UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH PROCEDURE 02-02-10
CATEGORY: ACADEMIC AFFAIRS
SECTION: Faculty Appointment and Tenure
SUBJECT: Faculty Reviews and Appeals
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2001 Revised
PAGE(S): 13
I. PURPOSE
To establish the procedure for reviews of faculty appointments
and appeals from appointment decisions. This includes provisions
for both informal and formal mechanisms through which individuals
may work together to seek resolution of their differences.
II. SCOPE
Examples include academic freedom, nonrenewal of contract, denial
of tenure, or failure of promotion.
III. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Administrative Review Process
The Bylaws of the University and traditions of higher
education affirm the general principle of self-governance
for the faculty. In the University system of self-
governance, the role of the departmental chairman (or
divisional or program chairman) is critical. For a
description of the role of chairman refer to Policy 01-03-
08, School and Regional Campus Governance.
B. Chairman
The function of the chairman is at various times that of
faculty leader, administrator, liaison between faculty and
other groups, and formal convener of faculty gatherings.
Where such positions do not exist, the dean performs
comparable roles. It follows from this that informing the
departmental chairman of all grievances, problems, and
difficulties and meeting with him, in as formal or informal
a manner as is agreed to be desirable and productive, are
the essential first steps to the resolution of any
grievance.
C. Dean
Should discussion with the chairman fail to resolve the
problem, bringing the matter to the attention of the dean is
the next step in the process. Some deans have formed
committees to assist them in these matters.
D. Provost or the Senior Vice Chancellor for the Health
Sciences
When a dean does not or cannot resolve an appeal or dispute,
the Provost or the Senior Vice Chancellor for the Health
Sciences remain available to discuss and attempt to resolve
the concerns of the faculty members involved. On serious
matters, the Provost or the Senior Vice Chancellor for the
Health Sciences, may at his discretion, establish an Appeals
Panel or other faculty panel to assist him in resolving a
dispute. If advice of a panel is sought, the appellant must
specify in writing the grounds of the dispute and the relief
sought.
E. The University Senate Committee on Tenure and Academic
Freedom
Consultation with the Senate Committee is separate from, and
may be collateral to, the established administrative appeal
procedures established herein.
A faculty member may at any time seek counsel from the
University Senate Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom
(TAFC) concerning a grievance. In addition, the University
administration may request the opinion or the advice of the
Committee. Typically, a faculty grievance will involve some
matter directly pertaining to, and adversely affecting the
conditions of employment including academic freedom. A
faculty member thus may seek the opinion of the Senate
Committee on procedures applied in reference to matters such
as the faculty member's nonrenewal of contract, denial of
tenure, or failure of promotion.
The TAFC role complements formal appeals channels. It may
contribute informally to the constructive resolution of
faculty grievances regarding tenure and academic freedom,
making a formal appeal unnecessary.
Additional information on other TAFC functions may be
obtained from the Office of the University Senate.
IV. PROCEDURE
A. Evaluation for Faculty Contract Renewal or Promotion
1. Standards and Criteria
Every faculty member should become familiar with
substantive and procedural standards generally employed
in decisions affecting renewal and tenure, as published
in the Policy Manual (Category 02, Section 02 - Faculty
Appointment and Tenure). Any special standards adopted
by the department, school, or other academic unit shall
be brought to the faculty member's attention.
The minimum criteria for appointment and promotion to
the various academic ranks are described in the Policy
Manual (Category 02, Section 02 - Faculty Appointment
and Tenure). Most schools and some departments have
developed additional criteria for appointment,
promotion, and tenure appropriate to their discipline.
Copies of these are available in the office of the dean
or department.
The work of the University requires a wide variety of
talents, balanced among specialized fields. Because
these needs change over time, the University must be
capable of responding to these changes. Therefore, all
recommendations of appointment and promotion not only
must be evaluated in terms of the individual merits of
the candidate but also must take into account the
current standards of the relevant discipline or
profession at large and the requirements of the
candidate's department or school at the time of the
recommendation and for the foreseeable future. Because
it is necessary to retain flexibility within the
anticipated resources of the University, the proportion
of tenured to nontenured faculty must not rise to a
level that would impair the University's or school's
capacity to respond to changing demands for its
services. When a faculty member becomes eligible for
promotion with tenure, this factor may be important to
those who participate in the decision on whether or not
tenure will be awarded.
2. Evaluation Process
There will be periodic review by the chairman or dean
(at least annually) of the faculty member's situation
during the probationary service. There should be a
record of that review, and the substance of that review
should be provided in writing to the faculty member.
The faculty member will be advised of the time when
decisions concerning renewal and tenure are to be made,
and have the privilege of submitting material in order
to ensure adequate consideration of questions of
renewal and tenure.
The nontenured faculty member should seek advice and
assistance from senior colleagues. The ability of
senior colleagues to advise, assist, and ultimately to
make a sound decision on renewal or tenure will be
enhanced by an open opportunity for regular review of
the qualifications of nontenured faculty members. A
total separation of the senior faculty roles in
counseling and evaluation will not likely be possible,
but review of a faculty member can be presented by a
colleague and received by the subject faculty member in
such a manner as to assist the subject faculty member's
professional development. The initial locus of
consideration for faculty appointment is at the
department or school level, by peers. However,
concurrence by the dean and the Provost is required.
In addition, only the Chancellor can award tenure.
A department or school may establish a promotion review
committee in order to assist the chairman or dean in
evaluating candidates for tenure, promotion, or
renewal.
3. Notice of Nonrenewal
The notice of nonrenewal must be given to the faculty
member in writing prior to the date specified by the
statement on Appointment and Tenure policies (see
Policy Manual, Category 02, Section 02 - Faculty
Appointment and Tenure). The dean or departmental
chairman should keep the faculty member informed of the
status of the approval process.
In each case of renewal or nonrenewal of an
appointment, the appropriate authority (i.e.,
departmental chairman or committee) will make a
recommendation to the dean, which recommendation will
be accompanied by a statement of factors supportive of
the recommendation, together with any written material
which the faculty member may have submitted. If it is
the decision of the dean that the appointment should
not be renewed, he will notify the faculty member of
this decision in writing. Upon request, the faculty
member will be advised orally of the reasons for that
decision. The dean or the departmental chairman will,
if the faculty member requests, provide the faculty
member with a written statement of the reasons which
formed the basis of the nonrenewal decision, as set
forth below.
If the recommendation to the dean proposes that the
faculty member should be reappointed and the dean
decides that the faculty member should not be
reappointed, all documentation must be forwarded to the
Provost or the Senior Vice Chancellor for the Health
Sciences for information or review. The Provost or the
Senior Vice Chancellor for the Health Sciences will
then instruct the dean as to the steps he should take.
4. Written Statement of Reasons
Upon request, the faculty member will receive written
confirmation from the dean of the reasons given in
explanation of nonrenewal.
The statement will be sufficiently specific to identify
pertinent matters, such as school or departmental size
and balance, or standards of performance which the
faculty member has failed to achieve.
A faculty member's request for a written statement of
reasons must be presented to the dean within 30 days
after receiving written notice of the decision not to
reappoint. At the regional campuses, the campus
president will discharge such functions as are here
described to be those of deans.
5. Action by Senior Administrator
A dean may recommend to the Provost, the Senior Vice
Chancellor for the Health Sciences, and through them,
the Chancellor, that a faculty member be reappointed.
Their consideration of that recommendation will conform
to the aforementioned standards and criteria.
A dean has the authority to deny a faculty member's
reappointment, but may only recommend reappointment.
The Provost has authority for reappointment not
involving the granting of tenure. The Chancellor has
authority for reappointments which confer tenure.
Thus, the Senior Vice Chancellor for the Health
Sciences, for example, would review and recommend
nontenured reappointments of faculty in the Health
Sciences area to the Provost, and appointments with
tenure to the Chancellor. If, in a school of the
Health Sciences, the decision of the Senior Vice
Chancellor for the Health Sciences is not to renew,
promote, or recommend tenure, such decisions may only
be appealed to the Chancellor, and not the Provost.
However, concurrence of the Provost is required to
renew, promote, and recommend tenure. The evaluation
made by the Provost and the Chancellor in the
respective cases will be based upon the same University-
wide standards referenced above. Their evaluations
will also be concerned with questions of overall
policy, including changes in University mission.
Should the Provost or Chancellor, as the case may be,
decide not to reappoint, the faculty member will be
provided with written notice of that decision, with the
right to a written statement of the senior
administrator's reasons, as described above, upon
written request.
The faculty member will be afforded the opportunity to
request that the senior administrator reconsider the
nonrenewal decision. Any such request for
reconsideration should describe the basis therefore.
Other appeals are described in III.B., which follows.
B. Appeals from Decision of Nonrenewal or Denial of Promotion
or Tenure
1. Appeals Within Academic Units
Any school or regional campus may adopt internal
procedures for reviewing its nonrenewal decisions, so
long as such procedures are consistent with University-
wide procedures.
Any school that chooses to establish an appeals panel
to hear cases involving decisions not to promote,
reappoint, or grant tenure may do so, if the practices
established conform to the underlying principles of the
procedures described herein. In such cases, the school
should submit its proposed procedures in writing to the
Provost for his approval.
Appeals Panels must be established in a responsible
manner to ensure that a fair panel without prejudice or
prior involvement in that faculty case is selected.
To be effective, any such internal review procedures
must not have the effect of unreasonably postponing the
final resolution of a faculty member's appointment;
nonrenewal may be unpleasant, but indecision serves
neither the faculty member nor the University.
If a school believes that it has too few tenured
faculty who were not already involved in a tenure case
to establish a fair and objective pool of persons to
constitute a properly disinterested panel to hear that
case, that school should so notify the Provost. For
such schools, an Appeals Panel drawn from faculty of
other schools will be established by the Provost.
2. Matters for Review by an Appeals Panel
The purpose of the hearing by the Appeals Panel is to
decide on the basis of evidence put before it whether
the decisions by the department, the review committee,
and the dean were reasonable. The Appeals Panel shall
also seek to determine whether there were any
inadequacies or improprieties in the treatment of the
aggrieved faculty member's case, and, if there were
such inadequacies or improprieties, whether these were
of such moment as to have prejudiced the outcome of the
case.
On many issues, an Appeals Panel can operate initially
on an informal, fact finding and mediating basis, as
follows:
a. Allegations of Academic Freedom Violations or
Discrimination
If a faculty member who has requested and received
a written statement of reasons for nonrenewal
alleges a violation of academic freedom or
discrimination on the basis of race, national
origin, or sex, he may institute proceedings for
an Appeals Panel. The Panel's functions may first
be:
(1) to determine whether or not the notice of
nonreappointment constitutes on its face a
violation of academic freedom or an act of
discrimination
(2) to seek to settle the matter by informal
methods, and if no accord is reached, then
(3) to decide whether the evidence submitted in
support of the petition warrants their
decision that a formal proceeding should be
conducted, with the burden of proof resting
upon the complaining faculty member
b. Allegations of Inadequate Consideration
A faculty member who requests and receives a
written statement of reasons may institute
proceedings for review of nonreappointment by
alleging that the appropriate faculty body gave
inadequate consideration to the case. The Panel's
functions may be:
(1) to determine whether the decision was
preceded by adequate consideration by the
appropriate faculty body, in terms of the
relevant standards (but the Panel will
refrain from substituting its judgment on the
merits for that of the faculty body), and if
it finds that inadequate consideration was
given to the faculty member's qualifications,
then
(2) to request reconsideration by the faculty
body (the Panel will indicate the respects in
which it believes the consideration may have
been inadequate), and in all cases
(3) to decide whether the evidence submitted in
support of the petition warrants their
decision that a formal proceeding should be
conducted, with the burden of proof resting
with the complaining faculty member
If the above preliminary steps do not resolve the case
in academic freedom or discrimination charges, and for
appeals based on allegations not covered by 2.b., the
Appeals Panel will move into its formal proceedings.
3. Establishment of Appeals Pools and Appeals Panels
a. Establishment of the Appeals Pool in each school
shall be by a means that ensures election of
persons who are tenured to be available to serve
on Appeals Panels. They will be elected by their
departments (or on a school-wide basis) by all
tenure-stream faculty.
b. If a school elects to not establish its own
Appeals Pool, a central Appeals Pool will be
available so that faculty from one school may
serve on individual Appeals Panels for faculty in
other schools. These central Appeals Panels will
function as surrogate school-level Appeals Panels,
and make it possible for smaller schools to allow
their faculty to appeal to a panel of tenured
faculty who have not been involved in earlier
deliberations.
c. All schools of the University that do not
establish their own school-level Appeals Panels as
approved by the Provost will be considered to be
subject to the central Appeals Pool, from which
individual Appeals Panels will be drawn.
d. The central Appeals Pool will be composed of all
full-time tenured faculty of the schools that do
not have an approved school-level Appeals Pool.
As a general practice, faculty who are considered
primarily administrators, with the rank of
chairperson or higher, will not be included in the
central Appeals Pool. Faculty on leave of absence
or sabbatical also will be excluded.
e. Faculty who serve on appeals or grievance panels
will be excluded from the central Appeals Pool for
a period of three years following the date of
filing the Panel report. Faculty in the school
where an appeal originates are not eligible to be
part of the Pool for the selection of that panel.
f. To select members of the central Appeals Pool to
serve on any individual Appeals Panel, the
Secretary of the University will advise the
faculty member and the dean involved of the date,
hour, and place at which the secretary will draw
eleven names by lot (deleting any names drawn from
the Appellant's school) from the names of the
central Appeals Pool. Both parties or their
representatives may witness this drawing. Each
party may choose to challenge up to two names so
drawn until seven remain. If four names are not
challenged, the Secretary of the University will
draw seven names from the names remaining, and the
first five will constitute the Appeals Panel, and
the remaining two will serve as alternates.
Appeals Panels chosen as described above will be
considered as surrogate school-level Appeals
Panels, even though drawing upon faculty outside
the school involved and even though the process is
facilitated by the Provost.
g. Procedure for faculty appeals to address cases in
which discrimination is alleged and the appeals
panel drawn by lot in accordance with 3.f. does
not include a member of that class which is the
basis of the discrimination charge. The procedure
will apply only:
when an appellant alleges discrimination
as one of the basis of appeal and the
appellant is a member of one of the
following three protected classes:
women, minorities, and handicapped
persons. "Minorities" include four
subclasses: Blacks, Hispanics,
Asian/Pacific Islanders, and American
Indian/Alaskans
when no one of the normally chosen
members of the panel is a member of the
class which serves as the basis of the
allegation of discrimination
(1) When requested by an appellant, two
additional tenured nonvoting members will be
added to the appeals panel. These two
additional members will be selected from a
University-wide pool of persons who are
members of the class which serve as the basis
of discrimination and who did not have
previous involvement in this case.
(a) Such pools will be constructed by the
University Affirmative Action Office
from the names of people who declare
themselves to the Affirmative Action
Office to be members of one or more of
those classes, and agree to have their
names in such a pool to serve as panel
members.
(b) Four separate pools of minorities will
be constructed by the University
Affirmative Action Office; that is,
pools of Blacks, Hispanics,
Asian/Pacific Islanders, and American
Indian/Alaskans. If an appellant is a
member of a minority subclass which does
not contain at least four persons in the
specially constructed pool, the
appellant will have the option of having
members of other minority subclasses as
nonvoting members of the Appeals Panel.
(2) The additional nonvoting members of the
appeals panel will be chosen by lot from the
specially constructed pools. Six names will
be drawn. The appellant and administrative
officer involved will each have the right of
one challenge as follows: If no challenge, or
one challenge occurs, the first two
nonchallenged names will be the regular
members, and the next two names chosen will
be the alternates.
(3) The two additional nonvoting members will
participate in all deliberations of the
panel, and will provide a written report to
the Provost or the Senior Vice Chancellor for
the Health Sciences on issues relating to the
allegation for discrimination.
4. Procedures for Appeals Panels
a. Calling the Hearing
(1) When a faculty member has received written
notice of nonrenewal or nonpromotion, and
wishes to appeal that decision, he may elect
either of two courses of action:
(a) He may ask for a reconsideration of his
case by the Dean of his school. Such a
request must be made within 30 days of
receipt of the notice of nonrenewal or
nonpromotion; and the faculty member may
accompany his request with any
additional materials in support of his
case he may wish to submit. This
consideration must be completed within
90 days of its request. If, upon
reconsideration of the faculty member's
case, the dean reaffirms the original
decision, he shall so notify the faculty
member and, on the request of the
faculty member, he shall furnish the
faculty member with a written statement
of reasons for nonrenewal or
nonpromotion within 90 days of the
original request for reconsideration.
If the faculty member has reason to
believe he has been treated unjustly, he
may request a formal hearing by an
Appeals Panel.
(b) He may elect not to ask for
reconsideration but may, instead,
immediately request that the Dean of his
school provide him with a written
statement of reasons for nonrenewal or
nonpromotion. Such a request must be
made within 30 days of receipt of the
notice of nonrenewal or nonpromotion;
and the written statement of reasons for
nonrenewal or nonpromotion must be
furnished to the faculty member within
14 days of his request. If the
statement is not provided within 14
days, the faculty member may then
request that an Appeals Panel be
constituted.
(2) Upon receiving a written statement of reasons
for nonrenewal or nonpromotion, the faculty
member has 30 days in which to submit to the
Dean of his school for a hearing, stating the
grounds for the appeal.
(3) The Dean of his school shall inform the
Secretary of the Appeals Pool (group of
tenured faculty selected and available to
serve as members of Appeals Panels for that
school) or the Provost that a hearing has
been requested. The Secretary of the Appeals
Pool (or the Secretary of the University, if
that school does not have an Appeals Pool),
in the presence of the aggrieved faculty
member and the dean, shall choose members
(see 3.f. above) of the school Appeals Pool
(or the central Appeals Pool) to serve as an
Appeals Panel in the case. No member of the
aggrieved faculty member's department, nor of
any review committee that has previously
considered the faculty member's case, shall
serve on the Appeals Panel. A member of an
Appeals Pool who has served on an Appeals
Panel in a given year may not normally serve
again in the same year until all other
members have served. This Appeals Panel
shall normally be convened within 30 days of
the faculty member's request, and in no case
later than 60 days following such request.
(4) These hearing procedures shall not be used to
handle grievances concerning salary,
teaching, assignments, or other aspects of
work load unless they are related to
allegations of inadequate consideration,
academic freedom violations, or
discrimination affecting tenure or
appointment.
(5) These hearing procedures may be used to
review an actual decision not to promote a
tenured associate professor but may not be
invoked if there had not been a prior
evaluation at the departmental level.
b. Panel Procedures
(1) Each Appeals Panel shall elect a chairman and
keep an account of its proceedings. This
shall be stored in the Office of the Provost
for as long a period of time as the
University Counsel may specify.
(2) The Appeals Panel may request the department
chairman concerned and the dean to give
testimony. If the case has been previously
considered by a review committee, a copy of
the review committee's report shall be
furnished to the Appeals Panel, and the
Appeals Panel may ask the chairman of the
review committee to give testimony.
(3) The appellant has the right to present
documents, evidence, supporting testimony,
and advocates in his behalf. The aggrieved
party shall also have the right to receive a
summary of the substance of other materials
presented as evidence or testimony in the
case, but the sources of such materials shall
remain confidential.
(4) The Panel will meet in closed session. When
appearing before the Panel, the appellant may
be accompanied by one advocate or observer of
his choice.
(5) All witnesses will appear individually and in
closed session.
(6) During those sessions in which they appear,
witnesses will be allowed to make an oral
presentation and members of the Panel may
question the witnesses.
(7) The Panel reserves the right to limit the
length of the oral presentation made to the
Panel by each witness. Witnesses may present
additional testimony in writing.
(8) The Panel requests the appellant to submit a
list of witnesses he would like the Panel to
hear, together with a brief statement of the
topic(s) each witness will wish to discuss.
The Panel has the right to limit the number
of witnesses who, in their judgment, would
give similar testimony.
(9) It is University policy that deliberations
concerning personnel actions remain
confidential. In order to conform to this
policy the Panel will not admit media or tape
recorders to any sessions of the proceedings.
Any evidence for the record should be
submitted in writing. Further, members of
the Panel will make no public statement
regarding this appeal prior to submission of
the final report of the Panel.
5. Action by the Appeals Panel
The Chairman of the Appeals Panel shall submit the
findings of the Appeals Panel in writing to the
Provost, together with the written record of the
Panel's proceedings. The findings shall be in the form
of a summary of determination of the facts, accompanied
by one of the following recommendations:
a. that the dean's decision be allowed to stand
b. that the case be reconsidered at the departmental
or school level
c. that the Provost ask the dean to reconsider his
decision
d. that the Provost reconsider the dean's decision
A copy of the findings shall be provided by the
chairman of the Appeals Panel to the dean, the chairman
of the department concerned, and the aggrieved faculty
member.
The timeliness of nonrenewal shall be considered to be
adequate if the original notification was sent within
the required period even if requests for consideration,
for written reasons, or for a hearing are made after
the required period for notification.
C. Appeals from Decisions of Nonrenewal for Non-Tenure-Stream
Faculty
1. Notice of Nonrenewal
The notice of nonrenewal must be given to the faculty
member in writing prior to the date specified in the
Policy Manual (Category 02, Section 02 - Faculty
Appointment and Tenure).
2. Written Statement of Reasons
A faculty member may request from the dean a written
statement of reasons for nonrenewal within two weeks of
receipt of the written notice of nonrenewal.
3. Grounds for Appeal
The two grounds for appeal of a decision not to renew a
faculty member’s contract are:
a. a violation of academic freedom or discrimination
b. inadequate consideration
The second ground may be invoked only by those who have
had two full years of continuous service.
4. Appeals Procedure
A faculty member wishing to appeal must apply to the
Provost within two weeks of receiving a written
statement of the reasons for nonrenewal.
Upon examining the evidence presented by the appellant,
the Provost will either convene an Appeals Panel to
make a full investigation of the charges or may report
to the appellant that he or she has produced
insufficient evidence of an improper ground for
nonrenewal to warrant further investigation of the
charges.
The Appeals Panel shall follow the same procedure in
these cases as it would if a tenure stream, nonrenewal
decision were being reviewed. The Appeals Panel shall
make as expeditious a review of the charges as is
practicable under the circumstances, recognizing the
shortened time available for review.
D. University Hearing Board
Upon completion of review by an Appeals Panel and final
action by the Provost (or Senior Vice Chancellor for Health
Sciences), a faculty member may submit to the Chancellor a
request that formal review proceedings be initiated under
the By-Laws of the Board of Trustees of the University.
A request for such a review must be submitted in writing to
the Chancellor who will make the determination whether the
request for a formal hearing should be granted or denied.
The nature of the issues involved (and particularly their
relation to academic freedom and nondiscrimination) and the
nature of the report and findings of an Appeal Panel are
among the factors that may be considered in acting upon the
request. If the faculty member's request for formal review
is granted, hearings will be held before a committee
selected in accordance with procedures set forth below.
Such hearings will be conducted in accordance with
principles applicable to hearings involving termination of
appointments for cause, provided, however, that the burden
of persuasion will be upon the complaining faculty member.
1. A Hearing Board hears the faculty member's appeal, and
reports to the Chancellor and the Chairman of the Board
of Trustees.
2. Such a hearing board must be convened in cases of a
tenured member of the faculty, but is discretionary
with the Chancellor in cases of nonrenewal of
appointment. Such application may be made only upon
completion of all prior proceedings, and within 30 days
of receipt by the member of the faculty of written
notification of the decisions following the prior
proceedings. It must set out with specificity
compelling reasons to believe that there has been an
unfair practice with regard to failure to reappoint.
The faculty member may withdraw his appeal at any time
in this process.
3. Termination of any appointment or other action short of
termination may be made for cause. The University
recognizes the right of the individual concerned to be
informed in writing of the reasons his dean or other
administrators request the termination of his
appointment; the right of the individual to respond to
that statement in writing; and the duty of the
University to sustain the burden of establishing cause
as stated. Prior to taking final action to terminate
the faculty member's appointment, the Chancellor will
request advice from a Hearing Board.
4. The procedure for selecting the membership of the
Hearing Board is as follows:
a. The Hearing Board will be composed of five members
of the faculty, selected from the elected faculty
on the Senate Council, and a chairman appointed by
the Chancellor who may, but need not be a member
of the faculty. The chairman may not vote on the
outcome, but otherwise may participate fully in
the proceedings
b. When a Hearing Board is needed, the Chancellor
shall ask the President of the Senate to select
twelve nominees from among the elected faculty on
the Senate Council. The faculty member and the
senior administrator involved shall each have
three peremptory challenges against any of the
twelve persons selected, and the Clerk of the
Senate shall reduce the list by lot to five names
5. The Hearing Board shall transmit its findings to the
Chancellor and to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees
for consideration and action by the Chancellor after
review of the process by an appropriate committee of
the Board of Trustees.
6. The burden of proof before such Hearing Board in a case
of nonrenewal shall be upon the individual faculty
member to prove that such unfair practice as claimed
has taken place.
7. In a case of nonrenewal where charges are brought by
the individual faculty member, normally the dean
(rather than the department, the chairman or any
individual faculty member) shall be considered the
responding party.
8. The Hearing Board shall be conducted with due regard
for procedural rights, including but not limited to
counsel and cross-examination, adherence to reasonable
rules of evidence, a written record of testimony, and a
written opinion by the Board. In addition, it should
be noted that observers may be present only if
individually agreed to by both sides. Further rules
and interpretations may be made by the Hearing Board.
9. Upon receipt of a final written report from the Hearing
Board, with its findings and recommendations for
disposition of the case, the Chancellor shall determine
what further action is required.
10. If the Hearing Board recommends that the University not
reappoint an individual; on receipt of the written
findings of the Hearing Board by the Chairman of the
Board of Trustees, the Chairman will appoint a special
committee of the Board of Trustees to review the
written record to determine whether due process has
been afforded the faculty member, determine whether the
conclusions of the Hearing Board are consistent with
the testimony, and whether the action recommended is in
keeping with the conclusions of the Hearing Board. The
Trustee Committee receives no new testimony, nor are
witnesses heard, and its meetings are closed. Its
report will be provided to the Chairman of the Board,
the Chancellor, the dean, and the faculty member.
11. The Chancellor shall act in each case in accordance
with the provisions in the By-Laws that, "The power of
appointment and correlative power of dismissal of any
member of the faculty are committed to the Board of
Trustees. However, it is the policy of the Board to
delegate those powers to the Chancellor and Chief
Executive Officer as head of the University Faculty,
who may redelegate these powers except in the case of
tenured faculty." The Chancellor shall take into
account the recommendation of the Provost or Senior
Vice Chancellor concerned and, when the appointment is
to any school, the dean of that school. The dean, in
turn, shall take into account the recommendation of the
chairman of the departments and the faculty concerned.
The Chancellor shall take such action as is appropriate
with due consideration of the findings and
recommendations of the Hearing Board, and consistent
with the information provided by the Committee of the
Board of Trustees. Such action constitutes exhaustion
of the University appeals procedures.
V. REFERENCES
Policy 01-03-08, School and Regional Campus Governance
Faculty Appointment and Tenure Policies, Category 02, Section 02
Policy 02-02-10, Faculty Reviews and Appeals
University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher
Education - BYLAWS, Chapter II, Article II, Section III,
Paragraph D, "Termination of Appointment for Cause," adopted by
the Board of Trustees, January 14, 1969 as amended