SP 22-11 - University Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Policy (supersedes SP 17-08)

Table of Contents

A. RTP Process, CSUCI Mission, and the University’s Values
B. Application of this Document
C. General Standards for Retention, Tenure, and Promotion
D. University Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Committee
E. Program Personnel Committees (See also Section S, Responsibilities of Program Personnel Committees)
F. Appointment
G. Service Credit: Credit for Prior Experience
H. Professional Development Plan
I. Program Personnel Standards
J. Period of Review
K. The Portfolio
L. Review Process and Levels
M. Eligibility to Participate in the RTP Review Process
N. Requirements for Retention
O. Requirements for Tenure
P. Requirements for Promotion
Q. Procedures for RTP Evaluations, Recommendations, and Decisions
R. Rights and Responsibilities of Faculty Members
S. Responsibilities of Program Personnel Committees
T. Responsibilities of Program Chairs
U. Responsibilities of Deans
V. Responsibilities of the University Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Committee
W. Responsibilities of the Provost (or Vice President for Student Affairs [VPSA] for Counselor Faculty)
X. Responsibilities of the President
Y. Confidentiality

Appendix A:  Portfolio Checklist

Appendix B: Documentation of Scholarly and/or Creative Activities

Appendix C: Guidelines for Rebuttal Statements

Accountability: Division of Academic Affairs, Division of Student Affairs (for Counselor faculty)

Applicability: All CSUCI faculty and administrators involved in the Retention, Tenure, and Promotion process.

Definition(s):
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA):  The Collective Bargaining Agreement (i.e., “the Contract”) between the California Faculty Association and the California State University.
Conflict of Interest: A situation that arises when, due to activities or relationships outside the RTP review process, a faculty member or administrator is unable or potentially unable to perform impartial service, or their objectivity in performing their role might be otherwise impaired.

CSU Channel Islands: California State University Channel Islands (also referred to as “CSUCI” or “the University”)

Evaluation: A narrative assessment by the reviewer(s) (e.g., Program Chair, Program Personnel Committee, Dean, University RTP Committee, Provost, or VPSA) of the faculty member’s performance in the areas of Teaching and/or Professional Activities; Scholarly and/or Creative Activities; and Service, followed by the corresponding descriptor as detailed in Section C.

Faculty (faculty member): Unless otherwise indicated, the terms “faculty” or “faculty member” in this document refer to CSUCI tenure-line probationary faculty and/or tenured faculty. This policy does not apply to CSUCI temporary faculty (commonly referred to as “lecturers”).

Faculty Affairs, Success and Equity (FASE): The office within the Division of Academic Affairs that is charged with managing the retention, tenure, and promotion (RTP) process.

General Personnel Standards (GPS): The set of guidelines that define the requirements for retention, tenure, and promotion to be used when an academic program has not yet created their own Program Personnel Standards (PPS) or has not aligned their PPS to this RTP policy prior to this policy’s effective date.

Professional Development Plan (PDP): The document developed by a faculty member that outlines how they will achieve the requirements outlined in the PPS (or the GPS if no PPS has been created in their program or if their program has not aligned their PPS to this RTP policy

prior to this policy’s effective date).

Personnel Action File (PAF): The one official file containing employment records and information that may be relevant to personnel recommendations or personnel actions regarding a faculty unit employee (i.e., information provided by faculty unit employees, students, external reviewers, and administrators).

Portfolio: All the materials submitted by a faculty unit employee when undergoing RTP review, as described in Section K.

Program Personnel Committee (PPC): A committee created for the review of all faculty members in a given program who are applying for retention, tenure, and/or promotion in a given academic year.

Program Personnel Standards (PPS): A set of guidelines developed by a program that define the requirements for retention, tenure, and/or promotion in that program.

Recommendation: A statement by the reviewer(s) (e.g., Program Chair, Program Personnel Committee, Dean, University RTP Committee, Provost, or VPSA) in favor of or in opposition to the retention, tenure, and/or promotion of a faculty member, to be included at the conclusion of the evaluation.

Retention, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP): The contractual process by which a faculty member is retained (i.e., reappointed), tenured, and/or promoted.

Review: To review a faculty member for RTP purposes means to carefully read and assess the faculty member’s Portfolio and Working Personnel Action File vis-à-vis the faculty member’s PPS (or GPS, if applicable) and this RTP policy and to confer with other committee members (when applicable) prior to producing a written evaluation and recommendation of the faculty member’s performance.

Service Credit: One or two years of credit that may be awarded to probationary faculty toward eligibility for tenure and/or promotion based on employment history (including service at the rank of lecturer), as negotiated by faculty as a condition of their initial appointment at CSUCI.

Student Ratings of Teaching (SRTs): An instrument to survey student responses to instruction at CSUCI, per Academic Senate policy and as required by the CBA.

University Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Committee (URTPC): A committee with representation from each of the University’s major disciplinary areas (see Section D) that is elected by the faculty for the purposes of University-wide evaluation and recommendation of all faculty members who apply for retention, tenure, and/or promotion. The URTPC also reviews proposed PPS, or revisions thereto, and recommends approval, disapproval, or amendments to the Provost (VPSA for Counselor faculty).

Weighted Teaching Unit (WTU): The weighting system used by the California State University to determine the appropriate teaching credit for instructional assignments. According to the CBA, a full load of teaching, scholarly and creative activities, and service is considered to be 15 WTUs per semester.       

Working Personnel Action File (WPAF): The file used for review of a faculty member during a given period of review. The file includes the PAF and all information provided by the employee being reviewed (i.e., “the Portfolio,” see section K). The WPAF also includes all faculty unit and administrator evaluations and recommendations, as well as all rebuttal statements and responses submitted during a given period of review.

Policy:
A. RTP PROCESS, CSUCI MISSION, AND THE UNIVERSITY’S VALUES

1. California State University Channel Islands is committed to providing high-quality, student-centered instructional programs to all constituencies. Faculty members dedicated to continued intellectual and professional growth are essential to fulfilling our commitment. All elements and standards of the RTP process shall recognize and reflect the following elements of the University Mission:

a.  placing students at the center of the educational experience

b.  providing undergraduate and graduate education that facilitates learning within and across disciplines through integrative approaches

c.  emphasizing experiential and service-learning

d.  graduating students with multicultural and international perspectives

2. All elements and standards of faculty performance recognize and reflect our collective commitment to be anti-racist, equity-based educators, as manifest in CSUCI Academic Senate Resolutions 20-10, 20-9, and 11-03.

3. Retention, tenure, and/or promotion of a faculty member shall always be determined on the basis of demonstrated competence and professional performance, and never on the basis of beliefs or on any basis that constitutes an infringement of academic freedom.

B.    APPLICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT

1. This document establishes the policy for retention, promotion, and granting of tenure for probationary faculty, and the promotion of tenured faculty at CSU Channel Islands. This policy is governed by the Unit 3 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
2. The policies in this document apply to teaching, counseling, and library faculty.
3. At CSU Channel Islands, all phases of the RTP process support faculty growth and development and also serve as the formal means of performance review. To further growth and development, it is important both to the University and to the faculty member that each faculty member establish a plan to meet program and University standards, as reflected in this document and the faculty member’s PPS, or as reflected in the GPS if the relevant PPS have not been aligned with this RTP policy prior to this policy’s effective date.
4. The policies and procedures of this document are subject to CSU Board of Trustees policies; the California Administrative Code, Title 5; California Education Code; the Unit 3 CBA; and other applicable State and Federal laws.
5. Throughout this document, the word “shall” indicates mandatory action; the word “may” indicates permitted action.
6. This document shall apply to all tenured and probationary faculty subject to RTP review whose appointments begin in academic year 2025-2026. Faculty subject to RTP review who were appointed prior to academic year 2025-2026 may elect to be governed by this document; absent such election, they shall be evaluated according to the RTP policy in effect at the time of their appointment.
7. This policy shall be reviewed every five years, at a minimum, by the Faculty Affairs Committee in collaboration with FASE and the URTPC. Any suggested policy modifications based on said review shall be presented to the Academic Senate by the Faculty Affairs Committee following review by CEAR. FASE shall be responsible for determining when the RTP policy is due for review.

C. GENERAL STANDARDS FOR RETENTION, TENURE, AND PROMOTION

1. Each faculty member is expected to make suitable contributions to the University in three areas: Teaching and/or Professional Activities; Scholarly and/or Creative Activities; and Service. The granting of retention, tenure, and/or promotion requires that achievement be demonstrated in each of the aforementioned areas.
2. For retention (reappointment) reviews, the levels of achievement attained by faculty in the aforementioned performance areas shall be indicated by using one of the following descriptors:
   1. On track to exceed Program Personnel Standards
   2. On track to meet Program Personnel Standards
   3. Not yet on track to meet Program Personnel Standards
3. For tenure and/or promotion reviews, the levels of achievement attained by faculty in the aforementioned performance areas shall be indicated by using one of the following descriptors:
   1. Exceeds Program Personnel Standards
   2. Meets Program Personnel Standards
   3. Does not meet Program Personnel Standards
4. For retention (reappointment) reviews, ratings shall be assigned keeping in mind the faculty member’s current year in the RTP process, as well as their overall growth and development in the progression toward tenure and/or promotion. Therefore, standards applied by reviewers shall be in line with reasonable expectations for probationary faculty growth, development, and achievement along their entire path toward tenure and/or promotion.

D. UNIVERSITY RETENTION, TENURE, AND PROMOTION COMMITTEE

1. The University Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Committee (URTPC) shall be composed of seven, tenured Full Professors who serve on rotating two-year terms.
2. The URTPC shall include representation by faculty from each of the major disciplinary areas within the University as outlined below:
   1. Arts and Humanities (1)
   2. Math and Sciences (1)
   3. Behavioral and Social Sciences (1)
   4. Business and Economics (1)
   5. Library and Counseling (1)
   6. Education (1)
   7. At-Large Member (1)
3. All eligible faculty shall be considered for election to the URTPC and shall serve, if elected, with the following exceptions:
   1. A faculty member who is on an approved leave of absence
   2. A faculty member who is participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP)
   3. A faculty member with health problems that have been documented by a physician
   4. A faculty member who will be on sabbatical during the upcoming academic year
   5. A faculty member with less than one year of service at CSU Channel Islands
   6. Upon completion of four total years of service on the URTPC, faculty members may choose to exempt themselves from any or all of the next four URTPC election cycles for their respective disciplinary area. To qualify for this exemption, the four total years of service on the URTPC are not required to be served consecutively. In order to be exempted, the faculty member shall notify FASE before the election is scheduled. If a faculty member does not provide notification in advance of the election, the faculty member’s name shall be placed on the ballot, and, if elected, they shall serve for an additional two-year term.
   7. If there is only one eligible faculty member available to represent their disciplinary area as listed above, that faculty member may opt out of serving on the URTPC, and if so, the position in question shall revert to an at-large position for the next two-year term. However, given the unique nature of Library and Counselor faculty duties, if there is only one Full Librarian or Full Counselor faculty member eligible to serve after all exceptions listed above have been applied, the Full Librarian or Full Counselor faculty member in question shall serve on the URTPC.

4. If a member of the URTPC has a conflict of interest or believes that they cannot provide an unbiased recommendation regarding a candidate, the faculty member in question shall contact FASE with a request to be recused from committee deliberations on the candidate in question. The administrator in charge of FASE shall decide whether to grant the request. If the request is granted, the recused URTPC member shall not participate in the deliberations on the candidate in question, nor sign the corresponding evaluation and recommendation, but shall participate in review of other candidates.

5. The election process for the URTPC shall be conducted by the CSUCI Academic Senate, with the list of eligible faculty to be provided by FASE.

6. Before the end of the spring semester, all tenured and probationary faculty shall be invited to elect the following academic year’s URTPC members from the list of eligible faculty in the disciplinary areas listed above.

7. In accord with the CBA stipulation that faculty unit employees shall not serve simultaneously on more than one level of peer review, URTPC members shall not serve on PPCs.

8. Given Program Chair workloads during the RTP evaluation calendar, Program Chairs shall not be included in the list of faculty eligible to serve on the URTPC, even if there are no faculty in a Program Chair’s academic unit who are undergoing RTP review.

9. In the event that there are no eligible faculty available to serve on the URTPC from a given disciplinary area, the position in question shall revert to an at-large position.

E. PROGRAM PERSONNEL COMMITTEES (SEE ALSO SECTION S BELOW)

The Program Personnel Committee (PPC) shall be constituted as follows, in accord with Article 15 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA):

1. At the outset of each academic year (or according to the timeline in program bylaws), the probationary and tenured faculty of each program or equivalent unit shall elect a single three- or five-member Program Personnel Committee (PPC) of tenured faculty for the purpose of evaluating and recommending faculty who are being considered for retention, tenure, and/or promotion.
2. In accord with the CBA, all PPC members shall have a higher rank/classification than all faculty being considered for promotion in a given year. Therefore, if program faculty members are under consideration for promotion to Full Professor, all PPC members shall hold the rank of Full Professor.
3. When there are insufficient eligible program faculty to constitute the PPC according to CBA requirements, the PPC shall include faculty from a related academic discipline(s).
4. In accord with the CBA stipulation that faculty unit employees shall not serve simultaneously on more than one level of peer review, faculty members already elected to the URTPC are ineligible to serve on the PPC.
5. In accord with the CBA, faculty unit employees being considered for promotion are ineligible for service on PPCs.
6. At the request of a program, the President may agree to permit faculty participating in FERP to stand for election to membership on a PPC. However, the PPC shall not be composed solely of faculty participating in FERP.
7. A Memorandum of Understanding shall determine PPC membership for joint- appointment faculty and shall also specify the PPS to be used for review of joint- appointment faculty. The Memorandum of Understanding shall comply with the CBA language on the constitution of PPCs for faculty members holding joint appointments (see article 15).

F.    APPOINTMENT

Appointments of tenure-track faculty are of two kinds:

1.         Appointment as probationary (tenure-track) faculty:

a. Appointment to probationary status implies that a faculty member will earn tenure and/or promotion if their performance demonstrates levels of achievement as described in this document and those of their approved Program Personnel Standards (or General Personnel Standards in the absence of approved PPS).

b. Normally, a probationary (tenure-track) faculty member is given a two-year initial appointment upon hire.

c. Probationary faculty with a two-year initial appointment shall undergo RTP reviews before they are reappointed to a third, fourth, fifth, and sixth probationary year, and for the granting of tenure and/or promotion.

d. Per the CBA, probationary faculty are normally eligible for tenure and promotion after six (6) years of full-time probationary service (and service credit, if applicable).

2.         Appointment as tenured faculty:

a. Tenured faculty at the rank of Associate Professor, Associate Librarian, or Associate Counselor are subject to RTP review when they apply for promotion, normally during their fifth year of service at rank, per the CBA.

G.   SERVICE CREDIT: CREDIT FOR PRIOR EXPERIENCE

1. Accomplishments during years for which service credit is granted shall never be sufficient in and of themselves for the granting of retention, tenure, and/or promotion.
2. A faculty member hired with service credit may include accomplishments made  prior to their tenure-track appointment at CSU Channel Islands in their Portfolio for RTP review, for the purposes of demonstrating overall growth and development. 
3. Per the CBA, a maximum of two years of service credit may be awarded to faculty at the time of their initial appointment.

H.   PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

1. The Professional Development Plan (PDP) is the faculty member’s agenda for achieving the professional growth necessary to qualify for retention, tenure, and/or promotion. The plan shall be submitted before the start of the second semester of the faculty member’s initial appointment, except for faculty hired at the rank of tenured Full Professor.
2. The PDP shall be reviewed and approved by the end of the faculty member’s first full academic year of appointment.
3. The PDP shall describe the activities that the faculty member plans to undertake and the goals they plan to achieve in order to merit the granting of retention, tenure, and/or promotion, eventually to Full Professor. While more focus and specificity shall be given to planning for the first two years, the plan shall address the entire period prior to applying for tenure and/or promotion.
4. The purpose of the PDP is to provide CSUCI faculty members the opportunity to specifically address how -given their background, experience, and interests- they will meet University and program requirements for retention, tenure, and/or promotion, and to receive feedback on the plan from the PPC, the program Chair (if not on the PPC), and the Dean (or appropriate administrator for Counselor faculty).
5. The PDP is a planning document; it is not a formal agreement or contract. PDP statements for Teaching/and or Professional Activities; Scholarly and/or Creative Activities; and Service shall not exceed 500 words each. These statements shall describe the faculty member’s professional goals, areas of interest, resource requirements, anticipated professional development activities, and expected accomplishments in each of the three aforementioned areas in order to meet the Program Personnel Standards (or General Personnel Standards in the absence of approved PPS) for retention, tenure, and/or promotion.
6. The approved PDP shall be included in the faculty member’s Portfolio, which is submitted when applying for retention, tenure, and/or promotion. For tenured faculty, the PDP shall be included in the Portfolio when the faculty member applies for promotion.
7. The PDP shall be reviewed by the PPC, the Program Chair (if not on the PPC), and the Dean (or appropriate administrator for Counselor faculty), each of whom shall provide written feedback according to the timetable determined by FASE (or the Division of Student Affairs for Counselor faculty), and prior to the end of the  faculty member’s first full year of tenure-track service. The Dean or appropriate administrator shall be responsible for final approval of the PDP. 

1. In the event that the PPC, Program Chair, or Dean (or appropriate administrator) does not approve the PDP, the faculty member shall revise and resubmit within two weeks.
2. After re-submittal, if the PPC, Program Chair, or Dean (or appropriate administrator) makes further suggestions for modifications, the faculty member shall, within two weeks, submit a revised PDP.
3. Revision of the PDP in subsequent years is not normally necessary. However, if a faculty member’s focus shifts substantially from the PDP during the probationary period, an explanation regarding the shift in focus may be provided in the appropriate section of the Portfolio (e.g., cover letter or self-assessment narratives) when undergoing RTP review.
4. Faculty members may revise their PDP if it was written before the existence of PPS in the faculty member’s academic program and if the faculty member elects during the probationary period to align their PDP with the new Program Personnel Standards rather than with the General Personnel Standards.

I. PROGRAM PERSONNEL STANDARDS

1. For all RTP actions, faculty performance shall meet established University and Program Personnel Standards (PPS) in order for a positive recommendation or decision to be made.
2. Each program’s PPS shall include explicit expectations that candidates and reviewers shall incorporate both the PPS and the relevant university RTP policy in their deliberations.
3. Program Personnel Standards, developed by program faculty, shall be submitted for review and approval to the URTPC, which is elected by the CSUCI tenure track faculty as a whole. Prior to submission to the URTPC, the program shall submit PPS to the CSUCI Senate Committee on Equity and Anti-Racism (CEAR) for review and feedback. Following review and approval by the URTPC, PPS shall be submitted to the Provost (VPSA for Counselor faculty) for review and approval. Each program’s PPS shall become effective upon approval by the URTPC and the Provost (VPSA for Counselor faculty).
4. PPS shall be reviewed by each academic program every five years from the approval date of the current PPS. If changes to PPS are proposed, the program shall submit the PPS to CEAR for review and feedback prior to submitting for approval to the URTPC and the Provost (VPSA for Counselor faculty). If no changes are proposed by the program, the PPS shall be forwarded for approval to the URTPC and the Provost (VPSA for Counselor faculty). Program Personnel Committees, the URTPC, or the President (or designee) may request that the PPS be reviewed earlier than the scheduled five-year review.
5. The Faculty Affairs Committee shall review (and revise as necessary) the General Personnel Standards following RTP policy changes, or every five years, unless otherwise requested by the CSUCI Senate, Provost, or President.

6.  

7. Each program shall state in its PPS the appropriate indicators of professional growth, development, and accomplishment for its faculty in the areas of Teaching (Professional Activities for Librarian and Counselor faculty); Scholarly and/or Creative Activities; and Service.

8.  

9. Teaching (for teaching faculty):
   1. All PPSs shall incorporate indicators of professional growth and accomplishment in the area of Teaching, as appropriate to the discipline. At a minimum, said indicators shall include peer observations of teaching and student responses to instruction (e.g., Student Ratings of Teaching, aka SRTs).
   2. PPS shall avoid overreliance on SRTs as evidence of growth and accomplishment in Teaching (in accord with SP 14-01) 1 and shall indicate the relative weight of SRTs vis-à-vis other appropriate indicators of growth and accomplishment in Teaching (e.g., peer observations; syllabi and teaching materials; curriculum development; teaching awards; narrative self-assessment; faculty development activities, etc.). Furthermore, PPS shall mention the possibility of bias in SRTs, and the option (per the CBA) of faculty to submit rebuttal statements in response to bias in SRTs.
   3. Each program shall indicate in its PPS how teaching for CSUCI’s Extended University (i.e., “non-stateside” teaching) shall be considered when evaluating faculty contributions in the area of Teaching and/or Professional Activities for the purposes of retention, tenure, and/or promotion.
   4. Without prior approval from the appropriate administrator, teaching and professional activities undertaken at institutions other than CSUCI after  commencing employment at CSUCI shall not be considered part of a faculty member’s accomplishments in the area of Teaching and/or Professional Activities for the purposes of retention, tenure, and/or promotion.
   5. Each program shall indicate in its PPS how faculty use of and participation in high-impact teaching and learning practices that promote student success, especially for historically underrepresented groups, (e.g., culturally-relevant pedagogy, study abroad, embedded research, experiential/service-learning, learning communities, anti-racist pedagogical practices/curriculum development, etc.) shall be considered when evaluating faculty contributions in the area of Teaching and/or Professional Activities for purposes of retention, tenure, and/or promotion.

1 See CSUCI Senate Policy 14-01: Policy on Student Ratings of Teaching.

8. Professional Activities (for Library and Counselor faculty): PPS for Library and Counselor faculty shall incorporate indicators of professional growth and accomplishment in the area of Professional Activities as appropriate to their disciplines. Peer observations shall be one such indicator.

9. Scholarly and/or Creative Activities:

1. As appropriate to its discipline(s), each program shall clearly indicate the appropriate editorial standards for faculty scholarship and creative work (e.g., peer reviewed, editorially reviewed, etc.) to be considered acceptable indicators of professional growth and accomplishment.
2. PPS shall also indicate the relative weight of different editorial standards and authorship roles (e.g., sole author, lead author, co-author, etc.) for determining the professional growth and accomplishment of faculty in the area of Scholarly and/or Creative Activities.
3. Scholarly and/or creative activities conducted and/or published in languages other than English shall be given the same consideration as those conducted and/or published in English for determining the professional growth and accomplishment of faculty in the area of Scholarly and/or Creative Activities.

10. Service:

1. All PPSs shall incorporate indicators of professional growth and accomplishment in the area of Service, as appropriate to the discipline. PPS shall delineate the relative importance of service contributions to the program, the University, the discipline, and the community.
2. PPS shall indicate that all faculty have a baseline service expectation of 20% of overall workload, as indicated by the assignment of the standard three (3) WTUs for service. Additionally, PPS shall indicate that faculty who receive reassigned time beyond the standard three (3) WTUs are expected to perform an amount of service consistent with the standard 20% of overall workload plus an additional amount of service commensurate with each additional WTU of reassigned time. Receipt of reassigned time for service beyond the standard three WTUs shall be considered by reviewers when evaluating overall accomplishment and growth in the area of Service.
3. In accord with SR 20-10 and in recognition that certain faculty (e.g., faculty of color, faculty who identify as female, faculty who identify as LGBTQ+, faculty who teach unusually large classes/labs, etc.) may be more likely to carry an extra service burden, PPS shall state how issues of cultural taxation and invisible labor will be considered when determining the faculty member’s professional growth and accomplishment in the area of Service.

11. Student Research Engagement:

1. Each program shall indicate in its PPS the area(s) of professional contribution under which engagement with student research may be considered for RTP purposes and how such engagement shall be evaluated.
2. Each discrete activity of student research engagement referenced by faculty members in their portfolio shall be considered under only one category of professional contributions: Teaching/and or Professional Activities; Scholarly and/or Creative Activities; or Service.

12. In the event that a faculty member’s program area lacks its own approved PPS, the General Personnel Standards (GPS) shall serve as the guide for preparation and review of the candidate’s Portfolio.  It is strongly suggested that a candidate in such a situation obtain advice from FASE, from a faculty mentor, and/or from their Program Chair when compiling their Portfolio.

13. If the faculty member’s PPS changes during the interval between their initial appointment to a tenure-track position at CSU Channel Islands and the time of their application for retention, tenure, and/or promotion, or if the faculty member’s academic unit creates PPS for the first time, the faculty member may choose to be reviewed under the new PPS or under the PPS (or GPS, if applicable) in effect at the time of their initial appointment.

J.   PERIOD OF REVIEW

1. For reappointment, the period of review is the period since the last submission of the Portfolio for reappointment. Reappointment reviews shall be conducted keeping in mind the faculty member’s overall growth and development in the progression toward tenure and/or promotion.

2. New faculty whose appointments begin in a fall semester shall submit a PDP (see Section H) and arrange for at least one peer observation (see Section K) before the start of their first spring semester as probationary faculty at CSUCI, as indicated in the RTP calendar published by FASE. Peer observations shall be submitted by observers directly to FASE.

3. New faculty whose appointments begin in a spring semester shall submit a PDP and arrange for at least one peer observation before the start of their second spring semester as probationary faculty at CSUCI. Peer observations shall be submitted by observers directly to FASE.

4. For reappointment in the 3rd probationary year (or 4th probationary year for faculty hired with one or two years of prior service credit), the period of review is the entire probationary period, including years for which service credit is granted.

5. For tenure, the period of review is the entire probationary period, including years for which service credit is granted.

6. For promotion, the period of review is the time spent in rank.

7. For promotion of tenured Associate Professors to the rank of Full Professor, the period of review is the time elapsed since the closure date of the portfolio submitted for promotion to Associate Professor.

K.   THE PORTFOLIO

1. The Portfolio consists of all materials submitted by a faculty unit employee for purposes of review for retention, tenure, and/or promotion, as well as various required forms. The combined Portfolio and Personnel Action File (PAF) form the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) and shall be considered as a whole during retention, tenure, and/or promotion reviews. Evaluations, recommendations, and rebuttals, if any, are added at the various levels of review.
2. The Portfolio shall be compiled and submitted by the faculty member to be reviewed using the online platform indicated by FASE. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to ensure that the Portfolio is current and complete before it is submitted.
3. All faculty members undergoing RTP review shall submit their Portfolio in digital format using the online platform indicated by FASE. Faculty with documented disabilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act shall work with their Chair and CSUCI Human Resources to arrange for disability-related accommodations to allow them to successfully navigate the online RTP platform indicated by FASE (or to submit their Portfolio in another format if needed).
4. Materials may be added to the Portfolio until the submission deadline, at which time the Portfolio shall be declared complete.
5. After the submission deadline, materials may only be added to the Portfolio with the permission of the URTPC. Late additions to the Portfolio shall only be permitted for materials that become available after the Portfolio submission deadline and only if, in the judgment of the URTPC, the material in question is likely to substantively affect the evaluation rating of the faculty member. Furthermore, late additions to the Portfolio must be submitted by faculty members prior to the deadline determined by FASE. Materials added to the Portfolio after the portfolio submission deadline shall be returned to the PPC for review, evaluation, and comment before consideration at all subsequent levels of review.
6. Materials included in the portfolio may reflect all work undertaken during the entire time in rank at CSUCI, as well as work undertaken during prior appointments that contributed to the receipt of service credit, if applicable.
7. The Portfolio shall consist of a main body and an appendix. The main body of the Portfolio shall be comprised of the following items in the following order:

GENERAL

1. An optional cover letter: Faculty may include a cover letter, not to exceed 750 words, to contextualize their overarching contributions during their time at rank. The cover letter should not repeat a faculty member’s CV or narrative self-assessments (described below). If faculty are applying for early tenure and/or promotion, the cover letter may be used to explain the accelerated timeline. The cover letter may also address issues of cultural taxation, invisible labor, or other equity-related concerns that reviewers should be aware of when evaluating the Portfolio.
2. The approved PPS (or GPS in the absence of approved PPS).
3. The approved PDP.
4. The faculty member’s current curriculum vitae covering their entire academic and professional employment history.
5. For teaching faculty, a list of the faculty member’s assigned Weighted Teaching Units (WTUs) for each semester at the current rank. The list shall include the WTUs for teaching, along with WTUs for reassigned time or approved leave, which shall be listed with their corresponding purpose.

TEACHING

1. A narrative self-assessment of activities and accomplishments in Teaching in reference to the applicable University standards as stated in this document and the program standards as stated in the PPS, not to exceed 1000 words.2
2. Narratives shall be cumulative, reflecting the faculty member’s entire time at the current rank.
3. For one-year review periods, narratives shall highlight activities and accomplishments since the prior submission of the portfolio, within the context of the faculty member’s overall growth and development at the current rank.
4. A list of all classes (by semester) taught at the current rank with any relevant details such as modality, new preparations, and class size.
5. For probationary teaching faculty, including Librarians, a minimum of one peer observation of teaching from each probationary year under review. For tenured faculty, a minimum of one peer observation is required during the period of review. All peer observations shall be provided by a tenured faculty member at CSU Channel Islands who holds a rank higher than that of the faculty member being observed.
6. There is no need to include Student Ratings of Teaching (SRTs), as these are included by FASE in the Personnel Action File. Any faculty rebuttals regarding SRTs (per the CBA) are also included by FASE in the PAF. See section R and Appendix C for more information regarding such rebuttals.

2. Per CSUCI Senate Resolution 20-10, faculty are encouraged to include an assessment of anti-racist pedagogical practices in their self-assessment narrative.

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES (For Librarians and Counselors only)

1. A narrative self-assessment of activities and accomplishments in Professional Activities in reference to the applicable University standards as stated in this document and the program standards as stated in the PPS, not to exceed 1000 words.
2. Narratives shall be cumulative, reflecting the faculty member’s entire time at the current rank.
3. For one-year review periods, narratives shall highlight activities and accomplishments since the prior submission of the portfolio, within the context of the faculty member’s overall growth and development at the current rank.
4. A list of primary professional activities at the current rank, along with any relevant details.
5. For probationary faculty, a minimum of one peer observation for each probationary year under review. For tenured faculty, a minimum of one peer observation is required during the period of review. All peer observations shall be provided by a tenured faculty member at CSU Channel Islands who holds a rank higher than that of the faculty member being observed.

SCHOLARLY AND/OR CREATIVE ACTIVITIES

1. A narrative self-assessment of activities and accomplishments in Scholarly and/or Creative Activities in reference to the applicable University standards as stated in this document and the program standards as stated in the PPS, not to exceed 1000 words.
2. Narratives shall be cumulative, reflecting the faculty member’s entire time at the current rank.
3. For one-year review periods, narratives shall highlight activities and accomplishments since the prior submission of the portfolio, within the context of the faculty member’s overall growth and development at the current rank.

SERVICE

1. A narrative self-assessment of activities and accomplishments in Service in reference to the applicable University standards as stated in this document and the program standards as stated in the PPS, not to exceed 1000 words.
2. Narratives shall be cumulative, reflecting the faculty member’s entire time at the current rank.
3. For one-year review periods, narratives shall highlight activities and accomplishments since the prior submission of the portfolio, within the context of the faculty member’s overall growth and development at the current rank.

8.  The appendix of the Portfolio shall include the following items:

1. For teaching faculty, syllabi for all courses taught at the current rank. When teaching multiple sections of the same course, only one syllabus from each course is required, unless significant changes were implemented.
2. Supporting materials directly relevant to the accomplishments described in the self-assessment narratives (e.g., copies of scholarly or creative work, external letters of support, evidence of faculty development activities, evidence of equity/anti-racist pedagogical efforts, and any other specific documentation of accomplishments as required by the approved PPS or GPS). See Appendix B for terminology to describe stages of publication.

9.  The appendix of the Portfolio may include the following optional items:

1. For teaching faculty: evidence of teaching effectiveness (may include evidence of assessment of teaching practices and student learning outcomes). Some examples could include key assignments, supplemental teaching materials, service-learning projects, culturally relevant pedagogy, unsolicited student feedback, other evidence of student success beyond graduation, and successful IRA applications related to course SLOs.
2. If applicable, evidence of cultural taxation, invisible labor, or other forms of  hidden service not readily visible in traditional categories of evaluation.

L.   REVIEW PROCESS AND LEVELS

The review of the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) takes place at various levels in the following order, with a letter generated at each review level detailing how the faculty member met or did not meet the requirements of their PPS for the granting of retention, promotion, and/or tenure (or early promotion and/or tenure).

1. The Program Personnel Committee (PPC), which consists of three or five tenured faculty members shall review all files for retention, tenure, and/or promotion.
2. The Program Chair, if not serving as a member of the PPC, shall perform their own independent review of all files for retention, tenure, and/or promotion. In such cases, the separate reviews by the PPC and the Program Chair shall be conducted simultaneously and independently according to the calendar distributed by the office of Faculty Affairs, Success and Equity (FASE).
3. The appropriate Dean shall review all files for retention, tenure, and/or promotion.
    
4. The University Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Committee (URTPC) shall review all files for tenure and promotion.
5. The URTPC shall also review files for retention only if one or more of the following conditions apply:
   1. It is the faculty member’s third probationary year at rank, if hired without service credit.
   2. It is the faculty member’s fourth probationary year at rank, if hired with one or two years of service credit.
   3. There is a lack of agreement in the recommendations (i.e., retention vs. non-retention) among prior levels of review.
   4. All prior recommendations for retention are negative.
   5. It is requested by the faculty member under review.
   6. It is requested by a prior review level.
   7. It is requested by the President (or designee).

6. The Provost (VPSA for Counselor faculty) shall review all files for tenure and promotion.

7. The Provost (VPSA for Counselor faculty) shall also review files for retention only if one or more of the following conditions apply:

a. It is the faculty member’s third probationary year at rank, if hired without service credit.
b. It is the faculty member’s fourth probationary year at rank, if hired with one or two years of service credit.
c. There is a lack of agreement in the recommendations (i.e., retention vs. non-retention) among prior levels of review.
d. All prior recommendations for retention are negative.
e. It is requested by the faculty member under review.
f. It is requested by a prior review level.
g. It is requested by the President (or designee).

8. The President (or designee) shall review all files for tenure and promotion.

9. First-year review of probationary faculty:

1. Probationary faculty with a two-year initial appointment shall be reviewed during the second semester of their first year of service at CSUCI according to the calendar published by FASE. This initial review is a “periodic evaluation” as defined by the CBA (i.e., not for the purpose of deciding retention, tenure, and/or promotion).
2. The first-year review of probationary faculty shall be performed by the Program Personnel Committee and then by the Dean.
3. The elements of the probationary faculty member’s WPAF to be considered during the first-year review are the following: the Professional Development Plan (see section H); a peer observation from the first semester of service as probationary faculty at CSUCI; and the appropriate Student Ratings of Teaching from the first semester as probationary faculty at CSUCI.
4. For the first-year review, the probationary faculty member may include in the WPAF a single self-assessment narrative of no more than 1000 words to provide context regarding any of the elements being considered for review (as enumerated above in subsection “c”), or to provide context and/or considerations that reviewers should be aware of.
5. Rather than assigning formal ratings for the first-year review, the PPC and the Dean shall produce a brief narrative containing the following: 1) an assessment of the faculty member’s performance along with any guidance and suggestions for improvement; 2) an assessment of the PDP indicating approval or providing guidance and instructions to revise and resubmit (per section H).

10. The Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) shall be reviewed according to the following schedules:

1. Review process for probationary faculty hired without service credit:

*Chair submits their own evaluation and recommendation if not serving on PPC. In such cases, Chair review and PPC review are conducted simultaneously and independently.

Review process for probationary faculty appointed with one year of service credit:

*Chair submits their own evaluation and recommendation if not serving on PPC. In such cases, Chair review and PPC review are conducted simultaneously and independently. 

c.   Review process for probationary faculty appointed with two years of service credit:

*Chair submits their own evaluation and recommendation if not serving on PPC. In such cases, Chair review and PPC review are conducted simultaneously and independently.

d.    Review process for faculty who were promoted to Associate Professor at CSUCI and are applying for promotion to Full Professor:

*Chair submits their own evaluation and recommendation if not serving on PPC. In such cases, Chair review and PPC review are conducted simultaneously and independently. 

APPENDIX A: Portfolio Checklist

The following checklist is for the use of faculty in preparing their Portfolio. This checklist is not required to be submitted with the portfolio. All materials required in the Portfolio are also specified in Section K of this policy.

Note: Full portfolios are not required for probationary (untenured) faculty who are in their first year of service as Assistant Professors at CSUCI, nor for tenured Associate Professors who are in their first year of service at CSUCI.  See section L, point 11, for more details on materials to be submitted during each year of the RTP process. 

MAIN BODY OF PORTFOLIO

GENERAL

TEACHING

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES (For Librarians and Counselors only)

SCHOLARLY and/or CREATIVE ACTIVITIES

PROFESSIONAL, UNIVERSITY, AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

CHECKLIST FOR PORTFOLIO APPENDIX

The appendix of the Portfolio shall include the following items:

The appendix of the Portfolio may include the following optional items:

APPENDIX B: Documentation of Scholarly and/or Creative Activities

A. Documentation of scholarly and/or creative work presented for RTP purposes is required and shall be included in the appendix to the Portfolio. This documentation may include the following:

1. Complete citations, in the style customary to the faculty member’s discipline, for each of their published scholarly and/or creative works.
2. Evidence of each of the faculty member’s published scholarly and/or creative works. For works presented in a medium other than print, the evidence may be in a form suitable for review as appropriate to the discipline.
3. Copies of letters of acceptance for works that are “in press” or otherwise in the process of publication.
4. If citing work in progress as evidence of scholarly and/or creative activities, documentation shall be provided for said works. This documentation may include copies of intramural and extramural grant proposals; grant award letters; abstracts of papers presented at professional meetings; papers under review for publication; copies of manuscripts in preparation; being a discussant of presented papers; etc.
5. Care shall be taken to distinguish work in progress from that already completed by using terminology such as that listed below.

B. Terminology related to the publication process: Faculty shall use the following terminology to describe the publication status of their scholarly and/or creative works:

1. Published: The scholarly or creative work has appeared in print and/or electronically, or has been exhibited/performed.
2. In Press: The scholarly or creative work is currently in the production process, with an expected publication/exhibition/performance date.
3. Accepted: The publisher has accepted the work without further revisions, but it has not yet been assigned a publication/exhibition/performance date.
4. Revise and Resubmit: The work has been through initial peer review and has been returned to the author for revision prior to a decision on publication, exhibition, or performance.
5. Submitted: The publisher has provided written confirmation that the work has been received for initial review.
6. In Progress: A project is in development but has not yet been submitted to a publisher.

APPENDIX C: Guidelines for Rebuttal Statements by Faculty

A. Rebuttals to RTP Evaluations

1. The CBA provision (Article 15.5)  regarding rebuttal statements applies to all faculty undergoing any form of evaluation and is particularly relevant for faculty under review for retention, tenure, and/or promotion:

At all levels of review, before recommendations are forwarded to a subsequent review level, faculty unit employees shall be given a copy of the recommendation and the written reasons therefore. The faculty unit employee may submit a rebuttal statement or response in writing and/or request a meeting be held to discuss the recommendation within ten (10) days following receipt of the recommendation. A copy of the response or rebuttal statement shall accompany the Working Personnel Action File and also be sent to all previous levels of review. This section shall not require that evaluation timelines be extended.”

2. Faculty are encouraged to keep in mind the following guidelines when writing a rebuttal statement:

1. Be brief and directly responsive to issues raised in the evaluation; match evaluation comments with your rebuttal or responsive statement.
2. Rebuttals cannot be used to submit new evidence, but may be used to point out evidence that has been overlooked by reviewers.
3. Focus on correcting facts that may have been misinterpreted by that level of review.
4. While rebuttals may be addressed to the level of review immediately completed, the intended audience should be those who have yet to read the file.
5. It can be helpful to have a colleague proofread your rebuttal before you submit it.
6. Submit rebuttal statements to FASE for inclusion in your PAF.

 3 Adapted from CFA Faculty Rights Tip, Nov. 3, 2021. https://www.calfac.org/faculty-rights-tip-peer-review-committees-for-tenure-line-hiring-2/

B. Rebuttals to Student Ratings of Teaching (SRTs)

1. The CBA allows faculty undergoing RTP review to submit written rebuttal statements regarding SRTs when it is believed that more information is needed or in the case of student bias.
2. Faculty shall include in their rebuttals information needed to contextualize SRTs and/or a response to student bias in SRTs.
3. Faculty shall submit rebuttals to FASE for inclusion in their PAF.
4. Faculty are encouraged to submit their SRT rebuttals as soon as possible after receipt of the SRTs in question (to have details fresh in mind and to avoid rushing to meet deadlines for RTP portfolio submission).
5. Faculty are encouraged to review the following guidelines prior to drafting their rebuttal statement regarding SRTs:
   1. Be specific: If there are particular courses, sections, or terms that require additional contextualization, identify them and provide directly relevant contextual information.
   2. Be constructive: If there are data or documents in the WPAF or Portfolio that help to contextualize SRTs with respect to teaching effectiveness, refer to them and locate them in the file.
   3. Be professional: Avoid characterizing or speculating on which student(s) may have provided particular comments or scores.
   4. Candidates may also wish to include references to peer-reviewed research that documents known limitations of student course evaluations, such as the following: 

Kreitzer, R.J., Sweet-Cushman, J. “Evaluating Student Evaluations of Teaching: A Review of Measurement and Equity Bias in SETs and Recommendations for Ethical Reform.” Journal of Academic Ethics 20, 73-84 (2022).

 4 Adapted from “Rebutting  Student  Evaluations.” San Diego State University Office of Faculty Advancement & Student Success, June 1, 2022. https://fa.sdsu.edu/_resources/files/tenuretrack_evaluations/rebuttingstudentevaluations2022-2023.pdf