dossier preparation guidelinesaglifesciences.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/dossier... · list...

DDoossssiieerr PPrreeppaarraattiioonn GGuuiiddeelliinneess

ffoorr

FFaaccuullttyy,, AAddmmiinniissttrraattoorrss aanndd SSttaaffff

PPrreeppaarriinngg DDoossssiieerrss ffoorr MMiiddtteerrmm RReevviieeww

PPrroommoottiioonn ttoo SSeenniioorr LLeeccttuurreerr PPrroommoottiioonn ttoo AAssssoocciiaattee PPrrooffeessssoorr aanndd TTeennuurree

TTeennuurree OOnnllyy PPrroommoottiioonn ttoo PPrrooffeessssoorr

22001133--22001144 PPrroommoottiioonn aanndd TTeennuurree

CCoolllleeggee ooff AAggrriiccuullttuurree aanndd LLiiffee SScciieenncceess TTeexxaass AA&&MM AAggrriiLLiiffee RReesseeaarrcchh TTeexxaass AA&&MM AAggrriiLLiiffee EExxtteennssiioonn

Table of Contents Section Calendar ...........................................................................................................................................1

Notification and Workshops Midterm Timeline Promotion and Tenure (Mandatory) Timeline

Dossier Check-Off Lists ..................................................................................................................2

Faculty Dossier Check-Off List Administrative Dossier Check-Off List

Dossier Preparation Guidelines........................................................................................................3

Tenure and Promotion Packages Submission Guidelines Position Description and Job Expectation Protocol for Joint Appointments Statement on Teaching: Example of Teaching Statement Rubric Statement on Research: Example of Research Statement Rubric Department and P&T Committee Reports-Authorship

Dossier Cover Sheets .......................................................................................................................4

TAMU AgriLife Research AgriLife Extension Midterm Review (use either the TAMU or AgriLIfe Research cover sheets)

Charts and Tables .............................................................................................................................5 Candidate fills out Grants Summary Chart Faculty Biography Table Faculty Summary Data Table Department fills out External Reviewers Chart PDF Dossier Template

How to Improve Your Dossier - Suggestions Past Peer Review Committees .................................6 Suggested Curriculum Vitae Outline ...............................................................................................7 College Policy and Guidelines .........................................................................................................8 AgriLife Research Policy and Guidelines........................................................................................9 AgriLife Extension Policy and Guidelines ....................................................................................10 University Rule 12.01.99.M2.........................................................................................................11 Annual and Midterm Review Guidelines ......................................................................................12

1

Section 1

Calendar

2

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Texas A&M AgriLife Research

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension 2013-14 Promotion and Tenure Calendar

All instructions, guidelines and forms needed can be found at: http://aglifesciences.tamu.edu/people/facultystaff/promotion-tenu

[email protected]

Notification and Workshops February-March Department Informs Candidate: Department informs candidate of upcoming

review and instructs them to start putting together packets using 2013-14 Dossier preparation guidelines: http://dof.tamu.edu/content/tenure-promotion-annual-and-midterm-review

Jan 7, 12-2 pm, Rudder 510 Understanding the Promotion and Tenure Process Orientation to the process for Assistant Professors prior to their mandatory review year, and Associate Professors contemplating submission for Professor

April 4, Rudder 501, 3-5 pm Candidate Dossier Preparation Workshop – For candidates preparing their Dossier. This includes all faculty with “Lecturer” or “Professor” in their title.

April 18, Rudder 401, 3-5 pm Administrative Dossier Preparation Workshop: For Heads, Resident Directors, P&T Chairs and staff involved in preparing final Dossiers packets.

August, place & time, TBA Administrative Check-Off List Workshop: Final workshop to go over check-off list for compliance in preparation of the final dossier package. For Heads, Resident Directors, P&T Chairs and staff involved in preparing Dossiers packets.

Anytime Mentoring Beyond the Department, one-on-one anytime Midterm Review Timelines As per Dept. policy/timeline Candidate submits Dossier to Department: The candidate submits their Dossier

components to the Head/Resident Director and/or Departmental P&T Committee, as per departmental guidelines.

May Departmental Review: Departmental P&T Committee, then Head and Resident Director (if applicable) review Dossier, and insert reports.

May 24 Department submits final Dossier package to College: (including candidate’s CV, separate Statements on Teaching, Research and Service, and other material, etc., Dept P&T Committee report, Head/Resident Director report(s), and any internal letters)

May 27-31 College vets Dossiers & Departments corrects: College vets for compliance with 2013-14 Dossier preparation guidelines; Department makes corrections and submits final version to College by June 1.

June 3-July 26 College and Texas A&M AgriLife Peer Review Committee: Reviews and prepares reports.

July 29 College and Texas A&M AgriLife Peer Review Committee: Issues report to Dean/Director.

Early August Dean, Director and Administrative Team: Review Dossiers Mid-August Dean, Director and Administrative Team: Issue report to each candidate. Late August and September Post-Review Mentoring: College mentors mid-term candidates for College-level

perspective. Promotion and Tenure (Mandatory) Review Timelines: As per Dept. timeline Candidate submits Dossier to Department: The candidate submits their Dossier

components to the Head/Resident Director and/or Departmental P&T Committee, as per departmental guidelines.

Departmental Review: Departmental P&T Committee, then Head and Resident Director (if applicable) review Dossier, and insert reports.

September 13 Department submits final Dossier to College: (including candidate’s CV, separate Statements on Teaching, Research, Service, Extension, and other material, Dept. P&T Committee report, Head/Resident Director report(s), and external letters)

Date TBA Department submits to Dean’s office: Faculty Biography Table, Faculty Summary Data Table, and External Reviewers Chart.

September 16-17 College vets Dossiers: College vets Dossiers for compliance with 2013-14 Dossier guidelines and returns check-off list to Department to makes corrections.

September 20 Department returns to College: Corrected final Dossier – 3 hard copies correctly tabbed and labeled and 1 bookmarked PDF of Dossier.

3


Texas A&M AgriLife Extension 2013-14 Promotion and Tenure Calendar

All instructions, guidelines and forms needed can be found at: http://aglifesciences.tamu.edu/people/facultystaff/promotion-tenu

[email protected]

September 23 – November 1 College and Texas A&M AgriLife Peer Review Committee: Reviews TAMU Dossiers and prepares reports to the Dean; submits final reports to Dean by November 1.

November 1 College and Texas A&M AgriLife Peer Review Committee: Final draft to Dean November 8 Dean submits to DOF: Electronic copies of college chart (no need for

College P&T vote and Dean’s vote at this time), Faculty Biography Table, Faculty Summary Data Table and External Reviewers Chart f or all candidates to the Office of the Dean of Faculties.

November 8–December 5 Dean, Executive Associate Dean & Administrative Team: Reviews TAMU Dossiers.

December 6 Dean submits recommendations to DOF for Provost: Electronic and hard copy files of all candidates.

December-January College and Texas A&M AgriLife Peer Review Committee: Reviews AgriLife Research and AgriLife Extension Dossiers and prepares reports to the Directors.

Late January Directors: Reviews AgriLife Research and AgriLife Research Dossiers and issues report to the Vice-Chancellor.

4

Section 2

Dossier Check-Off Lists

5

1

Faculty Check Off List 2013-2014 Promotion and Tenure Packages Submission Guidelines

(http://dof.tamu.edu/content/tenure-promotion-annual-and-midterm-review) General Instructions � Dossier cover sheet: Used proper form

� TAMU � Texas A&M AgriLife Research � Texas A&M AgriLIfe Extension

� Dossier cover sheet: Completely filled-out with faculty information � Dossier PDF: Bookmarked to sections of Dossier � Dossier PDF: Used original PDFs, not scanned PDFs (except for pages with signatures) � Dossier PDF: Name PDF Last name, First initial, mixed upper & lower case, e.g. Smith, J. Dossier Items Item 1: Candidate’s Statement on Teaching Research and/or Other Scholarly, Creative Activities and Service; and Extension (for Extension faculty) � Written by candidate � Each area individually addressed. � Address goals, philosophies, strategies, emphases & approach; not summary or significance. � 3 typed pages (max), single-spaced; 10 or 12-pt font; 1-inch margins Item 2: Candidate’s CV � Does not contain personal contact information � Concise and not padded. (e.g. avoid hundred+ page CVs) � Refereed publications: Listed separately from non-refereed; make sure refereed publications

listed are considered refereed by your department/peers. � Refereed publications: Accepted but not yet published labeled according.

Departments may require and acceptance letter, but college/university does not. � Refereed publications: Indicate co-authors that are the candidate’s graduate students � Refereed publications: If unique to discipline, describe authorship protocol (e.g.senior author) � Submitted Refereed publications: In a separate captioned list � Grant Summary Chart. Place in text of CV or append table at end. � Signed Statement: Append to end of CV a signed statement “I acknowledging that the CV

being submitted is the most current and is correct as of the date of the signature”. (Note: this is different from the signed Verification of Contents statement in Item 3)

Requirement by College or Required for Dept Evaluation of Teaching � Position description that explains job expectation in teaching, research, service, extension � Student teaching evaluations along with department average. � Peer teaching evaluations if done Item 3: Verification of Contents Letter � Dated statement signed by the candidate

(Note: this is in addition to the signed acknowledgement statement in Item 2: CV) � List all materials submitted by candidate to the departmental review committee. Statements,

CV, articles, books, portfolios, student evaluations, or other material submitted. � List does not include departmental reports, outside letters, or other materials not supplied by

candidate.

6

2

Item 8: Outside Reviewers’ Letters � External reviewers:

� Candidate provides list of names of possible reviewers � Candidate may also provide a list of those who should not be consulted. � From peer institutions and/or clear leaders in field. � Objectivity is not open to challenge (avoid co-authors, Co-PIs, longtime friends). � Rank equal to or higher than the candidate � Letter from outside the academy: maybe included, but in addition to the minimum three. � Interdisciplinary program – if faculty is a member, department will request letter from the

Chair. NEW: DOF ruled that letter is to be requested regardless of activity in IDP

Item 13: Other Material and Documentation (optional) � Pertinent materials, but that are not appropriate elsewhere in Dossier.

� Letters from students or peers to support evaluation of teaching. � Letters from TAMU faculty members. May be included, but will not go beyond College (removed before Dossier goes to DOF) � Teaching Portfolio (but is important if the primary decision is to be made on teaching) � Copies of books. � Copies of articles

NOTE: All forms are available at: http://aglifesciences.tamu.edu/people/facultystaff/promotion-tenure/ dof.tamu.edu

7

1

Administrative Check Off List 2013-2014 Promotion and Tenure Packages Submission Guidelines

(http://dof.tamu.edu/content/tenure-promotion-annual-and-midterm-review)

General Instructions � Dossier cover sheet: Used proper form

� TAMU � Texas A&M AgriLife Research � Texas A&M AgriLIfe Extension

� Dossier cover sheet: Completely filled-out with faculty information � Dossier PDF: Bookmarked to sections of Dossier � Dossier PDF: Used original PDFs, not scanned PDFs (except for pages with signatures) � Dossier PDF: Name PDF Last name, First initial, mixed upper & lower case, e.g. Smith, J. � Dossier cover sheet Vote: Record only one vote � Dossier cover sheet Vote: For TAMU tenure-track appointments, record only tenured vote � Dossier cover sheet Vote: Same T&P committee voting on all candidates in department � Dossier Hardcopy: Submit in manila folder with tabbed dividers � Dossier Hardcopy: Label folder, black New Roman font:

Candidate’s Last name, First Name – Rank sought (ex. Associate Professor with tenure) Department/College (no abbreviations) – 2012-13

Dossier Items Item 1: Candidate’s Statement on Teaching Research and/or Other Scholarly, Creative Activities and Service; and Extension (for Extension faculty) � Written by candidate � Each area individually addressed. � Address goals, philosophies, strategies, emphases & approach; not summary or significance. � 3 typed pages (max), single-spaced; 10 or 12-pt font; 1-inch margins Item 2: Candidate’s CV � Does not contain personal contact information � Concise and not padded. (e.g. avoid hundred+ page CVs) � Refereed publications: Listed separately from non-refereed; make sure refereed publications

listed are considered refereed by your department/peers. � Refereed publications: Accepted but not yet published labeled according.

Departments may require and acceptance letter, but college/university does not. � Refereed publications: Indicate co-authors that are the candidate’s graduate students � Refereed publications: If unique to discipline, describe authorship protocol (e.g.senior author) � Submitted Refereed publications: In a separate captioned list � Grant Summary Chart. Place in text of CV or append table at end. � Signed Statement: Append to end of CV a signed statement “I acknowledging that the CV

being submitted is the most current and is correct as of the date of the signature”. (Note: this is different from the signed Verification of Contents statement in Item 3)

Requirement by College or Required for Dept Evaluation of Teaching � Position description that explains job expectation in teaching, research, service, extension � Student teaching evaluations along with department average. � Peer teaching evaluations if done Item 3: Verification of Contents Letter

8

2

� Dated statement signed by the candidate (Note: this is in addition to the signed acknowledgement statement in Item 2: CV)

� List all materials submitted by candidate to the departmental review committee. Statements, CV, articles, books, portfolios, student evaluations, or other material submitted.

� List does not include departmental reports, outside letters, or other materials not supplied by candidate.

Items 4-7: Department Evaluations of Teaching, Research, Service, Extension and Other Activities � IMPORTANT: Votes should not be included in T, R, S and E reports. � Separate, indexed, tabbed reports.

� TAMU: Teaching, Research & Service (Other=optional) � AgriLife Research: Research, Teaching & Service (Other=optional) � AgriLife Extension: Extension, Research, Teaching & Service (Other=optional)

� Written by faculty from T&P committee; not written by Department Head or candidate. � These are summary reports; do not repeat information found elsewhere in dossier. � Authorship of each report made clear.

� List name(s) of individual or individuals who wrote each report � Should reflect views of voting committee members, by statement at end of each report:

“The opinions and conclusions stated in this report regarding the candidate accurately reflect the views of the T&P committee.”

Teaching Report: (All appointments) Faculty with Teaching appointments: The following must be addressed. � Peer evaluation: Of syllabi, assignments, exams, grading methods, scope, rigor, and quality

of course offering; structured classroom observations is helpful, but not required. � Student Ratings: give chronological, tabular summary and departmental standards/norms. � Peer evaluation of other teaching contributions: including direction of grad and UG students,

curricular development, new courses, pedagogical publications, etc. � Do not include letter of testimonials from colleagues or students (may be place in Item13) Faculty with Research and Extension appointments: May include the above if present � Describe formal classroom teaching and non-formal teaching activities/opportunities. Research Report (All appointments) � Includes comments on research program, publications, and other scholarly/creative activity. � Describe authorship protocol if unique to discipline Service Report (All appointments) � May include service to students, colleagues, department, college and University, and beyond

campus (professional societies, research organizations, government, community, public) Extension Report (Extension appointments only) � Includes comments on extension programming, publications, and other scholarly/creative

activity. Other Activities Report (optional for all appointments) � Add only if there are activities that do not obviously fit into the other reports. Item 8: External Reviewers Letters � TAMU External Reviewers Chart (dof.tamu.edu/node/27)

� Completely fill-out for all letters solicited � Including those that did not respond � Including requests from Chair of TAMU interdisciplinary programs.

9

3

� External reviewer’s biography: Separate document, with name, contact info, and biography of qualifications and credentials.

� IMPORTANT: Include list of department’s peer and aspiring institutions, if other than AAU-level institutions, and the basis for their selection.

� IMPORTANT; Aim to include in dossier 5-7 letters; minimum number required is 3 from peer programs/institutions.

� External reviewers: � Candidate provides list of names of possible reviewers; may provide a do no contact list. � Head or P&T Committee provides a list of possible reviewers. � Request letters

� Mix of at least 7 letters is requested, some from candidate and some from department.

� Recommended to request equal number for all candidates. � From peer institutions and/or leaders in field. � Objectivity is not open to challenge (avoid co-authors, Co-PIs, longtime friends).

� Letters from former advisors and former students must be placed in Item 13 – Other.

� Rank equal to or higher than the candidate � Do not appear on the candidate’s “do not contact” list. � Letter from outside the academy: maybe included, but in addition to the three. � IMPORTANT: Interdisciplinary program – if faculty is a member, department will

request letter from the Chair. NEW: DOF ruled that letter is to be requested regardless of activity in IDP

� Include copy of solicitation letter: � Request specific examples of the candidate’s current and potential quality, impact, and

independence of their scholarship; and current and potential national and/or international prominence.

� IMPORTANT: It is not recommended to ask if the candidate would be granted tenure/promotion at their institution

� Must contain the following statement “Your review will be kept confidential; however, Texas is an open records state and your review could be requested and relinquished.”

� All letters received must be included in dossier and external reviewers chart. Item 9: Departmental (T&P) Committee Discussion Report and Recommendation � Purpose is to convey the meaning of the departmental committee’s recommendation and

explain the committee’s recommendation. � Summary correlates with the vote. � Must address all three areas of teaching, research and service/extension. � Avoid direct quotes, minutes, or transcripts of meeting. � Avoid summarizing information that can be found in the Dossier � Summarize the most relevant issues explaining the outcome of the vote. � Vote/recommendations must be consistent with evidence in the Dossier. � Weigh supporting and contrary evidence that yielded the overall decision. � The vote (number yes, no, abstain, absent) of T&P committee must be included in the report. � All committee members should review the contents and agree that the report reflects the

discussion and voting outcome. � IMPORTANT The names of all the committee members voting in each case should be

included in the report.

10

4

� IMPORTANT All voting committee member sign the report. Department Head’s presence at committee meetings

� The Department Head cannot be a member of the T&P Committee and should not participate in evaluation and deliberations of the candidates...

� Head may attend if: � Committee wishes to have the Head present � Department guidelines/bylaws make it clear this can occur � Must be present for all candidates, not selective ones

Vote Eligibility � Departmental policy defines “T&P committee” which is “the group whose vote if forwarded

as the faculty vote on the candidate.” � TAMU Tenure-track and tenured candidates.

Only tenured faculty are eligible to vote on in cases where tenure is being considered, or where a tenured faculty is seeking promotion.

� TAMU non-tenure-track, AgriLife Research and AgriLife Extension candidates. Both tenure and non-tenure track faculty members are eligible to vote

� Voting faculty member must hold a rank equal to or above that of the rank sought by the candidate.

� T&P members who do not read the candidate’s dossier should abstain from voting. � For faculty being considered in the same track and rank:

o There cannot be different T&P committees o There can be only one vote forwarded as the faculty vote.

� Any other votes of the committee as a whole or subsets of the committee are advisory in nature, and are not forwarded as the “faculty vote”

Item 10: Department Head’s Recommendation � Provide general basis for strengths and weakness of the case. � Provide context within your department. � Explain any special considerations (early promotion, delay, special hiring) � Explain mixed or negative votes, if not in committee report � Explain your vote, especially if contrary to the committee vote. Item 13: Other Material and Documentation (optional) � Pertinent materials, but that are not appropriate elsewhere in Dossier.

� Letters from students or peers to support evaluation of teaching. � Letters from TAMU faculty members. May be included, but will not go beyond College (removed before Dossier goes to DOF) � Teaching Portfolio (but is important if the primary decision is to be made on teaching) � Copies of books. � Copies of articles

NOTE: All forms are available at: http://aglifesciences.tamu.edu/people/facultystaff/promotion-tenure/ dof.tamu.edu

11

Section 3

Dossier Preparation Guidelines

12

PROMOTION AND TENURE PACKAGES

Submission Guidelines 2013-‐2014

Office of the Dean of Faculties 108 YMCA Building | 1126 TAMU

Tel. 979.845.4274 | [email protected] | http://dof.tamu.edu/

13

Texas A&M University 2013-14 P&T Guidelines

Date Modified: 3/19/13 Page 2 of 37

Table of Contents I. TIMELINE ............................................................................................................................................. 4 II. DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 4

III. DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY CANDIDATE ............................................................................ 6 A. Candidate’s Statement on Teaching, Research and/or Other Scholarly, Creative Activities and Service (Dossier Item 1) ...................................................................................................................................... 6 B. Candidate’s CV (Dossier Item 2) ......................................................................................................................... 7 C. Grants Summary Chart ............................................................................................................................................ 7 D. Verification of Contents Statement (Dossier Item 3) ................................................................................ 7 E. Faculty Biography Table ......................................................................................................................................... 8 F. Faculty Summary Data Table ............................................................................................................................. 10 G. Other Materials and Documentation (Dossier Item 13, optional) .................................................... 11

IV. EXTERNAL REVIEWERS LETTERS (DOSSIER ITEM 8) ..................................................... 12 V. DEPARTMENT REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 13

A. Department Evaluation of Teaching, Research and/or Other Scholarly, Creative Activities and Service (Dossier Items 4-‐7) ............................................................................................................................. 13 B. Department P&T Committee Discussion Report and Recommendation (Dossier Item 9) .... 15 C. Department Head Recommendation (Dossier Item 10) ........................................................................ 16

VI. COLLEGE REVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 17 A. College Committee Report and Recommendation (Dossier Item 11) ............................................. 17 B. Dean Recommendation and Summary (Dossier Item 12) .................................................................... 17

VII. PROCESS INFORMATION .......................................................................................................... 18 A. Committee Proceedings (Department and College) ................................................................................ 18 B. Notifying Candidates of Promotion and/or Tenure Recommendations ........................................ 19 C. Candidate’s Right to Withdraw ......................................................................................................................... 19 D. Mandatory (Penultimate Year) Review and the Probationary Period ............................................ 19 E. Department and College Written Guidelines for Promotion & Tenure ........................................... 22 F. Early Promotion and Tenure ............................................................................................................................. 22 G. Reviewing Faculty with Joint Appointments .............................................................................................. 22 H. Non-‐Tenure Track Faculty Promotions ........................................................................................................ 23 I. Faculty Members Hired Before Terminal Degree Has Been Issued ................................................... 23

VIII. DOSSIER AND FILE SET ORGANIZATION .......................................................................... 23 A. Organization of Faculty Dossiers ..................................................................................................................... 23 B. Organization and Submission of File Sets .................................................................................................... 25

IX. RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................... 27

X. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... 29 Appendix A: Candidate Dossier Cover Sheet (Submitted as PDF) ........................................................... 29 Appendix B: College Chart (Submit as Excel file not as PDF) .................................................................... 30 Appendix C: External Reviewers Chart (Submit as Excel file not as PDF) ........................................... 32 Appendix D: PDF Dossier Template ..................................................................................................................... 33 Appendix E: Grants Summary Chart (Submit as Excel file not as PDF) ................................................ 34 Appendix F. Faculty Biography Table (Submit as Word document not as PDF) ............................... 35 Appendix G: Faculty Summary Data Table (Submit as Word document not as PDF) ..................... 36

14



15



I. TIMELINE

March/April 2013 Through the dean of faculties, the provost requests that deans initiate promotion and tenure proceedings.

November 8, 2013 Deans submit electronic copies of college chart (no need for College P&T and Dean’s vote at this time), Faculty Biography Table, Faculty Summary Data Table and External Reviewers Chart for all candidates to the Office of the Dean of Faculties.

December 6, 2013 Deans submit recommendations to the provost by sending electronic and hard copy files of all candidates to the Office of the Dean of Faculties.

January 2014 Deans meet with the provost and the dean of faculties and review recommendations. The provost forwards recommendations to the president.

February 2014 President meets with the provost and the dean of faculties and review recommendations. The president forwards recommendations for promotion to the chancellor and for tenure to the Board of Regents (BOR), through the chancellor.

May 2014

BOR reviews recommendations and makes final decisions on tenure cases.

September 1, 2014 Promotion and tenure decisions become effective.

September, 2014

Reception for those promoted and/or tenured. Time and place to be determined.

All promotion and tenure candidate dossier materials are due to the Office of the Dean of Faculties by December 6, 2013. If unusual circumstances necessitate submission of any materials after the due date, the dean of the college must first obtain approval to submit late materials from the dean of faculties.

IMPORTANT CHANGES FROM LAST YEAR: • Deadline for dossiers submission to Office of the Dean of Faculties: December 6, 2013 • Faculty Biography Table • Only three (3) hard copies of each candidate’s dossier are required

II. DEFINITIONS College chart -‐ a form listing candidates’ names, departments, ranks, and other information. Instructions on how to complete the college chart, example of the completed chart and link to template can be found in Appendix B.

16



Dossier -‐ A file for a single candidate that includes documents submitted by the candidate, outside peer-‐review letters, reports prepared by the various voting bodies (departmental P&T committee, department head, college P&T committee, dean) and other supporting materials. Departments initiate the preparation of the dossiers and then forward them to their colleges for further processing and completion. Example and link to PDF template of candidate dossier can be found in Appendix D.

Eligibility to Vote. The criteria for voting eligibility are:

1. Only tenured TAMU faculty are eligible to vote in cases where tenure is being considered for the candidate, or when the candidate already holds tenure and is seeking promotion.

2. To be eligible to vote on tenure or promotion, the voting TAMU faculty member must also hold a rank equal to or above that of the rank being sought by the candidate.

3. Both tenure and non-‐tenure track faculty members who hold a rank equal to or above that of the rank being sought by the candidate are eligible to vote on non-‐tenure track promotion cases.

Example: For assistant professors seeking promotion and tenure to associate professor, only tenured faculty holding the rank of associate professor or above are eligible to vote. For tenured associate professors seeking promotion to full professor, only tenured full professors are eligible to vote.

File set -‐ A complete set of materials on all candidates from a college. A file set consists of the College Chart and Dossier for all the candidates listed on the chart. Departments will be responsible for compiling and organizing the candidates’ dossiers, and then sending the dossiers to the college for final organization into the file set. For instructions on how to organize dossiers and file sets refer to Section VIII. Links to form and chart templates can be found in Section X (Appendices).

Promotion and Tenure (P&T) Committee – A single faculty committee which is charged with reviewing candidates who are eligible for tenure and/or promotion, and whose members are voting on those candidates.

• The Department Head cannot be a member of the P&T committee and should not participate during P&T committee evaluation and deliberations of the candidates. It is also recommended that college and university level administrators do not participate in P&T committee deliberations, as this can be perceived as a conflict of interest because these individuals have access and may influence the dean/provost’s decisions.

• The “P&T committee” is defined as “the group whose vote is forwarded as the faculty vote on the candidate.”

• There cannot be different P&T committees for different candidates in the same track seeking the same rank within the same department. Departments can have different committees for tenure and non-‐tenure track reviews.

• Different members or subsets of members of the P&T committee can be assigned with the task of leading the evaluation and discussion of different candidates and/or evaluation areas (teaching, research, and service or other scholarly, creative activities). However, the organization and assignment of evaluation responsibilities, and the actual process of evaluating and discussing candidates, must be systematic and uniform across candidates. All members of the P&T committee who are eligible to evaluate and vote on any given candidate should be active participants of the evaluation process of that candidate. Members of the P&T committee who do not read a candidate’s dossier should abstain from voting. Some members of the P&T committee might be ineligible to evaluate and vote on some candidates (e.g., an associate professor cannot evaluate a promotion to full; see “Eligibility to Vote,” above).

17



• Each department and/or college P&T guidelines must explain how the composition of the departmental and college level P&T committees is determined. These guidelines must be developed in consultation with the faculty at large or with a representative faculty committee. The P&T committee can be formed by all tenured associate and full professors, or all full professors only, or by a subset of all tenured faculty. Colleges and departments can create promotion committees composed of non-‐tenure track faculty, or include non-‐tenure track faculty in the regular P&T committee, for the evaluation of non-‐tenure track faculty seeking promotion. Only faculty at or above the rank to which the candidate is applying can evaluate the dossier. Non-‐tenure track faculty cannot vote in cases involving tenure-‐track candidates; however, they can participate and vote on non-‐tenure track promotions for ranks below.

III. DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY CANDIDATE IMPORTANT: Deadlines for submission of these documents are determined by individual departments and or colleges. Please refer to department and/or college guidelines for additional information.

A. Candidate’s Statement on Teaching, Research and/or Other Scholarly, Creative Activities and Service (Dossier Item 1) Description Written by the candidate, this is a concise statement of the candidate’s goals, philosophies, strategies and emphases in carrying out his or her professional responsibilities in teaching, in research, in service, and in any other activities. Each of the three areas should be individually addressed. Rather than using this statement as a forum to say why the candidate’s teaching, research and service or other scholarly, creative activities have been significant (or to make an argument for promotion or tenure), this statement should say how the candidate approaches these pursuits.

The candidate’s statement on Teaching, Research and/or Other Scholarly, Creative Activities and Service is an important document both for the candidate’s reflections and for contextualizing the other materials in the dossier. The personal statement should aid reviewers in understanding the candidate’s current philosophies in all three areas of the candidate’s teaching, research and/or other scholarly, creative activities and service. It can provide examples of evidence of how the candidate’s philosophies in each of the three areas have been demonstrated and how they illustrate the candidate’s professional growth. Alternatively, the statement might show how the candidate’s experiences with teaching, research and/or other scholarly, creative activities have helped them develop their philosophies. For example, a statement on teaching might explain the candidate’s philosophy of teaching (which should be more in-‐depth than a simple statement such as, “I believe in good teaching”) and explain how they came to hold that philosophy, as well as providing specific illustrations of how that philosophy is applied in the classroom. The statements on candidate’s teaching, research, and service or other scholarly, creative activities should provide a context for review of the entire case. For those candidates involved in interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary collaborative research the statement is a good place to inform reviewers of the candidate’s contribution to the projects.

Format & Guidelines • Three typed pages (maximum), single-‐spaced; 10 or 12-‐pt font; 1-‐inch margins

18



B. Candidate’s CV (Dossier Item 2) Description The curriculum vitae will reflect experiences and development in the candidate’s career as a teacher and scholar. It provides an overview of the candidate’s academic accomplishments.

Format & Guidelines • IMPORTANT: Departments and colleges may have specific formatting requirements. Please

refer to department/college guidelines for detail information. • The curriculum vitae should be concise and padding should be avoided. • List refereed publications (or other types of creative works) separately from those that were

not refereed, and caption the lists accordingly. Provide complete documentation for each citation, including the date of publication and inclusive page numbers.

• Items that have been accepted but not yet published should be so labeled. (Most departments ask to see an acceptance letter.) Items that have been submitted but not yet accepted should not be shown unless they appear in a separately captioned list.

• It is strongly encouraged that if any coauthors are the candidate’s graduate students (past or present) they are delineated in a manner so that this relationship is discernible.

Signed Statement The candidate must include a signed statement with the CV acknowledging that the CV being submitted is the most current and is correct as of the date of the signature. This statement and signature may be appended onto the end of the CV document. IMPORTANT: This is different from Verification of Contents Statement (Dossier Item 3) described below.

Additions or changes to the CV Additions or changes to the CV after initial submission may occur at any level of the review and evaluation process. In general, it is advisable to use caution and limit changes to the CV to additions, updates, or corrections that are substantive in nature. For example, candidates may request to update their CV after learning that a pending grant has been funded, a paper submitted for publication has been accepted, a new contract for a book has been signed, an important recognition has been awarded, etc. Modifications to the dossier must be clearly marked and documented. For example, a sheet may be inserted into the CV section stating exactly what has changed (such as, “Grant proposal X to NSF, listed as pending, has now been awarded”). The insert should contain a statement that the candidate deems the changes to be accurate as of this date and should be signed and dated by the candidate. Requests of addition or changes to the CV must be submitted through the department head, who in turn will forward it to the evaluating body currently reviewing the dossier.

C. Grants Summary Chart The candidate must include a copy of the Grants Summary Chart that lists the candidate's grant information in a table format (see example and link to template in Appendix E) at the end of the CV.

D. Verification of Contents Statement (Dossier Item 3) Description This is a statement by the candidate verifying what materials he/she has submitted for departmental review for the purpose of promotion and/or tenure consideration. The list of materials might include such things as: philosophy statement(s), curriculum vitae, articles, books, portfolios, student evaluations, and other materials submitted by the candidate.

Format & Guidelines • A dated statement signed by the candidate.

19



• In the statement, the candidate should list all materials he or she is submitting to the departmental review committee.

This list should not include departmental reports, outside letters, or other materials not submitted by the candidate.

E. Faculty Biography Table Description The Faculty Biography Table will summarize biographical information of the candidate. This table will be forwarded to the Chancellor (all candidates seeking promotion) and Board of Regents (all candidates seeking tenure), and published in the spring recognition booklet featuring newly tenured and/or promoted faculty (all candidates granted tenure and/or promotion) (link to template can be found in Appendix F). IMPORTANT: the content and format of the Faculty Biography has changed from previous years. Below find detailed description on how to provide the required information.

Faculty Biography Table

Required information: a. Name, department, Present Rank and Effective Date (9/1/2014 for all candidates) b. Terminal degree, year, and institution c. Experience evaluated towards tenure. Should include only experience that is considered in

the evaluation for tenure, i.e., experience while in a tenured or tenure track position. Non-‐tenure track positions such as graduate assistant, teaching assistant, lecturer, post-‐doc and adjunct faculty positions are usually not considered as part of the tenure decision and should not be included. Positions such as those for System agencies or other post terminal degree experiences in which partial credit is considered should be included with years of credit indicated.

Include semester and year the faculty joined Texas A&M University in this section.

Name Department Present Rank Effective Date Dr./Mr./Ms. First Last Department (full name

no abbreviations) Present Faculty Rank 9/1/2014

Terminal Degree (Year)

Institution

Experience evaluated towards tenure. Dates (Include semester and year beginning and ending) (See section c. below for explanation and example)

Institution (Include previous and current institution) (See section c. below for explanation and example)

Title (Include “Tenured” and “Year” if tenure was awarded at other institution) (See section c. below for explanation and example)

Accomplishments (See section d. below for explanation)

Statement on Teaching (See section e. below for explanation) Justification for Early Tenure, if Applicable (See section f. below for explanation) TO BE FILLED OUT BY DEAPARTMENT AND/OR COLLEGE (if applicable)

20



Example of date joined Texas A&M with no other tenure track experience:

Fa 2006-‐Present Texas A&M University Assistant Professor For each institution and each position towards tenure, list semester and year appointment started and ended, institution, and position.

Example of date joined Texas A&M with previous tenure track experience:

Fa 2008-‐Sp 2011 Fa 2011-‐Present

University of Alaska Texas A&M University

Assistant Professor Assistant Professor

If the faculty member received tenure at previous institution indicate in parenthesis by position and include year, i.e., Associate Professor (Tenured 2010).

Example of experience with tenure at other institution:

Fa 2005-‐Sp 2010 Fa 2010-‐Sp 2013 Fa 2013

University of Alaska University of Alaska Texas A&M University

Assistant Professor Associate Professor (Tenured 2010) Associate Professor

d. Accomplishments should include area of specialty and address those issues on which the

decision to grant tenure was made:

• Research, creative activities, and other scholarly endeavors; • Student advising, counseling, and other student services; • Committee and administrative service to university; • Service to profession, community, state or nation; • Professional growth; • Quality of patient care, where applicable; and • Patents or commercialization of research, where applicable.

The emphasis may differ because of the differences in departments’ missions and academic specialty.

Do not include pre-‐terminal degree experience in summation unless experience provides better insight into effectiveness of current faculty effort or fills in gaps of professional career such as an Ed.D. and serving as school superintendent.

Include awards, honors, and special recognitions for work as well. A listing of memberships in professional organizations should be avoided unless it also includes contributions made to organization such as presentations at professional meetings or leadership positions an organization.

e. Statement on Teaching: should include reference to teaching evaluation and effectiveness and any notable honors or awards received.

f. Justification for Early Tenure: If early tenure is being requested, the department head or dean must provide a brief justification statement.

EXAMPLE of Faculty Biography Table

Name Department Present Rank Effective Date Dr. Joseph Batch Chemistry Assistant Professor 09/01/13 Ph.D. (2005) University of California at Santa Barbara

21



F. Faculty Summary Data Table Summary data tables will not be forwarded to the Chancellor and Board of Regents, but will be used by the dean of faculties and other Texas A&M University officials to quickly respond to questions and requests for information. Summary data tables must use the format provided below (link to template can be found in Appendix G). Entries in the right-‐hand column should be formatted as bulleted lists. Leave table cells blank if they do not apply to the candidate. Do not change the titles of the cells.

* Give the total sum of all grants awarded to the prospective faculty member and his/her collaborators † Of the total sum, give the amount corresponding to the individual faculty member. If unknown, divide each award(s) by the number of PIs and CoPIs authoring each grant and then sum.

Fa 2008-‐Sp 2011 Fa 2011-‐Present



Dr. Batch’s area is organic chemistry with a specialty in polymer chemistry, transition metal catalysis, polymer synthesis, asymmetric organic synthesis, and organometallic chemistry. He has authored three publications on efforts to combine the physiochemical properties of a polymer with the reactivity of a low molecular weight compound. This work involves fundamental research both in synthesis and catalysis. He has received grants of $750,000 from NSF. Dr. Batch teaches first year organic chemistry and one advanced organic chemistry course for undergraduates as well as two graduate level organic chemistry courses. He has received outstanding student evaluations each year and has chaired four graduate student committees and served on four others. Dr. Batch is being recommended for early tenure because…..

Teaching Philosophy • Main point one • Main point two, etc.

Courses Frequently Taught • List each course number and title on a separate line Number of Graduate Students Chaired or Co-‐Chaired

• MA/MS—number (completed/in progress) • PhD—number (completed/in progress)

Other Teaching Accomplishments • Accomplishment one • Accomplishment two, etc.

Teaching Recognitions and Awards • List award/recognition(s) and year(s) given Peer-‐reviewed Journal Articles • Number Peer-‐reviewed Proceedings • Number Books/Monographs • Number Book Chapters • Number Conference Presentations • Invited—number

• National—number • International—number

External Research Funding (Entire career)

• Total awards—dollar amount * • Awards to candidate—dollar amount †

Other Research, Scholarship, or Creativity Accomplishments

• Accomplishment one • Accomplishment two, etc.

22



EXAMPLE of Faculty Summary Data Table

G. Other Materials and Documentation (Dossier Item 13, optional) Description This section is for any materials deemed pertinent to the case, but not appropriate for placement elsewhere. This might include letters from students or peers that were not part of a structured evaluation process or letters from TAMU faculty members. IMPORTANT: departments and/or colleges may require that certain documents be included in this section. Please refer to department/college guidelines for specific requirements.

Research/Scholarship/Creativity Recognitions and Awards

• List award/recognition(s) and year(s) given

Teaching philosophy • Includes as much hands-‐on learning in the courses as possible, with the overarching goal of creating a link between the textbook and the real world.

• Constantly updating his course material, homework assignments, problem sets, exams, design projects, and notes, to ensure that his course reflects the changes in the field

Courses Frequently Taught • BAEN 387 Number of Graduate Students Chaired or Co-‐Chaired

• MS 7 • PhD 3

Other Teaching Accomplishments • Developed 2 new undergraduate courses • NFS grant has allowed him to recruit and mentor a large

number of students from underrepresented groups Teaching Recognitions and Awards • Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department

Excellence in Teaching Award, 2008 • Montague Teaching Scholar in the Texas A&M

University Center for Teaching Excellence, 2009 Peer-‐reviewed Journal Articles • 13 Peer-‐reviewed Proceedings • 7 Books/Monographs • 1 Book chapters • 2 Conference Presentations • Invited: 2

• National: 26 • International: 9


• Total awards: $1.5M • Awards to candidate: $600K


• Patents awarded: 1 • Patents applied for (pending): 3 • Associate editor of the Transactions of ASABE

Research/Scholarship/Creativity Recognitions and Award

• Presidential Early Career Award in Science and Engineering, 2007

23



Supportive materials such as the teaching portfolio (if utilized) and copies of books or articles should be retained in the college, and not sent to the Office of the Dean of Faculties with the P&T package.

IMPORTANT: Candidates may have to submit additional documents for department and college review. Please review department and/or college guidelines for requirements.

IV. EXTERNAL REVIEWERS LETTERS (DOSSIER ITEM 8) Description Outside reviewers’ letters allow an opportunity for authorities in the candidate’s field to evaluate the candidate’s accomplishments and potential. External letters may reflect more than just scholarship. Reviewers may be asked to judge an individual’s teaching or other activities, as well as reviewing books or articles. (If a reviewer is asked to judge an individual’s teaching ability, it is recommended that they be sent a teaching portfolio or equivalent materials to review.) Be aware that letters from dissertation advisors do not carry the same weight as those from unbiased evaluators, and unsolicited letters from former students carry little weight whether they are supportive or negative about teaching performance. Such letters from former advisors and former students must be placed in Tab 13 (Other Materials and Documentation).

Guidelines • Complete the External Reviewers Chart for this section of the dossier (see example and link

to template in Appendix C) and provide as excel file. This should be filled out by whoever is responsible for contacting the reviewers and should include the names of ALL the external reviewers contacted and specify which ones were put forward by the candidate and which ones were suggested by the department head or P&T committee. Also include a separate document listing the names and contact information for the reviewers and provide a “biography” showing the qualifications and credentials of the reviewers listed on the chart.

• IMPORTANT: The department should aim to include 5 to 7 letters from external reviews (which may require asking for more than the desired number). The minimum number of letters required is 3.

• Letters may be received on official letterhead but emailed letters are also acceptable if that is the preference of the reviewer.

• Most outside reviewers should be from peer institutions or better, but letters from clear leaders in the field are also acceptable. In some cases, the preeminence of institutions is obvious. Where the stature of an institution, program, or individual is not obvious, include an explanation of why the program and/or reviewer is appropriate. For example, an institution of lower reputation than Texas A&M may have one of the strongest programs in the candidate’s field. Although letters may be requested from outstanding individuals outside the academy, the file should still include at least three letters from individuals in peer programs/universities.

• IMPORTANT: Include a list of the department’s peer and aspiring institutions if other than AAU-‐level institutions, and the basis for the selection.

• Include a copy of the letters requesting outside reviews, as well as all letters received in response. (If a form letter is used for all reviewers, a single copy may be included, with a notation added to this effect.) Letters should be essentially uniform.

• It is recommended that an equal number of letters be solicited for all candidates. • It should be understood that a lack of response from a reviewer who has been asked to send

a letter should not be interpreted as a negative statement against the candidate.

Procedures for Requesting Outside Letters

24



1. The candidate provides a list of names of possible reviewers. The candidate may also provide a list of those who should not be consulted.

2. The department head or P&T committee provides a list of possible reviewers. 3. From the two lists, a group of at least seven are selected and contacted by the department

head or P&T committee chair. 4. Take care to select outside referees:

A. whose objectivity is not open to challenge (i.e., avoid coauthors, longtime personal friends, former students, or former mentors unless more than the minimum of three letters are presented).

B. whose rank at their institution is equivalent to or better than the one for which the candidate is being considered.

C. who do not appear on the candidate’s “do not contact” list. 5. Ensure that a mix of letters is solicited-‐ some suggested by the candidate and some by the

department. Clearly indicate in the External Reviewers Chart who suggested which reviewers, which requested letters were or were not received. All requested letters that are received must be included in the dossier.

6. IMPORTANT: It is not recommended that the solicitation letter asks if the candidate would be granted tenure and/or promotion at their institution but instead asks to evaluate the candidate’s work and its current and potential national and/or international prominence.

7. The solicitation letter should request specific examples of the candidate’s current and potential quality, impact, and independence of their scholarship. The letter may request an opinion regarding teaching and/or service.

8. The solicitation letter must contain the following statement:

Your review will be kept confidential; however, Texas is an open records state and your review could be requested and relinquished.

9. If a solicitation letter containing the elements of (7) and (8) is sent, and the referee declines to write a letter for the candidate, you must still list this referee’s name in the chart among those solicited and indicate that they declined.

10. IMPORTANT. If the faculty member is a member of an interdisciplinary program at Texas A&M University, an additional letter should also be requested from the chair of the program. The request must also be included on the external reviewers chart and the letter included in section 8 of the dossier with the other external reviewers’ letters. In the external reviewers’ chart indicate that this reviewer is from an Interdisciplinary Program.

V. DEPARTMENT REVIEW

A. Department Evaluation of Teaching, Research and/or Other Scholarly, Creative Activities and Service (Dossier Items 4-‐7) Description These are summary reports on the candidate’s teaching, research and/or other scholarly, creative activities and service. They should reflect the views of the voting committee’s members.

Note: The drafting of the summary reports may be assigned to an individual faculty member or subset of faculty members of the department’s P&T committee. The summary reports can be edited and modified to reflect the views of the entire committee if necessary.

IMPORTANT: Votes should not be included in the individual teaching, research, and service reports.

25



These reports should allow subsequent reviewers to find documented evidence for statements made in the reports. However, they should not repeat information that can be found elsewhere in the dossier. They may refer to the outside letters and other materials without directly quoting them.

Format & Guidelines • Three or four individual reports on teaching (Dossier Item 4), research and/or other

scholarly, creative activities (Dossier Item 5) and service (Dossier Item 6) or other activities (Dossier Item 7, if applicable).

• Written by faculty from the department P&T committee, not by the department head or the candidate.

• Authorship of each performance-‐area report should be made clear by listing the names of the individual or individuals who wrote each report. These reports can be edited to ensure they accurately reflect the views of the P&T committee. A typed statement at the end of each report such as, “The opinions and conclusions stated in this report regarding the candidate accurately reflect the views of the P&T committee” will suffice.

• Thorough analysis should be given to all three areas (teaching, research and/or other scholarly, creative activities and service).

Additional information and guidelines specific to each report can be found below. Teaching Report

The category of “teaching” includes, among other things: • Classroom and laboratory instruction • Development of new courses, laboratories, and teaching methods • Publication of instructional materials including textbooks • Supervision of graduate students

In the report on evaluation of teaching, the following must be included for each candidate:

1. Peer evaluation of course syllabi, assignments, examinations, and grading methods, as part of the determination of the scope, rigor, and quality of the candidate’s course offerings. Note: Peer reports of structured classroom observations are helpful, but are not required. If such a report is provided, it should indicate the frequency of observations, as well as criteria for assessment of performance. If a department has engaged in periodic classroom visitation from the beginning of a candidate’s service for the purpose of developing teaching ability, these evaluations would be a natural addition to this section of the dossier.

2. Student ratings of teaching, with comments on these evaluations by peers: Complete longitudinal summaries (chronological and in tabular form) of the student ratings must be presented, with numerical data set in the context of departmental standards and norms. (A department that does not utilize numerical ratings should provide a careful summary and analysis of the verbal responses over a multi-‐year period.)

3. Peer evaluation of other teaching contributions of value to the department, such as the direction of graduate students and undergraduate researchers, participation in student development programs, curriculum development, development of new courses or substantial revision of existing courses, pedagogical publications, textbook and other instructional materials, participation in honors programs, awards or recognition for distinguished teaching, and other teaching-‐related activities.

Do not include letters of testimonial from colleagues or students (these may be placed in Dossier Item 13: Other Materials).

26



Research and/or Other Scholarly, Creative Activities Report For most disciplines, this category consists of research and publications. For some disciplines, however, it may include other forms of scholarly, creative activity, such as architectural design, engineering technology, veterinary or medical technology, fiction, poetry, painting, music, and sculpture.

Within the report, describe authorship protocols within your discipline, especially relating to ordering of authors and how team members must contribute in order to be listed as a coauthor.

Service Report This report might include service to the institution, to students, colleagues, the department, college, and the university. It may also include service beyond the campus, such as service to professional societies, research organizations, governmental agencies, the local community, and the public at large.

Other Activities Report This report is for any activities that do not fit into any of the other three. It may be omitted if it is not relevant to the candidate.

B. Department P&T Committee Discussion Report and Recommendation (Dossier Item 9)‡ Description The P&T Committee Discussion Report and Recommendations is advisory in nature. The main purpose of this report is to convey the essence of the departmental committee’s discussion and vote regarding the candidate’s performance as it relates to his or her suitability for eventual promotion and/or tenure. The report should make it clear that adequate consideration was given to teaching, research and/or other scholarly, creative activities and service (or relevant categories for the particular faculty member appointment), and that the recommendation was based on a set of written and widely circulated promotion and tenure guidelines promulgated by the college and/or department (which are reviewed and updated regularly). A mixed vote would require further explanation of both the candidate’s demonstrated abilities and the committee’s concerns. The report should reflect the essence of the evaluative concerns and support regarding the candidate’s case, and the committee’s recommended action. For example, “the majority thought the quantity of publications was good, but questioned the quality,” or “a minority was concerned about the rate of productivity,” or “the research and scholarly publications were excellent but a few committee members expressed concerns about the quality of the teaching.” Do not include direct quotes of committee members or minutes of the meeting. Make sure that the discussion report correlates with the vote.

Format & Guidelines of the Departmental P&T Discussion Report and Recommendations • The overall summative, overarching Departmental Committee discussion report and

recommendations should cover teaching, research and/or other scholarly, creative activities and service.

• Summarize the most relevant issues explaining the outcome of the vote. A record of votes alone does not document the important issues in the deliberations.

• Avoid direct quotes, minutes, or transcripts of the proceedings.

‡ Only one report should be submitted and submitting minority reports is discouraged. However, if this is impossible and a committee must submit minority reports, they will only be accepted if the reports indicate the name(s) of those submitting the minority report(s). Unattributed minority reports will not be accepted.

27



• Avoid summarizing information that can be found in other documents (although other documents, such as the teaching, research and/or other scholarly, creative activities and service reports may be referred to).

• Make sure that the committee’s recommendations are consistent with evidence of performance as documented in the rest of the dossier.

• While the P&T departmental discussion report and recommendations should emphasize a case based on the evidence that supports the recommendation, an explanation of contrary statements in the departmental reports, external letters, or members’ votes should be explained and given a sense of the weighting on the overall decision. Discussion and views of any minority or dissenting faculty should be reflected in the discussion report.

• The committee’s discussion report and recommendations should reflect the committee’s acceptance of the conclusions in the analyses filed under the individual Teaching, Research and/or other Scholarly, Creative Activities and Service reports. If those analyses do not reflect the deliberations of the committee and the committee’s recommendation, then the committee report must explain this.

• IMPORTANT: The names of all the committee members voting in each case should be included in the report.

• The vote (i.e. number of yes, no, abstain, absent) of the P&T committee must be included in the discussion report.

• All committee members should review the contents of the committee discussion report and recommendations. Members should indicate their agreement that the document reflects the discussion and voting outcome. IMPORTANT: This should be done by having all voting committee members sign the report.

Department Head’s Presence at P&T Committee Meetings Committee discussions and recommendations regarding candidates should be independent of any administrator’s recommendation, opinion, or influence. For this reason, it is recommended that the department head or their delegates not attend the meetings during which the committee is processing a case. However, if the committee wishes to have the department head present, and if the department’s guidelines or bylaws make it clear that this may occur, the committee may elect to ask the department head to attend. In this case, the department head should be present for meetings on all candidates, not selective ones.

C. Department Head Recommendation (Dossier Item 10) Description This report gives the department head an opportunity, after reviewing the candidate’s dossier, reports and recommendations generated by the P&T committee, and external reviewers’ letters, to convey the rationale that ultimately leads to his or her recommendation for/against tenure and/or promotion. This report should include a discussion of the P&T committee’s evaluations/recommendations, as well as the outside letters and any further evaluation the department head wishes to make.

Format & Guidelines • Provide a general basis for strength and weakness of the case • Provide the context of this particular case within the department • Explain special consideration cases (i.e., early promotion/tenure, delays in

promotion/tenure, special hiring circumstances…) • Explain any mixed or negative votes, if not explained in the department P&T committee

discussion report and recommendations

28



• Explain the department head’s vote, especially if it is contrary to the departmental recommendation

VI. COLLEGE REVIEW

A. College Committee Report and Recommendation (Dossier Item 11) Description Similar to the department P&T committee discussion report and recommendations (Dossier Item 9), this document should reflect the committee discussion, primary issues that convinced members to vote one way or the other and the final committee vote. The vote of the committee (i.e. number of yes, no, abstain, absent) must be included in the report and all committee members should review the contents of the committee report. Members should indicate their agreement with what is stated in the report, and that the document reflects their discussion and voting outcome. IMPORTANT: This should be done by having all voting committee members sign the report.

Dean Presence at College P&T Committee Meetings Committee discussions and recommendations regarding candidates should be independent of any administrator’s recommendation, opinion, or influence. For this reason, it is recommended that the dean and/or their delegates not attend the meetings during which the college P&T committee is processing a case. However, if the committee wishes to have the dean and/or their delegates present, and if the college’s guidelines or bylaws make it clear that this may occur, the committee may elect to ask the dean and/or their delegates to attend. In this case, the dean and/or their delegates should be present for meetings on all candidates, not selective ones.

B. Dean Recommendation and Summary (Dossier Item 12) Description This is similar to the department head report (Dossier Item 10). As with that report, the dean’s report is an analysis of the case which should provide a general basis for strength or weakness, explain any mixed or negative votes (if not explained in the College Committee Report), and explain the dean’s vote—especially if it is contrary to any departmental or college recommendations.

The dean’s report makes an independent determination and should be helpful in laying out the case without merely summarizing/quoting other materials in the package. This is especially important for cases that have generated strong differences in recommendation during the evaluation process.

In accordance with University Rule 12.01.99.M2, Section 4.6.3, “If the dean recommends against tenure and/or promotion and that recommendation is contrary to the department head’s recommendation, the dean shall inform the department head and faculty member of the reason for the recommendation.”

Reconsideration of a case If the dean recommends against tenure and/or promotion and that recommendation is contrary to the department head's recommendation, the dean shall inform the department head and faculty member of the reasons for the recommendation. The department head may then resubmit the case for further consideration to the dean. If a case is resubmitted, it shall be re-‐reviewed by the college-‐wide promotion and tenure committee and dean before a final recommendation concerning tenure and/or promotion is forwarded to the provost.

29



Any petition for reconsideration must be based upon either (a) new evidence that is not already contained within the dossier or (b) substantial new arguments that were not made in the first presentation.

In the case of reconsideration requests by the department head to the dean, the basis for seeking the reconsideration of the case and any supporting materials are considered additions to the dossier and should be included in Dossier Item 13 (Additional Information).

Changes or additions to the dossier Changes or additions to the dossier do not trigger nor prohibit re-‐reviews by evaluation bodies that have already produced a vote based on the older version of the dossier. Therefore, the department or the college (depending where the dossier is at the time the change is introduced) should indicate whether previous evaluation levels re-‐reviewed the material (e.g., “The department P&T committee reviewed the updated material(s) on 9/27/09”), along with the results of the re-‐review (e.g., “The new information did not change the recommendation of the P&T committee). Re-‐reviews by previous evaluation levels are rare occurrences, except in cases where the dean is asked to reconsider his/her vote. It is advisable to consult with the Office of the Dean of Faculties before requesting or conducting any re-‐review.

Note: If the report of the previous level is specific in naming a change or addition that would alter their vote from negative to positive, and that change or addition happens, it may not be necessary for that level to re-‐review. For example, if a departmental P&T committee indicated (in the report) that those who voted negatively would–if the candidate had a signed book contract, for example–be persuaded to change to a positive vote, and if that contract came through while the file was at the dean’s level, the dean could simply include that in his or her report.

VII. PROCESS INFORMATION

A. Committee Proceedings (Department and College) • Committee deliberations must be conducted in the strictest confidence. • In presenting cases for promotion and/or tenure, departments should make clear any

distinctive expectations that have existed with respect to particular candidates, which therefore should be brought to bear in the review. If a case is to be reviewed according to atypical criteria, that fact must be made clear in the presentation of the file. (See section 4.5.4 of University Rule 12.01.99.M2–University Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Tenure, and Promotion.) In cases for promotion to full professor, please make the basis for the argument for excellence clear.

• Promotion and tenure are matters of central concern to many faculty members and to the university. Failure to provide and adhere to criteria for the granting of promotion and tenure can do long-‐term damage to a department and college, and certainly a negative decision can do long-‐term damage to an individual’s career. The process must uphold high standards and at the same time observe scrupulous standards of fairness.

• Department heads, deans, and committees should take care to consult the University Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Tenure, and Promotion to be thoroughly familiar with criteria for tenure and/or promotion by rank and with procedures.

• College committees should clarify beforehand the role of the committee members during deliberations of colleagues from their own departments (this should be addressed by the college P&T guidelines).

30



B. Notifying Candidates of Promotion and/or Tenure Recommendations Candidates should be advised of the recommendation for or against promotion and/or tenure at each level of review. In the event of a negative tenure decision, the faculty member is entitled to a written statement of the reasons that contributed to that decision. If it is requested by the faculty member, the statement of reasons will be provided (usually by the department head) after the president informs the deans of his decision.

The following chart outlines the notification process. Notification should be made as soon as possible after a recommendation is made at a given level.

Level of Review Notification Procedure

Department Committee

Department head notifies candidate upon receipt of committee recommendation

Department Head Department head notifies candidate upon submission of recommendation to the dean

College Committee Dean notifies department head upon receipt of the committee’s recommendation; the department head notifies candidate

Dean Dean notifies department head upon submission of recommendation to the provost (through the dean of faculties); the department head notifies candidate

Provost Dean of faculties notifies dean, who notifies department head, who notifies candidate

President President notifies provost who notifies the dean of faculties who notifies dean, who notifies department head, who notifies candidate

Chancellor (promotion candidates) Board of Regents (Only candidates being considered for tenure)

An official letter of congratulations will be sent to all promotion and/or tenure candidates by the dean of faculties and the president as soon as possible after the BOR has officially acted on the president’s recommendations for tenure candidates

C. Candidate’s Right to Withdraw At any point in the process, a candidate may elect to withdraw his or her name from further consideration. This must be a written request. In the case of mandatory tenure considerations, this will mean submitting a written resignation. The request should be submitted to the department head, who in turn will communicate the decision to the college dean. The dean will communicate the resignation to the dean of faculties if the dossier has been received by the Office of the Dean of Faculties. Dossiers that are withdrawn will be shredded.

D. Mandatory (Penultimate Year) Review and the Probationary Period Note: Guidelines on annual and mid-‐term (3-‐year) reviews are a separate document that is available on the Dean of Faculties web site

31



(http://dof.tamu.edu/sites/default/files/tenure_promotion/Annual_Midterm_Review_Guidelines.pdf).

Mandatory Review (Penultimate Year) These Promotion and Tenure Guidelines focus primarily on procedures for the Mandatory (penultimate year) Review. This thorough review in the penultimate year of probationary service is required; however, conducting the review earlier is often appropriate and encouraged. (If an early review does not result in a favorable decision for tenure, a review is conducted again at the mandatory time).

The department head should initiate the mandatory review process, if they do not, any faculty member who is in their next-‐to-‐last year of probationary service should notify the department head that the year for a tenure judgment has been reached. This communication should be made in writing in order to avoid any misunderstanding of the matter by any party.

The timing of penultimate year reviews is illustrated in the table in the next section.

Non-‐Reappointment Since the probationary period consists of a series of one-‐year contracts, a decision not to reappoint an individual who is on probation can be made any time up to the year of the mandatory review. Non-‐reappointment should be considered if performance is unsatisfactory to the point that it is clearly unlikely the person will qualify for tenure, as neither party benefits from prolonging an unsatisfactory situation. Such a decision is made, of course, with great care and only in compelling circumstances. Please note that notification of non-‐renewal may be made in spite of a prior decision to extend the probationary period. However, once notification of non-‐renewal is made, no probationary period extension may be requested.

Please see University Rule 12.01.99.M2 (http://rules-‐saps.tamu.edu/PDFs/12.01.99.M2.pdf) or the Guidelines for Annual and Mid-‐Term Review (http://dof.tamu.edu/sites/default/files/tenure_promotion/Annual_Midterm_Review_Guidelines.pdf) for details regarding required notification procedures for non reappointment.

The “Tenure Clock” (Timing of Reviews) The start of a tenure-‐track faculty member’s mandatory consideration year (academic year) can be calculated as follows:

Calendar year hired + Probationary period – 2 years = Fall semester of Tenure Consideration Year (e.g., regardless of month, if contract start date is in 2008 + 7 years of probation – 2 years = 2013. The mandatory review will start in Fall 2013; if successful, the Board of Regents will grant tenure in Spring 2014, and the promotion and/or tenure will become effective on September 1, 2014).

Any individual hired for a tenure-‐track position will be required to submit materials for review during the academic year prior to the end of their probationary period. The timing of this depends upon the length of the probationary period (see chart below).

32



For example-‐-‐For a faculty member hired in calendar year 2008:

If probationary

period is: Mid-‐Term Review will occur between:

Mandatory Tenure Review (at all levels)

will occur:

7 years Mar – Dec 2011 (due 2011/2012) 2013/2014

6 years Mar – Dec 2010 (due 2010/2011) 2012/2013

5 years Mar – Dec 2010 (due 2010/2011) 2011/2012

4 years Mar – Dec 2009 (but usually not done) 2010/2011

3 years N/A 2009/2010

IMPORTANT: 1. The semester of hire does not determine the start of the “Tenure Clock”, the

calendar year does. 2. The length of the probationary period will be found in the faculty member’s original

letter of hire and the “agreement concerning probationary service of new faculty” form.

3. The Board of Regents will review recommendations in the spring semester of the tenure review (academic) year.

4. See the separate Guidelines for Annual and Midterm Reviews (http://dof.tamu.edu/sites/default/files/tenure_promotion/Annual_Midterm_Review_Guidelines.pdf) or more information about midterm review timing.

Extensions to the Probationary Period Extensions to the probationary period may be granted upon petition by the faculty member, recommendation by the department head and dean, and approval by the dean of faculties.

Extensions are usually for one year, but a longer period may be requested in compelling circumstances. Any extension greater than one year must be approved by the provost. A faculty member may petition for an extension in the following cases:

• The faculty member is taking leave without pay, or a reduction in service to 50% time for a semester or academic year, provided the leave is not taken solely for the purpose of pursuing activities that will enhance the faculty member’s qualifications for promotion and tenure.

• The faculty member has encountered circumstances that may seriously impede progress toward demonstrating qualification for the award of promotion and tenure. Such circumstances might include (but are not limited to):

o serious illness or injury; o having responsibility for the primary care of an infant or small child; o having responsibility for the primary care of a close relative who is disabled elderly

or seriously ill;

33



o any serious disruption of the probationary period for unexpected reasons beyond the faculty member’s control.

The above guidelines for extension were developed by the Faculty Senate and approved by the president of the university.

Reconsideration in the Terminal Year In exceptional circumstances, a person considered for tenure in the mandatory year who is not successful may be reconsidered in the terminal year, at the discretion of the department head and with the agreement of the dean and the provost that reconsideration seems appropriate. The sole ground on which a department head may propose making such an exception to general practice is that the case has substantially changed since the mandatory consideration. The dean of faculties will discuss procedures should such a case arise. Reconsideration does not entail an additional terminal year.

E. Department and College Written Guidelines for Promotion & Tenure University Rule 12.01.99.M2–University Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Promotion and tenure requires that each College and the Libraries develop written guidelines describing their own evaluation criteria in accordance with those specified for the University. In those units in which the goals and objectives of departments differ significantly, departments should also have written evaluation guidelines. The rule states that guidelines should be redistributed to faculty at least every three years, and steps should be taken to ensure that faculty are thoroughly familiar with these guidelines. For the sake of openness of the process and the maintenance of an atmosphere of trust, it is also advisable to announce the names of members of departmental and college evaluation committees on an annual basis.

A copy of each department and college’s guidelines for promotion and tenure should be forwarded electronically, on an annual basis, to:

Lena Koestler ([email protected])

F. Early Promotion and Tenure Since promotion and tenure are linked for individuals hired as assistant professors (or instructors), a recommendation for early promotion must be coupled with a recommendation for early tenure, and vice-‐versa.

G. Reviewing Faculty with Joint Appointments University Rule 12.01.99.M2–University Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Tenure, and Promotion, sections 4.6.2.1. and 4.6.2.2., indicate that faculty members having joint appointments (if funded) or having appointments with interdisciplinary (intercollegiate) faculties are to be reviewed and evaluated for promotion and/or tenure by the secondary unit as well as the ADLOC department. This should be done in accordance with the guidelines from both departments/units. Each unit must have guidelines governing faculty review, promotion and tenure (and these guidelines must be approved by the Office of the Dean of Faculties, and reviewed by that office whenever significant changes are made to them).

In the case of joint appointments involving more than one college, both deans (and both college level promotion and tenure committees) provide recommendations to the provost. Candidates who are involved with Interdisciplinary Programs, Centers, or Institutes must request a letter from the program chair or director. Such letters should be solicited simultaneously with external reviewers’ letters so they may become part of the dossier reviewed by the departmental P&T committee. The

34



report by the committee of an interdisciplinary faculty may consist simply of a letter including comments on teaching, research and/or other scholarly, creative activities and service, and intercollegiate cooperation. Please include both the letter requesting this review as well as the letter received.

H. Non-‐Tenure Track Faculty Promotions The review process for non-‐tenure track faculty (such as Lecturer to Senior Lecturer, or “Adjective” Assistant Professor to “Adjective” Associate Professor) is very similar to that of tenured and tenure-‐track faculty, and is on the same timetable (e.g., section I. Timeline). Non-‐tenure track promotion packages should not be forwarded outside of the regular promotion and tenure timetable.

The process is unique, however, in the following ways: • Outside letters are not required (although they may be included if desired). It is recognized

that some of those in non-‐tenure track appointments do not have external visibility. • The weighting of teaching, research, and service may differ significantly from what is

expected of tenured and tenure-‐track faculty. The categories of Teaching, Research and/or other Scholarly, Creative Activities and Service may in fact be changed to more appropriately reflect the individual’s responsibilities and to reflect the evaluation guidelines developed by the college and/or department (regarding those positions).

• Request for promotion of Research Faculty must be routed through the Vice President for Research prior to submission to the Office of the Dean of Faculties.

Non-‐tenure track faculty seeking promotion will submit a dossier for review, organized in the way described in section III. Committees, department head’s and dean’s reports should make clear the criteria and weighting used for the consideration. Each college may have its own (approved and published) criteria for reviewing non-‐tenure track packages. Non-‐tenure track promotion packages will be evaluated by department committee, department head, college committee and dean. Non-‐tenure track packages will then be forwarded to the dean of faculties, for approval by the provost, president, and chancellor.

I. Faculty Members Hired Before Terminal Degree Has Been Issued New faculty members hired as instructors because they have not yet received a terminal degree may be promoted to assistant professor upon receipt of that degree. Instructor titles are tenure accruing. If the unit wishes the tenure clock not to start until the person obtains the terminal degree, the faculty member must be given a non-‐tenure track title.

If hiring paperwork was previously sent to the dean of faculties that indicated the hire would be at the level of assistant professor conditional upon receipt of the degree, the dean of faculties will only require a memo indicating that this has occurred. If the individual was officially hired at the level of instructor, then upon receipt of the degree the title may be changed to assistant professor, after degree verification, with a memo to the dean of faculties.

VIII. DOSSIER AND FILE SET ORGANIZATION

A. Organization of Faculty Dossiers Departments initiate the preparation of the faculty dossiers and then forward them to their colleges for further processing and completion.

35



Each candidate dossier (both hard and electronic copy) must include:

Candidate Dossier Cover Sheet (See Appendix A) Tab 1: Candidate statement on teaching, research and service (Item 1) Tab 2: Candidate CV (Item 2)

• Candidate CV • Signed statement • Candidate grant chart

Tab 3: Verification of contents statement (Item 3) Tab 4: Department report of teaching (Item 4) Tab 5: Department report of research (Item 5) Tab 6: Department report of service (Item 7) Tab 7: Department report of other activities (if applicable) (Item 7) Tab 8: External reviewers letters (Item 8):

• External reviewers chart • External reviewer letter request • External reviewers biography • External reviewer letters • List of peer departments if different from AAU

Tab 9: Department P&T discussion report (Item 9) Tab 10: Department head report (Item 10) Tab 11: College P&T Committee report (Item 11) Tab 12: Dean report (Item 12) Tab 13: Other materials and documentation (if applicable) (Item 13)

For each candidate’s dossier please do the following:

1. Fill out a Dossier Cover Sheet to be included at the front of each candidate dossier (see example and link to template in Appendix A).

2. Use tabbed divider sheets to separate the sections (Items 1-‐13) of the candidate’s dossier.

3. The PDF version of the dossier will have to be set up as a multi-‐document file with “bookmarks.” A PDF template with all required bookmarks and instructions is available at http://dof.tamu.edu/node/27.

4. IMPORTANT: For all documents, except for those with signatures, please provide original PDFs. This means that files must be saved as PDFs rather than scanned as PDFs. This is important, because the quality of scanned PDFs is low, and the scans do not allow the search function to be used.

IMPORTANT: By November 8, 2013, colleges must submit, for each candidate, electronic copies of the following documents to the Office of the Dean of Faculties ([email protected]):

• College Chart (Excel) (no need for College P&T and Dean’s vote at this time) • Faculty Biography Table (Word) • Faculty Summary Data Table (Word), • Candidate External Reviewer Chart (Excel)

36



B. Organization and Submission of File Sets

File Set Hard Copies Three (3) hard copies of each candidate dossier (organized in file sets) plus one electronic copy (PDF format) must be submitted to the Office of the Dean of Faculties by December 6, 2013.

Dossier Files Organization • Each candidate's dossier (including the Dossier Cover Sheet) must be placed in a manila

folder with the appropriate label. Labels should be placed on the tab of each manila folder. Typically, Avery 5366 (or similar) labels work well with the folders and are recommended. Each Label should contain the following information:

Last Name, First Name -‐ Rank sought Department/College -‐ 2013-‐2014

Example of manila folder label

Smith, John – Associate Professor with Tenure Nutritional Sciences/Agriculture and Life Sciences– 2013-‐2014

• For the hard copy dossiers, Tabs with numbered dividers (1-‐13) must be used in order to assist the reviewers in locating Dossier Items 1-‐13. Avery 11142/3 dividers (or similar) are recommended.

File Set Organization Three (3) identical file sets must be submitted to the Office of the Dean of Faculties by December 6, 2013.

All manila folders (candidate dossiers) should be placed in brown expandable folders within banker boxes for delivery to the Office of the Dean of Faculties. Universal 15343 (or similar) expandable file folders are recommended.

IMPORTANT: The manila folders must be organized in the following order: 1. Category

A. Promotion with tenure candidates B. Tenure-‐only candidates C. Tenured, promotion-‐only candidates D. Non-‐tenure track, promotion candidates

2. Department 3. Last name (alphabetically, from A to Z)

Example of hard copy file set organization:

1. Promotion with tenure o Chemistry

§ Davis § McDonald

o Statistics § Perez § Smith

3. Tenured, promotion-only o Biology

§ Clark § Jones

o Statistics § Doe § Johnson

37



2. Tenure-only o Biology

§ Adams o Mathematics

§ Carter § Lopez

4. Non-tenure track, promotion o Chemistry

§ Richardson § Robertson

o Mathematics § Walton

A single copy of the college chart must be submitted with each hard copy set.

Banker Boxes Banker boxes are preferred for transporting your documents to the Office of the Dean of Faculties. Each box should be intact and should contain a secure lid and should weigh no more than 35 pounds.

Electronic File Set (Flash drive) An electronic copy of the file set must be submitted with the 3 hard copies to the Office of the Dean of Faculties by December 6, 2013.

As with hardcopies, supporting materials (such as copies of articles) should not be included in the electronic submission.

The flash drive should contain six electronic folders labeled: Folder 1: College Promotion and Tenure Chart Folder 2: Promotion with tenure candidates Folder 3: Tenure-‐only candidates dossiers Folder 4: Promotion-‐only (Tenured) candidates Folder 5: Promotion only (non-‐tenure track) candidates Folder 6: CVs (only for candidates seeking tenure) Folder 7: Candidates photographs

Folder 1 should contain:

• An Excel copy of the college P&T chart.

Folders 2-‐5 should contain: • Folders labeled as [Department name]. Each department folder should contain:

o A PDF portfolio of each candidate’s dossier. Labeled as: § [Last Name, First Name]

o An Excel-‐file of each candidate grant chart. Labeled as: § [Last Name, First Name Grants Chart]

o An Excel-‐file of each candidate external reviewers chart. Labeled as:

§ [Last Name, First Name Reviewers Chart]

Folder 6 should contain: Separate PDF copies of each candidate’s CV only for those seeking Tenure with Promotion and Tenure-‐only (required by the BOR). • Name individual CV files as [Last Name, First Name CV]. • The System requests that the candidate’s name on the CV appear exactly as it appears on the

faculty biography table. • CVs may not contain personal contact information such as home address, home phone number,

social security number, or personal email address. (Please remove before sending.)

38



Folder 7. Every year, the Office of the Provost and the Office of the Dean of Faculties create a booklet, with photographs, honoring those who receive tenure and/or promotion, during the current year of consideration. Photographs should be a head or upper-‐body shot in which the head is 1” high. Electronic (digital) photos are required and must be a minimum of 300 dpi. Please do not copy and send website photographs (their quality in the printed booklet will be poor).

Example of electronic file set organization:

IX. RESOURCES Questions about the organization and submission of the dossiers, file sets, and P&T Recognition Booklet materials should be directed to:

Questions about the promotion and tenure evaluation process may be directed to:

Lena Koestler, Faculty Affairs Coordinator 979-‐845-‐4274

[email protected]

Michael Benedik, Dean of Faculties and Associate Provost, or Blanca Lupiani, Associate Dean of Faculties

979-‐845-‐4274 [email protected]

39



Note: Colleges may have submission requirements and guidelines that do not contradict but complement these printed guidelines. Please refer also to your college guidelines and college’s P&T coordinator for direction. You may also visit http://dof.tamu.edu/node/10 for further information.

40



X. APPENDICES

Appendix A: Candidate Dossier Cover Sheet (Submitted as PDF) TO BE FILLED OUT BY DEPARTMENT AND/OR COLLEGE For form template, please visit: http://dof.tamu.edu/PT_Forms

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF FACULTIES


DOSSIER COVER SHEET FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE 2013-2014

Name of Candidate:

College:

(no abbreviations)

Current Rank:

Department:

(e.g., Associate Professor, Lecturer, Clinical Assistant Professor, etc.) (no abbreviations)

Highest Degree Earned and Year Granted:

Year Started at Texas A&M (at any rank above graduate student):

Total Years of Academic Service at Current Rank (regardless of institution; as of Sept 1, 2013):

Action being considered:

(e.g., Promotion to Professor, Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure, Tenure, Promotion to Clinical Associate Professor, etc )

Effective Date of Last Promotion (if applicable):

Academic Year for Mandatory Tenure Consideration (if applicable):

(If this year is the mandatory year, list 2013-2014)

DOSSIER: If tab sections in dossier are numbered/labeled as listed below, just check here:

Dossier Item Tab (if diff. from left)

1 Candidate's statement on teaching, research, service and or other scholarly, creative activities

2 Candidate's curriculum vitae (with signed acknowledgement of correct, up-to-date content)

3 Candidate's list and signed verification of what he/she has submitted to the departmental review committee

4 Departmental evaluation of quality of teaching (or librarianship)

5 Departmental evaluation of quality of research or other scholarly, creative activities

6 Departmental evaluation of quality of service

7 Departmental evaluation of quality of other relevant activities

8 Statement on qualifications of outside reviewers; All letters received (indicate candidate selection or dept. selection); Copy of solicitation letter

9 Departmental committee summary report and recommendation

10 Recommendation of Department Head

11 College Committee summary report and recommendation

12 Recommendation of Dean

13 Other materials and documentation

VOTES & RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY

Recommended action by: Yes No Absent Abstain/

Recused Total

Eligible Date


Department Head

College Committee

Dean

John L. Smith Agriculture

Assistant Professor Nutritional Sciences

Ph.D., 20002008

5Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure

N/A2013-14

✔

7 1 1 0 9 09/02/13

✔

✔

09/23/13

5 2 0 1 8 10/27/13

11/30/13

41



Appendix B: College Chart (Submit as Excel file not as PDF) Use the supplied Excel spreadsheet to prepare the TAMU Promotion and tenure College Chart. All candidates should be sorted into four categories on one chart: • The first category is for candidates being considered for promotion with tenure; these are

almost always faculty going from assistant professor to associate professor with tenure. • Candidates being considered for tenure-‐only. These are candidates who hold the rank of

associate or full professor without tenure. Most colleges will not use this category. • Tenured candidates being considered for promotion-‐only are those going from associate

professor to full professor. • Candidates being considered for non-‐tenure track promotion are those going from lecturer

to senior lecturer or “adjective” assistant professor to “adjective” associate professor or “adjective” associate professor to “adjective” professor.

• The Texas A&M University System requests that the candidate’s name on the CV appear exactly as it appears on the college chart and in the biography table. In other words, if the CV says “Sam Smith,” the college chart and biography must also say “Sam Smith,” not “Samuel Smith.” If a middle initial appears on the CV (e.g., “Samuel H. Smith”), it must appear that way on the other two documents, and so on.

• IMPORTANT: New this year the teaching experience of each candidate must be indicated in semesters. Please refer to the examples on ROWS 6-‐9 of the P&T College Chart 2013-‐14 Excel template. This information must be in exact agreement with that provided in the Faculty Biography Table.

• Please do not add dashes to the UIN numbers. • Do not use abbreviations for departments, titles and universities. • Place the chart as the first item in each hardcopy set. Please do not put a copy in every

candidate’s file. Also provide the P&T College Chart 2013-‐14 as an excel file (not as PDF) in the flash drive containing the electronic dossiers for all candidates.

42



College Chart (Submit as Excel file not as PDF) TO BE FILLED OUT BY DEPARTMENT AND/OR COLLEGE For chart template, please visit: http://dof.tamu.edu/PT_Forms

TAMU PROMOTION AND TENURE COLLEGE CHART2013-2014

TO BE FILLED OUT BY COLLEGE

Ye

s

No

Ab

sen

t

Ab

sta

in

To

tal

Eli

gib

le

Ye

s

No

Ab

sen

t

Ab

sta

in

To

tal

Eli

gib

le

Tenure and Promotion 111111111 Smith John L Nutritional SciencesAssistant Professor

Associate Professor with

TenurePh.D. 2000

University of Somewhere

2008 N/A Fa 2008-Sp 2013 Su 2007-Sp 2008 7 1 1 0 9 Y 5 2 0 1 8 Y

Tenure only 222222222 Smith John L Nutritional SciencesAssociate Professor

Associate Professor with

TenurePh.D. 1999

University of Somewhere

2010 N/A Fa 2010-Sp 2013 Fa 2007-Sp 2010 7 1 1 0 9 Y 5 2 0 1 8 Y

Tenued, Promotion Only 333333333 Smith John L Nutritional SciencesAssociate Professor

Professor Ph.D. 1994University of Somewhere

2002 2008 Fa 2002-Sp 2013 N/A 7 1 1 0 9 Y 5 2 0 1 8 Y

Non-Tenure Track, Promotion 444444444 Smith John L Nutritional SciencesClinical

Associate Professor

Clinical Professor

Ph.D. 1996University of Somewhere

2001 2007 Su 2001-Sp 2013 N/A 7 1 1 0 9 Y 5 2 0 1 8 Y

Middle Initial

First NameLast NameUIN

College:

Department Committee (Yes/No/Absent/ Abstain/

Total Eligible)

College Committee (Yes/No/Absent/ Abstain/

Total Eligible)Semesters

Teaching at another

university

Department Head (Y/N)

Dean (Y/N)

Semesters Teaching at

TAMU

Year of Last Promotion

(regardless of institution)

Original Year of

TAMU Hire

Insitution of TD

Year of TD

Terminal Degree (TD; (e.g., Ph.D.)

Rank Sought

Category: Tenure and Promotion Tenure Only Tenured, Promotion Only Non-Tenure Track, Promotion

Current Rank

Department (Full Name)

43



Appendix C: External Reviewers Chart (Submit as Excel file not as PDF) TO BE FILLED OUT BY DEPARTMENT For chart template, please visit: http://dof.tamu.edu/PT_Forms

TAMU EXTERNAL REVIEWERS CHART2013-2014

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE DAPARTMENT

Name%of%candidate%(Last,%First):%Smith,%JohnDepartment:%Nutritional%SciencesCollege:%AgricultureRank%Sought:%Associate%Professor%with%Tenure

Name%of%ReviewerRequestor%(Candidate,%Department)

UniversityCollege/%

Interdisciplinary%Program%(IDP)

Department/%%IDP Requested%(Y/N)

Letter%Received%(Y/N)

Ann#Johns Department Harvard Science Biology Y NLarry#Peters Candidate University#of#Texas Arts#and#Sciences Biochemistry Y YJohn#Watson Candidate University#of#Florida Science Molecular#Biology N N

Robert#Roberson Both# Texas#A&M IDP Genetics Y Y

44



Appendix D: PDF Dossier Template TO BE ASSEMBLED BY DEPARTMENT AND/OR COLLEGE

For template, please visit: http://dof.tamu.edu/PT_Forms

How$to$Use$the$“Candidate$PDF$P&T$Dossier$Template”$$

To#add#each#required#document#to#this#PDF#under#the#bookmarked#Title#Pages#follow#these#steps:#

1. Save#the#documents#to#be#added#as#a#PDF.##To#make#a#PDF#from#Word#or#Excel:#a. Go#to:#File$b. Save$as$c. From#the#Format#pull#down#menu#select#PDF#

2. Open#the#“Candidate$PDF$P&T$Dossier$Template”#

3. Click#the#“Thumbnail”#view#on#the#left#side#of#the#document##

##

4. This#will#display#the#Thumbnails#of#the#bookmarked#Title#Pages##

##

5. Drag#the#PDF#file#of#the#document#you#want#to#insert#under#the#Title#Page#for#that#specific#document#(Shown#as#a#blue#arrow)#

6. All#the#pages#of#that#document#will#appear#under#the#Title#Page#in#the#Thumbnails#

Thumbnail

45



Appendix E: Grants Summary Chart (Submit as Excel file not as PDF) TO BE FILLED OUT BY CANDIDATE For chart template, please visit: http://dof.tamu.edu/PT_Forms

TAMU GRANTS SUMMARY CHART2013-2014

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE CANDIDATE

Name%of%candidate%(Last,%First):%Smith,%John

Department:%Nutritional%SciencesCollege:AgricultureRank%Sought:Associate%Professor%With%Tenure

Type%of%Grant%Federal/State/%Industry/Other

External%or%Internal

Dates%of%the%Award

Funding%Agency

Competitive%Grant%Y/N

Role%(PI,%%CoNPI) Title%of%Grant Award%

Amount

Amount%Attributable%to%Candidate

Federal External 2009.2013 NIH Y PI $1,000,0008 $650,0008

State Internal 2010.2011AgriLife8Research Y PI $35,0008 $35,0008

46



Appendix F. Faculty Biography Table (Submit as Word document not as PDF) TO BE FILLED OUT BY CANDIDATE

For table template, please visit: http://dof.tamu.edu/PT_Forms

Name Department Present Rank Effective Date Dr. Joseph Batch Chemistry Assistant Professor 09/01/13 Ph.D. (2005) University of California at Santa Barbara Fa 2008-‐Sp 2011 Fa 2011-‐Present



Dr. Batch’s area is organic chemistry with a specialty in polymer chemistry, transition metal catalysis, polymer synthesis, asymmetric organic synthesis, and organometallic chemistry. He has authored three publications on efforts to combine the physiochemical properties of a polymer with the reactivity of a low molecular weight compound. This work involves fundamental research both in synthesis and catalysis. He has received grants of $750,000 from NSF. Dr. Batch teaches first year organic chemistry and one advanced organic chemistry course for undergraduates as well as two graduate level organic chemistry courses. He has received outstanding student evaluations each year and has chaired four graduate student committees and served on four others. Dr. Batch is being recommended for early tenure because…..

47



Appendix G: Faculty Summary Data Table (Submit as Word document not as PDF) TO BE FILLED OUT BY CANDIDATE

For table template, please visit: http://dof.tamu.edu/PT_Forms

Teaching philosophy • Includes as much hands-‐on learning in the courses as possible, with the overarching goal of creating a link between the textbook and the real world.

• Constantly updating his course material, homework assignments, problem sets, exams, design projects, and notes, to ensure that his course reflects the changes in the field

Courses Frequently Taught • BAEN 387 Number of Graduate Students Chaired or Co-‐Chaired

• MS 7 • PhD 3

Other Teaching Accomplishments • Developed 2 new undergraduate courses • NFS grant has allowed him to recruit and mentor a large

number of students from underrepresented groups Teaching Recognitions and Awards • Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department

Excellence in Teaching Award, 2008 • Montague Teaching Scholar in the Texas A&M

University Center for Teaching Excellence, 2009 Peer-‐reviewed Journal Articles • 13 Peer-‐reviewed Proceedings • 7 Books/Monographs • 1 Book chapters • 2 Conference Presentations • Invited: 2

• National: 26 • International: 9


• Total awards: $1.5M • Awards to candidate: $600K


• Patents awarded: 1 • Patents applied for (pending): 3 • Associate editor of the Transactions of ASABE

Research/Scholarship/Creativity Recognitions and Award

• Presidential Early Career Award in Science and Engineering, 2007

48



This page is intentionally left blank.

49

How to Use the “Candidate PDF P&T Dossier Template”

To add each required document to this PDF under the bookmarked Title Pages follow these steps:

1. Save the documents to be added as a PDF. To make a PDF from Word or Excel: a. Go to: File b. Save as c. From the Format pull down menu select PDF

2. Open the “Candidate PDF P&T Dossier Template”

3. Click the “Thumbnail” view on the left side of the document

4. This will display the Thumbnails of the bookmarked Title Pages

5. Drag the PDF file of the document you want to insert under the Title Page for that specific document (Shown as a blue arrow)

6. All the pages of that document will appear under the Title Page in the Thumbnails

Thumbnail

50

Candidate Dossier Cover Sheet

51

Item 1

Candidate Statement on Teaching, Research and

Service

52

Item 2

Candidate CV

• Candidate CV • Signed Statement • Candidate Grants chart

53

Item 3

Verification of Contents Statement

54

Item 4

Department Report of Teaching

55

Item 5

Department Report of Research

56

Item 6

Department Report of Service

57

Item 7

Department Report of Other Activities (If Applicable)

58

Item 8

External Reviewers Letters

• External Reviewers Chart • External Reviewers Letter Request

• External Reviewers Biography • External Reviewers Letters • List of Peer Departments if Different from AAU

59

Item 9

Department P&T Discussion Report

60

Item 10

Department Head Report

61

Item 11

College P&T Committee Report

62

Item 12

Dean report

63

Item 13

Other Materials and Documentation (If Applicable)

64

1

How to Describe Position Description and Job Expectation

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

There is a difference between a faculty member’s salary source and their job expectation. Salary Source: The % of the faculty member’s r salary paid by Texas A&M University, Texas

A&M AgriLife Extension and/or Texas A&M AgriLife Research. Job Expectation: As per University Rule 12.01.99.M2 and Texas AgriLife Research policy

12.99.99.A1.01 every professorial ranked position has job expectations in teaching, research (scholarship) and service, and Texas AgriLife Extension Professorial Career Ladder System has job expectations in extension, research (scholarship), teaching and service. Therefore, every professorial ranked faculty member has an expectation of accomplishments in teaching, research (scholarship) and service; and Texas A&M AgriLife Extension employees have a job expectation in extension.

Position Description It should describe what you are expected to do and the relative amount of effort

you will allocate to the teaching, research, extension and service mission of your job. Pragmatically, it should describe the implementation of your position description in the form of a plan of work. This should be discussed and agreed upon with your unit head and/or resident director during your annual review.

For example, 100% TAMU reinvestment position may have been hired with the expectation of developing a nationally recognized basic research program, with minimal expectation of classroom teaching. Thus, the salary source is not always proportional to the job expectation. The Dean and Vice Chancellor has been clear that the position description in the dossier should reflect the job expectation as agreed upon by the faculty member and the unit head and/or resident director.

Possible Model to Describe Job Expectation in the Position Description in the Curriculum Vitae Current Position Assistant Professor September 2008-present Department of Crops, Animals and People Salary Source: 66% Texas A&M University: 33% Texas A&M AgriLife Research Position Description Primary effort is to teach one introductory undergraduate course and coordinate graduate teaching assistants in all laboratory sections every fall and spring semester in the area of natural resources, and teach one graduate level course per year in the area of hydrology. Develop a competitive and extramurally funded research program in the area of water quality and conservation as it effects the production of plants and animals in arid environments. Advise graduate student research and supervise undergraduate students conducting independent projects. Serve on departmental and college committees as requested. Interact with and make presentations to industry stakeholders. Serve as a manuscript reviewer for scientific journals.

65


Texas A&M AgriLife Extension 2013-14 Promotion and Tenure Guidelines

PROTOCOL G. Reviewing Faculty with Joint Appointments

(http://dof.tamu.edu/sites/default/files/tenure_promotion/2013-14%20PT%20TAMU%20Guidelines.pdf)

Joint Appointments (if funded) Protocol as suggested by DOF Antonio Cepeda-Benito Dean of Faculties and Associate Provost Summarized for text from email spring 2011

• Request external letters in collaboration between the departments—but following the process outlined by the ADLOC unit (usually unit of major appointment).

• Synchronize and develop a timeline for reviews and communication between departments and colleges.

• Each department evaluates the dossier package independently. Each department’s P&T committee prepares their own committee discussion report for the Dossier.

• Each head prepares a head report for the Dossier. o Each department head informs the candidate of their vote and their T&P

committee’s vote. • Both departments are in the same college:

o The ADLOC department collects all reports and prepares the Dossier. o The Dossier goes to the college P&T committee for review.

• Departments in separate colleges: o Each department head and dean are responsible for moving the complete Dossier

packet forward in their respective colleges. o Each college P&T committee and dean review the candidate independently

prepare reports. Each dean and inform their own department head. o Each dean provides recommendations to the provost

Interdisciplinary (intercollegiate faculties)

• Faculty “having appointments with interdisciplinary (intercollegiate) faculties are to be reviewed and evaluated for promotion and tenure by the secondary unit”

Protocol as per DOF • Chair of IDP prepares a letter of recommendation. • The letter is included in Item 8 External Reviewers Letters. • NOTE: DOF indicated that all member of an IDP, regardless of level of activity, should

have a letter from the Chair of the IDP.

66

POSSIBLE EXAMPLE TO FOLLOW Rubric for Developing Your Statement on Teaching

From: University of Minnesota Center for Teaching and Learning

http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/teachlearn/tutorials/philosophy/start/index.html Areas to address in your Teaching Statement Draft text My aspirations/goals/objectives:• as a teacher: (i.e., encourage mastery, competency, transformational learning, life-long learning, general skill transference of skills, meaningful learning, critical thinking, etc.)• for your students:(See examples above) *Describe and give example(s)

What methods will I consider to reach these goals/objectives? (i.e., your beliefs regarding learning theory and specific strategies you would use…such as case studies, group work, simulations, interactive lectures, learning/reading circles, etc. You might also include any new ideas/strategies you have used or want to try. *Describe and give example(s) of strategies/practices that you prefer).

How will I assess student understanding? (What are your beliefs about grading…norm-referenced or criterion-referenced? What different types of assessment will you use….traditional tests? Alternative assessments such as projects, papers, panels, presentation, etc.?) *Describe and give example(s)

How will I improve my teaching? (i.e., How will you use your student evaluations to improve your teaching? How might you learn new skills? How do you know when you have taught effectively?) Any examples you can share?

Additional Considerations: Why is teaching important to me? • How do I collaborate with others? • What beliefs, theories, and/or methods mark my successful teaching? • How do I maintain positive relationships with your students? With colleagues?

67

POSSIBLE EXAMPLE TO FOLLOW Rubric for Developing your Statement on Research

Areas to address in your Research Philosophy:

Draft text

Define your philosophy and approach to research.

Define/describe your area of research.

Explain why it is important.

Define your goals.

Describe your strategy to accomplish your goals.

68


Texas A&M AgriLife Extension 2013-14 Promotion and Tenure Guidelines

Guidelines for verifying authorship of the departmental reports (http://dof.tamu.edu/sites/default/files/tenure_promotion/2013-14%20PT%20TAMU%20Guidelines.pdf)

Items 4-7: Department Evaluations of Teaching, Research and Service or Other Scholarly, Creative Activities • Authorship of each performance-area report should be made clear by listing the names of the

individual or individuals who wrote each report. These reports can be edited to ensure they accurately reflect the views of the P&T committee. A typed statement at the end of each report such as, “The opinions and conclusions stated in this report regarding the candidate accurately reflect the views of the T&P committee.” will suffice.

• NOTE: Signatures are not required. Item 9: Department T&P Committee Discussion Report and Recommendation‡ • IMPORTANT The names of all the committee members voting in each case should be included

in the report. • All committee members should review the contents of the committee discussion report and

recommendations. Members should indicate their agreement that the document reflects the discussion and voting outcome. IMPORTANT: This should be done by having all voting committee members sign the report.

Clarifications

• It may be problematic to collect signatures, yet the DOF is holding to the guideline that signatures should be obtained.

• If individuals are not available to sign, they should indicate their intent to sign by sending an email to the Chair.

• What do you do if a faculty member refuses to sign? List named should be listed to indicate they voted, but without a signature.

• Only faculty eligible to vote should be listed. • Below is a format you could use.

Possible Format to Use for signatures I verify that the committee members know the contents of the committee report, and that the report reflects the discussion and voting outcome of the voting members listed below. _________________________________________ _______ Chair Date Voting Members Type Name Signature Type Name Signature Type Name Signature Type Name Signature Type Name Signature Type Name Signature Type Name Signature

69

Section 4

Dossier Cover Sheets

70



CANDIDATE DOSSIER COVER SHEET FOR PROMOTION & TENURE 2013-2014

Name of Candidate:

College:

(no abbreviations)

Current Rank:

Department:

(e.g., Associate Professor, Lecturer, Clinical Assistant Professor, etc.) (no abbreviations)

Highest Degree Earned and Year Granted:

Year Started at Texas A&M (at any rank above graduate student):

Total Years of Academic Service at Current Rank (regardless of institution; as of Sept 1, 2013):

Action being considered:

(e.g., Promotion to Professor, Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure, Tenure, Promotion to Clinical Associate Professor, etc )

Effective Date of Last Promotion (if applicable):

Academic Year for Mandatory Tenure Consideration (if applicable):

(If this year is the mandatory year, list 2013-2014)



1 Candidate's statement on teaching, research, service and or other scholarly, creative activities

2 Candidate's curriculum vitae (with signed acknowledgement of correct, up-to-date content)


4 Departmental evaluation of quality of teaching (or librarianship)

5 Departmental evaluation of quality of research or other scholarly, creative activities

6 Departmental evaluation of quality of service

7 Departmental evaluation of quality of other relevant activities

8 Statement on qualifications of outside reviewers; All letters received (indicate candidate selection or dept. selection); Copy of solicitation letter



11 College Committee summary report and recommendation

12 Recommendation of Dean



Recommended action by: Yes No Absent Abstain/

Recused Total

Eligible Date


Department Head

College Committee

Dean

71

2013 - 2014 Texas A&M AgriLife Research Dossier Cover Sheet for Promotion

Name of Candidate: Research Unit: Current Rank: Select from dropdown list: Dept: Years of Service at Current Rank (regardless of institution): Years at A&M (at any rank above graduate student): Action being considered: Select from dropdown list: (select from drop-down list) Effective Date of Last Promotion (if applicable):



1 Candidate's statement on research, teaching, and service 2 Candidate's curriculum vitae (with signed acknowledgement of correct, up-to-date content)


4 Departmental evaluation of quality of research (as appropriate)

5 Departmental evaluation of quality of teaching (as appropriate)

6 Departmental evaluation of quality of service (as appropriate)

7 Departmental evaluation of quality of other activities, if any, relevant to the mission of the agency

8 Statement on qualifications of outside reviewers, along with all letters received (indicate candidate selection of dept. selection); Copy of solicitation letter


10 Recommendation of Resident Director (as appropriate)


12 Agriculture Peer Committee summary report and recommendation

13 Recommendation of TAES Director



Recommended Action By: Abstain/ Total Yes No Absent Recuse Eligible Date Dept. Committee Resident Director: (as appropriate) SELECT: Date: (select from drop-down list) Dept. Head: SELECT: Date: (select from drop-down list) Abstain/ Total Yes No Absent Recuse Eligible Date Ag Peer Review Committee

Texas AgriLife Research Director: SELECT: Date: Vice Chancellor for Agriculture & Life Sciences: SELECT: Date:

72

2013 - 2014 Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service Dossier Cover Sheet for Promotion

Name of Candidate: Extension Unit: Current Rank: Select from dropdown list: Dept: Years of Academic Service at Current Rank (regardless of institution): Years at A&M (at any rank above graduate student): Action being considered: Select from dropdown list: (select from drop-down list) Effective Date of Last Promotion (if applicable):



1 Candidate's statement on extension, research, teaching, and service (as appropriate) 2 Candidate's curriculum vitae (with signed acknowledgement of correct, up-to-date content)


4 Departmental evaluation of quality of extension (as appropriate)

5 Departmental evaluation of quality of research (as appropriate)

6 Departmental evaluation of quality of teaching (as appropriate)

7 Departmental evaluation of quality of service (as appropriate)

8 Departmental evaluation of quality of other activities relevant to the mission of the agency(ies)

9 Statement on qualifications of outside reviewers along with all letters received (indicate candidate selection or dept. selection); Copy of solicitation letter



12 Agriculture Peer Committee summary report and recommendation

13 Recommendation of Texas AgriLife Extension Service Director



Recommended Action By: Abstain/ Total Yes No Absent Recuse Eligible Date Dept. Committee Dept. Head: SELECT: Date: (select from drop-down list) Abstain/ Total Yes No Absent Recuse Eligible Date Ag Peer Review Committee

Texas AgriLife Extension Service Director: SELECT: Date: (select from drop-down list) Vice Chancellor for Agriculture and Life Sciences: SELECT: Date: (select from drop-down list)

73

Please use TAMU or AgriLife

Research Coversheet

Section 5

Charts and Tables

74

TAMU GRANTS SUMMARY CHART2013-2014

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE CANDIDATE

Name of candidate (Last, First):Department:College:Rank Sought:

Type of Grant Federal/State/ Industry/Other

External or Internal

Dates of the Award

Funding Agency

Competitive Grant Y/N

Role (PI, Co-

PI)Title of Grant Award

Amount

Amount Attributable to

Candidate

75

Blank Faculty Biography Table Name Department Present Rank Effective Date 9/1/2014

Name Department Present Rank Effective Date Dr./Mr./Ms. First Last Department (full

name no abbreviations) Present Faculty Rank 9/1/2014

Terminal Degree (Year)

Institution

Experience evaluated towards tenure. Dates (Include semester and year beginning and ending) (See University P&T Guidelines for explanation and example)

Institution (Include previous and current institution) (See University P&T Guidelines for explanation and example)

Title (Include “Tenured” and “Year” if tenure was awarded at other institution) (See University P&T Guidelines for explanation and example)

Accomplishments (See University P&T Guidelines for explanation and example)

Statement on Teaching (See University P&T Guidelines for explanation and example)

Justification for Early Tenure TO BE FILLED OUT BY DEAPARTMENT AND/OR COLLEGE (if applicable)

76

Faculty Summary Data Table Faculty Name:

Teaching Philosophy • Main point one • Main point two, etc.

Courses Frequently Taught • List each course number and title on a separate line Number of Graduate Students Chaired or Co-Chaired

• MA/MS—number (completed/in progress) • PhD—number (completed/in progress)

Other Teaching Accomplishments • Accomplishment one • Accomplishment two, etc.

Teaching Recognitions and Awards • List award/recognition(s) and year(s) given Peer-reviewed Journal Articles • Number Peer-reviewed Proceedings • Number Books/Monographs • Number Book Chapters • Number Conference Presentations • Invited—number

• National—number • International—number


• Total awards—dollar amount 1 • Awards to candidate—dollar amount 2


• Accomplishment one • Accomplishment two, etc.

Research/Scholarship/Creativity Recognitions and Awards

• List award/recognition(s) and year(s) given

1 Give the total sum of all grants awarded to the prospective faculty member and his/her collaborators 2 Of the total sum, give the amount corresponding to the individual faculty member. If unknown, divide each award(s) by the number of PIs and CoPIs authoring each grant and then sum.

77

EXTERNAL REVIEWERS CHART2013-2014

TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT

Name of candidate (Last, First):Department:College:Rank Sought:

Name of Reviewer

Requestor (Candidate,

Department, Interdisciplinary

University College Department Requested (Y/N) Letter Received (Y/N)

78

How to Use the “Candidate PDF P&T Dossier Template”

To add each required document to this PDF under the bookmarked Title Pages follow these steps:

1. Save the documents to be added as a PDF. To make a PDF from Word or Excel: a. Go to: File b. Save as c. From the Format pull down menu select PDF

2. Open the “Candidate PDF P&T Dossier Template”

3. Click the “Thumbnail” view on the left side of the document

4. This will display the Thumbnails of the bookmarked Title Pages

5. Drag the PDF file of the document you want to insert under the Title Page for that specific document (Shown as a blue arrow)

6. All the pages of that document will appear under the Title Page in the Thumbnails

Thumbnail

79

Candidate Dossier Cover Sheet

80

Item 1

Candidate Statement on Teaching, Research and

Service

81

Item 2

Candidate CV

• Candidate CV • Signed Statement • Candidate Grants chart

82

Item 3

Verification of Contents Statement

83

Item 4

Department Report of Teaching

84

Item 5

Department Report of Research

85

Item 6

Department Report of Service

86

Item 7

Department Report of Other Activities (If Applicable)

87

Item 8

External Reviewers Letters

• External Reviewers Chart • External Reviewers Letter Request

• External Reviewers Biography • External Reviewers Letters • List of Peer Departments if Different from AAU

88

Item 9

Department P&T Discussion Report

89

Item 10

Department Head Report

90

Item 11

College P&T Committee Report

91

Item 12

Dean report

92

Item 13

Other Materials and Documentation (If Applicable)

93

Section 6

How to Improve Your Dossier

Suggestions from Past Peer Review Committees

94

1

How to Improve Your P&T Dossier

Suggestions from past College and Texas AgriLife Peer Review Committee and Heads The purpose of this document is to provide some general guidelines and best practices related to the preparation of dossiers for promotion and tenure consideration by the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee and the Offices of the Dean of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the Directors of the Texas AgriLife Research and Texas AgriLife Extension Service. The intent is to provide a resource that can be used by candidates and their mentors to assure that all the necessary information is provided in a format that is easy to interpret and allows for consistent evaluation. The first step in beginning this process for candidates administratively located in the College is to review the guidelines provided by the Dean of Faculties . General Dossier Preparation • The Dossier should comply with a uniform submission style. • Consider using the College’s suggested CV format (http://aghr.tamu.edu/promotion.htm). • DO NOT submit 300 page Dossiers. • If you put voluminous material in the Section 13: Other, keep in mind they many reviewers

will spend little time reading it. • Use tabular summaries and bulleted lists to highlight key accomplishments. • Use SPELL CHECK!

Salary and % Employment versus Job Expectation and % Effort • The % of your salary from TAMU, AgriLife Research and AgriLife Extension is your

degree of fiscal ad loc. • % salary is not the same as you’re the % effort of your job expectation. • Present your job expectation in your CV. This is similar to your position description, which

is agreed upon by you and your Head or Resident Director. • Explain any special functions of the position, such as managing a service lab, maintaining a

collection, meeting specific demands of a clientele group, etc. • Explain any significant administrative assignment, such as Associate Head, Center Director,

etc. Explain how this should be taken into account relative to the promotion decision, for example does it give you release time from teaching. FYI, University Rule 12.01.99.M2 does not list “administration” as a Category of Performance.

Accomplishments and Metrics • Present accomplishments (publications, grants, graduate students trained, etc.) as both career

totals and since last promotion or since hired at TAMU. Collaborative Efforts – Publications, grants, graduate students, etc. • On collaborative efforts, indicate the degree of involvement, degree of responsibility or %

contribution. This is especially important on reporting grant dollars. • On publications, explain authorship, e.g. senior author, collaborating author, etc., if it is

unique to your field.

95

2

• On publications, you must indicate graduate students. But also indicates those that conducted their research under your direction.

External Letters • External letters. DO NOT include external references with whom the candidate works or

have worked. • University Dossier guidelines (http://dof.tamu.edu/admin/tp/tenure_guide.pdf):

“Be aware that letters from dissertation advisors may not carry the same weight as those from unbiased evaluators, and letters from former students are irrelevant except as supportive documents for the teaching evaluation.”

• Select external reviews “...whose objectivity is not open to challenge (i.e. avoid co-authors, longtime personal friends, former students or former mentors unless more than the minimum of three letters are presented)”.

The following guidelines and best practices are organized according to the recommended

content outline of the dossier: Item 1. Candidate's statement on teaching, research, extension and service • Should be a “statement on goals, philosophies, strategies and emphases,” written in first person. • SHOULD NOT be an abstract, recap or summary of one’s activities and program. • Best practice: Although up to 3 pages are allowed, 1 to 2 pages should suffice. Item 2. Candidate's curriculum vitae (with signed acknowledgement of correct, up-to-date

content) The acknowledgement that the CV being submitted is the most current, and is correct as of the date of the signature, may be combined with the Verification of Contents (Item 3). See example attached. Position Description • Include an explicit description of position responsibilities and expectations. This should be consistent with the position description used for annual reviews. The division of teaching, research, and extension responsibilities should be defined by the position description and not by the salary sources. Teaching • List undergraduate and graduate courses taught and frequency. • Teaching evaluations must be included and broken down by the course. Show trends over

time. Provide evidence from peer reviews. • Teaching evaluations - departmental average should be presented for comparison. • Do not include copies of student evaluation forms; if you want the information included in

the packet, insert a page or two of typical comments in “Item 13 - Other Materials and Documentation.”

• Put syllabi, exams, etc. in “Item 13 - Other Materials and Documentation”; however, many reviewers do not look at syllabi and/or exams.

96

3

Research and Scholarly Work • “Scholarly work” is most easily demonstrated by refereed publications. • Other forms of scholarly work should be documented and explained. • Refereed publications must be truly refereed or peer-reviewed

o publication must have a rejection rate o editor-reviewed does not qualify as peer-reviewed o abstracts cannot be included under refereed publications o “submitted” should be listed separately, and university rules do not allow them to be

counted o “accepted’ and “in press”; some departments might require by a letter of verification

from the editor or journal • Copies of articles (reprints) probably need not be included, and if included, should be in

“Item 13 - Other Materials and Documentation”; these items are not forwarded out of college.

Extension Program Impacts • Summarize and quantify the focus and diversity of educational programs (number, topic,

products, strategies, etc.) • Present evaluation results (i.e., customer satisfaction, outcome evaluation data) of extension programming • Indicate number or magnitude of clientele contacts • Indicate programming effectiveness by verifying clientele acceptance, use, or behavior change • Applied research studies published (peer reviewed differentiated from reports published by agency)

Grants and Contracts

• Must indicate $s allocated to the candidate’s program. • List chronologically by year(s) or since last promotion so a track record can be

determined. • Reference to the grant or contract should include all investigators listed in the order that

they appear on award, name of the agency or private company that is the source of the award, the duration of the award, the dollar amount allocated to candidate’s program, and the total award.

• Indicate “internal” versus “external” competitive funding. • Except in special cases, do not list proposals that were submitted, but not funded.

Item 3. Candidate's list and signed verification of what he/she has submitted to the

departmental review committee • See example format in Appendix. • The candidate must include a signed statement: (1) acknowledging that the CV being

submitted is the most current, and is correct as of the date of the signature, and (2) verifying what materials he/she has submitted for departmental review for the purpose of tenure and/or promotion consideration.

97

4

Item 4. Departmental evaluation of quality of teaching • These evaluation reports are written by faculty who are members of the department’s

promotion and tenure committee. Authorship of each report should be made clear, and a statement should be included at the end of each report reading, “The opinions and conclusions stated in this report regarding the candidate accurately reflect the views of the T&P committee.”

• The report should evaluate the record, and not advocate or repeat information in the CV. • The report should be concise, one or two pages. • The report should reference evidence from the curriculum vitae and outside letters to support

the evaluation. • The report should be cognizant of promotion criteria in the area being assessed. • The report should be objective, mentioning positive factors, but not omitting negative aspects

of the record. Explain any seemingly negative points in outside letters. • The report should highlight evidence of peer acceptance; regional, national and international

reputation and impact; and the value of the program to society, the State, the University, and the Texas A&M University System.

Item 5. Departmental evaluation of quality of research • See Item 4.

Item 6. Departmental evaluation of quality of extension • See Item 4.

Item 7. Departmental evaluation of quality of service • See Item 4.

Item 8. Statement on qualifications of outside reviewers; All letters received (indicate candidate selection or dept. selection); Copy of solicitation letter

• The outside letters requested should be truly “outside” letters. Most outside reviewers should be from peer institutions or better, but letters from clear leaders in the field are also acceptable. If not obvious, include explanation of why it is appropriate.

• Request 5 to 7 letters. No more than one reviewer per institution. • Outside letters should not be from the candidate’s former major professor, fellow classmates

in graduate school, former students, or collaborators. Item 9. Departmental committee summary report and recommendation • The committee report should include a summary evaluation of the candidate, referring to the

“Evaluation of Quality” reports. • The report should explain the reasons for any negative votes by the P&T Committee. • The report should also describe the membership of the P&T Committee and how selected. • Explain the voting process and results. Separate the votes for tenured and non-tenure track

faculty. Item 10. Recommendation of Department Head and/or Resident Director The recommendation should be objective and analytical, outlining strengths and weaknesses and impacts and not repeating other information reported in the dossier.

98

5

• Letters from the heads/directors of units in which the candidate holds a joint appointment should be included here.

• Letters from intercollegiate faculties or interdisciplinary programs, of which the candidate is a member, should be included here.

Item 11. College Committee summary report and recommendation • The committee report should explain the reasons for any negative votes by the Agriculture

Peer Review Committee.

Item 12. Recommendation of Dean • The recommendation should be objective and analytical, outlining strengths and

weaknesses and impacts and not repeating other information reported in the dossier.

Item 13. Other materials and documentation (optional) • This section is for any materials deemed pertinent to the case, but not appropriate for

placement elsewhere. This might include letters from students or peers that were not part of a structured evaluation process, or letters from TAMU faculty members.

• Supportive materials such as the teaching portfolio (if utilized) and copies of books or articles should be retained in the college, and not sent to the Office of the Dean of Faculties with the T&P package.

• Best Practice: Minimize the material included in this section. General Comments • The dossier should be organized so it is readable and the information is easy to find. • The dossier should be reviewed by “mentors” or “senior faculty” to aid in organization and

presentation. • A successful “template” for that department might be a good model to follow. • Seriously consider use of summary tables or bullets to highlight items such as teaching

evaluations, scholarly publications, grants, clientele contact, etc.; possible formats are on the following pages.

• SPELL CHECK • DO NOT submit an excessively long dossier, i.e. should be less than 100 pages. • Departmental Votes: must be justified if you want them to carry weight; should be

consistent across multiple candidates • Each reviewer is spending days combing through dozen of packets. Make the Dossier of a

reasonable length, well written and easy to read, organized so the key information is easy to find; use summary tables or bulleted lists to highlight major accomplishments, etc. In other words, market yourself clearly, concisely and therefore effectively.

• • A few “constants” when it comes to information to be considered: • Publications: Refereed publications are “no brainers” to demonstrate scholarly work. Other

forms of scholarship must be explained. • Excellence: Must demonstrate “excellence” in at least one area (teaching, research or

extension), and probably a “strength” in another. • Money: Must procure sufficient funds to maintain a quality program; therefore the exact

dollar amount varies with the program. • Professor Rank: Must demonstrate national and/or international recognition.

99

6

General Process Suggestions • Inclusion of a detailed position description in CV, consistent with position description used

for annual evaluations, is highly recommended. • Department processes for promotion and tenure should be reviewed. Who votes at the

department level? We need to be clear about what constitutes the department’s P&T Committee. Is it all faculty at the rank of professor? Is it a smaller committee? How is the committee selected? We need to record the votes from tenured and non-tenure track faculty separately, but only the vote of the department’s officially designated P&T Committee should be reported.

• Continuing work is needed to clarify the criteria and expectations for promotion and tenure for College faculty and for promotion for Research and Extension faculty.

Committee Members: Ronnie Edwards, Chair, David Baltensperger, John Nichols, Greg Reinhart, Chris Townsend A special acknowledgement is extended to the members of the Agriculture Peer Review Committee, who shared their observations and suggestions for this document.

100

Section 7

Suggested Curriculum Vitae

Outline

101

Suggested Curriculum Vitae Outline

The CV is prepared by the candidate with advice from mentors. This outline presents a suggested checklist for

organizing the content of the CV. Candidates should generally follow this outline, but also should feel free to

add other relevant items and omit irrelevant sections. Consult the promotion criteria for guidance on what

information is relevant. Write descriptions and narratives in third person.

CURRICULUM VITAE Date

I. Personal Information

Name Rank Campus/off-campus address Date of appointment or last promotion

II. Education

Institutions, degrees, dates

III. Experience

Current Position -Dates -Current appointment (percentage research, teaching, extension, and service)

The division of teaching and research responsibilities should be defined by the position

description and not by the salary sources.

-Detailed position description (approximately one page) Include an explicit description of position

responsibilities and expectations. --Responsibilities for research, teaching, extension and

service --Areas of expertise --Consistent with the position description used in annual reviews.

Past Positions and Experiences -Dates, location -Short job description, responsibilities, expertise, and

accomplishments

Sabbatical or Faculty Development Leaves or Professional Improvement Activities

The following subheadings cover, where relevant, Teaching, Research, Extension, Service and/or

International, and generally should be presented in this order. For a Texas AgriLife Research or Texas

AgriLife Extension Service faculty member, however, the research or extension section may come first.

Sections should be added for any significant past appointments. For example, if the individual held a 25%

Extension appointment for three years that was discontinued two years ago, it is appropriate to include a

section to report these accomplishments separately.

102

IV. Teaching

Teaching includes, among other things, classroom and laboratory instruction; development of new

courses, laboratories, and teaching methods; publication of instructional materials, including textbooks;

and supervision of graduate students.

Suggested Contents

-Program statement (1/2 page) --Objectives of your program --Relation of your teaching program to

the other courses in curriculum --Summary of changes in teaching program over time (new

courses developed,

change in enrollment, change in frequency of offerings, etc.) --Accomplishments (both

quantifiable and your opinion) --Interaction with Research, Extension, and Service

Courses Taught

-Classes --Brief description of each class taught (objectives, relation to other courses,

indication of required/elective, honors, etc.) --Chronological list of classes (semester, course,

number of students, etc.) --Accomplishments of your students --Evaluations by class --Tabular

summary of student opinion survey of teaching --Evidence of student learning (pre- and post tests)

-Professional peer evaluation --Prepared materials --Exit interviews of students

-Self-evaluation of teaching (philosophy and professional efforts)

-Teaching portfolio (include information from teaching portfolio and supporting documentation relevant to

evaluation of the quality of your teaching.)

-Performance of students in subsequent courses -Performance of students in graduate school

List

Courses Credit Hours

Frequency

Taught Student Evaluations Average

Undergraduate Courses

Graduate Courses

Dept. Average

103

-Performance of students on the job

-Placement (are employers asking for more of your students?)

-Creativity in teaching (new texts used, new courses, new techniques in and out of classroom,

preparation of study guides, revamp course organization, etc.)

-Teaching awards (briefly repeat teaching awards listed in III with emphasis on the innovation which

resulted in the award)

-Cumulative summary of students supervised --Undergraduate honors students --Name, title of paper, dates,

current position

-Graduate students --Ph.D.'s name, dates, thesis title, location, current title and position, tenure status, and

accomplishments since graduation --M.S.'s name, dates, thesis title, performance in Ph.D. program (if

applicable), present location, position, title, and accomplishments since graduation --M.Agr.'s name, dates,

report title, current location, position, title, and accomplishments since graduation

-Cumulative summary of graduate student advising for the period --Number of Ph.D., M.S.

and M.A. advised as a chairperson --Number of Ph.D., M.S. and M.A. committees

served on --Number of Ph.D. committees served on as a GAC representative

Graduate Student Committee Involvement

-Describe your role in obtaining external and internal funds to support your teaching program (grants,

contracts, etc.)

-Seminars and guest lectures for the period (date, title, audience, etc.) --TAMU seminars and lectures

--Other universities --Government agencies, research centers, etc.

Since Last Promotion Career

Degree

Chair or

Co-chair Member

Chair or

Co-chair Member

Master of

Agriculture

Master of Science

Ph.D.

104

V. Research

Research is defined as the "Creation and dissemination of new knowledge or other creative activities:

For most disciplines, this category consists of research and publication."

Suggested Contents

-Program statement (cumulative for career). Summarize research area of emphasis in a paragraph.

The purpose is to describe your area of emphasis over your career to show the program direction

and maturity of your research program (maximum 1/2 page).

--Areas of emphasis --Objectives --Interaction with teaching, extension, and service

-Major accomplishments for individual areas of emphasis. Summarize career accomplishments by

each area of research emphasis (maximum 1-2 pages) [Might use a bullet format with a brief

statement of significance and/or contribution for each.]

--Contributions to research areas (refer to publications by index number) --Contributions to

discipline (theory and methods) --Contributions to industry or society (applied) --Evidence of

demand for program over your career, factual statements involving

solicitations to consult, write, review, fund research efforts, prepare invited papers,

speak, participate on professional committees, present testimony, participate on

government and industry task forces, etc.

--Relevant information on citations to research, requests for papers, awards, public use of

findings, etc.

--Regional/national/international involvement in associations, committees, research efforts, etc.

that show development of reputation beyond Texas A&M System and Texas.

-Describe your role in obtaining external and internal funding to support your research programs

(grants, contracts, etc.) List specific grants and contracts later in Section IX.

VI. Extension

Extension is defined as the “Application of research-based knowledge to provide high quality,

relevant education programs and services to the people of Texas, resulting in knowledge and/or

behavior change”.

Suggested Contents

-Program statement (cumulative for career). Summarize Extension programs in a paragraph

(maximum of 1/2 page) showing how your programs have been developed and expanded over

time.

--Area of program emphasis/specialization --Objectives and methods --Interaction with

research, teaching, and service

105

-Summary of Program Development, Implementation and Evaluation for areas of emphasis (maximum of 1-2

pages) --Contributions to targeted clientele, industry, and society --Evidence of demand for your program

over your career --Include relevant information on citations of Extension programs, requests for Extension

materials, and invitations to make major presentations at meetings or workshops, etc. --Include examples of

interviews, requests for information, etc.--Include factual statements involving invitations to consult, write,

review, fund projects, develop out-of-state programs, participate on professional committees, present

testimony, participate on government and industry task forces, etc. --Include evidence of program adoption

or diffusion across the region, state, and nation.

-Teaching Effectiveness and Quality

--List all presentations for past 2 years by level: 1) peer reviewed selected presentations by national,

regional, state level; 2) presentations made by national, state, regional and local level; 3) list on-line

courses and internet teaching efforts developed, as appropriate, 4) list invited lectures in courses at

Texas A&M or other universities. Use appropriate citation form to indicate date, title of presentation,

geographic location (for 1 & 2 above), audience type and audience size (optional). List in reverse

chronological order.

--Use table format similar to the second table in Section X to summarize here the presentations made by

you over your career by year, major topic(s), number/type of presentations by national, state, and

local level, and participant numbers (optional).

--Provide selected examples of quality and effectiveness data from clientele evaluations and from

professional development training evaluations; provide peer evaluation feedback, if appropriate.

Use table format to summarize teaching effectiveness evaluation data..

--Provide short narrative, if needed, to describe multi-state programs/trainings.

--Unsolicited Comments on Educational Program Impact (2 pages maximum). Quote comments from

clientele feedback that indicate the impact of your Extension educational program. Select comments

from a cross-section of clientele groups, Extension faculty, and industry contacts both in and out of

state. The comments should identify leadership, the innovativeness of your programs, program

impact, and the quality of presentation and materials.

-Program and Organizational Support: --Describe role in obtaining external and internal funding to support

involvement in Extension programs (grants, contracts, etc.) List specific grants and contracts in later in

Section IX. --List multi-media and internet education efforts, newsletters, press releases, and unnumbered

handouts that are not included elsewhere, as appropriate. These could be summarized by number, subject,

and category for the career. Evidence of clientele use of web-based educational materials could be included.

106

VII. Service

Service "includes service to the institution -- to students, colleagues, department, college, and the

University- as well as service beyond the campus. Examples of the latter include service to

professional societies, research or extension organizations, governmental agencies, the local

community, and the public at large."

-Examples of excellence and effectiveness in service are: --Officer in a national professional

organization --Service on a major governmental commission, task force, or board

--Administrative leadership role within Texas A&M System --Program chair or similar chair at a

national meeting --Symposium organizer at a national meeting --Officer in Faculty Senate

--Chair of major standing or ad hoc TAMU, Research or Extension Agency

committee --Committee chair of national professional organization --Officer in regional or

state professional organization --Program or local arrangements committee chair for regional or

state professional

organization meeting --Service on TAMU, college, Research, Extension or department

committees and

task forces --Service as consultant to business or governmental agencies --Advisor to student

organizations --Administrative duties in department --Significant self-development activities

that lead to enhanced service effectiveness

Suggested Contents

-Professional improvement and activities --List professional and honorary societies and associations

--Contributions to societies and associations

-Cumulative summary of activity on editorial boards, as editor, editorial board, and reviewer

-Cumulative summary of committees and offices held --Industry committees and liaison (cumulative

summary of contributions) --Public hearings and testimony (cumulative summary of

congressional and court

testimony and hearings)

-Departmental service each year (quantify activities and accomplishments and summarize

when possible.) --Student recruiting and placement --Student clubs advising --Coop and/or

intern program --Administrative duties --Committees

107

-University service --Committee assignments and accomplishments

-Extension service --Committee assignments and accomplishments Include national, multi-state, state and regional

-Federal government service --Testimony for Congress (title, date, committee) --Task forces and

review panels for government agencies, e.g., GAO, CSREES,

other USDA, etc.

-International service (move to international section, if appropriate for you) --Agency title, nature of

activity --Collaborative agreements developed (nature, funding, dates, accomplishments)

-Community or statewide service --Committees, task forces, government agency assistance,

commodity group service

-Projects, roles, and accomplishments (funding not needed) --List industry or agency --Indicate

activity and duration --Summarize accomplishments or contributions to your programs.

VIII. International

Include major international involvements that are funded through the Texas A&M System, involving

work in foreign locations.

Suggested Contents

-Program statement. Summarize your international program activities in a paragraph

(maximum of 1/2 page) showing how your program has developed over time. --Area of program

emphasis --Objectives --Interaction with research, teaching, extension, and service

-Major accomplishments for individual areas of emphasis. Summarize career

accomplishments by each area of international program activities (maximum 1-2 pages).

--Contributions to area of emphasis --Contributions to profession --Contributions to

industry/governments --Evidence of demand for program over your career. Factual statements

need to be

provided. (See Research subheading, for example.)

108

IX. Grants and Contracts Awarded

Include a TABLE summarizing grants and contracts received, dollars, etc.

Grants and Contracts

-List funding received (grants, contracts, etc.). Indicate title, source, duration, amount, and your role in

securing the grant or contract and your share of the funds received. Organize according to:

--Internal (indicate competitive or not) --External (indicate competitive or not)

X. Publications and Professional Output (Listed from oldest to most recent)

Include a TABLE summarizing counts of publications by type, etc.

Publications and Scholarly Work

Type and Role

Since Last Promotion Career

Total

dollars to

all PIs

Dollars

allocated to

your program

Total

dollars to

all PIs

Dollars

allocated to

your program

External Competitive

PI

Co-PI

Total (PI + Co-PI)

Internal

PI

Co-PI

Total (PI + Co-PI)

Other

Gifts and Gifts-in-Kind

Royalties to Program

Type Since Last Promotion Career

Refereed/Peer-Reviewed

Editor-reviewed

Scientific Abstracts

Books

Chapters in Books

Research Agency Publ.

Extension Agency Publ.

Popular/Industry Articles

109

-Publication list

Unless otherwise noted, the order of the authors' names indicates seniority of authorship. If this is not the

case, notes or some coding system should be added to indicate which author is senior or if the senior

authorship is shared. The publication citations should be in the form predominately used by the journals in

candidate’s discipline.

--Refereed journal articles (put an asterisk on invited articles, and any others that

have not been refereed) --Other journal articles --Books --Book chapters --Published abstracts (note

you should also include an indication if these are also

refereed or a presented paper) --Papers published in proceedings (indicate those that are refereed

and/or invited) --Papers presented but not published (do not double list published abstract papers;

indicate those that are refereed and/or invited) --Research Agency and government bulletins

--Extension publications (printed and web-published) --Departmental publications --Workshop

manuals or workbooks --Computer programs and documentation --Book reviews --Popular articles

--Slide sets, video tapes, PowerPoint presentations --Research symposia and workshop presentations,

handouts --Contract reports --Dissertation or thesis

-Technology transfers --Software, copyrights

--Patents, etc.

-Include a table summarizing the numbers of presentations. List them in the relevant research, extension,

teaching, and service sections.

Scientific and Professional Presentations

Type Invited Volunteer or

Submitted Total

International

(if applicable

to job

assignment)

National

Regional

State

Local

110

XI. Professional Honors and Awards

-Complete title of award

--Name of organization and date awarded

--Brief description of what the award was for

--Number of the particular award granted annually and scope of those eligible (e.g.,

1 or 1 of 5 in the southern region or the United States)

111

Section 8

College Policy and Guidelines

112

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Texas A&M University

PROMOTION AND TENURE

RECOMMENDATIONS

Revised: August 2009 Edited 2013 to add non-tenure process

113

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS PROMOTION AND TENURE RECOMMENDATIONS I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................1 II. Guidelines for Departmental Recommendations on Promotion and Tenure A. Composition of the Promotion and Tenure Committee ...........................................1 B. Evaluation Process / Voting Procedures 1. Promotion and Tenure Committee ......................................................................2 2. Departmental Faculty ..........................................................................................2 3. Recommendation of the Department Head .........................................................2 III. Faculty Promotion / Tenure Recommendation Package A. Signed Affidavit .......................................................................................................3 B. Faculty Achievement Report / Curriculum Vitae ....................................................3 C. Summary of Annual Faculty Evaluations ................................................................4 D. Outside Letters of Evaluation ..................................................................................4 IV. College Review by Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee ......................5 V. College Interdisciplinary Committee (optional) ..................................................................6 VI. Recommendation / Approval Process of Faculty Promotion/Tenure Recommendation Package ...................................................................................................6 VII. Promotions – Non Tenure Track Faculty Positions ...........................................................7 EVALUATION CRITERIA IN CONSIDERATION OF MERIT REVIEW, PROMOTION AND TENURE I. The Teaching Evaluation .....................................................................................................8 II. The Service Evaluation ......................................................................................................10 III. The Research Evaluation ...................................................................................................12

114

ii

IV. The Extension Evaluation ..................................................................................................14

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

EVALUATION CRITERIA IN CONSIDERATION OF FACULTY MEMBERS IN INTERDISCIPLINARY ACTIVITIES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH TENURE-GRANTING DEPARTMENT I. Criteria . . . . . ....................................................................................................................17 II. Guidelines for Recommendations on Promotion and Tenure A. Composition of Interdisciplinary Promotion and Tenure Committee ...................17 B. Evaluation Process 1. Traditional faculty .............................................................................................17 2. Nontraditional faculty .......................................................................................18

115

1

PROMOTION AND TENURE RECOMMENDATIONS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Texas A&M University August 2009

(Previous Revisions: July 2008, June 2002, August 1998, original October, 1991)

I. Introduction Academic faculty in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (COALS) at Texas A&M University perform a variety of unique activities in the triad of academic functions--teaching, research and extension. Collectively, these activities form the basis of the agricultural component of a land-grant university system. The following guidelines governing promotion and tenure recommendations will be utilized in the consideration of promotion and/or tenure appointments for faculty with academic appointments within the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. These principles are derived from the Texas A&M Tenure and Promotion Packages: Submission Guidelines as published by the Office of the Dean of Faculties and Associate Provost. II. Guidelines for Departmental Recommendations on Promotion and Tenure A. Composition of the Promotion and Tenure Committee Each department will be responsible for determining the nature of its Promotion

and Tenure Committee. Each department will establish written guidelines to govern departmental tenure and promotion recommendations, and a copy of this information will be available for distribution to the faculty. Promotion and Tenure Committees may be constituted in several different manners as shown below with each committee electing its chair:

1) It may be comprised of tenured representatives elected entirely by the

faculty (faculty members may consider promotion and tenure issues to their professorial rank only);

2) It may be comprised of tenured representatives of the department

including those individuals who are elected and those who are appointed by the Head of the Department;

3) It may be comprised of all tenured faculty for consideration of tenure and

promotion to Associate Professor, and all tenured Full Professors for promotion and tenure to all ranks, or

4) It may be comprised of all tenured Full Professors for consideration of

promotion and tenure to all ranks. B. Evaluation Process / Voting Procedures

116

2

1) Promotion and Tenure Committee Following a confidential committee-wide discussion, the departmental ......

the vote and the overall perspective of the Committee relative to each faculty member under consideration should be explained by the Chair of the Committee in a memorandum to the Head of the Department. This document will form a part of the faculty promotion/tenure recommendation package that will be forwarded through the Dean's Office to the University administration.

2) Departmental Faculty The department may choose to have the entire tenured departmental

faculty provide an additional anonymous vote for the record, as appropriate for rank, on each faculty promotion/tenure recommendation package. That vote should be taken following an oral or written presentation from the promotion and Tenure Committee. The results of this vote will become a part of the faculty member's promotion/tenure recommendation package that will be forwarded through the Dean's Office to the University administration.

3) Recommendation of the Department Head The head of the department shall make a clear recommendation on each

promotion and tenure decision. The department head should summarize the achievements of the faculty member under consideration and explain the perspective of the department-at-large in a memorandum to the Dean. This memorandum should be limited to three pages in length and should include the following information:

a. A summary of the strong and weak points of each faculty member

under consideration for promotion/tenure.

b. A concise statement of the candidate's position description and terms of appointment (% appointment in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas AgriLife Research, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, and other organizations) as well as an explanation of any changes in assignment during the faculty member's tenure.

c. An evaluation of the responsibilities and expectations of joint

appointments between the College and the agricultural agencies. (Additional information should be included in the faculty member's achievement report/curriculum vitae and supporting material.)

117

3

III. Faculty Promotion/Tenure Recommendation Package Each faculty member's promotion/tenure recommendation package should be updated immediately prior to submission to the Dean's Office. Promotion/tenure recommendation packages should include the following information: A. Signed Statement:

The candidate must include a signed statement with the CV acknowledging that the CV being submitted is the most current and is correct as of the date of the signature. (Note: This is different from the Verification of Contents statement on the Dossier Cover Sheet.)

B. Faculty Achievement Report / Curriculum Vitae

1. The faculty achievement report/curriculum vitae should represent the faculty member's entire academic career and contain a precise narrative of accomplishments. Publications and other creative contributions should be differentiated into those which are peer-reviewed and those which are not. Publications should list inclusive pages and differentiate abstracts and Proceedings reports from more significant publications. If the faculty member is the principal investigator of the paper and not listed as the first author, then this should be indicated by an asterisk. (In many disciplines, the senior investigator is listed last and postdoctoral or graduate student authors first.) All activities should be listed from the oldest to the most recent in order to permit easier evaluation by reviewers.

2. The teaching, research and extension profiles and relative

accomplishments of the faculty member should be clearly displayed. The extent and quality of formal teaching efforts should be defined with a quantitative assessment of student evaluations, qualitative evaluation relative to others in the department (to be completed by department), and identification of any unique aspects of the faculty member's teaching accomplishments. In addition, the faculty member's involvement in non-classroom educational activities, such as chairing graduate student research programs or directing undergraduate honors fellows, should be discussed relative to the matriculation, progress and placement of those students. Involvement in other educational activities, such as advising, curricular development, co-op direction, leadership of special summer programs or other such activities, should be clearly identified.

3. The involvement of the faculty member in international and/or

interdisciplinary activities should be clearly defined. The professional significance of international activities of the faculty member should be

118

4

detailed in a separate section and the importance of these activities explained. The extent of a faculty member's involvement in graduate faculties, research programs, institutes and centers should be clearly described, and the significance of that involvement should be explained.

4. Other extraordinary accomplishments involving service, educational

materials development, or faculty development activities should be clearly represented with an indication of the importance of those involvements.

C. Summary of Annual Faculty Evaluations Annual faculty evaluations by the department head (and directors of centers, if

appropriate) are required to provide an opportunity for effective communication between each faculty member and his/her departmental leadership. (This information is not routinely forwarded with the faculty promotion/tenure recommendation package; however, it may be requested during the review process.) If annual evaluations are conducted annually in an honest, judicious manner, then a final promotion/tenure recommendation should be consistent with the cumulative annual evaluations.

Although the department head is not required to consult members of the department’s faculty (senior faculty) in conducting annual faculty evaluations, this is a good practice. A faculty committee is required, however, to participate in the mid-term evaluations of faculty, whether they are tenured, tenure track, or non-tenure track, who are expected to be considered for promotion.

D. Outside Letters of Evaluation

In addition and to enhance the effectiveness of the candidate's dossier, the dossier must contain at least three letters from external reviewers who have been asked to evaluate the candidate's accomplishments and potential. Such evaluators should be leading individuals in their discipline and especially knowledgeable in the candidate's area of expertise. A short biographical statement on the credentials of each external reviewer should be provided in the promotion/tenure package to facilitate an assessment of their credentials.

These external letters are of considerable importance, and the following cautions

should be observed. First, the candidate should be asked to provide a slate of names who could serve as reviewers. The candidate may submit a list of names of individuals who they wish not to be contacted. The candidate may also submit a list of names of individuals who they wish not to be contacted. The Department Head and departmental peer review committee should also provide recommendations on reviewers. The Department Head should select at least three individuals from these recommendations who could provide a fair and objective

119

5

analysis of the candidate. Letters from clientele or former students are considered irrelevant for this purpose; although, they may be useful as indicators of research quality and effectiveness. A preponderance of outside letters should be from peer institutions. Departments should be responsible for determining their departmental peers. Second, reviewers should be asked to provide examples demonstrating the significance of the candidate's professional endeavors. General statements are inadequate. Copies of all letters sent to solicit outside reviews and all letters received are to be included in the dossier.

IV. College-Review by the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee The Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences will use the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee to review all requests for promotion/tenure from respective departments and off-campus research units. The committee will review all promotion and tenure recommendations and ensure equitable review and evaluation of on- and off-campus promotion candidates, relative to the position description for each candidate. The Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee will be comprised of 16 senior faculty members appointed by the Vice Chancellor, in consultation with the Dean of the Texas A&M College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; Director, Texas AgriLife Research; and Director, Texas AgriLife Extension Service. The makeup of the committee will reflect the composition of the faculty within the College, Texas AgriLife Research and the Texas AgriLife Extension, and will be reviewed every three years to ensure it continues to represent the demographics of the faculty. Committee members shall serve two-year terms, with approximately one-half of the committee rotating each year. As with the departmental peer review committees, all members of the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee may vote on promotion and tenure decisions; however, the vote of the tenured faculty must be kept separate. The results of the committee’s anonymous vote and the overall perspective of the committee relative to each faculty member under consideration shall be explained by the Chair of the Committee in a statement to the Vice Chancellor on each candidate. The Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee shall review all promotion and tenure recommendations in accordance with the following:

1. Review completeness of promotion candidate’s file submitted by the Department, requesting additional information, if necessary, particularly if the candidate’s department is not represented on the committee.

2. Review recommendations of the departmental peer review committee,

Department Head and respective Resident Director, as appropriate. The Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee should focus on nominations of a marginal nature. Specifically:

a. If the departmental peer review committee and the administration strongly

recommend a decision and the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review

120

6

Committee does not concur, then the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee may request further input prior to a final recommendation. Detailed comments should accompany all Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee recommendations which are in opposition to the recommendations of the departmental peer review committee or administration.

b. If the departmental peer review committee and the Unit Head are in direct

conflict, the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee should carefully review the entire file, including external letters, to determine the merits of the file. If necessary, the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee may invite the appropriate Department Head (and respective Resident Director, as appropriate) and chair of the departmental peer review committee to the meeting to gain further information.

3. The Chair of the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee will be

responsible for transmitting written results of the committee’s deliberations and make recommendations regarding desired changes to the process.

V. College Interdisciplinary Committee (optional) This option should be evaluated at the beginning of a tenure-track appointment or the assignment of significant interdisciplinary activities or new research activities in an Institute or Center. Such individual committees would report to the appropriate department head and the departmental faculty of the home department. The committee's report, if established, shall be considered in the departmental and college evaluations. The objective and appropriate evaluation of faculty members who are significantly involved in interdisciplinary faculties, institutes and centers may require input from a select Interdisciplinary Committee of senior faculty which represents the appropriate disciplinary interests of a particular faculty member. If deemed necessary, the committee will be appointed by the Dean of the College after consultation with the faculty member, head of the administrative department for the center or institute, the head of the academic home department of the faculty member, the director of the center or chair of the faculty, and others who may have unique perspectives for a given faculty member. For more detail see the section “Evaluation Criteria in Consideration of Faculty Members in Interdisciplinary Activities and Their Relationship with Tenure-Granting Departments.” VI. Recommendation / Approval Process of Faculty Promotion/Tenure Recommendation Package The faculty promotion/tenure recommendation package (which includes evaluations and recommendations of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, select Interdisciplinary Committee (as appropriate), the faculty at large, the head(s) of the faculty member's department) will be forwarded to the office of the Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Following

121

7

receipt and review by the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee, the Dean's Office will forward the faculty member's promotion/tenure package to the Provost's Office with a summary recommendation. Upon transmittal to the Provost's Office, the Dean will report his/her recommendation to the head of the appropriate department(s). The Provost will evaluate each request for promotion/tenure and transmit the promotion/tenure package with his/her recommendation to the President of the University. Following review, the President shall approve the promotion of all faculty members, pending confirmation of the Chancellor. The President will submit all requests for tenure to the Chancellor for review and submission to the Board of Regents. Upon review and deliberation, the Board of Regents is authorized to award tenure. Upon confirmation of approval, the Dean will notify the head of the department regarding the approval or denial of promotion and/or tenure.

Each faculty member shall be informed, through appropriate university channels, of the recommendations of the faculty committees, department head, college and university administration upon transmittal to the next level. Information regarding each step of the evaluation process should be transmitted in writing. VII. Non-Tenure Track Faculty Promotions

The review process for non--‐tenure track faculty (such as Lecturer to Senior Lecturer, or “Adjective” Assistant Professor to “Adjective” Associate Professor) is very similar to that of tenured and tenure- track faculty, and is on the same timetable (e.g., section I. Timeline). Non-tenure track promotion packages should not be forwarded outside of the regular promotion and tenure timetable. The process is unique, however, in the following ways:

• Outside letters are not required (although they may be included if desired). It is recognized that some of those in non--‐tenure track appointments do not have external visibility.

• The weighting of teaching, research, and service may differ significantly from what is expected of tenured and tenure--‐track faculty. The categories of Teaching, Research and/or other Scholarly, Creative Activities and Service may in fact be changed to more appropriately reflect the individual’s responsibilities and to reflect the evaluation guidelines developed by the college and/or department (regarding those positions).

• Request for promotion of Research Faculty must be routed through the Vice President for Research prior to submission to the Office of the Dean of Faculties.

Non--‐tenure track faculty seeking promotion will submit a dossier for review, organized in the way described in section III. Committees, department head’s and dean’s reports should make clear the criteria and weighting used for the consideration. Each college may have its own (approved and published) criteria for reviewing non--‐tenure track packages. Non--‐tenure track promotion packages will be evaluated by department committee, department head, college

122

8

committee and dean. Non-tenure track packages will then be forwarded to the dean of faculties, for approval by the provost, president, and chancellor.

EVALUATION CRITERIA IN CONSIDERATION OF MERIT REVIEW, PROMOTION AND TENURE

The following four components (teaching, service, research and extension) are important indicators in evaluations relative to the merit review and promotion and tenure process and should be considered as appropriate to the academic balance of an individual faculty member. I. THE TEACHING EVALUATION A variety of independent indicators are necessary to develop an overall teaching profile which can be used to evaluate teaching effectiveness. The evaluation of colleagues, students and academic clientele should include as appropriate the following documentation:

1. Surveys of student opinions of teaching

The use of student comments and evaluations can provide an immediate response of student's perspectives; student reviews such as exit interviews at a later date would provide another important long-term indicator.

2. Accomplishments of students

The number and caliber of students guided through effective research programs which resulted in refereed publications and recognition of the development of the faculty member's reputation as a scholar and teacher.

3. Evidence of effective student learning

The mastery of material in subsequent courses (numerous forms of student or colleague reactions may be appropriate to include pre-test/post-test comparisons and other performance measures of student mastery of subject material).

4. Creativity in programmatic development

Indication that a faculty member has been a catalyst for the initiation of new

approaches in teaching his/her own courses or new programs (new texts, teaching material used by other educational groups, new teaching technology development, utilization of distance education, etc.).

5. Professional peer evaluation

A peer analysis of prepared materials can be utilized to evaluate the quality of

preparation, clarity and appropriateness of educational goals and methods of

123

9

testing. Professional peer evaluation may involve site visits, departmental exit interviews, or performance in subsequent courses.

6. Formal teaching recognition

The receipt of awards for outstanding teaching or other formal recognition of teaching excellence by student clubs, the department, college, university or recognition of contributions to the educational programs of a professional society.

7. Self-evaluation of teaching

The instructor's self-evaluation can present a unique insight into the teaching

philosophy and professional efforts in teaching activities.

8. Flexibility in teaching abilities When appropriate, the teaching flexibility demonstrated by each instructor should

be considered with attention to the ability of the instructor to properly gauge student understanding and distinguish between introductory and advanced presentations.

9. Student advising and mentoring

Involvement in student advising programs or honors fellows programs provide an

important component of student development. Faculty participation in internship management, the Masters of Agriculture program, co-op programs and student placement are also important components of the teaching evaluation. Significant variable credit programs should be identified and their uniqueness defined.

10. Continuing education

Continuing education provides an important aspect of the academic activities of some faculty members involved in adult education, K-12 teacher education, professional leadership, specialized training, etc. Significant ongoing participation and development of continuing education programs may be an important component of a faculty member's activities.

The quality and level of participation of a faculty member in each of these indicators should be examined at the department and college level. Prepared materials that could be specifically evaluated include course syllabi, goal statements, examinations, and the instructor's personal narrative. Qualitative judgments by a committee of peers could include an assessment of the care with which instructional materials such as texts and problem sets have been selected. This could include the appropriate use of instructional aids such as handouts, films, demonstrations and field trips, and the creative development of the course format (for example, the integration of lectures with laboratory sessions or the use of student panel discussions for

124

10

controversial issues). The focus of the evaluation should not be limited to the materials themselves, but rather on the quality of thought and synthesis encouraged. In addition to the traditional indicators, the development of techniques or new modes of instruction, substantial revision of existing courses or the development of new courses should be considered. Authorship of textbooks may sometimes be considered a creative extension of prepared materials which reflect upon a candidate's contribution to academic programs in a larger context than their individual teaching. The committee should carefully evaluate the quality of the literary work and to reflect benchmarking against peer institutions. An award/grant for curriculum development, student development or academic programming may also be considered as an example in which an activity extends into a larger sphere than the teaching program of the select individual. The teaching report should clearly indicate the type of courses being presented and the nature of the evidence on which the appraisal of teaching competence has been measured. Surveys of student opinion on teaching can be quite valuable; however, evaluation of teaching should be based upon more than one criterion. Individual components of student opinion surveys should be interpreted individually rather than relying on a simple evaluation of the overall scores. For example, a particular instructor's teaching load for a period of time may consist of required courses which are unpopular or there may be extenuating circumstances in a given semester that might have influenced student opinion. II. THE SERVICE EVALUATION Faculty members in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Texas A&M University are expected to be involved in activities of service to the people of the State of Texas as well as to their academic, research and extension activities. Most of these service functions are administrative or consultative assignments which extend the mission of the College and University. Extraordinary aspects of service should be clearly defined and displayed in the faculty achievement report/curriculum and supporting documentation. It is difficult to define the scope of these activities without jeopardizing its many different aspects. The most important component of the service function relative to faculty evaluations is related to the significance and impact of the activity. While many service functions represent essential housekeeping responsibilities, others provide the innovative impetus for new programs and development. In the same manner as teaching and research functions, the quality service functions should have a long-range impact on programs or clientele groups that can be readily documented and explained. Examples of service components include the following:

1. Departmental service. All faculty are involved in various departmental services; however, the

requirements of that service vary significantly. Some faculty members serve as Associate Heads of the Department or provide other major programmatic leadership. Included in these activities are student recruiting, placement services,

125

11

departmental student club advising, and similar activities which provide nonacademic components of student development.

2. College or university service.

Selected faculty members provide major service on college or university-wide

committees or task forces, public relations activities, and the Faculty Senate. Distinguished effort in such activities provides important contributions to the Texas A&M University community.

3. Community or state-wide resource or leadership activities.

Some faculty members provide an irreplaceable resource for community

development and continuing education. While these activities may or may not be a direct component of their professional responsibilities, extraordinary service or quality of community enhancement should be considered in a faculty evaluation. Of particular importance is the role that faculty have in youth education and development through both formal and informal programming. Another issue involves adult and continuing education activities which may or may not be a part of the professional responsibilities of a given faculty member.

4. Contributions to government, industry or commerce.

Many faculty members are asked to contribute their professional or scientific

expertise to informational needs or to the solution of practical issues in the public and private domain. As appropriate, a statement should be provided relative to the service activities and problem solving aspects of the faculty member.

5. International Involvement. In seeking to achieve a global perspective among students and professors, faculty

at Texas A&M University are encouraged to contribute to the worldwide economic and cultural development, and enhance global understanding through their efforts at the international level. This includes assuming responsibility for international research enhancement grants, participation in USAID projects, and forging new collaborative relationships with international institutions.

6. Contributions to professional disciplines.

Many faculty members serve as officers and leaders in the disciplinary activities of their professional societies. The significance of these appointed and elected positions should be clearly explained.

126

12

III. THE RESEARCH EVALUATION The research evaluation should examine publications and other examples of creative work ("scholarly activity"). An analytical summary of the research record is often a useful tool which can be important in evaluation; however, this type of summary analysis cannot substitute for appropriate qualitative judgment. Quality as well as the number of publications must be considered relative to the importance and creativity of the work. Emphasis on the quality of work requires attention to the nature of the publication and a consideration of the contribution of each author. It should be determined whether the journal is appropriate for the subject material and the stringency of the refereed judgments. The total publication record should indicate a directed, ongoing research program whose specific goals are appropriate and clearly defined. It is important to determine if the research program shows promise of continued productivity in publications, support and impact. In keeping with the academic goals of the College, the work should be evaluated for student and/or postdoctoral fellow training and research accomplishments. (Copies of publications or select examples of publications should be on file in the department head's office for evaluation.) Each faculty achievement report /curriculum vitae should contain an evaluation of the quality of the academic press or scientific journals in which the scholarly work appears. (This should be based on the standing of the publication in the discipline. This evaluation does not have to be exhaustive; however, some statement of comparative status should be provided in the evaluation.) In the evaluation of research and other creative accomplishments, interpretations by qualified members of each discipline in the College as well as outside referees of national reputation, are extremely valuable. Invited reviews, citations, and appraisals in the publications of others constitute a particularly significant testimony of importance. The record of research grant proposals and fellowships both submitted and awarded should be examined and interpreted. These components should demonstrate a positive pattern of professional development of the faculty member as a creative scholar. Original work typically should be considered as evidence of this productivity only after acceptance for publication or presentation. While faculty are expected to publish research in peer-reviewed journals, it must be recognized that some faculty members were recruited to provide leadership in areas of research that are less amenable to publication. Furthermore, the publication of some types of observations may be more appropriate in publications or presentations other than reviewed journals. In these cases, it may be more difficult to evaluate the quality of the research effort by external standards. However, it is important to provide some comparative standards and expectations for these faculty. Furthermore, it is essential that the nature of these evaluations is clearly communicated to the faculty members. The research leadership on multidisciplinary teams with specific targeted applications should be highlighted as appropriate. In addition, there are numerous creative productions that develop from different goals than refereed publications (i.e., patented technology or germplasm release). These should be evaluated from the perspective of the impact of the material on the targeted program or clientele use. Some of the specific activities which could contribute to faculty research or other creative

127

13

activities might include several of the following: 1. Original peer-reviewed scientific publications. The most traditional sense of original basic and applied research is the

presentation of that material in formally reviewed literature publications.

2. Invited review publications. One of the more important components of developing national and international

recognition for research capabilities is the publication of significant reviews in leading disciplinary journals or review publications.

3. Book chapters and book editing.

Ongoing research activity may be published in books or specialized monographs

of scientific meetings. While these may have varying value and occasionally be of major importance in chronicling or providing direction to a research area, they should not be interchanged with the invited reviews mentioned above.

4. Popular press articles and research application bulletins.

Publication opportunities exist which are targeted toward specific components of

the lay audience in the popular press or applied agricultural service bulletins. This type of publication provides an important component of scientific education and application.

5. Textbooks, educational software and teaching materials.

There is an ever increasing demand for educational materials for use in

laboratories, lecture courses, workshops, and continuing education. Some of these materials find access to large interdisciplinary markets and some are used entirely within the local domain. The importance of these materials depend on the quality and extended impact of the materials on a wide community.

6. Products of research experiences.

As a result of research investigations, many products are developed which provide

valuable end-products in themselves and traditionally represent a variety of integrated research and production-oriented activities. The utility of the research product should be examined in the performance criteria assessment. Included in this forum are the development of patented and non-patented products and/or techniques encompassing the formulation of germplasm/varieties, software,

128

14

equipment, models, etc. (i.e., the development of the cotton module builder and the electro-stimulation of carcasses.)

7. Technology transfer. Invention disclosures, patents, copyrights, trademarks, consulting and

participation in extension educational programs are important indicators of research performance.

8. Development of extramural funding activities.

Successful research programs in many areas are able to attract extramural

research support from competitive state, federal and industrial sources. The development of competitive funding should be evaluated for the provision of a consistent, directed research program. In addition, it is becoming increasingly possible to develop extramural teaching/research funding relative to the national concerns regarding the future status of scientific education and research.

9. Participation in scientific meetings, invited seminars and related activities.

An indication of research activity can be demonstrated by participation in

scientific meetings, particularly as invited speakers at major symposia. In addition, however, published abstracts and short published research reports associated with meetings can contribute to the evaluation of research quality.

10. Peer recognition, awards, and commendations. The recognition of research accomplishments and their impact on clientele groups

provides a valuable indicator of the external impact and significance of the research program.

11. Solicitation of scientific expertise.

Requests to serve on decision-making panels (i.e. program reviews, consultation

with government or industry, select scientific panels, publication editorial work, and peer grant review) represent measures of the potential importance of scientific effort.

IV. THE EXTENSION EVALUATION The evaluation of Extension effectiveness must utilize various diverse activities to represent the overall creative excellence in educational programming and technology delivery. A combination of critical professional endeavors can form the basis for an accurate evaluation of the faculty member:

129

15

1. Program development plans and activities

A variety of peer and clientele inputs should be used to determine the content,

quality, priority and emphasis of the Extension faculty member's programmatic leadership. This should reflect the assimilation and synthesis of information from county program development committees, clientele organizations, and key industry leaders relative to the strategic plans of the department, college, agency and faculty.

2. Teaching effectiveness and quality

Teaching quality involves command of the subject discipline, progressive

assimilation of new knowledge, and an ability to present information with logic and conviction. Quality and effectiveness should be represented through clientele evaluation and peer evaluation. Faculty are expected to utilize state-of-the-art communications technology when appropriate.

3. Quality of Program and organizational support Faculty are expected to participate in disciplinary, multidisciplinary, and

interdisciplinary programming efforts as appropriate to adequately address the priority issues of the clientele. Financial and material support should be sought through grants and contracts or innovative linkages with other agencies, industry or organizational groups. The evaluation should include both proposals or solicitations submitted and awarded.

4. Cooperative and coordinative efforts Each faculty member is expected to establish and enhance mutual support among

colleagues within and across disciplines at the agency, college and university level. Timely and effective coordination, cooperation, and scheduling of activities with District Extension Directors, county staff, and other agencies/organizations are required for programs and responsibilities with mutual audiences.

5. Scholarly contributions and professionalism

The faculty member should show evidence of contributions to professional and

total Extension programs. The development of creative educational programs and/or materials which are widely accepted and used are examples of professional contributions. Applied or adaptive research and comprehensive and intensive program evaluations are important components for Extension faculty. Publication of creative and scholarly work is expected.

130

16

For purposes of promotion, all of these indicators of performance should be reviewed by the departmental or the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review committees. Specific materials to be included are long- and short-term goal statements, program evaluations, Extension plans of work, and the faculty achievement report. Additional supporting materials provided in the faculty achievement report such as public and institutional service, research, teaching, and other non-extension activities shall be included in the overall assessment. A qualitative assessment performed by a peer committee evaluation at the department and Agriculture Program level will be conducted. Educational materials which have been developed for Extension bulletins, fact sheets, production videos, instructional manuals, handbooks, and computer software programs will also be included in the evaluation. Similarly, written and visual support materials (including slide sets, video tapes and film) used in educational settings such as field days, seminars, symposia, and interactive video productions should also be evaluated. The overall evaluation should not be limited to traditional materials, but should consider the quality and originality of thought and the integration of educational concepts that will lead to increased awareness and appropriate change and/or adoption. Additional attention should be given to the development of techniques or new modes of educational delivery (e.g., interactive video, satellite broadcasting), and the revision and/or development of new educational approaches in the base program areas of the discipline. The development and publication of comprehensive handbooks, training manuals, and textbooks may also be considered in evaluating the faculty member's contributions to the entire educational program. In such cases, the committee should assess the quality of the work in addition to determining the value and acceptance of the work in other states and by other universities. Educational grants for the development of new and creative Extension programs may also be considered as instances in which prepared materials extend beyond the limits of the university or state. Other evidence of recognition by colleagues, Extension clientele and other professionals include the follow examples: 1. Receipt of awards for outstanding programs or service.

2. Peer recognition by faculty within the discipline, particularly those that have direct evaluative experience, and have attended Extension programs or presentations before professional groups or societies.

3. Comprehensive program evaluations that attest to program effectiveness

(awareness, adoption, etc.) through pre- and post-survey evaluations and/or other evidence of productive change or mastery by clientele.

4. Evidence that the faculty member has been a catalyst for the initiation of

new programming approaches within and/or across disciplines to include developing interactions with new faculty, scientists and clientele.

131

17

5. Contributions to professional societies.

6. Leadership in networking with other faculties, research scientists, societies and professional groups leading to integrated interdisciplinary programming.

7. Solicited evaluations by outside faculty within the discipline of national

reputation as to assessment of creative professional accomplishments.

EVALUATION CRITERIA IN CONSIDERATION OF FACULTY MEMBERS IN INTERDISCIPLINARY ACTIVITIES AND THEIR

RELATIONSHIP WITH TENURE-GRANTING DEPARTMENT I. Criteria If a given faculty member has a significant teaching and/or research relationship with a Center, Institute or interdepartmental Graduate Faculty, it may be necessary to identify a format whereby those interdisciplinary efforts are considered in the promotion and tenure decision process. II. Guidelines for Recommendations on Promotion and Tenure A. Composition of Interdisciplinary Promotion and Tenure Committee In addition to the standard procedures on promotion and tenure recommendations,

faculty who are specifically employed as a member of a defined interdisciplinary institute, center or program may have an Interdisciplinary Promotion and Tenure Committee. This committee will be established upon recommendation of the respective Director of the Institute/Center in consultation with the appropriate Department Head(s) and approved by the Dean.

This Interdisciplinary Promotion and Tenure Committee shall fulfill the

responsibilities in addition to the customary departmental promotion and tenure committee. (Neither the administrating department head nor the Director of the Institute/Center shall serve on or direct the deliberations of this committee.) The committee will provide a written evaluation to the director of the institute/center and the disciplinary department head that will be included in the faculty promotion/tenure recommendation package and forwarded to the Dean's Office.

B. Evaluation Process 1) Traditional faculty The department head of the lead department and the chair of the

132

18

institute/center will provide written evaluations and recommendations to the Office of the Dean for inclusion in the faculty promotion/tenure recommendation package.

Upon request by the faculty member, the chair of the interdepartmental

graduate faculty may be solicited to provide a letter of evaluation relative to the faculty member's significant academic participation (teaching or administrative) in the activities of the faculty. This letter will be considered by the Interdisciplinary Promotion and Tenure Committee as well as the departmental committee and forwarded with the promotion/tenure recommendation package through the university process.

2) Nontraditional faculty Evaluation of faculty with nontraditional training and/or responsibilities

must be clearly addressed at the initiation of their promotion and tenure-track appointment. In the rare cases in which tenure-track faculty develops an overriding participation in such activities, the development of a specialized evaluation committee should be proposed at the earliest possible consideration.

133

Section 9

AgriLife Research Policy and Guidelines

134

Texas A&M Agrilife Research Procedures

12.99.99.A0.03 I Faculty Promotion

Approved: June 25, 1997 Revised: July 22, 2002

June 30, 2004 September 1, 2008 November 14, 2012

Next Scheduled Review: November 14, 2014

PROCEDURE STATEMENT

A!._EXASA&M fiGRILIFE

RESEARCH

This procedure sets minimum requirements, establishes the criteria for promotion for professorial faculty positions in Texas A&M Agrilife Research (Agrilife Research) , and outlines the annual promotion cycle. Promotion documents are to be treated in a confidential manner within the requirements of current privacy laws/regulations and The Texas A&M University System (System) Regulation 61.01.02, Public Information.

PROCEDURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1.0 CRITERIA FOR FACULTY RANK

The following criteria should be considered in appointment to or promotion in faculty rank:

1.1 Assistant Professor (including Research, Adjunct, and Visiting)-Earned doctorate with the expectation of substantial research, publication, and mentoring within the context of one or more research programs (e.g., laboratory, bench science, social science, or other disciplinary setting) with postdoctoral fellows, junior research colleagues, or students at any level.

1.2 Associate Professor (including Research, Adjunct, and Visiting)-Earned doctorate and a record of substantial research , publication , and mentoring within the context of one or more research programs (e.g., laboratory, bench science, social science, or other disciplinary setting) with post doctoral fellows, junior research colleagues, or students at any level. Candidate should have an exemplary level of accomplishment as measured against contributions of others in the field ; professional conduct conducive to a collegial work environment, and standards of professional integrity that will advance the interests of the agency; an area of specialization germane to the agency; and evidence indicating a commitment to maintaining the level of competence in research , publication and mentoring.

1.3 Professor (including Research, Adjunct, and Visiting)-Earned doctorate with a record of significant research publication and mentoring within the context of one or more research programs (e.g., laboratory, bench science, social science, or other disciplinary setting) with postdoctoral fellows, junior research colleagues, or students at any level. Continued accomplishment in research and scholarship; continuing accomplishment, and some measure of national recognition of research ; and evidence of valuable professional service.

1.4 The term "substantial" with regard to research and mentoring is measured in multiple ways:

Quantity (i.e. , that there should be evidence of a significant amount of research and/or mentoring); and

Quality (i.e., that the research and/or mentoring done by the individual is effective and has significant impact on the students and colleagues being taught; research has a significant impact on society and benefit to science) .

1.5 Agrilife Research faculty who are jointly employed with a university and who are eligible for tenure will follow that institution's guidelines regarding faculty promotion and tenure.

Texas A&M Agrilife Research Procedures I 12.99.99.A0.03 Faculty Promotion I Page 1 of 6

135

1.6 Agrilife Research faculty located on the Texas A&M University (TAMU) campus who do not hold a joint appointment with TAMU must hold the rank of Research Assistant Professor, Research Associate Professor, Research Professor, or may be considered adjunct or visiting .

2.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF DETERMINATION

On decisions regarding promotion in rank, the major emphasis should be on research-related criteria, and the performance of those responsibilities as outlined in the position description and plan of work. Additional supporting materials provided in the curriculum vitae such as public and institutional service, teaching, and other non-research activities shall be included in the overall assessment.

The achievements, productivity, and effectiveness of a faculty member will be assessed from the information contained in the candidate's curriculum vitae and plan of work. The following major criteria should be included in the evaluation of the curriculum vitae and plan of work.

A. Accomplishment of research project objectives from plan(s) of work.

B. Publication of research in scholarly and professional refereed journals.

C. Publication of research in practitioner journals targeted for industry and user groups.

D. Receipt of awards for research excellence.

E. Invited participation at professional and scientific meetings.

F. Offices held or committee assignments in professional societies.

G. Significant external research funding.

H. Effective relationship with research-user groups.

I. Evidence of a well-planned and developed program of research that has contributed to the advancement of knowledge, or has produced a tangible benefit to society (e.g., superior crop variety, better breed of livestock, software utilization, patent applications, new technology, etc.).

J. Other activities that have contributed to accomplishing Agrilife Research goals, such as improving the visibility of units and programs, participating in interdisciplinary research, or improving the effectiveness of the Agrilife Research unit.

3.0 REVIEW PROCESS FOR PROMOTION OF FACULTY IN PROFESSORIAL RANK

Promotion is a matter of central concern to individual faculty members and to the agency; therefore, the process must uphold high standards of fairness and review.

3.1 Review Process for Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor:

Within five (5) years of appointment and prior to the sixth (6) year, an Assistant Professor/Research Assistant Professor must be considered for promotion to Associate Professor/Research Associate Professor. The results of this five-year review will be one of the following:

A. Recommend promotion to Associate Professor/Research Associate Professor.

B. Recommend that the faculty member be re-evaluated the following year.

C. Recommend non-reappointment with adequate time (up to one year) to relocate.

If the faculty member has not been promoted after the initial five-year review, he/she will undergo a final review after approximately six (6) years in rank, but before the seventh (7) year. The results of this final review will be one of the following :

Texas A&M Agrilife Research Procedures 1 12.99.99.A0.03 Faculty Promotion I Page 2 of 6

136

A. Recommend promotion to Associate Professor/Research Associate Professor.

B. Recommend non-reappointment with adequate time (up to one year) to relocate.

3.2 Review Process for Promotion from Associate Processor to Professor:

After six (6) years in rank, but prior to the seventh (7) year, each eligible Associate Professor/Research Associate Professor must be considered for promotion to Professor/Research Professor. The results of this six-year review will be one of the following:

A. Recommend promotion to Professor/Research Professor.

B. Recommend that the faculty member be reevaluated in two years.

If the faculty member has not been promoted after the six year review, he/she will undergo another comprehensive review after eight (8) years, but before the ninth (9) year. The results of this review will be one of the following :

A. Recommend promotion to Professor/Research Professor.

B. Recommend that the faculty member remain at the Associate Professor/Research Associate Professor rank unless evidence is forthcoming in the future to warrant additional consideration .

C. Recommend non-reappointment with adequate time (up to one year) to relocate.

4.0 DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW OF PROMOTION CANDIDATES

In order to provide more consistency in counseling , Department Heads and Resident Directors are required to use a departmental peer review committee in the promotion process consisting of on-and off--campus senior faculty from the teaching , research, and extension areas. The function of this committee is to review the candidate's promotion dossier and provide advice and counsel to the Head of the Department and/or Resident Director, as appropriate.

4.1 Role and Composition of Departmental Peer Review Committees

Departments are responsible for reviewing all persons eligible for promotion. Department Heads will consult a departmental peer review committee on promotion recommendations for on--campus Agrilife Research faculty before transmitting the promotion recommendation to the Director. Similarly, Resident Directors shall consult with the appropriate disciplinary department head (who shall serve as liaison with the respective departmental peer review committee) for review of promotion recommendations for offcampus Agrilife Research faculty.

This advisory mechanism should be rather well-structured. Department Heads will work with their departmental peer review committees to ensure that the following guidelines are followed:

A. Only faculty at the rank of associate professor or professor will serve on peer review committees, and only faculty members with rank higher than the candidate being considered should serve on peer review committees for promotion. Departmental peer review committees should include onand off--campus faculty.

B. Committee recommendations should be based on a written and widely circulated promotion document which specifies criteria and procedural guidelines, promulgated by the department.

C. Committee deliberations must be conducted in confidence.

D. Committee recommendations are advisory in nature.


137

4.2 Review Process by Departmental Peer Review Committee

Department Heads are responsible for conveying the recommendation regarding the promotion of oncampus Agrilife Research faculty to the Director. Resident Directors are responsible for conveying the recommendation regarding the promotion of off-campus Agrilife Research faculty to the Director.

During the review process, if the Department Head and respective Resident Director and the peer review committee do not recommend promotion, then the candidate's promotion file will not be forwarded to the Director for further consideration unless the candidate so requests.

If a person is under final review for promotion from assistant to associate professor, then the candidate's promotion file must be forwarded to the Director for review and action regardless of whether the recommendation is positive or negative.

If the Department Head or the appropriate Resident Director or the review committee does not agree on a recommendation, then the candidate's promotion file will be forwarded to the Director for evaluation and further consultation.

At any point in the process, a promotion candidate may elect to withdraw his/her name from further consideration by written request.

5.0 AGENCY REVIEW OF PROMOTION CANDIDATES

5.1 Role and Composition of the Agrilife Peer Review Committee

The Director will use the Texas A&M Agrilife (Agrilife) Peer Review Committee to review all requests for promotion in rank from departments and off-campus Agrilife Research units. The committee will review all promotion (and tenure requests , as appropriate) recommendations, and ensure equitable review and evaluation of all teaching , research , and extension faculty promotion candidates, relative to the position description for each candidate.

The Agrilife Peer Review Committee will be comprised of 16 senior faculty members appointed by the Vice Chancellor, in consultation with the Dean of the TAMU College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; Director, Agrilife Research; and Director, Texas A&M Agrilife Extension Service (Agrilife Extension) . The makeup of the committee will reflect the composition of the faculty within the College, Agrilife Research, and Agrilife Extension, and will be reviewed every three years to ensure it continues to represent the demographics of the faculty. Committee members shall serve two-year terms, with approximately one-half of the committee rotating each year. As with the departmental peer review committees, all members of the Agrilife Peer Review Committee may vote on promotion and tenure decisions; however, the vote of the tenured faculty must be kept separate. The results of the committee's anonymous vote and the overall perspective of the committee relative to each faculty member under consideration shall be explained by the Chair of the Committee in a statement to the Vice Chancellor on each candidate.

5.2 Review Process by the Agrilife Peer Review Committee

The Agrilife Peer Review Committee shall review all promotion and tenure recommendations in accordance with the following :

A. Review completeness of promotion candidate's file submitted by the Department, requesting additional information, if necessary, particularly if the candidate's department is not represented on the committee.

B. Review recommendations of the departmental peer review committee, Department Head, and respective Resident Director, as appropriate. The Agrilife Peer Review Committee should focus on promotion files of a marginal nature. Specifically:

If the departmental peer review committee and the administration strongly recommend a decision, and the Agrilife Peer Review Committee does not concur, then the Agrilife Peer Review Committee may request further input prior to a final recommendation. Detailed comments should


138

accompany all Agrilife Peer Review Committee recommendations which are in opposition to the recommendations of the departmental peer review committee or administration.

If the departmental peer review committee and the administration are in direct conflict, the Agrilife Peer Review Committee should carefully review the entire file , including external letters, to determine the merits of the file. If necessary, the Agrilife Peer Review Committee may invite the appropriate Department Head (and respective Resident Director, as appropriate) and chair of the departmental peer review committee to the meeting to gain further information.

The Chair of the Agrilife Peer Review Committee will be responsible for transmitting written results of the committee's deliberations and make recommendations regarding desired changes to the process.

6.0 REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF PROMOTION DOSSIERS BY AGENCY ADMINISTRATION

When the Director does not concur with the recommendation of the Department Head/Resident Director and/or department peer review recommendation, the Vice Chancellor will inform the Department Head and respective Resident Director of the reasons for that decision. The departmental peer review committee shall then have the opportunity to ensure that all appropriate materials have in fact been properly enclosed with the promotion dossier, and that all relevant arguments have been put forward . In the event that germane new evidence is introduced or new, quite different arguments are applied, the departmental peer review committee may submit a newly organized document for reconsideration .

If the Director recommends against promotion and that recommendation is contrary to the recommendation of the Department Head and Resident Director, then the Vice Chancellor shall inform the Department Head and appropriate Resident Director and the candidate of the reasons for the decision. The faculty member shall then have the opportunity to offer any new evidence in support of the request for promotion , and that evidence shall be reviewed by the Director and the Agrilife Peer Review Committee before a final recommendation concerning promotion is made.

In the event of a negative promotion decision, the faculty member is entitled to a written statement of the reasons that contributed to that decision. If requested by the faculty member, a statement of reasons will be provided by the Department Head and/or appropriate Resident Director (or Director).

7.0 NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR INFORMING FACULTY MEMBERS

Faculty members shall be advised in a timely manner, in writing , of the recommendation for or against promotion at each level of the review. The following information delineates this notification process:

Departmental Peer Review Committee-Department Head shall notify on-campus Agrilife Research candidates upon receipt of recommendation from peer review committee. For off-campus Agrilife Research faculty, the Department Head shall notify the respective Resident Director who will notify the candidate regarding the recommendation from the peer review committee.

Department and/or Resident Director

Agrilife Peer Review Committee

Director

Vice Chancellor

Department Head and/or Resident Director (as appropriate) notifies candidate upon submission of recommendation to the Director.

Upon receipt of Agrilife Peer Review Committee's recommendation , Director notifies department head (on-campus faculty) or appropriate Resident Director (off-campus Agrilife Research faculty with copy to department head) , who notifies candidate Uointly, as appropriate) .

Following a review, the Director forwards recommendations to the Vice Chancellor, who in-turn forwards recommendations to the Chancellor for confirmation . Director notifies Department Head (for on-campus faculty) or Resident Director (for off-campus faculty) of promotion recommendations, who notifies candidate Uointly, as appropriate).

Following a review, the Vice Chancellor forwards recommendations to the Chancellor for confirmation .

Texas A&M Agrilife Research Procedures I12.99.99.A0.03 Faculty Promotion I Page 5 of6

139

Chancellor

8.0 FINAL DECISION

Following confirmation, the Vice Chancellor notifies the Director, who in-turn notifies the appropriate Department Head or Resident Director, who notifies candidate Gointly, as appropriate).

As the Chief Executive Officer, the Director of Agrilife Research has authority to approve all faculty promotions, pending confirmation by the Chancellor. All final promotion decisions will be conveyed in writing to the faculty member in a timely fashion consistent with notification of promotion and tenure decisions of all teaching , research , and extension faculty.

9.0 APPEALS

Faculty within Agrilife Research have the right to present grievances concerning promotion in professorial rank. The basis for an appeal regarding promotion in rank exists when, in the opinion of the faculty member, one or more of the following has occurred :

9.1 There was a failure to follow the prescribed procedures.

9.2 There was a failure to adhere to the established criteria for determining promotion in rank.

9.3 There was a discovery of significant new evidence in support of the faculty member related to academic credentials, length of professional service, performance appraisal information, and overall achievement, productivity and/or effectiveness.

Faculty having concerns or grievances regarding promotion in professorial rank are encouraged to seek resolution of those concerns through established supervisory channels prior to filing a written appeal. If the matter cannot be resolved , the faculty member may seek a hearing by an appeals committee.

The written appeal shall include the basis for the appeal committee, and must contain any supporting evidence and/or documentation to be considered . Written appeals concerning denial of promotion in rank must be filed within 20 working days of notification of denial.

A seven-member Appeals Committee shall be appointed by the Director to review and/or hear individual appeals regarding promotion in rank.

The appellant may request to meet with the Appeals Committee to present his/her case. Such request shall be included in the written appeal. If the appellant elects to be represented by an attorney, the appellant will notify the Director's Office at least five working days before the date the appeal is to be heard. The appellant will be solely responsible for any legal expenses incurred in such representation.

The Appeals Committee shall judge the merits of the case and forward its written recommendation with supporting documents to the Director for final action within 20 working days from the end of the appeal hearing.:.

The Director shall notify the appellant in writing of acceptance or rejection of the Appeals Committee recommendation. Such notification shall be made within 60 working days of receipt of the written appeal.

CONTACT OFFICE

Questions about this procedure should be referred to Agrilife Human Resources at 979-845-2423.

Texas A&M Agrilife Research Procedures 1 12.99.99.A0.03 Faculty Promotion 1 Page 6 of 6

140

Texas A&M Agrilife Research Procedures

12.99.99.A0.01 I Faculty Performance Evaluation

Approved: June 25, 1997 Revised: July 22, 2002

June 30, 2004 September 1, 2008 December 15, 2010 November 14, 2012

Next Scheduled Review: November 14, 2014

PROCEDURE STATEMENT

A!_EXASA&M nGRILIFE

RESEARCH

Recurring performance evaluations are an integral part of performance management for all employees. Due to the nature of work of professorial titled faculty, procedures are required which are different than those of non-faculty employees.

REASON FOR PROCEDURE

This procedure establishes the performance evaluation cycle and outlines the procedures for the performance evaluations of professorial titled faculty positions in Texas A&M AgriLife Research (Agrilife Research).

PROCEDURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1.0 PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

All faculty evaluations must be completed no later than May 31st each year.

1.1 Position Description

The position description is developed by the unit head and the appropriate subject-matter department head when establishing a new position or filling a vacant position. It describes the general duties and responsibilities associated with the position, and is submitted to the Director via Greatjobs. It should be broad enough to allow flexibility when developing annual plans of work described in paragraph 1.2, but specific enough to serve as a guide during deliberations regarding eligibility for promotion.

The position description will be reviewed initially upon hire, and then annually during the evaluation process by both the unit head and the faculty member to ensure that it reflects the current requirements for the position. Changes should be made when a significant shift in duties has occurred or is planned.

1.2 Annual Plan of Work

The annual plan of work should be consistent with the position description, and should reflect in detail the goals and objectives, and other tasks which are to be accomplished during the coming year. This document is prepared by the faculty member in consultation with the unit head. Texas A&M Agrilife (Agrilife) form AG-453, Annual Plan of Work, may be used as a checklist to aid in developing the annual plan of work. Upon completion , the plan of work will be attached to the evaluation in Greatjobs.

The annual plan of work for the previous year is used by the unit head as a point of reference in the evaluation process further described in Section 1.4, Documentation of Evaluation.

Texas A&M Agrilife Research Procedures 1 12.99.99.A0.01 Faculty Performance Evaluation I Page 1 of 3

141

1.3 Annual Achievement Report

Prior to the annual performance evaluation, the faculty member will prepare an achievement reportwhich documents performance during the past fiscal year and which includes a summary of the achievement of goals and objectives from the previous year's annual plan of work. Agrilife form AG-452 , Faculty Achievement Report, is a suggested format to be used when developing the faculty achievement report. Supporting documents-which confirm the quality of performance (e.g. , awards, research grants, teaching evaluation forms)-should be attached. The completed annual achievement report will be attached to the evaluation in Greatjobs.

1.4 Documentation of Evaluation

The unit head is responsible for developing the appropriate documentation to reflect the outcome of the performance evaluation and performance evaluation conference. To do so effectively, the unit head should have copies of all earlier documentation plus evaluation reports from other sources (i.e., previous evaluation reports, senior staff and student evaluations, other administrator's feedback, etc.).

Note: The annual plan of work document will not be used as the documentation of the evaluation. These plans contain goals and objectives, and are to be used as references against which to measure progress. They are management documents and are not treated as confidential information.

Off-campus unit heads should obtain an evaluation for each faculty member from the head of the applicable subject matter department and from other agencies or institutions where faculty hold joint appointments.

The format of the documentation of evaluation is left to the discretion of the unit head; however, unit heads may wish to consider using the format contained in Agrilife form AG-454 , Documentation of Faculty Evaluation, Suggested Format.

The method of evaluation should provide for a narrative summary of the rationale for the evaluation. It should include reinforcement of positive achievements and identification of areas where improvement can be made. Additionally, specific comments addressing promotion potential , salary adjustments, etc., may be made.

Comparative ratings may be appropriately used to show how the faculty member ranks with other faculty in the unit. When appropriate, suggestions for specific corrective action should be documented to provide a benchmark for future evaluation.

1.5 An evaluation conference will be held to discuss the faculty member's performance during the past year.

1.6 Filing Evaluations

DEFINITIONS

Upon completion, the evaluation, plan of work, achievement report, and any other materials will be uploaded into Greatjobs, routed for approval and stored in Greatjobs.

To be considered a member of the Agrilife Research faculty, an individual must hold one of the following titles:

Professor· Associate Professor· Assistant Professor· Research Professor· Research Associate Professor· Research Assistant Professor· Adjunct (Professor/Research Professor) Adjunct Associate (Professor/Research Professor) Adjunct Assistant (Professor/Research Professor) Visiting (Professor/Research Professor)


142

Visiting Associate (Professor/Research Professor) Visiting Assistant (Professor/Research Professor)

·Must follow procedures for annual performance evaluation and promotion. (Adjunct and visiting professors are not eligible for promotion, and an annual evaluation is not required .)

RELATED STATUTES, POLICIES, OR REQUIREMENTS

System Regulation 33.99.03, Performance Evaluations for Nonfaculty Employees

CONTACT OFFICE

Questions about this procedure should be referred to Agrilife Human Resources at 979-845-2423.


143

Section 10

AgriLife Extension Policy and Guidelines

144

PROFESSORIAL CAREER LADDER SYSTEM FOR EXTENSION

SPECIALIST FACULTY

TEXAS AGRILIFE EXTENSION SERVICE THE TEXAS A&M SYSTEM

May, 2008 * (*Changes made to reflect establishment of Department of Ecosystem Science and Management)

145

I. Introduction

Faculty in the Texas AgriLife Extension Service perform a vital role in the triad of functions--teaching, research, and extension/outreach--which form the basis of the land-grant university system. Extension faculty are responsible for extending the university system to the people of Texas through a variety of research based educational programs.

Faculty are encouraged to work collaboratively in developing linkages with all parts of the Texas A&M System. Extension faculty develop opportunities for increased collaboration with faculty and scientists in the Texas A&M College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas AgriLife Research, and the Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine. Increased opportunities for collaboration exist with faculty in the various colleges of Texas A&M University and other institutions both within and outside of The Texas A&M University System. Extension faculty also are encouraged to pursue linkages with other key educational and health institutions in the state and nation, as well as develop associations at the international level and with the research and development private sector.

In furthering the mission of Texas AgriLife Extension, Extension faculty perform in the total arena of teaching, research, and extension education and are expected to be innovative and progressive in their programmatic efforts. Applied and adaptive research must often be conducted to obtain specific information that can be used by clientele in technology and knowledge transfer. The unique role of program development through local needs assessment and program implementation through a network of county Extension agents often distinguishes the Extension faculty from the resident instructor and the research scientist. In educating adults and providing youth with leadership development programs, Extension faculty have a direct and often immediate impact on individuals and their quality of life.

II. Titles and Evaluation Criteria

A. Titles

Incremental non-tenured ranks of assistant professor, associate professor, and professor will be assigned to each qualified Extension faculty member. The professorial title will include the rank (e.g., Professor, Associate Professor, or Assistant Professor) and "Extension Specialist" and may be followed by a subject matter subtitle. Examples include the following:

Professor and Extension Poultry Specialist Associate Professor and Extension Nutrition Specialist Assistant Professor and Extension Forage Specialist

B. Evaluation Criteria

Extension faculty will be evaluated for promotion based on evaluation criteria as established in this policy. Evaluation of an individual's effectiveness will be based on various diverse activities that represent overall contributions in educational programming and translating technology for effective delivery to targeted audiences. A combination of critical professional endeavors forms the basis for an accurate evaluation of Extension faculty members:

1. Program Development Activities and Planning

146

A variety of peer and clientele inputs should be used to determine the content, quality, priority, and emphasis of the Extension faculty member's programmatic leadership. This should reflect the assimilation and synthesis of information from county and regional program development committees, clientele organizations, and key industry leaders relative to the strategic plans of the department, college, and agency.

2. Teaching Effectiveness and Quality

Teaching quality involves command of the subject discipline, progressive assimilation and delivery of new knowledge, and an ability to present information through logic and effective communication. Quality and effectiveness should be represented through clientele and peer evaluation. Faculty should utilize state-of-the-art communications technology when appropriate.

3. Quality of Program and Organizational Support

Faculty are expected to participate in disciplinary, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary programming efforts as appropriate to adequately address the priority issues of the clientele. Financial and material support should be sought through grants and contracts or innovative linkages with other agencies, industry, or organizational groups. The evaluation should assess both grant and contract proposals or solicitations submitted and awarded.

4. Cooperative and Coordinative Efforts

Each Extension faculty member is expected to establish and enhance mutual support among colleagues within and across disciplines at the agency, college and university level. Timely and effective coordination, cooperation, and scheduling of activities with District Extension Administrators, Regional Program Directors, county staff, and other agencies/organizations are required for programs and responsibilities with mutual audiences.

5. Scholarly Contributions and Professionalism

The faculty member should demonstrate evidence of contributions to professional and total Extension programs. The development of creative educational programs and/or materials which are widely accepted and used are examples of professional contributions. Applied or translational research and comprehensive and intensive program evaluations are important components for Extension faculty. Publication of creative and scholarly work is expected.

For purposes of promotion, all of these indicators of performance should be reviewed by departmental or Extension program unit evaluation committees. Specific materials to be

included are program objective statements, program evaluations, plans of work, and the faculty achievement reports. Additional supporting materials provided in the faculty achievement report such as public and institutional service, research, teaching, and other non-extension activities shall be included in the overall assessment. A qualitative assessment performed by a peer committee evaluation at the department or program unit level will be conducted.

147

Educational materials which have been developed for Extension bulletins, fact sheets, production videos, instructional manuals, handbooks, and computer software programs will also be included in the evaluation. Similarly, written and visual support materials (including PowerPoint presentations, video tapes, and film) used in educational settings such as field days, seminars, workshops, and interactive video productions also should be evaluated. The overall evaluation should not be limited to traditional materials, but should consider the quality and originality of thought and the integration of educational concepts that will lead to increased awareness and appropriate change and/or adoption. Additional attention should be given to the development of techniques or new modes of educational delivery (e.g., interactive video, e-learning systems) and the revision and/or development of new educational approaches in the base program areas of the discipline.

The development and publication of comprehensive handbooks, training manuals, and textbooks may also be considered in evaluating the faculty members' contributions to the entire educational program. In such cases, the committee should assess the quality of the work in addition to determining the value and acceptance of the work in other states and by other universities. Educational grants for the development of new and creative Extension programs may also be considered as instances in which prepared materials extend beyond the limits of the university or state.

Appendix 1 provides categories of criteria which may be considered in promoting Extension faculty in the Professorial rank system. Other evidence of recognition by colleagues, Extension clientele, and other professionals includes the following examples:

1 Receipt of awards for outstanding programs or service.

2 Peer recognition by other faculty within the discipline, particularly those who have direct evaluative experience, and have attended Extension programs or presentations before professional groups or societies.

3 Comprehensive program evaluations that attest to program effectiveness (awareness, adoption, etc.) through pre- and post-survey evaluations and/or other evidence of productive change or mastery by clientele.

4 Evidence that the faculty member has been a catalyst for the initiation of new programming approaches within and/or across disciplines to include developing interactions with new faculty, scientists, and clientele.

5 Contributions to professional societies.

6 Leadership in networking with other faculties, research scientists, societies, and professional groups leading to integrated interdisciplinary programming.

7 Solicited evaluations by outside faculty within the discipline of national reputation as to assessment of creative professional accomplishments.

148

C. Standards of Achievement of Professorial Ranks As follows on pages 4 - 10.

1. Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist a. Degree Requirements • Terminal degree in appropriate subject matter discipline (Exceptions may be granted for outstanding service and distinguished achievements) b. Duties and Responsibilities (1) Program Development Activities and Planning Perceived ability and evidence of competence necessary to:

• Determine and understand the type of programmatic approaches needed to meet the variable educational capabilities of different audiences for effective program planning and execution.

• Assist County Extension Agents and Program Area Committee members to effectively use the Extension's program development process.

• (2) Teaching Effectiveness and Quality Satisfactory indication of personal and professional traits necessary to:

• Train Extension personnel to use appropriate educational methods and techniques for communicating with specific audiences.

• Determine and understand the variable needs and interests of audiences for effective program delivery.

• Develop effective learning environments for adult and/or youth audiences.

• Select suitable methods and techniques for solving problems and achieving objectives within subject matter discipline.

• Identify, train, and support volunteer leaders to enhance effective adult and/or youth education programs.

• (3) Quality of Program and Organizational Support

149

Evidence of a high standard of scholarship and promise of growth and development sufficient to:

• Function effectively on program planning committees and in various service capacities at the university, agency, and clientele level.

• Utilize appropriate media to effectively disseminate subject matter information.

• Prepare effective newsletters, news articles, technical fact sheets, and educational materials.

• Maintain effective working relationships with sponsors and donors in securing and maintaining support and resources for Extension educational programs.

• Develop proposals for grants or contracts. (4) Cooperative and Coordinative Efforts Professional and personal attributes necessary to:

• Interact positively with diverse populations including teaching, research, and extension faculty and the general public, especially those participating in the faculty member’s discipline.

• Function effectively with clientele, academic faculty, research scientists, and associates. • (5) Scholarly Contributions and Professionalism Evidence indicating a commitment to:

150

• Maintain continued competency in discipline.

• Desire to improve knowledge and subject matter competence.

• Gain recognition in professional organization as a contributor in the field. 2. Associate Professor and Extension Specialist

a. Degree Requirements

• Terminal degree in appropriate subject matter discipline and at least six years of professional experience

(Exceptions may be granted for outstanding service and distinguished achievements)

b. Duties and Responsibilities (in addition to those of the lower rank)

(1) Program Development Activities and Planning • Effective planning and implementation of quality educational programs needed to meet the informational expectations of the clientele.

• Work through Extension’s program development process in planning, carrying out, and evaluating Extension educational programs in assigned program area.

• Recognized by peers and county personnel for expertise and ability to develop and plan highly effective programs.

• (2) Teaching Effectiveness and Quality • Lead Extension faculty in determining and understanding the clientele’s needs and interests including the development of effective educational programs to address relevant issues.

• Develop and conduct appropriate learning experiences for adult and/or youth audiences.

• Present effective educational information through formal and informal programs including in-depth education for adult and/or youth audiences.

• (3) Quality of Program and Organizational Support • Effectively utilize appropriate communication tools to disseminate subject matter information.

• Provide evidence of effective ability to write newsletters, news articles, technical fact sheets, and educational materials.

• Demonstrate effective working relationships with sponsors and donors in securing and maintaining support and resources for Extension educational programs.

• Demonstrate success in obtaining grants and contracts to support the faculty member’s educational program.

• (4) Cooperative and Coordinative Efforts • Assist in directing and coordinating efforts of teaching, research, and Extension faculty to create an effective and synergistic working relationship.

• Cooperate effectively with external organizations important to the Agency and educational programs.

• (5) Scholarly Contributions and Professionalism

151

• Maintain expanded competency in discipline.

• Demonstrate knowledge of the current advances and developments within the profession and provide evidence of the ability to apply such knowledge.

• Recognized for service and leadership in professional organizations.

• Recognized by peers for scholarly contributions and professionalism.

152

3. Professor and Extension Specialist

153

a. Degree Requirements • Terminal degree in appropriate subject matter discipline and at least ten years of professional experience. (Exceptions may be granted for outstanding service and distinguished achievements). b. Duties and Responsibilities (in addition to those of lower ranks) (1) Program Development Activities and Planning

• Plan comprehensive and effective educational programs and develop procedures and methods that meet program outcome objectives.

• Plan, implement, and evaluate programs developed through Extension's program development process; adjust program based evaluation input.

• Develop broad objectives, programs, and plans for strengthening Extension efforts in an assigned program or subject matter area related to the Agency Strategic Plan.

• Demonstrate ability to be creative in seeking solutions to complex educational problems and issues.

• (2) Teaching Effectiveness and Quality • Provide comprehensive technical assistance and expert guidance to administrators, Extension faculty members, and county Extension agents.

• Develop and implement relevant, in-depth programs in subject matter responsibility.

• Develop educational programs and techniques which are innovative, comprehensive, and appropriate for the audience.

• (3) Quality of Program and Organizational Support • Exemplary competence in developing and writing newsletters, news articles, technical fact sheets, and educational materials.

• Demonstrate leadership roles on faculty, agency, and college committees. • • Identify, secure, and maintain support and resources for educational programs. Successful in attracting grants and contracts.

• Utilize electronic technology to effectively reach clientele. • (4) Cooperative and Coordinative Efforts

• Motivate and contribute significantly to program unit, task forces, faculty committees, etc. and create effective working relationships across departments, agencies, and colleges.

• Demonstrate cooperation with leadership of key organizations that are relevant to program delivery strategies.

• (5) Scholarly Contributions and Professionalism • Maintain and possess a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the discipline.

• Established regional or national reputation as having contributed significantly to one's field of expertise.

• Serve in leadership positions in professional organizations.

• Recognized by colleagues within the discipline for scholarship and professional understanding of subject area.

154

III. Extension Professorial Career Ladder

A. Professorial Progression

Annual reviews of each Extension faculty member by the unit head are required to provide an opportunity for effective communication between each faculty member and his/her Department Head and Associate Department Head or Program Unit Leader. (Appendix 2)

Following appointment to the initial professorial rank, an Extension faculty member will annually be eligible for consideration at the next higher rank based on recommendations of the designated unit head. Comments will be solicited from a Peer Review Committee based on the criteria as stated in this policy. The Extension faculty member will be informed of the decisions of the Peer Review Committee and the unit head pertaining to promotion recommendations.

155

B. Peer Review Committee

Departments/units are responsible for reviewing all extension specialists who hold a disciplinary appointment through an academic department/unit. Department Heads will consult a promotion committee (peer review committee) on promotion recommendations for on- and off-campus extension specialist faculty before transmitting the promotion recommendation to the Director of the agency. This advisory mechanism should be well-structured and effectively communicated within the unit. This committee should be composed of appropriate senior teaching, research and extension faculty members who can evaluate the quality and breadth of the overall performance of the junior faculty relative to the role of Extension faculty in a land-grant university system. Department/Unit Heads will work with their departmental/unit peer review committees to ensure that the following guidelines are followed:

• Only faculty at the rank of associate professor or professor will be named to serve on a peer review committee, and only faculty members with rank higher than the candidate being considered should serve on peer review committees for promotion. Departmental/Unit peer review committees should include on- and off-campus faculty where possible. (Note: The promotion candidate’s dossier cover sheet must include the total number of faculty eligible to vote).

• Committee recommendations should be based on a written and widely circulated promotion document which specifies criteria and procedural guidelines, promulgated by the department and agency.

• Committee deliberations must be conducted in confidence.

• Committee recommendations are advisory in nature.

• A preponderance of outside letters should be from peer institutions. Departments and units will be responsible for determining their respective peers. All letters requested and received are to be included in the candidate’s promotion dossier.

In consideration of requests for promotion from nondepartmentalized faculty who do not have a clear disciplinary department, the Director of the Texas AgriLife Extension Service, in consultation with the Vice Chancellor and Dean of Agriculture, will be responsible for defining the committee membership for nondepartmentalized faculty. These committees should be comprised of faculty who possess the appropriate disciplinary expertise necessary to evaluate the quality and breadth of the performance of the nondepartmentalized Extension faculty member(s). Where possible and appropriate, members from various departmental review committees will be included in the nondepartmental review committees to assure consistency of the review process.

156

During the review process, if both the Department Head and the peer review committee do not recommend promotion, then the candidate's promotion file will not be forwarded to the Director for further consideration unless the candidate so requests. If a person is under final review for promotion from assistant to associate professor, the candidate’s promotion file must be forwarded to the Director for review and action regardless of whether the recommendation is positive or negative.

If the Department Head or the review committee does not agree on a recommendation, then the matter will be forwarded to the Director for evaluation and further consultation with the Vice Chancellor.

At any point in the process, a candidate for promotion may elect to withdraw his/her name from further consideration by written request.

C. Agency Review by the Texas AgriLife Peer Review Committee

The Director will use the AgriLife Peer Review Committee to review all requests for promotion in rank of all Extension specialists. The committee will review all promotion recommendations and ensure equitable review and evaluation of teaching, research and extension promotion candidates, relative to the position description for each candidate.

The AgriLife Peer Review Committee will be comprised of 16 senior faculty members appointed by the Vice Chancellor, in consultation with the Dean of the Texas A&M College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; Director, Texas AgriLife Research; and Director, Texas AgriLife Extension. The makeup of the committee will reflect the composition of the faculty within the College, Texas AgriLife Research and Texas AgriLife Extension, and will be reviewed every three years to ensure it continues to represent the demographics of the faculty. Committee members shall serve two-year terms, with approximately one-half of the committee rotating each year. As with the departmental peer review committees, all members of the AgriLife Peer Review Committee may vote on promotion and tenure decisions; however, the vote of the tenured faculty must be kept separate. The results of the committee’s anonymous vote and the overall perspective of the committee relative to each faculty member under consideration shall be explained by the Chair of the Committee in a statement to the Vice Chancellor on each candidate.

The AgriLife Peer Review Committee shall review all promotion and tenure recommendations in accordance with the following:

1. Review completeness of promotion candidate’s file submitted by the Department/Unit, requesting additional information, if necessary, particularly if the candidate’s department is not represented on the committee. 2. Review recommendations of the departmental/unit peer review committee, Department/Unit Head, and AgriLife Extension nondepartmental program leader, as appropriate. The AgriLife Peer Review Committee should focus on nominations of a marginal nature. Specifically: a. If the departmental peer review committee and the unit administration strongly recommend a decision and the AgriLife Peer Review Committee does not concur, then the AgriLife Peer Review Committee may request further input prior to a final recommendation. Detailed comments should accompany all AgriLife Peer Review Committee recommendations which are in opposition to the recommendations of the departmental/unit peer review committee or unit administration.

b. If the departmental peer review committee and the unit administration are in direct conflict, the AgriLife Peer Review Committee should carefully review the entire file, including external letters, to

157

determine the merits of the file. If necessary, the AgriLife Peer Review Committee may invite the appropriate Department/Unit Head and chair of the departmental peer review committee to the meeting to gain further information. 3. The Chair of the AgriLife Peer Review Committee will be responsible for transmitting written results of the committee’s deliberations and make recommendations regarding desired changes to the process.

158

When the Director does not concur with the recommendation of the Department/Unit Head and/or department peer review recommendation, the Director will inform the appropriate unit leader of the reasons for that decision. The departmental peer review committee shall then have the opportunity to ensure that all appropriate materials have in fact been properly enclosed with the promotion dossier and that all relevant arguments have been put forward. In the event that germane new evidence is introduced or new, quite different arguments are applied, the departmental peer review committee may submit a newly organized document for reconsideration.

If the Director recommends against promotion and that recommendation is contrary to the recommendation of the Department Head/Program Leader, then the Director shall inform the appropriate unit leader and the candidate of the reasons for the decision. The faculty member shall then have the opportunity to offer any new evidence in support of the request for promotion, and that evidence shall be reviewed by the Director and the AgriLife Peer Review Committee before a final recommendation concerning promotion is made.

In the event of a negative promotion decision, the faculty member is entitled to a written statement of the reasons that contributed to that decision. If requested by the faculty member, a statement of reasons will be provided by the Department Head or AgriLife Extension nondepartmental program leader, as appropriate.

159

IV. Appeals Procedure for Professorial Progression A. Extension specialist faculty have the right to present grievances concerning progression through the Professorial Career Ladder. Basis for an appeal regarding progression in rank exists when, in the opinion of the Extension faculty member, one or more of the following has occurred:

一 There was a failure to follow the prescribed procedures.

一 There was a failure to adhere to the established criteria for determining progression in rank.

一 There was a discovery of significant new evidence in support of the Extension faculty member related to academic credentials, length of professional service, performance appraisal information and overall achievement, productivity, and/or effectiveness.

Extension faculty having concerns or grievances regarding other aspects of the Professorial Career Ladder are encouraged to seek resolution of those concerns through established supervisory channels prior to filing a written appeal. If the matter cannot be resolved, the faculty member may seek a hearing by an appeals committee.

The written appeal shall include the basis for the appeal committee and must contain any supporting evidence and/or documentation to be considered. Written appeals concerning denial of progression in rank must be filed within 20 working days of notification of denial.

B. A seven-member Appeals Committee shall be appointed by the Director to review and/or hear individual appeals regarding progression in rank.

C. The appellant may request to meet with the Appeals Committee to present his/her case. Such a request shall be included in the written appeal. If the appellant elects to be represented by an attorney, the appellant will notify the Director's Office at least five working days before the date the appeal is to be heard. The appellant will be solely responsible for any legal expenses incurred in such representation.

160

D. The Appeals Committee shall judge the merits of the case and forward its written recommendation with supporting documentation to the Director for final action within 20 working days from the end of the appeal hearing.

E. The Director shall notify the appellant in writing of acceptance or rejection of the Appeals Committee recommendation. Such notification shall be made within 60 working days of receipt of the written appeal.

Appendix 1

CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION OF PROMOTION IN THE EXTENSION PROFESSORIAL RANK SYSTEM

Categories

A. Contributions to assigned Extension duties*

1. Presentations 2. Program initiation, development, evaluation, and interpretation 3. Workshops, seminars, field days, etc. 4. Extension publications 5. Demonstrations (result/method, field trials/applied research) 6. Agent training sessions 7. Mass media work 8. Grants and contracts 9. Interagency activities 10. Clientele commodity support groups 11. Extension planning activities 12. Leadership and volunteer training 13. Consultation/technical assistance 14. Other Extension contributions B. State/regional/national/international contributions

1 Publications (including peer reviewed journal publications) 2 Presentations (professional organizations and peer audiences included) 3 Committee assignments 4 Membership in professional organizations (including offices held) 5 Other Extension contributions

161

C. Contributions to major Agency missions

1. Teaching 2. Research (basic and applied) 3. Service D. Service to university/Extension/community (committee assignments, leadership positions, etc.)

E. Awards and honors, including membership in honorary societies

*Because of the wide variation in position descriptions, not every Extension faculty member is expected to contribute in all categories listed. Specific position descriptions and plan of work dictate which categories are most appropriate.

Appendix 2

GROUPS ELIGIBLE FOR PROFESSORIAL CAREER LADDER

A. Departmentalized Groups

1 Agricultural Economics 2 Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication 3 Biological and Agricultural Engineering 4 Animal Science 5 Biochemistry and Biophysics Ecosystem Science and Management 6 Entomology 7 Horticultural Science 9. Nutrition and Food Science 10. Plant Pathology and Microbiology 11. Poultry Science 12. Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences 14. Soil and Crop Sciences 15. Veterinary Medicine 16. Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences

162

B. Nondepartmentalized Groups

1. Agricultural Communications 2. Agricultural Chemicals 3. Computer Technology 4. 4-H and Youth Development 5. Family and Consumer Sciences 6. V.G. Young Institute of County Government

163

Section 11

University Rule 12.01.99.M2

University Statement on Academic Freedom,

Responsibility, Tenure, and Promotion

Appendix I

164

12.01.99.M2: Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Tenure and Promotion APPENDIX I

EXAMPLES OF CRITERIA THAT MAY BE EMPLOYED IN EVALUATION OF FACULTY Faculty members are to be evaluated on the quality and scope of their work in fulfillment of the multiple missions of Texas A&M University, in the context of the particular roles and responsibilities of the individual faculty member. TEACHING (includes classroom instruction, academic advising (may also be included as a service activity where appropriate), supervision of undergraduate and graduate research, clinical supervision, and mentoring). Indicators of Outstanding Merit · Outstanding teaching performance as evidenced by such measures as peer-evaluation, student satisfaction, and student outcomes · Outstanding direction of graduate research or creative activity that is validated by peers and communicated · Selection for a University or professional society outstanding teacher award · Evidence of courses taught at a rigorous and challenging level, with recognized excellence · Publication of widely adopted or acclaimed instructional materials · Developing a new course that fills an identified need in the curriculum · Chair of doctoral research committees · Receiving external grant support for teaching/learning projects · Invitation to teach at domestic or international institution of recognized excellence · Receipt of awards for research or academic performance by the faculty member's students · Placement of graduate students or post-doctoral fellows into significant academic, scholarly or professional positions · Significantly contributing to the professional development of students (e.g. working with the University Honors program) · Outstanding performance as a departmental undergraduate or graduate advisor (may also be included as a service activity where appropriate) Indicators of Merit · Effective teaching performance, as evidenced by peer evaluation, student satisfaction and student outcomes · Effective direction of graduate research or creative activity, as evidenced by student satisfaction and student outcomes · Selection for a college or departmental outstanding teacher award · Development of effective pedagogical methods and materials as evidenced by peer evaluation, student satisfaction and student outcomes · Development of new courses or major revision of existing courses · Receiving competitive internal grant support for teaching/learning projects · Reflective critique and continuous improvement of teaching, as evidenced by self-evaluation

165

· Direction of graduate student thesis or dissertation research · Member of graduate student advisory committees · Evidence of high quality in class preparation, interaction, and accomplishments · Effectively coordinating a multi-section course · Service as departmental undergraduate or graduate advisor (may also be included as a service activity where appropriate) · Significant self-development activities leading to enhanced teaching effectiveness · Receiving on a competitive basis internal funding for teaching · Participation in University Honors and/or other programs for mentoring the professional development of students Possible Measures/Sources of Information Self-evaluation Reflective response to student ratings and comments and to peer review Analysis of strengths/weaknesses of course materials and delivery Analysis of student achievement of course objectives Statement of goals for improvement Participation in teaching workshops or other improvement activities Peer-evaluation Peer critique of course materials Peer critique of classroom teaching Student satisfaction End-of-semester student ratings of instruction Mid-semester questionnaires Exit interviews Student outcomes Evidence of student growth over the semester Student performance in current and/or subsequent courses Placement of graduate students in academic or professional positions Publication of graduate student thesis Employer reports of student performance SCHOLARLY ACTIVITIES (includes research, creative activities, and all other forms of scholarship -- creative intellectual work that is validated by peers and is communicated). Indicators of Outstanding Merit · Publications in leading refereed journals · Receiving major fellowship or research award · Frequent citation of publications · Publication of scholarly book(s) by reputable publisher(s) · Serving as editor or member of editorial board of a major journal · Awards for, or publication of, peer reviewed creative activities · Juried works in creative activities · Serving as a member of review panel for national research organization · Presentation of invited papers at international and national meetings · Receiving significant external peer-reviewed funding for research

166

· Significant publication and/or funding resulting from collaborative efforts with researchers in other fields where the faculty member occupies a substantial role in research) · Publications with teaching focus in leading refereed journals · Evidence of creative professional practice Indicators of Merit · Publication of scholarly book(s) · Publications in refereed journals · Service as a reviewer for major refereed journals or as an ad hoc reviewer for national research organizations · Publication of a chapter in a scholarly book · Editing a scholarly book · Presentation of papers at national or international meetings of appropriate disciplines · Publications in non-refereed but widely recognized journals · Continued public activity in plastic, performing or diverse arts · Significant self-development activities, such as a Faculty Development Leave, that lead to increased research and publication effectiveness · Publications in refereed journals resulting from collaborative efforts with researchers in other fields · Publications with teaching focus in refereed journals SERVICE (includes extension, outreach, clinical service, service to the department or unit, service to the University, advising (may also be included as a teaching activity where appropriate) and professional service) NOTE: Evidence of outstanding merit or merit may be found in the selection process itself or in documentation of performance. Indicators of Outstanding Merit · Being an officer in a national or international professional organization · Serving on a major governmental commission, task force, or board · Serving an administrative leadership role at Texas A&M University · Serving as program chair or in a similar position at a national or international meeting · Serving as an officer in the Faculty Senate · Chairing a major standing or ad hoc Texas A&M University committee · Evidence of excellence in professional service to the local community and public at large, including required clinical work or extension service Indicators of Merit · Being a committee chair in national or international professional organization · Being an officer in regional or state professional organization · Serving as program chair or similar position for regional or state professional organizational meeting · Serving as an active member of the Faculty Senate · Serving on University, college, and department committees and task forces · Serving as consultant · Being an advisor to student organizations · Serving in administrative roles within the department · Evidence of professional service to the local community and public at large, including required

167

clinical work or extension service · Significant self-development activities that lead to enhanced service effectiveness

168

12.01.99.M2

Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Tenure and Promotion

Page 1 of 27

UNIVERSITY RULE 12.01.99.M2 University Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility,

Tenure, and Promotion Approved June 20, 1997 Revised July 27, 2001 Supplements System Policy 12.01

1. GENERAL The policies for academic freedom, ethics, responsibility, tenure, and promotion at Texas

A&M University apply equally to current faculty members and to subsequent appointees. These policies seek to establish a spirit of cooperation, good faith, and responsibility and to provide useful guidelines for situations not specifically described in this document.

2. FACULTY AND EMPLOYMENT 2.1 Definition of Faculty: 2.1.1 In general, a faculty member, to whom the academic freedoms and

responsibilities described in this document pertain, is any full-time or part-time employee of Texas A&M University with an appointment as a Professor at any rank, an Instructor, a Lecturer at any rank, or a Librarian (I, II, III, or IV).

2.1.2 A faculty member is not automatically eligible for tenure. See Section 4.1.1. 2.2 Employment Contract: 2.2.1 All new faculty members shall be provided with an appointment letter stating

the initial terms and conditions of employment. Any subsequent modifications or special understandings in regard to the appointment, which may be made on an annual basis, will be stated in writing and a copy will be given to the faculty member. All faculty members, unless the terms and conditions of their appointment letter state otherwise, are expected to engage in teaching, scholarship, and service. Essential job functions for a position may vary depending upon the nature of the department in which the faculty member is employed, the nature of the discipline in which the faculty member holds expertise, external funding requirements attached to the position, licensing or accreditation requirements, and other circumstances. It is therefore important that essential job functions for each faculty position be listed in the initial appointment letter. For example, all of the following that are applicable should be listed: teaching responsibilities, responsibilities for advising students, independent and/or collaborative research responsibilities, engaging in patient care, committee assignments, conditions imposed by external accrediting agencies, conditions for holding a named professorship or a position that combines academic and administrative duties, and any other specific essential functions for the position in question. All appointment

169

http://www.tamus.edu/offices/policy/policies/pdf/12-01.pdf

12.01.99.M2


Page 2 of 27

letters must indicate whether the appointment being offered is with tenure, tenure-accruing, or non-tenure-accruing.

2.2.2 If the appointment is tenure-accruing, the appointment letter will indicate the

length of the period of probationary service at Texas A&M University and state the credit agreed upon for appropriate service at other institutions. The specific probationary period does not, however, constitute the term of the initial appointment. All appointments during the probationary period are for a fixed term of one year or less and are subject to renewal or non-renewal each year of the probationary period.

2.2.3 Unless otherwise specified in the appointment letter, or mutually agreed upon

revision thereof, tenure-accruing appointments and appointments with tenure guarantee employment for nine months or the equivalent.

2.2.4 All faculty members will receive an annual notification of the terms and

conditions of appointment for the next fiscal year within two weeks after the Texas A&M University budget has been approved by the Board of Regents. This notice shall contain the rank of appointment, tenure status, inclusive dates of employment, salary, and any special conditions. Any changes or additions to essential job functions noted in the original letter of appointment also should be included, after appropriate consultation with the faculty member. Any changes to the terms and conditions of appointment may be appealed through Rule 12.01.99.M4 (Faculty Grievance Procedures Not Concerning Questions of Tenure, Dismissal, or Constitutional Rights). Faculty members are obligated to fulfill the terms of employment for the following year, unless they resign prior to 30 days after receiving notification of these terms.

2.3 Termination of Employment: Notice of non-reappointment, or of intention not to

reappoint a faculty member, shall be given in writing in accord with the following standards:

2.3.1 Tenure Track 2.3.1.1 Not later than March 1 of the first academic year of probationary

service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if the appointment terminates during an academic year, at least three months in advance of its termination;

2.3.1.2 Not later than December 15 of the second year of probationary

service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if the appointment terminates during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination; and

2.3.1.3 At least twelve months before the expiration of a probationary

appointment after two or more years in the institution. 2.3.2 Lecturers and Senior Lecturers

170

http://rules-saps.tamu.edu/PDFs/12.01.99.M4.pdf


12.01.99.M2


Page 3 of 27

2.3.2.1 A Lecturer who has held any faculty appointment other than

Assistant Lecturer for the equivalent of 5 or more academic years of full service within a 7 year period shall be provided a one-year notice if it is the University's intent not to renew the appointment.

2.3.2.2 A faculty member promoted to or hired at the rank of Senior Lecturer

shall be provided a one year notice if it is the University's intent not to renew the appointment.

2.3.2.3 Any request for an exemption to either of these provisions must be

based on a major programmatic revision or budgetary cutback. Such a request with appropriate documentation must be submitted by a college dean through the Provost to the President for approval.

2.4 All faculty members are entitled under Texas law to see their personnel files and to

obtain, at their own expense, a copy of the information in these files. 2.5 Annual Review 2.5.1 An annual review will be conducted in a timely fashion for all faculty

members at the rank of Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Distinguished Lecturer, Instructor, Librarian (I, II, III, or IV), Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, and Distinguished Professor. The purpose of the annual review is to provide a mechanism to facilitate dialogue between the administration and faculty. Annual review provides valuable information to the department head about the faculty members' accomplishments and to the faculty members with regard to the department head's assessment of their progress in the discipline and in the context of department goals. Annual reviews are to be conducted in an environment of openness and collegiality, with an emphasis on constructive development of the individual faculty member and the institution.

2.5.2 The focus of the annual review process will vary from rank to rank. For

lecturers and librarians of all ranks, the annual review process will serve primarily as an evaluation focusing on performance and potential for appointment. For tenured or tenure-track faculty, the annual review must take into account the fact that progress in a scholarly career is a long-term venture; therefore, a three to five year horizon may be necessary for the accurate evaluation of scholarly progress. Furthermore, an annual review process should be conducted differently depending upon the different stages of a faculty member's career. For non-tenured, tenure-track assistant professors and instructors, the annual review process must also provide indication as to progress toward tenure and promotion (see 4.3.5). For tenured associate professors, the process should be used to identify the faculty member's progress toward the requisite stature for promotion to professor. For professors, annual review should be part of the ongoing process of communication between the faculty member and the institution in which both institutional and individual goals and programmatic directions are

171

12.01.99.M2


Page 4 of 27

clarified, the contributions of the faculty member toward meeting those goals are evaluated and the development of the faculty member and the University is enhanced. In all cases, the annual review shall serve as the primary documentation for evaluation of job performance in the areas of assigned responsibility and for merit salary increases.

2.5.3 To ensure consistency over time, each department shall publish its annual

review procedure on paper or by electronic means. Annual review procedures for the department shall be approved by the respective college dean before publication and shall be reviewed by the Dean of Faculties for consistency with this section. The creation and modification of this document should be a product of joint deliberation by faculty members and the department head. If there is no need for department specific guidelines, a college-wide document, developed jointly by faculty and administrators and reviewed by the Dean of Faculties, is sufficient. The annual review procedure document must include the following elements:

2.5.3.1 Purpose of annual review. These include the purposes set forth in

(2.5.1) and (2.5.2) as well as any department specific purposes. 2.5.3.2 Period of evaluation (may be longer than one year; see 2.5.2) and

aspects of performance to be evaluated, as appropriate for each job title.

2.5.3.3 Annual Activity Report format and content. Examples of possible

content include (a) a statement of assigned duties, consistent with (or consisting of) the appointment letter or current position description (2.2.1); (b) a list of activities, accomplishments, and awards; (c) documentation, including such items as course syllabi, evidence of student learning, published papers or books, evidence of effectiveness in service, teaching portfolio, etc.; (d) self-evaluation in the context of the assigned duties of the faculty member and the missions of the department and University; and (e) a statement of goals (see 2.5.5.1).

2.5.3.4 Basis for evaluation. All sources of information to be used for the

evaluation must be specified. The following are examples of possible sources of information: (a) Annual activity report (required as a source); (b) personal observation by evaluator; (c) discussions with colleagues, students, and/or others; (d) student evaluations of teaching; (e) peer evaluations of teaching. Note that the standard end-of-semester student evaluations of teaching must not be the only instrument used in determining teaching quality and effectiveness.

2.5.3.5 Timeline and procedures for evaluation. These must be consistent

with sections 2.2.1, 2.5.5.2, 2.5.5.3, and 2.5.5.4. 2.5.3.6 Complaint procedure if annual review fails to follow published

guidelines (generally, letter to dean with copy to Dean of Faculties).

172

12.01.99.M2


Page 5 of 27

2.5.4 Department heads with faculty who have budgeted joint appointments will collaborate with the heads of the appropriate units to develop accurate annual reports. In all cases there should be one department where more than 50% of the appointment is located; the head of that department is responsible for the final evaluation. Input will be sought from heads of departments in which a faculty member holds non-budgeted appointments.

2.5.5 The exact form of the annual review may differ from college to college, or

even from department to department within a college, but must include the following components.

2.5.5.1 Faculty member's report of previous activities. The report should be

focused on the immediately previous academic or calendar year, but should allow a faculty member to point out the status of long-term projects and set the context in which annual activities have occurred. The report must incorporate teaching, research, and service. Faculty members should state their short-term and long-term goals.

2.5.5.2 A written document stating the department head's evaluation and

expectations. The department head will write an evaluation for the year in a memorandum or in the annual report document transmitted to the faculty member. The faculty member indicates receipt by signing a copy of the document. This memorandum, and/or the annual report and any related documents, will be entered into the faculty member's departmental personnel file. Moreover, this memorandum and/or annual report shall also include a statement on expectations for the next year in teaching, research and service.

2.5.5.3 Meeting between the department head and the faculty member.

There will be an annual opportunity for a personal meeting to discuss the written review and expectations for the coming year if either party believes it is needed. In some cases, there may be the need for more frequent meetings at the request of the department head or faculty member.

2.5.5.4 Performance Assessment. In assessing performance and determining

salary increases, the weights given to teaching, research, and service shall be consistent with the expectations as determined in 2.5.5.2 and 2.5.5.3 above and with the overall contributions of the faculty member to the multiple missions of the department and University. For example, persons with solely teaching responsibilities who attain excellence in all aspects of teaching should receive comparable merit to persons with multiple responsibilities who attain excellence.

3. ACADEMIC FREEDOM, ETHICS AND RESPONSIBILITY 3.1 Academic Freedom: Institutions of higher education exist for the common good. The

common good depends upon an uninhibited search for truth and its open expression. Hence, it is essential that faculty members be free to pursue scholarly inquiry without

173

12.01.99.M2


Page 6 of 27

undue restriction, and to voice and publish individual conclusions concerning the significance of evidence that they consider relevant. Each faculty member must be free from the corrosive fear that others inside or outside the University community, because their views may differ, may threaten his or her professional career or the material benefits accruing from it.

Each faculty member is entitled to full freedom in the classroom in discussing the

subject being taught. Within the bounds of professional behavior, faculty members also have full freedom to express disagreement with other members of the university community. Although a faculty member observes the regulations of the institution, he or she maintains the right to criticize and seek revision. Faculty members also are citizens of the nation, state, and community; therefore, when speaking, writing, or acting outside the classroom, they must be free from institutional censorship or discipline. On such occasions faculty members should make it clear that they are not speaking for the institution.

3.2 Academic Ethics and Responsibility: For faculty members the notion of academic

freedom is linked to the equally demanding concept of academic ethics and responsibility. As a faculty member, a person assumes certain ethical obligations and responsibilities to students, to fellow faculty members, to the institution, to the profession, and to society at large. Some of these are listed below:

3.2.1 Faculty members have ethical obligations and responsibilities to the students

of Texas A&M University. 3.2.1.1 Faculty members should foster scholarly values in students, including

academic honesty, the free pursuit of learning, and the exercise of academic freedom.

3.2.1.2 Faculty members should act professionally in the classroom and in

other academic relationships with students. Faculty members should exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. Faculty members are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter that has no relation to their subject.

3.2.1.3 Faculty members should maintain respect for the student and for the

student's role as a learner. Faculty members should evaluate students on the true merit of their academic performance. Faculty members should be available at reasonable intervals to students for consultation on course work.

3.2.1.4 Faculty members shall not engage in any exploitation, harassment, or

illegal discriminatory treatment of students. 3.2.2 Faculty members have ethical obligations and responsibilities to other

members of the university community.

174

12.01.99.M2


Page 7 of 27

3.2.2.1 Faculty members shall neither harass nor exploit any member of the university community.

3.2.2.2 Faculty members shall respect and defend the free inquiry of

associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas, faculty members show due respect for the opinions of others.

3.2.2.3 Faculty members shall acknowledge the academic contributions of

others, strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues, and accept their share of faculty responsibilities for contributing to the governance of the institution.

3.2.3 Faculty members have ethical obligations and responsibilities to Texas A&M

University as an institution.

3.2.3.1 A faculty member's comments regarding matters of public concern are protected even though they may be highly critical in tone or content, or even erroneous. The constitutionally protected rights of faculty members, as citizens, to freedom of expression on matters of public concern cannot be abridged. Faculty members, like all citizens, are liable for all actions that are not constitutionally protected.

3.2.3.2 Faculty members should recognize that their primary responsibilities

are to the institution as they determine the amount (if any) and character of work done outside of the institution. Such outside work shall be consistent with University regulations. Although faculty members may follow subsidiary interests, these must never compromise their freedom and willingness to draw intellectually honest conclusions.

3.2.3.3 When considering the interruption or termination of their service,

faculty members should take into account the effect of their decision upon the institution and give due notice of their intentions.

3.2.4 Faculty members have ethical obligations and responsibilities to their

profession and deriving from their membership in the professorate. The fundamental responsibilities of a faculty member as a teacher and scholar include maintenance of competence in his or her field of specialization and exhibition of such professional competence in the classroom, studio, library, or laboratory and in the public arena by such activities as discussions, lectures, consulting, publications, or participation in professional organizations and meetings.

3.2.5 Faculty members have ethical obligations and responsibilities to the public.

The demonstration of professional integrity by a faculty member includes recognition that the society at large will judge the profession as well as the institution by his or her statements and behavior. Therefore, the faculty member should strive to be accurate, to exercise appropriate restraint, to be

175

12.01.99.M2


Page 8 of 27

willing to listen to and show respect to members of the society at large expressing different opinions, and to avoid creating the impression that the faculty member speaks or acts for the college or the University when speaking or acting as a private person.

4. TENURE AND PROMOTION 4.1 Eligibility for Tenure: 4.1.1 To be eligible to receive tenure, a faculty member generally should be an

employee of Texas A&M University who holds academic rank as instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, professor or distinguished professor. Members of the faculty whose appointments are ordinarily temporary, part-time, or otherwise clearly short-term, e.g., lecturers, visiting professors of any rank, graduate students serving as teaching assistants, and post-doctoral fellows are generally not entitled to tenure and consequently will ordinarily not be subject to the provisions of this document regarding the probationary period for tenure. Full-time research associates also are normally considered to have term appointments and are considered to hold positions that are without tenure and not tenure-accruing.

4.1.2 Faculty members who hold joint appointments with other state, federal, or

private agencies or with two or more parts of The Texas A&M University System may or may not be entitled to tenure, depending upon the nature of their duties and the terms of the written agreement of their appointments. Normally, all individuals whose service accrues credit toward tenure and those who are already tenured receive on the average at least one-third of their salary from Texas A&M University teaching funds.

4.1.3 Administrative personnel, such as department heads and deans, who hold

academic rank in addition to their administrative titles retain their tenured status as faculty members, but administrative positions per se are not subject to tenure. Those members of a library staff who hold the rank of Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or Distinguished Professor are eligible for tenure.

4.2 Tenure Policy: 4.2.1 Tenure means the entitlement of a faculty member to continue in the

academic position held unless dismissed for good cause. Tenure is based on the need to protect academic freedom and is irrevocable except as specified in Section 5.

4.2.2 De jure tenure is obtained only by the affirmative action of the Board of

Regents. 4.2.3 Faculty members awarded tenure at other institutions in The Texas A&M

University System or any other institution have no claim to tenure at Texas A&M University.

176

12.01.99.M2


Page 9 of 27

4.2.4 Except when otherwise specified in the initial appointment letter, or a

mutually agreed upon revision thereof, a tenured faculty member is guaranteed nine months of full-time employment or the equivalent. (See Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.3).

4.3 Tenure System Components: 4.3.1 The probationary period for a faculty member shall not exceed seven years of

full-time service, beginning with appointment to the rank of instructor or a higher tenure-eligible rank. Under extenuating circumstances, the probationary period at Texas A&M University may be extended with the written concurrence of the faculty member involved, the department head, dean, and the Dean of Faculties. The probationary period may include appropriate full-time service at other institutions of higher education. If a faculty member has served a term of probationary service at one or more institutions, the probationary period at Texas A&M University may be for fewer than seven years. In such cases, however, the person's total probationary period in the academic profession may be extended beyond seven years.

4.3.2 Faculty members holding tenure-accruing appointments in a library will be

evaluated for tenure based on the policies of the library as approved by the Dean of Faculties.

4.3.3 Assistant professors at Texas A&M University will be evaluated for

promotion to associate professor and for tenure concurrently and will not be awarded one without the other.

4.3.4 Persons whose initial appointment to the Texas A&M University faculty is at

the rank of associate professor or professor are eligible for tenure upon appointment.

4.3.5 Periodic Review: 4.3.5.1 Each department shall review the performance of all faculty members

who are accruing credit toward tenure on an annual basis. Each faculty member shall be advised in writing of the results of this review. The purpose of regular reviews is to provide a candid evaluation of the individual's achievements so that both the individual and Texas A&M University may benefit by improved performance or by the encouragement to continue exemplary performance.

4.3.5.2 For faculty subject to a probationary period of seven-years or more at

Texas A&M University, a third-year review is mandatory. This evaluation will familiarize the faculty member with the tenure process and ensure that the faculty member understands the expectations of those entities that will ultimately be responsible for the tenure decision. This review should mimic the tenure review

177

12.01.99.M2


Page 10 of 27

process as closely as possible; a minimal third-year review would include dossier items contributed by the candidate and internal letters of recommendation, and would be reviewed at the department and college levels by appropriate faculty committees as well as the department head and dean.

4.3.5.3 A thorough review in the penultimate year of probationary service is

mandatory. Such reviews may be made earlier and are, in fact, encouraged whenever it appears appropriate. If an early review does not result in a favorable decision for promotion and tenure, a review will be conducted again at the mandatory time. If the department head has not already initiated the review process, each faculty member serving in the next-to-last year of probationary service should notify the department head that the year for a tenure judgment has been reached. This communication should be made in writing in order to avoid any misunderstanding of the matter by any party.

4.4 Tenure and Promotion Criteria: 4.4.1 Categories of Performance: 4.4.1.1 Teaching: This category includes, among other things, classroom and

laboratory instruction; development of new courses, laboratories, and teaching methods; publication of instructional materials, including textbooks; and supervision of graduate students.

4.4.1.2 Creation and dissemination of new knowledge or other creative

activities: For most disciplines, this category consists of research and publication. For some disciplines, however, it may include other forms of creative activity. Architectural design, engineering technology, veterinary or medical technology, fiction, poetry, painting, music, and sculpture are examples.

4.4.1.3Service: This includes service to the institution, to students,

colleagues, department, college, and the University--as well as service beyond the campus. Examples of the latter include service to professional societies, research organizations, governmental agencies, the local community, and the public at large.

4.4.2 College and Library Criteria:

4.4.2.1 The faculty and administrators of each college and of a library shall jointly develop written guidelines describing the evaluation criteria employed in the unit.

4.4.2.2 Both the guidelines and the evaluation process itself shall pay due

regard to the difficulties inherent in quantifying academic performance. See Section 4.3. The guidelines shall be periodically reviewed and approved by the Provost and Executive Vice President

178

12.01.99.M2


Page 11 of 27

for Academics. In those units in which the goals and objectives of departments differ significantly, departments should also have written evaluation guidelines. Continuity in performance criteria and in the application thereof is essential. Therefore, criteria should be changed only after careful and thorough joint deliberation by faculty members and administrators in the unit.

The guidelines shall include:

(1) Criteria that are employed to judge the level of performance of faculty in each category of performance. (Examples of possible indicators of performance are given in Appendix I.)

(2) The normal level of performance required in each category of performance in order to be awarded tenure. Achieving the normal level does not ensure tenure.

(3) The normal level of performance required in each category of

performance for appointment or promotion to each rank. Achieving the normal level does not ensure appointment or promotion.

(4) A description of the procedures employed in evaluation of

faculty for tenure and promotion.

University, college or library, and department guidelines shall be given to all faculty as appropriate. New faculty members shall receive the guidelines along with a statement of any special conditions or expectations related to their employment when they join the Texas A&M University faculty. Such guidelines shall support the adequate evaluation and reward of a faculty member's interdisciplinary responsibilities.

4.4.3 University Criteria: In addition to the criteria developed in the college or a

library, the minimum requirements to be met by individuals being considered for tenure or promotion are:

4.4.3.1 Assistant Professor: Faculty members holding a tenure-accruing

appointment with the rank of instructor will be promoted to the rank of assistant professor upon the receipt of the terminal degree.

4.4.3.2 Associate Professor: (1) an exemplary level of accomplishment as measured against

the contributions of others in the field; (2) professional conduct conducive to a collegial work

environment and standards of professional integrity that will advance the interests of Texas A&M University;

179

12.01.99.M2


Page 12 of 27

(3) an area of specialization germane to the programs of Texas A&M University, one not currently represented on the tenured faculty, or one that provides desired reinforcement in an area of priority; and

(4) evidence indicating a commitment to maintaining the level of

competence in teaching and research expected of a tenured faculty member.

4.4.3.3 Professor: (1) continuing accomplishment in teaching; (2) continuing accomplishment and some measure of national

recognition in research or another form of creative activity; and

(3) evidence of valuable professional service. 4.5 Tenure and Promotion Evaluation: 4.5.1 Categories of Performance (should be made consistent with Appendix I).

4.5.1.2 Scholarship and creative activity. This category covers all forms of

intellectual work which are based on a high level of professional expertise, are original, are documented and validated as through peer review or critique, and are communicated in appropriate ways so as to have significance beyond Texas A&M University. Examples may include architectural design, engineering or veterinary technology, artistic works, and research articles.

4.5.2 In most cases, the judgments of professionals in the faculty member's field

provide the best and most reliable basis for making sound decisions about tenure and promotion. Consequently, the level of accomplishment and potential relative to disciplinary norms and standards as judged by peer review should be the heart of the tenure and promotion process. Accomplishments that are not subject to peer review generally should not be a major consideration in tenure and promotion evaluations.

4.5.2.1 The faculty and administrators of each college and of a library shall

jointly develop written guidelines describing the evaluation criteria and procedures employed in the unit, consistent with University criteria and procedures.

The guidelines shall include: (1) The relative importance and normal level of performance

required in each category of performance in order to be awarded tenure. Achieving the normal level does not ensure

180

12.01.99.M2


Page 13 of 27

tenure. (2) The relative importance and normal level of performance

required in each category of performance for appointment or promotion to each rank. Achieving the normal level does not ensure appointment or promotion.

(3) A description of the procedures employed in evaluation of

faculty for tenure and promotion, including: (a) responsibilities of the faculty member and others in preparing the tenure or promotion dossier; (b) procedures for departmental and college-level review committees: selection of committee members and chair, responsibilities of the committee, procedures for making a recommendation, etc.; (c) procedures for promotion of non-tenure-track faculty members and research scientists, if different; (d) a timeline.

University, college or library, and department guidelines shall be given to all

faculty as appropriate. Guidelines should be redistributed to all faculty at least every three years. If guidelines are made available by electronic means, a reminder of that availability and a summary of relevant information should be distributed periodically on paper. New faculty members shall receive the guidelines along with a statement of any special conditions or expectations related to their employment when they join the Texas A&M University faculty. Such guidelines shall support the adequate evaluation and reward of a faculty member's interdisciplinary responsibilities.

4.5.3 In evaluating a faculty member being considered for tenure, the appropriate

faculty committees and academic administrators shall give adequate consideration to the faculty member's professional performance. Adequate consideration of a tenure case consists of a conscientious review, which seeks out and considers all available evidence bearing on the relevant performance of the faculty member, and assumes that the various academic units follow their approved procedural guidelines during the tenure and promotion review process (see 4.4.2 and 4.4.3). Such consideration should be based upon adequate deliberation over the evidence in light of relevant standards and exclusive of improper standards. An improper standard is any criterion not related to the professional performance of the faculty member. The evaluation of a tenure case should constitute a bona fide exercise of professional academic judgment.

4.5.4 Exceptions to the normal requirements for tenure and promotion may

sometimes be warranted. Examples would include (a) gifted and productive master teachers who are abreast of their field but who have not contributed extensively to the development of new knowledge, (b) exceptionally outstanding researchers whose teaching is merely acceptable, and (c) tenured faculty whose sustained service to the University is unselfish, distinctive and outstanding, but whose teaching and research are only acceptable. Few faculty will possess qualities such as these, but those who do deserve

181

12.01.99.M2


Page 14 of 27

recognition and advancement. 4.6 Review Process for Tenure and Promotion to the Rank of Associate Professor or

Professor: 4.6.1 The faculty member being considered for tenure and/or promotion will work

with the department head or designated committee to develop a complete file. 4.6.2 In conducting tenure and/or promotion reviews, department heads shall draw

upon the advice and counsel of a tenure and promotion committee as well as other appropriate sources. When the review has been completed, the department head will transmit the tenure and/or promotion recommendations of both the head and the faculty committee to the dean of the college for review.

4.6.2.1 If the faculty member being considered has a joint appointment

funded in two or more departments, the department in which the faculty member is administratively located (ad loc) has the responsibility to ensure that the review process is conducted in accordance with the regular Promotion and Tenure procedures of the relevant departments. If the departments are in the same college, the ad loc department is responsible for forwarding the appropriate documents to the dean's office. If different colleges are involved, then each department is responsible for forwarding the appropriate documents to its dean's office.

4.6.2.2 If the faculty member being considered has an appointment with an

intercollegiate faculty in addition to a departmental appointment, then the ad loc department must request a review and evaluation from the intercollegiate faculty. The evaluation should be conducted by a faculty group such as the membership committee or executive committee of the intercollegiate faculty and is forwarded to the ad loc department's promotion and tenure committee. The evaluation should include comments on teaching, research, service, and intercollegiate cooperation, and the evaluation must be included in the package of material that is forwarded to the dean's office.

4.6.3 In conducting tenure and/or promotion reviews, the dean shall draw upon the

advice and counsel of a college-wide tenure and promotion committee. If the dean recommends against tenure and/or promotion and that recommendation is contrary to the department head's recommendation, the dean shall inform the department head and faculty member of the reasons for the recommendation. The department may then resubmit the case for further consideration. Any reconsideration, however, must be based upon either (a) new evidence that is not already contained within the dossier, or (b) substantial and entirely new arguments that were not made in the first presentation. If the case is resubmitted, it shall be reviewed by the dean and the college-wide tenure and promotion committee before a final recommendation concerning tenure and/or promotion is forwarded to the

182

12.01.99.M2


Page 15 of 27

Provost and Executive Vice President for Academics. 4.6.4 The dean will present the college's recommendations through the Dean of

Faculties to the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academics for review. This review and recommendation process will continue through the President of the University and the Chancellor of the System to the Board of Regents, which holds sole authority to confer tenure.

4.7 Notification Process for Tenure and Promotion to the Rank of Associate Professor

and Professor 4.7.1 A faculty member shall be advised of the recommendation for or against

tenure and/or promotion at each level of review. In the event of a negative tenure and/or promotion decision, the faculty member is entitled upon request to a written statement of the reasons that contributed to the decision.

4.7.2 The official decision by the Board of Regents regarding the granting of

tenure to and/or the promotion of a faculty member will be conveyed in writing to the faculty member as soon as possible after the Board of Regents has officially acted on the University's tenure and/or promotion recommendation.

4.7.3 If requested by the faculty member, a written statement of reasons (see 4.7.1

above) will be provided by the administrator at the first level at which there was a negative recommendation after the Board of Regents has ruled on the University's tenure and/or promotion recommendations.

5. RIGHTS OF NON-TENURED FACULTY MEMBERS 5.1 A decision to dismiss a non-tenured faculty member prior to the expiration of an

appointment, a decision not to reappoint a non-tenured faculty member and a decision not to grant tenure to a non-tenured faculty member shall be based upon adequate consideration (see 4.5.3) of the individual's professional performance and shall not be made in violation of academic freedom or as a form of illegal discrimination.

5.2 The appeal procedures to be followed are outlined in Section 9. 6. POLICIES GOVERNING THE LOSS OF TENURE 6.1 Tenure is given up when a faculty member: (1) retires (excluding partial retirement); (2) resigns; or (3) is off the Texas A&M University payroll for more than one calendar year

unless on approved leave of absence. (Note: Individuals who accept full-time employment in another part of the System, provided that such persons

183

12.01.99.M2


Page 16 of 27

formally notify their department heads annually by March 1 of their desire to retain their tenured positions and their requests are approved by the appropriate administrators, may retain their tenured positions. If a request is denied, the individual will return to the tenured position formerly held or give up tenure.)

6.2 Dismissal of tenured faculty members: A faculty member with tenure shall not be

dismissed until he or she has received reasonable notice of the cause for dismissal. Dismissal shall occur only after an opportunity for a hearing, which shall comply with the established procedures in Section 9.

6.3 Good cause for dismissal of a faculty member with tenure shall be limited to the

following: 6.3.1 Moral turpitude or unprofessional conduct adversely affecting to a material

and substantial degree the performance of duties or the meeting of responsibilities to the institution, students, or associates.

6.3.2 Professional incompetence: (1) continuing or repeated substantial failure to perform essential job

functions; or (2) continuing or repeated substantial neglect of other professional

responsibilities that are related to the expectations of the person's position.

6.3.3 Failure to complete a post-tenure review professional development plan as

described in Texas A&M University's post-tenure review policy in that: (1) the professional development plan's goals were not met by the faculty

member, and (2) the deficiencies in the completion of this plan are of sufficient

magnitude to separately constitute good cause for dismissal under section 6.3.2.

6.3.4 Financial and educational: (1) a bona fide financial exigency; or (2) the reduction or discontinuance of institutional programs based on

educational considerations. 7. REDUCTION OR DISCONTINUANCE OF INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMS 7.1 Financial Exigency: 7.1.1 Definition of bona fide Financial Exigency: Bona fide financial exigency

means a pressing need to reorder the nature and magnitude of financial obligations in such a way as to restore or preserve the financial stability of Texas A&M University. A bona fide financial exigency may exist without

184

12.01.99.M2


Page 17 of 27

all parts of the University being affected. Financial stability means the ability of the University to provide from current income the funds necessary to meet current expenses, including current debt payments and sound reserves, without invading or depleting capital. Evidence of financial exigency may include but is not limited to declining enrollments, revenue cutbacks, and ongoing operating budget deficits.

7.1.2 Declaring Financial Exigency: When the President of Texas A&M University

believes that a state of bona fide financial exigency may exist in part or all of the University, the President shall consult with a representative group of faculty members chosen by the Faculty Senate, other appropriate faculty members, and administrators. The President has the responsibility to demonstrate bona fide financial exigency. Following these consultations, if the President believes that a state of financial exigency exists, the President shall inform the Chancellor of The Texas A&M University System. If the Chancellor concurs in this assessment, he or she shall inform the Board of Regents. If the Board of Regents finds that the conditions stated in Section 7.1.l exist, a state of bona fide financial exigency shall be deemed to exist at Texas A&M University.

7.1.3 When faculty dismissals are contemplated on grounds of financial exigency,

there shall be early, careful, and meaningful sharing of information and views with appropriate faculty representatives, including the Faculty Senate, on the emergency indicating the need to terminate or reduce programs. Recommendations from faculty representatives, including a group chosen by the Faculty Senate, shall be sought on alternatives available to Texas A&M University to ensure continuation of a strong academic program and to minimize the losses sustained by affected students and faculty members.

Judgments determining where within the overall academic program

termination of appointments may occur involve considerations of educational policy, including affirmative action, as well as of faculty status, and should therefore be the primary responsibility of the Faculty Senate or an appropriate faculty body designated by the Senate. The Faculty Senate or its designated representatives should also exercise a primary responsibility in the collective recommendation to the President of relevant criteria when appointments are to be terminated.

7.1.4 Cases involving bona fide financial exigency may permit exceptions to

tenure regulations as well as the suspension of the normal notification provisions outlined in Section 2.3.

7.2 The Reduction or Discontinuance of Institutional Programs not Mandated by

Financial Exigency: 7.2.1 Programs may be reduced or discontinued without a declaration of financial

exigency. 7.2.2 Such decisions shall reflect educational considerations based on long range

185

12.01.99.M2


Page 18 of 27

judgments. Those judgments shall be made in consultation with appropriate faculty representatives, including the Faculty Senate or its designated representatives, and reflect the view that the educational mission of the department or college affected or that of Texas A&M University will be enhanced by the reduction or discontinuance.

7.2.3 The decision to formally reduce or discontinue a program or department of

instruction will be based essentially upon educational considerations, as recommended to the President primarily by the Faculty Senate or its designated representatives.

8. GUIDELINES GOVERNING DISMISSALS RELATED TO THE REDUCTION OR

DISCONTINUANCE OF INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMS 8.1 All faculty who, on the basis of a bona fide financial exigency or the reduction or

discontinuance of an institutional program, are selected for termination in breach of their contract right shall be entitled to a hearing before the Committee on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure (CAFRT - see 9.5, 9.6, and 9.7). The faculty member must request of the President within 30 days of the receipt of the letter of dismissal a CAFRT hearing. The University shall adhere to the following procedures:

8.1.1 Hearings, if requested by the faculty member, must take place before a

faculty member is dismissed. 8.1.2 A faculty member being dismissed shall be furnished with a written

statement that: (1) indicates the basis for the initial decision to terminate; (2) describes how the initial decision was made; and (3) discloses the information and data upon which the decision makers

relied. 8.1.3 The faculty member shall have the opportunity to respond to the statement

provided by Texas A&M University. 8.1.4 Burden of Proof: 8.1.4.1 In Case of a Bona Fide Financial Exigency:

8.1.4.1.1The burden of proof rests with the faculty member to establish that the termination was based on an illegal reason, was arbitrary, or was capricious. If two or more faculty members are equally qualified and equally capable of performing their academic role, the faculty member or members having tenure shall be given preference over non-tenured faculty. If two or more tenured faculty members are equally qualified and capable, preference for retention shall be given to those with greater length of service at Texas

186

12.01.99.M2


Page 19 of 27

A&M University. 8.1.4.1.2 The University's decision will be overturned only if a

preponderance of the evidence indicates that the decision was based on an illegal reason or was arbitrary or capricious.

8.1.4.2 In cases of Reduction or Discontinuance of Institutional Programs not

Mandated by Financial Exigency:

8.1.4.2.1 The administration has the responsibility to demonstrate that educational considerations led to the decision to reduce or discontinue a program, except that an agreement by the Faculty Senate or its designated representatives, as cited in 7.2.2, that a program is to be discontinued will be considered a presumptively valid demonstration.

8.1.4.2.2 Once there has been such demonstration, the burden of

proof rests with the faculty member to establish that the termination was based on an illegal reason or was arbitrary or capricious.

8.1.4.2.3 The University's decision will be overturned only if: (1) the University fails to demonstrate that the decision

was based on educational considerations; or (2) a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the

decision was based on an illegal reason or was arbitrary or capricious.

8.2 Faculty members involved in adjustments in such emergency situations shall be

given opportunities for appointment in related areas, but only if (1) they are well qualified professionally to fill the appointment and can perform

the essential functions of the appointment; (2) such positions are available; and (3) the dean and department head for the new appointment concur.

Financial and other support to the extent possible will be offered to faculty dismissed due to a program discontinuation based on educational considerations if this would facilitate placement in an available position.

8.3 Notice of termination of the appointment of a tenured faculty member under this

provision shall be given in writing at least twelve months before the effective date of the termination.

8.3.1 Exceptions to this provision may occur in cases of financial exigency.

187

12.01.99.M2


Page 20 of 27

8.3.2 Any faculty member whose appointment is terminated because of financial exigency or educational considerations has the right to be reappointed to his or her previous position if it is reestablished within two calendar years.

9. PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR HEARINGS 9.1 Application of Procedures: These procedures shall apply to (1) Tenured Faculty

Dismissed for Cause; (2) Non-tenured Faculty Dismissed for Cause Prior to Expiration of Appointments; and (3) Non-tenured Faculty Whose Appointments Are Not Renewed.

9.1.1 Tenured Faculty Members Dismissed for Cause:

9.1.1.1 Before any formal notice of the intended dismissal of a tenured faculty member is issued, the department head must advise that faculty member in a personal conference that dismissal is being considered and the faculty member may request a hearing with the dean. Unless the stated cause for dismissal is sexual harassment (University Rule 34.01.99.M1) or scientific misconduct (University Rule 15.99.03.M1), any of these three parties may request mediation by the University Tenure Mediation Committee (UTMC).

9.1.1.2 A decision to dismiss a tenured faculty member must be based on

good cause (as defined in Section 6.3) and formal notice of the decision to dismiss shall be given in writing at least twelve (12) months before the effective date of the intended termination. This provision for advance notice need not apply if the conduct that justified dismissal involved moral turpitude.

9.1.1.3 Faculty members who receive written notice of dismissal and who

allege that the dismissal is not for good cause shall inform the President of Texas A&M University of such allegations in writing within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the notice of dismissal. The faculty member may request from the appropriate administrators a statement of the reasons for dismissal and a copy of all documents relevant to that decision, such as the dismissal file. Such materials shall be given to the faculty member within seven (7) working days of the initial request.

9.1.1.4 If the faculty member contests the stated reasons for dismissal and

requests a hearing by the Committee on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Tenure and Promotion (CAFRT), the faculty member shall so inform the President in writing within thirty (30) calendar days after receiving the statement of the reasons for dismissal and a copy of all documents relevant to that decision, if requested. A copy of the stated reasons for dismissal and the faculty member's request for a hearing shall be forwarded by the President to the CAFRT.

9.1.1.5 In the ensuing hearing, the burden of proving that the proposed

188




12.01.99.M2


Page 21 of 27

dismissal is for good cause shall rest with the institution. Findings of the CAFRT shall be limited to determining whether or not the decision to dismiss was for good cause. In addition, the CAFRT may make recommendations to the President regarding possible resolutions.

9.1.2 Non-tenured Faculty Members Dismissed for Cause Prior to Expiration of

Appointments: 9.1.2.1 A decision to dismiss a non-tenured faculty member for cause prior to the

expiration of an appointment shall be made consistent with 5.1 above, Rights of Non-Tenured Faculty Members. If non-tenured faculty members allege that they were dismissed prior to expiration of appointments in violation of such rights, such faculty members shall inform the President of such allegations in writing within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the notice of dismissal and may request from an appropriate administrator a statement of the reasons for dismissal and a copy of all documents relevant to that decision, such as the dismissal file. Such materials shall be given to the faculty member within seven (7) working days of the initial request.

9.1.2.2 A faculty member, if not satisfied by the stated reasons for dismissal, may

request that the decision be reviewed by the CAFRT. Such a request must be made in writing to the President within thirty (30) calendar days after the faculty member receives documentation of the reasons for dismissal and receives a copy of the dismissal file, if requested.

9.1.2.3 In the ensuing hearing, the burden of proving that the proposed dismissal is

for good cause shall rest with the institution. The findings of the CAFRT shall be limited to determining whether or not the decision to dismiss was for good cause. In addition, the CAFRT may make recommendations to the President regarding possible resolutions.

9.1.3 Non-tenured Faculty Members Whose Appointments Are Not Renewed Whether or

Not the Non Renewal is a Result of a Decision to not Grant Tenure: 9.1.3.1 None of the procedures described in 9.1.3.2, 9.1.3.3, 9.1.3.4, and 9.1.3.5

below shall apply to faculty members who were appointed to non-tenure track contracts only and were not reappointed.

9.1.3.2 A decision not to renew the tenure-track appointment of a non-tenured

faculty member shall be made consistent with 5.1 above. If non-tenured faculty members allege that their tenure-track appointment was not renewed in violation of 5.1, such faculty members shall inform the President of such allegations in writing within (thirty) 30 calendar days of receiving the notice of non-renewal. The faculty members may request from an appropriate administrator a statement of the reasons for non-renewal of the tenure-track appointment and a copy of all documents relevant to that decision, such as the tenure/promotion file or the reappointment file. Such materials shall be given to the faculty member within seven (7) working days of the initial

189

12.01.99.M2


Page 22 of 27

request. 9.1.3.3 The faculty member, if not satisfied by the stated reasons for the non-renewal

of the tenure-track appointment, may request that the matter be reviewed by the CAFRT. Such a request must be made in writing to the President within thirty (30) calendar days after the faculty member receives the documented reasons for non-renewal of the tenure-track appointment and receives a copy of the tenure/promotion file or the reappointment file, if requested.

9.1.3.4 Upon receiving a request from the faculty member for a review by the

CAFRT, the President will notify the Preliminary Screening Committee (see 9.3) of the request. The Committee chair shall schedule a meeting with the faculty member and shall notify the faculty member of the time and place. The Committee shall review the faculty member's allegations and hear any supporting statement that the faculty member wishes to make. The Committee shall then decide whether that information, standing alone and un-rebutted, would establish that a violation as described above in Section 5 may have occurred. If a majority of the Committee members reviewing the case finds that such a violation may have occurred, the Committee shall refer the matter to the CAFRT for a full hearing as provided in 9.4; otherwise, the matter shall not be given further consideration and the decision not to reappoint shall stand.

9.1.3.5 In the CAFRT hearing, the burden of proving a violation of the rights of non-

tenured faculty members shall rest with the faculty member. The findings of the CAFRT shall be limited to determining whether the decision not to renew the appointment was in violation of such rights. In addition, the CAFRT may make recommendations to the President regarding possible resolutions.

9.2 University Tenure Mediation Committee: 9.2.1 The University Tenure Mediation Committee (UTMC) is a standing

committee elected by the faculty. It consists of one faculty member elected from each of the Faculty Senate electoral units. These individuals are selected during the spring semester by a vote of the faculty in each of the Faculty Senate electoral units. They serve three-year terms that are arranged on a rotating basis so that one-third of the membership is replaced each year. Terms of new UTMC members begin September 1 each year.

9.2.2 The UTMC shall operate in an informal and flexible manner and attempt to

resolve cases in which the dismissal of a tenured faculty member is being considered. The UTMC may offer confidential advice to involved faculty members and promote modes of settlement which avoid formal hearings and litigation.

9.2.3 The negotiating efforts of the UTMC shall be completed within forty (40)

working days from the time its assistance is requested. However, at the request of the chair of the UTMC, if the faculty member and president agree, an extension will be granted. If the UTMC is not able to negotiate a

190

12.01.99.M2


Page 23 of 27

resolution, it shall report its recommendations and findings within twenty (20) working days after the completion of its negotiating efforts to the President and the faculty member. The parties involved may proceed then as indicated in 9.l.1 above.

9.3 The Preliminary Screening Committee: 9.3.1 The Preliminary Screening Committee shall be comprised of those members

of the CAFRT who have completed their term of service to the CAFRT during the previous academic year. The term of appointment to the Committee will be for one year. Thus, the members of the CAFRT who complete their service to the CAFRT on August 31 will be members of the Committee until August 31 of the following year. If there are fewer than four outgoing CAFRT members able to serve on the Committee, the President will appoint additional members to the Committee so that there are at least four, but no more than six, members. The members appointed by the President must be tenured teaching faculty members who have served on previous CAFRTs.

9.3.2 Each Committee member is subject to challenge for cause. The Committee

chair will rule on the validity of any challenge. (Note: Such challenges relate to the ability of a member to render an unbiased decision. The mere existence of friendships or other contacts between a Committee member and other individuals does not necessarily constitute bias.)

9.3.3 The Preliminary Screening Committee will elect its own chair and vice chair,

both of whom are voting members of the Committee. 9.3.4 At least three members are needed for a decision. Only those members who

have participated in the entire meeting may vote. 9.3.5 The Committee shall establish a time limit for the meeting on a particular

case (e.g., two hours) and may extend the time limit by majority vote of the committee during the meeting. During the meeting, the faculty member will present his/her allegations and supporting statements that a violation as described above in IV occurred. The faculty member may have legal counsel and/or other advisors present. Representatives of Texas A&M University (including an attorney from the Office of General Counsel) may attend the meeting as observers. At least two days before the scheduled meeting, the chair must be notified if anybody other than the affected faculty member will be attending the meeting.

9.3.6 The meeting shall be closed unless the affected faculty member requests that

it be open. 9.3.7 The findings of the Committee shall be forwarded to the chair of the CAFRT,

the President, and the affected faculty member within five working days of the meeting.

191

12.01.99.M2


Page 24 of 27

9.3.8 The Committee shall be self-governing and, within the provisions of this University statement, shall adopt such rules and procedures as it deems appropriate.

9.4 The Committee on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure: 9.4.1 The Committee on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure shall be

comprised of eighteen tenured faculty members. Members shall serve three-year terms arranged on a rotating basis so that one-third of the members are replaced each year. The committee shall be elected during the spring semester by the faculty at-large from a slate of nominees comprised of three tenured teaching faculty members selected by the Faculty Senate caucus in each Faculty Senate electoral unit. Each member of the faculty may vote for no more than the number of seats to be filled. Individuals receiving the most votes will normally become members of the committee; however, to avoid having more than four members of the committee from the same Faculty Senate electoral unit, those receiving fewer votes shall be selected. Terms of new CAFRT members begin September 1 each year.

9.4.2 Each committee member is subject to challenge for cause. The committee

chair will rule on the validity of any challenge. (Note: Such challenges relate to the ability of a member to render an unbiased decision. The mere existence of friendships or other contacts between a Committee member and other individuals does not necessarily constitute bias.)

9.4.3 The chair and vice chair of the CAFRT will be appointed from the faculty at-

large by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee. The chair and vice chair will be non-voting and each shall be appointed for a term of five (5) years. Their terms will be staggered whenever possible.

9.4.4 A Hearing Committee will consist of no less than seven voting CAFRT

members who are assigned by the chair or the vice chair of the CAFRT. It is preferable to start with nine voting members. An effort will be made to distribute participation on Hearing Committees when multiple cases are heard during an academic year. Only members of the panel who are present for the entire hearing may vote.

9.4.5 When circumstances warrant, the chair and vice-chair of the CAFRT, with

approval of the Hearing Committee, may appoint a student member (non-voting), to the committee.

9.4.6 The CAFRT shall be self-governing and within the provisions of this

University statement, shall adopt such rules and procedures as it deems appropriate, including rules regarding admissibility of evidence.

9.5 Hearing Procedures: 9.5.1 When a faculty member requests a hearing (in accord with 8.1, 9.1.1.4, or

9.1.2.2 above), or when the Preliminary Screening Committee recommends a

192

12.01.99.M2


Page 25 of 27

hearing for a non-tenured faculty member in accord with 9.1.3.4 above), the CAFRT Hearing Committee shall then set a time for the hearing that will allow the faculty member a reasonable time in which to prepare for the hearing and shall notify the faculty member of the time and place. The faculty member and the University administration shall exchange witness lists indicating the general nature of the testimony of each witness prior to the hearing at a time specified by the CAFRT Hearing Committee. Witnesses should be present at the hearing so that the faculty member, the university, and the panel may question them. In the event that the presence of a witness is not possible, a conference call may be established by prearrangement with and approval of the chair. The committee may accept written documentation, including statements and depositions, at its discretion. Witnesses may be added at a later date for good cause.

9.5.2 The President will designate the person who will serve as Texas A&M

University's representative at the hearing. Both the faculty member and the University administration shall have the right to be represented by legal counsel. Outside the hearing, either party may use legal counsel to assist in preparation of the record and to interview witnesses. Both the University administration and the faculty member shall have the right to call witnesses, to question all witnesses who testify orally, and to have a full stenographic record or an electronic recording of the proceedings, as determined by the CAFRT. Individual witnesses may be represented by legal counsel. Unless special circumstances warrant, it should not be necessary to follow the formal rules of court procedure.

9.5.3 Suspension of the faculty member during these proceedings is justified only

if the welfare of the faculty member or that of students, colleagues, or other institutional employees is threatened by his or her continuance or if the continued presence of the faculty member would materially and substantially disrupt the regular operations of the institution. Any such suspension shall be with pay and with appropriate provisions for useful duties whenever possible.

9.5.4 The CAFRT shall allow oral arguments and written briefs on behalf of the

President or his or her representative and by the faculty member or designated representative.

9.5.5 The hearing shall be closed unless the affected faculty member requests that

it be open. 9.5.6 Due process is understood as following a course of professional proceedings

consistent with the rules and principles generally recognized in the academic community. In general, the procedures in this document shall guide the CAFRT in its considerations of due process.

9.6 Findings and Recommendations: 9.6.1 The CAFRT Hearing Committee's findings and recommendations shall be

conveyed in writing to the President and the faculty member.

193

12.01.99.M2


Page 26 of 27

9.6.2 If the CAFRT Hearing Committee recommends against dismissal or non-reappointment and the President accepts that recommendation, the faculty member shall be reinstated and the hearing terminated.

9.6.3 If the faculty member's appointment is proposed to be terminated by the

President, the President shall transmit the full report of the Hearing Committee and his or her recommendation to the Chancellor of the System for his or her recommendation and transmittal to the Board Regents. If the recommendation of the President for termination conflicts with that of the committee, both recommendations shall be transmitted to the Chancellor of the System for recommendation and transmittal to the Board of Regents.

9.7 Governing Board: The Board of Regents shall review all recommendations

concerning tenured faculty members dismissed for cause and non-tenured faculty members dismissed prior to the expiration of appointments. If the recommendations of the President and the CAFRT Hearing Committee are in accord, the Board may choose to limit its review to the record of the hearing. Where conflict exists between the CAFRT Hearing Committee and the President, the Board should extend its review to include an opportunity for arguments by the principals or their representatives. The Board shall either sustain the decision of the hearing committee or return the matter to the hearing committee for consideration with appropriate instructions. In such case, the committee should promptly reconsider the case, taking into account the instructions of the Board and receiving new evidence if directed to do so by the Board. Upon reconsideration the hearing committee shall forward its reconsidered recommendation to the President and the Board. After review of the hearing committee's reconsideration, the Board shall render its own final written decision with a copy provided to each of the principals.

CLICK HERE TO SEE APPENDIX I OFFICE OF RESPONSIBILITY: Dean of Faculties

194

http://rules-saps.tamu.edu/forms/12.01.99.M2AppendixI.doc

http://www.tamu.edu/dof/

12.01.99.M2


195

Section 12

Annual and Midterm Review Guidelines

196


Last modified: March 5, 2013 1

GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL & MID-‐TERM REVIEW

These guidelines on annual and mid-‐term performance reviews for faculty are based upon requirements and guidelines found in University Rule 12.01.99.M2: Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Tenure and Promotion. They should be used in conjunction with college and department guidelines related to annual and mid-‐term reviews.

Note: For guidelines related to mandatory review in the penultimate year of service for the purpose of considering the candidate’s performance toward attaining tenure and promotion, please refer to the Tenure and Promotion Package Submission Guidelines for the current academic year.

College and Department Guidelines – Approval, Publication, and Distribution As stated in UR 12.01.99.M2, section 2.5.3, each department must have its own set of published guidelines describing their procedures for annual review, which have been reviewed and approved by the Dean of Faculties for consistency with University Rules and System Policies. Guidelines should be sent to the Dean of Faculties for subsequent review whenever there is a change to the procedures. The Office of the Dean of Faculties will maintain a file with copies of current guidelines (for annual & mid-‐term review, and for tenure and promotion) for each department. Colleges and departments are also responsible for ensuring that the guidelines for annual and mid-‐term review are distributed to faculty on a regular basis (every 2-‐3 years at minimum, or more frequently when there are changes to the guidelines). The following guidelines are to be used in conjunction with college and departmental guidelines & processes. Annual Review (for tenured and non-‐tenured faculty) All faculty members, whether tenured or not, must have an annual written review, for which the Department Head is responsible. This written report should contain specific feedback on the faculty member’s prospects for promotion or reappointment if performance continues at the current level. Faculty members in probationary periods should know as accurately as possible how well they are progressing toward tenure or promotion. Reviews will vary somewhat depending upon the rank of the individual and the stage of their career at the time of review.

§ Reviews for lecturers will focus on performance and potential for reappointment. § Reviews for other non tenure-‐track faculty (such as research or clinical faculty) will focus on

performance in areas aligned with what is stated in the faculty member’s appointment or reappointment letter.

§ Reviews for tenure-‐track faculty who have not yet achieved tenure will focus on performance relative to departmental norms and progress toward tenure and promotion.

§ Reviews for tenured associate professors will focus on performance relative to departmental norms and identifying the faculty member’s progress toward promotion to professor.

197



§ Reviews for tenured professors should focus on the goal of development, by clarifying

institutional goals, individual goals and programmatic directions, and by evaluating the contributions of the faculty member toward meeting those goals.

§ Reviews for all tenured faculty, irrespective of rank, should align with the department’s Post Tenure Review criteria which specifies that categories ranging from “most meritorious” to unsatisfactory must be assigned to each faculty member’s annual review. Whatever processes exist for annual reviews, the requirement for Post Tenure Review requires that no less than once every six years peers (internal or external is not specified) must be involved in the review.

(Note that reviews for tenured or tenure-‐track faculty will consider progress in a scholarly career as long-‐term venture; therefore, a 3-‐5 year horizon may be necessary for accurate evaluation.)

Other Information:

§ These reviews must be completed before merit raises may be recommended, and never later than June 15 of each year.

§ The focus of the annual review will vary, depending upon the rank of the individual. § Reviews should be conducted with reference to the criteria and expectations stated in

department and college guidelines, as well as any other written expectations for the faculty member, such as those in the faculty member’s appointment letter and/or annual notification of the terms and conditions of appointment.

§ Salary recommendations should be consistent with the performance evaluation. § The Department Head must provide the faculty member with a written statement regarding

progress and performance. The faculty member should acknowledge receipt of the written statement and be allowed to provide written comments for the file if they choose to do so.

§ The Department Head will provide the opportunity for a meeting with the faculty member to discuss his/her accomplishments, deficiencies, and goals for the next year.

§ When there is a change of Department Head, care should be taken not to disrupt continuity. It is expected, however, that performance criteria and college and department priorities may change over time. Faculty members must be kept informed of current expectations.

You may refer to University Rule 12.01.99.M2: Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, Tenure and Promotion, Section 2.5, for more information on annual review.

198



Mid-‐Term Review The mid-‐term review is intended to provide a formative review of tenure-‐track faculty members near the mid-‐point of their probationary period. The mid-‐term review should result in an independent evaluation of the faculty member’s accomplishments to date and constructive guidance for the remainder of the probationary period. The mid-‐term review should be similar to the tenure/promotion review process, including the submission of dossier materials. However, no outside letters are sought. These are often referred to as “3rd year reviews” because many tenure-‐track faculty are hired with a 7 year probationary period (see chart in the “Probationary Period” section), therefore the mid-‐term review occurs in the third year. Tenure track faculty hired with a probationary period of 7 years are required (by University Rule 12.01.99.M2) to have a mid-‐term review. Tenure track faculty with a probationary period of between 4 and 6 years are encouraged to have a mid-‐term review. Items considered during the mid-‐term review should include those contributed by the candidate as well as internal letters of recommendation. Departmental and College-‐level committees should review the materials.

Note: It is not necessary to conduct an independent annual review for a faculty member in the year that their mid-‐term review is taking place. (The mid-‐term review can count as the annual review for that year.) However, each department has the option of conducting its annual review as a separate process from the mid-‐term review. The college and department guidelines should be clear about the manner in which annual review is handled during the mid-‐term review year.

The mid-‐term review package goes only to the Dean’s level (it is not forwarded to the Provost, President, Chancellor or Board of Regents). Timing of Mid-‐Term reviews is shown in the table in the next section (entitled, “The ‘Tenure Clock’”). The review should not begin before March of the academic year prior to the target academic year, and should be completed before December of the target year. Example: If the mid-‐term review is due during the 2008-‐09 academic year, it may occur anytime between March 2008 and December 2008. Non Reappointment Since the probationary period consists of a series of one-‐year contracts, a decision not to reappoint an individual who is on probation can be made any time up to the year of the mandatory review. Non-‐reappointment should be considered if performance is unsatisfactory to the point that it is clearly unlikely the person will qualify for tenure, as neither party benefits from prolonging an unsatisfactory situation. Such a decision is made, of course, with great care and only in compelling circumstances. Please note that notification of non-‐renewal may be made in spite of a prior decision to extend the probationary period. However, once notification of non-‐renewal is made, no probationary period extension may be requested.

199



University Rule 12.01.99.M2 explains the following notification requirements: 1 Rank of Faculty Member Status of Faculty

Member Notification of non-‐reappointment must occur:

Tenure-‐Track Faculty In the First year of Tenure Track service

No later than March 1 of the first year of academic service, if the appoint-‐ment expires at the end of that year

Tenure-‐Track Faculty Second year of TT service

No later than December 15 of the second year, if the appointment expires at the end of that year

Tenure Track Faculty Two or more years of service & beyond

12 months prior to the expiration of a probationary appointment

Distinguished Professor or Senior Lecturer n/a 12 months in advance of termination

Lecturer Has 5 years of accumulated full-‐time service (at a non-‐research faculty rank other than Assistant Lecturer) within the past seven years, excluding summers

12 months in advance of termination

Assistant Lecturers, Lecturers with fewer than 5 years accumulated full-‐time service, and other non tenured / non tenure-‐track faculty

n/a

As soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after the Board of Regents approves the budget

The “Tenure Clock” (Timing of Mid-‐Term & Tenure Reviews) Any individual hired for a tenure-‐track position will be required to submit materials for review during the academic year prior to the end of their probationary period, the mandatory review year. The exact timing of this depends upon the length of the probationary period (see chart below). The start of a tenure-‐track faculty member’s mandatory consideration year (academic year) can be calculated as follows: Calendar year hired + Probationary period – 2 years = First year of Tenure Consideration Period Example 1: For a faculty member hired any time in calendar year 2008 on seven year probation:

‘08 + 7 – 2 = 2013/14 is the mandatory year 1 Note that these do not include issues of termination prior to the end of an appointment or the revoking of tenure.

200



Example 2-‐-‐For a faculty member hired in 2006:

If probationary period is:

Mid-‐Term Review will occur between:

Mandatory Tenure Review 2 (at all levels) will occur:

7 years March -‐ Dec 2009 (due 09/10) 2011/12

6 years March – Dec 2009 (due 09/10) 2010/11

5 years March – Dec 2008 (due 08/09) 2009/10

4 years March – Dec 2007 (but usually not done) 2008/09

Extensions to the Probationary Period Extensions to the probationary period may be granted upon petition by the faculty member, recommendation by the Department Head and Dean, and approval by the Dean of Faculties. Extensions are usually for one year, but a longer period may be requested in compelling circumstances. Any extension greater than one year must be approved by the Provost. A faculty member may petition for an extension in the following cases:

§ The faculty member is taking leave without pay, or a reduction in service to 50% time for a semester or academic year, provided the leave is not taken solely for the purpose of pursuing activities that will enhance the faculty member’s qualifications for tenure and promotion.

§ The faculty member has encountered circumstances that may seriously impede progress

toward demonstration qualification for the award of tenure and promotion. Such circumstances might include (but are not limited to):

Ø serious illness or injury Ø having responsibility for the primary care of an infant or small child Ø having responsibility for the primary care of a close relative who is disabled, elderly or

seriously ill Ø any serious disruption of the probationary period for unexpected reasons beyond the

faculty member’s control. The above guidelines for extension were developed by the Faculty Senate and approved by the President of the University. Reconsideration in the Terminal Year 2 The Tenure and Promotion Package Submission Guidelines (a separate document) will provide detailed procedures for the Mandatory (penultimate year) review, which is a required, thorough review in the penultimate year of probationary service. Conducting the review earlier is often appropriate, and encouraged. (If an early review does not result in a favorable decision for promotion and tenure, a review is conducted again at the mandatory time.) Although the Department Head should initiate the mandatory review process, if they do not, any faculty member who is in their next-‐to-‐last year of probationary service should notify the Department Head that the year for a tenure judgment has been reached. This communication should be made in writing in order to avoid any misunderstanding of the matter by any party.

201



In exceptional circumstances, a person considered for tenure in the mandatory year who is not successful may be reconsidered in the terminal year, at the discretion of the department and with the agreement of the Dean and the Provost that reconsideration seems appropriate. The sole ground on which a department may propose making such an exception to general practice is that the case has substantially changed since the mandatory consideration. The Dean of Faculties will discuss procedures should such a case arise. Reconsideration does not entail an additional terminal year.

Questions?

Contact: Michael Benedik, Dean of Faculties and Associate Provost or

Blanca Lupiani, Associate Dean of Faculties

979-‐845-‐4274

[email protected]

202

dossier preparation guidelinesaglifesciences.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/dossier... · list...

Documents