August 1, 2012
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information on deadlines and procedures governing the Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) process for 2012-2013.
Candidates undergoing evaluation for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion are strongly encouraged to attend an RTP workshop. Three all-University RTP Workshops will be conducted. Each workshop will cover the same content.
In addition, the AVP for Faculty Affairs will be providing college-specific RTP workshops for college and department evaluators (Deans, Department Chairs, Department and College RTP Committees) as well as the Associate Deans and appropriate staff responsible for RTP processes. Notices regarding these workshops will be sent by the Deans.
Deadlines have been established for:
All deadlines are listed on the “DEADLINES FOR REAPPOINTMENT, TENURE, AND/OR PROMOTION ACTIONS” schedule. These deadlines are intended to allow sufficient time for careful review at each level, and they cannot be extended. If at any level of review the evaluation of a candidate has not been completed by the deadline indicated, the candidate's RTP file must nevertheless be forwarded to the next level of review or appropriate administrator. In such cases, the candidate must be notified that the file has been moved to the next level of review.
Deadlines for notification of final actions are set by the CSU-CFA Collective Bargaining Agreement. These deadlines may not be changed:
Faculty members scheduled for reappointment or tenure review as per the guidelines below must submit an RTP file and must be evaluated on schedule. This includes all reviews for reappointment as well as tenure in the sixth probationary year (includes years for which service credit was granted) .
Reviews for promotion are optional. Faculty members who do not wish to be considered for promotion must notify the Office of Faculty Affairs in writing or return the “NON-PROMOTION CONSIDERATION” form to the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs by Monday, September 17.
A probationary faculty member is normally considered for tenure during the sixth year probationary year, including any years of for which service credit was granted. A probationary faculty member is normally considered for promotion to associate professor at the same time he/she is considered for tenure. A tenured faculty member is normally eligible to be considered for promotion during the fifth year in his/her current rank.
Early tenure is tenure granted before completion of six probationary years. Early promotion is promotion in advance of tenure or before completion of the fifth year in rank. Standards for early tenure and/or promotion are significantly higher than those standards applied in a normal timeline, as described in Section IV.C of the old (1996) University RTP Policy (PS 96-12) and Section 5.0 of the new (2009) University RTP Policy (PS 09-10). Both the old and new University RTP Policy can be found on the Academic Senate website.
The following apply to candidates seeking early tenure and/or early promotion:
The RTP file consists of materials collected and prepared by the candidate, materials submitted to the file during the Open Period, previous evaluations during the period of review, evaluation reports at each level of review, and any rebuttals or responses from the candidate.
The Candidate Status Sheet should be the first page of the file. The file is to be divided into the “Primary File” and the “Supplemental File.” See the Faculty Affairs website for guidance on preparing these files.
For reappointment, tenure, and/or initial promotion, the candidate will be evaluated on activities since the beginning of the probationary period, including any years of service credit. For subsequent promotion, the candidate will be evaluated on activities since the last promotion.
While the file is submitted by the candidate in the fall semester, the period of review includes the full academic year during which the review is conducted (2012-2013). Therefore, it is appropriate for the candidate to document in the file works-in-progress, with appropriate supporting materials.
Candidates may submit materials from the previous semester if not yet submitted for review due to evaluation timelines (e.g. Student Evaluations of Teaching).
Candidates should refer to the “PROFESSIONAL DATA SHEET GUIDELINES”. Similarly, candidates should consult all college and/or departmental guidelines regarding supplemental documentation and file preparation. As a general rule, candidates should include materials that provide best evidence of their accomplishments and growth in the areas of evaluation. The candidate should invest significant effort in organizing and presenting this material so that it supports the case for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion, and corroborates statements made in the Professional Data Sheet and the narrative.
It is the candidate’s responsibility to delineate clearly on the PDS and/or CV any activities/accomplishments that are prior to the period of review. Should the candidate choose to include such activities/accomplishments, they shall be identified by inserting a double line between those activities/accomplishments that are within the period of review and those that are prior to it.
Candidates should keep copies of their Primary File Materials, as these materials will not be returned at the end of the review process. They will be filed in the official Personnel Action File along with the index to supplemental materials and open period materials. Supplemental materials will be returned to the candidate.
The following items are mandatory components of the RTP file and shall be provided by the candidate:
Prior Reviews
The candidate must include in the supplemental file copies of all prior evaluations, as specified below:
Per section 15.2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement:
Faculty unit employees, students, academic administrators, and the President may contribute information to the evaluation of a faculty unit employee. Information submitted by the faculty unit employee and by academic administrators may include statements and opinions about the qualifications and work of the employee provided by other persons identified by name. Only tenured faculty unit employees and academic administrators may engage in deliberations and make recommendations to the President regarding the evaluation of a faculty unit employee.
To provide this opportunity to contribute information, an Open Period has been established from September 17 through October 4, 2012.
Departments will be provided with a list of the candidates who are eligible for RTP review; this list must be posted in each department office on or about September 15, 2012. Departments may also disseminate this list to faculty, students, and academic administrators electronically. Templates for the Open Period notification are available on the Faculty Affairs website. The names of candidates seeking early tenure or early promotion will be added to this list on or about September 15 upon receipt of their statement of intent. Each posted list shall contain the following statement, which specifies the nature of the information that can be submitted:
Faculty, students, academic administrators and the President may contribute information to the evaluation of a faculty unit employee. Information submitted by the faculty unit employee and academic-administrators may include statements and opinions about qualifications and work of the candidate by other persons identified by name.
The following conditions apply to material submitted during the Open Period:
At all levels of review, candidates shall receive a copy of the evaluation report including the recommendation. Candidates are entitled to write a response/rebuttal to the report from each level of review. Therefore, every effort should be made to provide this report to the candidate at least ten (10) calendar days before the deadline for completion at each level of review. The candidate’s response/rebuttal shall be included in the file.
Regardless of when the candidate receives the evaluation, the candidate still has ten (10) calendar days after receipt of the evaluation to submit a written response/rebuttal to be forwarded with the evaluation. A copy of the response/rebuttal statement shall accompany the RTP File and shall also be sent to all previous levels of review (Dean, College RTP Committee Chair, Department Chair, Department RTP Committee Chair, as appropriate. ) Any resulting response/rebuttals shall not require that evaluation timelines be extended. The candidate may also request a meeting with the reviewers to discuss the recommendation (whether or not the candidate plans to write a rebuttal).
The following conditions apply to candidate response/rebuttals:
Per the CBA, external evaluation of a candidate’s materials may be initiated by any party in the process (the candidate, Department Committee, Department Chair, College Committee, Dean, or Provost), may be requested at any point during the review, and must have the approval of the President and the concurrence of the candidate. The request must describe the special circumstances which necessitate the external evaluation and the nature of the materials needing evaluation.
Normally, the external evaluation process will be initiated by the candidate, the Department RTP Committee, and/or the Department Chair in the spring semester prior to the fall semester when the RTP file is due. However, in order to meet the deadlines for candidate’s RTP review, requests for external evaluation should be made as early as possible in the review process. The campus process is governed by the “EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF RESEARCH, SCHOLARLY, AND CREATIVE ACTIVITIES” (PS 10-10), which is available on the Academic Senate website.
Per the new University RTP Policy, candidates for early tenure and/or early promotion are encouraged to participate in the external evaluation process.
Participants in the Evaluation Process:
The Collective Bargaining Agreement establishes rules for selection of RTP committees. The probationary and tenured faculty of the department elect the members of the department RTP committee. This election shall be by secret ballot. Only tenured faculty members are eligible to be elected to department and college RTP committees.
Committee members must have higher rank than those under consideration for promotion. (Example: a tenured associate professor may serve on a committee considering tenure and promotion for an assistant professor.) If promotion is not involved, tenured faculty of any rank may serve as members of a committee to consider candidates for reappointment and/or tenure.
Faculty who are being considered for any RTP action may not serve on an RTP committee that is evaluating their file. However, a tenured promotion candidate may serve on a reappointment review if committee members are different from those serving on the promotion review. No faculty member may serve on RTP committees at two different levels of review.
Tenured faculty members are expected to make themselves available to serve on RTP committees as part of their normal responsibilities. In some circumstances, however, a department may not have enough eligible members to serve on the RTP committee. In this situation, the department shall elect members from a related academic discipline, according to applicable college and department policies.
At the request of a department, the President may agree to permit faculty participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program to stand for election for membership on any level of peer review committee. However, these committees may not be comprised solely of faculty participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program.
Special rules apply to the formation of RTP committees for faculty members on joint appointments. See “UNIVERSITY JOINT APPOINTMENTS FOR FACULTY PERSONNEL POLICY AND PROCEDURES” (PS 94-11) on the Academic Senate website.
RTP evaluation addresses all three areas of review: Instructional and Instructionally-Related Activities; Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activities; and Service. Evaluators should not simply enumerate the candidate’s accomplishments, but evaluate them according to the criteria that have been established. It is the responsibility of evaluators to provide guidance to candidates by being clear on what areas are meeting expectations and where improvement is needed in a particular area.
In some cases, department standards will be higher than college standards. (Department standards may not be lower than college standards.) College RTP committees shall take into serious account the department specific standards for evaluating the candidate.
During the 2010-2011 review year, each RTP candidate hired prior to Fall 2009 completed the “FACULTY RTP POLICY SELECTION FORM” to select the set of RTP policies (either the old or the new policies) to govern their RTP reviews. Evaluators must evaluate the candidate according to the selected set of policies. It is the responsibility of evaluators to be knowledgeable about both sets of policies.
Department and College RTP committees must vote to recommend or not to recommend each of the following actions:
All committee members must vote, even if they choose to submit a minority report. The vote tally (to recommend and not to recommend) for each separate action must be recorded on the review signature page.
The Department Chair may make a separate recommendation regarding each of these actions as part of a separate report if the chair is not on the Department RTP Committee.
Deans make the final decisions on:
In decisions regarding Reappointment, Deans are to address letters to the candidates with copies to the Provost and the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs, as well as the College RTP Committee Chair, the Department Chair, and the Department RTP Committee Chair.
The Provost makes the final decisions on:
All decisions are subject to the final approval of the President.
Notification will be mailed to the candidate’s home address by the deadline. Since home addresses will be obtained from CMS records, it is the candidates’ responsibility to verify that their records are correct on “My CSULB”.
Each candidate for RTP consideration should consult carefully the policy documents governing the process.
Questions regarding the RTP process may be directed to AVP Holly Harbinger at Holly.Harbinger@csulb.edu.
