Electing to Combine Years of Service in Rank

When: Before April 15 (preceding Fall of desired promotion review)

Note: The procedure outlined below does not replace a BC/EC vote as to whether or not a candidate ought to pursue promotion in rank. This procedure only covers how to elect to combine service in rank for an on-time promotion.

In rare cases where there may be a desire to seek an accelerated promotion, please contact Tamela Walker and Ann Kelble before proceeding.

1. Faculty member is hired at UT at the same rank they held at a previous institution; e.g., an Assistant Professor at the University of Washington is hired as an Assistant Professor at UT Austin. The faculty member (hereafter "Cand ", for simplicity,) desires to go up for promotion, and so checks to see if they are eligible to combine service to seek an on-time promotion (see also GG TTT B.3.b. (Assistant Professors), TTT C.3.b. (Associate Professors), and PTF B.3.b. (Professional-Track first or second ranks):

   1. Do they have the minimum years of qualifying service in rank at UT? (See GG (TTT) A.11. or GG (PTF) A.12)

   2. Do they have sufficient years in the same (or equivalent) rank from immediately prior to their UT hire to reach at least a combined total of 5 completed years of service in rank prior to the semester seeking promotion? 

      1. In other words, do the qualifying years in rank at UT plus the prior years of service (max of 3) = 6, if you count the desired year of promotion?

      2. Example:   

         2020-21 (1, at prior institution)

         2021-22 (2, at prior institution)

         2022-23 (3, at UT)

         2023-24 (4, at UT)

         2024-25 (5, at UT)

         2025-26 (6 - going up)

   3. Do they have at at least three peer faculty teaching observations across at least two different academic years at UT Austin? (see also the Provost Peer Observation requirements)

2. Once Cand confirms eligibility, they should express their desire to combine service in rank to seek an on-time promotion review, in writing, to the Chair, before April 15 preceding the Fall of the desired promotion review.

   1. This request should specify the academic years they would like to combine, along with the prior institution in the email:

      1. Ex. “I would like to combine two years in prior rank (2020-21 & 2021-22) as an Assistant Professor at the University of Washington in order to seek an on-time promotion at UT in Fall 2025.”

   2. It would be helpful for Cand to send a current CV along with request, to save time later.

3. Chair consults with Staff (and COLA, if desired) to confirm Cand's eligibility. Depending on Cand’s rank:

   1. If tenured Associate Professor or Assistant- or Associate-level Professional-track faculty: BC/EC would need to vote to support Cand’s promotion case; if vote has not already taken place, this must occur prior to requesting to combine years. (See TTT A.7 or PTF A.9)

      1. IMPORTANT: If the BC/EC does not vote to support the case moving forward, the Chair shall notify Cand and Staff of that result, and the request will not move forward.

      2. If the BC/EC supports the case but the Chair does not, then the case will not move forward. (see TTT C.3.a or PTF B.3.a.)

   2. If tenure-track Assistant Professor: BC/EC vote is only required if the promotion and tenure review would be considered accelerated under the Guidelines.

      1. If BC/EC does not vote to support an accelerated case, the request process ends.

      2. If the Chair does not support an accelerated case, the request process ends.

4. Chair writes an email (or statement) indicating whether or not they support Cand's request to combine service in rank to seek promotion in the upcoming Fall and sends to Staff.

   1. Chair’s email should make clear:

      1. whether they believe the Cand is eligible;

      2. if Cand is an Assistant Professor seeking an on-time, up-or-out promotion, Chair should indicate whether or not they support the request;

         1. In all other scenarios, Chair only sends the request forward if they support;

      3. unless not applicable, confirmation that the BC/EC voted to support the case.

   2. Staff shall send the candidate the link to the current EVPP promotion guidelines for the relevant title series (TTT or PTF). (The reason will be explained in step 7.)

5. Staff sends an email to COLA (c/o COLA HR) containing the following:

   1. Cand's request,

   2. Chair's comments (see 4.a above--if Chair left out required information, Staff can provide the missing information if able),

   3. Cand's current CV,

   4. verification that at least the minimum required peer observation reports are on file within the department (see 1.c.); and

   5. verification that they sent Cand the most recent EVPP promotion guidelines.

6. COLA will share materials with Dean for Dean's review and comments.

7. Once Dean has sent comments to COLA, COLA will complete the ServiceNow Election to Combine form (EVPP) for review and approval.

   1. The new form requires confirmation that the faculty member was provided information about combining service from the most recent relevant General Guidelines for promotion.

   2. The SN form will route for signatures as follows:

      1. Faculty member (potential Cand);

      2. Chair;

      3. Tamela Walker (for COLA) (assuming AK is filling out form); and

      4. Dean.

   3. If/when EVPP approves the request, they will send a memo to Cand confirming this, for Cand to sign and return. (Caveat: I don’t know if the new SN form will change this step. - 4/28/25)

      1. Important: Please note that Assistant Professors electing to combine probationary service in rank to go up "on-time" are choosing to pursue an "up-or-out" (mandatory) promotion review that will result in either promotion to Associate Professor with tenure or a terminal appointment (i.e., separation from UT.)

Return to Table of Contents

Department Ad Hoc Promotion Committee Formation

When: Spring

1. Determine whether there is a need for an ad hoc review committee. For each upcoming promotion case: does/will the BC/EC have at least five eligible voters?

   1. Eligibility requirements: TTT cases, (sec. A.4. through A.6.) and PTF cases, (sec. A.6 through A.8.).

   2. If enough eligible voters, then you don’t need an ad hoc. If not enough, proceed to step 2.

2. Chair and Cand come up with individual lists of potential committee members of appropriate rank (including more than the minimum number of names needed to make up the count).

3. Chair and Cand review lists together to discuss. 

4. Once full list of possibilities is assembled and approved by both parties, this list is sent by Chair (or Staff, cc:ing the other one,) to Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, Steve Hoelscher, (cc: COLA (Ann Kelble)).

   1. List should include proposed faculty member names, faculty rank (if other than "Professor"), department (if outside of COLA), and make clear the number of eligible voters the department will already have.

   2. e.g., "Department will have 3 eligible Fulls: Abercrombie, Hand, Fitch; seeking 2 additional members.”

5. Associate Dean reviews the list with Dean; communicates approvals/comments to COLA (AK), who will relay information to the Chair and Staff.

6. Chair solicits ad hoc committee member(s) until reaches the required minimum of 5 voters.

7. Staff notifies COLA (AK) of final ad hoc committee member names.

8. Department proceeds with promotion review process, using ad hoc committee in place of BC/EC.

note

Parts of the Promotion File Involved:

• Promotion Review Voting Sheet

  • GG TTT.G.1.; GG PTF.F.1

Related:

• Chair Statement

• BC/EC Statements

Selecting Reviewers

When: Early Spring

1. BC/EC and Cand independently assemble lists of potential reviewers, following the criteria laid out in GG (TTT) D.10. or GG (PTF) C.10, if applicable; give lists to Chair.

   1. Tip: BC/EC or Cand should include justifications for any suggested names that do not meet the criteria from the Guidelines.

   2. Note: in 25-26, most PTF candidates with a primary area of Teaching and in Lecturer/Instruction title will not be required to have any letters for file. See GG for details.

2. Chair combines names into a single, shorter list; shares with Cand for review.

   1. Cand review should include:

      1. checking for conflicts of interest,

      2. checking for arm's length (if Cand is TTT, or if PTF member is required to request external letters), and/or

      3. any other potential concerns.

   2. Cand shall inform Chair of any conflicts of interest, potential arm's length issues, or if they simply do not want a reviewer to be asked for a letter.

   3. Once Cand has reviewed list, Staff should have them complete Section 1 of the COLA Promotion Candidate File Check, and keep the form on file.

3. Once Cand review is complete, Chair compiles "final" list of potential reviewers for Dean's review; gives info to Staff.

   1. Reminder: Reviewers must not be solicited prior to approval from dean/dean's delegate.

   2. Tip: Chair should keep in mind that Guidelines require majority of letters received be from reviewers recommended by department.

4. Staff uses the information to complete the Promotion Reviewer Template. Some Reminders:

   1. If external reviewer is NOT a Full Professor, i.e., they are an Associate Professor, Emeritus, or other title, you must provide a justification.

      1. Anyone at the same or lower rank than the candidate is automatically ineligible.

      2. Emeritus faculty are unlikely to be approved as reviewers.

   2. If external reviewer is not at an AAU or R1 institution that is considered "peer" or "aspirational peer", a justification should be provided:

      1. If R1 but not as highly ranked (subjective, but...): err on side of providing brief description of person's expertise and/or context, such as, if the specific program or department is considered among the best within the discipline.

      2. If not AAU, R1, or U.S. institution, the justification should include assurance that the individual is "knowledgeable about the scholarly expectations for promotion at an R1 doctoral university." (GG) In other words, it's less about justifying the prowess of the institution and more about whether the person would be able to provide useful answers to the solicitation letter's prompts.  

         1. That said, the institution ought to be a research university that awards doctoral degrees, or similar.

   3. If an external reviewer has had a minor collaboration with Cand, please provide brief explanation of collaboration and why the reviewer has been selected.

      1. If the external reviewer is a close collaborator and department still wants to ask for a letter, please explain that, keeping in mind it will not count toward the minimum required letters.

   4. If internal reviewer (PTF only, and not required in 25-26), must be of a higher rank, regardless of track, and be able to evaluate Cand's performance and trajectory according to the expectations for promotion.

5. Staff prepares a sample solicitation letter, using the appropriate template. (see Note 5.a. for exceptions)

   1. Note: Only one sample letter per Cand is required, except in the following (optional) circumstances:

      1. If Cand is PTF, Dept wishes to solicit optional letters, and Dept want to ask specific people to address specific parts of Cand’s record, then we’d need a sample of each type of letter you intended to send out.

6. Staff sends reviewer template and sample solicitation letter(s) via email to COLA (cola_hr@austin.utexas.edu), attn: Ann Kelble with a subject line: "Promotion Referees for 'Cand's Name.'" 

   1. If reviewer information is incomplete or if there are missing justifications, dean's review will be paused until Staff provides the missing information.

   2. COLA will screen the reviewer lists per GG requirements) and then forward to Dean for review and final-approval.

7. Once approved, COLA will send Staff the list of approved reviewer names, will note any unapproved names, and will include, if applicable, an edited version of the solicitation letter.

   1. Letter edits generally consist of

      1. correcting typographical errors;

      2. aligning the letter more closely to the Provost's Office template, to safeguard compliance/reduce risk; or

      3. changing the template language so that it doesn’t assume the 5 significant works are being sent along with the initial letter, as that doesn’t usually make sense.

8. The Chair may solicit letters using the approved letter text* as soon as the dean's level approval has been received; as responses come in, Chair shall forward to Staff also, to keep on file for process.  

   1. *If the sample solicitation letter is not used as the initial contact, the Chair must at least inform the potential reviewer that, under Texas law, they cannot ensure the confidentiality of the reviewer's letter. (see GG TTT.D.11.; GG PTF.C.11.) The standard solicitation letter should be sent to the reviewer either way, as it contains important information, review context, and questions for them to answer. 

   2. Recommended: Staff should use the list of reviewers and responses from solicited individuals to begin completion of the Summary of Reviewers Chart.

   3. Note: If additional reviewer names are needed, Chair must have Cand review and Dean approve before soliciting, as above. 

Sending Candidate Materials to Reviewers

When: Spring - Early Summer

1. Cand is responsible for selecting and providing materials to share with promotion reviewers, though they are advised to consult their Chair and/or faculty mentor(s) or peer(s) for feedback on their choices. Typical candidate materials sent to reviewers:

   1. IMPORTANT: Effective AY25-26, Significant Works sent to reviewers cannot be changed or updated* over the course of review. (*If a work is not yet published, but changes publication status during the review period, the updated version would be added to Other Supplemental Materials Provided by the Candidate (12.t), but the work sent to external reviewers would remain the version in the Significant Works folder (12.f).)

   2. To External Reviewers of Research and/or Creative Work (e.g., for TTT or Research-primary PTF):

      1. Updated "normal" CV; (not the Promotion version)

      2. Brief research statement, written for audience of experts in their field(s) or related discipline(s);

      3. Five most significant works completed in rank (the works themselves) (see GG TTT.G.7.d. and TTT.G.12.f. or GG PTF.F.7.e. and PTF.F.12.f.).

      4. (optional) Impact of Professional Disruptions statement (see GG TTT.G.12.a. or GG PTF.F.12.a.)

   3. To Internal Reviewers (e.g., for Teaching-primary PTF) Uncommon as of AY24-25:

      1. Updated "normal" CV; (not the Promotion version)

      2. Teaching statement; 

      3. Additional contributions statement; 

      4. Teaching Portfolio; and/or

      5. (optional) Impact of Professional Disruptions statement (see GG PTF.F.12.a.)

      6. Note: Materials for internal reviewers have not been standardized in COLA during prior cycles, beyond the CV and one or more statements. Departments and Cands are encouraged to consider which materials would best highlight excellence and impact in the candidate's record of teaching and/or additional contributions without simply duplicating large portions of the promotion file (especially if the internal reviewers are within the same department).

   4. Departures from the above-listed standard options are allowable, but not usually recommended. Please check with COLA if you have any questions or concerns.

2. Once materials are assembled, Cand provides them to Staff and Chair. Once Cand has provided materials to department, they should have no more involvement in this part of the process. At no point should Cand communicate with reviewers. 

   1. If PTF Cand has reasons to interact with an internal reviewer unrelated to the promotion process, that is, of course, fine, but they shall not discuss the promotion process, the materials, or anything related.

3. Chair decides how they want communication to work with external reviewers. Caveat: Departments manage the process of communicating with reviewers, so the information that follows is not meant to preempt that responsibility; rather, it is an attempt to sketch out the "normal" flow of things for individuals new to the process, along with providing some recommended best practices. Each Chair is responsible for setting the tone and for managing this process for their department's cases.  

   1. Chair typically attaches Cand's CV to the solicitation email sent to potential reviewers (using the vetted text). (Please see also "Selecting Reviewers", step 8.)

   2. Once a potential reviewer agrees to write a letter, the two options tend to be:

      1. Chair sends a thank you/acknowledgement of reviewer's positive response and lets them know to expect a follow-up communication from Staff, who will ensure delivery of materials to reviewer.

      2. Chair sends a thank you/acknowledgement of reviewer's positive response and shares a link to the candidate's materials (via UT Box).

      3. The first option is generally preferable, as it allows for Staff to manage the administrative details, especially in instances where a reviewer might request hard copies of materials or if there are follow-up communications needed.

   3. Note: Staff communication with external promotion reviewers should be polite, professional, effective, clear, and brief (include no more than what is necessary).

      1. Keep in mind you will be viewed not simply as an individual, but as a representative of your department and university.

      2. Also keep in mind that your email may become part of the final promotion file.

      3. Warmth, kindness, etc. are not incompatible with professionalism. Just sayin'.

4. Staff (or Chair) sends materials to reviewers. In recent years, this is usually done via a link to a UT Box folder, containing electronic copies of the materials. Note: If Chair did not already send the formal Solicitation Letter (see template) to the reviewers, the formal letter should be sent along with the other materials.

   1. Staff needs to ensure that they have an accurate record of Cand's materials sent/shared with reviewers.

      1. In PTF cases where different sets of materials are shared with different reviewers, Staff must track which set was shared with which reviewer. (This is less common, but can occur when some reviewers are looking at publications plus related materials and others are looking at teaching plus related materials.)

   2. To be clear: the Cand's materials, once determined, should not be added to (or subtracted from) unless there is an exceptional reason that has been confirmed with COLA HR.

   3. Tip: If Cand's materials include (a) published book(s), the Chair should decide in advance whether or not the department will offer to send hard copies of the book(s) to reviewers (or whether they will be willing to do so if requested). It can be a nice gesture, if funds are available, but is not mandatory. Also involves some additional logistics (purchasing, shipping, etc.).

   4. Tip: Make your files self-explanatory and well-organized.

   5. Tip: Keep file names short and don't use promotion publication numbers.