Recommendation: Accept P&T Work Group Implementation Recommendations Subject to recommended modifications

History P&T Task Force Charged Fall, 2003 Improve Quality of Decisions Improve consistency and documentation Create Best Possible Decision Process –Task Force Recommendations More outside letters from top scholars Allow updated information Ad hoc Committees of outside scholars Advocate presents case Substantive Review at University Level –Provost’s Recommendations Ad Hoc Committees of ASU Faculty –Approved by Academic Senate 4/26/04

Implementation Work Group 2/9/05 Create ad hoc committee structure –Substantive review at University Level –Include as much field expertise as possible –ASU disciplinary/interdisciplinary experts –Faculty outside candidate’s department –Some members constant across field reviews –Other members appointed for each case –Minimum of five members

Current Model One University P&T Committee Representatives from each college 50 to 100 cases per year Substantive review Recommendation to Provost & President President is final decision maker

Work Group Debated Pros /Cons -alternative structures – Workload of the committee (s) –Potential for expertise –Consistency of the review procedures –Logistics and costs of procedures –Faculty time commitment –Potential for bias Endorsed Provost’s recommendations –Ad hoc committees in multiple fields –Fixed and variable members

Procedures for Creating Ad Hoc Committees Provost creates ad hoc committees Colleges identifies candidates by March Disciplinary / Interdisciplinary Fields Fields announced, nominations requested Members are Distinguished professors Senate Representative Chair for field committee is full professor Provost appoints and announces fields

P & T Candidate Selects scholarly area field committee Lists nominees for committee Provides statement explaining relationship to nominees Description of scholarly area Lists possible conflicts – should not serve Chair conveys to Provost by May 1

Ad Hoc Committee Procedures Chairs/Deans provide nominee list Provost finalizes ad hoc committees Candidates informed of membership prior to start of year Provost provides support Deadline for tenure decisions mid-May

Advocate Presents candidate’s case –Contributions to unit’s mission and goals –Clarifies file –Not present during final deliberations –Assigned by Dean –Generally Chair (or senior scholar in area) –Candidate may choose if not supported –Secondary advocate may be appointed

Arguments Pro: Contextualized review Spreads workload Allows more Sr. faculty to participate Specific process for getting out of limbo Benefits are worth the costs Con: Negative for recruiting Costs are high in time and money Potential for lack of consistency Fields of review are unknown Limited expertise for substantive review

Resolution: Accept P&T Implementation Work Group’s Recommendations with modifications Defer implementation until Create Advisory Committee to guide creation of fields and ad hoc committees Develop training for advocates, ad hoc committee chairs and members to improve consistency of process Require Review of Process after first year by Senate Representatives