Reappointment, Tenure & Promotion Procedures Faculty Relations UBC Vancouver June 2010

Agenda Guide to Reappointment, Tenure & Promotion – Tammy Brimner Senior Appointments Committee – Susan Boyd Top Insights – Fran Watters 2

3 Our Objective To give you the tools to conduct smooth, fair and equitable reappointment, tenure and promotion processes for our faculty members

4 Reappointment, Tenure & Promotion Tenure Streams Criteria Tenure & Tenure Clocks Promotion Reviews Schedules Procedures For Assistance…

5 The Tenure Streams The Professor Stream Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor Instructor II The Instructor Stream Instructor I Senior Instructor (See the Tenure Stream Faculty Ranks at a Glance online)

6 The Criteria The Professor StreamThe Instructor Stream Service Teaching Research (See the Professor and Instructor Path Criteria online)

7 Tenure Tenured appointments are full-time appointments (unless agreed to be part-time) that cannot be terminated except for cause, financial exigency or redundancy. Grant tenured appointments are tenured appointments that are subject to non-University funding availability. The criteria are the same!

8 The Tenure Clock The tenure clock for faculty always begins on July 1 of the calendar year in which they were hired Extensions are granted for maternity & parental leaves (automatic) and sick leaves (on a case by case basis) There is only one shot at tenure in that stream An Assistant Professor is the only rank that cannot be reviewed early for tenure unless linked to a promotion review

9 The Tenure Clock

10 Promotion Reviews ReviewScheduled? Obligation to Initiate? Who can stop the process? Appeal of negative decision? PeriodicYesUniversity Candidate only Yes Non- Periodic No Candidate or the University Head, Dean or Candidate No

11 Periodic Review for Promotion

12 Senior Instructors & Promotion  A Senior Instructor can request a periodic review for promotion to the professoriate in the 5 th year and then every 3 years.  If promoted to Assistant Professor, the appointment is tenure track, with tenure retained as Senior Instructor

13 The ARPT Schedules (See the Sample RPT Schedule for a tenure track Assistant Professor hired in 2010 online) We have templates on our website to help you identify the review dates for:  Assistant Professor (tenure track)  Instructor II (tenure track)  Instructor I (tenure track)  Associate Professor (tenure track)

14 The Procedures The reappointment, tenure & promotion procedures are set out in Articles 5 & 9 of the Agreement on Conditions of Appointment for Faculty, and are supplemented by the Guide to Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Procedures at UBC (See the Summary of the Tenure and Promotion Process and the Tenure and Promotion Checklist for Heads/Directors online)

15 Reappointment Reviews The process for reappointment reviews is exactly like the process for tenure & promotion reviews EXCEPT: 1. External letters are only required where the Head or Department are considering a negative recommendation 2. The President doesn’t consult with SAC (See the Reappointment Checklist for Heads/Directors online)

16 Head’s Meeting  The Head must meet with all tenure track faculty at least annually.  For tenured faculty, we encourage annual meetings or, at minimum, at least in the 2 years prior to a promotion review.

17 Head’s Meeting  It’s an opportunity to clearly note the strengths and opportunities for improvement.  It is also important to provide advice re the CV & other relevant material required for the next RPT review.  The Head & candidate must agree in writing on matters discussed.

18 Eligibility to be Consulted The Head must consult with eligible members of the departmental standing committee on all reappointment, tenure and promotion cases. (See the Eligibility to be Consulted Chart online)

19 Departmental Consultation Procedures Each Academic Unit is required to have documented procedures regarding consultation with the departmental standing committee for all reappointment, tenure and promotion cases. Please ensure that this includes information about joint appointments, whether as the home or non-home department. (See the 2 Sample ARPT Department Procedures online)

20 Letters of Reference All tenure and promotion cases require 4 arm’s length letters of reference EXCEPT for new hires where only 2 of the 4 letters must be arm’s length. Note that Senior Instructor cases do not require arm’s length letters but still need 4 letters (not including peer evals).

21 Letters of Reference The candidate provides 4 names, of which 2 must be solicited. The Head then consults with the departmental standing committee on choosing the final list of referees.

22 Letters of Reference What does arm’s length mean? Persons whose impartiality cannot be doubted. They are not normally expected to include such categories as relatives, close personal friends, clients, current or former colleagues, former thesis advisers, research supervisors, grant co-holders or co-authors.

Letters of Reference 23 See the Sample Letter of Request for Reference in the Guide The Head writes the letter of request for reference, unless the Head is a co-author with the candidate.

Letters of Reference 24 The letter of request should only be accompanied by the candidate’s CV and selected materials relevant for the assessment of scholarly achievements. Teaching dossiers should only be included for Senior Instructor cases.

25 Tenure & Promotion Reviews Department Standing Committee meets after obtaining letters of reference Department Standing Committee votes & recommends to Head Serious concerns? Yes No Invited to respond in writing to serious concerns We can help!

26 Tenure & Promotion Reviews Head recommends to Dean* Head notifies candidate of decision Negative? Yes Invited to respond in writing to Dean *See the Suggested Format for the Head’s Letter In the Guide

27 Tenure & Promotion Reviews Dean recommends to President* Dean notifies candidate of decision Invited to respond in writing to President Negative? Yes Dean seeks Faculty Committee vote *See the SAC Checklist in the Guide

28 Supplementing the File The University and the candidate have the right to supplement the file with new, unsolicited info or a response to particular concerns that emerge, up to the stage of the President’s decision

29 For Assistance… The Collective Agreement, in particular Articles 2-5 & 9 of the Agreement on Conditions of Appointment for Faculty Guide to Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Procedures at UBC for 2009/10 Our website: Call us!

Senior Appointments Committee Professor Susan Boyd, SAC Chair

Terms of Reference ◊ Advise the President on individual cases with respect to promotion, tenure, and senior appointments according to Concepts of procedural fairness UBC policy, SAC guidelines, the Collective Agreement Appropriate standards across and within disciplines

Terms of Reference ◊ Consider the merits of each specific case ◊ Assure that all deliberations on the case are consistent with UBC policy, the Collective Agreement and concepts of procedural fairness

File reviewed in detail by one of two subcommittees (meetings twice a month) If satisfactory, case ranked “A” and forwarded to full SAC for approval (meets twice a month) SAC Process: Subcommittee Review

Ranking may be deferred for a set amount of time pending –Receipt of additional information or clarification from Dean –Resolution of procedural concern by Faculty Relations

SAC Process: Subcommittee Review Cases ranked “B” referred to full SAC for discussion with Dean –About 1/4 of all cases –Cases with a negative recommendation –Conflicting recommendations from Head and Dean –SAC members raise concern

SAC Process: Full Committee Review “A” cases generally approved without discussion Entire SAC process can be completed in about a month

SAC Process: Full Committee Review Questions regarding “B” cases sent to Dean with invitation to attend full SAC meeting Dean must be present for all discussion of a case by SAC Vote taken in Dean’s absence Dean informed of result

Chair informs President of SAC recommendation and vote on each case Chair also provides President notes on SAC concerns and discussion regarding “B” cases SAC Process

SAC recommendation and vote confidential – should not be given to candidate Why? President sometimes recommends against SAC Provost and President review case and recommend action to Board SAC Process

External referee letters Professional contributions Scholarship of teaching Teaching documentation Curricula vitae Frequent SAC Issues

At least 4 arms-length referees for promotions and tenure At least 2 arms-length referees for new appointments Senior Instructor letters need not be external but avoid conflict of interest (preferably outside candidate’s unit) External Referee Letters

External Referee Letters: Problem Spots Head is a co-author; solicits the Letters; avoid appearance of conflict Case not clearly characterized If Professional or Scholarship of Teaching or blended, so indicate & include relevant parts of Agreement If ‘blended’, use a variety of referees who can assess each type

External Referee Letters: Tips Choose well-qualified referees with stature similar to or higher than UBC If a mandatory review for tenure, Head’s letter should say so and ask for separate recommendations Include information on referees in file Address any negative references in Head/Dean letter Use templates in SAC Guide

Scholarly Contributions Explain publishing norms in field in Head’s/Dean’s letters refereed journals? Conference proceedings? Quantity? Quality? Are there accepted top tier venues? Is a monograph required? Is co-authorship expected; with grad students? Are grants expected?

May constitute a portion or all of scholarly activity Must be “work of distinction”  Creative, standard-setting, changes practice of profession  Not routinely available from professionals in field Not a consolation prize Professional Contributions

Explicitly recognize and consider from outset and at all levels of review Referee’s assessment of professional contributions and significance is critical  Explicitly request  Provide UBC evaluation criteria Professional Contributions

May constitute a portion or all of scholarly activity Broad contributions to the improvement of teaching and learning  Beyond excellence in teaching  Original, innovative, impact and change field, substantial and sustained use by others Scholarship of Teaching

Explicitly recognize and consider from outset and at all levels of review Referee’s assessment of contributions, impact and stature is critical  Explicitly request  Provide UBC evaluation criteria Scholarship of Teaching

Required in all cases Effectiveness primary criterion  At all levels  Graduate supervision important Forms may vary, but all substantial contributions must be documented and evaluated Teaching Documentation

Full teaching dossier not useful for SAC (except Senior Instructor) Identify norms in unit Quantitative and qualitative summary and assessment of  All teaching responsibilities  Student and peer evaluations  Graduate student supervision  Other teaching contributions, accomplishments, awards, etc. Teaching Documentation

Use UBC format; adapt as needed (see annotated version in Guide) Avoid duplication Explain contributions to collaborative grants & publications Use opportunities to provide context for teaching & scholarship Used dated supplements to update Curricula Vitae

Making SAC’s life easier! Summarize votes at previous levels on p 1 of Dean’s letter Explain any process issues and how resolved Explain any negative votes or letters Identify norms in candidate’s field Do not ignore problems in file; address as objectively as possible

Pop Quiz – Lessons We Have Learned 1. The pre-tenure period is effectively the probationary period for faculty members? True 2. The Head is required to meet with the Candidate twice before the commencement of the tenure and promotion review (the year prior to the review and the year of the review). An informal chat over a cup of coffee is normally sufficient? False 53

Quiz 3. Where colleagues in an ARPT committee have concerns or questions about the candidate’s dossier the candidate should be advised of the concerns and given the opportunity to respond prior to any vote? True 4. A Senior Instructor can be promoted into the professoriate. If the promotion is to the position of Assistant Professor, they take the position as tenure track even though Senior Instructor is a tenured position? True 54

Quiz 5. Teaching is important, but not as important as Research – it’s best to err on the side of building one’s research portfolio? False 6. A colleague has offered to provide you with an informal peer review of the candidate’s teaching performance (based on their observations) providing that his name is not used on the review. You can add it to the dossier because peer reviews are required? False 55

Quiz 7. Ability to get along with staff and colleagues is important – but it has no role in the tenure and promotion review process? True 8. The letter of recommendation from the Head is only one piece in the process – the more important assessments are made further up the line? False 56

Quiz 9. Once the dossier has left the department or the faculty, that is the end of your role in the process – you don’t need to think about it again? False 10. The biggest concern that Faculty Relations hears from junior faculty is that they don’t know what is expected of them in the tenure and promotion review process? True 57

Closing Questions?? As always…..  Please check the Faculty Relations website  or call us Thank you!! 58