[table of contents] [previous] [next]

 
 
III. THE STANDING FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

F. PROCEDURES FOR RESUBMISSION OF CASES FOR REAPPOINTMENT AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WITH TENURE, OR PROMOTION TO FULL PROFESSOR

    When a case for reappointment as Assistant Professor, promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, or promotion to full professor is not approved by the SAS Personnel Committee, a department may choose to resubmit the case for re-evaluation at a later date. Such decisions for resubmission should be based only on the existence of new evidence that is relevant to the assessment of the case.

    The Provost’s Office has stated the following policy concerning reconsideration of cases for promotion to associate professor with tenure in the mandatory year that have been made by the Provost:

    “Decisions made by the Provost, following review by the Provost’s Staff Conference, are made only after the most searching review of a case by a department, school, and the Conference, and are considered final at the point of mandatory review. Consistent with the understanding that these decisions are final, the only cause for reconsideration is a material procedural irregularity in conduct of the review that unduly influenced the decision. Any appeal must consequently provide clear evidence of such a material procedural irregularity that can be shown to have had an undue impact on the decision. Reconsiderations on appeal should be exceedingly rare and undertaken only for the most compelling reasons.”

    The following School guidelines for resubmission cover cases that are resubmitted in the next academic year following the original submission of the case. If more than one year has elapsed, then an entirely new dossier should be prepared-(according to the rules stated elsewhere in the manual.). When any case is resubmitted, the deliberating committees should be advised of the fact that the case is a resubmission and the basis for the resubmission. In addition, in all cases of reconsideration of tenure cases following the mandatory year, the previous dossier must be submitted to the committees for their consideration together with new dossier.

    The following guidelines on resubmission also do not cover cases of grievance regarding violations of procedure.

    Because negative decisions on cases of reappointment, tenure, and promotion are based on factors specific to an individual case, the procedures for resubmission within one year must have some flexibility. What follows are guidelines for the preparation of a case for reconsideration. In cases of doubt, the divisional Associate Dean should be consulted.

    After a case for promotion has been approved by a department, but is not approved at higher levels, subject to the restrictions indicated by the Provost’s office the standing faculty of a department (adjusted by rank) may choose to resubmit the case if they believe that there is substantial new evidence that could affect the outcome of the decision, whether with regard to teaching or scholarship.

    The faculty must initially vote as to whether they wish to gather new evidence and prepare a new file for resubmission.

    If the vote is positive, the department should collect new evidence relevant to the case. Possible forms of new evidence might include (but not all may be relevant):

    1. New research

      If the candidate has produced substantial new research since the time that the file was originally evaluated by the department and/or the School, that new work may be produced as evidence for resubmission.

      1. All external reviewers who originally evaluated the candidates's scholarship should be contacted and asked if they wish to review and comment on the new material, as an addendum to their earlier reports. External reviewers who were asked for an evaluation but declined because of personal circumstances that may have changed should be asked again to write.

      2. New external reviewers may be asked to review the entire body of the candidate's scholarship. These names should be produced and approved by the SAS Dean's Office and by the Provost according to the usual rules. No fixed number of letters is required, but the candidates must be extended the opportunity to name three more external reviewers.

    2. Teaching

      The department may consider new evidence regarding the candidate's teaching, including teaching evaluations for courses taught after the initial review of the case and additional letters. This evidence shuld be obtained according to the usual rules

    3. Service

      The department may consider new evidence regarding the candidate's service.

    Once new evidence has been collected, the department should evaluate the candidate and vote again on the case for reapointment, tenure, or promotion. If the vote is positive, the case should be forwarded to the Personnel Committee.

    Dossier for resubmission should include:

      1. SAS Form 99-9, or 99-10, or 99-12

      2. Chair's letter, reporting the formal vote of the faculty, and giving an account of the discussion and the case for resubmission

      3. Updated curriculm vitae

      4. New evidence of teaching and service, if relevant

      5. New letters from external reviewers and/or new internal letters, if relevant

      6. Two copies of any new publications or manuscript

      When the dossier for resubmission is presented to the Personnel Committee, it should be attached to the earlier dossier.

 
 
[table of contents] [previous] [next]


School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania
Last Modified: Thursday, 09-Aug-2012 11:27:58 EDT