by

University Faculty Affairs Committee – September 29, 2026

Action Items

  • Two small changes to Section 7 of the handbook to fix outdated language dealing with P&T files, see section 6 of the minutes below

Minutes

Present: Nicole Crowder (chair), Paul Fallon, Ian Finlayson (secretary), Ken Machande, Melissa Wells.  Keith Mellinger present for discussion on incorporating school directors into the faculty handbook and discussion of the P&T process 

  1.  Handbook updates to incorporate school directors/associate deans
    1. Keith presented draft language for the handbook, which CAS FC and UFAC provided comments on.  His goal with his proposed language was to keep it flexible so deans in the other colleges could set up their own structures.  Rather than proscribe details in the handbook, he argues we should leave it flexible. 
    2. In the draft language, it is not clear if these positions are AP faculty (administrators with 12-month contracts) or regular faculty positions with special assignments.  They are currently the latter, which poses some complications, such as these pseudo-administrators being evaluated by their department chairs, whom they also evaluate.  Keith has said he will discuss making them AP positions with Tim O’Donnell. 
    3. Another source of confusion is that the people in these roles are called both “school directors” and “associate deans”.  Some of them wished to be called school directors because it sounds more like a faculty position than an administrative one. 
    4. Reviewing P&T files of candidates in their school is currently in the job description of these school directors. However, that will be removed going forward so as not to require another layer of review for the tenure process. 
    5. They will still be tasked with evaluating the department chairs under them.  Keith argues that they are in a better position to know the work of the chairs in their schools.
    6. We will re-visit these proposed handbook updates when the status of these positions (AP vs regular faculty) is resolved. 
  2. Discussion of P&T Process in Small Departments 
    1. Keith raised the issue that candidates in different departments can have very different numbers of letters of recommendation based on the different numbers of tenured faculty in their departments.  For instance, in some departments there is only one tenured member, whereas in others there are upwards of a dozen.  He suggests that we could have committees set up for each candidate, appointed by their chair.  Then each member of the committee writes a letter (whether they are in the candidate’s department or not). 
    2. Ken argues that there is still a limited number of people with the real expertise to write such a letter and suggests finding external letters.  Ken also argues that the issue goes beyond simply small departments, since in some departments, colleagues may not have the expertise to evaluate scholarly work either. 
  3. Outdated P&T calendar language and archive of Canvas P&T course 
    1. Caitie Finlayson sent us a message pointing out places where there was outdated language in the handbook relating to files being due “in the dean’s office,” which isn’t especially accurate now that files are digital.  Melissa went through the handbook and made suggested edits for these instances.  These are in the action items for this meeting. 
    2. Melissa also found issues with the CAS P&T web page, with duplicated information, some of which is not up-to-date. Nicole will ask the CAS FC chair to fix this issue. 
    3. The CAS guidelines do not include stand-alone details about the digital file process (these are currently in other locations online). The COB ones are very vague and just say that “the dean or their designee will provide and remove access as needed based on the stage of review” without saying who, when or how.  We will ask these colleges to provide more correct and detailed information on how this happens. 
  4. Faculty Workload Study 
    1. We are still awaiting information from Debra Schleef.  She has data but is working towards fixing issues with double sections and leaves of absence. 
  5. Administrator Evaluation Plan 
    1. We received the evaluation instruments used in the past for the dean/provost and president/administration offices evaluation survey from Debra Schleef. It is much more comprehensive than the survey which was sent out last year. We will suggest that this, or something similarly robust, is used going forward, and are curious as to why we went away from this in the first place.
  6. Action Item Handbook Changes
    1. UFAC proposes the following changes to §7.8 of the Faculty Handbook:
      1. Replace the text:

        “Candidate’s promotion and/or tenure file due in dean’s office; chair’s evaluation and all letters solicited by chair due in dean’s office”

        with:

        “Candidate uploads completed promotion and/or tenure file to LMS by 5 PM; chair uploads chair’s evaluation and all letters solicited by chair to LMS by 5 PM”
      2. Replace the text:

        “File available in dean’s office to candidate to review materials and to write letter of exception or explication”

        with:

        “File available in LMS to candidate to review materials and to write letter of exception or explication”

Reader Interactions