Keck Science Handbook Section 2 Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Policies and Procedures

2.1 Statement of Criteria

2.2 Timing of Reviews

2.3 Operating Procedures for Personnel Reviews

2.4 Schedule for RPT Procedures

2.5 Lateral Tenure-Initial Appointments with Tenure

2.6 Grandfathering of Tenure Policies

2.7 Appeal of an RPT Decision

This section establishes the standards and procedures by which Keck Science faculty members are considered for reappointment, promotion and tenure in all disciplines of the department. It has been designed to provide fair consideration for all candidates consistent with the policies of the three cooperating Keck Science Colleges. 

2.1 Statement of Criteria

2.1.a Introduction

The academic profession demands several loyalties of its members. They share a local attachment to an institution of higher education and a field attachment to an honorable profession. Faculty members are responsible for the educational advancement of their students, for the well-being of the institution of which they are members, and they are also active participants in fields of inquiry.

The Keck Science Department, as a vital center of undergraduate education, seeks to promote the model of teacher-scholars whose ability and interest in teaching are maintained at a high level and whose scholarly activity is of value to their discipline. Service, in the sense of sharing in the responsibilities of institutional life, is also an integral part of the teacher-scholar’s relationship to the Colleges. Activity and accomplishment in each area are necessary for the growth and advancement of the individual and of the Colleges.

Reappointment, promotion, and tenure are determined by the faculty member’s contributions to the department and to the Keck Science Colleges in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.

2.1.b Specific Criteria

Teaching and Academic Advising

Keck Science faculty members are expected to be excellent teachers and advisors. Teaching derives from a thorough and demonstrated knowledge of one’s field and recent developments in it, from the ability to present that knowledge systematically and coherently, and from the ability to develop new and original curricular concepts. Effective teachers communicate their own enthusiasm for the subject to students and seek always to increase their students’ capacity for independent and creative thought and work. Thoughtful academic advising is an important element of teaching. Faculty are expected to make themselves available to students as a resource and to participate actively in academic advising activities.

Scholarship

Scholarship takes the form of original contributions in one’s field. Keck Science faculty members are expected to show energy and initiative in establishing and sustaining a research program. Normally, evidence of this includes articles and reviews in refereed journals, monographs presenting original ideas, peer reviewed conference proceedings, and chapters in edited books. Further evidence may include grants from outside funding sources, both public and private. Activities such as writing textbooks, presenting curricular material in refereed journals, presenting original research at professional meetings, and presenting and writing for public audiences can be submitted as supplemental evidence of scholarship.

A candidate’s scholarly work is evaluated for its originality and significance and for the nature of the candidate’s contributions to collaborative projects, not merely for its quantity. It is recognized that the rate at which a research project develops varies considerably from project to project, and that this should be taken into account when evaluating a candidate’s scholarly effort. By the time of the Reappointment review, it will be the candidate’s responsibility to demonstrate significant evidence of an independent research program with the promise to meet the criteria for tenure.

Scholarship is also valued for its contribution to undergraduate education. Faculty members are expected to include students, when feasible, as participants either in their own research programs or in other significant research projects. 

Service

Service is the third important criterion that is reviewed during the reappointment, promotion and tenure process. Service includes participation on Keck Science, collegiate, and intercollegiate committees, participation in the governance of professional associations, and, where related to one’s scholarly pursuits, participation in public affairs at the local, regional, or national levels.

2.2 Timing of Reviews

The timing of various reviews, along with the special features that characterize each review level, are as follows: 

2.2.a Annual Reviews

The Keck Science ADC in consultation with the discipline convener or with the chair of the Ad Hoc Interdisciplinary Committee will conduct an annual review of each untenured faculty member who is on a tenure-track contract in years when the faculty member is not being reviewed by the RPT Committee for reappointment or tenure. The review will cover the faculty member’s performance since the previous review (or the date of hire), and the Keck Science ADC will prepare a written summary indicating the faculty member’s progress towards tenure in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. The procedures for the conduct of the annual review are shown below in Section 2.3.b and may be revised at any time by the Keck Science ADC and the Keck Science Executive Committee. 

2.2.b Reappointments

The initial contract is normally for three years, and the review for Reappointment occurs during the final contract year. The decision to reappoint is important, but should not be confused with the decision on tenure. In particular, the reappointment process differs from that for tenure in that promise, not just performance, may be invoked.  

2.2.c Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure

Consideration for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure normally occurs during the third year of the second three-year contract. Tenure decisions are made with the greatest care since these decisions have an enormous impact on the future of both the faculty member and the department. 

Tenured faculty members have permanent or continuous tenure. In accordance with AAUP guidelines, their employment may be terminated only due to cause, program termination, or financial exigency. 

2.2.d Promotion to Full Professor

Consideration for promotion to Full Professor normally occurs during the seventh year in rank as Associate Professor, with promotion, if granted, effective the following academic year. 

Promotion to Full Professor is not automatic. Before promotion to Full Professor occurs, clear signs must exist that a candidate’s teaching effectiveness, scholarly activities, and other contributions to the Colleges are continuing at a high level. If a promotion decision is negative, the candidate may request reconsideration no sooner than two years thereafter. 

2.3 Operating Procedures for Personnel Reviews

This section of the Keck Science Handbook contains detailed procedures both for Annual Reviews and for Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Reviews of tenure-track faculty members. Deadlines are assigned for all steps in these processes to assure that the reviews are completed expeditiously. However, any of the deadlines may be extended by either the Keck Science Dean or the lead College President. Any such changes should be reported promptly to the candidate. 

2.3.a Procedures for Ongoing Teaching Evaluations

To help provide a comprehensive assessment of the quality of a faculty member’s teaching, both students and departmental colleagues are asked to participate in the evaluation process in advance of the reviews. The mechanisms for this participation are described in the paragraphs below.  

At the end of each semester, students will evaluate the teaching effectiveness of Keck Science faculty through the use of “Course Evaluation Survey Forms.” Two types of forms are utilized. On the first, students provide numerical responses to a wide range of questions (currently, the CMC on-line course evaluation form). The results of this evaluation along with the average values for these questions on all courses in the faculty member’s discipline are made available to the faculty member, the Keck Science Dean, the Keck Science Academic Deans and Presidents as requested, and the students at all three Keck Science colleges. On the second form, students provide written responses to questions (the “Keck Science Student Comment” form). The instructions for this form state that the student responses may be read by the faculty member, the Keck Science Dean, and any others involved in the RPT review process.

Keck Science departmental colleagues will evaluate the teaching effectiveness of Keck Science Assistant and Associate Professors through classroom visitations. The Keck Science Dean will consult with the faculty member to ensure that the colleagues chosen for the visitations (who need not be in the faculty member’s discipline) and the visitation plan are mutually acceptable. In consultation with the faculty member’s discipline convener, the Keck Science Dean will help to ensure that a sufficient number of colleagues visit the classrooms of each Assistant and Associate Professor to meet the requirements described in Section 2.3.c.2.1 e) below. If an Associate Professor chooses not to be evaluated for promotion to Full Professor, the Keck Science Dean will determine, in consultation with that faculty member, an appropriate plan for classroom visitations.

2.3.b Annual Reports and Reviews for Keck Science Faculty

2.3.b.1 Untenured Faculty

In years when they are not being reviewed by the RPT Committee for reappointment or tenure, untenured faculty members of Keck Science who are on a tenure-track contract will submit an annual report to the Keck Science Dean. This report will be submitted by the second Friday in April of each academic year and will cover the faculty member’s performance since the previous review (or the date of hire) in the three areas listed as criteria for reappointment, promotion and tenure. The outline in Appendix A  should be used as a guide to the content of the report.

The annual report will include the summary reports of the CMC numerical evaluation forms and the Keck Science Student Comments forms for each course taught by the untenured faculty member during the previous two semesters. These summary reports and forms are available through the Keck Science office. In addition, the annual report will include appropriate evaluation forms for non-Keck Science courses taught at any of The Claremont Colleges.

The annual report will be distributed to the tenured members of the faculty member’s discipline or Ad Hoc Interdisciplinary Committee and to the Keck Science ADC (faculty on leave may participate in the review process but are not required to do so). It is the responsibility of the tenured members of the discipline or Ad Hoc Interdisciplinary Committee to provide constructive feedback and advice regarding the candidate’s progress toward reappointment/tenure. This advice will be communicated to the faculty member by the Keck Science Dean prior to the meeting described immediately below.

The Keck Science ADC and the convener of the faculty member’s discipline or chair of the faculty member’s Ad Hoc Interdisciplinary Committee will then meet with the untenured faculty member before August 1 to discuss the faculty member’s report and any other relevant materials. Within fourteen days after this meeting, the Keck Science ADC will prepare a written summary of the discussion indicating the faculty member’s progress towards tenure in each of the three areas of teaching, scholarship, and service and send it to the faculty member who may elect to write a response. The written summary, any response from the faculty member, and the faculty member’s report will become part of the faculty member’s personnel file to be made available to the Keck Science RPT Committee during the reviews for reappointment, promotion and tenure. 

2.3.b.2 Tenured Faculty

All Full Professors and, in years when they are not being reviewed by the RPT Committee for promotion to Full Professor, all Associate Professors in the Keck Science Department shall each submit an annual report to the Keck Science Dean. This report will be submitted by the second Friday in April of each academic year and will comprise an updated CV and, if the faculty member so chooses, a statement of activities typically not included in a CV of contributions to the department, the Keck Science Colleges, and the professional community at large. When a faculty member is on sabbatical leave, the Sabbatical Leave Report may serve as the annual report.

2.3.c Reappointment, Promotion, or Tenure Reviews

2.3.c.1 Preparatory Steps

Each reappointment, promotion and tenure review includes important roles for:

• the candidate being reviewed,
• the Department Review Committee (membership as described in Section 2.3.c.2.2),
• the tenure-track members in the candidate’s discipline,
• the Ad Hoc Review Committee (a seven-member committee appointed following procedures prescribed in Section 2.3.c.2.3),
• the Keck Science ADC (the Keck Science Dean and the Deans of Faculty of CMC, Pitzer, and Scripps),
• the Keck Science RPT Committee (a thirteen member committee whose composition and appointment are described in Section 1.3.c.8  ),
• the Keck Science Presidents, and
• the students, faculty, and staff members (both within and outside the Keck Science Department) who submit recommendation letters.

The tasks assigned to the candidate and each of these groups are described in detail in Section 2.3.c.2 that follows.

At the end of each spring semester the Keck Science Dean will notify in writing all Keck Science faculty members who are eligible for reappointment or tenure reviews in the following academic year. The Dean will also discuss the possibility of a review for promotion to Full Professor with Associate Professors who have been in rank for six or more years. Faculty must notify the Dean before the start of the fall semester of their intention to undergo an RPT review. 

The Keck Science ADC will confirm the membership of the RPT Committee by the start of the fall semester. 

At its first meeting in the fall, the RPT Committee shall establish a timetable, and RPT faculty members will form Ad Hoc Review Committees for all personnel cases to be considered during the year. Each Ad Hoc Committee will consist of the three Keck Science members of the RPT Committee, three non-Keck Science members (one from each Keck Science college), and an external member appointed by the Keck Science ADC using the following procedure:

• The Keck Science Dean shall in consultation with the candidate’s discipline convener propose three or more potential names to serve as the external member of the Ad Hoc Committee. These names will be chosen from among faculty members both at the other Claremont Colleges and in the larger academic community who are in the candidate’s field of research and who are willing to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee.
• After approval by the Keck Science ADC, a list of three names will be made available to the faculty member under review who has the right to remove one name from the list and to ask for reconsideration of others. The names of any additional potential choices for the external member of the Ad Hoc Committee will also be made available to the candidate, who may ask for further reconsideration before a final choice is made by the Keck Science ADC.
• The Keck Science ADC will select the external Ad Hoc Committee member from the final list by unanimous vote.

The Keck Science Dean shall inform the candidates about the composition of their Ad Hoc Review Committees, and each candidate has the right to ask the RPT Committee to reconsider its choice of membership.  

Each Ad-Hoc Committee will select its Chair from among the Keck Science faculty members on the Committee. 

2.3.c.2 Review Process

The roles of the candidate under review, the tenured members of the candidate’s discipline, the Ad Hoc Review Committees, the RPT, the Keck Science ADC, the Keck Science Dean, and the Presidents in the candidate-review process are described below. 

2.3.c.2.1 The Faculty Member Under Review

By the start of the fall semester of the review, the faculty member under review should provide the Keck Science Dean the following material:

1. A portfolio that should include an updated C.V. together with scholarly accomplishments listed chronologically in the following categories where applicable:
   • articles in refereed journals and peer reviewed conference proceedings;
   • books and monographs, edited books, and chapter contributions;
   • outside funding;
   • invited papers, professional presentations;
   • any other material, if any, that the candidate thinks is appropriate.
2. A concise personal statement outlining the candidate’s approach, goals, practices and achievements in teaching and academic advising, scholarship, and service along with an additional, possibly more technical, statement of research accomplishments and goals that will be sent to external reviewers.
3. An Appendix to supplement the discussion of teaching in the personal statement. This Appendix should contain materials that will help the members of the department and the RPT Committee become more familiar with the candidate’s teaching. Such materials normally include samples of syllabi, lab exercises, reading assignments, projects, graded materials, and exams.
4. Supporting materials to supplement the scholarship discussion in the personal statement (e.g., copies of publications, preprints, books, papers presented, participation in colloquia, etc.).
5. The names of the following from whom letters may be requested:
   • A minimum of three faculty members who are knowledgeable about the candidate’s teaching. The list of faculty members may include individuals no longer in the Keck Science Department or faculty from other departments at any of The Claremont Colleges, but should not include any colleague who has served as a formal mentor to the candidate (Section 1.8 ). For candidates being reviewed for reappointment, at least one of these faculty members must be a Keck Science colleague who has observed the candidate’s teaching, preferably within the year immediately preceding the candidate’s review. For candidates being reviewed for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure or for promotion to Full Professor, at least two of the faculty must have observed the candidate’s teaching preferably within the year immediately preceding the candidate’s review.  The requirement that letters must be requested from one or more faculty colleagues who have observed the candidate’s teaching may be waived for faculty hired prior to the ratification of the May 2009 Governance Agreement and who choose to be evaluated under the RPT procedures described herein.
   • A ranked list of at least six faculty members or professional colleagues who are well qualified to evaluate the candidate’s research. This list may include some individuals whom the candidate knows well, but must also include at least two who are “arm’s length” reviewers. “Arm’s length” is defined as the absence of any close professional or personal association between the reviewer and the candidate, such as exists with collaborators, former research advisors, individuals with whom the candidate regularly communicates outside of professional meetings, and individuals who have written prior letters of recommendation for the candidate. In addition at least two of the individuals suggested should not have an appointment at The Claremont Colleges. For each name submitted, the candidate will clearly indicate the nature and extent of contact. The Department Review Committee will select at least four names from this list. The candidate should attach to this list a brief (one short paragraph) description of the candidate’s research to aid the Chair of the DRC in identifying other potential external reviewers not named by the candidate. If necessary, the candidate should notify the discipline convener or the Chair of the DRC in writing if there are particular individuals whom the candidate explicitly does not want to be contacted to serve as potential outside reviewers for professional or personal reasons.
   • Between three and five faculty members and/or administrators who can evaluate the service contributions of the person under review.
6. Advisee and research students lists, awards, honors and any additional information the candidate believes to be useful.

Courses taught by semester and rosters are provided by the Administration. Since the Keck Science College Registrars do not always record enrollment rosters for introductory laboratory sections of Keck Science courses, these rosters will be kept in the Keck Science Department Office. 

2.3.c.2.2 The Department Review Committee (DRC) 

For faculty members being evaluated within the framework of their disciplinary group, the Department Review Committee includes the tenured faculty members in a candidate’s discipline, but not the candidate if the candidate has tenure. The DRC selects its own chair (normally not the discipline convener). In the event that there are not at least three tenured professors in the discipline available to serve, the Keck Science Dean will add additional members chosen from the tenured full professors in other disciplines to form a three-member DRC. 

For faculty members not being evaluated within the framework of their disciplinary group, a candidate’s Ad Hoc Interdisciplinary Committee will serve as the Department Review Committee (see Section 1.3.a ). This Committee will select its own chair. In the event that there are not at least three tenured professors on the Ad Hoc Interdisciplinary Committee available to serve as the DRC, the Keck Science Dean will add additional members chosen from the tenured full professors in other disciplines to form a three-member DRC.

Faculty on leave may serve on a DRC but are not required to do so. Similarly, faculty on leave may submit a letter per Section 2.3.c.2.2 a. viii, second bullet point, below, but are not required to do so.  

The DRC carries out the following tasks:

1. The DRC with the help of the Keck Science Department staff prepares the RPT file which must include:
   1. The research and teaching portfolios described above;
   2. Summaries of the CMC numerical evaluation forms for each course along with the averages for all courses taught either in the discipline or in the department, depending upon availability;
   3. Evaluation forms as available for all courses taught at The Claremont Colleges outside of the department;
   4. The Keck Science Student Comment forms for the most recent six semesters of teaching (or the most recent semesters of teaching if fewer than six);
   5. The grade distributions in each course for the most recent six semesters of teaching (or the most recent semesters of teaching if fewer than six) as available;
   6. Reports from the candidate’s last RPT review, if the current review is not for reappointment;
   7. Reports from the annual reviews of the candidate for pre-tenure faculty;
   8. The results of interviews with approximately 15 students who have taken at least one of the candidate’s courses or who have been taught by the candidate in the lab section of an introductory course or in “Organic Chemistry.” The DRC should make every effort to include appropriate representation from all three colleges and to ensure that a representative cross-section of students is achieved. The Keck Science Dean has on file a standard interview instrument that may be utilized in this process. This instrument may be modified as deemed necessary by the DRC.
   9. Confidential evaluations in writing from the following individuals:
      • Three of the faculty members suggested by the candidate who are familiar with the candidate’s teaching. (For candidates being reviewed for reappointment, at least one of these faculty members must be a Keck Science colleague who has observed the candidate’s teaching, preferably within the year immediately preceding the candidate’s review. For candidates being reviewed for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure or for promotion to Full Professor, at least two of the faculty must have observed the candidate’s teaching, preferably within the year immediately preceding the candidate’s review.)
      • All tenured faculty in the Keck Science Department. When necessary, tenured faculty members may send a letter stating that they have insufficient information to make an evaluation. Evaluations are also solicited from tenure-track faculty in the department and from laboratory instructor-coordinators in the candidate’s discipline who may respond if they so choose.
      • A minimum of 10 alumnae/i/a who took one or more major courses and/or did research with the candidate. The DRC should make every effort to include appropriate representation from all three colleges and to ensure that a representative cross-section of students is achieved. If the alumnae/i/a contacted do not respond in writing, they may be interviewed in person or by telephone using a standard list of questions. The grades received by each alumnus/a in the pertinent courses will also be reported. In reviews for reappointment, all alumnae/i/a who took one or more major courses and/or did research with the candidate will normally be contacted, and the letters that are then received, even if fewer than 10, will be deemed a sufficient number for the review.
      • At least four of the faculty members and professional colleagues suggested by the candidate as qualified to evaluate the candidate’s research, including at least two who are “arm’s length” reviewers. These reviewers will also be asked to provide a current CV and to describe their professional relationship, if any, to the candidate.
      • A minimum of four additional “arm’s length” reviewers not suggested by the candidate who are qualified to evaluate the candidate’s research. These reviewers will also be asked to provide a current CV and to describe their professional relationship, if any, to the candidate. The Chair of the DRC will normally obtain such reviewers by:
        • asking chairs of departments in the candidate’s discipline at other colleges and universities to suggest a member of their department who is competent to review the candidate’s research,
        • asking reviewers on the candidate’s own list for suggested names of potential unbiased reviewers,
        • drawing from individuals cited in the candidate’s publications, and
        • contacting individuals at other institutions who work in similar areas. (The candidate should not be approached for assistance in assembling the names of potential reviewers in this category.) The Chair of the DRC will attempt to obtain reviewers who have no close professional or personal associations with the candidate. At least three of these faculty reviewers must have appointments outside The Claremont Colleges, and should normally include individuals at both small liberal arts colleges and research universities.
      • At least three faculty members/administrators identified by the candidate as qualified to comment on the candidate’s college service.
        
        All reviewers of a candidate’s research/scholarship will be sent:
         
      • a standardized cover letter outlining the review process,
      • the candidate’s CV,
      • the statement of the candidate’s research accomplishments and goals, and
      • copies of all works published since the start of the candidate’s employment at Keck Science, along with any preprints that the candidate wishes included.
        
        If a candidate is undergoing an accelerated review as a result of having been awarded credit for prior teaching at another institution, then the DRC will include some of the candidate’s earlier publications, as warranted or as required by contractual obligations. In cases of promotion to the rank of Full Professor, the candidate may select a subset of publications to be sent to the outside reviewers.
        
        If there is significant mixed response in the data gathered from either faculty or students, the DRC shall obtain additional information as necessary.
        
        If despite good-faith efforts the DRC is unable to interview the requisite number of the candidate’s students or obtain the minimum number of responses needed to proceed (as specified above), or finds that circumstances do not allow it to adhere in major respects to the review guidelines specified in this document, then the DRC must report this to the RPT Committee. The RPT Committee will take up this issue, consult with the candidate regarding any proposed procedural modifications and then instruct the DRC as to how to proceed.
         
2. As appropriate and with permission of the candidate, members of the DRC may seek further information as needed to clarify the candidate’s qualifications.
3. Members of the DRC will meet as a group with the tenure-track members of the discipline. This meeting is intended to provide a forum for tenured faculty to hear the views of the untenured faculty regarding the candidate. Tenure-track faculty on leave may attend the meeting but are not required to do so.    
4. Once all letters have been received and the candidate’s portfolio is complete, the assembled RPT file will be made available to the Keck Science ADC no later than December 1. The Keck Science ADC shall review it for completeness and fairness and may return the file to the DRC with a request for additional information. 
5. When the RPT file is complete, members of the DRC shall interview the candidate to aid the committee in evaluating the file.
6. The DRC will meet to discuss all materials in the candidate’s review file. The committee will then prepare a report which
   • summarizes their discussions and collective views (including minority views) about the candidate’s performance; and
   • notes any areas where deficiencies are believed to exist, if such are detected.
7. The DRC then meets for a formal vote. The number of votes favoring a positive recommendation, the number of votes favoring a negative recommendation, and the number of abstentions will be recorded and included in the DRC report. All members of the DRC must be present at a voting meeting, either in person or via audio or video conferencing.
   
   The report should also describe the data-gathering procedures used by the DRC (including any additional procedures not listed explicitly above), and should identify any significant differences among sub-sample responses.
   
   All deviations from or modifications to standard RPT review procedures must be noted and described in the report. The report must be written so as to preserve the confidentiality of all Respondents and will not indicate or make obvious their identity. Copies of letters used to solicit information shall be appended to the report. All members of the DRC should sign the letter. The DRC shall not release, discuss or otherwise reveal to individuals outside of the RPT Committee anything pertaining to the candidate’s review materials or the Committee’s own internal discussions, unless explicitly required to do so as part of RPT procedures.
    
8. The DRC report is presented to the Keck Science Dean by the first week of classes in the spring semester. The Keck Science Dean reviews it for completeness and may request additional information. The Keck Science Dean then submits the complete report to the Ad Hoc Review Committee and to the candidate by the end of the second week of the spring semester.
9. the candidate may prepare a written response within 10 days and submit it to the Keck Science Dean.

2.3.c.2.3 The Ad Hoc Review Committee

1. The Ad Hoc Committee receives the candidate’s RPT file, the report of the DRC, and the candidate’s response (if any). These materials are distributed to all members of the Ad Hoc Committee at least two weeks prior to its meeting to discuss the case. Ad Hoc Committee members will have full access to all original materials collected in the review process. The Ad Hoc Committee reviews the file for completeness and fairness and may return the file (but not the candidate’s response to the DRC report) to the DRC for additional information. 
2. The Ad Hoc Committee then meets to evaluate the case.
3. Following review and discussion the Ad Hoc Committee records the number of votes favoring a positive recommendation, the number of votes favoring a negative recommendation, and the number of abstentions from the seven members of the committee. All members of the committee must be present at a voting meeting, either in person or via audio or video conferencing.
   
   The chair of the Ad Hoc Committee prepares a report to the Keck Science Dean which includes the issues which emerged during discussion and the numerical tally of the votes. Committee members must formally approve this report prior to transmittal. The Ad Hoc Committee report must be completed and submitted to the Keck Science Dean for distribution to the RPT Committee by March 15. This report is not made available to the candidate.

 2.3.c.2.4 The RPT Committee

1. The RPT Committee receives the report of the Ad Hoc Review Committee, the DRC report, and the candidate’s response to it (if any). These materials are distributed to all members of the RPT Committee at least three days prior to its meeting to discuss the case. RPT Committee members have full access to all original materials collected in the review process.
2. Following review and discussion, the RPT Committee records the number of votes favoring a positive recommendation, the number of votes favoring a negative recommendation, and the number of abstentions by the nine voting members of the committee.
3. All voting members of the RPT Committee are expected to be present, either in person or via audio or video conferencing, when the Committee discusses and votes on a personnel decision. Proxy votes are not allowed, nor may members submit their votes by any electronic means. All members of the Keck Science ADC or their designees must also be present. If an RPT member is unavailable for an extended time period, the Keck Science Dean may replace that member with another member elected by the Keck Science faculty or appointed by the Keck Science ADC. In an emergency, a vote on a candidate may be taken in the absence of one voting member of the Committee. The missing vote will be counted as an abstention.
4. The Keck Science Dean will prepare the report of the RPT deliberations that will include a summary of all discussion and a numerical tally of the positive, negative, and abstaining votes of the nine voting members of the committee.
5. All RPT Committee votes on personnel matters must be completed by April 15.

2.3.c.2.5 The Keck Science ADC

1. The Keck Science ADC will review the RPT file for fairness and completeness at appropriate stages during the review.
2. The Keck Science ADC may ask the DRC, the Ad Hoc Review Committee, or the RPT Committee to collect additional information for the file.
3. Following the meeting of the RPT Committee, the Keck Science ADC writes an independent assessment of the case, including each Dean’s recommendation, to the lead College President. All Keck Science ADC reappointment, promotion and tenure recommendations must by submitted to the lead College President by May 1.

2.3.c.2.6 The Keck Science Dean

1. When the Keck Science ADC Committee report is completed, the Keck Science Dean sends to the President of the lead College the reports of the DRC, the Ad Hoc Review Committee, the RPT Committee, and the Keck Science ADC.
2. The Keck Science Dean informs the candidate about the RPT Committee’s recommendation, but does not discuss specific reasons for the decision prior to receiving the decision of the Presidents from the lead College President. Following the decision, the Keck Science Dean will meet with the candidate prior to June 1 to discuss the basis on which the decision was made and to provide guidance and mentoring (based on RPT discussions and findings).

2.3.c.2.7 The Presidents

1. After receiving the reports of the DRC, the Ad Hoc Review Committee, the RPT Committee, and the Keck Science ADC, the three Presidents will meet together within two weeks to act on the RPT recommendation from the Deans. The range of decisions that may be considered by the Presidents include:
   
   For Reappointment. Candidates who show accomplishment and strong promise as teachers and scholars may be granted a full three-year Reappointment. When there are serious reservations about a candidate’s performance or promise in teaching, scholarship or service, the candidate will normally be offered a one-year terminal contract. In exceptional cases, where opinion is mixed, or the evidence of teaching and scholarship is insufficient for a clear decision, candidates may be offered a probationary contract of limited term. In no case should Reappointment be tantamount to tenure, since tenure is awarded only under the specific procedures for tenure described in Section 2.3 and Section 2.5.
   
   For Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure. To receive tenure faculty members must demonstrate the fulfillment of the promise in teaching, research and service that were shown when they were hired and/or reappointed. Faculty members must also show promise that this level of teaching, research and service will be sustained. When there are significant reservations about a candidate’s teaching, scholarship, or service, the candidate is normally offered a one-year terminal contract.
   
   For Promotion to Full Professor. Promotion to Full Professor is not automatic. To be promoted faculty members must demonstrate that their teaching effectiveness, scholarly activities, and other contributions to the Colleges are continuing at a high level.
   
   A positive decision for reappointment, promotion, or tenure requires a unanimous vote of the three Presidents.
    
2. The lead College President will inform the Keck Science Dean in writing of the Presidents’ decision. The Dean will then inform members of the Keck Science RPT Committee of the decision. In the case of a reversal of the majority vote of the DRC and/or the Keck Science RPT Committee, the lead College President will consult with the Keck Science RPT Committee before writing to the Keck Science Dean.
3. The Presidents’ decision will be communicated to the candidate in writing by the lead College President. In the event that the decision of the Presidents differs from that of the majority of the RPT Committee, then the lead College President will meet with the candidate to discuss the basis on which the decision was made.
4. After favorable action by the Boards of Trustees, a successful candidate will receive a formal letter of notification from the lead President indicating the terms of reappointment and/or promotion and tenure.

2.4 Schedule for RPT Procedures

Deadlines are assigned for all steps in the Annual and RPT Reviews to assure that the reviews are completed expeditiously. However, any of the deadlines may be extended by either the Keck Science Dean or the lead College President.

2.4.a Annual Reviews (when tenure-track faculty are not reviewed for reappointment)

2.4.b RPT Reviews (two-year process)

A favorable action is completed when the faculty member is notified in writing about the terms of reappointment and/or promotion and tenure.

2.5 Lateral Tenure-Initial Appointments with Tenure

When the Colleges appoint a new faculty member at the Associate or Full Professor rank, they may, in cases of special circumstances, award tenure concurrently to a scholar with a truly distinguished academic record. Normally such a person will have a tenure position at another college or university. An appointment with tenure requires a review by the Keck Science APT (the RPT Committee acting as an Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee) using the procedures described below.

When the Keck Science Dean notifies the Keck Science ADC that the Department is extending a campus visit to a candidate who may qualify for lateral tenure, the ADC appoints an Ad Hoc Review Committee of three members of the Keck Science APT Committee whose primary appointments are outside of the Keck Science Department. This Ad Hoc Committee elects it own chair and meets, either jointly or singly, with the candidate during the campus visit, particularly eliciting information about the candidate’s teaching and the nature of the candidate’s research subfield. 

To assist in the process, a special Keck Science faculty meeting is held where each of the Keck Science Deans reports all recent appointments at the Associate or Full Professor level at the Dean’s College, and the criteria used to decide whether lateral tenure was offered. If the Department decides to move forward with a faculty appointment and tenure review process, the Department Search Committee (Section 1.5) will be the committee responsible for assembling all relevant materials for the tenure review. The exact materials collected may vary from case to case depending on the person’s previous position. The Search Committee will submit these materials and its report to the tenured members of the discipline group and to the Keck Science Department for recommendation. The departmental evaluation will be made in the context of the Colleges’ commitments to their missions and to the liberal arts. The departmental evaluation will also explain what distinguishes the candidate’s case from the more common case of a candidate appointed at the same rank without an award of concurrent tenure.

The Department will forward its recommendation and materials to the Ad Hoc Review Committee. The Ad Hoc Review Committee will promptly submit to the full Keck Science APT Committee a report evaluating the soundness of the departmental evaluation, using the same criteria used in the tenure review of Keck Science faculty members. On the basis of this report, the full Keck Science APT may direct the Department to provide additional information, if needed, before completing and submitting its recommendation to the Keck Science ADC which forwards it to the Presidents.

2.6 Grandfathering of Tenure Policies

All tenure-track faculty members hired before July 1, 2009, have the option of being reviewed for tenure using either the procedures described in the Joint Science Faculty Handbook dated 7/1/05 or the procedures in effect at the time of the Review; upon standing for promotion to Full Professor, these faculty will be evaluated using the procedures in effect at the time of the Review. Faculty members hired after July 1, 2009, will be reviewed for reappointment and tenure using the policies in effect at the time they are hired as modified by any minor procedural changes that may be adopted by the Colleges. All faculty who held the rank of Associate Professor on July 1, 2009, have the option of being considered for promotion to Full Professor using either the procedures described in the Faculty Handbook dated 7/1/05 or the procedures in effect at the time of the Review. 

2.7 Appeal of an RPT Decision

2.7.a Grounds for an Appeal

The RPT Appeals Procedure allows a member of the faculty to appeal a negative decision by the Keck Science Presidents on the faculty member’s review for reappointment, promotion or tenure only on the following grounds:

• an alleged violation of academic freedom or academic due process;
• an alleged violation of the right to full and fair consideration;
• an alleged violation of state or federal law (including discrimination); or
• an alleged violation of RPT procedures set forth in the Keck Science Faculty Handbook.

It is not the purpose of an Appeal Panel to substitute its judgment for that of the RPT Committee or the Presidents, but rather to establish whether any of the foregoing alleged violations have occurred and make recommendations appropriate to its findings.

In any appeal, the burden of proof shall be on the person filing the appeal (the appellant) to provide clear and convincing evidence in support of the grounds for the appeal. 

2.7.b Initiation of an Appeal

The appellant must notify the Keck Science Dean in writing of an intent to file an appeal within one week of learning the Presidents’ decision. The appellant shall have an additional three weeks to file a formal complaint specifying the nature of the appeal, referring to the grounds set forth in the Keck Science Faculty Handbook, citing the specific reasons why the decision is being challenged, and including all supporting evidence or arguments for the appeal.

2.7.c Selection of an Appeal Panel

The Appeal Panel consists of three tenured Full Professors, and elects its own chair. Two members are Keck Science faculty who are members of neither the candidate’s discipline nor the Keck Science RPT Committee. These members are selected by the two Keck Science discipline conveners who are not in the candidate’s discipline. The third member is a non-Keck Science faculty member chosen by the Deans of the three Keck Science Colleges (acting in the absence of the Keck Science Dean). No member shall have been directly involved in the controversy or decision leading to the appeal.

The appellant is notified of the membership on the Appeals Panel by the Keck Science Dean, and may challenge any of the member(s) for cause within three working days of being notified. The Dean shall decide the merit of the challenge and either replace the challenged member(s) with new members chosen by the same process described above or provide the appellant a statement of the reason why the challenge is denied. 

2.7.d The Appeal Process

• The Keck Science Dean transmits the written complaint to the Appeal Panel within one week after it is formed.
• The Appeal Panel establishes and documents its own procedures, consistent with the constraints imposed by the Keck Science Faculty Handbook. It shall have access to all materials made available to the RPT Committee and the Presidents, plus any new material or information it chooses to collect, including advice from consultants, attorneys, or other professionals that it deems necessary to conduct an adequate review. The Appeal Panel may also review memoranda on file with the Keck Science Dean from any previous Appeal Panels regarding procedures employed in similar reviews.
• If, after reviewing the complaint and all supporting evidence or arguments presented by the appellant, at least one member of the Appeal Panel agrees that the appeal merits further consideration, the Appeal Panel shall grant a hearing to the appellant.
• The appellant may attend the hearing with the appellant’s representative. However, legal counsel is not permitted at the hearing except when any party to the appeal faces pending or potential criminal charges, the appeal is based on an alleged violation of state or federal law, or the appeal involves a claim of unlawful harassment or discrimination. In such cases legal counsel will be permitted in an advisory role only and will not participate directly in the hearing.
• The appellant is permitted to make statements to the Appeal Panel, and the Appeal Panel may interview RPT members and any other individuals deemed to have information relevant to the complaint. The appellant will have a reasonable opportunity to question such persons.
• A record of the hearing will be made. All statements and documents that become part of the hearing record are kept confidential by all parties to the process except as provided by law.
• The deliberations of the Appeal Panel in preparing its recommendation are closed and confidential.

2.7.e The Appeal Panel Report

The Appeal Panel will attempt to complete its work within two weeks after the hearing by delivering a report with its recommendation and all supporting documents to the Keck Science Dean. The Chair of the Appeal Panel shall also prepare a report for the Dean describing the procedures employed in the course of the review. All working drafts and personal notes in the possession of members of the Appeal Panel shall then be destroyed.

2.7.f Final Resolution of the Appeal by the Keck Science Presidents

The Keck Science Dean shall deliver the Appeal Panel report and recommendation to the lead College President, the RPT Committee, and the appellant. Within one week after receiving the Appeal Panel Report, the appellant and the RPT Committee may submit written comments about the Report to the lead College President.  

The lead College President then meets with the Keck Science Presidents to consider the appeal. The Presidents may also review all of the supporting materials and the report on the procedures used before presenting their final resolution of the appeal to the Keck Science Dean, the Appeal Panel, the RPT Committee, and the appellant. A unanimous vote of the Presidents is required to overturn a negative RPT recommendation.

There can be no further appeal to the final resolution of an appeal by the Keck Science Presidents.