RUL 05.67.301 – Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures

Authority: Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

History: First Issued: August 16, 2002. Last Revised: April 1, 2014.

Related Policies: 
NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
NCSU RUL05.67.308 – College of Engineering Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures
NCSU REG05.20.27 – Statements of Mutual Expectations

Additional References:
Office of the Provost RPT Website
Contact Info: Department Head (919-515-2331)


1. Introduction

This rule describes the standards and procedures for reappointment, promotion and tenure (RPT) in the Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering and is supplemental to and consistent with the college rule and university NCSU POL05.20.01 – Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure.

The Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering administers three undergraduate degree programs: Civil Engineering, Construction Engineering and Management, and Environmental Engineering. The mission of the department, which embraces the threefold mission of both the college and university, is “to provide: high quality undergraduate programs that continually incorporate advances in civil, construction, and environmental engineering technology; post baccalaureate educational programs to satisfy the need for highly educated engineers in various specialty areas of civil engineering; research activities consistent with the responsibilities of a research institution to develop new technology for the solution of emerging problems and to support programs of graduate education; extension and public service activities through the development of professional technical assistance and continuing education programs.”

2. Areas of Faculty Responsibility

The six realms of faculty responsibility include: (1) teaching and mentoring students, (2) discovery of knowledge through discipline-guided inquiry, (3) creative artistry and literature, (4) technological and managerial innovation, (5) extension and engagement with constituencies outside the university, and (6) service in professional societies and within the university itself. The manner in which various faculty members may demonstrate their credentials in these realms may vary widely.   Thus, an assessment of a particular faculty member’s individual combination of contributions will be evaluated using the standards described in sections 3 – 6 of this rule.

3. General Standards

3.1 Tenure Track Faculty

3.1.1 The College of Engineering (COE) has published its standards of performance at the levels of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor.   These qualifications and expectations of performance are incorporated herein by reference.

3.1.2  Evidence of good teaching must accompany each positive recommendation for promotion.

3.1.3  Each faculty member is expected to work in a collegial manner.

3.1.4 Ultimately, the vote reflects the collective judgment of the departmental voting faculty (DVF) in consideration of the standards presented in sections 3 to 6. A strong faculty vote is expected to support a positive departmental recommendation for reappointment, promotion and/or tenure. Positive recommendations typically have had the support of 80% or more of all votes cast. The minimum amount of support for a positive recommendation has been two thirds of all votes cast.  It is recognized that there could be exceptions to these guidelines in exceptional cases. A department head may, of course, make a recommendation that is not consistent with a strong DVF vote. It is expected that such cases would be reviewed carefully at higher university levels.

3.2 Non-Tenure Track Faculty

3.2.1. Evidence of good teaching, research, scholarship, and service consistent with the candidate’s SME must accompany each positive recommendation for promotion.

3.2.3. Each faculty member is expected to work in a collegial manner.

3.2.4. Ultimately, the vote reflects the collective judgment of the departmental voting faculty (DVF) in consideration of the standards presented in sections 4 to 6.   A strong faculty vote is expected to support a positive departmental recommendation for reappointment and promotion. Positive recommendations typically have had the support of 80% or more of all votes cast.   The minimum amount of support for a positive recommendation has been two thirds of all votes cast.   There could be exceptions to these guidelines in exceptional cases. A department head may, of course, make a recommendation that is not consistent with a strong DVF vote. It is expected that such cases would be reviewed carefully at higher university levels.

4. Standards for Reappointment as Assistant Professor

4.1 Assistant Professor (Tenure Track)

Reappointment as Assistant Professor requires that the individual is making satisfactory progress towards promotion to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure (Section 5).

5. Standards for Associate Professor with Tenure

5.1 Associate Professor with Tenure

Promotion to Associate Professor with tenure will be evaluated for each faculty member with an appropriate and individual integration across the faculty member’s contributions in teaching, research and extension with due consideration to effective service to the institution. In general, the expectation is that a faculty member will have demonstrated the potential to achieve national or international recognition for the faculty member’s contributions in scholarship and leadership.

5.2 Teaching Associate Professor (Non-Tenure)

Promotion to Teaching Associate Professor will be evaluated for each faculty member with an appropriate and individual integration across the faculty member’s contributions in teaching with due consideration to other contributions to the department’s mission such as effective service to the department, college, and university. In general, the expectation is that a faculty member will have demonstrated the potential to achieve campus level recognition for the faculty member’s contributions in teaching and education.

5.3 Research Associate Professor (Non-Tenure)

Promotion to Research Associate Professor will be evaluated for each faculty member with an appropriate and individual integration across the faculty member’s contributions in research and scholarship with due consideration to effective service to the department, college, and university. In general, the expectation is that a faculty member will have demonstrated the potential to achieve national or international recognition for the faculty member’s contributions in research and scholarship.

6. Standards for Promotion to Professor level Rank

6.1 Professor with Tenure

Promotion to Professor will be evaluated for each faculty member with an appropriate and individual integration across the faculty member’s contributions in teaching, research and extension with due consideration to effective service to the institution. In general, the expectation is that a faculty member will have achieved national or international recognition for the faculty member’s contributions in scholarship and leadership. However, for promotion to Professor, cumulative outstanding leadership within the university, over an extended number of years, that contributes to the national or international recognition of university programs may be heavily weighed in lieu of the faculty member’s individual national or international recognition for scholarship and leadership.

6.2 Teaching Professor (Non-Tenure)

Promotion to Teaching Professor will be evaluated for each faculty member with an appropriate and individual integration across the faculty member’s contributions in teaching with due consideration to other contributions to the department’s mission such as effective service to the department, college, and university. For promotion to Teaching Professor, the expectation is cumulative outstanding teaching, leadership, and service within the department, college, and university. Contributions to all aspects of the department’s mission including, but not limited to, academic advising, serving on and leading departmental committees, oversight of multi-section courses and engagement in scholarly activities and/or outreach activities associated with departmental and university initiatives, will be evaluated.

6.3 Research Professor (Non-Tenure)

Promotion to Research Professor will be evaluated for each faculty member with an appropriate and individual integration across the faculty member’s contributions in research, scholarship, and leadership with due consideration to effective service to the department, college, and university. In general, the expectation is that a faculty member will have achieved national or international recognition for the faculty member’s contributions in research, scholarship, and leadership.

7. Procedures for RPT Review

7.1. The DVF reviews all faculty below the rank of Professor annually for possible reappointment, promotion and tenure. The DVF selects those candidates that it will consider for further action. In addition, individual faculty members may decide to undergo a review for promotion under university guidelines. Mandatory cases follow the university schedule.

7.2. For promotion cases for both tenure track and non-tenure track faculty, the Department Head appoints an ad-hoc committee typically consisting of three DVF members (upon the request of the Department Head, emeriti faculty may serve in a supporting role). The ad-hoc committee works with the candidate to facilitate preparation of the candidate’s dossier and supporting information. While the ad-hoc committee advises the candidate, the final preparation of the dossier and supporting information is the candidate’s sole responsibility (except for the external review letters). External letters are required for all promotion cases with the exception of promotion of non-tenure faculty from teaching assistant to teaching associate professor.

7.3. In cases where external letters are required, the ad-hoc committee consults with the candidate to identify the names of appropriate reviewers. The candidate is permitted to suggest up to three outside reviewers. The ad-hoc committee members work with the Department Head and possibly other members of the DVF to identify additional outside reviewers. The number of outside reviewers will be chosen to meet the guidelines of the Provost’s office. The outside reviewers will be asked to assess the candidate’s scholarly and professional contributions.

7.4. The ad-hoc committee reviews and becomes familiar with the candidates’ dossier and his or her contributions to teaching, research, service, and extension. The ad-hoc committee typically provides an overview of the candidate’s contributions to initiate the DVF discussion. The ad-hoc committee, however, is not to make a recommendation regarding the action being considered.

7.5. In any case where external letters are provided, these letters will be made available to the DVF prior to and during the DVF discussion. If some letters have not yet been obtained prior to the discussion, the DVF may choose to delay the discussion or vote until more are received. In any case, all letters received are made available for review by the DVF, and all letters are provided to the COE RPT committee.

7.6. A given case is discussed during one or more DVF meetings until the DVF is ready to vote.

7.7. When the DVF votes on a personnel action, a vote will be counted for any member present or any member who submits an absentee vote with the Department Head, or with another DVF member, prior to the vote.   Any DVF member who cannot be present is strongly encouraged to submit an absentee vote.   Any DVF member who submits an absentee vote is expected to become sufficiently familiar with the case to cast a knowledgeable vote. The outcome of the vote is announced at the meeting. Any DVF member who does not participate in the vote and does not submit an absentee vote will be recorded as missing unless they submit a vote by 5 PM on the day of the vote. Conditions under which a faculty member must recuse themselves from a case are described in REG 05.20.05. Faculty should notify the Department Head in writing or by email 5 days in advance if they plan to recuse themselves.

7.8. The ad-hoc committee drafts a written summary assessment that captures the major issues discussed during the DVF discussion. The draft is made available to all members of the DVF so that they may read it and make comments over a period of approximately 2 to 3 days. The ad-hoc committee then finalizes the written summary assessment that becomes part of the dossier. The dossier remains available for review by any DVF member until the RPT process is concluded.

7.9. The Department Head writes an assessment and makes a recommendation.

7.10. The DVF assessment and the Department Head’s assessment and recommendation are provided to the candidate who, following the guidelines of the Provost’s office, may write a response for inclusion in the package sent to the Dean.

7.11. Typically, the DVF discussions are held in a series of meetings during the fall semester. The overall timetable is carried out to meet the schedule set by the Offices of the Dean and the Provost.