Promotion and Tenure

1. Promotion and Tenure Faculty Senate June 12, 2014

2. Responses to questions from last month

3. Time lines are not arbitrary, the State of Oregon follows the AAUP guidelines (prior credit and leave are described separately) OAR 580-021-0120 Seventh Annual Appointment A full-time faculty member on annual tenure for a sixth consecutive year shall be awarded indefinite tenure commencing the seventh consecutive year or given notice of termination effective at the end of the seventh year. OAR 580-021-0110 Initial Appointment and Probationary Service for Faculty on Tenure-Related Appointments (2) Awarding of tenure to full-time faculty, except as provided below, shall involve assessment of the faculty member's performance each year during the probationary period, and assessment of performance over not less than five consecutive years (counting the year at the end of which tenure is granted). ………..

4. Changes to the dossier are restricted. Argument for flexibility: the need for complete and correct information in the dossier. Argument for closing: fairness as well as legal aspects, all candidates have to be treated the same. XI. CANDIDATE'S SIGNED STATEMENT Prior to the dossier receiving its first formal review by the unit promotion and tenure committee, the candidate should sign a statement that he or she has reviewed the open part of the dossier and that it is complete and current. The candidate retains the right of access to recommendations added by deans, heads, chairs, directors, and unit promotion and tenure committees.

5. To be voted on

6. Goal: To create consistency between the requirement of selecting three letters from the candidates list and the requirement of having at most half of the letters from the candidates list. Proposed edits to the letters of evaluation: additions/deletions in red, and changes approved in May in purple. IX. LETTERS OF EVALUATION Solicited Letters of Evaluation from Outside Leaders in the Field (5 6 minimum, 8 maximum for professorial faculty; 4 for Faculty Research Assistants and instructors)

7. For professorial faculty,lLetters should generally be from leaders in the candidate's field, chosen for their ability to evaluate the parts of the dossier for which they have specific expertise candidate'sscholarly work. Letters should not be solicited from co-authors or co-principal investigators who collaborated with the candidate in the last five years. In general, letters should not be solicited from former post-doctoral advisers, professors, or former students. If such letters are necessary, include an explanation and state why the evaluator can be objective.If letters from any of these generally excluded evaluators are critical to candidate assessment, a detailed explanation of why their participation is essential and of why there is expectation for objectivity must be provided by the unit leader who requested their letter. Letters should generally be from tenured professors or individuals of equivalent stature outside of academe who are widely recognized in the field.External letters for professorial faculty should never be solicited from clients or others whom the candidate has directly served in his/her work. For FRA’s and Instructors, the letters can be from internal evaluators who have worked with the candidate but can objectively evaluate the candidate’s dossier. Careful consideration should be given to minimizing conflict of interest when choosing all evaluators.

8. Professorial candidates must The candidate maysubmit a list of 5-8 evaluators who meet the criteria stated above individuals meeting these criteria and from this list at least three letters will be obtained for the final dossier. will be selected by the department chair or head (or chair of the unit’s Promotion and Tenure Committee). If additional names are needed, these will be obtained from the candidate by the unit head. The other reviewers evaluators are to be selected by the chair, head, dean, or faculty committee according to practices determined within the unit. All letters must be requested by the department unit chair, head, dean, or the unit's promotion and tenure committee chair, not the candidate. Provide a brief (paragraph) description of the outside evaluators that makes it clear that they meet the criteria. More detail must be provided if an evaluator would generally be excluded, per the preceding paragraph. Clearly indicate which outside reviewers were chosen by the candidate. If an evaluator was suggested by both the candidate and others, that evaluator will be considered among the candidate’s pool of evaluators unless there is clear indication in the description of that evaluator why he/she should be included in the “other evaluator” pool. In the final dossier, no more than half of the outside reviewers can be chosen by the candidate. the letters of evaluation can be from the list suggested by the candidate.

9. For FRA’s and Instructors four letters of evaluation are to be obtained. In general, the letters can must be from individuals who hold a rank at or above the level for which the candidate is being considered, or an experience level equivalent to such a rank. Ability to objectively evaluate is the driver in selecting evaluators. Evaluators may be internal or external to OSU. Internal evaluators may be individuals who have worked with the candidate but can objectively evaluate the candidate’s dossier. Careful consideration should be given to minimizing conflict of interest when choosing all evaluators.

10. FRA and instructor candidates must submit a list of four evaluators who meet the criteria stated above and, from this list, two letters will be obtained for the final dossier. If additional names are needed, these will be obtained from the candidate by the unit head. The other evaluators are to be selected by the chair, head, dean, or faculty committee according to practices determined within the unit. All letters must be requested by the unit chair, head, dean, or the unit's promotion and tenure committee chair, not the candidate. Provide a brief (paragraph) description of the outside evaluators that makes it clear that they meet the criteria. Additional detail must be provided if an evaluator is not of a rank at or above the level for which the candidate is being considered, if they have been suggested based on experience level equivalency, and/or if they are internal to OSU and have worked with the candidate. Clearly indicate which outside reviewers were chosen by the candidate. If an evaluator was suggested by both the candidate and others, that evaluator will be considered among the candidate’s pool of evaluators unless there is clear indication in the description of that evaluator why he/she should be included in the “other evaluator” pool. In the final dossier, no more than half of the letters of evaluation can be from the list suggested by the candidate.

11. Goal: To create consistency between selection criteria for unit and college committee. Proposed edits to the unit level committee: additions/deletions in red Promotion And Tenure Review CommitteeThe unit committee should review the dossier for completeness and check the format to be consistent with that described in the Dossier Preparation Guidelines.  Dossiers that are incomplete or improperly formatted will be sent back to the candidate and unit supervisor.  The unit P&T committee is intended to be an independent voice of evaluation that is identified within the unit, andwhose membership is determined by a transparent election process approved by the tenured and tenure-track faculty within the unitall faculty members within the unit with ranks listed in the section “Criteria for Promotions.”

12. <This is just an explanation, no change> The composition of the committee should also provide representation to effectively evaluate the areas of assignments identified in the candidate’s position description, area of expertise, programs of study, location, etc. Committees may include faculty at all ranks who can contribute to the discussion, but not every committee member may be eligible to vote. The committee must include at least three voting members. For fixed-term candidates being considered for promotion, only faculty members above the current rank of the candidate may vote. For tenured candidates being considered for promotion or untenured candidates being considered for both promotion and tenure, only tenured faculty members above the current rank of the candidate may vote. For untenured candidates being considered solely for tenure, only tenured faculty members at or above the current rank of the candidate may vote

13. …………If there are not enough faculty of the appropriate rank within the unit, members from outside of the unit will be elected by all faculty members within the unit with ranks listed in the section “Criteria for Promotions” to serve as voting members on the committee. Retired faculty members (even those on 1040 assignments) are not eligible to vote at the tenure unit level.

14. Proposed revision of the college level committee: additions/deletions in red College Review and Recommendation ………………… The college P&T committee shall be comprised of tenured college faculty members and may include department/unit chairs or heads. The college P&T committee is to be elected by tenured and tenure track college faculty.The college P&T committee is intended to be an independent voice of evaluation that is identified within the college, and whose membership is determined by a transparent election process approved by all faculty members within the unit with ranks listed in the section “Criteria for Promotions.” The college P&T committee shall be comprised of elected from the group of tenured professorial college faculty members at the rank of associate and above and senior instructors, and may include department/unit chairs or heads. Colleges will determine term limits and frequency of elections. The size and composition of the committee shall be decided within the college to provide fair and equitable faculty representation based on the diversity within the college. The committee shall have representation from multiple units within the college as well as and can include members elected at large from the college.  College P&T committee members, if a signatory of a unit level letter of evaluation, shall recuse themselves from votes on these cases. College-level processes must be consistent with these procedural guidelines.