The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 83 on
November 16, 1998:
MOTION PASSED
==============
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to approve the Unit Criteria for Music.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
Upon Chancellor Approval
RATIONALE: The committee assessed the unit criteria
submitted by the Music Department. With
some minor changes, agreed upon by the department
representative, David Stech, the unit criteria were
found to be consistent with ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ guidelines.
UNIT CRITERIA
for Evaluation of Faculty for Promotion and Tenure
Department of Music
University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Fairbanks
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
These unit criteria are to supplement the University of
ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Fairbanks Policies and Regulations for the Evaluation of
Faculty for Promotion and Tenure (hereafter referred to as the
"University Policies and Regulations") and to clarify their
application to faculty of the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Department of Music. These unit
criteria are subordinate to the University Policies and Regulations.
INTRODUCTION.
These criteria define for the University Promotion/Tenure
Review Committee the kinds of music performance and conducting
events that are most appropriately assigned to the categories of
Teaching, Research and Service.
With respect to performance or conducting activities done
under the category of research, the professional prestige of any
performance or conducting event is determined by the visibility of
the performance forum and the likelihood that a printed review
could result. Also affecting visibility of the event is the level of
sophistication of the audience, and the reputation of the forum in
the eyes of the music professionals in the same performance
discipline.
A review can be a significant part of a performer's
professional record; however, the lack of a printed review for any
one concert should not be construed as a negative assessment of
the work of the artist. The artist has no control whether a
reviewer is present or whether a review is ultimately printed.
Each live performance is itself a separate creative act
where the professional risk is not reduced by the fact that the
same program may have been done previously in another location.
Performers are evaluated and chosen for professional
management sponsorship after a screening process that parallels
the review process used for printed forums. Vitae and recordings
of prior concerts are carefully evaluated by sponsors before
contractual terms are agreed upon.
The value of university and public school service in music is
fully recognized. In many aspects of music performance, service
represents a major part of the professional time commitment,
even for faculty with heavy teaching loads. Music faculty
participation in such events brings favorable notice to the
institution as a whole.
Finally, public performance or exhibition activity was
described as the appropriate research product for the discipline.
Chancellor Patrick O'Rourke wrote, in a memorandum to the
Executive Council in 1985:
"Each faculty member must be involved in some effort to
make a valid contribution to the body of knowledge in
his/her own discipline. This contribution can be made in
a variety of ways: research and publication in learned
journals, monograph publications, papers at professional
meetings, sculpting, painting, music composition, and other
performance media which may be appropriate to the
discipline. The medium is not near as important as the
effort to make a contribution."
SUGGESTIONS FOR DEPARTMENTAL USE OF THE UNIT CRITERIA
It is recommended the faculty member including music
performance or conducting activities as part of their promotion
and tenure files classify their creative activities according to the
categories defined below. The candidate should describe
explicitly which events were refereed, juried, or otherwise
screened, and precisely how this process was accomplished.
The Departmental Peer Review Committee and Department
Chair should offer its collective opinion as to whether the events
listed by the candidate appear in the appropriate categories.
---------------------------
The Unit Criteria document defines how the following
professional activities apply to the discipline of music:
I. TEACHING
II. RESEARCH/SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY
III. UNIVERSITY/PUBLIC SERVICE
for the three levels of professional forum:
a. local and surrounding community
b. statewide; mostly outside the local community
c. national or international; mostly outside the state.
---------------------------
MUSIC PERFORMANCE activities defined as part of TEACHING
DEFINITIONS: Performance done as an adjunct to formal
course instruction, principally to provide role models for
students in the classroom environment.
LOCAL: Local solo and ensemble events done as part of studio
teaching, master classes, student recitals, or non-solo
participation with credit-producing university music ensembles.
Method for Evaluation: This activity should be evaluated
by use of the Learning Assessment System (LAS).
STATEWIDE: Similar activities done as part of formal course
instruction delivered at other units of the University.
Method for Evaluation: Opinion of professional peers on site,
if such opinions are available. Also measured by whatever
evaluation tool might be in place at that event.
NATIONAL: Similar activities done as part of formal teaching done
at institutions beyond the state or done at institutions outside the
U.S.
Method for Evaluation: Opinion of professional peers on site,
if such opinions are available. Also measured by whatever
evaluation tool might be in place at that event.
Statewide and national teaching activities should not be confused
with workshop-type performance activities described in Public and
University Service.
--------------------
MUSIC PERFORMANCE
activities defined as part of RESEARCH/SCHOLARLY
ACTIVITY
DEFINITION: Formal concerts given clearly independently
of formal instruction or service activities. Shall include
performance of music created through electronic music
synthesis.
LOCAL: Faculty solo recitals, chamber music, and solo concerto
events where the visibility of the event is limited to the local
community.
Method for Evaluation: Based upon opinions expressed by
music faculty, or by members of the Performing/Fine Arts/
JB Promotion & Tenure Review Committee.
STATEWIDE: Similar events where the visibility of the events
extends beyond the community but appears limited to the confines
of the state
Method for Evaluation: Faculty who do much performing
should be expected to have received some printed press
reviews for some of the concerts. Unsolicited written
comments may also be used to substantiate the impact and
success of the performance.
NATIONAL: Similar events given mostly at nationally or
internationally recognized forums. A forum located in the state
such as the Fairbanks Summer Arts Festival, the Anchorage
Festival, or the Sitka Festival may be included in this category if
the professional visibility of the individual is judged to go beyond
the State. Also includes faculty participation at an
internationally-known music ensemble or at a nationally-visible
professional forum. Includes sound recordings commercially and
distributed beyond the State.
Method for Evaluation: Faculty engaged in such activities
Are expected to have accumulated reviews for some of the
events, if they appeared as a soloist. For evaluation of
nationally-released sound recordings, the existence of
printed reviews would reflect significance of the product
in the professional world.
In the absence of published reviews, the Department Chair or the
Department Peer Review Committee could (at their discretion)
solicit opinions from knowledgeable persons who attended out-of-
town performances. Faculty members desiring to engage local
peers should discuss specifics with the Department Head well in
advance of the concert event.
The principal determinant for measuring the impact placement of
an event is the scope of professional visibility achieved.
Special recognition will be given to those performances which
1) expose the performer to critical public evaluation by
professional peers, or
2) major statewide events in which the performer was
selected from a national or international pool of performers,
or
3) where the performer placed well in a formal competition,
or in a similar juried evaluation process.
--------------------
MUSIC PERFORMING
activities defined as part of PUBLIC AND UNIVERSITY
SERVICE
DEFINITION: defined as that done in a non-solo capacity
to support departmental ensembles, or done as part of
University public relations events. Performance done to
benefit an extra-university host or sponsor, especially
where the host or sponsor is principally involved with
activities other than sponsorship of the performance arts.
LOCAL: Performances given at a municipal event, given to benefit
of a host or sponsor such as service organization, church, public
school or private business. Also includes performances with
municipal non-profit performance groups (e.g. municipal band,
light opera theatre, youth orchestra) or other activities done as
part of public relations events held locally.
Method for Evaluation: Since such activities are done to
benefit the sponsor or host directly, no printed review
should be expected. Evaluation can be based upon the opinion
of faculty peers who attended the event. There is no
formalized tool to measure quality for such events. The
invitation to participate should be judged as significant in
and of itself.
STATEWIDE: Similar performances given out of town. Also
includes performances with departmental-sponsored music
ensembles on tour in the state; performing at music clinics at
state regional music festivals by invitation, or performing done at
public schools, for purposes of recruitment. Local events may be
included in this category if the event drew an audience which is
statewide.
Method for Evaluation: Opinion of professional peers on site,
if such opinions are available. The importance of the event
could be assessed according to the professional prestige of the
sponsor or the host. There is no formalized tool to measure
quality for such events. The invitation to participate should be
judged as significant in and of itself.
NATIONAL or INTERNATIONAL: Similar events done outside of the
state. A local or statewide event may be included in this category if
the event drew an audience which was national or international in
scope.
Method for Evaluation: There is no formalized tool to measure
quality for such events. The invitation to participate should be
judged as significant in and of itself. The importance of the
event could be assessed according to the professional prestige
of the sponsor or the host.
--------------------
MUSIC CONDUCTING
activities defined as part of TEACHING
DEFINITION: Conducting done by the instructor as part of
required day-to-day preparation of credit-bearing music
ensemble courses.
LOCAL: Conducting activities as defined above, including
department-sponsored performance.
Method for Evaluation: Through use of the Learning
Assessment System (LAS).
STATEWIDE: Similar activities done as part of formal credit-
bearing course instruction delivered University wide.
Method for Evaluation: Opinion of professional peers on site,
if such opinions are available. Also measured by whatever
evaluation tool might be in place at that event.
NATIONAL or INTERNATIONAL: Similar activities done as part of
formal credit-bearing course instruction done at institutions beyond
the state or done internationally.
Method for Evaluation: Opinion of professional peers on site,
if such opinions are available. Also measured by whatever
evaluation tool might be in place at that event.
--------------------
MUSIC CONDUCTING
activities defined as part of RESEARCH/SCHOLARLY
ACTIVITY
DEFINITION: Formal concerts given independently of formal
instruction and independent of service activities, except
where noted below.
LOCAL: Conducting of non-credit producing department-sponsored
music ensembles given locally. Conducting of faculty chamber
recitals given locally would be considered part of this category.
Method for Evaluation: Based primarily upon opinions by
music unit faculty who attended the performance. Printed
reviews would not normally be expected. The provision to
allow occasional credit-producing events into the category
is NOT to be misunderstood to mean that any successful
course-related performance may be automatically included
in this category. The assertion by the candidate that the
"exceptionally favorable" test was met would need to be
supported by Departmental Peer Review and Chair
evaluations.
STATEWIDE: Similar events where the visibility extends beyond
the community (e.g., if televised to the general public, or if noted
in out-of-town press).
Method for Evaluation: Faculty do much conducting would be
expected to have received some printed reviews for some of
the concerts. Letters of appreciation, or other unsolicited
written comments recognizing the merit of the performances,
could also be used to substantiate the impact and success of
the performance.
NATIONAL: Similar events given mostly at nationally or
internationally recognized forums. May include local performance
if visibility is judged to extend to beyond the state. Also includes
faculty conducting appearances with a national, or internationally,
known music ensemble or at nationally, or internationally, visible
concert forums. Sound recordings commercially marketed and
distributed beyond the State would also be included in this
category.
Method for Evaluation: The significance of such participation
would derive from the visibility or prestige of the ensemble.
For evaluation of nationally-released sound recordings, the
existence of printed reviews, would reflect the significance
of the product in the professional world.
In the absence of published reviews, the Department Chair or the
Departmental Peer Review Committee could (at their discretion),
solicit opinions from knowledgeable persons who attended out-of-
town performances. Such evaluations, if available, can
supplement the candidate's professional file. Faculty members
desiring to implement this evaluation tool should suggest the
possibility of the music executive well in advance of the concert
advance. The lack of external peer evaluations should not reflect
negatively on the record of the faculty candidate
The principal determinant for categorizing conducting events
described above is the scope of the professional visibility
achieved by the performance, and to a lesser degree, where the
performance actually took place.
Special recognition should be given to those performances which
1) exposed the conductor to critical public evaluation by
professional peers,
2) major statewide events in which the conductor was elected
from a national or international pool of conductors, or
3) where the conductor placed well in a formal competition
or in a similar juried evaluation process.
--------------------
MUSIC CONDUCTING
activities defined as part of UNIVERSITY AND PUBLIC
SERVICE
DEFINITION: to benefit an extra-university host or sponsor,
especially where the host or sponsor is principally involved
with activities other than sponsorship of the performing
arts.
LOCAL: Performances given at a municipal event sponsored by a
service organization, church, public school, or private business.
Also includes conducting municipal band, light opera theater,
youth orchestra, conducting of departmental ensembles for public
school music ensembles (including those out-of-town groups
which were hosted locally).
Method for Evaluation: There is no formalized tool to
measure quality for such events. The invitation to
participate should be judged as significant in and of itself.
STATEWIDE FORUM: Similar performances given out-of-town.
Also includes conducting of department-sponsored music
ensemble on tour of the state. Also includes conducting of music
clinics at state region festivals by invitation and other clinics
done around the state.
Method for Evaluation: There is no formalized tool to
measure quality for such events. The invitation to
participate should be judged as significant in and of itself.
NATIONAL or INTERNATIONAL: Similar events done where
professional visibility of the conductor extends beyond the
confines of the state or local region. May include being a clinician
at a nationally-recognized event held locally, if sponsors of the
event have a previously established record of selecting clinicians
from a national pool.
Method for Evaluation: The importance of the event could
be assessed according to the professional prestige of the
sponsor or the host. There is no formalized tool to measure
quality for such events. The invitation to participate should
be judged as significant in and of itself.
------------------
PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION DOCUMENT
SUMMARY OF UNIT CRITERIA DESIGNATIONS AND
PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATIONS
I. Teaching A. Local and surrounding
community
II. Research B. Statewide; mostly outside the
local community
III. University and Public Service C. National or International,
mostly outside of the state.
PROFESSIONAL VISIBILITY EXPECTED FOR
PROMOTION TO DIFFERENT ACADEMIC RANKS
Lecturer (non-tenure) IA
Instructor (non-tenure) IA
Instructor (tenure) IA, IIA, IIB, IIIA
Assistant Professor (tenure) IA, IIA, IIB, IIIA
Associate Professor (tenure) IA, IIA, IIB, IIC, IIIA, IIIB
Professor (tenure) IA, IIA, IIB, IIC, IIIA, IIIB
Criteria for tenure are assumed to be the same as those used for
promotion to the rank of Associate Professor.
Candidates for promotion are expected to have a record of recent
professional activities beyond the professional record used to
achieve promotion to previous rank.
**
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 83 on
November 16, 1998:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to recommend that the proposed
Regents' Policy 09.03.00--Student Dispute Resolution as submitted
by the Board of Regents to the Faculty Alliance be accepted.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: The Curricular Affairs Committee discussed
the revised draft policies on Student Dispute Resolution,
forwarded to the Faculty Senate for review and moves
to forward them to the full Senate, with its
recommendation that they be accepted.
Date: 12 October, 1998
To: Pat Ivey, Executive Officer, for distribution to
Systemwide Governance Organizations
From: 'Nanne Myers, Assistant Vice President for Academic
Affairs, for the Policy Revision Work Group
Subj: Re-draft of Regents' Policy/University Regulation
09.03.01--Student Dispute Resolution
Last spring, as a result of the dissatisfaction expressed in this
policy and regulation by the Faculty Alliance and the Coalition of
Student Leaders, the drafting team met with representatives of the
Faculty Alliance. It was agreed that the team would revise the
policy and regulation to reflect the AAUP guidelines for review of
assignment of final grades. The resulting drafts are herewith
forwarded for your consideration, with apologies that they were not
available at the beginning of the semester. Editing reflects changes
from the first draft forwarded for review by governance.
The changes to the policy are summarized below.
09.03.02.A The word "generally" is inserted to indicate that
an informal resolution is not a necessary first step in
the initiation of a review.
09.03.02.B.2 This section has been substantively changed
to make a policy statement that only faculty may
authorize a change in grade.
09.03.02.B.3 This paragraph is rewritten but not substantively
changed
The regulation has been revised to address reviews of final grade
assignments as distinct from all other reviews of academic
decisions, and reflect student concerns regarding eligibility for
services while a review is in progress.
The review of final grade assignment results in a process by
which a faculty committee may change a grade given by an
instructor. It is important to note, as the AAUP guidelines point
out, that institutions receiving federal funds are legally obligated
to provide procedures by which students might successfully
challenge grades that they believe may have been tainted by race
or sex discrimination. A copy of the AAUP statement is attached.
On the advice of the Systemwide Academic Council,
procedures for resolving other academic disputes are left to
definition by MAU rules and procedures. The chancellor or
designee is specified as the person to make the final decision,
since in some cases, e.g., for decisions regarding graduate studies
at UAS, the chief academic officer may make the decision which is
subsequently challenged.
Section 09.03.02.E has been revised in response to a
recommendation from the Coalition of Students Governments that
eligibility for services not be affected while a dispute is in
progress. Unfortunately, this is not always possible or desirable.
The drafting team requests the Faculty Alliance and the Coalition of
Student Leaders to consider completing final recommendations on
the policy in time for its presentation to the board in November.
Because the regulation is approved not by the board, but by the
president, more time could, and probably should, be taken for
consideration of final recommendations regarding the regulation.
This request is made out of respect for Academic and Student
Affairs Chair Sharon Gagnon, who was primarily instrumental in
calling for and expediting the sorely needed revisions to policy
regarding academic matters and student affairs. Regent Gagnon's
term is coming to an end, and the November meeting is most likely
to be her last. It would be fitting to accomplish as much revision as
possible before she leaves.
(The following policy draft is the equivalent of the hard copy with
the footer "For Governance Review, second reading; Disp Res Pol
10.13gov.doc)
DRAFT POLICY 09.03.00
PART IX
STUDENT AFFAIRS
CHAPTER III
Student Dispute Resolution
General Statement: Student Dispute Resolution P09.03.01
The University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ will provide fair, consistent, and
expeditious procedures for students to contest actions or
decisions which adversely affect them. These procedures will be
published in student catalogs or handbooks. Students may direct a
complaint to the MAU senior student services officer, the chief
academic officer, the chief administrative services officer, or
designee. This official will initiate action to resolve the
complaint or will inform the student of the appropriate procedure,
if any, for review of the action or decision in dispute.
Actions or decisions of the Board of Regents or the substance of
Regents Policy, University Regulation, and MAU rules and procedures
are not subject to review pursuant to the provisions of this policy.
General Procedures For Dispute Resolution P09.03.02
A. Informal Resolution Procedures
Unless specified to the contrary, the first step for a student
to challenge a university action or decision will
[[GENERALLY]] be to seek an informal resolution with the
person responsible for the decision or action, or with the
person's immediate supervisor.
B. Formal Review Procedures
If the matter [is not] CAN NOT BE resolved informally, a
student may submit a written statement to initiate one of
the following formal review procedures. A request for
formal dispute resolution may not be filed under more than
one procedure, or more than once on an issue. Each procedure
will include at least one level of review prior to the final
decision, and will provide due process appropriate to the
issue.
1. Review of student employment decisions or actions
Issues related to student employment will be reviewed
in accordance with the grievance procedure specified
in Regents' Policy on human resources, except as
specifically modified by Regents' Policy on
employment of students.
2. Review of academic decisions or actions
Challenges to academic decisions or actions of the
faculty or academic administration will be reviewed
in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
accompanying regulation and in MAU rules and
procedures. [ Review of the assignment of grades will
start with the faculty member assigning the grade,
unless this person is unavailable within the review
schedule provided in the regulation.] Appropriate
issues for this procedure include such things as
alleged arbitrary or capricious dismissal from or
denial of admission to an academic program based
upon academic considerations, or assignment of final
grades. ONLY THE COURSE INSTRUCTOR OR A REVIEW
BODY COMPOSED OF FACULTY MAY AUTHORIZE A CHANGE
IN THE ASSIGNMENT OF A FINAL GRADE.
3. Review of university judicial decisions or disciplinary
SANCTIONS [actions]
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING TWO PARAGRAPHS ARE NEW WORDING
Procedures by which students may challenge decisions
resulting from university judicial procedures and/or
the imposition of sanctions for violation of the
Student Code of Conduct are set forth in University
Regulation 09.02.04 - Student Rights and
Responsibilities, sections G - K.
The Code, examples of violations of the Code (which
include cheating, plagiarism, and disruption of the
living or learning environment), university judicial
procedures, and disciplinary sanctions are set forth
in Regents' Policy and University Regulation 09.02.00 -
Student Rights and Responsibilities, and MAU rules and
procedures.
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH WAS PROPOSED FOR DELETION
[Challenges of university judicial decisions or
disciplinary sanctions related to behavioral or
academic misconduct will be reviewed in accordance
with procedures set forth in University Regulation on
student rights and responsibilities and in MAU rules
and procedures. Appropriate issues for this procedure
include such things as allegations of cheating,
plagiarism, disruption of the living or learning
environment, or other violations of the Student Code of
Conduct.
4. Review of administrative decisions or actions
Chancellors will be responsible for providing and
promulgating MAU rules and procedures which provide
a mechanism for students to challenge certain
administrative decisions or actions not otherwise
covered in this policy. Not all administrative
decisions and actions will be subject to challenge.
C. Final decision
At the end of the review proceedings the university will issue a
written decision, identified as the "final decision," after which
point the matter under dispute will not be reviewed further by the
university. Notification of the final decision will be made in
accordance with Regents' Policy on student rights and
responsibilities regarding seeking further redress in the court
system to university decisions and actions. (See also Regents'
Policy 09.02.08 - Student Rights and Responsibilities: Final
University Decision.)
Confidentiality P09.03.03
Access to files pertaining to student disputes will be governed by
state and federal laws and regulations, Regents' Policy, University
Regulation, and MAU rules and procedures and may vary with the
issue under review and the review process.
The university cannot guarantee confidentiality but will make a
reasonable effort to preserve the legitimate privacy interests of
the persons involved. In order to preserve the legitimate privacy
interests of the persons involved, all participants in the
proceedings will be expected to maintain confidentiality.
The person in charge of the review procedure may release
information if appropriate permission from the parties is provided
or if other applicable legal requirements are met.
Access to Formal Review Proceedings P09.03.04
Student dispute resolution proceedings will normally be closed.
Requests for an open proceeding must be made by a party prior to the
start of the proceeding. Such requests will be granted to the extent
allowed by law unless the person in charge of the proceeding
determines that all or part of a proceeding should be closed based
upon considerations of fairness, justice, and other relevant factors.
A party may choose an advisor to be present at all times during the
proceedings.
The person in charge of the proceeding may direct that witnesses,
but not the parties or their advisors, be excluded from the
proceedings except during their testimony. The deliberations of the
hearing panel or officer will be closed to the public and the parties.
UA