Memorandum
TO:
John Parrish, President, Faculty Senate
FROM:
Committee on Rank and Tenure
DATE:
March 14, 2012
RE:
Response to Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified by Faculty Senate)
This memo contains the LMU Committee on Rank and Tenure’s response to and comments on eight topics
included in the Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified by Faculty Senate). These selected
topics are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Committee on Rank and Tenure Procedures
The Rank and Tenure Process
External Evaluation Policies and Procedures
Rank and Tenure Faculty Advisors
Policy on Recusal
College/School and Department Standards
Timeline
Application Guidelines
The memo uses this format:
A discussion of each of these eight topics followed by
• Appendix 1, which provides a fragment (Section IV) of the Rank and Tenure Resource Manual
with suggested changes in wording highlighted for ease of reference; and
• Appendix 2, which provides a suggested template for the single timeline.
Items presented in square brackets [ ] refer to the corresponding sections of the Rank and Tenure Resource
Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified by Faculty Senate), hereafter simply referred to as the “draft Manual.” We
also note that we use the term “department” to refer to either a department or program.
We offer these observations and opinions as members of an academic community “embedded in an ethos of cura
personalis such that individuals are regarded and respected as whole persons within their faculty roles” and with
the hope that our input will contribute towards the improvement of the rank and tenure process at our university.
Sincerely,
Jennifer L. Eich, Professor of Spanish (Chair)
Wenshu Lee, Professor of Communication Studies
Herbert A. Medina, Professor of Mathematics
Elizabeth A. Murray, Professor of Philosophy
Rodger Pardee, Professor of Recording Arts
Candace A. Poindexter, Professor of Elementary and Secondary Education
Zbigniew H. Przasnyski, Professor of Operations and Quantitative Methods
cc: Joseph Hellige, Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer
Laurel Burks, Executive Board, Faculty Senate
Véronique Flambard-Weisbart, Executive Board, Faculty Senate
Amy Woodson-Boulton, Executive Board, Faculty Senate
Members of the Faculty Senate (via the Faculty Senate President John Parrish)
1. COMMITTEE ON RANK AND TENURE PROCEDURES
As a standing University Committee, it is within the purview of the CRT to establish and adhere to its
internal working practices and procedures. If the CRT modifies any procedures that involve the rank and
tenure process as a whole, it is the responsibility of the CRT chair to describe and publish them.
In the revised 2011 draft of the Rank and Tenure Resource Manual certain CRT procedures were
rewritten; others are inaccurate, departing from long-established and best-practice CRT procedures. We
note the following:
1.1
Necessary Evidence [IV., D. 5, p. 14]
The draft manual states that procurement of ‘necessary evidence’ as well as answers to
questions raised must be coordinated through the candidate’s dean.
We recommend that the procurement of necessary evidence, as well as answers to questions
raised, remain coordinated through the chair of the CRT.
Reason: Having all routine requests routed through the dean’s office may result in unnecessary
delays or potential miscommunication. Some issues are relatively minor and may be easily
handled by the chair of CRT contacting the candidate directly. For example, a candidate submits
a data disk that is formatted incorrectly and cannot be read. If the rationale for the original
manual revision is to keep the candidate’s dean informed, this could more easily be
accomplished through having the dean and department or program chair copied on such
requests made to the candidate.
1.2
Seeking Counsel [IV., D. 5, p. 15]
According to the draft Manual, when questions arise that cannot be answered by the materials
contained in the dossier, the CRT may not seek counsel outside of LMU.
We recommend that the CRT chair or representative may consult with the appropriate
individual, whether inside or outside of LMU.
Reason: As the appropriate individual for consultation may in some instances be outside of
LMU, the wording is too restrictive. For example, a situation could occur where a former chair or
dean, who has left LMU, may be contacted to help track down missing evaluations or
documents.
1.3
CRT Letters of Recommendation [IV., D. 9, p. 15]
The draft Manual states that in the case of negative recommendations of the CRT, a detailed
letter should be provided by the CRT chair to the provost.
We note that it is the CRT practice, mandated by the Faculty Handbook and at the specific
request of President Burcham, for the CRT chair to write a letter detailing the specific reasons
for the recommendation in every case whether the recommendation is positive or negative.
1.4
CRT Verification of the Department Vote [IV., D. 4, p. 14]
CRT SUGGESTED CHANGES TO: Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified By Faculty Senate)
Page 1
The draft Manual states that at the first meeting of the CRT the sealed envelopes with the
departmental votes are opened in the presence of all seven members.
We note that the CRT practice is to open and count the department votes after their initial
meeting to review and discuss all the applicants.
We also note that every meeting of the CRT must be conducted with all seven members present.
Reason: The CRT’s long-standing practice has been to conduct preliminary discussions solely on
the basis of the dossiers themselves, without prior knowledge of the department votes. This
constitutes best practice toward reaching an impartial and independent judgment on the merits
of the candidates’ cases.
1.5
Finalization of the Dossier [IV., D.1, p. 14]
We recommend that paragraph D. 1 be stricken and replaced with one sentence:
Any irregularities in the dossier or in the procedures should be addressed before the candidate’s
dossier is reviewed by the department.
Reason: If paragraph D. 1 as it currently reads were to be followed, there would be cases in
which different versions of a candidate’s dossier are read at the levels of rank and tenure review
(department, dean, CRT, provost, president).
1.6
CRT Dossier Review [IV., D. 2, p. 14]
The draft Manual states that the CRT reviews the dossiers during a ‘roughly one-month period
from the end of November/beginning of December until the first formal meeting of the
Committee.’
We recommend that stipulating this ‘roughly one-month period’ is too restrictive.
Reason: The CRT’s practice is to start reviewing the dossiers as soon as possible in the fall
semester, and to continue to read through them until the first formal CRT meeting in January.
2. THE RANK AND TENURE PROCESS
The CRT strongly believes in the importance of describing and disseminating all procedures to be
followed in the rank and tenure process to ensure clarity, transparency, and uniformity for everyone
involved at every level of evaluation as well as parity for all candidates.
2.1
Departmental Scribe’s Summary [IV., A. 4, p. 10]
The draft Manual states that the department scribe will prepare a summary “including the
departmental vote,” of the discussion regarding a candidate’s application for tenure and/or
promotion.
CRT SUGGESTED CHANGES TO: Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified By Faculty Senate)
Page 2
We strongly recommend that the department vote not be included in the Department Summary
letter: i.e., strike the words “(including the departmental vote)” from the first line of
[IV., A., 4a, p. 10].
Reason: Allowing the department scribe to count the votes and include the tally in the
Summary letter directly contradicts the preceding paragraph of the draft Manual (paragraph
3.b) which indicates that the votes are not counted at the department meeting but are sealed in
an envelope and delivered to the dean’s office. Therefore, the scribe would not be able to
summarize the department’s vote.
2.2
Dean’s Letter [IV, C., last bullet, p. 13]
The draft Manual states that the dean’s letter should report the department vote tally.
We recommend that the dean’s letter not refer to the department vote tally; i.e., strike the
words “The Dean’s letter should report the Departmental vote tally” from the last bullet of [IV.,
C., p. 13].
Reason: Best practices for reading CRT dossiers dictates that in order to pursue an impartial
assessment of the candidate’s case, the first evaluation of the evidence should be independent
from the department vote or a dean’s interpretation of that vote.
3. EXTERNAL EVALUATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Materials for External Reviewers [VIII., 3., p. 28]
The CRT strongly supports the procedures for the external evaluation process as described in the draft
Manual.
We recommend that a list be included in each candidate’s dossier itemizing the sample of scholarly or
creative works that were sent to the external reviewers.
Reason: It is not always clear when reading the external review letters which scholarly or creative works
were sent for review; a list would ensure clarity.
4. RANK AND TENURE FACULTY ADVISORS
The CRT believes that the proposed creation of Rank and Tenure Faculty Advisors makes the LMU rank
and tenure process significantly more cumbersome, legally problematic, and potentially confusing.
We recommend striking all references to the new position of Rank & Tenure Faculty Advisors
throughout the draft Manual.
Reason: We understand the desire for a “last check” before the dossier is submitted to the CRT, yet as
the Faculty Handbook and draft Manual make clear, the ultimate responsibility for the dossier rests with
the candidate. While in past years there have been some procedural oversights or omissions, such
CRT SUGGESTED CHANGES TO: Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified By Faculty Senate)
Page 3
oversights have become increasingly rare. LMU now has better resources and clearer policies that
ensure the standardization of dossiers: these changes eliminate the need for such Advisors.
We wish to remark on the following points:
• Any changes to the candidate's dossier after it has been handed in to the department or
program faculty members and then passed on to the dean and provost invalidate the dossier's
legal standing unless it is done so in a carefully proscribed manner.
• Currently, the only changes permitted once the dossier has been handed in involve updates to
the candidate's scholarly or creative work already described in the CV.
• If the current proposed timeline is adhered to, a much larger problem emerges. If Faculty
Advisors review all dossiers before they are delivered to the CRT chair, the CRT could not begin
its reading of the dossiers until at least January. This would dramatically extend the timeline for
evaluation by the CRT, provost and president as well as the subsequent notification of the
candidate of the president's final decision.
We suggest that the improved procedures already put into practice as well as other reforms and
resources proposed are sufficient. The proposed creation of rank and tenure Faculty Advisors, therefore,
is unnecessary.
5. POLICY ON RECUSAL [V., pp. 18-19]
The CRT strongly supports a written policy on recusal that describes the reasons for and the procedures
to be followed regarding recusal at every level of evaluation. Thus, the CRT supports a section in the
draft Manual that addresses recusal. However, the CRT has some significant concerns regarding the
current section V in the draft Manual.
The most serious concern concerns the following sentence in paragraph 4 of V., p. 18:
However, if two faculty members have engaged in significant scholarly collaboration and one serves
on the Committee on Rank and Tenure, the Committee member must recuse himself or herself from
consideration of the Candidate’s application.
As described earlier in the draft Manual and the Faculty Handbook, no CRT deliberations may take place
unless all seven committee members are present. Therefore, it would be impossible for a member to
recuse himself or herself for only one case. If a significant conflict of interest is established, the provost
will need to replace any CRT member(s) for the entire rank and tenure process for that academic year.
In addition, the current draft does not address conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest that
may arise between the candidate and his/her chair or dean. For example, as LMU faculty become more
involved in seeking outside funding, these endeavors can often involve multiple co-principal
investigators, some of whom may be the candidate’s current or future chair or dean.
For conflicts at the CRT, chair or dean level, the provost would need to find a replacement for any CRT
member(s), chair or dean for a candidate’s entire rank and tenure process (July through April). This
substitution should be addressed at the very latest by August 1.
We suggest the use of the term “significant scholarly collaboration” instead of “close ongoing
collaborations” when referring to a “conflict of interest.” In addition, it should be noted that a more
CRT SUGGESTED CHANGES TO: Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified By Faculty Senate)
Page 4
explicit definition of “significant conflict of interest” should be developed as the perception of the term
may vary widely between disciplinary and administrative units even within a school or college.
6. COLLEGE/SCHOOL AND DEPARTMENT STANDARDS [III., pp. 7-8]
The only revision we suggest regarding Section III concerns the last two sentences of the opening
paragraph [III., B., 8., p. 8]. It should be made explicit and verified that the specific version of school,
college, department or program standards chosen by the candidate should be the same standards used
at each level of evaluation: department, department chair, dean, CRT, provost, and president.
Reason: It is important that the draft Manual state clearly that the same version of standards selected
by the candidate should be verified by and employed at each level of evaluation.
7. TIMELINE [II., pp. 3-6]
The CRT considers the creation of a single timeline to assist the candidate, faculty members, staff, and
administrators involved at each level of evaluation (department, chair, dean, CRT, provost, and
president) to be highly desirable in order to ensure clarity, guidance, and transparency throughout the
rank and tenure process.
There are numerous reasons for this:
• The current version of the draft Manual includes a multiplicity of timelines that make it difficult
to understand who does what, and by when, as well as to whom important documents should
be delivered, directed or sent.
• The current timelines included in the draft Manual have significant omissions as well as factual
and procedural inaccuracies. These timelines also do not necessarily indicate significant dates
for the subsequent levels of evaluation (e.g., dean, CRT, provost, president).
• It is important that a single timeline exist that would indicate the timing for each level of
evaluation throughout the year-long process.
• It is essential that the timeline indicate a clear and transparent calendar of procedures, including
the beginning and end of each activity, at every level of evaluation as well as the individuals who
participate in them.
See Appendix 2 for a proposed template for a single timeline where the beginning and end dates for
each activity as well as the persons involved or responsible for these activities are presented.
We propose that such a template would replace Section II of the draft Manual.
The timeline should be posted online and in an independent fashion from the draft Manual.
8. APPLICATION GUIDELINES [VI., pp. 20-21.]
CRT SUGGESTED CHANGES TO: Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified By Faculty Senate)
Page 5
8.1
FORMAT OF APPLICATION MATERIALS [B., p. 20]
The CRT suggests that dossiers may be submitted on paper or electronically if the candidate
prefers.
Reason: To provide the maximum flexibility for candidates.
8.2
TEACHING EVALUATIONS [p. 21, 1.b.]
The presentation of the statistical summary reports of the teaching evaluations along with the
students’ written comments, whether in paper or electronic format, has greatly enhanced the
candidates’ ability to present a balanced representation of their teaching.
Reason: It is important that candidates be able to present the strongest case possible with
regard to their teaching. Students’ comments can provide insights, nuances, perspectives and
contributions that are often not captured by the numerical tabulations as well as evidence of a
faculty member’s growth and development as a teacher.
It should also be noted that not all LMU schools or colleges require peer evaluations. Many
departments also do not require peer evaluations once tenure and/or the rank of Associate
Professor are reached.
CRT SUGGESTED CHANGES TO: Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified By Faculty Senate)
Page 6
Appendix 1
Draft 07/26/2011 Rank and Tenure Resource Manual –
Modified by Faculty Senate
(Fragment – Section IV)
Suggested CRT edits are highlighted in blue
IV.
PROCEDURES, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A. DEPARTMENTAL
These standards are consistent with the LMU Faculty Handbook and are intended to
standardize practices, clarify expectations, and increase transparency for Departmental
review of faculty across the University.
1. Prior to the Department Meeting
a. Voting members of the Department will be defined as all tenured and tenure-track
members of the department except for untenured faculty in the first year of their
tenure-track appointment. All members of the department will be provided with a
Candidate’s file at least seven days prior to the Department meeting. The
Department Chair will be responsible for ensuring that the application is available
to department members for timely review.
b. The departmental Tenure & Promotion Committee should consist minimally of
five faculty members. Departments/Programs unable to provide this quorum will
draw the necessary voting members from related departments and/or disciplines,
this in consultation with the Candidate, the Dean and Chair of the
Department/Program. The additional voting members shall be selected by the
Chair and the Dean and subject to the approval of the Candidate. (If agreement
cannot be reached as to the additional members, the Provost will make the final
determination based on the reasons offered by the Candidate, Chair, and Dean).
In some instances it may be necessary that the faculty member serving in the role
of Chair for this process is external to the Candidate’s department/program.
c. In cases where the Candidate is Department/Program Chair, the Dean of the
College or School in consultation with the Candidate shall appoint another
tenured member of the Department or Program, or, if necessary, another tenured
member of the faculty in the College/School, to serve in the role of Cahir for the
tenure and/or promotion review process.
CRT SUGGESTED CHANGES TO: Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified By Faculty Senate)
APPENDIX 1: IV. PROCEDURES, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Page 1
c. The Scribe for the Department meeting is appointed by the Chair, in consultation
with the Candidate.
2. During the Meeting
a. The Chair reminds the voting members to participate in a collegial and ethical
manner, and to respect the confidentiality of the faculty discussion.
i. Those voting members of the department unable to be present at the
meeting may participate in the discussion virtually, but will not cast a
ballot.
ii. Non-voting untenured faculty in the first year of their tenure-track
appointment may attend and participate in the meeting, but do not vote.
3. Voting Procedures
a. Following the Departmental process for reviewing the candidate’s application, the
Chair will then give instructions regarding the ballots and voting procedures.
Voting faculty will be given the opportunity to abstain by marking the appropriate
box on the ballot. Abstentions do not count for or against the candidate.
b. After all votes have been made, the ballots will be placed in an envelope, which
will then be sealed in a separate envelope by the Department Chair or meeting
facilitator and signed over the flap in the presence of the voting members of the
Department to ensure confidentiality. Once the envelope has been sealed and
signed, it will be immediately given to a staff member from the Dean’s Office
who will deliver it to the Dean of the College or School.
4. After the Meeting
a. The Scribe will prepare a summary (including the departmental vote) of the
See 2.1 for rationale
discussion regarding a candidate’s application for tenure and/or promotion. The
contents of the summary should be organized according to the faculty
responsibilities of teaching/advising, scholarship/creative works, and service. The
summary must be confined only to a faithful rendering of statements (both
positive and negative) made during the departmental discussion. The summary
does not make any recommendation for or against tenure and promotion. There
should be no attributions included in the discussion summary. A draft of the
summary is to be circulated by the Scribe for review by the voting members in
attendance at the meeting to insure accuracy of the summary. Members of the
Department who agree that the summary accurately reflects the discussion will
sign the document. Members who do not agree may write a separate letter and
should indicate their reasons for not signing the Departmental summary. Such a
letter should pertain to the discussion at the meeting on the candidate and the
Departmental Standards used for tenure and promotion. The Departmental
summary, as well as dissenting letters, will be sent to the Dean of the College or
School to be included with the candidate’s application.
CRT SUGGESTED CHANGES TO: Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified By Faculty Senate)
APPENDIX 1: IV. PROCEDURES, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Page 2
B. CHAIR
Along with the College or School Dean, the Department Chair has the primary role and
responsibility for overseeing the tenure and promotion process for faculty in his/her
department. The Department Chair is responsible for ensuring that the process as outlined in
the Standards for Departmental Review of Candidates applying for Advancement to Tenure
and/or Promotion in Rank are shared with Departmental faculty and followed.
It is critical that the Department Chair see the content of the initial faculty contract as it
relates to the Chair’s role in outlining the faculty member’s responsibilities, expectations, and
monitoring of the progress of faculty. Any reference to a faculty member’s prior experience
and body of work as cited in the contract should also be available to the Department Chair.
The following is a list of the Chair’s responsibilities:
1. The Chair oversees the conduct of the R&T Process on behalf of the Candidate
and Department.
2. The Chair coordinates the External Evaluation Process. The Chair is responsible
for ensuring that the process outlined in Procedures for External Evaluation
Process is followed with respect to obtaining the external evaluation materials
concerning the Candidate.
3. The Chair receives two completed applications from the Candidate and reviews
them to be sure they are complete. The Chair inserts the external review letters
into the applications, and forwards one copy of the application to the Dean of the
candidate’s College or School.
4. The Chair makes the application available to the other voting members for
review, ensuring that a sufficient number of copies available for timely review.
5. The Chair coordinates the procedures and moderates the Department meeting as
described in section IV.A. The Chair appoints the Scribe for the Department
meeting in collaboration with the Candidate (see section IV.A.).
6. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Chair seals the ballots in an envelope, signs
it, and gives it to a staff member from the Dean’s Office.
7. The Chair writes a letter of evaluation concerning the candidate, addressed to the
Dean of the College or School and forwards the original letter along with the
original Departmental summary to the Dean.
8. The Chair forwards the application to the Provost’s Office after adding a copy of
the signed Chair evaluation letter and a copy of the signed Departmental
summary. The Provost’s Office refers this copy of the application to the Rank
and Tenure Faculty Advisor.
9. The Chair sends extra copies of the application to the Provost for shredding.
Standards for Letters for Candidate Rank and Tenure Applications:
CRT SUGGESTED CHANGES TO: Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified By Faculty Senate)
APPENDIX 1: IV. PROCEDURES, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Page 3
•
•
•
•
Before preparing the letter, the Chair should review previous Chair letters in response to
the Candidate’s annual Faculty Service Report.
The Chair should describe supportive measures that have been taken in the past to assist
the Candidate in achieving Department Standards in teaching/advising,
scholarship/creative works, and service, and formed within the broader mission of the
University (e.g., course release, support for attending conferences for professional
development, etc.).
The Chair’s letter should focus as much as possible on specific performance of the
Candidate in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship/creative works, and service and
avoid generalities. Comments regarding the Candidate’s character, personality, values,
etc., are not appropriate.
The Chair’s letter in evaluating Candidate performance should be consistent with and
address specifically the Department’s rank and tenure standards regarding expectations in
the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship/creative works, and service, and formed
within the broader mission of the University. In the category of service, the Chair also
should include his or her assessment of the Candidate’s contribution to the effective
operation of the Department’s responsibilities, including overall performance in
contributing to a quality working environment within the Department.
C. DEAN
The Dean is responsible for ensuring that all policies and procedures are followed in his/her
College or School. This includes sharing elements of the initial faculty contract with the
Department Chair as it relates to the Chair’s role in outlining faculty members’
responsibilities, and expectations, as well as monitoring of the progress of faculty. Any
reference to a faculty member’s prior professional experience and body of work as cited in
the initial contract should also be shared with the Department Chair.
The Dean is also responsible for providing a letter of evaluation concerning the Candidate,
addressed to the Provost. The Dean forwards the candidate’s application to the Provost’s
Office after adding two copies of the Dean’s evaluation letter, the original signed Chair
evaluation letter, the original signed Departmental summary, and any letters from dissenting
Departmental faculty members. The Provost’s Office refers this copy of the application to
the Rank and Tenure Faculty Advisor. The Dean also forwards the Departmental ballots to
the Provost’s Office.
Standards for College/School Dean Letters for Candidate Rank and Tenure
Applications
•
Before preparing the letter, the Dean should review past Chair letters in response to the
Candidate’s annual FSR, as well as consult as needed with the Candidate’s Chair. The
Dean should also consider the official Departmental vote on the Candidate, as well as
CRT SUGGESTED CHANGES TO: Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified By Faculty Senate)
APPENDIX 1: IV. PROCEDURES, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Page 4
consult with the Chair and other Department members as needed to obtain an accurate
picture of the Candidate’s overall standing among his/her Departmental peers.
• The Dean should comment on the findings of the third or fourth year formal review,
including identified areas for improvement.
• As with the Chair’s letter, the Dean should comment on the supportive measures that
have been taken to assist the Candidate in achieving Department Standards in
teaching/advising, scholarship/creative works, and service (e.g., course release, support
for attending conferences for professional development, etc.).
• The Dean’s letter in evaluating Candidate performance should be consistent with and
address specifically the Department’s rank and tenure standards regarding expectations in
the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service.
• The Dean’s letter should focus as much as possible on specific performance of the
Candidate in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship/creative works, and service and
See 2.2 foravoid
rationale
generalities. This is to be a professional evaluation of a Candidate's qualifications
for promotion/tenure.
• The Dean should comment on the Candidate’s past contributions and future promise
related to Departmental achievements and the effective operation of the Department’s
responsibilities, to the ongoing operations and activities of the College/School, and to the
University.
• The Dean’s letter should report the Departmental vote tally.
D.
COMMITTEE ON RANK AND TENURE
The primary role of the Committee on Rank and Tenure (CRT) is to make recommendations to
the Provost and President based on a review of the Candidate’s application for advancement to
tenure and/or promotion in rank. The evidence to be reviewed includes the material in the
Candidate’s dossier as outlined in the application standards as well as external evaluation letters,
Departmental vote and summary, the Department Chair’s letter, and the Dean’s letter and any
other materials defined in the application standards.
The CRT reviews the recommendations of the Department, Chair, and Dean to ensure that
Departmental Standards and university policies have been applied consistently and equitably in
all cases. The recommendation then made by CRT is based on its application of the Faculty
Handbook criteria of teaching/advising, scholarship/creative works, and service as those criteria
are articulated in the approved Department Standards of the Candidate’s Department, Program,
or School.
See 1.5 for rationale
1. The Office of the Provost reviews the application of Candidates for advancement to
tenure and/or promotion in rank beginning after the application deadline (early
October) until late November or early December. During this period the Rank and
Tenure Faculty Advisor assures that the application materials reasonably meet the
Rank and Tenure Application Standards for preparation of the dossier and
supplementary materials binder(s), that all letters from the external evaluators,
CRT SUGGESTED CHANGES TO: Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified By Faculty Senate)
APPENDIX 1: IV. PROCEDURES, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Page 5
Department, Department Chair, and Dean fall within the intent of University
standards (Faculty Handbook and External Evaluation Procedures documents) and
that there are not any significant procedural irregularities. Any irregularities in the
dossier or in the procedures should be addressed and corrected before the Candidate’s
dossier is given to the CRT reviewed by the department.
2. Once the Office of the Provost indicates to the CRT Chair and members that the
See 1.6 forapplication
rationale materials are complete, every member individually reviews the
application dossiers and supplementary material binder(s) during roughly a onemonth period from the end of November/beginning of December until the first formal
meeting of the Committee. Each member reads and reviews all application materials.
The Provost also provides appropriate Department Standards for every candidate.
Every member of the Committee takes notes independently. The Administrative
Coordinator provides each member with a standard review form.
3. All formal meetings of the Committee must be conducted with all eligible members
attending. The Committee meets on a weekly basis for at least two hours, normally
twice a week, reviewing the applications until their deliberations are concluded.
Generally, these formal meetings run from mid-January to March or April, depending
upon the number of applications and issues encountered. The Chair brings to every
meeting a copy of the Faculty Handbook and current Department Standards for every
Candidate up for tenure and/or promotion, along with the dossiers as needed.
4. At the first meeting of the Committee After an initial review and discussion of all the
See 1.4 forapplicants,
rationale sealed envelopes containing the Departmental votes for each Candidate
that had been hand-delivered by the Deans to the Administrative Coordinator are
opened in the presence of all seven members. All ballots in every envelope are
counted and recorded on the envelope by one member. Another member then verifies
this count independently. Each envelope has two signatures to guarantee the
accuracy of tallying. All envelopes are processed in the same fashion. Once the vote
counts and verifications are completed, they are read out loud, case by case, to the
Committee so that all members can register the votes on their respective review form.
5. This is the procedure followed by the Committee during the discussion phase:
•
The Committee continues its review of each Candidate until all comments the
Committee wishes to offer for discussion are heard, all unresolved issues are
satisfied, any necessary evidence is obtained and brought in, and all questions
See 1.1 for rationale
asked have been answered. Procurement of “necessary evidence,” as well as
answers to questions raised, must be coordinated through the Candidate’s Dean
Chair of the CRT. The Dean, department or program chair and/or Candidate shall
be available at the request of the CRT for consultation. Each Candidate is
discussed until no further comments are offered or questions asked by any
Committee member. The discussion loop terminates only when all members are
satisfied that each and every application has been thoroughly discussed. The
CRT SUGGESTED CHANGES TO: Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified By Faculty Senate)
APPENDIX 1: IV. PROCEDURES, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Page 6
“continuous loop” does not aim for consensus or persuasion regarding any
Candidate.
• Should any questions arise that cannot be answered by the materials contained in
See 1.2 for rationale
the application dossier and supplementary material binder(s), the CRT Chair or
representative is asked to consult with the appropriate individual. The CRT may
not seek counsel on its own outside LMU. This information and copies of any
relevant document(s) are brought back to the entire Committee for review and
discussion. All responses must become part of the Candidate’s dossier.
Conversations must be documented and included in the Candidate’s dossier.
6. If aspects of an application are in progress (e.g., a pending editor’s decision regarding
a manuscript or a pending decision made to award or deny a grant proposal),
candidates may provide updates to the CRT Chair (in addition to his/her Dean, Chair
and Department). The CRT Chair may contact the Candidate through her/his Dean
for updates. Such information is accepted until the final date of discussion as it varies
every year depending on the number of applications each year. Documentation of
additional information submitted to the CRT is placed in the appropriate section of
the Candidate’s dossier.
7. After the CRT Chair formally indicates the termination of discussions, the members
then retire for individual contemplation for a predetermined time. During the recess,
the members register their votes independently on ballots provided by the Office of
the Provost that are distributed by the CRT Chair once the discussion has been
formally closed. At the Committee’s next meeting all seven members bring their
ballots in a sealed envelope. The members place their votes in envelopes labeled with
each Candidate’s name that have been laid out on a large conference table in
alphabetical order.
8. The Committee then follows the same counting and recording procedure discussed in
item #4 above.
9. The CRT Chair drafts letters to the Provost that report the results of its deliberations
in appropriate detail. These drafts are then shared with the Committee during one or
more meetings for collective revision. Final drafts of the letters are then prepared by
Chair and presented to the Committee at a final meeting for signature by all
See 1.3 forthe
rationale
members of the Committee. Once signed, the letters are sealed in separate envelopes.
The letters are then hand delivered to the Provost by the CRT Chair. The CRT Chair
then hand delivers the letters to the Provost. After the final letters are completed, the
Committee meets to collectively write a memo to the Faculty Senate President and
Provost detailing overarching issues encountered during its review of materials and
deliberation. In the case of a negative CRT recommendation or a CRT
recommendation in opposition to that of the Department and College or School, a
detailed letter is submitted to the Provost. Such letters outline the specific reasons for
the recommendation and are signed by all members of the Committee.
CRT SUGGESTED CHANGES TO: Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified By Faculty Senate)
APPENDIX 1: IV. PROCEDURES, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Page 7
CRT SUGGESTED CHANGES TO: Rank and Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified By Faculty Senate)
APPENDIX 1: IV. PROCEDURES, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Page 8
Appendix 2
Suggested Template for Timeline
President
CRT
Chair of CRT
Provost
Dean
Activity Description
Chair
Date
Candidate
Action item for
CRT SUGGESTED CHANGES TO: Rank And Tenure Resource Manual (Draft 07/26/2011 - Modified By Faculty Senate)
APPENDIX 2: SUGGESTED TEMPLATE FOR TIMELINE
Page 1