Faculty Handbook

These procedures are designed for normal use in an academic unit (either a department or school) when a candidate for promotion is not the Department Chair/School Director. If a Department Chair/School Director is a promotion candidate, he/she shall be omitted from the administrative chain, and the Dean shall perform all promotion duties normally performed by the Department Chair/School Director. Under these procedures, a consideration for promotion should progress as follows for all eligible faculty. 

1. All full-time faculty, will be notified in the spring semester that the T0/P0 Form (intent to apply for tenure and/or promotion) is available for completion by those eligible candidates. The eligible faculty member can submit Form T0/P0 as soon as the form opens in the spring, but no later than the first day of fall classes during the upcoming fall semester, absent due cause. The T0/P0 list of faculty, hereafter referred to as the Candidate, will then be distributed to Department Chairs/School Directors, hereafter referred to as the Chair/Director, and Deans, for review.
    
2. If the Candidate completes Form T0/P0, the Chair/Director shall call a meeting no later than September 5 of all eligible Departmental/School Peers (as defined in policy 206, section III, B.) with Peer Committees selecting a Chair by September 12, absent due cause. The Chair/Director submits the Peer Committee List and Peer Committee Chair to Watermark so roles can be marked in the system. The Departmental/School Peers shall vote to determine whether they wish to act as a committee of the whole or to establish a department/school promotion committee to conduct the promotion procedures. The promotion committee shall consist of no fewer than five persons, except in units where the total number of full-time faculty members is five or fewer, or where there are no departmental/school peers who hold rank equal to or higher than that for which the faculty member is a candidate, in which case the committee may consist of no fewer than three persons.  
   
    
3. In the event that there are fewer than five individuals in the unit who meet the definition of qualified Departmental/School Peers, the Departmental/School Promotion Committee must be expanded to include either individuals outside the department/school who do meet the criteria specified in policy 206, section III, B., or members of the Department/School who do not meet all those criteria. Members of the Department/School who do not meet all of the criteria as defined in policy 206, section III, B., may be selected before individuals outside the Department/School. The selection of these additional members of the promotion committee shall be by the Chair/Director in consultation with the qualified Departmental/School Peers. The consultation is typically conducted at the meeting described in paragraph 2.   
   
   In the event that there are no Departmental/School Peers who hold rank equal to or higher than that for which the faculty member is a Candidate, the Chair/Director, in consultation with the Dean of the College, the Candidate, and the entire Departmental/School faculty, shall select a promotion committee of no fewer than three appropriate members of the University faculty. This should include at least one faculty member from the candidate's Department/School and at least one faculty member from the University faculty who holds rank equal to or higher than that for which the faculty member is a Candidate.  
   
   Even when there are five or more Departmental/School Peers who meet all the required criteria for membership on the promotion committee, it may be desirable to incorporate into the promotion committee either non-unit members or members of the Department/School who do not meet all required criteria. For example, this may be desirable when the candidate has a joint appointment or is highly interdisciplinary. The selection of these additional members of the promotion committee shall be by the Chair/Director in consultation with the qualified Departmental/School Peers. The consultation is typically conducted at the meeting described in paragraph 2.   
   
   Once selected to serve, each member of the promotion committee shall be considered a qualified Peer for all purposes of the promotion process, and hereafter referred to as Peer.  
    
4. The Chair/Director shall not vote with the Peers and shall not be counted in determining the plenum on which a majority is to be determined. The Chair/Director may submit written material to the faculty member's dossier and may participate in the meeting at which the recommendation of the peers is determined, as described in paragraph 8 below. If the Chair/Director submits written material, this must be added to the dossier no later than October 15.  
   
   
5. After the promotion committee has been established and its chairperson selected, responsibility for directing the process transfers to the Promotion Committee Chairperson. This committee is an agent of the plenum of voting peers, gathering and summarizing information, to facilitate discussion at the meeting, as described in paragraph 8 below.
    
6. The Candidate submits names and contact information within Watermark of recommended reviewers for letters of recommendation/support. The Promotion Committee Chairperson works with the Watermark System Administrator on email distribution of reviewers and letter of recommendations/support requests and monitoring of submissions. **Note: Candidates who are applying for Full Professor should have a minimum of four external reviewer letters of request. A copy of the Candidate’s CV will be included in the letter requests. 
    
7. The Candidate works with the Promotion Committee Chairperson and, where applicable, Department Chairs/School Directors, on dossier readiness in Watermark. The Candidate will acknowledge in Watermark that the dossier is ready for Peer review. The review of the dossier and supporting documentation submission then begins to move in the Watermark system across the levels of required reviews, i.e., Promotion Committee, Chair/Director, Dean, Provost, and President. 
    
8. The Promotion Committee Chairperson, in consultation with the members of the committee, shall prepare a Report on the Dossier synthesizing the materials in the dossier using the criteria outlined in Promotion Policy 206. The consultation with the members of the committee may take place informally; a meeting is not required. 
    
9. Peers are defined in Policy 206. No evaluation and/or recommendation shall be submitted by members of the candidate's immediate family. "Members of the family" shall include spouse, domestic partner, cohabitant, child, stepchild, grandchild, parent, stepparent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, grandparent, great grandparent, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, stepsibling, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or first cousin (that is, a child of an aunt or uncle).
    
10. The Promotion Committee Chairperson will then invite the Peers , the Chair/Director, and other members of the department/school to review the dossier and attend a meeting for a discussion of the merits of the Candidate. The Candidate will not be present at this meeting. The Chair/Director and all non-peer members of the Department/School may participate in the initial phases of this discussion, sharing with the Peers their professional judgment and assessment concerning the materials submitted to the dossier. The qualifications of the Candidate should be candidly and professionally discussed. At an agreed upon point, the Chair/Director and non-peers shall withdraw from the meeting, after which discussion of the Peers may continue. Following discussion, the Promotion Committee Chairperson facilitates the completion of an anonymous evaluation and recommendation by each Peer. Each Peer indicates their recommendation, with supporting feedback/comments, within Watermark. Providing a recommendation is not a choice, but an obligation. Failure to make a recommendation counts as a negative recommendation. During this process, Peers who, for compelling professional (such as leave-of-absence or attendance at professional meetings) or personal (such as hospitalization, being snow-bound) reasons cannot be physically present at the meeting may submit to the chairperson of the promotion committee an absentee recommendation. This privilege should not be lightly invoked, and shall not be extended to Peers who are able to be physically present, in as much as participation in the discussion of the merits of the candidate is a significant element in the decision-making process. Should a Peer who cannot be present at the meeting due to compelling professional or personal reasons believe that his/her absence destroys his/her ability to render a professional judgment, he/she may so inform the chairperson of the promotion committee in writing, in which case the absent Peer shall not recommend and shall not be counted in determining the plenum on which a majority is to be determined.   
      
11. The Promotion Committee Chairperson shall then ensure the Peer Review Summary and Recommendation is complete in Watermark. The Promotion Committee Chairperson shall send to the Candidate a copy of the Peer Review Summary and Recommendation. The Candidate then acknowledges receipt and review. The dossier then moves within Watermark for review by the Chair/Director by November 15, absent due cause.
     
12. When the Chair/Director receives the dossier, he/she shall review the complete dossier and write a letter explaining his/her promotion recommendation. The Chair/Director shall then transmit a copy of the letter to the Candidate and to the administrator to whom the candidate immediately reports (if other than the Chair/Director). The dossier then moves within Watermark for review by the Dean by January 15, absent due cause. 
     
13. When the Dean receives the dossier, he/she shall review the complete dossier and write a letter explaining his/her promotion recommendation. The Dean shall then transmit a copy of the letter to the Candidate, the Chair/Director, and to the administrator to whom the candidate immediately reports (if other than the Chair/Director). The dossier then moves within Watermark for review by the Provost by February 15, absent due cause.   
     
14. When the Provost receives the dossier, he/she shall review the complete dossier and write a letter explaining his/her promotion recommendation. The Provost shall then transmit a copy of the letter to the Candidate, the Chair/Director, the Dean, and to the administrator to whom the candidate immediately reports (if other than the Departmental/School Chair). The dossier then moves within Watermark for review by the President by April 1, absent due cause. 
     
15. The President will take the dossier and the recommendations of the Peers, Chair/Director, Dean, and Provost, to make the final promotion decision. The decision will be reflected in the form of a written letter to the Candidate. The President transmits a copy of the letter to the Candidate, Chair/Director, Dean, Provost, and Human Resources by May 1, absent due cause.
    
    
16. Notification of promotions will be reported to the Board of Trustees at its annual June meeting. Dossiers will be archived in Watermark.