51��Ƶ

Article I. Purpose

 This document provides guidelines for promotion and tenure procedures within College of Arts, Sciences, and Letters (CASL). These Guidelines set forth standards and procedures relating to tenure-track faculty appointments, promotions, and the awarding of tenure. They have been developed to inform and guide the CASL faculty, their elected or appointed faculty representatives, and the CASL administration. 

Article II. Appointments, Policies, and Procedures 

Individual departments have the authority to develop their own search, screening, interviewing, and selection policies in so far as they are consistent with University, campus, and CASL policies. When the appropriate departmental body, consisting of members of the CASL governing faculty, decides to recommend a candidate for an appointment to a tenure- track position, the departmental chair is responsible for forwarding the candidate’s curriculum vitae and supporting documents to the dean. 

Normally, initial appointments are made without immediate tenure, and the terms of the probationary period are specified in the letter of appointment, which is prepared and sent by the dean, after consultation with the departmental chair. In those rare cases of appointments with immediate tenure, approval of the Board of Regents must be obtained before the offer of appointment can be made. 

Decisions related to credit for previous post-doctoral college-level teaching experience are made by the dean, in light of the negotiations between the appointee, the departmental chair and the dean. A maximum of three years of service may be credited toward the probationary period of appointees at the level of assistant professor. Final approval for any time credited rests with the Provost (See the 51��Ƶ-D Promotion and Tenure Procedures, and SPG 201.13 & 201.92).

Article III. Periodic Faculty Reviews and Reports 

The purpose of regular evaluations of faculty is not only to document qualifications for promotion and tenure, but also to aid individual faculty members in assessing their strengths and weaknesses, and to encourage them to realize their full potential. In each type of review detailed below, the three areas being evaluated are teaching, scholarship (including research and/or creative activities), and service. Where other campus P&T documents use the term research, in this document, we use the term scholarship. 

Documentation addressing these respective activities must adhere to guidelines outlined in Article IV (Areas of Evaluation). CASL values the evaluation of these areas by the standard metrics established by disciplines and recognizes innovative and entrepreneurial activities that might be harder to evaluate by traditional metrics. 

Reviews of faculty members must be conducted by an appropriate group of departmental colleagues. Professors may review and evaluate associate and assistant professors; associate professors may review and evaluate assistant professors. Subsequently, in this document, the reviewing committee will be referred to as the P & T Committee.

In each type of review, a letter is required. The purpose of the letter is primarily to report to the faculty member on the P & T Committee’s findings in the three areas. Additionally, it serves as a mentoring opportunity and must offer concrete suggestions to the candidates. 

Typically, designates of the P & T Committee will draft the review letter on its behalf. The entire P & T Committee must be given the opportunity to review the letter. The chair of the department will sign the letter on behalf of the P & T Committee. If the chair is not eligible as a member of the relevant committee, then the ad hoc chair of that committee will act in her/his stead (see Article VI, “CASL Directives to Departments and Programs”). 

In reviewing and evaluating the work of faculty, it is important that the review process does not undervalue or discount scholarship that engages, and addresses issues related to, marginalized communities. Defining peer review in ways that define the community of peers more broadly to look at impact beyond the impact on the discipline is one way of ensuring that this process of evaluation is more inclusive. 

Annual Reports 

Once appointed, every full-time CASL faculty member is required to report annually on her/his recent professional activities in the three areas using the College’s standard reporting process. These reports will be used for two purposes: (1) Evaluation of progress towards tenure and/or promotion for assistant and untenured associate professors, and (2) the chair’s merit salary recommendations to the dean. 

Annual Reviews and Reports 

The P & T Committee must review all assistant professors and untenured associate professors annually and evaluate their performance in all three areas. The letter to the faculty member will report the conclusions of the review. It must indicate whether the faculty member is progressing satisfactorily toward promotion and/or tenure. It must also specify the deadline for a decision on tenure or terminal appointment. Evaluations of probationary faculty that are unsatisfactory may lead to Notice of Non-Reappointment (See SPG 201.88). 

Mid-Term Reviews and Reports for Assistant Professors 

The mid-term review is an opportunity to evaluate more fully the performance of untenured assistant professors in all three areas. However, it is not a tenure review and no firm commitment to recommend tenure can or will be made during or as a result of this review. This review usually occurs during the sixth semester of service or as early as the fourth semester, when the junior faculty member, with the permission of the dean and provost, is counting teaching experience at another institution. The letter to the faculty member will report on the conclusions of the review. Because the mid-term review is a critical time in the development of faculty members, it offers a unique mentoring opportunity. The department chair should discuss with a candidate whether her/his performance is developing properly towards promotion and tenure. Candidates are encouraged to discuss their mid-term evaluations not only with the chair, but also with their senior colleagues.

Periodic Reviews and Reports for Associate Professors

The department’s P & T Committee (full professors) will conduct reviews of tenured associate professors at three-year intervals. The P & T Committee will evaluate a faculty member’s performance in all three areas. This review is another critical point in a faculty member’s development and an opportunity for mentoring.

The letter to the faculty member will report on the conclusions of the review. It must clearly indicate whether progress toward promotion to the rank of professor is being made. Additionally, the letter should offer concrete suggestions on actions the candidate can take to strengthen her/his case. Associate professors are encouraged to discuss their three-year evaluations with the chair of the department and also with their senior colleagues.

An associate professor may request consideration for promotion to full professor prior to a three-year review. In this situation, a letter to the faculty member reporting the conclusions of the review is also required.

Periodic Reviews and Reports for Professors

Reviews of tenured professors are made at less frequent intervals (typically six years) by an Ad Hoc Committee for the Evaluation of Full Professors chosen and chaired by the dean or designee(See Appendix I, “Evaluation of Full Professors”). This committee will evaluate performance in all three areas with the goal of recognizing and encouraging continued contributions.

Article IV. Areas of Evaluation 

In all required faculty reviews and in recommendations related to promotion and tenure, or termination, faculty must be evaluated in three areas: teaching, scholarship, and service.

Teaching

An essential qualification for appointment, reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure in CASL is the ability to teach effectively. Some of the elements to be evaluated are knowledge of subject matter, skill in presentation, commitment to student learning and development, creativity, ability to stimulate critical thinking, integrity, and versatility. The capacity for cooperation with colleagues and administration in the achievement of discipline, department, and CASL instructional and curricular goals is also important.

Teaching-related activities include, but are not limited to:

• Classroom instruction
• Promotion and supervision of undergraduate and graduate student research
• Development of new courses and/or resurrection of dormant courses
• Curricular or program development
• Participation in teaching development activities(e.g. attending teaching workshops)
• Seeking or obtaining pedagogical grants
• Producing curricular or pedagogical publications
• Guest lectures
• Conference presentations related to teaching
• Involvement in assessment activities
• Participation in service learning activities
• Implementing new teaching technologies
• Developing online courses

REQUIRED evidence of teaching effectiveness includes, but is not limited to:

1. Teaching statement

   This statement should address objectives, methodologies, pedagogy, and teaching development. The teaching statement should contain a self-evaluation of the candidate’s estimate of her/his effectiveness in teaching. It should also include a discussion of, or response to, teaching evaluations and/or peer observation reports and any action taken to correct problems or difficulties.

2. Teaching portfolio 

   A teaching portfolio should document and provide evidence of the quality and range of one’s teaching. For the purpose of reviews, the teaching portfolio should include are presentative selection of materials (syllabi, course outlines, grade distributions, course proposals, assignments and exams) from at least two courses, preferably one from a lower and one from an upper-level course (if applicable) and may include a graduate or online course.

3. Peer observation reports

   Classroom observations by colleagues must be considered one of several methods for determining the quality of teaching for individual faculty members of all ranks. For probationary assistant professors, normally there will be a minimum of two peer observation reports on teaching(from an upper division and a lower division course, if possible): One must be conducted before the midterm review. For associate professors, it is expected that there be at least one review in each three-year interval post-promotion. A candidate for promotion to full professor must have at least two peer reviews. Promotion & Tenure committees can require more on a case-by-case basis. Candidates can ask for and receive more, if they wish. 

   Classroom observations by colleagues should be carried out for the improvement of faculty teaching and with the consent of the faculty member being visited. Although each department has the responsibility for determining mechanisms for carrying out classroom observations, certain guidelines must be followed. It is the responsibility of the department’s chair, working in conjunction with its executive committee, to designate an appropriate observer of a rank higher than the individual being observed. The class to be observed (date, time, and place) should be at the mutual convenience of the observer and the candidate. If a particular rubric or evaluation system is to be used, the faculty member being reviewed must be given a copy in advance of the scheduled classroom visit. The observer will prepare a written report of the class observed, share this report with the candidate, and arrange a face-to-face meeting to discuss the report. The observer is to submit the report to the departmentchair for inclusion in the candidate’s casebook. The candidate may submit a response to thisreport if she/he wishes. Because each discipline/department is responsible for specifying what it values in the way of teaching, the precise mechanics of these reviews is left to those units.

4. Student evaluations 

   The primary rationale for and importance of student evaluations is their potential contribution to improved teaching. Evaluations may also constitute useful evidence in considerations of salary increments, reappointments, promotions, and tenure. In no case may student evaluations constitute the only basis for determining a faculty member's teaching ability.

   The responsibility for the development of appropriate student evaluation forms and for their distribution, interpretation, and filing rests with the departments. Student evaluation forms should include opportunities for open-ended responses. They should be administered toward the end ofthe term in which they are used. Untenured tenure-track faculty should be evaluated by the irrespective students in every class they teach.

   Tenured faculty should be evaluated by students in all their classes in Fall or Winter term each year. Copies of completed forms will be maintained by the department offices for a minimum of five years. Electronic copies must be deposited by department office staff in the candidate’s casebook and also sent to the faculty member. All faculty must be made fully aware of how the evaluation form is used and summarized, and all faculty must carefully follow the standard procedures for distributing and collecting student evaluations in their classes. 

OPTIONAL evidence of teaching effectiveness includes, but is not limited to:

1. Additional peer observation reports 

   Although in the normal process of considering promotions and/or awarding tenure, only superiors in rank are permitted to participate in discussion and vote on recommendations, it is appropriate for the opinions of faculty in any rank to be considered if they have been in a position to observe a colleague's teaching performance. Such opinions should be written, and copies should be included with the faculty member’s casebook when promotion and/or tenure recommendations are being considered. Such peer evaluations may complement, but cannot substitute for, peer classroom observation reports prepared by members of the appropriate Review Committee.

2. Examples of student work
3. Copies of grant applications and publications related to teaching
4. A faculty member may cite public lectures, presentations at faculty seminars, team-taught courses or guest lectures in another teacher's class as evidence of her/his teaching ability
5. Unsolicited feedback from students and/or alumni.
6. Reports on innovative and entrepreneurial activities in teaching that aren’t necessarily assessed by the metrics and tools listed above.

Scholarship

The College of Arts, Sciences, and Letters values faculty engagement in high quality scholarship broadly defined through the Boyer Model. The College recognizes scholarship through one or more of the following activities: the discovery of new knowledge(scholarship of discovery); the creation of knowledge through its integration across and within disciplines or subject areas (e.g., inter/multi/trans disciplinary activities)( scholarship of integration); its application through engagement with business, industry, government, and/or nonprofit sectors or with the broad public(scholarship of application); and/or the systematic investigation and public sharing of practice which supports pedagogy and student learning(scholarship of teaching). Faculty members are not expected to engage in all four areas through their individual scholarship; rather, these areas in combination are meant to reflect the diversity of scholarship across the College faculty.

Those conducting annual and P&T reviews must consider scholarship broadly, encompassing the four types of scholarship delineated by the Boyer model. Each of these four areas should be considered as scholarly work and evaluated as such.

Departments and program P&T guidelines articulate work that would qualify in each category for faculty reviews and specify standards for how these categories will be implemented.

An effective scholar will engage in scholarship that results in peer-reviewed publications or creative works critically assessed and evaluated by academic or professional peers. The primary forms of evidence to be evaluated in this area are peer-reviewed artifacts, which are required for promotion and tenure. These works are open to evaluation by the faculty member’s peers, both internal and external to 51��Ƶ-Dearborn. (See Appendix II for policies concerning obtaining evaluations from relevant outside scholars/reviewers).

Under the Boyer model, the conceptualization of peer review may include indicators of quality and excellence beyond traditional journal-based and book-based peer review. The criteria to determine peer review are delineated in department and discipline/program P&T guidelines.

Both quality and quantity of scholarly work are important factors in the evaluation .In deliberations on promotion and tenure, the emphasis in evaluating a faculty member’s performance in scholarship should be on determining whether it shows evidence of original, scholarly activity. The publications’ contribution to the scholarly field, their impact on the general intellectual community, and the evidence that they provide of the author’s intellectual vitality and knowledge should also be considered.

Scholarly-related activities may include, but are not limited to 

• Publishing in reputable peer-reviewed disciplinary and inter/multi/trans disciplinary venues for outcomes of basic, applied, and pedagogical scholarly works.
• Applying for and securing scholarly grants and contracts
• Development of patents
• Development of novel testing methodologies and products that advance scholarly fields and society.
• Publishing in conference proceedings
• Presenting research at conferences
• Serving as a consultant or expert witness
• Giving media interviews
• Conducting scholarship that engages undergraduate and graduate students
• Collecting or generating primary data for scholarly activities

REQUIRED evidence for evaluating scholarly performance includes, but is not limited to:

1. A narrative on scholarly work

   The narrative should describe one’s scholarly agenda, including a chronicling of the results of scholarly activities with particular emphasis on publications, information on the review processes, and the publication venues. It should also include reflections on one’s development as a scholar and future plans. The narrative may also speak to challenges and concerns about the scholarly endeavors.

2. Documentation of peer-reviewed publications

   •Copies of peer-reviewed publications (scholarly books, textbooks, journal articles, book chapters)

   •Manuscripts accepted pending editorial changes, in press, or under contract with acceptance letter(s) and in the case of a book, a copy of a book contract

   •Copies of review articles only if they demonstrate the breadth of the reviewer’s knowledge and make a contribution to scholarship in the area 

Regardless of a faculty member’s rank, it is essential that her/his publications appear in peer reviewed venues. If it is unclear whether a publication has been peer-reviewed or the review process is not evident, it is the responsibility of the candidate to provide information on the review process and to include documentation in the casebook. In the case of manuscripts accepted for publication but not yet in print, conclusive documentation to support commitments for publication is required. If the candidate cannot provide evidence of a rigorous peer review for a publication, the department or special joint appointment P & T committee may exclude the publication from the external review process and from the section of the candidates’ CV that lists peer-reviewed articles.

OPTIONAL evidence for evaluating research performance may include, but is not limited to:

• Grant proposals. Faculty members are encouraged, but not required, to submit grant proposals to appropriate agencies. A grant proposal alone is not a substitute for publishedwork. The funding of a grant proposal for the support of scholarly research may be taken as corroborative evidence of one's recognition as a scholar.
• Conference presentations including programs indicating the nature of one’s participation. Conference presentations are regarded as evidence of exposure regionally, nationally, and/or internationally and progress towards the development of a reputation in one’s field.
• Reviews written by the candidate on other scholarly work
• Published reviews of the candidate’s publications by other scholars
• Original reports, such as encyclopedia articles
• Copies of relevant correspondence (e.g. concerning work as an expert witness)
• Articles/links to media interviews
• Results of undergraduate and/or graduate research
• Manuscripts under review
• Reports on innovative and entrepreneurial activities that didn’t yield to outcomes listed above.

In certain academic areas in CASL a faculty member's activities in the field of creative arts may also count toward promotion and/or tenure: 

Creative activities may include, but are not limited to:

• Performing musically
• Composing
• Film making
• Producing digital media, including web-based and interactive media as well as installations
• Publishing creative non-fiction, fiction, poetry, plays, screenplays, and graphic novels
• Producing art, which can take the form of visual, time-based, and audio art
• Directing dramatic productions
• Acting
• Web design

REQUIRED evidence for evaluating creative performance includes, but in not limited to:

1. A narrative on creative work

   The narrative should describe one’s agenda as an artist, including a chronicle of pertinent activities and future plans. The narrative should also include information on any review processes involved in the acceptance or performance of works. It should also include reflections on one’s development as an artist. The narrative may also speak to challenges and concerns.

2. Documentation of peer-reviewed work

   •Films, DVDs or links to films or works of digital media production, including video, sound, and interactive work

   •Literary publications

   •Multi-media publications

   •Images of art works

   •Videos of performances or productions

   •Evidence of review of creative artifacts (letters from publishers, published reviews or other forms of outside evaluations, evaluations from juries and/or qualified colleagues, formal or informal communications from colleagues in the same or related disciplines)

   •Evidence of peer responses, which are common in conference presentations, as well as juried awards.

   •Evidence of exhibitions, including group or solo gallery shows and gallery representation, film festivals, broadcasts, juried conferences, national and international film distribution, optioning of screenplays. 

Every effort will be made to evaluate creative activities rigorously.

OPTIONAL evidence for evaluating creative performance may include, but is not limited to:

• Grant proposals

Service

An additional qualification for appointment, reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure in CASL is service. At an institution in which faculty governance is basic and essential, faculty members should display willingness and ability to perform a variety of service activities within the discipline, department, College, campus, and University. Indeed, the scope of the University’s purposes and goals often require faculty members to engage in activities outside the specific areas of teaching and research/creative pursuits. These activities are grouped under the heading of “service.”

Service-related activities include but are not limited to:

• Participation in committee work at a variety of levels (e.g. discipline, department, College, campus, University, professional, and community).
• Membership on task forces and committees for the development and/or evaluation of programs and facilities related to the reshaping or expansion of the College or University.
• Performing administrative duties (e.g. department chair, discipline representative).
• Mentoring colleagues, either one-on-one or by participating in a mentoring/faculty development workshop. Note that mentoring expectations are greater for tenured than untenured faculty and that faculty to be mentored include both Assistant and Associate Professors
• Advising students.
• Organizing a conference or conference sessions.
• Organizing and/or participating in on-campus workshops or presentations for students or faculty, and promoting scholarly, creative, or social activities.
• Organizing off-campus activities for students or faculty, such as tours, attending films and workshops off campus.
• Developing or participating in community events and projects.
• Meeting deadlines, attending discipline and department meetings, contributing to curriculum planning, responding to queries from staff, completing reports and paperwork in a timely manner
• Serving as an external reviewer for P & T process at another university
• Serving as an external program reviewer at another university
• Serving on an editorial board of an academic journal
• Serving on the board of an academic association
• Refereeing articles for academic journals 

In evaluating the quality of service contributions, weight should vary according to the degree of individual participation. For example, a committee chair should receive more credit for her/his work than a committee member, and a member who writes a committee or task force report should receive greater recognition than members who only commented on drafts of the report. Committees that meet more frequently and/or have especially important charges merit greater weight than other committees in the evaluation of service. For example, serving on search, executive and curriculum committees at any level involves more frequent meetings and more difficult work than the average committee. 

The matter of released time and/or additional compensation may also enter into the evaluation of one's participation in committee and/or administrative work. The fact that a faculty member has been given an assignment that merits released time and/or an administrative differential indicates that she/he possesses at least above average skills and the task involves considerable complexity and responsibility, but the precise level of achievement will have to be determined in each instance. The degree of participation and/or responsibility in each service activity should be noted in the individual’s CV and casebook.

REQUIRED evidence for evaluating service performance must include:
 

1. Service narrative statement
   This should consist of a discussion of the candidate’s service contributions.
2. A listing of service contributions organized by discipline, department, unit, campus, university, profession and community. Citations and links to committee or task force reports authored should be included.
3. Supplemental types of evidence of service, such as letters from committee/task force chairs and community partners, news articles, judgments from committee/task force peers as to the quality of service.

Note that service expectations increase with rank; the quality of service expected for promotion to professor exceeds that expected for promotion to associate professor. CASL values innovative and entrepreneurial activities in the service category that are quantified as the outcomes listed above. A report on such activities can be included in the portfolio as optional evidence. 

Article V. Qualifications Necessary for Promotion and Tenure

The three areas of a faculty member’s activity discussed in preceding articles must be central to all evaluations affecting promotion and tenure. When recommendations for promotion and/or tenure are considered, the levels of performance must be positive in all areas. Four terms of evaluation are considered standard and are to be used in official documents regarding promotion and/or tenure: (1) excellent, (2) significantly capable, (3) competent, and (4) unacceptable. 

No promotion is automatic, nor does it depend simply on length of service, in general or in the various rank s. All promotion recommendations are subject to approval by the Board of Regents. Evaluations of probationary faculty that are unsatisfactory should lead to non-renewal of appointments. 

Promotions in CASL require certain levels of performance in each category, as follows:

To Associate Professor

Promotions from assistant professor to associate professor normally include tenure, and they must therefore be regarded as critical for both the institution and the individual.

Recommendations for promotion must be based on demonstrated appropriate levels of performance. The minimum requirements at this level are that the faculty member: (1) be judged excellent in at least one of the teaching and research categories, (2) be judged at least significantly
capable in the other category, (3) and must be judged at least competent in service. Supporting evidence must be provided in every category: in the absence of such evidence, not even competence will be assumed.

The above assessments are necessary, but may not be sufficient for promotion. They should be granted only to those who in addition show promise of eventually being qualified for promotion to the rank of professor.

The maximum period of probation in full-time service before a decision is made on the promotion of an assistant professor to associate professor (with tenure) is normally six years. This period may be somewhat shorter for those with previous full-time service at other institutions or for those whose performance is exceptional.

If the promotion to associate professor and tenure are awarded, they will be effective at the beginning of the academic year after the recommendation is approved by the Board of Regents. Processes for non-reappointment of tenure-track faculty without tenure, clinical instructional faculty and lecturers (non-bargained for) will follow the practices as defined in SPG 201.88.

In cases of a negative tenure decision, it is the University’s expectation that, except in unusual circumstances, the faculty member will be given a terminal year following the year in which the negative decision is reached (SPG 201.13).

To Professor

Promotion to the rank of professor should be made on the basis of demonstrated development since promotion to associate professor, on the basis of a scholarly reputation on a national level, as well as on evidence of a capacity and willingness for continued growth and contributions. 

Because service is essential and necessary for the functioning of the university, the promotion to full professor also requires evidence of expanded service contributions since promotion. Consequently, associate professors are expected to be more involved
in service than assistant professors.

Recommendations for promotions must be based on demonstrated appropriate levels of performance. The minimum requirements at this level are that the faculty member: (1) be judged excellent in at least one of the teaching and research categories, (2) be judged at least significantly
capable in the other category, (3) must be judged at least significantly capable in service. Supporting evidence must be provided in every category: in the absence of such evidence, not even competence will be assumed. 

Since the rank of professor is a mark of the highest academic distinction, the above assessments are necessary, but may not be sufficient for promotion. The length of time required for promotion to professor cannot be pinpointed; historically, however, promotions to Professor after five to ten years in rank as associate professor have been considered in the normal range. There is no time period after which promotion to Professor would be automatic if the appropriate criteria listed above are not met. Continued academic contribution, rather than length of service, is the key to promotion to professor. 

Article VI. CASL Directives to Departments and Programs

Promotion and tenure recommendations are expected to originate in the several departments of the College. All departments and programs will follow the casebook instructions provided by the Office of Academic Human Resources at the University of Michigan- Ann Arbor. At the beginning of each fall term the dean’s office will provide the departments with an updated copy of the casebook instructions.

Timeline for reviews

The P & T Committee meeting times will be set and announced at the beginning of each academic term. Reviews of assistant professors and three-year reviews of associate professors will normally take place during the winter term. Chairs must also notify affected candidates at the beginning of the academic term with instructions and appropriate deadlines for the gathering and submitting of materials for review. Materials to be submitted are detailed in Article IV and must be made available electronically to appropriate committee members at least two weeks in advance of the scheduled meetings in order to give them sufficient time to examine the materials.

For assistant professors, the P & T Committee must review the submitted materials fully and vote by secret ballot whether or not to send publications out for external review at the end of the year preceding the candidate’s critical tenure year as articulated in her/his appointment letter. A decision not to send out materials is taken as a negative review, and the candidate will be provided a copy of the decision along with a rationale and will be given an opportunity to include in her/his casebook rebuttal to such rationale. In such cases, the dean will make the determination on whether a candidate’s case shall be sent for external review.

In the case of three-year reviews for associate professors the P & T Committee must review the submitted materials fully. When a candidate wishes to be considered for promotion, then the Committee must review the submitted materials fully, and vote by secret ballot whether to send publications out for external review. A decision not to send out materials is taken as a negative review, and the candidate will be provided a copy of the decision along with a rationale and will be given an opportunity to include in her/his casebook a rebuttal to such rationale. The casebook will then move to the dean and the CASL Executive Committee for consideration.

In cases where copies of published materials and materials in press are sent out for external review, the letter soliciting reviews must adhere to the prescribed CASL format and the guidelines for selecting reviewers contained in Appendix II must be followed. Upon receipt of the review letters, the relevant P & T Committee will reconvene in early fall to discuss a candidate’s entire P & T casebook. The P & T Committee must be informed at the beginning of each academic term of the committee’s meeting dates.

Normally the P & T Committee is reconvened in early fall to discuss a candidate’s full casebook, including external review letters. At this time a candidate is ranked as excellent, significantly capable, competent, or unacceptable in the three areas of teaching, research, and service. In addition,a vote is taken whether to recommend promotion or tenure. If the vote to promote is negative, the candidate will be provided a copy of the decision along with a rationale and will be given an opportunity to include in her/his casebook a rebuttal to such rationale. The casebook will then move to the dean and the CASL Executive Committee for consideration.

Voting procedures

All voting will be by secret, written ballot, and except in the obvious case of unanimous votes, no one will discuss how s/he voted or the final vote. 

Only at the end of discussion of evidence from each category—teaching, research, or service—will a ballot be distributed, with the four choices of excellent, significantly capable, competent or unacceptable. These ballots will be collected after each vote, but not tabulated prior to the discussion of the next category. Once all three categories have been discussed and voted on, the ballots will be tallied and the results reported. Each of these votes is an assessment vote.

The chair is required to inform the dean and CASL Executive Committee in writing of the vote counts on each of these three ballots.

Due to the important nature of promotion and tenure, all committee members should read the materials carefully and be present for the entire discussion.

Absentee voting will be permitted only under the following unusual circumstances:

1. Professional conflict (e.g. attending a conference, a teaching conflict)
2. Family emergency

3. Personal health issue

   Absentee ballots must be received prior to the meeting in order to be included in the tally.

P & T Committee membership

In the case of an assistant professor, the department’s P & T Committee will consist of all professors and associate professors in that department; in the case of an associate professor, the department’s P& T Committee will consist of all professors in that department; in the case of a professor, the department’s P & T Committee will consist of all tenured professors in that department. Non-tenured P & T Committee members may participate in the review and evaluation of the candidate, but may not vote. Normally, the chair of the department serves as the chair of the P & T Committee, and will ordinarily not vote except in cases of ties. If she/he should decide not to vote to break a tie, the recommendation would fail for want of a majority.

In the case of a faculty member holding a joint appointment in two or more departments and/or programs, a special Joint P&T Review Committee (here after Joint Committee) of seven faculty members, no more than two of which may be untenured, will be appointed for each candidate. This Joint Committee will function in place of the department or program "P&T Committee" described elsewhere in this document. As with all college faculty, jointly appointed faculty will be evaluated on the expectations for teaching, research, and service outlined elsewhere in this document. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be drafted for each faculty member holding a joint appointment specifying their tenure "home" and the "unit criteria" that will be used for evaluation of the candidate's teaching, research, and service.

The ranks of faculty members eligible to serve on a Joint Committee will be respected as above. The Joint Committee membership will represent the apportionment of the candidate's appointment. In the case of a 50/50 appointment, the "tenure home" of the candidate, as specified in their contract letter and MOU, shall have the greater membership. The chair or director from the tenure home shall serve as chair of the Joint Committee. Other affiliated chairs and directors shall serve on the Joint Committee for as long as they hold their administrative appointments. The remaining members will be elected by the appropriate P&T faculty committees.

The Joint Committee will be responsible for all periodic reviews and reports outlined in Article III and for adhering to the timeline and voting procedures specified in Article VI. The chair of the Joint Committee will fulfill the same functions as a Department Chair in following the independent review process and giving candidates for promotion and tenure timely notice of Joint Committee recommendations, as specified in Article VI. Further details on Joint Committees and MOU's for jointly appointed candidates can be found in Appendix III.

In cases where the department chair is an associate professor and considerations of promotion to professor or awarding tenure to probationary professors are involved, the chair will not serve on the committee. A chair with vote will be chosen from among the other members by these members, and this ad hoc chairperson will perform all of the duties of the chair she/he replaces.

Under no circumstances may one be present when her/his promotion and/or tenure is being considered by an evaluation committee. However, because of administrative responsibilities, the chair will have the privilege of meeting with the evaluation committee to hear the rationale for their decisions (both affirmative and negative). She/he will be required to forward to the CASL dean any cases acted on, favorably or otherwise.

No evaluation committee, at any level, will consist of fewer than three members. If, in a given term, a department should have fewer than three people of the rank(s) required to constitute a valid committee, the chair will inform the dean of the situation and the dean, in consultation with the chair, will appoint enough additional faculty members of appropriate rank from other departments to create an evaluation committee of at least three.

Independent review process for the chair

Upon receipt of a casebook from a discipline/department, the chair will review and evaluate its contents. The chair will accompany the P & T Committee’s recommendations with her/his own recommendation, especially explaining how the chair’s opinions may differ from those of the committee as a whole. If a chair decides to make a negative recommendation, then the candidate will be provided a copy of the decision along with a rationale and given the opportunity to include a rebuttal which will be placed in the casebook.

Notification of results

Candidates for promotion and tenure must be given timely notice of departmental recommendations by their chair. Because each decision in this process is a recommendation, the chair and others involved should not make public announcements about the results until the entire process is completed.

Article VII. CASL Procedures

The role of an advocate

In the case of a positive vote on the part of the P & T Committee, the department chair, in consultation with the candidate, will appoint an advocate who is acceptable to both. The advocate will represent the candidate to the CASL Executive Committee, but may not be a member of the CASL Executive Committee. She/he will normally be a tenured or emerita/emeritus faculty member preferably from the candidate’s discipline. The advocate must not reveal to the candidate confidential information, such as the external review letters or the deliberations within the review committees.

Review process for CASL Executive Committee

Upon receipt of a casebook from a department the dean will make its contents available to the CASL Executive Committee in its role as CASL P & T Committee. The members should be given a reasonable amount of time to study the casebooks fully. The date will be determined in consultation with the members of the P & T Committee and will depend in part on the number of cases to be considered.

The dean will call and chair all meetings devoted to these matters. If some members of the regular CASL Executive Committee hold ranks lower than those required for participation in such considerations, the Committee must be reconstituted. For policies and procedures, please see the CASL Bylaws, Article III.4. With the exception of the dean of CASL, full-time administrators orthose who have been involved in promotion and tenure considerations because of administrative responsibilities will not be eligible to serve on the reconstituted CASL P & T Committee.

The advocate for each candidate will be given time to present the candidate’s case after which the Committee members will normally have time to question the advocate. After the advocate leaves, the Committee will be allowed ample time to discuss the merits of the case before a vote is taken. After the discussion, a member can make a motion to have the Committee vote on the rankings for each of the three areas. If a motion is made to reconsider one or more rankings, the results of that vote will be sent forward as part of the casebook.

Voting procedures

All voting will be by secret, written ballot, and except in the obvious case of unanimous votes, no one will discuss how s/he voted or what the final vote was. Absentee voting will not be permitted. If the CASL Executive Committee should decide to make a negative recommendation, then the candidate will be provided a copy of the decision along with a rationale and given the opportunity to include a rebuttal which will be placed in the casebook.

The dean is required to inform the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, in writing, of the exact vote at the department and College levels.

Independent review process for the Dean

Upon receipt of a casebook from a discipline the dean will review and evaluate its contents. The dean will accompany the CASL Executive Committee’s recommendations with his/her own recommendation, especially explaining how the dean’s opinions may differ from those of the committee as a whole. If a dean should decide to make a negative recommendation, then the candidate will be provided a copy of the decision along with a rationale and given the opportunity to include a rebuttal which will be placed in the casebook.

Notification of results

The dean will promptly inform the department chairs of the decisions reached by the CASL Executive Committee on faculty in their respective departments. The dean will inform candidates for promotion and tenure in writing of the results of the evaluation in relation to promotion considerations. Because each decision in this process is a recommendation, the dean and others involved should not make public announcements about the results until the entire process is completed.