Clinical-track Promotion Procedures

Contents
General Principles
Definitions
Basis of Evaluation: The Promotion Record
Other Considerations

Promotion Decision Making Procedures
Department
College
University

Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E

Approved December 15, 2023

General Principles

The Procedures for Clinical-track Promotion Decision Making establish a uniform system of procedures for evaluating the progress of Clinical Track faculty in the College of Education. These procedures rely upon several principles:

Decisions granting or denying promotion should be based on a written record of achievement.
The content of the record that will be relied upon should be known by the candidate and the decision makers, except as otherwise provided for in these Procedures.
Except for variation related to the nature of the candidate’s academic activity, the content of the record should be the same for all candidates in the same academic unit.
The governing procedures should be the same for all candidates across the University, except where conditions or academic cultures justify variation among colleges or among departments in the college.
University and Collegiate Procedures should be applied consistently to all candidates.
Each faculty member participating in the promotion decision-making process may do so at only one level of the process: departmental, collegiate, or provostial. Faculty with collegiate or provostial administrative appointments of 50% or greater shall participate in their administrative office, except in rare and special circumstances at the discretion of the Provost.

Consistent with the University’s Clinical Track Faculty Policy as stated in the University Operations Manual, Section III-10.9, non-tenure track faculty may be appointed and promoted in the College of Education as provided in other procedures (Clinical Track Faculty Appointment and Review Policy). The goal of such appointments is to allow for variation or flexibility to adjust programs in order to meet the changing needs of students and society. Clinical faculty hold service positions through which they contribute to the mission of the University. Clinical faculty are not eligible for tenure.

1. Definitions

The term “professional productivity” refers to professional works and activities as described in section I.B.(3)(d)(ii-vii) of these Procedures.

A “candidate” is any salaried clinical-track faculty member who has indicated his or her interest in being reviewed for promotion consistent with the written procedures that are described below.

The “dossier” is the set of primary materials assembled by the candidate as described in section I.B.(3). The dossier contains appendices all or part of which may be transmitted with the dossier to successive participants in the process.

The “Promotion Record” is the dossier plus all of the materials that are added to it and transmitted to successive participants in the evaluation process. See section I.B.(4).

The “Departmental Review Committee” (DRC) consists of three faculty appointed by the DEO who will name one faculty member as chair. The Departmental Review Committee will evaluate the teaching, professional productivity and service of the candidates who are being considered for promotion in their department.

The “Departmental Consulting Group” (DCG) consists of all tenured, tenure-track, clinical track, and instructional track faculty at or above the rank being sought by the candidate, excluding the collegiate Dean and Provost, faculty with collegiate or provostial administrative appointments of 50% or greater, and any faculty member with a disqualifying conflict of interest. If there are fewer than four eligible faculty and/or if there are no eligible clinical-track faculty to serve as members of the DCG, the Dean, in consultation with the eligible faculty, will identify additional faculty outside the department so that the DCG consists of a minimum of four faculty and has clinical-track faculty representation. The Dean may elect to add additional clinical-track faculty from outside the department.

The “Collegiate Consulting Group” (CCG) consists of faculty appointed by the Dean in consultation with the Departmental Executive Officers (DEOs). The Collegiate Consulting Group will consist of four or five tenured full professors in the College appointed to the Group for a three-year term. Each DEO will forward the name of a departmental representative to the Dean, who may appoint one full professor at large for the purpose of creating additional perspectives and diversity in the Group’s deliberations. The Dean will appoint a chair of the Group from among its members. When the CCG is to consider a promotion request from a clinical faculty member, the Dean will appoint a clinical professor to fully participate in the Group discussion, vote, and recommendation. The full membership is to be established no later than October 15. (see section II.B. for a description of the duties of the CCG).

The term “Departmental Executive Officer” or “DEO” throughout the Procedures refers to the person or entity who has been expressly designated to perform one or more of the functions assigned by these Procedures to the DEO. The duties are described in section I. Department Level Procedures.

“Participate” means to have input into a promotion decision, including but not limited to such activities as preparing a written report or review of the candidate’s work, participating in a formal discussion of the candidate’s qualifications, voting on a recommendation for or against promotion, or providing consultation except as provided for elsewhere in these procedures.

II. The Basis for Evaluation: The Promotion Record

The qualifications of a candidate for promotion will be determined on the basis of the Promotion Record, which, when it reaches the Office of the Provost, will consist of the following material preferably in the order listed:

the “Recommendation for Faculty Promotion” cover sheet (see Appendix B);
the collegiate Dean’s letter making a recommendation to the Provost;
the recommendation, vote, and report of the CCG;
the DEO’s letter making a recommendation to the Dean;
the recommendation, vote and report of the DCG;
any letters or written response submitted by the candidate at specified stages of the process to correct errors in the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, professional productivity, and service, or to respond to a letter or report of the DEO, DCG, Dean, or CCG.
the candidate’s Curriculum Vitae (CV) in the college’s standard format which documents the candidate’s educational and professional history;
a section on the candidate’s teaching, including
1. the candidate’s personal statement on teaching,
2. documentation of peer evaluation of the candidate’s teaching, and
3. all other materials related to the candidate’s teaching, including those specified in section I.B.(3)(c).
a section on the candidate’s professional productivity, including
1. the candidate’s personal statement on professional productivity,
2. documentation of internal and external peer evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity, and
3. all other materials related to the candidate’s professional productivity, including those specified in section I.B.(3)(d).
a section on the candidate’s clinical and other service, including
1. the candidate’s personal statement on service,
2. documentation of internal and external peer evaluation of the candidate’s service, and
3. all other materials related to the candidate’s service, including those specified in section I.B.(3)(e)
supplementary material to be added to the Promotion Record as expressly provided in the college procedures, entered in the appropriate section of the Record. Material added to the original dossier or materials in the original dossier that are amended, should be labeled as such, including the date when added or amended and with amendments clearly marked.

III. Other Considerations

Any candidate who wants to be considered for promotion must inform the Departmental Executive Officer (DEO) in writing no later than May 31 of the intent to submit a dossier for the next academic year. The DEO will then inform the Dean no later than June 1. At the same time, the candidate must suggest external reviewers to the DEO and submit materials for external review. Later additions can be sent to External Reviewers at the candidate’s request.

A candidate has the right to withdraw his or her dossier from further consideration at any point before the Provost has made his/her final decision regarding promotion. If a candidate withdraws his or her dossier from further consideration, the original dossier, including appendices and any supplemental materials added by the candidate, shall be returned to the candidate. All other materials in the Promotion Record at the time of withdrawal shall be returned to the candidate’s department, which shall retain them following the normal departmental or collegiate schedule for retention of promotion materials. The candidate shall not have access to these materials.

In the case of joint-appointment candidacy for promotion, the departments involved will follow the Procedures described in Appendix E of this document.

These Procedures apply to clinical-track faculty only.

Promotion Decision Making Procedures

Graphic representation of procedures listed below.

I. Department Level Procedures

It is the DEO’s responsibility to inform the candidate in writing in the year of appointment to a salaried clinical track position, in the year of any contract renewal, and at the beginning of the academic year in which the promotion decision will be made of the material that is required to be included in the promotion dossier, and of the candidate’s responsibility to compile and submit the dossier by the specific date in the academic year of the promotion decision.
The Dossier
1. It is the candidate’s responsibility, with the advice of the DEO, to compile and submit substantive material for inclusion in the promotion dossier (the core of the Promotion Record) on or before September 1. To assist candidates, after receiving notification that the candidate is seeking promotion, the Dean’s Office will provide an electronic document library and instructions to be used in preparing the dossier. The formal dossier and the appendices must be submitted by uploading dossier materials to the Faculty Electronic Promotion Record (EPR).
2. It is the responsibility of the DEO to advise the candidate in compiling material for the dossier, to complete the compilation of the dossier (and subsequently to complete compilation of the Promotion Record by adding materials to it throughout the decision-making process), and to ensure to the greatest extent possible that the Promotion Record serves as a fair and accurate evaluation of the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, and is not purely a record of advocacy for the candidate. The responsibility to advise the candidate in compiling the dossier material is not limited to the immediate period of the promotion review, but rather is an ongoing responsibility that begins when the faculty member is appointed to the department.
3. The dossier will contain the following, in the order listed unless otherwise noted. A current CV in the college’s standard format may be used in place of the individual items listed below; provided that either all the listed elements are contained in the CV or any missing elements are supplied separately.
  1. the “Recommendation for Faculty Promotion” cover sheet, with the section completed that is to be filled out by the candidate (see Appendix B);
  2. a record of the candidate’s educational and professional history (C.V.), including at least the following sections, preferably in the order listed:
    1. a list of institutions of higher education attended, preferably from most to least recent, indicating for each one the name of the institution, dates attended, field of study, degree obtained, and date the degree was awarded;
    2. a list of professional and academic positions held, preferably from most to least recent, indicating for each one the title of the position, the dates of service, and the location or institution at which the position was held; and
    3. a list of honors, awards, recognitions, and outstanding achievements, preferably from most to least recent.
  3. a record of the candidate’s teaching at The University of Iowa, including:
    1. the candidate’s personal statement on teaching, consisting of a summary and explanation—normally not to exceed three pages—of the candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning teaching, and comments on those accomplishments and plans and on other items included in the dossier related to teaching;
    2. a list of the candidate’s clinical teaching as it occurs in the context of the delivery of professional services to individuals or clients, preferably from most to least recent;
    3. a list of the candidate’s teaching assignments on a semester-by-semester basis, preferably from most to least recent;
    4. a list of graduate students, fellows, or other postdoctoral students supervised, if any, including each student’s name, degree objective, and first post-graduate position;
    5. a list of other contributions to instructional programs;
    6. copies of course materials, including syllabi, instructional Web pages, computer laboratory materials, and so forth
    7. a summary of student evaluations of teaching for each item when used repeatedly in a given course
    8. and, as an appendix to the dossier, copies of teaching evaluations by students (the candidate will include all student teaching evaluations in her or his custody for each course taught);
  4. a record of the candidate’s professional productivity, including:
    1. the candidate’s personal statement on professional productivity consisting of a summary and explanation—normally not to exceed three pages—of the candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning professional productivity, and comments on these accomplishments and plans and on other items included in the dossier related to the professional productivity;
    2. a list of invited lectures and conference presentations;
    3. a list of conferences for which the candidate has organized symposia, workshops, and so forth;
    4. a list of journals for which the candidate has been a member of the editorial board or served as editor;
    5. a list, preferably from most to least recent, of the candidate’s publications or creative works with, for each multi-authored work or coherent series of multi-authored works, a brief statement of the candidate’s contribution to the work or series of works;
    6. a list of attained support including grants and contracts received by the candidate;
    7. a description of any other products and activities demonstrating professional productivity as defined by the college’s written Procedures on promotion decision making;
    8. a list of pending decisions regarding the candidate’s professional productivity that might affect the promotion deliberations; and,
    9. as an appendix to the dossier, copies of materials documenting the candidate’s professional productivity.
      Research or creative scholarship is not required for promotion on the clinical track unless expectations pertaining to research and creative scholarship were specified in the initial appointment or subsequent modifications of the initial appointment; however, publications, grants, and other types of research and creative activity may provide evidence of professional activity.
  5. a record of the candidate’s clinical and other service to the department, college, university, profession, and community, including:
    1. the candidate’s personal statement on service including both their clinical service and other types of service (consisting of a summary and explanation—normally not to exceed three pages—of the candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning clinical service and other service, and comments on these accomplishments and plans and on other items included in the dossier related to clinical and other service);
    2. a list, preferably from most to least recent, of clinical service activities in each of the years since the last promotion;
    3. a list, preferably from most to least recent, of other departmental, collegiate, or university service positions;
    4. a list, preferably from most to least recent, of relevant community involvement;
    5. a list, preferably from most to least recent, of officers held in professional organizations;
    6. a list, preferably from most to least recent, of service on review panels; and
    7. a list, preferably from most to least recent, of any service contributions not listed elsewhere.
  6. within the appropriate section(s) of the dossier as listed above, other information relevant to the candidate’s record in teaching, professional productivity, or clinical or other service that is deemed to be important in the candidate’s judgment or required by the college’s written Procedures governing promotion decision making.
4. Where the volume of material of a particular kind which is required to be included in the dossier is large and potentially unmanageable, a candidate, in consultation with the DEO, may select and identify representative portions of the required material for special attention. Only the material selected as representative will become part of the Promotion Record and will be transmitted to successive participants in the promotion decision-making process. Required materials segregated from the representative material will be available for review and will be located in a readily accessible location under the DEO’s custody. If any participant in the promotion decision-making process relies upon initially segregated material in preparing a written evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications, that material should be added to the Promotion Record, the fact of that addition should be noted in the written evaluation, and the candidate should be notified in writing of the addition at the time it is made.
5. The candidate’s work in progress that is not completed by the specified date but that is anticipated to be completed in the fall—early enough for full and deliberate evaluation, as determined by the DEO—may be identified at the same time the dossier is submitted and added to the dossier if and when it is completed.
6. Other materials (including updated CVs and personal statements) that could not have been available by the specified date but which are completed early enough for full and deliberate evaluation may be added to the promotion dossier by the candidate through the DEO. Materials added to the original dossier or materials in the original dossier that are amended, should be labeled as such, including the date when added or amended and with any amendments early marked.
It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, professional productivity, and clinical and other service as described in the following sections, D - F.
Evaluation of the Candidate’s Teaching
1. It is the candidate's responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluations of the candidate's teaching by participating in the following process:
  1. observations of the candidate's teaching are to be of classes taught during the fall semester of the review year or during the previous academic year. At least two different peer reviewers must observe the candidate’s teaching for a minimum of two observations. These two observations must be of two different class instances. Each observer must consult with the candidate about the details of the observer’s plans so as to avoid an undue burden on the candidate or observer and to avoid disrupting any observed class or other teaching situation.
    1. the preferred format for teaching observations is for a candidate to be observed teaching real-time (in person or online) in a class where they serve as the primary instructor. As many observations as possible should be in this format. An observer may also observe a class where the candidate is not the primary instructor but serves as such during the observation, watch an unedited videorecording of a class, and/or examine the website and materials associated with a class delivered asynchronously online.
    2. each teaching observation must include an examination of course syllabi and other course materials sought from the candidate. Whenever possible and for at least one observation, the observation must include discussion (in the candidate’s absence) or written communication with students in the observed class about their experiences in the class.
    3. at the request of the candidate, teaching observations may occur during the academic year prior to the promotion and tenure review. In this case, observers are to be named by the DEO. Each observer will prepare and sign a written report for the DEO who will share the results with the candidate and, in the fall semester, with the Department Review Committee. These reports are intended to go beyond a mere description of what the candidate has included in the dossier and provide a thorough evaluation of the quantity and quality of the candidate’s teaching from a departmental perspective.
    4. the candidate may elect to have the teaching observations occur during the fall semester of the review year. In this case, the two non-chair members of the Department Review Committee will provide the observations, and each will prepare a written report.
  2. Department Review Committee evaluations of the candidate's teaching will be contained in a report that analyzes the relevant materials in the Promotion Record and will include these elements: a summary analysis of the teaching observations;
    1. a comparative analysis of the quality of the candidate's teaching in the context of the candidate's department or unit;
    2. a summary analysis of the student evaluations of teaching contained in the promotion record, including department average comparison data where possible;
    3. a description, where appropriate, of the balance between the candidate's undergraduate and graduate teaching;
    4. a description and assessment of the candidate's academic advising responsibilities;
    5. a consideration of any special circumstances concerning the faculty member's teaching performance;
    6. a summary analysis of supporting materials including course syllabi and other course materials.
  3. The Department Review Committee will submit their report to the DEO to become part of the Promotion Record.
2. Letters from Undergraduate and Graduate Students in the Promotion Decisions
  1. In addition to the above, DEO’s may ask the candidate to supply a representative list of students with whom the candidate has worked in professional situations that allow mentoring or advising. After viewing the list provided, the DEO may ask for more student names if the list is deemed to be insufficiently representative. The DEO will then write to all the students listed asking for a written, confidential evaluation of the candidate’s skills as a graduate mentor and advisor. The letters would be sent directly to the DEO and would become part of the promotion record reviewed by the Departmental Consulting Group, the Collegiate Consulting Group, the Dean, and the Provost.
  2. Such letters are meant to supplement, but not replace other forms of student evaluation of teaching as listed in I. B.(3)(c).
  3. The candidate will have access to these letters only if there has been a negative recommendation, only if the candidate requests them, and only after they have been redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of the students.
  4. Within the College, these letters are permissible but not mandatory. Departments may choose independently whether to require the letters; however, each department must endorse and follow consistent procedures within that department for every candidate considered for promotion.
  5. No unsolicited letters evaluating the candidate’s teaching, whether signed or anonymous, will be entered into the Promotion Record.
It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity by participating in the following process:
1. An internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity will be carried out by the Departmental Review Committee whose members will analyze the relevant materials in the Promotion Record.
2. The faculty members who perform the internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity will enter their report into the section of the Promotion Record that is dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity. The report will contain the following elements:
  1. a statement concerning the norms for professional productivity in the relevant field,
  2. a brief description of the quality of conferences, institutions, journals, or other fora in which the candidate’s work has appeared or been presented, and
  3. statements concerning any other activities representing professional productivity that would be helpful in understanding the nature and quality of these activities.
It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s clinical and other service by participating in the following process:
1. An internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s clinical or other service will be carried out by the Departmental Review Committee whose members will analyze the relevant materials in the Promotion Record. In circumstances when the review cannot be made entirely by faculty peers, the candidate must receive written approval from the Provost for the use of non-faculty peer reviewers. The request for approval must be justified by and contained in a written request from the Dean.
2. The peer evaluation of the candidate’s clinical and other service will be contained in a report that analyzes and evaluates the relevant materials in the Promotion Record, and will include a comparative analysis of the quality of the candidate’s clinical and other service in the context of the expected service contributions in the department and the profession.
3. The individuals who perform the peer evaluation of the candidate’s clinical and other service will enter their report into the section of the Promotion Record that is dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s service.
It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining external peer evaluations of the candidate’s professional productivity and/or clinical and other service by participating in the following process:
1. The DEO will solicit from the candidate a list of appropriate reviewers external to the department, college and/or university who by virtue of their professional expertise can evaluate the professional productivity of the candidate. External reviewers may come from peer institutions (e.g. AAU, CIC or Big Ten, major public, Carnegie Research 1) or institutions, organizations or professional bodies in which the corresponding department or individual evaluator is of peer quality (see Item 4). Selection of external reviewers will begin during the month of June immediately preceding the academic year in which the promotion decision will be made. At least five (but no more than eight) external evaluators will be identified. The candidate and DEO will select a representative sample of the candidate’s work to be sent to each reviewer. A minimum of four completed reviews must be included in the dossier.
2. The DEO will give the list to the Departmental Review Committee who may add other potential external reviewers and return the completed list to the DEO.
3. The DEO will share the completed list of potential external reviewers with the candidate. If the candidate feels that any potential external reviewer on the list might be unfairly biased, the candidate may prepare a written objection and give it to the DEO, who will take the objection into consideration when selecting external reviewers.
4. In identifying potential external reviewers, all participants in the selection process will take into account the standing of the prospective reviewer, the likely knowledge and expertise of the reviewer, the apparent impartiality of the reviewer, and the contribution of the reviewer to achieving an overall “balanced” review among the reviewers on any criterion for which there might be a range of perspectives. It is understood that external reviewers for clinical appointments may be appropriately drawn from a range of institutions where duties and responsibilities of clinical faculty are similar to those in the College. It is critical to avoid any situation in which a personal and/or professional relationship (including advising, mentoring, co-authoring, etc.) between the candidate and a prospective reviewer could undermine the reviewer’s apparent impartiality.
5. The DEO will determine, in consultation with the Dean, which of the potential external reviewers will be asked to provide a letter of review.
6. The DEO, using a form letter that substantially conforms to the sample letter contained in the Appendix, will ask the reviewers to provide an assessment of the quality and quantity of the candidate’s professional productivity and clinical service and other service activities.
7. After or in anticipation of an invitation to an external reviewer to evaluate the candidate’s professional productivity, neither the candidate no any other faculty other than the DEO or Dean will communicate with the reviewer concerning the subject of the review or the review process.
8. The DEO will keep a record (separate from the promotion record) of:
  1. the list of suggested reviewers,
  2. the names of persons invited to review
  3. the names of actual reviewers,
  4. comments submitted by the candidate, the DEO, and the internal faculty reviewers,
  5. correspondence and other communications between the DEO or Dean and invited reviewers and actual reviewers.
9. All letters received from external reviewers will be entered by the DEO into the dossier in the section dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship, along with
  1. a list of all invited reviewers—indicating whether the reviewer was suggested by the candidate, the DEO or the Departmental Review Committee—and a brief explanation of why any invited reviewer declined;
  2. the candidate’s written objection to any potential external reviewer on the basis of unfair bias, if a letter was solicited from the reviewer over the candidate’s written objection;
  3. a copy of the letter or letters of solicitation sent by the DEO to external reviewers;
  4. a brief description prepared by the DEO of each external reviewer’s qualifications;
  5. a statement by the DEO of how the reviewer knew the candidate’s work, if it is not obvious from the reviewer’s letter; and
  6. an explanation of why the choice of a reviewer was made, if the reviewer is not from a peer institution (e.g. AAU, CIC or Big Ten, major public, Carnegie Research 1) but from an institution, organization or professional body where the corresponding department of individual evaluator is of peer quality.
The candidate will be given an opportunity to respond to the internal peer evaluations as follows:
1. The DEO will send the candidate a copy of the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, professional productivity, and clinical and other service that have been entered into the appropriate sections of the Promotion Record.
2. The candidate will be allowed six working days to access the internal peer evaluations, and six working days to submit in writing any corrections to factual errors in the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, professional productivity, and clinical or other service.
3. If the candidate submits a letter correcting factual errors in the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, professional productivity, and clinical and other service, the DEO will enter it into the Promotion Record.
The Departmental Consulting Group will participate in the promotion decision-making process as follows:
1. Following the principle that each individual participating in the promotion decision-making process may vote for or against the granting of promotion to a candidate only once, DCG members who are also members of the CCG will participate in the promotion decision making for a candidate from their department at the department level and may not participate in the CCG’s deliberations or voting in regard to that candidate.
2. The DEO may attend the meetings of the DCG, but may not vote, participate in the discussion other than to provide factual information, or contribute to the written report summarizing its discussion.
3. The Promotion Record available to the DCG will consist of the candidate’s dossier with appendices (materials documenting professional productivity and student teaching evaluations, including those student teaching evaluations added to the Promotion Record by the DEO); the internal and external peer evaluations of professional productivity, teaching, and service, entered into the appropriate sections of the Record; and the candidate’s letter correcting factual errors in the internal peer evaluations, if any. The location of the Promotion Record is under joint management and custody of the DCG and DEO (section I.B.(4)) until it is transmitted to the Dean’s Office.
4. The DCG will meet to discuss the candidate’s qualifications, to vote by secret ballot for or against the granting of promotion, and to assign one or more of its members to prepare a summary report of the discussion, document the final vote, and enter that information into the Promotion Record. The summary report will contain recommendation for or against the granting of promotion based on a simple majority vote that defines a positive recommendation for promotion. This report shall not reiterate the details of the internal and external peer reviewers or restate other material already in the dossier; rather, it shall identify those specific aspects of the dossier that formed the basis of the DCG recommendation.
5. The results of the DCG’s vote and the summary report of its discussion and its recommendation for or against the promotion will be transmitted to the DEO as part of the candidate’s Promotion Record and also provided to the candidate, redacted as needed by those who prepared the summary report to protect the confidentiality of any individual contributions, whether from students, external reviewers, or University of Iowa faculty members.
6. The candidate will be allowed six working days to access the DCG summary report and six working days to submit to the DEO a letter correcting factual errors about the candidate’s record in the DCG summary report of its discussion.
7. If the candidate submits a letter correcting factual errors about the candidate’s record in the DCG’s summary report, the DEO will enter it into the Promotion Record before making a recommendation to the Dean.
The DEO will participate in the promotion decision-making process as follows:
1. Based on the Promotion Record, the DEO will recommend that promotion be granted or denied in a separate letter to the collegiate Dean for each candidate.
2. As with the DCG report, the DEO’s letter to the Dean should not reiterate the details of material that already is in the dossier. Rather, it will explain her or his reasons for recommending for or against promotion, stating how the candidate has or has not met the relevant criteria for promotion, and, when the recommendation of the DCG is not followed, will explain why a contrary recommendation is being made and will address any disagreement between the DEO’s evaluation and the evaluation of the DCG as reflected in the summary report of the DCG’s discussion.
3. Even if the DEO recommends that the candidate be promoted, the DEO’s letter to the Dean will address any negative aspects of the Promotion Record.
4. The DEO’s letter will be transmitted to the Dean as part of the candidate’s Promotion Record.
The candidate will be given the opportunity to respond to a recommendation against promotion by the DEO as follows:
1. At the same time that the Promotion Record is submitted to the Dean, if the DEO’s recommendation is negative, the DEO will provide the candidate with a copy of the DEO’s letter of recommendation to the Dean.
2. The candidate then, upon request, will have six days to access to the Promotion Record, with the following provisions:
  1. the external reviews of the candidate’s professional productivity and/or clinical and other service must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of the reviewers;
  2. any comments in the Promotion Record referring to external reviews of the candidate’s professional productivity and/or clinical and other service must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers; and
  3. the student evaluations of the candidate’s teaching which were added to the Promotion Record by the DEO must be redacted to protect the confidentiality of student evaluators.
3. The candidate will have six working days to submit to the Dean:
  1. a written response to the DEO’s negative recommendation, and
  2. additional information to be included in the Promotion Record
4. If the candidate submits a written response to the Dean for inclusion in the Promotion Record, the candidate also shall give the DEO a copy of the response.

II. College Level Procedures

If the candidate submits a written response to the DEO’s letter to the Dean, the Dean will place the response in the Promotion Record.
The CCG shall participate in the promotion decision-making process as follows:
1. The membership of the Collegiate Consulting Group is defined in the opening section of these Procedures. Members of a CCG who have participated in a promotion decision for a particular candidate at the departmental level may not participate in the CCG’s deliberations or voting in regard to that candidate. The CCG must contain faculty from both the tenure and clinical tracks.
2. The Dean and the Associate Deans may attend the meetings of the CCG, but may not vote or contribute to any written report summarizing its discussion. The Dean shall decide how the Associate Deans will participate in the promotion decision making process at the collegiate level.
3. The Promotion Record available to the CCG will consist of the Promotion Record available to the DEO, the DEO’s letter, and the candidate’s letter of response (if any) following receipt of the DCG’s recorded vote and summary report with recommendation and the letter of recommendation of the DEO to the Dean. The appendices to the Promotion Record (consisting of student teaching evaluations and publications) are part of the Promotion Record, and are physically moved to the Dean’s custody when the Promotion Record is forwarded to the Dean by the DEO.
4. If the CCG finds it necessary for clarification or supplementation of the Promotion Record, the CCG may submit to the DCG and/or the DEO a written request for additional information. The CCG will enter any information thus obtained into the Promotion Record.
5. The CCG will meet:
  1. to discuss the candidate’s qualifications,
  2. to vote and make a recommendation for or against the granting of promotion, based on the criterion that a simple majority defines a positive recommendation for promotion, and
  3. to assign one or more of its members
    1. to prepare a summary report of the discussion,
    2. to document the final vote, and
    3. to enter that information into the Promotion Record.
6. The CCG’s vote and recommendation, and the summary report of its discussion, will be transmitted to the Dean as part of the candidate’s Promotion Record.
The candidate will be given the opportunity to respond to the CCG’s recommendation under the following conditions:
1. If the CCG’s recommendation to the Dean is negative and contrary to that of the DCG or DEO, the candidate will be provided with a copy of the CCG’s vote and summary report and will have access to the Promotion Record, with the following provisions:
  1. the external reviews of the candidate’s professional productivity and/or clinical or other service must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers;
  2. any comments in the Promotion Record referring to external reviews of the candidate’s professional productivity and/or clinical or other service must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers; and
  3. the student evaluations of the candidate’s teaching which were added to the Promotion Record by the DEO must be redacted to protect the confidentiality of student evaluators.
2. The candidate has six working days to access the CCG’s negative recommendations and six working days to submit a written response.
The Dean shall participate in the promotion decision-making process as follows:
1. If the candidate submits a written response to the CCG’s negative recommendation, the Dean will place the response in the Promotion Record.
2. When any materials that were not available at the time of the departmental action are forwarded by the DEO to the Dean, the Dean will make a determination whether it is likely that the new material would have substantially altered the departmental evaluation of the candidate’s record by the DCG and/or the DEO. If, in the Dean’s judgment, a substantial change in the departmental evaluation is likely, the Dean will return the case to the DEO for any appropriate supplementary action so that the Dean will be able to act in light of an accurate indication of departmental judgments.
3. Based on the Promotion Record, including the response of the candidate, if any, to the CCG’s report, the collegiate Dean will recommend that promotion be granted or denied in a separate letter to the Provost for each candidate.
4. The Dean’s letter to the Provost will explain the Dean’s reasons for recommending for or against promotion stating how the candidate has or has not met the relevant criteria for promotion. As with previous steps in this process, the Dean’s letter to the Provost shall not reiterate the details of material that already is in the dossier; rather, it shall identify those aspects of the dossier that formed that basis of the Dean’s recommendation.
5. When the Dean’s recommendation is contrary to the recommendation of the DCG, the recommendation of the DEO, and/or the recommendation of the CCG, the Dean’s letter will explain why the contrary recommendation is being made.
6. The Dean’s letter will be transmitted to the Provost as part of the candidate’s Promotion Record.
7. At the same time that the Dean’s letter is submitted to the Provost, the Dean will inform the DEO of the recommendation that has been forwarded to the Provost. The DEO, in turn, will inform the members of the DCG of the Dean’s recommendation and also will inform the candidate if the Dean’s recommendation is positive.
8. The Dean will transmit to the Provost one copy of the Promotion Record for each candidate in the college, and a single copy of the college’s written Procedures governing promotion decision making.
The candidate will be given the opportunity to respond to a negative recommendation by the Dean as follows:
1. At the same time that the Promotion Record is submitted to the Provost, if the Dean’s recommendation is against promotion, the Dean will provide the candidate with a copy of the Dean’s letter to the Provost.
2. The candidate then, upon request, will have access to the Promotion Record, with the following provisions:
  1. the external reviews of the candidate’s professional productivity must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers;
  2. any comments in the Promotion Record referring to external reviews of the candidate’s scholarship must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers;
  3. the student evaluations of the candidate’s teaching which were added to the Promotion Record by the DEO must be redacted to protect the confidentiality of student evaluators, and
  4. any comments in the Promotion Record referring to external reviews or any other identifiable individual must be redacted as appropriate to protect confidentiality.
3. The candidate will have six working days to access the Dean’s recommendation, and six working days to submit a written response to the Dean’s recommendation against promotion and any additional information to be included in the Promotion Record.
4. If the candidate submits a written response to the Provost for inclusion in the Promotion Record, the candidate also shall give the DEO a copy of the response.

III. University Level Procedures

The Provost shall participate in the promotion decision-making process as follows:
1. The Promotion Record available to the Provost will consist of the Promotion Record available to the Dean, the Dean’s letter, and the candidate’s letter of response (if any) to the negative recommendation of the Dean. Although the appendices to the Promotion Record (consisting of student teaching evaluations and publications) are part of the Promotion Record, they normally will not be moved physically to the Provost’s custody unless the Provost requests them.
2. When any materials that were not available at the time of the departmental or collegiate action are forwarded to the Provost, the Provost will make a determination whether it is likely that the new material would have altered substantially the evaluation of the candidate’s record. If, in the Provost’s judgment, a substantial change in the departmental or collegiate evaluation is likely, the Provost will return the case to the DEO or Dean for any appropriate supplementary action, including additional review by the Dean if appropriate, so that the Provost will be able to act in the light of an accurate indication of departmental and collegiate judgment.
3. On the basis of the Promotion Record available to the Provost, the Provost will make a decision that promotion should be granted or denied, and will recommend that the Board of Regents grant promotion to those candidates determined to be deserving.
4. In making the promotion decision, the Provost may, at the Provost’s discretion, consult with others, including but not limited to the associate provosts and the collegiate deans.
The candidate shall be informed of the Provost’s decision as follows:
1. The Provost will inform the Dean in writing of the Provost’s recommendation to the Board of Regents.
2. The Dean will inform the candidate in writing of the Provost’s recommendation to the Board of Regents and, in the case of a recommendation against promotion, will inform the candidate of the availability of the official Faculty Dispute Procedures of the University Operations Manual (section III.29.1—III.29.6) and will enclose a copy via certified mail.
3. The collegiate Dean will inform the DEO of the Provost’s recommendation who, in turn, will inform the departmental faculty.

APPENDIX A

GUIDELINES FOR ESTABLISHING CRITERA SPECIFIC TO APPOINTMENT, REAPPOINTMENT, AND PROMOTION FOR SALARIED AND ADJUNCT CLINICAL FACULTY IN THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION.

Teaching. Teaching activities include, but are not limited to:

Teaching students in the classroom or laboratory.
Teaching students in a clinical setting.
Developing curriculum: developing objectives, materials and methods, methods of evaluation, etc.
Advising and counseling students; recruiting students.
Facilitating teaching efforts of faculty, e.g. helping to assess the value of teaching objectives, or of methods of evaluation, providing content material for courses of study, etc.
Serving as a member of education, curriculum, or admissions committees.
Making efforts to improve personal teaching skills.
Serving as a faculty instructor in continuing education activities.

Evidence of a faculty member’s efforts in teaching must come from student evaluation, teaching awards, recognition by faculty, or professional organizations. For example:

Faculty evaluations of the objectives, methods and materials of courses that have been designed and taught.
Student evaluations of performance.
Faculty evaluations of teaching effectiveness by faculty who have taught with or observed the faculty member’s teaching skills.
Evaluations concerning the performance of students taught by the individual whenever possible and appropriate.
Organization of a new teaching program, or integration of teaching effort within or between departments.
Development of better teaching techniques.
Development of short courses or workshops for students, postgraduate professionals and lay public.
Development of better teaching materials, such as the preparation of a syllabus, book or procedures, course of study, laboratory manual, development of teaching procedures or other modes of evaluation.

Professional productivity: Professional productivity activities include, but are not limited to:

Lectures and conference presentations
Conference contributions such as organizing symposia and workshops
Membership on an editorial board for a journal
Editorship of a journal
Publications or creative works
Grant proposals or contributions
Ad hoc reviewing
Developing and evaluating new clinical approaches
Organizing a new, or reorganizing an existing clinical service
Contributing to continuing education programs or materials

Evidence of a faculty member’s efforts in professional productivity might come from:

Invited lectures
Invitations to organize, chair, or participate in panels, symposia, or conferences.
Successful competition for awards, prizes, grants, or contracts
Letters written by peers outside the University

NOTE: Research or creative scholarship is not required for promotion on the clinical track; however, publications, grants, and other types of research and creative activity may provide evidence of professional productivity. It is also recognized that the categories of professional productivity and clinical and other service may overlap in some instances.

Clinical and other Service: Clinical and service activities include, but are not limited to:

Participating and/or leading in professional organizations.
Participating on and leading community service committees.
Serving as an expert witness.
Providing public or government service.

Evidence of a faculty member’s efforts in professional service and evidence of recognition by peers might be provided by:

Letters written by peers outside the University.
Extensive leadership experience in professional organizations.
Extensive service on boards of directors or similar boards.
Evidence from clients of outstanding clinical service.
Election to membership in societies stipulating meritorious professional achievement.
Election to offices in national or international societies.
Invitations to be a visiting professor or clinical professor at other universities.

Appendix B

Recommendation for Faculty Promotion Cover Sheet Generate in HR Transaction System

The University of Iowa Recommendation for Faculty Promotion

Name: Employee ID:

Primary Appointment:

%
College-Department Dept ID % Time Rank

___ With Tenure Date to present rank within track:

Present Rank: __ Without Tenure ____/____/_____
MM/ DD / YYYY

To be completed by the Departmental Executive Officer:

Proposed Rank:

If proposed rank is without tenure, indicate term of appointment.

This is a ____ year appointment beginning ____/____/_____ and ending ____/____/_____
MM/ DD / YYYY MM/ DD / YYYY

Vote of Departmental Consulting Group:

Primary For Promotion Against Promotion Abstained
Appointment:

To be completed by the Dean:

Is there a summary report from the Collegiate Consulting Group? ____ Yes ____ No

Vote of Collegiate Consulting Group:

Primary For Promotion Against Promotion Abstained
Appointment:

Recommendations:
Primary Department:

____ Recommend                                                                               ____ Recommend
                                              Executive Officer                                                                                 Dean
____ Do Not Recommend                                                                      ____ Do Not Recommend

Provost:

____ Recommend
                                              Provost                                                                                                  Date
____ Do Not Recommend

Appendix C

Sample Letter from Departmental Executive Officer (DEO) to External Reviewer of a Clinical-Track Faculty Promotion

A DEO’s letter to solicit an external evaluation must:

Be neutral in tone;
Indicate the rank for which the candidate is being considered and that the promotion does not include the awarding of tenure;
Explicitly state what portion of the candidate’s work the reviewer is being asked to assess;
Request that the reviewer not communicate with the candidate or with faculty other than the DEO;
State that the reviewer’s response will be protected as confidential, available only to those participating in the decision-making process, and to the candidate only under certain circumstances and after review was redacted to protect confidentiality; and
Request a brief biographical sketch if one has not been obtained through another source.

The following is a sample letter:

Dear _______________:

As I mentioned to you [on the telephone / by e-mail] on [date], ___________________ will be considered for promotion to [proposed rank] in the Department of ________________ during this academic year. This promotion does not involve the granting of tenure. I am grateful to you for agreeing to serve as an external evaluator.

Professor ______________ ‘s curriculum vitae and copies of the material you have agreed to review will be available to you online. They will include: (list works).

Insert URL, ID and password from list provided by Dean’s Office.

If you have any problems logging in, please contact ____________________ (8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., CDT, M-F).

Please begin with a statement of how you know the candidate and his or her work and activities. In this context, please address any circumstances that might raise issues of impartiality as they relate to your assessment of the candidate. We would like you to critique the quality of Professor ______________’s contributions and, if possible, to assess their quantity and quality in comparison to the work and activities of others in this discipline at comparable stages in their careers. We would particularly appreciate your evaluation of the contribution that the candidate’s work and activities have made to the field. We would be interested in your judgment of the quality of any published materials and the importance of the venues through which Professor ______________ has communicated his/her work. We also would be interested, of course, in any other insights you might have about Professor __________’s accomplishments.

If you have any questions about Professor ______________’s materials or experience, please contact me directly. In accordance with our governing procedures, I must ask you not to communicate with either the candidate whose accomplishments you are reviewing or other members of the department or college concerning your evaluation or the review process.

Your letter will be available to the tenured faculty in this department, the clinical track faculty at or above the proposed rank of promotion as well as to the Dean, the Collegiate Consulting Group (Promotion Advisory Group), and the Provost’s Office. Beyond that, we will regard your letter as a confidential document. Your evaluation will be made available to the candidate only upon his/her explicit request following a negative recommendation at various stages of the review process, and then only after your name and other identifying information have been removed.

[Only if it is not possible otherwise to obtain a short statement of the reviewer’s qualifications, add the following paragraph:] Would you please send me a brief biographical statement when you send your letter? Although our departmental faculty know you and your work well, the Dean and the Collegiate Consulting Group would find your biographical sketch helpful when considering your letter.

Again, thank you for your willingness to help us with this important review process.

[Signature of DEO}

Appendix D

Comments on the Procedures

I.B.(2) The candidate and the DEO should work together to ensure that a candidate’s teaching, professional productivity, and clinical and other service, including those activities of an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary nature, are accurately portrayed in the promotion dossier.

I.B.(3)(c)(vii) It is assumed that all faculty members obtain regular student evaluations of their teaching in accordance with collegiate and University policy and that, under the college’s policy, there are adequate provisions for consistent practice to ensure the integrity of the evaluation process and ordinarily to preserve the anonymity of the student evaluators. A college is permitted to include evaluations by students who are identified but whose identity is treated as confidential vis-à-vis the candidate. When such a practice is employed, it is imperative that the college’s written Procedures governing promotion decision making specify its details and that it be applied evenhandedly. The candidate’s dossier is not expected to include teaching “evaluations” used for experimental, mentoring, or other non-evaluative purposes.

I.B.(3)(f) The college may want to require additional items in the dossier such as teaching materials; refereed conference papers; invited papers, lectures, or presentations; unfunded grant proposals; and so forth. The college’s written Procedures governing promotion decision making should specify the items required and apply the requirement evenhandedly to all candidates.

I.B.(6) Examples of “materials that could not have been available by the specified date” include decisions on submitted manuscripts or grant proposals after the specified date, published book reviews of which the candidate had no previous knowledge, or teaching evaluations of classes being taught in the fall semester.

I.D. The minimal procedures specified here for evaluation of teaching are not assumed to be adequate for purposes of mentoring and teaching improvement, and are not intended to discourage other and different methods for satisfying those purposes.

It should be stressed that “teaching” is described here in traditional terms and that appropriate extrapolations must be made for teaching in fields such as the creative or performance arts, the health sciences or other professional fields.

I.D.(1) This provision in no way privileges or elevates “observation” over such written materials as course syllabi or teaching materials created by the candidate. These written materials will be a part of the candidate’s dossier and will be subject to evaluations as part of the total record on the basis of which the candidate is evaluated. Nor should this provision be taken to devalue still other aspects of the teaching process, such as supervising in a clinical setting, supervising dissertation work, advising graduate students, or overseeing the work of teaching assistants; although those teaching activities are not easily reduced to writing nor are they ordinarily subject to observation, these activities are important and nothing in these Procedures prevents a college that is able to evaluate these other teaching activities from doing so as part of the promotion decision-making process. In this connection, as elsewhere, the critical requirement is that a college inform candidates in its written Procedures governing promotion decision making that this evaluation will occur and how it will be carried out, as well as that the college apply its policy consistently to all candidates.

I.G.(8) Although the records related to external reviewers that are required to be kept under these subsections do not become a part of the Promotion Record concerning each candidate, they would be available for consideration should a question subsequently arise concerning the denial of promotion to that candidate or another candidate for promotion in the department.

I.I. The integrity of academic decision making requires that all participants base their evaluation on a careful study of the relevant materials, and standards of ethical academic behavior require nothing less. The integrity of particular academic decisions also requires 1 that) all faculty members honor their duty to participate fully in the assessment of their colleagues, and 2) the evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications not be compromised by the participation of anyone having a disqualifying conflict of interest. This requirement entails that any faculty member or administrator who would otherwise participate in the recommendation to grant or deny a promotion should be disqualified if that person has a relationship or interest which would give the appearance of biasing that person either in favor of or against the candidate. Conflicts of interest exist not because actual bias is assumed, but because of the appearance of a lack of sufficient impartiality. Whether a disqualifying conflict of interest does exist often presents the difficult question of degree, and it depends upon a determination by a participant in the process to identify the conflict and to disqualify herself or himself when appropriate. In lieu of disqualification, in some cases it can be sufficient that the circumstances giving rise to an apparent conflict of interest be fully disclosed. When disqualification is required, that can be effected by a decision of a member of the DCG not to vote or otherwise to participate in the evaluation process; at a stage of the process involving a single decision maker, such as the DEO or the collegiate Dean, more burdensome arrangements for a substitute decision maker would have to be made. Although treatment of conflicts of interest in the college’s written Procedures governing promotion decision making would be appropriate, these Procedures have not attempted to address the specific situations that might create conflicts of interest nor to provide procedures for avoiding them. (For the Conflict of Interest Policy, refer to sections II-18 and III-8 of the University’s Operations Manual.)

The integrity of the promotion decision-making process also requires that all documentary material be available only to those entitled to participate in the process and that every participant treat as confidential all information obtained from reading documents in the Promotion Record or from participating in any discussion concerning the qualifications of a candidate for promotion.

I.I.(2). In non-departmentalized colleges, the Dean attends the meeting of the DCG in the same manner as the DEO unless otherwise specified in the college’s written Procedures on promotion decision-making and approved by the Provost.

I.I.(5) Because the Promotion Record may be redacted to protect reviewers’ confidentiality where appropriate, it will be especially important that the DCG’s report and the DEO’s letter be written in sufficient detail to enable the candidate to submit a written response should the candidate choose to do so.

I.B.(4) This is the first point in the decision process at which there is a specific reference to transmitting the Promotion Record. Prior to this stage of the process, it is assumed that the Promotion Record is compiled within the department under the joint management and custody of the DCG and the DEO. If the location of the Promotion Record would not otherwise be clear, the college’s written Procedures governing promotion decision making should provide some means of informing decision-makers of the location of various materials comprising the Promotion Record from time to time as the decision process moves from the candidate to the DCG to the DEO.

Appendix E

Review Procedures for Clinical-track Faculty with Joint Appointments

In the case of a non-0% joint-appointment candidacy for promotion, the departments shall form (a) joint internal review committee(s) (see Section I. C. below), roughly proportional in its (their) makeup to the percentage of faculty effort in each department and with at least one committee member from each department. The DEO(s) or the candidate may seek approval of the dean(s) for an alternative structure in exceptional circumstances, including cases of marked discrepancy between percentage effort and percentage salary support across the two units, or in the case of a joint but non-interdisciplinary appointment, such that joint review is inappropriate. When standard review procedures differ between units (e.g., delegation of review of teaching, research and service to separate subcommittees vs. using a single internal review committee for all three areas), a joint decision shall be made establishing procedures that are mutually acceptable to the faculty member and the units in advance of deliberations of the review committee[s]. The joint internal review committee shall report, both in writing and at (a) meeting(s) with at least one internal review committee member from each department present, to each DCG.
The departments involved must determine, together with the affected faculty member, whether the DCGs will meet jointly or separately and, if jointly, whether the DCGs will have joint or separate votes and reports. If separately, (a) if a faculty member holds a 50-50 joint appointment, each DCG will make an independent and primary decision using its college’s written policy governing promotion decision making; (b) if a faculty member holds a 1% to 49% joint appointment in a department, the departments involved must determine, together with the affected faculty member, whether each DCG will make an independent decision or whether the DCG in which the faculty member holds the smaller percentage appointment will be limited as described in section C below. These determinations should be made by mutual agreement of the faculty member, both DEOs, and the Dean(s) early in the joint appointment and set forth in a letter of agreement, copied to the Provost.
If a faculty member holds a 1% to 49% appointment in a department, and a determination is made that that department shall not make an independent decision, then that department shall participate in the following manner (see sections II.(G) and II.(H) for additional detail).
1. The DCG shall:
  1. receive the candidate’s dossier including the letters of the external reviewers;
  2. review and discuss the candidate’s qualifications;
  3. make a recommendation for or against the granting of promotion based on a secret-ballot vote;
  4. write a brief report of its discussion, including its vote and recommendation for or against the granting of promotion. If a majority of the DCG requests, it may delegate writing this report to the DEO.
2. The DEO shall:
  1. write a letter
    1. reporting the DCG discussion, including its vote and recommendation for or against the granting of promotion, if requested by a majority of the DCG to do so, and
    2. making an independent recommendation that promotion be granted or denied;
  2. add the DCG report, if any, and this letter to the Promotion Record, and
  3. submit the Promotion Record to the primary department in time for consideration by the DCG of that department.

Similarly,

the Collegiate Consulting Group of the college in which a faculty member has a 1% to 49% appointment shall:
1. receive the candidate’s Promotion Record from the DEO of the primary department;
2. review and discuss the candidate’s qualifications, and
3. make a recommendation for or against the granting of promotion based on a secret-ballot vote, with a brief report of its discussion if the recommendation is negative. If a majority of the CCG requests, it may delegate writing this report to the Dean.
The Dean shall:
1. write a letter
  1. reporting the CCG discussion, including its vote and recommendation for or against the granting of promotion, if requested by a majority of the CCG to do so, and
  2. making an independent recommendation that promotion be granted or denied;
2. add the CCG report, if any, and this letter to the Promotion Record;
3. submit the Promotion Record to the primary college in time for consideration by its CCG.

D. If a faculty member holds a 0% joint appointment in a department, that department may be limited to a subordinate consultative role in the tenure and promotion process and the affected departments may decide how this role shall be carried out. These determinations should be made by mutual agreement of the faculty member, both DEOs, and the Dean(s) at the beginning of the joint appointment and set forth in a letter of agreement, copied to the Provost.