* New Deadline, 1/6/09 *
1. Along with an explanation of the
Special Merit process, the call for special merit applications would be
distributed. It should be
emphasized that successful applicants will register in their materials
meritorious work in all three areas (teaching, research, and
service). Only TT/TN faculty may
apply by a stipulated deadline, and application materials shall consist of a
current CV (no longer than 5 pages), letter of application (no longer than 8
pages), and a copy of the applicant’s most recent evaluation letter from chair
and/or dean from Western or a previous institution.
2. Colleges may constitute their Special Merit Review committees as they
deem appropriate, but a suggested approach is to wait until the application
deadline passes and colleges know the identity of applicants. In this way all
faculty who want to apply for merit may apply, and colleges may constitute
their committees by appointing non-applicant faculty. Smaller units might elect
to approach this stage of the review process very differently, using a
committee or other procedure.
3. Colleges, by a campus-wide deadline, would then rank top nominees equal in number to 50% of their per capita allotment of awards (see spreadsheet). The use of “per capita allotment” is not intended to convey that each college would actually receive this exact number of awards by the end of the process, but rather that a certain relative distribution in the pool might be established by per capita considerations. For example, if CHSS’s allotment of awards were 18, CHSS would identify and forward to the university committee the names of 9 potential award recipients. As a minimum, all colleges may forward two applications to the university committee. A maximum number of applications representing 50% of allocation may be forwarded, unless that number is less than two, in which case the minimum of two would be sent.
4. Each college committee would identify from its membership a faculty
member to serve on the university committee. By constituting the
university committee in this manner, college context with respect to this
process could be provided to the university committee. It is not intended that university
committee members necessarily serve as advocates for nominees from their
college.
5. The university committee would make 20% of the awards (10 in total, using the attached spreadsheet), identifying the most meritorious faculty members without regard for college affiliation or per capita allotments. No fewer than three of the awards at this level should be made to candidates with a primary focus on teaching, no fewer than three should be made to candidates with a primary focus on research, and one should be made to a candidate with a primary focus on service. It is, however, understood that even these “primary focus” awards would be made to candidates with meritorious records in all three areas.
6. The university committee would then disband and college committees
would be re-constituted in order that judgments on the remaining 80% of the
awards might be made. Again using CHSS as an example, the CHSS committee would
make 14 awards (80% of the total 18-award allocation). College committees should be charged
with making these awards based on the understood values and mission of the
College concerned.