UNIVERSITY FACULTY
SENATE RESOLUTION
TO MODIFY FACULTY
HANDBOOK REGARDING UNIVERSITY PROMOTION AND TENURE POLICY
AND InfoRMATION SUPPLIED TO EXTERNAL
REVIEWERS AND CONSIDERATION OF WORKLOAD:
WHEREAS,
the ultimate objectives of promotion
policies at the University of Delaware are faculty excellence and procedural
fairness, and
WHEREAS,
a faculty member’s workload shall be
assigned with the expectation that they will have the opportunity to meet the
criteria for promotion and satisfactory peer review, and
WHEREAS,
outside peer review is one of the methods by which excellence can be evaluated
for promotion of faculty, be it therefore
RESOLVED,
that the existing University policy
on Departmental Responsibilities for Promotion and Tenure in the Faculty
Handbook (modifications to current policy are shown in Attachment 1) be revised
to:
Section 4: Personnel Policies for Faculty
Section 4.4
Promotion and Tenure
Section 4.4.4 Departmental
Responsibilities
(In colleges, schools, or divisions without departments,
all of the requirements for department action devolve upon the college, school
or division.)
The department bears the major burden of defining standards,
specifying the procedures to be followed in deciding whether the standards are
met, and judging the credentials submitted in support of each application for
promotion. Minimum requirements for the satisfactory discharge of these
department responsibilities include:
- After
approval at all levels, any special interpretations specific to that
discipline or unit must be published and distributed to all members of the
department, to the appropriate committees and University officials, and to
the University Faculty Senate through its Committee on Promotions and
Tenure.
- Changes
in promotion and tenure statements, which should be made only for
compelling reasons, should first be sent to the appropriate college
committee and dean. If approved, they should then be forwarded to the
University Committee on Promotions and Tenure and to the Provost, both of
whom will review the proposals for compliance with this document, and
suggest revisions if necessary. Upon acceptance of the revised document,
they will sign and date it to signify its approval. Proposed changes to
existing statements must be submitted to the University Committee and
Provost by March 1 to become effective by September 1.
- The
specific criteria upon which recommendations are based must be clearly set
forth in the formal statement of promotion policies and procedures of the
University, college, and department. The qualities and achievements taken
into account by the department in making its decisions should be
explicitly described. The kinds of evidence by which the attainment of the
stated criteria is to be judged should also be specified in the published
statement, as should the specific weight given the various criteria and
the kinds of evidence to be submitted in support of their having been met.
- Department
promotion and tenure procedures must be democratic. Although the
application of this principle will obviously vary from department to
department, certain ground rules must be observed. The department's
promotion and tenure committee should be constituted and operated in such
a fashion that due respect is given to the opinions and advice of all
faculty. Units which elect to include untenured faculty in the review
process should ensure that individual participation is voluntary and that
the interests of those who wish to participate are protected (for example
by using secret ballots). A majority of the committee should consist of
faculty who are at or above the rank to which a candidate seeks promotion.
(Departments lacking a sufficient number of faculty at the appropriate
rank should solicit participation of faculty from kindred departments.
Procedures for this solicitation must be specified in the department's
document.) The committee should also consult with the department
chairperson, who should offer counsel but neither participate in its final
deliberations nor vote on its recommendation. The committee should meet
formally and follow established procedures. The department committee
should insert a separate document in the external letters section of the
dossier, identifying the specific external reviewers who were nominated by
the candidate versus those nominated by the department, and the criteria
used to request letters from specific reviewers.
- The department is charged with soliciting evaluations from
external peer reviewers. The letter
to the external reviewers must include the faculty member’s average
workload(s) for the period under review.
Further, the letter must specify which area(s) the reviewer is
being asked to evaluate, and provide a written summary of the evidential
materials being sent upon which to base their review. In addition, the
external reviewers must be provided copies of the department’s P&T
criteria. Copies of the letter(s)
sent to the reviewers must be included in the dossier. The workload
percentages to be included in the letter should be reviewed by the
candidate and the Departmental P&T Committee prior to the solicitation
of external reviewers.
- The department's letter of recommendation, which
must indicate the numerical vote, describe the committee's composition and
explain the reasons for the decision, including how the candidate’s
workload was related to the committee’s application of criteria for
promotion, must be transmitted in full and in writing to the candidate and
be signed by all committee members. The recommendations of the department
committee shall be addressed to the department chairperson and inserted
into the dossier. When they arise, signed minority opinions will be
forwarded as appendices to the committee's recommendations.
- The
department chairperson will review the dossier submitted by the candidate,
the report of the committee, and the stated criteria, and make a
recommendation supporting or failing to support the candidacy. The
chairperson should explain, in writing, the decision to the candidate and
to the department committee. The chairperson's recommendation is
transmitted in full and in writing to the candidate and also inserted into
the candidate's dossier. The chairperson's letter should include a
description of the candidate's workload distribution during the time in
rank, and how that workload relates to his or her recommendation
concerning tenure and/or promotion.
ATTACHMENT 1
To Accompany RESOLUTION
TO MODIFY FACULTY HANDBOOK REGARDING
UNIVERSITY
PROMOTION AND TENURE POLICY AND InfoRMATION SUPPLIED TO
EXTERNAL
REVIEWERS AND CONSIDERATION OF WORKLOAD:
Existing Policy in the
Faculty Handbook (strikethrough text to be deleted; underlined text to be
added)
Section 4: Personnel Policies for Faculty
Section 4.4 Promotion and
Tenure
Section 4.4.4 Departmental
Responsibilities
(In colleges, schools, or divisions without departments,
all of the requirements for department action devolve upon the college, school
or division.)
The department bears the major burden of defining
standards, specifying the procedures to be followed in deciding whether the
standards are met, and judging the credentials submitted in support of each
application for promotion. Minimum requirements for the satisfactory discharge
of these department responsibilities include:
- After
approval at all levels, any special interpretations specific to that
discipline or unit must be published and distributed to all members of the
department, to the appropriate committees and University officials, and to
the University Faculty Senate through its Committee on Promotions and
Tenure.
- Changes
in promotion and tenure statements, which should be made only for
compelling reasons, should first be sent to the appropriate college
committee and dean. If approved, they should then be forwarded to the
University Committee on Promotions and Tenure and to the Provost, both of
whom will review the proposals for compliance with this document, and
suggest revisions if necessary. Upon acceptance of the revised document,
they will sign and date it to signify its approval. Proposed changes to
existing statements must be submitted to the University Committee and
Provost by March 1 to become effective by September 1.
- The
specific criteria upon which recommendations are based must be clearly set
forth in the formal statement of promotion policies and procedures of the
University, college, and department. The qualities and achievements taken
into account by the department in making its decisions should be
explicitly described. The kinds of evidence by which the attainment of the
stated criteria is to be judged should also be specified in the published
statement, as should the specific weight given the various criteria and
the kinds of evidence to be submitted in support of their having been met.
- Department
promotion and tenure procedures must be democratic. Although the
application of this principle will obviously vary from department to
department, certain ground rules must be observed. The department's
promotion and tenure committee should be constituted and operated in such
a fashion that due respect is given to the opinions and advice of all
faculty. Units which elect to include untenured faculty in the review
process should ensure that individual participation is voluntary and that
the interests of those who wish to participate are protected (for example
by using secret ballots). A majority of the committee should consist of
faculty who are at or above the rank to which a candidate seeks promotion.
(Departments lacking a sufficient number of faculty at the appropriate
rank should solicit participation of faculty from kindred departments.
Procedures for this solicitation must be specified in the department's
document.) The committee should also consult with the department
chairperson, who should offer counsel but neither participate in its final
deliberations nor vote on its recommendation. The committee should meet
formally and follow established procedures. The department committee
should insert a separate document in the external letters section of the
dossier, identifying the specific external reviewers who were nominated by
the candidate versus those nominated by the department, and the criteria
used to request letters from specific reviewers.
- The department is charged with soliciting evaluations from
external peer reviewers. The letter
to the external reviewers must include the faculty member’s average
workload(s) for the period under review.
Further, the letter must specify which area(s) the reviewer is
being asked to evaluate, and provide a written summary of the evidential
materials being sent upon which to base their review. In addition, the
external reviewers must be provided copies of the department’s P&T
criteria. Copies of the letter(s)
sent to the reviewers must be included in the dossier. The workload
percentages to be included in the letter should be reviewed by the
candidate and the Departmental P&T Committee prior to the solicitation
of external reviewers.
- The department's letter of recommendation, which
must indicate the numerical vote, describe the committee's composition and
explain the reasons for the decision, including how the candidate’s
workload was related to the committee’s application of criteria for
promotion, must be transmitted in full and in writing to the candidate
and be signed by all committee members. The recommendations of the
department committee shall be addressed to the department chairperson and
inserted into the dossier. When they arise, signed minority opinions will
be forwarded as appendices to the committee's recommendations.
- The
department chairperson will review the dossier submitted by the candidate,
the report of the committee, and the stated criteria, and make a
recommendation supporting or failing to support the candidacy. The
chairperson should explain, in writing, the decision to the candidate and
to the department committee. The chairperson's recommendation is
transmitted in full and in writing to the candidate and also inserted into
the candidate's dossier. The chairperson's letter should include a
description of the candidate's workload distribution during the time in
rank, and how that workload relates to his or her recommendation
concerning tenure and/or promotion.