Go back to the CSM Senate main page.
MEMORANDUM FROM: Louis Esposito, Provost
MEMORANDUM TO: Deans, Department Chairs, and Centerheads
SUBJECT: Selected Guidelines on Personnel Procedures
The following selected guidelines for personnel procedures are based on the experience within the Provost's office over the past two years in reviewing personnel cases and on the preliminary reports on personnel procedures received from ad hoc committees established by the colleges. The guidelines are necessarily incomplete and selective. They are intended to be consistent with the Red Book and the UMass Boston Implementation Guidelines, and also with what I believe to be the best collegiate interpretations of these documents. I realize that some of these guidelines, particularly those relating to external reviews, may arrive too late to affect all of this year's personnel actions but they should inform future actions. I ask that you provide personnel committee chairs with a copy of this memorandum.
GENERAL ISSUES
1) Size of Personnel Committees
The Redbook and Implementation Guidelines do not specify a size for personnel committees at either the departmental or collegiate level but they do provide for ad hoc committees when necessary to carry out a "full, fair, and impartial" review. Wherever possible, and in all tenure cases, there should be at least five members of personnel committees recommending on major personnel decisions so that no single member's vote can give the appearance of a substantial division of opinion.
2) The Basic File
a) Format - Files should be submitted in three-ring binders with dividers using the headings in the Table of Contents (see attached). Materials within each section should be arranged in a clear and orderly fashion with documents of little or no substantive bearing relegated to appendices (e.g. a letter from a solicited reviewer declining to write). All additions to the file should be dated and inserted in the appropriate section.
b) Candidate's C.V. - It is the responsibility of the Department Personnel Committee to ensure that the candidate's c.v. is clear and appropriate and to ask that it be revised if necessary. Specifically, the c.v. should clearly identify the status and nature of listed scholarly work - published, accepted, or unpublished; peer-reviewed or solicited articles; original or reprinted work, etc. The chronology of education, academic experience, and scholarly work should be clear.
3) Evaluation of Teaching
a) Course Evaluations - The discussion of course evaluations should, wherever possible, include comparative information about general or course-specific departmental norms. Also, the relationship between the enrollment for a course and the number of evaluations accompanying the file should be clear and specific.
b) Course Materials - The discussion of teaching should include specific reference to course materials - syllabi, examinations, assignments, etc. - and an analysis of their quality and appropriateness.
c) Student Letters - If student letters are included in the file, there should be a clear statement of how they were solicited and the percentage of response. Distinction should be made among committee solicited, candidate solicited and unsolicited letters.
4) External Reviewers (tenure and promotion)
a) Choice of Reviewers - It must be understood that the selection and solicitation of outside reviewers is the responsibility of the Department Personnel Committee. By requiring that at least one of the minimum of three outside reviewers be selected from a list provided by the candidate, the Redbook assures the candidate's input into the process but the committee should not choose reviewers that it believes are clearly inappropriate (particularly because of close personal and/or professional ties to the candidate) and may request additional names if needed. Conversely, the committee has the obligation to ensure that individuals it selects are not inappropriate, particularly because of personal bias against the candidate, and should allow the candidate the opportunity to express concern to that effect.
b) Identification of External Reviewers - All external reviewers should be consistently identified as "nominated by the candidate" or "nominated by the committee." References at any level to "the candidate's reviewer" or "the department's reviewer" are prejudicial and inappropriate.
c) Statement of Professional Standing and Connection to the Candidate - The department has the obligation to provide subsequent levels of review with clear indications of the professional standing of external reviewers and their
relationships, professional or personal, to the candidate. The mere provision of an external reviewer's c.v. often does not fulfill this obligation; a clear and concise statement of the referee's professional standing and accomplishments should be included. Similarly, the department should make the personal or professional relationship of a reviewer to the candidate clear even when it judges such relationships to be appropriate.
d) Evaluation of External Letters - Every level of review is obligated to give serious attention to all external letters and, in cases where the reviewing body finds such letters unpersuasive, to explain the basis for such judgment
e) Solicitation of External Reviewers - All external reviewers must be solicited by the department personnel committee. The form of the letter sent to external reviewers should identify the specific aspect of the candidate's work that is to be evaluated - teaching, service, or scholarship - and should avoid any formulation that suggests a desired response.
b) Numbers - The Redbook requires only three outside reviewers of which at least one should be nominated by the candidate. Over the years that has come to be seen as too small a number. A more appropriate minimum is five, of which at least three should be nominated by the personnel committee. In practice, particularly for tenure cases, there are usually between six and eight outside reviewers, with approximately the same number nominated by the candidate and by the committee. It is the prerogative of the personnel committee to limit the number of external reviewers if that number becomes too large to be managed or threatens to upset an appropriate balance between those nominated by the candidate and those nominated by the committee.
5) Deadlines - A Dean must submit a written request prior to the deadline in the master calendar if she/he wishes to submit a late file. In the case of promotions, failure to submit such a request will mean that the case will be considered in the next cycle. Promotion cases submitted after June 1 will not be reviewed for that year.
SPECIFIC REVIEWS
1) Fourth-Year Review
a) External Reviewers of Scholarship - External letters on scholarship are not required in the case of fourth-year reviews and should be solicited only when warranted by special circumstances. External letters on public and professional service may be appropriate.
b) Language in Fourth Year Reviews - All levels of review should avoid using the terms "strength" or "excellence" in their recommendations and, in general, should be explicit about the difference in the degree of scrutiny between the fourth-year review and the tenure review.
2) Promotion to Full Professor
All levels of review are required to give full, careful and specific consideration to teaching and service in promotion cases. Insufficiently distinguished performance or insufficient documentation of performance in
these areas may serve as the basis for rejecting a recommendation for promotion to full professor even where substantial scholarly accomplishment and recognition have been established.
Go back to the CSM Senate main page.