Faculty Appointments & Review — Appendix E: Review Procedures for Faculty with Joint Appointments

Note: Any agreement negotiated with CLAS Area Deans and formulated in a Memorandum of Understanding with the candidate and DEOs takes precedence over the provisions below, which form Appendix E of the current CLAS/UI Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Decision Making.

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