Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion Committees Levels C-E (under review)

Parent Policy

Staff Development Policy

Preamble

Promotion at Monash University is based on merit following a thorough and fair process which applies to this procedure and the Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion for Candidates Levels C-E. The University is committed to the principle of equal opportunity in promotion and recognises that staff contribute to its vision and goals in diverse ways. The achievements of candidates for promotion are assessed relative to the particular circumstances of their career progression and the opportunities which have been available to them.

Candidates who satisfy the relevant promotion committee that they meet the criteria for promotion are to be promoted irrespective of considerations such as the increased cost of staffing.

Unless a candidate has been offered a conditional promotion, all promotions will take effect from 1 January of the year following the promotion decision. All Professorial positions are subject to the statutes and regulations of the University, in particular statute 3.4.1 - The professors.

This procedure applies to committee members that are evaluating applications from candidates who:

• are appointed to undertake research, education and service activities (including those appointed to undertake education-focused roles);
• have a current performance development plan which complies with the requirements of the Performance Development Process: Academic Staff; and
• are seeking promotion to senior lecturer, associate professor, reader or professor.

This procedure should be read in conjunction with the Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion for Candidates Levels C-E

Definitions

Academic performance standards: faculty or discipline-specific performance standards for all academic staff against which academic performance will be measured, particularly for the purpose of probation, promotion and performance management. The standards are qualitative, quantitative or a mixture of both across the three key areas of academic activity - research, education and service. They include identified ‘minimum’ performance standards, below which the staff member would be managed for unsatisfactory performance, and ‘faculty expectation’ standards, above which the staff member may be eligible for promotion in accordance with the requirements of the Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion for Candidates Levels C - E.

Achievement(s) relative to opportunity: is an evaluative framework in which the overall quality and impact of achievements is given more weight than the quantity, rate or breadth of particular achievements. Assessing achievements relative to opportunity involves giving consideration to circumstances, arrangements, career histories and overall time available to the staff member. This in turn allows appropriate evaluation of achievements in relation to:

• the quantum or rate of productivity,
• the opportunity to participate in certain types of activities, and
• the consistency of activities or output over the period of consideration.

Achievement relative to opportunity is a positive acknowledgement of what a staff member can and has achieved given the opportunities available and is not about providing “special consideration” or expecting lesser standards of performance.

Assessor: An expert in the field able to offer a balanced and confidential assessment of the candidate’s standing in the field and of the merits of the application based on stated criteria. Assessors may or may not be known personally to the candidate and should be selected by the Dean.

CAPA: Committee for Academic Promotions and Appointments Levels B-D (CAPA). In accordance with this procedure, CAPA is responsible for receiving and considering applications for academic promotion to lecturer, senior lecturer or associate professor from staff members not located in a faculty.

Conditional promotion: A conditional promotion means that the committee authorises the chairperson of the committee to approve the promotion if certain specific criteria are met before 1 May in the following year. A conditional promotion will come into effect on the date that the chairperson approves the promotion or 1 January in the year following the candidate’s application, whichever is the later.

Education-focused candidate: A candidate for promotion who is an education-focused academic (ie. his or her primary role is to provide a high standard of learning and teaching, educational design and delivery and educational leadership).

Faculty promotion coordinator: is a HR Business Partner within the relevant HR Service Hub (or nominee).

Head of Unit: head of an academic or organisational work unit, for example Head of School, Head of Department or where applicable, a person acting as his or her nominee. If there are no heads of unit within the faculty, a deputy dean or equivalent may be delegated the head of unit’s responsibilities for the academic promotion process.

HR Business Partner: is a member of the Monash HR community who operates as a strategic partner responsible for providing a range of human resources services for an assigned Faculty or administrative Division. HR Business Partners are located within a HR Service Hub.

HR Service Hub: is the centre for human resources services and activities within a Faculty or Divisional Cluster.

Procedural irregularity: refers to where the University has not followed a process that is articulated in this procedure.

Referee: An expert in the field that is familiar with the candidate’s work and able to offer a balanced assessment of the candidate’s standing in the field and of the merits of the application based on stated criteria. Referees are selected by the candidate

1. Preparation for promotion committee meetings

1.1 Preliminary assessment form

Whilst the chairperson, in consultation with committee members, may determine the method of voting used during the promotion committee meeting, a system of preliminary assessment must be undertaken prior to the first meeting of the committee.

The purpose of the preliminary assessment is to identify, via the independent assessment of all voting committee members acting separately, those candidates who appear clearly to meet the criteria for promotion and those who do not. This will assist in streamlining the process of decision making during the actual meeting, allowing more time for discussion of those candidates who fall in the middle band (i.e. about whom there are mixed views).

A preliminary assessment form has been developed to guide the preliminary assessment process which can be adapted to suit the needs of each committee.

The faculty promotion coordinators will be responsible for ensuring that the preliminary assessment form is completed for each faculty promotion committee and the representative from Monash HR's Workforce Policy and Performance team who is responsible for coordinating the University professorial committee will ensure that the form is completed by the University committee.

1.2 Briefing to committee members

A representative from Monash HR's Workforce Policy and Performance team will attend all promotion committees to provide procedural advice to committee members. Prior to each meeting committee members must be aware of:

• roles and responsibilities of membership of the committee and promotions procedures;
• equal opportunity in relation to matters that may impact on the assessment of applications from promotion;
• disciplinary differences;
• citation indexes, impact factor information, benchmarking data, use of team work, multiple authorship and differences between publishing protocols;
• different ways of assessing the range of academic activities - quantitative and qualitative (including the academic performance standards);
• relevant circumstances; and
• good decision-making process.

1.3 Equal Opportunity training

The chairperson must ensure that all members are provided with a current copy of the University’s Equal Opportunity Guidelines for Academic Promotion and take reasonable steps to ensure that they have read and understood them.

The Equal Opportunity Guidelines for Academic Promotion are designed to heighten awareness and understanding of circumstances that may be relevant when assessing applications for promotion, for example, family responsibilities.

Unless the chairperson has previously received or attended equal opportunity training, he or she is required to undertake equal opportunity training prior to chairing an academic promotion committee meeting. In addition, the opportunity to undertake equal opportunity training will be available to all promotion committee members. All promotion committee members are required to undertake the equal opportunity (EO) online training, with the exception of the external member prior to the commencement of the first committee meeting.

1.4 Gender balance

The chairperson of the promotion committees must ensure the committee has as close to equal gender representation as reasonably practicable, with a minimum of one-third representation of each gender.  Gender balance can be facilitated through the dean's appointees and drawing attention to the aim for gender balance when calling for faculty nominees. In the case of faculty committees, if the chairperson is unable to meet this requirement, the relevant representative from Monash HR's Workforce Policy and Performance team will assist by contacting individuals (of the under-represented gender) from a cognate area and provide the faculty with the names of these individuals.  If in exceptional circumstances, there are no available individuals (of the under-represented gender) from a cognate area, a request by the dean to vary or waive the gender representation requirement may be made to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education).  The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) may approve that request in writing and confirm the composition of the committee.  In the case of the University Professorial Promotion Committee, the Vice-Chancellor can vary or waive the gender representation requirement.

1.5 Conflict of interest

A committee member must declare to the chairperson any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest which may arise as a result of involvement in the promotion process. If a committee member is uncertain whether an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest exists, advice should be sought from the chairperson prior to the meeting.

The chairperson is responsible for ensuring that no declared conflict of interest can influence the outcome of the application and that there can be no reasonable perception that it might have done. If necessary, the chairperson will require the committee member to withdraw from the committee.

Examples of potential, actual or perceived conflicts of interest include; a committee member who is supervising a candidate’s post-graduate studies, or a committee member who is a friend of the candidate as well as a co-worker.

1.6 Confidentiality

Confidentiality is required of all persons involved in promotion processes. The chairperson of the committee will emphasise the importance of confidentiality during her or his welcome and overview. The duty of confidentiality continues after the promotion process has been concluded.

In maintaining confidentiality, access to all papers is restricted to those directly involved in the assessment process. Where a stage of the process involves a promotion committee, all papers are to be returned to the secretary of the committee at the conclusion of the last meeting.

1.7 Privacy

Information contained within the academic promotion application and interviews and is used for the purposes of assessing promotion applications. If the information is to be used for a purpose other than the promotion process, then advice should be sought from the Privacy Officer prior to doing so.

Committee members must take all reasonable steps to protect the personal information contained in the candidates application form from misuse, loss, unauthorised access, modification or disclosure, This includes notes made during the committee meetings and discussions. Personal information includes Information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database) that is recorded in any form and whether true or not about an individual whose identity is apparent or can reasonably be ascertained from the information or opinion.

The web address for Privacy at Monash is http://privacy.monash.edu.au/ 

Application assessment process

2.1 Criteria for promotion

Committee members should be aware that candidates must satisfy the promotion committee that he or she has:

• been a sustained high performer at the present level of appointment, at or above the ‘faculty expectation’ level of academic performance for the candidate’s current level according to the academic performance standards; and
• the capacity to perform satisfactorily at the level to which promotion is sought, at least at the ‘minimum’ level of academic performance for that level according to the academic performance standards.

2.2 Weightings

Applications are to be considered on their merits in relation to the criteria for promotion taking into account the weightings selected by the candidate for each of the three areas of academic activity.

The purpose of requiring weightings lies in the diverse and changing nature of academic work. A candidate chooses weightings, within the specified parameters relevant to their academic focus, to enable the promotion committee to assess whether he or she meets the criteria for promotion in the particular circumstances of her or his responsibilities and achievements at the current level of appointment.

The committee may vary the weightings of a candidate, if it believes that varying the weightings will assist the candidate in her or his application for promotion. However, the University Professorial Promotion Committee cannot recommend that a candidate change her or his application to a special case for promotion.

2.3 Differences between academic disciplines

When assessing whether a candidate has met the criteria for promotion, committee members should be aware that there are differences between, and within, academic disciplines, including in the way teaching is delivered. For example, some academic roles require one-to-one teaching in specialist roles outside the traditional faculty framework. Committee members should have an understanding of how these differences relate to applications for promotion. Information about differences between and within academic disciplines can be obtained from a range of people, including the chairperson, dean, associate dean (research), associate dean (education), Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) or Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research).

When assessing applications for promotion, committee members should be aware that promotion at Monash focuses on the quality and quantity of achievement in the three areas of academic activity rather than the relative time spent on each. For higher levels, Monash also focuses on the applicant’s impact on the discipline at a national and international level.
Committees should refer to the following documents for further information about assessing applications for promotion:

• The university-wide standards for teaching and research staff which provide information about the responsibilities of staff appointed at each academic level; and
• The academic performance standards.

The decision of the promotion committee should be informed by, but not determined by, the relevant academic performance standards.

The promotion committee should take into account achievements at the previous university or universities of a candidate who moved to Monash from the same level of appointment or higher and who has not since been promoted pursuant to the Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion for Candidates Levels C-E

3. Referee and assessor reports

Prior to the first meeting of the faculty promotion committees and University Professorial Promotion Committee, the faculty promotion coordinator will request written reports from referees and assessors listed in each application.
Candidates applying for promotion must have the following referee and assessor reports:

• for senior lecturer (level C), four referee reports;
• for associate professor/reader (level D), two referee reports and four assessor reports (maximum of one referee report from Monash and minimum of one assessor report from outside Australia*); and
• for professor (level E), three referee reports and four assessor reports (maximum of one referee report from Monash and a minimum of three assessor reports from outside Australia*).

*Assessors should be from outside Australia except where the most eminent scholars in a particular discipline are based in Australia, as determined by the relevant dean.

If a candidate who is unsuccessful one year, applies for promotion again the following year, he or she may use the referee report from her or his previous application. In this situation, the faculty promotion coordinator is required to contact the referee to provide her or him with the opportunity to update the original report.

In addition, referees and assessors will be provided with an opportunity to include additional information or respond to changes to an application or recommend that a candidate adjust their application to a special case for promotion.

Referees and assessors will be asked to:

• provide an opinion drawn from their understanding of the achievements expected of an academic at the relevant level in their particular field, including whether the candidate’s work aligns with internationally recognised academic standards in that field;
• comment on the application submitted (in its entirety) and make an assessment of the candidate's achievements in a specific area of activity in the particular circumstances of the case;
• indicate the extent of their support for the candidate’s application; and
• for assessors, indicate whether the candidate would be promoted at their university or institution

The faculty promotion coordinator will make all reasonable efforts to contact the referees and assessors listed in the application.

If a faculty promotion coordinator has not received a referee or assessor report, the respective promotion committee cannot disadvantage the candidate when assessing the application.

4. Relevant personal circumstances

The promotion committees will be in a better position to make fair and valid judgements about each candidate's achievements if the committee is aware of the particular circumstances relevant to a candidate’s career progression that will facilitate an assessment of his or her achievements relative to opportunity.

Committees should be familiar with the relevant circumstances of the Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion for Candidates Levels C-E which invites candidates to submit a statement providing details of any relevant circumstances that have had an impact on her or his career progression.

Candidates are not required to describe specific details about sensitive issues such as a medical illness. If it is important for specific details to be shared, a short and private discussion with the Chair of the committee will suffice.

Relevant personal circumstances may include:

• family responsibilities (for example child rearing, elder-care, illness of a partner or dependant);
• a temporary or permanent disability;
• relevant cultural expectations or circumstances;
• periods of part-time working; and/or
• absences due to ill-health or injury

Candidates who would like a promotion committee to take into account relevant personal circumstances are required to:

• indicate which relevant personal circumstance applies in the relevant section of the promotion application form; and
• place particular emphasis on the impact that these circumstances have had on their ability to achieve during the time period that is being considered in the application i.e. since the last promotion or appointment.

The promotion committee will then assess a candidate’s achievements relative to the opportunities available to the staff member whilst ensuring that the indicators of quality have been demonstrated.

For example, if a staff member has been employed for ten years but has had a career break of two years to be the primary caregiver of a child or children, the promotion committee should consider the staff member’s achievements over an eight year period.

For further information on assessing achievement relative to opportunity, committees should consult the Guidelines for Decision-Makers on Assessing Achievement Relative to Opportunity.

5. New information

The only new information which may be received by a promotion committee will be that which became available subsequent to the lodgement of the application. The nature of the new information is either to:

• clarify or bring up-to-date information alluded to in the application, for example the success of a grant application that had been listed as “pending”; or
• refer to an unexpected fact or event that significantly strengthens the case for promotion, for example admission to a learned body or academy.

Candidates have an obligation to correct any information that may mislead the promotion committee if left uncorrected, for example, a manuscript referred to as having been submitted to a publisher or journal that has been rejected.
Any new information provided will be tabled at the relevant committee meeting or presented at the interview.

6. Voting

During the meeting, each voting member of the promotion committee is permitted to cast one vote, which may be a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote. Abstentions are only allowable if a committee member has declared a conflict of interest involving themselves and the candidate. In this case, the chairperson will determine whether the conflict of interest can influence the outcome of the application and will request that the committee member abstains from the discussion of that applicant.

If a committee member abstains from voting, her or his decision is to be noted by the committee secretary and it will not be considered by the committee as a vote. A candidate will be promoted if a majority of those present and voting cast a ‘yes’ vote.

7. Conditional promotion

The faculty promotion committees and University Professorial Promotion Committee may make a conditional promotion decision where the committee believes that the candidate’s case for promotion is ‘borderline’ but that some specified achievements by the candidate before the next promotion round would lead to a clear case for promotion.

Appropriate conditions might include:

• success in a nationally competitive grant application which has been submitted (but not decided) at the time the promotion committee makes its decision;
• acceptance by a high-impact refereed journal or a publisher of scholarly monographs of a manuscript submitted at the time the promotion committee makes its decision; and/or
• results at a specified minimum level of teaching evaluations where those evaluations could not reasonably have been completed at the time the promotion committee makes its decision.

The committee must:

• precisely define the conditions to be met;
• communicate these clearly in writing to the candidate; and
• base the conditions on the appropriate metrics for the level of promotion (senior lecturer, associate professor/reader, professor).

If the candidate does not meet the specified promotion conditions before 1 May in the following year, and wishes to reapply for promotion, the candidate will be required to submit a new application for promotion.

If the candidate succeeds in meeting the specified conditions before 1 May in the following year, a written recommendation must be submitted to the chairperson of the committee that the candidate be promoted. The written recommendation must come from the:

• head of unit of a candidate applying for promotion to senior lecturer; or
• dean for candidates applying for promotion to associate professor/reader or professor.

The decision of the chairperson of the promotion committee is final and there is no appeal process for conditional promotions.

8. Faculty and University decision making

8.1 Promotion to senior lecturer and associate professor/reader

In the case of promotion to senior lecturer and associate professor/reader, the decision about whether a candidate is promoted rests solely with the faculty senior lecturer promotion committee and the faculty associate professor promotion committee respectively.

8.2 Promotion to professor

In the case of promotion to professor, the decision about whether a candidate is promoted rests solely with the University Professorial Promotion Committee.

It is expected that the candidate has the support of the dean, head of unit and performance supervisor in making an application for promotion to professor.

8.3 Report to the University Professorial Promotion Committee

Prior to the University Professorial Promotion Committee meeting, the dean must prepare a report addressing the candidate’s case in the three areas of academic activity. The report should also reference the relevant academic performance standards. The dean will then discuss the report with the candidate and provide the candidate with a copy.

The candidate’s complete application and other documentation will be sent by the faculty promotion coordinator to the secretary of the University Professorial Promotion committee. The full documentation comprises:

• the completed application form with the head of unit report, performance supervisor’s report, associate deans of research and education reports, referee and assessor reports;
• the dean’s report addressing the candidate’s case for promotion; and
• a separate report prepared by the dean which ranks the candidates in terms of who has the best case for promotion.

The merit listing of recommended candidates does not bind the University Professorial Promotion Committee and is confidential. It is not provided at any stage to candidates, whether successful or unsuccessful.

When the list of ranked candidates, applications and associated reports has been received, the University Professorial Promotion Committee will meet to consider the information provided.

If a faculty has no professorial promotion candidates, the dean must send a short letter to the chair of the University Professorial Promotion Committee to confirm that this is the case and include the following information:

• why they believe there were no applications; and
• strategies to improve application rates in the future.

8.4 Role of the dean

The dean may be interviewed by the University Professorial Promotion Committee at the committee’s request. The dean will be familiar with all background material relating to each candidate's case and be prepared to discuss it in detail with the committee.

8.5 Interviews for promotion to professor

Candidates applying for promotion to professor may be interviewed by the University Professorial Promotion Committee at the committee’s request. The purpose of the interview is to clarify information obtained in the candidate’s application or statement of relevant personal circumstances and to allow candidates to present and defend their case for promotion. Candidates unable to attend an interview in person will be provided with an opportunity to be interviewed via an audio-conferencing or video-conferencing facility.

9. Notification of outcomes

Candidates will be informed in writing of the outcome of their application by the faculty promotion committees, University Professorial Promotion Committee or CAPA by the chairperson within seven working days of the committee's last sitting day.

9.1 Notification of outcomes and support for unsuccessful candidates

The only person that can provide feedback to candidates regarding their application is the chairperson or a representative appointed by the chairperson. All other committee members must refrain from discussing any aspect of the meeting with candidates or any other person.

Committee members will be given the opportunity to review the draft letters to unsuccessful candidates, to ensure that they accurately reflect the views of committee members.

All candidates will be provided with a letter notifying them of the outcome of their application by the chairperson of the relevant promotion committee within seven working days of the committee’s last sitting date. Letter templates to guide the chairperson in drafting the letters are available from the academic promotion website.

Letters notifying candidates of the outcome of their application at faculty promotion committees are to be copied to the candidate’s performance supervisor and head of unit. In cases where the candidate is from a campus with a pro vice-chancellor, a copy is also to be provided to the pro vice-chancellor.

Letters notifying candidates of the outcome of their application at the University Professorial Promotion Committee are to be copied to the dean, the faculty promotion coordinator, the head of unit and the performance supervisor. In cases where the candidate is from a campus with a pro vice-chancellor, a copy is also provided to the pro vice-chancellor.

Each letter to an unsuccessful candidate will include a summary of the reasons why the promotion was not supported and will outline the areas that, in the opinion of the committee, need strengthening before a future application is lodged. The major points to be made in the letter should be determined during the committee meeting.

For candidates who are unsuccessful at the relevant promotion committee, the chairperson of the committee (or a nominated representative), will be available to meet with the candidate and their performance supervisor (at the candidate’s request) to discuss the committee’s decision.

Where relevant the chairperson of the relevant promotion committee should provide unsuccessful candidates with the contact details of an appropriate staff member nominated by the committee, to give the candidate additional support, mentoring and guidance on the development of a future application.

10. Rehearing

Candidates not recommended for promotion may lodge an application for a rehearing on the basis that there has been a procedural irregularity resulting in material disadvantage. Candidates should seek the advice of the chairperson of the committee, the dean, or both before lodging an application for a rehearing. Candidates who choose to lodge an appeal for a rehearing must do so within seven days of being notified of the decision.
For further information on the rehearing process refer to Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion Rehearing Process Levels B-E

11. Applications for promotion of staff not located in faculties

In the case of non faculty-based staff who are applying for promotion to senior lecturer or associate professor/ reader, applications must be submitted to the Committee for Academic Promotions and Appointments Levels B-D (CAPA) for consideration. CAPA is chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education).

In the case of non faculty-based staff who are applying for promotion to professor, applications must be submitted to the University Professorial Promotion Committee.

Applications from candidates not located in a faculty will still require reports to be completed by the associate deans of education and research. Candidates should contact the Senior Adviser, Policy and Academic Promotion in the Workforce Policy & Performance team in Monash HR prior to submitting their application to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) or Vice-Chancellor for assistance with this process.

12. Committee membership and roles

Table 1 provides the membership and quorum details of the relevant promotion committees.

Committee members must:

• be at the same level or higher than the level the candidate is applying for;
• carry out a fair and objective assessment of applications for promotion;
• not act as advocates for candidates or bring any additional information to the committee about the candidate;
• ensure discussion is restricted to matters relevant to the application and avoid making comments of a personal nature; and
• step down as committee members if they are applying for promotion in the same year.

In addition to this, deputy deans are advised not to participate as University committee members to ensure that they may be available to act as proxy for the dean at interview, if required.

12.1 Applications from Gippsland, Malaysia or South Africa

Where an application is received from a candidate who is located at the Gippsland, Malaysia or South Africa campuses, the dean is required to appoint a member from the relevant campus to the promotion committee. The member is a full voting member of the committee for the whole of the promotion round, and is appointed to ensure that any campus-related contextual issues are presented. The member will be required to attend all relevant faculty promotion committee meetings in person or via video conference.

The travel costs associated with a non Australian-based committee member attending faculty promotion committee meetings will be met jointly by the faculty and the campus where the candidate is currently located.

Where an application is received from a candidate who is located at the Gippsland, Malaysia or South Africa campuses, the head of school is required to inform the relevant pro vice-chancellor and the dean that a candidate from her or his campus is applying for promotion.

If an application is received from a candidate who is located at the Berwick or Peninsula campuses, the dean may wish to appoint a member from the relevant campus to the promotion committee, but is not obliged to do so.

12.2 Election and appointment of committee members

The members of faculty promotion committees will normally be elected or appointed for a three-year term, with one-third of the membership being subject to election or appointment each year. Members may be re-elected or reappointed. Members appointed or co-opted to a committee under the provisions related to representation of the Berwick, Gippsland, Malaysia, Peninsula or South Africa campuses are appointed for one-year at a time.

All eligible faculty staff members, including members located on the non Australian-based campuses are to be:

• included in the election process; and
• considered for appointment by the dean;

All faculty committees must have:

• a provision for alternate members; and
• as far as reasonably possible equal numbers of elected and appointed members.

Appointments should be made after the election of other members to assist the dean in meeting the gender balance requirements and to provide a spread of representation across academic disciplines and ranks.

Where there are insufficient nominations to fill an elected position, the position will be re-advertised if there is time, but otherwise the dean, in consultation with the committee, will fill the position with an appointee, who will be regarded as an elected member for the purposes of a quorum.

The proceedings of an inquorate or improperly constituted committee are void. In order not to disadvantage a candidate the following staff may use their discretion to either make the decision which the committee purported to make or require that a properly constituted committee consider the application:

• the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) (in the case of senior lecturer and associate professor faculty committees); and
• the University Council or its executive committee in the case of the University professorial promotion committee.

Responsibility

Vice-Chancellor: as the chairperson of the University Professorial Promotion Committee, the Vice-Chancellor is responsible for ensuring that the committee members carry out a fair, confidential and objective assessment of applications for promotion.

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education): responsible for educational activities and projects within the University including the oversight of the academic promotion process. As the chairperson of CAPA, the Deputy-Vice-Chancellor (Education) is responsible for ensuring that the committee members carry out a fair, confidential and objective assessment of applications for promotion.

Dean: as the chairperson of the Faculty Senior Lecturer Promotion Committee and the Faculty Associate Professor Promotion Committee, the dean is responsible for ensuring that committee members carry out a fair, confidential and objective assessment of applications for promotion. The dean is also required to provide a written report to the University Professorial Promotion Committee addressing each professorial candidate’s case for promotion.

Head of Unit and Performance Supervisor: the candidate’s performance supervisor and head of unit are required to each provide a report that forms part of the academic promotion application form. If there are no heads of unit within the faculty, a deputy dean or equivalent may be delegated the head of unit’s responsibilities for the academic promotion process.

Associate Deans: the associate deans responsible for teaching and research in a faculty are required to provide a report on the candidate’s case for promotion in the relevant area of academic activity. Where the associate dean is not a voting member on a promotion committee, he or she may be invited to attend the committee to speak to that report.

Candidate: is responsible for complying with the requirements of this procedure and providing timely and accurate information to the performance supervisor, head of unit, faculty promotion coordinator and promotion committees.

Related procedures

• Conduct and Compliance Procedure - Conflict of Interest
• Conduct and Compliance Procedure - Paid Outside Work
• Recruitment, Selection and Appointment Procedure - Recruitment of staff to an education-focused academic role
• Recruitment, Selection and Appointment Procedure - Same-level appointment of existing staff to an education-focused academic role
• Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion for Candidates Level B
• Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion for Candidates Levels C-E
• Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion Rehearing Process Levels B-E
• Staff Development Procedure - Performance Development Process: Academic Staff
• Staff Development Procedure-Research-Only Academic Staff - Advancement to a Higher Research Level

Related documents

• Academic performance standards
• Academic Promotion Guidelines For Committees: Education-Focused Candidate Applications Levels B-E
• Academic promotions website
• Case Study for Relevant Personal Circumstances
• Committee Checklist
• Guidelines for Decision-Makers on Assessing Achievement Relative to Opportunity
• Monash Quality Unit

Forms

• Academic Promotion Application Form: Levels C-E
• Performance Development Plan

Table 1 Membership of Faculty, Non Faculty and University Promotion Committees