ࡱ> -/, bbjbj(( .Jh1gJh1gb||""""6 "BBBBB111RTTTTTT$yfx11111xBBQQQ1 BBRQ1RQQB@;;>0,Qd11Q11111xxQ1111111111111111|X : Justification for Retaining Candidate Ranking by Search Committees The Personnel Committee wishes to retain the long-held and effective procedure of ranking candidates by search committees. Any search committee should clearly understand that their role is advisory, and that hiring authority resides completely with the President of 鶹ӰԺ, but we feel strongly that the principle of shared governance requires that faculty clearly state their preference during the candidate selection process. We also understand that in the spirit of collegiality a search committee should not merely rank the candidates, but explain the criteria used and the rationale behind the rankings. The proposed no ranking policy potentially allows the President to choose whichever candidate they prefer while evading or ignoring their responsibility to respect the search committees efforts. In the spirit of shared governance, the Personnel Committee hopes to retain candidate ranking by search committees. Several comments have been collected by the Personnel Committee regarding this proposed change and the responses generally fell into one of the three categories listed below. In higher education there has long been a traditional responsibility of faculty to choose their colleagues, after all who knows better the needs of their discipline than the faculty themselves? When Personnel Committee members requested input from their constituencies, a clear majority of both administrative and teaching faculty were in favor of retaining the current ranking policy. There were a few dissenting voices, mostly citing that hiring authority resides with the President. Faculty work hard on search committees, it is a long and time-consuming process. Faculty want this effort respected. Otherwise, why serve on a search committee if there is no respect from administration for faculty opinions? BCDEr{| ' /  j l m n ! g n r w x  6 R S T U Z [ d e v h`Uhh#?hH$ highShThh9hCRhfYMhI2h Ah[hNshzqW5CJ\aJhNsh[5CJ\aJDCDE T U {|_`ab & Fgdk z{| H]^_`abhH$ hh`Uh[,1h/ =!"#$% x666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666p62&6FVfv2(&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@66666PJ_HmH nH sH tH F`F NormaldCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List @@@ k List Paragraph ^m$PK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭Vj\{cp/IDg6wZ0s=Dĵw %;r,qlEآyDQ"Q,=c8B,!gxMD&铁M./SAe^QשF½|SˌDإbj|E7C<bʼNpr8fnߧFrI.{1fVԅ$21(t}kJV1/ ÚQL×07#]fVIhcMZ6/Hߏ bW`Gv Ts'BCt!LQ#JxݴyJ] C:= ċ(tRQ;^e1/-/A_Y)^6(p[_&N}njzb\->;nVb*.7p]M|MMM# ud9c47=iV7̪~㦓ødfÕ 5j z'^9J{rJЃ3Ax| FU9…i3Q/B)LʾRPx)04N O'> agYeHj*kblC=hPW!alfpX OAXl:XVZbr Zy4Sw3?WӊhPxzSq]y b! b b L# @0(  B S  ?dHSd3J  ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo(J          H$ 9X>#? AfYMCRzqWNs[Tkig`UI2S"bd@b@UnknownG.[x Times New Roman5Symbol3. .[x Arial7..{$ CalibriC.,*{$ Calibri Light?= .Cx Courier New;WingdingsACambria Math"h1G1GH H !20__K@P  $P[2!xx G>" Peter C BagleyBrianne R Murphy Oh+'0|  8 D P\dltPeter C BagleyNormalBrianne R Murphy2Microsoft Office Word@F#@@H ՜.+,0 hp|   _  Title  !"#%&'()*+.Root Entry Fp^<01Table WordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8$CompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q