COE Bylaws - Appendices

Appendices

A: COE Goals

B: Standing Committees

C: Categories of Faculty

D: Guidelines for Requesting a Peer Review

E: Merit Process

F: Procedure for Identifying and Correcting Salary Inequities

G: Promotion and Tenure Guidelines

H: Procedure for Securing Evaluations for External Referees

APPENDIX A: COE Goals

Performance Goals: Engage in professionally significant research and scholarship

Publication of peer-reviewed scholarly articles in refereed journals
Publication of peer-reviewed books, chapters in books, and monographs
Extramurally funded research grants and contracts
Juried conference presentations of extant research
Selection of unit and faculty for honors and awards

Contribute to the production of professionals for educational contexts

Matriculate and complete candidates in licensure programs
Produce a significant corpus of graduate professionals
Demonstrate professional excellence of graduates

Develop and improve stakeholder and constituent initiatives

Collaborate with Clark County and other Nevada school districts
Establish continuing solutions to professional challenges
Partner with relevant public stakeholder entities
Garner public attention for programmatic achievements

Establish the unit as a recognized moderator of critical topics in education

Editorships, lectureships, and convening academic meetings
Housing professional secretariats
Election of faculty to professional leadership positions
Interactive web-portal interfacing educational communities

Expand our programs and offerings to new populations and global markets

Expand modes of programmatic delivery
Formalize international program agreements
Evidence diversity of offerings, personnel, and students

APPENDIX C: CATEGORIES OF FACULTY

Academic Faculty. Authorized positions in the college and departments who are engaged in teaching and research and those persons specifically identified by the president of their need for the protection of academic freedom.

Tenured Academic Faculty. “Tenured Academic Faculty” refers to members of the academic faculty who have been awarded tenure at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Non-Tenured Academic Faculty. “Non-Tenured Academic Faculty.” means members of the academic faculty who are in a tenure-track position but who have not completed their probationary period.

Nonacademic Faculty. Authorized professional positions (e.g. Professional Staff) in the units listed under Chapter 1, Section 3.2 of UNLV Bylaws. Faculty of special units shall not be eligible for appointment with, nor shall have tenure. (NSHE Code Chap. 5, section 5.2.5)

Non-Tenure Track Faculty. “Non-Tenure Track Faculty” refers to members of the faculty who are not eligible to receive appointment with tenure. (e.g. Faculty-in-Residence, visiting faculty)

Emeritus Faculty. The title “professor emeritus” must be approved through regular administrative channels and is reserved as an honorary title for a professor who enters retirement with the respect and admiration of colleagues. (UNLV Bylaws Chap. III Section 1 8.3)

Faculty-In_Residence (FIR). FIR refers to members of the academic faculty that are eligible for promotion but not eligible for tenure.

For other categories of faculty, refer to Chapter 3, Section 18.4 of the UNLV Bylaws.

APPENDIX D: GUIDELINES FOR REQUESTING A PEER REVIEW

1. The peer review procedure is not automatic; rather it becomes operative only after the Dean and chairperson of the peer review committee receives a written request from the faculty member. The contesting faculty member has fifteen (15) calendar days from the date s/he signs the Annual Evaluation Report to submit the peer review request.

2. Upon receipt of the faculty member’s request, the Chairperson of the Peer Evaluation Committee (PRC) will organize the PRC within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of a request for a peer review.

3. Members of the PRC will be provided with copies of the faculty member’s self-report, the faculty member’s written request for an appeal, and any other relevant documentation used during the evaluation process.

4. The PRC will meet within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date the request was made to the Chair of the PRC by the faculty member.

5. The Committee shall conduct an Annual Evaluation and submit its written evaluation report in harmony with its purpose as stated in the UNLV Bylaws, Chapter III, Section 8.3 to the Dean and Executive Vice President and Provost. The committee should strive to file a report within ten (10) working days from the date of receiving its charge but no later than the end of the B-contract period. Both the department chair and the faculty member will receive copies of the peer evaluation report and a copy will be placed in the master personnel file of the faculty member. The appropriate Vice President or Executive Vice President and Provost shall make the final decision on the evaluation to be issued to the faculty member for the year.

6. The proceedings of the Peer Review Committee will be confidential. The peer review will not be distributed beyond those individuals named above and university officers in regular administrative channels.

APPENDIX E: MERIT PROCESS

Merit in the College of Education will be based on exceptional achievement in the three areas of academe (e.g., teaching, service, scholarship) with equal weight given to each area. Merit awards in the College of Education are based on the recognition that faculty have continuing responsibilities in all three areas and that merit is reserved for exceptional achievement, not simply meeting minimal job requirements.

All College of Education faculty (clinical, tenure-track, tenured, newly-hired faculty, and faculty on leave or sabbatical) are eligible to apply for merit regardless of the length of time they have been employed by UNLV. The award of merit shall require a specific application and an evaluation process separate from annual or other evaluations made of faculty. Unit administrators, including chairs, directors, associate deans, and assistant deans , must file applications through the faculty process to receive merit awards for teaching, research and non-administrative service. [10.2. l All faculty, including unit administrators, will use the adopted COE merit application form and will be reviewed using the adopted COE merit process. Merit will be based on a calendar year and may include accomplishments while working at another institution or as a doctoral student. Appropriate documentation must be provided when applying for merit.

Faculty has the right to grieve a merit decision. See UNLV Bylaws for information pertaining to requests for merit reconsideration including channels and procedures for grievance beyond the College.

Minimum Standard A minimum standard must be met in each of the three areas of academic performance described by the UNLV and COE Bylaws (teaching, service, & scholarship) for a faculty member to be considered for merit.

Teaching: A minimum of one (1) course, or the equivalent, taught during calendar year (summers excluded, 3 hrs. on campus) will be required. An average student rating of 3.0 (of 5.0) on a uniform COE evaluation form (average of averages) will be required.

Service: A minimum of two (2) service contributions to the department, college, university, community, or profession will be required. At least one of the two service contributions must be performed for the department, college, or university.

Scholarship: A minimum of one from the following list with publication / presentation date within the calendar year under review will be required. No credit will be given for letters of acceptance or in-progress work. (“In press” publications will be accepted only under circumstances in which a publication is late in the physical printing of an issue. Evidence of “in press” must include a letter from the publisher indicating volume and issue numbers for publication that is in press for the calendar year under review.) Under no circumstances shall faculty “count” the same publication in more than one merit year. (Minimum of one from the following list.)

peer-reviewed publication (regional, national or international journal)
peer-reviewed presentation (regional, national or international conference)
competitive grant awarded (travel awards excluded)
book, book chapter, or monograph
article in an editor-reviewed professional publication
initial publication or significant distribution of curriculum materials, media, software, etc.

Department Committee

A department committee will consist of either (a) three elected department faculty members or (b) two elected department faculty members and the chair of the department. Should the department choose method (b), to include the department chair, then procedures outlined in UNLV Bylaws Chapter 3, Section 6.1 must be followed.

Following the election of the department committee members, one of the elected department committee members will be selected by the department to serve as department representative to the college committee. Clinical, tenure-track, and tenured faculty are eligible for election to the department committee. The department committee will undertake three roles in the merit review process.

The department committee will determine if each merit applicant has met the minimum standard for merit.
The department committee will rank order (in each of the three areas of teaching, service, and scholarship) those applicants who are found to meet the minimum standards. Such standards shall take into account the variations in assigned workload present in the college. [10.2.21 No faculty member may be present during the presentation or ranking of his or her application for an award of merit. [10.2.31
The department committee will forward the three ranked lists to the college committee and chairs.

Feedback to faculty regarding merit ranking in the department will be included as part of the department chair’s annual evaluation process with each faculty member.

College Committee

The college committee will consist of a representative from each department. A committee chair will be appointed by the COE Dean from the elected members. The college committee will undertake two roles in the merit review process.

The college committee will rank order merit applicants in the college using the following process:
1. Using the rank-ordered lists from each department the COE committee will select the top-ranked COE faculty member (in each of the three areas of teaching, service, and scholarship) by comparing the applicants who are at the top of each department list. No faculty member may be present during the presentation or ranking of his or her application for an award of merit. [10.2.31
2. In each area, the applicant who is selected as superior in the across-department comparison goes to the top of the COE rank-ordered list and his/her name is removed from his/her respective department rank-order list.
3. The process is repeated until all faculty are ranked in a COE list for each of the three areas of teaching, service, and scholarship. During each iteration one person is selected from those applicants who are currently at the top of each department list (e.g., if applicant John Smith is selected from Department A, then he is replaced at the top of the list by the next applicant, Mary Jones, in Department A’s rank-ordered list. Mary Jones will then be compared to the same persons who are at the top of the lists for other departments).
4. The COE committee will also serve an oversight function in reviewing each rank-ordered list for the college. The committee will re-rank applicants that the committee feels are misplaced in the rank order at the department level. If the ranking made by the college committee differs from the ranking presented by the department committee, explicit reasons must be provided by the college committee to the applicant. (NB. It is very possible that more than one person from a single department will be selected for the COE list consecutively before someone from one of the other departments is selected).
5. Next, a rank-ordered list is created for the entire college. This combined list incorporates data from the existing three rank-ordered lists by the adding ranks across categories for each applicant (e.g., an applicant who was ranked 3rdin teaching, 10th service, and 1st in scholarship will be given a ranking score of 14). This scoring formula gives equal weight to teaching, scholarship, and service. An applicant’s position in the college rank-ordered list will be determined by sorting the list of applicants by the ranking score. The smaller the number, the better the rank in the college list.
The college committee will assign merit categories to the applicants in the COE rank-ordered list in the following manner:
1. The committee will consider each applicant, beginning at the top of the COE rank-order list, and assign the applicant to one of the merit award levels.
2. The committee will continue the process in item A until reaching the end of the COE rank-ordered list.
3. The committee will then compare the total amount of the awards recommended with the total amount of merit money available to the college. Current UNLV administrative recommendations will be applied for percentage of faculty who should receive merit from any one merit level and percentage of faculty who should receive merit overall.
4. The committee will make reconsiderations for the merit award levels in order to bring the amount recommended for merit distribution equal to the amount of merit money available.
5. The college committee will forward four (4) separate lists to the COE Dean: (1), (2), & (3) ranked lists for each of the three areas and (4) combined-rank list with merit award levels indicated
6. The college committee will notify each merit applicant of his/her final college rankings and the assigned merit award.

Dean

The Dean of the COE will make the final decision on merit awards for faculty at the college level by taking into consideration both the final college rankings and the assigned merit award.

The Dean shall recommend the dollar amount of each award of merit for teaching, research and non-administrative service, in accordance with all policies and procedures mandated by the Provost or President. Where the award made by the dean differs from the final rankings presented by the committee, explicit reasons must be provided by the dean to the Provost. Reasons can include those outlined in Section 10.2A-D, input obtained from other sources deemed important by the dean, (e.g., chairs, departmental faculty committees, performance assessments by external constituencies, such as college awards, etc.) and/or specific knowledge of performance areas for a faculty member not reflected in the rankings. The President makes the final determination of the amount awarded to each faculty member, upon recommendation by the Provost. [10.2.41]

Unit administrators, including chairs, directors, and assistant and associate deans and chairs, must file applications through the faculty process to receive merit award for teaching, research, and non-administrative service. [10.2.11] Once unit administrators have filed application through the faculty COE merit process for research, teaching, and non-administrative service, merit for administrative service shall be recommended at the discretion of the Dean. [10.2.61]

Notification of Merit Awards The official date of notification of merit awards for the purpose of grievance shall be the later of (a) the first day of the Fall semester or (b) the day the merit list is released to the campus. The merit list shall be made available to all faculty. When responding to a request from a faculty member for the reasons they received a particular award of merit, or no award, the Dean shall include in the letter the ranking of the faculty member by the college committee and the reasons for that award, which must include any information provided to the Provost. [10.2.51]

Required Documentation

The following lists include the minimum documentation for each of the three areas of teaching, service, and scholarship. The documentation will reside with the applicant’s respective department until all merit deliberations are finished. Scholarship

copies of articles and supporting documentation for other scholarship.

Teaching

a copy of the official department student evaluation summary for each class taught (a standard COE form will be used by all departments)

Service

documents that indicate the applicant’s involvement in each committee, professional organization, school, and community enterprise, etc. that is reported as part of the merit application.

APPENDIX F: PROCEDURE FOR IDENTIFYING AND CORRECTING SALARY INEQUITIES

When data on salary inequities among current faculty are requested by the Executive Vice President and Provost the following guidelines on criteria and procedures will apply (see UNLV Bylaws Chapter III, Section 10.2):

An inequity is defined as existing when there is a difference in salary within a given rank where the deviation cannot be accounted for by differences in years of service, time in rank, productivity record or history of the individual’s role at the University.
In determining an inequity, the salary of an individual must fall below the salaries of two or more comparable colleagues. An inequity cannot be based simply on a one-to-one comparison.
If an entire class or category of faculty is believed to be salaried below an appropriate level, it is acceptable to use some documented benchmark such as the institutional average for a rank or category.
The procedure for establishing the claim for an equity salary adjustment may be initiated by an individual faculty member or by the Department Chair. In either case, it will be the responsibility of the Department Chair to analyze completely the array of salaries within that unit.
Salary comparison is based on the base salary (“B” contract or its equivalent).
The Department Chair will provide recommendations with accompanying documentation including the salary, salary benchmark (average of comparison faculty) and the amount of the equity adjustment justified to the Dean of the College of Education.
The Dean of the College of Education is responsible for completing college-wide analyses. The Dean will compile the final list of those recommended for equity salary adjustments and forward it to the Executive Vice President and Provost.

APPENDIX G: PROMOTION AND TENURE GUIDELINES

Promotion

Initiation of the process of consideration for promotion by a faculty member must be within the time frame established by the deadline dates of the UNLV Administrative Calendar. If the process cannot be accommodated in time to meet the deadlines, the request for consideration must be delayed until the following year.

Each Department shall specify in its bylaws the criteria and procedures for determining the basis for the unit recommendation regarding rank promotion. Appeals of recommendations to deny or defer promotions shall be consistent with the unit bylaws.

Appeals to the COE shall be handled directly by the Dean of the COE who may involve the Advisory Council or an ad hoc committee for advisory purposes if s/he desires. The disposition of appeals at the College level; however, shall be the responsibility of the Dean. A full report of the outcome of the appeal process must be transmitted by the Dean to the Executive Vice President and Provost and appropriate Faculty Senate Committees upon request. (see the new UNLV Bylaws). For the procedures for requesting reconsideration of Personnel Action Denying Promotion beyond the COE, see Chapter 3, Sections 6.5, 6.6, (7/89; p.11) and Section 16.9 of the UNLV Bylaws (06/00 p. 28).

The faculty member may also request help from the Grievance Committee of Senate. See Chapter I, Section 4.6.12 (p. 8) of the UNLV Bylaws (BR 10/98; p. 8).

Tenure

The Dean and or Chair may, at his/her discretion, request written evaluations of the candidate from all Departmental faculty.

The tenured faculty of the Department, after review of the dossier, must arrive at a recommendation on tenure for the individual and this along with the recommendation of the unit head must be transmitted to the Dean of the COE along with the dossier.

To be tenured in a unit of the COE, a person must meet all qualifications of a faculty member (see Section 1.2 of this document), have displayed a continuous record of productivity as judged by tenured colleagues and appropriate administrators during the period of tenure probation, and have functioned in an acceptable fashion in collegial relationships during the probationary period.

There will be an annual pre-tenure review of each tenure-track faculty member during the probationary period. Procedures for this review are specified within the bylaws of each Department of the COE.

For the current Regents form, see the Provost Web Site.

APPENDIX H: PROCEDURE FOR SECURING EVALUATIONS FOR EXTERNAL REFEREES

GUIDELINES

The deadline for recommendations for promotion is established each year by the Executive Vice President and Provost and listed on the UNLV administrative calendar. Usually by November 1, the process of consideration for promotion must be completed and the recommendations in to the office of the Executive Vice President and Provost. Thus, all review by the faculty and administration at department and college levels must take place prior to that date.

The UNLV Bylaws contain the following statement on the criteria for promotion to full professor:

See UNLV Bylaws Chapter 3, Section 15.5 Professor

Therefore, data from external referees will be collected by the Department Chair. A person intending to be considered for promotion to Full Professor in a given cycle must prepare a dossier of appropriate materials. This should include copies of four or five publications. These may be reprints if they are articles in nationally circulated refereed journals, lists of properly referenced bibliographic items if books or monographs, and/or copies of other circulated professional materials. Any other description of scholarly activities, which are clearly documented and which can be evaluated by a person not familiar with the candidate, may be included. These publications or descriptions of creative or research activities must be in the discipline in which promotion is desired. These are to be submitted to the Department Chair of the candidate. In addition, the candidate should prepare and submit to the Chair a short list of professors at other universities (comparable to UNLV in mission and operation), agencies or institutions who might be used as external referees. Two persons will be selected from that list; two others not on the list and identified by the Chair will also be used in this process.

“Tips” on Securing External Reviews

External reviews can be effective and critical sources of supplemental data which can be powerful aids in the decision process. Suggested “tips” that may be helpful to the Chair.

Make a telephone call to each prospective external referee (two from the list provided by the candidate and two which were not on the list) - present the request, the purpose, assurance of confidentiality, a summary of the UNLV or Departmental criteria and procedures for promotion, and the deadline date - and secure his/her consent to do the task.
Mail materials with a cover letter (sample attached) right away repeating much of what was covered in the telephone conversation.
Acknowledge in writing the receipt of the external review report when it arrives
After the final decision has been made and the Board of Regents have acted let each external reviewer know what outcome occurred relative to the promotion consideration.

SAMPLE LETTER

Dr. Ima Chair

Department of Teacher Education
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyoming

Dear Dr. Chair:

I appreciate your willingness to serve as an external referee in the procedure as Dr. Samuel Bigelow is considered for promotion to Full Professor here at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

As I indicated I would in our recent telephone conversation, I am sending selected materials to you that will enable you to do this vital and helpful evaluation. I am enclosing copies of the criteria used by the university and the department, a completed TINS Promotion Form as submitted by the candidate, a current resume for Dr. Bigelow, and reprints of four journal articles or research reports authored by him.

I would appreciate your response to the following questions:

1. Are you personally or professional acquainted with this person? If so please explain.

2. In your judgment how does the overall productivity of this candidate compare with others in the field of_________? Please address both quantity and quality of performance in each of three categories a) teaching, b) scholarly activities, and c) service.

3. Would you judge this person be promotable to Full Professor at your University (or at a university similar to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas if the mission of your institution differs from UNLV)?

Please feel free to be completely frank. Your letter will become part of the official personnel review file, but it will be seen only by appropriate colleagues of Dr. Bigelow. The candidate will not have access to your letter. Please return your letter in the enclosed envelope which is marked “CONFIDENTIAL.”

Our goal is to assemble material for our Promotion Committee to review by October 10, XXXX. We hope to be able to include your letter in that package. I realize that this important request is an imposition, but I’m sure you understand the importance and significance of the information only you can provide.

Sincerely,

Enc. 2 sets of criteria, Resume, 4 reprints, Promotion Form Return envelope

unlvcoe.net