ARTICLE 8.0
TENURE AND PROMOTION

8.1            TENURE

8.1.1          "Tenure" is the right of a member to continuous employment by the University. The award of tenure by the Board shall be selective and conditioned upon positive recommendation through the evaluation process described in Article 9.0. Tenure may only be terminated for just cause, through a reduction in force pursuant to Article 18.0 below, or by reason of retirement.

8.1.2          Every member appointed without tenure to the rank of Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor shall serve a probationary period not longer than six years. New tenure-track faculty hired without tenure after July 1, 2004 shall be appointed to an initial two-year term.

8.1.2.1   The term "year" shall mean an academic year consisting of consecutive Fall and Spring Semesters of full time service, provided that only one year of credit toward tenure can be obtained during any two (2) consecutive semesters. When an initial appointment begins no later than the first day of Fall Semester a full year's credit toward tenure shall be accorded. An initial appointment beginning after the first day of Fall Semester shall not be credited toward tenure, unless stated otherwise in the initial offer of appointment from the Provost or designee.

8.1.3          Evaluation for tenure must take place no later than the final year of the probationary period. It is understood that there is a joint responsibility on the part of the individual member and the Employer to ensure that review for tenure takes place in a timely manner. If the Board grants tenure, it shall become effective with the beginning of the next academic year. If tenure is not granted, then appointment for the next academic year will be a Terminal Appointment.

8.1.4         If the member so requests, a member may be considered for tenure, if otherwise eligible, in any year of the probationary period. A member may be considered early for tenure only once. Denial of tenure prior to the last year of the probationary period shall not prejudice subsequent application for tenure and in no case shall be construed per se as a ground for termination. A member who applies for early tenure review is nonetheless evaluated using the criteria and process set forth in Articles 9.1 and 9.2.

8.1.5        A scholarly or professional leave of absence for one year or less approved by the Board shall count as part of the probationary period unless the member and the dean of the member's college agree in writing to an exception at the time the leave is granted. The inclusion in or exclusion from the probationary period of the leave of absence shall be expressly stated in the leave of absence agreement that must be executed under section 14.3.1.  A copy of any such agreement shall be sent to the Provost. Extended sick leave in excess of thirty (30) working days shall not count as part of the probationary period unless the member and the dean of the member's college agree in writing to an exception at the time the leave is granted. A copy of any such agreement shall be sent to the Provost.

8.1.6          To receive tenure the member must be an Associate Professor or Professor, or be recommended at the same time to the Board for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor and show promise of continued excellence of performance and continued professional growth. Faculty members in library who were appointed prior to Academic Year 2000-01 and have been promoted once, will also be eligible to receive tenure.

8.1.7          When a tenured member leaves the bargaining unit for another full-time position in the University, that individual, as long as the individual remains in continuous full-time employment at the University, shall retain the right to return to a tenured position within the bargaining unit.

8.1.8          All letters of appointment must be in accordance with the terms of this contract. These letters of appointment must come from the Dean or the Provost or designee.

8.1.9          There shall be no tenure quotas affecting members of the bargaining unit.

8.1.10          Members who have received a terminal appointment shall not be eligible for consideration for tenure.

8.2            PROMOTION IN ACADEMIC RANK

8.2.1          The criteria for the various academic ranks shall be as described in Articles 8.2.1.1, 8.2.1.2, 8.2.1.3, 8.2.1.4. Acceptable terminal degrees are set forth in the attached APPENDIX A. Faculty will be informed of the degree requirements for promotion at the time of initial appointment.  The evaluation criteria for teaching, professional activity, and service in all ranks are those outlined in section 9.1. 

8.2.1.1   INSTRUCTOR

Master's degree or equivalent in advanced courses in the subject from an accredited college or university; and demonstrated ability as a teacher, necessary for continued appointment.

 

8.2.1.2   ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

Earned terminal degree in the subject or related field from an accredited college or university; demonstrated ability as a teacher necessary for reappointment; and recognized involvement in professional activity as defined in Article 9.0, section 9.1.1.2.

8.2.1.3   ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

Record as a successful teacher; an earned terminal degree in the subject or related field from an accredited college or university, or, in occasional instances, record of achievement in the field; a record of professional activity as defined in Article 9, Section 9.1.1.2 good potential for ultimately attaining the rank of Professor.

8.2.1.4   PROFESSOR

Record as a successful teacher; an earned terminal degree in the subject or related field from an accredited college or university, or, in occasional instances, record of outstanding achievement in the member’s field; continuing professional activity as defined in Article 9, Section 9.1.1.2 and distinct contributions to the field, the profession, or the University through a record of service as defined in Article 9, Section 9.1.1.3.

8.2.2          Promotion in academic rank by the Board shall be selective and conditioned upon positive recommendation through the evaluation process described in Article 9.0. All promotions shall become effective with the beginning of the next academic year.

8.2.3          Members who have received a terminal appointment shall not be eligible for consideration for promotion.

ARTICLE 9.0
EVALUATION

9.1            EVALUATION CRITERIA

9.1.1. Criteria for performance shall be categorized as Teaching, Professional Activity, or Service consistent with a member’s letter of appointment.  The criteria by which performance is to be judged shall be:

9.1.1.1. Teaching

      Teaching faculty shall be responsible to provide evidence of teaching effectiveness, commitment to appropriate and productive pedagogical methods, advising of students, development of curriculum, preparation of curricular materials and publication of curricular materials, coordination of part-time faculty and graduate assistants, and through the supervision of independent student work such as long projects, independent studies, masters theses or projects and doctoral dissertations. In support of instructional effectiveness, the member shall maintain a high level of knowledge and expertise in the member's area of specialization.

      It is the responsibility of the faculty member to provide persuasive evidence of instructional effectiveness, or a commitment thereto, in all courses taught. Evaluation techniques for all members may include, but are not limited to, assessment of the learning by students under the member's tutelage, self-evaluation, classroom visitations, student evaluations of teaching, review of syllabi and examinations and other curricular materials, and assessment of academic advising of students.  For librarians, satisfactory evidence of instructional effectiveness includes documentation of the ability to perform at a professional level in areas that contribute to the educational and research mission of the university, such as: reference service, collection development, bibliographic organization and control.  Members shall be responsible for providing evidence of teaching effectiveness and demonstrating their contribution in a manner consistent with applicable College and Department elaborations.

9.1.1.2. Professional Activity

It is intended that the member shall utilize the member's expertise to address problems in the member's discipline or area of specialization through professional, scholarly and/or creative activity which clearly contributes to the discipline and/or the wider society through:

(1)         Scholarly investigation, creative activity and/or research of an original and/or previously unreported nature; or

(2)   Applied research (including professional publications and  patents), investigation, or scholarly analysis of existing research, information, and creative endeavors resulting in the development of new data, information, applications, and/or interpretations; or

(3)   Artistic creations, shows and performances.

A faculty member shall give documented evidence of the member's contribution to the member's discipline or area of specialization by its publication or other dissemination through (A) the classroom, (B) among practitioners in the member's discipline, or (C) among a wider community.

 Members shall be responsible for their own professional activity and demonstrating its impact on the members’ discipline or areas of specialization in a manner consistent with the applicable College and Department elaborations.

Such evidence may include but is not limited to:

(1)    Funded and non-funded research,

(2)    Preparation of research proposals for funded research,

(3)    Publication of articles, books, monographs, conference proceedings, editorships or reporters to professional publications,

(4)    Presentation of papers at professional meetings,

(5)      Performances or exhibitions, or

(6)      Participation in accreditation activities.

The preparation of grant proposals for outside agencies shall be considered as professional activity if said preparation involves scholarly activity (e.g. teaching, research or service projects) of a substantial nature, and the applicant provides an abstract documenting such activity and the importance of the endeavor to the discipline or the University. The above condition may also apply for the administration of a grant project, invention disclosure, license patent, patent application or copyright application insofar as proper evidence is presented which documents that such grant administration of a grant project, invention disclosure, license patent, patent application or copyright application meets the requirements as set forth above in this section.

9.1.1.3.   Service

Service consists in the application of a member's knowledge in the member's professional field to benefit the University, the community, and/or the profession. Service is measured not so much by the number of offices held or activities undertaken, although that may be considered, as by the demonstrable substantive value of the faculty member's contribution to the quality of the University, the well being of the community, and/or the advancement of the member's profession or discipline.  Members shall be responsible for performing service and demonstrating their contribution in a manner consistent with the applicable College and Department elaborations.

Evidence of service may include but is not limited to:

(1)            Departmental, college, and University-wide activities,

(2)            Holding office in a professional organization,

(3)            Participation in organizing and/or running professional meetings, workshops or seminars,

(4)            Delivering lectures at workshops or non-credit courses,

(5)            Unpaid consulting assignments of a professional nature,

(6)            Serving as a referee for a professional or scholarly publication or granting agency,

(7)            Participation in accreditation activities, or

(8)            Coordination of part time faculty, graduate assistants, etc.

9.1.1.4. The faculty of each college, in agreement with its Dean, shall establish specific elaborations of the criteria set forth by April 15, 2006.  Such elaborations must be approved by the Provost, be applied fairly and equitably to all members in that college. College elaborations cannot be in conflict with the terms of this Agreement. Each College shall have specific elaborations that must be published and provided to new members upon entering the college. The elaborations shall be fairly and equitably applied to all members in the College, and cannot be in conflict with the terms of this Agreement. Copies of elaborations will be provided to the UT-AAUP for review and comment twenty (20) days prior to the review and approval of the Provost.  Elaborations may be modified upon request and   recommendation of the faculty, with the written approval of both the Dean and the Provost.   Elaborations may be modified upon request by either the group or council charged with representing the college faculty or their respective Dean.   Approval of College specific elaborations requires a positive recommendation of the bargaining unit faculty and written approval of both the Dean and the Provost.

9.1.1.5 The faculty of each department, in agreement with its Chairperson, shall establish specific elaborations of the criteria and college elaborations thereon set forth by April 14, 2007. Such elaborations must be approved by both the dean of that department's college and the Provost, be applied fairly and equitably to all members in that department and not conflict with any approved college elaborations of the criteria set forth above or with the terms of this Agreement. Each Department shall have specific elaborations that must be published and provided to new members upon entering the department. The elaborations shall be fairly and equitably applied to all members in the department, and not conflict with any approved College elaborations or the terms of this Agreement.  All such elaborations must be published and provided to new members upon entering the department. Copies of elaborations will be provided to the UT-AAUP for review and comment twenty (20) days prior to the review and approval of the Provost. Elaborations may be modified only upon request and recommendation of the faculty, with the written approval of both the Dean and the Provost.   Elaborations may be modified upon request of either the DPC or their respective Chair.   Approval of Department specific elaborations requires a positive recommendation of the tenured and tenure-track department faculty and written approval of both the Dean and the Provost.

9.1.1.6 Letters of expectation issued to incoming faculty shall be consistent with the elaborations established by 9.1.1.4 and 9.1.1.5 with the signed approval of the Department Personnel Committee (DPC), Chair, Dean and the member.  In the rare instance when the letter of expectations is inconsistent with the College or Department elaborations, the letter must be approved and signed by the DPC, Chair, Dean and the Provost.  Letters that are inconsistent with the established elaborations shall be identified as such and treated as the applicable elaborations for the specified member.

9.1.1.7 All faculty members are required to submit the Annual Report of Professional Activity (ARPA) in a format approved by the member’s respective Dean, no later than the date specified by the employer’s designee on the Academic Personnel Timetable. The ARPA year shall run from August 15 of one year through August 14 of the next year. 

9.2.            Evaluation Process for Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal

9.2.1. In all reviews for tenure and promotion, and renewal, peer judgments shall have a significant role. The following units shall participate in this review process, in the order listed, with each unit giving due consideration to reviewing the recommendations and findings of all preceding units. Each unit shall make an independent, fair and equitable recommendation consistent with the elaborations referred to in sections 9.1.1.4, 9.1.1.5 and 9.1.1.6 and provide a written rationale for decisions.  In judging a member's performance each unit shall abide by the criteria set forth in this Agreement and all approved college and departmental elaborations on those criteria.

Department Personnel Committee

Department Chairperson

College Committee on Academic Personnel

College Dean

University Committee on Academic Personnel

Provost

President.

Each department shall have a Personnel Committee comprised of at least three (3) tenured members of that department elected by the bargaining unit members in that department in accordance with the procedures of that department.  If there are not a sufficient number of tenured members of the department to form a committee, the bargaining unit members in the Department shall meet together with a representative of the UT-AAUP and the Department Chairperson to determine a satisfactory alternative that must be approved by the bargaining unit members of the department.

Each college shall have a Personnel Committee comprised of tenured members of the college elected by the bargaining unit members in that college in accordance with the procedures of the college.

The University Committee on Academic Personnel shall consist of ten (10) tenured associate or full professors, one (1) from each college with faculty and the library and two (2) from the College of Arts and Sciences, elected by the bargaining unit members within the college. Members of UCAP shall serve a term of three (3) academic years beginning July 1, with one third (1/3) of the members retiring each year. No one holding a position of Chairperson, Assistant or Associate Dean, and Dean shall serve on the University Committee on Academic Personnel. 

9.2.2          Frequency and Timing of Evaluations

9.2.2.1. Untenured members shall be evaluated annually. When the Department Personnel Committee, Chairperson or Dean consider the member's progress toward tenure to be less than completely satisfactory, they shall include in their recommendation on continued employment a statement of steps the member should take to correct the deficiency.

9.2.2.2. All tenured members below the rank of Professor who request the same in writing shall be given the opportunity for promotion in academic rank not less than once every five (5) years.

9.2.2.3. All evaluations shall be processed according to the schedule and on the forms prescribed by the Provost annually at the beginning of the academic year after effective consultation with UT-AAUP.

9.2.2.4.               In cases of promotion or tenure a member may withdraw from the evaluation     process described in sections 9.2.1 through 9.2.3.9 at any time but shall thereby forfeit all claims for that year, including tenure if in the last year of probationary service.

9.2.2.5. Notification of non renewal of members without tenure shall be given in writing by the President or the President's designee in accordance with the following standards:

9.2.2.5.1      Not later than March 1 of the second academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of the Spring Semester, or, if the appointment terminates at any other time, at least six months in advance of its termination.

9.2.2.5.2          Not later than July 1^st after two or more continuous years of service in such position.

9.2.3.          The Review Process

9.2.3.1. In the first and second probationary years only, the faculty member's performance will be reviewed by the Department Personnel Committee, the Chair, and the Dean after the completion of the Fall Semester. This limited evaluation will include a review of the faculty member's professional goals and objectives as well as her/his performance during the first semester and the completed first year. The Department Personnel Committee and the Chair shall comment on the proposed goals and objectives and performance and make a recommendation to the Dean. The Dean shall review this information prior to making a final evaluation of the member’s performance. The Dean's evaluation and decision will be forwarded to the Provost.  If the Dean recommends non-renewal, the member’s dossier will be forwarded to UCAP, the Provost and  the President for evaluation.

9.2.3.2. It shall be the obligation of the candidate for renewal, tenure or promotion to prepare a dossier in accordance with the guidelines set forth below and the time schedule published by the Provost. Such dossiers shall include:

(1)            An up-to-date résumé.

(2)            A detailed narrative statement for each evaluation criterion, as specified in Article 9.1.1, explaining how and to what extent the activities claimed have met the criteria and any approved elaborations thereof.

(3)            Documentation in support of the narrative in (2) above.

(4)            All annual workload assignments for the past five (5) years or portion thereof that the member has been employed by the University and that this provision has been in force.

(5)            All annual professional activity reports, or equivalent, for the past five (5) years or portion thereof that the member has been employed by the University.

(6)            All merit pay assessments, or equivalent, for the past five (5) years or portion thereof that the member has been employed by the University.

(7)          For candidates for tenure, promotion, and renewal, all previous annual evaluations for the past five (5) years or portion thereof that the member has been employed by the University.

(8)    Copies of the approved College and Departmental elaborations and documentation as required by applicable elaborations.          

(9)            An inventory of the dossier's contents.

(10)    Summary of student evaluations and comments for all courses taught for the period under review, documentation which demonstrates instructional effectiveness or other teaching related documentation referenced in elaborations.

Members may continue to add to their dossier until five (5) days after evaluation by their department chairperson. Items shall only be added to the dossier with a corresponding cover letter specifically identifying the item(s) and date of addition. Thereafter, the file shall be considered sealed and all subsequent evaluators shall make their judgments based on the file as presented.  All evaluating units have the right to request in writing to the member a clarification of dossier contents, but “clarification” shall not require additional documentation or materials to be submitted by the member.

When the evaluation process is complete and if no grievance has been filed pursuant to sections 9.2.3.9, 19.2.2 or 19.2.3, the record of all judgments shall be entered into the member's official personnel file along with the inventory of the dossier's complete contents. All other materials, except copies of any confidential letters from external experts, shall be returned to the member. If a grievance has been filed, the file shall be kept intact in the custody of the employer’s designee until the grievance procedure under Article 19.0 is exhausted.

9.2.3.3. The Departmental Personnel Committee (DPC) shall review the dossier presented by the candidate. If the candidate fails to provide this dossier or correct deficiencies in it in a timely manner, the DPC and all subsequent reviewers shall proceed on the basis of whatever information it does possess.

9.2.3.4. Prior to making an evaluation and recommendation that differ from the preceding level of review, the Department Chairperson and the College Dean shall meet with their respective Personnel Committee to discuss in depth and gain a greater understanding of that committee's evaluations and recommendations. At the University level, the Provost shall have a similar meeting with the UCAP.

9.2.3.5. No member shall be permitted to serve or A member of a College Personnel Committee or the UCAP shall be ineligible to participate in more than one level of evaluation for another member’s tenure, promotion or renewal.or vote when an individual is being considered whom the committee member has evaluated at an earlier level in the  process, or  When a the committee member has a conflict of interest with regard to the individual under consideration or when the committee member's own candidacy is being considered the member shall recuse him/herself.

9.2.3.6. At each level of consideration a member shall be notified immediately in writing of the evaluating unit's evaluation and recommendation. Such notification shall be sent to the member at least five (5) days prior to transmittal to the next higher level in the review process. Forwarding of the dossier to the next review/evaluation level shall not occur until the five (5) day reconsideration timeline has expired. If reconsideration is requested, the dossier shall not be forwarded until that process is complete.

9.2.3.7. The member being evaluated shall have the right to request, in writing, within five (5) days of an evaluation and recommendation being sent to the member that the evaluating unit reconsiders the member's case. Such request must identify the specific error(s) in the evaluation and explain why it/they are incorrect. The member shall have the right to appear before the committee or administrator making the evaluation and recommendation being reconsidered. The evaluating unit shall meet and reconsider the case within ten (10) days of the request being made and shall immediately inform the member of its decision in writing. A request for reconsideration shall stay the evaluation process at the next higher level until the reconsideration has occurred. Absent a request for reconsideration, the review process shall go forward.

9.2.3.8. Each reviewing unit shall transmit its written evaluation and recommendation, together with any dissenting opinion and with all prior evaluations, recommendations and materials it has received, to the next higher level in the process.

9.2.3.9. It shall be the duty of each evaluating unit to make an independent judgment about the merits of each candidate. However, each evaluating unit must consider the record as a whole and give due weight to decisions made at lower levels.  Any deviation from the decision at a lower level must be explained in writing. Questions concerning the validity of the process at one level shall be resolved solely through the grievance procedure found in this Agreement and not by a unit at a higher level. Except for charges of failure to evaluate for tenure as required by this Agreement, such grievances shall be stayed until the President's decision and recommendation to the Board is made known.  Grievances over evaluation can only be filed after Provost’s recommendation to the President. Grievances over failure to institute an evaluation for tenure or pursue the process in a timely manner may be initiated at any time in the final year of probation. for a deadline for action is missed.

9.3.            EVALUATION PROCESS FOR DEPARTMENTAL MERIT INCREASE

            The evaluation procedure described below is the process for departmental merit increase by which members are evaluated.  This procedure shall be used by all levels and units, where decisions are made with respect to these matters of faculty status.

9.3.1.      At each level of recommendation specified herein, evaluation of the member’s overall contribution shall be based on the following areas.  The percentage ranges listed for each criterion shall be the weight evaluators give to it, with the sum of the three assigned percentages totaling 100%. (see section 9.3.2)

 

 

9.3.2       In all reviews for departmental merit increase, peer judgments shall have a significant role. Each of the following units shall make an independent, fair and equitable recommendation on the matter being considered and provide a written rationale for decisions.

Department Personnel Committee

            Department Chairperson

            College Dean (only when Section 9.3.5 applies)

The units shall participate in this review process, in the order listed, with each unit making an independent evaluation with due consideration reviewing to the recommendations and findings of all preceding units.

In judging a member's performance each unit shall abide by consistently apply the criteria set forth in 9.1 and all approved college and departmental elaborations on those criteria.  Each unit shall honor the evaluation weights as assigned by the chair in compliance with Section 10.3.1.2 in calculating the member’s merit score.

9.3.3. The DPC shall base its recommendation on the information presented on the faculty member’s ARPA for the time period(s) under review and documents submitted in accordance with established policies and/or elaborations. Any faculty member who fails to make a timely submission of the ARPA will be ineligible for consideration for a departmental merit increase. Neither the faculty member nor the UT-AAUP can grieve the faculty member’s ineligibility for consideration for a departmental merit increase.

9.3.4.      The DPC shall transmit its written evaluation and recommendation to the Department Chairperson.

9.3.5.      The initial determinations of departmental merit made by the DPC will be reviewed by the Department Chairperson.  If there is disagreement among them, they shall meet and resolve their differences.  Following the review by the Chair and any meeting to resolve differences between the DPC and the Chair, the members will then be apprised of their scores, including any unresolved scores between the Chair and the DPC.  If the DPC and the Chair were in agreement and a member requests reconsideration, under Article 9.3.6, then the member shall meet with the DPC and the Chair jointly.  If the DPC and the Chair could not agree, then a member requesting reconsideration shall meet with each evaluating unit separately.  Following the reconsideration meeting(s) the result(s) will then be forwarded to the Dean for review.  If differences continue to exist between the DPC and the Chair, there shall be a meeting of the DPC, the Chairperson and the Dean.  If differences cannot be resolved, then they shall be settled by a vote of the DPC, the Chairperson and the Dean, each entity having one vote.  Scores that are reached by a vote of the DPC, the Chairperson and the Dean shall not be subject to Section 9.3.6 but they may be grieved under Article 19.0 but cannot be referred to external binding arbitration.  Merit ratings shall be posted annually, without members’ names, in each Department concurrent to members being informed of their individual merit rating.

9.3.6.        The member being evaluated shall have the right to request, in writing, within five (5) days of the evaluation and recommendation being sent to the member that the DPC and/or the Chairperson reconsider the member's case.  Such request must identify the specific error(s) in the evaluation and explain why it/they are incorrect.  The evaluating unit shall meet and reconsider the case within ten (10) days of the request being made and shall immediately inform the member of its decision in writing.  A request for reconsideration shall stay the evaluation process of the next higher level until the reconsideration has occurred.  Absent a request for reconsideration, the review process shall go forward.

9.3.7.      Members may continue to add to their ARPA until five (5) days after evaluation by their Department Personnel Committee and Chair as set forth in section 9.3.5. Thereafter, the file shall be considered sealed and all subsequent evaluators shall make their judgments based on the file as presented.

9.3.8. In awarding the departmental merit increase, calculations of merit shall be made on the basis of a scale of 0 to 5 (5 being the highest score), with decimals allowed (tenths).  In determining the above, each criterion will be assigned a score on a scale of 0 to 5 with the percentages in 9.3.1 used as multipliers to arrive at the final merit number. Within each department, each merit point will be assigned a percentage value. The department percentage value of a merit point will be applied to the individual's nine (9) month base salary. A member whose score is less than 2.50 in any year shall not receive merit compensation for that year. Departments are prohibited from assigning the same merit score for all members in the Department.

9.3.9. When the merit evaluation process is complete and if no grievance has been filed concerning the process, the record of all judgments shall be entered into the member's official personnel file. If a grievance has been filed, the file shall be kept intact in the custody of the employer’s designee until the grievance procedure under Article 19.0 is exhausted.

9.3.10.     If for the year under review, the faculty member was on leave for the entire year, then merit will be assigned for that member in the following manner:

9.3.10.1 For the faculty members on sabbatical leave, merit scores in teaching and service will be the average of the previous three years of evaluation in those areas.  Merit scores in professional activity will be evaluated on the same basis as other faculty members

9.3.10.2 For faculty members on medical leave or on leaves consistent with the Family Medical Leave Act, excluding the Maternity/Paternity Leave as described in 14.1.3, merit scores in all three areas will be scored as the average in each area for the previous three years.

9.3.10.3 For faculty members on Special Assignment Leave, as described in 14.2.2, a written agreement will be reached among the member, Departmental Personnel Committee, and the Chair as to which areas will be treated as an average of the previous three years, and which areas are to be evaluated on the same basis as other faculty members.

9.3.10.4 A member on any other unpaid leave is not eligible for merit during the time they were on leave.

9.3.11     For those members on leave for one (1) Academic semester, the evaluators will apply the relevant procedure in 9.3.10 to represent the score for the member’s leave. For the semester when the member is not on leave, the evaluation will follow the same process as other faculty members. Faculty on Maternity/Paternity Leave under Section 14.1.3 shall be evaluated pursuant to Section 14.1.3.6.