May 15, 2006
Final
Appointment, Retention, Tenure and Promotion Criteria, Standards and Procedures for Probationary and Tenured Faculty Employees
WHEREAS: While current procedures for retention, tenure and promotion (as codified in S98-8) have served the university well for 8 years, results of faculty surveys, focus groups, and forums suggest a need for changes in existing policy to enhance clarity and provide a more formative climate; and
WHEREAS: Academic career guidance for faculty members is not sufficiently defined in current policy; and
WHEREAS: In surveys and forums, probationary faculty indicate that expectations for scholarly, artistic or professional achievements are ”vague;” and
WHEREAS: Because scholarly, artistic, or professional achievements vary greatly across disciplines, the department or departmental equivalent would be the appropriate level at which to: 1) identify achievements considered to be scholarly, artistic, or professional and 2) specify the type and extent of documentation needed to verify the achievement and its associated measure of quality; and
WHEREAS: Determinations for what constitutes appropriate scholarly, artistic or professional achievements should be decided outside of the dossier review process; and
WHEREAS: The current 2-4-6 year cycle for performance reviews (retention, tenure and promotion) is not adequate because, in most cases, there is insufficient material and history for an effective evaluation in the second year and, in view of the fact that the manuscript review process is now typically longer than one year, that the time interval between the 4th and 6th year review is insufficient to allow a faculty member to respond to a request from reviewing bodies for additional scholarly, artistic, or professional achievements; and
WHEREAS: Retention, tenure, and promotion are all important personnel decisions; however, currently the University-level committee only reviews retention and tenure, but not promotion; therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the attached be recommended as University Policy with the understanding the policy had been configured to accommodate further changes (e.g. peer review) at a later date: and furthermore be it
RESOLVED: that the development and approval of the guidelines specified in section 2.2.2 be completed by the end of the Spring 2007 semester; and furthermore be it
RESOLVED: that, if the attached “Appointment, Retention, Tenure and Promotion Criteria, Standards and Procedures for Probationary and Tenured Faculty Employees” becomes university policy, it will replace S98-8 for all for all tenure or tenure-track faculty members whose appointments are effective at or after the start of the 2007/2008 Academic year; and furthermore be it
RESOLVED: that, if the attached becomes university policy, probationary or tenured faculty members with rank below Professor whose appointments are previous to the start of the 2007/2008 Academic year will have a one-time opportunity to choose to be evaluated for the remainder of their academic career at SJSU under conditions stated in S98-8 or under the conditions stated in the attached policy. This decision must be made prior to the faculty member’s next performance review and be included as a statement in the beginning of the Working Personnel Action File (i.e. the dossier) for all performance reviews; and furthermore be it
RESOLVED: that a
method be established by the Office of Faculty Affairs by which the personnel
committees and other reviewing bodies may readily distinguish between
candidates being evaluated under S98-8 and the attached policy (e.g. different
color binders).
APPOINTMENT, RETENTION, TENURE AND PROMOTION CRITERIA, STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR PROBATIONARY AND TENURED FACULTY EMPLOYEES
Clarification of terms used in this policy
1. Preamble
1.1. Overview
1.2. Goals and the Two Basic Criteria
1.3. Application of the Two Basic Criteria
2. Criteria
2.1. Effectiveness in Academic Assignment
2.1.1. Effectiveness in Teaching or Professional Assignment
2.1.2. Service to Students and to the University
2.1.3. Contents of Dossier in Relation to the Academic Assignment
2.2. Scholarly or Artistic or Professional Achievement
2.2.1. Types of Achievements
2.2.2. Guidelines for Scholarly, Artistic or Professional Achievement
2.2.3. Evaluation of Achievements
2.2.4. Contents of Dossier in Relation to Achievements
3. Initial Appointment
3.1. Standards for Initial Appointment
3.2. Procedures for Initial Appointment
4. Types of Reviews: General Description
4.1. Performance Review (Retention, Tenure or Promotion)
4.2. Review of a Faculty Member’s Professional Development Plan
4.3. Review of the Annual Summary of Achievements
5.
Annual Summary of Achievements and Professional
Development Plan
5.1. Persons required to submit an Annual Summary of Achievements and a Professional Development Plan
5.2. When the Annual Summary of Achievements and Professional Development Plans are to be submitted.
5.3. Annual Summary of Achievements
5.4. Professional
Development Plan (PDP)
5.5. Request
for a Performance Review
6. Retention Performance Review
6.1. Persons To Be Reviewed for Retention
6.2. Period of Review
6.3. Standards for Retention Reviews
6.4. Procedures for Retention Reviews
7. Tenure Performance Review
7.1. Persons To Be Reviewed for Tenure
7.2. Period of Review
7.3. Standards for Tenure Reviews
7.4. Procedures for Tenure Reviews
8. Promotion Performance Review
8.1. Persons To Be Reviewed for Promotion
8.2. Period of Review
8.3. Standards for Promotion Reviews
8.3.1. Promotion to Associate Professor
8.3.2. Promotion to Professor
8.4. Procedures for Promotion Reviews
9. Details of Procedures for Performance Reviews for Retention, Tenure and Promotion
9.1. Deadlines
9.2. Policies Governing All Personnel Committees and Reviewing Bodies
9.3. Candidate’s Responsibilities
9.4. Department/School/Division Procedures
9.5. College Procedures
9.6. University Committee Procedures
9.7. Recommendation from the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs
9.8. President’s Decision
APPOINTMENT, RETENTION, TENURE AND PROMOTION CRITERIA, STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR PROBATIONARY AND TENURED FACULTY EMPLOYEES
Clarification of Terms used in this policy:
iii.
All references to Colleges also apply to the General
Unit.
iv.
All references to departments also apply to similar
units: e.g. schools, divisions.
1. Preamble
1.1.
Overview
This document is the policy of
1.2.
Goals and the Two Basic Criteria
Excellence in education is dependent above all upon
the quality of the faculty. The purpose of these procedures for appointment,
retention, tenure and promotion is to provide just recognition and
encouragement of genuine achievement. The basic evaluation of faculty members'
potential, performance and achievement should be made by their peers both within
their departments and their disciplines at large. But evaluations alone, no
matter how just and weighty the procedures, cannot ensure excellence in
education. The aim of the evaluation process should be to inform faculty
members of the appropriate criteria, standards and expectations, to apprise
them of their strengths and weaknesses, and to recognize those who have earned
tenure or promotion by their achievements. To this end, College Deans and Department
Chairpersons should meet regularly with individual faculty members --
especially with probationary faculty -- to discuss their review and, if
necessary, to suggest possible means of improvement.
There are two basic criteria for evaluation: effectiveness in academic assignment and scholarly or artistic or professional achievement. Service to students and the university is generally subsumed under the first criterion, while service to the larger community and/or to a discipline or professional community is generally subsumed under the second criterion.
1.3.
Application of the Two Basic Criteria
Effectiveness in academic assignment is the primary,
but not the only, consideration in evaluating a faculty member's performance.
For most faculty, academic assignment consists
primarily, but not exclusively, of teaching. Thus, contribution to the teaching
mission of the university is the essential condition for continuation and
advancement within the university.
1.3.1. However, teaching effectiveness is normally not sufficient without appropriate scholarly or artistic or professional achievement. Although service to the university is ordinarily evaluated as part of a faculty member's academic assignment, truly outstanding service to the university which is characteristically informed by genuine scholarship -- such as distinguished teaching, curricular development, or advising of student scholarly or creative activity -- shall be counted in the category of scholarly or artistic or professional achievement. The dossier should clearly document the activity and support its consideration within this criterion. In any case, significant service to students and university -- or to one's profession or discipline, to public education, or to the community at large -- must be recognized under one basic criterion or the other.
1.3.2. In applying common sense and flexibility to the criteria, it should be recognized that faculty who are outstanding in one area but less active or successful in other areas may well be contributing more to the university than someone who is adequate in all areas but outstanding in none. While competent teaching of assigned classes or competent performance in academic assignment, modest scholarly or other professional activity in an academic discipline, and a normal amount of committee work may represent threshold levels of accomplishment in these areas, something more in at least one area will be expected for tenure and promotion; individual faculty can and will differ in how they balance these roles or dimensions of their professional careers and relate them to the criteria outlined in the present policy. The guiding principle should be a thorough and candid evaluation for the sake of encouraging and recognizing achievement.
2.
Criteria
2.1.
Effectiveness in Academic Assignment
Faculty members shall be evaluated within the scope of their academic
assignment. Contribution to the teaching mission of the University is normally
the primary consideration in the evaluation of academic assignment. For most
faculty members, appraisal of effectiveness in academic assignment will involve
primarily an evaluation of teaching. In addition, the academic assignment may
involve instructionally-related activities such as: student advising;
participation in department, College, and university governance; and curricular
development. For some faculty, such as Department Chairs, Program Directors,
coordinators, counselors, librarians, Associate Deans (if via faculty
appointment) and field supervisors, if part or all of their academic assignment
is of a non-teaching nature, they should be evaluated accordingly.
2.1.1.
Effectiveness in Teaching or Professional Assignment
2.1.1.1.
For teaching faculty, an evaluation of a faculty
member's teaching effectiveness requires a thoughtful and non-biased
approach. Specifically, an evaluation
may be comprised of an assessment of a faculty member’s classroom and
laboratory teaching, curricular development skills, supervision of graduate and
undergraduate student research, coordination of multi-section courses, or
training and supervision of teaching and graduate assistants. Contributions
such as the development or initiation of new courses, and carefully evaluated
and properly supervised experimentation with pedagogical techniques or
instructional technology, may also be considered in an evaluation. An evaluation of effectiveness in interdisciplinary
courses or activities related to general education may also be included.
2.1.1.2. For non-teaching Unit 3 faculty employees, effectiveness in the professional assignment will be evaluated in compliance with guidelines developed by the unit of assignment, with appropriate components of peer evaluation and evaluation of impact on students.
2.1.2.
Service to Students and the University
Faculty members shall be evaluated for their contributions to their department's instructional program(s) and for significant service to the department, College, or university. Such service may include academic advising, committee service at all levels, career and personal counseling, and participation in the Academic Senate or the California Faculty Association. Further, service may also include performing administrative roles (e.g., scheduler, program or area coordinator, Department Chair, Associate Dean if via faculty appointment) or making contributions to student welfare (e.g., participation in educational equity activities, membership on student-faculty committees, service as advisor to student organizations).
2.1.3. Contents of Dossier in Relation to Academic Assignment
2.1.3.1.Evaluation of Teaching or Professional Assignment
2.1.3.1.1. Evidence of teaching effectiveness shall include, for the period under review, a list of courses taught, peer evaluations and, in accordance with university policy on student opinions of teaching effectiveness[1], all official standardized student data. Evidence of teaching effectiveness may also include selected course materials, statements of course objectives, student success in postgraduate activities (professional schools, research, graduate programs, job performance), and signed letters from colleagues and from present or former students. Faculty members under review may include an analysis of any of the materials in the dossier and a statement of their teaching methods and goals. Faculty who engage in team-teaching, interdisciplinary approaches to learning, and pedagogical experimentation are encouraged to submit documentation to assess these approaches. Faculty committees, Department Chairs and university administrators shall use a holistic approach when evaluating all available evidence. Although standardized student opinion surveys shall be employed as mandated by policy, they shall not be the sole basis for evaluating teaching effectiveness, professional competence, knowledge, appropriateness of course materials, or other factors.
2.1.3.1.2. For non-teaching Unit 3 faculty, evidence of effectiveness in their professional assignment should include evaluations by professionals who are qualified to assess a faculty member's performance of his or her assigned duties.
2.1.3.2. Evaluation of Service in the Academic Assignment
2.1.3.2.1. Significant service should be systematically evaluated and, when judged to be exceptional in its quality or scope, recognized as such and rewarded appropriately. To this end, departments and programs are encouraged to establish guidelines for the evaluation of service to students and the University. Time in rank per se shall not be a criterion for promotion; however, in cases where faculty members have made significant contributions to the University over a number of years, the total contribution should be taken into consideration.
2.1.3.2.2. For non-teaching assignments, evidence of effectiveness should include evaluations by professionals who are qualified to judge a faculty member's performance of his or her service-related assigned duties.
2.2. Scholarly or Artistic or Professional
Achievement
The second criterion for appointment and advancement within
the university is scholarly or artistic or professional achievement. Such
contributions to a faculty member's discipline or professional community are
normally expected for continuation and advancement in the university. The nature
of the expected contributions will vary according to the nature of a faculty
member's discipline and professional interests. Specifications for the types of
scholarly, artistic or professional achievements that are considered to be
appropriate for members of a department (or similar unit) are provided in
guidelines developed by that department (see Section 2.2.2). Scholarly or artistic or professional
achievements must be documented and evaluated if they are to be properly used
in faculty personnel decisions; departmental and/or College guidelines specify
the scope and types of documentation to be included in the dossier that is
necessary to verify the completion and level of achievement. Specific
information about the development and evaluation of the guidelines is provided
in 2.2.2.
2.2.1.
Types of
Achievements
2.2.1.1.In general, scholarly
achievement consists of work that is based on research and entails theory,
analysis, interpretation, explanation, or demonstration relating to research,
training, and curriculum development.
This type of achievement includes, but is not limited to, books,
articles, reviews, technical reports, papers presented to scholarly or
professional associations, computer software, or the application for funding (given
evaluations of the proposal) or awarding of funding.
2.2.1.2.Artistic achievement includes,
but is not limited to, the creation of original work in poetry, fiction, drama,
dance, the aural and visual arts; performances or direction in music, theatre
and dance requiring interpretation and the mastery of a skill in addition to
research.
2.2.1.3.Professional achievement
includes, but is not limited to, active participation or leadership in
professional associations and meetings; service to the K-14 educational
segments; professional involvement with other groups and institutions; panels,
activities, or workshops; patented inventions or discoveries; consulting;
service on editorial boards or as editor of a professional journal or
newsletter; adjudicator, translator, or reviewer for publishers or other
agencies and associations; public lectures; honors and awards. Professional
achievement generally includes active participation or leadership in the
2.2.2.
Guidelines for
Scholarly, Artistic or Professional Achievement
2.2.2.1.Departments, schools or
divisions will be responsible for developing guidelines for definition and
evaluation of scholarly, artistic or professional achievement.
2.2.2.2.Guidelines for scholarly,
artistic and professional achievements are to be made available to candidates
and all review bodies involved with evaluation of retention, tenure or
promotion. These guidelines will provide information on what achievements are
to be considered as scholarly, artistic or professional activity, how the
achievements are evaluated and provide direction on the type and extent of
documentation to be placed in the candidate’s dossier for faculty
personnel decisions.
2.2.2.3.These guidelines will be
reviewed by the College RTP committee and the Dean. If the departments within
the College or General Unit so choose, the College can produce a common set of
guidelines.
2.2.2.4.The Dean of the College is
responsible for insuring that the department/school/division/College guidelines
are developed and approved in a timely fashion.
2.2.2.5.The set of approved
departmental guidelines for a College will be reviewed and approved by the
University RTP committee with final approval from the Office of Faculty
Affairs.
2.2.2.6.Guidelines should be reviewed
every three years. If the guidelines are not modified, a statement to that
effect must be sent to the Office of Faculty Affairs. If modified, they must be
resubmitted for the approval process.
The development of the guidelines is as follows:
2.2.2.7. Departmental/School/Division
Guidelines
2.2.2.7.1.
Each department, school, or division shall develop
guidelines that:
o
Specify achievements considered to be scholarly,
artistic or professional. The guidelines shall list appropriate achievements including,
for example, refereed papers, curriculum development, contributions
to technologically mediated instruction, other pedagogical innovations, funded
activities via grants or contracts, and efforts to obtain funding for
activities (proposal submission).
o
For each type of achievement,
§
Specify the type and extent of documentation to
be included in the candidate’s dossier required to verify the
achievement.
§
Specify by what measure (e.g., whether
peer-reviewed or otherwise) the achievement is to be evaluated. Describe how
the significance of the achievement is typically evaluated (e.g. refereeing or
selection processes). This is particularly important for non-traditional types
of achievements.
§
Specify the type and extent of documentation required
for an evaluation of the level of achievement. When developing guidelines it is
important that scholarly or artistic or professional achievement be thoroughly
evaluated by one's disciplinary peers, within and/or outside one's department,
not merely enumerated. Ordinarily the number or length of publications per se
shall not be a criterion for tenure or promotion. In cases where a faculty
member has made significant contributions to his/her discipline or professional
community over a number of years, that total contribution should be taken into
account.
For example, guidelines could stipulate that a proposal
review from a granting agency should be included as documentation. A department
might also stipulate that an editorial or review board (or jury) decision constitutes
an evaluation of an artistic work. Departments should require that professional
contributions be evaluated by appropriate individuals in a position to assess
the quality and significance of the contributions. If a unit makes only holistic
assessments of an achievement as part of its review, specify how the candidates
are to be rated and criteria associated with each rating.
§
If possible, comment on the investment of time,
skill and energy that typically is required for the various types of
achievements.
o
Provide a statement of how the unit views the
relative worth of individual efforts versus collaborative efforts.
2.2.2.7.2.
Approval of the guidelines would be the purview of the
tenure and tenure-track faculty.
2.2.2.7.3.
Each department, school, or division will receive
training in how to develop and maintain guidelines.
2.2.2.7.4.
The College RTP committee in consultation with the Dean
of that College must review the guidelines with respect to equity in rigor
among departments. Both the College RTP committee and the Dean of that College
must approve the guidelines before they can be adopted.
2.2.2.8.College or General Unit Standards
2.2.2.8.1. Each
College is required to:
o
Assemble the approved department, school or
division guidelines to produce a document, “Scholarly, Artistic or Professional
Achievement, Periods of Review and Evaluation Periodicity for Retention, Tenure
and Promotion for specify College or Unit.”
o
The document specified in 1) above must also
include the university specified periods of review for each level and the timing
of the evaluations.
o
Upon approval, the guidelines will be sent to
the University RTP Committee for evaluation and approval. The University RTP committee will review the
guidelines with respect to consistency in rigor among the Colleges.
o
The document must be reviewed and approved by the
Office of Faculty Affairs with respect to compliance with the Agreement and
existing policy before it can be used in performance reviews of candidates.
2.2.2.9.
The approved compilation of departmental guidelines, entitled “Scholarly,
Artistic or Professional Achievement, Periods of Review and Evaluation
Periodicity for Retention, Tenure and Promotion for specify College or Unit”” must be made
available to all candidates when they become members of that unit.
2.2.3.
Evaluation of Achievements
2.2.3.1.Scholarly
or artistic or professional achievement should be thoroughly evaluated by one's
disciplinary peers, within and/or outside one's department, not merely
enumerated. Acceptance of scholarly or artistic work by an editorial or review
board (or jury) constitutes an evaluation of that work.
2.2.3.2.Although
faculty members should be encouraged and rewarded for successfully obtaining
research grants and other external financial support, they cannot be required
to obtain such support as a condition for retention, tenure, or promotion, with
one exception: when external funding is explicitly designated as part of a
particular academic assignment (such as director of a research center, or
gallery), for which appropriate assigned time is provided.
2.2.3.3.Work
in progress and unpublished work should be assessed whenever possible.
2.2.3.4.When
appropriate, professional contributions should be evaluated by professional
persons in a position to assess the quality and significance of the
contributions. Ordinarily the number or length of publications per se shall not
be criteria for tenure or promotion. In cases where a faculty member has made
significant contributions to his or her discipline or professional community
over a number of years, that total contribution should be taken into account.
2.2.3.5.
Reviewing bodies, Department RTP, Department Chair, College RTP, Dean and University
RTP committee, must evaluate scholarly, artistic or professional achievements
with respect to the guidelines appropriate (see 2.2.2) to the candidate.
2.2.4.
Contents of Dossier in Relation to Achievements
2.2.4.1.The dossier shall contain
material which documents achievements during the period of review which
includes the years for which any service credit was granted.
2.2.4.2.The dossier shall not include
documentation of achievements outside the review period except on a
comprehensive vita.
2.2.4.3.The dossier shall include
approved departmental, school or division guidelines appropriate for the
faculty member being reviewed.
2.2.4.4.The dossier shall include
documentation concerned with achievements as specified in the,
“Scholarly, Artistic or Professional Achievement, Periods of Review and
Evaluation Periodicity for Retention, Tenure and Promotion for [name of College
or Unit].”
2.2.4.5.Recommendations or decisions
and statements of reasons made by committees and administrators in previous
evaluations during the period under review shall be included in dossiers.
3. Initial Appointment
3.1. Standards for Initial Appointment
3.1.1. Candidates for initial appointment to probationary positions should be carefully reviewed so that new faculty members will not merely fill positions but will bring to the university intellectual distinction and the potential for tenure and eventual promotion to advanced rank. Candidates for appointment should come fully prepared and ready for a university career, with the promise of excellence and a commitment both to teaching and to contributing to their professional communities. Initial appointment to a probationary position normally requires possession of the doctorate or appropriate terminal degree from an accredited institution. In unusual circumstances, persons may be appointed who are close to completing the required terminal degree. An exception to the terminal degree requirement may also be made in the case of distinguished individuals with significant scholarly or artistic or professional accomplishments in their field, or whose achievements make a unique ability available to the campus. In such cases, the basis of the exception shall be made a permanent part of the faculty member's file, and the decision recorded whether or not possession of the terminal degree is to be expected for tenure or promotion to advanced rank.
3.1.2. Probationary credit of up to two years may be awarded by the President at the time of appointment. This award may be made only upon the recommendation of the department and the Dean, following 1) their consideration of previous service and achievement in teaching and in scholarly or artistic or professional activities at a post-secondary education institution, previous CSU employment, or comparable experience; and 2) upon their assurance that the candidate has been advised of possible hazards of receiving this award, which include the provision that only accomplishments during the one or two years preceding the appointment to probationary or tenured faculty status may be listed and considered in tenure and promotion decisions. Because recipients of probationary credit will be subject to a four- or five-year tenure review period, they are advised that they will have less time to achieve the standards required for tenure, as outlined below.
3.1.3. Appointment to an advanced rank requires that candidates shall show evidence of the accomplishments normally expected for promotion to that rank.
3.1.4. The initial letter of appointment shall specify any particular character of the faculty member's academic assignment and shall bring to the faculty member's attention the appropriate university criteria and College and/or department guidelines for retention, tenure, and promotion. Any subsequent change in the particular character of the academic assignment shall be made in writing and signed by the faculty member, the Department Chair, and the College Dean. The appointment letter shall also indicate the range of activities by which one may fulfill the expectations for scholarly or artistic or professional achievement in university policy. Such appointment letter(s) shall be placed in the dossier.
3.2. Procedures for Initial Appointment
3.2.1. All recruitment shall be carried out in accordance with the policies of the CSU and SJSU regarding hiring, equal opportunity employment, and all applicable employment laws and regulations.
3.2.2. The Office of Faculty Affairs and Deans are responsible for ensuring that recruitment committee members are knowledgeable about the policies and laws pertaining to recruitment and hiring.
3.2.3. Evaluation criteria shall reflect the position description, the potential for promotion and tenure and the compatibility with the mission, vision and shared values of SJSU.
3.2.4. Department recruitment committees shall normally be composed of elected full-time tenured faculty members, and shall be chaired by the Department Chair or a designee of the Department Chair. Participants in the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP) and probationary faculty members may serve on department level recruitment committees only if elected by the Department, recommended by the Dean and approved by the AVP for Faculty Affairs. However, the combined number of FERP faculty and probationary faculty may not exceed fifty percent of the committee.
3.2.5. Recruitment committees shall evaluate all candidates for appointments to regular positions and determine the order of desirability of finalists for the position.
3.2.6. Hiring of faculty during recess periods shall be accomplished in consultation with all available recruitment committee members, the Department Chair, and the College Dean.
3.2.7. Persons to be employed initially in academic-administrative assignments with retreat rights to a department or program shall be reviewed and must receive a favorable recommendation from the appropriate personnel committee of the department in which tenure must be acquired before retreat rights are granted.
3.2.8. No person shall be offered a probationary appointment unless such an appointment has been recommended by an appropriate faculty committee, generally the department's elected recruitment committee.
3.2.9. Appointment letters shall be written by the College Dean in consultation with the Chair of the department. Appointment letters must be approved by the Office of Faculty Affairs.
3.2.10.
The rank of assistant professor shall normally be used
for appointment of persons who are just beginning their academic or
professional careers.
4. Types of Reviews: General Information
There are three types of reviews that a faculty member will
receive at
4.1. Performance review (Retention, Tenure or Promotion): A performance review for retention is usually scheduled to occur in the faculty member’s 3rd year and a performance review for tenure/retention is usually scheduled to occur in the faculty member’s 6th year. Performance reviews for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor usually coincide with the tenure/retention review in the faculty member’s 6th year. Performance reviews for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor usually occur during the faculty member’s 11th year (5th year following the faculty member’s last promotion). There are several levels of review. Generally, the candidate will receive a performance review from their Department Chair, the Department Retention, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) committee, The College RTP committee and the Dean. In some cases, the University RTP committee will also provide a review. All reviews will be made available to the President of the university who will then make the decision to retain, tenure or promote. All preceding performance reviews must be included in the dossier.
4.2. Review of a Faculty Member’s Professional Development Plan: Normally, in their 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th years, probationary faculty members and tenured Assistant Professors submit a plan specifying goals that they expect to achieve with respect to their academic assignment, and scholarly, or artistic or professional achievement up through their next performance review. The primary function of the plan is to provide guidance to the candidate’s career development. Therefore, whether or not a candidate meets expectations as outlined in the plan is not used as a measure of performance for retention, tenure and promotion. The Department Chair (or designee), the Department RTP committee and Dean of the College review the plan with respect to adequacy for their career path and feasibility. The Professional Development Plans are not evaluated in a performance review and the corresponding reviews shall not be included in the dossier.
4.3. Periodic Review of the Annual Summary of Achievements:
Each year in which a faculty member is not undergoing a performance review
(normally years 1,2,4 and 5), probationary faculty
members and tenured Assistant Professors submit an Annual Summary of
Achievements that outlines their accomplishments over the past year. The
purpose of these reviews is to help the candidate understand if they are making
adequate progress toward their career goals and to provide suggestions for the
future. These summaries are usually reviewed by the Department Chair, the
Department RTP committee and the Dean of the College. All reviews of the Annual Summary of
Achievements must be included in the Dossier.
5. Annual Summary of Achievements and
Professional Development Plan
5.1. Persons required to submit an Annual Summary of Achievements and a Professional Development Plan
5.1.1. Probationary Faculty members and tenured Assistant Professors
5.2. When the Annual Summary of Achievements and Professional Development Plans are to be submitted.
5.2.1. During the years in which Performance Reviews for Retention, Tenure or Promotion are not conducted. Normally this would occur during years 1, 2, 4, and 5)
5.3. Annual Summary of Achievements
5.3.1. The purpose of the Annual Summary of Achievements is to document progress in the academic career to allow annual evaluation as stipulated by the Agreement. The Annual Summary of Achievements includes a form (that is available through the Office of Faculty Affairs, evaluations of teaching and any previous evaluations and recommendations by personnel committees and other personnel reviewing bodies.
5.3.2. Department Chairs; Department Retention, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) committees (constituted pursuant to Section 9.4.2); and College Deans shall evaluate the current progress of the faculty member.
5.3.3. A faculty member shall have seven calendar days after receiving comments from the Dean in which to respond to those comments in writing. Responses or rebuttals shall be delivered to the College office for placement in the faculty personnel action file (PAF).
5.3.4. Copies
of reviewers’ observations and suggestions shall be given to the faculty
member; the original evaluation shall be placed in the official Personnel
Action File, and copies included in subsequent years' dossiers.
5.4.
Professional
Development Plan (PDP)
The Professional Development Plan (PDP) specifies goals that faculty members expect to achieve with respect to their academic assignment, and scholarly, or artistic or professional achievements; the timeframe for the PDP shall be, at a minimum, through the next performance evaluation. The primary function of the plan is to provide guidance to the candidate’s career development. Therefore, expectations as specified in the PDP shall not be used as a measure of performance for retention, tenure and promotion.
5.4.1. Contents of a PDP
5.4.1.1.The PDP is to be no longer than 1,000 words.
5.4.1.2.The PDP consists of an outline of activities and intended outcomes the faculty member plans to achieve toward retention, tenure and/or promotion in relation to their academic assignment and completion of scholarly, artistic or professional achievements.
5.4.2. Procedures for the PDP
5.4.2.1.A Professional Development Plan will be developed/revised
each year in which a faculty member is not being evaluated for Retention,
Tenure or Promotion. Normally this would occur in years 1, 2, 4, and 5).
5.4.2.2.During the first part of the Fall semester in years when the faculty member is not being reviewed for retention, tenure or promotion, the faculty member shall develop the PDP in consultation with the Department Chair or designee.
5.4.2.3.During the Spring semester in years in which reviews are not conducted for retention, tenure and/or promotion Department RTP committees (constituted pursuant to Section 9.4.2), Department Chairs; and College Deans shall consider the current PDP, PDPs from previous years if available and all previous reviews concerning the PDPs for that faculty member.
5.4.2.4.The Department RTP committee, Department Chair and College Dean will comment on feasibility, appropriateness, adequacy and consistency in rigor with respect to other faculty. The comments shall be made available to the faculty member at least seven calendar days before the close of the Spring semester.
5.4.2.5.Because the primary purpose of
the Professional Development Plan is for use as a formative tool for faculty
development, it shall not be evaluated as part of a performance review and should
not be included in the dossier.
5.5.
Request for
a Performance Review
The candidate, or any of bodies reviewing the PDP, Department RTP Committee , Department Chair, College RTP Committee and Dean (or General Unit equivalent), may request a performance review to occur earlier than the regularly scheduled performance review.
6. Retention
Performance Review
6.1. Persons
to be Reviewed for Retention
6.1.1.
Probationary faculty.
6.2.
Period
of Review for Retention
6.2.1.
For retention candidates, the period of review
shall begin with appointment to probationary service and continue to the time
of the review.
6.2.2.
The dossier shall contain material which
documents achievements during the period of review which includes the years for
which any service credit was granted. The dossier shall not include
documentation of achievements outside the review period except on a
comprehensive vita.
6.2.3.
Normally, probationary faculty shall be reviewed
for retention in their third (sixth year is tenure/retention). However, the
candidate or any reviewing bodies may request a performance review for
retention in other years.
6.2.4. For faculty
members who have received 1 year of service credit, the performance review would
still occur in their third (2nd yr after their appointment) year of
service.
6.2.5.
For faculty members who have received 2 years of service credit, the
performance review years would occur in their fourth (2nd yr after
their appointment) year of service
6.3. Standards
for Retention Reviews
The review process should be rigorous throughout the probationary period. It is expected that a candidate show both: 1) increasing effectiveness in teaching or consistent effectiveness in the case of individuals whose teaching is fully satisfactory from the start and 2) progress toward scholarly, artistic or professional achievement. Faculty members should not be retained if their performance is not sufficient to warrant a reasonable expectation that tenure will be granted at the end of the probationary period. If improvement is needed, reviewing bodies should indicate in their recommendations areas in which they perceive deficiencies in the academic assignment and with respect to scholarly, artistic or professional achievement.
6.4. Procedures for Retention Reviews
6.4.1. These performance reviews shall be conducted by department, College and, when appropriate, university committees and administrators, whose respective roles and qualifications are specified in Section 9. Details of the procedures are specified in Section 9.
6.4.2. Third-year probationary faculty shall be notified of the President's decision regarding retention by February 15. Other probationary faculty shall be notified of the President's decision by June 1; if terminated, third-through-sixth-year probationary faculty shall receive a terminal year appointment.
7. Tenure
Performance Review
7.1. Persons to be Reviewed for Tenure
7.1.1.
Normally, probationary faculty are
considered for tenure in their sixth probationary year.
7.2. Period
of Review
7.2.1. A tenure decision should normally be made in a faculty member's sixth probationary year. The probationary period may be extended for an additional year under circumstances specified in the Agreement, Section 13.7.
7.2.2.
Tenure may be awarded earlier than the sixth year in
the case of faculty members with 1) exceptional effectiveness in academic
assignment at
7.2.3. In extraordinary cases, when a candidate for appointment has already earned tenure and promotion to the rank of full professor at another College or university, or has otherwise demonstrated achievements in the areas of teaching and scholarly, artistic, or professional activity conclusively indicating that university standards for tenure and promotion to the rank of full professor have been met, the "President may award tenure to any individual, including one whose appointment and assignment is in an administrative position, at the time of appointment. Appointments with tenure shall be made only after an evaluation and recommendation by the appropriate department" (Agreement, Section 13.16).
7.3. Standards
for Tenure Reviews
7.3.1. The tenure decision is perhaps the most important decision the university must make with respect to its faculty since, in effect, it represents a mutual commitment shared by the faculty member and the university which may entail many years of service on the part of the faculty member. The award of tenure brings with it the right to continued permanent employment as a faculty member unless terminated according to the provisions of the Agreement. The granting of tenure is not solely a reward for services performed during the probationary years, but also represents an explicit expectation that a faculty member will continue to be a valued colleague, a good teacher and an active scholar, artist or leader in his or her profession, and a contributor to the university's mission, including collegial governance of the University. Accordingly, tenure decisions should be based upon thorough review of faculty members during their probationary years. In cases where probationary credit has been given for previous service in the one or two years for which such credit was granted, the achievements in teaching and in scholarly or artistic or professional activities that led to such credit shall be evaluated. All prior experience should be listed in a comprehensive vita. Tenure should be granted only to individuals whose record of teaching and contributions to their profession indicates a commitment to ongoing activity and professional achievement of high quality and the potential to earn promotion to higher rank.
7.3.2. The award of tenure requires more than potential or promise. It requires:
7.3.2.1.Possession of the required terminal degree, unless an exception to this requirement had been granted and noted at the time of appointment as provided above.
7.3.2.2.Demonstrated effectiveness in academic assignment, above all in teaching. Tenure should not be granted without evidence of good, solid performance in the variety of the courses taught during the probationary years.
7.3.2.3.Contributions to the candidate's discipline or professional community. Scholarly or artistic or professional contributions should be of good quality and evidence both the commitment to and the potential for continued development and accomplishment throughout the candidate's career.
7.3.2.4.The promise of significant contribution to the university's mission, including the collegial governance of the university.
7.3.3.
Documentation of achievements during the one or two
years preceding the probationary period shall not be included in the dossier
except for faculty who are awarded probationary credit upon appointment to
probationary status. However, all important scholarly and professional
accomplishments should be listed in a comprehensive vita.
7.4. Procedures
for Tenure Reviews
7.4.1. The performance reviews shall be conducted by department (or equivalent), College and, when appropriate, university committees and administrators, whose respective roles and qualifications are specified in Section 9. Details of the procedures are specified in Section 9.
8. Promotion Performance Review
8.1. Persons to be Reviewed for Promotion
8.1.1. Most probationary faculty members shall be considered for promotion to associate professor at the same time they are considered for tenure.
8.1.2. Probationary faculty shall not be promoted to the rank of professor.
8.1.3. Tenured faculty members shall normally be reviewed for promotion during the fifth year in rank or upon reaching the maximum salary for a given rank/classification unless they request, in writing, not to be so reviewed.
8.1.4.
Upon application, a faculty member with an
extraordinary record of accomplishments in rank may be promoted having spent
four or fewer years in rank.
8.2. Period
of Review
8.2.1.
For promotion candidates, the period of review shall
begin on the effective date of their last promotion or, if there has been no
prior promotion, on the date of their initial appointment to tenure-track
service and continue to the time of the review.
8.3. Standards
for Promotion Reviews
8.3.1.
Promotion to Associate Professor
8.3.1.1.Associate professor is the second highest academic rank, and promotion to it normally requires tenure or the simultaneous award of tenure. The rank of associate professor presupposes that a faculty member has had considerable academic or professional experience and accomplishments during the probationary period.
8.3.1.2.Promotion to associate professor requires a well-established, consistent pattern of good teaching and general effectiveness in academic assignment which normally should include contributions to collegial governance. Normally, a candidate for promotion to associate professor is expected to have contributed to the effectiveness of the department and/or College through curriculum development, advising, committee work or other appropriate service.
8.3.1.3.In addition, there should be evidence that scholarly or artistic or professional activity is a continuing part of a faculty member's professional life. Although promotion to associate professor does not require the extent of scholarly or artistic or professional contributions expected for the rank of professor it does require demonstrable achievement or contribution to the candidate's discipline or professional community as well as to the mission of the university. Professional contributions should demonstrate the development of a candidate's potential for leadership in his or her professional community, or other valuable contributions to the profession. Similarly, a candidate's scholarly or artistic achievements should exhibit qualities of intellectual, artistic or professional competence and the promise of continuing development and growth on the part of the faculty member.
8.3.1.4. Time in rank per se shall not be a criterion for promotion; however, in cases where faculty members have made significant contributions to the University over a number of years, the total contribution should be taken into consideration.
8.3.2.
Promotion to Professor
8.3.2.1.The rank of professor is the highest academic rank and should represent potential realized and genuine achievement. The period of review shall be the period since a faculty member's last promotion or, in the case of those appointed at the associate professor rank, since appointment to probationary status. A comprehensive vita should, however, be included in the dossier to indicate earlier achievement.
8.3.2.2.Promotion to professor requires a continuing pattern of good teaching and, normally, increasing effectiveness in the other aspects of academic assignment; for example, significant contributions to university collegial governance or other comparable service. Candidates for promotion to full professor should show evidence of having assumed a degree of responsibility at the departmental and/or College level for such things as curriculum, student advising, mentoring of junior faculty, and leadership roles in committee work. Normally, competent university-wide service is also expected for promotion to full professor. Such service may include membership on university search and review committees, the Academic Senate and its policy and operating committees, special agencies, and other documented service activities that focus on the whole university, including Statewide governance, curriculum, and faculty collective bargaining organizations. As with other expected accomplishments in this policy, a holistic evaluation should be done, so that faculty with extensive responsibilities for service at the departmental and/or College level should not be expected to contribute as much at the university-wide level.
8.3.2.3.In addition, it is expected that candidates for promotion to professor will present evidence of substantial achievement and of continuing activity in their profession, either through scholarly or artistic or professional contributions in their field, or through leadership in their professional communities.
8.4. Procedures
for Promotion Decisions
8.4.1. The performance reviews shall be conducted by department, College and, when appropriate, university committees and administrators, whose respective roles and qualifications are specified in Section 9. Details of the procedures are specified in Section 9.
8.4.2.
Procedures for promotion will be the same as for
retention and tenure.
9. Details of Procedures for Performance Reviews
for Retention, Tenure and Promotion
9.1. Deadlines
9.1.1. Deadlines for the procedural steps provided herein shall be established at the start of the academic year by the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs, following consultation with the elected members of the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate.
9.1.2. Deadlines shall include a specific closing date "at which time the Personnel Action File is declared complete with respect to documentation of performance for the purpose of evaluation," as required by the Agreement (Section 15.12.b).
9.1.3. If any stage of the review has not been completed within the specified time, the performance review shall automatically be transferred to the next review level and the faculty member shall be so notified.
9.1.4. The calendar with deadlines shall be communicated to all faculty subject in a given academic year to personnel actions governed by this policy.
9.2. Policies
Governing All Personnel Committees and Reviewing Bodies
9.2.1.
Recommendations shall be as follows: a. Recommended b. Not
Recommended c. Evenly split vote.
9.2.2. In all personnel recommendations, a simple majority of those voting prevails; abstentions are to be treated as absences and will not be counted when determining the committee recommendation. When personnel committee recommendations are not unanimous, reasons shall be stated for all votes cast. A statement of the reasons shall be included in a single report from the committee, with the possibility of a separate "minority" report. In either case, the confidentiality of voting shall be maintained, and signatures on the report(s) shall not indicate how individual members voted when recommendations are not unanimous.
9.2.3. Members of a personnel committee must be physically present in the same locale in order to vote on a recommendation.
9.2.4. Because of the serious nature of the committee deliberations and voting, meetings should be scheduled to allow all members to attend and absences should be a rarity.
9.2.5. Abstentions shall generally only occur when a person has a conflict of interest as described in S99-8 (Academic Freedom and Professional Responsibility Policy).
9.2.6. No faculty member shall participate in promotion deliberations about colleagues of equal or higher rank. A Department Chair who has not achieved the rank of full professor shall not be a member of the Departmental Retention, Tenure and Promotion Committee but shall write a separate evaluation as Department Chair.
9.2.7. All committee members must be thoroughly trained in the use of the present university policy on Appointment, Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Criteria, Standards, and Procedures for Regular Faculty Employees. Department Chairs, College Deans, and the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs shall arrange for appropriate training in the application of this policy.
9.2.8. Administrators holding full-time positions outside the department or involved in making personnel recommendations at the College or university levels shall not participate in departmental actions.
9.2.9. The personnel recommendations of small Colleges or units containing no departments shall be considered initial recommendations. For those small Colleges or units which need to constitute a second level review committee, the first level committee and the Provost or his/her designee shall prepare a mutually acceptable list of nominees. The probationary and tenured faculty unit members shall elect the members of the second level review from that list.
9.2.10. Personnel recommendations for retention, tenure or promotion of each faculty member shall be based upon written information and documentation contained in the personnel action file or dossier. (In the Agreement, the dossier is known as the Working Personnel Action File.) According to the Agreement (Section 15.12.b.), if, during the review process, the absence of materials required by this policy is discovered, the dossier shall be returned to the level at which the requisite documentation should have been provided. Insertion of other material after the dossier has been officially closed (see 9.1.2) must have the approval of a committee consisting of one member elected from and by each College committee and shall be limited to items that became accessible after the dossier is closed. If members of a personnel committee, the Department Chair, or a university administrator insert material without the candidate's permission, the candidate must be afforded the opportunity to insert a response to the material. Material inserted in this fashion shall be returned to the initial personnel committee for review, evaluation and comment before consideration at subsequent levels of review.
9.2.11. All personnel materials, proceedings, and recommendations are confidential, except (a) that positive final decisions may be announced; (b) that each faculty member shall have access to materials in their personnel action file as provided by law, the Agreement, and Trustee policy; and (c) that any individual may voluntarily disclose materials from his/her personnel action file at an appropriate proceeding, such as a grievance or court hearing.
9.2.12. Evaluations of scholarly, artistic or professional achievements must be made with respect to the Department/College mandatory guidelines for scholarly, artistic or professional achievement.
9.3. Candidate’s Responsibilities
9.3.1.
Dossier
Preparation
9.3.1.1.Candidates shall be responsible for preparing their dossiers. It shall be the primary responsibility of the faculty member under review to gather the necessary evidence and to prepare an index to the material placed in the dossier. That index shall be placed in the faculty member's permanent personnel action file at the close of the year's deliberations, to provide an accurate record of all materials reviewed.
9.3.1.2.The Dossier must include previous reviews of Annual Summaries of Achievements and Performance Reviews (including recommendations and rationale) from all reviewing bodies.
9.3.1.3.The Dossier must include the President’s letters pertaining to retention, tenure and promotion of the candidate.
9.3.1.4.The Dossier must include the Letter of Appointment.
9.3.1.5.It is the responsibility of the Department Chair to ensure that a detailed description of the academic assignment of the faculty member for the period under review be placed in the dossier at least one week before the submission date of the dossier, in order to establish a frame of reference for evaluation of the candidate by persons from outside the department. The faculty member may attach a response to this statement, before the closing date (see 9.1.2); any such response shall also be included in the dossier.
9.3.1.6.Required materials for the Dossier regarding the evaluation of the academic assignment are specified in section 2.1.3.
9.3.1.7.Required materials for the Dossier regarding the evaluation of scholarly, artistic or professional achievements are specified in section 2.2.4.
9.3.1.8.According to the Agreement (Section 15.12.b.), if, during the review process, the absence of materials required by this policy is discovered, the dossier shall be returned to the level at which the requisite documentation should have been provided.
9.3.1.9.Insertion of other material after the dossier has been officially closed (see 9.1.2) must have the approval of a committee consisting of one member elected from and by each college committee and shall be limited to items that became accessible after the dossier is closed. If members of a personnel committee, the Department Chair, or a university administrator insert material without the candidate's permission, the candidate must be afforded the opportunity to insert a response to the material. Material inserted in this fashion shall be returned to the initial personnel committee for review, evaluation and comment before consideration at subsequent levels of review.
9.3.1.10. It shall be the primary responsibility of the faculty member under review to gather the necessary evidence and to prepare an index to the material placed in the dossier. That index shall be placed in the faculty member's permanent personnel file at the close of the year's deliberations, to provide an accurate record of all materials reviewed.
9.3.1.11. Previous reviews of Annual Summaries of Achievements and Performance Reviews (including recommendations and rationale) from all reviewing bodies shall be considered by the Department Retention, Tenure and Promotion committee and, if requested by either the candidate or the committee, discussed with the candidate. These past recommendations and statements of reasons, and the President's letters, shall go forward with the dossiers.
9.4. Departmental/School/Division
Procedures
9.4.1.
Department Chair Responsibilities
9.4.1.1.The Department Chair shall schedule the Retention, Tenure and Promotion committee, which shall elect its own chair..
9.4.1.2.The Department Chair shall inform, in writing, faculty members who are to be reviewed of the nature of materials required by the retention and tenure committee and the date by which these materials must be received for the committee's consideration.
9.4.1.3.It is the responsibility of the Department Chair to ensure that a detailed description of the academic assignment of the faculty member for the period under review be placed in the dossier at least one week before the submission date of the dossier.
9.4.1.4.During the period that the dossier is open, it is the responsibility of the Department Chair to ensure that the evidence necessary for a full and fair evaluation is contained in the dossier.
9.4.1.5.The Department Chair is responsible for ensuring that the members of the Department Retention, Tenure and Promotion committee are well trained in the procedure and understand the implications of the policy
9.4.1.6.The Department Chair shall write separate recommendations unless he/she has served as a duly elected member of the department retention and tenure committee. Such recommendations shall be forwarded to the College level along with the recommendations of the department committee and any responses to the departmental level recommendation(s) supplied by the faculty member.
9.4.2. Department/School/Division RTP Committee Membership
9.4.2.1.Departments may decide whether they wish to establish separate committees for retention, tenure, and promotion. This decision shall be made by the tenured and probationary faculty of the department. Membership on personnel committees for the purpose of deliberating or voting on personnel recommendations is limited to tenured full-time faculty members.
9.4.2.2.No faculty member shall serve on the department committee who is on either the College or University committee.
9.4.2.3.Tenured faculty members, including Department Chairs, who are candidates for promotion may not serve on promotion committees.
9.4.2.4.No faculty member, including Department Chairs, may participate in promotion deliberations about colleagues of equal or higher rank, although they may serve on recruitment/appointment, retention, or tenure committees concerning colleagues of any rank.
9.4.2.5.Participants in the Faculty Early Retirement Program may serve on department level recruitment/appointment, retention, tenure, or promotion committees only if elected by the Department, recommended by the Dean and approved by the AVP for Faculty Affairs. However, the number of FERP faculty may not exceed fifty percent of the committee.
9.4.2.6.In departments of sufficient size, personnel committees shall be composed of at least five (5) tenured full-time faculty members. In no case shall a personnel committee be composed of fewer than three (3) tenured full-time faculty members. In departments with fewer than three tenured full-time faculty members eligible to serve on the personnel committee, additional tenured full-time faculty members from related academic disciplines outside the department shall be selected to serve on departmental personnel committees as needed. A mutually acceptable list of nominees shall be selected by the College Dean (or General Unit equivalent)and the probationary and tenured faculty of the department; the probationary and tenured faculty shall elect the additional committee members from that list.
9.4.3. Department/School/Division RTP Committee Responsibilities
9.4.3.1.The Department Retention, Tenure and Promotion Committee will elect its own chair.
9.4.3.2.The
vote of the committee shall be recorded. A member of the committee shall be
selected to write the evaluation of the faculty member for the committee, which
shall be forwarded with the committee's recommendation to the College committee
9.4.4.
Faculty Responses to Recommendations or to the
Department Chair’s description of the Academic Assignment.
9.4.4.1.The faculty member may attach a response to this Department Chair’s description of the Academic Assignment (see 9.4.1.3) before the closing date (see 9.1.2); any such response shall also be included in the dossier.
9.4.4.2.Candidates shall indicate that
they have read the recommendations of the Department Retention, Tenure and
promotion committee and the department Chair (if such a separate recommendation
is submitted). If they disagree with the recommendation of the departmental
committee or the recommendation of the Department Chair, they shall have the
right to respond to or rebut in writing those recommendations within seven
calendar days after receiving the recommendations. Responses or rebuttals
should be addressed to the College committee but should be delivered to the
department office for placement in dossiers. Faculty members may also request a
meeting be held to discuss the recommendations within seven days after receipt
of the recommendations. Dossiers shall be forwarded to the next level no
earlier than the eighth day after faculty unit members have been notified of
the recommendations made. Responses or rebuttals received within the seven- day
limit must accompany the dossiers.
9.5.
College Procedures
9.5.1.
Academic Dean Responsibilities
9.5.1.1.The College Dean (or General Unit equivalent) shall schedule the College Retention, Tenure, and Promotion committee. The Dean or his/her designee may meet with the committee as a non-voting member only if invited to do so.
9.5.1.2.The College Dean shall write an evaluation of and recommendation for the faculty member under review.
9.5.2. College Retention, Tenure and Promotion Committee Membership
9.5.2.1.The College Retention, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) committee shall be composed of tenured full professors from departments within the College or, if augmentation is required, from related disciplines outside the College, and shall be elected by the probationary and tenured faculty unit employees of each department.
9.5.2.2.Each College shall determine the number to be elected from each department and the minimum size required for department representation on the College committee.
9.5.2.3.Department Chairs and faculty serving on a College committee may not serve on a departmental committee in that College or on the university committee.
9.5.3. College Retention, Tenure and Promotion Committee Responsibilities
9.5.3.1.The College RTP committee shall elect its own chair and prepare its own report.
9.5.3.2. Department representatives on the College RTP committee may participat in the deliberations and vot on all faculty members under review, including those from their department.
9.5.3.3.The recommendation of the College RTP committee, a statement of reasons for its recommendation and the recommendation and evaluation of the Dean shall be included in the dossier, and a copy sent to the candidate and to the department chair and committee. The committee and/or the Dean must thoroughly explain in writing any disagreement with the recommendation of the department committee.
9.5.4. Faculty Responses to Recommendations
9.5.4.1.A faculty member shall have seven calendar days after notification of the College level recommendations in which to respond to or rebut those recommendations in writing. Responses or rebuttals should be addressed via the College Dean to the next level of review (i.e., either to the University Retention Tenure and Promotion Committee or the President) but should be delivered to the College office (or General unit equivalent) for placement in dossiers. A faculty member may also request a meeting be held to discuss with the College Dean the recommendations within seven days after notification. Dossiers shall be forwarded to the next level on the eighth day after notification, accompanied by any response or rebuttal materials.
9.6. University
Committee Procedures
9.6.1.
Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs
Responsibilities
9.6.1.1.The Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs shall schedule the University RTP committee. He/she may meet with the committee only if invited to do so.
9.6.2. University Retention, Tenure and Promotion Committee Membership
9.6.2.1.The University RTP Committee shall consist of one tenured full professor from each College with more than 25 FTE/F and one tenured library faculty member. No member of a Department or College (or General Unit) RTP Committee shall serve concurrently on the University RTP Committee. The members of the committee shall serve for two-year, staggered terms, and the committee shall elect its chair.
9.6.2.2.The members of the University RTP Committee will be elected by the probationary and tenured faculty unit employees from each College with more than 25 FTE/F. Each department in the College shall be informed of the pending selection and shall nominate one person. The Provost or his/her designee shall meet with the College retention, tenure, and promotion committee, which will select three of those nominated to place before the electorate of each College. No one elected may serve as a member of a Department , Level I, College or Level II RTP committee.
9.6.3. University Retention, Tenure and Promotion Committee Responsibilities
9.6.3.1.Normally, the University Retention, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) committee
will not review dossiers unless there has been an even split vote or a “no”
recommendation from any of the reviewing bodies: the Department Chair,
Department RTP committee, College RTP committee, or Dean (or General Unit
equivalent).
9.6.3.2. If the University RTP Committee has made recommendations for retention, tenure or promotion, a statement of reasons for its recommendation shall be included in the dossier, and copies sent to the candidate, the College Dean (or General Unit equivalent), College or General Unit RTP Committee, Department Chair and Department RTP Committee
9.6.4. Faculty Responses to Recommendations
9.6.4.1.Unless a faculty member requests that the dossier not be forwarded, all dossiers shall be forwarded to the President via the Office of the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs. Dossiers shall be forwarded no earlier than the eighth day after faculty members have been notified of the recommendation.
9.6.4.2.The affected faculty member
shall have the right to respond to or rebut the university-level
recommendations in writing to the President within seven days after
notification of the recommendations. (Responses or rebuttals should be
delivered to the Office of the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs,
for placement in dossiers.) The faculty member may also request a meeting to be
held to discuss the recommendations within seven days after notification.
Dossiers shall be forwarded to the President via the Office of the Associate
Vice President for Faculty Affairs no earlier than the eighth day after faculty
unit members have been notified of the recommendations made. Responses or
rebuttals received within the seven calendar day limit must accompany the
dossiers.
9.7. Recommendation from the Associate Vice
President for Faculty Affairs
9.7.1. The Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs may make a recommendation in any case reviewed by the University RTP Committee, and that recommendation shall be made in writing and included in the dossier, with a copy sent to the candidate, the College Dean (or General Unit equivalent), College (or General Unit) RTP Committee, Department Chair and the Department RTP Committee. When the recommendation is contrary to the recommendation of the University RTP Committee, a statement of reasons shall also be given in writing.
9.8. President’s Decision
9.8.1. The President has the authority to make appointments, continue faculty members on probationary status, grant tenure, and grant promotions. It is understood that this authority will normally be exercised in consultation with the Provost.
9.8.2. The President shall notify the candidate in writing, giving the reasons for the decision by June 1. If a decision is negative the reasons given should indicate the area or areas in which the candidate's efforts, performance, or accomplishments should be strengthened. A copy of the decision shall be given to the faculty member and all review levels and shall be placed in the personnel file. When the presidential action is not consistent with the recommendation of the university committee, the President shall meet with the committee to discuss the reasons for the action.
9.8.3.
Denial of Promotion
At the conclusion of the process, faculty members denied promotion shall be appraised, by the Department Chair or an appropriate administrator, of their strengths and weaknesses, and advised of what they might do to improve their chances for promotion in the future.
[1] Called "student
questionnaire evaluations" in the Agreement between the Board of Trustees
of the