Article XXIV: Professional Duties

I. Faculty Professional Duties

A. Principles

1. The duties of faculty shall be reasonable and fair and shall reflect teaching duties, research activity, creative professional activity, and service to Wayne State University.

2. The workload of faculty shall be consistent with the University’s mission and may consist of a combination of teaching and teaching-related activities, scholarly/creative activity, and administrative/University service. Greater proportions of time, energy, and creativity will be manifested in one or another of the faculty member’s areas of responsibility at different stages in an individual’s career trajectory.

3. Provisions herein are intended to identify and reward excellent performance of all faculty, and to identify and remedy longtime performance substantially below disciplinary norms and departmental factors of tenured faculty. The purpose of the annual review process (Section B below) is to assess each member of the faculty in terms of his/her performance in contributing to the overall goal of making Wayne State University the best possible teaching and research institution it can be. Each member of the faculty must participate in the annual review process.

B. Initial Determination of Responsibilities & Equitable Distribution of Workload

1. Each faculty member’s teaching and research load shall be based on disciplinary norms as well as department factors and norms, existing School/College/division norms, and the information contained in the faculty member’s annual selective-salary report.

2. So that workload shall be equitably distributed, in classes of seventy (70) or more students the instructor may request a grader who shall be assigned to aid the instructor of the course. If the request is denied, the chair/dean/director will explain the reason for the denial. The instructor may ask for a review of the denial by the appropriate unit committee, but if no compromise can be reached, the chair’s/director’s decision will prevail. Lecturers and senior lecturers shall teach credit hours and class sizes proportionately commensurate with those of tenure-track and tenured faculty.

C. Professional Review and Development
Each faculty member’s annual report should consist of (a) an updated professional record; (b) a summary of the teaching evaluations for the previous year; (c) a summary of the last three (3) years of the faculty member’s activities, a presentation of current activities, and what results are expected from these activities. All faculty members are required to submit an annual report and to participate in this process. Failure to participate in the annual process shall result in no selective-salary increase, no travel support, and no credit toward sabbatical leaves. Failure to participate in the annual review process two (2) times or more in any five (5)-year period shall also result in the forfeiture of any across-the-board raise. The salary committee’s recommendation may form a basis for an adjustment in workload.

2. Professional development of faculty is important throughout the many stages of a faculty member’s career. Accordingly, each year seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) will be allocated to support professional development activities for tenured faculty. The Office of the Provost will administer these funds and will issue an annual report regarding their distribution.

3. Outstanding performance in one or another of the three (3) areas shall be rewarded through contractual salary increases as provided in Article XII.

4. Each unit salary committee will be charged with making recommendations for improvement when a faculty member falls short of expectations in research, teaching and/or administrative/University service.

5. If, in the course of the regular annual selective-salary review, the Salary Committee concludes that a faculty member has been performing in scholarly/creative activity and/or teaching at a level that is substantially below the unit's factors and norms, the Salary Committee may recommend to the chair/director/dean that a peer mentoring committee (see 5.a, below) be established to address the issues raised by the Salary Committee.
A mentoring committee shall be appointed and will consist of three (3) bargaining-unit members of the faculty of equal rank or higher: one (1) chosen by the unit salary committee; one (1) by the chair/director of the unit; and one (1) by the faculty member. The mentoring committee may consist of up to two (2) members from outside the unit in cases where there are not enough unit members who qualify or objections are raised to particular faculty members by the faculty member being mentored.

An improvement program shall be no shorter than one (1) year in length. At the end of each year of the improvement program, the mentoring committee will report progress to the unit salary committee. The unit salary committee shall make a judgment as to the effectiveness of the program in improving the performance of the faculty member in the area identified as deficient (teaching, research, or administrative/University service).

c) If the improvement program is judged not to have been effective in the view of the unit salary committee in any of the year-end reviews, a report of this assessment shall be sent to the mentoring committee, and it shall have the opportunity to respond. After considering the response, the unit salary committee shall recommend a continuation of the program or refer the matter to the chair/director of the unit for whatever action s/he chooses to take consistent with the terms of this Agreement and the Board of Governors’ statutes.

d) In circumstances recognized as warranted by the chair (dean/director in non-departmentalized units) in consultation with the unit’s policy and/or personnel committee, or other committee designated by the unit’s bylaws, and with the faculty member, and with the approval of the dean, the chair may substitute authorized University activity for all or a portion of the teaching workload. Authorized University activity may include, but is not limited to, scholarly research, publication, or equivalent creative activity, and/or organized University or public service.

e) Faculty assigned a differential teaching load and willing to accept it in lieu of scholarly/creative activity are exempt from this review of scholarly/ creative activity.

II. Academic Staff Professional Duties

A. Definition of Duties


1. The duties of academic-staff members shall be reasonable and fair and shall reflect professional assignments, professional development/ achievement, and service to Wayne State University.

2. Provisions herein are intended to identify and reward excellent performance of all academic staff and to identify and remedy performance substantially below disciplinary norms and unit factors of tenured academic staff and academic staff with ESS. The purpose of the annual review process (Section B below) is to assess each member of the academic staff in terms of his/her performance in contributing to the overall goal of making Wayne State University the best possible teaching and research institution it can be. Each member of the academic staff must participate in the annual review process.

3. Professional development of academic staff is important throughout the many stages of an academic-staff member’s career. Accordingly, each year twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) will be allocated to support professional development activities for tenured academic staff and academic staff with ESS. The Office of the Provost will administer these funds and will issue an annual report regarding their distribution.

B. Initial Determination of Academic-Staff Responsibilities and Distribution of Workload

Each academic-staff member’s job-performance assessment shall be based on unit factors and norms, existing School/College/division norms, and the information contained in the academic-staff member’s annual selective-salary report.

C. Professional Review and Development

1. Each academic-staff member’s annual report should consist of (a) an updated professional record; (b) a summary of the last three (3) years of the academic-staff member’s activities; and (c) a presentation of current activities, and what results are expected from these activities. All academic-staff members are required to submit an annual report and to participate in this process. Failure to participate in the annual process shall result in no selective-salary increase. Failure to participate in the annual review process two (2) times or more in any five (5)-year period shall also result in the forfeiture of any across-the-board raise. The salary committee’s recommendation may form a basis for an adjustment in workload.

2. Each unit or School/College or division salary committee will be charged with making recommendations for improvement when an academic-staff member falls short of expectations in terms of job performance. In units that do not currently have a salary committee for tenured or ESS academic staff, any reference to the salary committee shall refer to the School/College or division salary committee for tenured or ESS academic staff. If the School/College or division does not have an academic-staff salary committee, any reference to the salary committee shall refer to the University Academic-Staff Tenure and Promotion Committees (as defined in Articles XXII.D.2.b and XXIII.C.2).

3. Outstanding performance shall be rewarded through contractual salary increases as provided in Article XII.

4. If, in the course of the regular annual selective-salary review, the Salary Committee concludes that an academic-staff member has been performing at a level that is substantially below the unit's factors and norms, the Salary Committee may recommend to the chair/director/dean that a peer mentoring committee (see C.4.a, below) be established to address the issues raised by the Salary Committee.

a. The mentoring committee shall consist of three (3) bargaining-unit members of the academic staff of equal rank or higher: one (1) chosen by the unit or School/College or division salary committee; one (1) by the chair/dean/director of the unit; and one (1) by the academic-staff member from the unit or School/College or division.

b. The duration of an improvement program shall be appropriate to the nature of the performance deficiency identified by the Salary Committee. At the end of each year of an improvement program, the mentoring committee will report progress to the unit salary committee. The unit salary committee shall make a judgment as to the effectiveness of the program in improving the performance of the academic-staff member.

c. If the improvement program is judged not to have been effective in the view of the unit salary committee in any year-end reviews, a report of this assessment shall be sent to the mentoring committee, and it shall have the opportunity to respond. After considering the response, the unit salary committee shall recommend a continuation of the program or refer the matter to the chair/dean/director of the unit for whatever action s/he chooses to take consistent with the terms of this Agreement and the Board of Governors’ statutes.

d. In circumstances recognized as warranted by the chair (dean/director in non-departmentalized units) in consultation with the unit’s policy and/or personnel committee, or other committee designated by the unit’s bylaws, and with the academic-staff member, and with the approval of the dean/director/vice president University activity may be substituted for all or a portion of the workload or a transfer to another unit may be recommended. No transfer will take place without the agreement of all units involved and the academic-staff member.

D. Request for Review of Change in Duties

1. If an academic-staff member is assigned a substantial change in duties that s/he considers contrary to his/her current job classification and professional qualifications, s/he shall commence the performance of the new duties as assigned while seeking to settle the dispute via a meeting with the dean/director/vice president/Provost (or his/her designee) as provided below. The request for a meeting must be made in writing within five (5) working days after the academic-staff member has been notified of the proposed duties change by certified mail or after having been personally served in writing. At the academic-staff member's option, an AAUP-AFT representative may be present at the meeting. The meeting must be held within five (5) working days of the academic-staff member’s written request.

2. If a mutually agreeable solution is reached at the conclusion of the meeting, the dean/director/vice president will write a new job description for the academic-staff member. The new job description will be provided within five (5) working days of the meeting. If the academic-staff member agrees with the new description of duties, s/he will sign it, and it will be effective on the date to which s/he and the dean/director/vice president agree.

3. If a mutually agreeable solution is not reached at the conclusion of the meeting, or upon review of the new description of duties, the AAUP-AFT may refer the matter, within five (5) working days, to an Appeals Committee of six (6) members selected from the Article XXX Hearing Panel for Academic-Staff Tenure and Promotion, empanelled according to the procedures under Article XXX. The Administration shall select three (3) members, and the Association shall select three (3) members. The President or his/her designee shall designate a person as chairperson who shall have the power to call meetings of the Appeals Committee and shall preside over the proceedings of the committee. Each three-member group shall have no more than one (1) person from any School/College. The chairperson shall have no vote except in the case of a tie among other Appeals Committee members. The committee shall be appointed within five (5) working days after the referral is made.

In the event that an Appeals Committee member shall become unable to serve, a new member shall be selected from the appropriate section (Association-chosen or University-chosen) of the Article XXX panel.

Standing-panel members serve for two-year terms, with the initial panel selected with staggered terms.

The dean/director/vice president and the academic-staff member will provide the Appeals Committee and each other with copies of all documents relevant to the issue and the case. Opportunity shall be given after the initial hearing for Appeals Committee members to examine documents relevant to the issue and the case.

No presentations shall be made by either party to the Appeals Committee, either individually or in committee, in the absence of the other party. The hearing may proceed in the absence of a committee member provided there has been adequate notice of the meeting. At minimum the chair and two (2) members of the Association side and two (2) members of the Administration side of the Article XXX panel must be present for the committee to meet. Either party or the Appeals Committee may call upon experts in the subject matter to make presentations to the committee, provided the experts have no conflict of interest as defined in University statutes. Committee members must be present to vote on matters before the committee. The Appeals Committee shall not engage in electronic voting on matters before it.

The Appeals Committee shall meet, review, and submit its written recommendations to the President or his/her designee within fifteen (15) working days of its appointment. The committee shall confine its consideration and recommendations to the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular change in duties concerned. Any Appeals Committee member may append a minority report.

4. If the President or his/her designee agrees with the recommendations, s/he or his/her designee will implement any further changes within five (5) working days of the decision. If the President or his/her designee does not accept the Appeals Committee recommendations, s/he will meet with the committee and discuss the matter and so advise the academic-staff member in writing within five (5) working days of the decision.

5. If the President or his/her designee does not agree with the recommendation of the Appeals Committee or if s/he does not inform the academic-staff member of his or her decision within thirty (30) days after receipt of the panel’s recommendation, the Association may refer to arbitration, in accordance with the procedures provided in Article XVII, Step II, the issue of whether or not the academic-staff member’s changes in duties are contrary to his/her job classification and professional qualifications.