Tenure and Promotion

The Composition of TPCs was discussed. There was a suggestion to consider adding externals from other departments or moving it to a faculty level committee, which may be considered at a later date as we require stability right now in the tenure process. There are conflict of interest provisions in the CA. Conflict of interest is defined to be circumstances that may make it difficult for a committee member to render an unbiased judgement on the candidate’s application. The candidate may request that a committee member be removed for conflict of interest (Article 9.5.3.3). The request must be made to the Dean before the TPC begins considering the application.

 

Some faculty consider the mid-term tenure evaluation an opportunity to terminate employment: this is not the intent of the mid-term tenure evaluation. There is nothing in the CA about termination specifically as a result of the mid-term review.

 

The difference between the tops of the Associate and Professor grids is over $30,000, but you don’t go to the top of the Professor grid immediately upon promotion. You get a step when you are promoted and then your annual step, so that is a 6.6% increase for somebody who had been at the top of the Associate grid (and 3.3% if not).

 

 


 

 

Notes from Meetings

 

Q: I am concerned with TPCs consisting of only members of the department. Sometimes we know each other too well, particularly in considering applications for promotion to Professor. I know of two universities with non-departmental TPCs.

A: The tenure system took over two years to develop fully and we need stability now, so I think changes like this should only be considered for the medium term. I think the two options for change would be to add one or more externals from other departments (which we probably could do quickly), as on selection committees, or move it up to a Faculty-level committee.

During discussion later we heard that the first member to receive tenure on Tenure System II last year (after receiving two years of credit towards the probationary period upon appointment) had no disciplinary experts on her TPC and it worked well. There are clear standards and the candidate has to make the case. It is not likely that a member from outside the discipline would try to weight papers based on the journal published in, as members in the discipline sometimes do. They are also less likely to raise issues of collegiality. Nevertheless, there is a clear process in the CA for tenured members, whether on the TPC or not, to enter evidence that is not in the dossier. And the UTPC has developed Form 507 for this purpose. Extraneous points are sometimes raised during discussion, but the chair of the TPC should rule them out of order.

Issue: The mid-term tenure evaluation is a major review and there are some in our Faculty who view it as an opportunity to terminate the member’s employment if they think it hasn’t worked out.

A: That is not the intent of the mid-term tenure evaluation. There is nothing in the CA about termination specifically as a result of the mid-term review [although Article 4.12 contains provisions for the employee’s appointment to be terminated during the probationary period by either the Board or by the employee or by mutual consent] and there is no requirement to be reappointed [as is the case in some university collective agreements]. The intent of the CA is that the mid-term review be a comprehensive review of performance during the first three years and that, if the tenurable employee is judged not to be on track to meeting the criteria for the granting of tenure, then the Dean, in consultation with the Chair, develops a performance plan which clearly describes what needs to be done in order to be granted tenure.

Q: When we made the decision to become a university and added rank to the CA, there were no salary differences at first, but now we have 16 full professors and they have each received a $30,000 raise. Where did the money come from?

A: The difference between the tops of the Associate and Professor grids is over $30,000, but you don’t go to the top of the Professor grid immediately upon promotion. You get a step when you are promoted and then your annual step, so that is a 6.6% increase for somebody who had been at the top of the Associate grid (and 3.3% if not).

Richard Roberts, the former Vice President of Administrative Services, assured us that the new grids were affordable, based on the increases in the operating grant that the government had promised for the third and fourth years of the degrees. But the government reneged on that commitment when it got into financial difficulty. The amount that we did not get represents a 20% increase in our operating grant. Intake quotas were reduced to keep the number of students at the same level [this will not be the case until 2013-2014], but bridge funding was received for the bulge of students moving through the degrees.

Gerry was on the Negotiating Committee when we starting preparing for the transition to a university and none of us personally supported rank. But the members of the negotiating committee must represent the wishes of the membership, not their own. We worked very hard to get a high response rank on the negotiations survey which asked about rank, and achieved about a 70% response. A majority of the membership wanted rank and different grids for the ranks, so that is what we negotiated.

Q: Does a candidate have any control over the composition of the TPC?

A: There are conflict of interest provisions in the CA. Conflict of interest is defined to be circumstances that may make it difficult for a committee member to render an unbiased judgement on the candidate’s application. The candidate may request that a committee member be removed for conflict of interest (Article 9.5.3.3). The request must be made to the Dean before the TPC begins considering the application.

 

 

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system

Syndicate

Syndicate content