POLICY FOR PROMOTION, APPOINTMENT, AND TENURE

AND FOR PERIODIC CAREER REVIEW

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH/HEALTH & INFORMATION SCIENCES

THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of thisThis document is to presentpresents the criteria and procedures employed within theby the University of Louisville (UofL) School of Public Health/Health & Information Sciences (the UnitSPHIS) for the evaluation of promotion, appointment and tenure requests and for periodic career reviews. The document specifies minimum acceptable levels of teaching, researchFiles regarding appointment and service. Departmental criteria tenure are not required, but where they exist procedures for evaluation of same must be in accord with the policy cited herein and must be explicit in regardforwarded to requirements upon which a recommendation for appointment, promotion,the Affirmative Action office (when applicable), and then concurrently to the offices of the Executive Vice President for Health Affairs (EVPHA) and/or tenure is made for each faculty rank, or a positive periodic career review. It is understood that departments may stipulate criteria more rigorous than those addressed in this document, provided they are consistent with the University of Louisville's Minimum Guidelines document and The Redbook. The contents of the Unit document apply to all faculty: Executive Faculty and General Faculty as defined in the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Bylaws. (A member of the Executive Faculty of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences holds a full-time, academic appointment in the University of Louisville with a primary appointment in the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences; or may be a part-time or Voluntary General Faculty who has been elected to the Executive Faculty).Provost.  The University Provost will make a recommendation inconsultation with the EVPHA.

In order to evaluate the contributions of candidates for promotion, appointment, tenure, and periodic career review in achieving the missions of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences and its departments, the following documents must be developed.

A. The faculty of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences shall develop, and maintain current, a mission statement that must be approved by the Dean. The Dean shall be held accountable is responsible for assuring that the Schoolschool achieves its mission.

B.   Each Faculty members within each department shall develop, and maintain current,update a mission statement and specific goals and objectives to, which assist in the systematic accomplishment of the SPHIS mission of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences. The department Chair shall be held accountable.  Department chairs are responsible for assuring that thetheir department achieves its mission, and a major tool for doing so shall be the combined faculty work plans negotiated with each departmental faculty member..  The combined departmental faculty work plans lay the foundation for accomplishing each of the departments’ and the school’s missions and serve as the basis for evaluation of promotion, appointment, tenure, and periodic career reviews.  The UofL Redbook provides the complete documentation regarding Faculty Personnel Policies.

1. I. Article I. FACULTY APPOINTMENTS AND TENURE
2. A. Full-Time Faculty Appointments and Tenure

Section. 1 TYPES OF APPOINTMENTS

A.  Full-time Appointments

1    The requirements for appointment Requirements and Contract.  Appointment to a full-time faculty position in the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences usually shall include, as a SPHIS requires, at minimum, an advanced, usually doctoral, degree (M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., Ed.D. or equivalent) unless it can be well-documented that masters level training is a standard in a given discipline for faculty appointment at other research-intensive institutions. In disciplines where Board Certification is available and patient care is provided, appointments at the rank of Assistant Professor or above shall require Board Certification. For others, post-doctoral training will be required for these ranks. Additional requirements for appointment such as board certification, possession of a license to practice medicine in Kentucky, etc. shall be stipulated in the departmental documents where applicable.

1. 1. 2 , except for instructors and visiting faculty.  The completion of a doctoral degree is required for appointment at the rank of assistant professor and above. The appointee shall must sign a contract, approved by the Board of Trustees, stipulating that the appointment is made subject to the regulations, policies, and provisions of employment at the University of Louisville including participation in the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Professional Practice Plan.as provided in the Redbook and as stipulated in the Bylaws and Rules of the SPHIS.

1. 2. Joint Appointment.  Joint appointments are defined as appointments of full-time for faculty members in more than one academic department or unit.  Recommendations and rules follow those in the Redbook Sec. 4.1.4.
2. 3. Types of Full-Time Faculty Appointments.  The types of full-time appointments in the SPHIS include:  non-tenurable temporary, non-tenurable term, tenure-track (also referred to as probationary), and tenured.
   1. a. Non-tenurable Temporary Full-Time Appointment (Redbook, Sec. 4.1.1.A1)

1.1. Definition and Time Limit.  Temporary appointments to the various academic ranks, including instructors and visiting faculty, may be made specifically for limited time periods less than one year or for special purposes.  A temporary appointment or renewal will not result in the acquisition of tenure.

1. b. Non-tenurable Term Full-Time Appointment (Redbook, Sec. 4.1.1.A2)

1.1. Definition and Time Limit.  Term appointments are not tenurable, and no such appointments, continuation or renewal will result in the acquisition of tenure or imply renewal for subsequent terms.  Term faculty may be appointed for a contract period not to exceed three years.  Work assignments for term faculty members will emphasize teaching, research or service with a preponderance of effort in a single area (e.g. 75%).

1.2. Funding Source and Renewal.  Term appointments may be funded through general funds, restricted funds, or clinical revenues.  Term appointments funded through general funds must number less than 50% of the total number of probationary and tenured appointments (Redbook, Sec. 3. Joint appointments will require that career reviews (pretenure, tenure, promotional, periodic) be done in the secondary appointment only if salary support is provided by that department. Associate appointments are weaker affiliations and never entail salary commitments or career reviews.1.1; Sec. 4.1.1).  Term appointments, if there is a demonstrated need, may be renewed at the convenience of the University, on recommendation of the Department Chair and the Dean.

B.  Kinds of full-time faculty appointments

There are three kinds of full-time appointments in the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences: non-tenurable, probationary, and tenured. A majority of faculty in the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences shall be probationary or tenured (The Redbook, Chapter 3, Article 3.3.1).

1.    Non-tenurable appointments

a.   Temporary Appointments

Temporary appointments to the various academic ranks, which include lecturers and visiting faculty, are those made for specifically limited time periods less than one year for special purposes. In no case shall temporary appointments or renewals result in the acquisition of tenure.

b.   Term Faculty Appointments

1.   All non-tenurable, full-time faculty that are not “temporary” will be called “term.” Term Faculty shall be full-time faculty appointments without tenure for a stipulated contract period not to exceed three years. Such appointments are not probationary appointments as described in Section 4.1 of The Redbook, and no such appointments, continuation or renewal thereof shall result in acquisition of tenure or implied renewal for subsequent terms.

1.3. Annual and Periodic Career Review.  Term faculty are subject to annual and periodic career reviews and may apply for promotion in rank according to Redbook and SPHIS criteria.  Procedures for promotion will be the same as for probationary or tenured faculty.  Criteria will be used to evaluate only those areas included in the work plan.  Excellence is required in the area of greatest effort.

1.4. Transfer to Tenurable (Probationary) Appointment.  A faculty member with a term appointment is eligible to request an appointment to a tenurable or probationary position following a positive recommendation by a majority of the department faculty, Department Chair, Promotion, Appointment and Tenure (PAT) Committee, and Dean; and if they were not previously on a probationary appointment at UofL (Sec. 3.3.1).  Time in rank will not be counted toward the probationary period unless negotiated at the time of transfer, recommended by the Dean, and approved by the University Provost in consultation with the EVPHA.  Transfers back to non-tenurable appointment from probationary status are prohibited.

1. c. Tenure-Track (Probationary) Full-Time Appointment (Redbook, Sec. 4.1.1.B)

1.1. Definition and Time Limit.  Probationary appointments refer to appointments of full-time faculty members without tenure.  No probationary appointment to the University will extend beyond the period when tenure would normally be granted (Redbook, Sec. 4.2.2. Term faculty may be funded through general funds, restricted funds, or service revenues.).

3.   Term Faculty shall meet the standards for probationary appointment to the designated rank with consideration for the areas assigned in the annual work plan and shall be subject to annual and career reviews for faculty of the unit. Term Faculty may apply for promotion in rank according to the criteria in this document.

4.   Term Faculty appointments may be renewed for the convenience of the University if the Dean determines that the services of the incumbent are needed for the renewal term.

5.   Faculty on term appointments are eligible to transfer to Probationary appointments if they were not previously on a Probationary appointment and if the advertisement used to hire the individual stated this possibility. Time in rank will not be counted toward the probationary period unless negotiated at the time of track transfer. The Provost’s letter of appointment to probationary status shall state whether and to what extent the new appointment shall consider time served in non-tenurable status as prior service.

6.   Rolling Contracts recognize and reward the accomplishments of Term Faculty. Rolling contracts of a three-year duration will be available after five years of service at the University of Louisville. Rolling contracts are only available to those faculty members at the rank of Associate Professor or above. Rolling contracts are renewable every year for an additional three years. Appointments on such contracts are at the discretion of the Chair but must conform to fiscal limitations and be approved by the Dean and Provost.

2.   Probationary appointments

1.2. a.      Definition: Probationary appointments shall be appointments of full-time faculty members without tenure other than those described in SectionAppointment to the Rank of Instructor.  Persons appointed to the rank of Instructor must be able to demonstrate professional experience relevant to the area of the teaching assignment and show promise of proficiency in teaching.  Appointments will be for terms of one year each.  Individuals appointed as Instructors without a terminal degree are required to complete their doctoral degree within a one-year period in order for a contract to be renewed.

1.3. Appointment to the Rank of Assistant and Associate Professors.  Probationary appointments to the rank of Assistant or Associate Professor are not to exceed two years on the initial contract or three years for continuation contracts.  The duration of the initial contract must be specified in the letter of appointment.

1.4. Appointment to the Rank of Professor.  Professors will be awarded tenure if employed subsequent to the initial probationary appointment.

1.5. Transfer to Non-tenurable Appointment.  Transfers from a probationary appointment (tenure-track) to a non-tenurable appointment are permitted, but must be completed prior to the fifth year of service.  Transfer back to probationary status is prohibited.

1. d. Tenured Appointment (Redbook, Sec. 4.1.2 of The Redbook, provided, however, that no probationary appointment to the University shall extend beyond the period when tenure would normally be granted (Section 4.2.2 of The Redbook).1.C)

b.   Transfers out of a probationary appointment into a non-tenurable appointment may be requested anytime but must be complete prior to the time that the tenure review would begin. This is normally at the end the fifth year of service. Transfers back to probationary status are then prohibited.

c.   Instructors – Probationary appointments to the rank of instructor shall be for stipulated terms of one year each.

d.   Assistant and Associate Professors – Probationary appointments to the rank of Assistant or Associate Professor shall require Board Certification in the disciplines where this is available and patient care is provided. For others, post-doctoral training will be required for these ranks. The appointments will be for stipulated terms not to exceed two years on the initial appointment, nor three years for appointments made thereafter.

e.   Professors – Professors shall be awarded tenure if employed subsequent to the initial probationary appointment. The duration of initial appointment shall be specified in the letter of appointment.

3.   Tenured

a.   Definition – Tenure is the right of certain full-time faculty personnel who hold academic rank to continuous full-time employment without reduction in academic rank until retirement or dismissal as provided in Section 4.5.3 of The Redbook. Tenure is granted in an academic unit (Article 3.1.1 of The Redbook) in accordance with the procedures established in Section 4.2.2.H. of The Redbook.

b.   Administrators – Administrative personnel who have acquired tenure are subject to the regulations herein on tenure and the provisions governing termination only in their capacities as faculty members.

c.   Tenure recommendations – Recommendations concerning the award or denial of tenure shall originate in the faculty of the academic unit in which tenure is to be granted.

d.   Establishment of tenure date – For probationary appointments, the date of mandatory tenure and the number of years of previous full-time service to be counted toward acquisition of tenure shall be stipulated by the Provost and agreed to in writing by the nominee before the appointment is made by the Board of Trustees.

C.  Part-time appointments

1.1. Part-time faculty shall be appointed by contract to teach specified courses or to engage in specified instruction, research or service less than full time for a designated period. No such appointment, continuation, or renewal thereof shall result in acquisition of tenure or implied renewal for subsequent periods.Definition.  Tenure is the right of certain full-time faculty personnel who hold academic rank to continuous full-time employment without reduction in academic rank until retirement or termination.  Tenure is granted in an academic unit in accordance with Redbook procedures established in Sec. 4.2.2.H.

1.2. Administrative Personnel and Tenure.  Administrative personnel who have acquired tenure are subject to the regulations of tenure and the provisions governing termination of university employment only in their capacities as faculty members.

1.3. Recommendation of Tenure.  Recommendations concerning the award or denial of tenure originate with the faculty of the department in the SPHIS inwhich tenure is to be granted.

1.4. Tenure Date.  For probationary appointments, the date of mandatory tenure and the number of years of previous full-time service to be counted toward acquisition of tenure will be recommended by the Dean, and stipulated by the University Provost in consultation with the EVPHA, and agreed to in writing by the candidate before the appointment is made by the UofL Board of Trustees.

1. B. Part-Time Faculty Appointment (Redbook, Sec. 4.1.2)
   1. 1. Contract and Renewal.  Part-time faculty members are appointed by contract to teach specified courses or to engage in specified instruction, research or service activities less than full-time for a designated period.  The requirements for appointment to a part-time faculty position will be the same as those for full-time appointments; it is recognized that the responsibilities of part-time faculty may differ from those of full-time faculty.  The Department Chair with approval of the Dean and a majority vote of approval by department faculty may appoint or reappoint part-time faculty for each academic term at the convenience of the University on standard contract terms approved by the University Provost.  Part-time faculty appointments are not eligible for tenure and time in such an appointment may not count toward time for acquisition of tenure.
   2. 2. Rank.  Part-time faculty members hold rank according to education and experience.  Part-time faculty members are reviewed in writing annually following the process and criteria described in Appendix A and will be the basis for reappointment and contract renewal.  Department documents may stipulate additional requirements for appointment and reappointment and include criteria associated with areas noted in the annual work plan.  Part-time faculty members are not eligible for sabbaticals or other academic leave.
   3. 3. Benefits. Part-time faculty may qualify for certain benefits as authorized by the university.University when .40 through .79 FTE.
   4. 4. Committee Participation. Part-time faculty may be elected to the Faculty Senate and may be appointed or elected to university University or unit committees as specified by their contract, university University or unit personnel documents. Such service shall will be accounted for and recognized in the individual contract. Part-time faculty shall hold rank according to education and experience..

1. C. D. Emeritus. Faculty Appointment (Redbook, Sec. 4.1.3)

Such The honorary title of Emeritus may be conferred upon retired faculty if requested by the department faculty and dean and approved byDean.  The University Provost will make a recommendation in consultation with the EVPHA to the University President and Board of Trustees.

E.  Voluntary Faculty

1.   Voluntary faculty appointment shall be one of three kinds: gratis (public health service),  associate(basic science), and adjunct (faculty, basic science or public health service, at other institutions).

1. D. 2.   The requirements for appointment to a Voluntary faculty position in the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences usually shall include, as a minimum, an advanced, usually doctoral, degree (M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., Ed.D. or equivalent) unless it can be well-documented that masters level training is a standard in a given discipline for Adjunct Faculty Appointment

Adjunct appointments are non-tenurable positions at one of four levels in a Department:  Adjunct Instructor, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Adjunct Associate Professor, and Adjunct Professor (Redbook 4.1.4; Appendix B).  They are offered to individuals who demonstrate a commitment to work with full-time faculty or students in the teaching, research, or service mission of the SPHIS.  The term of initial appointment will be at the discretion of the Department Chair, but may not exceed one year for an Adjunct Instructor and three years for an Adjunct Assistant Professor, Adjunct Associate Professor and Adjunct Professor.

1. II. FACULTY PERSONNEL REVIEW

Personnel reviews will be based on peer evaluation of a documentary record including both quantitative and qualitative evidence of performance.  Proficiency in teaching, research and service will be required of all probationary faculty members.  For non-probationary faculty, proficiency is required for all areas stated at the time of initial appointment or in the annual work plan.  In compliance with The Redbook Minimum Guidelines, all faculty appointment at other research-intensive institutions. In disciplines where Board Certification is available and patient care is provided, appointments at the rank of Assistant Professor or above shall require Board Certification. For others, post-doctoral training will be required for these ranks. Additional requirementsmembers in the SPHIS are evaluated for appointment such as board certification, possessionthe purpose of a license to practice medicine in Kentucky, etc., shall be stipulated in the departmental documents where applicable.

3.   School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Voluntary faculty appointment, reappointment and promotion policies are further defined in Appendix B.

Article II.       Faculty Personnel Reviews

In compliance with the Redbook Minimum Guidelines (Section 4.6.3.), each academic unit shall establish and maintain a system of career reviews of all faculty. The kinds of review are: annual;, pre-tenure;, tenure;, promotion (to associate professor or professor);), and periodic career review. The following section provides the general guidelines for reviews.  The procedures are described in Section III.  See Appendix A of this document for SPHIS guidelines and Chapter 4, Article 4.2 of the Redbook for university-based guidelines.

Section. 1.    Annual Reviews

1. A. Annual Review (Redbook, Sec. 4.2.1 and Minimum Guidelines Sec. I and III.)

Annual Work Plan and Review. (Redbook, Sec. 4.3.1.A.  All term, probationary, and tenured faculty must be reviewed in writing annually by their department Chair or designee.)  Annual work plans will provide the percent work effort associated with teaching, research, and service assignments, which must account for 100 percent of the faculty member’s work load and state the intended outcomes of the work effort.  Each Department Chair and the Dean will review annually all part-time, term, probationary, and tenured faculty in writing. The annual review shallwill be done in conjunction with the Annual Performance Based Salary Increase (PBSI) evaluation.SPHIS merit-based policy. Annual reviews and PBSI evaluations must evaluateassess faculty performance under based on the distribution of the effort indicated in the approved annual work plan (Section IV.A. of The Redbook’s Minimum Guidelines for Faculty Personnel Reviews).

B.   As part of the documentation for annual review a report of all professional work outside the University must be submitted.

1. 1. C.         Annual work assignments and reviews shall be part of all career review files. Reappointments of term faculty as well as all .  A faculty member may not be penalized for non-performance in any area of activity for which the faculty member has no assigned responsibility.  The work plans and reviews are retained as part of all employment files.  All career reviews (, including annual, pre-tenure, promotion, tenure and periodic) must be , including the reappointments of term faculty, are linked to the annual work assignments.plans. Satisfactory annual reviews shalldo not in and of themselves constitute sufficient grounds for promotion, tenure, or satisfactory periodic career reviews.

D.  The appeal process for annual reviews and PBSI evaluations are outlined in a separate School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Annual Reviews and Performance Based Salary Increase Minimum Guidelines document and is outside of the grievance process of Appendix A of The Redbook.

Section. 2.   Tenure Reviews

1. 2. Summary of Annual Professional Effort.  A detailed summary of the year’s professional effort should be presented at the time of all personnel reviews along with the annual faculty work plan.  Annual reviews may take into account multi-year performance.  The faculty member is responsible for maintaining the documentary evidence supporting the annual review through the next promotion, tenure, or periodic career review.
2. 3. Documentation of Outside Work.  As part of the documentation for annual review a report of professional work outside the University and in keeping with the Redbook policy (Sec. 4.3.3.) must be submitted.
3. 4. Review Results.  The Department Chair will provide the review results in writing to the faculty member and to the Dean.  The faculty member may express disagreement in writing, which will be filed with the annual review.  Presence of a written rebuttal does not preclude the discussion of a review or annual work assignment.  The evaluations, rebuttals made by a faculty member, and appeal results, if applicable, will be made available to the SPHIS PAT Committee when the Faculty member is reviewed for promotion and tenure.  Copies of the annual reviews will be maintained in the office of the Dean (Redbook, Sec. 4.2.1.B).

Appeal Process.  In keeping with the Redbook (Sec. 4.2.1.C.), an appeal process exists for annual reviews and is separate from the grievance process (Redbook, Sec. 4.4). A.       Time Required

1. 5. All probationary faculty who have had seven years of service counted as in a tenurable faculty position at the University of Louisville, if reemployed member’s (full time, shall be granted tenure.- or part-time) request for an appeal regarding the annual review is submitted to the PAT Committee for review through the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs.  The result of the PAT Committee review will be forwarded to the Dean as a recommendation.

B.   Leaves of Absence

One year spent on an officially approved leave of absence may be counted toward the seven years of full-time service necessary for tenure. Any leave granted during the probationary period must carry with it a stipulation in writing as to whether the leave counts toward tenure.

C.   Extension of Probationary Period

A faculty member who faces extenuating circumstances that do not require a leave of absence but result in a significant reduction in ability to perform normal duties may request an extension of the probationary period for no less than six months and no more than one year. Such extensions must be requested and approved before the end of the fifth year of the probationary period and must have documentation satisfactory to the Provost.

D.  Prior Service

Previous full-time service with the rank of instructor or higher or comparable status in institutions of higher learning may be counted toward the acquisition of tenure. The Provost’s letter of appointment shall state whether and to what extent the appointment shall consider time served at the other institution as prior service.

E.  Early Tenure

1.   Immediate tenure – It is recommended that tenure not be granted as a condition of appointment. If possible, it is best to avoid assuring a lifetime position before the individual under consideration has had the opportunity to demonstrate competence in the surroundings peculiar to this new position. However, it is understood that for certain persons of exceptional merit who already have tenure in other universities, it is impractical to expect them to move to the University of Louisville without assurance of tenure. Notwithstanding anything in The Redbook to the contrary, tenure may be granted at the time of initial appointment or in less than seven years when such action is warranted. The Provost’s letter of appointment shall state when immediate tenure is granted.

2.         Early tenure – Normally, requests for promotion to Associate Professor and tenure will not be considered until a full probationary period of five years in faculty status has been served. Requests for early action are appropriate if the faculty member's accomplishments meet the stated criteria. Accomplishments made prior to employment at the University or while serving in a non-tenurable appointment at the University can be considered in these deliberations. A faculty member may request only one evaluation for early tenure.

1. B. 3.   Evaluation for early tenure, once originated, shall proceed as indicated in Pre-Tenure Review. (Redbook, Sec. 4.2.2.G and Minimum Guidelines Sec. IV.B)
   1. 1. Timing of Pre-Tenure Review and Purpose.  In addition to annual reviews, each probationary faculty member will receive a pre-tenure review, which normally occurs during the third year of the probationary period.  The purpose of the pre-tenure review is to determine whether a faculty member is making satisfactory progress toward meeting the standards for tenure.  The review is conducted at the same level of rigor and by the same process as in a tenure review; however, extramural evaluations are not required.
   2. 2. Pre-Tenure Review Process.  The Department Chair will inform the faculty member of the pre-tenure review process.  This should be documented in writing and the faculty member provided access to the SPHIS personnel policy documents.  The Dean’s Office will provide the appropriate materials regarding a pre-tenure review and the Department Chair will meet with the faculty member to review the process and discuss any questions or concerns.  The Department Chair may select one or more other department faculty members to assist in the review.  The review will not be considered complete until approved by the Dean.  The results of the review will be made available to the faculty member.  The pre-tenure record will become part of the evidence considered in tenure review.  It will be included in the materials made available to the PAT Committee and forwarded on with the file.
   3. 3. Pre-Tenure Review Results.  It is expected that a faculty member will maintain a consistent level of performance following a positive pre-tenure review in order to meet tenure criteria.  If the pre-tenure review identifies significant concerns regarding teaching, research, or service, the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs will meet with the faculty member, Department Chair, two tenured faculty members from the department or the SPHIS, and the faculty member’s mentor to develop a plan to assist the probationary faculty member address the concerns during the remaining time before the initiation date for the five-year review.
   4. C. Tenure Review and Process. (Redbook Section, Sec. 4.2.2.H. unless the faculty member under review requests its withdrawal. and Minimum Guidelines Sec. IV)

F.   Minimum Criteria for Tenure

1.   Proficiency in teaching as defined in Appendix A.

1. 1. Tenure Initiation and Termination.  Evaluation for tenure, once originated, will proceed as noted below (Evaluation Process) and in accordance with the Redbook (Sec. 4.2. Proficiency in research as defined in Appendix A.2) unless the faculty member under review resigns or is subject to termination for reasons noted in the Redbook (Redbook, Sec. 4.5.3.A.2).

3.   Proficiency in service as defined in Appendix A. This can be further defined as community service and/or public health service that primarily involves public health and/or health information sciences expertise.

4.   Scholarship as defined in Appendix A.

5.   In reviewing the activities described in the foregoing paragraphs, the unit PAT Committee shall consider whether the conduct of the faculty member indicates an ability to collaborate effectively with faculty and other members of the university community.

6.   The adherence of a faculty member to professional standards shall be considered in retention, promotion, tenure, and periodic career review decisions. The PAT Committee shall consider rules of professional conduct for the faculty of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences as well as rules and standards of School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences accrediting bodies, of the teaching profession, and of the University (including The Redbook).

7.   Extramural review shall be required as provided for in Article III, Section 6.

8.   In addition, service to the profession, the unit, the University, and the community that does not primarily involve public health and/or health information sciences expertise may also be considered.

G.  Pre-Tenure Review

Each probationary faculty member shall be reviewed at the mid-point of his or her probationary period at the University. The review shall be conducted at the same level of rigor and by the same process as in a tenure review within the unit, except that extramural evaluations shall not be required. The results of the review shall be made available to the faculty member. The purpose of the review is to inform the faculty member of the unit's perception of the faculty member's progress in meeting the standards for tenure. These evaluations are of particular importance and shall be made available to the unit Promotion, Appointment and Tenure Committee at the time when the Faculty member is being reviewed. These evaluations are the responsibility of the departmental Chair who may wish to appoint an internal promotions and tenure committee for this purpose. The results of the departmental pre-tenure review shall be forwarded to the Dean for approval.

1. 2. Length of Probationary Period. All probationary faculty members who have had seven years of full-time service counted in a tenurable faculty position, if re-employed full-time after the seventh year, will be granted tenure.
2. 3. Leave of Absence.  One year spent on an approved leave of absence may be counted toward the seven years of full-time service necessary for tenure.  Any leave granted during the probationary period must carry with it a stipulation in writing as to whether the leave counts toward tenure.
3. 4. Extension of Probationary Period.  An extension of the probationary tenure-track period is permitted if a faculty member faces extenuating circumstances, which result in a significant reduction in ability to perform normal duties, but does not require a leave of absence.  The extension of the probationary period cannot be for less than six months and can be for no more than one year; a second extension may be granted for a second extenuating circumstance.  Such extensions must be requested and approved before the end of the fifth year of the probationary period.  They require a positive recommendation from the Department Chair and SPHIS Dean, and approval by the University Provost in consultation with the EVPHA.
4. 5. Prior Service Counted.Previous full-time service at the rank of instructor or higher (tenurable or non-tenurable appointment) or of comparable status in institutions of higher learning may be counted toward the acquisition of tenure, following recommendation by the Dean and approval by the University Provost in consultation with the EVPHA.  The letter of appointment will state whether the previous service counts and the amount of time that will be counted toward tenure.
5. 6. Early Tenure. Normally, requests for promotion to Associate Professor and tenure will not be considered until a full probationary period of five years in faculty status has been served.  Tenure may be granted at the time of initial appointment or in less than seven years when such action is warranted.  A faculty member may request only one evaluation for early tenure.  Requests for early action are appropriate if the faculty member's accomplishments meet the stated criteria.  Evaluation for early tenure, once originated, will proceed as indicated in The Redbook (Section 4.2.2.H. Evaluation for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor of Tenurable Faculty) unless the faculty member under review requests its withdrawal prior to the required submission date to the Office of the University Provost.

1. 7. 1.         Each faculty member eligible for tenure must be evaluated within twelve months after five years of service applied to tenure according to the following procedures (except as specified in Article II, Sections B and C). Criteria for Tenure.  Criteria for tenure are based on: research or creative activity; teaching; and service to the profession, to the SPHIS, to UofL, or to the community.  The details of these criteria and additional criteria to be considered in making a recommendation concerning tenure are defined and specified in Appendix A.
2. 8. Evaluation for tenure, once originated, shall proceed as indicated below unless the faculty member under review resigns from the University or is subject to termination by reason of the discontinuation of a unit, department, or program (Redbook 4.5.3.A.2).Process. Completion of the probationary period with satisfactory annual performance evaluations and pre-tenure review shalldoes not in and of itself constitute sufficient grounds for tenure.

1. a. Evaluation Period.  A faculty member who is eligible for tenure must be evaluated within 12 months after five years of service applied to tenure.  Evaluation for tenure, once originated, will proceed as indicated in The Redbook (Sec. 4.2.2.H.) and as described below unless the faculty member under review resigns from the University or is subject to termination by reason of the discontinuation of the department or the SPHIS (Sec. 4.5.3.A.2).  In addition to meeting with faculty for annual review and pre-tenure review, the Department Chair should meet with the faculty candidate and the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs at the beginning of the tenure evaluation process during the first three months of the evaluation tenure period.
2. b. Amendments to Criteria.Faculty members on probationary status shallwill be affected by any amendments to or change in the criteria for tenure subsequent to their appointment. In such evaluations, appropriate consideration mustwill be given to the amount of time remaining in their the probationary period when the change becomes effective.

1. c. 3.   Evaluation for tenure shallCompilation of Materials.  A file of all information and documents pertinent to the tenure evaluation will be compiled with the cooperation of the faculty member.  Recommendations and any other material added will become part of the file.  The faculty member has the right to examine the materials in the tenure file prior to it being reviewed at any level, but every effort must be made to mask the identity of individuals who have submitted evaluation letters.  The faculty member may add newly available material as evidence for reconsideration by the previous evaluators or rebuttals before the file is forwarded to the office of the University Provost.
2. d. Origin and Process of Tenure Evaluation.  Evaluation for tenure will originate in the department in which the faculty member has their primary appointment. The recommendations of the faculty and of the chair shall be forwarded to secondary departments, if applicable, and the appropriate unit committee for its recommendation to the dean of the unit, who shall make a recommendation to the Vice President for Health Affairs.Department votes will be by written ballot not marked with name, rank, tenure status, or other identifying information for faculty who vote.  All ballots must be retained as a permanent part of the file under review and aggregate results provided on the Ballot Summary Form.  At each subsequent level of review there must be a letter of recommendation, which includes a written evaluation of all evidence regarding teaching, research or creative activity, and service.  At each of these levels the faculty member being reviewed has the right to respond to the evaluation; all such responses become a permanent part of the dossier.  After a vote of the department faculty has been conducted, the Department Chair prepares a letter of recommendation based on the evidence in the file and submits the file to the Dean’s Office.  The Chair’s letter should include a report on the numerical vote of the department faculty using the Ballot Summary Form.  If the total number of votes reported is not equal to the number of eligible voters as defined under Section III.E.1, an explanation should be provided on the Ballot Summary Form.  The Dean’s Office will forward the complete dossier, with the exception of the financial documents, to the SPHIS PAT Committee.  The PAT Committee will meet and review all materials for completeness and consistency with UofL, SPHIS and department criteria and policies.  The PAT Committee members will vote via written or electronic ballot.  The PAT Committee Chair will write a recommendation letter, which will be delivered to the Dean’s office within a one-week period, when possible, following the PAT Committee vote.

a.   The requirements for promotion to associate professor are equivalent to those for granting tenure. It is recommended that requests be submitted jointly; i.e., a request for promotion should be coupled to a request for tenure. The Departmental Executive Faculty and the Chair, as determined by procedures outlined in Article K.10, have the major responsibility for initiating consideration of promotion and tenure.

b.   The candidate's record shall provide evidence of proficiency in teaching, research, and service. However, institutional service and administrative activities are considered more as a supplement to academic activities than as a substitute. In the evaluation no rigid formulae are applied; however, the individual's accomplishments must provide promise of continuing proficiency in those endeavors which best support the research and academic mission of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences and the University.

c.   In addition to proficiency, excellence must be demonstrated in the area of greatest assignment on the annual work plan. Excellence in each area is defined in Appendix A.

d.   In addition, scholarship, which is defined as the creation of new knowledge and the dissemination and acceptance of it by peers, in the primary area of work assignment must be demonstrated at the time of review. Scholarship in the areas of research, teaching and service is defined in Appendix A.

4.   Candidates for new appointments at the rank of Associate Professor shall satisfy the same criteria as described above for promotion to that rank.

5.   Extramural review shall be required as provided for in Article III., Section 6.

6.   A file of all information and documents pertinent to the tenure evaluation shall be compiled with the cooperation of the faculty member. Recommendations and any other material added shall become part of the file. The faculty member may examine any substantive material in the tenure file but shall not be informed of the identity of evaluators. The faculty member may add newly available material evidence for consideration by the evaluators or rebuttals before the file is forwarded to the Provost. The evidence in this file shall be reviewed according to the procedures specified in this document.

7.   The recommendation of the Dean shall be the unit recommendation forwarded to all higher levels of review. Since the candidate is a member of a unit that reports to the Vice President for Health Affairs, the Vice President shall review the unit recommendation (and the recommendation of the Dean of the Graduate School when appropriate) and form a recommendation to forward with the file for the Provost's consideration.

1. e. Recommendation of the SPHIS Dean.  The Deanwill write a letter of recommendation to accompany the file, which is forwarded to the next review level.  The Dean’s recommendation is the unit recommendation.  Prior to the transfer of the dossier, the Dean, Department Chair, and Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs will meet in-person with the candidate to inform them if the Dean’s recommendation is negative.
2. f. Transfer Process of File.  The complete file is forwarded concurrently to the Office of the EVPHA and to the University Provost.
3. g. Negative Recommendation Regarding Tenure File and Hearing Request.

1.1. Notification of Candidate Regarding Negative Recommendations.  If the recommendation of the Department Chair, the SPHIS Dean, or the University Provost is negative, the candidate must be notified by certified mail before it is forwarded to the next review level.  If the negative recommendation is from the University Provost, the faculty member, Department Chair, and the Dean will have the opportunity to comment in writing prior to any recommendation to the President.  The file containing all comments and recommendations are then made available to the President.

1.2. Candidate Request for Grievance Hearing Associated with Tenure.  If the recommendation of the University Provost or Dean is negative, the candidate may request a hearing before the University Faculty Grievance Committee.  The process regarding denial by the President is described in the Redbook (Sec. 4.2.2.H.8).

1. h. Review and Recommendation by the University President.  The University Provost will prepare a recommendation for the President’s review, and the President will make the final recommendation concerning tenure for any faculty member whose status is to be acted upon by the Board of Trustees or will inform the Board concerning the nonrenewal of contract for any faculty member completing the sixth year of service in a probationary appointment.  The process regarding denial by the President is described in the Redbook (Sec. 4.2.2.H.6.B).

i. Review and Recommendation by the Board of Trustees.  The Board of Trustees will take final action to grant tenure after an affirmative recommendation of the President.  If the initial recommendation to deny tenure is by the President, the Board of Trustees will decide whether to grant tenure after considering the President’s original recommendation, the report of the Faculty Grievance Committee, and the response of the President and of the candidate.

1. j. Appeal and Grievance in Relation to a Final Tenure Recommendation.  If appeal or grievance procedures delay a final tenure recommendation at the time notice of nonrenewal must be given, the President may give notice of nonrenewal of the appointment, but such notice will not prejudice later award of tenure.
   1. D. Promotion in Rank Review and Process (Redbook 4.2.3 and “Minimum Guidelines”)
      1. 1. Promotion Initiation and Criteria.  The Department Chair in discussion with the faculty member initiates the procedures for promotion.  The criteria for evaluation will be based on those established for teaching, research or creative activity, and service to the SPHIS, the University or the community as specified in Appendix A.
      2. 2. Evaluation Process.  The process for promotion in rank follows the procedures described in Section II.C.8. If the recommendation of the Provost, Dean, or Department Chair is negative, the candidate must be notified by certified mail. The candidate may request a hearing before the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences grievance committee except if the original negative decision is by the Provost (or, in cases from the Health Sciences Center, by the Vice President for Health Affairs), then jurisdiction lies with the University Faculty Grievance Committee. This request must be delivered on or before the tenth working day following the action challenged. (Subsections a-f) of this document and in the Redbook (Sec. 4.2.2.H, subsections 1-6).  Following these procedures and recommendations, a recommendation is made by the President and acted upon by the Board of Trustees.

Section 3. PROMOTION TO PROFESSOR OF TENURED OR TENURABLE FACULTY

1. 3. A. Promotion to professor should be awarded with care and only to those who show promise of continuing proficiency, as defined in Appendix A, in teaching, research and service with consideration for their work assignment. However, despite this anticipatory element, a recommendation for granting the rank of professor shall be made in recognition of accomplishments already attained. To assist the PAT Committee in their evaluation, all reprints of papers published during the review period will be forwarded and the candidate is to designate the four most significant publications in his/her bibliography, at least one of which shall be in the past five years.Associate Professor.  The process for promotion to Associate Professor for term and tenure-track faculty is described below.  Candidates for promotion to Associate Professor must demonstrate broad proficiency in the assigned work areas (Redbook, Minimum Guidelines, Sec. IV.E).

1. a. B.   In addition to Term.  Evidence must be provided for proficiency, achievement in the assigned work area or areas and promise of continuing achievement must be evidenced by for excellence, as defined in Appendix A ,in the area of greatest assignment on the annual work plan. for promotion to Associate Professor (Appendix A).  There should be evidence that the faculty member’s accomplishments provide promise of continuing proficiency.

C.   In addition, scholarship in the primary area of work assignment must be demonstrated at the time of review. Scholarship in the areas of research, teaching and service is defined in Appendix A.

1. b. D.  Normally, a minimum of five years in rank shall be served before a recommendation for promotion is considered. It should be understood that a department is not obligated to make a recommendation after the fifth year; a longer interval commonly is necessary to establish acceptable credentials. Seniority shall be considered but shall not, by itself, entitle one to promotion. Request for early promotion is appropriate if the faculty member's accomplishments as an associate professor meet the stated criteria.Tenure-Track or Tenured.  The faculty member must demonstrate continuing proficiency in two areas and excellence in the area associated with the highest work assignment percentage for promotion to Associate Professor.  If the candidate also is being reviewed for tenure, evidence for scholarship is required.  It is recommended that requests for evaluation of promotion and tenure be submitted jointly (Appendix A).
2. c. Service Counted and Timeline.  Normally, requests for promotion to Associate Professor will not be considered until a period of five years in faculty status has been served. Accomplishments as an associate professor made prior to employment at the UniversityUofL can be considered in these deliberations.

E. External Review. Extramural review shall be required as provided for in Article III Section 6.

F.   Candidates for new appointments at the rank of Professor shall satisfy the same criteria described above for promotion to that rank.

Section 4. PROMOTION OF NON-TENURABLE FACULTY

Criteria shall include Items A-F: (only the areas in the annual work assignment may be assessed)

A.  Proficiency in teaching as defined in Appendix A. Proficiency in teaching research and creative activity is required of all faculty.

B.   Proficiency in research as defined in Appendix A, if research is an assigned area.

C.   Proficiency in service as defined in Appendix A, if service is an assigned area. This can be further defined as community service and/or public health service that primarily involves public health and/or health information sciences expertise.

D.  In reviewing the activities described in the foregoing paragraphs, the unit PAT Committee shall consider whether the conduct of the faculty member indicates an ability to collaborate effectively with faculty and other members of the university community.

E.  The adherence of a faculty member to professional standards shall be considered in retention, for promotion and periodic career review decisions. The unit PAT Committee shall consider rules of professional conduct for the faculty of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences as well as rules and standards of School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences accrediting bodies, of the teaching profession, of the University (including The Redbook), and the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences.

F.   Extramural review shall be required as provided for in Article II.K.10.

In addition, service to the profession, the unit, the University, and the community that does not primarily involve public health and/or health information sciences expertise may be considered.

Section 5. PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF NON-TENURABLE FACULTY

1. d. A.  The departmental Executive Faculty and the Chair, as determined by procedures outlined in Article to the rank of associate professor (see Section III, have the major responsibility for initiating consideration of promotion..D of Reviewer Evaluations).

B.   The candidate's record shall provide evidence of proficiency in research, teaching and service for the areas assigned. In the evaluation no rigid formulae are applied; however, the individual's accomplishments must provide promise of continuing proficiency in those endeavors which best support the research and academic mission of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences and the University.

C.   In addition to proficiency, excellence must be demonstrated in the area of greatest assignment on the annual work plan. Excellence in each area is defined in Appendix A.

1. e. D. Compilation of Promotion File and Process.  The file composition and processing of materials is the same as that described above for tenure (see Section II.C.8.b through g).
2. f. Candidates for New Appointments.  Candidates for new appointments at the rank of Associate Professor must satisfy the same criteria as described above, depending on whether the appointment as Associate Professor is term, tenure-track, or tenured.
   1. 4. Promotion to Professor. The procedures for promotion to Professor for term and tenure-track are noted below. Candidates for promotion to professor must be evaluated in the work assignment areas and by the distribution of effort specified in their approved annual work plans for the period under review (Redbook, Minimum Guidelines, Sec. IV).
      1. a. Term.  Promotion to Professor should be awarded to those who show promise of continuing proficiency in the activities included in the annual work assignment and defined in Appendix A.  A recommendation for granting the rank of Professor will be made in recognition of accomplishments already attained.  Evidence also must be provided for excellence in the assigned work area or areas of greatest assignment on the annual work plan.  There must be documented sustained excellence as well as demonstrated extra-university influential leadership (Appendix A).
      2. b. Tenure-Track or Tenured. The faculty member must demonstrate sustained proficiency in two areas and sustained excellence in the area associated with the highest work assignment percentage for promotion to Professor.  If the candidate also is being reviewed for tenure, evidence for scholarship is required (Appendix A).
      3. c. Service Counted and Timeline. Normally, requests for promotion to Associate Professor will are not be considered until a full period of five years in faculty statusas Associate Professor has been served. Requests for early action are appropriate if the faculty member's accomplishments meet the stated criteria. A department is not obligated to make a recommendation after the fifth year.  Time in rank as an Associate Professor may be considered, but does not entitle one to promotion to Professor. Accomplishments made as a Professor prior to employment at the UniversityUofL can be considered in these deliberations.

E.  Candidates for new appointments at the rank of Associate Professor shall satisfy the same criteria as described above for promotion to that rank.

F.   Extramural review shall be required as provided for in Article III Section 5.

Section 6. PROMOTION TO PROFESSOR OF NON-TENURABLE FACULTY

A.  Promotion to professor should be awarded with care and only to those who show promise of continuing proficiency in the activities included in the annual work assignment and defined in Appendix A. However, despite this anticipatory element, a recommendation for granting the rank of professor shall be made in recognition of accomplishments already attained.

B.   In addition to proficiency, achievement and promise of continuing achievement must be evidenced by excellence, as defined in Appendix A, in the area of greatest effort on the annual work plan.

C.   Normally, a minimum of five years in rank shall be served before a recommendation for promotion is considered. It should be understood that a department is not obligated to make a recommendation after the fifth year; a longer interval commonly is necessary to establish acceptable credentials. Seniority shall be considered but shall not, by itself, entitle one to promotion. Request for early promotion, are appropriate if the faculty member's accomplishments as an associate professor meet the stated criteria. Accomplishments made as an associate professor prior to employment at the University can be considered in these deliberations.

D.  Extramural review shall be required as provided for in Article III Section 5.

E.  Candidates for new appointments at the rank of Professor shall satisfy the same criteria described above for promotion to that rank with consideration for the areas of their work assignment.

Section 7. APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION OF NON-FULL-TIME FACULTY

1. d. A.  In a External Review.  Extramural review of research and creative activity is required for promotion to the rank of professor (see Section III.D, External Evaluations).
2. e. Compilation of Promotion File and Process.  The file composition and the processing of materials is the same as that described above for tenure (see Section II.C.8.a through j) and promotion (see Section II.C.8.b through f).
3. f. Candidates for New Appointments.  Candidates for new appointments at the rank of Professor must satisfy the same criteria as described above, depending on whether the appointment as Professor is term, tenure-track, or tenured.
4. 5. Promotion of Part-Time Faculty. Part-time faculty members are held to the criteria specified for full-time non-tenurable faculty, but with consideration for their assigned work plan percentages.
5. E. Periodic Career Review (Redbook, Sec. 4.2.4 and Minimum Guidelines for Faculty Personnel Reviews, Sec. V: Periodic Career Reviews)
   1. 1. Periodic Career Review Process.  Faculty members are evaluated as either "satisfactory: meeting SPHIS criteria", or "unsatisfactory: not meeting SPHIS criteria" in teaching, research and service with due regard for their annual work plans during the period under review.  The criteria for a satisfactory rating in periodic review require proficiency in all areas assigned on the annual work plan for the associated time period.  The review process does not extend beyond the office of the SPHIS Dean but review results will be reported annually to the EVPHA and the University Provost.  Candidates undergoing periodic career review may examine any substantive and proceduralmaterial in the personnel file at any time.

Faculty with Tenure Appointments.  Faculty members with tenure will undergo a periodic career review after every fifth year of service.  When the review period ends in a sabbatical (or other leave), the periodic career review will be deferred until the next academic year.  A promotion consideration, for example, to the rank of  associate professor (adjunct) or associate  professor (gratis), there should be tangible evidence that a candidate's contributions are significant to the Unit's academic mission. Length of time in rank by itself shall not make one eligible for promotion.

B.   Part-time faculty shall be held to the criteria specified for full-time non-tenurable faculty with consideration for their percentage effort and work assignment.

C.   Voluntary faculty shall be promoted according to criteria set forth in Appendix B.

Section 8. PERIODIC CAREER REVIEWS

A.  Faculty with Tenure

1. 2. 1.         Faculty members with tenure (with the exception of department Chairs and the Dean, who have special administrative reviews every five years) shall undergo a periodic career review after every fifth year of service to evaluate their contribution to the missions of the University, School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences, and department. When the review period ends in a sabbatical (or other leave), the periodic career review shall be deferred until the next academic year. A promotion shall replacereplaces a periodic career review for the period in which the promotion occurs.

2.   Periodic career reviews shall be conducted in substantially the same fashion as promotion reviews except that intramural reviews can be substituted for extramural reviews. Criteria for a satisfactory review shall be proficiency in all areas assigned on the annual work plan for the period under review. The review process shall not extend beyond the office of the Dean of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences, but the results of such reviews shall be reported annually to the office of the Vice President for Health Affairs for transmission to the Provost.

3.   Candidates shall be evaluated as either "satisfactory: meeting School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences criteria", or "unsatisfactory: not meeting School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences criteria".

1. a. 4.   Tenured faculty members evaluated as Satisfactory Review.  Tenured faculty members with a satisfactory shallreview begin the next review cycle in the following academic year.

1. b. 5.   Tenured faculty members evaluated as unsatisfactory shall be re-reviewed two years after the negative evaluation by the Dean.Unsatisfactory Review. Within thirty calendar days of a periodic career review that indicates unsatisfactory performance, a faculty member, in consultation with the chair, shallChair and Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs, will prepare a career development plan, acceptable to the deanDean, to remedy the deficiency in one year unless the dean Dean approves a longer period. The plan shallwill include specific requirements to be met within that first year. If the faculty member does not complete the plan during that year, appropriate disciplinary action, which may include proceedings for termination (Redbook Article 4.5.) shall proceed. If the faculty member does complete completes the agreed upon professional development plan in that year, the faculty member shall thenwill have one additional year to demonstrate satisfactory performance. The chair shallChair will then institute another career review (called a "special career review").. A faculty member whose performance is judged unsatisfactory in this the second review shallwill be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, which may include proceedings for termination (Redbook Article, Sec. 4.2.4.B and Sec. 4.5.). However, if the faculty member is evaluated satisfactory at the time of the two year follow-up career review, the next five-year review cycle begins with the following year.3).

B.   For faculty with probationary appointments, the pretenure and tenure review shall be the required career review.

1. 3. C.         Contract renewal reviews, which must be performance based, shall be considered periodic career reviews for non-tenurable term appointees. The criteria shall be pertinent to their defined areas of appointment and performance. Satisfactory reviews require Faculty with Administrative Reviews.  The Administrative Officers of the school, the Dean, Associate Deans, and Department Chairs, are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Board of Trustees (Redbook Sec. 3.2.3; 3.3.5).  The Dean is reviewed annually by the EVPHA and the University Provost, and every five years by a broad-based committee of faculty.  The Associate Deans and Chairs are reviewed annually by the Dean, and every five years by a broad-based committee of faculty.  Sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.5.D of the Redbook provide guidelines for the process of review and resolution of disputed reviews.  Deans may conduct special reviews of administrative subordinates at any time as may be necessary to assure effective leadership and may recommend their removal at any time for any reason that is not illegal or arbitrary.
2. 4. Faculty with Probationary Appointments.  The scheduled pre-tenure and tenure reviews are the required career reviews for faculty with probationary appointments.  If a decision is made not to renew a probationary appointment at an interim point between these reviews, the process of termination of the appointment will follow the rules and procedures outlined in Redbook Sec 4.5.2.
3. 5. Faculty with non-Tenurable (Term) Appointments.  Consideration for reappointment serves as the periodic career review for faculty with term and part-time appointments.  Faculty members with non-tenurable (term) appointments may be reappointed for the benefit of the university after a career review.  They are to be reviewed in the last semester of their current contract under the evaluation criteria appropriate to the faculty member’s current rank with due regard for his/her work plan during the period under review.  The Chair will conduct the review and will provide a report and recommendation to the Dean.  A satisfactory review requires documented proficiency in all areas of the annual work assignment. Those who are evaluated as "satisfactory: meeting School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences criteria" may be offered additional contracts for reappointment. Those who are evaluated as "unsatisfactory: not meeting School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences criteria" cannot be offered another contract., provided there is still a need in the primary area.  No term faculty member will be reappointed if the evaluation is unsatisfactory.  Term appointments that exceed three continuous years must undergo a school-based review to be conducted by the Chair, PAT Committee, and Dean to determine if they have the profile of a term rather than a tenure-track appointment, and if the position is needed.

D.  All University REDBOOK and School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences rights of due process and appeal for non-tenurable, probationary, and tenured faculty shall pertain in these periodic career reviews.

Article III.      Procedures for Career Reviews (Pretenure, Tenure, Promotion, Periodic)

Section 1. ACCESS TO DOCUMENTATION

In all considerations of appointment, promotion, tenure and periodic career reviews, the personnel documents pertaining to the faculty member under consideration including a current curriculum vitae, letters of recommendation, teaching evaluations, reprints of articles and documentation of other forms of scholarship when appropriate, must be available for review by the voting faculty at least 48 hours preceding the vote on the personnel action.

Section 2. COMMUNICATION WITH PROBATIONARY FACULTY MEMBERS

A.  Each Executive Faculty member, when appointed, shall receive:

1.   a written statement specifying responsibilities,

2.   a copy of this document (Policy for Promotion, Appointment and Tenure and for Periodic Career Review in the University of Louisville School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences),

c.   a copy of the departmental guidelines for promotion, appointment, tenure, and periodic career review, if one exists

B.   In addition to the annual review, each probationary faculty member shall receive a formative pretenure review and a summative review when the candidate is proposed for promotion and/or tenure. These reviews are described in detail in Article II Section 2.

C.   Probationary faculty members shall be informed that only one request for evaluation for early tenure may be made.

Section 3. GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION FOR TENURE

A.  Evaluation shall originate in the department in which the faculty member has primary appointment. The recommendations of the faculty and of the Chair shall be forwarded to the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Promotion, Appointment, and Tenure Committee for its recommendation to the Dean, who shall make a recommendation to the Provost.

1. III. B.   A file of all information and documents pertinent to the tenure evaluation shall be compiled with the cooperation of the faculty member. Recommendations and any other material added shall become part of the file. Annual work plans and reviews and all pre-tenure reviews shall be part of the evidence to be considered at the time of promotion and tenure reviews.PROCEDURES FOR FACULTY PERSONNEL REVIEWS

The following procedures apply for all of the faculty personnel reviews.

1. A. Documentation
   1. 1. New Appointment. Materials and documents required for consideration of appointment include current curriculum vitae, external letters of recommendation, copies of selected manuscripts, a personal statement, and other materials as required by University policy.
   2. 2. Periodic Career Review. Materials and documents required for consideration of a periodic career review include a current curriculum vitae, letters of recommendation, teaching evaluations, annual work assignments and evaluations, and other materials as required by University policy.
   3. 3. Pre-Tenure Review.Materials and documents required for consideration of the pre-tenure review include a current curriculum vitae, teaching evaluations, annual work assignments and evaluations, reprints of articles, other pertinent documentation as noted in Appendix A, and other materials as required by University policy.
   4. 4. Promotion and/or Tenure. Materials and documents required for consideration of promotion and/or tenure include a current curriculum vitae, annual work assignments and evaluations, letters of recommendation, teaching evaluations, reprints of articles, other pertinent documentation as noted in Appendix A, and other materials as required by University policy.  Copies of requests for letters of evaluation, recommendation letters, email or memo notifications for delivery of ballots, scheduled meetings when requested, and emails or memos requesting materials from a candidate also form part of the documentation and should be maintained by the Department Chair’s Office.
   5. B. Notification of Faculty Candidate Regarding Materials for Promotion and/or Tenure and Periodic Career Review

The Department Chair in conjunction with the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs will notify the faculty candidate what materials should be assembled and by what date the materials should be submitted.  The notification will indicate that the faculty candidate for promotion or tenure may add information or documents for reconsideration by previous levels of evaluation before the file is forwarded to the University Provost. The faculty member may examine any substantive and procedural material in the tenure file but shallat any time prior to receipt in the office of the University Provost.  However, the faculty candidate will not be informed of the identity of the evaluators. The faculty member may add newly available material evidence for reconsideration by the previous evaluators or rebuttals before the file is forwarded to the Provost. The evidence in this file shall be reviewed according to the procedures specified in The Redbook in the Minimum Guidelines and this personnel document.

C.   The recommendation of the Dean of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences shall be the unit recommendation forwarded to all higher levels of review. When a candidate is a member of the graduate faculty, the Dean of the Graduate School shall receive the case with the unit recommendation and will form a recommendation to be included in subsequent levels of review. The Vice President for Health Affairs shall review the unit recommendation (and the recommendation of the Dean of the Graduate School when appropriate) and form a recommendation to forward with the file for the Provost's consideration.

Section 4. PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWS AT THE DEPARTMENTAL LEVEL FOR ALL CAREER REVIEWS

A.  All recommendations for new appointments, promotions, tenure, or periodic career review shall originate in the department and require appropriate consideration by the proper committee of the Executive Faculty of the department:

1.   a committee of all tenured members of the department shall make recommendations on matters of tenure.

2.   a committee of all other professors of the department shall make recommendations on promotions to professor and periodic career review of same.

3.   a committee of all other professors and associate professors of the department shall make recommendations for promotion to associate professor and periodic career review of same.

4.   a committee of the entire Executive Faculty of the department shall make recommendations for new appointments of probationary and tenured faculty members.

5.   The department Chair shall be responsible for making all essential arrangements for meetings of such committees. These arrangements shall include:

a.   notifying the candidate of the nature of the materials to be assembled and furnished to the committee and of the date when the documentation is required. The notification shall include the statement that candidates for promotion or tenure:

1.   may add information or documents for reconsideration by previous levels of evaluation before the file is forwarded to the Office of the Provost, and

2.   may examine any substantive material in the file at any time prior to receipt by the Office of the Provost, but shall not be informed of the identity of the evaluators.

b.   compiling all annual work assignments and annual evaluations for the file.

c.   requesting and receiving all extramural reviews for promotion and/or tenure and preparing a copy of each for use by the candidate after deletion of all identifying items.

d.   notifying members of the appropriate committee of the date, time and place of the meeting, with provision of at least 48 hours for all members to study the documents in the candidate's file.

e.   providing to the committee the criteria by which candidates are to be evaluated; these should be forwarded with the other materials to the next level of review.

f.    assembling the committee at the proper time for confidential discussion of the candidate's qualifications which shall include any evidence of professional misconduct as well as any supporting materials that the candidate cares to submit.

g.   ensuring that the voting records of each meeting are maintained by the department and shall include:

1)   the names of faculty eligible to vote.

2)   the names of those voting.

3)   the results of the vote.

h.   The decision of the appropriate committee as specified above in Article 6.a., made by anonymous secret ballot, shall be the departmental recommendation. Similar consideration shall be sought from other departmental Executive Faculty with their opinion also obtained by anonymous secret ballot.

B.   Consideration by the Chair

The Chair shall prepare a separate evaluation and recommendation that shall be included in the candidate's personnel file. This letter must include comments on extramural evaluations as set forth in Article III Section 5.

C.   Compilation of the Personnel File

1.   All documentary materials employed in the evaluation of the candidate including a copy of the criteria used for evaluation, plus the recommendations of the department and the Chair, shall be incorporated into the candidate's personnel file. The personnel file shall include the faculty work plans for the candidate covering the period under review.

2.   The contents of the personnel file are the basis for evaluation at all succeeding levels of review and must be considered confidential.

Section 5. PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWS BY THE PROMOTION, APPOINTMENT AND TENURE COMMITTEE

A.  All recommendations for appointment or promotion to associate professor or professor, tenure, or periodic career review transmitted to the Dean are forwarded to the Unit Promotion, Appointment and Tenure Committee for review and recommendation. It is the responsibility of this committee to examine each recommendation for consistency with departmental guidelines and current School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences policies on promotion, appointment, tenure and periodic career review.

B.   In instances in which the recommendation of the department differs from that of the department Chair, the Committee shall consult with both parties and the candidate prior to making its recommendation.

C.   When any disagreement concerning promotion, tenure, or periodic career review occurs between the recommendations of the departmental faculty and the department Chair; the Promotion, Appointment and Tenure Committee and/or the departmental faculty and the department Chair; and the Promotion, Appointment and Tenure Committee and the Dean; the succeeding review authority (i.e., the department Chair; Promotion, Appointment and Tenure Committee; and Dean; respectively) must send a written statement of the reasons for this differing recommendation to the faculty member by certified mail and to the prior reviewing authority (i.e., departmental faculty; departmental faculty and/or the department Chair; and Promotion, Appointment, and Tenure Committee; respectively), each of whom shall have opportunity and time to comment in writing prior to forwarding any recommendation to the succeeding level of review.

D.  The committee's recommendation is transmitted to the Dean who is responsible for preparing the Unit recommendation. The Redbook, Sec. 4.2.2.H.7 requires notification of faculty by certified mail of a negative recommendation on promotion or tenure by the appropriate Vice President, Dean or department Chair, to allow the candidate to request a hearing before a grievance committee. In tenure cases, if the Dean or Chair makes a negative recommendation, the faculty member under review has ten days within which to file with the appropriate grievance committee.

Section 6. EXTRAMURAL EVALUATIONS

A.  Four extramural evaluations are required for each promotion and/or tenure review.

B.   The relationship of evaluators to the University and the candidate must be clearly stated in the Chair’s evaluation along with certification of the professional expertise and objectivity (non-mentor relationship) of the evaluators. Mentors (graduate or post-graduate supervisors) are not acceptable evaluators; however, extra letters from mentors may be included in the file but must be clearly indicated as such.

C.   Selection of reviewers – Each candidate will be given the opportunity to nominate extramural and intramural evaluators. The candidate will suggest to the Chair of the Department a list of eight M.D., Ph.D., Ed.D. D.D.S. or J.D. (or equivalent terminal degree) reviewers outside the University with faculty appointments at other universities at or above the rank the candidate is being promoted to. Since the primary purpose of the extramural review is to evaluate the quality of the candidate's published research, teaching, or service activities, the extramural evaluators must be well established in the  field and must be knowledgeable of the quality of the candidate’s contributions. The Department Chair will review the appropriateness of the evaluators.Once the Chair and candidate have agreed on the list of potential evaluators, the list will be forwarded to the Dean’s office.  The  Dean will select four extramural evaluators form this list.

D.  The Chair will write for letters of evaluation and will collect them. Requests for extramural evaluations shall specify the average annual work assignment for the time period under review and that the areas on the work assignment (teaching, service and/or research) are the area(s) to be reviewed.

E. Comments regarding the quality of the work under review shall be solicited (Section IV.D.5.a of The Redbook’s Minimum Guidelines for Faculty Personnel Reviews). Evaluators will be asked to comment on whether proficiency has been demonstrated in all areas of the work assignment and whether excellence has been demonstrated in the area of greatest assignment as defined in Appendix A (which will be provided to the evaluators). In the case of tenure reviews (and promotion to professor of tenured faculty) they will be asked to comment on the quality of the candidate's scholarship.

F.   Materials provided to the reviewers –The CV and reprints, if applicable, will be provided to evaluators. Appendix A from this document shall be appended to letters requesting evaluation.

G.  Recommendations regarding the advisability of awarding promotion and/or tenure shall not be solicited since extramural evaluators are usually not familiar with the total performance of the candidate. If such recommendations are submitted they shall be disregarded.

1. H. The Promotion, Appointment and Tenure Committee shall require a written statement from the departmental promotion, appointment, and tenure committee indicating that it has analyzed the evaluations and has determined their validity. The candidate shall be provided an opportunity to respond in writing to the evaluation(s), and this response must be included in the review materials prior to consideration of the evaluation by any reviewing body, including the departmental committee.

Section 7. TERMINATION OF A REVIEW FOR PROMOTION OR EARLY AWARD OF TENURE

Once formally initiated the process of review for promotion or early award of tenure shall proceed through the levels described unless the candidate requests in writing that the proceedings be halted.

Section 8. SPECIAL PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PERIODIC CAREER REVIEW

A.  Committee votes and administrative recommendations regarding periodic career review shall be cast in terms of either "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory."

B.   Because evaluations during periodic career review are restricted to the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences, and personnel files do not proceed through University-wide offices, extramural letters of reference will not be required in the personnel file, intramural letters may take their place.

C.   Candidates undergoing periodic career review may examine any substantive material in the personnel file at any time but shall not be informed of the identity of evaluators other than the department Chair.

Article IV.      Conditions of Faculty Employment

Section 1. ANNUAL WORK PLAN AND PRESENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY

A.  Each faculty member shall negotiate annually with the department Chair a faculty work plan to be signed by both to indicate their agreement. The annual work plan must specify percentage effort to be spent in Teaching, Research and Service. Service may be further specified as Community Service (defined as service to the Department, School, University, Commonwealth, Region, Nation, or profession that primarily involves public health and/or health information sciences expertise). The annual work plan shall specify the requirements for a faculty member’s presence at the University or University-affiliated facilities (Section 4.3.1.A of The Redbook). Teaching is a required area for all faculty work assignments. The faculty work plan shall describe specific goals and objectives to be achieved by the faculty member during the period covered. When circumstances require changes in the workplan, the faculty member and chair shall file an amended plan (including an explanation of the necessary changes) for the dean's approval.

B.   For faculty in non-tenurable positions the faculty work plan shall be specific to the duties particular to their contract periods.

C.   For probationary faculty (defined in Section II.A.2. of this document) the faculty work plan shall reflect the need to demonstrate broad proficiency in the three areas of Teaching, Research and Service in order to satisfy the requirements for the award of tenure. In addition, for probationary faculty a minimum assignment of 20% research and the corresponding time away from teaching/service obligations is required.

D.  For tenured faculty, the faculty work plan shall respect both the faculty member's need to shape his or her career and the missions of the department, School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences, and University. In order to accomplish this, the annual work plan shall permit individual faculty members to concentrate, at various times in their careers, on one or more of the areas of Teaching, Research and Service. However, the work plan shall also allow for achieving the mission, goals, and objectives of the department.

Section 2. WORK OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSITY

A.  For full-time faculty, The School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Practice Plan defines the conditions under which work outside of the University (Section 4.3.3 of The Redbook) may be carried out.

B.   Work outside the University that is not specified in the annual work plan must be previously approved by the Chair and Dean and must not conflict or interfere with the faculty member's schedule of assignments and responsibilities at the University. As part of the documentation for annual review, full-time faculty shall submit a report of this professional work outside the University under the provisions of this section.

Section 3. OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

Other conditions of faculty, i.e., leaves of absence, sabbaticals, compensation, retirement, termination, contract renewal and appropriate notice of non-renewal, mediation of disagreements, the right to grieve employment decisions, etc., are covered in The Redbook.

Article V.        Changes to this Document

Section 1. Suggested changes to this document will originate from the Dean or his/her designee or the Promotion, Appointment and Tenure Committee. They will be considered by the Faculty Forum and forwarded to the Executive Faculty of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences for a vote. The Dean will receive the recommendation of the Executive Faculty for transmission to the Provost.

Section 2. Suggested changes to the appendices to this document will originate from the Dean or his/her designee or the Promotion, Appointment and Tenure Committee. They will be considered by the Faculty Forum and forwarded to the Executive Faculty of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences for a vote. The Dean will receive the recommendation of the Executive Faculty and make the final decision about acceptance of the changes.

Article VI.      Departmental personnel documents

Section 1. Separate departmental documents are discouraged and their function can be fulfilled by adopting the school's criteria elaborated in this document (Policy for Promotion, Appointment and Tenure and for Periodic Career Review in the University of Louisville School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences) and its accompanying appendices. However, each department may prepare written guidelines that specify additional requirements and procedures for promotion, appointment, tenure and periodic career review. Departmental documents and procedures shall not disrupt due process nor set performance requirements lower than those established in the School's document.

Section 2. Departmental personnel documents must be recommended by the Promotion, Appointment and Tenure Committee for approval by the Dean or his/her designee. The Dean shall forward a copy of approved departmental documents to the office of the Provost.

Section 3. This document (Policy for Promotion, Appointment and Tenure and for Periodic Career Review in the University of Louisville School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences) is a standard document which shall be applied to those departments that have not had guidelines approved as provided in this Article.

Recommended by School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Faculty Forum August/02

Recommended by the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Executive Faculty  August/02

Recommended by the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Faculty Forum August/02

Approved by the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Executive Faculty August, 2002.

Confirmed by the Faculty Senate, September 4, 2002.

Approved by the Board of Trustees, September 13, 2002.

School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences

Policies for

Annual Reviews and Performance Based Salary Increases

A.  Annual reviews aim to enhance the quality of the faculty by recognizing and rewarding performance in terms of the department's and the unit's goals and objectives. Annual reviews and performance-based salary increase (PBSI) evaluations should reflect the same values as promotional and other career reviews. They should document yearly progress toward promotion or satisfactory periodic career review. Annual reviews shall become part of the record to be used in the reviews specified in the preamble to Redbook Article 4.2 such as mid-tenure, tenure, promotional and periodic career reviews.

B.   The Dean may use up to 5% of the funds allocated to the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences for salary increases for a particular year to award special, one-time payments to faculty members for exceptional effort or achievement beyond that rewarded in the regular salary increase process. The criteria and amount of such rewards shall be reported annually by the Dean to the members of the Faculty Forum and PCEW committee and the Provost.

C.   Each department shall award salary increases based upon performance as documented in annual reviews. Annual reviews shall provide qualitative feedback on performance in each category (teaching, research and service) of the work assignment for the year under review. The departmental documents establishing the process for awarding salary increases shall be consistent with the policies contained in this document.

1.   Each faculty member, in conjunction with the departmental chair shall develop an annual Faculty Work Plan for the upcoming calendar year. The written Faculty Work Plan must be approved by the chair and filed in the department office by December 31 of each year. These work plans shall specify the work assignment and percentage efforts in each category (teaching, research and service) and provide a basis for the subsequent annual performance evaluations.

The Faculty Work Plan for probationary (pre-tenure) faculty must contain provisions for demonstrating broad proficiency in all three categories (teaching, research and service).

2.   All decisions concerning salary increases shall be made in accordance with criteria and procedures contained in departmental documents adopted by a majority vote of the executive faculty with primary appointment in the department. To assure compliance with these School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Policies, the departmental documents shall be reviewed and approved by the Performance Criteria and Economic Welfare Committee. Only those plans or revisions which are approved by the Performance Criteria and Economic Welfare Committee of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences by December 31 may be used as the basis for faculty performance evaluations or PBSI awards for the next year.

3.   Based on the approved criteria of the department, only the faculty whose overall performance is judged to be satisfactory or above will receive a salary increase. In addition, only the faculty whose performance in their major area of work assignments is judged to be satisfactory or above will receive a salary increase. These increases shall not be across-the-board, and should reflect an award structure that is based on performance on the Annual Work Plan. The amount of the increase will be appropriate to the performance and the size of the pool for salary increases in a given year.

a.   It is recognized that sometimes recommendations for zero salary increases are not the result of unsatisfactory performance, but rather may be due to fiscal limitations or voluntary surrender of merit increase by a faculty member.

b. A recommendation by a chair to the dean for a zero salary increase based on unsatisfactory performance must be submitted for approval of the provost. This recommendation shall include the reasons for the zero salary increase and specific suggestions for improving any performance considered to be unsatisfactory. Simultaneously, a copy of the recommendation shall be given to the faculty member involved.

c.   The Departmental Plan must also contain clear indications of or reference to minimum levels of acceptable performance in each category of the work assignment.

4.   The Departmental Plan shall specify criteria and procedures by which annual reviews are related to salary decisions made by the chair of the unit. In identifying the criteria to be used for performance evaluations, reference may be made to departmental, unit or university Promotion, Tenure and Periodic Career Review Policies or other applicable documents. Although the department may specify criteria in addition to those enumerated in these documents, the criteria must be clear and accessible to every faculty member of the department. Only those criteria contained in or specifically referenced by the Departmental Plan may be used in the evaluation of faculty performance or in the determination of salary increases. The Departmental Plan shall include each of the following provisions:

a.   The procedures used for judging faculty performance and recommending PBSI awards must be clearly described in the Departmental Plan. These procedures must be consistent with those described in these Unit Policies and the Redbook. These procedures must include an identification of the person(s) or committee responsible for evaluating annual faculty performance and making recommendations of PBSI to the departmental chairperson. This departmental PBSI body may be an elected, appointed or ex officio committee or may be the departmental chair alone.

b.   At the beginning of each year, each faculty member will be provided an opportunity to present documentation of performance and effort relative to his or her Faculty Work Plan of the preceding calendar year. This documentation must be received by the chair by February 1.

c.   Departments may elect to use up to a three year average. In this case, the annual performance evaluation based on the Faculty Work Plan will be used (along with the previous two annual evaluations - an average of a three-year time period of performance evaluations or the time period the individual has been a faculty member of the University if less than three years) as the basis for the award of performance-based salary increases. This procedure is suggested and would avoid penalizing faculty members who demonstrate exceptional productivity during years in which there is little or no money available for salary increase. The performance evaluation shall characterize an individual faculty member’s performance as Satisfactory or above if the performance meets or exceeds the minimum levels of performance. An Unsatisfactory performance rating indicates that the faculty member has not met the minimum departmental criteria in that category of work assignment. A faculty member who obtains an overall rating of “unsatisfactory” or a rating of “unsatisfactory” in the category of greatest percentage effort (as specified in the Faculty Work Plan) for the most recent year shall not be given a performance-based raise, i.e., a three-year average should not be used.

d.   The department chairperson is responsible for reviewing and approving the performance evaluations and PBSI recommendations made by the departmental PBSI body, if one exists. Each faculty member in the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences will receive an annual written performance evaluation, recommendations for improvement if necessary, and relative data relating to their salary increase and departmental norms from the departmental chairperson by March 15. Each faculty member shall be given timely opportunity to respond to these recommendations and his or her performance evaluation so that timely adjustments may be made before the dean's final recommendation.

e.   A faculty member regardless of work assignment will be eligible for the maximal salary increase given in the department if optimal performance on his/her work assignment is demonstrated. No faculty will be penalized for having a lower percentage (or no work assignment) in any of three areas (teaching, research or service) on his/her annual work plan. No part of the merit raise pool may be designated to reward activities in a given area and thus be rendered inaccessible to faculty with no work assignment in that area.

f.    In calculating the final amount of the salary increase the percentage efforts on the annual work assignment must be taken into consideration (i.e., used as a weighting factor).

The PBSI calculation for a “Faculty X” with 30% Teaching, 50% Research and 20% Service assignment must be calculated as follows:

Faculty Work Plan		Rating*	Score	Max Score
Category	Assignment %
Teaching	30	2	60	60
Research	50	1	50	100
Service	20	1	20	40
TOTAL			130	200

^*Rating:            2 = Excellent, 1 = Proficient, 0 = Unsatisfactory.

The formula for the salary increase for “Faculty X” wouldbe the Score of “Faculty X”/Total score of the departmental faculty x $ amount available for the salary increases

Because the criteria for judging scholarship and the procedures used in making determinations of faculty performance vary substantially among various departments of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences, each department shall develop a Departmental Plan for Annual Review with their own clear definitions of the rating categories (excellence, proficient and unsatisfactory) for faculty performance and for calculating PBSI. However, the School's definitions as provided in Appendix A of the PAT Document must be generally followed.

(PleaseNote: The method described is consistent with the promotional criteria in which excellence in the area of greatest work effort is required for promotion and above average performance in an area of greatest effort is rewarded more than above average performance in an area that does not comprise a large part of the faculty member's work assignment.)

5.   Appeals to reconsider performance evaluations and/or salary adjustments may be made to the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Performance Criteria and Economic Welfare Committee by April 22. This committee will make recommendations for changes, if any, to the department chair no later than May 7.

6.   The dean shall report annually to the Faculty Forum and to the provost the frequency distribution of the percentage salary increases received by all faculty members in the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences and a description of the evaluation systems used to arrive at such salary increases.

7.   The department must preserve the annual reviews. Individual faculty members shall be responsible for maintaining the documentary evidence supporting each annual review through the next tenure, promotion or periodic career review. The chair of the department shall be responsible for maintaining copies of the annual reviews for  inclusion in career reviews.

8.   Departmental policies for salary increases may be amended following the same process by which they were adopted and must be approved by the Performance Criteria and Economic Welfare Committee of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences as explained under C2.

A calendar of important dates is attached.

Recommended by School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Faculty Forum August/02

Recommended by the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Executive Faculty  August/02

Recommended by the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Faculty Forum August/02

Approved by the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Executive Faculty August, 2002.

Confirmed by the Faculty Senate, September 4, 2002.

Approved by the Board of Trustees, September 13, 2002.

APPENDIX A

Definitions and Examples of

Achievement (Proficiency and Excellence) and Scholarship

in the Areas of Research, Teaching and Service

Contractual renewal and faculty promotion are based on faculty achievement. We categorize faculty achievement into two levels --"proficiency" and "excellence".  Proficiency in all areas of the work assignment is expected of all faculty at all times. Excellence in the area of greatest work effort, as defined by the work assignment , is required for faculty promotion in rank. Scholarship, the creation and dissemination of new knowledge in the field and its acceptance by peers, is an additional requirement for promotion in rank of all probationary and tenured faculty. Definitions and examples of proficiency, excellence and scholarship in all three areas (research, teaching and service) are provided in this appendix.

The contents of this appendix cannot be changed without a positive vote of the Executive Faculty.

I.       Definitions of Proficiency in the Areas of Research, Teaching, and Service

Proficiency in the areas assigned on the annual work plan is required of all faculty for contract renewal or satisfactory career reviews

1.   Proficiency in Research

Proficiency in research is best evidenced by regular dissemination of research findings (on average, at least annual dissemination is expected for those with a 20% work assignment in research) the majority of which should be through traditional peer-reviewed publications. Reviews by collaborators, peers and external reviewers must also be obtained and should indicate satisfactory performance compared to others at this stage of the career.

2.   Proficiency in Teaching

The School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences requires a standard summative peer evaluation at the time of all formal reviews. This must be included with all promotion files. Proficiency in teaching is best demonstrated by a documentable teaching assignment and satisfactory supervisory and peer reviews of the teaching effort. Reviews by the recipients of the teaching efforts (e.g., students or residents) must also be obtained and should demonstrate satisfactory performance as well.

3.   Proficiency in Service

Proficiency in service is best demonstrated by documentable service and satisfactory peer and supervisory reviews of the service. Reviews by the recipients of the service or colleagues with knowledge of the service must also be sought to document proficiency. Service is defined as service to the Department, University, City, County, Commonwealth, Region, Nation, or profession. In order for the activities to be considered, they must involve public health and/or health information science expertise.

4.   Administration

a. Administrative activities should be considered in the area to which they apply. For example, administrative responsibility for an educational activity (e.g., course director; associate dean for Curriculum) should be considered part of the teaching effort and evaluation. Administrative responsibility for a research activity (e.g., departmental vice chair for research, departmental research coordinator, associate dean for research) should be considered part of the research effort and evaluation.

b.   Significant administrative assignments that do not fall into one of these categories, but serve a broader function (e.g., division chief, department chair, associate dean for advocacy, faculty) may be considered under the category of "service."  Excellence and scholarship of this type of administrative activity may be presented as a supplement to the activities in research, teaching and/or service in promotion and tenure considerations.

II.     Definitions of Excellence in the Areas of Research, Teaching and Service

Excellence in the area of greatest assignment on the annual work plan is required of all faculty for promotion in rank.

1.   Excellence in research (a criterion for promotion for those with greatest assigned effort in research)

a.   Promotion

Excellence in research is best demonstrated by having a major responsibility for an independent research program or playing a documentable leadership role in a collaborative research effort. To demonstrate this, regular publication (on average at least annually) in peer-reviewed media for which the faculty member is a major author (defined as first or last author unless otherwise specified in the CV) is required. An independent research program requires current extramural funding; federal funding support as principal investigator is preferred, or failing that, nationally peer-reviewed funding will be acceptable if evidence for recent submission and resubmission to federal sources is provided. (If it can be documented that federal funding is generally unavailable for that research area, this requirement can be fulfilled via substantial national peer-reviewed funding.) Reviews of the research via extramural letters must be obtained and should support the rating of excellence.

b.   Promotion to professor

In addition to the criteria specified in this appendix section II.1.a., for promotion to professor based on excellence in research, annual publication as major author will suffice only if the journal is judged by peers to be in a top, high visibility, journal in the field. In addition for promotion to professor based on excellence in research, sustained, renewed, federal funding as principal investigator will be required. (If it can be documented that federal funding is generally unavailable for that research area, this requirement can be fulfilled via substantial national peer-reviewed funding.)

2.   Excellence in teaching (a criterion for promotion for those with greatest assigned effort in teaching)

a.   Promotion

Excellence in teaching is best demonstrated by a documentable substantial teaching assignment with a major responsibility for (i.e., leadership role in) a teaching program. Supervisory and peer reviews of the teaching effort must be obtained and should support the rating of excellence. Reviews by the recipients of the teaching efforts (e.g.., students or residents) must also be obtained and should support the rating of excellence.

b.   Promotion to professor

In addition to the criteria specified in this appendix section II.2.a, for promotion to professor based on excellence in teaching, extra-university leadership in teaching must be demonstrated. Examples of how this can be demonstrated is via the scholarship of teaching as described in this Appendix section III.3 or participation in extramural educational initiatives (examples: election to national committees involved with education, invitations as a visiting professor for teaching activity, invitation to be an accreditation site visitor).

3.   Excellence in service (a criterion for promotion of those with greatest assigned effort in service)

a.   Promotion

Excellence in service is best demonstrated by a documentable service assignment and a major responsibility for (i.e., leadership role in) a service program. The faculty should have obtained funding support for the program through contracts or fees. Peer and supervisory reviews of the service must be obtained and should support the rating of excellence. Reviews by the recipients of the service (for example colleagues, health departments or collective reviews such as public satisfaction inventories) must also be sought and should support the rating of excellence.

b.   Promotion to professor

In addition to the criteria specified in this Appendix, Section II.3.a, for promotion to professor based on excellence in service, extra-university leadership in service must be demonstrated. Examples of how this could be demonstrated is via scholarship as described in this Appendix, Section III.4, or participation in extramural initiatives (examples: election to national committees, invitations as a visiting professor, invitation to be an accreditation site visitor).

III.    Definitions of Scholarship in the Areas of Research, Teaching, and Service

Required of all probationary (pre-tenure) and tenured faculty for promotion in rank

1.   Introduction

Scholarship is defined herein as the creation and dissemination of new knowledge in the field and its acceptance by peers. Tenure is awarded to those that have an independent, focused, self-sustaining program of scholarship or a leadership role in a focused, self-sustaining program of collaborative scholarship. In any given area, the requirements for scholarship exceed those for proficiency in that the scholar plays a pivotal role in the creation of new knowledge and assumes primary responsibility for its dissemination.

1. C. Evaluation Criteria for Promotion and/or Tenure and Periodic Career Review.

The Department Chair in conjunction with the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs will provide the criteria by which candidates are to be evaluated to all faculty members of the department and to the external and internal reviewers.

1. D. Reviewer Evaluations for Promotion and/or Tenure and Periodic Career Review (Redbook, Minimum Guidelines Section IV.D.5)
   1. 1. Number of Reviewers for promotion and/or tenure.  Three external reviewer evaluations are required for each promotion and/or tenure review.  The faculty candidate will be given the opportunity to suggest names of reviewers and to discuss these with the Department Chair.  The candidate will provide the Department Chair a list of at least eight potential reviewers outside of the University.  All reviewers should have a doctoral level degree (MD, PhD, EdD, DDS, JD or equivalent terminal degree) and an academic appointment at or above the rank to which the candidate is being promoted, or be in an equivalent non-academic position.  The relationship of the reviewers to the candidate and the University must be clearly indicated in the list.  The Department Chair will review the evaluators and may strike names of those considered to be inappropriate, and may identify alternatives.  All materials related to such changes must be included in the promotion file.  The Dean or Dean’s designee will resolve any disputes associated with the external evaluator selection process.
   2. 2. Number of Reviewers for Periodic Career Review.  Because evaluations during periodic career review are restricted to the SPHIS and personnel files do not proceed through University-wide offices, external evaluations are not required in the personnel file; internal letters may take their place.  A total of three letters are required.
   3. 3. Selection of External Reviewers.  The primary purpose of the extramural review is to provide an unbiased, professional expert and objective evaluation of the candidate's published research and creative activity and service activities.  Thus, the reviewers must be sufficiently well established in the candidate’s field of expertise to allow an informed assessment of the quality of the candidate’s contributions. Former mentors (graduate or post-graduate supervisors), recent co-authors or current collaborators are not acceptable extramural evaluators.  However, it is permissible to provide supplementary letters from mentors, so long as they are clearly indicated as such.  Once the Department Chair and candidate have agreed on the list of potential extramural reviewers, the list will be forwarded to the Dean’s office.  The Dean, or Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs will select three evaluators.  The Department Chair or the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs will contact the evaluators to request letters of evaluation.  The professional qualifications, eligibility and objectivity of the reviewers must be certified in the department Chair’s evaluation letter (Minimum Guidelines Sec. IV.D.5.a).  The candidate should not contact potential reviewers and should not be informed of the identity of the selected reviewers.
   4. 4. Request for Reviewer Letters. The letters of request to the selected reviewers must provide the candidate’s average annual work assignment for the time period under review for the areas on the work plan (teaching, research, service).  If the annual work assignment has varied greatly over part of the period of review, this should be clearly indicated.  The letter must summarize the performance criteria defined in Appendix A, any supplementary departmental criteria, and direct reviewers to evaluate whether criteria for proficiency have been attained in all areas of the work assignment and if excellence has been demonstrated in the area of greatest assignment.  In the case of tenure reviews, and promotion to professor of tenured faculty, reviewers should be asked to additionally evaluate the quality of the candidate's scholarship.  Recommendations on the advisability of award of promotion and/or tenure should not be solicited because extramural evaluators are not generally familiar with the entire record of the candidate; if such recommendations are returned, they will be disregarded.  Accompanying documents must include:  (1) a copy of the ‘Policy for Promotion, Appointment and Tenure and for Periodic Career Review’ and Appendix A; (2) the candidate’s CV; (3) selected reprints of peer-reviewed publications; (4) summative teaching evaluations; (5) a research/teaching summary report by year showing work assignment percentages for research, teaching, and service, number of publications, external grant and contract funding percents, name and number of courses taught and number of students; and (6) a service summary report by year showing service percent time, service organization interactions, and nature of the interaction.
   5. 5. Receipt of External Reviews.  The evaluative letters of the extramural reviewers must be returned to the Dean’s Office.  The faculty candidate, upon request, may view a redacted copy that does not provide any identifying information on the reviewer.  The faculty candidate may respond in writing to any substantive points in the reviewer’s evaluations if they choose, and this response may be included in the review binder.  The faculty candidate, however, may not remove letters of review from the binder.
   6. E. Procedures for Department Review for Appointment, Promotion and/or Tenure and Periodic Career Review.

The following provides general guidelines for the eligibility of faculty who may vote on appointment, promotion, tenure and periodic career reviews, and the required department review procedures.

1. 1. Eligibility of Faculty Voting.  Tenured faculty members are eligible to review and vote on all faculty members for promotion and tenure at or below their rank.  Probationary faculty members and term faculty members are eligible to review and vote on the promotion of faculty to the same or lower rank.  If there are fewer than three eligible departmental faculty members, exclusive of the chair, the department will recommend a list of up to six eligible university extra-departmental faculty members from which the Dean or Dean’s designee will select up to three.  Faculty who are on university leave do not vote unless they inform the Office of the Dean in writing that they wish to vote during their leave.
2. 2. Department Voting Process and Records.  Voting for promotion and tenure are conducted separately and recorded on separate ballots.  The ballots will not be marked with name, rank, tenure status, or any other information that could identify a faculty member to ensure that votes remain anonymous.  Any identifying information associated with a faculty member will be removed and the anonymous ballots submitted to the Dean’s Office.  A staff assistant will collect and log the returned ballot envelopes.  If the total number of ballots returned is less than the number sent, a reminder will be sent to the voting faculty providing a final deadline for return of ballots.  Ballots that are not returned will be excluded from the total count.  The voting records will be maintained by the Dean’s Office and include the list of faculty eligible to vote, the number and names of faculty sent a ballot, the number and names of faculty who return a ballot, and the aggregate result of the vote summarized on the Department Ballot Summary.  The decision of the anonymous vote will constitute the departmental recommendation.  All confidential records regarding faculty reviews should be protected and remain confidential.  The results of the department vote will be summarized on the Department Ballot Summary and included in the candidate’s promotion and tenure dossier.
3. 3. Evaluation by the Department Chair. The Department Chair will prepare a separate letter of evaluation and recommendation, which constitutes the Chair’s vote.  This letter must describe the candidate’s work assignment over the period of review and evaluate the performance according to the SPHIS criteria provided in Appendix A, and any department criteria.  The letter also must summarize the evaluations by the external reviewers and make note of their relationship to the University and to the candidate.
4. 4. Compilation of the Personnel File.  All documentary materials employed in the evaluation of the candidate including a copy of the criteria used for evaluation, plus the recommendations and votes of the eligible department faculty and the Chair, will be placed in the candidate's personnel file and in the dossier for promotion and/or tenure.  Annual work assignments and evaluations covering the entire review period for the candidate must also be present.  The contents of the personnel file are the basis for evaluation at all succeeding levels of review and must be considered confidential.
5. 5. Personnel Decision Voting.  Individual faculty members vote on personnel decisions only once.
6. F. Procedures for PAT Committee Review

All recommendations for appointment or promotion to Associate Professor or Professor, for tenure, and periodic career review are forwarded to the SPHIS PAT Committee for review and recommendation prior to the Dean’s evaluation.  The file should include copies of all materials noted above and required documentation as noted in Appendix A.  The body of work presented in the file will be evaluated in relation to the percent of effort as recorded for the work plan assignment.  The PAT Committee will examine each recommendation for consistency with current SPHIS personnel policy.  The decision of the anonymous vote will be included in the PAT Committee letter, which must reference the Annual Work Plan and assigned percentages for the review period.  Additionally, the letter should reference the SPHIS criteria and must provide a written analysis of the validity and significance of the evaluations received.

1. G. Termination of a Review for Promotion or Early Award of Tenure

Once formally initiated, the process of review for promotion or early award of tenure will proceed through the levels described unless the candidate requests in writing that the proceedings be halted.

1. IV. CONDITIONS OF FACULTY APPOINTMENT
2. A. Annual Work Plan (Redbook Sec. 4.3.1.A)

An annual faculty work plan is negotiated annually between each faculty member and the department Chair to be signed by both to indicate their agreement.  The annual work plan must specify percentage effort to be spent in teaching, research and service.  Service may be further specified as Community Service (defined as service to the Department, School, University, Commonwealth, region, nation, or profession that primarily involves public health and/or health information sciences expertise).  The annual work plan will specify the requirements for a faculty member’s presence at the University or University-affiliated facilities and describe the specific goals and objectives to be achieved by the faculty member during the period covered.  When circumstances require changes in the work plan, the faculty member and Department Chair will file an amended plan (including an explanation of the necessary changes) for the Dean's approval.

1. 1. Non-Tenured Faculty.  The faculty work plan will be specific to the assigned areas and duties specific to the contract period for non-tenurable faculty.
2. 2. Probationary Faculty.  For probationary faculty (defined in Section I.A.c of this document) the faculty work plan will reflect the need to demonstrate broad proficiency in the three areas of teaching, research and serviceand scholarship in one area in order to satisfy the requirements for the award of tenure.
3. 3. Tenured Faculty.  For tenured faculty, the faculty work plan will respect both the faculty member's need to shape his or her career and the missions of the department, SPHIS, and University.  In order to accomplish this, the annual work plan will permit individual faculty members to concentrate, at various times in their careers, on one or more of the areas of teaching, research and service.  However, the work plan also must allow for achieving the mission, goals, and objectives of the department.
4. B. Presence at the University (Redbook Sec. 4.3.1.B)
   1. 1. Minimum Requirements.  Although professional activities may require a faculty member’s absence on occasion, faculty members normally are expected to be routinely available on campus and at the SPHIS to meet with their colleagues, attend department meetings and to meet with students.
   2. 2. Office Hours.  Faculty are required to make themselves available to students by observing posted office hours and by allowing students to arrange appointments at other mutually convenient times.
   3. 3. Faculty Governance and Duties.  Participation in departmental meetings and school assemblies is assumed.  Under normal circumstances, faculty members are expected to serve on department, school and university committees.
   4. 4. Meeting Classes.  Each faculty member is responsible for the conduct of assigned courses and is required to meet such classes and make such assignments as will fulfill the learning objectives of the course.
   5. C. Work Outside The University (Redbook Sec. 4.3.3)

Work outside the University that is not specified in the annual work plan must be approved in advanced by the Department Chair and Dean and must not conflict or interfere with the faculty member's responsibilities at UofL.  As part of the documentation for annual review, full-time faculty will submit a report of this professional work outside of UofL.

1. D. Other Conditions Of Employment

Other conditions of faculty employment, including compensation, paid tutoring, sabbatical leave, leave of absence without pay, leave of absence with pay, and retirement are covered more fully in Article 4.3 of The Redbook.

1. V. RESOLUTION OF DISAGREEMENTS

Article 4.4 in The Redbook covers the informal and formal procedures associated with the resolution of disagreements.

1. VI. TERMINATION OF SERVICE

Article 4.5 in The Redbook covers the termination of service by a faculty member and termination of a probationary academic appointment or of an academic appointment before the end of a specified term or for faculty with tenure.

1. VII. CHANGES TO THIS DOCUMENT

The process of reviewing and implementing changes to this document and appendices originates in the school and in collaboration with the SPHIS Dean, the PAT Committee, the Department Chairs and the Faculty.  The proposed amendment(s) will be considered by the appropriate committees as noted in the SPHIS Bylaws and forwarded via mail or email to all faculty members eligible to vote.  The proposed amendment(s) is passed if approved by 60 percent of SPHIS faculty eligible to vote.  The Dean will forward this document concurrently to the office of the EVPHA and the office of the University Provost.  The University Provost will make a recommendation inconsultation with the EVPHA, after which, it will be considered for recommendation by the President and approval by the Board of Trustees.

APPENDIX A

School of Public Health & Information Sciences

University of Louisville

Achievement (Proficiency and Excellence) in

Teaching, Research, & Service for Promotion,

& Scholarship for Tenure

Faculty promotion is based on faculty achievement.  In the School of Public Health and Information Sciences (SPHIS), faculty achievement is evaluated in the areas of teaching, research and service for proficiency and excellence, with consideration of the percent effort assigned to each area.  Work assignments for tenure-track and tenured faculty members cover all three areas; work assignments for term faculty members may be limited to fewer than the three areas, depending on the work assignment.  Work assignments and other institutional obligations and activities that require a faculty member's presence on campus are determined by the Department Chair in response to departmental needs, and in negotiation with each faculty member (Redbook, Chapter 4, Sec. 4.3.1.).

Proficiency requires evidence for competency in each of the assigned areas, and is expected for satisfactory career review or contract renewal.  Excellence must be demonstrated in the area of greatest work effort during the period of review.  The area in which excellence is expected should be indicated in the annual work assignment letter.  Demonstrated capacity for leadership or entrepreneurship is important for a rating of excellence.  Scholarship for the award of tenure is necessary in one of the three areas of teaching, research or service.  Tenured faculty must demonstrate sustained scholarship in the area of greatest work effort, defined by the average percent effort across annual work assignments for five-year periodic reviews.

Leadership is the process by which a person influences and enlists the support of others in the accomplishment of a common task. Entrepreneurship is valued primarily in association with research and teaching.  An entrepreneur is considered to be someone who assumes the risk for developing and introducing new ideas or technologies into society. Scholarship involves the creation, integration, and dissemination of knowledge that advances a field of study and influences the profession and community as evidenced in peer-review and acceptance.  An important measure of scholarship is the number and quality of peer-reviewed publications.  Examples of proficiency, excellence, leadership, entrepreneurship and scholarship in teaching, research and service are provided below.

Although there may be variation across departments in the evaluation of faculty achievement there should not be marked disparities.  Each department may develop and apply more explicit evaluation measures that are suitable to their discipline (Redbook Sec. 4.6.4), but these may not be less stringent than those defined in the Redbook (Sec. 4.2: Faculty Personnel Reviews) or in this policy.

1. I. TEACHING

A variety of methods may be used to evaluate teaching.  The SPHIS requires teaching evaluations to be conducted, at minimum, by the faculty member’s Department Chair and at least two faculty peers based on materials assembled in a teaching portfolio that includes documentation for formal classroom teaching, as reflected in:  amount of individual, team, and interdisciplinary teaching; curriculum development; mentoring of students and faculty; and community-based, practice-based, and service-based instruction.  The teaching portfolio should also include syllabi for courses taught; student and peer course evaluations that consider teaching style and strategies; and other evidence of accomplishment of learning objectives, innovation, and overall teaching effectiveness.  Although the department or the SPHIS compiles much of this information, it is ultimately the responsibility of the faculty member to assemble a complete teaching portfolio.  Documentation of activity in the design and development of new courses, restructuring of courses, teaching awards, training grant awards, teaching-related publications, and any other teaching-related activities including, but not limited to workshops, symposia, special lectures, or tutoring, should be included when available.  The amount and quality of mentoring also may be documented by letters of support from a graduate student’s thesis or dissertation committee members, or from post-doctoral trainees, fellows, or junior faculty members.  Lastly, the faculty member must include a self-assessment of teaching performance when this accounts for a percentage of work assignment.  All documents are to be collected in accordance with the SPHIS suggested teaching portfolio contents (see SPHIS Teaching Portfolio Guide).  Teaching evaluations must consider the average percent effort and any details related to the teaching assignment specified in the work assignments covering the period of review.  The evaluation of the teaching portfolio will result in an overall qualitative rating of proficiency or excellence for promotion as well as scholarship for tenure as defined below.

A.  Proficiency in Teaching for Promotion

Proficiency in teaching requires evidence based on the Summative Teaching Evaluations for competence in all areas of teaching in which a faculty member is engaged.  Proficient teaching requires faculty members to apply their expertise toward advancing the understanding of a topic by students and mentees and encouraging critical and creative thinking.  Summative supervisory, peer, student, and mentee reviews should show evidence for satisfactory performance commensurate with the time-averaged teaching work assignment.  Examples of evidence for proficiency in teaching may include, but are not limited to:  all course syllabi were thorough, properly distributed, and up to date; learning objectives were consistently met; active participation in mentoring including practica, theses, dissertation and independent studies; positive peer and student teaching reviews and teaching awards; peer reviewed publications, presentations at national scientific meetings and grant applications that include the student or mentee.

B.  Excellence in Teaching for Promotion

Evidence of excellence in teaching is required for promotion for those with the highest assigned percent effort in teaching.  Excellence in teaching requires faculty to display leadership in actively challenging and engaging students in the learning process, influencing them to continue as critical and creative thinkers upon completion of their formal program.  Additionally, faculty may display entrepreneurship in teaching by developing, copyrighting, patenting, licensing and disseminating new teaching methods and materials, curricular models, educational software or technologies.

1.   Promotion to Associate Professor (term and tenure-track)

Promotion to associate professor requires evidence of excellence in teaching when this is the primary area of greatest effort or the only area of effort.  The expectation is that there will be strong evidence to demonstrate a substantial teaching assignment with a major responsibility for (i.e., leadership role in) a teaching program that is clearly documented, and an average of at least one peer-reviewed publication each year.  Additional evidence may include substantial activity in team and interdisciplinary teaching, community-based or practice-based instruction, mentoring of doctoral and masters-level students, leadership of workshops, symposia, invited lectures, teaching-related publications, presentations on teaching methods, widespread use of developed teaching materials, or receipt of training grants.  Supervisory, peer, and student reviews of the teaching effort must be obtained and should support the rating of excellence.

Excellence in teaching may also be demonstrated through entrepreneurship which may include patented technologies (e.g., computer programs, Videos, Web-based applications, textbooks) that are widely accepted, development and licensing of curricula or curricular models, new evaluation methodologies, well-subscribed faculty continuing education programs, and copyrighted workbooks and study guides adopted by other institutions.

2.   Promotion to Professor (term and tenure-track)

In addition to the criteria specified above under Section 1, promotion to professor requires evidence for sustained excellence as well as demonstrated extra-university influential leadership or entrepreneurship in teaching.  Examples of sustained leadership may include, but are not limited to:  demonstrated participation in extramural educational initiatives, leadership of national forums, election to national committees involved with education, invitations as a visiting professor for a teaching activity, and invitation to be an accreditation site visitor at other institutions.

C.  Scholarship in Teaching for Tenure

Tenure is awarded to tenure-track faculty members who have demonstrated scholarship through superior achievement and recognition in teaching.  Peer acceptance of disseminated scholarship related to teaching may be demonstrated in a number of ways, however it is expected that the majority of the documentation will be through traditional peer-reviewed publications with at least an average of one each year.  The expectation is that these publications will include peer-reviewed manuscripts in journals, review articles, textbooks, book chapters, and other publications on pedagogic issues, educational outcomes studies, or the development of new teaching protocols; quality and quantity are important measures.  The content of the publications may be in teaching, research, or service.  First or senior authorship is preferred, but all publications may be considered.  Additionally, it is expected that at least two of the following criteria will be met for evidence of scholarship in teaching, and that all three will be considered in evaluating the strengths of the candidate:

1.   Funding

Extramural funding that supports training grants, teaching initiatives, service teaching, or teaching-related extramural contracts.  Sources of funding may include, but are not limited to federal grants, national peer-reviewed grants and contracts.

2.Methods Application

Development of new methodologies or the application of existing methodologies in a novel manner, which have been disseminated and accepted by peers, as evidenced in peer-reviewed publications, extramural letters, presentations at national forums, or other similar media.

3.Recognition

Emerging regional, national, or international recognition in a focused area of instructional innovation, which should include relevant peer-reviewed journal or book-length publications.  Additional examples of evidence may include, but are not limited to:  demonstrated leadership roles on training grants or on national forums, consultation by other universities, as an editor or reviewer of peer-reviewed publications, or exceptional entrepreneurship through continued development and dissemination of new educational technologies.  Evidence for this recognition will include confidential and anonymous extramural letters of evaluation.

1. II. RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY

Each faculty member maintains a research portfolio that includes clearly defined research goals, documented effort, and results that can be used to evaluate the quantity and quality of research productivity (see SPHIS Research Portfolio Guide).  Research is defined as work leading to new knowledge, a better theoretical or applied understanding of an area of knowledge, or the development of new methodologies and their application.  Collaborative, interdisciplinary team, community and practice-based research efforts within and outside of the SPHIS and University of Louisville are important and recognized.  Principal investigators on multiple-investigator grants are acknowledged and rewarded, although it is recognized that some investigators on such grants will be required to have more extensive involvement and time commitment than others.  Evaluation is based on documented evidence for duration, extent of involvement, innovation, effectiveness, impact and output of research activities documented in the research portfolio.  Documentation may include notice of grant or contract awards, abstracts of funded grants and contracts, submitted research grants and contracts, research awards, and any other research-related activities, including, but not limited to peer-reviewed publications, peer-reviewed presentations at national scientific meetings, research workshops, symposia, and special lectures, and other examples of peer recognition of research accomplishments.  It is the responsibility of the faculty member to provide documentation of his/her performance in the research portfolio, and to provide a self-assessment of research performance when this accounts for a percentage of work assignment.  Research evaluations must consider the average percent effort and any details related to the research assignment specified in the work assignments covering the period of review.  All documents are to be collected in accordance with the SPHIS Policy and evaluated to show an overall qualitative rating of proficiency or excellence as well as scholarship for tenure as defined below.

A.  Proficiency in Research for Promotion

Primary evidence of proficiency in research is based on a consistent and regular dissemination of research findings, the majority of which are expected to be through traditional peer-reviewed publications.  Proficiency in research may include evidence of research activity in grant or contract submissions as either a principal investigator or co-investigator.  Additional examples of proficiency in research include, but are not limited to, reviews by collaborators, peers and external reviewers, and research awards.

B.  Excellence in Research for Promotion

Evidence of excellence in research is required for promotion for those with the highest assigned percent effort in research.  Excellence in research requires faculty to display leadership, which is best demonstrated by success in obtaining extramural funding and garnering peer recognition as a principal investigator or having a significant role as a co-investigator.  Additionally, faculty may demonstrate entrepreneurship in research on small business innovation or technology transfer research grants or contracts that are linked to the school and of demonstrable value to the University with total support equivalent to the research assignment.

1.   Promotion to Associate Professor (term and tenure-track)

Promotion to associate professor requires excellence in research when this is the primary area of greatest effort or the only area of effort.  The expectation is that there will be strong evidence to demonstrate a major responsibility for an independent research program that has extramural federal or nationally peer-reviewed funding or a leadership role in a collaborative or multicenter research effort that is clearly documented, and an average of at least one peer-reviewed publication each year.  Additional evidence may include peer-reviewed abstracts for accepted oral or poster presentations, especially oral presentations, at competitive national scientific meetings, substantial contributions to collaborative and interdisciplinary research, community-based or practice-based research, leadership of research oriented workshops, symposia, invited lectures, media-based publications, serving as a manuscript reviewer on a local or regional grant peer review study section.  Supervisory and external peer reviews of the research effort must be obtained and should support the rating of excellence.

Excellence in research may also be demonstrated through entrepreneurship, which is highly valued and evidenced by the translation of research findings to new, patentable methods or technologies that are widely accepted, licensed applications of existing methods, and acquisition of small business initiative research grants or contracts through government or business partnerships.

2.   Promotion to Professor (term and tenure-track)

In addition to the criteria specified above under Section 1, promotion to professor requires evidence for sustained excellence as well as demonstrated extra-university influence through leadership or entrepreneurship in an area of research.  Examples of evidence may include, but are not limited to:  sustained, renewed, federal or national peer-reviewed funding as a principal or major investigator; annual publications in peer-reviewed journals; invitation to be a visiting professor at anationally recognized research institution; invitation to serve as a manuscript reviewer on a journal editorial board; supervision of doctoral level research trainees who show successful progress; or development and translation of new, patented or licensed methods or technologies.  Publication is expected as a senior author on high impact publications of original research or a significant role on publications of high impact collaborative research.

C.  Scholarship in Research for Tenure

Tenure is awarded to tenure-track faculty members who have demonstrated scholarship through superior achievement and recognition in research.  Peer acceptance of disseminated scholarship in research and innovations in research (discovery of new findings or application of existing findings in a new fashion) are expected.  It is expected that the majority of the documentation for peer acceptance of scholarship will be through traditional peer-reviewed publications with an average of one each year and presentations of research findings at national forums.  The expectation is that these publications will include peer-reviewed manuscripts in journals, review articles, books, and book chapters, and other publications on research-related areas, including methodology and editorials; quantity and quality are important measures.  The content of the publications may be in research, teaching or service.  First or senior authorship is preferred, but all publications may be considered.  Additionally, it is expected that at least two of the following criteria will be met for evidence of scholarship in research, and that all three will be considered in evaluating the strengths of the candidate:

1.   Funding

Extramural funding that supports independent or collaborative research from grants or contracts.  Sources of funding may include, but are not limited to federal grants, national peer-reviewed grants and contracts.

2.Methods Application

Development of new methodologies or the application of existing methodologies in a novel manner, which have been disseminated and accepted by peers, as evidenced in peer-reviewed publications, extramural letters, presentations at national forums, or other similar media.

3.Recognition

Emerging regional, national, or international recognition in a focused area of research expertise, which should include relevant peer-reviewed journal or book-length publications.  Additional examples of evidence may include, but are not limited to:  demonstrated leadership roles on individual or collaborative research grants or contracts, membership on national forums or on a national grant peer review study section, as an editor or reviewer of peer-reviewed publications, or as an invited lecturer or speaker.  Evidence for this recognition will include confidential and anonymous extramural letters of evaluation.

1. III. SERVICE

Service is defined as activities that support the collective missions of the Department, SPHIS, and the University in conjunction with the community (city, county, state, region, or nation) or profession.  Community work that does not draw upon a faculty member’s professional expertise is not included.  The SPHIS requires faculty, regardless of rank and percent time, to be involved in service to the university.  Participation in department meetings and school assemblies is assumed.  Faculty members are expected to serve on department, SPHIS, and university committees.  It is recognized that service on some committees requires more extensive involvement and time commitment than others.  Evaluation of service is made by the faculty member’s supervisor, and is based on documented evidence for frequency, duration, extent of involvement, and output of service activities that is compiled and summarized in a service portfolio (see SPHIS Service Portfolio Guide).  Because of the value of public health practice, community engagement is particularly recognized that includes public contracts, committee memberships, economic development and outreach partnerships, training, practice-based and research service, and other forms of community and civic engagement that benefit the health of communities.  The service portfolio also includes peer evaluations of service accomplishments, their innovation, effectiveness, and impact, and a faculty self-assessment.  It is the responsibility of the faculty member to document progress towards meeting their service goals, and to provide a self-assessment of service performance when this accounts for a percentage of work assignment.  Documentation of service-related activities, as well as service awards should be included when available.  The Service Portfolio Guide provides information on the type of documents to include for review.  An evaluation will be made to show an overall qualitative rating of proficiency or excellence as well as scholarship for tenure as defined below.

A.  Proficiency in Service for Promotion

Proficiency in service requires satisfactory supervisory and peer reviews, and includes, but is not limited to, letters of recognition addressing the impact of a faculty member’s service.  Reviews by the recipients of the service or colleagues with knowledge of the service, external reviewers, and service awards are used to document proficiency.  Examples of evidence for proficiency in service may include, but are not limited to service as: a.      Examples of ways to demonstrate peer acceptance of disseminated scholarship: manuscript reviewer; reviewer on a grant peer-review study section; editor for a peer-reviewed publication; organizer of symposia, meetings, and community forums; or as an invited presenter.

Journal articles, papers on pedagogic issues, review articles, case reports, clinicaloutcomes studies, educational outcomes studies, electronic dissemination (e.g., computer programs, CD-ROM, Videos, Web-based), textbooks, book chapters, technology transfer, development of new protocols that are widely accepted, development of teaching tools, curricula or curricular models, study guides, computer-aided tools, newevaluation methodologies, well subscribed faculty development programs, workbooksadopted by other institutions and development of patents.

b.   Extramural funding also supports peer acceptance and is necessary for self-sustenance of the program of scholarship. Sources include but are not limited to research grants, training grants, service contracts, investigational drug studies, funded teaching initiatives, or cooperative industry agreements.

c. The majority of the documentation of peer acceptance should be through traditional peer-review publications.

d.   Scholarship need only be demonstrated in one area for tenure and/or promotion on tenure track.

2.   Demonstration of scholarship in the area of research

a.   Promotion

In order to demonstrate scholarship in research, innovations in research (discovery of new findings or application of existing findings in a new fashion) are expected, as is the dissemination and peer acceptance of them. Although other acceptable venues are listed in this Appendix, Section III.1.a, the majority of the documentation of peer acceptance must be through traditional peer-review publications. Scholarship in research must also be demonstrated by an extramurally funded research program. The individual must also present research findings on average annually at national forums. At the time of tenure review, the individual must have an emerging regional/national recognition in a focused area of research expertise that should be evidenced in extramural letters.

b.   Promotion to Professor

At the time of review for professor, in addition to the requirements of this Appendix, Section III.2.a, the individual must have national/international recognition in a focused area of research expertise that is demonstrated by such evidence as leadership roles in national forums, consultations such as being an editor or reviewer, or invitations to speak. The national/international recognition should be evidenced in extramural letters.

3.   Demonstration of scholarship in the area of teaching

a.   Promotion

In order to demonstrate scholarship in teaching, innovations in teaching (development of new methodologies or application of existing methodologies in a new way) are expected, as is the dissemination and peer acceptance of them. Although other acceptable venues are listed in this Appendix, Section III.1.a, the majority of the documentation of peer acceptance must be through traditional peer-review publications. Scholarship in teaching must also be demonstrated by extramurally funded teaching innovations/program. The individual must present instructional innovations/findings on average annually at national forums. At the time of tenure review, the individual must have an emerging regional/national recognition in a focused area of instructional innovation that must be evidenced in extramural letters.

b.   Promotion to Professor

At the time of review for professor, in addition to the requirements of this Appendix, Section III.3.a, the individual must have national/international recognition in a focused area of instructional innovation which is demonstrated by such evidence as leadership roles in national forums, consultations by other universities, serving as a reviewer or editor, or invitations to speak. The national/international recognition should be evidenced in extramural letters.

4.   Demonstration of scholarship in the area of service

a.   Promotion and tenure

In order to demonstrate scholarship in service, innovations in service (development of new protocols, new programs or the expansion of existing programs) are expected and the acceptance of them and the dissemination of them through peer-review mechanisms are required. Although other acceptable venues are listed in this Appendix, Section III.1.a, the majority of the documentation of peer acceptance must be through traditional peer-review publications. Scholarship in service must also be demonstrated by extramurally funded initiatives or research efforts. The individual must present innovations/findings on average annually in a national forum. At the time of tenure review, the individual must have an emerging regional/national recognition in a focused area of expertise that should be evidenced in extramural letters.

b.   Promotion to professor

At the time of review for professor, in addition to the requirements of this Appendix, Section III.4.a, the individual must have national/international recognition in a focused area of expertise that is demonstrated by such evidence as leadership roles in national forums, consultations, referral patterns, or invitations to speak. The national/international recognition should be evidenced in extramural letters.

Recommended by School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Faculty Forum August/02

Recommended by the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Executive Faculty  August/02

Recommended by the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Faculty Forum August/02

Approved by the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Executive Faculty August, 2002.

Confirmed by the Faculty Senate, September 4, 2002.

Approved by the Board of Trustees, September 13, 2002.

B.  Excellence in Service for Promotion

Excellence in service is required for promotion for those with the highest assigned percent effort in service.  Excellence associated with service requires faculty to display leadership, which is best demonstrated through exceptional community engagement and extramurally funded activities.

1.   Promotion to Associate Professor (term and tenure-track)

Promotion to associate professor requires evidence of excellence in service when this is the primary area of greatest effort or the only area of effort.  The expectation is that there will be strong evidence to demonstrate a clearly documented, major responsibility for (i.e., leadership role in) a service program associated with extramural funding, and an average of one peer-reviewed publication each year.  Reviews by supervisors, recipients of the service, and external peer reviews must be obtained and should support the rating of excellence.  Recipients of service may include colleagues, health departments, government and community organizations, and other acceptable entities.  Collective reviews based on public satisfaction inventories may be included.  Additional evidence may include awards for service.

2.   Promotion to Professor (term and tenure-track)

In addition to the criteria specified above under Section 1, promotion to professor requires demonstrated extra-university influence and leadership in service.  Examples of evidence may include, but are not limited to:  novel and sustained partnerships and interventions that impact the public health of the community, establishment of strong ties with the community-based health organizations at the local, state, regional and national level and with state and federal agencies, demonstrated participation in extramural service initiatives including research service, community programs to educate and promote public health changes that have potential to impact community members’ health, curriculum development for community and government agencies, service related to elimination of community health disparities, election to national committees involved with service activities, invitations as a visiting professor or a university representative for a service activity or assistance with implementation of community-based programs.

1. C. Scholarship in Service for Tenure

Tenure is awarded to tenure-track faculty members who have demonstrated scholarship through superior achievement and recognition with the development of new service protocols or programs or the expansion of existing service programs that are specifically associated with community engagement and partnership.  It is expected that the majority of the documentation for peer acceptance of disseminated scholarship will be through peer-reviewed reports and publications, and presentation of findings at national forums.  The expectation is that these publications will include peer-reviewed manuscripts in journals, review articles, books, and book chapters, and other publications that report on community engaged work; quantity and quality are important measures.  The content of the publications may be in service, teaching or research.  First or senior authorship is preferred, but all publications may be considered.  Additionally, it is expected that at least two of the following criteria will be met for evidence of scholarship in service, and that all three will be considered in evaluating the strengths of the candidate:

1.   Funding

Extramural funding that supports community engagement programs.  Sources of funding may include, but are not limited to federal grants, national peer-reviewed service grants and contracts.  Service as a key supporting or technical collaborator in multiple grants, contracts or protocols is recognized also.  This includes, but is not limited to, substantial service as a management, statistical, technical or policy consultant.

2.Methods Application

Development of new methodologies or the application of existing methodologies in a novel manner, which have been disseminated and accepted by peers, as evidenced in peer-reviewed publications, extramural letters, presentations at national forums, or other similar media.

3.Recognition

Emerging regional, national, or international recognition in community engagement or in a focused or innovative area of service delivery, which should include relevant peer-reviewed journal or book-length publications.  Additional examples of evidence may include, but are not limited to:  demonstrated leadership roles on individual or collaborative service-related grants or contracts; membership on national forums related to community engagement; service on regional, national, or international grants and contracts; committee member on scientific peer-review panels or study sections; organizer of symposia, meetings, and community forums; service as an editor or reviewer of peer-reviewed publications; or consultant to other universities or agencies affiliated with service.  Evidence for this recognition will include confidential and anonymous extramural letters of evaluation.

APPENDIX B

Policy on the School of Public Health & Information Sciences

University of Louisville

Appointment, Promotion, Retention, and

Recognition

of Voluntary of Adjunct Faculty

 

I.       GENERAL STATEMENT:

It should be understood that the evaluation of an applicant’s qualification for appointment to the University of Louisville School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences will take into consideration the applicant’s overall commitment to the intent of the Voluntary Faculty position. In keeping with the spirit of the appointment, support of the School’s Teaching or Research missions (Criterion 1); maintenance of professional competency and licensure (Criterion 2); and maintenance of a positive personal profile (Criterion 3) are required at appropriate levels.

It should also be noted that all Voluntary Faculty An individual interested in participating in the University of Louisville (UofL) School of Public Health and Information Sciences(SPHIS) as an Adjunct Faculty member must be qualified and able to demonstrate a commitment to actively work with full-time faculty or students in the teaching, research, or service mission of the school, and must maintain a professional profile. All adjunct faculty members must adhere to the standards set forth in ethics documents and statements issued by the School and the University. This includes, for animal experimentation, an obligation of all members using their affiliationSPHIS, and any documents related to seek research funds or ethics, research opportunities to process their clearancesintegrity, IRB requirements, and assurances through the University of Louisville Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Voluntary faculty not complying with this requirement will lose their affiliation immediately. appropriate statements issued by the UofL.

II.     SPECIFIC CRITERIA:

The individual who wishes to participate as a Voluntary Faculty member in the University of Louisville School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences must demonstrate a commitment to the following criteria for Voluntary Faculty appointment (described in more detail in Section VI.A.):

A.  Active participation in the Teaching Mission of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences with students or fellows.

-or-

Active participation in the Research Mission of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences via collaboration with at least one full-time faculty member in research or serving on our Institutional Review Board (IRB).

-or-

Faculty outside of the Jefferson County area must maintain some relationship with the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences.

B.   Maintaining a personal profile that positively reflects the University of Louisville School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences.

III.    APPOINTMENT:

A.  Voluntary Faculty Appointments may be at one of four levels:

Adjunct Instructor

Assistant Adjunct Professor

Associate Adjunct Professor

Adjunct Professor

B.   Voluntary faculty appointments are non-tenurable and thus may be made in Departments, Centers, or Institutes. Consideration for appointment will begin with the submission of a completed application to the appropriate Administrative Office.

C.   A cover letter soliciting a letter of reference from the Department Chair or Administrative Director of the Center or Institute must accompany the application. This letter of reference and positive faculty vote is required for consideration for Voluntary Faculty appointment. The letter of reference must include how the faculty member will be contributing to the service, teaching or research missions of the School. In cases where appointment is in an Institute or Center, and training has been completed in the discipline of a Department, concurrence by the departmental chair will be sought. Such concurrence cannot be unreasonably withheld.

D.  It is anticipated that most new Voluntary Faculty applicants will request appointment at the level of Adjunct Instructor or Assistant Adjunct Professor for those with terminal degrees and post-degree experience. However, ifA.      Appointment

Adjunct faculty appointments are non-tenurable and may be at one of four levels in a Department:  Adjunct Instructor, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Adjunct Associate Professor, and Adjunct Professor.  The following outlines the process for appointment as an adjunct faculty member.

1.   Materials Required for Application

A request for an Adjunct faculty appointment is initiated by the Department Chair through a letter of support indicating how the faculty member will contribute to the teaching, research or service missions of the SPHIS, accompanied by the individual’s CV.  Other pertinent materials that provide documentation for previous experience in teaching, research or service from previous academic or other appointments may be included.

The application for appointment, letter of reference from the Department Chair and any other supporting documents will be reviewed by the Dean of the SPHIS for recommendation and then transmitted to the EVPHA for review and recommendation, after which, a roster of adjunct faculty is reported to the University Provost.

2.   Criteria Required for Appointment

Adjunct faculty, usually, are expected to have the same academic qualifications as members of the regular faculty.  They may be employed by a school or university other than UofL, by another school or college at UofL, as either a part-time or full-time faculty member, or by another organization.  They are not normally compensated as adjunct faculty, but may be compensated by contract for specific part-time services.  An individual applying for Adjunct Faculty status must demonstrate a capacity for and commitment to actively work with full-time faculty or students to further the teaching, research, or service missions of the school.  Specifically, the applicant must show documentation for:  previous experience in teaching, research or service from previous academic or other appointments. Examples of such materials may include: mentoring of students, presenting didactic lectures, involvement in departmental instructional or service activities, or participating in research collaborations with one or more full-time SPHIS faculty members for joint presentations, publications, or grant submissions.

3.   Level of Appointment

The level of appointment should be commensurate with the level of experience of the applicant.  For example, an applicant who received a doctoral degree within the last three years or who has accumulated little experience in academia should be considered for an appointment at the level of Adjunct Assistant Professor.  If the prospective VoluntaryAdjunct Faculty member has served as full-time faculty or VoluntaryAdjunct Faculty of higher rank at this or another university prior to joining the University of Louisville community, then , the prospective faculty member may apply for a position of higher rank. When applying for Application for a higher rank the prospective faculty member will providerequires documentation of his/herassociated activities at the prior institution that would warrant the a higher rank position. Furthermore, a letter of recommendation from a faculty member of the program in which the applicant had an affiliation should attest to the applicant’s performance and qualifications pertaining to the higher rank. Appointment at advanced rank (defined as Associate Adjunct Professor or higher) requires review by the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Exceptions may be granted for applicants with long documented experience in a special area directly relevant to the mission of the department or SPHIS. They are not normally compensated as adjunct faculty, but may be compensated by contract for specified part-time services in accordance with UofL policy.

4.  Term of Appointment

The term of initial appointments will be at the discretion of the Department Chair, but may not exceed one year for an Adjunct Instructor and three years for Adjunct Assistant Professor, Adjunct Associate Professor, and Adjunct Professor.

B.  Reappointment

1.   Materials Required for Reappointment Application

The term of appointment to Adjunct Faculty is time-limited.  Notification will be sent to the faculty member by the Department approximately one year prior to the expiration date of the current appointment; however, it is the responsibility of the Adjunct Faculty member to apply for reappointment six months prior to the expiration date of the current appointment in order to ensure continuity of appointment.  The process of reappointment is at the discretion of the Department Chair and SPHIS Dean and will follow the same process as that for initial appointment.

Applications for reappointment will be reviewed by the Dean of the SPHIS for recommendation and will follow the same process conducted for initial appointment.

2.   Criteria Required for Reappointment

See criteria required for initial appointment (A.2.).  Applicants submitting for reappointment must document successful contributions made to the teaching, research or service missions of SPHIS during the previous appointment period.

3.   Term of Reappointment

Reappointment will be made to the Adjunct Faculty for the same maximum terms delineated above for initial appointments.

C.Promotion, Appointment, and Tenure Committee.

E.  The term of initial appointments will be at the discretion of the Department Chair but may not exceed:

1.   Materials Required for Promotion Application

Application for promotion must be made by the Adjunct Faculty member six months prior to the time the current appointment is to be reviewed.  The faculty member should return the completed application with a letter requesting consideration for promotion accompanied by a support letter from the Department Chair.

2.   Level of Appointment for Promotion

Promotion to the various levels in the Adjunct Faculty track will be sequential and will be determined by the continuing demonstration of a commitment to the criteria for Adjunct Faculty Appointment listed above and duration of involvement outlined below.

3.   Term of Appointment and Timing for Promotion

There is a standard minimum time the Adjunct Faculty member must serve at the appointed level prior to applying for promotion.  Five years minimum time is required for promotion from Adjunct Instructor Three years

and Adjunct Assistant Adjunct Professor Five years

(combined) to Adjunct Associate Adjunct Professor Five years

Adjunct Professor                          Five, and five years is required for promotion from Adjunct Associate Professor to Adjunct Professor. Promotion from Adjunct Instructor to Adjunct Assistant Professor may be done at any time. Promotion to Adjunct Professor will require an exceptional effort on the part of the Adjunct Faculty applicant.At the time of retirement, the Adjunct Faculty member who has achieved advanced rank (Adjunct Associate Professor or Adjunct Professor) may be given an Emeritus Adjunct Faculty position at the highest rank attained. Early promotion based on exceptional contributions is possible.

Reappointment at the same rank is possible and is described in Section IV.

The application for appointment, ballot, letter of reference from the Department Chair or Center/Institute Director and any other supporting documents will be reviewed by the Dean of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences and the Vice President for Health Affairs for recommendation and thereafter transmittal to the Provost and Board of Trustees.

IV.    REAPPOINTMENT:

A.  The term of appointment to Voluntary Faculty is time limited. Notice should be sent to the faculty member by the Department approximately one year prior to the expiration date of the current appointment, however, it is the responsibility of the Voluntary Faculty member to apply for reappointment six months prior to the expiration date of his/her current appointment in order to ensure continuity of appointment.

B.   Reappointment will be made to the Voluntary Faculty for the same maximum terms delineated above for initial appointments. Reappointments, originating in the department, center or institute, are reviewed and recommended to the Provost by the Dean.

V.        PROMOTION:

A.  Application for promotion should be made by the Voluntary Faculty member six months prior to the time the current appointment is to be reviewed. The faculty member should return the completed application with a letter requesting consideration for promotion. Department Chairs and Center/Institute Directors can also initiate promotion considerations.

B.   Promotion to the various levels in the Voluntary Faculty track will be sequential and will be determined by the duration of involvement and continuing demonstration of a commitment to the Criteria for Voluntary Faculty Appointment outlined above in Section II and explained in detail at the end of this document.

C.   There is a standard minimum time the Voluntary Faculty member will serve at the appointed level prior to applying for promotion as follows:

Adjunct Instructor and Assistant Adjunct Professor (combined):

Five years (for promotion to Associate Adjunct Professor)

Associate Adjunct Professor:

Five years (for promotion to Adjunct Professor)

Early promotions based on exceptional contributions are possible.

D.  Promotion from Adjunct Instructor to Assistant Adjunct Professor may be done any time. If the applicant is not a clinician, promotion to Assistant Adjunct Professor requires that he/she must have attained the highest degree possible in his/her respective discipline and have had academic post-degree experience.

E.  Promotion to Adjunct Professor will require an exceptional effort on the part of the Voluntary Faculty applicant.

F.   A positive faculty vote and a positive Department Chair/Director’s letter are required for promotion. In addition to the review required for new appointment to advanced rank, the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Promotion, Appointment, and Tenure Committee must review and recommend promotions to the ranks of Associate Adjunct Professor and higher.

G.  At the time of retirement, the Voluntary Faculty member that has achieved advanced rank (Associate Adjunct Professor or Adjunct Professor) may be given an Emeritus Voluntary Faculty position at the highest rank attained.

VI.    CRITERIA FOR VOLUNTARY FACULTY REAPPOINTMENT:

A.  The following describes in more detail the criteria for Voluntary Faculty status and the way that each should be documented at the time of reappointment.

1.   Active participation in the teaching mission of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences with students or fellows. The applicant will be asked to list his/her teaching activity during the previous appointment period. Examples of contributions in this area are:

a.   Preceptorship for students or fellows

b.   Instructional involvement in departmental service activities

c.   Didactic lectures

d.   Regular participation in departmental educational services

-or-

Active participation in the Research Mission of the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences via collaboration with at least one full-time faculty member in research or serving on our Institutional Review Board (IRB). This must be documented by a letter from the Chair of the IRB or a full-time faculty collaborator and reflected in joint presentations, publications or grant applications.

-or-

Faculty outside of the Jefferson County area must maintain some relationship with the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences. This may be documented with a letter from our faculty or a roster of students supervised with dates of supervision.

2.   Maintaining a license in good standing, when applicable.

3.   Maintaining a personal profile that positively reflects the University of Louisville School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences:  The reputation of the School is dependent upon the reputation of its faculty. It is imperative the faculty members are of the highest professional character and adhere to the written standards of the School.

VII.  TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT

A.  Recommendation of termination prior to the end of the appointed term should be forwarded to the Dean for review and recommendation to the Provost and theD.           Termination of Appointment

Recommendation of termination prior to the end of the appointed term should be forwarded to the Dean for review and recommendation.  Justification must include refusal to comply with the requirements and criteria set forth in this document or inactivity when asked to comply.  Non-renewal at the end of the appointed term is at the discretion of the Department Chair and may be done without cause.  Recommendation of termination and non-renewal will follow the same process conducted for initial appointment.

Recommended by SPHIS Faculty Forum August/02

Recommended by the SPHIS Executive Faculty August/02

Recommended by the SPHIS Faculty Forum August/02

Approved by the SPHIS Executive Faculty August/02

Confirmed by the Faculty Senate, September 4, 2002

Approved by the Board of Trustees, September 13, 2002

Revision 1 (Includes Appendices A & B)

Recommended by SPHIS PAT Committee:  August 13, 2014

Recommended by SPHIS Rules Policies and Credentials Committee:  September 12, 2014

Recommended by SPHIS Faculty Forum:  September 23, 2014

Approved by SPHIS Faculty:  October 28, 2014

Approved by Faculty Senate:  ___________

Approved by Board of Trustees.

B.   Justification must include refusal to comply with the requirements and criteria set forth in this document or inactivity when asked to comply.

C.   Non-renewal at the end of the appointed term is at the discretion of the faculty and the Department Chair and may be done without cause.

Recommended by School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Faculty Forum August/02

Recommended by the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Executive Faculty  August/02

Recommended by the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Faculty Forum August/02

Approved by the School of Public Health/Health Information Sciences Executive Faculty August, 2002.

Confirmed by the Faculty Senate, September 4, 2002.

Approved by the Board of Trustees, September 13, 2002.

: ___________