|
2006-2007 Faculty
Resource Guide
5. Faculty Policies
and Procedures
Faculty Workload; Faculty Evaluation;
Reappointments; Evaluation Process;
Promotion; Sabbaticals;
Professional Development
Back to Resource Guide
home page |
Back to Academic Affairs home page
Faculty Workload
Faculty workload is governed by the
collective bargaining agreement.
This section of the handbook
provides a review of the major
workload provisions that are most
likely to affect faculty, but this
review should not be taken as the
definitive reference. Faculty
should consult
Article XII of the collective
bargaining agreement concerning any
questions about workload.
The
typical faculty workload is 12 load
credits per semester or 24 load
credits per year. In most, but not
all, cases, a load credit is
equivalent to a course credit, and
this is also often the same as a
contact hour. Significant
exceptions to this general principle
include the crediting of independent
or directed studies, the supervision
of practica and internships, studio
classes and applied lessons, and
laboratories. Load credit for these
exceptions is based upon
equivalencies that are established
in the contract.
For
most faculty, workload provisions
translate into three four-credit
classes each semester. The number
of preparations is likely to vary
from semester to semester, from
department to department, and from
faculty member to faculty member in
a given semester. Faculty
assignments are initially made a
semester in advance (e.g., the Fall
2006 schedule was initially put
together in Spring 2006) although
modifications are subsequently made
based upon changes in faculty
resources and student registration
patterns. Department chairs consult
with faculty in the preparation of
assignments and schedules, but
retain the authority to establish
assignments and schedules with final
review by the Office of Academic
Affairs. Our hope and practice, as
much as possible, is to honor
faculty requests for course
assignments and schedules, balancing
these against the obligation to
produce a realistic array of choices
for students that meets their needs,
interests, and the College degree
requirements.
Once
the semester’s schedule is
established, we will generally not
cancel a class except in instances
of low enrollment. In making such
decisions, we do not use a fixed
rule (e.g., classes must have a
minimum enrollment of x students to
be offered), although we look
closely at courses where enrollments
are less than 10 students. Each
course individually, taking into
account whether the offered course
is a required course which a group
of students must take now to stay on
track toward a degree, whether the
enrollment is likely to grow as a
function of
students-yet-to-be-registered or
through add/drop, whether
alternative courses are available to
students if the course in question
is cancelled, or whether there is
another course that might more
effectively be offered. These
decisions are made in consultation
with the department chair and
usually the affected faculty member
as well, usually at least 30 days
before the beginning of the
semester.
In
addition to regular course
assignments, many faculty will also
assume responsibility for
supervision of internships and
practica and of independent
studies. In some cases these
assignments are built into the
semester’s workload, but more often
these are carried over and above the
regular assignment and faculty
accumulate credit toward a reduction
in a future semester. The workload
credit for each of these activities
is established in the equivalency
table in
Article XII of the contract.
When faculty accumulate sufficient
credits to equal a regular course,
they are entitled to work out a
compensatory reduction in workload
with their department chairs.
Finally, faculty may sometimes be
given non-instructional assignments
to handle an administrative task
(e.g., department chair, program
coordinator) or to pursue a special
activity. This is called an
“alternative assignment” or
“released time.” The released time
for some activities is established
in the collective bargaining
agreement, for example, department
chair; for other activities, the
amount of released time is
determined by the vice president’s
office. In either case, faculty
have a responsibility to document
their activities in connection with
the assignment so that it can be
evaluated as required in the
contract.
Faculty
Evaluation
Full-time, non-terminal faculty are
evaluated annually for
reappointment, and for tenure
generally in the fifth year of a
tenure-track appointment. Faculty
are also evaluated when seeking
promotion, and tenured faculty are
evaluated periodically following
tenure. This section of the handbook
reviews these personnel actions, but
is not meant to be a definitive
reference, substituting for the
collective bargaining agreement. All
faculty should carefully read the
appropriate sections of the contract
and seek clarification of any
aspects of the process that require
further explanation.
While the evaluation process is both
formal and lengthy, it also has the
potential to be a formative learning
experience, especially for new
faculty. It may provide an
opportunity for reflection and
self-analysis as the faculty member
thinks about his or her approach to
teaching, to advising, to
scholarship, and to professional
service.
Reappointments
General Purpose of
Evaluations for Faculty in
Reappointment Actions
Faculty
who are hired on tenure-track
appointments are evaluated annually
until the tenure review. These
evaluations form the basis for the
annual reappointments which faculty
receive until tenured. The
evaluations also provide an informal
indication of whether the faculty
member is making satisfactory
progress toward tenure.
The Contractual Basis
for Evaluations and Reappointments
Article VIII
of the collective bargaining
agreement with the faculty specifies
“Evaluations are conducted for the
purposes of making personnel
decisions, encouraging and assessing
professional and pedagogical
experimentation and assisting
members of the academic community in
the improvement of performance and
programs.”
Criteria and
Materials
Faculty
are evaluated on a standard set of
criteria that encompass the major
performance domains. These criteria
or domains are the same as those
used in tenure and promotion
reviews, although the expectations
are somewhat different for these
personnel actions. The criteria and
the materials that are considered in
reviewing each criterion are
identified below:
A)
(1) Teaching Effectiveness
Materials include student
evaluations (all sections of all
courses each semester); classroom
visitations by the chair and peer
review committee (at least one
section of each type of course each
semester); course documents (course
syllabi, handouts, examples of
student work, etc.); narrative or
self-evaluation; other materials as
the faculty member may submit
(2)
Advising
Materials include those that may be
provided by the faculty member such
as advising materials used with
advisees; evaluations of advising
solicited by the faculty member;
information provided by the chair
including the number of advisees of
the faculty member and performance
as an advisor
B)
(1) Continuing Scholarship,
including:
-
contributions to the content
of the discipline.
-
participation in or
contributions to professional
organizations and societies.
-
research as demonstrated by
published or unpublished work (or,
where applicable, artistic or other
creative activities).
-
work toward the terminal
degree or relevant
postgraduate study.
-
materials include those that
may be provided by the faculty
member documenting activity
and accomplishment in one or
more of these areas.
(2)
Other professional activities,
including public service and
contributions to the professional
growth and development of the
College community. Materials
include those that may be provided
by the faculty member documenting
activity and accomplishment on this
criterion.
(3)
Such responsibilities as may be
assumed in lieu of, in whole or in
part, a faculty member’s teaching
load. Materials include those that
may be provided by the faculty
member documenting work accomplished
for the reduction and report of the
faculty member’s supervisor for this
activity.
Application of the
Criteria
The
collective bargaining agreement
states that in applying the above
criteria, “regard shall be had to
the fact that the State Colleges are
primarily teaching institutions.”
The
criteria are applied with reference
to each year (or years) being
evaluated. In the case of
reappointment actions, the review
period is generally one year,
commencing from the time of the most
recent prior evaluation to the
beginning of the current
evaluation. Reference may be made,
however, to evaluations conducted in
prior years. The standard for
evaluations is “professional quality
demonstrated with reference to each
of the applicable criteria.” In the
case of evaluations for promotion
and tenure, additional
standards/criteria are also
applicable as specified in
Articles IX and
XX of the collective bargaining
agreement.
Time Line
The
time line for the evaluation process
is prescribed by
Appendix M of the collective
bargaining agreement. In the case
of faculty who are being evaluated
in their second year or in their
third/fourth year, faculty submit
materials at the end of September.
During the fall semester,
evaluations are conducted
independently by the Peer Evaluation
Committee (PEC) in each department
and by the department chair. Both
sets of evaluations and all
materials are shared with the
candidate (who may respond in
writing) and then forwarded to the
vice president for evaluation and
recommendation. The vice
president’s recommendation is
submitted to the president who makes
a recommendation to the Board of
Trustees. In the case of faculty
who are being evaluated in their
first year, faculty submit materials
towards the end of the fall semester
(their first semester). Evaluations
are done in November-January by the
PEC and the department chair. For
first-year faculty the process is
completed with recommendations made
to the Trustees for the March
meeting.
Peer Evaluation
Committee (PEC) Evaluation
After
the candidate submits materials, the
first evaluation is conducted by the
PEC. This evaluation step is
designed to broaden the involvement
and responsibility of faculty for
participating in the evaluation
process. At the beginning of each
academic year, each department forms
a PEC. The PEC consists of two
tenured members, elected by the
department, who serve on the PEC for
any departmental member who is a
candidate for any type of personnel
action and a third member,
designated by each candidate and
chosen from the department or a
cognate department. Thus, two
members are common to all PECs in
the department; the third member may
change, based upon candidate
selection. The PEC is first charged
with making classroom visitations
during the semester in which the
evaluation is being conducted (each
member of the PEC must visit at
least one class, though they need
not all visit the same class). Then
the PEC reviews all material and
completes a single evaluation with
reference to the aforementioned
criteria and makes a recommendation
with respect to the personnel action
under consideration. This
evaluation is shared with the
candidate who has the right to
respond in writing within 10
calendar days. The evaluation, the
candidate’s response if any, and all
materials are then forwarded to the
department chair.
Department Chair
Evaluation
Upon
receiving the above materials, the
department chair completes a
separate evaluation. The chair has
the benefit of all materials
submitted and/or completed prior to
this step, including the PEC’s
evaluation. The chair reviews all
material and completes an evaluation
with reference to the aforementioned
criteria and makes a recommendation
with respect to the personnel action
under consideration. This
evaluation is shared with the
candidate who has the right to
respond within 10 calendar days.
The chair’s evaluation, the
candidate’s response if any, and all
other materials (including the PEC
evaluation) are then forwarded to
the vice president.
Vice President’s
Evaluation
Upon
receiving the above materials, the
vice president completes a separate
evaluation. The vice president has
the benefit of all materials
submitted and/or completed prior to
this step, including the PEC’s and
department chair’s evaluations and
the candidate’s response(s) if any.
The vice president’s evaluation is
shared with the candidate who has
the right to respond within seven
calendar days. All materials and
evaluations are then forwarded to
the president who makes a
recommendation to the Board of
Trustees.
General Comments
Our
faculty should, first and foremost,
be effective teachers who are
committed to educating their
students and to maintaining currency
and involvement in their
disciplines. This acknowledges that
the College is primarily a teaching
institution; it also affirms that
effective teachers are professionals
in their disciplines. The best
instructors are generally those who
are actively involved with their
subject matter.
There are many indicators of
effective teaching and, in fact, it
is misleading to make judgments
based upon any single factor.
Certainly, there is no one best
style or approach to teaching.
Student evaluations, of course,
provide important information about
student perceptions of their
learning and their response to
instructional behaviors and style.
These evaluations, particularly
because they sample responses over
multiple courses in multiple
semesters, provide information that
is generally reliable and useful
about instructional presentation.
It is important to remember,
however, that a positive response to
an instructor is not always
associated with learning and that a
negative response is not always
associated with a failure to meet
appropriate learning objectives.
Classroom visits, by the chair and
by faculty peers, add an important
dimension to the evaluation of
teaching effectiveness in being able
to address issues of subject matter
competence and pedagogical methods
that a student is less prepared to
address in evaluating the
instructor. These visits also have
a beneficial side effect in
stimulating discussion among
colleagues about instructional
issues. Course documents, including
syllabi, exams, copies of
assignments, lecture notes, samples
of student work -- which the faculty
member may choose, but is not
required, to submit -- speak to the
organization of the course, types of
learning objectives and how these
relate to instructional approach,
instructor expectations of students,
and subject matter currency.
Finally, the faculty member’s own
self-assessment of all of this
information and of the evolution of
his/her teaching gives valuable
information.
In
addition to being effective
teachers, our faculty must also be
engaged in scholarship. The
collective bargaining agreement
defines continuing scholarship
fairly broadly to encompass more
than just research or the creation
of new knowledge. We expect faculty
to be involved with their
professions, and the continuing
scholarship criterion allows faculty
to demonstrate this in a variety of
ways. There is not an expectation
that faculty must generate a
specific quantity of scholarship in
order to merit a particular
personnel action. Rather,
scholarship activity should be
consistent and sustained and
submitted materials should speak to
the quality, significance and
relevance of the work. Ideally,
teaching and scholarship are
connected and reinforce each other.
Faculty should also be “good
institutional citizens.” The
evaluation criterion of public
service and contributions to the
growth and development of the
College community speaks to this.
There are, of course, many ways to
demonstrate this, and no one
activity is to be necessarily
preferred to any other. Service on
College and department committees
and task forces, advising student
groups, and professionally related
community service are some examples
of appropriate activity. Sustained
activity and tangible accomplishment
are more important than the number
of committee memberships or
activities in which a faculty member
participates.
Note: For ease of presentation, this
document addresses the evaluation of
faculty for reappointment.
Librarians who are members of the
same bargaining unit are also
covered by these provisions, and the
evaluation process is the same as
described above for faculty, except
that the department chair’s role is
handled by the Director of the
Library. The evaluation criteria
are essentially the same except that
effectiveness in performing assigned
responsibilities and in rendering
assistance to students, faculty, and
the academic community replace
teaching effectiveness and advising.
Promotion
General
Purpose of Promotions
Promotions recognize meritorious
performance in teaching, continuing
scholarship, professional service,
and alternate assignments over a
sustained period. Faculty who are
promoted receive $3934 (to
Professor/Senior Librarian), $3529
(to Associate Professor/Librarian),
$3081 (to Assistant
Professor/Associate Librarian) or 5%
of current salary, whichever is
greater, upon the effective date of
the promotion. In addition, as a
result of an agreement between the
Council of Presidents and the
Massachusetts State College
Association, faculty who are
promoted are also run through the
salary equity formula and receive an
additional salary adjustment if
the new salary with the
above-promotion increment is below
the calculated salary minimum for
the new rank, educational background
and experience.
The Contractual Basis
for Promotion
Eligibility:
Article XX, Section B of the
collective bargaining agreement
prescribes the basic eligibility
criteria that must be met for
promotion to each rank. [Note: This
document focuses upon faculty
promotions, but a comparable scheme
is followed for librarian promotions
as well.]
To be
promoted to Associate Professor, the
faculty candidate must: 1) have the
appropriate terminal degree for the
discipline; 2) have six years’
experience teaching, at least three
of which are in higher education;
and 3) have served three years in
rank as an Assistant Professor.
These criteria must be met at the
time of application for promotion.
To
be promoted to Professor, the
faculty candidate must: 1) have the
appropriate terminal degree for the
discipline; 2) have eight years’
experience teaching, at least five
of which are in higher education;
and 3) have served four years in
rank as an Associate Professor.
These criteria must be met at the
time of application for promotion.
The
opening paragraph of
Article XX, Section B describes
those circumstances where an
exception or waiver may be granted
to the above basic eligibility
requirements. These
circumstances include: 1) evidence
of the ability of the candidate to
render a unique academic
contribution to the College; 2)
evidence of extraordinary competence
in the discipline; 3) evidence that
the discipline or specialty of the
candidate does not demand
fulfillment of the terminal degree.
Finally, a new provision of
Article XX, Section C provides
that a candidate may not stand for
promotion to Associate Professor
without either being already tenured
or being considered for tenure at
the same time. The effect of this
provision is to cause most faculty
to stand for tenure in one year and
then for promotion in the next
year. Otherwise, a candidate who is
considered for both promotion and
tenure in the same year must receive
both or receive neither. This
all-or-none condition functionally
doubles the risk for a candidate,
and, therefore, faculty generally
have avoided this situation.
In
addition to the basic eligibility
criteria, candidates for promotion
are evaluated following the process
for personnel evaluation described
in
Article VIII.
Evaluation for
Promotion
The
performance criteria and procedures
for evaluation are generally similar
to those for other personnel
actions, namely, reappointment and
tenure.
Criteria and Materials: Faculty are
evaluated on a standard set of
criteria that encompass the major
performance domains. These criteria
or domains are the same as those
used in reappointment and tenure
reviews, although the expectations
are somewhat different for these
personnel actions. The reader
should refer to the section on
Reappointment for a detailed
description of the evaluation
criteria.
Application of the Criteria: The
standard for promotion with
reference to the above criteria is
meritorious performance, a standard
that is significantly higher than
the “regular” execution of one’s
duties and responsibilities. When a
faculty member is a candidate for
promotion, the period for which
he/she is evaluated is either
from the date of appointment to the
position to the date of application
for promotion or from the
date of evaluation for the last
promotion to the date of application
for the current promotion.
Evaluation by the Peer Evaluation
Committee: After the candidate
submits materials, the first
evaluation is conducted by the PEC.
This is a new evaluation step which
did not exist in prior collective
bargaining agreements and is
designed to broaden the involvement
and responsibility of faculty for
participating in the evaluation
process. At the beginning of each
academic year, each department forms
a PEC. The PEC consists of two
tenured members, elected by the
department, who serve on the PEC for
any departmental member who is a
candidate for any type of personnel
action and a third member,
designated by each candidate and
chosen from the department or a
cognate department. Thus, two
members are common to all PECs in
the department; the third member may
change, based upon candidate
selection. The PEC is first charged
with making classroom visitations
during the semester in which the
evaluation is being conducted (each
member of the PEC must visit at
least one class, though they need
not all visit the same class). Then
the PEC reviews all material and
completes a single evaluation with
reference to the aforementioned
criteria and makes a recommendation
with respect to the personnel action
under consideration. This
evaluation is shared with the
candidate who has the right to
respond in writing within 10
calendar days. The evaluation, the
candidate’s response if any, and all
materials are then forwarded to the
department chair.
Evaluation by the Department Chair:
Upon receiving the above materials,
the department chair completes a
separate evaluation. The chair has
the benefit of all materials
submitted and/or completed prior to
this step, including the PEC’s
evaluation. The chair reviews all
material and completes an evaluation
with reference to the aforementioned
criteria and makes a recommendation
with respect to the personnel action
under consideration. This
evaluation is shared with the
candidate who has the right to
respond within 10 calendar days.
The chair’s evaluation, the
candidate’s response if any, and all
other materials (including the PEC
evaluation) are then forwarded to
the vice president.
Selection of the Committee on
Promotions: Once the evaluation by
the department chair is completed,
the candidate’s materials are
forwarded to the vice president who
makes them available to the
Committee on Promotions for review.
Article VIII, Section G
describes the composition and
selection of the Committee on
Promotions. This committee consists
of seven faculty who must be tenured
and either Associate Professors or
Professors or comparable librarian
rank. They are elected by the
faculty under the auspices of the
local MSCA chapter, and their
two-year terms are staggered so that
three or four members are elected
each year. Department chairs and
members of Peer Evaluation
Committees may not serve on the
Committee on Promotions.
Evaluation by the Committee on
Promotions and by the Vice
President: The Committee on
Promotions and the vice president
each evaluate the candidates for
promotion independently. There is
no quota or limitation on the number
of candidates who can be promoted.
After the Committee on Promotions
completes its review, the Agreement
provides that the committee shares
its recommendations with the vice
president and, further, that the
vice president meet with the
committee to discuss any candidate
where the vice president’s
recommendation differs from the
committee’s. The intent of this
provision is to provide an
opportunity for the committee and
the vice president to reach
consensus on their recommendations.
Regardless of whether consensus is
reached, the recommendations of both
the committee and the vice president
are presented to the president who
makes the final recommendation to
the Board of Trustees.
Sabbaticals
General Purpose of
Sabbaticals
Sabbaticals are a principal means of
professional development for faculty
in higher education. They are a
type of paid leave, either for a
semester at full salary or two
semesters at half salary, during
which faculty are released from
their instructional and other
contractual responsibilities. Both
traditional and common throughout
academia, sabbaticals are most often
granted after a seven-year period
and are used by faculty to engage in
advanced study, research, writing,
and travel.
The
word “sabbatical” shares the same
etymology as the word “Sabbath.”
Both denote a time or period of
renewal, and it is probably not
accidental that the traditional
eligibility period to take a
sabbatical is seven years.
The most common outcome of a
sabbatical is an energized faculty
member who brings to his or her
classes new knowledge, new
experiences, new methodologies, new
materials, and new techniques.
Faculty also use sabbaticals to
create new knowledge. Undertaking
research or a creative activity,
difficult during the year along with
one’s other instructional and
professional responsibilities, is
also a common sabbatical activity.
These outcomes are beneficial to the
College.
The Contractual Basis
for Sabbaticals
Article XV
of the collective bargaining
agreement with the faculty affirms
the “mutual commitment [of the
parties] to support the professional
development and growth of individual
members of the bargaining unit; and
to that end they similarly reaffirm
their commitment to the granting of
sabbatical leaves, in accordance
with the provisions of this
Article.”
Eligibility: To be eligible for a
sabbatical faculty must have served
for seven years (14 semesters) since
the date of hire or the termination
of their last such leave, whichever
is later. Unpaid leaves of absence
are not included in the calculation
of this eligibility.
Terms:
Sabbaticals are granted for either
one semester at full pay or two
semesters at half pay. Prior to
undertaking the sabbatical, the
faculty member must agree in writing
to return to the College following
the sabbatical for a period of time
equal to twice the length of such
leave or to refund to the College,
unless excused by the Board, the
proportionate amount of salary for
that service not rendered. Thus, a
faculty member who has a
one-semester sabbatical must return
to the College for at least one year
following the sabbatical; a faculty
member who has a one-year sabbatical
must return to the College for at
least two years following the
sabbatical.
Application and Review Process: The
time line for application and review
of sabbatical proposals is
prescribed by
Appendix M of the collective
bargaining agreement.
In
applying for a sabbatical, faculty
members indicate the semester(s) for
which they are applying and the
semester of their last sabbatical
and/or date of hire. They are asked
to describe concisely their plan for
sabbatical activities and expected
outcomes. These proposals are then
forwarded to the department chair
for review and recommendation.
Department chairs make a
recommendation concerning the
worthiness or suitability of the
proposal and also address the
department’s plans for managing the
absence of the faculty member in
terms of course coverage. Regarding
the latter, departments usually
employ one or more of the following
approaches in covering for a faculty
member on sabbatical: 1) increase
class sizes of the remaining
sections of a course; 2) not offer
an upper-level elective; 3) shift a
course to the semester before or
following the sabbatical; and 4)
seek a part-time replacement for
those essential classes which cannot
be handled in any other way. The
department chair recommendations are
then forwarded to the vice president
for review and recommendation.
Each
department’s plans for replacement
coverage is first reviewed, noting
particularly both the impact on
required major and general education
courses (available seats) and
potential cost to the College in
funding part-time replacements.
Information is reviewed and the
final determination is made about
replacement funding (that is,
sections covered by part-time
faculty) with the guiding principle
that overall quality of offerings
not be adversely affected.
Proposals reviewed for their
academic worthiness, focusing
especially on the potential benefit
to the faculty member and to the
College and the likelihood that the
faculty member will be able to
accomplish her/his stated
objectives.
Follow-up Process: Upon the
conclusion of the sabbatical, the
faculty member must submit to the
vice president a written report of
his/her sabbatical activities. This
becomes a part of the faculty
member’s personnel file and is
reviewed when the faculty member is
considered for any personnel action
or is a candidate for another
sabbatical.
Professional
Development
Professional development funds, as
prescribed in
Article XIV of the MSCA
Agreement, are available to all
full-time faculty and librarians.
Every full-time member of the
bargaining unit, including those on
temporary appointment, is eligible
to make use of these funds for
purposes of professional
development.
The
per capita amount (based upon a
percentage of the salary pool across
all the Massachusetts state colleges
divided by the number of full-time
faculty and librarians at all the
state colleges) is $575.00.
The Agreement also provides for an
institutional (not individual)
carryover provision where unused
professional development funds from
the prior year may be applied in the
current year for professional
development purposes. The faculty
association president and the vice
president for academic affairs
agreed, after holding back a small
amount for general professional
development activity such as the
January Faculty Development
Conference, to apply the bulk of the
carryover funds to increasing the
per capita amount available to each
faculty member. By this mechanism
each faculty member will have
available an additional $100.00
for a total of $675.00.
Therefore, each faculty member may
access up to the $675.00
amount for plans that have been
approved by the vice president. As
long as funds are expended for
appropriate professional reasons
relating directly to your discipline
and your work, there should
generally be no issue with approval
of plans. Examples, not intended to
be exhaustive, of the uses to which
the funds may be put include: travel
and other expenses associated with
attendance at professional
conferences or workshops,
professional association dues and
subscriptions, books, software, and
equipment. Faculty and librarians
may also pool their funds to support
particular activities or purchases.
Below are the steps to follow in
order to access your funds. Please
follow these simple steps carefully
so that you are not placed in the
position of having made an
expenditure that cannot be
reimbursed.
-
On
the Request for Professional
Development Money application,
please list your anticipated
professional development
expenditures and the amount
associated with each expenditure
or activity. Please be brief, but
provide sufficient detail so that
it is readily apparent what you
are doing with the funds. For
example, if travel, please include
the name of the conference,
location, and dates of travel. If
dues or subscriptions, please
include the names of the
associations or journals. If
hardware or other equipment,
please include a concise
description and statement of
intended use. For approved plans,
the amount that has been requested
will be allocated, but no more
than $675.00.
-
Your application must be submitted
to the vice president for academic
affairs by
December 31, 2004.
Applications will be dealt with as
they are received. After this
date, applications cannot be
approved.
-
Even though these funds are not
announced until September, any
appropriate expenditure during
this fiscal year – from
July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005
(subject to purchase deadlines
established by the Business Office)
– can be funded if approved.
However, new faculty and
librarians are eligible for
funding only for activities after
their appointment date of
September 1.
-
Once you have received
notification that your application
has been approved, you will then
follow regular travel or
purchasing procedures. When
submitting the appropriate travel
or purchase/reimbursement forms,
please make sure you indicate the
funding source as professional
development so that the
appropriate account is charged.
It is possible to supplement
travel supported by your
professional development
allocation with department travel
funds.
-
Purchases of any equipment,
including computer equipment, MUST
be made through the college. For
computer or related equipment, you
must obtain signature approval of
ITS on the requisition form and on
the ITS check sheet which is
available on-line. The College
cannot reimburse a unit member for
purchases of equipment made with
his/her own funds. Even though
these are “your” funds, purchased
equipment is state property and
subject to state rules, even when
personal funds are used to
supplement the purchase.
-
Other purchases (of other than
equipment) of less than $100.00
are initially paid by the unit
member and reimbursed through a
purchase requisition. Purchases
(of other than equipment) that are
$100.00 or more MAY be made by the
unit member OR purchased through
the College. Travel is handled
through reimbursement.
-
As
with all travel or purchases, all
receipts and appropriate
documentation must be submitted
(e.g., start and end odometer
readings). A credit card
statement is not considered a
receipt; the original receipt must
be submitted. Except for
activities that took place prior
to September, reimbursement
requests should be submitted
within 30 days after the expense
was incurred.
-
If
you are combining funds with one
or more other faculty or
librarians, please submit your
application as a single package.
Please feel free to contact the vice
president’s office at 508.626.4555
if you have any additional
questions.
|
