Denial at the Unit (First Level) Review
If both the Unit (First Level) APT Review Committee’s and the Chair’s recommendation are negative, the Chair must inform the candidate by electronic and certified mail within two weeks of the date of the decision. The letter should state the faculty decision and the administrator’s decision and summarize briefly in general terms the reason for the denial. This letter should include the APT vote (APT Policy IV.D; see Appendix for examples).
The Department forwards the case only to the Dean. The Dean will review the case to ensure that the candidate has received procedural and substantive due process. If not, the Dean will remand the case to the Department to reconsider. If no error has occurred, the Dean must write a letter (a) stating that the case has been reviewed to ascertain that there was no violation of substantive or procedural due process, and (b) where appropriate, specifying the date of termination of employment (APT Policy Section IV.A.5). The letter should be sent by electronic and certified mail. This concludes the review process of the case. 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.
In the case of non-departmentalized Colleges, if both the College (First Level) and Dean’s recommendation are negative, the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs will review the case to ensure that the candidate has received procedural and substantive due process. If not, the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs will remand the case to the College to reconsider. If no error has occurred, the Associate Provost must write a letter to the candidate, copying the Dean head, (a) stating that the case has been reviewed to ascertain that there was no violation of substantive or procedural due process, and (b) where appropriate, specifying the date of termination of employment (APT Policy Section IV.A.5). The letter should be sent by electronic and certified mail. 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 Appendix.
Moving Through Higher Levels of Review
As long as there is one positive recommendation at the Department level (from either the APT Review Committee or the Chair) the case will proceed to all subsequent levels for review (APT Policy Section IV.A.5). That is, the case will proceed through the College and University faculty committees and administrator reviews.
During higher levels of review, questions may arise regarding a recommendation from a lower level of review. In such cases, the College or University APT Review Committee shall meet with the APT Review Committee Chair(s) and Administrator(s) from the lower levels. A written list of questions will be provided to the lower level representatives in advance to serve as a basis for discussion (APT Policy Section IV.B.4; Section IV.C.2).
Whenever either or both faculty and administrator recommendations are negative at higher levels of review, a letter must be sent to the candidate summarizing in general terms the nature of the considerations on which those decisions were based (APT Policy Section IV.D). The College-level notification letter should be included in the dossier file appended to the Dean’s letter and should be sent by electronic and certified mail.
When Issues Arise During the Review Process
Administrators and faculty committees are responsible for ensuring that all candidates receive fair and impartial treatment. They should deal with perceived problems either within their committee or through the administrative structure as soon as the issue arises. It is recommended that the Chair of the APT Review Committee inform the voting faculty about these responsibilities whenever cases are reviewed (University Senate Review of Appeals No. 99-00-13).
The faculty member who believes that a violation has occurred during the review process is responsible for objecting at that time and asking for a resolution of the problem. Individuals in that position must inform the Department Chair, the Dean, or the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs of the perceived difficulty (University Senate Review of Appeals No. 99-00-13).
Appeals Process for Denial of Promotion
Grounds for Appeals
The two bases for appeal are: violation of substantive due process or violation of procedural due process. Violation of substantive due process means that: (1) the decision was based upon an illegal or constitutionally impermissible consideration; e.g., upon the candidate's gender, race, age, nationality, handicap, sexual orientation, or on the candidate's exercise of protected First Amendment freedoms (i.e., 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 APT review: (1) to take a procedural step or (2) to fulfill a procedural requirement established in APT Policy or review procedures of a Department or College. Violations occurring prior to the review process are not a basis for an appeal (APT Policy Section V.B.1.b).
The Appeals Process
A request for an appeal must be made in writing to the President within 60 calendar days of notification of the decision not to grant tenure, promotion, reappointment, or emeriti status (APT Policy Section V.B.1.a). The request must detail the basis for the appeal and evidence to support the claims. The grounds for the appeal must be within the purview of those identified in the University APT Policy (APT Policy Section V.B.1.b). Faculty members with questions regarding this process should contact the Office of Faculty Affairs. The President will determine whether to grant the request for an appeal based on the criteria stated above.
If an appeal request is granted, an Appeals Committee is formed (APT Policy Section V.A). The appellant has an additional 60 days in which to submit materials related to the case to the Office of Faculty Affairs. 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 (APT Policy Section V.B.1.a).
The 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 President who makes the final decision (APT Policy Section V.B.1.d.4). When the President supports the findings of the APT Appeals Committee, and authorizes corrective action to be taken, the Provost has the responsibility for oversight and implementation of any such corrective action. (APT Policy Section V.B.1.e.1)
Faculty members and administrators involved in the APT review process are reminded that they are bound by the terms of and expectations for confidentiality during the appeals process. Under no circumstances should anyone involved with the APT review of a candidate discuss the content and/or process details of the APT deliberations with the candidate. Candidates should be referred to the Office of Faculty Affairs regarding any questions that they may have regarding the appeals process.