Materials to be Included in the Administrative Section

1. The original completed transmittal form..
Care should be taken to complete all the elements of the form accurately (e.g., dates of initial and current appointments, years credit for prior service, and date tenured) and to record accurately the actions or votes taken by the unit (s) and chair/director (s) forwarding the nomination.

2. Appointment History.
Each file should include a copy of the candidate's original letter of offer and any addenda to it. There should be a statement of the apportionment of the candidate's effort among teaching, research, service, administration and outreach. Any subsequent written amendments involving a significant change in the faculty member's assignments or duties or any changes in the apportionment should be included.

3. Annual Evaluation Letters. . Annual evaluation letters must be in the files of candidates for tenure and/or promotion. The files of candidates for tenure and/or for promotion to associate professor must have annual reviews for every year of service at UNL. The files of candidates for promotion to professor should have annual reviews covering the preceding five years.

Refer to sections III and IV of the "Guidelines for the Evaluation of Faculty: Annual Evaluations, Promotion and Tenure" (at http://www.unl.edu/svcaa/documents/tenure_guide.pdf) for guidance in conducting the annual reviews.

4. Reappointment Letters.
The file must contain all reappointment letters for faculty who are being considered for tenure.

5. Promotion and Tenure Evaluations.
a. Letter from the department's promotion and tenure committee or other relevant committee. SVCAA Edwards's comments (below) regarding the chair's letter apply here (as well as to the transmittal letters from the College Executive Committee and Dean to the SVCAA). See Memos of September 12 1997 and April 21 1998.

The voting members of the unit (s) assessing candidate performance must use the assessment terms in the A&S Handbook: outstanding, superior, good, and adequate, inadequate. The Handbook notes that this letter and/or the chair's letter should "give some indication of the reasons for the negative as well as the positive votes" (p. 14). The Handbook adds that members of the appropriate faculty body who differ from the majority vote may submit a written dissent provided that the dissent is given to the candidate being considered for his or her response. The candidate must be given a reasonable time to provide a written response (p. 17); "reasonable time" is defined as five (5) working days. The dissent and the candidate's response, if there is one, become a part of the file. The letter must not be forwarded to the chair until the candidate has responded or the five days have elapsed.

b. Letter from the chair (or chairs when a candidate has a joint appointment). SVCAA Edwards writes that this letter should "contain a clear evaluation, based on an analysis of the record, of the faculty candidate's case for tenure and promotion" (Memo of September 12 1997, p. l). This analysis should be based, in turn, on a clear statement of expectations for research or creative activity, teaching and service. Restatements of the facts of a case with little or no analysis of the quality and value of candidate's contributions are not useful. "Proper decisions inevitably require an assessment 'an informed judgment' of the quality of the individual's achievements and potential for future achievements" (Memo of September 12 1997, p. 1).

In the letter, the chair/director (s) of the unit (s) assessing candidate performance must use the assessment terms in the A&S Handbook (outstanding, superior, good, adequate, inadequate). The letter should indicate clearly the reasons for the negative as well as the positive votes in the department or unit.

Again, the faculty member has five days to provide a written response to the chair's letter before it is forwarded to the Dean.

c. Peer Evaluations of Teaching. This should include letters of evaluation of teaching by peers. These letters should analyze the quality and effectiveness of the candidate's teaching. To the extent that it is not redundant with the letter from the Chair or the faculty, there should be an analysis of student evaluations (please include a copy of the student evaluation instrument) and peer assessment of course design, instructional materials and examinations, level of student performance, curriculum and course development, innovation in instructional delivery, impact of teaching on the discipline, student advising, graduate instruction and mentoring, and teaching awards and recognition. In addition, the SVCAA asks for a description of the unit's formal peer review process.

d. External Reviews

i. External letters

Regental policy states that "where practicable and feasible, evaluative comments should be sought from established authorities at other major universities in each tenure candidate's field." (Board of Regents Policies, RP 4.3.1) The SVCAA echoes and extends this commitment by "encourag[ing]" the inclusion of at least three external (to UNL) and "independent" letters of review in the file of every tenure candidate and, ordinarily, every candidate for promotion to full professor. (Memo dated April 21 1998) It has become standard practice in the College to have external letters for all candidates for promotion to associate and full professor or for tenure in order to obtain expert advice from objective reviewers about the nature and extent of the contribution made by the candidate's work and about its quality, significance, and potential.

By "independent," the SVCAA means letters from individuals who have had no or very limited professional or personal relationships with the candidate and who have been chosen by the department or promotion and tenure committee chair for their ability to provide a disinterested (i.e., objective) assessment (Memo of September 14, 1998, p. 2). Such individuals do not include dissertation advisers, current or former collaborators, former colleagues, or personal friends or others who have any special relationship to the candidate. The letters would ordinarily come from individuals at institutions of a comparable or better stature than UNL.

Candidates must have an opportunity to propose potential reviewers and to object to the inclusion of reviewers. The final selection of reviewers is the responsibility of the person conducting the review. (V.D.4 and VI.D.5.) The SVCAA indicates that more than three letters may be solicited. Candidates may ask departments to solicit additional letters, including from people who would be excluded according to the preceding paragraph. Departments may also solicit additional letters, either from those who would be excluded according to the preceding paragraph or independent letters. Ordinarily, there should not be more than ten independent letters in all (Memo of April 21 1998, p. 2).

Anonymous reviews should not be solicited and unsolicited anonymous reviews should not be included in any file (except for student evaluations and assessments of administrative performance). (Handbook, p. 32).

ii. Process to obtain external letters.

The UNL Guidelines indicate that units that solicit outside reviews must develop rules for doing so. Every reasonable effort must be made to assure that external reviewers represent an appropriate subset of peers.

The faculty member has a right to know how and by whom potential reviewers are identified and selected, to have a copy of every review, to know the name of its author, and to append a written response to each review in his or her file. A candidate may waive any or all of these rights. Waivers must be in writing before reviews are solicited and be in the candidate's file. The waiver form that should be used can be found at /dean/resources/promten/review_waiver.pdf. Letters soliciting reviews must inform potential reviewers of the extent to which the review's contents or the identity of its author will be known to the candidate. (Guidelines, V.D.4. and VI.D.5.)

A template of the letter departments should use in soliciting reviewers is to be found at /dean/resources/promten/review_letter.pdf. It is consistent with the SVCAA's expectations. (See memo dated September 12 1997, p.2.) The letter uses neutral language in asking for an evaluation of the quality and significance of the candidate's work. It does not ask the reviewer whether the candidate should or should not receive tenure and promotion; these are decisions for the faculty and review process and must reflect UNL's particular circumstances. Reviewers should have the candidate's statement identifying his or her most significant contributions.

The letter must also inform potential reviewers of whether or not candidates have waived the right to read the letters and/or to know reviewers' identities. The SVCAA notes that, in the past decade, the courts have ruled that such records cannot in all circumstances be kept confidential, e.g., a court may require us to open letters to equal opportunity commission investigators. Thus, the letter should inform potential reviewers that if the candidate has signed the relevant waiver, the described material will be kept confidential to the extent permitted by law.

Faculty and administrators must assess and weigh the content of reviews in the context in which they are provided, a context "that includes the extent to which those reviews are confidential." However, reviews may not "be routinely or automatically discounted simply because a candidate chooses not to waive the right to access... reviews or the right to know the identity of the reviewers." (Guidelines, V.D.4. & VI.D.5).

iii. Statement regarding external reviewers.

The file must include a description of how external reviewers were chosen. The SVCAA particularly wants to know whether the authors of external letters were chosen by the department (chair or committee) or the candidate (Memo of April 21 l998, p. 2). Describe the qualifications of each reviewer, indicate the relationship (if any) of the reviewer to the candidate and provide a copy of the letter soliciting the review.

In addition, the file must indicate how many individuals were invited to submit external reviews. It is not necessary to include the vitae of external reviewers.

SVCAA Edwards writes that letters soliciting reviews should come from the chair of the unit, the unit's Tenure and Promotion Committee (or the unit committee that considers tenure and promotion), or the Dean. Normally candidates should not solicit external reviews: if candidates do solicit such reviews. the reviews received must be identified as candidate-solicited in the file. Reviewers should generally have full professorial rank and, at the least, have a rank equal to or above that being considered for the candidate (Memo of September 12 1998, p. 2).

6. Teaching Information.

a. Course Listing. The Course Listing and Evaluation form should be filled out to include all courses taught by the candidate.

b. Summary of Quantitative Data From Student Teaching. Provide a summary of the quantitative data from student evaluations and an analysis of this data in comparison with departmental averages for similar courses.

MATERIALS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CANDIDATE SECTION

1. Candidate's current curriculum vitae.
The vita should note clearly which of the candidate's contributions are refereed. In addition, for collaborative work, indicate the proportion and nature of the contributions of the candidate.

2. Candidate statement.
The statement should identify that portion of the candidate's work that in the candidate's judgment represents his or her most significant work. The statement should address each of the areas of teaching, outreach/service, research/creative activity and extension as appropriate. In each case the statement should include a statement of philosophy, goals, achievements and the significance and impact of the work. This statement should reference supporting materials in the appendices.

SVCAA Edwards writes that it is much more important to assess the quality and impact of a candidate's research or creative activity than to list the quantity of pieces of research or creative work with little assessment of their value. He expects each candidate to write a statement identifying "that portion of the work that in the candidate's judgment represents his or her most significant work, explains why he or she thinks this work is significant, and points out what its impact has been or will be." He asks review committees, individuals in the review process, and external reviewers to use the statement to "address the quality and impact of the candidate's work" (Memo of April 21 1998, p. 1).

MATERIALS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE APPENDICES

This section should provide supporting documentation for the candidate's statement. It should only contain significant and relevant information and should not contain any new information not referenced in the Candidate Section.

1. Evidence of the Quality and Effectiveness of Teaching
Documentation to support the quality of teaching must include original student evaluations. It may include any of the following as appropriate: course portfolios, materials concerning curriculum and course development, information on student advisees and graduate students, information on teaching related activities which extend beyond the university, and scholarship of teaching and learning.

2. Evidence of the quality of scholarly, professional and creative activity
The SVCAA's Documentation Request form requires the inclusion of evidence of scholarly, professional, and creative activity (e.g., publications and descriptions of grants and contracts, exhibits, shows, creative productions, and presentations). See the form for examples of materials to include. The SVCAA encourages candidates to include "a complete list of all (significant) grant proposals that were submitted, whether the proposal was successful or not" (Memo of April 21 1998, p. 2). Most serious efforts to obtain external funding bring credit even if they are not successful. A summary of comments from the panel that reviewed a proposal may be attached to the candidate's vita.

The A&S Handbook includes as evidence of scholarly activity serving as a referee for journals or funding agencies and editorships; work in progress can be included to indicate continuing effort (p. 29).

3. Evidence of the quality and significance of professional and institutional service and outreach
This can include such things as editorships, committee service at all levels, leadership in professional organizations and community service related to the candidate's assignment.

Candidates should list professional constituencies and professional organizations served and dates. Candidates are also to explain the nature and importance of outreach activities and list professional service activities within the city, state, or nation directly related to their work as a faculty member (pp. 29-30). Personal activities (i.e., coaching a softball team) should not be included.

According to the Handbook, candidates should describe their service on unit, College, and University committees; it adds that a statement about performance and accomplishments on committees "might be appropriate" (p. 29).

Each unit should use the A&S Checklist for Tenure and Promotion Materials to make sure that every file it submits is complete. The Dean's Office will examine every file it receives and return incomplete files to candidates and units.

In addition, the file must indicate how many individuals were invited to submit external reviews. It is not necessary to include the vitae of external reviewers.