Chronology for P - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 2
About This Presentation
Title:

Chronology for P

Description:

Candidates specify which standing ad hoc committees to review their case ... selects advocate (usually chair), candidate can recommend senior faculty instead ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:58
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 3
Provided by: cron5
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Chronology for P


1
Chronology for P T Policy Changes
  • January 2003
  • P Task Force II Convened
  • Membership by all University
  • August 2003
  • Task Force Draft Report Shared with Chairs and
    Deans
  • October 2003
  • Final Task Force Recommendations on Provosts Web
    Site
  • Web site open for comments
  • Input from various faculty, Senate Personnel
    committee, Senate Executive committee
  • December 2003- February 2004
  • Meetings with Task Force and Provost
  • March 2004
  • Provost's recommendations, taking into account
    revisions suggested by Senate committees and
    various faculty
  • April 2004
  • Academic Senate Motion on Provosts
    Recommendations Discussed and Voted
  • May 2004
  • Presidents Response
  • Summer 2004
  • Work group to draft ACD Policy

2
Brief Summary of University Provosts
Recommendations
  • Timing of P T Process
  • Some adjustments in the PT timeline may be
    needed to accommodate proposed changes in the
    review process
  • Departments/Units
  • Clear criteria tied to unit goals
  • Max of 10 external letters with 1/3 from
    candidates list, Dean approves final list of
    external reviewers, and reviewers credentials
    should be provided
  • School/College
  • Periodic Deans review of criteria
  • College PC may consult with external scholars
  • Information can be added to file at each level if
    needed
  • Schools/Colleges responsible for full
    documentation of cases
  • Campus/University
  • All P T cases go to University provost
    President makes final decision
  • Ad hoc committees formed from ASU faculty (min of
    5) for each case specifics TBD by implementation
    team
  • Candidates specify which standing ad hoc
    committees to review their case
  • Ad hoc Committee, President and provosts may
    consult externally usually candidates letter
    writers
  • University and/or Campus Provost Charges ad hoc
    and sets context
  • Dean selects advocate (usually chair), candidate
    can recommend senior faculty instead
  • Advocate presents case and answers questions,
    provost observes
  • Ad hoc recommends (not vote) to campus and
    University provosts.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com