ACD 111–01: Faculty Voting Rights

To implement the principle of shared faculty/administration governance at Arizona State University

Academic Senate

Office of the President

Faculty

The administrator responsible for the hiring decision will be responsible for constituting a search committee. At least half of the members of the search committee shall be elected by the members of the academic unit; remaining members of the search committee may be appointed by the hiring officer. Alternatively, the search committee may be constituted by other democratic processes defined by the unit’s or the college’s bylaws. Search committees must include trained unit or college affirmative action faculty representatives.

Every search committee formed to evaluate applicants for an administrative appointment to the position of dean or vice president shall include an academic senator appointed on the recommendation of the president of the Academic Senate. In the cases of searches for deans, the appointee must be from outside the unit conducting the search.

In searches for unit chairs and/or heads, all tenure-track faculty within the unit will have the opportunity to participate by vote, such as by the vote of an elected personnel committee, or by other democratic processes as specified by the individual unit’s bylaws. The voting results will be available to voting members, and the faculty’s vote will be transmitted to the appointing authority along with evaluative reports providing a full assessment of strengths and weaknesses that have been prepared by faculty representatives.

In decisions to appoint, retain, grant tenure to, or promote faculty, tenure-track faculty within the unit will have the right to participate by vote, such as by the vote of an elected personnel committee, or by other democratic processes as specified by the individual unit’s bylaws. In these kinds of personnel decisions, individuals should not vote on the same action at more than one level.

Also, unit policies and bylaws should be developed to ensure the confidentiality of the vote and to minimize the negative consequences on candidates and the individual ultimately selected. For example, it is better for votes to revolve around the acceptability of individual candidates rather than around comparing and ranking two or more candidates.