Part IV, Section II: Unit Codes

Updated: January 1, 1970

Contents

  1. Definition of Unit Code
  2. Approval Process for New and Revised Unit Codes
  3. Faculty Who May Vote on a Unit’s Code of Operation
  4. Minimal Unit Code Requirements
  5. Use of “Guidelines” by a Code Unit
  6. Faculty Workload Guidelines
  7. Five Year Review of a Unit Code
  8. Faculty Senate Office Records
  9. Unit Code Training
  10. Unit Code Availability
  11. School or College Constitutions or By-Laws
  12. Acceptable models for code units in reorganization plan

I. Definition of Unit Code

Each Code Unit shall develop a Unit Code of Operations that will provide for the conduct of the unit’s affairs according to Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised and the requirements set out below in subsection IV. A new or revised Unit Code shall be approved by the applicable code unit voting faculty members of the unit, as defined herein (see subsection III. below). A copy of each Unit Code, after approval, is housed within the Faculty Senate Office, the Code Unit Office, and is available for review by faculty and administrators within the unit. (FS Resolution #19-37, April 2019)

II. Approval Process for New and Revised Unit Codes

Each Code Unit will develop its own Unit Code of Operations, following the process described in this section of this document. Upon approval at the unit level, the unit administrator shall forward the new or revised Unit Code to the next higher administrator above the unit for advice. If the code unit is a college and the next higher administrator is the Provost, this step is not required. The Code Unit shall consider advice received and may amend its proposed code if approved by the applicable code unit voting faculty members as defined herein (Subsection III). The Unit Code next is submitted to the Unit Code Screening Committee of the Faculty Senate for review. Upon being approved by the Unit Code Screening Committee, the Unit Code is submitted to the Faculty Senate for review and, if approved, to the Chancellor for final approval. If the Chancellor requires revisions, they shall so indicate in writing and shall return the Unit Code to the unit for the required revisions. After revision, the code shall be approved by the applicable code unit voting faculty members as defined herein (Subsection III) and upon approval shall be dealt with as described above, up to and including receiving the chancellor’s approval or request for further revisions.

III. Faculty Who May Vote on a Unit’s Code of Operations

Responsibility for voting on a Unit Code rests with full-time faculty with a commitment to the unit demonstrated as follows. All permanently tenured faculty members with at least 12 consecutive months in a greater than 50% assignment in a unit and all full-time faculty with at least six years in a greater than 50% assignment in a unit count towards a quorum and may vote on the unit’s new or revised Code. This includes administrators who meet these conditions. An affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of faculty voting is required to approve a new or revised Unit Code.

A faculty member on non-medical leave from a greater than 50% assignment in a unit may vote if the faculty member wishes to do so but does not count towards a quorum unless they are present at a vote. A faculty member on approved medical leave is not permitted to participate in any University activities during the period of approved medical leave without written university approval. Faculty members with 50% or less assignment in a unit do not vote on the unit’s code.

In tenure-granting units, only permanently tenured, eligible voting faculty may vote on or amend a unit’s tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review criteria. A separate affirmative vote of at least a majority of voting tenured faculty is required to approve new or revised tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review criteria. Such approved criteria may not be further amended during the approval process of the full new or revised Unit Code by all voting faculty. (FS Resolution #19-37, April 2019)

IV. Minimal Unit Code Requirements

To provide consistency, unit codes should be developed following an approved outline that includes:

  1. a preamble
  2. definitions of the unit’s faculty, its criteria for serving as a voting faculty member of the
    unit, and, where appropriate, its approved criteria for appointment to the graduate faculty
  3. criteria for emeritus or emerita status in the unit
  4. the administrative organization of the unit
  5. the membership, terms, and duties of standing committees
  6. responsibility for program coordination and curriculum oversight
  7. current, updated, and approved faculty workload guidelines for fixed-term, probationary
    (tenure-track), and tenured faculty
  8. current, updated, and approved guidelines, criteria, and weights governing the evaluation of
    tenured, and tenure-track faculty members annually and otherwise for all personnel actions,
    including recommendations for raises, merit awards, reappointment, promotion and the award
    of permanent tenure (ECU Faculty Manual, Parts VIII and IX).
  9. guidelines, criteria, and weights governing the evaluation of fixed-term faculty members annually and otherwise for all personnel actions, including new or subsequent appointments, performance evaluations and advancement in title
  10. standards for post-tenure review
  11. procedures for meetings within the unit
  12. procedures for the unit’s voting faculty members to indicate in a timely fashion and by vote their approval or disapproval of the unit’s major planning documents, assessment documents, Guidelines for Unit Academic Program Review, and other major reports prior to their submission in final form to person(s) outside the unit
  13. procedures for discussing with its unit administrator the unit’s annual budget request and annual report
  14. amendment procedures.

In furtherance of UNC Policy 300.8.5 (Policy on Equality Within the University of North Carolina), unit codes may express a commitment to building a culture and community that continues to ensure that diverse persons of any background, from North Carolina and beyond, are invited, included, and treated equally.

V. Use of “Guidelines” by a Code Unit

When a Code Unit chooses to maintain a separate document that includes guidelines stating procedures to be followed with regard to faculty evaluation and/or matters not addressed in the unit’s code, the Faculty Manual, or the ECU Policy Manual, these guidelines shall be approved by applicable code unit voting faculty members (see “III” above). Amendments to Guidelines shall be approved by applicable code unit voting faculty members (see “III” above). Such Guidelines shall be referenced in the Unit Code, shall be in compliance with all policies in the ECU Faculty Manual and the ECU Policy Manual, shall be housed in the Code Unit’s administrative offices, in the office of the next-higher administrator and in the Faculty Senate office. At the time of the mandatory review of a unit’s code, a unit’s guidelines, if any, shall also be reviewed by the Unit Code Screening Committee for compliance with university policy. (FS Resolution #19-37, April 2019)

VI. Faculty Workload Guidelines

Each academic unit must, in consultation with the dean, establish and maintain workload guidelines that comply with the ECU Faculty Manual and the ECU University Policy Manual (ECU Policy on Faculty Workload). The guidelines must be approved by the dean or Library director and referenced in the unit code.

The guidelines must:

  1. include an example work plan for each faculty appointment type (probationary term, permanently tenured, or fixed-term) according to their discipline and which is reflective of the missions of the university, the college and academic unit;
  2. establish ordinary percentages for faculty workload in teaching, research/creative activity, patient care and related clinical responsibilities (if applicable), and service for each faculty appointment type which together constitute the 1.0 FTE in a manner consistent with the missions of ECU and the academic unit;
  3. identify with reasonable particularity guidelines under which deviations in the ordinary percentages for a given academic unit may be approved;
  4. provide qualitative and quantitative examples of efforts, including reasonable measures of outputs (i.e., organized course sections taught, student credit hours produced, research/creative activity productivity, etc.) connected to facilitation of career progression (i.e., reappointment, promotion, tenure, post-tenure review, advancement in title).

The following are definitions of faculty responsibilities:

  1. Teaching
    In addition to organized courses, the faculty member’s instructional workload also includes other instructional efforts and considerations such as: course level (bachelors, master’s, doctoral); course categories; instructional format (lecture, lab, etc.); mode of delivery (virtual, F2F, hybrid); programmatic accreditation requirements; team-taught courses; course enrollment; new course prep; course development or significant redesign; development of instructional materials; developing courseware or other materials for technology-based instruction; office hours; supervision of undergraduate research projects, masters’ theses, and doctoral dissertations; academic advising; directing students in co-curricular activities such as plays; preparing and equipping new laboratories; supervision of teaching assistants; supervision of internships; mentoring students or other faculty; and other activities that support student success.
  2. Research/Creative Activity
    Faculty members holding additional responsibilities for research/creative activity as identified in their annual work plan can have their teaching workload adjusted on a commensurate basis. These activities may include, but are not limited to: working in laboratories and studios; conducting empirical and/or theoretical research; engaging in development or translational work; producing creative works; community engagement which results in creative or scholarly outcomes; writing articles for scholarly, trade, and professional outlets; digital scholarship and exhibits; data mapping and dashboarding; monographs; grant proposals; editing scholarly journals; juried art exhibits; curation of archives or exhibitions; performing or creating plays, dramaturgy, concerts, or musical recitals; conducting sponsored research; and similar activities.
  3. Patient Care and Related Clinical Responsibilities
    Refers to the prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of physical and mental well-being through services offered by licensed healthcare professionals (Health and Human Rights Resource Guide) conducted on behalf of ECU. At ECU, these duties will be further defined by applicable Unit Codes and Department guidelines but include activities related to direct patient care.
  4. Service
    Faculty members holding additional responsibilities for service as identified in their annual workplan can have their teaching workload adjusted on a commensurate basis. Examples may include but are not limited to: committee service for a program, department, college, university, or system; professional or academic membership at the local, state, national or international level; advising student groups; mentoring; community service; and administrative responsibilities such as serving as a department chair, program director, or center director, and assistant or associate deans. Faculty members may also be assigned administrative responsibilities, including but not limited to, department chair/head, program director, center director, and assistant or associate deans. ECU Institutional policies and unit codes shall specify the means and extent by which administrative responsibilities count towards a faculty member’s total workload.

Each unit’s faculty workload guidelines will be maintained and made available by the Faculty Senate Office and undergo review by its unit faculty every 5 years.

VII. Five Year Review of a Unit Code

The Unit Code Screening Committee shall report to the Faculty Senate at its last regular meeting of the academic year the unit codes that have not been reviewed within the five year period and might not be in compliance with updated university policies, rules and regulations.

VIII. Faculty Senate Office Records

A copy of each approved Unit Code shall be maintained in the Faculty Senate office. Included with the approved code shall be a page containing the signatures of the chair of each reviewing body and the Chancellor or the Chancellor’s delegate.

IX. Unit Code Training

The Chair of the Faculty includes an introduction to unit codes and guidelines in the annual new faculty and new administrator orientation sessions.

X. Unit Code Availability

Every tenured, probationary (tenure-track) and fixed-term faculty member in a Code Unit shall be provided with a copy of or link to the Unit Code and the unit Guidelines, if any, upon becoming a 51% FTE or greater member of the unit. (FS Resolution #12-40, March 2012)

XI. School or College Constitutions or By-Laws

A School or College in which departments are code units may establish a constitution or by-laws. These shall be developed with input from the School or College faculty and the Dean. They must specify the procedures for their ratification and amendment. Prior to their ratification, constitutions and by-laws must be submitted to the Unit Code Screening Committee for review and advice. After review and amendment, if necessary, the constitution or by-laws shall be approved at a general meeting, such as fall convocation, by a majority of the tenured faculty members present and voting. Upon ratification, the Constitution or by-laws shall be re-submitted to the Unit Code Screening Committee for approval and, if approved, forwarded for review and approval to the Faculty Senate and, subsequently, the Chancellor.

If a School or College constitution or by-laws contains provisions for a School or College Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee, the applicable policies and procedures must be submitted to the Faculty Governance Committee for review and approval prior to ratification of the constitution or by-laws. (FS Resolution #19-20, March 2019)

XII. Acceptable Models for Code Units in Reorganization Plan

Please see the diagram of Acceptable Models for Code Units in Reorganization Plan (PDF).