FACULTY SENATE
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE BILL 03-A-06
Approved by the Faculty Senate
May 14, 2003
Approved by the Board of Regents
June 27, 2003
Faculty Promotion Policy
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Southeast Missouri State University "Faculty Promotion
Policy" published in Section II, Faculty Policies and Procedures of the Faculty
Handbook, be amended to read as follows:
Faculty Senate Bill 76-A-12, as amended by Faculty Senate Bill 83-A-07 and Faculty
Senate Bill 00-A-11, begins here.
Faculty Promotion Policy
A University is an institution where the collective pursuit of knowledge and learning by
its faculty and student body is the paramount focus. It achieves highest stature when
students are exposed to excellent teaching and are stimulated to create or discover new
knowledge. The principal goal of the faculty is to transmit knowledge in the various
disciplines. In the promotion process, emphasis is placed on teaching effectiveness with
the responsibilities for scholarly and creative endeavors, research, and service fulfilling
the traditional concomitant roles. Faculty members are also expected to participate in
tasks which are inseparable from the teaching and learning process and are essential to
the harmonious operation of the departments, colleges, and the University as a whole.
Promotion in rank is a mechanism whereby the University accords recognition to faculty
for their accomplishments in fulfilling the responsibilities outlined above. Academic rank
is awarded following recognized standards that are commonly accepted by institutions of
higher learning and indicate to the academic community as a whole the stature to which
the individual is held within the discipline and within the University. Promotion in rank is
neither automatic nor the result of seniority. The opportunity for promotion provides a
means for the individual faculty member to excel through the dual inducements of formal
recognition of the individual’s standing and the financial reward associated with the
higher rank.
The promotion process at Southeast Missouri State University is intended to ensure that
all faculty members are evaluated in a fair manner, with standards that are applied
equally to all applicants. The process is, therefore, an open, transparent process,
following written criteria. Every evaluating body or individual is, thus, expected to
evaluate the candidate according to the written criteria alone and to include in the written
1
recommendations a statement of specific reasons why the candidate meets or fails to meet
the criteria for promotion. These reasons must be based on department criteria and cannot
be based on undocumented statements, hearsay, or extraneous information.
The candidate is to be informed of each recommendation for or against promotion by
means of a copy of each of these recommendations as the recommendations are made.
It is a goal of the University that, as a general guideline, no more than thirty percent of
the instructional faculty (full time equivalent teaching) should be in each of the upper two
ranks. This, however, is a goal to be used for guidance in the hiring of new faculty and in
no way constitutes a quota on faculty advancement. Faculty who meet the criteria for
promotion must be recommended for promotion regardless of the ratios among the ranks
existing at that time.
University Promotion Criteria
The creation of new knowledge manifests itself differently in the disciplines of the
University. Within this context, departmental colleagues are best informed and in the best
position to establish specific criteria or objectives which indicate satisfactory
contributions in teaching effectiveness, professional growth, and service. While other
University interests must be addressed and other review levels are a part of the promotion
process, it is the department that initiates the review process and has the responsibility for
assessing the extent to which departmental members have pursued their professional
obligations and effectively disseminated knowledge. It is also the department’s, including
the department chair’s, responsibility to mentor and guide a faculty member through at
least the initial process. When disagreements arise, individual faculty members may seek
redress through the procedures established in this promotion policy. Departmental and
administrative judgments in these matters should always uphold and protect free speech,
fair comment, objective dissent, and critical thought, which lie at the heart of a free
intellectual life. The faculty member must be allowed access to the promotion dossier and
any and all documents which have been added to it at any given time during or after the
decision making process.
A department has the option of nominating a faculty member for promotion when the
eligibility standards are fulfilled and it deems the profile of the individual will sustain a
promotion. The department has the principal, but not exclusive, responsibility to evaluate
the competency of the faculty member for both promotion and tenure. This is appropriate
since both tenure and promotion relate to the specific discipline. However, since the
department constitutes but one emphasis in the college and the college one component of
the University, both the dean of the college and the Provost have fundamental roles in the
effective operation of the promotion process. Ultimately, as in all major decisions, it is
action by the Board of Regents which is legally binding.
Promotion Eligibility Standards
To be considered eligible for promotion, faculty members must meet the departmental
standards. Four years in rank are expected before promotion to the associate professor
2
and professor levels can occur (i.e., application is made in the fourth year in rank), except
as identified in Academic Preparation below.
Creditable Teaching Experience. The important role of teaching in the promotion
process was noted in the preceding section. Emphasis in this process is placed on
teaching effectiveness. As a minimum, however, the following guides are used to
determine creditable teaching experience:
Classroom teaching at the college or University level, with equivalent partial
credit being awarded for part-time teaching experience;
Full-time relevant non-college teaching, with credit up to full-time equivalent;
and
Relevant non-teaching experience with credit up to full-time equivalent.
Credit is determined at the time of initial employment as recommended by the
department chairperson and dean and approved by the Provost. A faculty member does
not lose eligibility or years of creditable teaching experience as a result of a break in
service at the University because of an approved leave or because of an institutional
assignment to a special University program, e.g., a faculty exchange program.
The creditable teaching experience guides will be used in assessing such activities.
Scholarly and professional activities pursued during an approved leave or institutional
assignment may be included in appropriate areas of the candidate's promotion materials.
Academic Preparation. The doctorate is the normal expectation to be hired at the
assistant professor level or higher. It is recognized, however, that in certain areas the
University may be well served if an alternative, appropriate, recognized terminal degree
is substituted for the doctorate. In those areas where a terminal degree is not the
doctorate, the department may petition to have the doctoral requirement waived. The
petitioning process allows a department to specify a particular area and degree that is
appropriate for the discipline. In such cases, the request, along with supporting rationale,
must be recommended by the department chairperson and the dean, endorsed by the
University Promotion Advisory Committee, and approved by the Provost. This judgment
is made independently of the individual in the position.
The minimum objective criteria for the academic ranks which follow are applicable to the
promotion process and are not tied directly to the hiring process. Further, these standards
are listed with an acknowledgment that on rare occasions a candidate who does not meet
minimum standards in every area may be able to support such a powerful case for
promotion that his/her application deserves consideration through the regular promotion
process. In those unusual instances, the dossier must indicate that the objective criteria
are not completely met, and the candidate's dossier must unequivocally demonstrate
exceptional merit.
Professor -- An earned doctorate or approved terminal degree.
3
AND
Ten years creditable teaching experience including four years as an associate
professor, with at least three of those years at Southeast Missouri State University,
except as explicitly designated in the initial contract.
Associate Professor -- An earned doctorate or approved terminal degree.
AND
Six years creditable teaching experience including four years as an assistant
professor, with at least three of those years at Southeast Missouri State University,
except as explicitly designated in the initial contract.
Assistant Professor -- An earned doctorate or approved terminal degree.
Promotion Criteria
Promotion in rank at Southeast Missouri State University is an explicit collegial decision
based upon qualitative judgments about established criteria. These judgments are made
by examining evidence at the department, college, and University levels and submitting
recommendations to the Board of Regents for approval. In addition to the promotion
eligibility standards, departments and other sub-groupings develop specific criteria that
provide measures and/or standards appropriate to the unique character of the particular
unit. The application of these statements may vary according to the discipline,
department, and/or college orientation, but the goals of excellence in teaching,
professional growth, and service under gird the entire process.
Each department will recommend evaluative data and their relative weight in compliance
with its objectives. Promotion considerations will be based on the demonstration of
significant and sustained achievement as indicated by
1. Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness*
2. Evidence of Professional Growth
3. Evidence of Service
*For purposes of promotion evaluation, librarian effectiveness is equated with teaching
effectiveness, and includes those activities directly supporting the educational mission of
the University: reference work, information literacy, collection development,
acquisitions, bibliographic control, archival management, access services, administrative
activities, and library systems/technology.
While the criteria areas for promotion are constant for all ranks, there is increased rigor in
the application of standards as an individual progresses from lower to higher ranks. These
4
categories correspond to the departmental Record of Service form which is to be used by
all candidates in preparing applications for promotion.
Departmental Criteria for Academic Rank
Each department has the responsibility to develop, maintain, and, when necessary,
recommend changes to its promotion and tenure criteria. Departmental criteria for
promotion and tenure should be based on the sample Record of Service form found
below, but reorganized to serve the specific needs of the department. Once developed or
modified, these criteria are subject to the approval of the hierarchy of institutional
promotion and tenure advisory committees and review personnel. Once approved, and
until revised by the department, these criteria shall serve as the sole basis upon which
candidates are evaluated for promotion. No institutional review committee or individual
may impose criteria upon a candidate in excess of those itemized in the departmental
criteria.
The dean will consult with the college promotion and tenure advisory committee
regarding the departmental criteria submitted by each of the departments in the college. If
there is concurrence with the recommended departmental criteria, they will be sent to the
chairperson of the University Promotion Advisory Committee. If the recommendations of
the dean differ from those of the department, the dean will submit the suggested changes,
along with supporting rationale, to the department chairperson. Following deliberations in
the department, the recommendations for departmental criteria will again be submitted to
the dean for review. If differences persist, the recommendations of both the department
and the dean will be submitted to the chairperson of the University Promotion Advisory
Committee.
The University Promotion Advisory Committee will review all submissions of
departmental criteria. If there is one set of recommendations for the department, the
committee will either endorse the recommendations or remand the criteria with specific
comment to the department for revision. If there are conflicting recommendations for a
department, the committee will return specific suggestions to the department and dean for
reconsideration. Following deliberations by the department and dean, the
recommendation will again be submitted to the committee for final resolution.
As departmental criteria are endorsed by the committee, they will be submitted for final
approval to the Provost. The Provost in consultation with the President will review all
recommendations. If there is concurrence with the recommended criteria, the Provost will
so inform the department, dean, and members of the University Promotion Advisory
Committee. If there is disagreement, the Provost will return the recommendations to the
committee with suggestions and comments. If no agreement is reached, the Provost will
return the recommendations to the department for reconsideration.
For a period of three years following a revision of the departmental criteria, a faculty
member applying for promotion may elect to be evaluated by the previous criteria instead
of the new ones.
5
The candidate's promotion dossier shall comprise the Candidate Summary Form, a
Record of Service of accomplishments organized according to the departmental
promotion and tenure criteria, a professional curriculum vita, and any supporting
materials that the candidate wishes to include, provided that the documents forwarded
beyond the departmental level do not exceed the content of two, three-inch binders.
CANDIDATE SUMMARY FORM
Name __________________________ Department _________________________
Present Rank ___________________ Length of Service at University ________
Years of Service at Each Rank:
Instructor _________________________ Associate Professor ___________
Assistant Professor _________________ Professor ____________________
Degrees Held Institution Date
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
SAMPLE DEPARTMENTAL RECORD OF
SERVICE FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
Departmental criteria for promotion and tenure should be developed from the following
sample Record of Service. These criteria shall be organized into a departmental ROS rearranged as the department deems appropriate to its needs. They shall, however, be
organized according to the three major headings:
1. Teaching Effectiveness
2. Professional Growth
3. Service
6
The numbered items in each category are mentioned as examples of possible ways of
satisfying each criterion. A faculty member is not necessarily expected to report for each
numbered item in the departmental criteria.
Nevertheless, the faculty member is requested to supply the headings and follow the
numbering system used in the departmental criteria when submitting a record of
activities. Information provided for purposes of promotion should be restricted to
accomplishments since attaining the present rank, whether at Southeast or elsewhere;
however, for purposes of tenure, the candidate should include information covering the
entire probationary period. When, in the initial appointment contract, the candidate has
been granted credit toward tenure for service elsewhere, activities and accomplishments
from those years may be included up to a maximum of six years (including the
application year). However, the candidate for tenure should recognize that activities and
accomplishments while at Southeast Missouri State University will be emphasized in the
evaluation of the dossier. Additional supporting material may be included in the dossier.
Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness
A. Evaluative Support
1. Evaluation of college dean
2. Evaluation of department chairperson
3. Not more than three evaluation reports or letters of recommendation by colleagues of
equal or higher rank. The colleague should submit such reports to the department
chairperson.
4. Student evaluation, in any form, may be submitted by the candidate.
5. Self assessment information.
6. Other.
B. Innovations in Courses and Teaching
1. New courses developed and/or taught.
2. Revision of established courses. Include syllabi where appropriate.
3. Evidence of involvement in curriculum development.
4. Courses taught (course numbers and titles).
5. Efforts to improve individual teaching.
6. Other.
Evidence of Professional Growth
A. Professional Development
1. Education or professional experience contributing to effectiveness as a faculty
member.
2. Travel which contributes to effectiveness as a faculty member.
3. Professional institutes, seminars, and conferences attended (give place and date).
4. Professional organizations actively participated in as officer or on program (give place
and date).
5. Current memberships in professional organizations.
6. Honors received, including grants awarded, research support, and professional listings.
7
7. Other.
B. Scholarly Activities
1. Bibliography of publications. Include books, chapters, article reviews, papers,
compositions, major reports.
2. List of creative activities. Provide dates, locations, etc., of exhibitions, performances,
concerts, and popular works.
3. Identify work in progress.
4. Other.
Evidence of Service
A. University Service
1. Membership on departmental committees. Indicate whether as leader or member.
(give years).
2. Membership on college-level committees. Indicate whether as leader or member.
(give years).
3. Membership on University-level committees. Indicate whether as leader or member.
(give years).
4. Non-teaching duties. Indicate if released time or other compensations were granted.
5. Supervision (list data you feel pertinent, such as titles, number, credit hours, etc.).
a. Supervision of independent studies.
b. Thesis adviser of graduate students.
c. Supervision of specialist degree students.
d. Other supervision of graduate students.
e. Member of thesis or honors committees.
f. Supervision of course papers of graduate students.
g. Supervision of assistants, undergraduate and graduate (list number and nature of
supervision).
h. Advising of student groups within the department.
i. Other.
6. Sponsorship of campus organizations or groups (departmental, college, or
University-wide).
7. Contributions to classes either intradepartmental or interdepartmental (speeches,
exhibitions, performances, demonstrations, etc.).
8. Contributions to student or faculty groups (speeches, exhibitions, performances,
demonstrations, etc.).
9. Other.
B. Community Service
1. Contributions to off-campus groups (speeches, exhibitions, performances,
demonstrations, etc.). Give places, subjects, and dates.
2. Service to area schools (evaluation committees, consultancies, contest judging,
lectures, etc.).
3. Other professionally-related activities.
8
Suggestions for the Preparation of the Dossier for Promotion and Tenure
The promotion and tenure processes for faculty members are directly related to the
fundamental goals of the University: teaching, professional growth, and service. The
awards of tenure and promotion in rank involves critical reviews on several levels
regarding the professional development and advancement of the faculty member. The
collection and organization of evidence are vital aspects in facilitating the reviews and
documenting the recommendations made at each of the review levels. The suggestions
that follow are intended to assist departments and faculty members in this process. They
are not requirements. Rather, they are presented as general guides. When integrated with
the various criteria, these guides suggest how faculty members can most accurately
substantiate their performance in a well-documented academic profile. From the
foregoing, it is obvious that the documentation presented by a faculty member forms the
basis of consideration for tenure and promotion. The critical evaluations and judgments
made in the tenure and promotion processes must be based on evidence so that standards
of excellence can be demonstrated.
Guides for Collecting Evidence
Thorough documentation enables a department to make a judgment on sound evidence
and greatly enhances the prospects at the college and University levels. Conversely,
inadequate documentation can seriously reduce the possibility of a favorable
recommendation even though the performance of the faculty member may warrant it. The
critical evaluations and judgments made in the promotion process must be based on
evidence so that standards of excellence can be demonstrated. The suggestions are not
prescriptive or required. They are not all-inclusive, nor are they presented to suggest that
faculty members should provide evidence as illustrated by each of the examples. Rather,
the suggestions that follow are provided for the benefit of the faculty member and are
intended to be helpful in presenting the strongest case possible.
Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness
None of the criteria is more important in the promotion process than that of teaching
effectiveness. The faculty member, recognizing the inevitable range of opinion with
respect to teaching effectiveness, should include all evidence accumulated as part of the
promotion material. Submission of partial data from student ratings, for example, may be
more detrimental than helpful. The complexity of this area suggests the collection of data
from a variety of sources:
1. Course planning activities play an important role in subsequent classroom activities;
for example, syllabi and course outlines, bibliographies, methods for testing and
evaluation, texts, and assignments required of students may be used to demonstrate
9
the quality of the planning process as it relates to teaching. Such insights may suggest
the degree of sophistication in the entire learning process.
2. Classroom and laboratory activities form another measure of teaching effectiveness;
for example, student and peer evaluations of actual performance, peer evaluation of
effectiveness of educational approaches, and the quality of faculty-student interaction
are areas in which documentation could be provided. This information may be
collected from observations by students, peers, and department chairpersons.
(Instruments used and sampling or population information may also be helpful.)
3. Analyses of team-teaching situations, video-taped presentations, or group
interactions may also be helpful.
4. Academic performance of students is another factor which may be considered in
making judgments concerning teaching effectiveness. This might include such factors
as appraisal of student development, evidence of students' ability to perform in
subsequent sequenced courses, demonstrable competencies, special student awards or
recognition, placement and follow-up studies, creative exhibits and concerts
developed by students.
5. Flexibility demonstrated in the teaching/learning process may also be used to
substantiate the recommendation. In this respect, a faculty member may call attention
to the extent of course revisions made, how objectives were met, and/or personal
assessment mechanisms developed.
6. Other systematic reviews of instructional strategies appropriate to particular
disciplines may also be helpful in adjudicating teaching effectiveness.
Evidence of Professional Growth
Documentation of activities in this area is essential if this criterion is to receive the high
priority it deserves. The approaches used to provide evidence may vary widely from one
discipline to another and may vary considerably within a discipline, depending upon the
nature of the activity. The measurements of the value of recitals, exhibits, and
presentations may be diverse, but the common goal is to provide evidence of scholarly or
creative activity within a wider forum than the particular classroom or laboratory.
Providing evidence of scholarly or creative activity makes possible the judgment of peers
within the discipline. Quantification of such scholarly/creative activity is difficult, and
the sheer volume of such activities is not the sole or primary measure. Typical items of
support include
1. Books, articles, and reviews are common forms used to demonstrate scholarly
activity. Complete bibliographic information and copies of the material augmented by
reviewer comments when available are helpful. Some indication of the stature of the
publication (juried, circulation, national/regional scope) may provide assistance in
10
judging the scholarly activity of the candidate. In the case of joint authorship, the
candidate should indicate his/her contribution.
2. Documented innovations in pedagogy that have had an effect upon the teaching
within a subject area may be important.
3. Exhibitions, public performances, and concerts provide another source of
information, particularly in the fine and performing arts. For example, evidence may
be provided that reveals the magnitude or significance of the effort, whether the
works were "juried," whether they were made on an invitational basis, and what
awards were received.
4. Advanced study and other forms of professional development may provide additional
basis for judgment. For example, special participation in national workshops or
programs, imaginative development of learning experiences, comments made by
national leaders, advanced course work, and personal evaluations of new pedagogical
methods may add another perspective.
5. Leadership in professional associations may be demonstrated by such factors as the
office held, a description of the responsibilities, an indication of the size of the
organization, the selection process for the position, and the type of association in
which the leadership was demonstrated.
6. The importance of conducting workshops, consulting, and jurying may be revealed
by the significance of the activities, their resulting effect, the level or stature of the
group being served, and requests for repeated performance.
Evidence of Service
This criterion plays an important role in the promotion process. Under its broad heading
high priority is given to service to students through formal and informal contacts as
academic advisers and counselors. The area also embraces participation on committees
on the department, college, and University levels, as well as various professional roles in
the community at large. In developing documentation, individuals may present various
forms of evidence such as
1. Assignment and performance of academic advisement to students may reveal
important services to the institution.
2. Involvement with students outside the classroom supported by such evidence as
participation in club activities may be used for support.
3. Committee participation at the departmental, college, and University levels is an
essential component of University life. Documentation in this area may be provided
through the use of peer and committee chairpersons' evaluations of the effectiveness
11
of the role performed, descriptions of the responsibilities and their impacts,
identification of committee work, and the types of leadership performed.
4. Contributions to the broader University community may be illustrated through peer,
chairperson, and administrative letters of support, notation of special performances
and/or presentations, and special recognitions or awards received.
5. Involvement in off-campus activities may be demonstrated by evidence of activities
in continuing education or other outside agencies and institutions.
6. Evidence may be presented which indicates significant discipline-oriented
professional service to the community at large through the identification of the groups
served and the level of activity provided.
Academic Services, 1981
Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committees
The review of a faculty member for the purposes of promotion is a critical decisionmaking process in the professional advancement of the individual. Next to tenure, it is the
most significant action that can be taken in regard to the status of a faculty member. The
deliberative action taken in the process serves as a primary component in the review of
individual requests. The committee structure integral to this process provides a
framework for collegial activity by fostering faculty and administrative dialogue. The
committee chairs, at each of the three academic levels, submit recommendations to the
corresponding administrator. The chairperson, dean, and Provost coordinate procedures at
their respective levels and also submit recommendations to the next level.
No one shall serve in a voting or recommending capacity at more than two levels
(department, college, University) in the process. (With regard to Kent Library, the
committee shall function as the department and the dean shall function as the college.)
This does not preclude a member of any one of these committees (department, college,
University) writing a recommendation for a candidate. Should one become ineligible to
serve because of a change of status after appointment/election to a committee, a
replacement to fulfill the unexpired term shall be named by the original
appointing/electing authority.
The three committees in sequential order are as follows:
Department Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee
The functions of the department promotion and tenure advisory committee are to develop
and review departmental promotion and tenure criteria and procedures and to make
recommendations to the department chairperson concerning candidates from the
department. Each department will establish a promotion and tenure advisory committee
12
consisting of tenured members of the department. The chairperson of the department
shall neither serve on the committee nor participate in committee deliberations.
In those departments where there are no tenured faculty or the number of tenured faculty
is too small to constitute a working promotion and tenure advisory committee, the
tenured faculty of the department shall be augmented by a sufficient number of tenured
faculty of cognate departments to achieve the required minimum number. The
membership of the committee, including the designation of a chairperson, will be
determined by procedures agreed upon by a vote of tenure and tenure-track faculty
members in the department.
College Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee
The functions of the college promotion and tenure advisory committee are to review and
approve departmental promotion and tenure criteria and procedures and to make
recommendations to the deans concerning candidates from the various departments in the
college. Each college will establish a college promotion and tenure advisory committee
comprising at least one tenured faculty member elected by each department using
procedures developed by faculty within that college. Members may be elected only by
tenure and tenure track faculty from among tenured faculty in the college. The dean shall
neither serve on the college promotion and tenure advisory committee nor participate in
deliberations of the committee. The committee consists of representatives from each
department in the college and shall determine its own chairperson. No department
chairperson shall serve on this committee. Membership on the committee will be
determined by procedures agreed upon by a vote of the tenure and tenure-track faculty in
the college and shall be restricted to tenured faculty.
University Promotion Advisory Committee
The purpose of the University Promotion Advisory Committee is to review and approve
departmental promotion criteria and procedures and to make qualitative judgments about
credentials of candidates that have emerged from the departments and colleges. The
committee makes recommendations to the Provost. The committee is composed of the
Dean of Graduate Studies and Research and a member from each of the colleges, schools,
and Kent Library and shall be restricted to tenured members of the faculty. Though
selected from each of these units, members are not representatives of their respective
units, but rather of the University faculty as a whole. Should the responsibilities of a
faculty member appointed to the committee change to include more than 50%
administrative responsibilities, he/she must resign from the committee. A replacement
member will be selected by the designated appointer for the remainder of that
individual’s term or his/her release from administrative duties, whichever is the shorter
time period. The Dean of Graduate Studies and Research is a permanent member of the
committee. Faculty members serve terms of five years with one or two faculty members
rotating off every year. Appointments to the committee are to be made in alternate years
13
by the Faculty Senate and the President of the University. The committee shall determine
its own chair.
Promotion Calendar
Promotion reviews at each level will be completed in sequential order, with professors
first followed by associate and assistant professors on or before the following dates:
September 1 – The Provost will inform the faculty member and his/her dean and
chairperson of eligibility to apply for promotion.
November 1 – The department member desiring review will submit his/her dossier to the
department chairperson, who will forward it to the department promotion and tenure
advisory committee.
December 15 – The departmental promotion and tenure advisory committee chair will
notify the faculty member of deficiencies noted in the application or supporting materials.
January 15 – By this date, the applicant will submit additional or revised promotion
materials to the departmental promotion and tenure advisory committee.
January 30 – The departmental promotion and tenure advisory committee decision will be
forwarded to the department chairperson with a copy to the candidate.
February 7 – The department chairperson will forward both recommendations (i.e.,
departmental tenure and advisory committee and department chairperson) and the
candidate's dossier to the dean with a copy of his/her recommendation to the candidate.
The dean will forward the candidate's dossier to the college promotion and tenure
advisory committee.
March 15 – The college promotion and tenure advisory committee will forward its
recommendation to the dean with a copy to the candidate.
March 30 – The dean will forward his/her recommendation and the candidate's dossier to
the Provost with a copy of his/her recommendation to the candidate. The Provost will
forward the dossier to the University Promotion Advisory Committee.
April 21– The recommendation of the University Promotion Advisory Committee will be
submitted to the Provost with a copy to the candidate.
May 5 – The Provost will inform the candidate of his/her recommendation.
May 15 – The Provost will forward his/her recommendation to the President.
14
Promotion Procedures
1. The individual faculty member is responsible for the collection, organization, and
presentation of material to support candidacy for promotion. Only professional
accomplishments while serving at the current rank will be considered. If a faculty
member does not receive a favorable recommendation at any step in the process, the
candidate may request a review as specified in items 5, 8, and 11. At all times and at
all levels, candidates will receive copies of letters of recommendation or denial
placed in or affecting his/her file, as well as any other materials, documents, or notes
that have been appended to or added into his/her file. All parties and/or committees
shall afford open access to the candidate. The candidate may withdraw his/her
candidacy from consideration at any level of the promotion process.
2. The department chairperson is responsible for coordinating promotion procedures at
the department level and for making a recommendation on promotion to the dean of
the college. The material forwarded by the chairperson will include lists of favorable
recommendations, unfavorable recommendations, and all supporting materials for
each recommendation. If the department chairperson and the departmental promotion
and tenure advisory committee are in disagreement, they shall meet to resolve any
difference. If no agreement is reached, the recommendation of the department
chairperson will be forwarded to the dean along with any dissenting or minority
opinions.
3. In making the recommendation, the chairperson will use the Promotion
Recommendation Form. In those cases where the chairperson is a candidate for
promotion, the department will select, with the concurrence of the dean, an individual
to fulfill these responsibilities.
4. Prior to submitting the recommendation to the dean, the chairperson will confer with
each candidate. When the recommendation is submitted to the dean, the chairperson
will inform the individual involved and the department promotion and tenure
advisory committee in writing as to the status of each recommendation.
5. If the faculty member does not accept an unfavorable recommendation, the candidate
will have five days from the receipt of the notification to initiate the following
steps:
a. A request may be made to meet with the department chairperson. If the
conference produces a joint understanding, the matter will proceed regularly or
rest at that level.
b. If agreement is not reached, the faculty member may request that his/her
candidacy be reviewed at the college level. Such requests will be considered
15
without prejudice by the college promotion and tenure advisory committee. If
the unfavorable recommendation is sustained at this level, the review process
ends.
6. The college dean is responsible for coordinating promotion procedures at the college
level and for making recommendations on promotion to the chairperson of the
University Promotion Advisory Committee. The material forwarded by the dean will
include lists of both favorable recommendations and unfavorable recommendations
with an indication of the level at which denials were made. The supporting material
for all favorable recommendations will also be submitted. If the dean and the college
promotion and tenure advisory committee are in disagreement, they shall meet to
resolve any differences. If no agreement is reached, the recommendation of the dean
will be forwarded along with any dissenting or minority opinions. In making these
recommendations, the dean will use the Promotion Recommendation Form.
7. Prior to submitting the recommendation to the University Promotion Advisory
Committee, the dean will confer with each candidate. When the recommendation is
submitted to the chairperson of the University Promotion Advisory Committee, the
dean will inform the individual involved, the departmental promotion and tenure
advisory committee, and the college promotion and tenure advisory committee in
writing as to the status of each recommendation.
8. If the faculty member does not accept an unfavorable recommendation, the candidate
will have five days from the receipt of the notification to initiate the following steps:
a. A request may be made to meet with the dean. If the conference produces a
joint understanding, the matter will proceed regularly or rest at that level.
b. If agreement is not reached, the faculty member may request that his/her
candidacy be reviewed by the University Promotion Advisory Committee.
Such requests will be considered without prejudice by the University Promotion
Advisory Committee. If the unfavorable recommendation is sustained at this
level, the review process ends.
9. The Provost is responsible for coordinating promotion procedures at the University
level and for making recommendations on promotion to the President. The material
forwarded by the Provost will include lists of favorable recommendations and
unfavorable recommendations with an indication of the level at which any denials
were made. The supporting material for all favorable recommendations will also be
submitted. If the Provost and the University Promotion Advisory Committee are in
disagreement, they shall meet to resolve any differences. If no agreement is reached,
the recommendations of the Provost will be forwarded along with any dissenting or
minority opinions. In making these recommendations, the Provost will use the
Promotion Recommendation Form.
16
10. At the time the Provost submits the recommendations to the President, each faculty
member and corresponding department chairperson and dean will be notified in
writing of the Provost's recommendation.
11. If the faculty member does not accept an unfavorable recommendation, the
candidate will have five days from the receipt of the notification to initiate the
following steps:
a. A request may be made to meet with the Provost to learn of his/her perceptions
of the reasons for denial of promotion. If the conference produces a joint
understanding, the matter will proceed regularly or rest at that level.
b. If agreement is not reached, the faculty member may request that his/her
candidacy be reviewed by the President. Such requests will be considered
without prejudice. If the unfavorable recommendation is sustained by the
President, the review process ends.
12. It is the responsibility of the President to present recommendations for promotion to
the Board of Regents for action. The Board of Regents shall make the final decision
to grant promotion to eligible members of the faculty.
13. Within one week of the meeting at which the Board of Regents renders its decision
on an applicant's candidacy for promotion, the President will inform the candidate in
writing of the decision of the Board.
Approved by Faculty Senate, Bill 76-A-12 Revised and Amended-November 1980
Approved by Senate - November 1980
Approved by Board of Regents - January 1981
Amended by Faculty Senate, Bill 83-A-07
Approved by Faculty Senate - December 1983
Approved by Board of Regents - December 1983
Amended by Faculty Senate, Bill 00-A-11
Approved by Faculty Senate - May 2000
Approved by Board of Regents - June 2000
Amended by Faculty Senate, Bill
Approved by Faculty Senate – May 2003
Approved by Board of Regents – June 2003
17
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Kenneth Dobbins, President
Southeast Missouri State University
FROM:
Paul Lloyd, Chairperson
Faculty Senate
DATE:
May 21, 2003
RE:
Bill 03-A-06
Promotion Policy
The Faculty Senate approved the attached bill concerning Promotion Policy. We submit
it to you for your consideration and approval.
PL:pc
Enclosure
Cc: Jane Stephens
18