Download the most current version as an MS Word File
STANDING RULES
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER[1]
Enacted By Unanimous Faculty Vote
April 12 , 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………….4
B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT …………………………………….4
1. Teaching
2. Research
3. Service
C. THE CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT …………………………………………… 5
1. Responsibilities
2. Duties
3. Term of Office
4. Nominations and Election
5. Acting Chairs
D. ASSOCIATE CHAIRS OF THE DEPARTMENT ………………………………….6
E. FACULTY GOVERNANCE…………………………………………………………6
1. Departmental Policy
2. Meetings
3. Quorum
4. Agenda
5. Minutes
6. Voting
7. Proxy Votes
8. Voting Procedure
9. Student Representation
F. THE FACULTY …………………………………………………………………….7
1. Responsibilities
2. Associate Faculty
a. Professors Emeriti
b. Adjunct Faculty
c. Visiting Professors
d. Lecturers and Instructors
3. Research Faculty
4. Graduate Faculty
5. Absence from Classroom
6. Differentiated Workload Policy
G. STANDING COMMITTEES ……………………………………………………….9
1. The Executive Committee
a. Composition of the Committee
b. Election of At-Large Executive Committee Members
i. Timing of Election
ii. Term of Office
iii. Timing of Special Election
iv. Nomination and Voting
c. Designation of Alternates
d. Meetings and Quorum
e. Inability to Serve
f. Duties of the Executive Committee
g. Committee Voting
a. Membership
b. Student Representation
c. Committee Meetings
a. Membership
b. Student Representation
c. Committee Meetings
d. Ph.D. Examinations
e. Graduate Student Handbook
f. Graduate Recruitment
g. Graduate Admissions Subcommittee
a. Membership
b. Student Representation
H. AD HOC DEPARTMENT COMMITTEES ……………………………………………12
1. Faculty Recruitment Committee
a. Membership
b. Student Representation
c. Voting on Short-list and Hiring
2. Faculty Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee
a. Membership
b. Voting
c. Confidentiality
3. Other Ad Hoc Committees
I. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER UNITS ON CAMPUS ……………………….….....13
J. CHANGES IN THE STANDING RULES …………………………………………….. 13
APPENDIX I: GUIDELINES FOR REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND TENUREAPPENDIX II: ANNUAL FACULTY MERIT EVALUATION
APPENDIX III: ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CHAIR
APPENDIX IV: FIVE YEAR POST TENURE FACULTY REVIEWS
APPENDIX V: FACULTY GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
APPENDIX VI: STUDENT GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
APPENDIX VII: GUIDELINES RELEVANT TO HIRING OF TENURED OR TENURE TRACK FACULTY
APPENDIX VIII: COURSE BANKING
APPENDIX IX: MENTORING PLAN FOR ASSISTANT PROFESSORS
APPENDIX X: GUIDELINES FOR UNDERGRADUATE INDEPENDENT STUDY
STANDING RULES
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER
The Department is a community of scholars working toward common objectives of advancing knowledge and promoting learning in a supportive environment. In furtherance of these objectives, it is helpful to have established procedures and policies that enable the Department to carry out its functions and obligations. It is hoped that these procedures and policies reflect common understanding and minimize any conflict and misunderstanding. This is the rationale for these Departmental Standing Rules.
As used in this Document, Standing Rules refer to relatively stable operating procedures, to be ratified (or changed) by 2/3 vote of the faculty. In contrast, Guidelines are more flexible and are adopted by majority vote.
Each of the units of our larger community--the College of Arts and Sciences, the Graduate School, the campus as a whole, and ultimately, the Regents of the University of Colorado--have established policies and procedures for the functioning of the University, only some of which are repeated here. In all cases, our policies and procedures, which may present greater detail or address specific additional areas, are consonant with (but subservient to) those existing at higher levels within the University.
B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT
The responsibilities of the Department are to implement, within its area of competence and the limits of its resources, the basic goals of the University through the activities of its faculty in the areas of teaching, research, and service.
1. Teaching. The Department offers two instructional programs. These are: (1) an Undergraduate program of courses designed to support the liberal arts education of undergraduates in all departments and colleges of the University and a curriculum leading to a major in the field of Sociology; and (2) a Doctoral program providing advanced graduate education in Sociology, with special emphases in several areas as defined by a majority vote of the faculty.
2. Research. The role of the professional academic scholar includes creative research resulting in contributions to the published literature of the discipline and profession. The Department--through the efforts of its faculty--shall work to attain the highest possible position of scholarly pre-eminence in the sociological profession. The Department encourages the involvement of graduate students in research and publication endeavors as part of their professional training, and the inclusion of undergraduates whenever possible.
3. Service. The Department expects faculty to apply their professional skills and knowledge in service both on and off campus. On-campus service includes service to the Department, College, Graduate School, University, and other on-campus units. Off-campus service includes service to the sociological profession and the non-profit application of sociological knowledge to the resolution of problems confronting groups, organizations, agencies, governments and society.
C. THE CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT
1. Responsibilities. The responsibilities of the Chair are set forth in the Faculty Handbook and the Laws of the Regents.
2. Duties. The Chair shall function as the chief administrative officer of the Department, responsible for executing the policies established by the University. The Department Chair shall: (a) draw up the teaching schedule; (b) coordinate the process of formulating the departmental budget and departmental recommendations for new appointments, reappointments, terminations of appointment, salary increases, tenure and promotions; (c) carry out all duties of the Chair specified in later sections of this document; and (d) refer all matters relating to the formulation of policy either to the Executive Committee, Department faculty, or to the Department members at large as appropriate. The Chair shall be free to act in an executive or administrative capacity upon established policy.
3. Term of Office. The term of the Chair of the Department follows College of Arts and Sciences policy. At this writing (2005), that policy is: the Chair shall have a four-year term, renewable once. The regular teaching load for the Chair should be determined through negotiation with the Dean. Where possible, a new Chair shall take office at the beginning of the Fiscal Year on July 1st.
4. Nominations and Election. Voting for the chair shall be conducted at a regular or special faculty meeting as early as possible in the semester preceding that in which the new Chair is to take office. Nominations for the office of chair may be made by voting members of the Department from among the entire population of persons professionally qualified, whether they are outside or inside the University. The Department vote is a non-binding recommendation to the Dean. Eligibility to vote in the election of a Chair is described in Section E.6 below. Proxies are permitted, as described in Section E.7 below. A candidate must receive a majority of all votes cast. If on the first election ballot no candidate receives a majority, a second ballot will be taken to choose between the two candidates who received the highest number of votes, including ties.
5. Acting Chairs. For periods of time no longer than one semester and during the summer session, the Chair may appoint from among the regular faculty members of the Department an Acting Chair to serve during the Chair’s absence.
D. ASSOCIATE CHAIRS OF THE DEPARTMENT
The Chair of the Department shall appoint two Associate Chairs of the Department, ideally for two-year terms. The Associate Chair for the Undergraduate Program will chair the Undergraduate Committee and the Associate Chair for the Graduate Program will chair the Graduate Committee. Associate Department Chairs usually start and end their terms in August (although during the summer they operate on emergency-only basis).
1. Departmental Policy. The power to make policy rests with the voting members of the Departmental faculty and any additional people to whom they grant voting rights.
2. Meetings. Faculty usually meet on a monthly basis during the academic year, and at additional times as determined by the Chair. The Chair (or his/her designee) shall preside at faculty meetings. Each meeting will offer the opportunity for reports from the Graduate and Undergraduate Committees, and the Chair should report regularly to the faculty about the activities of the Executive Committee. Faculty meetings should include an opportunity for all members of the faculty to bring “New Business from the Floor.” Robert's Rules of Order, Revised, shall be used to resolve any procedural questions that arise, with the exception that the voting members of the Department can, with a two-thirds majority, suspend the rules for a single agenda item.
3. Quorum. A quorum for the conduct of business at a regularly scheduled meeting of the faculty during the regular school year (when the University is in session during the fall or spring semesters) shall be those voting members present.
For meetings during the summer session or during the break between Fall and Spring semesters, a quorum is the majority of the faculty (excluding members on leave) normally eligible to vote.
4. Agenda. The Chair shall circulate an agenda prior to the monthly faculty meetings and, whenever possible, before any other scheduled meeting of the faculty.
5. Minutes. The Chair shall be responsible for the recording and circulation of faculty meeting minutes. Minutes shall specifically record policy, programmatic, and procedural judgments, when such are brought to question and passed (or not passed) by a majority of those eligible to vote. Minutes are reviewed and considered for approval at the next faculty meeting.
6. Voting. Full voting rights are extended to all those who hold tenured/tenure track lines in the Department, with the following exceptions. We follow Robert’s Rules of Order in the case of the Chair. “When there is a tie vote, the motion fails, unless the Chairman gives his vote for the affirmative, which he is at liberty to do, as he has a right to vote whenever his vote will affect the result. Where his vote in the negative will make a tie, he can cast it and thus defeat the measure.”
In personnel decisions, the rule of seniority prevails. A faculty member can examine materials, participate in or be present for discussions, and vote only for promotions to his/her own rank or a lower one.[2] Only tenured faculty may participate in or be present for reappointment decisions for Assistant Professors. All tenured and tenure track faculty may participate in and vote in all hiring decisions and recommendations for Chair of the Department.
Instructors who have been in the Department for at least three years, undergone comprehensive review by the full faculty of the Department, and reappointed to terms of longer than one year will have full voting rights, with the exception that instructors will not participate in votes regarding promotion of tenured/tenure-track faculty or instrutors, although they will be encouraged to participate in discussions about hiring. They are eligible to vote for Chair of the Department.
7. Proxy Votes. Faculty members absent from a faculty meeting may name another member of the voting faculty to be their proxy and vote for them in specific ways on issues related to reappointment, promotion, and tenure. No proxy votes are permitted on other issues. The absent faculty member must notify the Chair prior to the meeting in writing or email of the faculty member to whom their proxy has been awarded. The Chair cannot cast proxy votes.
8. Voting Procedure. Unless otherwise specified in this document, all decisions of the faculty shall be made by majority vote. Faculty votes shall be open except those involving personnel issues and other special circumstances as determined by the Chair (or by majority vote if the majority disagrees with the Chair).
9. Student Representation. The Graduate Student Association will elect two co-chairs to attend faculty meetings. The election will follow similar procedures to those used for faculty election to the Executive Committee. The Graduate Secretary will supervise the election. The co-chairs will serve as non-voting participants (not simply “observers”) at the faculty meeting. Graduate students will be excused from discussions of personnel issues, discussions about individual graduate students, and other issues at the discretion of the Chair.
1. Responsibilities. The responsibilities of the Faculty are set forth in the Faculty Handbook and the Laws of the Regents. When the term “faculty” is used in this Department, it includes instructors who have voting rights, as described in Section E.6 above, Assistant Professors on tenure track lines in the Department, and tenured Associate and Full Professors.
2. Associate Faculty. Professors emeriti, adjunct and visiting professors of all professorial rank, and lecturers will be accorded “Associate Faculty” status and are eligible to attend faculty meetings and serve as non-voting members on all non-elected committees of the Department. Associate faculty may not serve as the Chair of Standing or Ad Hoc Committees, or on the Executive Committee. They may sit on graduate students’ committees if appointed to the Graduate Faculty (see section F.4). They will be excused from discussions of personnel issues, and other issues at the discretion of the Chair.
a. Professors Emeriti. Any faculty member in accordance with normal faculty review procedures and by approval by the Dean and by the Board of Regents may be allowed to retain his/her title with the description “emeritus” or “emerita” after a majority vote by the faculty.
b. Adjunct Faculty. The title of Assistant, Associate, or Professor Adjunct will be available to persons brought to the Department to teach temporarily or who otherwise regularly participate in the life of the Department. The title awarded adjunct faculty will depend on the last rank held by the individual in a comparable institution. If no professional rank was held previously, and if the permanent faculty believes the individual’s qualifications and experience warrant it, the title of “Assistant Professor Adjunct” normally will be awarded. A majority vote of the faculty is required to appoint an Adjunct Faculty member.
c. Visiting Professors. The designation “visiting” before an academic title indicates that the faculty member has a temporary appointment for an academic year, semester, or summer term. The visiting title shall indicate the faculty member’s rank at his/her home institution, i.e., Visiting Professor, Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, or Visiting Instructor. Visiting Professors may be appointed by the Chair.
d. Lecturers and Instructors. The titles “Lecturer” and “Instructor” are granted to scholars invited to the University to give lectures or perform other teaching duties; the distinction is that Instructors have service obligations in addition to their teaching obligations. Lecturers and instructors (whether full- or part-time) may be hired by the Chair. The Department adheres to the rules of the University regarding reappointment of lecturers and instructors.
3. Research Faculty. Faculty members whose primary duties are to conduct research activities will be given a title within either the “Research Associate” or “Research Professor” series described in the Faculty Handbook. Research Faculty members who are not involved in the instructional program will be appointed within the research associate series; those who are involved in the instructional program will be given a title within the Research Professor series. A majority vote of the faculty is required to hire a Research Faculty member. Research Faculty are not expected to have service responsibilities in the Department.
4. Graduate Faculty. A person must be a member of the Graduate Faculty to teach a graduate level course, to serve on a graduate examining committee in the Department, or on a graduate committee supervising research. All those with tenure or holding tenure-track lines in Sociology are automatically members of the Graduate Faculty. Additional recommendations for membership in the graduate faculty (typically to serve on the committee for one graduate student) are made by the Chair after a binding majority vote of the Graduate Committee.
5. Absence from Classroom. The Department adheres to the policy of the College of Arts and Sciences regarding faculty absences.[3]
6. Differentiated Workload Policy. Most sociology faculty are assigned a workload of 40 percent teaching, 40 percent research, and 20 percent service. In some cases this distribution is adjusted because of administrative duties. In other cases, faculty with little or no research productivity may be assigned a higher teaching component and lower research component (particularly when student demand for courses is high). Such assignments are made by the Chair (with the approval of the Dean), and can be appealed by the affected party to the Department’s Executive Committee. Only in the rarest circumstances will the 40-40-20 distribution be altered for Assistant Professors. Annual merit evaluations of faculty (and salary decisions) are made on grounds proportional to the faculty member’s workload assignment.
Standing Committees shall assist the Chair in carrying out the policies of the Department. The Department shall operate the following Standing Committees.
1. The Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall be the major Departmental agent representing the academic and professional interests of the Department faculty in Departmental affairs. This committee is responsible for formulating recommendations based upon departmental policy relating to budgetary matters, salaries, teaching responsibilities, and other issues that need resolution. Any regular faculty members can request items for the agenda of Executive Committee meetings.
a. Composition of the Committee. The Executive Committee will be comprised of five members, each of whom has a full vote in any Committee decision: the Chair of the Department who shall serve as Chair of the Executive Committee, the Associate Chair for the Undergraduate Program, the Associate Chair for the Graduate Program, and two faculty who are elected by the faculty at-large for two-year terms on a staggered basis. If an elected member of the Executive Committee becomes an Associate Chair or for other reasons is unable to continue to serve (see Section G.1.e), there shall be a special election to fill out the term (see Section G.1.b.iii).
b. Election of Executive Committee Members. All tenured members of the Department are eligible for election to the Executive Committee.
i. Timing of Election. Executive Committee members will be elected during the Spring semester preceding start of their membership on the Committee.
ii. Term of Office. Each two-year term will start and expire with the beginning of a Fall term.
iii. Timing of Special Election. A special election shall be conducted to replace any member of Executive Committee who becomes a Chair or Associate Chair, or becomes unable to continue to serve (see Section G.1.e).
iv. Nomination and Voting. Election to any vacancy on the Executive Committee shall normally be completed in the Spring semester preceding the Fall semester in which the new committee member is to take office. All tenured faculty except the Chairs, Associate Chairs whose term begins the following Fall, and continuing Executive Committee members are eligible for election to the Executive Committee. The ballot will contain the names of all eligible faculty. A faculty member who, for whatever reason, believes he/she will be unable to serve the first year of the term, may, after discussion with the Chair, have his/her name removed from the ballot. The Chair will distribute a written ballot to be returned in a double envelope (with the faculty member signing the outer envelope, which will be discarded before the votes are tallied). If more than one position is open, a vote for the second position will occur after the results of the first election are announced.
c. Designation of Alternates. Unless invited by the Chair or Committee, only members of the Executive Committee may attend Executive Committee meetings or vote in Executive Committee matters. Executive committee members may not designate an alternate to attend Committee meetings which they are unable to attend.
d. Meetings and Quorum. A quorum consists of three members of the Executive Committee including the Chair or four members of the Executive Committee if the Chair is not present. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall normally be held at least once a month during the regular academic year.
e. Inability to Serve. An elected member of the Executive Committee who is unable to serve on the Committee for one semester or more (e.g., due to sabbatical leave) shall be dropped from the Committee and the vacancy shall be filled by election of another member to serve out the full Executive Committee term of the member being replaced.
f. Duties of the Executive Committee. The specific duties of the committee shall include, but are not limited to, making substantive recommendations to the Chair on matters concerning faculty tenure, promotion, salaries, contract renewals, and the appointment of faculty to Standing Committees. More generally, the Executive Committee shall play a strategic role in the formulation of policy or procedural recommendations to the faculty or the Chair for appropriate action.
g. Committee Voting. Each member of the Committee (including the Chair) shall have an equal vote. Proxy votes of committee members absent from a meeting shall be allowed only when the absent Executive Committee member informs the Chair in writing ahead of time of the specific issue(s) for which he/she wishes to cast a proxy vote and the substance of her/his vote.
2. Undergraduate Committee. This Committee is responsible for administering the undergraduate curriculum, overseeing the progress of the undergraduate students through the undergraduate program, coordinating the advisory system, and designing and organizing the graduation ceremony.
a. Membership. This committee shall be comprised of at least three members, including the Associate Chair of the Department for the Undergraduate Program, who chairs this Committee. Other members of this committee are appointed for one-year terms by the Chair of the Department. These terms shall begin and end on the first day of the Fall semester.
b. Student Representation. The Graduate Student Association may elect two representatives to sit as non-voting members on the Undergraduate Committee. The Associate Chair for the Undergraduate Program may also invite undergraduate students to participate in committee meetings. Student representatives will be excused from any discussions of individual student and personnel issues.
c. Committee Meetings. Meetings of the Undergraduate Committee are called by the Committee Chair on an as-needed basis, and normally take place monthly during the academic year.
3. Graduate Committee. This committee is responsible for developing, keeping up-to-date, and administering the graduate program. It makes recommendations concerning the graduate curriculum, administers preliminary and comprehensive examinations, and oversees and provides feedback on the progress of graduate students through the graduate program.
a. Membership. This committee shall be comprised of at least three members including the Associate Chair for the Graduate Program, who chairs this committee. Other members of this committee are appointed for one-year terms by the Chair of the Department. These terms shall begin and end on the first day of the Fall semester.
b. Student Representation. The Graduate Student Association may elect two representatives to sit as non-voting members on the Graduate Committee. Graduate student representatives will be excused from any discussions of individual student and personnel issues.
c. Committee Meetings. Meetings of the Graduate Committee are called by the Committee Chair on an as-needed basis, and normally take place monthly.
d. Ph.D. Examinations. The Graduate Committee shall appoint and oversee Ph.D. Comprehensive Examination Committees in the areas of Methods and Theory. The Graduate Committee shall be responsible for maintaining up-to-date reading lists for all Ph.D. Comprehensive Examinations administered by the Department. Specialty Area examinations shall be administered according to provisions of the Graduate Handbook. The Associate Chair for the Graduate Program is accountable for the integrity of these examinations.
e. Graduate Student Handbook. This committee shall maintain the Graduate Student Handbook and keep it up to date to reflect changes in the Graduate Program. A revised version of the Handbook shall be issued at least two weeks prior to the beginning of the Fall Semester (in some years only the date of the relevant academic year will be changed; in other years there will be more substantive changes).
f. Graduate Student Recruitment. The Graduate Committee develops and engages in activities that encourage top quality applicants to the graduate program.
g. Graduate Admissions Subcommittee. Faculty members of the Graduate Committee select a Graduate Admissions Subcommittee which reviews and accepts applications for admission to the graduate program, and administers and awards available funds to attract students to the Department’s Graduate Program. All tenured or tenure track faculty are eligible to sit on the Graduate Admissions Committee.[4] All faculty members are welcome to review applications and make recommendations to this committee.
4. Diversity Committee. This committee is responsible for developing and addressing the advancement of diversity issues in all aspects of the Department. The committee shall work to foster an environment that makes underrepresented groups feel welcome and comfortable; encourage recruitment of more diverse faculty, students, and staff; infuse additional multicultural content within areas of Departmental strength; deepen education about diversity within the Department’s curriculum; stimulate constructive discussion about diversity issues; encourage serious scholarship about various aspects of diversity; hear complaints about diversity related matters and seek satisfactory resolutions to such problems; establish connections with diversity enhancement efforts in other departments and parts of the University; and create a model of diversity enhancement that could be useful within other academic units at the University of Colorado and elsewhere.
a. Membership. This committee shall be comprised of at least two faculty members. The Department Chair appoints its members for one-year terms. These terms shall begin and end on the first day of the Fall semester.
b. Student Representation. The Graduate Student Association may elect two representatives to sit as non-voting members on the Diversity Committee. The Chair of the Diversity Committee may also invite undergraduate students to participate in committee meetings. Students will be excused from any discussions of individual student and personnel issues.
5. Social Committee. This committee is responsible for enhancing the social life of the department. The primary responsibility of the committee shall be organization of the fall welcome picnic. Other activities may include organizing a holiday party, end-of-year party, and organizing research interest happy hours.
a. Membership. This committee shall include at least one faculty member and one graduate student. The Department Chair appoints the faculty member for a one-year term. This term shall begin and end on the first day of Fall semester.
b. Student Representation. The Graduate Student Association shall elect at least one representative to serve on the social committee.
H. AD HOC DEPARTMENT COMMITTEES
The Department also operates a number of ad hoc committees. These committees shall be constituted on an as needed basis and shall assist the Chair in carrying out the polices and responsibilities of the Department.
1. Faculty Recruitment Committee. After the Department has received approval to search for a new faculty member, this committee is created to solicit names of prospective faculty members, investigate their qualifications, undertake a preliminary screening, and to supply the faculty with a “shortlist” of possible candidates to invite for campus interviews. The Recruitment Committee also makes recommendations concerning recruitment procedures internal to committee operations. Following campus interviews, the Committee may make hiring recommendations.
a. Membership. This committee shall be comprised of at least three faculty members appointed by the Department Chair.
b. Student Representation. Graduate students may elect one student representative to each Faculty Recruitment Committee. The student representative may review letters of reference for job candidates, but they will be instructed to treat them as confidential and not share information in the letters with other graduate students.
c. Voting on Short-list and Hiring. Procedures are presented in the Guidelines,
Appendix VII.
2. Faculty Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committees. These committees shall be constituted on an “as needed basis” to conduct the business necessary for the reappointment, promotion and tenure of regular faculty in the Department. The Committee report on a given candidate should be made available to all voting faculty at least 14 days prior to the faculty meeting in which the case will be discussed and voted on. Standards for Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure for faculty rostered in the Department are presented in the Guidelines, Appendix I. Faculty rostered in other units must meet these standards as well as those of the unit of roster.
a. Membership. This committee shall consist of at least three members appointed by the Department Chair. Only tenured faculty are eligible to serve on this committee.
b. Confidentiality. All opinions voiced by faculty about promotion and tenure decisions are strictly confidential and should not be disclosed to anyone else. In the letter summarizing any Department votes taken on personnel issues, the Chair should include the full range of opinions discussed, although not with any information that can be used to identify whose opinion is being reflected. The Chair should also include his/her opinion on the reappointment or promotion decision in that letter.
3. Other Ad Hoc Committees. Other ad hoc committees may be appointed as needed by the Chair of the Department.
I. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER UNITS ON CAMPUS
The Department recognizes that members of its faculty are affiliated with other units on campus, e.g., the Institute of Behavioral Science or Environmental Studies. It is the position of the Department to cooperate with other units on campus with which Department faculty are affiliated in order to further the good of the Department of Sociology and its faculty and students.
J. CHANGES IN THE STANDING RULES
Adoption of and subsequent changes to the rules of procedure herein described shall require two weeks written notice regarding the substance of the change. At least two-thirds of the faculty votes cast during the meeting in which the vote is taken must favor the change.
APPENDICES
DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES[5]
APPENDIX I: GUIDELINES FOR REAPPOINTMENT, TENURE, AND PROMOTION (approved Feb. 10, 2004)
1. Rules of the Regents
2. Allocation of Effort
3. Philosophical Background
4. Evaluation of Teaching
5. Evaluation of Research
6. Evaluation of Service
7. Milestones for Evaluation
a. Timetable for Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure
b. The Departmental Review Process
c. Review above the level of the Department
APPENDIX II: ANNUAL MERIT EVALUATION (approved Feb. 1, 2005)
1. Annual Evaluation
2. Period Evaluated
3. Material Evaluated
4. Differential Weights
5. Special Merit Recommendations
6. Salary Equity
7. Salary Adjustments Basis
8. Evaluation Categories
9. Faculty Feedback
10. Evaluation Guidance
a. Teaching
b. Research
c. Service
d. Other
e. Definition of Evaluation Categories
APPENDIX III: ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CHAIR (approved Feb. 1, 2005)
APPENDIX IV: FIVE YEAR POST TENURE FACULTY REVIEWS (approved Feb. 1, 2005)
APPENDIX V: FACULTY GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES (approved Feb. 8, 2005)
APPENDIX VI: STUDENT GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES (approved Feb. 1, 2005)
APPENDIX VII: GUIDELINES RELEVANT TO HIRING OF TENURED AND TENURE-TRACK FACULTY (approved Feb. 8, 2005) (revised 10-24-06)
1. Selection of Candidates for Campus Interview
2. Selection of Candidates to Whom a Position will be Offered
APPENDIX VIII: COURSE BANKING (approved Feb. 1, 2005)
APPENDIX IX: MENTORING PLAN FOR ASSISTANT PROFESSORS (approved Nov. 2001)
1. How Mentors are Selected or Changed
2. What is Expected of the Mentor
3. The Mentor in the Classroom
4. Evaluation
APPENDIX X: GUIDELINES FOR INDEPENDENT STUDY (approved Feb. 8, 2005)
1. Independent Study Policy and Procedures of the Department of Sociology
2. Maximum Independent Study Credit Hour
GUIDELINES FOR REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND TENURE
Approved February, 2004
The following pages state the policies and standards used by the faculty in the Department of Sociology in decisions affecting our colleagues regarding reappointment, tenure and promotion to Associate Professor (“P&T”), and promotion to the rank of Professor. This statement complies with policies of the Board of Regents as described in its Standards, Processes, and Procedures (SPP) document, and is consistent with the University of Colorado Administrative Policy Statement entitled “Procedures for Written Standards and Criteria for Pre-Tenure Faculty.”
1. Rules of the Regents. Rules of the Regents, as given in the C.U. Faculty Handbook, define the basic requirements for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. These basic requirements cannot be overridden or superseded by departmental rules or interpretations.
The university requires comprehensive review at the end of the last appointment prior to a mandatory tenure decision. According to the Rules of the Regents, the comprehensive review involves full consideration of all credentials (see the Faculty Handbook) and can, if negative, result in the rejection of a faculty member for renewal of appointment. The primary question to be considered by the Department and by administrative review committees for the comprehensive review is whether the candidate is making satisfactory progress toward tenure.
According to the Faculty Handbook, the award of tenure, which is typically concurrent with promotion to associate professor, requires that a faculty member be able to demonstrate at least “meritorious” performance in research, teaching, and service, and “excellence” in either research or teaching. Promotion to the rank of full professor requires that a candidate have (1) a record that, taken as a whole, is judged to be excellent; (2) a record of significant contribution to both graduate and undergraduate education, unless individual or departmental circumstances can be shown to require a stronger emphasis (or singular emphasis) on one or the other; and (3) a record, since receiving tenure and promotion to associate professor, that indicates substantial, significant, and continued growth, development, and accomplishment in teaching, research, scholarship or creative work and service.
The purpose of the departmental evaluation is to apply the general standards of performance in teaching, research, and service that are common in sociology departments at top Ph.D. granting state universities.
2. Allocation of Effort. The standard allocation for the Department of Sociology is 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% service. This standard allocation will be assumed to apply unless specific, written agreements are made to the contrary (agreements between the involved faculty member and the Chair that specifies the alternative allocation and the time period for which it applies); any such agreements must be reported to the Dean. The allocation of effort will be considered to apply as an average over the months of any given academic year.
3. Philosophical Background. The Department of Sociology takes pride in the rich diversity of our faculty, and faculty members may vary in their evaluation of whether a given colleague should be recommended for promotion and/or tenure. We also recognize that there is not one single path to P&T; all members of our faculty have unique combinations of strengths and weaknesses, and each case is judged for promotion on its own merits. Consequently, what follows is a statement of general guidelines. Some faculty may disagree with some of the wording, and as a group we may vary in how these guidelines are interpreted and applied (e.g., what one faculty member sees as a “strong” contribution might be seen by another as “modest”).[6]
Because of this variation in perspective, it would be useful for pre-tenure faculty members to gather input from several senior colleagues with regard to their perspectives of that candidate’s prospects for promotion. The Department of Sociology now has a strong mentoring program for untenured colleagues, and we strongly recommend that untenured colleagues consult often with their mentors and with the Department Chair to assure that they are making satisfactory progress toward tenure.
4. Evaluation of Teaching. Is the faculty member’s demonstrated performance in teaching consistent with the general standards for reappointment, promotion, and tenure as described by the Rules of the Regents? To assist the senior faculty in answering this question, soon after beginning a tenure-track position, new faculty members should begin to build a teaching portfolio that will contain all written records pertaining to teaching performance (and any materials the person would like the tenured faculty to examine in evaluating teaching). Examples of what this portfolio might include are:
a. Statements of teaching philosophy and self-evaluation of teaching;
b. Faculty course questionnaires (“FCQs”) from all classes;
c. Peer evaluations (these may occur each semester and should be conducted by a variety of faculty). It is the responsibility of the faculty member to initiate these evaluations;
d. Examples of syllabi, examinations, class projects, and other items that reflect the quality of instruction;
e. Descriptions of activities intended to improve classroom instruction (e.g., integration of technology);
f. Written statements that may have come from the Chair or others concerning willingness to teach needed classes or classes of a needed size, indicating special rapport with students, contributions to curriculum development, and so on; and
g. Unsolicited letters from students about teaching.
Beyond formal classroom teaching, the candidate may present evidence of supervising Independent Studies or individual research projects (e.g., work with Honors students, UROP, McNair), and whatever additional evidence of instructional activities that the candidate believes is relevant. In faculty evaluations, the publication of textbooks is considered part of teaching contributions.
Unless other written arrangements have been made by the candidate and Chair, all faculty should be active in the instruction of undergraduate and graduate students. In addition to teaching graduate seminars, this would usually include serving as Major Professor for graduate students, membership on graduate committees, development of the graduate curriculum in the person’s specialty area, special symposia for graduate students (e.g., participation in Professionalization seminars), and, if appropriate, preparation and administration of comprehensive exams.
For reappointment in Sociology, candidates should typically have FCQ scores (both instructor and course ratings) of B or better for undergraduate classes and B+ or better for graduate seminars. They should also be working closely with two or more graduate students. If sustained for several years, this level of activity in a diversity of classes (plus active curriculum development) would typically enable an evaluation of “meritorious” teaching at the time of P&T. The case for “excellence” in teaching could potentially be made by additional teaching activities or awards, such as the receipt of grants to develop classroom pedagogy, programmatic curriculum development, publications on teaching (including textbooks), and the receipt of a major teaching award. Because the University of Colorado is a research university, it is rare to obtain tenure solely on excellence in teaching.[7]
For evaluation of overall excellence as is required for promotion to full professorship, the candidate should demonstrate sustained high-quality teaching activities, including leadership in the undergraduate and graduate program and appropriate mentoring of all undergraduate and graduate students in the program, especially his or her own students.
5. Evaluation of Research. For Reappointment decisions, candidates must show evidence that they have moved beyond the dissertation and have started a systematic research program of their own at the University of Colorado. For P&T, candidates must show evidence of a program of scholarly research that has produced at least the beginnings of a national reputation for significant and creative scholarship. There must also be promise of continued growth, although candidates may demonstrate this growth in different ways. Some scholars find that their work is best suited to journal articles, whereas others prefer to focus their efforts on the publication of books. While this document provides general guidelines, each case will be assessed on its own merits.
For Assistant Professors who publish primarily journal articles as products of their research, a rough guideline for progress toward tenure would be two papers, on average, annually in blind peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Differentiation is made as to major national, major specialty, major regional, and other journals. Also, contributions to Sociology outlets are particularly important, although interdisciplinary journals, especially those with a social science focus, are appropriate for some research as well. Obviously, papers in top-tier journals are weighed more heavily than those in journals with lower visibility and book chapters. At least some should be sole-authored. In addition, the number of coauthors and order of authorship has some weight. Work published as a graduate student is given less weight. Co-authoring with graduate students, in a mentorship capacity, is encouraged and may count as much as sole-authored papers. Depending on the quality of the papers and the visibility of the journals, the publication of an average of a couple of articles in highly regarded peer-refereed journals annually during one’s years as an Assistant Professor would be a good indicator that one’s level of research fits into the category of “excellence.”[8]
Some candidates for P&T will choose to produce fewer refereed journal articles and instead focus their energies in the publication of research monographs. That said, we recognize that publications in wide-visibility journals are often better indicators of research productivity and promise relative to the publication of a monograph without evidence of impact. Generally, research monographs are given more weight if they are published by prestigious presses and have received positive published reviews.
Also important in a given case may be successful competition for extramural funding. Grants are generally given more weight if they are obtained from national funding agencies, such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Grants contribute to the overall reputation of the faculty, are another measure of contributions to the field, and are a means of supporting research and graduate students. Further, external funding can be a useful means of support that will result in higher quality published research. Nevertheless, for untenured professors, successful publication remains more important than attracting external research funding.
Book chapters and non-refereed articles can be used to bolster this record, but will not justify P&T as a replacement for peer-reviewed publications. Regular participation and presentations at professional national and regional conferences is also expected.
In most cases, there is not a single path toward research excellence. Instead, individuals will need to weigh the entire research portfolio, balancing the mix of articles, books, book chapters, and grants. Furthermore, the research record will be evaluated on the sociological contributions of the published work, including insight, creativity, innovation, and impact on the field. Several measures of the impact of the research to the sociological literature are: citations, book reviews, and published discussions of the research.
6. Evaluation of Service: Again, the pertinent question is whether the faculty member’s performance is consistent with the general standards for reappointment, promotion, or tenure as described by the Rules of the Regents. In Sociology, we attempt to assign a reduced level of department service to untenured professors, although we cannot always do so.
Evidence of service consists of a description of service activities and their duration and significance. This service must include activities in the department, and may also include service to the college, university, or larger profession. Candidates should be able to demonstrate that they successfully completed all service assignments made by the Department Chair, and has, in general, demonstrated a commitment to make the Department of Sociology a better place for its faculty and students. Guest presentations to classes, to the department, and to the university may be considered part of service.
Examples of work that qualifies as service to the profession include editorial work, refereeing for journals or granting agencies (a log of papers reviewed, titles, and dates is recommended), membership in committees for professional societies, and organizing sessions at professional meetings. External service can also include activities involving specific professional expertise as applied to work by non-profit and government agencies. Further, outreach efforts that contribute to the visibility of the university are also important.
By the time of reappointment, candidates should demonstrate modest service activities commensurate with the service assigned by the chair, recognition of the wide range of departmental responsibilities, and regular participation with appropriate professional organizations. At the time of P&T, the candidate should have a record of participation in larger campus-wide activities, and increased participation in regional and national professional societies. By the time of promotion to Full Professor, the candidate should demonstrate respected and effectual leadership in at least one of these service levels.
7. Milestones for Evaluation
a. Timetable for Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure.[9] Individuals who are hired as beginning assistant professors will have at least one evaluation for reappointment prior to a mandatory tenure decision. The last reappointment prior to a tenure decision must be based upon a comprehensive evaluation. A standard pattern would be for an assistant professor to receive an initial three-year appointment and, upon positive comprehensive review at the end of this first appointment, to receive a second appointment that would extend to the mandatory tenure decision.
Tenure is required by the end of the seventh year. Faculty members are typically evaluated for tenure early in the seventh year; the seven-year probationary period will include any years of credit toward tenure that are specified in writing at the time of hiring. Only in the most unusual cases can tenure be awarded early. Because it is customary for review committees to apply standards strictly and without discounted expectations based on shorter time in rank, it is inadvisable for faculty members to seek early promotion unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
Typically, promotion to associate professor is considered simultaneously with the consideration of tenure, although formally the two are separate decisions. Under unusual circumstances, individuals may be hired as associate professors without tenure (mainly because the University is reluctant to hire individuals without a probation prior to tenure), and, in this case, the issue of tenure is fully separated from the issue of promotion to associate professor.
There is no mandatory point of decision for promotion to full professor. A customary waiting interval is approximately equal to the interval between the ranks of assistant professor and associate professor (approximately 6-7 years), because significant achievement is expected between ranks. In unusual cases, an individual can be considered for promotion to full professor after only a few years in rank as an associate professor, but this is not advisable on a routine basis because review committees can be expected to apply criteria strictly and without discount for shorter time in rank. In such cases, individuals who have doubts about the timing of promotions should seek advice from their Chair, who may appoint an ad hoc personnel committee to informally evaluate the case.
Any individual can ask to be considered for promotion or tenure at any time, and the request will be considered unless it is contrary to the rules of the University. Individuals who believe that they are promotable or tenurable should not hesitate to ask the Chair, their mentor/s, and other senior professors for an informal evaluation.
b. Departmental Review Process. The process of personnel review begins for the Department with the Chair's appointment of an ad hoc “PURC” (Primary Unit Review Committee), which performs two functions. First, if there is some doubt as to the likelihood of a favorable outcome, the PURC may advise the candidate to withhold the case until more time has elapsed, except in the case of mandatory tenure decision or mandatory comprehensive review. The committee may give this advice either initially, or after accumulating information indicating that the case needs to be stronger to be successful. The candidate is not bound to the advice of the PURC, however, and can proceed against it.
The second purpose of the PURC is to solicit external letters of evaluation (for promotion and tenure cases) and to collect other confidential information that the candidate cannot collect independently. The candidate is responsible for physically assembling the bulk of the personnel file (e.g., supplying a statement of research, teaching, and service, course syllabi, copies of all publications), but can seek the help or advice of the PURC as appropriate. Department staff will receive the file and will review it for completeness. The file should meet the requirements of the College of Arts and Sciences and of the Campus as outlined on specification sheets that are available from the Dean's office. It is the candidate's responsibility to see that the file is properly prepared, complete, and well-ordered, and that it has places for the insertion of confidential materials by the PURC. It is the responsibility of the PURC to obtain any additional information that it may require to make a complete presentation to the Department.
Following the assembly of all materials, the PURC will have a final meeting in which it agrees upon its final report (or decides to file a “majority” and “minority” report). The committee also will assign to its members responsibilities for presentation of the case to the Department. The committee will make the entire file available on a confidential and timely basis to those faculty eligible to vote on the case two weeks prior to the Department's discussion.
Discussion of personnel cases by the Department is announced in advance by the Department Chair. Usually the discussion is scheduled immediately following a regular faculty meeting, except under circumstances as determined by the Chair. The candidate for a particular decision will be absent on the day of discussion, and the PURC will be asked to make a presentation. This will be followed by detailed discussion of the case by all faculty who are eligible to vote. This discussion is highly confidential and should never be repeated to others who are note eligible to vote on the case. When the Chair is satisfied that discussion is complete, there will be a vote by secret ballot. The right to vote is limited to those faculty members who have the professional status to which the candidate aspires, or a higher status. Only full professors would vote on the case of an associate professor being considered for promotion to full professor; only tenured faculty vote on P&T cases and on reappointments.
The Department Chair acts as an independent judge of the case. The Chair does not formally vote on the personnel decision except in cases of a tie, but does provide a critical evaluation of the case that may or may not support the faculty's vote. In a letter addressed to the Dean, the Chair reports the Department's vote, summarizes faculty discussion, and gives his or her independent opinion of the case.
c. Review above the level of the Department. Following the Departmental vote, the candidate's file is sent from the Department to the Dean. The Dean refers the case to a standing College committee (Dean's Personnel Committee), which discusses the case and votes on it. The Dean then writes a letter to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. This letter gives the Dean's personal evaluation of the case and a recommendation for action, as well as reporting the vote and, if appropriate, the opinions of the Dean's Personnel Committee. The Dean is not bound to agree with the Dean's Personnel Committee, with the Department, or with the Chair.
Beyond the Dean's Office, the personnel file passes to the office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Vice Chancellor’s Office receives files on all personnel decisions from all colleges on the Campus. The Vice Chancellor relies heavily on the Vice Chancellor’s Advisory Committee (VCAC), which considers all cases for comprehensive reappointment, promotion, and tenure. The VCAC discusses each case in detail and votes on the disposition of the case. The vote is considered a recommendation to the Vice Chancellor, who may or may not accept the recommendation. The Vice Chancellor’s decision is relayed to the Provost. Beyond the Vice Chancellor’s level, review occurs by the Provost, the President, and the Regents.
A negative decision by any level of review can be overruled by a positive decision at a higher level. For example, a negative decision by the Department could be overruled by the Dean or by the Vice Chancellor. Similarly, a positive decision at any level can be overruled by a negative decision at a higher level. When any decision is overruled, the case is sent back to the lower level with advice from the upper level and a request for clarification, reconsideration, or additional information. The case is then reconsidered by the lower level and forwarded again to the upper level for final review. The rights of appeal for rejected candidates are outlined in the Faculty Handbook.
Return of cases from an upper level to a lower level cannot always be taken as a sign of weakness in the case. Sometimes, review committees find critical pieces of information missing from the file and ask for additional information, even though they fully expect to approve the case. Individuals under review should not be unduly concerned by a request for additional information, unless the request is accompanied by a negative vote from a review committee.
The candidate is directly advised through the Chair by the Dean's Office of all review committee decisions. In addition, the candidate will receive a copy of the letter that passes from the Dean to the Vice Chancellor and will be notified of the reasons for any negative action or concern on the part of the Vice Chancellor's Advisory Committee about degree of documentation.
Personnel cases are submitted early in the Fall semester of the year before they take effect. The order of preparation is typically by increasing rank: comprehensive review, promotion to associate professor with tenure, promotion to full professor. Individuals applying for P&T are advised to routinely collect and save information on their teaching, research and service from the time they start their appointments at CU. Typically, candidates begin preparing their files several months before they are due to the PURC.
ANNUAL FACULTY MERIT EVALUATION
Approved Feb. 1, 2005
1. Annual Evaluation. Every member of the faculty and all Instructors of the Department who are eligible for annual merit raises shall be evaluated annually at such time as is determined by the College of Arts and Sciences. The Department will comply with evaluation criteria determined by the College. This annual review is different from FRPA (Faculty Report of Professional Activities), which is required by the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Faculty Affairs. Materials submitted for the Departmental merit evaluation are used both to evaluate professional activities and for salary decisions.
2. Period Evaluated. The Department shall use the most recent three calendar years as the period for evaluating faculty in all areas – teaching, research, and service - during the annual merit evaluation exercise.
3. Material Evaluated. Each faculty member being evaluated bears the sole responsibility for providing the Executive Committee with information pertinent to her/his evaluation, and all faculty members must submit materials related to their teaching, research, and service for the evaluation. The Executive Committee is not responsible for taking into account in the evaluation exercise information that has not been provided by an individual faculty member when that faculty member is being evaluated. All faculty members must submit evaluation materials related to their teaching, research, and service.
4. Differential Weights. Differential weights will be given to teaching, research, and service according to the workload distribution (normally 40%, 40%, and 20%) agreed to in advance by the faculty member and the Chair. There shall be a direct relationship between a faculty member’s merit evaluation, weighted by workload distribution, and the merit salary recommendation. All faculty in the Department shall have the opportunity to renegotiate their workload distribution with the Chair of the Department prior to the beginning of any Academic Year.
5. Special Merit Recommendations. The Executive Committee may make special merit recommendations to the College. They may be based on career merit salary-equity adjustments (e.g., due to salary compression), especially outstanding performance during the evaluation period, or other factors based on a faculty member’s merit. A brief explanation and documentation will accompany each recommendation to the College. If a special merit recommendation is made for more than one faculty member, a statement of the Department’s funding priorities will accompany the recommendation when it is forwarded to the College.
6. Salary Equity. The Department’s Executive Committee is responsible for maintaining salary equity and for recommending adjustments for any inequities that exist. When carried out proactively, the Department will request assistance from the College for such adjustments.
7. Salary Adjustments Basis. The Department recognizes that awarding merit increases on the basis of dollars compresses the salary of faculty with higher ranks, and that awarding merit increases on the basis of percentages compresses the salary of faculty in the lower ranks. Consequently, total annual merit increases for tenured or tenure-track faculty is normally calculated 50 percent on the basis of dollars and 50 percent on the basis of percentages.[10]
8. Evaluation Categories. The Executive Committee will rate faculty in terms of teaching, research and service and additionally provide an overall rating for each faculty member in one of the following categories: (1) unsatisfactory, (2) below expectations, (3) meets expectations, (4) exceeds expectations, and (5) far exceeds expectations.
9. Faculty Feedback. The Executive Committee shall report back to each faculty member in writing on the appropriate merit evaluation form regarding the rationale behind the merit evaluation judgments cast by the Executive Committee.
10. Evaluation Guidance. The members of the Executive Committee of the Department shall use sound professional judgment when rating faculty performance during the annual merit evaluation exercise to distinguish the categories of merit used in the Department’s Stipend Adjustment Form. The members of the Executive Committee shall adhere to the following Departmentally determined criteria when exercising their professional judgments. The Chair of the Department shall hold the other members of the Executive Committee accountable for following the criteria listed below.
a. Teaching. Teaching shall be rated in direct proportion to both its: (a) quality, and (b) the contribution that it makes to the Department. Teaching quality shall be evaluated based on the materials that a faculty member chooses to submit for consideration by the Executive Committee. Materials must include FCQ summaries, but can also include syllabi, letters of evaluation from other faculty members who have visited the classroom, examples of students’ work, teacher awards, teacher training publications, and other items. Information should also be submitted on any Internships, Independent Studies, and Honors students supervised during the relevant years. The Executive Committee shall consider the “difficulty” of the subject matter to engender enthusiasm in students (e.g., statistics) when judging faculty performance, and the committee will also consider the “difficulty” and contribution of teaching very large lecture courses. Working with graduate students on theses and dissertations is also included as is the not-for-profit publication of textbooks, course outlines, manuals and so on.
b. Research. Only research products shall be considered in the evaluation of faculty research activity, e.g., written products appearing in print during the evaluation period, research grants funded during the evaluation period, and so on. Research shall be rated in direct proportion to its quality and quantity. Research monographs published by top presses shall be rated higher than those published by lesser presses. Journal articles published in top peer-reviewed journals shall be rated higher than those published in journals of lesser repute. Research grants funded by prestigious peer review research organizations shall be rated higher than those funded by other organizations. The Department encourages its faculty to publish with its graduate students; consequently, publications co-authored with graduate students will count at least as much as documents that are sole-authored. Other co-authored documents shall be only slightly discounted. Other research productivity such as papers presented at professional meetings, speeches and guest lectures, unfunded research proposals, and so on shall be counted in the area of research, but these activities shall count less than publications in print or funded grants.
c. Service. With the exception of those with special service assignments such a Chair or Associate Chairs, service shall be divided into the two equal areas of university community and professional service. Service will be rated in direct proportion to its quality and quantity. University community service includes service to the Department, College, Campus, and University System. Professional service is to the profession and related professions at the regional, national, and international levels. It includes service to the sociological profession and the application of sociological knowledge to the resolution of problems confronting groups, organizations, agencies, and society. Activities may include not-for-profit consulting, speeches to lay or non-sociological professional audiences, service on local, state, and national committees or other bodies that utilize the faculty member’s professional expertise, and other professional service activities.
d. Other. All faculty members, regardless of rank, are expected to share in various activities of the Department. Some of these activities--preparation and grading of comprehensive exams, serving on oral examination committees, serving on thesis committees, and participation in the seminar program--are treated as areas of teaching. Participation in other Department and University committee work is encouraged for those with the relevant interests, and this type of work will be included in evaluation of a faculty member’s work. Service to other entities, e.g., the State of Colorado or its communities, which is related to one’s professional expertise, as well as service on local, state, national or international committees charged with responsibilities requiring scientific expertise, will be taken into account. Faculty are encouraged to provide evaluations of their performance in such roles whenever possible. The reviewing of papers for scientific journals and research proposals is one such area of service.
e. Definition of Evaluation Categories. The evaluation categories used by members of the Executive Committee during the annual merit evaluation exercise shall be operationalized as follows:
Unsatisfactory: performance is detrimental to students, the Department, College, and /or the University;
Below expectations: performance is lacking and remedial action is recommended;
Meets expectations: performance meets basic expectations and the professional norm;
Exceeds expectations: performance exceeds what is expected and the professional norm;
Far exceeds expectations: performance is far beyond what is expected and the professional norm.
ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CHAIR
Approved Feb. 1, 2005
A review of the Chair shall be conducted annually in accordance with College policy. This review shall be performed by the members of the Executive Committee (excluding the Chair). The annual review of the Chair shall be conducted coinciding with the annual review of Departmental faculty.
The Executive Committee shall evaluate the professional and scholarly achievement teaching, research, and professional service) of the Chair using the same procedures employed for faculty evaluations. The Executive Committee shall involve faculty in the evaluation of the Chair’s departmental administrative service as follows.
The Executive Committee shall prepare a form to be used by members of the Department faculty for their evaluation of the Chair. The form shall have specific provision for evaluation of the Chair in at least but not limited to the following areas: (a) administration of the Department, (b) accomplishment of Departmental goals, and (c) adherence to the Department’s Standing Rules.
A summary department review shall be compiled by the Executive Committee and distributed to the Chair of the Department, the Dean of the College, and any members of the faculty who request it.
FIVE YEAR POST TENURE FACULTY REVIEWS
Approved Feb. 1, 2005
The Department will adhere to all decisions by the Board of Regents, University, and College regarding the five-year post tenure reviews of faculty.[11] This review is conducted by the Executive Committee at the time of annual merit reviews.
FACULTY GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
Approved Feb. 8, 2005
In the event that a faculty member has a grievance (including an evaluation or salary grievance), he/she may request and obtain a conference with the Chair of the Department which, when appropriate, will include other concerned parties involved in the grievance.
If the grievance cannot be resolved in this conference, the aggrieved party shall request and obtain a hearing before the Executive Committee, and shall present in advance a written statement to the committee. Involved parties shall also be invited to this hearing.
If the grievance involves a merit or salary decision made by the Executive Committee, the decision can be appealed to an ad-hoc Committee consisting of the two elected members of the Executive Committee and one additional tenured professor appointed by the Chair. Those who prevail in a salary grievance will have their salaries adjusted as soon as possible (recognizing that such adjustments may not be possible until the following year). In that following year, the adjusted salary will be considered as the new base salary.
If the grievance cannot be settled by these means, the decision of the Chair and the Executive Committee may be appealed to the College.[12]
STUDENT GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
Approved Feb. 1, 2005
In the event that a student has a grievance with a faculty member or instructor, and can neither negotiate nor resolve this grievance directly with the faculty member or instructor, the student shall arrange a conference with the Associate Chair for the Graduate Program (if the student is a graduate student), or the Associate Chair for the Undergraduate Program (if the student is an undergraduate student). At least 24 hours before the meeting, the student shall present the appropriate Associate Chair with a written statement of grievance. In accordance with A&S policy, all grade appeals must be submitted within 45 days of the end of the academic term in which the grade was awarded.
The Associate Chair shall then consult the faculty member or instructor involved in the grievance, document the position of the faculty member or instructor, and then either adjudicate the case or request a meeting of the student and faculty member or instructor involved to obtain additional information before then adjudicating the case.
If the student is not satisfied with the decision made by the Associate Chair, he/she may appeal to the Department Chair, who will follow procedures outlined by the College of Arts and Sciences.[13]
GUIDELINES RELEVANT TO HIRING
OF TENURED OR TENURE TRACK FACULTY
Approved February 8, 2005
Revised Oct. 24. 2006
1. Selection of Candidates for Campus Interview. The Faculty Hiring Committee will present up to 5 candidates it recommends for campus interviews. Any faculty member can add names after reviewing the material of prospective candidates. Persons to be invited to campus are selected as follows:
a. A vote is taken on whether a given candidate is acceptable to the department. Those who do not achieve 60% acceptable votes are eliminated from further consideration.
b. In order to select candidates for campus interviews, the ballot lists all acceptable candidates.
Each eligible voter scores all acceptable candidates, giving the top candidate a score of 1, the next a score of 2, and so on, until all candidates are scored. Faculty members must assign each candidate a unique score; no ties are allowed. Ballots will be disqualified if they do not provide unique scores and do not score every candidate. Candidates are ranked on this score and the lowest-scoring individuals are invited, the number depending on available funding for visits. If there is a tie for the last visiting position, the pairwise comparison is examined and the person who is preferred in this comparison is given the last visiting position. If there is a tie in this case, a second ballot is taken that lists just the tied candidates. Each eligible voter casts a vote for his or her preferred candidate. The Chair breaks the tie if there it occurs on this vote.
2. Selection of candidates to whom a position will be offered. A similar two-stage procedure will be followed.
a. A vote is taken on whether a given candidate is acceptable to the department. Those who do not achieve 60% acceptable votes are eliminated from further consideration.
b. In order to rank the acceptable candidates, the following procedure is used:
i. The ballot lists all acceptable candidates. Each voter ranks the k qualified candidates. That is, each voter ranks the alternatives from most preferred (1) to least preferred (k). Ties are permitted. A voter need not rank all k qualified candidates, but may abstain for one or more candidates.
ii. Using these rank orders, the election judge will determine the outcome of all pairwise comparisons.
iii. The candidate to whom the first offer will be made is the one who defeats all other candidates in these pairwise comparisons. The second place alternative is the person who defeats all candidates other than the winner, and so forth.
iv. This procedure, known as true majority rule (TMR), will usually yield a winner. If it does not due to a failure of transitivity (e.g. A defeats B, B defeats C, and C defeats A), the ballots will be scored using the same kind of rank order voting as in 1b. In this case, the missing score for a person who abstained from voting for a particular candidate will be replaced with the average score given by those who ranked the candidate.
v. If neither true majority rule nor rank order voting determines a winner (due to a tie in the number of points obtained by several different alternatives), the chair will decide among the candidates who are tied for the lead. Chair voting will be necessary only very rarely, but with this supplementary provision a ranking of candidates will always be determined.
COURSE BANKING
Approved Feb. 1, 2005
The Department shall operate within the spirit of differentiated workloads in the College to offer faculty the opportunity to “bank” courses within their normal teaching assignments.
● Courses may be banked but not borrowed, i.e., the overload must be taught in advance of the reduced load, not vice versa.
● Banking may be done only for purposes of enhancing the ability of faculty to engage in scholarly work or service. It may not be used solely for personal reasons other than health or family leave.
● The Department’s curricular needs must be met.
● Banking should be done in moderation. It should be used only for special needs.
● A faculty member may use banking to produce a semester that is free of classroom teaching. However, she/he must remain on campus during that semester unless justified by his/her scholarly work, e.g., field studies, need to use library facilities elsewhere, etc.
● Summer school courses may be banked for use in the academic year only under very special circumstances because it involves having tenure-track faculty teach during the summer in lieu of the academic year and because enrollments tend to be lower during the summer.
● Banking courses during fall semester is preferred to banking in spring semester because teaching needs are greatest in fall due to higher enrollments. Likewise, it is preferred that banked courses be cashed in during spring semester.
● All course banking requires prior approval of the Executive Committee, the Chair of the Department, and the A&S Dean’s office.
● Only one semester’s worth of courses may be banked at a time.
● Courses may be banked for no more than two years.
MENTORING PLAN FOR ASSISTANT PROFESSORS
Approved November, 2001
The intent of this document is to respond to the requests by various Assistant Professors in our Department to improve our mentoring of junior faculty. The paragraphs below suggest a more FORMAL system of mentoring, which, in operation, will operate very INFORMALLY and uniquely, depending on the needs and wishes of the individual mentee. To begin, all Assistant Professors will select one or two tenured colleagues to serve as his or her mentor(s).
1. How Mentors are Selected or Changed: The mentor/s will be selected by the Assistant Professor, in consultation with the Chair, during her or his first semester at CU, but the mentor/s could be changed at any time the Assistant Professor chooses. Mentor/s are chosen because their research interests overlap with those of the Assistant Professor and/or for their ability to provide wisdom and advice in a wide array of issues related to professional development. Faculty with joint appointments should select their mentor/s after consulting with the Chair or Director of both units.
2. What is Expected of the Mentor: The mentor would be expected to take an active interest in the career of the junior faculty member, and to maintain regular informal contact with her or him. The mentor is expected to clarify questions about tenure and promotion standards, and may aid in the preparation of grant proposals, research articles, and classroom activities. The mentor is expected to help the Assistant Professor choose between various professional development opportunities that may present themselves. The mentor is expected to give advice on publication outlets (e.g., a refereed journal vs. a book chapter), and on which types of journals might be most interested in considering the Assistant Professor's work for publication. In some cases, the mentor and mentee might work together to develop a "Three Year Plan" or "Five Year Plan" that would outline yearly goals that, if met, would likely result in P&T. The mentor also helps the Assistant Professor gain entree into the national and international network of scholars in the latter's scholarly area. Finally, if the Assistant Professor is having problems with the Chair or other faculty, the mentor would be available for advice or even to facilitate peaceful resolution of differences.
3. The Mentor in the Classroom: At least once per year, if requested by the Assistant Professor, the Mentor or some other faculty member selected by the Mentor and the Assistant Professor would be available to visit the latter's class, examine the syllabus and course materials, give constructive feedback, and provide a written assessment (or "peer evaluation") of the teaching to the Department Chair. Annual written evaluations, it is hoped, will allow the senior faculty to chart improvements in teaching that may occur during the untenured years, and the annual written documentation may be of use at T&P time when the Department tries to make a case for excellence in teaching. The Mentor should also be available to help the Assistant Professor struggle with various problems and challenges that arise from the teaching responsibilities, and should inform the Assistant Professor about what types of resources are available on campus to help develop teaching skills.
4. Evaluation: In the Spring, when all untenured professors meet with the Chair to review progress toward P&T, input from the mentor might also be useful to both the Chair and the Assistant Professor. Indeed, that meeting might give all the opportunity to evaluate the mentoring process itself, and modify it in any ways that may help the Assistant Professor find it more useful. In the end, as stated above, the mentoring process is one that we hope will reduce the levels of anxiety inherent in being an Assistant Professor, and assist our untenured colleagues with their efforts to earn P&T.
GUIDELINES FOR UNDERGRADUATE INDEPENDENT STUDY
Approved Feb. 8, 2005
Independent study is an opportunity for students to earn academic credit for doing research outside of the formal classroom structure. Faculty of the Department are under no obligation to accept independent study students.
1. Independent Study Policy and Procedures of the Department of Sociology, to which all independent study courses must adhere, follow.
- A minimum of 25 hours of time is required for each semester hour of credit.
- Independent Study credit may not be awarded retroactively.
- Independent Study credit must be registered for prior to the add deadline.
- Independent Study will not be allowed for: -internship type experiences -work in university departments
- Independent Study cannot be used to substitute for a particular course or College or core requirements
- Independent Study may be acceptable under the following conditions (subject to Departmental discretion): (1) work completed elsewhere (e.g., out of state if the Independent Study is developed in advance), (2) Volunteer work, when it is part of and germane to the independent research project, (3) Work in business, when it is part of and germane to the independent research project, (4) Extra research undertaken in association with a regular class if an Independent Study agreement is developed before the start of the class, (5) Research assistance provided to a faculty member in conjunction with a new or ongoing professional project.
2. Maximum Hours of Independent Study Credit Allowed
- 16 credits toward a degree
- 8 credits in a single department and 6 in any one semester.
2-15-06
- The following motion was passed by the faculty:
That we accept the following proposed changes to the standing rules:
Right now (pp. 9-12) the department has four “Standing Committees.” This proposal adds a fifth:
5. Social Committee. This committee is responsible for enhancing the social life of the department. The primary responsibility of the committee shall be organization of the fall welcome picnic. Other activities may include organizing a holiday party, end-of-year party, and organizing research interest happy hours.
a. Membership. This committee shall include at least one faculty member and one graduate student. The Department Chair appoints the faculty member for a one-year term. This term shall begin and end on the first day of Fall semester.
b. Student Representation. The Graduate Student Association shall elect at least one representative to serve on the social committee.From Faculty Meeting minutes, 2-14-06:
2. The following motion was passed by the faculty:That we accept the following proposed changes to the standing rules:
Right now (pp. 9-12) the department has four “Standing Committees.” This proposal adds a fifth:
5. Social Committee. This committee is responsible for enhancing the social life of the department. The primary responsibility of the committee shall be organization of the fall welcome picnic. Other activities may include organizing a holiday party, end-of-year party, and organizing research interest happy hours.
a. Membership. This committee shall include at least one faculty member and one graduate student. The Department Chair appoints the faculty member for a one-year term. This term shall begin and end on the first day of Fall semester.
b. Student Representation. The Graduate Student Association shall elect at least one representative to serve on the social committee.3. The following motion was rejected by the faculty:
That we accept the following proposed change to the standing rules:
Page 7, Number 7: Proxy Votes. Faculty members absent from a faculty meeting may name another member of the voting faculty to be their proxy and vote for them in specific ways on issues related to hiring, reappointment, promotion, and tenure. No proxy votes are permitted on other issues. The absent faculty member must notify the Chair prior to the meeting in writing or e-mail of the faculty member to whom their prosy has been awarded. The Chair cannot case proxy votes.
4. The following motion was passed by the faculty:
That we accept the following proposed change to the standing rules:
c. Student membership of Recruitment Committee. Right now, (page 12), The Chair of the Recruitment Committee may invite one graduate student to serve as a non-voting member of this committee. Graduate students are not permitted to read letters of recommendation for the candidates. The graduate students propose changing the first sentence to say “The Graduate Student Association may elect one representative to sit as a non-voting member of this committee.”
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:13:04 -0600
Reply-To: Michael.Radelet@colorado.edu
Sender: owner-socyfac@lists.colorado.edu
From: Michael Radelet <Michael.Radelet@colorado.edu>
To: socyfac@lists.colorado.edu
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Change in Standing Rules
Subject: Change in Standing Rules
--------- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
Both proposed changes to our Standing Rules have been approved, so please append this to the hard or electronic copy of the Standing Rules that you have:H-1-b, under "Faculty Recruitment Committee," now reads:
b. Student Representation. Graduate students may elect one student representative to each Faculty Recruitment Committee. The student representative may review letters of reference for job candidates, but they will be instructed to treat them as confidential and not share information in the letters with other graduate students.
The change in the first sentence (allowing grad students to vote on their rep) passed 14-5 (14/19 = 73.7%). The vote on allowing the grad student rep to see letters of recommendation was 12-6-1. We do not count the abstention, and 12/18 is .66666. Our Standing Rules require "at least" 2/3 vote to change, so this passes. I did not vote on either change, but as I stated at our last faculty meeting, I would have voted yes & yes.
Ballot for amendments to Appendix VII of the Standing Rules. All approved, Oct. 24, 2006.
1. Selection of Candidates for Campus Interview. The Faculty Hiring Committee will present up to 5 candidates it recommends for campus interviews. Any faculty member can add names after reviewing the material of prospective candidates. Persons to be invited to campus are selected as follows:
a. A vote is taken on whether a given candidate is acceptable to the department. Those who do not achieve 60% acceptable votes are eliminated from further consideration.
Amend 1a and 2a as given above Approve_______ Keep current guideline _______
b. In order to select candidates for campus interviews, the ballot lists all acceptable candidates.
Each eligible voter scores all acceptable candidates, giving the top candidate a score of 1, the next a score of 2, and so on, until all candidates are scored. Faculty members must assign each candidate a unique score; no ties are allowed. Ballots will be disqualified if they do not provide unique scores and do not score every candidate. Candidates are ranked on this score and the lowest-scoring individuals are invited, the number depending on available funding for visits. If there is a tie for the last visiting position, the pairwise comparison is examined and the person who is preferred in this comparison is given the last visiting position. If there is a tie in this case, a second ballot is taken that lists just the tied candidates. Each eligible voter casts a vote for his or her preferred candidate. The Chair breaks the tie if there it occurs on this vote.Amend 1b as given above Approve_______ Keep current guideline _______
2. Selection of candidates to whom a position will be offered. A similar two-stage procedure will be followed.
a. A vote is taken on whether a given candidate is acceptable to the department. Those who do not achieve 60% acceptable votes are eliminated from further consideration.
b. In order to rank the acceptable candidates, the following procedure is used:
i. The ballot lists all acceptable candidates. Each voter ranks the k qualified candidates. That is, each voter ranks the alternatives from most preferred (1) to least preferred (k). Ties are permitted. A voter need not rank all k qualified candidates, but may abstain for one or more candidates.
ii. Using these rank orders, the election judge will determine the outcome of all pairwise comparisons.
iii. The candidate to whom the first offer will be made is the one who defeats all other candidates in these pairwise comparisons. The second place alternative is the person who defeats all candidates other than the winner, and so forth.
iv. This procedure, known as true majority rule (TMR), will usually yield a winner. If it does not due to a failure of transitivity (e.g. A defeats B, B defeats C, and C defeats A), the ballots will be scored using the same kind of rank order voting as in 1b. In this case, the missing score for a person who abstained from voting for a particular candidate will be replaced with the average score given by those who ranked the candidate.
v. If neither true majority rule nor rank order voting determines a winner (due to a tie in the number of points obtained by several different alternatives), the chair will decide among the candidates who are tied for the lead. Chair voting will be necessary only very rarely, but with this supplementary provision a ranking of candidates will always be determined.Amend 2b as given above Approve_______ Keep current guideline _______
[1] The Department of Sociology operates under the rules and policies in the Faculty Handbook, the rules, policies, and practices of the College of Arts and Sciences, the rules and policies of the University including those found in its varied organizational units such as the VCAC, and the rules and policies of the Board of Regents. These rules exist in a variety of documents. The Department Standing Rules are supplemental; rules of a higher organizational unit take precedence over those of a lower unit.
[2] A candidate can give permission for others to see materials with the exception of external letters.
[3] See <http://www.colorado.edu/facultyaffairs/deskref/part7absences_from_campus.htm> accessed Mar. 1, 2005.
[4] Current University rules state that graduate students may not sit on Graduate Admissions Committees.
[5] These “Guidelines” are not part of the Standing Rules; they may be revised from time-to-time. To do so does not require 2/3 vote, it requires only a majority vote.
[6] Candidates for reappointment and promotions might also want to peruse a useful book published by the American Sociological Association: Robert M. Diamond, Serving on Promotion, Tenure, and Faculty Review Committees: A Faculty Guide, 2nd Edition (2002).
[7] In recent years, only a small proportion (less than ten percent) of candidates for P&T in Arts and Sciences at the University of Colorado have been deemed “excellent” in teaching. Furthermore, some cases that earned excellence in teaching were also deemed excellent in research.
[8] There are several excellent rankings of journals. The most common journal ranking is provided on the web by the Web of Science. For an insightful discussion of journal prestige and impact, see James Christenson and Lee Sigelman, “Accrediting Knowledge: Journal Stature and Citation Impact in Social Science,” Social Science Quarterly, (1985). For a recent ranking of journals, see Michael Allen, “The ‘Core Influence’ of Journals in Sociology Revisited,” Footnotes, (December 2003).
[9]Information in this section is common to all departments and is not subject to departmental modification.