Visual and Performing Arts
Page tree

Downloadable and printable Policies and Procedures for Promotion, Tenure, and Contractual Renewal Word Doc

  • Revised and Approved 4/24/15
  • Revised and Approved 12/03/13 
  • Revised and Approved 06/09/09
  • Revised and Approved 08/29/05
  • Revised and Approved 11/17/04
  • Revised and Approved 04/14/04
  • Revised and Approved 11/09/95
  • Revised and Approved 09/16/93
  • Revised and Approved 05/04/89
  • Revised and Approved 05/02/85
  • Revised and Approved 04/26/83
  • Amended College Board 09/03/81
  • Amended College Board 12/03/81
  • Approved College Board 11/05/81


Foreword

Changes and amendments to this document shall be approved by Faculty Council by majority vote.

This document outlines the policies and procedures to be followed in the promotion, tenure, and contractual renewal processes.  In as much as these policies and procedures bear heavily on the outcome of application for or appeal of promotion, tenure, and contractual renewal, it is cautioned that they be carefully observed.

Exact dates for submission of materials and committee action on the department/area and college levels shall be set in the fall semester of each academic year by the dean in compliance with the promotion and tenure schedules set by the vice chancellor for academic affairs; hence, the dates on the following Promotion and Tenure Calendars may vary slightly from year to year.  Moreover, the Promotion and Tenure Calendars are a rough sketch of activities and responsibilities.

Each area within the college shall establish its procedures for mentoring tenure-line faculty.  It is the responsibility of each director or chairperson to ensure that each tenure-line faculty member has at least one faculty mentor. Consideration may be given to identifying a faculty mentor outside the unit as well as inside the unit, particularly when the faculty member’s research is cross-disciplinary in nature.   It is the general obligation of the senior faculty to inform tenure-track faculty of their professional responsibilities, assist in his/her integration into the college and respective departments/school, and advise him/her of the expectations for promotion, tenure, and contractual renewal.

Candidates for promotion, tenure, and/or contractual renewal are responsible for familiarizing themselves with policies and procedures, and gathering and submitting materials as outlined in Part Two, Part Three, and/or Part Four of this document as appropriate.

Tenure and Promotion Calendar

The specific dates on the calendar below may vary slightly from year to year.  Please note that this calendar is advisory and does not supersede the body of Policies and Procedures.  We recommend that you familiarize yourself with the sections of Policies and Procedures pertaining to your application for tenure and promotion or promotion only. 

Unless a candidate is already appointed at the rank of associate professor or above, consideration of promotion to associate professor will occur coincidently with consideration of indefinite appointment with tenure.

Phase I, Tenure and Promotion activity deadlines during spring semester prior to tenure review year

January 15

CVPA Office of Academic Affairs notifies eligible faculty in writing of pending tenure consideration and sixth year review.

February 1 through May 15

Department chair/director gathers evidence of faculty member’s teaching and advising, creative/scholarly accomplishment, and service.

February 1 through October 1

Faculty gathers her/his own evidence of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly accomplishment, and service.  Candidate may find it helpful at this time to begin Form A* and to discuss materials with department chair/director, mentor, and colleagues.

March 1

No later than this date, candidate must complete the “Candidate’s Request for Tenure Review”** form and submit to the vice chancellor’s office in 503 Crouse-Hinds Hall.  CVPA Office of Academic Affairs is available for verification of information pertaining to candidate’s time toward tenure.

April 1

Candidate submits to department chair/director six to ten names of external reviewers (artist/educators, professionals, or academics outside of Syracuse University, from peer or aspirational peer institutions), and includes rationale for selection of each reviewer for external review requests to be made on candidate’s behalf.  Should your external reviewers be professionals, as well as artist/educators, you may find it necessary to complete two types of external review packets that will appeal to the professional expertise of both constituencies.

April 1 through April 30Department’s tenure and promotion committee and the department chair/director meet to generate its own list of six to ten names of external reviewers and then select and solicit at least three external reviewers from its list and the candidate’s list for a total of a minimum of six external reviewers.

June 30

Faculty submits external review packets to the department chair; department chair/director includes her/his letter to each reviewer, requesting an October 1 return date for all reviews.

Mid-July

Department chair/director express mails external review packets to external reviewers.

*Form A is submitted to the Senate Committee on Appointment and Promotions and must be a stand-alone document without plastic sleeves (see attached).

**”Candidate’s Request for Tenure Review” form is available on the provost’s website (see attached).

Phase II, Tenure and Promotion activity deadlines during fall semester of tenure review year

October 1

Candidate submits her/his completed materials in binders to department chair/director.

October 2 through October 30

Department chair/director assembles all confidential materials, and department’s tenure and promotion committee reviews candidate’s application for tenure and promotion according to appropriate procedures and votes.  Form B*** is completed through “Department Committee Votes” (for and against and date).  Department’s tenure and promotion committee creates additional materials in support of its work, which includes:

  • Department chair/director writes letter (recommendation for promotion or reason for denial), including the committee’s assessment as well as the chair’s own evaluation, a description of tenure and promotion procedures, criteria, standards, and composition of department’s tenure and promotion committee, and completed Form D151****;
  • record of committee votes for and against on Form B

October 30

Department chair/director informs candidate of department tenure and promotion committee’s recommendations.

November 1

Department chair/director makes an appointment with the senior administrator in CVPA Office of Academic Affairs to formally check-in all of candidate’s material binders.

November 15 through January

The college’s tenure and promotion committee meets to review all applications.  If needed the committee may call on department chairs/directors or program coordinators to answer specific questions.  Aside from third-year reviews, the college’s committee strives to complete its deliberation by mid-January.

***Form B is a Senate document that must be submitted by the department chair (see attached).

****Form D151 is a required department chair checklist (see attached).

Phase III, Promotion activity deadlines during spring semester of promotion review year

February 1

All promotion materials (including Forms A and B) are submitted to the dean, who makes her/his independent evaluation. The accumulated dossier and all recommendations are then forwarded to the vice chancellor for a decision, which will be transmitted to the chancellor and Board of Trustees for their concurrence.

Candidate receives from the dean official notification of the college Tenure and Promotion Committee’s decision, and is later informed when the vice chancellor and Board of Trustees have rendered a final decision.

Mid May

The Board of Trustees approves all promotion applications, and candidates are notified following the Board of Trustees meeting during Commencement in May.

Promotion Only Calendar

The specific dates on the calendar below may vary slightly from year to year.  Please note that this calendar is advisory and does not supersede the body of Policies and Procedures.  We recommend that you familiarize yourself with the sections of Policies and Procedures pertaining to your application for tenure and promotion or promotion only.

Phase I, Promotion activity deadlines during spring semester prior to promotion review year

January 15

CVPA Office of Academic Affairs notifies faculty eligible for the first time in rank for promotion (e.g., minimum of one completed year in rank for promotion from instructor to assistant professor; minimum of four completed years in rank for promotion from associate to full professor; see 2.23 Timing of Promotions, The Faculty Manual).

February 15

Faculty indicates in writing to the dean her/his intention to apply for promotion.

February 28

The dean officially notifies faculty in writing of receipt of intent, with calendars of promotion only process to both candidate and department chair.

March 1 through May 15

Department chair/director gathers evidence while in current rank only of faculty member’s teaching and advising, creative/scholarly accomplishment, and service.

March 1 through October 1

Faculty gathers her/his own evidence while in current rank only of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly accomplishment, and service.  Candidate may find it helpful at this time to begin Form A* and to discuss materials with department chair, mentor, and colleagues.

April 1

Candidate submits to department chair/director six to ten names of external reviewers (artist/educators, professionals, or academics outside of Syracuse University, from peer or aspirational peer institutions), and includes rationale for selection of each reviewer for external review requests to be made on candidate’s behalf.  Should your external reviewers be professionals, as well as artist/educators, you may find it necessary to complete two types of external review packets that will appeal to the professional expertise of both constituencies.

April 1 through April 30

Department’s tenure and promotion committee and the department chair/director meet to generate its own list of six to ten names of external reviewers and then select and solicit at least three external reviewers from its list and the candidate’s list for a total of a minimum of six external reviewers.

June 30

Faculty submits external review packets to the department chair/director; department chair/director includes her/his letter to each reviewer, requesting an October 1 return date for all reviews.

Mid-July

Department chair/director express mails external review packets to external reviewers.

*Form A is submitted to the Senate Committee on Appointment and Promotions and must be a stand-alone document without plastic sleeves (see attached).

Phase II, Promotion activity deadlines during fall semester of promotion review year

October 1

Candidate submits her/his completed materials in binders to department chair/director.

October 2 through October 30

Department chair/director assembles all confidential materials, and department’s tenure and promotion committee reviews candidate’s application for promotion according to appropriate procedures and votes.  Form B** is completed through “Department Committee Votes” (for and against and date).  Department’s tenure and promotion committee creates additional materials in support of its work, which includes:

  • Department chair writes letter (recommendation for promotion or reason for denial), including the committee’s assessment as well as the chair’s own evaluation, a description of promotion procedures, criteria, standards, and composition of department’s tenure and promotion committee, and completed Form D152;
  • record of committee votes for and against on Form B.

October 30

Department chair/director informs candidate of department tenure and promotion committee’s decision.  At this time the candidate has the option to formally withdraw in writing to the dean her/his application for promotion from further consideration.

November 1

Department chair/director makes an appointment with the senior administrator in CVPA Office of Academic Affairs to formally check-in all of candidate’s promotion binders.

November 15 through January

The college’s tenure and promotion committee meets to review all applications.  If needed the committee may call on department chairs/directors or program coordinators to answer specific questions.  Aside from third-year reviews, the college’s committee strives to complete its deliberation by mid-January.

**Form B is a Senate document that must be submitted by the department chair (see attached).
***Form D152 is a required department chair checklist (see attached).

Phase III, Promotion activity deadlines during spring semester of promotion review year

February 1

All promotion materials (including Forms A and B) are submitted to the dean, who makes her/his independent evaluation. The accumulated dossier and all recommendations are then forwarded to the vice chancellor for a decision, which will be transmitted to the chancellor and Board of Trustees for their concurrence.

Candidate receives from the dean official notification of the college Tenure and Promotion Committee’s decision, and is later informed when the vice chancellor and Board of Trustees have rendered a final decision.

Mid May

The Board of Trustees approves all promotion applications, and candidates are notified following the Board of Trustees meeting during Commencement in May. 

Part One: Committees

General Guidelines for Committees

The committee structure for reviewing candidates for promotion, tenure, and contractual renewal must conform to University guidelines and should be as consistent as possible across the areas of the college while still retaining some flexibility at the departmental level to accommodate local traditions and practices.

According to University guidelines, deliberative bodies should be independent across levels (i.e., no individual should actively participate or vote in two levels of the process, such as at both the department/school and College level).

Committees for promotion and tenure should exclude individuals with potential conflicts of interest. In these committees, potential conflicts of interest occur when individuals who may directly or indirectly derive a personal benefit are in a position to influence a decision (e.g., promotion of a spouse or partner). Individuals may also recuse themselves from cases in which participation or voting might pose a substantial conflict with the performance of their primary duties in the University.

Department/School Committees

The criteria for membership and voting privileges on all departmental/area committees shall be specified in that unit’s written policies and procedures regarding tenure, promotion, and annual contractual renewal. Those policies and procedures may differ from, but may not be inconsistent with college and university guidelines. More specifically:

  1. In cases where promotion alone is the consideration, the department may act as a committee of the whole or determine the composition of a separate promotion committee The committee shall consist only of faculty above the rank of the candidate seeking to be promoted.
  2. In cases where tenure alone is the consideration (because the candidate already holds associate professor rank) the department/school review shall be conducted by a voting committee consisting of all tenured faculty members in the department.
  3. In cases where tenure and promotion to associate professor are being reviewed simultaneously, the department/school shall have a single review committee and that committee shall apply in its deliberations the specific criteria relevant to tenure (as outlined in Part III of this document). The voting membership of this committee shall consist of all tenured faculty members in the department.
  4. In the event that the department/school has fewer than five tenured faculty members or five full professors (in the case of promotion to full professor) available to serve on its review committee, the dean shall appoint additional tenured faculty member(s) and/or full professor(s) whose area(s) of study are appropriate to that of the candidate. The minimum number of faculty members sitting on a tenure committee shall be five voting members.
  5. The department/school’s representative to the College Tenure & Promotion Committee must vote at the College level, and may not actively participate in the department/school review.  She or he should attend the review, but remain strictly in a “listener” role in order to be fully informed about the decision of the committee.

College Committee

There shall be a standing committee of the college named the tenure and promotion committee, which shall deliberate upon the matter of faculty tenure and promotion. In terms of tenure and promotion, the committee shall act as advisor to the dean.

Membership of College Committee

The committee shall be made up of one full-time tenured full professor, representing each designated area of the college, and one full-time student. The only exception to full professor status occurs when an academic unit does not have an eligible full professor available to serve. In such cases, a tenured associate professor may serve, as long as at least 2/3 of the committee are full professors.

  1. Faculty members shall be elected for two-year terms. Elections will be held during the spring semester for the following academic year.
  2. Alternates shall be elected by these areas in the same proportions.
  3. Half of the area representatives and alternates shall be elected in even-numbered years. Representatives and alternates from the remaining areas shall be elected in odd-numbered years.
  4. The student representative will serve a one-year term. Each of the areas will nominate an undergraduate or graduate student. From this slate of students, the dean will appoint the student member and one (1) alternate with the committee’s concurrence.
  5. Alternates shall serve in the case of an extended absence of a committee member, or because of his/her ineligibility to serve.
  6. An alternate will not serve as a temporary replacement if a member is unable to attend a called meeting.
  7. A candidate for tenure or promotion or member of a candidate’s family will not serve on the tenure and promotion committee.
  8. An undergraduate student serving on the committee will have completed two years of full-time study in residence in the college.
  9. A graduate student serving on the committee shall have completed at least two semesters as a matriculated student in the college.

Convening the College Committee

  1. The dean formally notifies each area no later than October 1 of the membership of the committee for that academic year.
  2. The dean shall convene the committee after the fall meeting of the Faculty Council.
  3. Written notice of meetings should be given to committee members by the chairperson at least one week prior to the scheduled meeting.
  4. The committee begins formal deliberations early enough to meet deadlines set by the University for tenure and promotion.
  5. The committee shall maintain a record of the following activities:
  6. Time and location of all meetings
  7. List of attendees at all meetings
  8. Duration of each meeting
  9. Significant action taken at each meeting
  10. In cases where promotion is the only consideration, a copy of the letter to the candidate indicating approval or denial of application for promotion.
  11. Initiations of recommendations.

Committee Deliberations

Because the requirements for tenure differ in important ways from the requirements for promotion, and because the nature of committee recommendations also differs for tenure versus promotion, the process of deliberation for each type of decision requires somewhat different guidelines. These guidelines are outlined in Part Two (promotion only), and Part Three (tenure and contractual renewal). The committee shall develop a calendar for reviewing a) promotion-only cases, b) tenure and cases seeking both tenure & promotion to associate professor, and c) third-year portfolio reviews in accordance with the demands of the University calendar for submitting recommendations to the dean, vice chancellor, and any appropriate University or University Senate committees.

Part Two: Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor and Contractual Renewal Process

The college and University understands the awarding of tenure to normally be simultaneously linked to promotion to associate professor, unless the candidate already holds that rank. Tenure is a future-oriented decision for both the college and the faculty member being considered. Tenure reflects clear and relent evidence of future excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service. It is obvious that judgments about future excellence are, in part, based on past accomplishments. The college also acknowledges that tenure is ultimately granted by the provost and the Board of Trustees.

The college recognizes that the evidence produced for a case for tenure will be similar to the evidence produced for a case for promotion, Given the connection of the tenure and promotion, the college takes the position that a candidate deemed worthy of tenure is also worthy of promotion to the rank of associate professor. Procedurally, tenure and promotion to associate professor is a linked process. There are exceptions, such as when a candidate already holds the rank of associate professor.

Projected merit should be one of the underlying considerations for tenure, and not a reward for past accomplishments; past performance, however, is an important basis for foretelling future performance. The college must also consider the projected contribution of the candidate to the department/school, the college, and the University.

It is the obligation of the college to ask and answer:

  1. Does relevant evidence clearly point to an expectation of future excellence of accomplishment in the appropriate categories of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service?
  2. Given the present expectations for the future of programs in the department/area, the college, and the University, is there good reason to expect that the projected contributions of the candidate will be needed components of such programs?
  3. Will granting of tenure to the candidate strengthen the program(s) of the department/school, and the college sufficiently to offset the reduction in academic flexibility entailed by losing a junior (i.e., non-tenured) position?

It is the responsibility of the department chair/director to inform the candidate of his/her upcoming tenure review. Except where stated otherwise, it is the responsibility of the candidate to gather, assemble, and submit materials justifying tenure. These materials are to be submitted to the department chair/director. Candidates are encouraged to consult with their department about the process. Materials should be organized in a sequence consistent with Form D151 (Tenure Materials Checklist).

Candidate must be proven to have met the prerequisites set down in the Faculty Manual (2.3).

Criteria for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

Standards

Tenure must be viewed as future-oriented as opposed to promotion, which is awarded in recognition of past achievements. Tenure involves the difficult projection of both the candidate and the institution many years into the future. Hence, a tenure decision must be made out of a sense of responsibility for the future of the institution.

Tenure is not granted as a normal event. There exists no eventual “right to tenure,” nor inevitability to it. Faculty members seeking tenure must prove their merit as it relates to the best interest of the University, college, and department/school. In short, the administration of the University, college, and department/school must be convinced that a career-long commitment to a faculty member will serve the present and future goals of the institution.

Because tenure is a matter which is future-oriented, the criteria for deliberation encompass and extend those followed for promotion.

Criteria for Tenure

  1. Is there evidence that the candidate has demonstrated strong quality in their teaching, research/practice?
  2. Is there evidence that the candidate will make important contributions through teaching and research/ practice in the future?  It is also relevant to ask whether there is evidence that the candidate will make significant service contributions.
  3. Is there evidence that the candidate will continue to grow and develop in positive ways in the three areas: teaching, research/practice, and service?
  4. Is there evidence that the future contributions of the candidate will sufficiently strengthen the program/department/college to offset the loss in flexibility caused by tenure?

Based upon these criteria, the denial of tenure would rest on one or more of the reasons stated below.

Denial of Tenure

  1. Unsatisfactory performance or progress causing doubt as to the level of future performance in terms of teaching, research/practice, and service.
  2. Performance and qualifications predictive of future contributions which are not appropriate to the institutions expected programmatic needs.
  3. Projected future financial situations which necessitate reduction in staff and resources.                                                                                       

Department/School Responsibility: Tenure

Each department/school bears the responsibility for the initial screening and review of the candidate(s).

Graduate and undergraduate students in a department/area shall be represented by a voting student member(s) of the committee. The number of students serving as full members of the committee will be determined by the department’s/school’s faculty.

The department/school shall may have one committee for both promotion and tenure.

The department/school must clearly determine its procedures for the initial screening and review of the candidates. A written description of such procedures must be given to each candidate, and to the college promotion and tenure committee, during the first part of the academic year.

The department/area committee shall maintain a record of the following activities:

  1. Time and location of all meetings.
  2. List of attendees at all meetings.
  3. Duration of each meeting.
  4. Significant action taken at each meeting.

The department/school votes whether to recommend tenure with promotion to associate professor (unless the candidate already holds that rank). A summary brief may be written by the faculty chair of the tenure and promotion committee and reviewed by the committee and is then forwarded to the chairperson/director, who is responsible for writing a comprehensive executive summary which includes:

  1. Whether the applicant is recommended tenure with promotion to associate professor.
    1. a summary narrative of the committee’s deliberations in each area of evaluation:  teaching/advising, scholarship/creative work, and service (drawn from the committee chair’s summary brief, if provided)
    2. the committee’s reasons for denial, if appropriate
    3. the department chair/director’s narrative recommendation of the candidate’s accomplishments in each area of evaluation:  teaching/advising, scholarship/creative work, and service
    4. the department chair/director’s reasons for denial, if appropriate
  2.  A detailed description and evaluation of promotion procedures, including:
    1.  criteria for evaluation
    2. composition of department/area promotion committee 
    3. record of votes, for and against
    4. other procedures used by the department/area promotion committee
  3. The executive summary is shared with all members of the committee.
  4. The department chair/director completes Form B which becomes part of the candidate’s application.
  5. The department chair/director forwards the candidate’s application to the college promotion and tenure committee.
  6. The procedures used by the department are subject to review by the college promotion and tenure committee.
  7. A majority vote of the department/school promotion committee is required for faculty’s endorsement of a candidate’s application.

College Responsibility: Tenure

The standing college tenure and promotion committee (see Part One, Sections I-VI) shall deliberate on all tenure and -promotion cases. The committee shall act as advisor to the dean.

Recommendations

  1. The committee deliberates on all applications and makes a recommendation.
    1. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the committee membership. The committee may not act without a quorum.
    2. An affirmative vote requires a majority of the committee membership present at the time the candidate’s application is being reviewed. In order to vote on the candidate, a committee member must have been present for the discussion of the candidate’s credentials.
    3. Voting shall be by secret ballot and completed in two steps:
      1.  each committee member votes “yes” or “no” on the question of whether the candidate should be recommended for tenure with promotion to associate professor and returns his/her folded ballot to the committee chairperson.
      2. after the ballots are collected, the chairperson receives from each committee member a clear and objective anonymous written statement of the reason(s) for his/her vote. The written statements are sealed and forwarded to the dean via the committee’s secretary, to be used at the dean’s discretion.
      3.  after the written statements are collected sealed, the ballots are reviewed by the chairperson and the results of the committee vote are announced. The written statements are then used by the chair of the committee to draft the committee’s recommendation.
  2. The committee shall maintain a record of the following activities:
    1. Time and location of all meetings.
    2. List of attendees at all meetings.
    3. Duration of each meeting.
    4. Significant action taken at each meeting.
  3. The committee makes a written assessment and recommendation on each candidate to the dean. This document will be reviewed by the committee.
  4. The dean makes the recommendation on tenure with promotion to associate professor for each candidate to the vice chancellor for academic affairs.
  5. The dean communicates to the appropriate chair/director and the candidate of the dean’s recommendation being sent to the vice chancellor for academic affairs and recommendation of the college tenure committee.  
  6. The dean informs the candidate in writing and in person of the tenure decision of the vice chancellor for academic affairs within ten working days of that decision.
  7. The dean informs the appropriate department chair/director and the college tenure committee of the vice chancellor for academic affairs’ decision in writing.                            

Specific Procedures: Tenure

Yearly Progress Reviews and Contractual Renewals during the Probationary Period

During the six-year probationary period, the candidate’s progress toward tenure will be reviewed each year in the areas of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service. Teaching and advising will be given at least equal weight with creative/scholarly activities. Appropriateness of progress affects judgments of merit.

Letter of Expectation

As a research university, Syracuse University expects that faculty members will be actively engaged in an intellectual and creative life that enhances the knowledge base or otherwise extends the boundaries in their chosen areas of concentration.  The University also has a tradition of permitting various allocations of effort across research and teaching.  Schools and Colleges are expected to provide guidelines to all faculty regarding allocations of effort. In particular, Schools and Colleges must provide guidelines for those individuals whose teaching, research, and service do not sharply divide into distinct categories so that they can present integrated dossiers and accounts of activities.  In VPA, these guidelines should be spelled out in a letter of expectation written by the Department Chair/Director, in consultation with the candidate and the department/school tenure committee, and approved by the Dean. Such letters of expectation should normally be available to the candidate no later than the end of the first year of appointment, but may be amended (at the request of the candidate) through the same process described above.

There are four kinds of reviews: annual, third-year, sixth-year (tenure), and post-tenure review.

Annual Reviews: Years One and Two

Tenure-track faculty are normally given an initial three-year contract which takes them through the Third Year Review.  Thus the purpose of the annual review process in years one and two is to affirm that appropriate progress is being made.  

  1. During the candidate’s first and second years he/she will undergo what are termed “Annual Reviews: Years One and Two.” In years one and two, the candidate’s department chair and department tenure committee evaluate the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service.
    1. The candidate will receive a summary narrative from the department chair/director that evaluates the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service, both from the perspective of the tenure committee and of the chair/director.
    2. The information that forms the basis for the narrative will be taken from the candidate’s annual Curriculum Vitae Update Form and its supporting documents supplied by the candidate, which may include: courses taught, indicators of course preparation (course syllabi, assignments, instructional development), new courses introduced, other teaching and administrative activity (instructional resources management, invited lectures, masters classes, workshops, independent study, internships, experience credit), graduate committees (thesis advisor, thesis committee, comprehensive examination committee chair or member, dissertation committee, dissertation advisor), course evaluations, peer evaluations, personal statement of effectiveness as teacher and advisor, advising load (undergraduate, graduate, mentoring), advising materials, advising assessments, publication of scholarly work (books, chapters, refereed journals, materials in press, material under revision, material under review), publication of creative work (print and broadcast, collateral, exhibitions), conference papers (competitively selected, invited), citation index, exhibitions (invited, juried), awards (grants, fellowships, honors), works in progress (subject with stage of completion and departmental evaluation and sponsorship and estimated date and place of exhibition, performance or publication), service, committee service (department/area, college, University), faculty mentoring (official, unofficial), facilities management, professional associations (offices held, editorial boards), community activity associated with professional work, other community activity, and other materials demonstrating the candidate’s progress.
    3. The department’s narrative should make explicit references to the data supplied by the candidate (with sensitivity for the need to maintain confidentiality) and the standards by which data are evaluated.
    4. The candidate should include a brief forecasting statement of goals and objectives for the next year
    5. The assessment contains specific references to accomplishments, reservations, and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations:
    6. The candidate should include a brief forecasting statement of goals and objectives for the next year. 
  2. The assessment contains specific references to accomplishments, reservations, and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations:
    1. “Continue in current appointment with recognition of the following accomplishment(s)”;
    2. “Continue in current appointment with recognition of the following accomplishment(s), reservation(s), and stipulation(s)”;
  3. The assessment is recorded and placed in the candidate’s file. The file is open for examination by the candidate.
  4. The candidate is apprised of the department’s assessment by the department chair/director in personal consultation.
  5. The assessment is forwarded to the dean of the college who, after appraising it includes comments and forwards it (with comments) to the office of vice chancellor for academic affairs. In the event that revisions are recommended because of irrelevant, inappropriate or inadequate comments, no changes in the assessment can be made without notifying the department chair/director and candidate.
  6. If the candidate dissents from the department’s appraisal of progress, resolution is sought in conference with the department chair/director.
  7. Failure to reach agreement permits the candidate to appeal to the dean of the college.
  8. If resolution is not reached with the dean and the candidate, the differences of opinion are attached, in writing, to the assessment and forwarded to the vice chancellor for academic affairs.
  9. In the spring semester of Year Two, the candidate is informed by the department chair/director that s/he should begin preparing a more comprehensive set of materials for the Third-Year Review.

Third-Year Review

  1. The third-year review is considered a dress rehearsal for the candidate’s sixth year review. It provides the candidate with the opportunity of presenting a cumulative index of his/her progress toward tenure and to receive comprehensive feedback on her/his performance during three years of employment in the department. It is also the point at which the department/school determines that the candidate is making sufficient progress, thus enabling a recommendation for a new three-year appointment to take the candidate to the Sixth Year Review (Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor).  If sufficient progress is not being made, the Third Year Review recommendation will make that clear and will provide the candidate with detailed feedback as to what is necessary to increase the likelihood of a successful Sixth Year (tenure) review.
    1. The candidate will receive a summary narrative from the department chair/director that evaluates the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service, both from the perspective of the tenure committee and of the chair/director.
    2. The information that forms the basis for the narrative will be taken from data supplied by the candidate as specified in section “C” below under “XXXV. Sixth Year Review,” with the exception of C.3.a.3 and C.6.b.3 – the data supplied by the candidate should span the candidate’s first two and one-half years of employment in the department. It should also be understood that the use of formal external peer reviews (required for sixth year review) is not required for the third year review. Such reviews are not precluded, but their use must be agreed upon by both the candidate and the department. There may be unusual circumstances; e.g., where tenured faculty in a department lacks expertise in a specific or emerging area of specialization, that it may be advisable to conduct external peer reviews.
    3. The department’s narrative should make explicit references to the data supplied by the candidate (with sensitivity for the need to maintain confidentiality) and the standards by which the data are evaluated.
    4. The candidate should include a brief forecasting statement for the next three years.
  2. The assessment contains specific references to accomplishments, reservations, and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations:
    1. “Continue to a new three-year appointment with recognition of the following accomplishment(s)”;
    2. “Continue for one year with recognition of the following accomplishment(s), reservation(s), and stipulation(s)”;
    3. “Terminate for the following reasons.”
  3. The assessment is recorded and placed in the candidate’s file. The file is open for examination by the candidate.
  4. The candidate is apprised of the department’s assessment by the department chair/director in personal consultation.
  5. The assessment is forwarded to the dean of the college who, in turn, after appraising it, includes comments and brings it to the college tenure and promotion committee for discussion and written feedback on the organization and inclusion of an appropriate range of materials in the dossier. The tenure and promotion committee’s written feedback is then conveyed to both the candidate and the chairperson/director no later than the last day of the spring semester.   In the event that revisions are recommended because of irrelevant, inappropriate or inadequate comments, no changes in the assessment can be made without notifying the department chair/director and candidate.
  6. If the candidate dissents from the department’s appraisal of progress, resolution is sought in conference with the department chair/director.
  7. Failure to reach agreement permits the candidate to appeal to the dean of the college.

Annuals Reviews: Years Four and Five

  1. During the candidate’s fourth and fifth years he/she will undergo what are termed “Annual Reviews: Years Four and Five.” In years four and five, the candidate’s department chair/director and department tenure committee indicate their assessment of each non-tenured candidate’s progress toward tenure.
    1. The candidate will receive a summary narrative from the department chair/director that evaluates the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching and advising, creative/scholarly activities, and service, both from the perspective of the tenure committee and of the chair/director.
    2. The information that forms the basis for the narrative will be taken from the candidate’s annual Curriculum Vitae Update Form and its supporting documents supplied by the candidate, which may include: courses taught, indicators of course preparation (course syllabi, assignments, instructional development), new courses introduced, other teaching and administrative activity (instructional resources management, invited lectures, masters classes, workshops, independent study, internships, experience credit), graduate committees (thesis advisor, thesis committee, comprehensive examination committee chair or member, dissertation committee, dissertation advisor), course evaluations, peer evaluations, personal statement of effectiveness as teacher and advisor, advising load (undergraduate, graduate, mentoring), advising materials, advising assessments, publication of scholarly work (books, chapters, refereed journals, materials in press, material under revision, material under review), publication of creative work (print and broadcast, collateral, exhibitions), conference papers (competitively selected, invited), citation index, exhibitions (invited, juried), awards (grants, fellowships, honors), works in progress (subject with stage of completion and departmental evaluation and sponsorship and estimated date and place of exhibition, performance or publication), service, committee service (department/area, college, University), faculty mentoring (official, unofficial), facilities management, professional associations (offices held, editorial boards), community activity associated with professional work, other community activity, and other materials demonstrating the candidate’s progress.
    3. The department’s narrative should make explicit references to the data supplied by the candidate (with sensitivity to the need to maintain confidentiality) and the standards by which the data are evaluated.
    4. The candidate should include a brief forecasting statement for the next year.
  2. The assessment contains specific references to accomplishments, reservations, and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations, depending upon the status of the candidate’s current one-year or three-year appointment:
  3. If candidate currently holds a one-year appointment:
    1. “Continue for one year with recognition of the following accomplishment(s)”;
    2.  “Continue for one year with recognition of the following accomplishment(s), reservation(s), and stipulation(s)”;
    3. “Terminate for the following reasons.”

 If the candidate currently holds a three-year appointment:

  1. “Continue in current appointment with recognition of the following accomplishment(s)”;
  2. “Continue in current appointment with recognition of the following accomplishment(s), reservation(s), and stipulation(s)”;
    1. The assessment is recorded and placed in the candidate’s file. The file is open for examination by the candidate.
    2. The candidate is apprised of the department’s assessment by the department chair/director in personal consultation.
    3. The assessment is forwarded to the dean of the college who, in turn, after appraising it includes comments and forwards it (with comments) to the office of vice chancellor for academic affairs. In the event that revisions are recommended because of irrelevant, inappropriate or inadequate comments, no changes in the assessment can be made without notifying the department chair/director and candidate.
    4. If the candidate dissents from the department’s appraisal of progress, resolution is sought in conference with the department chairperson/director.
    5.  Failure to reach agreement permits the candidate to appeal to the dean of the college.
    6. If resolution is not reached with the dean and the candidate, the differences of opinion are attached, in writing to the assessment and forwarded to the vice chancellor for academic affairs.

Sixth-Year Review

  1. The sixth-year review marks the penultimate year of the candidate’s tenure line appointment and probationary period. The assessment of the candidate’s progress at this point will result either in the granting of tenure with promotion to associate professor and renewal of the candidate’s contract, or the denial of tenure and non-renewal of the candidate’s contract beyond the seventh and final year.
    1. Candidates are responsible for collecting and submitting personal and professional data for review by the college tenure and promotion committee and the department’s/school’s tenure committee.
    2. Such data may include the following as appropriate to the candidate’s position within the college:
      1. Courses taught (over five-year period):
      2. required courses
      3. elected courses
    3. New courses introduced and taught
    4. Evidence of teaching effectiveness:
      1. course evaluations, syllabi, course materials, and letters from matriculated students, graduated students, and colleagues.
        1. material to be requested by department chair/director in consultation with candidate
        2. material and data to be collated by department chair’s/director’s office
        3. material and data to be representative of work for the last five years
    5. Other teaching and administrative responsibilities
    6. Committee service:
      1. department/area
      2. college
      3. University
    7. Evidence of advising effectiveness:
      1. advisement loads
      2. advisement activities, advising materials, advising assessments, and letters from matriculated students and graduated students.
        1. material to be requested by department chair/director in consultation with candidate
        2. material and data to be collated by department chair’s/director’s office
        3. material and data to be representative of work for the last five years
    8. Programs and/or projects developed:
      1. personal statement justifying present and future value to department/area and college
      2. statement on plans for development of future courses, projects, and programs with explanation of value to department/area and college
    9. Exhibition, performance, or publication record. Material representative of the body of work may also be submitted by the candidate.
    10. Involvement in professional organizations.
    11. Letters of evaluation from peers in the profession. The number of external peers, the nature of their credentials, and the rationale for their selection should be consistent with criteria specified by the vice chancellor for academic affairs:
      1. unless a detailed rationale is provided to the contrary, external peer reviewers should be full professors from institutions or programs better than Syracuse University. Reviewers should not be selected if they have had a significant prior relationship with the candidate (e.g., worked together at a previous institution, were cohorts in the same graduate program, had a prior teacher-student relationship, co-authored articles, books, or collaborated in producing creative work, etc.). Where appropriate in judging creative work, reviewers may be highly regarded professionals whose credentials would place them on a par with those having achieved excellence in the best academic institutions. In such cases, the number of professional reviewers should not be greater than the number of academic reviewers. Under normal circumstances, professional reviewers should be limited to reviewing creative work and service to the profession. They should not be asked to judge the quality of the candidate’s teaching or university service.
      2. the procedure for selecting external peer reviewers is as follows:
        1. the candidate provides a list of 6-10 potential reviewers;
        2. the tenure committee generates a list of 6-10 reviewers; then
        3. the tenure committee selects two or three names from each list and an equal number of alternates from each list. Reviewers are solicited from this final list until at least six five reviewers have agreed to participate. According to University guidelines, a majority of the final roster of outside evaluators must come from the committee’s list.
      3. in emerging fields of scholarship/creative work, when a department does not have in-house expertise among its senior faculty, solicitation of external peer reviewers may require consulting with one or more recognized experts in that field in order to generate a list of potential reviewers.
      4. d. outside letters of recommendation shall be solicited by the chair/director of the candidate’s department/school. Great care should be taken in writing a detailed cover letter to external reviewers, explaining specifically what they are being asked to evaluate and by what criteria. Reviewers should be given a copy of the relevant sections of this document to guide their review of the candidate’s credentials. Reviewers should also be guaranteed that their letters of evaluation will be treated with the utmost confidentiality.
      5. letters to be collated by the department/school and included in the candidate’s review data.
    12. The yearly departmental contract renewal summary narratives. There should be a total of five summary narratives for each candidate, one narrative per each of the five preceding years.
    13. Two (2) copies of standard curriculum vitae documents will be submitted by the candidate.
    14. Two (2) copies of the tenure material will be submitted by the candidate.
    15. For consistency and ease of reviewing the data listed above, and for consistency with written criteria specified by the vice chancellor, the college promotion and tenure committee may alter the order in which materials are to be assembled for review by modifying the sequence on Form D151 (see Part Six: Appendices). Any revisions to Form D151 must be made and provided to candidates prior to the last day of classes in the spring semester prior the year of review. For candidates seeking both tenure and promotion, the candidate should complete only the tenure materials checklist (Form D151). The candidate need not submit the promotion materials checklist (Form D152).
      1. Such data is submitted to the department chair/director by the date set by the dean’s office.
      2. No material may be added to a candidate’s credentials after material has been submitted to the department tenure committee by the assigned due date.
      3. The department chair/director distributes the data to the department tenure committee.
      4. The department chair/director writes an executive summary consistent with the process described in Section XIX of this document.
        1. The information that forms the basis for the department chair’s/director’s and the department tenure committee’s assessments and recommendations should include the data submitted under “C” above.
        2. The department chair’s/director’s and the department tenure committee’s assessments and recommendations should make explicit references to the data submitted under “C” above and the standards by which the data are evaluated.
        3. The assessments and recommendations contain specific references to accomplishments, reservations and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations:
    16.  “Recommend to grant tenure with promotion to associate professor” (unless the candidate already holds that rank); or, “Not recommended for tenure with promotion.”
    17. The department chair/director submits the executive summary containing the assessments and recommendations to the dean.
    18. The dean forwards the assessment and recommendation and all supporting data to the college tenure committee.
    19. The department chair/director may make a report to, and answer questions of, the college tenure committee at a designated meeting.
    20. The college tenure committee makes a written assessment and recommendation on each candidate to the dean. This document will be reviewed by the committee.
      1. The information that forms the basis for the college tenure committee’s assessment recommendation should include the department chair’s/director’s and the department tenure committee’s assessments and recommendations, and the data submitted under “C” above.
      2. The college tenure committee’s assessments and recommendations should make explicit reference to the department chair’s/director’s executive summary and the data supplied under “C” above. In addition, it should make explicit reference to the standards by which the aforementioned assessments and recommendations, and the aforementioned data supplied by the candidate, are evaluated.
      3. The assessments and recommendations contain specific references to accomplishments, reservations and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations:
        1. a. “Recommend to grant tenure with promotion to associate professor” (unless the candidate already holds that rank) or “Not recommended for tenure”
    21. The dean makes the recommendation on tenure and promotion for each candidate to the vice chancellor for academic affairs.
      1. 1. The information that forms the basis for the dean’s recommendation should include the department chair’s/director’s executive summary, the college tenure committee’s assessment, and the data submitted under “C” above.
      2. The dean’s recommendation should include a rationale for the dean’s decision.
      3. The dean’s recommendation contains specific references to accomplishments, reservations, and/or stipulations relating to each of the areas. Each assessment will include one of the following recommendations:
        1. “Recommend to grant tenure with promotion to associate professor” (unless the candidate already holds that rank); 
        2.  “Not recommended for tenure with promotion.”
    22. The dean forwards the recommendation to the vice chancellor for academic affairs.
      1. The dean communicates in writing to the appropriate chair/director and the candidate of the dean’s recommendation being sent to the vice chancellor for academic affairs and the recommendation of the college tenure committee.
      2. The dean informs the candidate in writing and in person of the tenure decision of the vice chancellor for academic affairs within ten working days of the decision.
    23. The dean informs the appropriate department chair/director and the college tenure committee of the vice chancellor’s decision within ten working days of the decision.

Post-Tenure Review

The granting of tenure and promotion to associate professor is accompanied by appropriate expectations, including the expectation of continued striving for excellence in teaching/advising, research/creative work, and service.  Whereas the first two expectations regarding teaching and research reflect a continuation of the accomplishments that result in tenure and promotion, the expectations regarding service reflect a marked increase in both the quality and degree of effort in service activities. This shift in level of service is also aimed at helping to reduce the service load on the next generation of tenure-track faculty, enabling them to devote a higher percentage of effort towards teaching and research.

Post-tenure review of faculty members should reflect this shift in expectations.  Annual performance reviews are an essential aspect of the University’s merit-based salary adjustment process, and an important means of providing feedback about performance to faculty members, both pre- and post-tenure. Whereas the pre-tenure review process, described elsewhere in this document, involves review of performance by both the department/school tenure and promotion committee and the department chair/director, post-tenure reviews are primarily the responsibility of the department chair/director, as outlined below:

  1. The performance of all tenured faculty members should be reviewed in writing by the department chair/director each year.  The review should be based on a close assessment of the quality of the faculty member’s activities with regard to teaching/advising, research/creative work, and service as recorded in the faculty member’s CV Update, summaries of student course evaluations for the preceding calendar year (spring and fall semesters), course syllabi, and feedback from relevant sources regarding quality of service work, etc.  A template for organizing the review letter is available from the college’s Office of Academic Affairs.
  2. Reviews will be conducted early in the spring semester of each year, with due dates based on the calendar provided by the VPA Office of Academic Affairs.
  3. A copy of the department chair/director’s review letter is provided to the appropriate faculty member in advance of the date the letter is to be submitted to the VPA Office of Academic Affairs, and the faculty member is invited to meet with the chair/director to discuss the review.
  4. Discussion with the faculty member about the review should focus on both strengths and weaknesses, with an emphasis on how performance can be improved in the subsequent year.
  5. If the faculty member believes the chair/director’s review of his or her performance is biased or otherwise unfair, he or she may appeal the review to the department/school’s tenure and promotion committee. The appeal must be in writing to the chair/director within five working days of his or her performance review meeting with the chair/director.  The tenure and promotion committee should review the same materials that were submitted for the chair/director’s review, and reach an independent judgment regarding the faculty member’s performance. If this judgment differs significantly from the chair/director’s assessment, both reviews are submitted to the dean for final arbitration.
  6. The chair/director sends a copy of the review letter to the VPA Office of Academic Affairs for the dean’s review and for inclusion in the faculty member’s personnel file.
  7. There should be a clear consonance between the substance of the chair/director’s review of a given faculty member’s performance and the chair/director’s subsequent merit salary recommendation to the dean.

Part Three: Promotion

“Recommendation for promotion is recognition of accomplishment for which the merit of the individual is the sole criterion. Initial recommendations are a faculty responsibility and are based on considerations of academic merit and recognized achievement. Questions of finance, numbers in superior ranks, overall faculty distribution, or departmental balance are not involved with faculty recommendations.” (Faculty Manual: 2.2)

 Promotion and its meaning are the life’s blood of a college. The practice of it reflects ultimately on the quality and educational wisdom of the college. Candidates are encouraged to consult with their department about the promotion process and departments are encouraged to establish appropriate mentorship procedures for faculty members.

Guidelines for normal time-in-rank established for the University will be observed as follows:

“Candidates for promotion will normally not be considered until they have completed the following minimum time-in-rank requirements:

  • For promotion from instructor to assistant professor, one completed year;

For promotion from assistant professor to associate professor, coincidental with the granting of tenure; Except in those cases where a faculty member is already at the rank of associate professor or higher (due to initial hiring at that rank or promotion before 2014, the granting of tenure should coincide with promotion to associate professor regardless of time in rank. Other variations from these minimum requirements will be considered under appropriate circumstances.

  • For promotion from associate professor to professor, four completed years

“No one is entitled to advancement solely because of length of service. It should be emphasized that accomplishment and not time in rank is the essential criterion for promotion.” (Faculty Manual: 2.23)

Candidates must be proven to have met the time in rank prerequisites set down in the Faculty Manual (2.23)

Criteria for Promotion

It is expected that each member of the faculty, at any rank, will demonstrate continuing evidence of mastery of her/his art form or field. Educational or scholarly activities for business, industry, the candidate’s profession, or the public; creative work such as design, exhibitions, dramatic or musical performance or compositions, monographs, papers, publications, screening; and the auspices under which they are sponsored may be considered evidence of such mastery.

The candidate’s creative/scholarly and professional accomplishments are based on the three broadly defined criteria set down in the Faculty Manual (2.24, 2.33, and 2.34) and in more explicit detail below. Accomplishments in these criteria must demonstrate growth for advancement from one rank to the next. It is expected such growth should continue to be in evidence after the rank of professor has been attained.

  1. Teaching
    1. “Syracuse University recognizes success in teaching among its tenured faculty to be of vital importance and values innovation and intellectual pursuit embedded within teaching. Teaching involves the arts and skills required for the diffusion of knowledge and guidance toward its effective and independent use.  The successful teacher, among other things, instructs in consonance with the School/College mission, has knowledge of subject matter, skillfully communicates and contributes to student learning and development, acts professionally and ethically, and strives continuously to improve” (Faculty Manual 2.24). The education of students is a primary responsibility of a faculty member. Evidence should be clear that the faculty member is an effective teacher and advisor. Additional evidence, and equally important, is the candidate’s contribution to the education of students through course and curriculum development, graduate teaching and direction of thesis or dissertation work, portfolio reviews, and supervision of internships, independent studies, and other forms of student learning.
    2. Faculty members are expected work in concert with their colleagues to define and implement the teaching mission of their specific department/school and degree program, including identification of program and course learning outcomes, forms of assessing student learning, and periodic review of objectives and outcomes.  In addition, faculty members should be able to demonstrate how the courses they teach contribute to collective program outcomes and otherwise assist students in accomplishing the overall objectives of the degree program.   
  2. Creative/Professional accomplishments
    1. “Faculty members belong to a scholarly and professional communities and are expected to advance these communities by contributing to knowledge through research or other forms of creative work.” The Syracuse University faculty is strong in part because it engages in scholarship that comprises a spectrum of excellence from disciplinary to cross-disciplinary, from theoretical to applied, and from critical to interpretive. Scholarship means in-depth study, learning, inquiry or experimentation designed to make contributions to knowledge as appropriate in specific fields or relevant disciplines. Scholarship is measured by peer recognition of its originality, impact on, and importance to the development of the field(s) or relevant disciplines.” (Faculty Manual 2.24)
    2. Evidence of creative or scholarly accomplishments is the concern of this criterion.
      1. It is normally expected that for an instructor to be promoted to assistant professor he/she will have achieved local and/or regional recognition outside the immediate University circles in creative work, performance, or in scholarly publication.
      2. It is normally expected that for an assistant professor to be promoted to associate professor he/she will have achieved regional and/or national recognition outside of the immediate University circles in creative work, performance, or in scholarly publications.
      3. It is normally expected that for an associate professor to be promoted to full professor he/she will have achieved national and/or international recognition in creative work, performance, or in scholarly publications.
    3. Furthermore, the faculty in each department or school are expected to provide in ongoing discussion and periodically in written articulations a more detailed understanding of what is meant by local, regional, national, and/or international recognition of creative and scholarly accomplishment in their specific disciplines.  The goal in this endeavor is not to proscribe research accomplishment too narrowly but to provide enough clarity that faculty members seeking tenure and promotion can engage in their work with sufficient confidence that they understand the unit’s expectations.  
    4. Faculty members are also expected to demonstrate how their research informs and impacts their teaching.
  3. Service
    1. “Syracuse University asserts the importance of faculty service for the vitality of its academic community, for the professions it represents, and for society at large….Service activities should be of high quality.” (Faculty Manual 2.24)
    2. Examples include:
      1. To the College of Visual and Performing Arts and the University, such as:
        1. administrative service on department/area, school, college, or University committees.
      2. To the community-at-large, such as:
        1. participation in a community organization in which social service or professional expertise is acknowledged.
      3. To the profession, such as:
        1.  invitations to address professional groups,
        2. consultations with professional groups,
        3. membership and effective participation in regional or national professional organizations.
    3. It is generally expected that during the probationary period prior to tenure and promotion to associate professor, tenure-track faculty will be protected by their senior colleagues from bearing too heavy of a service load in order to develop their teaching and research to a high standard.  At the same time, junior faculty are expected to demonstrate a sufficient level and high quality of service as an indication of their potential and longer term contributions to service.  It is further expected that post-tenure and promotion to associate professor, a faculty member’s level of service should increase substantially. 

Balance

Outstanding performance in all three criteria is likely to be rare. The candidate must demonstrate a significant strength in two of the areas and a reasonable amount of accomplishment in the third. The department/school promotion committee and the college promotion committee each should determine what constitutes a “reasonable amount,” according to individual conditions and circumstances.

Exceptions

In exceptional cases, recommendations may be made in less than the prerequisite time in rank. Requests for exceptional consideration must be initiated by the department chair/director.

Department/School Responsibility: Promotion

  1. Each appropriate department/school bears the responsibility for the initial screening and review of the candidate’s application. The department or school may act as a committee of the whole, or may delegate the responsibility to a faculty committee at the discretion of the department’s/school’s faculty.
  2. Graduate and/or undergraduate students in a department or area shall be represented. All members of the committee, including students, will have voting privileges.
  3. The department or area must clearly determine its policies and procedures for promotion. A written description of such procedures must be given to each candidate and to the college promotion and tenure committee during the first part of the academic year.
  4. The administrative head of an area (chairperson or director) attends all meetings of that area’s promotion committee is counted as one of the five minimum voting members.

Specific Procedures: Department/School Promotion

The candidate will submit the prepared application Form A to the department chair/director.

  1.  It is the candidate’s responsibility to prepare Form A with meticulous care. Form A represents the credentials put forward by the applicant and it is the principal document in support of the candidate. Supplementary materials may be supplied as the candidate wishes or the department/school promotion committee requests. Form A may be modified from time to time. The most recent copy of Form A may be found on the Provost’s website.
  2. Upon receipt of the application, the presentation of the candidate’s application becomes the responsibility of the department chair/director.
  3. The department chair/director must review the candidate’s application and forward it to the department/area promotion committee.
  4. Form A may not be edited, amended, or altered in any fashion after receipt by the department/area promotion committee.
  5. The department/area promotion committee may call witnesses to substantiate or interpret credentials.
  6. The department/school promotion committee, upon deliberation, votes on the candidate’s application for promotion using a secret ballot.

The department votes whether to recommend promotion;

A summary brief may be written by the faculty chair of the tenure and promotion committee and reviewed by the committee and is then forwarded to the chairperson/director, who is responsible for writing a comprehensive executive summary (see B below).

  1. The department chairperson informs the candidate of the decision of the department promotion committee.  At this time the candidate has the option to formally withdraw in writing to the dean her/his application for promotion from further consideration. If the candidate withdraws, the process formally stops at this point, but written feedback about how the candidate’s work can be strengthened that would have been included in the committee’s summary brief and/or department chair/director’s executive summary (see next step) should be shared with the candidate in the form of a regular annual performance review letter from the department chair/director.
  2. Assuming the candidate does not withdraw from consideration, the application is accompanied by a detailed executive summary from the department chair/director stating:
    1. Whether the applicant is recommended for promotion.
      1. a summary narrative of the committee’s deliberations in each area of evaluation:  teaching/advising, scholarship/creative work, and service
      2. the committee’s reasons for denial, if appropriate
      3. the department chair/director’s narrative recommendation of the candidate’s accomplishments in each area of evaluation:  teaching/advising, scholarship/creative work, and service
      4. d. the department chair/director’s reasons for denial, if appropriate
  3. A detailed description and evaluation of promotion procedures, including:
    1.  criteria for evaluation
    2. composition of department/area promotion committee
    3.  record of votes, for and against
    4. other procedures used by the department/area promotion committee
  4. The executive summary is shared with all members of the committee.
  5. The department chair/director completes Form B which becomes part of the candidate’s application.
  6. The department chair/director forwards the candidate’s application to the college promotion and tenure committee.
  7. The procedures used by the department are subject to review by the college promotion and tenure committee.
  8. A majority vote of the department/school promotion committee is required for faculty’s endorsement of a candidate’s application.

College Responsibility: Promotion

Deliberation and Decisions

  1. The college tenure and promotion committee shall assign each candidate one reader from the population of the committee whose responsibility will be to provide answers to the committee’s questions and requests for clarification by speaking with the candidate and others if necessary. When possible, the reader shall be from the candidate’s area of the college.
  2. The committee shall review in detail Form A and Form B, and their supporting documents. and shall consider the submission of original, or reproductions of, creative or scholarly works in light of how they are evaluated by experts in the field of endeavor.
  3. The committee deliberates on all applications and renders a decision.
    1. A quorum shall consist of two-thirds (2/3) of the committee membership. The committee may not act without a quorum.
    2. An affirmative vote requires a majority of the committee membership present at the time the candidate’s application is being reviewed. Secret ballots will be used to record the final vote on each candidate.
    3. After each final vote on a candidate, the chairperson receives from each member of the committee a clear and objective written statement of the reason(s) for her/his vote. The statements shall be anonymous. The summaries are forwarded to the dean, via the committee’s secretary. The information within the summaries will be shared with the candidate after he/she has been notified of the action taken by the committee.
  4. The dean communicates in writing to the individual candidate(s) the action taken by the committee.
  5. Formal advocacy for an individual candidate is not a function of individual members of the promotion and tenure committee.

Part Four: Dual Appointments 

Faculty candidates for promotion and/or tenure holding dual appointment with another college are required to fulfill requirement stated above and are reviewed and recommended by representatives from both colleges serving as either a “dual” promotion committee or a “dual” tenure committee.

  1. The dean in consultation with the chair(s) of the college tenure committee and/or the college promotion committee will appoint members to serve either on the dual promotion committee or the dual tenure committee.
  2. The dean of the College of Visual and Performing Arts and the dean of the other college select chairpersons for the dual promotion committee and the dual tenure committee, and decide where the committee(s) shall meet for the first time.
  3. Dual committees shall consist of equal numbers of faculty members from each college and two students from the candidate’s department/area.

Part Five: Appeals

Faculty members denied promotion and/or tenure may appeal the decision to the appropriate standing committees of the University Senate (See Faculty Manual: 2.38; and Bylaws of the Senate of Syracuse University: Article V: Secs. 9-10).

Part Six: Appendices

See page 33 in the Policies and Procedures for Promotion, Tenure, and Contractual Renewal Word Doc