faculty engaged in the academic activities of the unit on a regular basis (see 2.1.) as well as undergraduate students who have declared a major or major preference in Professional Writing.

 

 

4.2.4.

The Chair of the Department and the Chair of the Council shall meet with the elected chairs of each standing committee during the first three (3) weeks of the fall semester to determine specific committee charges for the academic year. Summaries of these deliberations shall be distributed to the faculty as part of the Council minutes.

 

 

4.2.5.

Each standing committee is directly responsible to the Chair and shall report to the Chair at least once a semester:

1)   all recommendations for changes in Department policies and procedures;

2)   curricular or instructional matters that should be considered or acted upon; and

3)   contacts that involve committees, University officials, or other bodies outside the Department.

 

 

4.2.6.

Each standing committee shall, at the request of the Department Chair, submit a written summary report of its deliberations, actions, and recommendations to the Chair and Council no later than April 15. The report must be approved by a majority of the members of the committee. Committee members may file a minority report. Reports should be made available for faculty review.

 

 

4.2.7.

At the written request of any voting faculty member or members, a standing committee shall announce and hold a meeting on any matter appropriate to that committee's purview.

 

 

4.2.8.

Each standing committee shall post an agenda of its meeting three (3) business days before the meeting.

 

 

4.2.9.

Program advisory committees.

 

 

 

4.2.9.1.

First-Year Writing Committee. The Director of First-Year Writing shall convene and chair the First-Year Writing Program Committee. The composition of the committee shall be five to seven members, including one undergraduate student representative; membership shall be open to all faculty and graduate teaching assistants who teach in the Department. Committee members shall be selected and recruited by the Director of First-Year Writing in consultation with the Chair of the Department.

 

 

 

4.2.9.2.

Professional Writing Program Committee. The Director of Professional Writing shall convene and chair the Professional Writing Program Committee. The composition of the committee shall be five to seven members, including one undergraduate and one graduate student representative; membership shall be open to all faculty who regularly teach in the Department. Committee members shall be selected and recruited by the Director of Professional Writing in consultation with the Chair of the Department.

 

 

 

4.2.9.3.

The Department as a whole will vote on all curricular matters, new courses, course changes, program changes, and any other matters required to go through University governance procedures.

 

 

4.2.10.

Other standing committees.

 

 

 

4.2.10.1.

The Bylaws and Elections Committee shall consist of an indeterminate number of members selected annually by the Chair in close consultation with the Advisory Council.

 

 

 

4.2.10.2.

The Appointments and Equal Opportunity Committee (AEO) shall consist of six (6) tenure-system members elected for one academic year. Members cannot serve more than two consecutive academic years. The Chair may appoint additional members to achieve needed balance or expertise, depending on the written job description. The Chair may also appoint a graduate student to serve on the AEO Committee in a given year, by requesting the Rhetoric & Writing graduate student organization to recommend a representative.

 

 

 

4.2.10.3.

As required by the university, WRAC will have an Academic Hearing Board, the composition of which shall be shall be stipulated by the “Academic Grievance Hearing Procedures for Graduate Students” (see Appendix A).

 

 

 

4.2.10.4.

The Reappointment Promotion Tenure (RPT) Committee shall consist of seven (7) tenure-system faculty: (4) four faculty at the rank of full professor, two (2) faculty at the rank of associate professor, one (1) at the rank of assistant professor.

 

 

 

4.2.10.5.

The Nomination and Awards Committee shall consist of an indeterminate number of members selected annually by the Chair in close consultation with the Advisory Council. The Chair shall consult the Rhetoric & Writing graduate student organization for graduate student representatives to this committee.

 

 

4.2.11

Department ad hoc committees.

 

 

 

4.2.11.1.

The Chair, in consultation with the Council, shall designate the chairs of special committees. The committee chairs shall report to the Department Chair and the Council.

 

 

 

4.2.11.2.

Reports and recommendations of ad hoc committees shall be governed by

the provisions of section 4.2.6. and 4.2.7.

 

 

 

4.2.11.3.

The membership of ad hoc committees shall be named by the Chair in consultation with the Council.

 

 

 

4.2.11.4.

Ad hoc committees should be kept at a minimum; existing committees should be used whenever possible.

 

4.3.

Committee reports and structure.

 

 

4.3.1.

Regarding any committee report presented to the faculty at a regular Departmental meeting, a vote will be taken to determine whether or not the committee report may be amended by the faculty at that meeting.

 

 

4.3.2.

Each proposed amendment must be voted on separately and approved or disapproved by ballot after the meeting and before the final amended report is voted on.

 

 

4.3.3.

The Chair is a member of all Departmental committees and may attend meetings, but shall normally delegate responsibility to the committee Chair. All committee meetings are open except meetings or portions of meetings in which the Advisory Council and Chair are considering personnel decisions.

 

4.4.

Selection and replacement of Department members on College committees.

 

 

4.4.1.

The representative to the College Advisory Council shall be elected by the voting faculty of the Department.

 

 

4.4.2.

The representative to the College Curriculum Committee shall be appointed by the Chair.

 

 

4.4.3.

The representative to the College Graduate Council shall be the Graduate Director of the Rhetoric & Writing Program.

 

 

4.4.4.

When a Department member on a College committee is unable to serve that committee for a period of one semester or less, the Chair is authorized to appoint, after advice from the Council, a substitute who shall serve until the regularly elected member’s return.

 

 

4.4.5.

When a Department representative on a College committee is unable to serve for a period in excess of one semester (not counting summer), a successor shall be elected for the unexpired portion of the term.

 

 

 

Section 5. Personnel Procedures

 

 

 

 

5.1.

The annual review is a shared responsibility of the Chair and faculty members to assure effective teaching and curricular innovation, professional development and scholarly activities, and service and outreach contributions. The purpose of the annual review is to combine self-assessment with peer and administrative review in order to strengthen instruction and ongoing contributions suited to individual faculty member interests and career stages.

 

 

 

5.1.1.

Untenured and probationary faculty are required to meet with the chair to discuss their annual review. On request, other faculty members may meet with the chair to discuss their annual review.

 

 

 

5.1.2.

In preparation for this review, the faculty member may supplement the annual report with other appropriate materials including those that concern ongoing projects and long-range plans.

 

 

 

5.1.3.

The annual review letter of faculty shall be delivered by the beginning of the following academic year, after which the Chair’s annual review shall be given to the faculty member. The faculty member may append a response to the review.

 

 

5.2.

The Chair shall seek the advice of the Advisory Council on salary recommendations, and on the dispersal of research, travel, and grant money. On decisions concerning reappointment, promotion, and tenure, the Chair shall consult with the RPT Committee.

 

 

 

5.2.1.

Department Council members shall not participate in deliberations and recommendations on their own merit pay, their salary, or their research, travel, or grant money.

 

 

5.3.

The following reappointment, tenure, and promotion process for tenure-system faculty shall be followed.

 

 

 

5.3.1.

Before a date that is dependent on decisions of the Dean and Provost, the Chair of the Department and the Chair of the RPT Committee shall each year notify the tenure-system faculty of their eligibility to be considered for reappointment, tenure, and promotion, and shall inform them of the deadline for application. (The College review process should be consulted by the candidate: http://www.cal.msu.edu/about/documents/RPTGuidelines--rev2008.pdf.)

 

 

 

5.3.2.

The notification shall reference Form D (http://www.hr.msu.edu/HRsite/forms/FacultyForms/FormInfoRrptPages.htm); the University forms used for recommendation for reappointment, promotion, and tenure; and other relevant Departmental, College, and University documents.

 

 

 

5.3.3.

Candidates who wish to apply for promotion shall inform the Chair in writing on or before the date designated.

 

 

 

5.3.4.

Eligible faculty who do not wish to apply for promotion in any given year shall notify the Chair in writing on or before the date designated.

 

 

 

5.3.5.

Candidates shall present supporting materials to the Department according to the process, guidelines, and timelines determined by the College of Arts & Letters.

 

 

 

5.3.6.

Research Review Committee.

 

 

 

 

5.3.6.1.

Faculty under review shall have the option of assembling a Research Review Committee, comprised of colleagues with expertise in fields of study specific to the candidate. The Committee reviews the publication and research portion of the tenure dossier and writes a formal report to be included as a portion of the dossier forwarded to the College.

 

 

 

 

5.3.6.2.

The individual Research Review Committee shall be selected by the Department Chair in consultation with the Associate Chairs and the Advisory Council from a pool to be constituted as follows: A list of seven persons shall be nominated from tenure-stream Department or external faculty from within the University. Six of these persons shall be nominated by the faculty member being considered for reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure, and one by the Chair. No more than two (2) members of the pool may be external to the Department. In the case that the Chair wishes to make an external nomination to the pool, the faculty member being reviewed may make only one external nomination.

 

 

 

 

5.3.6.3.

An individual Research Review Committee shall be selected, consisting of three (3) individuals selected from the pool, and one more person designated as an alternate. The majority of the committee must be Department faculty. The faculty member being considered for reappointment, promotion, or tenure, as well as the Chair, shall be responsible for contacting the individuals they wish to nominate for possible service on the review committee and obtain their agreement.

 

 

 

5.3.7.

Teaching Review Committee.

 

 

 

 

5.3.7.1.

A tenure-system faculty member shall have a teaching review committee assigned for the academic year that the individual is being considered for reappointment, promotion, or tenure.

 

 

 

 

5.3.7.2.

The individual review committees shall be selected by the Department Chair in consultation with the Associate Chairs and the Advisory Council from a pool to be constituted as follows: A list of seven persons shall be nominated from tenure-stream Department or external faculty from within the University. Six of these persons shall be nominated by the faculty member being considered for reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure, and one by the Chair. No more than two (2) members of the pool may be external to the Department. In the case that the Chair wishes to make an external nomination to the pool, the faculty member being reviewed may make only one external nomination.

 

 

 

 

5.3.7.3.

An individual review committee shall be selected, consisting of three (3) individuals selected from the pool, and one more person designated as an alternate. The majority of the committee must be tenure-system faculty in the Department. The faculty member being considered for reappointment, promotion, or tenure, as well as the Chair, shall be responsible for contacting the individuals they wish to nominate for possible service on the review committee and obtain their agreement.

 

 

 

 

5.3.7.4.

No tenured faculty member shall serve on more than two teaching review committees during an academic year.

 

 

 

 

5.3.7.5.

The Teaching Review Committee shall use the following process in assessing the individual’s teaching performance:

 

 

 

 

 

5.3.7.5.1.

Meet with the individual to discuss his or her course syllabi, assignments, philosophy of teaching, and methodologies and strategies for teaching and meeting Department or programmatic course objectives. Prior to this meeting, the individual will provide the Teaching Review Committee with a teaching portfolio (as described in Section 5.4.4 of these Bylaws).

 

 

 

 

 

5.3.7.5.2.

Set two agreed-upon dates during one semester at least three (3) weeks apart for classroom visitations with all three (3) committee members present; the individual faculty member can request one additional visitation if he or she so desires. At least one of the visitations shall involve specific writing instruction and activities.

 

 

 

 

 

5.3.7.5.3.

Meet with the individual faculty member after the classroom visitations on the same day or as soon as possible for discussion, questions, clarifications, and feedback. Upon the agreement of the individual faculty member and the teaching review committee, this time period may be extended to cover unforeseen contingencies.

 

 

 

 

 

5.3.7.5.4.

Within five (5) class days after the final visitation, write a committee report focusing on:

  • organization and presentation of concepts, skills, and reading and discussion materials;
  • interaction with students; and 
  • effective and productive use of class period in relation to instructional objectives.

 

 

 

 

 

5.3.7.5.5.

Submit a draft of the report to the individual faculty member, who shall have the opportunity to respond to it in person or in writing, in order to make relevant comments regarding points of substance, emphasis, or neglect.

 

 

 

 

 

5.3.7.5.6.

Submit a revised and final report to the Department Chair and to the Chair of the RPT Committee.

 

 

 

 

5.3.7.6.

Teaching review committees shall restrict their reports to the substance of the teaching and instruction according to the areas identified above and to the course and instructional materials made available to them. Committee members shall recognize a diversity of instructional methodologies and strategies that can be used to reach common curricular goals. Teaching review committees shall not make recommendations on the individual’s overall worthiness for reappointment, promotion, or tenure.

 

 

 

 

5.3.7.7.

The individual faculty member shall be provided with a copy of the final report and shall sign and date a copy to be returned to the Department Chair. The faculty member may request a conference with the Chair to discuss the report and may file a response to the report that will become part of the permanent record.

 

 

5.4.

Criteria for promotion recommendations.

For reappointment, as well as for promotion and tenure, the candidate must provide solid evidence of consistent and persistent professional improvement and effectiveness at Michigan State University and in the College of Arts & Letters sufficient to demonstrate the promise of continued professional achievement and growth as relevant to the applicable position.

 

 

 

5.4.1.

A recommendation for promotion from assistant professor to associate professor in the tenure system must be based on several years of sustained, outstanding achievements in education and scholarship across the mission. These achievements must be consistent with performance levels expected for promotion to associate professor at peer institutions, and there must be a sufficiently long period in rank prior to the promotion. (See Faculty Handbook, http://www.hr.msu.edu/promotion/facacadstaff/FacGuideTenure.htm#Criteria).

A recommendation for promotion from associate professor to professor in the tenure system must be based on several years of sustained, outstanding achievements in education and scholarship across the mission. These achievements must be consistent with performance levels expected for promotion to professor at peer institutions, and there must be a sufficiently long period in rank prior to promotion. (See Faculty Handbook, http://www.hr.msu.edu/promotion/facacadstaff/FacGuideTenure.htm#Criteria).

 

 

 

 

5.4.1.1.

Assistant Professors in the tenure system who are candidates for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor shall have a mentor appointed.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.1.1.1.

During the candidate's first year in the tenure system, his or her mentor shall be chosen by the Department Chair in consultation with the candidate.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.1.1.2.

This mentor shall be a tenured faculty member. He or she shall meet regularly with the candidate at their mutual convenience to facilitate adjustment to the Department, teaching, and professional development.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.1.1.3.

In the event that compelling personal reasons (such as the mentor’s illness or leave of absence) or the incompatibility of a candidate and mentor make it evident that they cannot work together effectively, either the candidate or the mentor may request that a replacement be made.

 

 

5.4.2.

The candidate’s performance in the following areas will provide the basis for evaluation, the first two areas being considered primary:

  • instruction,
  • research and creative activity, and
  • service and outreach engagement within the academic and broader community.

It is often difficult to identify a scholarly activity as belonging solely to one of the main functional areas of instruction, research and creative activities, and service. Faculty work should be evaluated where it is most appropriate, be that instruction, research and creative activities, or service and outreach within the academic and broader community.

Faculty work may also be viewed from the perspective of integration across multiple mission functions of the University—instruction, research and creative activities, and servicewithin the academic and broader community.

All faculty activities and accomplishments must be judged upon their quality, which requires both continuing improvement and continuous engagement. The following criteria may be considered for judging quality, but need not be limited to:

Scholarship: To what extent is the effort consistent with the methods and goals of the field and shaped by knowledge, understanding, and insight current or appropriate to the topic? To what extent does the effort generate, apply, and utilize knowledge?

Significance: To what extent does the effort address issues important to the scholarly community, specific constituents, or the public?

Impact: To what extent does the effort benefit or affect fields of scholarly inquiry, external issues, communities, or individuals? To what extent does the effort inform and foster further activity in instruction, research and creative activities, or service and outreach?

Attention to context: To what extent is the effort consistent with the University Mission Statement (http://president.msu.edu/mission.php), issues within the scholarly community, constituent needs, and available resources?

 

 

 

5.4.3.

The following subsections include examples of materials on which the quality of instruction may be evaluated.

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.1.

The following materials must be included in a teaching portfolio, to be submitted when the application for promotion/ tenure is made, and to be evaluated by the Teaching Review Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.1.1.

Reflective teaching statement, showing ongoing development of effective instructional practices.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.1.2.

Syllabi and instructional materials (heuristics, activities, multimedia learning materials, projects, assignments, etc.) consistent with the Department’s pedagogical aims.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.1.3

Departmental SIRS forms and any additional University or instructor-developed course evaluations.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.1.4.

If applicable, evidence of graduate student mentoring, including service on exam and thesis committees, advising, and professional development.

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.2.

The following materials may be included in a teaching portfolio, to be submitted when the application for promotion/tenure is made, and to be evaluated by the Teaching Review Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.2.1

Examples of student papers and projects.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.2.2.

Evidence of effective formative and summative commentary on student papers and projects.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.2.3.

Letters of commendation written by colleagues or peers.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.2.4.

Reflective statements or learning narratives written by students.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.2.5.

Honors or awards.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.2.6.

Evidence of course and curriculum development.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.2.7.

Evidence of participation in professional development workshops, seminars, and and/or activities.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.2.8.

Evidence of teacher–research.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.2.9.

Demonstration of work in the instruction and mentoring of other instructors.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.2.10.

Outreach instruction that might include credit courses offered in off-campus locations during hours set to accommodate non-traditional students; noncredit seminars, workshops, conferences, exhibits, and performances.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.3.2.11.

Evidence of instructional materials and activities particular to online or distance education; such materials should be reviewed in the media for which they were intended.

 

 

 

5.4.4.

Although evaluating the significance and quality of research and creative activities is often difficult and subjective, peer review is essential for evaluation. However, non-peer-reviewed research and creative works can be considered in all reappointment, promotion, and tenure decisions.

The following subsections include examples of materials or activities by which research and creative activity may be evaluated. Sections 5.4.5.1.–5.4.5.6. should be viewed as most valued in descending order of importance. Faculty should make arguments for the relative importance of other activities particular to their case.

Collaborative work is to be valued as a legitimate form of inquiry and production and as co-equal with single authorship.

Multimedia production, computer software, web sites, or other technological contributions should be reviewed in the media for which they were intended.

The following, non-exhaustive list of possible ways creative works can be considered:

  • invited showings and peer-reviewed conferences, gallery, or film festival exhibits;
  • positive reviews (outside of a formal peer-review context) by qualified academic and professional external judges;
  • academic and professional commissions, honors, prizes, reviews, and awards received for the activity.

In general, the selectivity and/or prestige of the entity evaluating a creative activity shall also be taken as an indicator of the overall quality of the project. Thus, for example, selection for a national film festival or event shall be considered more significant than for a regional event, and a juried showing or competition shall carry greater weight than a non-juried event.

Research normally will be rewarded after publication. In special circumstances when a long-range project involves extended research before publication, such research may be eligible to be considered. Research not published or incorporated in a delivered paper, yet which has a demonstrable effect upon the classroom, and projects of particular significance to the teaching mission of the Department, College, and University may be eligible to be considered.

 

 

 

 

5.4.4.1.

Producing a scholarly book, belletristic book, trade book, or textbook of substantial quality. Editing peer-reviewed journals in a manner that demonstrates substantial quality. Editing a scholarly book of substantial quality. Producing a full-length film, a series of video shorts, or some combination of video-based and other materials that make sustained and/or substantial contributions to scholarship or creative expression. Producing a full-length work in other media demonstrating substantial quality.

 

 

 

 

5.4.4.2.

Publishing articles, book chapters, short stories, poetry, or works in other media that make a significant contribution to the field and that are reviewed according to the standards of the field or genre. Publishing in a trade or literary periodical that is reviewed according to the standards of the genre or field and that makes a significant contribution to the field.

 

 

 

 

5.4.4.3.

Delivering peer-reviewed conference papers. Delivering invited papers and talks. Giving peer-reviewed or juried public readings, performances, screenings, or showings. Editing an edition of letters; editing an anthology or reader.

 

 

 

 

5.4.4.4.

Receiving a major outside fellowship, such as a summer-, semester-, or year-long postdoctoral fellowship, grant, scholarship, or award for study or research. Examples of such awards include (but are not limited to) Fulbright, Andrew Mellon, Woodrow Wilson, Ford Foundation, or NEH fellowships.

 

 

 

 

5.4.4.5.

Consulting with government, non-profit, corporate, private, or other outside agencies on projects and activities related to one's research expertise and scholarship.

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.4.5.1.

Research-related consulting includes activities that create new knowledge. Examples include (but are not limited to) curating a museum exhibit; consulting work that entails production of proposals, instructional materials, etc.; conducting a usability study with a local organization that requires development of survey materials, assessment tools, etc.

 

 

 

 

5.4.4.6.

Producing reviews, abstracts, and public/community documents (including teaching materials disseminated beyond the classroom). Editing magazines and newsletters. Presenting at non-peer-reviewed conferences; delivering readings, performances, screenings, or showings.

 

 

 

5.4.5.

The following subsections include examples of accomplishments by which service within the academic and broader community may be evaluated. The service part of the mission refers to service to the University and service to the profession. It may also be understood as service to a community when there is a connection to a faculty member’s expertise. For example:

  • Participating in University affairs through faculty governance and Departmental, College, and University committees is service to the University.
  • Peer reviewing journal or book submissions, organizing scholarly meetings, administering or advising an academic professional organization are examples of service to the profession.
  • Facilitating web site development or producing an edited document to a community agency or organization represents service to the community 

The evaluation will address the scholarship, significance, impact, and attention to context of the faculty member’s accomplishments as evidenced, for instance, incommittee accomplishments (e.g., policies, reports, organizational changes); evaluation by committee colleagues, chair, or organization executive officers; and service awards or other forms of professional/alumni recognition. Other options include publications, programs offered, presentations, performances, exhibits, broadcasts, websites, brochures and other print materials, grants received in support of community activities, evaluations by affected groups including comments by outside evaluators.

 

 

 

 

5.4.5.1.

Service to scholarly and professional organizations:

Significant committee/administrative responsibilities in support of scholarly and professional organizations (at the local, state, national, and international levels) including elected and appointed offices held; committee memberships and memberships on review or accreditation teams; reports written and submitted; grants received in support of the organization (refer to Form D-IVE http://www.hr.msu.edu/HRsite/forms/FacultyForms/FormInfoRrptPages.htm); editorial positions, review boards, and ad hoc review requests; programs and conferences planned and coordinated; sessions coordinated or chaired.

 

 

 

5.4.5.2.

Service within the University:

  • Committee service includes appointed and elected University, College, and Department ad hoc or standing committees, grievance panels, councils, task forces, boards, or graduate committees.
  • Administrative responsibilities include the direction/coordination of programs or offices; admissions; participation in special studies or projects; grants received in support of the institution.
  • Significant committee or administrative responsibilities and contributions within the University. Service that advances the University’s equal opportunity commitment.
  • Evidence of contributions to and significant role in any major reports issued, policy changes recommended and implemented, and administrative units restructured (e.g., evaluations by peers and affected groups).

 

 

 

 

5.4.5.3.

Service within the broader community:

Evidence in support of or emanating from significant contributions (as a representative of the University) to local, national, or international communities that have not been listed elsewhere.

Appropriate contributions or activities may include technical assistance, consulting arrangements, and information sharing; targeted publications and presentations; assistance with building of external capacity or assessment; cultural and civic programs; and efforts to build international competence. Evidence of contributions may include evaluations by affected groups; development of innovative approaches, strategies, technologies, systems of delivery; awards.

Service and outreach activities concern the extension of faculty knowledge and engagement within an area of expertise: for example, providing organizational support to a community literacy coalition. The MSU model emphasizes outreach across the mission, performed for and with the public, which will benefit directly from faculty expertise.

 

 

 

5.4.6.

In making its individual recommendations to the Chair, the RPT Committee shall recognize the following:

 

 

 

 

5.4.6.1.

No single criterion for promotion to any of the ranks should be demanded or accepted.

 

 

 

 

5.4.6.2.

A colleague's achievement as teacher and scholar before joining the Department shall be considered.

 

 

 

 

5.4.6.3.

Service and outreach contributions can stretch across the categories of research and instruction and should be evaluated within the context of those categories as well as separately.

 

 

5.5.

A faculty member notified of non-reappointment may request reconsideration of the decision.

 

 

 

5.5.1.

On the faculty member's written request to the Chair and Council, the member shall be afforded a hearing, and may be represented by a colleague.

 

 

 

5.5.2.

Additionally, the faculty member may request in writing a poll of the tenured faculty of the Department, who shall then indicate approval or disapproval of the reappointment.

 

 

 

 

5.5.2.1.

The approval of sixty percent (60%) or more of the tenured faculty voting shall be reported to the Dean and other appropriate University officials.

 

 

 

 

5.5.2.2.

Failure of sixty percent (60%) of the tenured faculty voting to approve reappointment shall confirm the Department decision against reappointment.

 

 

 

5.5.3.

The Chair shall fully inform the faculty member concerned of the results of all appeal procedures, including, on written request, a letter setting forth the reasons within the Chair’s purview for non-reappointment.

 

 

5.6.

The Chair shall invite the recommendations of tenured faculty on promotions and shall report these recommendations, along with other appropriate information and recommendations from faculty members, to the RPT Committee.

 

5.7

The following reappointment and promotion process for Academic Specialists shall be followed.

 

5.7.1

Candidates shall present supporting materials to the Department according to the process, guidelines, and timelines determined by the Department.

 

5.7.2

Review Committee.

 

 

5.7.2.1.

The RPT committee shall advise the Department Chair about the reappointment, award of continuing appointment status, or promotion of the academic specialist. Every attempt should be made to ensure that the review committee is composed of individuals knowledgeable about the position under review and the Academic Specialist Appointment System and should include at least one academic specialist. An academic specialist from outside the unit may be appointed.

 

 

5.7.2.2.

The evaluation of an academic specialist's performance shall be based on the duties and responsibilities specified in the letter of appointment for the position of that specialist and the provisions of the Academic Specialist Appointment System.

 

 

5.7.2.3.

The academic specialist with a probationary appointment shall be evaluated annually to determine progress toward goals and/or the identification of goals. Units may also use the annual evaluation to assist in the assignment of merit and other salary adjustments.

 

 

5.7.2.4.

The academic specialist shall be notified when the evaluation is to take place, what procedures are to be followed, and what criteria are to be used for the evaluation. This notification should be at the time of appointment and, subsequently, two months prior to the evaluation.

 

 

5.7.2.5.

As in all cases, a written summary of this evaluation shall be placed in the academic specialist's personnel file in the unit.

 

 

5.7.2.6.

An academic specialist with a fixed-term appointment should be reviewed regardless of the probability of reappointment in order to assess progress toward goals and/or the identification of goals. The academic specialist appointed on a fixed-term basis for six months or more shall be evaluated by the Department Chair no later than two months prior to the appointment ending date. A summary of this evaluation shall be placed in the personnel file in the unit and be given to the academic specialist.

 

5.7.3.

Academic Specialists shall have a mentor appointed to help prepare for review.

 

 

5.7.3.1.

During the candidate's first year, his or her mentor shall be chosen by the Department Chair in consultation with the candidate.

 

 

5.7.3.2.

This mentor shall be a Senior Academic Specialist with a similar specialization. He or she shall meet regularly with the academic specialist at their mutual convenience to facilitate adjustment to the Department, teaching, and professional development.

 

 

5.7.3.3.

In the event that compelling personal reasons (such as the mentor’s illness or leave of absence) or the incompatibility of an academic specialist and mentor make it evident that they cannot work together effectively, either the academic specialist or the mentor may request that a replacement be made.

 

 

Section 6. Merit Raise Policy and Procedures

 

 

6.1.

The following Department policy takes into consideration that the amount of merit money available and guidelines for its distribution are determined by the Board of Trustees, the President and the Provost, and that they have given the Department Chair responsibility for seeing that University guidelines are carried out.

 

6.2.

The purpose of the merit raise process is to recognize outstanding service to the Department in such a way as to enhance general morale and to increase the effectiveness of the Department in fulfilling its mission.

 

 

6.2.1.

Fixed-term faculty shall be evaluated for merit in terms consistent with the UNTF contract and/or their letters of appointment as applicable. Academic Specialists shall be evaluated for merit in terms consistent with their letters of appointment.

 

6.3.

After promotion merit raises are distributed and anomaly and base salary issues considered, the remaining money earmarked for merit raises should be distributed to all tenure-system faculty members according to a four-level system:

 

Level Four: A faculty member must demonstrate exceptionally high accomplishments in research and creative activity, instruction, and service within the academic and broader community.

 

Level Three: A faculty member must demonstrate distinguished accomplishments in research and creative activity, instruction, and service within the academic and broader community.

 

Level Two: A faculty member must have meritorious accomplishments in research and creative activity, instruction, and service within the academic and broader community.

 

Level One: a faculty member must meet responsibilities to Department courses and students and show evidence of professional development.

 

 

6.3.1.

In evaluating the activities of the members of the Department, the Merit Pay Advisory Committee shall weigh research and creative activity, instruction, and service and outreach within the academic and broader community by the ratio 40%-40%-20%. Some flexibility in the application of the ratio is permitted in the event of extraordinary performance in one area.

 

 

6.3.2.

Faculty may submit a work assignment distribution change to the Chair within the guidelines of the Variable Work Assignment Policy in force at the time. The number of possible points assigned to each of the three categories will be shifted in a faculty member’s reallocation of work effort. See the Appendix B for the full text of the document.

 

6.4.

All levels of merit pay determination shall be used in the Merit Pay Advisory Committee’s recommendations to the Chair.

 

 

6.4.1.

Individual members of the Merit Pay Advisory Committee shall not participate in evaluations of their own merit pay.

 

6.5.

To weigh accomplishments, the Merit Pay Advisory Committee shall establish point values that reflect the ratio indicated in 6.3.1.

 

 

6.5.1.

Demonstration of merit shall be considered only for the preceding calendar year, unless there has been a University pay freeze for the year or years before the preceding calendar year.

 

 

6.5.2.

Faculty must submit materials to be considered for merit review: a completed annual report, with attachments that include course syllabi, writing assignments, exercises and related course materials, and copies of scholarly projects listed under 6.6.2. The committee may request additional documentation. SIRS forms for courses outside of the Department (e.g., AL, ENG, IAH) must be obtained by the faculty member from the outside until and delivered to the Department.

 

6.6.

The categories of activity and criteria for judging quality shall be the same as those used for reappointment, promotion, and tenure (see sections 5.4.3.–5.4.8.).

 

 

6.6.1

Teaching.

The faculty member's supporting materials should reflect adherence to the M.S.U. Code of Teaching Responsibility. The following subsections, in ascending order of importance, include examples of materials or activities by which the quality of teaching may be evaluated. Documentation must be provided.

 

 

 

6.6.1.1.

Syllabi, reading and writing assignments consistent with the course being taught, and SIRS evaluations.

 

 

 

6.6.1.2.

Innovative course development. Contributions to improvement of departmental, college, or university curricula.

 

 

 

6.6.1.3.

Faculty member's research in methodology and curriculum development.

 

 

 

6.6.1.4.

Awards for teaching.

 

 

6.6.2

Publication and Research.

The following subsections include examples of materials or activities by which research and creative activity may be evaluated. Sections 6.6.2.1.–6.6.2.7. should be viewed as most valued in descending order of importance. Faculty should make arguments for the relative importance of other activities particular to their case.

 

Collaborative work is to be valued as a legitimate form of inquiry and production and as co-equal with single authorship.

 

Multimedia production, computer software, web sites, or other technological contributions should be reviewed in the media for which they were intended.

 

Research will normally be rewarded after publication. In special circumstances when a long-range project involves extended research before publication, such research may be eligible to be considered. Research not published or incorporated in a delivered paper, yet which has a demonstrable effect upon the classroom, and projects of particular significance to the teaching mission of the Department, College, and University may be eligible to be considered.

 

 

 

6.6.2.1.

Producing a scholarly book, belletristic book, trade book, or textbook of substantial quality. Editing peer-reviewed journals in a manner that demonstrates substantial quality. Editing a scholarly book of substantial quality. Producing a full-length work in other media demonstrating substantial quality.

 

 

 

6.6.2.2.

Publishing articles, book chapters, short stories, poetry, or works in other media that make a significant contribution to the field and that are reviewed according to the standards of the field or genre. Publishing in a trade or literary periodical that is reviewed according to the standards of the genre or field and that makes a significant contribution to the field.

 

 

 

6.6.2.3.

Delivering peer-reviewed conference papers. Delivering invited papers and talks. Giving peer-reviewed or juried public readings, performances, screenings, or showings. Editing an edition of letters; editing an anthology or reader.

 

 

 

6.6.2.4.

Receiving a major outside fellowship (such as a summer-, semester-, or year-long postdoctoral fellowship), grant, scholarship, or award for study or research. Examples of such awards include but are not limited to: Fulbright, Andrew Mellon, Woodrow Wilson, Ford Foundation, or NEH fellowships.

 

 

 

6.6.2.5.

Consulting with government, non-profit, corporate, private, or other outside agencies on projects and activities related to one's research expertise and scholarship.

 

 

 

 

6.6.2.5.1.

Research-related consulting includes activities that create new knowledge. Examples include but are not limited to: curating a museum exhibit; consulting work that entails production of proposals, instructional materials, etc.; conducting a usability study with a local organization that requires development of survey materials, assessment tools, etc.

 

 

 

6.6.2.6.

Writing and submitting a major research proposal for grant funding by a government agency or private foundation.

 

 

 

6.6.2.7.

Producing reviews, abstracts, and public/community documents (including teaching materials disseminated beyond the classroom). Editing magazines and newsletters. Presenting at non-peer-reviewed conferences; delivering readings, performances, screenings, or showings.

 

 

6.6.3

Service, Outreach, and Engagement.

The following subsections include examples of accomplishments by which service within the academic and broader community may be evaluated.

 

  • The service part of the mission refers to service to the University and service to the profession. It may also be understood as service to a community when there is a connection to a faculty member’s expertise. For example:

 

  • Participating in University affairs through faculty governance and Departmental, College, and University committees is service to the University.

 

  • Peer reviewing journal or book submissions, organizing scholarly meetings, administering or advising an academic professional organization are examples of service to the profession.

 

  • Facilitating web site development or producing an edited document to a community agency or organization represents service to the community.

 

The evaluation will address the scholarship, significance, impact, and attention to context of the faculty member’s accomplishments as evidenced, for instance, incommittee accomplishments (e.g., policies, reports, organizational changes); evaluation by committee colleagues, chair, or organization executive officers; and service awards or other forms of professional/alumni recognition. Other options include publications, programs offered, presentations, performances, exhibits, broadcasts, web sites, brochures and other print materials, grants received in support of community activities, evaluations by affected groups including comments by outside evaluators.

 

 

 

6.6.3.1.

Service to scholarly and professional organizations:

 

Significant committee/administrative responsibilities in support of scholarly and professional organizations (at the local, state, national, and international levels) include

 

  • elected and appointed offices held;
  • committee memberships and memberships on review or accreditation teams;
  • reports written and submitted;
  • grants received in support of the organization;
  • editorial positions, review boards, and ad hoc review requests;
  • programs and conferences planned and coordinated;
  • sessions coordinated or chaired.

 

 

 

6.6.3.2.

Service within the University:

 

  • Committee service includes appointed and elected University, College, and Department ad hoc or standing committees, grievance panels, councils, task forces, boards, or graduate committees.

 

  • Administrative responsibilities include the direction/coordination of programs or offices; admissions; participation in special studies or projects; grants received in support of the institution, etc.

 

  • Significant committee or administrative responsibilities and contributions within the University. Service that advances the University’s equal opportunity commitment.

 

  • Evidence of contributions to and significant role in any major reports issued, policy changes recommended and implemented, and administrative units restructured (e.g., evaluations by peers and affected groups).

 

 

 

6.6.3.3.

Service within the broader community:

 

Service and outreach activities concern the extension of faculty knowledge and engagement within an area of expertise—for example, providing organizational support to a community literacy coalition. The MSU model emphasizes outreach across the mission, performed for and with the public, which will benefit directly from faculty expertise.

 

Evidence in support of or emanating from significant contributions (as a representative of the University) to local, national, or international communities that have not been listed elsewhere. Appropriate contributions or activities may include

 

  • technical assistance, consulting arrangements, and information sharing;
  • targeted publications and presentations;
  • assistance with building of external capacity or assessment;
  • cultural and civic programs; and efforts to build international competence.

 

Evidence of contributions may include evaluations by affected groups; development of innovative approaches, strategies, technologies, systems of delivery; awards.

 

6.7

On request, the Chair shall indicate, to the extent such information is available, the rationale for decisions affecting an individual’s salary.

 

 

 

 

 

Section 7. Parliamentary Authority

 

 

 

7.1.

Should any parliamentary question arise in the conduct of any Departmental or committee meetings, Robert’s Rules of Order as revised shall apply.

 

 

 

 

Section 8. Interpretation of Bylaws

 

 

 

8.1.

All questions of interpretation regarding the Department bylaws shall be referred to the Chair, who should consult with the Advisory Council regarding a ruling or judgment. Either may consult with the Bylaws and Elections Committee.

 

8.2.

Appeals regarding conformity of the language of Department bylaws with College or University bylaws may be directed to the appropriate College or University committee, or to the University Committee on Academic Governance (see section 4.4 of the Bylaws for Academic Governance: http://www.msu.edu/~acadgov/bylaws/section4/full.html - 4_4).

 

 

 

 

Section 9. Amendment Procedures

 

 

 

9.1.

An amendment to these bylaws may be initiated by either the Advisory Council or by a voting faculty member from the floor at a Departmental meeting (see also section 2.3.1. of this document).

 

 

9.1.1.

A Departmental Council-initiated amendment will be introduced for discussion at a Departmental faculty meeting and will be adopted upon a majority vote.

 

 

9.1.2.

An amendment introduced by a voting faculty member will be referred to the Advisory Council; the amendment and recommendations of the Advisory Council will be returned to the floor at the next Departmental meeting for further discussion.

 

 

9.1.3.

All amendments to the Department bylaws will be adopted by a majority vote of the eligible voting faculty.

 

9.2.

Department bylaws shall be understood to be amended when action on a University or College level makes changes necessary. The departmental Bylaws and Elections Committee shall review the University and College bylaws annually to determine if changes to the Department bylaws are necessary to conform with changes made to the University and College bylaws.

 

9.3.

All revisions shall be made available to the Department faculty in writing as soon as possible.

 

 

 

Section 10. Faculty Grievance Procedures

 

 

10.1.

The Department follows the University Faculty Grievance Procedures (please see http://www.hr.msu.edu/HRsite/Documents/Faculty/Handbooks/Faculty/AcademicPersonnelPolicies/iv-facultygrievance.htm).

 

10.2.

The University’s administrative review procedure is an informal process for faculty to request an independent assessment from their department chair, dean, or Provost on such personnel matters as salary status, reappointment, promotion, and tenure (please see http://www.hr.msu.edu/HRsite/Documents/Faculty/Handbooks/Faculty/AcademicPersonnelPolicies/iv-adminreview.htm).

 

 

 

 

Section 11. Student Grievance Procedures

 

 

11.1.

The definition of a grievance, the responsibilities of the Department Chair regarding a student grievance, the responsibilities of the WRAC Hearing Board, the rights and responsibilities of the student-complainant, the rights and responsibilities of the faculty member respondent, the conduct of the hearing, the disposition of the outcome, and the procedure for appeal are described in the Department’s “Academic Grievance Hearing Procedures for Graduate Students,” found in full in Appendix A.

 

Procedures for undergraduate student grievances are managed at the university level as described at https://www.msu.edu/unit/ombud/grievance-procedures/index.html.

 

 

 

Appendix A.   Academic Grievance Hearing Procedures for Graduate Students

 

The Academic Freedom for Students at Michigan State University (AFR) and the Graduate Student Rights and Responsibilities (GSRR) documents establish the rights and responsibilities of MSU students and prescribe procedures for resolving allegations of violations of those rights through formal grievance hearings. In accordance with the AFR and the GSRR, Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures has established the following WRAC Hearing Board procedures for adjudicating academic grievances and complaints.

 JURISDICTION OF THE WRAC HEARING BOARD:

    1. The WRAC Hearing Board serves as the initial Hearing Board for academic grievance hearings involving graduate students who allege violations of academic rights and graduate students seeking to contest an allegation of academic misconduct (academic dishonesty, violations of professional standards or falsifying admission and academic records).
    2. Students may not request an academic grievance hearing based on an allegation of incompetent instruction.

 COMPOSITION OF THE WRAC HEARING BOARD:

  1. Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures shall constitute a Hearing Board pool no later than the end of the tenth week of the spring semester.

                                    1.         For hearings involving graduate students, the WRAC Hearing Board shall include the Chair of the Department or a designee, and an equal number of faculty and graduate students appointed by the Chair of the Department, in consultation with the Advisory Council. Members shall serve a term of one academic year. The chair of the WRAC Hearing Board shall be the faculty member of rank.

  1. Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures will train hearing board members about these procedures and the applicable sections of the AFR and GSRR.

 REFERRAL TO WRAC HEARING BOARD:

  1. After consulting with the instructor and appropriate unit administrator, graduate students who remain dissatisfied with their attempt to resolve an allegation of a violation of student academic rights may request an academic grievance hearing. When appropriate, the Department Chair/School Director, in consultation with the Dean, may waive jurisdiction and refer the request for a hearing to the College Hearing Board. At any time in the grievance process, students may consult with the University Ombudsperson.
  2. After consulting with the instructor and appropriate unit administrator, graduate students who remain dissatisfied with their attempt to resolve an allegation of a violation of academic misconduct (academic dishonesty, violations of professional standards or falsifying admission and academic records) may request an academic grievance hearing. When appropriate, the Department Chair/School Director, in consultation with the Dean, may waive jurisdiction and refer the request for a hearing to the College Hearing Board. At any time in the grievance process, students may consult with the University Ombudsperson.
  3. In cases of ambiguous jurisdiction, the Dean of The Graduate School will select the appropriate Hearing Board for cases involving graduate students.
  4. The deadline for submitting the written request for a hearing is the middle of the next semester in which the student is enrolled (including summer). If either the student (the complainant) or the respondent (usually, the instructor or an administrator) is absent from the university during that semester, or if other appropriate reasons emerge, the WRAC Hearing Board may grant an extension of this deadline. If the university no longer employs the respondent before the grievance hearing commences, the hearing may still proceed.
  5. A written request for an academic grievance hearing must (1) specify the alleged violation(s) of the AFR or GSRR, (2) identify the individual against whom the grievance is filed (the respondent) and (3) state the desired redress. Anonymous grievances will not be accepted. 
  1. PRE-HEARING PROCEDURES
  2. After receiving a student's written request for a hearing, the Chair of Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures will promptly refer the grievance to the Chair of the Hearing Board.
  3. Within 10 class days, the Chair of the Hearing Board will:

                                    1.            forward the request for a hearing to the respondent;

                                    2.            send the names of the pool of Hearing Board members to both parties and, to avoid conflicts of interest between the two parties and the Hearing Board members, request written challenges, if any, within 3 class days of this notification;

                                    3.            rule promptly on any challenges, impanel a Hearing Board and send each party the names of the Hearing Board members. If the Chair of the Hearing Board is the subject of a challenge, the challenge shall be filed with the Dean of the College, or designee; and

                                    4.            send the Hearing Board members a copy of the request for a hearing and the written response, and send all parties a copy of these procedures.

  1. Within 10 class days of being established, the Hearing Board shall review the request, and, after considering all requested and submitted information:

                                    1.            accept the request, in full or in part, and promptly schedule a hearing.

                                    2.            reject the request and provide a written explanation to appropriate parties; e.g., lack of jurisdiction. (The student may appeal this decision.)

                                    3.            invite the two parties to meet with the Hearing Board in an informal session to try to resolve the matter. (Such a meeting does not preclude a later hearing.)

  1. If the WRAC Hearing Board calls for a hearing, the Chair of the Hearing Board shall promptly negotiate a hearing date, schedule an additional meeting only for the Hearing Board should additional deliberations on the findings become necessary, and request a written response to the grievance from the respondent.
  2. At least 5 class days before the scheduled hearing, the Chair of the WRAC Hearing Board shall notify the respondent and the complainant in writing of the (1) time, date, and place of the hearing; (2) the names of the parties to the grievance; (3) a copy of the hearing request and the respondent's reply; and (4) the names of the WRAC Hearing Board members after any challenges.
  3. At least 3 class days before the scheduled hearing, the parties must notify the Chair of the WRAC Hearing Board the names of their witnesses and advisor, if any, and request permission for the advisor to have voice at the hearing. The chair may grant or deny this request. The Chair will promptly forward the names given by the complainant to the respondent and vice versa.
  4. The Chair of the Hearing Board may accept written statements from either party's witnesses at least 3 class days before the hearing.
  5. In unusual circumstances and in lieu of a personal appearance, either party may request permission to submit a written statement to the WRAC Hearing Board or request permission to participate in the hearing through an electronic communication channel. Written statements must be submitted to the WRAC Hearing Board at least 3 class days before the scheduled hearing
  6. Either party to the grievance hearing may request a postponement of the hearing. The WRAC Hearing Board may either grant or deny the request.
  7. At its discretion, the WRAC Hearing Board may set a reasonable time limit for each party to present its case, and the Chair of the WRAC Hearing Board must inform the parties of such a time limit in the written notification of the hearing.
  8. Hearings are closed unless the student requests an open hearing, which would be open to all members of the MSU community. The WRAC Hearing Board may close an open hearing to protect the confidentiality of information or to maintain order.
  9. Members of the WRAC Hearing Board are expected to respect the confidentiality of the hearing process.

 

  1. HEARING PROCEDURES:
  2. The Hearing will proceed as follows:

                                       1.         Introductory remarks by the Chair of the WRAC Hearing Board: The Chair of the Hearing Board introduces hearing panel members, the complainant, the respondent and advisors, if any. The Chair reviews the hearing procedures, including announced time restraints for presentations by each party and the witnesses, and informs the parties if their advisors may have a voice in the hearings and if the proceedings are being recorded. Witnesses shall be excluded from the proceedings except when testifying. The Chair also explains:

                                                      i.         In academic grievance hearings in which a student alleges a violation of academic rights, the student bears the burden of proof.

                                                    ii.         In hearings involving graduate students seeking to contest allegations of academic misconduct, the instructor bears the burden of proof.

                                                   iii.         All Hearing Board decisions must be reached by a majority of the Hearing Board, based on a "preponderance of the evidence."

                                    2.            If the complainant fails to appear in person or via an electronic channel at a scheduled hearing, the WRAC Hearing Board may either postpone the hearing or dismiss the case for demonstrated cause.

                                    3.            If the respondent fails to appear in person or via an electronic channel at a scheduled hearing, the WRAC Hearing Board may postpone the hearing, hear the case in the respondent's absence, or dismiss the case.

                                    4.            If the respondent is absent from the University during the semester of the grievance hearing or no longer employed by the University before the grievance procedure concludes, the hearing process may still proceed.

                                    5.            To assure orderly questioning, the Chair of the Hearing Board will recognize individuals before they speak. All parties have a right to speak without interruption. Each party has a right to question the other party and to rebut any oral or written statements submitted to the Hearing Board.

                                    6.            Presentation by the Complainant: The Chair recognizes the complainant to present without interruption any statements relevant to the complainant's case, including the redress sought. The Chair then recognizes questions directed at the complainant by the WRAC Hearing Board, the respondent and the respondent's advisor, if any.

                                    7.            Presentation by the Complainant's Witnesses: The Chair recognizes the complainant's witnesses, if any, to present, without interruption, any statement directly relevant to the complainant's case. The Chair then recognizes questions directed at the witnesses by the WRAC Hearing Board, the respondent, and the respondent's advisor, if any.

                                    8.            Presentation by the Respondent: The Chair recognizes the respondent to present without interruption any statements relevant to the respondent's case. The Chair then recognizes questions directed at the respondent by the WRAC Hearing Board, the complainant, and the complainant's advisor, if any.

                                    9.            Presentation by the Respondent's Witnesses: The Chair recognizes the respondent's witnesses, if any, to present, without interruption, and statement directly relevant to the respondent's case. The Chair then recognizes questions directed at the witnesses by the WRAC Hearing Board, the complainant, and the complainant's advisor, if any.

                                 10.            Rebuttal and Closing Statement by Complainant: The complainant refutes statements by the respondent, the respondent's witnesses and advisor, if any, and presents a final summary statement.

                                 11.            Rebuttal and Closing Statement by Respondent: The respondent refutes statements by the complainant, the complainant's witnesses and advisor, if any, and presents a final summary statement.

                                 12.            Final questions by the Hearing Board: The WRAC Hearing Board asks questions of any of the participants in the hearing.

  1. POST-HEARING PROCEDURES
  2. Deliberation: After all evidence has been presented, with full opportunity for explanations, questions and rebuttal, the Chair of the Hearing Board shall excuse all parties to the grievance and convene the Hearing Board to determine its findings in executive session. When possible, deliberations should take place directly following the hearing and/or at the previously scheduled follow-up meeting. (See Section III.I above.)
  3. Decision:
                                    1.            In grievance (non-disciplinary) hearings involving graduate students and a majority of the WRAC Hearing Board finds, based on a "preponderance of the evidence," that a violation of the student's academic rights has occurred and that redress is possible, it shall direct the Chair/Director of the Department/School to implement an appropriate remedy, in consultation with the Hearing Board. If the WRAC Hearing Board finds that no violation of academic rights has occurred, it shall so inform the Chair/Director.
                                    2.            In grievance (non-disciplinary) hearings involving graduate students in which the WRAC Hearing Board serves as the initial hearing body to adjudicate an allegation of academic dishonesty and, based on a "preponderance of the evidence," the Hearing Board finds for the student, the Hearing Board shall recommend to the Chair/Director of the Department/School that the penalty grade be removed, the Academic Dishonesty Report be removed from the student's records and a "good faith judgment" of the student's academic performance in the course take place. If the WRAC Hearing Board finds for the complainant (instructor), the penalty grade shall stand and the Academic Dishonesty Report regarding the allegation will remain on file, pending an appeal, if any to the College Hearing Board within 10 class days of the WRAC Hearing Board's decision. If an academic disciplinary hearing is pending, and the Hearing Board decides for the complainant, the graduate student's disciplinary hearing before either the College Hearing Board or the Dean of The Graduate School would promptly follow, pending an appeal, if any, within 10 class days.
  • Written Report: The Chair of the WRAC Hearing Board shall prepare a written report of the Hearing Board's findings, including redress for the complainant, if applicable, or sanctions, if applicable, and forward a copy of the decision to the appropriate unit administrator within 3 class days of the hearing. The report shall indicate the rationale for the decision and the major elements of evidence, or lack thereof, that support the Hearing Board's decision. The report also should inform the parties of the right to appeal within 5 class days following notice of the decision. The Chair shall forward copies to the parties involved, the responsible administrators, the University Ombudsperson and, in hearings involving graduate students, the Dean of The Graduate School. All recipients must respect the confidentiality of the report and of the hearing board's deliberations resulting in a decision.
  •  
  • APPEAL OF WRAC HEARING BOARD DECISION:
    • In hearings involving graduate students, either party may appeal a decision by the WRAC Hearing Board to the College Hearing Board for cases involving (1) academic grievances alleging violations of student rights heard initially by the WRAC Hearing Board and (2) alleged violations of regulations involving academic misconduct (academic dishonesty, professional standards or falsification of admission and academic records).
    • All appeals must be in writing, signed and submitted to the Chair of either the University Academic Appeal Board or the College Hearing Board within 5 class days following notification of the WRAC Hearing Board's decision. While under appeal, the original decision of the WRAC Hearing Board will be held in abeyance.
    • A request for an appeal of a WRAC Hearing Board decision to either the University Academic Appeal Board or the College Hearing Board must allege, in sufficient particularity to justify a hearing, that the WRAC Hearing Board failed to follow applicable procedures for adjudicating the hearing or that findings of the WRAC Hearing Board were not supported by the "preponderance of the evidence." The request also must include the redress sought. Presentation of new evidence normally will be inappropriate.
  • RECONSIDERATION: If new evidence should arise, either party to a hearing may request the WRAC Hearing Board to reconsider the case within 30 days upon receipt of the hearing outcome. The written request for reconsideration is to be sent to the Chair of the Hearing Board, who shall promptly convene the WRAC Hearing Board to review the new material and render a decision on a new hearing.

 

Approved by the WRAC voting faculty on October 28, 2011.

 

Appendix B. Variable Work Policy

 

 

Department of Writing, Rhetoric, & American Cultures

Variable Work Assignment Policy for Tenure-System Faculty

This policy addresses the fact that concentrated effort in one of the three areas may require the faculty member to redistribute the normal percentages of effort.

Standard distribution

The standard distribution of effort for tenure-system faculty in an academic year is as follows:

40% teaching (including new course development and existing course enhancement)

40% research and publication (includes professional conference papers, formal performances, creative projects, etc.)

20% service/engagement (to the university, to the profession, and within the community)

Each faculty member is expected to make demonstrable contributions in each of the three areas each year.

Untenured faculty are required to use the standard distribution.

Guiding principles

The Variable Work Assignment Policy is guided by the following principles and values:

•     All three areas—teaching, research, and service/engagement—are part of the regular responsibility of tenure-system faculty. Under normal circumstances, no category may be reduced to zero effort.

•     At different times or in response to different opportunities, emphases can temporarily shift.

•     Tenure carries with it both the right and the responsibility of the faculty member to determine, in concert with the department chair, priorities for carrying out one’s work in light of the missions of the department, college, and university.

Memorandum of understanding

Each case of redistribution of effort must be accompanied by a Memorandum of Understanding, prepared and agreed to by both the chair of the department and the faculty member before the redistribution may take effect.

•     The MOU should detail the length of time for which the redistribution agreement is to be in effect.

•     The MOU must detail how the reassignment will affect the evaluation of the faculty member’s work for merit pay.

•     Faculty are obliged to negotiate these arrangements in a timely manner, especially in order to facilitate programmatic scheduling.

•     In most cases, the MOU should be agreed upon two weeks before the semester in which the redistribution would take effect.

Redistribution of effort

Request for redistribution of effort may be initiated by either the faculty member or the chair. Redistribution of effort may be triggered by one of the following:

1)   A contractual administrative responsibility

2)   A sabbatical agreement

3)   Receipt of a grant, fellowship, or award that buys out some portion of a teaching assignment

4)   Leaves of absence (paid or unpaid)

5)   In addition to the above four conditions, an agreement for the redistribution of effort may be reached between the chair and the faculty member as a long-term plan to respond to changing circumstances in the faculty member’s professional work. Typical arrangements would be the following:

•  20% redistribution from research to teaching for a 60-20-20 arrangement.
This arrangement requires that the faculty member teach 3 courses per semester.

•  20% from research to service for a 40-20-40 arrangement.
This arrangement increases the expected service work and reduces the expected research output.

•  20% redistribution is the maximum allowed.

Faculty members who have arranged for retirement and/or consultantships leading to retirements (prior to the formal departmental adoption of this policy) are excluded from this policy.

 

The Variable Work Assignment Policy was drafted by the Advisory Council of 2008–09 (Bratzel, Bresnahan [chair], Grabill, Larabee, Powell, Rehberger, Smith). On May 1, 2009, it was approved by a majority of the eligible voting faculty in the department.