Promotion and Tenure Policy Update

At Senate's meeting on Wednesday, Senators agreed to postpone the Special Meeting for one week, to February 11, 2011, in order to finalize the draft of the proposed Promotion and Tenure Policy for your review.

The reason for the change is to allow your Senators more time. First, the Task Force, which did an excellent job, left a few areas for Senate to complete. In addition, Senate needed time to meet with the Task Force chair to get some clarifications of their thinking in areas where Senators had questions. Of course we shared the draft with Administration to get their input, and received a number of comments and suggestions. We expect to receive more as other administrators respond next week.

In order to incorporate all good suggestions, make needed clarifications, and come to closure with Administration, we need more time. We do not anticipate any problems or issues. Our work with Administration has been cordial and productive, and many of the suggestions we have received are in the faculty's and the institution's best interest. Dealing with all of these matters takes time. We want to present a policy that aligns the interests of the faculty and the institution. Therefore, we need the extra week.

The Special Faculty Association Meeting will take place on Friday, February 11 at noon. You will receive the draft policy one week from today, January 28. That gives faculty two weeks to review the policy before the meeting. The meeting will originate in Chicago, and there will be rooms with teleconference units for faculty to gather in Wheeling, Lisle, North Shore, and Tampa. Meeting Powerpoints will be broadcast via Centra, and faculty can view them on their laptops. (Powerpoints will be projected in Chicago only.) Faculty can also teleconference (via NLU Meeting Place) from any phone and view Powerpoints from any location with Internet connectivity. (We will not use Centra's voice capability because of previous bad experiences.) Senators will be present in each room in Lisle, Wheeling, North Shore, and Tampa.

We will consider feedback from the meeting to make adjustments to the policy. We hope to pass the final draft at our next Senate meeting on February 16, in time to be approved at the next Board of Trustees meeting, which is in March.

Summary of Important Dates
January 28 Faculty Receive Draft Proposed Policy
February 11 Special Faculty Association Meeting
February 16 Senate meeting
March BOT Meeting

Before the Special Meeting, faculty have two weeks to read the policy, ask their Senators questions, provide input to their Senators, and make suggestions. Faculty can continue to provide input up to the February 16 Senate meeting, and may attend the Senate meeting that day as well. If we need more time, we will try to carve it out. The reason we need to present the policy at the March Board meeting is because we want to have the new policy in place for faculty who are up for tenure and/or promotions in 2011-2012, though those faculty may elect to proceed under the old policy. If we wait until the June BOT meeting it will be too late because the cycle in the old policy will have started already.

Of course, faculty has already had numerous opportunities to contribute thoughts and ideas to the development of the policy. In fact, the initial impetus to examine the policy came from an NCE faculty member. Before creating the Task Force, Senate held several meetings, including some Special Meetings, and heard from many faculty, including many past and present members of college and institutional committees. The Task Force itself was comprised entirely of faculty from all three colleges and the library. From November 2009 to December 2010, the Task Force met extensively with other faculty from throughout the institution, including past P & T committee members (institutional and college), faculty on the tenure track, and faculty who had experiences to recount from their reviews. Faculty also had opportunities to provide input to the task force at several faculty meetings, including the NLU Faculty Association meeting on September 2, 2010 and two NCE and CAS faculty meetings. In its deliberations, Senate has met with representatives from the Task Force and from IPTC. This has provided very broad input from all over the faculty over an extended period of time.

Your Senators are working very hard on this policy draft. We look forward to working with you to finalize this important policy.

"What's Taking So Long?"

Several faculty members have asked me this question about the forthcoming draft of the proposed Promotion and Tenure policy. Faculty, particularly ones on the tenure track, are anxious to see the new policy. Everyone is confident that the Task Force did a great job, especially given the caliber of the individuals on the task force. I have included their names in a separate thank-you post.

So "What's taking so long?"

First, a couple of reminders. For faculty up for promotion and/or tenure next year, the policy draft allows them to go forward under the old or the new guidelines. The policy draft also contains a transition plan for faculty coming up for tenure and/or promotion in subsequent years. This will ensure that the transition is fair.

The Task Force left a few areas for Senate to complete. There were also a few items that came up that the Task Force felt were beyond their charge. Senate needs to address these areas. Moreover, the policy needs to be finalized in collaboration with administration. Both faculty and administrators have contributions to make the policy. The Task Force considered written input from administration, and also met with administrators. Nevertheless, this is the first time administrators have seen the draft. Senate needs time to meet with administrators to discuss their comments in a collaborative process.

All administration's ideas have been positive and helpful, and many are very pro-faculty. For example, administration has helped up improve the family-friendly provisions we want to include so faculty with important life events (a birth, an illness) and need to take a leave will still be able to move ahead with their tenure applications.

Your Senators are working very hard to finalize the policy so that the draft that reaches you is complete, accurate, and appropriate.

Here are the meetings Senate has held since the policy draft reached us from the Task Force.

December 15 Senate discussed the draft at its regular meeting. Senators agreed to read the draft over break and meet right after break to decide how to move forward. (The draft was received too close to the meeting date to have a substansive discussion at that meeting.)

January 5 At a Special Senate meeting, Senators decided to appoint a subcommittee to add missing parts to the draft, clarify it, and ensure it was organized. Representatives from IPTC and the Task Force chair were invited to this meeting.

January 6, 7, 10 Senate subcommittee, meeting with representatives from IPTC and the Task Force chair, reviewed the policy, added some clarifications, and ensured it was organized.

January 10 and 11 Senate Chair updated the draft based on previous meetings.

January 11 Senate Chair met with Interim Provost. A meeting was scheduled to go over the draft in detail.

January 12 Three hour meeting with the interim provost to go over the draft.

January 17 Provost provides written input for review and discussion with Senate (input was not formally accepted by Senate).

January 19 Senate decides to postpone the Faculty Association meeting to allow time to reconcile administration's comments.

January 20 Senate subcommittee reviews administrative input.

January 24 Meeting with Senate subcommittee and Interim Provost to reconcile administrative input.

The revised draft will go to faculty and administrators on January 27, which allows 15 days for review prior to the February 11 Special Faculty Association Meeting. That allows plenty of time for thought and consideration of the policy, especially given the ample faculty input in the development of the policy. Senate's goal is to approve a final draft at its meeting on February 16.

Thank You!

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Senate Promotion and Tenure Task Force for their hard work since December 2009. During this time, they met regularly prepared two reports, and created a draft proposed policy for consideration by Senate and faculty. Here are members of the Task Force:

Bruce Boyer, English and Philosophy Department, CAS

Sherri Bressman, Elementary Education, NCE

Mark Burnette, University Library

Scipio Colin, Adult and Continuing Education, CAS

Paula Jordan, Field Programs, CMB

Judy Kent, Language Studies, CAS

Claudia Miller, Health Studies, CAS

Rene Roy, Fine Arts, CAS

Todd Price Education Foundations & Inquiry NCE, Chair, 2009-2010

Susan McMahon, Reading & Language, NCE, Chair 2010

I tend to leave off names in lists like these, so I apologize in advance if I omitted a name. Please let me know and I will add it.

Moving Forward with the Promotion and Tenure Policy

Faculty are very eager to find out details about the forthcoming draft of a proposed new promotion and tenure policy. Today at Senate we created a plan for sharing it with everyone and moving forward.

Right now, the policy draft needs a bit more attention before it is ready for everyone to see. Senators want to ensure that the policy reflects faculty input we have received over the months the policy has been in development. So we are adding a week to the schedule.

A Senate subcommittee will meet tomorrow, January 2o, to revise the draft submitted by the task force. Senate also feels it needs to go over the draft with administration before the draft is shared with faculty. We plan to have meetings with Administration the first part of next week. By Thursday, January 27, we plan to have a draft that is complete and ready for distribution. For this reason, we need to postpone the Special Faculty Association Meeting a week to February 11.

We will use feedback from that meeting to make adjustments to the policy. We hope to pass the final draft at our next Senate meeting on February 16.

Faculty will be able to review the policy beginning on January 27. Faculty can provide input to their Senators, ask them question, and attend the meeting on February 11. Faculty can continue to provide input up to the February 16 Senate meeting, and may attend the Senate meeting that day.

Of course, faculty has already had numerous times to contribute thoughts and ideas The Task Force was comprised entirely of faculty. The Task Force met extensively with faculty from throughout the institution, including past P & T committee members (institutional and college), faculty on the tenure track, and faculty who had experiences to recount from their reviews. The policy was also discussed at the Faculty Association meeting on September 2, and many departments elected to send in written commentary that day or after their meetings. The policy was discussed in two NCE and CAS faculty meetings, too.

Senate is confident that the Task Force created a strong document which only needed to be finalized. Senate is working very hard to ensure that the document that goes to faculty will reflect their input and the needs of the faculty and institution.

Celebrating a Milestone

I recently found out that I was elected to the Board of Directors of TESOL. This is a real honor for me, and I hope that my service on the board is a good reflection on our ESL/Bilingual Program, NCE, and NLU. Thanks to all of your for your words of congratulations!

Key Meetings, January 18-21, 2011

Wednesday: Faculty Senate meets at 11:00 AM CST on Chicago Campus. Teleconferencing is available at (888) 338-6900 Meeting ID 199099. Please place your phone on mute after you join the meeting.

The primary topic of this meeting will be the Promotion and Tenure Policy draft. Senate will also hear reports from the President, the Interim Provost, and the Vice President for Finance and Operations. The Vice-Provost for Institutional Effectiveness will give a brief report on Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction survey.

What Is Shared Governance?

Discussion about the tuition waiver policy today at FWCC revolved in part around a topic that has been receiving increasing attention at NLU--Shared Governance. This discussion raises a number of interesting issues around this topic.

First, from a faculty perspective, the tuition waiver affects two areas of concern to Senate and its committees: faculty welfare/compensation and academics. Obviously, the tuition waiver is a benefit that has made a positive difference in many faculty member's lives. Moreover, the waivers are an academic issue since the waiver attracts and retains adjuncts. Though only 20 people take advantage of this benefit, many of those are our best adjuncts, and those graduates accrue over the years, so that now there are many in the adjunct ranks with doctoral degrees from us.

Of course, we need to consider whether we need this many of our own graduates, but that is a separate question. Putting aside that issue, it's clear that our tuition-paying graduate students benefit from the faculty in their classes. More importantly, the solution of cutting waivers does nothing to address causes of some programs having very few tuition paying students in their cohorts. This policy does nothing to address the need to ensure that all of our programs are vibrant and attractive to students and enroll sufficient numbers of tuition-paying students. We have great programs but they are not enrolling enough tuition paying students, which is a problem that is not being addressed right now.

At the FWCC meeting, administrators raised the issue of fairness. They questioned whether only faculty should give advice in matters such as this. This argument is a non-starter for me because it calls into question the very notion of shared governance we are trying to develop, rather than working in a shared governance way. It seems like all employee groups should have an advisory voice if we are really going to have shared governance.

Nevertheless, this position did not stop administrators from making a contradictory argument that an employee group should not be allowed power over its pay or benefits. If this were the case, then there would be no basis for having a Faculty Welfare and Compensation Committee in the board-approved Constitution. If we have such a committee, what is its role? It seems that at times the committee represents faculty interests, but it also needs to stand for the good of the institution from a faculty or an academic perspective. The institution needs to have pay and benefits that attract the faculty we need and are compatible with the institution's academic mission. Faculty have a role in offering advice on these matters. We need to remember to be motivated for the good of the institution, that is, stewardship, and not self-interest, in addressing these issues.

Though faculty and administrators have strong emotions about this issue, it's good that at least some of the debate is over the notion of shared governance. Shared governance is a common goal, and a notion we can co-construct with all stakeholders at NLU, not only in University Leadership Council, but in all areas. Faculty complain about administrators' actions, but we, too, probably need to act differently. During these discussions, it has been pointed to me that the development of the Promotion and Tenure policy has not modeled shared governance. In retrospect, I cannot disagree, and I have started to work to ensure that we have a collaborative process from now on. That being said, we were more open to administration in this process than adminstration was in the tuition waivers. We involved administrators from the start, had them provide written input, and they met with the task force on several occasions. That being said, the Academic Planning Task Force, which was formed about a year after the P&T Task Force, IS a an example of shared governance and a model for us going forward. So we are making progress, and every stakeholder needs to hold itself and one another accountable.

I hope that we can continue to frame our challenges at least partially in terms of shared govenance, and work toward a shared understanding of how we can work together more effectively. No one can happy about what happened to the tuition wavers, for in the best possible world we would not have to cancel then. No one became an administrator because that's how they wanted to spend their time. But we can use our discussion to continue to figure out how to construct shared governance here at NLU.