SECTION 8
PROMOTION AND TENURE


8.1 TENURED AND TENURE-TRACK FACULTY

A faculty appointment with academic tenure is a privilege awarded by CSM that is earned by a record of
superior academic performance and incorporates the expectation that such performance wil continue and
thrive. The conferral of tenure forms the basis of a long-term contractual partnership between a faculty
member and CSM, and is recognition of the faculty member’s career alignment with the long-term mission
of the institution. A faculty member with tenure may be terminated by CSM only for cause or non-
renewed for reasons of financial exigency or degree program termination. Academic tenure is conferred
by the CSM Board of Trustees based on a recommendation that is framed by the criteria for tenure, and
developed through the application and review procedures set forth in this section of the Handbook.

The tenure track refers to the status of appointment for faculty who are working toward tenured status. A
tenure-track appointment is probationary and term-limited, and is granted to an academic faculty member
to provide a period of employment within which the faculty member is expected to establish a record of
academic achievement that is reviewable for academic tenure. The precise terms and conditions of each
tenure-track appointment at CSM shall be explicitly agreed upon by both the Provost and the faculty
member, and expressed in writing before the appointment is finalized. To ensure continued employment
at CSM as a tenured faculty member, tenure must be conferred before the expiration of the tenure-track
appointment.

The tenure-track appointment is probationary, and is subject to termination in the following situations:

A. Pursuant to Section 9.1.1 addressing non-renewal of the tenure-track appointment without
cause;

B. Pursuant to Section 8.1.4, when the Preliminary Tenure Review reveals the Candidate has
made insufficient progress toward achieving tenure to a degree that the candidate’s success at
CSM is viewed unlikely.

8.1.1 Time Limitations

A.
Tenure-Track Assistant Professors

Unless extended, see section 8.1.1 C below, a probationary contract period for a tenure-track
assistant professor shall not exceed seven years and a tenure decision must be made by no later
than the end of the sixth year of tenure-track service at CSM. In the case of a start date after
the Fal semester, the probationary period wil be extended to six years after the beginning of the
Fal semester following the appointment. Unless extended, a performance evaluation in the form
of a Preliminary Tenure Review shall be conducted in the sixth semester of tenure-track service
at CSM. At the initiation of either the tenure-track assistant professor or his or her Department
Head, a Preliminary Tenure Review may be conducted before the sixth semester with the written
approval of the Dean. The process for a Preliminary Tenure Review is described in paragraph
8.1.4 below.

B.
Tenure-Track Associate and Full Professors

Unless extended, a probationary contract period for a tenure-track associate or ful professor
shal be consistent with the termination date on the associate or ful professor’s tenure-track
8-1

employment contract. The length of this probationary period shall be set during employment
negotiations and shall be no less than four and no more than seven years. A tenure decision
must be made no later than one year prior to the termination date on the tenure-track
employment contract. In the case of a start date later than the beginning of the Fall semester,
the probationary period wil be extended to six years after the beginning of the Fal semester
fol owing the appointment. A performance evaluation in the form of a Preliminary Tenure Review
shal be conducted in the semester that constitutes the midpoint of a candidate’s probationary
period, normally the sixth semester of tenure-track service at CSM. At the instigation of either
the tenure-track associate or ful professor or his or her Department Head, and irrespective of
length of the probationary period, a Preliminary Tenure Review may be conducted prior to the
midpoint of the probationary period with the written approval of the Dean. The process for a
Preliminary Tenure Review is described in paragraph 8.1.5 below.



C.
Request for Extension of Probationary Contract Period

In the case of serious il ness, pregnancy, childbirth, dependent care, or other extenuating
circumstances, a tenure-track faculty member may submit a written request to extend the
probationary contract period, and additionally, if the requested stoppage occurs prior to
Preliminary Tenure Review, postpone the Preliminary Tenure Review.

The request must be submitted to the Department Head and Dean, who wil each add their
written recommendations and forward the request to the Provost. The Provost wil consider the
request and recommendations and provide his or her decision in writing to the faculty member.
Leave taken pursuant to sections 5.4.4, 5.4.5, 5.4.10, 5.4.11, 5.4.12, and 5.4.13 of the
Handbook qualifies for stoppages of the tenure clock that would extend the probationary contract
period and, possibly, the timing of the required Preliminary Tenure Review. Any such “stops”
must be taken in one-year increments. However, the faculty member may elect, within six
months fol owing his or her return from leave, to have the leave time count as part of his or her
probationary period. Such election must be made in writing to the employee’s Department Head
and must be approved by the Dean.

8.1.2 Criteria for Tenure

Tenure establishes a long-term contractual relationship between CSM and a faculty member. The
granting of tenure represents acknowledgement by CSM that a tenure candidate has convincingly
demonstrated the capability for making substantial and important contributions to the goals of CSM
throughout the remainder of his or her career. Since the tenure decision is based on a tenure
candidate's potential for long-term contribution to the goals of the department and CSM, progress
toward tenure is reviewed as a part of each tenure-track faculty member's annual evaluation. As
departmental and CSM goals change, so, too, wil the criteria for the granting of tenure. The factors
that shal be considered by CSM in making a tenure decision shal include, but not be limited to, the
fol owing: (1) the candidate's academic degree and other professional attainments; (2) the quality
and trajectory of the candidate's performance in teaching, scholarship and service; (3) the likelihood
that the candidate wil continue to produce at or above his or her current level and continue to grow
professional y; (4) the candidate's progress toward establishment of a national and international
professional recognition; (5) the candidate's potential for achievement of greater professional
recognition; and (6) the compatibility of the candidate's academic expertise with the long-term,
programmatic goals and requirements of CSM.




8-2

8.1.3 Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committees

The Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee reviews the promotion and/or tenure application
taking into account the standards and practices of the candidate’s discipline. While it is the
responsibility of the department head to facilitate the development of faculty in the department,
candidates are encouraged to seek broader input and guidance from members of their Departmental
Promotion and Tenure Committee.

Within the preliminary tenure review process and at the time of application for promotion and/or
tenure, the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee shal examine the candidate's dossier
and: (i) in relation to guidelines and criteria established by the institution, evaluate the candidate's
research contributions, teaching effectiveness, and service to both internal and external communities;
and (i ) make a written recommendation to the Department Head regarding the candidate's progress
toward, or suitability for promotion and/or tenure. The Departmental Promotion and Tenure
Committee shal determine the process fol owed in producing this recommendation.

The Promotion and Tenure Committee of each academic department shal consist of al ful -time,
tenured associate professors and ful professors in that department, but it shal not include the
Department Head or faculty members on transitional appointments. Applications for promotion to the
rank of ful professor with tenure and applications for tenure filed by ful professors shal be
considered by a subcommittee that includes only tenured ful professors. Faculty members who are
otherwise eligible to participate in Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee activities, but are
on sabbatical leave may at their discretion choose not to participate. If a faculty member on
sabbatical chooses to participate in the promotion and tenure process, he/she is expected to do so as
a full member of the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee. Faculty who are otherwise
eligible to participate in Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee activities, but are on other
types of leave (i.e., medical leave, unpaid leave, and administrative leave) are not eligible to
participate in the promotion and tenure process.

The committee (or subcommittee) that considers tenure applications shal include at least three
faculty members who are at the required academic rank. For departments with an insufficient
number of faculty members at the appropriate level, the Department Head shall consult with the
Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee and the Associate Provost, and select enough
tenured associate professors and/or ful professors from related departments to bring the total
number of Promotion and Tenure Committee members up to three. Non-departmental members of
the Promotion and Tenure Committee shal serve one-year terms, and must be approved by the
Dean of the col ege of the host department.

8.1.4 Preliminary Tenure Review

The Preliminary Tenure Review is a mandatory step in the tenure review process for tenure-track
assistant professors and those tenure-track associate and ful professors whose probationary
contracts are longer than four years. The process is designed to (1) inform a tenure-track faculty
member and his or her department of the candidate’s progress toward promotion and tenure; (2)
address areas for improvement; and (3) offer guidance, if needed. Academic Affairs shall
disseminate the required format of the preliminary tenure review package and the timeline of the
review process for the upcoming academic year by the close of each Spring semester. The timeline
shall include the deadlines for package submission, completion of the review, and notification of the
candidate regarding the outcome. At the initiation of either the tenure-track assistant professor or his
or her Department Head, a Preliminary Tenure Review may be conducted before the sixth semester
with the written approval of the Dean. The review should point out areas of strength, identify areas
requiring further development, and recommend strategies for achieving needed improvement. In
8-3

rare instances, the review may indicate that the candidate's success at CSM is sufficiently unlikely
that his or her appointment should be terminated prior to the end of the ful probationary period.

The fol owing is a general outline of the Preliminary Tenure Review process at CSM:

A. he Department Head shall convene the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee,
transmit to the Committee a dossier prepared by the candidate in consultation with the
Department Head, and appoint a Committee member to chair deliberations.
B. The Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee shal examine the dossier, prepare a
written report containing a recommendation, and forward the dossier and report to the
Department Head. If a report is prepared by members of the Committee holding a minority
point of view, it shal also be accepted for consideration and incorporated into the package
that is transmitted to the Dean.
C. The entire package, including report(s) of the Promotion and Tenure Committee and a
written recommendation prepared by the Department Head, shal be forwarded to the Dean.
He or she wil prepare a written report containing a recommendation, review the report with
the other Deans, and notify the Provost that the dossier has been processed.
D. Copies of the reports of the Committee, the Department Head, and the Dean shal be
provided to the candidate.
E. The Department Head shal meet with the candidate to discuss the above-mentioned reports.

8.1.5 Tenure Application Process

At the time of hiring or at any other time during the probationary period, it is the responsibility of the
tenure-track faculty member, in consultation with his or her Department Head, to submit a formal
tenure application with appropriate supporting documentation to CSM for tenure review pursuant to
the process specified in paragraph 8.1.7 below. Under normal circumstances, a tenure applicant
holding the rank of assistant professor shall also apply for promotion to associate professor at the
time his or her tenure application is considered, and promotion and tenure decisions are coupled
(either granted or denied as a package) for these individuals. Exceptions to this practice may be
considered by the Dean and his or her recommendation is forwarded to the Provost, who wil make
the final decision for reasons deemed to be in the best interests of CSM.

8.1.6 Tenure Review Process

A. Tenure-Track Faculty

The fol owing is a general outline of the tenure review process for tenure track faculty at CSM:
A. Candidates must submit applications (i.e., dossiers) to their Department Head. Academic
Affairs shal disseminate the required format of the dossier, and the submission and
tenure review process deadlines prior to the close of each Spring semester.
B. The Department Head shall convene the departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee
as defined in section 8.1.3, transmit the dossier to the committee, and appoint a
committee member to chair deliberations.
C. The Department Head shal solicit external reviewer evaluations from experts in the
candidate’s field.
D. The Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee shal examine the dossier and
prepare a written recommendation including the results of the vote, which becomes part
of the dossier. In the case of a split vote, the written recommendation(s) must reflect al
8-4

viewpoints. The dossier shall be forwarded to the Department Head.
E. The Department Head shal prepare a written recommendation that becomes part of the
dossier. The Department Head shall share her/his recommendation and the
recommendation(s) of the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee with the
Candidate. Prior to sharing the recommendations with the Candidate, information that
could disclose the identities of external reviewers or individual committee members shal
be redacted. The Candidate may respond to the recommendations in order to correct
factual errors. This response must be provided in writing to the Department Head within
three (3) business days. This response shal be included in the dossier before being
forwarded to the next level for review.
F. The Department Head shal forward the dossier to the Dean(s) of the Candidate’s
col ege, or col eges in the event of a split appointment. The Dean(s) shall review the
dossier and prepare a written recommendation. This recommendation is added to the
Candidate’s dossier, which is then forwarded to the Provost for transmission to the
University Promotion and Tenure Committee.
G. The University Promotion and Tenure Committee shal conduct a thorough and
independent review of the dossier and prepare a written recommendation for the
Provost.
H. The Provost shal review the entire dossier and submit his or her recommendation to the
President. In assessing the dossiers, the Provost may confer with any other parties who
have relevant information on a pending application.
I. The President shal convey the Provost’s recommendation to the Board of Trustees,
which has the final authority to grant or deny tenure for each candidate.
J. If a need for clarification arises at any stage of the review process, any of the parties
reviewing the dossier (Department Head, Department Promotion and Tenure Committee,
etc.) may contact the Candidate to request more information, which shal be included in
writing in the dossier before proceeding to the next step of the review process. In
addition, a reviewing party may request clarification from any previous reviewer who has
evaluated the dossier.
K. The Provost shal provide written notification to each applicant of the results of his or her
tenure application. Positive decisions shall be reflected in the official records of CSM at
the beginning of the next academic year. However, newly tenured faculty may begin
professional use of their new status and faculty rank immediately. Written
recommendations produced by the Deans and the University Committee may, upon
candidate request, be made available at the conclusion of the review process.
L. In the case of an unfavorable decision, an applicant may appeal the decision pursuant to
the Promotion and Tenure Decision Appeal Procedure set forth in subsection 8.5 below.


B. Tenure Review at the Time of Employment

Candidates for faculty employment with tenure are subject to the tenure review process defined
in Section 8.1.6A with the following modifications:

A. The application package shal consist of the Candidate’s extended curriculum vitae, and
the Candidate’s written summaries of his or her research and teaching experience and
interests.
8-5

B. External evaluations from experts in the candidate's field should include (but usual y not
be limited to) the reference letters provided as part of the candidate's employment
application package.
C. Review of the Candidate’s dossier may occur outside of the published promotion and
tenure review cycle.

8.1.7 Criteria for Promotion

Promotion in academic rank at CSM for tenured and tenure-track faculty is based on the quality of a
faculty member's overal performance in teaching, scholarship, and service, and the likelihood of
continued growth in their accomplishments and their professional reputations nationally and
internationally. [The minimum qualifications for appointment to the various academic faculty ranks
are set forth in subsection 4.2 above.]

The decision whether or not to promote a faculty member lies solely within the discretion of the
Board.

8.1.8 Promotion Application Process

At the time a promotion is desired, it is the responsibility of the faculty member, in consultation with
his or her Department Head, to submit a formal promotion application with appropriate supporting
documentation to CSM for promotion review pursuant to the process specified in paragraph 8.1.9
below. Under normal circumstances, a promotion applicant holding the rank of assistant professor
shal also apply for tenure at the time his or her promotion application is considered, and promotion
and tenure decisions are coupled (either granted or denied as a package) for these individuals. The
Provost may make exceptions to this practice on a case-by-case basis for reasons deemed to be in
the best interests of CSM.

8.1.9 Promotion Review Process

Review of promotion applications shal fol ow the process defined for tenure applications in section
8.1.6A.

8.2 TEACHING FACULTY

8.2.1 Criteria for Promotion

Promotion in teaching rank is based on the quality of a faculty member’s overall performance in
teaching, service and scholarship. [The minimum qualifications for teaching faculty are set forth in
subsection 4.3 above.]

For promotion to the rank of teaching associate professor the following criteria must be met:

1) high level of proficiency in the faculty member’s subject area,

2) development of high-quality curricular and instructional materials,

3) mastery of effective instructional methods, and

4) service to CSM including membership in institutional and/or departmental committees and/or
participation in activities aimed at recruitment or retention of students, such as individual and
8-6

group advising and development of promotional materials.

In addition to these criteria, for promotion to the rank of teaching professor the following criteria
must be met:

5) demonstration of leadership, which may include developing upper-level courses, coordinating
courses, mentoring junior faculty, and/or coordinating program-wide efforts to assess and
evaluate student learning outcomes,

6) demonstration of knowledge and application of existing discipline-specific educational
research, and

7) significant service to CSM in the categories defined above.

Final y, the following criteria may also be considered, but do not have to be met, for promotion to
either teaching associate professor or teaching professor:

8) publications related to educational and/or scholarly activities, and

9) significant participation in local, national, or international professional organizations.

The decision whether or not to promote a faculty member lies solely within the discretion of the
Board.

8.2.2 Departmental Teaching Faculty Promotion Committee

The Departmental Teaching Faculty Promotion Committee reviews the promotion application taking
into account the standards and practices of the candidate’s discipline and the curricular needs and
norms of the department or program, as well as familiarity with the candidate’s teaching, interaction
with students and col eagues, and contribution to the department or program. While it is the
responsibility of the department head to facilitate the development of faculty in the department,
candidates are encouraged to seek broader input and guidance from members of their Departmental
Teaching Faculty Promotion Committee.

At the time of application for promotion, the Departmental Teaching Faculty Promotion Committee
shal examine the candidate's dossier and: (i) in relation to guidelines and criteria established by the
institution, evaluate the candidate's suitability for promotion; and (ii) make a written recommendation
to the Department Head regarding the candidate's suitability for promotion. The Departmental
Teaching Faculty Promotion Committee shall determine the process fol owed in producing this
recommendation.

For consideration of promotion applications from teaching faculty members, the Departmental
Promotion and Tenure Committee (defined in section 8.1.3) wil be expanded to include all Teaching
Faculty in that department with rank equal to or greater than the rank that the faculty member is
pursuing. In departments with fewer than one teaching faculty member at the required rank, the
Department Head shal consult with the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee and the
Associate Provost, and select one teaching faculty member from another department. Non-
departmental members of the Departmental Teaching Faculty Promotion Committee shall serve one-
year terms, and must be approved by the Dean of the col ege of the host department.


8-7

8.2.3 Promotion Application Process

At the time a promotion is desired, it is the responsibility of the faculty member, in consultation with
his or her Department Head, to submit a formal promotion application with appropriate supporting
documentation to CSM for promotion review pursuant to the process specified in section 8.2.4 below.

8.2.4 Promotion Review Process

The fol owing is an outline of the promotion review process for al teaching faculty at CSM:

A. Candidates must submit applications (i.e., dossiers) to their Department Head. Academic
Affairs shal disseminate the required format of the dossier, and the submission and
promotion review process deadlines prior to the close of each Spring semester.
B. The Department Head shal convene the departmental Promotion Committee as defined in
section 8.2.2, transmit the dossier to the committee, and appoint a committee member to
chair deliberations.
C. The Departmental Promotion Committee shall examine the dossier and prepare a written
recommendation including the results of the vote that becomes part of the dossier. In the
case of a split vote, the written recommendation(s) must reflect all viewpoints. The dossier
shal be forwarded to the Department Head.
D. The Department Head shal prepare a written recommendation that becomes part of the
dossier. The Department Head shall share her/his recommendation and the
recommendation(s) of the Departmental Promotion Committee with the Candidate. Prior to
sharing the recommendations with the Candidate, information that could disclose the
identities of external reviewers or individual committee members shall be redacted. The
Candidate may respond to the recommendations in order to correct factual errors. This
response must be provided in writing to the Department Head within three (3) business days.
This response shal be included in the dossier before being forwarded to the next level for
review.
E. The Department Head shal forward the dossier to the Dean(s) of the Candidate’s col ege, or
col eges in the event of a split appointment. The Dean(s) shall review the dossier and
prepare a written recommendation. This recommendation is added to the Candidate’s
dossier, which is then forwarded to the Provost for transmission to the University Teaching
Faculty Promotion Committee.
F. The University Teaching Faculty Promotion Committee shal conduct a thorough and
independent review of the dossier and prepare a written recommendation for the Provost.
G. The Provost shal review the entire dossier and submit his or her recommendation to the
President. In assessing the dossiers, the Provost may confer with any other parties who have
relevant information on a pending application.
H. The President shal convey the Provost’s recommendation to the Board of Trustees, which
has the final authority to grant or deny promotion for each candidate.
I. If a need for clarification arises at any stage of the review process, any of the parties
reviewing the dossier (Department Head, Department Promotion Committee, etc.) may
contact the Candidate to request more information, which shall be included in writing in the
dossier before proceeding to the next step of the review process. In addition, a reviewing
party may request clarification from any previous reviewer who has evaluated the dossier.
8-8

J. The Provost shal provide written notification to each applicant of the results of his or her
promotion application. Positive promotion decisions shall be reflected in the official records of
CSM at the beginning of the next academic year. Written recommendations produced by the
Deans and the University Committee may, upon candidate request, be made available at the
conclusion of the review process.
K. In the case of an unfavorable decision, an applicant may appeal the decision pursuant to the
Promotion and Tenure Decision Appeal Procedure set forth in subsection 8.5 below.

8.3 RESEARCH FACULTY

8.3.1 Criteria for Promotion

Promotion in research rank at CSM for research faculty is based on the quality of a faculty member’s
overall performance in research, service, and the likelihood of continued growth in their
accomplishments and their professional reputations nationally and internationally. [The minimum
qualifications for appointment to various research faculty ranks are set forth in subsection 4.4 above.]

8.3.2 Departmental Research Faculty Promotion Committee

The Departmental Research Faculty Promotion Committee reviews the promotion application taking
into account the standards and practices of the candidate’s discipline. While it is the responsibility of
the department head to facilitate the development of faculty in the department, candidates are
encouraged to seek broader input and guidance from members of their Departmental Research
Faculty Promotion Committee.

At the time of application for promotion, the Departmental Research Faculty Promotion Committee
shal examine the candidate's dossier and: (i) in relation to guidelines and criteria established by the
institution, evaluate the candidate's suitability for promotion; and (ii) make a written recommendation
to the Department Head regarding the candidate's suitability for promotion. The Departmental
Research Faculty Promotion Committee shal determine the process fol owed in producing this
recommendation.

For consideration of promotion applications from research faculty members, the Departmental
Research Faculty Promotion Committee shal consist of the Departmental Promotion and Tenure
Committee (defined in section 8.1.3) and al research faculty in that department with rank equal to or
greater than the rank that the faculty member is pursuing. In departments with fewer than one
research faculty member at the required rank, the Department Head shal consult with the
Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee and the Associate Provost, and select a research
faculty member from another department. Non-departmental members of the Departmental Research
Faculty Promotion Committee shal serve one-year terms, and must be approved by the Dean of the
col ege of the host department.

8.3.3 Promotion Application Process

At the time a promotion is desired, it is the responsibility of the faculty member, in consultation with
his or her Department Head, to submit a formal promotion application with appropriate supporting
documentation to CSM for promotion review pursuant to the process specified in paragraph 8.3.4
below.


8-9

8.3.4 Promotion Review Process

The fol owing is an outline of the promotion review process for al research faculty at CSM:

A. Candidates must submit applications (i.e., dossiers) to their Department Head. Academic
Affairs shal disseminate the required format of the dossier, and the submission and
promotion review process deadlines prior to the close of each Spring semester.
B. The Department Head shal convene the departmental Promotion Committee as defined in
section 8.3.2, transmit the dossier to the committee, and appoint a committee member to
chair deliberations.
C. The Department Head shal solicit external reviewer evaluations from experts in the
candidate’s field.
D. The Departmental Promotion Committee shal examine the dossier and prepare a written
recommendation including the results of the vote that becomes part of the dossier. In the
case of a split vote, the written recommendation(s) must reflect al viewpoints. The dossier
shal be forwarded to the Department Head.
E. The Department Head shal prepare a written recommendation that becomes part of the
dossier. The Department Head shall share her/his recommendation and the
recommendation(s) of the Departmental Promotion Committee with the Candidate. Prior to
sharing the recommendations with the Candidate, information that could disclose the
identities of external reviewers or individual committee members shall be redacted. The
Candidate may respond to the recommendations in order to correct factual errors. This
response must be provided in writing to the Department Head within three (3) business days.
This response shal be included in the dossier before being forwarded to the next level for
review.
F. The Department Head shal forward the dossier to the Dean(s) of the Candidate’s col ege, or
col eges in the event of a split appointment. The Dean(s) shall review the dossier and
prepare a written recommendation. This recommendation is added to the Candidate’s
dossier, which is then forwarded to the Provost.
G. The Provost shal review the entire dossier and provide written notification to each applicant
of the results of his or her promotion application. Positive promotion decisions shall be
reflected in the official records of CSM at the beginning of the next academic year.
H. In the case of an unfavorable decision, an applicant may appeal the decision pursuant to the
Promotion and Tenure Decision Appeal Procedure set forth in subsection 8.5 below.

8.4 LIBRARY FACULTY

8.4.1 Criteria for Promotion

Promotion in library rank at CSM for library faculty is based on the quality of a faculty member's
overall performance in professional responsibility, scholarship or research, and service. [The
minimum qualifications for appointment to the various library faculty ranks are set forth in subsection
4.5 above.]

The decision whether or not to promote a faculty member lies solely within the discretion of the
Board.

8-10

8.4.2 Library Promotion Committee

The Library Promotion Committee reviews the promotion application taking into account the
standards and practices of the candidate’s discipline. While it is the responsibility of the library
director to facilitate the development of faculty in the department, candidates are encouraged to seek
broader input and guidance from members of the Library Promotion Committee.

At the time of application for promotion, the Library Promotion Committee shal examine the
candidate's dossier and: (i) in relation to guidelines and criteria established by the institution,
evaluate the candidate's suitability for promotion; and (ii) make a written recommendation to the
Library Director regarding the candidate's suitability for promotion. The Library Promotion Committee
shal determine the process fol owed in producing this recommendation.

The Library Promotion Committee shal consist of al ful -time library faculty members of a rank equal
to or higher than the rank aspired to by the candidate, but it shal not include the Director of the
Library. If fewer than three library faculty members are eligible to serve on this committee, the
Library Director shal consult with the Library Promotion Committee and the Associate Provost, and
select enough ful professors from the academic departments to bring the total number of Library
Promotion Committee members up to three. Non-library members of the Library Promotion
Committee shal serve one-year terms, and must be approved by the Dean of the col ege of the host
department.

8.4.3 Promotion Application Process

At the time a promotion is desired, it is the responsibility of the faculty member, in consultation with
the Library Director, to submit a formal promotion application with appropriate supporting
documentation to CSM for promotion review pursuant to the process specified in paragraph 8.4.4
below.

8.4.4 Promotion Review Process

The fol owing is a general outline of the promotion review process for al library faculty at CSM:

A. Candidates must submit applications (i.e., dossiers) to the University Librarian. Academic
Affairs shal disseminate the required format of the dossier, and the submission and
promotion review process deadlines prior to the close of each Spring semester.
B. The University Librarian shall convene the Library Promotion Committee as defined in section
8.4.2, transmit the dossier to the committee, and appoint a committee member to chair
deliberations.
C. The University Librarian shal solicit external reviewer evaluations from experts in the
candidate’s field.
D. The Library Promotion Committee shal examine the dossier and prepare a written
recommendation including the results of the vote that becomes part of the dossier. In the
case of a split vote, the written recommendation(s) must reflect all viewpoints. The dossier
shal be forwarded to the University Librarian.
E. The University Librarian shal prepare a written recommendation that becomes part of the
dossier. The University Librarian shall share her/his recommendation and the
recommendation(s) of the Library Promotion Committee with the Candidate. Prior to sharing
the recommendations with the Candidate, information that could disclose the identities of
8-11

external reviewers or individual committee members shal be redacted. The Candidate may
respond to the recommendations in order to correct factual errors. This response must be
provided in writing to the University Librarian within three (3) business days. This response
shal be included in the dossier before being forwarded to the next level for review.
F. The University Librarian shal forward the dossier to the Provost for transmission to the
University Promotion and Tenure Committee.
G. The University Promotion and Tenure Committee shal conduct a thorough and independent
review of the dossier and prepare a written recommendation for the Provost.
H. The Provost shal review the entire dossier and submit his or her recommendation to the
President. In assessing the dossiers, the Provost may confer with any other parties who have
relevant information on a pending application.
I. The President shal convey the Provost’s recommendation to the Board of Trustees, which
has the final authority to grant or deny promotion for each candidate.
J. If a need for clarification arises at any stage of the review process, any of the parties
reviewing the dossier (University Librarian, Library Promotion Committee, etc.) may contact
the Candidate to request more information, which shal be included in writing in the dossier
before proceeding to the next step of the review process. In addition, a reviewing party may
request clarification from any previous reviewer who has evaluated the dossier.
K. The Provost shal provide written notification to each applicant of the results of his or her
promotion application. Positive decisions shall be reflected in the official records of CSM at
the beginning of the next academic year. Written recommendation produced by the
University Committee may, upon candidate request, be made available at the conclusion of
the review process.
L. In the case of an unfavorable decision, an applicant may appeal the decision pursuant to the
Promotion and Tenure Decision Appeal Procedure set forth in subsection 8.5 below.

8.5 PROMOTION AND TENURE DECISION APPEAL PROCEDURE


8.5.1 Persons Eligible to File an Appeal

An appeal hereunder may be filed by any candidate for promotion or tenure at CSM as described in
either of the categories below, hereinafter referred to in this appeal procedure as the “Candidate.”

A. Any tenure-track faculty member whose application for tenure has been denied by CSM; or
B. Any tenured, teaching, research, or library faculty member whose application for promotion
to a higher academic rank has been denied by CSM.


8.5.2 Notice of Appeal

A Notice of Appeal is a written document in letter or memorandum form prepared and filed by the
Candidate to initiate an appeal hereunder. The Notice of Appeal must contain, at a minimum, a
concise statement of the matter being appealed as wel as the specific grounds for the appeal set
forth in sufficient detail to provide CSM with reasonable notice of the substance of the appeal. In al
tenure decision appeals, the Notice of Appeal must al ege one or more of the specific, appealable
issues listed in Section 8.5.4.A.1 below. In promotion decision appeals, the Notice of Appeal must
allege one or more of the specific appealable issues listed in Section 8.5.4.A.2.


8-12


8.5.3 Procedure for Initiation of Appeals

A.
Place to File Notice of Appeal

A Notice of Appeal shal be addressed to and filed with the office of the Provost, who shall be
presumed to be acting on behalf of CSM throughout the appeal. At the time the Notice of Appeal
is filed with the Provost, the Candidate shall also file a copy thereof with the Office of Legal
Services.

B.
Time Limitations

All appeals filed pursuant to this procedure must be filed with the Provost and the Office of Legal
Services no later than ten business days following receipt by the Candidate of notification of the
tenure or promotion decision constituting the subject matter of the appeal. If the last day to file
a Notice of Appeal, or any other document pursuant to this Appeal Procedure, happens to fall on
a weekend, a holiday, or any day on which CSM is closed, the Notice of Appeal or other
document shall be due on the next CSM business day. If a Notice of Appeal is not filed in a
timely manner, the Candidate shal forfeit al rights of appeal conferred hereunder. The Provost
shal notify the Candidate in writing if a Notice of Appeal is not received in a timely manner.

C.
Extension of Time Limitations

For good cause, the Candidate may request in writing from the Provost an additional amount of
time within which to file a Notice of Appeal. However, in order to be considered, a Request for
Additional Time must be filed within the time limit for filing the Notice of Appeal. The Provost
shal possess the authority to issue a final ruling on such a request.

D.
Fulfillment of Notice of Appeal Requirements

An attorney from the Office of Legal Services shall examine the Notice of Appeal to determine if
the requirements set forth in Section 8.5.2 and 8.5.3 have been met. If the attorney determines
that the Notice of Appeal has not fulfil ed the requirements, he or she shal inform the Candidate
of the deficiencies in writing within ten business days. The Candidate shall then have the
opportunity to correct and re-file the Notice of Appeal within ten business days from the date of
the attorney’s communication to the Candidate. If the attorney concludes that the re-filed
version of the Notice of Appeal is stil deficient, the Candidate may request that the re-filed
version along with a written recommendation of the attorney be forwarded to the hearing panel
for a decision. In that event, the hearing panel must examine the Notice of Appeal and decide
that: (1) the Notice of Appeal is not deficient and the appeal may proceed to hearing; (2) the
deficiencies contained in the Notice of Appeal are not fatal to the appeal, which may proceed to
hearing; or (3) the deficiencies contained in the Notice of Appeal are fatal to the appeal, which
must therefore be dismissed. If the Notice of Appeal is dismissed, it may not be re-filed.


8.5.4 Appeal Standards


A. Reviewable Issues

When both promotion and tenure applications are denied, only the tenure decision may be
appealed on the grounds for tenure decision appeals as set forth below.


8-13


1. Tenure Decision Appeals

The grounds for appeal shal be limited to one or more of the fol owing: (1) in the conduct of
the tenure review, there were violations for the established procedures and practices of the
Candidate’s department or division or CSM, and such procedural errors were of sufficient
magnitude that they likely affected the outcome of the tenure review; and (2) an alleged
breach of a significant contractual obligation by CSM that has materially impacted the
Candidate’s ability to successful y earn tenure at CSM.

This appeal procedure is not designed to resolve al egations of unlawful discrimination made
by employees. Any appeal that contains such allegations must be filed as a complaint under
Mines’ Unlawful Discrimination Policy and Complaint Procedure.


2. Promotion Decision Appeals

The grounds for appeal shal be limited to one or more of the fol owing: (1) in the conduct of
the promotion review, there were violations of the established procedures and practices of
the Candidate’s department or division or CSM, and such procedural errors were of sufficient
magnitude that they likely affected the outcome of the promotion review; and (2) the
decision was so inconsistent with the evidence in the record that it must be deemed arbitrary
and capricious. The term arbitrary and capricious describes actions that have no reasonable
basis in law, fact or reason, or are so lacking in rational connection to the relevant factors as
to constitute an abuse of discretion. A determination is arbitrary and capricious only if it is
one no reasonable mind could reach.

This appeal procedure is not designed to resolve al egations of unlawful discrimination made
by employees. Any appeal that contains such allegations must be filed as a complaint under
the Unlawful Discrimination Policy and Complaint Procedure set forth on the Board of
Trustees Policy web page.

In the case of an appeal based an al egation that the decision was so inconsistent with the
record as to be deemed arbitrary and capricious, the scope of the positions and arguments
that the Candidate and Provost may present to the hearing panel wil be limited to the same
information that was reviewed at the time of original promotion review, as well as the
recommendations deriving from the original promotion review process as set forth in
Handbook sections 8.1.9, 8.2.4, 8.3.4 or 8.4.4. Therefore, the principal evidence presented
at the hearing wil be the Candidate’s promotion application dossier (with contents
conforming to the relevant provision of the Academic Procedures Manual), recommendations
from the Candidate’s Department or Division Promotion Committee, Department Head or
Division Director, University Promotion and Tenure Committee, Dean, and Provost, and the
professional credentials of the Candidate. New information regarding the Candidate’s
professional credentials and any additional external or internal evaluations that had not been
made available in the original promotion review process are outside the scope of the hearing
panel’s review on appeal. Additional y, confidential information regarding other Mines
promotion and tenure applicants wil not be permissible evidence at the appeal hearing.

B.
Burden of Proof

The Candidate shal bear the burden of proof in al appeals heard pursuant to this procedure.


8-14


C.
Standard of Proof

The standard of proof for al appeals heard pursuant to this procedure shal be the
“preponderance of the evidence” standard, as it is general y applied in civil cases. This standard
shal be deemed met if the hearing panel believes that it is more likely than not that the facts at
issue occurred. The “facts at issue” shal include al facts that are required to be proven by the
Candidate in order to prevail.

D.
Role of Hearing Panel

The role of the Hearing Panel is limited to evaluating only the reviewable issues listed in Section
8.5.4A.


8.5.5 Initial Hearing Panel Selection Criteria

All appeals filed hereunder shall be heard by a hearing panel chosen through the process specified in
subparagraph A immediately below from the pool of tenured faculty at CSM who hold the academic
rank of ful professor.

Retired faculty are ineligible to serve on the hearing panel even if they are presently working for CSM
as transitional appointees.


A.
Hearing Panel Selection Process

An initial hearing panel of eight members shal be chosen on a random basis from the applicable
tenured faculty pool under the supervision of the Associate Vice President for Human Resources.
Panel members may be excused by the Associate Vice President for Human Resources on
account of conflict of interest, health, or unavoidable absence from campus. The Candidate and
the Provost shal each disqualify two of the hearing panel members. The disqualifications
exercised by the parties shal proceed in an alternate fashion beginning with the Candidate. Of
the remaining panel members, the one chosen last shal serve as an alternate hearing panel
member. The other three panel members shal constitute the hearing panel for the appeal. An
excused hearing panel member shal be replaced by another faculty member from the applicable
pool chosen in a random drawing prior to the exercise of any disqualifications by either party.


B.
Selection of Chief Panel Member

The panel members shal elect a Chief Panel Member from their number to preside throughout
the remainder of the appeal.


C.
Authority of Chief Panel Member

The Chief Panel Member shal have the authority to (a) issue orders to compel discovery; (b)
make rulings on objections; and (c) issue any other orders necessary to control the conduct of
the hearing and prohibit abusive treatment of witnesses, including removal of disruptive
individuals from the hearing room.


D.
Role of Alternate Hearing Panel Member

General y, the alternate member shall observe, but not actively participate in, all of the
proceedings in the case and be prepared to substitute for a panel member who becomes
8-15

unavailable during any stage of the case due to death, il ness, or unavoidable emergency.
However, with the approval of both parties, the alternate member may be allowed to participate
in the Hearing, e.g., by asking questions of the parties and other witnesses during the
proceedings.


8.5.6 Legal Representation


A.
Role of Legal Counsel

Either party may engage the services of an attorney to assist in document preparation or case
preparation, and may consult with an attorney during the appeal hearing. However, an attorney
may not enter an appearance or actively participate in the hearing or speak on behalf of either
party at the hearing.


B.
Peer Counsel

The Candidate may designate a peer counsel in writing to provide moral support or actual
representation during the hearing. If so designated and to the extent authorized by the
Candidate, the peer counsel may speak on behalf of the Candidate, examine witnesses, deliver
opening and closing statements, etc.


C.
Legal Advice for the Panel

An attorney from the Office of Legal Services or the Assistant Attorney General assigned to
represent CSM shal provide the desired level of legal advice to the panel throughout the
proceeding. If this representation arrangement creates a conflict of interest, a "conflicts counsel"
from the Attorney General's Office shal be engaged to perform this function.

8.5.7 Pre-Hearing Procedures


A.
Acknowledgment of Notice of Appeal

As soon as practicable after receipt of the Notice of Appeal and completion of the examination of
legal sufficiency, the Provost shall send a letter to the Candidate acknowledging timely receipt
and the legal sufficiency of the Notice of Appeal. This subparagraph shall not apply if the Notice
of Appeal was untimely or legally insufficient.


B.
Setting of Hearing Date

After a Chief Panel Member has been chosen, a hearing date shal be set with reasonable
consideration given to the schedules of the individuals concerned. The Chief Panel Member shall
set a date for the hearing, which shal occur no more than thirty calendar days after the date
upon which the hearing panel was selected, except when any portion of this thirty-day period
fal s within CSM’s summer session. In this event, the deadline for setting the hearing date shal
be extended to thirty calendar days following the commencement of CSM’s fall semester. The
Chief Panel Member shal inform the parties and other hearing panel members of the hearing
date. Once set, the hearing date may be rescheduled only with the concurrence of the
Candidate, the Provost, and the Chief Panel Member.


8-16


C.
Pre-Hearing Discovery

Informal discovery, or the voluntary exchange between the parties of information relevant to the
case, is encouraged. If the parties cannot resolve such issues informally, up to ten business days
prior to the hearing date either party may request the Chief Panel Member to enter an order
compel ing discovery upon a showing of the relevance of the requested information and the
necessity of such information to case preparation. The other party may oppose such request by
showing that the requested information is irrelevant, unnecessary to case preparation, or
privileged according to law.


D.
List of Hearing Issues

After examining the position statements of both parties, the hearing panel shal prepare a list of
issues to be resolved through the hearing and distribute such list to the parties no later than
three business days prior to the hearing date. The list of issues generated pursuant to this
subparagraph shal be binding upon the subsequent hearing and shal form the standard against
which al relevancy arguments shal be weighed.


8.5.8 Position Statements


A.
Contents of Position Statements

Each party shal file a Position Statement containing the following components:

1. Position Summary: A concise statement summarizing the case from the position of the
submitting party;

2. List of Issues: A list of issues the party wishes to have resolved through the hearing;

3. List of Witnesses: A list of witnesses to be presented at the hearing along with a
summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness;

4. List of Exhibits: A list of exhibits to be presented at the hearing; and

5. Copies of Exhibits: Copies of each exhibit the party anticipates presenting at the
hearing.


B.
Deadlines for Position Statements

Each party shal prepare and file a position statement with the hearing panel and provide a copy
to the opposing party no later than five business days prior to the hearing date. If the hearing
date is rescheduled, these time limits shall apply to the rescheduled hearing date.


C.
Limitations Imposed by Position Statements

Neither party shal make an argument during the hearing that is inconsistent with the arguments
set forth in the position summary section of his or her position statement. Neither party shal
introduce any witnesses or exhibits at the hearing that are not listed in his or her position
statement, except that a party may request the Chief Panel Member to permit additional
witnesses or exhibits in order to rebut an argument or position asserted by the other party during
the hearing. At the Chief Panel Member’s sole discretion, such additional testimony or evidence
8-17

may be introduced during the hearing at a time and in the manner prescribed by the Chief Panel
Member. Al exhibits listed in the position statements shall be deemed genuine and admissible
unless successfully challenged prior to the hearing.


D.
Amendments to Position Statements

Up to three business days prior to the hearing date, either party may request the chief panel
member to permit amendments to his or her position statement upon a showing of good cause
and lack of prejudice to the opposing party. Any party filing an amended position statement shall
provide a copy thereof to the opposing party no later than the filing deadline imposed by the
order permitting the amendment.


8.5.9 Hearing Procedures


A.
Presumption of Open Hearing

Subject to limitations imposed by the capacity of the hearing room, the hearing shal be open to
the public. For good cause, either party may request that the hearing be closed to the public.
The chief panel member may grant such a request only if the non-requesting party does not
object.


B.
Sequestration of Witnesses

Upon the request of either party, the chief panel member shal direct that al individuals
scheduled to appear as witnesses in the hearing may not be present in the hearing room except
when actual y testifying.


C.
Order of Presentation

The Candidate shal make his or her presentation first. After this presentation is concluded, the
Provost shal make his or her presentation. Rebuttal presentations by either party may be
permitted at the discretion of the chief panel member. At the conclusion of the Provost's
presentation, the Candidate shall be permitted to make a closing statement. At the conclusion of
the Candidate’s closing statement, the Provost shal be permitted to make a closing statement.


D.
Presentation Procedure

During a party's presentation, that party may testify, examine other witnesses, or submit
documents as evidence to the hearing panel. Arguments should not be made by a party or a
representative of a party during the presentation, but rather should be reserved for the closing
statement. Hearing panel members may interject questions at any time. The parties should be
given equal periods of time within which to present their respective cases, as determined by the
Chief Panel Member. However, either party may waive any portion of the time al otted to them.


E.
Witness Examination Procedure

The party on whose behalf the witness has appeared shal directly examine each witness. Upon
the conclusion of the examination of each witness, the opposing party shal be permitted the
right of cross-examination. The Chief Panel Member may permit redirect and re-cross
examination. However, an identical examination procedure shall be utilized for all witnesses
testifying during the same hearing.
8-18



F.
Inapplicability of Strict Evidentiary Rules

Strict legal evidentiary rules shal not apply during the hearing. The Chief Panel Member shal
rule on the admissibility of disputed evidence with primary consideration given to the relevance,
reliability, and probative value of proffered evidence.


8.5.10 Post-Hearing Procedures


A.
Recommendation of the Hearing Panel

After the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing panel shal confer among themselves and vote
upon a recommended course of action. The panel members holding a majority point of view
shal designate a member of their group to write a recommendation reflecting their opinion. A
panel member holding a minority point of view may issue a dissenting recommendation.


B.
Contents of Recommendation

The recommendation of the hearing panel shal include the fol owing components:

1. Statement Regarding Burden of Proof: A statement regarding whether or not the
hearing panel believes that the burden of proof borne by the Candidate has been
sustained.

2. Findings of Fact: A list of the relevant facts found by the hearing panel upon which
the recommendation is based;

3. Conclusions: A list of the conclusions of the hearing panel upon which the
recommendation is based; and

4. Recommended Course of Action: A statement of the course of action recommended
by the hearing panel. With respect to either promotion or tenure decision appeals, the
panel may recommend that the Provost’s decision be upheld. If the panel finds the
Candidate’s appeal meritorious, it may recommend that the Candidate be given an
opportunity to have his or her case reconsidered through the university’s promotion and
tenure review process.

The panel does not have authority to grant either promotion or tenure. However, in the
case of tenure decision appeals, the panel may recommend that the Candidate be
offered an extension of his or her contractual tenure-track appointment period to al ow
the Candidate the opportunity to be reconsidered through the university’s prescribed
process for tenure review.


C.
Issuance of Recommendation

The recommendation of the hearing panel shal be issued to the parties and delivered to the
President of CSM along with the panel's case file within ten business days after the conclusion of
the hearing.


8-19


D.
Issuance of Presidential Decision

The President shal examine the case file, consider the recommendation of the hearing panel,
and issue a final written decision in the matter. The President shall possess the authority to
affirm, reverse, or modify the recommendation of the hearing panel or to remand the matter to
the panel for further proceedings or consideration. The decision of the President shal be
delivered to the parties and the hearing panel within ten business days from the date of the
President's receipt of the recommendation and case file from the hearing panel, unless the
President is unavailable for a significant amount of time during this period.

E.
Presidential Unavailability

The term "unavailable," as utilized in this subparagraph and subparagraph D immediately above,
shal be defined to mean out of the office on vacation or sick leave, out of town for CSM
business, or otherwise engaged in important CSM business matters to the extent that sufficient
time cannot be devoted to decision making hereunder. If the President is unavailable for a
significant period of time during the decision making period, a letter shal be sent to the parties
advising them of that fact as wel as the anticipated date of presidential availability. In such
event, the decision shal be due ten business days from the date upon which the President
becomes available. The President shall be the sole judge of all issues related to unavailability
hereunder.


F. Appeal of Final Decision of CSM

The decision issued by the President shal constitute the final decision of CSM regarding the
matter being appealed. There shal be no further appeal from the final decision of CSM. If the
Candidate is aggrieved by the final decision of CSM, he or she may pursue other available legal
remedies.


8-20