Policy

Faculty Renewal, Tenure, and Promotion (FAC 5)

The University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Policy # 1.618
Faculty Renewal, Tenure, and Promotion (FAC 5)

Original Issuance Date: September 1989
Last Revision Date: April 1, 2025
Next Review Date: April 2030

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines and a process for the renewal, tenure, and promotion of ranked (tenure-track and tenured) faculty.

2. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

3. SCOPE

Applies to all ranked (tenure-track and tenured) faculty.

4. BACKGROUND

The term “Discipline” serves to acknowledge the units (department, program, college, etc.) into which faculty were hired prior to the 2025 academic restructuring, which served as a faculty member’s tenure home. The academic restructuring dissolves departments as discrete governance units and instead houses programs within Schools, which therefore become the smallest academic governance units. Following the restructuring, a) all faculty will be affiliated with a primary Discipline (except for faculty with split assignments), b) all School bylaws will enumerate the Disciplines housed within each School, c) a faculty member’s primary Discipline and tenure will be housed within the same School, and d) tenure home for faculty with split assignments across more than one School will be determined by their assignment wight. Following the 2025 restructuring, a faculty member’s tenure home will be situated at the School level.

5. DEFINITIONS

Discipline: In alignment with academic norms, the field of study or expertise or the branch of learning or knowledge in which individual faculty are specialists, leading to their intra-university curricular assignments as well as (typically but not exclusively) intra- and extra-university research. For the purposes of this policy, “Discipline” may refer to the individual faculty member’s specialization, expertise, or field of study or a wider collective of faculty who belong to the same field of study.

6. POLICY STATEMENT

FAC 5.A Overview

The renewal, tenure, and promotion policy which is stated here applies to all persons with faculty rank, both teaching and non‑teaching. Positive recommendations should be made only for those candidates who show evidence of contributions to raising the quality of education and service offered by the University.

In preparing their materials, the candidate should stress facts with supporting evidence of these facts. The candidate should clearly indicate which listed duties are part of their assigned job and which represent extra effort.

FAC 5.B General Procedures

The following procedures and information pertain to renewal, tenure, and promotion processes.

FAC 5.B.0 Incorporation of School Personnel Materials

Please note that substantive requirements relating to faculty appointment, renewal, tenure, promotion, and merit may be found in materials developed at the School level or in Discipline guidelines. Discipline guidelines and School policies should clearly explain any additional details relevant to the renewal, tenure, and promotion process not contained in this policy.

FAC 5.B.1 Forms

Forms to be used for renewal and tenure are prepared and distributed by the Provost and Vice Chancellor’s Office. They are available at the following link:  https://www.uwosh.edu/academic-affairs/forms/. Prior to adoption of any changes to these forms, the Provost shall consult with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee (which retains the discretion to present any proposed changes to the Senate for review and recommendation).

FAC 5.B.2 Timetable

Dates for the initiation of renewal, tenure, and promotion processes for ranked faculty are determined each year according to administrative calendar, which is available from the Provost and Vice Chancellor’s office or at https://www.uwosh.edu/academic-affairs/calendars/.  All committees must observe the Open Meetings Law (see Section 19.81 et seq. Wis. Stats.)

FAC 5.B.3 Levels of Review and Constituency of Initial Level

Two levels of faculty review are the norm, with an initial level of review at the Discipline and a second level of review at the School level. The faculty of each School, however, have the collective authority to define a process for a single level of faculty review in which a School-level renewal, tenure, and promotion committee serves as the initial level of review. During the initial ratification of a School’s decision to establish a single level of faculty review, the School shall submit a narrative justification of its decision to the Faculty Senate. In all cases, School bylaws and renewal, tenure, and promotion policy will define committee constituency and review procedure. Schools with a single level of faculty review shall be guided by the provisions in FAC 5 B.3.I (3 a-b). The initial level of review and the Chancellor make decisions on renewal and recommendations on tenure and promotion. Tenure and promotion decisions are an action approved only by the Board of Regents. In all cases, all other levels of review are advisory to the initial level and the Chancellor. Below “decision” is to be read as a decision in the context of renewal and as a recommendation in the context of tenure or promotion.

FAC 5.B.3.I Constituency of the Initial Level

  1. If the Discipline is the initial level of review, the committee shall include all tenured members of the Discipline, and an External Process Observer (a non-voting faculty committee member) designated by the office of the Associate Vice Chancellor of Faculty and Academic Staff Affairs. An individual participating in the initial level of review is disqualified from subsequently participating as a member of the School renewal, tenure, and promotion committee (if applicable) when the candidate’s file progresses to the second level of faculty review.
  2. If there are no tenured faculty or faculty of the appropriate rank in the Discipline, the School renewal, tenure, and promotion committee shall be the initial level of review and the only level of faculty review.
  3. Subject to the requirement that all initial levels of review be comprised of no fewer than three persons, each School may establish rules for the constituency of the initial level of review. Unless the School’s policies (approved by the School faculty, the Faculty Senate, and the Chancellor) establish another framework, the following conditions shall pertain to the initial level of review:
    • If there is only one tenured faculty member in the Discipline deliberating and voting, they shall be joined by the School renewal, tenure, and promotion committee for the purpose of acting as the initial level of review, subject to: (1) the tenured faculty member of the Discipline is entitled to one vote; and (2) the members of the School committee shall, in total, have two votes, with the vote of each individual member weighted to equal a proportionate share based on the number of School committee members participating (e.g., if there are seven members of the School committee, each participating individual shall be entitled to a 2/7th vote).
    • If there are two tenured faculty members in the Discipline deliberating and voting, they shall be joined by the School renewal, tenure, and promotion committee for the purpose of acting as the initial level of review, subject to : (1) each tenured faculty member of the Discipline is entitled to one vote; and (2) the School committee shall, in total, have one vote, with the vote of each individual member weighted to equal a proportionate share based on the number of School committee members participating (e.g., if there are seven members of the School committee, each participating individual shall be entitled to a 1/7th vote).
  4. If the first level of faculty review is conducted by the School renewal, tenure, and promotion committee, it shall issue a decision and the file shall progress to the joint School Director-Dean level for a recommendation, proceeding on from there. Chair selection will be made at the time of the committee’s convening (usually at the first meeting of the academic year). When there are faculty of the appropriate rank who belong to the same Discipline as the candidate whose credentials the School committee is evaluating, the chair selection will be made from this committee constituency. When there are no disciplinary representatives of the appropriate rank, the chair selection will be made from the School committee at large. When the only level of faculty review takes place at the School level, a chair will be selected for each renewal, tenure, or promotion file, when those files originate from distinct Disciplines.

FAC 5.B.3.II Constituency of the School Committee

School renewal, tenure, and promotions committees are composed of individuals who are directly elected by the faculty of the Schools, and an External Process Observer (a non-voting faculty committee member) designated by the office of the Associate Vice Chancellor of Faculty and Academic Staff Affairs. In all Schools, procedures for election should prevent significant imbalances of faculty members’ expertise. Deans or other persons who render independent decisions on the candidate should not sit with renewal, tenure, and promotions committees during their deliberations or voting but may meet with them afterwards to discuss their recommendations. If the School renewal, tenure, and promotion committee is not the Initial Level of Review, it should not attempt to preempt the academic judgments of the initial level of review but should provide for the equitable evaluation of all candidates in terms of the formal criteria previously delineated as they may specifically apply to candidates’ Discipline and School. In other words, the School renewal, tenure, and promotion committee evaluates procedure and ascertains that criteria have been met as claimed. Recommendations of the School renewal, tenure, and promotion committee shall be forwarded to the Dean. The candidate and all previous levels of review, if applicable, that acted on the renewal and/or promotion shall be given written notice of the action of the committee and the reasons therefor.

FAC 5.B.3.III Sequence and Timing Across Levels of Review

(1)  Initial Level
The initial level of review occurs within the Discipline and has the primary responsibility to assess the qualifications of the candidate for renewal, tenure, or promotion. The decision of the initial level is forwarded to the second level of review.

How probationary faculty will be informed of the initiation of their review process will vary depending on whether it is School policy that all faculty will undergo two levels of faculty review and, in such cases, whether a faculty member belongs to a Discipline with the requisite number of faculty of the appropriate rank to evaluate their file at the disciplinary or first of the two levels of faculty review. In all cases, a probationary faculty member will be informed in writing by the School Director and the chair of their School’s renewal, tenure, and promotion committee at least twenty calendar days prior to the date the candidate’s materials are due to the initial level committee. In cases in which there are two levels of faculty review within the faculty member’s School, the chair of the School renewal, tenure, and promotion committee (or equivalent) will designate a disciplinary convener, communicating the designee to the School Director and the faculty member undergoing review. Where applicable, School renewal, tenure, and promotion policy will define procedures for Discipline-level review.

(2)  Second Level
The second level of review is the School renewal, tenure, and promotion committee. Recommendations (decision if the first level) from the School committee are forwarded to the Dean.

(3)  Dean
The Dean, in consultation with the School Director, shall review forms which were submitted, attach their recommendation as co-signatories, and forward the information to the Provost and Vice Chancellor. The candidate and all previous levels of review will be  notified of and have access to the written notice of the recommendation of the Dean.

(4)  Provost and Vice Chancellor
The Provost and Vice Chancellor, in consultation with the Associate Vice Chancellor for Faculty and Academic Staff Affairs, shall review the forms and forward their recommendation to the Chancellor. Along with all previous levels of review, the candidate shall be notified of and have access to the written notice of the recommendation of the Provost and Vice Chancellor.

(5)  Chancellor
The Chancellor shall accept or reject the recommendations sent to them and forward the list of accepted candidates directly to the Board of Regents office. Along with all previous levels of review, the candidate shall be notified of and have access to the written notice of the actions of the Chancellor, which shall include the reasons therefor. It is recommended that the Chancellor or the Provost and Vice Chancellor discuss reasons with the faculty member for any action contrary to the positive recommendations of all previous levels of review.

(6)  Board of Regents
In cases of tenure and promotion, the Board of Regents provides the final approval of the decision of the Chancellor for tenure or promotion. Candidates should be notified by the Chancellor or the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs after the Regents have approved the tenure or promotion.

(7)  Nonrenewal, non-tenure, and non-promotion
When the initial level of review recommends non-renewal, non-tenure, or non-promotion, the process continues to the second and all subsequent levels of review. It should be noted that while the subsequent levels recommend, UWS 3.06 only recognizes the initial level and Chancellor as having the ability to recommend a final decision. The candidate in these circumstances has the right to reconsideration and appeal. If the candidate requests reconsideration, the process stops and the reconsideration process commences.

(8)  Decision notification
Following UWS 3.06 (1) (c), each reviewing level must notify the faculty member within 20 days of a decision.

FAC 5.B.4 Evidence

  1. The evidence shall consist of the following items: The material submitted by the faculty member, any other materials added by the initial level of review, the assessments, and recommendations from the various levels of review, material from the initial appointment, and materials from any subsequent renewal consideration.
    1. Discussions of what constitutes teaching, scholarly activities, and service are set forth in this handbook. The “Core of Academe” reprinted in FAC 1 contains a discussion of the meanings of teaching, scholarly activity, and service. The activities itemized in each of these areas are presented as a non-exhaustive listing of the types of activities that would be appropriate to include as evidence of accomplishment in these areas.
    2. In addition to submitting evidence of accomplishments, each candidate for renewal, tenure, and promotion will prepare three personal statements summarizing their accomplishments in the areas of teaching effectiveness, scholarly activities, and service. Discipline guidelines and School policies should clearly define requirements for these narratives.
    3. During its review of the candidate, each level of review shall have access to all of the original documents submitted to the initial level of review.
    4. The initial level of review shall retain all materials until the current renewal, tenure, or promotion process is complete, including any reconsideration or appeals procedures.
  2. Evidence of teaching ability, including student opinion surveys and faculty peer evaluations must be presented and included in the portfolio for review at all levels.
    1. Schools and Disciplines have the responsibility (through the applicable bylaws) to establish policy pertaining to the acquisition and use of student opinions and faculty peer evaluations. Schools and Disciplines have the responsibility to address the appropriate use of SOS data in the applicable policies. These policies must be consistent with FAC 6.4 and FAC 6.6 which detail the evaluation of teaching effectiveness and the appropriate use of SOS data, respectively. Schools and Disciplines should specify procedures for cases where SOS data may be corrupted (e.g. data was known to be collected after grades were assigned, SOSs for multi-instructor sections compromised, etc.).
    2. “Peer evaluation,” may be submitted by tenured or non-tenured members of the individual’s Discipline, by University of Wisconsin Oshkosh faculty from outside of the individual’s Discipline, and/or by faculty from other institutions. Disciplines and Schools should have clear guidelines for how to conduct a formal peer evaluation.
    3. Nonteaching faculty must present evaluations of performance of professional responsibilities directly related to the university appointment.
    4. Faculty whose responsibilities are primarily nonteaching but who also teach will be evaluated for classroom performance as well.
  3. Evidence of scholarly activity should include copies of materials and evidence related to scholarly activities. Before the portfolio is available to the second level of review, the initial reviewing level will prepare a written statement which clearly assesses the quality and quantity of such work and include it in the candidate’s portfolio.
  4. Information on service activities shall be presented for review at all levels.
  5. If a clarification is needed, or if more material becomes available during the review at the initial level of review, the faculty member under review may submit additional evidence to the portfolio, up to the time the decision is made by the initial level of review.
  6. The initial level may add additional evidence relevant to the candidate’s performance, subject to the following:
    1. The evidence incorporated must be deemed relevant by majority vote of the initial level.
    2. The candidate is informed of the inclusion of the additional information and is immediately given access to the additional evidence. Prior to the decision being made by the initial level of review, the candidate may ask that the added information be removed from the portfolio. If the committee does not agree with the candidate’s request, or if action is taken before such a request is presented, the candidate shall be afforded an opportunity to append a statement to the added material that shall become a part of the portfolio and thereby accompany the material through the subsequent steps in the review process.

FAC 5.B.5 Criteria

  1. Decisions relating to renewal of appointments, recommending tenure, or promotion shall require an evaluation of the candidate’s contribution to the university in the areas of teaching, scholarly activities, and service. The relative importance of each function of the evaluation process shall be decided by Discipline/equivalent and School faculties in accordance with the mission and needs of the University and its component parts.
  2. Renewal, tenure, and promotion criteria must exist for all Disciplines and Schools. Criteria should specify minimum expectations for satisfactory and excellent performance in all three areas: teaching effectiveness, scholarly and creative activity, and service.
  3. Renewal, tenure, and promotion criteria are subject to periodic review.
    1. The purpose of such review is to assure that consensus exists among all participants in the renewal/tenure decision process as to the nature and rigor of the criteria as they are to be applied in future decisions. Reviews are intended to orient participants to a clear understanding of established criterion but need not lead to change.
    2. Renewal, tenure, and promotion criteria are normally reviewed every five years or whenever participants in the renewal, tenure, and promotion process deem it necessary
    3. The Chancellor, Provost and Vice Chancellor, Deans, or School governance body may initiate a review of School criteria at any time they deem circumstances warrant.
  4. Consistent with the practices of shared governance, changes in criteria require the agreement of all levels participating in the renewal, tenure, and promotion processes.
    1. Initial level criteria require the agreement of the Discipline, School faculty, Dean, Provost and Vice Chancellor, and Chancellor.
    2. School criteria require the agreement of the School faculty, Dean, Provost and Vice Chancellor, and Chancellor.
    3. The procedure for agreement by School faculty shall be determined by each School’s bylaws.
  5. The degree and performance requirements for obtaining tenure will be no less than those set forth in FAC 5.E for promotion to associate professor.
  6. The criteria in effect for any renewal, tenure, or promotion decision are those criteria that were operational at the time that the probationary faculty member commenced their appointment as a tenure track probationary faculty member. Renewal, tenure, and promotion criteria adopted after appointment will be applied when the probationary faculty member makes a written request to the initial level of review. This request must precede or accompany the submission of the renewal/tenure papers that are filed by the probationary faculty member.
  7. It is the responsibility of the Discipline to make sure that all faculty in their units/equivalent are aware of these criteria.
    1. Each Discipline will review the initial level, School, and university criteria currently in effect with probationary faculty at the onset of employment, and thereafter no less frequently than once per year.
    2. If the initial level, School, or university criteria are changed, the Discipline will immediately review the changes with all faculty in the unit/equivalent.
  8. Levels of review shall not use criteria which are not specified by the Discipline guidelines and School policies, or other university regulations.

FAC 5.C Renewal

This section contains information specific to renewals of probationary appointments.

FAC 5.C.1 Notice Periods

  1. A faculty member who is employed on a probationary appointment pursuant to UWS 3.01(1)(b) shall be given written notice of reappointment or non-reappointment for another academic year in advance of the expiration of their current appointment as follows:
    1. When the appointment expires at the end of an academic year, not later than March 1 of the first academic year and not later than December 15 of the second consecutive academic year of service.
    2. If the initial appointment expires during an academic year, at least three months prior to its expiration; if a second consecutive appointment terminates during the academic year, at least six months prior to its expiration.
    3. After two or more years of continuous service at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, such notice shall be given at least twelve months before the expiration of the appointment.
  2. Proper Notice. Notice shall be given by sending duplicate copies of letters to the faculty member’s University email address as well as posted to his or their last known home address (as on file with the Human Resources Office) their portfolio. If the original letter of appointment stated that the contract was terminal and specified an ending date, no additional letter of non-reappointment is required.
  3. Failure to Provide Notice. If proper notice is not given in accordance with this section, the aggrieved faculty member shall be entitled to a one-year terminal appointment. Such appointments, however, shall not result in achievement of tenure.

FAC 5.C.2 Renewal for Multiple Years

Probationary faculty (whether hired under single-year or two-year initial appointments) may be considered for renewal for subsequent two- or three-year terms, subject to the following conditions:

  1. Multiple-year renewals require the recommendation of the initial level of review and are subject to review by successive levels (i.e., second level School renewal, tenure, and promotion committee (if applicable), Dean, and Provost and Vice Chancellor). The multiple-year tenure track appointment sequence will ordinarily follow a 2-3-2 year appointment cycle at the initiative of the Discipline. After the initial two-year tenure track appointment, renewals ordinarily occur in the second and fourth years of service. The tenure decision takes place in the sixth year.
  2. All recommendations for multi-year renewals will be accompanied by written rationale from all levels of review that address the following factors:
    1. the credentials of the probationary employee.
    2. the candidate’s demonstrated effectiveness in teaching, scholarly activities, and service; and
    3. a statement of the candidate’s expected performance during the renewal period.
  3. Tenure decisions require a separate affirmative decision based upon a comprehensive review of the candidate’s record of teaching, scholarly activities, and service.
  4. Required fourth year review: To focus attention on the record of accomplishment and to provide the probationary faculty with direction and sufficient time to demonstrate continued development, all probationary faculty members must be given renewal consideration two years prior to the expected tenure review.

FAC 5.C.3 Renewal Procedures

  1. Each probationary faculty member will be informed in writing by the School Director and the chair of their School’s renewal, tenure, and promotion committee (or equivalent) at least twenty calendar days prior to the date the initial review on renewal/nonrenewal will take place. Depending on whether faculty files will undergo one or two levels of faculty review (see FAC 5.B.3.III.1.a.), the individual being reviewed will either be informed by the Discipline’s designee (or equivalent) or the chair of the School’s renewal, tenure, and promotion committee (or equivalent) that they (the faculty under review) may include such written information in the review materials as they feel is appropriate and germane to the review. The probationary faculty member shall prepare the renewal forms and supply materials for the review; all materials must be submitted at least five calendar days prior to the scheduled review by the appropriate deadlines listed in the RTP calendar.
  2. Procedures for the review of faculty who are assigned to more than one Discipline shall be initiated by the Discipline in which the faculty member’s assignment is greatest. Recommendations will be forwarded through the School or division in which the assignment is greatest and must bear endorsements and/or signed comments by appropriate supervisors in other Disciplines who have administrative responsibilities for the faculty member.
  3. In the event the assignment is divided evenly between two or more Disciplines, or the assignment fluctuates, the faculty member shall decide which Discipline shall originate the recommendation. The faculty member shall communicate that decision, in writing, to all Disciplines and supervisors involved in the process.
  4. Each reviewing level shall inform the faculty member, in writing, as soon as possible but no later than seven calendar days of making its recommendation regarding renewal/nonrenewal. The notice shall also remind the faculty member it is a recommendation, except in cases where the initial level of review decides to nonrenew the appointment.
    1. Each level shall provide the faculty member with written reasons for its recommendation or decision.
    2. No comments, annotations or markings should be placed on the credentials and materials as submitted by the probationary faculty member.
  5. The renewal/nonrenewal review process for Schools with Disciplines requires action by the Discipline and, if the vote is for renewal, subsequent actions by the School committee, Dean, Provost and Vice Chancellor, and Chancellor.
  6. Faculty in non-School units will be evaluated by the initial level of review and, if the vote is for renewal, the director or equivalent (if tenured), the appropriate assistant Vice Chancellor or Vice Chancellor, the Provost and Vice Chancellor, and the Chancellor.

FAC 5.C.4 Additional Considerations

  1. Limited Appointments. Individuals serving in limited appointments who also hold concurrent faculty appointments and who teach halftime or more shall be acted on for renewal/nonrenewal by all supervisors, the Provost and Vice Chancellor, and Chancellor for the nonteaching assignment. The teaching portion of the assignment, if halftime or more, shall be subject to the review process found above. Tenure decisions will be made using the regular procedures.
  2. When the initial level of review has determined that renewal or tenure should be granted, the Chancellor’s decision to deny renewal or tenure is subject to the campus-based reconsideration and appeals processes.

FAC 5.D Tenure

This section contains information specific to the tenure process.

FAC 5.D.1 General Considerations

Tenure decisions for faculty are made at the end of the sixth year of service or five and one-half years of service for those who either began at the start of a spring semester or who had an odd number of semester leaves of absence, unless the tenure clock was previously stopped in which case the appropriate amount of time shall be added. Under exceptional circumstances faculty who hold the rank of associate professor may seek tenure prior to their sixth year.

FAC 5.D.2 Tenure Through Renewal of a Probationary Appointment

  1. A tenure decision shall be made for all probationary faculty who are not on terminal appointment according to the schedule listed below:
    1. For faculty holding a full-time probationary appointment, the decision shall be made by the end of the Spring Semester of the sixth year of service.
    2. For faculty holding a probationary appointment of at least three-quarters time but less than fulltime, the decision shall be made by the end of the Spring Semester of the ninth year of service.
    3. For faculty holding a probationary appointment of at least halftime but less than three-quarters time, the decision shall be made by the end of the Spring Semester of the thirteenth year of service.
  2. The same review process as listed for renewal of probationary faculty shall be followed for recommending tenure, with the additional requirement that each reviewing level include a statement addressing the following factors:
    1. Teaching: based on the review of the candidate’s performance as documented in the credentials under review, that the candidate has established a record of teaching effectiveness that enables the reviewer to believe the candidate will make a significant contribution to the future growth and development of the University.
    2. Scholarly Activities: based on the review of the candidate’s performance as documented in the credentials under review, that the candidate has established a record of appropriate scholarly activities that enables the reviewer to believe the candidate will make a significant contribution to the future growth and development of the University.
    3. Service: based on the review of the candidate’s performance as documented in the credentials under review, that the candidate has established a record of appropriate service that enables the reviewer to believe the candidate will make a significant contribution to the future growth and development of the University.

FAC 5.D.3 Early Tenure

  1. Faculty members who have been credited by UW Oshkosh with a total of five or more years of full-time experience in the rank of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, or professor at UW Oshkosh and/or at a comparable academic institution prior to their appointment at UW Oshkosh may request consideration for early tenure as provided below.
    1. Faculty must be in the rank of associate professor or professor to request early tenure consideration. Faculty granted time toward their probationary period should meet the same level of achievement for faculty eligible for tenure in their sixth year at UW Oshkosh.
    2. Faculty wishing to apply for an early tenure decision must inform their Discipline initial level of review committee chairperson or equivalent, in writing, at the time they are notified that they will be evaluated for renewal/non-renewal, or earlier. Faculty whose requests for early tenure are denied may not be considered again for early tenure. A denial of early tenure shall not prejudice action on tenure at the completion of the usual probationary period. The Provost and Vice Chancellor’s Office should be consulted to determine if the years of experience criterion is met.

FAC 5.D.4 Tenure upon Appointment

Faculty with outstanding credentials may be granted tenure at the time of the initial appointment. Such a tenure appointment will require affirmative recommendations by the initial level of review and the Chancellor. The form used for initial appointment and tenure as well as all evidence required for making a tenure decision must accompany such a recommendation. The recommendation of the Discipline should be reviewed by the School renewal, tenure, and promotion review committee if there is one, Dean, Provost and Vice Chancellor, Chancellor, and approved by the Board of Regents.

FAC 5.E Promotion

This section contains information specific to promotion.

FAC 5.E.1 General Considerations

The faculty member has the right to withdraw their papers from the review at any time in the process by stating in writing to her/his Dean that further consideration of the promotion papers is to stop.

After the promotion process has been completed, the faculty member will be given upon written request to the Chancellor a copy of all “reasons for action” and “summaries and evaluations” which were added to their papers during the review and decision process.

FAC 5.E.2 Combined Promotion and Tenure Process.

This section applies only to faculty whose tenure was approved upon or after September 5, 1997. As a general rule, faculty who have not already attained the rank of Associate Professor will be promoted to that rank with the approval of tenure (as prescribed in FAC 5.D).

  1. Faculty members will be promoted to the rank of Associate Professor at the time tenure is approved by the Board of Regents, or as soon as possible thereafter providing that they meet the appropriate degree, time in rank, and experience criteria.
  2. Faculty members whose tenure is approved but who did not meet the degree, time in rank, or experience criteria for Associate Professor at the time tenure was approved will be promoted to that rank as soon as possible after they meet those criteria.
  3. For subsections (1) and (2), immediately above, the process for implementing these promotions shall be by administrative action of the Offices of the Provost and Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor.
  4. Individuals cannot apply separately for promotion to Associate Professor during the academic year of their tenure decision.
  5. Candidates should carefully review the criteria for both tenure and promotion since the information submitted for tenure consideration also serves as the material under review for promotion to Associate Professor.
  6. Prior to its review of the tenure and promotion application, the initial level of review will ascertain whether the candidate has satisfied the degree, time in rank and experience criteria for promotion to Associate Professor. This determination shall be verified by the Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor, based upon a review of the individual’s official personnel file.
  7. All simultaneous tenure and promotion applications will be reviewed and considered through the regular renewal process, as prescribed in FAC 5.C.
  8. The effective date for all promotions will be the time of formal approval by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. Faculty should consult GEN 2.2 for the renumeration consequences of promotion.

FAC 5.E.3 Degree, Experience, Time in Rank (General)

[For experience and time in rank requirements, do not count the present year.]

  1. Instructor
    Degree: Master’s.
    Experience: No minimum.
    Time in Rank: No minimum.
  2. Assistant Professor
    Degree: Doctorate. [Faculty who acquire the doctorate will be automatically promoted to this rank if official notice that the degree has been granted is submitted to the Provost and Vice Chancellor’s Office by January 1. Rank will become effective as of the following July 1.]
    Other Degree Options: In some areas a two-year advanced degree beyond the master level will be considered. In some instances, thirty (30) semester hours of work beyond a master’s degree or all course work and residence requirements for a doctorate plus commitment to the terminal degree will also be considered. These options will require regular promotion procedures.
    Experience: With a doctorate, no minimum. For other candidates, four years including at least one year of college teaching.
    Time in Rank: With a doctorate, no minimum. For other candidates, one year as an instructor at this university.
  3. Associate Professor
    Degree: Doctorate or discipline-appropriate terminal degree (e.g. Master of Fine Arts).
    Experience: A minimum of five years of college teaching.
    Time in Rank: A minimum of two years as an Assistant Professor at this university.
  4. Professor
    Degree: Doctorate.
    Experience: A minimum of ten years.
    Time in Rank: A minimum of four years as an Associate Professor at this university.
    Evidence: The immediate supervisor shall document that data is consistent with university records and that evidence on degree completion is on file in the Provost and Vice Chancellor’s Office.

FAC 5.E.4 Criteria Specific to Promotion

This section details elements of criteria specific to the promotion process that generalize to the University level. As stated above in FAC 5.B, each Discipline and guidelines should have policies specifying promotion criteria.

FAC 5.E.4.I Teaching Effectiveness

Consistent with the mission of this university, the most important criterion is teaching effectiveness which is a necessary, but not sufficient, basis for promotion. Under most circumstances only individuals demonstrating effective teaching should receive favorable consideration for promotion. An exception to this criterion would be an unusual circumstance in which an individual whose teaching ability is only satisfactory would be recommended for promotion because of sustained professional and scholarly achievements of high quality which directly and significantly contribute to the strength of the educational program and/or the stature of the university.

For faculty with no teaching assignments, performance or professional responsibilities which are directly related to their assignment shall be the most important criterion for promotion. (Faculty whose responsibilities are primarily non‑teaching but who also teach will be evaluated for classroom performance as well as for professional assignments.)

FAC 5.E.4.II Professional and Scholarly Growth

Professional and Scholarly Growth is to be given equal weight with Institutional and Extra‑Institutional Service. Individuals should demonstrate excellent performance in either Scholarly and Professional Growth or in Institutional and Extra Institutional Service and satisfactory performance in the other in order to receive favorable consideration for promotion.

FAC 5.E.4.III Institutional and Extra‑Institutional Services

Institutional and Extra‑Institutional Service is to be given equal weight with Professional and Scholarly Growth. Individuals should demonstrate excellent performance in one of these two areas and satisfactory performance in the other to receive favorable consideration for promotion.

FAC 5.E.5 General Considerations

Faculty who are not nominated for promotion by the Initial Level of Review Committee have the right to request reconsideration by the Initial Level of Review Committee. Such a request shall be made in writing within five days of the receipt of written notification by the faculty member who was not nominated for promotion by the Initial Level of Review Committee. If this reconsideration does not change the previous recommendation to deny promotion, the candidate may still request that their credentials be forwarded to the next level of review.

Faculty who were nominated by the Initial Level of Review and who subsequently are not recommended for promotion at a higher level of review have the right within ten days after receiving notice of nonpromotion from the Chancellor, sent by first class mail, to request reconsideration by the level first recommending nonpromotion.

If, after reconsideration, the original recommendation is reaffirmed, the process will end and the faculty member will be so informed with reasons therefor.

If the Promotions Committee or administrator recommends rescission of the nonpromotion as a result of reconsideration, the faculty member and the next review level will be so informed with the reasons therefor. The written statement submitted by the faculty member shall also be sent forward to the next level of review.

The next level shall, as a result of the information from the previous level, conduct a reconsideration meeting with the faculty member following the procedures outlined above. The process shall end if any review level, including the Chancellor, affirms the original recommendation of nonpromotion, or the Chancellor, as the last step in the process, decides on promotion. Reasonable timetables (but in no case more than 15 working days‑while School is in session‑this can be extended at the request of the review committee) shall be established by all promotion committees or administrators involved with the reconsideration of nonpromotion.

In the event a faculty member has reason to believe there was a procedural error in the consideration of his/her application for promotion, the UW‑Oshkosh grievance procedures may be followed.

FAC 5.F Responsibilities of Individuals and Committees 

This section explains expectations for the individuals and committees participating in a renewal, tenure, or promotion process.

(1) Responsibilities of Individuals.
All persons participating in the process of reviewing credentials and making decisions or recommendations pertaining to renewal/tenure are expected to use professional judgment and maintain confidentiality. Deans, the Provost and Vice Chancellor, and the Chancellor participate in the personnel process by virtue of the positions they hold. When acting in these capacities, these individuals are expected to articulate clearly the rationale for all decisions or recommendations and provide an analytical written critical evaluation of the probationary faculty member’s performance. Each individual who participates in the personnel process shall also meet the following enumerated requirements:

    1. To act consistently with the University’s applicable personnel policies and procedures.
    2. To fairly apply Discipline, School, and University criteria for renewal/tenure.
    3. To be cognizant of principles of nondiscrimination and bias, including affirmative action and commitment to equal employment opportunity.
    4. To conduct a thorough and complete review of the probationary faculty member’s qualifications for renewal/tenure based on the expectations set forth by the Discipline, School, and University. This review is to include a careful examination of all information submitted by the probationary faculty member for review, and attentive consideration of the recommendations and supporting rationale of any previous levels of review.
    5. To participate in the deliberative process of the committee’s review and consideration of the probationary faculty member’s qualifications for renewal/tenure, in light of Discipline, School, and University criteria.

Participation refers to working diligently and collegially with other committee members. It includes active involvement in the committee’s dialogue, including the expression of one’s personal views or interpretation of the policies, prior to voting, when they differ from those previously expressed by other members of the committee.

Participation also includes insistence that the committee’s deliberation be thorough, fair, balanced, and free from discrimination and bias. Committees shall meet with the appropriate Human Resources representative on an annual basis, prior to beginning their review, to receive consultation on the most up-to-date principles and practices for mitigating bias. Deliberation must also remain rationally related to the information presented for review. This is demonstrated by being aware of the committee’s responsibilities and, if problems are perceived, speaking up before the committee’s vote.

Participation includes: (a) the exercise of individual and collective responsibility to ensure that the committee’s action is based on the information considered during the committee’s meeting, and (b) the insistence that the statement of rationale for the committee’s action be based on the committee’s deliberations.

It is expected that participation, as outlined in this section, will lead individuals to the point where they are able to exercise independent professional judgment on the question of the renewal or nonrenewal of an appointment. Since an abstention is the equivalent of not voting on this question, it is expected that abstentions will be relatively rare.

(2) Responsibilities of Committees.

  1. The initial level of review shall elect a chair who has the responsibility to inform the probationary faculty member of the timeline for the review of their qualifications for renewal/tenure and to ask the probationary faculty member to submit materials to be reviewed by the committee.
  2. To provide proper notice of committee meetings (to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Open Meeting Law) and to ensure its actions are consistent with applicable personnel rules. Committees should anticipate scheduling additional meetings, as necessary, to complete a thorough and thoughtful review of each candidate.
  3. To ensure that all committee recommendations or decisions pertaining to renewal or tenure of the probationary faculty shall be made on the basis of a motion that is carried by a majority vote of those present and not abstaining. The vote of each member on the renewal or tenure recommendation must be ascertained and recorded by name in the committee’s minutes. No absentee or proxy voting is allowed. Ideally, all committee members will be present in person for the committee’s deliberations; a virtual option may be provided for those who cannot attend in person, but such accommodations should be made on an exceptional basis.
  4. To take no votes on any motions for renewal until the committee has completed its thorough review and discussion of the complete record.
  5. To articulate clearly the rationale for all decisions or recommendations that are reached by formal committee action.

The committee must provide an analytical written critical evaluation of the probationary faculty member’s performance. This evaluation must account for the probationary faculty member’s performance in light of the appropriate established criteria, at the disciplinary or School level, for performance evaluation.

It is not sufficient for a committee merely to refer to the votes that were taken and the categories of assessment.

The committee’s obligation is fulfilled when it does the following :(a) conducts a critical evaluation of the probationary faculty member’s record in each identified area, (b) prepares a written statement setting forth the committee’s assessment of the probationary faculty member’s progress toward tenure that identifies and discusses, if appropriate, any specific areas that need attention or improvement, and (c) approves a written statement that demonstrates both that the committee’s deliberations were thorough and that the committee exercised informed professional judgment when it made the assessment of the qualifications (in each area) in light of the established criteria.

The committee’s written statement in support of the recommendation or decision must be formally reviewed and approved by committee vote at a meeting. If there is a tie vote on the statement, the committee shall prepare and approve a report that reflects these divergent views.

Members of the committee not agreeing with the majority’s recommendation or decision may file with the committee chair a brief signed written statement that expresses views that differ from those expressed by the committee. The chair shall include this information as an addendum to the report approved by majority vote of the committee. If the chair determines that the material submitted includes information that was not previously presented to or discussed with the committee during the course of its deliberations, the chair shall also include an annotation to that effect.

6. To hold and preserve in confidence the comments of each member in closed sessions.

The committee chair (or designee) has the sole responsibility to communicate information pertaining to the committee’s deliberations with the probationary faculty member or other levels of review.

Confidentiality does not provide insulation from responsibility or accountability. The actions of each member, and the committee as a whole, can be reviewed through reconsideration or appeal.

7. OVERSIGHT, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Faculty Senate is responsible for the content and revision of this policy, consistent with Article II of the Faculty Constitution.

The Personnel Policies Committee of the Faculty Senate shall conduct a review of this policy at least once every five years. It may do so more frequently if governing policies change, at the request of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, or at the request of 25% of sitting Senators. If the Personnel Policies Committee deems any changes to be necessary, it shall recommend those changes to the Faculty Senate, or it shall advise the Faculty Senate that it does not recommend changes based on the requested or scheduled review.

The Faculty Senate approves recommended changes (or acknowledges the recommendation for no changes) to this policy by majority vote. Following any Faculty Senate vote that ratifies revisions, any changes to this policy are finalized upon approval by the Chancellor and the Universities of Wisconsin Board of Regents. The five-year review clock resets upon the Faculty Senate’s action.

8. REFERENCES

UWS 3.06 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code
UWS 3.07 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code

9. REVISION HISTORY

Initial Faculty Senate Approval: September 1989
Revisions approved by Faculty Senate: April 1, 2025
Approval by Board of Regents: July 10, 2025