PAAC

Committee Chair, 2012-2013: Molly Nolan

The Personnel and Affirmative Action Committee reviews University personnel policies and practices, including affirmative action, that affect the faculty.

Library Proposal to Create a Non-Tenure Track

Background

The Joint Committee, Tenure Modifications and Personnel and Affirmative Action, convened to discuss the proposed revisions to the Bylaws of the New York University Libraries Faculty Handbook. The revisions centered around the creation of a new non-tenure track faculty position. Currently, there are no long-term, non-tenured faculty positions in the library. A three-year appointment as a Library Associate is a position currently offered to potential tenure-track candidates who lack the necessary double degree to qualify for a tenure-track position. The rationale for creation of a non-tenure track appears to be two-fold: 1] the need to hire librarians for limited durations, and 2] the need to hire librarians whose duties will have limited scope. It has been pointed out that every other school of the University has such non-tenure track positions.

Recommendation by the Joint Committee

While the committee members acknowledged the trend in hiring non-tenure track faculty personnel and conceded that overall this proposal should be approved, certain objections were raised to specific aspects of the revision that need explanation.

• The committee members had a problem with wording of the introduction, namely the sentence “As with all NYU and School policies, these guidelines are subject to change and it is the policies in effect at the time of any action that apply.” It was the understanding of the committee that in certain instances it is the policy in effect at the time of hire that is controlling. This issue needs to be clarified. In addition, the last sentence of the introduction with respect to the ease by which changes to the bylaws could be made needs further clarification as to the process and approvals required for such changes.
• The committee had questions relating to the process by which this proposal was generated. In particular, were the changes proposed to the Library Council discussed beforehand with said Library Council? Was the general proposal brought to the Council before being presented to the whole faculty for a vote?
• With respect to reappointments and promotions on the new non-tenure track, it is unclear what the criteria are and who will do the evaluation. Exactly what are the “expected performance standards?"
• The committee suggested that in the case of appointments made for 2, 3 or 5 years, notification of reappointment or non –reappointment be made no less than 1 year before the appointment expiration date.
• Will it be possible to switch tracks between tenure and non-tenure track? And if so, under what circumstances?
  

The Provost sent a response to the FSC addressing these questions.

Revision of Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Document for Dentistry and Nursing

The Personnel and Affirmative Action and Tenure Modifications Committees reviewed this document and recommended approval of the proposal to allow assistant professors on non-tenure tracks who are not promoted at the end of ten years to remain employed.

Draft of Electronic Communications and Social Media Policy

The Personnel and Affirmative Action and Tenure Modifications Committees reviewed the draft of the Electronic Communications and Social Media Policy and found it problematic in numerous respects. Their recommendations and main areas of concern were sent to the administration following the February FSC meeting. Read recommendation

Review of revisions to the Policies and Procedures for Appointment, Promotion and Tenure at the School of Medicine

The Tenure Modifications Committee and PAAC reviewed this document, which incorporates the establishment of a full-time non-tenure track for librarians and sent their recommendations to members of the University and School of Medicine administration. A response addressing their recommendations was sent by the Provost office and the Council sent a follow-up response in December. The Provost office sent a final response on December 17.

Committee Chair, 2011-2012: Molly Nolan

Representation of Non-Tenure Track Full-Time Faculty

In October 2010, President John Sexton asked the Faculty Senators Council to make a recommendation regarding the participation of  non-tenure track full-time faculty (NTTF) in university governance. While NTTF, often referred to as clinical or contract faculty, participate in governance to varying degrees within departments and schools, NYU’s by-laws grant university-level representation to tenure and tenure-track faculty (TTF) only. The electorate and the members of Faculty Senators Council is comprised only of tenure and tenure-track faculty.

To undertake its review of the issue, the FSC and its Personnel and Affirmative Action first requested new, detailed data on the number and distribution of NTTF and TTF for the past decade. The data was provided by the administration in May 2011. It offers a reasonably comprehensive picture of the absolute and relative size of NTTF and TTF for the university as a whole and for each school, as well as general trends in the number and allocation of faculty lines.

This was not the first time the FSC had turned its attention to the issue. In 2007-8, the FSC prepared a report: Non-Tenure Track Faculty at NYU, which offers a comprehensive review of the roles and responsibilities of NTTF across NYU’s schools, with particular attention to their participation in governance. Its main finding is that the nature and level of NTTF participation in governance including, for example, voting rights and committee membership, varies substantially from school to school across NYU, and from department to department within each school. The 2008 report led to three broad recommendations: first, that with respect to the role of NTTF as members of the NYU academic community, greater attention should be given to the appointment and renewal procedures of NTTF and to their rights and privileges under academic freedom; second, that each individual school clarify the role of non-tenure track faculty in its own governance procedures; third, that in accordance with existing NYU by-laws only tenure and tenure-track faculty should serve as University Senators.

The 2008 recommendations reflected two perspectives that have animated FSC’s review of the issue. First and foremost, FSC remains deeply concerned about the erosion of tenure as a general, long-term trend at American universities. FSC has never wavered from the view that a robust tenure and tenure-track faculty is vital to the university’s academic mission. At the same time, FSC commitment to tenure as a core principle of academic life does not preclude it from recognizing the integral contribution made by non-tenure track faculty to the university’s academic endeavors. The two perspectives – a commitment to tenure as a core principle and an abiding respect for our non-tenure track faculty colleagues – go hand in hand.

The immediate question before FSC concerned NTTF participation in university governance. At its January 2012 meeting, FSC voted overwhelmingly to endorse the principle that NTTF should have representation in university governance, a recommendation that requires a change in the University’s by-laws to be implemented. The FSC then turned its attention to the form this representation might take. We considered two basic options: membership on the FSC or the establishment of a separate NTTF Council. Of the two, FSC concluded that a separate NTTF Council offers the best foundation for meaningful participation in university governance, providing the NTTF with greater latitude to establish and pursue an agenda framed around their particular needs and interests.FSC imagines that the two councils would cooperate on a number of standing university issues, with the likelihood of joint committees and other forms of ongoing collaboration.

FSC’s recommendations are not the last word on the issue. In the first instance, they are premised on the assumption that NTTF would welcome such participation; we certainly do not presume to be speaking on their behalf. We are also aware that these recommendations will now be reviewed by the University Senate, first by committee and then by the Senate as a whole. FSC members will play an important role in those conversations where many of the details are still to be worked out.