9.30 – [Effective AY 18/19] Overview of Faculty Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure Rules; Definitions; Periodic Rules Review

arp.nmsu.edu/chapter-9/9-30

EFFECTIVE AUGUST 13, 2018

PART 1: OVERVIEW OF FACULTY EVALUATION, PROMOTION AND TENURE RULES; DEFINITIONS; PERIODIC RULES REVIEW

This rule, together with Change to ARP 9.31 – 9.36, collectively referred to as the NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure, establish the rules relating to the faculty annual performance evaluation process, and relating to promotion and/or tenure criteria and procedures for review. These rules clarify the roles and responsibilities of the candidate applying for promotion and/or tenure, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the promotion and tenure committees and academic administrators involved in each review stage. These rules set forth the requirements for the department and college promotion and tenure committees, and the common elements which must be include in their respective promotion and tenure policies. Procedural guidelines, including a suggested timeline for the promotion and tenure review processes are also provided.

For quick reference, a listing of the rules with subparts is provided below:

ARP 9.30 – [Effective AY 18/19] Overview of Faculty Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure Rules; Definitions; Periodic Rules Review

1. Part 1 Overview of NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure
2. Part 2 Glossary of Terms used in NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure (ARP 9.30 – 9.36)
3. Part 3 Implementation of 2017 Revised Rules; Coordination amongst Principal Units; Periodic Rules Review

ARP 9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty

1. Part 1 Purpose for Annual Performance Evaluation (See Also ARP 9.32 Part 2; ARP 9.36 Part 2)
2. Part 2 Guiding Principles for Annual Performance Evaluation
3. Part 3 The Four Areas of Faculty Effort: Teaching and Advising, Scholarship and Creative Activity, Extension and Outreach, and Service
4. Part 4 Requirements for Principal Units’ Evaluation Policies
5. Part 5 Procedural Guidelines for Annual Performance Evaluation

ARP 9.32 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure: Purpose and Guiding Principles

1. Part 1 Purpose
2. Part 2 Nature of Promotion and Tenure Reviews, Generally (See Also ARP 9.31 Part 2; ARP 6.61)
3. Part 3 Faculty Participation
4. Part 4 Transparency of Process
5. Part 5 Avoidance of Conflict of Interest
6. Part 6 Statement on Value of Diversity, paired with Non-Discrimination
7. Part 7 NMSU Community Colleges
8. Part 8 University Library Faculty
9. Part 9 College and Research Faculty

ARP 9.33 – [Effective AY Faculty Promotion and Tenure: The Professorial Ranks

1. Part 1 Instructor
2. Part 2 Assistant Professor
3. Part 3 Associate Professor
4. Part 4 Professor

ARP 9.34 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committees: Common Elements Required in the Principal Unit Policies

1. Part 1 Principal Unit Committees
2. Part 2 Principal Unit Policies
3. Part 3 Common Elements for Principal Units’ Promotion and Tenure Policies

ARP 9.35 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Reviews: Procedural Guidelines and Timeline

1. Part 1 Pre-Tenure Probationary Period
2. Part 2 Flexibility in Tenure-Track
3. Part 3 Mid-Probationary Review
4. Part 4 Joint Appointment (With Dual Primary Responsibilities)
5. Part 5 Roles and Responsibilities in Promotion or Tenure Reviews Part 6 Portfolio Preparation by Candidate
6. Part 7 Withdrawal of Portfolio by Candidate from Further Consideration
7. Part 8 Outcomes
8. Part 9 Right to Seek Redress for Violation of Evaluation, Promotion, or Tenure Rules
9. Part 10 Timeline of Procedural Steps for Promotion and Tenure Review Processes

ARP 9.36 – [Effective AY 18/19] Post-Tenure Review

1. Part 1 Purpose
2. Part 2 Annual Performance Evaluation (First Level Review)
3. Part 3 Second Level Review
4. Part 4 Third Level Review
5. Part 5 Involuntary Revocation of Tenure/Termination of Employment

PART 2: GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN NMSU RULES ON FACULTY EVALUATION, PROMOTION AND TENURE (ARP 9.30 – 9.36)

1. Allocation of Effort: The percentage of effort, agreed upon by the faculty member and department head or supervisor, that the faculty member will devote to each of the major categories of teaching and advising, scholarship and creative activity, service, extension, outreach and other assigned duties.
   (See ARP 6.61 Faculty Assignments – General)
2. Annual Performance Evaluation: (See ARP 9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty)
3. College Faculty: A faculty member on a regular (0.5 FTE or greater) appointment, who is not eligible for tenure, but is eligible for advancement in faculty rank (promotion). (See ARP 6.03 Employment Categories and ARP 6.35 – Non-tenure Track Faculty Appointments)
4. Core Document: A document submitted in the Portfolio for promotion or tenure that includes several specific elements: a routing form, cover sheet, table of contents, curriculum vitae, executive summary, department head and dean letters, prior and current Allocation of Effort statements, annual performance evaluations, summary of teaching evaluations, external reviews and, for community colleges, letters of support. (See ARP 9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty and ARP 9.35 Part 6, “Portfolio Preparation by Candidate”).
5. Department Head: Department head refers to the academic department head or equivalent supervisor, which may include program coordinator or superintendent, depending upon the unit and as determined by the cognizant dean or community college chief academic officer.
6. Documentation File: An organized collection of supplemental documents and other materials that supports, explains, or clarifies the quality and significance of the candidate’s work. Administrators and committee members must have access to this file, which is stored by the Principal Unit.
7. Executive Summary: A summative report and personal statement by the faculty member that addresses the faculty member’s activities in and philosophies regarding teaching and advising, scholarship and creative activity, service, extension and outreach, and other assigned areas.
8. Extension and Outreach: Extension involves the process of defining and building relationships between communities and the university to extend university resources and intellectual expertise through coalition building, nonformal educational programs, and applied research designed to address locally identified needs. Outreach involves an organized and planned program of activities which are offered to representative groups of citizens of New Mexico and the nation or internationally; these activities bring the resources of the university to bear in a coherent and strategic fashion for the benefit of the receiving entity.
9. External Reviewer: A person from outside NMSU who writes a letter of evaluation of a candidate’s Portfolio. (See ARP 9.34, Part AA; ARP 9.35 Part 5.B.9.)
10. NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure: Rules ARP 9.30 – 9.36 are collectively referred to as the NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure.
11. Four Areas of Faculty Effort: As used in this rule and the other rules governing promotion and tenure at NMSU, the Four Areas of Faculty Effort refers to: teaching and advising, scholarship and creative activity, extension and outreach, and service. (See ARP 9.31, Part 3)
12. Joint Appointment: A faculty line shared between two departments or colleges; the appointee enjoys all the privileges and incurs all the responsibilities normally given in each area.
13. Letters of Support: Letters submitted to support a candidate’s application for promotion or tenure that are distinct from external reviews (See Definition I. above), but serve a similar purpose at the community colleges. (See ARP 9.34, Part 3.AA.6.; ARP 9.35, Part 10.C.)
14. Mid-Probationary Review: A formal, non-mandatory mid-term assessment requested by a Tenure-Track Faculty member of their professional development and progress toward tenure. The Mid-Probationary Review is in addition to the annual performance evaluation.
15. NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure: ARP 9.30 – 9.36 of the Administrative Rules and Procedures of NMSU posted at arp.nmsu.edu.
16. Peer Evaluation: Assessment of teaching style, content, and effectiveness gained through observation by colleagues; the observations may come in such forms as classroom visits, participation in web-based courses, review of videotaped teaching, or reviews of course materials collected/created by the faculty member being reviewed.
17. Performance Evaluation: An annual report prepared by the faculty member documenting activities in the areas of teaching and advising, scholarship and creative activity, extension and outreach, service, and other assigned areas. The department head provides the faculty member with a written appraisal of the faculty member’s performance.
18. Portfolio: Consists of the Core Document and Documentation File that supports the candidate’s case for promotion or tenure. A Portfolio is also sometimes referred to as a dossier.
19. Post-tenure Review: An annual review designed to identify strengths and weaknesses of the tenured faculty member in the areas of teaching and advising, scholarship and creative activity, service, extension, outreach and other assigned areas. The Performance Evaluation generally serves the above aim; however, if deemed necessary due to deficiencies, a more extensive review may be initiated. (See ARP 9.36 – [Effective AY 18/19] Post-Tenure Review.)
20. Principal Unit: A tenure home unit responsible for conducting annual faculty performance evaluations and making promotion and tenure recommendations. This definition includes Departments, Colleges, Community Colleges, Cooperative Extension Service, and the University Library, but not centers, clusters, or institutes.
21. Probationary Period: The cumulative amount of time spent under term appointments while on the “tenure-track.” (See ARP 9.36 – [Effective AY 18/19] Post-Tenure Review).
22. Research: See Scholarship
23. Research Faculty: A faculty member on a regular (0.5 FTE or greater) appointment, who is not eligible for tenure, but is eligible for promotion among the faculty ranks. (See ARP 6.03 Employment Categories and ARP 6.35 – Non-tenure Track Faculty Appointments)
24. Scholarship: Both creative activity and product, scholarship includes discovery through original research; integration through synthesizing and reintegration of knowledge; application through professional practice; and teaching through transformation of knowledge. (See Boyer, 1990 and ARP 9.31 Part 3.D. “Scholarship and Creative Activity”.)
25. Service: Contribution to the institution and development of the university, as well as provision of service to local, state, national, or international agency or other organization in need of the faculty member’s professional expertise.
26. Supporting Documents: Material available to the Promotion and Tenure Committee in the Documentation File that serves to further support, explain, or clarify the Core Document.
27. Tenure: Continuous contract granted after a probationary period to a faculty member candidate that gives protection from dismissal without due process; the primary purpose of tenure is to protect academic freedom and offer economic security.
28. Tenure Home: The Principle Unit where tenure and rank resides or will reside.
29. Tenure-Track Faculty: A faculty member in their pre-tenure probationary period, eligible for tenure but who has not yet been granted tenure, sometimes also referred to as “candidate” (as are faculty members seeking promotion).
30. Tenured Faculty: A faculty member who has been awarded tenure by the executive vice president and provost.

PART 3: IMPLEMENTATION OF 2017 REVISED RULES; PRINCIPAL UNIT COORDINATION; PERIODIC RULES REVIEW

The revised NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure will become effective August 13, 2018. Prior to this effective date, each Principal Unit must update its promotion and tenure policies and forms consistent with ARP 9.30 – 9.36. At the discretion of the executive vice president and provost, the deadline for the NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure may be extended pending completion of the Principal Units’ Promotion and Tenure Policies.

Related

Cross-Reference:

ARP 6.03 – Employment Categories
ARP 6.35 – Non-tenure Track Faculty Appointments
ARP 6.61 – Assignments – Teaching Load
ARP 9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty
ARP 9.32 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure: Purpose and Guiding Principles
ARP 9.33 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure: The Professorial Ranks
ARP 9.34 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committees; Common Elements Required in the Principal Unit Policies
ARP 9.35 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Reviews: Procedural Guidelines and Timeline
ARP 9.36 – Faculty Post Tenure Review

Revision History:

2017 Recompilation, formerly part of Rule 5.90
05/10/2017 Adoption approved by Chancellor with 08/13/2018 Effective Date
10/21/2015 former Policy 5.90 replicated by Board of Regents as initial Rule 5.90 07/15/2008 Amendments to Policy 5.90 ratified by Board of Regents, with
08/01/2008 effective date
Prior revision history as Policy 5.90 not available

9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty

arp.nmsu.edu/chapter-9/9-31

EFFECTIVE AUGUST 13, 2018

PART 1: PURPOSE

This Rule affirms that the regular faculty are to be evaluated based on their performance in the Four Areas of Faculty Effort (See Part 3 below), and in accordance with their respective assigned workload’s Allocation of Effort. (See Also ARP 9.33 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure: The Professorial Ranks) This Rule also provides guiding principles (Part 2), the elements required to be in each Principal Unit’s Performance Evaluation policies (Part 4), and procedural guidelines relating to annual performance evaluation of the regular faculty (Part 5). (See Also ARP 6.71 Department Head Appointments and ARP 6.35 – Non-tenure Track Faculty Appointments.)

PART 2: GUIDING PRINCIPLES RELATING TO ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

(See Also  ARP 6.61 - Assignments – Teaching Load)

1. Service to Mission: The amount of effort that faculty members regardless of rank or position devote to the various aspects of their duties necessarily varies, and any promotion and tenure process will recognize these variations. A successful process considers whether the faculty member is effectively serving the mission of the university, as defined by a department’s criteria and the individual’s agreed upon goals and objectives. This means, for example, that the efforts of a faculty member made in response to administrators or committees are taken into account during promotion and tenure evaluation.
2. Consideration for Variance in Duties: The efforts of two faculty members may vary at the same points in their careers according to their particular strengths and department needs. Faculty assignments in different departments will also vary. For example, a department or program must not impose similar expectations for scholarship and creative activity, service, extension, or outreach from a faculty member teaching one class a semester as from another faculty member teaching three classes a semester or several large lecture classes.
3. Equitable Treatment: In order to ensure equitable treatment, every faculty member will complete an Allocation of Effort statement (See Part 4. B. 1. below) as part of the Annual Performance Evaluation process. When determining the Allocation of Effort, decisions must be made without regard to race, national origin, gender, gender identity, age, disability, political beliefs, religion, marital status, sexual orientation, special friendships, or animus towards candidates. Further, for the Allocation of Effort statement to be accurate and useful, administrators at all levels must understand and take an active role in avoiding institutional factors that could produce an undue burden on untenured faculty members.

PART 3: THE FOUR AREAS OF FACULTY EFFORT: TEACHING AND ADVISING, SCHOLARSHIP AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY, EXTENSION AND OUTREACH, AND SERVICE

1. Evaluation Emphasizes Four Areas of Faculty Effort
   Serious attention must be given to performance in the Four Areas of Faculty Effort: teaching and advising, scholarship and creative activity, service, and extension and outreach. The relative importance of each of these areas varies according to the cumulative Allocation of Effort statements. Each area is vital to the university’s ability to achieve its mission, and the performance of a faculty member will be viewed as an indication of future contributions.
2. Leadership May Be Considered in Each Area of Faculty Effort
   While a faculty member’s performance must be evaluated through their contributions to the Four Areas of Faculty Effort, leadership is an important component. Leadership must not be considered as a separate area to be evaluated. Rather, when applicable, its value should be considered in how they affect performance in one or more of the Four Areas of Faculty Effort.
3. Teaching and Advising
   1. Description of Teaching and Advising Activities:
      1. Elements of Teaching as Essential Criterion: Teaching is central to NMSU’s mission. For those who teach, effectiveness in teaching and advising is an essential criterion for tenure and for advancement in rank. The teaching and advising category includes all forms of university-level instructional activity, as well as advising undergraduate and graduate students, both within and outside the university community. Such activities are commonly characterized by the dissemination of knowledge within a faculty member’s area of expertise; skill in stimulating students to think critically and to apply knowledge to human problems; the integration and application of relevant domestic and international, social, political, economic, and ethical implications into class content; the preparation of students for careers in specific fields of study; and the creation and supervision of appropriate field or clinical practicums.
      2. Responsibilities of Teaching and Advising: Teaching and advising responsibilities may include, but are not limited to, preparation for and teaching of a variety of courses, seminars, and other academic learning experiences; non-credit workshops and informal instructional activities; course and program development; team or collaborative teaching; web-based instruction, both on and off campus; supervision of student research, performances, or productions; service on graduate student program and research committees; field supervision and administration of field or clinical experiences; production of course materials, textbooks, web pages and other electronic aids to learning; and others.
      3. Forms of Faculty Advising: Faculty advising may take the form of assisting undergraduate or graduate students in the selection of courses or careers, assisting learners in educational programs on and off campus, mentoring students, serving as faculty adviser to student groups, research and teaching advising, as well as other forms.
         (See Also ARP 9.32 Part 8, “University Library Faculty”)
   2. Evaluation Criteria for Teaching and Advising:
      1. Evidence to Assess Teaching Effectiveness: Teaching is a complex and multifaceted activity. Therefore, several forms of evidence should be used to assess comprehensively teaching effectiveness. Each form of evidence will be weighted according to appropriate to its importance in evaluating teaching. Such documentation must demonstrate command of subject matter, the ability to organize material and convey it effectively to students, and assessment of student learning. It may also demonstrate revision and updates of curricula, and the integration of scholarship (for faculty who produce scholarship) and service with teaching. Materials appropriate for evaluating teaching should include: (a) evidence from the instructor, (b) evidence from other professionals, (c) evidence from students, and (d) evidence of student learning. It is not necessary for all four types of evidence to be used, but in accordance with state law, at a minimum, student evaluations and one other form of evidence must be used. Student evaluations considered as part of performance evaluations, may not include numerical ratings, letter grades, or other “scores” of specific aspects of the course, the course as a whole, or of the instructor.
      2. Principal Units to Develop Guidelines: Each Principle Unit is to create clear guidelines for its teaching faculty that define teaching responsibilities and specify required evidence documenting teaching effectiveness. Specific data to be included in the evaluation packet will be determined by each Principle Unit.
      3. Evaluation of Advising: For evaluation promotion and tenure considerations, performance in such activities must be documented and evaluated. Each Principle Unit is to create clear guidelines regarding the responsibilities and documentation requirements for its faculty who advise or mentor.
4. Scholarship and Creative Activity:
   1. Description of Scholarly and Creative Activities:
      1. Rationale: This understanding is grounded in Boyer’s concept of the four scholarships:
         1. The scholarship of discovery involves processes, outcomes, and the passionate commitment of the professoriate and others in the university to disciplined inquiry and exploration in the development of knowledge and skills;
         2. The scholarship of teaching involves dynamic, reciprocal, and critically reflective processes among teachers and learners at the university and in the community in which their activity and interaction enriches and transforms knowledge and skills, taught and learned;
         3. The scholarship of engagement refers to the many and varied ways to responsibly offer and employ knowledge and skills to matters of consequence to the university and the community; and
         4. The scholarship of integration is the process by which knowledge and skills are assessed, interpreted, and applied in new and creative ways to produce new, richer, and more comprehensive, insights, understanding, and outcomes. Boyer, Ernest L. (1990).
         5. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
      2. NMSU Definition of Scholarship and Creative Activity: Products developed through these processes, are typically public, open to peer review, and available for use by others, but may also include classified projects, protected intellectual property or other confidential materials. Scholarship and creative activity can take many forms, including but not limited to refereed publications and patented intellectual property. At NMSU’s community colleges, scholarship and creative activity includes scholarship that is also evidenced by professional development activities that disseminate knowledge to the college’s learning communities.
      3. Acknowledgement of Land Grant Mission: This definition reflects the university’s mission as the state’s land-grant university, serving the needs of New Mexico’s diverse population through comprehensive programs of teaching and advising, scholarship and creative activity, extension and outreach, and service. It addresses the breadth and diversity of scholarly and creative activity among faculty, staff, and students through which this mission is fulfilled.
   2. Evaluation Criteria for Scholarship and Creative Activity: All scholarly activity and outcomes, regardless of funding source, must consider the following criteria adapted from Diamond:
      1. The activity’s purposes, goals, and objectives are clear. The objectives are realistic and achievable. It addresses important questions in the field.
      2. The activity reveals a high level of discipline-related expertise. The scholar brings to the activity a high level of relevant knowledge, skills, artistry, and reflective understanding.
      3. Appropriate methods are used for the activity, including principles of honesty, integrity, and objectivity. The methods have been chosen wisely, and applied effectively. It allows for replication or elaboration.
      4. The activity achieves its goals and its outcomes have significant impact. It adds consequentially to the field. It breaks new ground or is innovative. It leads to further exploration or new avenues for exploration for the scholar and for others.
      5. The activity and outcomes have been presented appropriately and effectively to its various audiences.
      6. The activity and outcomes are judged meritorious and significant by one’s peers.
      7. The scholar has critically evaluated the activity and outcomes and has assessed the impact and implications on the greater community, the community of scholars and on one’s own work. The scholar uses this assessment to improve, extend, revise, and integrate subsequent work.Diamond, Robert M. (2002). Serving on promotion, tenure, and faculty review committees: A faculty guide, 2nd ed. Bolton, MA: Ankar Publishing.
5. Extension and Outreach:
   1. Description of Extension and Outreach Activities:
      1. The central role of extension and outreach is recognized in that several Principle Units are dedicated to these functions. There are also numerous faculty members in other units for whom extension and outreach are major components of their duties.
      2. Collaborative Effort: Extension and outreach work is collaborative by nature. Faculty should provide evidence of collaboration with whomever necessary to identify local needs, garner resources, discover and adapt new knowledge, design and deliver programs, assess clientele skill changes, and communicate program results. Collaborative effort should also include networking with other university faculty in identified areas of program discovery, development, and delivery, including applications to teaching and advising where appropriate.
   2. Evaluation Criteria for Extension and Outreach: Faculty must provide evidence of the collaborative and other efforts to receive recognition in this Area of Faculty Effort.
      1. The documentation should provide evidence that the work is:
         1. creative and intellectual;
         2. communicated to stakeholders; and
         3. have a beneficial effect on stakeholders and the region.
      2. Components of extension include:
         1. developing programs based on locally identified needs, concerns, and/or issues; targeting specific audiences;
         2. setting goals and objectives for the program;
         3. reviewing current literature and/or research for the program;
         4. planning appropriate program delivery;
         5. documenting changes in clientele knowledge, behaviors, attitudes, and/or skills;
         6. conducting a reflective critique and/or evaluation of the program;
         7. validation of the program by peers and/or stakeholders; and
         8. communicating results to stakeholders and decision makers.
6. Service
   1. Description of Service Activities: Service is an essential component of the university’s mission and requires the faculty member to contribute to the organization and development of the university, as well as to provide service to local, state, national, or international agencies, organizations or institutions which may benefit from the faculty member’s professional knowledge and skills.
   2. Evaluation Criteria for Service Activities: The type and amount of service that a faculty member performs should be determined in consultation with the appropriate administrator(s). All relevant activities in which a faculty member participates should receive appropriate consideration for promotion and tenure decisions. Service contributions should be evaluated based on how they are applied and how they draw upon the professional expertise of the faculty member.

PART 4: REQUIREMENTS FOR PRINCIPAL UNITS’ EVALUATION POLICIES

1. Policies
   Performance evaluation policies of the Principle Units must:
   1. State that Performance Evaluations are conducted annually.
   2. Include a timeline consistent with the timeline for promotion and for tenure as described in ARP 9.25 Part 9, “University Timeline for Promotion and Tenure.”
   3. Require that each faculty member meet with their department head or comparable administrator annually regarding progress toward promotion and tenure as appropriate, the recording of objectives and goals, and the department faculty evaluation format.
   4. Describe the process for the faculty member to submit a written statement in response to the annual performance evaluations.
   5. Outline process for transmitting the performance evaluation, along with any supporting material, from the faculty member to the faculty member’s department head.
   6. Describe a process for transmitting a written copy of the department head review to the individual being reviewed and, along with the faculty member’s written statement, if any, to the dean or equivalent administrator.
   7. Include a certification from the department head indicating that the Annual Performance Evaluation meeting with the faculty member occurred. The performance evaluation will not be considered final until the meeting has occurred and been documented, typically by the signatures of the Department Head and the faculty member.
2. Performance Evaluation Forms
   Performance evaluation forms in the Principle Units must include the following elements:
   1. Allocation of Effort Statement:
      1. Use of Allocation of Effort Statement: Each college shall develop and use an Allocation of Effort statement as specified here and in ARP 6.61. These statements shall also be a part of the candidate/faculty member’s tenure and/or promotion Portfolio, and all aspects of the agreed upon efforts shall be factored into the recommendation made at each step of the process.
      2. The allocation percentages will be negotiated by the faculty member and the department head in alignment with the departmental workload policy and ARP 6.61, and will be approved annually by the faculty member’s department head and dean. If agreement cannot be reached, the dean or equivalent administrator may assign the Allocation of Effort, and the faculty member may appeal through existing university procedures.
      3. The Allocation of Effort statement and assigned percentages may be altered during the year with the mutual agreement of the faculty member, department head, and dean to reflect changing circumstances, such as service on a particularly time-consuming committee or grant, time for scholarship and creative activity, emergency teaching and advising assignments, etc.
      4. At the minimum, the Allocation of Effort statement will contain the following elements:
         1. Percentage of effort to be devoted to the Four Areas of Faculty Effort. The total percentage shall be 100%, but any category may be zero percent.
         2. A statement of what the Principle Unit considers a full teaching and advising load.
         3. If the Principle Unit utilizes a weighting, ranking, or scoring system, the value assigned to each category must be indicated. The values must be calculated proportionately to the faculty member’s Allocation of Effort.
   2. Current Position Description.
   3. Submission from Faculty Member: A written section submitted by the faculty member detailing and citing accomplishments in relation to the Four Areas of Faculty Effort.
   4. Written Review by Department Head: A written review from the department head including specific commendations, concerns, and recommendations in each of the areas of performance, as well as separate comments about progress toward promotion and tenure.

PART 5: PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

1. The performance of each regular faculty member, including College Faculty, Research Faculty, and library faculty, must be reviewed at least once a year. The Annual Performance Evaluation provides documentation of expectations and a record of faculty performance relative to stated expectations in Allocation of Effort documents.
2. Each college and community college determines and uses its own performance evaluation form (See Part 4.B. above, “Performance Evaluation Forms”). Early in each fall semester the department head supplies each faculty member with a form. At this time the department head confers with new faculty members concerning the recording of objectives and goals and the general use of the form. In the case of continuing faculty members, the department head or faculty may request a conference for the purpose of revising or updating objectives previously agreed upon. Department heads will share the above agreements in writing with the faculty member.
3. Department heads are expected to meet with all new faculty members regarding progress toward promotion and tenure and to certify in writing to the appropriate dean that these meetings have occurred. Returning faculty members or their department heads may request an annual meeting regarding progress toward promotion and tenure. Specific evaluative comments in each of the three areas of performance are required, as well as separate comments about progress toward tenure and toward promotion.
4. Each faculty member completes a written form or digital database detailing and citing accomplishments in Four Areas of Faculty Effort, of teaching, research and/or creative scholarship, service, and extension and outreach during the performance evaluation period. The type, method of collection, and disposition of evidence regarding effectiveness of teaching is of particular importance, and faculty should consult their with department head concerning collection of this evidence. The performance evaluation form, along with any supplemental material, is submitted by each faculty member to the faculty member’s department head.
5. The department head reviews the faculty performance forms, prepares a written evaluation based upon accomplishments reported as compared with previously set goals and objectives (a copy of this report will be shared with the faculty member), and confers with appropriate deans on the written recommendation and the prepared summary to be discussed with the faculty member. Following the conference with the dean, the department head meets with the faculty member to discuss all aspects of the performance evaluation, addressing separately the person’s progress toward promotion, progress toward tenure, strengths, and weaknesses. This conference also serves to set goals and objectives for the ensuing year. These goals and objectives will be placed in writing, with a copy to the faculty member. At community colleges with program coordinators, the coordinator performs the duties of a department head in the evaluation process.
6. Department heads, along with departmental promotion and tenure committees, college dean, and college promotion and tenure committees formulate independent recommendations where appropriate regarding evaluation on the basis of policies stated in this manual. These are communicated to the provost and chief academic officer.
7. Each college generates its own time schedule for accomplishing the above items within the parameters of the university calendar.

Related

Cross-Reference:

ARP 6.35 – Non-tenure Track Faculty Appointments
ARP 6.61 – Assignments – Teaching Load
ARP 6.71 – Department Head Appointments
ARP 9.25 – [Pre-AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure – Policies
ARP 9.32 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure: Purpose and Guiding Principles
ARP 9.33 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure: The Professorial Ranks

Revision History:

05/20/2019 Amendment [FSP Prop 16-18/19] approved by Chancellor
2017 Recompilation, formerly part of Rule 5.86 (AY18/19)
05/10/2017 Adoption approved by Chancellor, with 08/13/2018 Effective Date
10/21/2015 former Policy 5.86 replicated by Board of Regents as initial Rule 5.86
07/15/2008 Amendments to Policy 5.90 ratified by Board of Regents, with 08/01/2008 effective date
Prior revision history as Policy 5.86 not available

ARP 9.32 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure: Purpose and Guiding Principles

arp.nmsu.edu/chapter-9/9-32

EFFECTIVE AUGUST 13, 2018

PART 1: PURPOSE

Promotion and tenure decisions are the means by which NMSU rewards and retains its most valued scholars, sustains excellence in its instructional disciplines, and fulfills its mission to advance knowledge. The quality of faculty accomplishments in teaching and advising, scholarship and creative activity, extension and outreach, and service, (collectively referred to as the Four Areas of Faculty Effort), largely determines the quality of the university as a whole. The processes involved in promotion and tenure must be fair, transparent, and participatory. For additional rules and principles relating to promotion and tenure, See Cross References listed in the box at end of this Rule.

PART 2: NATURE OF PROMOTION AND TENURE REVIEWS

1. The integrity of the promotion and tenure processes relies upon consultation by and between groups and individuals with successively broader views of the mission of the university, participation by the involved faculty member, who has an opportunity to seek redress for perceived violations of policy, rules or procedure which might unfairly affect the outcome. (See ARP 9.34, Part 1 – Principal Unit Committees; ARP 9.35, Part 5 – Roles and Responsibilities in Promotion and Tenure Reviews and Part 9 – Right to Seek Redress for Violation of Faculty Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure Rules.) In order to achieve fairness, transparency, and broad-based participation, all of the parties must base decisions on the documentation described in the NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure.
2. The NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure are based in large part on the four types of scholarship defined by Ernest L. Boyer^[1], namely, the scholarships of discovery, of teaching, of integration, and of engagement. At NMSU, Boyer’s definition of scholarship has been broadened to reflect the changing roles of faculty members in teaching and advising, scholarship and creative activity, extension and outreach, and service. See ARP 9.31 Part 3.D. (Scholarship and Creative Activity)
3. Applicants for tenure or promotion must be reviewed on their performance of the duties assigned to them, following agreed-upon allocations of effort. (See ARP 9.31 Part 2; ARP 6.61 Faculty Assignments – Teaching Load)

PART 3: FACULTY PARTICIPATION

The selection and retention of faculty members are of utmost importance to the quality of the university, the achievement of university goals, and the future of the institution. In order to ensure a fair process for recognition of excellent faculty, it shall be the policy of the university to allow faculty members to vote on the promotion or tenure of departmental colleagues, exercising collegial judgment based on criteria established for promotion and tenure by the Principal Units and consistent with the NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure.

PART 4: TRANSPARENCY OF PROCESS

Faculty members are entitled to know what is expected of them, how they will be evaluated, and the rules of each applicable process.

1. Promotion and Tenure Information to be Provided to Eligible Faculty: Upon hiring of a regular faculty member, the department head or head of the Principle Unit, will provide the faculty member with electronic copies of applicable promotion and tenure policies, including departmental, college (or comparable equivalent) and university (See Combined P & T Rules Through 08/12/2018 or Combined P & T Rules After 8/12/2018). The department head, or head of the Principle Unit, will provide, electronically, a similar packet of materials to faculty members eligible to be considered for promotion and/or tenure during the spring semester prior the academic year in which the application for promotion and/or tenure will be made.
2. Notice of Principal Unit Functions and Criteria Statement or Equivalent: Each departmental Principal Unit shall post on its website its current statement of goals, objectives, and expectations as these relate to promotion and tenure (sometimes called a functions and criteria statement). These shall be agreed upon by the faculty in each department and approved by the responsible dean or comparable administrator.
3. Notice of Principal Unit Promotion and Tenure Policies and Procedures: Each Principal Unit shall post on its website its written promotion and tenure policy document, which must be in alignment with the NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure. In addition, they must post the link to the Office of the Provost’s website.
4. Notice of NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure: The Office of the provost and chief academic officer will post the current and previous editions of the NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure on its website. It will also post other relevant information pertaining to the annual promotion and tenure review processes, including but not limited to forms, to explain and facilitate the process for candidates and academic administrators alike.

PART 5: AVOIDANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

University faculty and academic administrators involved in the review and recommendation or decision making processes relating to an application for promotion or tenure shall not have any conflict of interest that would render them unable to perform their duties in a fair, impartial and equitable manner.See Also conflict of interest rules ARP 3.00 – 3.13 and ARP 3.25 Discrimination, Harassment and Sexual Misconduct on Campus.

PART 6: STATEMENT ON VALUE OF DIVERSITY; COMMITMENT AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

NMSU values the richness that inquiry based upon intellectual and cultural differences brings to the university community. NMSU administrators recognize that all employment decisions must be made without regard to race, national origin, gender, gender identity, age, disability, political beliefs, religion, marital status, sexual orientation, special friendships, or animus towards candidates, taking care to avoid conflicts of interest, structural, institutional, or habitual thoughts and patterns that could lead to disparate treatment, including prohibited discrimination and undue preferential treatment. (See Also conflict of interest rules ARP 3.00 – 3.13 and ARP 3.25 Discrimination, Harassment and Sexual Misconduct on Campus.)

PART 7: COMMUNITY COLLEGES

The mission of the NMSU community colleges is to provide open access to quality education and support economic and cultural life in prescribed service areas. Community colleges provide traditional liberal arts education, vocational and technical training, contract training, community interest classes, and developmental education. Every effort is made to keep programs and curricula flexible, in order to accommodate varied and expanding community educational needs. Since the community college’s primary role is the dissemination of information, more emphasis is placed on teaching and advising, in the evaluation process. Due to their size, the organizational structure for tenure review at the Alamogordo, Carlsbad, and Grants campuses consists of one tenure committee instead of two. (See ARP 9.34)

PART 8: UNIVERSITY LIBRARY FACULTY

University library faculty are expected to meet university requirements for academic appointment and promotion and tenure considerations. For these purposes, the category of librarianship is equivalent to the teaching and advising category. The University Library places the highest value on the element of librarianship. Librarianship includes, but is not limited to the organization of knowledge, the understanding and use of technology as it relates to the information field, teaching, library management, service delivery, and building collections.

PART 9: COLLEGE AND RESEARCH FACULTY

College and Research faculty may hold ranks as described in ARP 9.33 and are eligible to be considered for promotion. The distinct roles of the College and Research Faculty should be recognized in the promotion process, and the standards and criteria for promotion should be appropriately adjusted. Committees for promotion of College and Research Faculty must include college faculty representation. (See ARP 9.34 Part 1 C. “College Faculty Representation”)

Related

ARP 3.00 - ARP 3.13
ARP 3.25 – Discrimination, Harassment and Sexual Misconduct on Campus
ARP 6.61 – Assignments – Teaching Load
ARP 9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty
ARP 9.33 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure: The Professorial Ranks
ARP 9.34 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committees; Common Elements Required in the Principal Unit Policies
ARP 9.35 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Reviews: Procedural Guidelines and Timeline

2017 Recompilation, formerly part of Rule 5.90
05/10/2017 Adoption approved by Chancellor with 08/13/2018 Effective Date
10/21/2015 former Policy 5.90 replicated by Board of Regents as initial Rule 5.90
07/15/2008 Amendments to Policy 5.90 ratified by Board of Regents, with 08/01/2008 effective date
Prior revision history as Policy 5.90 not available

9.33 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure: The Professorial Ranks

arp.nmsu.edu/chapter-9/9-33

EFFECTIVE AUGUST 13, 2018

College and Research Faculty will be eligible to be considered for advancement in rank, but are not eligible for consideration for tenure. Generalized descriptions of the professorial ranks as they relate to the promotion and tenure time table are described below.  (See  ARP 9.31, Part 3 and ARP 9.32, Part 2 for standards and evaluation criteria)

PART 1:  INSTRUCTOR 

1. Demonstrates expertise within their discipline through practical, applied, and/or related experience.
2. Individuals new to this rank may not have demonstrated ability to conduct independent scholarship and creative activity, but there must be substantive evidence of likely success at university teaching or its equivalent.
3. Instructors may be working toward a terminal degree.
4. An instructor’s job description primarily relates to teaching or its equivalent and usually does not include scholarship and creative activity.
5. An instructor is not eligible for tenure.

PART 2: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 

1. Tenure-Track Assistant professors normally holds the highest terminal degree in their field of expertise.
2. Outstanding experience and recognition in a professional field may be considered the equivalent of the terminal degree.
3. An assistant professor is expected to have a thorough command of the subject matter of some segment of the discipline, in addition to a comprehension of the whole.
4. Assistant professors are Tenure-Track Faculty members hired on a yearly, renewable contract for a maximum of seven years.
5. During the sixth year, assistant professors typically are evaluated for promotion and tenure simultaneously, having submitted their Portfolio at the beginning of that year.
6. However, an assistant professor may elect to apply for tenure or promotion at any time with the written approval of department head and dean or their equivalents.
7. A faculty member may only apply for tenure once.

PART 3:  ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

1. An associate professor is often a mid-career faculty member who has been awarded tenure.
2. If a faculty member is initially employed at the rank of associate professor without tenure, the probationary period may vary depending upon agreements stipulated in writing at the time of initial hire.
3. Once tenured, associate professors may hold this rank indefinitely or apply for promotion.
4. Promotion to professor should not be considered to be forthcoming merely because of years of service to the university, or because tenure has previously been awarded.
5. In accordance with the Principal Unit’s timelines, a faculty member may present a promotion Portfolio in any given year.
6. An associate professor must demonstrate competence, continuous progress, and a command over a large part of the academic field.
7. It is expected that evidence showing high quality of teaching and advising, scholarship and creative activity and/or extension and outreach or service has been provided and is current.

PART 4: PROFESSOR

1. A professor, sometimes referred to as a “full professor,” has established disciplinary, intellectual, and institutional leadership.
2. The professor demonstrates command of the disciplinary field as evidenced by teaching and advising, scholarship and creative activity, extension and outreach, and service.
3. Faculty members initially hired at the rank of professor are often awarded service credit or awarded tenure on appointment.

Related

ARP 9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty
ARP 9.32 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure: Purpose and Guiding Principles

2017 Recompilation, formerly part of Rule 5.90
05/10/2017 Adoption approved by Chancellor with 08/13/2018 Effective Date
10/21/2015 former Policy 5.90 replicated by Board of Regents as initial Rule 5.90
07/15/2008 Amendments to Policy 5.90 ratified by Board of Regents, with 08/01/2008 effective date
Prior revision history as Policy 5.90 not available

9.34 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committees; Common Elements Required in the Principal Unit Policies

arp.nmsu.edu/chapter-9/9-34

EFFECTIVE AUGUST 13, 2018

PART 1: PRINCIPAL UNIT COMMITTEES

1. Department Promotion and Tenure Committees: At NMSU-Las Cruces, each academic department or unit utilize a department promotion and tenure committee. At the Doña Ana Community College, divisions are treated as equivalent to departments for this rule and therefore its “department promotion and tenure committees” are elected from the regular faculty from each division.
2. College Promotion and Tenure Committee: Each college at the NMSU-Las Cruces campus will utilize a college promotion and tenure committee, consisting of elected faculty members. The community colleges other than Doña Ana Community College, NMSU- Alamogordo, NMSU- Carlsbad and NMSU- Grants, and the University Library utilize only one promotion and tenure committee which functions as a college promotion and tenure committee.
3. College Faculty Representation: Principal Unit Committees considering the promotion of College and Research Faculty must include college faculty representation of at least one college faculty member. (See Also ARP 9.32, Part 9)

PART 2: PRINCIPAL UNIT POLICIES

1. Department Promotion and Tenure Policy: Each NMSU-Las Cruces department or DACC division shall have a written policy for promotion and for tenure referred to as a Department Promotion and Tenure policy. The Department Promotion and Tenure policies shall include criteria and procedures for promotion and tenure, developed collaboratively by the faculty and department/division head, and approved by the college dean or community college Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, as appropriate. The Department Promotion and Tenure Policy shall be consistent with their respective college or community college criteria and procedures for promotion and tenure. It shall also be consistent with the NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure, ARP 9.30 – 9.36.
2. College Promotion and Tenure Policy: Each college, community college and the University Library must have a written policy for promotion and for tenure, developed collaboratively by the tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty and college academic administration, and approved by the provost and chief academic officer. The college promotion and tenure policies must be consistent with the NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure (ARP 9.30 – 9.36).
3. Development of Promotion Procedures: Colleges must develop specific promotion procedures for their College and Research Faculty. The protections for College and Research Faculty must be the same as those given Tenure-Track Faculty and tenured faculty in ARP 9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty and Part 3 of this rule.

PART 3: COMMON ELEMENTS FOR PRINCIPAL UNITS’ PROMOTION AND TENURE POLICIES

To facilitate consistency with the NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure (ARP 9.30 – 9.36), each department and college promotion and tenure policy must contain the following:

1. A statement that university policies regarding promotion and tenure supersede department and college policies.
2. Statements describing the criteria for promotion and tenure consistent with performance evaluation criteria. (See ARP 9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty).
3. A provision permitting a candidate to temporarily suspend the promotion and tenure time process in accordance with the procedure provided in ARP 9.35 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Reviews: Procedural Guidelines and Timeline.
4. A statement regarding confidentiality of records and all committee procedures, including the manner in which confidentiality is ensured. Exceptions must be clearly indicated.
5. A commitment to review for potential update the Principle Units’ respective policies and procedures for evaluation, promotion and tenure, including but not limited to those occasions when the NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure are amended, to maintain consistency. A standing committee of the Faculty Senate will review the NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure. College rules and procedures for promotion and tenure will be reviewed by a college committee which will include Faculty Senators. Department rules and procedure for evaluation, promotion and tenure will be reviewed by a departmental committee including faculty from the department and the department head.
6. A statement to the effect that if the NMSU Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure (ARP 9.30 – 9.36) should change during a faculty member’s pre-tenure or pre-promotion period, the faculty member may elect whether to be evaluated by the former Rule or the revised Rule, and this election shall be documented in writing to clearly specify which standards, criteria, etc will be applied in accordance with the faculty member’s election.
7. A procedure for the conduct of a Mid-Probationary Review. Faculty who choose to participate in the review process must submit their Portfolio to their department head by mid-January. The Portfolio shall be prepared in accordance with ARP 9.35 Part 6, “Portfolio Preparation by Candidate” and be reviewed by the department promotion and tenure committee, the department head, and the college promotion and tenure committee. The college committee will provide to the department head and faculty member a written formative evaluation of progress. The review is conducted in accordance with the Principle Unit’s promotion and tenure policy. (See ARP 9.35 Part 3, “Mid-Probationary Review”)
8. A procedure for electing the college promotion and tenure committee. All tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty are eligible to vote during the election. When colleges choose to include college faculty on this committee, college faculty are eligible to vote for college faculty membership on the college committee.
9. Procedure for selecting members of the department promotion and tenure committee.
10. Definition of eligibility for serving on the promotion and tenure committees. Only tenured faculty members are eligible to vote for tenure and promotion. College-track faculty who serve on the college committee are eligible to vote on promotion of college-track faculty. In instances of promotion, committee members must hold a rank at least equal to the rank for which the candidate is applying.
11. Provisions for term limits if desired for serving on the department promotion and tenure committee.
12. Provisions for term limits for serving on the college promotion and tenure committee are required, except at the Alamogordo, Carlsbad, and Grants community colleges.
13. The provision that in no case will a promotion and tenure committee be comprised of fewer than three eligible members.
14. A provision for addressing cases where there are inadequate numbers of eligible faculty to constitute a committee. The department and/or the college promotion and tenure committees may have members from outside the department.
15. The provision that the dean, department head, or comparable administrator may meet with the Principle Units’ promotion and tenure committees to discuss procedural matters.
16. The provision that the deliberations and voting of promotion and tenure committees will be conducted in closed session only among committee members. Committee members can attend sessions by a confidential electronic method with permission of the committee chair. Committee members must take part in the deliberations in order to vote.
17. A method for surveying the committees’ recommendations regarding each candidate(s) via secret written ballot. Committee members may vote in person, or by an appropriate confidential electronic method with the permission of the committee chair. Absentia and proxy ballots are not permitted. All vote counts must be recorded.
18. A method for the Principle Units’ promotion and tenure committees to submit a letter summarizing its recommendations and the numerical vote count on each candidate to the department head and college dean or comparable administrator. The recommendation must:
    1. Reflect the majority view.
    2. Contain specific commendations, concerns, and recommendations addressing the department’s criteria in each of the areas required for promotion and tenure.
    3. Allow for dissenting opinions containing specific commendations, concerns, and recommendations addressing the criteria in each of the areas required for promotion and tenure.
19. A method for informing each candidate in writing of the Principle Units’ recommendations and numerical vote count, the department head’s letter, and/or the dean’s or comparable administrator’s letter.
20. The provision that a candidate may withdraw from further consideration in accordance with ARP 9.25 Part 6, “Withdrawal”.
21. Guidelines for preparing the Portfolio. (See ARP 9.35 Part 6, “Portfolio Preparation”)  The parties shall refer to the individual college policies for additional guidelines.
22. A mechanism to provide candidates with sample Portfolios. If the Portfolios of actual persons are used, written permission must be obtained from the owner of the Portfolio.
23. A procedure for indicating how and when a candidate may change, add, or delete materials from the Portfolio after the Portfolio is submitted to the committee for review.
24. A statement regarding the location where the Documentation File will be stored and accessed for review.
25. A procedure for indicating how and when evaluators may request additional information. All requests must be made in writing and transmitted to the candidate.
26. A procedure allowing the candidate to review all items included in the Portfolio assembled prior to the review by appropriate committees, administrators, and/or External Reviewers.
27. A procedure for soliciting external letters of review which incorporates the following:
    1. The number of letters that shall be solicited for each candidate. At least three letters should be included in a tenure or promotion Portfolio.
    2. Specifications regarding how the letters will be placed into the candidate’s Portfolio. The department head will contact reviewers to solicit the letters.
    3. Specifications regarding how much and what type of material is supplied to reviewers. The department and/or college policies and criteria for tenure and promotion must be provided to reviewers.
    4. Specifications regarding the criteria for serving as an External Reviewer. A reviewer will be a highly regarded expert in one or more aspects of the candidates work and must be able to offer an objective assessment of the candidate’s work. When a reviewer holds a tenured position, it should be at or above the rank sought by the candidate. Departmental rules and procedures should be precise about who is or is not appropriate to serve as an External Reviewer. It is recommended that a candidate has a diverse set of reviewers to get the most complete picture of the candidate’s performance.
    5. Conflicts of interest, either real or perceived, must be avoided when selecting External Reviewers. See ARP 3.00 through 3.13 relating to Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Conduct for more information.
    6. Instructions to Reviewers (authors of external review letters and Letters of Support), including:
       1. A request for a brief statement regarding the individual’s qualifications for serving as a reviewer.
       2. A request that the reviewer indicate the relationship between the candidate and reviewer.
       3. Notification that the candidate will have an opportunity to read the letter of assessment.
       4. Notification that third parties in the event of an EEOC or other investigation into a tenure or promotion decision may review letters.
    7. A statement addressing the role, if any, of unsolicited letters. If a Principle Unit decides to accept unsolicited letters, such letters must be included in the Portfolio prior to review by the Department Promotion and Tenure Committee. If the Principle Unit does not have an explicit statement regarding unsolicited letters, such letters will not be accepted nor included in the Portfolio.
28. A statement regarding post-tenure review in accordance with ARP 9.36 – [Effective AY 18/19] Post-Tenure Review.
29. Reference to the appeals process as outlined in ARP 3.25 Discrimination, Harassment and Sexual Misconduct on Campus and ARP 10.60 – Review of Faculty Grievances.
30. Develop a procedure for reviewing the university’s Conflict of Interest policies, rules and procedures with the promotion and tenure review committee(s)

Related

Cross-Reference:

ARP 3.00 - 3.13
ARP 3.25 – Discrimination, Harassment and Sexual Misconduct on Campus
ARP 9.30 – [Effective AY 18/19] Overview of Faculty Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure Rules; Definitions; Periodic Rules Review
ARP 9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty
ARP 9.32 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure: Purpose and Guiding Principles
ARP 9.33 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure: The Professorial Ranks
ARP 9.34 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committees; Common Elements Required in the Principal Unit Policies
ARP 9.35 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Reviews: Procedural Guidelines and Timeline
ARP 9.36 – Faculty Post Tenure Review
ARP 10.60 – Review of Faculty Grievances

Revision History:

2017 Recompilation, formerly part of Rule 5.90
05/10/2017 Adoption approved by Chancellor with 08/13/2018 Effective Date
10/21/2015 former Policy 5.90  replicated by Board of Regents as initial Rule 5.90
07/15/2008 Amendments to Policy 5.90 ratified by Board of Regents, with 08/01/2008 effective date
Prior revision history as Policy 5.90 not available

9.35 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Reviews: Procedural Guidelines and Timeline

arp.nmsu.edu/chapter-9/9-35

EFFECTIVE AUGUST 13, 2018

PART 1: PRE-TENURE PROBATIONARY PERIOD

Before being considered for tenure at NMSU, eligible faculty members with or without previous experience from other institutions of higher education serve five years of the pre-tenure probationary period prior to applying for tenure during the sixth year of the probationary period. The six year probationary period may be reduced or extended, in accordance with the guidelines in Part 2, and with the proper approvals. The probationary period begins with the first contract for a full academic year. See Also ARP 9.40 – Tenure Track Faculty – Pre-Tenure Period.

PART 2: FLEXIBILITY IN TENURE-TRACK

This Part describes the circumstances which may justify modification of the six year term of the pre-tenure probationary period.

1. Credit for Prior Service: Faculty members with previous teaching and advising, service, extension, outreach, scholarly, and/or administrative experience at another institution may have some or all of that experience taken into consideration on appointment at NMSU, provided that the department head, dean and provost and chief academic officer and faculty appointee agree at the time of the appointment. The details of any agreed upon credit for prior service shall be documented unambiguously in the appointment letter, including but not limited to: the years of prior service being credited, the resulting length of the probationary period, the timing for any Mid-Probationary Review, and the expectation relating to the timing for the tenure application process. Dependent upon the nature of the prior experience or the qualifications of the faculty applicant, examples which would justify granting credit for prior service include and are not limited to:
   1. When tenure has been granted to a candidate at another institution, tenure may be accorded at the time of initial appointment to the university.
   2. Up to three years of prior probationary service at another institution may count towards the six-year probationary period at NMSU.
2. Extension of the Probationary Period: When requested in writing within one year of the qualifying event by the faculty member, leaves of absence can lead to postponement of the tenure decision date; however, modifications in that date require the recommendation of the department head and dean and the approval of the provost and chief academic officer. Faculty responsibilities may be negotiated when the extension is requested. An extension may be granted up to two times, so long as the total pre-tenure probationary period does not exceed eight years. Exceptions to this limit can be made under extraordinary circumstances if approved by the provost and chief academic officer. Candidates must be held to the same standards of performance when the probationary period has been extended as candidates whose probationary period was not extended. The probationary period may be extended, upon written request, under the following circumstances:
   1. Leave of Absence without Pay: Probationary faculty members may request in writing a leave of absence without pay, usually not to exceed one academic or fiscal year. Prior to initiating the leave, affected faculty may request in writing a probation extension of one year.
   2. Military Leave of Absence: Involuntary induction into the armed forces entitles the faculty member to a leave of absence to cover the term of military service. Such leave constitutes valid grounds for requesting an extension of the tenure decision date. Similarly, a faculty member’s voluntary participation in a military reserve program may lead to periodic or prolonged absence sufficient to affect the faculty member’s performance (e.g., annual active duty training, or active duty training or participation when a reserve unit is called to active duty) that constitutes valid grounds for extension of the tenure decision date.
   3. Medical Leave of Absence: Probationary faculty members with a serious personal illness or providing prolonged, substantive care for a chronically ill family member may request in writing an extension of the tenure decision date, usually for one year.
   4. Family Leave of Absence or Exceptional Family Responsibilities: Upon written request, probationary faculty members who become parents will receive a one-year automatic extension of the tenure decision date. Such an extension does not require that the faculty member take a leave of absence.
   5. Catastrophic Events: Probationary faculty who have experienced a catastrophic event such as a fire or flood or who must aid family members in such situations may request in writing an extension of the tenure decision date.
   6. Jury Duty: Prolonged jury service, when significantly affecting a faculty member’s performance, constitutes a valid reason to petition for extension of the tenure decision date.
   7. Other, as Negotiated: Extensions for other reasons may be negotiated.
3. Faculty Request for Early Tenure Review: A Request for Early Tenure Review is initiated in writing by the faculty member, and requires positive recommendations from the Department Promotion and Tenure Committee (as determined in the review of progress toward promotion and/or tenure), department head, and dean; followed by approval by the provost and chief academic officer. If an Early Tenure Review application is not successful, the candidate’s contract will not be renewed, consistent with the provisions of ARP 9.40 – Tenure Track Faculty – Pre-Tenure Period.
4. Changes Between Full and Part Time Employment:
   1. Tenure track faculty members whose regular appointments are less than 0.50 FTE do not accumulate probationary time toward tenure.
   2. When a full-time, tenure-track position becomes part-time, the time in rank is prorated based on full-time equivalent (FTE). As with full-time faculty, the maximum probationary period for part-time faculty members is the equivalent of six FTE years, with the tenure decision to be made before the end of the six full-time years of service. For example, a tenure-track candidate with a 0.50 FTE appointment must apply for tenure at the end of the 11th year. Part-time Tenure-Track Faculty must be held to the same standards of performance relative to FTE as full-time faculty. If denied tenure, a faculty member on part-time appointment has only one year of continued part-time employment beyond the denial.
   3. When recurring state funding is available, a tenure-track, part-time faculty member may apply for a full-time tenure track position and, if hired, apply earned tenure-track FTE from prior years toward tenure and promotion in the full-time position.
   4. Tenured, full-time faculty members approved to move to part-time status may retain tenure. Retention of tenure in such a case requires the written request of the faculty member, positive recommendations from the department head and dean; followed by approval of the provost and chief academic officer. While this rule encourages departments to accommodate reasonable requests for part-time appointment, part-time appointments are not an entitlement, and requests may be turned down. Pending availability of funding and the approval of the department head, dean and provost and chief academic officer, the faculty member may return later to full-time tenured status.

PART 3: MID-PROBATIONARY REVIEW

Tenure-track faculty members may request, or individual units may require, a formal Mid-Probationary Review. The Mid-Probationary Review is an opportunity for feedback on the Tenure-Track Faculty member/future candidate’s performance and is used to identify specific activities to enhance the candidate’s progress toward promotion and tenure. The review is formative, intended to assist Tenure-Track Faculty in achieving promotion and tenure and should take into account the allocation of work effort during the three years reviewed and be based upon the Principle Unit’s criteria. The outcome must not be used as a determinant for setting merit pay or for contract continuation decisions. Principal units should refer to ARP 9.34, Part 3 for additional information

PART 4: JOINT APPOINTMENT (WITH DUAL PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES)

In appropriate circumstances, a faculty member may be appointed in two departments or in two colleges. The faculty member seeking a joint appointment must obtain a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the department head and dean of each involved unit. The MOU must state the agreement between the involved units in the following areas:

1. The units involved and the intended tenure home. It must identify the Principle Unit where tenure resides or will reside if applicable. In joint appointments with centers or institutes, the tenure home must reside in a Principle Unit. In joint appointments with two or more academic units, one unit must be designated, by mutual agreement, as the tenure home.
2. Expectations for workload and Allocation of Effort, including specific responsibilities distributed between the involved units.
3. The term of appointment and any other conditions of employment.
4. Provisions explaining the process for the annual performance evaluation and promotion and tenure reviews, renewal of the joint appointment, and salary increases. Each unit must provide recommendations in annual, probationary, tenure, and promotion reviews.

PART 5: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN PROMOTION OR TENURE REVIEWS

1. Candidate
   1. Maintains a curriculum vitae and a cumulative personal record of the activities and accomplishments affecting the application for promotion and/or tenure.
   2. Reviews the personal Portfolio (organized per Part 12 of this Rule) in relation to the criteria for promotion and/or tenure and seeks guidance from senior faculty and the department head.
   3. In accordance with college procedures, requests and provides materials required in the mid-probationary periodic review.
   4. Applies for tenure by submitting to the department head in the spring of the candidate’s fifth year, or other time as previously negotiated, their Portfolio including both the Core Document and Documentation File in the format as specified in Part 6 of this rule. If a faculty member/candidate does not apply for tenure in the fifth year, or extended year as appropriate, and does not submit a resignation letter as contemplated by this rule, the faculty member’s employment will terminate with the expiration of the current annual “Temporary Contract”.
   5. Provides the department head with a written list of potential External Reviewers from which letters of evaluation may be requested. The candidate may provide the department head with a list of people they wish not to be reviewers. This item only applies to tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty.
   6. Requests extensions of the probationary period in accordance with Part 2. B. above.
   7. Has, upon receipt of the recommendation of the Department Promotion and Tenure Committee and of the head, five working days to add to the Portfolio any correction of factual errors in either recommendation.
   8. Has, upon receipt of the recommendations of the College Promotion and Tenure Committee and of the dean, five working days to add to the Portfolio any correction of factual errors in either recommendation.
   9. In accordance with Part 7 below, requests that the review process be terminated at any time prior to review by the provost and chief academic officer.
2. Department Head
   1. Establishes and monitors a process for a tenured faculty to mentor the candidate in developing the best case for promotion and/or tenure.
   2. Provides leadership in the collaborative writing and maintenance of department promotion and tenure policy.
   3. Provides initial information, timelines, and copies of all written guidelines regarding promotion and tenure expectations and policies to all new and continuing faculty members on a regular basis. Also informs Tenure-Track Faculty of the rights to due process, appeal and informal processes for conflict resolution in promotion and tenure (See Combined P & T Rules Through 08/12/2018 or Combined P & T Rules After 8/12/2018).
   4. In the annual performance reviews of Tenure-Track Faculty, includes written details relating to assigned duties (i.e. the teaching and advising, scholarship and creative activity, service, extension and outreach and apportionment). The reviews also include separate statements addressing progress toward tenure and toward promotion including steps that should be taken to strengthen the faculty member’s case.
   5. Provides leadership in establishing agreed upon department guidelines for an annual review of Tenure-Track Faculty by the department’s promotion and tenure committee. This review is separate from, and independent of, the department head’s annual review of each faculty member.
   6. Assists Tenure-Track Faculty who have completed five academic semesters or its part-time equivalent in preparing for an optional Mid-Probationary Review.
   7. In mitigating circumstances, explores with the candidate the need for a time extension. (See Part 2. B. above) With the approval of the candidate, seeks permission from the dean to extend the probationary period.
   8. Provides assistance and guidance to faculty who are applying for promotion and/or tenure. Reviews the Portfolio of applicants to ensure its completeness and compliance with Part 6 of this rule, and, where needed, makes recommendations for improvement.
   9. The department head, in consultation with the Promotion and Tenure Committee, will select a list of potential External Reviewers and will contact them. The department head must contact at least one reviewer from the candidate’s list provided that they are qualified to be reviewers based on the unit’s policy. The department head must ensure those contacted to review the candidate’s Portfolio do not have a conflict of interest. If there is a perceived conflict of interest the department head needs to justify why the reviewer has no conflict. If the department head contacts somebody on the candidate’s list of people they wish not to be a reviewer, the head needs to justify the importance of selecting the reviewer.
   10. Sees that the department promotion and tenure committee submits recommendations for tenure and for promotion for all candidates.
   11. Writes an independent evaluation/recommendation concerning each candidate’s case for promotion and/or tenure in relation to the criteria for promotion and tenure. This recommendation may be in support of or against supporting either promotion or tenure, or both. It should address the strengths and weaknesses, and level and nature of accomplishments of the candidate.
   12. Provides candidates written or electronic copies of the recommendation of the department promotion and tenure committee and of the recommendation of the department head. This notification must occur prior to passing the promotion and/or tenure application on to the dean and college promotion and tenure committee.
   13. Places the department head’s recommendation in the candidate’s Portfolio.
3. Department Promotion and Tenure Committee
   1. Examines and reads the Portfolio of each candidate.
   2. Evaluates the candidate according to department promotion and/or tenure standards.
   3. Considers the candidate’s department assignment and role apportionment as specified in the candidate’s position description and Allocation of Effort Forms.
   4. Performs an annual review of Tenure-Track Faculty following departmental guidelines and forwards results to department head and dean or equivalent administrator. This review is separate from, and independent of, the department head’s annual review of each faculty member.
   5. Makes recommendations to the department head pertaining to faculty members who are seeking promotion and/or tenure based on the candidate’s Portfolio and departmental criteria.
   6. Records in each candidate’s Portfolio the committee’s vote totals.  (See ARP 9.34, Part 3 Q. and S.)
   7. Places the committee’s recommendation in the candidate’s Portfolio.
   8. Participates in the optional Mid-Probationary Review process, providing formative feedback to candidates.
4. College Promotion and Tenure Committee
   1. Examines and reads the Portfolio of each candidate, including the department head’s letter and the department’s promotion and tenure committee’s recommendation.
   2. Evaluates the candidate according to the department’s promotion and tenure standards, in conjunction with those of the college.
   3. Considers the candidate’s department assignment and role apportionment as specified in the candidate’s position description and Allocation of Effort forms.
   4. Makes recommendations to the dean pertaining to faculty members who are seeking promotion and/or tenure.
   5. Records in each candidate’s Portfolio the committee’s vote totals. (See ARP 9.34, Part 3 Q. and S.)
   6. Places the committee’s recommendation in the candidate’s Portfolio.
   7. Participates in the optional Mid-Probationary Review process, providing formative feedback to candidates.
5. Dean, Community College President
   1. Ensures that a college-specific promotion and tenure policy is written and periodically revised and that the policy complies with university policy, rules, and procedures; and has been approved by the Provost and Chief Academic Officer.
   2. Assures that each department has:
      1. Current promotion and tenure guidelines that comply with college and university policies and include date of version.
      2. A mentoring process for Tenure-Track Faculty.
      3. A system of annual faculty performance evaluations.
   3. In consultation with college faculty establishes policy for the constitution of a College Faculty Promotion Committee.
   4. Recommends extensions of the probationary period.
   5. Provides oversight for the optional Mid-Probationary Review program.
   6. Makes independent recommendations pertaining to promotion and tenure. To do this, considers:
      1. Candidate’s Core Document and the Documentation File
      2. Recommendations of the department promotion and tenure committees
      3. Recommendations of the department heads
      4. Recommendations of the college promotion and tenure committees.
   7. Notifies candidates, in writing and electronically, of the recommendations of the College Promotion and Tenure Committee and of the dean. This notification must occur prior to passing the promotion and tenure applications and associated recommendations on to the provost and chief academic officer.
   8. Places the dean’s recommendation in the candidate’s Portfolio.
   9. Meets with the provost and chief academic officer regarding promotion and tenure cases.
6. Provost and Chief Academic Officer
   1. Ensures that each college and each department has, and periodically updates, promotion and tenure policies that comply with university policy, rules and procedures.
   2. Approves requests to extend the probationary period.
   3. Meets with deans regarding promotion and tenure cases.
   4. Makes an independent decision pertaining to promotion and tenure. To do this, consider:
      1. Candidate’s Core Document and, if requested, the Documentation File
      2. Recommendations of the department promotion and tenure committees
      3. Recommendations of the department heads
      4. Recommendations of the college promotion and tenure committees
      5. Recommendations of the dean.
   5. Passes promotion and tenure decisions on to the President.
   6. Notifies candidates in writing of the decision.
   7. Provides for annual training sessions for promotion and tenure committee members, department heads, and deans.

PART 6: PORTFOLIO PREPARATION BY CANDIDATE

In accordance with department and college guidelines, the candidate is responsible for submitting a promotion and tenure Portfolio. (See ARP 9.30, Part 2, Definition R.) When appropriate and agreed to by the candidate and all reviewing committees and officials, the Portfolio maybe submitted as an electronic PDF formatted file(s), provided a method for secure transmission of confidential documentation has been established.

1. Core Document: The college guidelines shall specify the inclusion of the following Core Document elements in this order. The combination of items 4-6 shall not exceed 50 pages:
   1. A routing form developed by the college with spaces for the required signatures.
   2. A cover sheet indicating the candidate’s name, current rank, department and college.
   3. Any written documentation generated throughout the promotion and tenure process, including the numerical vote counts of the promotion and tenure committee(s).
   4. A table of contents.
   5. Candidate’s executive summary.
   6. A curriculum vitae.
   7. Annual performance evaluations for the period under review, including the Allocation of Effort statements, the goals and objectives forms, written statements submitted by the faculty member as a part of the annual performance evaluations, the supervisor’s written comments, and any response made by the candidate to the supervisor’s written comments. Numerical rankings, ratings, or vote counts should be removed. (See Also ARP 9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty)
   8. Principal Units’ mission statements.
   9. Letters from External Reviewers.
2. Documentation File: Supplementary materials provided by the candidate related to the areas of faculty activity. This material is not routed beyond the College Promotion and Tenure Committee, but is available for review. If this is an application for tenure, the candidate is to include evidence of contributions since starting at NMSU, plus evidence from other institutions if credit for prior service is applicable. If this is an application for promotion, then the candidate is to include evidence of contributions since the last promotion or tenure review.

PART 7: WITHDRAWAL OF PORTFOLIO BY CANDIDATE FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

1. Voluntary Withdrawal from Consideration: A candidate may withdraw from consideration at any time prior to the final signature of the provost and chief academic officer. A candidate shall prepare a letter requesting withdrawal from further consideration. The letter shall be transmitted to the dean or comparable administrator. All documents shall be returned to the candidate and nothing relating to the application for promotion and/or tenure shall be placed in the candidate’s personnel file.
2. Withdrawal in Fifth Year of Service: If the candidate is in the fifth year of service, withdrawal from consideration for tenure must be accompanied by a letter of resignation submitted to the dean or comparable administrator no later than the end of the fifth-year contract period. The resignation shall be effective no later than the end of the sixth-year contract period. If a faculty member does not apply for tenure in the fifth year, or extended year as appropriate, and does not submit a resignation letter as contemplated by this rule, the faculty member’s employment will terminate with the expiration of the current annual (“Temporary”) contract.

PART 8: OUTCOMES

1. For full-time tenure-track candidates:
   1. If the decision is to award tenure, the provost and chief academic officer will send a Contract of Employment (Continuous Appointment) Form through the dean or comparable administrator and the department head to the candidate.
   2. If the decision is to not award tenure, the department head will give a signed Contract Status Form to the candidate for signature acknowledging notification of non-renewal.
2. For part-time tenure-track candidates, in addition to the provisions for full-time tenure-track candidates:
   1. If the decision is to award tenure, it is for the FTE as stated in the initial contract or as negotiated.
   2. If the decision is to not award tenure, a faculty member has only one year of continued part-time employment beyond the denial.
3. For all candidates:
   1. If the decision is in favor of promotion, the effective date is at the beginning of the ensuing contract year.
   2. If the decision is in favor of promotion, it shall be the policy of the university that all promotions shall include a salary increase, irrespective of other salary increases.
   3. In the decision is not in favor of promotion, the provost and chief academic officer will inform the candidate in writing.
   4. The provost and chief academic officer is responsible for informing the President of the recommendations of the department head, college dean, or comparable administrator and the decision of the provost and chief academic officer.
   5. The provost and chief academic officer will prepare an official list of promotion and tenure decisions for distribution to relevant deans, comparable administrators, the vice president administration and finance, and the assistant director of human resource services.
   6. Tenure-track faculty members whose probationary contract is not renewed and who have another year before the termination of that contract do not submit a promotion and tenure Portfolio during their final year. If the non-renewal is being appealed on the basis of failure to follow procedure or discrimination, then the appellant may complete a packet and have it held in suspension until the grievance is resolved. If the individual is successful in the appeal, the Portfolio will be considered by the parties involved in the promotion and tenure process.

PART 9: RIGHT TO SEEK REDRESS FOR VIOLATION OF EVALUATION, PROMOTION, OR TENURE RULES

1. A faculty member who believes that the university, college or department’s promotion and tenure policy or procedures have been violated, adversely affecting the faculty member’s evaluation, promotion, or tenure may file a grievance pursuant to ARP 10.60 Faculty Grievance Review and Resolution.
2. ARP 10.60 provides an opportunity for mediation, and in the event mediation is not successful, review by a panel of faculty peers which hears evidence presented and issues factual findings and recommendations on the issue of whether or not the rules governing evaluation, promotion or tenure were violated.
3. A finding that there was not substantial compliance with the applicable Rules on Faculty Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure (ARP 9.30 – 9.36), or a finding that any violation materially and adversely affected the outcome for a faculty member will be grounds for relief.
4. If the grievance involves actions taken by the provost and chief academic officer due to the provost’s role in the promotion and tenure process, the grievance decision will be issued by the NMSU system president; otherwise, the provost and chief academic officer issues the final decision in faculty grievance matters.

PART 10: TIMELINE OF PROCEDURAL STEPS FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE REVIEW PROCESSES

Each college shall determine a timeline for conducting promotion and tenure reviews compatible with due dates issued by the provost and chief academic officer. The dates indicated here are suggested guidelines; the provost may alter these by further directives; and/or 12-month appointments may require a different time schedule.

1. Spring: The department head notifies potential candidate of eligibility for promotion and/or tenure review and provides electronic copies of departmental, college, and university policies, rules and procedures related to promotion and tenure. Department promotion and tenure committee reviews the Portfolio of each faculty member and in accordance with college policies reports to the department head indicating the progress towards promotion and/or tenure as well as the strengths and weaknesses in each of the areas required for promotion and tenure. Department head informs the candidate in writing of the department promotion and/or tenure committee recommendations.
2. June, July, August: The candidate with support from the department and college prepares the candidate’s Portfolio. (See Part 6 of this rule) The Portfolio must be completed by the end of July to allow for review by External Reviewers in August.
3. September: The department head makes the completed Portfolio, including letters from External Reviewers (or Letters of Support at the community colleges) available to the Department Promotion and Tenure Committee. The Portfolio can only be amended hereafter in accordance with department and college guidelines.
4. October: The Department Promotion and Tenure Committee considers the completed Portfolio of the candidate.
5. October – December: The college dean or comparable administrator transmits the Department Promotion and Tenure Committee and department head reports and numerical ballot results to the College Promotion and Tenure Committee. The College Promotion and Tenure Committee reviews the department head’s and the Department Promotion and Tenure Committee’s recommendations. The College Promotion and Tenure Committee informs the dean or comparable administrator if a department fails to follow department and/or college procedures. The College Promotion and Tenure Committee reviews the Portfolios of all Tenure-Track Faculty members no later than their sixth year of service unless Part 2 (Flexibility in Tenure Track) of this Rule applies. The College Promotion and Tenure Committee submits a written recommendation on the candidate to the department head, candidate, and dean or comparable administrator in accordance with the college’s promotion and tenure policy.
6. January – February: The college dean or comparable administrator reviews the candidate’s Portfolio, makes a recommendation, and informs the candidate in writing of the recommendations of the College Promotion and Tenure Committee and the dean or comparable administrator. The college dean or comparable administrator transmits to the provost and chief academic officer all recommendations including numerical votes.
7. March – April: The college dean or comparable administrator meets with the provost and chief academic officer to review each candidate. The Provost and Chief Academic Officer’s decision is indicated in writing. The Provost and Chief Academic Officer informs the President of the recommendations of the department head, college dean, or comparable administrator and the decision of the provost and chief academic officer.
8. April – May: Final notifications of decisions are sent through the provost and chief academic officer, dean or comparable administrator, and department head to the candidate. The provost and chief academic officer prepares an official list of promotion and tenure decisions for distribution to relevant deans, comparable administrators, the vice president administration and finance, and the assistant vice president for human resource services. The dean or comparable administrator notifies the department head, who in turn notifies the faculty member.
9. July: Promotion and tenure decisions become effective.

Related

Cross-Reference:

ARP 9.30 – [Effective AY 18/19] Overview of Faculty Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure Rules; Definitions; Periodic Rules Review
ARP 9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty
ARP 9.32 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure: Purpose and Guiding Principles
ARP 9.33 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure: The Professorial Ranks
ARP 9.34 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committees; Common Elements Required in the Principal Unit Policies
ARP 9.36 – Faculty Post Tenure Review
ARP 9.40 – Tenure Track Faculty – Pre-Tenure Period
ARP 10.60 – Review of Faculty Grievances

Revision History:

2017 Recompilation, formerly part of Rule 5.90
05/10/2017 Adoption approved by Chancellor with 08/13/2018 Effective Date
10/21/2015 former Policy 5.90  replicated by Board of Regents as initial Rule 5.90
07/15/2008 Amendments to Policy 5.90 ratified by Board of Regents, with 08/01/2008 effective date
Prior revision history as Policy 5.90 not available

9.36 – Faculty Post Tenure Review

arp.nmsu.edu/chapter-9/9-36

EFFECTIVE AUGUST 13, 2018

(FKA 5.87)

PART 1: INTRODUCTION (FKA 5.87.1)

The Post-Tenure Review rule ensures that all tenured faculty members will receive an annual review and that those with either exceptionally fine performance or serious deficiencies in one or more areas will be identified. Special achievement shall be rewarded in a manner determined by each college or community college campus. For a tenured faculty member who receives two successive unsatisfactory annual reviews with identified and uncorrected serious deficiencies, this rule provides a mechanism to establish a remedial program for correcting the deficiencies. The legislation to which this rule responds is particularly concerned with the quality of teaching, and that fact shall be considered when taking any action under this rule. In particular, faculty whose teaching needs improvement will be urged to take advantage of “programs designed to assist faculty members in enhancing their teaching skills.” (NMSA 1978, Section 21-1-7.1)

PART 2: ANNUAL REVIEWS (FKA 5.87.2)

1. Annual Review for Tenured Faculty: Tenured faculty members annually participate in and receive an extensive examination of their teaching, their research and scholarly output, and their service as part of the annual review process conducted in accordance with ARP 9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty. This annual review document shall be labeled the Post Tenure Review of each tenured faculty member. This Post Tenure Review shall weight the three areas of teaching, scholarly work, and service in proportion to the percentage each category is given in the faculty member’s allocation of effort for a given year.
2. Post Tenure Review Not Applicable for Full Time Administrators: Administrators who hold tenured faculty rank are reviewed on the performance of their faculty duties (teaching, research, and service). Administrators who have no assigned faculty duties will not be reviewed under this rule.

PART 3: MORE COMPLETE POST-TENURE REVIEWS (FKA 5.87.3)

1. Notification to Faculty Member about Deficiency: If, in the judgment of a superior, the annual review for a tenured faculty member shows a serious deficiency in the performance of that faculty member, the superior shall inform the faculty member in writing of the deficiency as well as recommend actions the faculty member might take to address the issue.
2. Deficiency Not Rectified: If the deficiency or deficiencies continues for two or more years and if the faculty member has not taken the corrective actions, one of two possible courses of action may ensue:
   1. The faculty member may request that the superior submit the record of poor performance and suggested actions to the other tenured faculty members of the unit for consideration in a more complete review, or
   2. If the faculty member does not request the review, the superior may initiate such a review with the concurrence of a majority of the tenured faculty in the academic unit.
3. Goal of and Procedures for More Complete Review: The more complete review shall have the aim of identifying strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member in teaching, research, and service.
   1. This review shall be undertaken by the departmental promotion and tenure committee.
   2. If there is no departmental promotion and tenure committee for that unit, the review will be undertaken by the equivalent college-level promotion and tenure committee as specified ARP 9.35 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Reviews: Procedural Guidelines and Timeline of this manual.
   3. Student evaluations must be considered when evaluating the faculty member’s teaching, along with other factors. Student evaluations considered as part of performance evaluations, may not include numerical ratings, letter grades, or other “scores” of specific aspects of the course, the course as a whole, or of the instructor.
   4. If the reviewers conclude that the faculty member’s performance is not seriously deficient, the faculty member shall be so informed and a statement of the finding placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.
   5. If serious deficiency is found, a specific remedial program shall be developed in consultation with the faculty member that includes procedures, criteria for evaluating progress, and a reasonable timetable. If the faculty member’s teaching needs improvement, such a program might include participation in programs offered by the Teaching Academy, mentoring by a recipient of teaching awards, intensive study of videotaped classroom sessions, etc. When research and publication needs improvement, collaboration with another faculty member and participation in workshops on publishing might be indicated. However, in accordance with NMSA 1978, Section 21-1-7.1, part E(1), any remedial effort can be no shorter than two years in length.

PART 4: ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (FKA 5.87.4)

Whether or not a tenured faculty member accepts the recommendation to participate in a teaching or scholarly work enhancement program, and whether or not the member performs well in the program, the faculty member’s performance will be judged on subsequent teaching and scholarly work.

PART 5: FREQUENCY OF REVIEW (FKA 5.87.5)

The more complete review shall not be initiated for any tenured faculty member more frequently than once every five years.

PART 6: PERSISTENT TEACHING DEFICIENCIES (FKA 5.87.6)

If a tenured faculty member’s teaching deficiencies are considered by the provost and chief academic officer to be very serious and to have been uncorrected at the conclusion of the agreed time period, and further, if there is evidence that the faculty member’s teaching performance has deteriorated since the award of tenure such that the faculty member’s teaching performance is now typically unsatisfactory, the provost and chief academic officer shall recommend loss of tenure for the faculty member in question.

If tenure is to be revoked, the university shall follow the processes specified in ARP 10.50 – Faculty Alleged Misconduct Investigation, Discipline and Appeals Processes for Involuntary Termination of a Continuous Contract, subject to the safeguards of due process.

PART 7: REPORTING (FKA 5.87.7)

Every year, each academic dean and the chief community college executive officer of each campus shall report to the provost and chief academic officer.

1. The number of tenured faculty receiving annual evaluations,
2. The number receiving unsatisfactory evaluations,
3. The number of tenured faculty who have been the subject of a more detailed peer review,
4. The number of faculty who have participated in a remedial program as a result,
5. The results of those programs,
6. And the number of faculty whose tenure have been revoked

Related

Cross-Reference:

ARP 9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty
ARP 9.35 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Reviews: Procedural Guidelines and Timeline
ARP 10.50 – Faculty Alleged Misconduct Investigation, Discipline, and Appeals Processes

Revision History:

05/20/2019 Amendment [FSP Prop 16-18/19] approved by Chancellor
2017 Recompilation, formerly numbered as Rule 5.91 (AY18/19) and Rule 5.87 (Pre-AY18/19)
09/08/2006 Policy adoption ratified by Board of Regents