The Catholic University of America

Faculty Handbook Part II Archived

 

Archived Nov, 1, 2010

Procedures for Appointment and Promotion

 

II-C-1: Terminology and Qualifications

.050 Reviews for appointment and promotion are conducted at the level of the Academic Department (if the School is departmentalized), the School, and the Academic Senate.

.051 At the level of the Department, the qualified Faculty (below, .054-056) acts as a committee of the whole.

.052 At the level of the School, reviews are conducted by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions of the School, and, when required by procedures outlined in this section, by the Faculty of the School.

.053 At the level of the Academic Senate, reviews are conducted by its Committee on Appointments and Promotions, and, when required by procedures outlined in this section, by the Academic Senate. When the Academic Senate acts for this purposely Tenured Senior Professors (as defined below, .054-.055) are eligible to deliberate and vote.

.054 Ordinary and Associate Professors holding regular academic rank constitute Senior Faculty. At every level of review only Senior Faculty are qualified to act on matters of appointment to Faculty rank and of promotion.

.055 Only Tenured Senior Faculty act on matters of Faculty reappointment and of tenure.

.056 In departmentalized Schools with more than 100 Faculty members, Ordinary Professors act on behalf and in the place of Senior Faculty in deliberations at the level of the School.

.057 Deliberative votes are votes of Faculty qualified (as defined above, .054-056) to act in matters of conferral of faculty rank, reappointment, promotion, and tenure. Deliberative votes are actions that determine the sequence of subsequent reviews.

.058 Consultative votes are expressions of opinion of all Faculty who hold regular academic rank in the matter of recruitment and initial appointment of new Faculty members.

 

II-C-2: Committees on Appointments and Promotions

.059 Each School shall have a standing Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) consisting of five members, one or more alternates, and the Dean, who acts as Chair of the Committee without vote. Only Tenured Senior Faculty are eligible to serve on the School CAP. Members of the CAP are nominated by the Dean and must be approved by the Senior Faculty of the School. Members serve for terms of three years, and are ineligible for appointment to consecutive terms. The proscription of appointment to consecutive terms does not apply to service as an alternate member.

.060 In order to avoid undue overlap between the review by the CAP and that by the qualified Faculty as a whole, no more than half of the eligible members of the Faculty may serve on the CAP of the School at one time.[2] If the number of eligible members is fewer than nine but more than six, the CAP of the School shall consist of four members. If the number of eligible members is six or fewer, the CAP of the School shall not be constituted and the eligible members of the Faculty shall act as a committee of the whole.

.061 In departmentalized Schools, CAP members from the same Department as the candidate under review shall withdraw from the case and shall be replaced by alternates.

.062 The Academic Senate shall have a standing CAP, consisting of six members, one or more alternates, and the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies, who acts as its Chair and is a voting member of the Committee. The members and alternates are elected by the Academic Senate from among Tenured Ordinary Professors of the several Schools. Members serve terms of three years, and are ineligible for consecutive appointment. The proscription of appointment to consecutive terms does not apply to service as an alternate member. In electing CAP members, the Senate should seek a balanced representation of School faculties and disciplines.

.063 Academic Senate CAP members shall be replaced by alternates if a candidate is from the same School (if not departmentalized) or from the same Department (if the School is departmentalized). If the candidate's appointment is to the same academic unit as that of the Vice Provost, the Vice Provost shall continue to act as the Chair of the Senate CAP but without vote.

.064 If a School or Senate CAP member withdraws from a case for any reason, an alternate may replace that member only if the alternate is fully prepared to participate in the deliberations.

.065 If the Dean of the School is the Faculty member under review, the CAP of the School shall elect one of its members to serve as Chair for the purpose of this review. The member so selected shall have the right to vote.

.066 Deliberations may not be concluded nor a vote taken by any reviewing body unless a quorum of those entitled to vote is present. For this purpose, the following number of members constitutes a quorum: (a) for CAP's of Schools, four; (b) for the CAP of the Academic Senate, five; (c) for Faculties and the Academic Senate, one half of qualified members plus one; d) in departmentalized Schools with more than 100 Faculty members, on third of qualified members plus one.


[2] In case the number of qualified faculty is odd, for the purpose of this calculation the number of eligible members shall be increased by one.

 

II-C-3: Procedures for Deliberation

.067 All meetings held for the purpose of reviewing candidates shall be called with due notice.

.068 Voting is conducted by secret ballot.

.069 Votes are recorded as For, Against, or Abstaining.

.070 Absentee votes are not recorded.

.071 Decisions are made by majority vote, i.e. more than half of the votes cast, excluding blanks and abstentions.

.072 Any consultative vote is recorded and announced before deliberative voting is undertaken (C-1.057-058).

.073 The votes of Ordinary Professors in departmental and school reviews are taken concurrently with those of all Senior Faculty but are recorded separately. For this purpose, Ordinary Professors who wish to have their vote recorded separately shall designate their rank on the ballots.

.074 Each reviewing body must keep minutes and other pertinent records arising from its deliberations. If the decision is negative, the minutes must include factors considered in the discussion. In the interest of expediting the process the minutes are not ordinarily forwarded to the next reviewing body but, if requested, the pertinent sections of the minutes must be made available.

 

II-C-4: Confidentiality of Deliberations

.075 Deliberations of Committees on Appointments and Promotions, Faculties, and the Academic Senate relating to an application for appointment, reappointment, promotion, or tenure shall be held in strict confidence. All communication with persons outside the reviewing body about its deliberations must be conducted only by the Chair of that body, in accordance with provisions stated below (C-10,C-11).

.076 Documents, records, and other materials pertaining to the review shall be securely maintained. At each stage of review, access to such materials is limited to members of the reviewing body.

 

II-C-5: Representation

.077 In a departmentalized School, the Chair of the candidate's Department shall appear before the School CAP in person to respond to questions. If that Chair is the Faculty member under review, the Faculty of the Department shall designate another Senior Faculty member from the Department to act for this purpose.

.078 The Dean of the School shall appear before the CAP of the Academic Senate to respond to questions in person. In cases of Faculty members from a departmentalized School, the Chair of the Department shall also be available for this purpose if, in the judgment of the CAP, additional specialized information is needed. If the Chair of the Department or the Dean of the School is the Faculty member under review, the CAP may invite another Senior Faculty member from the Department or School to serve this function.

 

II-C-6: Sequence of Reviews - Initial Appointment to a Faculty

.079 Recruitment of candidates for appointment to a Faculty is the responsibility of the cognizant Department Chair or Dean of the School, although this responsibility is shared with all members of the Faculty. An important consideration in the recruitment of new faculty is the preservation and advancement of the mission of the university as expressed in its statement of aims and goals including reference to its religious identity as a Catholic institution. Recruitment may be initiated only after formal approval of the Provost, to ensure academic and budgetary authorization and compliance with procedures for equal opportunity in employment. The Chair or the Dean recommending the appointment must provide a statement indicating the nature and extent of the search procedures, as well as the method to be employed in the selection of a suitable candidate.

Selection of Candidate(s)

.080 When a suitable candidate is identified, the Chair of the Department, or the Dean of the School (if not departmentalized), submits the candidate to all regular Members of the Faculty for review and approval. If more than one suitable candidate is identified, a vote is taken to determine the order of preference among candidates qualified for appointment.

Review of Credentials

.081 After the selection of the candidate(s) in departmentalized Schools, the Chair of the Department submits the proposed candidate(s) to the Senior Faculty of the Department for a review of credentials at the appropriate rank and for a deliberative vote. In non-departmentalized Schools, the Dean submits the proposed candidate(s) for a review and a vote by the CAP of the School, unless, as part of the review by the Faculty of the School, the CAP has already passed on the candidate(s) in the selection process (see above, .080).

Offer of Appointment

.082 Before negotiating the terms and conditions of the appointment with a candidate, the Chair of the Department or, if the School is not departmentalized, the Dean must receive authorization from the Provost to offer the appointment to that candidate. If the candidate agrees to the terms of the offer, he or she is invited to submit a formal application for the position.

Confirmation of Faculty Rank

.083 In a non-departmentalized School the application of the candidate is submitted to the CAP of the School and then to the Senior Faculty for review and deliberative vote.

.084 In a departmentalized School the application of the candidate is submitted to the CAP of the School. If the appointment is to the rank of Instructor or Assistant Professor, the action of the CAP constitutes the final recommendation of the School. If the appointment is to the rank of Associate or Ordinary Professor, the vote of the Senior Faculty of the School is also required.

Appointment to Faculty

.085 If the appointment is to the rank of Instructor or Assistant Professor, an affirmative recommendation of the School and that of the Dean are required, which are then forwarded to the Provost for approval by the President.

.086 If the appointment is to the rank of Associate or Ordinary Professor, an affirmative recommendation of the School and that of the Dean are required, which are then submitted to the CAP of the Academic Senate. An affirmative recommendation of the Senate CAP is reported to the Senate for approval, and the outcome of the Senate's action is forwarded to the Provost for the approval by the President.

 

II-C-7: Sequence of Reviews - Reappointment to Probationary or Contract Terms

.087 Reviews of Faculty for the purpose of recommending reappointment without continuous tenure are conducted at the level of the School. If the School is departmentalized, a review by the Department is also required.

.088 Reviews for reappointment are scheduled so as to meet the requirements for notice of non-renewal, as set forth above (B-1.024-026). Accordingly, such reviews are conducted and concluded during the year prior to the last year of appointment then in force, except that (a) in the case of the first appointment to a single-year term, the review is conducted as soon as possible after the first semester of service and (b) in the case of an appointee whose current term extends through the second year of service, the review is conducted during the first semester of the second year.

.089 In a non-departmentalized School, the review for reappointment is initiated by the Dean who submits the case to the CAP of the School. The results of the deliberation and the vote of the CAP are then presented to the Tenured Senior Faculty of the School. This vote constitutes the final recommendation of the School on the reappointment.

.090 In a departmentalized School, the review for reappointment is initiated by the Chair of the cognizant Department who submits the case to the Tenured Senior Faculty of the Department. The results of the deliberation and the vote of the Department are then presented to the CAP of the School. The vote of the CAP constitutes the final recommendation of the School on the reappointment.

.091 The recommendation of the School is transmitted to the Provost. If the recommendation is positive, the Provost forwards it to the President for approval. If the recommendation is negative, the Provost notifies the candidate of the decision.

 

II-C-8: Sequence of Reviews - Appointment with Continuous Tenure

.092 A proposal for an initial appointment with continuous tenure or for review prior to reappointment with continuous tenure is made by the Dean or, in departmentalized schools, by the Chair of the Department in which the candidate is to hold rank. If the candidate is to hold a joint appointment, the proposal is submitted by both Deans or Chairs, as the case may be.

.093 Tenure reviews of Faculty in probationary status are initiated no later than the beginning of the sixth year of the probationary period. In the event that a review is not initiated by the cognizant officers, it may be initiated upon application of the candidate.

.094 At the option of the Faculty member holding a probationary appointment, the tenure review may be initiated prior to the sixth year of the probationary period. In such a case, if the outcome of the review is not favorable, the probationary service of the Faculty member is terminated in accordance with provisions for notice of non-renewal B-3.023-028.

.095 If neither the cognizant Department or School nor the candidate initiates a tenure review prior to the end of the first semester of the sixth year of the probationary period, the Provost notifies the President and the candidate that the candidate's appointment will not be renewed upon the expiration of the probationary period. No letter of appointment can be issued that extends a candidate's service beyond the last year of the probationary period unless the conferral of tenure has been approved by the Board of Trustees.

.096 In non-departmentalized Schools tenure reviews are conducted in the following order: (1) the CAP of the School; (2) the Tenured Senior Faculty of the School; (3) the CAP of the Academic Senate: (4) the Academic Senate.

.097 In departmentalized Schools with 100 Faculty members or fewer, tenure reviews are conducted in the following order: (1) the Tenured Senior Faculty of the Department; (2) the CAP of the School; (3) the Tenured Senior Faculty of the School; (4) the CAP of the Academic Senate; (5) the Academic Senate.

.098 In departmentalized Schools with more than 100 Faculty members, tenure reviews are conducted in the following order: (1) the Tenured Senior Faculty of the Department; (2) the CAP of the School; (3) the CAP of the Academic Senate; (4) the Academic Senate.

.099 The votes of each reviewing body are forwarded to the next reviewing body up to the level of the Academic Senate. When forwarding the votes of a Department or School, the Chair and/or the Dean may make their own separate recommendations to the next reviewing body.

.100 If any two reviewing bodies fail to recommend the candidate for tenure, the negative recommendation is considered conclusive, and the sequence of reviews is terminated at that point. In such a case, or if the Academic Senate fails to recommend tenure, the negative recommendation is transmitted to the Provost who notifies the President and the candidate of the decision.

.101 A positive recommendation of the Academic Senate is reported to the President who, upon appropriate review, approves or disapproves the appointment. If the President approves, he or she transmits the recommendation to the Board of Trustees for final acceptance or rejection. If the President disapproves, he or she notifies the candidate, the Academic Senate, and the cognizant Faculty through its Dean.

.102 In the event the President or the Board of Trustees fails to approve the recommendation of the Academic Senate, the Senate may request of the Board the formation of a joint Board-Senate committee, its members chosen by the respective bodies, to review the matter and to present its recommendation to the Board of Trustees which, in turn, will make the final determination.

 

II-C-9: Sequence of Reviews - Promotion in Rank

.103 The review process for promotion in rank is initiated by the Faculty member upon submission to a Department or School of a completed application. The candidate should notify the Office of the Provost in writing that the application has been submitted.

.104 In non-departmentalized Schools reviews for promotion in rank are conducted in the following order: (1) the CAP of the School; (2) the Senior Faculty of the School; (3) the CAP of the Academic Senate: (4) the Academic Senate.

.105 In departmentalized Schools promotion reviews are conducted in the following order: (1) the Senior Faculty of the Department; (2) the CAP of the School; (3) the Senior Faculty of the School; (4) the CAP of the Academic Senate; (5) the Academic Senate.

.106 Each successive reviewing body must act upon the application with reasonable speed so that ordinarily the entire process will not take more than one academic year. In case of undue delay the applicant may petition the Provost for retroactive effect of the rank and salary if the promotion is approved.

.107 The votes of each reviewing body are forwarded to the next reviewing body up to the level of the Academic Senate. When forwarding the results of deliberations in Departments or Schools, the Chairs and/or Deans may make their own separate recommendations to the next reviewing body.

.108 If any two reviewing bodies fail to recommend the candidate for promotion, the negative recommendation is considered conclusive and the sequence of reviews is terminated at that point. In such a case, or if the Academic Senate fails to recommend promotion, the negative recommendation is transmitted to the Provost, who notifies the President and the candidate of the decision.

.109 A positive recommendation of the Academic Senate is transmitted to the Provost for approval by the President.

.110 Promotions in rank become effective at the beginning of the academic year following their approval by the President. If the review is concluded in the Department or the School before the end of the spring semester but other required stages of the review are not completed until the following academic year, the promotion is made effective retroactively as of the beginning of the academic year in which it is finally approved.

 

II-C-10: Preparation and Sharing of Documents and Information

.111 In cases of review for reappointment or tenure, the Dean or the Chair should advise the Faculty member of the time when decisions affecting renewal and tenure are ordinarily made so that the Faculty member has adequate time to prepare relevant documentation.

.112 In addition to documentation required to be submitted in standard form, the Faculty member under review may submit such additional material as he or she believes is helpful to an adequate consideration of the case.

.113 Documentation prepared by the Faculty member under review is submitted to the Chair of the Department or, in a non-departmentalized School, to the Dean. After the first reviewing body has concluded its deliberations, the Faculty member may submit additional material to the Dean, who shall include it in the set of documents to be considered by other reviewing bodies. If the School is departmentalized, a copy of such additional material must also be provided by the Faculty member to the Chair of the Department.

.114 Each subsequent reviewing body must receive the dossier of materials reviewed by the previous body and is entitled to be informed of factors previously considered.

.115 Each reviewing body, through its Chair, may seek additional information from any source in writing, orally, or in person. If the reviewing body determines that such information differs materially from the record at hand, the reviewing body must reveal that information to the cognizant Dean. Unless doing so is inappropriate in light of the provisions of the Faculty Handbook, the Dean shall consult with the candidate and may also consult with other persons or groups including those that have reviewed the case previously. The Dean shall be given the opportunity by the reviewing body to respond to the information. Such additional consultation becomes part of the record of review. The obligation of confidentiality is to be respected by all parties.

.116 Unsolicited information received by a reviewing body, if material to the case in the judgment of the Chair of that body and if verified must be included in the candidate's dossier. Such material must be clearly labeled as unsolicited. If the new information is included and in the judgment of the reviewing body differs materially from the record at hand, the reviewing body must reveal that information to the cognizant Dean. Unless doing so is inappropriate in light of the provisions of the Faculty Handbook, the Dean shall consult with the candidate and may also consult with other persons or groups including those that have reviewed the case previously. The Dean shall be given the opportunity by the reviewing body to respond to the information. Such additional consultation becomes part of the record of review.Unsolicited opinion submitted in support or in opposition to the candidate shall not be considered. The obligation of confidentiality is to be respected by all parties.

 

II-C-11: Extramural Consultations

.117 Reviewing bodies considering a candidate for appointment or promotion to Ordinary Professor or for appointment with continuous tenure must establish the candidate's standing within the field in which the proposed appointment is to be held. For this purpose, a careful evaluation of the candidate's achievements will be undertaken in consultation with specialists outside as well as within the university. Such consultation should include the candidate's publications and professional activity and, where pertinent, the candidate's teaching and service record elsewhere. The extern specialists should include Faculty members from academic institutions of distinguished reputation.

.118 External referees are chosen by the departmental Chair or the Dean of the School. The candidate has the right to propose a limited number of names of externs for consideration; if such externs provide consultation, the fact that the candidate proposed them should be disclosed to reviewing bodies. In compiling the list of externs to be invited to review the case, the Chair or the Dean should consult other members of the Faculty, especially those with expertise in the pertinent area of scholarship. Requests for evaluation should be addressed to the externs by the Chair or the Dean. Effort must be made to receive some evaluations from externs other than those, as well as some of those, recommended by the candidate.

.119 Insofar as the law allows, communications between reviewing bodies and consultants are strictly confidential and both the reviewing bodies and the consultants should be so informed.

.120 Successive reviewing bodies may seek additional extramural consultations whenever they deem it necessary.

 

II-C-12: Notification

.121 At each level, the Chair of the reviewing body is informed of the outcome of subsequent reviews.

.122 Upon request by the candidate, the Dean or, in a departmentalized School, the Chair of the Department may inform the candidate orally of the outcome of the reviews.

.123 At the conclusion of all required reviews, the Provost notifies the candidate in writing of the decision.

.124 If the outcome of a reappointment review is positive, the Chair or the Dean may counsel the Faculty member, orally or in writing, with regard to his or her continuing development.

.125 If the outcome of a reappointment or tenure review is negative, the Dean or the Chair, at the request of the candidate, informs the candidate of the general reasons that contributed to the decision. Communication with the candidate about the outcome of the review is conducted orally, unless the candidate specifically requests that the reasons for the negative decision be stated in writing. Such a request by the Faculty member must be made within 30 days of being informed of the decision (see above .123). Any written statement must be approved by the Provost.

.126 If the outcome of a review for promotion is negative, the Dean or the Chair may counsel a Faculty member in regard to his or her continuing development toward future promotion. Communication with the candidate about the outcome of the review is conducted orally, unless the candidate specifically requests that the reasons for the negative decision be stated in writing. Such a request by the Faculty member must be made within 30 days of being informed of the decision (see above .123). Any written statement must be approved by the Provost.