10.1 TENURE AND NON-TENURE APPOINTMENTS.
(Amended 9/93; 2/15/95; 2/01; 1/02; 4/05; 5/07; 9/08; Faculty Senate 10/18/11; 4/13)
Note: Effective April 2013, this policy has been revised. For individual changes, see the redlined version.
Student demand for higher education has leveled off and is likely to remain level for some years to come. With the leveling off of student demand, the influx of new faculty members has diminished. The challenge facing The University of Iowa -- along with all similar institutions -- is to retain and increase its academic vitality and flexibility in a period of a relatively stable student body and faculty. The challenge is not new to American higher education which previously has had to maintain its vitality in times of stable enrollments and faculty.
(2) Basic Premises. The basic assumptions on which The University of Iowa proposes to function over the next several years are: First, tenure will continue as a cornerstone of the University's relationship with faculty members. Tenure is not only consistent with academic vitality but essential to it. Second, consistent with the University's educational needs and as permitted by its resources, faculty members in probationary status will be given the opportunity to acquire tenure if their performance merits tenure. No system of tenure quotas is contemplated. Third, the University must provide mechanisms by which a varied group of new faculty members come to the University so that the institution may continuously revitalize itself. Fourth, the University will retain the flexibility to adjust its educational programs to meet the changing needs of students and society, and to take into account advances in the world's knowledge base. In the process of making such adjustments, every effort will be made to plan well in advance and the faculty will play a major role in defining institutional needs in the process of departmental, collegiate, and University decision-making.
Tenure is not a very well-understood concept. If a university is to perform its function effectively, it is essential that faculty members in their teaching and research feel free to express new ideas and divergent viewpoints. In the process of teaching and research, accepted "truths" often must be challenged and questioned. A good university must create an atmosphere which, in a positive way, encourages faculty members to express new ideas and divergent viewpoints and to make inquiries unbounded by present norms. Such an atmosphere currently exists at The University of Iowa; and tenure has contributed substantially to the creation of this atmosphere and to its continuance. Put simply, free inquiry and expression are essential to the maintenance of excellence; tenure is essential to free inquiry and expression; The University of Iowa's consistent goal is excellence; and the tenure system must continue if the University is to recruit and maintain a distinguished faculty. While tenure would be an integral part of the University's relationship with the faculty without regard to the competitive situation, it also is important to note that the outstanding universities throughout the country have tenure systems and that The University of Iowa's competitive position as it attempts to recruit and to retain outstanding faculty members would be damaged beyond repair if tenure were abandoned or seriously weakened.
As a job security system, tenure is not substantially different from the job security aspects of civil service systems for state and federal employees; nor are they very different from job protection provisions in union contracts generally. The probationary period preceding the granting of tenure is, of course, longer than similar periods under civil service systems and union contracts -- five or six years as opposed to six months or one year. Once the probationary period has passed, all of the systems contemplate job security only to the extent that either resources permit or the need for the services continue to exist, or both; and before the employment relationship of such personnel can be terminated for inadequate performance, all of the systems require a showing of adequate cause (inadequate performance) at a hearing. In addition, the tender of ultimate job security is an important mechanism for inducing qualified persons to aspire to careers in the area involved. While the job-security aspects of tenure bear surface relationship to other job-security systems, the primary rationale for tenure is that it is essential to the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere which encourages the free exchange of ideas so necessary to educational vitality.
(3) The tenured faculty. The cornerstone on which excellence has been created at The University of Iowa, both in periods of growth and stability, is its tenured faculty. The tenured faculty at The University of Iowa has never been stagnant. It contributes greatly to the University's vitality. It will continue to do so. As a general proposition, the excellence and vitality of the tenured faculty is motivated from within individual faculty members, and to some extent, from peer pressures. Some institutional mechanisms also have contributed and will continue to contribute to the vitality. Thus, the University, in consultation with faculty members, plans:
(b) To expand its constant evaluation of teaching effectiveness of tenured as well as non-tenured faculty members and its explorations of mechanisms for improving such effectiveness;
(c) To continue in University-sponsored research a system of campus-wide peer review of research proposals and results to assure consistently high scholarly productivity by faculty members;
(d) To continue departmental, collegiate, and University-wide reviews and priority planning efforts to assure that resources are made available to new programs and to programs enjoying significant increases in student interest, or, where necessary, programs be modified, consolidated with other programs, or eliminated;
(e) To continue to review and evaluate the administrative structures within which educational programs function to assure that the educational goals of the University are being met as effectively as possible;
(f) To encourage the exchange of faculty with other universities on a visiting basis so that new ideas and approaches will be brought to the campus both by the visiting teachers from other institutions and by the Iowa professors upon their return to campus;
(g) To fill some existing teaching positions on a permanently rotating basis with persons from other institutions or professions for periods ranging from one or two weeks to a semester or a year;
(h) To encourage the development of team teaching of courses by combining senior and junior faculty members from the same department as well as interdisciplinary team teaching by faculty members from different departments;
(i) To encourage the expansion of the present program of faculty seminars in which faculty members learn from each other;
(j) To seek to expand the program of developmental leaves to encourage faculty members who wish assistance in keeping abreast of newly developed and developing knowledge and instructional approaches;
(k) To develop a system of tenure for part-time faculty members so that a faculty member might hold a tenured position at The University of Iowa for one semester and a position at some other university for the other semester; or hold a tenured position for one semester at the University and some other job -- perhaps in industry -- for the balance of the year, and so that the University might take advantage of the talents of persons who, while completely qualified to join the faculty and remain on it for a long period of time, are unable, for one reason or another, to work full time as a faculty member.
Other than internal pressures for excellence within individual faculty members and, perhaps peer pressure, the merit salary system is the most important mechanism available to the University for assuring the continued academic vitality of tenured faculty members. While the University does not control the total number of dollars available for faculty salary increases, it can and must control the allocation of dollars it has so that excellence may be rewarded. For many years, the University has stressed to the Board of Regents and to the Legislature that its top budgetary priority was salaries and that whatever was made available for faculty salaries would be awarded on a merit basis.
In establishing faculty salaries the University has attempted -- not always successfully -- to be competitive; and when funds have been available for salary increases, the effort consistently has been and will continue to be to reward meritorious performance. Continued teaching and research excellence, and to a lesser extent the quality of other major professional contributions to the University or to society in general, form the basis for salary increases as they do for promotion and tenure. While objective data should be considered in making salary judgments, and while the department's or college's particularized statement of expectations concerning teaching, research and other professional contributions should serve as primary guidelines, it should be understood that the judgments being made relate in large part to the quality of the faculty member's professional performance and such judgment cannot be quantified. A faculty salary system which recognizes merit will function to encourage a continued striving for excellence and one that also recognizes the need to recruit and retain the best available persons who will help keep the institution vital.
While the catalog of mechanisms available for encouraging continued high level performance by tenured faculty members is not complete, the list set forth does suggest that many patterns are available to encourage such performance. It should be emphasized again that more important to academic vitality than University programs to encourage it are the inner mechanisms within individual faculty members which "compel" a constant striving for excellence. These inner mechanisms have contributed most to making the University the excellent institution it is and with whatever encouragement is possible from the institution, these mechanisms will function to assure a continuation of excellence.
(b) Reappointment review (President 10/85; amended 2/01; 5/07). Most initial probationary appointments at The University of Iowa are for 1) three years for colleges having a collegiate norm to make a tenure decision of not more than six years, or 2) four years for any college having a collegiate norm to make a tenure decision of more than six years, at the end of which time the candidate can be reappointed following a reappointment review. See paragraph (c) below. With the approval of the DEO, the dean of the college, and the Executive Vice President and Provost shorter initial appointments can be made.
(c) Time in which to make tenure decision. The norm for making the tenure decision shall be the sixth year of probationary service, except for the Colleges of Law, Medicine, and Dentistry. The norm for the College of Law shall be the fifth year. The Colleges of Dentistry and Medicine may establish a norm of no more than eight years for all tenure track faculty members with significant patient care responsibilities. Other faculty in these two colleges will be subject to the six year norm. A new collegiate norm of more than six years must be approved by a majority of the tenured faculty of the respective college, the dean of the respective college, and the Executive Vice President and Provost. The new norm becomes effective upon approval by the Executive Vice President and Provost. Other colleges may request that the Faculty Senate authorize consideration of changes in their own collegiate norms.
(d) Joint or secondary appointment. If a faculty member has a joint appointment in two colleges with different probationary period norms, or has a secondary appointment in a college with a different probationary period norm, the norm for that faculty member will ordinarily be that of the primary department. If the norm of the secondary college is to be used, this must be agreed to by the faculty member, both DEOs, both deans, and the Executive Vice President and Provost; and the length of the probationary period must be stated in writing in either the offer letter or the memorandum of understanding that defines the terms of the joint appointment.
It is a faculty member's responsibility to notify his or her DEO, dean, or Provost of the relevant qualifying event that activates the automatic extension of the faculty member's tenure clock. The Provost's office shall remind probationary faculty annually of the extension policy and direct probationary faculty to a person in the Provost's office to whom they may provide the notification that activates the automatic extension. Probationary faculty may also provide the relevant notification through any other form of communication with their DEO, dean, or Provost. When providing the relevant notification, the faculty member shall provide the name(s) of the minor child(ren) and the date on which the child(ren) joined the family (e.g., birth date, adoption date). This notification can be submitted at any time but, if the faculty member expects an automatic extension to be granted in what would otherwise have been the tenure decision year, notification must be submitted no later than the department or college deadline by which faculty members are expected to submit their dossiers for review. Upon receipt of the notice, the Associate Provost for Faculty shall issue a written acknowledgment to the dean, with copy to the probationary faculty member, confirming the extension and resetting the relevant tenure decision dates (e.g., for reappointment, tenure review).
To decline an automatic extension (i.e., have clock reset to the previous tenure review date), a faculty member must submit written notification to her or his DEO (when applicable) or dean. Notification can be submitted at any time but, if a faculty member wants to be considered for promotion in the upcoming academic year, notification must be submitted no later than the department or college deadline by which faculty members must notify their DEOs of their desire to be considered for voluntary review (i.e., review at any time prior to the required tenure review year). If such a date is not specified in a college's written procedures, the deadline for notification will be no later than the first day of the academic year in which the promotion decision is to be made. The DEO shall advance notice of the declination to the dean and the Executive Vice President and Provost. When a faculty member declines an automatic extension, her or his tenure clock is reset to its previous date and the tenure expectations remain the same as for probationary faculty members who did not decline or were not eligible for an extension. The Associate Provost for Faculty will issue a written confirmation of the declination, including the reset tenure clock date, to the dean, with copy to the probationary faculty member. Once declined, a faculty member is not able to reinstate an automatic extension for the same minor child. A faculty member with an extended tenure clock may request voluntary review (i.e., the option granted to all faculty members to request review before their official tenure year) without declining the automatic extension.
(ii) Discretionary Extension: The probationary period may be extended upon the mutual agreement of the probationary faculty member, the DEO (when applicable), the dean, and the Executive Vice President and Provost because of a professional or personal impediment, such as the assumption of additional teaching or clinical responsibilities above the normal load at the request of the department or college, the failure of the University to provide resources in a timely manner if the resources are promised in writing, personal health reasons, the assumption of significant ongoing care responsibilities for a spouse, domestic partner, or minor or adult child, or parent with a serious health problem, or because of the death of the faculty member's spouse, domestic partner, or minor or adult child. The faculty member is responsible for describing and documenting the unusually difficult circumstances posed by the impediment in her or his request.
Requests for Discretionary Extensions shall be submitted by the faculty member to the DEO (when applicable), who shall advance a recommendation to the dean for review, recommendation, and subsequent routing to the Executive Vice President and Provost for approval. The Associate Provost for Faculty will issue a written decision to the dean, with copy to the probationary faculty member, and, if approved, the written decision will include the new tenure decision dates. Generally, no extensions under this paragraph (e)(ii) shall extend the probationary period two years beyond what the period would have been, taking into account the relevant collegiate norm and any previously issued automatic or discretionary extensions.
(iii) When the probationary period of a faculty member is extended by one or more years, then the faculty member's reappointment and tenure review dates are postponed by the same number of years (e.g., a probationary faculty member who receives a one-year extension in his or her second year would have his or her "third year" review postponed one year to allow for a full three years of preparation; his or her tenure decision date would also be postponed by one year). Tenure expectations remain the same for probationary faculty members who have received an automatic or discretionary extension. The Office of the Provost shall annually notify probationary faculty members, DEOs, and deans of the existence of this policy.
(g) Prior related experience. In some cases, prior related experience coupled with excellence in teaching and research will warrant a shorter probationary period to be established at the time the faculty member is hired by the University.
(h) Establishment of norm. The establishment of a norm will permit a thorough evaluation and will give the faculty member sufficient time to establish a strong record of performance. A candidate for reappointment shall be evaluated in accordance with III-10.5b below. (See also III-29.5f(2).)
Annual reviews of the performance of probationary faculty members should be made and a full-scale departmental-collegiate review shall be made during the reappointment review conducted in the third or fourth year of service, depending upon the collegiate norm. See paragraph (4)(b) above. Reappointment reviews should take into account the faculty member's proven teaching effectiveness and research productivity and potential. It also should include an evaluation of departmental, collegiate, and University educational goals and include a determination of the likely role of the faculty member in achieving such goals. Only if an institutional need is found likely to exist for a person with the faculty member's substantive background, and only if the faculty member's teaching effectiveness and research productivity and potential are deemed of such a quality that an affirmative tenure decision is likely to be made, should something other than a terminal appointment be tendered. To assure unified decision making at this point, full central administration review of the departmental-collegiate recommendation is necessary.
(i) The tenure decision (President 10/85; amended 2/01; 4/06; 5/07). In making a tenure decision, teaching, research, and other professional contributions must be considered. Further, the institution's overall educational needs must be taken into account along with the institution's fiscal ability to support the position occupied by the faculty member. Thus, the tenure decision has two elements: 1) an evaluation of the actual performance of the individual involved; and 2) an evaluation of institutional needs -- educational and fiscal. A candidate for tenure shall be evaluated in accordance with III-10.5b below. (See also III-29.5f(2).)
While the individual evaluation relates to teaching, research, and other professional contributions, the University's policy recognizes specifically that the first two elements -- teaching and research -- are the fundamental tasks of a faculty member. Although teaching is a faculty member's primary obligation, teaching and research are inextricably intertwined. Over a period of years, outstanding university teaching is unlikely to be maintained in the absence of strong research efforts by the faculty member. And university research -- as distinguished from similar work off-campus -- normally is stimulated and encouraged by the faculty member's teaching role.
The first step in a tenure decision should be an evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Only after an affirmative judgment as to teaching effectiveness is made should serious consideration be given to an evaluation of research competence. Unless a determination is made that the faculty member involved is an effective teacher -- whether at the departmental or interdisciplinary level -- tenure is not and should not be granted. Only after an affirmative decision as to teaching effectiveness is made should consideration be given to research. And only after both of the basic criteria are satisfied is an affirmative tenure decision possible. The University is committed to the proposition that neither teaching nor research standing alone justifies the granting of tenure. In the absence of research, it is believed -- and strongly believed -- that teaching effectiveness will not be maintained for a lifetime career. Thus, while teaching effectiveness is the condition precedent to a consideration of the quality of research, in the absence of quality research, teaching effectiveness alone will not permit the granting of tenure.
In summary, The University of Iowa is both a teaching and research institution, as all good universities are. Unless both tasks are accomplished, the University's vitality will be sapped and neither function will be performed well. As noted, the two functions cannot be separated. Unless a faculty member is able and willing to permit her or his ideas to be evaluated by peers, the faculty member is not performing fully the function assigned, and effective teaching is unlikely to continue.
Throughout the process of making a tenure decision, all concerned must recognize that an affirmative tenure decision is a prediction of future conduct, which prediction is based primarily on past performance. Unless those making the decision have a record of excellence before them -- a record of excellence in both teaching and research -- the prediction about the future is too uncertain to justify an affirmative decision. Any other premise is inconsistent with the "permanence" associated with tenure. The tenure decision is the most important quality control available to the University. And unless the record presented is one of excellence in both teaching and research, an affirmative prediction about the future is too uncertain to be tolerated. In making a tenure recommendation to the Board of Regents, the University must be taken as saying that its prediction is based on a record of excellence.
The process of making a tenure recommendation to the Board of Regents shall follow University and collegiate "Procedures for Tenure and Promotion Decision Making at The University of Iowa." The process starts with a review of the faculty member's performance by the tenured members of the department involved, the review to be instituted by the DEO. While not all-controlling, an affirmative peer group recommendation is an almost necessary condition to the granting of tenure. Because of the significance of peer group recommendations, each academic unit is expected to develop and distribute to all departmental faculty members and to all persons under serious consideration for appointment to the faculty a written and particularized statement of expectations to guide departmental deliberations concerning the granting of tenure -- the statement to serve as a guide to the department in its deliberations, and to the faculty member whose tenure status is being considered. The particularized statement must, of course, be consistent with University-wide policy relating to teaching, research, and other professional activities. In addition, all concerned should recognize that a decision relating to quality must be made and that such a decision can be quantified only in part. The nature of the decision is such that it necessarily is subjective to some extent.
Within the University administration, consultation occurs and the record and recommendations are examined carefully to assure that University standards have been met. As at all levels, educational goals, program changes, and fiscal needs must be taken into account and may lead to a decision to deny tenure despite a record of teaching and research accomplishment sufficient to support an affirmative decision on the basis of performance. At the departmental level, departmental educational goals and fiscal needs must be considered; at the collegiate level, collegiate educational goals and fiscal needs must be taken into account; and at the central level, overall University needs play a dominant role. To assure fairness to faculty members who are denied tenure or whose contracts are not renewed because of a shift in educational goals and/or financial resources, every reasonable effort should be made to give advance notice of possible shifts, and to protect the professional reputations of such faculty members. As part of that protection, the affected faculty member shall be given a written statement documenting the reason(s) for the decision. While changing educational goals and/or fiscal resources are a necessary consideration in the making of tenure decisions, such changes must not be asserted unless real, and they must not be used as a ground for denying tenure when, in fact, tenure is being denied for other, perhaps improper, reasons.
The final step, of course, is a University recommendation to the Board of Regents. The process is complex and difficult. Many of the ideas expressed above -- uniform University-wide review of promotions and tenure, the insistence on "hard" data with respect to teaching effectiveness, careful review of research output -- stem from a resolution adopted unanimously by the Faculty Senate in October of 1972 and codified substantially in University regulations. Fairness to all -- the probationary faculty members, the students, the institution, and the State of Iowa -- require the kind of review described above. The University's academic excellence and vitality require such a review.
(6) Affirmative action and tenure. As affirmative action and tenure function at The University of Iowa, they are completely compatible concepts. Both seek to assure the acquisition and retention of those who are most qualified. In the appointment process, affirmative action operates to assure that the most qualified available person is identified and is offered the opportunity to join the faculty; and after initial appointment, it assures that in making tenure and salary decisions, irrelevant considerations such as race and sex play no role.
Prior to the initiation of the affirmative action program, the traditional process of identifying the most qualified person for an available position was somewhat limited in scope and, thus, the pool from which the most qualified person was drawn was relatively narrow. Under the present affirmative action program, all positions are advertised widely and direct inquiries are made of many more persons than in the past. With the expanded search, the pool from which to draw has been broadened substantially. The goal of the selection process has remained unchanged -- to select the most qualified from among those available. With a broader pool from which to draw, the University can be more confident that the person truly most qualified has been identified. As affirmative action and tenure function at The University of Iowa, not only are the two compatible; they complement each other in assuring a quality faculty.
Only if the University's tenure system becomes frozen -- either by the imposition of quotas on the percentage of persons who may acquire tenure or by restricting access to the tenure rank because substantially all faculty members have tenure -- is tenure incompatible with affirmative action. If either quotas are established or tenuring-in occurs, access and upward mobility become impossible or extremely difficult; and in such a situation, affirmative action is stymied and vitality lost.
Coupling a dedication to affirmative action with awareness of the problem, initial appointment practices that limit somewhat the number of persons appointed to probationary (tenure ladder) positions, and firm quality control in the process of tenure decision-making, the University sees no danger of unduly restricting access to tenured positions to the extent that would subvert its affirmative action program. Any quota system restricting access to tenure by establishing maximum percentages of tenured faculty members can only function to the detriment of the University's vitality and to its affirmative action program. Those who qualify and are needed must be rewarded or initiative will be destroyed. Access to tenured ranks must remain open to those who qualify or women and minority group members without tenure will be deterred from joining The University of Iowa faculty. With an open system -- and we are persuaded that it can remain open -- vitality will remain and affirmative action accomplished.
c. Termination of tenured faculty.
(2) The appointment of a tenured faculty member may be terminated for:
(c) Financial exigency that is demonstrable and bona fide, defined as a financial crisis which exists or is imminent and which, if not corrected, threatens the survival of the University as a whole, but only if the crisis cannot be corrected by less drastic means than termination of tenured faculty.
(d) Programmatic change or discontinuance for academic reasons (when approved by the President of the University and the Board of Regents) which cannot reasonably be accomplished without terminating the tenure of faculty in the particular program. No faculty member may be terminated becasue of programmatic change or discontinuance unless, following the good faith efforts of the University and the faculty member, the faculty member cannot be transferred to another college or department where the professional services of the faculty member can be used effectively.
10.2 CRITERIA FOR PROMOTIONS.
(President 10/85; amended 2/01)
The criteria for promotions include teaching, research, and other professional contributions. Since teaching and research are the central functions of the faculty, other professional contributions are considered subsidiary to these fundamental tasks. The length of service, whether long or short, does not constitute, of itself, a qualification for promotion nor the sole justification for the denial of same. It is also the policy of the University that promotions shall not be dependent upon offers of positions from other institutions. A candidate for promotion shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of III-10.5b. (See III-29.5d(4)(b), second paragraph.)
b. Research. In most of the fields represented in the programs of the University, publications in media of quality are expected as evidence of scholarly interest pursued independently of supervision or direction. An original contribution of a creative nature is as significant or as deserving as the publication of a scholarly book or article. Quality of production is considered more important than mere quantity. Significant evidence of scholarly merit may be either in a single work of considerable importance or a series of studies constituting a general program of worthwhile research. The candidate should pursue a definite, continuing program of studies, investigations or creative works.
c. Other professional contributions. From time to time, a faculty member is called upon to render major professional services to the University or to society in general. Such contributions should be evaluated in terms of the effectiveness with which the service is performed, its relation to the general welfare of the University and its effect on the development of the individual.
10.3 ASSIGNMENT OF ACADEMIC RANK.
Academic ranks of assistant professor, associate professor, and professor should be assigned only to those who are directly engaged in the teaching of courses approved for listing in the University Catalog or engaged in research which involves the teaching of graduate students.
10.4 QUALIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIC RANKS.
(Amended 6/99; 10/00; 7/01)
Each academic unit is expected to develop detailed tenure and promotion criteria consistent with the following qualifications. If the pattern and practice in some units deviates markedly from these norms, such units may seek approval of the Executive Vice President and Provost for alternate criteria.
(2) Holder of the doctorate or its equivalent.
(3) Promise of scholarly productivity, supported by publications or the equivalent.
(4) Term of appointment is typically three years, although it may be for a shorter period of time if recommended by the departmental executive officer and the dean of the college.
(5) Appointments at the rank of assistant professor shall ordinarily not exceed a total of seven years of service and thus shall be reviewed for tenure no later than during the sixth year of service. Unless otherwise agreed upon, the status of a faculty member who has served both as an instructor and as assistant professor in this University should be reviewed during the sixth year of service in the two ranks combined. A faculty member for whom a denial-of-tenure recommendation has been made by the Executive Vice President and Provost shall be given notification of a terminal year of appointment.
(2) Demonstration of artistic or scholarly achievement supported by substantial publications or equivalent artistic creations or performances, of high quality, as appropriate to the discipline(s).
(3) Departmental, collegiate, and/or University service and, if appropriate, professional service will be expected at an appropriate level.
(4) The quality and quantity of teaching, scholarly/artistic accomplishment, and service should give unmistakable promise of promotion to full professor.
(5) A tenure appointment, except that for persons appointed from off the campus the initial appointment may be for a term of three years or less.
(2) Continued artistic or scholarly achievement of high quality, accompanied by unmistakable evidence that the candidate is a nationally and, where applicable, internationally recognized scholar or creative artist in the chosen field.
(3) The candidate should have a record of significant and effective service to the department, college, and/or the University and, if appropriate, to the profession.
(4) A tenure appointment, except that for persons appointed from off the campus the initial appointment may be for a term of three years or less.
10.5 REVIEW AND PROMOTION PROCEDURES.
(President 10/85; amended 2/01; 7/01; 5/07)
b. A candidate for tenure and/or promotion or reappointment shall be evaluated under the relevant, clearly defined standards of the faculty member's academic unit(s) that were 1) in effect at the time of the faculty member's initial appointment or promotion to the rank currently held; 2) any such standards in effect since that time; or 3) any such standards in effect at the time of the evaluation, whichever of these the candidate elects. However, no standards may be applied if they were superseded more years ago than the time specified as normal time at rank (adjusted to account for any extension, family leave, or illness granted to the faculty member). For assistant professors, the normal time in rank is six years, unless the college has established a longer probationary period norm (III-10.1a(4)(c)), and for associate professors seven years (see paragraph a above). The candidate shall make an election under this section no later than the end of the academic year prior to the academic year in which the candidate is considered for tenure and/or promotion or reappointment. Absent such election, the standards for evaluation shall be those standards in effect at the end of the academic year before the academic year in which the candidate is considered for tenure and/or promotion or reappointment.
(2) Quality. As a center of learning, the University of Iowa measures itself by exacting standards, honors high aspiration and achievement, and expects all persons associated with the University to strive for excellence.
(3) Responsibility. The University of Iowa is obligated to exercise responsible stewardship over the intellectual and material resources entrusted to it. As a public institution, the University aims for accessibility, affordability, and quality, so that a broad array of qualified students from Iowa and elsewhere may obtain an excellent education at reasonable cost. The University recognizes the responsibility of its faculty to determine what students should learn and to shape the body of knowledge that will be passed on to future generations. It is also the University's obligation to engage all members of its community in collective reflection on their responsibilities not only to their disciplines and professions but also to the institution and to society.
The expectations of work for the attainment of tenure are spelled out in various documents relating to pre-tenured faculty. Pre-tenure effort allocations must generate profiles that demonstrate teaching effectiveness, research, and, to a lesser extent, service.
Faculty profiles can be expected to look most alike at the time of the tenure decision. It seems reasonable, and even desirable, however, to expect that after tenure, faculty careers will begin to diversify as individuals develop different strengths and assume different responsibilities. This policy establishes the concept of a "faculty portfolio" that allows for variations in the combination of teaching, research, and service for a limited period of time through which faculty can make their maximum contribution to the University's mission. Because the efforts of all faculty will be marshaled in ways to assure that the talents of all at a given time are used most effectively, use of individualized portfolios and portfolios consistent with unit norms should only have a positive impact on the quality of faculty teaching and research.
The faculty portfolio concept reflects the notion that tenured faculty members may negotiate with their DEOs individualized patterns of work that differ from the expected distribution of efforts for a typical faculty portfolio (herein "unit norms") of their college, department, or unit (hereinafter called unit). These portfolios, however, should be developed with the view that all faculty within a unit will commit their collective strengths to fulfilling the overall mission of their units and the University consistent with appropriate strategic plans. The opportunity for differential allocation of post-tenure effort thus facilitates the attainment of the University's core values of quality, learning and responsibility.
The activities of faculty at institutions with a significant research mission differ markedly from the activities of faculty at institutions with no significant research mission. Immediately below are highlighted some of the prominent features of the activities of the faculty at The University of Iowa under the categories of: 1) Teaching, 2) Research, Scholarship, and Creative Work, and 3) Service, Administration, and Outreach.
Other important teaching efforts include faculty initiatives to improve instruction through the design and revision of the curriculum, the creation of new courses, the revision of existing courses, and supervision of the creative work and research of students.
The unique requirements and features of faculty work in the different types of classes taught can vary. For example, in a large lecture course, considerable effort is spent in preparing lectures, maintaining records of student work, and coordinating teaching with other faculty in other sections of the course. By contrast, in a clinical or professional course, considerable effort is devoted to working with small groups of students in clinical or professional settings, arranging for the settings and the student activities in these settings, and closely guiding the interactive work of the students in those settings.
(2) Research, scholarship, and creative work. Faculty conduct a wide range of research, scholarship, and creative work to advance the core value of learning, including engaging in hands-on creative work and research, directing and collaborating with graduate students and professional students in joint creative activities and research, directing and supervising undergraduate creative work and research, and supporting this scholarly work through efforts to arrange and sustain adequate physical, financial, and institutional (and inter-institutional) support.
As with teaching, there are many different types of activities necessary to create and sustain vitality in research, scholarship, and creative work by faculty. At the center of this activity, faculty require the time and resources to pursue scholarly or creative work in the laboratory, the library, the studio or office, and/or in the field, to supervise and direct the work of their students, to write proposals to obtain support for their projects, to attend professional meetings and to consult with a variety of groups and individuals to enhance their understanding of problems and challenges.
(3) Service, administration, and outreach. Faculty serve their professional colleagues and organizations, the public, and various off-campus constituencies. They also administer and govern the academic programs and services of the University and assist colleagues and University administrators with a variety of functions and tasks.
With regard to professional service, faculty are often asked to hold offices in professional organizations and help to organize professional meetings. They edit books and professional journals and serve as reviewers for such publications. They serve on federal and regional panels and offer advice to private, corporate and government funding agencies. With regard to public service, faculty may provide health care, legal service, artistic leadership, and educational expertise. Faculty offer educational outreach programs to the business community, community organizations, and governmental bodies. Faculty expend considerable effort to help administer and govern the University. They chair departments, serve on a wide-range of appointed and elected committees, and recommend the allocation of fiscal and human resources necessary to the educational mission of the institution.
The University's commitment to learning and to the above listing of some of the efforts of faculty toward the achievement of that commitment implicitly recognize that teaching, research, and service are inextricably interwoven and that the proportions of time and effort that all faculty within a unit devote to them at any particular time need not be equal.
(2) Over a faculty member's aggregate post-tenure work life, the faculty member is expected to contribute to the University's core value of learning by efforts expended primarily in teaching and research and, to a lesser extent, service. In some units, the common use of the terms "service" or "clinical service" includes efforts that may properly be viewed as teaching or research.
(3) As individual faculty members follow typical post-tenure career patterns, shifts may occur in the proportion of a faculty member's efforts devoted to these three components, capitalizing on the individual faculty strengths at any particular time to fulfill the teaching, research, and service needs of the unit or the University.
(4) Following the adoption of this policy, the faculty of each unit will develop expected norms for a typical faculty portfolio reflecting its judgment as to the appropriate allocation of effort for its faculty among teaching, research and service. Unit norms must be approved by the dean in which the unit is located and by the Executive Vice President and Provost. Changes in unit norms must be initiated by the faculty of the unit and approved by the dean in which the unit is located and by the Executive Vice President and Provost.
(5) Faculty members within a unit may negotiate with the DEO individualized effort portfolios that differ from the unit norms. Ordinarily, portfolios are effective for a maximum of two years. Renewals are possible. Either the individual faculty member or the DEO may initiate discussions for an individualized portfolio. Agreements concerning individualized faculty portfolios that differ from unit norms shall be formalized in a document to be included in the faculty member's personnel file. Such agreements should reflect a clear understanding of the efforts to be made by the faculty member.
(6) The use of individualized portfolios within a unit must advance the teaching, research or service missions of the unit or the University, must not significantly compromise the unit's teaching, research, and service mission, and should be consistent with the career goals of the faculty. Because of this, no faculty member is entitled to, or can be compelled to have, an individualized portfolio. Furthermore, when considering the advisability of an individualized portfolio, both the DEO and the faculty member should consider how such a portfolio would fit with the goals of the unit, the University, and the faculty member.
(7) The DEO shall discuss all proposed individualized portfolios with the dean or Executive Vice President and Provost, who will approve them before they are implemented during the subsequent academic year. The DEO also shall distribute to the faculty of the unit a list of faculty members who have negotiated individualized portfolios, together with a statement of the area of emphasis for those particular faculty members and a statement of how the unit strategic plan will continue to be realized by the unit faculty taken as a group. All of this shall occur within sufficient time to permit appropriate planning of the unit's teaching, research and service mission.
(8) The use of individualized portfolios within a unit will not compromise the standards required for a tenured faculty member to obtain promotion. Therefore, individualized faculty portfolios that would interfere with a tenured faculty member's opportunity to be promoted in a timely manner are inadvisable.
(9) Regardless of how a faculty member's responsibilities are distributed among teaching, research, and service, the faculty member is expected to perform those responsibilities to a high standard of excellence. For purposes of annual merit pay adjustments and peer review evaluations, all faculty will be evaluated relative to how well they perform their efforts pursuant to their individualized portfolio, or, if none, consistent with unit norms, and without regard to whether those efforts involve teaching, research, or service.
Example #2: Faculty members A, B, C, and D are in the same unit. Faculty A and the DEO agree that, for a particular period, Faculty A will have greater classroom teaching obligations than would otherwise be the norm within the unit. Faculty B and the DEO agree that, during some particular period, Faculty B will have greater governance responsibilities that would otherwise be the norm. Faculty C and the DEO agree that, for a particular period, Faculty C will have greater research obligations than would otherwise be the norm. Faculty D's responsibilities remain consistent with unit norms.
The efforts of each of them will be rewarded on the basis of how well each performs such activities, since all of them contribute in their respective ways to the overall mission of the unit. If each individual performs his or her agreed upon activities to the highest level, then the merit pay of each should be determined in the same manner, all other things being equal (e.g., no salary compression issues; no competing offers).
On the other hand, if one of them excels in the performance of his or her agreed upon activities while the other three faculty members' performances of their efforts are deemed very good, the faculty member who excelled should receive a higher merit pay adjustment.
Example #3: Unit X has adopted unit norms that state that in the absence of individualized portfolios, faculty members in the unit shall allocate 50% of their time to teaching, 40% of their time to research, and 10% of their time to service. All but two faculty in the unit have allocated their work efforts according to those norms this year. The work effort of Faculty A and Faculty B, who joined the unit within one year of each other, typically comport with unit norms. This year, however, each of them has an individualized portfolio with Faculty A's time being allocated: 70% to teaching, 20% to research, and 10% to service and Faculty B's time being allocated: 70% to research, 20% to teaching, and 10% to service.
Faculty A has a history of being a good teacher and scholar. Faculty B is recognized to be an exceptional scholar and has consistently been assessed as one of the premier teachers in the unit. In the current year, both A and B continue to perform their work as they have in the past. Under this policy Faculty B should receive a higher merit pay adjustment than Faculty A.
10.7 REVIEW OF TENURED FACULTY MEMBERS.
(Faculty Senate 3/29/11; amended Faculty Council 8/11)
(b) A peer review should, in the main, be formative and developmental, and should facilitate and encourage professional vitality.
(3) Rationale. A tenured faculty member has the responsibility of strengthening his or her university citizenship through his or her work in education, research, and service. The faculty member must also ensure that he or she continues to strive to meet this responsibility. Post-tenure review is a process that has been developed to assess a tenured faculty member's progress. The process includes annual review or evaluation conducted by the faculty member's unit head, and a five-year review conducted by the faculty member's peers.
When, as a result of an annual review, the unit head concludes that there are significant deficiencies related to teaching, research, or service, the unit head shall provide written notifications of these conclusions to the faculty member being reviewed, and the faculty member will be given an opportunity to respond in writing. The final report and the faculty member's response will be sent to the dean and will be kept with the faculty member's personnel records.
The annual review will consider, as appropriate, issues of long-term research, instructional development, or service that cannot be adequately represented on a strictly annual basis. Faculty members being reviewed by their department for the special purpose of promotion may be exempted from this annual faculty review requirement.
c. Five-year peer review of tenured faculty.
(2) Procedure. All tenured faculty members will undergo a peer review once every five years subsequent to their most recent tenure or promotion review. Faculty members are exempted from their scheduled five-year peer review if:
(b) they are within one year of announced retirement or are on phased retirement, or
(c) they serve as DEO, assistant dean, associate dean, or dean.
(3) Plan. Consistent with the foregoing, each college must develop and implement a plan for the five-year peer review of each tenured faculty member. The plan is to include specific guidelines regarding:
(b) committee procedures and timelines;
(c) materials to be reviewed;
(d) distribution and use of the committee's written report; and
(e) mechanisms for the faculty member to respond.
A faculty member who believes that she or he has been treated unfairly at any point during the five-year peer review process may seek redress of her or his grievance within the scope and framework of III-29.6 Faculty Dispute Procedures.
If the plan prepared by the peer review committee and the dean is not agreed to by the faculty member, then the faculty member will provide a written justification for not agreeing to the plan. The plan and the faculty member's response will be submitted to the Provost, who will make the final determination as to whether the plan should be implemented. If the faculty member believes that there are grounds for grievance, then the faculty member may seek redress of his or her grievance within the scope and framework of IlI-29.6 Faculty Dispute Procedures.
In deciding whether or not to implement such a plan, it is important that the dean and DEO respect the importance of tenure and the academic freedom it is designed to protect. With respect to research, there is a critical distinction between a faculty member who has ambitious research programs that they are actively pursuing and the very few faculty members who have no such plans and who have had no work in progress for a substantial period of time. It is expected that if plans envisioned focus on research productivity, they would typically be appropriate only for the latter group.
If the plan is implemented, then the dean (or dean's designee) and the DEO will oversee the faculty member's progress under the plan. If after the agreed-to time period, the dean and the DEO, in consultation with the peer review committee, find no acceptable progress, then the DEO, the dean, the Provost, and the peer review committee will meet to decide which of the consequences described in the plan will go into effect. The consequences will be implemented by the dean, in consultation with the DEO, and monitored by the Provost.
Use of the special review procedures described above does not preclude deans from utilizing available, alternative procedures for addressing problems of unacceptable performance of duty (III-29.7, III-29.8). On those rare occasions where a faculty member has proved unwilling or unable to benefit from developmental assistance to improve his or her performance, the administration may feel compelled to proceed against the faculty member in a disciplinary or unfitness proceeding, where the burden of proof is on the administration to show that the proposed sanction is justified. However, deans are strongly encouraged to proceed with formative and developmental plans before resorting to such measures.
(2) "Faculty member" means a person holding the rank of assistant professor, associate professor or professor.
c. Requirements and qualifications. Except for the time periods specified in III-10.5, all requirements and qualifications of III-10.1-10.5 apply to part-time faculty members.
d. Time periods. The six- and seven-year periods specified in III-10.5 are applicable to full-time faculty members. For the purposes of III-10.5, the service of part-time faculty members will be calculated by adding together part-time service (fifty percent or more) until the time periods set forth in III-10.5 and elsewhere have been completed. Thus, twelve years of fifty percent service will be deemed the equivalent of six years of full-time service; ten years of sixty percent service will be deemed the equivalent of six years of full-time service; eight years of seventy-five percent service will be the equivalent of six years of full-time service; and six years of seventy-five percent service coupled with three years of fifty percent service will be deemed the equivalent of six years of full-time service.
e. Tenure status. Tenure status shall be awarded to part-time faculty members who are found to meet University standards for granting tenure, with the performance expectations to be identical with those required of full-time faculty members. Faculty service which is less than fifty percent of full-time service will not be credited towards completion of a probationary period leading to a tenure decision.
f. Percentage of full-time service. The percentage of full-time service obligation and right of a part-time faculty member who has earned tenure normally will be at the median percentage of full-time service rendered by the faculty member during the probationary period. Part-time faculty members who currently have tenure shall have a percentage of full-time service obligation and right at the percentage at which the faculty member was serving when tenure was awarded.
g. Adjusting part-time service. The decision to increase permanently to full time the percentage of a part-time faculty member's service is to be made in the same fashion as a new hiring decision and in all cases the person most qualified to fill the available position will be employed. A present part-time faculty member shall be given preference in filling a vacancy in his or her academic unit, however, if equally qualified for the position in comparison with all other applicants. In considering whether to increase a part-time faculty member to full-time status or to employ a new full-time faculty member, the decision will be made wholly on the merits of the candidates under consideration and shall not be influenced by the fact that it may be more inconvenient to move the present part-time faculty member to full time and to hire a new part-time faculty member than to employ a new full-time faculty member, nor to the extent fiscal resources permit, by the fact that the salary of the part-time faculty member when moved to full time may be higher than that of a full-time faculty member hired from off campus. A part-time faculty member and the collegiate dean may agree in writing at any time (a) to decrease permanently the percentage of full-time service to be required of the faculty member, as long as the percentage does not fall below fifty percent; and (b) to decrease or increase temporarily -- for not more than two years -- the percentage of service to be rendered.
h. Reducing full-time appointment. Any agreement that a full-time tenured appointee will thereafter serve on a part-time basis shall specify either (1) that the tenured appointment thereafter will relate solely to service on an agreed part-time basis; or (2) that the appointee will return to full-time service on a specified date. Such an agreement shall be in writing and is subject to modification only by a written agreement between the faculty member and the collegiate dean. In no event shall the percentage of tenure status be reduced to less than fifty percent.
i. Rights and Responsibilities. Part-time faculty members shall be entitled to all University, collegiate and departmental rights, and have all responsibilities of full-time faculty members.
10.9 CLINICAL TRACK POLICY.
(Regents enacted 2/15/95; amended 7/00; 1/02; 4/05)
Preamble. Consistent with the University's need to retain the flexibility to adjust its programs to meet the changing needs of students and society, non-tenure track clinical faculty may be appointed and promoted as provided below. This policy sets parameters within which individual colleges can, but are not required to, develop policies and procedures that permit the hiring of clinical faculty. Operationally it is similar to the tenure policy, in that collegiate policy would amplify University policy and would be approved by the Executive Vice President and Provost.
b. Role of clinical faculty. All clinical faculty must devote a significant portion of their time to providing or overseeing the delivery of professional services to individual patients or clients. In addition, teaching students, residents, or fellows of the University at the undergraduate, graduate, professional, or postgraduate level is an essential job function for all faculty (whether tenured, tenure track, or clinical). Thus, clinical faculty are expected to integrate the delivery of their professional services with their teaching. While the use of clinical faculty is most easily conceived in the context of health sciences and law where faculty are involved in the delivery of professional services to patients and clients, there are other disciplines in other colleges where the use of clinical faculty for similar purposes may be entirely appropriate. The services provided by clinical faculty outside of the health science colleges should be the professional equivalent of services provided to patients. The use of clinical faculty largely to perform administrative functions with little or no teaching obligations is inconsistent with this policy. Similarly, it is inappropriate to use clinical track faculty largely to engage in research, scholarship, or artistic creation.
c. Types of appointments. As used herein, "clinical faculty" can hold one of two types of appointment within the University:
(2) Nonsalaried appointments. Other clinical faculty may hold nonsalaried positions with the University, but they are not considered employees of the University. These clinical faculty contribute in a material way to the University's missions, although their obligations are more limited in scope than salaried faculty. They do not participate in faculty governance and do not receive salary or benefits outside of nominal remunerations. However, recognizing their contributions with a "clinical faculty" designation denotes the importance of their teaching and service functions. There is no limit on the number of such nonsalaried clinical faculty who can be appointed within individual colleges.
Initial appointments for salaried clinical faculty are one to three years in duration. After three years, or prior to that if a promotion is contemplated, a full-scale, departmental-collegiate review will be made. This review should take into account the faculty member's demonstrated effectiveness in fulfilling teaching and service missions. It should also include an evaluation of the departmental, collegiate, and University educational and service goals and the likely role of the faculty member in the future in achieving those goals. To assure unified decision-making at this point, full central administration review of the departmental-collegiate recommendation is necessary.
After a positive review, salaried clinical faculty will receive terms of appointment dependent on the rank. Instructors will receive two-year appointments; assistant professors, associate professors, and professors will receive three- to seven-year appointments. Faculty will be reviewed on a schedule commensurate with their appointments according to written standards of competence and performance defined by their unit.
(2) Nonsalaried appointments. Nonsalaried clinical faculty are appointed pursuant to procedures adopted by individual colleges and approved by the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost.
e. Qualifications for specific ranks. The ranks of clinical faculty shall be assigned as defined below, and in accordance with collegiate policies.
(b) Promise of ability to contribute to teaching.
(b) Evidence of ability to contribute to teaching.
(3) Associate Professor.
(b) Evidence of progress toward a record of professional productivity beyond clinical service, as defined by the college.
(b) An established record of professional productivity beyond clinical service, as defined by the college.
(c) Unmistakable evidence of recognition by peers, as defined by the college.
(2) Nonsalaried clinical faculty. Procedures and criteria for the promotion of nonsalaried clinical faculty shall be adopted by individual colleges and approved by the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost. The provisions of III-10.5 and those regarding salaried clinical faculty described herein do not apply.
(b) A decision not to renew an appointment of a salaried clinical faculty member may be for failure to meet written standards of competence and performance established by the unit and the University, or for changed economic circumstances or program needs such that the position itself is terminated. Non-renewal for changed economic circumstances or program needs may only occur at the conclusion of an appointment, and must carry appropriate notice.
(c) Notice of non-renewal of appointment, or of intention not to recommend reappointment after a stated period has elapsed, is given in writing in accordance with the following standards:
(ii) Not later than December 15 of the second year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or the appointment terminates during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination.
(iii) At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years of service in the institution.
(2) The resulting policy statement will provide detailed guidelines for every relevant item in this section on "Clinical Faculty." In the development of a policy statement, the following elements should be addressed:
(b) Procedures for appointment, reappointment, and promotion.
(c) Criteria for appointment, reappointment, and promotion.
(d) Participation in peer review for appointment, reappointment, and promotion of other faculty.
(e) Teaching. If the college defines "teaching" as training or instruction given to individuals or small groups while service is delivered, then that limited definition will apply to the evaluation of teaching for appointment, reappointment, and promotion purposes.
(f) Professional productivity beyond clinical service.
10.10 RESEARCH TRACK POLICY.
(Regents enacted 6/12/08)
Preamble. Consistent with the University's need to retain the flexibility to adjust its programs to meet the changing needs of the modern research university, non-tenured research-track faculty may be appointed and promoted as provided below. This policy sets parameters within which individual colleges can develop policies and procedures that permit the hiring of research-track faculty. Operationally, collegiate policy would amplify this policy.
b. Role of research-track faculty. Research-track faculty will devote almost all of their time to performing externally supported research and are expected to submit or assist in the submission of research grant applications. Teaching is an essential function of all faculty, but in the case of the research-track faculty it would occur predominantly in the form of service on doctoral committees with the approval of the Graduate College. Research-track faculty cannot be chairs of doctoral defense committees because this is the role of the tenured/tenure-track faculty. Research-track faculty cannot be assigned to teach courses, but they could be assigned, as needed, to provide auxiliary lectures on areas of knowledge relevant to their research or to engage in other teaching as may be required by the terms of their research grant or contract. Research-track faculty cannot be assigned to perform administrative functions with little or no research obligations as that assignment would be inconsistent with this policy.
c. Collegiate policies and changes; size of research faculty.
(b) Procedures for appointment, reappointment, and promotion of research-track faculty.
(c) Criteria for appointment, reappointment, and promotion for research-track faculty.
(d) Research-track faculty members may apply for open positions in the tenure track, but they may be appointed to the tenure track only one time during their career at The University of Iowa. Colleges may further define their own policies related to track switching.
(3) Support for research-track faculty, including all start-up costs, shall be funded exclusively by grants, contracts, clinical income, and private donations, and not with general education funds.
(4) The initial policy to create a research track in a college and any proposal made at any time to change that policy within a college must obtain both the approval of a majority of the tenured/tenure-track faculty within the college and the approval of a majority of the research-track faculty within the college by a vote supervised by the Associate Provost for Faculty. Any proposal to adopt or to change a college's research track policy must be approved by the University of Iowa Faculty Senate, the Executive Vice President and Provost, and the President. Any collegiate policy must be wholly consistent with this policy.
Initial appointments for research-track faculty are one to three years in duration. After three years or prior to that if a promotion is contemplated, a full-scale, departmental-collegiate review will be made. This review should take into account the research-track faculty member's effectiveness in fulfilling the research mission and the ability of the research-track faculty member to obtain and sustain extramural salary support. It also should include an evaluation of the departmental, collegiate, and University research goals and the likely role of the research-track faculty member in the future in achieving those goals. To assure adherence to standard procedures, a full central administration review of the departmental-collegiate recommendation is necessary.
After approval of the departmental-collegiate review, research-track faculty will receive terms of appointment consistent with established procedures for non-tenure track University employees; however, appointments cannot be for a period longer than current external support for that faculty member.
Research-track faculty will be reviewed on a schedule commensurate with their appointments, according to written standards of competence and performance defined by their college and departments. Reappointments are to be made only if the research faculty member has a demonstrated record of successfully obtaining external support to fund the research-track faculty member's research.
e. Qualifications for specific ranks. The ranks of research-track faculty shall be assigned as defined below, and in accordance with collegiate policies.
(b) Evidence of productive scholarship.
(c) Evidence of ability to fulfill relevant responsibilities in the research enterprise.
(b) Record of productive scholarship, including evidence of sustained extramural research funding and salary support.
(c) Fulfillment of important responsibilities in the research enterprise.
(b) Record of research excellence, including an established record of continued sustained research funding.
(c) Unmistakable evidence of national or international recognition by peers.
g. Promotion. The question of promotion of research-track faculty may be brought up during any regular promotions cycle. Promotion of research-track faculty will follow University and collegiate "Procedures for Research-Track Promotion Decision Making at The University of Iowa." All recommendations for promotion of research faculty are submitted to the Board of Regents for approval.
h. Termination and non-renewal.
(2) A decision not to renew an appointment of a research-track faculty member may be for failure to meet written standards of competence and performance established by the unit and the University, or for changed economic circumstances or program needs such that the position itself is terminated. Non-renewal for changed economic circumstances or program needs may only occur at the conclusion of an appointment and must carry appropriate notice.
(3) Notice of non-renewal of appointment, or of intention not to recommend reappointment after a stated period has elapsed, is given in writing in accordance with the following standards:
(b) Not later than December 15 of the second year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if the appointment terminates during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination.
(c) At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years of service in the institution.
10.11 EXCEPTIONS TO EMPLOYMENT REGULATIONS.
Contracts of employment made by the University with the members of its instructional staff are subject to the following exceptions and general regulations:
b. Deans, directors, chairpersons, or heads of departments have such academic rank as may be given them. The duties and titles of administrative officers are separate from their academic ranks. The dismissal or resignation of officers from an administrative position does not impair their rights in their academic rank.