Policy: 9-5.1  Rev: 19
Date: April 9, 2007
To take effect, as revised, July 1, 2007

                                                                                                                                                                                  

Subject:  FACULTY REGULATIONS - Chapter V - Section 2 APPOINTMENTS, RETENTION, PROMOTION, AND TENURE

SECTION 2. RETENTION, PROMOTION, AND TENURE¹

A.     Retention, promotion, and tenure reviews²

1. Purpose:

a. Retention. A probationary period is normally required for all individuals appointed to regular faculty ranks prior to the granting of tenure. Annual reviews shall be scheduled during this probationary period to evaluate the academic performance of non-tenured individuals, to provide constructive feedback on their academic progress, and to terminate the appointment of those who do not meet the standards of the department and the expectations of the university after their initial appointments.

b. Promotion. Promotion in rank is the acknowledgment by the university of excellence in performance in teaching, research and creative work, professional competence, activity, and responsibility and university and public service.

c. Tenure. Granting tenure implies a commitment by the university to defend faculty members' academic freedom. Likewise, faculty members who are granted tenure make an equally strong commitment to serve their students, their colleagues, their discipline, and the university in a manner befitting a responsible academic person. It also raises a strong presumption that those granted tenure are competent in their discipline and capable of scholarly contributions. Granting tenure is regarded as the university's most critical personnel decision. Except for extraordinary instances, when specific and persuasive justification is provided, tenure will not be awarded to faculty members prior to their advancement to the rank of associate professor. It is therefore imperative, before such commitments are made, that a responsible screening process be followed to ensure that the most highly qualified candidates available are granted tenure. Tenured faculty shall be reviewed every five years as per PPM 8-3, Section 5.C.

2. Criteria.

a. Content and approval of statement of RPT criteria and guidleines.  Each department or college shall formulate and distribute to all regular faculty members a statement of criteria  and procedural guidelines to be used in retention, promotion, and tenure (“RPT”) reviews These criteria shall address the qualifications of candidates with respect to the areas of (1) teaching, (2) research and other creative activity, (3) university, professional, and public service. This statement shall include the rationale for the criteria, and must be approved by majority vote of the department faculty, the dean, and the URPT Standards Committee. The statement shall include the procedural guidelines adopted for conducting reviews referred to in part B of this policy as well as any guidelines adopted for allowing non-voting participants in meetings of the departmental RPT advisory committee as referred to in parts A-3 and K-1 of this policy.  The statement shall be consistent  with applicable provisions of University Regulations, Faculty Regulations and the Code of Faculty Responsibility as well as professional codes if appropriate, and with the purpose of the University of Utah as stated in Chapter 1, Section 1, of the State Higher Education System Regulations.

b. Standards for the criteria.  Insistence upon the highest attainable standards for faculty members is essential for the maintenance of the quality of the university as an institution dedicated to the discovery as well as the assimilation and transmission of knowledge. The criteria shall emphasize the university's commitment to superior intellectual attainment and responsible faculty conduct.  In carrying out their duties in teaching, research/other creative activity and service, faculty members are expected to demonstrate the ability and willingness to perform as responsible members of the faculty, as defined in the Code of Faculty Rights and Responsibilities (PPM 8-12.4).

c.  Candidates in a regular faculty appointment may have accomplishments achieved prior to their probationary period at the University of Utah be considered as relevant to the demonstration of their achievement of the RPT criteria. Prior accomplishments, such as research publications or teaching experience, shall not substitute for a continuing record of accomplishments during the probationary period at the University of Utah. The burden is on the candidate to demonstrate that these achievements  satisfy the RPT criteria. (For evaluation process, see PPM8-6, Section 3.C.1.). 

i. Teaching and research/other creative activity. A continuing record of achievement in the areas of both teaching and research/other creative activity, including the exercise of professional expertise, is an indispensable qualification for promotion and tenure. For the purpose of retention, a reasonable potential for meeting these criteria should be demonstrated.

ii. Service. Recognition shall be accorded faculty members for the quality and extent of their public service, both of which shall be taken into account in the evaluation made in the context of retention, promotion, and tenure.

iii. Assessments of teaching, research/other creative activity and service may consider the candidate’s conduct  as a responsible member of the faculty.

3. Department retention, promotion, and tenure advisory committee

a. Committee membership:

i. Retention. In each department all tenured faculty members, regardless of rank, are eligible to participate in the consideration of and to vote on recommendations in individual cases on matters of retention. Other faculty members may participate in the consideration of candidates for retention if allowed by department guidelines, but may not vote.

ii. Promotion. In each department all regular faculty members of equal or higher rank than that proposed for the candidate for promotion are eligible to participate in the consideration of and to vote on recommendations in individual cases on matters of promotion. Other faculty members may participate in the consideration of candidates for promotion if allowed by department guidelines, but may not vote.

iii. Tenure. In each department all tenured faculty members, regardless of rank, are eligible to participate in the consideration of and to vote on recommendations in individual cases on matters of tenure. Other faculty members may participate in the consideration of candidates for tenure if allowed by department guidelines, but may not vote.

iv. Small academic unit rule. Any department or division advisory committee making a formal RPT recommendation must include at least three members eligible to vote by tenure status and rank. If the unit does not have at least three eligible members, the department or division chair must recommend to the dean one or more faculty members with the appropriate tenure status and rank and with some knowledge of the candidate’s field from other units of the University of Utah or from appropriate emeritus faculty. In advance of the chair’s contacting such faculty members, the chair shall notify the candidate of the potential persons to be asked, and the candidate must be offered the opportunity to comment in writing on the suitability of the potential committee members. The final selection rests with the dean.

v. Single vote rule. No individual may cast a vote in the same academic year in any person’s case in more than one capacity (e.g., as member of both department and academic program, as member of both department and college advisory committees, as member of both department and administration).

b. Chairperson. The chairperson of the department RPT advisory committee shall be elected annually from the tenured members of the department. In this election all regular faculty members of the rank of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor shall be entitled to vote. The department chairperson is not eligible to chair this committee.

B.   Informal or Formal Reviews. All tenure-eligible faculty shall be reviewed annually to assess their achievement in teaching, research/other creative activity, responsibility, and service. Informal annual reviews are required in each year in which a formal review is not held. More extensive, formal reviews are required for mid-probationary retention reviews; final probationary year reviews (consideration for tenure); consideration for termination at any point in the probationary period (such as triggered reviews); and promotion decisions. (A chart of the timing and review requirements is set forth below at PPM 9-5.1 Section 2 D.12.)

1. Informal reviews.  Informal reviews must minimally include 1) a face to face meeting between the candidate and the department chair (or a designee, as per department guidelines) to discuss the candidate's progress based on the file; 2) involvement, determined by the department, from the RPT advisory committee (and academic program if relevant); and, 3) a written report to be made available to the candidate, the members of the RPT advisory committee and the department chair.

a. Procedural Guidelines. The statement of RPT criteria and procedural guidelines adopted by the department (or college) must prescribe specific requirements for informal reviews. Minimally, the guidelines must state the required documentation and who provides it, procedures for preparing and distributing the written report, the nature of the involvement by the RPT advisory committee (and academic program if relevant), procedures and criteria for appointment of a chair’s designee, if any, and the timetable for the annual reviews. Departments may elect to include in their guidelines more extensive review procedures than the minimum required.

b. Actions after the report. Candidates shall have the opportunity to make a written response to the report. The report and the response, if any, are then filed in the candidate’s cumulative file with a copy of each sent to the dean. The informal review concludes at this point.

c. Triggering formal retention reviews. If a tenure-eligible faculty member does not demonstrate clearly adequate progress to the reviewers in an informal review, the department chair or department RPT advisory committee in consultation with the reviewers may trigger a formal RPT review after giving the candidate written notice of such a review and its timing. The formal RPT review may proceed either in the following year or as soon as the file is completed (including the solicitation and receipt of external review letters if applicable) but no sooner than 30 days after written notice of the review is provided to the candidate.

2. Formal reviews. Formal reviews must provide a substantive assessment of the candidate’s research or other creative activity, teaching and service to date. Formal reviews require a vote of the full RPT advisory committee. External evaluations, as discussed below (PPM9-5.1. Section 2 D.9), are required for tenure and promotion reviews. Departments, through departmental policy, may also mandate external evaluations for mid-probationary and or/or triggered reviews. When such external evaluations are not mandated, candidates still retain the right to have external letters solicited unless quality of research or creative activity is not an issue in the review (e.g., a triggered review focused solely on teaching) and provided that such request is made before the review commences.

a. Mid-probationary retention reviews. All tenure-eligible faculty members shall have at least one formal, mid-probationary review in their third or fourth year, as determined by departmental policy. Department policy must prescribe the number of reviews and the year(s) in which they occur.

b. “Triggered” reviews. The results of an informal review may “trigger”  a formal review earlier than prescribed by departmental policy if an informal review has demonstrated inadequate performance or progress, as described in PPM 9-5.1 Section  2 B.1.c above.

c. Tenure. Tenure-eligible faculty members must be reviewed for tenure by the final year of their probationary period.

i. Deadline for tenure review. The final year is the fifth year for persons appointed at the ranks of associate professor or professor and the seventh year for those appointed at the rank of assistant professor (unless the department has established, through policy, a six year probationary period for assistant professors). See PPM 8-6, Sec. 3. B.

ii. Request for earlier review. Within limits specified by departmental policy and by PPM 8-6, Sec. 3.C.1., tenure-eligible faculty may request a review for tenure earlier than the year of the mandatory review.

d. Promotion.

i. Timing for tenure-eligible faculty. Tenure-eligible faculty members are usually reviewed for promotion concurrently with their tenure reviews. Under unusual circumstances, tenure-eligible faculty members may request a review for promotion earlier than the year of the mandatory tenure review.

ii. Timing for tenured faculty. Tenured faculty members may request a review for promotion within limits specified by departmental policy.

C.  Notice to involved individuals

1. Notice to candidate. Each candidate for retention, promotion, or tenure shall be given at least 30 days advance notice of the department RPT advisory committee meeting and an opportunity to submit any information the candidate desires the committee to consider.

2. Notice to department faculty and staff. At least three weeks prior to the convening of the departmental RPT committee, the department chairperson shall invite any interested faculty and staff members in the department to submit written recommendations for the file of each candidate to be considered, stating as specifically as possible the reasons for each recommendation.

3. Notice to student advisory committee. Prior to the convening of the departmental RPT committee, the department chairperson shall notify the college’s representative to the Student Senate and the department student advisory committee(s) (SACs) of the upcoming review and request that the department SAC(s) submit written recommendations with respect to each candidate to be considered, stating as specifically as possible the reasons for each recommendation. The SAC shall be given at least three weeks to prepare its recommendations, but upon failure to report after such notification and attempts by the department chairperson to obtain the reports, the SAC's recommendations shall be deemed conclusively waived and their absence shall not thereafter be cause for complaint by faculty members appealing an adverse decision.

4. Notice to academic program. When a candidate for retention, tenure or promotion in a department is also a member of an academic program, the department chairperson shall notify the chair/director of the academic program of the action to be considered at the same time that the faculty candidate is notified. Academic program faculty as defined by procedures established by the program (and not participating in the departmental review committee) shall meet to make a written recommendation which shall be sent to the department chair in a timely manner.

D.  Candidate's file. Proper preparation and completeness of each candidate's file are essential for the uninterrupted progress of a RPT review through all the stages of the review process. Required components and their timing are identified in the table below in paragraph PPM 9-5.1 Sec 2 D.12.

1. Structure of the file.  The file is envisioned as a notebook in the department office, which is growing throughout a faculty member’s probationary period at the University. However, a physical notebook is not the only method allowable — for example an electronic file or other format may be used alone or as a supplement. The file shall be cumulative and kept current as described in the following sections.

2. Curriculum vitae.  The candidate’s file is expected to provide a current and complete curriculum vitae, which is organized in a clear and coherent manner, with appropriate dates of various items and logical groupings or categories related to the department's RPT criteria. The CV should be updated annually, but not during the course of a given year’s review. During a review, new accomplishments may be reported and documented as a part of any of the reports or responses in the regular process.

3. Evidence of research/creative activity. The candidate is expected to provide evidence of research and other creative activity, updated annually.

4. Past reviews and recommendations. The department chair  shall include the recommendations from all previous reports submitted by all voting levels in formal reviews, i.e. SAC, department and college RPT advisory committees, letters from chairs, deans, vice presidents, the president and recommendation from UPTAC (if present). Teaching evaluations and letters or reports from all informal reviews should also be included.  The past reviews and recommendations in a file for promotion to Professor shall include the candidate's vita at the time of the previous promotion (or at appointment if hired as Associate Professor), all reports and recommendations from tenured faculty reviews, and teaching evaluation summaries since the previous promotion (or appointment).  If that promotion or appointment was more than five years earlier, teaching evaluation summaries should be included for at least the most recent five years.

5. Evidence of faculty responsibility. Letters of administrative reprimand and the latest findings, decisions, or recommendations from university committees or officials, arising from relevant concerns about the faculty member should also be included in the candidate’s file.

6. Recommendation from academic program. In the event that an academic program produces a recommendation as under PPM 9-5.1 Sec 2 C.4, the department chairperson shall include the recommendation in the candidate's file before the department faculty RPT advisory committee meets to consider the case.

7. Recommendation from the department student advisory committee. If the department SAC produces a recommendation as under PPM 9-5.1 Sec 2 C.3, the recommendation shall be placed in the candidate’s file by the department chairperson before the department faculty RPT advisory committee meets to consider the case.

8. Other written statements. Any other written statements — from the candidate, faculty members in the department, the department chairperson, the college dean, staff, or interested individuals--which are intended to provide information or data of consequence for the formal review of the candidate, must be placed in the file by the department chairperson before the department faculty RPT advisory committee meets to consider the case.

9. External evaluations. The purpose of external evaluations is to provide an objective assessment of the quality of the candidate’s work and its impact on the academic and/or professional community at large. Along with the actual review, the external evaluator should describe his/her qualifications and relationship to the candidate. The department chairperson should make sure that any letters of evaluation from outside the department are requested early enough for the letters to arrive and be included in the candidate's file before the program and department advisory committee meetings. Before external letters of evaluation are requested, the faculty member being reviewed shall be presented with a departmentally prepared form containing the following statements and signature lines:

I waive my right to see the external letters of evaluation obtained from outside the department for my retention/ promotion/tenure review.

signature date

I retain my right to read the external evaluation obtained from outside the department for my retention/promotion/ tenure review.

signature date

That form, with the candidate's signature below the statement preferred by the candidate, shall be included in the candidate's review file. When the candidate reserves the right to read the external letters of evaluation, respondents shall be informed in writing that their letters may be seen by the faculty member being reviewed.

10. Candidate’s rights. Candidates are entitled to see their review file upon request at any time during the review process, except for confidential letters of evaluation solicited from outside the department if the candidate has waived the right to see them. If a candidate wishes to comment on, or to take exception to, any item in his/her initial formal review file, the candidate's written comment or exception must be added to the file before the department RPT advisory committee meeting is held.

11. Review of file. The candidate’s file shall be made available to those eligible to attend the departmental advisory committee meeting a reasonable time before the meeting, which may be specified in department policy.

12. Table of   Minimum University Requirements for Reviews.

 

Type		Retention			Tenure	Promotion to Associate or "full" Professor
Category		Informal	Formal	Formal	Formal	Formal
When		Annual	Triggered-b,c	Mid-Probationary	End of Probation	Typically end of probation or when meets department standards
Involved parties:
	External reviewers	No	As per Department Policy-a	As per Department Policy-a	Yes	Yes
	Academic program, if appropriate	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	SAC	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	Department RPT	Representa-tion-d	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	Department chair-f	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	College RPT	No	As per 9-5.1, G.1.a.	As per 9-5.1, G.1.a.	Yes	Yes
	Dean	Receives report	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Candidate includes in file: (minimum requirements)
	Curriculum Vitae	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Department Includes in File: (minimum requirements)
	SAC report	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	External Letters (could be internal to University but external to department)	No	As per Departmental Policy-a	As per Departmental Policy-a	Yes	Yes
	Past Reviews and Recommendations-e	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	Academic program report	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	Comments from others	Optional	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	Student Course Evaluations	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

 

a. Candidates retain the right to have external letters be solicited in a formal review if quality of research or creative activity is an issue in the review. See PPM 9-5.1 Sec 2 D.9 above.

b. This triggered review may occur in the same year as the review or in the subsequent year.

c. The required components for triggered and mid-probationary reviews may be identical or different, as determined by department policy.

d. This representation occurs through the type of involvement set forth in departmental criteria. See PPM9-5.1 Section B.1. above.

e. Reports from all voting levels in all RPT reviews and letters or reports from all annual reviews. PPM 9-5.1 Sec 2 D.4

f. A designee may be used for informal reviews in large departments’ reviews as noted in PPM 9-5.1 Sec 2 B.1.

E.       Action by the department retention, promotion, and tenure advisory committee

1. Meetings. The department chairperson shall call a meeting of the departmental RPT advisory committee to conduct reviews as described in PPM 9-5.1 B.

2. Committee secretary. A secretary of each meeting shall be designated by the chairperson of the department RPT advisory committee and shall take notes of the discussion to provide the basis for developing a summary.

3. Quorum. A quorum of a department advisory committee for any given case shall consist of two-thirds of its members, except that any member unable to attend the meeting because of formal leave of absence or physical disability shall not be counted in determining the number required for a quorum.

4. Absentee voting. Whenever practicable, the department chairperson shall advise all members on leave or otherwise absent of the proposed action and shall request their written opinions and votes. Absent members' written opinions shall be disclosed at the meeting and their votes will be counted the same as other votes. Absentee votes must be received prior to the meeting at which a vote is taken by the department advisory committee.  

5. Limitations on participation and voting. Department chairpersons, deans, and other administrative officials who are required by the regulations to make their own recommendations in an administrative capacity may attend and, upon invitation by majority vote of the committee, may submit evidence, judgments, and opinions, or participate in discussion. By majority vote the committee may move to executive session, from which nonvoting participants may be excluded. Department chairpersons, deans, and other administrative officials who cast RPT votes in their administrative capacities shall not vote at the department level.

6. Committee report. After due consideration, a vote shall be taken on each candidate for retention, promotion, or tenure, with a separate vote taken on each proposed action for each candidate. The secretary shall make a record of the vote and shall prepare a summary of the meeting which shall include the substance of the discussion and also the findings and recommendations of the department advisory committee. If a candidate is jointly appointed with an academic program, the department advisory committee report shall reflect the department’s discussion and consideration of the report and recommendation of the academic program.

 

7. Approval of the committee report. This summary report of the meeting, signed by the secretary and bearing the written approval of the committee chairperson, shall be made available for inspection by the committee members. After allowing an inspection period of not less than two  business days nor more than five business days, and after such modification as the committee approves, the secretary shall forward the summary report to the department chairperson and the candidate, along with a list of all faculty members present at the meeting.

8. Confidentiality. All committee votes and deliberations are personnel actions and should be treated with confidentiality in accordance with policy and law.

F.       Action by department chairperson

1. Recommendations. After studying the entire file relating to each candidate, the department chairperson shall prepare his/her written recommendation to be included in the file on the retention, promotion, or tenure of each candidate, including specific reasons for the recommendation.

2. Notice to faculty member. Prior to forwarding the file, the department chairperson shall send an exact copy of the chairperson's evaluation of each faculty member to that faculty member.

3. Candidate's right to respond. The candidate shall have the opportunity at this time, but not the obligation, to add a written statement to his/her formal review file in response to the summary report of the department faculty advisory committee and/or the evaluation of the department chairperson. Written notice of this option shall be included with the copy of the chairperson's evaluation, which is sent to the candidate. If the candidate chooses to add such a statement to the file, that statement must be submitted to the department chairperson within seven business days, except in extenuating circumstances, of the date upon which the chairperson's evaluation is delivered to the candidate. If the candidate submits a written statement to the department chairperson within this time limit, the candidate's statement shall be added to the review file without comment by the chairperson.

4. Forwarding files. The department chairperson shall then forward the entire file for each individual to the dean of the college.

G.     Action by dean and college advisory committee

1. Referral of cases to the college advisory committee / membership of committee.  Each college shall establish a college RPT advisory committee and define its membership. The definition of membership shall specify whether there must be representation from all or fewer than all departments within the college, and whether or in what way representatives from a department are to participate or not participate in matters involving candidates from the representatives’ departments, consistent with the part A-3-a-v of this policy (single vote rule). The definition of membership shall be included in the charter of the college council, or may be included in the college’s statement of  RPT criteria and guidelines (described in part A-2 of this policy).  

a. Retention. The dean at his/her discretion may request the college advisory committee to review and submit recommendations on any candidate for retention. However, if termination of a candidate is recommended by the SAC, or the department advisory committee, or the department chairperson, the dean shall transmit the entire file on that candidate to the college advisory committee.

b. Promotion or tenure. The dean shall forward the entire file on all cases dealing with promotion or tenure to the college advisory committee.

c. Attendance and participation at meetings. Neither the dean nor the chairperson of the department concerned shall attend or participate in the deliberations of the college committee except by invitation of the committee.

d. Recommendations of the college advisory committee. The college advisory committee shall review the file of each case referred to it and shall determine if the department reasonably applied its written substantive and procedural guidelines to each case. The college committee shall make its recommendations on an individual’s retention, promotion, or tenure, based upon its assessment whether the department’s recommendations are supported by the evidence presented. The college committee shall use the department’s criteria (or college criteria if the college has college-wide instead of departmental criteria) in making its assessment. If documents required by policy are missing, the college committee may return the file to the department for appropriate action. The college committee shall advise the dean in writing of its vote and recommendations.

2. Recommendations of the dean. The dean shall then review the entire file for each candidate for retention, promotion, or tenure and shall make recommendations in writing, stating reasons therefore, and shall forward the file, including all the recommendations, to the cognizant senior vice president (for academic affairs or for health sciences).

3. Notice to faculty members. Prior to forwarding the file, the dean shall send an exact copy of the college advisory committee's report of its evaluation and an exact copy of the dean's evaluation of each faculty member to that faculty member and to the department chair.

4. Candidate's right to respond. The candidate shall have the opportunity at this time, but not the obligation, to add a written statement to his/her formal review file in response to the report of the college advisory committee's evaluation and/or the dean's evaluation. Written notice of this option shall be included with the copy of the dean's evaluation which is sent to the candidate. If the candidate chooses to add such a statement to the file, that statement must be submitted to the dean within seven days, except in extenuating circumstances, of the date upon which the dean's evaluation is delivered to the candidate. If the candidate submits a written statement to the dean within this time limit, the candidate's statement shall be added to the review file without comment by the dean.

5. Forwarding files. The dean shall then forward the entire file for each individual to the cognizant senior  vice president.

H. Action by cognizant vice president, and the University Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee

1. Referral of cases to the university committee. The cognizant senior vice president shall forward to the University Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee (“UPTAC”) for its review and recommendation the files in all cases in which the college is organized and functions as a single academic department or there is a differing recommendation from any of the prior review levels--the student advisory committee, the academic program, the department advisory committee, the department chairperson, the college advisory committee, or the college dean. The cognizant senior vice president, in his/her sole discretion,  may also send any other RPT case to UPTAC for its review and recommendations. UPTAC provides advice to the senior vice president.

2. Recommendations of the University Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee.  The committee shall review the entire file for all cases referred to it, and after due deliberation shall submit its recommendations with reasons and its vote to the cognizant senior vice president.

a. In cases reviewed only because they arise from single department colleges, UPTAC shall determine whether the college reasonably applied its written substantive and procedural guidelines to each case and whether the college’s recommendations are supported by the evidence presented.

b. In cases in which there were differing recommendations from the prior reviewing entities, UPTAC shall identify the source(s) of the differences or controversy, determine how each level addressed the issues in controversy, and assess the degree to which the file is sufficiently clear to support any conclusive recommendation.

c. In cases which are reviewed at the discretionary request of the senior vice president, UPTAC shall review the file to respond to the specific issues identified by the senior vice president.

d.  In making all reviews, UPTAC shall consider only the material in the file. UPTAC shall summarize its assessment of the issues identified in a, b, or c above in a written report to the senior vice president, but not report a conclusion of its own on the candidate’s overall qualification for retention, promotion, or tenure.

3. Consideration by the senior vice president. The cognizant  senior vice president shall review each file, including the recommendations (if any) of the University Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee. If the senior vice president determines that the file is incomplete or unclear, he/she may return the file to the department with a request to clarify specific matters, materials, and/or issues. All levels of review shall reconsider the file and their votes if appropriate, with the candidate responding in writing at the normal points in the process. (SAC need not reconsider the file unless teaching is the issue in question.)

4. Senior vice president’s decision. In cases of positive retention decisions, the senior vice president’s decision shall be the university’s final decision. In all cases of promotion and tenure and in cases of retention when termination is recommended, the senior  vice president shall prepare a final recommendation to the president with respect to the candidate's retention, promotion, and/or tenure, stating reasons therefore.

5. Notice of senior vice president's recommendation. In positive retention cases, the senior vice president shall transmit the final decision and the report of the University Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee (if any) to the candidate, the department chair, and the dean. In all other cases, prior to forwarding the file to the president, the senior vice president shall send an exact copy of the report of the University Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee (if any) and an exact copy of the senior vice president’s recommendation with respect to that faculty member to the candidate, the dean, the department chairperson, and the chairpersons of the departmental RPT committee and the Student Advisory Committee, together with a copy or summary of subsection I. The chairpersons of the departmental RPT and student advisory committees shall notify the members of their committees in an expeditious manner of the senior vice president's recommendation. The senior vice president shall not submit the final recommendation to the president until at least fourteen days have elapsed following the giving of such notice, so that parties may notify the senior vice president’s office if they intend to appeal.

6. Extension of time limits. The time limits provided by this subsection H may be extended by the senior  vice president in the interest of justice.

I.    Appeal of recommendation with respect to retention, promotion, and/or tenure.

1. Appeal by faculty member. A faculty member may appeal to the Consolidated Hearing Committee (CHC) for review of an unfavorable final recommendation with respect to retention, promotion, and/or tenure by following the procedures provided in PPM 9-3, Section 10 and upon the grounds enumerated in that section. The CHC is the hearing body for an appeal brought on any grounds, including academic freedom, but if the candidate alleges that the unfavorable recommendation violates academic freedom, then the CHC shall refer that part of the appeal to the Academic Freedom and Faculty Rights Committee for pre-hearing consideration and report, as per PPM 9-3, Sec. 10, III, F.1.a.ii..

2. Other appeals. Appeals of the vice president's recommendation on promotion and/or tenure may also be initiated by the department SAC, a majority of the departmental RPT advisory committee, the department chairperson, or the dean, when the vice president's recommendation opposes their own recommendation. The appeal is made to the Consolidated Hearing Committee and should follow the procedures provided in PPM 9-3, Section 10, and upon the grounds enumerated in that section. Authorized parties initiating an appeal may have access to the entire file except that the faculty member may not see external letters which he/she waived the right to read.

J.    Final action by president

1. Action in absence of review proceedings. If no proceedings for review have been initiated under subsection I of this section within the time provided therein, the recommendation of the vice president with respect to retention, promotion, and/or tenure of a faculty member shall be transmitted to the president for action. After reviewing the recommendation, giving such consideration to the documents in the candidate's file as the president deems necessary under the circumstances, the president shall make a final decision granting or denying retention, or granting or denying promotion, and/or tenure, and shall advise the candidate, the cognizant vice president, the dean and the department chairperson of that decision, stating reasons therefore.

2. Action after conclusion of review proceedings. If proceedings for review have been timely initiated under subsection I of this section, the recommendation of the vice president with respect to retention, promotion, and/or tenure shall be placed in the candidate's file but shall not be transmitted to the president for action. Except as provided in subsection J (3), below, the president shall not consider the merits of the matter and shall not take final action with respect thereto until the pending review proceedings have concluded. Upon conclusion of the review proceedings, the president shall review the file and make a final decision consistent with paragraph (1), above.

3. Notice of termination. When review proceedings have been timely initiated under subsection I of this section, the president, on recommendation of the cognizant vice president, may give a candidate advance written notice of termination pursuant to University Regulations, Chapter VI, Section 4 (PPM 8-6, Sec. 4). Such notice shall be effective as of the date it is given if a final decision to terminate the faculty member's appointment is subsequently made by the president, on or before the termination date specified in the notice, but shall have no force or effect if a final decision is made by the president on or before that date approving retention, promotion, and/or tenure or otherwise disposing of the case in a manner that does not require termination.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

¹On March 2, 1987, the Academic Senate adopted the following resolution: The University RPT process shall be reviewed in three years (spring 1990) by a committee selected by the Academic Senate. The committee shall consist of students, faculty (both tenured and non-tenured), and administrators.

 

²The regulations stated here in PPM 9-5.1 are stated in terms appropriate for the most widely adopted form of organizational structure, in which a faculty appointment is made in a subdivision known as an “academic department,” which is organized together with related subdivisions in a parent “college.”  In that structure, tenure is established in an academic department. There are several variations in organizational structure relevant to appointments and tenure of faculty, as explained in PPM 9-2-1, 9-6-1.

            These regulations in PPM 9-5.1 shall be interpreted for appropriate adaptation to accommodate such relevant variations in organizational structure, including the following.

            A. Where necessary, the term “department” shall refer to an academic subdivision within a parent college, which operates as equivalent to a department but is known by another name, including any “free-standing division” or “school”. See PPM 9-2-1.

            B. Where necessary, the term “college” shall refer to an academic organization which operates as equivalent to a college, but is known by another name, including a “school.” See PPM 9-2-1.

            C. For colleges that have no formal internal academic subdivisions (known commonly as ‘single-department colleges’ or ‘nondeparmentalized colleges’), appointments and tenure are established in the college. See PPM 8-6-1, 9-2-1, 9-6-1.  Accordingly. the procedures described here for development of criteria, and making and reviewing of retention, promotion and tenure decisions, shall be modified appropriately, including as follows:

                        i.  Formulation of criteria or guidelines for retention, promotion, and tenure reviews, described here in 9-5-2-A and elsewhere, shall be conducted by the college.

                        ii. The functions described here in 9-5-2-A and elsewhere as being performed by a department-level RPT advisory committee shall be performed by a college RPT committee. The description of the membership and leadership of the committee shall be interpreted to include appropriate modifications, including that the college dean is ineligible to serve as committee chair, and that committee members shall be drawn from the ranks of the college faculty.

                        iii. The functions described here in 9-5-2-B-1 and elsewhere as being performed by a department chair shall be performed by the college dean (see PPM 8-3-5-F), including such activities as holding meetings with RPT candidates.

                        iv. The functions described here in 9-5-2-C-3 and elsewhere as being performed by a department-level student advisory committee shall be performed by the college SAC.

                        v. The actions described here in 9-5-2-F-4, 9-5-2-G, and elsewhere as being performed by a college dean and college-level RPT committee shall be inapplicable. Instead, RPT actions from a single-department college shall be forwarded for review at the level of the cognizant vice president and appropriate committees as provided in 9-5-2-H and elsewhere.