Skip to Local Navigation
Skip to Content
California State University, Long Beach
Faculty Affairs
Print this pageAdd this page to your favoritesSelect a font sizeSelect a small fontSelect a medium fontSelect a large font
 

Instructions for Reappointment, Tenure and/or Promotion Candidates 2013-14

August 1, 2013

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information on deadlines and procedures governing the Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) process for 2013-2014.


Workshops


Candidates undergoing evaluation for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion are strongly encouraged to attend an RTP workshop.  Three all-University RTP Workshops will be conducted in the Anatol Center (AS 119). Each workshop will cover the same content.

    • Monday, September  16, 3:00 PM - 4:30 PM
    • Tuesday, September 17, 10:30 AM - 12:00 PM
    • Tuesday, September 24, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM

In addition, the AVP for Faculty Affairs will be providing college-specific RTP workshops for college and department evaluators (Deans, Department Chairs, Department and College RTP Committees) as well as the Associate Deans and appropriate staff responsible for  RTP processes.  Notices regarding these workshops will be sent by the Deans.

 


Deadlines


Deadlines have been established for:

  • Open Period (the period when faculty, students, academic-administrators, and the President may contribute materials to be included in the candidate’s file)
  • Candidate submission of files
  • Completion of reviews at each level of evaluation
  • Final decision notification to the candidate

 

All deadlines are listed on the “Deadlines for Reappointment, Tenure, and/or Promotion Actions” schedule. These deadlines are intended to allow sufficient time for careful review at each level, and they cannot be extended. If at any level of review the evaluation of a candidate has not been completed by the deadline indicated, the candidate's RTP file must nevertheless be forwarded to the next level of review or appropriate administrator. In such cases, the candidate must be notified that the file has been moved to the next level of review.

 

Deadlines for notification of final actions are set by the CSU-CFA Collective Bargaining Agreement. These deadlines may not be changed:

    • Reappointment for probationary faculty who have served more than two years of probation: June 1
    • Tenure: June 1
    • Notification of a terminal year appointment: June 1
    • Promotion (or denial of promotion): June 15



Mandatory Reviews and Optional Reviews


Mandatory: Reappointment and Tenure

Faculty members scheduled for reappointment or tenure review as per the guidelines below must submit an RTP file and must be evaluated on schedule. This includes all reviews for reappointment as well as tenure in the sixth probationary year (includes years for which service credit was granted).

 

Optional: Promotion

Reviews for promotion are optional. Faculty members who do not wish to be considered for promotion must notify the Office of Faculty Affairs in writing or return the “NON-PROMOTION CONSIDERATION” form to the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs by Tuesday, September 17.

Timeline: Standard Consideration

A probationary faculty member is normally considered for tenure during the sixth year probationary year, including any years of for which service credit was granted. A probationary faculty member is normally considered for promotion to associate professor at the same time he/she is considered for tenure. A tenured faculty member is normally eligible to be considered for promotion during the fifth year in his/her current rank.

Timeline: Early Consideration

Early tenure is tenure granted before completion of six probationary years. Early promotion is promotion in advance of tenure or before completion of the fifth year in rank. Standards for early tenure and/or promotion are significantly higher than those standards applied in a normal timeline, as described in Section IV.C of the old (1996) University RTP Policy (PS 96-12) and Section 5.0 of the new (2009) University RTP Policy (PS 09-10). Both the old and new University RTP Policy can be found on the Academic Senate website.

The following apply to candidates seeking early tenure and/or early promotion:

    • A candidate must submit a statement of intent to the Office of Faculty Affairs and to the department by Tuesday, September 17.
    • A candidate scheduled for a reappointment review and who is requesting consideration for early tenure and/or early promotion must submit a single RTP file by the earliest deadline for any of these actions. Evaluators must make a recommendation on each action under consideration. (Evaluators who recommend against early tenure must make a recommendation for reappointment if the candidate was scheduled for reappointment review.) A candidate may rescind a request to be considered for early tenure and/or early promotion prior to receiving a decision from the Provost by giving a written notice to all parties in the process. Recommendations that have been completed will be returned to the candidate and will not become part of the Personnel Action File.
    • If the candidate is eligible for multiples actions and requests to rescind an optional action, the recommendations that are already written will remain in the file unmodified since recommendations normally appear as a single memorandum. A candidate who is being reviewed for reappointment as well as early tenure and/or promotion must proceed with the review for reappointment.

 

RTP Policies to Govern the Candidate’s Review

  • Candidate policy selection: During the 2010-2011 review year, faculty members hired prior to Fall 2009 had the choice to be reviewed under either the old (1996) or the new (2009) set of RTP policies. Faculty members whose hire date was Fall 2009 or later, including those with service credit, are governed by new policies (2009).
  • End date for old policies: Beginning in Fall 2014, all faculty members will be governed by all new RTP policies, regardless of the action requested. (For example, a faculty member who requested to be reviewed under old policies and received tenure and promotion to associate professor under old policies will, however, be governed by new policies if that faculty member applies for promotion to full professor in Fall 2014 or later.)
  • Faculty in departments without an approved new policy: For faculty who have selected new policies or who are automatically governed by new policies (tenure-track hire date fall 2009 or later), only the University and college policies will govern their reviews. There will be no governing department policy. However, once a new department policy has been approved by the Provost, it will become effective the following academic year. At that time, faculty members in that department under new policies will be governed by all three new policies: University, college, and department.

The RTP File

The RTP file consists of materials collected and prepared by the candidate, materials submitted to the file during the Open Period, previous evaluations during the period of review, evaluation reports at each level of review, and any rebuttals or responses from the candidate.

The Candidate Status Sheet should be the first page of the file. The file is to be divided into the “Primary File” and the “Supplemental File.” See the Faculty Affairs website for guidance on preparing these files.

The Period of Review

For reappointment, tenure, and/or initial promotion, the candidate will be evaluated on activities since the beginning of the probationary period, including any years of service credit. For subsequent promotion, the candidate will be evaluated on activities since the last promotion.

While the file is submitted by the candidate in the fall semester, the period of review includes the full academic year during which the review is conducted (2013-2014). Therefore, it is appropriate for the candidate to document in the file works-in-progress, with appropriate supporting materials.

Candidates may submit materials from the previous semester if not yet submitted for review due to evaluation timelines (e.g. Student Evaluations of Teaching).

Candidate Responsibilities

Candidates should refer to the “PROFESSIONAL DATA SHEET GUIDELINES”. Similarly, candidates should consult all college and/or departmental guidelines regarding supplemental documentation and file preparation. As a general rule, candidates should include materials that provide best evidence of their accomplishments and growth in the areas of evaluation. The candidate should invest significant effort in organizing and presenting this material so that it supports the case for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion, and corroborates statements made in the Professional Data Sheet and the narrative.

It is the candidate’s responsibility to delineate clearly on the PDS and/or CV any activities/accomplishments that are prior to the period of review. Should the candidate choose to include such activities/accomplishments, they shall be identified by inserting a double line between those activities/accomplishments that are within the period of review and those that are prior to it.

Candidates should keep copies of their Primary File Materials, as these materials will not be returned at the end of the review process. They will be filed in the official Personnel Action File along with the index to supplemental materials and open period materials. Supplemental materials will be returned to the candidate.

Mandatory Documentation

The following items are mandatory components of the RTP file and shall be provided by the candidate:

    • Candidate RTP Status Sheet (Provided by the College) – first page of primary file.
    • A formally written request and justification to be considered for a salary enhancement, if making that request
    • Professional Data Sheet (and curriculum vitae if required by College policy)
    • Narrative
    • Index to supplemental materials
    • Student evaluation summaries. University policy requires that a “minimum of two” courses be evaluated each semester, and at least that number must be included in the file. If they are not present, the department RTP committee should obtain them from department or University records and place them in the file. (Some colleges require that all courses be evaluated. If by error, or because of exceptional circumstances, the candidate was not reviewed for a minimum of classes required by the department, college, or University policy, the candidate should account in the narrative for the error or circumstances.)
    • For additional information regarding use of SPOT data in your file see the FAQ: The Role of SPOT in Evaluating Effective Teaching
    • Supplemental documentation providing evidence of instruction and instructionally-related activity; research, scholarly, and creative activity; and service

Prior Reviews
The candidate must include in the supplemental file copies of all prior evaluations, as specified below:

    • Reappointment file: all evaluations since appointment, including previous Mini reviews; Professional Development Plan, if applicable; and prior Reappointment reviews, if any.
    • Tenure file: all reviews since appointment, including previous Mini reviews; Professional Development Plan, if applicable; and previous Reappointment reviews.
    • Promotion file: all reviews since appointment or since the last promotion, whichever is more recent. In the case of tenured faculty members being considered for promotion, this would also include any periodic Evaluations of Tenured Faculty (ETF).

Request for Salary Enhancement with Promotion (optional)

    • Successful candidates receive a 7.5% increase in salary per the CBA.
    • In cases of exceptional merit, an additional salary enhancement may be granted at the time of promotion.
    • The candidate must request to be considered for salary enhancement, in writing, at the time she/he submits the RTP file. The request must include a detailed rationale.
    • The request is to be included at the beginning of the primary file after the RTP Status Sheet. Each reviewing body must make a recommendation (positive or negative) or may state in their review that they have chosen to defer to the Dean regarding the request. Final decisions regarding the amount of any such increase will be made by the Provost, in consultation with the Dean.

 

Open Period

Per section 15.2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement:

Faculty unit employees, students, academic administrators, and the President may contribute information to the evaluation of a faculty unit employee. Information submitted by the faculty unit employee and by academic administrators may include statements and opinions about the qualifications and work of the employee provided by other persons identified by name. Only tenured faculty unit employees and academic administrators may engage in deliberations and make recommendations to the President regarding the evaluation of a faculty unit employee.

To provide this opportunity to contribute information, an Open Period has been established from September 17 through October 4, 2013.

Departments will be provided with a list of the candidates who are eligible for RTP review; this list must be posted in each department office on or about September 15, 2013. Departments may also disseminate this list to faculty, students, and academic administrators electronically. Templates for the Open Period notification are available on the Faculty Affairs website. The names of candidates seeking early tenure or early promotion will be added to this list on or about September 15 upon receipt of their statement of intent. Each posted list shall contain the following statement, which specifies the nature of the information that can be submitted:

Faculty, students, academic administrators and the President may contribute information to the evaluation of a faculty unit employee. Information submitted by the faculty unit employee and academic-administrators may include statements and opinions about qualifications and work of the candidate by other persons identified by name.

The following conditions apply to material submitted during the Open Period:

    • Information provided must be submitted in written form to the Department RTP Committee Chair by October 4, 2013.
    • The chair of the RTP Committee shall ensure that the candidate is provided with a copy of all materials submitted during the Open Period.
    • Anonymous information will not be accepted.
    • The candidate must be given five (5) days notice before any such materials are placed in his/her file by the RTP Committee Chair. At any time before the file is closed, the candidate may respond to or rebut information provided during the Open Period, as described below.
    • Such materials shall be placed in a separate section of the file identified as “Open Period Material.” An index of this information shall be prepared by the department RTP committee and included in the RTP file.
    • Requests for removal of Open Period material on the ground of inaccuracy—and only on that ground—may be made under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

Additions to the File by the Candidate after the Submission of the File

  • New Materials: Occasionally, either the candidate or evaluators may request to have new materials placed in the file after the Open Period. Typical examples are reports from peer observation of teaching that took place after the Open Period or supplemental information on scholarly or creative activities (such as acceptance of a peer-reviewed publication). Such requests shall be limited to items that become available after the file was submitted. In all such cases, the College RTP Committee must approve the request. When material has been added to the file in this manner, the file shall be returned to the initial evaluation committee (the Department RTP Committee) for review, evaluation, and comment before consideration at subsequent levels of review.
  • Missing Material: At any point in the review, if materials that are required for the evaluation are discovered to be missing, evaluators at that level of review may request the missing materials be added. However, when the missing materials have been provided, the RTP file must be returned to the level at which the requisite documentation should have been provided. Such material shall be provided in a timely manner.

 

Candidate Responses/Rebuttals

At all levels of review, candidates shall receive a copy of the evaluation report including the recommendation. Candidates are entitled to write a response/rebuttal to the report from each level of review. Therefore, every effort should be made to provide this report to the candidate at least ten (10) calendar days before the deadline for completion at each level of review. The candidate’s response/rebuttal shall be included in the file.

Regardless of when the candidate receives the evaluation, the candidate still has ten (10) calendar days after receipt of the evaluation to submit a written response/rebuttal to be forwarded with the evaluation. A copy of the response/rebuttal statement shall accompany the RTP File and shall also be sent to all previous levels of review (Dean, College RTP Committee Chair, Department Chair, Department RTP Committee Chair, as appropriate. ) Any resulting response/rebuttals shall not require that evaluation timelines be extended. The candidate may also request a meeting with the reviewers to discuss the recommendation (whether or not the candidate plans to write a rebuttal).

The following conditions apply to candidate response/rebuttals:

    • A written response/rebuttal should be addressed to the next level of review, with copies to all previous levels of review. A copy of the response/rebuttal statement must be placed in the RTP file.
    • If the candidate receives the evaluation with fewer than (10) calendar days before the file is due to be forwarded to the next level, the candidate still has (10) calendar days to respond. However, the file must still be forwarded on schedule. The RTP committee chair will forward the response/rebuttal to the next level, where it will be placed in the RTP file.
    • Response/rebuttals may not include new materials or supplemental documentation not included in the original file. (There is a separate process for the inclusion of new materials.)

 

External Evaluation

Per the CBA, external evaluation of a candidate’s materials may be initiated by any party in the process (the candidate, Department Committee, Department Chair, College Committee, Dean, or Provost), may be requested at any point during the review, and must have the approval of the President and the concurrence of the candidate. The request must describe the special circumstances which necessitate the external evaluation and the nature of the materials needing evaluation.

Normally, the external evaluation process will be initiated by the candidate, the Department RTP Committee, and/or the Department Chair in the spring semester prior to the fall semester when the RTP file is due. However, in order to meet the deadlines for candidate’s RTP review, requests for external evaluation should be made as early as possible in the review process. The campus process is governed by the “EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF RESEARCH, SCHOLARLY, AND CREATIVE ACTIVITIES” (PS 10-10), which is available on the Academic Senate website.

Per the new University RTP Policy, candidates for early tenure and/or early promotion are encouraged to participate in the external evaluation process.

 


Evaluators


Participants in the Evaluation Process:

    • Elected Department RTP Committee
    • Department Chair (optional)
    • Elected College RTP Committee
    • Dean
    • Provost

Who can serve on an RTP Committee

The Collective Bargaining Agreement establishes rules for selection of RTP committees. The probationary and tenured faculty of the department elect the members of the department RTP committee. This election shall be by secret ballot. Only tenured faculty members are eligible to be elected to department and college RTP committees.

Committee members must have higher rank than those under consideration for promotion. (Example: a tenured associate professor may serve on a committee considering tenure and promotion for an assistant professor.) If promotion is not involved, tenured faculty of any rank may serve as members of a committee to consider candidates for reappointment and/or tenure.

Faculty who are being considered for any RTP action may not serve on an RTP committee that is evaluating their file. (Example: a tenured promotion candidate may serve on a reappointment review if committee members are different from those serving on the promotion review.)  No faculty member may serve on RTP committees at  two different levels of review.

Tenured faculty members are expected to make themselves available to serve on RTP committees as part of their normal responsibilities. In some circumstances, however, a department may not have enough eligible members to serve on the RTP committee. In this situation, the department shall elect members from a related academic discipline, according to applicable college and department policies.

At the request of a department, the President may agree to permit faculty participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program to stand for election for membership on any level of peer review committee. However, these committees may not be comprised solely of faculty participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program.

Special rules apply to the formation of RTP committees for faculty members on joint appointments. See “UNIVERSITY JOINT APPOINTMENTS FOR FACULTY PERSONNEL POLICY AND PROCEDURES” (PS 94-11) on the Academic Senate website.

Responsibilities of Evaluators

RTP evaluation addresses all three areas of review: Instructional and Instructionally-Related Activities; Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activities; and Service. Evaluators should not simply enumerate the candidate’s accomplishments, but evaluate them according to the criteria that have been established. It is the responsibility of evaluators to provide guidance to candidates by being clear on what areas are meeting expectations and where improvement is needed in a particular area.

In some cases, department standards will be higher than college standards. (Department standards may not be lower than college standards.) College RTP committees shall take into serious account the department specific standards for evaluating the candidate.

During the 2010-2011 review year, each RTP candidate hired prior to Fall 2009 completed the “FACULTY RTP POLICY SELECTION FORM” to select the set of RTP policies (either the old or the new policies) to govern their RTP reviews. Evaluators must evaluate the candidate according to the selected set of policies. It is the responsibility of evaluators to be knowledgeable about both sets of policies.

Recommendation, Decision, and Approval Process

Department and College RTP committees must vote to recommend or not to recommend each of the following actions:

    • Reappointment
    • Tenure and Early Tenure
    • Promotion and Early Promotion
    • Combined Tenure/Promotion and combined Early Tenure/Early Promotion
    • Salary Enhancement beyond 7.5% for promotion
     

All committee members must vote, even if they choose to submit a minority report. The vote tally (to recommend and not to recommend) for each separate action must be recorded on the review signature page.

The Department Chair may make a separate recommendation regarding each of these actions as part of a separate report if the chair is not on the Department RTP Committee.

Deans make the final decisions on:

    • Reappointment of faculty when reappointment is the only action under consideration, and when the decision is unanimously positive at all prior levels of review.
    • The number of years (1-3) of reappointment offered to the candidate.


In decisions regarding Reappointment, Deans are to address letters to the candidates with copies to the Provost and the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs, as well as the College RTP Committee Chair, the Department Chair, and the Department RTP Committee Chair.

The Provost makes the final decisions on:

    • Reappointment of faculty in the absence of a unanimous vote at any prior level of review
    • Non-reappointment of faculty
    • Tenure and Early Tenure
    • Promotion and Early Promotion
    • Combined Tenure/Promotion and combined Early Tenure/Early Promotion
    • Salary Enhancement beyond 7.5% for promotion and the specific amount of the increase
     

All decisions are subject to the final approval of the President.

 

Notification to Candidate

Notification will be mailed to the candidate’s home address by the deadline. Since home addresses will be obtained from CMS records, it is the candidates’ responsibility to verify that their records are correct on “My CSULB”.

 

Applicable Policies and Additional Information

Each candidate for RTP consideration should consult carefully the policy documents governing the process.

Questions regarding the RTP process may be directed to AVP Holly Harbinger at Holly.Harbinger@csulb.edu.

 

 

 


Back to top