PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE PROCEDURES
ARTS AND SCIENCES SENATE
Downloadable Version Available Here
[Amendments to PTC Guidelines Sections 220.127.116.11 and Appendix 8.2 were approved by the A&S Senate at its November 9th, 2020 meeting]
[Amendments to PTC Guidelines to Sections 2.4.1, 18.104.22.168, 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199, 2.5.8, 3.2, Appendix 8.3 and to add a Preamble were approved by the A&S Senate at its September 16th, 2019 meeting]
[Corrections of erroneous references to sections or information changed in previous amendments were approved by the A&S Senate at its 25 April 2011 meeting. Amendments to the Promotion and Tenure Committee Procedures regarding external evaluations from referees suggested by candidates (Section 188.8.131.52) and regarding procedures for resubmission of files (Sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.2.4) were approved by the A&S Senate at its 25 April 2011 meeting. Changes are indicated in bold.]
[Amendments to PTC Guidelines to 184.108.40.206. on Research Statements and 220.127.116.11 to Biographic file approved by the A&S Senate at its October 27th, 2008 meeting]
[Amendment to PTC Guidelines to 18.104.22.168 b) and 22.214.171.124 d) approved by the A&S Senate
at its April 28th, 2008 meeting]
[Amendment to PTC Guidelines for Additional Letters in the Special Evaluative File passed by the Arts and Sciences Senate at the general meeting on March 26, 2007: The following sections of the PTC guidelines are affected: Section 126.96.36.199 and Section 188.8.131.52]
[As revised by the Arts & Sciences Senate --April 2006 to section 2.6.4. As revised by the Arts and Sciences Senate -- February 1999 --with additional revisions to Section 4.4 and a new Section 7approved by the Arts and Sciences Senate at its April 2000 Meeting] - Section 2.6.4 revised and approved at 4/24/06 A&S Senate Meeting.]
The Promotion and Tenure Committees (PTC-J and PTC-S) are standing committees of the Arts and Sciences Senate. The PTCs serve four units: the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), the School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (SOMAS), the Division of the Libraries, and the School of Journalism. These Guidelines are to be used by all four units for the preparation of promotion and tenure files. The procedures described herein will be used by the PTCs to evaluate all files.
The PTCs are advisory committees to the Deans of each unit. The PTCs make recommendations, based on their review of the files, by voting as to whether they concur or do not concur with the recommendations made by the voting faculty of the unit.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. POLICIES ON PROMOTION AND CONTINUING APPOINTMENT
2. DEPARTMENT OR PROGRAM EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
3. NEW APPOINTMENTS
4. EVALUATION BY THE ARTS AND SCIENCES SENATE PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE
5. EVALUATION BY THE DEAN AND THE PROVOST
6. ACTION BY THE PRESIDENT
7. REVISION AND REVIEW OF THE GUIDELINES
These Procedures are intended to guide Departments in cases of:
1. Promotion (from within) OR Appointment (from without) to the rank of Associate Professor or Full Professor
2. Continuing Appointment (Tenure whether internally or for new appointments) \
1. POLICIES ON PROMOTION AND CONTINUING APPOINTMENT
The Policies of the Board of Trustees, State University of New York, Art. XII, Title A, paragraph 4 and Title B, paragraph 2, indicate the elements which should be weighed in evaluating candidates for promotion and/or continuing appointment (tenure):
"recommendations of academic employees, or their appropriate committees, or other appropriate sources may consider, but shall not be limited to consideration of, the following:
"(a) Mastery of subject matter -- as demonstrated by such things as advanced degrees, licenses, honors, awards and reputation in the subject matter field.
"(b) Effectiveness in teaching -- as demonstrated by such things as judgment of colleagues, development of teaching materials on new courses and student reaction, as determined from surveys, interviews and classroom observation.
"(c) Scholarly ability -- as demonstrated by such things as success in developing and carrying out significant research work in the subject matter field, contribution to the arts, publications and reputation among colleagues.
"(d) Effectiveness of University service -- as demonstrated by such things as College and University public service, committee work, administrative work, and work with students or community in addition to formal teacher-student relationships.
"(e) Continuing growth -- as demonstrated by such things as reading, research or other activities to keep abreast of current developments in his/her fields and being able to handle successfully increased responsibility."
To further the commitment to affirmative action at SUNY Stony Brook, the following additional criterion will be applied when evaluating candidates for promotion and/or continuing appointment (tenure):
"(f) Contributions to enriching the life of the University by correcting discrimination and encouraging diversity – as demonstrated by teaching, University service, or scholarship concerning women and minorities. Besides reports from professionals within a field, colleagues, and students, a candidate's effectiveness may be assessed by accepting a diverse range of publications and modes of service that address the contributions, interests and special needs of minorities or women and promote efforts to achieve equal opportunity.
1.2 Mandatory Review for Continuing Appointment
1.2.1 The Trustees' Policies (Article XI) also define the regulations on continuing
appointment: Professors and associate professors on a three-year term appointment
must be granted continuing appointment if reappointed at the end of that term. Assistant
professors and instructors reappointed in academic rank positions (professor, associate,
assistant and instructor) in the State University must be reappointed with continuing
appointment if they have completed seven years of service in a position or positions
of academic rank in the University. Satisfactory full-time service in academic rank
in any other accredited institution of higher education shall be credited as service
up to a maximum of three years, but waiver of all or part of this service credit shall
be granted upon written request of the employee to the chief administrative officer
not later than six months after the date of the initial appointment. Such requests
should be submitted to the department head for forwarding to the
1.2.2 Continuing appointment cases must be considered at least one year prior to the time when continuing appointment would become mandatory or when the final term appointment would expire (Policies, Art. XI, Title D, section 5).
1.2.3 Associate or full professors holding a term appointment must be reviewed for continuing appointment not later than the second year of service in that rank.
1.2.4 Assistant professors or instructors who have neither previously been reviewed for tenure at the State University of New York at Stony Brook nor submitted a letter of resignation, must be reviewed for continuing appointment not later than the sixth year of service in academic rank.
1.2.5 In computing consecutive years of service for the purposes of appointment or reappointment, periods of leave of absence at full salary shall be included; periods of leave of absence at partial salary or period beyond continuing appointment without salary and periods of part-time service shall not be included, but shall not be deemed an interruption of otherwise consecutive service.
1.3 New Appointments
1.3.1 New appointments at the senior level (Associate or Full Professor) and new part-time continuing appointments at the senior level are also to be reviewed by the Committee. Files for these appointments should adhere to the specifications given in section 3. Appointments for adjunct or visiting faculty are not reviewed by the Committee.
1.3.2 Files for new appointments should show evidence that affirmative action guidelines have been observed and that the best qualified candidate has been proposed. EEOC approval or disapproval must be obtained before the file is sent to the Committee.
2 DEPARTMENT OR PROGRAM EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
2.1 Initiation of Candidacy
2.1.1 The department chairperson (or program director) ordinarily initiates a candidacy
for promotion to higher rank, or for a continuing appointment or both, having obtained
the consent of the faculty member involved. The department chairperson is responsible
for the preparation of the candidacy file, although the responsibility of assembling
materials for the file may be delegated to an ad hoc committee. If this is the case,
the chairperson must consult with the candidate on the choice of the
faculty member named to head that committee. The ad hoc committee and the candidate shall be furnished with a copy of these Procedures, which will guide their work.
2.1.2 When consideration of continuing appointment is mandatory, the chairperson must notify the candidate and proceed with the evaluation unless the candidate submits a resignation, to take effect no later than the end of his or her term.
2.1.3 Except as noted in section 2.l.4, any individual faculty member of academic rank may with the approval of his/her department initiate his/her candidacy for promotion and/or continuing appointment at any time prior to either receiving notice of non-reappointment or submitting a resignation. This request must be communicated in writing to the chairperson by the candidate. The chairperson must then convene the department to consider the request. If the request for review is approved by the department, the candidacy file will be assembled by the chairperson in accordance with 2.1.1 above.
2.1.4 Reconsideration of a case in the year immediately following disapproval of a promotion or tenure recommendation is subject to review as provided in section 2.2.
2.1.5 If the department2 does not approve a faculty member's request for a review, the faculty member may appeal the decision to the Promotion and Tenure Committee after receiving written notification of the department's decision. The appeal must be accompanied by supporting documents.
2.2.1 If a case is presented again to the Promotion and Tenure Committee in the academic year directly following a negative or inconclusive outcome of a promotion or tenure recommendation, it shall be considered a re-submission.
2.2.2 When a letter of termination of employment has already been received, when a letter of resignation has been submitted and accepted, or when a non-mandatory case is being brought forward as a re-submission, the decision whether or not to submit or resubmit the case to the Promotion and Tenure Committee will be made by the department. Reconsideration of a resubmitted case should only be requested on the basis of strong evidence that a substantially higher level of achievement has been reached in the intervening year, which will be determined by majority vote of the appropriate faculty group based on documentation of the candidate’s recent achievements. If the department determines that there is strong evidence of substantially higher achievement, a new file should be prepared as described in section 2.2.3 for reconsideration by the department as specified in section 2.2.4. If the department decides that the evidence for substantially higher achievement is insufficient to warrant resubmission, the candidate may appeal this decision to the Promotion and Tenure Committee. If upon appeal the Committee rules that sufficient evidence does exist, the department will proceed as described in sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4.
2.2.3 Files for a resubmitted case should be presented in two parts.
Part I A copy of the candidacy file presented in the preceding year. Upon request, the original file can be retrieved from the Provost's office, cleared of supervisory letters added subsequent to Committee review, and transmitted to the Dean's office.
Part II An account of the change in professional status of the candidate since the previous submission containing a) a new curriculum vitae, b) new documentary materials, and c) additional solicited letters of reference from within and outside the University. This account will be divided into a biographic file and general and special evaluative files and will be prepared according to the present norms for preparing such files.
2.2.4 Whether or not a resubmitted case merits a new review will depend on the comparative evaluation of the contents of Parts I and II of the resubmitted file. Departmental evaluation of the resubmitted file shall follow the procedures specified in section 2.5 for regular candidacy files, including an updated departmental recommendation, an updated summary letter from the chairperson with emphasis on the recent achievement of the candidate, faculty signature sheets and vote tally sheet. If the department or program recommends promotion and/or continuing appointment by a two-thirds majority vote of the appropriate faculty group, Parts I and II of the file will be submitted to the Dean for transmittal to the Promotion and Tenure Committee. Evaluation of the resubmitted file shall then follow procedures specified in sections 4, 5, and 6. If the department fails to recommend re-submission, an appeal may be made to the chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee.
2.2.5 After two years, normal procedures for submission of candidacy files should be followed.
2.3 Announcement of Candidacy
The initiation of each candidacy for promotion and/or continuing appointment shall
be communicated in writing by the chairperson or director to all the faculty members
of the department or program. This written announcement shall include a statement
from the chairperson or director soliciting letters of comment from any member of
the University community. Such announcements must give each respondent the opportunity
to specify that the candidate may have access to her/his letter either
as it stands or with all reference to the identity of the source removed. If such permission is not given, a response will be considered confidential and will be placed in the special evaluative file (See section 2.4.5). A sample letter of announcement is supplied below in section 7.1. (p. 19).
2.4 The Candidacy File (Note: The following section pertains to internal cases; for outside appointments, see Section 3.)
2.4.1 The candidacy file contains three parts (see Appendix 8.3 for a detailed list of the content and organization of each):
A. The biographic file drawn up by the candidate.
This file is available to all who have a right to contribute to the evaluative files.
B. The general evaluative file containing confidential information that the candidate may review before the President's decision is made. This material is available to the appropriate faculty group, to the Promotion and Tenure Committee and to the higher academic administrators as well as to the candidate at the appropriate time.
C. The special evaluative file containing confidential material that is not accessible to the candidate, but only to the appropriate faculty, the Promotion and Tenure Committee and the higher academic administrators.
2.4.2 The department chairperson or program director shall be responsible for the preparation and collection of appropriate materials on each candidate for promotion and/or continuing appointment (see sec. 2.1.1). When the chairperson or director is a candidate, the administrator to whom the chairperson or program director reports shall be responsible for the preparation of the candidacy file. The candidacy file shall not be circulated to persons other than those specifically authorized to review it in accordance with these Procedures, with the exception that the biographic file may be made available to others at the request of the candidate. The candidacy file shall not be made a part of or be considered a part of the personnel file.
2.4.3 The Biographic File
184.108.40.206l Each candidate for promotion and/or continuing appointment shall prepare
a biographic file that will become part of the candidacy file (see Appendix section
8.5). The biographic file shall include the Committee Promotion-Tenure Biographic
Form and any other career information that the candidate believes to be relevant.
References to all scholarly works should be included in the list of publications.
Only work already published or accepted for publication should be on this list. References
to works accepted for
publication but not yet published should be accompanied by evidence of acceptance.
220.127.116.11 The list of publications should be broken down into the following categories:
l) books and monographs; 2) articles (refereed articles must be plainly marked and
distinguished from non-refereed articles; invited articles should also be identified;)
3) abstracts, book reviews; 4) miscellaneous published material (optional). If a book
is edited, then pages of text that have been written by the candidate should be indicated.
Abstracts should be so designated. In all instances, authors should be listed as they
are on the title page. If the profession follows a special convention for identifying
senior authorship, this should be so indicated. For creative artists, works should
be cited in accordance with the usual norms of the artist's profession. Thus, for
example, painters and sculptors will present a record of exhibitions in established
bona fide galleries; composers and playwrights will present a record of performances
18.104.22.168 Presentations that have not been published should be listed in the appropriate place and divided into the following categories:
1) invited scholarly lectures and symposia;
2) other lectures or presentations.
22.214.171.124 Representative copies of the candidate's scholarly work should be included, along with copies of published reviews and appraisals of the candidate's work. In addition, a scholarship statement should be included. The statement should begin with a brief description of the candidate’s scholarly work using language that is accessible to the non-specialist. This should be followed by a more detailed description of the scholarly work that may contain more technical language and that will be useful to colleagues in the candidate’s field who are evaluating the scholarship. The statement should be substantial enough to give the PTC and other readers a sense of the scope, significance, and future trajectory of the candidate’s work.
126.96.36.199 A statement on teaching goals and initiatives and a list of courses taught since the candidate's last appointment or promotion shall also be supplied. This list should indicate the title and number of the course, the enrollment, and the group for which it is intended (e.g. undergraduate majors, non-majors, first-year graduate students, etc.). This section of the file may appropriately contain representative course outlines and special teaching materials developed by the candidate. Any noteworthy initiatives in curriculum development should also be documented here.
188.8.131.52 Service contributions should be arranged in the following categories: a) departmental
service; b) University service (College level and above); c) professional service
outside the University; d) community service associated with field of specialization
or with the University. The account should plainly indicate dates of service and roles
taken (e.g. member, chair of committee) and should mention any special contribution
(e.g. prepared 56 page report on undergraduate curriculum reform).
When individuals have a lengthy record of service, the list may be limited to a representative selection of activities.
184.108.40.206 The completed biographic file with the dated signature of the candidate should be submitted to the department chairperson or program director.
2.4.4 The General Evaluative File
220.127.116.11 The general evaluative file will contain all supervisory evaluations. These include the reports of the Dean and the Provost as well as the chairperson's letter summarizing the views and recommendations of the appropriate faculty group, and the chairperson's own letter (if this is different from the former). These letters should provide a clear and specific summary of the case while still preserving the confidentiality of solicited opinions. This may be done by referring in the letters to "such and such a point raised by Professor X," or "the statement from Referee Y." A key identifying X and Y by name should be provided for these references and included in the special evaluative file, but not seen by the candidate. The general evaluative file will also contain the recommendation of the Promotion and Tenure Committee on the case.
18.104.22.168 [Note: Only newly hired faculty beginning in the 1999-2000 academic year will be expected to fulfill the following formulation. Candidates for continuing appointment and/or promotion hired prior to 1999-2000 may choose to have these criteria applied if agreed upon by both the candidate and the department. For those hired prior to the Fall of 1999, the PTC Guidelines in effect as of the Fall of 1998 apply.]
This division of the file will also contain a comprehensive evaluation of the candidate's teaching effectiveness, based on material gathered annually for all faculty members and including both undergraduate and graduate opinion, if applicable. The department should also make a periodic and detailed inquiry into students' perceptions of the candidate's teaching, including their sense of what they learned, its relation to their other skills, work in the field, or personal growth.
To this end, the documentation of teaching should include the following:
a) Numerical summaries of all op-scan forms for courses taught since the faculty's hiring or last promotion. These summaries should be clearly labeled with the course number and title, the semester in which the course was offered, the number of students enrolled in the course, and the number of responses to the questionnaire. A list of the course evaluations provided in the file should include a brief description of each course and its place in the program; whether it is required or elective; whether it draws majors, non-majors, or both; whether the candidate taught the whole course or only part of it; whether there was TA assistance and in what form.
b) Copies of individual op-scan forms with student comments. For small courses, all available copies should be provided. For large classes, representative samples should be taken. Representative means that the range of student opinion shall be reflected from positive commentary to reasonable critique.
c) Syllabi and other sample course material, such as exams and projects may be included but should be limited to examples from the time the course was most recently taught.
d) At least two reports of peer observations of classroom teaching. Both observers should be acceptable to the candidate. Both observers should be (1) selected by the department or committee that is preparing the file, (2) of higher rank than the candidate, (3) members of the candidate's department or in a related field, and (4) acceptable to the candidate. For promotions to full professor, both peer observations must be made within 1 year of the submission of the file. For promotions to associate professor with tenure, at least one peer observation must be made within 1 year of submission of the file. The other observation may have been made earlier (and may be the same one submitted for the pre-tenure review). If the candidate does not want to include the pre-tenure observation, s/he may request and must be granted a new observation to constitute one of the two required reports. In all cases, the two peer evaluations that will be submitted as part of the dossier should be provided to the candidate with signed releases by the evaluators. Regarding substantive content of the peer evaluations, it is not sufficient simply to note that the faculty member is a "good" teacher or to provide materials or data without evaluative discussion.
e) Written reports from present and former students. Solicited signed letters on teaching will be placed in the Special Evaluative File.
22.214.171.124 When writers of solicited letters have given permission for the candidate to see their letters, copies of their letters (either as written or with identity of source and authorship removed, as specified by the writer) will be included in the General Evaluative File. The originals will stand in the section of the Special Evaluative File that contains solicited evaluations from outside referees, colleagues and students.
2.4.5 The Special Evaluative File
126.96.36.199 This division of the file should contain all solicited recommendations (referees, faculty and students) other than those of supervisors of the candidate. It should contain substantive written evaluations from at least seven authorities from outside the University in all cases of promotion to higher rank or continuing appointment or both. The full authority for the selection of these letter writers for promotion and tenure lies with the faculty of the relevant academic unit. Faculty will solicit letters from scholars they deem to be the most qualified to provide an evaluation of the candidate. At least five of the letters must be from scholars who are not current or former collaborators, departmental colleagues, members of the candidate's graduate department during the time he or she was a graduate student, or recommended by the candidate. At least two of the letters must be from referees suggested by the candidate. These letters of evaluation should ordinarily not be more than two years old. All letters written in a language other than English must be accompanied by a translation. Each outside letter in the file should have attached to it a statement identifying the writer, explaining why she or he has been chosen to evaluate the case, and indicating the relationship, if any, with the candidate if that is not stated in the letter of reference. In lieu of a full CV for each external letter writer, an abridged CV, limited to 4 pages is recommended. It should highlight the letter writer’s achievements and expertise. Alternatively, a short (e.g., one page) biographical statement for each letter writer may be submitted.
188.8.131.52 The candidate may suggest a list of no more than five and no less than three referees from which the department will choose at least two. At least five other referees are to be chosen independently by the department.
184.108.40.206 The department should take care to choose a group of reviewers who can provide a comprehensive evaluation of the candidate's professional accomplishment. When the candidate's work spans more than one discipline or has a specific international component (e.g. foreign languages, study of foreign governments or social structures), care should be taken to engage specialists from the several disciplines or eminent scholars from the country whose culture is the object of investigation.
If for any reason an outside reviewer is unable to provide a careful evaluation, additional reviewers must be solicited to make up the required minimum. All correspondence to potential reviewers must be included in the file.
220.127.116.11 The letters sent by the chairperson or the chair of the ad hoc committee to solicit the referees' opinions should be accompanied by the candidate's curriculum vitae as well as by reprints and/or preprints selected by the candidate. The solicitation letter should contain all the substantive points included in the sample provided in section 8.2.
It should request the referee:
a) to include specific evaluation of the candidate's scholarly or professional achievements, especially with reference to the candidate's most recent work (rather than merely to comment on the general character or promise of the candidate),
b) to compare the candidate's scholarly or professional contributions with those of national or international leaders in the candidate's field who are at a comparable career stage,
c) to evaluate the candidate’s scholarly or professional achievements for a specific
time period (specific years noted) should the candidate have been given a “clock-stop”
d) to evaluate the candidate’s scholarly or professional achievements in the context of the impact of COVID-19 (beginning Spring 2020 and for as long as is appropriate/necessary),
e) to supply information when possible about the candidate's teaching effectiveness,
f) to comment on whether the candidate would be granted tenure and/or promotion in the reviewer's own institution.
g) to indicate whether his/her letter of evaluation is to be held confidential or whether the candidate may read it either as it stands or with all identification of source and writer expunged. Prospective writers must be told that confidentiality will be maintained to the extent possible under current legal principles unless they explicitly specify otherwise.
All letters soliciting opinions from outside authorities, all responses received from them, (including those who decline or are unable to write), and all solicited letters (those contributed under these procedures) from within the University must be included in the file.
18.104.22.168 At least 5 solicited, signed letters on teaching shall be included. The department should solicit opinion from colleagues who have observed the candidate's interaction with students, from present or past departmental directors of graduate or undergraduate studies, and from students who have been taught by the candidate, (current or former graduates or undergraduates).
Some departments delegate a responsible group of students to gather information and to prepare a comprehensive confidential report. Under no circumstances shall any student be pressured into writing on a case, and particular care shall be taken to insure that students feel free to choose whether or not to express an opinion.
22.214.171.124 When the candidate has engaged in teaching, research or service in the University, but outside of the department of appointment, letters from those in a position to evaluate these contributions should be included in the candidacy file.
2.5.1 An appropriate group of faculty shall be responsible for evaluating and making a recommendation on each candidate for promotion and/or continuing appointment. The appropriate group will vary according to the type of action being considered.
Promotion: All members of the department or program who are of higher rank than the candidate.
Continuing Appointment: All members of the department or program with a continuing appointment.
2.5.2 If in a case of continuing appointment or promotion the candidate's department or program is not large enough to form an appropriate group of seven members, such a group will be constituted by the Dean after consultation with the candidate's department chairperson or program director, the candidate, and the Advisory Committee of the Program.
2.5.3 The appropriate faculty group, in advance of making its recommendation, shall have ready access to the completed file nd to a copy of these Procedures. The file shall carry on its face the names of all those faculty eligible to consult it, with space rovided for their signatures. Each eligible faculty member consulting the file shall sign the cover sheet to indicate that his or her xamination of the file has been completed.
2.5.4 The appropriate faculty group, having examined the candidate's file, shall convene to make a recommendation in that case. Individual faculty are strongly urged to expand on their votes by writing letters for the file. Such letters will normally be addressed to the chairperson of the department. This may be done either in the case of positive or negative opinions.
2.5.5 Any department member who wishes to express his or her views about a departmental decision in writing may do so. These letters will be treated as solicited letters and must be included in the file reviewed by the faculty voting in this case. Departments should allow a suitable period of time after the meetings and vote on a case for letters stimulated by the discussions or solicited subsequent to them to be added to the file before the deadline for submission to the Committee (Section 2.6.4). In all such cases, the appropriate faculty group shall have an opportunity to review the letters and shall sign a cover sheet to indicate that they have seen the additional material. No department member(s) shall be hindered from contributing to a file while a case is under consideration after the departmental recommendation has been formulated so long as the eligible voting faculty has an opportunity to review the contribution.
2.5.6 A list of the appropriate faculty group bearing a tally of their votes (approve, disapprove or abstain) and their signatures shall be part of the special evaluative file. The Committee supplies a standard cover sheet for this purpose. Unless the Department has specific by-laws to the contrary, a positive outcome shall be defined as a positive recommendation by a majority of those eligible to vote.
2.5.7 After the vote has been taken, the department chairperson or program director shall write a letter stating the recommendation and providing a balanced summary of the views of the group. In addition, the letter should indicate how the person's research or creative work, teaching, and other activities relate to the mission of the department. To this letter shall be appended a signature sheet with the typed names of those faculty eligible to read it. Each person on the list shall sign to indicate that she or he has read the chair's or program director's summary letter.
The chairperson may submit a separate letter commenting upon the recommendation of the department, which shall be subject to review as stipulated in section 2.5.5. Both the summarizing letter and any additional letter from the chairperson form part of the general evaluative file and shall be drawn up in accordance with the guidelines specified in section 2.4.4.l.
2.5.8 The recommendation letter with its summary of departmental views and any additional letter from the chairperson or program director shall be considered a draft until reviewed in the Dean's office for confidentiality of solicited opinions as indicated in sec. 126.96.36.199. The chair or program director shall be responsible for any revision required to preserve confidentiality of solicited opinions. When a case involves continuing appointment, a copy of the chairperson's letter(s) shall be released to the candidate by the department chairperson immediately following review in the Dean's office and, if necessary, revision.
2.6 Submission to the Promotion and Tenure Committee
2.6.1 The department chairperson or program director is responsible for forwarding the completed file with the recommendation letter to the Dean for transmission to the Promotion and Tenure Committee.
2.6.2 The file should be organized as indicated in section 8.3. The material in the main files (biographic, general evaluative, and special evaluative) must be presented so that it will not become disordered during the review process. A loose-leaf binder in which sub-divisions are clearly marked is suggested. Additional materials, such as offprints, books, recent manuscripts may be presented in plainly marked envelopes or boxes.
2.6.3 The chairperson's or program director's recommendation letter is considered
a draft until reviewed for confidentiality of solicited opinions (see section 2.5.8).
2.6.4 September 15 is the deadline for receipt by the Dean’s office of all cases involving promotion to full professor. May 15 is the deadline for receipt by the Dean’s office of all cases in which the final term appointment (see section 1.2) expires at the end of a fall semester. January 15 is the deadline for receipt by the Dean’s office of all other cases. These deadlines reflect the time needed for files to be vetted by the Dean’s office, in accordance with section 2.5.8 of these guidelines, revised (as necessary) by the submitting department, and forwarded to the PTC. Departments and Programs have the obligation to observe these deadlines. Only in the case of competitive offers will the Committee consider extensions of the deadlines. New appointments are not subject to the deadlines for internal cases.
2.6.5 Where situations not covered by the Procedures specified in this section arise, the chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, the chairperson of the department or program involved, and the Dean shall consult to devise suitable means to deal with the case.
3. NEW APPOINTMENTS
3.1 Files for new appointments at senior rank with or without continuing appointment should contain a range of information commensurate with that required for internal cases. At a minimum, they must contain:
a) a complete, current curriculum vitae
b) information on teaching (see sec. 3.3)
c) copies of letters soliciting outside evaluations (see section 3.2)
d) letters from outside authorities evaluating the candidate's professional work and standing in the field (see section 3.2)
e) a letter from the departmental chair or program director summarizing the case for appointment (see section 3.4)
f) a tally of the votes of all those members of the department who would normally vote if this were an internal case (those of equal or higher rank, and all tenured faculty if continuing appointment is involved). If continuing appointment is involved, the voting group must include at least SEVEN tenured faculty. If the voting group is not sufficiently large, it will be augmented as for internal cases, as described in section 2.5.2.
Departments are encouraged to solicit letters from Stony Brook faculty in other departments or programs who are particularly well qualified to comment on the candidate's field of specialization and may expect to interact closely with the candidate. Letters from chairs of departments or programs to which the candidate is likely to contribute may also be solicited.
3.2 There must be a minimum of seven formal external letters of evaluation. At least five of these must be chosen by the department and must be from authorities who have neither worked with the candidate nor been suggested as referees by the candidate. Referees should be chosen with a view to documenting national and/or international reputation of the candidate. The full authority for the selection of these letter writers lies with the faculty of the relevant academic unit. Faculty will solicit letters from scholars they deem to be the most qualified to provide an evaluation of the candidate.
The other letters may be letters that were solicited by the candidate when they applied for the job at SBU. Those letter writers may simply submit an addendum to their letter that includes any relevant updated information.
The letters soliciting the evaluations must specify the proposed rank and indicate plainly whether or not tenure is involved. They must communicate the conditional nature of the situation ("We are considering a possible offer to Z of appointment as Associate Professor with tenure ..."). The body of the letter of solicitation should cover the same points as those for internal cases (see sec. 188.8.131.52) except that assurances on preservation of confidentiality will be unconditional. As in internal cases, each letter of evaluation should have attached to it a statement identifying the writer, explaining why she or he has been chosen to evaluate the case, and indicating the relationship, if any, with the candidate if that is not stated in the letter of reference.
3.3 The file must contain information about the candidate's teaching. Ordinarily this will include a list of courses taught in the last 5 years, and an account of graduate students trained. In addition, letters from colleagues or former students now in the profession, and summaries of student evaluations gathered regularly at the candidate's institution should be provided. The department must offer what information it can on expected teaching performance (observance of colloquia, discussions during the interview). This will be particularly important in the case of candidates who have little or no teaching experience. In all cases the summary letter should detail efforts to evaluate teaching performance.
3.4 The department should formally state its case for making the appointment at the proposed level and indicate explicitly how the candidate is expected to function within the program and interact with colleagues. The expected contribution to both undergraduate and graduate teaching programs should be made clear.
4 EVALUATION BY THE ARTS AND SCIENCES SENATE PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE
4.1 The Promotion and Tenure Committee will review and evaluate the file. Prior to reaching a decision the Committee may seek additional information, either on its own or through the agency of the Dean. Substantively new information affecting the evaluation of the candidate will be shared with the department in keeping with the principle of confidentiality respecting the sources of that information.
4.2 Members of the Committee who are in the candidate's department abstain from voting.
4.3 If a prior recommendation is not likely to be upheld by the Committee, the reasons
for such possible action will be summarized in writing and sent to the department
chairperson or program director. The Committee will then entertain a written response
from the department chairperson or program director within one week of its informing
the department or program of its likely decision not to uphold the prior recommendation.
After this communication, the Committee will formulate its formal
recommendation, which will follow the procedures outlined at the beginning of this section.
4.4 After completing its deliberations, the Committee will report its vote and recommendations
to the Administration. The report may include an explanation of the Committee's recommendations
if it is signed by each voting member of the Committee. The Committee will communicate
its recommendations to the department chairperson or program director after fourteen
days or when the President's action (see Section 6) is known, whichever occurs sooner.
The department chairperson
or the program director will communicate the Committee's recommendation to the candidate.
4.5 Apart from official communications by the Committee Chair, all members of the Committee are expected to maintain strict confidentiality about the deliberations of the Committee.
4.6 In all cases where files have been submitted by March 1, and have been acceptably completed according to the specifications given in these Procedures, the Committee's recommendation will be forwarded to the Dean not later than April 30.
5 EVALUATION BY THE DEAN AND THE PROVOST
5.1 The file is reviewed by the Dean, normally within two weeks of receipt. If the Dean does not agree with, or has questions about, the recommendation of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, that officer shall meet with the Committee to allow an exchange of ideas and opinions before completing his/her formal written recommendation. (NOTE: Files from the Marine Sciences Research Center, the Institute for Theoretical Physics, and the Division of Physical Education and Athletics go directly to the Provost.)
5.2 When a case involves continuing appointment, a copy of the Dean's letter of recommendation will be released to the candidate immediately.
5.3 The Dean will then send the file to the Provost, who, after formulating a recommendation, will forward the file to the President. If the Provost disagrees with, or has questions about, the recommendation of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, the Provost shall confer with the Committee before formulating a recommendation.
5.4 When a case involves continuing appointment, a copy of the Provost's letter of recommendation will be released to the candidate immediately.
5.5 If substantively new information affecting evaluation of the candidate is added to the file after it has been considered by the Promotion and Tenure Committee, this information will be communicated to the Committee and to the department. If so requested, the appropriate administrative officers will discuss such information with the Committee, which shall have the right to add to the file its subsequent reaction.
5.6 The Provost will notify the candidate that the file is being forwarded to the President and that it is available for review in the Office of the President in accordance with Article 31.6 of the U.U.P Agreement.
6 ACTION BY THE PRESIDENT
6.1 In cases involving the granting of continuing appointment, the President makes a recommendation to the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees. In all other cases, the President makes the final decision, based on the array of previous faculty and administrative recommendations together with the supporting materials in the file.
6.2 When the President disagrees with the Committee recommendation, the Senate requests that he or she consult with the Committee before making the final decision. Such consultation should be carried out as early as possible, preferably before the end of the term in which the file is submitted, to ensure a hearing by the full membership of the Committee.
6.3 A copy of the letter announcing the President's decision shall be sent to the Promotion and Tenure Committee at the time it is sent to the candidate.
7 REVISION AND REVIEW OF THE GUIDELINES
7.1 These Guidelines shall be reviewed by the Arts and Sciences Senate on a regular
basis. The Senate may make revisions to the Guidelines at its regular meetings. Proposals
for revisions to the Guidelines shall be included in advance in the Proposed Agenda
for a regular Senate meeting. Any changes to the Guidelines approved by the Senate
will be submitted to the University President for review and comment. Revisions will
be submitted to the President for review and approval prior to publication and implementation.
8.l Sample announcement of initiation of a candidacy for promotion and/or continuing appointment:
TO: All Faculty Members of (Title of Department or Program)
FROM: (Name of Chairperson or Program Director)
SUBJECT: Announcement of the Candidacy of (name of candidate)
Professor (name of candidate) candidate of the (department or program title) is a candidate for (enter appropriate terms).
Any member of the University Community, and especially any member of this department/program, is invited to write a letter commenting on this candidacy. Such letters will be made a part of the confidential evaluative file to be drawn up for this case. For your reference, the criteria for promotion and tenure, as stated in the Procedures of the Arts and Sciences Promotion and Tenure Committee, are attached. (Attach a copy of Section 1.1 of these Procedures). Under the collective bargaining agreement, your letter will be held in confidence and placed in the confidential section of the file unless you indicate specifically that the candidate may read your letter, either as it stands or with all identification as to its source deleted. If you state that you do not wish it to be read by the candidate, or if you do not explicitly authorize release to the candidate, your letter will be held in confidence and placed in the confidential section of the file.
8.2 Sample letter of solicitation for promotion and/or continuing appointment:
Dear Professor ______________:
We are considering the promotion of __________ from (rank) ___________ to (rank) _________with/without tenure. In order to help us reach a decision, we would appreciate your
candid assessment of Dr. __________ professional achievements and standing in the field of ___________. For your convenience a current curriculum vitae and representative sample of publications are enclosed. Please indicate to what extent you have had occasion to interact personally with the candidate.
We would especially value your expert opinion on the quality, originality and importance
of the candidate research and your estimation of how she/he compares in professional
accomplishments with others at similar stages in their career or holding comparable
academic rank. It would also be useful to know whether a candidate of Dr. __________
qualifications would probably be promoted/receive tenure at your institution. Any
other information you can supply regarding the candidate effectiveness
in teaching or her/his national or international reputation in her/his field of research would be greatly appreciated.
[Optional if appropriate] We ask that you evaluate the candidate on their achievements and contributions during the following time frame: ____________________. This reflects… [a clock-stop that was granted to the candidate during which expectations for productivity were relaxed – OR – an extension that was given to the candidate due to the impact of ___________].
In addition, beginning in the Spring 2020 semester, faculty across the University
experienced a significant disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In Spring 2020,
as a result of the health crisis, all faculty rapidly moved their courses online;
research facilities including labs, national facilities, archives, and libraries were
closed; and travel was suspended, limiting opportunities for professional visibility
and service. In conjunction with the disruptions experienced on-campus, many faculty
were working out of their homes while simultaneously providing childcare due to closures
of daycare facilities and K-12 schooling. With Stony Brook University being at the
initial epicenter in the US, several faculty also dealt with personal grief and/or
illness of themselves, family members, friends, and students. Research disruptions,
significant shifts in teaching modalities, limited childcare, and
remote work has persisted. We ask that you take this unprecedented event into consideration when evaluating work performed since spring 2020.
To the extent possible under current legal principles, the candidate will not have access to your letter of reference unless you give us specific permission, in writing, to provide a copy to him/her. Such a written statement of permission from you must specify whether the candidate may see your letter in its entirety, as written, or only with all identification of source or authorship deleted. If you are willing to grant the candidate access to your letter, please include one of the statements below at the end of your letter, following your signature and title:
______ The candidate may NOT read my letter of recommendation.
______ The candidate may read my letter of recommendation only if all identification as to its source is deleted.
______ The candidate may read my letter of recommendation as it stands.
If you do not include any of these statements, the candidate will not be granted access to your letter.
Thank you for your collegial assistance in helping us to reach an informed decision in this matter. My colleagues and I appreciate the time and care which you devote to this evaluation.
8.3 Suggested Order of Material in Files: Note: until an electronic system is in place, all files should be submitted as three bookmarked PDF files, corresponding to each of the sections below, to facilitate ease of PTC review.
Section 1: Biographical file
Section 2: General Evaluative file
Section 3: Special Evaluative file
A list of those who may review the file and comment on its contents should be attached to the complete file.
8.4 Biographic File
The PTC recognizes that this means that the committee is now responsible for proposing and implementing any changes to the biographical files. Anyone who wishes to propose changes should contact the PTC.
Web ver. 9909; with additional revisions passed at 4.17.00 Senate meeting (hjs)