The University Senate
of Michigan Technological University
PROPOSAL 22-08
alternative proposal
(Voting Units: academic units only)
procedures
for the establishment and amendment of Charters
(to complement University Senate Proposal 16-92)
Background
Proposal 16-92 established charters. 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. However, uncertainty about
the jurisdiction of the Senate in these matters caused that proposal to be
dropped.
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 to the Senate; two units had been unrepresented for
several years because they had received no approval of their charters. This proposal addresses these issues.
Provost
Dave Reed requested that the Senate officers develop a set of procedures for
development and approval of new charters and updates. 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 or procedures that were required by
the proposal. Some of the concern arose
over disagreement over items that already existed as charter policy in Proposal
16-92.
This
proposal establishes procedures for approval, revision and appeals for
violation of Charters. It further adds
three required content items that are necessary to carry out these procedures.
Voting on
this Proposal only adds procedures to Proposal 16-92 and subsequent
proposals. It does not replace them. Introductory language from 16-92 is included
here to provide context.
Proposal
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 (new)
– these items shall be added to the list of items to be included in charters
a.
Procedure
and responsibility for updating charter
and keeping it in compliance
b.
Definition
of voting members of the unit and
procedure for changing eligibility
c.
Role of professional
staff and other non-tenure track members in unit governance
II.
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.
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. 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 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 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 tenure-track faculty, but may also include full-time Lecturer, Senior
Lecturer, Principal Lecturer, Professor of Practice, 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.
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.
Introduced
to Senate: 19 March 2008
Revised and reintroduced: 21 March 2008
Adopted by Senate: 2 April 2008
Rejected by Administration: 30 October 2008