Appendix 3

Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Evaluations: Annual Review, Reappointment, Third-Year Review, Promotion, Tenure, and Comprehensive Five-Year Review

1. GENERAL PRECEPTS AND OVERVIEW

   1. General information regarding the University System of Maryland (USM) policy on evaluation, promotion, tenure, and permanent status may be found in the Board of Regents II-1.00 Policy on Appointment, Rank, and Tenure of Faculty (“USM Policy II-1.00”) and the Towson University Policy on Appointment, Rank, and Tenure of Faculty (“TU ART Policy”).

   2. This Appendix 3 to the TU ART Policy sets forth policies and processes pertaining to faculty annual review, reappointment, third-year review, promotion, tenure, and comprehensive five-year reviews (collectively “Reviews”).  All faculty, programs, departments, and colleges shall abide by both the USM and the Towson University Annual Review, Reappointment, Third-Year Review, Promotion, Tenure, and Comprehensive Five-Year Review Calendar (the “PTR Calendar”). Except as otherwise stated herein, this Appendix does not govern the process for merit recommendations, which is set forth in the Fulltime Faculty Merit Process and Calendar of Merit Evaluation  (the “Merit Procedures”)

   3. All tenured and tenure-track faculty shall be evaluated annually according to the procedures and criteria described herein.
   4. All deliberations pertaining to Reviews at all levels shall be confidential to the full extent allowed by law. The use of generative artificial intelligence tools in reviewing portfolios is prohibited.
   5. All faculty shall annually complete the current version of the Annual Report (“AR”) and Annual Workload Plan (“AWP”) (as described in this Appendix 3) and include it in their evaluation portfolio as described herein by the date specified in the PTR Calendar, incorporated herein. Department chairs shall assist continuing faculty with the development and approval of the AWP.  Such workload expectations shall be aligned with department, college, and University goals based on their respective missions and visions.
   6. All department chairpersons shall:
      1. Complete the Chairperson’s Annual Report (“CAR”) and Chair Annual Workload Plan (“CAWP”) and include these in their evaluation portfolios as described herein.
      2. Each fall, ensure that the current Department Summary Recommendation form for each tenured and tenure-track faculty member holding a full-time contract and is completed by the department PTR chair and included in each faculty member’s Review portfolio.
      3. Comply with the PTR Calendar and share the requirements for Review portfolios with faculty members.
   7. Voting for reappointment, tenure, promotion, and comprehensive five-year review by departments and colleges shall be by secret ballot. Ballots shall be signed by the voting member with their Towson University ID number and dated. The PTR chair shall tally the vote and place the secret ballots in a sealed envelope labeled with the name of the faculty member being evaluated, the department/college, the date, and the PTR chair’s signature. The PTR chair shall forward a signed and dated report of the voting results along with the committee’s recommendations to the next level of review. The secret ballots shall be forwarded by the PTR chair under separate cover to the college dean, to be preserved for a period of three (3) years. No PTR committee member shall abstain from a vote unless the Provost authorizes such abstention based on good cause, including an impermissible conflict of interest.  Faculty who are absent may not vote by proxy and those on sabbatical may vote provided they have reviewed evaluation material and are present at the meeting.
   8. The procedures and expectations for Review set forth in this Appendix may be amended from time to time.
2. CRITERIA FOR REVIEWS
   1. General Principles
      1. The USM Board of Regents establishes the minimum requirements for appointment, promotion, and tenure, as stated in USM Policy II-1.00. The provisions of the USM policy supersede any conflicting provisions in Towson University policies.

      2. Tenure-track faculty members may request a one-year extension of time for tenure consideration based on personal or professional circumstances. Such a request shall include supporting documentation and be submitted in writing to the faculty member’s department chair and dean of the college, who shall make recommendations and subsequently forward the request to the Provost for final approval in their sole discretion. Any agreement to change the Mandatory Tenure-Review Year stated in the faculty member’s contract shall not be effective unless the faculty member’s contract is amended and signed by both the faculty member and the Provost.  If the Mandatory Tenure-Review Year is extended under this provision and the faculty member is ultimately denied tenured status, then the faculty member will have the same rights to a terminal year as if the Mandatory Tenure-Review Year had not been extended. The following is a nonexclusive list of personal and professional circumstances that might support an extension request:

         1. The faculty member assumes primary or equal responsibility for the care of a newborn or newly adopted child;
         2. The faculty member or a family member suffers from a medical illness, disability, or injuries that interferes with their ability to meet professorial responsibilities; or
         3. The faculty member suffers substantial damage to their research, research facilities and/or other documentation that would adversely affect the tenure process, due to occurrences beyond their control (e.g., fire, riots, acts of God, acts of war or terrorism, earthquakes or other disasters). 
      3. Tenure-track faculty who are appointed in mid-year normally will have their Mandatory Tenure-Review Year established without regard to their first partial Academic Year of employment.
      4. A tenure-track faculty member who wishes to pursue a unique full-time professional opportunity off-campus or a major special project for the University prior to mandatory tenure review may petition the Provost for an extension of the Mandatory Tenure-Review Year.  The Provost shall have final authority to grant or deny such petition.  Any agreement to change the Mandatory Tenure-Review Year stated in the faculty member’s contract shall not be effective unless the faculty member’s contract is amended and signed by both the faculty member and the Provost.
   2. Standards and Expectations
      1. University Standards and Expectations
         1. A faculty member shall fulfill their workload agreement in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service, shall be available to students for consultation and advising during office hours, and shall meet all classes as scheduled.
         2. A faculty member shall be an effective teacher both in and out of the classroom.
         3. A faculty member shall be committed to a discipline or interdisciplinary specialty and shall be committed to continuing professional development and demonstration of scholarly growth.
         4. A faculty member shall abide by Board of Regents VII-8.05 Policy on Professional Conduct and Workplace Bullying (“USM Policy VII-8.05”), which stipulates that employees, including faculty, shall exhibit exemplary conduct and use honest effort in the performance of their duties and shall not intentionally engage in unwelcome, severe, or pervasive behavior that a reasonable person would find objectively malicious, degrading, intimidating, or threatening.
         5. A faculty member shall be committed to collegiality and academic citizenship.  “Collegiality and academic citizenship” refers in part to the role and responsibility of faculty in shared decision-making through open and fair processes devised to provide timely advice and recommendations on matters that relate to curriculum, academic personnel, and the educational functions of the institution.  The demonstration of high standards of humane, ethical, and professional behavior is fundamental to collegiality and academic citizenship.  These concepts include mutual respect for similarities and differences on the basis of background, expertise, opinions, and assigned responsibilities.  Collegiality does not imply agreement; a vibrant University community must include the capacity for respectful disagreement among faculty members and administrators.
         6. If, in the judgment of the faculty member’s department chairperson or supervisor, a deficiency in the faculty member’s professional conduct or performance exists that does not warrant dismissal or suspension, a sanction such as a formal warning or censure may be imposed in accordance with the process articulated in the Faculty Gradual Intervention Guidelines (“F-GIG”), provided that the faculty member is first afforded an opportunity to contest the action through the established faculty grievance procedure.
         7. A faculty member shall share the responsibility of University, college, and/or department governance.
         8. A faculty member must participate each year in the faculty evaluation process as described herein.
      2. College Standards, Expectations, and Processes
         1. Each college shall develop a Promotion, Tenure, and Review (“PTR”) document that adheres to University standards, criteria, and/or expectations pertaining to Reviews.  Each college shall develop its own specific standards and expectations.  These must be accompanied by clear criteria for evaluation and must not conflict with those established by the University. College PTR documents are routinely reviewed and must be approved by the University Promotion, Tenure, and Reappointment (“UPTR”) committee.  The college PTR committee must formally respond to changes and/or recommendations resulting from the review by the UPTR committee and submit a clean copy by the due date specified by the UPTR committee for final UPTR committee approval.
         2. College PTR documents pertaining to standards, criteria, and/or expectations of evaluation shall be developed by the college PTR committee.  Colleges shall develop policies for voting and ratifying college PTR documents that must be reviewed and approved by the college PTR and the UPTR committees.  Such college-level policies shall specify that final approval of the college PTR documents shall be approved by a simple majority vote of the tenured/tenure track faculty of the college. Colleges may decide themselves whether such votes are conducted by secret ballot and whether the vote counts shall remain confidential.  The college PTR document must be distributed to all tenured and tenure-track faculty in the college for input at least ten (10) business days prior to the college PTR committee vote on the documents.
         3. College PTR documents shall be submitted for review and approval to the UPTR committee in accordance with procedures and deadlines established by the UPTR committee.
         4. All policies at the college level shall remain in effect until changed according to the procedures described herein.  Faculty members shall be evaluated for tenure pursuant to the college PTR standards and criteria in effect during the year they are first appointed to a tenure-track position at the University. Faculty members shall be evaluated for promotion pursuant to the college PTR standards and criteria in effect in the year of their last promotion or positive comprehensive five-year review whichever is more recent.
      3. Department/Program Standards, Expectations, and Processes
         1. Department chairpersons have overall responsibility for annual faculty workload assignment and review, academic program development, and course offerings for the academic area.
         2. Each department shall adhere to University and college standards, criteria, and/or expectations pertaining to Reviews.  However, each department shall develop its own specific standards and expectations with clear criteria for evaluation, ensuring that they are not in conflict with those established by the University or the college. Departments shall develop policies for voting and ratifying department PTR documents that must be reviewed and approved by the college PTR and the UPTR committees.
         3. The department PTR committee shall formally respond to changes and/or recommendations resulting from the review by the college PTR committee and submit a revised copy to the college PTR committee and the dean of the college for approval prior to the due date specified by the UPTR committee.
         4. All policies at the department/program level shall remain in effect until changed according to the procedures described herein.  Faculty members shall be evaluated for tenure pursuant to the departmental PTR standards and criteria in effect during the year they are first appointed to a tenure-track position at the University. Faculty members shall be evaluated for promotion pursuant to the department PTR standards and criteria in effect in the year of their last promotion or positive comprehensive five-year review, whichever is more recent.
   3. Definition of Evaluation Categories
      1. General Principles
         1. The criteria for faculty evaluation recommendations at Towson University pertaining to Reviews are: (1) teaching effectiveness, including student advising; (2) research, scholarship, and creative activities (in appropriate areas); and (3) service to the community, profession, and University (including department, college, and University levels).  The relative weight of these criteria shall be determined for each faculty member based on the AWP completed in consultation with, and with the approval of, the departmental chair.
         2. Chairs who are responsible for supervising faculty shall be evaluated in the additional category of leadership.
      2. Teaching/Advising Effectiveness
         1. Demonstration of teaching effectiveness may include, but is not limited to: the use of technology; development of new courses and programs (including those involving collaborative or interdisciplinary work and civic engagement); faculty exchanges and teaching abroad and away; off-site-learning; supervision of undergraduate and graduate research and thesis preparation; emphasis on pedagogy including the various learning outcomes defined in a specific curriculum; and assessment of student learning outcomes. Effective teaching also includes fulfilment of advising responsibilities.
         2. Evaluation Forms and Procedures for Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness: Using information presented in the evaluation portfolio, teaching effectiveness shall be evaluated based on the following: student evaluations, peer evaluations (as appropriate), self-evaluation, evaluation of student learning outcomes, and any evaluation by internal or external reviewers, as stipulated in college and/or department PTR policies.
            1. Evaluation of teaching by students
               A.) Student evaluations of instruction are a required part of the evaluation of faculty.  Such an evaluation must be recognized for what it is: one kind of evaluation, to be considered alongside all other measures of teaching effectiveness.
               
               B) All faculty shall be evaluated for all assigned courses taught. This includes all on-load, off-load, on-line, traditional classroom, and hybrid courses taught during the Academic Year, minimester, and summer terms.
            2. Evaluation of teaching by peers
               A) Classroom/clinical visits are required when a faculty member is being considered for reappointment, third-year review, promotion, tenure, or comprehensive five-year review.
               
               B) Departments must develop discipline-specific criteria or guidelines for performing and reporting classroom/clinical observations.  These should be included in the department PTR document submitted to the UPTR committee for approval.
               
               C) Advance notice of at least one (1) week of the peer observation shall be given to the faculty member.

            3. If a faculty member has consistent unsatisfactory student or peer evaluations of instruction, the department chairperson shall develop a remediation plan in consultation with the faculty member.  This plan may include mentoring, additional classroom visitations, and/or instruction in teaching effectiveness.  A plan shall be put in place regardless of the rank and/or tenure status of the faculty.

         3. A primary purpose of the faculty academic advisor is to assist students in the development of meaningful educational plans that are compatible with their professional goals.  The faculty academic advisor shall guide students in refining educational goals and objectives, understanding available choices, and assessing the consequences of alternative courses of action.
      3. Scholarship
         1. Scholarship is widely interpreted and takes many forms, including the scholarship of Application, Discovery, Integration, Teaching and Learning, and/or Public Scholarship (as defined below).  Regardless of type, each faculty member shall be reviewed in terms of continuing professional development and currency in their academic field of scholarship as affirmed by its community of scholars.
            
            Scholarship of Application: Applying knowledge to consequential problems, either internal or external to the University, and including aspects of creative work in the visual and performing arts.
            
            Scholarship of Discovery: Fundamental research or knowledge as an end in itself, including aspects of creative work in the visual and performing arts.
            
            Scholarship of Integration: Applying knowledge in ways that overcome the isolation and fragmentation of traditional disciplines.
            
            Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Exploring the dynamic endeavor involving all the analogies, metaphors, and images that build bridges between the teacher’s understanding and the student’s learning.
            
            Public Scholarship: Engaging in scholarly or creative activity with a commitment to making change for the public good, which often includes collaborative work jointly planned and implemented, and with outcomes disseminated with community partners.
         2. Faculty shall be guided by the definitions of scholarship noted above and further articulated by their department and college on the basis of disciplinary/interdisciplinary intellectual interests.
      4. Service – University/Civic/Professional
         1. University Service: University service includes substantive participation in the shared governance activities of the department, college, and University and student organizations.
         2. Civic Service: Civic service includes participation in the larger community (local, regional, national or global) outside the University in ways that may or may not be directly related to one’s academic expertise, but in ways which advance the University’s mission.
         3. Professional Service: Professional service includes participation in professional organizations and other entities external to the University (local, regional, national, or global) in which one’s expertise is applied and which advances the University’s mission.
3. PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW
   1. Principles
      1. The University shall have faculty evaluation methods that are consistent with, and reflective of, the roles and responsibilities of faculty members. Methodologies should be clearly tied to the vision and mission of the University, college, and department.  Department methods for evaluation shall specify the criteria and process for evaluating faculty roles of teaching, advising, scholarship, and service.  These evaluation methods shall include review of the faculty member’s approved AWP.
      2. Recommendations shall be supported by referring to the faculty member’s performance in each of the categories considered.  Each subsequent level of evaluation shall consider the recommendations of the preceding evaluator(s).
      3. A faculty member who is being considered for tenure prior to their Mandatory Tenure-Review Year and any faculty member who is being considered for promotion to full professor may withdraw from the evaluation process for promotion and/or tenure review at any time prior to submission to the Provost. A faculty member who is being considered for tenure during their Mandatory Tenure-Review Year may not withdraw from the evaluation process.
      4. The faculty member may choose to challenge the recommendation at any level of review through the rebuttal process articulated in this Appendix 3.
      5. All material placed in a faculty member’s evaluation portfolio, 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, provided the material inclusion process has been adhered to with respect to notifying the faculty member.
   2. Portfolio Requirements
      1. The faculty member is responsible for presenting material for Reviews. The faculty member is also responsible for maintaining a personal copy of all materials and information that they include in their portfolio.
      2. Guided by the chairperson and the department and college criteria, the faculty member shall have the responsibility of making distinctions between the various categories of teaching, advising, scholarship, and service and shall include such distinctions, as they deem appropriate in their narrative statements and other documentation relevant to each evaluation portfolio section.
      3. To ensure that all material and documentation used in making recommendations for all reviews contains appropriate information, all documentation shall be submitted in the form of an evaluation portfolio that addresses the professorial role, expectations of faculty in the University, and the faculty member’s college and department criteria. The type of review determines portfolio material and process. Evaluation portfolios shall be submitted as an electronic portfolio.
      4. Contents of the evaluation portfolio are determined by type of Review and minimally must include:^[1]

         
         [1] The Merit Procedures describe the materials that faculty must include in their dossier for their annual merit review.

         1. Portfolio materials for annual review of all faculty:

            1. Completed and signed (a) AR and AWP forms (for faculty) or (b) CAR or CAWP forms (for chairs);

            2. Current Curriculum vitae;
            3. Syllabi of courses taught during the year under review;
            4. Evaluation of teaching and advising, as appropriate, including student evaluations tabulated by an administrative entity other than the faculty member; and
            5. Documentation of scholarship and service.
         2. Portfolio materials for annual review of tenure-track faculty:
            1. All items listed above for the annual review of all faculty; and
            2. Peer and/or chairperson’s evaluation(s) of teaching signed by faculty member and evaluator.
         3. Portfolio materials for first-year tenure-track faculty:
            1. In collaboration with the department chair, first-year tenure-track faculty shall complete the Standards and Expectations for New Tenure-Track Faculty form (“SENTF”) (as described in this Appendix 3) and include it in their portfolio;
            2. The department chairperson shall append to the SENTF form the following materials:
               A) Board of Regents’ and Towson University’s criteria for annual review, reappointment, tenure, promotion, and comprehensive five-year review considerations;
               
               B) Standards and expectations of the University, college, and department; and
               
               C) Any expectations unique to the position;
            3. Peer and/or chairperson’s evaluations of teaching signed by the faculty member and evaluator for the fall semester of the first year; and
            4. Student evaluations of teaching for the fall semester of the first year.
         4. Portfolio materials for third-year review of faculty:
            1. Completed and signed (a) AR and AWP forms for the previous two (2) years;
            2. Current curriculum vitae;
            3. Syllabi of courses taught in the previous two (2) years and the fall semester of the third year;
            4. Peer and/or chairperson’s evaluations of teaching signed by faculty member and evaluator for the previous two (2) years and the fall semester of the third year;
            5. Student evaluations of teaching and advising for the previous two (2) years and the fall semester of the third year; and
            6. A narrative statement in which the faculty member describes how they have met and integrated teaching, advising, scholarship, and service expectations based on their workload plans for the period under review.
         5. Portfolio materials for full review of faculty for promotion and/or tenure:
            1. All items listed above for the annual review of all faculty and all items included in the portfolio from the faculty member’s date of hire or last promotion; and
            2. A narrative statement in which the faculty member describes how they have met and integrated teaching, advising, scholarship, and service expectations based on their workload agreements for the period under review.
         6. Portfolio materials for comprehensive five-year review of all tenured faculty:
            1. All items listed above for the annual review of all faculty for the five (5) years since successful application for tenure and promotion to associate professor or since the submission of the most recent five-year review as associate professor or professor;
            2. Peer evaluations of teaching for, at minimum, courses taught during the prior Academic Year; and
            3. A reflective comprehensive summary in which the faculty member analyzes the preceding five (5) years of their work in the areas of teaching, advising, scholarship, and service.
         7. Unless inconsistent with applicable law, if at any level confidential external reviews are solicited pursuant to departmental or college promotion and tenure policies, they will remain confidential and will not be made available to the faculty member at any point during or after the review.  These external reviews will be stored separately and considered alongside the faculty member’s evaluation portfolio.
      5. During the evaluation process, the faculty member or their chairperson may add to the evaluation portfolio information related to work completed prior to the end of the Academic Year that only becomes available after the deadline stipulated in the PTR Calendar. This information shall relate specifically to the faculty member’s performance as presented by either the faculty member in their evaluation portfolio or in the chairperson’s evaluation of the faculty member’s performance.  Information added by the faculty member to update the evaluation portfolio must be included by the date set forth in the PTR Calendar.  The addition of such material and notification thereof shall not interfere with the time designated for review as described in the PTR Calendar.
      6. Evaluators shall identify with specificity the materials they have reviewed to inform their recommendations.
      7. Evaluators reviewing materials that have been added by the faculty member or administrators during the Review process shall note that they do so in their evaluation statements.  As articulated in the Faculty Gradual Intervention Guidelines (“F-GIG”), Letters of Counseling and Letters of Concern, as defined in the F-GIG, shall not be included in evaluation materials and shall not be considered by evaluators, including the dean, Provost, and President.  Letters of Formal Warning or Censure, as defined in the F-GIG, shall be included in evaluation portfolios after college PTR committee review of the portfolio and shall be included only in evaluation portfolios submitted to the dean, Provost, and President.
      8. Copies of the chairperson’s detailed report with recommendation are included in the evaluation portfolio as it proceeds through the process.  The committee’s written report with recommendation shall provide a detailed rationale for the recommendation, as well as the vote count. All recommendation letters shall be added to the portfolio folder titled “Recommendation letters.”
      9. Any negative recommendations, at any stage of review, should be delivered to the faculty member by a secure file delivery service e-mail system. Appropriate previous-level reviewers, including the department chairperson, department PTR chairperson, and Dean, should be copied on the file delivery service submission.
   3. Document Storage and Delivery
      1. The department chairperson and the college dean shall maintain an electronic copy of the evaluation portfolio materials in accordance with the University’s Records Management Policy 06-06.10.
      2. After the review process is completed, the faculty member shall regain access to their evaluation portfolio. External review letters shall remain confidential and will not be made available to the faculty member at any point before or after the review process.
   4. Evaluation and Reappointment Procedures
      1. Reappointment of First-Year Faculty to Second Academic Year
         1. Following submission of a first-year faculty member’s evaluation portfolio by the deadline specified in the PTR Calendar, the department chairperson shall review the portfolio and meet with the faculty member to discuss the review.
         2. Unless written notice of non-reappointment is given to the first-year faculty member by March 1 of the first Academic Year of service, the faculty member’s appointment shall automatically renew for one (1) additional year of service, as stated in USM Policy II-1.00 Section I.C.3.
         3. If the chairperson recommends non-reappointment, the chairperson shall notify the faculty member and forward the faculty member’s evaluation portfolio to the department PTR committee and dean for their review.
         4. The department PTR committee shall review the first-year faculty member’s evaluation portfolio and forward its recommendation to the dean by the date stipulated in the PTR calendar.
         5. The dean shall review the evaluation portfolio and forward their recommendation to the faculty member and Provost by the date stipulated in the PTR calendar.
         6. If the dean recommends non-reappointment and the Provost accepts that recommendation, the faculty member shall be notified in writing not later than March 1 of their first Academic Year of service.  Alternatively, the Provost may reappoint the faculty member for one (1) additional year to the second year of service.
      2. Reappointment of Second-Year Faculty to Third Academic Year
         1. All second-year faculty must be affirmatively reappointed to a third year of faculty service.
         2. Following submission of a second-year faculty member’s evaluation portfolio, the department PTR committee shall review the portfolio and make a recommendation to the department chairperson for reappointment or non-reappointment.
         3. The department chairperson shall review the recommendation of the department PTR committee and may prepare an independent recommendation for each second-year faculty member reviewed for reappointment.  If the chairperson recommends reappointment, which may only be for one (1) year, the chairperson shall notify the faculty member, the dean, and the Provost of their decision to reappoint the faculty to a third year of service.
         4. If the chairperson recommends non-reappointment, the chairperson shall notify the faculty member and forward the faculty member’s evaluation portfolio to the dean. The dean shall then review the faculty member’s evaluation portfolio.  If the dean disagrees with the department chairperson and recommends reappointment for one (1) year, they shall notify the faculty member and the Provost of their decision to reappoint the faculty to a third year of service.
         5. If the dean recommends non-reappointment and the Provost accepts that recommendation, the faculty member shall be notified in writing not later than December 15 of their second Academic Year of service.  Alternatively, the Provost may reappoint the faculty member for one (1) additional year to a third year of service.
         6. The faculty member may rebut a non-reappointment recommendation to the next highest level in the evaluation process; however, there shall be no rebuttal of the Provost’s decision, which is final.
      3. Annual Reappointment of Faculty to Fourth through Sixth Academic Years
         1. The process of reappointment of faculty to the fourth, fifth, and sixth years of academic service shall be the same.  Appointments to the fourth, fifth, and sixth years of academic service shall be for one (1)-year terms.  Decisions to not reappoint a faculty member to a fourth, fifth, or sixth year of service must be completed and notice of non-reappointment must be provided to the faculty member by August 1 prior to the fourth or subsequent Academic Year of service (as applicable).  Following notice of non-reappointment, faculty are entitled to one (1) terminal year of faculty service.
         2. The process of portfolio review and reappointment/non-reappointment for the fourth, fifth, and sixth Academic Years shall follow the process of portfolio review and reappointment of second-year faculty to a third Academic Year as articulated in this Appendix 3.
      4. Third-Year Progress Toward Tenure Review
         1. At the conclusion of the fall semester during a faculty member’s third year at Towson University, the department PTR committee shall conduct a third-year review of tenure-track candidates.  The intent of the evaluation is to assess progress toward tenure and to advise and mentor the faculty member.  This includes providing assistance where issues or shortcomings in the faculty member’s profile are identified, and encouragement where progress is deemed satisfactory or exemplary.  Department PTR committee evaluations of a candidate’s interim progress will become part of the faculty member’s file at the department level and shared with the dean; however, they will not be forwarded to either the college PTR committee or the Provost. The timeline for the third-year review process is outlined in the PTR Calendar.
         2. The faculty member to be reviewed shall prepare an evaluation portfolio of activities for evaluation by the department’s PTR committee as outlined in this Appendix 3.
         3. The department PTR committee will evaluate the materials and prepare a clear, written statement of the third-year faculty member’s: progress toward tenure addressing teaching/advising; plan for and evidence of scholarly/creative activity; and service and other relevant criteria. This statement shall:
            1. Include an indication of whether or not the faculty member’s work to date is leading towards a positive tenure and promotion decision; and
            2. Provide guidance for the improvement of the evaluation portfolio in the event of a satisfactory or unsatisfactory rating.
         4. The following three-level scale is to serve as a general guideline for the third-year review:
            1. Superior progress. Requirements include excellence in teaching/advising, excellence in scholarship, and meeting department standards in service.
            2. Satisfactory progress. Requirements include progress towards excellence in teaching/advising and scholarly productivity, with satisfactory service as determined by the department.  This ranking indicates that the department has determined that progress towards tenure is satisfactory, but improvements are needed.
            3. Not satisfactory progress. This evaluation requires change by the faculty across one or more dimensions.  This means that continuance on this performance trajectory is unlikely to result in a favorable tenure decision.
         5. Feedback should be both in writing and in a face-to-face meeting with the department chairperson and the department PTR committee chair. The written report will be shared with the dean. The faculty member shall sign a statement indicating that they have read, but do not necessarily agree with, the evaluation.
         6. If a faculty member’s Mandatory Tenure-Review Year is prior to the sixth year of continuous, full-time service, a formal progress toward tenure review should be completed by the department PTR committee no later than the start of the candidate’s third year.
      5. Tenure and/or Promotion
         1. By the date set forth in the PTR Calendar of the Academic Year preceding the Academic Year in which a faculty member intends to submit material for promotion and/or tenure, the faculty member shall notify the department chair of their intention.
         2. By the date set forth in the PTR Calendar of the Academic Year preceding the Academic Year in which a faculty member is to undergo tenure or promotion, the department chairperson shall notify all members of the department PTR committee, the dean, and the Provost of the faculty member’s intention to apply for tenure and/or promotion.
         3. The department PTR committee, department chair, college PTR committee, dean, Provost, and President shall evaluate faculty for tenure and/or promotion.
         4. The Provost may ask the dean, the department chairperson, or the department and/or college PTR committee for additional information prior to making a final recommendation to the President.  The faculty member shall be notified of any such request for additional information.
         5. Tenure may be granted only to faculty holding specific academic ranks, as stated in the USM Policy II-1.00 Section II.A.1, and is not applicable to academic administrative positions.
         6. Tenure review shall occur in the Mandatory Tenure-Review Year specified in the faculty member’s contract, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Provost and the faculty member.  Typically, the Mandatory Tenure-Review Year will be the faculty member’s sixth year of continuous, full-time service, and assistant professors must receive a tenure review no later than during the sixth year of continuous full-time employment in those ranks.  However, a faculty member may request review for tenure and promotion prior to the Mandatory Tenure-Review Year if they have demonstrated extraordinary performance in teaching/advising or scholarship or University/civic/professional services, validated at the national level, and satisfactory or better performance in other performance categories.  A faculty member reviewed for tenure prior to the Mandatory Tenure-Review Year who is denied at the department or college level may withdraw their application for tenure before submission to the next level.  The withdrawal must be set forth in a writing directed to the department PTR committee and department chair.  The next tenure and promotion review will occur in the Mandatory Tenure-Review Year specified in the original faculty contract.
         7. To hire at the rank of associate or full professor with tenure, the tenured members of the department must vote by simple majority to affirm that appointment. The dean then recommends the appointment to the Provost. Application for tenure at rank requires documentation of rank and tenure at the previous institution.  The President must approve any hire involving tenure.
         8. All recommendations regarding promotion and tenure shall be conveyed in writing to the faculty member, inclusive of any department chairperson’s statement and a record of the department PTR committee vote count by the date identified in the PTR Calendar. Negative recommendations shall be delivered to the faculty member by the secure file delivery service e-mail system.
         9. The awarding of tenure and/or promotion requires approval by the President.
         10. Tenure and/or promotion shall be effective on the date indicated in the official letter containing the President’s decision.
         11. A faculty member may request review for promotion to full professor no earlier than in their ninth (9th) year of full-time employment as a tenure-track and tenured faculty member.
      6. Comprehensive Five-Year Review (Post-tenure Review)
         1. All tenured faculty shall be reviewed at least once every five (5) years and summative for a period of the preceding five (5) Academic Years.  The department PTR committee, department chair, dean, and Provost shall evaluate faculty for the comprehensive five-year review.
         2. A faculty member who has submitted formal notice of retirement during the fourth or fifth year of their comprehensive five-year review cycle with an intention to retire at the end of that cycle may be exempted from the comprehensive five-year review process at the discretion of the Provost.
         3. A negative comprehensive five-year review shall be followed by the development of a written professional development plan to remediate the faculty member’s failure to meet minimum expectations as noted in the comprehensive five-year review. The plan shall set forth clear, objective, and measurable improvement expectations and timelines. This written plan shall be developed by the faculty member and approved by the chairperson and the dean by the date set forth in the PTR Calendar of the Academic Year in which the negative review occurred. The faculty member, chair, and dean shall sign the plan. A faculty member’s signature on the plan shall constitute acknowledgement of the plan and shall not be interpreted to constitute agreement with any findings of deficiency.
         4. The professional development plan shall be implemented in the fall semester following approval of the plan.  The faculty member shall provide a progress report on the professional development plan alongside evaluation materials submitted to the department chairperson for annual review. Evidence of improvement must be clearly discernible in evaluation portfolio materials.  Lack of evidence of discernible improvement may result in a formal warning or censure and must be communicated in writing to the faculty member.  A negative annual review determination by the department chairperson must be automatically reviewed by the department PTR committee. The faculty member must be afforded an opportunity to contest the action through the established faculty grievance procedure.
         5. Two (2) consecutive annual reviews indicating that the faculty member has not met minimum expectations as determined by the department PTR committee shall occasion an immediate comprehensive five-year review, which shall be in addition to those otherwise required by policy.
         6. Chairpersons, as faculty members, are included in the comprehensive five-year review process.
         7. Faculty members with joint appointments are to be reviewed according to the schedule of their “home” department.
         8. When a faculty member’s review for promotion to full professor occurs in the same year as a comprehensive five-year review, the five-year review shall be waived upon a successful promotion vote, and the five-year review “clock” shall re-set. Upon a negative promotion vote, the PTR committee(s) shall complete a five-year review using the same portfolio materials provided for promotion review.
4. COMMITTEE STRUCTURE, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES
   1. University Promotion, Tenure, and Reappointment Committee
      1. As a standing committee of the Academic Senate, the composition and responsibilities of the UPTR committee are referenced in the Constitution and By-Laws of the University Senate.
      2. The UPTR committee shall be composed of eight (8) tenured faculty members, one (1) member elected from each of the degree-granting colleges, one (1) appointed by the University Senate, a Provost designee (ex officio without voting privileges) who will serve three-year terms, and one (1) Council of Chairs representative.  UPTR committee members shall not serve concurrently on their college PTR committee.
      3. By the date set forth in the PTR Calendar, the committee shall hold a meeting for the purpose of electing, by simple majority vote, a chairperson, who shall notify the Member-at-Large of the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate of the names of the committee members and the chairperson.
      4. A quorum shall be a simple majority of the voting members.
      5. Duties and Procedures of the UPTR:
         1. Oversee the system of faculty evaluations by establishing the PTR Calendar and University standards and guidelines for faculty evaluation;
         2. Develop and recommend to the Academic Senate policies, procedures, and standards relating to all aspects of faculty evaluation, including promotion/tenure, reappointment, merit, comprehensive five-year review, and third-year review;
         3. Review the rebuttal of a faculty member who has alleged a procedural error in cases of denial of promotion, tenure, reappointment, or comprehensive five-year review.  This review shall be limited to the alleged procedural deficiencies against the applicable procedures.  Upon conclusion of this review, the UPTR committee shall transmit to the Provost an opinion as to whether a procedural deficiency occurred, with copies forwarded to the faculty member, the chair, dean, and departmental and college PTR committees;
         4. Receive all PTR procedure documents from departments and colleges if such documents have been revised either substantively and/or editorially;
         5. Receive all PTR procedure documents from departments and colleges for cyclic six-year review and notify the department chair and dean if documents are not received;
         6. Approve department and college PTR procedures including evaluative procedures and all exceptions from University-wide procedural standards;
         7. For any PTR procedure documents that are not in compliance with University guidelines and standards, notify the chairs of the appropriate department and college PTR committees, the department chair, the dean, and the Provost at end of the Academic Year; and
         8. Submit an annual report to the Academic Senate by the date stipulated in the Senate by-laws.
   2. College PTR Committees
      1. The college PTR committee shall consist of at least one (1) representative from each department elected at large by the college’s tenured, tenure-track, and clinical faculty. The maximum number of members of tenured and clinical faculty on the committee will be defined within each college PTR policy document. Clinical faculty at the associate or full professor rank may be elected to the committee to participate in the discussion and vote on clinical faculty promotion cases. These elections are concluded no later than the date set forth in the PTR Calendar. Members of the committee will serve for a term of three (3) years but for no more than two (2) consecutive terms. These three-year terms will be staggered to ensure some continuity from year to year. Eligible members shall include tenured and clinical faculty at the rank of either associate or full professor.  Department chairpersons are not eligible to serve on college PTR committees.
      2. If a department does not have any faculty eligible to serve on the college PTR committee, an exception to the policy may be made and approved by the dean and the UPTR committee.
      3. The dean shall not serve as a member of the college PTR committee and may not be present during committee deliberations unless invited by the committee chairperson to answer specific questions.
      4. College PTR committee members who are presenting themselves for promotion shall not serve during the year in which any decision relative to their review is undertaken.
      5. Any potential conflicts of interest affecting college PTR committee members shall be considered and resolved by the committee on a case-by-case basis.
      6. In the event of vacancies on the college PTR committee, the college electorate shall choose a replacement before the college PTR committee begins its work.
      7. Each college shall review its PTR document at least every six (6) years and submit evidence of such review to the dean of the college and the UPTR committee.  This requirement permits – but does not mandate – colleges to review their PTR documents more frequently than every six (6) years if they deem it necessary.
   3. Department PTR Committees
      1. All tenured faculty of the department, and only tenured faculty, shall serve as members of the department’s tenure committee.  This committee is responsible for tenure recommendations and third-year review.  The tenure committee may or may not be the same as the PTR committee(s).
      2. Eligible members of the department PTR committee(s) shall be determined by the standards specified in the department’s document as approved by the college PTR committee, the dean, and the UPTR committee.  The department Promotion and Review (“PR”) committee(s) shall make recommendations concerning reappointment, promotions, and comprehensive five-year review.  The department Promotion and Review committee may or may not be the same as the tenure committee.  Only tenured faculty members will vote in the committee(s) for promotion to associate professor or to professor.
      3. The department chairperson shall not serve as a voting member of the department PTR committees. Each department shall develop guidelines for the chairperson’s participation in department PTR committee deliberations.
      4. In order that at least three (3) tenured faculty opinions be considered in promotion and tenure recommendations, departments with fewer than three (3) tenured faculty members shall supplement the committee with tenured faculty members from other departments within the college or from the appropriate department if the faculty member being reviewed has a joint appointment, including a joint appointment between colleges. The additional tenured faculty members shall be selected from a list of at least three (3) faculty members recommended by the faculty member under review.  The faculty member shall submit the list of recommended faculty members by the date set forth in the PTR Calendar.  The department chairperson, in consultation with the dean, will select the additional faculty member(s) to be added to the committee by the date set forth in the PTR Calendar.  Decisions on outside committee members do not need college committee approval.
      5. Each department shall review its PTR document at least every six (6) years and submit evidence of such review to the dean of the college and the UPTR committee. This requirement permits – but does not mandate – departments to review their PTR documents more frequently than every six (6) years if they deem it necessary.
5. REBUTTALS AND NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
   1. Negative Recommendations:
      Negative recommendations at any level regarding Reviews shall be delivered in writing in person or sent via a secure file delivery service e-mail system according to the due dates indicated in the PTR Calendar.  Reviewers are also responsible for placement of their recommendation in the candidate’s portfolio.
   2. Rebuttals
      1. All rebuttals shall be made in writing.
      2. There are three (3) types of rebuttals:
         1. To contest perceived errors in judgment by the department and/or college PTR committees, the department chairperson, the dean, and/or the Provost with regard to evaluation of the faculty member’s performance, the faculty member may submit a written rebuttal.  Rebuttals regarding alleged errors in judgment shall be included in the evaluation portfolio that is sent to all reviewers at levels subsequent to that of the reviewer(s) who committed the alleged error in judgment.
            1. For negative reappointment recommendations, the rebuttal letter, including any clarifying documentation, must be submitted within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the recommendation.
            2. For negative tenure, promotion, and comprehensive review recommendations, the rebuttal letter, including any clarifying documentation, must be submitted within twenty one (21) calendar days of receipt of the recommendation.
            3. Materials not referenced in the original portfolio may be included in the rebuttal only if they refute statements in the contested recommendation.

            4. The candidate’s rebuttal letter shall be directed to the next review authority and placed alongside the recommendation in the candidate’s portfolio. The next review level shall make no recommendation on the candidate’s application until receiving the rebuttal or until the allowed time has elapsed.

            5. The candidate’s rebuttal shall become part of the candidate’s portfolio for review by each subsequent level of the review process.
         2. Procedural rebuttals related to alleged errors in the procedures followed in the review, recommendation, and notification process, and shall follow the procedures below.
            1. Procedural rebuttals shall be directed to the UPTR committee.
            2. The rebuttal must be in writing, clearly stating the alleged procedural error(s).  The rebuttal shall be accompanied by supporting documents and should be delivered by certified mail, a secure file delivery service, or in person to the UPTR committee, copying the respective dean and the Provost, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the faculty member having been notified of the negative recommendation.

            3. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of a formal rebuttal based on alleged procedural error, the UPTR committee shall review the case and provide a written  opinion on the validity of the arguments to be included in the faculty member’s evaluation portfolio, with copies to the faculty member, department chair, dean, and department and college PTR committees.

            4. The UPTR’s opinion letter shall be directed to the next review authority and placed alongside the recommendation and rebuttal in the candidate’s portfolio. The next review level shall make no recommendation on the candidate’s application until receiving the UPTR opinion letter or until the allowed time for UPTR submission has elapsed.
            5. The UPTR opinion level shall become part of the candidate’s portfolio for review by each succeeding level of the review process.
         3. Rebuttals alleging unlawful discrimination shall follow the specific procedures described in Towson University 06-01.00 Policy Prohibiting Discrimination.

      3. The President’s decision on promotion, tenure, and post-tenure five-year reviews shall be final.  For all other Reviews and related decisions, the decision of the Provost shall be final.