Christopher Theodorakis (Chair)
Nancy Lutz
Katie Poole-Jones
Min Liu
Faith Liebl
Cristina De Meo
Valerie Vogrin
Doug Simms
Hernando Garcia
Shunfu Hu
Robert Paulett
Gary Hicks
Tammy Voepel
Huei Li Chin
Drew Dolan
Judith Crane
Sophia Wilson
Jayme Swanke
Mark Hedley
Johanna Schmitz
Dennis Mares
a. Each Subcommittee shall review midpoint-to-tenure, tenure, and promotion dossiers submitted by Departments within their purview.
b. The only criteria the Committee may consider are CAS criteria and the applicant’s Departmental criteria.
c. The Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee shall write a letter to the Dean, copied to the applicant and the Department Chair, stating both the rankings in the three areas of review and the recommendation regarding promotion/tenure, as per the Faculty Handbook.
d. Members must recuse themselves from the entire discussion and voting regarding their own dossier or the dossier of anyone with whom they have a personal conflict of interest. A personal conflict of interest exists when a relationship between two parties creates a real or apparent bias in the evaluation process. Such relationships may be romantic, familial, or financial (as when one party will significantly benefit or suffer financially from a promotion/tenure decision). In cases of significant scholarly collaboration between the parties (such as co-authorship of research, mentorship, or graduate advisement), that collaboration must be declared to the Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee by the committee member. The Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee should then decide if the nature of the collaboration represents conflict of interest or not, and then add the results and actions of this decision to their written report.
e. A member cannot participate in the formal review of a dossier from her/his own Department, nor vote on the Subcommittee’s recommendation. However, s/he may act in an advisory capacity to the rest of the group.
