CHAPTER THREE: 3560
EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION CONCERNING FACULTY AND STAFF
January 2008
3560
FACULTY PROMOTIONS
PREAMBLE: This
section discusses promotion in rank and the procedures by which a faculty member
is evaluated, at the department, college, and university level, for a possible
promotion. In particular the charge of the University Level Promotions
Committee is given (subsection G). This section was an original part of the
1979
Handbook and has been revised in very minor ways several times since. In
July 1994 it was more substantively revised: subsections A and B were largely
rewritten to emphasize the faculty’s responsibility for promotion, G-2 (add a
"presumption in favor" of the candidate under certain conditions at the
university level) and the last sentence of H (providing feedback to the
candidate) added. Again in July 1998 there were substantial revisions to E-2
(making formal the requirement and procedures for an external review), and E-5
and F-5 (providing a feedback loop between candidate and subsequent
evaluators). In July 2000 section B was revised to make clear that eligibility
for promotion in rank necessitated a history of position descriptions that
required activities consistent with the criteria for that rank. In July 2002
section D was edited to clarify promotion schedules at each rank. In July 2007
the form underwent substantial revisions to address enforcement and
accountability issues in the UI promotion and tenure process as well as align
the form with the Strategic Action Plan. In January 2008 the section underwent
some minor editing and revising to bring it into greater conformity with other
sections of the Handbook. Except where
otherwise noted, the text is as of July 1996. Further information may be
obtained from the Provost’s Office (208-885-6448) and the Office of the Faculty
Secretary (208-885-6151). [rev. 7-00, 7-02, 7-07, 1-08]
CONTENTS:
A. General
B. Bases of Evaluation
C. Responsibility
D. Schedule
E. Evaluation and Recommendation at the
Departmental
Level
F. Review of Recommendations at the
College
Level
G. Report of
Recommendations Forwarded
H. Review of
Recommendations at the University Level
I. Appeal
J. Annual Timetable for Promotion
Consideration
A. GENERAL. Promotion to a rank requires the faculty member to meet the requirements
for that rank. Responsibility for
the effective functioning of promotion procedures rests with faculty and
administrators. Decisions are based
on thorough and uniform evaluation of the faculty members’ performance in
teaching, scholarship, and service. [1565
A-2, A-3,
A-4, A-5 &
A-6] Performance of
university administrative duties is not a consideration in promotion. [ed.
1-08]
B. BASES OF EVALUATION. Promotion in rank is granted only when there is reasonable assurance,
based on performance, that the faculty member will continue to meet the set
standards for promotion. Faculty
members’ position descriptions [see
3050], covering the period since
appointment to his or her current rank, provide a frame of reference for the
departmental expectations for satisfactory performance. In order to form a basis
for promotion in rank, the position description must require activity consistent
with the criteria for that rank as stated in
1565.
The faculty member's ability and performance, judged in the context of these
position descriptions, constitute the principal bases for evaluation of the
faculty member for promotion. Evidence of teaching, scholarship, creative
accomplishments, and service shall be considered in this evaluation process,
using annual performance evaluations and other documents [see also
1565
A-2, A-3,
A-4, A-5 &
A-6]. [rev. 7-00, ed. 1-08]
C. RESPONSIBILITY. The responsibility for submitting recommendations in accordance with the
prescribed schedule [see D] falls on the departmental administrator or on the
dean of the college if the college is not departmentalized. Small departments or divisions may be joined with others for this
purpose. The intent is to secure an adequate body of recommendations
from those concerned and qualified to participate in the evaluation. The procedure involves successive considerations of the candidate,
beginning with the faculty member’s colleagues at the departmental level, and
proceeding through the college level to the university level.
Interdisciplinary team leaders and center administrators are to be included as
appropriate. [rev. 1-08]
D. SCHEDULE. Consideration of each faculty member for promotion is required
according to the following schedule:
D-1. Instructors. Instructors
are considered for promotion before the end of the third (in exceptional cases,
the fourth) year of full-time service in this rank. Part-time service is not
considered in determining the time for mandatory consideration for promotion. Periods of full-time service need not be consecutive; however, if there
is an interruption of more than three years’ duration in an instructor’s
full-time service, the instructor and the departmental administrator may agree
on an adjustment in the amount of full-time service that must be completed
before consideration must be given to the instructor’s promotion, such
adjustment being subject to approval by the provost. If an instructor who is serving full-time with primary responsibilities
in teaching is not promoted by the end of the year in which consideration for
promotion is mandatory, the following year will be his or her terminal year. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to the rank of
senior instructor, which is, except in very rare instances, a terminal rank that
does not lead to promotion to the professorial ranks [see
1565 B-5]. [ed. 7-00,
7-04]
D-2. Assistant Professors. Assistant
professors are considered for promotion before the end of their sixth year in
that rank. When an assistant
professor has been considered for promotion and not promoted, he or she will be
considered again no less frequently than at five-year
intervals. The review may be
delayed upon the request of the assistant professor and the concurrence
of the department administrator and the dean. [See also F-4.] [ed. 7-97, ed. 7-02]
D-3. Associate Professors. Associate
professors are considered for promotion before the end of their seventh year in
that rank. If review for promotion to full professor is scheduled during the
fifth, sixth or seventh full year after the award of tenure then the promotion
review may, if it meets substantially similar criteria and goals of the post
tenure review, take the place of the periodic performance review required by the
board of regents. (RGP IIG 6g) When an associate professor has been considered
for promotion and not promoted, he or she should be
considered again within five years The review may be delayed upon the request of
the associate professor and the concurrence of the department administrator and
the dean. [ed. 7-02]
D-4. Early Consideration for Promotion. In addition to those whose consideration is mandated by this schedule,
any faculty member may be considered for promotion at an earlier time if
nominated for consideration by a faculty member of the recommending unit whose
rank is higher than that of the nominee. It
is suggested that the faculty member proposing to make the nomination confer
with the administrator concerned on the merits of giving early consideration to
the nominee. If it is determined
that the nomination is to be made, the evaluation process is initiated by the
recommending faculty member using a copy of the form that appears on the forms
at the end of this section. The
remainder of the evaluation process is the same for these additional candidates
as it is for those regularly scheduled for consideration. A faculty member may request consideration of himself or herself for
promotion but such a request does not require that the evaluation and
recommendation process be carried out. [ed. 7-97, 1-08]
D-5. Credit for Prior Service. In cases involving prior equivalent service, promotion may be considered
following less than the usual period of service. In particular, new faculty members from other institutions--educational,
governmental, and others--with comparable service in instructional, research, or
service positions may be granted credit for such service up to a maximum of four
years.
E. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION AT THE DEPARTMENTAL LEVEL. [ed. 7-97]
E-1. Departmental Criteria. The
faculty of each department or equivalent unit establishes specific criteria in
teaching, research, and service pertaining to promotion in rank of their
members. The criteria include a statement regarding the value and weight
ascribed to interdisciplinary activity. Departmental criteria are
subject to review by the college standing committee on tenure and promotion for
consistency with the college criteria. Such
criteria may be changed at any time by a majority vote of the departmental
faculty, but they must be reviewed for possible changes at intervals not to
exceed five years. Any such
revisions may not be retroactive but, for evaluation purposes, are considered
proportionately in conjunction with criteria that were previously in
force. [rev. 1-08]
E-2. Formal Promotion Review.
a. To
initiate the formal evaluation for promotion of a faculty member, the
departmental administrator (or college dean if the departmental administrator is
under consideration for promotion) obtains the position descriptions for the
relevant period (maintained in the departmental office), annual performance
evaluations, and the third year review if conducted while in the current rank,
the professional portfolio (from the faculty member), summary scores of the
student evaluations of all classes taught (from Institutional Research and
Assessment), and the curriculum vitae and reviews the latter as to its completeness and accuracy with the person
concerned. [ren. & rev. 1-08]
b. The department
administrator will request an evaluation of the performance of every candidate
for promotion from three to five appropriate reviewers, who should include
faculty at peer institutions holding at least the rank of associate professor. The names of at least two of these reviewers will have been
suggested by the candidate for promotion. The
letter of request will include the candidate’s curriculum vitae, position
descriptions for the relevant period, the professional portfolio, and up to four
examples of the candidate’s scholarly work. When all deliberations within the university have been completed, the
responses to these requests will be shown to the faculty member after every
effort to ensure the anonymity of these authors has been made. [ren.
1-08]
c. Copies of these documents are furnished to each person participating in
the review at the departmental and higher levels. Additional material supplied by the faculty member should be available
for review in the department office. [See
also 3380 D.] The results of the
student evaluations of teaching must be carefully weighed and used as a factor
in judging the teaching component in promotion decisions. [rev. 7-98,
ren. 1-08]
d. Members of the faculty of the candidate’s department (or group of small departments
joined together for this purpose) whose ranks are higher than that of the
candidate are afforded an opportunity to submit their opinions and
recommendations on the candidate’s promotion on the lower portion of the front
page of the prescribed form. It is expected that the departmental
administrator making the recommendation concerning promotion will,
insofar as practicable, have sought and considered the evaluations of
the candidate made by all faculty members of a higher rank than the
candidate of the department, interdisciplinary leaders and center
administrators (if appropriate). The faculty member's spouse is
not permitted to serve in any capacity in the review process. Each
department is responsible for developing procedures in its bylaws that
meet the requirements of this subsection (departmental bylaws are
subject to review and approval by the provost, see 1590). A copy
of the form that is to be used in transmitting the recommendations made
at each stage of evaluation for promotion are provided below.
Included in the criteria for formal evaluation is participation in
international activities [See also 3380 D.] [rev. & ren. 1-08]
e. The
departmental administrator completes the first section on the back of the
recommendation form. In arriving at
his or her conclusion, the administrator carefully considers and gives weight to
the following (particularly as they relate to the factors listed in B): the information obtained from the curriculum vitae, the position
descriptions, the conference with the candidate, the recommendations solicited
from the candidate’s colleagues, and the results of annual student evaluations
of teaching (in the cases of teaching members of the faculty). [rev. 1-08]
E-3. Forwarding Materials. The
departmental administrator forwards his or her completed copy of the
recommendation form for each person considered to the dean. The forms submitted by individual faculty members are also forwarded to
the dean. The findings of the
department faculty and department administrator are relayed to the candidate
indicating strengths as well as weaknesses as perceived at the department level. The candidate may respond in writing to clarify the situation if he or
she believes his or her record or the departmental criteria for promotion have
been misinterpreted. Any such
letter is forwarded with the rest of the candidate’s materials to the college.
[rev. 7-98, ren. 1-08]
E-4. Departmental Administrator Under Review for Promotion.
If a
departmental administrator is under consideration for promotion, the forms
completed by the faculty members concerned are forwarded directly to the dean
and the dean is responsible for making the summary. [rev. 1-08]
F. REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE COLLEGE LEVEL.
F-1. College Standing Committee. In each college there is
a standing committee on tenure and promotion. The members serve for
terms of not less than three years on a staggered basis. The
membership of the committee and the method of selection are prescribed in
the bylaws of the college. [rev. 1-08]
F-2. College Criteria. Each college committee on tenure and promotion recommends, for adoption
by the college faculty, criteria in teaching, research, and service for granting
promotion to specific ranks in that college. The criteria shall include a
statement regarding the value and weight ascribed to interdisciplinary
activity. Such criteria must be compatible with the university-wide criteria as
specified in 1565, 3520, and
section A above and are subject to approval by the provost. The dean
or the faculty (by petition of 20 percent or more of the faculty members of
the college) may initiate consideration for revision of the criteria at any
time. [rev. 1-08]
F-3. College Standing Committee Recommendations. The college standing committee makes recommendations to the dean and
provost on promotion of individual faculty members.
F-4. Assistant
professors who have served eight years in that rank, have consistent records of
good or superior performance in their principal assigned duties, have been
regularly rated in the top categories for salary adjustment, have terminal
degrees, and are recommended for promotion by their departmental administrators
are not given further consideration at the college level but have their names
automatically placed before the university-level review committee.
F-5. Dean’s Recommendations. The dean considers the recommendations made by the college’s committee
on promotion and makes his or her own recommendation. It is advisable that the dean confer collectively with the departmental
administrators about the merits of the faculty members whom they are
recommending for promotion. The
findings of the college committee(s) and the dean are relayed to the candidate
indicating strengths as well as weaknesses as perceived at the college level. The candidate may respond in writing to clarify the situation if he or
she believes his or her record or the college criteria for promotion have been
misinterpreted. Any such letter is
forwarded with the rest of the candidate’s materials to the provost. [rev. 7-98,
1-08]
G. REPORT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FORWARDED. When an administrator
forwards his or her recommendation on each candidate to the next higher level,
he or she simultaneously reports the disposition of each case to the candidate
concerned and to those who have submitted recommendations on that candidate.
If the recommendation is negative, then reasons for the negative recommendation
are transmitted to the candidate. [ed. 7-97, ren. 1-08]
H. REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY LEVEL BY THE PROMOTIONS
REVIEW COMMITTEE. [ren. 1-08]
H-1. All individual recommendations, together with the summary
recommendations, are forwarded for review by the provost. [rev. 1-08]
H-2. A
university-level Promotions Review Committee of faculty members, chaired by the
provost, is named each year. The
committee reviews each promotion recommendation with specific reference to the
criteria established by the department and college of the faculty member
concerned and reflected in the faculty member’s position descriptions for the
relevant period; this review involves full consideration of the material that
was used in making the recommendations at the departmental and college levels. One-third of the committee’s membership is randomly selected by the
provost from the previous year’s committee; the remainder of the members are
selected by the provost and the chair and vice chair of the Faculty Senate from
nominations submitted by the senate. The
random selection of carryover members is done one week before the senate makes
its nominations. The delegation
representing the College of Letters, Arts and Social Sciences on Faculty Senate nominates six
faculty members from the college--two each from (a) the social sciences and
humanities, (b) the natural sciences, and (c) communication, music, and theatre
arts. The delegation representing
the College of Agricultural & Life Sciences on Faculty Senate nominates four faculty members
from the college--two each from (a) faculty with greater than 50% teaching and
research appointments and (b) faculty with greater than 50% Cooperative
Extension Service appointments. The
delegation from each of the other colleges and the faculty at large nominates
two faculty members from its constituency. Membership of the committee, including carryover members, consists of the
provost (chair), three representatives from the College of Letters, Arts and
Social Sciences,
two representatives from the College of Agricultural & Life Sciences, one representative from
each of the other constituencies, the vice president for research, and the vice provost for
academic affairs. The provost, the vice president for research, and
the vice provost for academic affairs shall be ex-officio
members without vote. A subcommittee
of the Promotions Review Committee is given the particular responsibility of
evaluating recommendations for promotion of faculty members in the University
Library, Law Library, Counseling and Testing Center Service, and the Cooperative Extension
Service. The names of the members
of the departmental and college advisory committees are made public after the
committee’s recommendations have been forwarded. The names of the members of
the University Promotions Committee will be made public as soon as all have been
appointed. The chair will conduct
voting on candidates by closed ballots. [rev.
7-97, ed. and ren. 1-08, ed. 7-09]
H-3. A
presumption in favor of promotion shall exist for each candidate who comes to
the university-level Promotions Review Committee with a favorable recommendation
from all of the committees which have considered the matter at the departmental
and college level, from the department chair and dean directly involved, and
from a majority of the faculty members who submitted a recommendation pursuant
to section E-3 above. Upon showing
that the lower level recommendations were made without due regard for the
university criteria for the rank sought pursuant to section 1565, Faculty
Ranks and Responsibilities, the presumption shall be overcome, and in such case
the Committee shall state the reasons for the decision. [ed.
7-98, ren. 1-08]
I. APPEAL. When a person is informed (after the recommendations of the
university-level review committee have been considered) that there has been a
decision not to recommend his or her promotion to the
regents, he or she has the right of appeal. [See 3840.]
J. ANNUAL TIMETABLE FOR PROMOTION CONSIDERATIONS. The process of promotion considerations is carried out annually according
to the following approximate timetable:
November: Promotion evaluations begin at the departmental level.
December: Departmental administrators must have sent their promotion
recommendations to their deans. Each
candidate must have been notified of the nature of the departmental
administrator’s recommendation.
December: Deans must have sent their recommendations to the provost. Each candidate and the departmental administrator concerned must have
been notified of the nature of the dean’s recommendation.
February: The university-level review committee meets. [See
F-2 above.]
March: Candidates for promotion and their deans and departmental administrators
are notified as to whether their promotions in rank will be recommended by the
president to the regents.
[ed. 7-99]
Download:
REPORT
OF EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR
PROMOTION IN FACULTY (Word)
REPORT OF EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR
PROMOTION IN FACULTY (pdf)
Back to Table
of Contents
Forward to 3570
