FPC Motion on Promotion

The Faculty Personnel Committee proposes to amend  Section ID 2 of the Faculty Handbook, Tenure and Promotion Procedures, Promotion, The Task of Departmental Colleagues (p. 22 of the 2005 edition),  by

1) replacing the first sentence with the following two sentences

Tenured members of the department, all of whom are expected to prepare written evaluations of a candidate as part of the promotion process, form the departmental evaluation committee.  In those cases where there are or may be fewer than three tenured members besides the candidate for promotion, the Provost, in consultation with the department chair and the candidate, will appoint additional members to serve on the departmental evaluation committee at the earliest possible time.
and 

2) by changing references in the rest of the paragraph from department to departmental evaluation committee where appropriate.


The paragraph would then read as follows (italics indicate changes):

THE TASK OF DEPARTMENTAL COLLEAGUES.   Tenured members of the department, all of whom are expected to prepare written evaluations of a candidate as part of the promotion process, form the departmental evaluation committee.  In those cases where there are or may be fewer than three tenured members besides the candidate for promotion, the Provost, in consultation with the department chair and the candidate, will appoint additional members to serve on the departmental evaluation committee at the earliest possible time.  Prior to this review, the chairperson of the Faculty Personnel Committee shall ask the departmental evaluation committee to meet and discuss the candidate's qualifications for promotion. The departmental evaluation committee shall hold two meetings.  The first meeting will take place once the candidate and the departmental evaluation committee have collected the materials that will be forwarded to the Faculty Personnel Committee.  This meeting will consist of the candidate and the members of the departmental evaluation committee.  This meeting will focus on questions and concerns about the tenure and promotion policy and procedure, and questions and concerns about the candidate¿s qualifications and performance.  The second meeting shall consist of the members of the departmental evaluation committee and it will be devoted to a discussion of the candidates achievements. The chairperson of the Faculty Personnel Committee shall consult with the chair of the departmental evaluation committee  regarding the timing of these meetings and thereafter shall request that each member of the departmental evaluation committee submit to the Faculty Personnel Committee and to the chair a letter evaluating the candidate's qualifications for promotion that also includes the author's personal recommendation as to whether or not promotion should be granted. The chairperson of the departmental evaluation committee or the candidate may request such letters from nontenured members of the department.  In fairness to the candidate and the College, the letter should include the best available evidence to substantiate the evaluations made. Accordingly, it should be based upon study of the materials which the candidate submits, observations over a period of time of the candidate's teaching of course work in the classroom, and close acquaintance with the candidate's ongoing scholarship gained through reading manuscripts or published works and through attendance at meetings at which the candidate actively participates. These letters shall be sent to the Faculty Personnel Committee through the Provost.  Although candidates generally respect the confidentiality of these letters, recent court decisions suggest that the College cannot guarantee that these letters will never be read by the candidate.

Rationale:
A number of years ago, the faculty voted to amend the tenure procedures to deal with the case of candidates who had fewer than three tenured colleagues.  These amendments specified procedures for the formation of a ¿departmental evaluation committee¿ with a minimum of three tenured faculty members.  The language of these amendments, however, was not inserted at that time into the Faculty Handbook section regarding Promotion to Full Professor. We believe that this omission was inadvertent, and we now want to rectify this oversight.
 
This omission has created difficulties both for departments and for the FPC in evaluating some candidates for promotion to full professor.  In one recent case, although both the candidate for promotion and the candidates lone tenured colleague conscientiously followed the written procedures, the FPC found itself facing a paucity of evidence.  This motion is intended to resolve such problems by applying to promotion reviews the same standard procedures that are used for forming departmental evaluation committees for pre-tenure and tenure reviews.