Proposed Changes to Faculty Handbook, Section III (Personnel Policies for Faculty):

K. University Guidelines for Faculty Promotion and Tenure

2. Minimum Standards for Promotion (p. 3 of 12)

After the paragraph that begins, “Service at all levels—department…..”

add a new paragraph:

“In applying promotion and tenure criteria, assessments in teaching, scholarship, and service should reflect the candidate’s approved workload distribution during his or her time in rank.”

Rationale: To highlight the relationship between a candidate’s workload distribution and promotion and tenure evaluation.

Departmental Responsibilities (p. 5 of 12)

d. End of section, add: “The department committee should insert a separate report in the external letters section of the dossier, documenting the specific external reviewers who were nominated by the candidate versus those nominated by the department, and the criteria and process used to request letters from specific reviewers.”

Rationale: To specify how external reviewers were selected.

f. (p. 5 of 12). End of section, add: “The chairperson’s letter should include a description of the candidate’s workload distribution during the time in rank, and how that workload relates to his or her recommendation concerning tenure and/or promotion.

Rationale: To document the candidate’s workload distribution, and to highlight

the relationship between workload distribution and promotion and tenure evaluation.

College Level (Section 5).

c. Replace existing text with: “Faculty members who participate and vote on a college promotion and tenure committee may neither participate in the discussion of, nor vote on, candidates at the department level. If a faculty member votes at the department level, he or she may neither participate in the discussion of, nor vote on, candidates from their own department at the college level.”

Rationale: To allow colleges to have their own policy concerning department representatives participating/voting for department candidates at the college level. Also,

to state the principle that department and college reviews should be independent, such that if a department representative participates/votes at one level, he/she cannot participate nor vote at the other level.

f. (p. 6 of 12). After first sentence, insert: “Before reaching a final decision, the dean may solicit additional information from the candidate, the department promotion committee, the department chair, and the college committee regarding additional evidence that might clarify the promotion dossier.” (stolen from p. 6 in the university

committee section)

Rationale: To allow the dean to obtain additional information before writing a decision letter. Currently, the college committee and the university committee can obtain additional information prior to a decision letter.

The Provost (p. 7 of 12):

The final review of applications for promotion is made by the provost. Add this change:

“Before reaching a final decision, the Provost may solicit additional information from the candidate, the department promotion committee, the department chair, the college committee, the dean of the college, or the university committee regarding additional evidence that might clarify the promotion dossier.” (stolen from p. 6 in the university committee section). Then, as before…”Before the Provost rejects recommendations made by the university committee, he or she must report to it…….”

Rationale: To allow the provost to obtain additional information before writing a decision letter. (Same as above regarding the dean). This year, the only way that

the provost was able to obtain additional information was to reject a candidate and

then ask him or her questions in an appeal meeting.

The Schedule (p. 7 of 12)

Provost’s recommendation: extended to Feb. 28

Rationale: To allow more time to obtain additional information (see above).

Bottom of p. 7 of 12, on Appeals.

New wording, beginning with first sentence: “Appeals are possible at every level, but must be made to the committee or administrator whose decision is being appealed. An intention to appeal must be given to the appropriate body within five working days of notification of the decision. An appeal includes: (1) a letter documenting the basis of the appeal, usually written by the candidate; and (2) a scheduled meeting with the appropriate person or committee, which must be attended by the candidate; representatives of the candidate can also attend and participate in the appeal meeting.” Then continue with

current wording: “Appeals must be handled within……….” to end of the section.

Rationale: To inform candidates that an appeal: (1) involves a meeting and not just a letter; (2) must be made to the appropriate committee/person, and not to the next review level; and (3) must be attended by the candidate. This past year, some candidates

did not understand the appeal procedure.