What is Fair?*

(This brochure has been prepared as a result of our experience in dealing with concerns raised by members. It provides guidelines for conducting collegial processes *based on the February 2002 CAUT Information paper: What is Fair? and adapted to our situation. Copies of the complete paper are available from the USFA office.)

Peer Review procedures in decisions affecting a person's career in the university must be conducted:
- fairly
- using appropriate criteria
- by persons qualified to evaluate academic performance

Selection of Committees
Who should serve?
At the U of S: department renewals and tenure committees include all tenured members; promotion committees include all tenured members with rank above that of the faculty member being considered

Conflict of Interest
What does it include?
- family or other close personal relationship
- co-authorship
- business or financial relationship
- serious conflict with an applicant

If I can divorce my personal prejudice or bias for/against the applicant from an objective consideration of his/her scholarship, should I not serve on the committee?
- No. "The question is not whether the tribunal will in fact be biased, but whether a reasonable person with no inside knowledge might well think it might be biased."
- those who make the decisions must assess all the evidence with an open mind
- anyone in a conflict of interest situation should withdraw from participating in the decision

What should I do if a member of my committee is in conflict of interest?
- challenge that person's membership on the committee with reasons as soon as you become aware of her/his membership.
- raise conflict as the first order of business at a meeting of the committee.
- a person so challenged remaining on the committee could provide grounds for appeal.
- anyone on a collegial committee perceiving conflict should raise the issue.

Can I make private presentations to the president of the university or the person or body responsible for the final decision?
- No. Neither an interested third party or a member of a peer committee should be permitted to make end runs of this type.

Due Process and Natural Justice
What are the basic components of natural justice in the university context?
- notice
- the right of applicant to see and/or hear all evidence presented in the case.

How is that accomplished?
- the applicant has the right to respond to any oral representations, written evidence or documentation introduced at any other level of consideration or review.
- at appeal, the applicant's representative or counsel sees all written evidence and documentation submitted to the peer committee and should be present for all testimony.

Should anonymous opinions be considered by peer committees?
- aggregated statistical evidence (student evaluations) can be used
- anonymous comments attached to evaluations would be excluded
- all letters of reference, including signatures, should be supplied to the candidate in full (not the practice at the U of S) and referees should be advised of this practice in advance.

The Duty to be Fair
"What does fair mean in looking at the evidence?
- the decision must be made on academic grounds precisely related to the issue at hand.
- the department should base its decision on the material before it
- material should be relevant to the case
- the process must not be a personal vendetta
- procedures must be consistent
- like cases should be treated alike
- consultation should be thorough, systematic and recorded
- departmental peer committees must address the real and complete issue at hand
- criteria must be universally applied and known in advance
- decisions should not be based on student gossip, hearsay or unsigned comments

CAUT states that the applicant must have a determining say in the choice of some of the assessors and must know the names of the assessors

"What criteria should apply?"
- criteria should be specified in the collective agreement
- ensure that application of criteria can be measured as far as is possible by objective standards

Can standards change?
- Yes. New standards can be developed by the department and approved by the College. College standards must be approved by URC.
- At the U of S the standards in effect at the date of hire are the standards utilized in considering an application for renewal or tenure; however, the standards in effect for the year under review are the standards used for promotion.

"Should a peer committee give reasons in writing?"
- Yes. Without written reasons, it is impossible to know whether fair procedures have been followed.
- Reasons for a negative decision should be specific, e.g. insufficient number of research papers, negative teaching evaluation in a named course over a number of years.

"Should peer committees vote by secret ballot?"
No, that would impede free, full and fair discussions of academic merits.

Review and Appeal Committees
"What is the difference between a review committee and an appeal committee?"
- Review committees judge a recommendation on whether or not it meets required standards and whether dues process procedures have been followed. They are advisory to the person or group that makes the final decision.
- Appeal committees hear the appeals against that final decision.

- At the U of S, the Renewals and Tenure Appeal Committee recommend or deny renewal or tenure, or recommend an extension of probation up to a maximum of two years.
- The Promotions Appeal Committee hears appeals and makes recommendations to the President.

"Why should appeals be allowed?"
- Peer committees and review committees sometimes do make mistakes or poor decisions even when acting in good faith.

- Appeals should be permitted on both substantive and procedural issues

"Who should hear appeals?"
- At the U of S, a university-wide appeal panel of 48 employees is drawn from the membership of the General Academic Assembly and the various appeal committees are selected from that panel. Chairs are chosen by mutual agreement between the Association and the University.

"What are the procedures in an appeal?"
The appeals committee/arbitration panel should follow the same procedures as laid down earlier in this guideline for departmental committees. That requires fair consideration of the evidence, free and fair discussion, known criteria measured by objective standards, and written reasons for decisions.