University Reappointment, Promotion And Tenure: Committee Charge

  1. To be evaluated and revised and/or reaffirmed annually by the Provost and Chair of the Faculty.
  2. Review the entire RPT process.
  3. Review the content and configuration of the RPT web site.
  4. Review the RPT academic regulations (PRR site).
  5. Submit a written report of the process review at the end of each cycle to the Provost and Chair of the Faculty.
  6. URPTC may bring potential process anomalies to the attention of the Provost prior to submission of the final report.
  7. Review all dossiers for faculty who received a negative decision for reappointment, promotion and/or tenure from the Dean and prepare a written evaluation of the process without voting. The focus of the written evaluation should be to note any procedural matters that the Provost should consider in fairly deciding the case.
  8. Upon request by the Provost, review selected dossiers and prepare a written evaluation of the process without voting. Selected dossiers will most often be those cases where substantial disagreement exists between one or more of the DVF, Department Head, College RPT Committee, or Dean.
  9. Review randomly selected dossiers from each college as follows: one randomly selected dossier from the Colleges of Design, Education, Management, Natural Resources, Textiles and Veterinary Medicine  and the Division of Academic and Student Affairs (7 per year) and two randomly selected dossiers from the Colleges of Engineering, Humanities and Social Sciences, Sciences, and Agriculture and Life Sciences; where one would be for the award of tenure and one would be for promotion to professor on any track (8 per year). No official written evaluation is produced for the randomly selected dossiers. The review is a mechanism for the committee to evaluate the overall process.