Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) Processes and Procedures

Faculty Affairs and Development Staff Clare Weber, Associate Vice President, Faculty Affairs Gennie Hardy, Academic Personnel Analyst Dianne Davila Vogel, Academic Personnel Coordinator LaVonne Norwood, Administrative Assistant Lilianna Sanchez, Administrative Support Coordinator Contact Welch Hall, Room B-368. (310) 243-3766 Web: http://www4.csudh.edu/faculty-affairs/index

Office of Faculty Affairs and Development RTP Services Professional Development and Support for Faculty Overall management of the RTP process Design and manage the RTP schedule Custodian of all RTP and faculty personnel files Notifications to RTP reviewers Notifications to candidates

The Six RTP Cycles The RTP process occurs during the academic year, and consists of the following six review cycles: Cycle I: Reappointment of tenure-track faculty appointed mid- year in previous academic year (individuals appointed in Spring semester) Cycle II: Reappointment of tenure-track faculty in second full year of service Cycle III: Reappointment or Evaluation of tenure-track faculty in third year or beyond (Full RTP or Abbreviated Review) Cycle IV: Reappointment, Tenure, Promotion (Cycle V: Coaching faculty) Cycle VI: Evaluation of tenure-track faculty in their first full year

Evaluation Procedures First Probationary Appointment (No Credit Toward Tenure) Tenure-track faculty in their first year of appointment (Cycle I, VI) and Faculty in year one of a two year appointment (Cycle III) undergo an Abbreviated Review rather than a full Working Personnel Action. The Professional Plan is an outline and discussion of expected research, publication, or creative activity agenda. Specific goals and objectives are described in the Professional Plan. Professional Plans do not report an extensive record of supporting materials.

Sequence of RTP Review for Abbreviated Review The following individuals and committees will participate in RTP review during AY 2016-2017 (Cycle I, VI, Cycle III) Department RTP Committee Department Chair Dean

Evaluation Procedures First Probationary Appointment (No Credit Toward Tenure) Abbreviated Review Department RTP committee and Chair review and evaluate the Professional Plan An evaluation document with commentary on the sufficiency of the Plan is submitted to the College Dean Dean assesses whether the Professional Plan provides a likelihood of appropriate advancement toward a positive tenure decision

Evaluation Procedures Second, Third, and Fourth Year Reviews Three possible outcomes after second, third and fourth year reviews Two-year reappointment One-year reappointment Terminal year

Evaluation Procedures Cycles II, III and IV (1 year reappointment) The following individuals and committees will participate in full RTP reviews during AY 2013-2014: Department/Division RTP Committee Department/Division Chair College RTP Committee College Dean Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs University RTP Committee (as appropriate during Cycles III and IV) President

Evaluation Procedures Third Year and Beyond Review Two Possible Review Tracks Professional Plan and Brief Written Report if granted a two-year reappointment Review will end at the Dean level Full RTP review and WPAF if granted a one-year reappointment

Sixth Year and Beyond Sixth Year Review: Full RTP for Tenure and Promotion

Evaluation Procedures Working Personnel Action Files (Full Review) Tenure-track faculty participating in full RTP review submit a WPAF binder (3-ring, no more than 3 inches) organized in compliance with the Supplementary Information Form (SIF) The SIF mandates the following evaluative sections in the WPAF Evidence of Teaching Performance Evidence of Scholarship or Creative Activity Evidence of Effective Functioning in the Institution and in the Community

Scholarship Standards Each Department and equivalent unit has adopted and implemented standards for scholarship. Electronic copies are posted on the Faculty Affairs and Development Website RTP reviewers must apply definitions in effect when the candidate was hired

Tenure and Promotion For probationary faculty, the normal timeline for tenure and promotion is six years The following guidelines govern normal reappointment Faculty members are evaluated during each of the pre-tenure years The accumulation of positive evaluations, year by year, are regarded as satisfactory progress toward tenure and promotion Tenure-track faculty are normally evaluated for promotion as well as tenure during the final year of their probationary period

Promotion For tenured and probationary faculty, the normal timeline for promotion is effective following the 6th year in their current rank. The following guidelines govern the normal timeline for promotion: Applicants are evaluated in their sixth year in rank through the RTP process for possible promotion Promotions are effective at the beginning of the next academic year. Guidelines for early promotion (both tenured or probationary faculty) are the same as for early tenure

Early Tenure and Promotion For probationary faculty, early tenure and early promotion are granted rarely and only for “unusually meritorious” performance The following guidelines govern early tenure and early promotion The demonstration of “unusually meritorious” performance requires substantial documentation “Outstanding” Used only for evaluating applications for early tenure and/or early promotion. Should not be used for evaluating within normal timelines for reappointment, tenure, or promotion Evaluation is based primarily on evidence of merit demonstrated in performance at California State University, Dominguez Hills Evidence relating to professional performance at another institution will, if submitted, be given consideration

Early Tenure and Promotion (continued) The following guidelines govern “unusually meritorious” performance: Applicants must demonstrate “outstanding” performance in teaching and in one other area of evaluation, and “satisfactory” performance in the third area of evaluation “Outstanding” performance is above and beyond the “satisfactory” standard used for normal tenure and promotion Note: Different approaches in the CSU system

Evaluation and Recommendation by Reviewers for Full RTP Review Guidelines recommend RTP evaluators use the following evaluative terms to summarize faculty performance in each category of review (i.e., the teaching, scholarship, and service categories): “Satisfactory” Denotes sufficient progress toward tenure and promotion within normal timelines. It should not be used to favorably recommend early tenure and/or early promotion. “Unsatisfactory” Denotes insufficient progress toward tenure and promotion. “Outstanding” Used only for evaluating applications for early tenure and/or early promotion

Evaluation and Recommendation by Reviewers (continued) PM 84-02. Language for RTP Evaluation Evaluators should use the following summary language in their final recommendations for reappointment, tenure, or promotion “Highly recommend” “Recommend” “Recommend with reservations” “Do not recommend”

Recommendations and Evaluations by Reviewers RTP recommendations are the recommendations of the committee. Minority reports should not be submitted Dissenting decisions should not be submitted Split decisions may be indicated in the final recommendation or evaluation For example, “2-1” or “3-2” decisions of the committee.

Final Considerations Process for submitting and distributing evaluations Original evaluations will be submitted to Faculty Affairs. Faculty Affairs will provide copies to candidates Rebuttal Candidates under review have 10 days to submit a written rebuttal and/or request a meeting to discuss a recommendation letter Late Submission of Materials The URTP must approve the late submission Limited to materials that became available after the deadline to submit Will be sent to to the initial evaluation committee for review, evaluation, or comment before consideration at subsequent levels Final Thoughts on the RTP Process Professional Plan is an evaluation, not a recommendation Full RTP Review is a recommendation

Academic Affairs Policy References AAPS010.001 Policy for Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Procedures AAPS011.001 WPAF Guidelines AAPS012.002 Cycles I and VI Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) or Professional Development Plan AAPS025.001 Department Definitions of Scholarship AAPS030.001 Evaluation of Assigned Time AAPS041.001 Unusually Meritorious

Some Key Contractual References re: RTP Evaluation Article 11 Personnel Files Article 14 Promotion Article 15 15.5. Candidates under review have 10 days to submit a written rebuttal and/or request a meeting to discuss a recommendation letter 15.10. RTP deliberations are confidential

Some Key Contractual References re: RTP Evaluation - Continued 15.43 For promotion consideration, reviewers must have a higher rank than those under review 15.45 Each RTP committee report shall be approved by a simple majority 15.12 Late submissions approved by the campus peer review committee (the URTP) shall be a returned to the initial evaluation committee for review, evaluation, or comment before consideration at subsequent levels

Always Ask!