To:Tomas Gomez Arias, Chair, Academic Senate

To:Tomas Gomez Arias, Chair, Academic Senate

From: Gretchen Lemke-Santangelo, Chair, Rank and Tenure Committee

Re:Recommendations for changes to working in the Faculty Handbook

Date: April 30, 2012

The Rank and Tenure Committee has encountered numerous issues over the last few years as it has considered the submissions of faculty seeking promotion to Full Professor. In the Rationale section below I have tried to describe the issues and how our proposals for changes to the Handbook language would address those issues. The Rationale section is followed by the CURRENT wording in the Handbook and that is followed by the SUGGESTED REVISIONS.

RATIONALE:

For a number of years the R&T Committee has faced the challenge that faculty trying to come up for promotion to full professor are either unaware of, confused about, or sometimes deliberately skirting the requirement for a “Pre-Professor” review process, which is already called for by Handbook language. But current language is neither clear nor logically placed so that faculty can understand what they must do.

I)As a matter of clarification, with NO change to policy, the R&T Committee suggests the first set of revisions [Revision Proposal I below]. These revisions to language would make it clear and unambiguous what faculty must do if they are coming up for promotion to Full Professor. The first step would be to add language under the “additional criteria” for Full Professor stating that a Pre-Professor Review is a necessary criterion for consideration of a proposal for promotion to Full. Again, this is already policy, but it does not appear at this place in the Handbook and the R&T Committee would like to clarify for candidates that a Pre-Professor Review is a requirement by placing new language in this section. In addition, the Handbook currently uses the language of “Tenured Associate Professor Interim Review” (2.6.2.2.2.2) and uses the language “Pre-Professor Review” only in the calendar section (2.6.2.2.3.5). The R&T Committee believes that a consistent use of “Pre-Professor” in both places would clarify the situation and so in section 2.6.2.2.2.2 we are requesting that change. This is NOT a change in policy, only in nomenclature.

II)The R&T Committee would like to go farther, however, and suggest a policy change as well. Currently the Handbook offers faculty coming up for a “Pre-Professor” review a “window” of several years time during which they “may” and then “must” have the review. The Handbook also offers faculty a “window” of years during which they “may” and then “must” be considered for promotion. These two windows overlap, but cumulatively they cover 7 years (4 + 4 with one overlapping year). Starting two years after tenure (the soonest someone can have a Pre-Professor review) and continuing until two years after reaching the top of the Associate rank (when a faculty member must come up for promotion the first time), the Office of Academic Affairs sends out notices to each faculty member “in” the window period. The very existence of the window period not only creates confusion for candidates, it presents logistical problems for Academic Affairs and R&T. Tracking every person’s eligibility across a seven year period is daunting for the staff and makes the workload of the Committee unpredictable and complicated, as some faculty who “should” be reviewed don’t submit proposals and others submit proposals for promotion before going through the Pre-Professor process.

To address those problems the R&T Committee suggests further revisions to Handbook language in Revision Proposal II below, but these additional revisions DO change policy.

The first change in policy is to eliminate the “window” for Pre-Professor review. To streamline the process and make it clear to faculty what to do, there will simply be a requirement that the Pre-Professor review take place before a case for promotion to Full Professor will be considered. That leaves it up to the faculty member to schedule the necessary review. In addition, after one notification that a Pre-Professor review is needed, there will be no further notices; it will be the responsibility of a faculty member to follow up on the first and only notice by scheduling the review appropriately for his/her needs.

The second change is more significant, and affects promotion to both Associate and Full Professor rank. The Committee proposes to eliminate the “window” for promotion itself and simply state that faculty members may come up for promotion to the next rank when they reach the top step of the previous rank. That means that faculty members would not be able to “come up early” for promotion, nor would they be required to come up for promotion if they chose not to. In this proposed system, there would be only one time when promotion eligibility would begin, but in any year thereafter a faculty member could choose to seek promotion.

Finally, there is a provision in the Handbook that says that anyone seeking a waiver of the “Pre-Professor” or “Professor” timeline could seek it from the Provost. With the agreement of the Provost, the Committee proposes elimination of this option.

The Committee realizes that the language changes in Revision Proposal I are relatively uncontroversial and urges the Senate to pass them immediately; we also realize that changes to policy in Revision Proposal II may well be controversial and might require further debate and consideration, perhaps more widely than a single Senate meeting. That is why we have submitted the proposed changes in two steps, so that the first can be considered and passed even if the second needs more time/discussion/wider circulation before a decision. For the convenience of the Senators, we have provided the current Handbook language before the suggested revisions.

CURRENT HANDBOOK LANGUAGE on these issues:

2.6.1.1 Additional Criteria

3. Full Professor

a. possession of the doctorate, other appropriate terminal degree, or its equivalent;

b. high level of teaching effectiveness and continued development of teaching

expertise, and

c. evidence of highly effective service…(etc.)

2.6.2.1.2 Promotion

Faculty members will be considered for promotion in the year in which they reach the top step for their rank. They may choose to apply one year before they reach the top step for their rank, or they may chose to defer consideration for promotion until the first or second year after they reach the top step of their rank. Faculty must be considered for promotion in one of those four years. If promotion is denied, any subsequent request for said promotion is at the option of the faculty member; the application must adhere to the procedure described in section 2.6.2.2.

2.6.2.2.2 Interim Reviews Conducted by the Rank and Tenure Committee

2. Tenured Associate Professors. One interim review by the Rank and Tenure Committee shall occur for tenured Associate Professors. A person who is tenured but has yet to be considered for Full Professor must have an interim review before being considered for Full Professor. A candidate may choose to schedule this interim review no less than two years after tenure, nor more than four; however, in an instance in which a Full Professor consideration occurs in the first or the second year after tenure, there will be no need for an interim review.

REVISION PROPOSAL I: (new language, in bold).

2.6.1.1 Additional Criteria

3. Full Professor

a. completion of a pre-Professor interim review (see 2.6.2.2.2.2);

b. possession of the doctorate, other appropriate terminal degree, or its equivalent;

c. high level of teaching effectiveness and continued development of teaching

expertise, and

d. evidence of highly effective service to the College community in and beyond the level of the department, and

e. significant scholarly achievement, evidenced at least in part by peer review and public presentation among academic colleagues outside the College, and

f. a special emphasis on the contribution and commitment to the aims and ideals of the College, an active interest in the quality of the curriculum and the ability to work productively with colleagues.

2.6.2.2.2Interim Reviews Conducted by the Rank and Tenure Committee

1. Probationary tenure-track candidates… [no change in this section]

2. Pre-Professor Interim Review. Tenured Associate Professors. One interim review by the Rank and Tenure Committee shall occur for tenured Associate Professors. A person who is tenured but has yet to be considered for Full Professor must have an interim review before being considered for Full Professor. A faculty member who is tenured but has yet to be considered for Full Professor must have an interim review [Pre-Professor Interim Review] after tenure before being considered for Full Professor. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to complete this review at least one year before seeking promotion to Full Professor. A faculty member seeking promotion to Full Professor at the same time as tenure must in the Form A process address the additional criteria for promotion to Full Professor that go beyond those required for tenure alone; this means that in the prior year, this faculty member must complete a Pre-Professor review as part of the interim review process for tenure.

REVISION PROPOSAL II

2.6.2.1.2 Promotion

Faculty members will be considered for promotion to Associate Professor in the year in which they reach the top step of the Assistant Professor rank; faculty members will be considered for promotion to Full Professor in the year in which they reach the top step of the Associate Professor rank. Completion of a pre-Professor interim review (section 2.6.2.2.2.2) is required before an application for promotion to Full Professor may be made. If promotion is denied, any subsequent request for said promotion is at the option of the faculty member; the application must adhere to the procedure described in section 2.6.2.2.

2.6.2.2.3Interim Reviews Conducted by the Rank and Tenure Committee

1. Probationary tenure-track candidates…

2. Pre-Professor Interim Review. (see new language above in Revision Proposal I)—no further change

3. Exceptions to the interim review schedule are to be granted only by the Provost in consultation with the Rank and Tenure committee.

{4.} now 3. On or before June 15 of each year…