Departmentalized Colleges
In departmentalized Colleges/Schools, there are two levels of review:
- At the first level by (a) the Unit AEP Review Committee and (b) the Unit Head;
- At the second level by (a) the College AEP Review Committee and/or the Dean.
Units, in their discretion, may form an Advisory Subcommittee to facilitate the review process. The first level Unit review will be conducted by the Unit AEP Review Committee (or Advisory Subcommittee) and voted on by those faculty members specified in the unit’s AEP plan. Eligible faculty members include PTK and TTK faculty members who are at or above the promotion rank (i.e., associate or full professors or PTK faculty members in the second or third level ranks . A promotion case shall go forward to the next level of review if 50% of the faculty vote cast is favorable (or such higher percentage as may be established by procedures or guidelines of the first level Unit). Voluntary abstentions are a non-positive vote that are counted in the total number of votes cast.
Following the first level Unit review and vote, the Unit Head will evaluate the dossier. If either the Unit AEP Review Committee or the Unit Head supports the case, it goes forward. Next, the dossier is reviewed by a College AEP Review Committee or the Dean of the College, as per the College’s AEP plan.
During higher levels of review, questions may arise regarding a recommendation from a lower level of review. In such cases, the College AEP Review Committee or the Dean shall meet with the Unit AEP Review Committee Chair(s) and Unit Heads from the lower levels. A written list of questions must be provided to the lower level representatives in advance to serve as a basis for discussion.
Final authority for mid-level promotions resides solely with the College or School (AEP Guidelines, Section V.F.). The candidate shall be notified of the promotion decision by the Dean.
If the faculty member’s appointment resides in the Dean’s Office, the Dean will form a Unit AEP Review Committee that will make a recommendation to the Dean regarding promotion. Upon providing an independent review and evaluation of the case, the Dean will transmit the dossier for mid-level promotions to the Office of Faculty Affairs for review and certification.
Non-Departmentalized Colleges
In non-departmentalized Colleges/Schools, the process is the same as outlined above for departmentalized Colleges/Schools except that the first level of review will be conducted by the College AEP Review Committee (or Advisory Subcommittee) and voted on by those faculty specified in the College’s AEP plan. Following review by the College AEP Review Committee and vote, the Unit Head will evaluate the dossier. Once the College AEP Review Committee and the Unit Head have made a decision related to the promotion, the Unit Head shall notify the candidate in writing of the committee’s vote and their own decision within two weeks. The candidate’s dossier shall then be sent to the Office of Faculty Affairs for review and certification. The Office of Faculty Affairs shall notify the Unit upon certification of the promotion, after which the Unit shall notify the candidate of the final outcome.
Denial of mid-level promotion
When a candidate receives a negative recommendation by both the first level Unit Head and the first level AEP Review Committee, the review will not proceed further and the Unit Head shall provide written notice to the faculty member within two weeks of their decision. The letter should 1) state the faculty decision and the Unit Head’s decision and 2) summarize briefly, in general terms, the reason for the denial. This letter should include the vote of the Unit AEP Review Committee (see Appendix for examples).
The Unit then forwards the case to the Next Level Administrator (the NLA – Dean in the case of departmentalized Colleges, Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs in the case of non-departmentalized Colleges), who will review the case to ensure that the candidate has received substantive and procedural due process.
Violation of substantive due process arises when (1) the decision was based upon an illegal or constitutionally impermissible consideration; e.g., upon the candidate's gender, race, age, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, or on the candidate's exercise of protected First Amendment freedoms (e.g., freedom of speech); or (2) the decision was based on erroneous information or misinterpretation of information, or the decision was clearly inconsistent with the supporting materials (APT Policy Section V.B.1.b).
Violation of procedural due process arises when the decision was negatively influenced by a failure during the AEP review: (1) to take a procedural step or (2) to fulfill a procedural requirement established in the Unit’s AEP plan. Violations occurring prior to the review process are not a basis for an appeal (APT Policy Section V.B.1.b).
If the NLA determines that there has been a violation of due process, they will remand the case to the Unit for reconsideration. If no error has occurred, the NLA must notify the Unit, certifying that no violation of substantive or procedural due process was found. The NLA or Unit then notifies the candidate that the decision is final. This concludes the review process of the case. The Office of Faculty Affairs is available for consultation or advice in matters pertaining to this process. For examples of possible wording for notification letters, see the Appendix.
A copy of these letters and the dossier should be sent to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs. The Dean should retain the dossier in case there is an appeal.
The faculty member may appeal a negative decision based on procedural and/or substantive grounds to the NLA. In departmentalized Colleges/Schools, the Dean will establish an ad-hoc Appeals Committee to review approved cases of appeal for promotions to the second level, or any cases denied at the unit level. The Office of Faculty Affairs will establish a campus-level AEP Appeals Committee to review approved cases of appeal for non-departmentalized Colleges/Schools (AEP Guidelines V.H.). A request for an appeal must be made in writing to the NLA within 60 calendar days of receipt of the final decision (APT Policy Section V.B.1.a). The request must detail the basis for the appeal and evidence to support the claims. If the appeal request is granted, the appellant has an additional 60 days in which to submit materials related to the case to the NLA. The appellant should be aware that these materials will be shared with the Appeals Committee, and with parties against whom allegations are made and any other persons deemed necessary by the Committee.
The Appeals Committee will meet with the appellant, and other parties, and investigate the case, as it deems appropriate (APT Policy Section V.B.1.d.3). If there were any objections to evaluators submitted by the appellant during the process of selection of external reviewers, this information may be requested. The Committee may not substitute its academic judgment for the judgment of those in the review.
The Committee makes a recommendation to the NLA who makes the final decision. When the NLA supports the findings of the Appeals Committee, and authorizes corrective action to be taken, the NLA has the responsibility for oversight and implementation of any such corrective action (APT Policy Section V.B.1.e.1).
Denial of promotion does not affect a candidate’s existing appointment, nor does it prevent contract renewal. In the event of a denial, a faculty member may seek promotion again in a future year, following Unit and campus procedures and processes.