麻豆影院

The VCAC is the campus level faculty committee that conducts reviews of tenure, promotion, and reappointment cases on the 麻豆影院 campus. In the procedures as described in the faculty Handbook and elsewhere, the VCAC conducts the "Second Level Review".

Chaired by the Associate Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs, the VCAC is a committee of 12-16 professor rank faculty members from multiple colleges and schools serving three year terms. The members of VCAC are selected in large part based upon their national reputation in their discipline, and because of their broad understanding of the standards and practices of public research universities. By tradition, members are recruited by the Associate Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs in collaboration with the Provost; nominees are forwarded to the 麻豆影院 Faculty Assembly Executive Committee for their approval. The committee is administratively supported and corresponds with the campus out of the Office of Faculty Affairs.

The roles of the VCAC include reviewing hire with tenure, reappointment, tenure and promotion cases forwarded to it by the deans of the multiple colleges and schools. Its deliberations result in a vote, which is reported in the form of a recommendation to the Provost. The committee is also charged with recommending to the provost policy and advice on the promotion and tenure process and related matters. The committee also serves as an appeal body for post-tenure review appeals. The VCAC usually meets weekly during the spring term.

The Academic Review and Planning Advisory Committee (ARPAC) is a campus-level committee reporting to the provost. At their November 1980 meeting, the regents of the University of Colorado called for the regular review of colleges, schools, and academic units. Administrative Policy Statement 1019 describes the directive to faculty and administrators to develop systematic procedures to identify academic program strengths and weaknesses, and to provide constructive options for program development and modification.

ARPAC is comprised of tenured faculty members representing multiple colleges and schools. Members serve three year terms and the size of the committee varies depending upon the number of units undergoing review in a particular year. At CU-麻豆影院, some 70+ academic units undergo review over a seven-year period, called a review cycle. The provost tasks ARPAC with composing a final report that sets forth recommendations for unit improvement. The group鈥檚 reporting builds on the work of previously convened internal and external reviewers. ARPAC members work as a group to finalize reporting. The committee also addresses annual updates submitted by the units and deans after a review. When called on, the group convenes as the Academic Program Discontinuance Committee. ARPAC usually meets twice a week during the fall term.

The vice provost and associate vice chancellor for Faculty Affairs chairs ARPAC; the senior vice provost and associate vice chancellor for Budget and Planning and the vice chancellor for Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement serve as standing, non-voting members. By tradition, the vice provost and associate vice chancellor for Faculty Affairs recruits ARPAC members in collaboration with the provost; nominees are then forwarded to the 麻豆影院 Faculty Assembly Executive Committee for their approval. The committee, and the internal and external reviewers, are administratively supported and correspond with the campus out of the Office of Faculty Affairs.

The campus maintains a faculty committee for the resolution of salary grievances and oversight of the appeals process. These grievances involve career merit concerns. The appeal process is a multi-step process. Each department or primary unit is required to maintain a written policy that describes the evaluation and appeal process within the unit. Copies of these procedures are to be kept on record at the department, dean, and vice chancellor levels. In short, appeals can only be based on a faculty member's salary and may not be based solely on an annual raise. Equity claims must be based on the salaries of other faculty members in the unit as a whole. If the faculty member is equitably paid in comparison with most other faculty members of similar career merit, the faculty member may not base a claim of inequity on the salary of a single member whose salary is unusually high with respect to that group. Claims cannot be made based on a comparison of salaries of faculty members outside the grievant's primary unit. Members of the committee will be outgoing members of the Vice Chancellor鈥檚 Advisory Committee (VCAC). It is chaired by the Associate Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs.

Members of the committee will serve for one calendar year. These members may also serve on the Provost鈥檚 Advisory Committee during the same time period. This committee is staffed by the Assistant to the Associate Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs. SEAC meets as needed.

This committee will review any appeal regarding salary equity that has not been resolved at either the primary unit or college/school level. It makes a recommendation to the Provost.

The Provost's Advisory Committee hears particular grievances that have not been resolved at a lower level. The Provost鈥檚 Grievance Procedure may be used only in one of the following special circumstances:

1. the grievant alleges that an action taken by his or her dean violates an applicable school or college policy;
2. no applicable grievance policy exists at the department, school, college, or campus level; or
3. the grievant alleges that a grievance process employed at the department or school/college level was conducted improperly.

Within five (5) working days of receipt of a request for a hearing, the Provost shall refer the grievance to the Provost鈥檚 Advisory Committee. The Provost鈥檚 Advisory Committee is composed of those former members of Vice Chancellor鈥檚 Advisory Committee (VCAC) who have completed their term the prior May; if fewer than five members of VCAC meet this criterion, additional members will be appointed by the Associate Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs in consultation with the Provost and the 麻豆影院 Faculty Assembly. The committee thus constituted will elect one of its members as chair. While the Associate Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs convenes the PAC, s/he does not meet with the committee and does not join in their deliberations. The PAC will be staffed by the Assistant to the Associate Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs who staffs the VCAC. PAC meets as needed.

The PAC determines whether an appeal meets the above criteria. If it does, they review the case and make a recommendation to the Provost.

On Sept. 12, 2018, CU 麻豆影院 Provost Russell L. Moore asked Katherine Eggert, vice provost for Academic Planning and Assessment, and Kevin L. MacLennan, assistant vice chancellor of Enrollment Management, to co-chair the Provost's Advisory Committee on Transfer Success that would undertake a comprehensive review of policies and practices regarding undergraduate transfer students on the CU 麻豆影院 campus.

The provost asked the committee to examine and make recommendations regarding policies, processes, and structures designed and proven to improve the transfer student experience, considering questions that will concern not only students transferring from another institution to CU 麻豆影院, but also students attempting intra-university transfer. The committee is asked to inventory current practices on campus, study best policies and practices at peer institutions, and make recommendations on changing policies and practices regarding admissions, evaluation of transfer credit, housing, New Student Welcome, advising, student success (retention, persistence and time to degree), as well as data and assessment specific to transfer students.

The provost requested a report and recommendations by the committee no later than Feb. 1, 2019.

Provost Russell Moore announced the formation of the academic reorganization committee on April 17, 2018, following a request from the Academic Futures Committee that any contemplated reorganization of the College of Arts and Sciences be undertaken not as a function of the Academic Futures campus visioning process, but rather as a responsibility jointly carried out by the Office of the Provost and the College of Arts and Sciences Strategic Planning Committee. The academic reorganization committee members were named on April 27. A total of 20 members, 11 from the College of Arts and Sciences and 9 from other colleges, schools and academic units, comprise the committee. It is charged with examining and making recommendations on proposed alternative academic structures, a process that involves starting with the 鈥淐umalat/Julien鈥� white paper that was submitted as a part of Academic Futures. However, the committee is not limited to reviewing this white paper alone. Within the examination of any proposed organizational change, the provost was clear that he expected the analysis to contain 鈥渨hy鈥� such a change would be beneficial to CU 麻豆影院 faculty, students, and staff, including the benefits and costs (including non-monetary) of making any change. The provost asks that the committee complete its report by Nov. 2, 2018. It shall then be posted for a 28-day campus review and comment period, then submitted to the provost on Nov. 30, 2018, with comments.

The Provost鈥檚 Faculty Communication Committee was formed in late 2014 to examine communication between administration and faculty. In July 2015, the committee issued a report that identified areas in which communication between faculty and administration could be improved. The committee鈥檚 work in its first year focused on the importance of addressing faculty as key stakeholders and recognition that modes of communication are important in signaling to faculty their role in the organization. In response to that report, the Provost requested that the committee continue its work, focusing on better explicating the communication processes and climate desired on campus. In AY 2015鈥�16, the committee engaged in case study analyses of communication around prior key events on campus to identify how changes in communication sequence and structure could improve communication. Additionally, a chairs and directors meeting was devoted to discussion of the communication challenges chairs and directors experience as well as discussion of their view of the quality of communication between faculty and administration. The work of the committee was summarized and shared with the Provost. This second year of work highlighted the importance of helping faculty and other administrators, such as chairs, understand their role as communicators, the need for prioritization of initiatives and goals in communication from administration and the importance of explaining organizations decision-making processes in communication with faculty. The committee鈥檚 work in AY 2016鈥�17 included consideration of communication processes essential to participatory engagement, the importance of access to information in participation and the importance of feedback to campus communication processes.