This is a great clarification and standardization of LAT rights and responsibilities. Do we need to add text that addresses eligibility to serve on graduate examination committees? An LAT does/should not provide any ability to serve on graduate committees beyond the individual's existing eligibility as a non-UNM professional in whatever discipline. To avoid confusion, it might be helpful to state this explicitly. Alternately, we would need to clarify in the graduate catalog that LAT holders do not have any special status with regard to committee service.

Please find below comments from the School of Medicine Office of Faculty Affairs and Career Development

Prepared and submitted by Justin Baca, Assistant Dean for Faculty Affairs and Career Development

FH Policy C170 "Endowed Chairs and Named Professorships;" 

1) Most of the proposed changes add clarity.

2) We note removal of the text “It is envisioned that most of these honorific appointments will accrue to tenured full professors, although certain temporary or rotating positions are also possible,” and deem this a positive change as many SOM faculty are clinician educators.

3) We note the addition of the text, “For current UNM faculty, endowed chairs and named professorships awarded must be competitive and follow established college or school written procedures.” We are concerned that this text is unclear as to whether “competitive” refers to quality of faculty among external peers or whether it implies there must be a competitive appointment process among potentially eligible faculty. We note that a competitive, open application process for all named professorships or endowed chairs would be a deviation from current processes and would limit the authority of chairs and deans. We suggest further clarification of this section to avoid any implication that named professorships and endowed chairs must be awarded through an open application process. Suggested revision: “For current UNM faculty, endowed chairs and named professorships awarded must follow established college or school written procedures.”

4) We note the absence of a described appeal process if a faculty member is removed from an endowed chair or named professorship.


FH Policy C305 "Emeriti Status;" 

1) The procedural revisions mostly add clarity.

2) The UNM SOM has many working retirees who may not have requested emeritus status when transitioning to part-time or working retiree status. We note the addition of the test “If a faculty member wishes to request emeriti status, the request must be made within three (3) years of retirement from UNM.” We are concerned that many faculty who would have been considered for emeriti status will now be ineligible. We request clarification whether the 3-year rule is intended to apply to the initial retirement date or if faculty who return to work would again be eligible. If the 3-year rule is tied to the initial retirement date, we request a grace period to allow current retirees who are working for UNM part time to request emeritus status.

3) We are concerned that there is substantial overlap and potential confusion between emeriti status and a retired faculty member who holds a letter of academic title. It appears that Emeriti faculty could potentially be compensated for their activities given the addition of the text “whether compensated or not,” and it is not clear if this is intentional. We are also concerned that it is unclear whether an emeriti faculty member who continues to work clinically would need a letter of academic title for hospital credentialing purposes or if the emeriti position would fulfil the faculty appointment requirement for credentialing. As currently written, the revised policy appears to suggest that emeriti faculty could be credentialed and paid for clinical work under the emeriti status.


Proposed New Policy:

FH Policy C190 "Letter of Academic Title;"  

1) We have substantial process concerns given that the SOM has over 2000 LAT faculty. This proposed policy has the potential to have outsized impact on UNM SOM processes.

2) We currently appoint LAT faculty on a 2 year, staggered basis. We note the text “The term for an initial LAT is usually one (1) year.” Based on the inclusion of “usually” we intend to continue our current practice of initial appointment for 2 years due to the needs of the medical school and the historical stability of LAT faculty. We will continue to actively remove LAT faculty who do not contribute to the UNM SOM mission.

3) We note that the current text states “All LAT applications should be submitted to the Provost/Executive Vice President for Health Sciences (EVPHS) or designee for final approval.” If the approval authority is not designated to the SOM faculty affairs office, the EVPHS will need to review and approve over 1000 LATs each year, which would significantly delay the appointment process.

4) We are concerned about potential lack of clarity in the statement “Research LATs require approval from the requisite Vice President for Research.” We note that our clinical affiliate faculty often participate in research, and this appears to be allowed under the definition of “voluntary clinical affiliate.” We are not clear whether the policy intends to requires VPR approval for all clinical LAT faculty who might participate in a research project at UNM. It is our interpretation of the currently proposed policy that only Voluntary Research Affiliate LATs would need specific VPR approval.

5) We are unclear why there is a distinction between Exempt and non-exempt employee eligibility for a LAT.  The current text states “Exempt staff employees are eligible for a LAT.” There could be a situation where a clinician has a non-exempt part time position with UNM but also works for UNMH and requires a LAT for credentialling. This could be addressed by removing the term “exempt” or remaining silent on which UNM staff employees are eligible for a LAT.

6) We have a strong objection to providing multiple LATs for any faculty member. If a potential LAT faculty member intends to participate in Clinical, teaching, and research missions, we intend to appoint that faculty member as a voluntary clinical affiliate. If a potential LAT faculty member intends to contribute to education and research missions, we intend to appoint them as a “teaching and research affiliate” and have the LAT reviewed by the VPR. If a faculty member is participating in the UNM mission through multiple departments, we intend to issue the LAT through a single department where the majority of their effort is placed.

7) We currently recognize Retired LATs, and we are unclear if the proposed policy intends to prohibit this. Our current SOM LAT Policy states:
   a. Retired LAT: Members who resign from the LAT faculty will become Retired Faculty Members by LAT if at least one of the following conditions has been met:
        i. The member's age and years of service as a Faculty Member by LAT add to the sum of 75 or more;
        ii. The member's years of service as a Faculty Member by LAT total 25 or more;
        iii. The member's age is 65 or more and the years of service as a Faculty Member by LAT
We request clarification whether we can continue to follow this process under the proposed policy or whether we would need to convert “retired LAT” faculty to general affiliate to achieve a similar outcome.

I hold a LAT with the Anthropology Department for research purposes, and I was pressed into service as an emergency replacement professor when a faculty member was unable to teach a required class in the curriculum. That worked out fine ... but it raised an issue with me when I read the Policy Statement of the draft of C190

The last sentence reads: "Once a formal faculty appointment is established, the LAT is discontinued."

I don't understand academic jargon well, so my single semester teaching appointment may not have constituted a "formal faculty appointment," but if it did, then by this policy my LAT would be discontinued now that the semester is over.

If this is not a concern, you can ignore this comment. But an alternative wording for the last sentence might be: "Once a formal faculty appointment is established, the LAT is discontinued or suspended for the duration of the appointment."

Thanks,

--Eric Blinman, Ph.D.

The sentence immediately below "Procedures" is ambiguous. It might be clearer to state, "...the request must be made within three (3) years of after retirement from UNM."

Also, I wonder why, under "applicability," "units" has been changed to "departments." Is emeriti status limited to departments (and excluding programs, divisions, etc.)? Or has the reference of "department" been expanded in the FHB to include all academic units?

Issue: The requirement in Procedures Section 1 that "Official titles of all LATs must include the phrase '(appointed via Letter of Academic Title)'" creates unintended credibility issues and directly conflicts with standard higher education practices and existing UNM Faculty Handbook definitions.

The Practical Impact: The draft policy mandates that external affiliates use unmodified ladder-rank titles appended with a lengthy parenthetical disclaimer. The purpose of granting a LAT to external professionals is to provide them with the institutional standing necessary to secure grants, publish, and collaborate effectively. When LAT holders use this mandated title on external documents, the explanatory phrase signals to reviewers that the appointment is provisional or irregular.

For community physicians volunteering as clinical preceptors, this conditional phrasing can inadvertently impact patient and peer perception of their credentials. Furthermore, granting pure ladder-rank or standard research titles (even with a disclaimer) to unpaid volunteers risks blurring the lines with UNM's dedicated, paid faculty tracks.

Formatting Limitations in Practice: Applying this mandated phrase creates confusing and unwieldy titles for external use. Consider how a LAT appointment for these three distinct roles would appear on a clinic website, an NIH Biosketch, or a consortium publication byline:

Clinical Faculty: Sarah Lee, M.D., Professor (appointed via Letter of Academic Title)
Integrated Volunteer: Jane Smith, Ph.D., Associate Professor (appointed via Letter of Academic Title)
External Collaborator: John Doe, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist (appointed via Letter of Academic Title)
Beyond exceeding character limits on various web submission portals, this phrasing deviates from standard academic nomenclature.

Conflict with Existing UNM Policy and Peer Institutions: The draft policy's formatting mandate ignores the solution already codified in UNM policy. Section B2 (2.3.11 Clinical Titles) of the Faculty Handbook explicitly states that titles such as "clinical assistant professor" are appropriate for practicing professionals who volunteer time or are non-University employees assigned to a particular department on a regular basis.

Furthermore, standardizing the use of prefixes like "Adjunct" or "Affiliate" for non-clinical volunteers aligns with peer institutions including the UC System, Yale, and Columbia. These universities do not grant unmodified titles to voluntary affiliates, nor do they mandate internal administrative disclaimers in public titles. They differentiate non-tenure or voluntary faculty purely through established prefixes.

Proposed Solution: Achieve the necessary legal and administrative distinctions internally, while adhering to Section B2 and universally recognized academic nomenclature for external use.

Suggested Revision to Procedures Section 1: "The phrase (appointed via Letter of Academic Title) must be recorded in the individual's official UNM personnel file, initial offer letter, and internal directory data. However, for external facing professional activities, including email signatures, publications, biosketches, and grant applications, the individual should use standard modifiers appropriate to their role (such as those outlined in Faculty Handbook Section B2 and national conventions) without the parenthetical."
Example of Recommended External Formatting: Under this proposed revision, the unwieldy titles shown above would align with national standards and existing UNM precedent:

Sarah Lee, M.D., Clinical Professor
Jane Smith, Ph.D., Adjunct Associate Professor
John Doe, Ph.D., Affiliate Senior Research Scientist
Proposed Addition to Procedures Section 1 (Guidelines for Title Modifiers): To ensure consistency with national practices and prevent ambiguity, I recommend adding a clear rubric to the policy defining when specific prefixes should be used based on the nature of the individual's operational relationship with the University.

Clinical [Rank] (e.g., Clinical Associate Professor): Reserved for practicing healthcare professionals who volunteer their time to participate in patient care, clinical teaching, or precepting on a regular basis. This aligns directly with the established definitions and approved titles outlined in UNM Faculty Handbook Section B2.
Adjunct [Rank] (e.g., Adjunct Professor): Used for qualified individuals who actively contribute to the University's primary teaching or research missions on a part-time or voluntary basis. This is the appropriate modifier for individuals formally teaching a course, actively advising students, or serving as a formalized investigator on a UNM-administered grant.
Affiliate [Rank] (e.g., Affiliate Assistant Professor): Used for external experts, community professionals, or collaborative researchers whose primary professional allegiance is to another institution or organization. This is the appropriate modifier for peers who partner with UNM on joint initiatives or who require institutional resource access but do not assume a formal operational workload at UNM.

I have two groups of comments/questions/requests. The first pertains to ROTC, specifically; the second concerns more general matters.

1. ROTC-related comments:

As you may know, every person who teaches in our ROTC program (and, for that matter, every other ROTC program in the US) is a member/employee of either the US Army, US Air Force, or US Navy/Marines. That is, they're not UNM employees, and therefore they require LATs to work at universities as instructors. Their paychecks and insurance, of course, are provided by their respective branches of the military.

Further, it is standard military/ROTC practice nationwide to assign these individuals to 3-year assignments.

Finally, there is a standard nationwide correlation between the highest academic degree earned and the (LAT) faculty title bestowed — a correlation that does not exactly comport with the ways that other UNM LAT titles are assigned. I have sent a chart to the University Secretary showing how this correlation pertains to UNM's faculty titles specifically.

In light of the above, here are my requests:

- Can an exception be either (a) added to the language of the policy or (b) spelled out in a separate MOU to University College and our three ROTC programs that allows ROTC instructors to have 3-year (rather than 1-year) LATs as standard practice?

- Similarly, can we construct an MOU codifying the correlations on the chart and noting that they are for ROTC only?

2. General questions/comments/requests concerning the policy's structure and categories:

In the Procedures section of the proposed policy, section 1 discusses LAT Titles and Ranks. Then, section 4 discusses LAT Categories. I am finding these separate discussions of titles/ranks and categories to be confusing. Here's why:

- Is each title/rank a *member* of one of the categories? (For example, if an individual is an assistant professor via LAT, does that mean that the individual is *also* a member of category 4.2: Voluntary Teaching Affiliates?)

- Or are the ranks & titles discussed in section 1 completely separate from and unrelated to the categories discussed in section 4? (Thus, if a person has the specific rank of assistant professor via LAT, does it mean that that person is NOT a Voluntary Teaching Affiliate?)

If there is a relationship between the Categories and the Ranks/Titles, then I recommend that this be made explicit in the policy. To do so, you might want to introduce the Categories first, and then discuss the specific titles/ranks that are available under each category.

If there's no relationship, however, then I think you need to say that one large batch of LAT people are given specific ranks/titles while a separate/different batch of LAT people are given Category designations rather than ranks/titles.

Please feel free to contact me if this is not clear. Thank you.
David Weiss
University College

This revision attempts unsuccessfully to address the gendered nature of adjectives in Latin by adapting the common English language use of "they/them" pronouns to denote non-binary identity to a faculty status denoted by a Latin term. The proposed use of "emeriti" does not accomplish the goal, because this is the masculine plural form, not a neutral form, so the feminine gender is excluded.  Referring collectively to "faculty emeriti" is at least grammatically correct, but excludes female identifying faculty. Some parts of the revised policy refer to individual faculty members having the title "Professor Emeriti," which would misgender female faculty, is grammatically incorrect in Latin, and is not a term with a recognized meaning. As a male-identifying individual, I would have no intention of ever using the title "Professor Emeriti" if awarded, because doing so would be ridiculous and inaccurate. The proposed policy revision needs to provide that individual retired faculty can choose the title that is appropriate to their identity.  For a gender neutral option, I suggest we use "emerit," which is an English adaptation similar to referring collectively to "alums."  This has begun to be used at some other universities, and it at least avoids creating multiple gender and single/plural disagreement problems. The fact that some individual faculty retirees might prefer a gender neutral title should not deprive those of us who identify with one of the binary genders from using an historically established, understood, and linguistically correct title.  Another issue with the proposed changes is that it is unclear when they would take effect. Under the new policy, a department's recommendation must incorporate reference to the department's written standards for emeritus status, which few if any departments have in place. Award of emeritus status should not be delayed by the requirement that departments fashion a written standard. Furthermore, department written standards should be required to align with established department expectations and practices, to avoid the risk of a moving goal post late in faculty members' careers.

Regarding the proposed revisions to Policy C305, could the committee clarify how the term "retire" is defined for the purposes of Emeriti eligibility, particularly concerning a faculty member's subsequent activities?

Specifically, is "retirement" under C305 strictly tethered to Human Resources' age and service eligibility triggers for drawing post-employment benefits, or does it refer more broadly to a faculty member permanently leaving full-time academic service at UNM?

Furthermore, if a faculty member meets the 5-year minimum service requirement and steps down from their full-time appointment in good standing, does this definition place any expectations or limits on what they do next? For example, does the policy differentiate between a faculty member who leaves UNM to:

1. Fully exit the workforce (e.g., driving a Winnebago across the country),


2. Transition into a "working retiree" status at UNM a 0.25 FTE,


3. Pursue a late-career transition into private industry or entrepreneurship, or


4. Accept another academic or research position at a different institution?

Explicitly defining whether Emeriti status is an academic designation based on the cessation of full-time service at UNM, regardless of HR financial classification or subsequent career moves, would greatly help clarify the policy's application and intent.

Thank you for your time and work on these revisions.