Skip to main content

OM 5.6.0 Evaluation Procedures for Promotion

About This Policy

Effective Date: May 13, 1975
Last Updated: March 2022
Responsible University Office: President's Office
Responsible University Administrator: President

Policy Contact:

Office of the Provost


When candidacy for promotion is concurrent with candidacy for tenure, the two reviews shall proceed as one. Specifically, the review detailed in the "tenure policy" (see 5.5) shall also serve as the promotion review: the tenure file shall also be the promotion file. No independent promotion review process will be required.

back to top


Promotions that are neither "to tenurable rank" (see A.) nor "concurrent with tenure" (see B.) shall proceed in accord with the following guidelines.

  1. Standards

    The evaluative standards employed in reviewing a faculty member for promotion in faculty rank are those set forth in 5.3, of these "faculty policies." Evaluative recommendations and the ultimate promotion decision should be based on these evaluative standards and the contents of the promotion file (described below). 
  2. Procedures 
    1. Initiation: A promotion review may be initiated by the appropriate department chair or dean. A review may be initiated by a faculty committee established in the department (or other academic unit) specifically for the purpose of initiating such reviews. The candidate must consent to the promotion review. 
    2. Documentation: A promotion file shall be prepared that is substantially similar in structure and content to the tenure file described in 5.5. While certain items included in the tenure file (e.g., statements regarding tenure flow and the like) need not be incorporated, the promotion file must contain adequate documentation to reflect the candidate's suitability for promotion in terms of the standards set forth in 5.3. 
    3. Preparation of the Promotion File: The preparer of the promotion file shall be that person or group responsible for compiling the file and adding an initial evaluation to it. The selection of the file preparer shall follow the pattern set forth in the description of the preparer of the file for tenure reviews (see 5.5.A.9). Members of the University Promotion Committee may not serve as "preparer of the file". 
    4. Schedule: The schedule for a promotion review can be more flexible than for a tenure review. However, three provisos do apply: first, the candidate must be given adequate time to compile those documents required for initial review by the preparer (see, by way of analogy, 5.5.B.2), second, all reviewers, be they external or internal, but especially the University Promotions Committee (described below), must be given adequate time to conduct their reviews, and third, the review process itself should move expeditiously. 
    5. Review Process: Once the promotion file has been inventoried and the candidate has been given a copy of the file inventory, the file is ready for review. The file shall move from the preparer to the appropriate dean, to the academic vice president (if the position is occupied), and to the University Promotions Committee (described below). Each shall add a letter to the file that provides a recommendation as to the candidate's suitability for promotion. 
    6. University Promotions Committee: The University Promotions Committee will be composed of:
      1. 1 faculty representative per school elected by the tenure-track (tenured and untenured) faculty of that school. 
      2. 1 faculty representative elected by the university teaching-track faculty
      3. 1 faculty representative elected by the university clinical-track faculty

All nominees are intended to have the rank of Professor; however, a faculty of Associate Professor rank can be nominated for a position as a non-voting member of the committee. Faculty members in the positions of chair, dean or comparable administrative position are not eligible for membership on the Promotions Committee. The positions will be staggered, three year terms. Nomination of candidates for the Promotions Committee will come from the Faculty Senate. Nominations for candidacy can also be presented by written petition endorsed by ten faculty members that are eligible to vote for the given position.

The Promotions Committee charge is: 

      1. To act in accord with these "faculty policies." 
        1. To confirm that the promotion file of each candidate contains adequate documentation to reflect the candidate's performance as it pertains to promotion, or to indicate to the file preparer how the file is deficient. The committee shall hold the file until such time as either the preparer or the committee has corrected such deficiencies, and those who have previously reviewed the file have had an opportunity to examine any new materials or documents. 
        2. To add to each adequately-documented promotion file a committee evaluation and recommendation regarding the candidate=s suitability for promotion. 
      2. To advise the Faculty Senate on matters pertaining to the promotion policies and their implementation.
    1. The Promotion Decision: After the University Promotion Committee has completed its review, the promotion file will be conveyed to the President. The President shall review the file and shall decide whether or not to promote. The President shall promptly inform the candidate, the appropriate preparer and dean, the academic vice president, and the University Promotions Committee of the decision. If the decision is negative, the President shall inform the candidate that the candidate may, upon request, receive a written explanation of the decision. When the review is completed, the promotion file shall be closed. Subsequent access to the file will require presidential permission. Once the presidential decision has been made, any copies of confidential evaluative materials, specifically, copies of internal depositions and external reviews, that have been retained by others involved in the promotion review must be either destroyed or forwarded to the President [see 5.4.A.2].
    2. Appeals: There is no appeal from a presidential decision to deny promotion. 
    3. Restrictions: A faculty member promoted from one tenurable rank to another prior to the completion of a tenure review does not, by virtue of the promotion, receive tenure.


      Approved by Faculty Senate 5/13/75

      Approved by Faculty 5/22/75

      Approved by Board of Trustees 5/24/75

      Editorial Revision August 1977

      Revision approved by Faculty Senate 5/4/81

      Revision approved by Faculty 5/14/81

      Revision approved by Board of Trustees 5/16/81

      Revision approved by Faculty Senate 4/17/89,11/6/89,12/4/89,1/22/90,2/5/90

      Revision approved by Administrative Council 12/7/83, 3/12/90

      Revision approved by Faculty 12/20/91

      Approved by Board of Trustees 1/22/92,1/20/93

      Approved by Faculty Senate 1/16/95, 10/2/95

      Approved by Administrative Council 9/25/95

      Approved by Faculty 10/30/95

      Approved by Board of Trustees 2/17/96

      Revision Regarding Composition of Promotion Committee Approved March 2004

      Revision Approved May 2017

      Revision December 2019

      Revision March 2022

      back to top