The University Senate of Michigan Technological University
Proposal 6-11 (revised Jan 19, 2011 and February 2, 2011)
(Voting Units: Full Senate)
“Proposal to Establish University-wide Procedures to Search for, Hire, and
Evaluate School Deans and Departmental Chairs”
Background:
The Senate has the
responsibility and authority to establish procedures for the selections of
Deans, School Deans and Department Chairs
(Senate
Constitution Article III.F.1.a.10) and the
responsibility to make recommendations for their evaluation (Senate
Constitution Article III.F.4.b.9). Following
the adoption of the departmental governance policies defined by Senate
Proposal 16-92, university units established revised
procedures for searching for new Chairs and evaluating the performance of those
serving as Chairs.
Over the last twenty
years, the University administration has come to believe that these procedures
should be defined by University-wide policy and not on a unit-by-unit
basis. Among the rationales for this change is the fact that Chairs and
School Deans are administrative officers and thus serve at the discretion of
the president, but units have rights of appeal as defined in the grievance
policy outlined by Senate
Proposal 23-00. As an extension of this fact,
units have the power of review and comment during searching, hiring, and
evaluating/reviewing.
Academic units and
members of the administrative team have disagreed whether an individual unit
can direct a search to be for internal or external candidates. This
proposal mandates an external open search for a School Dean
and grants the authority to resolve this issue to the appropriate School College Dean or the Provost in consultation with the department for a
Chair search.
This proposal contains
language duplicated from current, approved charter procedures for both School
Deans (i.e., Forestry) and Department Chairs (i.e., Chemical
Engineering). Editorial and other changes have been made to the material which afford the following differences:
1. All School Dean searches will be open external
and international in scope.
2. The proposal contains an annual a mechanism by which the Provost, School Dean (for Associate
Deans), or a majority of the School’s faculty and staff can initiate an interim
review. for School Dean surveys which requires a threshold level
to be attained before activation.
3. Units still have to evaluate their chairs after three years of
service, but a mechanism for surveys after the second and fifth years of service
so as to provide useful feedback for improvement is included. Most
charters previously allowed for this at the end of every year but only if a
Senator requested one or if a majority of the unit faculty assessed by vote
requested one.
4. The department chair may
serve for a third or more terms, but this policy calls for an automatic search
after the serving chair’s second term (sixth year and for every subsequent
sixth year). If no other department member puts their name forward for
consideration as chair, the serving chair can make a public presentation and
the department can advance the current chair’s name for re-appointment by
the CollegeDean. In
these cases, no evaluation or vote will be required.
4.5. The process
regarding the evaluation of School Deans and Chairs will begin at the year of
service the School Dean or Chair is currently at. School Deans
and Chairs currently serving terms during the term when this proposal is
approved will enter the evaluation cycle according to the years passed since
their most recent appointment or reappointment.
Proposal Text:
This policy applies
to Departmental Chairs and Deans of Schools only. Search provisions
for Deans of Colleges and the Dean of the
Graduate School are governed by Proposal
19-07 (Senate Procedures 802.1.1) and Proposal 17-07 (Senate
Procedures 803.1.1)respectively.
I. Searching for and Evaluating School
Deans and Associate School Deans
The School Charter shall
specify who is eligible to vote at all stages of the search and evaluation
process.
A. Searching for a School Dean and Appointing an Associate School
Dean
1. In the event of a vacancy in the School Dean's position, the
Provost shall appoint a search committee consisting of at least five faculty
members from the School. The Provost will consult with the faculty
of the School on these appointments. The search committee will include the
following persons:
i. At least four of these faculty members
must be tenured.
ii. One faculty member from another unit on campus
iii. A member of the advisory board
iv. The Provost in consultation with the faculty of the School will
also appoint a staff representative.
v. One student (chosen by the School’s undergraduate student
organizations).
vi. One graduate student member (chosen by the School’s graduate
students).
2. The search
committee shall conduct an open search, in accordance with all applicable State
and Federal laws and University policies and guidelines. For
guidance regarding procedures and methods of deliberation, the committee will
consult Senate Procedures 802.1.1 pertaining to
the search procedures for College Deans. The committee will identify the
best-qualified individual. The Provost will make final selection of the new
School Dean. Approval of the Board of Control is also necessary if
the appointment includes tenure.
3. If the school has an Associate School Dean position, and in the
event of a vacancy in this position, the School Dean shall appoint an Associate
School Dean from the tenured/tenure-track members of the School
faculty. The School Dean’s choice for Associate School Dean must be
confirmed by a secret ballot of the voting members of the School (as defined in
the School’s Charter) within 60 days. In the event the faculty does
not confirm the Associate School Dean, a new Associate School Dean will be
chosen by the School Dean from the tenure-track members of the School faculty
and confirmed by another secret ballot vote.
4.
Appointment of Interim or Acting School Dean: When it is evident
that the School Dean will be unable to perform his/her duties for more than one
semester or a search for a School Dean has failed, the Provost will appoint an
Interim School Dean. If a search has failed, a new search will begin
at the earliest possible opportunity.
B. Evaluation of the School Dean and Associate School Dean
1. Every third year, the School Dean shall be evaluated to
determine whether he/she will be re-appointed. This evaluation will
be conducted by the School’s Promotion and Tenure Committee using
University-wide guidelines and concentrating on performance in the following
areas: 1) establishing objectives consistent with the School's mission and, 2)
meeting those stated objectives. Membership of the committee may be
augmented by faculty and staff from other colleges, schools, or universities as
is deemed necessary by the faculty and staff of the School in consultation with
the Provost. Students as well as members of the School’s Advisory
Board may also serve on the committee as is appropriate. The
evaluation process will include a written self evaluation by the School Dean,
survey of faculty and staff opinions of the School Dean’s performance of
his/her responsibilities, a summary of the faculty and staff comments and
opinions compiled by the Committee, and the School Dean’s response to their
report. The committee will hold a secret ballot vote of the School’s
members (as defined by the charter) to provide advice regarding the School
Dean’s reappointment. The Committee’s report, School Dean’s
response, and the results of the vote will be disseminated to all School faculty
and staff, and submitted to the Provost. A copy of the evaluation
shall be placed in the permanent records of the School. The Provost
should meet with the faculty and staff of the School to discuss the evaluation
results before action is taken on reappointment. The final decision
to reappoint or replace the School Dean is made by the University upper
administration as specified by MTU policies.
2. Every third year, the Associate School Dean position if it
exists in the school will also be evaluated to determine whether he/she will be
re-appointed. This evaluation will also be conducted by the School’s
Promotion and Tenure Committee using the guidelines adopted for University-wide
usage and concentrating on performance in the duties listed for the position in
the school’s charter. Membership of the Committee may be augmented
by faculty and staff from other colleges or departments as is deemed necessary
by the faculty and staff of the School in consultation with the School Dean.
Students may also serve on the committee as is appropriate to the evaluation
criteria. The evaluation process will include a written self
evaluation by the Associate School Dean, survey of faculty and staff opinions
of the Associate School Dean’s performance of his-her duties, a summary of the
faculty and staff comments and opinions compiled by the Committee, and the
Associate School Dean’s response to their report. A secret ballot of
the School tenure-track and research faculty will be conducted to solicit input
on whether the Associate School Dean should or should not be
re-appointed. The Committee’s report, Associate School Dean’s
response, and the results of the vote will be disseminated to all School
faculty and staff, and submitted to the School Dean. A copy of the
evaluation shall be placed in the permanent records of the
School. The School Dean will meet with the faculty and staff of the
School to discuss the evaluation results before action is taken on
reappointment. Final responsibility to retain or replace the Associate
School Dean rests with the School Dean and the School Dean’s decision to
reappoint the Associate School Dean must be confirmed by a simple majority vote
of the tenure-track and research faculty using a secret ballot.
3. Interim Survey of the School Dean and Associate
School Dean
In Once per interim year (i.e., years one or two), a survey of the
School Dean’s performance may also be done if any one of 1) the
Provost, 2) the School Dean, or 3) a majority of the
faculty and staff of the School (as defined in the School’s charter) request(s)
a special survey. The School Dean leadership skills shall be surveyed
using questions deemed appropriate by an interim evaluation committee (formed
as described below). These surveys are meant to provide the School Dean
with an opportunity to respond to any problems, real or imagined, early on in
their tenure and to demonstrate the ability to lead in a constructive and
inclusive manner. Interim surveys will be conducted by a committee
comprised of three persons, one faculty member appointed by the Provost, one
elected by the faculty, and one from the Professional staff. The purpose
of this committee will be to prepare an appropriate questionnaire (the Provost
can suggest questions), distribute this to interested parties, and compile the
results which will be presented to the School Dean for his/her use and to the
Provost. One departmental meeting for all involved parties shall be held at the
end to discuss the results whereupon all data should be destroyed with one
record being kept in the Provost's office.
4. Closure
The department’s
Senator or his/her designee must inform the Senate that the School’s evaluation
process has been concluded and offer any recommendations for changes in the
evaluation process the Evaluation Committee deems necessary. This
can be done during a Senate meeting or by email to the Senate office before the
date of the last Senate meeting for the year in question.
II. Search Procedure
for and Evaluation of Department Chairs
A. Searching for
Department Chairs
1. The Department Charter shall specify who is eligible to vote
at all stages of the search process.
2. Procedure for
Determination as to Internal or External Open Search: When a new Chair must be selected, the Dean of the College
will visit the department and discuss whether the search will be open or
restricted only to internal candidates. They will also discuss if
the search should be marketed on a national or international level.
Following this meeting, the department's search committee (as described in
section II.A.3)
will hold a vote by secret ballot to gauge faculty opinion (consisting of
yes/no to "Are you in favor of an open
search"). The committee will communicate the result of the vote to
the Dean. The College Dean will consider the will of the faculty, and
after consultation with the Provost, will determine if the search will be an
internal only or open, nation-wide; or
open, international search. Both international external candidates and current Michigan Tech faculty are
encouraged to apply for any open search, since the distinction is made here
only in reference to publication and marketing of the search.
3. Search Committee: The Search Committee for the Chair will be elected
through a secret ballot organized by the Senator of the department and one
other faculty member selected by the department’s faculty. The number of members on the
Search Committee will depend on the number of faculty in a department.
Departments with twelve members or fewer will have a committee of at least
three members. Departments consisting of more than twelve faculty members
will have a committee of at least four faculty members. In each case,
one additional person from outside of the department will be appointed by the
College dean. If the department has
professional staff, one staff member should be elected by the staff to be on
the committee. The chair of the search committee will be elected by the
committee at its first meeting. At least one person on the search committee has
received training in recruiting strategies to improve diversity and on the
legal aspects of faculty hiring. At the first convening of the
Search Committee, a representative from Human Resources will be invited to
review appropriate hiring procedures. Following this consultation
and review, the committee will determine the process for evaluating and voting
upon candidates after they visit campus. The procedures must comply
with Human Resources policy that promotes best practices ensuring equal
opportunity to all interviewed candidates. No committee member can be
under consideration as a candidate.
4. Search
Procedure: The Search Committee, with input from the present Chair,
the Dean, and the Affirmative Action Officer, will produce the first draft of
the position description and position advertisement. The
Search Committee will complete the Request for Posting Memo and send it to the
Human Resources Office. The Committee is responsible for ensuring
that the search conforms to current legal requirements, and for maintaining the
applicant flow log. Applications for the position are made to the
Chair of the Search Committee. Departmental faculty may nominate
candidates. In the case of an open search, the position will be advertised
in appropriate professional journals, and faculty should distribute position
descriptions to their professional colleagues.
5. Short List of Candidates: The Search
Committee will review the applications to produce a short list of
candidates. These candidates will be invited for an
interview. For each candidate who
accepts the interview invitation, the committee should attempt to obtain
independent assessments from referees not listed by the candidates and should
solicit faculty help in identifying these referees. If the search is
only internal, all applicants will be on the short list of
candidates. The committee is expected to obtain faculty input during
the screening process. No committee member can be under consideration as
a candidate.
6. Candidate Interviews: The
application materials of each candidate on the short list will be available to
all departmental faculty and staff. The letters of recommendation
will be accessible to members of the department, but the letters cannot be
copied. The candidates will be informed of this requirement, and
will be furnished with copies of the position description, departmental
charter, statements of departmental goals, and recent annual departmental
report.
While each candidate is on campus, the Search Committee will make
arrangements for each individual to make two presentations:
1. A technical presentation in his/her field of
specialization that includes trends, directions and opportunities for research
in the field. (In the case of an internal search, this presentation
can be waived.)
2. A presentation that may include, but is not limited
to the following issues: the candidate’s administrative philosophy and plans
for meeting short and long term goals; The direction of undergraduate and
graduate education in the department; Resources needed to attain the goals.
The Search Committee will arrange the candidate’s schedule and set
up appointments with appropriate administrators and other persons outside of
the department (Dean, VP for Research, Provost, other department chairs if
overlapping research interest).
7. Selection of
Chair: After the candidates have completed their interviews, the Search
Committee will arrange a meeting of faculty and staff to discuss the
candidates. The Search Committee will solicit the opinions of
graduates and undergraduate students. The Search Committee will
conduct a vote by secret ballot to determine if the candidates are acceptable
or unacceptable to serve as Department Chair. The staff vote takes
place first, and will be advisory to the faculty vote. The search
committee will tabulate the votes and take these actions according to the
results:
a. If only one candidate
receives a 2/3 vote of “acceptable,” the committee forwards that candidate’s
name to the Dean.
b. If two or more candidates
receive 2/3 votes of “acceptable,” the committee forwards the names of all
those so considered to the Dean for consideration.
c. If no candidate receives a
2/3 “acceptable” votes, but one or more candidates received 1/2 or more
“acceptable” votes, the committee will advance those names to the Dean for
consideration.
d. If no individual candidate
receives more than 1/2 (50%) of the department’s “acceptable” votes, the
committee will inform the Dean that the search has failed.
7. Selection of Chair: After the candidates have
completed their interviews, the Search Committee will arrange a meeting of
faculty and staff to discuss the candidates. The Search Committee
will solicit the opinions of graduates and undergraduate students. The
Search Committee will conduct a vote by secret ballot to determine if the
candidates are acceptable or unacceptable to serve as Department
Chair. The staff vote takes place first, and will be advisory to the
faculty vote. The search committee will tabulate the votes. The search
committee will prepare recommendations based on ballot results and strength and
weaknesses of the acceptable candidates and meets with the Dean to discuss the
recommendations. No candidate will be deemed acceptable for department chair
who does not obtain a majority vote of the faculty. The Dean has the final
responsibility for making the appointment subject to the approval of the
Provost and President.
8. Failed Search: If the Department finds no
acceptable candidates following the interviews or the Dean is unable to hire a
chair from the list of finalists advanced by the Search Committee, the search
is considered to have failed. The Dean will appoint an Interim Chair
as provided by II.A.69.
9.
Appointment of Interim or Acting Chairs: When
it is evident that the Department Chair will be unable to perform his/her
duties for more than one semester or a search for Chair search has failed, the Dean
will appoint an Interim Chair. Interim Chairs serving more than two
years must be evaluated as detailed in Section B. If a search has
failed, a new search will begin at the earliest possible opportunity.
An Interim Chair is
different from an “Acting Chair” or someone serving as “Next In
Charge.” If a Department Chair expects to be absent from campus or
otherwise unable to perform his or her duties for a period of time, they
appoint another individual to serve as “Next In
Charge.” For somewhat longer absences, they can appoint someone as
Acting Chair. “Next In Charge” appointments are intended only for
very brief periods, generally lasting a few days. A serving Chair
can appoint an Acting Chair to cover medium-term absences lasting up to one
semester. If a Chairs that must will be absent for more than one
semester, he or she should step down and allow the Dean to appoint an Interim
Chair
B. Evaluation and Reappointment of Chairs
1. The Department Charter shall specify
who is eligible to participate in the evaluation process as well as the
structure and selection of the Evaluation Committee for their Chair. The
Evaluation Committee will not include the current chair or any faculty member
that has a conflict of interest regarding the current chair’s evaluation.
Written guidelines on these types of conflict-of-interest situations may not be
in the MTU faculty handbook or in the Board of Control Bylaws and Policies.
2. Frequency
of Evaluation: The term of appointment for the Chair is three years and the
Chair’s performance will be assessed by means of a survey (conducted in the second year of the first
term only) and reviews. The survey need to be conducted so as to
provide timely feedback to the Chair so they can adjust policy or practice
before their in-depth review for reappointment. in their third year.
Reappointment
reviews take place in the third year of the first term and then in the second
year of the consecutive appointments to allow for a search in the third year if
the evaluation indicates waning support. A search will normally be conducted if
the support is less than 50% of the voting constituency.
The evaluation process also may be initiated by the Dean
or by the faculty (by a simple majority vote) at any time earlier, but not more
than once a year.
At any point in the evaluation process, the Chair may
decide not to seek reappointment. In this case, the evaluation process ends and
all written and electronically stored material related to the evaluation
process will be destroyed.
Departments may use their discretion regarding the depth and
rigor of each evaluation, but must conduct a survey in the Chair’s second year
followed by a review during their third year (if the Chair is standing for
reappointment to a second term), followed by a survey in the fifth year
(irrespective of if the Chair is standing for reappointment to a third term).
There is no evaluation procedure (survey or review) conducted in the 6th
year and this cycle of evaluations starts anew if a Chair is appointed for a
third successive term.
A mandatory reappointment vote by faculty and staff will occur
in the third year. If a 2/3 majority or greater of the Department’s eligible
members vote to reappoint the Chair then that individual’s name will be
automatically forwarded to the College Dean, the Provost and the President for
a decision. If a simple majority, but less than 2/3 of the Department, vote to
reappoint, then the College Dean will decide whether to reappoint or conduct an
external or internal search for a new Chair. If a serving Chair does not
receive at least 50% of the vote to reappoint during their third year review,
the Dean will open a search as defined by II.A.
In addition, if as a result of any 2nd year or 5th
year survey, the Evaluation Committee determines that a majority of the
Department faculty do not support the serving Chair, they may move for their
department to hold a reappointment vote according to Section II.B.8.
After the serving chair’s second term, there will be a mandatory
search (either open or internal decided as detailed in Section II.A). The
Chair is allowed to run along with other candidates. During consultation with the Department, if
the Dean finds that the current chair is willing to serve a third term and that
no individual in the Department wishes to be considered for the Chair’s
position, he or she may simply reappoint the Chair. If any individual in the Department wishes to
be considered for the chair’s position, however, the Dean will initiate a
search (at least one at the internal-level).
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|||
3. Self Evaluation by the Department
Chair: During an extensive a 3rd year a mandatory
reappointment review toward the end of a three year term, the Chair will prepare a written
report that is distributed to all faculty and staff of the department. This
report should include but need not be limited to:
A. Achievement of the department goals for the period of evaluation.
B. Budget and its management.
C. Growth and quality of academic programs.
D. Future needs and directions of the department/school.
E. The charge given to the Chair or any goal of the department that the
Chair thinks is controversial in the department and the effort the Chair has
made to address the controversy.
The distribution of this report will be followed by a meeting of all
members of the department. The purpose of this meeting will be for the Chair to
answer questions and provide clarification about the report.
4. Evaluation Procedures:
Department Evaluation Committee will create a survey questionnaire with which
their members can evaluate the Chair’s performance. The Department’s Evaluation Committee will
determine the format and method of the questionnaire. Each College Dean’s
office will keep sample questionnaires on file to help Department Committees
prepare their own survey instrument. The Senate office also has a listing of suggested questions.
Once prepared, questionnaires will be sent to all faculty and staff of
the department. Evaluation committees
should use the Senate’s standard balloting procedures (given below). The
faculty and staff will be given one week to return the completed form to the
Evaluation Committee.
5. Processing of Questionnaire Results:
The Evaluation Committee will tabulate and analyze the results. The committee
will be sensitive to the interests and concerns of various members of the unit
while preparing, conducting, and tabulating the results of the survey
(including tenured/tenure-track faculty, lecturers, staff, “professors of
practice,” research engineer/scientists, administrators) within the department.
The committee will synthesize comments from open-ended questions and prepare
summary statements of the major accomplishments and problem areas of the Chair
over the period of evaluation. The
committee will comment on progress in previously identified problem areas.
Results of the previous evaluation may be obtained from the College Dean.
6. Chair's Response: The Evaluation
Committee will give the Chair a copy of the survey results, which may include
tabulated results, syntheses of the open-ended questions, and summary
statements. The Chair will be asked if
he/she would like to respond to the report before it is presented to members of
the department. If the Chair decides not
to seek reappointment, then the process is terminated, and the members of the
department will be informed of the Chair's decision. All material, including
digital media, related to the evaluation process will be destroyed.
7. Dissemination of Questionnaire
Results: The evaluation committee will prepare a report, including the
tabulated results, syntheses of open-ended questions, any summary statements
prepared by the committee, and (if provided) the response of the Chair. The
Evaluation Committee will arrange a closed departmental meeting at which they
will circulate this report to all faculty and staff in the department. Copies of the documents will not be taken
outside the meeting room. All but two
copies of the documents will be destroyed after the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is the
dissemination of evaluation material only, and not for additional discussion of
the Chair's performance.
One copy of the report will be kept in the office of the College Dean.
Any member of the department may see the evaluation material at any time
during the reappointment process at the office of the College Dean. The second
copy will be used in the file described in item 9.
8. Balloting: A vote on the
question below will be conducted using the Senate standard balloting procedures
(found here). The ballot will be sent only to the members of the senate
constituency in the department and tabulated by the Evaluating Committee.
(Name of Chair) should be reappointed or continue as the Chair of the
Department
Yes _____________________ No ___________________ No Opinion_________________
All the faculty and staff of the department will be informed of the ballot
results by the Evaluation Committee.
9. Implementation of Evaluation Results:
A file containing the self evaluation of the Chair, the original completed
questionnaires, the tabulated results of the questionnaire, the synthesis of
open-ended questions, the summary statements of the committee, the response of
the Chair, and the results of the ballot will be forwarded to the College Dean,
the Provost, and the President who will make the final decision on
reappointment.
When the administration decides contrary to a 2/3 majority vote, the
College Dean or the Provost will provide written explanation of the reasons for
that decision to the members of the department.
10. Report by College Dean: When a
Chair is reappointed or denied reappointment the direct supervisor of the Chair
must prepare a written statement on the strengths and weaknesses of the Chair,
including but not limited to the following areas:
a. Guidance and management of the quality and growth of the academic
programs within the department.
b. Guidance and support of research activities within the department.
c. Practice of sound financial management within the department.
d. Management and guidance of personnel within the department.
e. Definition of goals within the department and progress of the
department toward these established goals.
The report is distributed to all members of the department and a meeting
with the College Dean is held to answer questions and to provide
clarifications.
11. Storage of Reports: The
self-evaluation report of the Chair, the report of the College Dean, the
tabulated results, the synthesis of open-ended questions, the summary
statements of the committee, and the ballot results will be kept in the office
of the College Dean, and will be supplied to the next Evaluation Committee. The
above documents including digital information (emails, downloaded files, etc.)
will be destroyed once the Chair leaves the position.
12. Closure: The department’s
Senator or his/her designee must inform the Senate that the evaluation process
has been concluded and offer any recommendations for changes in the evaluation
process the Evaluation Committee deems necessary. This can be done during a Senate meeting or
by email to the Senate office before the date of the last Senate meeting for
the year in question.
Secret ballots will be conducted using a double envelope process. The marked ballot will be placed into a small
sealed envelope. This envelope must be
sealed into a larger envelope, which must be signed by the voter across the
flap. The Committee (Promotion and
Tenure in the case of a School or the Search or Evaluation Committee in the
case of a Chair) must be present when the votes are separated from the large
outer envelope by the School Dean’s or Chair’s Administrative Associate. The School Dean’s or Chair’s Administrative
Associate also will record the names of the voters. Finally, the School Dean’s or Chair’s
Administrative Associate will mix the smaller envelopes and give them to the
appropriate Committee for vote counting.
The department or school can decide if the counting is conducted with a
quorum of faculty members present or if the committee can count the votes.
D. Confidentiality
Instructions for the Chairperson of the Committee: It is
the responsibility of the Chairperson of the Recruitment/Hiring Committee to
read the following statement regarding confidentiality to the entire committee
at the beginning of the process before the committee discusses criteria, drafts
interview questions, reviews applications and/or resumes or begins any
work. A form published by San Jose State
University at: http://www.sjsu.edu/hr/docs/wfp/forms/confidentiality.pdf
is suitable for this purpose.
|
STATEMENT |
|
All information learned
from any recruitment document or during interviews is privileged. The information is not for public
disclosure. In the eyes of the law,
each committee member is viewed as an agent of the university. During the selection process, it is
important that we do not create a liability for the university or for
ourselves as individuals. Members who
disclose privileged information run the risk of involving themselves and/or
the university in a lawsuit involving a tort action. Examples are the tort of defamation, which
is committed when an individual communicates false, injurious information
about another; and tortious invasion of privacy,
which includes placing another in a false light in the public eye or public
disclosure of private facts. In any
lawsuit it is possible for an individual to be named as a defendant as well
as the university. An appropriate response
to questions from individual applicants or the public about any aspect of the
selection process should be: Selection is a confidential process and
therefore I am unable to respond to your question. The recruitment process is treated with
confidentiality, so it would be inappropriate for me to answer your question or that of any other
applicant. If the person inquiring
is not satisfied with your response, please ask them to refer the question to
Workforce Planning in the Human Resources. |
|
COMMITTEE MEMBER SIGNATURES |
||
|
I confirm that the Confidentiality Statement has been read to
me and that I understand it and agree to abide by the provisions and
requirements of the statement. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
Print Name |
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
Print Name |
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
Print Name |
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
Print Name |
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
Print Name |
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
Print Name |
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
Print Name |
Date |
Introduced
to Senate: 10 November 2010
Revised
and reintroduced: 23 November 2010
Senate
Returned to Committee: 08 December 2010
Revised
and reintroduced to Senate: 19 January 2011
Edited
(in red) at Senate Meeting: 19 January 2011
Editorial changes (highlighted in blue):
2 February 2011
Adopted by Senate: 02 February 2011
Amended by Administration (in green): 11 March 2011
Amendments Adopted by Senate: 23 March
2011
Editorial Change (in gray): 15 January 2013