Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion

Preamble

This policy is intended to protect both the right of the University to exercise judgment in the granting of reappointment, tenure, and promotion and the rights of the faculty to a complete and impartial evaluation, to confer at any level of review, and to have access to the criteria and information used as a basis for the decisions made by the University for regular tenure track faculty. Furthermore, this policy is intended to support candidates in their careers at Sonoma State University.

Authority for the Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) Procedures and Criteria: These procedures and criteria are based on and derived from several documents. Procedures are set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, hereafter known as the CBA, and Title 5, California Code of Regulations. Criteria are set forth in Title 5 and policy statements of the Board of Trustees. Although these procedures and criteria are intended to stand alone, candidates and RTP Committees may wish to consult all of these documents, which are available in the Office of Faculty Affairs, for a full understanding of the procedures and criteria for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. Departments provide discipline specific criteria (see below II.E) that supplement the requirements outlined in this policy, but do not override them.

1. Definitions
   Definitions are based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement and SSU policy.
   • Candidate – Faculty member applying for reappointment or promotion.
   • CBA – Collective Bargaining Agreement, Unit 3, between the Trustees of the California State University and the California Faculty Association.
   • Chair — The Unit-3 faculty referred in Article 15 of the CBA as "department chair." For the purpose of this policy, the term applies to the department chair. For departments without an appointed department chair, the chair is the appointed school chair.
   • Day – A calendar day. The time in which an act provided in this policy is to be done is computed by excluding the first day and including the last day, unless the last day is a holiday or other day on which the campus in not regularly open for business, and then it is also excluded. (cf. CBA 2.11)
   • First Probationary Year at SSU – The first academic year a probationary faculty is appointed at SSU in a tenure track position, regardless of service credit.
   • Periodic Evaluation – This brief evaluation (cf. CBA 15.20) occurs in the 1st, 3rd, and 5th probationary years, and in the 2nd PY 1st appointment year at SSU.
   • Performance Review – This full review, longer and more comprehensive (cf. 15.38), occurs in the 2nd, 4th, 6th probationary years, and for tenure and promotion.
   • Personnel Action File (PAF) – The one official personnel file maintained by Faculty Affairs) containing employment documents and information that may be relevant to personnel recommendations or personnel actions regarding a faculty employee. (see Working Personnel Action File) (cf. CBA 2.17)
   • Probationary Faculty – A full-time faculty unit employee appointed with probationary (i.e., not tenured) status and serving a period of probation. (cf. CBA 2.13c)
   • Probationary Year (PY) —A year of service for a full-time tenure track faculty unit employee is two (2) consecutive semesters within an academic year. For the purpose of calculating the probationary period, a year of service commences with the first fall term of appointment. (cf. CBA 13.6)
   • Review cycle – Is the time period of evaluation of the WPAF.
   • Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) – The file specifically generated for use in a given review cycle. The contents are 1) all required forms and documents used for evaluation in the given review cycle, 2) all faculty and administrative level evaluation recommendations from the current cycle, and, 3) all rebuttal statements and responses submitted. At the end of each review cycle, the WPAF is incorporated into the candidate’s PAF (cf. CBA 15.8-15.9).
2. Criteria
   1. General
      1. This policy is enacted at the beginning of the academic year following its adoption and applies to all reappointment, tenure and promotion candidates, except as specified elsewhere in the document. Policy-making bodies shall provide all faculty with revisions of the policy or criteria as they occur, but no later than 14 days after the first day of instruction of the academic term. Once the annual RTP process has begun, there shall be no changes in the criteria and/or procedures used to evaluate a faculty member.
      2. It is the obligation of the Chair of the Department to provide the faculty member, upon appointment, with copies of the Departmental criteria, procedures, and standards at all levels of review.
      3. Probationary faculty have the option to apply the RTP version that was in effect during their first appointment for all subsequent reappointments and consideration for tenure/first promotion, or, in effect during the year they are reviewed for tenure/first promotion. Tenured faculty have the option to apply the RTP version that was in effect upon their first promotion, or, in effect during the year they are reviewed for subsequent promotion. In all cases, the candidate will apply the chosen criteria in collaboration with the Department Chair at the beginning of the review cycle.
      4. A faculty member being considered for reappointment, tenure, or promotion shall be evaluated according to criteria in each of the following categories (cf. CBA 20.1) with primary emphasis placed on teaching effectiveness (or equivalent for Librarians, Counselors and SSP-ARs):
         1. Teaching effectiveness (or equivalent).
         2. Research, scholarship, or creative activity.
         3. Service to the University, the profession, and the community.
      5. Professional development may be included in any of the above categories, as appropriate for the department.
   2. Teaching Effectiveness (or Equivalent for Librarians, Counselors and SSP-ARs)
      1. The candidate has the primary responsibility for providing appropriate evidence of a record of significant growth and contribution in the area of teaching effectiveness. The Department RTP Committee is responsible for substantiating and evaluating the candidate’s teaching effectiveness in terms of these minimum criteria:
         1. Displays enthusiasm for teaching their subject.
         2. Presents material with clarity. Uses teaching strategies appropriate to the students and course content.
         3. Clearly specifies course goals, and employs course materials to achieve course goals.
         4. Enables students to participate actively in their own education.
         5. Fosters appreciation for different points of view.
         6. Demonstrates competence and currency in course material.
         7. Consults and advises effectively outside of class.
         8. Engages in professional development to enhance their teaching effectiveness.
   3. Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity
      1. The candidate has the primary responsibility for providing appropriate evidence of a record of significant growth and contribution in the area of research, scholarship, and creative activity. The candidate should explicitly state whether their scholarship is in progress, under review, accepted for publication (or equivalent), or published. The Department RTP Committee is responsible for substantiating and evaluating the candidate’s research, scholarship, or creative activity in terms of the approved Department’s RTP criteria.
   4. Service to the University and Community
      1. The candidate has the primary responsibility for providing all appropriate evidence of both University and community service. The Department RTP Committee is responsible for substantiating and evaluating service to the University and Community in terms of the approved Department’s RTP criteria.
   5. Departmental Criteria
      1. Each department shall develop criteria that will describe what is expected of candidates in all evaluation areas.
         1. Departments are responsible for developing and explaining to candidates, departmental criteria that delineate standards and expectations in their discipline. It is to be expected that the balance among scholarship, research or creative activity, and professional development will vary among the disciplines.
         2. Minimal criteria for teaching effectiveness are provided in this policy (II.B.1). The Reflextions on Student Experience (ROSE)¹ is the instrument the University applies to evaluating these criteria. Departments may incorporate teaching effectiveness criteria that supplement those in Section II.B.1, or indicate discipline-specific manners in which the criteria apply.
         3. Each department is responsible for explaining the criteria for research, scholarship, and creative activity as appropriate to their discipline.
         4. Each department is responsible for explaining the criteria for service as appropriate to their discipline.
         5. A specific activity within a discipline may apply to multiple areas of evaluation (e.g., scholarship and teaching, scholarship and service, etc.). However, it is incumbent on departments to clarify these multiple functions criteria in the department criteria.
      2. The departmental criteria will be reviewed by FSAC to ensure that they are consistent with this policy, the CBA, and the University mission. If they are found to be inconsistent, FSAC will consult with the department to resolve the issue. Departments should regularly review their criteria to ensure their currency; changes cannot take place until they are approved by FSAC in time for the next review cycle.
   6. Eligibility for Tenure and Promotion
      1. Probation shall be a total of six years of full-time probationary service, including credited service. In the case of an outstanding candidate, a deviation from the six-year probationary period shall be the decision of the President following their consideration of Performance Review recommendations.
      2. A probationary faculty member normally shall be considered for promotion at the same time they are considered for tenure; however, a faculty member with an exceptional record, with a positive recommendation from the Department RTP committee, may be considered for promotion earlier than normal. Non-tenured faculty unit employees shall not be promoted to the rank of Professor (or equivalent) without tenure (cf. CBA 14.2).
      3. Promotion of a tenured faculty member normally shall be considered after they have been five years in their current rank or has reached the maximum salary for the rank, unless the faculty member requests in writing that they not be considered (cf. CBA 14.3).
3. Evaluation
   1. Committees
      1. There are three levels of faculty review: the Department, College, and University Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) Committees. Review by the Dean constitutes a fourth, administrative, level of review. Chairs may choose to provide separate recommendations, but must do so for all candidates in a review cycle. If the Chair makes a separate recommendation, they shall not also serve on any other level of review for RTP for those candidates.
      2. Performance Reviews are evaluated by all levels. Periodic Evaluations (except for first year at SSU) are reviewed by the Department and College RTP Committees and the Deans. Candidates may request a review by URTP in cases of contrary recommendations.
   2. Committee Membership and Eligibility
      A faculty member shall not serve on more than one level of review in the same annual review cycle. Only Professors may serve on committees for candidates for promotion to Professor.
      1. Department RTP Committee:
         The Department RTP Committee is composed of a minimum of three eligible faculty members elected by the Department. If more than three members are elected, the committee must consist of an odd number of members. To be eligible, a faculty member must be tenured, and must hold a rank equal to or above the rank to which advancement of the candidate is being considered. If a Department has fewer than three eligible faculty members, the Committee shall be composed of eligible faculty members within the Department, augmented by faculty participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program (with approval by the President; CBA 15.2) and tenured faculty members of appropriate rank from related disciplines. The Chair, if tenured, may, at the discretion of the Department, be a member of the Department RTP Committee. Committee membership shall be for at least one year, contingent on an eligible faculty’s availability for the entire year.
      2. College RTP Committee:
         Members of the College RTP Committee shall be tenured, and shall hold a rank equal to or above the rank to which advancement of the candidate is being considered. Members of the College Committee shall be elected by tenured and probationary faculty from their College according to each College's election procedures, with a minimum of three members serving staggered two-year terms.
      3. University RTP Subcommittee
         The University RTP Subcommittee shall be elected following the Senate By-laws from among the eligible tenured professors or equivalent of the instructional faculty and librarians. Committee members will serve in staggered three-year terms.
   3. Working Personnel Action File (WPAF)
      1. The evaluation is based solely on the contents of the Working Personnel Action File. Materials for inclusion to this file originate with, in order:
         1. The candidate,
         2. the Department RTP Committee,
         3. the Chair (optional report).
      2. Evidence from unidentified sources shall be excluded from the WPAF except that the University’s ROSE shall be anonymous.
         1. Contents of the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF): The Candidate shall provide up-to-date documentation for the WPAF showing evidence of their achievements and professional development. Candidates may place additional materials in their digital file and reference them by index.
         2. For a Periodic Evaluation (brief) the candidate will include:
            1. Current curriculum vitae.
            2. Self-assessment discussing strengths and areas for growth in teaching and professional activity (no more than two pages).
            3. One peer observation from the current review cycle.
            4. Reflections on Student Experience (ROSE) selected by the candidate for a minimum of two classes.
            5. Index of appropriate evidence to support a record of growth and contribution in the area of scholarship, professional development and service. Materials in index will be maintained by the candidate in a digital file. Access to the file must be provided to all levels of review.
         3. For a Performance Review (full) the candidate will include:
            1. Current curriculum vitae.
            2. Self-assessment of teaching and professional activity (no more than seven pages), and shall include:
               • an outline or description of courses taught by the candidate summarizing course materials, goals, and methods.
               • a statement of the candidate's goals for teaching.
               • a discussion of new course development.
               • an explanation of how the candidate’s scholarly activities contribute to the classroom experience.
               • an indication of methods by which the diverse learning styles of students are addressed.
               • a discussion of the candidate’s teaching strengths and weaknesses and the ways in which they are attempting to improve their teaching.
               • an assessment of the candidate’s scholarship, service and professional activities. Note: The candidate should explicitly state whether their scholarship is in progress, under review, accepted for publication (or equivalent), or published.
            3. Two peer observations of teaching since the last Performance Review.
            4. Reflections on Student Experience (ROSE) selected by the candidate for a minimum of two classes, with the exception for tenure or promotion (see below).
               • For tenure a summary table and analysis of ROSE data over the entire probationary period shall be included. For promotion, the summary table and analysis shall include data since the candidate’s initial date of employment at SSU or the candidate’s last promotion, not just the previous year.
            5. Index of appropriate evidence to support a record of growth and contribution in the area of scholarship, and quality of service to the University, to the profession, and to the community. Materials in index will be maintained by the candidate in a digital file. Access to the file must be provided to all levels of review.
      3. The WPAF shall be declared complete by the candidate with respect to documentation of performance for the purpose of evaluation five working days prior to the date the Department RTP Committee provides the Committee’s recommendation to the candidate. After this date, inclusion of any material that became available after the WPAF is declared complete and deemed necessary for evaluation of performance must have the approval of the University RTP Subcommittee. Material inserted in this fashion shall be returned to the Department RTP Committee, with a copy to the candidate, for review, evaluation, and comment before consideration at subsequent levels of review.
      4. The Department RTP Committee is responsible for the completeness of the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF), which consists of:
         1. Department RTP recommendation included on University Record of Action Taken form.
         2. Candidate’s materials (see above).
         3. Approved Department RTP Criteria.
         4. Evaluation document prepared by the Department RTP committee (see III.E.1). The Department evaluation document shall not exceed two pages for Periodic Evaluations (brief) and ten pages for Performance Reviews (full).
         5. Chair’s recommendation, if any.
         6. All previous reappointment letters from the President.
         7. All reappointment, tenure and promotion recommendations added at any level of review, including candidate responses.
      5. A candidate shall have access to their WPAF at any time, but may not remove material therefrom.
   4. Evaluation
      1. All evaluations will commence on the appropriate days following the annual Sonoma State University RTP schedule as established by Faculty Affairs.
      2. A Periodic Evaluation (cf. CBA 15.20) is used for candidates in their 1st year at SSU regardless of service credit, 3rd and 5th years. This "brief" evaluation shall typically be 2 pages in length, and answer the following questions:
         1. What are the candidate’s strengths? Explain.
         2. Does the RTP committee have any concerns or see any areas for growth in the candidate’s performance? Explain, especially as related to the department criteria.
      3. A Performance Review (cf. CBA 15.38) is used for candidates in their 2nd, 4th, 6th probationary years and for tenure and promotion. This full evaluation document shall not exceed 10 pages and will include:
         1. An overview or introduction.
         2. An evaluation of the candidate's teaching effectiveness (or equivalent for librarians, counselors and SSP-ARs).
         3. An evaluation of the candidate's scholarship, research and creative activity.
         4. An evaluation of the candidate's service to the University and community.
      4. Evaluation for Reappointment
         Evaluation for reappointment must be undertaken annually for each probationary faculty member. Subsequent evaluation shall reflect teaching performance and professional growth and development since the most recent evaluation. Copies of the previous department recommendations shall be transmitted along with the current evaluation so that a coherent professional history and measure of growth can be ascertained. Each evaluation document shall explicitly identify areas that need improvement (if any), or any other specific conditions or factors, which may affect future consideration for reappointment, tenure and promotion.
      5. Evaluation for Tenure and Promotion
         Faculty who apply for tenure and promotion to the Associate level in the same annual cycle will prepare only one document under the timeline for tenure. Candidates applying for early promotion (prior to tenure) will prepare a WPAF in the annual cycle they wish to be evaluated for promotion. A separate WPAF will be required in the year the candidate is considered for tenure. Any applicant for early tenure or promotion must request a Performance Review and notify Faculty Affairs prior to the deadline for the WPAF. Copies of evaluations from previous promotion recommendations shall be transmitted along with the current evaluation, but reviewers shall not be bound by previous recommendations. Each evaluation document shall explicitly identify areas that need improvement, or any other specific conditions or factors that may affect future consideration for promotions.
      6. Tenured faculty may request in writing that they not be considered for promotion.
   5. Levels of Review
      1. Department RTP Committee
         The Department RTP Committee shall review and evaluate the materials submitted by the candidate (i.e. WPAF), write an evaluation document, and make a formal recommendation. The completed WPAF, including any minority reports, and any separate report from a Chair, shall be forwarded to the College RTP Committee according to the schedule established by Faculty Affairs. Late documents shall be forwarded to the next level of review without recommendation. Under extraordinary circumstances, the University RTP Subcommittee and Faculty Affairs, at their discretion, can allow for adjusted timelines without affecting candidates 10-day review.
         1. Teaching Effectiveness
            The Department shall assess the candidate's teaching effectiveness in terms of the criteria listed in II.B. above. The three required methods are Peer Observations of Teaching, Reflections on Student Experience, and Self-Assessment of Teaching and Professional Activity. In evaluating the evidence gathered by these different methods, the evidence is to be considered as a whole in addressing teaching effectiveness. If a Department deems it necessary to use additional methods of measurement, it shall specify the method in writing in the department criteria. The candidate has the right to add comments to any document or data submitted into the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) as a measure of teaching effectiveness.
            1. Peer Observation of Teaching
               • Each Department is required to conduct peer observations of the teaching activity of each candidate and shall develop written procedures for such observations. Departments may choose to follow the Center for Teaching & Educational Technology guidelines or include their own procedures in their department criteria. The observer shall be mutually acceptable to the Department RTP Committee and the candidate. If mutual agreement cannot be reached on an observer from within the Department, then a mutually acceptable observer from outside the Department may be used.
               • One peer observation is required per Periodic Evaluation; two are required for Performance Reviews.
            2. Reflections on Student Experience. The Department RTP committee’s evaluation of the Reflections on Student Experience includes an analysis and interpretation of the data that explain the data within the context of the teaching experience of the Department.
            3. Self-Assessment of Teaching (or Equivalent) and Professional Activities The Department RTP committee’s evaluation will reflect on the candidates Self-Assessment of Teaching and Professional Activities as outlined above in sections III.C.2.b.ii and III.C.2.c.ii.
         2. Scholarship, Research, and Creative Activity
            The Department RTP Committee is responsible for substantiating and validating authenticity of appropriate evidence, and that the candidate demonstrates scholarship, research or creative activity, and professional development, as delineated in the department’s criteria.
         3. University and Community Service
            The Department RTP Committee shall evaluate the candidate’s contributions to both University and community service, including: (1) evaluate the quality and length of service, and (2) specify whether the candidate is supported by released time for any given assignment or 3) if the candidate was financially rewarded for any particular activity.
      2. College RTP Committee
         The College RTP Committee shall review and evaluate the materials submitted by the Department RTP Committee, write an evaluation document, and make a formal recommendation. These documents shall be incorporated into the WPAF. The College RTP Committee shall forward to the College Dean the WPAF and its evaluation and recommendation according to the schedule established by Faculty Affairs. Late documents shall be forwarded to the next level of review without recommendation.
      3. College Dean
         The College Dean shall review and evaluate the materials submitted by the College RTP Committee, write an evaluation document, as required by the type of review (periodic or performance), and make a formal recommendation. These documents shall be incorporated into the WPAF. The College Dean shall forward the evaluation and formal recommendation for candidates in their 2nd PY/2nd year of appointment, 4th, and 6th years, tenure and promotion to the University RTP Subcommittee, according to the schedule established by Faculty Affairs. Deans, as President Designee, will notify candidates in the 1st, 3rd, and 5th years of the decision to reappoint.
      4. University RTP Subcommittee
         The University RTP Subcommittee shall review and evaluate the materials submitted by prior levels of review, write an evaluation document, and make formal recommendations to the President concerning reappointment in the 2nd PY/2nd year of appointment at SSU, 4th, and 6th years, tenure, and promotion. These documents shall be incorporated into the WPAF. The University RTP Subcommittee may forward a separate ranked list of candidates recommended for promotion to the President.
4. Recommendation
   1. Personnel recommendations or decisions relating to reappointment, tenure, promotion, non-reappointment, or any other personnel action shall be based solely on material contained in the Personnel Action File (PAF), which incorporates the WPAF by reference. (cf. CBA 15.9). The formal recommendations at each level of review are included in the WPAF. Recommendations at each level of review shall be acknowledged by the candidate and, at the Committee levels, by all members of the Committee. The candidate's acknowledgement that they have received the recommendation does not mean they necessarily agree with the content of the recommendation.
   2. A Record of Action Taken form is prepared by Faculty Affairs. At the end of each review cycle the candidate, the Department, College, URTP chairs and Dean are required to sign the Record of Action Taken depending on the appropriate type of review as an acknowledgement that they have seen the recommendations at all levels. The signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the content of the recommendations.
   3. Candidate's Right to Respond and Opportunity to Confer
      1. At any level of review, within ten days of receipt of the recommendation and reappointment expectations, a candidate may submit a response in writing and/or request that a meeting be held to discuss the recommendation and the reappointment expectations.
      2. Upon such request, the candidate shall be provided an opportunity to confer with the Committee at each level of review and the College Dean. This provision shall not change the evaluation timelines.
      3. The Committee or College Dean shall notify Faculty Affairs of any request by a candidate for rebuttal or meetings.
      4. The Committee or College Dean shall summarize the conference in writing, and include in its recommendation matters discussed at the conference that affect the recommendation.
   4. Reports and Recommendations
      1. Positive Recommendation. At each level of review a report shall be written in sufficient detail to impart a reasonable understanding of the grounds for the positive recommendation to members of the academic community.
      2. Negative Recommendation
         1. If, at any level of review, the candidate receives a negative recommendation, this recommendation shall be detailed in writing to a degree sufficient to communicate a reasonable understanding of the grounds for the negative recommendation to members of the academic community.
         2. If, at any level of review beyond the Department level, the candidate receives a negative recommendation, the written notification to the candidate shall specify any grounds upon which the negative recommendation is based that differ from those used by the prior Committee.
      3. No Recommendation. Documents that cannot be completed in a timely manner will be forwarded to the next level of review without recommendation.
      4. Minority Reports. A Committee member at any level of review may submit a recommendation that differs from that of the majority. This document shall be forwarded along with all other documents to subsequent levels of review.
   5. President
      1. The President, in consultation with the URTP Subcommittee, may grant a conditional one-year reappointment to a candidate who displays remediable deficiencies in the areas of scholarship or service. Explicit expectations for such remediation will be outlined in the reappointment letter. Conditional one-year reappointment is not available to candidates applying for tenure.
      2. The President, after reviewing and considering the evaluations and recommendations, shall make a final decision on tenure and promotion and shall notify the faculty member in writing of the final decision as per section I.F below.
      3. Only the President can grant additional time to the tenure clock, and only under circumstances explicitly stated in the CBA (13.8).
      4. The President may award tenure to any individual, including one whose appointment and assignment is in an administrative position, at the time of appointment. Appointments with tenure shall be made only after an evaluation and positive recommendation by the appropriate Department (c.f. CBA 13.17) and the University Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Subcommittee or its designee. Individuals appointed with tenure must have previously earned tenure by serving a probationary period at a post-secondary educational institution.
   6. The President's Letter
      1. It is the responsibility of the President or designee to provide written notification to each individual who is granted reappointment, tenure, or promotion.
      2. If an individual is not granted reappointment, tenure, or promotion, the President's letter to the individual shall state the reasons for that action.
      3. If recommendations forwarded to the President note any areas for improvement, or any other conditions or factors, which may affect future consideration for reappointment, tenure, or promotion, the President's letter of formal notification shall bring these to the attention of the faculty member.
      4. The President should make every effort to concur with faculty recommendations about reappointment, tenure and promotion, except in rare instances and for compelling reasons, which should be stated in detail.
5. Grievances
   The candidate whose reappointment, tenure, or promotion has been denied shall have the right to appeal to the President for a reconsideration of the decision. The request for a reconsideration shall be in writing, shall specify grounds for the reconsideration and be received within ten days of the date of notification. If the appeal is denied, the candidate may seek remedy as provided for by the CBA.
6. Timeline Summary
   The Office of Faculty Affairs will publish timelines for each academic year. The following table summarizes when and at what level evaluations are due.

¹See Reflections on Student Experience policy.