|
| |
College of Arts and Letters The personnel review process begins no later than the end of Spring semester of the academic year preceding the formal review. The unit administrator (“Chairperson” for most A&L units, “Director” for the School of Music, but henceforth, in this document, “Chair”) informs the candidate for a personnel action that the process will take place during the following academic year. The Chair reviews the promotion and tenure criteria and the review process with the candidate, and begins the preparation of the dossier. For promotion and tenure reviews (and optionally for reappointments) the Chair requests names of potential external referees from the candidate.
Half of the external referee letters will be solicited from individuals on a list developed by the candidate, the other half will be solicited (by the Chair or based on recommendations by members of the relevant advisory committee) from other prominent scholars or artists in the candidate's field. The Chair will assure that each candidate has at least four external review letters; all review letters solicited by the Chair that are received will be included in the dossier. No unsolicited letters will be included, nor will they be read by review committees or administrators. Letters should be solicited from the external referees no later than July 1 of the summer preceding the fall semester review; contacts with external referees are preferably made before the end of the spring semester preceding the review year. To the extent defensible under Michigan law, the identity of external referees is not revealed to the candidates being reviewed, and only faculty members of duly constituted review committees and relevant administrators will read the referee letters. Prior to the solicitation of letters from the referees, each candidate will have an opportunity to inform the Chair if there are individuals in the profession who should not be contacted to referee because of any potential conflict of interest that would preclude a fair and unbiased professional review of the dossier materials. External reviews should be solicited by the Chair by means of a letter (or letter format) that has been approved by the Dean of the College.
As
the review process begins (but no later than the end of the spring
semester prior to the review year), the candidate submits to the
Chair a short (no longer than two-page) self evaluation, addressing
research/creative activity, teaching, and professional service.
The self evaluation forms an important part of the dossier; it should
specifically address the candidate's accomplishments to date in
light of the unit's and the University's criteria for reappointment,
promotion, and/or tenure. At this time the candidate should also
provide the Chair an up-to-date curriculum vitae , including
complete bibliographical information on all publications and explanation
of any works listed prior to publication (e.g. the exact status
of any manuscript listed as “in press,” “forthcoming,” “under revision,”
etc.). These, plus sample publications if relevant, and the University
and unit promotion and/or tenure criteria, are sent to the referees.
Other information and materials may be sent as well, according to
general unit practice.
The dossier is first reviewed by the duly constituted departmental personnel review committee or committees. Committee recommendations are advisory to the Chair. Committee recommendations to the Chair should be in writing and include both the recommended personnel action and an explanation of how the committee arrived at the recommendation (i.e. a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the materials in the dossier and the case in general with respect to the criteria). All faculty members of the committee(s) should indicate, by signature, that the recommendation letter is a fair representation of the committee sentiment. If there is a minority or dissenting viewpoint, the letter(s) should so indicate. The letter(s) then become part of the candidate's dossier.
The Chair reviews the dossier, and makes a recommendation to the Dean. If the Chair is recommending support of the reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure, the Chair writes a letter to the Dean that explains reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the unit review committee(s), provides interpretative commentary about both the candidate's accomplishments and the referee letters, and explains (either in the letter, or in supplemental materials) how and why the particular referees were chosen. The dossier that is forwarded to the Dean contains the University-required form, all received referee letters, the candidate's self evaluation and curriculum vitae , the unit review committee(s) letter(s), a summary statement about the candidate's teaching evaluations and teaching accomplishments, and the unit's RPT criteria. If the Dean or the College RPT committee requires further information or materials, the Chair will be contacted.
If the Chair is not recommending in favor of the personnel action, and if the candidate is being reviewed in a mandatory review year, the dossier is forwarded to the College. If the Chair is recommending against the personnel action in an optional review year, the candidate is informed and it is the candidate's prerogative to either withdraw the dossier from further consideration or have it forwarded to the College for review.
Once a dossier is forwarded to the Office of the Dean, the Chair will notify the candidate what action was recommended by the unit committee(s) and what the Chair has recommended. All recommendations are understood to be advisory to the Provost until a final personnel action is taken.
The College RPT committee consists of five faculty members holding the rank of associate professor with tenure or professor: four (4) members elected by the College faculty and one (1) member appointed by the Dean. No Department or School shall have more than one of its members on the Committee at any given time. (Please refer to the College of Arts and Letters Bylaws, Sec. 3.4)
The
RPT committee makes an advisory recommendation to the Dean on all
major personnel actions (reappointment, promotion, and tenure) in
the College. Once convened, the committee meets independently of
the Dean and reviews each candidate's dossier with respect to the
College criteria for the relevant personnel action. In the absence of specifically adopted guidelines to the contrary, the College criteria for personnel actions are drawn from the University's standards. Because Michigan State University must improve continuously, and to do so requires that academic personnel decisions result in a progressively stronger faculty--a faculty who meets continuously higher standards that assures enhanced quality within a national and international context. A positive recommendation for reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure may ensue once it is determined that the applicable position is to be retained. For reappointment, as well as for promotion and/or tenure, the candidate must provide solid evidence of consistent and persistent professional improvement and effectiveness at Michigan State University and in the College of Arts and Letters sufficient to demonstrate the promise of continued professional achievement and growth for the remainder of the individual's academic career. Evidence of actual and/or potential competitiveness for positions at other Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) Universities, or comparable peers, is the appropriate measure of promise. In other words, achievement and performance levels must be competitive with faculties of leading research-intensive, land-grant, AAU universities of international scope (MSU's peers).
A recommendation for promotion from assistant professor to associate professor in the tenure system must be based on several years of sustained, outstanding achievements in education and scholarship across the mission. These achievements must be consistent with performance levels expected for promotion to associate professor at peer institutions, and there must be a sufficiently long period in rank prior to the promotion as to provide a firm basis in actual performance for predicting long term capacity for the achievement and maintenance of national stature and enduring high quality professional achievement. A recommendation for tenure for an individual appointed initially as associate professor on a probationary basis will be made if the individual has achieved the same level of promise (as the successful assistant professor promoted to associate professor with tenure) based on professional accomplishments. A recommendation for promotion from associate professor to professor in the tenure system must be based on several years of sustained, outstanding achievements in education and scholarship across the mission. These achievements must be consistent with performance levels expected for promotion to professor at peer institutions, and there must be a sufficiently long period in rank prior to the promotion as to provide a firm basis in actual performance to permit endorsement of the individual as an expert or artist of national stature and to predict continuous, long-term, high quality professional achievement.
After
full review of each candidate dossier, the college RPT committee
makes a recommendation to the Dean. That committee will be mindful
of the College's continuing objective to improve its faculty with
each personnel recommendation. The committee will also be mindful
of supporting procedural due process. Any concerns about potential
breach of due process will be communicated to the Dean.
The Dean, in submitting a recommendation to the Provost on each personnel action, will consider the RPT committee's recommendation letter and will include an explanation for accepting or disagreeing with the recommendation. The Dean, via the Chair, will inform each candidate of the action recommended by the committee and by the Dean her/himself. The Dean will also report to the committee whether s/he has agreed or disagreed with its recommendations. Consistent with University policy, any negative outcome of a personnel review (for reappointment, promotion and/or tenure) will be explained to the candidate in writing.
These guidelines were developed and adopted during Spring 1999 and revised in Spring 2002. They will guide College personnel actions until revised or replaced.
|