University Senate - April 20, 2020 Meeting Minutes

Call to Order and Announcements

The University Senate was called to order at 3:30 p.m., via WebEx, on Monday, April 20, 2020. Attendance was not taken.

  1. Announcements and Remarks by the Chair of Senate Executive Committee, Dana Cox.

    1. Senator Cox reflected that as we have moved to an online format for Senate meetings, there have been new norms that have been established and others that have emerged. One of those norms is use of the chat feature. The Executive Committee discussed this communication tool and decided that it can be used by senators as informal conversation, but that it will not be included in the minutes or be used as a formal part of Senate business.

Approval of University Senate Minutes

  1. A motion was received, seconded, and carried to approve the April 13, 2020, minutes of University Senate.

Consent Calendar

  1. The following items were received on the consent calendar:

    1. Curriculum

    2. Transfer Credit Policy

    3. Dual Degree Programs (Graduate Handbook)

    4. Certificate in Cognate Area

    5. Doctor of Philosophy and Doctor of Education 

Old Business

  1. SR 20-15 - Academic Program Review
    1. The resolution to suspend the requirement of the Academic Program Review process and allow departments to choose their evaluation process was discussed. Departments can choose to either do both the APEIP and APR processes, the APEIP process or a hybrid approach.

    2. Senators made a friendly amendment to clarify the language and then passed the resolution: 49 aye and 1 abstention

SR 20-15

April 20, 2020

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that University Senate supports suspending the requirement for academic program review for departments scheduled for APR in Fall 2020, 2021, and 2022 and recommends that those departments be given the options of participating in both processes, participating only in APEIP, or participating in APEIP with additional elements of APR as desired.
  1. 20-16 - End of Semester Course Evaluation Questions
    1. Associate Provost Wanko introduced the revised resolution and indicated that after Senate input at the April 6, meeting, the additional question was revised to an open ended question. Senators suggested an order in the wording, which is reflected in the final resolution below.

    2. Senators raised the following points and questions during discussion:

      1. A friendly amendment to reorder the question so that it began with “If your…” instead of starting with an invitation to comment.

      2. Because this question only pertains to those who were teaching face to face courses, can it be sent just to students in those classes? A concern was raised that it would be confusing to students who were already in an online learning environment. Unfortunately, it is not possible to selectively send evaluations to certain sections.

      3. There was concern by multiple senators about the transparency and intent of the question. Is it being used to gauge teaching effectiveness? Could it be sent as a separate question outside of the course evaluations? It was stated that the concern would be response rate if a separate survey was done, and a survey wouldn’t be as useful of a tool.

      4. It was observed that there are two issues with this - a message to the students and a message to the faculty. Two students offered their perspective and indicated that students would expect acknowledgement of the situation by some sort of question on the evaluations. They felt that they deserved an opportunity to express their thoughts about instruction as well as remote delivery methods.

      5. Is the question optional? Could there be specific optional questions instead?  It was answered that it would not be optional.

      6. There was a sense that having this question was a high stakes way of getting feedback. Would there be a better way to gather data without impacting the evaluations of pre-tenured professors?

      7. Provost Osborne reiterated that no faculty member is being judged by one semester worth of evaluations, especially under these extraordinary circumstances.

      8. The resolution was voted on and passed: 40 aye, 7 nay, and 3 abstentions.

SR 20-16

April 20, 2020

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that University Senate supports adding the following question to the Spring 2020 End of Course Evaluations:

(Open-ended question)

If your course moved from face-to-face to remote delivery of instruction, please comment on your instructor’s communication, assignments, and teaching during remote delivery of instruction.

New Business

  1. SR 20-17 – T/TT Dossier Guidelines Revision 
    1. The changes to the dossier guidelines were reviewed. There was clarification that only one external reviewer can be asked to participate in two promotion cycles.

    2. The resolution was passed by voice vote: 47 aye; 1 nay; and, 1 abstention

SR 20-17

April 20 2020

 Promotion and Tenure Guidelines for Dossier Preparation 2020-2021

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that University Senate adopts revisions as amended to the 2020–2021 Promotion and Tenure Guidelines for Dossier Preparation.

PART 1 Responsibilities for Developing a Promotion and Tenure Packet

Each member of the faculty is expected to contribute to the achievement of the University’s mission through his or her eaching and academic advising; research, scholarly and/or creative achievement; and service. It is the candidate’s responsibility, with assistance from the department and, in the case of the regional campus faculty, the chair and the Dean of the Regional Campuses, to document the quality of his or her candidates’ contributions by maintaining and presenting clear and complete records. It is the responsibility of the faculty member’s members’ peers to evaluate his or herthe candidates’ teaching, scholarship, and service contributions and to determine if the faculty member should receive a positive recommendation for promotion and/or tenure. Each cCandidates for promotion and/or tenure should compile a dossier specifying his or her their achievements for the consideration of other deliberating bodies for consideration.

1.1. Candidate's Responsibility

1.2. Chair's/Program Director's Responsibility

PART 2 Activities and Applicable Measures of Quality

This part enumerates activities and measures of quality acceptable for presentation under each criterion. However, it does not intend to limit acceptability to these stated activities. In applying these guidelines, both candidates and evaluators should recognize two important points:

  1. The guidelines are in conformity with University rules and policies, and they are intended to assist candidates in applying these rules and policies in making the case for promotion and/or tenure and to assist those who must evaluate the candidates and make promotion and tenure recommendations and decisions.
  2. The guidelines are aids to, rather than substitutes for, the professional judgment of the candidate’s colleagues.

2.1. Teaching and Academic Advising

Teaching and academic advising are multifaceted activities that include but are not limited to the components shown below. The difficulties associated with determining quality in teaching and advising have long been recognized.

Several measures, many of them suggested below, are currently used. All departments are required to have a plan for the evaluation of teaching. The plan must reflect the complexity of teaching by including multiple methods and sources of evaluation data, including both quantitative and qualitative assessment measures. Candidates for promotion or tenure and department chairs/program directors may feel free to provide additional ways to evaluate quality in teaching and advising. All dossiers must include multiple sources of teaching evaluations, both quantitative and qualitative, and may include but not rely solely on student evaluations of teaching.

Perhaps ideally, high quality teaching could most appropriately be recognized in terms that measure the learning that occurred, the success of students, and the long-term impact of a faculty member on the subsequent behavior of his or her students. In any case, evaluators of candidates for promotion or tenure at all levels are obliged to give first consideration to an assessment of quality in teaching and advising, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels.

To be evaluated favorably, an individual should contribute to the accomplishment of the mission of the University in several components of teaching, with contributions in the area of classroom teaching given greatest weight. Multiple measures over time of teaching quality should be provided as well as a statement indicating how these multiple measures of evaluation are used to improve the quality of instruction.

Academic advising encompasses a variety of activities including service as chief departmental advisor,

advisor to an assigned group of students, and career counseling.

High Quality/Excellence in teaching must be clearly demonstrated, rigorously evaluation and goes beyond mere measures of classroom performance and includes matters such as:

  1. Classroom teaching. Examples of student work; formal student evaluations of teaching; peer evaluations; nominations for teaching awards; receipt of teaching awards.
  2. One-on-one or small group teaching (includes independent studies). List of students’ names and titles of their projects, theses, dissertations; examples of student work; indication of quality of projects.
  3. Teaching in continuing education programs. (Some departments or divisions may describe these activities as professional service; regular courses taught using a workshop format [such as during the summer] will be considered as teaching). Examples of course materials (e.g., syllabi; handouts; examples of student work; participant evaluations; letters from chairs; letters from participants).
  4. Development of teaching materials and making presentations related to the teaching process. Publications related to the teaching process will usually be listed in Part 2, Section II. Examples of innovative materials (e.g., creation, adoption and adaptation of affordable and open educational resources); evidence of acceptance of materials beyond the candidate's own classes (e.g., inclusions of materials in books, adoptions of texts, requests for use by other faculty); descriptions of presentations; letters from participants and/or reviewers.
  5. Development of courses and curricula. Syllabi, proposals, outlines, with evidence of effectiveness including letters from chairs/program directors, peer evaluation, etc.
  6. Embedding experiential-learning activities, service-learning, civic education, interdisciplinary work, inquiry-based activities, or study abroad activities into a course of study. Syllabi, student projects, student outcomes and reflections, community partners' evaluations, etc.
  7. Academic advising. The number of advisees served per semester; hours per week spent in advising; evaluative statements by colleagues, the department chair/program director, advisees, and the regional campus chair as appropriate.

2.2. Research, Scholarship and Creative Achievement

While both the quality and the quantity of the candidate’s research, scholarship, and creative achievement are evaluated, quality is of premier importance.

For purposes of this analysis, quality is defined in terms of the importance of the work toward progress of the discipline or for the improvement of practitioner performance, and of the creativity of the thought processes and methods behind it and the impact in the field. Original breakthroughs in conceptual frameworks, conclusions, and methods are considered to be of higher quality than works making minor variations in or repeating familiar themes in the literature of the candidate’s previous work.

The determination of quality is obviously difficult and involves substantial judgment. Those charged with this evaluation must synthesize information from: (a) their own reading or observation of the key works of the candidate; (b) evaluations obtained from widely known and respected scholars and/or critics; (c) knowledge of the quality of the outlet (e.g., books, chapters in books, journals, monographs, sponsored research reports, exhibitions, performances) in which the work appears; and (d) extramural funding (e.g., NSF, NEH) achieved through a peer review process.

The most difficult phase of the evaluation of research, scholarship, and creative achievement is the weighting of quality in terms of quantity. How, for example, does one equate two first-rate and one mediocre journal articles on the one hand, and a monograph and a proceedings piece on the other?

Clearly, this activity requires the highest level of professional judgment on the part of evaluators, not only because of the difficulty of the judgments involved, but because (especially when tenure is under consideration) the judgment being made concerns not only the contribution per se, but the candidate’s future research, scholarship, or creative achievements while working at Miami. For candidates who come with one or more years credited to the six-year probationary period, the accomplishments they bring relevant to Miami’s tenure criteria are fully credited. Nonetheless, research, scholarly, or creative activity during the remaining years of the probationary period must provide persuasive evidence of its “prospective continuation” at Miami. The appropriate weight must be afforded to publications based on work done elsewhere, does not lend itself to strict quantitative analysis. That work must be viewed in the context of the candidate's achievements while at Miami. While scholarly work done elsewhere contributes to the candidate's record of scholarly accomplishments, the record at Miami provides essential evidence of the prospective continuation of high quality scholarly activity.

Evaluation of a research record is not the simple counting of publications done here and there, but a peer review of the scholarly record as a whole, and the trajectory of that record, to determine whether that record provides sufficient evidence of high quality scholarship and its prospective continuation. Miami uses the probationary period to determine how a faculty member performs in the areas of teaching, research, and service while at Miami precisely because this is the work environment in which the person is expected to perform throughout his or her professional life. While the candidate's record must be viewed as a whole and not based on some arbitrary parsing of the record, the record of work while at Miami can reasonably be judged as more essential simply because it is the most accurate predictor of future performance. Thus, insisting that prior work be considered on par with work at Miami is an unreasonable restraint to the evaluation of the candidate's record.

Evidence of Research and Scholarship: Completed and published or in-press works which have undergone peer review represent the primary evidence of the candidate’s research and scholarly contributions. Presentations at professional meetings are another outlet for dissemination of research results. In the case of work disseminated through channels where evaluators are unlikely to know the quality of the outlets, the candidate and chair/program director should provide evidence of the stature of the outlet and the nature and importance of the contribution. It is the responsibility of the candidate to provide a description of his or her contribution to the research or scholarly work cited in the dossier. In the case of work with multiple authors, it is the candidate’s responsibility to explain the ordering of authors listed on a publication or research grant and the nature of the contribution by the candidate.

Evidence of Creative Achievement: Candidate’s works which have been exhibited or performed and juried or reviewed, candidate performances, competitions entered and/or won, and commissioned works completed represent the primary evidence of the candidate’s creative achievement. As above, in the case of works or outlets with which the evaluators might not be familiar or which might be outside the area of the evaluators’ expertise, the candidate and chair/program director should provide evidence of the stature of the outlet and the nature and importance of the contribution.

2.3. Service

Faculty members are expected by the University and the public-at-large to make their professional knowledge and skills available in ways beyond those discussed in the previous sections. In addition, as professionals committed to governance by peers, there are many internal activities that must be performed to maintain the operations of the institution. Thus, service to the University and the community at large, as well as to academic and professional organizations, is an important component of the faculty member’s obligation. Candidates are required to demonstrate productive professional service. Service includes, but shall not be limited to, activities which contribute to the University’s and/or the campus’s mission. The dossier should document such contributions. Service includes, but is not limited to, the following activities:

  1. Service to the profession (includes for example):
  • Serving as an appointed or elected officer of an academic or professional association.
  • Serving as an organizer or leader of workshops, panels, or meetings in areas of professional competence.
  • Refereeing manuscripts or grant proposals submitted to journals, professional meeting program committees, funding organizations, and the like.
  1. Service to the University (includes for example):
  • Serving as an appointed or elected administrator or head of any academic group at the department, division, or University levels.
  • Serving as a leader or member of task forces or committees providing service to the department, the division, or the University.
  • In some divisions or departments, providing intramural continuing education programs if these are not accounted for in the category of teaching.
  • Serving as a member of University Senate or of one of its governing committees.
  1. Service to students (includes for example):
  • Contributing to student welfare through service on the student-faculty committees or as advisor to student organization, and the like.
  1. Service to the Community (includes for example):
  • Serving as a leader or member of a task force, committee, board or commission providing service to local, state, regional, national, or international organizations.
  • Serving as professional consultant to public or private organizations.
  • Serving to meet community needs by supervising or mentoring service-learning activities.
  • In some divisions or departments, providing extramural continuing education programs, if these are not already accounted for in the category of teaching.

2.4. External Letters of Evaluation -

Selection of the external reviewers is the responsibility of the chair/program director and divisional dean., of which oOf the reviewers, only nly one (1) can may be emeritus, is the responsibility of the chair/program director and divisional dean and only one (1) may have served as an external reviewer for the candidate in any prior promotion and tenure decision. A list of eight (8) to ten (10) potential reviewers should be developed in consultation with the candidate. The candidate shall describe, in writing, the nature of the relationship the candidate has with each of the potential reviewers.

A minimum of four (4) letters from appropriate external reviewers should be included in the candidate’s dossier. These letters are to be considered by relevant bodies at all levels of the decision-making process. They should evaluate the research, scholarly and/or creative achievements of the candidate. The letters are to be accompanied by a summary statement, limited to two (2) pages, prepared by the department identifying the professional/academic stature of the individuals from whom the letters were sought, why they were selected as reviewers, and describing their relationship with the candidate. In addition, the summary statement should:

  • Identify the institution (including department) of affiliation.
  • Give the rank or other title of the reviewer within the organization.
  • Describe the reviewer’s academic specialization.
  • Provide other relevant information about the reviewers that may be useful to those unfamiliar with the field.

Letters from external reviewers are intended to be unbiased evaluations from recognized scholars, artists, other professionals in the field, and (when relevant) community partners. External reviewers for candidates for promotion to full professor should hold the rank of full professor or professional equivalent; external reviewers for candidates for tenure should hold the rank of associate or full professor, or professional equivalent. These letters should not be solicited from individuals with whom a close personal or professional relationship exists, such as the candidate’s former teachers, dissertation director, co-author(s), co-worker(s), or former co-worker(s). All letters received are part of the file and must be forwarded with the dossier. All letters are subject to the Ohio Public Records Act.

All the candidate's scholarly work/publications should be made available to external reviewers for evaluation. If the record is voluminous, a representative sample should be provided but all work done while at Miami must be made available. External reviewers are expected to evaluate the candidates dossier against national standards for tenure in the field. External reviewers for candidates being considered for tenure should receive published materials or documentation of scholarly and creative works, including work conducted at Miami University. External reviewers may also receive materials that are documented as in press or in review. External reviewers for candidates being considered for promotion to professor should receive copies of those scholarly and/or creative works that the candidate and his or her department chair/program director have agreed upon sending. Evaluations rests on an active research profile normally including recent projects produced at Miami University, while at Miami, or since promotion. If additional letters are requested from external reviewers to evaluate service-related achievements, these same criteria should apply.

PART 3 Suggested Format for the Core of the Candidate's Dossier

3.1. Preliminary Material

3.2. Summary Outline

3.3. Detailed Format for Dossier Core

  1. Teaching and Academic Advising
  2. Classroom Teaching
  3. Undergraduate and Graduate Courses Taught

List each course taught since your last promotion or date of hire. Include: courses taught in chronological order by semester and year; course number, title, and number of credit hours; official course enrollment; percentage of course you taught based on proportion of total student contact hours in course; brief explanation of your role, if not solely responsible for course, including TA supervision, course management, team teaching, etc. Do not include in this list independent studies, credit workshops, continuing education, or other non-credit courses.

  1. Evaluation of Teaching

Describe carefully how the quality of your teaching has been evaluated (e.g., student evaluation of teaching, peer review, departmental surveys of former students) and how you have used these multiple measures of evaluation to improve the quality of instruction.

A report of the completed evaluation forms for classes evaluated by students should be provided. Indicate, at a minimum, a summary of responses from the six university wide common questions. The summary for each course evaluation should specify the course number, title, date, and response rate for the evaluations.

Other evaluations of teaching, such as peer evaluations; exit interviews; critiques of syllabi; self-evaluations; reports or evaluations by service-learning, interdisciplinary, study abroad, or assessment partners; or letters from former students solicited by the chair/program director, may be included.

  1. Awards and Formal Recognition for Teaching

Identify commendations you have received for recognized excellence in teaching. These awards may include citations from academic or professional units (department, division, university, professional association) which have formal procedures and stated criteria for outstanding teaching performance.

  1. One-on-one/Small Group Teaching, Independent studies
  • Independent studies, directed studies, tutorials, practicum, or other major projects
  • Involvement in undergraduate research, scholarship, or creative activities
  • Graduate/professional exams, theses, and dissertations (if appropriate)
  • Graduate Level Status (date ranges)
  • Number of completed and number current doctoral students as dissertation advisor
  • Number of completed and number current master's students as thesis advisor
  • Number of completed and number current doctoral students as committee member
  • Number of completed and number current master's students as committee member
  1. Non-Credit Workshops and Continuing Education Instruction

(Some departments or divisions may describe these activities as professional service.)

Summarize the major instructional activities (workshops, non-credit course, etc.) which you have conducted since your last promotion or date of hire. Identify your role in the instruction and the number of participants. Provide participant evaluations if available.

  1. Development of Teaching Materials

Give specific examples of new teaching methods materials (e.g., web-based, open or more affordable educational resources), or course delivery mechanisms (e.g., on-line or hybrid) you developed. A summary evaluation of these activities should be included in the chair’s/program director’s letter.

  1. Curriculum Development

Give specific examples of your involvement in curriculum development and/or assessment (e.g., your role in the design and implementation of new or revised courses; creation of new programs; your role in assessment data collection or analysis and how it was used to document or improve student learning). A summary evaluation of these activities should be included in the chair’s/program director’s letter.

List and describe efforts to enhance diversity or cultural awareness in courses you teach. Include descriptions of new course materials and/or approaches.

  1. Service-learning, Interdisciplinary Activities, Inquiry-based Activities, or Study Abroad Activities

Give specific examples of the incorporation of service-learning activities, interdisciplinary activities, inquiry-based activities, or study abroad activities into your courses. List courses developed or taught that have any special designation in one or more of these categories.

  1. Academic Advising

Describe specific responsibilities in advising. Identify number and level of advisees seen on a regular basis. Include an estimate of the approximate time spent per week. If applicable, provide a summary of advising evaluations. Include a description of any advisor training you have undergone.

  1. Instructional Currency and Professional Growth as a Teacher or Advisor

Describe your goals for engagement in any teaching and advising improvement activities. List participation in workshops, symposia, professional conferences, CTE (Center for Teaching Excellence) or other Miami faculty development programs, one-on-one mentoring activities that were geared to developing expertise in teaching and advising. Identify certificates earned, if any. Discuss how new ideas/insights gained were implemented into your pedagogical and advising practices.

  1. Professional Development

Describe and reflect on previous activities and strategies used, as well as plans for the future, to develop and maintain effective teaching and academic advising skills.


  1. Research, Scholarship and Creative Achievement
  2. Publications, Presentations, Performances, etc.

Provide a chronological listing of publications, papers, exhibitions, performances, and other creative or scholarly works. Be sure citations are complete and that authorship and the ordering of authors is as listed on the publication. Indicate whether the work was refereed or peer reviewed. Indicate the status of the work (e.g. in review, in press, published). Indicate the quality of the publication by noting the impact rating and/or acceptance rate. Describe your contribution to the research or scholarly work cited in the dossier including, but not limited to, how authors/contributors are listed on the publication or work and the nature of your contribution. Indicate which authors are Miami University undergraduate or graduate students. Include as separate categories:

  • books, chapters
  • monographs, bulletins
  • articles, notes
  • reviews, abstracts
  • presentations at meetings of learned societies
  • performances
  • exhibitions
  • commissioned works
  • other creative or scholarly works
  1. Editorships

Indicate editorship of journals or other learned publications.

  1. Sponsored Research and Scholarly Activities
  • Identify sponsored research and scholarly activities in which you are or have been involved, and specify the period.
  • Indicate proposals submitted,

o   status of proposals (in review, funded, not funded), source and amount of funding (proposed or received),

o   funding rates for agency/program, and
o   whether funding is in the form of a contract, research grant, training grant, or commission. List internal and external proposals separately.
  • Include cooperative or interdisciplinary research projects, educational or curriculum development projects, and service-learning/community-based projects.
o   For each project, list your degree of involvement and the degree of involvement by undergraduate or graduate students.
o   Cite prizes and awards where appropriate.
  1. Research Agenda

Describe briefly your research agenda for the next three (3) to five (5) years.

  1. Professional Development

Describe and reflect on previous activities and strategies used, as well as plans for the future, to develop and maintain a productive research and scholarship program.


III. Service


For significant service activities, please describe the service, its impact, your involvement or contribution, and indicate how the quality of the service can be assessed.

  1. Service to the Profession
  • Offices held in professional societies. List organization in which office was held or service performed and dates of service. Describe the nature of the organization: i.e., open or elected membership, honorary, etc. Indicate awards received.
  • Participation in state or regional, national or international programs or special assignments. List specific activities (e.g., panel discussant, session chair, respondent). Include brief description.
  • Continuing education instruction, if not included under teaching. See Part 3, I.C for details.
  • Other professional service, if not included elsewhere, such as reviewer of proposals or manuscripts, or external examiner.
  • Service or initiatives related to the enhancement of diversity or cultural awareness in the profession.
  1. Service to the University

Indicate dates and degree of responsibility. Include brief description.

  • departmental committees
  • division or University committees
  • administrative positions held
  • other administrative services to/for the university
  • other special assignments
  • Committees or initiatives related to the enhancement of diversity or cultural awareness at the university.
  1. Service to Students
  • advisor to student groups and organizations.

Identify name of group or organization and specific responsibilities as advisor. Include estimate of approximate time spent per week in such advising.

  • Assisting students in gaining admission to graduate or professional schools or gaining employment
  • Other student services
  • Summarize participation in student affairs programs such as fireside discussion, lectures to student groups outside your department, addresses or participation at student orientation. Identify other involvements with or services to students not covered in the above categories.
  • Awards or formal recognition for service to students

Cite commendations received as recognition for contributions to student affairs, such as election to student honoraries.

  1. Student Recruitment and Retention
  • Identify time and effort spent in new student recruitment, including development of materials, phone and email contact, on-campus meetings, portfolio review, auditions, etc.
  • Describe activities or efforts related to retention of students or student success.
  • Describe special activities related to student recruitment contributing to the diversity of the student body.
  1. Community Engagement

Community engagement involves activities that contribute to the public welfare beyond the university community and call upon the faculty member’s expertise as scholar, teacher, or administrator.  Community engagement demonstrates the principals of reciprocity and mutuality; it meets a need defined by the community, not merely created out of the interests of the faculty member.  Note outcomes as a result of your participation, efforts, and involvement within relevant categories.

Collaborative efforts with schools, industry, or civic agencies

Consulting with private or public, profit or non-profit organizations where your expertise has enhanced the efficiency or effectiveness of the organization served

  • Efforts to assist the public through a university clinic, hospital, laboratory, or clinic
  • Efforts to make research understandable and usable in specific professional and applied settings, including any research presentations or workshops in nonacademic contexts
  • Public scholarship, such as blog posts related to your expertise, newspaper op-eds, media interviews (radio, television, magazine), etc.
  • Efforts to test concepts and processes in real-world situations
  • Evaluating programs, policies, and personnel for agencies
  • Involvement in seminars and conferences that address public interest problems, issues, and concerns and that are aimed at either general or specialized audiences such as trace, commodity, practitioner, or occupational groups
  • Participation on government or social service review panels
  • Involvement in economic or community development activities
  • Engagement activities related to the enhancement of diversity or cultural awareness in the community
  1. Community Outreach

Community outreach involves fulfilling a role in the wider community as an active representative of the campus or university. Volunteerism and acts of good citizenship do not in themselves constitute community outreach unless they are undertaken as part of one’s professional responsibilities to the institution.  The distinction between engagement and outreach has primarily to do with the extent to which the activity involves disciplinary expertise applied to real-world issues (engagement) versus serving as the institution’s representative in a community setting (outreach).

  • Involvement in recruitment or informational visits to area high schools
  • Participation or membership on civic boards where your membership specifically represents university participation in the organization
  • Work in creating or maintaining specific and directed community outreach efforts
  • Outreach activities related to the enhancement of diversity or cultural awareness in the community.
  1. Awards and Recognition for Service

List here even if they are repeated in another section

  • Internal
  • External
  1. Professional Development

Describe and reflect on previous activities and strategies used, as well as plans for the future, to develop and maintain meaningful service.

  1. SR 20-18 – TCPL Dossier Guidelines Revision
    1. It was stated that there were no changes to the TCPL Guidelines.

    2. A senator asked for the language to the clarified in the beginning paragraph regarding ‘No person shall serve more than five (5) academic years as an assistant TCPL’, since there is now that option.

    3. A senator expressed concern about a situation where a TCPL does not make Associate and wishes to reapply. There is a very short window to refresh the packet before submitting it in the fall. It was agreed that this was a valid issue, but not for the purposes of the discussion at hand.

    4. The resolution was passed by voice vote: 47 aye and 3 abstentions.

SR 20-18

April 20, 2020

Dossier and Evaluation Guidelines for Teaching Professors, Clinical Professors, Lecturers, and Clinical Faculty 2020-2021

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that University Senate approve the 2020-2021 Dossier and Evaluation Guidelines for Teaching Professors, Clinical Professors, Lecturers, and Clinical Lecturers as written without revisions.


  1. Senate Executive Committee Report - Dana Cox - Chair, Senate Executive Committee
    1. The following are the full remarks by Senator Cox:

Executive Committee met for an extended session last week. In addition to working on the weekly task of setting the agenda and confirming speakers, we discussed some important issues.

First, we all acknowledged the importance of Senate and its role in shared governance at Miami University. There are two implications of this.

The first implication is our sense that more discussion is needed, not less. We were all concerned about a sentiment that arose during our discussion of the Amorous Relationship policy. Specifically, that Senate cannot or should not discuss complex issues in an online format and the subsequent decision to table one discussion until we are able to meet in person.

Upon reflection, we realized that this did not reflect the sense of Senate’s inability to hold complex discussions where dissent was possible or constructive feedback was given, but in our collective comfort with the online platform. In order to continue to create an online space where Senators can conduct their work, EC members are committed to setting and supporting norms of behavior and procedure that enable us to, as closely as possible, approximate our face to face meetings. Our work to establish rules regarding the chat feature and more effectively and democratically call on raised hands were efforts this week along those lines. Thank you for your patience and cooperation as we figure this out as we go.

The second implication is coupled with the fact that reality is changing fast and isn’t likely to “take summer vacation”. It will be important to keep a two-way communication going throughout the summer months. We need to be more than megaphones, increasing the volume and reach of important communications. We need to be present and available to advise on those complex issues that will not wait until Fall.

The 20-21 senate will soon meet to elect new members to the Executive Committee. This brief event is just that—brief. That senate will not be seated until It kicks off the next academic year at the Senate Retreat at the Wilks Conference Center on August 14. It is likely that more issues will arise before then.

Our bylaws enable this senate to continue meeting throughout the Summer. We would like to begin by holding another session of Senate on May 4. That will enable us to bring back SR 20-14 (Executive committee membership and function) for any further discussion and vote of support on April 27. Elections for Executive Committee would then take place on May 4.

This week, Becky will be sending out a survey that indicates your availability to meet throughout the summer. Executive Committee will continue to meet, as will our subcommittees as needed. Executive Committee is seeking to lead by example and will be contacting the chairs of these committees with messages of support.

Second, we discussed a missed opportunity that Executive Committee had to educate and inform the community about Senate’s subcommittees. Over the last five weeks, we missed an opportunity to hear reports from a variety of committees that were on the front lines of handling the crisis. Our Internationalization Committee, Fiscal Priorities and Budget Planning, Faculty Welfare, and others are meeting to advise the administration on important COVID-19 policies and decisions. By not hearing from our Senate Liaisons, we feel that we may have led others to believe that faculty, staff, and students are voiceless in a time of crisis.

By continuing to meet over the summer, we have the opportunity to invite our senate liaisons in to talk with us about their work and give it life outside of documented minutes and official reports. We plan to do that more often and would welcome additional requests for information directly from Senators and their constituents.

Information is important and the Executive Committee is committed to providing you with what you need.

Third, we have prepared a new draft of SR 20-14. That will be available for discussion next week as our time has expired.

Senator Cox indicated that more discussion may be needed into the summer months. Senate can meeting in accordance with the ByLaws. Becky Sander will be sending a survey to determine senators’ availability during the summer.


  1. The Regular meeting of University Senate was adjourned at 5:02m.