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)

  1. Departmental governance
  2. Searching for a chairperson or director
  3. Evaluation and reappointment of the chairperson or director
  4. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

 

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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)

  1. 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)
    1. Procedure for changing and approving the charter  (16-02) - required
    2. Procedure and responsibility for updating charter and keeping it in compliance (new) - required
    3. Definition of voting members of the unit and procedure for changing eligibility (new) - required
    4. Role of professional staff and other non-tenure track members in unit governance (new) - required
    5. 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
    6. 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
    7. 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
    8. 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
    9. Procedures for recommending promotion, tenure, and reappointment (16-92) – required by university policy
    10. Procedure for obtaining advice from the faculty regarding recommendations for sabbatical leaves [Required by Proposal 09-05 Sabbatical Leave Procedures]
    11. 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]
    12. 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.

    1. Procedures for hiring of new faculty and the creation of new faculty positions (16-92)
    2. Process by which the department faculty defines long-term goals and goals for the period of appointment of the chairperson (16-92)
    3. Admitting graduate students (16-92)
    4. Developing curriculum (16-92)
    5. Electing or appointing Senators, members of departmental committees, and members for the Senate, college, and university committees (16-92)
    6. Developing other administrative positions (16-92)
    7. 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.
      1. funds available for salary increases
      2. teaching assistantships, general research assistantships, and fellowships
      3. travel funds
      4. external funds and university budget funds
      5. office and laboratory space and equipment
    1. Making teaching assignments and allocating teaching loads (16-92)
    2. Hiring and supervising staff (16-92)
  1. 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