Faculty Senate

March 3, 2003

2:30 p.m., E156 Student Union

1. Call to Order

2. Approval of Minutes for February 3, 2003 (Attachment H)

Located @ (http://www.wright.edu/admin/senate/minutes/Feb3SenMin.html)

3. Report of the University President or Chief Academic Officer

4. Report of the Senate Executive Committee: James Sayer

5. Written Committee Reports and Attendance (Attachment A)

A. Faculty Budget Priority Committee: James Sayer

B. Non-Bargaining Unit Faculty Affairs Committee: Carole Endres

C. Undergraduate Curriculum & Academic Policy Committee: Tom Sav

D. Buildings & Grounds Committee: James Amon

E. Information Technology Committee: Vince Yen

F. Student Affairs Committee: Margaret Clark Graham

G. Student Petitions Committee: KT Mechlin

6. Council Reports (Attachment B)

A. Graduate Council: Jay Thomas (To be distributed at the meeting.)

B. Athletic Council: Drew Pringle

7. Old Business

A. Commencement Committee Honorary Degrees – Barbara Denison (Attachment C)

B. GE Course Additions – Ed Rutter

Area II (Non-Western World) and Area VI (COLA)

CST 242-4 Comparative Non-Western Cultures: Music

CST 243-4 Comparative Non-Western Cultures: Art

RST 271-4 Regional Studies: Africa

Area VI (COLA)

TH 250-4 Script Analysis

C. Transfer Module – Ed Rutter

(Details @ http://www.wright.edu/~tom.sav/ucapc/wsuge03/senate/tmodule.pdf)

D. CECS Program Changes Fall 2003 – Tom Sav

(Details @ http://www.wright.edu/~tom.sav/ucapc/0003/fsreport/cecs2003.pdf )

E. COLA Program Changes Fall 2003 – Tom Sav

(Details @ http://www.wright.edu/~tom.sav/ucapc/0003/fsreport/cola2003.pdf )

F. Teaching English as a Foreign Language Certificate Proposal – Tom Sav

(Details @ http://www.wright.edu/~tom.sav/ucapc/0003/fsreport/teflcert.pdf )

G. Minor in Criminal Justice Proposal – Tom Sav

(Details @ http://www.wright.edu/~tom.sav/ucapc/0003/fsreport/justice.pdf )

H. Salary Inequity Appeals Process (NBUF Affairs Committee) – Carole Endres

(Attachment D)

I. Due Process Mechanism (NBUF Affairs Committee) – Carole Endres (Attachment E)

J. Professional Development Leave (NBUF Affairs Committee) – Carole Endres (Attachment F)

8. New Business (A suspension of the rules will be requested to move these items to Old Business.)

A. CONH Program Changes Fall 2003 – Tom Sav

(Details @http://www.wright.edu/~tom.sav/ucapc/0003/fsreport/conh2003.pdf)

B. COSM Program Changes Fall 2003 – Tom Sav

(Details will be posted February 27 @ http://www.wright.edu/~tom.sav/ucapc/0003/fsreport/cosm2003.pdf)

C. CEHS Program Changes Fall 2003 – Tom Sav

(Details will be posted February 27 @ http://www.wright.edu/~tom.sav/ucapc/0003/fsreport/cehs2003.pdf)

D. General Education Program Changes Fall 2003 – Tom Sav

Biology 105, 106, 107 Sequence Substitution

Current: BIO 112, 114, 115

New: BIO 111, 112, 115

Music 214 Substitution

Current: MUS 121

New: MUS 121 and 122

E. Graduate Certificate TEFL – Joe Coleman (Attachment G)

9. Adjournment

A. Nominations for Faculty President-Elect (2004-05) are currently being accepted through Friday, April 4, 2003. The following is applicable via Provost Memorandum No. 82-3, May 1, 1982.

“The President of the Faculty shall have a two course, or two-third, reduction in his or her full-time teaching load during the Fall, Winter, and Spring Quarters of his or her term of office. The President Elect of the Faculty shall have a one course, or one-third, reduction in his or her full-time teaching load for the Spring Quarter of his or her term of office.”

B. Next Faculty Senate Meeting: Monday, April 7, 2003, 2:30 p.m., 156

Student Union.

Attachment A

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

FACULTY SENATE

March 3, 2003

Faculty Budget Priority Committee: James Sayer, Chair

An oral report will be given at Senate.

Non-Bargaining Unit Faculty Affairs Committee: Carole Endres, Chair

The committee continued its work on the Salary Inequity Appeals Process, Due Process Mechanism, and Professional Development Leave policies and has submitted the revised policies as Old Business for today’s meeting.

Undergraduate Curriculum & Academic Policy Committee: Tom Sav, Chair

The UCAPC met on February 10 and due to the volume of curriculum requests before the committee, scheduled (as also required in January) a continuation meeting for February 17. Due to the snow closing, the latter was rescheduled to February 24. As a result, the UCAPC report to the Faculty Senate will be posted on February 27 at the following link:

http://www.wright.edu/~tom.sav/ucapc/0003/fsreport/6fsrep.htm

Buildings & Grounds Committee: James Amon, Chair

No report.

Information Technology Committee: Vince Yen, Chair

Information Technology (IT) Committee has decided to conduct a university-wide faculty survey on the University’s computing and technology services, and on the University’s teaching and learning services. In our last meeting held on Feb. 11, we reviewed a draft copy of the survey developed by Prof. Nieder’s group. Basically, the survey consists of questions regarding the utilization, needs and satisfaction in the above areas. There were a number of questions raised by the participants of the committee. A new draft will be discussed at Feb. 25’s meeting to finalize the survey.

Library services are not included in the committee’s survey because University Library will participate in a more comprehensive library survey called Libqual developed by Association of Research Libraries at Texas A & M University, through Ohio Library Link. Both IT committee and Library surveys will be conducted in early spring quarter.

Student Affairs Committee: Margaret Clark Graham, Chair

No report.

Student Petitions Committee: KT Mechlin, Chair

An oral report will be given at Senate.

Attachment B

COUNCIL REPORTS

FACULTY SENATE

March 3, 2003

Graduate Council – Jay Thomas

To be distributed at the meeting.

Athletic Council – Drew Pringle

The sub-committees of Athletics Council are preparing their annual reports. Senior Vice President and Provost Dr. Perry Moore will come to our April 25th meeting. The NCAA certification process, that occurs every 10 years, is underway. Information on the committee structure and overall plan is posted on the WSU Athletics Department web site. Several

members of Athletics Council have active roles in the process. Mark Mamrack is the Senate Representative on the NCAA Certification Steering Committee and questions concerning the process should be directed to him.

Attachment C

Commencement Committee Membership

and

Procedures for Honorary Degree Nominations

Commencement Committee Membership

The Commencement Committee will consist of nine (9) members: six (6) faculty representatives who are appointed by the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate and three (3) student members who are appointed from among the elected student representatives of the Student Government.

The terms of Commencement Committee members will be as follows:

· Two (2) faculty members will serve three (3) year terms.

· Two (2) faculty members will serve two (2) year terms.

· Two (2) faculty members will serve a one (1) year term.

· Three (3) students will serve a one (1) year term.

No faculty member may serve more than two (2) consecutive terms.

The chair of the Commencement Committee will be appointed from among the six faculty members by the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate.

Procedures for Honorary Degree Nominations

Nominations for honorary degrees will be considered by the Honorary Degrees Committee, a subcommittee of the Commencement Committee. The committee will consist of four (4) faculty members and one (1) student member from the Commencement Committee. The procedure for nominating a candidate for an honorary degree is as follows.

1. Send a request to present a nomination to the committee prior to any nomination. The committee will review the request and determine if a nomination should be reviewed for further consideration. Approval of a request to nominate requires a majority of the committee but does not indicate approval of a subsequent nomination.

A request must be submitted by January 5 for both commencements in the subsequent year. It may be submitted by anyone affiliated with Wright State University (faculty, staff, students, trustees, or alumni) and should consist of a brief letter outlining the contributions of the potential nominee.

The request should remain as confidential as possible. The potential nominee should not be notified of the request, nor should there be any attempt to solicit external support for the request.

2. Nominations may be submitted after a request to nominate has been approved. The deadline for submission of all nominating materials, for both June and December Commencements is March 1.

3. Nominations may be made by anyone affiliated with Wright State University (faculty, staff, students, trustees, or alumni).

4. Nominations must include:

· A narrative letter, in non-technical language, setting forth the reasons for the nomination.

· A full resume of the nominee, including accomplishments, honors, education and experience.

· A minimum of three (3) letters supporting the nomination from persons knowledgeable about the nominee’s contributions.

5. A majority vote of the full membership of the committee is necessary to approve a nominee for an honorary degree; that is, five (5) votes will be required for approval.

6. The deliberations of the committee regarding nominees should be strictly confidential.

7. Nominations receiving favorable consideration by the committee will be recommended to the President of the University, who may subsequently recommend them to the Board of Trustees for further consideration and final approval.

2/5/03

Attachment D

Salary Inequity Appeal Procedure

(Approved by Academic Council 10/03/94, the General Faculty 11/15/94, and the WSU Board of Trustees 4/14/95)

A. Definition

“Non-bargaining faculty” are defined as fully affiliated faculty who are not represented by a collective bargaining agreement. Non-bargaining faculty salary raises combine across-the-board percent increases with ~~are based primarily upon~~ merit~~. and to a lesser extent upon~~ market and equity adjustments which should be evaluated annually. ~~and other factors.~~ Research, teaching, and service merits and other relevant factors are assessed at the departmental level by the chair, the departmental faculty development committee (or its equivalent) where procedures have been established to include this committee in the annual evaluative process and , ~~and possibly by extramural reviewers~~, with the concurrence of the dean or by the Dean in the SOPP and CONH. Deans are responsible for the annual evaluation process for non-bargaining faculty members who are serving as chairs. Differences in raises and in salaries between non-bargaining faculty members will inevitably occur. This salary inequity appeals procedure is subject to the university compensation policy as defined in the Board of Trustees' Resolution 94-8 and The Wright Way: Policies and Procedures Number 4210. The term “salary inequity” here refers to a perceived inequity in one’s own salary due to the department’s, college’s, or school’s allocation of annual raises over a period at least three years, beginning no more than seven years prior to the filing of a salary inequity appeal.

B. Annual Faculty Evaluation

A performance evaluation will be given to each non-bargaining faculty member annually and a copy placed in the non-bargaining faculty member’s department file. The purpose of this annual evaluation is to ensure the continuous improvement and development of the non-bargaining faculty member and to inform decisions about merit pay, reappointment and promotion. Department chairs/deans shall meet with their non-bargaining faculty individually, to review their progress and its impact on the faculty member’s retention and/or promotion. The non-bargaining faculty member may add personal commentary to these annual performance evaluations and that commentary shall be included in the non-bargaining faculty member’s department file. Non-bargaining faculty who wish to be considered for promotion can request such review in writing to the chair/dean. A written review shall be prepared by the chair/dean and given to the non-bargaining faculty member and placed in the faculty member’s department file.

In the annual evaluation letter ~~(Faculty Handbook, Section Two, Revised Policies and Procedures for the Granting of Promotion and Tenure, VI. H.)~~, a non-bargaining faculty member is informed of any deficiencies so that efforts to improve performance may be initiated. All departments and colleges or schools should have procedures whereby disputes about salaries and raises by non-bargaining faculty may be debated objectively and with all due consideration between colleagues. Under most circumstances, merit and other factors relevant to salaries are most accurately assessed at the level of departments and colleges or schools; likewise, it is usually most appropriate that salaries and merit raises be determined at those levels. Hence, this university level salary inequity appeal process is applicable only when appeals at the lower procedural levels (departmental and/or school or college) have not resolved the dispute.

Thus, the procedures and review process (as described in sections C. and D. below) are intended, first, to ascertain whether department, school, and college procedures for resolving disputes over a non-bargaining faculty member’s annual evaluations, raises, and salary have been followed; second, to determine whether a salary inequity exists; and third, to recommend a salary (or salary range) to correct an inequity finding. It is to be emphasized that the findings of this process are not binding. However, in view of the good faith social contract between individual members of the faculty, the faculty governance structure, and the university administration, it is anticipated that the findings of these procedures, whether in favor of the complainant or not, should carry considerable weight with both the complainant and the university administration.

C. Procedures

1. The appropriate academic unit will establish and inform all non-bargaining faculty of methods and criteria for evaluating merit. Non-bargaining faculty members should play a role in establishing these criteria. Criteria that have been established by a department/school/college but not communicated to non-bargaining faculty members before the end of the calendar year prior to the evaluation year cannot be used in determining merit. ~~In accordance with the university policy (Faculty Handbook, Section Two, Revised Policies and Procedures for the Granting of Promotion and Tenure, VI. H.).~~ An annual performance evaluation (See Section B) will be given to each non-bargaining faculty member. This evaluation together with the faculty member’s responses to it will be used in deciding merit salary increments and will be kept on permanent file.

2. Each school or college is permitted but not required to establish its own salary inequity appeal procedure. Each school and college must inform its non-bargaining faculty whether or not it has its own salary inequity appeal procedure.

When a school or college wishes to establish its own salary inequity appeal procedure, the following rules apply:

a. The college/school must inform its non-bargaining faculty of the rules or bylaws governing the college/school procedure.

b. The rules or bylaws governing the school/college procedure must include the following provisions:

The final recommendations of the school/college procedure shall be communicated in writing to the complainant, the chair, and the dean, with a copy to the provost. This communication shall occur no later than the end of the academic quarter or six months (with the exception of the summer quarter) ~~which~~ following receipt of the written complaint by the school/college salary inequity appeal committee (or equivalent body).

3. A non-bargaining faculty member who is dissatisfied with his/her salary is obligated to seek relief from the department chair and from the dean, and, in colleges/schools which establish a salary inequity appeal procedure, from the college/school procedure. When a complainant has not been able to achieve settlement of the dispute by these mechanisms, the dispute will be reviewed at a meeting between the complainant, the chair, the dean, and the provost.

4. If not settled in 3., and if the complaint involves a charge of discrimination based on race, sex, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, or sexual orientation, the complaint will be forwarded by the dean with a cover letter to the university Affirmative Action Office.

5. If not settled in 3., and if 4. does not apply, the University Non-Bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee will handle the complaint. The complainant should submit to the University Non-Bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee a document containing:

a. A concise statement outlining the complaint, including the grounds on which the complaint is lodged and the years covered by the complaint. (As noted in section A. above, this period must consist of at least three years, and it must begin no more than seven years prior to the date on which the document described in this section B. 5. is submitted by the complainant to the University Non-bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee).

b. A clear statement of the relief expected by the complainant.

c. Copies of the annual evaluations written by the chair (or chair’s equivalent) for the years under consideration, and any responses thereto.

d. Any other documentation that may be relevant.

6. Upon receipt of the materials in 5., the University Non-Bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee will appoint a 3-person investigation subcommittee consisting of: one member from the University Non-Bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee (to chair the subcommittee); one non-bargaining faculty member from the complainant’s college or school; one other WSU ~~full-time~~ non-bargaining faculty member.

D. Review Process

1. The subcommittee will review the submitted material, acquire additional information for review, and report its findings as delineated below. The subcommittee will observe strictest confidentiality throughout.

2. The review and reporting tasks of the subcommittee will occur in the three stages a., b., and c. shown below.

a. The subcommittee will determine whether proper procedures have been followed. “Proper procedures” include the following:

i. Departmental merit review procedures.

ii. Annual evaluation performed for each year of the complaint period as evidenced by the annual evaluation letter and the complainant’s responses.

iii. Lower-level (department, college, or school) salary appeal procedures pursued according to their respective guidelines.

iv. Meeting between complainant, chair, dean, and provost as specified in C. 3. of this Salary Inequity Appeals section of the University Faculty Constitution. and Bylaws.

If the subcommittee finds that proper procedures have been followed, or that proper procedures have been followed by the complainant but not by the administration (department, school, college, or university), then the subcommittee’s work will proceed to stage b. below.

If the subcommittee finds that proper procedures have not been followed by the complainant, then the subcommittee will not proceed to stage b. It will instead submit a report of its findings to the University Non-bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee no later than the end of the academic quarter (with the exception of the summer quarter) which follows receipt of the complaint by the University Non-bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee.

b. The subcommittee will determine whether a salary inequity exists. For this purpose, the subcommittee shall undertake the following tasks:

i. Assess differences in statements found in the annual evaluation letter and the complainant’s responses. Where quantitative differences exist (e.g., ~~the number of papers~~, scholarship, teaching evaluation summaries, service activities, etc.), the subcommittee will verify the facts.

ii. Assess whether any deficiencies defined by the annual evaluation were addressed by the complainant in subsequent years, and whether such changes were noted in subsequent annual evaluations.

iii. Verify the complainant’s actual salaries in the complaint period via the annual university budget in the university-archives main library.

iv. Seek any additional information needed for the investigation. In particular, the subcommittee may ask the complainant, department chair, dean, provost, and other involved persons to appear and testify; the subcommittee is empowered to examine the complainant’s confidential personnel files relevant to the appeal. Likewise, the complainant, department chair, dean, and provost may choose to meet personally with the subcommittee should any of these persons so desire; it shall be the responsibility of the subcommittee to notify these persons of its investigation and of their right to meet with the subcommittee. (Unavailability of material or information requested from various sources but not submitted within a reasonable time period will be noted in the final report; the final report shall likewise note the refusal of any person who was asked to appear but who did not, or who otherwise failed to reasonably cooperate with the subcommittee’s investigation.)

If the subcommittee finds that a salary inequity exists, then the subcommittee will proceed to stage c.

If the subcommittee finds that no salary inequity exists, then the subcommittee will not proceed to stage c. It will instead submit a report of its findings to the University Non-bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee no later than the end of the academic quarter (with the exception of the summer quarter) which follows receipt of the complaint by the University Non-bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee.

c. The subcommittee will determine a dollar amount, or a range of dollar amounts, which would remove the salary inequity. For this purpose, the subcommittee may seek any additional information needed. In particular, if the subcommittee wishes, it may seek information regarding salary levels or faculty productivity at suitably chosen other universities as well as at Wright State, salary statistics from appropriate professional organizations, or other market value estimates; or other information from sources internal or external to Wright State. The solicitation of such information from sources external to the university is made solely in support of the committee's efforts to determine if a salary inequity exists within the framework of Wright State's compensation policy. (Unavailability of material or information requested from various sources but not submitted within a reasonable time period will be noted in the final report.)

The subcommittee will submit a report of its findings to the University Non-bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee no later than the end of the academic quarter (with the exception of the summer quarter) which follows receipt of the complaint by the University Faculty Affairs Committee.

3. The University Non-Bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee will review the subcommittee’s report. The University Non-Bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee will give copies of the subcommittee’s report and the University Non-Bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee’s recommendations (if any) to the complainant, the chair, the dean, the provost, and the university president.

4. The provost will respond to the subcommittee’s report and to the University Non-Bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee’s recommendations (if any) in a written statement to the University Non-bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee and the complainant within thirty days of receipt.

If the subcommittee’s report includes a dollar amount (or range of dollar amounts) as in 2. c. above, and the University Non-bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee does not explicitly recommend against adopting this dollar amount (or range of dollar amounts), and the provost does not accept this dollar amount (or range of dollar amounts), then the provost must meet with the University Non-bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee to explain the reasons for his/her different conclusions in an attempt to achieve consensus via collegiality. The subcommittee will attend this meeting if either the provost or the University Non-Bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee wishes.

[The university president may, at his/her option, personally fulfill either or both of the duties of the provost listed under this section C. 4.]

E. Appeal

1. A non-bargaining faculty member may not re-appeal a decision reached under this Salary Inequity Appeal Procedure. However, the non-bargaining faculty member may submit a new appeal for a different (that is, non-overlapping) period of at least three years.

2. An appeal under this process (1-3 above) may not be undertaken at the same time as the complainant is pursuing other methods of appeal external to the procedures defined above.

Attachment E

DUE PROCESS MECHANISM

(Approved by the Board of Trustees May 27, 1981; amended April 24, 1978; November 8, 1979; April 4, 1985; and October 1-2, 1992)

Preamble

The non-bargaining faculty and administration of Wright State University agree that this Due Process Mechanism provides an orderly method to secure prompt and equitable disposition of complaints. We agree to use the procedures in good faith whereby creating an atmosphere of mutual respect. ~~will exist for each other~~.

Introduction

The procedures presented in this statement are ~~not~~ ~~to be considered~~ neither a replacement for a college’s or school’s due process nor for the generally accepted mechanism of administrative review. Non-bargaining faculty members are encouraged to discuss issues with appropriate administrative representatives at all levels.

These procedures are also ~~not~~ applicable at the university level for cases involving ~~the removal or suspension of tenured faculty or in cases concerning~~ the non-reappointment of non-bargaining ~~nontenured~~ faculty when violations of academic freedom or proper notification of non-reappointment are alleged. ~~Procedures applicable to these circumstances are presently described in sections VII and VIII, respectively, of the revised Policies and Procedures for the Granting of Promotions and Tenure~~.

These procedures are not applicable to cases involving only salary disagreements. Procedures covering these violations are addressed in the revised Salary Inequity Appeal Procedure.

The procedures are presented as a mechanism which ~~would~~ allows for the resolution of areas of disagreement with the least disruption to the university.

A. Definitions

1. “Non-bargaining faculty” are defined as fully affiliated faculty who are not represented by a collective bargaining agreement.

2. ~~The term~~ "Complaint" is defined as ~~shall be interpreted to mean~~ an allegation by one or more non-bargaining faculty members that there has been a violation, misinterpretation, or misapplication of policies or procedures affecting the conditions of the faculty member's (s') employment, or that such policies or procedures are opposed to the stated aims and goals of the university.

3. The ~~term~~ "complainant" is ~~will stand for~~ the non-bargaining faculty member or members initiating a complaint.

4. The ~~term~~ "administration" is ~~stands for~~ the dean or chief academic officer at college/school (hereafter noted as college but meaning college or school) or university level, respectively.

5. The term "hearing board" is ~~stands for~~, at the university level, a five-member committee appointed when needed by the University Non-bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee from ~~the tenured~~ non-bargaining faculty. ~~or comparable fully affiliated senior level faculty from the School of Medicine or the School of Professional Psychology~~.

At the college level, a three-member hearing board will be appointed when needed by ~~either: (a)~~ ~~an appropriate elected college committee~~ a college committee that consists of a majority of non-bargaining faculty. The method used to select members ~~of selection~~ will to be determined by the college non-bargaining faculty. ~~At both the university and college levels, a standing hearing board shall be appointed each year and shall serve until the new board is appointed~~. The complainant and the administration may peremptorily challenge the presence of one member of a hearing board. Replacements, if necessary, will be selected in a manner prescribed in C,2,b. ~~VIII. B. 5. of the revised Policies and Procedures for the Granting of Promotions and Tenure~~. The hearing board shall elect their own chair. The hearing board shall have the authority to dismiss nuisance cases following deliberations.

B. Statement of Basic Principles

1. Every non-bargaining faculty member or group of non-bargaining faculty shall have the right to present complaints in accordance with the procedures described herein. These procedures in no way preclude the faculty member or group from seeking resolution through administrative review.

2. Publicity shall be avoided during the processing of a complaint, and the parties shall avoid infringement upon the rights of third parties.

3. No one who participates in these procedures shall be subject to discipline or reprisal because of such participation.

4. Administrators have the responsibility to consider and take action promptly, within authority delegated to them, on recommendations presented to them.

5. The failure of an administrator at any level to act and communicate the administrator's decision within the prescribed time limits permits the non-bargaining faculty member to proceed to the next stage.

6. ~~There are two levels at which a complaint can be pursued: (1) college, and (2) university~~. The normal procedure is to attempt to resolve the problem first at the college level 1, and then at the university level 2. However, when the complaint originates at an administrative level higher than the college, the non-bargaining faculty member shall start the procedure at that level. If the complainant has filed the same or substantially similar complaint in an external state or federal agency or court, the college or university hearing board shall not consider that complaint unless the complaint is remanded to the appropriate hearing board by the external agency or court. Judgment as to what constitutes "the same or substantially similar complaint" rests with the college or university hearing board, as appropriate. Upon request of the college or university hearing board, the administration shall inform the hearing board in writing of each complaint filed by the complainant in an external state or federal agency or court.

7. At each level every effort shall be made to resolve the problem by discussion.

8. To ensure that the rights of the complainant and of the university are protected, neither party shall ~~ever~~ be denied the right to have counsel present. The complainant may ~~can~~ have a faculty adviser, of any rank, present in lieu of counsel.

9. If the complaint involves termination of employment, ~~During the exercise of this procedure~~, full pay shall be continued during this procedure ~~up to the~~ until termination of the complainant's contract.

C. The Due Process Mechanism

The procedures shall consist of discussion and a hearing, in that order. ~~two phases, in the following order: (1) discussion, and (2) a hearing.~~

1. Discussion

The complainant forwards to the administration a written description of the complaint, stipulating:

a. the grounds constituting the complaint as defined in paragraph A.

b. the remedy requested

c. that this complaint is submitted pursuant to the Due Process Mechanism.

The complainant and the administration shall meet to discuss the problem and to attempt to reach an acceptable solution. This discussion is informal and cannot be used later as evidence. The administration shall communicate its decision in writing to the complainant within five business days of the completion of discussion.

2. A Hearing Procedures

A request for a complaint hearing can be filed within five business days with the administration, if the aggrieved is dissatisfied with the administrative decisions at the college ~~or university~~ level and the aggrieved is convinced that further discussion will be fruitless at that level~~. a request for a complaint hearing can be filed, with the administration~~. ~~within five business days. A hearing can be requested at either the college or university level, but in no case can the complainant request more than one hearing on a specific complaint.~~

If ~~In case~~ a hearing is requested, at either the college or university level, the following will prevail unless a college/school has developed its own procedures at that level. ~~procedure outlined in VIII. B. 4. through 12. of the revised Policies and Procedures for the Granting of Promotions and Tenure shall be followed~~.

a. Both the non-bargaining faculty member or members (complainant party) alleging the violation and those alleged to have committed or assisted in it (hereafter Referred to as respondent party) have the right to be represented at the hearing; to be represented by counsel; to produce witnesses, statements, or other evidence; and to cross-examine positions.

b. Within ten days of the filing of the complaint, the complainant party alleging the violation and the respondent party may each challenge one member of the original hearing board peremptorily, and the individual challenged shall not serve on the board. If the hearing board is constituted after a complaint is filed, the ten-day challenge window opens when the hearing board has been constituted and both the complainant party and the respondent party have been notified of the hearing board’s membership. The University Non-bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee shall select a substitute member, if required. There shall be no other challenges considered. The procedure for selecting a substitute member is for the two parties (complainant and respondent) each to submit two names who are eligible and willing to serve. The University Non-bargaining Faculty Affairs Committee shall submit one name. Each party can then mark off two names. The committee will select the replacement from the remaining name or names.

c. All concerned shall be given adequate time to prepare for the hearing, which normally shall be held no earlier than fifteen days after delivery of the allegation to the chair of the hearing board. The principle of confrontation of witnesses and examination of evidence shall apply throughout the hearing. In this regard, both parties should submit the names of first witnesses to be called, a summary of their expected testimony, and a description of any other evidence to be presented. This information should be available to both parties at least ten days before the scheduled hearing.

d. The complainant has the right to either an open or closed hearing upon the complainant’s request, but a majority of the hearing board can close any part of the hearing in which it appears that the evidence presented will adversely affect the personal reputation of third parties, or if becomes difficult to protect the integrity of the proceedings.

e. The complainant and the respondent parties shall each appoint a single spokesperson responsible for the conduct of the party’s case during the hearing.

f. In order to facilitate completion of the hearing in a manner equitable to both parties, the following operating procedure and time limits are suggested and shall be observed unless either party deems the procedure inappropriate to the case prior to the hearing being held. The chair of the hearing board shall be responsible for holding the time restrictions.

i. Time restrictions

a. position statement by complainants will be held to a maximum of ten minutes

b. position statement by respondents will be held to a maximum of ten minutes

c. questions from the hearing board will be held to a maximum of ten minutes

ii. Operating Procedures – complainant’s witnesses

a. Hearing of the complainant’s witnesses, called by the spokesperson. Each witness will have 15 minutes maximum for cross examination by respondent, plus five minutes maximum for cross examination by the hearing board.

b. After all witnesses have been called by the complainant for first testimony, any witness can be recalled by either the complainant party, the respondent party, or the hearing board, allowing a maximum of ten minutes for questions by each.

c. Maximum total time for complainant’s witnesses, including recalled witnesses, shall be no more than two and one-half hours.

iii. Operating procedures – respondent’s witnesses

a. Hearing of respondent’s witnesses, called by the spokesperson. Each witness shall have 15 minutes maximum per testimony, plus ten minutes maximum for cross examination by complainant party, plus five minutes maximum for cross-examination by the hearing board.

b. After all witnesses have been called by the respondent for a first testimony, any witnesses can be recalled by either, the respondent, the complainant, or the hearing board, allowing a maximum of ten minutes for questions by each.

c. Maximum total time for respondent’s witnesses, including recalled witnesses, shall be no more than two and one-half hours.

iv. Operating Procedures – board’s witnesses

a. Hearing of the board’s witnesses. Each witness shall have ten minutes maximum per testimony, plus five minutes maximum for cross-examination by complainants, plus five minutes maximum for cross examination by respondent.

b. After all witnesses have been called by the hearing board for a first testimony, any witness can be recalled by either the hearing board, the complainant, or the respondent, allowing a maximum of ten minutes for questions by each.

c. Maximum total time for hearing board witnesses, including recalled witnesses shall be no more than one hour.

v. Summary statements by the complainant’s spokesperson, the respondent’s spokesperson and the hearing board shall be ten minutes maximum for each party.

g. At any time during the hearing, the hearing board may vote to extend any of the above time limits.

h. At an appropriate time during the hearing, the hearing board may declare one recess for no longer than one hour. In addition, the hearing board can declare a break, no longer than two hours, for a meal if required.

i. A recording of the proceedings shall be made and preserved until the complaint has been settled, and a typed summary of the proceedings shall be sent to every member involved in the complaint. The recording (or minutes if no recording is made) shall be available to all concerned parties. Should the complainant not wish to have the proceedings recorded, the board shall keep detailed minutes of the hearing.

j. The hearing board shall deliberate promptly and send its recommendations to both the administration (to the college, if a college hearing; otherwise, to the university) and the complainant simultaneously within sixty calendar days from the date the request for a hearing was filed with two exceptions: First, if the complaint is filed between sixty days before the end of the spring term and the first day of the fall term, the case will be considered when the fall term commences; however, if the hearing board, the complainant, and the respondent all agree, the case may be considered before the beginning of the fall term. Second, breaks between terms within the academic year extend the sixty day deadline by a like number of days. The administration shall communicate its decision to the complainant within ten business days of receipt of the board's recommendation.

k. After the hearing is ended, the hearing board shall make a finding with recommendations, and it shall be delivered in writing to the university president and every member involved in the complainant process. The university president shall have thirty days to accept or reject the findings.

l. The non bargaining faculty member alleging the violation can appeal the findings and recommendations to the Board of Trustees within thirty days after receiving the university president’s decision.

3. Continuation of Procedure

If the complainant is dissatisfied with the college administration's decision following a hearing, the complainant may request continuation at the university level by initiating a discussion ~~phase 1 (discussion)~~ with the chief academic officer. An appeal of the administration's decision to the university hearing board may follow in accordance with ~~paragraph 2.~~ hearing procedure above~~. but if a college hearing has already been held, the university hearing board shall not be required to conduct another~~.

4. Qualifications

If the complainant and the administration at any level agree that it is in the best interest of the university to ensure that a complaint should not proceed beyond that level and it is determined that the authority to deal with the matter lies at the respective ~~that~~ level, then they can agree to have the hearing board serve as a board of binding arbitration.

If the administration and the complainant agree, then the above procedure may ~~can~~ be altered to fit certain unusual circumstances.

Attachment F

Professional Development Leave

(Approved by the Board of Trustees June 8, 1977; Revised June 5, 1985 and December 1, 1988)

A. Purpose: The enactment of Section 3345.28 of the Ohio Revised Code authorizes the Wright State University Board of Trustees to approve the establishment of a faculty improvement program. At Wright State University this is administered as a professional leave program for full-time faculty. The purpose of the professional leave program is to advance the academic competence of non-bargaining faculty members and to enhance their contribution to the university as teachers and scholars. Professional leave is a privilege gained by the number of years of service to the university.

B. Definitions:

1. "Academic years of teaching service," as used in this policy, means a period of time during which non-bargaining faculty members are employed at Wright State University. Each such year consists of ~~one of the following:~~ a. at least three of four consecutive quarters of an academic year beginning with the fall term of one calendar year and ending with the summer term of the following calendar year.

b. For those non-bargaining ~~faculty employed prior to September 1968, at least two of three consecutive trimesters beginning with the fall term of one calendar year and ending with the summer term of the following calendar year.~~

2. "~~Full-time~~ Non-bargaining faculty” ~~membe~~r" ~~means faculty members who~~ are ~~will be~~ defined as fully affiliated ~~that~~ faculty who are ~~fully affiliated with Wright State University~~, not represented by a collective bargaining agreement and who are not department chairs. ~~for purposes of promotion and tenure consideration~~.

C. Program: Professional leaves are granted for planned programs of education, research, study, creative activity, travel, and other professional undertakings of importance to both the individual and the university. All leave proposals will be evaluated solely on how well they advance the academic competence of faculty members and enhance their contribution to the university as teachers and scholars. Professional leaves cannot be used to work toward a terminal degree.