General Descriptions and Faculty Responsibilities
The quality of any university is sustained through the dedicated and creative work of its faculty.
Objective, systematic, and thorough appraisal of each faculty member from appointment through promotions in rank is essential to the university’s ability to maintain a reputation of quality and distinction. This document and the guidelines within are intended to provide a common criteria and procedure for promotion of all Life University faculty.
The Promotion Process
Promotions in rank are intended to recognize the level of a faculty member’s contributions to the mission of Life University.
• Academic faculty members are assessed based on their contributions in the areas of teaching and advising, scholarship and creative activity, and service.
• Clinical faculty members are assessed based on their contributions in the areas of instruction within the clinical setting, patient management and clinical expertise, scholarship and creative activity, and service.
• Library faculty members are assessed based on their contributions in the areas of librarianship, creative initiatives, and technological aptitude, as well as scholarship and service.
In order to be considered for promotion, the candidate must meet the minimum qualifications outlined above; however, the mere satisfaction of minimum qualifications does not guarantee promotion, nor is promotion ever automatically granted to recognize simply satisfactory contributions on the part of the faculty member. The granting of promotion has implications for the University’s standards and standing within the academic community.
Promotion in rank is based on meritorious accomplishment and represents an important transition in the faculty member’s professional growth, development, and status. The exact stage of a faculty member’s career at which promotion is merited is a matter of judgment in which there may be honest differences of opinion. Promotion reviews are conducted based on meticulously prepared dossiers which document the accomplishments of candidates seeking promotion. The accomplishments of each candidate are weighed and measured relative to the duties of each individual as enumerated in the rank descriptions included above. Additionally, these decisions are made without regard to race, color, religion, gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, political affiliation, or national origin.
The decision to seek an increase in rank should be made well in advance of the formal process outlined below. A prospective candidate should discuss their intentions and subsequent progress with their supervisor well before initiating the formal process outlined here. Furthermore, the preparation of one’s dossier is a labor-intensive process that should be a continuous effort spanning years of documentation accumulation. A prospective candidate should have their dossier compiled in final draft form prior to initiating the formal process. Please reference the Dossier Preparation Section outlined within this document.
Step 1: Notification from President’s Office and Letter of Intent
The University President’s Office is charged with overseeing the promotions process. All faculty members who will become eligible within the next annual cycle to apply for promotion based on time in rank will be informed of eligibility by August 1st of each year. A list of faculty who are qualified to serve as reviewers based on their rank will accompany the notice of eligibility sent by the President’s Office. A faculty member who chooses to request promotion must submit a letter of application requesting an increase in rank. This letter should be addressed to the President’s Office and submitted by the end of week 1 of the quarter in which the faculty member wishes to initiate the rank and promotion process. Periodic reminders of the deadlines throughout the process will be sent by the President’s Office once the candidate submits their letter of intent. However, if steps 1 through 3 are not completed within 90 days of the filing of the candidate’s letter of intent, then the candidate must notify the President’s Office of their decision and resubmit a letter of intent to restart the process at the beginning of a future cycle. Based on the following deadlines, the maximum amount of time permitted for all steps to be completed is 8 months.
Step 2: Formative Departmental Review
When deciding to seek promotion, the first level of review is within one’s department. The candidate must seek out and confer with a minimum of two departmental members with seniority compared to the candidate’s current rank. The candidate’s dossier must be essentially complete so that they are able to provide it to the departmental reviewers to evaluate. Each senior faculty member should review the academic progress of the potential candidate, complete the Departmental Reviewer Checklist and there in recommend to support or not support the candidate’s continuation through the rank and promotion process.
In the event that a department lacks enough faculty members with the aforementioned qualifications, the candidate may seek faculty members with seniority compared to the candidate’s current rank from within their college to complete this formative review. If two faculty with superior rank to the candidate cannot be found with the college of the candidate’s primary assignment, then faculty from a different college within the University may be asked to review the candidate’s dossier. The intent of this step is to provide constructive advice to the candidate with regard to their dossier prior to the formation of a formal committee. The candidate retains the right to request their promotion dossier continue forward through the process even if the departmental reviewers do not endorse the candidate’s dossier.
A completed Departmental Reviewer Checklist stating the recommendation from each of the senior departmental faculty should be added to the candidate’s dossier following this review. The written outcome of this process is separate from and in addition to any potential letters of recommendation which are discussed later in this document.
Step 3: Supervisory Approval
The second level of review is with the candidate’s direct supervisor. The candidate should be meeting with his/her supervisor at least annually for a job performance evaluation. Any faculty member who desires an increase in rank should annually perform a self-assessment using the Rank and Promotion rubric. The faculty member should make it a point to discuss these selfassessments in detail with their supervisor during their annual review to the effect that the faculty member will be well advised of what is expected of them, and their supervisor well aware of the faculty member’s performance, accomplishments, and professional goals. Annual evaluations from the supervisor should highlight specific aspects of the candidate’s accomplishments during that period and should be used to inform faculty members in a constructive way of their progress toward promotion. When a candidate seeks promotion, they may include these annual evaluations as part of their dossier. The candidate’s supervisor must compose a recommendation letter containing a summary of the candidate’s teaching responsibilities and expertise, research and creative work, and professional competence and service activity, as well as the supervisor’s own evaluation of the candidate’s academic achievement for inclusion within the candidate’s dossier.
Furthermore, the supervisor and the candidate must review the dossier for completeness and proper formatting prior to submission. Incomplete or improperly formatted dossiers are prohibited from being submitted for formal review and will not be assessed by the Rank and Promotion Committee (RPC). If the supervisory review recommends against promotion, the candidate may still request to continue through the rank and promotion review process provided that both departmental reviews support the candidate’s continuation through the process. However, if either of the departmental reviewers as well as the supervisor’s recommendations are negative, the candidate’s dossier will not be forwarded through the review process.
The departmental faculty review as well as the supervisory review must be completed within 90 days from the date the candidate’s letter of intent was submitted to the President’s Office. Upon completion of this series of reviews, the candidate must submit an update to the President’s Office stating that they have secured approval from either both senior faculty and/or their supervisor, or that they are declining to proceed further through the dossier review process.
Copies of the departmental reviewer’s endorsements and the supervisor’s recommendation must be included with said notification. Upon conclusion of this step, no further alterations to the candidate’s dossier can be made, and the candidate’s supervisor retains the dossier to share with the RPC.
Step 4: Rank and Promotion Peer Committee Review
Once a candidate’s dossier has been reviewed by the senior department members and has approval to proceed from either they, or the candidate’s supervisor, the RPC will be formed. The committee will be composed of faculty from within the candidate’s college with the supervisor serving as the committee chair. The RPC is composed of three faculty members and the candidate’s supervisor. The supervisor will refrain from making a recommendation at this stage, except when a majority recommendation from the other members is lacking.
The college Dean or Associate Dean may also choose to be present at all proceedings as a non-recommending member. Only faculty members above the current rank of the candidate may serve as recommending members on the RPC. Both the candidate and their respective Dean will be furnished a list of faculty who are qualified to serve on their RPC by the President’s Office.
The candidate is permitted to submit a list of three potential evaluators of which at least one will be selected by the Dean to serve on the RPC. The remaining faculty members will be appointed by the Dean or Associate Dean from the college of the candidate’s primary assignment. In the event that there are too few faculty of superior rank to the candidate within the college of the candidate’s primary assignment, the Dean may appoint faculty with the appropriate rank from another college within the University.
The RPC must maintain a certain amount of diversity such that, if possible, at least one member should have experience in the candidate’s primary field of expertise, but no more than two of the three appointed faculty members may be from the candidate’s primary department. Circumstances may arise in which there is a conflict of interest that could potentially create either real or apparent bias and therefore undermine the objectivity of the evaluation process. A faculty member or administrator involved in the promotion evaluation process must declare any potential conflict of interest either from a personal or professional relationship such as a former business partner, mentor or mentee, or scholarly collaborator. The specific nature of the conflict must be declared in the form of a written statement to the committee chair. If the committee determines that the evaluating member’s relationship would compromise the objectivity of the process, then the evaluating member must recuse him/herself from participation on the RPC.
Furthermore, faculty members who compose letters of recommendation on behalf of the candidate are also prohibited from serving on the RPC due to the potential of a conflict of interest. Any potential conflict must be resolved prior to any discussion of the candidate’s dossier.
Once the committee composition has been determined, each recommending member of the RPC will independently evaluate the candidate’s dossier, individually complete the R&P rubric based on the documents submitted by the candidate, and will recommend either for or against the candidate’s promotion, with justification being provided in the form of the completed rubric. Once the individual members have deliberated, the committee will meet for discussion, compare results, and may collectively “recommend promotion” or “recommend denial of promotion”.
The views of the committee must be summarized into a finalized consensus rubric that is signed by all members of the committee. Furthermore, a formal letter from the committee should also be composed which must include a detailed rationale for the committee’s decision, as well as a statement of committee consensus on their recommendation signed by all committee members. Both documents should be included in the candidate’s dossier.
If the committee recommends promotion, then the committee chair must inform the President’s Office that the RPC has concluded its deliberations and the dossier will be passed on to the college Dean. If the committee recommends denying promotion, then the President’s Office shall be so notified by the committee chair, and candidate’s dossier returned to the President’s Office. The supervisor will inform the candidate of the committee’s decision, and if there are no grounds for an appeal, the candidate may collect their dossier from the President’s Office.
For library faculty the process of formation of the RPC varies slightly. The candidate will still submit a list of three potential evaluators to serve on the RPC. The Library Director will select at least one of those evaluators to serve on the RPC. After selecting an evaluator from the candidate’s list, the Library Director will appoint three other faculty above the current rank of the candidate from within the University to form the RPC. If possible, at least one member of the RPC should have experience in the candidate’s primary field of expertise.
Once formed, the RPC members will elect a committee chairperson who will be responsible for scheduling meetings and composing the final rubric for incorporation into the candidate’s dossier. Once the committee deliberations are concluded, the elected committee chair will inform both the Library Director and the President’s Office of their recommendation. If the committee recommends denying promotion, the candidate’s dossier is returned to the President’s Office, the candidate is informed of the committee’s decision by the Library Director and is provided information regarding the appeal process. If there are no grounds for an appeal, the candidate may collect their dossier from the President’s Office. If the committee recommends promotion, then the candidate’s dossier is passed along to the Library Director, and the process continues through Step 5.
Step 5: Dean and Chief Academic Officer’s Approval
If the findings of the RPC are to recommend promotion, then the supervisor, or committee chairperson in the case of an RPC for library faculty, will transmit the committee’s recommendation along with the candidate’s dossier to the Dean or Library Director within 180 days of the candidate’s letter of intent being submitted to the President’s Office. The Dean or Library Director will have 30 days to consider the recommendations of the committee and will forward his/her recommendations along with the dossier to the President’s Office.
The final approval comes from the Chief Academic Officer (CAO). The CAO will have 30 days to consider the recommendations of both the committee and the Dean and will make the final decision based on the merit of the candidate, financial considerations, and consultation with the President as needed. Once a decision is rendered by the CAO and communicated to the Dean, the CAO will inform the candidate of the results or may delegate this responsibility to the Dean. In the event that budgetary allowances are unavailable, candidates will be queued in order of committee approval until such time as finances are available to support their promotion. Under no circumstances will the wait time exceed more than a full fiscal year.
|