Draft-for discussion purposes only

COMMENTS FOR DISCUSSION DRAFT PROVISIONS

These comments were prepared by the draftsman to explain the provisions of the discussion draft and identify issues to be resolved. They do not represent the views of the Task Force and are intended only to facilitate the discussion of provisions and preparation of written comments.

Section 1: General Provisions

6.1. Comment. This section brings together a number of overarching provisions that apply to the tenure and promotion process as a whole.

6.1.1. Comment. Most of 6.1.1 is new. It contains several provisions reflecting basic principles about the operation of the tenure and promotion process. The introductory language specifies that the process relates to making recommendations to the Chancellor, who decides. This language accords with controlling provisions of regents policy (see BOR Policy Manual II.F.6 and II.F.8.f.) and state law (see K.S.A. 76-715).

6.1.1.1. Comment. This new language is a general statement of purpose to serve as a reminder and provide guidance in implementing the provisions.

6.1.1.2. Comment. This new language addresses the problem of multiple sources of overlapping and inconsistent standards and procedures, including unwritten practices.

6.1.1.3. Comment. This provision carries forward existing language from FSRR 6.3.1.

6.1.2. Comment. Section 6.1.2 includes several provisions addressing the standards for tenure and promotion recommendations. It begins with some descriptive language taken from the current FSRR and a general statement that the standards and written criteria are the controlling standards and criteria for tenure and promotion recommendations. There is also language concerning non-teaching faculty, adapted from Article IV, section 1 of the Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct (reproduced in the Handbook for Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff, C.2.e). This language is a placeholder pending development of more specific standards. Sections 6.1.2.1 through 6.1.2.3 articulate university-wide standards for teaching, research, and service that must be met for tenure and promotion. Currently, there is no statement of standards in the FSRR, and the standards in the discussion draft are based loosely on the Handbook for Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff (C.2.c.4), guidelines distributed by the Provost, and longstanding customs and practices. Section 6.1.2.4 provides for a department, college, or school to adopt written criteria consistent with these standards; and 6.1.2.5 deals with the intervals between appointment, tenure, and promotion. The discussion draft contains no analog for current FSRR 6.3.2, which addresses the relationship between promotion to the rank of associate professor and the award of tenure in an incomplete and confusing way. If the discussions reveal that the relation between tenure and promotion should be addressed, a more comprehensive provision should be developed and incorporated into this section.6.1.2.1. Comment. This provision sets forth the standards for teaching. It contains general language stressing the importance of teaching to the University’s mission and provides for the use of student and peer evaluations. Separate standards for teaching are articulated for tenure and/or promotion to associate professor and for promotion to full professor. Each standard is phrased in terms of effective teaching, including knowledge of the subject, classroom teaching, and mentoring.

6.1.2.1. Comment. This provision sets forth the standards for teaching. It contains general language stressing the importance of teaching to the University’s mission and provides for the use of student and peer evaluations. Separate standards for teaching are articulated for tenure and/or promotion to associate professor and for promotion to full professor. Each standard is phrased in terms of effective teaching, including knowledge of the subject, classroom teaching, and mentoring.

6.1.2.2. Comment. This provision sets forth the standards for research. It contains general language on the importance of research that recognizes the diversity of scholarship among disciplines, but reaffirms a university-wide standard of quality. Separate standards for research are articulated for tenure and/or promotion to associate professor and for promotion to full professor. Each standard is phrased in terms of a successful scholarly career, as evidenced by various factors, including the record of publication, external evaluations, reputation, and other scholarly activities.

6.1.2.3. Comment. This provision sets forth the standards for service. It contains general language on the role of service and the obligations of faculty as citizens. Separate standards are articulated for tenure and/or promotion to associate professor and for promotion to full professor. Each standard is phrased in terms of service activities and contributions.

6.1.2.4. Comment. This provision directs each department, college, or school to adopt written criteria to implement the teaching, research, and service standards. These criteria would articulate the expectations of the department, college, or school that are adapted to the particular discipline. One issue is how best to ensure that these criteria are clear, well articulated, and consistent with the University standards. As a placeholder pending resolution of this issue, the discussion draft provides for approval by the Provost. This provision of the discussion draft also specifies that the criteria should provide for the rating system and specifies “excellent” rather than “exceptional” as the top category. In tenure and promotion matters, the University should strive to make excellence to be the norm, not the exception.

6.1.2.5. Comment. This new language is intended to provide clarity and specificity concerning time in rank, particularly as it relates to tenure. The FSRR does not currently address time in rank issues, although it does make reference to the terminal year. The Handbook for Faculty and Unclassified Staff contains a general statement of time in rank, identifying the normal interval as five to six years. The Provost’s Guidelines repeat this language and add that candidates going up before the usual time in rank are subject to a standard of exceptional merit. As a starting point for discussion, the language in the discussion draft states that the normal time in rank is six years (not five to six), incorporates the Provost’s guidelines requirement of exceptional merit, and clarifies the terms “terminal year” and “mandatory review year” as they relate to the tenure decision. These terms are used in other provisions of the discussion draft.

6.1.3. Comment. Section 6.1.3 gathers several overarching provisions concerning procedures into one place. It distinguishes between “initial review,” “intermediate review” and “review at the University level,” a new terminology that is used throughout the draft in order to clarify the responsibilities of the department, college or school, and UCPT. The terminology is useful because some schools have a departmental structure and others do not, which means that some schools are conducting the first review, which involves compiling the record and making the first recommendation on tenure or promotion, while other schools are reviewing candidates that have already been reviewed by their departments. Later sections deal in greater detail with each type of review. There is also new language expressing the basic principles that (1) recommendations should be made on the basis of the record in accordance with the written procedures; and (2) faculty members have participatory rights.

6.1.3.1. Comment. This provision specifies that initial review is conducted by the department, or by the school if there are no departments, and that intermediate review is conducted by the College or school on the basis of the department’s record and recommendations. It provides for the adoption of written procedures by each department, college, or school. As with written criteria, it is important to ensure that procedures for initial and intermediate review are clear, well articulated, and consistent with the procedural requirements of the FSRR. As a placeholder pending resolution of this issue, the discussion draft provides for approval by the Provost.

6.1.3.2. Comment. This provision specifies that UCPT conducts the review at the University level, and confirms the Provost’s authority to adopt guidelines and a standard form (i.e., the “blue form”), which is an established practice. There are issues surrounding the guidelines and forms that remain to be resolved, including their status and the lack of faculty input into them. As a starting point for further discussion, the draft includes language specifying that the guidelines implement the FSRR and do not create rights or requirements and requiring consultation with appropriate Faculty Senate committees.

6.1.3.3. Comment. This provision addresses a difficult and potentially controversial issue that requires careful consideration and discussion. The problem is how to balance the candidate’s right of access and the need for confidentiality to ensure candid evaluations. The language in the discussion draft reflects one possible approach as a starting point for discussion. The approach adopts a baseline of candidate access but allows department, college, or school procedures to provide for confidentiality of some materials, such as outside evaluations. The provision places the burden on the department, college, or school to expressly adopt confidentiality rules as part of its written procedures and requires some alternative means of informing the candidate of adverse comments and an opportunity to respond.

6.1.4. Comment. Section 6.1.4 brings together provisions related to conflict of interest, most of which are carried forward from the current FSRR with only stylistic changes. The introductory language is a new general conflict of interest provision, which is included for purposes of discussion. While conflicts of interests clearly are to be avoided, a general provision prohibiting conflicts could cause problems in a relatively small University community where many faculty involved in tenure and promotion decisions may have had some previous contact with a candidate. Broad language might prove unnecessarily constraining, forcing many good people off committees, or invite unwarranted appeals to TRP based on procedural error. The language in the draft sets a fairly high standard by requiring a “clear” conflict and by phrasing the provision as advisory (“should”) rather than mandatory (“shall”).

6.1.4.1. Comment. This language is carried forward with stylistic changes from current FSRR 6.1.1.

6.1.4.2. Comment. This language is carried forward with stylistic changes from current FSRR 6.1.2.

6.1.4.3. Comment. This language would make some substantive changes to current FSRR 6.1.3: (1) it is limited to decisions concerning the spouse or partner; and (2) it applies to all recommendations concerning the spouse or partner. The current provisions says that the spouse or partner shall not serve on the departmental, school or college committee or on UCPT.

6.1.5. Comment. Section 6.1.5 builds on language in current FSRR 6.2.11 to provide that the records and recommendations made during the process remain confidential.

Section 2: Pre-Tenure Matters

6.2. Comment. This section brings together provisions relating to matters that arise before consideration of tenure, including the responsibilities of the unit toward untenured faculty, “progress toward tenure review,” and notice of non-reappointment.

6.2.1. Comment. Section 6.2.1 is a new provision that addresses several issues concerning the unit’s responsibilities to faculty members in the pre-tenure phase of their careers. The introductory language is intended to emphasize that the unit has a responsibility to assist faculty members.

6.2.1.1. Comment. This provision is new language requiring that faculty members be informed about the tenure standards and process promptly upon joining the university.

6.2.1.2. Comment. This provision is new language concerning certain tasks, such as peer evaluations of teaching, that must be conducted throughout the pre-tenure phase to document the record for later consideration during the tenure process.

6.2.2. Comment. Section 6.2.2 is a basic provision concerning progress toward tenure review that acknowledges the recently established practice of conducting this review and clarifies that it is not part of the tenure process. The Task Force considered that progress toward tenure review presents a number of important and difficult issues, but concluded that these issues were largely outside the scope of its charge and that, as a practical matter, addressing them would unduly complicate the effort to achieve consensus on improvements to the tenure and promotion process. This provision is intended only as a temporary provision pending more comprehensive consideration of progress toward tenure in some other venue.

6.2.3. Comment. Section 6.2.3 incorporates the non-reappointment provisions currently found at FSRR 6.4. Like progress toward tenure review, the Task Force considered comprehensive revisions to these provisions to be inappropriate at this time, but the discussion draft does reorganize or rephrase some of the existing provisions, introduce some procedural changes to reflect current practice, and add a new provision has separating non-reappointment from denial of tenure. The introduction general language permitting a non-reappointment decision at any time prior to tenure is qualified by section 6.2.3.4 (see comment).

6.2.3.1. Comment. This provision reorganizes and rephrases without substantive change the grounds for non-reappointment currently found in FSRR 6.4.5.

6.2.3.2. Comment. This provision carries forward the provisions concerning the timing of notice of non-reappointment, currently found in FSRR 6.4.1.

6.2.3.3. Comment. This provision concerns the process for non-reappointment and makes two procedural changes. First, current FSRR 6.4.2 states that non-reappointment normally originates with a recommendation from the same committee that evaluates candidates for promotion. Although non-reappointment may be recommended after the progress toward tenure review, that is not the only way that non-reappointment is initiated. Ultimately, the responsibility to initiate such action rests with department chairs and deans, and that is what the discussion draft provides. Second, in the discussion draft provision, the Provost’s letter is required to include the reasons for non-reappointment, while current FSRR 6.4.4 requires that the letter include a statement that written reasons will be provided on request. This change is consistent with corresponding changes to the communication of adverse recommendations concerning tenure and/or promotion.

6.2.3.4. Comment. This provision is new. It contains language distinguishing non-reappointment from the denial of tenure and addressing the problem of using non-reappointment instead of the denial of tenure in the terminal year. As a starting point for discussion, it reflects a compromise between the view that the University is free to do so and the view that it should be absolutely prohibited.

Section 3: Initial Review

6.3. Comment. This section contains the provisions concerning initial review of tenure and promotion by the department or school (if there are no departments).

6.3.1. Comment. Section 6.3.1 carries forward the differing methods for the initiation of the tenure process and for the initiation of the promotion process. The discussion draft draws on existing provisions, but attempts to simplify them by omitting confusing and apparently unnecessary language in current FSRR 6.2.3 regarding how faculty requests for review are processed, as well as limitations on such requests by faculty members in their terminal year.

6.3.1.1. Comment. This provision reflects current FSRR 6.3.3, with certain changes: (1) notification occurs before the Spring Semester of the preceding academic year (to give time to complete the process); (2) notice is provided directly to the faculty member with copies to the department chair or dean; and (3) language has been added indicating that the process begins if notice is received or if the faculty member requests it (i.e., decides to go up early).

6.3.1.2. Comment. The provision carries forward language from current FSRR 6.2.3 concerning review of faculty for promotion to full professor, with changes in timing to permit timely completion of the promotion process. This review could be done by the tenure and promotion committee or it could be done some other way. The discussion draft refers to the department or school, which allows the department or school flexibility in designing an appropriate process. Another issue is whether to provide for automatic review (as the current FSRR provides) or to limit review to faculty who request it. As formulated, the discussion draft provision retains automatic review of all faculty members, but (1) allows faculty to “opt out” of review, and (2) contemplates a preliminary review based on an incomplete record and the initiation of formal consideration only if the record warrants it.

6.3.2. Comment. Section 6.3.2 addresses the development of the record during the initial review. The introductory language describes the responsibilities of the committee to compile the record.

6.3.2.1. Comment. This provision confirms that departments or schools (if there is no departmental structure) have the responsibility to inform and assist candidates. It is intended to give expression to responsibilities that already exist.

6.3.2.2. Comment. This provision is intended to ensure that rules concerning confidentiality are communicated to outside reviewers, so that there will be no misunderstandings.

6.3.2.3. Comment. This provision explicitly requires that the committee permit the candidate to have access to the dossier, subject to the confidentiality provision in section 6.1.3.3.

6.3.3. Comment. Section 6.3.3 addresses recommendations by the department or school conducting the initial review. The introductory language is new and emphasizes that the basis for recommendations is the application of the standards and criteria to the candidate’s record. Specific provisions address various procedural aspects of the recommendations.

6.3.3.1. Comment. This provision is new language reflecting the potential role of the faculty as a whole.

6.3.3.2. Comment. This provision carries forward existing requirements that the department chair or dean indicate agreement or nonconcurrence with the committee recommendations, without current language that creates confusion about the order and timing of recommendations.

6.3.3.3. Comment. This provision addresses concerns about the adequacy of communication with the candidates, particularly as to adverse recommendations. It requires that adverse recommendations be communicated in writing, with a statement of reasons and information concerning further review.

6.3.3.4. Comment. This provisions specifies that favorable departmental recommendations on initial review would be forwarded automatically to the College or school, while adverse recommendations would be forwarded only if the faculty member requests it. The current treatment of initial recommendations in FSRR 6.2.4 says that “departmental recommendations for promotion shall be forwarded” to the school or college, which implies that only favorable recommendations will be forwarded. There is no specific provision concerning recommendations for tenure. Particularly in cases of tenure in the terminal year, there will be situations in which negative departmental recommendations should be forwarded (if the candidate requests it), which under current FSRR 6.2.5 is possible only at the school/college level.

Section 4: Intermediate Review by College or School

6.4. Comment. This section contains provisions concerning intermediate review by the College and schools with a departmental structure. This review is intermediate in the sense that it comes between the departmental and UCPT review.

6.4.1. Comment. Section 6.4.1 deals comprehensively with the record on intermediate review, and provides that the new material may not be added to the record, subject to three specified exceptions. The ban on adding new material reflects current FSRR 6.2.7's limitation on adding new material to the record. Currently the only exception is for the check back process, and the discussion draft expands these exceptions.

6.4.1.1. Comment. This provision would allow the candidate to respond to an adverse departmental recommendation by supplementing the record. To prevent submissions that extend throughout intermediate review, the college or school may set times limits. This is a new exception intended to ensure that candidates have a full and fair opportunity to make their cases for tenure and promotion. The language is a starting point for discussion of the issue of candidate submissions, which was identified, but not resolved by the Task Force.

6.4.1.2. Comment. This provision offers a means, other than check back, for the college or school to get information. The Task Force discussions raised this as a way of allowing the college or school to get needed information without the negative implication of a check back. The language is a starting point for discussion.

6.4.1.3. Comment. This provision retains the check back as a means of getting additional information. The details of the check back procedure are in section 6.4.2 of the discussion draft, which follows. The scope of the check back is an issue for discussion. The language of proposed section 6.4.1.3 carries forward current FSRR 6.2.5, which limits check backs to situations when the school or college disagrees with the department. In contrast, at the UCPT level there is also a check back if UCPT agrees with the adverse recommendation of the college or school.

6.4.2. Comment. Section 6.4.2 attempts to clarify the procedures to be followed on check backs, specifying the responsibilities of various actors and expressly providing that the candidate has a role in the response to the check back.

6.4.2.1. Comment. This provision specifies that the chair receives the check back and informs the department committee, and that the response will be prepared by the committee and/or department chair in accordance with departmental procedures. This is intended to restate and clarify current practice.

6.4.2.2. Comment. This provision requires the chair to inform the candidate and requires that the candidate be given an opportunity to participate in the response or to respond on his or her own. This would represent a departure from the current practice in many units, but denying faculty such an opportunity raises fundamental issues of fairness to candidates. The candidate’s role is especially important in those cases where the school or college checks back based on its disagreement with the adverse recommendations of the department. In such cases, the department would be submitting new adverse information and comments to which the candidate should be able to respond.

6.4.3. Comment. Section 6.4.3 concerns school or college recommendations after intermediate review. Many of its provisions mirror the corresponding discussion draft provisions that apply to initial review (section 6.3.3), but there is the additional issue of the relationship between the school or college and departmental recommendations. The discussion draft uses a model under which each level (initial, intermediate and University) makes its own recommendations and all recommendations are part of the process and forwarded to the Chancellor. Although model language represents only a starting point for discussion, this approach has two significant advantages. First, it is consistent with the Chancellor’s ultimate responsibility for making the decision, which should be based on the whole record of the process. Second, it permits the department, the school/college, and UCPT to play their proper roles in the process without unnecessarily provoking conflicting claims of priority among them. This model is reflected in the introductory language to section 6.4.3 (and in section 6.5.4, the analogous provision concerning University level review by UCPT). The specific provisions of section 6.4.3 relate to various procedural aspects of the recommendations.

6.4.3.1. Comment. This provision is new and emphasizes that the basis for recommendations should be application of the standards and criteria to the candidate’s record. There is also new language reflecting the potential role of the faculty as a whole.

6.4.3.2. Comment. This provision carries forward existing requirements that the dean indicate agreement or nonconcurrence with the committee recommendations, without current language that creates confusion about the order and timing of recommendations.

6.4.3.3. Comment. This provision addresses concerns about the adequacy of communication with the candidates, particularly as to adverse recommendations. It requires that adverse recommendations be communicated in writing, with a statement of reasons and information concerning further review.

6.4.3.4. Comment, this provision reflects current FSRR 6.2.5 parallels the analogous provision on forwarding recommendations after initial review in section 6.3.3.4 of the discussion draft.

Section 5: Review by the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure

6.5. Comment. This section addresses review by UCPT and incorporates various provisions of the current FSRR.

6.5.1. Comment. Section 6.5.1 combines some preliminary matters concerning UCPT into a single provision, including the composition of UCPT, establishment of deadlines, and communication of department and college/school criteria.

6.5.1.1. Comment. This provision carries forward the current composition of UCPT, as provided in FSRR 6.1.4 and 6.1.4.1, with some stylistic and organizational changes. The provisions have been moved here to provide a more coherent organization. The draft also adds language prohibiting deans (and sub deans) from serving as UCPT members. The composition of UCPT may warrant further discussion.

6.5.1.2. Comment. This provision carries forward language in current FSRR 6.2.2. It is unclear whether such language is necessary and if so, whether it belongs here. It is also possible that analogous language should be added elsewhere to require notice of time limits for requesting initial review or for forwarding recommendations from the initial review to the College or school for intermediate review. Provisions might also be included to require each level to complete the process in time for the recommendation to be forwarded up the chain. These issues of timing might be addressed in a comprehensive provision on timing located elsewhere in the FSRR.

6.5.1.3. Comment. This provision addresses how the UCPT learns about the criteria and expectations of the department, college, or school. Current FSRR 6.2.6 provides for UCPT to invite the dean of the college or school to appear and present its standards, and the discussion draft makes several changes. The discussion draft adds a requirement that written copies of department, school, or college criteria to be provided to UCPT. It changes the focus of the dean’s visit to a discussion and explanation of the criteria and permits the dean to designate someone to appear. Finally, language has been added to permit (but not require) UCPT to request the appearance of department chairs.

6.5.2. Comment. Section 6.5.2 follows the same approach to the record as section 6.4.1 of the discussion draft, the analogous provision for intermediate review, by providing that the record is closed with three specified exceptions. Although the issues are similar, there may be stronger reasons to close the record or limit additional information and comment at this level, however, which could support a different set of rules.

6.5.2.1. Comment. This provision, like the analogous provision for intermediate review, would permit the candidate to respond to adverse recommendations at the college or school level.

6.5.2.2. Comment. This provision, like the analogous provision for intermediate review, provides a mechanism for UCPT to get additional information without a formal check back.

6.5.2.3. Comment. This provision carries forward the current scope of the UCPT check back, which applies both to disagreement with the college or school and to adverse recommendations (even if they agree with the college or school). In contrast, check backs at the intermediate review level the discussion draft (section 6.4.1.3) carries forward the current rule which provides for a check back only if there is disagreement with department.

6.5.3. Comment. Section 6.5.3 reflects the same approach to check back procedures as section 6.4.2, the comparable provision concerning check backs on intermediate review, but there are some additional wrinkles because there also may be departmental recommendations on initial review to take into account.

6.5.3.1. Comment. This provision applies when the school has no departmental structure and conducted the initial review. It specifies that the dean receives the check back and informs the school committee, and that the response will be prepared by the committee and/or dean in accordance with school. This is intended to restate and clarify current practice.

6.5.3.2. Comment. This provision deals with the circumstance where there has been both an initial and intermediate review. In such a case, the role of the department in a UCPT check back depends on whether the college or school agreed with department. If so, then it is likely that the department should take the lead in preparing the response. But when the college or school disagrees with the department, it is likely that UCPT agreed with the department and it is the college or school that must prepare the response, while the department may have an interest in submitting further information to support its recommendation and reply to the college or school’s response.

6.5.3.3. Comment. Like the analogous provision concerning check backs by the College or school, this provision requires the candidate to be informed and given an opportunity to participate in the response or to respond on his or her own. This would represent a departure from the current practice in many units in general furtherance of ensuring fundamental fairness to candidates in the process. Issues of fairness to candidates are even more significant at this level, because both the department and college or school are involved, and the candidate may be aligned with or against either or both. As a result, the candidate’s independent interest in responding may be even stronger.

6.5.4. Comment. Section 6.5.4 includes provisions concerning UCPT recommendations. There is new language emphasizing that the basis for recommendations is the application of the standards and criteria to the candidate’s record. The requirement of a two-thirds majority to recommend tenure and/or promotion carries forward current FSRR 6.2.10. There is also language, comparable to that in the discussion draft provisions on intermediate review, addressing the relationship between UCPT and the college or school review. Under this approach taken throughout the discussion draft, each level makes its own recommendations and all recommendations are part of the record forwarded to the Chancellor.

Section 6: Decision by the Chancellor

6.6. Comment. This section brings together provisions concerning the decision by the Chancellor. Much of it is new language designed to clarify current practices.

6.6.1. Comment. Section 6.6.1 provides for consideration of the record by the Chancellor. The introductory language makes explicit the process of forwarding UCPT recommendations and the record for consideration by the Chancellor.

6.6.1.1. Comment. This provision addresses a tricky issue that is currently not addressed anywhere in the FSRR. Under current practice, a department, the College or a school, and the Provost may be involved in discussions with the Chancellor after UCPT has made its recommendations. This contact could be regarded as “ex parte” communication that compromises the integrity of the record and raises issues of fairness issues, especially if there are adverse comments and the candidate has no opportunity to respond. Nonetheless, some consultation may be necessary and the Chancellor may want additional information that is not in the record. As a starting point for discussion, this language states that the Chancellor should base his or her decision on the record, but expressly authorizes him or her to request information and to consult others.

6.6.1.2. Comment. This provision echoes language in section 6.1 regarding the Chancellor’s responsibility for making decisions concerning personnel matters, including non-reappointment, tenure, and promotion, expressly stating that the Chancellor makes the final determination for the University.

6.6.2. Comment. Section 6.6.2 provides for communication of the Chancellor’s decision to the affected faculty and addresses concerns about the adequacy of communication with the candidates, particularly as to adverse decisions. Current provisions require a letter from the Provost informing a candidate of the Chancellor’s decision, but a statement of reasons is given only on request. The discussion draft requires that the letter include a written statement of reasons, along with information concerning appeal to TRP.

6.6.3. Comment. This is a technical provision that carries forward current FSRR 6.2.12.

Section 7: Appeal

6.7. Comment. This section concerns appeals of the Chancellor’s decision to TRP, and brings together current provisions found in FSRR 6.5 (concerning Review in the Terminal Year) and FSRR 6.6 (concerning Appeals), which have been consolidated and reorganized. These provisions are limited to specifying the jurisdiction of TRP, the manner of initiating review, and a few other matters. The FSRR does not contain comprehensive provisions concerning TRP and its decisional processes, which are found mostly in the Handbook for Faculty and Unclassified Staff, and those provisions are confusing and inadequate. Because TRP has jurisdiction over various matters outside the tenure and promotion process, however, a comprehensive revision of those provisions is beyond the charge to the Task Force. This issues should be addressed more comprehensively in another venue.

6.7.1. Comment. Section 6.7.1 explains the basis for TRP jurisdiction, cross-referencing applicable provisions of the University Senate Code, and adds language specifying that these are the exclusive grounds for review.

6.7.1.1. Comment. This provision states that procedural errors preventing a fair consideration of the candidate’s record are one basis for TRP jurisdiction. This basis for jurisdiction is consistent with current practice.

6.7.1.2.. Comment. This provision states that violations of academic freedom are one basis for TRP jurisdiction. This basis for jurisdiction is consistent with current practice.

6.7.2. Comment. Section 6.7.2 specifies that, in all cases, a faculty member must request TRP review to initiate it. Current FSRR 6.5.2 requires a request, but that provision applies only to negative tenure decisions in the terminal year, leaving unclear what happens in cases involving other kinds of adverse decisions. New section 6.7.2 would apply to non-reappointment and to all adverse tenure and promotion decisions.

6.7.3. Comment. Section 6.7.3 carries forward current FSRR 6.6.2 with some changes. In particular, current provisions require procedures to be printed in the Handbook for Faculty and Other Unclassified Staff, which may not be an appropriate location for them. The discussion draft provides that the procedures should be posted in a location of general accessibility to faculty, without specifying that the Handbook is that location. In the long run, procedures and other provisions addressing TRP should be incorporated into the FSRR.

6.7.4. Comment. Section 6.7.4 deals with TRP decisions. The introductory language provides that if TRP finds a procedural violation or an infringement of academic freedom, TRP may require reconsideration of the case by the department, college or school, or UCPT.

6.7.4.1. Comment. This provision carries forward language in current FSRR 6.6.3.

6.7.4.2. Comment. This provision is new language reflecting the recognition that if reconsideration is required, there may be problems complying with the Board of Regents Regulations policy concerning the maximum time toward tenure and the “terminal year.”