Faculty Appointments & Review — Department-level Procedures

A. Informing the Candidate of Materials to Be Submitted
B. The Candidate's Dossier
C. The Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee
D. Evaluation of the Candidate's Teaching
E. Peer Evaluation of the Candidate's Scholarship and Selection of External Evaluators
F. Peer Evaluation of the Candidate's Service
G. Candidate's Right to Respond to the Report of the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee
H. The Departmental Consulting Group
I. DEO's Letter and Recommendation to the Dean
J. Candidate's Right to Respond to Recommendations of the DEO

A. Informing the Candidate of Materials to Be Submitted

The Departmental Executive Officer must send candidates written notification at several points in time of the material that the candidate must compile and submit for the promotion dossier. The notice must also inform the candidate that the promotion dossier is due by September 1 in the academic year of the tenure and promotion decision. These times of notification by the DEO are

  • in the year of appointment to a tenure-track position,
  • in the year of contract renewal, and
  • by April 15 of the calendar year in which the tenure and/or promotion decision will be made

B. The Candidate's Dossier

1. September 1 submission deadline

It is the candidate’s responsibility, with the advice of the Departmental Executive Officer, to compile and submit substantive material for inclusion in the promotion dossier (the core of the Promotion Record) by September 1 of the academic year in which the promotion decision is to be made, or by an earlier date established by the department.

2. DEO responsibilities

It is the responsibility of the Departmental Executive Officer to advise the candidate in compiling material for the dossier, to complete the compilation of the dossier (and subsequently to complete compilation of the Promotion Record by adding materials to it throughout the departmental decision-making process), and to ensure to the greatest extent possible that the Promotion Record serves as a fair and accurate evaluation of the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses and not purely as a record of advocacy for the candidate. The responsibility to advise the candidate in compiling the dossier material is not limited to the immediate period of the tenure and promotion review, but rather is an ongoing responsibility that begins when the faculty member is appointed to the department.

3. Materials to be included in the candidate's dossier

By September 1, or an earlier date specified in the departmental procedures, the candidate submits to the DEO the materials described below. If the department requires additional documents, these are described on the College's website.

The dossier will contain the following, in the order listed—except that information on the CLAS Standard CV need not be repeated elsewhere:

a. the “Recommendation for Faculty Promotion” cover sheet, which can be downloaded and completed by the Departmental Administrator; (see Appendix B);

b. [on the CLAS Standard CV] a record of the candidate’s educational and professional history, consisting of the following sections in the order listed:
          i.  a list of institutions of higher education attended, preferably from most to least recent, indicating for each one the name of the institution, dates attended, field of study, degree obtained, and date the degree was awarded;
         ii.  a list of professional and academic positions held, preferably from most to least recent, indicating for each one the title of the position, dates of service, and the location or institution at which the position was held; and
        iii.  a list of honors, awards, recognitions, and outstanding achievements, preferably from most to least recent.

c. a record of the candidate’s teaching at The University of Iowa, including:
          i.  the candidate’s personal statement on teaching (consisting of a summary and explanation—normally not to exceed 3 pages—of the candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning teaching; comments on these accomplishments and plans; and comments on other items included in the dossier related to teaching);
         ii.  a list of the candidate’s teaching assignments semester-by-semester, preferably from most to least recent. See the College's Model Chart for Summarizing Teaching Record.
        iii.  [on the CLAS Standard CV] a list of graduate students, fellows, or other post-doctoral students supervised, including each student’s name, degree objective, and first post-graduate position;
        iv.  a list of other contributions to instructional programs;
         v.  copies of course materials, including syllabi, instructional Web pages, computer lab materials, etc. (see I.B.4, paragraph 2);
        vi. and, as an appendix to the dossier, copies of teaching evaluations by students for each course taught (the candidate will include all student teaching evaluations in her or his custody) (see I.B.4, paragraph 2);

d. a record of the candidate’s scholarship, including:
          i. the candidate’s personal statement on scholarship (consisting of a summary and explanation—normally not to exceed 3 pages—of the candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning scholarly and artistic production; comments on these accomplishments and plans; and comments on other items included in the dossier related to scholarly or creative work);
         ii. [on the CLAS Standard CV] a list, preferably from most to least recent, of the candidate’s publications, exhibitions, or productions (with, for each multi-authored work or coherent series of multi-authored works, a brief statement of the candidate’s contribution to the work or series of works and, as an appendix to the dossier, verification of exhibits, installations, and productions in the form of published notices, programs, or reviews [see also item iii, below]);
        iii. [on the CLAS Standard CV] a list and (as an appendix to the dossier) copies of all published reviews of the candidate's scholarly or creative work of which the candidate, the departmental promotion and tenure committee, and/or the DEO has knowledge (if the number of these reviews is very large, see section I.B.4, which allows the candidate, in consultation with the DEO, to select appropriate representative reviews that will be forwarded with the dossier);
        iv.  [on the CLAS Standard CV] a list of attained support including grants and contracts received by the candidate;
         v.  for candidates for tenure who have received a flexible-load assignment, the request for the assignment, outlining the work to be conducted during the assignment, and the follow-up report on work accomplished during the assignment;
        vi.  [on the CLAS Standard CV] a list of inventions and patents;
       vii.  [on the CLAS Standard CV] a list of invited lectures, conference presentations, etc.;
      viii.  [on the CLAS Standard CV] a list of pending decisions that might affect the promotion deliberations, including grant proposals, book contracts, and other publishing decisions anticipated in the near future;
        ix. for each book manuscript in the dossier, a copy of the College’s checklist (see Appendix F), to show where the book is in the production process;
         x. for books that are not yet in print, the letter from the publisher making the final commitment to publish the book, with a copy of the final contract (see also Timing of Reviews);
        xi. and, as an appendix to the dossier, copies of the candidate’s published work (and work that is in print or has been accepted for publication), indicating where each work has been or will be published;

e. a record of the candidate’s service to the department, college, university, profession, community, and State of Iowa, including:
          i. the candidate’s personal statement on service (consisting of a summary and explanation—normally not to exceed two pages—of the candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning service; comments on these accomplishments and plans; and comments on other items included in the dossier related to service); and
         ii. [on the CLAS Standard CV] a categorized list, preferably from most to least recent, of offices held in professional organizations; editorships of journals or other scholarly publications; service on review panels; service on departmental, collegiate, or university committees; departmental, collegiate, or university service positions; relevant community involvement and service to the State of Iowa; and other contributions;

f. in reviews for tenure, the following materials from the candidate's third-year probationary review for contract renewal: the DEO’s letter, the Dean’s letter, and the candidate’s response(s) to the DEO’s and/or Dean’s letter;

g. within the appropriate section(s) of the dossier as listed above, other information relevant to the candidate’s record in teaching, scholarship, or service deemed important in the candidate’s judgment or required by the department's written policy governing promotion decision making.

4. Selecting representative materials

Where the volume of material of a particular kind which is required to be included in the dossier is large and potentially unmanageable, a candidate, in consultation with the Departmental Executive Officer, may select and identify representative portions of the required material for special attention. Only the material selected as representative will become part of the Promotion Record and be transmitted to successive participants in the promotion decision-making process.

Required materials segregated from the representative material will be available for review and located in a readily accessible location under the Departmental Executive Officer’s custody. If any participant in the promotion decision-making process relies upon initially segregated material in preparing a written evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications, that material should be added to the Promotion Record; the fact of that addition should be noted in the written evaluation, and the candidate should be notified in writing of the addition at the time it is made.

5. Work in progress

The candidate’s work in progress not completed by the specified date but anticipated to be completed in the fall, early enough for full and deliberate evaluation, as determined by the Departmental Executive Officer, may be identified at the time the dossier is submitted and added to the dossier if and when completed as anticipated.

6. Late additions to the dossier

Other materials which could not have been available by the specified date but which are completed early enough for full and deliberate evaluation may be added to the promotion dossier by the candidate through the Departmental Executive Officer. Materials added to the original dossier or materials in the original dossier that are amended, should be labeled as such, including the date when added or amended and with any amendments clearly marked.

C. The Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee

It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service, as described in sections D, E, and F of this document.

In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the DEO appoints a departmental promotion and tenure committee for each candidate, consisting of at least four faculty members eligible to vote on the decision, and appoints a chair for each committee from among its members. This committee performs the peer evaluation of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service, following the procedures described in sections D, E, and F). The DEO may not be a member of the promotion and tenure committee. (Note: Some departments have established additional specifications for the formation or composition of this committee.)

The peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service will be contained in one or more reports that analyze the relevant materials in the Promotion Record as detailed in the respective sections that follow, and shall be signed by each peer evaluator. These reports are intended to go beyond a mere description of what the candidate has included in the dossier and provide a thorough evaluation of the quantity and quality of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service from a departmental perspective.

By the first working day of November, the promotion and tenure committee submits their evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service, in light of the University’s, the College's, and the department’s criteria for tenure and/or promotion and the norms of the discipline.

Within 5 working days of the submission of these evaluations, the DEO places the reports in the Promotion Record and transmits a copy of the report to the candidate, who may submit a letter within another 5 working days correcting any factual errors in the evaluations.

D. Evaluation of the Candidate's Teaching

It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s teaching by participating in the following process:

  1. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the departmental promotion and tenure committee (see part I.C, above) performs the peer evaluation of teaching according to the procedures described below. The evaluation must incorporate various types of evidence (including at a minimum review of syllabi and other teaching materials from courses at a variety of levels of instruction, classroom observation, confidential evaluations solicited from faculty members with whom the candidate has team-taught courses and who are at or above the rank to which the candidate seeks promotion and/or tenure, and evidence of successful supervision of graduate students). The peer evaluation of teaching draws on materials and raw data considered in faculty reviews leading up to the review for promotion and/or tenure. The departmental promotion and tenure committee may use only the materials and data considered in those earlier reviews, not the review report itself. 
  2. At a minimum, one class session must be observed as part of every peer evaluation of teaching in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences—that is, in each probationary review, each associate professor review, and each review for promotion and/or tenure. Departmental procedures may require more frequent observations of classroom teaching. In each peer evaluation, a written report of the classroom observation must be submitted.  If the Peer Teaching Evaluation Form is completed, it should be submitted with the written report. Under Regents' rules, the evaluation of teaching must explicitly consider the oral communication competence of the candidate. (Note: A list of departments and the number of classroom observations each requires in a review for promotion and/or tenure is available on the College’s website.) In promotion and/or tenure reviews, the classroom observation must be undertaken by one or more members of the departmental promotion and tenure review committee—or appropriate designee(s) of the committee, with approval of the DEO—and the class observation report must be included in the report referred to in part I.D.6, below. Departments may conduct classroom observations for the promotion/tenure review in the spring and/or the fall semester of the calendar year in which the review takes place. These must be specifically designated as observations for the promotion/tenure review and may not be the same classroom observations that are conducted for the fifth-year probationary review.
  3. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the member(s) of the departmental promotion and tenure committee designated to perform the classroom observation will discuss with the candidate possible dates for the observation, in order to avoid test dates and other inopportune times. Classroom observations must produce as little disruption as possible.
  4. If expressly agreed to by both the candidate and the departmental promotion and tenure committee, video observation may be substituted for actual observation of teaching in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
  5. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the departmental promotion and tenure committee solicits confidential evaluations of teaching from faculty members with whom the candidate has team-taught courses and who are at or above the rank to which the candidate seeks promotion and/or tenure. The Departmental Executive Officer adds these solicited evaluations as another appendix of the Promotion Record. No unsolicited letters evaluating the candidate's teaching, whether signed or anonymous, will be entered into the Promotion Record.
  6. The internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s teaching will be contained in a report that analyzes the relevant materials in the Promotion Record, and will include a comparative analysis of the quality of the candidate’s teaching in the context of the candidate’s department or unit; a summary analysis of the student teaching evaluation data contained in the Promotion Record, including departmental average comparison data where possible; a description, where appropriate, of the balance between the candidate’s undergraduate and graduate teaching; a description and assessment of the candidate’s academic advising responsibilities; and a consideration of any special circumstances concerning the faculty member’s teaching performance. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the report is due the first working day of November. The report of the departmental promotion and tenure committee must include a summary of the student evaluations obtained in each course taught by the candidate. For tenure track promotions, the appendices containing the student evaluations are not submitted to the Dean’s Office with the promotion record but are available to the Dean and the College’s Committee on Faculty Promotion and Tenure upon request. For instructional track promotions, the student evaluations are submitted in Table of Contents #2, Other Teaching Materials.
  7. The faculty members who perform the peer evaluation of the candidate’s teaching will enter their classroom observation report into the section of the Promotion Record that is dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s teaching. In the promotion record, the calssroom observation is considered an addendum to the Promotion Committee report and should be entered at the end of the report.

E. Peer Evaluation of the Candidate's Scholarship and Selection of External Evaluators

It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship by participating in the following process:

1. Internal Peer Evaluation of Candidate's Scholarship

1. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship will be carried out by the departmental promotion and tenure committee. The internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship will be contained in a report that analyzes the relevant materials in the Promotion Record, excluding the external evaluations of the candidate’s scholarship, and will include a statement concerning the norms for publication and/or creative activity in the relevant field; a brief description of the quality of journals or other forums in which the candidate’s work has appeared; and a brief description of the norms of authorship and co-authorship in the field. If the dossier contains published reviews of the candidate’s scholarly/creative work (see section I.B.3.d.iii), the College asks that the written internal peer evaluation refer to the assessments contained in these reviews. The written report is an independent, substantive assessment of the candidate’s record with reference to the University, collegiate, and departmental criteria for tenure and/or promotion, the norms of the discipline, and the quality of the forums in which the candidate’s work has appeared. The departmental promotion and tenure committee does not read or consult the external evaluations of the candidate’s scholarship in preparing this peer assessment. The external evaluations are not entered into the Promotion Record until the committee has submitted its report.

2. The faculty members who perform the peer evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship will enter their report into the section of the Promotion Record that is dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship.

3. No unsolicited letters evaluating the candidate's scholarship, whether signed or anonymous, will be entered into the Promotion Record.

2. Selection of External Evaluators

1. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the process of selection of external evaluators of scholarship will begin no later than May 1 of the academic year in which the promotion decision will be made and must be completed by September 30. Departments may establish an earlier timeline, beginning as early as the preceding January.

2. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, departments must obtain for the promotion record no fewer than 4 and no more than 8 external evaluations for each candidate. Each department must specify a number within this range that the department will work to obtain (see below). Every evaluation solicited and obtained must be included in the promotion record.

Numbers of external evaluations specified by units for which these Guidelines are relevant:

  • American Studies: 4
  • Anthropology: 6
  • Art & Art History: 4
  • Asian & Slavic Languages & Literature: 4
  • Biology: 6
  • Chemistry: 6
  • Cinematic Arts: 4
  • Classics: 5
  • Communication Sciences & Disorders: 4
  • Communication Studies: 4
  • Computer Science: 6
  • Dance: 4
  • Earth & Environmental Sciences: 5
  • English: 4
  • French & Italian: 4
  • Gender, Women's, & Sexuality Studies: 4
  • Geographical & Sustainability Sciences: 6
  • German: 5
  • Health & Human Physiology: 4
  • History: 4
  • Journalism & Mass Communication: 5
  • Linguistics: 4
  • Mathematics: 5
  • Music: 4
  • Philosophy: 4
  • Physics & Astronomy: 6
  • Political Science: 4
  • Psychological & Brain Sciences: 6
  • Religious Studies: 4
  • Rhetoric: 4
  • Social Work: 4
  • Sociology: 5
  • Spanish & Portuguese: 4
  • Statistics & Actuarial Science: 5
  • Theatre Arts:  5

The Departmental Executive Officer will solicit from the candidate a list of appropriate external reviewers from peer institutions (e.g., AAU, CIC or Big Ten, major public, Carnegie Research I) or institutions in which the corresponding department or individual evaluator is of peer quality.

3. The Departmental Executive Officer will add suggestions to the list and give the list to the departmental promotion and tenure committee, who will also perform the internal peer review of the candidate’s scholarship as described in subsection (1), above; those faculty will add other potential external reviewers and return the completed list to the Departmental Executive Officer.

4. The Departmental Executive Officer will share the completed list of potential external reviewers with the candidate. The candidate shall identify any potential external reviewers with whom s/he has worked in any capacity and describe the nature of the relationship. If the candidate feels that any potential external reviewer on the list might be unfairly biased, the candidate may prepare a written objection and give it to the Departmental Executive Officer, who will take the objection into consideration when selecting external reviewers.

5. In identifying potential external reviewers, all participants in the selection process will take into account the standing of the prospective reviewer in the discipline, the likely knowledge of the reviewer of the material to be reviewed, the apparent impartiality of the reviewer, and the contribution to achieving an overall “balanced” review among the reviewers on any criterion for which there might be a range of perspectives. It is critical to avoid any situation in which a personal and/or professional relationship (including advising, mentoring, co-authoring, etc.) between the candidate and a prospective reviewer could undermine the reviewer’s apparent impartiality.

6. The Departmental Executive Officer will determine, in consultation with the departmental promotion and tenure committee, which of the potential external evaluators will be asked to provide a letter of evaluation. The DEO will then submit the proposed names on this form, along with a one-paragraph biographical sketch of each, to the Dean and the Area Dean. No letter of invitation may be sent until the DEO has received approval from the Dean’s Office.

7. The College expects that the potential external evaluators will not include any individual who served as a reference at the time the candidate was appointed nor any individual who was approved to serve as an evaluator in an earlier review for promotion and/or tenure. If the DEO feels there are extraordinary circumstances that make it desirable to extend an invitation to such an individual, the DEO must write to the Area Dean to formally request a waiver of this guideline and to explain the circumstances.

8. The Departmental Executive Officer, using a form letter which substantially conforms to the sample letter in Appendix C, will ask the reviewers approved by the Deans to provide an assessment of the quality and quantity of the candidate’s scholarship.

9. After or in anticipation of an invitation to an external reviewer to evaluate the candidate’s published work, neither the candidate nor any faculty member other than the Departmental Executive Officer will communicate with the reviewer concerning the subject of the review or the review process.

10. The Departmental Executive Officer will keep a record of
            i.  the list of suggested reviewers,
           ii.  the names of persons invited to review,
          Iii.  the names of actual reviewers,
          iv.  comments submitted by the candidate, the Departmental Executive Officer, and the internal faculty reviewers,
           v.  correspondence and other communications between the Departmental Executive Officer and invited reviewers and actual reviewers.

11. All letters received from external reviewers will be entered by the Departmental Executive Officer into the Promotion Record after the reports of the departmental promotion and tenure committee have been entered therein. The external evaluators' letters will be placed in the section dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship, along with
            i.  a list of all invited reviewers—indicating whether the reviewer was suggested by the candidate, the DEO, or the internal faculty reviewers—and a brief explanation of why any invited reviewer declined;
           ii.  the candidate’s written objection to any potential external reviewer on the basis of unfair bias, if a letter was solicited from that reviewer;
          iii.  a copy of the letter or letters of solicitation to external reviewers;
          iv.  a brief description of each external reviewer’s qualifications;
           v.  a statement of how the reviewer knows the candidate’s work if it is not obvious from the reviewer’s letter;
          vi. a statement that identifies and addresses circumstances that might call into question the impartiality of the reviewer; and
         vii. if the reviewer is not from a peer institution but from an institution where the corresponding department or individual evaluator is of peer quality, an explanation of why the choice of that reviewer was made.

12. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the candidate in consultation with the DEO and the departmental promotion and tenure committee determines what sample of his or her scholarly or creative work is to be sent to the external evaluators. Each external evaluator receives the same sample of work, the candidate’s current curriculum vitae, and the candidate’s statement regarding his or her accomplishments and future plans in scholarly or creative work. The promotion record forwarded to the Dean contains the same sample of work. The candidate in consultation with the DEO and the departmental promotion and tenure committee determines whether any work not part of the sample should be placed in an appendix which is forwarded to the Dean.

F. Peer Evaluation of the Candidate's Service

  1. It is the candidate's responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluation of the candidate's service by participating in the following process:
  2. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s service will be carried out by the departmental promotion and tenure committee. This evaluation has two components: service to the profession and service to the department, College, University, community, and State of Iowa. If departmental procedures so specify, the departmental promotion and tenure committee may solicit assessments of the quality of candidates’ service. The letter soliciting the assessment must specify that the solicitation is a standard part of the department’s review procedures, and a copy of the letter must be included in an appendix to the promotion record, with the evaluations received in response to the letter. The candidate in consultation with the departmental promotion and tenure committee will generate a list of individuals who may be asked for such an assessment. The Departmental Executive Officer adds these solicited evaluations as an appendix of the Promotion Record. (Note: A list of departments that solicit assessments of candidates’ service is available on the College’s website.) No unsolicited letters evaluating the candidate's service, whether signed or anonymous, will be entered into the Promotion Record.
  3. The internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s service will be contained in a report that analyzes the relevant materials in the Promotion Record in the context of the expected service contributions in the department and the profession.
  4. The faculty members who perform the peer evaluation of the candidate’s service will enter their report into the section of the Promotion Record that is dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s service.

G. Candidate's Right to Respond to the Report of the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee

The candidate will be given an opportunity to respond to the internal peer evaluations as follows:

  1. Within 5 working days of the submission of the internal peer evaluations, the Departmental Executive Officer will send to the candidate a copy of the peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service that have been entered into the appropriate sections of the Promotion Record.
  2. The candidate will have 5 working days from the date of receipt of the internal peer evaluations of his/her teaching, scholarship, and service to submit in writing any corrections to errors in the internal peer evaluations.
  3. If the candidate submits a letter correcting errors in the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service, the Departmental Executive Officer will enter it into the Promotion Record before the DCG makes its recommendation.

H. The Departmental Consulting Group

The Departmental Consulting Group (see definition) will participate in the promotion decision-making process as follows:

  1. Following the principle that each individual participating in the promotion decision-making process may vote for or against the granting of promotion to a candidate only once, Departmental Consulting Group members who are also members of the Collegiate Committee on Faculty Promotion and Tenure will participate in the promotion decision for a candidate from their department at the departmental level and may not participate in the deliberations or voting of the Collegiate Committee in regard to that candidate.
  2. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the Departmental Executive Officer attends the meetings of the Departmental Consulting Group and ensures procedural correctness. The DEO may not vote, participate in the discussion other than to provide factual information, or contribute to the written report summarizing the discussion of the Departmental Consulting Group.
  3. The Promotion Record available to the Departmental Consulting Group will consist of the candidate's dossier with appendices (publications and student teaching evaluations, including those student teaching evaluations added to the Promotion Record by the Departmental Executive Officer); confidential evaluations from those faculty members with whom the candidate has team-taught courses and who are at or above the rank to which the candidate seeks promotion and/or tenure; and solicited evaluations of the candidate's service (if provided for in the department's promotion and tenure review procedures); the external peer evaluation of scholarship and internal peer evaluations of scholarship, teaching, and service, entered into the appropriate sections of the Record; and the candidate's letter correcting factual errors in the internal peer evaluations, if any. The promotion record must be available only to the DEO and to those faculty eligible to participate in the discussion, all of whom must have made a careful study of the promotion record. All those eligible to participate in the decision have an ethical duty to participate unless disqualified by a conflict of interest or unless prevented from studying the promotion record and participating in the discussion of the record (e.g., by an off-campus career developmental assignment award).
  4. The Departmental Consulting Group will meet to discuss the candidate's qualifications and to vote by secret ballot for or against the granting of promotion. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the chair of the departmental promotion and tenure committee is responsible for leading the discussion of the Departmental Consulting Group, preparing a summary report of the discussion, documenting the final vote, and entering that information into the Promotion Record. The chair of the departmental promotion and tenure committee will see that those attending meetings of the Departmental Consulting Group sign in, so that there is a record of who were present for the discussion and therefore voted. The summary report of the meeting must list those eligible faculty who were not present for the discussion and therefore did not vote, with the reason for the absence. The chair of the departmental promotion and tenure committee is responsible for submitting the report summarizing the discussion of the Departmental Consulting Group. The report must record the number voting to grant tenure and/or promotion and the number voting to deny it. The summary report will contain a recommendation for or against the granting of promotion based on the criterion that a 60% majority of those present for the DCG discussion defines a positive recommendation for promotion. This report shall not reiterate the details of the internal and external peer reviews or restate other material already in the dossier; rather, it shall identify those specific aspects of the dossier that formed the basis of the DCG recommendation. The summary report must reflect the range of opinions expressed in the meeting and must include the Departmental Consulting Group's analysis of the external evaluations of the candidate's scholarship. The report must be written in a way that does not violate the expectation of confidentiality on the part of members of the Departmental Consulting Group, external evaluators of the candidate's scholarship, or others who wrote in expectation of confidentiality. A draft version of the summary report must be made available to the members of the Departmental Consulting Group. Individual faculty members will forward any comments and requested changes to the chair of the departmental promotion and tenure committee, who will then prepare a final version of the report and make that version available to members of the DCG. Any faculty member eligible to participate in the tenure and/or promotion decision may submit a further confidential evaluation that will be appended to the report. (These evaluations may be made available to the candidate after redaction, under the conditions specified in section 5, below.) The College publishes an optional form for the confidential evaluation on its website.
  5. The results of the Departmental Consulting Group's vote and the summary report of its discussion (with any appended confidential comments from individual faculty) will be transmitted to the Departmental Executive Officer as part of the candidate's Promotion Record. A copy of the DCG vote and summary report is also provided to the candidate. In the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, the candidate does not receive a redacted version of the summary report, but a duplicate of the report submitted for the Promotion Record. The report must therefore be prepared in a way that protects the confidentiality of any individual contributions, whether from external reviewers or University of Iowa faculty members. The DCG report must not attribute comments to identifiable members of the faculty or external evaluators.
  6. The candidate will be allowed 5 working days after receiving the DCG's summary report of its discussion to submit in writing to the DEO any corrections of factual errors about the candidate's record in the DCG's summary report of its discussion.
  7. If the candidate submits a letter correcting errors in the DCG's summary report, the DEO will enter it into the Promotion Record before making a recommendation to the Dean.

I. DEO's Letter and Recommendation to the Dean

The DEO will participate in the promotion decision making process as follows:

  1. Should the Departmental Executive Officer receive any correspondence concerning a candidate for promotion from individual members of the Departmental Consulting Group, that correspondence will be entered into the section of the Promotion Record that contains the Departmental Consulting Group’s vote and report.
  2. Based on the Promotion Record, including the candidate’s response, if any, to the report of the departmental consulting group, the Departmental Executive Officer will recommend that promotion be granted or denied in a separate letter to the collegiate Dean for each candidate.
  3. As with the DCG report, the Departmental Executive Officer’s letter to the Dean should not reiterate the details of material that is already in the dossier. Rather, it will explain her or his reasons for recommending for or against promotion, stating how the candidate has or has not met the relevant criteria. When the recommendation of the Departmental Consulting Group is not followed, the letter will explain why a contrary recommendation is being made and will address any disagreement between the Departmental Executive Officer’s evaluation and the evaluation of the Departmental Consulting Group as reflected in the summary report of the DCG discussion. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the DEO’s letter must be prepared in a way that protects the confidentiality of external reviewers and University of Iowa faculty members. The DEO’s letter must not attribute comments to identifiable members of the faculty or external evaluators.
  4. Even if the Departmental Executive Officer recommends that the candidate be promoted, the Departmental Executive Officer’s letter to the Dean will address any negative aspects of the Promotion Record; and, if tenure is recommended, the Departmental Executive Officer will indicate in the letter to the Dean how the candidate has met the criteria for tenure.
  5. The Departmental Executive Officer’s letter will be transmitted to the Dean as part of the candidate’s Promotion Record. The department must complete its review process and transmit the promotion record to the Dean’s Office by deadlines in early December established annually by the Dean’s Office. The College announces these deadlines in April so that departments can plan the schedule of review meetings.

J. Candidate's Right to Respond to Recommendation of the DEO

The candidate will be given the opportunity to respond to a recommendation against promotion by the DEO as follows:

  1. At the same time that the Promotion Record is submitted to the Dean, if the Departmental Executive Officer’s recommendation is negative, she or he will provide the candidate with a copy of her or his letter to the Dean.
  2. If the DEO’s recommendation is negative, the candidate will, upon request, have access to the promotion record. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the candidate will be allowed 3 working days after receiving the DEO's letter to submit a request to the Dean for access to the Promotion Record. The following provisions apply:
              a. the external reviews of the candidate’s scholarship must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers; and
              b. any comments in the Promotion Record referring to external reviews of the candidate’s scholarship must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers.
  3. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the candidate will be allowed 5 working days after receiving access to the Promotion Record, to submit to the Dean
              a. a written response to the DEO’s negative recommendation and
              b. additional information to be included in the Promotion Record.
  4. If the candidate submits a written response to the Dean for inclusion in the Promotion Record, the candidate also shall give the DEO a copy of the response.