Attachment to 1/18/00 Council agenda:  educational/fiscal needs and tenure decisions.

 

The Operations Manual requires a “full-scale departmental-collegiate review” of tenure candidates during their third year of service to the University.  Among the items that must be included in the review is

 

An evaluation of departmental, collegiate and University educational goals and . . . a determination of the likely role of the faculty member in achieving such goals.  Only is an institutional need is found likely to exist for a person with the faculty member’s substantive background . . . should something other than a terminal appointment be tendered.”  (Operations Manual III-10.1a(4)(b).)

 

At the time of the tenure decision, a similar examination of educational need, plus an additional examination of fiscal need, is called for.

 

In making a tenure decision . . . the institution’s overall educational needs must be taken into account along with the institution’s fiscal ability to support the position occupied by the faculty member.  (Operations Manual III-10.1a(4)(c).)

 

As far as I (Professor Carlson) have been able to determine, the University has not in recent memory denied tenure on the ground that there was not an educational need for the position or that the institution lacked the fiscal ability to support the position.

 

When the Council proposed amending the substantive criteria for promotion, a member of Council called attention to the above-mentioned Operations Manual provisions and asked the Provost’s Office to consider whether it wished to recommend any changes in those provisions.  Associate Provost Clark reviewed the provisions and contacted me about what particular changes the Council might have in mind.  After a short discussion, we determined that it would be best to raise the issue with the Council, in light of the fact that these provisions have not been used as the basis for any recent tenure decision.

 

Question: Does the Council believe that these provisions need change?  If so, what changes would we recommend or what procedure should be adopted for studying the issue?