College of Liberal Arts Promotion & Tenure Process … 9/20/17, Page 1 of 53 College of Liberal Arts...

Updated 9/20/17, Page 1 of 53

College of Liberal Arts Promotion & Tenure Process Guide – 2017-2018 About the Guide: Who is it for? Primarily, departmental staff assembling promotion files What does it do? This guide attempts to include information about every thing that makes up a faculty promotion file, including: What items are needed What each electronic file should be named Where each file should be uploaded Which documents make up each file What those documents are & how they come to exist Who does what when? What will be checked/what is expected What if my question isn’t answered, or I still don’t understand? Keep asking! Sooner or later we’ll figure things out. It’s also helpful if you point out places where the guide is unclear, confusing, could benefit from re-wording, etc. Typos too. **Don’t forget this crucial guide from the Provost Office: General Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure. The Guidelines are the go-to resource for P&T policy, and we will reference them frequently within this process guide as “GG” + section. Legend: Staff: department staff working on file Spr = Spring semester Cand: promotion candidate Sum = Summer Chair: department chair(s) Fall = Fall semester BC/EC: department BC/EC member(s) CoLA: Gail and Ann EVPP: provost office staff Folder in UT Box Electronic File name

¨ Documents within an electronic file ¡ Required components of a thing


PARTS OF A PROMOTION FILE:

Promotion File Check Form Dossier Folder:

• Change of Rank Form • Chair Statement(s) • Mid-Probationary Review • Other Statements • CV • Publication List & Back-up • Teaching Statements • CIS & Teaching Data • Peer Observations • Graduate Students & Postdocs • Research Section • Advising, Service, and Honors Statements • Letters of Reference

Supplemental Materials Folder:

• Student Comments • Solicited Letters • Other Materials • Publications • Teaching Portfolio

Additional Statements Folder:

• Additional Statements [Department] Promotion Files > [Last Name, First Name – Rank]: PROMOTION FILE CHECK FORM File Name: Lastname_File Check.pdf Documents Included: ¨ Promotion Candidate File Check form [Although the document may not display

when you follow this link, you can still download the form.]


Procedure: Spr BC/EC come up with list of potential external referees.

Before Chair solicits any letters: Cand & Chair discuss BC/EC’s list; Cand voices any concerns, if applicable. Cand signs & dates top portion of File Check form after discussion. [For additional steps in the external review process, please see Chart of Reviewers and Sample Letter.]

Fall Cand reviews promotion dossier (minus internal & external reviews)* before department evaluates/votes on case; Cand requests changes or corrections, as needed. Cand signs & dates bottom section of form after review.

Chair signs & dates form. Staff makes sure Cand’s home mailing address is included; scans & uploads to top folder of promotion file.

FAQ: Q: When should the candidate make the review of their promotion file? A: According to the EVPP guidelines, the candidate should review the file prior to the

departmental vote on the case. [GG B.1.b. & B.2.d.i.] Q: What if the candidate refuses to provide their home mailing address? A: Our office needs to be able to notify all candidates of the president’s decision

regarding their promotion case via letter addressed to their official home address. Per Regent’s Rule 31002.4, all faculty are required to keep the institution notified of his or her current mailing address. [Employee Information System]

Q: What if a candidate refuses to sign the form? A: The candidate is responsible for reviewing the P&T file materials before the

departmental EC/BC considers the case (see above). Once they have done so, they sign the form to indicate they have reviewed the file, not to indicate approval or disapproval of its contents. The candidate is responsible to notify the chair and/or their designee(staff) if they have any objections or requests to make regarding the dossier contents. The chair and/or staff should “either correct the problem or include a statement in the file about the problem and why it was not addressed as the candidate requested.” If the candidate still refuses to sign, the staff member may write on the form that the candidate so refused, and on what date.


*Q: What if the candidate wishes to see the internal & external reviews for their file? A: IMPORTANT: Under State law, the candidate is permitted to view any material

included in his or her promotion file at any time during the process. See GG B.d. for the specific guidelines, but if you have any questions or uncertainty about the access procedures please contact Gail Davis.

Department Promotion Files > Last Name, First Name – Rank > Dossier Folder: CHANGE OF RANK FORM File Name: 01_Change of Rank Form.docx* Documents Included: ¨ Recommendation for Change in Academic Rank/Status form

Procedure: Fall EVPP completes top section for all candidates; sends to CoLA. [File is a

Word document, labeled “Department_LastName, FirstName.docx”.] CoLA places file within candidate’s top folder for Staff to access. Staff double-checks top section for errors; notifies CoLA if any found. Staff completes 1st 3 lines of “Recommendation actions”, i.e. BC/EC & Chair votes** Rename doc as “01_Change of Rank Form” but keep it as a Word docx; upload to Dossier folder of candidate. [Will eventually be a .pdf]

*See FAQ for Joint Faculty. **For list of possible votes: Chart of Recommended Actions FAQ: Q: What are these ‘votes’ of which you speak? A: Each department has a designated form of faculty governance, which is the

established body of individuals charged with voting on promotion and tenure cases (among other things). The 3 kinds are budget council (BC), extended budget council (EBC), and executive committee (EC). For more information on governance and faculty voting, click here.

In early Sept. (usually), the BC or EC gets together to discuss each promotion case, and when ready, they vote by secret ballot. The senior staff person, designee, or chair should record the official votes and account for all potential voters, as defined by the department’s governance.


E.g. Dept. has a 7 member EC made of 3 full profs, 2 associates, & 2 assistants. Dept. has 2 promotion cases: 1 Lecturer to Sr. Lecturer & 1 Associate to Full. Total # of ‘votes’ recorded for each will be 7, though for the Assoc->Full case, there will only be 3 eligible voters – the 4 ineligible voters do Not vote, but they Are recorded as “ineligible.”

Q: What do the different categories “absent,” “abstain,” and “ineligible” mean? A: Absent: was sick, out of town, or otherwise physically unable to vote on a case

Ineligible: cannot vote on a case because: of rank [HOP 2-1310]; spouse or partner of candidate; from department of candidate (college committee)

Abstain: is available and eligible to vote but chooses not to Q: What if the top section (completed by EVPP) contains errors? A: Contact CoLA with requested edits.

Note: The “Other” field on this form will only list official courtesy assignments as recorded in HRMS. This is not required to reflect all affiliations of the Cand, however, the Presidential committee does expect to see a letter from each unit listed there. [see also Other Statements]

Q: What if Cand has a Joint Faculty appointment? A: Each department will have their own votes on a case, and therefore, in cases of joint appointments the files should be labeled: 01_Change of Rank Form_Dept.docx e.g. 01_Change of Rank Form_AADS.docx CHAIR STATEMENT(S) File Names: 03a_Chair Statement Primary.pdf and Lastname_Chair Statement.docx Document Included: ¨ Department Chair’s Statement

Procedure: Fall Typically the last or next-to-last document completed before file

submitted to CoLA, along w/Change of Rank Form. Required elements:

¡ Chair’s own assessment of Cand’s teaching, research & service; a clear recommendation should be made. [see Chart of Recommended Actions]

¡ Fair description of BC/EC recommendation, including summary of views of proponents and opponents. [Don’t name individuals.]


¡ Explanation of negative votes and abstentions. ¡ [If Cand seeking tenure] Reflection on third year review or

explanation as to why there isn’t one included in file. ¡ [If Cand’s case is ‘accelerated’*] Explanation as to why Cand being

put up for promotion early. ¡ Signature and date

Staff should check letter for typos, inconsistencies in data (e.g. vote count, # of dissertations supervised, etc.), and inclusion of required elements before printing final version for signature. The .pdf version should be on departmental letterhead. Both .pdf and .docx version should be named and uploaded to Dossier Folder as indicated.

FAQ: *Q: What does “accelerated” or “early” mean in the P&T context? A: Per GG A.4.; A.6.a.; A.6.b.; A.6.c., a case is considered to be ‘accelerated’ if it is put

forward before the Cand has served at least six years in their current rank. Per GG A.3.b., a tenure candidate’s case is considered ‘early’ if it is put forward before the candidate’s sixth year in probationary status.

Q: Does it matter if the chair writing the statement is different than the chair who

requested the outside letters? A: No. Q: What if I am not comfortable proofreading/commenting on Chair’s statement? [Or

what if Chair is not comfortable with me doing so?] A: You can always just let the chair know the above info (and/or reference GG B.3.c.2),

and alert them to the fact that if any of the applicable required elements are missing, CoLA will require corrections (because EVPP will definitely ask). If anything strikes you as odd or unusual, please feel free to give us a heads up.

Q: Why do I need to upload a Word version of this statement? A: It makes it easier for the Dean to copy/paste quotes from the chair’s letter when

composing the dean’s statement for the file. File Names: 03b_Chair Statement Joint.pdf and Lastname_Chair Statement.docx (if

applicable) Document Included: ¨ Joint Department Chair’s Statement (if applicable)


Procedure: Fall This statement is needed only if the candidate has a split appointment

between two departments within Liberal Arts. Please see Department Chair’s Statement for details. Both .pdf and .docx version should be named and uploaded to Dossier Folder as indicated.

FAQ: Q: How do I know if my department is “primary” or “joint”? A: If you look up your shared faculty member in HRMS, their positions are labeled as

either “Primary Faculty” or “Joint Faculty;” use the position type from your department.

Q: What about “Courtesy Faculty” assignments? A: If a candidate requests a letter from a unit where they are “courtesy faculty,” this

falls under item 5, “other.” MID-PROBATIONARY REVIEW File Names: 04_Mid-Probationary Review.pdf (if applicable) Document Included: ¨ Mid-Probationary a.k.a. Third-Year Review

Procedure: Spr For all promotion cases where Cand is Assistant Professor seeking tenure,

Staff renames and uploads the department file copy of the Cand’s third-year review to the Dossier Folder.

Please only include the review itself, not the CV or CIS Summary.

FAQ: Q: What if my Assistant Professor candidate doesn’t have a third-year review on file? A: If the candidate was hired as an “advanced” assistant professor and they have not

yet been at UT long enough to have their third-year review, the chair ought to simply explain this reason in their Chair Statement. If the department does not have a file copy of the review but a review was done at UT, the department should be able to get a copy from CoLA (Ann).


Q: What if my “advanced assistant professor” has something like a third-year review from a previous university--should I include it?

A: No, the point is to see what kind of feedback a tenure Cand’s UT department(s) have provided during their probationary period.

Q: What if my department has the BC/EC write reports as well as the Chair for third-

year reviews? A: Please include whatever evaluative reports were given to the Cand and/or the Dean’s

Office as part of the third-year review. OTHER STATEMENTS File Names: 05a,b,c_Other Statement_CSU Title.pdf (if applicable) Document Included: ¨ Chair or Director’s Statement from courtesy appointment or affiliation, as

applicable.

Procedure: Spr If Cand has a courtesy appointment with another unit (or units), it is

expected that they will receive letters from these units. Cand should also decide which other affiliations, if any, they wish to include on their promotion CV (i.e. from whom they wish to request letters.)

Sum/ Staff or Chair should request letters--only from courtesy units or other Fall affiliations specified.

[For Research Assistant Professor or Research Associate Professor cases]: “the director of the bureau, academic/research center, laboratory, or institute where the faculty member holds a position must provide an assessment of the candidate’s research performance and other academic and professional contributions. The director’s statement is to be provided to the department chair…for consideration by the [BC/EC].” (GG B.3.d.4.)

Statements should be dated and signed. The .pdf version should be on unit’s letterhead. .Pdf should be named and uploaded to Dossier Folder as indicated above

e.g. 05a_Other Statement_WGS Director.pdf (Include .doc version if provided, but you don’t need to request it.)


If more than one “Other Statement” is part of the file, they ought to be in order such that the letters from courtesy appointments come before other affiliation letters.

FAQ: Q: Does my faculty member need to include a letter from every unit where they have a

courtesy appointment? A: Yes, such a letter ought to be requested, as the Presidential committee will expect to

see one. Q: How can I tell if my Cand has a courtesy appointment? A: Search HRMS; if your Cand is assigned to another unit in a “Courtesy Faculty”

position, this is what is meant by “official” courtesy appointment. Q: What if my Cand has a courtesy appointment in a unit where they do not currently

have much involvement? A: Faculty ought to consider how and where they can or want to make meaningful

contributions to other units, and courtesy positions are assumed to reflect a serious intention/meaningful relationship, especially as viewed by the Presidential committee. If a Cand feels like their courtesy position elsewhere is not an accurate indication of their current involvement in that unit, they may wish to consider ending that courtesy appointment before the Fall.

Q: For reals, should they end their courtesy appointment or what? A: This is entirely up to the candidate. Q: What if we request an affiliation letter and the director/chair never sends one? A: This is uncool, but it happens. The Cand and/or Chair can probably determine how

persistent they would like to be in pursuing such a letter, depending on circumstances.

Q: Does a faculty member need to request courtesy appointments for all affiliations,

and/or are they only to include letters from official HRMS-courtesy-position affiliations?

A: Nope. There will be an expectation that all courtesy appointments will have a corresponding letter in the dossier, but a candidate may request any additional affiliation letters that they wish. We ask that the Cand list all units from which they wish to request an affiliation letter in the “Professional Appointments” section of the CV as affiliations, so that we can ensure they are all accounted for.


Q: What if the director/chair e-mails me their letter for the file; do I have to request a print copy?

A: As long as the chair or director’s letter is on their unit’s letterhead and they’ve signed it, you can include the letter along with the email to which it had been attached.

CV File Name: 06_CV.pdf Document Included: ¨ Curriculum Vitae Procedure:

Spr Cand gives Staff an up-to-date copy of their normal CV. This is sent out to external reviewers (along w/brief research statement & top pubs). [See also List of Materials Sent]

Cand and Staff reach an agreement on how they wish to handle the process of transforming the ‘normal’ CV into the promotion CV.

Considerations: The promotion CV has specific requirements for organization,

presentation of information, and for level of detail required. Please see “Sample CV” on CoLA’s P&T webpage.

Depending on how far the Cand’s normal CV is from meeting these requirements, considerable effort may be required to track down details, collect information, and otherwise address issues of the document’s content. The overall task might be better served by separating out the responsibilities of providing and verifying content versus ensuring proper formatting or presentation.

The level of specificity and frequency of updates can make keeping a coherent version of the CV a challenge – it’s usually easier if only one person is the keeper of the promotion CV & responsible for adding updates.

By late Summer, the need for rapid turn-around of edits makes it most practical for Staff or eventually CoLA to control, and thus, it is most helpful for the CV to be turned over to Staff to manage, although Staff should ensure (to the best of their ability) that Cand is satisfied with CV & that it represents Cand accurately before sharing with any levels of official review.


Sum/ Given this is the most complex single document to compile and edit for Fall the dossier, and the most individualized, this Guide will try to address as much as it can, broken down by CV section. Overall: All pages of the CV should be numbered. Pref: “page x of y”

Do not include date or city of birth or other biographical info.

The first page begins with the Cand’s name, current dept(s), campus address, e-mail address, phone number(s), website – whatever is typical for the Cand.

Education: Degrees listed in reverse chronological order. For each, include: degree received, degree subject, granting

institution, year earned (4 digits). Optional: title of dissertation, supervisor, honors. For correct degree abbreviations, please refer to the UT

Writing Style Guide. If degree institution is not well-known or if confusion is

likely, include city & state (or country) for each degree listing.

Professional Appointments: List all academic positions held post-Ph.D. (or terminal degree) in reverse chronological order.

Faculty affiliations for which affiliate letters will be provided in the file should be listed (indented) under current position at UT.

Publications & Other Scholarly or Creative Work: This section should be organized using the following principles: Group publications into sub-sections according to type: e.g.

books, journal articles, etc. Use section headers to distinguish between refereed work &

other, e.g. “Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles” unless it makes more sense to label works individually within a section.

Sub-sections are typically ordered with “Books” first, followed by “Journal Articles,” “Book Chapters,” & so on, generally in diminishing order of scholarly importance. (Although this is somewhat subjective & varies across disciplines.)

All work that is not yet published shall have a “Stages of Publication” designation.


Work that is “accepted” or “in press” may be listed with published work. Work in earlier stages ought to be listed separately as “Work in Progress” or something along those lines.

All works relevant to this promotion* should be numbered. Numbering shall be one continuous sequence across subsections. *Caveats:

Associate Professors will only number works published and/or produced in rank. Any work that counted toward Cand’s tenure promotion should not be numbered on this promotion CV, regardless of actual publication date.

Non-tenure track Cands will only number publications if being evaluated in research.

Works “in preparation” do not have to be numbered on the CV.

Each sub-section should list items in reverse chronological order. Exception: Editions, translations, or reprints of Cand’s

work ought to be listed underneath the original work on the CV. If the original work counts toward this promotion (is numbered), give this work the same number plus a letter, starting with “a.”

A copy of each numbered publication and work in progress listed on the CV will need to be provided as part of the file [see Supplemental Materials]; the citations on the CV should be checked against the publications themselves to ensure accuracy.

It isn’t necessary to adopt a strict citation style for this CV, but using something like APA or Chicago Style can make the formatting & verification easier. The main criterion is that whatever style (formal or otherwise) is employed should be used consistently. Here’s a terrific reference for citation styles, if you decide to use one:

The Purdue Owl Style Guides Books should include the total number of pages at the end of

the citation. Manuscripts should include total word count or manuscript pages in the listing.


Co-authors and co-editors shall be listed in the order they are listed on the published work.

Roles such as ‘editor’ or ‘translator’ should be clearly indicated.

If the title of a work is in a language other than English, please list the original title(s) first, and then include the English translation of title in brackets after that.

Ex. García Márquez, Gabriel. Cien años de soledad. [One Hundred Years of Solitude.] Editorial Sudamericanos, S.A., 1967.

If a work is translated from one language to another, please include name of translator.

Ex. García Márquez, Gabriel. One Hundred Years of Solitude. Translated by Gregory Rabassa, Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006.

For Associate Professors and Senior Lecturers, the remainder of the CV should only

include information/items from years in current rank.

Research Grants: This section is distinguished from the next section by whether or not the research proposal or award contains the following components:

¡ Primary Investigator (PI) and/or Co-Investigators (if Cand isn’t PI, list PI & include Cand’s role & % effort)

¡ Project title ¡ Sponsoring agency or foundation (typically

external to UT) ¡ Project period (Dates during which one can spend

funds to accomplish specified research.) ¡ Funding amount, in dollars ¡ Project status (submitted, unfunded, awarded)

Typically these awards are competitive. Usually this kind of award is processed through the Office of

Sponsored Projects (OSP). Items should be listed in reverse chronological order. [For Associates/Sr. Lecturers, only include items in rank.] If Cand has neither submitted nor received a grant that

meets these criteria, this section can be skipped.


Awards and Honors: This section includes a list of all of the Cand’s awards, fellowships, & honors and is broader in scope than the previous.

Items should be listed in reverse chronological order. [For Associates/Sr. Lecturers, only include items in rank.] Each listing should include:

¡ Year received ¡ Name of award ¡ Awarding institution ¡ Dollar amount, if cash prize was part of award

(does not include salary). Scholarly Presentations: Should be broken down into sub-categories, if

possible, such as “Invited Talks,” “Conference Presentations,” and/or whatever categories make sense to the Cand.

Items should be listed in reverse chronological order. [For Associates/Sr. Lecturers, only include items in rank.] Each talk listed should include the following info:

¡ Date of talk – month & year, preferable. ¡ Title of talk ¡ Where delivered – institution/conference/etc. ¡ Location – city & state or city & country

Note: If conference titles or institutions are typically abbreviated, please spell out the full name the first time, followed by the acronym in parentheses. You can thereafter use the acronym by itself.

Listings will be edited for consistency of presentation – e.g. abbreviations of months or states, used consistently – and for typos.

Advising & Student-Related Service: Should be broken down into the fewest but also most specific sub-sections that make sense. This is somewhat subjective, but what we’re looking for is crystal-clear indication of the kind of service & the Cand’s role-- do the categories make sense? Are they neither inappropriately broad nor overly specific? Are they reasonably balanced in size?

Ex. Cand A has been on 24 graduate committees in rank: 10 dissertations supervised, 9 dissertation committees as a member, 1 master’s thesis supervised, & 2 master’s thesis committees.


Might use 3 categories: ‘Doctoral Students Supervised,’ ‘Dissertation Committee Membership,’ & ‘Master’s Thesis Committees,’ and, for the last of these, indicate for each listing whether the Cand was Member or Chair.

Cand B has served on 3 graduate committees: 1 dissertation & 2 thesis committees, all as member. Would probably use 1 category: ‘Graduate Committees Served’ w/the type of committee & service listed per student.

You wouldn’t have to do it exactly like that, but the idea is to categorize the information so as to deliver meaning to the reviewer as quickly & painlessly as possible. Too many categories doesn’t help nor do overly specific or vague headings.

Each sub-section should have students listed in reverse chronological & then alphabetical order by last name, for students w/same degree year.

[For Associates/Sr. Lecturers, only include items in rank.] Each listing for graduate students ought to include the

following, unless conveyed by section heading: ¡ Student’s name ¡ Degree received (if current student, list either

years so far [ex. “2015-present”], “(current)” or expected date of degree [ex. “Ph.D. expected 2019”)

¡ Field of study ¡ Role of Cand

Dissertation or thesis title, student awards earned, or placement information may also be included, if desired.

Other possible types of service for graduate students: Field/ Prospectus/Qualifying Exams, Teaching Mentor or Supervisor, Research Assistants (if not covered elsewhere)

Graduate committees will be checked against the OGS Committee Report for discrepancies.

Undergraduate advising activities should contain the same information as graduates in each listing, except degree received (not necessary).


Typical categories for undergrads: Undergraduate Honors Theses (supervised or served as 2nd reader indicated), Research Assistants

Other student-related service (Grad Advisor, Undergrad Advisor, TA Supervisor, etc.) can be included if it makes more sense to have it here rather than in Administrative Service.

Do not include classes taught. Administrative & Professional Service: Should be organized into broad

areas of service (e.g. Departmental, University, Professional & Community/Public, as relevant), and within the broader categories, should be subdivided into smaller categories, as appropriate. For example, if someone served on 6 departmental committees and organized 3 conferences for the department, it might make sense to break out the conferences into their own category. There’s no specific determinant for how this should be done, but, as in previous sections of CV:

Do categories make sense? Does one category flow logically to the next? Does it look nice? Might a more specific category draw attention to

items of significance that might otherwise get buried in longer list?

Can a long list of seemingly random things be organized into 2-3 smaller, more closely-related groupings? Etc.

Items should be listed in reverse chronological order within each subsection.

[For Associates/Sr. Lecturers, only include items in rank.] For peer-editing work, can list all journals and presses in one

paragraph, titled something like “External Reviewer (ad hoc since 20xx)”, rather than listing the specific years provided reviews for each publisher

Do not include titles of work reviewed – peer-review is generally meant to be anonymous.

If served as external reviewer for promotion cases at other universities, can list the university(ies) assisted, but don’t include the candidate’s name.


Include years for professional memberships (best guess is fine).

Things Not Covered Above: Sometimes there are categories of information that don’t fit neatly into the ‘normal’ sections listed above. It’s always okay to ask where these items might best go, but here are some common “none of the above” categories & where they ought to go, if included:

Languages: list at the very end; include proficiencies for all languages listed. Include English.

Fieldwork: (or whatever title is most appropriate). Typically for Cands whose research requires establishment or supervision of remote worksites, where setting up or running the site--or work done there--is a substantial bit of scholarly work in itself, e.g. camp for staging primate observations, archaeological digsites, etc. These are listed after Publications & before Research Grants.

Media Coverage: (however phrased). This section can be included after Publications & before Research Grants for Cands who wish to list interviews, media appearances, media references to their research, etc., on the CV. Depending on type & amount, these can vary in specificity. (Some people might list a bunch of venues where they or their research findings have been mentioned specifically; some people list individual articles or interviews, etc.) Articles about Cand do not need to be included in the file; can be included, if desired in “Other Supplemental.”

FAQ: Q: So… reverse chronological order… When you are trying to organize a list that

includes a range of years for each item (e.g. jobs, service, etc.), are you supposed to use the start or end date of the range?

A: Short answer: end date(s), followed by start dates. Longer answer: think about it in terms of what it means, which is basically “what things happened closest in time to now?”

Ex: Executive Committee, 2014-present Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, 2012-present Undergraduate Admissions, 2013-2014 Special Program Scholarships Committee, 2010-2014


In this example, the person is still serving on the UG Curriculum Comm., so it is listed before Admissions, even though they started Admissions service more recently. The 1st 2 listings are current; the others are not. If end dates are same, the beginning date determines the order, as in items 1 & 2 and items 3 & 4 in the example.

[see p. 11 of http://business.marquette.edu/Content/Uploads/bcc/resume/Resume-Guide-Full.pdf]

Q: If Cand includes range of years during which earned degree, do I need to remove the

beginning year? A: It isn’t necessary to remove it, though it isn’t required information. Generally you

can decide based on aesthetics, unless there is something especially interesting being conveyed. If you do use a range, please use 4-digits for both years.

Q: If a Cand was nominated for or won a prestigious award for their book (or other

significant publication), can we list it with the book itself in the Publications section? What about really good/prestigious reviews?

A: Yes, even though the book award will be listed under the Awards section and so this will be a duplication of information within the CV, thus far our Cands have been permitted to list this information underneath the publication itself. We like doing that because it draws more attention to the award/nomination.

As for reviews, if Cand wishes to list a few notable venues in which the work was reviewed, indented underneath the listing, that would be okay. This should not attempt to be exhaustive, however, and the reviews should not be cited or linked to on the CV. If the book is a Sig Pub for this promotion, the reviews themselves will be included elsewhere in the file. [See Supplemental Materials]

Q: How do I know what publications “count” for a promotion? A: For Assistant Professors, Lecturers, and Research Assistant Professors, all the things

they have already published, anything accepted, and anything in press definitely counts for this promotion. Most numbered work in process will be considered to ‘count’ for this promotion as well. Unnumbered ‘in preparation’ works do not ‘count’ for this promotion, in the sense that they are not excluded from counting toward the next promotion.

For Associate Professors (& Senior Lecturers and Research Associate Professors, though these are both more rare), anything that counted toward a previous promotion cannot be counted again. [E.g. Cand had a revise-and-resubmit on a paper (it was listed as Under Revision or Resubmitted on promotion CV) when they went up for tenure, and the paper is ultimately accepted and comes out the


subsequent Fall (and Cand’s case was successful). That paper could not be counted toward promotion to Full, even though it was technically published in rank.] None of the ‘top 5 works’ from a first promotion would count toward the next promotion. Essentially the focus of the second promotion is: “what has Cand produced in rank?” Ideally, Cand and Staff should refer to previous promotion CV to avoid overlap. If Cand was not previously promoted at UT, err on choosing work that clearly falls inside of rank and/or cannot reasonably be assumed to have been the basis of the previous promotion.

Because this process can be tricky, please feel free to ask when in doubt! Q: If Cand’s book has multiple printings or editions, do I have to provide copies of each

edition? A: We’ll expect to see a publication for every numbered (in this case, number+letter)

item on the CV. Q: If an Associate Professor has a reprint or new edition of a work come out in rank, but

the original work counted toward the previous promotion, does that reprint/new edition/etc. get numbered for this promotion?

A: Not typically, no. When in doubt, ask! PUBLICATION LIST & BACK-UP File Name: 07_Scholarly Record.pdf Documents Included: ¨ Complete List of Publications and Scholarly/Creative Works (a.k.a. Publication

List) [template found here] ¨ Supporting documents for accepted, under contract, or in press works.

Procedure: Sum Staff looks at Cand’s CV publication section. If there are any co-authored

works that were published while Cand was in-rank at UT, request the following information from Cand for each co-authored work: ¡ Relationship between each co-author and Cand (e.g., current or former

student, faculty colleague, etc.). ¡ Institution with which affiliated at the time of co-authorship. ¡ One brief qualitative statement per work describing contribution of

Cand only. Likewise, if the CV contains any works in “accepted,” “in press,” or

“under contract” status, Staff shall ask Cand to provide supporting


documentation of this status, e.g. e-mail from journal accepting article. [See also Stages of Publication]

For Assistant Professors only: request Cand’s dissertation title and advisor’s name; add this information to the template.

Fall First, get the publications section of the CV in good order, with publications numbered and cited correctly, to the best of your ability. Look at the Professional Appointments section of the CV. Make a note of

the different places Cand was at different times in their career and the date spans so that you can more easily sort the publications into the four sections of the document: 1. Current rank at UT Austin; e.g. Asst. Prof at UT 2014-present 2. Current rank at other institution(s); e.g. Asst. Prof at Harvard 2012-

2014 3. Previous rank(s) at UT; e.g. n/a 4. Previous rank(s) at other institution(s); e.g. Postdoc 2011-2012 (or

any time before that) Copy and paste publications listed on the CV into the relevant sections of

the Publication List template. Include relevant CV publication-section headings within each section of the Publication List.

Maintain the order of the publications from the CV [reverse chronological within each section]. Exception: Reprints/new editions/etc. should be listed separately within their relevant publication category & Publication List document section. E.g. Using the example prof above: the Asst. Prof.’s 2013 journal article gets reprinted in a 2015 book as a chapter. In this case, the journal article would get listed in Publication List section #2 under “journal articles” and the reprint would be included in Publication List section #1 under “book chapters”.

Add co-author information below each section 1 publication, as applicable.

All co-authors who were students or trainees of the candidate at the time of co-authoring should have their names italicized.

For each publication in “accepted,” “under contract,” or “in press” status, include the most current applicable document supporting the listed publication status, labeled with the corresponding publication number.

Place these documents immediately following the Publication List, in the same order as they appear on the Publication List.

If the supporting document is a contract, make sure that there are no SSNs or that such information is adequately redacted.


Only include one supporting document per publication, except if the publication is a book. If reader’s reports are available, include these reports in addition to the letter from editor or contract.

FAQ: Q: Do the publications get organized according to where/when they were written or

where/when they were published? A: For simplicity’s sake, use where/when published. Q: What if there are co-authored works that count toward this promotion but were not

published while the faculty member was at UT—do I include that information? A: The Provost guidelines indicate that this information is required in section 1 only

(GG C.2.b.), however, it seems a good idea to have this information available in case it is requested.

Q: Do I need to do a separate Co-Authored Works page? A: No, the Publication List replaces the Co-Authored Works page. Q: Whatever happened to Forthcoming Works page? A: Again, the Publication List replaces the Forthcoming Works page. Q: Do I need to include all ‘works in progress’? A: No, only include works in “accepted,” “in press,” or “under contract” status. Q: What if a work changes status? A: If a work not on the Publication List (but on the CV) changes status to one of the 3

statuses included in the Publication List, add it to the document, along with the supporting documentation. If a work changes from “under contract” to “under revision” (ex.), remove it from the Publication List, along with the accompanying copy of the contract. If a work changes status within the 3 Publication List-included categories, simply update the citation to match the CV.

Q: Do I need to include co-authored information for co-edited works? A: No. Q: Do I include publication numbers on the Publication List? A: Yes, in most cases.* Copy/paste publications exactly as they appear on the CV. *Q: I can skip the Publication List if my Cand isn’t being evaluated in research, right?


A: Nope! All files must include the Publication List. However, if your candidate has no publications at all, you may substitute this document with a statement to that effect.

TEACHING STATEMENTS File Name: 08_Teaching Statements.pdf For Non-Tenure Track Promotions: If this area is not being evaluated, include a page stating that this area is not being evaluated. [Would only apply to faculty in Research Professor titles who don’t have teaching assignments. GG C.3.a.] Documents Included: ¨ Budget Council Statement on Teaching

Procedure: Spr Typically, Chair establishes committee(s) to coordinate department

review of promotion case--usually members of BC/EC. Faculty will be assigned to evaluate and report on Cand’s teaching--either as an independent “teaching committee” or as members of a general “promotion committee” responsible for a Cand’s case. This committee will request access to teaching data, etc.

Fall BC/EC finalizes draft of report (distributed/presented by subcommittee). Usually, report sent to Staff to print onto letterhead. Statement should be dated and requires the typed names of its authors. Report authors need to sign statement. Some departments also include a statement at the end of the report

verifying the date when the faculty governing body (BC/EC) approved the report.

FAQ: Q: Does the report have to be on letterhead? A: It isn’t strictly required, but it definitely looks nicer and makes a better impression on

the reviewers. Q: Do the report authors Have to be EC members? [for depts. w/EC] A: Again, strictly, no. The EC does have the responsibility of reading and approving

report and its contents though, since the report is written on their behalf.


Q: Can report authors be from outside the department? A: If the department is small, and/or there is a professor in another department that can

provide greater insight or expertise or some other quality not available in the department, it is okay to have such a faculty member co-author or contribute to a report.

Q: Do report authors have to be full professors? A: It would be ideal to have most/all of the statement authors be full professors,

especially if Cand is an Associate seeking promotion to Full. That is not always possible or practical. For Associate files, at least one of the statement authors ought to be a Full.

Q: Can the Chair write this report? A: No. ¨ Candidate Teaching Statement

Procedure: Sum Collect statement from Cand.

Maximum four pages; preferably pages numbered. CIS & TEACHING DATA File Name: 09_CIS.pdf Documents Included: ¨ Course Rating Averages Report (EVPP) Procedure:

Sum/ Template is found on Provost Office P&T site; this report was designed by Fall the Provost Office per the request of the Presidential P&T Committee. It

compares instructor and course ratings Cand has received for the teaching the same course across time.

View->Header and Footer to add the correct information for your Cand. Typically, you will add course information from the Summary of CIS

Report, including written-in course data. No matter what source(s) you use, you will need to include that information on the report.


List the courses in order by course number order and then alphabetically by course prefix. Ex. ANT 301, AFR 315, PSY 418, ANT 324, etc.

Under each course, list instances taught in chronological order. Include all classes taught for Assistants; include previous 3 academic

years for all others. Semester = “Fall 2012” Class size = 12th class day enrollment (whole numbers only) Number of responses = surveys returned

FAQ: Q: What is “course number order”? A: This is the order used within the course schedule. Here’s how to determine the order: Using our example course to the right, you order courses by their components in the order indicated. 1. By the last two digits of the course number (“06”). 2. By the first digit of the course number (“3”). 3. By letters (“N”). 4. Then by prefix (“HIS”). Numbers are ordered ascending, i.e. “06” would be listed before “15.” Letters are ordered alphabetically, i.e. “N” before “P” or “AMS” before “HIS.” Q: Am I supposed to include individual instruction courses, such as dissertation hours,

if they are on the Summary of CIS Report? A: No, included organized courses only, please. (When in doubt, ask!) Q: Do I combine topics classes that share a course #? A: No, each topic would count as its own course. However, if Cand taught the same

topics course more than once and simply tweaked the title over time, treat those classes as the same course. In other words, please verify that a difference in title represents a difference in topic, especially if the subject matter sounds related.

Q: What if Cand’s course has changed numbers over time, such as when a department

overhauls the curriculum for a major? A: We believe the intention of the Provost Office was to compare teaching performance

for the same course across time, therefore it makes the most sense to treat a course that is “the same” as the same, regardless of the technical differences. However, please add an asterisk to the course title and, beneath the table for that course, explain how these things that look different are the same, to avoid confusion.


Q: What if I want to add more than three years’ worth of data for my Lecturer’s (or other non-Asst) report?

A: Please don’t, since the supporting data will not be presented as part of the promotion file. [The Summary of CIS Report and Student Written Comments will only include the three most recent years.]

Q: Should I include Summer 2017 course info? A: Yes, if they taught during Summer 2017. ¨ Summary of Recent Course-Instructor Survey Results report Procedure: Spr/ EVPP runs reports, using list of names & EIDs provided by CoLA.

Sum Includes 3 most recent academic years for all but Assistants; their reports include all years at UT.

EVPP sorts & collates reports by CSU; makes copies; notifies CoLA to pick up.

CoLA sorts into departments; checks against submitted list; distributes one set to Staff, keeps one set on file.

Staff compares report to CIS collected from Cand. If course data is missing from report, make a note that you will add that information to the final version. If you have course data listed but not the CIS, follow-up with instructor and/or check department files for those missing classes or forms.

Fall EVPP runs final version of report after Aug. 31. CoLA will collect and distribute as above. As above, Staff checks to make certain all CIS are accounted for. Staff also

adds missing course information (such as for summer classes) to the report itself, preferably where it fits in the chronology.

September version should be the one used in dossier. Make sure to rotate report to landscape orientation for easier reading.

FAQ: Q: What if I have lost or otherwise do not have this report? A: Ask Ann K ([email protected]), keeper of reports, for a copy. Q: So why is my Cand’s summer (or other) course data missing? I have the surveys and

cover sheet and everything!


A: Don’t panic. The short answer is, it’s not always clear why the Summary report is such a fickle beast, but this happens fairly often. If you have a set of processed surveys with the individual course summary sheet, simply use that information to neatly add the course to the summary report.

Q: Can I really just write in this information? It doesn’t feel… right. (or official) A: You really can, and you really ought. Your information will be checked against the

individual course data, so it is not as though you are getting away with anything. If you have large or unruly handwriting, you might consider using Adobe Acrobat to type in the correct data. Or a typewriter, if you have one. Or find someone with nice printing!

Q: Similar to the above: why might I have a set of surveys for the Cand’s class but can’t find the course on the CIS Results site?

A: Do have your Cand check to see if they can find the summary information on MyCIS, however, per the CIS Office webpage:

“*Survey results are eligible for inclusion on the CIS Results Site only if:

• configuration of the Class Unique Number(s) is consistent with that as defined for a course by the Office of Institutional Reporting, Research, & Information System (IRRIS)

• the record contains at least five responses • the record yields a minimum response rate of 20% • a Basic (B), Expanded (E), or Law series form was utilized for data collection. Such forms

contain the "Core 12" items which collectively were created and mandated by UT Faculty Council and UT System. Survey results for which a TA-specific form was utilized do not post to the CIS Results Site even if the previously stated criteria are met; TA forms do not contain the mandated "Core 12" items which are required for faculty.”

Q: What do I do if I have a set of surveys from Cand’s course that were not officially processed by the CIS Office?

A: First question [assuming you have double-checked that there is no report for this set]: is the set of surveys relevant to this promotion? In other words, are they for an Asst. Prof., or is it from the 3 most recent academic years? If the answer to that is “no,” stop right there. If yes, then do you know what happened? Why were the surveys not turned into the CIS Office on time? Who has been holding on to them since? Find out as much as you can, since you will need to explain the circumstances. Try to ascertain if all of the surveys are accounted for—compare the numbered ordered for the course to the number of completed and blank surveys you have, etc. Once you’ve gathered this information, contact Ann K. ([email protected]) as to how you’ll proceed.


¨ CIS Averages Report (COLA) Procedure:

Sum This report compares Cand’s instructor and course ratings received within a particular course level (undergraduate lower-division, undergraduate upper-division, and graduate); this report is used exclusively by the College of Liberal Arts. The CIS Averages template is found on the college website. To complete, use the Summary of CIS Report (including written-in course data). List courses and CIS data in chronological order by course level.

Course level is determined by last two digits of the course number: Lower-division: 00-19 Upper-division: 20-79 Graduate: 80-99 Ex. HIS 315K; 15 = lower division

Include all courses for Assistant Professors and three most recent years for all other Cands.

FAQ: Q: What if individual instruction courses are listed on the Summary of CIS? Do I

include those in this report? A: No. Include organized course data only. Q: What if there is only one relevant course for a certain level? Does it still get an

average? A: Yes. You will want to check the formulas for the average calculations to make sure

they are referencing the correct data range. Q: What if I want to add more than three years’ worth of data for my Lecturer’s (or

other non-Asst) report? A: Please don’t, since the supporting data will not be presented as part of the promotion

file. [The Summary of CIS Report and Student Written Comments will only include the three most recent years.]

Q: Should I include Summer 2017 course info? A: Yes, if they taught during Summer 2017. ¨ Grade Inflation Report


Procedure: Sum Late in summer, CoLA will prepare and distribute these reports to Staff.

Will include data from the three most recent academic years for all but Assistant Professors. [Changing this to be consistent with the other reports in this section.]

Make sure the report is included in landscape orientation within .pdf. FAQ: Q: What if my Cand is teaching during Summer 2017? Can that course info be added? A: The official results from Summer CIS are not scheduled to be posted until September

15, 2017. This data is not likely to have any significant impact on the report, unless teaching data is scant overall within the file. If desired, Staff can contact CoLA (specifically Ann) to request a revised report for the dossier after official Sept. 15. [Cognos isn’t updated until after the CIS data is official.]

Q: Where do these reports come from? A: The data and basic report structure are from COGNOS. The content of the default

report is edited for space and to only include data from the three most recent years (for all but Assistants).

Q: What is “grade inflation”? What is its significance? A: Grade inflation is an attempt to determine--via calculation--whether or not an

instructor’s grading has an inflationary effect on students’ grades; i.e. whether students in the instructor’s class are overall more likely to earn a higher grade than they might usually expect to earn. The “grade inflation factor” is calculated by dividing the “Ending Average Class Grade” by the “Ending Average Cumulative Student GPA” as defined by COGNOS. [See website for details]

PEER OBSERVATIONS File Name: 10_Peer Teaching Observations.pdf Documents Included: ¨ Peer Observation Reports Procedure: Sum/ Hopefully on file within department; can also ask chair if any outstanding

Fall reports (i.e. reports faculty were requested to write after a class visit but haven’t yet turned in).


Each observation report should be checked to see if it contains: ¡ Evaluator’s typed name and original signature; type or print name if

not included. ¡ Date report was written; if left off, determine correct date & add (print

or type). ¡ Date of classroom observation; if left off, determine correct date & add

(print or type). ¡ Course number and title; if left off, add correct course info (print or

type). ¡ Description of methods by which instructor engages students in

learning ¡ Date observations discussed with candidate; if left off, determine

correct date & add (print or type). ¡ Constructive advice and/or specific improvements from previous

observations Minimum of 2 reports should be included. Documents should be in chronological order. Peer observations from the fall semester during which the candidate is up

for promotion should only be included if absolutely necessary. Include all classroom observations in rank.

FAQ: Q: How important is it that each peer observation report contain all of the items listed

above? A: All of the items listed above are expected to be included. Best practice would be to

check for all items as soon as you receive the report so that you can immediately follow-up if there is missing information. If this becomes problematic, please contact CoLA.

Q: What if my candidate only has one peer observation? A: Arrange for them to have one or more additional observations, in summer or early

Fall if necessary. Q: How many of these peer observations are we supposed to have? A: Ideally, every TTT and full-time Lecturer (any level) ought to have one or more of

their classes observed by a peer at least once a year (unless they aren’t teaching). Realistically, this doesn’t happen, but departments should make an effort to (at a minimum) arrange for yearly peer teaching observations for Assistant Professors and anyone scheduled to undergo an ‘intensive’ faculty review that year.


GRADUATE STUDENTS & POSTDOCS File Name: 11_Graduate Students and Postdocs.pdf Documents Included: ¨ OGS Committee Report, Masters and Doctoral

Procedure: Fall EVPP runs these reports in early September.

EVPP sorts & collates reports by CSU; makes copies; notifies CoLA to pick up. CoLA sorts into departments; checks against submitted list; distributes one set to Staff, keeps one set on file. Staff compares report information to Cand’s CV and asks Cand to check if any there are any errors, such as students missing from the report.

Can also check with departmental graduate coordinator. Missing information should be printed neatly onto the report. Make sure report is rotated to landscape orientation within .pdf.

FAQ: Q: Why are some of Cand’s current students missing? A: This report only contains the names of master’s or doctoral students who have

formed official thesis or dissertation committees, on file with the Office of Graduate Studies. Students who have not yet advanced that far into their degree program will not appear. These students can still be listed on the CV.

Q: What if there is a student listed on the report whose committee the Cand says they

are definitely not on? A: You can neatly cross out the information for that student (one line through it) once

you double-check the information. Q: What if my Cand does not have a report (has not served on any graduate

committees)? A: Please create a placeholder document stating: “No graduate students supervised.”

See Postdocs Supervised for example of formatting. ¨ List of Postdoctoral Fellows Supervised

Procedure: Spr Find out if Cand has supervised any postdocs. (Ask and/or look at CV.)


If yes (rare), include a statement with the following info for each postdoc supervised: ¡ Name ¡ Year of Ph.D. ¡ Institution which awarded degree ¡ Years of postdoctoral fellowship If no (common), include document stating: “No postdoctoral fellows supervised.”

Sample Note: If you do not want to use the sample version, please make sure this

document--and other similar documents or placeholder statements--include a header with the candidate’s name, current rank, and department(s). Include the title of the document also. Please try and make this look clean & appealing.

RESEARCH File Name: 12_Research.pdf For Non-Tenure Track Promotions: If this area is not being evaluated, include a page stating that this area is not being evaluated. [Does not apply to NTT Faculty Prof titles.] Documents Included: ¨ Budget Council Statement on Research

Procedure: Spr Typically, Chair establishes committee(s) to coordinate department

review of promotion case--usually members of BC/EC. Faculty will be assigned to evaluate and report on Cand’s research--either as an independent “research committee” or as members of a general “promotion committee” responsible for a Cand’s case. This committee will request access to research data, etc.

Fall BC/EC finalizes draft of report (distributed/presented by subcommittee). Usually, report sent to Staff to print onto letterhead. Statement should be dated and requires the typed names of its authors.

Report authors need to sign statement.


Some departments also include a statement at the end of the report verifying the date when the faculty governing body (BC/EC) approved the report. Check report to see if discusses citation count, including citation indices

and methods used to arrive at count; OR explanation of how citations are not relevant to field and what field’s evaluative standards are.

For Assistant Professors only, should provide an analysis of the differences between the candidate’s dissertation and first book (if applicable).

For full list of what Presidential committee wants to see in this report, please refer to GG C.4.a.

FAQ: Q: What if this statement doesn’t discuss citations/evaluative methods, etc.? A: If the statement seems to be lacking this discussion, you might mention it to the chair

– this sort of thing is not really the kind of thing you are responsible for, nor would it be appropriate, usually, to raise the issue with the BC/EC authors directly. Some chairs include this sort of information in their letter rather than have it in this statement, so probably best to just check the chair’s statement first before raising the issue. The larger point is that the dean & college committee will expect the evaluative methods of the department and/or scholarly field to be addressed within the file.

Q: Does the report have to be on letterhead? A: It isn’t strictly required, but it definitely looks nicer and makes a better impression on

the reviewers. Q: Do the report authors Have to be EC members? [for depts. w/EC] A: Again, strictly, no. The EC does have the responsibility of reading and approving

report and its contents though, since the report is written on their behalf. Q: Can report authors be from outside the department? A: If the department is small, and there is a professor in another department that can

provide greater insight or expertise or some other quality not available in the department, it is okay to have such a faculty member co-author or contribute to a report.

Q: Do report authors have to be full professors? A: It would be ideal to have most/all of the statement authors be full professors,

especially if Cand is an Associate seeking promotion to Full. That is not always


possible or practical. For Associate files, at least one of the statement authors ought to be a Full.

Q: Can the Chair write this report? A: No. ¨ List of Five Most Significant Works

Procedure: Spr Cand determines which of their works in rank they wish to designate as

“most significant;” provides Staff with copies of the works themselves as well as list, so that these may be sent to/shared with external referees.

Fall Staff creates this document (consider formatting the same as the postdoc statement). Copy/paste citations of the works from the CV.

Updates citations as they are updated on the CV. FAQ: Q: What if my Cand wants to include more than five works? A: Whenever possible, the Cand ought to restrict themselves to five (given the sheer

amount of stuff the review committees have to read), however, if they must have six, you can change it to “List of Six Most Significant Works,” etc.

Q: What if my Cand has fewer than five works to use? A: Call it “List of Most Significant Works.” Q: Can my Cand change their mind about which works they want to use (between

Spring and Fall)? A: Technically, the top 5 works included in the dossier do not have to be the same 5 that

were sent to the external reviewers. However, given that the Presidential review committee will only have access to the top 5, it tends to be most advantageous for the Cand if all levels of review are discussing the same works, rather than the external letters talking about publications the president won’t see.

Q: Can Cand include a work that is not yet published among their “top” works? A: Yep. The determination of which works are most significant to the Cand is up to

them and should be considered thoughtfully. The selection can include a number of factors including (but not limited to): highest profile (and/or most cited) piece in rank; highest profile venue; work most proud of; representation of different areas of research program, etc., but the key consideration is that these works will represent the Cand’s scholarly production in rank.


¨ Candidate Research Statement

Procedure: Sum Collect statement from Cand.

Maximum four pages; preferably pages numbered. FAQ: Q: Can Cand include 5th page listing references used for writing statement? A: Yes. ¨ Abstract of Dissertation, Assistant Profs only.

Procedure: Sum Request from Cand or find using “Dissertations and Theses” database

available via the UT Libraries. [Search for “dissertations”] ADVISING, SERVICE, & HONORS File Name: 13_Advising, Service, and Honors.pdf Documents Included: ¨ Budget Council Statement on Advising For Non-Tenure Track Promotions: If this area is not being evaluated, include a page stating that this area is not being evaluated.

Procedure: Spr Chair typically either has one or more members of BC/EC write all 3

reports in this section, but the three reports cannot be combined. Fall BC/EC finalizes draft of report (distributed/presented by author).

Usually, report sent to Staff to print onto letterhead. Statement should be dated.

Report author(s) need(s) to sign statement. ¨ Budget Council Statement on Service For Non-Tenure Track Promotions: If this area is not being evaluated, include a page stating that this area is not being evaluated.





Report author(s) need(s) to sign statement. ¨ Budget Council Statement on Honors For Non-Tenure Track Promotions: If this area is not being evaluated, include a page stating that this area is not being evaluated.




Report author(s) need(s) to sign statement. FAQ: Q: Can the Chair write these reports? A: No. It used to be that in small departments, the chair sometimes ended up writing all

three of these reports, but EVPP says this is not appropriate since Chair will write their own evaluative statement.

Q: Do these reports really need to be three separate statements? A: Yes. [See GG C.5.a., C.6.a., C.7.a.] Q: What are these statements supposed to include? A. They should not be a mere rehearsal of items listed on the CV. At the least, these

statements ought to provide evaluative context regarding whether particular activities are common/unusual, extraordinary/expected, valuable to the department, adequate, noteworthy, interesting, useful, etc. for someone of X years of experience in their field(s). It is also helpful when these reports offer additional explanation or information about an activity that wouldn’t otherwise be obvious from the CV listing. (For example, explaining an uncommon award, or how much was involved in a given service project.)


LETTERS OF REFERENCE


File Name: 14_Chart of Reviewers, Sample Letter, Materials Sent.pdf Documents Included: ¨ Chart of Reviewers

Procedure for External Reviewers: Spr Chair gives Staff lists of external reviewers proposed by Cand and

BC/EC; Staff assembles into one list, being sure to preserve who suggested each referee. Chair or Staff (on Chair’s behalf) sends full list of potential referees--

along with a draft of the Sample Solicitation Letter--to Gail Davis. Gail/CoLA will assist the Dean with verification that the proposed

referees are either affiliated with peer institutions/programs* and/or have the Dean’s approval. CoLA will also review the Sample Letter. [see next section for details]

Once Chair receives approval of referee list and sample letter from CoLA, Chair chooses whom to contact; lets Staff know.

Important: The majority of letters received should be from reviewers “nominated solely by the department.”[see GG C.8.g.] [While the timing on some of these steps will vary, the most important parts are that the candidate has the chance to see the names before the reviewers are asked, and that the Dean approves the list before the reviewers are asked**.] Go to

Procedure for Internal Reviewers: Spr Cand and BC/EC come up with suggestions for internal letter-writers.

Because these reviewers are (almost always*) internal to UT (and usually the department), this process can be more informal, though the Chair should still discuss the entire set of suggestions with Cand before soliciting letters, and the Chair will still need to send a formal solicitation letter. [*NTT Cands being evaluated in teaching & service occasionally request a letter from someone external to UT but still speaking to Cand’s service and/or teaching.]

Chair gives Staff the list of reviewers they’ll be contacting, including which were suggested by Cand and BC/EC. Chart Procedures, continued (All Reviewer Types)

Chair lets Staff know how each person responds; Staff adds the person to the relevant section of the template found on our site.

There are three sections of the chart: Letters Received, Declinations, No


Response Organize reviewers within each section alphabetically by last name. If you don’t need a section, you can remove it from the chart.

Name of reviewer: Although the chart says ‘rank or title’, if the person has a named professorship and/or an administrative title, the Provost Office tends to prefer that you list all of it. E.g. John Q. Adams, Isaac Asimov Centennial Professor of Robotics and Director for the Center of Future Studies, Department of Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Brief statement of expertise and reason for selection: Please make sure this clearly explains why this person was selected. Something like “Chosen due to their expertise in [field of study] and [their prominent role in X].” (where X = editor of major book series or journal; award-winner; endowed professor, etc.) If their institution is not considered ‘peer,’ additional explanation of the choice of reviewer will be expected. The expectations for external reviewer selection are spelled out in Guidelines section C.8.d.

Other relevant information: Include “information about the reviewer that would assist those involved in the process who are not practitioners in the candidate’s field,” if relevant. This might be a good place to offer perspective on info in the “brief statement” section, e.g. if Prof. Adams is the editor of Artificial Intelligence Review, you might explain that ‘AIR is one of the top journals in robotics.’ You should also use this field to answer anticipated questions if reviewer is either not entirely at arm’s length or might raise the question. If none of these factors apply, it is perfectly okay to leave this field blank.

Nominated by: Department or Candidate or Both Date received: [n/a for “No Response” section] don’t forget to fill in

this field! Sum/ As letters come in, record date letter received in the chart. Most people Fall who decline will do so soon after the request is made, but sometimes you

will need to follow up to determine whether a reviewer ought to be listed as “No Response.”

*see FAQ **2017 only: Because this is a new procedure and because some departments will have already sent solicitations before the Provost Guidelines were published, it is likely that some departments will not have received Dean’s approval for their external review list prior to the chair requesting letters.


FAQ: Q: What do we do if a reviewer says they will write a letter & then never sends it? A: Caveat: Chairs have different preferences in how they would like this

communication handled; always be sure to work out the method with your Chair before taking action.

Usually the Staff sends a friendly reminder near the deadline; if deadline passes without receiving letter, is okay to send a polite follow-up e-mail. (Give them a couple of days past the deadline to allow for U.S. Mail.) If no response after follow-up email, or if they say they will send it ASAP & it doesn’t appear, ask Chair to follow-up. If letter is never received, move that reviewer’s name to “No Response” section.

*Q: How do we know if the reviewer’s institution is “peer”? A: First, this determination ought to be made by the Chair and/or BC/EC. Furthermore,

you will now also have the Dean’s input early in the process, so hopefully that will help in deciding? These determinations can seem subjective even to those individuals making them, and so here are a few academic-research standard-keepers:

1. AAU Institution? AAU, or the Association of American Universities, is a non-profit organization “that comprises 62 distinguished institutions in the United States and Canada.” Member universities are listed on the AAU website.

2. Tier 1 research university? Also known as an “R1”; these are research universities in the United States classified as “Doctoral Universities” with the “Highest Research Activity” according to the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.

Hold on a second: what about the rest of the world? 3. Well, U.S. News & World Report has ranked 1000 world universities according to “12

indicators that measure [the schools’] academic research performance and their global and regional reputations.”

According to the 2017 version of the list, University of Oxford (#6; UK) and the University of Cambridge (#7; UK) were among the best in the world. I would venture to say that at least every university that outranks UT Austin (#30) ought to reasonably be considered “peer+”. Imperial College London (tie-#19; UK), University of Toronto (#21; Canada); and University College London (#23; UK). Other international universities in the top 50: University of British Columbia (#31; Canada); Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (#35; Switzerland); University of Edinburgh (tie-#36; UK); University of Melbourne (tie-#36; Australia); École Polytechnique Federale of Lausanne (#40-tie; Switzerland); University of Tokyo (#44; Japan); King’s College London (tie-#45; UK); University of Sydney (tie-#45; Australia); University of


Copenhagen (#49; Denmark); McGill University (tie-#50; Canada); National University of Singapore (tie-#50; Singapore).

An unnecessarily long answer, perhaps, but possibly helpful? Q: Can we have Associate Professors (or lower ranks) write letters? A: For a non-research-title NTT case writing about teaching or service, this is generally

fine, assuming that the individuals can comment meaningfully on the Cand’s teaching and/or service. For research-related external letters, efforts should be focused on seeking arm’s length reviewers who are full professors at peer/peer+ institutions [see GG C.8.d.]. If the top person in the field happens to be an Associate, you can use them as a referee. However, the Presidential Committee prefers the use of Full Professors whenever possible, so try to take that into consideration.

¨ Sample Letter from Chair

Procedure: Spr Staff & Chair prepare official letters requesting review of Cand’s record.

For TTT Cands, use college template for relevant rank. If Cand is seeking tenure and has received an extension of the

probationary period (EPP), this information must be included in the letter (see template). [For more information about EPP, see this page.]

For NTT Cands, use the Provost template(s)*. Department decides requested deadline for letters.

Staff sends one of the letters [or one of each type of letter*] to CoLA for vetting (double-checking for typos & that all required language is included).

Once CoLA approves the draft(s), Chair sends out letters (if emailed) or signs paper versions to be mailed/scanned & emailed.

Staff saves one of letters [or one of each type*]; scans/saves as .pdf to include in dossier.

*Note: For NTT cases, if a combination of internal and external reviewers are being solicited, the department should prepare two letter templates for the two types of reviewers.

FAQ: Q: Is it okay if the Chair emails external referees informally before sending the official

request letter?


A: Yes, this is okay as long as all persons contacted as potential reviewers are included in the reckoning of letters received/denials/non-responses and the request emails include notification that under State of Texas law, the confidentiality of review letters cannot be guaranteed. [see GG C.8.d.]

All reviewers who agree to write must be sent a copy of the formal solicitation letter. ¨ List of Materials Sent to Referees

Procedure: Spr Note: You can prepare this list around the time you actually send out the

materials. If you do, you do not need to update it later with publication numbers, etc.

List all items sent to reviewers for their consideration. This includes the candidate’s CV, brief research statement, top publications—whatever you send.

Prepare this document regardless of the type of case; i.e. even if your Cand is a Lecturer not being reviewed in research—if you send their CV or teaching statement or whatever to the reviewers, record this.

FAQ: Q: Didn’t this use to just be a duplicate of the “top 5” list? A: Yes, this has been the case in our college, however, the Guidelines specify the need to

include a “list of the five most significant works and any other materials that were sent for evaluation” [GG C.8.f.].

File Names: 15a,b,c_Ltr_Lastname-Institution.pdf Documents Included (in each .pdf): ¨ Letter of Reference ¨ Short CV

Procedure: Spr Chair shares with Staff the list of reviewers who have agreed to write [see

Chart of Reviewers]. Fall Letter usually arrives in mid-late August:

Should be on letterhead of referee’s university/research institution. Should have referee’s signature & typed name. If sent via email, the email address should be their university or

institution email, and the email showing the letter attached should be printed/saved as .pdf & included behind the letter itself.


Mark the upper righthand corner of the first page of the letter with “Department” or “Candidate” or “Both,” depending on who recommended the letter-writer. This notation can be neatly hand-written on original, or added w/Acrobat to digital version. Note: this designation should match the Chart of Reviewers.

Although Chair’s solicitation letter requests a short CV in addition to the letter of reference, referees don’t often send a ‘short CV’; might include full CV, link to their website, etc.

If you have a full CV, only include first two pages, max. Printed academic webpage also acceptable. Maximum of 2 .pdf pages either way. .Pdf files should be labeled with “15a” “15b” & so on such that the letters

sort into alphabetical order by referee last name. [Again, this order should match the Chart of Reviewers.]

FAQ: Q: What if we receive an emailed copy of the letter, sent from the referee’s institutional

email, but it’s just a Word document, neither signed nor on letterhead? Do we have to ask them to resend?

A: Yes, we have to at least try to get them to send a more ‘official’ version. Contact the reviewer and ask them to either send a signed hardcopy on letterhead, or, if that is not possible, ask them to please send a scanned version of a signed hardcopy on letterhead.

File Name: 16_Declinations.pdf (if applicable) Documents Included: ¨ Declination Emails

Procedure: Spr When or if someone solicited for a letter of reference declines to serve as a

referee, this correspondence shall be saved as a .pdf and included in this file.

If more than one declination, include e-mails in alphabetical order by last name of person. No CVs required.

Include information from emails (dates/reasons) in Declinations section of Chart of Reviewers.

File Name: 17_Unsolicited.pdf (if applicable)


Documents Included: ¨ Unsolicited Letters of Review

Procedure: Fall If Chair receives letter about Cand’s promotion that wasn’t part of the

external review request process--or otherwise requested by department or candidate--the letter goes here.

If more than one letter received, order them alphabetically by author last name. No CVs required.

If letter received is a hardcopy, date stamp it on first page. FAQ: Q: Do I need to be on the lookout for these kinds of letters? Are they normal? A: These letters are rare; you don’t need to worry about having them, but if you do

receive them, you know they have a designated spot. Q: How can I tell the difference between an Unsolicited Letter, a Solicited Letter, and

an Additional Statement? A: The safest thing is to always check with CoLA first. If Additional Statements are not

labeled and filed properly in a promotion file, it can be considered a procedural error.

Department Promotion Files > Last Name, First Name – Rank > Supplemental Materials Folder: STUDENT COMMENTS File Names: 01a,b,c_Student Comments_SEMESTER NAMEYY-Course#.pdf Documents Included: ¨ Original CIS for 3 Most Recent Academic Years (one file per course) ¨ Individual CIS Rating Summary Reports (cover sheets for each file)

Procedure: Sum At any time before the Fall, Cand should give Staff all of the course-

instructor surveys from the three most recent academic years. For 2017-18: 2014-15, 2015-16, & 2016-17 If department maintains originals, Staff would gather these.

Use Summary of CIS Results Report as a guide to confirm whether or not you have all of the surveys you need.


Each set of paper course surveys should be counted to see if they match the official number of returned surveys for the course. If there are any discrepancies from the official returns, you will need to

write a cover memo of explanation for that set. Scan each set of paper surveys, ensuring that any written comments are

legible and that surveys with writing on both sides are scanned on both sides.

Verify that all surveys are present in the resulting .pdf. Remove any blank pages in the .pdf. Include the Individual CIS Report Cover Sheet as the first page in each

.pdf (or second, if cover memo is necessary to add). These cover sheets may or may not have been included when the Cand received their course-instructor surveys back from the CIS Office. If Cand does not provide you with these summaries, you can retrieve them from the CIS Results site.

For electronic survey results, there are usually only two pages – the cover sheet and the list of typed student comments. (Sometimes the latter end up spanning more than one page for a large, responsive class.) If no students included comments for a course, the second page will

only say “No comments” or something like that. Label these files so that they sort in the order they are listed on the

Summary of CIS Results Report. 1a, 1b, etc. (see File Name above) FAQ: Q: What if there is an individual cover sheet that isn’t included on the Summary? A: As long as you also have the surveys to go with it, add the course information to the

Summary report. Q: Do I need to include all of the courses listed on the Summary? A: No, only include courses from the three most recent academic years: Fall 2014, Spring 2015, Summer 2015 Fall 2015, Spring 2016, Summer 2016 Fall 2016, Spring 2017, Summer 2017 Q: What if my Cand doesn't have three years’ worth of courses to include? (Was on

leave; did not teach every semester, etc.) Can I include courses from other years to make up the difference?

A: No.


Q: What if my Cand taught at another college or university during the last 3 academic years?

A: If the Cand has CIS results from teaching at another institution within the 3 most recent academic years, they can include those summaries and survey results. However, unless the other institution uses a system comparable to UT Austin’s, it would probably be less confusing if these were included in the Teaching Portfolio or in with Other Supplemental items.

Q: What if neither the Cand nor I can find a cover sheet for a course included on the

Summary report? A: Include a placeholder document with the Cand’s name, rank, department, semester,

unique #course number and title, & brief explanation of why the cover sheet is not there. Try to make it look nice.

Ex: Mortimer Mousenstein

Assistant Professor Department of Cheese Studies

Summer 2016 01234 CHZ f301 “Introduction to Cheese Cultures”

Results cover page for this course cannot be located and is not available online. Q: Do I need to include individual instruction courses and surveys? A: If listed on the Summary and within the past 3 academic years, then yes. SOLICITED LETTERS File Name: 02_Letters Solicited from Collaborators.pdf, if applicable

Procedure: Fall If Cand solicited letters from co-authors or other collaborators/non-arm’s

length-reviewers, such letters will be included here, when/if received. They should be placed in alphabetical order by last name within one .pdf. No CV is required.

FAQ: Q: Is it likely that there will be any solicited letters?


A: No. Q: Do these letters count toward the “5-letter minimum”? A: No. Q: Is there any advantage to having these letters? A: Reportedly, some colleges find it useful to have co-authors or research collaborators

reflect upon the collaboration, provide more details, etc. The hypothesis is currently untested within our college.

OTHER MATERIALS File Name: 03_Other Supplemental Material.pdf, if applicable Documents Included: ¨ Any Miscellaneous Items Cand Wants to Include in File (optional)

Procedure: Fall Cand gives Staff all materials they wish to include in their promotion file

that don’t go somewhere else within the file, along with a table of contents. Staff verifies that none of the materials belong somewhere else in the

promotion file; ensures all items are scanned into one .pdf file with table of contents as first page.

The table of contents should list both the items included in the .pdf, in order, and the beginning page numbers next to each item.

(This may seem to go without saying, but some people have left off the page numbers in the past.) “Page numbers” refers to the .pdf pages.

FAQ: Q: Does it matter whether or not a Cand has these other materials in the file? A: No. PUBLICATIONS File Name: 04a,b,c_Significant Publication (##-Title).pdf Documents Included: ¨ Designated ‘Most Significant’ Publications, Themselves


Procedure: Spr Cand provides Staff a copy of each of their top 5/most significant works

for distribution to external reviewers, internal review committee, and Chair.

Fall Cand ensures that Staff has most up-to-date version of each work. Staff cross-references these publications with the CV to ensure accuracy.

Staff creates placeholder document for any book or whole journal for which Cand cannot supply .pdf page proofs/scanned version.

Staff labels works according to file naming conventions and uploads to Box promotion folder.

All works will begin with “04” and then a letter, such that the files sort in number order of publication. The actual publication number, corresponding to CV, is in the parentheses of the file name.

e.g. 04a_Significant Publication (02-A Man for All Seasons).pdf Do use a 2-digit publication number in the file name, though you

would not typically do so in the CV. Note: If any of these publications is a book, we’d like to have a hard copy

version of the book(s) in our office, when possible, so that we can lend them to the Dean or College Committee members for review.

File Name: 04a,b,c_Reviews_Significant Publication (##-Title).pdf (if applicable) Documents Included: ¨ Published Review(s) of a Significant Work (if applicable) Procedure:

Fall If there are any published book reviews of a Cand’s book--one of the “significant” publications--they should be included with the file. Scan all into one .pdf (can continue to update, as needed), labeled as

indicated above: basically you will copy the file name of the work and add “Reviews_” after the initial number/letter combo.

e.g. 03a_Reviews_Significant Publication (02-A Man for All Seasons).pdf

When possible, having a table of contents for a multi-review .pdf is helpful; even more helpful if that ToC lists the reviews as citations. Not required though.

Note: If the book is out, but if it is too soon for it to have received published reviews, include reader’s reports here and use “Reader’s Reports” instead of “Reviews” in the file name.


File Name: 05a,b,c_Other Publication (##-Title).pdf Documents Included: ¨ Designated ‘Other’ Publications, Themselves

Procedure: Sum Cand provides Staff a copy of each numbered work listed on their CV--

including works in progress--for inclusion in the promotion file. Fall Cand ensures that Staff has most up-to-date version of each work. Staff cross-references these publications with the CV to ensure accuracy.

Staff creates placeholder document for any book or whole journal for which Cand cannot supply .pdf page proofs/scanned version.

Staff labels works according to file naming conventions and uploads to Box promotion folder.

All works will begin with “05” and then a letter, such that the files sort in number order of publication. The actual publication number, corresponding to CV, is in the parentheses of the file name.

e.g. 05a_Other Publication (01-What Makes a Man a Man).pdf Do use a 2-digit publication number in the file name, though you

would not typically do so in the CV. Note: these works will not be reviewed by the Presidential Committee.

FAQ: Q: What if my candidate has more than 26 “other” publications? How do I label the files? A: If you have more than “05z” publications, you will not actually use “05z” – skip from “05y” to “05za” & so on. If you reach “05zz” & need to go beyond, skip “05zz” and go from “05zy” to “05zza.” TEACHING PORTFOLIO File Name: 06_Teaching Portfolio.pdf Documents Included: ¨ Teaching Portfolio

Procedure: Fall Cand assembles materials (syllabi, exams, assignments, screenshots of

web-stuff, presentations, etc.) they wish to include and gives to Staff,


along with table of contents describing the items and in which order they should be included.

Staff combines items into single .pdf and adds correct page numbers to table of contents, as needed.

Staff labels file as above and uploads to Box. Note: the portfolio will not be reviewed by the Presidential Committee.

Department Promotion Files > Last Name, First Name – Rank > Additional Statements: ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS File Name: Additional Statement_ccyy-mm-dd Lastname.pdf Documents Included: ¨ Any non-required statement that Cand or 3rd party wishes to add to Cand’s file. ¨ Any notification of an update to Cand’s publication record/other CV updates. Procedure: Fall Staff or Chair receives non-required statement or update* regarding

Cand’s file. Staff date-stamps first page of statement (if printed letter); if emailed,

email would include date received; if statement is attached to an email, print the email showing the attachment and date received and include behind the statement itself.

If prior to handing P&T file over to CoLA, scan/save statement, label as above, and upload to Box. Notify CoLA.

If received after handing P&T over to CoLA, forward email or deliver hard-copy to CoLA ASAP.

CoLA will assume responsibility of providing required notifications until file is handed over to EVPP.

E.g. If someone submitted a non-required letter to the Dean about a Cand’s promotion file, Cand & Chair are notified and given the opportunity to read it (and respond, if desired).

*Re: Updates: Once the promotion file has been released to the CoLA P&T Committee and Dean for review, we will not continue to update the CV or other documents (if there are publication status changes, new awards, etc.). Instead, when we receive these updates from Cands, we will add that notification as an Additional Statement and notify all levels of review, per above.


FAQ: Q: What should I do if… ? A: If you receive any additional statements, let Gail Davis ([email protected]) or 512-232-2132, know as soon as you can.


2017-18 Promotion Process Timeline Ongoing: Schedule peer teaching observations (ideally, minimum of 1 per year, esp. for

Asst. Prof.). When Staff receives reports, check for required elements (saves time to fix these right away); keep on file.

Scan CIS for faculty at ends of semesters; keep on file. Feb.-Mar. 2017 Dept BC/EC & Chair decides who putting up for promotion (for optional

cases) Staff notifies CoLA of P&T candidates before March 31; sets up Box files

for each. (Check w/Ann if needing assistance.) Mar. 2017 BC/EC comes up w/list of potential ext. referees for each Cand.

Cand. meets with Chair to talk over list; Cand voices any concerns, if applicable. Signs & dates Promotion File Check top section. Cand provides Chair w/list of potential external referees. Chair chooses whom to ask from both lists. Chair/Staff sends combined list & Sample Request Letter to Gail for Dean review. Staff creates Chart of Reviewers

Apr. 1-May 15, 2017 Cand & Staff meet with CoLA about process. Schedule with Gail. Spring 2017 Cand chooses top 5 works; provides to Staff. Chair solicits external referees. Coordinates w/Staff. Cand updates CV and writes brief research statement; gives to Staff. Staff sends materials to external referees who have agreed to write; creates

List of Materials Sent to Referees. Chair/Staff request affiliation letter from other Directors/Chairs (if

applicable). Summer 2017 Staff & Cand collect documents required for file: Previous 3 years’s worth of CIS (14-15, 15-16, 16-17) Publications that will be numbered on the promotion CV.

Proof of publication status for accepted/in press/under contract works (if applicable)

Peer teaching observation reports Third-year review report (if applicable) Dissertation abstract (if applicable) Summary of CIS (from EVPP via COLA) Grade Inflation (from CoLA) External referee letters and CVs/bios (as they arrive) Cand writes/assembles/revises: Teaching Statement Research Statement CV Teaching Portfolio Co-Author information


Staff creates & updates: Course Rating Averages Report (EVPP) CIS Averages Report (COLA) Complete List of Publications and Scholarly/Creative Works List of Postdoctoral Fellows Supervised List of Five Most Significant Works July 2017 CoLA workshops on dossier materials August 2017 Cand should have delivered all of their required materials to Staff/dept by

this point. Materials should be shared with relevant dept committees so they can write their reports

Staff finalizes all of the materials for the file under their control; collects all else.

Late Aug/early Sept. Cand reviews file (minus external letters & BC/EC statements), requests any

changes, etc.; signs bottom of Promotion File Check Staff receives OGS Committee and updated Summary of CIS Reports (from

EVPP via CoLA) BC/EC discuss & vote on case. BC/EC finalize reports; sign completed statements on letterhead. Chair writes letter. Staff checks letter for consistency with file & for required elements; obtains

signed letterhead version. Staff assembles all P&T file materials – copies to CoLA Box folders. Sept. 15, 2017 Promotion files due to CoLA. Contact Gail & Ann if unable to meet

deadline. CoLA edits/reviews files; requests info, etc. Late Sept/early Oct. CoLA P&T Committee & Dean begin file review Oct. 27-28, 2017 CoLA P&T Committee meet & vote on all college cases. Nov. 2017 Dean writes letters CoLA make any necessary edits or updates to files Late Nov. 2017 CoLA submits all college files to EVPP. Early Jan. 2018 EVPP requests edits to files. Jan. 12, 2018 EVPP releases CoLA files to Pres. Comm. Late Jan./early Feb. Dean meets with Pres. Comm. Feb. 15, 2018 President announces decisions. Mar. 19, 2018 Final arguments & CCAFR requests due to EVPP.


Apr. 6, 2018 Final decisions on Final Arguments announced. Apr. 13, 2018 CCAFR reports due to Pres. Office. May 7, 2018 Announcement of decisions on CCAFR reviews.

Date post:	18-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lykhanh
View:	213 times
Download:	1 times