Promotion and Tenure Procedures

for Tenure-track and Tenured Faculty

I.  General

A.  Guidelines for all policies and procedures affecting recommendations for promotion and/or tenure of tenure-track and tenured faculty shall be consistent with the principles, policies, and procedures set forth in the University of Missouri Collected Rules and Regulations Sections 310.020 Regulations Governing Application of Tenure and 320.035 Policy and Procedures for Promotion and Tenure, Policy Memorandum Number II-10 (revised version, January 1, 2008), or its equivalent.

B.  Any additional University and/or campus-wide guidelines not referenced in Section I.A. above shall be made available by the Provost to the faculty at the beginning of each academic year.

C.  In the event of inconsistency between the provisions of any of the Collected Rules and Regulations referenced above or the above-referenced campus procedures, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence to Board of Curators regulations over executive orders issued by the President and campus procedures established by the Chancellor or other campus officials and by giving precedence to executive orders issued by the president over campus procedures established by the Chancellor or other campus officials.

I I.  Procedure

A.  Department Level

1.   Recommendations for promotion and/or tenure for persons holding rank in an academic department shall be initiated in that department as described in Section 320.035A1.a of the Collected Rules and Regulations (hereafter "CRR").

2.   Each department chairperson shall assure there exists a departmental review procedure which shall provide for faculty participation consistent with those University-wide policies and campus-wide policies referenced in I.A. above.  In the promotion and/or tenure review process, the department chairperson shall attach to each dossier a copy of the departmental review procedure with specific references to faculty participation.  The department may establish special criteria for recommending promotion and/or tenure, providing that such special criteria conform to the general guidelines listed in Section I above.  The department chairperson shall make the procedures and criteria available to the faculty.

3.   All evidence relevant to a recommendation for promotion and/or tenure shall be directed to the department chairperson.

4.   The dossiers on candidates as assembled by the department chairperson shall at all times be available to the candidate (with the exception of confidential matter) and to the appropriate review committees at the college and campus level.  A reasonable period of time in advance of his/her action on the recommendations, the department chairperson shall advise all candidates so that the candidate may ensure the currency of information made available to the department chairperson.  The promotion and/or tenure dossiers as assembled in the department shall be considered complete (and closed) at the time of the chairperson’s action. The candidate may add no further documents to the dossier.  In the case of an appeal, the candidate must state his/her case based solely on the record already present in the dossier at the time the dossier was closed upon leaving the department, unless the dossier is amended according to Section II.B.4.c or section II.B.5.

 5.   After receiving the recommendation of the departmental promotion and tenure committee, the department chairperson shall then review all data submitted or received in regard to the proposed recommendation, including the recommendations of the departmental promotion and tenure committee.  The department chairperson shall communicate, in writing, the recommendations of the departmental promotion and tenure committee to the candidate.  In the event of a negative recommendation by the departmental promotion and tenure committee, the chairperson shall communicate in writing the reason(s) for that recommendation to the candidate, and the candidate shall have the option of preparing a rebuttal as described in Section III of this document.

6.   After reaching his/her recommendations, whether favorable or unfavorable, the department chairperson shall advise in writing each candidate of the recommendation with respect to their candidacy.  Further the department chairperson shall offer to discuss with the candidate involved any recommendation regarding promotion or tenure.   In the event of a negative recommendation, the candidate shall have the option of preparing a rebuttal as described in Section II.A.4 and Section III of this document.

7.   All recommendations by the department chairperson along with all documentation and attachments shall be forwarded to the Provost's office.  Each dossier shall follow the general outline available from the office of the Provost. Appendices of supporting material may be submitted, but should be assembled in a separate package.

B. Campus Level

1.   There shall be a campus review committee consisting of one faculty member from each academic department.  Elected faculty members shall be elected by a vote of their department and serve for a two-year period.

Membership of the campus review committee shall consist of full-time tenured full professors.  Any administrator with promotion and/or tenure decision-making authority over faculty members including, but not limited to, department chairs, provosts (as well as vice provosts), and the chancellor, shall not serve on the campus review committee.

Departments with an insufficient number of eligible full professors may substitute tenured associate professors who shall recuse themselves from voting on tenure for full professors and promotion to full professor.  Departments with an insufficient number of tenured professors must find a tenured faculty member to represent the department as suggested by the University of Missouri Collected Rules and Regulations 320.035 Policy and Procedures for Promotion and Tenure.

The campus review committee is further organized into area subcommittees whose membership is defined in Section II.B.8 of this document.

The Provost's office will provide administrative support to the campus review committee.

2.  At the start of the preceding spring semester, the Provost shall establish deadlines for the departmental recommendations, area subcommittee and campus review committee meetings, and responses in conformance with General Guidelines as defined in I.A. of this document.

3.  The campus review committee shall elect its own chair and shall establish procedures for reviewing recommendations brought to it by the Provost.

a.   Each area subcommittee shall review the relevant dossiers and provide a report including a vote to the area committee's respective Vice Provost and Dean (VP&D).  If the recommendation of the area subcommittee is negative, the VP&D shall inform the candidate in writing of this recommendation, together with the reason(s) for the recommendation, and the candidate shall then have a reasonable period of time to send an appeal to the Provost's office.  The Provost's office will insert the rebuttal/appeal into the dossier before submitting the  dossier to the VP&D.   Regardless of whether the area subcommittee's recommendation is positive or negative, the case proceeds to the VP&D for review and recommendation.

b.   When the Vice Provost and Dean has completed his/her review of the dossiers and prepared recommendations, the dossiers proceed to the campus committee for further review and recommendation.  If the recommendation of the VP&D is negative, the VP&D shall inform the candidate in writing of this recommendation, together with the reaons(s) for the recommendation, and the candidate shall then have a reasonable peroid of time to send an appeal to the Provost's office.  If the recommendation is positive, the VP&D shall inform the candidate of this recommendation.  If the candidate does not file an appeal, the dossier still proceeds to the campus committee for further review.

4.  The campus review committee shall first ascertain that all procedures and criteria used within the respective department conform to the General Guidelines listed in Section I.

a.   If the procedures and criteria used within the respective department do not conform to the General Guidelines, the campus review committee shall inform the department chair in writing and state what specific action the department must take and shall return all recommendations from the department without prejudice to any individual's recommendation, rebuttal or appeal.  The campus review committee shall then allow a reasonable period of time for compliance with or appeal to its decision.

b.   When the procedures and criteria used within the respective department conform to the General Guidelines, the campus review committee shall review each recommendation and/or appeal request.

c. The campus review committee may solicit whatever additional information its members deem appropriate, from within and outside the University, to evaluate the candidate under consideration in the areas of teaching, research, and service. Any new information deemed appropriate by any member of the campus review committee for possible inclusion in the dossier after the dossier has left the department but before the campus review committee has sent its report to the Provost shall be submitted for consideration to the entire campus review committee. If the campus review committee by a majority vote agrees that the material seems sufficiently important to warrant inclusion in the dossier, the candidate's dossier with the new material will be sent back to the department for review and recommendation as to the modified dossier.  The modified dossier will then again proceed up the promotion/tenure evaluative hierarchy.

5.  The campus review committee shall submit its promotion and/or tenure recommendations to the Provost.  The Provost shall communicate, in writing, the recommendations of the campus review committee to the candidate.  In the event of a negative recommendation from the campus review committee, the candidate shall have the option of preparing a rebuttal as described in Section II.A.4 and Section III of this document.

If an appeal is submitted to the Provost, the Provost may solicit additional information on his/her own.  If the Provost discovers something that he/she deems of sufficient importance to include in the dossier, he/she will inform the campus review committee, and the dossier shall be referred back to the candidate’s department for review and recommendation and then proceed up the evaluative promotion/tenure hierarchy.

6.  The Provost's review shall be consistent with the requirements of the University-wide and camups-wide policies referenced in Section I.A. above.  The Provost shall provide written notification to each candidate of the Provost's recommendation with respect to his/her candidacy.  Further the Provost shall offer to discuss with the candidate involved any decision regarding promotion and/or tenure.  In the event of a negative recommendation, the candidate shall have the option of preparing a rebuttal as described in Section II.A.4 and Section III of this document.  The Provost provides a written recommendation back to the campus review committee, which in turn, has the discretion to submit a supplemental report to the chancellor.  The Provost shall transmit to the Chancellor his/her promotion and/or tenure recommendations along with appropriate forms and supporting information.  If the Provost or Chancellor disagrees with any of the majority recommendations of the campus review committee, he/she may discuss the case(s) with the committee.  The purpose of such a meeting would be to increase mutual understanding of the case(s) in question, but in any event the decision to call or not call a meeting rests solely with the Provost or Chancellor.

7.  Recommendations from the campus review committee and decisions from the Chancellor follow the procedures described in the University-wide and campus-wide policies reference in Section I.A. above. 

8.   Procedures for the Establishment and Maintenance of Areas

a.   Area Subcommittees shall be proposed/reviewed by the Tenure Committee and submitted to the Faculty Senate (FS)

b.   The FS makes a recommendation to the Provost based on the proposal/review.

c.   The Provost refers the recommendation to the Committee of Department Chairs for review.

d.   The Council of Department Chairs (CDC), by their own procedures, finalizes area membership and reports to the Provost for inclusion in the P&T Procedures.

e.   On a yearly basis, the Tenure committee reviews the area membership and files a report with FS.  On a five year cycle, the Tenure committee proposes area changes (if any) -- Refer to Step 8.a.  New departments/programs or merger of departments/programs shall warrant immediate area committee reconsideration.

f.    Area Committees as of Spring Semester 2014

      The indicated departments shall comprise the following area committees:

•  Social Sciences: Business and Information Technology, Psychological Science, Economics. 

•  Sciences: Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Mathematics and Statistics, Physics.

•  Engineering: Chemical and Biological Engineering; Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering; Computer Science; Geological Sciences and Engineering; Materials Science and Engineering; Mining and Nuclear Engineering; Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering; Electrical and Computer Engineering; Engineering Management/Systems Engineering.

•  Arts and Humanities: Arts Languages and Philosophy, English and Technical Communication, History and Political Science.

III.  Requests for Reconsideration, Rebuttal or Appeal Policy and Procedure

Requests for reconsideration or rebuttal of recommendations for promotion or tenure, sometimes referenced as "appeals" in this document, will follow procedures outlined in University-wide and campus-wide policies referenced in Section I.A. above.

A candidate who receives a negative recommendation from any administrative officer or committee in the procedures described in Section II of this document will be informed by letter from the appropriate administrator or committee giving the recommendation, together with the reason(s) for the recommendation.  The candidate may request a meeting with said administrative officer making the recommendation.  The candidate will have a reasonable period of time to write a rebuttal to this letter in accordance with the conditions set forth above in Section.II.A.4. In the case of a negative recommendation, any letter requesting reconsideration or rebutting the recommendations goes to the Provost's office for inclusion in the dossier.  The modified dossier then goes to the area subcommittee for review and recommendation.  If the recommendation of the area subcommittee is negative, the candidate may file an appeal with the Provost's office for inclusion in the dossier.  The dossiers then proceed to the respective Vice Provost and Deans for review and recommendation.  If the recommendation of the area subcommittee is negative, the candidate may file an appeal with the Provost's office for inclusion in the dossier.  The dossiers then proceed to the respective Vice Provost and Deans for review and recommendation.  If the recommendation of the Vice Provost and Dean is negative, the candidate may seek reconsideration or submit a letter of rebuttal to the campus committee through the Provost.  The Provost at his/her discretion may ask a candidate seeking reconsideration or submitting a rebuttal to a recommendation of the campus review committee to appear before the campus review committee to state his/her case before the campus review committee, and the Provost, if he/she so chooses, may participate in that session. If the recommendation of the Provost is negative, the candidate may seek reconsideration or submit a rebuttal letter to the Provost with a copy to the Chancellor  (again in accordance with the conditions set forth above in Section II.A.4).

Regardless of whether the recommendation is positive or negative at any step, the dossier and rebuttal, if any, will move forward to the next step unless the faculty member wishes to withdraw from the process.

After the candidates are notified of the Chancellor's decisions about their respective cases for promotion and/or tenure, the Provost or Chancellor will provide input (within the constraints of confidentiality) to each department chair whose recommendation was overridden in the Chancellor's decision.  The purpose of this procedure is to provide the chairs with information which might be helpful when handling future promotion/tenure cases.

 Approved 10-23-14