V. Tenure and Promotion Guidelines

A. Probationary Period

Although the Board of Trustees, in rare instances, may award tenure to a faculty member early, most faculty members will be eligible for tenure review at the beginning of the sixth year of full‐time employment as a tenure‐track faculty member. The probationary period may be reduced by up to a maximum of three years in which case the timetable for the pre‐tenure review will be negotiated between the candidate and the Provost as part of the hiring process. In most instances, this reduction is determined by granting a one year reduction in the UT probationary period for each year of service as a full‐time faculty member at another institution or as a full‐time non‐tenure‐track faculty member at The University of Tampa.

B. Parental Delay of Tenure Consideration

For tenure‐track faculty, requests for modified duties may be combined with requests for parental delay of consideration for tenure as specified in the Faculty Handbook. A faculty member who is the primary care‐giver for a newly born or newly adopted child may postpone tenure consideration for up to one year per event up to a maximum number of two years of delay, including all other types of leave. All such delays should be requested and approved by the dean and the provost before the fifth, or final, year of pre‐tenure service.

C. Voting for Tenure and Promotion

Tenure and promotion recommendations shall normally be made by a single vote. Under rare circumstances, a committee, the dean, or provost and president may vote to recommend for tenure only and not promotion. In these extremely rare cases, the committee must articulate the special circumstances that warrant a split vote. If tenure is granted, the college committee, together with the dean, shall articulate by the end of the academic year specific and precise criteria that will define the threshold for the candidate’s promotion.

D. Committee Structure for Promotion and Tenure

1. Department Review Committee

The first level of review for pre‐tenure and tenure and promotion is conducted by a department committee made up of all tenured members of a department at the associate level or above. If a department has fewer than three tenured members, the dean shall appoint faculty members from related fields to complete the three‐person committee. The departmental committee chair will be elected by the tenured associate professor or higher members of the department no later than the third week of fall semester. If a department has a faculty member under consideration for associate professor or full professor, the chair must have that same rank or higher. Tenure and promotion recommendations to associate professor are recommended by a vote of the tenured faculty at the associate level or higher (Approved December 8, 2017). Promotion recommendations to full professor are made by a vote of the tenured full professor faculty. (Approved 1/24/2014)

2. College Tenure and Promotion Committee

The most significant level of review among faculty committees (Approved December 8, 2017) is the college committee of tenured faculty members, consisting of seven tenured faculty members at the rank of associate or full Professor. At least three of the seven members must hold the rank of full Professor. Each member of the College Tenure and Promotion Committee shall be elected by a vote of tenured members of that particular college. There shall not be mandatory representation of each department on this committee, and all members of this committee shall be selected by at‐large elections. However, no department shall have more than two members of the department who shall serve at the same time on the Tenure and Promotion Committee. The members will serve staggered two‐year terms to ensure continuity with approximately half the committee standing for election each spring. There shall be no limitation on consecutive terms of service on the committee. The chair will be elected by its members. When a faculty member is under consideration for associate professor or full professor, the chair of the college committee must have that same rank or higher. Tenure and promotion recommendations to associate professor are made by a vote of the entire college committee (Approved December 8, 2017). Promotion recommendations to full professor are made by a vote of the tenured full professor faculty on the committee. (Approved 1/24/2014)

3. Recusal

In advance of consideration of candidates, each committee member shall disclose to the other committee members the nature and extent of any relevant past interactions, relationships and working arrangements with each candidate who will be considered by the committee.

A committee member with a Conflict of Interest as defined in this policy shall recuse him or herself from consideration of each candidate with whom he or she has a Conflict of Interest.

For purposes of this policy, “Conflict of Interest” means –

• The committee member is related to the candidate, directly or through marriage;

• The committee member is married to or otherwise in a personal or intimate relationship with the candidate;

• The committee member resides in the same household as the candidate; or

• The committee member has a vested personal, business or financial interest that conflicts with a vested personal, business or financial interest of the candidate.

Objection to a committee member’s participation based on Conflict of Interest as defined by this policy may be raised by the candidate, any member of the committee, or by the Dean of the candidate’s school or college. If an objection is raised and the committee member refuses to voluntarily recuse him or herself, the Dean of the candidate’s college or school shall decide whether a Conflict of Interest as defined by this policy exists such that the committee member shall be disqualified from participation. The Dean’s decision on this issue is final.

An individual committee member shall recuse him or herself from consideration of a candidate if the individual committee member subjectively determines that he or she cannot fairly evaluate that candidate’s performance as required by the University’s published policies.

There is no basis for disqualification or recusal of a committee member except as specifically stated in this policy. (Approved February 23, 2018).

E. The Review Process

By the end of April of each academic year, the Provost’s office will notify candidates, deans, and newly elected Tenure & Promotion college committees of candidates for pre‐tenure review, tenure, and promotion for the following academic year. There is a uniform review process for all colleges. The purpose of the review process is to provide faculty members in tenure‐track positions the opportunity to present evidence of accomplishment in the three areas of evaluation set forth in The University of Tampa Faculty Policies and Procedures Handbook. The performance standards as outlined in Chapter 4 of this handbook (subsections A‐C of Section III Criteria for Faculty Advancement) guide the reviews. (approved March 1, 2013.)

Candidates for pre‐tenure, tenure and promotion must have their materials ready for distribution at the beginning of the review schedule as prescribed in the tenure and promotion calendar presented below. 

The dean’s office will provide copies of grade distributions, course evaluations, and student comments to the candidate, if needed. Guidelines for the composition of review materials are also found below. One electronic copy of the materials must be submitted to the dean’s office and the dean’s office must disseminate the material to the department and college committee members as soon as possible.

After the due date for the portfolio, candidates may add  (newly available) supplementary materials, such as publications, book contracts, updated student course surveys, or creative works performed or exhibited, but candidates may neither re-write nor alter their originally submitted materials. All supplemental and/or requested additional materials will be uploaded by the dean’s office into a separate and dedicated folder on the introductory page of the candidate’s dossier. The dean’s office will notify the chairs of the department and college committees of the uploaded material; the chairs of committees will in turn notify the committee members of their availability.  (Approved 2/23/2018)

At no point in the process may non-members of a tenure and promotion committee interject information into the process following submission of the pre-tenure or tenure package (whichever is applicable). Only informatoin that is located in the candidate's dossier may be evaluated. However, at any time during the review process, department committees, the college committees, the dean, the provost, or the president of the University, may request materials from any source that is directly related to the criteria used to evaluate faculty performance. (Approved 4/29/22)

All requests must be made through the Dean’s office. (Approved 2/23/2018)

The candidate must receive an electronic copy of any request for additional information and must receive electronic copies of any material received.  In addition, after the electronic material is sent to the candidate, and if the material is not already a part of an official record to which the candidate has already responded, the candidate has three business days from the date it was sent to address the contents of the requested material and send his/her electronic response to the chair of the proper T&P committee and the Dean’s office for inclusion in the portfolio. The chair will ensure that the committee’s request, the requested material, and the candidate’s response are placed in an electronic file folder, clearly identified as requested or supplementary information, on the introductory page within the candidate’s electronic portfolio.  (Approved 2/23/2018) 

T&P committee(s) or administration official(s) that reviewed the portfolio prior to the addition of any supplementary material will be given access to 1) any materials added to the dossier, whether by the candidate or at the request of an evaluator and 2) the recommendations made by all subsequent evaluators.  This second provision shall apply in all cases, even if no new information has been entered into the dossier. (Approved 4/29/22)

 

Finally, deliberations at the department and college levels must be completely confidential

1. The purpose of the pre‐tenure process is ultimately to engage faculty in dialogue about expectations and progress in the three areas. This review takes place at the mid‐point in the probationary period. Over and above the annual evaluation process, the pre‐tenure process invites departments and colleges to submit important feedback to candidates.

   Junior faculty who have successfully passed through their pre-tenure review will be offered a one-course offload to pursue the recommendations and/or suggestions made in their pre-tenure letters covering, but not limited to, efforts related to pedagogy (such as in class improvement, new curricular proposals), service and scholarship. This one-time offload will be arranged through mutual agreement with the faculty member, department chair and dean. These junior faculty will not be eligible to apply for additional course release time through the Professional Development Award (PDA) during the balance of their probationary (pre-tenure) period.

   The departmental review committee may recommend to the college committee a one‐year terminal contract if a faculty member is determined not to be making sufficient or satisfactory progress toward tenure.

   The college committee may recommend to the dean and provost a one‐year terminal contract if a faculty member is determined not to be making sufficient or satisfactory progress toward tenure. In such a case the faculty member would be notified by March 15th of the year in which pre‐tenure review takes place. (approved 1/24/2014)

2. The Tenure Review Process

   Most faculty members will be eligible for tenure review at the beginning of the sixth year. The process allows candidates to submit documentation in support of their application for tenure.

F. The Review Calendar

1. The Pre-Tenure Review Calendar
   
   By the second Monday in January, candidates for pre‐tenure review must have their materials ready for distribution. One electronic copy of the materials must be submitted to the dean’s office and the dean’s office must make portfolios available to all levels of review at the earliest possible date, although no formal deliberations may begin until the previous level of review has been completed and the recommendation submitted. (Approved February, 2018)
   
   By the end of the third week of the spring semester, the department review results in a letter consisting of evaluation and advice that must be completed and forwarded to the dean, the College Tenure and Promotion Committee, and the candidate.
   
   The College Tenure and Promotion Committee review will then take an additional two to three weeks. This review will also result in a letter of evaluation and advice. The review at the college level must be completed and the college committee’s letter prepared no later than March 1st.
   
   At the end of the review, each candidate will meet with the college dean and the chairs of the Departmental Review and College Tenure and Promotion committees to receive advice on progress toward tenure and promotion. The candidate may write a rebuttal. In addition, the candidate will raise any deficiencies that are noted in the pre‐tenure process at this time. The dean will send a memo to the committee chairs and the candidate summarizing the meeting. The candidate will acknowledge receipt of this memo in writing.
2. Tenure and Promotion Calendar
   
   By the first class day of fall semester, candidates for tenure and promotion must have their materials ready for distribution. One electronic copy of the materials must be submitted to the dean’s office and the dean’s office must make portfolios available to all levels of review at the earliest possible date, although no formal deliberations may begin until the previous level of review has been completed and the recommendation submitted. (Approved February, 2018)
   
   By the end of the third week of the fall semester, the departmental committee completes its written recommendation which summarizes the perspective or perspectives of its members. The chair of the committee gives the written recommendation, signed by all members of the committee, to the college committee. At this time, the candidate shall receive verbal notification of the results and a copy of the letter from the chair of the Department Review Committee. The verbal notification should be in person unless there are extenuating circumstances. The candidate may create a letter of response within one week.
   
   By Monday of the last week of October, the chair of the college committee presents its written recommendation, signed by all members of the committee, to the dean. The candidate shall receive both verbal and written notification of the results of the College Tenure and Promotion Committee from the chair of the College Tenure and Promotion Committee. The verbal notification should be in person unless there are extenuating circumstances. The candidate may create a letter of response within one week that becomes part of the permanent dossier. (Approved December 8, 2017).
   
   By the end of the second week of November, the dean reports a recommendation to the provost and the president.
   
   By the beginning of January, the president and provost make their recommendation to the Educational Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees.
   
   At its January meeting, the Board votes on tenure and promotion.

G. Composition of Review Materials for Pre-tenure, Tenure and/or Promotion

At the beginning of each newly hired tenure track faculty's contract the Provost's office will create an electronic portfolio shell for the Tenure portfolio into which faculty may place all pertinent material on a rolling basis. (Approved February, 2018)

(The performance standards as outlined in Chapter 4 of this handbook (subsections A‐C of Section III Criteria for Faculty Advancement) provide a more extensive list for the three areas of evaluation: teaching, service/student involvement, and scholarship).

Faculty members who were on tenure‐track before Fall 2013 may elect to have their Student Involvement and Service evaluated as two distinct areas when they apply for pre‐tenure, tenure and/or promotion.

1. Introductory Section
   1. Narrative, summative evaluation of teaching, scholarship, student involvement and service (suggested length, 5‐7 single‐spaced pages for the pre‐tenure review; suggested length, 7‐10 single‐spaced pages for tenure and promotion review)
   2. Curriculum Vita
   3. Dean’s performance reviews
   4. Annual self-evaluation
   5. Pre-Tenure review results
2. Teaching
   1. The candidate’s course evaluations, including student comments by class and by semester
   2. The department’s and college’s course evaluation summary statistics by semester
   3. The candidate’s grade distributions by class and by semester
   4. Representative syllabi, tests, and other sample course materials for each course taught
   5. Number of independent studies and honors tutorials
   6. Number and types of internships supervised
3. Service/Student Involvement
   1. Department
   2. College
   3. University
   4. Community
   5. Professional/discipline service
   6. Leadership roles on committees and organizations
   7. Number of advisees per year
   8. Student organizations advised
   9. Gateways courses taught
   10. Student research
   11. Other student activities
4. Scholarship
   1. Published works or portfolio of performed, exhibited or choreographed creative works with a brief description of each
   2. List of scholarly activities in review
   3. List of scholarly activities in progress

H. Promotion Review Process

The promotion process follows the same procedure as the tenure process, with the following additions and modifications:

1. Faculty members will be eligible for consideration for promotion to associate professor at the same time they come up for tenure;
2. Faculty members will be eligible for consideration for promotion to full professor at the beginning of the sixth year of service as associate professor;
3. Candidates for promotion to full professor are expected to have maintained a strong record as a teacher and advisor; and
   1. To have taken leadership role in some aspect of the University, and also
   2. To have made a substantial contribution in a means appropriate to his/her discipline;
4. Only tenured faculty members at or above the rank to which the candidate aspires may participate in the review process.

I. Tenure and Promotion Appeals Process

A formal appeal comprises a written statement by a tenure‐track faculty member regarding receipt of a written notification from the College Tenure and Promotion Committee of a decision not to recommend the granting of tenure and/or promotion.

Prior to filing an appeal, the candidate shall meet with the provost to discuss the candidate’s case. The purpose of this meeting is for the candidate to seek the provost’s guidance and to allow for informal mediation, if possible. While the candidate must meet with the provost prior to filing an appeal, the provost may not prevent the candidate from filing an appeal.

An appeal must be filed with the provost’s office no later than fifteen days after receipt of the dean’s letter.

A complaint alleging inadequate consideration may arise if the evidence establishes a procedural flaw or irregularity in the handling of the portfolio or that the tenure and/or promotion recommendation was unduly influenced by failure of the Departmental Review Committee or the College Tenure and Promotion Committee to take a required procedural step or fulfill a procedural requirement as is delineated in the Faculty Handbook. Upon receipt of the appeal, the provost shall convene the Hearing Committee by presenting a copy of the appeal to the chair of the Hearing Committee. The Hearing Committee is prohibited from substituting its own judgment for that of members of the College Tenure and Promotion Committee on the merits of the candidate’s portfolio. The candidate should not expect or request a de novo review of the substance and/or merits of the applicant’s portfolio. Rather, the Hearing Committee is charged with and vested with the authority only to ascertain whether or not adequate considerations were rendered to the candidate’s application.

Thus, the Hearing Committee shall review the appeal to determine whether the tenure recommendation was the result of adequate consideration, with the understanding that the review committee should not substitute its judgment on the merits for that of the body or individuals that made the decision. In furtherance of this review, the Hearing Committee may gather information from all sources as it deems appropriate to determine whether the requisite procedure has been followed. If the Hearing Committee decides to interview members of either the Departmental Review Committee or the College Tenure and Promotion Committee, the Hearing Committee must interview approximately 50% of either committee’s members. The faculty member appealing the adverse recommendation shall have the right to discuss the appeal in person before the Hearing Committee. However, the faculty member shall have no right to representation or participation of legal counsel at said meeting. Additionally, deliberations of the Hearing Committee are confidential and held in closed session. The Hearing Committee shall proceed under its own rules, and the Committee’s review shall not constitute a judicial proceeding, and judicial rules of evidence and/or judicial procedure shall not apply. The review of the Hearing Committee shall be completed within thirty days from its receipt of the appeal petition from the provost’s office.

If the Hearing Committee determines by majority vote that a claim of inadequate consideration has been established by the evidence, the Hearing Committee shall document the respects in which it believes that consideration may have been inadequate and shall forward its recommendations to the provost’s office. Upon receipt of the recommendations, the provost shall recommend to the College Tenure and Promotion Committee that it assess the merits once again, this time remedying the inadequacies of its prior consideration.

J. Verification of Criteria for Advancement

It is the obligation of the faculty member being considered for advancement to make available to those assessing his or her eligibility all documentation verifying that the criteria for advancement have been met. Requests for documentation may be made at any time during the review process by the department committees, the college committees, the dean, the provost, the president, the Educational Affairs Committee of the Board, the Board of Trustees, or any other groups or individuals who serve as part of the formal review process.