Chapter 3 — Section 4-5
Chapter 3 — Section 4-5
4.0 Reconsideration of materials during the process
It may occasionally be appropriate, while a review is in process, for one or more parties to the review to reconsider the case. Such a re-review may be prompted either by procedural problems or by significant new information. Consultation with OAA is required before an administrator or faculty review body initiates a reconsideration of a case.
A candidate may raise issues about the review process during the review, through the comments process provided for in Faculty Rule 3335-6-04. When appropriate, these issues should be addressed at the time they are raised. The TIU head may wish to consult with the dean and/or the vice provost for academic policy and faculty resources regarding the best way(s) to address a particular issue.
4.1 Procedural error description and procedures
Significant procedural errors (those that reasonably could have affected the outcome of deliberations) are to be corrected before the review continues. If a review body or unit administrator becomes convinced that such an error has occurred, that body or administrator is to take necessary steps to correct the error at the level of review at which it occurred. The case is to be fully reconsidered from that point on.
If internal letters of evaluation and comments letters have already been generated at that level of review and beyond, they are to be saved but not included in the dossier. The new written evaluations should note that reconsideration took place because of a procedural error and state the nature of the error. The comments process must be repeated for the new internal letters of evaluation at the TIU or college level.
4.2 Significant new information
Generally, reviews proceed on the basis of a candidate’s record at the beginning of the review process. Occasionally it may be appropriate to amend the record when significant new information about items already contained in the dossier becomes available. Examples include acceptances or publication of works listed as in progress; funding of grants listed as submitted; or contracts or patents that have received a license or other commercial activity. An amended record must be reviewed by all parties to the review process.
If new information about items already contained in the dossier becomes available before a case leaves the TIU, but after the TIU eligible faculty has voted, the TIU head may immediately pose to the TIU eligible faculty committee the question of the appropriateness of reconsideration. If the information becomes available after a case has left the TIU, a higher-level review body must return the case to the TIU if either the eligible faculty or the TIU head have given a negative recommendation.
New information is not accepted after the dossier has been submitted to OAA. Once the dossier has been submitted to OAA, the only information that may be added is information that corrects errors with items already included in the dossier.
4.2.1 Recommended procedures for significant new information
Following review of significant new information (which need not take place in a meeting), the TIU deliberative body may take a preliminary vote to determine whether to reconsider the case. A preliminary poll may take the form of a ballot asking each member of the deliberative body to indicate whether the new information might change their vote. If one person indicates that their vote might change, the TIU deliberative body shall meet to discuss the case with the new information and re-vote. The originally generated reports will then be amended to reflect the content of the reconsideration and the new vote. In this situation:
- Previously generated reports remain in the dossier.
- The comments process is repeated.
- The case then proceeds to the next level in the review process either for initial consideration or reconsideration. If that body has previously considered the case, it must meet to discuss the case with the new information and re-vote. The originally generated reports will then be amended to reflect the content of the reconsideration and the new vote.
5.1 Withdrawals
A candidate may withdraw from a review at any time. Only the candidate can stop a review for promotion and tenure once external letters of evaluation have been sought.
5.1.1 Withdrawals from a nonmandatory review
When a faculty member withdraws from a nonmandatory review, the withdrawal is noted in the case in Interfolio. The dossier should be kept in the candidate’s TIU, but not in their primary personnel file, until such time as the candidate either is promoted or is denied tenure.
A candidate who decides to terminate a nonmandatory review is to put the request in writing and address it to the administrator at the level at which the case presently resides (regional campus, TIU, college, OAA). A faculty member who withdraws from a nonmandatory review continues at the rank they held at the start of the review.
The administrator at that level will notify all other relevant administrators.
5.1.2 Withdrawals from a mandatory review
A candidate who decides to withdraw from or declines to participate in a mandatory review is to put the request in writing and address it to the administrator at the level at which the case presently resides (regional campus, TIU, college, OAA). Probationary faculty who withdraw from or decline to participate in a mandatory fourth year review, tenure review, or promotion with tenure review are subject to the relevant standards of notice per Faculty Rule 3335-6-08. In such circumstances, the dean will inform the faculty member in writing of the following:
- Last day of employment (no later than May 31 of the year following the mandatory review year). Normally this is the end of the seventh year but may be earlier if the faculty member had a shorter probationary period.
- A statement that the decision to terminate the review is irrevocable.
- For tenure-track faculty, a statement that tenure will not be granted.
This action requires that the Report of Nonrenewal of Probationary Appointment of Tenure-track, Clinical/Teaching/Practice, and Research Faculty be submitted to OAA, along with a copy of the dean’s letter to the faculty member, by June 1 of the year in which the decision to terminate the review occurs.
OAA will keep accurate records of such an action since, like a negative decision, it must be assessed before rehiring the individual in another track or unit (see Faculty Appointments Policy).
5.2 Negative decisions
If the outcome of a nonmandatory review is negative, the candidate continues at the rank they held at the start of the review.
If an untenured candidate is denied tenure, they must be notified promptly of this decision and informed in writing that May 31 of the year following the mandatory review year is the last day of employment. The nonrenewal letter must be accompanied by a copy of the material on appeals (see Faculty Appointments Policy).
The termination date is May 31 regardless of hire date. May 31 will be the final working day for those who are denied tenure, with a final pay-out effective on that day for both 9-month and 12-month faculty.
A negative decision usually precludes rehiring the individual, particularly in a new tenure-track faculty appointment (see Faculty Appointments Policy).
5.3 Appeals of negative tenure, promotion, or reappointment decisions
Section 1.0 in chapter 4: Appeals and Complaints Procedures, outlines the process for appealing a negative tenure, promotion, or reappointment decision.