From: Carl Ebeling [ebeling@cs.washington.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 9:01 AM
To: Ed Lazowska
Cc: Gaetano Borriello
Subject: Revised faculty promotion procedures

Here is the process that was voted in.  I'll summarize here and point
out the delta from the current procedure (as I understand it).  For
the full text, see:

     http://www.washington.edu/faculty/facsenate/announce/promotion.htm

The deltas:

1) We give the candidate a written **summary** of the subcommittee
report.  I think this means we write down what we used to do verbally.
The candidate can then respond to the summary.  The idea behind this
summary is allow the candidate to correct factual errors.

2) After the vote, this happens again, except the summary is of the
faculty meeting discussion and recommendation.  Again, the candidate
can respond and again this would be to factual errors.

So there's more work for the chair (something that no one wanted), but
lots of departments do not keep the candidate informed like we do.

========================
The process:

[no change]
The record of the candidate being considered for promotion shall be
assembled following the guidelines of the candidate's college and
unit. The candidate is responsible for assembling the promotion
record, which shall include a self-assessment of the candidate's
qualifications for promotion. External letters of review shall be kept
confidential from the candidate.

[no change]
A subcommittee of the faculty senior in rank shall make an initial
written  report and/or recommendation on the qualifications of the
candidate.

[NEW]
The department chair shall provide the candidate with a written
summary of the committee's report and recommendation.  For purposes of
confidentiality, all names and vote counts shall be omitted and vote
counts may be omitted from the candidate's summary. The candidate may
respond in writing within seven calendar days. The chair shall forward
the candidate's response, if any, together with the committee's report
to the voting faculty.

[no change] 
The voting faculty of the candidate's department superior in rank to
the candidate shall then meet to discuss the candidate's record and to
vote on the promotion question.

[NEW]
The department chair shall write a formal report of these proceedings
for the candidate, summarizing the discussion and recommendation. For
purposes of confidentiality, all names and vote counts may be omitted
from this report. The candidate may then respond in writing to the
department chair (or dean in an undepartmentalized school or college)
within seven calendar days.

[no change]
If this recommendation is a departmental one, and if it is favorable,
or if the promotion decision is mandatory, or if the candidate has
written a response to the departmental vote, the chair shall transmit
it all documents produced in this promotion process to the appropriate
dean, with his or her independent analysis and recommendation.