AA/PPS 04.02.21 - Non-Tenure Line Faculty Promotion Review

POLICY STATEMENT

Texas State University is committed to supporting the mission and goals of the institution through effective hiring, evaluating, and promoting practices for its promotion-eligible non-tenure line faculty.

1. BACKGROUND

   1. Faculty candidates for promotion, as well as members of department or school personnel committees, college review groups, department chairs or school directors, deans, and the provost and executive vice president for Academic Affairs (EVPAA) must understand that promotion decisions are based on informed judgements of a candidate’s record. While each department or school and college has its own criteria for academic professional faculty promotion, these criteria must assure that a promotion is granted based on clearly documented evidence of high-quality teaching, sustained peer-reviewed scholarly and creative activity, and effective leadership and service where appropriate for the specific non-tenure line (NTL) title series. All faculty who undergo a promotion review are required to complete a background check prior to final approval of the action. This Academic Affairs policy and procedures statement (AA/PPS) and the related college and department or school documents are designed to inform those judgments. Each level of recommendation from chair and personnel committee to College Review Group and dean and then to provost and EVPAA and president are made as an independent review and are both an objective and subjective assessment of the candidate’s full packet and potential at Texas State University. No recommendations are final until approved by the president and The Texas State University System (TSUS) Board of Regents.

   2. A faculty member is evaluated in the areas of teaching, scholarly and professional engagement, and leadership and service as appropriate to their position, including their collegial contributions to the university community. Collegial faculty members are expected to contribute to the positive functioning of the department or school and the university. They must meet the terminal degree policy for their academic unit to be eligible for consideration for promotion. Individuals who do not possess a terminal degree but who are adjudged by their personnel committees and the administration to possess exceptional proficiency, professional competency, and established records of teaching, scholarly activities, and service may be eligible for promotion consideration. Promotion is not compelled for non-tenure line faculty.

      1. For faculty being reviewed for promotion to the associate level, the evaluation will consider all the candidate’s accomplishments but will emphasize the time and contributions from the initial date of appointment at Texas State to the present.

      2. For faculty being reviewed for promotion to the professor level, the evaluation will consider all the candidate’s accomplishments but will emphasize time and accomplishments at Texas State from the time of the last promotion to the present.

   3. To be considered, candidates’ accomplishments outside Texas State should be based on full time work at comparable R1 or R2 institutions. Accomplishments achieved elsewhere should be accompanied by evidentiary support material. For clinical or practice faculty, prior industry experience will be evaluated for both currency and duration in assessing eligibility for meeting criteria for various ranks.

   4. Promotion eligibility for faculty who transitioned into the instructional title series at the start of the Fall 2024 semester should be based on total years of experience at Texas State, reasonable expectations of qualifying accomplishments following the transition or last promotion, and potential for continued accomplishment following promotion. These criteria should be set by individual academic units and expectations of the instructional faculty lines.

2. DEFINITIONS

   1. Academic Professional Faculty – AA/PPS No. 04.01.20, Faculty Qualifications, Responsibilities, and Titles, defines academic professional faculty as faculty who are not eligible for tenure. This promotion review policy refers to academic professional faculty with the following promotion eligible appointments:

      1. AA/PPS No. 04.01.21, Research Faculty Appointments;

      2. AA/PPS No. 04.01.22, Clinical Faculty Appointments;

      3. AA/PPS No. 04.01.23, Faculty of Practice Appointments; and

      4. AA/PPS No. 04.01.26, Faculty of Instruction Appointments.

   2. The voting personnel committee composition may include tenured faculty members and designated (per college/department/school policy) tenure track and NTL faculty representatives who are employed full-time (100%) in a department or school, and who do not hold an administrative appointment outside of their college or school.

      Faculty who do not meet these provisions may serve as non-voting members of the Personnel Committee.

   3. Schools and Programs Equivalent to Tenure-Granting Departments – programs that have all the rights and obligations noted for tenure-granting departments, and their chair have all the rights and obligations noted for department chairs or school directors.

   4. Faculty Qualifications – the software system used for capturing and sharing promotion materials as well as required forms and workflow. All promotion materials must be submitted in the Faculty Qualifications system.

   5. Scholarly Contributions – scholarly contributions should not be taken to be limited but can include any form of professional outcomes as appropriate for individual lines and agreed upon by individual academic units.

   6. The Instructional Title line does not require the expectations of research and publication.

3. PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION

   In all cases, promotions are based on judgments of professional achievements. Specifics for promotion to the associate and professor rank follow:

   1. Eligibility for Promotion to the Associate Level

      1. Typically, faculty spend five years in rank before being eligible for promotion to the rank of associate professor. The year in which the promotion is reviewed will count as one of the years in rank. In truly exceptional and well-documented cases, faculty who have truly outstanding records may apply for promotion without prejudice before the end of the fifth year in rank. This decision should be made after consultation with the personnel committee, chair or director, and dean. Faculty members in these title series are not compelled to seek promotion.

      2. Exceptions to the eligibility criteria must be specifically justified during the promotion process.

      3. Neither leaves of absence nor part-time appointments count as part of the service period counted toward time in rank, based on The TSUS Rules and Regulations.

      Faculty who were previously denied promotion to the rank of associate and whose contracts were not terminated are eligible to apply again for promotion to associate in a future promotion cycle.

   2. Eligibility for Promotion to Professor Rank

      Certain principles of eligibility, noted below, are generally observed in the promotion process:

      1. Typically, faculty spend five years in rank before being eligible for promotion to the professor rank. The year in which the promotion is reviewed will count as one of the years in rank. In truly exceptional and well-documented cases, faculty who have truly outstanding records may apply for promotion without prejudice before the end of the fifth-year period. This decision should be made after consultation with the personnel committee, chair or director, and dean. Faculty members in these title series are not compelled to seek promotion.

      2. Exceptions to the eligibility criteria must be specifically justified during the promotion process.

      3. Neither leaves of absence nor part-time appointments count as part of the service period counted toward time in rank, based on The TSUS Rules and Regulations.

      4. Faculty who were previously denied promotion to the rank of professor and whose contacts were not terminated are eligible to apply again for the rank of professor in a future promotion cycle.

   3. Responsibilities of Candidates for Promotion

      This section applies to all promotion eligible faculty.

      1. Candidates must use Faculty Qualifications to confirm candidacy to their academic unit leader for promotion no later than May 1 in year seeking promotion and to submit required documents in Faculty Qualifications by the date in October identified in the Tenure and Promotion Calendar, published by Faculty and Academic Resources (FAR) every year. The faculty member must consult with the department chair or school director before initiating this process.

      2. Candidates for promotion must provide a documented record of excellence in the primary domains of responsibility and sustained effectiveness in the other domains as defined by their department or school (see AA/PPS No. 04.01.21, Research Faculty Appointments; AA/PPS No. 04.01.22, Clinical Faculty Appointments; AA/PPS No. 04.01.23, Faculty of Practice Appointments; and AA/PPS No. 04.01.26, Faculty of Instruction Appointments for additional details). The weighting of the standards of evaluation should reflect the employment contract and faculty workload assignments.

      3. Faculty Qualifications will document all achievements using the Texas State Vita format or Texas State Vita (with Fine Arts components) format. Candidates must document all achievements and highlight those that apply to the time period from the initial appointment or the last promotion. Candidates should include a narrative comprising a statement of professional philosophy, a summary of accomplishments that make the case for promotion, as well as any other documentation required of individual academic units.

      4. Candidates must adhere to the promotion timeline published each May for the promotion process and are responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the submitted documents.

      5. Candidates who are not approved for promotion may request a meeting scheduled by the chair or school director to develop a program of professional development to enhance the likelihood of future promotion. The faculty member shall meet with the chair or school director, at times indicated as appropriate in the professional development plan, to monitor progress toward accomplishment of the goals or outcomes included in the plan.

4. DEPARTMENT OR SCHOOL RESPONSIBILITIES, REVIEW PROCESS, AND VOTING

   1. Responsibilities

      1. After consulting with the voting faculty, the department chair or school director and personnel committee will develop a policy for promotion of eligible faculty in these title series. The policy should specify the level of performance expected and clarify the requirements for documenting performance in teaching, scholarly and professional engagement, and/or leadership and service, including expectations for collegial contributions to the university community. Personnel Committees or sub-committees responsible for developing this departmental policy must be comprised of at least one tenured and one academic professional faculty. In cases where appropriate review faculty are unavailable, they should be sought from another department or school within the college.

      2. Each department or school will provide each faculty member with a copy of the department or school and college criteria for promotion.

      3. The chair or director and members of the personnel committee should counsel the candidate about including relevant materials and organizing supporting documents.

      4. At a minimum, the packet will include a current Texas State curriculum vitae, a teaching philosophy statement, a comprehensive student evaluations report, a minimum of two peer teaching evaluations, and any additional relevant materials, as determined by each academic unit. Peer evaluations should be conducted by faculty chosen by and at the direction of the personnel committee which itself must be comprised of at least one tenured and one academic professional faculty. These peer evaluators should be at the same or higher rank as the candidate. It is recommended that the peer evaluators include NTL faculty. It is also recommended that evaluators of online and asynchronous courses have requisite experience in that teaching modality.

      5. The chair or director and personnel committee are responsible for a thorough evaluation of the candidate’s documentation. The chair or director and the personnel committee’s evaluations should describe the teaching, scholarly and professional engagement, and/or leadership and service of each candidate in its totality and in consideration of the reasonable expectations of the candidate’s position and rank.

      6. The personnel committee will state briefly and clearly the criteria for evaluation to be forwarded with each candidate’s application. The personnel committee’s detailed comments and the chair or director’s comments on the evaluation form in Faculty Qualifications should leave no doubt as to the action desired by the department or school. For candidates whose applications have been approved by the department or school, the comments should fully develop a rationale for recommending the candidate, leaving no doubt about the candidate’s suitability and importance to the future development of the department or school.

      7. Reviewers for the eligible faculty will include voting members of the personnel committee as defined in the Faculty Handbook, including research, instructional, clinical, and practice faculty, as defined by department or school policy and as appropriate for the candidate’s application. Each personnel committee reviewing an eligible faculty candidate must be comprised of at least one tenured and one academic professional faculty at a rank higher than the candidate being reviewed. In cases where appropriate review faculty are unavailable, they should be sought from another department or school within the college.

      8. Representatives from the personnel committee, including at least one academic professional faculty member, should be a part of the college review group. Names of the representatives and alternates will be submitted to the dean on the Nominees for College Review Group form. Department/school representatives will serve staggered three-year terms with this college review group.

   2. Review Process

      1. The chair or director will ensure the candidate’s documentation is available in Faculty Qualifications for review by the personnel committee, and members of the committee will review the candidate’s documentation before the formal meeting, in accordance with the published timelines.

      2. Once the promotion packet is submitted by the candidate in the Faculty Qualifications system, no additional items may be included in the documentation without the permission of the chair or director and the candidate. Additional items should be clearly identified as supplemental to the original documentation.

      3. At a meeting of the personnel committee, presided over by the chair or director in a non-voting capacity, the personnel committee will discuss and vote anonymously to recommend, not to recommend, or abstain for each of the candidates for promotion. The chair or director will remind the committee that all discussions and actions taken are confidential.

      4. Members of the personnel committee may not vote on a candidate for promotion to a rank higher than their own. In accordance with UPPS No. 04.04.07, Nepotism and Related Employment, faculty members will not vote and must leave tenure and promotion meetings when their spouses or family members are being discussed and votes taken.

      5. A tie vote is a vote not to recommend.

      6. If on the first vote a candidate is not approved for promotion, any member of the department or school personnel committee may request a second vote to reconsider the decision. Such reconsideration will be given if approved by a two-thirds majority of the departmental personnel committee present and voting. The vote to reconsider must be conducted in the same meeting and not a subsequent meeting.

   3. Voting

      1. Tenured, clinical, practice, research, and instructional full professors who are members of the department’s or school’s personnel committee will vote to approve, disapprove, or abstain for candidates for professor. Each personnel committee reviewing a non-tenure line associate professor must be comprised of at least one tenured and one nontenure line professor.

      2. Tenured, clinical, practice, research, and teaching full professors and associate professors who are members of the department’s or school’s personnel committee will vote to approve, disapprove, or abstain for candidates eligible for promotion to associate professor. Each personnel committee reviewing a non-tenure line assistant professor for promotion must be comprised of at least one tenured and one academic professional line faculty at the associate professor rank or higher.

      3. Voting for all candidates for professor are considered separately from the voting for all candidates for associate professor. Departmental or school policy determines whether the candidates for professor are considered first or follow the consideration for associate professors.

      4. Members must be present (in-person or virtual) for the discussion and to be able to vote. Meetings should not be recorded, and voting must occur in a manner that ensures anonymity and confidentiality.

      5. The chair or director and a member of the personnel committee selected by the other members of the committee should conduct an independent review of the vote before the results are announced. Any discrepancy between the two counts should be resolved before the results are announced to the personnel committee.

      6. A member of the personnel committee will enter the results of the voting on the evaluation form in Faculty Qualifications, along with evaluative remarks that include a statement showing how the candidate’s qualifications specifically met, exceeded, or did not meet the department or school criteria established for promotion from the personnel committee’s perspective. If the vote is to deny promotion, comments may be provided but are not required.

      7. The chair or director is responsible for ensuring that the comments accurately reflect the rationale for recommending the candidate for promotion.

      8. Following the verification and the official recording of the votes, the chair or director will destroy all ballots and tally sheets, if used.

      9. The chair or director will indicate their recommendation of each candidate on the evaluation form in Faculty Qualifications and add evaluative comments. These will include a statement showing how the candidate’s qualifications specifically met, exceeded, or did not meet the department or school criteria established for promotion from the chair’s or director’s perspective. If the vote is to deny promotion, comments may be provided but are not required. The chair or director will inform the department personnel committee of these recommendations, with explanations as appropriate, within three class days of the chair’s decision.

      10. The chair or director will verify that information forwarded about each candidate to the college review group is accurate in Faculty Qualifications.

      11. Within three business days of the decision by the chair or director, the chair or director will notify the candidate of the action. The following two decisions require written notification:

          1. if the candidate is denied by either the personnel committee or the chair or director but not both, the application will be forwarded to the college review group; and

          2. if the candidate is denied by both the personnel committee and the chair or director, the action is stopped and does not move forward for further consideration.

      12. Provided that the denial of promotion does not result in a terminal contract, the chair or director must schedule a meeting with the candidate to discuss the department’s evaluation. Reasons for denial of promotion will be explained. The candidate will be advised in creating a program of professional development to enhance the likelihood of future promotion.

5. COLLEGE RESPONSIBILITIES, REVIEW PROCESS, AND VOTING CANDIDATES

   1. Responsibilities

      1. Colleges must have detailed and explicit requirements for documentation incorporated into their policies and procedures for faculty promotion.

      2. The review group must be composed of one tenured faculty member, preferably from the full-professor rank, elected by the tenure-track and tenured voting faculty in each department; one academic professional faculty member, preferably from the full-professor rank, elected by the academic professional faculty in each department; the department chairs and/or school directors; one tenured faculty member at the rank of professor from another college; one outside academic dean, chair, or director at the rank of professor; and the dean of the college, who is a non-voting member. Elected representatives will serve staggered three-year terms. Names of the representatives and alternates will be submitted to the dean on the Nominees for College Review Group form.

      3. For colleges with four or fewer departments, college review group membership may be expanded at the discretion of the college dean by adding additional faculty members from departments within the college.

      4. Because members of the college review group serve as evaluators of the candidate’s credentials, they will not serve as advocates. Remarks should be restricted to answering specific questions from the other members.

      5. Departmental faculty and administrators should refrain from trying to influence the decision-making process at the college level.

      6. On the forms to be forwarded with each candidate’s application, the review group’s comments and the dean’s comments in Faculty Qualifications should clearly express the action desired by the college. For candidates whose applications will go forward to the provost and EVPAA, the comments of the review group and the dean should fully develop a statement in support of the candidate, addressing the suitability of their qualifications and importance to the future development of the college.

   2. Review Process and Voting

      1. The dean will provide access to the documentation for each candidate, and members of the college review group will review the candidate’s documentation before the formal meeting. Copies of each department’s criteria and the college criteria will be on file for use by members of the review group. Non-tenure line members of the review group will only be responsible for reviewing academic professional candidates.

      2. No additional items may be added to the documentation for the college review without the chair’s or director’s, dean’s, and candidate’s permission. Additional items should be clearly identified as supplemental to the original documentation.

      3. At the meeting to formally consider the candidates, the college review group will discuss each candidate for promotion and will vote to recommend, not to recommend, or abstain for each of the candidates. Non-tenure line review group members will only vote on academic professional candidates. Members must be present (in-person or virtual) for the discussion and vote. Meetings should not be recorded, and voting must occur to ensure anonymity and confidentiality. In accordance with UPPS No. 04.04.07, Nepotism and Related Employment, faculty members must leave faculty promotion meetings when their spouses or family members are being discussed and votes taken. A member of the college review group who is also being considered for promotion must leave the meeting while their case is being discussed. The dean will remind the committee that all discussions and actions taken are confidential.

      4. The dean and a selected faculty representative will tally the votes. A tie vote is a vote not to recommend.

      5. After all candidates for promotion have been voted on, any member of the review group may request a re-vote for a candidate. If two-thirds majority of the voting members agree, the re-hearing and re-vote will be held.

      6. A separate vote will be taken on candidates for promotion to professor. A re-vote may be requested, as mentioned in Subsection e.

      7. A member of the review group will enter the results of the voting in Faculty Qualifications along with evaluative remarks, including a statement showing how the candidate’s qualifications specifically meet, exceed, or do not meet the departmental and college criteria established for promotion from the review group’s perspective. If the vote is to deny promotion, comments may be provided but are not required.

      8. The dean will indicate approval or disapproval of each candidate. The dean will add comments on the evaluation form in Faculty Qualifications, including a statement showing how the candidate’s qualifications specifically met, exceeded, or did not meet the department and college criteria established for promotion from the dean’s perspective. If the vote is to deny promotion, comments may be provided but are not required. Within seven class days, the dean will inform the review group of their recommendation, with explanations as appropriate.

      9. The dean will verify that information about each candidate forwarded to the provost and EVPAA is correct.

      10. The dean will use Faculty Qualifications to submit completed reviews from the college along with applications of the approved candidates to the provost and EVPAA.

      11. Within three class days of the completion of action by the review group and the dean, each candidate will be notified by the dean of the status of their application for promotion. The following two decisions require written notification.

          1. if the application is denied by either the review group or the dean but not both, the application will be forwarded to the provost and EVPAA. Notification to the candidate must specify whether it was the review group or the dean who denied the application; and

          2. if the candidate is denied by both the review group and the dean, the action is stopped and does not move forward.

      12. At the same time, the dean will direct the department chair or school director to inform the departmental personnel committee as to which applications have been approved to move forward.

      13. Provided that the denial of promotion does not result in the termination of contract, the chair or director must schedule a meeting with the dean and the candidate to discuss the college’s evaluation. Reasons for denial of promotion will be explained, and the candidate will be advised in creating a program of professional development to enhance the likelihood of future promotion.

6. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PROVOST AND EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, PRESIDENT, CHANCELLOR, AND TSUS BOARD OF REGENTS

   1. The provost and EVPAA will forward the applications and the recommendations, along with their recommendation, on each candidate to the president.

   2. The president will make the final recommendations to the chancellor and TSUS Board of Regents.

   3. The provost and EVPAA will provide written notification to each candidate of the president’s recommendation.

   4. The provost and EVPAA will provide the list of the candidates approved by the chancellor and the TSUS Board of Regents to Media Relations.

   5. Within one month of the conclusion of the cycle, the provost and EVPAA will complete the Provost and President Tracking form for each faculty member eligible for consideration for promotion and return it to the dean’s office, where it will be retained for three years.

   6. The provost and EVPAA will prepare appropriate aggregated statistical summaries of the year’s outcomes and share appropriately.

   7. Promotion is not effective until approved by the chancellor and the TSUS Board of Regents.

7. TIMELINE FOR THE PROMOTION PROCESS

   1. The timeline will make allowances for weekends by moving due dates to the next business day when relevant. Exact dates for each year will be published in the annual tenure and promotion calendar.

8. PROCEDURE FOR APPEAL

   1. Candidates who are denied promotion may grieve the decision by following the procedures outlined in AA/PPS No. 04.02.32, Faculty Grievance Policy.

9. PROCEDURES FOR INFORMING CANDIDATES OF DENIAL OF PROMOTION

   1. Each person in the review and evaluation process has a professional responsibility to treat information that evaluates another’s work as confidential. All discussions and votes in the process must be kept confidential.

   2. Faculty members who are denied promotion at any level should be informed regarding the reasons for denial by the responsible administrator, the chair or director, the dean, or the provost and EVPAA provided that the denial of promotion does not result in a terminal contract. It is the responsibility of the candidate to request a meeting to determine the reasons for denial.

10. REVIEWERS OF THIS PPS

    1. Reviewer of this AA/PPS includes the following:

       Position	Date
       Vice Provost for Faculty Success	September 1 E5Y

11. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

    This PPS has been approved by the following individuals in their official capacities and represents Texas State Academic Affairs policy and procedure from the date of this document until superseded.

    Vice Provost for Faculty Success; senior reviewer of this PPS

    Senior Vice Provost

    Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs