Faculty Executive Committee Task Force on Promotion and Tenure

Faculty Senate Rules and Regulation Provisions

Discussion Draft and Invitation to Comment

Posted September 13, 2006

At the end of 2005, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee (FacEx) created the Task Force on Promotion and Tenure and charged it with conducting a comprehensive review of current standards, procedures, and practices relating to tenure and promotion and proposing revisions to Article Six of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations (FSRR), which concerns tenure and promotion. FacEx was responding to a variety of problems and difficulties that had arisen in regard to the promotion and tenure processes, including:

• Poorly organized, confusing provisions that leave substantial gaps and uncertainties;

• Multiple sets of overlapping standards and procedures whose interaction is unclear; and
• Issues of communication, transparency, and fairness throughout the process.

The task force is composed of a number of faculty from various disciplines with significant collective experience in all phases of the promotion and tenure process at the University. For information about the Task Force on Promotion and Tenure see:http://www2.ku.edu/~unigov/TFP&T.shtml

The task force met regularly in the spring of 2006, first to discuss issues surrounding the promotion and tenure process in general terms and then to engage in a detailed, section-by-section review of the current FSRR provisions. As a result of these discussions, the task force agreed on a basic structure and approach to use in developing proposals, and identified a large number of issues to solicit input on, discuss, and resolve, ranging from fundamental questions of policy to minor issues of practical implementation. The task force’s review of current provisions made it very clear that the issues raised by the promotion and tenure process are multifaceted and interrelated. They cannot be fully grasped or intelligibly discussed without some framework within which to place the issues. For that reason, the task force determined that the chair should, during the summer, produce a draft that would provide the basis for discussion of the issues. The draft would follow the basic structure and approach agreed upon by the task force and would include some provisional language to work from as the task force sought input on, discussed, and resolved various issues. The discussion draft posted below (along with the section-by-section comments of the drafter) is the result of that effort. The issues raised, but not resolved, by the discussion draft include –

• Articulation of University wide standards for the award of tenure and promotion in rank
• Clarification of the relationship between departmental, college or school, and UCPT levels
• Ensuring the consistency and clarity of policies at various levels of the process
• Accommodating the rights of faculty members with the effective operation of the process
• How to appropriately accommodate library and other non-teaching faculty

The task force believes that broad participation by the University community is an essential part of the process and is seeking input now, so that it can be taken into consideration as the task force reviews the discussion draft and addresses the many important issues that remain to be resolved. Input is being sought in two ways. First, the discussion draft and explanatory comments are posted here for public review and comment, with hypertext links that permit you to move back and forth between a provision and an explanatory comment by clicking on a highlighted section number. The draft and comments are intended only to provide a framework for discussion and do not represent a proposal or statement of views by the task force. Second, the task force will hold several open fora to discuss issues surrounding the tenure and promotion process. The dates, times and agendas for these fora will be posted below once the schedule is determined.

Public comments may be submitted electronically by e-mailing them to the office of university governance, govern@ku.edu. Please indicate by section number the specific provision(s) to which your comment(s) relate. Comments must be received by October 5, 2006 to receive full consideration.

Discussion Draft Discussion Draft Comments

Schedule of Public Fora