Unit Policy
Title
School of Nursing: Appointment, Promotion and Tenure (APT) Policies And Procedures
Introduction
Purpose
This document provides a summary and clarification of the policies and procedures that operationalize the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-Chapel Hill) School of Nursing (SON) Faculty Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure (APT) Guidelines. The APT committee reviews all applications for appointment, promotion, and tenure for tenure-track faculty, making recommendations to the Dean on these matters. The APT committee is charged with the responsibility of fulfilling the APT Guidelines for appointment, promotion, and tenure. The APT committee develops criteria and processes for these actions that are then reviewed and voted on by the tenure track faculty.
The policies and procedures described below conform to the Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Scope
This document provides guidance to the committee chair, chair-elect, committee members and relevant division heads about the review process and responsibilities.
Policy
Policy Statement
I. Types of Appointments
(See section 2.b. of the Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for a full description of the appointment types listed below.)
a. Tenure-track
- Instructor (not currently used at School of Nursing)
- Assistant Professor
- Associate Professor
- Professor
b. Other Appointment Types
- Adjunct
- Visiting
- Joint
- Emeritus
- Nominated
II. Appointment, promotion, and tenure committee (APT) policies
a. Membership
i. Composition
Membership in the APT committee consists of (a) all full-time tenured professors in the SON, and (b) four full-time tenured Associate Professors elected by the tenured/tenure track faculty to serve 3-year terms. Only full-time faculty (1.0 FTE as defined by the university) are eligible to serve on APT. Any assistant dean (Undergraduate, MSN, DNP, PhD) at the rank of associate professor, whether having a fixed-term or tenured/tenure-track appointment, and who has tenured or with tenure track faculty in their program, is an ex-officio member of the committee and serves on the APT committee to ensure that faculty in all programs are equally advantaged in relation by having the program head at the meetings of the APT committee. The School of Nursing dean may attend all APT meetings as an observer.
ii. Committee Chair and Chair-elect
A Chair and chair elect oversee the work of the APT committee and are responsible for negotiating their respective responsibilities for fulfilling the work of the committee. The chair and chair-elect must be professors and are elected by the entire committee to serve four-year terms (two years as chair-elect and two years as chair). Elections will take place during April or May of the current chair’s second year as chair. If a chair is completing his/her term, then the chair-elect becomes the committee chair with an election held for a new chair-elect. The term of the newly elected chair-elect will begin in August of the next academic year, with the chair-elect moving into the chair position at the conclusion of the chair’s term.
If the chair or chair elect chair vacates his/her respective position before completing the full term of the office, the chair-elect will immediately become the committee chair, necessitating the election of a new chair-elect as soon as is possible.
The chair and chair-elect may be re-elected but may not serve more than two consecutive four-year terms. A chair who has completed their term and runs for re-election will serve first as chair-elect (first two years) and then as chair (last two years).
iii. Vacancies
If an associate professor serving on the APT committee is promoted to professor, resigns from the committee, or resigns from the SON, that person will be replaced by another elected associate professor. If the promotion and subsequent vacancy occur in the fall semester, a special election will be held. If the promotion occurs in the spring semester, the vacancy will remain unfilled until the spring annual SON elections are held. If the chair leaves the position before the end of their term, the chair-elect will immediately become chair for a two-year term. A new chair-elect will be elected as soon as possible.
b. Committee Meetings
i. Expectations of Membership
Expectations of APT committee members are that they will attend and be prepared for all APT committee meetings. Members are expected not to schedule other recurring events during APT committee meeting times. If they are away for non-emergency reasons and unable to join the meeting by teleconference, APT committee members are expected to submit any written reviews they were assigned to do; these reviews will be presented at the relevant meeting by another committee member.
To ensure the equitable distribution of the work of the APT committee, assignments of APT members as primary and secondary reviewers will be made during meetings regardless of whether individual members are present. If, after receiving an assignment, an APT member determines they cannot fulfill the assignment because of a conflict of interest, the APT member is responsible for exchanging that assignment with another member who can fulfill it and for notifying the APT Chair of the exchange.
ii. Role of Division Heads at APT Meetings
Tenured professor division heads may vote on any faculty member being reviewed except faculty in their own program/division. Division heads are expected to remain in APT committee meetings during discussions of candidates from their division, participate in all reviews, and then rewrite/amend their letter included in each candidate’s dossier following the discussion.
Division heads for the Undergraduate, MSN, DNP, PhD or research divisions who are associate professors, whether fixed-term or tenure track, are welcome to all APT committee meetings but are expected to attend APT meetings if tenured or tenure track faculty from their program or division being reviewed or discussed. Division heads will have access to all meeting materials and are to be present for the discussion of all faculty undergoing review. However, division heads may not vote on any faculty member from their program/division being reviewed. Only elected associate professors may vote in APT meetings.
iii. Scheduling and Distribution of Meeting Materials
APT meetings are held monthly during the academic year. In consultation with the chair-elect, the chair of the APT committee sets the meeting agenda, which is made available to APT members and the dean by the human resources (HR) manager at least one week prior to the meeting. All materials for the meeting are uploaded to a secured and shared site for review by all APT members. Elected associate professors will have access to all materials.
iv. Quorum and Voting on Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Quorum
Quorum. A quorum, defined as more than 50% of the professors, is necessary for voting to occur. To be eligible to vote, members must be present for the relevant discussion, be that in person or virtually
Voting. The APT committee members vote by closed ballot in the following cases: promotion to associate professor and professor ranks, new tenure-track appointments, and any time a member asks for a closed ballot vote.
Elected associate professors may participate in all discussions and vote on all matters, including appointments, promotions and post-tenure reviews regardless of the rank of the person being reviewed.
v. Justification of Negative Votes and Abstentions
The minority of votes have most often represented “no” votes. According to a January 6, 2014 memo from then-Provost James W. Dean, “The University APT committee and the Office of the Provost recommends that chairs/deans (1) require faculty members to provide reasons for “no” votes and abstentions; and (2) present that information in their review letter.”
To ensure that all minority votes and the rationale for those votes are reflected in the APT committee’s recommendation(s) to the dean, the review letter written by the APT chair shall contain the reasons for all abstentions and “no” votes as well as the rationale from the committee discussion for “yes” votes when “yes” votes comprise less than 40% of all votes.
To preserve faculty anonymity while adhering to this recommendation, faculty are expected to submit a written rationale for voting to the HR manager by the end of the business day of the APT meeting in which the action was considered. No member of the APT committee (including the APT chair) or the dean, will be given the name of anyone who voted “no” or abstained.
c. Appointment and Promotion Reviews
i. Role of Division Heads in Developing Promotion Dossier and the Review Process
Division heads play a key role in mentoring faculty for academic growth and advancement. Through annual reviews and other meetings as needed, division heads advise faculty members on their career development and readiness for promotion. They also provide the faculty member with information on the promotion process and work closely with them as they develop their dossiers. Faculty members are expected to consult regularly with their division heads as they develop their promotion materials. Section 2.c.(1) of the Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill states that “Each initial appointment with permanent tenure or for a fixed or probationary term longer than one year, each promotion in rank, and each reappointment of an instructor, assistant professor or associate professor shall be initiated by recommendation of the division head concerned after consultation with the assembled full professors of that department.”
Other specific responsibilities of the Division Heads include:
- Solicitation of peer teaching evaluations and ensuring they are completed and included in the dossier.
- Writing a formal letter of review for inclusion in the promotion dossier. Division Heads are expected to review all dossier materials, including all external review letters before writing their letters of recommendation.
- Completing a final review of the dossier to ensure completeness and accuracy before it is submitted to the HR Manager.
- Communicating outcomes to the candidate, if so directed by the dean.
ii. Time frame for Probationary Appointments and Reviews
All tenure-track appointments without tenure are probationary. The usual number and length of the probationary terms for each rank are: (a) instructor, four one-year terms; (b) assistant professor, one four-year term and then one three-year term; and (c) associate professor, one five-year term.
Per Section 2.c.(6)(iii) of the Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, probationary tenure-track faculty members may stop the tenure clock for up to two years for reasons of health, childbirth, child or elder care, or similar compelling circumstances. Faculty may request a written memorandum of amendment extending the term of the current appointment and thereby the maximum probationary period with no resulting change in normal employment obligations, in order to provide the faculty member additional time to demonstrate fully her/his professional qualifications for reappointment or permanent tenure. Extensions may be granted in increments not to exceed 12 months, up to a maximum of 24 months. Any such request must be initiated not later than 24 months before the end of the term to which it is to apply and before the process for evaluating the faculty member for reappointment has begun. All such extensions must be approved by the Chancellor (or delegate) before becoming effective.
iii. Post-Tenure Review
All tenured faculty are reviewed at least every five years to assess the quality of their academic performance and readiness. Associate professors are also reviewed for their readiness for promotion to professor. The School of Nursing’s Policy on Post-Tenure Review conforms to the University's Post-Tenure Review Policy. In accordance with the University's Post-Tenure Review Policy, all APT members must complete the UNC System Office's web-based post-tenure review training.
iv. Effective Date for Tenure and Appointment
The effective date of appointments, tenure, and/or promotion follows Board of Trustees approval. Official notification of Board of Trustee review outcomes is sent by the Office of the Provost to the HR manager of the School of Nursing.
III. Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee (APT) Procedures
a. Levels of Review
All initial appointments of tenure-track faculty and all dossiers for promotion are reviewed at the following levels:
- School of Nursing APT committee;
- School of Nursing dean;
- Health Sciences Advisory Committee;
- University Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure committee; and
- UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees.
With the exception of the Health Sciences Advisory Committee, each group makes a recommendation to the next higher group. The Health Sciences Advisory Committee provides input to the candidate’s dean on concerns about the candidate’s dossier and additions or refinements that would enhance the likelihood of a successful review by the University APT committee. Final decisions regarding promotion and tenure are made by the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees.
b. Identification of Faculty to Be Reviewed
A list of all faculty members is prepared by the HR manager and is reviewed each February during a meeting with the APT committee chair and chair-elect, and the division heads to identify faculty for review in the next academic year. Reviews of existing faculty that are not identified at this meeting will only be added to the review calendar for the upcoming year with compelling rationale. The final decision on reviews not identified at the annual meeting and not dictated by a faculty member’s years in rank rests with the APT committee chair and chair elect.
The APT committee chair notifies faculty members scheduled for review of the date of their review at least six (6) months ahead of their respective review date. The letter of notification includes a list of materials the faculty member is responsible for including in the dossier (e.g., curriculum vitae using UNC-Chapel Hill format, annual evaluation material, personal essay, scholarly products, as relevant) and deadlines for the submission of materials to the division heads and the HR manager.
c. Dossier Content
i. Appointment
- Current curriculum vitae (UNC-Chapel Hill format preferred but not required).
- APT Essay - optional (limit to five (5) single-spaced pages). Please see the SON's Standard On Writing An Appointment, Promotion, And Tenure Essay. Nomination of four (4) reviewers from outside the University who, as authorities in the field, would be appropriate to review the candidate’s work. For a new assistant professor, these reviewers may have been directly involved with the candidate (e.g., a collaborator, mentor, previous co-worker, former dissertation Head, etc.) See: d. External letters of review.
- Scholarly products (no more than five (5) with refereed ones preferred).
- Completed AP2 form.
ii. Third Year Review
- Current curriculum vitae in the UNC-Chapel Hill format.
- APT Essay (limit to five (5) single-spaced pages) Please see the SON's Standard On Writing An Appointment, Promotion, And Tenure Essay.
- Scholarly products since appointment at UNC School of Nursing (no more than five (5); refereed preferred).
- Documentation of official student and course evaluations of teaching effectiveness (all evaluations since appointment to the tenure track at the UNC School of Nursing).
- Two peer teaching evaluations, no older than one year, which were solicited by the division head.
- Completed AP2 form.
iii. Fifth Year Review
- Current curriculum vitae in the UNC-Chapel Hill format.
- APT Essay (limit to five (5) single-spaced pages). Please see the SON's Standard On Writing An Appointment, Promotion, And Tenure Essay. Nomination of four (4) reviewers from outside the University who, as authorities in the field, would be appropriate to review the candidate’s work. These reviewers may not have been directly involved with the candidate (e.g., a collaborator, mentor, previous co-worker, former dissertation Head), but may know the candidate through professional interactions (e.g., having reviewed publications or served with the candidate on review committees).
- Scholarly products since appointment to the tenure track at the UNC School of Nursing (no more than five (5) with refereed ones preferred).
- Documentation of official student and course evaluations of teaching effectiveness (all evaluations since appointment to the tenure track at the UNC School of Nursing).
- Two peer teaching evaluations, no older than one year, will be required. The division head solicits these evaluations.
- Completed AP2 form.
d. External Letters of Review
Initial tenure-track appointments and all tenure and promotion actions require four (4) external letters of review by tenured faculty members who are at or above the rank the candidate is seeking. External reviewers are selected by the APT committee, two of whom will come from the list of names submitted by the candidate.
The faculty candidate submits to the candidate's division head a list with the names of four (4) external reviewers who are at or above the rank for which the candidate is applying. Although letters should ideally be from faculty at four different institutions of similar research capacity to UNC-Chapel Hill and with whom the candidate has had no previous collaborations or other potential conflicts of interest, this requirement can be waived for new assistant professor candidates for whom there may be a smaller pool of individuals able to assess their credentials. In the case of new assistant professors, it is acceptable to obtain external review letters from individuals at the candidate’s current institution with whom the candidate has collaborated, whereas all letters are normally from reviewers outside UNC-Chapel Hill.
In the case of candidates for the rank of associate or professor, all external reviewers must have no history of past collaboration with the candidate (including co-authorship, co-investigator, mentor, prior department head or dean).
The APT chair or chair-elect will solicit reviews from the proposed external reviewers selected by the committee, two of which have been suggested by the candidate and two by the committee. APT members may be asked to solicit one or more of these reviews if they have a prior working relationship with a reviewer. At the discretion of the APT chair, additional external review letters may be solicited.
e. Review of Faculty in Administrative Positions
In the case of faculty members serving in administrative roles, the APT committee reviews scholarship in the areas of teaching, research, and service as described in the APT Guidelines; the review does not include performance in the administrative position.
f. Extension of dossier submission deadlines
In the event that a faculty member cannot meet the designated deadline set forth in the letter received from the APT chair directing the faculty member to turn in a dossier, the faculty member will send an email to the APT chair with a copy to the relevant division heads and the HR manager requesting a deadline extension. Requests received by the APT chair will be discussed with the relevant division head before deciding if the extension request should be granted.
In the event that the division head cannot meet the designated deadline set forth in the APT letter to turn in a faculty member’s dossier, the division head will send an email to the APT chair with a copy to the HR manager to request an extension to the deadline. In these situations, the requested materials must be submitted to allow at least one (1) full week for the APT committee members to review the dossier and to allow the SON to meet University-mandated deadlines. Requests for deadline extensions should be made only for the most urgent reasons. Requests received by the APT chair will be discussed with the relevant division head before deciding whether or not to grant the extension request.
i. APT committee member's review of dossier
1. Responsibilities of assigned reviewers
Two APT committee members are assigned to provide a written evaluation of the performance of any faculty member under consideration for promotion and/or tenure, or post-tenure reviews.
The primary reviewer is responsible for describing the educational and work background of the applicant and summarizing the performance and evaluating the impact and recognition the applicant’s work has garnered in each of the three missions of the University: research, teaching, and service. When professors are being reviewed, the primary and secondary reviewer must be a professor. For all other reviews, one of the two reviewers must be a professor.
The secondary reviewer need not describe the educational and work background of the applicant nor summarize the performance of the applicant, but he/she must provide his/her own independent evaluations of the impact and recognition the applicant’s work has garnered in each of the three missions of the University: research, teaching, and service.
Reviewers present their reviews during an APT meeting. If APT members cannot be present or attend by teleconferencing the meeting at which their reviews are scheduled to be presented, either the other reviewer, another committee member or the APT chair will read their reviews. APT committee members serving as reviewers may come from any program within the SON.
2. Review Format
Both primary and secondary reviewers should use the SON's Standard On Writing Appointment, Promotion, And Tenure Reviews.
ii. Faculty Notification of Review Outcome
1. School of Nursing Review
The procedure for notification of faculty members of their APT review outcome is as follows:
- Immediately following the APT committee meeting in which a faculty member’s application for tenure and/or promotion is reviewed, the chair and chair-elect of the APT committee will meet with the dean to advise her/him of the committee’s recommendations.
- The dean, who will already have reviewed the faculty member’s dossier, will decide whether to accept or reject the recommendation.
- If the Dean accepts the APT recommendation either to support or not to support reappointment, tenure and/or promotion, the Dean or the Dean's designee (typically the Division Head) will advise the faculty member of this decision as soon as possible. Within two weeks of the APT Committee meeting, the faculty member will meet with the Division Head and (if requested) the APT Committee Chair to receive information about the decision and to have any questions the faculty member may have concerning the review answered.
- If the dean accepts the APT recommendation either to support or not to support reappointment, tenure and/or promotion, the dean or the dean’s designee (typically the relevant division head) will advise the faculty member of this decision as soon as possible. Generally the faculty member should be able to meet with their division head and, if requested, the APT chair (or chair-elect, if needed) to receive information about the committee’s decision and to have any questions the faculty member may have concerning the review answered.
- If the dean does not accept the APT recommendation either to support or not to support reappointment, tenure and/or promotion, the dean will confer with the relevant division head and ensure that the faculty member is informed about the dean’s decision within one (1) week of the meeting with the APT chair and chair-elect. As in the case of concurrence with the APT committee recommendation, the dean or the dean’s designee will convey this decision to the faculty member.
- In the event that the dean does not accept the APT committee member’s recommendation, the dean will meet with the APT committee to discuss the basis for the disagreement.
- Within two (2) weeks following the conclusion of the third-year and the dean’s review of the recommendation, the chair of the APT committee will send a copy of the review with the committee’s recommendations to the faculty member with a copy also sent to the relevant division head. The faculty member is expected to meet with the faculty member's division head at a mutually agreed upon time to discuss the third-year review summary and recommendations and, as relevant, develop a strategy to address any areas noted in need of improvement.
2. University Review
The APT chair prepares a letter summarizing the committee’s review of candidates for promotion and/or tenure. The dean reviews the letter and may offer suggestions for revision. The final letter, co-signed by the dean and APT chair, becomes part of the candidate dossier that is forwarded to the next level of review by the Heath Sciences Advisory Committee. Any APT member participating in the review of the candidate has access to this final letter.
The procedure for notification of faculty of appointment, reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion of faculty candidates is as follows:
- The HR manager will send an email to the dean when notification is received from the Provost’s Office that the action (appointment, reappointment, tenure and/or promotion) has been approved.
- In the case of a successful review, the dean will then send a congratulatory email to that faculty member. In the case of an unsuccessful review, the dean and relevant division head will meet with the candidate to discuss the outcome of the review.
- One to two days before the effective date of appointment and promotion actions, the HR manager will send the dean an email listing new faculty appointments and promotions.
- The Dean will then email a school-wide announcement.
iii. Appeals and Grievances
Section 4 (Nonreappointment of Tenure Track Faculty Members) of the Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill describes the procedure for appealing a decision not to reappoint a tenure-track faculty member.
Other information regarding grievance procedures and the university’s Faculty Grievance Committee may be found in The Faculty Code of University Government.
Exceptions
None.
Related Requirements
External Regulations and Consequences
- UNC-Chapel Hill, Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
- UNC-Chapel Hill, The Faculty Code of University Government
- UNC-Chapel Hill, Faculty Handbook: Appointment, Promotion & Tenure Guidelines
- UNC-Chapel Hill, Post-Tenure Review Policy
- UNC Chapel Hill, Academic Personnel - Dossier: Format for Tenure Track or Tenured Faculty Review
- UNC Chapel Hill, Academic Personnel - Less than Full-Time Work Schedules
- UNC System Office, Post-Tenure Review Training
- UNC System Office, Policy 400.3.3 - Performance Review of Tenured Faculty
- UNC System Office, Policy 400.3.3.1[G] - Guidelines on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty
Unit Policies, Standards, and Procedures
Contact Information
Policy Contact
Mary R. Lynn, APT committee chair
Other Contacts
N/A
Important Dates
- Effective Date and title of Approver: 11/1996
- 01/2000
- 01/2001
- 09/2001
- 10/2001
- 05/2002
- 10/2002
- 04/2003
- 05/2003
- 05/2004
- 08/2004
- 09/2004
- 11/2004
- 03/2005
- 08/2005
- 01/2006
- 02/2006
- 05/2006
- 09/2006
- 10/2006
- 11/2006
- 04/2007
- 10/2007
- 11/2007
- 01/2008
- 05/2011
- 04/2013
- 10/2013
- 01/2014
- Significantly revised & approved by faculty vote April 2017
- 2/2020
- 2/2021
Approved by:
Mary H. Palmer
APT Committee Chair