PS-10.A.01 - Rank and Tenure System

PDF version

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 26, 2025

ISSUE #: 9

PRESIDENT:  Dr. Loren J. Blanchard

PURPOSE

This PS delineates policies and procedures for the rank and tenure system of the University of Houston–Downtown (UHD). These policies and procedures are consistent with the role and scope of the institution.

The institution is committed to the fulfillment of human potential through educational opportunity and excellence in teaching. The purpose of the rank and tenure system is to recognize significant achievements and service, to reward excellence in teaching, to promote service to the institution, to encourage scholarly and creative activities, and to promote incentive for continuing professional growth. The rank and tenure process requires careful evaluation of faculty performance and potential by peers and by appropriate academic administrators.

DEFINITIONS

2.1 Abstention: A decision by a committee member with voting rights who has participated in the review and discussion of a candidate’s portfolio to refrain from voting. It is registered when such a member casts neither a vote against nor in favor of the candidate’s application for tenure and/or promotion.

2.2 Affirmative Vote: A vote in favor of awarding tenure and/or promotion.

2.3 Candidate: The faculty member seeking tenure and/or promotion.

2.4 Denial Vote: A vote opposing the awarding of tenure and/or promotion.

2.5 Department Criteria: The criteria for awarding tenure and/or promotion developed by tenure and tenure-track faculty in the department. For departments that have college criteria in lieu of department criteria, all references in this policy to “department criteria” have the meaning of “college criteria."

2.6 Non-participating Faculty: A committee member with voting rights who does not participate in any part of the process of reviewing, discussing, or voting on a candidate’s application for tenure and/or promotion. Unlike an abstention – where a member participates in discussions but chooses not to vote – or a recusal – where a member formally withdraws from the process – a non-participating faculty member does not engage at any stage of the tenure and/or promotion process but also does not formally recuse themselves.

2.7 Period of Review:

2.7.1 For candidates seeking promotion to the rank of Associate Professor, the Period of Review is defined as the time served in a tenure-track position at UHD plus, in instances where time toward tenure and promotion was credited upon one’s appointment at UHD, time served in the rank of assistant professor at the previous institution.

2.7.2 For candidates seeking promotion to the rank of professor, the period of review is defined as the time since the candidate’s submission of application for promotion to associate professor at UHD. In cases where time toward tenure and promotion was credited upon one’s appointment at UHD, the period of review also includes the credited years served in the rank of associate professor at the previous institution.

2.8 Portfolio: A collection of materials that document the candidate’s relevant activities and achievements in teaching, scholarly/creative activities, and service. The candidate assembles the Portfolio and submits it through the electronic system designated by the Provost’s office when applying for tenure and/or promotion, or when going through probationary review.

2.9 Probationary Period: The period of time a faculty member serves in a tenure-track position before a tenure decision is rendered (refer to Tenured & Tenure Track Academic Appointments PS 10.A.19 Tenured & Tenure Track Academic Appointments for the list of tenure-track positions at UHD). In accordance with PS 06.A.09 Financial Conflicts of Interests in Research and Scholarships, the probationary period may include up to three years of prior full-time collegiate level teaching at the rank of assistant professor or higher. The specific conditions of the probationary period shall be stated in the faculty member’s letter of initial appointment. 

2.10 Probationary Review: A formal evaluation of a tenure-track faculty member’s performance conducted at a specific point in time during the probationary period, intended to provide substantive feedback on their progress toward Tenure and Promotion.

2.11 Promotion: Advancement to a higher rank based on both university and departmental criteria. In the context of this policy, an “assistant professor” may be promoted to the rank of “associate professor,” and an “associate professor” may be promoted to the rank of “professor."

2.12 Quorum: More than 50% (fifty percent) of the eligible voting members of a committee.

2.13 Recusal: A decision by a committee member with voting rights to completely exclude themselves from the portfolio evaluation process and from casting a vote, made and formally announced prior to the commencement of the portfolio review.

2.14 Tenure: The entitlement of a faculty member to continue employment in the faculty member's academic position.

POLICY

3.1 Discrepancy with System Policy. If any discrepancy occurs between the following UHD policies and procedures and those of the University of Houston System, the system policies and procedures are to be followed.

3.2 Faculty Ranks. Faculty ranks are defined in PS 10.A.19, including descriptions, minimum academic preparation and experience requirements, and minimum criteria for each rank. When this policy (PS 10.A.01) is periodically reviewed there will be a joint and supplemental review of the relevant section(s) of PS 10.A.19. 

3.3 Tenure and Promotion 

3.3.1 Tenure is awarded based on overall performance during the Probationary Period, as evaluated using university and department criteria (specified in this policy and in department policy, respectively).

3.3.2 Tenure is awarded by the Board of Regents and upon the recommendation of the President of the respective university after the appropriate university review processes have been followed. Recommendations for tenure shall be made once each year to be effective at the beginning of the succeeding academic year except for those faculty joining the university with tenure (see section 3.3.6 below). Tenure can be revoked only for reasons outlined in PS.10.A.06 University of Houston-Downtown Faculty Dismissal Policy and Procedures, and is forfeited upon retirement or resignation.

3.3.3 Promotion is awarded based on overall performance during the Period of Review, as evaluated using university and department criteria (specified in this policy and in departmental policy) and the minimum academic preparation, experience, and criteria for each rank. The President, in consultation with the tenured members of the appropriate department and in extraordinary circumstances, may waive certain specific criteria for Promotion.

3.3.4 Promotions are subject to the approval of the Chancellor and Board of Regents upon recommendation of the President and become effective at the beginning of the next academic year. 

3.3.5 Promotion to associate professor is concurrent with the award of tenure unless otherwise stipulated by the President. 

3.3.6 Initial appointments with ranks above assistant professor and/or with tenure must include review and approval by the majority of the tenured members of the appropriate department. For faculty being hired with tenure, it is contingent on an expedited tenure process, which includes an expedited scholarly review, consistent with national standards (as outlined in UH System Board of Regents 21.06.01.A) and will be presented at the next regularly scheduled board meeting. No administrator may be given faculty status or Tenure without a review and positive recommendation from the academic unit involved (PS-06.A.09 Financial Conflicts of Interests in Research and Scholarships). 

3.3.7 No faculty member shall be appointed with tenure, tenured or promoted without a complete review consistent with the criteria and procedures of UHD, as outlined in PS-06.A.09 Financial Conflicts of Interests in Research and Scholarships, Section 2.5 and Tex. Educ. Code §51.942).

3.4 University Criteria 

3.4.1 The criteria listed in subsections 3.4.2 through 3.4.4 below state the university-level standards for tenure and/or promotion. A candidate must also meet the minimal qualifications for each rank established in PS 10.A.19 Tenured & Tenure Track Academic Appointments and the criteria in place at the department level. 

3.4.2 Tenure is awarded on the basis of overall sustained and excellent performance and the likelihood of continued and enhanced performance for the benefit of the institution and based on the institutional need for the faculty member's field of expertise. 

3.4.3 Promotion to associate professor requires an achieved record of excellence in teaching and a sustained record of major contributions in both service/professional activities and in scholarly/creative activities benefiting the department and the institution. 

3.4.4 Promotion to Professor requires strong evidence of sustained excellent record of performance in scholarship/creative activities, teaching and service areas as appropriate to the mission of the university. Additionally, as indicated by current work in progress, the candidate must exhibit the potential for continuing to benefit the department and institution through sustained excellence in teaching, leadership in service and professional activities, and major contributions in scholarly/creative activities after promotion to professor. The criteria listed in this policy are only the minimal conditions for consideration and no specified time in rank is required for promotion to the rank of Professor.

3.5 Department Criteria.

3.5.1  Development of criteria. Each department must establish clearly articulated criteria for promotion to associate professor with tenure as well as distinct criteria for promotion from associate professor to professor. The criteria must be discussed and approved by a majority vote of all tenured and tenure-track (T/TT) faculty in the department, including the department chair. The criteria should:

3.5.1.A Outline the expectations of sustained excellence in three areas: teaching, service and professional activities, and scholarly/creative activities, as well as expectations of leadership and standing within the academy commensurate with the rank sought.

3.5.1.B Articulate the extent to which the annual review scores and the probationary reviews will be used in the tenure and/or promotion process.

3.5.1.C List any additional documentation required by the department for inclusion in the rank and/or tenure portfolio, beyond what is outlined in section 3.7.

3.5.1.D Not take into consideration programmatic assessment data as per PS 03.A.31, Assessment of Educational Programs.

3.6 Probationary Period. 

3.6.1 Duration of Probationary Period. Tenure-track faculty shall serve a probationary period not to exceed seven years. For Assistant Professors at least four of these years must be at UHD, while tenure-track Associate Professors may serve no more than four of their probationary years at UHD. Provisions for extending the probationary period are detailed in PS 10.A.23. 

3.6.2 Credit for Years Prior to Appointment at UHD. At the time of their initial appointment, a faculty member may receive credit for years preceding their appointment at UHD. The number of years countable toward tenure and/or promotion to a higher rank at UHD is recommended by the department chair in consultation with the dean and, upon Provost’s approval, is communicated to the faculty member in the appointment letter. The number of years that may be credited is governed by System rules (SAM 06.A.09). 

3.6.3 Timing of Probationary Reviews. The faculty member’s letter of initial appointment shall specify the number and timing of probationary reviews. Typically, these reviews occur in the second and fourth years of the probationary period. If the probationary period is extended under PS 10.A.23, the schedule for probationary reviews will be adjusted accordingly.

3.6.4 Content of Probationary Review Portfolio. For each probationary review, the faculty member shall assemble a portfolio for evaluation by both the department chair and the department's R&T committee. While departments have discretion to determine the specific contents of the portfolio, it must, at a minimum, include

3.6.4.A the applicable versions of the university and department criteria;

3.6.4.B an updated curriculum vitae;

3.6.4.C reflective statements addressing achievements and potential in teaching, scholarly/creative activity, and service.

3.6.5 Early Application for Tenure and Promotion.

3.6.5.A In cases of exceptional merit, as evidenced by activities placing a faculty member well above average in their discipline – judged by the department chair and the R&T committee – a tenure-track faculty member may apply for tenure and promotion early (i.e. before the date specified in their letter of initial appointment).

3.6.5.B A faculty member’s petition to apply early must follow the Notice to Apply timeline outlined in section 4.4 and requires approval by the Provost upon the dean’s request. Prior to making the request, the dean shall consult with the department chair and the department’s R&T committee.

3.6.5.C If a faculty member applies early and is denied, they may not reapply, and the following year will be their terminal year at the institution.

3.7 Tenure/Promotion Portfolio. 

3.7.1 Content. The structure and content of tenure/promotion portfolio are outlined in Exhibit C. Departments may require additional materials if so indicated in their department criteria.

3.7.2 Indication of Applicable Criteria. A candidate portfolio is judged based on both university and department criteria. In their opening statement, candidates must clearly indicate which set of the university and department criteria they choose to be judged by and include the chosen criteria in their portfolio.

3.7.2.A Candidates seeking tenure and promotion to the rank of associate professor may choose any criteria that were in effect from the commencement on their initial appointment at UHD up until the date of their application.

3.7.2.B Candidates for promotion to the rank of professor may choose any criteria that were in effect within the last three years immediately preceding their application, including those in effect at the time of application.

3.8 Levels of Review and Recommendations on Each Level.

3.8.1 Candidate’s tenure/promotion portfolio is reviewed at five independent levels: the Department R&T Committee, the Department Chair, the Dean, the University R&T Committee, and the Provost, who may not consult with one another on either factual or evaluative matters once the candidate submits their portfolio. This does not preclude the President from consulting with any of the above parties when forming a final recommendation to the Chancellor and Board of Regents.

3.8.2 On each level of review, the recommendation regarding tenure and/or promotion must include a detailed written assessment of candidate's past achievements and potential for future contributions, academic and professional experience, academic preparation, and performance at UHD. Each recommendation, whether in support of or against awarding tenure and/or promotion, must be well-argued, based strictly on approved departmental and university criteria, and supported by evidence from the candidate’s portfolio.

3.9 Department R&T Committee.

3.9.1 The Department R&T Committee includes all tenured members of the department excluding those with administrative appointments at the department chair level and above.

3.9.2 Faculty on leave should follow provisions of the respective policy that put them on leave with respect to their participation in R&T process.

3.9.3 The chair of the committee is elected for a one-year from among the committee members who have served on this committee for at least one full academic year. A committee member may serve multiple consecutive terms as chair if re-elected.

3.9.4 A candidate for promotion who is a member of the department’s R&T committee is excluded from participating in voting or discussion(s) related to their own candidacy at any stage of the review process. They may choose to recuse themselves from all committee activities during their candidacy year. However, if the candidate chooses to continue participating in committee matters unrelated to their own case, the committee must respect this decision and make reasonable accommodations to facilitate their involvement.

3.9.5 In departments where no tenured faculty member has expertise in the candidate's discipline, alternative peer review provisions may be arranged. The committee members, in consultation with the department chair and dean, will determine the appropriate form of extra-departmental or extra-disciplinary peer review to ensure that the committee members, informed by this peer review process, can competently assess the candidate’s portfolio and vote knowledgeably.

3.9.5.A Faculty members from other UHD departments or from other institutions of higher education may be invited to provide written recommendations regarding the candidate’s qualifications with respect to the University’s stated criteria for promotion and/or tenure; these individuals may provide input but are not permitted to vote.

3.9.5.B At the initiative of the candidate or at the request of the department R&T committee, one or more external letters of recommendation may be submitted on behalf of the candidate regardless of other forms of peer review; this is permitted regardless of whether other forms of peer review are used.

3.9.6 To ensure meaningful peer review, the department committee must have a minimum of three members casting votes on a candidate’s application (faculty who recuse themselves, abstain, or do not participate do not count toward this minimum).

Faculty members are expected to engage fully in the review process unless there is a clear conflict of interest or other justifiable reason, e.g. a close personal or professional relationship with the candidate, or prior involvement in a grievance or disciplinary matter involving the candidate, etc. If the minimum of three voting members is not met or a quorum is not achieved due to recusals, abstentions, and/or non-participation, the department R&T committee must either:

3.9.6.A Forfeit its role in reviewing the candidate (the forfeiture does not alter the candidacy progression requirement stated in section 3.11.3), or

3.9.6.B Include qualified faculty from other UHD department(s) selected by the dean in consultation with the department chair to meet the voting threshold; these individuals may provide input and are permitted to vote.

3.9.7 The award of tenure confers both a significant right and a core responsibility: participating in and voting on promotion and/or tenure decisions. All tenured faculty members are expected to actively exercise this right and fulfill this responsibility. This includes reviewing candidates’ portfolios, applying evaluative criteria, attending relevant meetings, engaging in discussion, and contributing to the committee’s written recommendation. While voting is a right, its exercising is vital to collegiality and to departmental and institutional functioning. Non-participation, as well as frequent recusals or abstentions, is strongly discouraged and may lead to disciplinary action by the department chair or the Office of the Provost.

3.10 Department Chair. The department chair conducts an independent review of the candidate’s portfolio, reaches an independent conclusion and drafts a formal, detailed recommendation for the candidate composed in accordance with the requirements set forth in section 3.8.2.

3.11 Dean and Candidacy Progression beyond the Dean’s Level.

3.11.1 The dean makes a recommendation concerning the merits of each candidate for promotion and/or tenure independently of the recommendations provided by the department chair and the department R&T committee. In doing so, the dean conducts a detailed assessment of the candidate’s past achievements, potential for future contributions, academic and professional experience, academic preparation, and overall performance. This comprehensive evaluation informs dean’s formal written recommendation, which is drafted in accordance with Section 3.8.2.

3.11.2 If the dean's recommended action differs from the action recommended by either the department committee or the department chair (or both), the dean must explain, in their recommendation, the reasons for the disagreement. Furthermore, if a minority report is included in the committee’s Final Report (detailed in section detailed in section 3.13.5), the dean is also required to address the arguments presented therein.

3.11.3 Progression of Candidacy beyond the Dean’s Level.

3.11.3.A For a candidacy to progress beyond the dean’s level, the candidacy must be supported by at least two affirmative recommendations from the following three levels: department R&T committee, department chair, and the dean.

3.11.3.B A department chair who is a candidate for promotion and/or tenure must be supported by affirmative recommendations from both the department R&T committee and the dean. Department chairs may not submit recommendations for themselves.

3.11.3.C A dean who is a candidate for promotion and/or tenure must be supported by affirmative recommendations from both the R&T committee of the department in which they hold academic rank as well as that of the department chair. Deans may not submit recommendations for themselves.

3.12 University R&T Committee. This committee serves in an advisory capacity to the Provost and the President and functions as a general academic review body for all cases of promotion and/or tenure, ensuring consistency with institutional standards and academic norms. 

3.12.1 The committee consists of tenured faculty members – one from each department – elected for two-year terms. Eligible candidates must have served at least one full academic year on their respective department R&T committee. Candidates for promotion are not eligible to serve, and department chairs may serve only if no eligible faculty members are available in the department. 

3.12.2 While committee members are elected by their departments, they do not serve as departmental representatives. Rather, they are expected to approach their deliberations with an institutional perspective, guided by the standards of the academic professoriate in the broadest sense. 

3.13 Department/University Committee’s Review and Voting. These provisions apply to both the Department R&T Committee and the University R&T Committee in its advisory capacity.

3.13.1 Recusal Protocol. Any committee member intending to recuse themselves must submit written notice of recusal to the committee chair prior to the candidate’s portfolio being made available to the committee (see timeline in Exhibit B). This notice shall be retained as part of the official committee record.

3.13.2 Meetings Format. Committee meetings may be conducted in person or via university-supported virtual platforms and must uphold the confidentiality expected of all rank and tenure deliberations. Agreement on the meeting format and voting procedures should be established before the portfolio review begins.

3.13.3 Quorum Requirement. Following a thorough review of the candidate’s portfolio, committee members shall vote on the candidate’s application for tenure and/or promotion. A Quorum is required for any vote to occur and for any report to be finalized.

3.13.4 Affirmative versus Denial Determination. The recommendation of an R&T committee shall be deemed affirmative – that is, in support of awarding tenure and/or promotion to the candidate – if at least 50% of the votes cast are affirmative. Otherwise, the recommendation shall be deemed a denial.
For purposes of this determination, the percentage is calculated by dividing the number of affirmative votes by the total number of affirmative and denial votes. Decisions to abstain from voting, recuse, or not participate do not constitute votes and are therefore excluded from this calculation.

3.13.5 Committee’s Final Report. The outcome of the committee’s deliberations must be documented in a formal “Final Report” that conveys the committee’s official recommendation for action. The report shall include the following elements:

i. A detailed formal recommendation addressed to the Provost and the President, drafted and signed by the members voting in favor of the recommended action. This document must comply with the requirements set forth in section 3.8.2 and be clearly labeled as either “affirmative” or “denial,” consistent with the determination rule in section 3.13.3.

ii. In cases where the committee’s vote is not unanimous, a minority report shall be prepared and signed by the dissenting members. The minority report must articulate the rationale and basis for the dissenting position.

iii. A disposition record (format provided in Exhibit A), prepared by the committee chair and signed by all committee members who participated in the review. Any recusal notices submitted in accordance with section 3.13.1 must be included in this record.

3.13.6 Finalization of Individual Votes. A committee member’s vote is considered final once that member has signed either the formal recommendation or, where applicable, the minority report. Each committee member shall have the right to review both documents prior to signing.

3.14 Confidentiality. Parties with an evaluative role in the process will not disclose the contents of the portfolio, deliberations, or the recommendations. All the recommendations and reports are confidential, but this does not prohibit the president from seeking additional advice. Confidentiality is limited to the extent that the institution is bound by state and federal laws. Specific information is released to the candidate at a time designated in the procedures section.

3.15 Misrepresentation in Portfolios. Faculty must not falsify any information or documentation included in their portfolio or misrepresent any achievements, or statements. Allegations and/or evidence of such misconduct must be reported in writing to the Office of the Provost or through the UHS anonymous Fraud & Non-Compliance reporting system. When evidence of such misconduct arises, the procedures and potential disciplinary actions detailed in PS 06.A.07 (Misconduct in Research, Scholarly, Creative and Government Sponsored Activities) will be followed.

PROCEDURES

4.1 This section outlines the procedures for candidates seeking tenure and/or promotion, as well as the responsibilities of UHD faculty serving at each of the five independent levels of review. Deadlines referenced throughout this section are summarized in Exhibit B.

4.2 Review of Department Criteria

4.2.1 Scheduled Review. In January of each mandatory criteria review year (listed in Exhibit C), the Office of the Provost shall issue a campus-wide announcement initiating the mandatory review of the Department Criteria. T/TT faculty of each department have the autonomy to carry out the review process in their preferred manner provided that established procedures permit any T/TT faculty member to propose changes and ensure that each such proposal is shared with the remaining T/TT faculty members within the department.
The revised criteria must meet the requirements listed in section 3.5.1, including being approved by a majority vote of T/TT faculty. The only exception is the update of the review date itself, which does not require a vote if it is the only change being made. 

4.2.2 Off-Cycle Review. A petition to initiate an off-cycle review must be sent to the chair of the department R&T committee (who will initiate plans to address it) no later than the second Monday of September. Such a petition will invoke the normal processes of the mandatory review outlined above. 

4.2.3 The chair of the department R&T committee or their designee is responsible for forwarding the approved revised criteria to the department chair, dean, and the Provost by December 15 of the review year. The revised criteria will take effect on January 15 of the following calendar year. Both the Office of the Provost and the department chair must retain copies of all approved criteria from the previous ten years. 

4.3 Probationary Review of Tenure-Track Faculty.

4.3.1 Notification of Upcoming Review. By the first Monday in October, the Office of the Provost will notify in writing all tenure-track faculty members who are scheduled to undergo probationary review in the following Spring semester, as well as their Department Chairs.

4.3.2 Portfolio Content Notification. By the second Monday in October, the Department Chair must provide these notified tenure-track faculty members with department-specific instructions regarding required portfolio content. 

4.3.3 Portfolio System Access. By the end of October, the Office of the Provost will make the electronic portfolio management system available to faculty members scheduled to undergo the probationary review. 

4.3.4 Submission Deadline. Faculty members must submit their portfolios for probationary review through the electronic portfolio management system by the first Monday in March.

4.3.5 Feedback. While the department chair and department R&T committee members may consult during the assessment of a candidate’s probationary portfolio, each is required to write a letter offering feedback on the faculty member’s progress towards tenure and promotion. They must then share these letters with the faculty member under review and with one another by the last Friday in April

4.4 Application for Tenure and/or Promotion.

4.4.1 Notice of Intent to Apply. A petitioning faculty member who is scheduled to apply for tenure or who seeks promotion in rank so informs the department R&T committee, department chair, and the dean by the first Monday in May of the academic year preceding the submission of the tenure/promotion application. 

4.4.2 Verification of Eligibility. By the third Monday in May, the dean verifies eligibility and notifies in writing each petitioning faculty member of eligibility status. The dean also notifies the Office of the Provost so that the verification of eligibility is confirmed.

4.4.3 By the last Monday in June, the Office of the Provost will make the electronic portfolio management system available to the eligible candidates for portfolio submission. 

4.4.4 Submission Deadline. To apply for tenure and/or promotion, the candidate must submit their tenure and/or promotion portfolio through portfolio management system by the first Monday in October.

4.5 Department R&T Committee Procedures. 

4.5.1 First meeting. By the second Monday in September, the department chair convenes the first committee meeting to deliver the charge of the committee. At this meeting, the committee chair shall be elected, and – every two years – a department representative to serve on the university R&T committee. The department chair casts a vote in the latter election but not in the former. Therefore, in years when the representative is not up for election, the department chair may forgo attending the first meeting. The newly elected committee chair must notify the department chair, the dean, and the provost of the election results in writing.

4.5.2 Recusals. To effectuate a recusal, a recusing committee member must send a written notice of recusal to the committee chair by the first Monday in October, when candidates’ portfolios become available for committee review.

4.5.3 Tenure and/or Promotion Portfolio Review. The procedures for reviewing candidates’ portfolios are not specifically established in detail within this policy. The committee has autonomy to establish its own procedures for review, deliberation, and voting, provided that these procedures adhere to the requirements outlined in section 3.13. The committee chair is responsible for keeping a record of attendance at each meeting and preserving these records until September 1 of the following academic year.

4.5.4 Timeline. The committee chair, or their designee, is responsible for ensuring that the committee’s final report on each candidacy for tenure and/or promotion (composed in accordance with the format prescribed in 3.13.5) is signed by all committee members and submitted to the dean by the second Monday in December.

4.6 Department Chair Procedures. The department chair sends their recommendation – either in support of (affirmative) or against (denying) the awarding of tenure and/or promotion – to the dean by the second Monday in December

4.7 Dean Procedures.

4.7.1 The dean uploads the final recommendation of department’s R&T committee, department chair’s recommendation and their own recommendation prepared in accordance with sections 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 of this policy to the electronic portfolio management system, integrating them into the candidate's portfolio. 

4.7.2 By the third Wednesday in January the dean advances the entire portfolio through the electronic system to the Office of the Provost and informs the candidate, the department chair, and the department R&T committee members whether the candidacy has progressed beyond the dean’s level – determination is made in accordance with section 3.11.3. For each candidacy that has progressed beyond the dean’s level, the Office of the Provost shall make their portfolio available to the members of the university R&T committee. 

4.7.3 Should the candidacy not progress, the dean will share all three recommendations with the candidate. The candidate may then utilize the grievance process as outlined in PS 10.A.02. 

4.8 University R&T Committee Procedures. 

4.8.1 First Meeting. The Provost convenes the university R&T committee meeting no later than the fourth Monday in January. At this meeting, a committee chair is elected from among the members. The specific election procedures are determined by the committee itself.

4.8.2 Mandatory Recusal. Any committee member from the same department as the candidate shall be recused from the review/voting processes for that candidate. While such a member may be asked to provide pertinent factual information, they shall neither vote nor participate in any discussions or decisions concerning that particular candidacy.

4.8.3 Tenure and/or Promotion Portfolio Review. The committee members review each candidate’s complete portfolio, including recommendations and reports from all prior levels of review, engage in deliberation, and vote on whether to recommend awarding tenure and/or promotion to the candidate adhering to the procedural requirements outlined in section 3.13. The committee chair is responsible for keeping a record of attendance at each meeting and preserving these records until September 1 of the following academic year.

4.8.4 Timeline. The committee’s final report on each candidacy, composed in accordance with the format prescribed in section 3.13, must be submitted to the Provost via the portfolio management system by the first Monday in March. Upon submission, this final report becomes an integral part of the candidate’s portfolio.

4.9 Provost Procedures.

4.9.1 The Provost reviews each candidate's complete Portfolio, which includes final reports and recommendations from all prior levels of review. The Provost writes their recommendation for each candidate, adds it to the candidate’s portfolio through the electronic portfolio management system, and then advances the portfolio for review by the President by March 15^th.

4.9.2 The Provost's Office also serves as a depository for all reports and recommendations generated during the rank and tenure process.

4.9.3 After April 1 of each rank and tenure review cycle, the Provost’s Office forwards all reports and recommendations from the various levels of review to the department R&T committee, the department chair, and the dean.
Copies of recommendations, statements, and reports from each level of review are also made available to the candidate upon request.

4.10 President Procedures

4.10.1 The President shall review each candidate's complete portfolio and notify the candidate of their intention to recommend – or not recommend – the candidate for promotion and/or tenure to the Board of Regents and/or the Chancellor and submit all the recommendations to the Chancellor on or before April 1.

4.10.2 The President shall forward all the recommendations for promotion and tenure to the University of Houston System by the date established by the System for that year.

REVIEW PROCESS

Responsible Party (Reviewer): Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost

Review: Every five years or as needed, by May 31.

Signed original on file in Human Resources

POLICY HISTORY

Issue #1: 08/11/81

Issue #2: 08/15/85

Issue #3: 06/10/88

Issue #4: 08/01/93

Issue #5: 11/15/93

Issue #6: 10/16/95

Issue #7: 04/01/05

Issue #8: 01/05/21

Issue #9: 09/26/25

REFERENCES

BOR 21.06 – Faculty Personnel Actions

Texas Education Code Section 51.943 – Renewal of faculty Employment Contracts

SAM 06.A.09 – Academic Personnel Policies

PS 10.A.02 – Faculty Grievance Policy

PS 10.A.05 – Faculty Performance Evaluations

PS 10.A.06 – UH-Downtown Faculty Dismissal Policy and Procedures

PS 10.A.07 – Faculty Non-Reappointment Policy

PS 10.A.08 – University Funded Faculty Leave Program

PS 10.A.13 – Faculty Employment Policies

PS 10.A.16 – Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty

PS 10.A.19 – Tenured & Tenure Track Academic Appointments

PS 10. A.23 – Extension of the Probationary Period for Tenure-Track Faculty

 

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Committee Disposition Record  

This exhibit shall be part of the Final Recommendation produced by the committee.

 

Committee Type:

Indicate which committee’s voting activity is summarized by this exhibit by checking one of the following:

                     □ Department                 □ University

Recorded dispositions

Complete the table below. The top row under each disposition is reserved for the total count of faculty votes/statuses recorded in that disposition, and the subsequent rows are for names/signatures of the corresponding faculty members.

 

	Affirmative votes	Denial votes	Recusals	Abstentions	Non-Participations
Counts:
List of Faculty Members

 

Appendix B: Probationary Period Timetable

Probationary review

 

In any academic year in which the tenure-track faculty member is scheduled to undergo a probationary review (as specified in the initial appointment letter, adjusted accordingly for any extensions of the probationary period):

 

When – Month	Who	What
OCTOBER	Provost’s Office	By the first Monday in October, the Office of the Provost will notify in writing all tenure-track faculty members who are scheduled to undergo probationary review in the following Spring semester, as well as their Department Chairs.
	Department Chair	By the second Monday in October, the Department Chair must provide these notified tenure-track faculty members with department-specific instructions regarding required portfolio content.
	Provost’s Office	By the end of October, the Office of the Provost will make the electronic portfolio management system available to faculty members scheduled to undergo the probationary review.
MARCH	Faculty member	Faculty members must submit their portfolios for probationary review through the electronic portfolio management system by the first Monday in March.
APRIL	Department Chair and Department R&T committee	While the department chair and department R&T committee members may consult during the assessment of a candidate’s probationary portfolio, each is required to write a letter offering feedback on the faculty member’s progress towards tenure and promotion. They must then share these letters with the faculty member under review and with one another by the last Friday in April.

 

Tenure and Promotion Application

This timeline begins:

• For a tenure-track faculty member: In the fifth year of the probationary period (adjusted as needed for any extensions granted under PS 10.A.23).
• For a tenured faculty member: In the academic year preceding the one in which the faculty member plans to apply for promotion.

 

When – Month	Who	Policy reference
MAY	Candidate	Petitioning faculty member who is scheduled to apply for tenure or who seeks promotion in rank so informs the department R&T committee, department chair, and the dean by the first Monday in May of the academic year preceding the submission of the tenure/promotion application.
MAY	Dean	By the third Monday in May, the dean verifies eligibility and notifies in writing each petitioning faculty member of eligibility status. The dean also notifies the Office of the Provost so that the verification of eligibility is confirmed.
JUNE	Office of the Provost	By the last Monday in June, the Office of the Provost will make the electronic portfolio management system available to the eligible candidates for portfolio submission.
SEPTEMBER	Department chair, Department R&T committee	By the second Monday in September, the department chair convenes the first committee meeting to deliver the charge of the committee. At this meeting, the committee chair shall be elected, and – every two years – a department representative to serve on the university R&T committee. The department chair casts a vote in the latter election but not in the former. Therefore, in years when the representative is not up for election, the department chair may forgo attending the first meeting. The newly elected committee chair must notify the department chair, the dean, and the provost of the election results in writing.
OCTOBER	Candidate	To apply for tenure and/or promotion, the candidate must submit their tenure and/or promotion portfolio through portfolio management system by the first Monday in October.
DECEMBER	Department committee	The committee chair, or their designee, is responsible for ensuring that the committee’s final report on each candidacy for tenure and/or promotion (composed in accordance with the format prescribed in 3.13.5) is signed by all committee members and submitted to the dean by the second Monday in December.
DECEMBER	Department chair	. The department chair sends their recommendation – either in support of (affirmative) or against (denying) the awarding of tenure and/or promotion – to the dean by the second Monday in December.
JANUARY	Dean	By the third Wednesday in January the dean advances the entire portfolio through the electronic system to the Office of the Provost and informs the candidate, the department chair, and the department R&T committee members whether the candidacy has progressed beyond the dean’s level – determination is made in accordance with section 3.11.3. For each candidacy that has progressed beyond the dean’s level, the Office of the Provost shall make their portfolio available to the members of the university R&T committee.
JANUARY	Provost, University R&T committee	The Provost convenes the university R&T committee meeting no later than the fourth Monday in January. At this meeting, a committee chair is elected from among the members. The specific election procedures are determined by the committee itself.
MARCH	University R&T committee	Adhering to the procedural requirements outlined in section 3.13, the committee chair is responsible for keeping a record of attendance at each meeting and preserving these records until September 1 of the following academic year. The committee’s final report on each candidacy, composed in accordance with the format prescribed in subsection 3.13.5, must be submitted to the Provost via the portfolio management system by the first Monday in March. Upon submission, this final report becomes an integral part of the candidate’s portfolio.
MARCH	Provost	The Provost reviews each candidate's complete Portfolio, which includes final reports and recommendations from all prior levels of review. The Provost writes their recommendation for each candidate, adds it to the candidate’s portfolio through the electronic portfolio management system, and then advances the portfolio for review by the President by March 15th. The Provost's Office also serves as a depository for all reports and recommendations generated during the rank and tenure process
APRIL	Provost’s Office	After April 1 of each rank and tenure review cycle, the Provost’s Office forwards all reports and recommendations from the various levels of review to the department R&T committee, the department chair, and the dean. Copies of recommendations, statements, and reports from each level of review are also made available to the candidate upon request.
APRIL	President	The President shall review each candidate's complete portfolio and notify the candidate of their intention to recommend – or not recommend – the candidate for promotion and/or tenure to the Board of Regents and/or the Chancellor and submit all the recommendations to the Chancellor on or before April 1.
As established by UH System	President	The President shall forward all the recommendations for promotion and tenure to the University of Houston System by the date established by the System for that year.

 

*These deadlines are binding on all parties involved. The only exceptions to the timetable are those made by the President.

Appendix C: Content and Structure of Tenure and/or Promotion Portfolio

   

The promotion/tenure report should present an argument sufficiently supported by evidence to demonstrate the faculty member's qualifications for the rank and/or tenure that is sought. The report should build a case which supports the claim of excellence and which addresses, among other areas, service and creative activities. These terms are defined below:

Excellence is demonstrated by significantly exceeding in quality minimum expectations for continuing employment and by making a significant, positive impact on the institution. Excellence should be validated by means convincing to peers and understandable to a neutral observer.

Service and Professional Activities are the application or dissemination of knowledge or use of skills (in one's role as a professional educator or in one's role as a specialist in a particular discipline) for the solution of problems and/or the advancement of the institution, the profession, or the community.

Scholarly/Creative Activities are professional activities that add to the sum of knowledge or to the effective dissemination of knowledge. They are activities that involve original, professional work that leads to a tangible result.

In preparing the report, the faculty member should build a carefully constructed case demonstrating both professional excellence, as defined above, and a commitment to the goals of UHD. While the faculty member is not responsible for the recommendations of the department rank and tenure committee, department chairperson, dean, university rank and tenure committee, or vice president for academic affairs/provost, the faculty member must keep in mind that these recommendations will be based on the accurate, detailed, and specific information contained in the promotion/tenure report. These recommendations will assess the quality of the faculty member's past achievements and potential for high quality future contributions in those areas related to the criteria for promotion/tenure. For these reasons, the faculty member should provide all reviewers with the argumentation and the evidence necessary for favorable recommendations.

The preparation of this report is a significant undertaking. A faculty member should not hesitate to seek help, if needed, from the department chairperson or from peers qualified to offer advice on the organization or writing of the report.

Structure of the Promotion/Tenure Portfolio

The structure of the portfolio is imposed to ensure uniformity among all submissions. The guidelines are broad enough to enable each faculty member to explain all aspects of relevant achievements. The report should be written as a narrative where appropriate. References should be made to documents numbered and included in an appendix.

I. Curriculum Vitae

This section begins with a list of specific degrees held, with place and data of the awarding of each degree; the title of the thesis and/or dissertation; and a statement of major teaching areas. The curriculum vitae section also includes listings of employment history with job titles and brief descriptions of specific responsibilities in reverse chronological order; membership activities and/or offices held in professional organizations; panel appearances; papers read; publications or other kinds of creative activities; honors and awards; and significant public service.

II. Opening Statement

This section begins with the faculty member's rationale for deserving the rank/tenure for which he/she is applying. This statement should include an explanation of how one's philosophy of teaching, service and professional activities, and scholarly/creative activities meets the mission and goals of UHD. This statement should be as convincing, complete, and concise as possible.

III. Statements Concerning Performance Evaluation

This section should include the results of all the faculty member's annual UHD performance evaluations (Documentation is available from the department chairperson or the dean.). This section should also include an explanation of any other documentation of performance. The faculty member should explain why any evaluations have been less than satisfactory.

IV. Statements Concerning Achievements and Potential

​Potential is best understood based upon past achievements. This section of the report demonstrates achievements in teaching, service and professional activities, and scholarly/creative activities:

1. TEACHING
2. Listing of the descriptive titles of all university-level courses taught, the institution at which each was taught, the level of each course taught, and the course numbers for UHD courses taught.
3. Description of a representative sampling of courses taught, which might include an explanation of course syllabi, special materials used, samples of student work demonstrating that course goals were met, and examples of methods and styles of teaching and testing.
4. Description and evidence-supported analysis of candidate’s teaching and how it has developed over time. Examples of supporting evidence include student evaluations (or summary data), peer feedback, reports, qualitative feedback, surveys, etc.
5. Description of other teaching activities such as workshops, non-credit seminars, etc.
6. Demonstration of contributions to the educational program of UHD which includes development or revision of courses or programs, including those offered by any recognized units at UHD.
7. SERVICE AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
8. List of specific services to the university with explanation of contributions to UHD committees, special assignments or projects, or student service activities (such as advising, sponsoring student activities, or other specific student activities or services to students)
9. List of professional services with explanation of any activity which benefits the faculty member's discipline(s) or profession in general
10. List of public services with explanation of applications of the faculty member's professional expertise which benefit the community and contribute positively to the well-being of UHD.
11. SCHOLARLY/CREATIVE ACTIVITIES
12. List of creative activities with brief explanation of publications, presentations at professional meetings or invited lectures, workshops, etc., and their significance.
13. List works not formally published but either distributed or submitted for review, also with explanation of the significance of work.

V. Statement Concerning Minimum Experience

​This section states that the faculty member's experience meets or exceeds the minimum qualifications for the specific rank/tenure sought.

 VI. Statement Concerning Minimum Academic Preparation

This section states that the faculty member has a terminal degree or appropriate preparation (as defined by the faculty member's department) to serve the mission of UHD.

Appendix D: Years of Mandatory Review of Department Criteria

Fall 2024
Fall 2027
Fall 2030
Fall 2033
Fall 2036
Fall 2039
Fall 2042
Fall 2045