Tenure and Promotion of Jointly Appointed Faculty1

  1. Definitions

    1. A jointly appointed faculty member’s “primary unit” is the department, school, or college in which the tenure or promotion process is initiated. Any other unit in which a jointly appointed faculty member holds an appointment is a “secondary unit.”
    2. If a jointly appointed faculty member holds appointments in multiple secondary units, requirements applying to a “secondary unit” shall apply equally to all secondary units.
    3. The term “college dean” refers to deans of colleges and the deans of the School of Law and the D’Amore-McKim School of Business. The terms “primary unit dean” and “secondary unit dean” refer to the college deans associated with the specified unit.
    4. The term “department chair” refers to chairs of departments and directors of programs that serve as units of appointment.
  2. Generally Applicable Provisions

    1. A jointly appointed tenure-track faculty member shall be subject to the same tenure and promotion processes that apply to individuals solely appointed within the faculty member’s primary unit unless otherwise specified in this section of the faculty handbook.
    2. To ensure that all individuals involved in tenure and promotion processes remain apprised of a candidate’s progress:
      1. Any document sent to a department chair or dean associated with the primary unit pursuant to pre-tenure, tenure, or promotion review policies should simultaneously be sent to the recipient’s counterpart in the secondary unit.
      2. Any document that a department chair or dean associated with the primary unit produces pursuant to pre-tenure, tenure, or promotion review policies should be sent to the document writer’s counterpart in the secondary unit.
      3. Any document that a department chair or dean associated with the secondary unit produces pursuant to pre-tenure, tenure, or promotion review policies should be sent to the document writer’s counterpart in the primary unit.
      4. If for any situation described in (a), (b), or (c) above, no counterpart in the other unit exists, the document should be sent to the next higher level of administrator within the other unit.
      5. Jointly appointed candidates shall receive copies of all materials added to tenure or promotion dossiers by department chairs or deans associated with their secondary units, just as they do to materials added by department chairs and deans associated with their primary units.
  3. Annual Progress-toward-tenure Review

    1. An individual or committee responsible for an annual progress review for a tenure-track faculty member shall seek input from the secondary unit head (or the secondary unit head’s designee).
    2. If the primary unit produces a written evaluation as part of the annual review process, it shall contain a section summarizing the information provided by the secondary unit head (or the secondary unit head’s designee).
    3. If the primary unit’s annual performance review process includes multiple levels of review, such as an initial review involving a committee followed by a review by a unit head, it is the initial reviewer that shall have the responsibility for seeking input from the secondary unit head (or the secondary unit head’s designee).
      1. If there are two written evaluations produced as part of the unit review process, such as a committee report followed by a unit head’s letter, it is the document produced at the earliest stage of review that must include input from the secondary unit.
      2. The requirements to obtain and include input at the initial review stage do not preclude reviewers at later stages from obtaining or including input.
    4. If one or more written evaluations are provided to the candidate as part of the primary unit’s annual review process, at least one of these documents shall contain content that reflects the views of the secondary unit.
  4. Pre-tenure Review and Reappointment Decision

    1. The committee responsible for conducting a pre-tenure review shall include one representative from each unit in which the candidate holds a secondary appointment.
    2. The representative from the secondary unit shall have the same rights and responsibilities as other participants in the review process. The involvement of the representative shall be limited to matters specific to the jointly appointed candidate.
    3. The representative shall be selected by the secondary unit head. If the secondary unit head is not a college dean, the representative selected shall be approved by the college dean.
      1. Secondary units are strongly encouraged to select a representative with expertise in the candidate’s research area.
      2. The representative must have an appointment in the secondary unit. However, the representative’s tenure home need not be in the secondary unit, but can be in the primary unit, or elsewhere in the university.
      3. A representative must meet any requirement as to rank that applies to other members of the committee.
    4. If a candidate holds appointments in two colleges, the dean responsible for making a reappointment decision shall consult the secondary unit dean before making the reappointment decision.
  5. Tenure or Promotion Committee Composition

    1. The committee responsible for conducting tenure or promotion reviews shall include one representative from each unit in which the candidate holds a secondary appointment.
    2. The faculty representative from secondary units shall be elected by the tenured faculty in the secondary units.
      1. Secondary units are strongly encouraged to select a representative with expertise in the candidate’s research area.
      2. The representative must have an appointment in the secondary unit. However, the representative’s tenure home need not be in the secondary unit, but can be in the primary unit, or elsewhere in the university.
      3. A representative must meet any requirement as to rank that applies to other members of the committee.
    3. The representative from the secondary unit shall have the same rights and responsibilities as other participants in the review process. As a full participant in the review process, the representative shall have the right to vote in any procedure that involves a vote. The involvement of the representative shall be limited to matters specific to the jointly appointed candidate.
    4. If a unit establishes a subcommittee to handle part of the work of a tenure or promotion committee, the representative shall be included on the subcommittee.
    5. If any faculty handbook policy requires a minimum number of professors to serve on a committee, representatives from secondary units shall not count toward meeting that minimum, unless
      1. the representative is also qualified to serve on the committee under the primary unit’s rules and is selected by the primary unit to serve in that capacity, or
      2. the primary unit dean has selected the individual chosen as a representative to serve on the committee pursuant to the dean’s powers when a unit has an insufficient number of faculty qualified to serve in that capacity.
  6. Internal Evaluations

    1. If a candidate holds appointments in multiple colleges:
      1. The tenure or promotion committee shall send the candidate’s dossier to the primary unit dean and secondary unit dean simultaneously.
      2. Both the primary and secondary unit deans shall contribute independent written evaluations of the candidate to the candidate’s dossier.
    2. If a candidate’s appointments are within the same college:
      1. If there is a school dean associated with the secondary unit, the school dean shall write an independent evaluation of the candidate; otherwise, the secondary unit department chair shall write an independent evaluation of the candidate.
        1. If the school dean writes the evaluation, and the secondary unit head is a department chair, the department chair shall provide input that will be integrated into the primary unit’s review processes under policy F.3 or F.4, as applicable.
      2. The purpose of this written evaluation is not to evaluate the candidate against the secondary unit’s tenure or promotion criteria, but instead to comment on the candidate’s contributions to scholarship, teaching, and service in general and to discuss the nature of the candidate’s contributions to the University.
      3. The written evaluation shall be submitted to the primary unit head.
      4. After reviewing and reflecting on the evaluation submitted by the secondary unit, the primary unit head shall prepare his or her own written evaluation.
      5. The primary unit head shall submit both written evaluations to the tenure and promotion committee simultaneously.
    3. If a candidate holds appointments in multiple colleges, the primary unit head is a department chair, and the secondary unit head is a department chair:
      1. In developing a written evaluation for submission to a tenure or promotion committee, the primary unit head shall seek input from the secondary unit head (or the secondary unit head’s designee).
      2. The primary unit head’s written evaluation shall include one clearly designated section that reflects the input of the secondary unit head.
        1. The secondary unit head shall have the option to supply the language to be used in the designated section.
        2. The secondary unit head shall have an opportunity to review the evaluation before it is submitted to the committee, and the written evaluation shall state that this opportunity has been provided.
      3. The secondary unit head shall not provide an independent letter of evaluation for inclusion in the dossier.
    4. If a candidate holds appointments in multiple colleges, the primary unit head is a dean, and the secondary unit head is a department chair:
      1. The secondary unit head shall not provide a written evaluation, but shall provide comments to the tenure or promotion committee.
      2. The committee shall summarize the secondary unit head’s input in its record or report.
      3. The secondary unit head shall not provide an independent letter of evaluation for inclusion in the dossier.
    5. Colleges containing schools as subunits shall adopt a policy specifying whether school deans associated with a secondary unit of appointment shall provide an independent evaluation under policy F.1 or provide input that will be integrated into the primary unit’s review processes under policy F.3 or F.4, as applicable.
      1. The adopted policy shall be subject to the approval of the Provost.
      2. The adopted policy shall apply only when a candidate is jointly appointed within multiple colleges. If the candidate is jointly appointed within a single college, policy F.2 shall apply.
  7. College Advisory Committee Evaluation

    1. The structure and functions of college advisory committees for jointly appointed candidates shall be the same as they are for candidates with single appointments.
  8. Accommodation for Accreditation Requirements

    1. If accreditation requirements preclude a department, school, or college from complying with any of the policies specified in this section of the faculty handbook:
      1. The affected entity must submit a report to the Provost that:
        1. Identifies the specific provisions for which the unit would like to request exemption;
        2. Identifies the specific accreditation rules that preclude compliance; and
        3. Explains why these accreditation rules preclude compliance.
      2. If the affected entity’s request for exemption is approved by the Provost, it is excused from complying with the provisions that would violate accreditation requirements. However, the affected entity shall comply with all other policies specified in this faculty handbook section.
    2. Affected entities are expected to consider alternative, formalized mechanisms for achieving the goals that underlie the tenure and promotion policies for jointly appointed faculty.

1. Passed by the Faculty Senate on 23 October 2013 by a vote of 27-0-0; Approved by the Board of Trustees on June 6, 2014.