Home >> APT Table of Contents

printable version

Section XI. Procedures for Promotion or Award of Tenure

See also University Handbook, Vol. II, Chapters 24 and 25 (Appendices 9 and 10)

1. Promotion Time Schedule
   The faculty code indicates that each member of the faculty below the rank of Professor shall beconsidered annually for promotion (Handbook, Vol. II, Chapter 24, Section 24-54). This consideration should adhere to the following schedule:

   May 15th Notification to departments and faculty from Office of the Dean to confirm which faculty members are approaching deadlines requiring review for promotion/tenure decisions.

   June 2nd – Sept. 24th Assembly by faculty members being considered and by departments of materials necessary for review of promotion/tenure. Completion of departmental review and preparation of promotion packet, including department chair's letter of support and recommendation.

   Sept. 25th Last date for submission by Chairperson of materials and recommendations requesting mandatory promotion and tenure decisions to the Office of the Dean. Dec. 1st Last date for submission by Chairperson of materials and recommendations requesting non-mandatory promotion and tenure decisions to the Office of the Dean.

2. Promotion Procedure

   1. The department shall consider each faculty member below the rank of Professor for promotion each year. The annual review is instrumental in this process. A faculty member may elect to forego consideration for promotion after discussion with the Chairperson.
   2. Faculty members approaching deadlines requiring consideration for promotion shall be formally notified by the Chairperson of the need to update C.V.s, assemble copies of publications, etc. The candidate shall request her/his chair to solicit confidential letters of assessment in accord with materials identified in the Provost’s Letter in Appendix 4 of these Guidelines and in the checklist on pages 77-78. A copy of this shall be addressed to the Office of the Dean but sent to
      the chairperson.
   3. Candidate’s Letter
      1. The candidate should submit a letter addressed to the Departmental Chairperson, commenting on the publications listed in the C.V. First, the candidate should identify any publications felt to be especially important or to have “landmark” status in the field. The candidate should succinctly explain why the publication is important, and the supporting letters of assessment should address and confirm the extra-ordinary nature of the noted publications.
      2. Second, the candidate’s letter should address multi-authored publications listed in the C.V. Specifically, for those publications where the candidate was not the first author, the letter should identify the role played by the candidate in completing the published work. It is especially important to identify first authors who might be graduate students, residents, or technicians whose work was directed by the candidate.
      3. Third, publications based on work done prior to arriving at this dental school should be distinguished from publications based on work here. This will give the Committee insight into the candidate’s level of independence, and the consistency of his/her research and publication activity.
      4. The faculty are reminded that appointment to the rank of Professor requires outstanding, mature scholarship as evidenced by accomplishments in teaching and in research as evaluated in terms of national recognition and other criteria listed in the Handbook, Vol. II, Chapters 24 and 25. Items constituting evidence of national recognition are included on that page and should be referred to by all candidates for promotion to full professor. These candidates should provide specific and detailed evidence of national recognition in their letters.
   4. For departments where an initial report and/or recommendation on the qualifications of the candidate for promotion is produced by a subcommittee of the faculty senior in rank, the report shall be written. The department chair shall provide the candidate with a written summary of the committee's report and recommendation. For purposes of confidentiality, all names shall be omitted and vote counts may be omitted from the candidate's summary. The candidate may respond in writing within seven calendar days. The chair or dean shall forward the candidate's response, if any, together with the committee's report to the voting faculty. (See Vice Provost’s
      letter of October 11, 2000 in Appendix 5.)
   5. The voting faculty of the candidate's department superior in rank to the candidate shall then meet to discuss the candidate's record and to vote on the promotion question. Voting faculty members superior in rank shall vote:
      1. to approve the promotion;
      2. to disapprove promotion;
      3. to postpone for reconsideration.

      Decisions are determined by a majority vote of eligible voting members. For both mandatory and non-mandatory promotions, the candidate has the right to present his or her credentials to the APT Committee and the Dean despite a negative decision by the involved department.

   Handbook: Vol. II, Section 24-54. B. 5th paragraph: “If this recommendation is a departmental one, and is favorable, or if the promotion decision is mandatory, or if the candidate has written a response to the departmental vote, the chair shall transmit all documents produced in this promotion process to the appropriate dean, with his or her independent analysis and recommendation.”

   Departmental recommendations to postpone for reconsideration must demonstrate, in writing, the reason(s) for the action and be forwarded to the Dean. If a tenure decision is postponed for reconsideration, the Dean shall notify the candidate in writing that her/his appointment will terminate at the end of the second succeeding academic year unless reconsideration in the meantime shall have resulted in the granting of tenure (Handbook: Vol. II, Chapter 25, Section 25-41).
   
   For faculty members holding joint appointments, the process described in this section must occur in both the primary and secondary departments. Moreover, the recommendations from the two departments must be in agreement.

   6. The department chair shall write a formal report of these proceedings for the candidate, summarizing the discussion and recommendation. For purposes of confidentiality, all names shall be omitted and vote counts may be omitted from this report. The candidate may then respond in writing to the department chair within seven calendar days.
   7. Promotion actions are required for the following:
      1. November of the fourth year in the Instructor rank.
      2. November of the third year of the second three-year appointment at the rank of Assistant Professor. Note: This action is considered simultaneous to a review for the award of tenure.
      3. November of the sixth year of appointment at combined time in ranks of Instructor and Assistant Professor. Note: This action is considered simultaneous to a review for the award of tenure.
      4. November of the sixth year at the rank of Research Associate.
      5. November of the sixth year at the rank of Research Assistant Professor.

      Breaks in service, such as leaves or sabbaticals, can affect these actions. The Office of the Dean should be contacted for specific interpretation of a given record of service.

   8. The supporting documents as identified in the checklist (see pages 77-78 of these Guidelines) should then be assembled in the number of appropriate packets for transmittal to the Office of the Dean. These materials should reflect information permitting evaluation of requested promotion in relation to the criteria outlined in the Provost’s Letter in Appendix 4 of these Guidelines, and the documentation outlined in the Vice Provost’s letter in Appendix 5. Chairs must pay special attention to the proper methodology for soliciting external letters.

   The Chair’s letter of recommendation is particularly important. It should follow the recommendations contained in the Handbook, Vol. II, Chapter 24, Section 24-57, as well as the format and content of the sample letter.

   1. Describe and present a critical evaluation of teaching, research, and service to the department, School, University or the State as covered in the statement of major University functions, Handbook, Vol. II, Chapter 24, Section 24-32.
   2. Describe and evaluate special competencies which the nominee has developed, together with copies of the letters or other evidence to be used by the School in judging standing, reputation and scholarly achievements.
   3. Present a complete and precise description of the departmental or school curriculum at the undergraduate, professional, or graduate/postgraduate level, as well as the anticipated place in future developments.
   4. Describe the program of research or creativity the nominee is following and plans for the future.
   5. Report the departmental vote on the recommendation (number eligible to vote, number voting, number of affirmative votes).
   6. Provide a description of stated or implied commitments for development of library, laboratory, or other special facilities which will be needed to carry on the work of the nominee.
   7. Comment on the quality of the nominee’s Teaching Portfolio. The curriculum vitae should follow the sample format provided in Appendix 1 of the Guidelines.

   9. This packet of materials should be assembled in accordance with the Checklist in Appendix 2 and forwarded to the Office of the Dean no later than the deadline dates of September 25 for mandatory promotion and December 1 for non-mandatory promotion.
   10. It is the responsibility of the department Chairperson to transmit materials and
       recommendations requesting promotion and tenure decisions to the Office of the Dean. Each faculty member must assemble and maintain a file of materials pertinent to criteria associated with promotion and tenure. This compendium should contain such information as is identified in these Guidelines. Especially important are originals of letters descriptive of quality of work, reprints or published materials, course evaluations, etc.
   11. Upon receipt of the materials, the Office of the Dean will forward copies for review to the APT Committee and will begin procedures to support the Dean's review of the recommendation. Upon receipt of the APT Committee's recommendations, the Dean will inform the department Chairperson in writing as to the status of the request and whatever next steps are indicated. Chairpersons will formally notify the concerned faculty member in writing and will send a copy of the notification to the Office of the Dean for inclusion in the files.

   If the recommendation resulting from these steps within the School is favorable, the required copies are for forwarded by the Dean to the President's Office.
   All promotions are reviewed in the Fall. Concerned Chairpersons and faculty will receive notification of actions within the School of Dentistry by the end of January. Actions by other bodies, including the Board of Regents, normally take place through the remainder of the winter and early spring months. Promotions generally become effective in July at the beginning of the academic year following the review period. The Handbook, Vol. II, Chapter 24, should be
   consulted. In the event that a promotion is proposed for faculty who hold joint or adjunct appointments, the primary and secondary departments should be involved.

3. Tenure Policy
   Tenure is the right of a faculty member to hold her/his position without discriminatory reduction of salary, except for the reasons in the manner provided in Chapter 25, Volume II of the Handbook. Tenure is a status awarded to the faculty by the University under the policy of the Board of Regents (BR October, 1954, Rev. May, 1956). Tenure is granted to faculty members of such character and scholarly ability that the University can justifiably undertake to employ them for the rest of their academic careers. This policy requires that the granting of tenure be considered carefully. It should be a specific act, even more significant than promotion in academic rank, which is exercised only after careful consideration of the candidate's scholarly qualifications and character.
4. Eligibility for Tenure (Handbook, Vol. II, Chapter 25, Section 25-32). To be eligible for tenure consideration, the following applies:
   1. he or she is a professor or associate professor. Section 25-32, A.
   2. Is salaried from regularly appropriated University funds (funds appropriated to the University from the State of Washington as a regular part of the state funding base). Section 25-32, C9.
   3. Is not appointed in an acting, visiting, adjunct, research, clinical, affiliate or lecturer status or under any initial appointment specified to be without tenure.

   Note: A full-time faculty member who receives 50% (or more) of her/his salary from regular state funds and 50% (or less) from research funds is eligible for 50% (or more) tenure in the state line portion of her/his appointment. If a full-time, tenured faculty member chooses to reduce her/his appointment below 100%, but not below 50%, that individual also must resign from the corresponding portion of tenure. For example, if a 100% tenured appointment is reduced to 75% time, then the faculty member must resign from 25% of her/his tenure; if reduced to 50% time, the s/he must resign from 50% of tenure; and so on.

5. Awarding of Tenure

   1. In the case of initial appointments to the rank of Associate or Full Professor (or persons otherwise qualified), specified to be without tenure, such appointments are limited to not more than three (3) years (Handbook, Vol. II, Chapter 25, Section 25-32, D). A full mandatory review similar to that required for promotion is held in the fall of the third year.
   2. In the case of appointments of Associate or Full Professors either initially appointed or promoted to these ranks, but specified to be without tenure due to funding source, such appointments may be eligible for tenure review if state funds become available. Any tenure decision will require preparation of a proposal documenting tenure-quality teaching and research, a full review of the APT Committee and the Dean, and the Provost’s approval.
   3. In the case of appointments of Assistant Professors initially not eligible for tenure for reasons due to funding, re-budgeting to regularly appropriated state funds may provide eligibility for tenure review. Any tenure decision will require preparation of a proposal documenting tenurequality teaching and research, a full review of the APT Committee and the Dean, and the Provost’s approval. Time limit in rank is dated from the date of the initial appointment.
   4. In unusual instances, an Assistant Professor may be recommended for tenure (Handbook, Vol. II, Chapter 25, Section 25-41) at any time after completion of three (3) years of full-time service at the rank at the University of Washington (Handbook, Vol. II, Chapter 25, Section 25-32, B).
   5. Persons holding full-time appointments as Acting Instructors and/or Assistant Professor for a combined accumulation of seven (7) or more consecutive years who have not received the prescribed notice terminating employment automatically receive tenure (Handbook, Vol. II, Chapter 25, Section 25-32, A.2).
   6. Should tenure be denied in the mandatory (sixth) year, reconsideration in the seventh and terminal year will not be allowed. The University Tenure Committee has determined that there is no provision in the Faculty Code for such a review and it should not be permitted.
6. Tenure Procedure
   1. The general procedure for recommendation of tenure is described in the Handbook Vol. II, Chapter 25 (see Appendix 10). In the School of Dentistry, tenure recommendations ordinarily accompany either the initial appointment of persons, who are otherwise eligible, to the academic ranks of Associate Professor or the promotion of persons from the rank of Assistant Professor to Associate Professor.
   2. The procedure and schedule of recommendations for tenure is precisely the same as for promotion. See University Handbook, Vol. II, Chapter 25 in Appendix 10.
   3. Because the consideration of tenure is a decision that is special unto itself, the letter of recommendation from the Chairperson is most significant. This letter should follow the guidelines described earlier in relation to promotion. If a previous recommendation for promotion has been considered in the past, a summary of the changes in the nominee's status shall be included.
   4. In tenure recommendations, schedule and review and notifications to departments and nominees are as described for promotion.

Checklist for Promotion/Tenure Requests

The necessary information for preparing a promotion/tenure request is contained in the current edition of the Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure. The following checklist has been prepared to help insure against failure to supply necessary information.

______Candidate’s letter to Department Chairperson (see page 83 of these Guidelines)

______Chair’s summary of departmental discussion and recommendation (omitting names and vote counts) to Candidate. (See Vice Provost memo of October 11, 2000 in Appendix 5.)

______Candidate’s response to Chair’s summary, if s/he chooses to respond, within seven calendar days.

______Letter from Department Chairperson transmitting the promotion/tenure (see page 85 of these Guidelines). This letter must include the voting results in the Department (number eligible to vote, number of affirmative and negative votes, as well as the number, if any, of abstentions).

______Letters of assessment
These letters must satisfy requirements spelled out in these Guidelines: for promotion, letters must be requested by the Chair, not the candidate, and must ask for a neutral evaluation. See Provost’s Letter, Appendix 4, page 121. The Chair is responsible for the final determination of who will be asked for an assessment. The candidate cannot send out assessment or evaluation requests.

Letters of assessment should be addressed to the Dean and should comment to the extent possible on the accomplishments of the candidate in the categories of scholarship, teaching, administration, and/or school service, community service, years in rank, and personal qualities. (See sample letter, page 81 of these Guidelines.)

Minimum number of letters:
- 4 for promotion to Assistant or Associate Professor, or to Senior Lecturer; at least 2 to 4 from outside the UW from comparable institutions
- 5 for promotion to full Professor with at least 2 to 5 from outside the UW from comparable institutions. There is no maximum limit, but the minimum number listed above will suffice.

______Curriculum Vitae - must follow sample in these Guidelines: for promotion, attach tables for publications, research, teaching

______Seven (7) collated sets of copies, in addition to the originals, assembled of the materials listed above for distribution to the APT Committee. (7 sets for ranks of Instructor through Professor, which must be reviewed by the APT Committee.)

The seven sets must be collated and assembled into seven separate file folders or 3-ring binders, whichever the candidate prefers. The originals of all letters must be submitted with the copies when the proposal is submitted.

One copy of any of the following support material that is appropriate for the candidate:

1. Scholarship

   ____Reprints or copies of all published papers listed in C.V. and/or bibliography (attach as Table to C.V.)

   ____Copies of any unpublished papers considered high quality
   
   ____Books or chapters of books

   ____Presentations before scholarly meetings and conferences

   ____Copies of proposals that have been submitted

   ____Table of funded grants and contracts as attachment to C.V.

   ____Election to editorial boards of major journals

2. Teaching. See Appendix 2 for Teaching Portfolio information.

   ____Copies of student evaluations of courses

   ____Peer Teaching Evaluation Report of teaching ability (PTERC report)

   ____Complete list of course responsibilities (attach as Table to C.V.)

   ____Teaching syllabi

   ____Copies of course objectives, handouts, exams and a record of class performance for each course taught.Place all material for each course in a separate folder.

   ____Copies or samples of instructional material developed for a course.

   ____Training of graduate and professional students in scholarly methods

3. Administration and/or Dental School Service

   ____Reports from committee chairs regarding extent of participation, competence demonstrated, productivity and effectiveness of the faculty member. Reports regarding these contributions of the committee chair must come from the Dean

   ____Reports or publications relative to administrative and/or Dental School Service activities listed in the curriculum vitae.

4. Community Service

   ____Reports from the committee Chairperson or administrative superior regarding the extent of participation, competence demonstrated, productivity and effectiveness of the faculty member.

   ____Copy of any reports or publications relative to community service included

Request for Letter of Assessment
Sample Letter

*This template may also be used for promotions within the Research track.

Letter of Assessment
Sample Response

Candidate’s Letter to Chair
Sample Letter

Chairperson’s Letter of Recommendation
Sample Letter to the Dean

When departmental Chairpersons write to individuals requesting letters of assessment supporting the promotion, it would be helpful to the APT Committee if they would solicit specific comments on the quality of research done by the candidate. This might best be done by including copies of several publications chosen by the candidate as representing his/her most important work, and specifically asking reviewers to comment on the quality of the papers in their letters of assessment. Such comments would help the Committee establish that the published work is of good quality and of interest and importance to the field, and will be used to substantiate that the research is of “high quality” when the promotion package is forwarded to upper campus.