1. CoE Procedures for Promotion & Tenure Evaluation
S. Jack Hu
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

2. Prelude – Who’s Up? April/May
Chairs and candidates decide if they want to put a case forward this year
Assistants in 5th year must come up in 6th year unless approved of tenure delays.
For full, 6 years in rank is considered aggressive to be put forward
For unusual cases, EC will review vita and make recommendation to the chair

3. Appointing the Committee
May
Chair/Candidate proposes Evaluation Committee (Casebook committee)
Committees have 3 members
Two from inside department
One from outside department
EC approves or suggests changes

4. Function of Evaluation Committee
Manage development of casebook*
This must be done objectively and completely
Quality of case book is key
Make first recommendations
Here you can be an advocate

5. Casebook Template
A. Three page promotion and/or tenure recommendation (for Regents communication, but draft prepared by department)
B. Cover letter prepared by the Dean
C. Chair/Department Letters
D. Curriculum Vitae
a. Candidate Information
b. Teaching
c. Research
d. Service
e. Summary of contributions to teaching, research, service and impact
E. Documentation of Teaching
E.1 Committee’s Evaluation of Teaching
E.2 Courses Taught at UM and Evaluations
F. Documentation of Research
F.1. Committee’s Evaluation of Research and Impact
F.2. Ranking of Journals
F Candidate’s own ranking of journals
F Committee’s ranking of journals
G. Documentation of Service 1
G.1. Committee’s Evaluation of Service
H. Brief Description of Credentials of External Reviewers and Relationship to Candidate
I. Sample Letter Sent to External Reviewers
J. Evaluation Letters by all External Reviewers
J. Evaluation Letters by Internal Reviewers
Appendix – Records of Communications

6. Outside Letters July/August
Candidate submits CV* and selected papers to be sent to outside reviewers
Provost rule – minimum of 5 “arm’s length” letters, 2 of which from reviewers identified by department (committee)
Ask for 8-10
Candidate submits short list (~4-5), committee selects half (of the 8-10) from candidate’s list, half not from list
Quality of CV very important
CV must follow template.
Note changes in courses taught table.

7. Arm’s length
The letters should be truly evaluative and at "arm's length." For candidates on the Instructional tenure track or the Research Professor track, the "arm's length" letters should be from persons who are outside the present institution of the candidate and who did not teach, work or train with the candidate at other institutions.
While letters from persons who have served as a candidate’s thesis adviser, mentor, co-author, major collaborator, or who are in the same department as the candidate or co-taught a course, can be especially helpful (because they can be presumed to have a good sense of both the person and the work), it is also true that their own reputations are involved in the work being evaluated. If such letters are included, they must be in addition to the minimum requirement of five "arm's length" letters.
Note:  as of August 2008, we will allow letters from persons who have been a co-author or a major research collaborator with the candidate in excess of 10 years prior to the candidate’s expected start date.
Also the Provost’s office requires at least two arm’s length letters be from the committee list.

8. Outside Letters (cont.)
Candidate may submit stop list and letters should not be solicited from names on the stop list.
All external letters must be included in the casebook to Provost.
PhD/PostDoc advisor, close collaborator may be included, but does not count in the minimum of 5.
Positive comments discounted
Negative could be very damaging

9. Email to Potential Reviewers
Candidate prohibited from contact with potential reviewers
Committee sends to chosen reviewers
3 options to choose for reply
Yes, available to serve as an external reviewer
No, unavailable due to time constraints
No, candidate’s area is too distant from reviewer’s
If candidate reviewer respond with “yes”, need to follow up with letter and candidate material
Use wording provided in casebook
Other responses might compromise the integrity of the review process
exchanges should appear in casebook as appendix

10. Internal Letters Two letters from faculty Graduate students
Candidate may also submit internal stop list. Unsolicited internal letters are transmitted to the chair and CoE Executive Committee, but not part of the formal casebook.
Graduate students
Undergraduate students
Selection of undergraduate students: Letters should be solicited from students at different performance levels (e.g., letter grade equivalents of A, B, and C ranges). The faculty candidate will recommend half of the names of undergraduate students, and the committee, through the department advising office, will identify the other half. Letters will be solicited from this cohort. A minimum of four undergraduate student letters are required and at least one MUST come from the committee’s list and not a member of the candidate’s research group.

11. Data Gathering July-November
ADAA provides detailed template for candidate to “fill in”
It is not necessary to fill in every blank to get tenure or promotion!!
Intent is that for any valuable activity, there should be a place for it to go
Committee needs to gather and verify information
Be conservative in classifying publications
You don’t want a credibility problem
If citations are used, must verify with candidate

12. Distillation and Response
November
Committee submits casebook and recommendation to department chair
Submits to candidate distillation letter of salient findings
Shall not contain any recommendation
Also include in casebook
Candidate MAY respond in writing to ADAA, copy chair
Department makes decision based on established procedure (e.g., vote by Executive Committee, or Faculty at rank or higher)
Chair forwards department recommendation (and vote) to ADAA – by Nov. 25.

13. Review and Refine December
ADAA office reviews each casebook, asks for missing data
Submits to EC
Each casebook is assigned one EC member as lead for discussion
Deliberate through January, may ask for clarification

14. Chairs’ Meeting January
EC holds straw-vote and preliminary discussion on each case.
In a joint meeting of chairs, associate deans, and EC members,
Each case is presented briefly by the department chair.
EC responds with issues (if any)
All questions from chairs, AD’s, & EC welcomed
Chairs & ADs give advisory vote to EC
EC makes final decision on recommendation by end of January
Candidate informed by ADAA in late February of CoE recommendation when communications to the Provost are complete

15. At the Provost’s Level February-May
All tenure cases (positive and negative) and all positive promotion cases go to Provost for review
Provost appoints a committee to evaluate all casebooks
Recommended cases go to Regents for final approval
It’s official in May
All promotion recommendations were approved by the Provost and Regents

16. A Plea Please don’t alter the Word template for casebooks
Any changes will result in garbage when processed by distiller
Follow the CV template
There should be a place to cut and paste anything you wish to include
ADAA staff will add all scanned letters
Questions, please contact Sherry Hall

17. Acceptable External Letters
Original, signed letters are preferred
Letters sent by fax with the appearance of an original signature
Evaluation letters uploaded to a secure website
Letters sent by
If the text is in the body of the (from a university or business address)
If the attachment is accompanied by the original within which it came (from a university or business address)
If the person only has a personal address, it will be accepted only if the is followed by a hardcopy of the letter

18. External Letters (cont.)
If a letter is received without a signature, not delivered electronically, a verification letter or must be submitted by the committee chair indicating the authenticity of the letter

19. Research Faculty Similar casebook template as T&T, but
Emphasis on research and publications; impact for promotion to more senior ranks
Do need “Statement of Understanding Regarding Responsibility for Bridging Support”
Research scientists evaluated by OVPR
Research professors evaluated jointly by OVPR and Provost
Independence and non-didactic teaching

20. Reappointment Same process as P/T – no outside letters
Winter semester of third year
January starts, as if started following fall
ADAA writes blunt letters reflecting EC comments