CASL Merit and Review Letters Appeal Procedures

MERIT DECISIONS

Preamble. 

The College of Arts, Sciences, and Letters (CASL) recognizes that merit decisions are determined by department chairs and must be consistent with Departmental Guidelines pertaining to merit (e.g., the criteria used to determine level of merit, the relative weight of that criteria in merit decisions, the philosophy underlying merit). The College proceeds under the strong presumption that the department chair’s decisions are authoritative regarding faculty merit. 

However, situations may arise in which a faculty member alleges that a merit decision does not align with their performance. The purpose of this document is to provide protection through orderly procedures against prejudiced or capricious faculty evaluation and merit determination. A suitable mechanism for appeal, one which respects the prerogatives of department chairs and the rights of tenure streamfaculty in this regard, should thus be available. Such appeals are limited to allegations that the criteria used to assign merit or the weighting of that criteria were used in a manner inconsistent with the department’s merit guidelines. 

Coverage. 

This procedure applies to all tenure streamfaculty within the College of Arts, Sciences, and Letters for appeals of merit determinations only. It shall not apply to complaints that allege discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, height, weight or veteran’s status. Complaints that involve such allegations shall be handled through the University’s Office of Institutional Equity. http://umdearborn.edu/hr_institutional_equity/

Appeal Procedure.

I. Consultation with the Department Chair. 

The first step in the process is for the faculty member to communicate in writing with the Department Chair of the evaluating department or the Associate Dean responsible for College-Wide Programs (CWPs) to share their concerns and inquire about the accuracy of the merit decision.. This communication must take place within 30 university business days of the receipt date (as determined by the postmark or by the email sent date) of the merit letter. Exceptions shall be granted for faculty on leave, field work or other extenuating circumstances that prevents them fromresponding by the deadline. In such circumstances the deadline shall be from 10 business days from the day that their leave or field work ends. Exceptions to the deadline for written communication may also be granted for other extenuating circumstances. Such exceptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Dean. Where it can be proven that a clerical error, a procedural fault, or biased evaluation has resulted in an unfair merit decision, the department chair will do all they can to correct the error. Appeals regarding merit determination are expected to occur rarely.

Within 20 university business days following the date the written communication from the faculty member is received (as determined by postmark or email receipt date),the department chair (or the associate dean responsible for that CWPs) shall provide a written response to the faculty member that responds directly to each concern raised in the faculty member’s written request. Exceptions to this 20 business day deadline may be granted by the Dean when the department chair faces extenuating circumstances that prevent them from meeting the deadline.

Every effort should be made to resolve the issue at the department level. The documentation requirements reflect the minimum communication that is required, but the faculty member and department chair are strongly encouraged to speak with each other to attempt to address the concerns constructively and promote positive communication. At the end of this consultation process and within fifteen university business days following the date of appeal request, a written response from the department chair to the faculty member should be provided with a decision and a rationale for that decision. 

II. Formal Appeal to the College. 

If the faculty member is unsatisfied with the response from the department chair they may appeal the decision to the Dean. To begin this process, the faculty member must communicate in writing to the Dean within five university business days of receipt of the formal response from the department Chair or the Associate Dean of CWP. The written communication must include the original communication provided to the department chair and the chair’s written response. It shall also specify why the faculty member is challenging the department chair’s response and include specific evidence supporting their claim thatthe merit decision was given in error or was determined in a way that did not follow the department merit evaluation process. 

Upon receipt of the written complaint, the Dean shall consult with the department Chair (or the Associate Dean for CWPs) and request any further information or documentation needed to decide on the appeal. If the Dean determines that there is insufficient evidence for the appeal, the matter is considered closed, and the original merit determination, or the resolution developed at the departmental level, stands. The Dean shall communicate this decision in writing to the department Chair and the faculty member. 

If, on the other hand, the Dean determines that there is a sufficient basis for an appeal, then the Dean shall determine the resolution of the appeal independently or in consultation with whatever individuals they deem appropriate. Once a determination has been made the Dean shall communicate the decision in writing to the faculty member and the department Chair (or the Associate Dean for CWPs). The Dean shall respond to the faculty member’s formal appeal within 21 university business days after receiving a written appeal from the faculty member with a final written decision. 

REVIEW LETTERS

Preamble. 

The College of Arts, Sciences, and Letters (CASL) recognizes that faculty review committees are responsible for the assessment of tenure stream faculty at the assistant and associate professor ranks. The College proceeds under the strong presumption that the review committee’s assessments are authoritative regarding faculty performance.

CASL review committees are expected to apply P & T guidelines fairly and consistently and to provide clear and accurate feedback to faculty pertaining to their performance. Lack of feedback or unclear feedback poses a problem in that it may contribute to a more difficult path to promotion, because the faculty member may be unaware of their performance relative to department P & T standards and may be, thus, unaware of the need to redirect their efforts.

Situations arise in which a faculty member alleges that their performance was not adequately or correctly assessed in their performance evaluation letter. The purpose of this document is to provide an opportunity for the faculty member to appeal such an evaluation. A suitable mechanism for appeal, one which respects the prerogatives of review committees, and the rights of tenure streamfaculty in this regard, should thus be available. However, such appeals are limited to allegations that 1)the review letter failed to correctly and clearly communicate the faculty’s performance, or 2) the process of evaluation fails to adhere to Campus, College, or Department P & T guidelines in a consistent manner.

Coverage. 

This procedure applies to all tenure stream faculty within the College of Arts, Sciences, and Letters. Initial complaints will be handled within individual CASL departments with anappeal process being conducted by the Dean’s Office and the Dean. This procedure applies to appeals offaculty performance review letters only. It shall not apply to complaints that allege discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, height, weight or veteran’s status. Complaints that involve such allegations shall be handled through the University’s Office of Institutional Equity. 

Where it can be demonstrated that an error, procedural fault, or violation of departmental/disciplinary P & T guidelines or standards occurred , or that the letter failed to correctly and clearly communicate to the faculty member an evaluation of their performance, the review committee will do all it can to correct the letter. Review letter appeals are expected to occur rarely. 

Appeal Procedure.

The purpose of the appeal procedure is to clarify evaluation standards and review letter content.

I. Consultation with the Department Chair. 

The first step in the appeals process is to raise the issue in writing with the Department Chair of the evaluating department, or the Associate Dean overseeing College-Wide Programs (CWPs). This request must takeplace within 10 university business days of the date of the review letter. 

Every effort should be made to resolve the issue at the department level. A written response should be provided by the review committee through the department chair to the faculty member within 20 university business days of the initial inquiry.

II. Formal Appeal to the College. 

In circumstances where a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the department level (or in the case of CWPs with the Associate Dean), a formal appeal process to the College may begin. To initiate this process, the faculty member must contact the department chair with their decision to seek a formal appeal with the college within five university business days of receipt of the departmental response. In doing so, the faculty member must convey to the Chair and the Dean in writing the basis for their appeal, providing specific evidence in support of the claim. In this narrative, the faculty member will also summarize the process and outcomes of their initial attempt to resolve the issue with their chair and departmental review committee. A similar report written by the department chair/CWP Associate Dean will be submitted to the Dean at this time as well. 

The Dean will review the reports and determine if sufficient evidence exists to intervene and do so as deemed appropriate. If the Dean determines that there is insufficient evidence for the appeal, the matter is considered closed, and the original review letter stands. The Dean will respond to the appeal in writing within 21 university business days of the receipt of the chair’s/Associate Dean of CWP report to the department chair/Associate Dean of CWP and the faculty member. 

*Merit and Review Letters Appeal Procedures for Tenure Stream Faculty - March 8, 2024