The FCSM PTRM Committee consists of one representative from each department elected by the FCSM at large. The FCSM Dean is an ex officio non-voting member of the Committee. The primary obligation of the Committee is to review the submitted files to ensure fairness and equity to faculty members who are being evaluated for promotion and tenure. The FCSM PTRM Committee is advisory to the FCSM Dean on other performance evaluations.
In accordance with the Strategic Plan of the University, the FCSM PTRM Committee aims to maintain a highly qualified faculty that balances the tripartite responsibilities of teaching and advising, scholarly activity, and service. In order to implement this objective, the Committee will evaluate the files of the candidates according to Towson University policies for faculty evaluation, which are in accordance with the Boyer Model of Scholarship (see Appendix A). The Committee will then make recommendations to the Provost.
As part of its duties, the Committee will fully investigate appeals from departmental recommendations and, if it deems appropriate, will attempt to resolve such disputes before a final decision and vote is taken.
Composition of the Committee and election of its members
The FCSM PTRM Committee will consist of one representative from each department elected at large from the college for a period of three years. These three-year terms shall be staggered to ensure some consistency from year to year. Members may serve no more than two consecutive terms. Eligible members include tenured faculty at the rank of associate professor and professor who have been in the FCSM for at least three years. Chairpersons and faculty members who are candidates for promotion are not eligible. The Dean of the College shall serve as an ex officio non-voting member of this Committee. In the event of vacancies on the FCSM PTRM Committee, the FCSM electorate shall choose a replacement before the FCSM PTRM Committee begins its work.
To ensure that accurate Annual Reports (AR) are available at the appropriate times, the promotion and tenure chairperson(s) of each department in the FCSM must make sure that these Reports are completed and filed with the department by the deadline established by the University PTRM Committee.
The FCSM recommendation forms must be signed by the individual and by the chairperson of the departmental rank and /or tenure committee. If the recommended faculty member is the chairperson of the departmental rank and/or tenure committee, then the chairperson of the department must cosign the document.
All documents and supporting data are confidential and should be submitted to the office of the Dean of FCSM, where they are kept in a FCSM PTRM file.
The FCSM PTRM Committee shall adhere to the deadlines set by the University PTRM Committee (see Section XII Important Dates).
Additional or supplementary documents sent to the FCSM PTRM Committee after November 30th will not be accepted unless specifically requested by the responsible departmental committee or the FCSM PTRM Committee and approved by the FCSM PTRM Committee.
Approval Process on Revisions of the FCSM PTRM Document and/or Procedures
FCSM PTRM documents pertaining to standards, criteria, and/or expectations of evaluation shall be developed by the PTRM Committee. The FCSM PTRM document must be distributed to all tenured and tenure-track faculty in the FCSM for input at least ten (10) business days prior to the FCSM PTRM Committee vote on the documents. Final approval at the college level shall be by a simple majority vote of the tenured/tenure-track faculty of the FCSM excepting faculty who are on leave from the university (e.g., medical, sabbatical, etc.), the signature of each tenured or tenure-track faculty member of the college will signify that s/he has voted on the FCSM PTRM documents. Balloting will be conducted by the FCSM Elections Committee as described in Appendix B.
The FCSM document shall be approved by the FCSM Dean. The Dean is responsible for transmitting the document with any proposed changes to the University PTRM Committee by the second Friday in October.
Policies and Procedures of the FCSM PTRM Committee for Promotion, Tenure, and Five-Year Comprehensive Review of Tenured Faculty
All matters considered by the committee pertaining to individual faculty members shall be held in strict confidence.
Because of the importance of the Committee's deliberations, all voting members are expected to be present at all meetings.
During deliberation, any voting Committee member may request reconsideration and a revote on tenure, promotion, or reappointment decisions at any time.
In the event that any Committee member(s) strongly feel that a minority report should be submitted, they may do so subject to review by the whole Committee. Both the majority and minority reports will be forwarded together to the Provost.
The entire Committee shall review all outgoing correspondence. This correspondence must include written specifics justifying the committee's decision based on the file of the candidate.
The FCSM PTRM Committee shall review its PTRM document every three (3) years and submit evidence of such review to the FCSM Dean and the University PTRM Committee.
All votes regarding tenure, promotion, reappointment, merit, and/or comprehensive reviews taken by any committee and/or the department shall be by secret ballot, signed with the Towson University ID number, and dated by the voting member, and tallied by the committee chair. The committee chair shall forward a signed, dated report of the results of the vote and the committee's recommendations to the next level of review. The secret ballots shall not be included in the faculty evaluation portfolio, but shall be forwarded under separate cover to the Provost, to be preserved with the tenure and promotion file until three (3) years following the faculty member's termination or resignation from the university. No committee member shall abstain from a vote for tenure or promotion unless the Provost authorizes such abstention based on good cause, including an impermissible conflict of interest.
Tenure and Reappointment
Each committee member individually will examine the materials submitted by each department for faculty members recommended for tenure and/or promotion, and will decide whether to support or deny the recommendations.
During meetings of the full Committee, each Committee member will contribute to an open discussion of each candidate. Following the discussion, the Committee will vote to support or deny the departmental recommendation concerning the candidate. A simple majority (at least 3 out of the possible 5) is required. The voting shall follow the guidelines mentioned in IIA above concerning the secret ballot, signed with the Towson University ID number and dated by the voting member. Votes will be tallied by the committee chair who shall forward a signed, dated report of the results of the vote and the committee's recommendations to the Provost. The secret ballots shall not be included in the faculty evaluation portfolio, but shall be forwarded under separate cover to the Provost, to be preserved with the tenure and promotion file until three (3) years following the faculty member's termination or resignation from the university. No committee member shall abstain from a vote for tenure or promotion unless the Provost authorizes such abstention based on good cause, including an impermissible conflict of interest.
The recommendations of the department, of the FCSM PTRM Committee, and of the Dean of FCSM, will be forwarded, together with all pertinent files, to the Provost. All the recommendations of the Dean of FCSM will be shared with the FCSM PTRM Committee.
Evaluation of Interdepartmental, Interdisciplinary Faculty Members
The FCSM PTRM Committee follows the university guidelinesguidelines as found in Appendix 3 of the Towson University Policy on Appointment, Rank and Tenure of Faculty.
College-wide Criteria and Standards for Promotion and Tenure
Statement of Philosophy
The following are the general criteria and standards for promotion and tenure within the Fisher College of Science and Mathematics. We recognize that each department within the FCSM has a distinctive character and set of expectations and the purpose of this document is not to stifle that individuality. Conversely, we also believe that there should be some commonality of standards that apply to all departments within the FCSM that reflects the nature and mission of the College. This outline attempts to reconcile these different views.
Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
Because the promotion to Associate Professor usually (but not always) carries the awarding of tenure, we treat these as one and the same. In unusual cases, there may be justification for tenure without promotion, but that is not considered here.
Promotion to Associate Professor with tenure is the most important step up the academic ladder for two reasons. First, the newly promoted faculty member can remain at Towson throughout his or her academic lifetime; promotion with tenure should be considered as a commitment to keeping that faculty member as a productive colleague throughout this time. Second, with rare exceptions, promotion to Associate Professor with tenure is a one-time event; if not granted, that faculty member will likely leave Towson University. For these reasons, it is important that the general criteria and expectations for this promotion be laid out clearly.
In general, the FCSM does not feel that rigid, quantitative criteria are appropriate for a faculty whose interests range from astrophysics to zoology. This is especially true in the area of scholarship, where use of numbers of publications, grants, or presentations at meetings is highly variable among disciplines. However, we have provided some general guidelines for achievements in Teaching, Scholarship, and Service.
Teaching — The general expectation of the FCSM is that teaching is our central function and that all faculty should strive to be outstanding teachers. Assessing teaching performance, however, is extremely difficult. Our general philosophy is that no single criterion can be used to adequately judge teaching performance. At a minimum, the following must be used to measure teaching effectiveness. The listed items are not prioritized according to order of importance.
Quantitative student evaluation scores as designated by the department. The method for determination of quantitative scores should be provided by each department to the FCSM PTRM Committee
All qualitative comments from student evaluation forms.
Copies of all signed reports from peer observations of teaching
However, in addition to the above items, other measures are also appropriate. Other items that may be included, where appropriate, are (but not limited to) the following. The list is not prioritized according to order of importance:
examples of novel assessments
evidence of the development of new courses
evidence of modification of course content or delivery
evidence of improvement of personal knowledge of subject content or teaching methodologies
evidence of contributions and/or delivery of a new curriculum
professional awards for teaching excellence
evidence of supervision of student research
evidence of advising
for mathematics and science educators: evidence of supervision and mentoring of pre-service teachers
Scholarship — The FCSM recognizes that faculty practice four kinds of scholarship as defined by the Boyer Model (see Appendix A): the scholarship of discovery, of integration, of application, and of teaching. The general expectation of the FCSM is that all faculty members should be able to demonstrate the presence of an active and ongoing program of scholarship of one or more of these forms. The faculty member needs to demonstrate the ability to initiate and carry out to completion scholarly work at Towson University in his/her specialty as evidenced by the following. The listed criteria are not prioritized according to order of importance. When scholarly products involve student co-authors this should be duly noted:
publications in peer reviewed scholarly journals
when appropriate to a discipline, publications in peer reviewed conference proceedings
publication of a professionally appropriate peer reviewed book, textbook, manual or extensive monograph
submission of university-approved patent applications to the U.S. Patent Office or the awarding of such patents
In addition to a scholarly publication record, several other possible items are illustrated below. Note that these are examples of supporting evidence that may be used, and others may be employed at the discretion of the department. The listed criteria are not prioritized according to order of importance:
competitive internal and external grants attempted and/or received
progress reports or final reports on the implementation of externally funded projects
presenting papers at professional meetings
documented research in progress
conducting workshops (This item might be expected to count more heavily for mathematics and science education faculty.)
serving as a panelist or discussant at professional meetings
professional awards based on scholarly achievement
Service — The general expectation of the FCSM is that all faculty members should be actively engaged in service, to the department, the College, the University community, and to the faculty member's discipline. The exact level of service is primarily a departmental function and no specific level of service is mandated here. Faculty are expected to make useful, documented contributions to their department, their College, the University, and to their discipline. Some examples of service include:
Department, FCSM and/or University committees or taskforces
professional service (e.g., manuscript or proposal review, serving as an officer in a professional association, chairing (and/or organizing) sessions at professional meetings)
Promotion to Professor
Promotion to Full Professor is the ultimate step in academic recognition. This promotion should recognize not only length of service, but also a sustained commitment to excellence or distinction in teaching, scholarship, and service. In addition to high levels of teaching effectiveness (using criteria noted above), and a leadership role in the area of service, faculty should demonstrate a sustained program of recognized scholarship, as indicated by, for example, a substantial refereed publication record, successful textbook authorship, success in attracting external grants, and presentations at national and international meetings. We emphasize that while different disciplines will necessarily have different levels of grant success and publication, the key element is a sustained commitment to peer-reviewed scholarly productivity.
Letters of evaluation from external reviewers will be solicited from outside the University pursuant to the Guidelines approved by the Faculty Senate (see Appendix C. External Evaluation Guidelines). In general, external evaluators should not be current or former mentors, students or collaborators within the past five years, nor should they pose other significant potential conflicts of interest. Candidates may also submit names of those persons that they prefer NOT be asked to write an evaluation. The external evaluation will address the candidate's scholarship as it relates to the candidate's promotion to Professor. The letters will remain confidential and will not be made available to the faculty member. These letters will not be included in the faculty evaluation portfolio, but will be forwarded under separate cover to each subsequent level of review.
Contents of the evaluation dossier to be sent to external reviewers: Reviewers will be provided with a description of Towson University and the Fisher College, to provide context for the review. The materials to be sent to external reviewers who have agreed to provide a review will be in electronic format only. They should be limited to:
A curriculum vitae.
The applicant's supporting statement focusing on the area of scholarship and reflecting on accomplishments during the evaluation period.
A maximum of three (3) publications or other scholarly products, either as readable files or internet links thereto. The external evaluators will be able to request additional items on the candidate's curriculum vitae by contacting the Department Chairperson.
Materials to be submitted by each Department for Promotion and/or Tenure Recommendations
Departmental Promotion and /or Tenure Recommendation Summary (DPTRS) Form containing a list of all Faculty members being recommended for promotion and/or tenure, the recommended promotion rank, and the recommended tenure decision (if applicable).
One Promotion and Tenure Dossier (see V. below) for each candidate
One Provost's Binder (see VII. below) for each candidate
Note that the Merit binder (see Section X. below) is independent of and separate from the Promotion and Tenure binder.
Instructions for the Fisher College of Science and Mathematics (FCSM) Promotion & Tenure Dossier
Each FCSM faculty member being evaluated for promotion and/or tenure is expected to prepare a dossier that addresses the professorial expectations of faculty in the University, the FCSM and the candidate's department. Detailed documentation is required for all reported activities and accomplishments that have occurred since the time of hire or the last promotion, whichever is relevant. The materials in Sections A through D of this document should be organized into one (or more) three-ring loose leaf binder(s) in the indicated sequence, separated and indexed with tabs. This document addresses the organization of the dossier only and in no way is to be interpreted as setting or clarifying existing or future promotion and tenure policies for the FCSM.
Section A: Summary and Recommendations
Cover Page. The dossier begins with a cover sheet that includes the candidate's name, highest degree, present rank, department, date of appointment at Towson University and rank awarded, number of years of credit for prior service, dates for leaves of absence (with the purposes of the leaves indicated), and dates and places of previous promotions. This cover sheet should state the candidate's area of specialization within the discipline. The following format must be used (lines not applicable should be omitted):
Date of TU Appointment and Rank Awarded
Number of Years of Credit for Prior Service
(A copy of the letter stating the award should be attached.)
Leaves of Absence
(Descriptions and Purposes)
Dates and Places of Previous Promotions and Ranks Awarded
Areas of Specialization within the Discipline
Tab A.1. Curriculum Vitae
Tab A.2. Summary of Major Accomplishments. A statement written by the faculty member is required for all promotion and/or tenure recommendations. This concise summary should highlight accomplishments of special merit and should include a statement in which the candidate describes how he or she has met the teaching, scholarship, and service expectations of the FCSM and University. (A typical summary is two or three pages in length.)
Tab A.3. Recommendations. The written recommendation of the department rank committee and/or tenure committee; and the written recommendations of the department chairperson, of the FCSM PTRM Committee, and of the Dean of FCSM must be included. (Note: Letters from the FCSM Committee and the Dean will be added to the binder and copies given to the candidate.)
Tab A.4. Departmental Summary Recommendation (DSR) forms for for the Entire Evaluation Period. The candidate should submit Departmental Summary Recommendation (DSR) forms for the entire evaluation period. These forms should be arranged from most recent to the time of last evaluation, promotion or year of hire. A copy of the current year's Departmental Summary Recommendation (DSR) form must be presented to the candidate prior to submission of the candidate's binder to the FCSM PTRM Committee.
Tab A.5. Fisher College of Science and Mathematics Promotion and Tenure Form (FCSM P&T Form).
Tab A.6. SENTF or Annual Reports (AR Parts I and II) for the Entire Evaluation Period. The candidate should submit annual reports for the entire evaluation period. These forms should be arranged from most recent to the time of last promotion or year of hire.
Section B: Teaching
The general expectation of the Fisher College is that teaching is the central function and that all faculty members strive to be outstanding teachers. Assessing teaching performance, however, is extremely difficult. Generally, no single criterion can be used to adequately judge teaching performance.
Categories for Teaching
The following are the required categories for teaching and all significant contributions should be organized accordingly.
Tab B.1. Courses Taught During the Evaluation Period: The candidate must provide a list of courses taught using the following format:
SUMMARY OF COURSES TAUGHT, 20XX to 20XX
Semester/year Title and Course Number Number of Students
1. Fall, 2006 Biology: The Science of Life / Biol115 24
The candidate must provide a copy of the most recent syllabus used for each course taught at Towson University during the evaluation period. Only one syllabus for each different course is required. Additionally quantitative student evaluation scores as designated by the department as well as complete student evaluation qualitative responses for each class should be included.
Tab B.2. Peer Reports of Class Visits A minimum of one per year for tenure-track faculty and at least one within the last two years for candidates for promotion to Professor).
The following are additional potential categories for teaching and all significant contributions should be organized accordingly.
Tab B.3. On-load Student Advising (Document the number of students/year, mentoring, special advising activities, etc.)
Tab B.4. Honors or Special Recognition for Instruction: List and document.
Tab B.5. Independent Studies, Practica, Honors Theses, Theses, and Dissertations: These items should be listed as follows:
Independent Studies: Name of student(s), title of project, and date completed.
Practica: Name of student(s), title, and date completed.
Honors Theses: Name of student(s), title, and date completed.
Theses: Name of student(s), title, and date completed.
Tab B.6. Curriculum Materials: List textbooks written by and articles published by the candidate related to the candidate's instruction. A copy of each article must be provided. For books, provide photocopies of the cover, title page, and table of contents.
Tab B.7. Other Materials: The candidate should include other documents that he or she considers to be relevant for teaching that do not appear in the categories above (e.g., new courses developed, international teaching exchange, sabbatical activities related to teaching, etc.).
Section C: Scholarship
The FCSM recognizes that faculty members may undertake four types of scholarship as defined by the well-known Boyer Model: the scholarship of discovery, of integration, of application, and of teaching. The general expectation of the FCSM is that all faculty members should be able to demonstrate the presence of an active and ongoing program of scholarship in one or more of these forms. The faculty member needs to demonstrate the ability to initiate and carry to completion scholarly work at Towson University in his or her research specialty. Scholarly work is considered validated when it is submitted for peer review and deemed worthy of publication or other form of dissemination. Submission for peer review of competitive proposals for extramural funding is also a valid form of scholarship.
This section should begin with a table of contents listing all documents that support the areas of scholarship listed below.
Categories for Scholarship
The following are the potential categories for scholarship and all significant contributions should be organized accordingly.
Scholarly Writings in Journals, Books, Monographs, and Reviews:
Tab C.1.a. Books and MonographsFor published works, give the title, publisher, and date of publication. For works accepted for publication, indicate whether an item is a book manuscript in press and scheduled for publication at a definite date.
Tab C.1.b. Articles in Peer-Reviewed Journals. For published or accepted articles, give the title, journal, volume, page numbers, date (or projected date of publication), names of the authors as they appear in print. For manuscripts submitted for publication, indicate whether the article has been published, is accepted for publication, or has only been submitted. Co-authors who are students should be identified as such.
Tab C.1.c. Conference Publications. Give the title, authorship, date, name and location of the conference, and whether the publication was peer reviewed. Co-authors who are students should be identified as such.
Tab C.1.d. Book Reviews, Abstracts, and Reports. Give the title, author, place of appearance, and date of publication or projected publication. Co-authors who are students should be identified as such.
Within each relevant tab,, provide copies of articles, book reviews, etc., listed in paragraphs a through d, above. For books, provide photocopies of the cover, title page, table of contents, etc., within the tabs. In the case of articles, books, monographs, book reviews, abstracts, and reports accepted for publication but not yet published; provide copies of letters of acceptance, agreements and contracts. In the case of works submitted and under review, documentation showing that the submission has been received and is being considered is required.
Tab C.2. Presentations at Professional Meetings: A list of presentations at professional meetings should be provided. This should include the title and date of the presentation, and the name and location of the meeting. DOCUMENTATION: Provide either official acceptance letters or photocopies of the meeting agenda listing the presentation title and authorship.
Tab C.3. Awards and Grants: List scholarships, fellowships, travel awards, personal development grants, grants funded by or submitted to local agencies, and grants from national agencies. DOCUMENTATION: Provide official letters of award indicating the amount and period of the award, and the precise role of the candidate and any other co-principal or co-investigator in the research or required activities funded.
Tab C.4. Science Education and Mathematics Education Workshops: List professional development workshops and other activities organized or led by the candidate. Indicate the candidate's role in each workshop or activity. The list should include dates of service, and documentation should be provided.
Tab C.5. Significant Professional Services: : List memberships on editorial boards, activities as referee for scholarly journals, activities as referee for granting agencies, memberships on evaluation panels, and services as critic, juror, and/or consultant for professional organizations. Include only those activities that are a reflection or outcome of the candidate's scholarly expertise (other professional service activities may be included within Section D). Documentation verifying the activity should be provided.
Tab C.6. Recognition by National, Scholarly, and Professional Associations: List and include titles of honors, awards, fellowships, and internships. A copy of the award letter or other documentation should be provided.
Tab C.7. General Recognition Within One's Discipline: List requests for colloquium presentations or workshops, and any other general recognition. Copies of invitation letters or official programs should be provided. A list or a summary of citations and references to the candidate's work by others may be included.
Tab C.8. Other: List and include here materials for which descriptions are not presented in any of the other categories above. These materials may not include work in progress.
Section D: Service
The general expectation of the Fisher College is that all faculty members should be actively engaged in service, to the department, the College, the University community, and to the faculty member's discipline. The exact level of service is primarily a departmental function and no specific level of service is mandated here (specific levels of Service are outlined in the Faculty Handbook.) Faculty members are expected to make useful, documented contributions to their department, their College, the University, and to their discipline.
Categories for Service
The following are the potential categories for service and all significant contributions should be organized accordingly.
Tab D.1. Contributions to the department and/or interdisciplinary program: List memberships on departmental committees, development of programs, and activities. List only contributions not related to professional development or instruction.
Tab D.2. Committee Responsibilities at the College, University, or System Level: List committees and periods of service.
Tab D.3. Support of Local, State, National, or International Organizations: List
consultantships, memberships on advisory boards, and offices held, and include dates of service.
Tab D.4. Assistance to Colleagues: List official or unofficial mentorship of colleagues, consultation about educational problems, reviews of manuscripts, collaboration on research projects, and contributions to programs in other concentrations, departments, or schools.
Tab D.5. Significant Community Participation: List lectures, speeches, presentations, and short courses presented in the community and include dates.
Tab D.6. Meritorious Public Service: List assistance to governmental agencies and development of community, state, or national resources and include dates.
Tab D.7. Contributions to Professional Associations: List organizational offices held or contributions to professional organizations and include where appropriate dates of term, and method of selection (e.g., by appointment, by election).
Additional Evaluation Materials for Third Year Review of Faculty
Evaluation portfolio materials for third-year review of faculty must include the above items in Section V, as well as:
Syllabi of courses taught in the previous two years,
Student and peer/chairperson evaluations of teaching and advising for the previous two years and the fall semester of the current year, and
Narrative statement in which the faculty member describes how he or she has met and integrated teaching, scholarship and service expectations based on his/her workload agreements for the period under review.
Instructions for the Provost's Binder
The documents needed for promotion and tenure consideration at the provost's level (called the "summative portfolio") are listed below. The documents should be submitted in a one-inch binder clearly labeled with the faculty member's name, department, and area of review, and indexed as follows. Do not use plastic sheet protectors.
The only documents required, in the order presented below, are:
A copy of one recent peer-reviewed publication or description of a comparable creative activity.
University Forms: Completed and signed Annual Report (AR) Parts I and II, or Chairperson's Annual Report (CAR) I and II, arranged from most recent to the time of last promotion or year of hire.
A narrative statement about individual teaching and/or advising philosophy and an interpretation of student and/or peer/chairperson evaluations.
Peer Teaching Evaluations (for tenure, promotion, and 5-year comprehensive review).
Summary of Student Evaluations across the evaluation period, including a copy of the survey instrument. Faculty should submit the summary of results for each course received from the assessment office. Those using approved departmental forms should compile the data in a format that will allow analysis of trends over time.
Supporting Statement: Summary statement describing correlation between expectations and accomplishments and integrating accomplishments in the areas of scholarship, teaching, and service.
Written recommendation of the department PTRM committee, including the Departmental Summary recommendation form,
Written recommendation of the academic chairperson,
Written recommendation of the college P&T Committee, and
Written recommendation of the academic dean of the college.
[ NOTE: For Section V, the college P&T Chairperson and the dean have responsibility for ensuring that all recommendations are included in the folder. ]
Binders that do not comply with this organization will be returned to the college.
The department should forward all supportive materials in the full evaluation portfolio to the college PTRM committee and the dean. These materials are not to be forwarded to the provost unless specifically requested.
Instructions for the Comprehensive Five-Year Review
Sections I–IV of the Comprehensive Five-Year Review binders will be identical to those of the Provosts P&T binders, as described above in VII. Instructions for the Provost's Binder, and will cover the five years under review but should also include a statement outlining goals and expected career development plans for the upcoming 5 year period. Section V must include the following:
Final evaluation of the departmental Comprehensive Review Committee,
Letter of evaluation from department chairperson, and
Letter of evaluation from academic dean.
All evaluation portfolios must be submitted to the department chair by the Third Friday in June. After that time, the faculty member may add until the Third Friday in September "information related to work that was completed prior to June 2 that has only become available after the deadline." The faculty member may not remove or alter materials previously submitted. Please see the provisions of appendix three of the ART policy, pages 4-5, for further guidelines.
College-wide Criteria and Standards for Merit
The appropriate department merit committee will decide on merit based on the correspondence between the Annual Report Parts I and II for the academic year under review, and the level of effort and performance in completing one's agreed-to duties.
If discrepancies are found between Parts I and II of the faculty member's AR and are considered by the appropriate departmental merit committee to inhibit the mission of the department, the faculty member may be denied merit. It is recognized that there will be some flexibility in the evaluation of such discrepancies.
By the first Friday in February, the Dean shall review the department recommendations and forward them to the Provost. If the Dean disagrees with the department recommendation, the Dean shall notify the department chairperson and the faculty member of the recommendation in writing. The recommendation shall contain reference to each category evaluated including teaching/advising, scholarship, and university/civic/professional service. The Dean shall be responsible for adding this recommendation to the faculty member's evaluation portfolio. Negative recommendations shall be delivered in person by the Dean or sent by certified mail to the faculty member's last known address by the second Friday in February.
Each department will annually determine the merit ranking of faculty members (including lecturers) according to the process outlined in their respective governance documents.
Each faculty member will be rated in each of the areas of teaching, scholarship and service using the following terms:
UNSATISFACTORY: Does not meet minimum expectations (used especially when performance or lack thereof is detrimental to the institution and/or its students).
COMMENDABLE: Performance is noteworthy and goes beyond basic expectations.
SUPERIOR: Superior performance, that which is truly outstanding.
Subsequently, recommendations for merit will be based on the following guidelines:
Not meritorious: Any unsatisfactory rating will result automatically in a merit ranking of "not meritorious." Likewise, if no rating exceeds acceptable in any of the three areas, the resulting merit ranking will be "not meritorious."
Excellent (Base Merit plus one Performance Merit): Superior in at least one area and Commendable in remaining area(s).
Satisfactory (Base Merit): All other contingencies.
Materials to be submitted for Merit and Reappointment
Each department shall submit a single "Department of Merit and Reappointment Binder" consisting of:
The Current Department Merit/Reappointment Recommendation Form (CDMR) prepared by each respective department.
The Departmental Regular Lecturer Merit/Reappointment Form
A separate tab for each Tenured or Tenure-Track faculty member and (regular) Lecturer being recommended for merit which includes the following materials (submitted in the given order):
Fisher College of Science and Mathematics Merit Form (FCSM Merit Form).
Department Summary Report (DSR) Form.
Previous year's AR Part II (the Agreement On Faculty Workload Expectations) and the current year's AR Part I (the Reporting On Activities for Academic Year). This allows a direct comparison between the workload expectation and the subsequent activities.
Current curriculum vitae.
Justification for Denial
A department that makes a negative recommendation for reappointment will furnish the FCSM PTRM Committee with a letter containing specific reasons for the denial.
Appeals and Negative Recommendations
Negative recommendations at any level regarding the annual review, merit, promotion, tenure, reappointment and/or the comprehensive five-year review shall be delivered in writing in person or sent by certified mail to the faculty member's last known address by the administrator at the appropriate level. The chair has responsibility for conveyance of any recommendation made at the departmental level and the Dean has responsibility for conveyance of any recommendation made at the college level. The Provost has responsibility for conveyance of any decision rendered by the Provost. Negative recommendations shall be delivered in writing in person or by certified mail, return-receipt-requested, and post-marked no later than the date on which reports are to be distributed to the faculty member according to the university PTRM calendar.
All appeals shall be made in writing. The timeframe for appeals at all levels is twenty-one (21) calendar days beginning with the date that the negative judgment is delivered in person or the date of the postmark of the certified letter.
There are three (3) types of appeals.
Substantive appeals refer to perceived errors in judgment by either department and/or college PTRM Committees, the department chairperson, the Dean and/or the Provost with regard to evaluation of the faculty member's performance.
The next higher level shall serve as the appeals body. Appeals must be delivered by certified mail or in person to the FCSM PTRM, Dean, or Provost within twenty-one (21) calendar days of notification of the negative recommendation.
The appeal must be in writing, clearly stating the grounds for appeal and must be accompanied by supporting documents. The faculty member may supplement the evaluation portfolio under review with any statement, evidence, or other documentation s/he believes would present a more valid perspective on his/her performance.
Appeals of departmental recommendations shall be copied to the department chair and the department PTRM chair. Appeals of FCSM recommendations shall be copied to the FCSM Dean and the FCSM PTRM Committee.
All challenge material shall be placed in the evaluation portfolio under review no later than five (5) business days before the evaluation portfolio is due to the next level. All material placed in the file, including challenge material, shall become a part of the cumulative expansion of the evaluation portfolio and shall not be removed by subsequent levels of evaluators. The evaluation portfolio under review, with additions, will be forwarded to the next level by the appropriate PTRM Committee chair.
Within fifteen (15) business days of receipt of a formal appeal with attached materials, the recipient of the appeal (e.g. the FCSM PTRM Committee, the university PTRM Committee, or the Provost) shall review the case and provide a written response to the substantive appeal. Copies of this letter will be provided to all parties who were copied on the original appeal letter.
Recommendations made by the Provost may be appealed to the President whose decision is final.
Procedural appeals relate to alleged errors in the procedures followed in the review, recommendation and notification process, and shall follow the procedures below.
Procedural appeals shall be made to the University PTRM Committee.
The appeal must be in writing, clearly stating the alleged procedural error(s). The appeal shall be accompanied by supporting documents and should be delivered by certified mail or in person to the respective Dean, Provost, or UPTRM chair within twenty-one (21) calendar days of having been notified of the negative recommendation.
Appeals of department recommendations shall be copied to the department chair, the department PTRM chair, the Dean and the University PTRM Committee chair. Appeals of FCSM recommendations shall be copied to the FCSM Dean, the FCSM PTRM Committee, the department chair, and the University PTRM Committee chair. Appeals of the Provost's recommendations shall be copied to the Dean and department chair.
Within fifteen (15) business days of receipt of a formal appeal with attached materials, the University PTRM Committee shall review the case and provide a written response. Copies of this response will be provided to all parties who were copied on the original appeal letter.
Recommendations of the University PTRM Committee may be appealed to the President whose decision shall be final. The chair of the University PTRM Committee will monitor the appeal process.
Appeals alleging unlawful discrimination in race, color, religion, age, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and disability shall follow the specific procedures described in Towson University policy 06-01.00 — Prohibiting Discrimination on the basis of Race, Color, Religion, Age, National Origin, Sex and Disability.
The Third Friday in September in the year prior to an evaluation
Faculty notify department chair of intention to submit materials for promotion and/or tenure in the next academic year.
The Fourth Friday in September in the year prior to an evaluation
Department chairperson notifies department faculty, Dean, and Provost of any department faculty member's intention to be reviewed for promotion and/or tenure in the next academic year.
The First Friday in May
Department and FCSM PTRM Committees are formed (elections for membership on the FCSM PTRM Committee are already completed).
The Third Friday in June
All faculty members submit an evaluation portfolio to the department chair.
All faculty members with a negative comprehensive review must have final approval by chair and Dean of the written professional development plan.
August 1 (USM mandated)
Tenure-track faculty in the third or later academic year of service must be notified in writing of non-reappointment prior to the third or subsequent academic year of service if the faculty member's appointment ends after the third or subsequent academic year.
The Second Friday in September
University PTRM Committee shall meet and elect a chair and notify the Senate Executive Committee's Member-at-large of the Committee members and chairperson for the academic year.
The Third Friday in September
FCSM PTRM Committee approval of faculty to be added to a department's PTRM Committee (if necessary).
Final date for faculty to add information to update their evaluation portfolio for work that was completed before June 1.
First-year faculty members must finalize the Statement of Standards and Expectations for New Tenure-Track Faculty (SENTF) with the department chairperson.
The Second Friday in October
Department PTRM committee's reports with recommendations and vote count on all faculty members are submitted to the department chairperson.
FCSM PTRM documents are due to the University PTRM Committee if changes have been made.
The Fourth Friday in October
Department chairperson's written evaluation for faculty considered for reappointment in the first through fifth years, promotion, tenure, and comprehensive five-year review is added to the faculty member's evaluation portfolio and conveyed to the faculty member.
The department chairperson will place his/her independent evaluation into the evaluation portfolio.
The department PTRM committee's report with recommendations and vote count and the department chairperson's evaluation are distributed to the faculty member.
The Second Friday in November
The faculty member's evaluation portfolio, inclusive of the department PTRM committee's written recommendation with record of the vote count, and the written recommendation of the department chairperson, are forwarded by the department PTRM chairperson to the Dean's office.
All documentation to be used as part of the consideration process must be included in the evaluation portfolio.
The Dean must notify the Provost in writing of reappointment/non-reappointment recommendation(s) for tenure-track faculty in their second or subsequent academic year of service. Negative recommendations shall be delivered in person by the Dean or sent by certified mail to the faculty member's home.
The First Friday in December
Department PTRM documents are delivered to the FCSM PTRM Committee if any changes have been made.
The Second Friday in December
First-year tenure-track faculty submit an evaluation portfolio for the Fall semester to the department chairperson.
December 15th (USM mandated date)
Tenure-track faculty in their second and subsequent academic year of service must be notified by the President in writing of non-reappointment for the next academic year.
The First Friday in January
The department PTRM committee reports with recommendations and vote count on all first-year tenure-track faculty are submitted to the department chairperson.
The FCSM PTRM Committee reports with vote counts and recommendations for faculty reviewed for tenure and/or promotion are submitted to the Dean.
The Third Friday in January
The Dean's written evaluation regarding promotion and/or tenure with recommendation is added to the faculty member's evaluation portfolio.
The FCSM PTRM Committee's report with vote counts and recommendations and the Dean's recommendation are conveyed in writing to the faculty member.
The department PTRM committee and chairperson recommendations concerning reappointment for first-year tenure-track faculty are delivered to the faculty member and the Dean.
All documentation for the third year review of tenure-track faculty is submitted by the faculty member to the department chairperson.
Department chair recommendations on reappointment of first-year faculty must be added to the faculty member's evaluation portfolio.
The First Friday in February
The FCSM Dean forwards the summative portfolio inclusive of the Committee's and the Dean's recommendations of each faculty member with a recommendation concerning promotion and/or tenure or five-year comprehensive review to the Provost.
The Dean forwards all recommendations regarding reappointment/non-reappointment of first-year faculty to the Provost. If the Dean disagrees with the department recommendation, the Dean shall prepare his/her own recommendation and send a copy to the faculty member and add this recommendation to the summative portfolio.
The Second Friday in February
The Dean will, following his/her review, forward department recommendations for faculty merit to the Provost. If the Dean disagrees with the department recommendation, the Dean shall add his/her recommendation to the faculty member's evaluation portfolio and deliver the negative decision in person or by certified mail to the faculty member's home.
Department documents concerning promotion, tenure/reappointment, and merit (with an approval form signed by all current faculty members) are submitted to the University PTRM Committee.
Negative reappointment recommendations for first-year faculty are forwarded from the Provost to the President.
First-year faculty must be notified of non-reappointment by written notification from the University President.
First Friday in March
Faculty under third-year review must be provided with written and face-to-face feedback on their performance toward tenure.
Third Friday in March
Provost's letter of decision on promotion and/or tenure is conveyed to the faculty member, department and FCSM PTRM Committee chairpersons, department chairperson, and Dean of the FCSM.