TEXAS AGRILIFE RESEARCH PROCEDURES

This procedure establishes criteria for professorial faculty positions in Texas AgriLife Research (AgriLife Research), defines which are eligible for promotion, sets minimum requirements for promotion, and outlines the annual promotion cycle.

Performance evaluation and promotion documents are to be treated in a confidential manner within the requirements of current privacy laws/regulations and System Regulation 61.01.02, Public Information and will be filed in the employee’s official personnel file at the unit in accordance with AgriLife Research Procedure 33.99.99.A1.02, Official Personnel File.

To be considered a member of the AgriLife Research faculty, an individual must hold one of the following titles:

Professor*

Associate Professor*

Assistant Professor*

Research Professor*

Research Associate Professor*

Research Assistant Professor*

Adjunct Professor

Adjunct Associate Professor

Adjunct Assistant Professor

Visiting Professor

Visiting Associate Professor

Visiting Assistant Professor

* Eligible for promotion

Faculty administrative appointments will include the professorial rank in addition to the administrative title (e.g. Resident Director and Professor, Deputy Director and Professor, etc.).

The following criteria should be considered in appointment to or promotion in faculty rank:

3.01 Assistant Professor (including Research, Adjunct and Visiting)

Earned doctorate with the expectation of substantial research, publication and mentoring within the context of one or more research programs (e.g., laboratory, bench science, social science, or other disciplinary setting) with postdoctoral fellows, junior research colleagues, or students at any level.

3.02 Associate Professor (including Research, Adjunct and Visiting)

Earned doctorate and a record of substantial research, publication and mentoring within the context of one or more research programs (e.g., laboratory, bench science, social science, or other disciplinary setting) with post doctoral fellows, junior research colleagues, or students at any level. Candidate should have an exemplary level of accomplishment as measured against contributions of others in the field; professional conduct conducive to a collegial work environment and standards of professional integrity that will advance the interests of the agency; an area of specialization germane to the agency; and evidence indicating a commitment to maintaining the level of competence in research, publication and mentoring.

3.03 Professor (Including Research, Adjunct and Visiting)

Earned doctorate with a record of significant research publication and mentoring within the context of one or more research programs (e.g., laboratory, bench science, social science, or other disciplinary setting) with postdoctoral fellows, junior research colleagues, or students at any level. Continued accomplishment in research and scholarship; continuing accomplishment and some measure of national recognition of research; and evidence of valuable professional service.

3.04 The term "substantial" with regard to research and mentoring is measured in multiple ways:

-Quantity (i.e., that there should be evidence of a significant amount of research and/or mentoring); and

-Quality (i.e., that the research and/or mentoring done by the individual is effective and has significant impact on the students and colleagues being taught; research has a significant impact on society and benefit to science).

Research, adjunct and visiting Assistant/Associate/Full Professor appointments will typically be funded from extramural sources and continuation of employment will be contingent upon the availability of such funds.

AgriLife Research faculty who are jointly employed with a university and who are eligible for tenure will follow that institutions guidelines regarding faculty promotion and tenure.

AgriLife Research faculty located on the Texas A&M University campus who do not hold a joint appointment with Texas A&M University must hold the rank of Research Assistant Professor, Research Associate Professor, or Research Professor.

The principal elements of the annual performance evaluation are:

The performance evaluation process involves four documents and an evaluation conference.

Documents are:

Texas A&M Agrilife (Agrilife) Form AG-404, Position Authorization/Description (PAD)

Annual Plan of Work (which is prospective)

Achievement Report (which is reflective)

Documentation of Evaluation (which, as implied, is evaluative).

6.01 Position Authorization/Description (PAD)

The PAD is initially developed by the unit head and the appropriate subject-matter department head when establishing a new position or filling a vacant position. It describes the duties and responsibilities associated with the position and is submitted to the Director and, in case of joint appointments, to the appropriate Dean or Texas AgriLife Extension Service (Extension) administrator for approval.

The level of specificity should deal with subject areas for teaching, research and extension programs, graduate program responsibilities, student counseling, committee assignments, etc. The descriptive elements should be broad enough to allow flexibility when developing annual plans of work described in Section 2.02.

The position description should be reviewed annually by both the unit head and the faculty member to ensure that it reflects the current requirements for the position. Changes should be made when a significant shift in duties has occurred or is planned.

6.02 Annual Plan of Work

The annual plan of work should be consistent with the position description and should reflect in detail the objectives and tasks which are to be accomplished during the coming fiscal year. This document is prepared by the faculty member in consultation with the unit head. The plan of work should be a part of the unit's file.

When approving the plan of work, the unit head should specify the level of funding which will be available to support the faculty member’s work. The amount of work in the plan should be commensurate with the resources allocated for support.

The annual plan of work for the previous year is also used by the unit head as a point of reference in the evaluation process further described in Section 2.04, Documentation of Evaluation, and Section 2.05, Evaluation Conference.

Agrilife Form AG-453, Annual Plan of Work, may be used as a checklist to aid in developing the annual plan of work.

6.03 Annual Achievement Report

To facilitate the annual performance evaluation, the faculty member will, each year, prepare an achievement report in late summer or early Fall which documents performance during the past fiscal year. It should include a summary of the achievement of objectives from the previous year’s annual plan of work. Also, supporting documents which confirm the quality of performance (e.g., awards, research grants, teaching evaluation forms) should be attached to the achievement report.

Agrilife form AG-452, Faculty Achievement Report, is a suggested format to be used when developing the faculty achievement report. This should not be regarded as a required format, but as a checklist for reporting accomplishments. Use only those items that are appropriate for individual situations.

6.04 Documentation of Evaluation

The unit head is responsible for developing the appropriate documentation to reflect the outcome of annual performance and the performance evaluation conference. To do so effectively, the unit head should have copies of all earlier documentation plus evaluation reports from other sources (i.e., previous evaluation reports, senior staff and student evaluations, other administrator's feedback, etc.).

Note: The annual plan of work document should not be used as the documentation of the evaluation. These plans are to be used as references against which to measure progress. They are management documents and are not treated as confidential information.

Off-campus unit heads should obtain an evaluation for each faculty member from the head of the applicable subject matter department. Also, unit heads should obtain an evaluation from Extension or other agencies or institutions where faculty hold joint appointments.

The elements in the achievement report (i.e., research, administrative duties, etc.), together with any supplemental evaluations(s), should be evaluated in relation to the objectives stated in the previous year's annual plan of work.

Although the format of the documentation of evaluation is left to the discretion of the unit head, new unit heads may wish to consider using the suggested format contained in Agrilife Form AG-454, Documentation of Faculty Evaluation, Suggested Format.

Each of these elements and objectives should be evaluated and rated in a manner which can reflect change in performance either up or down, as well as the level of performance in relation to the needs of the unit.

Also, the method of evaluation should provide for a narrative summary of the rationale for the evaluation. This summary should include reinforcement of positive achievements and identification of areas where improvement can be made. Additionally, specific comments addressing promotion potential, salary adjustments, etc., may be made.

Comparative ratings may be appropriately used to show how the faculty member ranks with other faculty in the unit. When appropriate, suggestions for specific corrective action should be documented to provide a benchmark for future evaluation.

6.05 Evaluation Conference

The unit head and the faculty member will meet at a convenient time (ideally in the early Fall) to discuss the faculty member’s performance during the past fiscal year.

The conference should focus on the evaluation documentation assembled by the unit head. Once the evaluation conference has been completed, the faculty member should be provided a copy of the written evaluation and given the opportunity to acknowledge in writing that it has been received and discussed. A separate response may be submitted by the faculty member in instances of significant disagreement about performance.

It is recognized that some unit heads prefer to have two consultations with the faculty member where the first consultation is used for discussing performance and then the documentation is prepared and provided in the follow-up consultation.

6.06 Report of Evaluations to the Director

Upon completion of performance evaluations but no later than December 15th, a memorandum shall be submitted to the Director listing the names of the individuals who were evaluated and confirming that annual plans of work are on file for each individual. If for any reason a faculty member was not evaluated, this fact should be reported along with an appropriate explanation.

Agrilife Human Resources Office will be responsible for periodically reviewing records of performance evaluations to ensure the evaluations are being conducted and documented.

On decisions regarding promotion in rank, the major emphasis should be on research-related criteria and the performance of those responsibilities as outlined in the position description and plan of work. Additional supporting materials provided in the curriculum vitae such as public and institutional service, teaching and other non-research activities shall be included in the overall assessment.

The achievements, productivity and effectiveness of a faculty member will be assessed from the information contained in the candidate’s curriculum vitae and plan of work. The following major criteria should be included in the evaluation of the curriculum vitae and plan of work.

a. Accomplishment of research project objectives from Plan(s) of work.

b. Publication of research in scholarly and professional refereed journals.

c. Publication of research in practitioner journals targeted for industry and user groups.

d. Receipt of awards for research excellence.

e. Invited participation at professional and scientific meetings.

f. Offices held or committee assignments in professional societies.

g. Significant external research funding.

h. Effective relationship with research-user groups.

i. Evidence of a well-planned and developed program of research that has contributed to the advancement of knowledge or has produced a tangible benefit to society (e.g., superior crop variety, better breed of livestock, software utilization, patent applications, new technology, etc...).

j. Other activities that have contributed to accomplishing AgriLife Research goals, such as improving the visibility of units and programs, participating in interdisciplinary research or improving the effectiveness of the AgriLife Research unit.

8.00 Review Process for Promotion of Faculty in Professorial Rank

Promotion is a matter of central concern to individual faculty members and to the agency. Failure to provide due process and adhere to criteria for the granting of promotion can do long-term damage to the agency. A negative decision can also do long-term damage to an individual faculty member’s career. The process must uphold high standards of fairness and review.

8.01 Review Process for Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor

Within five (5) years of appointment and prior to the sixth (6) year, an Assistant Professor/Research Assistant Professor must be considered for promotion to Associate Professor/Research Associate Professor. The results of this five-year review will be one of the following:

a. Recommend promotion to Associate Professor/Research Associate Professor.

b. Recommend that the faculty member be re-evaluated the following year.

c. Recommend non-reappointment with adequate time (up to one year) to relocate.

If the faculty member has not been promoted after the initial five (5) year review, he/she will undergo a final review after approximately six (6) years in rank, but before the seventh (7) year. The results of this final review will be one of the following:

a. Recommend promotion to Associate Professor/Research Associate Professor.

b. Recommend non-reappointment with adequate time (up to one year) to relocate.

8.02 Review Process for Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor

After six (6) years in rank, but prior to the seventh (7) year, each eligible Associate Professor/Research Associate Professor must be considered for promotion to Professor/Research Professor. The results of this six-year review will be one of the following:

a. Recommend promotion to Professor/Research Professor.

b. Recommend that the faculty member be reevaluated in two years.

If the faculty member has not been promoted after the six year review, he/she will undergo another comprehensive review after eight (8) years, but before the ninth (9) year. The results of this review will be one of the following:

a.Recommend promotion to Professor/Research Professor.

b. Recommend that the faculty member remain at the Associate Professor/Research Associate Professor rank unless evidence is forthcoming in the future to warrant additional consideration.

c. Recommend non-reappointment with adequate time (up to one year) to relocate.

In order to provide more consistency in counseling, Department Heads and Resident Directors are required to use a departmental peer review committee in the promotion process consisting of on- and off-campus senior faculty from the teaching, research, and extension areas. The function of this committee is to review the candidate’s promotion dossier and provide advice and counsel to the Head of the Department and Resident Director, as appropriate.

9.01 Role and Composition of Departmental Peer Review Committees

Departments are responsible for reviewing all persons eligible for promotion. Department Heads will consult a departmental peer review committee on promotion recommendations for on-campus research faculty before transmitting the promotion recommendation to the Vice Chancellor/Dean/Director-AgriLife Research. Similarly, Resident Directors shall consult with the appropriate disciplinary department head (who shall serve as liaison with the respective departmental peer review committee) for review of promotion recommendations for off-campus research faculty.

This advisory mechanism should be rather well-structured. Department Heads will work with their departmental peer review committees to ensure that the following guidelines are followed:

1.Only faculty at the rank of associate professor or professor will serve on peer review committees, and only faculty members with rank higher than the candidate being considered should serve on peer review committees for promotion. Departmental peer review committees should include on- and off-campus faculty.

2. Committee recommendations should be based on a written and widely circulated promotion document which specifies criteria and procedural guidelines, promulgated by the department.

3. Committee deliberations must be conducted in confidence.

4. Committee recommendations are advisory in nature.

9.02 Review Process by Departmental Peer Review Committee

Department Heads are responsible for conveying the recommendation regarding the promotion of on-campus research faculty to the Vice Chancellor/Dean/Director-AgriLife Research. Resident Directors are responsible for conveying the recommendation regarding the promotion of off-campus research faculty to the Vice Chancellor/Dean/Director-AgriLife Research.

During the review process, if the Department Head and respective Resident Director and the peer review committee do not recommend promotion, then the candidate's promotion file will not be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor/Dean/Director-AgriLife Research for further consideration unless the candidate so requests.

If a person is under final review for promotion from assistant to associate professor, then the candidate’s promotion file must be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor/Dean/Director-AgriLife Research for review and action regardless of whether the recommendation is positive or negative.

If the Department Head or the appropriate Resident Director or the review committee do not agree on a recommendation, then the candidate’s promotion file will be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor/Dean/Director-AgriLife Research for evaluation and further consultation.

At any point in the process, a promotion candidate may elect to withdraw his/her name from further consideration by written request.

10.01 Role and Composition of the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee

The Vice Chancellor/Dean/Director-AgriLife Research will use the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee to review all requests for promotion in rank from departments and off-campus research units. The committee will review all promotion (and tenure requests, as appropriate) recommendations and ensure equitable review and evaluation of all teaching, research and extension faculty promotion candidates, relative to the position description for each candidate.

The Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee will be comprised of 16 senior faculty members appointed by the Vice Chancellor, in consultation with the Dean of the Texas A&M College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; Director, Texas AgriLife Research; and Director, Extension. The makeup of the committee will reflect the composition of the faculty within the College, AgriLife Research and the Extension, and will be reviewed every three years to ensure it continues to represent the demographics of the faculty. Committee members shall serve two-year terms, with approximately one-half of the committee rotating each year. As with the departmental peer review committees, all members of the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee may vote on promotion and tenure decisions; however, the vote of the tenured faculty must be kept separate. The results of the committee’s anonymous vote and the overall perspective of the committee relative to each faculty member under consideration shall be explained by the Chair of the Committee in a statement to the Vice Chancellor on each candidate.

10.02 Review Process by the Texas Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee

The Texas Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee shall review all promotion and tenure recommendations in accordance with the following:

a. Review completeness of promotion candidate’s file submitted by the Department, requesting additional information, if necessary, particularly if the candidate’s department is not represented on the committee.

b. Review recommendations of the departmental peer review committee, Department Head and respective Resident Director, as appropriate. The Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee should focus on promotion files of a marginal nature. Specifically:

If the departmental peer review committee and the administration strongly recommend a decision and the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee does not concur, then the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee may request further input prior to a final recommendation. Detailed comments should accompany all Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee recommendations which are in opposition to the recommendations of the departmental peer review committee or administration.

If the departmental peer review committee and the administration are in direct conflict, the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee should carefully review the entire file, including external letters, to determine the merits of the file. If necessary, the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee may invite the appropriate Department Head (and respective Resident Director, as appropriate) and chair of the departmental peer review committee to the meeting to gain further information.

The Chair of the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee will be responsible for transmitting written results of the committee’s deliberations and make recommendations regarding desired changes to the process.

When the Vice Chancellor/Dean/Director-AgriLife Research does not concur with the recommendation of the Department Head/Resident Director and/or department peer review recommendation, the Vice Chancellor will inform the Department Head and respective Resident Director of the reasons for that decision. The departmental peer review committee shall then have the opportunity to ensure that all appropriate materials have in fact been properly enclosed with the promotion dossier and that all relevant arguments have been put forward. In the event that germane new evidence is introduced or new, quite different arguments are applied, the departmental peer review committee may submit a newly organized document for reconsideration.

If the Vice Chancellor/Dean/Director-AgriLife Research recommends against promotion and that recommendation is contrary to the recommendation of the Department Head and Resident Director, then the Vice Chancellor shall inform the Department Head and appropriate Resident Director and the candidate of the reasons for the decision. The faculty member shall then have the opportunity to offer any new evidence in support of the request for promotion, and that evidence shall be reviewed by the Vice Chancellor/Dean/Director-AgriLife Research and the Agriculture and Life Sciences Peer Review Committee before a final recommendation concerning promotion is made.

In the event of a negative promotion decision, the faculty member is entitled to a written statement of the reasons that contributed to that decision. If requested by the faculty member, a statement of reasons will be provided by the Department Head and/or appropriate Resident Director (or Vice Chancellor/Dean/Director-AgriLife Research).

Faculty members shall be advised in a timely manner in writing of the recommendation for or against promotion at each level of the review. The following information delineates this notification process:

Departmental Peer Review Committee - Department Head shall notify on-campus research candidates upon receipt of recommendation from peer review committee. For off-campus research faculty, the Department Head shall notify the respective Resident Director who will notify the candidate regarding the recommendation from the peer review committee.

As the Chief Executive Officer, the Director of Texas AgriLife Research, has authority to approve all faculty promotions, pending confirmation by the Chancellor. All final promotion decisions will be conveyed in writing to the faculty member in a timely fashion consistent with notification of promotion and tenure decisions of all teaching, research and extension faculty.

Faculty within AgriLife Research have the right to present grievances concerning promotion in professorial rank. The basis for an appeal regarding promotion in rank exists when, in the opinion of the faculty member, one or more of the following has occurred:

a. There was a failure to follow the prescribed procedures.

b. There was a failure to adhere to the established criteria for determining promotion in rank.

c. There was a discovery of significant new evidence in support of the faculty member related to academic credentials, length of professional service, performance appraisal information and overall achievement, productivity and/or effectiveness.

Faculty having concerns or grievances regarding promotion in professorial rank are encouraged to seek resolution of those concerns through established supervisory channels prior to filing a written appeal. If the matter cannot be resolved, the faculty member may seek a hearing by an appeals committee.

The written appeal shall include the basis for the appeal committee and must contain any supporting evidence and/or documentation to be considered. Written appeals concerning denial of promotion in rank must be filed within 20 working days of notification of denial.

A seven-member Appeals Committee shall be appointed by the Director to review and/or hear individual appeals regarding promotion in rank.

The appellant may request to meet with the Appeals Committee to present his/her case. Such a request shall be included in the written appeal. If the appellant elects to be represented by an attorney, the appellant will notify the Director's Office at least five working days before the date the appeal is to be heard. The appellant will be solely responsible for any legal expenses incurred in such representation.

The Appeals Committee shall judge the merits of the case and forward its written recommendation with supporting documents to the Director for final action within 20 working days from the end of the appeal hearing.

The Director shall notify the appellant in writing of acceptance or rejection of the Appeals Committee recommendation. Such notification shall be made within 60 working days of receipt of the written appeal.

In summary, it is essential that the promotion review process be conducted in a timely, fair and professional manner. Note that promotion reviews are likely to be especially anxious times for faculty, and it behooves all agency professionals to ensure that these principles of equity and justice are followed.

Questions about this procedure should be referred to the Agrilife Human Resources Office at 979-845-2423.