What does your Chair Letter mean? Notes from Grievance on the ARPT Process
One of the most important rights guaranteed to us by our contract is the right of Pratt faculty to apply for promotions (changes in rank) and changes in status during their career here at Pratt. Such advancement often comes with increased benefits, job protections, and compensation. All faculty members can apply for promotions through our ranks: instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. For part-time faculty, status change involves a move from visiting status to adjunct status and finally to adjunct with CCE status. For full-time faculty, status change involves acquiring tenure. Our contract requires that our peers develop the criteria by which faculty are evaluated as well as offer recommendations as to whether faculty meet those criteria
Given the complexity of the process and the unfortunate lack of resources for part-time faculty, the union has previously produced a guide and overview to the ARPT (Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure) process. A typical year can often see anywhere from 80-100 applications. The process begins with the submission of applications in September. Peer Review committees generally review the applications over the Fall semester and issue recommendations to department chairpersons.
For those who applied in this cycle, over the next few weeks, you should receive a copy of your chairperson’s evaluation and recommendations. The chairperson must share your peer committee’s evaluation and recommendation if the committee has not already done so. In the next few months, this will be followed by evaluations/recommendations from the Deans and the Provost. While a chairperson does not have the authority to grant or deny faculty actions, such authority is invested in the Board of Trustees exclusively. Deans tend to follow the recommendations of chairs, so chair letters are important.
Most faculty actions at Pratt tend to be supported by the administration. In cases that are not supported, there is generally consensus between a Peer Review Committee and chair that an applicant has not met the criteria required. The union’s general policy is to defer to the expertise of faculty. Occasionally, a chair fails to recommend a candidate recommended by peers. In these cases, it is essential to carefully examine whether such a chair has manufactured standards not generated by faculty. This could be a violation of the contract. If a chair disagrees with a PRC regarding whether a faculty member has met published guidelines, especially if the PRC supported that faculty member, it is expected they explain why faculty evaluations or recommendations are deficient. Such explanations are subject to the grievance process.
While Chair letters of evaluation and recommendations are key to the ARPT process, it is important to remember that they are only part of the process and not determinative of the outcome. If you have any questions about a letter you received or the ARPT process in general, please contact the grievance committee of the union.
In Solidarity,
UFCT 1460 Grievance Committee