1.1. Great care should be taken by both the Brooks School and relevant partnered departments to provide a mentorship plan and support of junior faculty. Junior faculty with membership in a department will be assigned at least one faculty mentor who shares an appointment between the department and the Brooks School. That mentor is the primary contact for questions about balancing contributions and service between Brooks and the department, though as always junior faculty are encouraged to develop multiple informal mentoring ties with their senior colleagues. Junior faculty without membership in a department will also be assigned at least one faculty member who is appointed in the Brooks School.

1.2. In some cases, there may also be benefit to the junior faculty member to assign a second mentor. In the case of faculty members with a department membership, the second member should not a Brooks faculty member but a member of the larger department. In the case of Brooks-only appointments, the second mentor should also be a member of the Brooks faculty. Decisions on the appropriate mentoring team will be made by the Senior Associate Dean of Faculty and Research (SADFR) and, when applicable, the relevant Department Chair.

1.3. Dual mentorship (either by a faculty member who spans both Brooks and the department or by a Mentoring Team that includes Brooks and non-Brooks faculty) is designed to provide the junior faculty member with regular feedback from both their department tenure home and from the Brooks School. It does, however, present the risk of inconsistent or mixed messages from the two sources. The faculty mentor(s) have a particularly important role to play in this regard, both in synthesizing the two sources of feedback and in establishing communication between the department and to the Brooks School about any inconsistent messaging that the junior faculty may receive. We recognize that such regular evaluations create additional service burdens on the Brooks School and department faculty, but they are essential for establishing the clearest possible expectations for jointly appointed junior faculty.

1.4.  Appointment of Mentors for Junior Faculty

• 1.4.1. Within the first six months of the initial appointment, the SADFR will (as relevant) work with the appropriate Department Chair to choose The Mentor or The Mentoring Team among Brooks School faculty members (and in the case of a Mentoring Team, among non-Brooks faculty members of the relevant department). The Mentor or Mentoring Team can be changed under a mutual agreement between the junior faculty, the SADFR, and (as relevant) the Department Chair.

1.5.  Responsibilities of the Mentor

• 1.5.1. It will be the responsibility of The Mentor or The Mentoring Team to meet with the junior faculty informally throughout the year and provide guidance and help with their progress toward reappointment/tenure.
• 1.5.2. Each year The Mentor or The Mentoring Team will provide guidance and help to the junior faculty in organizing the required documentation for department faculty reviews: which are for Assistant professors in years 1, 2, 4, and 5, reappointment in year 3, and tenure in year 6.

1.6.  Broader Mentoring Responsibilities of Brooks Faculty In Support of Junior Faculty

• 1.6.1.  All Brooks School tenured faculty will be responsible for mentoring junior faculty. Examples of mentoring activities are: 
  • 1.6.1.1. Research: reviewing papers, grant reports, and other written materials, providing information regarding research and professional meetings, associations, and the like.
  • 1.6.1.2. Teaching: as requested by the junior faculty or as called for due to extenuating circumstances (e.g., consistently poor evaluations; consistently low enrollment in required courses, or consistently underprepared students), visiting classes taught by the assistant professor and providing supportive feedback, organizing teaching help/training if requested, reviewing class materials and student evaluations with the candidate, and the like.
  • 1.6.1.3. Service and Engagement: reviewing volume of service relative to years in to confirm appropriate service load, providing support and assistance with project planning and technical problems, and to offer advice around level/nature of policy engagement activity in the context of years in rank, other competing demands, etc.

2.1.1. The Brooks School Planning Committee rightfully noted that junior faculty warrant special consideration due to the inherent difficulties such faculty face, particularly given that the Brooks School is a new entity. In a memo dated April 6, 2021, the Brooks School Planning Committee outlined a detailed set of guidelines for grandfathering former Policy Analysis and Management (PAM) junior faculty into the Brooks School. This memo described two categories of grandfathering for Brooks School junior faculty – (a) former PAM, tenure-track but not-yet tenured faculty who had already completed their third-year review prior to the founding of the Brooks School in July 2021, and (b) former PAM, tenure-track but not-yet tenured faculty who had NOT completed their third-year review prior to the founding of the Brooks School.

2.1.2. For former PAM, tenure-track but not-yet tenured faculty who had already completed their third-year review prior to the founding of the Brooks School in July 2021, the voting faculty on tenure are comprised of (currently, at the time of review) tenured faculty who were in PAM at the time of transition. Following a recommendation from the voting faculty, the Brooks School Dean has responsibility for making tenure recommendations to the Provost. The Brooks School Dean will offer a courtesy notification to the Human Ecology Dean about the recommendation.

2.1.3. For former PAM, tenure-track but not-yet tenured faculty who had NOT completed their third-year review prior to the founding of the Brooks School, the voting faculty on tenure are comprised of (currently, at the time of the review) tenured faculty in the disciplinary department who are also members of the Brooks School. For example, for a grandfathered junior economist formerly in PAM who has not yet gone through reappointment review, the tenure vote in Economics will be by (a) all Brooks School tenured economists who were formerly in PAM (including those tenured since the founding of the Brooks School), (b) any externally recruited Brooks School tenured faculty who are members of the Economics department and (c) any tenured members of the Economics department who have joined the Brooks School. Excluded from voting are non-Brooks School members of the Economics department and non-Economics members of the Brooks School. Following the vote of these faculty, the Brooks School Dean has responsibility for making tenure recommendations to the Provost. The Brooks School Dean will offer a courtesy notification to the Human Ecology Dean about the recommendation.

2.1.4. Grandfathered junior faculty members will be assigned a “De Facto Chair” who will take the lead on the annual review and tenure process. This De Facto Chair will be a tenured Brooks School faculty member who is also a member of the relevant multi-college department that the junior faculty member would join upon granting of tenure – in other words, a sociologist will serve as the De Facto Chair for sociology-trained faculty and an economist will serve as the De Facto Chair for economics-trained faculty.

2.2.1. On an annual basis, the De Facto Chair will appoint the junior faculty’s review committee as well as its chair. The review committee will consist of faculty members eligible to vote in grandfathered tenure cases as noted above, with the exception of the faculty mentor, who is ineligible to serve on this committee. After the candidate’s documentation is complete, the review committee will prepare a written review of the candidate’s file, which will form the basis for tenured faculty discussion at the annual review, reappointment, and tenure meetings. The final summary of the review committee’s letter, which will be written by the De Facto Chair, will (a) explicitly and exhaustively highlight strengths and weaknesses most likely to be central to promotion and tenure, (b) be endorsed by the review committee, and (c) be available to the full voting body for review.

2.3.1. The timing for annual review, reappointment and advancement reviews for grandfathered junior faculty occur at the times listed below. Candidates may request a change in the timing of reviews and/or tenure clock extensions as is permissible by rules set forth in the Faculty Handbook pertaining to approved medical, parental, or extenuating circumstance leaves. All tenure clock extensions must be approved by the Provost, and all review timing extensions that do not affect the tenure clock must be approved by the Brooks Dean.

2.4.1. Annual Review: Annually except in the year of the second 3-year term review and the year of tenure review.

2.4.2. Second 3-Year Term for Assistant Professors: Ordinarily in 3rd full-time year of the appointment of the Assistant Professor.

2.4.3. Advancement to Tenure for Assistant Professors: Ordinarily at the end of the 5th and the beginning of the 6th full-time year of the appointment as Assistant Professor so that the file can be transmitted to the Dean by December 1^st of the 6th year.

2.5.1. Step 1: With the guidance and help of the Mentor, the assistant professor will compile the documentation for the annual review file. The file should contain (i) an updated CV, (ii) a one-page document outlining accomplishments in the previous year that may not be obvious from the CV, (iii) updated research and teaching statements, (iv) all articles published in the previous year, and (v) course syllabi from the previous year. The file should also include copies of the department’s periodic evaluations of the assistant professor’s performance throughout the period of employment along with the assistant professor’s responses (if provided).

2.5.2. Step 2: After the documentation is compiled in the assistant professor’s file, the De Facto Chair will give the file to the Review Committee. The Review Committee will then meet to discuss the file and the Chair of the Committee will prepare a written report of the assistant professor’s progress co-signed by all committee members. This review is confidential. It will be distributed only to faculty members eligible to vote on the candidate’s tenure. It will be used as a foundation for discussion at the annual review meeting. It will not become part of the candidate’s permanent file.

2.5.3. Step 3: The De Facto Chair will then schedule a meeting of the tenured faculty to review the assistant professor’s file. The De Facto Chair is responsible for scheduling this meeting when at least two-thirds of the tenured faculty eligible to vote are able to participate (in person, or under exceptional circumstances, via external linkage). Tenured faculty who are related to the assistant professor (e.g., by blood, marriage, domestic partnerships, etc.) do not participate in the review meeting. The assistant professor’s file will be made available for review by the tenured faculty at least one week prior to the meeting.

2.5.4. Step 4: The tenured faculty will meet to discuss the file. At this meeting the Review Committee will present their review of the file, and a full faculty discussion will follow. A written summary of the tenured faculty’s discussion of the assistant professor’s file, explicitly and exhaustively highlighting strengths and weaknesses most likely to be central to promotion and tenure discussed by the tenured faculty will be prepared by the De Facto Chair, approved by the review committee, and available for review by the entire tenure voting polity before being given to the assistant professor.

2.5.5. Step 5: As soon as reasonably possible after the annual review meeting, the De Facto Chair and the Mentor will meet with the assistant professor to discuss the faculty review of their file and to provide specific feedback regarding areas of improvement. The De Facto Chair’s Assistant will produce and maintain a back-up copy of all file documents, and the Assistant to the SADFR will also keep a copy.

2.6.1. Step 1: With the guidance and help of the Mentor, the assistant professor will compile the documentation for the annual review file. The file should contain the (a) most recent curriculum vita, (b) job description and any changes in the job description during the assistant professor’s term of appointment, (c) letter of appointment, (d) documentation of the annual assignment of the assistant professor’s effort among functions throughout the term of appointment, (e) a “situation statement” in which the assistant professor discusses the structure and goals of his/her research, teaching, and extension programs and how he/she is achieving and will achieve them, (f) evidence pertaining to the assistant professor’s achievements under the following headings: teaching, research, extension/public service, and professional activity, (g) copies of all published work, which includes traditionally research, teaching and extension publications as well as more nontraditional “publication” such as videos, slide sets, and computer software, and (for years 2, 4, and 5) copies of the department’s periodic evaluations of the assistant professor’s performance throughout the period of employment along with the assistant professor’s responses (if provided).

2.6.2. Step 2: The De Facto Chair, the Mentor, and the assistant professor will then meet to determine the completeness of the reappointment file.

2.6.3. Step 3: After the reappointment file is deemed complete by the De Facto Chair and the Mentor, the De Facto Chair will give the file to the Review Committee. The Review Committee will then meet to discuss the file and the Committee Chair will prepare a written report of the assistant professor’s file for reappointment co-signed by all committee members. This review is confidential. It will be distributed only to voting-eligible tenured faculty to be used as a foundation for discussion at the reappointment meeting. It will not become part of the candidate’s permanent file.

2.6.4. Step 4: The De Facto Chair will then schedule a meeting of the tenured faculty to discuss and vote on the assistant professor’s reappointment file. The De Facto Chair is responsible for scheduling this meeting at a time when at least two­ thirds of the tenured faculty eligible to vote are able to participate (in person, or under exceptional circumstances, via external linkage). Tenured faculty who are related to the assistant professor (e.g., by blood, marriage, domestic partnerships, etc.) are not eligible to vote and hence do not participate in the third-year review meeting. The assistant professor’s reappointment file will be made available for review by the tenured faculty at least one week prior to the reappointment meeting.

2.6.5. Step 5: The faculty eligible to vote on the grandfathered junior faculty member’s tenure case will then meet to discuss the assistant professor’s reappointment file. The reappointment motion will be: “That a second three-year appointment be granted the candidate.” At the beginning of this meeting the Review Committee will present their review of the assistant professor’s reappointment file, and full discussion will follow. The De Facto Chair will then call for a vote on the motion, and a vote on reappointment by secret ballot will be taken. The De Facto Chair and the Mentor will be responsible for tallying the votes.

2.6.6. Step 6: A written summary of the tenured faculty’s discussion and vote on the assistant professor’s reappointment file that explicitly and exhaustively highlights strengths and weaknesses most likely to be central to promotion and tenure will be prepared by the De Facto Chair and approved by the committee before being given to the assistant professor.

2.6.7. Step 7: The outcome of the reappointment vote will be shared with the candidate and the Dean and in processing the reappointment or termination. Note: The De Facto Chair’s Assistant and the Assistant to the Senior Associate Dean of Faculty and Research (SADFR) will see to it that a back-up copy of information is kept insuring against possible loss of any documents.

2.7.1. Step 1: The De Facto Chair will seek approval from the Dean to initiate the tenure review process.

2.7.2. Step 2: The De Facto Chair and the Mentor will then meet with the assistant professor six months before the tenure review process is to begin. At this meeting, they will discuss the process to be followed (outlined below) and set a time schedule for the tenure review process. The De Facto Chair will inform the tenured faculty of this time schedule as soon as it has been set.

2.7.3. Step 3: The De Facto Chair will assemble a three-person committee of the tenured faculty which cannot include the mentor. This committee will work with the De Facto Chair in assembling the confidential portion of the candidate’s tenure file.

2.7.4. Step 4A: With the guidance and help of the Mentor, the assistant professor will compile the documentation for the tenure file. The file should contain:

• A curriculum vita for the candidate.
• Job description and any changes in the job description during the candidate’s term of appointment.
• Letters of appointment and reappointment.
• Documentation of the annual assignment of the candidate’s effort among functions throughout the term of appointment.
• Candidate’s annual reports.
• Annual review of candidate as provided by the relevant (at the time of the review) Department and/or School.
• A “Research Statement” in which the candidate discusses past and current research accomplishments and future research directions.
• A “Teaching Statement” in which the candidate discusses teaching accomplishments, efforts made to improve their instruction, and future teaching directions.
• An “Outreach/Extension Statement” (if applicable) in which the candidate discusses accomplishments in outreach/extension and future directions of outreach/extension activities.
• Evidence pertaining to the candidate’s achievements under the following headings: teaching (e.g., syllabi, course evaluations, and other teaching related materials such as examples of assignments, examinations, and class projects); research (e.g., published papers, working papers, funded grant proposals); outreach/extension/public service; and professional service (e.g., service on editorial boards, positions in associations etc.).

2.7.5. Step 4B: Concurrently, the De Facto Chair will work with the Review Committee to assemble the confidential components of the file. These include:

• Brooks School Selected External Reviewers
  • The committee will suggest a list of 20-25 names of senior (tenured) scholars in the candidate’s area of expertise. The specific reason each suggested letter writer is chosen should also be included. At least one of these proposed external reviewers should be a senior scholar not in the candidate’s sub-discipline but in the same discipline (or area of expertise for interdisciplinary degrees) as the candidate (e.g., an applied micro-economist if the candidate is an empirical health economist). A minimum of five (5) of the letters received should be from scholars who have not been closely associated with the candidate. To the extent possible, external reviewers should be from peer research institutions. At the De Facto Chair’s discretion, some/all of these individuals will be solicited to write letters of evaluation of the candidate’s file. The candidate’s file will include a listing of all persons identified on the Brooks School’s external reviewers list, noting who was asked to write a letter, and the status of their responses. If the requested review is from an individual the candidate has co-authored with, in the De Facto Chair’s letter to individuals requesting a letter of review, the De Facto Chair will ask the reviewer to provide an assessment of the candidate’s contributions to co-authored publications.
  • A minimum of five letters of evaluation from external reviewers on the Brooks School’s list who have not been closely associated with the candidate, and at least seven total external letters overall, are necessary for the file to be considered complete.
  • External reviewers should be chosen in line with the Faculty Handbook’s guidance on external reviewer selection and charge: “The role of external evaluators is to assess the candidate’s accomplishments, stature in the field, and future promise. They should be given a charge that is as specific as possible and should be provided with as much material relating to the candidate’s performance as is conveniently possible (excluding other confidential evaluations). The tenure dossier should include at least five letters from peers outside Cornell who have not been closely associated with the candidate and who have not been selected by the candidate. In selecting external evaluators, the Brooks School should select at least some well-established leaders in the larger discipline who are not working in the same sub­ discipline as the candidate. The purpose of these evaluations is to understand the breadth of impact and promise of the candidate’s work.”
• Candidate Selected External Reviewers
  • The candidate will be asked to submit at least ten names of external reviewers who are capable of reviewing the candidate’s file. The suggested names should include no more than 3 reviewers who have been closely associated with the candidate (e.g., past or current collaborators/co-authors or former Ph.D. committee members). The candidate should carefully consider the appropriate mix of suggested reviewers to avoid any perceptions of bias. For suggested reviewers on the candidate’s list with whom they have been closely associated, the candidate will be asked to identify that relationship. The De Facto Chair, at their discretion, may solicit letters from some/all of the people identified on the candidate’s list. The candidate’s file will include a listing of all persons identified on the candidate’s external reviewers list, noting who was asked to write a letter, and the status of their responses. If the requested review is from an individual the candidate has co-authored with, in the Chair’s letter to individuals requesting a letter of review, the Chair will ask the reviewer to provide an assessment of the candidate’s contributions to co-authored publications.
• Letters from Students and/or Engagement Partners
  • The Mentor will work with the De Facto Chair in assembling a list of students (undergraduate and graduate) the candidate has taught/mentored over the time of their appointment and/or a list of engagement partners the candidate has worked with over the time of their appointment. The De Facto Chair is responsible for soliciting letters of evaluation from as many students and/or engagement partners as reasonably possible in a timely fashion.
  • The candidate’s dossier should contain a statement of how student evaluators were selected, the rate of response, and the usual rate of response in the Brooks School.
• Letters from Faculty
  • The De Facto Chair is responsible for soliciting letters of evaluation of the candidate from voting-eligible faculty (as deemed by the grandfathering rules described in Section 4.1) in the Brooks School.
• Note on Confidentiality
  • The candidate does not have access in any form to letters of evaluation from internal and external peers, graduate students, or undergraduate students. These are confidential and seen only by the tenured faculty.

2.7.6. Step 5: The De Facto Chair, the Mentor, and the assistant professor will meet to determine the completeness of the tenure file. Once the file is certified as complete by the De Facto Chair and the Mentor, no further additions or deletions will take place with one exception. Changes in the status of manuscripts/grants will be noted as they occur up to the time the tenured faculty review the file for their vote. At that time the file will be “frozen” and no further additions or amendments will be allowed to the file. The date of each change in the file after the file has been declared to be complete will be included with the change.

2.7.7. Step 6: After the tenure file is deemed complete by the De Facto Chair and the Mentor and all external letters of evaluation included in Step 4 have been added to the file, the committee that the De Facto Chair charged with assembling the confidential portion of the candidate’s tenure file will then meet to review the file and prepare a written summary of the assistant professor’s file for tenure co­ signed by all committee members. This committee is not charged with making a recommendation regarding tenure. This summary is confidential. It will be distributed only to tenured faculty to be used as a foundation for discussion at the tenure voting meeting. It will not become part of the candidate’s permanent file.

2.7.8. Step 7: The De Facto Chair will then schedule a meeting of the tenured faculty to discuss and vote on the assistant professor’s tenure file. The De Facto Chair is responsible for scheduling this meeting when at least two-thirds of the tenured faculty eligible to vote are able to participate in the meeting (in person, or under exceptional circumstances, via external linkage). Tenured faculty who are related to the assistant professor (e.g., by blood, marriage, domestic partnerships, etc.) are not eligible to vote and hence do not participate in the tenure review meeting. The assistant professor’s tenure file will be made available for review by the tenured faculty at least one week prior to the meeting.

2.7.9. Step 8: The tenured faculty will then meet to discuss the assistant professor’s tenure file. Quorum for this meeting is two-thirds of the eligible voting members of the tenured faculty. The meeting will accomplish four goals:

• 2.7.9.1. Vote on motion of completeness of file: At the meeting the De Facto Chair will ask for a motion that the file is complete. The file will be deemed to be complete on the basis of a majority vote. If the vote is positive the meeting can proceed. If the voting eligible faculty judge the file to be seriously incomplete (if the deficiency is deemed large and important) steps will be taken by the Mentor and the De Facto Chair to make it complete. The meeting may be adjourned until the file is certified by the voting eligible faculty to be complete. If, by a vote of the faculty, the file is deemed to be incomplete in a minor way, the meeting can proceed.
• 2.7.9.2. Discussion of the file: The committee will present their information regarding the assistant professor’s tenure file, and full faculty discussion will follow.
• 2.7.9.3. The assessment of the candidate’s performance will be based upon the year-by-year record of the description of responsibilities pertaining to the period under review (i.e., the fractional split among teaching, research, and extension in each year of the appointment). Assessment will focus on scholarly productivity, impact, and professional visibility of the work in the candidate’s field, the assessment of external reviewers, the promise of the candidate for the future, and the candidate’s work in relation to the research, teaching, and service mission of the department.
• 2.7.9.4. Vote on tenure: The tenure motion will be: “That tenure be granted to the candidate.” The De Facto Chair will then call for a vote on the motion, and a vote on tenure by secret ballot will be taken. The Chair does not vote in the meeting but submits their vote in a letter to the Dean directly. A two-thirds majority of those attending the meeting is required for a positive decision. The De Facto Chair and the Mentor will be responsible for tallying the votes.

2.7.10. Step 9: A written summary of the tenured faculty’s discussion and vote on the assistant professor’s tenure file will be prepared by the De Facto Chair and co-signed by the chair of the committee.

2.7.11. Step 10: Each faculty member who voted will write a letter to the Dean explaining their vote. These letters will be complied by the De Facto Chair and included in the confidential file that the De Facto Chair transmits to the Dean. Except for the De Facto Chair, these letters are not seen by other voting polity members.

2.7.12. Step 11: The De Facto Chair assembles the faculty letters into a complete confidential file, including the De Facto Chair’s letter, and shares the dossier with the Dean. The De Facto Chair is permitted to share the results of the faculty vote in broad terms (either for or against tenure) with the candidate at this point.

2.7.13. Step 12: University policy provides for appeals of negative decisions at the department, school, and university level. The appeals procedures are detailed in the Cornell University Faculty Handbook. In the case of an appeal, the Brooks School defines the eligible voting faculty as consisting of all eligible tenured faculty as deemed by the grandfathering rules described in Section 4.1, regardless of whether they participated in the initial vote on tenure or not. As in Step 10, each tenured faculty (excluding the De Facto Chair) who voted on the appeal will write a letter to the Dean explaining their vote. The Chair will provide a separate letter with the vote directly to the Dean. These letters will be compiled by the De Facto Chair. These letters will also be included in the confidential file that the De Facto Chair transmits to the Dean. With the exception of the De Facto Chair, these letters are not seen by other tenured faculty in the voting polity.

2.7.14. Step 13: In the case of a negative decision by the Dean following a positive decision by the grandfathered voting polity, the De Facto Chair will call a meeting of the voting tenured faculty. Once a quorum has been established consisting of two-thirds of the grandfathered vote-eligible tenured faculty not on leave, they will be asked to vote on the motion: “The grandfathered voting polity disagrees with the recommendation of the Dean and requests that the Dean affirm the previous decision of the grandfathered voting polity.” For the motion to go forward to the Dean, it must be confirmed by a majority of the grandfathered voting polity present and voting, including the De Facto Chair. Voting will be by secret ballot but if the motion is carried forward, each voting faculty must write a confidential letter to the Dean explaining the reasons for their vote, which will compiled by the De Facto Chair and forwarded to the Dean. With the exception of the De Facto Chair, these letters are not seen by other members of the voting polity. If the Dean rejects the grandfathered voting polity’s recommendation, these faculty will meet again and follow the same procedures to consider an appeal to the University. Note that an appeal to the University can only be on procedural grounds. The De Facto Chair’s Assistant and the Assistant to the Brooks SADFR will produce and maintain a back-up copy of all file documents.

(Section 3.1 was ratified by the School of Public Policy Planning Committee on April 6, 2021)

3.1.1. Dual appointments of this form are inevitably difficult when it comes to tenure and promotion; here we balance both the autonomy of the department in evaluating the candidate for tenure with the need for robust and informative feedback from the Brooks School. The tenure process for jointly appointed junior faculty whose lines are funded by the Brooks School will follow the tenure process for the relevant department, with the following modifications:

3.1.2. Brooks School input: policy contributions. Prior to the evaluation within the Department, an advisory committee composed of faculty from the Brooks School and appointed by the Dean of the Brooks School will assemble a file on the candidate’s contributions to the Brooks School. This file will draw on annual evaluations (which will also be provided to the Department) but will also provide a holistic overview of the candidate’s contributions to public policy-related research, Brooks School-related teaching and service, and (where appropriate) policy-related outreach and engagement, including a statement related to the policy relevance of the candidate’s scholarship. This file is not a tenure or promotion report and as such is not included in the candidate’s promotion dossier. It is intended to inform the department’s deliberations as a supplemental document.

3.1.3. Brooks School input: external letter writer recommendations. In addition, before external letters are solicited, the Brooks School should have the opportunity to provide the department with a list of recommendations for potential external letter writers. These recommendations are advisory and non-binding but are intended to inform departmental decisions about the list of letter writers for the candidate.

3.1.4. Department review. The department will conduct its standard review process for the candidate. This should include consideration of the report mentioned above and any additional materials like the candidate’s statements, external evaluations, etc. The Department chair, based on the dossier and the vote and letters of the faculty, then makes a recommendation to the Brooks Dean on the candidate’s promotion.

3.1.5. Dean level review after the department vote. Following a department recommendation, for those on lines within the Brooks School, the Dean of the Brooks School will have lead responsibility for making tenure recommendations to the Provost.

3.1.6. Brooks ad hoc committee. After the Department’s recommendation, but prior to consideration by the Dean, the candidate’s file will proceed to a three-person Brooks School ad hoc committee whose membership is drawn from the Brooks School tenured faculty. The committee is appointed by the Dean of the Brooks School. The ad hoc committee cannot be composed of faculty who participated in the Department-level review. It is advisory to the Brooks School Dean.

The Brooks School ad hoc tenure committee report (a) reviews the tenure process to ensure that appropriate procedures were followed and (b) describes current and potential future contributions of the candidate to policy research, teaching, and engagement. The ad hoc report may draw only from materials in the tenure dossier and the Brooks School policy contribution file.

3.1.7 For hires into departments, the Brooks School Dean should consult with the relevant Deans with shared responsibility for those departments.

3.1.8 For joint faculty hired with tenure homes in CAS, the tenure and/or promotion recommendations will be made by the CAS Dean to the Provost. The CAS Dean will consult with the Brooks School Dean prior to making such a recommendation.

(ratified by Brooks & Sociology Faculty in spring 2025)

3.2.1. This section describes the Sociology Department policy that was voted upon and adopted by both Brooks and Sociology faculty. Specific references are made to where policies differ for Brooks and Sociology faculty.

3.2.2. In the first semester of the third year, the department will set in motion the review process to appoint an assistant professor to their second three-year term. Timing for the review may be impacted in the event of a tenure clock extension.

3.2.3. The Department Chair will request the following information from the assistant professor: (a) updated CV; (b) statements on research, teaching/advising, and service; (c) pdfs of all publications; and (d) pdfs of course syllabi.

• 3.2.3.1. Assistant professors with appointments in the Brooks School of Public Policy (BPP) will also submit a statement of contributions to policy, which may include policy-relevant research, BPP-related teaching and service, and policy-relevant outreach and engagement.
• 3.2.3.2. The department will provide: (a) student evaluations of all courses taught during the first appointment period, and (b) job description, copy of original letter of appointment, and any changes in the job description or appointment.
• 3.2.3.3. The candidate is encouraged to work with their mentor(s) to assemble the materials.

3.2.4. The Department Chair will form a three-person committee, which is charged with conducting a teaching observation and preparing a committee report of the assistant professor’s research, teaching, advising, and service.

• 3.2.4.1. The committee should include at least one tenured sociology faculty member from the junior faculty member’s College.
• 3.2.4.2. For assistant professors with BPP appointments, there will also be one BPP faculty member who is not a voting faculty member of the Sociology Department on the committee.
• 3.2.4.3. A candidate’s assigned mentor will not be a member of this committee.
• 3.2.4.4. The committee report is not a tenure or promotion report and as such is not included in the assistant professor’s formal third year review dossier. The committee reports are intended as factual documents–that summarize the record but do not evaluate it– to inform the department’s deliberations and resulting letter from the Chair.

3.2.5. The assistant professor’s materials and committee report will be made available to tenured department faculty and discussed at a tenured faculty meeting.

• 3.2.5.1. All tenured members of the department must attend this meeting (unless on a leave that does not require service of them).
• 3.2.5.2. All others who do not attend the meeting must send in advisory votes (which are tallied separately from the votes of those who attend).
• 3.2.5.3. For assistant professors who are jointly appointed in BPP, the meeting (or portion of the meeting) where the person is discussed will be attended by the Brooks Senior Associate Dean of Faculty & Research (SADFR) (or their representative).
• 3.2.5.4. The meeting should include an extended discussion of the assistant professor’s strengths and weaknesses, followed by a formal vote indicating whether each tenured colleague supports a second three-year appointment. A vote in support means they believe the candidate’s achievements to date; continued promise in research, teaching, service and advising; and plans for the next portion of the probationary period place them on a realistic trajectory toward achieving tenure.
• 3.2.5.5. For assistant professors jointly appointed in BPP, the committee report will be shared with tenured faculty in the Brooks School and discussed in a tenured faculty meeting. When a Sociology candidate is discussed among the Brooks tenured faculty, the Sociology Department Chair will attend. Following this discussion, BPP tenured faculty will vote on the second three-year appointment following the same procedures outlined above.

3.2.6. Following the tenured faculty discussion(s) and vote(s), the Chair will prepare a third-year review letter that contains a clear and candid assessment of the extent to which the candidate has met the department’s expectations with regard to research, teaching, advising, and service.

• 3.2.6.1. For candidates jointly appointed in BPP, the Sociology Chair and Brooks SADFR will collaborate on the letter.
• 3.2.6.2. The Chair’s letter will be made available for review by tenured Sociology faculty (and tenured BPP faculty, if applicable) for a short, optional comment period.
• 3.2.6.3. The Chair may revise the letter based on these comments and share the final letter with the tenured faculty.

3.2.7. The Chair’s letter will be sent to relevant college leadership for approval.

• 3.2.7.1. After approval, the Chair’s letter is shared and discussed with the assistant professor and the mentor.
• 3.2.7.2. This letter becomes part of the candidate’s permanent file.
• 3.2.7.3. For candidates jointly appointed in BPP, the Brooks SADFR (or their representative) will also attend the meeting.

(ratified by Brooks & Government Faculty in spring 2024)

3.3.1. Third-Year Review

• 3.3.1.1. Candidate submits file March 1. File includes CV (including degrees, appointments, awards, fellowships, honors, administrative appointments, committees (Dept, College, University, external, service and professional), publications, reviews, papers and talks presented, funded research, # and names of student advisees — GOVT & otherwise, graduate special committees; Candidate Statements about research, teaching, advising, service, publishing plans, policy impact/engagement; List of courses taught, with enrollments, summary of teaching evaluations, course evaluations of all courses taught, teaching observation(s) by faculty member (all of which Dept provides); and teaching and course materials, including syllabi & project assignments; Copies of publications and working papers; Other material (e.g., grant applications, special projects). For any required materials collected by Brooks School (e.g., teaching evaluations for PUBPOL courses), these materials will be made available to the full tenured GOVT faculty and review committee.
• 3.3.1.2. A two-person committee is formed by the GOVT Department Chair. The Committee Chair will normally be from the candidate’s subfield. One Committee member will normally be a tenured Brooks School-GOVT faculty. In certain circumstances, the GOVT Department Chair may wish to constitute a committee composed exclusively of tenured GOVT non-Brooks School faculty. If the GOVT Department Chair constitutes such a committee, the decision not to include a Brooks School-GOVT faculty member should be made in consultation with the Brooks School SADFR.
• 3.3.1.3. The GOVT Committee prepares a draft report on the candidate’s research, teaching, advising, and service which is shared with, and discussed, including any suggestions for revision, in a tenured Government faculty meeting.
• 3.3.1.4. Prior to the evaluation within the Department, an advisory committee composed of faculty from the Brooks School and appointed by the Dean of the Brooks School will assemble a file on the candidate’s contributions to the Brooks School. This file will draw on annual evaluations (which will also be provided to the Department) but will also provide a holistic overview of the candidate’s contributions to public policy-related research, Brooks School-related teaching and service, and (where appropriate) policy-related outreach and engagement, including a statement related to the policy relevance of the candidate’s scholarship. This file is not a tenure or promotion report and as such is not included in the candidate’s third-year review dossier. It is intended to inform the department’s deliberations as a supplemental document to the committee report.
• 3.3.1.5. GOVT Committee report, as supplemented by the Brooks School file, is shared at a second tenured GOVT faculty meeting. The GOVT report is voted upon by the GOVT department.
• 3.3.1.6. After the GOVT vote, the GOVT final report is shared with Brooks School.
• 3.3.1.7. The GOVT report and Brooks School report form the basis of the Chair’s letter, which is submitted to the Brooks School leadership for approval and to the CAS Dean for their records because the candidate has membership in both colleges. After approval, the chair’s letter is shared and discussed with the candidate.

3.3.2.1. Tenure file and procedures follow GUIDELINES FOR PROMOTION TO THE RANK OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WITH INDEFINITE TENURE, established by COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES Revised December, 1993; May, 2004; April 2008; May 2013; December, 2014; November, 2020. For any required materials collected by Brooks School (e.g., teaching evaluations for PUBPOL courses), these materials will be made available to the full tenured GOVT faculty and review committee.

3.3.2.2. Before external letters are solicited, the Brooks School should provide the Department with a list of recommendations for potential external letter writers.

3.3.2.3. A three-person committee is formed by GOVT Department Chair. The Committee Chair will normally be from the candidate’s subfield. At least one Committee member will normally be a tenured Brooks School-GOVT faculty. In certain circumstances, the GOVT Department Chair may wish to constitute a committee composed exclusively of tenured GOVT non-Brooks School faculty. If the GOVT Department Chair constitutes such a committee, the decision not to include a Brooks School-GOVT faculty member should be made in consultation with the Brooks School SADFR.

3.3.2.4. The GOVT Committee prepares a draft report on the candidate’s research, teaching, advising, and service which is shared with, and discussed, including any suggestions for revision, in a tenured GOVT faculty meeting.

3.3.2.5. Prior to the evaluation within the Department, an advisory committee composed of faculty from the Brooks School and appointed by the Dean of the Brooks School will assemble a file on the candidate’s contributions to the Brooks School. This file will draw on annual evaluations (which will also be provided to the Department) but will also provide a holistic overview of the candidate’s contributions to public policy-related research, Brooks School-related teaching and service, and (where appropriate) policy-related outreach and engagement, including a statement related to the policy relevance of the candidate’s scholarship. This file is not a tenure or promotion report and as such is not included in the candidate’s promotion dossier. It is intended to inform the department’s deliberations as a supplemental document to the committee report.

3.3.2.6 The GOVT Committee report, as supplemented by the Brooks School file, is shared at a second tenured GOVT faculty meeting. The final GOVT report and candidacy are voted upon by GOVT tenured faculty at this second meeting.

3.3.2.7. The GOVT final report, the Brooks School report, the formal GOVT tenured faculty vote, and letters of the Departmental faculty form the basis of the Chair’s letter and tenure recommendation, which accompanies the candidate dossier submitted to Brooks School Dean and to the CAS Dean for their records because the candidate has membership in both colleges.

3.3.2.8. Following the Department Chair’s recommendation, the Dean of the Brooks School shall be responsible for making a recommendation to the Provost. After the Department’s recommendation, but prior to consideration by the Dean, the candidate’s file will proceed to a three-person Brooks School ad hoc committee whose membership is drawn from the Brooks School tenured faculty. The committee is appointed by the Dean of the Brooks School. The ad hoc committee cannot be composed of faculty who participated in the Department-level review. It is advisory to the Brooks School Dean.

3.3.2.9. The Brooks School ad hoc tenure committee report (a) reviews the tenure process to ensure that appropriate procedures were followed and (b) describes current and potential future contributions of the candidate to policy research, teaching, and engagement. The ad hoc report may draw only from materials in the tenure dossier and the Brooks School policy contribution file. The report is to be shared with the GOVT Chair after the Brooks School ad hoc committee vote and deliberation but before the Brooks School Dean’s recommendation to the Provost about tenure. The GOVT Chair may not share this document with the GOVT Department faculty but may verbally summarize its contents with tenured GOVT faculty, including a high-level summary of policy contributions. The GOVT Chair may also correct any factual errors found in the letter and may request a meeting with the Brooks School Dean to discuss any concerns about the letter within a week of receipt of the ad hoc committee letter and before the Brooks School Dean’s recommendation to the Provost about tenure.

3.4.1. In the first semester of the third year, the Brooks School will set in motion the review process to appoint an assistant professor to their second three-year term. Timing for the review may be impacted in the event of a tenure clock extension.

3.4.2. The Senior Associate Dean of Faculty and Research (SADFR) will request the following information from the assistant professor: (a) updated CV; (b) statements on research, teaching/advising, and service; (c) statement of contributions to public policy (including policy-relevant research, teaching, outreach, and engagement, as applicable; (d) pdfs of all publications; and (e) pdfs of course syllabi.

• 3.4.2.1. The Brooks School Administration will provide: (a) student evaluations of all courses taught during the first appointment period, and (b) job description, copy of original letter of appointment, and any changes in the job description or appointment.
• 3.4.2.2. The candidate is encouraged to work with their mentor(s) to assemble the materials.

3.4.3. The SADFR will form a three-person committee, which is charged with conducting a teaching observation and preparing a committee report of the assistant professor’s research, teaching, advising, and service.

• 3.4.3.1. A candidate’s assigned mentor will not be a member of this committee.
• 3.4.3.2. The committee should be comprised of a diverse group of Brooks faculty with variation in disciplinary training, methodological approach, and topical focus.
• 3.4.3.3. The committee report is not a tenure or promotion report and as such is not included in the assistant professor’s formal third year review dossier. The committee reports are intended as factual documents-that summarize the record but do not evaluate it-to inform the faculty’s deliberations and resulting letter from the SADFR

3.4.4. The assistant professor’s materials and committee report will be made available to tenured Brooks School faculty and discussed at a tenured Brooks faculty meeting.

• 3.4.4.1. To achieve quorum, at least 50% of the Brooks School tenured faculty must attend this meeting (unless on a leave that does not require service of them).
• 3.4.4.2. All others who do not attend the meeting must send in advisory votes (which are tallied separately from the votes of those who attend).
• 3.4.4.3. The meeting should include an extended discussion of the assistant professor’s strengths and weaknesses, followed by a formal vote indicating whether each tenured colleague supports a second three-year appointment. A vote in support means they believe the candidate’s achievements to date; continued promise in research, teaching, service and advising; and plans for the next portion of the probationary period place them on a realistic trajectory toward achieving tenure.
• 3.4.4.4. The committee report will be shared with tenured faculty in the Brooks School and discussed in a tenured faculty meeting. Following this discussion, Brooks School tenured faculty will vote via secret ballot on the second three-year appointment.

3.4.5. Following the tenured faculty discussion(s) and vote(s), the SADFR will prepare a third-year review letter that contains a clear and candid assessment of the extent to which the candidate has met the department’s expectations with regard to research, teaching, advising, and service.

• 3.4.5.1. The SADFR’s letter will be made available for review by tenured Brooks Faculty for a short, optional comment period.
• 3.4.5.2. The SADFR may revise the letter based on these comments and share the 􀏐inal letter with the tenured faculty.

3.4.6. The SADFR’s letter will be sent to the Brooks Dean for approval.

• 3.4.6.1. After approval, the SADFR’s letter is shared and discussed with the assistant professor and the mentor.
• 3.4.6.2. This letter becomes part of the candidate’s permanent file.

4.1.1. Criteria for promotion to the rank of associate professor with indefinite tenure: The criteria for promotion to the rank of associate professor are based on excellence and potential in research, teaching/advising, and contributions to public policy. Service to the department, school, university, and to the public and professional community is an additional criterion but is of less importance than the quality of research, teaching and advising.

The candidate’s overall academic record should be of such accomplishment that the promotion will enhance the quality of the department (as applicable) and the Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy. The school expects the candidate to present an exceptional record in research, teaching and advising, to rank very high compared to colleagues in the same field at similar stages in their careers at peer institutions, and to demonstrate the potential to become a leader in the field. The candidate’s research should be published in recognized journals or in books issued by reputable publishers. The candidate should demonstrate the ability to teach a range of courses, usually at both undergraduate and graduate levels. The candidate should also contribute to the advancement of policy-related research, teaching, advising, and public engagement. Performance outside the classroom in advising and in curricular innovation also is considered. Specific guidance developed by the candidate’s department about what constitutes an exceptional record in research, teaching and advising may be provided to the candidate in a separate document. Given the rigorous standards for tenure in the school and its departments, individuals whose performance has been adequate, or even good, might not receive promotion.

The Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy appoints many tenure-track faculty with appointments in disciplinary departments (e.g., Economics, Sociology, Government) and the Brooks School but may also hire faculty who do not fit into existing disciplinary departments and thus have their appointments housed exclusively in Brooks. For these non-departmental faculty, the Brooks School will serve as the de-facto tenuring department, the tenured faculty of the Brooks School will serve as the tenure voting polity, and the Senior Associate Dean of Faculty and Research (SADFR) will serve as the de-facto department chair in following all departmental procedures outlined below.

4.1.2. Timing of the review: The review of tenure-track assistant professors for promotion to tenured associate Professorships typically begins during the second semester of the fifth year since their original appointment. Basic steps in the review process are outlined below. Permission to proceed with a review, if the candidate wishes to be considered, must be obtained by the department chair (if applicable) in writing from the Brooks Dean. Permission to delay the review beyond the first term of the sixth year of appointment must also be secured from the Dean.
The board of trustees reviews recommendations for promotions to tenured associate professorships at each of its four yearly meetings. Most of these promotions will carry a July 1 or January 1 effective date,4 but in some instances — e.g., in cases of early or delayed promotion — the promotion might become effective on November 1, February 1, or April 1.

4.2.1. Introduction: The following procedures are sequential. The discussion of each step contains essential points and is not meant to be comprehensive or to cover every possible circumstance. Departments may exercise flexibility in applying the procedures described in this document; significant deviations from the basic procedures, however, must be discussed with the Dean and communicated in writing to the candidate prior to the start of the review process.
A department’s periodic review of the strengths and weaknesses of its academic programs may lead to the conclusion that certain areas should be strengthened while other areas should be given lower priority or eliminated altogether. Such considerations are normally addressed before a search for a tenure-track appointment begins or before an assistant professor is renewed for a second, three-year tenure-track appointment. In exceptional circumstances, where a decision not to review for promotion based on a change of emphasis in academic programs or on the withdrawal of funding will affect incumbent assistant professors, a decision should be made no later than the fifth year of the candidate’s original tenure-track appointment. This decision may be appealed by following the university procedures for appealing a decision Not to Conduct a Tenure Review at the End of the Ordinary Tenure Probation Period on the Basis of Factors Other Than the Candidate’s Merits.

The present document applies to cases in which a candidate’s merits are under consideration. These procedures have been developed to ensure a thorough, equitable review of candidates for tenure on their merits. A negative tenure decision may be appealed following procedures adopted by the Faculty Senate and the Board of Trustees (hereafter referred to as Faculty Appeal Procedures).

4.2.2. Basic steps in the review process:

• 4.2.2.1 Meeting of the department chair and the candidate: A meeting of the department chair and the candidate is held at the beginning of the second semester of the fifth year of probationary Departmental procedures (as applicable) are discussed and the candidate is given a copy of this document (the Brooks School’s guidelines for promotion) and the department’s guidelines. If the candidate wishes to be considered, permission to proceed with a review for promotion to tenured associate professor must be obtained in writing from the Brooks School Dean. A candidate who fails a review for tenure cannot be appointed to another academic position in the university but will be offered a terminal two-semester appointment in the school.
• 4.2.2.2 Full review: If a full review is to take place, the candidate is advised once again of any relevant special procedures and is given drafts of the form letters which the department will send to outside referees and students. The candidate must provide the department with his or her contributions to the dossier by the end of his or her fifth year (departments will provide candidates with a specific due date). The department will assemble additional materials for the full departmental review which will take place in the first semester of the candidate’s sixth In the case of candidates whose appointment is shared between the tenuring department and a program, or between two departments, the department chair and the program director (or secondary department chair) must meet, once the candidate has submitted her or his contributions to the dossier, in order to establish the terms and timeline for the review. Note, however, that the tenuring department wholly owns the tenure decision, only its tenured faculty review the file and vote on tenure, and only its chair makes a recommendation. The program or secondary department may give substantive input (based on the candidate’s teaching, advising or other department service and contributions to the life of that department) but this input should not be in the form of a vote. Beyond expressing its views, if the secondary department is unhappy with the candidate, its move is to terminate the joint appointment rather than “voting” against tenure.Departments must establish a fixed date, consistent for all tenure reviews in the department, on which dossiers will be closed to contributions from candidates. (The fixed date must be no later than September 1 for faculty whose appointments began July 1, and January 1 for mid-year hires). Candidates may add materials to the dossier up until this date. The completed dossier and departmental recommendation must be submitted to the Dean’s office according to the current dossier submission deadlines which will be shared with the department by the SADFR.
• 4.2.2.3 Compiling the dossier. The material to be collected includes:
  • 4.2.2.3.1 Table of contents
  • 4.2.2.3.2 Written assessments of the candidate’s qualifications for tenure and promotion from recognized outside The candidate is invited to provide:
    • A list of potential referees

An optional, separate list of scholars in the field who, the candidate believes, for either personal or professional reasons, might not write with objectivity and/or impartiality.

The department also constructs a relatively large list of potential referees which should not be discussed with the candidate.

All three lists constitute a permanent part of the dossier. Because of the importance of this dossier component, the candidate and department should independently produce their own list of external reviewers. The lists are assembled with one goal in mind: the collection of proposed individuals can provide a fair and informed assessment of the candidate’s work. To identify potential external reviewers, broad engagement of the voting faculty by the chair or unit head is recommended.

However, it is understood that in the larger units the task may be delegated to a subset of the voting faculty.

The department proceeds to develop the final list of external reviewers using the independent list method. As part of this process, three numbers need to be identified: 1) Length of the independently-produced lists; 2) Number of external reviewers that must be chosen from the candidate’s list; and 3) Total number of received letters in the dossier from external reviewers. The independent lists need to be included in the dossier so that it is clear which of the received letters are from reviewers chosen by the candidate, the department, or both.

The list should include reviewers that were asked and declined, plus the reason for declining, if given. Note that individuals may decline to review a promotion dossier for multiple reasons and declining a request for dossier review without a given reason does not reflect on the candidate’s suitability for promotion, i.e., should not be viewed negatively against the candidate.

The dossier must contain at least seven letters from external referees. At least five of these letters should be written by referees from the department’s list of potential referees.

Letters to external referees requesting an assessment of the candidate should ask referees:

• • • 4.2.2.3.2.1. To indicate whether they have any current or prior collaborative or supervisory associations with the candidate — e.g., as on a research project or as a coauthor, or as a former teacher, advisor, or PhD director. External associations of these sorts do not disqualify referees from offering their assessment of the candidate as long as they are clearly identified, since departments may well seek views informed by close collaborations of these sorts, as part of a well-rounded dossier. At least five letters, however, should be from peers outside Cornell who have not been closely associated with the candidate.
    • 4.2.2.3.2.2. To provide comparisons with scholars in the field at comparable stages in their careers, naming such scholars if particular comparisons would be helpful.
    • 4.2.2.3.2.3. To indicate whether, on the basis of the materials provided to them in the dossier, they think the candidate should be granted tenure at Cornell.
      • • Obtaining written assessments from faculty in other departments at Cornell may be appropriate, but departments should exercise discretion in soliciting opinions from Cornell colleagues because authors of letters of recommendation are excluded from service on the candidate’s ad hoc committee.
  • 4.2.2.3.3. A list of graduate students (and/or postdoctoral associates, if applicable) whose research has been supervised by the candidate
  • 4.2.2.3.4 A statement from the chair, director of undergraduate studies (DUS), and/or director of graduate studies (DGS) assessing the candidate’s effectiveness as an adviser for graduate and undergraduate students
  • 4.2.2.3.5 Letters from both undergraduate and graduate students (and/or postdoctoral associates, if applicable) assessing the candidate’s effectiveness as a teacher and adviser:
    • A sampling of students from a variety of courses should be asked to write letters expressing their candid, confidential opinions of the candidate’s teaching ability
    • Letters solicited from the candidate’s undergraduate advisees assessing the candidate’s effectiveness as an adviser (a list of advisees may be obtained from the Brooks Registrar)
    • The dossier may also include evaluations by teaching assistants and graduate students of the candidate’s teaching and advising/mentoring ability
  • 4.2.2.3.6  Sample letters of solicitation sent to graduate and undergraduate students
  • 4.2.2.3.7 A list of students whose views are solicited
  • 4.2.2.3.8 A statement of how student evaluators were selected, the rate of response, and the usual rate of response in the department
  • 4.2.2.3.9 A list of courses taught since appointment, with enrollments
  • 4.2.2.3.10 A summary of course evaluations and student opinion prepared by someone other than the candidate including data on how the candidate’s evaluations compare to those of other faculty teaching the same or similar courses
  • 4.2.2.3.11 Assessment of the candidate’s teaching by the chair, DUS/DGS, or members of a faculty committee that visits colleagues’ classes, based on observations of the candidate’s courses and review of course materials (e.g., syllabi, reading lists, handouts, non-print materials, problem sets, assignments, graded exams, student research papers, final projects, final grade distribution, examples of written feedback to students)
  • 4.2.2.3.12 A list (if appropriate) of the candidate’s external research support
  • 4.2.2.3.13 Statements written by the candidate containing a review of past accomplishments and plans for the future. Separate statements should cover research, teaching/advising at undergraduate and graduate levels (as detailed below), contributions to public policy (including contributions in research, teaching, advising, and public engagement), and service to the department, school, and university. Public and external professional service may be included. Teaching and advising information should include:
    • Courses assigned or developed and course materials (for example, syllabi, handouts, assignments, problem sets, graded work)
    • Comments on teaching (goals, approaches, pedagogic techniques adopted or invented, successes, problems) and results of student learning assessment efforts in selected courses
    • A brief statement from the candidate about their goals for and success in advising
    • Independent studies and graduate students supervised
    • Plans for future teaching — needs of undergraduate and graduate students, and plans for courses
  • 4.2.2.3.14 A complete curriculum vitae which includes educational background; citations of all professional publication; outside research funding (amount and period of support); awards; invited lecturers; courses taught; department, school, and university committees; outside professional activities
  • 4.2.2.3.15 Copies of publications and reviews (if available) of five Works-in-progress may be submitted
  • 4.2.2.3.16 A copy of the third-year review letter to the candidate
  • 4.2.2.3.17 In the case of candidates whose appointment is shared between the tenuring department and another department or a program, a substantive letter from the chair of the non-tenuring department or from the program director evaluating the candidate’s contributions; the secondary unit does not review the tenure dossier and no vote on recommending tenure should be taken by its faculty 
• 4.2.2.4 Discussion of the dossier with the candidate: Before the dossier is closed to contributions from the candidate, the chair should consult with the candidate about the materials she or he has provided. The chair may suggest additions or changes to these materials.
• 4.2.2.5 For candidates who have disciplinary department homes (e.g., Economics, Sociology, Government), prior to the evaluation within the department, an advisory committee composed of faculty from the Brooks School and appointed by the Dean of the Brooks School will assemble a file on the candidate’s contributions to the Brooks School. This file will provide a holistic overview of the candidate’s contributions to public policy-related research, Brooks teaching, advising and service, and policy-related outreach and engagement, including a statement related to the policy relevance of the candidate’s scholarship. This report may be informed by the candidate’s own statement on contributions to public policy, Brooks course teaching evaluations, and any other material provided by the candidate. It should be written prior to receipt of external review letters, advisee letters, and student letters and should not incorporate these sources of input. This file is not a tenure or promotion report and as such is not included in the candidate’s promotion dossier, but it is intended to inform the department’s deliberations as a supplemental document to the dossier materials.
• 4.2.2.6 Review by tenured members of the department: This review by the department’s full professors can take various The dossier must be available to all faculty taking part in the review and must be present at the meeting(s) where the candidate’s promotion is discussed. The school requires that the opinion of every tenured faculty member in the department be sought, that a meeting of tenured faculty be held to discuss the candidate’s qualifications, and that a vote by secret ballot of the tenured faculty be obtained and recorded. Those faculty participating in the tenure review but who cannot attend the meeting of tenured faculty must submit advisory votes before the meeting, accompanied by a rationale, which is to be read at the meeting to further discussion of the case.
• 4.2.2.7 Faculty letters explaining the vote. All faculty who vote (yay, nay, or abstain), including those unable to attend the tenure meeting (unless they are on leave and have chosen not to participate), must subsequently send a letter to the department chair providing the substantive reasons for their votes. Faculty letters should not introduce substantive reasons for or against tenure that have not been introduced and made available for discussion in the department meeting(s) devoted to discussion of the tenure case. No faculty letters submitted outside of this process will be included in the dossier that goes to the ad hoc committee or to FACTA for consideration.
• 4.2.2.8 Statement to the candidate on the outcome of the review: The candidate is given a written statement in which the chair summarizes the reasons for the department’s decision. A positive decision will be forwarded to the Dean. The candidate may appeal a negative decision following the procedures described in the University Faculty Appeals Procedures.
• 4.2.2.9 Chair’s letter: The chair must supply a covering letter that will accompany the completed tenure The chair’s cover letter must present the department’s recommendation including a report of the formal department vote on the case, distinguishing votes cast at the meeting from advisory votes cast by faculty members not in attendance at the meeting. It should summarize the procedures used, noting in particular any special procedures set in place by the department.

The letter should summarize the outside referees’ opinions, speak to special circumstances that might have influenced their opinions, give a brief description of their qualifications and standing, and identify any potential conflicts of interest. If a large number of outside letters have been obtained, the descriptions of the qualifications and standing of the referees can be limited to those whose letters are particularly significant. The chair’s letter must provide an overview of the important points that arose in the department’s review.

Before submitting the dossier to the Dean, the chair’s letter should be made available to the tenured members of the department for review. The purpose of this review is to allow tenured members to verify that the letter accurately reports the department’s proceedings and deliberations. The letter should not be disseminated in any form to tenured faculty but it should remain in the chair’s office at all times and be made available for viewing there. The chair may then revise the letter in light of comments received from tenured members of the department. In addition to writing a covering letter for the tenure dossier, the chair is required to provide his or her own judgment on the case. This may be done in an appendix to the chair’s cover letter which is clearly distinct from the chair’s account of the department’s proceedings and deliberations and marked as the chair’s own assessment, or in a separate letter. If it is included with the chair’s cover letter, it should not be made available to the tenured members of the department for review along with the rest of the chair’s letter.

• 4.2.2.10 Submitting the dossier to the Dean: Departments should follow the Guidelines for Tenure Dossiers Submitted to FACTA in organizing the materials sent to the Dean’s office. These are based on uniform requirements from the provost’s office. Both positive and negative decisions are transmitted in writing to the Dean. The dossier (including all the materials specified above in Section (3): Compiling the Dossier), the letters from faculty received by the chair’s established deadline, and the chair’s letter must be submitted to the Dean’s office by the specified date. Letters from faculty will be treated with the same confidentiality as all other letters in the dossier.
• 4.2.2.11 Action by the Dean:
  • 4.2.2.11.1 After the Department’s recommendation, but prior to consideration by the Dean, the candidate’s file will proceed to a three-person Brooks School ad hoc committee. The committee is appointed by the Brooks Dean and is advisory to the Brooks
    • For candidates who have disciplinary department homes (e.g., Economics, Sociology, Government), the ad hoc committee membership is drawn from the Brooks tenured faculty. The ad hoc committee cannot be composed of faculty who participated in the Department-level review. The Brooks ad hoc tenure committee report should comment separately on four items: (a) a review of the tenure process to ensure that appropriate procedures were followed, (b) an evaluation of current and potential future contributions of the candidate to policy research, teaching, advising, service, and public engagement, (c) whether or not the candidate has upheld the standard of excellence required of tenured professors at Cornell, and (d) a formal recommendation to the Brooks Dean about the promotion. The ad hoc report may draw only from materials in the tenure dossier and the Brooks advisory committee’s policy contribution file. The report is to be shared with the Department Chair before the Brooks Dean’s recommendation to the Provost.
    • For candidates who are appointed exclusively in Brooks without a disciplinary department tenure home, the ad hoc committee membership is drawn from tenured faculty at Cornell who are not members of the Brooks School. For these cases, the ad hoc tenure committee report should comment separately on three items: (a) a review of the tenure process to ensure that appropriate procedures were followed, (b) whether or not the candidate has upheld the standard of excellence required of tenured professors at Cornell, and (c) a formal recommendation to the Brooks Dean about the promotion. The ad hoc report may draw only from materials in the tenure dossier. The report is to be shared with the Department Chair before the Brooks Dean’s recommendation to the Provost.
  • 4.2.2.11.2 The Dean will return the dossier to the department only if serious procedural or substantive defects are found. Very few dossiers will be returned to the department if the procedures outlined above are followed carefully. The Dean will reach a decision on the case after receipt of the ad hoc committee’s recommendation
    • If the department’s recommendation and Dean’s decision are positive, it will be reviewed by the university level Faculty Advisory Committee on Tenure Appointments (FACTA). FACTA is advisory to the provost. The Dean may reaffirm or change their decision after consulting with the provost.
    • If the Dean reaches a preliminary decision to deny tenure to a nontenured faculty member whose promotion to tenure has been recommended by their department, the Dean within three weeks of that decision furnishes the candidate and the department with a preliminary written statement of the reasons for that decision and the nature of the evidence within the limits set by the need to preserve confidentiality. For a two-week period following receipt of the Dean’s statement, the candidate and/or the department has the opportunity to respond to the Dean. If, following this response, the Dean is not persuaded to change the decision to deny tenure, the Dean forwards the file, together with an explanation for the decision, to the provost. If the provost does not have any concern or reservation about the Dean’s proposed decision, they inform the Brooks Dean, and the decision becomes final and subject to If the provost does have a concern or reservation, they forward the file to FACTA, for consideration at a meeting of the full committee, following the procedures used by the committee in cases following positive recommendations by the Dean. After receiving FACTA’s recommendation, the provost consults with the Dean. Until the Dean has received a response from the provost, the Dean’s decision remains provisional. The university-level appeal procedure (section IV of the Faculty Appeal Procedures) does not commence until the Dean’s decision is final.
    • If the department’s recommendation is negative, the Dean can accept the department’s findings or recommend the case for tenure. If the Dean’s decision is positive, the department and the candidate are informed and a recommendation for promotion is made by the Dean to the provost and will be reviewed by If there are no concerns or reservations, the provost will forward a positive tenure decision to the president for presentation to the board of trustees. If the recommendation of FACTA is that the Dean reverse their decision and deny tenure, the provost will consult with the Dean. If the Dean’s final decision remains positive, the provost will decide whether a positive recommendation will be presented to the trustees. If the Dean’s final decision is negative, the department and the candidate are informed and the decision becomes subject to the Faculty Appeal Procedures. The final decision regarding tenure is made by the trustees. The decisions of the provost and of the trustees are not subject to appeal.
  • 4.2.2.11. Disposal of the promotion dossier. At the conclusion of any tenure case (including, where relevant, the conclusion of the appeals process), departments should not retain a copy of the dossier According to the university policy on retention of university records, the Brooks School Administration is the proper custodian for all such materials and the preservation of confidentiality is best served by this policy.
    .

(ratified by the School of Public Policy Planning Committee on April 6, 2021)

5.1. Faculty holding dual appointments in both the Brooks School and a department potentially face a wider range of possible service obligations, particularly in the near term when the new departments and Brooks School are being developed. Therefore, we recommend that leadership take special care to make sure that no faculty, particularly junior faculty, are overburdened with service to the units in which they are faculty. The default expectation is that service and effort expectations will be divided equally (if not annually, then in a dynamic sense) between their departments and the Brooks School. This equal division of service applies at the individual faculty level. Any long-term variances from this equal split in effort and service expectations at the individual level should be spelled out in a formal MOU between the Department Chair and/or Dean of the relevant college and the Dean of the Brooks School, as in the MOU established between CAS and the Brooks School for the Government Department. Such an MOU might cover, for example, an equal division of effort across a group of faculty, some of whom contribute primarily to their department, and others primarily to the Brooks School.

5.2. We also acknowledge that departments vary in how they evaluate the balance of service and teaching in determining effort. Departmental policies around what constitutes sufficient effort by faculty members shall be spelled out clearly in Department by-laws and approved by the relevant Deans.

5.3. Special considerations apply to junior faculty. Like their senior colleagues, the default mode for effort and service allocation will be split equally between the Brooks School and the department. For all junior faculty, such expectations must be memorialized in a detailed MOU between the junior faculty member and the Dean/Chair of the two units. This shared understanding protects junior faculty from undertaking excessive burdens and obligations. Some risks remain, including the danger that the department faculty may prioritize disciplinary contributions and departmental service over the service and contributions to the Brooks School. To minimize these risks, the MOU should be provided to the relevant faculties when making any performance or advancement decisions. In addition, effective mentoring and limitations on the kinds and amount of service are necessary.

5.4. Regarding specific commitments, all jointly appointed junior faculty will be given common service expectations of one major service obligation per academic year in total (that is, not one per unit per year). It is the responsibility of the chair of the disciplinary department and the Dean of the Brooks School to communicate in order to ensure that this expectation is upheld. The common principle for departments and the Brooks School is that admissible service obligations for untenured faculty include:

• admission committees
• faculty search committees
• undergraduate or graduate policy committees
• thesis evaluation or internal awards committees
• and other ad hoc committees on departmental/school policy

5.5. Untenured faculty shall not serve as committee chairs, or in the roles of DUS, DGS, or Associate Chair. Service at the college or university should generally be avoided or carefully limited.

6.1. General Tenure and Promotion Guidelines for External Hires. Brooks School Planning Committee rightfully noted that tenure considerations for dual appointments between the Brooks School and departments are inevitably complex when it comes to tenure and promotion. In a memo dated April 6, 2021, the Brooks School Planning Committee outlined a detailed set of guidelines for tenure processes in the Brooks School that seek to balance both the autonomy of the department in evaluating the candidate for tenure with the need for robust and informative feedback from the Brooks School. As such, the tenure process for jointly appointed externally hired faculty with tenure whose lines are funded by the Brooks School will follow the tenure process for the relevant department, with the following modifications:

• 6.1.1. Brooks School input: public policy contributions. Prior to the tenure evaluation within the department, an advisory committee composed of faculty from the Brooks School and appointed by the Brooks School Dean will assemble a report on the candidate’s contributions to public policy. In most cases, this committee will be comprised of members of the search committee that recommended the hire. This report will provide a holistic overview of the candidate’s contributions to policy-related research, teaching, and (where appropriate) service and engagement. This report is not a tenure report: this advisory committee will not have access to external evaluations, for example, or any preliminary tenure report produced by the department.
• 6.1.2. Brooks School input: letter writer recommendations. In addition, before external letters are solicited, the Brooks School should have the opportunity to provide the department with a list of recommendations for potential external letter writers. These recommendations are advisory and non-binding but are intended to inform departmental decisions about the list of letter writers for the candidate.
• 6.1.3. Department review and recommendation to the Brooks School Dean. The department will conduct its standard review process for the candidate. This will include consideration of the report mentioned above and any additional materials like the candidate’s statements, external evaluations, etc. The Department Chair, based on the dossier and the vote and letters of the faculty, then makes a recommendation to the Brooks School Dean on the candidate’s promotion.
• 6.1.4. Dean level review after the department vote. Following a department recommendation, for those on lines within the Brooks School, the Dean of the Brooks School will have lead responsibility for making tenure recommendations to the Provost.
• 6.1.5. Brooks ad hoc committee. After the Department’s recommendation, but prior to consideration by the Dean, the candidate’s file will proceed to a three-person Brooks School ad hoc committee whose membership is drawn from the Brooks School tenured faculty. The committee is appointed by the Dean of the Brooks School. The ad hoc committee cannot be composed of faculty who participated in the Department-level review. It is advisory to the Brooks School Dean.

6.2. Streamlined Process Option: External hires who hold tenure at their previous institution are eligible for a streamlined process for evaluation of tenure at Cornell at the level of the Provost’s office. In spring 2024, the Provost outlined the following guidelines for streamlined tenure review:

• 6.2.1. Streamlined Step 1: Consult with college/school leadership and inform the provost’s office as to the initiation of a streamlined review.
• 6.2.2. Streamlined Step 2: The Department’s tenured faculty are provided with the candidate’s CV and external letters that evaluate the candidate for a tenured position at the offered rank at Cornell. To streamline the process, the department can use letters provided during the hiring process (minimum 3), along with at least 2 who are “arms length” from the candidate. It is recommended that letter writers are asked to comment on suitability for tenure at the appropriate title. Letters should also be solicited from the candidate’s former graduate students for inclusion into the file. Integrating this request into the department’s review of the candidate for hiring will make this simpler. Additional letters can be solicited if the department so chooses. If internal Cornell letters are normally a part of the dossier, they can be waived. If teaching evaluations are not available, the department can decide to vote without these, with an explanation from the chair in the file as to teaching potential.
• 6.2.3. Streamlined Step 3: Departmental faculty meeting of tenured faculty (associate and full professors) is held to discuss and vote on tenure. Associate and full professors vote on tenure, full professors only vote on appointment to full professor, and faculty votes are accompanied by letters explaining votes.
• 6.2.4. Streamlined Step 4: Department Chair submits dossier including faculty vote and letters, along with the chair’s letter to the college outlining the department’s recommendation on the appointment of a tenured associate or full professor appointment in the department, including the conditions around which the candidate was offered a position in the department.
• 6.2.5. Streamlined Step 5: Dean submits a letter to the Provost outlining the college’s recommendation on the appointment of a tenured associate tenured full professor appointment in the department, skipping the ad hoc
• 6.2.6. While these streamlined guidelines are available to the Brooks School and multi-college departments, a first guiding principle is that the tenure review process for faculty members in the departments of Sociology, Economics, and Government should be broadly similar within these departments, regardless of whether a faculty member is appointed in the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, or the Brooks School.
• 6.2.7. The Brooks School Senior Associate Dean of Faculty and Research (SADFR) will work with Department Chairs to assess whether any individual elements of the streamlined review process outlined above are acceptable to the leadership and faculty of multi-college departments on a department-by-department basis. We will update this document as those guidelines are ratified by department faculty.
• 6.2.8. At this time, the Brooks School and partnered department are permitted to move forward with the streamlined tenure review case if the faculty of both the Brooks School and the partnered department are supportive of making use of the streamlined criteria. In the Brooks School, faculty support for making use of the streamlined criteria will be informed by a faculty discussion and/or electronic vote. The relevant department will follow the decision-making process that are normative within that department and the Department Chair will share the results of the decision-making process to the SADFR and confirm that the Brooks School is supportive of using the streamlined criteria before moving forward with compiling the dossier.
• 6.2.9. A second guiding principle is that tenure processes for Brooks-only senior hires—those faculty who do not hold a dual appointment in a department—should follow the same level of rigor and requirement that are employed for external hire streamlined tenure processes developed for the multi-college departments of Sociology, Economics, and Government.

6.3.Non-Streamlined Process and Guidelines: On June 12, 2023, the Brooks SADFR met with Department Chairs of Sociology, Economics, and Government to discuss current practice related to tenure dossier standards for external hires with tenure. This discussion identified several common features and requirements related to the tenure dossier, which we have established as working guidelines for external Brooks hires in partnership with each of these departments.

• 6.3.1. As a working policy, unless use of the streamlined tenure process is approved by both the Brooks School and the partnering department, a complete dossier must contain the following components:
  • 6.3.1.1. A current curriculum vitae (provided by the candidate);
  • 6.3.1.2. A research statement (provided by the candidate);
  • 6.3.1.3. A teaching statement (provided by the candidate);
  • 6.3.1.4. Evidence of teaching effectiveness (provided by the candidate);
  • 6.3.1.5. At least seven (7) external letters, 5 of which must come from the department-created list of letter writers and others of which can come from a candidate-recommended list;
    • 6.3.1.5.1. If a name appears on both the candidate-recommended list and the department-created list, it will be considered as part of the department-created list;
    • 6.3.1.5.2. Letters of recommendation that were collected as part of the hiring process are permissible for use as candidate-recommended letters so long as the letters contain an explicit statement regarding the candidate’s qualifications for tenure;
  • 6.3.1.6. A letter from the Department Chair (or, for Brooks-only hires, from the Senior Associate Dean of Faculty and Research) summarizing the candidate’s qualifications for tenure based on the file materials and making a recommendation regarding tenure;
  • 6.3.1.7. [for department-partnered hires] An ad hoc committee summary letter written by members of the Brooks School that were not part of the department voting polity that summarizes the candidate’s public policy contributions, evaluates the department’s vote and procedures, and makes a recommendation regarding tenure; and
  • 6.3.1.8. A letter from the Brooks Dean making a recommendation regarding tenure.
• 6.3.2. Exceptions to these requirements are permissible on a case-by-case basis if the term of exception is supported by a majority of the relevant department’s tenured faculty and the tenured Brooks School faculty via a formal, so long as they meet the Provost’s office standards described in Section 7.1.
• 6.3.3. Departments/Brooks leadership are encouraged to make use of materials that candidates submitted as part of their application for the position as part of the tenure dossier. Departments/Brooks leadership may also request specific materials from the candidate as needed to fulfill dossier requirements.
• 6.3.4. Departments may also choose to require additional materials in the tenure dossier. The Brooks School supports inclusion of additional components in the tenure file if those materials are normative for departmental practice in external hiring tenure dossiers and consideration.

6.4. For the Departments of Sociology and Government, the process for assembling the tenure dossier should begin shortly after the candidate formally signs the offer letter to join the Brooks School. The relevant Department Chair should work closely with the Brooks Senior Associate Dean of Faculty and Research to coordinate on the Brooks School-specific tenure process requirements of the school (e.g., soliciting Brooks faculty nominations for external letter writers; developing and sharing the public policy contributions statement for review; and coordinating timelines for faculty discussions and votes).

6.5. For the Department of Economics, the process for assembling the tenure dossier begins prior to making a formal offer but after parallel votes in the Department and in the Brooks School to request external letters of evaluation. The Economics Department Chair should work closely with the Brooks Senior Associate Dean of Faculty & Research (SADFR) to coordinate on the Brooks School-specific tenure process requirements of the school at the appropriate stage of the process (e.g., soliciting Brooks faculty nominations for external letter writers before they are requested; developing and sharing the public policy contributions statement for review in advance of the faculty votes on hiring and tenure; and coordinating timelines for faculty discussions and votes).

(Adopted in May 2025; Revised in May 2026)

7.1 Criteria for promotion to the rank of professor: The criteria for promotion to the rank of professor are based on excellence and potential in research, teaching/advising, contributions to public policy, and a judgment on whether the individual has fulfilled the promise on which tenure was originally Service to the department, school, university, and to the public and professional community is a further criterion but is of lesser import than the quality of research, teaching, advising, and policy contributions.

The candidate’s overall academic record should establish continued achievement since the conferral of tenure. The Brooks School expects the candidate to present an exceptional record in research, teaching, and advising, to rank very high when compared to colleagues in the same field at similar states in their careers at peer institutions, and to be a leader in the field. The candidate’s research should be published in recognized scholarly journals or in books issued by reputable publishers. The candidate should demonstrate the ability to teach a range of courses, usually at both undergraduate and graduate levels. The candidate should also contribute to the advancement of policy-related research, teaching, advising, and public engagement. Performance outside the classroom in advising and in curricular innovation also is considered.

The Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy appoints many tenure-line faculty with appointments in disciplinary departments (e.g., Economics, Sociology, Government) and the Brooks School but may also hire faculty who do not fit into existing disciplinary departments and thus have their appointments housed exclusively in Brooks. For these non-departmental faculty, the Brooks School will serve as the de-facto department, the full professorial faculty of the Brooks School will serve as the promotion voting polity, and the Senior Associate Dean of Faculty and Research will serve as the de-facto department chair in following all departmental procedures outlined below.

7.2 Timing of the review: Associate professors holding tenured positions are reviewed for promotion to full professorships typically as early as the beginning of the second semester of the fifth Basic steps in the review process are outlined below. Permission to proceed with the review must be obtained in writing from the Brooks Dean. If, at the candidate’s request or because the department’s recommendation is negative, the review is delayed, then the department chair, in consultation with the candidate, should establish a definite timetable for further review, as described below.

The effective date for promotions to full professorships is either July 1 or January 1; to be reviewed in time to meet those dates, the dossier must be submitted via Box to the Dean’s office according to the current Dossier Submission Deadlines. Changes in title cannot be made retroactively, but in unusual circumstances, e.g., in those cases where the promotion is delayed by circumstances beyond either the department’s or the candidate’s control, salary increases can be made retroactively to the beginning of the term.

DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION TO THE RANK OF PROFESSOR

7.3 Introduction:

The following procedures are sequential. The discussion of each step contains essential points and is not meant to be comprehensive or to cover every possible circumstance. Departments may exercise flexibility in applying the procedures described in this document; significant deviations from the basic procedures, however, must be discussed with the Dean and communicated in writing to the candidate.

Differences may arise between the candidate and the department at several points in the promotion process. Mechanisms to resolve these differences have not been instituted by the school; rather, common sense, goodwill, and professional courtesy are assumed to prevail. The Dean’s office is willing to help reach resolutions. If a full review concludes with a negative decision, a formal appeal may be lodged following university faculty appeal procedures https://deanoffaculty.cornell.edu/policies-procedures/faculty-handbook/4-tenure-track-promotions-2/#Promote

7.4.1. Meeting of the department chair and the candidate: A meeting of the chair and the candidate is held in the second semester of the fifth year or the first semester of the sixth year after promotion to The candidate is told that the department’s full professors plan to conduct a preliminary review to determine whether to undertake a full review. The departmental procedures are discussed, and, especially if the procedures deviate from these basic guidelines, the candidate is given a copy of the department’s and the school’s guidelines for promotion. The candidate may wish to postpone the review, in which case the chair will consult the full professors and the candidate in a subsequent year.

7.4.2. Preliminary review by the full professors of the department. The form of the preliminary review is at the department’s discretion; however, convincing evidence must be presented that a full review should or should not be undertaken. When the preliminary review results in a decision to proceed with a full review, permission to proceed must be requested and received in writing from the Dean. If a full review is to take place, the candidate is advised once again of special procedures which will pertain and is given drafts of the form letters to be sent to outside referees and students.

According to university policy: “If the full professors decide not to initiate a review, the chair will discuss their decision with the candidate. If the candidate is in the sixth or later year in rank, he or she may request a formal review at that time, and this wish will be granted automatically. If the candidate agrees to a postponement, the chairperson will, at the beginning of the following year, consult the full professors and the candidate again, and initiate a formal review unless the candidate requests that the review be postponed. If the candidate has not been reviewed at least once after serving as an associate professor for seven years, the chair will consult the candidate at least triennially and will initiate a formal review unless the candidate does not want one. If a department chairperson is an associate professor and is subject to a review, it is the responsibility of the Dean to conduct the discussions or to assign the responsibility to a senior member of the department.

If a candidate has received a formal review that has not culminated in a recommendation of promotion, the candidate may, after two or more years have elapsed, request a second review, and this request will be granted. (If the first review was unsuccessfully appealed, the two years are measured from the time of the appeal committee’s decision). Typically, no more than two full reviews for promotion to full Professor will be undertaken for a candidate. Any exception to that cap must be approved in writing by the Dean. There is no upper limit to the time a faculty member may serve in the rank of associate professor.” It is school policy, however, that if a faculty member is not promoted after ten years in rank, the case should be discussed with the Dean.

7.4.3Compiling the dossier for a formal review. In most cases, the review is based primarily on post-tenure materials. The dossier should include the following:

• 7.4.3.1. Table of contents
• 7.4.3.2. Written assessments of the candidate’s qualifications for promotion from recognized outside experts. The candidate is invited to provide:
  • 7.4.3.2.1. A list of potential referees
  • 7.4.3.2.2.
    • an optional, separate list of scholars in the field who, the candidate believes, for either personal or professional reasons, might not write with objectivity and/or impartiality. The department also constructs a relatively large list of potential referees which should not be discussed with the candidate. All three lists constitute a permanent part of the dossier.
    • Letters to external referees requesting an assessment of the candidate should ask for comparisons with scholars in the field at comparable stages in their careers, naming such scholars if particular comparisons would be helpful.
    • The dossier must contain at least seven letters from external referees. At least five of these letters should be written by referees selected by the department. Obtaining written assessments from faculty in other departments at Cornell may be appropriate, but departments should exercise discretion in soliciting opinions from Cornell colleagues because the authors of letters included in the dossier are excluded from service on the candidate’s ad hoc committee. The dossier submitted by the department to the Dean should list all external referees invited and their response to the invitation.
    • Before external letters are solicited, the Department Chair should solicit potential external letter writer suggestions from full professorial faculty of the Brooks School. Those suggestions should be considered as part of the Departmental process for identifying external letter writers.
• 7.4.3.3. A list of graduate students (and/or postdoctoral associates) whose research has been supervised by the candidate
• 7.4.3.4. A statement from the chair, DUS/DGS assessing the candidate’s effectiveness as an adviser for graduate and undergraduate students
• 7.4.3.5. Letters from both undergraduate and graduate students (and/or postdoctoral associates) assessing the candidate’s effectiveness as a teacher and adviser:
  • 7.4.3.5.1. A sampling of students from a variety of courses should be asked to write letters expressing their candid, confidential opinions of the candidate’s teaching ability.
  • 7.4.3.5.2. Letters solicited from the candidate’s undergraduate advisees assessing the candidate’s effectiveness as an adviser (a list of advisees may be obtained from the academic advising center).
  • 7.4.3.5.3.The dossier may also include evaluations by teaching assistants and graduate students of the candidate’s teaching and advising/mentoring ability.
• 7.4.3.6. Sample letters of solicitation sent to graduate and undergraduate students
• 7.4.3.7. A list of students whose views are solicited
• 7.4.3.8. A statement of how student evaluators were selected, the rate of response, and the usual rate of response in the department
• 7.4.3.9. A list of courses taught since receiving tenure, with enrollments
• 7.4.3.10. A summary of course evaluations since the time of the candidate’s promotion to or appointment as associate professor and of student opinion prepared by someone other than the candidate including data on how the candidate’s evaluations compare to those of other faculty teaching the same or similar courses
• 7.4.3.11. Assessment of the candidate’s teaching by the chair, DUS/DGS, or members of a faculty committee that visits colleagues’ classes, based on observations of the candidate’s courses and review of course materials (syllabi, reading lists, handouts, non-print materials, problem sets, assignments, graded exams, student research papers, final projects, final grade distribution, examples of written feedback to students)
• 7.4.3.12. A review (if appropriate) of the candidate’s external research support
• 7.4.3.13. A statement (or statements) written by the candidate containing a review of past accomplishments and plans for the future. These statements should cover research, teaching/advising at undergraduate and graduate levels (as detailed below), contributions to public policy (including contributions in research, teaching, advising, and public engagement), and service to the department, school, and university. Public and external professional service may be included.
  • 7.4.3.13.1 Courses assigned or developed and course materials (for example, syllabi, handouts, assignments, problem sets, graded work)
  • 7.4.3.13.2 Comments on teaching (goals, approaches, pedagogic techniques adopted or invented, successes, problems) and results of student learning assessment efforts in selected courses
  • 7.4.3.13.3. A brief statement from the candidate about her/his goals for and success in advising
  • 7.4.3.13.4. Independent studies and graduate students supervised
  • 7.4.3.13.5. Plans for future teaching — needs of undergraduate and graduate students, and plans for courses
• 7.4.3.14. A complete curriculum vitae which includes educational background; citations of all professional publication; outside research funding (amount and period of support); awards; invited lecturers; courses taught; department, college, and university committees; outside professional activities
• 7.4.3.15. Copies of publications and reviews (if available) of five publications. Works-in-progress may be submitted.

7.4.4 Discussion of the dossier with the candidate: Before the dossier is considered by the department’s full professors, the chair informs the candidate of the department’s progress in gathering materials.

7.4.5 Prior to the the evaluation within the Department, an advisory committee composed of faculty from the Brooks School and appointed by the Dean of the Brooks School will assemble a file on the candidate’s contributions to the Brooks School. This file will provide a holistic overview of the candidate’s contributions to public policy-related research, Brooks teaching, advising and service, and policy-related outreach and engagement, including a statement related to the policy relevance of the candidate’s scholarship. This report may be informed by the candidate’s own statement on contributions to public policy, Brooks course teaching evaluations, and any other material provided by the candidate. It should be written prior to receipt of external review letters, advisee letters, and student letters and should not incorporate these sources of input. This file is not a tenure or promotion report and as such is not included in the candidate’s promotion dossier, but it is intended to inform the department’s deliberations as a supplemental document to the dossier materials.

7.4.6. Review by the department’s full professors: This review by the department’s full professors can take various forms. The dossier must be available to all faculty taking part in the review and must be present at the meeting(s) where the candidate’s promotion is discussed. The school requires that the opinion of every full professor in the department be sought, that a meeting of full professors be held to discuss the candidate’s qualifications, and that a vote by secret ballot of the full professors be obtained and recorded. All faculty who vote (yay, nay, or abstain), including those unable to attend the tenure meeting (unless they are on leave), must subsequently send a letter to the department chair providing the substantive reasons for their votes. Those who cannot attend the meeting must submit advisory votes before the meeting, accompanied by a rationale which is to be read at the meeting to further discussion of the case. All letters from faculty received by the chair’s established deadline will be included in the dossier submitted to the Dean and will be treated with the same confidentiality as all other letters in the dossier.

7.4.7. Statement to the candidate on the outcome of the review: The candidate is given a written statement in which the chair summarizes the reasons for the department’s A positive decision will be forwarded to the Dean. The candidate may appeal a negative decision following the procedures described in the university faculty appeals procedures.

7.4.8. Submitting the dossier to the Dean: Please follow the Guidelines for Compiling Dossiers for Internal Candidates for Promotion to Full Professor in organizing the materials you send forward to the Dean’s office. These are based on uniform requirements from the Provost’s office.

Both positive and negative decisions are transmitted in writing to the Dean. The chair’s covering letter should include:

• 7.4.8.1. A numeric record of the department vote, including abstentions and an explanation for abstentions and negative votes; if the chair’s vote differs from the department vote, the chair may attach a separate letter.
• 7.4.8.2. A summary of the procedures used, noting in particular any special procedures set in place by the department. The letter should summarize the outside referees’ opinions, speak to special circumstances that might have influenced their opinions, and give a brief description of their qualifications and standing. If a large number of outside letters have been obtained, the descriptions of the qualifications and standing of the referees can be limited to those whose letters are particularly significant. The chair’s letter must provide an overview of the important points that arose in the department’s review and a summary of the faculty letters received, noting any new points that come up in them. All letters from faculty will be included in the dossier and will be treated with the same confidentiality as all other letters in the dossier.
• 7.4.8.3. Comment on quality of journals, presses, and other venues where the candidate’s work has appeared
• 7.4.8.4. Assessment of candidate’s contributions to co-authored publications, explaining conventions of the field in listing authors
• 7.4.8.5. Candidate’s role in the department and in allied departments or disciplines
• 7.4.8.6. Candidate’s teaching strengths and weaknesses; comment on efforts to improve instruction
• 7.4.8.7. Candidate’s scholarly achievement and promise
• 7.4.8.8. Reasons for early or late promotion, if applicable

7.4.9. Action by the Dean:

• • After the Department’s recommendation, but prior to consideration by the Dean, the candidate’s file will proceed to a three-person Brooks School ad hoc committee whose membership is drawn from the Brooks full professorial faculty. The committee is appointed by the Brooks Dean. The ad hoc committee cannot be composed of faculty who participated in the Department-level review. It is advisory to the Brooks Dean.
  • The Brooks ad hoc tenure committee report should comment separately on three items: (a) a review of the tenure process to ensure that appropriate procedures were followed, (b) an evaluation of current and potential future contributions of the candidate to policy research, teaching, advising, service, and public engagement, and (c) a formal recommendation to the Brooks Dean about the promotion. The ad hoc report may draw only from materials in the tenure dossier and the Brooks advisory committee’s policy contribution file. The report is to be shared with the Department Chair before the Brooks Dean’s recommendation to the Provost. The Dean will reach a decision on the case after receipt of the ad hoc committee’s recommendation.
  • If the Dean’s decision is positive, the department and the candidate are informed and a recommendation for promotion is made by the Dean to the provost and the president. If the Dean’s decision is negative, the department and candidate are informed. The candidate and/or the department may appeal the Dean’s decision following the procedures outlined in the university faculty appeals procedures.

7.4.10. Disposal of the promotion dossier. At the conclusion of any tenure case (including, where relevant, the conclusion of the appeals process), departments should not retain a copy of the dossier. According to the university policy on retention of university records, the Brooks School Administration is the proper custodian for all such materials and the preservation of confidentiality is best served by this policy.