VI. Appendix: School of Arts & Sciences Personnel Policies and Procedures
This Appendix in its entirety must be consistent with University principles stipulated under "Evaluation for Personnel Decisions" (Chapter III, Section C). Revisions to a school's section of this Appendix may be proposed by a majority vote of the particular school's faculty, and transmitted by the Dean for separate majority vote by the University Faculty. The Provost and President then transmit the proposed revisions for vote by the Board of Trustees.
In addition to the following criteria and procedures for Arts and Sciences faculty, candidates should read the Faculty Handbook, Chapter III, "Faculty Personnel Policies and Procedures."
______________________________________________________________________
A. Criteria for Tenure, Promotion, and Performance Reviews
B. Tenure and Promotion Process and Procedures
_____________________________________________________________
A. Criteria for Tenure, Promotion, and Performance Reviews
The following guidelines describe the criteria that departments, the Arts and Sciences Tenure and Promotion Committee, and the Dean in the School of Arts and Sciences follow in making recommendations concerning tenure and promotion.
Faculty members are expected to show that their performance as teachers, scholars, and citizens of the university reaches the level of excellence required for both tenure and promotion.
1. Teaching
In keeping with the mission of the University of Richmond, teaching is the most important area of faculty performance. The School of Arts and Sciences seeks a faculty committed to excellence in teaching, and expects successful candidates for tenure and promotion to have demonstrated a high level of performance in teaching. Such things as measures of student achievement, student evaluations, and reviews conducted by other teachers can be used to demonstrate the quality of teaching. Excellent teaching stimulates students' interest, increases their knowledge, and requires them to engage in critical analysis. Generally, excellent teaching is the result of the instructor's mastery of the subject, clear organization and presentation, use of appropriately up-to-date materials and methodologies, respect for and fair treatment of students, thoughtful advising, and willingness to engage with them in open dialogue.
2. Scholarship
If teaching is our primary mission, scholarship is virtually as important. Through scholarship, School of Arts and Sciences faculty members remain current in their academic disciplines and work toward the University of Richmond's goal of advancing knowledge. Scholarship supports the university's commitment to teaching. The university recognizes that scholarly and other kinds of creative activity can take a variety of forms. It also recognizes that scholarship, to reach its potential, must be shared and tested publicly. Typically, this means that the university faculty's scholarly and creative projects are expected to produce publications, presentations, and works of the creative imagination that are open to scrutiny by professional peers. The quality of such work is more significant than the quantity, but candidates for tenure and promotion are expected to demonstrate that they are involved in ongoing scholarly and/or creative work and that they have the ability to complete work of high quality.
3. Service
The University of Richmond and its School of Arts and Science rely upon the involvement of its faculty in service to the university community, such as participating in committee work and the life of the university. Every candidate for tenure and promotion is expected to demonstrate that he or she has effectively served his or her department and the School of Arts and Sciences and/or the university.
A faculty member's activity in professional organizations, depending on its nature and extent, can count as significant service, but cannot substitute for service at the University of Richmond.
Service with community organizations is also noted insofar as it involves the exercise of the faculty member's professional knowledge or abilities.
B. Tenure and Promotion Process and Procedures
This section describes the process and procedures for three decisions within a tenure-stream faculty member's career: mid-course review, tenure and promotion to associate professor, and promotion to full professor. Decisions at all three stages are based on the candidate's performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. The tenured members of an untenured faculty member's department and the Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences participate in the mid-course review. At the time for tenure and/or promotion, the tenured members of the candidate's department, the Tenure and Promotion Committee, and the Dean are responsible for making recommendations. Positive recommendations at these stages do not mean that the Board of Trustees will grant tenure and/or promotion, nor that individuals at higher levels who are involved in the process will necessarily support those recommendations. Specifically, after hearing from the department, the Tenure and Promotion Committee, and the Dean, the Provost makes a recommendation to the President, and the President decides whether to nominate a candidate to the Board. The Board of Trustees is the only university body that awards tenure and/or promotion to a member of the faculty.
The timetable for the various stages in the mid-course review and the tenure and/or promotion processes is established annually by the Dean. The Dean provides the candidate and the department chair a memorandum of instruction detailing the timetable and the preparation of the portfolio. It is the responsibility of the candidate to include in his or her portfolio all required information and any additional information the candidate believes pertinent to the review process. The candidate delivers the mid-course review, tenure, or promotion portfolio to the department chair to meet the deadline set in the Dean's memorandum. The deadline is generally in the spring for the mid-course review and early in the fall for the tenure and/or promotion process.
1. Career Profiles, Reviews, and Timing of Tenure and Promotions
a. Departmental Career Profiles
Departments are urged to establish clear, written, discipline-specific career profiles for teacher
scholars at the University of Richmond. Following consultation with the Dean, these profiles
should be made available to all faculty members. Thoughtfully prepared profiles may offer a
rough outline of expected progress, but should not be considered a checklist for tenure and
promotion. They should be consistent with the School of Arts and Sciences' mission as an
institution dedicated to both teaching and scholarship.
b. Annual and Mid-course Reviews for Untenured Faculty
Untenured faculty members are reviewed annually. Tenured members of departments should
participate in the annual evaluation of untenured faculty, offering guidance and assessment.
The chair's annual evaluation will reflect the views of these participants. Consultation may
take different forms depending on the size of the department.
Tenure candidates will also have a mid-course review by the department and the Dean of
the School of Arts and Sciences during the pre-tenure period. This review is developmental
in nature, but an additional goal is to determine whether the candidate is on track toward a
favorable tenure decision. The review is designed to provide early warning signals to the
candidate if there are significant problems in the candidate's teaching, scholarship, or service
contributions. It is possible for the review to result in a recommendation that the candidate
be given a terminal contract for the following year if, following the process described below,
the Dean concludes that there is a low likelihood that the candidate's present and future
efforts will be sufficient to meet the standards for tenure and promotion.
During the semester of the mid-course review, usually the candidate's third year, the
candidate will submit a package of materials for review. This package contains relevant
information, specified by the Dean in a letter of instruction to the candidate, about the
candidate's teaching, scholarship, and service activities. Tenured members of the candidate's
department review the candidate's materials, meet to discuss the candidate's performance,
and provide a thorough critical evaluation regarding the candidate's progress toward tenure
and promotion.
The department chair writes a mid-course departmental report that offers an evaluation of
the candidate's teaching, scholarship or creative work, and service. This report analyzes the
candidate's strengths and weaknesses and expresses the range of opinion in the department,
especially with respect to the question of whether the candidate's teaching, scholarly/creative
work, and service to date indicate that he or she, at the current point in time, is on course for
a favorable tenure review. The departmental report is circulated to all tenured members of
the department, revised as necessary to reflect the tenured faculty's deliberations, and the
final version signed by all tenured members of the department. Signature only means
agreement that the letter fairly represents the departmental discussion.
The departmental report, after vetting by the Dean for legal and procedural issues, is shared
with the candidate. The candidate then meets with the chair to discuss his or her progress.
The report is then sent to the Dean following the Dean's timetable.
The Dean reviews all relevant material in the candidate's portfolio and the report from the
candidate's department. The Dean then holds a meeting with the candidate to discuss results
of the mid-course review process. In an instance where the candidate is to be given a
terminal contract for the fourth year, the Dean will meet with the candidate's department
chair to discuss the case before making a final decision. The Dean informs the candidate and
the candidate's chair in writing of the results of his or her evaluation.
c. Timeline for Tenure
At the time of appointment the untenured faculty member is provided with the year of his or
her tenure decision. The untenured faculty member may elect to stand for tenure at an earlier
date, but once the tenure review process is initiated, the process must be completed and the
outcome of that decision is final. (For more information, see the
University Faculty Handbook, III.B.2, and III.C.2.)
d. The Conjunction of Tenure and Promotion
Tenure and promotion to associate professor are almost always granted at the same time.
In the exceptional case of tenure without promotion, subsequent promotion requires
completion of the promotion process.
Faculty may be promoted prior to receiving tenure and new faculty appointments may be
made with or without tenure at the associate or full professor rank.
e. Timeline and Review for Promotion to Full Professor
Normally faculty will seek promotion to full professor approximately six to ten years after
the tenure decision, but candidates should submit a portfolio for a promotion decision only
after consultation with the department chair and the Dean. The key determinant is a record
of sustained achievement since the last promotion decision and continued promise of
professional accomplishment and contribution to the university's mission. Chairs should
include a discussion of progress towards promotion as part (formal or informal) of each
associate professor's annual review.
The candidate, any member of the candidate's department (including the chair), or the
Dean may initiate a discussion about whether the candidate is ready to begin the promotion
process.
2. Tenure and Promotion Procedures
a. Composition and Election of the Tenure and Promotion Review Committee
The Tenure and Promotion Committee is composed of seven Arts and Sciences faculty
members who have been tenured at the University of Richmond for at least two years: two
active members elected from each of the School of Arts and Sciences' tripartite divisions
and one at-large member, or in cases of recusal, their reserved substitutes (see explanation
below). Committee members will be elected to staggered, three-year terms by the Arts
and Sciences faculty and in such a way that representatives from one division are not
members of the same department.
The Tenure and Promotion Committee elects its chair from among its faculty members.
Committee members must recuse themselves as necessary, for example, on cases
involving members of their home departments and/or families. After a three-year term,
committee members become emeriti committee members, available as reserve committee
members for up to three additional years. The chair of the Tenure and Promotion
Committee will call in reserve committee members to replace active members of the
Tenure and Promotion Committee who must recuse themselves from a specific case.
The reserve members substitute by division.
The Tenure and Promotion Committee includes the Dean of Arts and Sciences as a
full participating but non-voting member. The Dean serves as administrative coordinator
and works closely with the chair in scheduling meetings. The Dean meets with the
Committee to participate in the full discussion of each case, but does not vote on the
candidates.
b. The Role of the Tenure and Promotion Committee Chair
The Committee Chair is responsible for coordinating the meetings of the Tenure and
Promotion Committee with the Dean's and other committee members' schedules, and
for ensuring that the work of the committee proceeds both fairly and efficiently. The
Chair will be available to address concerns brought forth by the candidate, a
departmental colleague, or another member of the Committee, regarding procedural
violations or any inappropriate or illegal bias. The Chair may consult with anyone in
the process, including candidate, department chair, Dean, and fellow Tenure and
Promotion Committee members, to resolve concerns of bias or violation of procedure.
If the Committee Chair cannot resolve the question, she or he may refer the candidate
to the University Grievance Committee.
c. The Role of the Candidate for Tenure and/or Promotion
In preparation for a tenure and/or promotion review, the candidate and his or her
department chair will consult to identify the candidate's field of scholarship. The
candidate shall then offer his or her chair the names of four or five people outside the
university who are recognized as experts in that field. These experts should be chosen
carefully from among those unlikely to have an undue interest in the outcome of the
review. The candidate should not contact these suggested reviewers about their
willingness to serve in this capacity. The candidate may also name potential referees
who, for good reasons, should not be invited to comment on his or her work.
The candidate may submit a list of up to five students whom she or he wants the chair
to contact and up to five whom she or he does not want the chair to contact. The
candidate should not contact the suggested student reviewers about their willingness
to serve in this capacity.
The candidate for tenure is responsible for submitting his or her portfolio to the
department in accordance with the Dean's timetable and memorandum of instruction.
This portfolio should include the candidate's curriculum vitae; statements on teaching,
scholarship, and service; annual personnel reports and annual reviews; mid-course
review; and evidence of effectiveness in teaching, scholarship, and service.
Once the candidate submits the portfolio, no materials, other than notification of the
receipt of a major award or grant, the acceptance of a manuscript for publication,
or some similar development of major consequence, may be added.
At each stage of review, the candidate will be notified of a positive or negative
recommendation.
The candidate will receive the departmental report, the Tenure and Promotion
Committee report, and the Dean's report. In each case, the candidate will have a
week to respond if he or she desires. Any response by the candidate is included in
the portfolio as it moves forward.
The candidate has the right to file a grievance following the procedures defined in
the Faculty Handbook, (see III.H.), should he or she believe there has been a
violation of the university's established procedures. The candidate must act in a timely
manner to file a grievance and should not postpone action until the end of the process.
d. The Role of the Department and the Department Chair
The department chair consults tenured members of the candidate's department and
outside experts to identify at least five qualified external reviewers from the candidate's
field. At least two of the final five committed referees will be chosen from the
candidate's list, and at least two will come from the chair's list. Every possible effort
should be made to ensure that the number of outside reviewers drawn from the
candidate's recommended list does not exceed the number independently identified by
the department. The department will not inform the candidate of the identity of any of
the persons invited to serve as external referees.
Following the Dean's guidelines, the department chair is responsible for soliciting letters
from a minimum of 80 students randomly selected from courses that the candidate has
taught.
The chair is also responsible for soliciting letters from the heads of committees or
groups familiar with the candidate's service to the university.
Tenured members of the candidate's department should prepare for the department's
assessment by reviewing the candidate's portfolio and supporting materials.
Tenured departmental faculty then meet to discuss the tenure and/or promotion case,
reviewing and assessing the portfolio submitted by the candidate, the external review
letters, and the candidate's performance in relation to the criteria above. At this
meeting, the tenured faculty vote on the candidate's tenure and promotion through a
confidential ballot. The result of the vote is kept separate from the departmental report.
Based on this meeting, the chair of the department forwards a written report and the
departmental vote to the Tenure and Promotion Committee and the Dean. The
departmental report is to be a fair and balanced assessment of both the candidate's
strengths and weaknesses. The report should express the range of opinion in the
department, the presence of any dissenting views, and the strength of any consensus,
but it should not resemble in any way a transcript of the department's confidential
deliberations. Before being forwarded to the Tenure and Promotion Committee and
Dean, the departmental report is circulated, revised as necessary, and the final
version signed by all tenured members of the department. Signature only means
agreement that the letter fairly represents the departmental discussion, and is by itself
not a vote on the case.
The Department Report, after vetting by the Dean for legal and procedural issues, is
shared with the candidate. If the report includes quotations from easily identifiable
sources, the confidential information must be redacted before transmission to the
candidate.
Normally, drafting the departmental report is the responsibility of the department
chair, but in unusual circumstances this responsibility may be designated to another
member of the department. In such circumstances, unless the Dean has approved
an exception, the chair retains the responsibility of submitting the report to the Dean,
indicating his or her role in preparing the document.
In departments with a small number of tenured faculty members (fewer than four)
the Dean consults with the department chair and the candidate regarding the
appointment of additional tenured faculty to the department mid-course review
committee and the department tenure review committee. The candidate, the Dean,
the chair, and other tenured departmental faculty members develop a mutually
agreeable list of suitable tenured faculty, from whom the Dean selects members
in order to bring the committee membership up to four. When possible this
process is initiated at the mid-course review with the anticipation that the same
outside members are available to serve on the department tenure review committee.
e. The Role of the Tenure and Promotion Committee and the Dean
Before external letters and departmental reports are incorporated into the portfolio,
the Dean reviews them for legal and procedural acceptability and consults counsel
as might be necessary.
The Tenure and Promotion Committee including the Dean evaluates the credentials
of each candidate through the examination of the candidate's portfolio, the
department report, student letters, and external review letters. The Tenure and
Promotion Committee including the Dean, as well as the Provost, and/or President
may ask the candidate to provide documented evidence about the status of
manuscripts, grant applications, etc., that are included as "submitted"or "pending"
in the portfolio. However, no additional documents or outside reviews may be
added or taken into consideration when reviewing a candidate's portfolio. In rare
cases, relevant additional information may be requested of anyone, but only with
the consent of the Tenure and Promotion Committee. In such cases, the
candidate must be informed of these requests.
After thorough deliberations, the Tenure and Promotion Committee decides by
confidential majority vote to recommend that the candidate be granted or denied
tenure and/or promotion. The dean is part of these deliberations but does not
vote. For each candidate, one faculty member from the Tenure and Promotion
Committee is selected during deliberations to draft a committee report that
reflects their deliberations and provides a fair and balanced assessment of the
candidate's strengths and weaknesses. The report should express the range of
perspectives among committee members, the presence and nature of any dissenting
views, and the strength of any consensus, but it should not resemble a transcript of
the committee's confidential deliberations. This report is reviewed, revised as
necessary, approved in final form, and signed by all members of the Tenure and
Promotion Committee, including the Dean, before being added to the portfolio.
The committee report, after vetting by the Dean for legal and procedural issues, is
then shared with the candidate. If the report includes quotations from easily
identifiable sources, the confidential information must be redacted before
transmission to the candidate.
After meeting with the Tenure and Promotion Committee, the Dean writes an
independent report to be shared with the Tenure and Promotion Committee before
transmission to the Provost. This report may simply say, "I agree with the
committee's recommendation." In cases where the Dean's final assessment differs
from the recommendation of the committee, any substantive disagreements are
discussed and this discussion summarized by the Chair of the Tenure and Promotion
Committee for inclusion in the portfolio. The Tenure and Promotion Committee and
the Dean's reports are then added to the portfolio and the entire dossier transmitted
to the Provost for the next stage in the review process.
The Dean shares his or her report with the candidate.
3. Confidentiality
a. Confidential Meetings
Department chairs and the chair of the Tenure and Promotion Committee will remind
everyone, every year, that frank, honest discussion and deliberation are only possible
when participants maintain absolute confidentiality.
b. Confidential Letters
Confidential letters from outside evaluators, colleagues, and students submitted as
part of the tenure and/or promotion portfolio will be sequestered before the portfolio
is returned to the candidate and not used for any other purpose unless legally
necessary. After a period of five years from the final decision on tenure and/or
promotion, all such letters will be destroyed.
This version approved by the Arts & Sciences faculty on October 22, 2007
Approved by University Faculty on November 7, 2007
Approved by the Board of Trustees on March 7, 2008