Sabbatical Leave

This policy was posted for public comment from March 24 – April 8, 2025

Responses

General Comments

It is a well-written policy. Historically, there have not been a lot of sabbatical applications; however, the increased compensation and one-semester sabbatical should increase the number of sabbatical requests.

Thank you for the comment.

Why do we have separate policies for Sabbatical Leave and Staff Development Leave? Has there been any discussion about consolidating these two policies because they are basically intended for the same purpose? In addition, consider making a notation in both the Sabbatical Leave policy and the Staff Development Leave policy of the other policy because SLCC has employees who are both faculty and staff.

The policies should be separate. It is doubtful that anyone who is simultaneously a faculty and a staff would qualify for sabbatical and development leave.

Can a faculty member teach during the summer before they go on sabbatical during the Fall semester? There seems to be a lack of consistency across academic departments on this issue, and it should be clarified. HR has said that when faculty are going on sabbatical, it's just over the regular academic year, meaning they are free to teach in the summer. I recommend it's added in the policy that summer teaching before and after a Sabbatical Leave is clearly allowed.

Yes. To clarify this in the policy, in section 4.E.5 we added the sentence "Faculty may be compensated for teaching in the summer that they begin sabbatical and the summer that they end the sabbatical."

4.A. Eligibility for Sabbatical Leave

4.A.3 – The percentage for how many per department is not practical as no half-person is taking a sabbatical. It should say 2 full-time faculty or, in the case of a department with over 20 faculty, 3 faculty.

The policy does not say that a half-person can take a sabbatical. As for the issue of the number of faculty on sabbatical during a given semester, the deans and provost were adamant that 2 is a good number, even for the largest departments. In a large department, 2 faculty could be on sabbatical in the fall and 2 different faculty in the spring, assuming they all took one-semester sabbaticals.

Comments about 4.A.4 – The requirement to limit it to 2.0% (4.A.3) seems sufficient for this and the actual number does not seem necessary--it seems random. In excessively huge departments, they should be able to deal with three faculty if it happens. Also, some departments, like mortuary sciences, only have two faculty members. Could that department have two faculty members go on sabbatical at the same time? Probably not.

The deans and provost like the hard ceiling of 2 faculty at a time, even for large departments. For small departments, the fact that there is a 2-faculty ceiling does not constitute permission to have 2 faculty out at the same time. Presumably, that would not be acceptable to the dean.

4.A.3 – Consider revising. This section is confusing and may not be clearly understood for most faculty. In particular, the second sentence is confusing. You need to better explain what "a function of the number of two-semester leaves and may not exceed two-thirds in the Fall or Spring semester. Also, in the second sentence, the policy needs to clarify what "E& G faculty lines" are. In addition, while there are no E & G faculty in Salt Lake Tech, there is a plan afoot to have "cross funding" for Salt Lake Tech which will include some E&G funding. How will that work?

This section has been reworded and now includes an example.

4.B. Application

Section 4.B reads very well.

Thank you for your comment.

4.B.1 – suggest adding a link to the application template for sabbatical.

We hesitate to link to an application form that may be updated from time to time. Note that going forward, sabbatical applications will be taken via some sort of electronic form.

4.B.1.c – there were different opinions on whether an endorsement from faculty colleagues should be optional or mandatory. Faculty commenters seemed to approve of the optional language, while staff commenters thought it should either be required or not required.

Faculty colleague letters should not be required.

4.B.2 – suggest replacing "judgment" with "recommendation."

Suggestion accepted.

4.B.2 – recommendation to include an appeal right for a faculty member's sabbatical request that is denied by the provost.

Provosts do not deny sabbatical. They can decline to recommend to the President. As sabbatical is a privilege and not a right, there should be no ability to appeal a denial of sabbatical request.

4.B.3.a(4) – the examples of credentialling either need to be expanded or the language "includes, but is not limited to," should be inserted. Another example would be a Nurse Practitioner taking a sabbatical to earn an APRN or receiving board certification.

Section 4.B.3.a(4) has been revised to make the language more expansive.

4.B.3.a(5) – make sure the Faculty Handbook hyperlink is functional.

Yes, we will ensure the link is functional.

4.B.3.a(3) – the phrase "including, but not limited to" should be added to this sentence.

No changes made to the policy.

4.D. Criteria for Review of Applications

Recommendation that there should be an appeal right for a faculty member's sabbatical request that is denied.

There is no right to appeal denial of sabbatical.

4.E. Compensation

Is it acceptable for a faculty member who is on sabbatical and receiving pay from the college to be collecting pay from whoever he or she is performing their sabbatical with?

Yes, it is acceptable for a faculty on sabbatical to receive outside compensation.

The increase in sabbatical pay is good and should be an incentive for more faculty to apply for a sabbatical.

Thank you for the comment.

4.F. Sabbatical Agreements

There should be a link to a template for a Sabbatical Agreement.

No revisions made to the policy.

Is there a template form to modify a Sabbatical Agreement after they have been approved?

No, there is no form. Modifications of approved sabbaticals are negotiated with the appropriate dean, who then informs the Associate Provost.

4.F.3 – are there examples of good sabbatical reports that can be linked to the policy as an example of an acceptable substantive report of sabbatical activity?

We can do that on the OLA website, but such examples should not be in the policy itself.

4.G. Delaying Sabbatical Leave

If an employee has been approved for sabbatical and then their position is eliminated by HB 265, how will that be handled?

If the position is eliminated before starting the sabbatical, the faculty has been separated from the institution. If the position is eliminated while on sabbatical or shortly thereafter, the faculty will be separated from the institution, and all sabbatical obligations and post-sabbatical responsibilities will be moot.

4.L. Administrators Returning to Faculty Sabbatical Leave

This is a new section of the policy, and it seems reasonable. Some concern was raised about the decision being at the provost's discretion and that there should be some clear criteria for allowing these types of sabbaticals.

The possibility of this sabbatical was discussed by the President and Provost, and their consensus was that it was a privilege that the Provost could grant at their discretion.

4.L.2 – stray period between "Award. Eligible."

That period was intentional.

Comments Received

My only comment is about "4. No more than two faculty from any single department or division shall be on sabbatical in any one semester." The requirement to limit it to 2.0% seems sufficient for this and the actual number does not seem necessary--it seems random. In excessively huge departments, they should be able to deal with three faculty if it happens.
HR had said that when faculty are going on sabbatical, it's just over the regular academic year, meaning they are free to teach the summer before and/or after. But there has been confusion about this from some ADs which has caused problems in the past. I recommend it's added in the policy that summer teaching before and after faculty sabbatical is clearly allowed.
True [I agree with commentor above] that has been an issue about the summer work - which is allowed. Also I think the percent for how many per department is not practical as no half person is taking a sabbatical. It should say 2 full time faculty or in the case of a department with over 20 faculty - 3 faculty.
I think this proposed policy will allow for a greater number of faculty and administrators to take Sabbatical. I also agree with [the previous] comment about summer teaching.
I agree with all the comments above.
1. Policy-General Comments A. It is a well- written policy. B. Historically, there has not been a lot of sabbatical applications; however, the compensation increase, and one semester sabbatical should increase the numbers of sabbatical requests. C. Why do we have separate policies for Sabbatical Leave and Staff Development Leave? Has there any been discussion about consolidating these two policies because they basically are intended for the same purpose. In addition, consider making a notation in both the Sabbatical Leave policy and Staff Development Leave policy of the other policy because SLCC has employees who are both faculty and staff.
2. References No comments
3. Definitions No comments
4. Procedures A. Eligibility for Sabbatical Leave Section 4.A.3 should be revised because it is confusing and may not be clearly understood for most faculty. In particular, the second sentence is confusing. You need to better explain what "a function of the number of two-semester leaves and may not exceed two-thirds in the Fall or Spring semester. Section 4.A.3-In the second sentence, the policy needs to clarify what "E& G faculty lines" are. In addition, while there are not E & G faculty in Salt Lake Tech, there is a plan afoot to have "cross funding" for Salt Lake Tech which will include some E&G funding. How will that work? Section 4.A.4 needs to be clarified. Some departments, like mortuary sciences, only have two faculty members. Could that department have two faculty members go on sabbatical at the same time.? Probably not. B. Application Section 4.B reads very well. Section 4.B.1-A application template for sabbatical should be linked to this policy. Section 4.B.1.c-There was differing committee opinions on whether endorsement from faculty colleague should be optional or mandatory. The faculty committee members seemed to approve of the optional language, while a staff member it should either be required or not required. Section 4.B.2-replace "judgment" with "recommendation." Section 4.B.2- It was recommended that there should be an appeal right for a faculty member's sabbatical request that is denied by the provost. Section 4.B.3.a(4)-The examples of credentialling either need to be expanded or insert, "includes, but is not limited too." Another example would be Nurse Practitioner taking sabbatical to earn APRN or receiving board certification. Section 4.B.3.a(5)-Make sure that the link to the Faculty Handbook is operational. Section 4.B.3.c(3)-the phrase "including, but not limited to" should be added to this sentence. C. Application Timeline No comments (There were some concerns about being semester based which I did not follow.) D. Criteria for Review of Applications It was recommended that there should be an appeal right for a faculty member's sabbatical request that is denied. E. Compensation Is it acceptable for a faculty member who is on sabbatical and receiving pay from the college to allow be collecting pay from whoever he or she is performing their sabbatical with? Can a faculty member teach during the summer before they go on sabbatical during the Fall semester? There seems to be a lack of consistency across academic departments on this issue and it should be clarified. The increase in sabbatical pay is good and should be an incentive for more faculty to apply for a sabbatical. F. Sabbatical Agreements There should be a link to a template for a Sabbatical Agreement. Is there a template form to modify Sabbatical Agreement after they have been approved. Section 4.F.3- Are there examples of good sabbatical reports which can be linked to the policy as an example of an acceptable substantive report of sabbatical activity. G. Delaying Sabbatical Leave If an employee has been approved for sabbatical and then his or her position is eliminated by HB 265, how will that be handled? H. Faculty Member Request for Postponement of Sabbatical No comments I. Faculty Member Request for Cancellation of Sabbatical No comments J. Communication While on Sabbatical No comments. K. Family Medical Leave Act No comments. L. Administrators Returning to Faculty Sabbatical Leave This is a new section to the policy, and it seems reasonable. Some concern was raised about the decision being, at the provost's discretion, and that there should be some clear criteria for allowing these types of sabbaticals. (I am not sure that this accurately summarizes the concern.) Section 4.L.2-There is a stray period between "Award. Eligible."

SLCC Policies and Procedures