2021-02-04 Bi Weekly Meeting

Participants:

Discussion:

FT-296 - Withdrawal Status

• Who? will perform this action?
  • coordinator and administrators
• What?
  • 2 use cases
    • Faculty separating
      • remove it completely from the system
    •  if in flight; lock it down and stamp it with Withdrawn State
      • applicant should get their materials back so that's accomplished with the shard drive copy
      • lock it down and clone the application (in progress)
    • changing year and app type case
  • year 5, going for tenure and past the CR deadline, reapply online
    • union has argued with Bev about TP and CR looking the same
  • Should an email notification be sent?
    • yes, need to flesh these emails out with the functionals
• When can they perform this action, ie what statuses?
  
  • any State other than SUBMITTED, FINAL or APPEAL
    • generally they withdraw after they get a negative recommendation so after the TPRC
• Where?
• How often does separation happen?
  • if it doesn't happen often or a handful a year, perhaps it's best to leave it as an admin function to delete the application
• Why?

FT-491 - Negative Review process

• Should the applicant be able to view the recommendations?
  • hinges on when the clock starts to allow the applicant to review
• TPRC → send email to applicant and allow review of recommendations → click push to chancellor button or provide rebuttal → chancellor or applicant reviewing
• Review the email templates
  • when the negative recommendation email is sent to the applicant, majority will want to read the assessments so that's why we granted them access instead of them having to click a button to do so. 
• Resolution:
  • Remove access to the applicant after the TPRC negative email goes out
  • Change the button to "Review and Provide Rebuttal"
  • Start a clock of 10 days when the applicant clicks on the "Review and Provide Rebuttal" button
    • if the clock expires before the applicant hits continue review, will we be able to determine whether the applicant provided additional information or not?
    • Note: initially we didn't have a clock because the applicant couldn't upload materials or provide a rebuttal themselves and it required more time for the applicant to get the materials from the coordinator and then the coordinator uploading the materials. Now that the applicant can do it themselves, implement the clock.
  • Modify the "Complete Review" button (maybe relabel) to ask whether they provided a rebuttal or not which will determine if it goes to the TPRC redux or the Chancellor

UHWO process

Hey everyone - I have to jump to another meeting at 10 am sharp, so we might run out of time, but here is the campus-specific issue I had. See last sentence. Thanks!  XII.G.2.f: At UH West Oahu, until such time as UH-West Oahu has Deans or Directors, the dossier is forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs who, after making an assessment and recommendation, shall refer it to the TPRC. The TPRC shall review the dossier and make a recommendation, after which the dossier is returned to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, for transmission to the Chancellor.

Not sure why this process (i.e. application being routed from TPRC back to VCAA and then to Chancellor) is necessary, but it is in the CBA.

• Add the VCAA as the Dean since that's what Alan's comment says
• As far as the application going to the VCAA after the TPRC for transmission to the Chancellor, functionally it gives them the ability to review the TRPC's comments and discuss with the Chancellor prior to the Chancellor making their recommendation 
  • to address this, add the VCAA as Chancellors