STANDARD 5 - FACULTY

Introduction | Description | Appraisal | Projection

In the anatomy of this university, if the administrators are its head and the staff are its limbs, then the faculty are its heart and soul. Besides teaching and research, the faculty help in recruiting and orienting new students, advise and counsel students, develop curricula and academic programs, operate professional study centers, create and establish standards and policies governing all things academic and pertaining to working conditions, and certify that students have met the requirements for graduation. The faculty define the character of the institution through their actions and their examples as individuals and as a collective.

The faculty of UMD are a diverse blend of individuals, highly educated in their fields and skilled as teachers, scholars, and researchers. They are committed to the mission of the university in transmitting knowledge to students and in generating new knowledge through their scholarship as well as providing service to the greater community. They are predominantly terminally qualified, widely published, and sought after as consultants, lecturers, adjudicators, and as presidents of scholarly organizations. Many are writers and artists of wide repute, while others are outstanding professionals whose expertise is coveted by the worlds of business and government. Many have international reputations in their fields. Many hold their highest degree from the most respected institutions in the world. Their students gain acceptance into prestigious graduate schools, win awards and scholarships, and pursue productive research, internships, and artistic endeavors. All are committed to the primary goal of excellence in undergraduate and graduate education.

Faculty Size and Qualifications

There are 328 full-time faculty including full-time visiting lecturers (FTVLs). Table 5.1, below, shows the distribution of full-time faculty in the colleges/councils (there are three councils in Arts & Sciences), by rank, highest degree held, and percentage tenured.

TABLE 5.1 Distribution of Full-time Faculty and Faculty Highest Degrees by College - fall 1998.

The outstanding quality of the faculty may be judged by the large number of published books and articles, art exhibits, musical performances, and conference presentations. In addition, the faculty have received grants, awards, and other recognition of their accomplishments. A partial list of the latter include:

• Grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Brookhaven National Laboratory, the Davis Foundation, and the Eisenhower Foundation for Professional Development
• Invitations to lecture at universities in Oxford, Edinburgh, and Karlsruhe
• Consultant to and/or interviewed by ABC News and PBS
• Commonwealth Award for Outstanding Service and Commonwealth Award for Artistic Excellence
• AT&T Foundation Award for Excellence in the Instruction of Engineering Students
• Election as President of the American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
• Adjudication of regional, national, and international art shows and music competitions
• Four Dreyfus Foundation awards in Chemistry.

Many faculty are also noted for their commitment to the betterment of humankind. Most notable among these efforts is the faculty involvement in the Society for Human Advancement through Rehabilitative Engineering (SHARE). Nationally recognized, SHARE has given hope and renewed life to many severely disabled individuals.

Teaching Assignments and Workloads, including Use of Part-Time Faculty and Graduate Teaching Assistants

The Agreement between the faculty union (AFT) and the administration governs teaching loads. Article VIII.A of the Agreement, Working Conditions, describes the process of determining teaching load.

"The maximum assignment per academic year shall be twenty-four units. The standard teaching assignment per academic year shall be 18 units. Adjustments upward and downward are possible with written justification and approval by the faculty member, the Chairperson and the Dean."

With regard to the use of Visiting Lecturers (VL), the Agreement defines as part-time those VLs who teach fewer than ten units in a semester; those who teach ten or more units are full-time. The maximum assignment is not stated, but cannot exceed that for a regular full-time faculty member. The matter of Graduate Teaching Assistants (TA) is not addressed in the Agreement; individual departments set their own policies, including the training of TAs for teaching roles.

The assignments made by Department Chairs are based on the needs of the department or college. Teaching assignments are made on a yearly or semester basis and reflect the current needs of the department. Consistent with the mission of the university and negotiated with the Faculty Federation, faculty are assured adequate time for effective instruction and the advising and evaluation of students. Article VIII.D describes faculty responsibilities in advising students and requires scheduled office hours for advising and evaluating students.

Given the diverse nature of the academic programs across departments, there is little uniformity to teaching assignments. For example, in a strictly undergraduate department, a typical load is three courses per semester (not necessarily all different), whereas in a department offering a graduate program, a faculty member may teach two courses (one undergraduate and one graduate) and supervise one or two graduate theses or projects. Faculty with heavy administrative responsibilities (such as chairpersons, some Directors, Faculty Senate president, and Faculty Federation president) receive reduced teaching assignments, typically only one or two courses per semester. Release time is also available for those conducting sponsored research if the research contract includes such a provision.

Distance learning is an excellent example of how changes in technology affect teaching assignments and dictate the need for readjusting faculty workloads. Article VIII.E.6.e specifically delineates faculty workload considerations for teaching distance learning classes. This section clearly addresses the need for workload reappraisal and adjustment as new technologies develop that enrich and increase the availability of UMD curriculum offerings.

UMass Dartmouth relies on part-time visiting lecturers (PTVLs) for a relatively small percentage of its teaching requirements. Table 5.2, below, gives university-wide data on the distribution of instruction among various types of staff for each college. (Since SEC--section--may refer to directed study, a workshop for 0.25 credits, laboratory section, or a 3 or 4 credit lecture course, both SEC and SCH should be examined to gauge the extent and distribution of faculty teaching assignments.)

TABLE 5.2 Percent of instruction by type of staff: all courses - fall 1999.

While these data indicate a moderate dependence on non-full-time instructors for the university as a whole, there are selected departments where there is a less than desirable situation. The SCH data in Table 5.3 (p. 46) show the percentages of instruction/staff in the departments of English, Languages, and Music, as well as Studio Art courses.

Table 5.3 Instructional data (SCH-basis) for four departments - fall 1999.

The UMass Dartmouth 1997 Peer Study Report reveals that UMD had an FTE student-faculty ratio of 17:1, which from a university perspective provides adequate faculty to support the university's mission and goals; the peer's average was 20:1. UMD's ratio compares favorably with other colleges of a similar size in a recent 1997 comparison study. Compared to peer institutions, UMD utilizes fewer part-time faculty, 99 compared to 154, and has more equitably distributed teaching loads (with the exception of the Colleges of Nursing and Visual and Performing Arts). UMD's percentage reliance on part-time faculty is significantly less than its peers - 28% to 38%. The 1998 self-study data book (p. 26), shows that the number of tenured and tenure-track faculty decreased overall from 313 in 1989 to 283 in 1998, and in all colleges except Business, where there was an increase. This trend has meant fewer full-time faculty to perform the same, or increased, advising and governance activities.

Curriculum Development

Curriculum development is carried out by faculty in accordance with procedures spelled out in the Agreement. The process starts with a faculty initiative at the department level and requires a series of reviews and approvals through several layers of curriculum committees depending on the proposed scope of the proposal. The General Education program (see Standard Four) involved input from faculty across the campus and required the approval of the Faculty Senate before being passed to the administration for implementation. Each department participated in the process, and continues to be involved as the program evolves and matures. The custodianship of the program lies with the General Education Committee, an elected body comprised of 14 faculty, two from each Academic Council, which enforces the standards established by the Faculty Senate.

Student Advising

The advising of students and academic planning are aspects of the academic enterprise that are crucial to its success as measured by student learning and retention. Since UMD offers a wide range of programs from the traditional 4-year bachelor's degree to a 5-year Co-op program in some disciplines, good advising is critical. Owing to the fact that a large number of UMD students work upwards of 20-30 hours per week in off-campus jobs, many students become de facto 5-year students who need intense advising.

No student can register for a course without first obtaining approval of his/her course selections from a faculty advisor. For some years UMass Dartmouth has required that students present a course selection card signed by an appropriate advisor when they pre-register for the succeeding term's courses at the registrar's office. In addition, consultations are often required with the course instructor before granting permission to enroll in a particular course. Many faculty advisors register their advisees on-line, in their offices, during an advising conference, ensuring that course selection is indeed the result of student-faculty exchange. We can anticipate that the process of on-line registration through the faculty advisor will soon become the norm.

Advising takes place most often within the specific departments, since the preponderance of our students enroll in the university with a major field of study already chosen. Several university advising resources exist, however, crossing college and department lines:

1. The Entering Freshman/Transfer Orientation Program, provides orientation sessions to students during late spring or summer (or January, for mid-year entrants), giving exposure to departments, programs, and departmental advisors at the time when students are selecting courses for their first semester.

2. The Academic Advising Center, staffed by one faculty member (Prof. John Carroll, Director) and 25 volunteer faculty from a number of disciplines, is the primary campus academic advising resource for transfer students, walk-in undergraduates, LAUs (Liberal Arts, undecided), and the like.

3. Freshman Packet Advisors, selected faculty teaching a freshman-level course during the fall term, serve as freshman-year advisors for one section of about 25 students, often LAU designees. The section is usually packeted with two other courses, so that those freshmen have three courses in common during the first term, including one with their advisor. In the second term the packets are disbanded, but the advisor generally stays in contact until he or she refers an advisee to the student's newly-chosen major department.

4. Specific Cross-Disciplinary Program Advisors, such as the director of the Honors, Humanities and Social Sciences, and Multidisciplinary Studies programs, and faculty who volunteer to advise these majors for registration, often work with their own students for as long as the students are involved with the program. The advising workload, consequently, is very heavy for the individuals directing these heavily-enrolled and conference-intensive programs.

Academic advising and planning patterns differ from college to college. Within each department, faculty are assigned advising duties as part of their normal workload. Although there is no universal practice, many departments maintain the same faculty advisor for a given student throughout the student's academic career. Other departments use designated freshman advisors who have been trained specifically for the all-important first-year experience. The College of Visual and Performing Arts, for example, has a specialized first-year curriculum for its freshmen, in which advising takes place. Many of the College of Arts and Sciences humanities departments rely on packet advising for freshmen, while their natural science counterparts become involved with their students quite early to ensure proper passage through highly-sequenced courses. The College of Engineering is piloting a new freshman year integrated curriculum (IMPULSE) that involves students in collaborative learning whereby five courses are presented jointly by faculty from several departments from Engineering and Arts and Sciences. An important part of the program is improved advising with the goal of increased retention.

Tabulated data suggest that, on average, faculty members with advising assignments formally advise 20-25 students. Nearly all departments divide their advisees among their full-time faculty; several use individual specialists to advise specific groups of students--seniors, transfers, and so forth. It is true that all faculty with any kind of teaching assignment engage in informal advising continuously.

As UMass Dartmouth integrates a new and complex set of General Education requirements into the curriculum, student-faculty academic planning and advising contact will have to increase, as will access to such resources as the academic-progress On-Course software. Analysis of the survey data suggests that virtually all departments have structures in place to meet this increased demand.

Institutional Governance and Policy Making

The formal role for faculty participation in institutional governance is spelled out in the Agreement. These procedures cover: selection of the department chairperson; service on various committees at all levels; granting of tenure, promotions, and sabbaticals; and the operation and jurisdiction of the Faculty Senate.

In academic matters, the faculty have a central role. The 51-member Senate charges the following standing committees and receives their recommendations:

In addition, there are several other university-wide committees (other than curriculum or faculty evaluation committees) that are under the jurisdiction of the Faculty Federation:

Budget Review Board
Honors Program
Space Planning and Allocations
General Education
University Calendar
Committee for Women
Buildings and Grounds
Graduate Council
Safety
Affirmative Action.

Membership on standing committees is voluntary; it involves a category of faculty evaluation. Faculty either indicate their interest through preference surveys and are then appointed by the Senate Steering Committee or the Executive Board of the Federation, or they are elected by campus-wide ballot. Generally, students also serve as voting members on standing committees through appointment by the Student Senate.

The administration and faculty work cooperatively in academic planning and policy making. Initiatives can come from either group. Proposals usually are produced at the Standing Committee level and arrive at the Faculty Senate or Federation for debate. Upon approval, academic policy matters are sent to the Chancellor through the Provost for final approval and implementation.

An illustration of the policy-making process is the new policy governing the creation and administration of academic centers and institutes (ACIs). Until this policy was developed, UMD had many ACIs which operated individually under rules of their own making. An ad hoc committee was formed by the Senate and Federation presidents to draft a uniform policy to apply to all ACIs. Their proposal was debated within the Senate and Federation, changes were suggested, the proposal modified, and ultimately passed by both bodies. and forwarded to the Chancellor. The Chancellor objected to several aspects of the policy and rejected it while offering his own version. Several rounds of negotiation between the Chancellor and the presidents of the Senate and the Federation eventually led to an acceptable policy on ACIs that was put into effect during the 1998-99 academic year.

Faculty Recruitment and Appointment

The Agreement includes stipulations for faculty participation in the recruitment and appointment of new faculty. The Agreement states [Art. VI.A.3]: "Recommendation for hiring of new faculty shall be made by the Chairperson of the appropriate department, with the advice of tenured department faculty, and upon consultation with non-tenured faculty." Furthermore, the faculty conduct the search and screening process, subject to the stringent requirements of Equal Opportunity policies and procedures.

A recent Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) stipulates that the department chairperson shall ordinarily recommend two or more candidates per search to the dean from among those who are recommended by the Search and Screen Committee. If the chairperson does not forward two or more names, then an explanation must be provided. Even if the dean requests more names, the chairperson does not have to comply. Thus, the faculty are heavily involved in the recruitment process and the decision regarding faculty hiring is heavily weighted in favor of those closest to the decision, namely, the departmental faculty.

Faculty members are usually hired at the Assistant Professor level. Initial tenure-track faculty appointments are normally made for a period of two years. The person's contract contains stipulations regarding the expectations of the individual that are agreed to between the new faculty member and the department chair, with input from the college dean in most cases. During the fall of the second year of service, the individual is evaluated in accordance with the provisions in the Agreement [Art. VII]. A positive evaluation results in reappointment for another two-year period (third- and fourth-year contracts). Subsequent positive evaluation during early spring of the third year of service will lead to a contract for the fifth and sixth years. A faculty member normally applies for tenure during the fall of his/her sixth year of service. The faculty member is informed of the tenure decision by September of the seventh year, so that if tenure is not granted the individual has a year to make alternative plans.

Procedures and Criteria for Evaluation and Advancement

The Faculty Federation and the administration serve the mission and purposes of the university by mandating the annual evaluation of all faculty. The Agreement is explicit regarding annual evaluation of faculty. The evaluation is conducted in an "equitable and broad-based" manner at the departmental level using the strict criteria found in the Agreement [Art. VII]. All teaching staff are evaluated in the mandatory categories of (1) Teaching Effectiveness and Advising and (2) Scholarship and Professional Activities, and in at least one of the two optional categories of (3) University Service or (4) Public Service. Statements are prepared by the faculty annually and submitted to the department chairperson, who submits them to the departmental Faculty Evaluation Committee where they are evaluated according to contractual criteria. The results are given to the chairperson who conducts his/her own evaluation. The faculty member is then given the full evaluation for review and acknowledgment.

In each round of contract negotiations, the categories of evaluation are reviewed and modified as the mission of the university evolves. For example, the current Agreement reflects the emphasis now being placed on scholarship and research; previously category (2) was not mandatory. Standards for performance in each category are established in each department and are subject to periodic review.

The concept of post-tenure review is included in the current contract. A set of procedures was agreed to and approved by the membership of the bargaining unit. These procedures took effect in 1999 and will be developed further over the three-year period of the contract. This represents an assessment mechanism for the faculty throughout their careers, on a seven-year cycle. Opportunities will be provided to those faculty who are deemed to need improvement in order to maintain the high standards expected of our faculty.

The annual evaluations form the basis for requests for contract renewal, promotion, and tenure. Procedures on these matters are also spelled out in detail in the Agreement. Peer evaluation is an important part of the process that begins with the Faculty Evaluation Committee, comprising the tenured members of the department, or a subset thereof, for certain decisions. Then the following sequence of decisions is required: department chair, college dean, college academic council, vice chancellor for academic affairs, and chancellor. The college academic council is an elected faculty body. Thus, the faculty initiate the evaluation process and play a second important role as the decision-making works its way up the administrative hierarchy. Most personnel decisions are grievable according to the Agreement [Art. XVII]. Actions recommended by department chairpersons and the faculty evaluation committees may be challenged by a faculty member and heard before the appropriate Academic Council. If the grievance is found meritorious, the Academic Council makes its recommendation to the Chancellor for further action.

Salaries and Benefits

In terms of salaries and benefits, the dean of the appropriate college makes the initial salary offer. Potential candidates may negotiate for the best salary they can get, given their experience and the general salary range associated with their area of expertise. This tends to result in discrepancies among salaries of individuals at the same rank but in different colleges (or even in different departments within the same college). For example, the salaries of faculty in engineering tend to be higher than those of the faculty in arts and sciences at the same ranks and with the same years of service. This is by no means unique to UMD and is generally driven by external market forces. The relatively high salaries in business at all ranks except Chancellor Professor/Professor are a result of intensive recruiting as the college seeks national accreditation by AACSB.

Average faculty salaries in selected fields at 371 public four-year institutions were tabulated in the Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac (August 28, 1998). The average salary for all fields and all ranks combined was $53,296; however, the average salaries (all ranks combined) ranged from a high of $67,918 in engineering to a low of $45,312 in nursing.

Data in the AAUP's March/April 1998 issue of Academe allow comparison of UMass Dartmouth faculty salaries with other similar institutions. Average salaries within the full, associate, and assistant professor ranks are rated to indicate the percentile interval in which the institution's average salary lies. Based on adjusted data* (see note on p. 51) from this issue, in comparison with other institutions of the IIA category of Comprehensive Institutions, UMD has high salaries, all three ranks scoring in the top quintile (80th percentile or above). However, compared to the Type I or Doctoral institutional type, UMD's full professors fall at the 40th percentile (low-middle), associate professors at the 60th percentile (high middle), and assistant professors at the 80th percentile (top). These data suggest that the institution is setting salary levels that should attract appropriately qualified staff at the assistant professor level. The data also suggest that as UMD seeks to become competitive in an expanded faculty market occupied by doctoral and research institutions, it is questionable whether salary levels are competitive for faculty with many years of service and /or at higher rank. To address this issue, there are several provisions in Article X of the Agreement for adjusting salaries to remedy various inequities and to create and maintain competitive levels.

Whereas salaries among the faculty may vary substantially, a standard set of fringe benefits (health, dental and life insurance, sick leave, etc.) is provided to all full-time faculty members as outlined in the Agreement [Art. XI.D]. There are no data readily available to rank our benefits package in comparison to similar institutions. However, the data presented in the March/April 1998 issue of Academe indicate that our fringe benefits amount to 32% of the average salary for all ranks combined at UMD. This value appears to be approximately in the middle of the range of the "benefits as a percentage of salary" listed for other institutions in that reference.

Table 5.4, below, gives a snapshot of base salaries of faculty by college and rank. For each entry, the average salary is shown. As mentioned above, there are ample opportunities for faculty (and administrators) to earn extra compensation for various kinds of additional assignments beyond their standard workload. By their nature these are highly variable, depending on the duration and type of assignment, and are not included in the figures shown in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Average salaries for full-time faculty - fall 1998. Salaries in thousands of dollars.

+ Salary levels below full professor in this college are being driven by the demands of AACSB accreditation.

----------------------------------

*In the AAUP issue, UMD is erroneously labeled as a Type I doctoral/research institution; the correct category is Type IIA masters/comprehensive. The following are the corrected salary rankings (derived from the general data tables in the issue): full professors 80th percentile (top), associate professors 80th percentile (top), assistant professors 95th percentile (very top).

Faculty Handbook and Definitions of Faculty Responsibilities

On this unionized campus, the Agreement has largely filled the role of the traditional Faculty Handbook. Nevertheless, we have maintained a Faculty Handbook since 1985. Recently, the Faculty Senate agreed to review and update the Handbook on an annual basis. The new (1999) Handbook was distributed in December, 1999.

Professional Development

Faculty development is supported by the contractually-mandated Dean's Professional Development Fund (Art. XI.C), which provides approximately $1,000 per faculty member to fund a variety of faculty development activities. For example, in the College of Nursing four faculty members have been supported by the College to attend a baccalaureate nursing conference, while the university supports the release of two faculty members to participate in a five-college regional alliance (SACHEM) to internationalize curricula and support faculty development in languages. A separate fund for professional development (PDRA) automatically allocates $1,260 for each faculty member over the 3-year life of the Agreement.

The Agreement (Article IX) provides for sabbatical leave for tenured faculty and librarians either at full-pay for one semester (Type 2) or half-pay (Type 1). A sabbatical leave committee, consisting of seven faculty and one librarian, evaluates and ranks proposals for sabbaticals and recommends a ranked list of Type 2 sabbaticals to the Chancellor. Both Type 1 and Type 2 sabbaticals must be approved by the committee and the Chancellor.

Academic Freedom

Academic freedom as embodied in the Agreement (Art. III) allows that "the teacher is entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of the other academic duties É." Furthermore, "the teacher is entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing subject matter but should be careful not to introduce controversial matter which has no relation to the subject." While this last qualifying phrase may appear controversial in itself, there are no cases in recent memory when a faculty member has been accused of abusing academic freedom. This contrasts sharply with the situation at the university in the late 60s and early 70s when some faculty were denied tenure or contract renewal based on their political views.

Faculty Ethics

The Academic Ethical Standards Committee reports to the Faculty Senate. While this committee generally attends to matters pertaining to student academic dishonesty (e.g., plagiarism), it has recently turned its attention to faculty academic ethical issues, but as of this writing, no proposals have been drafted for consideration by the Senate. There is a possibility that this area of concern may become part of the Agreement through negotiations.

Governance

The Agreement between the University Trustees and the Faculty Federation defines overall working conditions for faculty at UMD. Contained in the Agreement is the charter for the 51-member Faculty Senate, which is the principal faculty body authorized to review academic policy. The Senate does its work mainly through an array of Standing Committees, which develop proposals that they present to the Steering Committee for deliberation before the full Senate. Senate recommendations are made directly to the Chancellor.

Other faculty governance bodies are the curriculum committees at the department, college, and university levels. These committees evaluate and make recommendations on all new or amended courses and academic programs. (The seven Academic Councils, despite their names, deal with personnel decisions, not academic policy.) It is through this governance system that faculty shape and organize the curricula of departments, colleges, and the university, and set the requirements and standards for all academic programs.

Faculty Status and Teaching Assignments

UMD has maintained a reasonable balance and ratio between full-time tenure-track and visiting faculty, both full and part-time. The exceptions are in the heavy use of part and full-time visiting lecturers in English, Foreign Language, Studio Arts, and Music. UMD also employs fewer full-time tenure-track faculty than its peer institutions and the number of such faculty has decreased over the period 1989-98. Having fewer full-time faculty increases the burden on existing faculty who become involved in the governance mechanisms of the university. Also, as the university begins to implement its policy of increasing the size of the student body over the next several years, attention will need to be paid to the ratio of full-time tenure-track to visiting faculty as well as to the overall number of faculty needed to maintain participation in governance and quality in instruction. Indeed, UMD markets itself in part as a small university, which affords students individual attention and access to tenured faculty.

Teaching assignments are regulated by the Agreement. The standard teaching load for full-time faculty is 9 credits per semester, but actual assignments and methods of determining full-time loads vary considerably by disciplines and in relation to the existence or strength of graduate programs in certain fields. Advising is an important adjunct to the relationship between faculty and students which goes much beyond course-related student-faculty contact. By contract, faculty must establish at least four office hours, over at least three days, for advising. This requirement is not universally followed or enforced. Departments vary in the way they assign students to individual faculty for academic advising, but all departments must provide a system for approving student course selection since the signature of a faculty advisor is required for registration. In addition to career and developmental advising, and advisement of majors in curricular and college requirements, many faculty advise students who are multidisciplinary majors in either Humanities/Social Sciences or Multidisciplinary Studies. Others advise, voluntarily or through scheduled hours in the Advising Center, students who are in pre-major designations, such as Liberal Arts Unspecified (LAU). Although some faculty do not regularly advise students, the advising function is performed adequately for students at UMD. Advising for the General Education program, which was made mandatory for the class of 2002, is placing new demands on faculty to be current and knowledgeable about academic requirements. The Academic Advising Center has begun offering faculty workshops on advising in the new General Education curriculum.

Faculty Development and Support

Opportunities for faculty development are mainly on the increase as more resources are being directed for that purpose. Part of this effort is a formal adjunct to the requirements of General Education and the need to either develop new courses, or to adopt new teaching methodologies. The Deans' Professional Development Fund creates a reliable source of funds to assist faculty in travel and presentations at conferences, as well as other research needs. In teaching, the university has made a modest commitment to faculty development through the establishment of the Center for Teaching and Learning, which also conducts outreach efforts with area schools. However, the awarding of Type 2 sabbaticals declined from a high of 9 in 1990-91, to a low of 3 in 1998-99 (no Type 2 sabbaticals were granted in the worst year of the fiscal crisis, 1991-92), despite higher contractual allowances and consistently higher past levels of award.

Faculty Recruitment, Appointment, and Evaluation

All aspects of recruitment, appointment, salary minima, and promotion of faculty are governed by the collective bargaining provisions of the Agreement. Faculty lines are apportioned to colleges through a sometimes collegial process of setting goals for hiring. Decisions on the availability of faculty lines rest with the Provost and Chancellor. Evaluation of faculty is done on an annual basis through faculty activities reports for all faculty. A new Trustees-initiated procedure, recently approved by vote of the Federation, provides for a process of Periodic Multi-Year Review of tenured faculty on a seven-year cycle. In effect, this is a modification of tenure rights since it establishes a mandatory review and the implementation of stated goals for individual improvement and assessment. The categories of evaluation for faculty were modified in the early 1990s with the reduction of categories of evaluation from five to four and the inclusion of a second mandatory evaluation category (in addition to Teaching Effectiveness and Advising), in Scholarship and Professional Activities.

The faculty role and working conditions at UMass Dartmouth are well defined in the Agreement between the Faculty Federation and the Board of Trustees. The projections which follow are presented with the understanding that some or all may require discussion and possible negotiation between the administration and the Federation prior to implementation or inclusion in planning documents.

The faculty role in the design and delivery of the curricula of the university is vital and essential. Of the twenty eight members of the recently-appointed university strategic planning committee, seven are faculty. Faculty will be involved in all legitimate areas of governance with special attention to several impending issues:

1. The establishment of standards for faculty evaluation, especially in view of the new post-tenure Periodic Multi-Year Review process.

2. The further refinement and improvement of advisement with a recognition that all faculty must post office hours for students in their classes but that certain faculty have particular capabilities and effectiveness in advising and should be identified as such, with provision for advisement training and corresponding recognition in determining work loads.

3. The faculty role in the new budget planning process is specified. Faculty serving on the permanent university planning committee will represent the general faculty in assuring wide dissemination of information about processes and decisions.

4. As the university tries to balance the ratios of tenure-track and full-time to part-time faculty and teaching assistants, the faculty will be brought fully into the decision-making process through the Planning Committee and other appropriate fora.

5. Faculty will be integrally involved in discussions linking the issues of resource management, revenue enhancement, and the maintenance of academic quality in a period of enrollment increases. Central to these issues are basic choices between increasing class size in certain departments and courses, and the hiring of more full-time faculty. These sensitive choices will best be made with structured and open participation of faculty with appropriate administrators and in the new budget planning process.

6. The faculty will be more closely and meaningfully involved in the establishing of general policies for admission, and admissions standards in their own disciplines.

7. The university will produce a consistent and clear policy and rationale for the granting of sabbaticals to faculty, with attention given to the positive benefits of sabbatical leave to the institution and to faculty professional development and scholarship.

	Top of Page