Following up on
yesterday's post about who should be eligible to serve as department chair...
Who Should Be Eligible to Participate in the Chair Selection Process, and How?
Unless we're going to come up with some kind of Hunger Games, Celebrity Death Match, haiku contest, or other model for determining the department's recommendation for who should be its next chair, voting is the time-tested way for a group to come to a decision. So who should be eligible to vote for chair? Before we consider the possibilities, let's start with an important caveat.
Eligibility to vote does not imply a responsibility or expectation or obligation to vote. If any eligible voter feels for any reason that they should not exercise their right to the franchise, that is their choice. The key principle here is that nobody should be forced to vote or forced to explain their reasons for not voting. That's as important an aspect of academic freedom as any other.
So now let's consider the possibilities, from most inclusive to most exclusive, and their rationales:
- everyone who teaches in the department and for whom the department chair is their immediate supervisor (including TAs); or
- everyone in the above category except those whose teaching responsibilities in the department constitute less than half their total teaching obligation at Fredonia; and/or
- everyone in the above category except those whose administrative responsibilities constitute more than half of their total professional obligation at Fredonia.
This is the most inclusive set of options and its assumptions are democratic. Everyone affected by the choice of who should lead them should have a say in who becomes their leader. Since the chair is everyone's immediate supervisor, either everyone should vote by secret ballot in a departmental election, or, if the franchise is limited on other grounds, should have the right to submit a signed letter to the Facilitator and/or Dean. The chair should feel obligated to stitch together a majority of supporters in the department that cross whatever constituencies and/or factions exist within it. A chair who can win an inclusive election resoundingly has a stronger mandate than one who wins a more limited election, both as the recommendations move up the administrative chain and in terms of institutional capital within the university.
The only safeguard that's needed in this model to protect the integrity and legitimacy of the election is the secret ballot, whether the election is held during a meeting or online. The assumption of the democratic model is that people will of course vote their interests and that the will of the majority should prevail. Conflict of interest considerations are irrelevant to the question of who should lead the department. Candidates may vote, anyone they're in a financial partnership with who also teaches in the department may vote, any family members who also teach in the department may vote, contingent faculty in the department may vote: everyone with a stake in the outcome of the election should be eligible to vote in it.
So this model has its appeals. But it also has its complications and difficulties. Once elected, the chair does not just represent the department to the rest of the university and to various publics outside the university. In addition to being a Faculty-delegated governance leader, the chair is also the President's designee and immediate supervisor of everyone in the department. Under the current Handbook on Appointment, Reappointment, and Promotion, the chair is responsible for appointing and reappointing contingent faculty members and hence is in a unique position to reward or punish colleagues for their votes. Even if this is changed during the negotiations that are about to begin on Article IV, the department needs to decide on its voting policy now. Even if the department institutes its own no retaliation policy for governance activities in the near future, that policy is not on the table for today's vote. So I can imagine some colleagues taking the position that until systems and structures are in place that place appropriate checks and balances on the chair's authority, they can not vote for the completely inclusive model.
I can also imagine three kinds of responses to this line of reasoning. The first asserts that the secret ballot is the only protection contingent faculty need. The second asserts that since the new chair won't take office until the current chair's term expires, we have plenty of time, at both the department and university level, to institute appropriate checks and balances, so there is no need to limit the franchise for the chair election. The third asserts that the franchise should be limited to tenured faculty, since they are the only ones whose academic freedom, due process rights, and job security are truly protected in academia and at Fredonia right now.
Whether the franchise should be limited to those teaching in the department who are not primarily administrators or not primarily teaching in the department is a separate question. Personally, I don't think the Dean, Provost, and President should be eligible to vote for someone who will be below them in the administrative chain and who would not be their immediate supervisor. Since they are the ones receiving recommendations, I'd also be against them trying to influence those below them on the administrative chain, although I can't imagine how to prevent that happening and I can imagine situations where a lower-level administrator would want to consult with a wide range of appropriate faculty, including those above them on the administrative chain.
For me, then, the key criterion is that the chair is one's immediate supervisor. Since the chair is the immediate supervisor of anyone who teaches in the department, no matter how little, even those who teach only one course in the department should be permitted to vote for chair.
- all academic staff members (faculty in the United University Professions bargaining unit) in the department; or
- everyone in the above category except those whose teaching responsibilities in the department constitute less than half their total teaching obligation at Fredonia; and/or
- everyone in the above category except those who administrative responsibilities constitute more than half of their total professional obligation at Fredonia.
The logic and difficulties for this position mirror the above. The only substantive difference is that it prohibits graduate teaching assistants from voting eligibility, on the grounds that they are represented by a different union than UUP and hence are not eligible to participate in shared governance activities. In response, proponents of the more inclusive position could respond that since the chair is the immediate supervisor of TAs as much as anyone, they should have the opportunity to participate in the election. And opponents of it would bring similar objections to participation by anyone without the protections of tenure.
- all academic staff members who have taught in the department for four consecutive semesters (whether on a tenure-track or contingent appointment); or
- all academic staff members in the department except part-time contingent faculty members on temporary appointments (those who have taught fewer than four consecutive semesters at Fredonia); or
- all academic staff members in the department except contingent faculty members on temporary appointments (those who have taught fewer than four consecutive semesters at Fredonia); or
- everyone in the above category except those whose teaching responsibilities in the department constitute less than half their total teaching obligation at Fredonia; and/or
- everyone in the above category except those who administrative responsibilities constitute more than half of their total professional obligation at Fredonia.
The logic for this position mirrors the one above it, with the addition of a "residency requirement." The analogy here is that those seeking to vote in virtually any elections in the U.S. need to establish residency upon moving outside their previous voting district. Instead of leaving it up to new faculty to choose to abstain or not participate in the election, this option forces them to go through an acclimation period.
Whether that "apprenticeship" should be limited to contingent faculty only or apply equally to tenure-track faculty depends on how much importance is placed on the peer review that comes with a national search and the evaluation procedures for tenure-track faculty in place in HARP, as well as how much faster you believe one can acclimate to a department with a full set of teaching, service, and research responsibilities than one can with a less-than-full teaching obligation. Personally, I find it hard to believe that if residency matters, anyone who's taught in the department only for a few months would be ready to vote in an election for chair, whether they went through a national search or not.
The odd consequence of using the "temporary appointment" designation (a contractual term), is that not all full-time Visiting Assistant Professors are on term appointments. Hence the distinction between only excluding those on part-time contingent temporary appointments and excluding all contingent faculty on temporary appointments in the above list of options.
- all academic staff members in the department whose term of appointment is at least one year; or
- everyone in the above category except those whose teaching responsibilities in the department constitute less than half their total teaching obligation at Fredonia; and/or
- everyone in the above category except those who administrative responsibilities constitute more than half of their total professional obligation at Fredonia; OR
- all academic staff members in the department whose term of appointment is at least two years; or
- everyone in the above category except those whose teaching responsibilities in the department constitute less than half their total teaching obligation at Fredonia; and/or
- everyone in the above category except those who administrative responsibilities constitute more than half of their total professional obligation at Fredonia; OR
- all academic staff members in the department whose term of appointment is at least three years; or
- everyone in the above category except those whose teaching responsibilities in the department constitute less than half their total teaching obligation at Fredonia; and/or
- everyone in the above category except those who administrative responsibilities constitute more than half of their total professional obligation at Fredonia.
This set of options introduces a new wrinkle to the eligibility question: length of appointment term. For some who want to limit the franchise, what matters is the likelihood that someone will be back teaching in the department to live with the consequences of their vote. While theoretically anyone in the department could leave at any time for almost any reason, those with shorter-term contracts are more likely to be on the job market. Should people who happen to be teaching one course in the department on a semester-long contract at the time of a chair election be eligible for the franchise, when it's entirely possible they won't be around for the new chair to become their immediate supervisor?
Now, according to the Agreement between UUP and New York State, contingent faculty who have taught in the department for at least two consecutive years must be given a 12-month prior notice of non-renewal, so those people working in the department in the fall that a chair election would normally take place during would know if they were going to be teaching in the department in the following academic year. If they were not going to be renewed, it's highly unlikely they'd want to do anything beyond what's in their appointment letter, except perhaps to vote against the chair who participated in their non-renewal decision. So I can imagine some colleagues wanting to limit the franchise to contingent faculty with term appointments of at least two years. And others responding that if you're going to do that for those on contingent employment, you should put the same requirement in place for tenure-track faculty.
The practical effect of combining this requirement with any of the others would be to prohibit all contingent faculty from voting in the upcoming chair election, unless the two-year term of appointment would be applied to tenure-track faculty, as well, who then wouldn't be able to vote until their third year (or perhaps later, if they're not offered a two-year contract during their second-year review process). The university may well decide to move to longer-term contracts for most contingent faculty as a result of HARP Article IV negotiations, but with this restriction in place, that wouldn't affect any contingent faculty until the next chair election.
- all tenure-track and tenured faculty in the department; or
- everyone in the above category except those whose teaching responsibilities in the department constitute less than half their total teaching obligation at Fredonia; and/or
- everyone in the above category except those who administrative responsibilities constitute more than half of their total professional obligation at Fredonia.
The logic for this set of options is one of "citizenship." Just as you need to pass certain hurdles to gain U.S. citizenship and vote in elections in the U.S., so, too, do you need to earn the kind of citizenship that can only come on the tenure stream, according to proponents of this position. Whether the key criterion is the peer review that comes from a national search or the full range of professional obligations to the department and university, or both, the distinction here is between citizens and resident aliens. Appointment type is not an arbitrary category in this view, and since the department, the union, the University Senate, and the administration have not put a system in place that approximates the rights and responsibilities of those on the tenure stream for those on contingent appointments, and may never succeed in doing so, making a distinction based on appointment type is justified.
In the future, there may be enough peer review and professional obligation structures in place to extend the franchise to contingent faculty who meet similar citizenship standards as tenure-stream faculty, and it may happen before the next chair takes office. So some might argue that the "citizenship" requirement is not as big an obstacle to contingent voting as its proponents suggest. Others could argue that gaining employment at the university is the only "citizenship" hurdle that matters. Contingent faculty are not responsible for the lack of symmetry with tenure-stream faculty when it comes to peer review and professional obligation and should not be punished for it when it comes to eligibility to help decide who will be their representative and leader.
- only tenured faculty in the department; or
- everyone in the above category except those whose teaching responsibilities in the department constitute less than half their total teaching obligation at Fredonia; and/or
- everyone in the above category except those who administrative responsibilities constitute more than half of their total professional obligation at Fredonia.
The logic for restricting the franchise to those with tenure was laid out in response to the first, minimal-restriction position. It combines citizenship, residency, and academic freedom rationales for limiting the franchise.
So there you have it. Can anyone think of other possibilities? Other rationales? Other responses?