School of IAS Faculty Meeting April 3, 2015

Date: Friday, April 3, 2015 Time: 12:30 – 2:30 pm Location: Milgard Assembly Room NOTE: Highlights indicate actions taken/decisions made Agenda

I. General & Updates a. Approve 3/13/15 IAS Meeting notes

II. Reports: a. Faculty Senate b. Faculty Assembly EC c. Faculty Council

III. IAS Updates a. Updates b. SEED c. Student of Concern Process

IV. Associate Dean Reports a. Searches b. Curriculum & Scheduling c. Assessment

V. Discussion of Search Process

Attachments: 1. Attachment A: SIAS PowerPoint by the Interim-Dean on April 3, 2015

Discussion

I. General & Updates a. Boys on the Boat video played b. IAS Ground Rules reviewed c. Approve 3/13/15 IAS Meeting notes

i. Minutes approved II. Reports:

a. Faculty Senate i. No update. There has been no Senate meeting since last update ii. Zoe Barsness was elected Vice Chair of Faculty Senate

b. Faculty Assembly EC i. No update. Next meeting: 4/8

c. Faculty Council i. Elections

1. UWT committee elections 2. Faculty Council tri-campus policy 3. 2 university disciplinary committee

ii. Multi-year lecturer iii. Voting procedures

III. IAS Updates – see Attachment A a. Updates b. SEED c. Student of Concern Process

IV. Associate Dean Reports – see Attachment A a. Searches b. Curriculum & Scheduling

School of IAS Faculty Meeting April 3, 2015

c. Assessment

V. Discussion of Search Process

COMMENT: There is a concern about how long lecturer searches take to get done. Last year it was put off to have the searches to happen late in the year. The decisions need to be made earlier than end of school year. The lecturer process should be thought through again and sped up. RESPONSE: Faculty Council will/is addressing this. COMMENT: Faculty member was not at the March 13th meeting. One of things of concern was to waiver of the 48 hour reading period of the search committee report. (Speeding up the process) is happening more and more with a desperate frenzy not to lose candidates. This does not make for good decision making. Time management is an important part of the context. Efforts to figure out how to do it better for a uniform timeline with staggered searches or process a timeline were developed at end of spring the year prior. A lot of thought and detail needed went into the search timeline. Maybe senior faculty can provide best practices from other institutions. RESPONSE: (The current voting procedure was displayed.) It was agreed that it was too quick of turn around. The timing issue is critical. COMMENT: Structure that makes sense needs to be more efficient to deal with rapid change and growth. It appears that culture has been forgotten and time needs to be made to process questions that are important to faculty. Faculty are not taking enough time for the faculty concerns. Faculty are not taking that time and need to build the trust that goes with the risk. How do you grow without risks? How do you build trust? What can be built into the structural process? RESPONSE: It was agreed that it was too quick. There is a need to stick with the process as it did not work well when it was rushed. The current process is that in-person hiring discussion is needed and should be posted with the Catalyst vote for one week. It was agreed that in-person hiring discussion is needed

Faculty Council is discussing the following options:

• Go to an all online process. • Shorten the online time to vote. • Schedule more faculty meetings during “hunting season” keeping in mind that there is a need to

make sure there is an in room discussion. • Make sure all have voice and weigh in and turn around in a timely manner.

COMMENT: (There is a need to) change decision the making processes. There is a connection to broader problems. Due to the great growth, faculty will be spending hours reading reports in small windows of time or faculty will not read the reports and rubber stamp the work by smaller committees. Neither are appealing options. How can we find new ways to do this as this is not sustainable?

RESPONSE 1: Currently one of the IAS Faculty Fellows groups (J. Finke, W. McGuire, P. Kruse) is working on the issues of tenure and the concept of departmentalization. As of now, tenure is in IAS. IAS will not departmentalize “tomorrow”. As the university grows, the university will need to look at some sort of divisional model or departmentalization. Tenure can be moved to departments via university RCIP process when departments are created. RESPONSE 2: Not sure if departmentalization means if the tenure home switches. Tenure would remain at the highest level.

School of IAS Faculty Meeting April 3, 2015

RESPONSE 3: In the past it also talked about a way to move up the dates of starting searches. The process needs to start sooner. Many candidates had offers. RESPONSE 4: The process was started sooner and it helped a lot although it depends on field of search (for “hunting season”). RESPONSE 5: Regional Economics was conducted in the fall but even then there were some pressures. IAS has not heard what has been approved for next year’s searches. IAS prefers and hopes to hear this spring however IAS can be proactive and put together search committees in the spring so that the ads can be ready. If the ads are ready, the searches can be conducted sooner in the fall. Unfortunately, the budget may not be ready until July. RESPONSE 6: (Addressing the project management skills) in 2013, lean groups were formed for hiring. The group created sample schedules. It was difficult to see whole process at once. There was a need to understand the bottlenecks. Extra work for writing ads for positions may or may not be approved however the sooner IAS can start, the quicker things can be done in a timely manner. There are tools available to help. The voting of process important and crucial. COMMENT: There is a concern voiced about faculty meeting discussion of last meeting. There is no framework for writing search reports. There are no guidelines as to what is put into the report. Examples: coaching for length of the report, a section for concerns for the candidates would be better for analysis. RESPONSE 1: It was expressed that a template is a good idea. RESPONSE 2: There is a time management issue. A committee could be finished with a search and it is at least two weeks until the IAS Faculty Meeting. The only way around this is to have more faculty meetings scheduled during “hunting season”. COMMENT: Faculty input into the search interview committee from faculty members who are not part of the committee report is important. This is a question of culture not a question of process. What input can faculty submit? There are other kinds of issues that could be submitted by faculty members who are not part of the process. How does the committee take those concerns into consideration and into the discussion? How are they reported upon? RESPONSE 1: (Tenure track faculty search process guidelines displayed.) IAS is the only unit on campus when a search committee opens up the search to a wider for interview committee. This is an area of concern that will be brought to Faculty Council: how do faculty who are not on the committee provide feedback or relay information? How will this be done? RESPONSE 2: Should there be a moment when the floor is open for dissent, to invite concerns? There is a need and want for a speedy efficient process but there is also a need to invite a place for dissent. This is not a true democratic process. This is a hierarchical institution. Although there is an “open forum and opportunity”, there is also a need to provide a safe environment. RESPONSE 3: An opportunity to voice concern is a good suggestion. RESPONSE 4: In the search process, the interview committee has the option to file a minority report. RESPONSE 5: All information for interview committee needs to be available.

School of IAS Faculty Meeting April 3, 2015

COMMENT: There is a culture of (hierarchical) vulnerability and gender vulnerability. There are conditional appointments for most lecturers. COMMENT: It would be helpful if the interview committee provided the data in depth. It would be helpful if the person did not have to make a comment “live” and have the ability to send the written comments to the interview committee and have it be part of the report. This way the comments would be on paper. RESPONSE 1: Information shared with members of the committee should be in writing for point of record so all faculty are looking at the same thing. RESPONSE 2: Some people did not have the information and it was advised to not have the information on the report. Part of the problem was the rapid turn-around. COMMENT: Why was the information taken to AHR? RESPONSE: AHR was called for protocol. COMMENT: Faculty member brought to the faculty’s attention that the point of order needs to be acknowledged as the discussion was heading to discuss historical accounts. It was recommended to move to executive session. The faculty could either discuss the process moving forward which means the meeting would be open to all and minutes would be public. If the discussion was to discuss a specific discussion held in the March 13, 2015 meeting, faculty member suggested closing the meeting and starting an executive session. Moving to an executive session means anyone who is not a faculty member would be asked to leave the room. The meeting would end and there would be no minutes. Comments would not be public and discussion about the search process would end. RESPONSE 1: Discussion for an off record (executive session) would need to be voted upon. RESPONSE 2: The faculty was asked if there were other comments of current discussion (search/voting process)? RESPONSE 3: It was pointed out that the search process 16 years ago for faculty was different. There are now half lecturers and half tenure track/tenured faculty. Lecturers are not speaking in this discussion. Some feel do not have the voice. There is a need to create an environment to include everyone. Senior faculty did not do a good job so that everyone feels free and comfortable to voice issues and concerns. Faculty need to be able to ask questions and feels equally free to raise concerns. COMMENT: There is a sense there is need a culture and need to get this right. Faculty need to stop and slow down to figure out what the next steps look like. The political culture of what faculty commitments are for each other, what faculty want to do well and get to the point to of issue. Faculty need to notice the red flag and slow down and figure out how to move forward. There is a sense of concerns that have not been articulated and a need to be sensitive to that. The pressures of speeding things up are clearly affecting the search process. COMMENT: Executive session is needed as faculty discussion is moving from discussion of policies to a discussion of historical case. There is a false dichotomy as they are one in the same. Policy focus needs to have an executive session to move forward.

School of IAS Faculty Meeting April 3, 2015

COMMENT: A faculty member echoed the need to have things written down for the interview committee and to slow things down. When there is a concern, the concern needs to be brought forth. The faculty member continued to state that if the member knew the person, the committee needs to figure out what questions need to be asked so there is a context. This does not mean to down play the feelings and issues brought forth. If the interview committee and faculty are expected to make a decision on the report needs as much information as possible. A lot of people were not in the room and during the weekend vote, there were a lot of phone calls about the meeting. The interview committee needs to take into account the information so that it is inclusive in the report. The committee also needs to make sure the faculty have the information while respecting the person bringing forth the concerns. • There was a move to an executive session. • The move was seconded. • One faculty member was not comfortable with the move to an executive session. COMMENT: Faculty member expressed that there is a disadvantage to an executive session. It leads to problems faculty are struggling to overcome. It was pointed out that there is a lack of transparency and focus. An executive session is a way not to the concerns of the faculty public. An executive session is “more of the same”. It was also expressed that there was poor leadership on the search committee and IAS, the concerns should have been communicated to the committee and when these questions were raised to Cheryl should have suspended the search. The information should have been brought to the faculty. RESPONSE 1: A faculty member support the comment against an executive session. An executive session only pertains to the safety for the faculty member and the specifics of the case. It does not deliberate on the process that needs to be revised. RESPONSE 2: A faculty member responded that the reason an executive session was because the discussion was turning into a discussion about a specific personnel case. If the discussion is not about a personnel case, there is no need for an executive session. • There was another move to an executive session. • The move was seconded. • The faculty conducted a paper vote to move to an executive discussion. • The faculty voted on the following: Should the meeting close and open an executive session?

o YES: 22 o NO: 15 o ABSTAIN: 18

• The result of the vote is: no executive session. • Discussion continued. COMMENT: A faculty member stated, as a lecturer on the committee in question, assuming everyone did their job correctly, the faculty member noted that she does not feel marganilized nor a concern for herself. That said, she stated that is not possible for lecturers to put their collective needs first versus the needs about self. Many expressed equality but not everyone has said it. There is a lot of concern about one’s personal future. COMMENT: A faculty member was puzzled about AHR. This is serious. It is the opposite of what we want in a good process. The faculty member was a victim of abusive behavior and then to talk about it again. The search proceeded and the information was not included.

School of IAS Faculty Meeting April 3, 2015

RESPONSE: In retrospect, the process was too quick. There wasn’t enough time for the report and discussion. COMMENT: A faculty member question why the term heresy was used in the report. RESPONSE 1: The faculty discussion was summarized in the report. RESPONSE 2: A faculty member expressed that heresy was used incorrectly in the report and there is a need to make all aware to recognize that it was someone’s story. RESPONSE 3: A faculty member expressed that HR and the institution have expertise for policy. Faculty can go with the institution to any concern raised legally. It is the responsibility to one another and when thinking of a “story” brought by someone, the response is to look at who is telling the story. What is the concern? Faculty need to foster and provide, listen and understand. Faculty need to share commitment. COMMENT: A faculty member pointed out that when a member of the faculty comments, there is a need to have each other’s back. There should not be a dent in their integrity. There is a need to trust colleagues. A culture where faculty do not have each other’s back is not something the faculty wishes to be a part of. There needs to be trust. COMMENT: A faculty member has been reflecting a lot on situation since it took place. Faculty member shared a book title that was read: No Asshole Rule Book. It is about hiring practices and surrounds yourself with people you want to be surrounded by. It asks the question, is the person not an asshole? The faculty member continued to reflect about asking oneself if she had done something in life that she regretted and then follow-up with a question. How long ago did it happen? How did it change me? She pointed out that a person can change therefore she seems the good in people. She worries that faculty will not give someone a chance. What evidence is there that this person has not changed? COMMENT: It was pointed out that what was said in the (March 13, 2015) meeting was brief. The person has no idea what happened and then asked the person was asked to make a decision. How do you call integrity into the question of colleagues who tried to act professionally? COMMENT: A faculty member wants to assume the best intent. The faculty member heard from a few “how can one person bring down a whole search committee”? The faculty member was aware of the candidate’s weaknesses and hoping it would be brought forth and discussed. Student perception of the candidate was not included in the report. She was hoping weaknesses and concerns would have been discussed. She did not feel emotionally safe. COMMENT: A faculty member follow-up with the No Asshole Rule Book and stated that there is a difference on testimony of one who is here and one who is not here. Having someone here, there is a need of corroboration. There is more value on a person who is here speaking. It is possible for someone to change over a decade, but a red flag was raised. This is a case that more discussion would have been good.

• Faculty Council will continue to work on policy and procedure of search/voting process.

School of IAS Faculty Meeting April 3, 2015

• There was a move to adjourn meeting. Move was seconded. Meeting adjourned.

School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences Faculty Meeting

3 April 2015

Time Topic Presenter

5 minutes General & Updates • Approve 3/13/15 IAS Meeting notes

• C. Greengrove

5 minutes Reports: • Faculty Senate • Faculty Assembly EC • Faculty Council

• Committee

representatives

20 minutes IAS Updates • Updates • SEED • Student of Concern Process

• C. Greengrove • N. McKinley • P. Kruse/E.

Ignacio

20 minutes Associate Dean Reports • Searches • Curriculum & Scheduling • Assessment

• T. Kayaoglu • B. Becker • E. Ignacio

40 minutes Discussion of Search Process • M. Hanneman • C. Greengrove

Attachment A

IAS Ground Rules Work for the good of IAS as a whole Assume best intent Share the floor and allow for all voices Be honest and respectful Listen Stay with agenda (unless team decides to deviate) Ask for clarity when needed Be positive – change is hard! Bring off line conversations and/or decisions back to the

group

Updated 9/9/13

Approval of minutes Reports from • Faculty Senate • Faculty Assembly • Faculty Council

Updates

Congratulations Fellowship Awards – Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL)

Chris Demaske – Russia Amos Nascimento - Germany

Invited International Presentations

Turan Kayaoglu - Danish Institute for Human Rights, Copenhagen Amos Nascimento - Kenya Methodist University, Nairobi, Kenya)

Published Book Chapters and Papers

John Finke – Anti-Aβ Oligomer IgG and Surface Sialic Acid in Intravenous Immunoglobulin:

Measurement and Correlation with Clinical Outcomes in Alzheimer’s Disease Treatment in PLOS ONE

Amos Nascimento - Towards a Critical Cosmopolitanism in

D. O’Byrne & S. De la Rosa (Eds.), The Cosmopolitan Ideal (2015)

Name Title Division Capacity Search

Erica Cline Associate Professor SAM Chair Applied Math Statistics

Julie Eaton Assistant Professor SAM Search Applied Math Statistics

Buck Banks Professor SAM Search Applied Math Statistics

Peter Horak Professor SAM Search Applied Math Statistics

Bonnie Becker Associate Professor SAM Interview Applied Math Statistics

Haley Skipper Lecturer SAM Interview Applied Math Statistics

Ingrid Horakova Lecturer SAM Interview Applied Math Statistics

Jennifer Quinn Professor SAM Interview Applied Math Statistics

Joel Baker Professor SAM Interview Applied Math Statistics

Ryan Card Lecturer SAM Interview Applied Math Statistics

Su-Miao Lai Staff TLC Interview Applied Math Statistics

David Coon Associate Professor CAC Chair Communication Law & Policy

Jeny McCray Staff IAS Interview Communication Law & Policy

Joyce Dinglasan-Panlilio Associate Professor SAM Search Communication Law & Policy

Tom Koontz Associate Professor SAM Search Communication Law & Policy

Chris Demaske Associate Professor CAC Search Communication Law & Policy

Emma Rose Assistant Professor CAC Interview Communication Law & Policy

Ingrid Walker Associate Professor CAC Interview Communication Law & Policy

Sarah Hampson Assistant Professor PPPA Interview Communication Law & Policy

Huatong Sun Assistant Professor CAC Interview Communication Law & Policy

Alex Smith Lecturer CAC Interview Communication Law & Policy

Ji-Hyun Ahn Assistant Professor CAC Interview Communication Law & Policy

Kima Cargill Associate Professor SBHS Chair Environmental Psychology Human Ecology

Ed Chamberlain Assistant Professor CAC Search Environmental Psychology Human Ecology

Lauren Montgomey Lecturer SBHS Search Environmental Psychology Human Ecology

Leighann Chaffee Lecturer SBHS Search Environmental Psychology Human Ecology

Hyoung Lee Assistant Professor SBHS Interview Environmental Psychology Human Ecology

Jeremy Davis Lecturer SAM Interview Environmental Psychology Human Ecology

THANK YOU SEARCH COMMITTEES

Jim Gawel Associate Professor SAM Chair Groundwater Hydrology

Julie Masura Lecturer SAM Search Groundwater Hydrology

Faisal Hossain Associate Professor SAM Search Groundwater Hydrology

Amos Nascimento Associate Professor PPPA Search Groundwater Hydrology

Ryan Card Lecturer SAM Interview Groundwater Hydrology

Erica Cine Associate Professor SAM Interview Groundwater Hydrology

Ed Kolodziej Associate Professor SAM Interview Groundwater Hydrology

Julie Eaton Assistant Professor SAM Interview Groundwater Hydrology

Nita McKinley Associate Professor SBHS Chair Psychology and Community Research & Action

Jennifer Harris Lecturer SBHS Search Psychology and Community Research & Action

Jack Vincent Lecturer SAM Search Psychology and Community Research & Action

John Finke Assistant Professor SAM Search Psychology and Community Research & Action

Carolyn West Associate Professor SBHS Interview Psychology and Community Research & Action

Hyoung Lee Assistant Professor SBHS Interview Psychology and Community Research & Action

Vanessa de Veritch Woodside Assistant Professor CAC Interview Psychology and Community Research & Action

Mary Hanneman Associate Professor PPPA Chair Regional Economics

Seyed Karimi Lecturer PPPA Search Regional Economics

Will McGuire Assistant Professor PPPA Search Regional Economics

Jutta Heller Lecturer SAM Search Regional Economics

Turan Kayaoglu Associate Professor PPPA Interview Regional Economics

Michael Forman Associate Professor PPPA Interview Regional Economics

Sushil Oswal Assistant Professor CAC Interview Regional Economics

Jennifer Myers Lecturer CAC Interview Regional Economics

Turan Kayaoglu Associate Professor PPPA Chair Security Studies & Conflict Resolution

Etga Ugur Assistant Professor PPPA Search Security Studies & Conflict Resolution

Lisa Hoffman Associate Professor Urban Studies Search Security Studies & Conflict Resolution

Rob Crawford Professor PPPA Search Security Studies & Conflict Resolution

Will McGuire Assistant Professor PPPA Interview Security Studies & Conflict Resolution

Elizabeth Bruch Assistant Professor PPPA Interview Security Studies & Conflict Resolution

Michael Forman Associate Professor PPPA Interview Security Studies & Conflict Resolution

Eric Bugyis Lecturer PPPA Interview Security Studies & Conflict Resolution

THANK YOU SEARCH COMMITTEES

Opportunities

Mellon Foundation Grant for Area and Global Studies Development work at UW Human Right and Environmental Lecture Series at UWT Amos Nascimento

Nominations for IAS and Campus Committees

Faculty Assembly (2015-2018) • Academic Policy and Curriculum Committee • Faculty Affairs Committee • Executive Council • Executive Council • Executive Council

IAS - Faculty Council • Chair Elect (2015-2016) • SAM (2015-2017) • SHS (2015-2017) • Lecturer at large (2015-2016)

Updates • By-laws – Faculty Council • Curriculum Development Timeline – Shared Leadership • Assistant Professor Reappointment Review – VOTE MAY 1st

Ji-Hyun Ahn, Emma Rose & Etga Ugur • Lecturer Promotion – Ellen Moore & Lauren Montgomery • Travel – minimize travel to Indiana • Travel forms • IAS sign-in sheet • Facebook – need faculty blurbs – email Kelly Kledzik

• Summer Pay - Kristina

SUMMER SALARY PROCESS Below is information regarding your assignment(s) and payroll information for summer quarter 2015. Please reply with your agreement. Name: Assignment #1: Payroll Appointment Dates: Budget #: Total FTE: Full-Time rate: Monthly rate: Total compensation for appointment period: Description of assignment: Name: Assignment #1: Payroll Appointment Dates: Budget #: Total FTE: Full-Time rate: Monthly rate: Total compensation for appointment period: Description of assignment:

Action Who Start Deadline

• Submit materials to the appropriate staff for Catalyst site • Keifer: SBHS and SHS • Lundberg: CAC • Annis: SAM and PPPA

• Materials: • Submitted by faculty member:

• CV • Activity Report • Peer teaching evaluation

• Submitted by staff: • Student teaching evaluations (tables)

• All full-time faculty • Friday, 3/27

• Part-time Lecturers: • Phase 1: Division reviews Part-time Lecturers • Phase 2: Review recommendation of Divisions

• Divisional full-time faculty • All full-time faculty

• Monday, 4/20 • Monday, 5/4

• Friday,5/1 • Friday, 5/15

• Review Full-time Lecturers • Professors • Associate Professors • Assistant Professors • Senior Lecturers

• Monday, 4/20 • Friday, 5/1

• Review Senior Lecturers • Professors • Associate Professors • Assistant Professors

• Friday, 4/24 • Friday, 5/1

• Review Assistant Professors • Professors • Associate Professors

• Friday, 5/1 • Friday, 5/8

• Review Associate Professors • Professors • Friday, 5/8 • Friday, 5/15

• Review Professors • Dean • Friday, 5/8 • Friday, 5/15

• Review & Discuss Votes • Make Recommendation to Dean

• IAS Faculty Council • Wednesday, 5/20 • Wednesday, 6/3

• Send Recommendation to VCAA • Dean • Monday, 6/8

IAS MERIT TIMELINE

Extra Merit Nominations – send to Kristina to post

http://www.tacoma.uw.edu/interdisciplinary-arts-sciences/school-interdisciplinary-arts-sciences-student-affairs

Student of Concern

Patricia Kruse & Emily Ignacio

Faculty Searches Applied Mathematics (TT) Maureen Kennedy accepted

Environmental Psychology/Human Ecology (TT) Lindsay McCunn accepted

Psychology and Community Research and Action (TT) Rachel Hershberg accepted

Security Studies and Conflict Resolution (TT) Benjamin Meiches accepted

Groundwater Hydrology (TT) Negotiations with Nathaniel Warner underway

Regional Economics (TT) Search failed

Communication Law & Policy (TT) Search failed

American Government (Lecturer) Candidates visits scheduled

Film Studies (Lecturer) Interim report submitted to bring three candidates to the campus in April

Math (Lecturer) Phone interviews concluded

History (Lecturer) Phone interviews scheduled (March 31, April 2 and April 6)

Creative Writing (Lecturer) Phone interviews scheduled (April 7)

Sociology (Lecturer) Initial review of applications underway

Geosciences (Lecturer) Initial review of applications underway

Chemistry (Lecturer) Ad, approved and posted Jim Gawel (Chair) Joyce Dinglasan-Panlilio Margaret “Meg” Henderson Megan Schwartz Alison Cardinal

10 April (JOY 106 2pm) Junior Faculty Peer-Mentoring: Building on work/life balance discussion, in this meeting we will learn some of the favorite social activities of the faculty. • Favorite restaurants and coffee shops • Favorite outdoor activities • Suggestions for a weekend gateway • Suggestions for activities to do with kids 13 April (WCG 322) All Faculty SGID Information Session with Beckie Etheridge 4 May (Location/Time TBD) Lecturer Lunch and Q & A with the Dean

Faculty Affairs Events/Activities

Curriculum and Scheduling New Programs

• Majors Assessment Planning - underway • April 13th Majors Fair – thank you volunteers

Student Affairs

Search Process Discussion Learning from the past and looking toward the future &

making the process better

Discussion today will be recorded in minutes and used by Faculty Council next week to inform their discussion on: 1) Fine tuning our IAS search process – in particular how people not on interview committee provide input to committee prior to voting & report writing 2) Revamping our search/hiring voting process to allow for a quicker response time while insuring opportunity for input & discussion

Note: If you would prefer you can talk to your Faculty Council representative or submit your thoughts in writing to Mary Hanneman, Michael Forman or Kristina Powers to be posted up on Faculty Council Webpage comments page for this topic.

Search Process

http://www.tacoma.uw.edu/sites/default/files/sections/InterdisciplinaryArtsandSciences/documents/general_docs/tenure_track_faculty_search_process_2013_09.pdf

Pull up highlighted document

Tenure Track Hiring Voting Process

Pull up highlighted document