Administrative Roles and Procedures

Departmental Authority and Responsibility

The department as a whole shall establish its general guidelines, including the criteria to be used for recommendations for promotion and tenure, and shall ensure that these guidelines fulfill the minimum standards of the University guidelines, which have priority. The responsibility for evaluating and documenting an individual faculty member's performance rests primarily with the department. The criteria to be used for promotion and tenure must be consistent with university and college or school policy and must be formulated early to allow maximum time for making decisions.

Approval of departmental procedures and criteria by the dean and provost is required. If a dean disapproves existing or newly revised departmental criteria, then he/she will submit both departmental recommendations and his/her objections or amendments to the provost for resolution.

After approval by the provost, the guidelines must be distributed to all members of the department faculty and to the academic dean. Department chairs should distribute these guidelines to new faculty upon their arrival at Portland State University.

In cases where a faculty member's appointment is equally divided between two or more departments, there shall be a written agreement as to which department is to initiate personnel actions, and the faculty member is to be so informed. In cases where a faculty member is involved in interdisciplinary teaching and/or research, evaluation must be solicited and provided by all appropriate academic departments. When a faculty member's research has clear impact on members of the external community, including civic groups, practitioners or others, evidence of the value of this work should be solicited from those most affected.

  1. Procedures for Faculty Evaluation
    1. The department chair notifies the committee chair of those faculty who are eligible for review. Faculty members on sabbatical or other approved leaves of absence shall be given equal consideration for promotion in rank with faculty members who are on campus.
    2. Faculty Curricula Vitae. All faculty members being reviewed should provide to the departmental committee an updated curriculum vitae. Curricula vitae should follow the format provided in Appendix I. If necessary, a curriculum vitae should be updated at each stage of the review process.
    3. External Peer Review. To substantiate the quality and significance of a faculty member’s scholarship, a representative sample of an individual’s most scholarly work should be evaluated by peers and other multiple and credible sources (e.g., authoritative representatives from a faculty member’s field, students, community participants, and subject matter experts) External peer reviews must accompany recommendation for tenure and for promotion to associate and full professorships. For faculty to be reviewed for one of these personnel decisions, a list of potential external reviewers, which when appropriate should include members of the community able to judge the quality and significance of scholarship shall be compiled in the following manner.
      1. The department chair will ask the faculty member for a list of reviewers (at least four) from outside the University. The faculty member may also provide a list of possible reviewers perceived as negative or biased; although inclusion of a name on this list will not preclude a request for evaluation, the faculty member's exception will be included as a matter of record, if an evaluation is requested.
      2. At least three additional external reviewers will be selected by the department chair or the chair of the departmental committee. The chair will send the list to the dean for review and the dean may add names to the list.
      3. The chair of the promotion and tenure committee will select evaluators from the combined list of outside reviewers. A sample letter of solicitation is provided in Appendix II. (Please note, as suggested in the sample letter, the evaluator should be advised that the letter is not confidential and will be available for the faculty member's review.) Requests for external evaluations shall include a copy of the University and departmental criteria for promotion and tenure. The faculty member being reviewed, in consultation with the departmental promotion and tenure committee, shall choose which samples of the faculty member's work shall be sent to external reviewers. Upon receipt of the evaluations, the chair of the department will send them to the departmental committee. A complete evaluation file must include at least three letters from external reviewers. In cases when promotion or tenure decisions are deferred, external evaluations may be used in subsequent considerations for a period of three years.
  2. Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee Establishment and Authority

    All recommendations for promotion and tenure originate with formally established departmental committees; for example, an elected advisory committee, or an elected committee on promotion and tenure. The department as a whole shall determine the composition of the committee and the method of selection of its members and chairperson. Student participation in the consideration of promotion and tenure is mandatory. When a faculty member has been involved in interdisciplinary teaching and/or research, the departmental promotion or tenure committee will include a faculty representative from a mutually agreed upon second department or program. Since the department chair is required to make a separate evaluation of the department faculty, the chair cannot be a member of the committee. The committee may invite other faculty members to participate in its deliberations. This committee acts as an independent reviewer of the performance of department faculty and initiates recommendations for all department faculty except the department chair. Committee members being considered for promotion or tenure shall not participate in the committee review of their cases.

    Upon notification of the status of eligible faculty from the department chair, the committee will review and evaluate the curriculum vitae of faculty members eligible for tenure or promotion, and where required, external peer evaluation. Faculty members being evaluated may submit pertinent materials to the committee, but such data may not be included as a part of the committee's recommendations unless fully evaluated within the committee report.

  3. Committee Decision and Narrative Report

    The Committee's report to the department chair will be in the form of a written narrative for each affected faculty member. The report must address the following areas: contributions to knowledge as a result of the person’s scholarship (whether demonstrated through the scholarship of research, teaching, or community outreach), effectiveness in teaching, research, or community outreach when it is part of a faculty member’s responsibilities, and governance and professionally-related service.

    The departmental committee must make one of four decisions for each member of the department and the votes of each voting member of the committee must be recorded on the recommendation form (Appendix III).

    1. Ineligible: This decision is appropriate for faculty who do not have minimum time in rank or who are on fixed term appointments. The committee may also provide a written evaluation of faculty on fixed term appointment.
    2. Deferral: This decision is appropriate for faculty who have met the minimum time in rank to qualify for promotion but who request not to be considered, and for faculty whose requests for promotion are not accepted. A request for deferral by a faculty member should not be accepted by the committee without consideration. The committee should indicate, in writing, that such a discussion was held. Deferrals for faculty who have requested evaluation for promotion must be accompanied by a written report.

      The committee must review each faculty member on annual tenure and prepare a written report for the department chair evaluating the progress of the faculty member in meeting the standards for the award of indefinite tenure. A deferral vote related to a tenure decision is normally appropriate for faculty members being reviewed in the first five years of an annual appointment. However, for a faculty member in the sixth year of an annual appointment, the committee must make a positive or a negative recommendation.

    3. Positive Decision: This decision is appropriate for faculty whose attainments warrant promotion and/or tenure. For faculty members recommended for tenure, the committee's evaluation report should survey all years being counted toward tenure, including years of prior service that have been extended to the faculty member in his or her original letter of offer. For faculty members recommended for promotion, the committee's evaluation should survey the faculty member's years at Portland State. Where a positive recommendation is being made, a written report following the format in Appendix II must accompany the recommendation form.
    4. Negative Decision: This decision is appropriate for faculty on annual tenure when in the committee's judgment, termination should be recommended. If in its review of a faculty member on an annual appointment, even within the first five years of such an appointment, the committee does not find that a faculty member is making satisfactory progress toward tenure, the committee may indicate a negative decision. Negative recommendation must be accompanied by a written report following the format in Appendix II.
  4. Responsibilities of Department Chair

    The department chair must be satisfied that the departmental committee has followed the departmental guidelines and that the appraisals are complete and in proper form. Department chairs are to make a separate recommendation for each member of the department and take the following actions:

    1. confirm that all eligible faculty have been considered
    2. provide an evaluation to faculty on fixed term appointments;
    3. review justification for deferral at the faculty member's request and decision for deferral made by the committee. For faculty on annual appointments who have been deferred for tenure, the department chair should review the committee's report, add any additional evaluation, and discuss the report with the faculty member; and,
    4. review positive and negative recommendations and the curriculum vitae and supporting materials of the faculty member in question. The chairs will make a separate recommendation, adding their own written narrative to the committee's. (The narrative must address the following areas: contributions to knowledge as a result of the person’s scholarship (whether demonstrated through the scholarship of research, teaching, or community outreach), effectiveness in teaching, research, or community outreach when it is part of a faculty member’s responsibilities, and governance and professionally-related service. It should also address the general expectations of your discipline’s promotion and tenure guidelines and for the candidate in relation to these expectations. Discuss the specific contributions of the candidate to the Departmental curriculum, i.e. upper and lower division courses taught, difficulty of courses, major requirements, enrollments. If the recommendation of the chair differs significantly from the committee's recommendation, the chair shall state in writing the reason for specific difference.

    The department chair informs each faculty member in a timely manner in writing of the departmental committee's and of his/her own recommendations (ineligible, deferred, recommended for promotion and/or tenure, or termination). The faculty members should be given the opportunity to review their files before they are forwarded to the Dean/Provost and should indicate they have done so by signing the "Appraisal Signature and Recommendation Form". A copy of the complete appraisal and any additional material added by the department chair, should be in the file for review by the affected faculty member. The department chair must discuss with a faculty member, when requested, the reasons for the recommendations by the departmental committee and the department chair. If a department member questions either departmental recommendation, he/she may request a reconsideration of that recommendation.

  5. Procedures for Reconsideration of Department Decision

    Within two weeks of receipt of written notice of department action, the faculty member must give written notice of intent to request a reconsideration of the recommendation. If the request is for reconsideration of the departmental committee recommendation, both the committee chair and the department chair must be notified and the department chair must return all appraisal materials promptly to the committee chair. Otherwise, only the department chair need be notified in writing.

    The review may be requested on the basis of procedural or substantive issues. The faculty member should prepare whatever supportive material is pertinent. The supportive materials must be submitted to the committee chair, or department chair, as appropriate, within two weeks of written notification of intention to request the reconsideration.

    All materials submitted by a faculty member shall become part of the appraisal document. The departmental committee and/or department chair, as appropriate, shall consider the materials presented by the faculty member. The committee chair and/or department chair may attach to the appraisal additional documentation or statements with their recommendation(s). The department chair shall forward the appraisal, which shall then proceed through the normal administrative review procedure in a timely manner.

  6. Chair's Report to the Dean

    The department chair must submit the following to the dean:

    1. statement of assurance that all eligible faculty have been reviewed;
    2. recommendation form for each faculty member; and,
    3. the committee's and the chair's written narratives for all faculty members who have received positive or negative recommendation for promotion and tenure.

    Upon receipt of the dean's recommendation, the chair must inform the faculty member of that recommendation in a timely manner.

Responsibilities of the Dean or Equivalent Administrator

The dean shall use an advisory group for review and evaluation of the recommendations from the department chairs and departmental committees. The size and composition of this group shall be at the discretion of the dean.

All actions taken by the dean must be reported in a timely manner to the appropriate department chair and chairperson of the appropriate promotion and tenure committee. If the department chair or the chairperson of the promotion and tenure committee requests a conference with the dean, within five days of being notified by the dean, a conference shall be held before the dean's recommendations are forwarded. If the dean's recommendation should differ with the recommendation of either the departmental committee or department chair, the dean must notify the affected faculty member in writing of action taken at the college/school level and state the reason for specific difference. The dean shall provide the affected faculty member with a copy of any material added to the file. The affected faculty member may attach a statement in response to the action of the dean. This statement shall be forwarded to the provost at the same time as the recommendations go forward. Individual files of faculty reviewed for promotion and/or tenure shall be assembled by the dean's office, following the format specified in the “Promotion and Tenure Checklist” (forms available in Academic Affairs) and submitted to the provost.

The dean initiates recommendations for promotion of department chairs. The dean's recommendations shall be forwarded to the provost only after consultation with departmental committees.

Responsibilities of the Provost

The provost makes all recommendations for promotion and tenure to the president for final approval according to the following process:

  • The provost shall review the appraisals forwarded from the various colleges, schools, and other units. In doing so, the provost shall determine whether recommendations are in conformity with the Administrative Rules, consistent with the institutional guidelines, reasonably uniform with regard to University standards, and in accordance with required procedures. If questions arise concerning a recommendation, the provost shall consult with the dean and may consult with other appropriate persons.
  • After reaching a decision, the provost shall notify the affected faculty member, in writing, of his or her recommendation. A faculty member who wishes to request a reconsideration of the provost's decision must schedule a conference with the provost within ten days of the notification and may add additional evidence to the file. Only after a requested conference is held shall the provost make a final recommendation to the president.
  • Copies of the provost's recommendation shall be sent to the dean and department chair.
  • Upon receiving the provost's recommendation and a summary of the outcome of any reconsideration requested by a faculty member, the president shall make a final decision. Appeals of the president's decision should follow the grievance procedure found in the Administrative Rules of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education (OAR 577-42-005).