F(6)

ROBINSON COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
PROMOTION, TENURE AND REAPPOINTMENT OF FACULTY
Revised March 2008

I. PREAMBLE

(A) College Mission and Long-Range Plan

The development and application of promotion and tenure criteria within Georgia State University at the university, college and departmental levels are probably the most important determinants of whether the College and University achieve their mission and goals over time. The College's primary long-range goal is to achieve excellence in teaching, research and service by increasing its output of scholarly research over time while enhancing its reputation for service and for effective teaching in degree and non-degree programs. Achievement of this goal in the RCB long-range plan requires an appropriate balance between teaching and research over time, so that the College (and the University) retains its historical competitive advantage as a quality provider of degree programs, while garnering benefits from its increased emphasis on research/publications.

Achieving the appropriate balance between teaching and research requires ongoing reassessment of the standards applied in promotion and tenure decisions at the university, college and departmental levels.

(B) Relationship To Other Governing Documents

The policies and procedures contained in this document are supplementary to the Georgia State University Statutes and Bylaws, the document titled "Georgia State University: Policy on Promotion, Tenure and Development for Tenure Track Faculty" approved by the University Senate in November 1994, the bylaws and policies of the Regents of the University System of Georgia, and provisions contained in the Georgia State University Faculty Handbook. To avoid duplication, many provisions pertaining to promotion and tenure contained in these documents have been omitted from these policies and procedures or are incorporated only by reference.

Back To Top

II. TENURE: CRITERIA AND TIME REQUIREMENTS

(A) Eligibility for Tenure

Only assistant professors, associate professors and professors employed in tenure track positions are eligible for tenure. Faculty members employed in non-tenure track positions are not eligible for tenure.

(B) Tenure Criteria

Tenure represents a decision regarding a faculty member's potential contribution as evidenced by the individual's past performance. To be eligible for tenure, a candidate should combine strengths in teaching, research and service as evidenced by a record of achievement such that there is high likelihood of continued achievement in each of these three areas.

Since tenure is, in effect, a life-time employment commitment, the award of tenure to a candidate is based on the following criteria:

1. The candidate's performance to date as well as promise of future performance is judged to be excellent by his or her peers.
   
   
2. The candidate's colleagues in the academic unit judge the candidate to be collegial and the candidate's expertise meets the needs of the academic unit to which the candidate is appointed, given present and probable future academic programming needs of that academic unit.

(C) Time Requirements for Tenure

In accordance with Board of Regents policy (see section 803.09 of The Policy Manual of the Board of Regents), tenure may be awarded after five years of full-time service at the rank of assistant professor or higher, but the maximum time that may be served at the rank of assistant professor or higher without the award of tenure is seven years. Thus, candidates are eligible for consideration for tenure during the fifth, sixth, or seventh year of service.

A maximum of three years credit toward the minimum probationary period for tenure may be allowed for service in tenure track positions at other institutions. Such credit for prior service shall be defined in writing by the President and must be approved by the Board of Regents at the time of the initial appointment at the rank of assistant professor or higher. For candidates who, at the time of initial employment, were granted credit for prior service toward the minimum probationary period for tenure, the credit granted for prior service counts toward the minimum probationary period of five years that must be served for the award of tenure; however, the credit granted for prior service does not count toward the maximum time that may be served without the award of tenure.

In accordance with Board of Regents policy (Section 803.09 D), the full-time years of service required to be considered for tenure "must be continuous except that a maximum of two years interruption because of a leave of absence or part-time service may be permitted--provided, however, that no probationary credit for the period of an interruption shall be allowed." Thus, a leave of absence (paid or unpaid) does not count toward the number of years of service required to be considered for tenure.

It is the policy of the Robinson College of Business that the recommendation for the award of tenure should normally be made during the sixth year of service (which would also be the sixth year of employment except for candidates who were granted credit for prior service). Only under extraordinary circumstances should the recommendation be made during the fifth year.

Back To Top

III. PROMOTION: CRITERIA AND TIME REQUIREMENTS

(A) Promotion Criteria

Tenure track versus non-tenure track faculty. For tenure track faculty, teaching, research and service are the primary activities and responsibilities; each of these is weighed carefully in promotion decisions. In each of these areas, tenure track candidates will be evaluated as to whether or not they have met the expectations for promotion at peer institutions rated at the same Carnegie classification by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching or comparable criteria.

For full-time, non-tenure track faculty, the criterion for promotion is excellence in the assigned workload.

Teaching. Where the assigned workload of a faculty member (whether tenure track or non-tenure track) includes teaching, effectiveness is a necessary condition for promotion. Teaching is defined as any activity undertaken by a faculty member within the formal academic programs of the College that contributes to the efforts of students to acquire intellectual skills, to extend knowledge and understanding, or to develop attitudes and habits that foster continuing growth. Examples of such activities include, but are not limited to, course and program development and improvements, instruction, counseling and advising of students, and service on doctoral dissertation committees.

For non-tenure track faculty whose assigned workload consists primarily of teaching responsibilities, the criteria for promotion from assistant to associate are excellence in teaching and demonstrated evidence of teaching scholarship. An additional criterion for promotion to professor is national prominence in teaching scholarship. Accomplishments in discipline-based scholarship of discovery will complement but not substitute for accomplishments in the scholarship of teaching. Teaching scholarship should be demonstrated through teaching creativity and innovation and must be disseminated in public forums that provide the opportunity for critical evaluation and adoption. Publications in pedagogical journals are a strong form of public dissemination. Other forms of public dissemination include textbooks and articles that aim to share knowledge or innovation with industry constituencies. External reviews of a candidate’s scholarship will be required of all non-tenure track faculty members seeing promotion. See Section IV C, “External Reviews.”

Research and publications. The conduct of research and its publication are necessary conditions for promotion for tenure track faculty. Research is defined as inquiry undertaken that establishes facts, develops principles, or illuminates or answers questions posed within an area of intellectual pursuit through the systematic collection of evidence that can be subjected to replication, verification, or critical evaluation by persons other than the original researcher. Research will be evaluated primarily by the quality of the faculty member's work that has been published or formally accepted for publication.

It is not possible to quantify the number of publications or the type of publications necessary for promotion. However the following guidelines will apply to the various parties involved in conducting a review for promotion:

Some indication of capability of independent scholarship is desirable.

A continuous history of research and publications is more important than a short period of intensive activity.

Some of the candidate's research must be published (or accepted for publication) in premier refereed scholarly journals.

The opportunities to publish in refereed scholarly versus professional/practitioner publications vary among the disciplines. While RCB faculty in all disciplines should target the refereed scholarly journals as first priority, promotion decisions must recognize the academic value of publishing in refereed professional/practitioner journals and other publications that have been, or can be, peer-reviewed.

Candidates for promotion to Professor should have achieved national prominence in scholarship.

Service. Service activities of faculty that are considered for promotion and related purposes are of three kinds:

Activities internal to the university. The activities of a faculty member in serving on committees and doing administrative work within the academic unit, College or University are essential inputs to achieving the goals of the College's various programs. With respect to these internal service activities, a faculty member who is to be recommended for promotion should have served on committees, when invited to do so. The member should have assumed and executed satisfactorily all administrative responsibilities assigned.

Involvement in academic and professional organizations. Service activity in academic organizations includes serving as an officer or local arrangements chair/member, chair of program committee, chair of a program session, or discussant. With respect to journals sponsored by the organization, it includes serving as a referee or in any type of editorial capacity. In other words, service includes involvement in an academic organization other than presentation of a paper, which is classified as research and publications activity. It is expected that the involvement of faculty in professional (as opposed to academic)organizations will be a function of the faculty member's disciplinary area. For example, those academic units that have industry affiliations often have faculty who "work their way through the chairs" of local chapters, or state/regional/national/international professional organizations.

Service to the community. As a general rule, those service activities in the community which should be considered for promotion are those which utilize in a significant way the professional expertise of the faculty member.

(B) Time Requirements for Promotion

Board of Regents Policy. The policy of the Board of Regents with respect to minimum time in rank for consideration for promotion (Section 4.03.01 of the Academic Affairs Handbook) states that the normal minimum time in the rank of assistant professor at Georgia State University for consideration for promotion to associate professor is four years in residence. The normal minimum time in the rank of associate professor at Georgia State University for consideration for promotion to professor is five years in residence.

Regents policy indicates that "strong justification" must be provided in support of any recommendations for promotions in which the candidate has served less than these numbers of years in rank at Georgia State University.

Consideration of tenure track faculty for promotion to associate professor relative to consideration for tenure. Tenure track candidates at the rank of assistant professor cannot be recommended for tenure without concurrently being recommended for promotion to associate professor. The time requirements may permit consideration for promotion to associate professor a year or two before consideration for tenure. However, since both decisions, if considered separately, would require two complete review processes (as outlined in Section IV), it is College policy that consideration for promotion to associate professor will be concurrent with consideration for tenure, except in unusual circumstances for which there is a compelling reason to consider the promotion decision separately.

Furthermore, it is College policy that the recommendation of the Dean to the Provost and President on candidates being considered for both promotion to associate professor and tenure will normally be positive for both promotion and tenure or negative for both promotion and tenure.

Consideration of non-tenure track faculty for promotion. To prevent time-in-rank inequities between tenure track and non-tenure track faculty, non-tenure track faculty will be eligible for consideration for promotion to associate professor after five years in residence at the rank of assistant professor. The normal minimum time in rank of an associate professor for promotion to professor is five years in residence for non-tenure track faculty. Subject to University and Board of Regents approval, a maximum of three years credit toward the minimum time-in-rank promotion requirements may be allowed for service at other institutions.

Back To Top

IV. PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING PROMOTION AND TENURE REVIEWS

The procedures contained in this section (IV) are for the conduct of regular reviews for promotion and tenure. Provisions pertaining to cumulative review of tenure track candidates prior to the tenure decision are contained in section V. Provisions pertaining to cumulative review of tenured faculty are contained in Section VI. The procedures relevant to conducting tenure reviews for candidates for senior faculty positions at time of appointment without further review are contained in Section VII.

(A) Calendar of Events (Overview)

The exact dates are determined by the recommendation deadlines set each year by the University System Office as well as the University's academic calendar and holiday schedule.

(B) Notification of Eligibility and Declaration of Candidacy

By approximately May 15 of each year, the Dean's Office will notify the head of each academic unit of all tenure track faculty members appointed to that academic unit who are eligible to be considered for promotion or tenure on the basis of meeting the minimum time periods (as specified in Sections II and III) and all non-tenure track faculty who are eligible to be considered for promotion on the basis of meeting the minimum time periods.

The head of the academic unit will inform, in writing, each faculty member who is eligible for promotion or tenure (in terms of time requirements) and request that the faculty member indicate, in writing, whether the faculty member wishes to be considered for promotion or tenure during the upcoming academic year.

Any technical questions (e.g., whether a faculty member has served a "normal" period of time with respect to being considered for tenure) should be brought up by the head of the academic unit or the candidate with the Dean's Office at the beginning of the process to avoid misunderstandings later in the recommendation process with respect to how a specific situation may be viewed by the various parties involved in the process.

(C) External Reviews

For tenure track faculty, written external reviews of a candidate's research and publications are required for all promotion and tenure decisions. For non-tenure track faculty whose research is determined by the head of the academic unit in consultation with the Dean to be a significant part of the faculty member’s workload, written external reviews of the candidate’s research and publications are required for promotion decisions. A minimum of three substantive external reviews must be obtained on each candidate for promotion and tenure. Individuals selected as external reviewers should normally be senior faculty at other universities with academic reputations equal to or better than Georgia State University; in any case, they should be qualified to evaluate the candidate's research and publications output in terms of its significance, quality and overall contribution to the field.

All promotion decisions for non-tenure track faculty whose assigned workload consists primarily of teaching require written reviews of the candidate’s contributions to the scholarship of teaching. A minimum of three substantive reviews must be obtained. Candidates are encouraged to suggest names for reviewers. Individuals selected as reviewers should be recognized experts qualified to evaluate the candidate’s contribution to teaching scholarship. For promotion from assistant to associate, the reviewers must be external to the College but may be selected from other units of Georgia State University. For promotion from associate professor to professor, all reviewers must be external to Georgia State University and should possess national reputations in the scholarship of teaching. The burden of establishing the credentials of reviewers lies with candidates seeking promotion.

Determination of external reviewers. By June 15, the candidate will submit to the head of the academic unit a list of at least four potential external reviewers. By June 30, in consultation with senior faculty in the academic unit in the candidate's area of expertise, the head of the academic unit will develop a list of at least four external reviewers, which will include at least two of the reviewers on the candidate's list. By July 10, the head of the academic unit will informally contact the potential reviewers to get an indication of their willingness to complete the review. The number of reviewers on the list should be adequate to insure that at least three substantive reviews will ultimately be received. In any case, it is the responsibility of the head of the academic unit to assure that an adequate number of substantive reviews received from qualified reviewers is obtained.

Solicitation of external reviews. All letters soliciting these reviews will be written by the Dean (see sample letter in Appendix A) and mailed to the external reviewers by July 20, requesting a response by mid-September. Each external reviewer will be sent the candidate's resume and copies of the candidate's significant publications or scholarship (except lengthy books and monographs, for which a copy of the title page and table of contents will be provided). If the number of publications is extensive, then a sample of the most significant publications selected by the candidate in consultation with the head of the academic unit will be sent. By June 30, the candidate will provide to the head of the academic unit for review the resume and copies of other materials to be sent to the external reviewers.

The external reviewer will be asked to evaluate the scholarship in terms of its significance, quality and overall contribution to the field. All responses shall be addressed to the Dean. The reviews of the external reviewers will become part of the candidate's dossier and will be available to all internal reviewers, including the faculty review committee within the candidate's academic unit. The reviews will not be made available to the candidate unless adjudication under the Georgia Open Records Law results in the reviews becoming public.

Resume data on external reviewers. As part of the candidate's dossier, the information to be provided on external reviewers is a listing prepared by the head of the academic unit (compiled consecutively on 1-2 sheets of paper) of all the external reviewers with the following information:

1. Name
   
   
2. Current affiliation
   
   
3. One paragraph of biographical/resume data

This summary is to be incorporated, at the point indicated in Section IV. D below, in the dossier to be submitted to the Dean's Office.

(D) Preparation and Organization of Candidate's Dossier

The dossier should be able to make the case by itself (i.e., without formal or informal oral discussion, or presentations) with respect to the candidate's qualifications. Two copies of the dossier are required to facilitate timely review by the various parties included in the review process. All materials should be placed in a large three-ring binder notebook, in the following order:

Head of academic unit's memorandum of recommendations and analysis to the Dean.

Memorandum from the faculty committee of the academic unit to the head of the academic unit (further discussed in Section IV. E below).

One paragraph summary resumes of external reviewers, if applicable. (see Section IV. C above)

Letters from the external reviewers, if applicable.

Index tabs with the following labels (underscored words), followed by the materials:

Table of Contents (note: the items listed above will be received and prepared by the head of the academic unit subsequent to the candidate preparing and submitting credentials to the academic unit for review; thus, the table of contents will only include the items listed below as submitted by the candidate).

Resume organized in the sequence shown in Appendix B.

Comprehensive statement from the candidate addressing the candidate's performance and record with respect to teaching effectiveness, research and publications (including quality of publications if applicable), and service as defined in Section III.

Publications: refereed scholarly. Attach a statement to each publication that is not single-authored indicating the specific contribution made by the candidate to the publication--e.g., junior or senior author, conceptualized the publication, responsible for methodology, research design or statistical analysis.

Publications: refereed professional/practitioner.

Publications: books and monographs.

Teaching effectiveness--Provide (1) a listing of all courses taught with enrollment by semester since date of appointment or last rank promotion, and (2) materials documenting teaching effectiveness, including copies of Student Evaluation of Instructor Profiles for all courses taught and other materials that go beyond the results of student evaluations, such as peer evaluations or teaching portfolios.

The College will prepare a report for each faculty being considered for promotion or tenure entitled A Overall Teaching Effectiveness of Instructor for All Classes Since Initial Semester of Employment, Awarding of Tenure or Last Promotion @ Faculty members can include this report in their dossier if they desire. If included, the faculty member may provide a narrative analysis of the results. The optional use of this report in no way precludes faculty members from selecting, summarizing, and discussing other information (e.g., Student Evaluation of Instructor form items) of their choosing.

Organize other information into the categories delineated in the College document titled A Outline of Faculty Activities/Accomplishments Report@ (FAAR) used for annual faculty performance evaluation purposes. Typically, FAAR reports completed for previous years will be the best source of information for completing this section of the dossier.

Service Effectiveness--materials documenting effectiveness in service activities.

The candidate should have all the materials ready by the time requested by the head of the academic unit, which will normally be near the beginning of fall semester. When the Dean receives external review letters, these will be forwarded to the head of the academic unit for inclusion in the ring binder notebook to be reviewed by the committee of faculty of the academic unit.

(E) Review Within Academic Unit

The candidate's dossier is reviewed by a committee of faculty members of the academic unit who prepare written recommendations to the head of the academic unit. Prior to the promotion review of a non-tenure track faculty candidate, the head of the academic unit will convey to the review committee the assigned workload of the candidate since the last review. In turn, the head of the academic unit completes a review and written recommendations addressed to the Dean and College Promotion and Tenure review committee.

Composition of faculty committee of academic unit. All tenured associate professors and professors constitute the faculty review committee of an academic unit for tenure recommendations and for recommendations for promotion of tenure track faculty to associate professor. All tenured professors constitute the faculty committee for recommendations for promotion of tenure track faculty to professor.

For recommendations for promotion of non-tenure track faculty to associate professor, the review committee is comprised of all tenured associate professors and professors plus those non-tenure track faculty at the rank of associate professor or professor with assigned workloads which, in the opinion of the head of the academic unit, are similar to the candidate for promotion. For recommendations for promotion of non-tenure track faculty to professor, the review committee is comprised of all tenured professors plus those non-tenure track faculty at the rank of professor with assigned workloads which, in the opinion of the head of the academic unit, are similar to the candidate for promotion.

The head of the academic unit will appoint the chair from the committee membership. If an academic unit does not have at least three faculty meeting the criteria for being on a faculty review committee, faculty appointed in other academic units will be added to the committee to reach, at least, the minimum of three. These faculty will be chosen by the head of the academic unit in consultation with the Dean.

Form of written recommendations from faculty review committee. For each of the three decision categories (tenure, promotion to associate professor and promotion to professor), each faculty member constituting the committee in the academic unit is expected to sign a memorandum of recommendations to the head of the academic unit. In the case of a split decision, the report, signed by all committee members, should include both majority and minority views. For tenure track candidates, the memorandum must include an evaluation of the candidate's teaching, research (including an assessment of the quality of the publications) and service activities. For non-tenure track candidates, the memorandum must include an evaluation of each significant part of the candidate’s assigned workload.

Notification of candidate of type of recommendation. As soon as possible but prior to the deadline for submitting recommendations to the Dean and the College promotion & tenure review committee, the head of the academic unit will notify in writing each faculty member who previously declared in writing a wish to be considered for either promotion or tenure as to whether or not the faculty member is being recommended by the head of the academic unit to the Dean and the College promotion and tenure review committee. In accordance with University policy, the faculty member will be provided with a copy of the written recommendations of the faculty review committee of the academic unit and the memorandum of recommendations from the head of the academic unit. The faculty member has the right to respond in writing to any or all of these evaluations, and copies of the faculty member's response(s) will be included in the material reviewed at all higher levels. A faculty member who is not being recommended by the head of the academic unit and wishes to withdraw from further consideration may do so. The faculty member may withdraw by informing the head of the academic unit in writing prior to the deadline for submitting recommendations to the Dean.

Memorandum of recommendations from the head of the academic unit. The memorandum of recommendations from the head of the academic unit to the Dean should, in addition to serving as the recommendation of the head of the academic unit, provide context to the deliberations that have occurred in the academic unit. For example, this memorandum should fully address any split recommendations from the faculty committee of the academic unit, or issues that are not possible to document in a dossier (for example, the candidate's lack of collegiality).

(F) Review By The College Promotion and Tenure Review Committee

Composition of Committee. By the spring semester faculty meeting, the members of the College promotion and tenure review committee will have been selected in accordance with Section VII E of the Bylaws of the Robinson College of Business.

By late October, the two complete sets of each candidate's dossier will be transmitted to the Dean's Office. The chair of the committee will be notified for purposes of calling an initial meeting of the committee to establish its internal operating procedures. The chair reviews the dossiers for any required information that appears to be missing and requests it accordingly from the academic units.

The committee will complete its review of each candidate's dossier by time deadlines established in conference with the Dean's Office to meet the deadlines of the University administration. The committee may go back to the academic unit for clarification of questions that arise during its review of a candidate's dossier.

Form of written recommendations to the Dean. All five members of the committee are expected to sign a memorandum of recommendation to the Dean. For tenure track candidates, the memorandum must include an evaluation of the candidate's teaching, research (including an assessment of the quality of the publications) and service activities. In the case of a split decision, the report, signed by all committee members, should include both majority and minority views. For non-tenure track candidates, the memorandum must include an evaluation of each significant part of the candidate’s assigned workload. It is not necessary to repeat the contents of the written recommendations received from the review committee in the academic unit or the head of the academic unit; however, it may be appropriate to incorporate these by reference.

The committee will submit its preliminary recommendations to the Dean with an indication of the recommendation but without detailed elaboration of the rationale for the recommendation because of the press of time. After meeting with the Dean, the final recommendations of the committee, including justifications for the recommendations, will then be formally submitted to the Dean.

(G) Recommendations by the Dean to the Provost and the President

After meeting with the College's promotion and tenure committee, the Dean prepares a written recommendation to the Provost. The memorandum of recommendations from the Dean should, in addition to serving as the recommendation of the Dean, provide context to the deliberations that have occurred within the College. For example, this memorandum should address split recommendations of the College review committee, issues that are not possible to document in a dossier, or other matters of relevance to the Provost and President in arriving at their recommendation.

At this time, the Dean informs in writing each candidate for promotion or tenure of the recommendation being made by the Dean and, in accordance with University policy, the faculty member is provided with a copy of the memorandum of recommendations to the Dean from the College promotion and tenure review committee and the memorandum of recommendations from the Dean to the Provost. The faculty member has the right to respond in writing to any or all of these evaluations, and copies of the faculty member's response will be included in the material reviewed at all higher levels (assuming that the Dean's recommendation is positive and, therefore, forwarded to the Provost). Candidates not recommended by the Dean must be notified in writing no later than ten working days after the Dean's decision. Candidates who are not recommended by the Dean may appeal the Dean's decision to the Provost. This appeal must be made in writing no later than ten working days after receipt of the Dean's written decision (see Section VIII).

When the Dean's recommendation has been completed (which is the last item to be included in the ring-binder notebook of the candidate's dossier as discussed at Section IV. D), it is submitted to the Provost.

(H) University-Level Review

In accordance with the document titled "GSU: Policy on Promotion, Tenure, and Development for Tenure Track Faculty:"

Upon completion of reviews in the colleges, dossiers, which have resulted in favorable recommendation, will be forwarded to the Provost. The Provost will review the dossiers based upon the foregoing guidelines, norms, and expectations of the unit and forward positive recommendations to the President. If the Provost expects to forward a negative recommendation to the President, he/she will first consult with the appropriate Dean of the college. The President conducts an independent review of the dossiers, also based upon the foregoing guidelines, norms, and expectations for the unit including college and departmental specifications...

The Provost will inform the President at the same time as the college Dean of the Provost's P&T recommendations. The Dean shall notify each candidate of the Provost's recommendation within three business days after receiving the recommendation from the Provost...

The calendar of events at the beginning of this section provides additional information on the steps involved in the recommendation and notification processes that culminate in the President’s decision.

Back To Top

V. REAPPOINTMENT OF NON-TENURED FACULTY

(A) Appointment Renewal Notification Date

In accordance with Section 803.09 I of The Policy Manual of The Board of Regents:

Notice of the intention to renew or not to renew a non-tenured faculty member who has been awarded academic rank (instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, professor) shall be furnished, in writing, according to the following schedule:

1. At least three months before the date of termination of an initial one-year contract;
   
   
2. At least six months before the date of termination of a second one-year contract;
   
   
3. At least nine months before the date of termination of a contract after two or more years of service in the institution.

This schedule of notification does not apply to persons holding part-time positions in whatever rank stated.

(B) Needs and Resource Contingencies

All appointments are contingent upon the needs of the Robinson College of Business and the resources of the College and university; therefore, eligibility for renewal of appointment does not guarantee reappointment.

(C) Pre-Tenure Cumulative Review for Tenure Track Faculty

The following provisions pertaining to pre-tenure cumulative review for tenure track faculty originate with the GSU document titled "Policy on Promotion, Tenure, and Development for Tenure Track Faculty" approved by the University Senate in November 1994 and the subsequent memoranda from the Provost providing clarification on issues pertaining to implementation.

Purpose of review. The purpose is to provide a formal review of the progress made toward promotion and tenure in order for tenure track faculty members to have a clear idea of how adequately they are progressing toward successfully achieving promotion and tenure

Year in which review is conducted. The year in which the review will be conducted depends on the amount of probationary credit toward tenure granted at the time of initial appointment. For persons granted three years of credit, there is no pre-tenure cumulative review. Those with two years of credit will be evaluated in the spring semester of their first full year of employment. Those with one year of credit will be evaluated in the spring semester of their second full year of employment. Those with no credit will be evaluated in the spring semester of their third year full year of employment. (Note: a full year of employment excludes years in which paid or unpaid leaves of absence occur and partial years due to employment starting after fall semester.)

Review committee and chair. The committee of faculty in the academic unit conducting the pre-tenure cumulative review will be constituted of all tenured faculty. The head of the academic unit will appoint the chair from the committee membership. If an academic unit does not have at least three faculty meeting the criteria for being on the review committee, faculty appointed in other academic units will be added to the committee to reach, at least, a minimum of three. These faculty will be chosen by the head of the academic unit in consultation with the Dean.

Materials to be reviewed. The pre-tenure cumulative review should address accomplishments in teaching, research and service. The review will be based on available information. The candidate will be expected to submit to the committee at least the following elements of the dossier required for the regular tenure review (see Section IV, D):

Resume organized in the sequence shown in Appendix B

Copies of all publications

Materials documenting teaching effectiveness, including copies of Student
Evaluation of Instructor Profiles and other materials that go beyond the results
of student evaluations, such as peer evaluations.

In addition, the candidate may submit copies of unpublished papers and a concise summary of accomplishments not to exceed two pages in length.

Review committee report and subsequent review and comment. The report will be prepared by the chair of the review committee, but may include both minority and majority opinions. The review committee report is forwarded to the head of the academic unit who will prepare a memorandum (not to exceed one page in length) to the College Promotion and Tenure Committee containing comments on the committee report and recommendations for reappointment of the faculty member. The head of the academic unit will provide the candidate with copies of the review committee’s report and the unit head’s evaluation, and the candidate will have 5 working days to forward comments to the College, if desired. The College Promotion and Tenure Committee will evaluate the candidate and make a recommendation to the Dean. The memorandum must include an evaluation of the candidate’s teaching, research, and service. Those members of the College promotion and tenure review committee who do not concur with the majority opinion will individually or collectively prepare and sign minority report(s). In turn, the Dean will provide comments (not to exceed one page in length). The Dean will provide the candidate with copies of the College P&T Committee’s report and the Dean’s evaluation, and the candidate will have five days to respond in writing, if desired. The Dean will forward the committee report and comments of the head of the academic unit and the Dean and any candidate comments to the Provost by no later than the start of the summer semester. After the Provost has added comments, all reports and comments are sent to the candidate with copies to the other parties involved in the cumulative review process. The final report will be retained in the faculty member's file in the Dean's office.

(D) Reviews for Reappointment of Non-Tenured Tenure Track Faculty in Years Other than Cumulative Review Year

The head of the academic unit will decide on the type and nature of input to be solicited from the faculty of the academic unit in making the recommendation to the dean for the renewal or non-renewal of non-tenured tenure track faculty in the years of service preceding the year of the pre-tenure cumulative review and in the years after the cumulative review that precede the year of the formal tenure review. However, in accordance with University policy, the annual reviews of tenure track faculty in the years after the cumulative review that precede the formal tenure review should be shared by the head of the academic unit with the Dean before being given to the faculty member.

(E) Reviews for Reappointment of Non-Tenure Track Faculty

The head of the academic unit will decide on the type and nature of input to be solicited from the faculty of the academic unit in making the recommendation to the dean for renewal or non-renewal each year. However, in accordance with University policy, non-tenure track faculty will be subject to a cumulative review three years after the initial appointment, three years after the first review and every five years after the second review. This will be comparable to the Apre-tenure@ and Apost-tenure@ review of tenure track faculty.

Each of these cumulative reviews will be conducted by a committee of the faculty chaired by the head of the academic unit during the spring term of the academic year. These cumulative reviews should address accomplishments with respect to assigned workload. Prior to the cumulative review of a non-tenure track faculty candidate, the head of the academic unit will convey to the review committee the assigned workload of the candidate since the last review. The non-tenure track faculty member will be expected to submit the following documents to the committee:

Resume organized in the sequence shown in Appendix B

Materials documenting teaching effectiveness, including copies of Student
Evaluation of Instructor Profiles and other materials that go beyond the results
of student evaluations, such as peer evaluations.

Copies of publications (if any) during the evaluation period.

In addition, the non-tenure track faculty member may submit a concise summary of accomplishments (not to exceed two pages in length) during the evaluation period and/or a one-page outline of projected goals for the next evaluation period.

(F) Transfer from Tenure Track Position to Non-Tenure Track Position

Section 803.10 "Non-Tenure Track Personnel" of The Policy Manual of the Board of Regents governs the transfer of individuals from tenure track faculty positions to non-tenure track faculty positions; such transfers require the approval of the Chancellor of the University System of Georgia.

It is the policy of the Robinson College of Business that recommendations for such transfers are made by the College only in exceptional circumstances normally related to program quality or continuity. The consideration of a request for transfer is initiated by the head of the academic unit, not the faculty member. In accordance with Board of Regents policy, the faculty member must consent in writing to such a recommendation for transfer. The request for transfer is reviewed by a faculty committee of the academic unit comprised of all tenured faculty. This committee prepares written recommendation(s) to the head of the academic unit who, in turn, prepares written recommendation(s) to the Dean that also provides context to the deliberations that have occurred in the academic unit. The written recommendations of the faculty committee and the head of the academic unit are both sent to the Dean. If the Dean agrees that such a transfer should be made, the Dean makes a recommendation to the Provost. If the request for transfer is ultimately approved by the Chancellor, the Dean will subsequently inform the Executive Committee and Faculty Affairs Committee of the transfer.

Back To Top

VI. CUMULATIVE REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT FOR TENURED FACULTY

The following provisions pertaining to cumulative review for tenured faculty originate with the GSU document titled "Policy on Promotion, Tenure, and Development of Tenure Track Faculty" approved by the University Senate in November 1994, the subsequent memoranda from the Provost providing clarification on issues pertaining to implementation, and revisions to the GSU P&T document approved by the University Senate in February 1997.

(A) Purpose of Review

The purpose of the review is to assess faculty development goals and achievements and provide assistance to faculty in ensuring continuous intellectual and professional growth and to provide assistance to the academic unit in ensuring that all faculty members are contributing to the academic unit's goals and responsibilities.

(B) Year in Which Review is Conducted

The review will be conducted during the spring semester of the fifth year after the most recent promotion and continue at five year intervals unless interrupted by a leave of absence (paid or unpaid), further promotion, impending candidacy for promotion within a year, or a letter of retirement/resignation that is effective prior to the end of the five year interval.

(C) Tenured Faculty to whom Cumulative Review Applies

The cumulative review applies to all tenured faculty except those with administrative appointments as heads of academic units (with faculty appointed to them) and associate deans. Both heads of academic units and associate deans are subject to triennial reviews. In order to accomplish the spirit of post-tenure review which is to provide for continual professional development of all tenured faculty, the triennial review of heads of academic units and associate deans must address their academic and professional activities as well as their managerial and leadership performance.

(D) Review Committee and Chair

The committee of faculty in the academic unit conducting the cumulative post-tenure review will be constituted of at least three tenured faculty elected by the tenured faculty excluding those faculty being evaluated during the year under consideration. The head of the academic unit will appoint the chair from the committee membership. If an academic unit does not have at least three faculty meeting the criteria for being on the review committee, faculty appointed in other academic units will be added to the committee to reach, at least, a minimum of three. These faculty will be chosen by the head of the academic unit in consultation with the Dean.

(E) Materials to be Reviewed

The cumulative review should address accomplishments in teaching, research and service. The review will be based on available information with one exception. The faculty member will be expected to submit to the committee at least the following elements of the dossier required for the regular tenure review (see Section IV, D):

Resume organized in the sequence shown in Appendix B

Copies of all publications during the five-year evaluation period

Materials documenting teaching effectiveness, including copies of Student Evaluation of Instructor Profiles and other materials that go beyond the results of student evaluations, such as peer evaluations.

The only additional information that the faculty member is expected to submit is a statement (not to exceed two pages in length) of effectiveness in teaching, research and service over the previous five years plus a one-page outline of projected goals for the next five years.

(F) Review Committee Report and Subsequent Review and Comment

The report will be prepared by the chair of the review committee. The review committee report is forwarded to the head of the academic unit for review and comment (not to exceed one page in length). The head of the academic unit will provide the faculty member with copies of the review committee’s report and the unit head’s evaluation, and the candidate will have 5 working days to respond in writing, if desired. In turn, the College Promotion and Tenure Committee will review the review committee’s report, comments of the head of the academic unit and any comments from the faculty member and provide comments to the Dean (not to exceed one page in length). The Dean will review the report and comments and provide comments (not to exceed one page) and will forward the report and all comments (and a copy of the faculty member's resume) to the Provost not later than the start of summer semester. After the Provost has added comments, all reports and comments are sent to the faculty member with copies to other parties involved in the cumulative review process.

After distribution of all reports and comments, a conference is held between the head of the academic unit and the faculty member. This conference will produce a plan which focuses on professional goals and/or workload profile for subsequent approval of the Dean. The Dean of each college will confer with the faculty member and will be responsible for monitoring progress through the regular process of annual faculty evaluations.

The final report will be retained in the faculty member's file in the Dean's office.

Back To Top

VII. TENURE AT THE TIME OF INITIAL APPOINTMENT

(A) Eligibility

Normally, review for tenure to be granted at the time of initial appointment should be restricted to faculty being hired at the rank of professor who are presently tenured at institutions with academic reputations equal to or better than Georgia State University.

(B) Review Procedures

In recruiting a candidate for a senior position, a request is made by the head of the academic unit prior to the formulation of an offer for the Dean's permission to conduct a review for tenure to be granted at the time of initial appointment. If the Dean concurs that the candidate is eligible for such a review, the review is not initiated until other aspects of an offer to the candidate have been formulated and agreed to by the Dean and the candidate.

The procedures contained in Section IV are to be followed as closely as possible. Thus, external review letters are required as part of the candidate's dossier, which will be reviewed within the academic unit and at the College level under the same procedures (with different time deadlines) as specified in Section IV.

Back To Top

VIII. GRADUATE FACULTY MEMBERSHIP: APPOINTMENT AND REAPPOINTMENT

Consistent with the accreditation criterion of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) specifying that eligibility requirements for faculty members teaching graduate courses must be clearly defined and publicized,@ the GSU Strategic Plan calls for developing standards and guidelines for graduate faculty membership. In April 1997, the University Senate approved policies and guidelines for graduate faculty membership as contained in Section 306.07 of the GSU Faculty Handbook; the following provisions are consistent with Section 306.07.

(A) Teaching and Dissertation Assignments Requiring Graduate Faculty Membership

A faculty member must hold graduate faculty membership to be assigned to:

1. Teaching a doctoral (9000-level) course or research-oriented masters course (as
   identified by the academic unit), or
   
   
2. Serving as chair or member of a doctoral dissertation committee; however,
   a dissertation committee may include one member without graduate faculty membership
   in order to bring special expertise to the committee.

(B) Criteria for Appointment

Graduate faculty membership requires (1) an earned doctorate in the relevant discipline; (2) several scholarly refereed publications of significant quality during the last five years or active engagement in scholarly research as evidenced by other examples of scholarship mentioned in Section 306.07 of the GSU Faculty Handbook (when evidence of scholarship is in forms other than scholarly refereed publications, a guiding criterion will be external recognition by peers in the discipline); and (3) evidence of effective teaching in graduate courses.

(C) Initiating Review and Period of Appointment

Review for graduate faculty membership is initiated at the request of the faculty member. Appointments to the graduate faculty are for renewable terms of five years.

The review is initiated at the same time of year as promotion and tenure reviews by the head of the academic unit asking faculty who do not currently have graduate faculty membership if they wish to be considered for appointment and asking faculty whose five-year graduate faculty membership term will be expiring during the forthcoming academic year if they wish to be considered for reappointment.

Faculty who have completed the doctorate within the last five years may request non-renewable provisional graduate faculty membership for a period not exceeding five years; provisional membership does not require the formal review for regular membership described below. Provisional members may perform all assignments requiring graduate faculty membership except chairing of dissertation committees. At any year during the provisional period, the faculty member may request review for regular graduate faculty membership.

(D) Review within the Academic Unit

During the first year that this policy is in effect, the review of the candidate will be conducted by the promotion and tenure committee of the academic unit as defined in Section IV (E); in subsequent years, the review will be conducted by a subcommittee of the promotion and tenure committee of the academic unit (minimum size of three) comprised of all faculty with graduate faculty membership. Each faculty member constituting the committee in the academic unit is expected to sign a memorandum of recommendations addressed to the College review committee (as defined in Section F below). This memorandum must be responsive to the criteria for appointment to graduate faculty membership described in Section (B) above. The head of the academic unit will be responsible for transmitting the signed memorandum of recommendations plus the candidate's resume to the Dean's Office by the same date that promotion and tenure recommendations are due.

(E) Materials to be reviewed

The candidate will be expected to submit to the committee, via the head of the academic unit, the following elements of the dossier required for regular promotion and tenure reviews (see Section IV.D):

Resume organized in the sequence shown in Appendix B

Copies of all publications during the last five years

Materials documenting teaching effectiveness in graduate courses, including
Student Evaluation of Instructor Profiles and other materials that go beyond
the results of student evaluations, such as peer evaluations.

(F) Review at the College and University levels

The College review committee is comprised of five faculty nominated by the Faculty Affairs Committee each year with the goal of having one or more nominees be current or past members of the College promotion and tenure committee. Given the willingness of the candidates to serve, these nominations are reviewed by the Executive Committee before the appointments are announced. The appointed committee reviews the candidate's resume and signed memorandum of recommendations from the academic unit with respect to meeting the criteria for appointment to graduate faculty membership. All five members are expected to sign a memorandum of recommendation, which will be forwarded by the Dean's Office to the Provost for final approval, no later than the end of February.

Back To Top

IX. APPEALS

The following provisions pertaining to appeals of promotion or tenure recommendations originate with the GSU document titled "Policy on Promotion, Tenure and Development for Tenure Track Faculty" approved by the University Senate in November 1994.

(A) Appeal of Negative Recommendations below the Dean's Level

Appeals of a negative P&T recommendation by the P&T committee of the College or the academic unit or by the head of the academic unit will be heard by the College's Faculty Hearings Committee in accordance with Article V. Section1.E. of the RCB Bylaws. The grounds for appeal shall be procedural errors detrimental to the candidate. Such procedural errors may include violations of due process, such as arbitrariness, capriciousness and discrimination, as well as bias and other forms of nonprofessional judgment on the part of any person or group involved in the promotion and tenure review. A difference in the evaluation of a candidate's accomplishments among the candidate, the promotion and tenure committee of the academic unit or the College, and/or the head of the academic unit is not an adequate basis for appeal.

(B) Appeal of Negative Recommendation Made by the Dean

The Dean shall provide the candidate with a written statement citing reasons for a negative recommendation. Upon receipt of this statement, the candidate shall have, at least, ten business days to appeal the negative recommendation to the Provost. The grounds for appeal shall be procedural errors detrimental to the candidate. Such procedural errors may include violations of due process, such as arbitrariness, capriciousness and discrimination, as well as bias and other forms of nonprofessional judgment on the part of any person or group involved in the promotion and tenure review. A difference in the evaluation of a candidate's accomplishments among the candidate, the departmental or college promotion and tenure committee, the departmental chair, and/or the Dean is not an adequate basis for appeal. The appeal to the Provost must be in writing and must provide a specific statement of the basis for the appeal. New information (e.g., in-process, accepted or published scholarship) which substantially alters the nature of the record as reviewed with the College may not, however, be included. Any such new information may instead be the basis for reconsideration of the recommendation at the appropriate College or academic unit level.

The Provost may gather additional information pertaining to the appeal from the candidate, the Dean, the head of the academic unit, the promotion and tenure committee of the academic unit or the College, and/or other appropriate individuals inside or outside the university. The Provost may initiate meetings with the candidate and the Dean, together or separately, to discuss specifics of the appeal. If the Provost determines that the candidate's appeal should be supported, the Provost shall remand the promotion and tenure recommendation to the Dean. The Provost shall provide the candidate with a written decision, including a statement of the bases upon which the appeal is supported or rejected.

This written decision shall be furnished to the candidate at least ten business days prior to the date the candidate must submit an appeal to the Provost.

(C) Appeal of Negative Recommendation Made by the Provost

The Provost will inform the President at the same time as the Dean of the Provost's P&T recommendations. The Dean shall notify each candidate of the Provost's recommendation within three business days after receiving the recommendation from the Provost. Within ten business days of receiving notice of the negative decision of the Provost, the candidate may appeal in writing to the President. The appeal to the President shall conform to the principles and processes stated above for appeals to the Provost. The President shall provide the candidate a written decision within ten business days of receiving the appeal including a statement of the bases upon which the candidate's appeal is supported or rejected.

The periods specified above for filing appeals shall not supersede deadlines for information to be forwarded to the Board of Regents.

Back To Top

X. OTHER PROVISIONS

(A) Emeritus Faculty Appointments

Policy. Section 803.15 of The Policy Manual of Board of Regents states:

The institution may confer, at its discretion, the title of "emeritus" on any retired and tenured professor, associate professor or assistant professor, or Board-approved non-tenure track faculty of equivalent rank, who, at the time of retirement, had ten years or more of honorable and distinguished service in the University System... This title may be conferred by the Board on the recommendation of the president of the institution in which the employee served.

Review procedures. The head of the academic unit will be notified of all faculty members eligible to be considered for emeritus appointment at the same time that notification is provided of faculty eligible to be considered for promotion or tenure. Recommendations for emeritus appointments should go through the same review process as for regular promotion and tenure recommendations. The dossier may be limited to a resume, but there should be letters of recommendation from the faculty committee of the academic unit, the head of the academic unit, the College promotion and tenure review committee and the Dean.

In making recommendations for emeritus appointments, academic units should be specific with respect to the emeritus title--e.g., associate professor emeritus, professor emeritus and department chair emeritus.

(B) Regents' Professorship Appointments

(Section revised by EC and FAC 2001.)

Policy. Section 803.04 of The Policy Manual of the Board of Regents indicates that Regents' Professorships may be granted by the Board of Regents to "outstanding faculty members." Consistent with this policy, the Robinson College of Business establishes the standard and criteria for nomination for a Regents' Professorship.

Standard and criteria for appointments. The standard for Regents’ Professorship appointments, to be applied to the following criteria, is that the candidate exceeds, has continued to exceed since last appointment, and will continue to exceed in the future, all expectations for Full Professor.

1. SERVICE LEADERSHIP

Experience in top leadership positions within candidate’s own discipline (e.g., society president, editor-in-chief).

2. RESEARCH

Extensive and measurable impact of research (e.g., extensive citations in top journals targeted by the Robinson College of Business).

3. TEACHING

Recognition of teaching excellence over a significant period of time.

4. REPUTATION

Public recognition of research or service beyond the candidate’s academic discipline.

Procedures for initiating and reviewing nominations. The candidate wishing to be considered for appointment initiates the review process with a written request to the head of the candidate's academic unit. In addition, the College's Executive Committee may nominate candidates for Regents' Professorships. The head of the academic unit requests an application dossier from the candidate and convenes a faculty review committee (see below for composition of the review committee). All interested faculty members, including untenured tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty members, are invited by the academic unit head to submit written responses to the candidacy. The faculty review committee will review the candidate's dossier and will submit to the academic unit head its written recommendation. The academic unit head adds his/her written recommendation and forwards the application package including the written recommendation of the faculty review committee and any written responses from interested faculty to the Executive Committee. After its review, the Executive Committee forwards the entire application package along with its written recommendations to the College Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. The College Promotion and Tenure Review Committee composes its written recommendations for review by the Dean who, in consultation with the College Promotion and Tenure Review Committee, prepares a written recommendation for the Provost. The entire application package, including all written recommendations and responses, is forwarded to the Provost. This application process will generally follow the calendar of events set out in Section IV.A of this document. A candidate may withdraw candidacy at any point in the process.

Composition of faculty review committee of academic unit. The candidate's dossier is reviewed by a committee of faculty members from the candidate's academic unit. This committee prepares written recommendations to the academic unit head. All tenured associate professors and professors constitute the faculty review committee of an academic unit for Regents Professorship appointments. Other interested faculty members [untenured tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty] may submit letters that will be included in the application materials forwarded to the Executive Committee.

The head of the academic unit will appoint the chair from the committee membership. If an academic unit does not have at least three faculty members meeting the criteria for review committee membership, qualifying faculty members from other academic units will be added to the committee to reach, at least, the minimum of three. These faculty members will be chosen by the head of the academic unit in consultation with the Dean.

Criteria for renewal of appointment for second three-year period. Board of Regents policy states that a Regents' Professorship shall be granted by the Board for a period of three years. Consideration of the renewal of the professorship for a second three-year period shall be given by the Board upon recommendation of the institution. Accordingly, prior to the end of the third year of the initial three-year appointment, the Dean will consult, among others, with the head of the academic unit in which the faculty member holds appointment.

Performance during the initial three-year period of appointment in continuing to meet the criteria for nomination (as stated above) will be the primary factor employed by the Dean in reaching the decision to recommend reappointment to the Provost for further consideration in accordance with Board of Regents policy.

No appointment renewals after the second three-year period are required in that Board of Regents policy states "after a period of six years, the Regents Professorship shall automatically become coincidental in term with the regular professorship."

(C) Reappointment of Faculty to Endowed Professorships and Chairs

University policy. Section II. F., of the Georgia State University Faculty handbook states:

A chair or professorship is not a tenurable designation. The appointment has no prescribed time limits and is subject to annual renewal by the Dean, unless otherwise specified in the agreement creating the chair or professorship. Written notice of non-renewal must be provided at least one year in advance of the termination date of the appointment.

College policy and procedures for renewal of annual appointment. Prior to the end of spring semester, any faculty member currently appointed to a professorship or chair who the Dean has decided will not be renewed beyond the end of the succeeding academic year will receive a written notice of non-renewal. In reaching this decision, the Dean will consult, among others, with the head of the academic unit in which the faculty member holds faculty appointment. Activities and accomplishments relative to the College standard for the chosen profile (which is consistent with the written position description for the specific chair or professorship) will be the primary factor in making a decision.

In reaching an appointment renewal decision, the Dean may, at any time, (but will at least every three years) solicit an evaluation from the faculty members of the academic unit in which the holder of the chair or professorship holds academic rank. The evaluation criteria will be consistent with the current written position description of the chair or professorship. Such evaluative input will be confidential with the Dean, the Dean's associates, and the head of the faculty member's academic unit.

(D) Differences in Promotion and Tenure Review Process
for Candidate Serving as Head of Academic Unit

The Dean will conduct most of the steps involving the tenure and review process that require an action on the part of the head of the academic unit (see Section IV) when the candidate for promotion or tenure is a faculty member who serves as head of the academic unit. Otherwise, the candidate would be placed in the position of recommending himself/herself to the Dean and the College promotion and tenure review committee. Accordingly, the review procedure applicable to all faculty are modified as stated below when the candidate is serving as head of an academic unit.

Notification and declaration of consideration for promotion or tenure. The Dean will notify the faculty member of eligibility with respect to time requirements and will determine whether or not the faculty member wishes to be considered for promotion or tenure during the coming academic year.

Review process by academic unit and recommendations from the academic unit. The candidate will submit, directly to the Dean, the list of external reviewers. In turn, the Dean will consult with faculty in the academic unit to finalize the list of external reviewers that will be solicited. Once a candidate has completed the dossier, it will be submitted directly to the Dean, who will ask the departmental review committee to complete its review and submit the memorandum of recommendations directly to the Dean and the College promotion and tenure committee.

(E) Transfer of Faculty Appointment to Another Academic Unit

All faculty of the Robinson College of Business are appointed to, and given rank in, an academic unit of the College (e.g., appointed as professor of management, as opposed to professor of business administration). All appointments and reappointments are so designated, and all promotion, tenure, and reappointment recommendations begin with the academic unit.

If a faculty member desires to transfer appointment from one academic unit of the College to another academic unit, a recommendation for the transfer must be made by the academic unit to which the individual desires to transfer, and this appointment must have the approval of the Dean and the Provost.

(F) Retention of Materials Stemming from Promotion and Tenure Reviews

For promotion and tenure recommendations which are positively reviewed at the departmental, college and provost levels and approved by the President, the copies of the candidate's dossier will be returned to the candidate upon notification of approval by the President.

For promotion candidates and tenure candidates (except those in the last year of eligibility) who are not recommended at the College or University level, both copies of the candidate's dossier will be returned to the candidate after the final University-level review.

For tenure candidates in the last year of eligibility who are not recommended at the College or University level, both copies of the dossier will be retained in the Dean's Office for four years.

The dossiers returned to the candidate will exclude the recommendation letters from the department and the College as well as the external review letters, which will be retained in the Dean's Office for four years.

(G) Orientation Sessions

To facilitate communications and improved understanding among the parties involved in the College's promotion and tenure processes, the chair of the RCB P&T Committee will hold an annual orientation session for untenured tenure track faculty to review the College's promotion and tenure policies and procedures and to answer any questions concerning the process. This orientation session will be held during spring semester prior to the start of the annual promotion and tenure cycle in mid-May; the session will be open to all interested faculty members in the College. The chair of the RCB P&T Committee will also hold orientation sessions, as deemed appropriate, for the members of the RCB P&T Committee and the heads of academic units.

(H) Approval of this Document and Subsequent Revisions

This document originates with the Faculty Affairs Committee. After review and approval by the Faculty Affairs Committee and Executive Committee, it is to be approved by the RCB faculty and the Provost. Subsequent revisions must be approved by the Faculty Affairs Committee, the Executive Committee and the Provost. However, if the F