Personnel
Choose a topic to go directly to that section:
Conducting Faculty SearchesDiscretionary and Special Awards
Human Resources is an invaluable resource for those conducting faculty searches. A packet is available from them that gives a general sense of the process and procedures, including templates for form letters that must be sent out to applicants at various points in the search. For those undertaking leadership in a search for the first time, inviting a representative from HR to your first meeting—prior to finalizing advertising—can be a great help. The following steps are provided merely to give a sense of the intricacy of a search. N.B.: procedures and required approvals change! Make sure that you check with HR to confirm your sense of the policies and procedures in operation prior to beginning your search.
Sample Outline of Procedures from a recent faculty search (* denotes approval(s) required by Human Resources and/or Dean prior to advancing to the next stage):
1) Fill out Request to Search & Hire (APP-1) form after notification of faculty line is approved. (HR & Dean’s approval needed)*
2) Advertising approval, including constitution of Search Committee. (HR & Dean) * The Search Committee should also consider recruiting strategies: HR automatically places the approved ad in the print version of The Chronicle of Higher Ed., its online version, and on the College’s website. Ads in journals or elsewhere are paid for by departments. Affirmative Action recruiting strategies will eventually need to be summarized (see Search Step #15, below), so outreach to under-represented groups should be part of planning throughout the process.
It is worth noting that much of the most time-consuming activity of the Search Committee falls on the Chair of the Search; in the Division of Science and Social Science, it has been generally the case that the Chair of a Department should serve on the Search Committee, but is not required to also Chair the Search itself. (Please note “Critical Issue” #1, below.)
3) Creation of a Criteria “Grid” (Master Criteria List) – The development of this grid is constrained by the approved advertising language regarding required and preferred experience, etc. * (HR approval only)
A sample of a Master Criteria List can be viewed by clicking this link. Each member of the Search Committee should fill one out prior to meeting for evaluations of candidates. HR’s packet contains another version.
4) Applicants’ submissions must be date stamped and filed at the Department (if this is the print office of record) within 48 hours of receipt; tabular data on submissions (name, address, recruiting source, transcripts received, highest earned degree, references etc.) must be sent to HR so that they can correspond with applicants. The data that will be kept in the Department is also crucial for the letters that must be sent out at various points in the search.
5) Pick a date on which the first Search Committee will meet (usually after applications trickle down to less than one per week). HR provides a packet on interviewing techniques and inappropriate areas of investigation; this should be shared with the Search Committee at this point (if not earlier).
If your print advertising specifies a deadline for applications, your first meeting should not occur until after that deadline has passed. If the yield on ads with deadlines is low, you can request from HR an Extension of Deadline.
6) Search Chair collates committee members’ grids after group evaluation is completed, creating a Master Criteria List (Grid) for ultimate submission to HR.
7) Search Chair fills out Master Criteria List, listing as “Pursue” those candidates whom the Department wishes to phone interview. A memo to Dean & HR with a “request to phone interview” needs to accompany the Grid. Some Search Committees conduct their “phone interviews” at conferences; approvals are the same if this is the case in your department. (HR and Dean)*
It is generally the case that HR will require the submission of all applicants’ files at this point. Many departments/search committees choose to submit a list of “alternate candidates” in the “request to phone interview” memo to allow the Search Committee to move beyond its short list of approved interviewees. (See “Critical Issue” #2, below.)
This is a crucial step. If the applicant yield has been sufficient, providing a reasonable number of desirable and alternate candidates for phone interviewing, the Chair may choose to “close” the search at this point. HR and the Dean need to approve this decision. * If this is the case and approvals are received, the first of the sequence of letters departments need to send out should be finalized and mailed—this one to candidates no longer under consideration. (Templates for this and other letters are available in the HR packet on conducting a faculty search). N.B.: once the Search is officially closed, late applications are to be sent to HR for processing and contact. A “closed search” means that you can only evaluate (or re-evaluate) the applicants on the Master Criteria List.
8) Phone interview questions developed by the Search Committee/departments, to be approved by HR. *
9) After HR & Dean’s approvals to proceed on the selected & alternate candidates, conduct phone or conference interviews. The possible problems associated with interviewing are too numerous to list here. Your best option is to speak with recent Search Committee Chairs in your own Department and HR. (See “Critical Issue” #3, below.)
10) Search
Committee selects up to three candidates for campus visits. Search Chair crafts
a “strengths & weaknesses” memo for submission to Dean and HR. *
Those
candidates who are eliminated after phone interviewing should receive a letter from the Department informing them that
they are no longer under consideration. However, some Chairs choose to wait
until the campus visits are conducted before eliminating even these candidates
because they might be viable alternates.
It is typical to submit a list of alternates in this same memo, in case the primary list yields an insufficient list of on campus-interview candidates. (For example, some candidates may decline to interview.)
11) After campus-visit candidates are approved, contact candidates to schedule visits and plan itineraries. Check with Connie Cox in the Provost’s office for all expenses related to candidates’ visits (airfare, lodging, etc.).
12) HR requires
submission and approval of a list of questions specific to candidates’ campus
visits. *
13) On-campus candidates’ activities vary according to departmental precedent. Check with your faculty for procedures/expectations specific to your area.
14) After campus visits, faculty vote (in some departments, at least). Departmental activities vary on this issue, so check with your faculty for precedent and procedures specific to your area. Search Chair drafts a “strengths & weaknesses” memo—often reiterating information from Step 10. This is, in effect, the Department’s “intent to offer” letter, prioritizing or eliminating candidates. Submission to Dean and HR is required. * N.B. Deans make job offers. (See Critical Issues #3, below.) References should be checked by no later than this point, and certainly prior to submitting your letter/memo to Dean/HR.
15) When notified by your Dean, complete Request to Search & Hire form (see Step #1) and Affirmative Action (goldenrod) form (see Step #2). These forms will be returned to you for completion after an offer has been accepted. Follow routing procedures in each case. Final letters to candidates who have been interviewed (by phone or in person) need to be sent out.
Critical Issues:
1) Since the Search is controlled through all its steps by the language chosen/approved in its print advertisements, great care must be taken to specify requirements, preferences, deadlines (if desired), etc. For flexibility, many departments word the ad so that it includes a statement such as “review of applications will begin on January 15,” giving applicants a sense of the timeline without committing the Search Committee to a firm deadline.
2) The Master Criteria List (the Grid) should be carefully completed so that departments can return to the search pool if additional candidates are needed after either phone or on-campus interviews. In essence, hyper-specificity can work against you.
HR’s job is to protect the Search and its members from EEOE auditing; thus, it is often the case that Search Chairs must explain the selection or non-selection of applicants in ways that highlight discipline-specific information.
3) All candidates must receive equivalent/similar treatment—including phone contact, e-mail correspondence, interviewing, on-campus activities & interactions, etc. In essence, there are no “informal” conversations, and what is said to one must be said to all. Since Deans make the offers (see Step 14), discussion of salary is officially out of bounds. Candidates who ask about salary can be referred to the SUNY website or HR for generic salary information.
Contract Renewals, Promotions, Continuing Appointments (Tenure)
Individual faculty are responsible for completing files for renewals, tenure and promotion in rank. Departments are responsible for mentoring faculty, especially junior faculty, in terms of criteria, deadlines and the structural organization of their files. The following information repeats the language found in the 2004-2005 Faculty Handbook (p. 53, online edition):
Deadlines:
Deadlines for submitting materials for reappointment, promotion, and/or continuing appointment vary, based upon such factors as length of appointment and leaves taken. In February and October of each year, the Office of Human Resources provides each department Chair/Program Director with a “Retention and Permanency List”. This list provides dates by which individual faculty must be notified of continuation or non-renewal and the date by which department recommendations and files are due in the Deans’ Offices for term contract renewal, etc. Those dates are available to individual faculty members through the Department Chair or the Office of Human Resources, Netzer 208.
Additionally, the Administrative Calendar for Academic Affairs,
distributed to department chairs by the Provost prior to the beginning of the
academic year, lists specific deadlines for the following:
•
Department recommendations and files due in the Dean’s
Office;
•
Division Advisory Council recommendations due in Dean’s
Office;
•
Dean’s recommendations due to the Provost;
•
Provost’s recommendations due to the President;
• President’s decisions due.
Continuing
appointment (tenure) can only be granted by the Chancellor.
The five criteria listed in the Faculty Handbook (2004-2005, p. 55), copied from Article XII (B) of the Policies of the Board of Trustees provide a template for self-evaluation and strategic professional development:
1. Mastery
of subject matter—as demonstrated by such things as
advanced degrees, licenses, honors, awards and reputation
in the subject matter field.
2. Effectiveness
in teaching—as demonstrated by such things as
judgment of
colleagues, development of teaching materials
or new
courses and student reaction, as determined from
surveys, interviews and classroom observation.
3. Scholarly
ability—as demonstrated by such things as success
in
developing and carrying out significant research work in
the subject
matter field, contribution to the arts, publications
and reputation among colleagues.
4. Effectiveness
of University service—as demonstrated by such
things as
college and University public service, committee
work,
administrative work and work with students or community
in addition to formal teacher-student relationships.
5. Continuing
growth—as demonstrated by such things as reading,
research or
other activities to keep abreast of current
developments
in the academic employee’s fields and being
able to
handle successfully increased responsibility.
Faculty seeking contract renewal should strive for success in three of the criteria, since tenure is earned through excellence in three categories, one of which should be “effectiveness in teaching.” Promotion to Associate requires demonstrated excellence in four categories (one of which must be “teaching”); promotion to full Professor requires demonstrable mastery in all five.
Critical Issues:
Since individual faculty are responsible for maintaining SPI, grade distribution and other data for presentation in their various files, mentoring of junior faculty should begin early in their careers. Some departments have formalized a “mentorship program,” linking more senior faculty to junior faculty based upon disciplinary similarity and other considerations. Such mentorship should also come from the Chair, who can provide templates for Faculty Activity Reports earlier than newer faculty might consider them, for example. Counsel on the structure of the file (suggested summaries, tabular data, organizational integrity, etc.) is of great help to those assembling files.
Individual faculty are also responsible for soliciting letters of support based upon such things as classroom observations. In both of the above cases, substantial lead time, with departmental deadlines clearly understood by all parties, is the best help you can give to those rising through the ranks.
Further, given the often-awkward dates on which Dean’s
deadlines fall for contract renewals, etc. (often at the very beginning of a
semester), departmental deadlines for file submission should be set well in
advance of the Divisional submission deadline so that all faculty with
responsibility for doing so can carefully evaluate the candidate’s file. For
example, the spring 2007 deadline for Dean’s receipt of files was January 19:
two days after the start of classes. A Chair would be well advised to require
departmental submission of files by
Discretionary and Special Awards
The
UUP contract provides for Discretionary Salary Increase (DSI) cycles in some
contract years. Whenever a DSI cycle is in play, faculty may also choose to
apply–in writing, with Chair support though not “approval”—directly to the Dean
for an Equity Adjustment Increase (EI), which would be added to base salary. Thus,
each DSI cycle has two possibilities: a merit increase (departmental
recommendation) and/or an equity increase (individual submission).
Each
department on campus may (will) submit the names of up to 50% of its faculty,
each of whom will then be considered for a DSI based upon merit; each faculty
member who wishes to make a case for an EI, based upon salary inequity, needs
to make individual application to the Dean for his consideration. Faculty must
provide their own research for an argument that a given salary requires an
“equitable adjustment” based upon a comparison with the salaries of similarly
situated colleagues. Current salary information and a list of all those who
received DSI increases during the last three cycles are available at the UUP
office, 206 Human Ecology (x-2135). Applicants for merit and equity
consideration must have filed Faculty Activity Reports for the previous
academic year, or they will not be considered.
Part-time
instructors are eligible for DSI. Your calculation of total faculty, and
thus your 50% of faculty calculation, is the number of people in your
department, not FTEs and their percentages. The issue of whether adjunct
instructors need to have
Deadlines
for submission are contained in the Administrative Calendar for Academic
Affairs. In past DSI cycles, October 1 has often been the deadline—for
departmental merit and individual equity both. In the event that a given
faculty member receives notification that he or she has received a
discretionary increase to base salary (retroactive to Sept. 1) of a DSI in late
October, neither the faculty member nor the Chair will ever know whether the
increase was based upon a departmental merit recommendation or an individual
equity application.
Since
each department uses its own method for evaluating faculty, you should check
with past Chairs and current faculty for evaluative procedures that are
consonant with your governance structure.
Staff in your department office are controlled (as are you) by CSEA and UUP contracts and workplace rules. CSEA members are hired in job title by NYS Civil Service examinations, and, as a result, merit salary increases and the like are outside of the influence and power of department chairs. Absent a change in job title, your CSEA staff will receive step increases based upon longevity and whatever across-the-board increases negotiated for them by their union.
However, once a year you will get to comment on and encourage your staff by filling out an evaluation, which will be/should be shared with the staff member. The attached form image is a sample of what will be sent to be filled out by you. Initially, under section 2A, you write the tasks your staff person will be performing for you and your department. At the end of the evaluation period (usually 1 year), you evaluate how well your staff person actually performed those tasks. Write small! There's not much space. You also may write free comments in section 4 and you must check one of the categories: Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. As the form says, if you choose Unsatisfactory, you must attach a justification for your choice. Your staff person gets to see the form and should discuss it with you. He or she must sign it, indicating that you have shared the evaluation. His or her comments on your evaluation are optional.
Faculty are also “staff,” but discretion and personality-related issues weigh far too heavily on Chairs’ supervision of their colleagues to allow for much mention of this sometimes wearying interaction: Chairs are supervisors but also colleagues who will tend to eventually return to “pure” faculty status. With exception of the monthly time sheets you must sign for each employee on your faculty, there are few “forms” to guide your activities. Our best advice is to seek counsel from more experienced Chairs and your Dean.
