The University Senate
of Michigan Technological University
PROPOSAL 22-08 (revised and
marked up copy)
(Voting Units: Full Senate)
(Revised
procedures for the establishment and amendment of Charters
(to replace University Senate Proposal 16-92 and the rejected proposal 11-06)
Background
Proposal 16-92 established charters. Proposals 23-00 (grievance), 20-02
(emeritus), and 9-05 (sabbatical leave) added items to these established
guidelines. When the AAUP became the
bargaining unit of the faculty, the items under those that needed to be
addressed were divided into required and suggested items, in part to meet the
needs of bargaining contracts. At about
the same time, then Provost Dave Reed requested that the Senate officers
develop a set of procedures for development and approval of new charters and
updates. At the same time, interim
procedures were developed for new units.
Proposal 11-06 addressed these issues and was approved by the Senate,
but rejected by the Administration because Chairs and Deans did not agree with
a number of items that were required by the proposal. Remaining disagreement seems to be primarily with items that have already been approved.
Although
charters have existed for a number of years, several procedural problems exist. At present, there is no time limit for
approval and no guidance on how a unit should operate prior to approval. There is no provision for dealing with
violation of the charter. Furthermore,
there is no statement of responsibility for creating and revising
charters. Past Senate interpretation has
been that a unit could not be represented in the Senate until a charter was
approved, but nothing in Senate Proposal 16-92 addresses the issue of
representation of new units; two units had been unrepresented because they had
received no approval of their charters.
This proposal addresses these issues.
This proposal
combines the original policy proposal (16-92) with the added procedures to make
this a single proposal for ease of reference.
The items listed for charters (I) indicate
which are new, which were in the original or more recently approved charter
proposals, and which have been modified.
Changes have been made to the policy that alter their placement
and eliminate language that applied only to the initial establishment of
charters. It
is the intention of this proposal to add
items that have subsequently been approved and add the procedural detail needed for getting charters and updates
approved. It is not intended to change the original policy.
Voting on this
Proposal
Approval
of this proposal should consider only two issues: new items (indicated as new) and new
format. It should not be considered a
reaffirmation of the original or subsequent proposals; elimination of any of those
items needs to be approved separately.
Proposal
Charter
requirements (Approved by the Senate 29 September 1993, approved by President
Curt Tompkins 15 February 1994, approved by the Board of Control 18 March 1994)
are hereby replaced with this proposal and
subsequent changes that affect charters have been included here for
completeness.
DEPARTMENTAL/SCHOOL
GOVERNANCE
Within
one year of establishment, each department/school will establish a charter that
will include procedures for the following activities: (16-92)
Departmental/school
charters will be considered as though they were Senate proposals which, by
definition in the Senate constitution, require approval of the President. (16-92)
Guidelines for Department/School
Charters
Each
department/school at Michigan Technological University must have a
charter. All administrative/management
tasks default to be the responsibility of the Chair/school Dean until they are
included in the department/school charter. Research units and the library may also find it
appropriate to develop a charter, although some of the requirements pertaining
to faculty may not apply. Instead of Dean or Chair, director would
apply. A written charter will establish
guidelines for department/school or other unit governance by defining the
responsibilities and duties of the Chair or school Dean and the faculty and/or
professional staff. Such a document will
help reduce uncertainty and help maintain continuity in unit administration. (16-92)
The
faculty of every department/school develops the charter, which must include the
following sections and may
include any other sections deemed appropriate. Sample sections about
search for a Chair and about evaluating a Chair are attached. (16-92)
In
any case where the unit charter is in disagreement with a University policy or
Senate proposal, the higher level document (University or Senate) has priority. The charter is intended to define things that
cannot be universally defined for all units.
(new)
I.
Charter Contents: A departmental/school charter must contain sections
dealing with the topics in this list and may have provisions similar to the
model charter segments attached to this proposal. (16-92)
The department/school
charter defines the duties and responsibilities of the Chair/school Dean and of
the faculty in the following areas or other appropriate areas: (16-92)
a.
Procedure
for changing and approving the charter (16-92)
b.
Procedure
and responsibility for updating charter
and keeping it in compliance (new)
c.
Definition
of voting members of the unit and
procedure for changing eligibility (new)
d.
Role of professional
staff and other non-tenure track members in unit governance (new)
e.
Procedure
for search (initiated by Dean) of the Chair or search (initiated by Provost) of the school Dean. "and limitations on the
number of terms the chairperson may serve" has been dropped from
requirements at request of Provost Reed [Note: term lengths are already policy in Senate
Proposal 2-92 (Chairs) and 3-92 (Deans and Directors)] The sample section
"Search Procedure for Department
Chairpersons" (defined therein to include school Deans) attached to
Proposal 16-92 will be attached to this document. (modified from 16-92)
f.
Procedure
for department/school evaluation and reappointment of the Chair or school
Dean [The "Evaluation for Reappointment of Chairpersons of Academic
Programs" in Proposal 16-92 will be attached to this document. The
proposal defines reference to Chairpersons to include school Deans]. (16-92)
g.
Clarification
of types of materials, observations, etc. to be used for evaluation of teaching (new;
added because BOC policy is that no more than 50% may be from teaching
evaluation forms)
h.
Areas
for evaluation and guidelines for
performance. Each academic unit will
identify in its procedures the areas in which candidates for reappointment,
tenure, or promotion will be evaluated. The identified areas must include
instructional quality and contribution to the Michigan Tech educational
mission, independent research and other scholarly activities, professional
service (both internal and external to the University), and the academic
responsibility and academic citizenship required for these activities. Other
areas consistent with the University and department mission may also be
included. The procedures will give performance guidelines for reappointment,
tenure, and promotion to each academic rank and will list the types of
accomplishments that will be considered in formulating recommendations in each
area. The performance guidelines will not normally state specific criteria for
performance. Refer to Senate
Proposal 7-00. (16-92; crossed out portion
seems superfluous as it is defined within university policy and is not in
16-92) – required by university policy
i.
Procedures
for recommending promotion, tenure, and
reappointment (16-92) – required by
university policy
j.
Procedure for obtaining advice from the faculty regarding recommendations
for sabbatical leaves [Required by Proposal 09-05 Sabbatical Leave Procedures]
k.
Procedure for recommending Emeritus/Emerita
status to the President for presentation to the Board of Control. This
procedure shall include approval by department/school faculty and an appeal
system and may be initiated by the retiree or his/her department/school.
The guidelines must be compatible with the current Senate Proposal on Emeritus/Emerita. [Required by Proposal 20-02]
l.
Procedure
for departmental/school grievance [Required by Proposal 23-00]
Additional items a unit may want to consider in its charter are in
Proposal 16-92.
II.
Procedures
Approval (new)
(bold italics indicate
changes based on meetings with Deans and Chairs by Martha Sloan, Dave Reed,
Brenda Helminen, one or more members of the Senate
Academic Policy Committee, and Janice Glime over the
course of about one year; these concerns were summarized by Brenda Helminen)
The departmental charter shall be valid after it is approved by a
simple majority of the Senate constituency of that unit and any other members
as determined by that constituency. A copy of the departmental charter shall be
placed on file in the Library. The Senate, Dean and Provost shall be notified.
The
initial departmental/school charter
shall be considered approved by the unit after it is approved by a simple
majority of the academic Senate constituency of that unit and any other members
as determined by that constituency. When
a Chair/school Dean is hired, that person is often given a charge by the
Administration. The
Administration must discuss with the department/school any charges that
conflict with the existing departmental/school charter. Thus, the Chair/school Dean should be
consulted before presentation of charter changes or new charters to the
department/school. Once the department/school
has approved the charter, the Chair/school Dean shall be allowed 30 days to
respond before the charter is forwarded to the Dean and Provost. If the department/school and Chair/school Dean
fail to reach an agreement, the proposal can be forwarded with an explanation
of their differences. A copy of
the departmental/school charter shall be placed on file in the Dean's
and Provost's Offices. The Senate Office shall be
provided with an electronic copy to be posted on the Senate website.
a.
Charters from
departments, schools (herein also called units), or other units shall be sent
to the Dean and Provost for
approval by the Dean, Provost, and President, in consultation with the
dean(s). A statement of approval from the Dean and Provost or
President should be expected within 60 calendar days. If
such approval is not forthcoming, and no explanation is offered, the unit
should consider the charter approved and henceforth act under its guidelines.
If the Dean, President, or Provost request revisions, these should be
provided to the unit in writing and the Dean/Provost and unit charter
committee (or appropriate committee) shall determine a reasonable deadline for
the revisions. The unit may request that the Dean/Provost meet with
the unit or its committee to discuss the suggested revisions.
b.
If
the submission is a revision
of a previously approved charter, including those gaining
approval by default, the unit shall operate under that approved charter until
such time as the revisions are approved.
However, if no approval of a charter or request for revisions is
forthcoming from the Dean and Provost or President within 60 calendar days,
the unit shall consider the revisions to be approved and henceforth operate
under the new charter guidelines. If the Dean and/or Provost and President
are unable to act on the charter or its revisions within the designated 60
days, the Dean and/or Provost or President will submit, in writing to the
Chair/school Dean, an explanation for the delay and an expected timeline for
the review. If this delay is unacceptable to the unit, that unit shall take the
charter or revisions and the timeline and explanation from the Provost or
President to the Faculty Review Committee, or, upon decision of that committee,
to a specially appointed or elected committee. That committee will consider the
charter or revisions and can recommend temporary approval until such time as
the Administration is able to address it.
c.
Charter
revisions may be initiated by the unit or requested by
the Provost or Senate. It shall be the
responsibility of the Chair/school Dean to make sure encourage
that revisions are carried out within six months of the regular school year from the time of a request
from the Provost or Senate and in accordance with provisions for revisions
within the charter.
d.
Assuring
compliance of departmental/school charters with
changing departmental, college/school, and university policies and procedures
is the responsibility of the Chair/school Dean, faculty, and staff of each
unit, with the Provost having responsibility to inform the Chair/Dean when
changes in university policy or procedures may require charter changes. The Chair/school Dean can assume
responsibility for any items in the charter that have fallen out of compliance
with University policy until the charter is revised; the Chair/school Dean can
create interim policy to insure that the department/school continues to run
smoothly but must inform the unit constituents of the
interim policy. Assuring compliance includes the
responsibility for assuring that charters are consistent with current policies
and contracts. The unit is responsible
for reviewing the departmental/school charter each year and updating it as
necessary to comply with changes occurring in university policy and contracts
and changes occurring within the department/school. Indication of continued compliance or
documentation of changes and approval by the unit of these changes should be
submitted to the Dean, Provost, and Senate offices when the unit submits its
annual reports by 1 April each year. If
the unit has been unable to reach agreement with the Chair/school Dean within
the 30-day limit, the Provost and/or Dean will attempt to resolve the
differences. If no response is
received from the Dean and/or Provost/President within 60 academic year calendar days, the changes approved by the department/school constituents shall be
considered approved until the unit is notified otherwise. As with other duties assigned to faculty and
Chairs/school Deans, failure to comply with these timelines and approved
guidelines will be considered when the responsible persons are evaluated. Charter changes normally will take effect the
next academic year unless a starting date is specified in the
charter.
e.
When
any new unit is created, the unit
Chair/school Dean (or the Dean or Provost, respectively, in the absence of
these) must appoint a committee to draft the initial charter. The unit may choose to establish a temporary
procedure by selecting the most appropriate existing charter from another unit
to serve as guidelines for the unit's operating procedures until such time as a
charter shall be developed and approved.
This new charter shall remain in effect as the temporary mode of unit
governance until such time as the Dean and Provost or President shall
convey to that unit any desired changes to the charter.
f.
New
units may elect Senators and Alternates
by simple majority of represented individuals until such time as the charter
goes into effect. If the original
selection is in violation of the final charter, a new selection shall be made
in accordance with that unit's charter.
g.
Department
Chairs/school Deans shall be responsible
for encouraging the timely completion of their unit's
charter and revisions. This shall be
done by the represented members of that unit according to the charter
established by the unit, or by a procedure agreed upon by the unit in the case
of first charters. Those charged with
the task shall be answerable to the Chair/school Dean for the timely completion
of the task, presentation to the represented members of the unit, and vote of
agreement by those members. Represented members here shall be those
persons determined by the unit to be included by their charter. At a minimum, they shall include all
full-time fixed-term lecturers
Lecturer,
Senior Lecturer, Principal Lecturer, Professor of Practice, and tenure-track faculty, but may also include staff and
others deemed appropriate.
Charter Mediation
h.
If
the unit is unable to reconcile disagreement with the Dean, Provost or
President on the wording of provisions of a new charter revision, such
disagreement shall be submitted to the University Grievance Process (Appendix C
of the Faculty Handbook), starting with step 5, i.e.
the Faculty Review Committee, for adjudication.
i.
If a department/school member or a
unit considers that the unit charter has been violated,
the individual or unit should follow the University Grievance
Process (Appendix C of the Faculty Handbook). Action on behalf of a unit should represent
support of the majority of the unit as defined in that unit's charter approval
process.
j.
The Grievance Process will begin with step 5 of the Grievance Process (Appendix C of the Faculty Handbook),
except that the Faculty Review Committee,
in accordance with regulations set forth in earlier steps of the grievance
process, not an Appeal Panel, will be the responsible committee.
ALL ITEMS BELOW THIS POINT WILL BE OMITTED:
The
following items are listed in proposal 16-92 under "The department
charter defines the duties and responsibilities," but are not
specifically required. They are,
however, items of departmental/school governance, which is required. They should be kept on the suggested list as
shown here until removed by referendum.
OMIT
A = (F + S) * N/9
Where:
A = Chair’s salary
N = Number of months of pay/year
F = Faculty salary of the candidate for nine months
S = Fixed sum increase in the salary
The
department in consultation with the administration establishes the fixed sum
increase in the salary (S) and the number of months the chairperson will be
paid in a year (N).
The
following formula is used for calculating the salary when the Chair returns to
the position of a faculty member.
F = A * 9/N – S
The University Senate
of Michigan Technological University
PROPOSAL 22-08 (revised and clean
copy)
(Voting Units: Full Senate)
(Revised
procedures for the establishment and amendment of Charters
(to replace University Senate Proposal 16-92 and the rejected proposal 11-06)
Background
Proposal 16-92 established charters. Proposals 23-00 (grievance), 20-02
(emeritus), and 9-05 (sabbatical leave) added items to these established
guidelines. When the AAUP became the
bargaining unit of the faculty, the items under those that needed to be
addressed were divided into required and suggested items, in part to meet the
needs of bargaining contracts. At about
the same time, then Provost Dave Reed requested that the Senate officers
develop a set of procedures for development and approval of new charters and
updates. At the same time, interim
procedures were developed for new units.
Proposal 11-06 addressed these issues and was approved by the Senate,
but rejected by the Administration because Chairs and Deans did not agree with
a number of items that were required by the proposal. Remaining disagreement seems to be primarily
with items that have already been approved.
Although
charters have existed for a number of years, several procedural problems exist. At present, there is no time limit for
approval and no guidance on how a unit should operate prior to approval. There is no provision for dealing with
violation of the charter. Furthermore,
there is no statement of responsibility for creating and revising
charters. Past Senate interpretation has
been that a unit could not be represented in the Senate until a charter was
approved, but nothing in Senate Proposal 16-92 addresses the issue of
representation of new units; two units had been unrepresented because they had
received no approval of their charters.
This proposal addresses these issues.
This proposal
combines the original policy proposal (16-92) with the added procedures to make
this a single proposal for ease of reference.
The items listed for charters (I) indicate
which are new, which were in the original or more recently approved charter
proposals, and which have been modified.
Changes have been made to the policy that alter their placement
and eliminate language that applied only to the initial establishment of
charters. It
is the intention of this proposal to add
items that have subsequently been approved and add the procedural detail needed for getting charters and updates
approved. It is not intended to change the original policy.
Voting on this
Proposal
Approval
of this proposal should consider only two issues: new items (indicated as new) and new
format. It should not be considered a
reaffirmation of the original or subsequent proposals; elimination of any of those
items needs to be approved separately.
Proposal
Charter
requirements (Approved by the Senate 29 September 1993, approved by President
Curt Tompkins 15 February 1994, approved by the Board of Control 18 March 1994)
are hereby replaced with this proposal and
subsequent changes that affect charters have been included here for
completeness.
DEPARTMENTAL/SCHOOL
GOVERNANCE
Within
one year of establishment, each department/school will establish a charter that
will include procedures for the following activities: (16-92)
Departmental/school
charters will be considered as though they were Senate proposals which, by
definition in the Senate constitution, require approval of the President. (16-92)
Guidelines for Department/School
Charters
Each
department/school at Michigan Technological University must have a
charter. All administrative/management
tasks default to be the responsibility of the Chair/school Dean until they are
included in the department/school charter. Research units and the library may also find it
appropriate to develop a charter, although some of the requirements pertaining
to faculty may not apply. Instead of Dean or Chair, director would
apply. A written charter will establish
guidelines for department/school or other unit governance by defining the
responsibilities and duties of the Chair or school Dean and the faculty and/or
professional staff. Such a document will
help reduce uncertainty and help maintain continuity in unit administration. (16-92)
The
faculty of every department/school develops the charter, which must include the
following sections and may include any other sections deemed appropriate.
Sample sections about search for a Chair and about evaluating a Chair are
attached. (16-92)
In
any case where the unit charter is in disagreement with a University policy or
Senate proposal, the higher level document (University or Senate) has priority. The charter is intended to define things that
cannot be universally defined for all units.
(new)
III. Charter
Contents: A departmental/school charter must contain
sections dealing with the topics in this list and may have provisions similar
to the model charter segments attached to this proposal. (16-92)
The department/school charter defines the duties and
responsibilities of the Chair/school Dean and of the faculty in the following
areas or other appropriate areas: (16-92)
m. Procedure for
changing and approving the charter (16-92)
n.
Procedure
and responsibility for updating charter
and keeping it in compliance
o.
Definition
of voting members of the unit and
procedure for changing eligibility
p.
Role of professional
staff and other non-tenure track members in unit governance
q.
Procedure
for search (initiated by Dean) of the Chair or search (initiated by Provost) of the school Dean. The sample section "Search Procedure for Department
Chairpersons" (defined therein to include school Deans) attached to
Proposal 16-92 will be attached to this document. (modified from 16-92)
r.
Procedure
for department/school evaluation and reappointment of the Chair or school
Dean [The "Evaluation for Reappointment of Chairpersons of Academic
Programs" in Proposal 16-92 will be attached to this document. The
proposal defines reference to Chairpersons to include school Deans]. (16-92)
s.
Clarification
of types of materials, observations, etc. to be used for evaluation of teaching (new;
added because BOC policy is that no more than 50% may be from teaching
evaluation forms)
t.
Areas
for evaluation and guidelines for
performance. Each academic unit will
identify in its procedures the areas in which candidates for reappointment,
tenure, or promotion will be evaluated. Refer to Senate Proposal 7-00. (16-92 & required by university policy
u.
Procedures
for recommending promotion, tenure, and
reappointment (16-92 & required by
university policy)
v.
Procedure for obtaining advice from the faculty regarding
recommendations for sabbatical leaves [Required by Proposal 09-05 Sabbatical Leave Procedures]
w.
Procedure for recommending Emeritus/Emerita
status to the President for presentation to the Board of Control. This
procedure shall include approval by department/school faculty and an appeal
system and may be initiated by the retiree or his/her department/school.
The guidelines must be compatible with the current Senate Proposal on Emeritus/Emerita. [Required by Proposal 20-02]
x.
Procedure
for departmental/school grievance [Required by Proposal 23-00]
Additional items a unit may want to consider in its charter are in
Proposal 16-92.
IV.
Procedures
Approval
The
initial departmental/school charter
shall be considered approved by the unit after it is approved by a simple
majority of the academic Senate constituency of that unit and any other members
as determined by that constituency. When
a Chair/school Dean is hired, that person is often given a charge by the
Administration. The Administration must
discuss with the department/school any charges that conflict with the existing
departmental/school charter. Thus, the Chair/school Dean should be
consulted before presentation of charter changes or new charters to the
department/school. Once the
department/school has approved the charter, the Chair/school Dean shall be allowed
30 days to respond before the charter is forwarded to the Dean and
Provost. If the department/school and
Chair/school Dean fail to reach an agreement, the proposal can be forwarded
with an explanation of their differences. A
copy of the departmental/school charter shall be placed on file in the Dean's
and Provost's Offices. The Senate Office
shall be provided with an electronic copy to be posted on the Senate website.
s.
Charters from
departments, schools (herein also called units), or other units shall be sent
to the Dean and Provost for approval
by the Dean, Provost, and President. A statement of approval from the Dean
and Provost or President should be expected within 60 calendar days.
If such approval is not forthcoming, and no explanation is offered, the
unit should consider the charter approved and henceforth act under its
guidelines. If the Dean, President, or Provost request
revisions, these should be provided to the unit in writing and the Dean/Provost
and unit charter committee (or appropriate committee) shall determine a
reasonable deadline for the revisions. The unit may request that the Dean/Provost
meet with the unit or its committee to discuss the suggested revisions.
t.
If
the submission is a revision
of a previously approved charter, including those gaining
approval by default, the unit shall operate under that approved charter until
such time as the revisions are approved.
However, if no approval of a charter or request for revisions is
forthcoming from the Dean and Provost or President within 60 calendar days,
the unit shall consider the revisions to be approved and henceforth operate
under the new charter guidelines. If the Dean and/or Provost and
President are unable to act on the charter or its revisions within the
designated 60 days, the Dean and/or Provost or President will submit,
in writing to the Chair/school Dean, an explanation for the delay and an
expected timeline for the review. If this delay is unacceptable to the unit,
that unit shall take the charter or revisions and the timeline and explanation
from the Provost or President to the Faculty Review Committee, or, upon
decision of that committee, to a specially appointed or elected committee. That
committee will consider the charter or revisions and can recommend temporary approval
until such time as the Administration is able to address it.
u.
Charter
revisions may be initiated by the unit or requested by
the Provost or Senate. It shall be the
responsibility of the Chair/school Dean to encourage that revisions are
carried out within six months of the
regular school year from the time of a request from the Provost or Senate and
in accordance with provisions for revisions within the charter.
v.
Assuring
compliance of departmental/school charters with
changing departmental, college/school, and university policies and procedures
is the responsibility of the Chair/school Dean, faculty, and staff of each
unit, with the Provost having responsibility to inform the Chair/Dean when
changes in university policy or procedures may require charter changes. The Chair/school Dean can assume
responsibility for any items in the charter that have fallen out of compliance
with University policy until the charter is revised; the Chair/school Dean can
create interim policy to insure that the department/school continues to run
smoothly but must inform the unit constituents of the interim policy. Assuring
compliance includes the responsibility for assuring that charters are
consistent with current policies and contracts.
The unit is responsible for reviewing the departmental/school charter
each year and updating it as necessary to comply with changes occurring in
university policy and contracts and changes occurring within the
department/school. Indication of continued
compliance or documentation of changes and approval by the unit of these
changes should be submitted to the Dean, Provost, and Senate offices by 1 April each year. If the unit has been unable to reach
agreement with the Chair/school Dean within the 30-day limit, the Provost
and/or Dean will attempt to resolve the differences. If no response is received from the Dean
and/or Provost/President within 60
academic year calendar days, the changes approved by the department/school
constituents shall be considered approved until the unit is notified
otherwise. As with other duties assigned
to faculty and Chairs/school Deans, failure to comply with these timelines and
approved guidelines will be considered when the responsible persons are
evaluated. Charter changes normally will
take effect the next academic year unless a starting date is specified in the
charter.
w.
When
any new unit is created, the unit
Chair/school Dean (or the Dean or Provost, respectively, in the absence of
these) must appoint a committee to draft the initial charter. The unit may choose to establish a temporary
procedure by selecting the most appropriate existing charter from another unit
to serve as guidelines for the unit's operating procedures until such time as a
charter shall be developed and approved.
This new charter shall remain in effect as the temporary mode of unit
governance until such time as the Dean and Provost or President shall convey to
that unit any desired changes to the charter.
x.
New
units may elect Senators and Alternates
by simple majority of represented individuals until such time as the charter
goes into effect. If the original
selection is in violation of the final charter, a new selection shall be made
in accordance with that unit's charter.
y.
Department
Chairs/school Deans shall be responsible
for encouraging the timely completion
of their unit's charter and revisions.
This shall be done by the represented members of that unit according to
the charter established by the unit, or by a procedure agreed upon by the unit
in the case of first charters. Those
charged with the task shall be answerable to the Chair/school Dean for the
timely completion of the task, presentation to the represented members of the
unit, and vote of agreement by those members.
Represented members here
shall be those persons determined by the unit to be included by their
charter. At a minimum, they shall
include all full-time Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Principal Lecturer, Professor
of Practice, and tenure-track faculty, but may also
include staff and others deemed appropriate.
Charter Mediation
z.
If
the unit is unable to reconcile disagreement with the Dean, Provost or
President on the wording of provisions of a new charter revision, such
disagreement shall be submitted to the University Grievance Process (Appendix C
of the Faculty Handbook), starting with step 5, i.e. the Faculty Review Committee, for adjudication.
aa.
If a department/school member or a
unit considers that the unit charter has been violated,
the individual or unit should follow the University Grievance
Process (Appendix C of the Faculty Handbook). Action on behalf of a unit should represent
support of the majority of the unit as defined in that unit's charter approval
process.
bb.
The Grievance Process will begin with step 5 of the Grievance Process (Appendix C of the Faculty Handbook),
except that the Faculty Review Committee,
in accordance with regulations set forth in earlier steps of the grievance
process, not an Appeal Panel, will be the responsible committee.
Revised: 21 March 2008