TEXT
OF PRESIDENT McCORMICK'S April 13, 2006 RESPONSE TO SENATE REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CLINICAL FACULTY TRACKS:
Thank you for sending me the Report and Recommendations
on Clinical Faculty Tracks as approved by the University Senate on
April 22,
2005. My thanks to the Senate’s Faculty
Affairs and Personnel Committee for its comprehensive and thoughtful
report.
I am
pleased to accept the Senate’s recommendation that the clinical title
series be
extended to the Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology,
the Rutgers Business
School in New
Brunswick and Newark, the School of Business-Camden,
and the Mason
Gross School
of the Arts. The use of the clinical
track in pharmacy, nursing, and Law has proven invaluable in helping
those
units broaden their instructional offerings and meet changing
accreditation
requirements; the extension of the clinical title to four additional
units is
expected to produce similar enhancements to their educational offerings. The Senate’s recommendation that the PII
designation not be excluded from the clinical track seems a reasonable
one.
With
respect to the Senate’s recommendations regarding the imposition of
caps on
clinical track faculty, I strongly affirm the importance of setting
caps on the
percentage of clinical track faculty within a unit, but do not think
that the
Senate’s proposal to establish and rigorously enforce three set tiers
of caps
is the best approach to ensuring appropriate levels of clinical track
faculty. Deans should establish and
enforce caps on clinical faculty appointments within their units, with
the
review and approval of the Executive Vice President for Academic
Affairs or
their Provost. Deans also should have
the flexibility to propose modifications to those caps, subject to the
same
academic review and approval, when changing enrollments, program
modifications,
or new accreditation requirements justify making such changes. The recent transformation of the Pharm. D. degree, which
significantly altered both the nature and magnitude of that program,
provides
strong evidence against establishing and imposing artificial caps on
clinical
faculty appointments. Nor do I see the
need for Deans to provide case by case justification of clinical track
appointments. Clinical track
appointments follow the same guidelines as other faculty appointments
and
promotions. I prefer that the Deans and
faculties of the relevant units determine when the use of the clinical
track is
justified, and rely on the academic oversight of the Executive Vice
President
and Provosts to ensure the appropriate use of clinical track faculty
lines.
Regarding
the Senate’s recommendation that there should be separate budgeting of
clinical
faculty, I view the imposition of such strict budgetary controls as
running
counter to the new all funds budgeting process, the intention of which
is to
afford deans more flexibility in using their available resources to
achieve
academic excellence and respond to changing needs of their units and
disciplines. Further, in practice the
requirement seems likely to prove both cumbersome and inefficient,
likely
hampering the ability of deans and department chairs to respond quickly
to
changes in student demand or program offerings.
If the purpose of this provision is to guard against “…the
potential
erosion of tenure-track faculty lines as less expensive clinical lines
are
included…,” I am persuaded that the establishment of clinical track
caps, as
monitored by the Vice President and Provosts, provides sufficient
academic
oversight to prevent such a shift in faculty resources.
(I note that several deans have taken issue
with the report’s characterization of clinical faculty as less
expensive; in
their experience market forces have driven certain clinical faculty
starting
salaries higher than those of tenure-track faculty.)
In addition, the transparency of the new
funding process ensures that any such shifts would become apparent
through
fiscal accounting mechanisms as well, negating the need for a separate
budgeting process.
We
accept the Senate’s recommendation to inform the units about their
responsibilities and options with respect to clinical faculty members’
voting
rights, and also will reiterate to units that clinical faculty are
afforded the
same protection of academic freedom that are provided to tenure-track
faculty. In addition, we will share with
the relevant units the Senate’s recommendations regarding the length of
clinical faculty appointments. While I
believe the length of appointment appropriate for the particular
position is
best determined by the unit, with the caveat that appointments and
reappointments are by University Regulation ordinarily for a term of
not less
than three years, it is appropriate that the units consider the
Senate’s advice
on this matter. Finally, I agree to report
back to the Senate periodically about the extent and use of clinical
faculty
appointments in both the units where it currently exists and those
where it is
newly proposed.
The
support and guidance of the University Senate is appreciated as we take
steps
to provide the units with the flexibility they need to continue to
offer high
quality educational programs and meet shifting student demands and
curricular
changes.
Sincerely
yours,
Richard
L. McCormick
c: Dr. Philip
Furmanski, Executive Vice President for Academic
Affairs; Dr.
Steven
Diner, Newark Campus
provost; Dr.
Roger Dennis, Camden Campus Provost; Dr. Martha Cotter,
Chair of the University
Senate