CHAPTER THREE: 3560
EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION CONCERNING FACULTY AND STAFF
July 2012
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. In January 2010 this section was again revised
to reflect changes in the faculty position description and evaluation forms
intended to simplify the forms while better integrating faculty
interdisciplinary activities into the evaluation process. In July 2012 the
university promotions committee makeup was revised to reflect current practice
and align membership to college reorganizations. Except where
otherwise noted, the text is as of July 1996. Further information may be
obtained from the Provost’s Office (208-885-6448). [rev. 7-00, 7-02, 7-07, 1-08,
1-10, 7-12]
CONTENTS:
A. General
B. Bases of Evaluation
C. Responsibility
D. Schedule
E. Evaluation and Recommendation at the
Unit
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 member's performance in
relation to the expectations as listed in his/her position description. [FSH
1565
C] Performance of
university administrative duties as a unit administrator is not a consideration in promotion. [ed.
1-08, rev. 1-10]
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 standards for promotion.
The faculty
member's position description [see FSH
3050], covering the period since
appointment to his or her current rank, provides a frame of reference for the
unit expectations for satisfactory performance. When the appointment
occurs after January 1, the following fiscal year is the first year of the
promotion consideration period. In order to form a basis
for promotion in rank, the position descriptions must require activity consistent
with the criteria for that rank as stated in FSH
1565. The faculty member's professional portfolio and other documents
are judged in the context of unit and college by-laws as well as the documents
listed in E-2 a and b below. [see FSH
1565 C]. [rev. 7-00, 1-10, ed. 1-08]
C. RESPONSIBILITY. The responsibility for submitting recommendations in accordance with the
prescribed schedule [see D] falls on the unit administrator or on the
dean of the college if the college is not departmentalized. Small units 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 unit level, and
proceeding through the college level to the university level.
Interdisciplinary and center administrators are to be included as
appropriate. [rev. 1-08, ed. 1-10]
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 unit 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 D-1-b]. [ed. 7-00,
7-04, 1-10]
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 unit administrator and the dean. Assistant professors who have
served eight years in that rank shall be considered for promotion following the
process established in this policy. [ed. 7-97, 7-02, 1-10]
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 unit administrator and
the dean. [ed. 7-02, 1-10]
D-4. Early Consideration for Promotion. In addition to those
whose consideration is mandated by this schedule, a 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, 1-10, rev. 1-08]
D-5. Credit for Prior Experience. In cases involving prior equivalent
experience, promotion may be considered
following less than the usual period of service. In particular, a new faculty member
with comparable experience (see FSH 3050 B) from other institutions in relation to
the expectations set forth in his/her position description may be granted credit
by the provost for such experience up to a maximum of four
years. [rev. 1-10]
E. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION AT THE UNIT LEVEL. [ed. 7-97,
1-10]
E-1. Unit Criteria. The
faculty of each unit or equivalent unit establishes, as appropriate for the
unit, specific criteria that are consistent with criteria in
FSH
1565 C for promotion in rank. The criteria
shall include a statement regarding the role of interdisciplinary activity.
Unit criteria are
subject to review by the college standing committee on tenure and promotion for
consistency with the college criteria. Such
criteria may be revised at any time by a majority vote of the unit
faculty, but they must be reviewed for possible changes at intervals not to
exceed five years (see FSH 1590). Revisions may not be retroactive but, for
promotion evaluation purposes, are considered
proportionately in conjunction with criteria that were previously in
force. [rev. 1-08, 1-10]
E-2. Formal Promotion Review.
a. The formal evaluation for promotion requires assessing the
faculty member's performance in meeting the criteria for promotion. To
initiate the formal promotion evaluation for, the
unit administrator (or college dean if the unit administrator is
under consideration for promotion) obtains the position descriptions for the
relevant period (maintained in the unit office), annual performance
evaluations, and the third year review if conducted while in the current rank,
including all narratives, the professional portfolio (from the faculty member)(see
FSH 3570), summary scores of the
student evaluations of all classes taught (from Institutional Research and
Assessment), and the curriculum vitae, and reviews the latter for completeness and accuracy with the
faculty member. [ren. & rev. 1-08, rev. 1-10]
b. The unit
administrator will request an evaluation of the candidate's performance from three to five appropriate
external reviewers, who should include
faculty at peer institutions. Persons asked to write peer reviews should
be at, or above, the rank the candidate is seeking. The names of at least two of these reviewers will be
selected from a list
suggested by the candidate. (Also see External Peer Review Guidelines on
the Provost website at
http://www.uidaho.edu/provost/policyguidelines/tenure.) Final
selection of external reviewers should take place at the unit level, in
accordance with college policy. The
letter of request will include the candidate’s curriculum vitae, position
descriptions for the relevant period (including all narratives), the professional portfolio, and up to four
examples of the candidate’s scholarly work. In addition, the letter of
request shall include instructions that the candidate be evaluated in
relation to the candidate’s personal context statement and unit and college
criteria. When all deliberations within the university are completed, the
external reviewers' evaluations will be shown to the faculty member after every
effort has been made to ensure the reviewers' anonymity. [ren.
1-08, rev. 1-10]
c. Copies of documents referred to in E-2 a., and copies of the
unit, college, and university criteria for promotion are made available
to each person participating in the review at the unit and higher levels.
Supplementary material, if any, shall be available for review in the unit
office. [See FSH 3380 D.] The results of the
student evaluations of teaching must be carefully weighed and used as a factor
in assessing the teaching component in promotion decisions. [rev. 7-98,
1-10, 7-10, ren. 1-08]
d. A promotion committee shall
be formed consistent with unit by-laws. If one is not specified, the
structure of the tenure committee as described in FSH 3520 G-5 d. shall be
used. [add. 1-10]
e. Members of the faculty of the candidate’s unit (or group of small
units
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. The unit
administrator making the recommendation will solicit and address in
his/her summary, the evaluative comments regarding
the candidate from all faculty members (within the candidate's unit) of a higher rank than the
candidate, from interdisciplinary program directors and/or center
administrators (if applicable). Any person having a familial or other
similar significant relationship with the candidate is
not permitted to serve in any capacity in the review process. Each
unit is responsible for developing procedures in its bylaws that
meet the requirements of this subsection (unit bylaws are
subject to review and approval by the provost, see FSH 1590).
A copy of the form to be used in transmitting the recommendations made at
each stage of evaluation for promotion are provided below. [See FSH 3380 D.] [rev. & ren. 1-08, 1-10]
f. The
unit administrator completes the first section on the back of the
recommendation form. In arriving at
a conclusion, the administrator carefully considers the following (particularly as they relate to the factors listed in B): the information obtained from the curriculum vitae, the position
descriptions (including all narratives), the conference with the candidate, the recommendations solicited
from the candidate’s colleagues, the external reviewers, interdisciplinary
administrators and/or center administrators (if applicable) and the results of annual student evaluations
of teaching (in the cases of teaching members of the faculty). [ren. 1-08,
rev. & ren. 1-10]
E-3. Forwarding Materials.
a. Before forwarding the materials to the college, the
unit administrator shall forward the following to the candidate:
-
written findings of the unit and/or committee's recommendation and vote,
[ed. 7-10]
-
his or her written recommendation which shall include strengths as well as
weaknesses as perceived at the unit level. [ed. 7-10]
The candidate has one week from receipt of the above to
provide written clarification if he or she believes his or her record or the
unit criteria for promotion have been misinterpreted. Any such
clarification is forwarded with the rest of the candidate's materials to the
college.
b. The unit administrator then forwards
the following items to the dean:
-
his or her completed copy of the recommendation form for each person
considered,
-
the forms submitted by individual faculty members, including responses from
external reviewers, interdisciplinary administrators and/or center
administrators (if applicable),
-
a summary of votes and any comments,
-
any clarification received from the candidate as noted in "a" above.
[
rev. 7-98, 1-10, ren. 1-08]
E.4. The names of the members of the unit committee are made public
after the committee's recommendations have been forwarded. [ren. 1-10]
E-5. Unit Administrator Under Review for Promotion. If
a unit 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. (See FSH 3320 C-2) [ren. 1-08, ren. & rev. 1-10]
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 shall have bylaws,
adopted by the college faculty, specifying criteria consistent with
FSH 1565
C for granting
promotion to specific ranks in that college. The criteria shall include a
statement regarding the role ascribed to interdisciplinary
activity. College criteria must be compatible with the university-wide criteria as
specified in FSH 1565 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, 1-10]
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. Dean’s Recommendations. The dean considers the recommendations made by the college’s committee
on promotion and makes a written recommendation. It is advisable that the dean confer collectively with the
unit
administrators about the merits of the faculty members whom they are
recommending for promotion. Before forwarding the materials to the
provost, the
findings of the college committee(s) and the dean are relayed in writing to the candidate
indicating strengths as well as weaknesses as perceived at the college level. The candidate
has one week from receipt of the findings to provide written clarification if he or
she believes his or her record or the college criteria for promotion have been
misinterpreted. Any such clarification is
forwarded with the candidate’s materials to the provost. [rev. 7-98,
1-08, 7-10, ren. & rev. 1-10]
F-5. The names of the members of the college
committee are made public after the committee's recommendations have been
forwarded. [ren. 1-10]
G. REPORT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FORWARDED. When an administrator
forwards a recommendation to the next higher level,
he or she simultaneously reports, in writing, the recommendation 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 in writing to the candidate. [ed. 7-97, ren. 1-08, rev. 1-10]
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 of the unit administrator, the recommendations of the college
committee and those of the dean, including all narratives, are forwarded for review by the provost.
Any individually signed recommendations are placed in the faculty member's
personnel file. [rev. 1-08, 1-10]
H-2. A
University Promotions Committee of faculty members, chaired by the
provost, is named each year. The
committee reviews each promotion recommendation with specific reference to the
university guidelines and to the criteria established by the unit 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 unit and college levels.
a. One-third of the committee’s membership is
randomly selected by the provost from the previous year’s committee; the
remaining 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
four
faculty members who should be representative of the breadth of the disciplines
within the college. 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% University of Idaho
Extension appointments. The
delegations from each of the other colleges and the Faculty-at-Large each
nominate
two faculty members from their constituencies. [rev. 7-12]
b. Membership of the committee, including carryover members, consists of the
provost (chair), two 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 colleges, the vice president of research and economic
development, the dean of the
college of graduate studies, and the vice provost for
academic affairs. The provost, the vice president of research and
economic development, the
dean of the college of graduate studies, and
the vice provost for academic affairs shall be ex-officio
members without vote. Applications of faculty members being considered for
promotion from the University
Library, Law Library, Counseling and Testing Center Service, and the University
of Idaho Extension
will be represented by the University Promotions Committee's representative
whose own position most closely matches that of the applicant. 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 the
committee's recommendations have been forwarded. The chair will conduct
voting on candidates by closed ballots. [rev.
7-97, 1-10, 7-12, ed. and ren. 1-08, ed. 7-09, 9-10]
H-3. A
presumption in favor of promotion shall exist for each candidate who comes to
the University Promotions Committee with a favorable recommendation
from all of the committees that have considered the matter at the unit
and college level, from the unit chair and dean directly involved, and
from a majority of the faculty members who submitted a recommendation pursuant
to section E-2 d 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 University Promotions Committee shall state in writing the reasons for the decision. [ed.
7-98, ren. 1-08, rev. 1-10]
I. APPEAL. If the President's decision is
against promotion, the faculty member has the right of appeal. [See 3840.]
[rev. 7-10]
J. ANNUAL TIMETABLE FOR PROMOTION CONSIDERATIONS. The process of promotion considerations is carried out annually.
The unit level evaluation for promotion begins summer/early fall and shall
follow the timetable provided by the provost and published on the provost's
website. [ed. 7-99, rev. 1-10]
Download:
REPORT
OF EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR
PROMOTION IN FACULTY (Word)
REPORT OF EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR
PROMOTION IN FACULTY (pdf)
