1. Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) Processes and Procedures

2. 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)
Web:

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Evaluation Procedures Cycles II, III and IV (1 year reappointment)
The following individuals and committees will participate in full RTP reviews during AY :
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

10. 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

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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. Evaluation and Recommendation by Reviewers (continued)
PM 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”

20. 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.

21. 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

22. Academic Affairs Policy References
AAPS Policy for Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Procedures
AAPS WPAF Guidelines
AAPS Cycles I and VI Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) or Professional Development Plan
AAPS Department Definitions of Scholarship
AAPS Evaluation of Assigned Time
AAPS Unusually Meritorious

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

24. Some Key Contractual References re: RTP Evaluation - Continued
For promotion consideration, reviewers must have a higher rank than those under review
Each RTP committee report shall be approved by a simple majority
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

25. Always Ask!