Revision of September 2012
Pacific University
College of Arts and Sciences
Faculty Personnel Committee
Policies and Procedures
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Personnel Committee Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Committee Membership and Voting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Personnel Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Faculty Evaluation Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Annual Standard Review for Tenure-Track, Extended-Term-Track, and Term
Faculty Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Comprehensive Third-Year Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Tenure Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Review for Awarding Extended-Term Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Standard Review for Extended-Term and Tenured Faculty Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Promotion Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Performance Review Summary Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Other Committee Responsibilities:
Faculty Appointments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Faculty Mentoring Program (responsibility of Faculty Development Committee). . . . 13
Merit Ratings for Annual Salary Increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
PC Policy and Procedure Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Internal Committee Policies and Procedures for Personnel Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendices:
Appendix 1: Self-Evaluation Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix 2: Course/Instructor Evaluation Policies and Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix 3: PC Calendar……………... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix 4: Request for Feedback Letter—Tenure…………………………………….27
Appendix 5: Request for Feedback Letter—Promotion………………………………...29
Appendix 6: Request for Feedback Letter—Assistant to Associate Promotion……….31
Appendix 7: PC Tenure & Promotion Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix to Standards Proposal………………………………………………………….34
Page 2
Introduction
This manual, approved by the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences, is intended to serve as a guide for the
Personnel Committee in carrying out its responsibilities within Pacific University’s governance system.
Chapter 4 of the University Handbook (http://www.pacificu.edu/policies/) governs personnel reviews, and it
provides a thorough explanation of faculty appointments, the handling of personnel files, and the criteria for
faculty advancement. The Personnel Committee (PC) is bound by the policies and procedures outlined in
Chapter 4 of the University Handbook, and the college policies and procedures outlined below are intended to
guide the PC within university policies.
Personnel Committee Responsibilities
(See Section II.D of Faculty Governance in the College of Arts and Sciences at www.pacificu.edu/asfaculty/)
I. Purpose. The purpose of the Personnel Committee (PC) is to assist in creating and maintaining an Arts &
Sciences faculty of the highest quality. Members serve on the University Personnel Committee, which
recommends tenure and considers severance of tenured faculty members. In the College of Arts & Sciences
the committee:
a. Recommends to the faculty policies defining faculty responsibilities and conditions of service; criteria
and procedures for evaluation, promotion, and tenure; rewards for merit; and other policies, as required
by Chapter 4 of the University Handbook.
b. Reviews the distribution of ranks within the faculty, including the rank offered to new faculty members,
and also the distribution of compensation among and within ranks, and report its findings and
recommend changes of policy, as appropriate.
c. Monitors the evaluation of faculty members for fairness, consistency, and promotion of high standards;
review progress of non-tenured faculty members and conduct the comprehensive third-year review.
d. Makes decisions on promotion requests and present those to the University Personnel Committee.
e. Reviews tenure-track, extended-term-track, and extended-term faculty members and make
recommendations to the Dean on contract renewals.
f. Makes recommendations on tenure requests and present those to the University Personnel Committee.
g. Maintains and makes available to faculty members a list of ancillary course evaluation questions.
h. Approves Memoranda of Understanding on entering rank and time to tenure for new tenure-track hires.
II. Composition. The PC consists of five tenured full-time faculty members, elected by their colleagues (three
by their schools; two at-large; no more than two members from any school) to staggered, three-year terms,
and the Dean of the College. The committee elects its chair from among the faculty members.
III. Confidentiality. In all matters concerning individuals, deliberations of the committee are held in strict
confidence.
Committee Membership and Voting
I. Policy. The Personnel Committee consists of the Dean and five elected faculty members, at least one from
each school of the college. Each faculty member is elected to a three-year term. If a member resigns during
a term, she or he is replaced by a duly elected faculty member for the duration of the term. All PC faculty
members must be tenured members of the faculty of the College of Arts & Sciences.
Page 3
The faculty members of the committee elect a Chair and Secretary at the first meeting of the academic
year. The term of office is one academic year. The Chair works with the Dean to set the agenda and
represents the PC to the faculty and to the University. The Secretary records and maintains committee
minutes, filing the approved official minutes in the Deans Office and distributing an approved, appropriately
redacted, electronic version to the faculty at www.pacificu.edu/asfaculty/. The Secretary also works with the
Dean’s Executive Assistant to ensure that the proper files are available at PC meetings.
The Dean is a full participant in the discussions of the committee but does not have a vote. The Dean works
with the Chair to set the PC agenda, presents a list of personnel decisions due for the academic year to the
committee at the beginning of each academic year, and is responsible for the proper maintenance of all
faculty personnel files.
All PC decisions are made by majority vote. In the case of a tie vote, the matter is put over until the entire
committee can be present. If a tie vote is caused by an abstention, a tie motion fails or goes forward as a tie
in the case of a recommendation for tenure.
Confidentiality
I. Policy. All information and deliberations related to individual personnel issues, both written and verbal,
remain confidential within the committee.
II. Purpose. Assurance of confidentiality encourages full disclosure and is essential for effective deliberation by
the committee. It also ensures the individual faculty member’s right to privacy.
III. Procedures.
a. Individual folders are provided to store PC minutes, documents, notes, and other materials of committee
members. At the close of each meeting, all folders are collected and stored by the Secretary in a
designated location in the Dean’s Office to maintain confidentiality.
b. At the direction of the Dean, all prepared faculty personnel files are stored in the Dean’s Office for
access and review by committee members.
c. At the close of each academic year, all official minutes of meetings from the closing year are compiled
and stored in a designated archival notebook in the Dean’s Office. The redacted electronic minutes
remain online at www.pacificu.edu/asfaculty/.
d. All faculty personnel files, committee member folders, and minutes of the committee are stored in a
locked file to maintain confidentiality.
Access Schedule
All files are open for input until the posted closing date prior to review for tenure or promotion. With two
exceptions, they remain closed to input until the University Personnel Committee has rendered a decision
regarding tenure or promotion. The first exception is in the case where a personnel committee has rendered
a negative decision; in this case the faculty member may add material as part of an appeal. The second
exception is the addition of new and significant information pertinent to the tenure or promotion case. The
criterion of new and significant is determined by mutual agreement of the Provost and the chair of the
University Personnel Committee. The faculty member is entitled to ten days in which to respond to the
newly added material.
It is recommended that faculty members become familiar with sections 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8 of the University
Handbook.
Page 4
Personnel Files
Location and personnel access
File
Location
Black Office of Human
Resources
(A copy can be retained
in the office of the
relevant Dean or
Director.)
Red Office of the relevant
Dean or Director
Yellow Office of the relevant
Dean or Director
White Office of the relevant
Dean or Director
Access1
Contents
Director of Human
Resources
Appointment Contract
Salary History
Administrative records (University Handbook
4.6.1.c.3)
University
Personnel
Committee
Letters written in confidence prior to 1 September
2005.
Letters written with a waiver of access from the
faculty member.
Letters written after 31 August 2005.
Letters from the faculty member to his/her
personnel committee.
University
Personnel
Committee
The faculty
member
University
Personnel
Committee
The faculty
member
The faculty
member's
department chair.
Memorandum of Understanding
Letters written from the personnel committee.
Department Chair evaluations
Student evaluations
Syllabi from the faculty member’s courses over
the most recent three years.
Most recent résumé
Sample work (professional and scholarly) from
the faculty member.
Faculty Evaluation Procedures
I. Policy. The PC must adhere to the procedures outlined below as it evaluates the performance of faculty
members.
II. Purpose. The purpose of the procedures is to clarify the process by which faculty members provide and
receive input on their performance and to specify the material used in the review process.
III. Types of Reviews (See Performance Review Summary Table on page 13).
a. Standard Performance Review. This review is undertaken for:
•
•
•
•
1
tenure-track, extended-term-track, and term faculty members annually, until the review for tenure or
extended-term appointments or for promotion
tenured faculty members annually until review for promotion to associate professor
extended-term faculty members every three years, unless the review is for promotion
tenured associate professors (except for promotion) and tenured full professors every five years
The University President, Provost and any of their designees and the Dean or Director of the faculty member’s
school have access to all files.
Page 5
During the course of these reviews, the PC considers syllabi, curriculum vitae, course evaluations, selfevaluation, colleague evaluations, and other materials in the personnel file. Comment is solicited from
colleagues within the college; input from department members is expected. Input from department chairs
is required for tenure-track and extended-term-track faculty members in the fall of their second and
subsequent academic years and until they receive indefinite tenure or an extended-term contract.
b. Comprehensive Third-Year Review. This review is undertaken for tenure-track and extended-term-track
faculty members after two full years at Pacific.
During the course of these reviews, the PC considers the elements included in Standard Performance
Reviews, plus comment solicited by the PC from Pacific colleagues. Input from department members is
required.
c. Tenure and Promotion Reviews. This review is for faculty members requesting tenure and promotion or
promotion. This type of review also is used for extended-term-track faculty members who request an
extended-term appointment.
During the course of these reviews, the PC considers the elements included in Third-Year Reviews, plus
comment solicited by the PC on behalf of the applicants from colleagues outside Pacific. Input from
department members is required. See Appendix 5 for PC Tenure & Promotion Standards.
IV. Procedures.
a. Frequency of Performance Reviews. Tenure-track and extended-term-track faculty members and term
faculty members with continuing appointments receive performance reviews annually, including a
comprehensive third-year review in the fall of their third year at Pacific. Tenured assistant professors
continue to receive annual reviews until they are promoted to associate professor. Extended-term faculty
members are reviewed every three years, unless promotion is requested. Associate professors and
professors receive performance reviews as follows: three years after promotion to associate professor
and every five years thereafter, unless promotion is requested. The faculty member may request more
frequent reviews, and if there seem to be problems that need to be addressed, the PC may choose to have
more frequent performance reviews.
b. Personnel Files. The PC carefully examines the personnel files of faculty members under review. Insofar
as possible, each file is read by two committee members, one from the faculty member’s school and the
other from outside the school. These two readers provide a thorough summary to the rest of the
committee. For third-year and tenure and promotion reviews, all committee members read the files.
Faculty members under review are encouraged to examine their open personnel files prior to September
15 each year to ensure that the materials are complete and up to date.
c. Self-evaluations. These provide faculty members with an opportunity to present accurate information
regarding their teaching, service, and professional development to the committee. Faculty members are
required to complete self-evaluation forms at the time of their scheduled reviews; self-evaluations are
due in the fall by the date published annually. Faculty members, at their option, may submit more
frequent self-evaluations. The self-evaluation form is attached to this document.
d. Curricula Vitae, Syllabi, and other Materials. Annual c.v. submissions from all faculty members,
including those not under review, are mandatory and are to be submitted to the Dean’s Office by
September 15 each year. All faculty members are required to submit syllabi annually. The committee
also asks that all faculty members maintain in their offices, for courses taught during the past three
years, representative samples of handouts, assignments, and texts.
e. Student Evaluations. For those under review, all student evaluations extending back to the previous
review are examined. For those not under review, the committee checks the summary student-evaluation
Page 6
sheets annually in order to spot difficulties. If difficulties are perceived with teaching, the committee
may order an extra review or more frequent reviews and may require more frequent self-evaluations.
f. Colleague Comment. Each fall, the PC requests that department chairs bring to the attention of the
committee any perceived problems with individual faculty members that might warrant some attention.
Department chairs are expected to review the course evaluations for members of their departments;
Directors are expected to review the course evaluations for department chairs in their divisions.
Comments are also solicited from colleagues as outlined in III. Types of Reviews above and in the
Performance Review Summary Table on page 13.
g. Written Evaluation. Faculty members under review receive from the committee written evaluation of
performance and feedback on progress toward an extended-term or tenure contract or promotion. The
committee writes a letter to each faculty member reviewed that summarizes the results of the
committee’s evaluation. If applicable, the letter includes specific steps that might be taken to improve
performance and the likelihood of promotion or tenure. Copies of this letter are sent to the faculty
member and are available for inspection in the Dean’s Office by the Director and department chair.
Annual Standard Review for Tenure-Track and Extended-Term-Track Faculty Members
and Term Faculty Members with Continuing Appointments
I. Policy. The PC reviews annually the personnel files, comment from colleagues, all student evaluations, the
self-evaluation, and any other materials submitted by the faculty member and gives each faculty member a
written evaluation of performance, including any recommendations regarding reappointment, tenure, or
promotion.
II. Purpose. The purpose of the annual review is to evaluate, through an annual formal process, the faculty
member’s progress towards tenure or an extended-term contract. The review focuses on the faculty
member’s performance related to meeting the standards for tenure or an extended-term contract, as
appropriate. See Appendix 5 for PC Tenure & Promotion Standards. Annual reviews are also used for fulltime term faculty members with continuing appointments.
III. Procedures.
a. The Dean solicits letters related to the faculty member’s performance from all college faculty members.
Input from department chairs is required for tenure-track and extended-term-track faculty members in
the fall of their second and subsequent academic years and until they receive indefinite tenure or an
extended-term contract. All letters received are placed in the faculty member’s restricted personnel file,
and letter writers are sent acknowledgments signed by the PC chair. As described in Chapter 4 of the
University Handbook, the faculty member may view any letter in the restricted file received after
September 2005 for which there is no signed waiver for viewing the letter. The Dean summarizes for the
faculty member, in writing and without attribution, concerns expressed in materials covered by waivers.
b. The faculty member must update her or his open personnel file, containing the self-evaluation and all
obligatory content items, in accordance with the guidelines provided in Chapter 4 of the University
Handbook by the published deadline for beginning of annual reviews for tenure-track, extended-termtrack, and term faculty members.
c. The Dean makes the open and restricted personnel files of the faculty member available to the
Committee.
d. The committee completes all annual reviews during the fall semester, as follows:
1. The committee reviews the material related to the faculty member’s performance in accordance with
the criteria outlined in Chapter 4 of the University Handbook.
Page 7
2. Following deliberations, the committee votes to reach a decision regarding the recommendation for
continuance of the faculty member’s contract.
3. The committee provides, through the Dean, a written summary of its evaluation to the faculty
member and an opportunity for her or his department chair and Director to read the letter in the
Deans Office.
4. By the appropriate date designated in Chapter 4 of the University Handbook, the Dean presents
notification of termination to those faculty members who did not pass the annual reviews.
d. The faculty candidate has ten (10) working days from the receipt of the written summary in which to
submit a written response to be included in the personnel file.
Comprehensive Third-Year Review
I. Policy. The PC conducts a comprehensive third-year review of each tenure-track and extended-term-track
faculty member in the fall of her or his third year at Pacific.
II. Purpose. The purpose of the third-year review is to evaluate, through a formal process, the faculty member’s
progress towards tenure or an extended-term contract.
III. Procedures.
a. The Dean alerts the faculty candidate to the upcoming review process and solicits letters related to the
faculty member’s performance from all members of the university community. Input from the
department chair and department colleagues is required. All letters received are placed in the faculty
member’s restricted personnel file, and letter writers are sent acknowledgments signed by the PC chair.
As described in Chapter 4 of the University Handbook, the faculty member may view any letter in the
restricted file received after September 2005 for which there is no signed waiver to view the letter. The
Dean summarizes for the faculty member, in writing and without attribution, concerns expressed in
materials covered by waivers.
b. The faculty member must update her or his open personnel file, containing all obligatory content items
in accordance with the guidelines provided in Chapter 4 of the University Handbook, and signs the
personnel file sign-off sheet by the stated deadline.
c. The committee must complete all third-year reviews prior to February 15. The committee evaluates the
faculty member’s performance using the criteria outlined in Chapter 4 of the University Handbook.
Tenure-track candidates also are subject to the standards contained in PC Tenure & Promotion Standards
(see Appendix 5). Following deliberations, the committee votes by secret ballot to reach a decision
regarding continuance of the faculty member’s contract. A majority of negative votes is required for
discontinuance. A written evaluation that summarizes the committee discussion is sent to the faculty
member by the Dean, and an opportunity is provided for the faculty member’s department chair and
Director to read the letter in the Dean’s Office.
d. The Dean presents notification of termination to those faculty members who did not pass their third-year
review.
e. The faculty candidate has ten (10) working days from the receipt of the written summary in which to
submit a written response to be included in the personnel file.
f. Appeals of the committee’s decisions follow procedures found in Chapter 4.5 of the University
Handbook.
Page 8
Tenure Review
I. Policy. The PC will conduct a tenure review at the time specified in the faculty member’s initial letter of
appointment/contract, unless this date has been changed in writing according to the criterion stated in the
University Handbook, in which case the tenure review will occur on the new date.
II. Purpose. The purpose of tenure review is to evaluate, through a formal process using university tenure
criteria, including those in Chapter 4 and in PC Tenure & Promotion Standards (see Appendix 5), the
faculty member’s suitability for a tenure appointment.
III. Procedures.
a. Tenure-track faculty members are scheduled for tenure review at the time stipulated in their initial
contracts or as officially amended.
b. The Dean and the PC Chair meet with the faculty candidates for tenure by October 1 to review the
process and to obtain from each of them a list of Pacific faculty and staff members, 3-6 former students,
and 3-6 professional colleagues from whom the candidate wishes the committee to solicit letters related
to the faculty member’s performance.
c. The PC reviews these lists and may add any other Pacific faculty or staff members or outside colleagues
whom it believes have particular knowledge about the candidate. All those on the list are sent a request
for an evaluation, based on the stated criteria for tenure; students are asked to comment only on the
teaching criteria and professional colleagues only on the scholarly/creative activity criteria. All letters
received are placed in the faculty member’s restricted personnel file, and letter writers are sent
acknowledgments signed by the PC Chair.
d. The committee also solicits letters related to the faculty member’s performance from all members of the
University community. Input from the department chair and department colleagues and the Dean is
required. All such letters received are placed in the faculty member’s restricted personnel file (as per
page 5), and letter writers are sent an acknowledgment signed by the PC Chair.
e. As described in Chapter 4 of the University Handbook, the faculty member may view any letter in the
restricted file received after September 2005 for which there is no signed waiver to view the letter. The
Dean summarizes for the faculty member, in writing and without attribution, concerns expressed in
materials covered by waivers.
f. The faculty member must update her or his open personnel file, containing all obligatory content items
in accordance with the guidelines provided in Chapter 4 of the University Handbook, and signs the
personnel file sign-off sheet by the stated deadline.
g. The PC completes all tenure reviews by the date provided in the University Personnel Calendar. The
committee evaluates the faculty member’s performance using the criteria outlined in Chapter 4 of the
University Handbook and in PC Tenure & Promotion Standards (see Appendix 5). Following
deliberations, the committee votes by secret ballot to reach its recommendation regarding tenure. A
summary of the discussion and the results of the vote are reported to the University Personnel
Committee at the beginning of its deliberations.
h. The Dean provides to the faculty member a written summary of the committee’s discussion, and an
opportunity is provided for the faculty member’s department chair and Director to read the letter in the
Dean’s Office.
i. The faculty candidate has ten (10) working days from receipt of the written summary from the
committee in which to submit a written response to be included in her or his personnel file. The
candidate may also request a personal appearance before the University Personnel Committee.
Page 9
j. Appeals of the PC’s or the University Personnel Committee’s recommendations follow the procedures
found in the University Handbook.
Review for Awarding Extended-Term Contracts
I. Policy. The PC conducts an extended-term review at the time specified in the faculty member’s initial letter
of appointment/contract, unless this date has been changed in writing according to the criterion stated in the
University Handbook, in which case the review occurs on the new date. A faculty member who has served
Pacific for a period of six years on full-time term contracts must be considered by the PC for a three-year,
renewable, non-tenured, extended-term contract. No faculty member may serve for more than six years on a
term contract; if an extended-term contract is not granted within six years, the faculty member is issued a
one-year, non-renewable, term contract.
II. Purpose. The purpose of the extended-term review is to evaluate, through a formal process, the faculty
member’s suitability for an extended-term contract.
III. Procedures. The procedures for extended-term review are identical to those for comprehensive third-year
review, except that the criteria used are those defined by the letter of appointment and any subsequent
amendments.
Standard Review for Extended-Term and Tenured Faculty Members
I. Policy. The PC reviews the personnel files, comment from colleagues, all student evaluations, the selfevaluation, and any other materials submitted by the faculty member and gives each faculty member a
written evaluation of performance, including any recommendations regarding promotion and reappointment.
Tenured assistant professors continue to receive annual reviews until they are promoted to associate
professor. Extended-term faculty members are reviewed every three years, unless promotion is requested.
Tenured associate professors and professors are reviewed as follows: three years after promotion to
associate professor and every five years thereafter, unless promotion is requested. Either the faculty member
or the committee may opt for more frequent reviews.
II. Purpose. The purpose of the review is to implement a formal evaluation process in support of the faculty
member’s on-going development and to maintain high standards of performance.
III. Procedures.
a. The Dean solicits letters related to the faculty member’s performance from all college faculty members.
All letters received are placed in the faculty member’s restricted personnel file, and letter writers are
sent acknowledgments signed by the PC Chair. As described in Chapter 4 of the University Handbook,
the faculty member may view any letter in the restricted file received after September 2005 for which
there is no signed waiver to view the letter. The Dean summarizes for the faculty member, in writing and
without attribution, concerns expressed in materials covered by waivers.
b. The faculty member must update his or her open personnel file, containing the self-evaluation and all
obligatory content items in accordance with the guidelines provided in Chapter 4 of the University
Handbook, by the published deadline for beginning of annual reviews for tenure-track and term faculty.
c. The Dean makes the open and restricted personnel files of the faculty member available to the
committee.
d. The committee completes all reviews of extended-term and tenured faculty members by April 15.
Page 10
1. The committee reviews the material related to the faculty member’s performance in accordance
with the criteria outlined in Chapter 4 of the University Handbook (for tenured faculty members, see
Appendix 5 for PC Tenure & Promotion Standards).
2. Extended-term Faculty Members. Following deliberations, the committee votes on a
recommendation for continuance of each extended-term faculty member’s contract. Extended-term
faculty members who do not pass the review are notified by April 15 that their contracts will not be
extended; they finish out the remaining two years of their contracts. The committee provides,
through the Dean, a written summary of its evaluation to the faculty member and an opportunity for
her or his department chair and Director to read the letter in the Dean’s Office.
3. Tenured Faculty Members. The committee provides, through the Dean, a written summary of its
evaluation to the faculty member and an opportunity for her or his department chair and Director to
read the letter in the Dean’s Office.
e. The faculty member has ten (10) working days from the receipt of the written summary in which to
submit a written response to be included in the personnel file.
f. Appeals of the committee’s decisions follow procedures found in the University Handbook.
Promotion Review
I. Policy. The PC conducts a review of each eligible faculty member who wishes to be considered for
promotion. Criteria for eligibility are listed in Chapter 4 of the University Handbook and in PC Tenure &
Promotion Standards (see Appendix 5). Assistant professors being considered for tenure or extended-term
contracts are normally considered for promotion to associate professor as part of the tenure or extendedterm contract process.
II. Purpose. The purpose of the promotion review is to evaluate, through a formal process using university
promotion criteria, those faculty members who have attained the requisite number of years of outstanding
service at their present rank and to acknowledge such service with promotion.
III. Procedures.
a. The committee reviews eligible faculty members applying for promotion.
b. The Dean provides a list to the committee of those eligible faculty members who wish to be considered
for promotion and obtains from each candidate for promotion a list of Pacific faculty and staff, 3-6
former students, and 3-6 professional colleagues from whom the candidate wishes the committee to
solicit letters related to the faculty member’s performance.
c. The committee reviews these lists and may add any other Pacific faculty or staff members or outside
colleagues whom it believes have particular knowledge about the candidate. All those on the list are sent
a request for an evaluation based on the stated criteria for promotion; students are asked to comment
only on the teaching criteria and professional colleagues only on the scholarly/creative activity criteria.
All letters received are placed in the faculty member’s restricted personnel file, and letter writers are
sent acknowledgments signed by the PC Chair.
d. The PC also solicits letters related to the faculty member’s performance from all members of the
university community. Received letters are placed in the faculty member’s restricted personnel file, and
letter writers are sent acknowledgments signed by the committee Chair.
e. The Dean summarizes for the faculty member, in writing and without attribution, concerns expressed in
materials covered by waivers.
Page 11
f. The faculty member must update her or his open personnel file, containing all obligatory content items
in accordance with the guidelines provided in Chapter 4 of the University Handbook, and signs the
personnel file sign-off sheet by the stated deadline.
g. The committee completes all promotion reviews prior to March 1. The committee evaluates the faculty
member’s performance using the criteria outlined in Chapter 4 of the University Handbook and in PC
Tenure & Promotion Standards (see Appendix 5). Following deliberations, the committee votes to reach
its decision regarding promotion of the faculty member.
h. If the decision is positive, the committee Chair forwards the recommendation to the University
Personnel Committee, where it is reviewed for consistency with university standards. The University
Personnel Committee may ask the recommending committee to reconsider its decision, but the
University committee may not alter the original recommendation, unless it is out of compliance with
University Handbook professional credential standards 4.8.2.b.1, 4.8.2.c.1, or 4.8.2.d.1. The Provost
forwards recommendations to the President, who reports them to the Board of Trustees.
i. If the decision is negative, the Dean provides a written summary of the committee’s evaluation and
reasons for the negative decision, with the intent of guiding the faculty member in being able to achieve
a positive decision in a subsequent year.
j. The faculty member may appeal a promotion decision only on the grounds of procedure. Procedures are
found in Chapter 4 of the University Handbook.
Performance Review Summary Table
Type of
Review
Standard3
Third-Year
Tenure /
Promotion
2
3
Applicable to
Frequency
All full-time faculty Annual for tenuremembers
track, extended-termtrack, and term; three
years after promotion
to associate; three
years for extendedterm; five years for
tenured associate and
full professors
Tenure-track and
Once
extended-term-track
after two full years
at Pacific; also used
for applications for
extended-term
appointments
Faculty members
As required
who have applied
for tenure or
promotion
Input2
PC Reviews
Comment solicited from
colleagues within the
college. Input from
department members is
expected for all reviews and
required from department
chairs for tenure-track and
extended-term-track faculty
members.
Comment solicited from
University community.
Input from department
members is required.
Syllabi, c.v.,
course
evaluations, selfevaluation,
colleague
evaluations, other
materials in the
personnel file
Comment solicited from
University community.
Input from the Dean and
department members is
required. Letters from
outside the University are
All of the above
plus solicited
comment from
outside evaluators
and former
students
Teaching, professional development and University service are evaluated in all performance reviews.
PC reserves the right to initiate a standard review of any member of the faculty.
Page 12
All of the above
plus solicited
comment from
Pacific colleagues
solicited by the Dean’s
Office.
Other Committee Responsibilities
Faculty Appointments
The PC must approve any conditions of employment that are unusual, such as shorter time to a tenure
decision than six years and entering in a rank higher than assistant professor. The Dean brings the specifics
of the request with all supporting materials to the committee for its review and recommendation.
Merit Ratings for Annual Salary Increases
Annual Salary Increases for A&S Faculty Members.
It is the responsibility of the Dean, in consultation with the Personnel Committee, to establish individual faculty
member salaries for the next contract year. The Dean does not share specific information about individual
faculty member salaries with the committee.
Salary adjustments are made in accord with the University Salary Model. According to that model, each school
or college receives an annual salary adjustment fund based on a needs assessment. This annual pool is used to
increase salaries in the College of Arts & Sciences. Salary increases, as specified in the following policies, take
into account the increased cost of living, the individual merit of faculty members, an equitably distributed
alignment with national average salaries in one’s rank and discipline, and promotion decisions
1. Cost of Living. All faculty members receive the cost-of-living adjustment.
2. Merit.
3. Decompression. If salary pool funds exceed the cost-of-living and merit adjustments, the additional funds are
used to decompress salaries such that, among faculty member salaries within a given rank, the average percent
of salary, given discipline and years in rank, compared with national averages (using CUPA data) are
approximately equal.
4. Promotion. A salary increment from outside of the regular salary pool is awarded to those who are promoted.
The current amounts are $3,000 for promotion to Associate Professor and $4,000 for promotion to Professor.
PC Personnel Policy and Procedure Review
I. Policy. All PC policies and procedures are reviewed annually by the committee and are revised if deemed
necessary, including bringing appropriate changes to Faculty Meeting for approval.
II. Purpose. Policies and procedures provide a structure by which the personnel evaluation process can occur.
The structure must support the intention of the process and requires periodic examination. It is also
important that all faculty members have current, accurate, and consistent information related to personnel
policies and that procedures accurately reflect the process.
III. Procedures. All revisions or additions are presented to the Arts & Sciences faculty for approval. The Dean is
responsible for providing faculty members with a current copy of this manual.
Page 13
Internal Committee Policies and Procedures for Personnel Reviews
I. Purpose. To streamline the work, avoid redundant effort, and conserve the energy of PC members for the
detailed work of third-year review and tenure and promotion cases, the following procedures guide the
review of files.
II. Procedure.
a. The Dean’s Office:
1. Maintains a list of faculty members to be reviewed, by year.
2. Provides to the PC (as per page 5) open personnel files, restricted personnel files, and course
evaluation forms for each faculty member under review.
3. Places the following pieces of information at the front of the open personnel file:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
previous letter of evaluation from the PC
current self evaluation
department chair’s comments
Director’s comments, if any
quantitative results of course evaluations for the period under review
4. Maintains a drawer for committee files.
b. The PC assigns to each of its faculty members the names of faculty members up for review. Insofar as
possible, each file is assigned to two committee members, one from the faculty member’s school and the
other from outside the school. One reader is assigned the task of rapporteur, providing a thorough
summary to the rest of the committee as outlined in “c” below. The second reader provides
confirmation, additional analysis as required, and a second opinion. For third-year, tenure, and
promotion reviews, all committee members review the files as outlined in “d” below. Only in unusual
circumstances is a committee member assigned a colleague from the same department. Every effort is
made to distribute the names of those colleagues up for review evenly among the five members of the
PC.
The rapporteur is responsible for preparing the first draft of the personnel evaluation letter for each
name assigned to him/her. These letters are drafted and stored on the computer in the Dean’s Office. The
Chair is responsible for preparing the final draft of all personnel evaluation letters.
c. The rapporteur has the following responsibilities for each name in her or his group:
1. Leads the discussion of each colleague in her or his group
2. Presents the key points of the previous letter of evaluation
3. Presents an analysis of the course evaluations for the period to be evaluated:
(a) presents salient points of the numerical data for the period under review
(b) presents salient points of the written comments
(c) presents salient points of the specific written comments with respect to specific questions, if the
numerical data from those questions indicate concerns
4. Presents the salient points of the self-evaluations
5. Presents a detailed analysis of any comments from department and division chairs
6. Presents salient points, and analyzes if necessary, any remaining salient features of the open and
restricted files
Page 14
7. Prepares the first draft of the evaluation letter. Provides hard copies of this draft to all committee
members at the time of presentation.
d. For third-year, tenure, and promotion reviews, in preparation for the presentation from the rapporteur
and the second reader, the Dean and the remaining PC members:
1. Review the previous letter of evaluation
2. Review the faculty member’s self-evaluations
3. Review the quantitative summary of each faculty member’s course evaluations
4. Review comments from the department chair
5. Are prepared to discuss with the rapporteur the implications of her or his evaluations
6. Are prepared to make recommendations as to the content of the personnel letter of the faculty
member under review
e. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Chair drafts a letter to the faculty member, based on the
committee’s deliberations. The PC reviews, revises, and approves the final letter at a subsequent
meeting, which is then sent to the faculty member.
Page 15
APPENDIX 1: SELF-EVALUATION FORM
NAME: ____________________________________ EVALUATION YEAR: 20____ - 20____
DEPARTMENT: ________________________________________
Part One: Teaching and Advising
A. Teaching
Fall Semester
Course Title of Course
Number
Credits
Workload Number of
Credits
Students
1
2
3
4
5
6
Winter III
Course Title of Course
Number
Credits
Workload Number of
Credits
Students
1
Spring Semester
Course Title of Course
Number
Credits
1
2
3
4
5
6
Page 16
Workload Number of
Credits
Students
Page 2, Self-Evaluation Form
Workload Credit Summary:
Total teaching credits: ________
Did you earn workload credits for other activities? ___ NO ___ YES (No. of credits: _______)
If yes, please describe these activities, and please outline how you balance required credits over time:
Please describe other responsibilities that contribute to your workload and that you would like to bring to the
attention of the Personnel Committee:
Total Workload Credits (Teaching + Other): _____________
Page 17
Page 3, Self-Evaluation Form
Materials Used to Evaluate Excellence in Teaching.
Key requirements for excellence in teaching (as described in the Handbook) are listed in the chart below, along
with the materials used to evaluate each aspect of performance. Note that some of the resources that could be
used for evaluation will remain in possession of the faculty member, available to the Personnel Committee upon
request.
Please include with your self-evaluation syllabi for all courses taught during the period under evaluation. The
Personnel Committee also asks that you maintain, for courses taught during the past three years, representative
examples of handouts, assignments, and texts.
Requirement
Location of materials
Personnel Committee
Faculty
A concern for the students' total learning
experience
Course Syllabi
Course Evaluations
Self Evaluation
Dept Chair Eval.
Course Syllabi
Course Evaluations
Self Evaluation
Dept Chair Eval.
Course Syllabi
Course Evaluations
Self Evaluation
Dept Chair Eval.
Course Syllabi
Course Evaluations
Self Evaluation
Dept Chair Eval.
Grades
Course Evaluations
Self Evaluation
Dept Chair Eval.
Accessibility to students for providing advice,
counsel, and other professorial services.
Communication of expectations, objectives, and
organization to students.
Maintenance of high academic standards.
Serves as a role model for students by showing
respect for people and exhibiting a love of
knowledge and discipline, excitement for
learning, and high academic standards.
Reasonable flexibility in responding to student
needs.
Course Evaluations
Self Evaluation
Dept Chair Eval.
Page 18
Examples of course
materials.
Examples of course
materials
Examples of course
materials.
Page 4, Self-Evaluation Form
Discussion of Teaching Effectiveness. Please discuss your teaching this year. What challenges did you face?
What successes did you have? What changes do you anticipate making in the future? Please summarize your
interpretation of your student course evaluations. Also, please respond to any concerns regarding teaching that
were raised in your last Personnel Committee evaluation letter.
Page 19
Page 5, Self-Evaluation Form
B. Advising: Please provide information on your advising activities.
Part Two: University Service
Please discuss your participation in university activities, committees, administrative duties, professional service
to the community, other than those for which you received workload credit. Please include descriptions of any
community service outside the university.
(For term contract faculty, substantial university service is not required for contract renewal, though it is
required for promotion.)
Page 20
Page 6, Self-Evaluation Form
Part Three: Professional Growth
Please list and date publications, creative work, presentations at professional meetings, grants, fellowships, and
other scholarly activities since you last submitted a Self-Evaluation Form. Please be sure to attach copies of
articles and other materials listed, where appropriate; the Personnel Committee will consider your file to be
incomplete if these materials are absent. You are also required to submit an updated curriculum vitae. Please see
the Appendix for an explanation of the sections below.
(For term contract faculty members, substantial achievement in professional growth is not required for contract
renewal, although it is required for promotion.)
A. Publications or tangible creative work in any of the Boyer categories that have undergone formal
peer-review (please provide sufficient identifying information)
B. Scholarship and creative work that has not undergone formal peer-review or that has undergone
minimal peer review
C. Application of Knowledge (many of these items are recognized as professional service as well; see
Application of Knowledge in Handbook Chapter 4.6.3.b for how service can rise to the level of
scholarship; please note the emphasis on peer review)
D. Grants
Page 21
Page 7, Self-Evaluation Form
Part Four: Current Year Goals
Please discuss your teaching, service, and professional goals for the current academic year.
Please discuss the ways in which the University can help you better in carrying out your plans.
My mentor is:
Signature
Date
Page 22
Appendix 2: Course/Instructor Evaluation Policies and Form
POLICIES:
Each instructor is permitted to create an evaluation form suitable for his or her course. This auxiliary
evaluation is not to replace the College of Arts and Sciences Course/Instructor Evaluation Form.
Moreover, instructors are not to administer an auxiliary evaluation within two weeks of the college's
course/ instructor evaluation. An instructor may add these auxiliary evaluation forms or results to his or
her personnel file for FDPC consideration.
The college's course/instructor evaluation will be administered at the final or next to final class meeting.
The instructor will designate a responsible person to administer his/her student evaluations. The
instructor must not administer the evaluations and must leave the room as the students are completing
the evaluation forms. No comments about the evaluations should be made either before or after they are
administered, and students are not to converse during the evaluation period. On completing the
evaluation form each student is to place his or her form in the class envelope. This envelope is to be
promptly returned to the appropriate division office or to the Deans office.
Course/Instructor Evaluation Form
_______________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS
Please consider your responses carefully. The faculty personnel committee takes seriously every student’s
responses and uses these to assess this course’s and this instructor’s effectiveness. Please reflect on your overall
impression of the entire semester, rather than focusing on isolated incidents or uncharacteristic occurrences.
Your answers must reflect only your educational experience in this course. Please note: your responses will be
kept confidential, and the Instructor will not see the forms until after grades are submitted.
Please explain ALL of your numerical ratings in writing.
1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Your primary reason for taking this course was (mark the most appropriate response):
Major or minor requirement
Major or minor elective credits
Core requirement
My general interest in topic
Other (Please explain) ______________________________________________________
Please provide numerical responses on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 denotes a very negative reply and 7 denotes a
very positive reply.
2. Rate your level of effort in this course. Consider your attendance, preparation, participation and initiative.
One is the lowest, seven the highest rating.
Explanation:
3. Provide an overall rating of the course. One is the lowest, seven the highest rating.
Explanation:
4. Rate the likelihood that you would recommend this course to another student. One is the lowest, seven
the highest rating.
Page 23
Explanation:
5. Rate your increase in skills/understanding as a result of taking this course. One is the lowest, seven the
highest rating.
Explanation:
6. Provide an overall rating of the instructor. One is the lowest, seven the highest rating.
Explanation:
7. Rate the likelihood that you would recommend this instructor to another student. One is the lowest,
seven the highest rating.
Explanation:
Page 24
Appendix 3: Personnel Committee
Calendar for Personnel Reviews: AY 2013 - 2014
April
May 20
Dean and PC Chair meet with tenure and promotion candidates to review process,
policies and procedures, faculty rights and responsibilities, and address questions.
(The Monday following graduation) List of external and internal evaluators due for tenure and
promotion candidates.
May 22
Dean sends letters to external and internal evaluators for tenure and promotion
candidates.
August 5
Returning faculty members receive Personnel Committee self-evaluation materials.
August 26
Dean reminds returning faculty members that self-evaluation forms (where
applicable) and annual c.v. submissions are due by September 6.
Dean requests that department chairs bring to PC attention any perceived problems
with individual faculty members that might warrant some attention.
September
Dean and PC Chair meet with new hires to discuss evaluation procedures and any other
issues
September 6
Self-evaluation forms (where applicable), updated c.v., and syllabi due; complete set to
PC and to Department Chair. This does not apply to tenure and promotion candidates.
Dean notifies faculty members of sabbatical proposal deadline.
Dean sends letter to tenure candidates that lists rights and responsibilities, calendar of
due and decision dates, and materials to be used.
Dean sends letter to comprehensive third-year review candidates that lists rights and
responsibilities, calendar of due and decision dates, and materials to be used.
Dean advises department chairs of their role in tenure and comprehensive third-year
reviews.
September 13 Dean notifies the Pacific University community of the names of those undergoing tenure
comprehensive third-year reviews and invites comments.
September 16 Comments due from department chairs regarding perceived problems with individual
faculty members.
September 30 Comments due from Pacific community members on tenure and comprehensive thirdyear review candidates.
Dean notifies all faculty members and students of the names of those undergoing
promotion consideration and invites comments concerning promotion criteria.
Page 25
October 1
Letters due from external writers for tenure and promotion candidates.
October 7
Dean informs tenure and promotion candidates of concerns found in their restricted
(red) files.
October TBA Sabbatical proposals due to Faculty Development Committee.
October 14
Comprehensive third-year review and tenure candidates sign off on their personnel files. Files
closed. PC begins comprehensive third-year and tenure reviews.
October 28
Comments due from Pacific community members on promotion candidates.
November 4
Promotion candidates sign-off on their personnel files. Files closed.
November 5
PC completes comprehensive third-year and tenure review cases. Dean sends letters to
candidates, summarizing progress made toward meeting each standard.
November 12 PC begins consideration of promotion cases.
November TBA Faculty Development Grant proposals due to Faculty Development Committee.
December 3
PC completes promotion cases. Dean sends letters to candidates, summarizing
committee findings on each tenure standard. Candidates’ personnel files are forwarded
to the Provost.
December 13
Notification of contract non-renewal required for second-year probationary faculty .
President sends letters announcing decisions on sabbatical requests.
February
University Personnel Committee considers tenure cases.
PC Chair notifies University Personnel Committee of promotion decisions.
March 1
Notification date for contract non-renewal for first-year probationary faculty.
March
Board of Trustees considers tenure cases and is informed of promotion cases. President
informs tenure candidates of Board decisions.
April
PC approves personnel calendar for the following academic year.
April 15
President sends annual contract letters to the faculty.
April/May
Dean and PC Chair meet with next year’s tenure, promotion, and third-year review
candidates to review process.
Dean and PC Chair meet with faculty members first becoming eligible for promotion in fall
2014.
Approved at the February 2013 A& S Meeting.
Page 26
Appendix 4: Request for Feedback Letters—Tenure
Date
«Dr» «First_Name» «Last_Name_»
«Institution»
«Address»
«CSZ»
Dear «Dr» «Last_Name_»:
«First_Name» «Last_Name_» is being considered for promotion from assistant professor to associate professor
with tenure in the «Dr» Department at Pacific University. The personnel committee would appreciate it greatly
if you would provide a candid evaluation of the capabilities of «Dr» «Last_Name_», especially in the area of
scholarship. I have included «Dr» «Last_Name_»'s curriculum vitae. If you would be willing to provide an
evaluation by our deadline of October 1, 2013, please let me know by return e-mail, and I will also forward a
sample of scholarly work.
Pacific University evaluates faculty in three areas: teaching, service, and scholarship. In order to be promoted,
faculty members must make the case that they fulfill the evaluative criteria in all three areas. The following
information on faculty evaluation criteria is included as an aid to understanding our expectations for scholarship
within the context of our overall mission.
Teaching is a principal activity of the Pacific University faculty and includes appropriate work and involvement
with students within and beyond the classroom. Faculty members also participate in service, which may occur
within or outside of the university. Unless you have first-hand knowledge of the candidate’s teaching or service,
we do not expect you to comment on these items.
We are particularly interested in your judgment of the level and quality of the candidate’s engagement in
scholarship. Pacific University does not specify quantity or type of achievements, because the number of
publications, research presentations, art exhibits, performances, or other scholarly and creative products varies
among disciplines. However, we expect the quantity and quality of scholarly and creative works to be
comparable with that in comparable disciplines at highly regarded liberal arts colleges, rather than, for instance,
at research-intensive universities. For promotion to associate professor with tenure, tenure candidates here are
required to produce a minimum of one significant scholarly or creative contribution that has undergone highlevel, disciplinarily sanctioned, external peer review. More broadly, examples of items to be considered in the
area of scholarship include published scholarly or creative work; service as consultant, lecturer, editor, or
officer in scholarly or professional organizations; attendance at and participation in scholarly or professional
meetings; and recognition by peers through special awards, honors and grants.
In addition to having achieved at least one significant outcome, the candidate must also exhibit the potential for
sustained achievement in professional, scholarly, creative, or interpretive work in at least one of the Boyer
categories (adapted from Scholarship Reconsidered):
1. Discovery of knowledge – contributing to the stock of human knowledge or to original creative
work in the arts.
2. Integration of knowledge – using critical analysis and interpretation of existing knowledge to reach
a more comprehensive understanding for professional or non-specialist audiences; making connections
across disciplines; or giving isolated studies meaning by putting them into a larger context.
Page 27
3. Application of knowledge – applying knowledge or creating knowledge in the process of its use;
some examples include performing in the arts, connecting theory to practice, and addressing
substantive societal problems using one’s professional expertise.
4. Transformation of knowledge through teaching – developing curriculum and pedagogy; this
includes communicating the results to professional audiences.
Evaluation letters remain confidential within the personnel committee only if candidates have waived their
rights to see the letters. If a signed waiver is not included with this letter, then the candidate, in addition to the
personnel committee, will have the option of viewing your letter.
If you need additional information, please e-mail me at carstens@pacificu.edu.
The granting of promotion with tenure is an important moment in a faculty member’s career. We would deeply
appreciate your contributing your valuable time and perspective to this critical process. In order to be taken into
account, material must be received in my office by October 1, 2013.
Please mail a signed letter to:
Lisa Carstens
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
2043 College Way
Forest Grove, OR 97116
Alternatively, please scan a signed letter, and e-mail it to me at: carstens@pacificu.edu
Many thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa Carstens
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Enc. (attached)
Page 28
Appendix 5: Request for Feedback Letter—Promotion
Date
«Dr» «First_Name» «Last_Name_»
«Institution»
«Address»
«CSZ»
Dear «Dr» «Last_Name_»:
«First_Name» «Last_Name_» is being considered for promotion from associate professor to professor in the
«Dr» Department at Pacific University. The personnel committee would appreciate it greatly if you would
provide a candid evaluation of the capabilities of «Dr» «Last_Name_», especially in the area of scholarship. I
have included «Dr» «Last_Name_»'s curriculum vitae. If you would be willing to provide an evaluation by our
deadline of October 1, 2013, please let me know by return e-mail, and I will also forward a sample of scholarly
work.
Pacific University evaluates faculty in three areas: teaching, service, and scholarship. In order to be promoted,
faculty members must make the case that they fulfill the evaluative criteria in all three areas. The following
information on faculty evaluation criteria is included as an aid to understanding our expectations for scholarship
within the context of our overall mission.
Teaching is a principal activity of the Pacific University faculty and includes appropriate work and involvement
with students within and beyond the classroom. Faculty members also participate in service, which may occur
within or outside of the university. Unless you have first-hand knowledge of the candidate’s teaching or service,
we do not expect you to comment on these items.
We are particularly interested in your judgment of the level and quality of the candidate’s engagement in
scholarship. Pacific University does not specify quantity or type of achievements, because the number of
publications, research presentations, art exhibits, performances, or other scholarly and creative products varies
among disciplines. However, we expect the quantity and quality of scholarly and creative works to be
comparable with that in comparable disciplines at highly regarded liberal arts colleges, rather than, for instance,
at research-intensive universities.
To give you a sense of the level of research activity expected of successful faculty members at Pacific
University, tenure candidates here are required to produce a minimum of one significant scholarly or creative
contribution that has undergone high-level, disciplinarily sanctioned, external peer review. We set the bar
higher for promotion to full professor; candidates must demonstrate sustained achievement in professional,
scholarly, creative, or interpretive work, in at least one of the Boyer categories (adapted from Scholarship
Reconsidered):
1. Discovery of knowledge – contributing to the stock of human knowledge or to original creative
work in the arts.
2. Integration of knowledge – using critical analysis and interpretation of existing knowledge to reach
a more comprehensive understanding for professional or non-specialist audiences; making connections
across disciplines; or giving isolated studies meaning by putting them into a larger context.
Page 29
3. Application of knowledge – applying knowledge or creating knowledge in the process of its use;
some examples include performing in the arts, connecting theory to practice, and addressing
substantive societal problems using one’s professional expertise.
4. Transformation of knowledge through teaching – developing curriculum and pedagogy; this
includes communicating the results to professional audiences.
Examples of items to be considered:
1.
2.
3.
4.
quality and quantity of published or creative work
service as consultant, lecturer, editor or officer in scholarly or professional organizations
attendance at and participation in scholarly or professional meetings
recognition by peers through special awards, honors and grants
Evaluation letters remain confidential within the personnel committee only if candidates have waived their
rights to see the letters. If a signed waiver is not included with this letter, then the candidate, in addition to the
personnel committee, will have the option of viewing your letter.
If you need additional information, please e-mail me at carstens@pacificu.edu.
The granting of professor status is an important moment in a faculty member’s career. We would deeply
appreciate your contributing your valuable time and perspective to this critical process. In order to be taken into
account, material must be received in my office by October 1, 2013.
Please mail a signed letter to:
Lisa Carstens
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
2043 College Way
Forest Grove, OR 97116
Or, please scan a signed letter, and e-mail it to me at:
carstens@pacificu.edu
Sincerely,
Lisa Carstens
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Enc.
Page 30
Appendix 6: Request for Feedback Letter—Assistant to Associate Promotion
Date
«Dr» «First_Name» «Last_Name_»
«Institution»
«Address»
«CSZ»
Dear «Dr» «Last_Name_»:
«First_Name» «Last_Name_» is being considered for promotion from assistant professor to associate professor
in the «Dr» Department at Pacific University. The personnel committee would appreciate it greatly if you would
provide a candid evaluation of the capabilities of «Dr» «Last_Name_», especially in the area of scholarship. I
have included «Dr» «Last_Name_»'s curriculum vitae. If you would be willing to provide an evaluation by our
deadline of October 1, 2013, please let me know by return e-mail, and I will also forward a sample of scholarly
work.
Pacific University evaluates faculty in three areas: teaching, service, and scholarship. In order to be promoted,
faculty members must make the case that they fulfill the evaluative criteria in all three areas. The following
information on faculty evaluation criteria is included as an aid to understanding our expectations for scholarship
within the context of our overall mission.
Teaching is a principal activity of the Pacific University faculty and includes appropriate work and involvement
with students within and beyond the classroom. Faculty members also participate in service, which may occur
within or outside of the university. Unless you have first-hand knowledge of the candidate’s teaching or service,
we do not expect you to comment on these items.
We are particularly interested in your judgment of the level and quality of the candidate’s engagement in
scholarship. Pacific University does not specify quantity or type of achievements, because the number of
publications, research presentations, art exhibits, performances, or other scholarly and creative products varies
among disciplines. However, we expect the quantity and quality of scholarly and creative works to be
comparable with that in comparable disciplines at highly regarded liberal arts colleges, rather than, for instance,
at research-intensive universities. For promotion to associate professor with tenure, tenure candidates here are
required to produce a minimum of one significant scholarly or creative contribution that has undergone highlevel, disciplinarily sanctioned, external peer review. More broadly, examples of items to be considered in the
area of scholarship include published scholarly or creative work; service as consultant, lecturer, editor, or
officer in scholarly or professional organizations; attendance at and participation in scholarly or professional
meetings; and recognition by peers through special awards, honors and grants.
In addition to having achieved at least one significant outcome, the candidate must also exhibit the potential for
sustained achievement in professional, scholarly, creative, or interpretive work in at least one of the Boyer
categories (adapted from Scholarship Reconsidered):
1. Discovery of knowledge – contributing to the stock of human knowledge or to original creative
work in the arts.
2. Integration of knowledge – using critical analysis and interpretation of existing knowledge to reach
a more comprehensive understanding for professional or non-specialist audiences; making connections
across disciplines; or giving isolated studies meaning by putting them into a larger context.
Page 31
3. Application of knowledge – applying knowledge or creating knowledge in the process of its use;
some examples include performing in the arts, connecting theory to practice, and addressing
substantive societal problems using one’s professional expertise.
4. Transformation of knowledge through teaching – developing curriculum and pedagogy; this
includes communicating the results to professional audiences.
Evaluation letters remain confidential within the personnel committee only if candidates have waived their
rights to see the letters. If a signed waiver is not included with this letter, then the candidate, in addition to the
personnel committee, will have the option of viewing your letter.
If you need additional information, please e-mail me at carstens@pacificu.edu.
The granting of promotion to associate professor is an important moment in a faculty member’s career. We
would deeply appreciate your contributing your valuable time and perspective to this critical process. In order to
be taken into account, material must be received in my office by October 1, 2013.
Please mail a signed letter to:
Lisa Carstens
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
2043 College Way
Forest Grove, OR 97116
Alternatively, please scan a signed letter, and e-mail it to me at: carstens@pacificu.edu
Many thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa Carstens
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Enc. (attached)
Page 32
Appendix 7: FPC Tenure & Promotion Standards
Adopted by Faculty Meeting on 3 February 2011
I. Candidates for tenure and promotion to associate professor must demonstrate that they have achieved the
following minimum scholarly and creative standards:
A. One significant scholarly or creative contribution that has undergone high-level, disciplinarily
sanctioned, external peer review. Contributions in any Boyer category are acceptable.
1. For many disciplines, this would mean publication of findings and contributions in a quality peerreviewed article or book; print or online contributions are equivalent so long as they reach the
standard of quality of printed peer-reviewed work.
2. For many disciplines, particularly in the arts, this would mean juried or invited performances or
shows.
3. For some disciplines, this requirement would be met by being awarded an external major grant.
B. Sustained—a few, spread out through the years—contributions to external scholarly or creative
professional communities, which may include conference papers and posters that have not undergone
substantial peer review, including those with student coauthors; publication of abstracts; consulting;
book reviews in scholarly journals; or other work that departments deem worthy of a member of its
faculty (this category would also be fulfilled by sustained production of peer-reviewed work).
C. Department Standards.
1. Because of the diversity of scholarly and creative endeavors across disciplines and the evaluative
criteria that have evolved within each field, departments may develop specific guidelines outlining
what constitutes significant and ongoing scholarship within their fields. Any such standards must be
approved by the FPC, which will use those standards in the review process.
2. Departments in fields where more contributions are necessary to indicate active scholarship may
raise the number of contributions beyond the standard in 1.A., with approval of the FPC. Such
standards must not affect the level of service or the attention to quality teaching of department
members.
3. Any scholarship agreement, such as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), must be consistent
with the standards established in this document.
Note: Candidates for tenure and promotion to associate professor are welcome to include work in their
portfolio that they produced at previous institutions within the six-year progression to tenure.
II. Candidates for promotion to professor must demonstrate in work accomplished since tenure and promotion
to associate professor:
A. A higher level of achievement than the minimum standards for promotion to associate professor as
described above.
B. Professional service beyond the bounds of the Pacific campus.
These provisions apply to all new faculty members of the College, and current members of the faculty are
bound by the last evaluation letter signed by the Chair of the personnel committee and the Dean.
In no way should the FPC’s efforts to define more carefully requirements for scholarly and creative work lessen
our commitment to grant tenure and promotion to faculty members with excellent records as teachers. We have
required and will continue to require excellent teaching in tenure and promotion cases.
Page 33
Appendix to Standards Proposal
To clarify for faculty members being reviewed and for FDPC members, we also propose to change the selfevaluation form in ways that reflect the information that departments have forwarded to the committee and to
include the following language and categories:
•
•
•
Organizing the Self-Evaluation Form
Please indicate for all categories where students were collaborators.
Application of Knowledge is treated separately in Category C.
This is not an exhaustive list.
A. Publications or tangible creative work in any of the Boyer categories that have undergone formal
peer-review (please provide sufficient identifying information)
Having a journal article published
Having a conference paper (not an abstract) published in an edited, peer-reviewed conference proceedings
Publishing a textbook through a publishing house
Publishing a book or book chapter at a non-vanity press
Publishing fiction, non-fiction, poetry, or plays
Publishing original music compositions or dance compositions; includes performances off campus
Publishing a translation of a significant literary or scholarly text into another language
The following are particularly pertinent to those working in creative fields and need to be documented with
slides, CDs, or DVDs, as appropriate
Having an externally commissioned music, theatre, or dance piece for an organization
Having a one-person or small group art exhibition off campus
Having a juried show in a gallery or museum
Having an externally commissioned art piece for an organization
Having distributed or juried movies (must have major creative role)
B. Scholarship and creative work that has not undergone formal peer-review or that has undergone
minimal peer review
Having accepted conference abstracts, posters, and presentations
Self-publishing a book or article
Publishing a journal article where peer review is minimal
Teaching a mini-course or workshop at a national conference (could also come under “C”)
Giving an invited presentation at a conference
Mentoring of student research over the summer that leads to presentation or publication in undergraduate
venues
Conference presentations and posters that are coauthored by faculty members and students and that have not
undergone significant peer review.
C. Application of Knowledge (many of these items are recognized as professional service as well; see
Application of Knowledge in Handbook Chapter 4.6.3.b for how service can rise to the level of
scholarship; please note the emphasis on peer review)
These items normally would be categorized as scholarly work:
Performing or directing music, dance, or theatre for an external audience
Editing an anthology
Conducting workshops or clinics for peers
Conducting master classes in music
Receiving a professional award for scholarly or creative work
Consulting for industry, government, or education for an extended project
Page 34
Creating testing materials for nationwide exams at the college, high school, or elementary level
Writing book reviews for scholarly or national publications
Serving as a journal editor or refereeing articles
Adjudicating scholarly or creative competitions in which there is serious engagement with participants
These items normally would be categorized as professional service and not included in this section:
Organizing a professional conference or conference session
Obtaining funding, including grants, to organize a conference
Facilitating a workshop
Serving as a leader in a professional society or an arts organization
D. Grants
Receiving an external grant or fellowship for scholarly or creative work (internal grants are viewed as non-peerreviewed)
Page 35