FSRR
Article X-Section 1. Review of Chairpersons-Updated 6/23/08
Article VI - New Promotion and Tenure policies -
With changes approved by the Chancellor 9/17/07, and provisions
to be
implemented in academic year 2007-2008
Note: The on line version updated on 10/24/07 with the new Promotion
and Tenure Policy contained an error in Article 6.5.3.1. The
correct version was updated on 11/28/07
Article IV. Section 1. Definitions and Section 2. Approval
of Credit from Non‑Resident Courses and from KU Continuing
Education Independent Study Courses
Revised 02/28/08
* Material in boldface type
reflects above revisions
ARTICLE_I_
ARTICLE_II_
ARTICLE_III_
ARTICLE_IV_
ARTICLE V.
ARTICLE VI.
Section 5. Initial
Review
Section 6. Intermediate
Review
Section
7. Review
by the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure
Section 8. Appeal
Section 9. Decision
by the Chancellor
ARTICLE_VII_
ARTICLE_VIII_
ARTICLE IX.
ARTICLE_X_
RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FACULTY SENATE
As adopted by the Faculty Senate April 22, 1969 and as Amended In Accordance with Article IV, Section 4 of the Senate Code.
ARTICLE
I.
Section
1.
1.1.1
Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations
Last Revised October 2007
Article II
ARTICLE
II.
Section
1.
2.1.1
Section
2.
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
Section
3.
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
Section
4.
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.5
Section
5.
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
2.5.5
2.5.6
2.5.7
Section
6.
2.6.1
2.6.2
Faculty Senate
Rules and Regulations
Last Revised October 2007
Article III
ARTICLE
III.
Section
1.
3.1.1
3.1.2
Section
2.
3.2.1
3.2.2
Section
3.
3.3.1
Section
4.
3.4.1
3.4.2
Faculty Senate
Rules and Regulations
Last Revised October 2007
Article IV
ARTICLE
IV.
Section
1.
4.1.1 The term "resident study" is defined as academic work completed for credit under regular procedures at the University of Kansas in courses published in the Official Schedule of Classes.
4.1.2 The
terms "non‑resident study" and "non‑resident courses" shall
be interpreted to include:
(1) work for which
credit is obtained by special examination;
(2) training
and special studies pursued in the armed forces for which special credits
are granted to military veterans; and
(3) study
for which credit is obtained from another college or university after initial
enrollment at the University of Kansas, with the purpose of applying the
credit to a degree at this University.
4.1.3 The
terms "resident and "non‑resident" as here defined do
not apply to advanced‑standing credits of transfer students except
as provided in Article II, Section 5.
Section 2. Approval of Credit from Non‑Resident
Courses and from KU Continuing Education Independent Study Courses
4.2.1 Subject to the
limitations set forth in this Article, approval of academic credit for non‑resident
study and for KU Continuing Education independent study courses shall
be regulated by the faculty of the academic unit of
the College or the school in which the credit is to be applied.
4.2.2 Subject
to the limitations set forth in this Article, faculty of the academic unit
of the College or school which is responsible for the course shall approve
and regulate KU Continuing Education independent study courses offered for
academic credit.
4.2.2.1 Any
course to be offered for academic credit as a Continuing Education independent
study course shall go through the full process for new course approval.
4.2.2.2 Instructors
for Continuing Education independent study courses shall be selected using
the same academic unit practices for selecting on-campus instructors.
4.2.2.3 The
academic unit of the College or school in which the student is pursuing the
degree may restrict the total number of credits counted toward the major
or degree that may be earned through KU Continuing Education independent
study courses offered for academic credit.
4.2.3 The
regulation shall provide for the review of proposed credit for non‑resident
study by the academic department that is responsible
for the same subject in resident study.
[This section was last updated on 02/25/08; most recent changes are shown in
bold font]
Section
3.
4.3.1
Section
4.
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
The following regulations shall govern the use of the College-Level Examination Program (CLEP) of the College Entrance Examination Board in the institutions governed by the State Board of Regents. The extent to which the program is utilized by any institution is a matter of institutional prerogative, but credit awarded by an institution in conformity with this policy shall be transferable to all other institutions in the state system.
Students who have taken CLEP examinations prior to enrollment must submit an official CLEP transcript. The permanent academic record of the student shall indicate which credit was earned by CLEP examination. Credit earned through standardized tests such as CLEP shall not be included in the computation of the instructional base of Regent's institutions. One-half the credit hours earned through campus-developed and administered tests may be included in the instructional base.
Section
5.
4.5.1
Faculty Senate
Rules and Regulations
Last Revised October 2007
Article V
ARTICLE
V.
Section
1.
5.1.1
Section
2.
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
Section
3.
5.3.1
5.3.2 Neither the College nor any school or department shall delete an existing course requirement without having first consulted with the dean of the school/college and the chairperson of the department offering the course, and having given written notification of the requirement to the appropriate dean and chairperson, and the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, preferably before budget conferences are held.
5.3.3 Neither the College nor any school or department shall undertake a significant restructuring of an academic program without taking steps to notify and consult affected students, faculty, and staff. Examples of significant restructuring include but are not limited to: merger or consolidation of departments; transfer of a department from one School/College to another; transfer of instructional delivery of courses or degree programs from one unit to another. Evidence of such collegial consultation must be part of the notification of restructuring made to the appropriate deans (s) and chairperson(s) and the Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.
5.3.4 Each academic unit should coordinate its policies and procedures with those of other units.
Substantive matters of academic coordination such as duplication of courses and uniformity of procedural matters shall be referred to the Senate Committee on Academic Policies and Procedures for mediation, decision-making, or referral. This committee shall also initiate action to attain uniform policies. Exceptions may be allowed when necessary to achieve the academic goals of the unit and the University.
Section
4.
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.4.4
Section
5.
5.5.1
5.5.2
Section
6.
5.6.1
Section
7.
5.7.1
5.7.2
Faculty Senate Rules
and Regulations
Last Revised October 2007
Article VI
ARTICLE
VI.
6.1.1.1. The award of tenure and/or promotion in rank are among the most important and far-reaching decisions made by the University because an excellent faculty is an essential component of any outstanding institution of higher learning. Promotion and tenure decisions also have a profound effect on the lives and careers of faculty. Recommendations concerning promotion and tenure must be made carefully, based upon a thorough examination of the candidate’s record and the impartial application of clearly articulated standards pursuant to prescribed procedures.
6.1.1.2. It is the purpose of this Article to promote the rigorous and fair evaluation of faculty performance during the promotion and tenure process by --
(a) Establishing university-wide standards and procedures for the evaluation of teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, and service;
(b) Creating a mechanism for the approval of written criteria and procedures by a department, college or school, or other administrative unit;
(c) Preserving and enhancing the participatory rights of candidates, including the basic right to be informed about critical stages of the process and to have an opportunity to respond to negative evaluations; and
(d) Clarifying the responsibilities, roles, and relationships of the participants in the promotion and tenure review process so as to promote more effective interaction among them.
6.1.1.3. Each level of review, including the initial review, the intermediate review (if one is conducted), and the university level review, conducts an independent evaluation of a candidate’s record of performance and makes independent recommendations to the Chancellor. Later stages of review neither affirm nor reverse earlier recommendations, which remain part of the record for consideration by the Chancellor. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the review process to exercise his or her own judgment to evaluate a faculty member’s teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, and service based upon the entirety of the data and information in the record. No single source of information, such as peer review letters, shall be considered a conclusive indicator of quality.
6.1.1.4. This Article applies to all promotion and tenure decisions involving members of the faculty of the University of Kansas. Unclassified academic staff who hold faculty equivalent rank are evaluated for promotion in rank pursuant to this article and references to faculty in this article include unclassified academic staff to the extent they are evaluated for promotion using the standards and procedures of this article, with due regard for their distinctive roles and professional responsibilities.
6.1.2. Academic Freedom and Tenure Policy. These standards and procedures are adopted pursuant to and shall be construed in conformity with the policies of the Kansas Board of Regents concerning promotion, tenure, and non-reappointment. The University of Kansas subscribes to the 1940 American Association of University Professors (AAUP) statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure and/or any amendments or revisions to that statement adopted by the Kansas Board of Regents.
6.1.2.1. Pursuant to these policies and statements, all faculty members, regardless of rank, are entitled to academic freedom in relation to teaching and scholarship, and the right as citizens to speak on matters of public concern. Likewise, all faculty members, regardless of rank, bear the obligation to exercise their academic freedom responsibly and in accordance with the accepted standards of their academic disciplines.
6.1.2.2. Pursuant to these policies and statements, tenured faculty members may be dismissed only for adequate cause, in cases of program discontinuance, or under extraordinary circumstances caused by financial exigency.
6.1.3. Confidentiality. Consideration and evaluation of a faculty member’s record is a confidential personnel matter. The record compiled for purposes of evaluation and all recommendations made pursuant to the process should be treated accordingly. Only the Chancellor's final decision concerning non-reappointment, the award of tenure, and/or promotion in rank or non-reappointment is to be made public.
6.1.3.1. Candidates shall have access to written summary evaluations of their records, as described in section 6.3.4.2 of this article. Candidates shall also have access to any request for information from the intermediate review committee or University Committee on Promotion and Tenure. The procedures of the college or school, or other comparable administrative unit may provide for candidates to have access to more detailed information about scholarship evaluation letters, as well as other components of the dossier and record at the initial or intermediate review level.
6.1.3.2. If a faculty member appealing an adverse decision under section 6.8 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations elects to have a public hearing, information already available to the candidate in the promotion and tenure records may be made public as necessary to the conduct of the hearing.
6.1.4. Conflicts of Interest. No person should participate in any aspect of the promotion and tenure process concerning a candidate when participation would create a clear conflict of interest or compromise the impartiality of an evaluation or recommendation.
6.1.4.1. No person shall serve simultaneously on more than one committee (department, college or school, or university) considering promotion and tenure, except when all faculty holding the necessary rank serve as a committee of the whole for the department, college or school, or other administrative unit.
6.1.4.2. Department chairs and others having an independent responsibility to evaluate a candidate shall not serve as members of the college or school committee conducting intermediate review or of the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure (UCPT).
6.1.4.3. A faculty member who is a spouse or partner of an individual being considered for tenure and/or promotion shall not serve on a departmental committee, a school or College committee, or UCPT during that year.
6.1.4.4. If a candidate believes that there is a conflict of interest, the candidate may petition to have that person recuse himself or herself. Procedures at all levels of review shall establish a means whereby, if a committee member does not recuse himself or herself, a decision about whether that person has a conflict of interest shall be made by a majority of the other committee members.
6.1.5. Time in Rank. In consideration of promotion and tenure, the following rules concerning time in rank apply:
6.1.5.1. Pursuant to Board of Regents policy, the probationary period for tenure track faculty may not exceed seven years. Under this policy, if a faculty member does not receive tenure, the seventh year becomes the terminal year. Consideration of tenure must therefore occur no later than the sixth year, which constitutes the “mandatory review year”. Candidates who apply for promotion and tenure prior to their mandatory review year are held to the same standards of achievement as those who have completed the full probationary period. University and Regents policy may provide for the exclusion of some years in computing time in rank and such years shall not be included in determining the terminal or mandatory review year. When untenured faculty members are hired after serving at another academic institution, the treatment of time spent at the other institution and the resulting terminal and mandatory review years shall be established through negotiation at the time of the hire.
6.1.5.2. Promotion to full professor is based on substantial additional achievement since the award of tenure and/or promotion to associate professor, and faculty members with tenure are expected to continue to engage in substantial productive activity in the areas of teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, and service. Although there may be some variation, continuing productivity should prepare most faculty members for promotion to full professor within six years of their promotion to the rank of associate professor.
Section 2 – Promotion and Tenure Standards
6.2.1. General Principles. The award of tenure and/or promotion in rank acknowledges meritorious performance in the areas of teaching or professional performance, scholarship, and service. The standards set forth in this section and written criteria adopted pursuant to it shall be the controlling standards and criteria for evaluating candidates for promotion and tenure.
6.2.1.1. The University strives for a consistent standard of quality against which the performance of all faculty members is measured. Nonetheless, the nature of faculty activities varies across the University and a faculty member’s record must be evaluated in light of his or her particular responsibilities and the expectations of the discipline. Teaching and scholarship should normally be given primary consideration, but the particular weight to be accorded each component of a faculty member’s activities depends upon the responsibilities of the faculty member. In the case of non-teaching faculty and unclassified academic staff, comparable professional responsibilities, as defined by their department or program and the standards of their disciplines, may be evaluated instead of teaching.
6.2.1.2. Teaching faculty may hold the rank of assistant professor, associate professor, or (full) professor. For purposes of promotion and tenure:
(a) librarian I, assistant research or clinical professor, and assistant scientist, curator, or specialist are equivalent in rank to assistant professor;
(b) librarian II, associate research or clinical professor; and associate scientist, curator, or specialist are equivalent in rank to associate professor; and
(c) librarian III, research or clinical professor, and senior scientist, curator, or specialist are equivalent in rank to (full) professor.Unless otherwise indicated, references in this Article to assistant, associate, or full professor also include other faculty and unclassified academic staff of equivalent rank, with appropriate adjustments to reflect their distinctive responsibilities.
6.2.2. Teaching. Teaching is a primary function of the University, which strives to provide an outstanding education for its students. The evaluation of teaching includes consideration of syllabi, course materials, and other information related to a faculty member’s courses; peer and student evaluations; a candidate’s own statement of teaching philosophy and goals; public representations of teaching; and other accepted methods of evaluation, which may include external evaluations.
6.2.2.1. High quality teaching is serious intellectual work grounded in a deep knowledge and understanding of the field and includes the ability to convey that understanding in clear and engaging ways. The conduct of classes is the central feature of teaching responsibilities at KU, but teaching also includes supervising student research and clinical activities, mentoring and advising students, and other teaching-related activities outside of the classroom.
6.2.2.2. For the award of tenure and/or promotion to associate professor, the record must demonstrate effective teaching, as reflected in such factors as command of the subject matter, the ability to communicate effectively in the classroom, a demonstrated commitment to student learning, and involvement in providing advice and support for students outside the classroom.
6.2.2.3. For promotion to the rank of professor, the record must demonstrate continued effectiveness and growth as a teacher, as reflected in such factors as mastery of the subject matter, strong classroom teaching skills, an ongoing commitment to student learning, and active involvement in providing advice and support for students outside the classroom.
6.2.2.4. In the case of non-teaching faculty and unclassified academic staff, professional performance, as defined by the unit and the expectations of the discipline, may be evaluated instead of teaching. The weight given to professional performance shall be determined by the particular responsibilities of the candidate. Each administrative unit with nonteaching faculty shall establish standards of professional performance, commensurate with the standards for teaching established in these regulations, to evaluate nonteaching faculty for promotion to equivalent ranks. Throughout this Article, references to teaching and its evaluation should be understood to include professional performance and its evaluation as appropriate to the positions and responsibilities of nonteaching faculty and unclassified academic staff.
6.2.3. Scholarship. Scholarship is an essential component of the University’s mission as a center of learning, and the award of tenure and/or promotion in rank must be based on a record of accomplishment reflecting a sustainable program of scholarly activity. Evaluation of scholarship must be undertaken in light of the expectations of the discipline.
6.2.3.1. As used throughout this article and the promotion and tenure process, the concept of “scholarship” encompasses not only traditional academic research and publication, but also the creation of artistic works or performances and any other products or activities accepted by the academic discipline as reflecting scholarly effort and achievement for purposes of promotion and tenure. While the nature of scholarship varies among disciplines, the University adheres to a consistently high standard of quality in its scholarly activities to which all faculty members, regardless of discipline, are held.
6.2.3.2. For the award of tenure and/or promotion to the rank of associate professor, the record must demonstrate a successfully developing scholarly career, as reflected in such factors as the quality and quantity of publications or creative activities, external reviews of the candidate’s work by respected scholars or practitioners in the field, the candidate’s regional, national, or international reputation, and other evidence of an active and productive scholarly agenda.
6.2.3.3. For promotion to the rank of professor, the record must demonstrate an established scholarly career, as reflected in such factors as a substantial and ongoing pattern of publication or creative activity, external reviews of the candidate’s work by eminent scholars or practitioners in the field, the candidate’s national or international reputation, and other evidence of an active and productive scholarly career.
6.2.4. Service. Service is also an important responsibility of all faculty members that contributes to the University’s performance of its larger mission. Although the nature of service activities will depend on a candidate’s particular interests and abilities, service contributions are an essential part of being a good citizen of the University.
6.2.4.1. The form of accepted and valued service varies greatly among the disciplines represented in the university community, and may include scholarly service to the discipline or profession, service within the university, and public service at the local, state, national, or international level. As a consequence of the varied nature of service, it is the responsibility of each department, college or school, or other administrative unit to articulate clearly how it values various types of service.
6.2.4.2. For the award of tenure and/or promotion to associate professor, the record must demonstrate a pattern of service to the University at one or more levels, to the discipline or profession, and/or to the local, state, national, or international communities.
6.2.4.3. For promotion to the rank of professor, the record must demonstrate an ongoing pattern of service reflecting substantial contributions to the University at one or more levels, to the discipline or profession, and/or to the local, state, national, or international communities.
Section 3 – Criteria, Procedures, and Guidelines for Review
6.3.1. Conduct of Review. Recommendations concerning the award of tenure and/or promotion in rank shall be based upon the record of a candidate’s teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, and service, which shall be compiled and evaluated pursuant to the criteria, procedures, and guidelines set forth in this Article and adopted pursuant to its provisions.
6.3.1.1. Responsibility for the initial review lies with the department, school (if there is no departmental structure), or other administrative unit in which the candidate has his or her principal appointment. The initial review shall be conducted pursuant to section 5 of this Article.
6.3.1.2. Responsibility for the intermediate review, if one is conducted, lies with the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the school, or other administrative unit to which a department or administrative unit reports. The intermediate review, if any, shall be conducted pursuant to section 6 of this Article.
6.3.1.3. Responsibility for conducting the University level review lies with the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure. The University level review shall be conducted pursuant to section 7 of this Article.
6.3.2. Criteria for Review. Each department, college or school, or other administrative unit with responsibility for conducting promotion and tenure review shall adopt written criteria, consistent with the university promotion and tenure standards set forth in section 2 of this Article, for evaluating a faculty member’s teaching, scholarship, and service. Units that include nonteaching faculty shall include criteria for the evaluation of professional performance.
6.3.2.1. As used in this article, the term criteria refers to the unit level articulation of disciplinary expectations for meeting university promotion and tenure standards for teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, and service, including their relative weights.
6.3.2.2. The criteria shall provide for the evaluation of teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, and service as “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “marginal,” or “poor,” defined as follows:
(a) “Excellent” means that the candidate substantially exceeds disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
(b) “Very Good” means the candidate exceeds disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
(c) “Good” means the candidate meets disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
(d) “Marginal” means the candidate falls below disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
(e) “Poor” means the candidate falls significantly below disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.6.3.2.3. Absent exceptional circumstances, successful candidates for promotion and tenure will meet disciplinary expectations in all categories, and strong candidates are likely to exceed normal expectations in one or more categories.
6.3.3. Procedures for Review. Each department, college or school, or other administrative unit with responsibility for promotion and tenure review, as well as the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure (UCPT), shall adopt written procedures for the conduct of review. While written procedures may vary considerably in accord with the particular needs of the department, college or school, or other administrative unit, all procedures must conform to the principles and requirements of this article, including its provisions concerning standards, confidentiality, candidate access and participation, and conflicts of interest.
6.3.3.1. The procedures adopted by a department, college or school, or administrative unit shall establish a committee or committees (which may be a committee of all faculty holding the necessary rank) to evaluate candidates for award of tenure or promotion in rank.
6.3.3.2. The written procedures of UCPT shall govern its deliberations, including such matters as the submission of additional information to UCPT as provided in this Article and the recusal of UCPT members based on conflict of interest.
6.3.3.3. No students or untenured faculty members, except unclassified academic staff with rank equivalent to or higher than associate professor, shall serve on any promotion and tenure committee or vote on any recommendation concerning promotion and tenure. Student and broad collegial input is important in the initial review. When this input is sought and considered, it must be done in a way that protects the confidentiality of students and junior faculty.
6.3.4. Guidelines and Forms. To facilitate University Committee on Promotion and Tenure review, the Provost shall provide all necessary guidelines for compiling and evaluating a candidate’s record of teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, and service, including a standardized form for the collection, organization, and presentation of relevant documents by the department, college, or school. The Provost shall provide separate guidelines and forms for nonteaching faculty, including guidelines and forms for the documentation and evaluation of professional performance.
6.3.4.1. The Provost’s guidelines and standardized forms implement the provisions of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations (FSRR), and do not create substantive or procedural rights or requirements for award of tenure or promotion in rank.
IMPLEMENT 2007-2008 6.3.4.2. The Provost’s guidelines shall provide for a summary evaluation section to be prepared by the committee at each level and shared with the candidate upon completion of the initial review and intermediate review, if one is conducted. The evaluation section shall include:
(a) the recommendation of the committee, its rating of the candidate in the areas of teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, and service, and a statement of the reasons for those ratings;
(b) if the initial or intermediate procedures provide for the faculty holding the necessary rank to vote as a committee of the whole, whether the committee of the whole concurred in the recommendations; and
(c) the concurrence or nonconcurrence of the department chair, the dean of the school or college, or head of the administrative unit.
6.3.5. Approval of Criteria, Procedures, and Guidelines. Prior to taking effect, all criteria, procedures, and guidelines shall be submitted to the Standards and Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Committee (SPPT) as follows:
6.3.5.1. At least once every three years, each department, college or school, or other administrative unit with responsibility for conducting promotion and tenure reviews shall review and approve criteria and procedures consistent with this article, which shall be submitted to the SPPT for review and approval. The Dean of a college or school shall be afforded an opportunity to review the criteria and procedures developed by a department within the college or school and submit written comments or concerns to SPPT regarding the criteria or procedures, and a similar rule applies to other administrative units that report to larger units. If SPPT approves the criteria or procedures, it shall inform the department, college or school, or administrative unit. If it disapproves the criteria or procedures in whole or in part, SPPT shall return the criteria or the procedures to the department, college or school, or administrative unit along with an explanation of the problems or concerns identified by SPPT. The department, college or school, or administrative unit shall revise its criteria or procedures accordingly. In the event that the SPPT and the department, college or school, or administrative unit cannot resolve the matter, it shall be submitted to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee (FacEx), which shall have the authority to resolve the matter.
6.3.5.2. Prior to their adoption, the guidelines and forms developed by the Provost and the procedures developed by the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure (UCPT) shall be submitted to SPPT for review. SPPT shall inform the Provost of any problems or concerns it has identified with the guidelines and forms or UCPT procedures. If the Provost and/or UCPT agree with the concerns, the Provost and/or UCPT shall make appropriate changes. If the SPPT is dissatisfied with the response, it shall inform FacEx of its concerns.
6.3.5.3. Any change made to any criteria, standards, guidelines or procedures under this section must comply with the procedures set forth in section 6.3.5.1 or section 6.3.5.2, whichever applies.
6.4.1. Department, College, and School Responsibilities. As part of its procedures for promotion and tenure, each department, college or school, or other administrative unit shall incorporate a plan for mentoring faculty prior to tenure. Such plans should provide appropriate information and guidance to assist faculty members in the development of successful careers in teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, and service, and in documenting a record of their careers for purposes of the tenure process.
6.4.1.1. Before the end of the first semester following appointment, a department, college or school, or other administrative unit shall provide faculty members with information concerning the standards and procedures for award of tenure and promotion in rank, including copies of the written criteria and procedures approved by the department, college or school, or other administrative unit, and of the Provost’s guidelines and forms.
6.4.1.2. Working with the faculty member, each department, college or school, or other administrative unit shall, on an ongoing basis, generate and compile the documentation necessary to evaluate teaching (or professional performance), scholarship and service.
6.4.2. Progress Toward Tenure Review. Approximately midway between a faculty member’s appointment and mandatory review year (usually the third year), under guidelines issued by the Provost, a department, college, or school shall conduct a formal review of a non-tenured faculty member’s progress toward tenure. The progress toward tenure review is intended to provide faculty members with a meaningful appraisal of their progress toward tenure and orient them toward basic aspects of the tenure process. Neither the record of the review nor its results shall be included in a faculty member’s promotion and tenure record and recommendations for or against promotion and tenure should not be influenced by favorable or unfavorable results of the progress toward tenure review. This limitation does not prevent consideration, during the promotion and tenure review, of the same documents and information considered for purposes of the progress toward tenure review.
6.4.3. Non-reappointment. Prior to tenure, a faculty member is considered to be serving a probationary period and the department, college or school, or other administrative unit may decide not to reappoint the faculty member as provided in this section.
6.4.3.1. Non-reappointment may be justified by a faculty member's poor performance of the responsibilities of his or her position, including teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, or service; by criteria based upon departmental, school or college plans for future faculty development; by budgetary considerations; or by a departmental, school or college decision that its needs should be filled with a different individual. (See the American Association of University Professors 1968 Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure).
6.4.3.2. Pursuant to Board of Regents policy (adopting the American Association of University Professors statement of 1964), written notice of non-reappointment shall be provided to a faculty member as follows:
(a) Not later than March 1 of the first year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that academic year; or, if a one-year appointment terminates during an academic year, at least three months in advance of its termination.
(b) Not later than December 15 of the second year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that academic year; or, if the appointment for a second year of service terminates during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination.
(c) At least 12 months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years of service in the University. This places the notification deadline on the last day of the academic year for faculty on nine-month appointments, and on June 30 for those on 12-month appointments.6.4.3.3. The normal procedure for forwarding recommendations for non-reappointment shall be from the chair of the department (if any) to the dean of the college or school, and from the dean to the Provost or along a similar hierarchy in other administrative units. Prior to forwarding any recommendation of non-reappointment to the Chancellor, the Provost shall notify the faculty member in writing of the recommendation and the reasons for it. The notification shall also inform the faculty member of the right to appeal the recommendation to the Faculty Rights Board. Such an appeal shall be filed with the Office of University Governance within fourteen days of receiving notification and shall be considered pursuant to procedures established by the board pursuant to section 6.8.3 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations. Following the Chancellor’s decision, the legally effective notice of non-reappointment shall be issued over the signature of the Provost and shall include a statement of the reasons for the decision.
6.4.3.4. If a faculty member is denied tenure during the mandatory review year, the decision constitutes a decision of non-reappointment, and the notification of the denial of tenure serves as notice of non-reappointment. Non-reappointment for other reasons is a decision distinct from the denial of tenure and involves different procedures. Absent exceptional circumstances, non-reappointment for reasons other than the denial of tenure should not occur once a faculty member is under consideration for tenure during his or her mandatory review year.
6.5.1. Initiation of Review. The process for conducting an initial review concerning the award of tenure and/or promotion in rank shall be initiated as follows:
6.5.1.1 Prior to the beginning of the spring semester, the Provost shall notify all faculty whose mandatory review year will be the following academic year, with copies provided to department chairs, deans, and/or heads of their administrative units. Upon receipt of this notice or if a faculty member requests it prior to the mandatory review year, the department, school (if there is no departmental structure), or other administrative unit shall initiate procedures for evaluating the candidate for the award of tenure.
6.5.1.2. As part of the annual faculty evaluation process, each department, school (if there is no departmental structure), or other administrative unit shall consider the qualifications of all tenured faculty members below the rank of full professor, with a view toward possible promotion in rank during the following academic year. After considering a faculty member’s qualifications, if the department, school, or administrative unit determines that those qualifications may warrant promotion in rank, it shall initiate procedures for reviewing the faculty member for promotion.
6.5.1.3. After seven years in the rank of associate professor, a faculty member who believes he or she has the qualifications for promotion, despite the failure of his or her unit to initiate the review process for promotion to full professor, may initiate the promotion review process himself or herself. In such cases the unit will treat the candidate in the same way that it treats other candidates for promotion to the rank of full professor.
6.5.2. Candidate Responsibilities. It is the responsibility of the candidate to complete the appropriate portions of the form and provide necessary documents and information in accordance with the Provost’s guidelines, with assistance from the department, school, or administrative unit conducting the initial review as provided in its procedures.
6.5.3. Committee Responsibilities. The committee responsible for the initial review shall receive the form and accompanying materials from the candidate and finish compiling the record of a candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service in accordance with the Provost’s guidelines. The committee shall follow the approved written procedures for initial review.
6.5.3.1. The committee shall provide for the solicitation of outside reviews to assist in the evaluation of a faculty member’s scholarship. Emphasis should be placed on selecting reviewers who hold academic rank or professional position equal to or greater than the rank for which the candidate is being considered. When soliciting external reviews of a candidate’s scholarship, the committee shall inform prospective reviewers of the extent to which the candidate will have access to the review.
Note: The on line version updated on 10/24/07 with the new Promotion and Tenure Policy contained an error in Article 6.5.3.1. The correct version was updated on 11/28/07.
6.5.3.2. The committee and the candidate shall verify that the required components of the form have been completed, that all necessary documents have been compiled, and that the record has been organized in the proper format.
6.5.4. Recommendations. Upon completion of the record, the committee conducting the initial review shall evaluate the candidate’s record of teaching, scholarship, and service in light of the applicable standards and criteria and make recommendations concerning the award of tenure and/or promotion in rank.
6.5.4.1. If the department, school, or administrative unit procedures so provide, the committee recommendation shall be forwarded for consideration to a committee of the whole consisting of all faculty holding the appropriate academic rank.
6.5.4.2. The department chair, dean of the school, or head of the administrative unit shall indicate separately in writing whether he or she concurs in or disagrees with the recommendations of the committee and/or faculty.
IMPLEMENT 2007-2008 6.5.4.3. The chair, dean, or head of the unit shall communicate the recommendations of the initial review to the candidate and provide the candidate with a copy of the corresponding evaluation section of the promotion and tenure form. Negative recommendations shall be communicated in writing and, if the review will not be forwarded automatically, shall inform the candidate that he or she may request that the record be forwarded for further review.
6.5.4.4. Favorable recommendations, together with the record of the initial review, shall be forwarded to the committee conducting the intermediate review, if one is to be conducted, or to the Provost for University Committee on Promotion and Tenure (UCPT) review, if not. Negative recommendations resulting from an initial review shall go forward for intermediate or UCPT review only if it is the candidate’s mandatory review year or if the candidate requests it.
Section 6: Intermediate Review
6.6.1. Record for Review. The intermediate review shall be initiated upon receipt of a recommendation and record from the initial review and shall be conducted pursuant to the approved written procedures for intermediate review. The intermediate review committee shall evaluate the candidate’s teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, and service on the basis of the record compiled during the initial review. No new material may be submitted as part of the record except as follows:
IMPLEMENT 2007-2008
6.6.1.1. The candidate may submit a written response to a negative recommendation at the initial review level, or to a final rating of teaching, research, or service below the level of “good” included in the evaluation section of the recommendation. Intermediate review level procedures may set reasonable limits on the timing and length of submissions.6.6.1.2. Pursuant to 6.6.2, the candidate and the department or other administrative unit may provide additional information or materials in response to a request for information from the intermediate review committee.
IMPLEMENT ALL 2007-2008
6.6.2. Request for Information. If the intermediate
review committee determines that additional information would assist it in
the evaluation of a candidate’s record, the intermediate review committee
may request additional information from the department or administrative unit. If
a preliminary vote of the intermediate review committee reflects a negative
recommendation or a recommendation that differs from the recommendation of
the department or administrative unit, a request for information is required.
6.6.2.1. A request for information shall specify the information sought and the reasons for the request. If the request is based upon a negative preliminary vote, it shall so state and describe the reasons for the negative recommendation.
6.6.2.2. A request for information shall be sent to the chair of the department or head of the administrative unit, who shall immediately provide a copy to the candidate and inform the initial review committee. The chair and/or committee shall prepare the department’s response in accordance with the initial review procedures.
6.6.2.3. The candidate shall be afforded an opportunity to participate in the preparation of the department’s or administrative unit’s response and/or to submit his or her own documentation or comment to the college or school committee.
6.6.3. Recommendations. In conducting intermediate review, the college or school, or other administrative unit undertakes an independent review of a candidate’s record and makes its own recommendations concerning the award of tenure or promotion in rank. The intermediate review neither affirms nor reverses the recommendations of the initial review, which remain part of the record that will be forwarded to the Chancellor for final decision.
IMPLEMENT ALL 2007-20086.6.3.1. The intermediate review committee shall evaluate the candidate’s teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, and service in light of the applicable standards and criteria and make recommendations concerning the award of tenure and/or promotion in rank. If the intermediate review procedures so provide, the committee recommendation shall be forwarded for consideration to a committee of the whole consisting of all faculty holding the appropriate academic rank.
6.6.3.2. The dean of the college or school or head of the administrative unit shall indicate separately in writing whether he or she concurs in or disagrees with the recommendations of the intermediate review committee and/or faculty.
IMPLEMENT 2007-2008
6.6.3.3. The dean of the college or school or head of the administrative unit shall communicate the recommendations of the committee and/or faculty to the candidate and provide the candidate with a copy of the corresponding evaluation section of the promotion and tenure form. Negative recommendations shall be communicated in writing and, if the review will not be forwarded automatically, shall inform the candidate that he or she may request that the record be forwarded for further review.6.6.3.4. Favorable recommendations, together with the record of initial and intermediate review, shall be forwarded to the Provost for consideration by the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure (UCPT). Negative recommendations resulting from an intermediate review shall go forward for UCPT review only if it is the candidate’s mandatory review year or if the candidate requests it.
6.7.1. The University Committee on Promotion and Tenure. The University Committee on Promotion and Tenure (UCPT) is a committee of eleven members, which shall be broadly representative of the faculty.
6.7.1.1. UCPT shall be composed of (1) the Provost, who shall serve as chair and who shall not vote; (2) one member of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee selected by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee; and (3) nine members of the faculty who serve overlapping three year terms. The nine members of the faculty shall be selected by the Chancellor, who shall fill vacancies each year from a list of nominees prepared by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, which may not exceed twice the number of vacancies. No Dean, Assistant, Associate or Vice Dean, or department chair shall serve as faculty members of the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure.
6.7.1.2. Early in the fall semester, each department, college or school, or other administrative unit shall provide to UCPT a copy of the approved written criteria for evaluating teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, and service. The UCPT shall request that the deans of the College and schools or their designated representatives appear in person to explain and discuss the criteria. The UCPT may request that department chairs and other administrators, or their designated representatives, appear in person to explain and discuss the criteria. These requirements do not apply if a department, college or school, or other administrative unit has no candidate under consideration for promotion and tenure.
6.7.2. Record. The University Committee on Promotion and Tenure (UCPT) shall evaluate a candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service on the basis of the record compiled during initial and intermediate review, if any. No new material may be submitted as part of the record except as follows:
6.7.2.1. The candidate may submit a written response to a negative recommendation resulting from the intermediate review, or from the initial review if no intermediate review was conducted, or to a final rating of teaching, research, or service below the level of “good” included in the summary evaluation section. UCPT procedures may set reasonable limits on the timing and length of submissions.
6.7.2.2. Pursuant to section 6.7.3, the candidate and the department or other administrative unit may provide additional information or materials in response to a request for information from the UCPT.
6.7.3. Request for Information. If the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure (UCPT) determines that additional information would assist it in the evaluation of a candidate’s record, the UCPT may request additional information from the initial or intermediate review levels. If a preliminary vote of UCPT reflects a negative recommendation or a recommendation that differs from the recommendation of the intermediate review (if one was conducted) or of the initial review (if no intermediate review was conducted), a request for information is required.
6.7.3.1. A request for information shall specify the information sought and the reasons for the request. If the request is based upon a negative preliminary vote, it shall so state and describe the reasons for the negative recommendation.
6.7.3.2. A request for information shall be sent to the dean of the college or school or head of the administrative unit, who shall immediately provide a copy to the candidate and inform the initial and intermediate (if any) review committee. The dean or head of the unit and/or committee shall prepare the response in accordance with the applicable procedures. If there was an intermediate review, the department or administrative unit conducting the initial review shall be given an opportunity to participate in the preparation of the response, including the preparation of a separate response if the intermediate review recommendation differs from the recommendation on initial review.
6.7.3.3. The candidate shall be afforded an opportunity to participate in the preparation of the response and/or to submit his or her own documentation or comment to UCPT.
6.7.4. Recommendations. The University Committee on Promotion and Tenure (UCPT) shall evaluate the candidate’s teaching (or professional performance), scholarship, and service in light of the applicable standards and criteria and make recommendations concerning the award of tenure or promotion in rank.
6.7.4.1. In conducting university level review, UCPT undertakes its own review of a candidate’s record and makes its own recommendations concerning the award of tenure or promotion in rank. The UCPT neither affirms nor reverses recommendations resulting from initial and intermediate review, which remain part of the record that will be forwarded to the Chancellor for final decision.
6.7.4.2. The UCPT shall apply the standards outlined in section 6.2 and the written criteria adopted by the department, college or school, or other administrative unit pursuant to section 6.3 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations.
6.7.4.3. An affirmative recommendation by UCPT requires the approval of a two-thirds majority of those voting. Members who do not recuse themselves are expected to vote on tenure and/or promotion.
6.7.4.4. The Provost shall indicate separately in writing whether he or she concurs in or disagrees with the recommendations of UCPT.
6.7.4.5. The Provost shall communicate the recommendations of the university level review to the candidate in writing. If UCPT or Provost makes a negative recommendation, the written notification shall state the reasons for the recommendation and notify the candidate of his or her right to respond or appeal pursuant to section 6.7.5. Notification of a negative recommendation shall be communicated to the candidate by the first Friday in March of the academic year in which the candidate is being considered for award of tenure and/or promotion in Rank.
6.7.5 Candidate Response. A candidate may file either a written response to be included in the record or an appeal pursuant to section 6.8 within ten days of the first Friday in March of the academic year in which the candidate is being considered for award of tenure and/or promotion in rank.
6.7.6. Promotion and Tenure Record. If the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure (UCPT) and Provost recommend the candidate favorably for promotion and/or tenure, the record of review, including the recommendations of UCPT and the Provost, shall be forwarded to the Chancellor for decision under section 6.9 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations. If the candidate has received a negative recommendation from either UCPT or the Provost, UCPT shall retain the record of review until whichever of the following occurs first: (1) the candidate files either a timely response to a negative recommendation at the university level or an appeal; (2) the time for filing either a response to a negative recommendation at the university level or appeal has expired; or (3) April 15 of the year in which the candidate received a negative recommendation. If an appeal is filed, the recommendations and record of review will be forwarded to the Faculty Rights Board. If no appeal is filed, the recommendations and record of review, including the response, if any, shall be forwarded to the Chancellor for decision.
IMPLEMENT ALL 2007-2008 Section 8: Appeal
6.8.1. Basis for Appeal. As part of its jurisdiction to consider matters involving faculty rights under Article XV, section 3 of the University Code, the Faculty Rights Board (FRB) may consider appeals from negative recommendations by the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure (UCPT) and/or the Provost concerning promotion and tenure pursuant to this section. The function of the FRB in the promotion and tenure context is not to review the merits of promotion and tenure recommendations, nor to substitute its judgment on the merits, but rather to identify specifically defined appealable errors that undermine the evaluation process itself and to recommend appropriate accommodations or adjustments to the Chancellor for consideration in making the final promotion and tenure decision. No other basis for appeal exists to the FRB or to any other body within the University. The FRB may consider the following grounds for appeal:
6.8.1.1. The merits of a case could not be fairly heard because of a violation, at one or more levels of review, of procedures established in this Article or approved pursuant to its provisions.
6.8.1.2. The grounds for the recommendation at one or more levels of review constitute a violation of the candidate's academic freedom.
6.8.1.3. The merits of the case could not be fairly heard because of the demonstrable application at one or more levels of review of standards or criteria other than the standards established in this Article or criteria approved pursuant to its provisions.
6.8.2. Initiation of Appeals.
A faculty member who wishes to have the Faculty Rights Board (FRB) review
a recommendation concerning promotion and /or tenure must file a written
request with the Office of University Governance within ten days of the first
Friday in March of the academic year in which the candidate is being considered
for award of tenure and/or promotion in rank. The request for review must
specifically identify the ground(s) for appeal under section 6.8.1 and briefly
describe the circumstances supporting the ground(s). Upon receipt of an appeal,
the Office of University Governance shall notify the Provost and request
that the record of review be forwarded for review by the FRB.
6.8.3. Procedures. The Faculty Rights Board (FRB) shall consider
appeals using written procedures consistent with this article and developed
and adopted pursuant to its authority under the University Senate Code and
approved by the Faculty Senate. These procedures shall supersede existing procedures
for resolving matters within the jurisdiction of the FRB and shall be published
by the Office of University Governance in an appropriate location so as to
be broadly available to all faculty. Mediation shall not be required. In accord
with the Recommended Procedures of the American Association of University Professors
(AAUP), the complaining faculty member bears the burden of proving the alleged
grounds for appeal.
6.8.4. Recommendations. After consideration of the appeal, but not later than April 15 in the year in which the appeal is filed, the Faculty Rights Board (FRB) shall provide the Chancellor a written recommendation based on its conclusions and a copy shall be provided to the candidate and included in the record of review. If the FRB determines that one or more of the alleged grounds for appeal has been established by the faculty member, then the FRB shall provide a copy of the recommendation to the department, school, administrative unit, or committee determined to have committed a procedural error, violated academic freedom, or applied improper standards.
6.8.4.1. The written recommendation shall state whether the faculty member has established the alleged ground or grounds for appeal and provide a description of the circumstances supporting the FRB’s recommendation. The recommendation shall specifically address any disputed factual issues.
6.8.4.2. If the FRB determines that one or more grounds for appeal has been established by the faculty member, it shall include in its recommendation a statement of whether and, if so, how the procedural error, violation of academic freedom, or application of improper standards adversely affected the consideration of the case. The FRB may recommend to the Chancellor that particular remedial accommodations or adjustments be made in the consideration of the record of review. Upon its completion of an appeal, the FRB shall forward its recommendation and the record of review to the Chancellor for decision pursuant to section 6.9.
6.8.4.3. If the FRB is unable to provide a written recommendation to the Chancellor by April 15 of the year in which the appeal was received, the appeal will be deemed completed without recommendation and the FRB will forward all materials of the appeal to the Chancellor to be included in the record of review. The candidate shall be informed and the FRB shall provide to the candidate and Chancellor a written statement explaining the reasons why the appeal was completed without recommendation. The Chancellor shall consider the entire record of review, including the materials of the appeal, and issue the final agency action.
IMPLEMENT ALL 2007-2008 Section 9:
Decision by the Chancellor
6.9.1. Consideration of the Record. The entire record, including
the recommendations of the initial, intermediate, and university level
review, and either a candidate’s response or Faculty Rights Board recommendation,
shall be forwarded to the Chancellor for decision.
6.9.1.1. The Chancellor shall decide based on the record, but may seek information or consultation as he or she deems appropriate.
6.9.1.2. Under state law and Board of Regents policy, final authority to make decisions concerning promotion, tenure, and non-reappointment rests with the Chancellor and no further administrative review is permitted within the University or to the Board of Regents. The Chancellor’s decision is the final agency action of the University of Kansas.
6.9.2. Notification. The Provost shall officially notify the faculty member in writing of the Chancellor's decision. In the case of a negative decision, the Provost's notification shall include a statement of the grounds for the decision. Notification of the denial of tenure during the mandatory review year constitutes a notice of non-reappointment for purposes of section 6.4.3.2 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations.
6.9.3. Effective Date. The award of tenure and/or promotion in rank become effective with the faculty member's next regular appointment (i.e. academic or fiscal year).
[This section was last updated on 10/15/07; most