GSWS POLICIES & PROCEDURES
A. CORE FACULTY:
Core faculty in the GSWS Program will be composed of: tenured or tenure-eligible faculty with continuing or fixed term joint appointments in the GSWS Program; the Coordinator of the GSWS 205 "Introduction to Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies," who might or might not be a joint appointee within the Program or a TE faculty member; former directors of the Program who have continued to be involved regularly (for example: by cross-listing courses, serving on the Executive Committee, or serving on one or more of the standing committees). The Director will notify such faculty of their status as core, or non-core, faculty. (Revised September 2010)
B. AFFILIATED FACULTY:
Affiliated faculty in the GSWS Program will be composed of tenured or tenure-eligible faculty who teach cross-listed, recommended or core curricular courses for the GSWS Program. Affiliated faculty may also include tenured or tenure-eligible faculty or specified-term appointees who serve on GSWS standing committees. Specified term appointed faculty who shall be considered affiliated faculty are those whose contracts stipulate only one semester or one semester per year of teaching responsibilities in the GSWS Program.
C. DIRECTOR, RECOMMENDATION OF:
The Program faculty will make recommendations to the Dean about who should be the GSWS Program Director. The Program faculty will consult affiliated faculty and members of the GSWS Executive Committee (II.B.i.) regarding candidates for the position. Candidates for the position of Director shall normally be drawn from the group of tenured or tenure-eligible GSWS core and affiliated faculty. A majority vote of the GSWS core faculty will constitute the Program recommendation. The results of the vote for Director will be given to the Dean of Arts and Sciences. Core faculty members of the Program and members of the GSWS Executive Committee are encouraged to submit their own personal letters to the Dean of Arts and Sciences offering opinions about potential candidates for the Director position or regarding the decision of the Program.
1. DIRECTOR'S DUTIES
The Director's duties within the GSWS Program include the coordination of the program on a daily basis, oversight of the GSWS Program's state and private budget accounts, service as chair of the GSWS Executive Committee, and as an ex-officio member of the Curriculum Committee, and the Personnel Committee, the coordination of staffing arrangements for GSWS core courses, coordination of major/minor advising, the coordination of the internship, independent study, and Honors course offerings, and the coordination of the annual Minnie G. Braithwaite Lecture Series. Other duties might include the supervision of the Carol Woody Real World Internship Award and Dean's Prize Committees. The Director is also required to serve on the Council of Chairs and Program Directors and the Committee on Honors and Interdisciplinary Studies.
The Program has a number of standing committees, and others may be appointed on an ad hoc basis as necessary. Committee assignments usually are made at the beginning of the academic year, but program policy allows any core or affiliated faculty member to be appointed to any committee at any time, with the exception of the Executive Committee and the Personnel Committee.
A. MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES:
Unless otherwise specified any tenured, tenure-eligible, or specified term appointed faculty are eligible for membership on GSWS committees.
B. PRINCIPAL COMMITTEES: COMPOSITION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1. GSWS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (EC):
Is an Arts and Sciences committee, chaired by the Director of GSWS and composed of: GSWS core faculty, two GSWS students (undergraduate or graduate), as well as four "invited" members - three from Arts and Sciences (3), and one "at large" member who would come from one of the Schools (Law, Education, VIMS, and Business). At the termination of the Director's tenure in GSWS and when this person is not a continuing joint appointment in the GSWS Program, the Executive Committee may vote to invite the former director to continue to remain on the Executive Committee as a voting ex-officio member. This invitation will be for no less than one year and may be extended at the discretion of the Executive Committee. All EC decisions on this matter will be decided by majority vote. This committee is a policy making body whose functions include oversight on curricular matters, personnel matters, and program operations and direct decision making involvement in these areas. Thus, the Executive Committee operates similarly to a department's full faculty. The core faculty also consult the EC regarding candidates for the Director position. The EC is responsible for reviewing, revising, and voting (II.B.1..c.) on Personnel Committee (II.B.2.) recommendations on Retention, Tenure, Promotion and Post-Tenure Reviews. The EC is also responsible for appointing members to the Curriculum, Outreach, and Prizes committees (see below).
a. MEMBERSHIP TERMS
"Outside" Invited Members: Three-year terms with overlapping membership. In other words in no single year would all four "invited" members rotate off the committee. There should always be at least two invited members of the committee who served the previous year.
Student: Two years with overlapping membership. Whenever possible there should be at least one student on the committee who served the previous year.
b. APPOINTMENT PROCESS:
The process for appointing members of the GSWS Executive Committee will be as follows: The EC, by majority vote, will send names of confirmed "invitees" to the Faculty Affairs Committee to be recorded and for the Dean of Arts and Sciences to appoint.
c. VOTING ELIGIBILITY:
Subject to voting eligibility guidelines of the Faculty Handbook and the related memoranda from the Dean and the Provost, all members of the Executive Committee will be voting members.
2. PERSONNEL COMMITTEE (PC):
The Personnel Committee is advisory to the Program Director on all matters of procedure or policy not explicitly covered by other committees. Members of the PC are elected annually by a majority vote of the EC. The program director also serves on the PC, ex officio. The PC elects its own chair.
a. COMMITTEE COMPOSITION:
The Committee shall consist of one tenured professor (associate or full) from among the core faculty and one full-time professor from among the core or affiliated faculty - and in years in which promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review cases will be considered one member at large from the associate-full professor ranks of the core faculty or affiliated faculty, or the EC who has attained the highest rank aspired to by one of the candidates undergoing a post-tenure review. In the event that a full-professor promotion or post-tenure review is being considered, alternate full professor members shall serve if needed on the committee for those evaluation cases. The EC, in a majority vote, shall select such alternate members when necessary. Similarly, in the event that a member of the Personnel Committee is subject to tenure, promotion or post-tenure review, an alternate tenured member shall serve on the committee for this evaluation case. The pool of full professors from which alternate members shall be drawn may include those faculty who have served previously on the EC.
b. COMMITTEE DUTIES:
i. The PC forwards annual merit evaluations to the director in a manner consistent with the College's, the A&S's, and the Program's Joint Appointment Policies, and with the faculty member's Joint Appointment Memo of Understanding (JAMOU).
ii. The tenured members of the Personnel Committee will make recommendations for retention, promotion, and tenure and conduct post-tenure reviews. These recommendations will be forwarded to the EC.
See Merit Evaluations and Recommendations for Retention, Promotion, Tenure, and Post-Tenure Review.
3. CURRICULUM COMMITTEE (CC):
Approves all course proposals and revisions of the curriculum. The CC convenes monthly and the chair forwards the CC's recommendations to the EC in all matters relating to curriculum and concentration. Elects own chair by majority vote. The chair of the CC shall report regularly to the WSEC concerning the CC's activities. Whenever possible the CC will have at least two members.
4. OUTREACH COMMITTEE (OC):
Responsible for coordinating the GSWS brown-bag lunch lecture series, promoting collaborative activities with other departments, programs, schools, and student groups, promoting GSWS events within the College and Williamsburg community, creating and maintaining relations with other women's studies programs in the region, etc. The OC convenes as needed and the chair forwards the OC's recommendations to the EC. Elects own chair by majority vote. The chair of the OC shall report regularly to the EC concerning the OC's activities. Whenever possible the OC will have at least two members.
5. PRIZES AND FELLOWSHIPS COMMITTEE:
Prepares nominations to the EC for the Dean's Prize for Student Research on Women and the Carol Woody Spring Break Internship awards. Whenever possible the Prizes and Fellowships Committee will have at least two members.
Once members join a GSWS standing committee their appointments will normally be at least two years in length. Whenever possible the CC and OC should have at least one student member.
III: MERIT EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RETENTION, PROMOTION, AND TENURE
According to the procedures outlined in this document and the standards and procedures prescribed by the Faculty Handbook, the Personnel Committee of the GSWS Program shall make recommendations to the program director regarding merit evaluation, and to the director and Executive Committee regarding retention, promotion, tenure and post-tenure reviews. The director will incorporate the information gathered by, and recommendations of, the Personnel Committee and the Executive Committee (when appropriate) in her/his recommendations on personnel matters to the home unit of the faculty member and the Dean. Further, deadlines for notification of termination of probationary appointments will be given as required on pages 17-29 of the Faculty Handbook.
Tenure-eligible members will be assessed on their progress toward tenure consistent with the candidate's letter of intent and with the procedures of the home unit. Non-tenured, tenure-eligible members in their third year will be assessed on their progress toward tenure. Specified term appointments will be reviewed annually in accordance with the policy on merit evaluation. In addition to the annual merit reviews the Personnel Committee will also evaluate candidates for tenure, post-tenure review, and promotion. In all cases, the faculty member concerned will be notified of any review in sufficient time to give an appropriate response. All reviews will be placed in the faculty member's personnel file in the GSWS program and faculty members have the right to review and respond to any document in the faculty member's personnel file.
A. JOINT APPOINTMENTS:
GSWS PROGRAM AND HOME UNIT RELATIONSHIP
1. In evaluations of jointly appointed faculty the Director will work with the home unit in developing mutually agreeable strategies for incorporating program recommendations into the home units evaluation. These strategies shall be consistent with the faculty members JAMOU and the Joint Appointments Policy of the College.
a. Such strategies may include, but are not limited to discussions between the personnel committees of the home unit and GSWS and/or discussions between the Director and the chair or Dean of the home unit.
b. When differing sets of role definitions and workload expectations in the personnel policies of the host and home units exist, concerns about how a joint appointee is to fulfill these differing sets of expectations must be clarified during negotiation of each JAMOU (in accordance with A&S Policy on Joint Appointments, III.A)
2. In evaluations of jointly appointed faculty the Director shall deliver the Program's recommendations on merit, retention, promotion, tenure and post-tenure reviews to the home unit no later than ten days prior to when such materials must be submitted to the Dean. The faculty member will have a week to review and respond to these recommendations before they are sent to the home unit.
3. When there is disagreement or inconsistency between the evaluation of the GSWS Program and the home unit, GSWS will negotiate with the home unit in an attempt to reach agreement.
a. The faculty member shall be notified in writing by the GSWS program director of the disagreement and the subsequent steps GSWS will take to try to resolve the disagreement or inconsistency.
b. If agreement is reached the GSWS Program will accept the home unit's recommendation submitted to the Dean reflecting such agreement. A copy of this revised recommendation will be made available to the faculty member by the GSWS Director and the faculty member will be allowed to respond within the time allowed by the home unit's personnel policies. The faculty member should forward his/her response to the GSWS Director within one week of receipt of the revised recommendation.
c. If no agreement is reached the GSWS Program will submit a separate evaluation or recommendation to the Dean. The Dean will then make the final decision on the evaluation or recommendation.
d. Because unsatisfactory merit evaluations are the triggers for post-tenure reviews the Dean's decision over a disputed merit evaluation will stand for both the home unit and the GSWS Program in subsequent merit reviews. For example, if the home unit and the GSWS Program cannot reach agreement on an annual merit review and the Dean decides the faculty member's review is satisfactory that rating will be noted by both the home unit and the GSWS Program in the faculty member's personnel file.
B. ANNUAL MERIT EVALUATIONS OF FACULTY HOLDING JOINT APPOINTMENTS IN WOMEN'S STUDIES
Annual merit evaluations are due as specified by the Dean's office, early in the spring semester. The PC will make its recommendations on merit evaluations available to the Director of the Program normally 15 days before the date specified by the Dean's office so as to allow for adequate time to forward program recommendations to the home department of the reviewee. The deadline for submission of materials to the PC for the annual merit review is the first Friday of the second semester. The director will remind faculty members of this deadline no later than the first week in January.
Interpretation of the Faculty Handbook's criteria for merit evaluation will be arrived at by the PC as follows:
1. The rating is determined by dividing a faculty member's professional functions into three categories: Teaching, Research-Publication and Professional Service, and Governance/Service within the Program, other Departments and/or the College.
a. Ratings on annual merit evaluations will be on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 15 (highest) and will be weighted among the categories of teaching, research-publication and professional service, and governance/service 6:6:3
b. The above categories include the following duties:
(1) Teaching: instructional performance as judged by peer and student evaluations, student load, service as a freshman and/or major advisor and/or advisor of honor's theses, master's theses, and/or dissertations.
(2) Research-Publication and Professional Service: publication of books, articles, and reviews, presentation of papers, participation on professional panels, and other evidence of general reading necessary to keep current in one's field. Also serving as editor of a scholarly journal, manuscript reviewer for scholarly journals or presses, etc.
(3) Governance/Service to the Program and/or College: participation on committees, carrying out of administrative tasks within or outside the program, advising student organizations, service in interdisciplinary or disciplinary associations, speaking to campus and community groups, and the like.
c. Ratings for the above categories will be assigned as follows:
(1) TEACHING: In evaluating teaching, the PC is guided by the principles enumerated in the Faculty Handbook: "conscientious and effective teaching with proper command of the material of (faculty member's) fields and helpfulness to their students" along with other guidelines contained in the GSWS Program's Personnel Policies and Procedures (III.B.1.b. (1)). In evaluating teaching the PC will consider the faculty member's courses from both the home unit and the GSWS Program. In evaluating teaching, the PC will consider any evidence provided by the faculty member to document conscientious and effective teaching. This may include the items listed in the Program's Personnel Policies and Procedures as well as any other that the faculty member wishes to provide such as the results of a classroom visitation or evidence of participation in any teaching enhancement project. The PC will also consider any appropriate additional information about the faculty member's performance that the Director provides; copies of such information will also be provided to the faculty member.
(a) Effective teaching is both difficult to define and to document. The PC should make a finding of unsatisfactory teaching and award a merit score of 2.0 or lower whenever any one of the following occurs:
i.There is not adequate evidence to document effective performance in any level of teaching;
ii.The faculty member receives an average rating of 2 or lower on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high) in the standardized student evaluations on the question "How do you rate this instructor compared to other W&M faculty?" over all courses offered during any calendar year. The PC will calculate both the simple average of the section scores without adjusting for class size and the weighted average that takes class size into account. The higher rating of these two methods will be used for the purposes of assigning a teaching merit score to the faculty member;
iii.The PC receives from the Director credible evidence of a pattern of neglect of duty or unprofessional conduct, such as failure to prepare and distribute a syllabus, unexplained missed or cancelled classes, excessive delays in grading and returning examinations and papers, or failure to submit final grades in a timely fashion.
(b) An "unsatisfactory" performance in teaching will be indicated by a merit score of two or lower.
(c) The PC should make a finding of "superior" performance in teaching when there is evidence to document conscientious and effective teaching with proper command of the material of a faculty member's fields and helpfulness to his or her students. This "effectiveness" might be indicated by, among other indicators, the faculty member receiving an average rating of 4 or better on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high) in the standardized student evaluations on the question "How do you rate this instructor compared to other W&M faculty?" over all courses offered during any calendar year. This "superior" performance will result in a merit score in teaching of "4" or better. The PC will calculate both the simple average of the section scores without adjusting for class size and the weighted average that takes class size into account. The higher rating of these two methods will be used for the purposes of assigning a teaching merit score to the faculty member.
(2) Research/Scholarship and Professional Service: In evaluating scholarship, the PC is guided by the general principles of the Faculty Handbook: "significant contributions to (the faculty member's) fields through research and scholarly or creative activity, and through professional service." The PC should make a finding of unsatisfactory scholarship if there is not adequate evidence to document a faculty member's effective performance in any level of scholarly activity and/or service to the profession. An "unsatisfactory" performance in scholarship will be indicated by a merit score of 1.5 or lower. The PC should make a finding of "superior" performance in scholarship when there is evidence to document a high level of scholarly productivity and/or service to the profession. This "superior" performance will be indicated by a merit score in scholarship of "4" or better.
(3) Governance/Service: In evaluating governance/service, the PC is guided by the general principle that service to Women's Studies or their academic discipline, to the Program, to their home unit, to the College and to the larger community is an integral function of one's professional obligation. The lowest rating (0-1) shall be used for persons who perform outside of class no more than the minimum duties expected under a faculty contract. The highest rating "3" shall be reserved solely for the satisfactory performance of the most demanding and time consuming assignments, such as chairing a department, directing a program and/or service on major College faculty committees. A finding of unsatisfactory governance/service should occur when there is evidence of a sustained refusal to fulfill one's governance/service obligations. A finding of satisfactory should occur when a faculty member engages in responsible service on a regular basis. An "unsatisfactory" performance in governance will result in a merit score of .5 or lower. A "superior" performance will be indicated by a merit score of 2 or better. All Women's Studies faculty who have JAMOUs that address governance responsibilities will be evaluated in relation to the division of such responsibilities as outlined in those documents.
C. PROCEDURES FOR RETENTION REVIEWS
1. The interim review of a probationary faculty member will be initiated in the fall and normally completed during the spring of a year approximately halfway through the probationary period. Under normal circumstances, the year of the interim review will be as follows:
(a) For a candidate who will be considered for tenure in his/her sixth year at the College, the interim review will be completed in the candidate's third year at the College.
(b) For a candidate who will be considered for tenure in his/her fifth year at the College, the interim review will be completed during the candidate's second year at the College.
(c) For a candidate who will be considered for tenure in his/her fourth year at the College, the interim review will be completed during the candidate's first year at the College.
(d) For a candidate who will be considered for tenure during his/her first three years at the College, no interim review is normally required. However, such a review may be initiated at the discretion of the Program, home unit or the Dean at any time.
2. The interim review will assess the probationary faculty member's progress toward tenure in the light of accomplishments during his/her initial years at the College, and it will result in a written report normally given to the faculty member and the home unit. The review will consider the usual tenure criteria as stated in the Faculty Handbook, namely, possession of the appropriate terminal degree, teaching quality, scholarly or artistic contributions, and service or governance contributions. The review should also lead to suggestions about needed improvements and changes, if appropriate in individual cases. Under no circumstances may the review report contain language that can reasonably be construed to promise that the eventual tenure decision will be positive. In some cases, the interim review may result in a non-retention recommendation.
3. It is the duty of the individual faculty member to provide information for her/his review and to compose the form (in a three ring binder with color tabs marking different sections, or an accordion file with title pages for each section, or a manila folder, for instance) in which this information is to be presented to the PC. However, the information provided must include a current C.V. and a self-narrative describing the faculty member's accomplishment in the categories described in III.B.I.c. Dossiers submitted by the candidate to the PC must also include the materials listed in section III.D.3 of the GSWS Personnel Policies and Procedures, excepting III.D.3 c. It is not expected that external letters or outside evaluations of scholarship will be part of this review.
D. TENURE AND PROMOTION REVIEWS
The review of Program members and recommendations for tenure and promotion will be carried out by the Personnel Committee. (See Personnel Committee for composition and manner of election.) The following procedures will be used to evaluate faculty holding fixed-term or continuing joint appointments unless otherwise specified in the candidate's JAMOU:
1. Information used by the PC in arriving at a recommendation concerning the rating of faculty members must be taken from the dossiers deposited by the candidates in the Program's files. The PC will review material as a whole with specific attention to teaching, scholarship, and service relevant to the field of women's studies and the GSWS Program.
2. It is the duty of the individual faculty member to provide information for her/his review and to compose the form (in a three ring binder with color tabs marking different sections, or an accordion file with title pages for each section, or a manila folder, for instance) in which this information is to be presented to the PC. However, the information provided must include a current C.V. and a self-narrative describing the faculty member's accomplishment in the categories described in III.B.I.c. All material used in the evaluation, therefore, is available to the faculty member concerned, including letters of evaluation from scholars outside the College.
3. Dossiers must contain the following material:
a. Evidence of appropriate terminal degree.
b. At least two forms of teaching evaluation, including
(1) A complete set of systematically collected students' teaching evaluation forms. For the purposes of an interim or tenure review this set of evaluations should cover every semester during which the candidate has taught at William and Mary and evaluations from all courses taught at William and Mary - including both GSWS classes and those taught for the home unit. In a promotion review this set of evaluations should include all student evaluations for courses since the candidate's tenure review if he/she was tenured at the College, or evaluations since the candidate began teaching at the College if he/she was hired with tenure and
(2) Written reports of at least one of the following (chosen by the candidate):
i. class visitation by Program core and/or affiliated faculty members selected by the EC in consultation with the candidate;
ii. review of syllabi and tests from the candidate's courses by core and/or affiliated faculty members selected by the EC in consultation with the candidate;
iii. in-depth interviews with a representative sample of the candidate's students, conducted by core and/or affiliated faculty selected by the EC in consultation with the candidate;
iv. evidence about the effectiveness of the candidate's courses from surveys of graduating seniors, conducted by core and/or affiliated faculty selected by the EC in consultation with the candidate;
v. a teaching portfolio that must include a narrative describing the candidate's teaching philosophy, and/or a narrative speaking explicitly to specific courses including addressing syllabi and assignments. The teaching portfolio may also include some of the documentation specified in the above bulleted points.
c. Thorough documentation of scholarly activity including:
(1) List of presentations and publications that clearly distinguishes between referreed and non-referreed items;
(2) An explanation of the candidate's contribution to any multi-author article or book;
(3) At least four (preferably five) letters of evaluation from outside experts. The procedure for soliciting these letters is:
i. The candidate submits a list of referees, none of whom has a conflict of interest in the candidate's tenure or promotion. The PC will create its own list of potential referees that will include at least three referees taken from the candidate's list.
ii. The PC will negotiate with the home unit to create a list of referees to which all parties agree.
iii. The PC, in consultation with the home unit, will choose four or five people from that list and request an evaluation of the significance, quality, and quantity of the candidate's scholarly work. The GSWS Program prefers that at least two of the referees selected come from the candidate's submitted list; however, the number of referees selected from the candidate's list will be determined in discussions between the GSWS Program and the candidate's home unit.
iv. Evaluators will be assured that their letters will be shown to the candidate only after all identifiers have been redacted to assure that their identity will remain unknown to the candidate during the tenure or promotion review and thereafter.
v. The PC and Director, in consultation with the home unit, retain the right to add referees to the original list if they believe such additions are necessary.
(4) List of candidate's scholarly service to the profession including, but not limited to, work as an editor for a scholarly journal, manuscript reviewer for a scholarly press or journal, service on governing committees for scholarly organizations.
(5) Evidence of the candidate's governance activities within the Host Program, home unit and the College. This includes: participation in institutional governance and such activities as advising and assisting student organizations, etc.
(6) Documentation of the candidate's contributions (through teaching, scholarship and professional service, or governance) to other departments or interdisciplinary programs at the College.
E. POST-TENURE REVIEW
1. Initiating post-tenure review
a. When a faculty member receives merit evaluations that have been persistently and significantly lower than those of the large majority of other members of the GSWS Program over a three-year period, and lower than what can be reasonably expected of a faculty member who is actively engaged in teaching, research, and service, the Dean and/or the Program Director may request a post-tenure review, pursuant to the Arts and Sciences Policies and Procedures for Post-Tenure Review. Such reviews will be conducted by the Personnel Committee, as described under II.B.2.a. Having the lowest merit evaluations in the Program is not, by itself, sufficient cause for a post-tenure review.
b. If, after conducting annual merit reviews, the PC determines that a particular faculty member's merit evaluation is significantly lower than those of the large majority of other members of the program, and lower than what can be reasonably expected of a faculty member who is actively engaged in teaching, research, and service, the Director will immediately write a letter to that member, explaining what prompted the determination. She will also explain that a post-tenure review will follow should the faculty member's merit evaluations for the next two years (or one year, if this is the second year in a row in which the PC has made this determination), continue to be significantly lower than those of the large majority of other members of the program, and lower than what can be reasonably expected of a faculty member who is actively engaged in teaching, research, and service. This letter from the Director will be independent of the merit evaluation. The faculty member may request a joint meeting with the PC and the Director before the Director forwards the PC's merit evaluation and the Director's letter to the home unit. If, after such meeting, the PC's determination that the faculty member's merit evaluation is significantly lower than those of the large majority of other members of the program, and lower than what can be reasonably expected of a faculty member who is actively engaged in teaching, research, and service, remains unchanged, the faculty member has the right to append a written response to the PC's final report to the home unit. The final report will consist of the merit evaluation and the Director's letter. The final decision on whether or not a faculty member's merit evaluation is significantly lower than those of the large majority of other members of the program, and lower than what can be reasonably expected of a faculty member who is actively engaged in teaching, research, and service, rests with the Director.
c. The PC evaluation will be kept confidential except as noted below. Although normally the PC does not see the evaluation done by the previous PC, if the PC determines that a faculty member has received merit evaluations that are significantly lower than those of the large majority of other members of the program, the Director will release the two previous merit evaluations to the current PC, along with the Director's letters (if any) from those years. If the PC determines that the above condition for post-tenure review has been met (see E.1.a), the PC will then request a post-tenure review. This request should be in the form of a brief written explanation of the reason for the request, and should be accompanied by copies of the faculty member's merit evaluations and Director's letters for the relevant years. If the PC determines that no post-tenure review is necessary, the Director may request a post-tenure review independently of the PC. The Dean may request a post-tenure review even if the faculty member has not received any letters from the Director indicating that a post-tenure review may be conducted if the faculty member's merit evaluations continue to be significantly lower than those of the large majority of other members of the program, and lower than what can be reasonably expected of a faculty member who is actively engaged in teaching, research, and service.
d. Upon receiving the PC request for a post-tenure review, or upon deciding herself to request a post-tenure review, the Director will immediately forward the PC's written explanation of the reason for the request and copies of the faculty member's merit evaluations and Director's letters for the relevant years to the faculty member, or provide her own written explanation to the faculty member, including with it copies of the faculty member's merit evaluations and Director's letters for the relevant years. The faculty member may request a joint meeting with the PC and the Director to discuss the situation. If, after such a meeting, the PC's or the Director's decision to request a post-tenure review remains unchanged, the faculty member may respond in writing to the PC's, or the Director's, written explanation of the request. The Director will then notify the home unit of the potential for a post-tenure review and forward the PC or Director's request, copies of the faculty member's merit evaluations and Director's letters for the relevant years, and the faculty member's response. If, after completing its own review process, the home unit determines the joint appointee will not undergo an unscheduled post tenure review, the Director will meet with the Dean to discuss the case and determine if there are temporary, extenuating circumstances that account for the faculty member's low merit evaluations. If the home unit also decides to request a post-tenure review, the Chair of the home unit, the GSWS Director and the Dean will meet to discuss the case and determine if there are temporary, extenuating circumstances that account for the faculty member's low merit evaluations. The final decision on whether or not there should be a post tenure review rests with the Dean. If the Dean determines that there should be a post tenure review, the following procedures will be followed.
e. Requests to the Dean for a post-tenure review must be initiated within thirty days of the time annual merit evaluations are submitted to the Dean's office. Consistent with the Faculty Handbook III.B.3.d, the post-tenure review shall commence by or before the beginning of the next academic year and be completed by the end of the Fall semester of that year; it shall consider the faculty member's performance in the areas of teaching, research, and governance and/or service over the six years preceding the review.
2. Procedures for post-tenure review
a. Should the PC be considering one of its own members, that member will absent herself/himself from the deliberations and an alternate member of the PC will be elected per the procedures stipulated in II.B.2.
b. A post-tenure review will be based on the same materials described in Section III.D.3. with the exception that outside letters will not be required. It will cover the six years preceding the year of the review. The PC will also consider any additional information about the faculty member's performance provided by the Director; copies of such information will also be provided to the faculty member. The PC requires that the faculty member include a current curriculum vitae as well as a written narrative to assist the PC in preparing its review. The Director or the faculty member will provide the six most recent annual merit evaluations, summary paragraphs to be part of the documentation. If the PC concludes that materials submitted for post-tenure review are insufficient for a satisfactory review, it may ask the faculty member no later than fifteen days prior to the home unit's deadline to provide additional materials within five days.
c. The post-tenure review report will consist of a narrative account of the faculty member's accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and governance/service. The report should point out any special circumstances that contributed to the faculty member's performance. The PC will rate the faculty member's overall performance record as satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
d. The PC will provide the faculty member with a copy of its post-tenure review evaluation at least two weeks before submitting the recommendation to the home unit, during which time the individual may respond in writing within one week to the PC. At that time, the faculty member may submit such additional materials as may be appropriate. Upon the faculty member's written response and submission of additional materials, the PC shall reconsider its evaluation and notify the faculty member of the results, where possible, within three days of receiving the faculty member's response. If the PC's decision remains unchanged, the faculty member's written response should be appended to the report to the Director. The Director will add comments or a covering letter (to which the faculty member will have one week to respond in writing) before forwarding the review to the home unit. The PC report, Director's comments, and faculty member's response should be forwarded to the home unit at least one week prior to the home unit's submission of its report to the Dean. If the Director does not agree with the PC's finding, the PC and Director will consult in an attempt to resolve the disagreement. If a resolution is reached, a revised report with the new finding will be submitted to the home unit. If no resolution is reached the Director may submit a separate recommendation along with the PC's recommendation to the home unit.
e. Post-tenure reviews shall result in a determination of either "unsatisfactory overall performance" or "satisfactory overall performance." Unsatisfactory teaching is in itself a sufficient condition for a finding of unsatisfactory overall performance. A program finding of unsatisfactory overall performance may also result from a faculty member's failure to make up for a deficiency in scholarship or governance/service by superior performance in both other categories. In its assessment of the faculty member's scholarship, the PC will recognize that scholarship in Women's Studies draws on a wide range of disciplines and is produced in many different formats.
f. Any further grievances by the faculty member may be pursued according to the procedures established in the Faculty Handbook, III.B. 11. If the home unit and the GSWS Program disagree on their findings in the post tenure review the procedures outlined in III.A. of the GSWS Personnel Policies and Procedures will be implemented by the GSWS Program.
g. Should the post-tenure review result in a finding of "unsatisfactory overall performance," the faculty member, in consultation with the home unit, the GSWS Personnel Committee (including the Director) and the Dean shall develop an "individual improvement plan" to address the area(s) of deficiency. Unless, upon the recommendation of the Dean, the Provost grants an extension, the plan must be accepted no later than forty-five calendar days from the date the faculty member receives notice of a finding of "unsatisfactory overall performance" as determined under the provisions of Section III.B.3.d., or forty-five calendar days from the date the faculty member receives notice that an appeal of such a finding has been denied, whichever last occurs. The development of the plan, the preliminary assessment of the plan, and the final assessment of the plan shall be consistent with the processes outlined in Section III.B.3.e. of the Faculty Handbook.
h. Should the Provost, on the basis of the final review, implement proceedings for sanction or for dismissal, the faculty member retains the right of appeal following the policies and procedures for appeals and grievances described in III.B.11 of the Faculty Handbook.
F. EVALUATION OF NON-TENURE ELIGIBLE INSTRUCTORS:
Instructors who have taught GSWS courses for more than two semesters will be considered specified term core faculty. Specified term core faculty in non-tenure eligible positions will be evaluated on an annual basis to ensure professional excellence.
1. FULL-TIME INSTRUCTORS
Specified term core faculty who are holders of full-time instructorships will be evaluated on their teaching performance as described in III.B and are expected to stay abreast of their fields. Full-time instructors are also expected to participate in program governance, as members of the EC and other committees as needed.
2. PART-TIME INSTRUCTORS:
Specified term core faculty who are holders of part-time teaching positions (adjunct, visiting, and the like) will be evaluated on their teaching performance using the same standards as full-time instructors, and are expected to stay abreast of their fields. Part-time instructors are not expected to take part in governance activities; they may choose to participate for personal and/or program benefit but are in no way required to do so.
IV: Revisions to this Document:
Proposals for revision of this document may be presented by any core faculty member of the GSWS Program at a regularly scheduled meeting of the GSWS Executive Committee or at a special meeting called for this subject. Written notice must be given of the details of the proposed revisions at least ten days in advance of any meeting during which such proposed revisions will be discussed. Revisions may be adopted by a majority vote of the core faculty and a 3/4 vote of the EC. Such changes as are adopted by the faculty shall become effective upon ratification by the Personnel Policy Committee of the College.