University of Delaware
Office of Public Relations
UpDate - Vol. 16, No. 27, April 17


              Senate approves promotion, tenure revisions
     
     Arevised faculty promotion and tenure document was
approved by the University Faculty Senate Monday, with the
new schedule effective Jan. 1, 1998.
     Departments and colleges are expected to make their
promotion and tenure documents conform with the general
University guidelines by June 1998.
     The senate also voted to allow faculty without tenure
to be reviewed under the promotion and tenure policy in
effect at the time they were hired, provided they inform the
department chairperson of their wish to have this done.
     At last week's regularly scheduled meeting, the senate
approved the first four resolutions of the 10-resolution
proposal. Starting with resolution five, the senators
completed their review of the revised document at this
special meeting.
     A friendly amendment to resolution six was passed,
requesting that the University provost continue a policy of
recording in writing any reasons for rejecting
recommendations made by the University Committee on
Promotions and Tenure.
     Senators also voted to retain a section of resolution
six, which states, "It is the individual's responsibility to
present the best case for promotion since he or she is most
clearly involved in the outcome."
     Regarding a candidate's dossier, a major revision of
solicited peer evaluations was passed by the senators. Under
the new guidelines, departmental committees will suggest
additional reviewers, beyond those suggested by the
candidate, and the final list of names "will not be given to
the candidate so as to preserve confidentiality of the
reviewers." As adopted, the new document states that
candidates must not contact potential reviewers about the
promotion process at any time and, during committee
evaluation, peer reviewers will be referred to by number,
not by name or affiliation.
     Under published materials to be included in the
dossier, the revised document states that the candidate
should "make clear the extent to which the work has been
peer reviewed" and, for collaborative works, the
"candidate's contributions should be clearly indicated."
     Although University-wide standards for peer evaluations
of teaching were discussed at the meeting, no changes were
made to the proposed document.
                                              -Cornelia Weil