We are in the midst of a dramatic transition of our faculty, as many of those hired to teach in the 1960s and 1970s retire. In the past five years, 62 faculty members-a fifth of the full-time faculty-retired; 49 of them had more than 25 years of service here. According to our Human Resources office, it is possible that another 100 faculty may retire over the next five years, leading to more than a 50% turnover in the faculty over a decade.

We have been faced with two major challenges in continuing to provide a faculty that meets the needs of our students. The first challenge has been addressing successfully the many matters that arise when a faculty member retires. The department must often struggle to find part-time adjuncts or a full-time temporary faculty member (which requires a rigorous national search) to teach the classes temporarily. It then must embark on an exhaustive national search for a full-time tenure track replacement. In 1998-1999 we conducted over 30 searches for tenure-track faculty, a monumental undertaking that drained our faculty and diminished their time and energy for other University activities.

The second major challenge has been restrictions on our total employee complement, which has been frozen since 1995 by the State System Board of Governors (see Chapter 11). In essence, we cannot add any new position without deleting a position from elsewhere in the University. This has created extraordinary difficulties in responding to the needs of our students and region. While we continually attempt to size the faculty complement of every department properly, our limited ability to add faculty positions has created a burden for faculty teaching especially popular programs.

Recruitment

Millersville has adopted very specific, codified procedures for faculty recruitment, interviewing and hiring. Twenty-six steps attempt to ensure that departments obtain a diverse applicant pool and give equal opportunities to all prospective candidates.

National searches are conducted for all full-time, tenure track faculty positions. Extraordinary attempts are made to ensure that position announcements reach a broad and diverse population. Candidates brought to campus for interviews must demonstrate teaching ability and provide evidence of scholarly achievements. Every faculty member hired must be recommended by a majority vote of the department. Final approval is then obtained from the school dean, the Social Equity office, and the Provost.

Focus groups of 68 faculty sponsored by the Center for Academic Excellence in 1999 indicated that they believe the recruitment process has become unwieldy and overwhelming, with too many required steps and approvals. They expressed concern that the time needed to obtain approvals at each step has resulted in the loss of many qualified candidates to other institutions. Some departments have conducted repeated searches for the same position, draining faculty resources from other important activities. In the past three years, from 1996-1997 to 1998-1999, 19 of 65 tenure track faculty searches failed, a concern shared by all sectors of the University. The reasons for this situation are not always clear or agreed upon, however. A review of the search process with a goal of reducing our rate of failed searches while maintaining the quality of our hires is an endeavor all can support. The Provost has convened a task force to use continuous improvement principles to study the recruitment process and recommend improvements.

Once hired, new faculty participate in an extensive orientation program to acquaint them with all aspects of campus life. The orientation is held during the week before the Fall semester, with additional meetings throughout the year. New faculty receive information on creating syllabi, grading, structuring courses and course work, benefits, and governance. Over 80% of new faculty from the past two years have indicated that the program is valuable to them. New faculty members are further supported with mentors and with a new desktop computer (see Chapter 7).

Evaluation, Tenure and Promotion

All new tenure-track faculty serve a probationary period of five years, during which their peers and chair review them annually. These reviews are not standardized across the University and may vary in purpose and scope by department. Recommendations for renewal are forwarded through the school dean to the President, who makes the final decision on reappointment.

Altogether, hundreds of faculty members are evaluated each year, not only tenure-track faculty but also applicants for tenure and promotion, all part-time faculty, and a fifth of all tenured faculty, who are reviewed at least once every five years. These evaluations may be conducted only by tenured faculty in the department who are not undergoing reviews themselves. In some departments, this has led to four or five faculty members conducting over 30 evaluations at one time, a significant burden.

Faculty are awarded tenure and promoted through a process adhering to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and documented in the Governance Manual. Applications and supporting materials are forwarded to the Promotion and Tenure Committee, whose members are elected by and from the faculty. The Committee rank orders the applicants and forwards its recommendations to the President or his or her designee, who makes the final decision.

While the application process and eligibility criteria are clearly specified, the criteria for the Promotion and Tenure Committee's recommendations and ranking can vary in interpretation from one year to the next. Faculty in the focus groups described earlier indicated that, because the criteria are not clearly and consistently applied, not all faculty believe they have sufficient information to prepare their application materials.