Chapter Four: University Libraries Faculty Continued Appointment or Continued Appointment-Track
4.0 Employment Policies for University Libraries Faculty with Continued Appointment or on the Continued Appointment-Track
As the primary means through which students and faculty gain access to the storehouse of organized knowledge, the University Libraries perform a unique and indispensable function in the educational process. In this function, faculty members of the University Libraries share many of the professional concerns of their colleagues in all colleges. The university recognizes the need to protect the academic freedom of librarians in their responsibility to ensure the availability of information and ideas, no matter how controversial, so that teachers may freely teach, and students may freely learn.
Continued appointment is the equivalent of tenure in the university’s colleges. Faculty members in the University Libraries may hold continued appointment or may be on the continued appointment-track; just as college faculty may be tenured or on the tenure-track (see chapter three). Provisions for term (fixed period) appointments during a probationary period are parallel to those for members of the college faculty. Evaluation for continued appointment (in contrast to term appointment) is made no later than the sixth year of such a probationary period.
A University Libraries faculty member with continued appointment will have continued employment until retirement with termination of employment based only on unsatisfactory performance, proof of misconduct, discontinuance or reduction in a segment of the university's research or educational program, or University Libraries reorganization because of changing patterns of University Libraries service or technological advances.
If a position held by a University Libraries faculty member with continued appointment is eliminated or changes to such a degree that the incumbent can no longer fulfill the requirements, every effort will be made to reassign the faculty member to another position. If the position of a University Libraries faculty member with continued appointment is terminated, it will not be re-established and refilled within a period of two years unless the appointment has been offered to and declined by the faculty member who was originally displaced.
Tenure awarded to faculty of the University Libraries before July 1, 1983 continues to be recognized.
The Library Faculty Association and the dean of University Libraries have developed procedures for probationary appointment, continued appointment, and promotion for faculty of the University Libraries, including evaluative criteria, to instill the highest professional standards in the University Libraries faculty. These procedures are contained in Procedures on Promotion and Continued Appointment: University Libraries.
The University Promotion and Continued Appointment Committee reviews recommendations for continued appointment and for promotion in rank above the level of assistant professor and makes recommendations to the provost.
The University Promotion and Continued Appointment Committee is comprised of representatives from the libraries and colleges who serve in staggered terms. The schedule of these appointments can be found on the Provost’s website.
Specification of faculty rank in the University Libraries does not imply a particular rank in any college department. University Libraries faculty may be invited to hold concurrent adjunct status in a college department in order to formally recognize their contributions to the undergraduate or graduate program.
Rank of instructor is for University Libraries faculty whose positions have been designated for continued appointment-track and who have not completed the terminal degree. Annual appointments may be renewed within the limits of a probationary period. Ordinarily, continued appointment would not be awarded at the instructor rank, although time spent at this rank counts in the probationary period leading to continued appointment. A master’s degree or significant professional experience is the minimum expectation for appointment at this rank. Specification of faculty rank in the University Libraries does not imply a particular rank in any college department. University Libraries faculty may be invited to hold concurrent adjunct status in a college department in order to formally recognize their contributions to the undergraduate or graduate program.
The dean of University Libraries with approval of the provost and president may recommend instructors in University Libraries for promotion to assistant professor. Final approval rests with the Board of Visitors.
Promotion of University Libraries faculty to the ranks of associate or professor is conducted in accordance with procedures in chapter four, “Evaluation Procedures for Promotion and Continued Appointment.”
The rank of assistant professor is the usual rank of initial appointment for faculty on the continued appointment-track. Appointment to the rank of assistant professor carries with it professional responsibilities in learning, discovery, and engagement. An assistant professor may be assigned responsibility for teaching graduate courses and for supervising master’s theses and dissertations, as well as serving on graduate student committees. The terminal degree appropriate to the field is expected for appointment to this rank. (Further information regarding appropriate credentials for teaching faculty is in chapter two, “Faculty Credentialing Guidelines,” and on the provost’s website.)
In addition to the requirements for assistant professor, a person appointed as associate professor must have demonstrated substantial professional achievements by evidence of an appropriate combination of outstanding teaching, creative scholarship, and recognized performance in University Libraries, or related academic and professional service.
In addition to the requirements for associate professor, appointment to the rank of professor is contingent upon national recognition as an outstanding scholar and educator.
The title of emeritus or emerita is conferred on retired professors, associate professors, administrative officers, and faculty with continued appointment who have given exemplary service to the university, and who the president specifically recommends to the Board of Visitors for approval. Their names are listed on the appropriate university website(s). Policy 4405, “Emeritus/Emerita Faculty,”” provides further guidance to appropriate supervisors, dean, and retiring faculty members concerning emeriti status and continued involvement in the life of the university.
An offer of faculty appointment with continued appointment may be made with the review and approval of the appropriate supervisor, the library promotion and continued appointment committee, the University Libraries dean, a subcommittee of the university promotion and continued appointment committee, the provost, and the president. Ultimately, final approval rests with the Board of Visitors.
The dean forwards to the provost and president for their consideration and decision: the candidate’s application package, including cover letter, curriculum vitae, and at least two letters of reference which address the appointment of rank and continued appointment; documentation of the library promotion and continued appointment committee’s approval of rank and continued appointment, and concurrence of the dean with as much supporting evidence as deemed appropriate; and a brief overview of the search itself including how many candidates applied, were interviewed, and what is the compelling case for the candidate.
In general, faculty recruited from a comparable university should be recommended for a position at Virginia Tech at a similar level with continued appointment. If the recommended appointment involves a promotion or the initial awarding of continued appointment, the case must be strongly justified. If an individual is coming from a university with a less extensive research mission, the case must be strongly justified.
While continued appointment and continued appointment-track appointments are usually full-time, Virginia Tech recognizes the importance of allowing flexibility in the percent of employment so that faculty members can better manage the balance between their professional work and family or personal obligations over a defined period of time, or perhaps permanently. This policy is intended to encourage departments to accommodate reasonable requests for part-time appointments; however, part-time appointments are not an entitlement, and requests may be turned down when the faculty member and the department cannot agree upon a workable plan.
When conducting a search for a continued appointment-track position, departments continue to advertise for full-time continued appointment or continued appointment-track positions and must have funding for a full-time hire. Advertisements include information about university policies for flexible appointments. If desired, the faculty member requests and negotiates a part-time appointment at or after the point of hire if acceptable to the department.
Continued appointment-track faculty members may request a part-time appointment only for reasons of balancing work and family such as the arrival or care of a child, the care of a family member, or for personal circumstances related to the health of the faculty member. In addition, they may request a term part-time appointment only (with specific starting and ending dates) allowing the issue to be revisited on a defined cycle. While such term appointments can be renewed throughout the probationary period, a permanent part-time appointment may not be granted until continued appointment is awarded.
Faculty members with continued appointment may request either term or permanent part-time appointments for reasons stated above, or to balance work at Virginia Tech with professional practice or significant community or public service, for example, a faculty member who wishes to serve as a consultant in addition to an appointment at Virginia Tech; a faculty member who wishes to engage in entrepreneurial activity outside of university responsibilities; or a faculty member who runs for public office for a limited term and wishes to reduce the workload at Virginia Tech for that period. Other reasonable justifications may be considered if approved the department heard or chair, University Libraries dean, and provost.
Part-time continued appointment and continued appointment-track appointments are either term or permanent. Term part-time appointments are in increments from one semester up to two years. During the duration of a part-time term appointment, terms of the appointment are only changed via the agreement of all parties. A term agreement must specify the date on which the faculty member is expected to return to full-time status. Renewal of a term appointment should be negotiated no less than three months before the end of the current term so that the department can plan accordingly. For term part-time appointments, departments are able to use the salary savings to replace the work of the faculty member on part-time appointment.
Only the faculty member may initiate a request for conversion from full-time to part-time appointment. The reasons for the request for a change in the percentage of appointment should be clearly stated. The appropriate supervisor should make a careful assessment of the needs of the department and works with the faculty member requesting the part-time appointment to facilitate the request whenever possible. The period for which this part-time appointment is granted shall be clearly stated (renewable terms from one semester up to two years, or permanent). The written agreement should include a careful and thorough statement of work expectations for the part-time appointment. Generally, faculty members continue to contribute to all areas of responsibility, but with reduced expectations for accomplishment proportional to the fractional appointment. Service responsibilities for faculty members on part-time appointments are generally proportional to their appointments. Faculty members on part-time appointments are not excused from regular departmental, division, or university service because of the part-time appointments.
The written agreement for either an initial appointment or a conversion of a full-time appointment to part- time status and any subsequent renewal requires the approval of the faculty member, the appropriate supervisor, University Libraries dean and provost.
An initial term part-time appointment, either continued appointment or continued appointment-track, may be approved to accommodate a dual career hire if funding is not immediately available to support a full- time position, or if the faculty member seeks a part-time appointment consistent with the intent of this policy. The expectation is that the subsequent reappointment, if recommended, is for a full-time position, unless the faculty member requests a renewal of the term part-time appointment in accordance with these guidelines. A part-time appointment created for a dual career hire is approved through the usual approval processes for dual career hires. (See chapter two, “Dual Career Program.”)
Faculty members on part-time appointments, whether term or permanent, retain all rights and responsibilities attendant to their appointment as a continued appointment and continued appointment- track faculty member.
For permanent part-time continued appointments with no end date, a return to a full-time appointment is not guaranteed. If holding continued appointment, the faculty member remains entitled to the continued appointment on the part-time basis only. However, an increase in the percent of the appointment up to full- time may be renegotiated between the faculty member and appropriate supervisor if mutually agreeable and funds are available. The department and the dean determine the best way to cover the costs of the work in the case of conversion to a permanent part-time appointment.
Faculty members on part-time appointments, whether term or permanent, retain all rights and responsibilities attendant to their appointment as a continued appointment and continued appointment- track faculty member.
Part-time appointments are made for any fraction 50 percent or greater of a full-time appointment; faculty members receive proportional salary. Faculty members considering such appointments are strongly encouraged to meet with representatives in the benefits office in Human Resources to gain a clear understanding of the consequences of the change to their benefits. Office and laboratory space may be adjusted for longer term or permanent part-time appointments.
The university has a tradition of upholding academic freedom. It endorses the “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” of the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges (AAUP Bulletin, September 1970, pp.323-325).
Members of the University Libraries faculty not holding appointments in a college department may be considered for continued appointment or for promotion in faculty rank in recognition of appropriate professional accomplishments as noted in the sections above.
Like tenure, continued appointment is for the protection of the academic freedom of University Libraries faculty who are engaged in creating new programs and scholarship. Eligibility for continued appointment consideration is limited to faculty members holding regular faculty appointments of 50 percent to 100 percent in the University Libraries. Continued appointment is not granted to faculty members with temporary appointments. Individuals holding continued appointment who are appointed to administrative positions, however, retain the status and privileges of continued appointment.
The term “probationary period” (“pre-continued appointment”) is applied to the succession of term appointments, which an individual undertakes on a full-or part-time regular faculty appointment, and during which evaluation for reappointment and for an eventual continued appointment takes place. The beginning of the probationary period for faculty members on term appointments is taken as July 1 or August 10 of the calendar year in which their initial full-time appointment begins, depending on whether they are on a calendar year or academic year appointment, regardless of the month in which their services are initiated. (The probationary period for new faculty appointed for spring semester begins the following fall even though the spring contract period officially begins December 25.)
Under usual circumstances, library promotion and continued appointment committees review the professional progress and performance of pre-continued appointment faculty members twice during the probationary period, usually in their second and fourth or third and fifth years. The timing of the reviews depends upon the nature of the faculty member’s discipline and must be clearly indicated in written departmental policies. The term of offer identifies the initial appointment period. Pre-continued appointment reviews may be delayed if there is an approved extension as described below. Changes or variations in the standard review cycle must be documented in writing.
The initial review for a part-time faculty member should be no later than the third year of service (regardless of percent of employment) to give early feedback on their progress. At least two reviews should be conducted for part-time faculty members during their probationary period; more are recommended. The anticipated schedule for such reviews for appointment and for the mandatory review for continued appointment should be documented in writing as part of the agreement for the part-time appointment. Changes should be agreed upon and documented by the faculty member and the department.
Reviews are substantive and thorough. At a minimum, library promotion and continued appointment committees must review the faculty member’s relevant annual faculty activity reports, peer evaluations, and authored materials.
The pre-continued appointment reviews should analyze the faculty member’s progress toward promotion and continued appointment and offer guidance regarding future activities and plans. Pre-continued appointment faculty should be encouraged to develop a narrative about their scholarship goals with special emphasis on the place of their research and creative activity. Although this narrative may change across time, creating the context for their work can assist candidates in understanding how to continue to develop professionally in a national and international context in preparation for promotion and continued appointment. The dean or director, the mentor(s), and the library promotion and continued appointment committee should engage in discussions with instructors and assistant professors across the probationary period to encourage professional growth and development of the candidate’s scholarly work.
All reviews must be in writing, with the faculty member acknowledging receipt by signing and returning a copy for the faculty member’s division-level file. In addition, the Library Promotion and Continued Appointment Committee and the dean meet with the faculty member to discuss the review and recommendations. Individual faculty members are also encouraged to seek guidance and mentoring from senior colleagues. Pre-continued appointment faculty members bear responsibility for understanding expectations for promotion and continued appointment and for meeting those expectations.
The initial appointment for instructors and assistant professors (or those appointed to higher ranks) without continued appointment is ordinarily for a period of not less than two years. Multiple-year reappointments may be subsequently recommended.
The maximum total period for full-time probationary appointments is six years, unless an approved extension is granted. Decision about continued appointment, if not made earlier, is made in the sixth year of the probationary appointment. If the continued appointment decision made in the sixth year is negative, a one-year terminal appointment is offered.
Pre-continued appointment faculty members may request a term part-time appointment as described in chapter four, “Part-Time Continued Appointment and Continued Appointment-Track Appointments,” for reasons of balancing work and family or personal health issues. In such cases, the probationary period is extended proportionately. For example, two years of service at 50 percent counts as one year of full-time service. The term appointment may be renewed. (A permanent part-time appointment may be requested and granted following award of continued appointment.)
In determining the mandatory continued appointment review year for those with partial appointments, general equivalency to full-time appointments is expected, so that approximately five years of full-time equivalent service is expected prior to the mandatory continued appointment review year if no continued appointment clock extensions have been granted; six years if one year of extension is granted, and seven years if two extensions are granted. (In summing partial years of service, a total resulting in a fraction equal to or less than .5 is rounded down, and a fraction greater than .5 is rounded up.) However, review for continued appointment must occur no later than the tenth year of service, resulting in somewhat less full- time equivalent service (4.5 years) for a faculty member with 50 percent appointment throughout all nine probationary years prior to review. If denied continued appointment following a mandatory review, a one- year terminal appointment is offered.
Faculty members on part-time appointments may request a continued appointment clock extension in accordance with procedures described in chapter four, “Extending the Continued Appointment Clock.” (Extensions are granted in one-year increments, not prorated by the part-time appointment percentage.) However, the extension is not approved if it results in a mandatory review date beyond the tenth year.
Up to three years of appropriate service at other accredited American four-year colleges and universities may be credited toward the six-year probationary period, as specified in chapter four, “Guidelines for the Calculation of Prior Service.”
A faculty member on probationary appointment who wishes to request a leave of absence consults with the dean about the effect of the leave on the probationary period, taking into account the professional development that the leave promises. The request for leave addresses this matter and the provost’s approval of the leave request specifies whether the leave is to be included in the probationary period.
A one-year probationary period extension is automatically granted to either parent (or both, if both parents are continued appointment-track faculty members) in recognition of the demands of caring for a newborn child or a child under five newly placed for adoption or foster care. The request should be made within a year of the child’s arrival in the family.
An extension of the probationary period may also be approved on a discretionary basis for other extenuating non-professional circumstances that have a significant impact on the faculty member’s productivity, such as a serious personal illness or major illness of a member of the immediate family. In rare cases, extraordinary professional circumstances not of the faculty member’s own making may be acceptable justification for a probationary period extension, for example exceptional delays in providing critical equipment, laboratory renovations, or other elements of the committed start-up package essential to establishing a viable research program.
Faculty members who benefit from this policy are expected to fulfill their usual responsibilities during the probationary period extension unless they are also granted a period of modified duties or unless other arrangements are made. (See chapter four, “Modified Duties.”)
Probationary period extensions are granted in one-year increments. A cumulative total of two years is usually the maximum probationary period extension for any combination of reasons. Requests should be made within a year of the qualifying event or extenuating circumstance. The provost may approve exceptions to these limitations.
Requests for a probationary period extension are submitted in writing to the appropriate supervisor. (A form is available on the provost’s website.) Approval is automatic for new parents. Documentation of medical reasons (other than childbirth or adoption) is required prior to approval; documentation of other extenuating circumstances may also be required. Approvals by the appropriate supervisor, dean, and provost are required for probationary period extensions. The faculty member may appeal denial of the request to the next higher level in their organizational reporting structure.
It is very important that all individuals and committees participating in continued appointment reviews understand that any individual who receives a probationary period extension must be held to the same standard—not a higher or more stringent one—to which other candidates without such an extension are held. This is also true in the case where the candidate’s dossier is considered on the original schedule for review. However, in this instance where an approved extension was granted but not utilized, the continued appointment review is not considered mandatory and can be conducted again in the subsequent year without penalty. A probationary extension also usually extends the time frame for each subsequent review and reappointment during the probationary period. For example, an extension granted prior to the fourth- year review and reappointment typically delays that review by one year.
At the time of a faculty member’s initial appointment to the University Libraries, the dean notifies the new faculty member of the faculty member’s status regarding continued appointment. Excepting temporary appointments with limited terms, the faculty appointees are given clear notice of when their appointments will be considered for renewal and, if on the continued appointment-track, when consideration for continued appointment will be given.
In this latter calculation, appropriate full-time service in another accredited four-year American college or university is credited toward probationary service at Virginia Tech only if the appointed faculty member requests such credit.
In such a request, all prior service is presented if undertaken after the faculty member completes the terminal degree appropriate to the field. A maximum of three years may be credited toward probationary service at Virginia Tech. The request must be made in writing within one year of the initial appointment. The specification of credit for prior service toward the probationary period is subject to the approval of the provost on the recommendation of the dean of University Libraries.
Promotion to a higher rank or an award of continued appointment may be granted to faculty members on a regular faculty appointment who demonstrate outstanding accomplishments in an appropriate combination of learning, discovery, engagement, and other professional activities. Every faculty member is expected to maintain a current curriculum vitae, with copies filed with the University Libraries. The curriculum vitae together with annual faculty activity reports, student or client evaluations, copies of publications, reference letters, and other similar documents comprise a dossier, which furnishes the principal basis for promotion and continued appointment decisions.
The evaluation of candidates for continued appointment closely parallels the process for tenure consideration for college faculty, and incorporates the same, or similar, elements of procedure whenever relevant or reasonable. Given the small number of faculty members on the continued appointment-track, their dossiers are reviewed at two levels (rather than three as required for college faculty): first by the University Libraries promotion and continued appointment committee and dean of University Libraries, and second by the University Promotion and Continued Appointment Committee and the provost.
Although some participants in the review process may serve at more than one level participants may only vote once on a case. A faculty member may not serve on any committee that is evaluating a spouse, family member, or other individual with whom the faculty member has a close personal relationship.
Because the job descriptions and responsibilities of the candidates being considered do not conform to a single pattern or norm, it is not possible to set forth a statement of criteria with reference to which all recommendations for promotion or continued appointment must be made. Nevertheless, members of the general faculty seeking continued appointment or promotion in faculty rank are generally expected to have records of outstanding accomplishment in an appropriate combination of the following categories:
Professional responsibilities: Carrying out the responsibilities of the position within the organizational unit by effective staff work, display of leadership, and a high degree of initiative.
Research and scholarly activities: Publishing in journals, presenting papers at professional meetings, developing other works of creative scholarship, organizing or chairing sessions at professional meetings, and carrying out instructional responsibilities or graduate student advising.
University activities: Participating in the conduct of the activities of the administrative unit and the university. Such service takes innumerable forms, including serving on committees or in faculty governance positions, or participating in seminars or conferences.
External activities: Participating in local, state, regional, and national professional associations. Such participation includes activities such as holding office, serving on committees, conducting workshops, serving on panels, and attending conferences, conventions, or meetings.
Awards and honors: Receiving awards, grants, and honorary titles or being selected for membership in honorary societies.
Activities and accomplishments in other appropriate areas, beyond these five, may be included in dossiers and are considered.
University Libraries faculty are expected to develop within this framework the performance criteria that are most relevant to the responsibilities of those units. These criteria serve both as an aid to faculty development and as a set of measures that the University Promotion and Continued Appointment Committee may apply.
The criteria by which faculty with part-time appointments are evaluated for continued appointment is the same as the criteria by which full-time faculty are evaluated. Promotion and continued appointment committees consider years of full-time equivalent service when reaching decisions, excluding any approved probationary period extensions granted under the extending the tenure or continued appointment clock policy.
Besides consideration of specific professional criteria, evaluation for promotion or continued appointment should consider the candidate’s integrity, professional conduct, and ethics. To the extent that such considerations are significant factors in reaching a negative recommendation, they should be documented as part of the formal review process.
The University Libraries has a committee with appropriate faculty representation to evaluate candidates for promotion and/or continued appointment. The library promotion and continued appointment committee makes recommendations to the dean of University Libraries. The dean may chair the committee or remain separate from the committee’s deliberations and subsequently receive its recommendations. (See guidelines in chapter four, “Composition of University Libraries Committees.”) The library promotion and continued appointment committee reviews the cases of candidates for promotion and/or continued appointment, including those faculty members in the final probationary year. The dean furnishes the committee with a dossier for each candidate.
Rules governing eligibility and selection of members to serve on the University Libraries promotion and continued appointment committee (review committee), and operating guidelines for the review committee’s deliberations must be documented in written University Libraries-level policies, formally approved by the faculty.
The University Libraries faculty determine who is eligible to serve on the review committee from among faculty members with continued appointment.
The review committee may include appropriate supervisors; however, these members may not vote on cases from their departments since each has already had an opportunity to vote or make a recommendation on those candidates.
If possible, some significant element of faculty choice should be a part of the review committee selection procedure. Where small numbers make an election process impractical, the dean appoints the representative.
If University Libraries supervisors serve on the review committees, their total number is less than that of other faculty members.
Review committee appointments should be staggered to assure continuity from one year’s deliberation to the next. If possible, members should not serve more than two successive terms.
Selection of the review committee chair is determined in accordance with policies approved by the libraries faculty.
The dean may be present at the review committee’s deliberations. The dean serves in an advisory capacity to the review committee to assure compliance with university procedures and fairness and equity of treatment of candidates. The dean does not vote on review committee recommendations but provides a separate recommendation to the provost.
Faculty members appointed to serve on the university-level promotion and continued appointment committee are encouraged to observe the deliberations of the University Libraries review committee to better prepare for their roles but should not participate or attempt to influence the review committee’s recommendations.
The library promotion and continued appointment committee (review committee) makes a recommendation on each candidate to the dean of University Libraries, including a written evaluation that assesses the quality of the candidate’s performance in each relevant area. The division of the vote is conveyed to the University Promotion and Continued Appointment Committee and the provost but must otherwise remain confidential outside the review committee. In the absence of a unanimous recommendation, a minority report may be included. Whenever the dean does not concur with the committee’s recommendation, the committee is so notified.
Evaluation for continued appointment is mandated in the sixth year of probationary service unless the faculty member has given written notice of resignation from the faculty. If the review committee feels that the faculty member’s record does not warrant a continued appointment, there is an automatic review of the candidate’s dossier by the dean of University Libraries. If the dean concurs, the faculty member is notified by the dean, in writing, of the decision and the specific reasons for it.
The review committee may ask the candidate to appear before the committee to present additional information or clarification of recommendations.
The dean of University Libraries will send forward to the provost the complete dossier of every candidate for whom there is a positive recommendation from either the library promotion and continued appointment committee (review committee) or the dean, or both. The dean prepares separate letters of recommendation to be forwarded with the dossiers from their department. Whenever the dean does not concur with the review committee’s the library promotion and continued appointment committee’s recommendation, the review committee is so notified.
The dossiers that the dean sends to the provost are accompanied by a statement describing the formation and procedures of the review committee and a summary of the number of candidates considered by the University Libraries in each category. The division of the vote is conveyed to the university-level committee and provost but must otherwise remain confidential.
The University Promotion and Continued Appointment Committee (university-level committee) is appointed and chaired by the provost or the provost’s designee. The university-level committee reviews the qualifications of the candidates recommended for promotion and/or continued appointment by the dean of University Libraries. It also reviews those cases in which the dean does not concur with positive recommendations of the library promotion and continued appointment (review committee’s). (A university- level committee review of a case with differing recommendations by the library dean and the review committee is automatic and does not require an appeal.) The purpose of the review is to verify that the recommendations are consistent with the evidence, reflecting university standards, and that they are consistent with university objectives, programmatic plans, and budgetary constraints.
The university-level committee makes a recommendation on each candidate to the provost. The provost makes recommendations to the president, informing the university-level committee of those recommendations, including the basis for any non-concurrence with the university-level committee’s recommendations. The provost informs the president of any variation between the provost’s recommendations and those of the university-level committee.
The president makes recommendations to the Board of Visitors. The Board of Visitors makes the final decision.
The provost notifies the dean of any negative decision reached by the provost, the president, or the Board of Visitors. The dean notifies the faculty member, in writing, and notes appeal options.
The University Promotion and Continued Appointments committee (university-level committee) consists of the dean of the University Libraries; three University Library faculty members with continued appointment; and two faculty members at the associate or professor level with tenure in one of the colleges. The provost asks for nominations to the university-level committee from the University Libraries faculty. Where possible, some significant element of faculty choice should be part of the selection procedure.
All members of the university-level committee hold voting privileges. Regardless of the size of the committee, the faculty must always have at least a majority of the potential votes. Consistent with the principle that participants at all levels of the promotion and continued appointment review process vote only once on an individual case, the dean does not vote on cases from the University Libraries. Similarly, faculty members serving on the university-level committee do not vote on any case they previously voted on, should this circumstance occur.
Members of the university-level committee with continued appointment in the University Libraries hold staggered terms of three years; university-level committee members with tenure in a college hold staggered terms of two years; the provost makes the committee appointments. The provost or designee chairs the committee but does not vote.
All voting within the committee should be by written secret ballot; the division of any ballot must remain confidential.
A faculty member who is notified of a negative decision following evaluation for a term reappointment during the probationary period, for continued appointment, or for promotion may appeal for review of the decision under conditions and procedures specified in this section. The appellant has a right to an explanation of the reasons contributing to the denial.
Such an appeal must be filed, in writing, within 14 calendar days of formal notification of the decision, which shall make reference to appeal procedures. The appeal can only be based on grounds that certain relevant information was not provided or considered in the decision, or that the decision was influenced by improper consideration.
In their recommendations, administrators and committees hearing an appeal should address the standards outlined in the previous paragraph. In particular, they shall not substitute their own judgment on the merits for that of the body or individual that made the decision under appeal. The recommendations should address the allegations in the appeal with specificity and cite appropriate evidence.
Appeals should be resolved as quickly as possible without compromising fairness or thoroughness of review. Whenever possible, the goal should be to achieve final resolution in time to accommodate the first meeting of the Board of Visitors in the fall semester.
A faculty member who believes that the appeal procedures described in this section have been improperly followed may, at any point, seek advice from the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation and/or file a grievance in accordance with the grievance procedure in chapter four, “Faculty Grievance Policy and Procedures.”
Faculty members on probationary term appointments should make no presumption of reappointment. Procedures for term reappointment or the granting of continued appointment for members of the University Libraries faculty are developed in the University Libraries. A decision for non-reappointment to a term appointment, based primarily on performance evaluation, is final if reached by the library promotion and continued appointment committee (review committee) and is sustained by the dean of University Libraries, as appropriate. Notice of non-reappointment is furnished according to the schedule in chapter two, “Retirement, Resignation, and Non-Reappointment.” The specific reasons for the decision are provided to the faculty member in writing, if requested.
If the non-reappointment decision is reached by the dean in contradiction to the recommendation of the University Libraries library promotion and continued appointment committee, the faculty member may request that the non-reappointment decision be reviewed by the provost for a final decision.
The faculty member presents the appeal in writing as specified in chapter four, “Appeals of Decisions on Reappointment, Continued Appointment, or Promotion.” The provost may ask the University-level Promotion and Continued Appointment Committee to review the case and make recommendation as an aid to that decision.
Occasionally faculty members are evaluated for continued appointment during the probationary period, but before the final probationary year. In such a case, there is no recourse to appeal or review of a negative decision, at whatever level it is reached, because of the certainty that the evaluation will be undertaken again within a limited time.
If a faculty member is denied continued appointment in a mandatory review by both the library promotion and continued appointment committee (review committee) and the dean of University Libraries, the faculty member may appeal the negative decision in writing in accordance with provisions of this section. The appeal is submitted to the provost for review by the University-level Committee for Promotion and Continued Appointment, which shall make a recommendation to the provost for a final decision. No further appeal is provided. The University-level Committee for Promotion and Continued Appointment may choose to hear oral arguments. Substantive procedural violations may be addressed through the grievance process described in chapter four, “Faculty Grievance Policy and Procedures.”
Should the University-level Promotion and Continued Appointment Committee find reason to believe that the review committee’s evaluation was biased or was significantly influenced by improper considerations, the University-level Promotion and Continued Appointment Committee may request that the dean form a new ad hoc review committee. The ad hoc committee makes a recommendation to the University-level Committee for Promotion and Continued Appointment that requested its formation. The University-level Promotion and Continued Appointment Committee then makes a recommendation to the provost.
Should the provost not concur with a positive recommendation from the University-level Committee for Promotion and Continued Appointment, whether that recommendation culminates a usual review or an appeal, the faculty member is so notified in writing of the specific reason for the decision. The faculty member may appeal to the Faculty Senate Review Committee. That committee investigates the case and, if the differences cannot be reconciled, makes a recommendation to the president on the matter. The president’s decision is final.
Faculty awarded continued appointment at the rank of assistant or associate professor are required to go through at least one review of progress toward promotion. The review is required for faculty members promoted and awarded continued appointment during 2019-2020 and thereafter. This review will take place by the fifth year after continued appointment or the last promotion was awarded. The faculty member can elect to submit a review prior to the fifth-year deadline; otherwise by the fifth year the faculty member will receive a notice to submit a review. All reviews of progress towards promotion will be conducted by the Library Promotion & Continued Appointment Committee (review committee). The review committee will provide a recommendation letter to the candidate prior to the next promotion and continued appointment review cycle. Candidates undergoing a review of progress towards promotion will submit to the Library Promotion & Continued Appointment Committee (review committee) documentation based on University Libraries policies highlighting the contributions and service since continued appointment or the last promotion was awarded. The review committee will provide feedback focusing on the faculty member’s progress toward promotion. The developmental guidance should focus on recommended future activities and plans that will position the faculty member for promotion. Review committee recommendation letters will be in writing; the faculty member will acknowledge receipt by signing and returning a copy of the letter to the personnel officer for departmental file. In addition, the faculty member may request a meeting with the review committee to discuss the review and recommendations. Individual faculty members are also encouraged to seek guidance and mentoring from senior colleagues and/or supervisor(s).
There is no specification for minimum or maximum time of service in any rank. A faculty member may request at any time a consideration for promotion in rank if the Library Promotion & Continued Appointment Committee (review committee) has not chosen to undertake such an evaluation. However, appeal of a negative promotion decision is provided only if the faculty member has been in rank for at least six years and if the faculty member has formally requested, in writing, consideration for promotion in a previous year. Candidates for promotion who have been denied by both the review committee and the dean of University Libraries may appeal to the provost, who asks the University-level Promotion and Continued Appointment Committee to consider the appeal. The faculty member presents the appeal in writing as specified in chapter four, “Appeals of Decisions on Reappointment, Continued Appointment, or Promotion.”
The university-level committee makes recommendation to the provost. If the university-level committee and the provost concur with the negative decision, the decision is final; if not, the president makes a final decision.
All departments are required to have written guidelines outlining the process and criteria used in faculty evaluations. The adoption of such guidelines promotes consistency and transparency in this important aspect of faculty life.
Every faculty member’s professional performance is evaluated annually, and written feedback is provided separately from confirmation of any merit adjustments. The process begins with submission of a faculty activity report (FAR). All non-temporary faculty members must submit a FAR annually. These reports form part of the basis for performance evaluations, awarding merit adjustments, and promotion, continued appointment, and post-continued appointment reviews.
The dean is responsible for conducting annual faculty evaluations, either independently or in consultation with an appropriately charged committee in accordance with University Libraries procedures. All evaluations must be in writing and include a discussion of contributions and accomplishments in all areas of the faculty member’s responsibilities, comments on the faculty member’s plans and goals, and any recommendations for improvement or change. Faculty members should receive their written evaluations within 90 days of submission of required materials, and they acknowledge receipt by signing and returning a copy for their University Libraries file, or the electronic equivalent. Acknowledging receipt of the evaluation does not imply agreement. If a faculty member substantially disagrees with the evaluation, he or she may submit a written response to the dean for inclusion in the personnel file.
In addition to their annual evaluation letters, all pre-continued appointment faculty members receive at least two thorough reviews during the six-year probationary period and written feedback on their progress toward continued appointment by the library promotion and continued appointment committee (review committee) prior to reappointment in accordance with guidance included in chapter four, “Probationary Period.”
Faculty members with part-time appointments are reviewed on the annual review cycle used for all faculty members in the department. For purposes of annual review, the fraction of the appointment must be taken into account when considering the appropriate level of achievement in that year.
Salary adjustments are based on merit; they are not automatic. Recommendations for salary adjustments originate with the dean and are reviewed by the provost and the president. Because salary adjustments are determined administratively on an annual basis and based significantly on the quality of the faculty member's response to assigned responsibility, they do not necessarily reflect an accurate measure of the full scope of the faculty member's professional development as evaluated by relevant committees in the continued appointment and promotion process.
The salary adjustments of continuing faculty members are approved by the Board of Visitors and each faculty member is informed in writing of the board's action as soon as possible. (See chapter two, “Faculty Compensation Plan.”)
For continued appointment and pre-continued appointment faculty members, failure to meet the minimal obligations and standards the department has stipulated for its faculty results in an "unsatisfactory" rating. Written notification of an unsatisfactory rating and the considerations upon which it was based is given to the faculty member, with a copy to the dean and provost. A single unsatisfactory evaluation indicates a serious problem, which prompts remedial action. Faculty members may respond in writing with a letter to the appropriate supervisor for inclusion in their personnel file, or they may seek redress through either the reconciliation or grievance procedures. Two successive annual ratings of unsatisfactory performance for a faculty member with continued appointment results in a post-continued appointment review.
The University Libraries shall develop, maintain, and publish a statement of minimal standards for satisfactory faculty performance using the following process. University Libraries standards should be written with the participation of faculty and approved by a vote of the continued appointment-track faculty. Standards developed and approved by the library promotion and continued appointment committee and the dean are then reviewed and approved by the provost. Once approved, the standards are published and available to all faculty members in University Libraries. Revisions of University Libraries also follow these procedures.
The following guidance is provided for the development of University Libraries minimal standards:
The University Libraries should carefully assess and state the overall standards of professional performance and contribution considered minimally acceptable for continued appointment faculty. The University Libraries’ evaluation mechanism should allow a distinction between performance that is deficient in one or more areas requiring improvement, and performance that is so seriously deficient as to merit the formal designation "unsatisfactory."
University Libraries’ standards should embrace the entire scope of faculty contributions. Expectations recognize differences in faculty assignments within the same department or unit. University Libraries’ standards should typically address the individual's skill, effort, and effectiveness in contributing to all aspects of the instructional mission; the individual's activity in and contributions to the discipline; the individual's contributions to the collective life of the University Libraries and university; and the individual's activity in and contributions to the university's outreach mission.
The University Libraries’ statements should affirm support for the basic principles of academic freedom and should express tolerance for minority opinions, dissent from professional orthodoxies, and honest and civil disagreement with administrative actions.
Departmental statements should include the expectation that faculty with continued appointment will adhere to the standards of conduct and ethical behavior as stated in the Faculty Handbook and/or promulgated through other official channels.
Nothing in this section should be interpreted as abridging the university's right to proceed directly to dismissal for cause as defined in chapter four, “Dismissal for Cause,” or the right of individual faculty members to pursue existing mechanisms of reconciliation and redress.
A post-continued appointment review is mandatory whenever a faculty member with continued appointment receives two consecutive annual evaluations of unsatisfactory performance. Annual reviews for years spent on leave without pay are disregarded for the purpose of this calculation. The library promotion and continued appointment committee (review committee) conducts the review, unless the same committee was involved in the original unsatisfactory annual evaluations. In this case, the University Libraries faculty elect a committee to carry out the review function.
Upon recommendation of the dean, a post-continued appointment review may be waived or postponed if there are extenuating circumstances (such as health problems).The purpose of a post-continued appointment review is to focus the perspective of faculty peers on the full scope of a faculty member's professional competence, performance, and contributions to the University Libraries and university missions and priorities.
The faculty member has both the right and the obligation to provide a dossier with all documents, materials, and statements as the faculty member believes are relevant and necessary for the review. Ordinarily, such a dossier includes at least the following: an updated curriculum vitae, the past two or more faculty activity reports, teaching or client assessments, if any, and a description of activities and accomplishments since the last faculty activity report. The faculty member is given a period of no less than four weeks to assemble the dossier for the committee. The dean supplies the review committee with the last two annual evaluations, all materials that were considered in those evaluations, any further materials deemed relevant, and other materials the committee requests. Copies of all materials supplied to the review committee are given to the faculty member. The faculty member has the right to provide a written rebuttal of evidence provided by the dean.
The review committee weighs the faculty member's contributions to the discipline, the University Libraries, and the university through learning, discovery, and engagement. The burden of proving unsatisfactory performance is on the university. The review committee prepares a summary of its findings and makes a recommendation to the dean and provost. Final action and notification of the faculty member is the responsibility of the dean, with the concurrence of the provost.
The review may result in one of the following outcomes:
Certification of satisfactory performance: The library promotion and continued appointment committee (review committee) may conclude that the faculty member's competence and professional contributions are satisfactory to meet the minimal expectations of the University Libraries, thus failing to sustain the assessment of the dean. The review is then complete. An unsatisfactory rating in any subsequent year is counted as the first in any future sequence.
Certification of deficiencies: The review committee may concur that the faculty member's competence and/or professional contributions are unsatisfactory to meet the minimal expectations of the University Libraries. The review committee may recommend dismissal for cause, a sanction other than dismissal for cause, or a single period of remediation not to exceed two years.
Remediation: If a period of remediation is recommended, the review committee specifies in detail the deficiencies it noted, defines specific goals and measurable outcomes the faculty member should achieve, and establishes a timeline for meeting the goals. The dean meets with the faculty member at least twice annually to review the individual's progress. The dean prepares a summary report for the review committee following each meeting and at the end of the specified remediation period, at which time the review committee either certifies satisfactory performance or recommends dismissal for cause or a sanction other than dismissal for cause following the procedures described below.
Sanction other than dismissal for cause: A recommendation by the library review committee to impose a severe sanction, as defined in chapter four, “Imposition of a Severe Sanction,” is referred to the University- level Promotion and Continued Appointment Committee. The university-level committee reviews the case presented by the libraries review committee. The university-level committee provides an opportunity for the faculty member to be heard and determines whether the recommendation is consistent with the evidence. The university-level committee may reject, uphold, or modify the specific sanction recommended by the library Review committee. If the library review committee also recommends imposition of a severe sanction, then the same procedures used for dismissal for cause guide the process. The review conducted by the library review committee satisfies the requirement in step two for an informal inquiry by an ad hoc or standing personnel committee. Thus, in the case of a post-continued appointment review, this step is not repeated.
If a severe sanction is imposed or ultimately rejected, then the post-continued appointment review cycle is considered complete. An unsatisfactory rating in any subsequent year is counted as the first in any future sequence.
Dismissal for cause: If dismissal for cause is recommended, the case shall be referred to a properly constituted committee within the Libraries which reviews the case and determines whether the recommendation is consistent with the evidence. If the University Promotion and Continued Appointment Committee upholds the recommendation for dismissal, then the procedures specified in chapter four, “Dismissal for Cause,” begin immediately.
4.5.5 Periodic Review of Dean of University Libraries, Unit/Division Supervisors, Senior Administrators
In addition to an annual performance evaluation, and in accordance with Policy 6105, “Periodic Evaluation of Academic Deans and Vice Presidents,” the dean of University Libraries is subject to reviews every five years. If the review cannot be conducted in the fifth year as would usually be the case, the provost informs the officers of the University Libraries faculty association as to the reason for delay. A review may also be initiated at any time by the provost and/or at the request of at least one-third of the continued appointment faculty. In the semester prior to a periodic review, the faculty association will be notified of the review and the association may schedule a meeting with the provost to discuss the upcoming review.
Policy 6100, “Department Head or Chair Appointments,” outlines the review process for academic department heads or chairs and includes the appropriate unit and/or division supervisors in the University Libraries. In addition, the policy provides guidance on establishing evaluation procedures with general principles so reviews may be conducted consistently and appropriately across the college for those serving in academic leadership roles.
The periodic review is designed to support the success of academic units by providing developmental feedback that promotes fair and effective academic leadership. Reappointment of an individual to unit and/or division in the libraries must be preceded by a periodic review conducted in accordance with guidelines outlined in Policy 6105 or in Policy 6100.
*The procedures specified follow closely, but differ in occasional detail from, the "1976 Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure" approved by Committee A of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).
Adequate cause for imposition of a severe sanction or dismissal is related, directly and substantially, to the fitness of faculty members in their professional capacity as teachers and scholars. Imposition of a severe sanction or dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights of American citizens.
Adequate cause includes: violation of professional ethics (see chapter two, “Professional Responsibilities and Conduct”); incompetence as determined through post-continued appointment review; willful failure to carry out professional obligations or assigned responsibilities; willful violation of university and/or government policies; falsification of information relating to professional qualifications; inability to perform assigned duties satisfactorily because of incarceration; or personal deficiencies that prevent the satisfactory performance of responsibilities (e.g., dependence on drugs or alcohol).
Reason to consider the imposition of a severe sanction or dismissal for cause is usually determined by a thorough and careful investigation by an appropriately charged faculty committee (as in the case of allegations of ethical or scholarly misconduct, or through a post-continued appointment review) or by the relevant administrator (for example, the dean, compliance and conflict resolution officer, internal auditor, or Virginia Tech Police). Generally, these investigations result in a report of findings; some reports also include a recommendation for sanctions. The report is directed to the relevant administrator for action; it is also shared with the faculty member. Imposition of a severe sanction or initiation of dismissal for cause proceedings, if warranted, follows the procedures set forth below.
Definition and examples: A severe sanction generally involves a significant loss or penalty to a faculty member such as, but not limited to, a demotion in rank and/or a reduction in salary or suspension without pay for a period not to exceed one year, imposed for unacceptable conduct and/or a serious breach of university policy.
Routine personnel actions such as a recommendation for a below average or no merit increase, conversion from a calendar year to an academic year appointment, reassignment, or removal of an administrative stipend do not constitute “sanctions” within the meaning of this policy. A personnel action such as these may be a valid issue for grievance under procedures defined in the Faculty Handbook.
Process for Imposing a Severe Sanction: The conduct of a faculty member, although not constituting adequate cause for dismissal, may be sufficiently grave to justify imposition of a severe sanction. Imposition of a severe sanction follows the same procedures as dismissal for cause beginning with step one. If the matter is not resolved at the first step, a standing or ad hoc faculty committee conducts an informal inquiry (step two). The requirement for such an informal inquiry is satisfied if the investigation was conducted by an appropriately charged faculty committee (as would be the case with an alleged violation of the ethics or scholarly misconduct policies) and, having determined that in its opinion there is adequate cause for imposing a severe sanction, refers the matter to the administration.
The following procedures apply to faculty members with continued appointment, or for dismissal of a continued appointment-track faculty member before the end of the current appointment.
Dismissal is preceded by:
Step one: Discussions between the faculty member, dean, and/or provost, looking toward a mutual settlement.
Step two: Informal inquiry by a standing (or, if necessary, ad hoc) faculty committee having concern for personnel matters. This committee attempts to affect an adjustment and, failing to do so, determines whether in its opinion dismissal proceedings should be undertaken, without its opinion being binding on the president’s decision whether to proceed.
Step three: The furnishing by the president (in what follows, the president may delegate the provost to serve instead) of a statement of particular charges, in consultation with the dean. The statement of charges is included in a letter to the faculty member indicating the intention to dismiss, with notification of the right to a formal hearing. The faculty member is given a specified reasonable time limit to request a hearing, that time limit is no less than 10 days.
Procedures for conducting a formal hearing, if requested: If a hearing committee is to be established, the president asks the Faculty Senate, through its president, to nominate nine faculty members to serve on the hearing committee. These faculty members should be nominated on the basis of their objectivity, competence, and regard in which they are held in the academic community. They must have no bias or untoward interest in the case and are available at the anticipated time of hearing. The faculty member and the president each have a maximum of two challenges from among the nominees without stated cause. The president then names a five-member hearing committee from the remaining names on the nominated slate. The hearing committee elects its chair.
Pending a final decision on the dismissal, the faculty member is suspended only if immediate harm to him or herself or to others is threatened by continuance. If the president believes such suspension is warranted, consultation takes place with the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation concerning the propriety, the length, and other conditions of the suspension. Ordinarily, salary continues during such a period of suspension.
The hearing committee may hold joint pre-hearing meetings with both parties to simplify the issues, effect stipulations of facts, provide for the exchange of documentary or other information, and achieve such other appropriate pre-hearing objectives as will make the hearing fair and expeditious.
Notice of hearing of at least 20 days is made in writing. The faculty member may waive appearance at the hearing, instead responding to the charges in writing or otherwise denying the charges or asserting that the charges do not support a finding of adequate cause. In such a case, the hearing committee evaluates all available evidence and rests its recommendation on the evidence in the record.
The committee, in consultation with the president and the faculty member, exercises its judgment as to whether the hearing is public or private. During the proceedings, the faculty member is permitted to have an academic advisor and legal counsel. At the request of either party or on the initiative of the hearing committee, a representative of an appropriate educational association is permitted to attend the hearing as an observer.
A verbatim record of the hearing is taken.
The burden of proof that adequate cause exists rests with the university.
The hearing committee grants adjournment to enable either party to investigate evidence about which a valid claim of surprise is made. The faculty member is afforded an opportunity to obtain necessary witnesses and documentary or other evidence. The administration cooperates with the hearing committee in securing witnesses and evidence. The faculty member and administration have the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses. The committee determines the admissibility of statements of unavailable witnesses and, if possible, provides for interrogatories.
The hearing committee is not bound by strict rules of legal evidence and may admit any evidence that is of probative value in determining the issues involved. Every possible effort is made to obtain the most reliable evidence available.
The findings of fact and the recommendation are based solely on the hearing record. The university president and the faculty member are notified of the recommendation in writing and are given a written copy of the record of the hearing.
If the hearing committee concludes that adequate cause for dismissal has not been established, it so reports to the university president. In such a case, the committee may recommend sanctions short of outright dismissal or may recommend no sanctions. If the university president rejects the recommendation, the hearing committee and the faculty member are so informed in writing, with reasons, and each is given an opportunity for response.
Appeal to the Board of Visitors: If the university president decides to impose dismissal or other severe sanction, whether that is the recommendation of the hearing committee, the faculty member may request that the full record of the case be submitted to the Board of Visitors (or a duly constituted committee of the board). The board’s review is based on the record of the committee hearing, and it provides opportunity for argument, written or oral or both, by the principals at the hearing or their representatives. If the recommendation of the hearing committee is not sustained, the proceeding returns to the hearing committee with specific objections. The hearing committee then reconsiders, taking into account the stated objections and receiving new evidence if necessary. The board makes a final decision only after study of the hearing committee’s reconsideration.
Notice of Dismissal: In cases where gross misconduct is decided, dismissal is usually immediate. The standard for gross misconduct is behavior so egregious that it evokes condemnation by the academic community generally and is so utterly blameworthy as to make it inappropriate to offer additional notice or severance pay. The first faculty committee that considers the case determines gross misconduct. In cases not involving gross misconduct: (a) a faculty member with continued appointment receives up to one year of salary or notice, and (b) a probationary faculty member receives up to three months’ salary or notice. These terms of dismissal begin at the date of final notification of dismissal.
The following procedure is provided as the means for resolution of grievances against a supervisor or member(s) of the university administration brought by members of the University Libraries faculty with continued appointment or on the continued appointment-track. The Faculty Senate Review Committee of the Faculty Senate conducts the step four hearing if requested. Information on the Faculty Senate Review Committee is in chapter two of this handbook and on the Faculty Senate Website.
Informal Dialogue: It should be possible to resolve most faculty concerns or complaints through informal communication among colleagues working together in the academic enterprise. Accordingly, a faculty member who feels he or she has a grievance is encouraged to take it to the immediate supervisor in the collegial spirit of problem solving rather than as a confrontation between adversaries.
University Ombuds: Any member of the university community may visit the university Ombuds Office. The Ombuds listens and explores options for addressing and resolving concerns or complaints. The Ombuds Office does not have the authority to make decisions or to reverse any decision made or actions taken by university authorities. The Ombuds Office supplements, but does not replace, the university's existing resources for conflict resolution and its systems of review and adjudication.
Communications with the Ombuds Office are considered confidential. The Ombuds Office will not accept legal notice on behalf of the university, and information provided to the Ombuds Office will not constitute such notice to the university. Should someone wish to make the university formally aware of a particular problem, the Ombuds Office can provide information on how to do so. The only exception to this pledge of confidentiality is where the Ombuds Office determines that there is an imminent risk of serious harm, or if disclosure is required by law.
To preserve independence and neutrality, the Ombuds Office reports directly to the president. The Ombuds Office does not keep permanent records of confidential communications.
Reconciliation: At the initiation of the grievance procedure, or at any earlier time, the grievant may request the assistance of the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation in fashioning an equitable solution. Contacting the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation is not required in filing a grievance, but it may be useful if the grievant feels that the issue may be amenable to, but will require time for, negotiation; or if the grievant is unsure whether the concern is a legitimate issue for a grievance; or if personal relations between the parties involved in the grievance have become strained.
For a potential grievance issue to qualify for consideration by the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation, the grievant contacts the chair of the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation within 30 calendar days of the time when the grievant knew or should have known of the event or action that is the basis for the potential grievance, just as if beginning the regular grievance process. If the grievant requests assistance from the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation, that committee must request a postponement of the time limits involved in the grievance procedure while it deals with the case. The chair of the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation submits the request in writing to the vice provost for faculty affairs. Also, the grievant reaches an understanding with the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation of the time frame planned for that committee’s work on the case, such time not to exceed 60 calendar days.
Faculty members may also consult the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation about serious disagreements with immediate supervisors or other university administrators concerning issues that may not be eligible for consideration within the grievance process. In such instances, the committee contacts the relevant administrator to determine if there is an interest and willingness to explore informal resolution of the dispute; it is not necessary to notify the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost. Information on the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation is in chapter two of this handbook and on the Faculty Senate website.
Mediation: Mediation is a voluntary, confidential process through which trained neutral third persons (mediators) assist people to express their concerns and develop solutions to the dispute in a safe and structured environment. Assistance with mediation is available through Human Resources. Because mediation is voluntary, both parties must agree to participate in order for mediation to occur. Faculty members and supervisors are encouraged to consider using mediation to resolve disputes or to help address a conflict between a faculty member and another member of the Virginia Tech community.
Role of Mediators: Mediators do not make judgments, determine facts, or decide the outcome; instead, they facilitate discussion between the participants, who identify the solutions best suited to their situation. No agreement is made unless and until it is acceptable to the participants.
Requesting Mediation: Mediation is available at any time, without the filing of a grievance. Additionally, mediation may be requested by any party during the grievance process prior to step four. If, after the initiation of a formal grievance, both parties agree to participate in mediation, the grievance is placed on administrative hold until the mediation process is complete. If the parties come to a resolution of the dispute through mediation, the parties are responsible to each other for ensuring that the provisions of the agreement are followed. In the event that the parties are not able to reach a mutual resolution to the dispute through mediation, the grievant may request that the grievance be reactivated, and the process continues.
Mediation differs from reconciliation in that mediators do not engage in fact-finding or in evaluation of decisions. Both mediation and reconciliation, however, are voluntary; no party is required to participate in either process.
If the assistance of the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation is not desired or is not requested; or if the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation determines that it cannot provide assistance in the matter; or if the grievant finds that the length of time the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation plans or takes with the case is excessive; or if the grievant is not satisfied with the recommendations of that committee, the grievant may pursue the issue as a formal grievance through the following procedure. Appropriate supervisors, deans, directors, and other administrative faculty will cooperate with the grievant in the mechanics of processing the grievance, but the grievant alone is responsible for preparation of the case.
Step one: The grievant must meet with the immediate supervisor within 30 calendar days of the date that grievant knew or should have known of the event or action that is basis for the grievance and orally identifies the grievance and the grievant’s concerns. The supervisor provides an oral response to the grievant within five weekdays following the meeting. If the supervisor’s response is satisfactory to the grievant, that ends the matter.
Step two: If a satisfactory resolution of the grievance is not achieved by the immediate supervisor’s oral response, the grievant may submit a written statement of the grievance and the relief requested to the immediate supervisor. This statement must be on the faculty grievance form, must define the grievance and the relief requested specifically and precisely, and must be submitted to the immediate supervisor within five weekdays of the time when the grievant received the immediate supervisor’s oral response to the first step meeting. Faculty grievance forms are available on the provost’s website.
Within five weekdays of receiving the written statement of the grievance, the immediate supervisor, in turn, gives the grievant a written response on the faculty grievance form, citing reasons for action taken or not taken. If the written response of the immediate supervisor is satisfactory to the grievant, that ends the matter.
Step three: If the resolution of the grievance proposed in the written response by the immediate supervisor is not acceptable, the grievant may advance the grievance to the next level of university administration by checking the appropriate place on the faculty grievance form, signing and sending the form to the next level administrator within five weekdays of receiving the written response from the immediate supervisor. The next level of administration for faculty in the University Libraries is usually the University Libraries dean. The administrator involved at this next level is hereafter referred to as the second-level administrator.
Following receipt of the faculty grievance form, the second-level administrator or designated representative meets with the grievant within five weekdays. The second-level administrator may request the immediate supervisor of the grievant be present; the grievant may similarly request that a chosen representative from among the university faculty be present. Unless the grievant is represented by a member of the faculty who is also a lawyer, the second-level administrator does not have legal counsel present. The second-level administrator gives the grievant a written decision on the faculty grievance form within five weekdays after the meeting, citing reasons for the decision. If the second-level administrator’s written response to the grievance is satisfactory to the grievant it ends the matter.
Step four: If the resolution of the grievance proposed in the written response from the second-level administrator is not acceptable, the grievant may advance the grievance within five weekdays to the level of the provost, including consideration by an impartial hearing panel of the Faculty Senate Review Committee of the Faculty Senate. Information about the Faculty Senate Review Committee is in chapter two of this handbook and on the Faculty Senate website.
Upon receiving the faculty grievance form requesting step four review, the provost, or appropriate designated representative, acknowledges receipt of the grievance within five weekdays and forwards a copy of the Procedures of the Faculty Senate Review Committee
The provost immediately forwards a copy of the grievance to the president of the Faculty Senate, who also writes to the grievant to acknowledge receipt of the grievance within five weekdays of receipt of the faculty grievance form from the provost.
The grievant may petition the provost to bypass the Faculty Senate Review Committee and rule on the grievance. If the provost accepts the request, there is no subsequent opportunity for the grievance to be heard by a hearing panel. The provost’s decision, however, may be appealed to the university president, as described in step five. If the provost does not accept the petition, the Faculty Senate Review Committee hears the grievance as outlined in these procedures.
The Faculty Senate Review Committee does not normally consider the subject of a grievance while it is simultaneously under review by another committee or panel of the university.
Hearing Panel: A hearing panel consists of five members appointed by the chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee from among the members of the Faculty Senate Review Committee. The chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee polls all appointees to ensure that they have no conflict of interest in the case. Both parties to the grievance may challenge one of the appointments, if they so desire, without need to state cause, and the chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee appoints the needed replacement or replacements. Other replacements are made only for cause. The chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee rules on issues of cause.
To ensure uniformity in practice, the chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee or designee serves as the non-voting chair of each hearing panel. In the event that the chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee has a conflict of interest concerning a case, the chair appoints a disinterested third party from among the members of the Faculty Senate Review Committee not already appointed to the hearing panel for the case to serve as chair of the hearing panel.
Hearings: After a hearing panel is appointed, the chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee requests that each party to the grievance provide relevant documentation to be shared among the parties and the hearing panel. The panel holds its initial hearing with both principals present within 15 weekdays of receipt of the grievance by the Faculty Senate president. If the panel feels it needs to investigate the case further, or requires more information, or desires to hear witnesses, the hearing is adjourned until the panel completes the necessary work or scheduling. The hearing is then reconvened as appropriate.
Each party to the grievance may have a representative present during the sessions of the hearing at which testimony is presented. The representative may speak on their behalf if so requested. Representatives may be legal counsel, if both parties are so represented, but if the grievant does not wish to have legal counsel at a hearing, neither party to the grievance may have legal counsel present.
These impartial panel hearings are administrative functions, not adversarial proceedings. Therefore, if legal counsel is present, they must understand that the proceedings do not follow courtroom or trial procedures and rules. Participation by legal counsel is at the invitation of the parties they represent and is subject to the rulings of the chair of the hearing panel. Detailed procedures followed in hearings are specified in the Procedures of the Faculty Senate Review Committee as approved by the Faculty Senate.
Findings and Recommendations: The hearing panel concludes its work and makes its recommendations within 45 weekdays of receipt of the grievance by the Faculty Senate president. The time limit for consideration may be extended by agreement of both parties.
The hearing panel formulates written findings and recommendations regarding disposition of the grievance and forwards copies to the provost, the grievant, and the chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee.
Provost’s Action: The provost meets with the grievant within 10 weekdays after receiving the findings and recommendations of the hearing panel to discuss the case and advise the grievant about the prospects for disposition of the case. Within 10 weekdays of that meeting, the provost sends to the grievant the decision in writing concerning the disposition of the grievance. If the provost’s decision is fully consonant with (or exceeds) the recommendations of the hearing panel, or if it is satisfactory to the grievant even if it differs from the recommendations of the hearing panel, that ends the matter.
Step five: If the provost’s decision is not acceptable to the grievant and not consonant with the recommendations of the hearing panel, the grievant may appeal in writing to the university president within 20 calendar days. The president acts as he or she sees fit. The president’s decision is final.
A grievance must be brought forward in a timely manner. It is the responsibility of the grievant to initiate the grievance process within 30 calendar days of the time when he or she knew or should have known of the event or action that is the basis for the grievance. The university administration is not required to accept a grievance for processing if the grievant does not meet the 30-day deadline, except in cases of demonstrated good cause.
Scheduled commitments made prior to the time of filing or advancement of a grievance that preclude action by either of the parties to the grievance automatically extend time limits for their duration unless this would be demonstrably harmful to the fair processing of the grievance. In such cases, on written request by the grievant to the appropriate office for that step, the grievance is advanced to the next step in the grievance process.
If the grievant does not follow the time limits specified in the grievance procedure it is assumed that he or she accepted the last proposed resolution as satisfactory. If the grievant desires to advance the grievance after the appropriate specified time limits have lapsed, the administrator who receives the late submission notifies the chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee in writing, and the chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee determines if there was good cause for the delay. If so, the grievance proceeds. If not, the process ends with the most recently proposed resolution in force. The finding on the matter by the chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee is communicated to both parties in writing.
If either party to a grievance charges the other with procedural violations other than time limit issues, a special committee of the president of the Faculty Senate, the chair of the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation, and the chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee (or the vice president of the senate if the president is also chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee) is convened to rule on the question, as in disputes about the validity of issues qualifying for the grievance procedure. The special committee has the following options. It can either find no significant procedural violation occurred, in which case the grievance process continues unaffected, or that a significant procedural violation did occur. If the administrator committed a significant procedural violation, the grievance automatically qualifies for advancement to the next step in the grievance process. If the grievant committed a significant procedural violation, the grievance process ends at that point with the last proposed resolution established as the final disposition of the case.
For this process, a grievance is defined as a complaint by a faculty member alleging a violation, misinterpretation, or incorrect application of a policy, procedure, or practice of the university that directly affects the grievant. Some examples of valid issues for filing a grievance are: improperly or unfairly determined personnel decisions that result in an unsatisfactory annual performance evaluation, unreasonable merit adjustment or salary level, or excessive teaching load/work assignments; substantive violations of promotion and continued appointment procedures (see appeal process in chapter four, “Appeals of Decisions on Reappointment, Continued Appointment, or Promotion”); reprisals; substantive error in the application of policy; and matters relating to academic freedom.
Issues not open to grievance: While most faculty disputes with the university administration may be dealt with by this grievance policy, the following issues may not be made the subject of a grievance: determination of policy appropriately promulgated by the university administration or the university governance system; those items falling within the jurisdiction of other university policies and procedures (for example, complaints of unlawful discrimination or harassment, or an appeal related to the merits of a promotion and/or continued appointment decision); the contents of personnel policies, procedures, rules, regulations, ordinances, and statutes; the routine assignment of university resources (e.g., space, operating funds, parking, etc.); usual actions taken, or recommendations made, by administrators or committee members acting in an official capacity in the grievance process; termination of appointment by removal for just cause, non- reappointment, or abolition of position; or allegations of misconduct in scholarly activities.
Adjudication of disputes on the validity of issues qualifying for consideration under the faculty grievance procedures: If a university administrator rules that an issue does not qualify for the grievance process, the grievant may write to the chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee within five weekdays of receiving such notification and request a ruling from a special committee consisting of the president of the Faculty Senate, the chair of the Faculty Senate Committee on Reconciliation, and the chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee. The special committee considers the matter (including consultations with both parties if deemed necessary) and rules by majority vote on the admissibility of the matter to the grievance process. This special committee is called together by the chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee, who also sends a written report of the results of the deliberations of the committee to all parties concerned.
Time limits are subject to extension by written agreement of both parties. The grievant and the administrator involved at that particular step of the discussion make such an agreement. (An agreement form to extend the grievance response time is available on the provost’s website.)
Grievances that advance to step four during or close to the summer and/or teaching breaks during the academic year may require some extension of the stipulated time limits. The principals and the chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee negotiate such an extension. Every effort is made, however, to stay within the stipulated time limits. In case of disagreement, the Faculty Senate president rules on time extension and procedure questions, which might include a hearing conducted by three rather than five panel members, or other recommendations designed to expedite the proceedings while providing peer review of the grievance.
If a faculty member is away from the assigned work location at the time of discovery the event or action is the basis for a grievance, the 30-day period during which the grievant must meet with the immediate supervisor to initiate the grievance process begins when the faculty member returns to the assigned work location. If the date of return causes a delay of such length that the grievance, or its resolution, is not timely, the grievant may submit the grievance in writing to the immediate supervisor (step two), omitting personal meetings until such time as the faculty member returns to the assigned work location.
“Weekdays,” as used in this procedure, include Monday through Friday only and only when those days are not national, state, or religious holidays relevant to the principals in the grievance.
To protect a grievant from undue pressure in the pursuit of a grievance, if a grievant becomes ill and takes sick leave the grievance process stops until such time as the grievant is able to resume duties. Exceptions to this provision are made at the request of the grievant, but only if the grievant obtains and produces medical certification that proceeding with the grievance will not be harmful to the health of the grievant or exacerbate the ailment that required taking sick leave.
All costs of legal counsel employed by a grievant are borne by the grievant.
If a grievant is employed away from Blacksburg, and he or she is required to travel away from their duty station in resolution of their grievance, the university pays all travel costs permitted under state regulations.
In the event that a faculty member discovers he or she has a grievance about actions by an administrator above the level of the immediate supervisor that directly involve the faculty member, or with actions by an administrator not in the department that directly involve the faculty member, the grievant initiates the grievance process by seeking the intervention of the immediate supervisor within 30 calendar days of the discovery of the event or action that is the basis for the grievance. If that effort does not resolve the grievance satisfactorily, the grievant, after consulting the immediate supervisor, may file the faculty grievance form at the appropriate level or with the appropriate administrative office to initiate response from the administrator perceived as the source of the action causing the grievance. The grievance process then proceeds from that level onward in the usual fashion.
A grievance filed by a faculty member concerning an action of the provost is handled by the chair of the Faculty Senate Review Committee and a regular impartial hearing panel, but the findings and recommendations of the hearing panel are sent to the university president for ruling, rather than to the provost. A grievance filed by a faculty member concerning an action of the university president is addressed by a special panel appointed by the provost in consultation with the president of the Faculty Senate.
Any final resolution of a grievance must be consonant with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and university policy.
Once a grievance is resolved, either to the satisfaction of the grievant, or if not to the satisfaction of the grievant, by the action of the provost in consonance with the hearing panel recommendations, or by the ruling of the president, that specific grievance is closed and may not be made the subject of another grievance.
4.7.6 Overview of the Formal Grievance Process for Faculty with Continued Appointment or on the Continued Appointment-Track
Below is an abbreviated overview of the grievance process and deadlines. Refer to chapter four, “The Formal Grievance Procedure,” for specific details and options available in each step of the grievance process.
Time limits are subject to extension by written agreement of both parties. The grievant and the administrator involved at that particular step of the discussion are the makers of such an agreement. (An agreement form to extend the grievance response time is available on the provost’s website.)
|Within 30 days of event||1a.||
Grievant meets with immediate supervisor.
|Within 5 weekdays||
|Supervisor provides verbal response.|
|If supervisor’s response is satisfactory to grievant, that ends the matter.|
|If supervisor’s response is not satisfactory to grievant, move to step two within 5 weekdays.|
|Within 5 weekdays||
Grievant submits written grievance to immediate supervisor.
|Within 5 weekdays||
|Supervisor responds in writing on grievance form.|
|If supervisor’s response is satisfactory to grievant, that ends the matter.|
|If supervisor’s response is not satisfactory to grievant, move to step three within 5 weekdays.|
|Within 5 weekdays||
Grievant advances grievance form to the second-level administrator (usually dean of University Libraries).
|Within 5 weekdays||3b.||
Dean meets with grievant; dean may request department to be present.
|Within 5 weekdays||
|Dean responds in writing on grievance form.|
|3d.||If dean’s written response is satisfactory to grievant, that ends the matter.|
|If dean’s written response is not satisfactory to grievant, move to step four within 5 weekdays.|
|Within 5 weekdays||
Grievant advances grievance form to the provost.
|Within 5 weekdays||
Provost acknowledges receipt of grievance and forwards copy to Faculty Senate president to receive recommendation of an impartial hearing panel of the Faculty Senate Review Committee.
|Within 5 weekdays||
Faculty Senate president acknowledges in writing to grievant that copy of grievance has been received from provost.
|Within 15 weekdays||
Faculty Senate Review Committee chair appoints hearing panel from among Faculty Senate Review Committee members; panel holds its initial meeting with both principals.
|Within 45 weekdays||
Hearing panel concludes its work and make recommendations to provost and grievant.
|Within 10 weekdays||
Provost meets with grievant.
|Within 10 weekdays||
Provost notifies grievant in writing of the decision.
|If the provost’s decision is fully consonant with (or exceeds) the recommendations of the hearing panel, or if it is satisfactory to the grievant even if it differs from the recommendation of the hearing panel that ends the matter.|
|If the provost’s decision is not acceptable to the grievant and not consonant with the recommendation of the hearing panel, move to step five within 20 calendar days.|
|Within 20 calendar days||5a.||Grievant appeals in writing to university president.|
University president’s decision is final.
Study-research leave may be granted to faculty members for research and/or advanced study necessary to enhance the competencies of those faculty members to carry out their obligations to the university. (At other universities this program is often called “sabbatical.”)
Full-time faculty members holding continued appointment with significant responsibility for instruction and scholarly productivity, with the rank of assistant professor or higher, having accrued a minimum of six years of service, are eligible for study-research leaves. Following such a leave, an additional six years of full-time service are necessary before a faculty member is eligible for another study-research leave. Requests may be submitted prior to completion of six years of service, but faculty members must have completed the sixth year before the leave period begins.
Time spent on study-research leave, educational leave, or leave without pay is not considered in compiling minimum service requirements for further leaves.
As part of the commonwealth’s educational leave program, recipients of study-research leaves are provided with partial salary (not to exceed one-half salary). All employee benefits remain in force while faculty members are on study-research leaves. Calendar year faculty on study-research leave earn annual leave at a rate of half their usual annual leave earnings.
Instead of a proposal for leave of an entire academic or calendar year, faculty members may propose a sequence of semester leave periods at half-salary over several years, not to exceed in total one academic year (for a faculty member on academic year appointment) or 12 months (for a faculty member on calendar year appointment). If such a sequence of leaves is undertaken, all intervening periods of full-time appointment at Virginia Tech accrue toward the six-year minimum service required before eligibility for another study-research leave or sequence of leaves.
Alternatively, following completion of any study-research leave, faculty members may propose a single semester of study-research leave at half-salary following three years of full-time service to the university.
Recipients of a study-research leave may receive additional compensation from other approved sources up to a total equal to their annual salary from the university. Faculty members may receive the additional half salary from sponsored grants or contracts, resulting in a one-year period at full salary from university sources; the appropriate level of effort must be expended on grant-related activities. They may also obtain additional funds from external sources to cover expenses for travel, research, administrative assistance, and the purchase of relevant materials. The appropriate supervisor and provost review and approve required documentation of all external earnings and expected payments. Engagement in consulting activities must be consonant with existing university policy.
The request for study-research leave is made in the fall and, if approved, is taken the following academic year. Requests for study-research leave are submitted to the appropriate supervisor by November 1 for processing through the college, provost, and consideration by the Board of Visitors at the March (or spring) meeting of the board. Requests are forwarded to the board, subject to recommendation of the appropriate supervisor, dean, and the provost, with consideration of the need for effective continuation of the University Libraries’ program. Specific leave request due dates are established annually and are available in the Calendar of Important Dates found on the provost’s website.
The faculty member returns to full-time service with the university for a minimum of at least one academic year at the end of the approved leave or repays the university the salary received plus interest. If less than this required period of service is met, repayment is required of the pro rata portion of the compensation provided by the university during the leave period. Before undertaking the leave, the faculty member signs a memorandum of agreement to this effect.
Within 60 days of returning to full-time status, the faculty member must send a letter to the provost, dean, and appropriate supervisor summarizing accomplishments.
Research assignment is a special category of study-research leave that is awarded to a faculty member with continued appointment for one semester of intensive study or research that increases the quality of the individual’s professional stature and future contribution to the university. It may be taken in lieu of an ordinary year-long study-research leave. Continued appointment-track faculty members are not eligible to apply for research assignment leave until after continued appointment has been awarded.
Full-time faculty members holding continued appointment with the rank of assistant professor or higher and having accrued a minimum of six years of service, are eligible for research assignment or study-research leave. Following such a leave, an additional six years of full-time service are necessary before a faculty member may be considered for another research assignment. Requests may be submitted prior to completion of six years of service, but faculty members must have completed the sixth year before the leave period begins. Faculty members on calendar year appointments may take research assignment leave for up to six months.
Approval for research assignment provides the faculty member with full salary and related benefits for the period of the leave; faculty members may not take on additional responsibilities for outside income except as allowed by the university’s consulting policy. Modest stipends associated with competitive visiting scholar programs at other institutions, competitive national or international fellowships, the Fulbright Scholar Program, and similar prestigious opportunities to support study and/or scholarly research may be approved where there is clear benefit to the faculty member and the university. Similarly, externally funded reimbursements or allotments for travel, temporary relocation, and other expenses associated with the proposed research assignment may be approved. The appropriate supervisor, dean, and provost review and approve required documentation of all external earnings and expected payments. When a faculty member proposes a period of paid employment greater than 50 percent of the annual salary in a corporate or governmental setting, leave without pay or a contract through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act may be more appropriate than a research assignment.
The primary privilege of a research assignment is entire relief from teaching, administrative duties, and other faculty duties for one semester. A secondary privilege is that the assignment may be carried out at any location approved by the dean, although research programs that require facilities, resources from the University Libraries, or collaborations not available at the university are given special consideration.
An application for research assignment is submitted to the appropriate supervisor by November 1 of the academic year preceding that in which the assignment will be made. Application forms are available from the provost’s website. The application is in the form of a letter, which includes a detailed description of the proposed research or other scholarly project, the location of that activity, and the relevance of the proposed activity in contributing to the faculty member’s own scholarly research program. The dean reviews the application and forwards it with a recommendation to the provost by mid-December, indicating the provisions that will be made to accommodate the faculty member’s responsibilities. The dean is expected to weigh fiscal and academic load considerations to assure an equitable distribution of the awards. The provost reviews the recommendations, communicates with the dean, and announces the results to each candidate, following approval by the Board of Visitors. Specific leave request due dates are established annually and are available in the Calendar of Important Dates on the provost’s website.
The faculty member must return to full-time service with the university for a minimum of at least one academic year at the end of the approved leave. If less than this required period of service is met, repayment is required of the pro rata portion of the compensation provided by the university during the leave period. Before undertaking the leave, the faculty member must sign a memorandum of agreement to this effect.
Within 60 days of returning to full-time status, the faculty member must send a letter to the provost, dean, and appropriate supervisor summarizing accomplishments.
The university recognizes the need for all continued appointment and continued appointment-track faculty members to balance the commitments of family and work. Special family circumstances, for example, birth or adoption of a child, severe illness of an immediate family member, or even issues of personal health, can cause substantial alterations to one’s daily routine, thus creating a need to construct a modified workload and flexible schedule for a period of time.
Since the circumstances may vary widely for faculty members at different stages of their careers and with different family and workload situations, this policy does not prescribe the exact nature of the accommodation. In many cases, it may be a reduction or elimination of a teaching assignment while the faculty member continues to meet ongoing, but more flexible research and graduate student supervision obligations. In general, the university’s commitment is to work with a faculty member to devise a modified workload and schedule that enables the faculty member to remain an active and productive member of the department. Because there is no reduction in salary, the faculty member is expected to have a set of full- time responsibilities.
An eligible faculty member is encouraged to speak with the appropriate supervisor or chair as soon as possible about the need for modified duties to ensure the maximum amount of time for planning. A department chair, in conjunction with the University Libraries dean, is responsible for working with a faculty member to ensure a fair plan for modified duties is implemented, if possible, budgetary constraints are considered, and student or other needs are met. The policy does not create an entitlement if there are legitimate business-related reasons for denying the request. The appropriate supervisor in consultation with the dean or director, makes final decisions about the nature of the modified duties.
Provisions of this policy cannot adequately address all individual circumstances. Sick leave (including disability), leave without pay, or permanent reduction in appointment to part-time status may be options to consider for longer-term or more demanding needs. This policy is not intended to provide release time from teaching for the purpose of allowing additional time for research. Reduction in teaching assignment for research purposes is the prerogative of the University Libraries and a function of the university’s program of study-research leaves.
Extension of the probationary period (see chapter four, “Extending the Continued Appointment Clock”) is available to faculty members on continued appointment-track appointments who are confronted with extenuating personal or family circumstances, or birth or adoption of a child. The extension may be requested as a complement to a request for modified duties. However, the semester of modified duties does not automatically affect the continued appointment probationary period.
Eligibility: Modified duties may be requested by any faculty member in a full-time continued appointment or continued appointment-track appointment for the purpose of managing family responsibilities or, in exceptional cases, personal health issues not addressed by sick leave. The policy applies to eligible faculty upon employment.
Guidelines: The period of modified duties is one semester, or an equivalent amount of time for those faculty members whose responsibilities are not tied directly to teaching on the academic calendar.
Modification of duties should not result in additional duties during the subsequent semester, e.g., the faculty member should not be asked to make up the released teaching before or after the semester of modified duties. The faculty member cannot be employed by another institution during the period of modified duties, nor can the release time be used for extensive professional travel or other increased professional activities (including consulting) that do not meet the goals of the policy.
Medical documentation is required if the period of modified duties is requested related to a health issue not addressed by sick leave.
A semester of modified duties should be considered in addition to, not as a substitute for, sick leave and family leave available to those giving birth or adopting during the period of the appointment (i.e., during the academic year for those on academic year appointments, or any time for those on calendar year appointments). There are no work expectations for individuals on approved sick or family leave.
Requests for outside consulting during the period of modified duties are not usually approved.
A faculty member should submit a request for modified duties as early as possible so the department can plan appropriately. The request form is available on the provost’s website. The plan of proposed activities is developed in consultation with the appropriate supervisor, and the University Libraries dean. The modified duties can include assignments from the department and/or libraries, as appropriate.
Subject to available funding, the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost provides an allotment to the faculty member’s unit to replace teaching (or to use in other ways relevant to the duties) that is lost through the granting of a term of modified duties. Additional support from departments is strongly encouraged and should be noted in the request.
Approval of the appropriate supervisor, University Libraries dean, and provost are necessary. If the appropriate supervisor does not support the request, the reasons for denial are provided in writing, and the request is automatically forwarded to the dean for further review.