This page includes Faculty Senate updates to UW Faculty Code Section 24-54 (procedures for promotion), which went into effect June 20, 2024. Apply guidance to promotion and/or tenure review steps occurring after this date.
The UW Faculty Code Section 24-54 outlines the procedure for considering a faculty candidate for promotion/tenure review.
There are up to 6 levels of review and recommendation and up to 4 opportunities for candidate response. The Office of Academic Personnel and Faculty (APF) has developed guidelines for the content of the review and recommendation reports, available on the Promotion and/or Tenure Report Guidelines page.
Faculty Review (up to 2 levels of review)
The faculty review is conducted by eligible voting members of the faculty who are superior in academic rank/title to the candidate. The faculty review process varies depending on whether there are at least 3 eligible voting faculty members in the candidate’s appointing unit. Note that the appointing unit leader (chair/director/campus dean) is not included in the count of eligible voting faculty, as they provide their own independent analysis following the vote. Likewise, the school/college/campus (SCC) leader (dean/chancellor) is not considered an eligible voter in their home unit.
Procedures for when there are at least 3 eligible voting faculty members in the candidate’s appointing unit:
If there are at least 3 eligible voting faculty members in the candidate’s department (or undepartmentalized college or school), an optional step in the faculty review phase is to use a subcommittee. If used, this subcommittee must be comprised of at least 3 eligible voting members, and may include faculty members from other units who have appropriate expertise. Subcommittee members shall be given the opportunity to review the candidate’s record, including external letters.
The subcommittee must submit a written report on the qualifications of the candidate for promotion. The candidate must receive a written summary of this report that identifies members of the subcommittee. For purposes of confidentiality, the summary shall omit specific attributions and may omit any vote counts.
The candidate, if they choose, may respond in writing to that report within 7 calendar days. Documentation that the candidate was provided a copy of the summary of the subcommittee report and opportunity to respond shall be included in the record.
The first mandatory step of the faculty review process for candidates with at least 3 eligible voting members in their appointing unit involves an assessment by the appointing unit’s eligible voting faculty members.
These faculty members must receive or have access to a copy of the candidate’s record and, where applicable, the subcommittee report and/or recommendation, and the candidate’s response to the subcommittee report, before the discussion and promotion/tenure vote.
The eligible faculty members in the candidate’s appointing unit shall then meet to discuss the candidate’s record and to vote whether to recommend promotion/tenure.
If an initial report was produced by a subcommittee, all members of the subcommittee may participate in the discussion, but only eligible voting faculty in the candidate’s appointing unit may be present for the vote. For guidance on voting eligibility for matters of promotion and/or tenure, refer to the Promotion and Tenure Voting Matrix.
If the faculty vote is negative and this is the first consideration of a mandatory promotion, the unit may then hold a second vote on whether to recommend postponement for one year.
After the unit level discussion and vote by eligible voting faculty is completed, the
chair/director/campus dean (or dean or dean’s designee in an undepartmentalized school/college) is required to prepare a substantive, written, formal report summarizing the discussion, concerns raised, counterarguments raised to those concerns, and recommendation and provide that summary to the candidate concurrently with their independent analysis and recommendation (see below).
Again, for purposes of confidentiality, the summary report shall omit specific attributions and may omit the vote count. The candidate may then choose to respond to that report (and, in the case of a departmentalized school or college, the unit leader’s independent analysis and recommendation) within 7 calendar days. Documentation that the candidate was provided a copy of the summary report and opportunity to respond is to be included in the record.
Procedures for when there are fewer than 3 eligible voting faculty members in the candidate’s appointing unit:
For appointing units with fewer than 3 eligible voting faculty members, the review shall be conducted by a subcommittee and the recommendation of the subcommittee shall be used in lieu of a vote by the appointing unit.
The subcommittee shall include at least 3 members, including all eligible voting faculty in the candidate’s unit who are available to serve, and may include eligible voting faculty members from other units who have appropriate expertise. Subcommittee members shall be given the opportunity to review the candidate’s record, including external letters.
The subcommittee must submit a written report and recommendation, and the candidate must receive a written summary of this report that identifies members of the subcommittee. For purposes of confidentiality, the summary shall omit specific attributions and may omit the vote count.
The candidate, if they choose, may respond in writing to that report within 7 calendar days.
Documentation that the candidate was provided a copy of the summary of the subcommittee report and opportunity to respond is to be included in the record.
Chair/Director/Campus Dean Review
In departmentalized units, the chair/director/campus dean prepares an independent analysis and recommendation for submission to the dean/chancellor. This analysis and recommendation should be shared with the candidate simultaneously with the faculty meeting summary.
As above, for purposes of confidentiality, the shared report shall omit specific attributions and may omit vote counts. The candidate may then choose to respond in writing within 7 calendar days. Documentation that the candidate was provided a copy of the analysis and recommendation (together with the faculty summary) and opportunity to respond is to be included in the record.
All the materials listed below, as applicable, are to be provided to the dean/chancellor:
- the subcommittee report (redacted and original)
- the candidate’s response or documentation of the opportunity for response to the subcommittee summary
- the summary of the faculty discussion and recommendation
- the chair/director/campus dean’s independent analysis and recommendation (redacted and original)
- the candidate’s response or documentation of the opportunity for response to the faculty summary report and unit leader’s independent analysis and recommendation
If any report is revised in response to input from the candidate, the revised report should be shared with the candidate, but there is no mechanism for additional response unless that right is activated at a higher stage of review.
In a non-departmentalized unit, should the dean designate someone (e.g. a division head or associate dean) to provide an independent analysis and recommendation between the faculty vote and the advisory council review, it is best practice that the designee should follow the above procedures for sharing that recommendation with the candidate.
NOTE for transition period in 2024: Units that completed faculty voting between June 20 and September 30, 2024, only need to provide the substantive summary and unit leader independent analysis for cases where a) the unit faculty vote is ≤50% in favor of promotion and/or ≥10% explicitly against promotion or b) the chair/director/campus dean recommendation is negative.
Advisory Committee/Council Review
The unit leader (chair/director/campus dean) shall share the above material with the school/college/campus’s elected advisory committee/council for its recommendation to the dean/chancellor. The committee/council recommendation and reasons therefor are delivered to the dean/chancellor.
If any report is revised in response to input from the candidate, the revised report should be shared with the candidate, but there is no mechanism for additional response unless that right is activated at a higher stage of review.
In a non-departmentalized unit, should the dean designate someone (e.g. a division head or associate dean) to provide an independent analysis and recommendation, this analysis should follow the above procedures for sharing with the candidate.
A summary of the committee/council recommendation and reasons therefore shall be provided to the candidate and to the unit leader (chair/director/campus dean) by the dean/chancellor simultaneously with the dean/chancellor initial recommendation (see below). For confidentiality, the summary provided to the candidate shall omit specific attributions and may omit the vote count. An Advisory Council summary report template and sample summary report are available for reference.
Dean/Chancellor Review
After receiving the recommendation of the advisory committee/council, the dean/chancellor shall prepare their initial recommendation or decision. The dean shall transmit to the candidate, with a copy to the unit leader, the committee/council summary and recommendation and the dean/chancellor’s initial decision or recommendation with the reasons therefor.
If the dean’s initial recommendation is favorable, then the case is transmitted directly to the provost. There is no specific opportunity for candidate response.
If the initial decision or recommendation of the dean/chancellor is not favorable, the dean/chancellor, or designee, must discuss the recommendation with the candidate, documenting any specific requests for additional information or clarification. The unit leader may respond in writing, with a copy to the candidate, within 5 calendar days of receiving the recommendation, and the candidate may respond in writing to the dean/chancellor within 7 calendar days of the discussion. If the dean/chancellor revises their recommendation after considering these responses, a copy shall be shared with the candidate and unit leader.
In non-mandatory promotion cases, the dean has the authority to render a negative final decision. In all other circumstances, the dean’s recommendation is advisory to the Provost and the entire file shall be transmitted to the Provost for their review. Should a candidate submit a written response to a negative, non-mandatory decision by the dean/chancellor, then the file shall be transmitted to the Provost for information purposes only.
Provost Review
Upon receiving a recommendation from the dean/chancellor, the Provost shall formulate an initial decision. If this decision is positive, then the candidate will receive a congratulatory letter by the date listed on the Promotion and Tenure Notification Date page.
If the initial decision of the Provost is negative, the Provost shall formalize a written summary of the decision and reasons therefor and share it with the candidate, unit leader, and dean/chancellor. The dean/chancellor and unit leader may respond in writing, with a copy to the candidate, within 5 calendar days, and the candidate may respond in writing within 7 calendar days. The Provost shall review any responses submitted and make a final decision. The dean/chancellor shall ensure that the candidate is informed in writing of the result and, if the result is not favorable, of the reasons therefor.
Next page: Part 3: Possible Outcomes of the Promotion/Tenure Review Process