1. The Role of the College of Ed’s RPT Review Committees
Overview of relevant law, policy, and procedures.

2. Decision-making Process
Maintain the highest standards of integrity, fairness, and professionalism, and ensure the process and decision are consistent with applicable University, College, and Department policies and procedures.
For each of the relevant criteria under review, consider and then describe whether and how the candidate either does not meet, meets, or exceeds the relevant expectations.
Per College of Ed Criteria: Responsibility for presenting the case for personnel reviews rests with the faculty candidate, who, through narrative statements and supporting documentation collected in an electronic dossier, addresses how the standards are met and how the candidate is contributing and will contribute to the mission of the College.
The review committees, chairs, and dean are expected to independently consider the total profile presented by each candidate, including both broad expectations and specific standards, and to make independent holistic judgments about the candidate’s performance and potential as a faculty member in the College.

3. Clearly Applying the Criteria
Weak:
“Dr. K should endeavor to increase her/his number of peer-reviewed publications.”
Better:
“Dr. K has fewer peer-reviewed publications than expected at this stage; a significant increase in productivity will be needed for a positive tenure review.”
Even better:
“Dr. K has only two peer-reviewed publications at this stage. At least six peer- reviewed publications of similar quality are expected for a positive tenure review.”
From:

4. Importance of Applying Relevant Criteria Cleary and Consistently
Fairness and Transparency to the Candidate
Mitigates likelihood of valid Discrimination, Personal Malice, and Material Procedural Irregularity Claims
Mitigates the impact of implicit bias in the decision-making process

5. Grounds for Appeal of RPT Decisions
Decision Based on Impermissible Grounds including (1) exercise of First Amendment Rights; (2) discrimination based upon the Faculty Member’s race, color, creed, sex, disability, sexual orientation, religion, age, national origin, veteran status, or other forms of discrimination prohibited under policies adopted by the Board of Trustees; or (3) personal malice.
To determine whether discrimination impacted review, the law requires considering whether similarly-situated individuals were treated differently (whether more or less favorably) in the same or similar circumstances
Personal Malice is defined as permitting the decision to be made because of dislike, animosity, ill-will, or hatred based on the Faculty Member's personal characteristics, traits, or circumstances not relevant to valid University decision making
Decision follows Material Procedural Irregularities, which are “departures from prescribed procedures governing reappointment, promotion, or the conferral of Permanent Tenure that cast reasonable doubt upon the validity of the decision not to reappoint, not to promote, or not to confer Permanent Tenure.”

6. Chair, Dean, and Provost Reviews
Each Administrator is encouraged to solicit additional information from review committees if the recommendation made does not include a clear explanation regarding how the criteria were applied to the review. Conclusory statements such as, “The candidate did not meet several other criteria,” without an explanation regarding how the committee reached that decision will generally be deemed insufficient.
BOG Review focuses on discrepancies in decision-makers’ recommendations—the bases for discrepancies should be clarified or otherwise apparent from the underlying recommendations.

7. Confidentiality
All discussions and decisions during the tenure and promotion review process are CONFIDENTIAL.
All committee members are expected to adhere to the strict confidentiality requirements.
From University Policy:
Any deliberations by a department or College review … shall be held in closed session, with only those present whom the committee deems necessary to its deliberations.
All documents submitted or created in connection with the process … as well as information derived from any discussions that are part of the formal review, are considered confidential personnel information. All persons participating in the process of review … shall treat such information as confidential. Such confidential records and information shall not be disclosed to or discussed with any person except: (1) review committee members; (2) those persons required or permitted to be consulted in accord with the requirements of department, College, or University policies; or (3) those persons permitted access to such documents by law. Violation of this section may expose any Faculty Member, including an administrator, to the imposition of serious sanctions.

8. Importance of Confidentiality in RPT Review Process
Encourages necessary candor in committee discussions;
Protects the candidate’s reputation,
Ensures integrity of review process, and
Ensures compliance with System and University policy.

9. Hypo #1:
Dr. Motts is a candidate for Associate Professor in the College of Education. Dr. Haynes is currently chair of the College Review Committee considering Dr. Motts’ file. Dr. Haynes once served on a curriculum committee with Dr. Motts, on which Dr. Motts critically assessed the scholarship and student-interest in programming initiated by Dr. Haynes several years prior, unwittingly offending Dr. Haynes in front of his other colleagues on the committee. Dr. Haynes also sought and failed to receive an institutional award in teaching that Dr. Motts was ultimately awarded. Although Dr. Motts’ performance reviews and feedback submitted by faculty at and above the associate professor rank in her department unanimously express that Dr. Motts is collegial and a good citizen in the department, Dr. Haynes persuades the committee that Dr. Motts is not someone the committee should support, citing character issues and concerns that Dr. Motts would not be a good long-term “fit” for the college. Because Dr. Haynes’ concerns were targeted at Dr. Motts’ participation on a curriculum committee, the committee noted in its recommendation that although “Dr. Motts generally met expectations for teaching, and exceeded some, she fell short in some areas, including in her contributions toward course and program curriculum development.”
Questions for Discussion:
Are Dr. Haynes’ concerns appropriate for consideration in the context of this review? Why or why not?
Please refer to the College’s guidelines for tenure review and share any concerns you have regarding the Committee’s explanation regarding the basis of its recommendation.
Can you identify any actual or potential policy breaches here?

10. Hypo #2
The Chair of the DRC, wary of another protracted review season, offers to review candidate dossiers and draft proposed recommendations for the committee’s consideration. She shares that, given the sensitive nature of the reviews and the fact that everyone knows and expects the rumors to fly, she will accept feedback via from individual committee members rather than ask them to share any concerns they have with the entire committee. One committee member expresses concern about the approach, but the other committee members like the chair’s suggestion and a majority of the committee ultimately votes to proceed with the reviews as the chair has suggested.
Does the chair’s proposed approach violate University policy? Why or why not?
Even if this approach does not technically violate a policy, in what ways is it contrary to the purpose of committee reviews?

11. Final Takeaways
The tenure and promotion review process is critical to quality assessment and control within the University;
Given the implications of tenure on the employment relationship with the University, and the long-term commitment made by offering tenure, it is likely the most important employment decision made at a University;
Although review committees make recommendations rather than decisions, the recommendations are given serious consideration in the final decision;
Evaluating tenure and promotion is one of the most difficult and demanding forms of service; given the sensitivity of the task at hand CONFIDENTIALITY is paramount.