I. Regular Faculty (P or N)

For Faculty
Introduction to Promotion and Tenure
712 Statements
School of Public Health
I. Regular Faculty (P or N)

A. Appointment
The primary standards for recommendation for appointment are effectiveness in teaching and advising and distinction in scholarly activity.  Service contributions to academic majors, Divisions, the School of Public Health, the University, or to professional organizations, or professionally related services to the community will also be considered, but effectiveness in teaching and distinction in scholarly activity are considered primary.

The standards used for regular (P or N) appointment decisions shall include those established for the recommended rank of the person being considered, as enumerated below.  In addition, the criteria shall include the ability of the person being considered to contribute to the central mission of the School and to adapt to its changing needs.

1. Standards

a. Instructor
Appointment to Instructor requires that a candidate has demonstrated potential in the area of teaching.

b. Assistant Professor
Appointment to assistant professor requires that a candidate has demonstrated potential in the areas of teaching and scholarly activity.  An earned Ph.D., Sc.D., M.D., Dr.P.H., or equivalent degree is also required.

c. Associate Professor
An initial appointment to the rank of associate professor generally requires the same accomplishments in teaching, research and service as the criteria for promotion within the School [cf. Section I.C.1.b.].  If a candidate has a particularly strong record in either teaching or research and has demonstrated potential in the other area, and if the stature is such that a lower rank is inappropriate, an appointment at a rank of associate professor without tenure can be made.  The length of the probationary period is part of the appointment and must be included in the documentation submitted to the APT Committee and the faculty for their vote.

d. Professor
An initial appointment to the rank of professor generally requires the same accomplishments in teaching, research and service as the criteria for promotion within the School [cf. Section I.C.1.c.].  If a candidate has a particularly strong research record and has demonstrated potential for teaching and if the stature is such that a lower rank is inappropriate, an appointment at a rank of professor without tenure can be made.  The length of the probationary period is part of the appointment and must be included in the documentation submitted to the APT Committee and the faculty for their vote.

2. Procedures
Recommendations for regular (P or N) appointments normally are initiated by the Division Head.

a. Search Process
Recommendation for appointment to a regular (P or N) position must be through participation in the search process which is conducted in accordance with affirmative action and equal opportunity policies and procedures.

b. Documentation
It is the responsibility of the Division Head to provide the required documentation for proposed faculty appointments.

1) Search Committee Summary
The Chair of the Search Committee shall provide a brief written summary of the recommendation of the committee regarding the proposed candidate.  A copy of the description of the available academic position must be included.  At least three letters of recommendation from individuals acquainted with the candidate's teaching and/or scholarly activity shall be included as part of the documentation.  For associate and full professor rank, five letters are recommended.

2) Candidate's Background and Experience
A curriculum vitae that includes the following shall be included:

a) Formal education
b) Professional experience
c) Special honors and awards
d) Up-to-date bibliography (reprints of any publications--not to exceed three)
e) Grant and/or contract awards, if relevant
f) List of courses taught; extent of responsibility (e.g., sole instruction, co-instructor, lecturer) and number of credits for each
g) Statement on the extent of student advising; number of students for which the candidate had the major advising responsibility
h) Documentation of other specific teaching and advising contributions such as:

(1) Coordination of graduate seminars
(2) Invited lecturing in courses taught by others
(3) Postdoctoral advising and training
(4) Supervising student research
(5) Service on graduate student examining committees
(6) Supervising interns

i) Summary of any available evaluative data on teaching such as summaries of student evaluations
j) Listing of University, professional and community service activities

c. Faculty Eligible to Vote
For an appointment to a regular faculty position, the tenured faculty at or above the rank being considered are defined to be the faculty eligible to vote (See Appendix IV).

d. Division Faculty Review and Vote
Each proposal for appointment, regardless of rank, must be presented to the Division faculty eligible to vote together with the complete documentation in support of that proposal.  The Division faculty eligible to vote must complete a secret ballot. The APT Committee members from the Division shall notify the Division Head in writing of any issues which might be of concern to the APT Committee as a whole.

e. Division Head's Review and Report
The Division Head shall write a brief letter of support for the recommendation for appointment, including a description of the position to be filled in terms of teaching and research expectations, and the qualifications of the candidate that justify the appointment.  The Division Head's letter must also indicate the proposed date of appointment, and for candidates that do not have an earned Ph.D., Sc.D., M.D., Dr.P.H., or equivalent degree, must specify that the appointment will not be made until after such a degree has been obtained.  A report of the vote by the Division faculty eligible to vote including any comments submitted as explanation of votes must be attached to the letter.  The proposed length of the probationary period must be stated in the report and, if approved, must be stated in the letter of offer to the candidate.

f. APT Review, and Vote and Report
The APT Committee must review and vote on all initial regular faculty appointments proposed for tenure or at the rank of associate professor and above.

After full evaluation, the APT Committee shall make a recommendation concerning the appointment of the candidate to the SPH faculty eligible to vote.  A report of the relevant information shall be prepared by the Chair of the APT Committee.

g. SPH Faculty Review, Vote, and Report
The SPH faculty eligible to vote must review and vote on all regular faculty appointments.

The documentation and reports by the Division Head and the APT Committee must be discussed at a meeting of the SPH faculty eligible to vote.  This meeting shall be chaired by the Chair of the APT Committee.  The meeting shall be conducted so as to afford a reasonable opportunity to discuss the materials presented, to put questions, and to offer further information and judgments.  This will give all concerned the opportunity to hear additional information.  Written notice of the meeting must be given at least one week in advance to all SPH faculty members eligible to vote.

Prior to the meeting, the documentation and reports by the Division Head and the APT Committee must be made available to all SPH faculty members eligible to vote on the recommendation in question, including absent faculty members who wish to receive it.  Absent faculty members provided with this information may be permitted to vote provided communication with them does not impose undue delay or difficulty. In determining this, it should be recognized that absent members will not have had the advantage of hearing the further information and opinions developed at the meeting.

The vote of the faculty shall be taken by individual written, unsigned ballots.  The recommendation of the faculty should be determined by a tabulation of the ballots made by two members of the group designated by, but not including, the Chair.  An approve vote must be cast by the majority of the SPH faculty eligible to vote to effect a valid recommendation.

Following the meeting of the SPH faculty eligible to vote, the Chair of the APT Committee shall submit to the Dean a report which includes:

1) A statement of the votes cast for each recommendation, including:

a) The number of majority votes
b) The number of minority votes
c) The number present but abstaining
d) The number of those entitled to vote but did not

2) A summary statement of the grounds upon which the majority view and recommendation rest, based on the discussion during the meeting and comments on the ballots.
3) A summary statement of the grounds upon which the minority view rests, based on the discussion during the meeting and comments on the ballots.

The Chair shall submit the report, with such modifications as s/he may think desirable in the light of the comments, to the Dean in explanation of the faculty's recommendation. A copy shall be retained in the School personnel files.  The ballots cast shall also be retained for a period of at least one year; in the event of a challenge to the action recommended they may be needed to show the validity of the report submitted.

h. Dean's Review and Report
The Dean must review and make recommendations for all faculty appointments.  After review of the report from the APT Chair and the documentation supporting it, the Dean shall forward the faculty recommendation to the Office of the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences, Academic Health Center, with all the documentation received, together with the Dean's approval or disapproval of the recommendation.  If both the faculty and the Dean disapprove, the appointment will not be made.

i. Rights of the Candidate
Together with any rights assured by the University, the School of Public Health will assure that at any time prior to the SPH faculty vote, a candidate may withdraw his/her application.  It is also noted that written statements preserved in School files are subject to the right under Minnesota law of the individual to whom they refer to see them, be informed of their meaning, and obtain copies.

B. Continuation of Probationary Faculty
All probationary faculty shall be reviewed annually during years 1-6 of the probationary period.*  The review in Year 6 is for promotion or discontinuance.  The purposes of this review are to determine whether the candidate is making satisfactory progress towards tenure, to write an evaluation of that progress and to vote on continuation of the appointment for another year.  The yearly evaluation provides feedback to the candidate and becomes part of the candidate's accumulating record for later decisions concerning promotion and/or tenure.  Documentation must be submitted by the candidate each year.

* An academic year is defined in the University of Minnesota regulations regarding Faculty Tenure (Section 5.3).

The Division and SPH faculty eligible to vote will review the candidate each year.  If there is not sufficient evidence of satisfactory progress and it appears unlikely that the candidate will reach the standards for promotion/tenure by the end of the probationary period, the faculty may vote to discontinue the candidate.  In the sixth year of probation, the review is for promotion and tenure or for discontinuation [cf. Sections I.C. and I.D. for standards for promotion and tenure].  The APT Committee will review the candidate in years 2-6.  Details on the standards and procedures for review of probationary faculty follow.

1. Standards
The primary criteria for the continuation of probationary faculty is the satisfactory progress towards meeting the standards of promotion to associate professor.

2. Procedures

a. Documentation
It is the responsibility of the candidate to provide the required documentation for continuation. It should be concise and well-organized.  Unless otherwise noted, the documentation should cover the candidate's entire academic career, regardless of the site or time at which the work was done.  Sections concerning teaching, research and service should be cumulative dated summaries of objective data, as detailed below.  Where asterisks are requested to indicate recent work, they should mark work done since September 15 of the previous year or since the time of appointment to the current position, whichever is more recent.  Candidates are encouraged to meet with the APT members in their Division for help in preparing the documentation.  The APT committee reserves the right to return documentation for revision if it is excessive.

1) Table of Contents

2) Statement of Assurance
The candidate shall be given the opportunity to examine the documentation to be submitted for review.  A signed statement by the candidate shall accompany the documentation affirming that the candidate has had an opportunity to inspect the contents of the dossier and to add appropriate relevant material or comments to the dossier.

3) Collegiate Unit Letters
Include the division head s letter of recommendation here.  The School of Public Health Dean's Office will add the Collegiate Unit s Statement of Assurance, the APT Committee report, and the letter from the Dean to the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences to this section.

4) Record of Vote
Include the Division Record of Vote here. The School of Public Health Dean s Office will add the APT Committee Record of Vote and the School of Public Health Faculty Record of Vote to this section.

5) Annual Appraisals
Copies of the completed Appraisals of Probationary Faculty (President's Form 12) for each of the probationary years.  Include the Form 12 for stop-the-clock years when applicable.

6) Curriculum Vitae
This section shall be in the form of a summary curriculum vitae and include the following dated items:

a) Formal education
b) Professional experience, including all dates and changes of position or status of University of Minnesota (SPH) appointments
c) Special honors and awards

7) Summary and Documentation of Scholarly Activity
This section must include the following items:

a) One-page summary of the candidate's scholarly activity since September 15 of the previous year or since the time of appointment to the current position, whichever is more recent, highlighting any special accomplishments.  This summary should state the focus of independent research inquiry.  Include an estimate of the percentage of time spent in research/scholarship effort.
b) A complete bibliography of all publications (including articles in press).  List in chronological order and in separate sections:

(1) all peer-reviewed sole and co-authored articles (for those co-authored articles, list order of names as they appear on the publication)
(2) non-peer-reviewed articles
(3)books and chapters in books (indicate whether or not these are peer-reviewed)
(4) presentations and abstracts.

For co-authored articles there must be a statement indicating the role of the candidate in the publication.  Specifically, note participation in conceptualization, grant writing, implementation, analysis, manuscript writing, and advising of student research.  Use an asterisk (*) to identify work done since September 15 of the previous year or since the time of appointment to the current position, whichever is more recent.

Example: Johnson, D.O., Larson, P.Q., and Carlson, A.L.: Evaluating Home Care for the Elderly. AJPH 65: 433-42, 1989. (Analyzed data and wrote manuscript.)

c) A cumulative and dated list of all grants or contracts obtained (including BRSGs and training grants), including title, funding agency, one-sentence summary of purpose of support, period of funding, and candidate's role (principal or co-investigator; role in obtaining the grant; or other substantial responsibility). Note which grants or contracts are internal or external to the university. Use an asterisk (*) to identify work done since September 15 of the previous year or since the time of appointment to the current position, whichever is more recent.
d) Listing of persons trained/mentored/advised in sponsored research activities (e.g., post-doctoral fellows, trainees, etc.). Include the current position of these individuals.
e) Listing of other evidence of research and scholarship (include research publications, grant proposals, and books/book chapters in preparation or planned).

8) Summary and Documentation of Teaching Experience
It is recognized that teaching takes many forms. Among these are independent teaching (sole responsibility for course content); team teaching of courses; teaching of seminars; advising students regarding course work and requirements; and guiding the research of master's and doctoral students and post-doctoral fellows.

This section must include the following items:

a) One-page summary of the candidate's teaching experience since September 15 of the previous year or since the time of appointment to the current position, whichever is more recent, highlighting any special accomplishments.  Include an estimate of the percentage of time spent in the teaching/instructional/educational effort.
b) A cumulative and dated list of all teaching activities.  Use an asterisk (*) to identify work done since September 15 of the previous year or since the time of appointment to the current position, whichever is more recent.

(1) Courses Taught
Listing of courses by title, including for each course the quarter/semester in which the course was taught, number of students, and extent of responsibility (i.e., percentage of course taught, sole instructor, co-instructor, lecturer).  Also indicate courses which are to be taught during the current academic year.

(2) Advising
A cumulative and dated list of formal advisees should be presented in chronological order and in tabular form wherein columns are included for the names of the advisees, their degree program, their major, the date of completion of the degree, and the role of the advisor.  Advisor roles should be drawn from the list below, listing all that apply:

- M.P.H.: Academic advisor
- Master's project advisor
- Examination committee member
- M.S.: Academic advisor
- Master's project or thesis advisor
- Examination committee member
- Ph.D.: Academic advisor
- Dissertation advisor
- Dissertation reader
- Examination committee member

(3) Other Teaching Activity
List other teaching/instructional/educational activity such as continuing education, outreach, development of teaching manuals or special instructional formats.

c) A section on teaching effectiveness, including:

(1) Formal Teaching Evaluations
Provide a summary of formal teaching evaluations (student or peer) over time.  That is, summarize the teaching evaluations obtained through the University of Minnesota Office of Measurement Services forms or other formal measurement tools for evaluation of teaching effectiveness.

(2) Informal Teaching Evaluations
Provide a summary of any informal teaching evaluations such as peer assessment/letters and student or advisee letters.  Indicate whether letters were solicited or unsolicited, or are an established component of the process of evaluating teaching effectiveness. Include actual letters.

(3) Honors and Awards
List any honors or awards received for teaching effectiveness.

9) Summary and Documentation of Service
This section must include the following items:

a) One-page summary of the candidate's important service activities since September 15 of the previous year or since the time of appointment to the current position, whichever is more recent, highlighting any special accomplishments. Include an estimate of the percentage of time spent in the service effort.
b) A cumulative and dated list of important service. Use an asterisk (*) to identify work done since September 15 of the previous year or since the time of appointment to the current position, whichever is more recent.

Service activities can include:

(1) Professional service, including roles in professional organizations, editorial boards, advisory board roles, and service in governmental organizations
(2) University of Minnesota committees
(3) Other professional community service, including presentations to community groups, activities in committee work, and other things done for non-professional outside organizations

10) Reprints
Reprints of any publications (not to exceed three) since September 15 of the previous year or since the time of appointment to the current position, whichever is more recent.  The candidate must be the first or senior author, and the papers selected should reflect significant contributions of the candidate.  In the case of multiple authorships, the contribution of the candidate to the project must be clearly established and reported.

11) Other Relevant Material
Other relevant material may be included, but must be brief.

b. Faculty Eligible to Vote
Tenured faculty vote on the recommendations for continuation of a probationary (N) faculty member.

c. Division Faculty Review and Vote
Each proposal for continuation in a probationary track, regardless of rank, must be presented to the Division faculty eligible to vote together with the complete documentation in support of that proposal.  The Division faculty eligible to vote must complete a secret ballot.

d. Division Head's Review and Report
The Division Head shall write a brief report which includes both an evaluation of the candidate's progress toward promotion and/or tenure and a summary of the Division faculty discussion and vote.  This report shall include a statement on the quality of the candidate's research, including their publications, the quality of their teaching and service.

e. APT Review, Vote, and Report
After full evaluation, the APT Committee shall make a recommendation concerning the continuation or discontinuation of the candidates in years 2-6 to the SPH faculty eligible to vote.  The Division Head is responsible for making the recommendation for candidates in year 1.  A report of the relevant information will be prepared, including the vote of the APT Committee.

f. SPH Faculty Review, Vote, and Report
The APT report and supporting documentation shall be made available to the SPH faculty eligible to vote which must meet and vote for or against continuation for another year.  The procedures and requirements for the SPH faculty review, vote and report on the continuation of probationary faculty shall be the same as for regular faculty appointments, presented in Section I.A.2.g., with one modification: A draft of the report prepared by the APT chair summarizing the SPH faculty vote will be made available to faculty eligible to vote for comment and suggested changes before it is forwarded to the Dean.  The final draft will be sent to the affected faculty member, the faculty member's Division Head, and the Dean, and will be open to the faculty eligible to vote.

g. Dean's Review and Report
The Dean shall add his/her recommendation and comments to the Appraisals of Probationary Faculty (President's Form 12) and forward it to the Office of the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences, Academic Health Center.

h. Rights of the Candidate
In addition to the rights assured in Section I.A.2.i., several other rights are assured for candidates for continuation.  At each step in the review process the candidate shall receive a copy of the reports prepared by the reviewing individuals or groups (Division Head, APT Committee, SPH Faculty, Dean) and may add additional material.  The Dean shall promptly notify the candidate of the action taken after the meeting of the SPH faculty eligible to vote, and inform the candidate of the reasons for the action and of the candidate's procedural rights in this situation.

C. Promotion

1. Standards
The primary criteria for recommendation for promotion are effectiveness in teaching and advising and distinction in scholarly activity.  Service contributions to academic majors, Divisions, the School of Public Health, the University, or to professional organizations, or professionally related services to the community will also be considered, but effectiveness in teaching and distinction in scholarly activity are considered primary.

a. To Assistant Professor
Promotion to assistant professor requires that a candidate has demonstrated potential in the areas of teaching and scholarly activity. A Ph.D., Sc.D., M.D., Dr.P.H., or equivalent degree is required.  A promotion to Assistant Professor does not affect the faculty member's tenure status.

b. To Associate Professor
Promotion to the rank of associate professor requires clear and demonstrable evidence that the candidate has developed a program of teaching and scholarly activity which is innovative and of high quality.

1) Teaching
The candidate should be clearly recognized for his/her impact and effectiveness as a teacher and advisor.  Teaching may take many forms, including independent teaching (i.e., sole responsibility for a course), co-teaching, distance learning, instruction in short courses and summer institutes.  Courses may include school-wide, core and elective classes.  All forms and types of classes are valued.  However, a candidate's record of teaching substantial courses (as primary instructor) provides the strongest evidence for evaluating teaching ability and accomplishments.  In addition to teaching courses, candidates should have demonstratedthe ability to successfully advise and train students for scientific inquiry.

2) Research
The candidate should show evidence of having mastered his/her discipline and the ability to carry out independent inquiry.  Collaborative research among divisions within the School and across academic units within the Academic Health Center and the University at large also is valued.  High-quality publications in peer-reviewed journals relevant to the development of the discipline or its application to public health are the best evidence of a person's research ability.  Additional evidence shall include the information on competitively awarded grants and the publication of peer-reviewed books and book chapters and other scholarly regulations regarding Faculty Tenure (Section 7.11).  It should be noted that in reviewing an individual's scholarly activity, there should be evidence of sustained performance.

3) Service
Service is an important supplementary component of the candidate's activities for appointment or promotion to the rank of associate professor, and the significance of the candidate's service should be documented.  Service aimed at improving public health is particularly valued.

The promotion of a probationary appointee to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor must be accompanied with an appointment with indefinite tenure.

c. To Professor
Promotion to the rank of professor implies advanced academic maturity and requires clear and demonstrable evidence that the candidate has achieved recognition as a national authority in his/her discipline through the development of an innovative program of teaching and scholarly activity.

1) Teaching
The candidate should excel in his/her teaching activity, and there should be evidence of an impact on the field by students whom s/he has mentored for careers, professional and academic.  Mentoring may occur informally or formally through serving on student dissertation and examination committees as a chair, co-director or as an academic advisor.

2) Research
The scholarly output of the candidate should be consistent and sustained and should have developed a theme or major area of expertise.  There should be one or more outstanding publications with the particular stamp of the personality and contribution of the candidate for full professorship.  Collaborative research among divisions within the School and across academic units with the Academic Health Center and the University at large also is valued.  Additional evidence shall include the information on competitively awarded grants and the publication of peer-reviewed books and book chapters and other scholarly activities as defined in the University of Minnesota regulations regarding Faculty Tenure (Section 7.11).

3) Service
Service is an important supplementary component of the candidate's activities.  This service should have had a demonstrated impact in his/her field within the framework of professionally related community activities which contribute to major, division, school and university functions, professional organizations, and the local, state, national or international community.  Service aimed at improving public health is particularly valued.

2. Procedures
Recommendations for promotion normally are initiated by the Division Head.  A promotion recommendation to the APT Committee may be initiated by any member of the School faculty for himself/herself or for other members of the School faculty.  Also, any faculty member may request the Committee to remove his/her name from consideration.  It is strongly recommended that a faculty member who believes s/he should be considered for promotion discuss these possibilities with the Division Head and obtain, if at all possible, the support of the Division Head.

A Division Head may recommend him/herself for promotion, or the recommendation may be initiated by a tenured faculty member, preferably of full professor rank, in the Division.

a. Documentation
The documentation to be submitted in support of a recommendation for promotion should be of the same type and format as that submitted in support of a recommendation for continuation, with five additions:

1) At least five letters from external reviewers, along with a copy of the letter sent to potential reviewers, shall be included with the documentation.  For appropriate criteria, see Appendix I, which is excerpted from the Academic Health Center website, http://www.ahc.umn.edu (under Faculty Promotion and Tenure, see Guidelines for Preparing Dossiers).  In some cases, collaborators, co-authors and past co-workers can provide impartial reviews.  It is essential that the individual or body generating the list of prospective evaluators ascertain the relationship of those individuals with the candidate before seeking a letter of evaluation and not seek letters from persons who cannot provide an impartial evaluation.
2) Where asterisks are requested to indicate recent work, those asterisks should reflect work or events new since appointment or promotion to the current rank.
3) The one-page summaries for teaching, research and service should reflect work or events new since appointment or promotion to the current rank.
4) The requirements for reprints and evaluations of teaching should reflect the period since appointment or promotion to the current rank.
5) Candidates may present additional concise (two pages) evidence to support promotion.

b. Faculty Eligible to Vote
For the promotion of a regular faculty member, the tenured faculty at or above the rank being considered are defined to be the faculty eligible to vote.

c. Division Faculty Review and Vote
Each proposal for promotion, regardless of rank, must be presented to the Division faculty eligible to vote together with the complete documentation in support of that proposal.  The Division faculty eligible to vote must complete a secret ballot.

d. Division Head's Review and Report
The Division Head shall write a brief report which includes both his/her evaluation of the candidate's progress toward promotion and/or tenure and a summary of the Division faculty discussion and vote.  This report shall include a statement on the quality of the candidate's research, including their publications, the quality of their teaching and service.

e. APT Review, Vote and Report
Each proposal for promotion, regardless of rank, must be reviewed by the APT Committee together with the complete documentation in support of that proposal.  For promotion to Associate Professor, the full APT Committee shall review the proposal.  For promotion to Professor, a subset of the APT Committee, comprised of all of the members who hold the rank of Professor, shall review the proposal.

After the APT Committee has deemed the documentation appropriate for consideration, the APT Committee shall select five (5) outside reviewers to assess the quality and significance of the candidate's scholarly activities and to comment on the candidate's national or international reputation.  Letters that are requested from faculty at other academic institutions should indicate whether the candidate would be eligible for promotion at their institution (or one comparable to the University of Minnesota).  At least two of these reviewers must be selected from a list provided by the candidate.  Each reviewer will be provided with the candidate's curriculum vitae and supporting materials, including bibliography, copies of three reprints, and the summary pages of teaching and service activities.  (A copy of the letter from the APT Committee requesting the evaluation will be included in the APT report.)

After full evaluation, the APT Committee shall make a recommendation concerning the promotion of the candidate to the SPH faculty eligible to vote.  A report of the relevant information will be prepared, including the APT Committee vote.

f. SPH Faculty Review, Vote and Report
The APT report and supporting documentation shall be made available to the SPH faculty eligible to vote which must meet and vote for or against the proposed promotion.  The procedures and requirements for the SPH faculty review, vote and report on the promotion of regular faculty shall be the same as for regular faculty appointments, presented in Section I.A.2.g.

g. Dean's Review and Report
The procedures and requirements for the Dean's review, and report on the promotion of regular faculty shall be the same as for regular faculty appointments, presented in Section I.A.2.h.

h. Rights of the Candidate
The rights of candidates for promotion shall be the same as for candidates for continuation, presented in Section I.B.2.h.

D. Tenure

1. Criteria
Appointments with indefinite tenure (P) will be granted only to probationary (N) faculty or to faculty who have been recruited for a specific tenured (P) position in accordance with University and School affirmative action and equal opportunity policies and procedures, and in accordance with the policies and procedures which comprise this document.

Section 7.11 of the University of Minnesota regulations regarding Faculty Tenure specifies the criteria for tenure:

7.11 General Criteria
The basis for awarding indefinite tenure is the determination that the achievements of an individual have demonstrated the individual's potential to continue to contribute significantly to the mission of the University and to its programs of teaching, research, and service over the course of the faculty member's academic career1.  The primary2 criteria for demonstrating this potential are effectiveness in teaching3 and professional distinction in research4; outstanding discipline-related service contributions5 will also be taken into account where they are an integral part of the mission of the academic unit.  The relative importance of the criteria may vary in different academic units, but each of the criteria must be considered in every decision6.

1 For interpretation and possible applications, see the interpretative comment that will be provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 16.2.
2 Criteria other than those expressly listed in this sentence must be explicitly stated and justified in terms of the mission of the University.  Such additional criteria may not impinge upon the academic freedom of the probationary faculty member.
3 "Teaching" is not limited to credit-producing classroom instruction.  It encompasses other forms of communication of knowledge (both to students registered in the University and to other persons in the community) as well as the supervision or advising of individual graduate or undergraduate students.
4 "Research" is not limited to the publication of scholarly works.  It includes activities which lead to the public availability of products or practices which have a significance to society, such as artistic production or the development of new technology or scientific procedures.
5 "Service" means performance within the faculty member's academic expertise and the mission of the academic unit.  It does not include performance of quasi-administrative functions such as membership on faculty or Senate committees or other similar activities; those activities are relevant only to the limited extent set forth in the following paragraph.
6 Other exceptions may be made only in exceptional circumstances by means of special contract, as provided in Section 3.6.

The individual's participation in the governance of the institution and other services to the University and service to the academic unit may be taken into consideration, but are not in themselves bases for awarding tenure.

Indefinite tenure may be granted at any time when the candidate has satisfied the requirements.  A probationary appointment must be terminated when the appointee fails to satisfy the criteria in the last year of probationary service and may be terminated earlier if it appears that the appointee is not making satisfactory progress toward meeting the criteria within that period.

2. Procedures
Recommendations for tenure normally are initiated by the Division Head.  A tenure recommendation to the APT Committee may be initiated by any member of the School faculty for himself/herself or for other members of the School faculty.  Also, any faculty member may request the Committee to remove his/her name from consideration. It is strongly recommended that a faculty member who believes s/he should be considered for tenure discuss these possibilities with the Division Head and obtain, if at all possible, the support of the Division Head.

a. Documentation
The documentation to be submitted in support of a recommendation for tenure should be of the same type and format as that submitted in support of a recommendation for promotion.

b. Faculty Eligible to Vote
Tenured faculty vote on the recommendations for tenure. Separate votes for promotion and tenure must be taken.

c. Division Faculty Review and Vote
Each proposal for tenure, regardless of rank, must be presented to the Division faculty eligible to vote together with the complete documentation in support of that proposal.  The Division faculty eligible to vote must complete a secret ballot.

d. Division Head's Review and Appraisal
The Division Head shall write a brief report which includes both his/her evaluation of the candidate's progress toward tenure and a summary of the Division faculty discussion and vote.

e. APT Review, Vote, and Report
Each proposal for tenure, regardless of rank, must be reviewed by the APT Committee together with the complete documentation in support of that proposal.

The procedures and requirements for the APT Committee's review, vote and report on proposals for tenure shall be the same as for promotions, presented in Section I.C.2.e., except that external reviewers shall be asked to indicate whether the candidate would be eligible for tenure rather than promotion at their institution (or one comparable to the University of Minnesota).

f. SPH Faculty Review, Vote, and Report
The APT report and supporting documentation shall be made available to the SPH faculty eligible to vote which must meet and vote for or against the proposal for tenure.  The procedures and requirements for the SPH faculty review, vote and report on tenure decisions shall be the same as for regular faculty appointments, presented in Section I.A.2.g.

g. Dean's Review and Report
The procedures and requirements for the Dean's review, and report on all tenure decisions shall be the same as for regular faculty appointments, presented in Section I.A.2.h.

h. Rights of the Candidate
The rights of candidates for tenure shall be the same as for candidates for continuation, presented in Section I.B.2.h.