A Kansas University music professor is appealing administrators’ decision to deny her tenure, saying she lived up to the standards set for her and that the university didn’t follow correct protocol in the tenure review process.

Margaret Marco, KU’s lone oboe professor, began stating her case at a tenure appeal hearing Wednesday at the Kansas Union. Such hearings typically are closed to outsiders, but Marco requested the hearing be open so a handful of faculty could observe the process.

A five-member faculty panel, led by William Keel, professor of Germanic languages and literature at KU, must decide whether administrators followed proper procedures in deciding Marco shouldn’t be granted tenure, which is designed to give professors job security and academic freedom.

The University Committee on Promotions and Tenure voted earlier this year not to grant tenure to Marco, who has taught at KU since 1998. She was told she hadn’t recruited enough oboe players to the music department.

But during the hearing Wednesday, Marco said she had toured high schools and conducted workshops at KU to recruit students.

She said that no clear standards had been set for how many students she needed to bring into the program and that her previous annual evaluations hadn’t indicated a problem with recruitment. She also said the number of music majors playing oboe had increased from one in 1998 to seven this fall.

“There was never any indication I needed to recruit differently or improve the quality of students,” Marco said.

KU administrators noted, however, that the number of nonmajors playing oboe had decreased over time.

David Shulenburger, the provost and executive vice chancellor who leads the tenure committee, said most departments didn’t have numerical standards for whether professors fulfilled their research mission.

“That’s a peer judgment that’s made,” Shulenburger said. “I would consider it unusual if there were a specific number.”

Marco also said she wasn’t given clear instructions by Steve Hedden, dean of the School of Fine Arts, when the committee did a “check-back” on the tenure application.

The check-back allows faculty members to submit additional information about their recent teaching, research and service in an attempt to bolster their case for tenure. It occurs when the committee plans to deny tenure or contradict the recommendation of a school-level promotions and tenure committee.

Marco said she wasn’t told exactly why the committee had requested a check-back. She blamed the lack of information on Hedden’s unfamiliarity with the tenure review process.

“I was not aware of the severity of the check-back or the significance of it,” Marco said.

Hedden disputed the claim, saying he provided the information he was allowed to provide under university regulations.

“Professor Marco and I have a ‘glass is half empty, glass is half full’ view about the information shared with her,” Hedden said.

Marco’s tenure appeal is the only such hearing scheduled this year.

The panel adjourned Wednesday without hearing all the testimony in the case. No date has been set for the remainder of the hearing.