�°������ϲ�����

Candidates undergoing evaluation for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion are invited to attend one of three RTP candidate workshops in BH-123A:

Candidate Workshop Dates:

• Thursday, August 29, 2024:              3:00 PM - 4:30 PM 
• Wednesday, September 4, 2024:    12:30 PM - 2:00 PM 
• Friday, September 13, 2024:           10:30 AM - 12:00 PM 

Deans, Associate Deans, Department Chairs, and members of Department and College RTP Committees, as well as staff responsible for RTP processes are invited to attend one of three RTP evaluator workshops in BH-123A:

Evaluator Workshop Dates:

• Thursday, September 19, 2024:        3:00 PM - 4:30 PM 
• Monday, September 23, 2024:       12:30 PM - 2:00 PM 
• Friday, October 4, 2024:                 10:30 AM - 12:00 PM 

Deadlines have been established for:

• The Open Period (the period when faculty, students, academic-administrators, and the President may contribute materials to be included in the candidate’s file)
• Candidate submission of files
• Completion of reviews at each level of evaluation
• Candidate response/rebuttal
• Final decision notification to the candidate

All deadlines are listed on the Deadlines for Reappointment, Tenure, and/or Promotion Actions schedule. These deadlines are intended to allow sufficient time for careful review at each level, and they cannot be extended. If at any level of review the evaluation of a candidate has not been completed by the deadline indicated, the candidate's RTP file will be made available to the next level of review. In such cases, the candidate must be notified that the file has been made available to the next level of review.

Deadlines for notification of final actions are set by the CSU-CFA Collective Bargaining Agreement. These deadlines may not be changed:

• Reappointment for probationary faculty who have served more than two years of probation: June 1st
• Tenure: June 1st
• Notification of a terminal year appointment: June 1st
• Promotion (or denial of promotion): June 15th

• Mandatory: Reappointment and Tenure

  Faculty members scheduled for reappointment or tenure review, as per the guidelines below, should submit an RTP file and must be evaluated on schedule. This includes all reviews for reappointment as well as tenure in the sixth probationary year (includes years for which service credit was granted). Mandatory reviews may be postponed with an approved extension of the probationary period.

• Optional: Promotion

  Reviews for promotion are optional. Faculty members who do not wish to be considered for promotion must notify the Office of Faculty Affairs by submitting the Non-Consideration form via Interfolio by Thursday, September 5, 2024.

  Timeline: Standard Consideration

  A probationary faculty member is normally considered for tenure during the sixth probationary year, including any years of for which service credit was granted. A probationary faculty member is normally considered for tenure and promotion to associate professor simultaneously. A tenured faculty member is normally eligible to be considered for promotion during the fifth year in their current rank.

• Timeline: Early Consideration

  An application for tenure and/or promotion submitted prior to the sixth probationary year (including years for which service credit was granted) is an application for early tenure. In addition, an application for promotion submitted before completing the fifth year in rank is an application for early promotion. Early promotion to the rank of Professor cannot be granted without tenure.  Standards for early tenure and/or promotion are significantly higher than those standards applied in a normal timeline, as described in Section 5.0 of the University RTP Policy (PS 09-10).

      The following apply to candidates seeking early tenure and/or early promotion:

• A candidate must submit a statement of intent to the Office of Faculty Affairs and to the department by Thursday, August 22, 2024.
• A candidate scheduled for a reappointment review who is requesting consideration for early tenure and/or early promotion must submit a single RTP file by the earliest deadline for any of these actions. Evaluators must make a recommendation on each action under consideration. A candidate may rescind a request to be considered for early tenure and/or early promotion prior to receiving a decision from the Provost by giving a written notice to all parties in the process.  If a candidate is not being reviewed for reappointment, recommendations that have been completed will be returned to the candidate and will not become part of the Personnel Action File. If the candidate is being considered for reappointment requests to rescind an optional action, the recommendations that are already written will remain in the file unmodified since recommendations normally appear as a single memorandum and the reappointment review must continue.

The RTP file consists of materials collected and prepared by the candidate, materials submitted to the file during the Open Period, previous evaluations from the period being reviewed, evaluation reports at each level of the current review, and any rebuttals or responses from the candidate.

The materials submitted by the candidate via Interfolio are the “Primary File” documents and supplemental materials.  See the Faculty Affairs website for guidance on preparing these files.

The Period of Review

For reappointment, tenure, and/or initial promotion, the candidate will be evaluated on activities since the beginning of the probationary period, including any years of service credit. For subsequent promotion, the candidate will be evaluated on activities since the last promotion

While the file is submitted by the candidate in the fall semester, the period of review includes the full academic year during which the review is conducted. Therefore, it is appropriate for the candidate to document in the file works-in-progress, with appropriate supporting materials.

Candidate Responsibilities

Candidates should refer to the Professional Data Sheet Guidelines. Similarly, candidates should consult all college and/or departmental guidelines regarding supplemental documentation and file preparation. As a general rule, candidates should include materials that provide the best evidence of their accomplishments and growth in the areas of evaluation. The candidate should invest significant effort in clearly and carefully organizing and presenting this material so that it supports the case for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion, and corroborates statements made in the Professional Data Sheet and the narrative.

It is the candidate’s responsibility to delineate clearly on the PDS and/or CV any activities/accomplishments that are prior to the period of review. Should the candidate choose to include such activities/accomplishments, they shall be identified by inserting a double line between those activities/accomplishments that are within the period of review and those that are prior to it. 

Mandatory Documentation

The following items are mandatory components of the RTP file and shall be provided by the candidate:

• Candidate RTP Status Sheet (Provided by the College)
• Professional Data Sheet (and curriculum vitae if required by College policy)
• Narrative
• Index to supplemental materials
• Student Perception of Teaching summaries. If by error, or because of exceptional circumstances, the candidate was not reviewed for the classes required by the department, college, or University policy, the candidate should account in the narrative for the error or circumstances.) Please note that if a candidate submits any raw data (i.e. the individual student forms) all of the individual student forms for a given class must be submitted.

In Spring 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, teaching transitioned from face-to-face to alternative modes of instruction; faculty members had only a few days to make this transition. Given this significant and rapid change and the impact on faculty members and students, consideration was given to not administering the Student Perceptions of Teaching instrument in Spring 2020.  However, in order to comply with the Unit 3 Collective Bargaining Agreement, all CSUs needed to administer student evaluations.  At the time a decision was made that all faculty members would be held harmless in the personnel process in terms of Spring 2020 SPOTs; the data from these may not be considered in personnel decisions, unless the faculty member explicitly chooses to include the SPOT summary in their file.

In Fall 2019, CHHS participated in a college wide pilot test of online administration of SPOT summaries. While the SPOT summaries for this semester are to be included in files, candidates for personnel action(s) are to be held harmless in relation to these SPOT summaries. Candidates are encouraged to address the Fall 2019 SPOT summaries in their narrative, particularly if the outcomes differ from the norms for the candidate and/or the department. Evaluators may use the Fall 2019 SPOT summaries for formative purposes but may not use them for summative purposes. Other instructional materials, including available SPOT summaries from other semesters should be used for summative evaluation of instruction.

• For additional information regarding the use of SPOT data in your file, see the  
• Supplemental documentation providing evidence of instruction and instructionally-related activity; research, scholarly, and creative activity; and service. student forms for a given class must be submitted.

Summer 2020 professional development participation will not have any impact on faculty evaluations, nor will participation or non-participation be used in any personnel actions.

Prior Reviews

The candidate must include all prior evaluations as specified below:

• Reappointment file: all evaluations since appointment, including previous Mini reviews; Professional Development Plan, if applicable; and prior Reappointment reviews, if any.
• Tenure file: all reviews since appointment, including previous Mini reviews; Professional Development Plan, if applicable; and previous Reappointment reviews.
• Promotion file: all reviews since appointment or since the last promotion, whichever is more recent. In the case of tenured faculty members being considered for promotion, this would also include any periodic Evaluations of Tenured Faculty (ETF).

Per section 15.2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement:

Faculty unit employees, students, academic administrators, and the President may contribute information to the evaluation of a faculty unit employee. Information submitted by the faculty unit employee and by academic administrators may include statements and opinions about the qualifications and work of the employee provided by other persons identified by name. Only tenured faculty unit employees and academic administrators may engage in deliberations and make recommendations to the President regarding the evaluation of a faculty unit employee.

To provide this opportunity to contribute information, an Open Period has been established from Friday, August 23, 2024 through Friday, September 13, 2024. 

Departments will be provided with a list of the candidates who are eligible for RTP review; this list must be posted in each department office on or before Friday, August 23, 2024. Departments may also disseminate this list to faculty, members, students, and academic administrators electronically. A template for the Open Period notification is available on the . The names of candidates seeking early tenure or early promotion will be added to this list on or before Friday, August 23rd upon receipt of their statement of intent. Each posted list shall contain the following statement, which specifies the nature of the information that can be submitted:

Faculty, students, academic administrators, and the President may contribute information to the evaluation of a faculty unit employee. Information submitted by the faculty unit employee and may include statements and opinions about qualifications and work of the candidate by other persons identified by name.

The following conditions apply to material submitted during the Open Period:

• Information provided must be emailed to the Department Chair by Friday, September 13, 2024. The chair of the RTP Committee shall ensure that the candidate is provided with a copy of all materials submitted during the Open Period.
• Anonymous information will not be accepted.
• Open Period letters cannot be solicited by the candidate.
• The candidate must be given five (5) calendar days notice before any such materials are placed in their file by the RTP Committee Chair. The candidate may respond to or rebut information provided during the Open Period.
• Such materials shall be placed in a separate section of the file identified as “Open Period Material.” An index of this information shall be prepared by the Department RTP Committee and included in the RTP file.
• Requests for removal of Open Period material on the ground of inaccuracy—and only on that ground—may be made under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Please note: Open Period letters are different from Letters of Support. While Open Period letters cannot be solicited, candidates may solicit Letters of Support for their files. Solicited Letters of Support are included in the supplemental documentation section of the candidate packet.

• New Materials: Occasionally, either the candidate or evaluators may ask to have new materials placed in the file after the Open Period. Typical examples are reports from peer observation of teaching that took place after the Open Period or supplemental information on scholarly or creative activities (such as acceptance of a peer-reviewed publication). Such requests shall be limited to items that become available after the file was submitted. In all such cases, the College RTP Committee must approve the request. When material has been added to the file in this manner, the file shall be returned to the initial evaluation committee (the Department RTP Committee) for review, evaluation, and comment before consideration at subsequent levels of review.

• Missing Material: At any point in the review, if materials that are required for the evaluation are discovered to be missing, evaluators at that level of review may request the missing materials be added. However, when the missing materials have been provided, the RTP file must be returned to the level at which the requisite documentation should have been provided. Such material shall be provided in a timely manner.

At all levels of review, candidates shall receive the evaluation report including the recommendation. Candidates are entitled to write a response/rebuttal to the report from each level of review. The candidate’s response/rebuttal shall be included in the file.

Regardless of when the candidate receives the evaluation, the candidate still has ten (10) calendar days after receipt of the evaluation to submit a written response/rebuttal to be forwarded with the evaluation. The response/rebuttal statement shall accompany the RTP File and shall also be provided to all previous levels of review.

Any resulting response/rebuttal shall not require that evaluation timelines be extended. The candidate may also request a meeting with the reviewers to discuss the recommendation (whether or not the candidate plans to write a rebuttal).

The following conditions apply to candidate response/rebuttal:

• A written response/rebuttal should be addressed to the next level of review and submitted to the RTP file via Interfolio.
• If the candidate receives the evaluation with fewer than (10) calendar days before the file is due to be forwarded to the next level, the candidate still has (10) calendar days to respond. However, the file must still be forwarded on schedule.
• Response/rebuttal may not include new materials or supplemental documentation not included in the original file. (There is a separate process for the inclusion of new materials.)

Per the CBA, external evaluation of a candidate’s materials may be initiated by any party in the process (the candidate, Department RTP Committee, Department Chair, College RTP Committee, Dean, or Provost). An external review may be requested at any point during the review, and must have the approval of the President and the concurrence of the candidate. The request must describe the special circumstances which necessitate the external evaluation and the nature of the materials needing evaluation.

Normally, the external evaluation process will be initiated by the candidate, the Department RTP Committee, and/or the Department Chair. In order to meet the deadlines for a candidate’s RTP review, requests for external evaluation should be made as early as possible in the review process, preferably in the spring semester prior to the fall semester when the RTP file is due. The campus process is governed by the “External Evaluation of Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activities” (PS 10-10), which is available on the Academic Senate website.

Participants in the Evaluation Process:

• Department RTP Committee (elected)
• Department Chair (optional)
• College RTP Committee (elected)
• Dean
• Provost

Who can serve on an RTP Committee

The Collective Bargaining Agreement establishes rules for selecting RTP committees. The probationary and tenured faculty of the department elect the members of the Department RTP Committee. This election shall be by secret ballot. Only tenured faculty members are eligible to be elected to RTP committees.

Committee members must have higher rank than those under consideration for promotion. (Example: a tenured associate professor may serve on a committee considering tenure and promotion for an assistant professor.) If promotion is not involved, tenured faculty of any rank may serve as members of a committee to consider candidates for reappointment and/or tenure.

Faculty members who are being considered for any RTP action may not serve on an RTP committee that is evaluating their file. (Example: a tenured promotion candidate may serve on a reappointment review if committee members are different from those serving on the promotion review.) No single individual may participate in the evaluation of any single candidate in more than one level of review.

Tenured faculty members are expected to make themselves available to serve on RTP committees as part of their normal responsibilities. In some circumstances, however, a department may not have enough eligible members to serve on the RTP committee. In this situation, the department shall elect members from a related academic discipline according to applicable college and department policies.

At the request of a department, the President may agree to permit faculty participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program to stand for election for membership on any level of peer review committee. However, these committees may not be comprised solely of faculty participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program.

Special rules apply to the formation of RTP committees for faculty members on joint appointments. See Joint Appointments for Faculty Personnel Policy and Procedures (PS 94-11) on the Academic Senate website.

Responsibilities of Evaluators

RTP evaluation addresses all three areas of review: Instruction and Instructionally-Related Activities; Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activities; and Service. Evaluators should not simply enumerate the candidate’s accomplishments, but critically analyze them according to the criteria that have been established. It is the responsibility of evaluators to provide guidance to candidates by being clear on what areas are meeting expectations and where improvement is needed in a particular area.

In some cases, department standards will be higher than college standards. (Department standards may not be lower than college standards.) College RTP committees shall take into serious account the department specific standards for evaluating candidates.

Department and College RTP committees must vote to recommend or not to recommend each of the following action for which the candidate is currently under consideration:

• Reappointment
• Tenure and Early Tenure
• Promotion and Early Promotion
• Combined Tenure/Promotion and combined Early Tenure/Early Promotion

All committee members must vote, even if they choose to submit a minority report. The vote tally (to recommend and not to recommend) for each separate action must be recorded on the review signature page.

The Department Chair may make a separate recommendation regarding each of these actions as part of a separate report if the chair is not on the Department RTP Committee.

Deans make the final decisions on:

• Reappointment of faculty when reappointment is the only action under consideration, and when the decision to recommend is positive at all prior levels of review.
• The number of years (1-3) of reappointment offered to the candidate.

In decisions regarding Reappointment, Deans are to address letters to the candidates with copies to the Provost and the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs, as well as the College RTP Committee Chair, the Department Chair, and the Department RTP Committee Chair.

The Provost makes the final decisions on:

• Reappointment of faculty in the absence of positive recommendation at any prior level of review
• Non-reappointment of faculty
• Tenure and Early Tenure
• Promotion and Early Promotion
• Combined Tenure/Promotion and combined Early Tenure/Early Promotion
• Salary Enhancement beyond 9.0% for promotion and the specific amount of the increase

All decisions are subject to the final approval of the President.

Notification of final decisions will be available to the candidates in Interfolio.

Each candidate for RTP consideration should consult carefully the policy documents governing the process.

• Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the  
• The University Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Policy (PS 09-10) can be found on the Academic Senate website 
• The Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion policy for the candidate's college and department can be found on the Faculty Affairs website 
• Additional information is available at the Faculty Affairs website regarding deadlines for Reappointment, Tenure, and/or Promotion as well as guidelines for the preparation of Primary and Supplemental documents