Faculty Promotions Policy Revised (formerly #S94-028)

Reference Number: F04-028
Senate Approval Date: Thursday, November 04, 2004

5.0  PROMOTIONS POLICY

This Promotions Policy is a revision of the Promotions Policy approved by the Academic Senate on March 4, 1986, and by the President on March l2, 1986, (S86-28) and complies with the following articles from the Agreement Between the Board of Trustees of the California State University and the California Faculty Association, 1987-91: Articles ll, l4, l5, 22.l3 and 29.l7. The revised policy (S90-28) was approved by the Academic Senate on May l5, l990, and by the President on November l5, l990.

           

Advancement in rank is based on merit as demonstrated by teaching performance, professional achievement and growth, and contributions to the campus and community.

 

5.1  THE STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP OF PROMOTIONS COMMITTEES

 

  • Department promotions committees shall be elected by secret ballot by probationary and tenured faculty in the department from among the tenured full-time faculty.

 

  • Faculty being considered for promotion and faculty on the Early Retirement Program are ineligible to serve on department committees.

 

  • Faculty on leave are eligible to serve only if they are willing to serve throughout an academic year.

 

  • Department promotions committee members must have a higher rank than those faculty being considered for promotion.

 

  • University Promotions Committee members must be tenured Professors.           

 

Department Promotions Committee Structure

Departments shall have committees which consist of at least three members. Promotions committee members shall serve a three-year term of office and may be elected for subsequent terms. Provision shall be made to ensure continuity of membership so that in any year there will be carryover of at least one person on a three-member committee and at least two persons on a five-or-more-member committee. In the event a committee member cannot fulfill the term of office, a substitute shall be selected through the standard election procedures to fill out the remainder of the unfilled term.

 

When there are too few eligible faculty to serve on the Promotions Committee within the department, the department shall elect members from among the tenured full time faculty in related academic disciplines.

 

Faculty holding joint appointments shall be reviewed by tenured faculty from each department in which the individual holds an appointment. The review may be conducted by each department separately or by one committee with representatives from each department.

 

The department chair is ineligible to serve as a member of the Promotions Committee, or to participate in committee deliberations. He/she shall make a separate and independent recommendation on each promotion case under consideration.

           

The University Promotions Committee

The University Promotions Committee shall consist of five members, elected according to the following procedures. During the spring semester, one tenured Professor from each unit (College or Library) which does not have a member continuing on the University Promotions Committee shall be nominated according to the procedures for electing College representatives to the Academic Senate. An all-university election shall be held by the end of April to elect the members of the University Promotions Committee from the pool of nominees. Each faculty person may vote for as many persons as there are vacant seats in this election. Those receiving the highest vote tally shall be elected to the committee. In case of a tie vote for the last seat, a run-off election between the tied candidates shall be conducted.

 

College deans, University and College administrators, department chairs, and members of department promotions committees, members of the Academic Senate and Academic Freedom Committee are not eligible to serve.

 

In the event a College or the Library does not have at least two eligible tenured Professors or Librarians, the unit shall have the option of recommending its nominee to the University election from the pool of eligible tenured Professors University-wide. The College or Library shall decide upon its nominee through a unit election process.

 

If a vacancy occurs on the University Promotions Committee after the University election, the person with the next highest number of votes in the University election shall be appointed.

 

Each member of the University Promotions Committee serves a term of two years. Members may succeed themselves in office, with the exception that no one may serve for more than four consecutive years.

 

The members of the University Promotions Committee shall elect one of their number to serve as chair. The chair's term is one year.

 

The University Promotions Committee may participate in meetings having to do with general promotions policies and processes where such meetings or communication sessions do not involve discussion of individual cases.

 

5.2  GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR PROMOTION PROCEDURES

These promotion principles and procedures apply to all eligible faculty unit employees, who are referred to as "faculty members" in this document. In this document, the term "dean" includes the eight College deans and the Director of the Library.

 

All eligible faculty shall be evaluated according to the criteria and procedures contained in this University policy and the Agreement. Each year, prior to commencement of the annual evaluation, eligible faculty shall be informed in writing of any special procedures developed by department promotions committees for use in promotion consideration. Special procedures, if any, developed by departments shall also be reviewed annually by each College dean and the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs to ensure that they are consistent with University policy and the Agreement. Departmental policies and the membership of the current year's promotions committees shall be forwarded to the Academic Senate, the University Promotions Committee, the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs and the College dean according to the deadline on the Executive Calendar.

 

All promotions committee deliberations are confidential.

 

Recommendations regarding promotion are confidential except that the affected faculty member, department promotions committee, department chair, appropriate administrators, and the University Promotions Committee shall have access to the written reviews and recommendations for all levels of review.

 

The faculty member being reviewed is responsible for the preparation and submission of an up-to-date curriculum vitae and all materials he/she wishes to have considered prior to the date the file is closed. An index of all materials submitted shall be prepared by the faculty member and submitted with the materials. Materials for evaluation submitted by the faculty member are returned to the faculty member after the promotion decision has been made by the President and are deemed incorporated into the Personnel Action File (PAF) by reference in the index.

 

It is the obligation of every person involved in the evaluation process to make a diligent effort to obtain factual evidence, to verify the accuracy of data offered, and to evaluate the performance of the faculty member under consideration. Department promotions committees, department chairs, and administrators are responsible for identifying materials related to the evaluation not provided by the faculty member and for placing these materials in the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) prior to the date the file is closed. Reviews and recommendations for the purpose of decisions relating to promotion shall be based solely on material contained in the WPAF and PAF. Faculty members shall have access to materials to be placed in the WPAF at least five days prior to such placement.

 

The WPAF shall be defined as that portion of the PAF specifically generated for use in an evaluation cycle. When sent to the University Promotions Committee and the Vice President for Academic Affairs, it contains the following:

 

  • RTP cover sheet
  • Candidate rebuttal to dean's recommendation (if any)
  • Dean's recommendation
  • Candidate rebuttal to chair's recommendation (if any)
  • Department chair's recommendation
  • Candidate rebuttal to department committee recommendation (if any)
  • Department promotions committee recommendation and report
  • Attachments to the promotions committee report
  • Curriculum vitae
  • Index of supplementary materials arranged as follows:

– evidence pertaining to educational background (if necessary)

– evidence pertaining to teaching performance

– evidence pertaining to professional achievement and growth

– evidence pertaining to contributions to campus and community

 

All information provided by faculty, students, academic administrators and others must be identified by the name of the source. Routine student evaluations, however, remain anonymous and are identified only by their course, section, and semester. Any student communications other than these routine evaluations must be identified by name.

 

The chair of the department promotions committee is responsible for the generation and maintenance of the WPAF until the file is forwarded to the department chair. The chair of the department promotions committee shall complete the appropriate sections of the RTP Cover Sheet and attach it to the WPAF prior to forwarding the file to the next level of review. Thereafter, responsibility for the WPAF resides with the department chair, the dean and the designated custodian at the University level, respectively. At each level of review, the RTP Cover Sheet shall be completed for that level of review.

 

The WPAF shall be considered complete with respect to documentation of performance for the current cycle of review on the date published in the Executive Calendar. After this date, the insertion of new material into the WPAF shall be limited to those items which became accessible only after this deadline and which have been approved for inclusion by the University Promotions Committee. Any material inserted after the deadline shall be returned to all earlier levels of review for evaluation and comment beginning with the department promotions committee.

 

Examples of new material requiring the approval of the University Promotions Committee are: student classroom evaluations from fall semester of the year of the promotion review, receipt of an award or appointment to a prestigious board or agency which was not anticipated in the WPAF, or resolution of a pending disciplinary action after the deadline. Examples of materials which are not new are: materials already in the WPAF or PAF, evidence to support rebuttal statements, and items which verify statements made in the department committee's report, e.g. verification of completion of a degree or acceptance or publication of an article.

 

The candidate is responsible for the identification of materials he/she wishes to be considered and for the submission of such materials as may be accessible to him/her. Promotions committees and administrators are responsible for identifying and providing materials relating to evaluation which are not provided by the candidate. When an absence of required evaluation documents is discovered by the dean, Vice President for Academic Affairs or University Promotions Committee, the Working Personnel Action File must be returned to the level at which the requisite documentation should have been provided. Such material shall be provided in a timely manner.

 

If, during the time when WPAF's are being reviewed by the University Promotions Committee and the Vice President for Academic Affairs, questions arise as to whether both parties have identical WPAF's, the extra copy kept on file with the designated custodian at the University level shall be used to reconcile the WPAF of the Vice President for Academic Affairs with those of the University Promotions Committee members.

 

A request for an external review of materials submitted by a faculty member may be initiated at any level of review by any party to the review. External review is defined as off-campus impartial evaluation of materials in the WPAF. Such a request shall document the special circumstances which necessitate an outside reviewer and the nature of the materials needing the evaluation of an external reviewer. The request must be approved by the President or designee with the concurrence of the candidate.

 

In the event the President makes a decision regarding promotion for reasons other than the professional qualifications, work performance, or personal attributes of the faculty member as documented in the WPAF, then these written reasons must be given to the faculty member immediately and placed in the PAF.

 

5.3  DEPARTMENT AND COLLEGE LEVEL REVIEW PROCEDURES

The main responsibility for evaluating and interpreting the significance of a candidate's endeavors and performance must reside with the department promotions committee, department chair, and College dean. These three parties to the promotions process must meet this responsibility in order for the promotions process to function at an acceptable professional level.

 

At the beginning of the fall semester, the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs shall notify the deans and the University Promotions Committee in writing about faculty eligible for promotion. The College deans shall notify in writing eligible faculty, department promotions committees, and department chairs. Faculty members who are eligible for review but decline to be considered must notify the department chair, department promotions committee, College dean, University Promotions Committee and Vice President for Academic Affairs in writing that they do not wish to be considered. Candidates for promotion may withdraw without prejudice from consideration at any level of review.

 

The department promotions committee shall notify all eligible faculty of the evaluation criteria and procedures (including due dates) prior to the beginning of each annual evaluation process. These criteria and procedures must be adhered to throughout the process.

 

The department promotions committee shall assemble all information relevant to the evaluation by the closing date published in the Executive Calendar, as described in Section 5.2, General Principles for Promotion Procedures. All information considered by the department promotions committee, except routine student evaluations, must be identified by the name of the source.

 

Written student questionnaire evaluations shall be required for all faculty members who teach. A minimum of two classes annually for each faculty member shall have such written student evaluations. Student evaluation shall be conducted in classes representative of the faculty member's teaching assignment. The results of these evaluations shall be placed in the faculty member's PAF. Unless consultation with an academic unit has resulted in an agreement by the administration and faculty to evaluate all classes, the classes to be evaluated shall be jointly determined in consultation between the faculty member being evaluated and his/her department chair. In the event of disagreement, each party shall select 50% of the total courses to be evaluated.

 

The department promotions committee may receive written reports or hear testimony from other faculty members, from students and others as deemed appropriate, but such statements shall be taken in the presence of the committee alone to ensure confidentiality. Only members of the department promotions committee may be present during its deliberations. Oral statements used by the committee must be summarized in writing, identified by name, and placed in the report.

 

Promotion evaluation reports and recommendations shall be approved by a simple majority of the membership of the committee. Abstentions shall be counted as a no vote.

 

Upon completion of its deliberations, the department promotions committee shall prepare a written report summarizing the data sources used, the nature of its evidence, its evaluation of the evidence, and its concluding recommendations. The department promotions committee shall sign and give its report and recommendations to the faculty member prior to forwarding it to the next level of review. Whenever a candidate is not recommended for promotion by the department promotions committee, the committee must provide the candidate, in writing, with its reasons for recommending against promotion and its specification of ways in which the candidate must improve in order to merit promotion. The faculty member shall sign and date receipt of his/her copy.

 

The department chair shall prepare a separate recommendation. It shall be his/her duty to give a copy of this recommendation to the faculty member before forwarding it and the WPAF to the dean.

 

Differences of opinion and problems of communication should be resolved to the extent possible at the level of origin before being forwarded to the next level of review. In the event of disagreement between the department promotions committee and the department chair recommendations or between the dean and the promotions committee or the chair, the dean shall attempt to secure resolution through consultation with department promotions committee and the department chair.

 

The dean shall prepare a separate recommendation, and shall give a copy of the recommendation to the faculty member prior to forwarding the WPAF and recommendation to the Vice President and University Promotions Committee.

 

At all levels of review, before recommendations are forwarded to a subsequent review level, faculty members shall be given a copy of the recommendation and the written reasons therefor. The faculty member may submit a rebuttal statement or response in writing and/or request a meeting be held to discuss the recommendation within seven days following receipt of the recommendation. A copy of the response or rebuttal statement shall accompany the WPAF and also be sent to all previous levels of review. This shall not require that evaluation timelines be extended.

 

5.4  THE UNIVERSITY LEVEL REVIEW PROCEDURES

Upon completion of the dean's review, five copies of the WPAF shall be sent to the University Promotions Committee, one copy shall be sent to the designated custodian at the University level, and one copy shall be sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs according to the deadlines in the Executive Calendar. One set of indexed materials shall accompany the five copies of the WPAF sent to the University Promotions Committee.

 

Promotions are made by the University President. At the University level, the WPAF is reviewed by the University Promotions Committee and by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The University Promotions Committee and the Vice President for Academic Affairs shall independently review the WPAF and prepare their recommendations for the President. Copies of their separate recommendations and reasons therefor shall be sent to the candidate seven days prior to forwarding the WPAF to the President, according to deadlines published in the Executive Calendar. Recommendations shall be made as early in the year as possible and shall be forwarded to the President no later than May 15.

 

The University Promotions Committee and the Vice President for Academic Affairs shall meet to discuss their recommendations prior to forwarding their final recommendations to the candidate and the President. The President shall meet together with the University Promotions Committee and the Vice President for Academic Affairs to discuss their recommendations prior to making his/her final decision.

 

All proceedings of the University Promotions Committee are conducted in strict confidence. No member of the Committee is authorized to divulge any information with regard to Committee deliberations or meetings with the Vice President for Academic Affairs or the President to any person outside the Committee. Promotion evaluation reports and recommendations shall be approved by a simple majority of the committee. Abstentions shall be counted as a no vote.

 

The President shall state his/her reasons for approval or denial in his/her letter of decision.

 

At the end of the promotions process, after promotions decisions have been announced, the complete WPAF and copies of the President's letter informing faculty of his/her decision shall be sent to the official Personnel Action File in the Faculty Records Office. Indexed materials shall be returned to the faculty member by the designated custodian at the University level.

 

Following the final promotions announcement by the President, the University Promotions Committee shall report to the Senate the number of its positive and negative recommendations. This report may also call attention to ways in which the promotions operations may be improved. The report must be signed by all Committee members.

 

5.5  OPERATIONAL CALENDAR FOR PROMOTION RECOMMENDATIONS

Dates for the closing of the WPAF and the submission of reviews and recommendations to the next level of review shall be determined annually and published in the Executive Calendar. There shall be a minimum of two weeks for review at successive levels. All evaluations shall be conducted and completed within the period of time specified by the Executive Calendar. The WPAF shall be forwarded in a timely manner to the next level of review.

 

The President shall notify faculty reviewed for promotion in writing of the final decision on the promotion no later than June 15. If promotion is awarded, this letter shall indicate the effective date.

 

5.6  ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTION

All faculty must have achieved the appropriate level of academic training for promotion. For promotion to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor, possession of a doctoral degree or appropriate terminal degree is a normal prerequisite; exception may be made in those instances where faculty members may be uniquely qualified. (See Policy on Educational Qualifications at Time of Tenure-track Hire.)

 

A faculty member shall not normally be promoted during probation. A probationary faculty member shall normally be considered for promotion at the same time he/she is considered for tenure. However, a faculty member in the rank of Instructor or Librarian equivalent may be considered for promotion after completing one year of service in rank.

 

Promotion of a faculty member shall normally be effective at the beginning of the sixth (6th) year after appointment to his/her current academic rank/classification. The performance review for promotion shall take place during the year preceding the effective date of promotion. This provision shall not apply if the faculty member requests in writing that he/she not be considered for promotion.

 

In some circumstances, a faculty member may, upon application and with a positive recommendation from his/her department or equivalent unit, be considered for promotion to Professor or Librarian equivalent prior to having satisfied the service requirements as described above.

 

Promotions may be granted to faculty who have been engaged in administrative activities outside the department. Such promotions must be made according to the procedures in this policy.

 

5.7  PROMOTION CRITERIA

The following criteria are to be employed at all levels of decision-making in respect to promotions.

 

The criteria for promotion are (a) teaching performance, (b) professional achievement and growth, and (c) contributions to campus and community. Candidates for promotion shall be evaluated on all criteria. To merit promotion, a candidate must demonstrate one of the following profiles of significant and/or superior achievement (with superior as a higher rating than significant):

 

Teaching Performance

Professional Achievement and Growth

Contributions to Campus and Community

a. significant

AND significant

AND significant

b. significant

AND superior

OR superior

c. superior

AND significant

OR significant

 

The primary emphasis is on teaching performance; candidates must demonstrate at least a significant rating on this criterion. There is no order of priority between the non-teaching criteria. Faculty members need not exhibit achievement in both of the non-teaching criteria. Indeed, to provide for a variety of meritorious activities and flexibility, comprehensiveness, and vigor in the University faculty, it is hoped that faculty members will exhibit highly varied profiles of achievement. Judgments about what is significant and superior within each criterion will vary with differences in disciplines, professional expectations within a discipline, and departmental, College and University objectives and goals. It is the responsibility of the department promotions committee to establish clearly the department's expectations for promotion consistent with the University criteria. The department is also responsible for making clear its requirements for documenting the quality and relevance of the work accomplished. This shall be done in consultation with the candidate at the time of hire and during the first year in rank.

 

Activities while in current rank are of primary relevance to promotion considerations. Verifiable accomplishments while in the same rank at other institutions or equivalent accomplishments in a non-academic setting may be included in he WPAF. When former lecturers have performed academic work comparable to that of faculty at the rank to which they have been appointed, that work may be used toward promotion. Activities engaged in while in former ranks are relevant when they form part of a process which occurs, in part, while the candidate is in current rank.

 

Achievements in current rank should demonstrate promise of meritorious activities comparable to the achievements and services expected of faculty who serve at the rank to which the individual is to be promoted. The intensity of the evaluation process will vary in accordance with the academic position of the faculty member; thus, promotion to Professor requires more rigorous application of standards than promotion to Associate Professor.

 

Teaching Performance

A faculty member should maintain a scholarly level of instruction, show commitment to high academic and pedagogic standards, be effective in instructing and advising students, guide and motivate students, and apply evaluative standards fairly and appropriately with respect to all students.

 

Assessment of teaching performance must be based on evidence obtained systematically from students and colleagues as well as from the candidate. This evidence may be provided in a variety of ways:

           

  • A scholarly level of instruction may be demonstrated by evidence such as continuing study, attendance at professional conferences and workshops, currency of course materials, and course and curriculum development, whether disciplinary or interdisciplinary.

 

  • Commitment to high academic standards may be demonstrated by evidence such as written course requirements, evaluation procedures, and student performance.

 

  • Commitment to high pedagogic standards may be demonstrated by evidence such as continued critical examination of one's teaching behavior, participation in instructional development seminars and workshops, innovations in teaching techniques, and currency in instructional theory and research.

 

  • Effectiveness in instructing students may be demonstrated by evidence such as student ratings, comments, and letters; and colleague observations.

 

  • Effectiveness in advising may be demonstrated by evidence such as descriptions of the nature and extent of advising activities, student letters and interviews, and descriptions of thesis and special project advising.

 

  • Effectiveness in guiding and motivating students may be demonstrated by evidence such as student ratings, comments, and letters; examples of feedback given to students; and examples of willingness to confer with students.

 

  • Fair and appropriate application of evaluative standards may be demonstrated by evidence such as student ratings, comments, and letters.

 

The department, in making its evaluation of teaching performance, must indicate the qualitative bases on which that judgment was made. A list of all courses taught, and those courses evaluated, should be included. If the data used to evaluate teaching performance include student comments, a representative sample of this material shall be included. Data which have been summarized statistically (e.g., overall mean ratings) should be accompanied by the more detailed data (e.g., time means, course means, etc.) on which they were based. Comparative data may also be used, but should indicate the basis for comparison (e.g., department as a whole, faculty at the same rank, faculty teaching same or similar courses, candidate's ratings over time, etc.) This evaluation should also reflect the department's need for instruction at different levels, individualized and specialized instruction, and student advising.

 

For faculty whose primary assignment is other than teaching (e.g., audio-visual, department chairs, Library) and who do not have a separate promotion policy approved by the Academic Senate, primary emphasis shall be on effectiveness in assignment. Evidence of effectiveness in assignment must be based on systematically gathered data. The candidate's assignment must be clearly explained and documentation provided on the quality of performance. In addition, teaching performance shall be evaluated in courses taught by the candidate.

           

Professional Achievement and Growth

Professional achievement and growth, disciplinary or interdisciplinary, may be exhibited in a variety of ways, including research, publications, clinics, and workshops, presentations to professional societies, leadership in professional societies, development of new areas of expertise, attainment of new professional licenses or certification, creative work, curricular and/or programmatic innovation, unpublished manuscripts, or similar work in progress. Although in general, no single category of professional achievement and growth is viewed as more important than others, individual departments may emphasize one category as more important than another within the framework of the department's needs and service to the students, and this emphasis shall be considered in the evaluations.

 

Research and Publication. Descriptions of publications, presentations to professional societies, research projects or unpublished manuscripts, or copies of said works, shall be included in the WPAF. Scholarly evaluations of such works may also be included. If such evaluations are not available, and if the department promotions committee determines that such evaluations are desirable, it may obtain such evaluations after reaching agreement with the candidate about the appropriateness of the referees. (Also see Section 5.2 regarding external review of materials in the WPAF.) The department promotions committee should include in its report assessment of the quality of the candidate's work.

 

Creative works, such as musical compositions, choreography, art works, films, electronic media productions, literary or dramatic works, designs or inventions, exhibitions or performances shall be submitted to the department promotions committee in whatever form or forms typically are employed for evaluation in the relevant field. Such forms may include presenting the creative work itself, a reproduction or replica of the work, or a description of the work, together with whatever critical reviews may be available. The department promotions committee should include in its report assessment of the quality of the candidate's work. Procedures for securing referees and evaluations are those specified under Research and Publication.

 

Professional Leadership. Leadership must be at a level which demonstrates accomplishment or recognition within the relevant field. Evidence of leadership may include elections to or offices held in professional societies; awards, honors, and other forms of formal recognition by professional societies; attainment of new licenses or certificates; conducting clinics, workshops, and symposia; participation on editorial boards or as a referee; professional consulting, etc. Community involvement which both applies professional expertise and results in professional innovations may qualify as professional achievement and growth.

 

Curricular Innovations.  Curricular and/or programmatic innovations in the discipline, across disciplines, or for the benefit of General Education may qualify as professional achievement and growth. Such activities may include the development of original academic programs, new courses or course content, disciplinary and/or pedagogical approaches, applications of technology, etc. Development of new areas of instructional expertise may also be considered in this category. Procedures for securing referees and evaluations are those specified under Research and Publication.

           

Contributions to Campus and Community

Activities included in this section should not be duplicated in other sections.

 

Contributions to Campus. These may include, but are not limited to, the following: administrative assignments (other than primary assignment), faculty governance, committee work, special advising assignments (e.g., General Education advising, Liberal Studies advising, Special Major advising, etc.), program development, sponsorship of student organizations, and direction of non-instructional activities and projects. Evidence supporting contributions to campus may include descriptions of the nature and extent of work accomplished, committee documents, letters from students and/or colleagues, project reports, etc. The department promotions committee should include in its report assessment of the nature and quality of the candidate's work in these activities.

 

Contributions to Community. Faculty members may use their academic expertise or University status to serve the community at the city, state, national, and/or international levels. Such contributions should clearly benefit both the community and the University.

 

Descriptions of contributions to community shall be submitted to the department promotions committee. If the department promotions committee determines that evaluation of these activities by outside experts is desirable, procedures for securing referees and evaluations are those specified under Research and Publication.

 

5.8  APPEAL OF PROMOTIONS DECISIONS

A faculty member who has not been promoted may request reconsideration of his/her case. The faculty member requests reconsideration by filing a notice of dispute according to the provisions of Article 10 of the Agreement. The faculty member or his/her representative must file the notice of dispute within 21 days of receiving the President's decision not to promote.

 

**REVISED POLICY UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE ACADEMIC SENATE AT ITS MEETING ON NOVEMBER 4, 2004***

 

**ENDORSED BY PRESIDENT CORRIGAN**

Policy Document: F04-028_pdf