> Back to Table of Contents

1. NOMINATIONS.

1.a. NOMINATIONS FOR PROMOTION. Nominations may be made at the appropriate time by any member of the faculty, including the candidate. No person may be nominated without his or her consent, as indicated in a signed statement. Nominations made without the candidate's consent may be withdrawn by the candidate; withdrawn nominations must not prejudice the consideration of future nominations. Nominations are submitted to the department chair or director or to the unit's appropriate committee, depending on the bylaws of the candidate's department.

l.b. NOMINATIONS FOR TENURE. At the time the faculty member is proposed for initial appointment to a Specific Term position, the tenure notification date is established using the form, Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Tenure Decision Dates. This form specifies any credit given the individual as a result of previous experience. The form must be completed prior to submission of the appointment to the appropriate University appointing administrative officer for approval.

A faculty member with extensive academic experience may be offered a continuous appointment (or tenure) at the time he or she is hired, if the department (s), the A&S Executive Committee, the Dean, the SVCAA, and the Chancellor approve prior to the extension of the offer.

The review process must be initiated in time to be concluded before the tenure notification date specified in the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Tenure Decision Dates. For a new faculty member without credit for prior experience, the Guidelines state that the review process would normally begin in the fall term of the sixth year of appointment. Experience indicates that it is useful to initiate some aspects of the process (e.g., conducting analyses of student evaluation and peer review data and soliciting external letters of review) during the late spring or early summer preceding the candidate's sixth year of appointment. Building a candidate's file begins when the letter of offer is signed and during the preparation of materials for the probationary faculty member's first annual performance review and first reappointment.

The awarding of tenure before the mandatory time may be considered for the truly exceptional person. Early tenure implies that a candidate has exceeded in the shorter time period the type of sustained high level of performance that would be expected over the normal probationary period. Failure to be awarded tenure after early nomination will not prejudice later consideration. No person may be considered for tenure without his or her consent, as indicated in a signed statement. However, refusal to be considered at the mandatory time is equivalent to resignation no later than at the end of the probationary period.

2. Department deadlines will be adjusted annually based on campus and College deadlines. The deadlines must provide adequate opportunity for due process in the consideration of a candidate's file, including time to initiate and consider reconsiderations and appeals of negative recommendations. Nominations for tenure and promotion may occur in the same year and must involve separate votes.

Chairs and directors must set deadlines to ensure that the candidates and their units have enough time

• to prepare a complete file;
• to identify external reviewers and to solicit and collect reviews;
• to give each candidate five (5) working days in which to review, object to, and respond in writing to existing and new material in his or her files before each unit or committee of appropriate unit faculty considers his or her file, for each unit or faculty committee to examine, discuss, and vote on a recommendation regarding the awarding of tenure and/or promotion for each candidate being considered;
• (in units where the chair of a faculty committee writes a letter to the unit chair reporting the committee's assessment of a candidate's file:) for each unit or faculty committee to write a complete report to the chair (s) indicating separate votes on tenure and promotion and assessments of teaching, research, and service performance.
• a. for each candidate to have five (5) working days after receiving the report in which to review, object to, and respond to recommendation (s) on his or her nomination (s) before it is sent to the chair and to
  • 1. request a reconsideration (s) of a negative majority faculty vote (s) and to submit a written rebuttal argument that will be part of the candidate's file when the unit or faculty committee reconsiders its negative decision (s); a candidate may attend a reconsideration to argue his or her case and to answer questions; a candidate's decision against appearing must not be used against him or her; the candidate must leave before vote (s) are cast; or
  • 2. submit a written response to the faculty report of a positive majority vote that will be included in the candidate's file;
    • b. for each unit or faculty committee to reconsider the file of a candidate who received an initial adverse recommendation (s) and seeks a reconsideration;
    • c. (if a reconsideration is requested) for each unit or faculty committee to write a complete report to the chair (s) of the results of its reconsideration, including separate votes on tenure and promotion and its assessments of the candidate's performance;
    • d. for each unit or faculty committee to transmit its first report (if the candidate does not request a reconsideration of an initial negative decision) or its final report (if the candidate sought a reconsideration) to the chair, with a copy to the candidate; and
    • e. to give each candidate five (5) working days before the chair considers the file in which to review, object to, and respond in writing to the faculty's transmittal letter.
• to give each candidate five (5) working days before the chair considers a file to review, object to, and respond in writing to the possible inclusion of new material to the file;
• for the chair to review the candidate's entire file and to write a letter to the Dean making his or her own recommendation with clearly stated assessments of the candidate's performance that explain his or her recommendation;
• for the candidate to have five (5) working days before the chair's letter and the file are sent to the Dean's Office to review, object to, and respond to the chair's letter and to
  • a. request a reconsideration (if the chair's recommendation is negative) and submit a written rebuttal argument to the chair; or
  • b. review, object to, and respond to the chair's letter (if the chair's letter is positive);
• (if a reconsideration of an initial chair's negative recommendation is requested) for the chair to reconsider the recommendation and write a second and final transmittal to the Dean with his or her recommendation with a copy to the candidate;
• (if the chair's initial recommendation was positive) for the chair to write a final transmittal letter to the Dean with a copy to the candidate; and
• after informing the candidate in writing of the right to take five (5) working days to review, object to, and respond to the chair's final transmittal letter after receiving it, and after waiting for the candidate to do so, the chair sends the file and all recommendations, votes, and performance assessments to the Dean's Office.

In setting unit deadlines and schedules, chairs should keep in mind that campus deadlines in the past required the files for candidates for tenure and promotion to be in the Dean's Office around December 1 and the files of candidates for promotion to be in the Dean's Office around mid-January.

The candidate and everyone in the unit (s) considering his or her file should have a copy of the schedule and deadlines. When candidates have joint appointments, the chairs or directors of both of the candidate's units must work together to set coordinated schedules and deadlines.

3. Candidates are responsible for preparing the files supporting their nominations. The building of a candidate's file should begin when the letter of offer is signed and materials are collected and analyzed for a probationary faculty member's first annual performance review and first reappointment. Department and program administrators and the Dean's Office are responsible for advising candidates on the form and contents of their files. The recommendations from each stage of the review become part of the candidate's file. Files must be organized to comply with instructions from the SVCAA and the Dean.

Unless they waive certain rights (e.g., rights related to external reviews), candidates are entitled to have access to all the materials in a file and to know the identity of everyone who reviews all or parts of their files. Candidates have five (5) working days to review, object to, and respond in writing to the possible inclusion of new material in their files with their responses becoming a part of the files prior to any further consideration. Units must keep a record (e.g., a sign-in list) of everyone who examines every candidate's file and send the record to the Dean's Office with the rest of the file.

4. The use of external reviews is controlled by procedures and expectations set out earlier. Letters soliciting such reviews must inform potential reviewers of the extent to which review contents and authors will be known to the candidate. Departments should ensure that the process of choosing and soliciting the cooperation of external reviewers occurs in a timely manner so that a candidate's file will be considered by campus and College deadlines. Experience indicates that it is useful to initiate the external review process during the late spring or early summer preceding the academic year in which the candidate's file will be considered.

5. Before unit faculty examine his or her file, the candidate must be given five (5) working days in which to review, object to, and respond in writing to existing and new material in his or her files. The letter informing the candidate of this right should be in the file.

6. DEPARTMENT CONSIDERATION. Nominations are first considered by the candidate's department (or departments or other units if the candidate has a joint appointment). When a candidate holds an appointment and has responsibilities in more than one unit, his or her file will be reviewed by the appropriate committee of colleagues in each unit who are able to make informed judgments about the candidate by virtue of their rank, credentials, and experience. The process of constituting such committees must be established at the time of the apportionment or reapportionment of a candidate's responsibilities.

6.a. REGARDING PROMOTION. Departments are organized in different ways to review nominations; the most common approaches involve all faculty who hold the rank equal to or higher than that to which a candidate aspires or an elected subset of this group (i.e., a tenure and promotion committee).

6.b. REGARDING TENURE. Nominations are normally first considered by a committee of the candidate's department (or departments or other units if the candidate has a joint appointment). The committee must be composed of faculty in the unit who are tenured or who are an elected subset of this group.

7. While the chair/director (s) of the candidate's unit (s) shall not vote, he or she normally participates in the unit's deliberations. Each unit shall have rules determining the chair/director's role. Regardless of what that role is, the chair/director must have the opportunity to meet with the committee to discuss its recommendation.

8. The discussions at unit meetings should be free, candid, and based only on the material in the candidate's file. See the section on candidate files for rules governing the inclusion of new material. The individual who presides at the unit's deliberations must inform the candidate if new material has been submitted for inclusion in the file and delay the discussion and vote on the candidate until the candidate has had the opportunity to review, object to, and respond to the material. The candidate must be given five (5) working days to respond to the possible inclusion of new material. The presiding official decides whether to include the new material after the five day period has elapsed.

9. The decision and vote on whether to recommend the candidate for promotion (or tenure) must be transmitted in writing to the unit chair/director (s) (or to the Dean if the chair presides in faculty deliberations) and to the candidate along with a synopsis of the discussion that preceded the vote. The synopsis must include an assessment of the candidate's teaching, research, and service performance using the explicit and inferred categories from the A&S Handbook: outstanding, superior, good, adequate, and inadequate. The synopsis must clearly describe the reasons for each recommendation. This is to give candidates an opportunity to prepare rebuttal arguments (if a majority of faculty vote against promotion or tenure) or to comment on assessments of their record and on faculty votes (if the majority faculty vote is positive).

10. Upon receipt of the faculty's transmittal letter, the candidate has five (5) working days in which to

10a. ask for a reconsideration and to submit a rebuttal argument if the faculty's recommendation is not to promote (or tenure) the candidate. Such requests must be granted as expeditiously as possible and the reconsideration must be completed in time to comply with the submission deadline to the next level of review. No negative recommendation from the faculty shall be forwarded to the unit chair/director (s) (or the Dean if the chair presides in faculty deliberations) until the reconsideration is complete. The candidate has five (5) working days to review, object to, or respond to a transmittal reporting on the faculty's reconsideration of his or her file; or

10.b. review and comment on the assessments of his or her performance and on the faculty's vote if the majority of faculty voted to recommend promotion (or tenure).

11. After the completion of faculty deliberations, including any reconsideration of an initial negative decision, the chair/director (s) will inform the candidate in writing of his or her right to take five working days to review, object to, and respond to the possible inclusion of any new materials in the file; this notification becomes part of the file. The chair will then decide whether to add the new material (if such was submitted) and will review the candidate's entire record and make a recommendation on promotion (or tenure). This recommendation must be transmitted in writing to the candidate and to the faculty committee and must use the explicit and inferred evaluative terms in the A&S Handbook. The transmittal must clearly specify the chair's reasons for the recommendation (s) so that a candidate who has received an adverse chair/director recommendation (s) can prepare a rebuttal argument; a candidate who has received a positive chair/director recommendation must have five (5) working days from when he or she receives it to review and comment on it.

Candidates who receive a negative recommendation (s) have five (5) working days upon receipt of the transmittal letter to ask for a reconsideration by the chair/director and to submit a rebuttal argument. If requested, the reconsideration must be completed as expeditiously as possible and in time to comply with the submission deadline to the next level of review. A candidate who receives a second negative recommendation must have five (5) working days from the time when he receives it to review, object to, and respond to it.

12. After the completion of reviews, including any reconsiderations, at the department level, the chair sends the file to the College. The Dean's Office will examine the file to make sure it is complete.

The A&S Executive Committee will examine the file in order to make a recommendation to the Dean. The Dean may participate in the Executive Committee's deliberations and may discuss its recommendations with the committee but he or she does not vote with the committee. All discussions should be free and candid and must be based on material in the file. The chair of the Executive Committee must give the candidate five (5) working days to review, object to, and respond to the possible inclusion of new material in his or her file.

The purpose of the Executive Committee's review is to ensure that proper standards are being applied in the College and that the standards have been appropriately applied to the candidate. The committee's recommendation, vote, and a synopsis of the discussion assessing the candidate's record using the terms from the Handbook will be transmitted in writing to the candidate and the candidate's chair/director (s). If the recommendation is negative, the candidate has five (5) working days upon receipt of the transmittal to ask the committee to reconsider its recommendation and to draft a rebuttal argument using the synopsis of the committee discussion. The committee will conduct the reconsideration as expeditiously as possible and make a decision in time to meet the deadline for submission to the next level. The candidate has five (5) working days after receiving the committee's second and final letter (after the consideration) in which to review, object to, and respond to the letter. If a majority of the committee votes in favor of promotion (or tenure), the candidate also has five (5) working days upon receipt of the transmittal to review, object to, and comment on the committee's assessment of his or her record and its vote.

13. After the completion of Executive Committee deliberations, including any reconsideration of an initial negative decision, the committee sends a letter to the Dean reporting its assessments and vote (s). The Dean then informs the candidate in writing of the right to take five (5) working days to review, object to, and comment on new material if such has been submitted for the file; this notification becomes part of the file. After this time has elapsed and the Dean decides whether to add any new material, the Dean reviews the candidate's entire record to ensure that the College is applying proper standards and that they have been appropriately applied to the candidate. Based on this review, the Dean writes an independent recommendation and his or her reasons for it in a letter to the SVCAA and sends copies of the letter to the candidate, the candidate's chair (s), and the chair of the College Executive Committee.

If the Dean's recommendation is negative, he or she must inform the candidate in writing that the candidate has five (5) working days upon receipt of the Dean's letter in which to ask for a reconsideration and to submit rebuttal arguments. The letter must clearly specify the Dean's reasons for an adverse recommendation in order to give a candidate an opportunity to prepare a rebuttal argument. If requested, the reconsideration must be completed as expeditiously as possible and in time to comply with the submission deadline to the next level of review. Candidates who receive a positive recommendation from the Dean have five (5) working days in which to review, object to, and comment on the Dean's assessment of their records and on the Dean's recommendation.

14. TRANSMITTAL TO THE SVCAA.

14.a. REGARDING PROMOTION. If either the Executive Committee or the Dean recommend promotion, the file must be forwarded to the SVCAA for consideration.

If the Executive Committee and the Dean concur in a recommendation against promotion, the promotion process ends. The candidate and his or her department (s) each have a right to appeal the decision of the College to the SVCAA. The candidate and his or her chair/director receive a copy of the Dean's letter to the SVCAA that informs them of these appellate rights.

14.b. REGARDING TENURE. All tenure nominations must be forwarded to the SVCAA, regardless of decisions at the College level.

15. The SVCAA informs the candidate in writing of his or her right to take five (5) working days to review, object to, and comment on the possible inclusion of new material in the file; the notification becomes part of the file. After the candidate does or does not comment, the SVCAA decides whether to add material if any has been submitted for inclusion. The SVCAA then reviews the file, including recommendations from the College and the department (s), and makes an independent recommendation to the Chancellor. The SVCAA's review is to ensure that the appropriate promotion (or tenure) standards are being enforced across all UNL colleges and that they have been applied appropriately to the candidate. As part of his or her review, the SVCAA is encouraged to discuss problematic cases with the appropriate administrator or faculty committee before making a recommendation.

If the SVCAA recommends against promotion (or tenure), the candidate must be informed in writing of the recommendation and of his or her rights to have a written statement of the SVCAA's reasons for the adverse recommendation, to request a reconsideration by the SVCAA, and, regarding promotion nominations, to initiate an appeal to the Chancellor. Upon receiving this written notification, the candidate has five (5) working days in which to request the SVCAA's reasons, request a reconsideration by the SVCAA, and submit a rebuttal argument to the SVCAA. A candidate who receives a positive decision from the SVCAA has five (5) working days in which to review, object to, and comment on the SVCAA's written notification.

REGARDING PROMOTION. If a negative recommendation has been made by the SVCAA and any one of the reviewing parties (i.e., the department faculty committee, the chair/director (s), the A&S Executive Committee, or the Dean), the process ends. How-ever, the candidate, the department faculty, and the Dean each have the right to appeal to the Chancellor. The SVCAA must report his or her negative recommendation to these reviewing parties and inform them of their right to appeal to the Chancellor if the process ends.

REGARDING TENURE. All tenure nominations are forwarded to the Chancellor, regardless of the decisions at the College and SVCAA levels.

16. The Chancellor makes the final decision to award or not to award promotion or tenure. If the Chancellor decides against promotion or tenure, the SVCAA will transmit the Chancellor's decision in writing to the Dean, department (s), and the candidate. The candidate must be informed in writing that he or she may ask the Chancellor for the reasons for the negative decision and for a reconsideration by the Chancellor. The candidate has five (5) working days upon receipt of the Chancellor's notification in which to ask for the Chancellor's reasons for the adverse decision, request a reconsideration, and submit rebuttal arguments to the Chancellor. As with the earlier reconsiderations, it is expected that this reconsideration will be done as expeditiously as possible. Candidates who receive positive decisions from the Chancellor have five (5) working days upon receipt of the Chancellor's letter to review, object to, and respond to it.

A revision to Section 4.5 of the Bylaws passed by the Board of Regents on October 25 1996 states that the written standards of every campus regarding the awarding of promotion and tenure "shall not include any right of appeal to the Board of Regents, and to the extent that any such existing standards do include any provision providing for appeal to the Board of Regents, each such provision is hereby repealed." Thus, there is no right to appeal a negative decision by the Chancellor on promotion and/or tenure to the Board of Regents. (See the appendix for the text of this revision and the vote on it.)

The SVCAA informs candidates whether they have been promoted and/or awarded tenure.

17. WITHDRAWAL OF NOMINATIONS.

17.a. REGARDING PROMOTION . At any time, a candidate may request that his or her nomination be withdrawn from further consideration. Such request will be honored without prejudicing future attempts to secure promotion.

17.b. REGARDING TENURE. At any time a candidate for early tenure may request that his or her nomination be withdrawn from further consideration. Such request will be honored without prejudicing the candidate's consideration for tenure in the future.

18. If, at any point in a review, a candidate thinks that these procedures are not being followed, he or she may seek redress through discussions with responsible administrators. If such discussions do not resolve the situation to the candidate's satisfaction, the candidate may take his or her issue to the Conciliation Committee which will provide informal counsel and assistance to resolve the situation. If the candidate has procedural issues or believes that a negative recommendation has been made without sufficient consideration, he or she may file a formal grievance with the Grievance Committee. If the issue involves an alleged violation of an individual's academic freedom, the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee is empowered to investigate the allegations.

REGARDING TENURE. No procedural delays shall prevent a tenure recommendation involving notice of non-renewal from being submitted to the appropriate University administrative officer in time for his or her action by the appropriate deadline for notice of non-renewal. However, timely notice of non-renewal from the University in such circumstances shall not preclude either the completion of the appropriate review process or the later submission of a different recommendation to the Chancellor, if the review results so warrant.