Page Comparison

...

The Writing Program, in its policy and procedures for the recommendation of tenure and/or promotion for its faculty, seeks to be consistent with the statements of tenure and promotion policy and procedures of the University and the College of Arts and Sciences. These statements include general criteria for promotion and tenure, as well as departmental rights and responsibilities in the development of candidate materials and the formulation of recommendations. They also establish minimum eligibility in terms of years of service, important deadlines for recommendations or decisions, and candidates’ candidates' responsibilities and rights throughout the process. Within the general framework of the College and University criteria for promotion and tenure, candidates in the Writing Program will be evaluated by criteria specific to the discipline (the study of writing and rhetoric) and to the mission of the department, as stated in the Writing Program Policies for Promotion and Tenure (1989; updated 2003 and 2013).

...

Only tenured full-time faculty appointed at least 50% in the Writing Program are eligible to participate in formal deliberations and to vote on a candidate’s candidate's application for tenure. All such persons holding tenure at the time a colleague is to be considered for tenure will constitute the departmental tenure committee for that candidate. For this purpose tenured status includes those who have received notice from the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs that they have been granted tenure.

...

The promotion committee will consist of at least two qualified voting members from the department. All full-time tenure-track faculty who are appointed at least 50% in the Writing Program, and who hold the rank of Associate Professor or above are eligible to participate in formal deliberations on a candidate’s candidate's application for promotion. Those voting on promotion to full professor will be department members appointed at least 50% in the Writing Program who hold the rank of full professor. If the number of full professors eligible to vote on the case is fewer than four, the department chair will, after consultation with the candidate and faculty, invite full professors from the affiliate faculty and/or other Syracuse University faculty members who hold the rank of full professor to bring the total number of full professors eligible to vote on the case to four. The faculty members invited to participate in the case will help develop the candidate’s candidate's case, read the candidate’s materialscandidate's materials, attend the meeting where the case for promotion is discussed, and cast votes on the promotion case that, together with the vote of full professors in the department, will constitute the departmental vote that will be forwarded to the College Promotion and Tenure Committee. In cases where the department chair is a candidate for promotion, the most senior faculty member will manage the case, fulfilling the functions assigned in these procedures to the department chair.

C. Procedures For Joint Appointments

...

The department chair, in close consultation with the candidate, will determine both the timeliness and the specific procedures to be followed in the preparation of the candidate’s candidate's formal papers and case for tenure and/or promotion. This includes (but is not limited to) the timely solicitation of outside letters of recommendation, as described below.

...

The department chair should seek substantially more than five reviews in order to ensure timely receipt of at least six. Requests to reviewers should be made starting March 15st 15th preceding a fall review. The recommended number is at least seven. Receipt of reviews will be carefully monitored so that backup requests can be made when necessary. All reviews received will be forwarded to the College Committee.

...

The department chair will compile a list of outside experts from these sources, keeping the candidate's list separate. The candidate is invited to comment on the appropriateness of the list. The chair will then contact these experts to get a commitment before sending materials to be reviewed. The chair begins at the top of the list provided by the candidate until at least two of the candidate’s candidate's choices agree to provide a written review in the time line specified (to be received one week before the departmental meeting for deliberations). Meanwhile the chair also acquires at least four other outside reviewers on the departmental list developed independently from the candidate. 

...

V. Departmental Review Of The Candidate’s Candidate's Work

By April 30, a three-person ad hoc Review Committee for each candidate will be appointed by the department chair, in consultation with the candidate. The membership of the committee will be known to the candidate.

The Review Committee for each candidate consists of three tenured faculty members in the Writing Program. At least one of the three tenured faculty members will be drawn from the group eligible for the relevant departmental Promotion and/or Tenure committee for this candidate. One senior faculty member serves as chair of the Review Committee.

The Review Committee’s Committee's function is to gather and assess evidence about the candidate’s candidate's performance from multiple sources, including, for example: materials from the candidate, interviews with students, peers, and others in a position to evaluate the candidate’s candidate's performance; solicitation of letters; teaching observations; and other means as appropriate. The committee’s committee's investigative responsibilities are subdivided into teaching, scholarship, and service.

...

Following its investigation, the committee will prepare and submit a document to the Departmental Committee on Promotion and/or Tenure. The written report will summarize the Review Committee's findings under the headings “teaching,” “research "teaching," "research and scholarship,” " and "service”service"; the intellectual work of administration may be addressed as it crosses these categories. The chair of the Review Committee should comment on any significant relationship linking or integrating work in these three categories. The Committee may also address other issues relevant to departmental and disciplinary criteria, including leadership, collaborative scholarship, citizenship, and collegiality. No formal recommendation for promotion and/or tenure is to be included in the report. The written report of the Review Committee should be made available to eligible faculty voters at least one week before their deliberations and vote. The report is confidential to the eligible faculty voters and the College committee. 

...

Only those eligible faculty attending the meeting may vote, except that, in case afaculty a faculty member eligible to vote is unable to attend, the department chair willauthorize will authorize an absentee ballot. All eligible voting faculty not at the meeting will be provided with copies of the Review Committee's report and asked to vote. The vote for promotion and tenure for candidates applying for tenure will take place on a single ballot. When an applicant is applying for both promotion and tenure, the department will vote separately to arrive at a recommendation on promotion and a recommendation on tenure. Voting is by secret written ballot. Faculty members will be requested to state reasons for both positive and negative votes on the secret ballots. A simple majority of those voting authorizes a favorable recommendation from the department.

The department chair will keep a record of the deliberations and the faculty vote and write a report for the College committee (Form B) that reports the vote, summarizes the department’s department's evaluation of the evidence considered in its deliberations, comments as appropriate on the special features of the case, including reasons for positive and negative votes, and presents the department’s department's recommendation to the college committee. The department chair is responsible for forwarding to the College committee multiple copies of a complete set of all materials relevant to the case, as required by the procedural guidelines of the College, and for sending on in a timely manner further information or materials submitted during consideration of the case by the College committee or requested by the College committee.

As soon as possible, and no more than three days after the faculty deliberations and vote, the department chair will meet with the candidate to report the faculty recommendation, the vote, and his or her interpretation of the principal reasons for the recommendation. At the candidate’s candidate's request (made within 30 days), this information should be provided in writing. 

...

The department chair is responsible for submitting an annual departmental report and recommendation on untenured faculty in March of each year, reviewing each in the categories of teaching, research, and service. A primary source for the evaluation is the Curriculum Vitae Update submitted by each faculty member in January. In addition, to assist the chair in preparing the review senior faculty will be requested one month before the report is due to provide feedback on untenured faculty members’ members' work in any or all categories of effort during that year. Untenured faculty will be asked to suggest additional names of peers or others who might be consulted about their teaching or service during that year, and the chair will request such feedback in a timely way. In addition to such consultations and the CV Update, the chair will also take into consideration for the evaluation any letters on the faculty members’ members' performance submitted by themselves or others for the file; student evaluations; classroom teaching observations; and other sources of information about each faculty member’s member's performance that year. Each untenured faculty member will be assigned a research mentor and a teaching mentor from among the department’s department's tenured faculty. During the first semester of an untenured faculty member’s member's appointment, the faculty member will submit a list of his or her preferences for research and teaching mentors. The Chair will draw upon this list and consultation with the prospective mentors in order to appoint research and teaching mentors. Research mentors will meet regularly to discuss the faculty member’s member's scholarship in progress, read drafted manuscripts, and offer advice about the research trajectory of the untenured faculty member, as requested. Teaching mentors will regularly discuss teaching issues with the faculty member, offer support when challenging circumstances arise, and observe classes at least once per year, which will include a formal teaching observation report. The department chair will seek feedback from both mentors in writing the annual departmental report for untenured faculty members.

...

When a tenure-track faculty member’s member's contract is to be considered by the department for renewal, the department chair will initiate a spring review that follows the same procedures as those described for a tenure and promotion review above, except that no external letters will be solicited and a different timetable is followed. The Review Committee’s Committee's report will be discussed and voted upon at a meeting of the tenured department faculty. Voting is by secret ballot and is open to those with tenure.

...