This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.
Promotion to full professor
7.17. POST-TENURE REVIEW
The purposes of the review of tenured faculty are:
to recognize outstanding achievement;
to provide opportunities for mentoring and professional development;
to help identify and remedy, from a developmental point of view, any deficiencies in teaching, service, and research/scholarly productivity.
The process of post-tenure review is the periodic assessment of each faculty member’s activities and performance, in accordance with the mission of the department, college, and institution, and the responsibilities of the faculty as described in FPP 8.02.
The review is to be appropriately linked to the merit process, and should not involve the creation of unnecessary additional bureaucracy. Review of tenured faculty builds on and complements other aspects of the tenure process in order to develop faculty capacity and strengthen and promote the public benefits of tenure. Post-tenure review is not a reevaluation of tenure and is not undertaken for the purposes of discipline or dismissal. Faculty shall be subject to discipline or dismissal only for just cause (see FPP 9. ). Departments, schools, and colleges may not use post-tenure reviews as the basis for budgetary decisions or for decisions regarding program discontinuance, curtailment, modification, or redirection.
1. The basic standard for review shall be whether the faculty member under review discharges conscientiously and with professional competence the duties appropriately associated with the faculty member’s position.
2. Each department shall develop criteria to measure progress in teaching, service, outreach/extension, and research/scholarly productivity as appropriate to the field and consistent with FPP 8.02. Each department shall develop criteria to measure progress in scholarly productivity as appropriate to the field. The criteria for review shall be periodically reviewed by the executive committee of each department and the school or college APC.
3. The criteria for review should reflect the overall mission of the department, be sufficiently flexible to accommodate faculty with differing responsibilities, and recognize that careers and levels of productivity may change over time. In developing such criteria, departments may draw on statements used in other faculty review procedures, such as merit or promotion review. Special care should be taken to ensure that the scholarly productivity of jointly appointed and interdisciplinary faculty is appropriately evaluated.
4. The executive committee of each department shall ensure that the criteria governing faculty review do not infringe on the accepted standards of academic freedom of faculty, including the freedom to pursue novel, unpopular, or unfashionable lines of inquiry or innovative methods of teaching, and recognize that scholarly projects take varying amounts of time to come to fruition. Nothing in the criteria or application of these policies shall allow the review to be prejudiced by factors proscribed by applicable state or federal law, such as race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, and handicap.
5. For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
A review resulting in an indication of “exceptionally good” performance shall constitute a rating of “exceeds expectations” for the purposes of Regent Policy Document (RPD) 20-9 sec. 9.b.
review indicating “substantial deficiencies” in performance shall constitute a rating of “does not meet expectations” for the purposes of RPD 20-9 sec. 9.b.l
All other review results under this chapter shall constitute a rating of “meets expectations” for the purposes of RPD 20-9 sec. 9.a. Discharging conscientiously and with professional competence the duties appropriately associated with the faculty member’s position shall serve as the standard for “expected level of accomplishment” as described in the RPD.
For schools and colleges that are not officially divided into departments, all references to “department” or “chair” in this policy shall be understood to refer to the equivalent unit and its corresponding chair or equivalent.
An initial review indicating substantial deficiencies shall not constitute a disciplinary action under FPP 9.
Reviews shall occur at least once every five years. These reviews may incorporate the annual merit review process and may encompass promotion, retention, salary, or other reviews, including but not limited to nominations for named chairs and professorships, major teaching awards, and national professional honors or awards. In the case of combined reviews, the department may require supplementary documentation from the faculty member, which meets the criteria below, that would not otherwise be required for the other review. The review may be deferred, by approval of the provost, for unusual circumstances such as when it may coincide with an approved leave, significant life event, promotion review, or other appointment, and the provost may then determine a new review schedule. Each review, as determined by each department’s executive committee, shall be carried out by two or more tenured faculty members, who may be drawn from outside the department. Upon notification of the reviewers selected by the committee, if the faculty member under review formally objects to a reviewer, the chair, in consultation with the relevant dean, shall identify other appropriate reviewers. Such formal objections should be kept confidential. In the case of a faculty member with appointments in more than one department, the department chairs of the affected departments shall agree in writing on procedures for the conduct of the review.
Review procedures shall include:
A review of qualitative and quantitative evidence of the faculty member’s performance over at least the previous five-year period. The evidence should include a current curriculum vitae, annual activity reports, teaching, and student evaluations or summaries of evaluations, and other materials providing evidence of the faculty member’s accomplishments and contributions that the department or the faculty member feel are relevant to the review. The faculty member should provide the reviewers with a brief summary of career plans for the future. Letters from outside the university would not ordinarily be a part of the review process. The faculty member under review, however, may submit appropriate letters if she or he so chooses. The reviewers shall examine materials to the degree needed to accomplish the purposes of this review.
Discussion with the faculty member about his or her contributions to the profession, the department, and the university if either the reviewers or the faculty member so desire.
Appropriate consideration of a faculty member’s contributions outside the department to interdisciplinary and other programs, governance, and administration.
Other steps the reviewers consider useful in making a fair and informed judgment, including but not limited to consultation with individuals who have knowledge of the faculty member’s work.
The reviewers shall provide the faculty member with a written summary of the review. The faculty member shall have the right to prepare a written response to the summary within 30 days after receipt.
A copy of the summary and any written response to it shall be given to the department chair and shall be placed in the personnel file of the faculty member. A copy shall also be provided to the appropriate dean for sufficiency review. The department shall also preserve in the faculty member’s personnel file all documents that played a substantive role in the review (other than documents such as publications that are readily accessible elsewhere), and a record of any action taken as a result of the review. The summary and outcome of the review shall remain confidential, that is, confined to the appropriate departmental, college, or university persons or bodies and the faculty member being evaluated, released otherwise only at the discretion, or with the explicit consent of, the faculty member, or as otherwise required by business necessity or law.
Every effort should be made to offer tangible recognition to those faculty identified as exceptionally good, including but not limited to, nomination for university, national, and international awards and relevant merit and other benefits.
Following the initial departmental review and faculty member’s response, if any, the dean shall conduct a sufficiency review. In the event that the dean considers that the review was insufficient, he/she shall provide the reasons to the executive committee in writing why the review was insufficient within 14 days of receiving the departmental report. The executive committee may provide a response addressing the dean’s concerns about the sufficiency of the review within 14 days. The dean will then make a recommendation to the provost on whether or not the faculty member “meets expectations.”
If neither the departmental review nor the dean’s review indicate substantial deficiencies, the post-tenure review process is concluded.
If both the departmental review and the dean’s review indicate substantial deficiencies, the remediation process described in 7.b. shall commence immediately.
In the event the dean’s review indicates substantial deficiencies not identified in the departmental review, the dean must provide written reasons within 14 days to the faculty member for the recommendation and the faculty member may provide a written response to the dean within 14 days. This statement can include new documentation on the faculty member’s accomplishments. Within 5 days of the end of the faculty member’s written response deadline, the dean will forward their review and the departmental review, along with any written response statements from the faculty member, to the provost.
In the event the departmental review indicates substantial deficiencies but the dean dissents, the dean will forward their recommendation, along with the departmental review and any written response statement from the faculty member, to the provost.
If the post-tenure review is not concluded at the dean’s level per 6.a. or 6.b. above, upon receipt of the dean’s recommendation, the provost will perform their own review, including consultation with the divisional committee review council (DCRC), which also will be provided with the executive committee recommendation, the dean’s recommendation, and any faculty responses. The provost shall request advice from the DCRC within 5 days of receiving the dean’s recommendation and the council will provide their advice within 30 days of receiving the request from the provost.
Review by the provost, or review by the dean which is not submitted for the provost’s review, shall be the final review.
If after the reviews the substantial deficiencies are confirmed by the provost, support from institutional resources for professional development shall be proffered. The department chair and the faculty member shall develop a written plan for mentoring and professional development to address all issues identified in the review, in consultation, with the appropriate dean(s), who shall resolve any disagreements as to the creation of the remediation plan. This plan shall be the product of mutual negotiation and discussion between the faculty member and the chair and/or dean(s), shall respect academic freedom and professional self-direction, and shall be flexible enough to allow for subsequent alteration. Such a plan could include review and adjustment of the faculty member’s responsibilities, development of a new research program or teaching strategy, referral to campus resources, assignment of a mentoring committee, institution of mandatory annual reviews for a specified period, written performance expectations, and/or other elements. The faculty member shall have the right to provide a written response regarding the manner in which any written development plan is formulated, the plan’s content, and any resulting evaluation. This plan shall be completed no later than 30 days after the provost has informed the faculty member of the decision. The faculty member shall have three academic semesters to fully satisfy all of the elements of the remediation plan. If the remediation plan includes performance deficiencies in research, an extension of one academic semester may be granted by the chancellor.
The process for determination of the successful completion of the remediation is as follows.
The faculty member will submit documentation of their activities that address issues identified in the remediation plan to the faculty member’s executive committee. This documentation will include any information that the faculty member deems relevant and can be provided at any time during the remediation period, but must be provided no later than 4 weeks before the end of the remediation plan period.
Within 30 days of receipt, the executive committee will review the materials submitted, and will make a determination as to whether all the elements of the remediation plan have been satisfied. The executive committee will then submit the faculty member’s documentation along with their determination to the dean.
The dean shall review the faculty member’s performance and determine, in consultation with the faculty member, their department chair, and the chancellor, whether the remediation plan and criteria have been satisfied or whether further action to address the substantial deficiencies must be taken.
If the dean determines that the faculty member has not satisfied all the elements of the remediation plan, then within 14 days the decision and written reasons for this decision shall be provided to the faculty member and to the provost. Within 14 days of receiving the notification from the dean, the faculty member can submit to the provost an additional written statement addressing the decisions made by the executive committee and the dean.
Consistent with the provisions of RPD 20-9 sec. 12.c.ii., in the event that the review conducted per 9.c. reveals continuing and persistent problems with a faculty member’s performance that do not lend themselves to improvement by the end of the remediation period, and that call into question the faculty member’s ability to function in that position, then other possibilities, such as a mutually agreeable reassignment to other duties or separation, should be explored. If these are not practicable, or no other solution acceptable to the parties can be found, then the University Committee must appoint an ad hoc committee of faculty to review proposed sanctions consistent with FPP.
The standard for discipline or dismissal remains that of just cause as outlined in FPP 9.02. and 9.03.The fact of successive negative reviews does not diminish the obligation of the institution to show such cause in a separate forum, following the procedures outlined in FPP 9 Records from post-tenure review may be relied upon and are admissible, but rebuttable as to accuracy. The administration bears the ultimate burden of proof on the issue of just cause for discipline and dismissal.
The faculty member retains all protections guaranteed in FPP, including, but not limited to, the rights to appeal and the right to appeal disciplinary action to the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities as described in FPP 9.07.
1. Copies of the departmental criteria and procedures for reviews of tenured faculty (including procedures to be used for individual tenured faculty with shared appointments in several departments) shall be filed with the appropriate chairs, deans, the provost, and the secretary of the faculty.
2. At the end of each academic year, the chair shall identify faculty to be reviewed by the end of the following academic year and the executive committee shall establish a calendar for reviews and provide notice to the identified faculty consistent with RPD 20-9 sec. 5. Department chairs shall coordinate with their deans to schedule all initial departmental reviews to be conducted during the fall semester, ensuring that all reviews and responses are completed and reported to the dean no later than March 1.
3. Departments shall maintain a record of reviews completed, including the names of all reviewers.
4. At the end of each academic year, department chairs shall send a report to the appropriate dean(s) listing the names of faculty members reviewed during that academic year and summarizing the outcomes of those reviews
5. If a department fails to conduct requisite reviews by the end of the academic year, the dean shall appoint reviewers to conduct reviews based on the department’s specified criteria.
6. The periodic review of each department, in which the department’s mission, personnel, and development are now evaluated, shall include review of the process for review of tenured faculty in the department.
7. Pursuant to RPD 20-9 sec. 16, reviews and remediation plans are not subject to grievance processes. Faculty retain all protections and rights to grievances and appeals provided elsewhere in these chapters, including but not limited to FPP chapters 8 and 9 , unrelated to post-tenure review.
A. For the purposes of this chapter, “program” shall mean a related cluster of credit-bearing courses that constitute a coherent body of study within a discipline or set of related disciplines. When feasible, the term shall designate a department, a department-like body or similar administrative unit and has been officially recognized by the University Academic Planning Council (UAPC). Academic programs cannot be defined ad hoc, at any size, but should be recognized academic units.
B. For the purposes of this chapter, “program discontinuance” as described in Wis. Stat. 36.21-22 shall mean formal program elimination or closure.
C. For the purposes of this chapter, “curtailment” as described in Wis. Stat. 36.21-22 shall mean a reduction in the size of a program.
D. For the purposes of this chapter, “modification or redirection” as described in Wis. Stat. 36.21-22 shall mean “departmental restructuring” as described in FPP 5.02.
E. For the purposes of this chapter, “financial emergency” refers to a severe financial crisis that fundamentally compromises the academic integrity of the institution as a whole and that cannot be alleviated by less drastic means.
F. For the purposes of this chapter, “educational considerations” shall not include cyclical or temporary variations in enrollment. Educational considerations must reflect long-range judgments that the educational mission of the institution as a whole will be enhanced by a program’s discontinuance.
G. For the purposes of this chapter, “layoff” is the indefinite suspension or involuntary reduction in services and compensation of a faculty member’s employment by the University of Wisconsin System (Wis. Stat. 36.22(1)(a)). A laid off faculty member retains the rights specified in in UWS 5.16 through 5.21 (inclusive) and Wis. Stat. 36.22(11)-36.22 (15).
H. For the purposes of this chapter, “termination” is the permanent elimination of a faculty member’s employment by the University of Wisconsin System (Wis. Stat. 36.22(1)(c)). A faculty member whose position has been terminated retains the rights specified in UWS 5.18-5.19 and Wis. Stat. 36.22(13)-(14).
10.02. LAYOFF AND TERMINATION FOR REASONS OF FINANCIAL EMERGENCY OR EDUCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.
A. A. No faculty member shall be laid off or terminated due to curtailment, modification, and/or redirection of a department. Faculty displaced due to restructuring of a program or discontinuance of a program for reasons other than financial emergency or educational considerations will be placed in another suitable position, at the same rank, that is acceptable to the faculty member, in accordance with Wis. Stat. 36.22(12). If placement in another position would be facilitated by a reasonable period of training, such retraining and relocation will be provided and the institution will bear the cost.
B. The chancellor may lay off or terminate a tenured faculty member, or lay off or terminate a probationary faculty member prior to the end of his/her appointment, under extraordinary circumstances that lead to program discontinuance because of a demonstrably bona fide financial exigency or for educational considerations. Such layoffs or terminations will be made in accordance with the provisions of UWS Chapter 5, Wis. Stat. 36.22, and this chapter and imply the retention of rights indicated therein. A nonrenewal under FPP 7.06., regardless of reasons, is not a layoff or termination under this section.
10.03. FINANCIAL EMERGENCY: CONSULTATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
A. The chancellor shall consult with the Faculty Consultative Committee on Financial Emergency (FPP 6.36.) if at any time a declaration of financial emergency is to be considered. It is the right and responsibility of the Faculty Consultative Committee on Financial Emergency to represent the faculty if a declaration of a state of financial emergency for the campus is being considered and to assure that the procedures of UWS 5.05 and 5.06 are followed.
B. Consultation shall proceed in accordance with UWS 5.05 and shall include consultation with the Academic Staff Executive Committee and the University Staff Executive Committee, as well as those other individuals and groups who may be able to provide valuable advice (see UWS 5.05(1)(e)).
C. The chancellor and the Faculty Consultative Committee on Financial Emergency shall consider all feasible alternatives to termination of appointments such as the voluntary reduction of fulltime faculty members to part-time status, in accordance with FPP 7.19.C., expenditure of onetime money or reserves as bridge funding, furloughs, pay cuts, deferred compensation plans, early- retirement packages, deferral of nonessential capital expenditures, and cuts to noneducational programs and services, including expenses for administration.
D. If the chancellor decides to recommend the declaration of a state of financial emergency for the campus, that recommendation to the system president and the board shall be accompanied by a report which shall be in conformity with UWS 5.06(1).
E. Before any proposal to declare a financial emergency is made, the faculty or an appropriate elected faculty body will have opportunity to render an assessment in writing of the institution’s financial condition. The faculty or an appropriate elected faculty body will have access to at least five years of audited financial statements, current and following-year budgets, and detailed cash-flow estimates for future years as well as detailed program, department, and administrative-unit budgets.
F. The chancellor and the chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee on Financial Emergency or their designees, and representatives of affected colleges, schools, departments, and programs may appear before the board at the time the recommendation is considered. Other interested parties may submit alternative recommendations or challenges to any part of the report in writing.
10.04. FINANCIAL EMERGENCY: INDIVIDUAL DESIGNATIONS.
Once the board has accepted the chancellor’s declaration of a state of financial emergency, it shall be the primary responsibility of the executive committees of the affected department(s) to recommend which individuals shall have their appointments reduced or terminated. Such recommendations shall be made in accordance with the provisions of UWS 5.07 and this chapter.
10.05. EDUCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.
A. The decision to discontinue formally a program or department of instruction will be based upon educational considerations, as determined primarily by the faculty as a whole or an appropriate committee thereof, as defined in FPP 5.02.
B. Faculty members in a program being considered for discontinuance for educational considerations will promptly be informed of this activity in writing and provided at least thirty days in which to respond to it. Tenured and probationary faculty and academic staff will be invited to participate in these deliberations.
C. Before the chancellor issues notice to a faculty member of an intention to terminate an appointment because of discontinuance of a program or department of instruction, the institution will make every effort to place the faculty member concerned in another suitable faculty position that is acceptable to the faculty member. If placement in another position would be facilitated by a reasonable period of training, such retraining and relocation will be provided and the institution will bear the cost. If no position is available within the institution, with or without retraining, the faculty member’s appointment then may be terminated, but only with provision for severance as indicated in 10.11.
D. Faculty members may contest a proposed relocation under the hearing procedures described in section 10.08 below.
E. Faculty members recommended for termination due to discontinuance of a program for educational considerations shall have the same rights of notification, hearing, and review described in 10.07.-10.10. below.
A. For purposes of this chapter, seniority within a department or program shall be according to rank and within rank according to length of service at that rank. Length of service shall be calculated at the full-time rate for those faculty members whose status was reduced to part-time by mutual agreement because of an anticipated declaration of financial emergency.
B. Length of service shall be computed from the effective date of the appointment at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, except that in the case of an initial appointment with tenure the dean may, on the recommendation of the departmental executive committee, grant additional seniority by counting all or a portion of service elsewhere that is equivalent to service in the university at the rank granted. No initial appointment during a financial emergency shall include seniority for service elsewhere than at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The letter of appointment shall indicate the nature of the seniority granted if it is other than from the effective date of the appointment.
C. If two or more appointments at the same rank in the same department or program become effective at the same time, relative seniority among the individuals involved shall be determined by a random process prior to the effective date of the appointment. If two or more individuals currently have identical seniority, and one of them had voluntarily accepted a reduction in appointment in accordance with 10.03.C., then that individual shall have the greater seniority; otherwise a process of random selection will be employed to give each a unique seniority position. The process to be used shall be determined by the faculty senate.
D. The period of an approved leave of absence is included in determining length of service.
E. If a faculty member is reappointed as an instructor or assistant professor without a break in service, length of service shall be computed from the date of initial appointment at that rank.
F. If a faculty member is reappointed after having left the university, the appointment shall be treated as an initial appointment and previous service in the university considered on the same basis as service elsewhere as provided in 10.06.B.
G. Every effort, consistent with federal and state laws regarding fair employment practices, shall be made to ensure that the university’s affirmative action programs are not impaired by the operation of this seniority system.
Each faculty member whose position is recommended for layoff or termination shall be notified in accordance with UWS 5.09 and 5.10 and Wis. Stats. 36.22(4) and 36.22(5).
A. A faculty member whose position is recommended for layoff or termination is entitled to a full, on-the-record adjudicative hearing as provided in UWS 5.12 and Wis. Stat. 36.22(8)(b). The issues in the hearing may include the following:
1. The existence and extent of the condition of financial emergency. The burden will rest on the administration to prove the existence and extent of the condition. The findings of a faculty committee in a previous proceeding involving the same issue may be introduced.
2. The validity of the educational judgments and the criteria for identification for termination, but the recommendations of a faculty body on these matters will be considered presumptively valid.
3. Whether the criteria are being properly applied in the individual case.
B. The Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities shall operate as the hearing agent for the board pursuant to Wis. Stat. 36.22(6), and conduct the hearing, make a verbatim record of the hearing, prepare a summary of the evidence, and transmit such record and summary along with its recommended findings of fact and decision to the board.
10.09. RECOMMENDATIONS AND BOARD REVIEW
A. The recommendations of the chancellor and the recommendations, if any, of the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities shall be forwarded to the president and the board and acted upon by the board in accordance with UWS 5.14 and Wis. Stat. 36.22(9).
B. Review by the board is governed by UWS 5.14 and 5.15 and Wis. Stat. 36.22(9) and 36.22(10).
10.10. LAYOFF STATUS AND RETAINED RIGHTS
A. A faculty member whose position has been eliminated or reduced in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall be placed on layoff status and shall so remain until removed according to UWS 5.16 and Wis. Stat. 36.22(11).
B. A faculty member designated for layoff or on layoff status shall have the rights provided in UWS 5.17, 5.18, and 5.19 and Wis. Stat. 36.22(12), 36.22(13), and 36.22(14), and, in addition, shall have the following rights: faculty on layoff status will be entitled to use university-wide facilities. Use of the facilities of a school, college, department, or program will be determined by the faculty thereof.
C. Faculty members on voluntary or compulsory reduction of appointment under this chapter retain full membership in the faculty regardless of the percent of appointment and continue to be governed by these Faculty Policies and Procedures; in addition, the annual notice required in UWS 5.16(2)(b)4 and in Wis. Stat. 36.22(11)(a)(5) shall be deemed to be given automatically by virtue of the continued part-time appointment. In the event that a faculty member on voluntary or compulsory reduction of appointment shall accept an appointment at a greater fraction of full time as specified in UWS 5.16(2)(b)1, then any subsequent claim to increased appointment shall be forfeited.
In the case of faculty termination, the institution will provide severance pay equitably adjusted to the faculty member’s length of service, an amount which may well exceed but not be less than:
i. six months salary if the final decision (including completion of the appeals process) is reached prior to the 18th month of probationary service, or
ii. one year salary if the decision is reached after the 18th month of probationary service or if the faculty member has tenure.
In determining the amount of severance pay to be awarded, the faculty member’s length and quality of service and considerations of equity will be taken into account.
Faculty Rights, Responsibilities, and Obligations
7.19. OBLIGATION TO FACULTY MEMBERS FOLLOWING APPOINTMENT: CONTINUING COMMITMENT.
A continuing commitment, shared between the department or equivalent unit and the university, is incurred upon the appointment of a probationary or tenured faculty member. For tenured members of the faculty, that continuing commitment extends for as long as the faculty member holds tenure. For probationary faculty members, the term of the continuing commitment coincides with the term of appointment.
A. In the case of an appointment that is less than full-time, the continuing commitment is for the same fraction as the appointment.
B. In the case of an appointment that is divided among several departments or units, the fraction of the continuing commitment assignable to each shall be specified. The department identified in 7.02. of these rules as the principal sponsor of the appointment shall be the administrative home regardless of appointment percentage. The administrative home and the total continuing commitment or its division among departments or units may be changed only by agreement among the individual, the departmental executive committees, and the deans involved.
C. By agreement of the faculty members, the departments, and the dean, the level of departmental activity of the individual may differ from the continuing commitment in any given year. Such an occasional deviation does not in itself alter the continuing commitment. Similarly, a minor change in the division of a joint appointment to accommodate differentials in salary or other support would also not in itself alter the continuing commitment. Neither of these situations would require the procedures or approvals of section 5.14. of these rules.
D. In the event of the dissolution of a department holding a continuing commitment to a faculty member, an effort shall be made to identify an alternative department which is mutually suitable and which will assume the continuing commitment of the former department. If no such department can be found, the continuing commitment will be assumed by the university.
Leaves of absence
7.20. LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
For the purposes of these rules, a leave of absence is a temporary separation of a faculty member from the university during which the faculty member is not paid from funds administered by the university except for such fringe benefit programs as may be permitted by state regulations, or in the case of a faculty member appointed under 1.02.B. of these rules, a temporary separation of the faculty member from his/her assignment in Madison.Probationary faculty who wish to be temporarily separated from the university will normally request a “temporary assignment” to an alternative activity. Temporary assignments are similar to leaves of absence except they do not interrupt the probationary period. A leave of absence will be approved for a probationary faculty member only for an activity that substantially interrupts the ability of the candidate to establish, within the normal probationary period, a record that would warrant the granting of tenure.Leaves of absence and temporary assignments require the affirmative recommendation of the departmental executive committee and the approval of the dean. Because a leave of absence extends the time before action must be taken on a probationary appointment (see 7.04.E.), a leave of absence for a probationary faculty member requires the approval of the vice chancellor for academic affairs and provost in consultation with the University Committee.Ordinarily, a leave of absence is granted for a maximum of one year, or a maximum of three semesters in three years even if no single absence exceeds one year, but under appropriate circumstances upon recommendation of the executive committee and the dean, and with the approval of the University Committee and the vice chancellor for academic affairs and provost, it may be renewed. A leave of absence of more than five years requires approval by the UW System president.
7.22 Sick Leave
7.24. Military Leave
7.25. Leave of absence for governmental service
events for tenured fac
shared governance service
FAQ/glossary for university terms