Faculty Council Meeting of Tuesday, 29 January 2002
President: Joe Liles; Vice-president: John Woodmansee; Secretary: Floyd Bullard

Minutes

Announcements

This meeting was called to discuss further the issue of tenure.  It is a single-agenda item meeting.  Joe thanked everyone for the good attendance.  (Although it is not quite a quorum of the faculty.)

Agenda Item: Tenure

Carol O'Dell shared a two-page (one paper, front and back) document that summarized one possible roll-over scheme from term contracts to tenure contracts.  This is appended at the bottom of these minutes.  She and John Woodmansee stressed that this is not a proposal, only an example of what might happen, modeled on what other institutions have done.

Discussion:

If we went to a tenure system and got through the transition, would we be happy?  Would we be in a greener pasture?

I think it would be better not to have to be evaluated all the time.

I know that there are people who have said, "I don't want to say such-and-such because I want to keep my job."

The good thing about the evaluation procedure is that you get to see other people teach.  But it is stressful, and the documentation is a lot of work.

But in the time period during which someone is under consideration for tenure, there may well be more evaluation not less.

Our current system involves inter-disciplinary evaluation.  But I'm hearing talk about tenure evaluation being done only within the disciplines.  I think the inter-disciplinary evaluation is valuable.

The beginning of the tenure application process typically begins within the department ("do you know your stuff?") and then goes to a school-wide committee.  Typically, tenure is not only a departmental decision.

But if a department recommends for tenure, is it likely that the school-wide committee would deny it?  Response: I've seen that happen.

There's a lot of talk about job security that this would bring, that evidently doesn't exist in people's minds right now.  What if we were tenured?  There must be some procedure to get rid of a tenured person.  How would that be different from our current system?

Response: Now, non-renewal of a contract requires no justification.  Tenured dismissal would require justification.

But that's not the way it works here, ever since we went to a performance-based contract-renewal system.  Reasons must be given for why a contract is not renewed.  Non-renewed people can take the case to court.

Steve: But I don't think that's in the regulations for faculty employment.  We're in between where we used to be (burden of proof is entirely on non-renewed employee to justify his or her wrongful non-renewal) and a tenure system (burden of proof is on institution to justify dismissal).

We were reminded that last week Sandy shared that the only grounds for appeal currently is showing (and the burden of proof is on the non-renewed employee) personal malice, or one of a small number of other grounds (e.g., discrimination based on sexual orientation).

Tom Clayton: I cannot find in my files the document that we came up with when Frederick was here, but I'm sure Sandy has a copy of it.  Contract lawyers agreed that we had succeeded in shifting the burden of proof to the institution.  But the Board of Trustees refused to put it into the written faculty employment regulations.

Under the first contract system we had, it was made clear that you could have excellent performance and still get replaced because the institution "wanted a trumpet player rather than a cellist".  Or "this kind of English teacher instead of this kind of teacher".  Thus, the conclusion "it must be personal malice" is not a valid conclusion.  We have, by "genteel agreement" based renewed contracts on performance.  But that is not legally binding.  Our present system allows non-renewal that is very hard to dispute.

Steve: There have been three non-renewed contracts in the history of the school.

Our evaluation system has eleven current evaluation criteria, and they're somewhat nebulous.  No one is required to attend professional conferences, publish, etc.  If we switch to a tenure program, will there be consistency across the school regarding criteria for tenure, a consistent set of criteria that will not divide the faculty?  This worries me.

It's true that a tenure system requires a lot of tough decision-making.  The faculty has to take more responsibility for their evaluations.

I have a question about the timing of this.  Is this likely to detract from the energy that the governance task force is spending thinking about becoming part of the UNC system?  Can we not take these two things separately?  First think about whether we want to join the University system, then later think about tenure?

John Woodmansee: We have to make a decision about this one way or the other now.  The Board is capable of considering the issues separately, however, even if we present them simultaneously.  We could possibly recommend tenure and university constituency and end up getting just constituency.

Jerry Boarman: I agree that your contracts don't allow due process and they should.  I've said that before.  You can't assume you'll always have a benevolent dictator.  (Laughter.)  I ask: "What is it you want?"  The word "tenure" sends up red flags with the Board of Trustees.  Perhaps you can get what you really want--in writing, in your contracts--without using the word "tenure".  So what do you want to protect your employment?  And if you do go to a tenure system, it seems to me everyone would have to start at ground zero, and that would cause a lot of problems.

Why would everyone have to start at zero?

Jerry: Because you're basing tenure on longevity if you grandfather people in.  That's not what tenure is.  Tenure is supposed to be based on performance.  You would create a schism in the faculty if you did it that way.  Someone who has been here 1 year but has taught for 26 years might be resentful of someone who's been here 10 years and automatically gets tenure.

Response: There's a difference between experience here and experience elsewhere.  I disagree that everyone would have to start at zero.

But here's another problem.  Initially, only a small number of the faculty would be tenured.  Those people would then be responsible for evaluating everyone who is being considered for tenure.  On the other hand, if everyone starts at ground zero, then who makes the initial decisions about who's tenured?  Currently, we have not decided what "performance" is.

I don't think just tenured people would have to be the people evaluating one another.

Delacy stated that she would like time to research our existing documents with Tom Clayton's help, and share results with the faculty before any decisions are made by the faculty.  We aren't currently sufficiently informed to decide anything.

More comments:

I don't object to other people doing more work, but I think we understand our own contracts.  If we don't, that's kind of scary.  I agree that we need to frame questions and put them forward.

Can we pull out the document that the board didn't like years ago and take a look at it?

Tom Clayton: Yes, we'll find it.

Woodmansee: So we'll soon be getting something to you in writing.

Joe Liles: How does that fit into our next Faculty Council meeting?  Should we use that time or will ballots be voted on before then?

Carol O'Dell: We can prepare a proto-ballot before next Tuesday and then spend ten minutes doctoring it up (but not voting by the ballot then).

Dan Teague: We don't do ten minutes well.

Appendix:

One Possible Roll-over Scheme
Term contracts to Tenure contracts

For discussion purposes – January 29, 2002
In response to question posed at Faculty Council Meeting on January 22
Prepared by C. O’Dell 

The current distribution of faculty contracts is (based on best available information as of Jan 28, 2002):

                                  Current                           Proposed 

 *  Faculty in years 6-9 should be left in no worse position than they are under current term contracts;  Faculty/Administration Committee decide on status of those currently in years 7, 8, 9 – a total of  9 faculty. 

 Total faculty : about 65

• 20%   one-year contracts/visiting or soft money (not eligible for tenure)

• 37%   having been in service to NCSSM more than 10 years  (i.e. are on 7-year or 10-year contracts (tenured)

• 29%    having been in service to NCSSM less than 7 years (eligible for tenure )

• 14%    in limbo – must decide whether these faculty are tenured or must apply

Consideration:  Administrators in service to NCSSM 10 or more years in teaching positions and then became year-to-year contract employees, tenured in department of last service.  N = 2 or 3 at present.  (Argument: encourages turn-over in administrators; allows good faculty to serve school as administrator without forever forfeiting security or leaving the classroom permanently.  Encourages new ideas.)

Tenurable positions:  Teaching Faculty and Librarians

Non-tenurable positions: ? Guidance Counselors (public school:  yes; college/univ:  no) 

After transition period: 

Tenure granted at or before 7^th year – i.e., if 7^th year contract is not tenure contract, then is terminal.  Faculty member denied tenure may not return on series of one-year or visiting contracts.

Time to tenure:  If faculty member has left tenured position in institution of similar good quality, up to three years toward tenure at NCSSM may be negotiated at time of initial contract.  No prohibition against early application and denied early application does not terminate association with NCSSM – i.e., can re-apply up to end of normal tenure eligibility period.

Considerations:

Evaluation criteria for awarding tenure determined by faculty/academic administration committee.

Administration obligated to provide  reasons for tenure denial – and provision for appeal of tenure denial.  (Very similar to current appeal process except that reasons MUST be provided and timelines clearly stated.  Appeal process two-stage:  1) provide prima facie evidence that stated reason for denial is pretextual and then 2) formal appeal takes place.  (goal is to discourage frivolous appeals)

Faculty must be willing to serve as professional evaluators, with evaluation based on teaching, professional activity, and service to the profession.  Each Department must develop criteria for tenure and School must develop criteria.

Tenure application typically goes through these stages: 

• Departmental review and recommendation to School Wide Committee

• Department chair’s review and recommendation to School Wide Committee

• School Wide Committee’s review and recommendation to Chief Academic Officer

• Chief Academic Officer makes recommendation to Exec. Director, with recommendation based on full consideration of recommendations of previous review panels.

• Exec. Director makes recommendation to BOT.

• Final decision to grant tenure comes from BOG (pro forma usually, following recommendations of BOT).

NOTE:  at first level at which negative recommendation is made, applicant is notified and given opportunity to supplement dossier or withdraw application.

Formal Post-Tenure Review policy and procedures adopted.  Review is periodic (generally every 7-10 years) and is designed to “help keep good faculty on track”.  Areas of weakness discovered during post-tenure review process must show improvement within agreed-upon time frame.  Tenure revocable; burden upon the administration.