February 05, 2021

In Attendance:

• Synchronous Online: Jeffrey P. Forret, Jennifer R. Fowler, Monica Harn, Jane Liu, Trina Nolen, Prince V. Thomas, Jenny Zhou
• Asynchronous Online: Bradley Mayer

Minutes Taken By: Jane Liu

Approval of Minutes: Motion to approve made by Monica Harn. Seconded by Prince V. Thomas. Motion passed. [By email on March 18, 2021.

Handouts: Jennifer R. Fowler, President of Faculty Senate, shared the Faculty Senate’s drafts of Sample Reference Letters and Tenure and Promotion Criteria for colleges and departments. (OneDrive shared folder)

Meeting Called to Order: The Lamar University Promotion Review Committee held its meeting on Feb. 5, 2020, at 1:30 P.M. online (Microsoft Teams).

I. Call to Order

Monica Harn called the meeting to order at 1:30 P.M.

II. Opening Remarks

Monica presented an overview of today’s agenda:

• Recommendations/Guidelines to be included in the faculty handbook as required documentation for faculty applying for promotion to full professor.
  • External reviewer selection process.
  • A number of external review letters.

• The committee agreed that faculty candidates should be included in the external reviewer process. A reasonable number of external reviewers should be provided so that there are enough reviewers to solicit letters from Tenure and Promotion Committees.
• Jennifer Fowler shared that faculty research is specialized and they are the ones who have the best idea of the experts in their own fields. Therefore, faculty candidates should be involved in the external reviewer selection process.
• Jane Liu agreed with Jennifer that even within the same discipline, faculty’s research is quite diverse and faculty candidates should be invited to provide possible external reviewers’ names.
• Jenny Zhou shared that in the College of Engineer, a faculty candidate for promotion to full professor provides three names, the faculty’s department chair provides three names, and Tenure & Promotion Committee provides three names. So there are nine external reviewers nominated in total. The committee and the chair review and decide the final external reviewer list. The faculty candidate is not involved in the selection process and the final list is not provided to the faculty candidate. The chair is responsible to solicit letters from external reviewers and all external reviewer letters are sent back to the chair.
• Jeffrey P. Forret had a question about whether a faculty candidate has the option to identify people who they would not want to be asked for external review.
• Monica Harn agreed that a faculty member should be asked to offer the names of the external reviewers. In her opinion, the faculty member should be part of the selection process and has the opportunity to request the names not to be on the external reviewer list in case there is any previous negative relationship with someone.
• Jane Liu asked whether the faculty candidate will be informed of the final list and when the candidate should submit the names not to be considered for external reviewers. According to Jenny Zhou, in the College of Engineering, the final list is not provided to the faculty member.
• Jennifer Fowler shared that, in the Faculty Senate draft, the faculty candidate will have the opportunity to review the nine names and veto any individuals with whom there may be conflicts. Also, some college deans talked to her about requiring external review letters for two-year review, four-year review, and tenure & promotion to associate professor review. As the President of the Faculty Senate, she has informed the deans that there are no university policies of external review requirements for those cases.
• Monica Harn asked what the common practice is for soliciting the external reviewer letters. Who is responsible, departmental Tenure & Promotion Committee or department chair?
• Jennifer Fowler remembered that department chairs are responsible for soliciting the letters.
• Jenny Zhou shared that in the College of Engineering, department chairs are responsible to decide the final list because some departments do not have adequate full professors for their departmental Tenure and Promotion committees.
• Jane Liu felt that departmental tenure and promotion committee members can discuss, decide the final list, and solicit the letters.
• Prince V. Thomas shared his own experience. He provided three names, his department chair provides three names, and his college dean provided three names. His dean and chair discussed and decided on the final list and he was not informed of the list. All colleges use different procedures, so we really need to provide a general guideline for faculty and Tenure & Promotion committees.
• Jenny Zhou proposed to have six names instead of nine names. Six names should be sufficient?
• Monica Harn shared that some reviewers might not be available because of family issues or other obligations. Also, what if the faculty candidate vetoes any reviewers. Do we think six is enough? So probably the total number of reviewers provided could be between six and nine. We have to have a uniform approach for the university that three external review letters should be provided and also the guideline for the procedure.
• Jennifer Fowler said that we have to ensure that the guideline language should be clear enough that the faculty candidates do play a role in external review processes.
• Jeffrey P. Forret suggested that, in terms of flexibility, the guideline could say six to ten names with at least a certain percentage of reviewers coming from the faculty themselves.
• Jenny Zhou asked whether the external review letters should be kept confidential from the faculty candidate.
• Monica Harn agreed that the external review letters should be kept confidential. Based on today’s meeting discussion, she will draft the recommendations/guidelines for our committee’s review and approval.

V. Adjournment: Monica Harn adjourned the meeting at 2:10 P.M.