Download a PDF of this document
Rank and Status Professional Faculty Review Procedures

Professional faculty members have specialized responsibilities that are detailed in the faculty member’s position description. They are usually classified as teaching faculty, research faculty, clinical faculty, or librarians. Professional faculty enjoy the same privileges as professorial faculty. They may receive continuing faculty status (CFS) and rank advancement. They may vote in department decisions regarding faculty appointments, CFS, rank advancement, and all other matters. They may serve as chairs or deans, on committees, and in other administrative assignments, and they are eligible for university awards.

These procedures are to be used in conjunction with the Rank and Status Policy. They establish procedures for evaluating professional faculty members in the initial (third-year) review for CFS candidacy, the final (sixth- or seventh-year) review for CFS, and reviews for rank advancement. They also set forth the timetable for the scheduled reviews. Additionally, they outline faculty members’ responsibility to prepare the materials to be evaluated in the reviews, as well as the roles to be played in the review process by unit-level rank and status committees, unit-level administrators, and the university-level Professional Faculty Council on Rank and Status. Attached as appendices to these procedures are a list of materials that should be included in the faculty member’s portfolio, a waiver statement that should be signed by the faculty member before external or internal reviews are solicited, and a sample letter for use by chairs in soliciting external reviews of a faculty member’s work if needed.


 Top 
1. Content of the Portfolio

Faculty members are responsible for preparing the portfolio to be used in their initial, final, or rank advancement review. Departments, colleges, the Faculty Center, and others may provide resources to assist or guide faculty members, but those resources cannot substitute for the faculty member’s professional achievement and thoughtful presentation of the portfolio.

1.1 Materials to Include in the Portfolio

Evidence to be included in the portfolio is summarized in Appendix A. The faculty member should be thoughtful and measured about what to include in the portfolio, because the portfolio itself is an indicator of professional maturity. A portfolio that is professional, thorough, and concise is especially persuasive. Letters from students should not be included. A copy of the portfolio prepared for the initial review should be retained by the department and made available if requested during the final CFS review.

1.2 Additional Information

Information included in the original portfolio cannot be altered or removed after the review process commences. However, reviewers at any level may request, receive, or obtain additional information from the faculty member or others after the candidate submits the portfolio. Such additions include but are not limited to documents indicating the acceptance of additional publications, additional student evaluations, and late-arriving external review letters. If a reviewer believes the additional information materially affects the reviewer’s recommendation, it should be dated and added to the portfolio as an addendum, and it must be shared with prior levels of review unless it appears that the new information would not change their recommendations. For example, documents that strengthen the portfolio need not be shared with prior review levels that made positive recommendations, and documents that weaken the portfolio need not be shared with prior review levels that made negative recommendations.

Appeal or rebuttal statements from the faculty member may not be added to the portfolio following a negative recommendation at the department or college level. Such materials may be submitted only as part of an independent examination of the academic vice president’s recommendation. (See Rank and Status Independent Examination Procedures.)


 Top 
2. The Rank and Status Review Process

2.1 Mandatory Pre-CFS Reviews

2.1.1 Initial (Third-Year) Review

The initial review for professional faculty members will assess the faculty member’s performance and promise in the responsibilities defined in the position description, including efforts to begin mentoring students if not precluded by the position description. The same procedures apply to initial and final CFS reviews, except that external reviews are not obtained for initial reviews and may be obtained for final reviews as necessary. Faculty members who successfully demonstrate that they are making satisfactory progress in the initial review will be granted CFS candidacy. Faculty members who are not granted CFS candidacy, or who do not submit a portfolio, will not receive another contract after the existing contract year ends. The university, at its sole discretion, may grant such an individual a one-year temporary position while the person seeks employment elsewhere.

The CFS timetable begins with the start of the first fall semester that the faculty member is employed in a CFS–track position at BYU. The initial review will take place during winter semester of the third year, unless a different timeline is established in the hiring offer letter (see Faculty Hiring Policy, section 3.16) or the CFS clock is extended for approved personal or parental leaves or other extenuating circumstances (see Rank and Status Policy, section 5.4).

The deadline by which a faculty member must submit a portfolio to the department is established by the department. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the calendar for subsequent levels of review is as follows:

Department reviews to colleges:       No later than March 1
College reviews to university:           March 20
Decisions to faculty:                         June 1

2.1.2 Final (Sixth- or Seventh-Year) Review

The final CFS review will assess performance of responsibilities in the position description, including student mentoring if not precluded by the position description. To receive CFS, faculty members must clearly demonstrate that they meet the department, college, and university standards in the areas of responsibility set forth in their position description. Faculty members who are not granted CFS or who do not submit a portfolio will not receive another contract after the current contract year ends. The university, at its sole discretion, may grant such an individual a one-year temporary position while the person seeks employment elsewhere.

The final review will take place during fall semester of the sixth year (or seventh year, in colleges that have adopted a seven-year review period, see Rank and Status Policy section 5.3), unless a different timeline is established in the hiring offer letter (see Faculty Hiring Policy, section 3.16) or the CFS clock is extended for approved personal or parental leaves or other extenuating circumstances (see Rank and Status Policy, section 5.4). Rank advancement from assistant teaching, research, or clinical professor or assistant librarian to associate teaching, research, or clinical professor or associate librarian normally takes place at the same time unless an alternative timeline was agreed upon at hiring.

The deadline by which a faculty member must submit a portfolio to the department is established by the department. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the normal calendar for subsequent levels of review is as follows:

Department reviews to colleges:       No later than November 1
College reviews to university:           December 1
Decisions to faculty:                          May 1

2.2 Rank Advancement to Teaching, Research, or Clinical Professor, or to Senior Librarian

A faculty member first becomes eligible to apply for advancement to the rank of professor or senior librarian during the fifth year of service as associate professor or associate librarian. If the review is successful, the rank advancement takes effect fall semester of the following year. The annual calendar for reviewing applications for advancement to professor or senior librarian is the same as for final CFS reviews.

2.3 Allegations of Faculty Misconduct or Violations of University Policy

If reviewers believe that a faculty member may have engaged in misconduct or otherwise violated university policy, the reviewers should notify the department chair and the dean. The dean will notify the academic vice president, who will ensure that the allegations are investigated according to established university procedures. At the request of the faculty member or the academic vice president, the rank and status review process may be stayed while the allegations are investigated and resolved.


 Top 
3. Assessing a Faculty Member’s Contributions

The position description defining the various aspects of the professional assignment is established at the time a professional faculty member is hired and is included with the offer letter. Subsequent revisions to the position description must be signed and dated by both the department chair and the faculty member. The position description is included in the portfolio. If the position description changes after hiring, both the original and the revised position descriptions should be included in the portfolio together with a statement indicating when the new expectations went into effect.

A faculty member’s contributions should be evaluated in the context of the position description, using established department and college criteria and performance standards detailed in the relevant rank and status expectations documents to assess performance in those areas that are included in the position description.

Because the relevant groups of eligible voters may be different (e.g., an individual might be eligible to vote on rank advancement but not CFS), all reviewing bodies must hold separate votes on rank advancement and CFS.

3.1 Assessing Mentoring

Unless specifically precluded in the position description, it is assumed that professional faculty members have a responsibility to mentor students. Mentoring should be reviewed within one or more of the assigned areas of professional responsibility set forth in the job description rather than as a separate area in the rank and status review portfolio. Mentoring that might fall under more than one category should NOT be described redundantly in multiple sections of the review portfolio. Rather, the faculty member should describe a given mentoring activity in one section and, if necessary, mention it briefly by reference in other relevant sections. Because approaches to student mentoring vary across disciplines and professional assignments, faculty members should describe their mentoring efforts and articulate their benefit to students in a manner that reviewers from other disciplines and with different professional responsibilities can understand and evaluate. Colleges and departments should include discipline-specific definitions of mentoring within their own rank and status expectations documents.

3.2 Assessing Citizenship

3.2.1. Criteria for Evaluating Citizenship

In evaluating a faculty member’s citizenship contributions, reviewers should consider whether the faculty member:

  1. Supports and furthers the mission of the university and the Aims of a BYU Education.
  2. Adheres to the university’s Church Educational System Honor Code and observes university policies.
  3. Exhibits honor, integrity, collegiality, civility, respect, and concern for others.
  4. Demonstrates a commitment to creating an atmosphere of unity and belonging at the university.
  5. Attends department and college meetings and convocations.
  6. Attends and encourages students to attend devotionals and forums.
  7. Participates in the intellectual life of the department, college, and university.
  8. Participates in citizenship, leadership, and governance activities within the university.

3.2.2 Other Citizenship Activities

The extent of any additional internal or external citizenship expectations for CFS and rank advancement is defined by the position description. If consistent with the position description, faculty members might meet those expectations by:

  1. Serving the profession, including holding offices and committee assignments in professional associations, organizing professional conferences and panels, editing journals or newsletters, serving on editorial boards, reviewing grant proposals, or serving as scholarly referees.
  2. Collaborating with colleagues in teaching, scholarship, citizenship, or student mentoring.
  3. Mentoring colleagues.
  4. Strengthening the university through administrative service; committee service; assignments in the Jerusalem Center and study abroad; or teaching general education, honors, religious education, and interdisciplinary courses.
  5. Participating in international and other activities that enhance BYU’s approved outreach efforts.
  6. Participating with students in experiential learning activities.
  7. Making scholarship accessible and influential beyond the academic community, such as by engaging with the media in areas of faculty expertise (see Media Contact Policy), shaping public policy related to scholarly work (see Political Neutrality Policy), and marketing intellectual property that results from scholarly work (see Intellectual Property Policy).
  8. Employing professional expertise in service to the community or the Church of Jesus Christ (see Cooperation with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Policy).

3.3 Assessing Teaching

If teaching is part of the faculty member’s professional assignment, evaluators should assess overall performance in teaching by considering:

  1. Teaching load relative to the position description, including such factors as the number of new preparations, number of different courses taught, size of sections, and level of courses (general education, lower division, upper division, graduate)
  2. The teaching portfolio, in which the faculty member documents his or her efforts to evaluate and improve student learning and the learning environment, and to engage in ongoing processes of improvement
  3. Mentoring and experiential learning opportunities that the faculty member has provided for students outside the traditional classroom, and any measurable outcomes of that mentoring
  4. The number of graduate and honors students mentored as committee member or chair, including thesis and dissertation titles
  5. Reports from substantive confidential peer reviews of teaching regarding achievement of learning outcomes, alignment of course and program learning outcomes, learning activities, learning assessments, interactions with students, cultivation of an inclusive and respectful learning environment, course design and organization, course materials, and the faculty member’s efforts to improve the quality of teaching
  6. Student ratings including comments, with emphasis on trends or recurring themes
  7. Evidence that grade distribution is appropriate and consistent with department and college norms

3.4 Assessing Scholarship

If peer-reviewed scholarship is part of the faculty member’s professional assignment, then consistent with the criteria below, departments and colleges determine the types of publications and/or creative works that signal scholarly achievement. Department rank and status expectations documents should outline the relative value of different types of scholarly products in the discipline; standards for assessing quantity, quality, originality, and impact of scholarly work; and discipline-specific expectations regarding the reputation, selectivity, and impact of scholarly presses, journals, or performance and exhibition venues. Evidence of scholarship should emphasize work performed at BYU since hire into a CFS-track position or since the last rank advancement.

3.4.1 Criteria for Evaluating Scholarship

In reviewing a faculty member’s scholarship, reviewers should consider whether that scholarship:

  1. Is consistent with disciplinary norms of the department and college and with the university mission
  2. Makes the faculty member a more effective professional
  3. Involves students where possible
  4. Generates new knowledge, understanding, insight, interpretation, or application
  5. Is endorsed by peer review in accordance with national disciplinary norms and department rank and status expectations documents (Units may regularly use on-campus reviews as the primary method of peer review only with approval from the dean and the academic vice president.)
  6. Has received final acceptance for publication, exhibition, performance, etc.

3.5 Assessing Clinical Service

If clinical service is part of a faculty member’s professional assignment, reviewers should assess clinical contributions by considering evidence such as:

  1. Self-evaluations
  2. Evaluations by supervisors, peers, clients, or other stakeholders, when applicable
  3. Descriptions of student mentoring or supervision
  4. Seminars, workshops, and conferences attended
  5. Contributions to the discipline (e.g., presentations at professional meetings, development of training materials or curricula, publications for practitioner audiences)
  6. Documentation of current licensure or national certification and evidence of professional development undertaken to maintain licensure, if consistent with the position description

3.6 Assessing Librarianship

If librarianship is part of a faculty member’s professional assignment, reviewers should assess the following aspects of librarianship:

  1. Effectiveness in carrying out assigned professional duties within the library
  2. Professional development activities undertaken to enhance the librarian’s skills by increasing knowledge within the librarian’s assigned subject discipline or within the broader field of librarianship
  3. Scholarship that is a natural outgrowth of performance in the professional assignment and that serves to strengthen the librarian’s expertise in library science or in the assigned subject discipline. The criteria in section 3.4 for assessing scholarship apply to librarians.

3.7 Assessing other Professional Assignments

In some cases, aspects of the professional assignment do not fit within any of the categories above. In that circumstance, the faculty member should consult with the chair and/or dean to determine what materials should be included as evidence of contributions in those areas. Reviewers should evaluate the materials in the context of the position description.


 Top 
4. Department-Level Review

4.1 Department Review Committee

The department review committee comprises at least three faculty members who have earned CFS and, whenever possible, the rank aspired to by the faculty member under review. The department chair appoints the committee and its chair. The committee conducts a thorough review of the faculty member’s fulfillment of professional responsibilities defined in the position description. The department chair neither attends nor participates in meetings of the department review committee.

4.2 Waiver

Before the department chair or department review committee solicits reviews from students, faculty, external peers, or others, the faculty member must indicate in writing whether they waive their access to those reviews. Potential reviewers should receive a copy of the signed waiver statement, and it should be included in the faculty member’s portfolio (see Appendix B).

4.3 Review Letters of Citizenship Activities

The department review committee may solicit reviews from those who have closely observed the faculty member’s citizenship activities.

4.4 Student Ratings of Teaching

If teaching is part of the professional assignment, the department review committee will include in the portfolio the Student Ratings Summary Report, including all student comments. In initial and final CFS reviews, the report will include every class taught. For rank advancement reviews, the portfolio will include the summary report for every class taught during at least the past five years. The department committee’s report to the department chair should consider trends in evaluations, as well as the types of classes taught (e.g., large vs. small, lower vs. upper division, required vs. elective, new preparation vs. repeated).

4.5 Peer Reviews of Teaching

Peer reviews that are thorough and balanced are an essential tool for understanding the faculty member’s effectiveness as a teacher. If teaching is part of the professional assignment, the department chair ensures that at least two peers evaluate the faculty member’s teaching and includes confidential written reports of those evaluations in the portfolio. The department chair may delegate this responsibility to an associate chair or to the department review committee. These reports assess the achievement of learning outcomes; the effectiveness of practices and activities in and out of the classroom; the appropriateness of course content, materials, and assessments; the faculty member’s interactions with students and cultivation of a respectful and inclusive learning environment; and the engagement of the faculty member in processes of continuous improvement. The faculty member will facilitate these evaluations by providing reviewers with relevant materials (e.g., teaching portfolio, syllabi, examples of learning activities, slides, quizzes, exams). Ideally, peer reviewers should conduct multiple classroom visits over several semesters.

4.6 External Reviews

External reviews of scholarship are not usually required for professional faculty members unless the position description includes peer-reviewed scholarship as part of the professional assignment. External reviews of other aspects of the professional assignment may be sought if the position involves significant interaction with external entities whose input is relevant to the review. External reviews are not sought for initial (third-year) reviews.

If external reviews are needed, the department chair secures those reviews from appropriate sources. The department chair may delegate this responsibility to an associate chair or to the department review committee. The faculty member may recommend external reviewers and should describe his or her relationship with each suggested reviewer. Ultimately, however, reviewers are chosen by the department chair, associate chair, or department review committee. If they are faculty at an academic institution, reviewers should hold at least the rank being sought. They should not have personal or professional ties to the faculty member that might be expected to bias the reviews. All review letters, together with a curriculum vitae or professional biographical sketch for each external reviewer, must be included in the portfolio.

Appendix C contains a sample invitation to external reviewers. The following materials are sent with the invitation or in a subsequent communication: the faculty member’s curriculum vitae (containing embedded links to scholarly work wherever possible), information about the professional assignment, and the signed form indicating whether the faculty member has waived the right to know the identity of reviewers and see their letters. Departments should allow ample time for selecting and contacting potential reviewers, conveying materials, and receiving review letters.

Whoever selects the external reviewers (department chair, associate chair, or department review committee) will describe in writing (1) how the reviewers were selected, (2) their standing in the field, and (3) their relationship (if any) with the faculty member. This statement must be included in the portfolio along with external reviewers’ letters and their curricula vitae or biographical sketches.

4.7 Internal Reviews

If the professional assignment includes responsibilities that require significant interaction with BYU entities outside the department, letters of review may be solicited from individuals who have closely observed the fulfillment of those responsibilities. As with external reviews, the signed waiver statement indicating whether the faculty member has waived the right to know the identity of reviewers and see their letters is sent to reviewers.

4.8 Department Review Committee’s Vote and Report

All members of the department committee should thoroughly review the portfolio. After thoroughly reviewing the portfolio and comprehensively considering its strengths and weaknesses, the department review committee will, by majority vote, recommend granting or denying CFS candidacy, CFS, or rank advancement. A tie vote signals lack of majority support and is considered a recommendation for denial. The committee will report its vote to the department chair and describe in writing the faculty member’s strengths and weaknesses in fulfilling the professional responsibilities defined in the position description. Dissenting members of the committee may choose to include a dissenting report.

If the faculty member believes that a member of the department review committee is unable, because of personal or professional conflicts of interests, to assess the portfolio objectively, the faculty member should notify the department chair of the potential conflict and the basis for her or his belief as soon as practicable after the faculty member learns of the composition of the department review committee. If the chair believes there is a basis for concern, he or she will direct the committee member to recuse himself or herself from deliberations and voting. If this reduces the committee to fewer than three members, the department chair will appoint an alternate committee member for that review.

The department committee’s report is final and should not be revised as a consequence of the subsequent department discussion. If the department committee believes any updates are necessary as a result of additional information gained in the department discussion, they should be provided as an addendum to the committee’s report.

4.9 Availability of Committee Report and Portfolio

Before the department faculty deliberations and voting, the committee report and portfolio will be available to all CFS faculty and all CFS-track faculty in the department except the faculty member under review. Each eligible voter is responsible to review the portfolio carefully. The committee report and portfolio, including the identities of all outside reviewers and the content of any recommendation letters, are confidential. Faculty may not copy any part of the portfolio or letters and should not discuss them except with other department faculty members in appropriate professional settings.

4.10 Department Faculty Deliberations and Voting

The department review committee will report its evaluation and recommendations at a department faculty meeting open to all CFS faculty and all CFS-track faculty in the department, except the faculty member under review. Including all faculty broadens the discussion, helps communicate expectations, and informs faculty who will be evaluated in the future. Sufficient time should be allowed for thorough deliberations on each portfolio, even if this requires multiple department meetings.

Only faculty with CFS are eligible to vote in initial and final CFS decisions; only faculty with at least the rank being sought are eligible to vote in rank advancement decisions. Because the groups of eligible voters may be different (e.g., some are eligible to vote on rank advancement only, others are eligible to vote on CFS and rank advancement for the same candidate), all reviewing bodies must hold separate votes on CFS and rank advancement.

Members of the department review committee vote with that committee, and if eligible, also vote with the department faculty. The department chair and dean, however, do not vote with the department faculty.

Only faculty members physically or virtually present for department deliberations may vote. Exceptions require approval from the chair and dean; those granted exceptions are deemed present for purposes of voting.

Voting is by secret ballot, and the recommendation is determined by a majority vote of eligible faculty members who vote to recommend either granting or denying the application. A tie vote signals lack of majority support and is considered a recommendation for denial. The majority recommendation but not the vote count is shared with the department faculty. Only the department chair may inform the faculty member of the majority recommendation.

The department chair will prepare a summary of deliberations, reporting the vote count and summarizing key elements of department deliberations, including any concerns raised about accuracy of the department review committee’s report or issues not included in the report. This summary of deliberations is added to the portfolio, separate from the chair’s independent evaluation. The chair may delegate responsibility for drafting the summary of deliberations.

If the faculty member under review believes that any member of the department faculty is unable, because of personal or professional conflicts of interest, to assess the portfolio objectively, the faculty member should notify the department chair of the potential conflict and the basis for his or her belief. If the department chair believes there is a basis for concern, he or she should address this concern in the department chair’s report, but no eligible voter who attends the department deliberations may be prevented from voting.

4.11 Department Chair’s Report

In addition to reporting the vote count and summarizing department deliberations in the portfolio, the department chair will independently evaluate in writing the faculty member’s strengths and weaknesses in fulfilling the professional responsibilities defined in the position description. This report should not merely restate the committee’s findings but should offer the chair’s unique perspectives. The chair must recommend granting or denial of CFS candidacy, CFS, or rank advancement. The chair’s report should assess the faculty member’s progress in addressing any concerns raised in prior reviews, drawing from annual review letters and prior rank and status review summaries.

4.12 Informing the Faculty Member of a Positive Recommendation

If the recommendations of the department committee, the department faculty, and the department chair are positive, the chair will inform the faculty member of the department recommendations without disclosing vote counts or details of the deliberations and will advance the portfolio to the college.

4.13 Informing the Faculty Member of a Negative Recommendation

If the department committee, the department faculty, or the department chair recommends denial of CFS candidacy, CFS, or rank advancement, the department chair will inform the faculty member and will explain the reasons for the negative recommendation. Vote counts remain confidential. A third person should be present at this meeting, e.g., an associate chair or the chair of the department review committee. This meeting should occur before college-level review begins. The chair should inform the faculty member of the option to withdraw the application. The faculty member should be reminded that department deliberations result in non-binding recommendations, and that only the academic vice president’s recommendation is subject to independent review (see Rank and Status Independent Examination Procedures).

A faculty member’s withdrawal of an application for CFS candidacy or CFS constitutes notice of resignation from the university at the end of the contract year. The university, at its sole discretion, may grant such an individual a one-year temporary position while the person seeks employment elsewhere. If the faculty member elects not to withdraw the application, it will be forwarded to the college review committee.


 Top 
5. College-Level Review

5.1 Colleges without Departments

In colleges without departments, the college review committee, the college faculty, and the dean will perform the functions of the department review committee, the department faculty, and the department chair as described in Section 4: Department-Level Review.

5.2 College Review Committee

The college review committee is composed of at least three faculty members who have achieved CFS and, where possible, the rank aspired to by the faculty members under review. The dean appoints the committee and the committee chair. An associate dean may be assigned to guide the work of the college committee. The dean neither attends nor participates in meetings of the college review committee. Committee members from the same department as the faculty member under review who have voted with their department faculty may participate in deliberations but do not vote again.

5.3 College Review Committee’s Vote and Report

Members of the college review committee should conduct their own independent review of the faculty member’s performance, evaluating the professional faculty member’s contributions in the context of the position description and using the department’s and college’s established criteria and performance standards as detailed in their rank and status expectations documents to assess performance in those areas that are included in the position description. The college review committee will recommend by majority vote to grant or deny CFS candidacy, CFS, or rank advancement. A tie vote signals lack of majority support and is considered a recommendation for denial. The committee will write an independent report evaluating the faculty member’s strengths and weaknesses in fulfilling the professional responsibilities defined in the position description and reporting the committee’s vote. Dissenting members of the committee may choose to include a dissenting report.

If the faculty member believes that a member of the college review committee is unable, because of personal or professional conflicts of interests, to assess the portfolio objectively, the faculty member should notify the dean of the potential conflict and the basis for his or her belief as soon as practicable after the faculty member learns of the composition of the college review committee. If the dean believes the potential conflict would compromise the integrity of the review process, the dean will instruct the committee member to recuse himself or herself from deliberations and voting. If this reduces the committee to fewer than three members, the dean will appoint an alternate committee member for that review.

5.4 Dean’s Report

After the college review committee’s vote, the dean will independently evaluate in writing the faculty member’s strengths and weaknesses in fulfilling the professional assignment as defined in the position description. The dean’s report should not merely repeat previous findings but should offer the dean’s unique perspectives. The dean must recommend granting or denial of CFS candidacy, CFS, or rank advancement.

5.5 Informing the Faculty Member of a Positive Recommendation

If the college review committee’s recommendation and the dean’s recommendation are positive, the dean will inform the faculty member of the positive recommendations without disclosing vote counts or details of the deliberations and will advance the portfolio to the associate academic vice president – faculty development (AAVP – FD).

5.6 Informing the Faculty Member of a Negative Recommendation

If the college committee or the dean recommends denial of CFS candidacy, CFS, or rank advancement, the dean will inform the faculty member and will explain the reasons for the negative recommendation. Vote counts remain confidential. The department chair should be present at this meeting. The dean should inform the faculty member of the option to withdraw the application. The faculty member should be reminded that department and college deliberations result in non-binding recommendations and that only the academic vice president’s recommendation is subject to independent review (see Rank and Status Independent Examination Procedures).

A faculty member’s withdrawal of an application for CFS candidacy or CFS constitutes notice of resignation from the university at the end of the contract year. The university, at its sole discretion, may grant such an individual a one-year temporary position while the person seeks employment elsewhere. If the faculty member elects not to withdraw the application, it will be forwarded to the AAVP – FD.


 Top 
6. University-Level Review

6.1 Professional Faculty Council on Rank and Status

The Professional Faculty Council on Rank and Status is composed of at least six and not more than eight professional faculty members, all of whom have CFS or hold the rank of teaching professor, research professor, clinical professor, or senior librarian. At least three-fourths of the appointed council members must be present to constitute a quorum. Council members from the same department as the faculty member under review who have voted with their department faculty may participate in deliberations but do not vote again. The AAVP – FD serves as chair of the council but does not vote. The academic vice president appoints each council member and appoints a vice-chair from among the council members.

If the faculty member believes that any member of the Professional Council on Rank and Status is unable, because of personal or professional conflicts of interest, to assess the portfolio objectively, the faculty member should notify the AAVP – FD of the potential conflict and the basis for the belief before the deadline to advance the portfolio to the AAVP – FD. If the AAVP – FD believes there is a basis for concern, he or she will ask the council member to recuse himself or herself from deliberations and voting.

The AAVP – FD determines which portfolios will be reviewed by the Professional Faculty Council on Rank and Status. University council review is mandatory in cases where the college functions as a single academic unit without departments; a recommendation from any prior level of review is negative; or the number of dissenting votes cast at any prior level is considered significant by the associate academic vice president. Only the AAVP – FD may waive the university council review.

For those portfolios that are reviewed by the Professional Faculty Council on Rank and Status, the Council will evaluate the professional faculty member’s contributions in the context of the position description, and using the department’s and college’s established criteria and performance standards as defined in their rank and status expectations documents to assess performance in those areas that are included in the position description, they will determine whether the department and college reasonably applied their written criteria.

The university council will recommend, by majority vote, to grant or deny CFS candidacy, CFS, or rank advancement. A tie vote signals lack of majority support and is considered a recommendation for denial. The council’s evaluation and recommendations are forwarded to the academic vice president.

6.2 Recommendations that Differ from College Recommendations

If the Professorial Faculty Council on Rank and Status is considering making a recommendation that differs from that of the dean or the college review committee, the council may ask the dean for clarification or more information before forwarding its recommendation to the academic vice president.

6.3 Academic Vice President’s Recommendation

After considering the recommendations from all prior levels of review, the academic vice president will make an independent recommendation to the university president to grant or deny CFS candidacy, CFS, or rank advancement. In extraordinary circumstances, the academic vice president may recommend a delay of the review. The vice president’s recommendation will be informed by the recommendations of the department, college, and (if applicable) university-level reviewers, but will provide unique perspectives resulting from the vice president’s independent review.

If the academic vice president recommends against granting CFS candidacy, CFS, or rank advancement, the faculty member will be informed of the recommendation in a letter delivered by the AAVP – FD. The letter will summarize the recommendation and its underlying reasons.

Upon receiving the letter, the faculty member may (1) withdraw the application, (2) allow the recommendation to go forward for the president’s final decision without comment, or (3) request an independent examination of the academic vice president’s recommendation as detailed in the Rank and Status Independent Examination Procedures.

A recommendation by the academic vice president to delay the review is not subject to independent examination. Should the faculty member choose to reject the offer of a delay, the academic vice president’s recommendation becomes denial, and the faculty member may exercise any of the three options listed above. By withdrawing an application for CFS candidacy or CFS, a faculty member resigns from employment at the university, effective at the end of the current contract period. The university, at its sole discretion, may grant the individual a one-year temporary position while the person seeks employment elsewhere.

6.4 President’s Decision

After receiving the recommendation of the academic vice president and the results of any independent examination, the president will decide whether to grant or deny CFS candidacy, CFS, or rank advancement, or take any other action. The president has the exclusive authority, in the exercise of the president’s sole discretion, to make the decision. All determinations in the rank and status process other than the president’s decision are only recommendations. The president’s decision is final.

The faculty member will receive written notice of the president’s decision. Copies of the notification letter will be sent to the academic vice president, the AAVP – FD, the dean, and the department chair. If the president’s decision is not to grant CFS candidacy or CFS, the university, at its sole discretion, may grant the individual a one-year temporary position while the person seeks employment elsewhere.


 Top 
Appendix A

Click here to view Appendix A.


 Top 
Appendix B

Click here to view Appendix B.


 Top 
Appendix C

Click here to view Appendix C.