A faculty member aggrieved by an adverse decision concerning rank, salary, or the denial of tenure before the completion of the maximum probationary period shall be entitled upon his or her request to a reconsideration by the review body (department review body, or college RST committee) making the initial adverse decision. The reconsideration shall be scheduled at the earliest practicable time. Such a faculty member shall also be entitled (a) to a postponement of any review action scheduled at a higher level until the reconsideration at the lower level has taken place, and (b) to prompt notice of the results of any reconsideration. If the reconsideration results in the review body reaffirming the adverse decision, the faculty member may then plead only to the next higher body, where both the faculty member and the review body will be heard. He or she shall again be entitled to a prompt notice of the results of that plea and appropriate postponement of the next higher review. A faculty member aggrieved by an adverse decision concerning rank, salary, or denial of tenure before the completion of the maximum probationary period is not entitled to the formal appeals procedure of the Appeals Commission outlined in Section 3 of this article. The Chancellor is the court of last appeal.Section 2 Rights of Non-Renewed Probationary Faculty, Faculty Denied Tenure at the Completion of the Maximum Probationary Period, and Faculty Terminated Because of Fiscal Emergency
If at any level of review, a decision is made not to renew a probationary faculty member's contract, or to deny tenure, or to terminate a faculty member because of fiscal emergency, that faculty member is entitled to:
Notice of a non-renewal decision at either level of review constitutes proper notice of non-renewal as specified in UWS 3.07. If the affected faculty member requests a reconsideration in writing, he or she is further entitled to a ten-day (10) advance notice of the recon-sideration; an opportunity to respond to the written reason(s) for non-renewal or denial of tenure, and to present any written or oral evidence or arguments relevant to the decision; and to receive a written notification of the results of the reconsideration within five (5) days of the decision.
It is to be understood that the purpose of the reconsideration shall be to provide an opportunity for a fair and full re-examination of all the relevant factors and circumstances, so that every reasonable effort shall have been made to assure that the decision was a sound one. Reconsideration is not a hearing or an appeal, and shall be non-adversarial in nature.
If reconsideration results in a department review body reaffirming its adverse decision, the aggrieved faculty member may then initiate the formal appeal procedure set forth in Section 3 of this Article. If a reconsideration results in a college RST committee reaffirming its adverse recommendation, the aggrieved faculty member may then initiate the formal appeals procedure outlined in Section 3 of this article.Section 3 Formal Appeal Procedures
After the reconsideration procedures outlined in Section 2 of this article have been followed through, a faculty member still aggrieved may initiate a formal appeal procedure. The aggrieved faculty member may now submit a written appeal to the Appeals Commission (cf., the Faculty Bylaws Part 11, Article III, Section 6), provided that he or she does so within twenty (20) days of the notice of the last adverse action (25 days if notice is by first class mail or publication). The Appeals Commission hearing shall not be held later than twenty (20) days after the faculty member's request for such a hearing, except that this time limit may be enlarged by mutual consent of the parties, or by order of the Appeals Commission. The faculty member shall be given a ten-day (10) notice of the time of the hearing.
The burden of proof in such an appeal shall be on the faculty member, and the scope of the review shall be limited to the question of whether the decision was based in any significant degree upon one or more of the following factors, with material prejudice to the individual:
If the Appeals Commission finds the department review body decision was affected by impermissible factors as outlined in UWS 3.08, the aggrieved faculty member may then request the appointment of a committee to review the faculty member's record with reference to criteria for tenure as provided in '36(13) Wisconsin Statutes. Such a request will be made to the chair of the Faculty Senate.
The executive committee of the Faculty Senate, or a committee appointed by the Faculty Senate, shall establish a five member committee which shall have at least three faculty members from UW-Platteville. This committee may also have members appointed from outside the institution.
No person may be appointed to this committee unless the person is knowledgeable or experienced in the individual's academic field or in a substantially similar academic field. No member of this committee may be a member of the academic department, or its functional equivalent, that made the negative recommendation. The committee appointed under this subdivision may not base its tenure recommendation upon impermissible factors, as defined by the Board of Regents rule.
The executive committee shall appoint a chair of the committee. The chair must be a member of the UW-Platteville faculty. This committee shall review the aggrieved faculty member's record and make a recommendation to either grant the faculty member tenure or to not grant the faculty member tenure. The committee shall forward its recommendation to the Chancellor.
The Appeals Commission reporting procedures as set forth in the Faculty Bylaws, Part III, Article III, Section 6, c, shall be followed.