Article 10: Promotions 10.1 Faculty Rank Promotions - Procedures (a) Except as provided for in Article 10.1(g) and except where departments or their equivalent do not exist, or when a faculty decides by a vote of the faculty concerned to forego consideration at the departmental level, consideration of candidates for promotion shall take place at three levels: departmental, faculty and University. At the University level consideration shall be by the University Promotions Committee. (b) (i) Unless a faculty employee requests not to be considered in a letter to the chairperson, each faculty employee shall automatically be considered for promotion in the years specified as normally appropriate in Appendix B to this agreement. In all other cases, faculty employees will only be considered for promotion if they signify to the departmental-, or school-level committee in writing that they wish to be considered for promotion in a particular year. These committees shall ensure that the deadline for application for promotion is communicated in writing to all faculty employees each year. (ii) Where a faculty employee requests not to be considered in accordance with Article 10.1(b) (i) above, the employee will not be automatically considered for promotion in a subsequent year, but must apply for consideration in accordance with Article 10.1(b) (i). (c) Unless a candidate who is not recommended at one level, including the lowest, indicates in writing to the appropriate dean a desire not to be considered further, he/she shall be reconsidered automatically at the remaining higher levels up to and including reconsideration by the University Promotions Committee. (d) The opinion of outside referees shall be sought for promotion to Associate Professor. Where these referees are academics, they shall hold or have held the rank of Associate or Full Professor. The candidate and the chairperson of his/her department will each submit two (2) names separately to the dean. The dean will request letters from at least two (2) referees chosen from the names submitted and others which may be added by the dean. These will necessarily include the two (2) names submitted by the candidate. The soliciting of letters of reference or assessment shall be consistent with Article 16.8. (e) The opinion of outside referees shall be sought for the promotion to Full Professor. Where these referees are academics, they shall hold or have held the rank of Full Professor. The candidate and the chairperson of the department shall each submit three (3) names separately to the dean. The dean will request letters from at least three (3) referees chosen from the names submitted and others which may be added by the dean. These will necessarily include the three (3) names submitted by the candidate. The soliciting of letters of reference or assessment shall be consistent with Article 16.8. (f) The letters from the referees shall be available for consideration at the faculty and University levels. (g) The promotion of Lecturers to the rank of Assistant Professor shall be considered upon application only at the departmental and faculty level as appropriate pursuant to Article 10.1(a). 10.2 Departmental Procedures (a) By a method to be determined by the department (or equivalent), each department (or equivalent) shall establish by September 30 in each year a committee on promotion, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph B 1, Appendix A. (i) Except in the case of cross-appointees, the committee shall consist of the chairperson of the department and at least four (4) other faculty employees and it shall be as representative as possible of the ranks and areas of interest in the department. (ii) Where the appointment is more than 50% in one faculty (the ‘majority faculty'), the joint departmental committee shall have membership proportional to the weighting of the cross-appointment, and shall be chaired by a member of the majority department. The Committee shall make its recommendation to the Faculty Promotion Committee of the majority faculty, which shall make its recommendation to the University Promotions Committee. (iii) In all cases of formal cross-appointment where the appointment is divided equally between the two faculties, the committee shall be representative of each of the pertinent departments (or equivalent) and shall be comprised of the chairperson of each of the appropriate committees as determined in accordance with Article 10.2(a) and Article 10.2(a)(i) above, and at least one (1) other representative from each of the departments (or equivalent) at the invitation of the appropriate dean(s). The appropriate dean(s) shall designate a chairperson who shall be responsible for forwarding a written recommendation together with supporting evidence to the next level of consideration. (b) The dean shall inform the chairperson of all members of the department who should be automatically considered for promotion. It shall be the responsibility of the appropriate committee to assist the chairperson in the preparation of the list of all those in the department who should be automatically considered for promotion and in the obtaining and examination of all relevant information and in ensuring the curricula vitae are current, complete and correct. (c) The chairperson will submit the list of candidates to the appropriate dean(s) together with a curriculum vitae for each candidate and an evaluation of: (i) the candidate's effectiveness as a teacher, as judged by the departmental procedure and in accord with Senate policy on teaching evaluation as specified in Article 26; (ii) the research and scholarly studies accomplished by the candidate; such work done since promotion or appointment to the rank the candidate holds at the time of consideration should be emphasized; (iii) the candidate's contribution to the development of his/her discipline, department, faculty, University and/or profession generally; and, (iv) the candidate's academic/professional contribution to the community of which he/she is a part. (d) The appropriate committee shall make its decision as to whether the committee is recommending for or against promotion and the chairperson of the committee shall so advise the candidate in writing. In the case of a recommendation against promotion the written communication will indicate to the candidate at least in which area or areas of performance the committee would expect evidence of further development before recommending in favour of promotion. (e) A candidate may at this time submit additional information to the dean(s) if he/she believes his/her case not to have been adequately represented. (f) All letters of reference solicited in accordance with Article 10.1(d) and Article 10.1(e) in relation to promotion shall become part of the candidate's official dossier. (g) If the appropriate dean(s) is/are not satisfied that the list contains all the names of those eligible under Article 10.1 (b), he/she may present additional names for consideration and evaluation by the appropriate committee. 10.3 Faculty Procedures (a) By a policy to be determined by the faculty, the dean shall establish by December 15 in each year a committee on promotion. The committee shall consist of the dean of the faculty and at least eight (8) other faculty employees, unless all the members are elected by the appropriate faculty board, in which case, it may be less than eight (8), and it shall be as representative as possible of the ranks and areas of interest in the faculty. The dean shall be chairperson of this committee. (b) The names and complete supporting documents from the various departments for each candidate for consideration and possible recommendation shall be laid before the committee by the dean. The names and documents of those who have not been recommended at the departmental level, except for those who have requested no further consideration, shall be included. The chairperson of the appropriate departmental promotions committee shall present each candidate's case, together with that committee's recommendations. (c) Following consideration by the faculty committee, the dean shall advise each candidate in writing whether the faculty committee agrees or disagrees with the departmental recommendation and shall submit the findings of the committee along with the complete dossier (including the letters from the referees) of each candidate to the Vice-President (Academic). If the faculty committee rejects a positive departmental recommendation, the written communication shall indicate to the candidate at least in which area or areas of performance the committee would expect evidence of further development before recommending in favour of promotion. (d) In cases of formal cross-appointments where the appointment is divided equally between two faculties, the employee seeking promotion shall designate his/her ‘home faculty'. Such employees shall be considered only in the designated faculty in accordance with the procedures set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) above. (e) Lecturers not recommended for promotion shall have recourse to the appeal procedures of Article 10.5. 10.4 University Level Procedure (a) (i) There shall be a University Promotions Committee consisting of the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) as chairperson, eight (8) members to be chosen by the President and eight (8) full-time faculty employees to be elected by the Senate from among faculty employees holding the rank of Full Professor. The President shall be present as an observer during the meetings of this Committee. (ii) The chairperson shall keep a record of the number of votes cast for and against each candidate. In the event of an appeal the candidate concerned shall be informed of the vote on his/her candidacy. (b) When the Vice-President (Academic) is satisfied that the documentation necessary is available for each candidate he/she shall submit it to the University Promotions Committee. The documentation shall include the complete dossier received from the faculty committee(s) together with a written submission from both the department and faculty promotion committees. (c) The dean of each faculty shall present the cases of all the candidates from that faculty to the University Promotions Committee. (d) The University Promotions Committee shall recommend for promotion any candidate receiving a majority of votes of those present at the consideration of that candidate and such recommendation shall be made to the President who shall advise each candidate in writing, prior to May 1, as to whether the Committee is recommending for or against promotion. In the case of a recommendation against promotion the written communication shall indicate to the candidate at least in which area or areas of performance the Committee would expect evidence of further development before recommending in favour of promotion. In order to enable a candidate to appeal, if he/she so wishes, the reasons for the decision to recommend against promotion shall be given in writing to the candidate. (e) The President shall recommend to the Board of Governors those candidates for promotion who were approved by the appropriate promotions committee. (f) A candidate not recommended by the appropriate committee or promoted by the Board of Governors has recourse to the procedures under Article 30 or 10.5 as appropriate. 10.5 Appeal Procedure (a) A candidate may appeal a decision of the appropriate promotions committee (University Promotions Committee for faculty employees except lecturers; the appropriate Faculty Promotions Committee for lecturers and Instructor employees; Library Rank Promotions Committee for professional librarian employees) to the Promotion Appeals Committee (hereinafter known as the PAC), consisting of the President, a faculty member holding the rank of Full Professor appointed by the Association, and a third member to be chosen by these two who shall chair all meetings, hearings and other deliberations of this committee. The PAC shall be established by April 1 of each year. When a candidate is informed that his/her promotion has been denied, he/she shall also be informed of these appeal procedures and the name of the chairperson of the PAC. The PAC shall be governed by the following procedures in hearing such cases: (i) The appellant shall be allowed up to fifteen (15) working days, after being notified by the President that promotion was not approved, to prepare an appeal. (ii) The appellant may be assisted and/or represented by a member of the bargaining unit. (iii) The PAC shall examine any evidence that the appellant or his/her representative wishes to present and shall conduct a hearing if it deems this to be necessary. (iv) The PAC may call for and is entitled to receive any other information that in its view is necessary to a proper review of the appeal, except that no evidence shall be presented by the employer which has not been available to the appropriate promotions committee unless in response to new information raised by the appellant in his/her appeal. The chairperson of the appropriate promotions committee shall be deemed to speak for that committee. (v) The PAC shall reach a decision by majority vote. If the decision is to uphold the appeal, either on procedural or substantive grounds, the PAC shall decide whether to refer the matter back to the University Promotions Committee for reconsideration, or whether a de novo consideration of a candidate is required. If a de novo consideration is required the matter shall be referred to a differently constituted University Promotions Committee, the composition of which shall be determined by the PAC. (vi) If the PAC decides for reconsideration the chairperson of the appropriate promotions committee shall call a meeting of the appropriate committee within one (1) calendar month from receipt of a reconsideration decision. The subsequent decision of the appropriate promotions committee shall be final and binding. (vii) In the event of the appropriate promotions committee denying the appeal the appellant shall be informed in writing of the reasons for the denial which shall include particular reference to the reasons submitted by the appellant in making the appeal. 10.6 Criteria for Promotion of Faculty Employees (a) The criteria for promotion shall be those set out in the document Guidelines for Promotion issued over the President's signature and attached to this Agreement as Appendix B. (b) These criteria shall remain in force until such time as a modifications are accepted through a Memorandum of Agreement between the parties. (c) In addition, promotion criteria for faculty employees shall be consistent with Articles 15.1, 15.2, 15.5, 15.6, 15.7, and 18.4, and teaching evaluation shall be consistent with the provisions of Article 26. (d) Decisions concerning promotion shall be reached following a fair and equitable application of the criteria of this Article to all candidates. (e) Past practice shall govern the criteria for promotion of lecturers until suitable guidelines are developed and incorporated through Article 10.6(a) and (b). 10.7 Professional Librarian Promotions There shall be four ranks for professional librarian employees at Carleton University: Librarian I, Librarian II, Librarian III and Librarian IV. These ranks reflect individual levels of professional achievement and are independent of any scheme for the assignment of responsibilities. (a) Criteria for Librarian Promotions (i) Librarian I. The rank of Librarian I shall be an introductory rank reserved for library school graduates with no professional experience. A professional librarian employee appointed to the Librarian I rank shall hold either a preliminary or term appointment and shall normally serve in that rank for the period of one (1) year. (ii) Librarian II. To qualify for appointment or promotion to the rank of Librarian II, the candidate shall have met the minimum educational requirement and shall have at least one year's professional experience or equivalent. As a primary criterion for appointment or promotion to this rank, a candidate shall have a record of successful performance as a librarian. Performance shall be assessed with respect to the candidate's achievement of goals which have been mutually established between the candidate and the candidate's supervisor(s), and those duties documented in a job description. It is expected that successful candidates will have demonstrated the ability to use effectively their professional education and will have shown the capacity to develop and extend their professional expertise. (iii) Librarian III. A librarian may not normally be considered for appointment or promotion to the rank of Librarian III until he/she has had a minimum of five (5) years experience as a Librarian II, or has had equivalent experience. Time is a factor that enters into the evaluation of a candidate's status. The Peer Evaluation Committee, Library Rank Promotion Committee, University Librarian (hereinafter called the Library) may recommend accelerating the unusually gifted member, whose professional performance and achievement in at least two (2) of the other areas listed below are considered by the Library to be significantly above his/her peers at the same stage of career. If evidence of continuing effective performance is not forthcoming, the Library may recommend that the candidate's consideration for promotion be delayed beyond the normal time. Upon the decision in favour of promotion, the promotion shall become effective on the July 1st immediately after the consideration process as set out in Article 10.7 has terminated. The primary criterion shall be professional performance; how well the librarian carries out the duties and responsibilities of the position held. Therefore, the successful candidate shall have a record of continuing effective performance. Performance shall be assessed with respect to the candidate's achievement of goals which have been mutually established between the candidate and the candidate's supervisor(s), and those duties documented in a job description. There should be clear promise of continuing professional development and demonstrated ability in areas of specialization and/or in an administrative capacity. With less weighting, the candidate's performance in the following three areas should also be considered: academic achievement and activities, including additional formal degrees, programmes of continuing education, teaching, research, publication; involvement in professional activities and participation in professional organizations, including serving on committees, the presentation of papers, organization of and participation in conferences, seminars, workshops; service to the Library and/or the University. For promotion to the rank of Librarian III, a candidate must demonstrate achievement in one of the three areas. (iv) Librarian IV. A librarian may not normally be considered for appointment or promotion to the rank of Librarian IV until he/she has had a minimum of five (5) years experience as a Librarian III, or has had equivalent experience. Time is a factor that enters into the evaluation of a candidate's status. Promotion to this rank is jealously guarded in most institutions and deviations from the normal timing will of necessity be scrutinized extremely carefully by the Peer Evaluation Committee, Library Rank Promotion Committee, University Librarian (hereinafter called the Library). The Library may recommend accelerating the unusually gifted member, whose professional performance and achievement in at least three (3) of the other areas listed below are considered by the Library to be significantly above his/her peers at the same stage of career. If evidence of excellent performance is not forthcoming, the Library may recommend that the candidate's consideration for promotion be delayed beyond the normal time. Upon the decision in favour of promotion, the promotion shall become effective on the July 1st immediately after the consideration process as set out in Article 10.7 has terminated. The primary criterion shall be professional performance; how well the librarian carries out the duties and responsibilities of the position held. Therefore, the successful candidate shall have a record of excellent performance with demonstrated initiative, leadership and creativity. Performance shall be assessed with respect to the candidate's achievement of goals which have been mutually established between the candidate and the candidate's supervisor(s), and those duties documented in a job description. There should be evidence of further development and extension of professional expertise. In addition, the candidate must submit evidence of substantial achievement in at least two of the following areas: research, publishing, teaching, professional endeavours including significant involvement in professional organizations, significant service to the library or the University, or significant administrative duties. (b) Procedures for Librarian Promotions (i) By October 1 of each year, the Office of the University Librarian shall prepare for the chairperson of the Peer Evaluation Committee a list of professional librarian employees who should be automatically considered for promotion and shall send to each eligible employee a letter indicating that his/her name has been forwarded to the Peer Evaluation Committee for consideration for promotion. (ii) By October 1st of each year, the Peer Evaluation Committee shall email to members and publicly post the timetable for promotion proceedings. (iii) Unless the professional librarian employee requests in a letter to the chairperson of the Peer Evaluation Committee that s/he not be considered for promotion, each employee shall automatically be considered for promotion in the years specified as normally appropriate in Article 10.7(a). In the case of promotion to Librarian IV, a professional librarian employee shall be automatically considered when first eligible; thereafter, promotion proceedings are always initiated by the individual employee. (iv) Unless a candidate who is not recommended by the Peer Evaluation Committee indicates in writing to the chairperson of the Peer Evaluation Committee a desire not to be considered further, s/he shall be reconsidered automatically by the Library Rank Promotion Committee. (v) For each candidate, the Peer Evaluation Committee shall assemble a file containing the following documentation: (v) (1) a current c.v. supplied by the candidate; (2) a letter of reference supplied by the candidate's department head(s) or equivalent; (3) copies of the candidate's annual performance appraisals for the period since the last promotion or since appointment as appropriate; (4) a current job description for the position held and, if applicable, for previous positions held in the period under review; and, (5) except in the case of promotion to Librarian II, a list of three (3) or more names supplied by the candidate to be used as referees. For promotion to Librarian IV, normally at least one (1) of the names shall be that of an individual external to the library. (vi) The University Librarian shall solicit letters from two (2) referees chosen from the candidate's list. If the University Librarian desires to solicit additional references or assessments he/she shall so inform the candidate and submit the names of the proposed referees to the candidate who shall have the right to comment in writing on the names suggested and to have such comments included in his/her official dossier as stated in Article 16.8(a) and (b). (vii) The Peer Evaluation Committee shall consider all documentation and may interview the immediate supervisor to obtain clarification on any point. If the Committee or the University Librarian desires to solicit additional written references to support the application, they shall act in accordance with Article 16.8 of the Collective Agreement. All letters of reference solicited in relation to promotion shall become part of the candidate's official dossier for the purposes of the promotion proceedings only. All such letters shall be available to the Peer Evaluation Committee. (viii) The Peer Evaluation Committee shall make a written recommendation and submit the dossier for each candidate going forward to the Library Rank Promotion Committee by March 15 of each year. If the Peer Evaluation Committee proposes to recommend against promotion, it shall, before making a formal recommendation, notify the candidate of its tentative decision and invite the candidate to comment on the proposed recommendation. Upon request, the Peer Evaluation Committee shall furnish the candidate with a written statement of the reasons for the proposed negative recommendation. Such written communication shall indicate to the candidate at least in which area or areas of performance the Peer Evaluation Committee would expect evidence of further development before recommending in favour of promotion. The candidate shall have the right to meet with the Peer Evaluation Committee to discuss these reasons and/or to submit a response in writing before the recommendation is formally made. If the final recommendation is negative, the candidate shall be informed in writing. Any written statement provided by the candidate shall be added to his/her dossier. (ix) In every instance where the Committee is unable to reach a unanimous recommendation, a statement of the recommendation signed by each committee member, which shall include a description of any disagreement within the committee concerning its recommendation, shall be forwarded to the Library Rank Promotion Committee. (c) Library Rank Promotion Committee Procedures (i) The chairperson of the Peer Evaluation Committee shall forward to the Library Rank Promotion Committee the documentation for each candidate to be considered by the Library Rank Promotion Committee. The documentation shall include the complete dossier together with a written submission from the Peer Evaluation Committee. (ii) The chairperson of the Peer Evaluation Committee shall present the cases of all the candidates to the Library Rank Promotion Committee. (iii) The Library Rank Promotion Committee shall consider for promotion each candidate on evidence presented. If the Library Rank Promotion Committee proposes to recommend against promotion it shall, before making a final recommendation, notify the candidate of its tentative decision and invite the candidate to comment on the proposed recommendation. The candidate shall have the right to meet with the Library Rank Promotion Committee to discuss these reasons and/or to submit a response in writing before the recommendation is formally made to the President. (iv) The University Librarian, as chairperson of the Committee, shall maintain a record of the results of the balloting and the recommendations of the Committee and shall make these known to all members of the Committee present at the time and other members, if any, within five (5) working days thereafter. (v) The Library Rank Promotion Committee shall recommend for promotion to the President by April 15 of each year those candidates receiving a majority of votes cast. (vi) In the case of recommendations against promotion, the Library Rank Promotion Committee shall indicate in writing to the candidate at least in which area or areas of performance the Committee would expect evidence of further development before recommending in favour of promotion. (d) A candidate not recommended by the appropriate committee or promoted by the Board of Governors has recourse to the procedures under Article 30 or 10.5 as appropriate. (e) The President shall recommend to the Board of Governors by May 31 only those candidates who were approved by the Library Rank Promotion Committee. (f) The successful candidate(s) shall be notified by June 1. (g) All promotions shall be posted in the Library and appear in an appropriate publication of the University. 10.8 Instructor Rank Promotion Procedures (a) Instructor employees shall be considered first by the departmental promotion committee, or equivalent, established under Article 10.2(a). When any Instructor employee is being considered, an Instructor employee other than the employee under consideration shall be added as a member of the committee and shall remain a member for all consideration of the Instructor employee in question. Where a department has only one (1) Instructor employee, an observer from the same faculty as the Instructor shall be named by the Association and shall be present for all consideration of the Instructor employee. Such an observer may divulge matters relating to the deliberations of the committee only to higher level committees, the Grievance Sub-Committee or an arbitrator in the event of an appeal. Instructor employees shall cooperate with the decision-making bodies at the departmental, faculty and University level in providing information relevant to their candidacies. (b) The departmental committee or equivalent shall make a recommendation, and provide reasonable supporting evidence to the appropriate faculty promotion committee, which shall make a recommendation, and provide reasonable supporting evidence to the appropriate dean, who shall make the decision whether or not to promote the Instructor employee in question. (c) The dean shall communicate his/her decision in writing to the Instructor employee in question prior to April 1. Where the decision is unfavourable, the dean shall give his/her reasons in writing to the Instructor employee. The written communication shall indicate to the Instructor employee at least in which area or areas of performance the dean would expect evidence of further development before deciding in favour of promotion, and in order to assist the Instructor employee to appeal, if he/she so wishes, the reasons for the decision shall be given. (d) A candidate not recommended by the appropriate committee or promoted by the Board of Governors has recourse to the procedures under Article 30 or 10.5 as appropriate. 10.9 Criteria for Promotion of Instructor Employees (a) Consideration for promotion from Instructor I to Instructor II shall be automatic in the employee's third year of service. (b) Consideration for promotion from Instructor II to Instructor III shall be automatic in the employee's fourth year in the Instructor II rank. (c) Outside of this schedule for automatic consideration, an Instructor employee will only be considered for promotion if he/she so requests in writing to the chairperson (or equivalent) of his/her department by October 30 of the year in which he/she wishes to be considered. (d) For promotion to Instructor II, teaching effectiveness at the norm defined in Article 12.2(f) shall be sufficient unless there is evidence of seriously deficient performance in other assigned areas of responsibility. Where there is such evidence, teaching effectiveness which is well above the norm shall compensate. (e) For promotion to Instructor III, normally teaching effectiveness, level of professional development, and conscientiousness in the performance of assigned non-teaching duties shall all be at or above the norm defined in Article 12.2(f). However, teaching effectiveness which is well above the norm may compensate for achievement somewhat below the norm in the other two (2) areas.