Section 6.6

PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING AND EVALUATING JOINT APPOINTMENTS IN THE COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS/SCHOOLS AND INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS

Establishment of Joint Appointments

  • A "joint appointment" is understood to refer here to the sharing of a faculty member's services between a department or school ("unit of appointment") and an interdisciplinary program ("unit of assignment").
  • Demonstration of a need for a joint appointment and an interdisciplinary curricular commitment by both units must accompany any joint appointment request.
  • Two types of joint appointments may be made. Regular joint appointments are made when a faculty member will be rendering distinct and substantial service to each unit on a permanent basis. Term joint appointments are made when a faculty member will be rendering distinct and substantial service to each unit for a specific period of time. Term appointments are renewable.
  • The percentage of service to be rendered to each academic unit and the duration of the appointment will be specified on all initial statements of joint appointments and will be signed by the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, the director of the appropriate interdisciplinary program and the chair/director of the department/school within which the faculty appointment resides. The annual contracts will specify the percentage of the assignments.

Evaluation of Joint Appointments

Section B-I.D.3 of the  Academic Charter states:

"When a faculty member holds an interunit assignment, an appropriate evaluation by the unit in which the assignment is held shall be submitted to the academic unit in which the faculty member holds an appointment."

The Academic Charter makes it clear that faculty on interunit or joint appointments are to be evaluated by appropriate groups within each unit. In accordance with the Charter, the following guidelines are established for determining hiring, reappointment, promotion, tenure, and merit.

At each stage of the hiring, reappointment, promotion, and tenure process, the department of appointment must consider formal evaluative information prepared by the appropriate advisory committee of the interdisciplinary program. Evaluative information must be weighed proportionally to the percentage of commitment the faculty member has to each academic unit at the time the evaluation takes place.

When a portion of a tenure-track appointment has been assigned to an interdisciplinary program, the program's advisory committee will assume the functions of a departmental personnel committee for:

 

1.

The Annual 1 Review For Reappointment. In accordance with collegiate policy, the probationer is responsible for providing a current vita and other pertinent material for faculty review. The program director, or if the appointment under review is the program director, the chair of the advisory committee or his/her designate, will prepare a written assessment of the probationer's strengths and weaknesses in the areas of teaching, research, and service. The assessment will be based on accumulated materials and may be developed in a manner at the discretion of the interdisciplinary committee.

 

 

 

The assessment prepared by the advisory committee will be forwarded to the Chair/Director of the unit of appointment. The department/school will then apply the reappointment policy it has in place with the addition that it will use the assessment presented by the interdisciplinary advisory committee as part of the accumulated record to be presented to the tenured faculty in the department. The tenured faculty of the department/school will be given the opportunity to vote on the reappointment of the probationer in accordance with established policy (seeAnnual Review Policy for Tenure Track Faculty). The Chair/Director will prepare a letter for the probationer summarizing the strengths and weaknesses as identified by faculty in both groups and will specify the vote of the tenured faculty in the department where applicable. The probationer will be invited to discuss the evaluation with the department/school Chair/Director. A copy of the final evaluation will be forwarded to the interdisciplinary advisory committee, which will in turn discuss the reappointment recommendation with the probationer.

 

 

 

2.

Annual Progress Toward Tenure Review. By March 31 of each year, the Chair/Director of the tenuring unit will submit an assessment of the probationer's progress toward tenure. The College-prescribed review process will be followed (see Annual Review Policy for Tenure Track Faculty). The final evaluation will be completed following consultation with the program director (if program director is not the probationer) and/or the Program Advisory Committee. The probationer will sign the review acknowledging receipt of the joint appointment evaluation. The final statement will be communicated in writing to the probationer, Advisory Committee, Dean, and Provost.

 

 

 

3.

Annual Evaluation of Merit. All faculty members in the College of Arts and Sciences are expected to complete an annual faculty record update. In the case where faculty members hold joint appointments, the department/school will determine the merit award based on the percentage of merit dollars allocated to the unit for the joint appointee. Merit recommendations for the portion of the joint appointment dedicated to the interdisciplinary program will be determined by the program director (if program director is not the faculty member under review) and/or advisory committee and submitted to the College Office. The portion of the merit money generated by the percentage of the appointee's contract assigned to the interdisciplinary program will be held in the College Office.

 

 

 

4.

Evaluation of Faculty for Tenure. Tenure on the faculty of BGSU may be attained by faculty members on a probationary appointment [  Charter (B-I.D.2.b)]. The probationary period is provided as a trial-employment period to permit members of an academic unit to determine whether an appointment leading to tenure should continue. Thus, careful evaluation of the performance of each probationary faculty member on a joint appointment is of fundamental importance in order both to protect the rights of the probationer and to maintain or enhance the quality of the University and its interdisciplinary programs.

 

 

 

 

The candidate for tenure who has adhered to professional standards of ethics, is to be granted or denied tenure solely on the basis of exactly the same criteria as applied to all probationary faculty and specified in section B-I.D of the Charter and the particular criteria which has been developed and approved for the tenuring unit and interdisciplinary program. These criteria include teaching effectiveness, scholarly or creative work, service to the University, and attainment of the terminal degree or its professional equivalent. All such statements of criteria have been approved by the appropriate tenured faculties and must be given to the probationary faculty members affected upon hire. The documents are also available in the Dean's office. The responsibility for establishing evaluation procedures and for conducting the annual evaluations of probationary faculty members lies with the tenured faculty of the academic units to which the joint appointee is assigned and the Chair and Director involved in each case (see Annual Review Policy for Tenure Track Faculty). Participation by tenured faculty members in both groups is essential in order that the probationer develop a sense of the evaluative judgments of colleagues as well as those of the Chair and Director.

 

 

 

A probationer in the next to last year of probationary appointment shall be evaluated by the tenured faculty of the academic unit of appointment for the purpose of determining the recommendation for tenure. In the case where a probationer is a joint appointee, the Dean of the College will broaden the assessment base by appointing, in consultation with tenured members of the unit's faculty [  Charter B-I.Db(2)] and of the Advisory Committee of the unit of assignment, up to two tenured faculty members from the Advisory Committee of the Interdisciplinary program to which the probationer is assigned. In all cases, appointments shall be made so as to maintain, as much as possible, discipline integrity.

 

 

 

An affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all tenured faculty of the broadened base shall be required to recommend that tenure be granted. Faculty from outside the department who are appointed by the Dean to broaden the assessment base shall be included in the vote.

 

 

 

Tenured faculty have the responsibility to vote in tenure decisions; an abstention or failure to vote has the same effect as a negative vote. A recommendation that tenure be granted shall be forwarded by the Chair or Director to the Dean, who may concur or not after viewing the recommendation of the appropriate faculty Advisory Committees. If the recommendation is approved at the college level, it shall be forwarded to the Provost. Responsibility for recommending tenure to the President and Board of Trustees lies with the Provost.

 

 

 

In the event that a probationary joint appointment is not renewed prior to acquisition of tenure, the University shall give written notice of its intention not to reemploy the affected faculty member in accord with the policies specified in the Charter. A probationer who wishes to appeal an adverse decision on the basis of alleged violation of academic freedom, discrimination, inadequate or inequitable consideration of professional competence, or failure to observe due process in decisions at the department, school, program, college or higher administrative level (including failure to meet Charter provisions for evaluation of probationary faculty or other failure to meet formal professional commitments), will be accorded a review on request employing the informal collegiate 'grievance' process and/or the Grievance Arbitration Procedure as set forth in the Charter.

 

 

 

5.

Evaluation for Promotion. Evaluation of a joint appointee for possible promotion shall consist of a complete review of the faculty member's instructional, research, and service activity. The review and recommendation shall be carried out by the faculty of the department/school and its Chair or Director. Up to two members of the program's advisory committee, with the consent of the faculty of the academic unit of appointment and its Chair/Director, will serve as a voting members of the personnel committee of that unit. This is to ensure that adequate and equitable consideration is given to the professional competence of the joint appointee as mandated by the Charter.

 

 

 

Joint appointees will use the established unit and program criteria as the basis for promotion. Whatever criteria are established have been determined to be equitable and appropriate and not in conflict with Charter-prescribed criteria for academic ranks. Copies of all statements of evaluation procedures, criteria, and equivalencies must be maintained in appropriate administrative offices and made available to the joint appointee.

 

 

Notes:

  • The procedures outlined above are consistent with the  Charter (B-I.D.3), which states that the formulation of procedures for evaluation related to merit, promotion, and tenure of faculty on joint appointments is the responsibility of the appropriate academic units, their Chairs and Directors, and the Dean. The execution of these procedures is the joint responsibility of the appropriate faculties, Chairs and Directors, Dean, and the Provost.
  • Differences in the evaluation recommendations of the two academic units involved in joint appointments will be addressed by the Dean. A meeting of appropriate groups from the two units will be held in an attempt to reach a consensus.
  • Conditions of appointment and performance expectations of a joint appointee are to be established with the initiation of the appointment.
  • The policy does not preclude or address courtesy titles/appointments which are customarily made by the Dean.

  1 Applicable to those hired before 1997. Those on multiple year contracts will be reviewed for reappointment during the last year of their initial contract.

10/99