Resolution Regarding Appendix J, Section VIII: Procedures for Peer Review Committees
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommends that the procedures for Peer Review Committees, cited in Appendix J, “Faculty Personnel Policies and Procedures for Retention, Tenure and Promotion,” Section VIII.A.3.g) be modified as follows:
Copies of recommendations made by higher level committees and administrators shall be sent to
low er level committees.
And be it further,
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommends that this modification to Appendix J be forwarded to the General Faculty for a vote during the 2011/2012 academic year.
RATIONALE: Recommendation letters are sent to “lower level committees.” This is a long-standing established procedure; there has not been any reported confusion on this procedure. Rebuttal statements are sent to “previous review levels,” which by definition includes department chairs when chairs write a recommendation letter. Because department chairs are not a “lower level committee,” they do not receive the recommendation letters to which candidates are responding or providing a rebuttal. This does create confusion for department chairs who receive responses/rebuttals but have not received the recommendation letter which is the object of the response/rebuttal. This resolution will result in a consistent practice regarding the distribution of recommendation letters and responses/rebuttals to recommendation letters.
Current Language in Appendix J (bolded text is for emphasis):
VII. Performance Review B.3. Documentation
a) All material used in the Performance Review shall be identified by name, except for student classroom evaluations. 11.3, 15.17a‐b All written evaluative materials, including email and fax correspondence addressing the candidate’s contribution in the RTP performance areas are to be included in the WPAF only if they contain the original handwritten signature of the sender.
b) All submitted statements shall be accurate, relevant, and timely. 11.1
c) The end product at each step of a Performance Review shall be a written recommendation which is placed in the WPAF. 15.43
(1) Candidates shall be given a copy of the recommendation containing decision rationale. 15.5
(2) Within ten (10) days of receipt, candidates may submit a rebuttal statement and/or request
a meeting to discuss the recommendation. 15.5
(3) A copy of the rebuttal statement shall be placed in the WPAF with copies sent to previous
review levels. 15.5
VIII. A. 3. Procedures (for Peer Review Committees)
a) Recommendations shall be approved by a simple majority of committee membership. 15.42
b) Department and higher level peer review committee(s) may rank‐order faculty unit employees
recommended for promotion. The end result of a promotion ranking shall serve as a recommendation to the President. 15.41
c) Recommendations shall include supporting rationale. 15.5
d) All deliberations shall be confidential. 15.10
e) Candidates shall be given a copy of the committee recommendation at least ten (10) days before it is
forwarded to the next level of review. 15.5
(1) Within ten (10) days of receipt, candidates may submit a rebuttal statement and/or request a
meeting to discuss the recommendation. 15.5
(2) A copy of the rebuttal statement shall be placed in the WPAF with copies sent to previous
review levels. 15.5
f) Committee recommendations, along with any candidate response, shall be forwarded to the next level of review as part of the WPAF.
g) Copies of recommendations made by higher level committees and administrators shall be sent to lower level committees.
PASSED Unanimously: Academic Senate, 10/18/11
APPROVED: General Faculty Election (Feb. 27-Mar. 2, 2012)