Appendices

Appendix A: Statement on Professional Ethics
Appendix B: Academic Freedom
Appendix C: Dispute Resolution Procedures
Appendix D: Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Process for Tenure-Track Faculty
- Purpose
- Procedures
Appendix E: Clinical Faculty (Non-Tenure Track) Basic Standards for Appointment and Promotion
- Purpose
  - Basic Standards for Appointment and Promotion at each Rank
- Procedures
Appendix F: Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Timeline, Instructions, and Forms
Review

Appendix A: Statement on Professional Ethics

The statement that follows was originally adopted in 1966. Revisions were made and approved by the American Association of University Professors’ Council in 1987 and 2009.

Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end professors devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although professors may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry.
As teachers, professors encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They hold before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline. Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to ensure that their evaluations of students reflect each student’s true merit. They respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students. They acknowledge significant academic or scholarly assistance from them. They protect their academic freedom.
As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates, even when it leads to findings and conclusions that differ from their own. Professors acknowledge academic debt and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. Professors accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution.
As members of an academic institution, professors seek above all to be effective teachers and scholars. Although professors observe the stated regulations of the institution, provided the regulations do not contravene academic freedom, they maintain their right to criticize and seek revision. Professors give due regard to their paramount responsibilities within their institution in determining the amount and character of work done outside it. When considering the interruption or termination of their service, professors recognize the effect of their decision upon the program of the institution and give due notice of their intentions.
As members of their community, professors have the rights and obligations of other citizens. Professors measure the urgency of these obligations in the light of their responsibilities to their subject, to their students, to their profession, and to their institution.
When they speak or act as private persons they avoid creating the impression of speaking or acting for their college or university. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom.

Appendix B: Academic Freedom

The 1940 Statement of Principles as drafted by the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors follows:

Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.
Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to the subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of appointment.
College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they do not speak for the institution.

The statement regarding Academic Freedom in Medical Schools was adopted by the AAUP Council in 1999, as follows:

Freedom to Inquire and to Publish. The freedom to pursue research and the correlative right to transmit the fruits of inquiry to the wider community—without limitations from corporate or political interests and without prior restraint or fear of subsequent punishment—are essential to the advancement of knowledge. Accordingly, principles of academic freedom allow professors to publish or otherwise disseminate research findings that may offend the commercial sponsors of the research, potential donors, or political interests, or people with certain religious or social persuasions. As stated in a 1981 AAUP report, however, “Academic freedom does not give its possessors the right to impose any risk of harm they like in the name of freedom of inquiry. It is no violation of any right . . . that falls into the cluster named by ‘academic freedom’ for a university to prevent a member of its faculty from carrying out research, at the university, that would impose a high risk of serious physical harm on its subjects, and that would in only minimal ways benefit either them or the state of knowledge in the field in question.” The pursuit of medical research should proceed with due regard for the rights of individuals as provided by National Institutes of Health and university protocols on the use of human and animal subjects. Any research plan involving such matters should be reviewed by a body of faculty peers or an institutional review board both before research is initiated and while it is being conducted. Any limitations on academic freedom because of the religious or other aims of an institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of initial appointment.
Freedom to Teach. The freedom to teach includes the right of the faculty to select the materials, determine the approach to the subject, make the assignments, and assess student academic performance in teaching activities for which faculty members are individually responsible, without having their decisions subject to the veto of a department chair, dean, or other administrative officer. Teaching duties in medical schools that are commonly shared among a number of faculty members require a significant amount of coordination and the imposition of a certain degree of structure, and often involve a need for agreement on such matters as general course content, syllabi, and examinations. Often, under these circumstances, the decisions of the group may prevail over the dissenting position of a particular individual. When faculty members are engaged in patient care, they have a special obligation to respect the rights of their patients and to exercise appropriate discretion while on rounds or in other nonclassroom settings.
Freedom to Question and to Criticize. According to a 1994 AAUP statement, On the Relationship of Faculty Governance to Academic Freedom, faculty members should be free to speak out “on matters having to do with their institution and its policies,” and they should be able “to express their professional opinions without fear of reprisal.” In speaking critically, faculty members should strive for accuracy and should exercise appropriate restraint. Tolerance of criticism, however, is a crucial component of the academic environment and of an institution’s ultimate vitality. No attribute of the modern medical school that may distinguish it from other units within a university should serve as a pretext for abridging the role of the medical faculty in institutional governance, including, but not necessarily confined to, those areas specified in the AAUP’s 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities as falling within the faculty’s primary responsibility.

Appendix C: Dispute Resolution Procedures

Faculty members who believe they have a qualified employment dispute that warrants filing a petition under provision 2.0 of this policy statement will be expected to have already discussed their objection with their unit administrator and other appropriate administrators.

Filing of Dispute Resolution Petition: Faculty members who feel that they have a qualified employment dispute may submit a petition to the President of the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate for examination of their objection. The petition shall set forth in detail the nature of the objection, the specific grounds for the objection, as set forth at 1.7.2.3 or 2.3, and the specific remedial action or relief sought and identify the specific administrator(s) who should respond to the petition (the respondent(s)). It shall contain all pertinent facts and/or opinions, any circumstantial evidence which the petitioner deems pertinent to the case, and a brief summary of the results of previous discussions on the issues involved. Objections related to specific personnel action(s) must be presented to the President of the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate within sixty calendar days of the date when the faculty member was formally notified of the action(s).
Initial Review and Recommendations: Upon receipt of a faculty member's petition for resolution of a dispute, the President of the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate shall refer the petition to the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee, who shall be selected utilizing the procedures set forth in the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate Bylaws.
Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee Chairperson: The chairperson of the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee shall be selected using the procedures set forth in the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate Bylaws. The chairperson shall provide committee members with a copy of the petition filed by the faculty member and schedule the first meeting of the committee either in person or virtually within ten working days of receipt of the petition.
Dispute Resolution Consultant: At any step in the dispute resolution procedures, the President of the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate, if not serving as the chairperson of the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee—and/or the OSU-CHS Director of Human Resources, if discrimination is alleged—may be requested by any of the parties to the dispute, or by the committee to serve as a consultant in an advisory capacity without the power of decision in the disputed matter. Additional consultation and advice on special issues or rules of procedure may be provided to the committee by an available attorney from the Board of Regents Office of Legal Counsel and/or a faculty member chosen by the chairperson of the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee from those with experience on past dispute resolution panels or some other specialized issue. Written functional guidelines for Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committees issued by the President of OSU-CHS should be followed.
Responsibilities for Serving on Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee: Members of the committee shall serve the best interests of OSU-CHS, and act as neutral examiners of issues presented. Members shall avoid external discussions of the dispute with parties to the dispute resolution process and others. All members selected shall be expected to serve on the committee except in cases of illness, necessary absence from the campus, service on a termination hearing committee or Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee in the current or immediately preceding academic year, conflict of interest or bias related to the dispute at issue, or other extreme hardship. The President of the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate shall decide whether a selected committee member should be excused from service upon their request and may replace such a member by the same procedure used for the original selection as detailed in the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate Bylaws. Once the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee is established, the committee shall serve though the final conclusion of the matter for which it was formed.
Hearings Procedures: The following procedures and guidelines should be followed during the hearings.
The Report of the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee.

6.1

The Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee shall normally hold its first session within ten working days after it has been formed by the action of the President of the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate. This session shall be held without the parties to the dispute. During this meeting, the chairperson shall charge the committee with their duties, set expectations for the hearings to be held, and the committee should review the petition.
6.2
The committee shall then hold a joint prehearing meeting(s) with the parties, within fifteen working days of the committee’s initial meeting, to:
1. simplify the issues;
2. effect stipulations of undisputed material facts or witness statements;
3. provide for the exchange of documentary evidence or other information;
4. question committee members to determine if disqualifying bias exists; and
5. achieve such other appropriate prehearing objectives as will make the formal hearing fair, effective, and expeditious.
6.3
The Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee, through its chairperson, shall require from the parties involved that they submit to the committee and exchange with the other party(s), through the chairperson, within + working days following the conclusion of the first session:
1. a list of witnesses whom they wish to present;
2. a written exposition of all relevant facts and/or opinions, as well as circumstantial evidence; and
3. documents which they deem pertinent to the case.
6.4

Two confidential tape recordings of the dispute resolution hearing shall be made by a recorder designated for the proceedings by the chairperson of the committee. The copies of the taped recording will be accessible to the principal parties involved, the committee, the President of OSU-CHS, the President of the OSU System, the Board of Regents, and authorized representatives on a "need to know" basis.

Either party to the dispute may request that the committee endeavor to provide a complete or partial typed transcript of the testimony. The cost of preparation of such a transcript shall be paid by the party making the request. Other involved parties may obtain a duplicate copy by paying the current fees for copying.
6.5

Length of hearing sessions will be established in advance; every reasonable effort should be made to conduct the hearing(s) as expeditiously as possible, with equal fairness to both parties.
6.6

The faculty member, having initiated the dispute resolution action, must establish by a quality of proof that is clear and convincing that the requested remedial action is justified and called for under the prevailing circumstances. The faculty member shall present his or her case first, with the affected administrator(s) following.
6.7

Both parties shall be permitted during the course of the hearing(s) to introduce additional documents and present witnesses not on their original lists, subject to reasonable notice to the other party, and the consent of the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee.
6.8

The Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee may call witnesses of its own to the hearing and request documents not otherwise introduced by either of the parties.
6.9

In cooperation with the chair of the committee the respective parties are responsible for arranging the presence of their own witnesses and will schedule them for appearance as close to the time of call as possible.
6.10

OSU-CHS shall provide appropriate facilities, assistance, equipment, and support to the committee and shall assist the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee in obtaining the cooperation of witnesses and making available non-confidential documentary and other evidence. The personnel records of the petitioning faculty member shall be accessible to the parties, Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee review authorities and their representatives.
6.11

The parties shall be permitted to utilize legal counsel who shall be allowed to participate indirectly in all appropriate portions of the hearings. The dispute committee shall consider such counsel's statements on procedural matters and may receive the opinion of its own counsel. Counsel will not question witnesses or make opening or closing statements.
6.12

The Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee shall not be bound by strict rules of legal evidence, and may admit any evidence which is of probative value in evaluating the issues involved. Every reasonable effort shall be made to obtain the most reliable evidence available.
6.13

The committee report's findings of fact and any recommendations shall be based solely on relevant evidence contained in the hearing record and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.
6.14

Except for such simple announcements as may be required, covering the time of hearing and similar matters, public statements and publicity about the case by either the faculty member, affected administrators(s), or their representatives, shall be avoided so far as possible until the proceedings have been completed, including the submission of the advisory report of the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee to the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate while in executive session, the petitioning faculty member, and the respondent administrator(s).
6.15

The hearings of the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee shall normally be completed within forty-five working days (based on the academic calendar) of the formation of the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee. The report of the Promotion is Tenure Resolution Committee shall normally be completed within fifteen working days after the conclusion of all hearings. In any case in which the committee deems this time schedule to be inadequate the chairman of the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee shall notify the principal parties involved in writing of the amended time schedule.
7.1 (The Report of the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee.)
In preparing its report the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee shall specifically cite the information upon which its advisory conclusions were based.

The written report shall contain:
1. a statement of the purpose of the hearing(s);
2. issues considered;
3. findings of fact; and
4. relevant advisory recommendations.
7.2
The Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee shall submit its report via the President of the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate to the parties involved in the dispute, and
1. If the dispute is directed against a unit administrator, the report of the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee shall be submitted to the Provost. If the Provost concurs with the report of the committee, the case will be resolved by the Provost through the implementation of the committee's recommendations. If the Provost disagrees with the report of the committee, the Provost shall return the report to the committee with the specific concerns stated in writing. The committee will then reconsider the case, taking into account the Provost's concerns and reviewing new evidence with the parties if necessary and practical. If the positions of both the Provost and the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee cannot be reconciled, the report of the committee and the Provost's written objections to the committee's report shall be forwarded to the President of OSU-CHS for a decision and action.
2. If the faculty member's petition is directed against the Provost or against the Provost and another administrator, and/or a unit administrator, the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee report shall be submitted to the President of OSU-CHS for decision and action. If the President of OSU-CHS concurs with the report of the committee, the case will be resolved by implementation of its recommendations. If the President of OSU-CHS disagrees with the report of the committee, the President of OSU-CHS will return it to the committee with specific written concerns. The committee will then reconsider the case, taking into account the concerns of the President of OSU-CHS and reviewing new evidence with the parties if necessary and practical. If the positions of the President of OSU-CHS and the committee cannot be resolved, the decisions of the President of OSU-CHS will stand, unless the faculty member appeals the decision to the Board of Regents, bearing in mind that access to the Board's appellate procedure is not automatically granted and that the procedure may be revised by action of the Board of Regents.

A copy of the procedures for appeal to the Board of Regents is available on request from the Board of Regents Chief Executive Officer or Legal Counsel at the Board's Office, located in the Student Union of Oklahoma State University in Stillwater. The hearing of appeals is mandatory only in cases involving termination of tenured professors. Appeals arising from other categories may be allowable at the direction of the Board.

At each step in this process the administrator or committee involved should normally complete its responsibility within ten working days (based on the academic calendar).

Appendix D: Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Process for Tenure-Track Faculty

Derived from OSU Policy and Procedures Letter No. 2-0902.

Purpose

The purpose of this policy and procedures letter is to provide guidelines for the evaluation of tenure-track faculty through annual evaluation, reappointment, promotion, and tenure.

The ability of a university to function, progress and develop excellence depends both on the individual performance of each faculty member and on the collective performance of the faculty as a whole. The success and reputation of a university are highly dependent upon the talents that exist among its faculty and how effectively those talents are focused to accomplish the institution's mission. Accomplishing OSU's land-grant mission requires a creative, collective intermingling of individual faculty talents. Consequently, each faculty member will likely have a unique role in the institution, college and unit, and a special assignment in terms of the focus and distribution of effort among instruction, research/creative work, outreach/extension and service responsibilities.

As a land-grant university, Oklahoma State University places primary emphasis on the discovery, integration, application, dissemination, transfer and use of knowledge. Scholarly investigation is the heart of the professorate and it undergirds the mission of the land-grant system. Faculty are expected to participate continually in a broad range of scholarly activities which contribute to current knowledge in their field of expertise and which support the mission and goals of their unit, college, and university. The appraisal and development process, as well as the reappointment, promotion and tenure (RPT) process, are the means used to encourage and evaluate the professional growth of individual faculty members. The goal is to attract, retain and reward those faculty who demonstrate excellence.

Faculty Evaluation

The evaluation process at the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences (“OSU-CHS”) is designed to assist the institution in attracting promising faculty members, to help them reach their potential, to retain only the outstanding faculty and to reward their proficiency. Evaluation of the performance of faculty members is also conducted for the purpose of compensation review and at the appropriate times for the purpose of reappointment and/or for the awarding of tenure and promotion.
Promotion in Academic Rank

Initial academic rank is based on evidence that the faculty member has met the qualifications for the rank to which they are being appointed. Faculty members are hired to accomplish objectives of specific academic units and are to be judged accordingly. Consequently, the evaluation of faculty is to be carried out in the context of the faculty member's particular role in the institution with a clear understanding of what is expected of the individual. Accomplishments of the faculty member are judged against these expectations. Promotion in rank recognizes exemplary performance of a faculty member. The evaluation process provides an assessment of a faculty member's growth and performance since initial appointment or since the last promotion.

The evaluation process must be based on a comprehensive assessment of the candidate’s record of scholarly research/creative work, teaching, outreach/extension and service. This assessment should take into account the quality of outcomes as well as their quantity; it should also acknowledge the creativity of faculty work and the impact of the faculty member’s work on students, on the field(s) in which the faculty member works, and on others the university serves. Interdisciplinary work, public scholarship and engagement, international accomplishments and initiatives, technology transfer initiatives, and other special kinds of professional activity by the candidate should be considered when appropriate.

The relative importance of these criteria may vary in different academic units, and particular faculty members within units may vary in the extent to which their responsibilities emphasize one or more parts of the OSU-CHS mission. Criteria against which individual faculty members are judged must reflect these varying assignments and must align with the work assignment specified in annual appraisal documents.
Academic Unit Standards
The primary responsibility for establishing the criteria for promotion and tenure rests with the academic unit. Each department or equivalent academic unit must have a document that clearly specifies (1) the indices and standards that will be used to determine whether candidates meet the requirements for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, (2) the indices and standards that will be used to determine whether candidates meet requirements for promotion to Professor, and (3) the goals and expectations to be used in evaluating faculty performance in annual appraisal and developments. The unit standards must delineate the tangible evidence that the faculty member must provide to document, not simply the attainment of minimal accomplishments, but an appropriate record of sustained excellence.

The academic unit standards will define the criteria of teaching, research/creative work, outreach/extension and service in ways that reflect the discipline and its mission. The unit’s refined criteria shall be applied to all faculty members in ways which equitably reflect a particular faculty member’s responsibilities and assignments. How the unit’s standards apply to a specific faculty member's duties should be made clear at the time of appointment and reviewed in the annual appraisal and development process. Adjustments in the workload expectations for faculty members may occur over time in keeping with changing institutional and personal priorities, but these must be discussed and documented in the annual Appraisal and Development reviews which are signed by the faculty member and administrative head.

The unit standards serve as the basis for the evaluation of the faculty member’s dossier at all levels of review. The unit standards must be consistent with university and college policies but may exceed them. Each academic unit document must be approved by a vote of all tenured and tenure-track faculty within the unit, by the Provost, and the President of OSU-CHS.
1. Instructor: The rank of Instructor is appropriate only in disciplines where a master's degree is a commonly accepted professional degree, but is not the highest academic degree. An Instructor should have earned the highest academic degree in his or her field and should have professional skills and expertise needed in the discipline. Such expertise should be certified by the discipline's professional organization, as appropriate. An Instructor demonstrates excellent performance in teaching and other assigned duties. The record of an Instructor should include maintenance of professional expertise and participation in professional organizations.
2. Assistant Professor: The Assistant Professor rank is recognition that the faculty member has exhibited the potential to grow in an academic career in accordance with the institution's mission and the academic unit's objectives. An Assistant Professor should have earned the accepted highest degree in his or her field or, in exceptional cases, should have demonstrated potential via professional experience judged by the unit as beneficial and desirable for the particular appointment. In the period between appointment as an Assistant Professor and promotion to Associate Professor, terms expressed in the academic unit, college, and university standards, the memorandum of understanding, the position description, and the annual evaluations provide guidance regarding professional development of the faculty member to peers and administrators charged with judging progress toward promotion.
3. Associate Professor: To attain the rank of Associate Professor, the candidate must establish that they are an accomplished teacher, where teaching is an assigned responsibility, and that they have a significant record of scholarly research, artistic and/or creative work, teaching, outreach/extension and service in keeping with the academic unit, college, and university standards and his or her job responsibilities. Clear evidence should be presented that the individual has established a solid academic reputation and shows promise of further development and productivity in his or her academic field. Promotion to Associate Professor with tenure requires tangible evidence of sustained excellence in accomplishments as measured by an appropriate assessment of his or her work, as defined in the academic unit standards. The dossier must provide tangible evidence that the faculty member shows clear promise of becoming a leading scholar, teacher, creative artist, and/or provider of outreach/extension, according to the primary assigned responsibilities. A recommendation for tenure should be based upon an assessment that the candidate has made contributions of an appropriate magnitude and quality in research/creative work, teaching, outreach/extension and service, and has demonstrated a high likelihood of sustaining contributions to the field and to the academic unit, so that granting tenure is in the long-term best interests of the academic unit and the university.
4. Professor: The rank of professor, the highest rank in the university, designates that the faculty member's academic achievement merits recognition as a distinguished authority in his/her field. Professional colleagues, both within the university and nationally, recognize the professor for his or her contributions to the discipline. A professor is an outstanding member of the academic community and sustains excellent performance in teaching, where teaching is an assigned responsibility, research/creative work, outreach/extension and service in keeping with the unit criteria and his or her job responsibilities. The record of a successful candidate for professor must show evidence of sustained excellence over an extended period of time. Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor requires tangible evidence that the faculty member has attained a national or international reputation in a field and that he or she is a leading scholar, teacher, creative artist, and/or provider of outreach/extension, according to the primary assigned responsibilities and the criteria established in the academic unit, college, and university standards. A recommendation for promotion to Professor should be based upon an assessment that, since the last promotion, the candidate has made sustained contributions of appropriate magnitude, independence and quality in research/creative work, teaching, outreach/extension and service, and has demonstrated the ability to continue to sustain contributions to the field and to the academic unit, so that granting the promotion is in the best interest of the academic unit and the university.
Tenure

The awarding of tenure (continuous appointment) is the most significant decision made relative to an institution's future and, therefore, is the highest honor bestowed on a faculty member. The Policy Statement to Govern Appointments, Tenure, Promotions, and Related Matters of the Faculty at the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences (hereafter referred to as the Policy Statement) states that tenure, a means to assure academic freedom, is indispensable to the success of the University in fulfilling its obligations to students, to the state of Oklahoma and to society in general.

Intellectual curiosity is an essential requirement for effective instruction, as well as for continuing scholarly pursuits. When tenure is conferred, it is the University's expectation that the faculty member will (1) consistently contribute to the instructional, research/creative work and/or outreach/extension mission of the University; (2) remain current and intellectually curious; and (3) continue to be a wise investment for the University. The decision is a judgment made with appropriate faculty counsel. The granting of tenure is a major decision for the institution and shall not be granted unless the faculty member has demonstrated by consistent performance that OSU-CHS and the OSU-CHS RPT Committee the University will benefit from making a career-long commitment to the faculty member.

Procedures

Overview of the responsibilities of participants in the RPT process

Operationally, the function of the RPT process is to determine whether each candidate has met the detailed academic qualifications and criteria specified by his/her unit. In this process, the candidate, unit personnel committee, unit administrator, the RPT Committee of the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate, the Provost and the President of OSU-CHS have unique responsibilities they must carry out with the highest professional integrity. Briefly the role of each participant is as follows:

Candidate

It shall be the personal responsibility of the faculty member to show that applicable qualifications for reappointment, tenure and promotion have been met. To carry out this responsibility, the candidate must develop, in cooperation with the unit administrator, a file documenting that each of the detailed qualifications and criteria of the unit have been specifically achieved. The "Development of the RPT Documentation File" form lists the documentation that must be included and should be used as a guide in the development of the file. If the faculty member, after due notice, fails to submit documentation, the unit administrator may proceed with available information.

In the review process, some of the reviewers may not personally know the candidate and will rely exclusively on materials included or referred to in this file as the basis for their recommendation. The candidate must not assume that the reviewers will know that they are an excellent teacher, scholar and colleague. It is essential that the candidate include in the file all the materials necessary to document and affirmatively establish that they have met all applicable criteria and qualifications.
Unit Personnel Committee
The responsibility of the unit personnel committee is to recommend whether or not the candidate has met each of the applicable criteria and qualifications for the personnel action being considered. The written recommendation to the unit administrator shall specifically address how each criterion and qualification in the academic unit, college, and university standards has or has not been met. If there is a divergence of opinion within the committee, both majority and minority opinions shall be indicated within a single recommendation letter.

The composition of the unit personnel committee and identification of those members eligible to vote on personnel actions shall be specified in the unit's RPT guidelines. These guidelines shall address the following:
1. A minimum of 3 voting faculty members are required to be at the same rank as, or above, that being sought by the candidate (i.e. If candidate is tenure-track then the UPC must be comprised of tenured faculty).
2. Each academic unit will formalize a mechanism by which all unit faculty may provide input to the personnel committee. The input received will be addressed in the committee’s written recommendation to the unit administrator.
3. If a unit cannot complete its personnel committee with voting faculty of appropriate rank from within the unit, the Department Chair and Provost will convene to determine the UPC.
4. Given that faculty from a given unit may serve on the unit and/or college level committee, they must vote only once and only at one level.
5. Faculty members applying for reappointment, promotion or tenure may not serve on a unit personnel committee in the year of their application.
6. The following administrators cannot serve on the UPC: President, Provost, or Dean.
7. All voting members of the UPC are required to sign the UPC recommendation letter to the Department chair.
Unit Administrator

The unit administrator is responsible for making sure that the candidate and personnel committee are familiar with all relevant policies, procedures, and applicable qualifications and criteria.

They assist the candidate in constructing the documentation file and makes a final assessment of the candidate after they have received the recommendation of the unit personnel committee. They have a special responsibility to see that all policies and procedures are rigorously followed and that the final recommendation submitted for the unit is free of bias and based on a professional application of the standards of the unit. After reviewing the candidate's materials, the unit administrator shall attach a recommendation letter which reflects his/her professional judgment about the qualifications and merit of the candidate for reappointment, promotion or tenure and shall forward all materials to the Provost.
Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee (“OSU-CHS RPT Committee")

The college-level committee is responsible for providing the Provost with a professional opinion about the qualifications of the candidate for appointment, reappointment, promotion, or tenure. The committee examines the documentation provided by the faculty member, the standards that have been adopted by the department, and the Statements of Recommendation provided by the department personnel committee and the department chair for fairness in procedure and review at the departmental level and for consistency within OSU-CHS.

The committee will then provide a written recommendation to the Provost that indicates whether the personnel action being considered is supported. The OSU-CHS RPT Committee may also be charged with including in its recommendation a professional opinion about the qualifications and merit of the candidate for reappointment, promotion, or tenure. If there is a divergence of opinion within the OSU-CHS RPT Committee, both majority and minority opinions shall be indicated within a single recommendation letter. Guidelines for the OSU-CHS RPT Committee will follow the structure outlined by the OSU-CHS Bylaws.
Provost

The Provost has several vital responsibilities both prior to and during the evaluation process. They work continuously with departments, making sure the academic unit standards for reappointment, promotion and tenure are clear and consistent with the level of excellence expected in the college and university and that the department's emphasis on differing aspects of faculty activities matches the role the department plays in OSU-CHS. They provide explicit and detailed guidance regarding the type and quality of documentation that will be required of candidates whose applications for reappointment, promotion and tenure are to be forwarded to the President of OSU-CHS.

Upon receiving recommendations from departments, the Provost, with input from the RPT Committee of the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate, shall carefully review the candidate's documentation file, including the recommendations of the unit personnel committee and unit administrator. They shall make a professional assessment regarding whether (1) the department's evaluation of each candidate has been rigorous, fair and based on departmentally approved criteria and standards, (2) the documentation provided adequately supports the recommendations of the unit, and (3) the action recommended by the unit is warranted.

Additionally, after reviewing the candidate’s materials, including all internal and external input, the Provost’s recommendation letter shall reflect his/her professional judgment about the qualifications and merit of the candidate for reappointment, promotion, or tenure. This written report will be added to the documentation file and forwarded to the President of OSU-CHS as part of his/her Statement of Recommendation.
President of OSU-CHS

The President of OSU-CHS is responsible for examining the files and Statements of Recommendation written by all involved groups and administrators. The President of OSU-CHS may seek additional counsel from the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate and others as deemed appropriate. It is the responsibility of the President of OSU-CHS to be certain that all applicable standards and policies that have been approved by the University have been applied fairly to each individual. Additionally, the recommendation of the President of OSU-CHS shall reflect his/her professional judgment about the qualifications and merit of the candidate for reappointment, promotion or tenure and will be submitted to the President of the OSU System for recommendation to the Board of Regents.

Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Process

Prior to the beginning of the RPT process, it is recommended that faculty members, unit administrators, members of unit personnel committees and others review related sections in the Policy Statement:

Section 1.1.1 — Qualifications,
Section 1.2 — Recommendations for Faculty Appointment, Reappointments, Non-Reappointments, and Promotions,
Section 1.4 — Appointment and Tenure for Tenure-Track Faculty,
Section 1.6 — Promotions in Rank, and
Section 1.7 — Reappointment and Non-Reappointment

Reappointment, especially when tenure is conferred, is an action taken because of superior performance and the promise of continued professional and intellectual growth. It is the process upon which the quality of an academic unit depends. All faculty committees and administrators must consider the academic unit, college, and university standards and judge carefully the faculty member's past contributions and potential for future contributions when making reappointment recommendations. Promotion is a reward and recognition for performance, not longevity. Consequently, the attainment of a minimum number of years of service alone does not justify promotion.

The following steps are taken at OSU-CHS when a faculty member is being considered for reappointment, promotion and/or tenure:

2.1 Identifying RPT Candidates - On or About September 1

Notification of Process

Early in the Fall semester, the Provost receives a memorandum from the President of OSU-CHS outlining deadlines and requirements for that year's RPT process. Included is a Departmental Faculty Reappointment and Tenure Report which lists faculty for whom it is believed personnel decisions must be made. This includes all faculty who are within their probationary period and are scheduled that year for review of reappointment in rank. An informational copy of the OSU-CHS’s memorandum and departmental report is shared with the unit administrator.

Informational notification is also sent by the President of OSU-CHS office to each faculty member identified on the report, with a statement notifying the faculty member that his/her name has been sent forward to the Provost and unit administrator and encouraging the faculty member to contact the unit administrator to verify that action will be taken as scheduled. Faculty will also be encouraged to review the Policy Statement of the Faculty Handbook and this policy and procedures letter. For reference, an overview of faculty appointment periods and time in rank is provided below.
Appointment Periods and Time in Rank
Appointment period guidelines are governed by the Policy Statement. This information is summarized below:
1. Academic appointments normally coincide with the beginning of the academic year (September 1 for 9-month appointments or July 1 for 12-month appointments). For faculty appointed after this date but before January 1, the period of probation for tenure consideration or for renewal of appointment will commence at the beginning of that academic year. The probation period for faculty appointed on or after January 1 will commence at the beginning of the following academic year.
  1. Except for extenuating circumstances (see Section 1.4.8 of the Policy Statement), the period of probation for tenure consideration shall never exceed a total of seven years of continuous appointment with the University, beginning with the initial appointment to a tenure-track position. Any credit for prior service included within the seven-year probationary period shall be agreed upon in writing at the time of employment.
2. Instructor: Tenure-track faculty are appointed to the rank of Instructor initially for no longer than a 3-year period and reappointment occurs each year during the probationary period. In their first year, Instructors who are not reappointed must be notified of their non-reappointment by March 1. The probationary period at the rank of Instructor shall not exceed seven years, including one year of required notice in the event a non-reappointment decision is made after one full year of academic service at OSU.
  1. When an Instructor is reviewed in his/her sixth year, options at this time are: (1) reappointment at the rank of Instructor with tenure effective at the beginning of the seventh year, (2) promotion to Assistant Professor with tenure effective on July 1 of that year, or (3) non-reappointment effective at the end of the seventh academic year.
  2. If an untenured Instructor is promoted to Assistant Professor at a time earlier than the sixth year, the period of probation shall commence with the beginning of the initial appointment as Instructor, unless the faculty member requests and is granted an extension of the probation period. The initial appointment as Assistant Professor will vary depending on the number of years served as an Instructor: (1) with five years as Instructor, promotion would result in a two-year appointment as Assistant Professor; (2) with four years, the appointment to Assistant Professor would be for three years; (3) with three years, the appointment would be for four years; (4) and with two years as an Instructor, the appointment to Assistant Professor would be for four years, and a second probationary term of one year is permitted.
  3. If an Instructor is promoted to Assistant Professor after only one year, resulting in an initial four-year appointment as Assistant Professor, a second probationary term of two years is permitted.
  4. In all cases, decisions will be made in the sixth year and any non-reappointment decision would be effective at the end of the seventh year, thus providing the required one-year notice of termination.
3. Assistant Professor: At the time of initial appointment, the first appointment period for an Assistant Professor is four years. Reappointment may be granted for three additional years. This allows for a maximum seven-year probationary period as an Assistant Professor.
  1. In the normal process, two actions are required for an Assistant Professor. The first action is the review for reappointment which occurs during the third year in rank as Assistant Professor. Options at this time are: (1) first reappointment as an Assistant Professor for three additional years or (2) non-reappointment. Either action would be effective at the end of the following year (fourth year). For non-reappointment actions, this timing allows for the required one year's notice of termination and would be effective at the end of the fourth year in rank (which coincides with the end of the initial four-year appointment period).
  2. The second action occurs during the sixth year in rank as an Assistant Professor. Options are: (1) promotion to Associate Professor which confers tenure (effective at the start of next academic year after approval by Board of Regents) or (2) non-reappointment. The non- reappointment would be effective at the end of the seventh year in rank and provides the required one year's notice of termination.
4. Associate Professor: When an individual is initially appointed at OSU into the rank of Associate Professor (without tenure), the initial appointment period is normally for five years. During the fourth year in rank a recommendation must be made to: (1) reappoint as Associate Professor which confers tenure; (2) promote to professor which confers tenure; or (3) not reappoint and give the required one year's notice of termination. A special tenure review may be made after one year of service (see Policy Statement, Sections 1.4.5 and 1.4.2.d). In extraordinary circumstances tenure may be expressly granted at the time of initial appointment.
5. Professor: When an individual is initially appointed to the rank of professor, tenure is often granted at the time of appointment. However, a probationary period, not to exceed three years, may be specified. If a probationary period is specified, then a special tenure review must be completed at least one year before the end of the probationary period, so that the required one year's notice of termination can be given should the review result in a decision not to grant tenure.
6. Any action recommended by the unit administrator which is prior to the normal timeline outlined in this section is considered an early action. Positive early actions will require justification based on exceptional performance.
Verification of RPT Report

To help maintain confidence in the Departmental Faculty Reappointment and Tenure Report, it is the responsibility of the Provost and unit administrator to examine the departmental reports for completeness and accuracy. The Provost transmits the appropriate portion of the tenure report to each academic department. The unit administrator is asked to verify information regarding reappointment, promotion or non-reappointment for each person flagged and for those not flagged but scheduled for review. The unit administrator shall review, record, initial and return corrections in the report to the Provost's office. Corrected reports are submitted in the Spring to the President of OSU-CHS when all RPT actions for the college are delivered by the Provost.

Preparing RPT Documentation File - On or About September 15 - January 15

Faculty members should be notified by the unit administrator on or about September 15 that they have through January 15 to assemble and submit materials believed helpful to a full review. It is the responsibility of the faculty member and the unit administrator to prepare a documentation file clearly summarizing the history of the faculty member's appointment before any deliberations begin regarding reappointment, promotion and/or tenure.

The OSU-CHS Reappointment, Promotion/Tenure Recommendations Form,
"Development of the RPT Documentation File," included herein, (“RPT form”) is used as a guide in preparing materials and is a required document in each candidate's packet. The form is completed as follows:

Step 1.

The unit administrator must ensure that all dates of academic appointments, reappointments and promotions while at OSU-CHS are consistent with the departmental report, employment action forms and the candidate's vita.
Step 2.
Materials for the candidate's documentation file should be compiled and arranged by the unit administrator. The following is intended to be a minimal list of items to be provided, not necessarily a listing of the only items to be included.
1. For those candidates who have not yet been awarded tenure, the unit administrator should provide all initial appointment documents including memorandum of understanding, position announcement and/or description.
2. A statement describing the work assignment within OSU-CHS (teaching, research/creative work, outreach/extension, service, administration, and/or advisement) during the time period considered for the proposed action and a summary of percentages for each category of activity should be provided by the unit administrator.
3. Annual appraisal and development documents prepared by the unit administrator and the faculty member during the period considered for this proposed personnel action should be provided. For tenured faculty, only the documents for the three most recent formal appraisals need be included. Any written statement submitted by the faculty member as a part of, or in response to, the appraisals should be included. If the faculty member has appealed any of the appraisals to the Provost, the Provost's written resolution of the appeal should be included.
4. The unit administrator should provide written statements, if any, documenting either special achievements or deficiencies related to the proposed personnel action.
5. Records of sabbatical or other periods of leave (not to include annual leave) should be included by the unit administrator.
6. The unit administrator should ensure that copies of all applicable departmental standards, policies and procedures for reappointment, promotion and/or tenure decisions are provided. Major revisions of the above which have occurred during the tenure of the faculty member and which may affect this personnel action must be indicated.
7. The documentation file for a candidate being considered for tenure and/or promotion should include a minimum of three letters from external reviewers who have been asked to evaluate the candidate's accomplishments and potential. Units may require additional external appraisals where appropriate or desirable for their disciplines. External evaluators should be leading scholars in their disciplines and especially knowledgeable about the candidate's areas of expertise. The three required external reviews must be obtained from individuals with no direct professional or personal interest in the advancement of the candidate's career (for example, they should not be former advisors or mentors, and generally should not be co-authors or co-investigators on previous work). The file must specify clearly the relationship of each external reviewer to the candidate and should contain a brief description of each external reviewer and his or her credentials. All solicited external review letters received before the deadline must be included in the file.
All units shall solicit outside reviews as a part of the RPT review process and shall develop rules for solicitation of such reviews that are consistent with policies of OSU-CHS and with this document.

In determining who are selected as reviewers, the candidate should be asked to provide a slate of names; the unit administrator and the unit personnel committee should also provide names; and from these two lists a group of at least three should be selected in a fair and objective manner for contact. The candidate may also specify the names of persons who should not be considered as possible reviewers, provided he or she specifies valid personal or professional reasons for the exclusion.

External review letters will be used by departmental personnel committees, unit administrators, the Provost, and other OSU-CHS administrators for personnel decisions, such as reappointment, tenure, and promotion.

A copy of the letter that is sent to external reviewers shall be provided to the faculty member and included in the documentation file. Units should be careful to allow sufficient time to gather outside peer review letters so that they can be included in the file by January 15.

A candidate may waive the right to access outside reviews. Such waivers shall not be assumed, implied or coerced, and must be executed in writing prior to solicitation of outside reviews (see Attachment 2 of this document). The scope of the waiver shall be clearly indicated in writing prior to solicitation of outside reviews. A copy of the executed waiver shall become a part of the documentation file. Any letter soliciting an outside review shall inform the potential reviewer of the extent to which the contents of the review will be known to the candidate.
Step 3.
The following materials for the RPT documentation file should be provided by the faculty member. This is intended to be a minimal list of items to be provided, not necessarily a listing of the only items to be included.
1. A current vita including a complete list of publications, instructional accomplishments, other creative activities and important achievements should be provided by the faculty member. Reprints of publications need not be included; however, it is helpful if the faculty member designates which publications are in refereed journals. Documentation of instructional accomplishments could include teaching awards, peer evaluations, course syllabi and tests, student evaluations, other testimonies, etc.
2. Self-assessment statement(s) on instruction,
  research/creative work, outreach/ extension, and/or
  service/professionalism activities are to be provided, as appropriate to the work assignment, by faculty members being considered for promotion and/or tenure.
Step 4.

With the exception of peer review letters which the faculty member has waived his/her right to access, all materials in the documentation file should be available for review by the faculty member. Peer review letters should be placed in a colored file folder with the signed waiver form attached to the outside of the folder.
Step 5.

If the faculty member finds that information provided by the unit administrator is incomplete or inaccurate or if there is additional documentation they would like reviewed, documentation should be added by the candidate to clarify and complete the file prior to the signing of the RPT form.
Step 6.

The faculty member signs the RPT form, Section 3, which indicates that they have been given the opportunity to review the materials contained in the documentation file up to this point in the process, including all materials submitted by the unit administrator and faculty member, and that the file is complete. Such signature does not indicate that the faculty member agrees with the substance of each document. Deliberations about the recommendation on the candidate will not begin until the file is complete; therefore, the Statements of Recommendation from the unit personnel committee, unit administrator, the OSU-CHS RPT Committee, and Provost are not included in the file at this point in the process.

Adding Additional Materials to Documentation File

Article I

Materials can be added to/deleted from the documentation file until the unit personnel committee recommendation concerning the action is made. However, both the candidate and the unit administrator must be informed of the changes and be provided an opportunity to make additional modifications.
Article II

Appraisal and development materials covering the period of time from the last appraisal and development document through the most recent fall semester shall be added to the RPT documentation file as soon as finalized. These documents shall be considered by the unit personnel committee and unit administrator prior to making their recommendations. It is expected that this most recent material may have to be added to the file after the RPT documentation file is otherwise complete, and after the faculty member has signified in writing that the file is otherwise complete; however, unit administrators should make strenuous efforts to complete the latest A&D review for each candidate by January 15. No new documentation regarding faculty performance or accomplishments occurring after the end of the immediately preceding calendar year may be added to the file. Documentation of accomplishments achieved after the application submission deadline can be applied to the following promotion review.
Article III

After the Statement of Recommendation is formulated by the unit personnel committee and recorded, the only documentation that may be added, except as noted in 4 and 5, to a candidate's RPT packet are the Statements of Recommendation from the unit personnel committee, the unit administrator, the OSU-CHS RPT Committee, and the Provost.
Article IV

The candidate will be provided one opportunity to respond to a negative Statement of Recommendation and to have that response added to his/her RPT packet. The candidate will have three working days following receipt of the first Statement noting denial of the proposed action to formulate a response no longer than 1,000 words. The candidate will submit his/her response to the next higher review level, i.e., if the Statement noting denial is received from the department head, the response will be submitted to the Provost's office within five working days.
Review
At each review level, all reasonable efforts will be made to notify the faculty member, in a confidential manner, of the Statement of Recommendation. However, if the faculty member is not readily available due to current assignment or is unwilling to accept sensitive documents sent via U.S. mail, the opportunity to respond to a negative Statement of Recommendation is lost. The faculty member should bear the responsibility of keeping his/her department head informed of his/her whereabouts during this critical review process.
1. If during the review process the reviewer(s) determines that supplemental written materials are to be added to the file, all documentation, including the new materials, should be sent back to the unit administrator, who will contact the faculty member and the unit personnel committee, and restart the review process. This is to ensure that all reviewers have an opportunity to deliberate on the additional materials in the event they have a bearing on the outcome of the reviewer's recommendation.

Reviewing Documentation File and Statements of Recommendation

Once the faculty member has acknowledged the contents of the RPT documentation file, the process of seeking faculty counsel and administrative input begins. Unit administrators are charged with the responsibility of recommending reappointment, promotion, tenure and/or non-reappointment actions. They shall obtain appropriate faculty counsel prior to making these recommendations. The manner in which input and subsequent recommendations are sought is noted below.

On or About January 15 - February 14

Appropriate Faculty Review

Appropriate faculty counsel is sought when the unit personnel committee or a special or permanent committee of faculty for the academic unit involved is to review all pertinent data for those individuals who are being considered. The committee evaluates each individual's contributions in the three major areas of instruction, research/creative work, and outreach/extension, as appropriate. This evaluation is extensive, for the decision will have a direct bearing on the welfare of both the individual and the department. Consequently, the committee members will analyze annual appraisal forms, student evaluation summaries, journal articles and other publications, research results, and other outputs that can assess the individual's status as a professional. Standards established in the academic unit for quality as well as quantity are a matter of professional judgment in the discipline relative to the mission and role of the unit within the college and university.

After deliberating, the unit personnel committee shall prepare a Statement of Recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion and/or tenure for the faculty member. The statement must address, in specific terms, how the faculty member has or has not satisfied applicable academic unit, college, and university standards for promotion, tenure or reappointment. This statement must be added to the candidate's RPT packet prior to review by the unit administrator. Additionally, the chair of the unit personnel committee or an appropriately elected representative of the faculty will record the committee's recommendation on the RPT Summary of Recommendations form, along with his/her signature.

A copy of the unit personnel committee's Statement of Recommendation, as defined above, shall be given to the faculty member in a confidential manner, normally within five working days, after the recommendation is finalized.
Unit Administrator Review

The unit administrator's Statement of Recommendation to the Provost must address, in specific terms, how the faculty member has or has not satisfied each applicable departmental criteria for reappointment, promotion and/or tenure. The statement must detail whether or not the performance of the faculty member adequately fulfills the published academic unit, college, and university standards for the proposed personnel action. It is understood that an individual could greatly surpass some criteria and may fall short of others. Standards for quality as well as quantity are a matter of professional judgment in the discipline relative to the mission and role of the unit within the college and university. As such, the unit administrator should provide an accurate and balanced description of the person being considered. The statement of the unit administrator must be added to the candidate's RPT packet prior to review by the OSU- CHS RPT Committee, and the Provost.

If the faculty member being reviewed for promotion and/or tenure also holds the position of unit administrator, it will be necessary for the Provost to appoint a senior member of the departmental faculty to serve in the role of the unit administrator. The "acting" unit administrator will review the documentation file and write a Statement of Recommendation as described above. The "acting" unit administrator will also record his/her recommended action and signature on the RPT Summary of Recommendations form.

If a faculty member has a split appointment, the Statement of Recommendation is to be completed by the unit administrator of the home department after consulting with the other unit administrators to whom the faculty member reports. All relevant unit administrators are expected to sign or initial the statement. If they disagree significantly with the recommendation, the matter shall be brought to the attention of the Provost of the home college for resolution of differences.

When the unit administrator is unable to act in accord with the faculty recommendation, the reasons shall be communicated in writing to the faculty committee which provided the counsel.

The unit administrator is also responsible for: (1) Ensuring that the OSU Reappointment, Promotion/Tenure Recommendation Form is complete and that all appropriate documentation is attached. (2) Preparing the Employment Action form for the proposed personnel action.

The unit administrator then transmits the documentation file to the Provost.

A copy of the unit administrator's Statement of Recommendation, as defined above, shall be given to the faculty member in a confidential manner, normally within five working days, after the unit administrator's recommendation is finalized.
Transmittal of the RPT Documentation File
1. If a candidate is being considered for reappointment or for tenure (and promotion in the case of an Assistant Professor) that individual's documentation file must be forwarded to the Provost for evaluation and further transmittal to the President of OSU-CHS for review and action regardless of whether the recommendation is positive or negative.
2. If a tenured candidate is considered for promotion or an untenured candidate is considered for early tenure and promotion, and both the unit administrator and the unit personnel committee recommend against the proposed action, that individual's documentation file will not be forwarded to the Provost for further consideration unless the candidate requests otherwise. However, if the unit administrator and the unit personnel committee do not agree on a recommendation, the documentation file will be forwarded to the Provost for evaluation and further transmittal to the President of OSU-CHS.
3. At any point in the process, a candidate for promotion may elect by written request to withdraw his/her name from further consideration.
4. It is the policy of the OSU-CHS that promotion of individuals is made for outstanding performance in assigned duties over a period of time. Individuals who are considered for promotion in a given year, but are not granted a promotion, may be reconsidered. However, before such reconsideration is given, it is expected that substantial change in the candidate's performance can be documented. Normally a period of two years should elapse before the candidate is reconsidered. Unit administrators who have candidates who wish to be reconsidered earlier must demonstrate to the Provost that the candidate has made substantial accomplishments since the last consideration before the review process is initiated. After review by the Provost and consultation with the President of OSU-CHS, the unit administrator will be notified whether or not approval is granted for reconsideration of the candidate.
5. If the unit administrator's recommendation is for non-reappointment, the documentation file should be sent forward to the Provost along with a DRAFT copy of the non-reappointment letter.

On or About February 15 - March 14

OSU-CHS Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee Review

After receiving recommendations from departments within OSU-CHS, all documentation files are reviewed by the OSU-CHS RPT Committee. Following a review of all documents provided on each candidate, the OSU-CHS RPT Committee shall prepare a Statement of Recommendation regarding whether the department's evaluation of each candidate has been rigorous, fair and based on departmentally approved criteria and standards and, where applicable, any additional evaluations specified in approved OSU-CHS policies. This statement is to be added to the candidate's RPT packet prior to review by the Provost. Additionally, the chair of the committee or an appropriately elected representative will record the committee's recommendation on the RPT Summary of Recommendations form, along with his/her signature.

A copy of the OSU-CHS RPT Committee's Statement of Recommendation shall be given to the faculty member in a confidential manner, normally within five working days, after the recommendation is finalized.
Provost Review

The Provost, after reviewing all materials and other recommendations, submits his/her Statement of Recommendation to the President of OSU-CHS. This statement shall assess whether (1) the department's evaluation has been rigorous, fair and based on departmentally approved criteria and standards, (2) the documentation provided adequately supports the recommendations of the unit, and (3) whether the action recommended by the unit is warranted. Additionally, after reviewing the candidate’s materials, including all internal and external input, the Provost’s recommendation letter shall reflect his/her professional judgment about the qualifications and merit of the candidate for reappointment, promotion, or tenure. If the recommendation of the Provost is that the action recommended by the appropriate faculty counsel or unit administrator is not warranted, the reasons must be explained in the statement. This statement shall include any confidential information that conditions his/her recommendation. Even if the recommendation of the Provost agrees with that of the unit personnel committee and unit administrator, the Provost is nevertheless encouraged to include in the documentation file a written statement setting forth rationale for his/her recommendation. The Provost's Statement of Recommendation must be added to the candidate's documentation file, along with his/her notation of recommended action and signature on the RPT Summary of Recommendations form. The Provost transmits the documentation file to the President of OSU-CHS.

In addition to the RPT form and the documentation specified above, a DRAFT copy of the non- reappointment letter should be sent forward to the President of OSU-CHS with all requested documentation, if the Provost's recommendation is for non-reappointment.

A copy of the Provost's Statement of Recommendation shall be given to the faculty member in a confidential manner, normally within five working days, after the recommendation is finalized.

On or About March 15 - May 31

Materials on all candidates under review are to be submitted to the President of OSU-CHS on or about March 15 of each year.

Administrative Review

Recommendations and documentation are submitted for review by the President of OSU-CHS. In the process of his/her review, the President of OSU-CHS may seek counsel from the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee of the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate and others as deemed appropriate. Written input from the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee of the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate and/or the individual administrators consulted will become a part of the respective candidate's packet and their Statement(s) of Recommendation will be considered by the President of OSU-CHS in his/her final deliberations.

A copy of the Statements of Recommendation shall be given to the faculty member in a confidential manner, normally within five working days, after the recommendations are finalized.

It is the responsibility of the President of OSU-CHS to be certain that all applicable standards and policies that have been approved by OSU-CHS have been applied fairly to each individual.

Additionally, the recommendation of the President of OSU-CHS shall reflect his/her professional judgment about the qualifications and merit of the candidate for reappointment, promotion or tenure.

If the recommendation of the President of OSU-CHS is negative and differs from that of the Provost, the President of OSU-CHS is responsible for communicating in writing to the Provost, unit administrator, and faculty member the reasons for the disagreement.

A copy of the President of OSU-CHS’ Statement of Recommendation shall be given to the faculty member in a confidential manner, normally within five working days, after the recommendation is finalized.

On or About June 1 - 30

Final institutional review of the personnel actions submitted by the President of OSU-CHS may be conducted by the President of the OSU System. A list of actions is then developed which the University administration recommends to the Board of Regents for final action. Reappointments, promotions and confirmation of tenure must be approved by the governing Board of Regents except as authorized by Board of Regents' policies (e.g., see June 22, 1979, Board of Regents' policy statement). Normally, recommendations are submitted to the Board of Regents for consideration during a June meeting. When approved, the Board specifies the date on which the reappointment, promotion and/or tenure will become effective.

Non-reappointment actions are provided to the Board of Regents for
"information only" when the affected faculty member actually separates from the University.

Recording Effective Dates

When the Employment Action form is prepared by the unit administrator for the proposed personnel action, the form is to include the effective date for the action. Additionally, when all RPT actions are submitted to the OSU Board of Regents for approval, the date on which the reappointment, promotion and/or tenure is effective shall be specified. A guide for the effective date of actions follows:

Reappointment to the rank of Instructor

Reappointment to the rank of Instructor is effective the same calendar year the RPT review is completed and on September 1 of that year for faculty on 9-month appointments or on July 1 for faculty on 12-month appointments.
Reappointment to the rank of Assistant Professor without tenure

Reappointment to the rank of Assistant Professor without tenure is effective on September 1 (9- month) or July 1 (12-month) of the calendar year following the completion of the RPT review. As such, the effective date for reappointment coincides with the ending date of the initial appointment period.
Reappointment in rank which grants tenure

Reappointment in rank which grants tenure is effective on July 1 of the same calendar year as the completion of RPT review, independent of the faculty member's appointment length.
Promotion in rank which grants tenure

Promotion in rank which grants tenure is effective on July 1 of the same calendar year as the completion of the RPT review, independent of the faculty member's appointment length.
Promotion in rank which does not grant tenure

Promotion in rank which does not grant tenure is effective on July 1 of the same calendar year as the completion of the RPT review, independent of the faculty member's appointment length.

Providing Feedback to Faculty on Final RPT Action

Article I

The Provost shall inform the affected faculty member that: (1) a recommendation for promotion, reappointment and/or tenure will be presented by the President of the OSU System to the Board of Regents in mid- to late June, or (2) OSU-CHS does not intend to continue the appointment beyond a specified date. Notification of non-reappointment must be sent on or before May 31, except in case of a non-reappointment of an Instructor in the first year of appointment, who must be notified by March 1.
Article II

Formal notification of Board approval will be sent to each faculty candidate from the Provost and/or unit administrator relaying the final decision of his/her reappointment, promotion and/or tenure action. This notification should occur as soon as practical after, but normally within five working days of, the completion of the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Regents, typically in mid- to late June.
Article III

Once Board approval is secured on RPT actions, all documentation files will be returned to the Provost and will be retained intact for one year.
Article IV
In order to eliminate an inadvertent breach of confidentiality, when the RPT files are returned to the respective Provost’s office by the VPAA’s office, the external peer review letters will be removed from the file and will be retained in the Provost’s office (or college personnel office).
1. All external review letters, accompanied by the signed waiver, will be placed in a sealed envelope in the faculty member’s personnel file, normally located in the college fiscal office.
2. Each folder will have a notice affixed stating that these are confidential letters and may not be read by the individuals who waived their rights.
3. Authorization to access these letters must be obtained in writing from the Provost (the full notice is attached).
Article V

The RPT files, less the external letters, will be returned to departments for retention as required by policy.
Review
Approved by:
- General Faculty: May 16, 2013
- oard of Regents: December 6, 2013
- General Faculty: November 6, 2018
- Board of Regents: September 9, 2022

Criteria for Promotion and Tenure (Tenure-Track Faculty)

Primary areas of evaluation
1. Teaching
2. Research (Scholarly Activity)
3. Service
Promotion from Instructor to Assistant Professor
1. Demonstrated effectiveness in at least one of the three areas: teaching, research and scholarly activity or service.
2. Some accomplishment in the remaining two areas is also expected.
3. The individual should have a reputation among colleagues for stability, integrity, and dedication and should be capable of working in harmony with peers.
4. Membership in professional societies is expected, and physicians should be eligible for applicable medical specialty board(s).
Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
1. Ordinarily, Assistant Professors will be considered for promotion during the sixth year in rank. Any recommendation for promotion prior to this length of service will be considered extraordinary and will require exceptional justification.
2. An Associate Professor should have substantial professional qualifications and experience beyond the terminal degree. There should be a record of accomplishment in two of the three areas (teaching, research and scholarly activity, or service) and some strength in the third.
3. Since tenure is awarded at this rank, the individual should be desirable as a permanent colleague and member of the faculty.
4. Physicians should have attained board certification applicable to their specialty.
Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor
1. Ordinarily, an Associate Professor will be considered for promotion during the fourth year in rank (see Section 2.1 (1) of this Appendix D). Any recommendation for promotion prior to this length of service will be considered extraordinary and will require exceptional justification.
2. A Professor should have a record of outstanding and extensive professional accomplishment in one of the three areas (teaching, research and scholarly activity or service) and significant accomplishments in the other two.
3. The individual should have a scholarly or professional reputation among colleagues on a local, state and national level.

Appendix E: Clinical Faculty (Non-Tenure Track) Basic Standards for Appointment and Promotion

Purpose

The purpose of this policy and procedures letter is to provide guidelines for the evaluation of Clinical (non-tenure track) faculty through annual evaluation, reappointment/non-reappointment, and promotion.

As a land-grant university, Oklahoma State University places primary emphasis on the discovery, integration, application, dissemination, transfer and use of knowledge. Scholarly investigation is the heart of the professorate and it undergirds the mission of the land-grant system. Faculty are expected to participate continually in a broad range of scholarly activities which contribute to current knowledge in their field of expertise and which support the mission and goals of their unit, college, and university. The appraisal and development process, as well as the reappointment and promotion process, are the means used to encourage and evaluate the professional growth of individual clinical track faculty members. The goal is to attract, retain and reward those faculty who demonstrate excellence.

Faculty Evaluation

The evaluation process at the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences (“OSU-CHS”) is designed to assist the institution in attracting promising faculty members, to help them reach their potential, to retain only the outstanding faculty and to reward their proficiency. Evaluation of the performance of faculty members is also conducted for the purpose of compensation review and at the appropriate times for the purpose of reappointment and/or for the awarding of promotion.
Promotion in Academic Rank

Initial academic rank is based on evidence that the faculty member has met the qualifications for the rank to which they are being appointed. Faculty members are hired to accomplish objectives of specific academic units and are to be judged accordingly. Consequently, the evaluation of faculty is to be carried out in the context of the faculty member's particular role in the institution with a clear understanding of what is expected of the individual. Accomplishments of the faculty member are judged against these expectations. Promotion in rank recognizes exemplary performance of a faculty member. The evaluation process provides an assessment of a faculty member's growth and performance since initial appointment or since the last promotion.

The evaluation process must be based on a comprehensive assessment of the candidate’s record of scholarly research/creative work, teaching, outreach/extension and service. This assessment should take into account the quality of outcomes as well as their quantity; it should also acknowledge the creativity of faculty work and the impact of the faculty member’s work on students, on the field(s) in which the faculty member works, and on others the university serves. Interdisciplinary work, public scholarship and engagement, international accomplishments and initiatives, technology transfer initiatives, and other special kinds of professional activity by the candidate should be considered when appropriate. Faculty with clinical non-tenure track appointments primarily contribute to teaching, patient care, and/or clinical teaching/supervision. University service on committees and other such duties is not required but may be undertaken by mutual consent of the clinical faculty member and their department chair, Dean, and Provost. Likewise, research and scholarly activity is not required but may be undertaken with the mutual consent of the clinical faculty member, his/her department chair, Dean, and Provost.

The relative importance of these criteria may vary in different academic units, and particular faculty members within units may vary in the extent to which their responsibilities emphasize one or more parts of the OSU-CHS mission. Criteria against which individual faculty members are judged must reflect these varying assignments and must align with the work assignment specified in annual appraisal documents.
Academic Unit Standards

The primary responsibility for establishing the criteria for promotion rests with the academic unit. Each department or equivalent academic unit must have a document that clearly specifies (1) the indices and standards that will be used to determine whether candidates meet the requirements for promotion to Associate Professor, (2) the indices and standards that will be used to determine whether candidates meet requirements for promotion to Professor, and (3) the goals and expectations to be used in evaluating faculty performance in annual appraisal and developments. The unit standards must delineate the tangible evidence that the faculty member must provide to document, not simply the attainment of minimal accomplishments, but an appropriate record of sustained excellence.

The academic unit standards will define the criteria of teaching, clinical work, research/creative work, outreach/extension and service in ways that reflect the discipline and its mission. The unit’s refined criteria shall be applied to all faculty members in ways which equitably reflect a particular faculty member’s responsibilities and assignments. How the unit’s standards apply to a specific faculty member's duties should be made clear at the time of appointment and reviewed in the annual appraisal and development process. Adjustments in the workload expectations for faculty members may occur over time in keeping with changing institutional and personal priorities, but these must be discussed and documented in the annual Appraisal and Development reviews which are signed by the faculty member and administrative head.

The unit standards serve as the basis for the evaluation of the faculty member’s dossier at all levels of review. The unit standards must be consistent with university and college policies but may exceed them. Each academic unit document must be approved by a vote of all tenured and tenure-track faculty within the unit, by the Provost, and the President of OSU-CHS.

Basic Standards for Appointment and Promotion at each Rank

1. Clinical Instructor

Appointment to this rank requires that a candidate possess a terminal degree. The individual’s potential to develop into an effective clinician and educator should be given consideration when appointed to this rank.
2. Clinical Assistant Professor

Appointment or promotion to this rank will be based on potential as a clinician and educator. Physicians should be board eligible, certified, or have comparable credentials in area of medical specialty. Other clinical faculty should have completed a recognized training program appropriate to his/her discipline. The individual should show potential for excellence in patient care and a commitment to the ethical and compassionate provision of such services. The individual should also possess a documented record of teaching contributions or show potential and interest in clinical teaching.
3. Clinical Associate Professor

Appointment or promotion to this rank requires certification or comparable credentials in the area of medical specialty for physicians, or as applicable to the discipline for other clinical faculty. Competence in clinical care and clinical teaching at a more advanced level than that for Clinical Assistant Professor is required. The individual must possess a record of excellence in the ethical and compassionate provision of patient care services. Clinical skill and judgment should be respected by colleagues in the department and professional community. Recognition as a clinician, clinical teacher, leader, or expert consultant should be evident or emerging. For promotion to this rank, the individual should show evidence of significant and meaningful contributions to the clinical strength, educational mission, or leadership in the department.
4. Clinical Professor

Appointment or promotion to this rank should signify that the individual is a distinguished authority in his/her field and is recognized regionally and/or nationally. Physician faculty must be certified or possess comparable credentials in area of medical specialty, or as applicable to the discipline for other clinical faculty. The individual must show a record of sustained excellence in the ethical and compassionate provision of patient care services. Clinical skills and clinical teaching should be of the highest quality. For promotion to this rank, the individual should show evidence of sustained and superior contributions to the clinical strength, educational mission, or leadership in the department.

Procedures

Overview of the responsibilities of participants in the reappointment/non-reappointment and promotion processes

Operationally, the function of the promotion process for non-tenure track faculty is to determine whether each candidate has met the detailed academic qualifications and criteria specified by their unit. In this process, the candidate, unit personnel committee, unit administrator, the RPT Committee of the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate, the Provost and the President of OSU-CHS have unique responsibilities they must carry out with the highest professional integrity. Briefly the role of each participant is as follows:

Candidate

It shall be the personal responsibility of the faculty member to show that applicable qualifications for promotion have been met. To carry out this responsibility, the candidate must develop, in cooperation with the unit administrator, a file documenting that each of the detailed qualifications and criteria of the unit have been specifically achieved. The "Development of the RPT Documentation File" form, attached hereto, lists the documentation that must be included and should be used as a guide in the development of the file.

In the review process, some of the reviewers may not personally know the candidate and will rely exclusively on materials included or referred to in this file as the basis for their recommendation. The candidate must not assume that the reviewers will know that they are an excellent clinician, teacher, scholar and colleague. It is essential that the candidate include in the file all the materials necessary to document and affirmatively establish that they have met all applicable criteria and qualifications.
Unit Personnel Committee
The responsibility of the unit personnel committee is to recommend whether or not the candidate has met each of the applicable criteria and qualifications for the personnel action being considered. The written recommendation to the unit administrator shall specifically address how each criterion and qualification in the academic unit, college, and university standards has or has not been met. If there is a divergence of opinion within the committee, both majority and minority opinions shall be indicated within a single recommendation letter.

The composition of the unit personnel committee and identification of those members eligible to vote on personnel actions shall be specified in the unit's RPT guidelines. These guidelines shall address the following:
1. A minimum of 3 voting faculty members are required to be at the same rank as, or above, that being sought by the candidate, i.e. If candidate is non-tenure-track then the UPC may be comprised of tenured faculty and non-tenured faculty.
2. Each academic unit will formalize a mechanism by which all unit faculty may provide input to the unit personnel committee. The input received will be addressed in the committee’s written recommendation to the unit administrator.
3. If a unit cannot complete its personnel committee with voting faculty of appropriate rank from within the unit, the Department Chair and Provost will convene to determine the UPC.
4. Given that faculty from a given unit may serve on the unit and/or college level committee, they must vote only once and only at one level.
5. Faculty members applying for reappointment (tenure-track only), promotion or tenure may not serve on a unit personnel committee in the year of their application.
6. The following administrators cannot serve on the UPC: President, Provost, or Dean.
7. All Voting members of the UPC are required to sign the UPC recommendation letter to the Department chair.
Unit Administrator

The unit administrator is responsible for making sure that the candidate and personnel committee are familiar with all relevant policies, procedures, and applicable qualifications and criteria. They assist the candidate in constructing the documentation file for promotion and make a final assessment of the candidate after they have received the recommendation of the unit personnel committee. They have a special responsibility to see that all policies and procedures are rigorously followed, and that the final recommendation submitted for the unit is free of bias and based on a professional application of the standards of the unit. After reviewing the candidate's materials, the unit administrator shall attach a recommendation letter which reflects his/her professional judgment about the qualifications and merit of the candidate for non-reappointment, and promotion actions and shall forward all materials to the Provost.
Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee (“OSU-CHS RPT Committee”)

The college-level committee is responsible for providing the Provost with a professional opinion about the qualifications of the candidate for promotion. This committee is not involved in clinical (non-tenure) track reappointment/non-reappointment decisions. The committee examines the documentation provided by the faculty member, the standards that have been adopted by the department, and the Statements of Recommendation provided by the department personnel committee and the department chair for fairness in procedure and review at the departmental level and for consistency within OSU-CHS.

The committee will then provide a written recommendation to the Provost that indicates whether the personnel action being considered is supported. The OSU-CHS RPT Committee may also be charged with including in its recommendation a professional opinion about the qualifications and merit of the candidate for promotion. If there is a divergence of opinion within the OSU-CHS RPT Committee, both majority and minority opinions shall be indicated within a single recommendation letter. Guidelines for the OSU-CHS RPT Committee will follow the structure outlined by the OSU-CHS Bylaws.
Provost

The Provost has several vital responsibilities both prior to and during the non-reappointment and promotion evaluation processes. They work continuously with departments, making sure the academic unit standards for promotion are clear and consistent with the level of excellence expected in the college and university and that the department's emphasis on differing aspects of faculty activities matches the role the department plays in OSU-CHS. They provide explicit and detailed guidance regarding the type and quality of documentation that will be required of candidates whose applications for promotion are to be forwarded to the President of OSU-CHS.

Upon receiving recommendations from departments, the Provost, with input from the RPT Committee of the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate, shall carefully review the candidate's documentation file, including the recommendations of the unit personnel committee and unit administrator. They shall make a professional assessment regarding whether (1) the department's evaluation of each candidate has been rigorous, fair and based on departmentally approved criteria and standards, (2) the documentation provided adequately supports the recommendations of the unit, and (3) the action recommended by the unit is warranted.

Additionally, after reviewing the candidate’s materials, including all internal and external input, the Provost’s recommendation letter shall reflect his/her professional judgment about the qualifications and merit of the candidate for promotion. This written report will be added to the documentation file and forwarded to the President of OSU-CHS as part of his/her Statement of Recommendation.
President of OSU-CHS

The President of OSU-CHS is responsible for examining the files and Statements of Recommendation written by all involved groups and administrators. The President of OSU-CHS may seek additional counsel from the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate and others as deemed appropriate. It is the responsibility of the President of OSU-CHS to be certain that all applicable standards and policies that have been approved by the University have been applied fairly to each individual. Additionally, the recommendation of the President of OSU-CHS shall reflect his/her professional judgment about the qualifications and merit of the candidate for promotion and will be submitted to the President of the OSU System for recommendation to the Board of Regents.

Guidelines for Appointments, Reappointments, and Non-Reappointments

Guidelines for Clinical Faculty Track Appointments
1. Procedures for recruitment: A national search will not be required when recruiting for a clinical faculty position and will be determined at the discretion of the department chair and Provost.
2. Initial appointment: Initial academic rank is based on evidence that the faculty member has met the qualifications for the rank to which they are being appointed. An applicant’s qualifications for a clinical track appointment shall be assessed by department chair, departmental faculty counsel, and OSU-CHS RPT Committee evaluation, which includes but is not limited to review of application, curriculum vitae, licensure, certifications, and other supporting documentation.
3. Length of appointment: The length of appointment for clinical faculty members will be determined by the department chair and Provost, following appropriate departmental faculty counsel and based on availability of funds. The length of appointment shall be stated in the memorandum of understanding. Appointments automatically expire at the time specified in the original appointment letter or stated in the previous reappointment action.
Guidelines for Clinical Track Faculty Reappointment

Appointments are renewable, although the University does not accrue any obligation to renew any clinical faculty appointments. Reappointment of a clinical track faculty member to the same faculty rank will be based on the individual’s continued fulfillment of the qualifications for that particular rank. The continued fulfillment of these qualifications should be documented in the annual reviews of the clinical faculty member.

For reappointment decisions, the unit administrator shall conduct a brief review of the faculty member’s performance throughout the current contract period. If the review is satisfactory, the unit administrator may make a record for reappointment without seeking appropriate faculty counsel. If the unit administrator finds that the performance was not satisfactory, and is considering non-reappointment, the unit administrator must obtain appropriate faculty counsel from the UPC.
Guidelines for Clinical Track Non-Reappointment
If a decision not to recommend reappointment of a clinical faculty member is based on performance rather than on lack of institutional support for the position, the schedule of notification outlined below should be observed:
- For clinical faculty on one-year of service or less, notice shall be given not later than March 1 of the first academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of the academic year, or, if an initial one-year appointment expires during an academic year, at least three months in advance of its expiration.
- For clinical faculty with more than one year of service, notice shall be given at least 12 months before the expiration of an appointment. For example, if an appointment period is from July 1 – June 30, and notice of non-reappointment is given on January 1, then the end of the appointment would be December 31, which is twelve months after the notification of non-reappointment.
Recommendations to not reappoint shall originate with the department chair after obtaining appropriate faculty counsel from the Unit Personnel Committee. Normally, recommendations shall be in response to a routine notice from the office of the Provost.

If the unit administrator's recommendation is for non-reappointment, the documentation file should be sent forward to the Provost along with a DRAFT copy of the non- reappointment letter.

Non-reappointment actions are provided to the Board of Regents for "information only" when the affected faculty member actually separates from the University.

Non-reappointed individuals shall have the option to obtain the reasons for non-reappointment in a confidential form of their choosing. If the affected faculty member believes that the reasons for nonrenewal are based on unlawful discrimination, an exercise of academic freedom, or inadequate consideration, they may request a limited review of the matter utilizing the Dispute Resolution Procedure contained in Appendix C. The promotion and tenure committee will be advised of yearly reappointments and non-reappointments of clinical faculty.

Guidelines for Clinical Track Faculty Promotions

Promotion in rank recognizes exemplary performance of a faculty member. The evaluation process provides an assessment of a faculty member’s growth and performance since initial appointment or last promotion. For promotion in the clinical track, a faculty member’s clinical competence, teaching competence, collegiality, clinical productivity (as assigned by chair), and quality of professional work are among areas that deserve consideration in the evaluation for promotion. The faculty member should meet or exceed the basic standards for each rank.

Clinical track faculty will be eligible to seek promotion, after appropriate time of service in rank, according to the timetable below. Earlier consideration of promotion in rank may be considered if documented in the original letter of appointment or in exceptional cases that are fully justified by additional documentation. Contingent upon reappointment, the schedule of eligibility to seek promotion is as follows:

Ordinarily, Clinical Assistant Professors will be considered for promotion during the seventh year in rank. Any recommendation for promotion prior to this length of service will be considered extraordinary and will require exceptional justification.
Ordinarily, Clinical Associate Professors will be considered for promotion during the fifth year in rank. Any recommendation for promotion prior to this length of service will be considered extraordinary and will require exceptional justification. Promotion is a reward and recognition for performance, not longevity. Consequently, the attainment of a minimum number of years of service alone does not justify promotion.

Identifying Promotion Candidates - On or About September 1

Notification of Process

Early in the Fall semester, the Provost receives a memorandum from the President of OSU-CHS outlining deadlines and requirements for that year's RPT process. Included is a Departmental Faculty Reappointment and Tenure Report which lists faculty for whom it is believed personnel decisions must be made. This includes all faculty who are scheduled that year’s promotion. An informational copy of the OSU-CHS’s memorandum and departmental report is shared with the unit administrator.

Informational notification is also sent by the President of OSU-CHS office to each faculty member identified on the report, with a statement notifying the faculty member that his/her name has been sent forward to the Provost and unit administrator and encouraging the faculty member to contact the unit administrator to verify that action will be taken as scheduled. Faculty will also be encouraged to review the Policy Statement of the Faculty Handbook and this policy and procedures letter. For reference, an overview of faculty appointment periods and time in rank is provided below.
Appointment Periods and Time in Rank
Appointment period guidelines are governed by the Policy Statement. This information is summarized below:
1. Academic appointments normally coincide with the beginning of the academic year (September 1 for 9-month appointments or July 1 for 12-month appointments). For faculty appointed after this date but before January 1, the period of probation for tenure consideration or for renewal of appointment will commence at the beginning of that academic year. The probation period for faculty appointed on or after January 1 will commence at the beginning of the following academic year.
Verification of RPT Report

To help maintain confidence in the Departmental Faculty Reappointment and Tenure Report, it is the responsibility of the Provost and unit administrator to examine the departmental reports for completeness and accuracy. The Provost transmits the appropriate portion of the tenure report to each academic department. The unit administrator is asked to verify information regarding reappointment, promotion or non-reappointment for each person flagged and for those not flagged but scheduled for review. The unit administrator shall review, record, initial and return corrections in the report to the Provost's office. Corrected reports are submitted in the Spring to the President of OSU-CHS when all RPT actions for the college are delivered by the Provost.

Preparing Promotion Documentation File - On or About September 15 - January 15

Step 1.

The unit administrator must ensure that all dates of academic appointments, reappointments and promotions while at OSU-CHS are consistent with the departmental report, employment action forms and the candidate's vita.
Step 2.
Materials for the candidate's documentation file should be compiled and arranged by the unit administrator. The following is intended to be a minimal list of items to be provided, not necessarily a listing of the only items to be included.
1. The unit administrator should provide all initial appointment documents including memorandum of understanding, position announcement and/or description.
2. A statement describing the work assignment within OSU-CHS
  (teaching, research/creative work, clinical, outreach/extension, service, administration, and/or advisement) during the time period considered for the proposed action and a summary of percentages for each category of activity should be provided by the unit administrator.
3. Annual appraisal and development documents prepared by the unit administrator and the faculty member during the period considered for this proposed personnel action should be provided. Any written statement submitted by the faculty member as a part of, or in response to, the appraisals should be included. If the faculty member has appealed any of the appraisals to the Provost, the Provost's written resolution of the appeal should be included.
4. The unit administrator should provide written statements, if any, documenting either special achievements or deficiencies related to the proposed personnel action.
5. Records of sabbatical or other periods of leave (not to include annual leave) should be included by the unit administrator.
6. The unit administrator should ensure that copies of all applicable departmental standards, policies and procedures for promotion decisions are provided. Major revisions of the above which have occurred during the tenure of the faculty member and which may affect this personnel action must be indicated.
All units shall solicit outside reviews as a part of the promotion review process and shall develop rules for solicitation of such reviews that are consistent with policies of OSU-CHS and with this document.

In determining who are selected as reviewers, the candidate should be asked to provide a slate of names; the unit administrator and the unit personnel committee should also provide names; and from these two lists a group of at least three should be selected in a fair and objective manner for contact. The candidate may also specify the names of persons who should not be considered as possible reviewers, provided he or she specifies valid personal or professional reasons for the exclusion.
Step 3.
The following materials for the promotion documentation file should be provided by the faculty member. This is intended to be a minimal list of items to be provided, not necessarily a listing of the only items to be included.
1. A current vita including a complete list of publications, instructional accomplishments, other creative activities and important achievements should be provided by the faculty member. Reprints of publications need not be included; however, it is helpful if the faculty member designates which publications are in refereed journals. Documentation of instructional accomplishments could include teaching awards, peer evaluations, course syllabi and tests, student evaluations, other testimonies, etc.
2. Self-assessment statement(s) on instruction, research/creative work, outreach/ extension, and/or service/professionalism activities are to be provided, as appropriate to the work assignment, by faculty members being considered for promotion and/or tenure.
Step 4.
All materials in the documentation file should be available for review by the faculty member.
Step 5.

If the faculty member finds that information provided by the unit administrator is incomplete or inaccurate or if there is additional documentation they would like reviewed, documentation should be added by the candidate to clarify and complete the file prior to the signing of the RPT form.
Step 6.

The faculty member signs the RPT form, Section 3, which indicates that they have been given the opportunity to review the materials contained in the documentation file up to this point in the process, including all materials submitted by the unit administrator and faculty member, and that the file is complete. Such signature does not indicate that the faculty member agrees with the substance of each document. Deliberations about the recommendation on the candidate will not begin until the file is complete; therefore, the Statements of Recommendation from the unit personnel committee, unit administrator, the OSU-CHS RPT Committee, and Provost are not included in the file at this point in the process.

Adding Additional Materials to Documentation File

Article I

Materials can be added to/deleted from the documentation file until the unit personnel committee recommendation concerning the action is made. However, both the candidate and the unit administrator must be informed of the changes and be provided an opportunity to make additional modifications.
Article II

Appraisal and development materials covering the period of time from the last appraisal and development document through the most recent fall semester shall be added to the documentation file as soon as finalized. These documents shall be considered by the unit personnel committee and unit administrator prior to making their recommendations. It is expected that this most recent material may have to be added to the file after the documentation file is otherwise complete, and after the faculty member has signified in writing that the file is otherwise complete; however, unit administrators should make strenuous efforts to complete the latest A&D review for each candidate by January 15. No new documentation regarding faculty performance or accomplishments occurring after the end of the immediately preceding calendar year may be added to the file. Documentation of accomplishments achieved after the application submission deadline can be applied to the following promotion review.
Article III

After the Statement of Recommendation is formulated by the unit personnel committee and recorded, the only documentation that may be added, except as noted in 4 and 5, to a candidate's packet are the Statements of Recommendation from the unit personnel committee, the unit administrator, the OSU-CHS RPT Committee, and the Provost.
Article IV

The candidate will be provided one opportunity to respond to a negative Statement of Recommendation and to have that response added to his/her packet. The candidate will have three working days following receipt of the first Statement noting denial of the proposed action to formulate a response no longer than 1,000 words. The candidate will submit his/her response to the next higher review level, i.e., if the Statement noting denial is received from the department head, the response will be submitted to the Provost's office within five working days.

At each review level, all reasonable efforts will be made to notify the faculty member, in a confidential manner, of the Statement of Recommendation. However, if the faculty member is not readily available due to current assignment or is unwilling to accept sensitive documents sent via U.S. mail, the opportunity to respond to a negative Statement of Recommendation is lost. The faculty member should bear the responsibility of keeping his/her department head informed of his/her whereabouts during this critical review process.
Article V

If during the review process the reviewer(s) determines that supplemental written materials are to be added to the file, all documentation, including the new materials, should be sent back to the unit administrator, who will contact the faculty member and the unit personnel committee, and restart the review process. This is to ensure that all reviewers have an opportunity to deliberate on the additional materials in the event they have a bearing on the outcome of the reviewer's recommendation.

Reviewing Documentation File and Statements of Recommendation

Once the faculty member has acknowledged the contents of the documentation file, the process of seeking faculty counsel and administrative input begins. Unit administrators are charged with the responsibility of recommending promotion. They shall obtain appropriate faculty counsel prior to making these recommendations. The manner in which input and subsequent recommendations are sought is noted below.

On or About January 15 - February 14

Appropriate Faculty Review

Appropriate faculty counsel is sought when the unit personnel committee or a special or permanent committee of faculty for the academic unit involved is to review all pertinent data for those individuals who are being considered. The committee evaluates each individual's contributions in the three major areas of teaching, research/creative work, and service, as appropriate. This evaluation is extensive, for the decision will have a direct bearing on the welfare of both the individual and the department. Consequently, the committee members will analyze annual appraisal forms, student evaluation summaries, journal articles and other publications, research results, and other outputs that can assess the individual's status as a professional. Standards established in the academic unit for quality as well as quantity are a matter of professional judgment in the discipline relative to the mission and role of the unit within the college and university.

After deliberating, the unit personnel committee shall prepare a Statement of Recommendation regarding promotion for the faculty member. The statement must address, in specific terms, how the faculty member has or has not satisfied applicable academic unit, college, and university standards for promotion. This statement must be added to the candidate's packet prior to review by the unit administrator. Additionally, the chair of the unit personnel committee or an appropriately elected representative of the faculty will record the committee's recommendation on the RPT Summary of Recommendations form, along with his/her signature.

A copy of the unit personnel committee's Statement of Recommendation, as defined above, shall be given to the faculty member in a confidential manner, normally within five working days, after the recommendation is finalized.
Unit Administrator Review

The unit administrator's Statement of Recommendation to the Provost must address, in specific terms, how the faculty member has or has not satisfied each applicable departmental criteria for promotion. The statement must detail whether or not the performance of the faculty member adequately fulfills the published academic unit, college, and university standards for the proposed personnel action. It is understood that an individual could greatly surpass some criteria and may fall short of others. Standards for quality as well as quantity are a matter of professional judgment in the discipline relative to the mission and role of the unit within the college and university. As such, the unit administrator should provide an accurate and balanced description of the person being considered. The statement of the unit administrator must be added to the candidate's packet prior to review by the OSU- CHS RPT Committee, and the Provost.

If the faculty member being reviewed for promotion also holds the position of unit administrator, it will be necessary for the Provost to appoint a senior member of the departmental faculty to serve in the role of the unit administrator. The "acting" unit administrator will review the documentation file and write a Statement of Recommendation as described above. The "acting" unit administrator will also record his/her recommended action and signature on the RPT Summary of Recommendations form.

If a faculty member has a split appointment, the Statement of Recommendation is to be completed by the unit administrator of the home department after consulting with the other unit administrator(s) to whom the faculty member reports. All relevant unit administrators are expected to sign or initial the statement. If they disagree significantly with the recommendation, the matter shall be brought to the attention of the Provost for resolution of differences.

When the unit administrator is unable to act in accord with the faculty recommendation, the reasons shall be communicated in writing to the faculty committee which provided the counsel.

The unit administrator is also responsible for: (1) Ensuring that the OSU Reappointment, Promotion/Tenure Recommendation Form is complete and that all appropriate documentation is attached. (2) Preparing the Employment Action form for the proposed personnel action.

The unit administrator then transmits the documentation file to the Provost.

A copy of the unit administrator's Statement of Recommendation, as defined above, shall be given to the faculty member in a confidential manner, normally within five working days, after the unit administrator's recommendation is finalized.
Transmittal of the Documentation File
1. If a candidate is being considered for promotion that individual's documentation file must be forwarded to the Provost for evaluation and further transmittal to the President of OSU-CHS for review and action regardless of whether the recommendation is positive or negative.
2. If a candidate is considered for early promotion, and both the unit administrator and the unit personnel committee recommend against the proposed action, that individual's documentation file will not be forwarded to the Provost for further consideration unless the candidate requests otherwise. However, if the unit administrator and the unit personnel committee do not agree on a recommendation, the documentation file will be forwarded to the Provost for evaluation and further transmittal to the President of OSU-CHS.
3. At any point in the process, a candidate for promotion may elect by written request to withdraw his/her name from further consideration.
4. It is the policy of the OSU-CHS that promotion of individuals is made for outstanding performance in assigned duties over a period of time. Individuals who are considered for promotion in a given year, but are not granted a promotion, may be reconsidered. However, before such reconsideration is given, it is expected that substantial change in the candidate's performance can be documented. Normally a period of two years should elapse before the candidate is reconsidered. Unit administrators who have candidates who wish to be reconsidered earlier must demonstrate to the Provost that the candidate has made substantial accomplishments since the last consideration before the review process is initiated. After review by the Provost and consultation with the President of OSU-CHS, the unit administrator will be notified whether or not approval is granted for reconsideration of the candidate.

On or About February 15 - March 14

OSU-CHS Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee Review.

After receiving recommendations from departments within OSU-CHS, all documentation files are reviewed by the OSU-CHS RPT Committee. Following a review of all documents provided on each candidate, the OSU-CHS RPT Committee shall prepare a Statement of Recommendation regarding whether the department's evaluation of each candidate has been rigorous, fair and based on departmentally approved criteria and standards and, where applicable, any additional evaluations specified in approved OSU-CHS policies. This statement is to be added to the candidate's packet prior to review by the Provost. Additionally, the chair of the committee or an appropriately elected representative will record the committee's recommendation on the RPT Summary of Recommendations form, along with his/her signature.

A copy of the OSU-CHS RPT Committee's Statement of Recommendation shall be given to the faculty member in a confidential manner, normally within five working days, after the recommendation is finalized.
Provost Review

The Provost, after reviewing all materials and other recommendations, submits his/her Statement of Recommendation to the President of OSU-CHS. This statement shall assess whether (1) the department's evaluation has been rigorous, fair and based on departmentally approved criteria and standards, (2) the documentation provided adequately supports the recommendations of the unit, and (3) whether the action recommended by the unit is warranted. Additionally, after reviewing the candidate’s materials, the Provost’s recommendation letter shall reflect his/her professional judgment about the qualifications and merit of the candidate for promotion. If the recommendation of the Provost is that the action recommended by the appropriate faculty counsel or unit administrator is not warranted, the reasons must be explained in the statement. This statement shall include any confidential information that conditions his/her recommendation. Even if the recommendation of the Provost agrees with that of the unit personnel committee and unit administrator, the Provost is nevertheless encouraged to include in the documentation file a written statement setting forth rationale for his/her recommendation. The Provost's Statement of Recommendation must be added to the candidate's documentation file, along with his/her notation of recommended action and signature on the RPT Summary of Recommendations form. The Provost transmits the documentation file to the President of OSU-CHS.

A copy of the Provost's Statement of Recommendation shall be given to the faculty member in a confidential manner, normally within five working days, after the recommendation is finalized.

On or About March 15 - May 31

Materials on all candidates under review are to be submitted to the President of OSU-CHS on or about March 15 of each year.

Administrative Review

Recommendations and documentation are submitted for review by the President of OSU-CHS. In the process of his/her review, the President of OSU-CHS may seek counsel from the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee of the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate and others as deemed appropriate. Written input from the Promotion and Tenure Resolution Committee of the OSU-CHS Faculty Senate and/or the individual administrators consulted will become a part of the respective candidate's packet and their Statement(s) of Recommendation will be considered by the President of OSU-CHS in his/her final deliberations.

A copy of the Statements of Recommendation shall be given to the faculty member in a confidential manner, normally within five working days, after the recommendations are finalized.

It is the responsibility of the President of OSU-CHS to be certain that all applicable standards and policies that have been approved by OSU-CHS have been applied fairly to each individual.

Additionally, the recommendation of the President of OSU-CHS shall reflect his/her professional judgment about the qualifications and merit of the candidate for reappointment, promotion or tenure.

If the recommendation of the President of OSU-CHS is negative and differs from that of the Provost, the President of OSU-CHS is responsible for communicating in writing to the Provost, unit administrator, and faculty member the reasons for the disagreement.

A copy of the President of OSU-CHS’ Statement of Recommendation shall be given to the faculty member in a confidential manner, normally within five working days, after the recommendation is finalized.

On or About June 1 - June 30

Recording Effective Dates

When the Employment Action form is prepared by the unit administrator for the proposed personnel action, the form is to include the effective date for the action. Additionally, when all RPT actions are submitted to the OSU Board of Regents for approval, the date on which the promotion is effective shall be specified. A guide for the effective date of actions follows:

Promotion in rank which does not grant tenure is effective on July 1 of the same calendar year as the completion of the RPT review, independent of the faculty member's appointment length.

Providing Feedback to Faculty on Final RPT Action

Article I

The Provost shall inform the affected faculty member that: (1) a recommendation for promotion, will be presented by the President of the OSU System to the Board of Regents in mid- to late June, or (2) OSU-CHS does not intend to promote the faculty member. Denial of promotion does not alter continued clinical faculty status at the present rank should such reappointment be made.
Article II

Formal notification of Board approval will be sent to each faculty candidate from the Provost and/or unit administrator relaying the final decision of their promotion action. This notification should occur as soon as practical after, but normally within five working days of, the completion of the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Regents, typically in mid- to late June.
Article III

Once Board approval is secured on RPT actions, all documentation files will be returned to the Provost and will be retained intact for one year.
Article IV

The RPT files will be returned to departments for retention as required by policy.

Credit for Time Accrued

Credit for time completed at another institution of higher learning may be allowed as partial fulfillment of time served in rank for promotion eligibility. A maximum credit of three years is allowed; the number of credited years is determined with agreement of the prospective faculty member, department chair, and Provost. The original letter of appointment shall contain specific information regarding any years credited toward the timeline for promotion eligibility, contingent upon renewal of appointment.

Sample Criteria for Clinical Faculty Evaluation

In keeping with faculty assignment, clinical track faculty may be engaged in a range of professional activities upon which performance is based. Although not exhaustive, examples of various professional endeavors and methods for documenting performance are described in the following:

Teaching criteria
Examples of teaching activities include but are not limited to:
- instructing students, residents, or other trainees in classroom, laboratory, or patient-care settings
- facilitating small-group teaching activities
- developing or refining curriculum, syllabi, courses, or other teaching programs
- presenting at professional educational meetings
- presenting at or organizing faculty development programs
- developing or refining instructional or evaluation materials
- serving as a role-model, mentor, or advisor for trainees
- presenting at case conferences or grand rounds
- facilitating or organizing journal clubs
Teaching evaluation

Methods to document achievement in teaching include, but are not limited to: evaluation by faculty counsel, peers, chair, supervisors, students, and residents; teaching awards or other teaching recognition; invited lectures; faculty evaluation of course management, curriculum, teaching programs, or educational materials; detailing of trainee achievements; letters of reference.
Clinical Care criteria
Examples of clinical activities include but are not limited to:
- providing direct patient care services
- supervising medical trainees or staff
- developing or overseeing quality improvement initiatives/programs
- developing new clinical procedures or techniques
- developing or refining patient care algorithms
- innovation in the delivery of patient care
- expansion of existing clinical programs or services
Clinical Care evaluation

Methods to document achievement in clinical care include, but are not limited to: clinical productivity; patient satisfaction; peer review documentation, if available; quality assurance indicators; faculty evaluation; reputation of clinical program; patient referrals from peers; letters of reference.
Service

Service to the university at large or to the medical profession is not required nor expected of clinical faculty members. However, should the clinical faculty member engage in such activities, these activities may be used to support the promotion in rank of clinical faculty.
Research and Scholarly Activity

Research and Scholarly Activity is not required nor expected of clinical faculty members. However, should the clinical faculty member engage in such activities, these activities may be used to support the promotion in rank of clinical faculty.
External Letters

External letters are NOT required for non-tenure track faculty members. Support letters can be added to the file if desired by the faculty member.

Guidelines for Changes in Faculty Track

Changing from a Clinical Faculty Non-Tenure track to a Tenure Track position
Non-Tenure track clinical faculty are eligible to apply for any tenure-track position for which they may be qualified. Note that new tenure-track faculty positions should follow the guidelines for recruitment and appointment of tenure-track faculty, including a national advertising and a formal search committee process, as set forth in the OSU-CHS Policy.
1. Credit for time accrued:
  1. When changing from a non-tenure to a tenure-track position, up to three years of time served in the clinical track may be applied to the pre-tenure probationary period, if requested by the faculty member and with the approval of the department chair and Provost. If no credit is requested or awarded, the pre-tenure probationary period will begin at the time of the tenure-track appointment.
Appointment in rank

Should a faculty member change to a tenure-track position, tenure-track rank will be based on the criteria for appointment established for the tenure- track rank, and not based on the faculty member's pre-existing rank.
Changing from a Tenure track position to a Clinical Faculty Non-Tenure track position
Tenure track faculty may wish to change from a tenure-track position to a non- tenure track clinical faculty position and are eligible for consideration and appointment to these positions as openings arise. However, the rights and privileges given with the tenure-track position are lost.
1. Credit for time accrued:
  1. When changing from a tenure-track to a non-tenure clinical-track position, up to three years of time served in the tenure-track may be allowed as partial fulfillment of time served in rank for promotion eligibility, if requested by the faculty member and with the approval of the department chair and Provost. If no credit is requested or awarded, the timeline for promotion eligibility will begin at the time of the clinical-track appointment.
2. Appointment in rank:
  1. Should a faculty member change to a clinical faculty position, clinical-track rank will be based on the criteria for appointment established for the non-tenure clinical-track rank, and not based on the faculty member's pre-existing rank.

Review

Approved by:

OSU-CHS Faculty Senate: August 5, 2022
Board of Regents: September 9, 2022

Appendix F: Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Timeline, Instructions, and Forms

Promotion Application Timeline for all Faculty

Date/By	Action	Responsibility
September 15th	Chairs receive report of faculty due for an RPT decision.	Provost OSU-CHS
September 30th	Faculty member notified by Chair to start preparing RPT documentation packet, due January 15th	Chair
October 15th	Faculty member provides to Chair list of five external referees to write letter of support, submits external letters waiver form to Chair (TENURE TRACK ONLY)	Faculty member
October 30th	Chair selects three names from faculty list (and/or from other names developed with departmental members) and solicits letters to arrive to the Chair within one month. Chair provides copy of soliciting letter to external referees to the faculty member and includes the letter in the applicant’s RPT file. (TENURE TRACK ONLY)	Chair
November 30th	Chair assembles external letters received or further solicits required letters. (TENURE TRACK ONLY)	Chair
January 15th	Faculty member completes RPT documentation packet and gives to Chair. Faculty member signs Section 3 of the OSU-RPT form denoting completion of file at this point.	Faculty member
January 15th	Chair adds the external letters to the RPT document, provides copies to the candidate’s departmental tenured faculty and convenes a meeting to evaluate the candidate.	Chair
January 30th	A representative of the departmental tenured faculty shall prepare a statement of recommendation which explicitly addresses how the candidate has or has not satisfied applicable departmental criteria for promotion, tenure or reappointment. This statement must be added to the candidate's RPT packet prior to review by the Chair. Additionally, the representative of the faculty will record their recommendation on the RPT Summary of Recommendations form, along with his/her signature.	Representative of Reviewing Faculty
February 15th	Chair adds statement of recommendation from the faculty representative to the RPT documents, completes a final review, denotes action and signs RPT form, writes letter of recommendation to the Chair of P & T, gives copy of letter to faculty candidate, includes letter and RPT form in RPT packet and send the original packet to the Provost.	Chair
February 28th	Chair of P & T Committee checks RPT packet for completeness, convenes P & T meeting, distributes copies of RPT packet to P & T members, holds meeting and votes on recommendation, writes statement of recommendation to the Provost, sends copy to faculty member, adds statement to RPT and forwards complete original RPT packet to Provost’s office.	Chair, P & T
March 15th	Provost completes final review of RPT document, writes letter of recommendation, sends copy of letter to faculty candidate and Chair of P&T, forwards complete RPT documentation to OSU-CHS President of OSU-CHS.	Provost
June 30th	Final institutional review of the personnel actions submitted by the President of OSU-CHS may be conducted by the President of the OSU System. A list of actions is then developed which the University administration recommends to the Board of Regents for final action. Reappointments, promotions and confirmation of tenure must be approved by the governing Board of Regents except as authorized by Board of Regents' policies (e.g., see June 22, 1979, Board of Regents' policy statement). When approved, the Board specifies the date on which the promotion will become effective.	Oklahoma A&M Board of Regents

Instructions for Department Chairs

Please review these present guidelines to determine eligibility and appropriateness of application for promotion for your departmental members. The timeline below should be consulted, and appropriate action taken. For those faculty who are eligible and whose promotion you endorse, please submit in your cover letter accompanying the RPT packet to the OSU-CHS Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee the following specific information:

A description of the assignments of the applicant since appointment or the last promotion.
A description of your departmental criteria for promotion and the review process that occurred within your department.
A summary of the conclusions of the departmental review. Include an identification of the areas considered to be “excellent,” “significant,” and “satisfactory,” and provide supporting evidence for each.
A description of the personal qualities of the applicant in the conducts of his/her professional activities.
A statement of the potential of the applicant for continuing contribution to the Department.
A statement describing student evaluations of the teaching performance of the applicant.

RPT Documentation Instructions for Faculty Candidate (All Faculty)

Please submit your complete CV first followed by the documentation described below. The vita should include:

summary and chronology of education and postdoctoral training;
history of current and previous academic/professional appointment(s), promotion history, and academic rank(s) held;
state licensure information, and specialty boards (eligibility/passed), if applicable;
professional society memberships;
professional honors and awards
list of publications and abstracts, with complete author, journal, and date information.

After your CV, documents required in the OSU RPT FORM IIc-h should be included, followed by the three sections:

Teaching;
Research (scholarly activity) and
Service.

Items listed below are not exhaustive; other relevant material may be included. Include letters from individuals supporting each area who can describe the quality of your work. These letter(s) should come from OSU-CHS colleagues as outside letters are solicited by the Chair.

Teaching
1. Topics and hours taught in classroom, laboratory/practicum, OSU-CHS Clinic, or College- affiliated hospitals and clinics.
2. Courses coordinated.
3. Letters from course coordinators, departmental chairs, or colleagues who have observed your teaching.
4. Development of instructional materials: text, laboratory manual, computer-based instruction.
5. Innovations undertaken in courses and curriculum.
6. Teaching awards, honors.
7. Teaching provided in continuing education programs.
8. Professional development activities related to teaching.
9. Other activities related to the educational mission of the College.
Research (scholarly activity)
1. Publications. List refereed journal articles, published abstracts, and books or book chapters. May include publication related to medical training or clinical issues. Include a copy of representative examples of publications in your folder. Pending publications: include name of journal that has been accepted, and expected date of publication.
2. Grants and Contracts. Indicate grants and contracts which have been submitted, identifying which were approved, pending, and which were funded. Include period of grant and total direct costs for each grant. Identify individuals and percent effort of P.I. and Co-I. (if applicable) on all grants.
3. Scholarly Presentations.
4. Professional development activities related to research and scholarly work.
Service
1. Institutional service
  1. Committee service.
  2. Faculty governance activities.
  3. Student advisement.
  4. Faculty development activities which you have provided at OSU-CHS.
2. Clinical service
  1. Describe clinical service provided as part of departmental work assignments.
  2. Professional licensing, credentialing, and boarding.
  3. Letters from peers or supervisors describing your ability in your area of clinical expertise.
  4. Professional development activities related to clinical service.
3. Professional Service
  1. Service to professional and scientific organizations (includes committees, offices held, etc.).
  2. Governmental appointments.
  3. Consulting activities.
4. Public Service
  1. Invited talks for lay audiences.
  2. Community organization activities
  3. Public-media-sponsored presentations.
  4. Other public service activities related to the missions of the College or department/discipline.

Review

The Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences is in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 as amended, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Rehabilitation Act, and other federal laws and regulations, does not discriminate on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender, gender identity or expression, national origin, disability, protected veteran status, or other protected status in any of its policies, practices or procedures. This includes but is not limited to admissions, employment, financial aid, and educational services. Title IX of the Education Amendments and OSU-CHS policy prohibit discrimination in the provision of services of benefits offered by the University based on gender.

Any person (student, faculty or staff) who believes that discriminatory practices have been engaged in based upon gender may discuss their concerns and file informal or formal complaints of possible violations of Title IX with the OSU-CHS Title IX Coordinator, [Tina Tappana, Director of Human Resources, Title IX Coordinator, Oklahoma State University, Center for Health Sciences and OUS Tulsa, (918) 594-8105 or Fax 918-594-8449.]

Revised April 2022

Appendices

Table of Contents

Appendix A: Statement on Professional Ethics

Appendix B: Academic Freedom

Appendix C: Dispute Resolution Procedures

Appendix D: Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Process for Tenure-Track Faculty

Purpose

Procedures

Overview of the responsibilities of participants in the RPT process

Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Process

2.1 Identifying RPT Candidates - On or About September 1

Preparing RPT Documentation File - On or About September 15 - January 15

Adding Additional Materials to Documentation File

Reviewing Documentation File and Statements of Recommendation

On or About January 15 - February 14

On or About February 15 - March 14

On or About March 15 - May 31

On or About June 1 - 30

Recording Effective Dates

Providing Feedback to Faculty on Final RPT Action

Criteria for Promotion and Tenure (Tenure-Track Faculty)

Appendix E: Clinical Faculty (Non-Tenure Track) Basic Standards for Appointment and Promotion

Purpose

Basic Standards for Appointment and Promotion at each Rank

Procedures

Overview of the responsibilities of participants in the reappointment/non-reappointment and promotion processes

Guidelines for Appointments, Reappointments, and Non-Reappointments

Guidelines for Clinical Track Faculty Promotions

Identifying Promotion Candidates - On or About September 1

Preparing Promotion Documentation File - On or About September 15 - January 15

Adding Additional Materials to Documentation File

Reviewing Documentation File and Statements of Recommendation

On or About January 15 - February 14

On or About February 15 - March 14

On or About March 15 - May 31

On or About June 1 - June 30

Recording Effective Dates

Providing Feedback to Faculty on Final RPT Action

Credit for Time Accrued

Sample Criteria for Clinical Faculty Evaluation

Guidelines for Changes in Faculty Track

Review

Appendix F: Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Timeline, Instructions, and Forms

Promotion Application Timeline for all Faculty

Instructions for Department Chairs

RPT Documentation Instructions for Faculty Candidate (All Faculty)

Review