University of Idaho - From Here You Can Go Anywhere  
Faculty

CHAPTER THREE: 3560

EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION CONCERNING FACULTY AND STAFF

July 2014

 


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.  Performance of university administrative duties as a unit administrator is not a consideration in promotion. [ed. 1-08, 7-14, 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 (FSH 3570) 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 E-3 below.  [rev. 7-00, 1-10, ed. 1-08, 7-14]

 

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.  Each unit will develop criteria for promotion and review of its instructors.  Instructors may be considered for promotion to senior instructor before the end of the third year of full-time service in this rank. Instructors who do not seek promotion shall be reviewed at the end of their third year (FSH 3570) and at a minimum of every five years thereafter as determined by the unit's by-laws.  The committee for third-year review, periodic review and promotion, defined by the unit's bylaws, shall include tenure-track faculty within the unit.

 

Part-time service is not considered in determining the time for 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. 

 

Note:  The rank of senior instructor, except in very rare instances, is 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, rev. 7-14]

 

D-2.  Clinical Faculty.  Clinical faculty members are eligible for promotion after completion of time in rank comparable to that for tenure-track faculty, and upon evaluation by departmental, college and university promotion committees.  Clinical faculty shall be reviewed during their third year (see FSH 3570). Each unit will develop criteria for promotion and review of its clinical faculty. The promotion process will be consistent with that followed by the unit, college and university for tenure-track faculty. Clinical faculty will be reviewed at least once every five years thereafter as determined by the unit’s by-laws. The committee for third-year review, periodic review and promotion, as defined by the unit’s bylaws, shall include tenure-track faculty from the unit. [add. 7-14]

 

D-3. 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, ren. 7-14]

 

D-4.  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, ren. 7-14]

 

D-5.  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, ren. 7-14]

 

D-6.  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, ren. 7-14]

 

E.  EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION AT THE UNIT LEVEL.  [ed. 7-97, 1-10]

 

E-1.  Unit Criteria. The faculty of each department 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, ed. 7-14]

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 (FSH 3520 G-4) 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, ed. 7-14]

 

b.  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, 7-14]

 

c.  All review committees shall be formed consistent with unit by-laws and must include tenure-track faculty.  If the unit's by laws do not address review committee makeup, the structure of the tenure committee as described in FSH 3520 G-5 d. shall be used. [add. 1-10, rev. & ren. 7-14]

 

d. 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, ren. 7-14]

 

e 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, 7-14, rev. & ren. 1-10]

 

E-3. External Review:  In addition to E-2 above, tenure track faculty will require an external review.  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 and creative 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, 7-14]

 

E-4.  Forwarding Materials. 

 

a.  Before forwarding the materials to the college, the unit administrator shall forward the following to the candidate:

1) written findings of the unit and/or committee's recommendation and vote, [ed. 7-10]

2) 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:

1) his or her completed copy of the recommendation form for each person considered,

2) the forms submitted by individual faculty members, including responses from external reviewers, interdisciplinary administrators and/or center administrators (if applicable),

3) a summary of votes and any comments,

4) any clarification received from the candidate as noted in "a" above.

 

[rev. 7-98, 1-10, ren. 1-08, 7-14]

 

E-5.  The names of the members of the unit committee are made public after the committee's recommendations have been forwarded. [ren. 1-10, 7-14]

 

E-6.  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, 7-14 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) 

Back to Table of Contents

Forward to 3570

 

University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, 83844