Embedded Files
The Chair's involvement in Tenure & Promotion
The Chair's involvement in Tenure & Promotion
° The Chair's responsibilities and roles
The chair's role at all stages of tenure and promotion (with the exception of post-tenure review) is to help the candidate plan and organize the file, to help with any supplementary materials such as the advising questionnaire or narrative evaluations, and to lead tenured colleagues in the subsequent review of the file, vote, and department letter of evaluation. BE AWARE THAT IT'S THE CHAIR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP APACE OF THE DEADLINES TO SUBMIT THE PROGRAM EVALUATION COMMITTEE LETTER, RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT PAID LEAVE, ETC. Timelines for each stage of evaluation/promotion are updated yearly and posted on Portal> Dean of Faculty tab> Dept Chairs' Handbook> Ch. 1, Calendars and Schedules.
° Mentoring and supporting candidates up for review
A consistent pattern of mentoring and support from the chair will provide any candidate nearing evaluation with a clear sense of departmental expectations at each stage of review. In addition, all faculty up for pre-tenure, tenure, and promotion to full professor are encouraged to meet with the Associate VP of Academic Affairs to plan for the smoothest and most successful evaluation. Please refer to the revised by-laws linked on the last tab of this website, centrally available on the Portal (Dean of Faculty tab > Faculty Handbook > 2018 Faculty Bylaws) for up-to-date protocols, materials for the file, etc. See the section on Mentoring for discussion on how to support pre-tenure faculty through the evaluation process.
Chairs are encouraged to discuss the departmental expectations, the process, and the file materials with candidates a full year in advance of the evaluation to begin collaborating on how best to approach the process. For example, if narrative evaluations are required "two of the three semesters before the candidate stands for evaluation," the program chair may be best situated to foresee any staffing challenges that could complicate arranging narratives. A full description of how to submit an electronic evaluation file via Google Sites can be found here (while the template is labelled "tenure template," the info has been expanded to include materials for all stages of evaluation).
What kind of information are my colleagues receiving about their evaluation and promotion files?
What kind of information are my colleagues receiving about their evaluation and promotion files?
All evaluation files are guided by, and respond to, the Evaluation and Promotion Google Site. This provides direction on all elements of the evaluation file as informed by the bylaws and the provost.
All candidates scheduled for either pre-tenure review, tenure review, or review for promotion to full professor are invited by the Associate VP of Academic Affairs to meet with their cohort for an initial planning meeting well in advance before the file is due. Pre-tenure evaluation meetings are held in January before files are due in August; tenure evaluation meetings are held a full year before the Jan. 3rd submission date. Faculty standing for promotion to full meet in the spring before the January file is due for a review of required elements and specific information on how to submit the names of potential external evaluators. Faculty up for merit evaluations (3rd or 5th year post-tenure reviews) are also invited to meet in the spring before abbreviated file is due (in October). All faculty are encouraged to contact the Associate VP of Academic Affairs with questions.
Most often, these meetings are held with the full cohort, but in case of scheduling conflicts, faculty make individual appointments. At these initial meetings, there are a few central objectives:
To go over the required elements of their file, as outlined in the bylaws
To offer recommendations on how to approach organizing the file, either in response to the VPAA’s /CEC’s wishes or to troubleshoot past issues with timely completion
To introduce and share the Evaluation and Promotion Google Site which contains info on creating an electronic site, and info on all elements required at any stage of evaluation and promotion. This site has also been vetted with the VPAA and shared with department chairs. Note that the bylaws are included as an appendix.
To remind faculty that they are responsible for knowing the Faculty Bylaws that regulate evaluation and promotion
To clarify that the position of the Associate VP of Academic Affairs is to help faculty understand and correctly interpret the bylaws as they work toward promotion; faculty have a standing invitation to bring questions, concerns, or issues relating to their file to the Associate VP of Academic Affairs, who also offers optional meetings with the pre-tenure and tenure cohorts roughly once per semester until they submit their file.
COVID redress policies for candidates up for evaluation and promotion
COVID redress policies for candidates up for evaluation and promotion
The following are policies and accommodations made by the Provost’s Office in response to the 2020 pandemic to support faculty who are standing for evaluation and promotion. Specifically, these redress policies apply to all tenure-track faculty who started their probationary period between Fall 2015 and Spring 2021.
COVID Impact Statement
Candidates have the option to include a brief opening passage in the Self-Report in the form of a Covid Impact Statement. The purpose of such a passage would be to provide the evaluators the necessary context to understand whatever concrete effects the pandemic may have had on the candidate’s work that is measured against the College’s standard institutional and departmental expectations. Such effects may include, but are not limited to, disruptions to or cancellations of research opportunities, inability to travel for the purposes of on-site scholarship (labs, field sites, etc.), professional time diverted to converting courses into remote learning formats, and increased/different childcare responsibilities. There is no official expectation that the file include a Covid Impact Statement; instead, this is an option to be exercised at the candidate’s discretion.
Standardized student evaluations
Regarding scores from required student evaluations, scores from courses during Spring 2020 and Fall 2020 are optional, at the candidate's discretion. Beginning with Spring 2021, regardless of delivery mode, student evaluations will again become a required element of the file.
Narrative student evaluations
Regarding required narrative evaluations from two of the three semesters before the submission of a file for tenure or promotion to full professor, narratives from courses during spring 2020 are optional, at the candidate’s discretion. If the candidate is unable to provide two semesters' worth of narratives due to having planned on collecting narratives in Spring 2020, then the candidate is excused from the requirement for two sets. However, the candidate must still plan to include the required two sets of narrative student evaluations if there remains enough time to plan for their collection.
The Office of the Associate Dean of Faculty has devised a means to administer narrative evaluations electronically to replicate both the process and the output as closely as possible to the traditional, hard-copy version. Should the candidate wish to collect narratives during hybrid/remote instruction, please contact the Associate Dean of Faculty; all students, whether remote or in class, will receive the same electronic format.
Tenure Clock Extension
Faculty governed by these policies may request and will be granted a one-year pandemic tenure clock extension. Such requests must be made in writing to the Office of the Provost by September 1st of any academic year and no later than the deadline in which their research file would be due for external evaluators. A pandemic tenure clock extension is separate and distinct from any other tenure clock extensions granted to the candidate. A pandemic tenure clock extension will be applied to the academic year in which the request is submitted to the Provost’s Office. The effect is as if that academic year did not exist in the tenure timeline (although accomplishments during the year still count). For example, a candidate who requests a pandemic tenure clock extension by September 1st of the fifth semester would have the 3-year contract review shifted to the seventh semester. Likewise, narrative student evaluations administered during the spring semester prior to requesting a pandemic tenure clock extension will be included in the tenure and promotion file.
Issues regarding electronic files for evaluation
Issues regarding electronic files for evaluation
The shift to electronic files for tenure and promotion has a few implications for chairs. On the up side, it's substantially easier for all tenured members to review the Google Site simultaneously. The chair or coordinator will finalize the program's letter to forward to Mai and the candidate by the required date, and Mai will be in charge of uploading all evaluator letters into the site.
One complication is privacy issues. With the current Google Site format (the platform you're viewing now), the candidate has very few privacy options, selecting only between "anyone on the web" or "anyone at SMCM" may view the site.
There should be very carefully monitored controls regarding the dissemination of electronic files for tenure and promotion:
The candidate should forward the URL of the completed file to Mai Savelle and to the chair/coordinator only.
The chair/coordinator will in turn send out the URL to tenured members of the program with reminders that the URL and its contents are part of a faculty evaluation, as such, covered by stringent rules of confidentiality.
NOTE regarding faculty on sabbatical: per the bylaws, senior faculty on sabbatical are permitted to review the file, and may contribute colleague letters at the behest of the candidate. However, they are not permitted to deliberate in the PEC discussions or to vote on the file.
Upon completion and posting of the letter, all members of the Program Evaluation Committee are permitted to return to the site during the evaluation process to view additional letters added to the site; however, they may not at any time share the site with anyone outside the PEC.
NOTE: Please take the extra time to talk with your tenured faculty about confidentiality; they absolutely may not share the link with anyone.
What to do if there's an error or an omission in your colleague's promotion file
What to do if there's an error or an omission in your colleague's promotion file
The overarching principle is that once the deadline is passed, the existing content of the file must not be altered in any way. That said, here are a few caveats:
1) in the case of a factual error that's identified by candidate or committee BEFORE the PEC votes, the candidate may address this with the inclusion of a separate "Addendum" or "Errata" listing, in the form of a separate document on the corresponding page (e.g., an additional "errata" document below the self report on the page dedicated to the self report). Note that the option to include an addendum or errata is only at the level of the PEC evaluation.
2) if the error is identified AFTER the PEC has taken a vote, the candidate may use the option of the candidate response letter to address and correct that error. Note that this is the only appropriate path at all subsequent evaluation levels, either before or after the letter is issued.
3) to clarify: "correction of fact" does not mean "updates to the file" -- so if an article is under review at the time of submitting the file, later knowledge that the article has been accepted for publication does not justify an addendum. In some cases, the PEC may be able to address such updates; otherwise, these shifts will be reflected in later formal evaluations.
4) stylistic and editing changes are prohibited.
5) if required materials are missing, they may not be added after the deadline unless by way of honest mistake, and only with explanation in the addendum; simply missing the deadline is not suitable justification for having some parts of the file incomplete. Note that rectifying the problem of missing materials may only happen at the level of the PEC evaluation; once the file advances to the CEC, the file is static.
Regarding PEC Meetings held virtually:
Regarding PEC Meetings held virtually:
While the chair should continue to take notes, the meeting should not be recorded to maintain confidentiality of deliberations.
To take an anonymous vote, the chair can set up a simple poll through Zoom. See instructions here on polling. When drafting the question, sure to select the box for "Anonymous." The chair may set up the three voting options of YES- support the file; NO- do not support the file; and ABSTAIN. The chair should take care not to share the results until all voting is complete.
Regarding the PEC letter:
Regarding the PEC letter:
As a rule of thumb, the first department meeting in the fall will likely be necessary for the tenured faculty to vote on pre-tenure evaluation files. Likewise, the first department meeting in the spring will be needed to vote on files for tenure and promotion to full. Plan accordingly and either let junior colleagues know they don't need to attend, or find a separate meeting time for additional departmental business.
There's no one way to approach writing the PEC letter; some prefer to use the department meeting to draft salient bullet points and then defer to the chair to convert into narrative. This can be an ineffective use of time, however. Another option is for the chair to draft the letter in advance with the explicit understanding of the department that an anonymous vote must still be taken, and that the chair's initial thoughts hold no greater sway than any other senior colleague's. The chair may circulate the draft electronically, but ask for comments and feedback only after a vote has been taken in the closed session with the PEC. Once the draft has been revised (either in situ or later), the chair should circulate again to confirm it represents the thoughts of the PEC.
About letter format:
About letter format:
The PEC letter may be written in memo format or in traditional letter format, addressed to "Dear Evaluating Committees,"
The PEC letter may be signed by the chair or by the full PEC. In either case, the letter must represent the position of the PEC.
The letter must record an actual vote: in favor of promotion, against, and abstaining. While all members of the PEC will be accounted for in the letter, the vote itself is anonymous. Be aware also that, per the bylaws, abstentions count as absent votes; thus a motion will pass if and only if the candidate receives a positive majority of the yea-nay votes.
Upon completion of the letter (pay attention to deadlines in Portal), one electronic copy goes to Mai and one goes to the candidate.
The Chair's Role in Evaluation of Lecturers
The Chair's Role in Evaluation of Lecturers
Coming soon!
The Chair's Letter for Paid Leave
The Chair's Letter for Paid Leave
° Timeline for Leave Request Approval.
Leave applications are submitted to department chairs by September 15 for the following academic year or any part thereof (NB: there's no language on sabbatical policy in the bylaws. Instead, look to language excerpted from the Faculty Handbook that's now in PDF form and part of the call for paid leave on the Portal > Dean of Faculty tab > Department Chairs' Handbook > ). Department chairs review the leave proposals of their faculty and electronically submit the proposal and their recommendation to the VPAA by September 30. The chair recommendation should include a statement justifying the recommendation and a statement regarding the extent to which replacement instructional staff is needed for the faculty member who has requested the leave. (Replacement staffing is not guaranteed.) When more than one application is made within a department, the chair should provide a ranking of all proposals as part of the recommendation.
The provost will make recommendations regarding leave applications to the president. The president will then make recommendations to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees in time for a committee recommendation to the Board at its February meeting. For faculty who face a reappointment recommendation decision between the leave application deadline and the proposed semester of leave, the Board’s approval of leave requests is contingent upon reappointment recommendations.
° Letter format
Here's an example that might offer some broad direction of how to approach a chair's letter for paid leave.
The standard has been to write one all-encompassing letter addressing multiple (if that's the case) paid leave requests with a brief one- or two-line summary of each (attach the proposals themselves for full context). Then, address whether you as chair endorse this request, both in terms of merit, and in terms of how your colleagues' absence will impact your program.
Follow up with an explanation of how you would respond to their leave, whether or not you endorse it (you might not approve, but the provost might grant it anyway). So briefly explain what courses would be cut from the rotation, or what funding you would request for an adjunct/visitor, and why that'd be necessary.
Finally, you're instructed to prioritize/rank your department's leave requests, which is never much fun, but is a confidential communication between chair and provost. Most chairs base their ranking favoring those who have never had paid leave before and those with stronger project requests. The chair's letter is rarely more than two pages (depending on how many paid leave requests are being addressed), and is submitted along with the proposals themselves directly to the provost.
When do we write self-reports? Merit reports?
When do we write self-reports? Merit reports?
All faculty submit CVs to the Dean of Faculty's office (copying in the chair) every August.
In May 2017 the Faculty approved a new merit compensation system that dovetails with significant milestones in a faculty member’s professional life (e.g., initial renewal, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review). While most of the milestones remain unchanged, the new system establishes a three-year cycle for post-tenure review of Associate Professors.
This new three-year cycle began with the cohort of faculty promoted to Associate Professor in 2017, who will undergo three-year post-tenure review during the 2019-2020 academic year. All other Associate Professors will undergo their next post-tenure review according to their original schedules; upon completion, they will transition to the new three-year cycle until earning promotion to Professor.
Tenure-track and Tenured Faculty Merit Milestone Timeline
Tenure-track and Tenured Faculty Merit Milestone Timeline
Merit Milestone Review Timeline (v 2019-2020).pdfInfo on Parental Leave and Stopping the Tenure Clock
Info on Parental Leave and Stopping the Tenure Clock
From the bylaws, Section V.C.2. Probationary Pre-tenure Period:
e. The probationary period is not to exceed six years, except under the following circumstances:
1) Automatic one-year extensions are granted for parental caregiving within the first year after childbirth or adoption of a minor child. This automatic extension will be applied by the Dean of Faculty upon notification by the faculty member of a qualifying event. No more than two automatic extensions will be granted for this purpose. Faculty members may waive this automatic extension by submitting a written statement to the Dean of Faculty, specifying that the faculty.
Report abuse