MICHIGAN
TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY The Senate of Michigan Technological University
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(version of 23 Mar 95)
PROPOSAL 31-95
Upon adoption by the Senate, Proposal 31-95 will be
forwarded to the Committee on Academic Tenure for a
vote of the faculty. After approval by the faculty,
Proposal 31-95 will then be submitted to the Provost,
President, and Board of Control for their approvals.
This sequence follows the current Board of Control
approved Tenure policy.
(Voting Units: Academic Degree-Granting Departments)
TENURE, PROMOTION, AND REAPPOINTMENT
A well-designed tenure and promotion system attracts capable and highly
qualified faculty, strengthens the University by enhancing faculty
members' institutional loyalty, and encourages academic excellence by
retaining and rewarding the most able scholars and researchers. However,
tenure and promotion imply selectivity and choice; they are awarded for
academic and professional merit, not merely for longevity.
The tenure and promotion policies of the University should also
contribute to academic excellence. An equitable and widely-understood
reappointment, tenure and promotion system ensures that considerations of
academic quality will be the basis for academic personnel decisions.
A formal statement of criteria for reappointment, tenure, and promotion
is necessary, but not sufficient, for the task. The wide variety of
academic and professional fields, and the broad range of programs within
the University, make the development of detailed criteria that are
equally applicable to all fields an unsuccessful effort. Rather, general
and broad guidelines will permit the exercise of skilled professional and
academic judgement.
Tenure, promotion, and reappointment procedures must be open, within
considerations of individual privacy, and equitable. The general policies
and procedures to be used should be widely known within departments,
schools, and colleges. Regular review of faculty members will help to
ensure openness of tenure and promotion processes and will provide
feedback crucial to faculty development and growth.
All persons involved in the Tenure, Promotion, or Reappointment processes
shall be attentive to professional ethics and individual rights to
privacy.
Faculty members have a primary responsibility in providing the
evaluations of merit that normally determine decisions about academic
tenure, promotion, and reappointment. This responsibility involves the
application of academic and professional judgement, in a framework of
shared authority, among various levels of review and between faculty and
administrative bodies. Departmental reviews should carry significant
weight in all tenure and promotion decisions.
Administrators have a primary responsibility in making sure that
statements of tenure, promotion and reappointment procedures are provided
to all faculty members. All tenure-track faculty members at MTU are to
receive, at the time of their initial tenure-track appointment, a
statement of the policies and procedures under which they will be
considered for tenure. The procedures for tenure, promotion, and
reappointment consideration shall change only in accordance with the
revision process set forth in this policy. (See Section 7.0, "Revisions
and Amendments".)
Changes to tenure, promotion and reappointment procedures require an
approving vote of the tenured and tenure-track faculty. However, it is
likely that the standards for granting of tenure, for reappointment, and
for promotion will differ between academic units. Also, the standards
for tenure, promotion or reappointment may change with time. Within an
academic unit, the standards applied shall be consistent for
contemporaneous cases, except for cases involving early granting of
tenure. (See Section 3.6, "Early Tenure".) Standards for early tenure may
be higher than for tenure in the mandatory year.
A faculty member holding the academic rank of Assistant Professor,
Associate Professor or Professor, and with an appointment of fifty per
cent of full-time or greater, must be either tenured or on tenure-track
and subject to the Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment Procedures.
1.0 Responsibilities of the Academic Unit
Each academic unit defines its internal procedures for formulating
tenure, promotion, and reappointment recommendations. Such procedures are
part of the academic unit's charter and must be consistent with the
policies and procedures of the University.
Each academic unit's procedures must, at a minimum, address the following
issues:
i. A personnel committee responsible for tenure, promotion and
reappointment recommendations. Each academic unit must have a single
committee for consideration of all three decisions (reappointment,
promotion, and tenure).
ii. The membership of the personnel committee. The eligibility, terms of
office, method of selection, and number of members must be defined.
Only tenured faculty members are eligible to serve on the
committee.
iii. The role of the academic unit's chair (dean) and faculty in the
recommendation process. The chair/dean may serve in an ex officio
capacity, but may not have a vote on the committee. The role of the
unit's faculty must be identified for all reappointment, promotion,
and tenure decisions.
iv. The criteria for recommendations. Each academic unit's procedures
must identify the operative factors in the tenure, promotion and
reappointment processes. The factors must include instructional
quality, contributions to the MTU educational mission, independent
research and other scholarly activities, professional service (both
internal and external to the University) and other activities
consistent with the University mission. Normally, the procedures
will not state expected levels of performance, but only what
accomplishments in each category will be considered in formulating
recommendations. Within an academic unit, consistency is expected in
the application of the criteria.
v. Letters of Appointment. Letters of appointment address issues such
as particular duties and criteria for performance, start dates in
title, etc. Letters of appointment shall be consistent with academic
unit charters and with University policies and procedures concerning
tenure, promotion and reappointment. In cases where letters of
appointment are inconsistent with academic unit procedures and/or
University procedures, academic unit and University procedures
override.
vi. External evaluations. For cases involving tenure and/or promotion,
academic units are expected to use evaluations solicited from
scholars external to the University. (Such evaluations would not
normally be obtained for reappointment decisions, excepting those
involving the granting of tenure.) The academic unit's procedures
must identify whether any or all such evaluations must be included
in a candidate's file. The manner of selection of any reviewers must
be defined.
vii. Annual Progress Evaluations. It is essential that all probationary
faculty receive frequent and frank assessments of their progress
toward tenure. Each non-tenured, tenure-track faculty member must
receive, at least annually, a written, private evaluation of their
progress toward tenure. Although this evaluation may be based, in
part, on an assessment by the personnel committee, it is the
responsibility of the chair or dean of the candidate's principle
academic unit to provide this written evaluation. The faculty member
acknowledges receipt of a copy of the evaluation by signing and
dating the original. The acknowledgment should not indicate or
suggest agreement with the evaluation. Each academic unit determines
its own internal procedures for administering the annual progress
evaluations.
2.0 Reappointment
"Reappointment" is the offer of a new contract (other than a
terminal-year contract) to a current, non-tenured, tenure-track faculty
member during the tenure probationary period.
Reviews of tenure-track faculty members who are within the probationary
period are mandatory prior to a decision on reappointment. Such reviews
may be performed without consideration for the granting of tenure only
prior to the conclusion of the fourth year of the probationary period. If
reappointed after the fourth year, a faculty member must receive a full
tenure review in the mandatory year (i.e., the sixth year for a faculty
member whose original appointment was at the rank of Assistant
Professor). This does not preclude consideration for tenure prior to the
mandatory year. (See 3.6 "Early Tenure")
Within the probationary period, reappointment is based on individual
performance, as defined by the academic unit. Offers of reappointment may
be constrained by financial exigencies of the University.
2.1 Timetable
Initial probationary appointments are for two academic years. In the case
of an appointment which commences after the beginning of the Fall
Quarter, but prior to the beginning of the Winter Quarter, the initial
appointment period extends through the end of the following academic
year. Appointments which begin after the start of Winter Quarter will
extend through the second academic year following the starting date.
Normally, successive appointment renewals, up to the mandatory time for
tenure consideration, are for two academic years, except in the case of
terminal, one-year appointments.
Although a department review is mandatory prior to a reappointment
decision (i.e., in the second and fourth years of the probationary
period), additional departmental reviews in the first and third years are
permitted. The result of such a review may be the notification that the
following year will be the faculty member's terminal year.
2.2 Review by the Academic Unit
Consideration for reappointment begins with a peer review which focuses
on professional and scholarly judgements of the candidate's academic
work. That review is performed by a personnel committee of the academic
unit where the candidate's principal academic appointment resides (i.e.,
the department or school where the candidate holds an appointment of more
than 50% of full-time). The committee sends its evaluation of the
candidate to the chair or dean of the academic unit, who prepares a
recommendation on reappointment of the candidate.
2.2.1 College of Sciences and Arts, College of Engineering
The department personnel committee's recommendation and the
department chair's recommendation go to the dean of the college. The
dean formulates a separate recommendation on reappointment and sends
it, along with the department committee's and chair's
recommendations, to the Provost.
In cases where the dean's recommendation is against a full two-year
reappointment, the dean will, upon the request of the candidate,
provide the reason(s) for the negative recommendation.
2.2.2 School of Business and Engineering Administration, School of
Technology, School of Forestry and Wood Products
The school committee's recommendation and the dean's recommendation
on reappointment go to the Provost.
In cases where the dean's recommendation is against a full two-year
reappointment, the dean will, upon the request of the candidate,
provide the reason(s) for the negative recommendation.
2.3 Administrative Review
Following receipt of the dean's recommendation on reappointment, the
Provost will recommend to the Board of Control either (i) a one-year
(terminal) appointment, or (ii) a two-year reappointment.
In the event of a negative decision (i.e., recommendation of a
terminal-year appointment), the Provost will promptly notify the
candidate and advise him/her of the rights of appeal.
3.0 Tenure
Tenure is a status granted to a faculty member after a probationary
period and appropriate review. The status of being tenured is one form of
protection from summary dismissal. In addition, tenure is designed to
protect those rights associated with academic freedom. A tenured faculty
member may be discharged or suspended from employment or diminished in
rank only for reasons of gross incompetence, neglect of duty or
misconduct of such a nature as to indicate the individual is unfit to
continue as a member of faculty.
In an academic community, tenure should serve to safeguard the right of
free expression and risk-taking inquiry. Both tenure and academic freedom
are bound to an implicit social compact which recognizes they serve
important purposes and provide fundamental benefits to society. Hence,
the ultimate justification for tenure rests on the bedrock of its social
utility.
Primary responsibility for evaluation of the academic qualifications of
candidates for tenure rests with the faculty. There are three sequential
levels of review for cases involving tenure decisions: review by the
academic unit (department or school), review by the college promotion and
tenure committee and dean or by the Inter-school Promotion and Tenure
Committee and dean, and administrative review (Provost and President).
Tenure is granted only by the Board of Control.
It is the responsibility of participants at each level of review to
exercise careful professional judgement of the accomplishments and
productivity of each candidate. All levels of review shall be concerned
in some measure with both substance (e.g., teaching, scholarship,
service) and procedure (consistency, adequacy, and equity).
A faculty member must be either a citizen or a permanent resident of the
United States to be eligible for tenure.
3.1 Tenure Probationary Periods/Mandatory Tenure Review
The tenure probationary period for a faculty member initially appointed
at the rank of Assistant Professor is six years, unless it is extended
according to Sec. 3.1.1 of this policy. A faculty member whose initial
appointment is at the rank of Assistant Professor and who is reappointed
after six years of service receives tenure automatically, unless notified
by the chair or dean of the academic unit prior to May 31 of the sixth
academic year that the following year will be the terminal year, or
unless the tenure probationary period has been extended under the
provisions in Sec. 3.1.1, "Extension of the probationary period".
The tenure probationary period for a faculty member initially appointed
at the rank of Associate Professor is four years, unless it is extended
according to Sec. 3.1.1 of this policy. A faculty member whose initial
appointment is at the rank of Associate Professor and who is reappointed
after four years of service receives tenure automatically, unless
notified by the chair or dean of the academic unit prior to May 31 of the
fourth academic year that the following year will be the terminal year,
or unless the tenure probationary period has been extended under the
provisions in Sec. 3.1.1, "Extension of the probationary period".
The tenure probationary period for a faculty member initially appointed
at the rank of Professor is two years, unless it is extended according to
Sec. 3.1.1 of this policy. A faculty member whose initial appointment is
at the rank of Professor and who is reappointed after two years of
service receives tenure automatically, unless notified by the chair or
dean of the academic unit prior to May 31 of the second academic year
that the following year will be the terminal year, or unless the tenure
probationary period has been extended under the provisions in Sec. 3.1.1,
"Extension of the probationary period".
For purposes of these tenure policies, periods of continuous appointment
as a tenurable faculty member are included in the total period of service
for the tenure probationary period. This generally includes unpaid
periods such as summer quarters and certain leaves of absence within
otherwise continuous employment and service. Periods of service under
non-tenure track appointments and periods of service at other
institutions are excluded for the probationary period.
The tenure probationary period for faculty whose initial tenure-track
appointment commences before the beginning of the Winter Quarter is
considered to start from the beginning of the preceding Fall Quarter. The
tenure probationary period for a faculty member whose initial
tenure-track appointment commences after the beginning of Winter Quarter
starts at the beginning of the following Fall Quarter.
A faculty member who is in the final year of his/her tenure probationary
period is to receive a complete tenure review, encompassing reviews at
the levels of the academic unit, college or inter-school, and
administration. This does not preclude consideration for tenure prior to
the final year of the tenure probationary period (see 3.6 "Early
Tenure").
3.1.1 Extension of the probationary period
Exceptional circumstances may sometimes effect a prolonged
disruption of professional responsibilities during the tenure
probationary period, requiring extensive sick leave, unpaid leave,
or substantial formal reduction of professional responsibilities. A
faculty member encountering such circumstances may request a
one-year extension of the tenure probationary period. The Committee
on Academic Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment considers all such
requests. The Committee's decision cannot be appealed.
This request should be made during or immediately following the
period of exceptional circumstances, and in no case after November
15 of the final year of the tenure probationary period. It should be
accompanied by a recommendation from the cognizant department chair
and the dean of the college, or from the dean of the cognizant
school, and should clearly demonstrate the following:
1. The exceptional circumstances requiring the extension were such
that normal conduct of professional responsibilities could not
reasonably be expected; and
2. Exclusive of the period of exceptional circumstances, the
faculty member had made substantial progress toward achieving
tenure.
3.2 Promotion at Time of Tenure
Granting of tenure at the Assistant Professor level carries with it
promotion to the rank of Associate Professor. At the Associate Professor
level, tenure may or may not be coincident with promotion to the rank of
Professor.
3.3 Review by the Academic Unit
For cases of tenure consideration occurring in the mandatory year, an
initial review must focus on professional and scholarly judgements of the
candidate's academic work. That review is performed by the personnel
committee of the academic unit where the candidate's principal academic
appointment resides (i.e., the department or school where the candidate
holds an appointment of at least fifty per cent of full-time). The
personnel committee sends its completed review to the chair or dean of
the academic unit, who prepares a separate appraisal of the candidate's
qualifications for tenure. However, the chair (dean) may not alter the
committee's review in any manner. Both the committee's review and the
chair's (dean's) appraisal are to be transmitted unchanged to the
corresponding college promotion and tenure committee or the Inter-school
Promotion and Tenure Committee.
For cases involving early tenure (i.e., consideration prior to the
mandatory year), the review process is the same as in the mandatory year,
except when the personnel committee of the candidate's academic unit
chooses not to advance the file. (See 3.6, "Early Tenure")
A candidate who does not hold an appointment of at least fifty per cent
of full-time in any one department or school must have it specified, at
the time of initial tenure-track appointment to the MTU faculty, the
academic unit which will consider the tenure application(s). Under no
circumstances will an individual be considered, either simultaneously or
sequentially, for tenure by more than one academic unit.
3.4 Review by the College or by the Inter-school Committee
Reviews at the college or inter-school level and at the administrative
level bring broader faculty judgements to bear and will monitor general
standards of quality, equity, and adequacy of procedures used.
Consultation among review levels, by committees and academic
administrators, should take place when there is a need to clarify
differences that arise during the review process.
3.4.1 College of Sciences & Arts, College of Engineering committees
Within each college, each department selects one representative to
serve as a member of the respective college promotion and tenure
committee. Each department establishes the procedure for selecting
its representative. All members of the college promotion and tenure
committee must hold tenure.
3.4.2 Inter-school committee
Each school (i.e., School of Forestry and Wood Products, School of
Business and Engineering Administration, School of Technology)
selects two representatives to serve as members of the Inter-school
Promotion and Tenure Committee. Each school establishes the
procedure for selecting its representatives. All members of the
Inter-school Promotion and Tenure Committee shall hold tenure.
3.5 Review Sequence - Tenure Recommendations
3.5.1 College of Sciences & Arts, College of Engineering:
3.5.1.1 Departmental review. Recommendations on tenure come
from the departmental personnel committee. The committee
formulates a recommendation regarding the granting of tenure
for each faculty member in the department who is in a mandatory
tenure review year. The personnel committee may also consider
tenure recommendations for candidates prior to their mandatory
tenure review year. (See 3.6 "Early Tenure") The personnel
committee's recommendation is to be delivered to the department
chair no later than February 1. The chair will then make a
separate, written recommendation for each case and deliver it,
along with the department tenure committee's intact
recommendation, to the college promotion and tenure committee
no later than February 15. Both the department personnel
committee recommendation and the chair's recommendation become
part of the candidate's tenure application file.
3.5.1.2 College review. The college promotion and tenure
committee considers all tenure applications submitted by the
departments and develops recommendations on each. The promotion
and tenure committee recommendation on each tenure application
is added to the candidate's tenure application file and
forwarded to the dean of the college no later than March 15.
The dean will formulate a separate statement on each case, to
be presented to the Provost no later than April 1. In
formulating a recommendation, the dean may seek advisory input.
Such advisory input does not become part of the candidate's
record and is not included in the candidate's tenure
application file.
The responsibility for the recommendation from the college
rests with the dean. The recommendation is to be based solely
on the candidate's record, as presented in the tenure
application file.
The dean's statement must clearly state whether the granting of
tenure to the candidate is recommended. Simultaneously, the
dean is to inform the candidate, in writing, of the substance
of the statement sent to the Provost (i.e., whether the
granting of tenure was recommended). In cases where the
recommendation is against the granting of tenure, the dean
will, upon the request of the candidate, provide the reason(s)
for the negative recommendation.
3.5.1.3 Administrative review. The candidate's tenure
application file, including the dean's recommendation
statement, is transmitted to the Provost no later than April 1.
The Provost examines the tenure application file for adequacy
and consistency of review, and determines whether a
recommendation for granting of tenure will be presented to the
President, who will make a subsequent recommendation to the
Board of Control.
The Provost will promptly notify the candidate whether a
recommendation for granting of tenure will be forwarded to the
Board of Control. In the event of a negative decision (i.e., no
recommendation for tenure), the Provost will also advise the
candidate of his/her rights of appeal.
3.5.2 School of Business and Engineering Administration, School of
Technology, School of Forestry and Wood Products
3.5.2.1 School Review. Recommendations on tenure come from
the school personnel committee. The committee formulates a
recommendation regarding the granting of tenure for each
faculty member in the school who is in a mandatory tenure
review year. The personnel committee may also consider tenure
recommendations for candidates prior to their mandatory tenure
review year. (See 3.6 "Early Tenure")
The candidate's tenure application file is then transmitted to
the dean of the school for completion, after which the
completed file is sent without comment to the inter-school
tenure committee no later than February 15.
3.5.2.2 Inter-school Committee Review. The Inter-school
Promotion and Tenure committee considers all tenure
applications submitted by each of the schools and develops a
recommendation on each case. The Inter-school Promotion and
Tenure committee recommendation on each tenure application is
added to the candidate's tenure application file and forwarded
to the dean of the cognizant school no later than March 15.
3.5.2.3 Dean's Recommendation. The dean formulates a separate
statement on each tenure application from the school. The
statement is added to the candidate's tenure application file
and presented to the Provost no later than April 1. In
formulating a recommendation, the dean may seek advisory input.
Such advisory input does not become part of the candidate's
record and is not included in the candidate's tenure
application file.
The responsibility for the recommendation from the college
rests with the dean. The recommendation is to be based solely
on the candidate's record, as presented in the tenure
application file.
The dean's recommendation statement must clearly state whether
the granting of tenure to the candidate is recommended.
Simultaneously, the dean must inform the candidate, in writing,
of the substance of the recommendation statement sent to the
Provost (i.e., whether the granting of tenure was recommended).
In cases where the recommendation is against the granting of
tenure, the dean will, upon request, provide the candidate with
the reason(s) for the negative recommendation.
3.5.2.4 Administrative review. The candidate's tenure
application file, including the dean's recommendation
statement, is transmitted to the Provost no later than April 1.
The Provost examines the tenure application file for adequacy
and consistency of review, and determines whether a
recommendation for granting of tenure will be presented to the
Board of Control.
The Provost will promptly notify the candidate whether a
recommendation for granting of tenure will be forwarded to the
President, who will make a subsequent recommendation to the
Board of Control. In the event of a negative decision (i.e., no
recommendation for tenure), the Provost will also advise the
candidate of his/her rights of appeal.
3.6 Early Tenure
A faculty member may be considered for tenure prior to the mandatory
year. Consideration for early tenure will require an exemplary record of
accomplishments. In early tenure cases, the University does not have the
normal amount of time for assessing a candidate's qualifications. Thus,
standards for early tenure cases may be higher than those used in the
mandatory year.
The following procedures are used for early tenure cases:
> The candidate begins the early tenure process by submitting the
appropriate tenure documents to the personnel committee of his/her
academic unit.
> To be considered for tenure prior to the mandatory year, a candidate
must receive a 2/3 approval vote from the entire personnel committee
of his/her academic unit.
> The personnel committee forwards a positive recommendation to the
chair or dean of the academic unit. A negative recommendation is
returned to the faculty member and no further action or appeal is
possible during that academic year.
> A negative decision by the department personnel committee (i.e.,
less than a 2/3 approval vote) is final and cannot be appealed.
> Once a candidate has been approved by the department personnel
committee, the process, including appeals, is exactly the same as it
is in the mandatory year.
A faculty member is not limited in the number of times he or she may be
considered for early tenure by the academic unit's personnel committee.
However, beyond the departmental or school personnel committee, a faculty
member may go through the early tenure process at most once. Thus, a
faculty member will receive full tenure consideration (beyond the
department or school level) at most twice: once prior to the mandatory
year and once during the mandatory year. (Exception: See 5.3, "Powers of
the Committee on Academic Tenure, Promotion, and Re-appointment.")
4.0 Promotion
Academic promotion refers to an elevation in academic rank, either from
Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, or from Associate Professor
to Professor. Academic promotion may or may not be simultaneous with the
granting of tenure. (Exception: See 3.2 "Promotion at Time of Tenure")
Academic promotion coincident with the granting of tenure (i.e., from
Assistant Professor without Tenure to the rank of Associate Professor
with Tenure, or from Associate Professor without Tenure to the rank of
Professor with Tenure) is considered under the procedures in Sec. 3.0
"Tenure". Other cases of academic promotion (i.e., from Assistant
Professor without Tenure to Associate Professor without Tenure, or from
Associate Professor with Tenure to Professor with Tenure) are considered
under the procedures in this section.
Primary responsibility for evaluation of the academic qualifications of
candidates for promotion rests with the faculty. There are three
sequential levels: review by the academic unit (department or school),
review by the college promotion and tenure committee and dean or by the
Inter-school Promotion and Tenure Committee and dean, and administrative
review (Provost and President). Academic promotion may be conferred only
by the Board of Control.
It is the responsibility of participants at each level of review to
exercise careful professional judgement of the accomplishments and
productivity of each candidate. All levels of review shall be concerned
in some measure with both substance (e.g., teaching, scholarship,
service) and procedure (consistency, adequacy and equity).
4.1 Review by the Academic Unit
Peer review focuses on professional and scholarly judgements of the
candidate's academic work. That review is performed by the personnel
committee of the academic unit where the candidate's principal academic
appointment resides (i.e., the department or school where the candidate
holds an appointment of more than 50% of full-time). The personnel
committee sends its completed review to the chair or dean of the academic
unit, who prepares a separate appraisal of the candidate's qualifications
for promotion. However, the chair (dean) may not alter the committee's
review in any manner. Both the personnel committee's review and the
chair's (dean's) appraisal are to be transmitted unchanged to the
corresponding college promotion and tenure committee or to the
Inter-school Promotion and Tenure Committee.
4.2 Review by the College or by the Inter-school Committee
Reviews at the college or inter-school level and at the administrative
level bring broader faculty judgements to bear and will monitor general
standards of quality, equity and adequacy of procedures used.
Consultation among review levels, by committees and academic
administrators, should take place when there is a need to clarify
differences that arise during the review process.
4.3 Review Sequence - Promotion Recommendations
4.3.1 College of Sciences & Arts, College of Engineering
4.3.1.1 Departmental review. Recommendations on promotion come
from the department personnel committee. The committee
formulates a recommendation regarding promotion for each
faculty member requesting such consideration.
The personnel committee's recommendation is to be delivered to
the department chair no later than February 1. The chair will
then make a separate, written recommendation for each case and
deliver it, along with the department committee's intact
recommendation, to the college promotion and tenure committee
no later than February 15. Both the department personnel
committee recommendation and the chair's recommendation become
part of the candidate's promotion application file.
4.3.1.2 College review. The college promotion and tenure
committee considers all promotion applications submitted by the
departments and develops a recommendation on each. The
committee recommendation is added to the applicant's promotion
application file and forwarded to the dean of the college no
later than March 15. The dean will formulate a separate
recommendation statement on each case, to be presented to the
Provost no later than April 1. In formulating his
recommendation, the dean may seek advisory input. Such advisory
input does not become part of the candidate's record and is not
included in the candidate's promotion application file.
The responsibility for the recommendation from the college
rests with the dean. The recommendation is to be based solely
on the candidate's record, as presented in the promotion
application file.
The dean's recommendation statement must clearly state whether
promotion of the candidate is recommended. Simultaneously, the
dean is to inform the candidate, in writing, of the substance
of the recommendation statement sent to the Provost (i.e.,
whether promotion is recommended). In cases where the
recommendation is against promotion, the dean will, upon
request, provide the candidate with the reason(s) for the
negative recommendation.
4.3.1.3 Administrative Review. The candidate's promotion
application file, including the dean's recommendation
statement, is transmitted to the Provost no later than April 1.
The Provost examines the tenure application file for adequacy
and consistency of review, and determines whether a
recommendation for promotion will be presented to the
President, who will make a subsequent recommendation to the
Board of Control.
The Provost will promptly notify the candidate whether a
recommendation for promotion will be forwarded to the Board of
Control. In the event of a negative decision (i.e., no
recommendation for promotion), the Provost will also advise the
candidate of his/her rights of appeal.
4.3.2 School of Business and Engineering Administration, School of
Technology, School of Forestry and Wood Products
4.3.2.1 School Review. Recommendations on promotion come from
the school personnel committee. The committee formulates a
recommendation regarding the promotion of each faculty member
requesting consideration. That recommendation becomes part of
the candidate's promotion application file.
The candidate's promotion application file is then be
transmitted to the Dean of the school for completion, after
which the completed file is sent without comment to the
Inter-school Promotion and Tenure Committee.
4.3.2.2 Inter-school Committee Review. The Inter-school
Promotion and Tenure Committee develops a recommendation on
each promotion application submitted by each school. The
Committee recommendation is added to the promotion application
file and forwarded to the dean of the cognizant school no later
than March 15.
4.3.2.3 Dean's Review. The dean formulates a separate
recommendation statement on each promotion application from the
school. The statement is added to the candidate's promotion
application file and presented to the Provost no later than
April 1. In formulating a recommendation, the dean may seek
advisory input. Such advisory input does not become part of the
candidate's record and is not included in the candidate's
promotion application file.
The responsibility for the recommendation from the college
rests with the dean. The recommendation is to be based solely
on the candidate's record, as presented in the promotion
application file.
The dean's recommendation statement must clearly state whether
promotion of the candidate is recommended. Simultaneously, the
dean must inform the candidate, in writing, of the substance of
the recommendation statement sent to the Provost (i.e., whether
promotion was recommended). In cases where the recommendation
is against promotion, the dean will, upon request, provide the
candidate with the reason(s) for the negative recommendation.
4.3.2.4 Administrative Review. The candidate's promotion
application file, including the dean's recommendation
statement, is transmitted to the Provost no later than April 1.
The Provost examines the tenure application file for adequacy
and consistency of review, and determines whether a
recommendation for promotion will be presented to the
President, who will make a subsequent recommendation to the
Board of Control.
The Provost will promptly notify the candidate whether a
recommendation for promotion will be forwarded to the Board of
Control. In the event of a negative decision (i.e., no
recommendation for promotion), the Provost will also advise the
candidate of his/her rights of appeal.
5.0 Appeals
All appeals must be submitted to the Committee on Academic Tenure,
Promotion, and Reappointment. Appeals must be filed with the Committee in
a timely manner, normally within fifteen business days after notification
by the dean or the Provost of a negative recommendation. No other route
of appeal is provided.
5.1 Committee on Academic Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment
The Committee on Academic Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment is an
autonomous committee, independent of the University Senate and the
administration. All appeals of negative recommendations on tenure,
promotion or contract renewal of tenure-track faculty and negative
recommendations on promotion of tenured faculty, are under the
jurisdiction of the Committee. The Committee also considers requests for
extension of the mandatory tenure probationary period. (See 3.1.1.
"Extension of the probationary period")
5.1.1 Eligibility for service
Members of the faculty who hold tenure at Michigan Tech are eligible
to serve on the Committee on Academic Tenure, Promotion, and
Reappointment, with the following exceptions:
i. members of the faculty who hold administrative appointments.
Administrative appointments are considered to include
department chairs, deans, directors, the Vice Provost, the
Provost, vice-presidents, and the President.
ii. members of the faculty who are on leave-of-absence (including
sabbatical leave)
iii. faculty members who hold emeritus or adjunct status
iv. faculty members who have served on the Committee (other than as
designated alternates) for more than two years of the
immediately preceding four-year period.
All questions regarding eligibility for service on the Committee are
referred to the Executive Committee of the Senate. The ruling of the
Executive Committee is final.
5.1.2 Composition and Terms
The Committee on Academic Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment
consists of five (5) members of the faculty of the University, each
serving a two-year term. Committee members are selected as follows:
> three members elected by secret ballot of the tenured and
tenure-track faculty; election to be administered by the
Senate, as specified in Sec. 5.1.3;
> one member elected by the appropriate voting units of the
Senate (the member need not be a Senator), as specified in Sec.
5.1.4.
> one member appointed by the President of the University, from a
slate of no less than three, and no more than five names
provided by the Senate.
Terms of service on the Committee are staggered, as follows:
Terms expiring August 31, 1996 and bi-annually thereafter:
> one member elected by the tenured and tenure-track faculty
> one member elected by the Senate
Terms expiring August 31, 1997 and bi-annually thereafter:
> two members elected by the tenured and tenure-track faculty
> one member appointed by the President from a slate provided by
the Senate
A vacancy on the committee due to a resignation is filled by a
designated alternate (appointed by the Executive Committee of the
Senate) until such time as the seat can be filled by its regular
mechanism (election, or appointment by the President). A designated
alternate must meet the same eligibility criteria as a member of the
Committee.
5.1.3 Method of Election by Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
The Senate will conduct an election by the tenured and tenure-track
faculty annually during Spring Term to fill the regularly-expiring
term(s). In the event of a vacancy in a remaining faculty-elected
term, there will be a simultaneous election to fill the unexpired
portion of that term.
The Senate will solicit nominations from within each department and
school. No department or school may nominate more than one person
for a given vacancy. All nominees must meet the stated eligibility
criteria.
The election will be by secret ballot of the tenured and
tenure-track faculty of the University. The nominee receiving the
largest number of valid votes will serve on the Committee.
5.1.4 Method of Election by the Senate
After announcement of the results of the faculty election, the
Senate will fill any vacancy in senate-elected term.
5.1.5 Designated Alternates
Members are excused from service when the Committee is considering
appeals of cases emanating from their home department or school, or
when the member's participation may represent a significant conflict
of interest. In those situations, or any other cases where fewer
than five members are available to consider an appeal, vacancies are
filled by eligible designated alternates, to be appointed by the
Executive Committee of the Senate.
5.2 Bases for Appeals
Appeals of negative decisions for re-appointment, tenure or promotion are
based on allegations of either:
i. failure of one a recommending party to follow established policy or
procedure; or,
ii. violations of the candidate's academic freedom; or
iii. inadequate consideration by one or more recommending parties.
The term "inadequate consideration", as applied here, refers to
procedural rather than merit issues; i.e.,
> Was the decision arrived at conscientiously?
> Was all available evidence bearing on the relevant performance of
the candidate sought out and considered?
> Was there adequate deliberation by the department over the
importance of the evidence in the light of the relevant standards?
> Were irrelevant and improper standards excluded from consideration?
> Was the decision a bona fide exercise of professional academic
judgement?
This basis for appeal seeks to exclude procedural devices, patterns, or
criteria that undermine the application of appropriate professional
judgements about research, service, and teaching.
5.3 Powers of the Committee on Academic Tenure, Promotion, and
Reappointment.
The Committee on Academic Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment considers
all appeals of negative recommendations for tenure, promotion or
reappointment within the probationary period. The Committee is a
fact-finding body that can offer specific recommendations in cases where
it finds substantive merit to an appeal. The Committee cannot grant
tenure, cannot grant a promotion, and cannot offer an appointment.
In cases where the Committee finds substantive errors or omissions on the
part of one or more recommending bodies participating in a tenure review,
a new review will be required, beginning at the appropriate level or
stage of review as determined by the Committee. In such cases, the
Committee will convey an explanation of the specific errors or omissions
noted to the appropriate recommending bodies and to the candidate.
That review might not be completed until sometime during the candidate's
originally specified terminal year. A second review which does not result
in the granting of tenure does not affect the candidate's terminal year
status. Candidates who are not granted tenure subsequent to a second
review are not entitled to an additional "terminal year" of employment.
In the case of an applicant for early tenure who receives a negative
recommendation and whose appeal is consistent with the policy on early
tenure, the Committee may also order a new review of the candidate. Such
a review does not constitute a second consideration for tenure under Sec.
3.6 ("Early Tenure").
The Committee may recommend other appropriate remedies to the Provost and
the President, including overturning a negative decision or remanding it
to one of the recommending bodies for re-evaluation.
All deliberations, communications and recommendations of the Committee on
Academic Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment are private. The
Committee's report on each appeal is delivered to the Provost, the
President, and the candidate.
6.0 Disclosure
6.1 Disclosure of Tenure, Promotion, and Re-appointment Decisions
Each year, after final tenure, promotion and re-appointment decisions
have been made and approved by the Board of Control, the Provost shall
report to the academic faculty:
i. the number of individuals granted tenure in each college and school;
ii. the number of individuals who applied for tenure and were
subsequently denied tenure in each college and school;
iii. the number of individuals promoted in each college and school.
6.2 Disclosure of Decisions Concerning Appeals
Each year, upon completion of consideration of all appeals, the Provost
shall report to the academic faculty:
i. the number of tenure, promotion or reappointment decision appeals
received by the Committee on Academic Tenure, Promotion, and
Reappointment;
ii. the number of tenure, promotion or reappointment decision appeals in
which the Committee on Academic Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment
recommended either (1) overturning a decision, or (2) remanding a
decision for reconsideration;
iii. the number of cases in which the President and Provost accepted the
recommendations of the Committee on Academic Tenure, Promotion, and
Re-appointment.
7.0 Revisions and Amendments
Revision of the policies on tenure, promotion and re-appointment may be
initiated by the faculty or by the university administration. All
proposed amendments shall be submitted in writing to the President of the
Senate. The proposed amendment(s) will be forwarded to the Academic
Policy Committee of the Senate for review and/or revision.The Academic
Policy Committee will provide a copy of the proposed amendments to the
Committee on Academic Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment. The Academic
Policy Committee will submit its recommendations to the Senate.
Any revisions to the policies on tenure, promotion and reappointment must
be in the form of a Senate proposal. Adoption of any revision shall
require approval by the Senate and an approving vote by a majority of the
tenured and tenure-track faculty voting, such vote to be conducted by the
Senate, and approval by the Provost, the President, and the Board of
Control.
8.0 Application
These procedures will apply to all members of the academic faculty
appointed any time after these procedures are adopted by the Board of
Control. These procedures will apply to all those who are tenured or
tenure-track members of the faculty at the time of adoption of these
procedures by the Board of Control, unless they notify the Provost within
60 days of adoption of these procedures by the Board of Control that they
wish to follow the Board of Control policy which was in force prior to
adoption of these procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of Proposal
Jan 1994: Faculty Handbook Steering Committee forms Faculty Handbook Task
Force on Policies and Procedures for Tenured and Tenure Track
Faculty.
Dave Nelson, Chair
Ted Bornhorst
Aleksandra Borysow
Bill Bulleit
Jim Gale
Carol MacLennan (replaced Jim Gale)
Cindy Selfe
Dec 1994: Task Force forwards preliminary draft to the Senate Academic
Policy Committe for review.
Mar 1995: Task Force forwards document to the Senate Academic Policy
Committee for review.
Mar 1995: Academic Policy Committee approves document and submits it to
the Senate.
Apr 1995: Senate President Bornhorst assigns document Senate Proposal
31-95.
.