FacultyC1

The department uses College of Business policies and procedures for faculty.

Non-tenure track faculty are evaluated annually based on SEOI’s and review by the Chair. Untenured tenure-track faculty submit the college structured performance records for annual reappointment.  Many faculty provide a brief letter to the Personnel Committee summarizing and reflecting on their accomplishments and plans.  Their files are reviewed by the personnel committee and the chair and forwarded to the Dean.  These reviews are shared with them before forwarding and an opportunity to respond is provided.  

Our department personnel guidelines are under revision.  The Dean provided feedback on a draft of revised guidelines that conform to College guidelines.  The discipline of Anthropology is in the midst of a pardigm shift on what constitutes scholarship.  A wider array of scholarly products, such as contract reports, museum exhibits and documentary films, need to be included in order to capture the full range of scholarly efforts now being produced.  Professional associations recognize that policies for acknowledging a wider range of contributions need to be developed and committees are being formed to do so.  Most have not yet produced documentation setting forth criteria or standards for evaluation, or mechanisms for peer review.  Because our program is heavily involved in each of these areas, it is important for us to develop guidelines that do not disadvantage these kinds of efforts. (See attached draft of guidelines.)

Program assessment is a department concern that is embraced by the chair and Personnel Committee.  Department program assessment measures include our annual Faculty Performance Review. (Please see Appendix A for Department of Art Tenure Promotion and Reappointment Guidelines)  Issues emerging from the Personnel Committee, Curriculum Committee and the Graduate Program Coordinator are placed on the department meeting agendas by the department chair.

Newly hired tenure-track faculty have a ‘letter-of-hire’ that states salary, other funding (moving expenses, research start-up, etc.) and the number of years of experience recognized toward the tenure process at CWU. Lecturers and contract faculty will have letters defining their salary, duties and period of employment.

Tenure and promotion to Associate Professor: Faculty members who are appointed to academic rank of Assistant Professor or higher may be granted tenure and promotion effective the beginning of the academic year following a six (6) year period of full-time employment with the university. The application process and decision for tenure must take place in the sixth probationary year, subject to the current CEPS policy and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). A faculty member may be eligible for early tenure and promotion if so specified in the initial appointment letter and subject to the CBA.

Promotion: A faculty member applies for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor at the same time they apply for tenure. For consideration for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor a faculty member must have five years of exemplary performance in teaching, service and scholarship as an Associate Professor at Central Washington University. (Note: although 8.2.5 of the CBA requires 6 years of professional academic service for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, and 8.2.6 requires 10 years of professional academic experience, unless a faculty member was granted one or two years of prior professional academic experience in his/her letter of hire, the faculty member will NOT be eligible for promotion to Professor without a minimum of 11 years of service. A faculty member may apply for early promotion after 4 years as an associate Professor – see below.)

To identify faculty eligibility, each academic year the Dean of the College of Education and Professional Studies will prepare a list of all faculty in the College who appear to be eligible for promotion and this list will be forwarded to the Aviation Department.

Early Tenure and Promotion. Subject to CBA 20.3.3, Associate Professors cannot be promoted before completing a minimum of four years of service in their current rank, however four years in a current rank does not guarantee promotion. Candidates must be exemplary in teaching service and scholarship. Potential candidates should consult with their mentors, the Department Chair, or a personnel committee member before applying. Any suggestions, recommendations or approval during these consultations can not be taken as a positive endorsement of early promotion and tenure.

Post-Tenure Review:
Beginning with the most recent substantive review (tenure, promotion, post-tenure review), tenured faculty will be reviewed every three years.

Copy of handbook:
S:\Aviation\FACULTY\Aviation Dept Handbook

Personnel Committee - This standing committee establishes policy and procedures for the regularly occurring faculty personnel issues with which all CWU departments deal. These include reappointment, promotion, tenure, merit, post-tenure review, etc. The committee attempts to fulfill its role in reviewing faculty performance while promoting the mentoring of especially our junior faculty.

The faculty are evaluated in accordance with university, college, and department policies.  Probationary faculty are reviewed annually by both the personnel committee and the chair.  Tenured faculty are reviewed every three years by the personnel committee and the chair.  Full time non-tenure track faculty are reviewed prior to reappointment.

The personnel committee consists of three tenured faculty excluding the Department Chair and may contain non-voting non-tenured faculty.  The committee reviews faculty performance for reappointment, promotion, tenure, merit, and post-tenure review and makes recommendations to the Dean of COTS.

The department is currently in the process of getting approval on standards for RTP that align with COTS and University standards.

Personnel Committee:
Made up of three (3) members of the full-time communication faculty, all tenured. If needed, a full-time tenured member of another department may serve as a member. The Department Chair may also appoint non-tenured faculty for specific, decisions where allowed by the Faculty Code. Members are elected annually in accordance with the CBA. Chair of the committee is selected by its members. The Department Chair will schedule the first meeting of the year. 

Responsibilities: 
Review all tenure, promotion, retention, and merit documents. 
Assist the Department Chair with personnel issues. 
When necessary, develop and review criteria for personnel decisions. 
Oversee the adjunct instructor pool. 
Conduct, along with the Department Chair, personnel reviews of adjunct faculty members.

January, 2008
Full-time Faculty: The Central Evaluation Activity

As with all university faculty, computer science faculty members are expectied to contribute to three areas: instruction, scholarly activites, and service. The department believes that proper professional advancement occurs when faculty honestly assess themselves and set goals for future developement. The department also believes that it is important to carry out such activites annually. To that end and as noted earlier, the department carries out this evaluation during the Spring Faculty Development Day. The evaluation consists of two pieces: (1) a peer-review of teaching together with a review of other assessment measures and a review and (2) setting of faculty members professional achievements and goals. Being a small department, both pieces are reviewed by the committee of the whole. Additional review, particularly with respect to the capstone courses, occurs as specific milestones are achieved during the courses.

The department requires faculty participation in the annual peer-review of teaching and assessment of student learning outcomes. Here each faculty member will conduct a thorough review of one class (or perhaps a pair of sequenced classes. Each faculty member is asked to prepare a complete portfolio for the class (or classes). [Different classes are to be presented each year until the department has reviewed the entire curriculum. The entire curriculum is generally reviewed over a three year period.] The purpose of the review is two-fold. The first purpose is to review the current professional instructional development of each faculty member. The second purpose is to provide another tool for our curriculum review. Portfolios include the following information: textbook, syllabus, objectives, notes, slides, other materials including web-based, programming projects, exams, and samples of student work. Additionally, the faculty reviews the collected assessment data which includes results of the capstone courses, results of the Major Field Test, results of the senior colloquium, senior exit interviews, comments from graduates and participation in undergraduate research.

In the professional development review, each faculty member provides the current year's goals, accomplishments and a self-evaluation. In the goal setting, each faculty member proposes goals for the next year that are reviewed, by the committee and the Dean, for appropriateness for professional development and appropriateness to departmental, college and university mission. The Department also believes that this is an appropriate time for faculty to propose filling a particular niche or role within the department. As with the goals, the committee and the Dean review such proposals for appropriateness for professional development and appropriateness to departmental, college and university mission.

Part-time Faculty

In the Computer Science Department part-time faculty are hired as instructors. Thus their annual evaluation is based solely on their instruction. This is evaluated on classroom visit and material such as textbook, syllabus, objectives, notes, slides, other materials including web-based, programming projects, exams, and samples of student work.

Criteria for promotion and tenure evaluation build upon the criteria specified by the Faculty Code and the COB. The weights to be used among the three areas of responsibility are the same as those used for the merit process: Teaching Effectiveness (40%); Scholarliness and Productivity (25-35%); and Special Services (25-35%). 

Promotion to Associate Professor or Granting of Tenure 

The tenured full professors and associate professors of the Department of Economics constitute the Personnel Committee for determining whether the candidate has continued his or her professional development beyond the requirements for the assistant professor rank.

The tenured full professors of the Department of Economics constitute the Personnel Committee for determining whether the candidate has continued his or her professional development beyond the requirements for the associate professor rank.

Department of Education 
Reappointment/Tenure/Promotion/Post Tenure Professional Record Coversheet

Candidate ______________________________________________Rank __________________

Department ________________________________________Years in Rank________________

Date of last CWU promotion ______________ First quarter of tenure-track at CWU_________

This application/review is for:

0 Reappointment						0 Promotion only (Full Professor)	
0 Promotion and Tenure (Associate Professor & Tenure)		0 Tenure Only (Associate Professor Status)
0 Post-tenure Review

Your promotion and tenure materials must be in the following order in your dossier. Check off each item included. When you submit your dossier to the Department Chair, ask the Chair to sign at the end of the DOE form. Make a copy of this form with the Department Chair’s signature to retain for your files.

Your dossier is to be in two binders as noted in the College of Education and Professional Studies reappointment/tenure/promotion/post-tenure guidelines. NOTE: Your Professional Record may be on a CD rather than in notebooks. (If submitting a CD, include 2 copies of the CD and ensure they are accessible and formatted for review in both MAC and PC platforms).

Considerations Related to Reappointment, Tenure, Promotion and Post-Tenure Review

Reappointment

___	Probationary tenure-track faculty shall be evaluated each year of their probationary period. 
	Evaluation for reappointment shall occur during fall quarter except in the first year when it 
	will occur in winter quarter, as established in the Academic Calendar.
	[CBA 20.2.1]

___ 	Probationary tenure-track faculty who apply for promotion and/or tenure shall be
evaluated during winter quarter, as established in the Academic Calendar. [CBA 20.2.2]
	
___ 	Probationary faculty who are "reappointed with reservations" shall construct, in 
collaboration with their department chair, a Professional Development Plan to be submitted to the
 dean for approval.  This plan will form the basis of the subsequent review. [CBA 20.2.1.(a)]

Tenure

___	Only tenure-track faculty who are appointed to the academic rank of assistant professor or higher
	are eligible for tenure.  Eligible faculty members must stand for tenure during the sixth year of 
	full-time employment with the University. [CBA 20.3.1]

___	Faculty members with academic rank whose duties are entirely administrative or combine both 
	administrative and part-time teaching responsibilities are eligible for tenure in their capacities as
	faculty members. [CBA 20.3.2]

	Special Considerations for Tenure Review:
___	A faculty member may, when circumstances make it justifiable, be considered 
		eligible for tenure prior to the expiration of a six (6) year probationary period with the
		University under the following situations

		___ 	Faculty members appointed to the academic rank of assistant professor or higher
			may serve a probationary period of at least four (4) years, if, at the time of 
			appointment, they have completed at least two (2) years of appropriate 
			professional activities as recommended by the Dean and approved by the
 			Provost.  This period must be specified in the initial appointment letter.
			The tenure decision is based on performance at Central Washington University.
			[CBA 20.3.3.(a)]

Promotion		

Minimum Qualifications for Academic Rank [Article 8 CBA]

___	Associate Professor
	The terminal degree relevant for the discipline and six (6) years of professional academic
 	experience. [CBA 8.2.5]. The terminal degree for the DOE is a doctorate.

___	Professor
	The terminal degree relevant for the discipline and ten (10) years of professional academic
 	experience. [CBA 8.2.6]  The terminal degree for the DOE is a doctorate.
	
	Special Considerations for Promotion Review 

	___	Faculty having completed five (5) years of exemplary performance in teaching, 
		scholarship and service as an associate professor at Central Washington University
		may be eligible for promotion to full professor at the University. [CBA 20.3.4]

Post-Tenure Review

___	In the third year following the granting of tenure, faculty, including those in phased
	retirement, will be evaluated during the winter quarter and every third year thereafter, as
	established in the Academic Calendar.  Promotion in rank shall be considered the equivalent
	of Post-TR [CBA 20.2.3]


** It is the responsibility of candidates to submit appropriate documentation and evidences in the dossier and professional record documenting Teaching, Scholarship and Service performance.**  (inclusive of required CEPS/University required documentation)

Professional Record and Supporting Documents (BINDER 1)
___	0	Tab 1	CEPS coversheet
___	0	Tab 2	Copy of original signed contract letter (letter of hire) 
___	0	Tab 3	Current vita
___	0	Tab 4 	Current Activities Report (Professional Service Record) for this review period
___	0	Tab 5 	Chair recommendation letter
___	0	Tab 6 	Department personnel committee recommendation letter
___	0	Tab 7 	Recommendation letters from individual faculty members
___	0	Tab 8 	Copies of recommendation letters from Chair, personnel committee, and Dean
 			from all prior reviews
___	0	Tab 9 	Copies of Workload Plans and Annual Activities Reports from all prior years
___	0	 In pocket at the front of Binder1, include a copy of the current DOE Reappointment, 
 		Tenure, Promotion, and Post-Tenure Review guidelines.

 Supporting Evidences (BINDER 2)

___	0	Tab 10	Evidence/Documentation Teaching Effectiveness (Material documenting
 		teaching effectiveness. Must include SEOI summary sheets for all classes taught since
 		last review)
___	0	Tab 11	Evidence/Documentation Scholarship, Research and Creative Activity
 		(Documentation following the headings listed below - presented in the order listed in the
 		professional record)
•	Publications/Manuscripts/Peer-Reviewed Creative Activities (Category A/B)
•	Presentations (B)
•	Grants and Grant Activity (Category A/B)
•	On-going Research, Writing, Creative Activities (Category B)
•	Other Scholarship Products & Awards (Category A/B)
___	0	Tab 12	Evidence/Documentation Service (Documentation following the headings listed 
below - presented in the order listed in the professional record)
•	University Service (University, College/CTL, Department/Program)
•	Professional Service
•	Public Service
___	0	Tab 13	Professional Development documentation
___	0	Tab 14	Other Honors and Awards documentation
___	0	Tab 15	Letters from Outside Evaluators, if any
___	0	Tab 16	Other Supporting Materials


___________________________________________     ___________________________
Department Chair’s Signature				Date evaluation discussed with faculty
 
Central Washington University
Department of Education
Personnel Guidelines & Policies for Reappointment/Tenure/Promotion/Post-Tenure Review
Effective September, 2007

TEACHING
 
PROFESSIONAL RECORD INFORMATION/SUPPORTING EVIDENCES 

A.	COURSE-RELATED INSTRUCTION

___ 	List of Courses Taught  [Professional Record (Binder 1); May Also Place in Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]
____ a) List all courses and/or field assignments (major/minor practica; professional sequence student teaching supervision) during this evaluation period of review
___ b) Arrange these chronologically 
___ c) Indicate the number of students in any independent, individual, and course by arrangement classes 
		Note:  CEPS Professional Record Guidelines (1.1.1)

___	Course Syllabi  [Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]
___ a) 	Include a syllabus for each course during the period of
 	review.
___ b) 	Select and indicate one representative syllabus for DOE Personnel Committee review. Submitted representative syllabus should reflect CEPS required areas. 
Note:  CEPS Faculty Performance Standards Teaching Policy p. 5. Current CEPS Teaching Policy notes that the follow areas should be
 included in syllabi: course content, teaching methods, course
 outcomes (CTL, state, and/or professional standards), assessment
strategies, schedule of topics, and student requirements.

___	SEOIs  [Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)] 
___ a) Include SEOI cover sheets for all courses taught during the
 	period of review for 4 or more students. 
___ b)	SEOI: Summarize course and instructor teaching effectiveness. On one or two pages, indicate mean student rating for each class section you
 have taught from SEOI items #28 (course as a whole) and # 29 (teaching
 effectiveness). (CEPS requirement).  
		___ c) Include a typed summary of student comments from each course
 		taught during the period of review (2-4 strengths & recommendations per
 		course)
		___ d) 	Include evidence that SEOI data are used for instructional
 		improvement or enhancement in a self-reflective statement 
		Note: CEPS Professional Record Guidelines (1.1.2); CEPS Faculty
 		Performance Standards Teaching Policy p. 5.

___	Major-Minor Field Experience Evaluation Data (Where Applicable) [Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]
___  a) Include cover sheets for student evaluation for major/minor required practica.
___  b) For major/minor practica on one or two pages indicate the mean
“student rating” score for each experience (e.g., for instructor
effectiveness and overall student experience; If qualitative data are 
used, summarize these
		___ c) Include a typed summary of student comments from each
 		major/minor practica provided during the period of review (2-4 strengths
 		& recommendations per major minor practica/field experience)
		___ d) 	Include evidence that data are used for instructional
 		improvement or enhancement in a self-reflective statement 
		Note: CEPS Professional Record Guidelines (1.1.2); CEPS Faculty
 		Performance Standards Teaching Policy p. 5.

___	Professional Sequence Field Evaluation Data (Preautumn/Student
Teaching) (As Appropriate) [Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]
___  a) Include cover sheets for student evaluation for professional sequence field experience evaluation
___  b) For professional sequence field experiences on one or two pages
 indicate the mean “student rating” score for each experience (e.g., for
 instructor effectiveness and overall student experience)
		___ c) Include a typed summary of student comments from each
 		professional sequence field experience provided during the period of
 		review (2-4 strengths & recommendations per field experience)
		___ d) 	Include evidence that data are used for instructional
 		improvement or enhancement in a self-reflective statement 
		Note: CEPS Professional Record Guidelines (1.1.2); CEPS Faculty
 		Performance Standards Teaching Policy p. 5.

___	Curriculum Development and Support 
___ a)	List new courses you developed during this review period or
courses that you substantially revised  [Professional Record (Binder 1)]
___ b)	Briefly describe new course materials you developed, such as
manuals, course packs, videos, Blackboard, web-based, DE via
two-way video-audio [Professional Record (Binder 1)]
___ c) 	Select and include at least one representative sample of a course
material developed during the period of review. [Supporting
 Evidences (Binder 2)]	
__ d) List and briefly describe/document any collaborative contributions
to curriculum or programs such as program review, teaching at Centers
 		or "non home base" location, etc. [List/describe: Professional Record
 		(Binder 1); Documentation: [Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]
Note: CEPS Professional Record Guidelines (1.1.3, 1.1.4); CEPS Faculty 
Performance Standards Teaching Policy pp. 3-6. 
	
B.	OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

___	Other Instructional Support:  
___ a) List independent study and/or course by arrangements with 3 or
less students, graduate theses, graduate projects, undergraduate research,
independent (non required major/minor) field experiences or internships
that you have directed and state your role in each.  [Professional Record
 (Binder 1)]
___ b) For independent study and course by arrangement courses with 3 or
less students include a statement of how teaching effectiveness and/or
student learning was evaluated and instructor appraisal his/her
effectiveness. [Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]
		Note: CEPS Professional Record Guidelines (1.2); CEPS Faculty
 		Performance Standards Teaching Policy p. 4

___	Student Advising or Mentoring
___ a) Include data on student advisement. Import the data you listed from 
your Annual Activities Report listing the year, type of advisement and the number of students advised for general, major/minor or graduate student advisement. [List: Professional Record (Binder 1); Document: Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]
Note:  CEPS Professional Record Guidelines (1.3) ; CEPS Faculty Performance Standards Teaching Policy pp.4, 6.

 ___	Other Student Engagement:  If applicable, list, describe & document any 
undergraduate and graduate student faculty mentored research [List: Professional Record (Binder 1);  Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]
Note:  CEPS Professional Record Guidelines (1.2); CEPS Faculty
Performance Standards Teaching Policy pp. 5-6.

C.	OTHER TEACHING DOCUMENTATION
___ 	Instructional Professional Development 
___  a) List workshops, seminars or classes you have attended on teaching
effectiveness during the period of review [Professional Record (Binder 1)] 
___ b) Describe in a brief narrative how these workshops, seminars or
 classes have impacted teaching effectiveness and/or student learning
 [Professional Record (Binder 1)]
___  c). Include supporting evidence of workshops, seminars or classes 
[Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]
Note:  CEPS Professional Record Guidelines (1.4); CEPS Faculty
Performance Standards Teaching Policy p. 6.

___	Peer Evaluation of Teaching  
 ___ a) Include a narrative statement describing how peer evaluation
 	improved your teaching and your students’ learning. [Professional Record
 	(Binder 1)]
___ b) Include documentation of peer review of teaching during the period
of review. [Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]
	Note:  CEPS Professional Record Guidelines (1.6); CEPS Faculty
 	Performance Standards pp. 4-6.

___	Other Professional Activities Documenting Teaching Performance/
Students’ Learning/Teaching Recognition  
___ a) List and describe any other professional activities supporting teaching enhancement/student learning not included in the above evidences (e.g., interdisciplinary collaboration, etc.) [Professional Record (Binder 1)]
___ b) Document other professional activities supporting teaching enhancement/learning not included in the above evidences [Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]
___ b List & document teaching awards or recognition  [List: Professional
 Record (Binder 1); Document: Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]
	Note: CEPS Professional Record Guidelines (1.5)


******************************************************************
Considerations for Reappointment/Tenure/Promotion/Post-Tenure Review
Department of Education TEACHING

Note: All required DOE teaching evidence and documentation for the professional record and dossier must be included.

Reappointment
___	“Evidence of a positive and cumulative record in teaching” approaching and/or meeting 
	department standards for “course as a whole” and “instructor’s teaching effectiveness” 
	(e.g., 3.0 approaching 3.75 by the 4th year of reappointment); and/or

___	If relevant, evidence of effective supervision of major/minor practica or professional
 	sequence field supervision within one standard deviation of program standard (or relevant
 	criterion for qualitative data); and

___	“demonstration of enhanced professional development “
Note: (CEPS Faculty Performance Standards - Teaching Policy). As faculty progress
 from first to the fifth year of reappointment, they should self-monitor and be aware that
 successful promotion/tenure will require teaching/field supervision performance at the
 levels indicated below.

___	Professional record teaching information and relevant supporting evidences (or rationale) included.

Promotion to Associate Professor/Tenure:
"A positive performance record of effective teaching" is documented 
Note: (CEPS Faculty Performance Standards- Teaching Policy) 

___   	Majority of mean scores for the SEOI questions “course as a whole” and “instructor’s
 	teaching effectiveness” is 3.75 or greater for courses taught during period of review;
 	and  
 
___	If relevant, evidence of effective supervision of major/minor practica or professional
 	sequence field supervision at or above the program mean (or relevant criterion for
 	qualitative data).

___	Professional record teaching information and relevant supporting evidences (or
 	rationale) included.

Promotion to Full Professor:
" Exemplary performance in teaching with demonstrated respect from faculty, colleagues,
and administrators and students.  Exemplars in teaching include substantial evidence that
the faculty member makes ongoing enhancements of his or her courses and instruction, stays up-to-date in the field and pedagogy related to the specific field, makes substantive positive contributions to and enhances programmatic quality, and positively contributes to University, CEPS, CTL (if applicable) and program accreditation work. The faculty member also uses multiple assessment strategies to assess and promote student learning. Performance well exceeds minimum requirements." 
Note: (CEPS Faculty Performance Standards - Teaching Policy).

___	Majority of mean scores for the SEOI questions “course as a whole” and ”instructor’s
 	teaching effectiveness” is 4.00 or greater for courses taught during period of review;
 	and  
 
___	If relevant, evidence of effective supervision of major/minor practica or professional
 	sequence field supervision above the program mean (or relevant criterion for
 	qualitative data).

___	Professional record teaching information and relevant supporting evidences (or
 	rationale) included.
	
Post-Tenure Review:
___	The faculty member is sustaining a level of performance that is expected at his/her
 	rank in teaching. In the DOE, this is evaluated by sustaining performance at a tenure
 	level.

___	Professional record teaching information and relevant supporting evidences (or
 	rationale) included.

Note: (CEPS Faculty Performance Standards - Teaching Policy)
 
Central Washington University
Department of Education
Personnel Guidelines & Policies for Reappointment/Tenure/Promotion/Post-Tenure Review
 
SCHOLARSHIP

Scholarship Categories
Two Levels of Scholarship Dissemination 
(CEPS Faculty Performance Standards Scholarship Policy p. 9)

Note:  unless otherwise indicated, all items of scholarship are
1)	to be university-external published or disseminated
2)	to have clearly attributable authorship on the item, and
3)	related to the individual unit of assignment (field or related field)

Levels of Scholarship Evidences Identified by College of Education and Professional Studies
(CEPS Faculty Performance Standards Scholarship Policy p. 9)

Category A
_____  	Refereed article in a professional journal
_____	Research monographs
_____ 	Scholarly books and chapters
_____	Textbooks
_____	Juried exhibitions and performances
_____ 	Peer-reviewed external grant (for the lead investigator)
_____ 	Other peer-refereed works such as, but not limited to:
		*	State/national adopted curricula
		*	State/national adopted accreditation standards
		* 	Peer-reviewed published curricula (DOE
 			Consideration)
Category B      
_____	Regional, national, or international peer-reviewed conference proceedings
_____ 	Proposal submission for peer-reviewed external grants
_____	Serving as co-investigator or co-principal investigator on funded external
 		peer-reviewed grant
_____	Principal investigator on other grants and contracts
_____	Authoring publicly available research and technical papers and reports
_____	Scholarly conference presentations (international, national, regional, state,
 		local)
_____	Externally published study guides
_____	Published book reviews
_____	 Manuscript available through National Clearinghouse (e.g., ERIC or other
 electronic non peer-reviewed publications)
_____	Editor of book or special issue of journal
_____	Book/magazine article for juvenile audience
_____	Instructional/professional software
_____	Editor of published conference proceedings
_____	Reviewer/discussant/chair conference symposium
_____	Editorially reviewed publications
_____	CEPS Symposium, SOURCE or other university-wide research
 		dissemination events
_____	Major technical reports (grant-related reports, accreditation self-studies,
 		etc.)
_____ 	Other equal accomplishments (e.g., DOE considerations: editor for 
		regional, national professional journal/book; editor for a professional
 		electronic publication; professional text/curriculum reviewer; reviewer/
		discussant/chair conference symposium, etc.)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROFESSIONAL RECORD INFORMATION/SUPPORTING EVIDENCES 

A. 	PUBLISHED MANUSCRIPTS/PROFESSIONAL MATERIALS

___ 	List of published or accepted manuscripts/research/reports for publication during
period of review  [Professional Record (Binder 1)]
Include for each listed item the following information: 
	 ___ a) Type: List type of item (e.g. refereed journal article, research monograph,
 	scholarly book, etc.  See Category A and B scholarship evidences above). 
___ b) Scholarship level (Category A or B)
___ c) Complete citation for each item in APA style
___ d) Review type (blind peer review, internal technical review, editorial board
 review, invited, etc.)

___	Evidence of published or accepted manuscripts for publication  [Supporting  
  	Evidences (Binder 2)]
___ a) Include a copy of each item listed (final published document)
___ b) For accepted or "in press" manuscripts include the publisher letter of
 acceptance with a final copy of the manuscript
Note:   CEPS Professional Record Guidelines 2.1; CEPS Faculty Performance Standards Scholarship Policy p. 9)

B.	PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS

___ 	List of conference presentations during the period of review  [Professional Record
  	(Binder 1)
	Include for each listed item the following information:
___  a)  Title and date of presentation
___  b)  Name of conference or association
___  c)  Conference type (local, state, regional, national or international)


___	Evidence of conference presentations [Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)] 
	___ a) Include documentation from the conference (title page of conference
	program and page on which your name and presentation is listed, etc.)

Note:  CEPS Professional Record Guidelines 2.2; CEPS Faculty Performance Scholarship Policy p. 9

C.	GRANTS

____	List of submitted and/or funded grants during the period of review  [Professional
Record (Binder 1)]
	Include for each listed item the following information:
	___ a) Title of grant
	___ b) Funding source
	___ c) Amount requested
	___ d) Current status (funded, under review or unfunded)
	___ e) Authorship role (Principal investigator, co-principal investigator, etc.)

____	Evidence of grant submission  [Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]
	___ a) Include a copy of the proposal summary
	___ b) Include correspondence from the funding source RE status of the grant
 	(accepted, under review, unfunded)
Note:  CEPS Professional Record Guidelines 2.3; CEPS Faculty Performance Standards Scholarship Policy p. 9

D.	ON-GOING RESEARCH, WRITING PROJECTS, OR CREATIVE
 	ACTIVITIES

____	List of ongoing research, writing projects or creative activities (research
agenda and/or ongoing work) [Professional Record (Binder 1)]
	Include for each listed item the following information:
	___ a) Topic
	___ b) Type of activity
	___ c) Your role (lead or sole author, co-author, etc.)
	___ d) Schedule for completion
Note:  CEPS Professional Record Guidelines 2.4

___	Evidence of ongoing research, writing projects, or creative/works (supporting
 	ongoing work or research agenda) [Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]

 
E.	OTHER SCHOLARSHIP ACTIVITY AND AWARDS

____	List of other research or creative activity  [Professional Record (Binder 1)] (e.g., DOE considerations: editor for regional, national professional journal/book; editor for a professional
 		electronic publication; professional text/curriculum reviewer; reviewer/
		discussant/chair conference symposium, etc.)  

____	Evidence supporting other scholarship activity [Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]

___	Research, writing, or creative activity awards or recognition
	___ a) List and include evidence of any research, writing or creative activity
 	awards  [Professional Record (Binder 1)]
	___ b) Include evidences support scholarship recognition or awards (Binder 2)
 Note:  CEPS Professional Record Guidelines 2.5, 2,6; CEPS Faculty Performance Standards p. 9


Considerations for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure and Post-Tenure Review - SCHOLARSHIP

•	During the most recent five-year period, faculty members are expected to achieve a minimum of 5 scholarship items:  
•	at least 3 from Category A and 2 from Category A or B.  At least one item from category A must be a peer-reviewed publication in a professional journal related to ones teaching assignment at CWU.
Note:  CEPS Faculty Performance Standards Scholarship Policy p. 10

Reappointment:  
___	Evidence of a research agenda related to teaching assignment and professional
responsibilities (beginning no later than the 2nd year of reappointment)
___ 	Evidence of accomplishments moving toward required scholarship achievements
 	for promotion to associate professor and tenure
___	Professional record information/supporting evidences (or rationale included)

Promotion to Associate Professor/Tenure:
•	A total of 5 scholarship evidences including at least:
___	Three (3) Category A items and at least two (2) items from Category A and B since hire but not prior to the last five-year period.
___	Professional record information/supporting evidences (or rationale included)

Promotion to Full Professor:  
•	A total of 5 scholarship evidences including at least:
___	Three (3) Category A items and at least two (2) items from Category A and B
 	since promotion to Associate Professor, if hired at Associate Professor, since hire
 	but not prior to last five year period.
___	Professional record information/supporting evidences (or rationale included)

Post-Tenure Review
•	Beginning with the most recent substantive review (tenure, promotion, etc.)
 tenured faculty will be reviewed every three years. During the period of post
-tenure review, tenured faculty members are expected to complete:
___	At least three (3) items from Category A or B during the previous 3 year period.
	[Note: during a six year period, tenured faculty members are expected to complete
 	at least one item from Category A and 4 from Category B].
___	Professional record information/supporting evidences (or rationale included)
Note:  CEPS Faculty Performance Standards Scholarship Policy p. 10

 
Central Washington University
Department of Education
Personnel Guidelines & Policies for Reappointment/Tenure/Promotion/Post-Tenure Review
 
SERVICE
Service to the University, Professional, and Public


PROFESSIONAL RECORD INFORMATION/SUPPORTING EVIDENCES 

A.	UNIVERSITY SERVICE

___ 	List of University Service (Inclusive of Committees and Other Service Activity Organized According to Service at these levels a) University b) College or CTL and c) Department/Program ) 
____ 1) List all service activity and include activity, duration and your
 role [Professional Record (Binder 1)].
		____ 2) Organize your list/information according to service at the 
		following university services levels:

a)  University Service [Selected examples (not all inclusive):chair of faculty senate, chair or member of faculty senate or university
committee; advising pre-major students on continuous basis; Faculty advisor to a university-wide student group; Support of alumni-related activities or fund-raising activities at the university level; Interdisciplinary/cross college service; Interdisciplinary or university academic service-learning; Other related service]

b)  College/CTL Service [Selected examples (not all inclusive): 
 Chair/member CTL or CEPS standing or adhoc committee; Faculty advisor for a CTL/CEPS sponsored student-group;
Support of alumni-related activities or fund-raising activities at the college level; College or CTL related academic service-learning; Other related service]

c).  Department/Program Service [Selected examples (not all inclusive): Coordinator of  program; Chair/member of departmental/program standing committee; Chair/member of other department/program committee; Faculty senator; Faculty advisor to a department/program sponsored student group; Student advising in majors/minors; Support of alumni-related activities or fund-raising activities at the department/program level; Member of master's committees; Department/program academic service-learning; Other related service]

	____	Evidences/Documentation Supporting University Service (Organized
 		as presented in the list Above) [Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]
		1)  University
		2)  College/CTL
		3)  Department/Program
	Note:  CEPS Professional Record Guidelines 3.1; CEPS Service Policy pp. 11
-13).

B.	PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
	
___ 	List of Professional Service (Inclusive of committees and other service activity listed as professional service at the a) National b) Regional, c) State and/or d) Local levels)

____ 1) List all professional service activity and include activity, duration and your role [Professional Record (Binder 1)].

____ 2)Organize your list/information according to professional service in  the following areas:
	a)  National
	b)  Regional
	c)  State
	d)  Local

____	Evidences/Documentation Supporting Professional Service (Organized
 	as presented in the list above) [Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)] 
			a)  National
	b)  Regional
	c)  State
d)  Local 
	Note:  CEPS Professional Record Guidelines (3.2); CEPS Scholarship Policy
 	pp.  11-13.

C.	PUBLIC SERVICE

___ 	List of Public Service (Inclusive of committees and other service activity listed as public service to the community at the a) International/ national b) Regional/state, and/or c) Local levels. [Professional Record (Binder 1)] [Selected examples (non inclusive) might include: contributor to media, consultant to a community group, etc.}
____ 1) List all public service activity and include activity, duration
 and your role  [Professional Record (Binder 1)]


____	Evidences/Documentation Supporting Professional Service (Organized
 	as presented in the list above) [Supporting Evidences (Binder 2)]
	Note:  CEPS Professional Record Guidelines 3.3; CEPS Service Policy
 	pp.  11-13.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considerations for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure and Post-Tenure Review  SERVICE

Note: All required DOE service information, evidence and documentation for the professional record and dossier must be included.

Reappointment
___	Evidence of contributions of service to the department/program by the 3rd year of
 	reappointment.

___	Evidence of contributions of service through the reappointment cycle moving towards
	those required for promotion to associate professor/tenure

___	Professional record and supporting evidences (or rationale) included.

Promotion to Associate Professor/Tenure:
___   	Contribution on at least one (1) working DOE committee (standing or adhoc) or service
 	activity and one (1) working CTL, college OR university committee (standing or adhoc)
 	or service activity during the last three-year period.
 
___	Documented evidence of significant service activities within the last 3 year period to 
	include service endeavors which address service at the professional and/or public service
	levels. 

___	Professional record and supporting evidences (or rationale) included.

Promotion to Full Professor:
 ___   	Contribution on at least one (1) working DOE committee (standing or adhoc) or service
 	activity and one (1) working CTL, college OR university committee (standing or adhoc)
 	or service activity during the last three-year period.

___	Documented evidence of significant service activities within the last 3 year period to 
	include service endeavors which address service at the professional and/or public service
	levels. 

___	Professional record and supporting evidences (or rationale) included.
	
Post-Tenure Review:
___	 Contribution on at least one (1) working DOE committee (standing or adhoc) or service
 	activity and one (1) working CTL, college OR university committee (standing or adhoc)
 	or service activity during the last three-year period.


___	Documented evidence of service activities within the last 3 year period to 
	include service endeavors which address service at the professional and/or public service
	levels.

___	Professional record and supporting evidences (or rationale) included.

For promotion, retention, and tenure, faculty are evaluated on teaching, scholarship, and service.  Each prepares a three-ring binder documenting their contributions.  In addition to the materials required by the university and college, we require five graded papers showing a range of grades and teaching materials.  Candidates for promotion and tenure are expected to have annual peer observations or evaluations.
Non-tenure-track faculty are evaluated annually on teaching and, where appropriate, service. In addition to the materials required by the university and college, we require five graded papers showing a range of grades and teaching materials. Course syllabi and teaching materials are evaluated for alignment with department course descriptions and outcomes. NTT faculty who have been rehired fewer than five years are required to conduct annual peer observations or evaluations; faculty rehired more than five consecutive years are required to conduct peer observations or evaluations biannually.    
The Personnel Committee independently review each binder and prepare independent letters of recommendation. The Personnel Committee has three T & TT faculty members who are elected by the department biannually.

Faculty handbook to be provided.

Faculty are evaluated on excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service.  The procedures include a review by the Dept Chair, the Dept personnel committee and the College of Business personnel committee.

Personnel Committee is chosen by all full-time faculty, and consists of either three or five voting members, according to the dictates of the CBA.  The make-up of the department personnel committee varies from year to year, depending on who is on research leave and who remains on the active teaching roster.  The chair and the personnel committee make separate recommendations to the Dean of the College of the Sciences (COTS) regarding all personnel matters.

UPDATED JULY 2008
The department has a clear set of guidelines for reappointment, promotion, and tenure (RPT) that are consistent with college and university standards. These are on file with the college and department.  Informal review occurs throughout the year.  Formal review is in accordance with university policy and includes (1) candidate submits relevant paperwork for particular review period. (2) Personnel committee is convened and reviews materials; provides a written evaluation for the candidate. (3) Chair also reviews materials.  The chair provides a written evaluation and meets individually with the faculty member. Concerns, as well as accolades, are discussed. Plans for addressing any issues of concern are discussed.  If desired by the chair or requested by the faculty member, additional faulty may be present for discussion.

Our three person Department Personnel Committee assesses the performance of fellow faculty seeking performance adjustment, rehire, tenure or promotion. The department chair evaluates all faculty including part time lecturers.

The ITAM Department has adopted the CEPS policies for promotion, retention, and tenure.

The department policies and procedures for promotion, retention and tenure are pursuant to University and College guidelines.

Law and Justice Department Personnel Policies – Amended July 2007

7.2 Departmental Standards
University-approved standards guide evaluation of each faculty member by the department personnel committee and the department chair. These are developed in accordance with 20.1.1 of the CBA, and require approval of the dean and the office of the provost.

7.2.1 Departmental standards for reappointment, tenure, and promotion, and for post-tenure review shall align with the university and college standards.

7.2.1.1 The department will ensure that its personnel policy document is consistent with, and in no case less stringent than college and university provisions.

7.2.1.2 Periodic revision may be required.

7.2.2. Modification of approved criteria for reappointment, tenure, promotion, or post-tenure review for an individual position may sometimes be warranted. A split appointment between science education and a discipline department is a typical example. The modified criteria are agreed upon by the faculty member, the department chair in consultation with the department personnel committee, and the dean; and approved in advance by the provost. Approval at all levels must be in writing (Collective Bargaining Agreement, section 27.3) and the modification must be stipulated in documents such as the initial contract letter or subsequent letters of agreement.

7.2.x Department of Law and Justice
The role of a faculty member in an academic institution of higher education is one of multiple responsibilities. It involves such activities as instruction and student service, scholarship, mastery of subject matter, and continuing efforts and evidence of professional growth and development.
The Department of Law and Justice subscribes to this role concept. These roles and responsibilities have been established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). In accordance with this document the above faculty responsibilities have been placed into three categories: (1) Instruction (2) Scholarship; and (3) University and Public Service. Typically, no faculty member can excel in all these areas. Individual faculty will make choices as to where to expend more of their efforts between the remaining two areas based upon a faculty member’s interests, skills, and opportunities as well as in consideration of university, programmatic and departmental needs.
It must be recognized that in personnel actions involving tenure and/or promotion, a combination of demonstrated proficiency and contributions in all three areas must be evident. Achievement levels in the three areas increase as one applies for higher academic rank. Faculty members in considering their careers and promotional opportunities should familiarize themselves with the standards articulated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, University Faculty Performance Standards, and Faculty COTS Standards.

7.2.x.1 Instruction: Standard and Evaluation
Since Central Washington University is fundamentally a teaching institution, effective teaching is expected from each faculty member. Instructional activities are specified in Article 13.3.1 of the C.B.A. and in 7.1.1.

7.2.x.1.1 Law and Justice encompasses a number of parent disciplines such as law, criminal justice, psychology, sociology and political science, within its evolving multidisciplinary approach, methods and scholarship. Therefore, expertise will be highly varied and diverse among faculty members.

7.2.x.1.2 In evaluating effective teaching, it should be recognized that student evaluations of instructors rest on factors that are not always directly related to the competence of the instructor or what the student learns in the classroom.

7.2.x.1.3 The Law and Justice Department will utilize the Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) as a measure of student assessment of classroom performance for professors and lecturers as provided in 7.1.1.4, and recognizes other faculty developed instruments and means of teaching evaluation as provided in 7.1.1.6 that section.

7.2.x.2. Research and Scholarly Activity: Standard and Evaluation
The Law and Justice Department like the College and University, believes that the faculty have the responsibility to conduct scholarly work that promotes the discovery and extension of knowledge for our students, discipline, colleagues, and community. We believe that a variety of activities represent legitimate scholarly endeavor, including, discipline based research, applied research, and the scholarship of teaching and learning.
7.2.x.4.1 The policies of the college and university are sufficient to describe the research and scholarly expectations of the Law and Justice Department’s faculty with the following additions:
(a) In category A of the University Guidelines, the Law and Justice Department recognizes law review and law journal articles as products in this category since the University recognizes J.D.’s plus Master’s as terminal degrees for this department and these are primary venues of publication for those with this disciplinary background.
1. Category A -articles in law reviews and law journals
(b) We also value collaboration with colleagues and engaging students in our research and publications.

7.2.x.3. Service: Standard and Evaluation
The service role of Law and Justice Faculty is viewed along four important dimensions:
(1) The department subscribes to a collegial model of decision-making as a policy formulating, mechanism. This requires active involvement by faculty in administrative service activities at the department level, such as service on committees, individual tasks and projects, and participation in department, goals and objectives
(2) Faculty are also encouraged to represent the department by participating in COTS and University service activities as required.
(3) It is also recognized that Law and Justice Faculty have important discipline-related community, public and professional service roles and are encouraged to be actively involved in such activities.
(4) With faculty as program directors at four university centers we recognize and value the service and commitment that is extended in having those additional responsibilities.

7.2.x.4 Discipline specific standards for title, rank and tenure
The department’s policies regarding title and rank are consistent with college and university policies.

Excellence in teaching is the most important factor in evaluating faculty for reappointment, tenure, or promotion. Scholarship forms an important part of the criteria for evaluation. The Department has adopted the “Glassick” model of scholarship that includes the scholarship of Discovery, the scholarship of Integration, the scholarship of Application and the scholarship of Teaching. The Department also regards service to the Department, College, University and Community as important. These policies are implemented by a three person Departmental Personnel Committee as well as the Department Chair. A full copy of the Department’s Personnel Policy can be found on the Department’s web site.

To encourage scholarly and creative activity, both individual and collaborative. The department has a detailed outline of expectations regarding publication and other comparable activities related to tenure and promotion.  Applied faculty members are expected to perform, research-oriented faculty are expected to produce a reasonable number of published articles, and value is placed on collaboration, especially in performance. This goal is assessed in peer review, annual performance reviews, and promotion and tenure considerations.

The Faculty Code of Personnel Policy and Procedures serves as the governing document on issues of schedule, workload, credit hours, and all other matters of personnel management.

Personnel Committee:  With three tenured and two tenure-track faculty members, this committee was responsible for the review of non-tenure track faculty and recommending tenure-track and tenured faculty to the college dean for reappointment, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review. When the department has fewer than three tenured members, aside from the Department Chair, a tenured outside member was added to the committee. The make-up of this committee has changed in fall 2006 in accordance with the CBA. Now the Personnel Committee consists of Drs. Dippmann, Szpek, and Rath (English). 

Research and Scholarship Committee:  Two faculty members are responsible for awarding annual grants for faculty research.

Our current Personnel Policies and Procedures can be found at http://www.cwu.edu/~philo/philosophydeptproc.html

We have developed a new Personnel Policies and Procedures, currently under review by the administration.

As with all CWU faculty, physics faculty members are expected to contribute in varying degrees to three areas: instruction, scholarly activities, and service.  Hence, physics faculty are evaluated in accordance with university, college, and department policies.  Probationary faculty are reviewed annually by both the Department’s Personnel Committee and the Chair.  Tenured faculty are reviewed every three years by the Department’s Personnel Committee and the Chair.  Non-tenure-track faculty are reviewed annually by the Department Chair.  The review is based on classroom visits, SEOIs and course documents (if appropriate/necessary).

The Department’s Personnel Committee consists of three tenured faculty excluding the Department Chair.  Due to the size of the program, the committee membership typically consists of faculty from outside the Physics Department.   The committee reviews faculty performance for reappointment, promotion, tenure, merit, and post-tenure review and makes recommendations to the Dean of COTS.

The Physics Department has adopted the COTS standards for RTP decisions.

The Department Performance Standards and Policy Manual is on file with the Department and the Dean, College of the Sciences (COTS). It should be able to be accessed electronically via the COTS Policy Manual at
www.cwu.edu/~cots/reports_and_communications/cotspolicymanual2007.pdf
or see www.cwu.edu/~cots for the appropriate link.

Here is a brief description of the process:

--First, philosophically the Dept. believes its primary mission is teaching, though it recognizes the necessity of both scholarship and service in the life of the academy and this discipline in particular. Thus, while teaching is weighted most heavily, it does not compensate for deficiencies in the other areas, nor does the reverse hold true.
We also recognize that there is no "one size fits all" equation, or quasi-scientific, pseudo-objective, or bureaucratic way of judging any of this. Each case is different and subjective.
 --Following the CBA, the Dept. Personnel Committee - consisting of the 3 tenured, full professors besides the chair -  and the Chair (independently) act to evaluate candidates' dossiers based on Dept. standards RE: teaching, scholarship, service, and collegiality. (Standards are listed in the Dept. documents referred to above).
 --The Dept. Personnel Committee and Chair each write a separate letter evaluating candidates for reappointment, promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review based on their application of dept. criteria to, and evaluation of, the candidate's record.
 
Jan. 08

(January 2008)
Tenured and tenure track faculty members are reviewed for reappointment, tenure, promotion, award of merit, and ongoing professional development after tenure.Full-time non-tenure track faculty members are reviewed annually. Part-time instructors are reviewed quarterly or at the end of a series of courses for which they have been contracted.  The process and schedules for each type of review are specified in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA Article 20.2), the Academic Affairs policy manual, and the Academic Affairs annual calendar. College of the Sciences review procedures and standards are posted at http://www.cwu.edu/~cots/reports_and_communications/cotspolicymanual2007.pdf, Section 7.1. 

Department of Psychology standards for reappointment, tenure, and promotion, and for post-tenure review align with the university and college standards. They will be added to the College of the Sciences web site at the URL above. Currently, they are available at http://www.cwu.edu/~psych/2007_PSY_personnel_policy.pdf. Our policies are implemented by a three-person personnel committee elected by the department and by the department chair.

The department’s policy manual stresses the importance of teaching and learning in evaluation of faculty for reappointment, tenure, promotion and merit.  The pertinent sections of the policy manual follow.

Good teaching is expected of faculty of all ranks. The faculty member is expected to pursue that ideal relationship between the teacher and the student where each learns from each other, where the student is led outward to his highest level of motivation and understanding, and where the teacher is bound by his own growing knowledge to a continuous revision of the content of instruction.

When making personnel decisions (annual review, tenure, promotion, and merit), the department personnel committee and the department chair will base their recommendations will draw upon these two sources of information along with any other data the candidate wishes to submit to judge whether he/she has:
   
   a) successfully demonstrate one’s ability to be sensitive, motivating and supportive of students in a non-threatening and collaborative manner;

   b) stimulate student thinking about current issues from a variety of different perspectives in support of the mission and goals of the department and institution by maundering student research, internship supervision, and individual study; and

   c) contribute to the overall quality and character of the sociology program by proposing new courses and redeveloping current ones.

   d) Evaluation: the Sociology faculty member shall be evaluated on the basis of presentation of material, guidance and discussion, ability to communicate to students, ability to stimulate their interests, and inspire students to advance their knowledge beyond the requirements of the class. In addition, the faculty member’s effectiveness in advising students on academic matters shall be considered. The ability to communicate knowledge and to stimulate new insights in students should be one of the most important criteria for judging teaching competence.

Department personnel committee is composed of three tenured faculty. Only tenured faculty may vote on questions of reappointment, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review. However discussion with all faculty and staff is encouraged at review meetings.  Candidates verbally summarize the review period and the faulty and staff offer feedback in response to the self-statement.  The Personnel Committee then retires to further discussions and formats a recommendation to the Dean.  Guidelines are currently under review by the department in consultation with the College.

QUESTION: FacultyC1