REG 05.20.05 - Consultation and Written Assessments, Recommendations and Responses in RPT Review

Authority: Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

History: First Issued: Fall 2000.  Last Revised: November 7, 2012.

Related Policies:
UNC Policy 300.4.2 - Employment of Related Persons
NCSU POL05.20.01 - Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
NCSU REG05.20.20 - Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Dossier Format Requirements
NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Mutual Expectations

Additional References:
Departmental Heads Guide to NC State’s Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure (RPT) Process
Dean’s Guide to NC State’s Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure (RPT) Process
A collection of samples and guidance on how to present sections of the dossier 

Contact Info: Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs (919-513-7741) 

1.  CONSULTATION

1.1  The evaluation of faculty accomplishment rests on consultation with peers in the review process, which includes the Departmental Voting Faculty (DVF), the College Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committees (CRPTC) and scholarly external reviewers.  Consultation must be undertaken by heads, deans, and the Provost in an environment in which the peers are well informed about department and colleges RPT rules and the expectations (NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Mutual Expectations [SME]) and accomplishments of the candidate.  Consultation demands full participation by the members of each group at the department and college levels and includes contributing to an assessment of the quality and impact of the candidate's accomplishments and voting on the proposed action.

1.2  The formal documented basis for the consultation will be the candidate's dossier augmented by external evaluation letters and written assessments, votes, and recommendations produced at preceding levels in the review.  All participants shall have full and convenient access to these materials.  No content summaries, extracts, or abstracts of the dossier should be prepared for formal distribution and presentation to the group without the candidate's advance knowledge.

1.3  While participation in reviews by peers is a responsibility of every member of the DVF and CRTPC, conditions sometimes make physical presence at consultative meetings by all members impossible.  The following guidelines are provided to ensure full participation by each eligible faculty member:

1.3.1  Department Heads and Deans set date(s) of DVF and college committee meeting(s) and communicate the schedule early in the academic year.

1.3.2  Department Heads and Deans facilitate convenient access to dossiers for review.

1.3.3  When members are unable to participate in person, Department Heads and Deans shall facilitate, where possible, confidential arrangements for receiving their consultation.  In such cases, absentee votes are permitted and are to be combined with the votes of those present at meetings.

1.4  In cases where a member of the DVF or the CRPTC bears a relationship to the candidate that is covered by the Board of Governors’ Policy on Employment of Related Persons (UNC Policy 300.4.2), the DVF or CRPTC member is ineligible to vote and will not be counted in the total of eligible votes.

1.5  DVF or CRPTC members must recuse themselves from voting if there is an actual or appearance of a personal or professional conflict of interest.  For example, if a DVF or CRPTC member has been the subject of a grievance or complaint by the candidate or vice versa, the DVF or CRPTC member must recuse himself or herself.  The Department Head should record the number of recusals on the dossier cover form.

1.6  On each RPT case, each member eligible to vote shall vote “Yes,” “No,” or “Abstain.”  Members eligible to vote who do not enter one of these three votes must recuse themselves or they will be considered as not participating and their votes will be reported as missing.(see Section 1.5).

2.  WRITTEN ASSESSMENTS BY THE DVF AND CRPTC

2.1  Introduction

2.1.1  The written assessments by the DVF and CRPTC provide the formal record of review of the quality and impact of the accomplishments of each candidate relative to the SME and the Department and College Rules.  These documents are to be fully shared among all participants: the candidate, the DVF, the Department Head, the CRPTC) the Dean, the University Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee (URPTC) (for those cases they are asked to review), and the senior academic administrators who conduct the final portion of the review.  In the case of joint appointments, the record of review at each level (DVF, department head, CRPTC, Dean) will be shared among all units involved in the appointment.  The Department Head, the Dean, and the Provost each have defined coordinating responsibility in assuring the timely and appropriate sharing of these materials during the course of the review.

2.2  Written assessments by the DVF focus on relevance to departmental standards and NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Mutual Expectation.  Those prepared by the CRPTC focus on relevance to college level standards and the degree to which it is clear that the department review maintained its relevance to stated departmental standards and was undertaken in a manner that supports a fair decision.  Those prepared at the university level, by the University Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee upon the request of the Provost, focus on university standards described in NCSU POL05.20.01 - Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure and the degree to which the college and department level reviews maintained their relevance to stated college and departmental standards and process.

2.3  The following points should be considered in preparing written assessments:

2.3.1  Provide description rather than argument.  Do not compose written assessments as arguments for or against the proposed action nor as a justification for the vote of the group.  Rather focus on describing the judgments expressed in the group as to quality and impact of the accomplishments of the candidate relative to the appropriate standards.

2.3.2  Be inclusive in scope.  Describe the range of clearly expressed peer viewpoints on the quality and impact of the candidate’s work.  It is not the role of the written assessment to represent only the viewpoints on which all or a majority of the members of the review group agree; rather, it should describe the range of viewpoints.

2.3.3  Refer only to the accomplishments of the candidate who is the subject of the review.  Make no comparison or reference to any other individuals, by name or any other means by which those persons can be uniquely identified.  Moreover, the written assessment should make no reference to personal characteristics of the individual, but rather it should focus on the accomplishments of the individual.

3.  WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS BY DEPARTMENT HEADS AND DEANS

3.1  Recommendations are prepared by Department Heads and Deans based on their own evaluation of each case, informed by the written assessments preceding them and their own assessments of faculty performance (i.e. Department Head’s annual review). They summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the case for the proposed action and make a recommendation that either endorses or does not endorse the proposed action.  Recommendations should refer only to the accomplishments of the candidate and should not refer or make comparisons to other individuals by name or other means of identification.  Recommendations should reflect on the quality and impact of the accomplishment of the candidate relative to NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Mutual Expectation and applicable standards.  In cases of recommendations against promotion of tenured faculty, the recommendation should identify areas in which improvement should be sought by the candidate.

4.  OPTIONAL CANDIDATE RESPONSES

4.1  Candidate responses provide opportunity for the candidate to offer clarification at the completion of the department review (i.e., to the Department Head within five (5) business days upon receipt of the DVF vote and assessment and the Department Head’s recommendation) and at the completion of the college review (i.e., to the dean within five (5) business days upon receipt of the CRPTC vote and assessment and the Dean’s recommendation).  The candidate’s statement should not refer to other individuals by name or other means of identification.

5.  SCHOLARLY EXTERNAL EVALUATIONS

5.1  Evaluations by accomplished scholars who are not a part of the NC State community provide a valuable element in assessing the accomplishments of faculty (note: external evaluations are not required for reappointments).  External evaluations must be solicited and reviewed in the form of letters of evaluation.

5.2  Identifying Scholarly External Evaluators

5.2.1  Evaluators must not be members of the NC State faculty.

5.2.2  All evaluators must be persons with significant expertise and reputation in the field of the individual faculty member under review.  Wherever possible, care should be taken to avoid requesting evaluations from individuals who now or in the past have had a close working relationship with the faculty member, were the candidate’s major professor or were members of the candidate’s doctoral advisory committee.

5.2.3  The candidate must be given the opportunity to suggest names of evaluators.  In arriving at the collection of scholars from which evaluations will be solicited, these suggestions will be considered by the Department Head along with guidance from members of the DVF, the candidate’s mentor(s), or others with expertise appropriate to the area of specialty of the candidate, as appropriate.  College Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Rules may also require the Dean’s review or approval of selected reviewers.

5.2.4  Evaluators should be selected with the aim of obtaining evaluations from at least five (5) individuals.  If fewer than five letters are included in the dossier, the Department Head’s assessment must explain why five (5) letters were not received.

5.3  Obtaining Scholarly External Evaluations

5.3.1  The Department Head should consult with the candidate regarding the appropriate sample of the candidate’s scholarly work and other documentation to be provided to external evaluators to facilitate their review.

5.3.2  Each evaluator should be provided an appropriate sample of the candidate’s scholarly work and asked to comment on the quality, quantity, impact, and creativity of the candidate’s accomplishments.

5.3.3  All correspondence with external evaluators should be initiated by the Department Head or a member of the DVF specifically designated by the Department Head for this communication purpose.

5.3.4  All external evaluators must be informed that their letters will become part of the personnel file of the candidate, and that, accordingly, the letters may be examined by the candidate upon request.

5.4  Inclusion of Scholarly External Evaluations in the Dossier

5.4.1  All solicited external evaluation letters received are to be included by the Department Head in the candidate’s dossier for review at the departmental, college, and university levels.  However, any letters received too late to be included in all the levels of review, i.e., letters received after review by the DVF, shall not be added to the dossier for the subsequent reviewers.

5.4.2  External evaluation letters should be preceded in the candidate’s dossier by a listing, prepared by the Department Head or designee, of the names of the evaluators including their current academic and/or professional affiliations, a brief biographical statement, and indications of how each reviewer was selected (i.e., at the suggestion of the candidate, the departmental voting faculty, or the department head.)

5.4.3  Original copies of all solicited external letters received should be included in the dossier which becomes part of the permanent personnel file of the candidate located in Human Resources.  A copy of the letters should be retained in the faculty member’s personnel file in the department.

5.4.4  Candidates may ask to review external letters included in the dossier.  Although the opportunity for this review differs by department or college practice, the review generally does not take place before the candidate receives the DVF and Department Head assessments and has the opportunity to respond to the departmental assessments.