>back
 

POLICY ON APPOINTMENTS, PROMOTIONS, AND TENURE AWARDS

of the

Faculty of the School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation

University of Maryland

Approved by the Faculty on May 3, 2006


  • Preamble
  • 1.1            The policy and procedures set forth in this document (and henceforth designated as “this Document”) are deemed to be in accordance with current University System Policy on Appointment, Rank, and Tenure of Faculty, as approved by the Board of Regents on April 5, 1989 and subsequently amended (available on line at
  • http://www.usmh.usmd.edu/Leadership/BoardOfRegents/Bylaws/SectionII/II100.html), and with University of Maryland policy, as approved by the President on February 16, 1993, by the Chancellor, March 26, 1993, and subsequently amended (available on line at http://www.faculty.umd.edu/policies/UMDpolicy.html). These policies are considered integral parts of this document. Should a discrepancy exist, University policy shall prevail. References to the “School” in this document stand for the School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation. “APT Committee” refers to the School’s peer review committee on appointments, reappointments, promotions, and tenure awards.   Reference to any “article” in this document also includes all of its subparagraphs.
  • 1.2            Upon appointment, each new faculty member shall receive from the Dean a copy of this Document and the Dean shall discuss the Criteria for Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure, as it pertains to the faculty member.  All faculty members shall be notified promptly in writing by the Dean of any changes in the School’s Criteria for Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure.
  • 1.3            It is responsibility of the Dean’s office to update this Document whenever changes in the University’s policy require such action.  Any substantive changes must be brought to the attention of the Chair of the APT Committee.
  • 1.4            This document contains an appendix: Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure Calendar.
  • 2.          Criteria for Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure
  • 2.1            Decisions on promotion of tenured faculty members shall be based on the academic merit of the candidate as evaluated using the relevant criteria, as stipulated in this article 2 and below in article 3, Categories of Achievement.  Decisions on the renewal of untenured appointments and on promotion involving the granting of tenure shall be based on the academic merit of the candidate as evaluated using the relevant criteria and on the academic needs of the School. Considerations relating to the present or future programmatic value of a candidate’s particular field of expertise, or other larger institutional objectives, may be legitimately considered in the context of a tenure decision. In no case, however, may programmatic considerations affecting a particular candidate be changed following the first renewal of the faculty contract of that candidate.
  • 2.2        Any change in the nature of the School’s or the unit’s programmatic needs which may have a bearing on the candidate’s prospects for tenure should be brought to the attention of the candidate at the earliest possible time.  In addition, first-level units shall make the best possible effort to advise tenure-track faculty of the prevailing standards of quality and of the most effective ways to demonstrate that they meet the standards.  The advice and assessments provided to untenured candidates should avoid simplistic quantitative guidelines and should not suggest or imply that tenure decisions will be based on the quantity of effort or scholarly activity, independently of its intellectual property.
  • 3.            Categories of Achievement
  • The APT Committee and its designated subcommittees shall consider the performance of candidates in (a) teaching and advising; (b) research, scholarship, and creative activities; and (c) service and leadership. Performance in these areas shall be evaluated in the context of the School’s mission and requirements, and against generally accepted standards of excellence prevailing in the field of a candidate, in the School, and in the University. Superior promise or performance, as appropriate to a candidate’s rank, is expected. Minimum qualifications pertaining to each rank are described in the University of Maryland Policy on Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure of Faculty, available on line at http://www.faculty.umd.edu/policies/UMDpolicy.html.
  • Because the School’s mission includes both traditional academic pursuits and professional education in the fields of architecture, urban design, urban and regional planning, and historic preservation, considerable diversity of achievement may be offered in the evidence supporting a candidate’s request for appointment or promotion. Consequently, in assessing a candidate’s work, the Dean, APT Committees, and any faculty as may properly be involved in the review process shall take such diversity into account. Both internal and external evidence and assessments shall be secured when required by University policy.
  • 3.1            Teaching and Advising
  • High-quality teaching and advising is central to the School’s mission. Consequently, the intellectual content and instructional effectiveness of a candidate’s interactions with students, whether in structured courses, mentoring and advising activities, design reviews, thesis and dissertation committees, or informal occasions, shall be of paramount concern in decisions regarding appointments, reappointments, promotions, and tenure awards.
  • Ordinarily, evidence of performance in this area shall be gathered from three sources: (a) course evaluation questionnaires administered to students, (b) course material, and (c) peer class visitations. When such sources of information are not available in full or in part, as may be the case for candidates with limited prior teaching experience, efforts shall be made to supply alternative bases of assessment of successful or promising teaching and advising. Summaries of a candidate’s scores on course evaluation questionnaires should be compared with mean scores of similar format courses in the candidate’s program, or, when appropriate, in the School or University.  When available, a small number of students’ comments from such questionnaires or from unsolicited written communications may be included to more specifically illuminate the candidate’s approach or contribution. Course material, such as syllabi, bibliographies, supplemental readings, Web pages, etc., should be evaluated for their clarity and rigor. Contributions of outside guests and external activities such as field trips should be assessed for effectiveness and integration with instructional objectives. Development of new courses, introduction of innovative techniques and technologies, effective training and oversight of teaching assistants, preparation of textbooks, instructional awards, and fund-raising for course or curriculum development should also be considered as evidence of meritorious teaching.
  • 3.2            Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities
  • Significant contributions to the generation and dissemination of knowledge, to artistic creation, and to advances in professional fields are essential components in the School’s mission. Both the distinction of a candidate’s efforts in these areas and the continuing and sustained productivity of such efforts shall be of prime concern in appointment, reappointment, and promotion decisions. Evidence of promise or accomplishment, as appropriate to a candidate’s rank, is likely to be dependent on a candidate’s specific area of work. For faculty engaged in creative professional activities, such evidence shall include recognition of design, planning, or other creative work through publication, awards, success in national or international competitions, or other appropriate peer review. For faculty engaged in more traditional scholarship and research, the evidence shall include publications in the form of books, book chapters, articles in journals or papers in proceedings, citations, reviews, and research reports. Success in obtaining funding of research proposals may also be considered, where appropriate, as an indicator of a candidate’s scholarly standing. Because professional design and planning work are central activities of a significant number of the School’s faculty, review committees shall consider that such work often involves higher levels of responsibility and longer time frames than those ordinarily entailed in more traditional academic output such as journal articles, papers, or monographs. Likewise, it may take years for junior faculty to develop a career to the point where they can gain significant design or planning commissions. In such cases, peer evaluation by distinguished practitioners of unbuilt or heretofore unrecognized designs or plans shall constitute documentation of meritorious accomplishment. Participation in editorial boards, conference organizing or scientific committees, submission of reviews for journals or other publishing entities, and invitations to lectures, design competition juries, and the like, though properly considered in the category of service activities, shall also be viewed as evidence of a candidate’s national and international reputation in scholarship and creative work.
  • 3.3            Service and Leadership
  • Self governance and application of knowledge and professional expertise are important parts of the School’s mission. Thus, in addition to demonstrated excellence in teaching and advising, and in research, scholarship, or artistic creativity, candidates for appointment, reappointment, or promotion should have established a commitment to leadership and service activities commensurate with their area of expertise. Such commitment may take several different forms: service to the university; to the profession and higher education; and to the community, school systems, and governmental agencies. Service activity is expected of all faculty members, but service shall not substitute for teaching and advisement or for achievement in research, scholarship, or artistic creativity. Service activity shall not be expected or required of faculty members, in particular of those on tenure track, to the point that it interferes with the development of their teaching, scholarship, or creative work.
  • 4            Monitoring Tenure-track Faculty
  • 4.1            The Dean, in consultation with the appropriate program Director/Directors, shall assign one or more members of the senior faculty other than the program Directors to the task of mentoring each Assistant Professor and each untenured Associate Professor. Mentors should encourage, support, and assist these faculty members and be available for consultation on matters of professional development. Mentors should also be frank and honest about the progress toward fulfilling the criteria for promotion and tenure.
  • 4.2            Following consultations with members of the faculty, the Dean shall independently provide each Assistant Professor and each untenured Associate Professor annually with an informal assessment of his or her progress.
  • 4.3            Favorable informal assessments and positive comments by the Dean or mentors are purely advisory and do not guarantee a favorable tenure and/or promotion decision. Participation in mentoring does not relieve faculty members of their responsibilities for participating, and voting, in formal reviews.
  • 5            Monitoring Tenured Faculty
  • 5.1            The performance of tenured faculty shall be monitored in accordance with the School’s Policy on Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty, which may be consulted on line at http://www.arch.umd.edu.
  • 6            The APT Committee
  • 6.1            The APT Committee shall consist of all full-time tenured faculty members of the School. As provided by the Plan of Organization of the School, the Chair of the APT Committee shall be appointed by the Dean for renewable periods of two years. Because the APT Committee is advisory to the Dean, the Dean is not a member of the APT Committee. However, the Chair of the APT Committee shall invite the Dean to gather information and to express his/her views about the candidate to the APT Committee during one or more of the committee’s meetings, at which time the faculty may engage the Dean in a discussion of the relevant issues.
  • 6.2        Members of APT subcommittees and their chairs shall be appointed by the Chair of the APT   
  • Committee.
  • 6.3            Should a subcommittee consisting of fewer members be appointed from the parent APT Committee in the interest of efficiency or the division of labor, that subcommittee shall report to the full APT Committee. The vote of the full APT Committee shall be considered the faculty recommendation to the Dean.
  • 6.4            When the APT Committee is charged with conducting a review for appointment or promotion, the subcommittee should be comprised of a minimum of three faculty members, with all subcommittee members holding a rank at least equal to that of the candidate.  The majority of members of the subcommittee should, if possible, be from each program or unit in the School in which the candidate holds an appointment.  In exceptional cases in which the nature of a candidate’s work may be more properly assessed by expanding the membership of the APT subcommittee, the Chair of the APT Committee, in consultation with the Director of each program or unit within the School in which the candidate holds an appointment, may appoint to the subcommittee one or more members from the faculty of a unit outside the School.
  • 6.5            When the APT Committee is charged with conducting a review for appointment or promotion to the rank of Professor, the committee shall consist of all full-time faculty currently holding that rank.
  • 6.6        The report of the APT subcommittee shall be available for consultation in the Dean’s office by
  • all members of the APT Committee at least one week before the scheduled vote.
  • 6.7            Attendance at APT meetings is governed by the Plan of Organization of the School, which stipulates in article 3.a: “Attendance at all APT Committee meetings is mandatory.”
  • 6.8            All members of the APT Committee, including its Chairperson, are expected to vote for or against or register an abstention in the case(s) before it, at the conclusion of the Committee’s work.  Only members of the APT Committee who have read the subcommittee’s report (see article 6.6.) and who have participated in the APT Committee’s final deliberation are entitled to vote.  When special personal or professional reasons compel an APT Committee member to participate in the final deliberation via teleconferencing, his/her vote must be received by the Chair of the APT Committee within two hours of the Committee vote.  No other absentee votes are permitted.
  • The Committee’s vote shall be tabulated and forwarded to the Dean. APT Committee and subcommittee votes shall be conducted by secret ballot. 
  • Voting will be consistent with the Plan of Organization of the School, which stipulates in article 3.c.: “Proxy votes are specifically prohibited.”
  • 6.9            The role of the APT Committee shall be limited to gathering the information prescribed in this Document, scheduling optional hearings, advising candidates about the format and content of their dossier, reviewing all pertinent material, and making recommendations to the Dean. The Dean shall be responsible for informing candidates of the progress of their appointment, reappointment, or promotion case at the time and in the form specified by University policy and guidelines and as stipulated in article 8.6 below.

  • 7            Ranks and Minimum Qualifications
  • Faculty ranks and minimum qualifications are described in the University of Maryland Policy on appointment, Promotion, and Tenure which is available on line at http://www.faculty.umd.edu/policies/UMDpolicy.html.
  • It is the responsibility of candidates to familiarize themselves with that policy.
  • 8            Procedures
  • 8.1            Appointments           
  • 8.1.1            Appointment to Lecturer, Visiting, Adjunct, and Affiliate ranks shall be made by the Dean in consultation with the program Director(s) and faculty in the area of the candidate’s experience. No formal review by the APT Committee shall be required.

  • 8.1.2            Appointments to Research Associate, Senior Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Professor of the Practice, and Emeritus Professor ranks, shall be reviewed by the APT Committee. The Dean shall inform the Chair of the committee, in writing, ordinarily no later than forty-five days prior to the end of the semester preceding the date of the prospective appointment, of the need to institute the review. It is the responsibility of the candidate and the Dean’s office to assemble all the evidence in support of the appointment, in the format prescribed by the Office of the Provost. However, the Chair of the APT Committee or his/her designee(s) shall be consulted in arriving at a list of external referees when such referees are required by University policy.
  • 8.1.3            Additionally, appointments to Research Associate rank shall be governed by the following provisions. Research Associates are faculty whose duties are primarily in research and scholarship. Their role may involve participation in activities initiated by other faculty or in those they themselves may initiate. Research Associates shall be engaged continuously and effectively in one or more specific project(s) consistent with the mission of the School. In fulfillment of their obligations to the School, only projects approved by the Dean and a faculty committee designated by the Dean in accordance with article VII. A. 2. k. of the School’s Plan of Organization may be pursued by Research Associates. Research Associates shall be trained in research procedures, shall be capable of carrying out individual research or collaborating in group research at an advanced level, and shall have the experience and specialized training necessary to execute successfully such projects as may be undertaken. Ordinarily, appointees to this rank shall hold the highest earned degree in their field of specialization. Appointments shall be for renewable terms of one calendar year or less.
  • 8.1.4            Full-time appointments to the rank of Assistant Professor shall be for an initial term of one to three years. The first year of the initial appointment shall be a probationary year. In consultation with the program Director and the faculty in the area of the candidate’s experience, the Dean shall determine whether the candidate’s performance during the probationary year warrants continuation of the appointment. No formal review by the APT Committee shall be required for reappointments at the end of the probationary first year. If it is deemed that the candidate’s performance is not satisfactory, the appointment may be terminated at the end of that fiscal year if the appointee is so notified, in writing, by March 1st.
  • 8.1.5            Full-time appointments to the rank of Associate Professor without tenure shall be for a term of three or four years. Reappointment of a non-tenured Associate Professor carries tenure and therefore shall be considered as a promotion (see article 8.3 below).
  • 8.2            Reappointments                                                                                               
  • 8.2.1              In each case for reappointment at any rank, the program Director/Directors in the unit/units in which the candidate holds an appointment in the School shall submit a letter to the Dean, with copy to the chair of the APT Committee when involvement of that Committee is prescribed by this document, addressing the relevant criteria as stipulated in articles 2 and 3 above.  This letter is independent of any other letters required by any other provision of this document, as for example, the letter requested by the Chair of the APT Committee in cases of promotion (see article 8.3.7), and shall be an integral part of the candidate’s file.
  • 8.2.2            Assistant Instructor, Lecturer, Visiting, Adjunct, and Affiliate ranks:
  • Reappointment to these ranks shall be made by the Dean in consultation with faculty in the area of the candidate’s experience. No formal review by the APT Committee shall be required.The Dean’s decision shall be communicated to the candidate in writing and a copy of the letter shall be placed in the candidate’s file. If reappointment is denied, the letter should specify the reasons for the decision.
  • 8.2.3            Research Associates, Senior Lecturers, and Professors of the Practice:
  • Reappointments to these ranks shall be subject to the APT Committee’s review of the candidate’s performance.
  • 8.2.3.a                        It is the Dean’s responsibility to inform in writing both the Chair of the APT Committee and the candidate no later than February 15 of the need to institute the review.
  • 8.2.3.b                        It is the responsibility of the candidate for reappointment to provide the APT Committee with a dossier containing all the information he/she deems appropriate to support a positive review, including a curriculum vitae in the format prescribed by the University, a compilation of available course evaluations by students, peer reports of course visitations,  course material such as syllabi, course guides, etc., and a personal statement advocating the candidate’s case for reappointment and outlining his/her current and planned work. 
  • 8.2.3.c                        In the review process, the APT Committee shall offer the opportunity to all full-time faculty members and students to contribute their opinions, judgments, and assessments of the candidate’s performance. Such contributions may be made through individual, private interviews or in writing. The APT Committee may, at its discretion, include such opinions in its report to the Dean. In this case, however, the report shall clearly separate the committee’s own assessment from opinions received from the faculty at large and from students. In assessing a candidate’s performance, the review committees shall give primary consideration to activities since the date of the last appointment.
  • 8.2.3.d                        Unlike in reviews leading to tenure recommendations, the APT Committee shall not solicit evaluations from persons outside the University.
  • 8.2.3.e                        The APT Committee shall prepare a written report stating the committee’s vote and recommendation on whether to grant reappointment and explaining the bases for its recommendation insofar as they were articulated in the discussions among members of the committee. This report and a copy of the candidate’s dossier shall be forwarded to the Dean.
  • 8.2.3.f                        In reappointments, the final decision is the Dean’s responsibility. The Dean shall communicate such decision in writing to the candidate and the APT Committee no later than fifteen days after receiving the committee’s report, and, in any event, no later than the time specified by University policy. A copy of the Dean’s letter should be placed in the faculty member’s file.
  • 8.2.4            Assistant Professors:
  • 8.2.4.a                        Reappointments to the rank of Assistant Professor other than the continuation of appointment after the initial probationary period of one year shall be subject to APT Committee’s formal review of the candidate’s performance and of progress toward tenure. This review shall be performed in the last year of an Assistant Professor’s initial term.
  • 8.2.4.b                        It is the Dean’s responsibility to inform in writing both the Chair of the APT Committee and the candidate no later than May 1st of the need to institute the review for the coming fall semester.
  • 8.2.4.c                        It is the responsibility of the candidate for reappointment to provide the APT Committee with a dossier containing all the information he/she deems appropriate to support a positive review, including a curriculum vitae in the format prescribed by the University, a compilation of available course evaluations by students, peer reports of course visitations,  course material such as syllabi, course guides, etc., and a personal statement advocating the candidate’s case for reappointment and outlining his/her current and planned work. Ordinarily, the dossier shall be made available to the APT Committee no later than September 15.
  • 8.2.4.d                        In the review process, the APT Committee shall offer the opportunity to all full-time faculty members and students to contribute their opinions, judgments, and assessments of the candidate’s performance. Such contributions may be made through individual, private interviews or in writing. The APT Committee may, at its discretion, include such opinions in its report to the Dean. In this case, however, the report shall clearly separate the Committee’s own assessment from opinions received from the faculty at large and from students. In assessing a candidate’s performance, the review committees shall give primary consideration to activities since the date of the last appointment.
  • 8.2.4.e                        Unlike in reviews leading to tenure recommendations, the APT Committee shall not solicit evaluations from persons outside the University.
  • 8.2.4.f                        The APT Committee shall prepare a written report stating the committee’s vote and recommendation on whether to grant reappointment, and explaining the bases for its recommendation insofar as they were articulated in the discussions among members of the committee. This report and a copy of the candidate’s dossier shall be forwarded to the Dean.
  • 8.2.4.g                        In reappointments, the final decision is the Dean’s responsibility. The Dean shall communicate such decision in writing to the candidate and the APT Committee no later than fifteen days after receiving the committee’s report, and, in any event, no later than the time specified by University policy. If the contract is not renewed, the letter should specify the reasons for the decision. A copy of the Dean’s letter should be placed in the faculty member’s file. If it is deemed that the candidate’s performance is not satisfactory, and if the initial appointment was for two years, the appointment may be terminated at the end of the designated term if the appointee is so notified by December 15 of the second year. After the second year of the initial appointment, the appointee shall be given one full year's notice if it is the intention of the Dean not to renew the appointment. If the appointee does not receive timely notification of nonrenewal, the initial appointment shall be extended for one additional year.
  • 8.3            Promotions
  • 8.3.1            Promotions of Lecturers to the rank of Senior Lecturers; Assistant Professors or non-tenured Associate Professors to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure; and tenured Associate Professors to the rank of Professor are governed by guidelines issued by the Office of the Provost. These guidelines may be amended on a yearly basis and it is the responsibility of candidates for such promotions to familiarize themselves with, and strictly abide by, the current version of these guidelines. Candidates, administrators, and review committees shall comply with the deadlines established each academic year by the Office of the Provost. Guidelines and deadlines may be consulted on line at http://www.faculty.umd.edu/policies/APTprocedures.html.
  • 8.3.2            An Assistant Professor whose appointment is extended to a full six years shall receive a formal (mandatory) review for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure in the sixth year, although he/she may receive a formal review for tenure and be granted tenure earlier, as stated below.
  • An Associate Professor without tenure shall receive a formal (mandatory) review in the second year if appointed to a three-year term or in the third year if appointed to a four-year term.
  • A tenured Associate Professor shall receive a first formal APT review of the progress toward meeting the criteria for promotion to the rank of full Professor in the fifth year of his/her appointment in the rank of Associate Professor and every five years thereafter.
  • Faculty members shall be notified in writing, by the end of the appointment year in which the review was conducted, of the decision regarding promotion and/or tenure. A full-time appointee who has completed six consecutive years of service at the University as an Assistant Professor, or who is an Associate Professor without tenure, and who has been notified that tenure has been denied, shall be granted an additional and terminal one-year appointment in that rank, but, barring exceptional circumstances, shall receive no further consideration for tenure.
  • In the event that an Assistant Professor in his/her sixth year of service or an Associate Professor without tenure in the second and last year of appointment is not affirmatively awarded tenure by the President or otherwise notified of a positive tenure decision, he/she shall be granted a one-year terminal appointment.
  • 8.3.3            Mandatory promotion reviews shall conform to the timetable set by University policy and regulations. It is the Dean’s responsibility to inform in writing both the Chair of the APT Committee and the candidate no later than April 15 of the year preceding the APT review of any impending case of mandatory promotion review.
  • 8.3.4            Notwithstanding these requirements for mandatory reviews, faculty members have the right to request a promotion and/or tenure grant review at any time. Requests for promotion and award of tenure shall be addressed in writing to the Dean, with copy to the Chair of the APT Committee. The Dean or a faculty member may, with the candidate’s written consent, nominate him/her for early tenure award or promotion to full Professor. Such requests or nominations shall be made no later than April 15 of the year preceding the APT review.
  • 8.3.5            It is the responsibility of the candidate to provide the APT Committee no later than September 15 with a list of at least five external referees, a curriculum vitae that meets the requirements set forth by the Office of the Provost, printouts of results from course evaluation questionnaires, copies of course syllabi and other instructional material, copies of publications, a personal statement advocating the candidate’s case for promotion and outlining his/her current and planned work, and any other supporting documents that the candidate deems relevant to the case. Relevant information received after that date may be forwarded to the APT Committee at any time, but no later than fifteen days prior to the date in which the committee is scheduled to vote. The APT Committee or its designated subcommittee shall select a minimum of two external referees from the list provided by the candidate and a minimum of two referees from among individuals not on the candidate’s list.
  • 8.3.6            In the review process, the APT Committee shall offer the opportunity to all full-time faculty members and students to contribute their opinions, judgments, and assessments of the candidate’s performance and promise. Such contributions may be made through individual, private interviews or in writing. The APT Committee may, at its discretion, include such opinions in its report to the Dean. In this case, however, the report shall clearly separate the Committee’s own assessment from opinions received from the faculty at large and from students. In assessing a candidate’s performance, the review committees shall give primary consideration to activities since the date of the last appointment.
  • 8.3.7     In addition, the Chair of the APT Committee shall ask the director of the program or other unit in which the candidate serves for his/her written assessment of the candidate’s performance and promise. This letter is independent of any letters required of the Chair of the APT Committee by any provision of this Document and shall always accompany any such letters as an integral part of the candidate’s dossier.
  • 8.4            Optional Hearings
  • Ordinarily, APT reviews are based on the written material included in a candidate’s dossier. However, candidates who feel that a supplemental oral presentation may be useful may request a hearing. Such request shall be made in writing to the Chair of the APT Committee no later than September 15 of the year in which the review is to be conducted. Hearings scheduled under this provision shall be open to all School faculty.
  • 8.5            Confidentiality           
  • To protect the integrity of the review process, the privacy of candidates, and the free expression of faculty members’ and students’ opinions, it is essential that all communications and deliberations of the APT Committee and its designated subcommittees, as well as all reports from program or unit Directors, be conducted in the strictest confidentiality. Members of the APT Committee shall not discuss a candidate’s dossier, referees’ letters, or judgments offered by other faculty, staff, and students with anyone outside the committee. Reports of APT subcommittees or of the APT Committee to the Dean, as well as Directors’ reports to the APT and/or to the Dean, shall not be shown to, or discussed with a candidate, except in the case of the candidate’s personal statement or as stipulated in article 8.6 below.
  • 8.6            Notification to Candidates in Cases of Promotion           
  • Upon receipt of the APT report, the Dean shall within fifteen days of the date of the report: (1) inform the candidate whether the recommendation made by the APT Committee was positive or negative (including the number of faculty who voted for, against, and abstained), and (2) simultaneously present a letter to the candidate summarizing in general terms the nature of the considerations on which that recommendation was based and the Dean’s own decision and rationale.
  • Before the meeting between the candidate and the Dean, the Chair of the APT Committee shall review the summary letter prepared by the Dean in order to ensure that it accurately interprets the considerations regarded as relevant by the APT Committee. In the event that the Chair of the APT Committee and the Dean are unable to agree on the appropriate language and contents of the summary letter, each shall write a summary letter to the candidate and both letters will be given to the candidate at the same time.  A copy of all such letters shall be added to the candidate’s file as the case proceeds through higher levels of review.  In addition, the Dean’s letter shall be made available for review in the office of the Dean by any member of the APT Committee after it has been given to the candidate.

Appendix: Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure Calendar

Fall Semester

September 15            Re: Assistant Professors. Candidate responsible for making dossier available to the APT committee no later than this date. [8.2.4.c]

Re: Promotions. Candidates for mandatory promotion review must provide dossier to APT committee no later than this date. [8.3.5]

Re: Optional Hearings. Candidates for review who want to request a supplemental oral presentation must do so by this date. [8.4]

December 15            Re: Assistant Professors. If a two-year contract is to be terminated, Dean shall notify

candidate in writing no later than this date during the second year of the appointment. 

Initial appointment is extended for one year if candidate is not notified in a timely

manner. [8.2.4.g]

Spring Semester

February 15            Re: Research Associate, Senior Lecturers, & Professors of the Practice. Dean shall

inform APT Chair and candidate in writing of prospective review for reappointment no

later than this date. [8.2.3.a]

March 1            Re: Appointments. Assistant Professors during first year of appointment (probationary

year) shall be notified in writing by the Dean by this date if appointment is to be

terminated. [8.1.4]

April 15            Re: Promotions. Dean shall inform the faculty member to be reviewed and the APT Chair in writing of impending mandatory promotion reviews in the following academic year. [8.3.3.]

Re: Promotions. Nominations for early tenure or promotion to full Professor must be

made by the Dean or a faculty member by this date of the year proceeding APT review.

[8.3.4]

May 1                        Re: Assistant Professors. Dean shall inform faculty candidate and the APT Chair in

writing of need to institute reappointment review in the following academic year.

[8.2.3.b]

Re: Appointments to Research Associate, Senior Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor,

Professor, Professor of the Practice, and Emeritus Professor ranks: Dean shall inform the Chair of the

Apt Committee committee, in writing, ordinarily no later than forty-five days prior to the end of the

semester preceding the date of the prospective appointment, of the need to institute the review. [8.1.2]

Re: Reappointments of Research Associates, Senior Lecturers, and Professors of the Practice: Within

fifteen days of receipt of the APT report, Dean shall communicate his/her decision in writing to the

APT Committee and to the candidate. [8.2.3.f]

Re: Reappointments and Promotion. Within fifteen days of receipt of the APT report, Dean shall communicate his/her decision in writing to the APT Committee and to the candidate, and, if applicable, the candidate must be given the letter from the Chair of the APT Committee. [8.2.4.g & 8.6]

Re: Nonrenewal of Appointment: For Assistant Professors performing satisfactorily with multi-year appointment not to be renewed, Dean shall give one full year’s notice. [8.2.4.g]