3.2 Faculty Assignment

See Unit Closure Checklist and Procedures [Link] for detailed procedures for closing the research unit.

3.2.4 Recruitment and New Appointment

Faculty members of the University are selected based on the highest international standards of evaluation of candidates to ensure the recruitment of the best available faculty. The procedures are described in the Faculty Search Committee Handbook.

The entire appointment proceedings require discussion of specific individuals, and the opinions of others regarding those individuals. This and other relevant information must be held in strict confidence by all participants. The University commits to extensive measures to protect the privacy of the candidates by preserving the confidentiality of the information it receives regarding the candidates

3.2.4.1 Strategies for Recruiting the Best Available Faculty
The University will recruit faculty through open competition and strict review with the highest academic and research standards, expressly including external evaluation. To attract world-class researchers, the University will need to provide an excellent research environment. An important consideration is internal funding. Funding is provided for each Research Unit based on a five-year approved budget plan, adjusted annually to conform to the actual budget and changes that may have occurred in the Unit.  Faculty members also will be encouraged to seek external funding. To attract world-class researchers, the University will offer salaries, travel expenses, and other benefits that are competitive with top universities in other countries.

3.2.4.2 Age and Gender Distribution of the Research and Teaching Staff
The University’s recruiting policies will aim for a balance in the age distribution of the University faculty. This will ensure that both new researchers and more established researchers will be represented among the faculty. The University is an equal opportunity employer and is committed to increasing the diversity of its faculty. The University welcomes nominations of and applications from women and members of underrepresented groups, as well as others who would bring additional dimensions to the University’s research, teaching and commercial development missions.

3.2.4.3 New Appointment
The University will use standard tiered ranks of appointment enabling smooth transfer of personnel between institutions and enhancing recruitment at appropriate levels to maintain world-best standards of faculty teaching and research. This will consist of a tenure-track system comprising Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors. Appointments may be made at any of these levels. Tenure carries with it a commitment of employment until retirement. However, it does not guarantee internal research support. Tenured faculty will compete along with their fellow tenured and untenured faculty colleagues for internal research funding on a 5-year cycle.

For an appointment, the evaluation and recommendation phase is carried out by a Faculty Search Committee.

a) Process of Determining Rank and Tenure Status at New Appointment
Appointments follow a rigorous process of evaluation and recommendation from among the following ranks,

• Assistant Professor is an untenured position.
• Associate Professor can be made at the tenured or untenured level.
• Professor is normally the position denoting tenure, although there may be some situations where this is not the case, such as when the individual is beyond the retirement age.

b) Structure and Membership of the Faculty Search Committee
The Faculty Search Committee is responsible for gathering data on scholarship, teaching, and other relevant matters. The Faculty Search Committee will consist of at least 3 and typically 5 to 8 members of the Faculty Assembly. The Dean of Faculty Affairs will appoint Faculty Search Committee members and the Chair. Faculty Search Committees may include external members, but the Chair should be from the Faculty Assembly. Members of the Senior Level Executives should not normally be members of Faculty Search Committees.

A member of the Faculty Search Committee will be assigned the responsibility of insuring that the diversity standards for the search are met.

c) Criteria for New Appointment
The University is dedicated to excellence in scholarship, teaching, technology development, and technology transfer. The purpose of the appointment evaluation of the candidate is to appraise, on the basis of the record to date, the standing and potential on at least two of these criteria, always including the quality of teaching and mentoring.

The Faculty Search Committee will select candidates considered for possible appointments. The Faculty Search Committee will solicit advice from external advisor(s) about the standing of the chosen candidates, and suggest external reviewers (letter writers) who will write letters for the candidates. Letters from external reviewers (letter writers) are essential for an objective process and, in general, carry more weight than letters from reviewers of the candidate’s choice. The Faculty Search Committee aims to collect 4 letters from external reviewers (letter writers) for an appointment at the untenured level and 8 letters from external reviewers (letter writers) for tenure appointments, within 2 months from the initial request for the letters. If 25% of the letters at this point recommend non-appointment, it will require some other justification to make the recommendation to appoint. The external reviewers (letter writers) should neither be co-authors, mentors, nor close working colleagues of the candidate. When soliciting the opinion of internal or external reviewers (letter writers), the Faculty Search Committee should use the sample letters of request from the Faculty Search Committee Handbook.

The first criterion for an appointment is that the scholarship and research rank among the top 5-10 percent in their worldwide cohort at their level of professional development for the proposed appointment level. Scholarship can be evaluated by journal papers, conference proceedings, and/or intellectual properties (patents, software, designs, procedural documents, etc.). Letters from external reviewers (letter writers) should support this assessment in an unequivocal fashion.

The second criterion for appointment is a record of high-quality teaching that clearly establishes that the candidate can plan and sustain a quality teaching program. Given that some candidates (especially for appointment to the Assistant Professor rank) may not yet have had an opportunity to teach extensively, the Faculty Search Committee must assess whether the candidate has the potential to be a qualified instructor at the University. For candidates where the Faculty Search Committee is unsure of their teaching ability, a demonstration of teaching should be arranged. Teaching is broadly defined to include the classroom or laboratory, advising, mentoring, program building, and curriculum development. If available, evidence and testimonials of the teaching record should be included in the file.

The outcome of the Faculty Search Committee will be a file containing the Appointment Papers and a cover letter from the Chair submitted to the President, after review by the Appointment and Promotion Committee as described in the Faculty Search Committee Handbook, through the Dean of Faculty Affairs.

When a Faculty Search Committee process results in a positive recommendation for tenured appointments, there will be the following levels of review that are required in order to achieve ratification. Taken in the order they are:

1. Review by the President.
2. If the President agrees with the recommendation by the Faculty Search Committee, the file, accompanied by a letter from the President, goes to the Board of Governors for final approval.
3. If the President disagrees with the Committee's recommendation, the President will discuss how to resolve the disagreement with the Committee. They may convene a separate assessment for their own use if necessary.

When a Faculty Search Committee process results in a positive recommendation for untenured appointments, there will be the following levels of review that are required in order to achieve ratification. Taken in the order they are:

1. Review by the President.
2. If the President agrees with the recommendation by the Faculty Search Committee, they report to the Board of Governors.
3. If the President disagrees with the Committee's recommendation, the President will discuss how to resolve the disagreement with the Committee. They may convene a separate assessment for their own use if necessary.

3.2.5 Faculty Evaluation

Evaluations (Promotions Review and Tenure Review) follow a rigorous process of evaluation, recommendation and review. The procedures are described in the Promotion Review Evaluation Committee (PREC) Handbook and Tenure Review Evaluation Committee (TREC) Handbook, respectively.

The entire Promotion Review and Tenure Review proceedings require discussion of specific individuals, and the opinions of others regarding those individuals. This and other relevant information must be held in strict confidence by all participants. The University commits to extensive measures to protect the privacy of the candidates by preserving the confidentiality of the information it receives regarding the candidates.

3.2.5.1.1 Promotion Review (Applicable to tenured Associate Professors)
Associate Professor appointed with tenure will be reviewed for promotion to Professor during Year 4 after tenure appointment. Early review will be permitted in exceptional circumstances.

a) Structure and Membership of Promotion Review Evaluation Committee (PREC)
For a promotion review, the evaluation and recommendation phase is carried out by a Promotion Review Evaluation Committee (PREC).

The PREC will comprise three to five members of the Faculty Assembly. The Dean of Faculty Affairs will appoint PREC members and the Chair. The PREC may include external advisors, but the Chair should be from the Faculty Assembly. Details are described in the corresponding PREC Handbook.

The PREC is a non-standing committee that is established independently for each individual action. In evaluation, substantial input from external reviewers (letter writers) is required and the external reviewer (letter writer) input carries the most weight with regard to the final evaluation.

b) Outline of Promotion Review
The PREC has the responsibility for gathering data on scholarship, teaching, service and other relevant matters.

Members of the PREC should have no collaborative or mentoring relationship with the candidate, although this may sometimes be unavoidable or preferable to other alternatives. Any mentoring or collaborative relationship between the candidate and a PREC member should be clearly disclosed in the cover letter from the Chair.

Letters from external reviewers (letter writers) are essential for an objective evaluation process and, in general, carry more weight than letters from reviewers of candidate’s choice. The PREC aims to collect 6 letters from external reviewers (letter writers) within 2 months from the initial request of the letters. If 25% of the letters at this point recommend non-promotion, the case needs to be carefully reconsidered. The external reviewers (letter writers) should neither be co-authors, mentors nor close working colleagues of the candidate. When soliciting the opinion of external reviewers (letter writers), the PREC should draft the letter requesting the evaluation based on the template in the PREC Handbook.

A member of the PREC should be assigned the responsibility of insuring that the diversity standards for the promotion review evaluation are met.

c) Criteria for Promotion
The criteria for promotion concern the performance in scholarship, teaching and service while at OIST.

Scholarship: The first criterion for promotion is that the individual's scholarship and research ranks among the top 5 or 10 percent in their world-wide cohort at his or her level of professional development for the proposed promotion level. The appraisal of the scholarship will be based on the letters received from the external reviewers (letter writers), and on the quality of the three nominated papers for review, and their impact and originality. Letters from external reviewers (letter writers) should support this assessment in an unequivocal fashion.

Teaching and mentoring: The second criterion for promotion is a record of high quality teaching that clearly establishes that the candidate can plan and sustain a quality teaching program. The appraisal of teaching performance will be based mainly on the experience at OIST. Teaching is defined to include the classroom and laboratory, as well as advising, mentoring, program building, and curricular development. In evaluating teaching, testimonials from students, postdoctoral scholars and OIST faculty will be important. As part of the CV and Academic Service Record, the candidate can provide relevant, yet objective, feedback from students attending courses presented by the candidate, and/or examples of mentoring practice. The Dean of the Graduate School and others may be consulted for an appraisal.

Academic Service: Supporting the University in its widest sense through committees and other service work, and the international scientific community through, for example, service on conference organizing committees, editorial boards and peer review committees is an important part of the academic duties. The Provost, the Dean of Faculty Affairs and others (for example, Committee Chairs) may be consulted for an appraisal.

There is no fixed weighting of these aspects. However, excellence in scholarship and teaching is required, and the performance in service work must be, at least, assessed as good. It will not be possible to be promoted if the performance in either teaching or service work is unsatisfactory.

d) Process after Promotion Review
The PREC recommendation will be a file containing Promotion Review papers and a cover letter from the Chair of the PREC, submitted to the President, after review by the Appointment and Promotion Committee as described in the PREC Handbook, through the Dean of Faculty Affairs.

A positive recommendation from the PREC will proceed through the following levels of review. Taken in order, these are:

1. Review by the President
2. If the President agrees with the PREC recommendation, the file, accompanied by a letter from the President, goes to the Board of Governors for final approval.
3. If the President disagrees with the PREC recommendation, the President will discuss how to resolve the disagreement with the PREC. He/She may convene a separate assessment for own use if necessary.

A negative PREC recommendation with which the President concurs, will be sent to the candidate, and will also be reported to the Board of Governors.
No review for promotion will be undertaken for at least 3 years.

3.2.5.1.2 Appeal Process
The purpose of the appeal process is to determine whether the promotion review procedures were correctly followed. The Appeal Process itself is not a reevaluation of the decision. The grounds for an appeal are limited to determining whether there were procedural errors (such as the failure to bring proper facts and criteria to bear on a decision, or the introduction of improper facts and criteria, or the failure to follow procedures correctly) that substantially affected the outcome. An unsuccessful candidate who believes there was a procedural error in the promotion review can file an appeal with the Dean of Faculty Affairs within ten (10) business days from receipt of the failure notice. Detailed appeal documents, if any, should be submitted within one month of registering the appeal.

When an appeal is filed, the matter is automatically referred to the Provost, the Dean of Research and the Dean of the Graduate School to select an ad-hoc Appeal Committee comprised of tenured faculty. If the Appeal Committee finds that there were procedural errors that substantially affected the outcome, the Appeal Committee may recommend actions to correct the errors. The details of the corrective actions will depend on the nature of the procedural errors, but may involve a new PREC, new external reviewers (letter writers), new letters, or other changes.  If the Appeal Committee finds that there were no procedural errors that affected the outcome, the recommendation will be to dismiss the appeal. The Appeal Committee, itself has no authority to recommend or deny promotion.

The recommendation of the Appeal Committee is final and is communicated in writing to the President and to the candidate who filed the appeal within 2 months from registering the appeal. The candidate may not challenge the outcome of the appeal. If further actions are recommended by the Appeal Committee, it is the responsibility of the President to implement those actions.

3.2.5.2.1 Tenure Review (A)
[Transitional Provision]
Tenure Review (A) is applicable to Assistant Professors and untenured Associate Professors who were negotiated their contracts or appointed as faculty members at OIST SC between November 1st 2011 and December 31st 2016. However, they may choose Tenure Review (B) in consultation with the Dean of Faculty Affairs.

The detailed information of the Tenure Review (A) can be referred to the TREC Handbook. For Assistant Professors, a tenure evaluation is conducted in Year 6. Untenured Associate Professors will be evaluated for tenure in Year 4.

Scholarship and teaching are the primary factors in evaluation for tenure because the University is dedicated to excellence in research and education. Service to the University and/or the community is also a relevant consideration. Scholarly distinction is especially important because it sustains both the University's research and teaching mission, which derives its strength from the ongoing involvement of the instructors in research at the forefront of a field. The purpose of the tenure evaluation is to appraise, on the basis of the record to date, the standing and potential in the relevant scholarly discipline, quality of teaching and mentoring, and quality and relevance of service.

The tenure decision is based on the career scholarly, teaching and service achievement during the full career, not solely the achievements at OIST.

The Tenure Review Evaluation Committee (TREC) has the responsibility for gathering data on scholarship, teaching, service and other relevant matters. The Dean of Faculty Affairs will appoint the TREC members after discussion of potential membership and possible external advisors with the candidate. The TREC will comprise three to five members of the Faculty Assembly with chair nominated by Dean of Faculty Affairs.

The TREC may enlist an external advisor to assist with identifying suitable external reviewers (letter writers) and should include an external member to assist in assessing the case for tenure, with full membership of the TREC and voting rights.

Members of the TREC should have no collaborative or mentoring relationship with the candidate, although this may sometimes be unavoidable or preferable to other alternatives. Any mentoring or collaborative relationship between the candidate and a TREC member should be clearly disclosed in the cover letter from the Chair.

A member of the TREC should be assigned the responsibility of insuring that the diversity standards for the tenure review evaluation are met.

Letters from external reviewers (letter writers) are essential for an objective evaluation. The TREC aims to collect 8 letters from external reviewers (letter writers) within 2 months from the initial request for letters. If 25% of those collected at this point recommend against tenure, that should be sufficient to refuse tenure.

The external reviewers (letter writers) should neither be co-authors, mentors nor close working colleagues of the candidate. When soliciting the opinion of external reviewers (letter writers), the TREC should draft the letter requesting the evaluation based on the template in the TREC Handbook.

The first criterion for a tenure appointment is that the candidate has achieved the highest level of distinction in scholarship and research that places them within the top echelon of their international peer group. The peer group comprises world-wide scholars that are at the same level of academic maturity who work in research areas that are similar or closely allied to that of the candidate. Letters from external reviewers (letter writers) should support this assessment in an unequivocal fashion.

The second criterion for a tenure appointment is a record of high quality teaching that clearly establishes that the candidate can plan and sustain a first-rate teaching program. Teaching is broadly defined to include the classroom or laboratory, advising, mentoring, program building, and curriculum development. A letter from the Dean of the Graduate School is required to document and evaluate the teaching, rotation supervision and mentoring roles.

In some cases, service to the University can be relevant to the tenure decision. But service, however exemplary, cannot substitute for major shortcomings in scholarship or teaching.

The outcome of the TREC will be a file containing the Tenure Review Papers and a cover letter from the Chair of the TREC to the President, after review by the Appointment and Promotion Committee as described in the TREC Handbook, through the Dean of Faculty Affairs.

The positive recommendation of the TREC will proceed through the following levels of review. Taken in order they are:

1. Review by the President
2. If the President agrees with the recommendation by TREC, the file, accompanied by a letter from the President, goes to the Board of Governors for final approval.
3. If the President disagrees with the TREC recommendation, the President will discuss how to resolve the disagreement with the TREC. He/She may convene a separate assessment for own use if necessary.

A negative TREC recommendation with which the President concurs, will be sent to the candidate, and will also be reported to the Board of Governors.

For an Assistant Professor, the award of tenure automatically involves promotion to Associate Professor.

Under exceptional circumstances, an Assistant Professor who has had a negative tenure outcome can be reviewed for promotion to Associate Professor without tenure. In such exceptional case, the second review as Associate Professor without tenure is conducted in Year 8 from the initial appointment as an Assistant Professor and follows the similar procedure stipulated in Tenure Review (B). Such tenure review must be completed by the end of Year 9 from the initial appointment as an Assistant Professor.

For an Associate Professor, TREC may solicit from the external reviewers (letter writers) an opinion on whether to promote to Professor and on the basis of the responses may make such a recommendation.

In the case of a negative decision for tenure, the appointment will terminate as in the contract, or after a year if the remaining time on the contract is less than a year. The unsuccessful candidate should work with the Provost and the Dean of Faculty Affairs to ensure an orderly transition, including making proper provision for the timely completion of any theses that are in progress, for redeployment of any continuing staff and for the completion of the contracts for the fixed-term staff and post-doctoral scholars.

3.2.5.2.1 Tenure Review (B)
Tenure Review (B) is applicable to untenured faculty who negotiated their contracts after January 1st, 2017. The main difference from Tenure Review (A) is that a unit review is conducted by an external review committee (ERC) and the review itself, letters from at least 3 experts on the ERC, and letters from additional external letter writers as in system (A) are considered by the TREC; in system (A) there was no associated unit review and therefore, of course, no letters from ERC members.

Detailed information of this Tenure Review (B) can be found in the TREC (B) Handbook.

a) Structure and Membership of Tenure Review Evaluation Committee (TREC)
The tenure review process is carried out by the TREC, which consists of 3 or more faculty appointed by the Dean of Faculty Affairs with advice from the Appointment and Promotion Committee (APC) and after discussion of potential membership with the candidate.

Members of the TREC should have no collaborative or mentoring relationship with the candidate, although this may sometimes be unavoidable or preferable to other alternatives. Any mentoring or collaborative relationship between the candidate and a TREC member should be clearly disclosed in the cover letter from the Chair.

A member of the TREC should be assigned the responsibility of insuring that the diversity standards for the tenure review evaluation are met. A member of the ERC is appointed as a non-voting member of the TREC; typically this is the chair of the ERC.

The TREC is a non-standing committee that is established independently for each individual action. In evaluation, substantial input from external reviewers ( letter writers)  is required and the external reviewers’ / letter writers’ input carries the most weight with regard to the final evaluation.

b) Outline of Tenure Review
The ERC has the responsibility for conducting an on-site review, providing liaison with the TREC via the one member who is appointed to the TREC, and writing evaluation letters (each of the experts on the ERC writes one letter). The TREC then analyzes all external letters and the data on scholarship, teaching, service and other relevant matters, and finalizes a report.

The purpose of the tenure review is to appraise, based on the record to date, and an on-site unit review, the standing and potential in the relevant scholarly discipline, quality of teaching and mentoring, and quality and relevance of service.

The tenure decision is based on the career scholarly, teaching and service achievement during the full career, not solely the achievements at OIST.

Scholarship and teaching are the primary factors in evaluation for tenure because the University is dedicated to excellence in research and education.  Service to the University and/or the community is also a relevant consideration. Scholarly distinction is especially important because it sustains both the University's research and teaching mission, which derives its strength from the ongoing involvement of the instructors in research at the forefront of a field.

Letters from external evaluation letter writers are essential for an objective evaluation. The TREC aims to collect 8 letters from external evaluation letter writers, including those from at least 3 experts on the ERC (as external evaluation letter writers), within 4 months from the TESD (Tenure Evaluation Starting Date). If at least three letters recommend against tenure at this point, that should be sufficient to refuse tenure, although it is recommended the committee wait until 8 letters are received before proceeding.

The external reviewers (letter writers) should neither be co-authors, mentors nor close working colleagues of the candidate. When soliciting the opinion of external reviewers (letter writers), the TREC should draft the letter requesting the evaluation based on the template in the TREC Handbook.

c) Criteria for Tenure
The first criterion for a tenure appointment is that the candidate has achieved high levels of distinction in scholarship and research that places them within the top echelon of their international peer group. The peer group comprises world-wide scholars that are at the same level of academic maturity who work in research areas that are similar or closely allied to that of the candidate.

The second criterion for a tenure appointment is a record of high quality teaching that clearly establishes that the candidate can plan and sustain a first-rate teaching program. Teaching is broadly defined to include the classroom or laboratory, advising, mentoring, program building, and curriculum development. A letter from the Dean of the Graduate School is required to document and evaluate the teaching, rotation supervision and mentoring roles.

In some cases, service to the University can be relevant to the tenure decision. But service, however exemplary, cannot substitute for major shortcomings in scholarship or teaching.

d) Timeline of Tenure Review
Assistant Professor (as such at initial appointment)
The Tenure Review begins on or by the TESD, which is the last day of the 6th month of Year 5 (4 years and 6 months after initial appointment). The 1st Tenure Review of an Assistant Professor must be completed by the end of Year 6. The TESD is the deadline for receiving tenure materials from the candidate. The Tenure Review decision will normally be made within 6 months of the TESD. The TESD cannot be delayed, except for the circumstances in accordance with the “Stop-the-Clock” Policy in PRP3.2.5.2.2. An early review will be permitted in exceptional circumstances.

Year 1: Appointment as Assistant Professor begins. A Mentor is appointed.

End of Year 3: The candidate should submit the following to the Dean of Faculty Affairs: a CV including publication list, two 1-page outlines: an outline of research highlights at OIST or prior to joining OIST, and an outline of a research plan for the next five years.
The Dean of Faculty Affairs will send a copy of these to the candidate's faculty mentor, and to another tenured faculty member appointed by the Dean of Faculty Affairs. The candidate then has a meeting with these two faculty. Following this meeting the two faculty write a status report about the candidate’s readiness for the tenure review, and this report is submitted to the Dean of Faculty Affairs. Finally, the candidate has a status meeting with the Dean of Faculty Affairs.

Between the mid-Year 5 and Year 6: The 1st Tenure Review is conducted. By the end of Year 6, the Tenure Review must be completed (The TREC’s recommendation is sent to the President and the candidate is notified of the Tenure Review outcome by the President). There are four possible outcomes:

• Tenured Full Professor: The Assistant Professor is awarded tenure and appointed as a Professor with approval from the Board of Governors.
• Tenured Associate Professor: The Assistant Professor is awarded tenure and appointed as Associate Professor with approval from the Board of Governors.
• Untenured Associate Professor: The Assistant Professor is promoted to untenured Associate Professor with approval from the President.
• “Unsuccessful”: The contract is terminated at the end of the contract period, or one year from notification of the failed review, whichever is later, subject to the limitation in PRP3.2.5.2.4.

Year 8: The 2nd Tenure Review is conducted for those that received the outcome "Untenured Associate Professor" in the 1st Tenure Review. This review must be completed before the end of Year 9 (The TREC’s recommendation is sent to the President and the candidate is notified of the Tenure Review outcome by the President). There are three possible outcomes:

• Tenured Full Professor: The Associate Professor is awarded tenure and appointed as a Professor with approval from the Board of Governors.
• Tenured Associate Professor: The Associate Professor is awarded tenure with approval from the Board of Governors.
• “Unsuccessful”: The contract is terminated at the end of the contract period, or one year from notification of the failed review, whichever is later, subject to the limitation in PRP3.2.5.2.4.

Associate Professor (untenured at initial appointment)
The Tenure Review begins on or by the TESD, which is the last day of the 6th month of Year 4 (3 years and 6 months after initial appointment). The Tenure Review of an Associate Professor must be completed by the end of Year 5. The TESD is the deadline for receiving tenure materials from the candidate. The tenure review decision will normally be made within 6 months of the TESD. The TESD cannot be delayed, except for the circumstances in accordance with the “Stop-the-Clock” Policy in PRP3.2.5.2.2. An early review will be permitted in exceptional circumstances.

Year 1: Appointment as Associate Professor (untenured at initial appointment) begins. A Mentor is appointed.

End of Year 3: The candidate should submit the following to the Dean of Faculty Affairs: a CV including publication list, two 1-page outlines: an outline of research highlights at OIST or prior to joining OIST, and an outline of a research plan for the next five years.
The Dean of Faculty Affairs will send a copy of these to the candidate's faculty mentor, and to another tenured faculty member appointed by the Dean of Faculty Affairs. The candidate then has a meeting with these two faculty. Following this meeting the two faculty write a status report about the candidate’s readiness for the tenure review, and this report is submitted to the Dean of Faculty Affairs. Finally, the candidate has a status meeting with the Dean of Faculty Affairs.

Between mid-Year 4 and Year 5: The Tenure Review is conducted for the Associate Professor (untenured at initial appointment). By the end of Year 5, the Tenure Review must be completed (The TREC’s recommendation is sent to the President and the candidate is notified of the Tenure Review outcome by the President). There are three possible outcomes:

• Tenured Full Professor: The untenured Associate Professor is awarded tenure and appointed as Professor, with approval from the Board of Governors
• Tenured Associate Professor: The Associate Professor is awarded tenure, with approval from the Board of Governors
• "Unsuccessful”: The contract is terminated at the end of the contract period, or one year from notification of the failed review, whichever is later, subject to the limitation in PRP3.2.5.2.4.