Introduction

  • This election is for Tenure and Promotion Committee College of Arts and Sciences Representative. The rules for this election are listed below.
  • The nominees for the Tenure and Promotion Committee College of Arts and Sciences Representative election are listed to the right. The list to the right is not a ballot.
  • This list in not official until nominations have been closed and the list of nominees has been reviewed and verified by the APSCUF Nominations and Elections Committee.
  • The statements the candidates submitted with their nominations are given below. By clicking on a name in the list of candidates, you will be taken to that candidate's statement.
  • Clicking on the words Return to Top will return you to this part of the page.
  • If you are a nominee and wish to modify your statement or withdraw your nomination, click on the "Modify" button. You will need your password to make any modifications.
  • When you are finished, you may choose to view nominees for other elections, nominate yourself, view the list of elections, return to the APSCUF Nominations and Elections homepage, visit the APSCUF homepage, or visit the WCU homepage.
The nominees for Tenure and Promotion Committee College of Arts and Sciences Representative are:

Steven L. Broitman
Gail Gallitano
Martin S. Remland

Nominations close Mar 19, 2009.
Tenured Faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences may be nominated.

Rules for the Election

    • CAS has representation from English and Foreign Languages this year; therefore, we will not be able to accept nominations from those departments this election cycle.
    • Each department can have at most one representative on the university wide Tenure and Promotion Committee.
    • Membership on the committee is restricted to the following structure: 4 faculty representatives from the College of Arts and Sciences, 1 faculty representative from each of the Schools of Health Sciences, Education, Music, and Business and Public Affairs, and 1 faculty representative from the non-classroom faculty.
    • The election is decided by majority of those casting votes unless such results violate the previous rules or the number of candidates does not exceed the number of positions to fill. In the later case, each candidate will be voted on by an approve/disapprove ballot. If an insufficient number of candidates recieve a majority, a run-off election will be held between the top two elligible candidates. If there is only one elligible candidate for such a run-off, an approve/disapprove ballot will be used.
    • Vacant seats will be filled one at a time with the current vacant seat filled by the candidate with the highest vote count. As each seat is filled, the candidate filling that seat and any other candidates from the same department as the candidate filling that seat will be disqualified. Votes cast for disqualified candidates, as just defined, will not be considered in filling remaining vacant seats.
    • Each candidate selected counts as a cast vote.

| Return to Top |

Steven L. Broitman


Department: Biology

I have decided to run for election to TeP for another term of service. Having previously served on this committee I am particularly aware of the importance of this work. With over 20 years on the faculty, I have a pretty fair understanding of how the institution functions (and sometimes doesn’t….), and I also have a fairly realistic perspective on what are appropriate (and reasonable) standards by which to evaluate faculty. Having completed the tenure and promotion process I also have an appreciation for the difficulties entailed in sometimes fulfilling these various (and sometimes competing) expectations. In addition to my principal academic background in molecular biology and science (which is obviously useful in evaluating other scientists) I have additional academic training in psychology and education, which has also proven useful in evaluating TeP applications across various disciplines. Finally, my previous work on this committee confirms my belief that this service must be executed with a significant commitment to consistency and fairness in order for the process to remain legitimate. Thus, I am seeking election for another term.


| Return to Top |

Gail Gallitano


Department: mathematics

I am currently completing my third term on the Tenure and Promotion Committee. I find it to be a very rewarding experience. To that end I would like to continue my membership on TeP. It's essential that TeP remain an independent voice and that TeP members be objective in their evaluation of all candidates. I believe I can serve this purpose and therefore am opting to run for re-election. I do find the TeP Committee to be a very important piece of the tenure and promotion process.


| Return to Top |

Martin S. Remland


Department: Communication Studies

WCU has a tremendously talented, dedicated, and hard working faculty who deserve a tenure and promotion process that offers a path to success free of bias, unreasonable or unclear expectations, cumbersome procedures, and undue anxiety.

I’m a Full Professor and I’ve been on the faculty here for almost 20 years, so I’m very familiar with the important work and responsibilities of this committee, as well as the trials and tribulations of applicants seeking tenure and promotion. My 35 years of teaching and research include both scientific (e.g., effects of nonverbal cues on social judgments) and humanistic (e.g., public speaking, debate, interviewing) approaches to the study and practice of communication.

Because of my background and training, I appreciate how important it is to keep the lines of communication open, to encourage dialogue and debate, to be aware of unintended biases, and to let faculty know, in a concrete way, what the University expects of them. In this regard, I strongly support the ongoing work of the University’s EPT Committee. As teachers in the classroom, we encourage our students to reach their full potential, in part, by letting them know, as precisely as we can, what we expect of them. We should do no less for our faculty.

I will be critical, impartial and thorough in applying all relevant standards, which is the committee’s ultimate charge. But in the event that a standard is subjective and thus open to different interpretations, and there is a substantive disagreement over the meaning of the standard, we should not require a faculty member to present anything other than a “reasonable” interpretation of that standard.

In the application for tenure and promotion, the personal narrative is the single most important document. My promise to you, the faculty, is that I will thoroughly and carefully study each applicant's narrative so that the applicant's voice is clearly heard and duly regarded.


| Return to Top |

Return to the APSCUF Nominations and Elections home page

Created and copyrighted by Clifford Johnston, 2000-12