The University Senate
of Michigan Technological University
PROPOSAL 22-08
(Voting Units: Full Senate)
“Revised
procedures for the establishment
and amendment of Charters”
(to replace University Senate Proposal 16-92
and the failed proposal 11-06)
Background
Proposal 16-92 established charters. Proposals 9-05, 16-02, and 20-02 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, which might require a
different process.
Sample
charters and procedures regarding search for a chair and evaluating a chair are
available in the Provost's office.
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
GOVERNANCE
Within
one year of establishment, each department/school will establish a charter that
will include procedures for the following activities: (16-92)
- Departmental
governance
- Searching for a
chairperson or director
- Evaluation and
reappointment of the chairperson or director
- Approval and
amendment of the charter
Departmental
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 until they are included in
the department 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 develops the charter, which may include the following sections and any other sections deemed
appropriate. Sample sections about search for a chairperson and about
evaluating a chairperson 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)
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 is hired, that person is often given a charge by the
Administration. Thus, the chair should
be consulted before presentation of charter changes or new charters to the
department. Once the department has
approved the charter, the chair shall be allowed 30 days to respond before the
charter is forwarded to the Dean and Provost. If the department and chair 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 a courtesy copy.
- 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.
- If the submission is a revision of a previously approved
charter, including those gaining approval by default, the
unit shall operate under the 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.
- 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.
- Assuring compliance
of departmental charters with changing departmental 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 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 can create interim policy to insure that the department
continues to run smoothly. 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 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 calendar days, the changes
shall be considered approved until the unit is notified otherwise. As with other duties assigned to faculty
and Chairs/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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Charter Contents: A departmental charter may 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
charter defines the duties and responsibilities of the chairperson and of
the faculty in the following areas or other appropriate areas: (16-92)
- Procedure for
changing and approving the charter
(16-02) - required
- Procedure and responsibility for
updating charter and keeping
it in compliance (new) - required
- Definition of voting members of the unit and
procedure for changing eligibility (new) - required
- Role of
professional staff and other non-tenure track members in unit governance (new)
- required
- 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) - required
- 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)
- required
- 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) - required
- 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
- Procedures for recommending promotion, tenure, and reappointment (16-92) – required by university
policy
- Procedure for
obtaining advice from the faculty regarding recommendations for sabbatical leaves [Required by Proposal
09-05 Sabbatical Leave Procedures]
- 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]
- Procedure for
departmental/school grievance [Required by Proposal 23-00]
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 governance, which is required. They should be kept as shown here until
removed by referendum.
- Procedures for hiring of new
faculty and the creation of new faculty positions (16-92)
- Process by which the
department faculty defines long-term
goals and goals for the period of appointment of the chairperson (16-92)
- Admitting
graduate students (16-92)
- Developing
curriculum (16-92)
- Electing or
appointing Senators, members of departmental committees, and members for
the Senate, college, and university committees (16-92)
- Developing
other administrative positions (16-92)
- Allocating
departmental resources such as: (16-92) – There seem to be good
reasons for removing some of these items.
However, this proposal is intended to deal with logistics, not
policy. Such removal should be
done in a separate proposal.
- funds
available for salary increases
- teaching
assistantships, general research assistantships, and fellowships
- travel funds
- external funds
and university budget funds
- office and
laboratory space and equipment
- Making
teaching assignments and allocating teaching loads (16-92)
- Hiring and
supervising staff (16-92)
- The charter
defines the salary of the chairperson using the following formula: (16-92)
A = (F + S) * N/9
Where:
A = Chairperson’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 chairperson
returns to the position of a faculty member.
F = A * 9/N – S
Introduced to Senate:
19 March 2008