Section B: Policy on Academic Freedom and Tenure
- B1: Professional Activities of Faculty and Criteria for Evaluation
- B2: Faculty Ranks and Titles
- B3: Faculty Appointments and Contracts
- B4: Faculty Reviews
- B5: Separation from the University
- B6: Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee
Section B: Policy on Academic Freedom and Tenure
The full statement of policies pertaining to academic freedom and tenure, and to faculty appointment and promotion, follows this note. With regard to the Policy on Academic Freedom and Tenure (hereinafter Policy), note that:
- Use of the term Scholarly Workshall in this Policy refer to the collective activities of Research, Scholarship, or Creative Work.
- References to the “department” in this Policy are to the primary academic unit, generally a disciplinary department within a faculty/school. Some non-departmentalized faculties/schools have “areas” or “concentrations” that perform many of the functions of a conventional department. Some non-departmentalized faculties function as the primary academic unit. In the case of non-departmentalized faculties and academic divisions, the responsibilities and procedures set forth in this Policy for the department and the faculty/school be interpreted by the dean in ways that fit the structure of the unit and all recommendatory and appeal procedures should be modified accordingly. In the case of the branch campuses, the directors shall assume the responsibility of the deans of the faculties and schools.
- For faculty members in the Health Sciences Centre, the office of the Vice Rector for Health Sciences (VRHS) shall perform those functions assigned in this Policy to the office of the Provost. Unless stated otherwise, the term Provost/VRHS shall be used in this Policy to denote the positions of Provost or Vice Rector for Health Sciences.
B1: Professional Activities of Faculty and Criteria for Evaluation
(*Approved by Board of Trustees 02.10.2019)
(**Approved by Rector 01.10.2019)
SECTION 1: PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES OF FACULTY AND CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
1.1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES
(a) All members of the faculty – tenured and non-tenured, full-time and part-time, on main campus and branch campuses – are entitled to academic freedom.
(b) The University endorses and adheres to the principles expressed in the statements approved by the North Cypriot/Turkish /UK/American Association of University Professors. MTU policy closely follows the principles set down in those documents and in certain respects surpasses them in guarantees of due process and other safeguards to faculty members. The procedural requirements of the foregoing statements are superseded by the procedures set forth in the Faculty Handbook.
(c) The University strives for inquiry, learning, and scholarship of a breadth and depth that will result in excellence in all of the University’s major functions: teaching, scholarly work, and service. Each academic unit has an obligation to contribute to each of the three functions of the University. Faculty members play a central role in the realization of these functions and help fulfil the obligations of their academic unit by contributing their unique expertise and competence.
1.2 CATEGORIES FOR FACULTY PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS
(a) The categories in which faculty performance will be evaluated are the following:
- Scholarly Work
- Personal Characteristics
The University’s general expectations in each of these categories are set forth below.
(b) In order to earn either tenure or promotion or both, faculty are required to be effective in all four areas. Excellence in either teaching or scholarly work constitutes the chief basis for tenure and promotion. Service and personal characteristics are important but normally round out and complement the faculty member’s strengths in teaching and scholarly work.
(c) In those cases in which specific assignments limit the faculty member’s involvement in some major area of faculty responsibility, a written understanding to this effect shall be made by the department, approved by the dean and the Provost/VRHS and filed in the office of the Provost/VRHS at the time the assignment is made. (If the faculty member holds a probationary appointment, see Sec. 3.2.4.)
(a) Due to the variety of subject matter and student populations at the University, teaching occurs in various settings and via a diversity of forms of instruction, such as didactic lecturing, small group seminars, problem-based learning, and clinical practicums. The term teaching as used here includes, but is not restricted to, regularly scheduled undergraduate, graduate, post-graduate, and professional instruction, and the advising, direction and supervision of individual undergraduate, graduate, post-doctoral, and professional students. Library faculty, in the discharge of their professional duties, shall be regarded as engaged in teaching. Teaching also includes the direction or supervision of students in reading, research, internships, residencies, or fellowships. Faculty supervision or guidance of students in recognized academic pursuits that confer no University credit should also be considered as teaching.
(b) Effective teaching is one of the primary qualifications for promotion and tenure. The educational experience provides a student with an increased knowledge base, an opportunity to develop thinking and reasoning skills, and an appreciation for learning. An effective teacher is best characterized as an individual who successfully promotes these goals. Although individual teachers bring to bear different sets of talents in pursuit of these goals an effective teacher, at a minimum, should:
- Demonstrate effective communication skills.
- Show evidence of strong preparation.
- Present material that reflects the current state of knowledge in the field.
- Demonstrate effective management skills.
- Organize individual topics into a meaningful sequence.
- Demonstrate an ability to interact with students in an encouraging and stimulating manner.
- Demonstrate a commitment to the discipline.
(c) Teaching is evaluated by students and faculty. Evidence to be evaluated for teaching during mid-probationary, tenure, and promotion reviews must include student course evaluations, descriptions of courses taught and developed by the faculty member, and written reports of peer observations of teaching.
1.2.2 Scholarly Work
(a) The term Scholarly Work, as used in this Policy, comprises scholarship, research, or creative work. Scholarship embodies the critical and accurate synthesis and dissemination of knowledge. The term research is understood to mean systematic, original investigation directed toward the generation, development, and validation of new knowledge or the solution of contemporary problems. Creative work is understood to mean original or imaginative accomplishment in literature, the arts, or the professions.
(b) The faculty member’s scholarly work should contribute to the discipline and serve as an indication of professional competence. The criteria for judging the original or imaginative nature of research or creative work must reflect the generally accepted standards prevailing in the applicable discipline or professional area. To qualify as scholarship or creative work, the results of the endeavor must be disseminated and subject to critical peer evaluation in a manner appropriate to the field in question.
(c) Evidence of scholarship or creative work is determined by the faculty member’s publications, exhibits, performances, or media productions and may be supplemented by evidence of integration of the faculty member’s scholarly work and teaching. Written evaluations from colleagues and experts in the field, both on campus and at other institutions, may be used at the discretion of the department for the mid-probationary review (Sec. 4.5 and 4.6). Such evaluations must, however, form part of the dossier for both the tenure review and the review for promotion to the senior ranks (Sec. 4.5, 4.7, and 4.8).
(a) There are two broad categories of faculty service: professional and public.
(1) Professional service consists of those activities performed within the academic community that are directly related to the faculty member’s discipline or profession. Within the University, it includes both the extraordinary and the routine service necessary for the regular operation of departments and faculties and the University as a whole, including, for example, facilitating the day-to-day operations of academic life, mentoring students and colleagues, and, in the Health Sciences Centre, providing patient care. Universities, and their component faculties and departments, rely to a great extent for their operation and advancement on the active participation of faculty members in their administration and governance. Although service is not weighted as heavily as teaching and research or creative works, “service” is an essential element of faculty performance and duties. Faculty members, particularly senior faculty members, have a responsibility to contribute to the government of the University through timely participation on committees and other advisory groups at the department, faculty, and University levels. Beyond the University, professional service includes service to professional organizations and other groups that engage in or support educational and research activities.
(2) Public service consists of activities that arise from a faculty member’s role in the University. These activities normally involve the sharing and application of faculty expertise to issues and needs of the civic community in which the University is located.
(b) Service to the University, to the faculty member’s profession and to the local, national, and international communities beyond the University is reviewed in this category. Evidence of performance in this area includes committee work at the University, faculty and department levels, and participation in professional organizations of the discipline and in the community in the faculty member’s professional capacity.
1.2.4 Personal Characteristics
This category relates to the personal traits that influence an individual’s effectiveness as a teacher, a scholar, researcher, or creative artist, and a leader in a professional area. Of primary concern are intellectual breadth, emotional stability or maturity, and a sufficient vitality and forcefulness to constitute effectiveness. There must also be demonstrated collegiality and interactional skills so that an individual can work harmoniously with others while maintaining independence of thought and action. Attention shall also be given to an individual’s moral stature and ethical behavior, for they are fundamental to a faculty member’s impact on the University. Information used in the objective appraisal of personal traits may be acquired from peer evaluations (e.g., letters of recommendation for new appointees, or written evaluations prepared by colleagues for promotions or for other departmental reviews) and must be handled with great prudence. By necessity, the category of Personal Characteristics requires flexibility in its appraisal.
B2: Faculty Ranks and Titles
(*Approved by Board of Trustees 02.10.2019)
(**Approved by Rector 01.10.2019)
SECTION 2: FACULTY RANKS AND TITLES
Appointment or promotion to the junior ranks of instructor or assistant professor represents a judgment by the department, faculty/school, and University that the individual has the required qualifications and expertise and that the individual will function to sustain the mission of the University and enrich its academic environment. In a similar manner, appointment or promotion to the senior ranks of associate professor or professor represents an implicit prediction that the individual will continue to make sound contributions to the University. Deans and departmental chairs normally look to the senior ranks for advice and counsel regarding policy matters, including appointment and promotion of other faculty.
2.2 TENURE-TRACK FACULTY RANKS AND TITLES
Faculty members with the rank of assistant professor, associate professor, professor, or distinguished professor may be awarded tenure (for an exception in the Health Sciences, see Sec. 2.3.1). Probationary appointments potentially leading to tenure (“tenure-track” appointments) are made at the ranks of assistant professor, associate professor, and professor levels.
2.2.1 Assistant Professor
Individuals who are demonstrably competent in the subject matter of the courses to be taught and who have indicated a serious commitment to a faculty career may be considered for this faculty rank. This appointment is typical for most faculty who are beginning their probationary service. While it is not expected that persons appointed at this rank shall have acquired an extensive reputation in their field, it is expected that they will continue to increase their knowledge, to improve their teaching ability and to present the results of their scholarly work in ways appropriate to their field.
2.2.2 Associate Professor
(a) Individuals who have acquired significant experience beyond the terminal degree are appropriate for this faculty rank. They shall have demonstrated competence as teachers and have shown a conscientious interest in improving their teaching. They shall have demonstrated a basic general understanding of a substantial part of their discipline and have an established reputation within and outside the University in their fields of scholarly work. This implies scholarly work after the terminal degree sufficient to indicate continuing interest and growth in the candidate’s professional field.
(b) Appointment at, or promotion to, the rank of associate professor represents a judgment on the part of the department, faculty, and University that the individual has made and will continue to make sound contributions to teaching, scholarly work, and service. The appointment should be made only after careful investigation of the candidate’s accomplishments and promise in teaching, scholarly work, and leadership.
(a) Individuals who have attained high standards in teaching and who have made significant contributions to their disciplines may be considered for this faculty rank. They shall also have developed expertise and interest in the general problems of university education and their social implications, and have shown the ability to make constructive judgments and decisions. It is expected that the professor will continue to develop and mature with regard to teaching, scholarly work, and the other qualities that contributed to earlier appointments.
(b) Appointment or promotion to Professor represents a judgment on the part of the department, faculty/school, and University that the individual has made significant, nationally recognized scholarly or creative contributions to his or her field and an expectation that the individual will continue to do so.
(c) Professors are the most enduring group of faculty, and it is they who give leadership and set the tone for the entire University. Thus, appointment or promotion should be made only after careful investigation of the candidate’s accomplishments in teaching, scholarly work, and leadership.
2.2.4 Board of Trustees’ Professor and Board of Trustees’ Lecturer
Criteria for these honorific titles are established at the faculty level with nominations forwarded by the dean to the Provost/VRHS. The term of appointment is three years. Individuals may be named more than once for Board of Trustees’ appointments, although appointments may not be made for successive terms. The title “Board of Trustees’ Professor” may be retained during the balance of an awardee’s career. Awards may not be given to administrators, but will not be withdrawn from faculty members who become administrators.
2.2.5 Distinguished Professor
(a) Individuals who have demonstrated outstanding achievements and are nationally and internationally renowned as scholars may be considered for this faculty rank. This is the highest faculty title the University bestows and is used only for a few of its most prominent faculty members.
(b) The Nomination Procedure originates at the department level and must have the recommendation of the departmental and/or faculty with which the candidate is now or would be affiliated. Upon receiving a recommendation, the Provost shall, in consultation with the Faculty Senate Operations Committee, appoint a University-wide committee of no fewer than five non-administrative senior faculty who shall review the nominee’s dossier and make appropriate recommendations to the Provost who makes the appointment. The position of Distinguished Professor is not proprietary with a department or faculty. Upon termination of employment of a distinguished professor, the title may not be passed on to another individual unless the procedure described herein has been followed.
- 3 NON-TENURE-TRACK FACULTY TITLES
2.3.1 Clinician-Educator Faculty
In the Health Sciences Centre, faculty may be appointed to the position of clinician-educator. These appointments are for health professionals with appropriate professional degrees who are primarily engaged in patient care and teaching, and may have related scholarly responsibilities. While not eligible for tenure, clinician-educators may hold the rank of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, or professor.
Faculty may be appointed to the position of Lecturer I, II, or III. These appointments are for professionals with appropriate academic qualifications, who are demonstrably competent in the relevant areas of their disciplines. While not eligible for tenure, lecturers in each numerical class may hold the rank of Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, or Principal Lecturer.
(a) Lecturer I—The title used for individuals who have qualifications equivalent to teaching assistants or graduate students and who are not currently graduate students at the University in the same department as their academic appointment.
(b) Lecturer II—The title used for qualified professionals who have completed all requirements except the dissertation for the terminal degree (or equivalent) in their fields of study and who are not currently graduate students at the University in the same department as their academic appointment. It may also be used for professionals who have the terminal degree but only limited experience in teaching or scholarly work, or for professionals who do not have the terminal degree but have extensive experience.
(c) Lecturer III—The title used for qualified professionals who hold the terminal degree (or equivalent) in their fields of study and who have additional experience in teaching and scholarly work.
2.3.3 MTU-National Laboratory (NL) Professor
The title of MTU-NL professor is appropriate for distinguished scientists and engineers affiliated with national laboratories who assume positions as professors in academic departments at the University. They are chosen by academic departments, with the approval of the dean, and serve renewable terms of varying duration.
This title is used for individuals who are hired as the result of a search to fill a tenure-track or clinician-educator position but who do not yet qualify for an Assistant Professor rank because they have not yet completed their academic programs or have not yet obtained the requisite professional certifications. It is the one non-tenure-track title that refers to a professorial rank (see the Faculty Constitution, Art. I, Sec.1(b) in the Faculty Handbook). Instructors may be appointed with an understanding that they will be advanced to a rank of Assistant Professor Contingent upon fulfilling specified goals such as timely completion of the individual’s academic program.
2.3.5 Assistant Instructor
This title is given to individuals who assist tenure-track faculty, chiefly in laboratory areas, and who are not candidates for a degree.
2.3.6 Visiting Scholar
This title is used for scholars who are visiting the University and participating in some way in its teaching or research functions.
2.3.7 Other Visiting Titles
The titles of visiting lecturer, visiting instructor, visiting assistant professor, visiting associate professor, and visiting professor are appropriate for persons who are employed to teach on a non-permanent basis. Qualifications are the same as for the corresponding ranks and titles.
2.3.8 Research Titles
(a) The titles of research lecturer, research assistant professor, research associate professor, and research professor are appropriate for persons who are engaged primarily in research activities and have qualifications similar to those held by tenure-track faculty. They may occasionally teach or serve as members of thesis or dissertation committees. Teaching assignments on a regular basis require appointment in a tenure-track faculty rank. Research appointments are renewable annually for an unlimited time. The title of research scholar is used for visiting faculty whose primary function pertains to the exchange of specific laboratory or research skills with University researchers.
(b) Research professors generally have extramural funding in which they are the principal investigator or for which their contribution is crucial to the funding. Appointments are temporary in nature, and therefore, research faculty are not eligible to vote in the general faculty. Such appointments are renewable annually and are non-probationary. In the event that a person with a research title is appointed to a faculty rank that can lead to tenure, the time served with a research title shall not count toward tenure.
Individuals with non-teaching assignments in creative work are given the title of artist-in-residence.
2.3.10 Adjunct Titles
The titles of adjunct lecturer, adjunct instructor, adjunct assistant professor, adjunct associate professor, and adjunct professor are appropriate for persons whose primary professional responsibility is outside the University or for professional staff of the University who may teach on an occasional, limited, course-by-course basis. Qualifications are the same as for regular faculty ranks and titles.
2.3.11 Clinical Titles
The titles of clinical associate, clinical instructor, clinical assistant professor, clinical associate professor, and clinical professor are appropriate for practicing professionals who volunteer time or are non-University employees assigned to a particular department on a regular basis. These titles are also used for selected administrators from cooperating and collaborating agencies.
2.3.12 Postdoctoral Fellow
Individuals who are engaged in special study and research at the postdoctoral level and are paid from designated funds are given the title of postdoctoral fellow.
Individuals affiliated with an academic department, but with their primary appointment in another department, are given the title of associate.
2.3.14 Professor of Practice
This title may be used to appoint individuals who have achieved substantial national and/or international distinction in practice, who have had a major impact on fields important to the mission of the University, and who may benefit a program at the University by the integration of professional practice within its teaching and research missions. Appointment as Professor of Practice should only be made in exceptional circumstances to meet demonstrable need that cannot be met by regular faculty appointments. The Professor of Practice shall not be a substitute for regular faculty nor shall appointment as Professor of Practice be made as a matter of courtesy.
Specific titles will be granted with respect to the applicable program, “Professor of Practice in ___”. Those holding these appointments will not have voting privileges except as described in Article II, Section 2 of the Faculty Constitution. Professors of Practice are not eligible for tenure.
Full and part-time appointments of those designated Professors of Practice shall not exceed 10% of the FTE tenure/tenure-track faculty of each department, or in the absence thereof, each School or Faculty. For a department of less than 10 FTE tenure/tenure-track faculties, no more than one Professor of Practice shall be appointed.
2.3.15 Term Teaching Faculty
This title is used for part-time faculty greater than .25 FTE and who are employed to teach on a non-permanent basis.
2.4 GRADUATE, TEACHING, RESEARCH AND PROJECT ASSISTANTS, AND TEACHING ASSOCIATES
(a) Graduate, teaching, research and project assistants, and teaching associates occupy a dual role in the University (i.e., they are students who also perform various faculty functions). Some students are given teaching assignments, while the work of others supports instruction indirectly. Because of their dual role, assistants and associates in these positions share in the rights and responsibilities of both students and faculty. They must adhere to established guidelines and to standards of ethical conduct; they must also be accorded the right to freedom from arbitrary or capricious suspension or dismissal from their assistantships.(b) As students, assistants and associates have all the rights and responsibilities of students when acting in that capacity as defined by University regulations. As teachers, assistants, and associates have the responsibility of adhering to the standards of faculty professional ethics and following the policies and course guidelines of the department or supervisor for whom they act. When given discretion in the selection of instructional material and in the conduct of classes, they are responsible for exercising this discretion in a manner consistent with the guidelines provided for the courses in which they instruct.
B3: Faculty Appointments and Contracts
(*Approved by Board of Trustees 02.10.2019)
(**Approved by Rector 01.10.2019)
SECTION 3: FACULTY APPOINTMENTS AND CONTRACTS
3.1 TYPES OF FACULTY APPOINTMENTS
(a) Faculty appointments may be probationary, tenured, continuing non-tenure-track, or temporary. Prior to awarding of tenure, tenure-track faculty appointments are probationary appointments; following the award of tenure, such appointments are tenured. All faculty members holding probationary appointments at the rank of assistant professor or above are eligible for consideration for tenure. (For a definition and discussion of tenure, see Sec. 4.7.1 and Appendix I.) Non-tenure-track appointments do not lead to tenure. However, the presumption with continuing non-tenure-track appointments is that they will be continued if the faculty member is not duly notified to the contrary. Non-tenure-track appointments where there is not a presumption of continuation are temporary.
(b) The precise terms and conditions of every new appointment to the faculty shall be stated in writing and given to the faculty member before the appointment is made. A copy of this Policy on Academic Freedom and Tenure shall also be given to the faculty member before appointment of the individual.
3.2 PROBATIONARY APPOINTMENTS
(a) The probationary period is the time during which an individual’s fitness for tenure is under consideration. Probationary appointments are given only to individuals who are believed to have potential to achieve tenure in the appointing department. Only time spent in a faculty rank in a tenure-track position shall be considered as probationary employment leading to tenure. A mid-probationary review of a faculty member’s progress toward tenure will be conducted as provided in this Policy.
(b) Probationary faculty members serve on one-year faculty contracts, following the procedures specified in this Policy.
(c) Notification of the decision of the Provost/VRHS to discontinue a probationary faculty member must be given to the faculty member by March 31 of the first year of appointment, Dec. 15 of the second year of appointment, and June 30 of the third and subsequent years of appointment. Probationary members notified in their third or subsequent years of their discontinuation are offered a one-year terminal contract.
3.2.1 Full-time Faculty
(a) When initial probationary appointments are made at the assistant professor level, the new assistant professor shall normally be appointed on year-to-year contracts on the assumption of a probationary period no longer than six full academic or fiscal years with a mid-probationary review in the third year. When initial probationary appointments are made at the associate professor level, the maximum probationary period is four years and when initial probationary appointments are made at the professor level, the maximum probationary period is three years. For initial appointments commencing after Dec. 31, the remainder of that academic or fiscal year is not included in determining the length of the probationary period.
(b) By written agreement between the appointee and the chair of the department and with the approval of the dean and the Provost/VRHS, the probationary period may be reduced below these maximum periods. When the probationary period is reduced below the maximum periods by agreement, the agreement will identify specific times for the mid-probationary and tenure reviews. If the probationary period is established to be two years or less, there shall be no mid-probationary review. The duration of the probationary period will not be extended beyond six full academic or fiscal years. However, if a faculty member goes on leave of absence without pay, family leave or paid medical leave for a semester or more during a year of probationary service, the probationary period will normally, upon timely request of the probationary faculty member, be suspended for the duration of the leave, and subsequent mid-probationary and tenure reviews will be one full year later. A faculty member shall be reviewed for tenure only once.
3.2.2 Part-time Faculty
(a) Part-time probationary appointments are made in exceptional cases and such appointments may be made only with the approval of the department, the dean, and the Provost/VRHS. If approval is granted, an agreement will be drawn up and signed by the faculty member, the department chair, the dean, and the Provost/VRHS stating that the individual is working toward tenure in a part-time faculty position. Part-time probationary appointments may be made for positions that are less than 1.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) but not less than one-half (0.5) FTE. At the time of appointment to any part-time probationary position, the appointee and the University must reach an understanding that clearly defines the terms of the appointment.
(b) The performance expectations for a faculty member on a part-time probationary appointment will be the same as those set forth for faculty holding full-time probationary appointments, but the probationary period shall be longer. The probationary period shall be pro-rated based upon the fraction of full-time equivalent and rounded-up one year for fractional-year calculations. A part-time probationary faculty member appointed as an assistant professor may, by agreement upon appointment, serve up to a maximum of 12 years in probationary status. A part-time probationary faculty member appointed at the senior ranks (associate professor and professor levels) may, by agreement upon appointment, serve up to a maximum of 8 years in probationary status if initially appointed to the rank of associate professor, and serve up to a maximum of 6 years in probationary status if initially appointed to the rank of professor. When a part-time probationary faculty member is awarded tenure, there is no presumption that the faculty member will ever be placed on full-time status at the University.
(c) A part-time probationary faculty member may move to a full-time probationary position and a full-time probationary faculty member may move to a part-time position, with appropriate adjustments of the probationary period and expectations, only with the approval of the faculty member, the department, the dean, and the Provost/VRHS.
(d) Part-time probationary faculty and tenured faculty with part-time appointments shall be considered regular members of the voting faculty of the department, the faculty/school, and the University. Part-time probationary faculty shall be subject to the performance reviews and procedures specified in this Policy for full-time probationary faculty.
(e) Tenured faculty with part-time appointments are eligible for sabbatical leave. Such leave benefits may be earned on the same timetable as those for full-time faculty members, but the sabbatical salary shall be proportionately reduced.
3.2.3 Appointments in Two or More Units
(a) Appointments in which the services of a full-time faculty member are shared by two or more academic units or faculties are not only possible but encouraged when they benefit the University.
A joint appointment must:
- not total more than 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent(FTE) and
- be approved, in writing, by the faculty member, all the departments and faculties involved and the Provost/VRHS.
(b) Before a faculty member receives a joint appointment, the appropriate academic units must jointly specify in writing, and secure written administrative approval for, all conditions of the appointment. The resulting agreement shall address matters such as probationary period, criteria for tenure and promotion and procedures for recommending salary increases and reappointment or non-reappointment, promotion and tenure. The agreement shall specify the academic unit that shall have primary responsibility for promotion and tenure. Any such agreement shall conform to the provisions of this Policy pertaining to promotion and tenure.
3.2.4 Appointments with Administrative Duties or Other Special Assignments
It is not expected that probationary faculty members will assume significant administrative duties. However, in a case in which administrative or other specific assignments limit the probationary faculty member’s involvement in some major area of faculty responsibility (Sec. 1.2 (b)), a written understanding to this effect shall be made by the department, with the consent of a majority of the tenured faculty of the department, and approved by the dean and the Provost/VRHS at the time the assignment is made. The resulting agreement shall address matters such as probationary period, criteria for tenure and promotion, and procedures for recommending salary increases and reappointment or non-reappointment, promotion and tenure. Any such agreement shall conform to the provisions of this Policy pertaining to promotion and tenure. Copies of the agreement shall be filed with the Provost/VRHS and with the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (the Committee). The Committee shall review the agreement for conformity to Faculty Handbook policies. Similarly, if an administrator is given academic rank at any time following the initial appointment, these requirements will apply. The policies of this section do not apply to library faculty whose teaching responsibilities may be defined to include administrative duties (see Sec. 1.2.1 (a)).
3.3 TENURED APPOINTMENTS
3.3.1 Appointments with Tenure
An initial appointment with tenure may be recommended to the Provost/VRHS for exceptional cases in which an ad hoc tenure review of the candidate has been conducted in accordance with the standards and procedures of this Policy. Otherwise, a tenured appointment may be granted after a favorable tenure decision made in accordance with the standards and procedures of this Policy subsequent to a period of probationary service.
3.3.2 Changes in Appointments
(a) A faculty member with tenure may at his or her request, either permanently or temporarily for a specified time, change to part-time service while retaining tenure status, provided that the department, the dean, and the Provost/VRHS approve the terms in advance.
(b) A faculty member with tenure who resigns from the University:
- and is rehired within three years as a full-time member of the same department shall have tenure upon return.
- and is rehired by the same department after more than three years’ absence may be required to serve a probationary period of not more than one year at the discretion of the department.
- and is rehired as a full-time member of another academic department may be required to serve a probationary period of not more than one year at the discretion of the department.
3.3.3 Appointments with Administrative Duties
It is understood that a faculty member who has been granted tenure and, thereafter, accepts an administrative post within the University, retains tenured status in the original academic unit. No tenure may be granted with respect to an administrative post or administrative duties.
3.4 CONTINUING NON-TENURE-TRACK APPOINTMENTS
3.4.1 Clinician-Educator Faculty
Clinician-educator appointments are for a fixed term, subject to renewal at the discretion of the dean, following policies and procedures adopted by faculties in the Health Sciences Centre.
Lecturers are initially appointed to annual terms renewable at the discretion of the University. Written notice regarding the status of a lecturer shall be given according to the following minimum periods of notice: (1) not later than March 31 of the first academic year of service or (2) not later than December 15 of the second or subsequent academic year of service. Lecturers who have completed at least three academic years of continuous service are eligible for renewable two-year term appointments. Senior Lecturers serve on renewable two-year term appointments, and Principal Lecturers serve on renewable three-year term appointments. Two- and three-year term appointments are renewable at the discretion of the University. Notice of the status of these term appointments will be given no later than December 15 of the final year of the term appointment.
3.4.3 MTU-National Laboratory Professors
MTU-National Laboratory professors are chosen by academic departments, with approval of the dean, and serve renewable terms of varying duration.
3.4.4 Professor of Practice
Professors of Practice are chosen by department, school, or faculty, with approval of the dean, and serve renewable terms of three years. Initial appointments may be granted for a term up to three years, with the approval of faculty within the department, school, or faculty. Appointments may be renewed in terms of up to three years with the approval of faculty within the department, school, or faculty. These appointments may be either full-time or fractional (i.e., less than 100%) when the individual appointed is actively engaged in practice. Faculty involvement in the decision to appoint the Professor of Practice should be identical to the procedures used in all faculty hires within department, school, or faculty. Individuals appointed to these positions must be reviewed annually in accordance with Faculty Handbook Section B4.10 Annual Review of Continuing Non-tenure-track Faculty.
3.5 TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS
Temporary appointments of one year or less may be made to faculty titles listed in Sec. 2.3.4 through Sec. 2.3.13 for various reasons, including to appoint faculty members as visiting professors, to fill positions funded by other than State-appropriated funds, to replace faculty members on leave, or whenever an appointment has to be made so late that normal search procedures cannot be followed. With the exception of appointments made without a normal search procedure, faculty members on such appointments may be reappointed for a second or third year if mutually agreeable to the faculty member and the department and faculty involved. Temporary appointments shall not lead to tenure. They shall not exceed a total of three consecutive years except in the case of faculty with research, adjunct, or clinical titles.
3.6 STANDARD CONTRACTS
Standard faculty appointments are for the academic or fiscal year. For academic year appointments, faculty members will be notified of the date they are expected to be available for duty. The appointment period for the first semester ends Dec. 31, even though the semester may end at a different time.
3.6.1 Probationary Faculty
Probationary faculty members receive an annual contract, issued each year by the Provost/VRHS. This contract provides information about their tenure status, rank, salary and term of service. It is signed by the faculty member and returned to the Faculty Contracts Office.
3.6.2 Tenured Faculty
Faculty members receiving tenure (or being appointed with tenure) receive a contract, issued by the Provost/VRHS, establishing their status as tenured faculty members. Thereafter, tenured faculty members receive an annual contract that provides information about tenure status, rank, salary and terms of service (e.g., sabbatical leave, departmental administrative service, etc.).
3.6.3 Senior Academic Officers
Academic officers holding the title of associate or assistant provost, associate or assistant vice Rector, dean, program director and other similar titles, receive a contract, issued by the Provost/VRHS, each year that reflects their administrative duties. It is within the University’s discretion whether or not to renew such administrative appointments, subject to the University’s Policy on Contract Employees.
3.6.4 Temporary Faculty
Temporary faculty are issued contracts for a limited period of time. It is within the University’s discretion whether to renew such contracts, subject to the provisions of this Policy.
3.6.5 Term Teaching Faculty
Term faculty appointments are greater than .25 FTE and faculty in this category are issued contracts for a limited period*. It is within the University’s discretion whether to renew such contracts, subject to the provisions of this Policy.
*Note: The Faculty Contracts Office has administratively defined a limited period as at least two consecutive semesters.
3.7 SPECIAL CONTRACTS
3.7.1 Notice Contracts
A notice contract is a one-year contract issued to an untenured probationary faculty member who the University has determined is qualified for retention, but who cannot be retained at the moment, for financial reasons or the restructuring of academic units. If circumstances change, faculty members with notice contracts may be offered more permanent appointments. In this event, the year served on notice contract shall be treated as if it were included in the faculty member’s original appointment.
3.7.2 Terminal Contracts
A terminal contract is a one-year contract that follows a negative decision, made at or following the mid-probationary review, on the retention of a tenure-track faculty member. A terminal contract is the last faculty contract a faculty member may receive at this University unless the decision to terminate is overturned.
3.7.3 Special Conditions Contracts
Under conditions that would otherwise lead the Rector to propose termination for cause of a faculty member with tenure, the Rector and the faculty member may agree to a contract containing special conditions. The terms of such a contract, including performance standards, dates of periodic review, review procedures, possible remedies in case standards are not met, etc., are subject to mutual agreement between the faculty member and the Rector.
B4: Faculty Reviews
(*Approved by Board of Trustees 02.10.2019)
(**Approved by Rector 01.10.2019)
(a) One of the most important responsibilities of tenured faculty and department chairs is their participation in the procedures for formal review of colleagues. It is a fundamental principle that, when a faculty member’s academic performance and qualifications are reviewed, the process is to be conducted objectively by their peers and the faculty are guaranteed due process as set forth in this Policy.
There are six types of review:
(1) the annual review of probationary faculty,
(2) the mid-probationary review,
(3) tenure review,
(4) the review for advancement in rank (promotion),
(5) the annual review of tenured faculty (i.e., post-tenure review), and
(6) the annual review of continuing non-tenure-track faculty (i.e., clinician educators and lecturers).
Mid-probationary, tenure, and promotion reviews, in contrast to annual reviews, necessarily involve evaluation of performance at three levels: department, faculty/school, and the University (i.e., Offices of the Provost/VRHS).
(b) Tenure and promotion recommendations made by the department, through the department chair, will be given primary consideration in this procedure (see Introductory Note #2). These recommendations are reviewed by academic officers and forwarded with their recommendations to the Provost/VRHS who makes the decision on tenure and promotion. Ultimate decisions in matters of appointment and promotion in rank are made on the authority of the Board of Trustees.
4.2 ANNUAL REVIEW OF PROBATIONARY FACULTY
The purpose of the annual review is to provide the probationary faculty member written information about his or her performance in the department, identifying both strengths and weaknesses. The review entails cumulative evaluation of the faculty member’s achievements and progress toward tenure.
The annual review for each probationary faculty member must be initiated and completed by the department chair during the Spring semester of each academic year of probationary appointment. An annual review will not be conducted during the academic year designated for mid-probationary or tenure review. Faculty members whose appointments begin in the Spring semester will have their first annual reviews during the following Spring semester so that annual reviews of all faculty occur at the same time of year.
(a) The annual review is conducted by the department chair, in consultation with at least the tenured members in the department and, where appropriate, with any other faculty who are well acquainted with the probationary member’s work.
(b) In preparation for the annual review, the faculty member shall assemble a file including:
- curriculum vitae
- classroom materials, teaching evaluations, and other materials reflecting on teaching performance
- copies of scholarly works completed or submitted during the previous year and other materials reflecting on scholarly work
- statement of self-evaluation based upon goals set for the previous year
- statement setting goals for the coming year
(c) As part of the review, the chair shall review the faculty member’s assembled file and obtain written evaluations of the member’s performance from at least those tenured members of the department who are best acquainted with the probationary faculty member’s work. Whether all tenured members of the department will be required to participate in the annual reviews and whether peer evaluations of teaching are to be included in the review shall be matters of consistent departmental policy and not decided on a case-by-case basis (see Sec. 4.4.8). If peer evaluations of teaching are to be included, the chair shall arrange for the faculty member’s teaching to be observed. The evaluation of all components (teaching, scholarly work, service, and personal characteristics) shall be summarized by the chair in the written annual review provided to the probationary faculty member. If earlier reviews have identified specific deficiencies, special attention should be paid to the progress made toward remedying them. The chair shall discuss each annual review report with the probationary member before the end of the Spring semester. The probationary member shall acknowledge receipt of the report and may provide a written response. This report and any response shall be filed with the department and faculty/school.
4.2.4 Discontinuance of Probationary Appointment
Probationary faculty members serves on annual contracts. A decision as to whether the contract will be renewed is made as the result of a review of the faculty member’s performance. In case of a recommendation of non-renewal made at a point other than at the mid-probationary or tenure review, the faculty member must be notified immediately in writing by the chair who shall include a statement of the reasons. This recommendation, and any response of the faculty member, shall be reviewed by the dean. The dean’s recommendation is forwarded to the office of the Provost/VRHS and the final decision is made by the Provost/VRHS. The faculty member shall have 10 working days from receipt of the chair’s recommendation and statement of reasons to respond for consideration by the dean. The faculty member shall also have 10 working days from receipt of the dean’s recommendation to respond for consideration by the Provost/VRHS. The probationary faculty member whose appointment is to be discontinued is entitled to the notice periods and terminal contract requirement specified in Sec. 3.2 (c). (See Sec. 5.4 for termination of employment of a probationary faculty member during a contract year.)
4.2.5 Appeal to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee or Rector
The faculty member may appeal the final decision by the Provost/VRHS to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee on grounds that the decision to discontinue the probationary appointment involved academic freedom violations, improper considerations or prejudicial violation of Policy procedures (Sec. 6). The faculty member may appeal a negative decision to the Rector on any other grounds.
4.3 GENERAL SEQUENCE AND PROCEDURES FOR MID-PROBATIONARY, TENURE AND PROMOTION REVIEWS
The sequence and procedures for mid-probationary, tenure and promotion reviews are set forth below.
4.3.1 Departmental Review and Recommendations
(a) The department chair, in consultation with at least the tenured members of the department, conducts a formal review of the faculty member’s achievements in teaching, scholarly work, service, and personal characteristics. The criteria are presented in this Policy and in any supplemental policies within academic units. This review shall take account of the annual reviews of the faculty member. Tenured members of the department are expected to submit written evaluations of the candidate and indicate either a positive or negative mid-probationary, tenure, and/or promotion recommendation.
(b) The chair shall prepare a report that is included in the member’s dossier. The report shall summarize the faculty evaluations of the candidate, external letters as required, teaching evaluations and other documented evidence. Information acquired from interviews shall be summarized in writing and verified by the interviewee prior to inclusion in the dossier. The chair includes his or her personal observations and evaluation and, based upon documented information, the chair makes a positive or negative recommendation.
(c) The chair shall discuss the review and recommendation with the faculty member. Thereafter, the department chair shall forward the candidate’s dossier, written documentation of the department’s review, including copies of all evaluations received from faculty members, any external evaluations, and the chair’s report and recommendation to the dean of the faculty/school. At the same time, the faculty member shall be advised in writing whether the recommendation is positive or negative. If the recommendation is negative, a copy of the chair’s report, the internal peer reviews and external letters (all redacted as necessary to preserve confidentiality), if requested by the candidate, shall be furnished to the candidate.
4.3.2 Review by the Dean
The faculty dean is to review the candidate’s dossier and the chair’s recommendation and shall provide a written assessment and recommendation for promotion, continuation (mid-probationary review), or tenure and promotion. The dean shall normally abide by the chair’s recommendation. The dean shall forward the assessment and recommendation together with the entire dossier to the office of the Provost/VRHS. If the dean’s recommendation is negative, or conflicts with the chair’s recommendation, a copy of the dean’s letter (redacted as necessary to preserve confidentiality) shall be provided to the candidate and the department chair. In a case where the dean decides not to follow the chair’s recommendation, the chair shall have 10 working days to present an appeal to the Associate Provost (for faculty in the Health Sciences Centre, this does not apply [Sec. 4.3.4—4.3.6]).
4.3.3 Review by the Associate Provost
The associate provost for academic affairs reviews the candidate’s dossier and the recommendations of the chair and the dean. The associate provost shall provide a written recommendation to the Provost. If the associate provost’s recommendation is negative, a copy of the recommendation (redacted as necessary to preserve confidentiality) shall be concurrently provided to the faculty member, the dean, and the chair. (This step is omitted for faculty in the Health Sciences Centre.)
4.3.4 Review and Decision by the Provost
(a) The Provost reviews the faculty member’s dossier and the recommendations of the chair, dean, and associate provost. The final decision shall be made by the Provost. If the Provost considers not following a recommendation in which the associate provost, the dean and the chair have concurred (or if there is a conflict in the recommendations made by these officers), the Provost shall immediately, and in writing, inform the faculty member and the officers involved in the decision and include a written statement of reasons. The faculty member and the officers involved have 10 working days to present their views to the Provost before the Provost makes a final decision.
(b) The Provost provides written notification of the decision to the faculty member no later than June 30 of the review year, exercising the personnel authority of the Board of Trustees delegated by them for this purpose. In the case of mid-probationary and tenure reviews, if the decision by the Provost is negative, a terminal contract is issued for the following year. If a negative decision is not made by June 30, the faculty member is entitled to an additional terminal year contract.
4.3.5 Review and Decision by the Vice Rector for Health Sciences
The VRHS reviews faculty dossiers and the recommendations of the chair and dean for faculty in the Health Sciences Centre. The VRHS makes the final decision. In all other aspects, the review is identical to the process described in Sec. 4.3.4 for the Provost.
4.3.6 Negative Recommendations
If at any level of review, the recommendation is negative, the faculty member shall be given a copy of the negative recommendation and may request a copy of all other reports, recommendations and internal peer reviews and external letters (all redacted as necessary to preserve confidentiality). The faculty member shall have 10 working days after receipt of such materials, if requested, to present his/her views to the next level of review before the next recommendation, or the final decision, is made. In addition, if the Provost/VRHS makes a negative decision, the faculty member may request reconsideration by the Provost/VRHS. Such request shall be made in writing by July 15. The Provost/VRHS shall respond within 10 working days of receiving the request.
4.3.7 Appeal to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee or Rector
The faculty member may appeal the final decision by the Provost/VRHS to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee on grounds that the mid-probationary, tenure, or promotion review involved academic freedom violations, improper considerations or prejudicial violation of the Policy procedures (Sec. 6). The faculty member may appeal a negative decision to the Rector on any other grounds.
4.4 GENERAL POLICIES RELATING TO FACULTY REVIEWS
The following general policies apply to mid-probationary, tenure, and promotion reviews, unless otherwise specified in this Policy.
4.4.1 Confidential Materials
Internal peer evaluations of a faculty member, student evaluations, and letters received from reviewers outside the University are added to the faculty member’s dossier by the department chair, and they shall be kept confidential from the faculty member to the extent allowed by law and by University policy (see “Confidentiality of Faculty Records Policy” in the Faculty Handbook).
4.4.2 Evaluations by Untenured Faculty
At the discretion of the tenured faculty of the department, untenured faculty may participate in reviews. The chair’s report shall distinguish between the evaluations and votes of the tenured faculty, on the one hand, and those of the untenured faculty, on the other. Untenured faculty members may decline to participate in the review without penalty.
4.4.3 Absent Faculty
Faculty absent from campus at the time of a mid-probationary, tenure, or promotion review of a departmental colleague shall be informed of the upcoming review by the department chair with sufficient time to participate if they so choose.
4.4.4 Other Sources of Relevant Information
Academic officers with responsibilities for the review of faculty members may consult any person or call upon their own personal knowledge of the candidate in formulating their recommendations or decisions. To the extent that they rely on information not already documented in the dossier, they shall so state in their written report and explain the nature and source of such information and obtain written confirmation of orally transmitted information for inclusion in the dossier. Sec. 4.5.4 also applies.
4.4.5 Faculty Advisory Committees
Academic officers with responsibilities for the review of faculty members are encouraged to appoint experienced faculty advisory committees. If advisory committees are used, they shall have access to the complete dossier of the faculty member. Advisory committees shall communicate with the candidate or chairs only through the academic officer whom they advise and shall not discuss the consideration outside committee meetings.
4.4.6 Statement of Reasons
All written recommendations shall include a statement of supporting reasons.
4.4.7 Directing Questions Arising During Review to Chair
Academic officers and advisory committees considering matters of promotion and tenure shall communicate with the chair if there are major faults or omissions in the dossier or if significant questions or possible misunderstandings arise. In such circumstances, the chair shall discuss substantive problems with the candidate and department faculty as appropriate.
4.4.8 Procedural Consistency
Where departments are given discretion to choose among alternative procedures in this Policy, such discretion shall be exercised as a matter of department policy and not on a case-by-case basis.
4.5 PREPARATION OF THE DOSSIER FOR MID-PROBATIONARY, TENURE, AND PROMOTION REVIEWS
(a) The dossier is a collection of documents that summarize and evaluate a faculty member’s accomplishments in teaching, scholarly work, and service and contain evidence of personal and professional effectiveness. It is the foundation for evaluation at each level of the review process. The organization of the dossier shall be standardized within each unit, combining clarity, convenience, and effectiveness in a manner appropriate to the discipline. The faculty member shall provide the following elements:
- statement by the faculty member of professional goals and progress toward achieving them,
- complete and current curriculum vitae, and
- systematic collection of professional materials documenting the faculty member’s achievements in the evaluation categories of teaching; scholarly work; and service.
(b) Student teaching evaluations shall be included and organized to reflect the various types of courses or students taught. Peer evaluations of teaching shall also be included. The dossier shall include those books, offprints, manuscripts, research proposals, and papers presented at professional meetings that best represent scholarly contributions. Reviews of such materials, including reviews of juried creative works, may also be included. The faculty member shall provide a table of contents, which the chair signs to acknowledge that materials received from the faculty member are complete and appropriate.
4.5.2 External Letters
When external review letters are required (i.e., for tenure or promotion, or for mid-probationary review in some departments), the candidate shall suggest potential reviewers to the chair. The chair, in consultation with tenured faculty, shall identify additional reviewers. The chair shall select reputable scholars, researchers, or creative artists and critics who can evaluate the candidate’s contributions to scholarship, research, or creative work. The materials supplied to external reviewers shall include written instructions and a curriculum vitae. Such external review letters shall be added to the dossier by the chair. External reviewers shall be advised that the University will endeavor to keep the reviewer’s identity confidential, to the extent permitted by law.
In the Spring semester before the faculty member is scheduled for mid-probationary, tenure or promotion review, the department chair shall meet with the faculty member to discuss the assembly of the dossier. Early in the Fall semester of the review year, the candidate shall submit the dossier to the chair. During the confidential evaluation process, peer evaluators within the University shall have access to the dossier and to the external reviews.
4.5.4 Adding Material to the Dossier
The substantive record for the faculty candidate is the material consolidated by the department chair in the dossier. As the review proceeds, the University officer at each level adds any written response received from the faculty candidate or officer(s) at lower level(s) to the dossier as well as his or her own recommendation. If any substantive material is introduced at a higher administrative review, the candidate, chair and dean (if appropriate) shall be furnished copies. If necessary to preserve confidentiality, material provided to the candidate shall be redacted and the candidate shall have 5 working days to submit written comments if desired.
4.6 SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR MID-PROBATIONARY REVIEW
4.6.1 Purpose and Standards
(a) The purpose of the mid-probationary review is to enable the department to evaluate progress towards tenure, to inform the probationary faculty member of his or her strengths and weaknesses, and to decide whether or not to continue the faculty member’s appointment. The review entails evaluation of the faculty member’s achievements in the four categories of teaching, scholarly work, service, and personal characteristics, according to the standards specified in this Policy and the criteria of the academic unit.
(b) The mid-probationary review requires identification of the specific areas of strength and weakness demonstrated by the faculty member and the evidence supporting conclusions to that effect. The aim of the required identification of areas of strength and weakness is to give the faculty member a clear picture of the performance levels by which he or she is to be judged and offer the opportunity to correct any noted deficiencies prior to subsequent reviews. The existence of some identified deficiencies in this review are considered normal, as it is not anticipated that the probationary member will have fully attained the standards required for the award of tenure by the time of the mid-probationary review.
(c) For a positive mid-probationary review there should be demonstration of, or at least clear progress toward, the competence or effectiveness in all four evaluation categories expected of tenured faculty, as well as promise of excellence in either teaching or scholarly work. If the University concludes that insufficient progress towards tenure has been made and that deficiencies are unlikely to be corrected in the time remaining before the tenure decision, then a negative mid-probationary decision is both appropriate and necessary.
This review shall occur at the approximate mid-point of the faculty member’s probationary period at the University. The year of a probationary faculty member’s mid-probationary review shall be specified in writing at the time of appointment to probationary status. If, as a result of a mid-probationary review, it is decided that a faculty member should not be continued, written notice shall be provided by June 30 and the faculty member shall be given a terminal contract for an additional year.
The sequence and procedures for the mid-probationary review are as set forth in Sec. 4.3 above.
4.6.4 External Letters
If a department requires external letters of evaluation for mid-probationary reviews, this must be stated in a written departmental policy.
4.6.5 Fiscal and Programmatic Contingencies
(a) The mid-probationary review process may take into account the programmatic and fiscal needs of the department, the faculty/school, and the University. Should programmatic changes or fiscal emergency be the sole reason for a decision not to continue the appointment of a probationary faculty member, then the department, faculty/school, and the University shall explain in writing the exact nature of these circumstances.
(b) Should the concerned unit’s circumstances require that a faculty member judged worthy of retention be released from service, the Provost/VRHS shall notify the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee in writing and explain the unit’s or the administration’s plans for the academic and fiscal disposition of the position held by the faculty member under review.
(c) A faculty member who is released from service because a position is being discontinued, shifted within a department or to another department or faculty/school is issued a notice contract for one additional year of employment.
4.7 SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR TENURE REVIEW
4.7.1 Purposes of the Tenure System
The academic freedom of teachers and scholars is the means by which society is protected from hindrances to the search for knowledge and from limits on the dissemination of knowledge. The system of tenure for faculty members is the preeminent means of fostering and protecting academic freedom of the faculty. The tenure system consists of rules and procedures that establish an essentially self-regulated body of scholars, researchers, and creative artists enjoying the continuity of existence and economic security within which academic freedom is both fostered and protected. The protection of academic freedom shall be extended to all members of the faculty during their terms of appointment. The tenured faculty of a university serve the institution by providing continuity to the university and to its mission of instruction, scholarly work, and service. The awarding of tenure carries both benefits and responsibilities to the individual so recognized. We use the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) notes, “freedom and economic security, hence tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society.” It is the responsibility of faculty members, supported by the tenure system, to use the opportunities thus provided for the advancement of the purposes of the University and of the community it serves. These purposes include teaching, scholarly work, and service.
4.7.2 Purpose of the Tenure Review and Standards for Tenure
The awarding of tenure is the most serious commitment the department, faculty/school, and University make to a faculty member. Tenure is a privilege, not a right, and is awarded only after the most serious deliberation and review. The tenure review consists of evaluation of the faculty member’s teaching, scholarly work, service, and personal characteristics, according to the standards specified in this Policy and the criteria of the academic unit. For a positive tenure review, the faculty member shall have demonstrated competence or effectiveness in all four areas, and excellence in either teaching or scholarly work
A review and report on a candidate’s acceptability for tenure is initiated by the department in the Fall semester of the final year of the faculty member’s probationary period. The faculty member’s contract identifies the year for tenure review. Notification of the tenure review decision by the Provost/VRHS shall be made no later than June 30 of that year.
The sequence and procedures for the tenure review are as set forth in Sec. 4.3. The mid-probationary review report and annual reviews must be taken into consideration during this process.
4.7.5 External Letters
External letters of evaluation are required as part of tenure reviews. Procedures for obtaining external letters are provided above in Sec. 4.5.2.
4.8 SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR ADVANCEMENT IN RANK: PROMOTIONS
(a) The promotion process is the mechanism by which the University promotes and recognizes the professional development of faculty members, and thereby maintains the quality of the University. A description of the faculty ranks is provided in this policy (Sec. 2) to set a framework for the promotion process. The promotion review consists of evaluation of the faculty member’s teaching, scholarly work, service, and personal characteristics (Sec. 1), according to the standards specified in this Policy and the criteria of the academic unit, both as appropriate for the promotion level.
(b) Decisions to promote a faculty member are made after a thorough evaluation of his or her performance in all the areas of faculty professional activities and the corresponding categories of performance evaluation specified in this Handbook. The candidate’s performance is judged by all recommending parties in the light of the categories and definitions set forth in this Policy, the assignments of the candidate, and any special conditions pertaining to the candidate’s appointment.
4.8.2 Promotion to Associate Professor
(a) It is the policy of the University that tenure and promotion to the rank of associate professor will normally be granted together. A candidate for tenure who does not already hold the rank of associate professor shall simultaneously be considered for promotion to the associate professor rank. A favorable decision on promotion to associate professor rank shall normally be a basic prerequisite for the awarding of tenure. Requests for departures from this policy must be made prior to the initiation of the tenure or promotion review process with the concurrence of the department, the dean, and the Provost/VRHS.
(b) Timetable for promotion to associate professor: The anticipated length of service in the rank of assistant professor is six years, with review for promotion to the rank of associate professor occurring in the sixth year. The review process for advancement to associate professor is normally conducted at the same time as the review for tenure (i.e., Fall semester of the final academic year of the probationary period). Recommendations for promotion in less time are to be carefully weighed and justified. Notification of the outcome of the review shall be made during the Spring semester no later than June 30 of that year.
4.8.3 Promotion to Professor
(a) Qualifications for promotion to the rank of professor include attainment of high standards in teaching, scholarly work, and service to the University or profession. Promotion indicates that the faculty member is of comparable stature with others in his or her field at the same rank in comparable universities. Service in a given rank for any number of years is not in itself a sufficient reason for promotion to professor.
(b) Timetable for promotion to professor: The anticipated length of service in the rank of associate professor prior to consideration for promotion to the rank of professor is at least five years. Recommendations for promotion in less time must be carefully weighed and justified. The review for advancement in rank to that of professor is initiated during the Fall semester. Notification of the outcome of the review is made during the Spring no later than June 30 of that year.
4.8.4 Procedures for Advancement in Rank
(a) The sequence and procedures for the review of advancement in rank (promotion) are as set forth in Sec. 4.3, with the following additions:
- The process begins in the Fall semester when the candidate requests consideration by the department chair. A dossier is presented by the candidate for consideration according to department policy. The candidate has the right to withdraw his or her dossier from consideration at any point in the review process.
- The chair secures written evaluations from at least the full professors within the department and from distinguished persons in the field outside the department.
- The chair discusses the outcome of the review with the faculty member. After this discussion, the faculty member may choose to withdraw his or her request. If not, the chair forwards the recommendation and member’s dossier to the dean (Sec. 4.3.1).
- The Provost/VRHS shall communicate in writing the final decision to the faculty member, the department chair and faculty dean. If promotion is awarded, it is effective immediately upon the faculty member’s acceptance of the next contract.
4.9 POST-TENURE REVIEW
(Approved by the Faculty Rector 01.10.2019,
The Post Tenure Review Policy ensures that all tenured faculty members will receive an annual review and that those with either exceptionally good performance or deficiency in one or more areas will be identified. Special achievement shall be rewarded in a manner determined by each faculty/
school. For a faculty member who receives two successive annual reviews with identified uncorrected deficiencies, the Post-Tenure Review policy provides a mechanism to either (a) overturn the findings of deficiency in the annual reviews or (b) establish a remedial program for correcting the deficiencies.
4.9.2 General Principles
A tenured professor who performs well should be rewarded, and one who performs inadequately should seek or accept help and improve or be subject to dismissal. The purpose of MTU’s post-tenure review is to determine levels of performance efficiently, equitably, and in conformity with tenure rights expressed in the Policy on Academic Freedom and Tenure and guaranteed by the Contract Clause of the TRNC Laws &Constitution.
4.9.3 Data Collection
Biographical updates, student evaluations of teaching (supplemented by periodic but not necessarily annual peer evaluations of teaching), and (with necessary exceptions, as in the Medical Center) evaluations for salary recommendations shall be required annually of all faculty, including tenured professors. Some departments and divisions may also wish to require information more detailed than in the current biographical update form. The biographical update shall include space for objectives for the coming year.
4.9.4 Performance Criteria
Deans shall require each department or division to file a statement of criteria and procedures for annual evaluation of the performance of tenured faculty members. The criteria and procedures shall be consistent with the Faculty Handbook, reflect the standards of excellence and appropriate balance of teaching, research, or other creative activity, and service prevailing in the discipline and department or division, and have the approval of the department or division faculty and the dean. At a minimum, the procedures shall include an annual written evaluation, as described below. Sec. 1 (of this Policy) describes good teaching and good research at some length, including the importance of one’s original research in imparting new ideas in the classroom and inspiring students to engage in original research. Sec. 1 also stresses the need for service in the department, the University, and one’s discipline, particularly by senior members of the faculty. (Reviews from outside the University, as suggested in Sec. 1, shall not normally be included in annual and more formal post-tenure reviews [Sec. 4.9.5 and 4.9.7].)
4.9.5 Annual Reviews
(a) Each department shall conduct an annual review of each tenured faculty member’s teaching, scholarly work, and service. This review, which may be combined with salary review and may be performed by the chair or the chair and a committee of tenured faculty, shall be in writing (normally 50 to 100 words for most faculty, more for those with special achievements or identified deficiencies) and contain a description and critique of performance during the past year and performance goals for the coming year. It shall be discussed with the faculty member if there are deficiencies. Two copies of the annual review, signed by the chair, shall be given to the faculty member, one to be signed as acknowledgment of receipt and returned to the chair. A faculty member who disagrees with the review may add a comment or rebuttal. The review and any such statement shall be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file. The faculty member, in addition, may appeal the chair’s evaluation to the dean. At any point in these or subsequent proceedings, the faculty member shall have access to aggregate information concerning the teaching evaluations, publications, grants, etc., of the department as a whole for purposes of comparison. Aggregate information shall be determined by each department and will contain, at a minimum, summary data of faculty activities in the areas of teaching, scholarly work and service. In the dissemination of aggregate data, confidentiality shall be protected to the extent provided by law.
(b) Administrators who hold tenured faculty rank shall also be reviewed on the performance of their faculty duties (teaching, research, and service). The manner in which the chair and other administrators are reviewed shall be decided by an agreement between the dean and tenured faculty in the unit, in a manner consistent with the intent of this document. Administrators who have no assigned faculty duties within the department will not be reviewed under this policy.
4.9.6 Reports to Deans
Each department shall annually provide the dean with summaries of the reviews of all faculty members (normally no more than 50 words for most faculty, more for those with special achievements or identified deficiencies) and the full text of any comment or rebuttal. The summaries shall include the special achievements or identified deficiencies of individual faculty members. Merit, as determined in annual salary reviews, shall be the primary criterion for raises. In the case of special achievement, the summary shall state the rewards to be provided. The dean or a faculty committee shall participate in the merit award for special achievement. In the case of deficiency, the summary shall suggest remedies, and the chair and the dean shall monitor improvements. If the dean disagrees with the chair’s evaluation, he or she shall so inform the chair and the faculty member.
4.9.7 More Complete Reviews
If in the judgment of the chair the annual review for any faculty members shows a serious deficiency that has continued for two consecutive years, the chair shall inform the faculty member. One of two possible courses of action shall follow:
- The faculty member may request that the chair submit his or her findings to the other tenured faculty members for consideration in a more complete review during the following year, or
- If the faculty member does not request the review, the chair may initiate such a review with the concurrence of a majority of the tenured faculty in the department.
The more complete review shall be similar to the mid-probationary review described in the Faculty Handbook, with the aim of identifying strengths and weaknesses. This review shall be undertaken by the chair with a committee of at least three tenured faculty members chosen by the tenured faculty. If they find that the faculty member’s performance is not seriously deficient, the member shall be so informed and a statement of the decision placed in the file. If serious deficiency is found, a specific remedial program shall be developed in consultation with the faculty member, including procedures, criteria for evaluating progress, and a reasonable timetable. The results of the program shall be reported by the chair to the dean. If the dean concludes, after consulting the faculty promotion and tenure committee, or other advisory committee, if any, that serious deficiencies persist, he or she shall so inform the Provost/VRHS.
4.9.8 Enhancement Programs
Whether or not a tenured faculty member accepts a recommendation to participate in a teaching or scholarly work enhancement program, and whether or not the member performs well in the program, he or she shall be judged, after a reasonable period of time, on subsequent classroom and scholarly work performance.
4.9.9 Individual Request for Review
Any faculty member who feels that two or more consecutive annual reviews have inaccurately conveyed his or her professional accomplishments or have contained other substantial deficiencies shall have the option of initiating the more complete review described above.
4.9.10 Frequency of Review
The more complete review shall not be initiated for any faculty member more frequently than once every five years.
4.9.11 Review by the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure
If a tenured faculty member’s professional deficiencies are considered by the Provost/VRHS to be very serious and to have been uncorrected at the conclusion of the agreed time period, and, further, if there is evidence that the faculty member’s performance has deteriorated since the award of tenure and that his or her academic performance is now typically unsatisfactory, the Rector of the University shall initiate the process specified in Sec. 6 for removing a faculty member for cause under the procedures and standards set forth in that section, including “If the faculty member’s academic competence is questioned, the proof before the Committee shall be insufficient unless it includes testimony of teachers and other scholars, either from the University or from other institutions, and it shows that the faculty member’s academic performance (1) has deteriorated since receipt of tenure and (2) is now typically unsatisfactory” (Sec. 6.4.3 (k)), and “[The burden of proof resides with the Rector and University administration” Sec. 6.4.3 (a)).
4.9.12 Limitation on Applicability
This policy does not apply to proposed terminations of tenured faculty for alleged misconduct or violation of University policy or law, which is provided for in Sec. 6.
4.10 ANNUAL REVIEW OF CONTINUING NON-TENURE-TRACK FACULTY
Continuing non-tenure-track faculty (lecturers and clinician educators) shall be reviewed annually following procedures adopted by each department.
B5: Separation from the University
(*Approved by Board of Trustees 02.10.2019)
(**Approved by Faculty01.10.2019)
SECTION 5: SEPARATION FROM THE UNIVERSITY
This section refers to the ways in which the professional relationship between an individual faculty member and the institution may be dissolved or suspended. The dissolution of this professional relationship may be initiated by the faculty member or by the institution
5.2 FACULTY-INITIATED SEPARATION5.2.1 Resignation
(a) Faculty members may terminate their appointment effective at the end of an academic year, provided that they give notice in writing at the earliest possible opportunity, but normally not later than May 15. Faculty members may properly request a waiver of this requirement of notice in case of hardship or in a situation where they would otherwise be denied substantial professional advancement or other opportunity.
(b) A faculty member may properly give notice after May 15 but within 10 days after receiving the contract
(1) if it is not in the member’s hands in time to meet the normal time requirements and
(2) if the member is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the offered contract.
The date of retirement shall normally be the end of the contract year or the end of a semester, and shall be negotiated between the faculty member and the administrative unit. Appropriate Northern Cyprus (TRNC) State statutes and University regulations and policies regarding retirement shall be consulted.
5.3 UNIVERSITY-INITIATED TERMINATION OF SERVICES OF FACULTY MEMBERS WITH TENURE
The services of a faculty member having tenure shall be terminated only for one of the following reasons:
(1) adequate cause,
(2) bona fide financial exigencies of the University,
(3) bona fide discontinuance of a program or department of instruction, or
(4) health reasons.
Termination decisions shall not interfere with any retirement benefits for which a faculty member may be eligible. No faculty member shall be retired involuntarily unless such action is authorized by statute or by this Policy. The process for dismissal of a tenured faculty member is described in Sec. 6.
5.3.2 Adequate Cause
Adequate cause for termination of a faculty member with tenure consists of academic incompetence, neglect of duty, serious violation of University policy, commission of a serious crime, loss of medical licensure or clinical privileges, or other serious professional or ethical deficiencies. Adequate cause may be determined in several ways, including admission, conviction by a court of law, or findings of a hearing before a relevant University faculty-review committee such as the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee (Sec. 6.4.3).
5.3.3 Financial Exigency
Termination of a tenured appointment may occur under extraordinary circumstances because of a demonstrably bona fide financial exigency, namely, an imminent financial crisis that threatens the survival of the institution as a whole and that cannot be alleviated by less drastic means. The following standards and procedures will apply:
(a) The exact nature of the need for termination must be substantiated in writing by the department, the faculty, and the Provost.
(b) The Provost must explain the action with regard to this particular position to the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure and show that the plans for the academic and fiscal disposition of the position are reasonable and that all feasible alternatives to termination of the appointment have been pursued. The burden shall rest on the administration to prove the existence and extent of the condition of financial exigency.
(c) Should the Provost decide that the University’s financial crisis requires that the faculty position in question be eliminated, shifted within the department, or shifted to another department or faculty, the faculty member, department chair, and faculty/ school dean shall be so notified as early as possible, but no later than May 1. The faculty member will be issued a notice contract for one additional year of employment.
(d) If a tenured faculty member is terminated because of a bona fide financial exigency of the University, the released faculty member’s place will not be filled by a replacement for a period of two years, unless the released faculty member has declined an offer of reappointment with at least the previous rank and salary.
5.3.4 Program Discontinuance
Termination of a tenured appointment may occur as a result of bona fide formal discontinuance of a program or department of instruction. The following standards and procedures will apply:
(a) The formal decision to discontinue a program or department of instruction will be based essentially upon educational considerations, as determined by the Board of Trustees after consideration by and recommendation from the Faculty Senate.
(b) Before the administration issues notice to a tenured faculty member of its intention to terminate an appointment because of formal discontinuance of a program or department of instruction, the University will make every effort to place the faculty member in another suitable position. If placement in another position would be facilitated by a reasonable period of training, financial and other support for such training will be offered. If no position is available within the University, with or without retraining, the faculty member’s appointment then may be terminated, but only with provision for severance salary equitably adjusted to the faculty member’s length of past and potential service.
(c) A faculty member may appeal a proposed relocation or termination resulting from discontinuance and has a right to a full hearing before the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee. The issues in such a hearing may include the University’s alleged failure to satisfy any of the conditions specified in this section of the Handbook. In such a hearing, a determination by the Board of Trustees (after recommendation by the Faculty Senate) that a program or department is to be discontinued will be considered presumptively valid, but the burden of proof on other issues will rest with the administration.
(d) Should a program or department of instruction be discontinued and, within three years, should the program be restored or the position be re-established elsewhere in the University, the faculty member must be given the opportunity to return to the position with at least the previous rank and salary.
5.3.5 Health Reasons
(a) An appointment with tenure may be terminated for health reasons, following the procedures of this section, based upon clear and convincing evidence that the faculty member cannot continue satisfactorily to perform his or her normal professional duties, that such condition is likely to be permanent, and that no reasonable accommodation as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act is feasible. Extended sick leave or leave without pay is appropriate when a serious health condition requires absence from faculty duties, but the condition is not expected to be permanent.
(b) The decision to terminate the employment of a faculty member for health reasons shall be reached only after there has been appropriate consultation with at least the other tenured members of the department, the chair, the dean, and the Provost/VRHS. The faculty member, or his or her representative, shall be informed in writing by the Provost/VRHS of the basis of the proposed action and be given an opportunity to present the faculty member’s position to the Provost prior to the Provost making a recommendation to the Rector. If the Rector concludes that the faculty member cannot continue satisfactorily to perform his or her normal professional duties but the faculty member does not agree, the Rector shall initiate proceedings before the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure to terminate the employment of the faculty member pursuant to the procedures of this Policy dealing with dismissal (Sec. 6.4.3).
5.4 UNIVERSITY-INITIATED TERMINATION OF CONTRACT OF A NON-TENURED FACULTY MEMBER
(a) The University has the discretion whether or not to renew the annual contract of probationary or non-tenure-track faculty members (for probationary faculty-Sec. 3.2(c) for notice periods and Sec. 4.2.4, 4.2.5, and 6.4.1 for rights of appeal; for continuing non-tenure-track faculty-Sec. 3.4 for notice periods). For Faculty members on two- or three-year term appointments, the University’s discretionary renewal or non-renewal may be exercised only during the final year of the appointment; the notice periods specified above apply to the final year of the appointment. For non-tenured faculty members with two or three year term appointments, these term appointments may be terminated early, on the expiration date of an annual contract, following the procedures described in Sec. 5. 3.
(b) Under the extraordinary circumstances and with proof of adequate cause as outlined in Sec. 5.3.2, a non-tenured faculty member’s annual contract may be terminated before its expiration and/or without regard for the notice periods or terminal contract requirements set forth in this Policy. A decision to terminate the contract of a non-tenured faculty member under these circumstances shall be made by the Provost/ VRHS after recommendations by the chair and the dean. At each administrative level, the faculty member shall be fully informed in writing of the reasons proposed for such termination and shall be given an adequate opportunity to respond in writing and/or orally to the Provost/VRHS prior to the final decision. The faculty member shall have the right to appeal a termination decision by the Provost/VRHS to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee on grounds within the Committee’s jurisdiction (Sec. 6.2); however, such appeal shall not postpone the date of termination.
Suspension is an emergency, short-term condition that can be invoked by the dean, Provost/VRHS, or Rector. The faculty member suspended must be named in the suspension order, the terms of which may vary from a directive not to meet classes to a legal exclusion from campus. An emergency suspension order is justified only as an effort to forestall imminent harm to the faculty member, to others, or to University property. As an emergency measure, it is intended to serve only until more formal action may be taken to resolve the issue at hand. Unless prohibited by law, suspension is always with pay, unless suspension is imposed as a disciplinary measure after a full opportunity for hearing and review, in which case the suspension may be with or without pay.
5.6 DISMISSAL OR NON-REAPPOINTMENT OF GRADUATE, TEACHING, RESEARCH, AND SPECIAL ASSISTANTS
(a) No graduate, teaching, research, or special assistant has a right to reappointment or to continuance in service beyond the contract period. However, assistants have the right to be secure from arbitrary or capricious dismissal. If an assistant is not satisfactorily performing assigned duties, the supervisor shall so inform the assistant and point out the unsatisfactory aspects of the work and how these should be corrected. If dismissal is contemplated after such warning has been judged ineffective, the assistant shall be given a written statement of the reasons for this action and have an opportunity to respond to the supervisor prior to the final decision. The assistant may be suspended with pay by the dean of the faculty/school if warranted, prior to the final decision. The assistant may appeal dismissal to any or all of the following: the department chair, the dean of the faculty/school, or the Dean of Graduate Studies
(b) If an assistant who is dismissed or not reappointed alleges that the decision violates academic freedom or Faculty Handbook procedures, or involves improper considerations, the assistant may appeal to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee pursuant to this Policy (Sec. 6.2), after completing the process of administrative appeal.
B6: Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee
(*Approved by Board of Trustees 02.10.2019)
(**Approved by Rector 01.10.2019)
SECTION 6: ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE COMMITTEE
6.1 COMPOSITION, ELECTION, DUTIES, AND SUPPORT OF COMMITTEE
The faculty Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee (the Committee) shall consist of 13 members, all of whom shall be tenured members of the voting faculty. For the purpose of this Section, members of the voting faculty shall exclude departmental chairs and other academic administrators above the rank of chair. The following shall apply:
- Not more than one member of any department or equivalent unit shall serve as a member of the Committee at the same time.
- The Committee may appoint its own counsel. The University shall bear the cost of the services of such counsel.
- A quorum shall consist of seven (7) members.
- The office of the Secretary of the University shall provide clerical and administrative support for the Committee, including facilitating the communication of the Committee with members of the faculty, the administration and the Board of Trustees and others, and serving as a repository of information and records relevant to the Committee.
Nominations of at least 14 persons shall be made by mail addressed to the University Secretary.
Election shall be by mail ballot. Ballots, accompanied by biographical sketches of the nominees shall be distributed by the Secretary to all eligible members of the voting faculty. Eligible faculty members may vote for a maximum of three (3) candidates in even-numbered years and three (3) in odd-numbered years. The 2 nominees in even-numbered years and the 2 nominees in odd-numbered years who receive the most votes shall become members of the committee for two-year terms commencing at the start of the academic year following election. The remaining nominees shall be called on to serve, in order of the votes they received, as replacements to complete the terms of any members who resign from the Committee after the election.
The term of service shall be two years. Committee members may be elected to a second two-year term. At least one year must pass before a Committee member who has served two consecutive two-year terms is again eligible to serve.
The Committee shall (1) discharge the functions assigned to it as defined herein, and (2) from time to time review this statement of policy and recommend appropriate revisions.
6.1.5 Effective Date and Revision of Policy on Academic Freedom and Tenure
This policy and any subsequent revision thereof shall become effective immediately after approval by the University faculty and approval by the Board of Trustees and shall supersede all previous action or statements of policy relative to academic freedom and tenure, and faculty appointment and promotion, except that the mid-probationary standards established in Sec. 4.6.1(c) shall apply only to faculty hired after the effective date of this policy and that the procedures and standards for handling complaints and appeals set forth in Sec. 6 shall apply only to complaints filed with the Committee after the effective date of this policy.
6.2 MATTERS THAT MAY BE APPEALED OR REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
(a) The Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee is responsible for reviewing significant decisions affecting faculty tenure, promotion, sabbatical leave and employment, and determining if any of the following influenced the decision-making process:
- violation of academic freedom,
- improper consideration in which a decision on substantive issues was not based upon impartial professional academic judgment and resulted in prejudice to the faculty member, or
- procedural violations of Faculty Handbook policies that resulted in prejudice to the faculty member.
(b) Academic freedom is defined in the 1940 Statement of Principles adopted by the American Association of University Professors and is the right of all members of the faculty and graduate students employed in teaching and research positions.
(c) In reviewing allegations, the Committee shall not reverse or modify the decision of an appropriate University officer or faculty body solely because it disagrees with their academic judgment. The Committee may reverse or modify a decision only if the decision violated the faculty member’s academic freedom or was based upon improper considerations. The Committee may judge a matter to involve procedural violations and remand the matter to the appropriate administrative officer with remedies (Sec. 6.6 (e)).
(d) If a faculty member wishes to appeal on grounds not within the jurisdiction of the Committee, he or she may appeal a decision by the Provost/VRHS to the Rector. Matters that can be appealed or referred to the Committee are described in Sec. 6.2.
6.2.2 Matters Involving Termination of Employment
(a) Denial of Tenure
If the Provost/VRHS denies tenure to a faculty member and that faculty member believes that infringement of academic freedom, improper considerations, or prejudicial violation of the procedures specified in this Policy occurred, the faculty member may appeal the decision to the Committee. If the faculty member bases an appeal on issues outside the jurisdiction of the Committee, he or she may present the appeal to the Rector.
(b) Dismissal of Tenured Faculty Member
If, after all reasonable efforts to resolve disputes and correct problems have failed, the University intends to proceed with terminating the services of a tenured faculty member who does not accept the terms of the action, the Rector of the University shall file a complaint with the Committee as provided herein. The burden of proof in such cases shall be on the Rector.
In cases in which grounds for termination of a tenured faculty member are conviction or admission of a serious crime the Rector may terminate the faculty member’s services. If the faculty member contends that the violation does not constitute adequate cause for revocation of tenure, the faculty member may appeal the Rector’s termination decision to the Committee on that ground. Tenured clinical faculty whose services are terminated because of loss of medical licensure or hospital privileges may appeal such decision to the Board of Trustees rather than through the Committee.
(c) Dismissal or Non-Renewal of a Non-Tenured Faculty Member
If the annual contract of a probationary faculty member is not renewed by the Provost/VRHS, or a faculty member receives a negative mid-probationary review, or a probationary or other non-tenured faculty member is dismissed during the term of his or her contract and if the faculty member believes that violation of academic freedom, improper considerations, or prejudicial violations of the procedures specified in this Policy occurred, the faculty member may appeal the action to the Committee.
(d) Involuntary Retirement
If a faculty member has been involuntarily retired and believes that the action is associated with violation of academic freedom, improper considerations, or prejudicial violation of the procedures specified in this Policy, the faculty member may appeal the decision to the Committee. (See Sec. 5.3.5 on termination for health reasons.)
(e) Dismissal of Student Assistants
If a graduate, teaching, research or project assistant is dismissed and the student assistant believes that violation of academic freedom, improper considerations or prejudicial violation of the procedures specified in this Faculty Handbook are involved in the dismissal, he or she may appeal the dismissal to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee. In this context, student assistants shall be considered faculty.
6.2.3 Matters Not Involving Termination of Employment
(a) Denial of Promotion
If the Provost/VRHS makes a negative decision on the granting of promotion to a faculty member and the faculty member believes that violation of academic freedom, improper considerations or prejudicial violation of University procedures are involved in that decision, the faculty member may appeal the decision to the Committee.
(b) Denial of Sabbatical Leave
If a faculty member has been denied a sabbatical leave and that faculty member believes that violation of academic freedom, improper considerations or prejudicial violation of the procedures specified in this Policy are involved in that decision, the faculty member may appeal the decision to the Committee.
(c) Report of Violation of Academic Freedom or Faculty Handbook Procedure
Anyone discovering what he or she believes to be a violation of academic freedom anywhere within the University or of the procedures specified in this Policy, may properly bring the matter to the attention of any member of the Committee. A current roster of the Committee is maintained by the University Secretary.
6.2.4 Use of Advisory Committees or Boards
(a) Report of Unethical Behavior by a Faculty Member
If any matters in Sec. 6.2 involve claims of unethical behavior by a faculty member, the case may be referred initially by the AF&T Committee to the Faculty Ethics and Advisory Committee for review and recommendation (Appendix VIII). The AF&T Committee will accept the report from the Faculty Ethics and Advisory Committee and apply the recommendations in a manner appropriate to the case before the AF&T Committee.
(b) Discrimination Claims Involving Faculty
If any matters in Sec. 6.2 involve claims of unlawful discrimination by or against a faculty member, the case may be initially reviewed and investigated by the University Office of Equal Opportunity Programs (OEOP). This process shall follow established University procedures and include consultation by the director of OEO with the chair of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure or a designee. The investigation by the OEO shall not exceed three (3) months unless there are extenuating circumstances. After conclusion of the OEO investigation, the Committee, at its discretion, may consider the evidence obtained by and the determination of the OEO investigation in connection with the issues before it.
(a) The involvement of the Committee shall be initiated by a written complaint. The complaint shall include the basis of the complaint, the underlying facts, any supporting documentation, the names, and telephone numbers of any relevant contact people, and the desired remedy.
(b) In the case of proposed dismissal of a faculty member with tenure, the Rector files a complaint with the Committee and sends a copy of the complaint to the faculty member.
(c) When a faculty member initiates a complaint (i.e., acts as the complainant), a copy of the complaint shall be forwarded by the Committee to the person(s) whose action is questioned in the complaint. The individual(s) against whom allegations are made shall be the respondent.
6.3.2 Preliminary Review
(a) Upon receipt of a complaint filed by a faculty member, the chair of the Committee shall appoint a subcommittee of two Committee members to investigate the allegations of the complaint, obtain a written response from the respondent, interview individuals with relevant information, and advise the chair and Committee on the matter. Based upon acquired information from the subcommittee, the Committee shall determine whether a hearing should be held. Every effort shall be made to make this determination within 30 days of appointment of the subcommittee. A faculty member shall be entitled to a formal resolution process if the Committee determines that sufficient grounds may exist to support allegations of violations concerning academic freedom, improper considerations, or substantial procedural violations of the Faculty Handbook. The Committee shall inform the complainant and respondent in writing of the issues warranting proceeding with a formal resolution process. The resolution process may involve mediation, arbitration, or a formal hearing process. If the Committee proceeds with a formal hearing, subcommittee members normally shall not serve as members of the Hearing Panel.
(b) If the Committee determines that the complaint contains allegations that have not been considered previously by the Provost/VRHS, the Committee shall refer the case to the Provost/VRHS for discretionary review before proceeding with any formal resolution process. The Provost/VRHS shall complete any such review within 15 working days of the referral. If the Provost/VRHS decides not to review the case, or if on receipt of the decision of the Provost/VRHS the complainant still wishes to pursue the complaint with the Committee, the Committee may proceed with a formal resolution process.
(c) There will be no preliminary review of cases filed by the Rector. A formal hearing will be held upon receipt of a complaint from the Rector.
6.3.3 Alternative Resolution Processes
(a) The Committee may require that the complainant and the respondent(s) enter into mediation or a non-binding arbitration process in an attempt to resolve the dispute. The mediation or non-binding arbitration proceedings shall remain confidential unless all parties involved in the complaint agree to waive the confidentiality of the proceedings in whole or part. If this process does not result in the resolution of the complaint, the Committee may again be petitioned to review the case for the appropriateness of a hearing. The timetable for consideration of a hearing, as set forth in the hearing schedules, will then begin.
(b) In consultation with the Committee, the parties may agree to submit resolution of their dispute to final binding arbitration in lieu of a hearing before the Committee. The binding arbitration procedures will be set up pursuant to agreement of the parties.
(c) The University will assume the cost for mediation and/or arbitration.
6.4 TYPES OF HEARINGS AND NORMAL TIME SCHEDULES
All parties shall make every effort to adhere to the following schedule(s) in order to expedite the review and hearing process. In extraordinary circumstances, the Committee may accept complaints that are at variance with the established schedules. In such proceedings, the schedule of events shall approximate the established time increments as described below.
6.4.1 Denial of Tenure or Non-renewal of Probationary Appointment
(a) A probationary faculty member who is denied tenure, who receives a negative mid-probationary review, or whose annual contract is not renewed for reasons other than financial exigency and who has exhausted the appeal process through the chair, dean and Provost/VRHS has the right to file a complaint with the Committee by Sept. 1 of the terminal contract year.
(b) The described time schedule (Table 6.4.1) will also apply to faculty members who are denied promotion and have appealed the decision through the chair, dean, and Provost/VRHS.
Table 6.4.1. Schedule-A for a Hearing Based on a Denial of Tenure or Non-Renewal of Probationary Appointment.
|ACTION||DUE DATE /
|Notification letter is sent from the Provost to the faculty member.+||June 30*|
|Faculty member sends request for reconsideration of the decision to Provost.||July 15|
|Provost responds to the request for reconsideration.||Aug. 1|
|Faculty member requests a hearing by the Committee.||Sept. 1*|
|Investigatory subcommittee is appointed by the Committee||Sept. 15|
|Requested additional documentation is sent to the Committee.||5 days after request|
|Respondent replies to the complaint.||10 days after request|
|Investigatory subcommittee reports its findings & makes recommendation to Committee.||Oct. 15|
|Case referred, if necessary, to Provost/VRHS for discretionary review and response
received from Provost/VRHS.
|15 days after referral|
|A Hearing Panel of the Committee, if necessary, is appointed.||Nov. 15*|
|The hearing is completed by the Committee Hearing Panel.||Feb. 1|
|The Committee transmits its decision to the Provost.||Mar. 15*|
|Decision is implemented or appealed.||Apr. 15*|
* Final date for indicated action to have been completed. Dates falling on weekends are extended to the next working day; + Also applies to matters involving the denial of promotion.
(c) By Sept. 15, the chair shall appoint an investigatory subcommittee of two Committee members. The subcommittee shall make every effort to complete the preliminary review within 20 working days, which includes the acquisition of requested information and receipt of the respondent’s written reply to the complaint. The subcommittee shall report to the full Committee, and shall recommend whether a hearing should be held.
(d) If the Committee determines that a hearing will occur, a five-member hearing panel shall be appointed by Nov. 1. By no later than Nov. 15, the chair of the panel shall contact all persons involved and set the earliest possible hearing date. All hearings shall be completed by Feb. 1.
(e) The hearing panel shall present its findings to the Committee within 15 working days of receipt of the hearing transcript. The Committee shall review and consider the findings of the hearing, and make a decision that shall be transmitted to the Provost/VRHS on or before Mar. 15.
(f) The faculty member shall have 20 working days from receipt of the decision in which to appeal the decision. Similarly, the Provost/VRHS shall have 20 working days from receipt of the decision in which to appeal the decision or to implement it if it is not appealed. Appeals shall follow the procedures specified in Sec. 6.7 and 6.8.
6.4.2 Other Matters
(a) Allegations of violation of academic freedom, improper considerations, or prejudicial violation of Faculty Handbook policies, outside the context of matters addressed in Sec. 6.4.1 or 6.4.3, shall follow the procedures set forth in this section. The matter should be brought to the Committee within 90 days of the date when the faculty member knew or reasonably should have known about the violation (Table 6.4.2).
Table 6.4.2.: Schedule-B for a Hearing Pertaining to Other Matters.
|ACTION||WORKING DAYS AFTER PRIOR ACTION|
|There is an alleged violation of a faculty member’s academic freedom or of Faculty Handbook policies.*|
|Faculty member files a complaint with the Committee.||Within 90 days of knowledge of violation|
|Investigatory subcommittee is appointed by the Committee.||10 days|
|Faculty member sends any additional documentation to the Committee.||5 days after request|
|Respondent replies to the complaint.||10 days after request|
|Preliminary investigation is completed.||20 days|
|Case referred, if necessary, to Provost/VRHS for discretionary review and response received from Provost/VRHS.||15 days after referral|
|Hearing Panel, if necessary, is appointed by the Committee.||5 days after decision|
|Committee hearing is completed.||Earliest possible date|
|Transcript of the hearing is received by the Committee.|
|Hearing Panel presents its findings to the Committee.||15 days|
|Committee transmits its decision to the Provost.||20 days|
|Decision is implemented or appealed.||20 days|
* Matters involving denial of sabbatical leave, dismissal of student assistants, or matters not included in Schedule-A or Schedule-C shall follow this time schedule.
(b) The Committee Chair will appoint an investigatory subcommittee of two Committee members within 10 working days of the receipt of the complaint. The subcommittee shall make every effort to complete the preliminary review within 20 working days, which includes the acquisition of requested information and receipt of the respondent’s written reply to the complaint. The subcommittee shall report its findings to the full Committee and make a recommendation as to whether a hearing is appropriate.
(c) If the Committee decides that a hearing is appropriate, the Committee chair shall appoint a five-member hearing panel within five working days of completion of the preliminary investigation. The chair of the hearing panel will contact all persons involved and set the earliest possible hearing date.
(d) The hearing panel shall present its findings to the Committee within 15 working days of receipt of the hearing transcript. The Committee shall transmit its decision to the Provost/VRHS within 20 working days of receipt of the panel’s report.
(e) The faculty member shall have 20 working days from receipt of the decision in which to appeal the decision. Similarly, the Provost/VRHS shall have 20 working days from receipt of the decision in which to appeal the decision or to implement it if it is not appealed. Appeals shall follow the procedures specified in Sec. 6.7 and 6.8.
6.4.3 Dismissal of Tenured Faculty Member
(a) Reasons for termination of employment for faculty members with tenure are described in Sec. 5.3. In each case, the burden of proof resides with the Rector and University administration (Table 6.4.3).
Table 6.4.3.: Schedule-C for Dismissal of a Tenured Faculty Member.
|ACTION||WORKING DAYS AFTER PRIOR ACTION|
|Rector files a complaint with the Committee.|
|Committee requests a response from the faculty member.|
|Faculty member sends a response to the Committee.||10 days after request|
|Hearing Panel is appointed by the Committee.|
|Hearing is scheduled to begin.||20 days|
|Hearing is completed.||20 days|
|Transcript of the hearing is received by the Committee.|
|Hearing Panel presents its findings to the Committee.||15 days|
|Committee transmits its decision to Rector& faculty member.||20 days|
|Rector implements the Committee’s decision or appeals it to Board of Trustees.||20 days|
(b) No termination proceeding based on academic incompetence or neglect of duty shall be instituted against a faculty member with tenure unless the faculty member has been informed in writing of the alleged shortcomings and has been given a reasonable period of time in which to remedy them (Sec. 4.9).
(c) When reasons arise to question the fitness of a tenured faculty member, the matter first shall be discussed between the department chair and the faculty member as described for the post-tenure review process (Sec. 4.9). If the matter is not resolved at that level, the complaint may be directed to the next direct authority. If a resolution is still not effected, the issue shall proceed through normal University channels up to and including the Rector of the University. At every stage, the appropriate University officer shall discuss the matter in a personal conference with the faculty member involved, and notify the faculty member in writing of any proposed action. The matter may be concluded at any point in this process by mutual consent.
(d) If the matter is not concluded by agreement after the preliminary proceedings described above, and the Rector still decides to terminate the faculty member’s services, the Rector shall file a complaint with the Committee and send a copy of the complaint to the faculty member. The procedures established in this Policy for hearings by the Committee shall be followed.
(e) In addition to materials outlined in Sec. 6.3.1, the complaint should contain:
- A statement, with reasonable particularity, giving the grounds for the dismissal.
- A statement that the Committee will conduct a hearing on the charges.
- A statement referring the faculty member to the pertinent sections of the Faculty Handbook governing the procedural and substantive rights of faculty.
(f) The Chair of the Committee will request from the faculty member a written response to the charges. The faculty member shall submit the response to the chair of the Committee and to the Rector within 10 working days after receiving the request.
(g) If the faculty member does not submit a written response to the charges, the Committee shall consider whether the stated grounds constitute adequate cause, and it may conclude, without further inquiry, that the dismissal would be proper. At its discretion, however, the Committee may investigate the truth of the charges and request that the Rector provide supporting evidence. Thirty (30) working days following the faculty member’s failure to respond, the Committee shall forward its decision, with the reasons stated, to the Rector and to the faculty member.
(h) If the faculty member submits a written response to the charges, the hearing procedures set forth shall be followed. References to the complainant shall refer to the Rector and University administration, and the references to the respondent shall refer to the faculty member. Therefore, the Rector and administration have the burden of proving their case (Sec. 6.5.1 (c)).
(i) Within 5 working days after receiving the faculty member’s written response, the chair of the Committee shall appoint a hearing panel of five members. The panel shall schedule a hearing to begin not more than 20 working days after receipt of the Rector’s complaint. The time and place of the hearing shall be set in consultation with the faculty member and the Rector. The hearing shall be completed within 20 additional working days and a transcript shall be obtained.
(j) Suspension by the administration of a tenured faculty member during the Committee’s proceedings shall be justified only if harm to self, to others, or to University property is threatened by continuance of duty. Should it believe such a suspension to be justified, the administration shall consult with the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee concerning the propriety and conditions of the suspension. Unless prohibited by law, any such suspension shall be with pay.
(k) If the faculty member’s academic competence is questioned, the proof before the Committee shall be insufficient unless it includes testimony of teachers and other scholars, either from the University or from other institutions, and it shows that the faculty member’s academic performance (1) has deteriorated since receipt of tenure and (2) is now typically unsatisfactory.
(l) The panel shall present its findings to the Committee within 15 working days of receipt of the transcript of the hearing. The Committee shall transmit its report to the Rector and faculty member within 20 working days of receipt of the panel’s report.
(m) At the request of either the faculty member or the Rector, the Board of Trustees shall review the case. A request for review by the Board of Trustees must be filed with the Secretary of the University within 20 working days after the date that the Committee’s decision is sent to the faculty member and the Rector. The Board of Trustees’ review will follow the procedures specified in Sec. 6.8 (c).
6.5 CONSIDERATION BY A HEARING PANEL
6.5.1 General Considerations
(a) The purpose of a hearing before the Committee will be to decide a formal, written complaint brought by either a faculty member or the Rector that was not resolvable by mediation efforts of the Committee. Specific actions for which a hearing by the Committee will be considered are defined (Sec. 6.2).
(b) The Committee shall not be required to follow formal judicial procedures or rules of evidence. Members of the Committee, the complainant, the respondents, and—with the permission of the hearing panel—their advisors or attorneys shall have the right to question all witnesses who testify orally.
(c) In all cases, the burden of proof lies with the complainant.
(d) If appropriate, the hearing panel or the Committee may extend any time limit set forth in Sec. 6.4. For example, the Committee may extend time limits if a dispute is actively being mediated. Notification of a time extension shall be sent in writing to the complainant and respondent along with a new schedule.
6.5.2 Appointment of the Panel
(a) Cases brought before the Committee shall be heard by a panel consisting of no fewer than five (5) members of the Committee (including a panel chair) who are selected by the chair of the Committee, with the approval of the Committee as a whole. If, due to disqualification, there are fewer than five available Committee members, the Committee shall add members drawn from the ranks of former Committee members.
(b) A Committee member shall be disqualified from considering a matter, at any stage, if member:
- is directly involved in the matter being considered;
- has a prior relationship with a party, is a witness, or the situation would interfere with the member’s objectivity;
- is otherwise incapable of serving (e.g., sickness or sabbatical leave); or
- if the matter directly involves a departmental colleague.
(c) A Committee member may ask to be recused for these or other conflicts of interest. Alternatively, if any of the principals in a matter to be heard by the Committee believes that one or more members of the Committee should be disqualified, the decision shall be made by the full Committee in the absence of the member whose disqualification is sought.
6.5.3 Schedule for a Hearing
The hearing panel shall schedule a hearing to take place according to the timetables above. This panel in consultation with the complainant and respondent shall set the time and place of the hearing.
6.5.4 Public or Private Hearing
The hearing shall be private, unless both parties agree that it should be public, subject to any requirements of the Northern Cyprus (TRNC) Open Meetings Act. If the hearing is private, the proceeding of the hearing shall be confidential to the extent allowed by law.
6.5.5 Pre-hearing Meetings
At any time prior to the hearing, the chair of the panel may, with fair notice to the parties, hold meetings or discussions with the parties in order to:
- ascertain and simplify the issues that are involved;
- ascertain which facts are disputed and which are not;
- facilitate the exchange of documentary and other information;
- answer procedural questions; and
- achieve such other objectives as will make the hearing fair, effective, and expeditious.
6.5.6 Fair Notice
(a) At least five working days before the hearing, each party shall provide the panel and the other party with the following information:
- List of intended witnesses, or a statement that no witnesses will be called. The panel may place reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses. No witnesses other than those on the list may testify without the written consent of the panel.
- Any statement of an absent witness (Sec. 6.5.9 (b)).
- Copies of documents the party plans to introduce into evidence, unless it has been determined at a pre-hearing conference that such documents are already before the panel for consideration. No other documents may be introduced into evidence without the written consent of the panel.
- Brief from the parties (not to exceed 10 pp) detailing their position on the written complaint.
(b) Acceptance of late testimony or evidence after the hearing shall depend on the panel’s judgment of the importance of the testimony or evidence and must represent information that could not reasonably have been received before or during the hearing. In all cases, copies of any communication between the hearing panel or the Committee and either party shall be immediately transmitted to all other parties.
6.5.7 Order of Proceedings
(a) The panel may determine the order in which the parties present their arguments and evidence. Otherwise, the order used shall be the following:
- complainant’s presentation of case;
- respondent’s presentation of case;
- rebuttal by complainant, if any;
- rebuttal by respondent, if any;
- closing arguments by complainant; and
- closing arguments by respondent.
(b) With permission of the panel, evidence may be introduced out of order and additional evidence may be introduced.
(a) If any material facts are in dispute, the parties may testify, present testimony of witnesses, and introduce documents and other evidence at the hearing. The panel may exclude unfair and irrelevant evidence and will not be bound by judicial rules of evidence.
(b) The panel may independently secure evidence or witnesses for presentation at the hearing, and may postpone the hearing until such evidence is available. The panel may not consider evidence that is not presented at the hearing or otherwise provided to the parties for their response.
(c) All members of the University community shall cooperate with the parties’ reasonable requests to provide evidence and to appear at the hearing as witnesses. The parties, when needed, shall have the aid of the University Administration and the Committee in securing the attendance of witnesses and in obtaining necessary evidence.
(a) Parties shall have the right, within reasonable limits set by the panel, to question all witnesses.
(b) When a witness is unable to attend a hearing, arrangements shall be made to have the witness participate by conference telephone. If this is not possible, the Committee upon advance request may permit a signed statement by that witness to be introduced at the hearing, but only if it is provided to the other party in sufficient time to permit the other party to contact and question the witness (at least one week before the hearing.) The other party may then submit an additional statement from that witness. All written statements from the witness shall be excluded if the second party is unable to secure the cooperation of the witness.
6.5.10 Rights of Parties to be Present: Advisors
All parties shall have the right to be present at the hearing and to be accompanied by an advisor, an attorney, or both. No advisor or attorney may question witnesses or address the panel without permission of the panel chairperson.
With the permission of the panel, the parties may submit written briefs (not to exceed 10 pp) after the hearing provided that no new factual information is introduced in the brief.
A verbatim record of the proceeding shall be kept and made available to the parties concerned. The cost of such record shall be borne by the University.
6.5.13 Deliberation by Panel after Hearing
(a) After the hearing, the panel may decide to postpone deliberations until a transcript of the hearing is produced. The panel shall deliberate in closed session. The panel shall present specific written findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendations to the Committee, in the form of a reasoned opinion based upon the evidence presented at the hearing
(b) The panel’s recommendation shall be forwarded to the Committee within 15 calendar days after receipt of the transcript. The transcript and all documentary evidence shall also be forwarded to the Committee.
6.6 CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMITTEE
(a) The Committee, in closed session, shall consider only the panel’s findings, conclusions and recommendations as well as the transcript and forwarded evidence. The Committee shall not consider new evidence.
(b) Normally, within 15 calendar days of receipt of the panel’s report, the Committee shall issue a written decision to the parties. However, the Committee may refer the matter back to the panel for further examination of specified issues. Any such referral shall be accompanied by written instructions, which shall include deadlines for the further proceedings. No case may be referred back to the panel more than once. The Committee’s decision shall include specific written findings of fact, conclusions, and remedies, in the form of a reasoned opinion based upon the evidence at the hearing.
(c) The Committee shall notify, in writing, the parties concerned and the Provost/VRHS, if Provost/VRHS is not a party, of its decision and shall provide each with copies of the findings, conclusions, and opinions.
(d) If the Committee finds academic freedom violations or improper considerations occurred, it shall identify in its decision the violation(s) found and the necessary corrective measures. In a case where the matter concerns a personnel decision resulting from a formal review process, such as a mid-probationary review or tenure review, the corrective measures may require carrying out the review process leading up to the personnel decision a second time, and making a decision based on the second review. If so, only one such repetition of a review shall be permitted, and if appropriate, the faculty member shall be granted an additional contract for one year. In other cases, the Committee may conclude that the appropriate corrective measure is to reverse the original personnel decision; in such a case, the Committee shall enter a reasoned decision to that effect.
(e) Procedural errors alone shall not be the basis for granting tenure, promotion, or other change in a faculty member’s employment status. However, if the Committee finds that procedural errors prejudiced a personnel decision regarding a faculty member, this shall normally lead to a Committee decision to require that the review process leading up to the personnel decision be carried out a second time, and a decision be made based on the second review. Only one such repetition of a review shall be permitted. In such a case, the Committee’s decision shall identify the procedural error(s) found and the necessary corrective measures. If these corrective measures require, the faculty member shall be granted an additional contract for one year. If the Committee concludes that despite the procedural errors the review process should not be repeated, it shall enter a reasoned decision to that effect.
6.7 APPEAL OF COMMITTEE DECISION TO THE RECTOR
Appeals of a decision of the Committee shall be taken to the Rector, except as noted below in Sec. 6.8 (a).
The appeal shall be filed within 20 working days of receipt of the Committee’s decision. The appeal shall include a summary of the facts, the process, and the grounds for the appeal. The statement shall be filed with the Rector whose office shall furnish copies to the parties. Within 20 working days of receiving an appeal, the Rector will provide, in writing, a reasoned decision to the involved parties and the Committee.
The decision by the Rector is final, subject to discretionary review by the Board of Trustees. Requests for such review shall be made within 20 working days of receipt of the Rector’s decision and shall follow the provision set forth in Sec. 6.8 (b)-(d) below.
6.8 REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
(a) In case of a University-initiated dismissal of a tenured faculty member, or in other cases where the Committee has made a finding of violation of academic freedom or improper considerations (in either case, whether or not specific violations of Faculty Handbook procedures were found to have occurred), there shall be no right of appeal to the Rector, but a request for review by the Board of Trustees may be filed. Requests for such review shall be made within 20 working days of receipt of the Committee’s decision and shall follow the provisions set forth below. In the case of a University-initiated dismissal of a faculty member as noted in Sec. 6.4.3 (m), the review of the Board of Trustees, if requested, is mandatory; in all other cases, the review of the Board is discretionary. In cases where the Committee does not make a finding of violation of academic freedom or improper considerations, either the complainant or respondent shall have the right of appeal to the Rector, and as noted in Sec. 6.7, the Rector’s decision in turn may be appealed for discretionary review by the Board of Trustees. The provisions set forth below shall govern such request for review.
(b) Requests for discretionary review shall include a summary of the facts, the process, and the reasons justifying extraordinary review. The statement shall be filed with the Rector whose office shall furnish copies to the parties and the Board of Trustees. If the Board accepts review of the case, notice shall be provided to the principals, Rector, and the Committee.
(c) In its review, the Board of Trustees may call upon the Chair of the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee and/or a designee, to discuss the Committee decision and/or to consult in interpreting relevant Faculty Handbook or Cyprıot/Turkısh/English/American Assn. of University Professors (AAUP) policies. Review shall be on the record, with opportunity for the parties to submit additional written and oral arguments, pursuant to procedures established by the Board of Trustees for the case. Consistent with the independent nature of the review, the Board of Trustees will be represented by non-University counsel. Within 40 working days of receipt of the request for review, the Board of Trustees shall issue a decision. The Board of Trustees may affirm the case or remand it to the Committee for further proceedings. Any remand shall be accompanied by instructions to the Committee, which shall include a deadline of no more than 20 working days for the further proceedings. The Committee shall reconsider the case taking account of the stated objections and receiving new evidence if necessary.
(d) After reconsideration, the Committee shall frame its decision and communicate it to the parties involved and to the Board. After study of the Committee’s reconsideration, accompanied by the opportunity for final oral and written arguments by the principals or their representatives, the Board of Trustees shall make a decision that may not be appealed further within the University.