Revised June, 2004
Procedures and Criteria for Processing Tenure, Promotion, Reappointment and Merit Increase Recommendations
During the one year prior to a mandatory decision for the granting of tenure, it is necessary for a committee to be appointed to consider the record of the faculty member.
This committee is to be composed of three members superior in rank to the candidate. If possible, the committee should have at least one member from the same discipline as the candidate. This committee must be appointed to allow it to have sufficient time to review the materials presented to it, preferably two quarters (not including summer) prior to the scheduled faculty vote.
The committee will examine the candidate's record thoroughly, using the criteria established within this memo, by the College of Arts & Sciences, and by the University as outlined in the University Handbook. The Committee may use direct observation, peer and/or student interview, and the review of published and creative materials in this examination.
In the case of most tenure decisions, where the faculty vote is scheduled in early Autumn quarter, a draft of the committee report, if possible, is to be presented to the Executive Director not later than examination week of the previous Spring Quarter. Any revisions which need to be made should be done by mid-September. The report is then given to the candidate, who has one week to respond, if they wish to. When that response is received, the committee report and the response will be given to the faculty one week before the scheduled meeting, at which time the report will be presented formally. The committee report will be presented to the faculty in Executive Session at a meeting which has the item on its agenda. If the faculty accepts the report, it is then appropriate for a motion to be offered for further consideration of the matter. There will be a period of discussion and questioning. The candidate may be present for this discussion or they may excuse themselves.
Upon the call of "question" the vote will be taken by secret ballot. The University Faculty Code specifies who is eligible to cast a ballot. After the votes have been tabulated the results will be announced to the faculty and the candidate. The Director will provide the candidate with a summary of the faculty discussion within one week of the meeting. The candidate may respond in writing within a week.
The Committee report, meeting summary, and the responses, if any, shall be appended to the Director's letter to the Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, reporting the action of the faculty, included with the materials required by the College for its consideration of the action recommended.
Under the Faculty Code, all faculty members under the rank of Professor are to be considered annually for promotion. Should other faculty members propose one of their numbers for promotion, or should a faculty member request such consideration, the procedure to be followed is similar to that in consideration of tenure.
The committee composition, duties and review tools and the presentation of the report to the faculty will follow the outline of the consideration for tenure noted above. If the promotion decision is to be made in the early Autumn Quarter, the deadlines reflected in the tenure section are to be followed. At other times of the year, the report should be presented to the Executive Director as soon as possible and in any case in ample time to allow for the candidate’s response and distribution of materials to the faculty one week before the meeting scheduled to discuss this matter. (See time line discussed for tenure reviews.) The procedure for the faculty meeting will again follow the tenure procedure.
Prior to the quarter preceding the deadline for consideration, a committee will be appointed to review the performance of the faculty member to be considered for renewal. The three members must be superior to the candidate in rank, and if possible at least one member should be from the same discipline as the candidate. The review tools are the same as in the case of other personnel actions.
The committee report is to be submitted to the Executive Director no less than two weeks prior to the scheduled faculty vote. All other deadlines and procedures as indicated in the other actions apply.
The following activities will be considered by the committee for both tenure and promotion consideration.
The College requires two methods of evidence in reviewing the candidate's teaching ability.
- Must be administered by the Educational Assessment office on their standardized forms, or the faculty of the School must approve an alternate process.
- Must be current - some from each year at the UW is preferable.
- Informed judgment of colleagues who have observed the candidate in a classroom setting.
- Must be current - one from each year of UW employment.
In addition to the above, the Committee may review additional evidence which is to be submitted at the option of the candidate. This may include information regarding unusual student progress while a student is currently enrolled; the admission of students to graduate schools or professional programs; the employment record of students after graduation; or the securing of grants, scholarships, or fellowships which are given on the basis of merit.
Research & Creative Activity
The candidate must show evidence of continued productive research or creative activity.
- Publication or acceptance of a book for publication shall constitute such evidence.
- Articles and presentations at scholarly conferences are also important components of the record.
- It is not possible in publication to rank scholarly forums in a clearly defined and absolute manner. In the final analysis, it is the quality of the scholarship which must be evaluated. However, it should be borne in mind that the College values juried forums.
- This shall include activities such as acting, directing, designing, staging movement sequences, coaching dialects, conducting workshops or any of the other various activities in which a faculty member demonstrates expertise in his or her field.
- The difficulty in ranking artistic forums is similar to that mentioned above in relation to publications. Quality should remain the prime consideration. Here again, the College values forums which are juried and/or have national visibility.
- Whether or not a faculty member receives remuneration for these activities is of minor concern.
The University expects its faculty to participate in many activities outside of the fields of teaching and research. This may include participation in committee work and other administrative tasks; or being active outside of the University by providing professional services to schools, or to other organizations.
This is quoted from the Faculty Code: "In arriving at recommendations for promotion or tenure, faculty and chairpersons are directed to study the whole record of candidates. To warrant recommendation for the granting of tenure or for promotion in the professorial ranks, a candidate must have shown outstanding ability in teaching or research, an ability of such an order as to command obvious respect from colleagues and from professionals at other universities; and substantial contribution in other phases. The qualifications of teaching and research must remain
unequivocally the central functions of the faculty, but administrative and other internal and extramural professional services must also be recognized."
In determining the awarding of merit increases when they are granted by the Legislature, the Executive Director will use the yearly faculty activity report as prepared by each faculty member, and other evidence in determining the increments.
The same distribution of activities as in tenure and promotion (i.e., teaching, research and creative activity, and service) are to be considered. FACULTY MEMBERS WHO DO NOT HAVE STUDENT TEACHING EVALUATIONS WITHIN THE ACADEMIC YEAR AND COLLEGIAL EVALUATIONS AVAILABLE AS PER THE FACULTY CODE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR MERIT INCREASE CONSIDERATION.
Administrative Policy Memo No. 5, first established 1970
Subsequent revisions: 11/80; 1/95, 12/01, 9/03
Executive Committee approval: 6/2/04
Faculty approval: 6/7/04