Document 2

Meeting, Office of the President

Wed., Oct. 29, 1997

Every spring the College Faculty Status Committee of the College of Applied Science and Technology forwards to the Provost the credentials of faculty who are under consideration to receive either promotion, tenure, or both. In Spring, 1997, the names forwarded included Kendra Brandes of FCS, for tenure, and Steve McCaw of HPER, for promotion. Both had positive recommendations from both their Department Faculty Status Committees and the college committee. Both received letters from the Provost denying them the anticipated status.

No reason for the denial was given to either faculty member.

The new Dean of CAST, Dr. Rossman, made a comment at a CAST Council meeting to the effect that the Provost may overrule college recommendations if the person does not meet university-level standards. That cannot be the source of the denials in these cases, since the CFSC guidelines were reviewed by the University Review Committee for consistency with the university’s promotion and tenure standards, and were approved by the URC before going into effect.

Indeed, if the Provost believed that the CAST guidelines failed to meet university standards, he would have notified both CAST and the URC, and urged them to deal with the discrepancy. He has not done so.

An alternative explanation is that the individuals did meet the department, college and university standards, but did not meet the standards of the Provost himself. If that is the case, what ARE the Provost’s standards?

ISU’s salary, promotion and tenure policies are general at the university level, and become increasingly more detailed at the college and department levels. This detail was drawn up by the faculty themselves because they have a strong desire to know the standards by which they will be judged when they are ready to be considered for promotion and tenure. Faculty spend six years or more preparing to present their credentials for evaluation against the published standards of their departments and colleges, and take profound interest in any changes to those standards.

There is no way to plan one’s career activities around unpublished standards which override all of the published materials.

Unpublished standards which reside in the mind of a single individual are a violation of the principles on which promotion and tenure systems are based. They provide no guidance to young faculty who are developing their professional portfolios, and no support to mature faculty who want to strengthen their contributions to the university and their disciplines.

Unpublished standards undermine morale, and cost ISU the allegiance of its young faculty. They serve no professional purpose, and are a serious disservice to the university and its members.

When a faculty member receives a negative recommendation from the department or the college, the case may be appealed to the University Appeals Committee, which forwards its conclusion to the Provost in parallel with the documents from the CFSC. When the negative decision is by the Provost, there is no appeal except to the President or the Board of Trustees, who have no precedent for holding a hearing at which both parties can present their positions. Even if there were such a hearing, when no reason for the refusal has been given, the faculty member would have no way of preparing a position to present.