Procedures for implementing the University’s policy on promotion and tenure are described in the “Administrative Guidelines for AC23: Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations.” Procedures for implementing the Altoona College’s policy on promotion and tenure are described in “PROMOTION AND TENURE REVIEW PROCEDURES: Penn State Altoona - Altoona College, as well as “TENURE-LINE PROMOTION AND TENURE REVIEW COMMITTEE GUIDELINES,” which can be found on Penn State Altoona’s web site. This document complies with those. The following further specifies procedures for the Division of Business, Engineering and Information Sciences & Technology in the Altoona College, but does not supersede Altoona College or university-wide guidelines.
Purpose. The Division-level of review is the one that is closest to the candidate in terms of their mission and discipline. It is the level that is most sensitive to the candidates’ work setting.
Eligibility. These guidelines cover all tenure-eligible and tenured faculty members in The Division who seek or hold tenure in the Altoona College.
Review Process
The Division Level of Review for Faculty Holding or Seeking Tenure in the Division of Business, Engineering and Information Sciences & Technology in the Altoona College
Preparing for the Tenure or Promotion Review Process
Follow Penn State Altoona’s Peer Review Procedures, which describe the frequency and timing of tenure reviews, promotion reviews, early promotion and tenure reviews, and the preparation of dossiers. Any tenured faculty member may request a promotion review during an academic year.
The Division’s Peer Review Committee
Size. The Division Peer Review Committee shall consist of three, five, or seven faculty members.
Eligibility to Serve. The Division’s peer reviews shall be conducted by faculty members in the Division whenever possible. Committee members must be tenured either in the Altoona College or in another college within Penn State. A majority of the committee must hold the rank of associate professor, professor, or equivalent rank. Only faculty with rank higher than that of the candidate may vote during promotion decisions, and a minimum of three voting members is required. At least one voting member of the committee must be from the candidate’s academic discipline. A candidate’s discipline will be determined through consultation between the candidate and the Division Head. If there is disagreement, the Chief Academic Officer of Penn State Altoona shall mediate the dispute; the Chancellor shall be the final arbiter. If necessary, the Division Head may appoint senior faculty members from outside the Division (or the College) to meet these requirements. No faculty member may serve on more than one level of review of any given candidate during a particular review cycle, and faculty members on leave of absence, including sabbatical leave, are prohibited from participating in promotion and tenure committees. No Penn State Altoona academic administrator, including division heads, shall serve on the Division’s Peer Review Committee
Selection. Annually, the Division Head shall poll all eligible Division faculty members who will be asked to indicate if they would be willing to serve on the Division’s Peer Review Committee. From the willing, the Division shall elect a Peer Review Committee to conduct peer reviews for its tenure-line faculty. All tenured and tenure-eligible faculty in the Division shall be eligible to vote for the members of the review committee. The term of service for elected members shall be two years and terms shall be staggered to ensure continuity of membership. The Division Head shall be responsible for ensuring that the election of the committee for the following academic year is completed by the end of the second week in April. The committee will select its own chair.
Evaluation of the dossier by the committee. The Division Head will make completed dossiers available to the committee and will call the initial meeting of the committee to review policies and procedures. The Division Head shall consult with the committee to ensure that all members are well informed about each candidate’s dossier and about the criteria of the Division, the College, and the University; however, the Division Head and the Committee shall render independent judgments of the candidates being reviewed. The Division Head, along with any committee member with a conflict of interest in this particular case, shall not be present during peer review discussions or when votes are being taken. Peer review discussions will take place only at meetings where all committee members eligible to vote and only committee members eligible to vote are present. Committee members will not conduct private peer review discussions. After due deliberation and a vote, the committee will submit to the Division Head a letter of evaluation for each candidate based on the dossier. This letter must address each criterion based on the evidence in the dossier, using exactly one of the following adjectives for each category: excellent, very good, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory. When the committee has not reached a unanimous opinion, a discussion of the reasons for the divergent opinions must be addressed in the letter. Promotion and tenure committee members should not retain any personal notes about promotion and tenure cases once the work of the committee has concluded.
Evaluation of the dossier by the Division Head. After receiving the letter of evaluation of the Division Peer Review Committee and placing it in the candidate’s dossier, the Division Head shall prepare a letter of evaluation also addressing each criterion based on the evidence in the dossier and place it in the dossier. The Division Head shall submit the dossier to the Chancellor of the Altoona College for review by the Altoona College Promotion and Tenure Peer Review Committee. In the event that the peer review committee does not recommend promotion to Professor for a given candidate, and the division head agrees, the head should consult with the Chancellor before discussing with that candidate the advisability of withdrawing their dossier.