Committee on Rank and Tenure

Minutes for October 11, 2005 Meeting

Present: Susan Farnsworth (Chair), Jacqueline Padgett, Mary Lynn Rampolla, Robert Redmond, Minerva San Juan, Sharon Shafer

1. The minutes of the September 6 meeting were approved.

2. Disposition of tenure dossiers

All four dossiers have been submitted.

Individual committee members were charged with completing a first reading of the dossiers to ensure that each dossier contains all required documentation, as follows:

Dr. Elizabeth Child – Dr. Mary Lynn Rampolla

Dr. Robert Maguire – Dr. Robert Redmond

Dr. Cristina Parsons – Dr. Minerva San Juan

Dr. Raul Tovares – Dr. Jacqueline Padgett

The first reading for completeness will be finished by Friday, October 14. Any gaps in documentation will be reported to the committee chair, Dr. Susan Farnsworth, who will notify the candidate.

3. General discussion of the Rank and Tenure application process

There is currently a single-page document provided to candidates for tenure and/or promotion that lists the materials to be included in the portfolio. This document will be reviewed and amended to reflect current practices. In particular, the committee noted that the guidelines regarding letters of recommendation in the handout are outdated. Updated language will reflect the current handbook guidelines: candidates must provide 3 letters of recommendation from Trinity faculty; two must be from tenured faculty, and one must be from a faculty member in the applicant’s program, unless 1) the candidate is the only member of their program, or 2) the other member(s) of the candidate’s program serve as members of the Rank and Tenure Committee. The guidelines should also reflect the fact that applicants may not request letters of recommendation from any member of the Rank and Tenure committee. It was also noted that guidelines for outside recommendations need to be clarified. The current language mandates that the candidate supply “at least one” letter of recommendation from an outside evaluator; however, in recent years, candidates have been strongly urged to provide at least two.

4. Documentation of Committee work

In order to document actual time spent reviewing candidate files, committee members were urged to 1) scrupulously log portfolios in and out when they are being reviewed, and 2) keep careful notes on time spent reviewing photocopied elements of the portfolios.

5. Timetable for evaluating portfolios

The following timetable was established for the evaluation and discussion of portfolios:

Nov. 1 – Discussion of Parsons and Tovares portfolios

Nov. 22 – (Additional meeting) Discussion of Child and Maguire portfolios

Dec. 6 – Meeting with Dr. Blanshan and the appropriate Deans to discuss portfolios

Dr. Farnsworth will contact the academic vice president and deans about the possibility of a Dec. 6 meeting.

6. Middle States Report

In preparation for the initial visit with our Middle States evaluator, all members of the committee will review the information regarding the role of Rank and Tenure posted on the website. Dr. Shafer has agreed to take the lead in developing the Committee’s Middle States report.

The committee discussed Dr. Blanshan’s request that the candidates’ narratives be used to provide assessment data for the Middle States report. It was noted that 1) the narratives are not kept by the committee, and so could not be accessed for such an evaluation and that 2) the narratives, in any case, form part of a confidential dossier, and therefore cannot be used for assessment purposes.

Respectfully submitted

Mary Lynn Rampolla