UPDATED: May 21, 2013, 6:45 p.m.

CLARIFICATION:  The board noted the faculty were considered qualified by College of Law faculty and believed the process used for the approval of the promotions was consistent with the faculty manual and bylaws that had been in place for many years.

CORRECTION: In a previous version of this article, the promotion seven professors were up for was misstated. The seven professors were up for promotion to full professors.

Syracuse University’s Board of Trustees stepped in to approve eight College of Law candidates for promotion during its May 12 meeting after a University Senate committee declined to endorse the candidates.

The university said the board was taking action to prevent the law school faculty from being caught in the middle of a procedural disagreement. However, faculty and USen members say the actions of the board and administration show a disregard for procedure and a threat to one of the few decision-making powers faculty hold.

Members of USen’s Committee on Appointments and Promotions said they unanimously voted to decline the endorsement of the candidates because the law school did not follow procedure. The names of the law faculty up for promotion have not been released.

Faculty must meet requirements set by both the university’s faculty manual and individual college bylaws to be considered for promotion, and both require specific recommendations and time in rank, among other prerequisites. A promotion process typically includes receiving approval from the college in which employed, the committee and the board.

The college petitioned the board to review the matter during its annual meeting due to ‘irreconcilable differences’ between the college and the committee. Both the committee and Richard Thompson, chairman of the board, have released statements within the past week regarding the promotions.

Thompson cites the ‘potential damage to the individual faculty members caught in this procedural disagreement, as well as to the College and the University’ as reasons why the board stepped in. The board expressed concern in the statement that failure to promote the candidates could harm recruiting and retaining faculty. The board also stated that it did not want to intervene and respects the faculty’s powers.

Committee members found the actions of the board troubling in addition to the statement from Thompson, which ‘fundamentally misrepresents the issues involved,’ according to the committee’s statement.

Thompson, in a separate memo to USen members, said he felt confident the board’s statement was correct and included the same information as the committee’s statement.

When the college adopted new rules for promotion in May 2011, it did not seek senate approval during the spring of the year before they would go into effect, as per university policy, according to the committee’s statement. The college also eliminated the time in rank requirement for promotion to full professor, conflicting with policies in the faculty manual.

The committee discovered the changes to the bylaws regarding promotion when it was notified via email of the eight cases for promotion sent March 1 but refused to accept.

The board said the committee should have considered these changed bylaws in March and also noted therewas no response from the committee concerning the altered amendment for more than a month.

Representatives from the college and committee presented their cases to the board during its annual meeting.

Robin Malloy, a professor in the law school, presented to the board for the college. Malloy declined to provide further comment than what the board had released in the statement.

Hannah Arterian, dean of the College of Law, did not respond to requests for comment.

Jeffrey Stonecash, a member of the committee and professor of political science, presented to the board for the committee. Stonecash said the committee did not want to set a precedent of accepting a college changing its rules without following procedures.

He emphasized the committee was only acting on whether the proper procedure was followed. The committee studies the standards for original appointment to university faculty, promotion and granting tenure but does not judge a candidate, according to senate bylaws.

‘We did not make a judgment of ‘Are these people qualified or not?” Stonecash said.

In addition to the poorly communicated procedure change, the committee found that the time in rank and recommendation requirements were not consistent with accepted bylaws or traditional university procedure.

Under the College of Law’s approved procedures – as opposed to the new, unapproved bylaws – a candidate is eligible for promotion to full professor during his or her fifth year of service as an associate professor. Seven of the eight candidates were up for promotion to full professors and did not meet the time in rank requirement. Of those seven, one had more than three years as an associate professor.

The eighth promotion was to associate professor, and it did meet the ‘normal’ time in rank requirements outlined in the faculty manual.

The number of letters of recommendation for each candidate was also ‘well below norms within the university,’ according to the committee’s statement. Two candidates had no current letters, one had two letters, three had three letters and one had four letters.

Although the requirements did not meet those typically accepted, the board noted the candidates were considered qualified by faculty in the College of Law. The board noted in its statement that the candidates received support from all full professors in the College of Law.

This is not the first time under the current administration that upper officials have stepped in during appointments and promotions procedures.

In a USen meeting March 19, 2008, an investigation by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions found that a faculty member considered for tenure in May 2007 had his process suspended by the Office of Academic Affairs before a final decision was made and that a new three-year contract that enabled reconsideration for tenure was issued.

Candidates for tenure are considered only once, according to the faculty manual. After the formal review process has begun, candidates may not withdraw from consideration and subsequently reapply for tenure.

Vice Chancellor and Provost Eric Spina responded to the investigation during an April 16 USen meeting, as he was away on university business during the original meeting. According to senate documents, Spina said because the candidate did not make a unilateral withdrawal but withdrew after a trilateral agreement among the dean of the college, the candidate and Spina himself, the process was acceptable.

Despite the explanation, faculty still expressed displeasure. One senator said tenure was a faculty prerogative, not a matter handled by a dean and the vice chancellor. Another senator said ‘something rooted in faculty decision-making had seemed to turn into something administrative,’ the April 16 USen minutes state.

Ian MacInnes was chair of committee in 2008 but said he is limited in what he can say publicly about personnel matters.

‘In short, I believe that personnel procedures exist to protect both the institution and its employees and that they should generally be followed,’ MacInnes said in an email. He is currently senate moderator and associate dean of academic affairs for the School of Information Studies.

Bob Gates, a professor emeritus of English and member of the committee at the time, spoke up during the April 16 meeting. He said the action of removing the candidate from tenure overrode the voices of the most important body in the decision: the faculty of the college involved.

‘We can scream and shout and jump up and down and point to the policies and procedures that have been passed that are supposed to guide the behavior of the committee and the administrators, and the administrators can just thumb their nose at it and say, ‘Sorry, it doesn’t apply to us,’ or ‘We don’t have to abide by that.” Gates said.

Gates said because of the board’s actions with the administration, he does not feel going to the board with concerns about the procedures is an option.

With the decision to promote the College of Law faculty made, there is little the senate body can do, although multiple senate members said they plan to express their dissatisfaction to the board.

The board has asked the senate to convene a faculty-led body of its choosing to review and recommend improvements in promotion process at the university level. A full report from the committee is also expected at a later date.

‘As explained in our original Statement, the Board made this decision with reluctance and with full respect and support for the role of the Senate and its committees. I want to make clear again that the Board, and I personally, continue to have that respect and support,’ Thompson said in his statement to the USen members. Thompson also encouraged MacInnes and Chris DeCorse, chair of the committee, to contact him if they wished to arrange a discussion.

The committee has called for the senate body to discuss the board’s and college’s actions at the first meeting of the 2012-13 academic year on Sept. 12.

dkmcbrid@syr.edu

Published on May 19, 2012 at 12:00 pm

Contact Dara: dkmcbrid@syr.edu | @daramcbride