Comments on
15.0.6 Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Reviews for Probationary Faculty
Updated: January 26, 2015
Name
Tenney,
Samuel
Zavalina,
Oksana
Ayre, Brian
Garcia Jr,
Lorenzo
Harden,
Bettie
Barham,
Rebecca
Harker.
Karen
Spector,
Jonathan
McPherson,
Michael
Kevin
Hawkins
Submission
Date
Comments
1/25/2015 Everything appears fine.
1/22/2015 1) In more than one location, the policy document refers to “an explicit statement of the
quality of the faculty member’s achievements, not simply an enumeration of the
documented achievements” as “vitally important“ for evaluation. However, I am not
finding anywhere on the document any definitions and/or examples of the “explicit
statement of quality”. The document lists some examples of “evidence to assess the
quality” of scholarship/teaching/services and engagement (e.g., peer-reviewed
publications, course syllabi, demonstrated leadership in professional associations etc.)
but is the evidence the same as “explicit statement”? / 2)15.0.6 E says “The Office of the
VPAA and the various academic units, as part of the mentoring process, will advise
candidates as to the selection of an advocate as early as their appointment date and at
least six months before the candidate’s dossier deadline date”. Is the word “advocate”
used in the meaning of officially appointed/selected senior faculty mentor or does it
imply something else? / 3) The sentence “Adequate time should be given for faculty to
meet expectations if significant changes are made in the criteria” is removed from 15.0.6
G. Is it completely removed from the policy document? If so, why? Or is it moved
elsewhere in the policy?
1/21/2015 no comment looks fine
1/20/2015 ok
1/16/2015 Having a more intensive review in the 3rd year makes sense. At the moment, in the
Libraries, there is a separate "counseling" session for people coming up to the
mandatory Assistant-to-Associate promotion. Although the annual reviews include
recommendations about how to best work toward this promotion, this separate session
is required, and it is burdensome for those doing the reviewing - and comes too late in
the sequence of years. The mid-probationary review incorporating this "counseling"
makes better sense.
1/13/2015 A mid-term review is a good idea as it can give input on additional areas where the
professor of librarian needs to focus in preparation for the promotion and tenure review.
1/9/2015 This policy would enable the UNT Libraries to establish a more extensive and intensive
mid-term review than currently is conducted. / / In sections I & J, the "academic units"
need to be more carefully defined.
1/9/2015 none
12/5/2014 I like this.
12.4.2014 Section 15.0.6 is divided into sections A, B, C, etc., whereas section 15.0.8 is divided into
sections 1, 2, etc. These should be made consistent. / / Section 15.0.6.D differentiates
between a Unit Administrator and a dean though does not say what happens when the
Unit Administrator is the same as the dean. / / Section 15.0.6.H mentions "teaching,
scholarly/creative activities, and service" without defining these terms. If they are
meant to be interpreted as similar terms are defined in section 15.0.3.E, then those
terms should be used (and capitalized). Better yet, section 15.0.3.E would be moved to
the beginning of the document, along with other definitions shared across the whole
document. / / Section 15.0.6.H mentions that "contributions to the domestic and
Name
Tenney,
Samuel
Zavalina,
Oksana
Ayre, Brian
Garcia Jr,
Lorenzo
Harden,
Bettie
Barham,
Rebecca
Harker.
Karen
Spector,
Jonathan
Submission
Date
Comments
1/25/2015 Everything appears fine.
1/22/2015 1) In more than one location, the policy document refers to “an explicit statement of the
quality of the faculty member’s achievements, not simply an enumeration of the
documented achievements” as “vitally important“ for evaluation. However, I am not
finding anywhere on the document any definitions and/or examples of the “explicit
statement of quality”. The document lists some examples of “evidence to assess the
quality” of scholarship/teaching/services and engagement (e.g., peer-reviewed
publications, course syllabi, demonstrated leadership in professional associations etc.)
but is the evidence the same as “explicit statement”? / 2)15.0.6 E says “The Office of the
VPAA and the various academic units, as part of the mentoring process, will advise
candidates as to the selection of an advocate as early as their appointment date and at
least six months before the candidate’s dossier deadline date”. Is the word “advocate”
used in the meaning of officially appointed/selected senior faculty mentor or does it
imply something else? / 3) The sentence “Adequate time should be given for faculty to
meet expectations if significant changes are made in the criteria” is removed from 15.0.6
G. Is it completely removed from the policy document? If so, why? Or is it moved
elsewhere in the policy?
1/21/2015 no comment looks fine
1/20/2015 ok
1/16/2015 Having a more intensive review in the 3rd year makes sense. At the moment, in the
Libraries, there is a separate "counseling" session for people coming up to the
mandatory Assistant-to-Associate promotion. Although the annual reviews include
recommendations about how to best work toward this promotion, this separate session
is required, and it is burdensome for those doing the reviewing - and comes too late in
the sequence of years. The mid-probationary review incorporating this "counseling"
makes better sense.
1/13/2015 A mid-term review is a good idea as it can give input on additional areas where the
professor of librarian needs to focus in preparation for the promotion and tenure review.
1/9/2015 This policy would enable the UNT Libraries to establish a more extensive and intensive
mid-term review than currently is conducted. / / In sections I & J, the "academic units"
need to be more carefully defined.
1/9/2015 none
international diversity, equal opportunity, and student success missions of the
university" are criteria for evaluation only "if part of the faculty member's performance
criteria at the time of appointment". Does that mean that the other criteria listed in the
previous sentence will apply regardless of the criteria in effect at the time of
appointment? If those other policies are revised between appointment and the present,
will the faculty member be evaluated on the basis of the current version of that
criterium (as I would assume based on the sentence that has been removed from
15.0.6.G) or the criterium in effect at the time of appointment? / / Since section
15.0.8.1.B says that evaluation and recomendations for promotion to associate professor
will place emphasis on "academic work", it would be good to make this clear in section
15.0.6.H as well. As it's written, there's no statement that "academic work" (or maybe
"Scholarship" as defined previously in the document) is primary.
12/4/2014 Can the areas which note "additional letters of dissent from previous evaluations of the
candidate" be clarified some more? Does this include instances, for example, when
members of the formerly known RPTC are not unanimous on a candidate, and thus a
member or all members wish to write their own letters? On the Provost's checklist, I
Name
Tenney,
Samuel
Zavalina,
Oksana
Ayre, Brian
Garcia Jr,
Lorenzo
Harden,
Bettie
Barham,
Rebecca
Harker.
Karen
Spector,
Jonathan
Submission
Date
Comments
1/25/2015 Everything appears fine.
1/22/2015 1) In more than one location, the policy document refers to “an explicit statement of the
quality of the faculty member’s achievements, not simply an enumeration of the
documented achievements” as “vitally important“ for evaluation. However, I am not
finding anywhere on the document any definitions and/or examples of the “explicit
statement of quality”. The document lists some examples of “evidence to assess the
quality” of scholarship/teaching/services and engagement (e.g., peer-reviewed
publications, course syllabi, demonstrated leadership in professional associations etc.)
but is the evidence the same as “explicit statement”? / 2)15.0.6 E says “The Office of the
VPAA and the various academic units, as part of the mentoring process, will advise
candidates as to the selection of an advocate as early as their appointment date and at
least six months before the candidate’s dossier deadline date”. Is the word “advocate”
used in the meaning of officially appointed/selected senior faculty mentor or does it
imply something else? / 3) The sentence “Adequate time should be given for faculty to
meet expectations if significant changes are made in the criteria” is removed from 15.0.6
G. Is it completely removed from the policy document? If so, why? Or is it moved
elsewhere in the policy?
1/21/2015 no comment looks fine
1/20/2015 ok
1/16/2015 Having a more intensive review in the 3rd year makes sense. At the moment, in the
Libraries, there is a separate "counseling" session for people coming up to the
mandatory Assistant-to-Associate promotion. Although the annual reviews include
recommendations about how to best work toward this promotion, this separate session
is required, and it is burdensome for those doing the reviewing - and comes too late in
the sequence of years. The mid-probationary review incorporating this "counseling"
makes better sense.
1/13/2015 A mid-term review is a good idea as it can give input on additional areas where the
professor of librarian needs to focus in preparation for the promotion and tenure review.
1/9/2015 This policy would enable the UNT Libraries to establish a more extensive and intensive
mid-term review than currently is conducted. / / In sections I & J, the "academic units"
need to be more carefully defined.
1/9/2015 none
was never clear what that meant before revisions, and I am not 100% sure now. Any
additional clarification might help clear that up for committee members in cases where
there may be a negative recommendation.