Procedures for Appointments and Promotion.

1. Initiation of the appointment or promotion process is the responsibility of the department chair.¹ The department chair contacts the School’s Faculty Resources Office to initiate the process, identifying the title and rank to be considered. The department chair should also indicate if a secondary appointment or promotion at another BU school will be considered at the same time.
2. The Faculty Resources Office sends a brief summary document detailing the relevant criteria and process to the department chair and candidate. For all faculty actions on the unmodified track, the Faculty Resources Office also prepares a BUMC Log Sheet for when the packet is forwarded to the Provost for review. Though the summarized criteria and process will be consistent with those described here in these guidelines, the brief summary document provided by the Faculty Resources Office will be limited to only those details relevant to the proposed track/rank. If a secondary appointment or promotion at another BU school will be considered at the same time, the Faculty Resources Office coordinate the process with the other school.
3. The candidate submits an updated CV and personal statement to the department chair. Faculty are encouraged to review the A&P archive of materials from successful promotions, organized by rank and track.
4. The department chair, who may seek consultation with a senior member or members of the department faculty, develops a list of evaluators who will be asked to provide evaluation letters.
5. The department chair sends the initial documents (CV, personal statement, and list of evaluators) to the Faculty Resources Office. Evaluator letters are solicited and tracked by the Faculty Resources Office.
6. The Faculty Resources Office sends formal solicitation letters to evaluators on behalf of the Chair of the Appointments and Promotions Committee along with the candidate’s CV, personal statement, and a summary of relevant criteria. Once the evaluation letters are finalized and meet the standards outlined in Section 5, the Faculty Resources Office forwards the confidential evaluation letters to the department chair.
7. Concurrent with the process of soliciting evaluation letters, the department chair distributes the candidate’s CV and personal statement to all primary department faculty members whose rank is equivalent to or higher than the candidate’s proposed rank. Emeritus faculty are not asked to vote on faculty actions. The department chair invites this subgroup of faculty at equivalent or higher rank to a meeting to discuss the candidate’s qualifications without the candidate being present. The department chair oversees this meeting and conducts an anonymous vote either during the meeting or electronically. Votes are categorized as:  yes, no, abstain, or absent. Any faculty member who votes “no” or “abstain” must provide the department chair with a written explanation for their vote. Any “no” or “abstain” votes without a written explanation will be counted as a missing vote (i.e., absent). The department chair then communicates the results of the vote to the Faculty Resources Office in writing.
8. The department chair submits their recommendation letter to the Faculty Resources Office.
9. The Faculty Resources Office submits the final packet to the Appointments and Promotions Committee for review and discussion at the next meeting. At the meeting, the committee representative from the candidate’s department will present a summary of the candidate’s qualifications and submitted materials (e.g., letters of reference). If the department representative cannot attend, a substitute presents the candidate. The substitute may not be part of committee deliberations and is ineligible to vote. The Appointments and Promotions Committee will vote to approve, reject, or return the application with a request for further clarification or documentation. In the latter case, this will be communicated in writing to the department chair who will then communicate with the candidate.
10. Once approved by the Appointments and Promotions Committee, the Faculty Resources Office sends the packet to the SPH Dean for review.
11. Once approved by the SPH Dean, the next steps vary by title/rank. For appointments or promotions on the clinical, research, and practice tracks, as well as for unmodified appointments to the assistant professor level, the SPH Dean is the final step of the approval process. For unmodified appointments at the associate professor and professor ranks, the SPH Dean adds cover letter and sends packet to the BUMC Provost for review. Once approved by the BUMC Provost, the packet is forwarded to the President of the University for final review.
12. Upon final approval, the SPH Dean sends a letter of congratulations to the candidate, copying the department chair and the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Advancement. The department chair communicates the news to the department faculty and staff, after which the Dean updates the Governing Council and highlights at School Assembly.

¹The appointment or promotion process may also be initiated by the faculty member, as detailed in section 4.B.

1. Initiation of the appointment or promotion process is the responsibility of the department chair.² The department chair contacts the School’s Faculty Resources Office to initiate the process, identifying the title and rank to be considered. This section described the full review process; however, for promotion of secondary faculty, an optional expedited review process is described below in Section 4.A.4.
2. The Faculty Resources Office sends a summary of relevant criteria and process to the department chair and candidate. Though the summarized criteria and process will be consistent with those described in these guidelines, the brief summary document provided by the Faculty Resources Office will be limited to only those details relevant to the proposed track/rank.
3. The candidate submits an updated CV and personal statement to the department chair.
4. The department chair sends the CV and personal statement to the Faculty Resources Office.
5. When the appointment or promotion is sought concurrently with a primary appointment or promotion, the Faculty Resources Office will contact the department/school pursuing the primary appointment to request copies of evaluator letters. When possible, those letters should refer to the candidate’s accomplishments in public health.
   When the appointment or promotion is pursued independently from a primary appointment or promotion, or if the department or school seeking the primary appointment or promotion is not able to share evaluator letters, the department chair consults with senior members of the department faculty to develop a list of evaluators who will be asked to provide evaluation letters. The department chair sends this evaluator list to the Faculty Resources Office. Evaluator letters are solicited and tracked by the Faculty Resources Office. The Faculty Resources Office sends formal solicitation letters to evaluators on behalf of the Chair of Appointments and Promotions Committee along with the summary of relevant criteria and the candidate’s initial paperwork. Once the letters are finalized and meet the standards outlined in Section 5, the Faculty Resources Office forwards the confidential evaluation letters to the department chair.
6. Concurrent with the process of soliciting evaluator letters, the department chair distributes the candidate’s CV and personal statement to all primary department faculty members whose rank is equivalent to or higher than the candidate’s proposed rank. Emeritus faculty are not asked to vote on faculty actions. The department chair invites this subgroup of faculty at equivalent or higher rank to a meeting to discuss the candidate’s qualifications without the candidate being present. The department chair oversees this meeting and conducts an anonymous vote either during the meeting or electronically. Votes are categorized as yes, no, abstain, or absent. Any faculty member who votes “no” or “abstain” must provide the department chair with a written explanation for their vote. Any “no” or “abstain” votes without a written explanation will be counted as a missing vote (i.e., absent). The department chair then communicates the results of the vote to the Faculty Resources Office in writing.
7. The department chair submits their recommendation letter to the Faculty Resources Office.
8. The Faculty Resources Office submits the final packet to the Appointments and Promotions Committee for review and discussion at the next meeting. At the meeting, the committee representative from the candidate’s department will present a summary of the candidate’s qualifications and submitted materials (e.g., letters of reference). If the department representative cannot attend, a substitute presents the candidate. The substitute may not be part of committee deliberations and is ineligible to vote. The Appointments and Promotions Committee will vote to approve, reject, or return the application with a request for further clarification or documentation. In the latter case, this will be communicated in writing to the department chair who will then communicate with the candidate.
9. Once approved by the Appointments and Promotions Committee, the Faculty Resources Office sends packet to the SPH Dean for final review.
10. Upon final approval, the SPH Dean sends a letter of congratulations to the candidate, copying the department chair and the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Advancement. The department chair communicates the news to the department faculty and staff, after which the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Advancement communicates the news to the SPH community. The Dean will update the Governing Council about appointments and promotions on a regular basis.

²The appointment or promotion process may also be initiated by the faculty member, as detailed in section 4.B.

1. Initiation of the appointment or promotion process is the responsibility of the department chair. The department chair will contact the School’s Faculty Resources Office to initiate the process, identifying the title and rank to be considered. This section described the full review process; however, for promotion of adjunct faculty, an optional expedited review process is described below in Section 4.A.4.
2. The Faculty Resources Office sends summary of relevant criteria and process to the department chair and candidate. Though the summarized criteria and process will be consistent with those described here in these guidelines, the brief summary document provided by the Faculty Resources Office will be limited to only those details relevant to the proposed track/rank.
3. The candidate submits an updated CV and personal statement to the department chair.
4. The department chair, in close consultation with senior members of the department faculty, develops a list of evaluators who will be asked to provide letters.
5. The department chair sends the CV, personal statement, and list of evaluators to the Faculty Resources Office. Evaluator letters are solicited and tracked by the Faculty Resources Office.
6. The Faculty Resources Office sends formal solicitation letters to evaluators on behalf of the Chair of the Appointments and Promotions Committee along with the summary of relevant criteria and the candidate’s initial paperwork. Once the letters are finalized and meet the standards outlined in Section 5, the Faculty Resources Office forwards the confidential evaluation letters to the department chair.
7. Concurrent with the process of soliciting evaluator letters, the department chair distributes the candidate’s CV and personal statement to all primary department faculty members whose rank is equivalent to or higher than the candidate’s proposed rank. Emeritus faculty are not asked to vote on faculty actions. The department chair invites this subgroup of faculty at equivalent or higher rank to a meeting to discuss the candidate’s qualifications without the candidate being present. The department chair oversees this meeting and conducts an anonymous vote either during the meeting or electronically. Votes are categorized as yes, no, abstain, or absent. Any faculty member who votes “no” or “abstain” must provide the department chair with a written explanation for their vote. Any “no” or “abstain” votes without written explanation will be counted as a missing vote (i.e., absent). The department chair then communicates the results of the vote to the Faculty Resources Office in writing.
8. The department chair submits their recommendation letter to the Faculty Resources Office.
9. The Faculty Resources Office submits the final packet to the Appointments and Promotions Committee for review and discussion at the next meeting. At the meeting, the committee representative from the candidate’s department will present a summary of the candidate’s qualifications. If the department representative cannot attend, a substitute presents the candidate. The substitute may not be part of committee deliberations and is ineligible to vote. The Appointments and Promotions Committee will vote to approve, reject, or return the application with a request for further clarification or documentation. In the latter case, this will be communicated in writing to the department chair who will then communicate with the candidate.
10. Once approved by the Appointments and Promotions Committee, the Faculty Resources Office sends packet to the Dean for final review.
11. Upon final approval, SPH Dean sends a letter of congratulations to the candidate, copying the department chair and the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Advancement. The department chair communicates the news to the department, and the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Advancement communicates the news to the SPH community. The Dean will update the Governing Council about appointments and promotions on a regular basis.

1. Generally, the rank of a secondary or adjunct appointment at SPH will be aligned with the rank at the candidate’s appointment at their home institution. For secondary appointments at SPH, the candidate’s primary affiliation is at another School/College within BU. For adjunct appointments at SPH, the candidate’s primary affiliation is outside of BU. In cases where the department chair feels that the candidate clearly meets the SPH criteria for the proposed rank, then the department chair has the option to submit promotion materials via an expedited review process. This expedited review process is available for the promotion of secondary and adjunct faculty, but not for the appointment of new secondary and adjunct faculty (which should follow the full review procedures described above).
2. The candidate submits an updated CV to the department chair.
3. The department chair submits their recommendation letter and the candidate’s CV to the Faculty Resources Office.
4. The Faculty Resources Office submits the final packet to the Appointments and Promotions Committee for review and discussion at the next meeting. The committee will vote to approve the promotion or return the application to the department chair with a request to resubmit via the full review process.
5. Once approved by the Appointments and Promotions Committee, the Faculty Resources Office sends packet to the SPH Dean for final review.
6. Upon final approval, the SPH Dean sends a letter of congratulations to the candidate, copying the department chair and the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Advancement. The department chair communicates the news to the department faculty and staff, after which the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Advancement communicates the news to the SPH community. The Dean will update the Governing Council about appointments and promotions on a regular basis.

1. Initiation of emeritus status is the responsibility of the department chair. The department chair will contact the School’s Faculty Resources Office to initiate the process, identifying the title and rank to be considered. Emeritus faculty retain the academic rank held at the time of retirement, modified by the incorporation of the Emeritus or Emerita designation. If applicable, this title includes the modifiers Clinical, Research, or of the Practice; however, honorific titles, including named professorships, are not incorporated into the Emeritus designation. Emeritus status is not awarded posthumously.
2. The Faculty Resources Office sends summary of relevant criteria and process to the department chair and candidate. Though the summarized criteria and process will be consistent with those described here in these guidelines, the brief summary document provided by the Faculty Resources Office will be limited to only those details relevant to the proposed track/rank.
3. The candidate submits an updated CV to the department chair.
4. The department chair distributes the candidate’s CV to all primary department faculty members (all ranks, all tracks). The department chair invites the faculty to a meeting to discuss the candidate’s qualifications without the candidate being present. The department chair oversees this meeting and conducts an anonymous vote either during the meeting or electronically. Votes are categorized as:  yes, no, abstain, or absent. Any faculty member who votes “no” or “abstain” must provide the department chair with a written explanation for their vote. The department chair then communicates the results of the vote to the Faculty Resources Office in writing.
5. The department chair submits their recommendation letter to the Faculty Resources Office.
6. The Faculty Resources Office submits the final packet to the Appointments and Promotions Committee for review and discussion at the next meeting. At the meeting, the committee representative from the candidate’s department will present a summary of the candidate’s qualifications. If the department representative cannot attend, a substitute presents the candidate. The substitute may not be part of committee deliberations and is ineligible to vote. The Appointments and Promotions Committee will vote to approve, reject, or return the application with a request for further clarification or documentation. In the latter case, this will be communicated in writing to the department chair who will then communicate with the candidate.
7. Once approved by the Appointments and Promotions Committee, the Faculty Resources Office sends packet to the SPH Dean for final review.
8. Upon final approval, SPH Dean sends a letter of congratulations to the candidate, copying the department chair and the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Advancement. The department chair communicates the news to the department, and the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Advancement communicates the news to the SPH community. The Dean will update the Governing Council about appointments and promotions on a regular basis.

It may be appropriate for faculty to change their appointments from one track to another based on their circumstances, accomplishments and activities. Changes may occur from any track to any other track. Initiation of the process to switch tracks is the responsibility of the department chair. The department chair will contact the School’s Faculty Resources Office via email to initiate the process, identifying the title and rank to be considered.

The relevant criteria for the new track and title will apply to all changes in the appointment track. Different procedures will apply depending on the specific type of change, as follows:

1. Lateral Changes
   Lateral changes are those involving shifts from one track to another at the comparable rank, for example from assistant professor in one track to assistant professor in another track.
   Lateral appointment changes into the unmodified track will be handled as new appointments to that track, following the procedure described in Section 4.A.1.
   Appointment changes from the unmodified track to any other track and appointment changes between any modified tracks will be handled as changes in title and will require only a department chair’s recommendation letter.
2. Promotion Changes
   Promotion changes are those that involve shifts from one track to another at a higher rank, for example from assistant professor in one track to associate professor in another track.
   All promotion changes will be handled as promotions within the new track and will require the same process and documentation as any promotion in that track.

The candidate being reviewed for appointment or promotion has the right to appeal a negative recommendation of the Department or A&P Committee to the SPH Dean, of the SPH Dean to the Medical Campus Provost, or of the Medical Campus Provost to the President, indicating the grounds of their dissatisfaction with negative recommendations. When considering emeritus status, the decision of the Dean shall be final.

While the department chair is typically responsible for initiating and ushering the appointment or appointment process, faculty may initiate the process for promotion or to switch tracks when the department chair does not support the action. In these cases, faculty should first contact the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Advancement to discuss the process.

As per the University Faculty Handbook, a faculty member whose promotion has been denied may not submit a promotion dossier for consideration to the first level of review again until a minimum of 2 years has passed since the final denial decision. In exceptional circumstances, (i) in the case of a faculty member with an unmodified title, the Dean may seek the approval of the Provost to waive the 2-year period; or (ii) in the case of a faculty member with a modified title, the Chair may seek the approval of the Dean to waive the 2-year period.