• Section 1 - Purpose
• Scope
• Section 2 - Glossary
• Section 3 - Policy
• Section 4 - Procedure
• Responsibilities
• Eligibility to apply for promotion
• Relationship between academic promotion process and disciplinary process
• Required qualifications or equivalent
• Promotion numbers not normally restricted
• Annual promotion round
• Out-of-round promotion decisions
• Support for applicants, supervisors, mentors and decision-makers
• Support outside of promotion rounds
• Support during promotion rounds
• Discussion with supervisor
• Promotion application process
• Promotion application and attachments
• Evidence of achievements
• Evidence of qualification equivalence
• Supervisor’s report
• Privacy and use of information
• Evaluators
• Promotion decisions to Level B
• Promotion committees
• Pool of faculty staff
• Promotion Committee membership and quorum
• Professorial Promotion Committee membership and quorum
• First Nations cultural adjustment to committee membership
• Advisory staff to promotion committees
• Attendance of Executive Deans, Pro Vice-Chancellors and supervisors
• Committee servicing
• Conflicts of interest
• Preliminary assessment of applications
• Discussion with applicants
• Evidence for assessing promotion applications
• Promotion committees’ decisions
• Promotion by more than one academic level
• Notification and effective date of promotion decisions
• Feedback to applicants
• Appeals
• Section 5 - Guidelines

Section 1 - Purpose

(1) This procedure supports the Academic Promotion Policy by stating:

1. the process for promotion applications and promotion decisions,
2. requirements for confidentiality and use of information to ensure promotion applicants’ privacy,
3. the detailed expectations of Charles Sturt University (the University) for promotion decision-making, and
4. the membership and process requirements for promotion committees, including how conflicts of interest will be managed.

Scope

(2) This procedure has the same scope as the Academic Promotion Policy.

Section 2 - Glossary

(3) Some of the terms used in this procedure are defined in the glossary section of the Academic Promotion Policy. For the purposes of this procedure, the following additional terms have the definitions stated:

1. Academic Promotion team - means the staff of the Division of People and Culture who provide administrative support to the academic promotion process: the team’s email address is academicpromotions@csu.edu.au.
2. Activity – when used in relation to an academic staff member’s academic work, means any of the University's four areas of activity in academic staff roles: teaching, research, professional engagement and academic citizenship. A position may involve only some of these activities. Activity used in this sense is equivalent to ‘component’ in the three components of academic work defined in section 30.6 of the Charles Sturt University Enterprise Agreement, except that the third component (‘contributions to academic administration and management, leadership both internal and external to the University, professionally related engagement within the professions/disciplines and the community’) is broken into two activities: academic citizenship and professional engagement.
3. Business days – means days when the University is open; excludes weekends and other days when the University or the relevant campus of the University is closed.
4. Career mentor – means an academic staff member who advises another academic staff member on how to advance their career and build their case for academic promotion.
5. Conflict of interest – has the meaning stated in the glossary section of the Conflict of Interest Procedure.
6. EDRS – means the University's Employee Development and Review Scheme and the online system that supports this scheme.
7. Faculty academic leadership team – means the Executive Dean, Deputy Dean, Heads of School, Associate Deans and Sub Deans of a faculty.
8. Fraction – means the proportion of a full-time position for which a staff member is employed by the University.
9. Level of qualification – means the Australian Qualifications Framework level of qualification required for appointment or promotion to an academic level of position. The Academic Staff Qualifications and Expectations Procedure states these levels of qualification.
10. Promotion mentor – means an academic staff member who advises an applicant for academic promotion, during a promotion round, on preparing and drafting their academic promotion application so it makes the best case for promotion. 
11. Research output – has the meaning stated in the glossary section of the Research Policy.
12. Supervisor – means a staff member’s line manager with whom they complete the EDRS process each year.

Section 3 - Policy

(4) This procedure supports the Academic Promotion Policy and should be read alongside it.

Section 4 - Procedure

Responsibilities

(5) The following positions or roles in the academic promotion process have the responsibilities listed:

1. Applicants will:
   1. read and follow instructions and guidelines for promotion applications,
   2. discuss their intention to apply for promotion with their supervisor, and
   3. suggest to their supervisor evaluators who will assess their achievements as objectively as possible.
2. Supervisors will:
   1. if they have not performed this role in an academic promotion process before, attend the information session for supervisors at the start of the annual promotion round,
   2. advise staff who report to them whether, in the supervisor’s view, the staff member will have a reasonable case for promotion,
   3. consult their own supervisor to gather their advice on whether the staff member will have a reasonable case for promotion,
   4. advise applicants how to strengthen their case for promotion and prepare their promotion application,
   5. nominate evaluators after consulting the applicant and, as needed, consulting other senior staff with expertise in the applicant’s discipline,
   6. complete the supervisor’s report on the promotion application, and
   7. provide or participate in providing feedback to the applicant on the outcome of their application.
3. Promotion mentors will:
   1. if they have not performed this role in an academic promotion process before, attend the information session for promotion mentors at the start of the annual promotion round, and
   2. advise applicants in preparing their promotion application and review drafts of the application.
4. Promotion decision-makers will:
   1. if they have not performed this role in an academic promotion process before, attend the information session for promotion decision-makers at the start of the annual promotion round,
   2. if they are a member of a promotion committee, declare any conflict of interest they have in relation to a promotion application, and
   3. if they are a member of a promotion committee, base their contribution to committee decisions on the written material and as far as possible avoid being influenced by any personal knowledge of applicants as colleagues.
5. Evaluators will:
   1. evaluate the application on the basis of the written material, as far as possible avoiding being influenced by any personal knowledge of the applicant, and
   2. in their evaluation report, disclose any previous or current relationship or collaboration with the applicant.
6. Heads of School and leaders of academic staff in faculties or divisions will identify their staff who seem to have a case for academic promotion and encourage them to apply.
7. The Academic Promotion team will manage academic promotion rounds including:
   1. schedule and announce the annual academic promotion round,
   2. receive applicants written notification of intent to apply for academic promotion,
   3. provide information to all participants in the academic promotion process,
   4. update the promotion mentors database for applicants to access at the commencement of the round,
   5. hold information sessions and/or provide online resources for promotion applicants, supervisors, promotion mentors and promotion decision-makers,
   6. receive academic promotion applications, supervisors’ nominations of evaluators and information from supervisors about any new achievements of applicants after they submitted their applications,
   7. contact evaluators and coordinate the distribution and collation of application evaluator reports,
   8. schedule promotion committee meetings and notify participants and applicants of times when they need to attend or be available to be interviewed,
   9. attend promotion committees to advise the committee on the academic promotion process and the Academic Promotion Policy, its supporting procedures and guidelines,
   10. maintain records of academic promotion applications and outcomes,
   11. notify applicants of the outcome of their promotion application,
   12. receive appeals against promotion committees’ decisions and forward these to the Vice-Chancellor for decision, and
   13. on request, advise anyone involved in the academic promotion process about the process.

Eligibility to apply for promotion

(6) To be eligible to apply for promotion, a staff member applying for promotion must:

1. be in a continuing or fixed-term contract position, but
2. where an applicant is in a fixed-term contract position and is promoted, this will not change the term of the contract.

(7) Academic staff in the following categories or situations may not be eligible to apply for promotion:

1. a staff member who is on probation may only apply for promotion where they have been confirmed as having satisfactorily completed the requirements of probation prior to the deadline to submit an application for promotion,
2. an academic staff member whose employment is externally funded can only apply for promotion if the funding agreement provides for an increase to support the promotion,
3. a staff member whose appointment is made jointly with an external body may only apply for promotion if the terms of the joint appointment agreement allow this.
4. An applicant will not be eligible to apply for promotion if they:
   1. are currently on a performance improvement plan, or
   2. have received a written disciplinary sanction from the Vice-Chancellor since 31 July in the previous year.
5. A promotion decision-maker may decide that an applicant is ineligible for promotion on the basis of their supervisor’s report that the applicant’s performance at their current level in their position is unsatisfactory.
   1. The applicant will, however, have an opportunity to reply to their supervisor’s report in their submitted application and the promotion decision-maker may nevertheless decide to recommend or approve promotion on the basis of the application.

Relationship between academic promotion process and disciplinary process

(8) After the deadline for academic promotion applicants to submit their application, the Academic Promotion team will provide the list of applicants to the Workplace Relations team in the Division of People and Culture, who will advise the Academic Promotion team whether any applicant:

1. has received a written disciplinary sanction from the Vice-Chancellor since 31 July in the previous year, in which case they are ineligible for promotion and their promotion application will be cancelled, or
2. is currently subject to a disciplinary process or a performance improvement plan.

(9) An applicant for academic promotion who is subject to a disciplinary process during the annual academic promotion round may be considered for promotion without prejudice, pending the outcome of the disciplinary process:

1. however, where the promotion committee recommends promotion of an applicant who is subject to a disciplinary process, the final decision-maker will delay their decision on the promotion until the disciplinary process is complete,
2. if the Vice-Chancellor finds that the applicant has committed misconduct, the Vice-Chancellor will decide whether the applicant’s performance at their current academic level is unsatisfactory, in which case the applicant is ineligible for promotion
3. if the applicant is applying for promotion to lecturer (level B) or senior lecturer (level C), the Vice-Chancellor will advise the relevant Executive Dean whether the applicant is eligible for promotion. Where the applicant is deemed ineligible the Executive Dean must reject their promotion application.

Required qualifications or equivalent

(10) To be considered for promotion to an academic level, the staff member must:

1. have the level of qualification required for that academic level, or
2. prior to deadline for submission of promotion applications, have been assessed by the University as having a combination of qualification(s), achievements and/or experience equivalent to the level of qualification required for that academic level. 

(11) The Academic Staff Qualifications and Expectations Procedure outlines qualification requirements for each academic level and states the process for promotion applicants to request a qualification equivalence assessment.

Promotion numbers not normally restricted

(12) There will not normally be a limit on numbers of promotions. However, where in exceptional circumstances, the Vice-Chancellor decides to limit the number of promotions to an academic level, the Academic Promotion team will state the limit in the information they provide to staff about the annual promotion round.

Annual promotion round

(13) There will be an annual academic promotion application round:

1. An applicant may submit one application per promotion round, but may be considered for promotion by more than one academic level.
2. An applicant who was unsuccessful in a promotion application in the previous year may only apply for promotion if:
   1. the promotion committee recommended in feedback to the applicant its willingness to consider a further application in the following year, or
   2. the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) has subsequently deemed there is sufficient case to support reapplication in the following year.
3. The round will start in February with a call for applicants to express their intention to apply:
   1. applicants must have informed the Academic Promotion team of their intention to apply, by the specified deadline, to proceed with an application in that promotion round,
   2. there is some flexibility to accept a late expression of intention to apply where the applicant demonstrates that they were prevented from meeting the deadline by circumstances outside their control. The Academic Promotions team may require the staff member to provide evidence of the circumstances, and
   3. promotion applications submitted after the application deadline specified by the Academic Promotion team will not be accepted.
4. An applicant may withdraw their application at any time until the relevant promotion committee meets.

Out-of-round promotion decisions

(14) An academic staff member may be considered for promotion outside of the annual promotion round where the Vice-Chancellor or a Deputy Vice-Chancellor asks that an out-of-round promotion application be considered due to special circumstances, for example the staff member has been offered a position at another institution.

(15) The application and decision-making process for an out-of-round promotion will be the same as for a promotion application in an annual promotion round, except that an out-of-round meeting of the relevant promotion committee will be held.

Support for applicants, supervisors, mentors and decision-makers

Support outside of promotion rounds

(16) Heads of School (or their faculty or divisional equivalents) will identify staff who appear to meet criteria for promotion to a higher academic level, and encourage them to apply for promotion:

1. to increase inclusion of female staff and staff in equity categories at higher academic levels, staff in part-time positions must be included in the scope of this support.

Support during promotion rounds

(17) At the start of each annual academic promotion round the Academic Promotion team will offer:

1. applicants the opportunity to have a promotion mentor to advise them in preparing their promotion application and will allocate a promotion mentor to applicants upon request:
   1. the promotion mentor will be an academic staff member at or above the academic level to which the staff member is seeking promotion,
   2. if possible, the promotion mentor will be someone who has applied for academic promotion at the University and has been successful within the past five years, and
   3. where an applicant already has a career mentor, they may prefer to have the career mentor be their promotion mentor.
2. The Academic Promotion team will convene information sessions and provide self-service resources to help:
   1. promotion applicants understand the promotion process,
   2. promotion mentors, supervisors and promotion decision-makers understand their role in the academic promotion process, and
   3. promotion committee members avoid unconscious bias in their decision-making.

(18) The applicant’s supervisor, and the supervisor’s supervisor, will advise the applicant on the quality of their application and whether they consider that it makes a compelling case for promotion.

Discussion with supervisor

(19) Soon after they notify the Academic Promotion team of their intention to apply for promotion, each applicant will discuss their intention to apply with their supervisor, to:

1. ascertain whether the supervisor considers their academic achievements support a strong case for promotion,
2. where relevant, discuss whether qualification(s), achievements and experience require assessment for equivalence to the level of qualification required for the academic level of position to which they are seeking promotion, and
3. suggest and discuss potential application evaluators.

Promotion application process

Promotion application and attachments

(20) Applicants for promotion will apply, using the University's promotion application form, by the deadline specified by the Academic Promotion team.

1. Applicants may claim achievements at the academic level to which they are seeking promotion:
   1. under any of the four areas of workload activity, but
   2. each achievement should appear only under one area of activity, and not be repeated under another area of activity.
   3. Applicants are only expected to claim achievements under activities that are required of their position, but can if they wish also claim achievements under activities that are not required of their position.
2. For applicants who claim research achievements, the Office of Research Services and Graduate Studies will provide the Academic Promotion team with a University report of the applicant’s research outputs, research funding history and HDR supervision.
3. Applicants who claim teaching achievements or HDR supervision must attach to their application, as evidence of these, at a minimum, a recent (within the past two years of teaching) report of a summative peer review of their teaching or HDR supervision, completed by a trained peer reviewer using the University's peer review of teaching process.
4. The Academic Promotion team will add a report of students’ subject experience survey ratings of all aspects of the applicant’s teaching in these subjects for the previous five years:
   1. applicants who have not undertaken teaching practice do not have this report attached to their application.
5. All applicants will have a report of positions held at the University, including their work function and employment fraction extracted from the University's Human Resources Information System attached to their application.
6. Where appropriate, written advice from the University confirming the applicant’s qualifications, skills and experience have been assessed as equivalent to the qualification for the academic level sought.

Evidence of achievements

(21) The Academic Promotion Guidelines and supporting tables give details on the types of evidence applicants may use to demonstrate their achievements.

(22) Applicants will provide evidence of achievements claimed in their application to their supervisor for verification:

1. the supervisor will record in their section of the promotion application whether they have seen evidence of the applicant’s claimed achievements, and
2. to reduce promotion decision-makers’ workload of reading applications, with the exception of evidence outlined in Clause (20) subclauses b-d, the evidence itself will not go to the decision-makers.

(23) Where an applicant has a significant achievement after they have submitted their promotion application, which strengthens their case for promotion, the supervisor will inform the Academic Promotion team in writing of the achievement for distribution to the relevant promotion committee.

Evidence of qualification equivalence

(24) Where an applicant does not have the level of qualification required for the academic level to which they are seeking promotion, they must include with their application University confirmation that they have been assessed as having equivalent qualification(s), skills and experience.

Supervisor’s report

(25) The applicant will provide their promotion application to their supervisor by the published deadline.

(26) The applicant’s supervisor will complete the academic promotion supervisor’s report and return the report to the applicant by the published deadline.

1. The supervisor, in their report, will:
   1. confirm that they have sighted the evidence of achievements claimed by the applicant in their application (or, for evidence that they haven’t sighted or could not confirm, indicate this),
   2. indicate whether the applicant’s claims of academic citizenship achievements are accurate,
   3. state whether the applicant’s performance in their position, at their current academic level, has been satisfactory,
   4. state their view on whether the applicant is performing consistently with expectations of the academic level to which they are seeking promotion, and
   5. where the supervisor states that they do not consider the applicant is performing consistently with expectations of the academic performance at the current level, they must confirm that they have discussed this view with their own supervisor and state whether their supervisor agrees with it.

(27) Where the applicant has two part-time roles, with two different supervisors:

1. they will provide their promotion application to both supervisors,
2. both supervisors will complete a supervisor’s report and return it to the applicant, and
3. the applicant will attach both supervisors’ reports to their application, before submitting it to the Academic Promotion team.

(28) Where the applicant is affiliated to a research institute but the Research Institute Director is not their supervisor, the applicant will ask the Research Institute Director to complete a director’s report (a short statement evaluating the applicant’s performance and level of achievement in their work for the research institute) and will attach this to their application.

(29) The applicant may comment on a supervisor’s report (and, where relevant, on the statement by a Research Institute Director to which the applicant is affiliated), and will submit the application, with this report and (where relevant) statement attached, to the Academic Promotion team by the deadline specified.

Privacy and use of information

(30) A staff member’s promotion application is likely to contain confidential personal information, and its outcome may be sensitive. For this reason, it will be handled in accordance with the Privacy Management Plan.

(31) In addition to the requirements of the Privacy Management Plan, the following specific privacy and use of information requirements apply to a promotion application:

1. It will only be used for the purposes of evaluating and deciding the promotion application.
2. It will be provided to the applicant’s supervisor, and to evaluators, so that they can advise promotion decision-makers whether the application merits promotion:
   1. the applicant’s supervisor may, in turn, share the application with their own supervisor, for the purpose of advising the applicant on the strength of the application.
3. Supervisors, evaluators, promotion mentors, promotion decision-makers and professional staff who support the academic promotions process will:
   1. keep promotion applications in confidence, and
   2. not disclose anything about a promotion application or an unsuccessful outcome of a promotion application to anyone else, other than for the purposes in subclause (31)a.
4. The Academic Promotion team will announce academic promotions to the University community.
5. A promotion committee’s feedback on a promotion application may be provided to the staff who will provide the feedback to the applicant in accordance with clause (74), who must use it for that purpose only, and not disclose it to anyone else.
6. The Division of People and Culture, the Vice-Chancellor and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) may provide reports with data on promotion applications and outcomes to Academic Senate, the Executive Leadership Team and the Academic Portfolio Leadership Team, provided that applicants are de-identified.

Evaluators

(32) Requirements for evaluators for applications for promotion to the different academic levels are set out in the table below

(33) Evaluators are considered external to the University if they have not been a staff member or adjunct staff member of the University within the five years before the year of the promotion application.

(34) When a promotion applicant advises their supervisor that they intend to apply for promotion, they should:

1. suggest evaluators for their application, as follows:
   1. for an application for promotion to lecturer (level B), three evaluators, or
   2. for an application for promotion to senior lecturer (level C), associate professor (level D) or professor (level E), five evaluators,
2. give their reasons for suggesting them,
3. declare the extent of professional and/or personal relationship they have with each suggested evaluator,
4. discuss their suggestions of evaluators with their supervisor, and
5. identify up to four people whom they do not want to be chosen as evaluators of their application, indicating their reasons for this.

(35) The supervisor will nominate the required number of evaluators to the Academic Promotion team, as follows:

1. For an application for promotion to lecturer (level B), three evaluators.
2. For an application for promotion to senior lecturer (level C), associate professor (level D) or professor (level E), five evaluators.
3. These will be evaluators suggested by the applicant or other evaluators whom the supervisor has selected to ensure, as far as possible, objective evaluation of the applicant’s achievements.
4. A supervisor may nominate an additional evaluator (as relevant, a fourth or sixth evaluator) who is a senior member of the relevant industry or profession, or an Elder or other leading member of a First Nations Australian community.
5. Where the applicant has identified people they do not want to evaluate their application, those people will not be evaluators.
6. In selecting evaluators to nominate, the supervisor may consult members of the applicant’s academic discipline or a closely related discipline.
7. The identity of the evaluators that the supervisor nominates, and of any evaluators that the promotion committee adds, will not be revealed to the applicant:
   1. Evaluators’ reports, or sections of evaluators’ reports, may, however, be disclosed to the applicant during the applicant feedback process, where the evaluator has authorised this disclosure.

(36) A person is considered to have a conflict of interest as an evaluator, which will rule their evaluation out from being considered, if:

1. they are the applicant’s partner or a member of their immediate family or extended family,
2. they are the applicant’s promotion mentor for the current promotion round, or otherwise reviewed the applicant’s current application for promotion and gave advice on it,
3. they are a member of a promotion committee in the year of application, an Executive Dean or Deputy Vice-Chancellor, or
4. they have business or financial interests in common with the applicant.

(37) A person is considered to have a conflict of interest as an evaluator, which is likely to rule their evaluation out from being considered, if they have within the past five years:

1. been the applicant’s career mentor or in some other mentoring relationship with the applicant (as mentor or mentored),
2. co-published or collaborated with the applicant (for example, in a joint project),
3. supervised or been supervised by the applicant,
4. supervised the applicant as a master or doctoral degree candidate, or
5. examined the applicant’s master or doctoral thesis.

(38) Other conflicts of interest on the part of evaluators not listed in clauses (36) or (37) will be considered by promotion decision-makers as they arise and may also rule an evaluation out from being considered. Conflicts of interest requiring assessment and decision will be referred to the relevant promotion committee Chair.

(39) The Academic Promotion team will contact the nominated evaluators to:

1. arrange for them to complete and return evaluators’ reports using a template for this purpose,
2. provide them with electronic copies of:
   1. the application and attached reports,
   2. the Academic Promotion Guidelines and their supporting tables of achievements appropriate to each academic level, and
   3. the statement of the minimum activities expected of the academic level to which the applicant is seeking promotion, from the Academic Staff Qualifications and Expectations Procedure, and
3. instruct them to delete the application and set of information after they have returned the evaluator’s report.

(40) Evaluators in their report on the application will be asked to indicate the nature of their professional and/or personal relationship with the applicant, if any.

Promotion decisions to Level B

(41) The Academic Promotion Policy authorises the Executive Dean or Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) of a promotion applicant’s faculty or research institute to approve an application for promotion from associate lecturer (level A) to lecturer (level B), without the application having been considered by the Promotion Committee.

1. Promotion decision-makers will apply the Academic Promotion Guidelines in assessing promotion applications and deciding whether (as relevant) to recommend or approve promotion.
2. Where an Executive Dean or the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) is unwilling to approve the promotion of an applicant from associate lecturer to lecturer, or has a conflict of interest in deciding the promotion application, they will advise the Academic Promotion team who will forward the application to the Promotion Committee:
   1. this will ensure that a promotion application is not declined without having been considered by a committee constituted to ensure equity in decision-making, and
   2. in considering an application, the committee will consider it only on its merits, giving no weight to the fact that the Executive Dean or Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) may not have seen fit to approve the promotion.

Promotion committees

Pool of faculty staff

(42) At the start of each year, each Executive Dean will nominate four academic staff of the faculty to be available to serve on the promotion committees, as follows:

1. To serve on the Promotion Committee: two academic staff members at senior lecturer level (level C) or above.
2. To serve on the Professorial Promotion Committee: two academic staff members at professor level (level E):
   1. two of whom must have achieved at least the minimum research performance for their academic level stated in the Research Productivity Index Guide, and
   2. at least one of whom must have expertise in the scholarship of learning and teaching.
3. In selecting nominees for each committee pool, the Executive Dean will:
   1. exclude members of the faculty academic leadership team,
   2. nominate a balance of genders, and
   3. select nominees from different schools within the faculty and as far as possible from different campuses, provided the campuses have enough staff at the requisite academic levels to share the academic promotion committee work.
4. Not all of these nominees will have to be members of a committee in the year.
5. Each staff member will be nominated for the pool for two successive years, to ensure some continuity of committee membership. Accordingly, Executive Deans will change half of their nominations in each year.
6. If a staff member nominated for the faculty pool leaves the University before the relevant promotion committee has completed its work for the year, the relevant Executive Dean may nominate a replacement who meets the requirements for the nomination stated above.
7. Where a nominated faculty staff member is selected for the committee and has to read applications and attend meetings, the time needed for this will be recognised in the Employee Development Review System process.

(43) The Academic Promotion team will publish a list of the Executive Deans’ nominees for the pool of promotion committee members:

1. where an applicant for promotion considers that someone on the list would have a conflict of interest in assessing their application for promotion, they should provide the details of the conflict of interest to the Academic Promotion team, who will forward these to the chair of the promotion committee, so they can assess and manage the conflict of interest.

Promotion Committee membership and quorum

(44) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) decides the membership of the Promotion Committee, ensuring, as far as is practicable, that the committee has at least 40% female members and at least 40% male members.

(45) The voting members of the Promotion Committee will be the following:

1. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or their nominee (chair):
   1. the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) may nominate more than one senior academic leader such as Executive Deans to share the workload of chairing the committee and reading applications.
2. Three academic staff members from the pool of academic staff nominated by the Executive Dean to serve on promotion committees, ensuring a minimum of one from each faculty selected to ensure that the committee has both research and teaching expertise:
   1. where not enough faculty nominees are available to fill the faculty places on the committee or ensure a gender balance, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) may add another faculty academic staff member who is at the requisite academic level.
3. The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) or their nominee.
4. The Pro Vice-Chancellor Research (Performance and Governance)or their nominee.
5. All voting members must be at senior lecturer level (level C) or above.

(46) A quorum of the committee is four voting members.

(47) The promotion committee membership may require adjustment to consider an application from a First Nation’s applicant. Where adjustment has been requested by the applicant committee membership will be modified in accordance with clause (52) of this procedure.

Professorial Promotion Committee membership and quorum

(48) The Vice-Chancellor decides the membership of the Professorial Promotion Committee, ensuring as far as practicable that the committee has at least 40% female members and at least 40% male members.

(49) The voting members of the Professorial Promotion Committee will be the following:

1. Normally, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or, in their absence, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) (chair).
2. Three academic staff members at level E from the pool of academic staff nominated by the Executive Deans to serve on promotion committees, ensuring a minimum of one from each faculty and selected to ensure that the committee has both research and teaching expertise:
   1. where not enough faculty nominees are available to fill the faculty places on the committee or ensure a gender balance, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) may add another faculty academic staff member who is at the requisite academic level.
3. The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) or their nominee.
4. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) or their nominee.
5. Up to three professors from one or more other universities, at least one of whom must have expertise in the scholarship of learning and teaching.

(50) A quorum of the committee will be five voting members.

(51) The promotion committee membership may require adjustment to consider an application from a First Nation’s applicant. Where adjustment has been requested by the applicant committee membership will be modified in accordance with clause (52) of this procedure.

First Nations cultural adjustment to committee membership

(52) Where an applicant identifies as a First Nations person, they may ask that the committee membership be adjusted to ensure the committee has a thorough understanding of First Nation’s focused achievements. In this case, for that application only:

1. the committee will be chaired by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (First Nations Strategy) or a professor who is a First Nations person, and the chair will be a voting member of the committee,
2. the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or their nominee may remain as a voting member,
3. an academic staff member of the University or an external institution who is a First Nations person, and who is at or above the academic level to which the applicant is seeking promotion, will be added to the committee as a voting member,
4. if practicable, an Elder of a First Nations community in one of the regions serviced by the University will attend the meeting as an adviser without voting rights,
5. where, however, a First Nations academic staff member of Charles Sturt University or an external institution and/or Elder are not available to attend the meeting, despite the chair’s best efforts, the committee may proceed to make a decision without them, and
6. the quorum with this different membership will be five voting members.

Advisory staff to promotion committees

(53) The following staff will advise the committee on the matters stated, but will not otherwise contribute to discussions or vote:

1. The Executive Dean of an applicant’s faculty or Pro Vice-Chancellor of an applicant’s office, institute, or division to advise on the application.
2. The head of an applicant’s school (or faculty office or divisional equivalent), to explain the discipline context and advise on claimed research, teaching or professional engagement achievements where required.
3. A senior Division of People and Culture staff member to advise on the academic promotion process and relevant policies and procedures.
4. A member of the Division of People and Culture Equity and Diversity team, to advise on equity aspects of applications and unconscious bias.
5. Where any of these advisers are not available to attend, the committee may proceed to make decisions without them.

Attendance of Executive Deans, Pro Vice-Chancellors and supervisors

(54) Executive Deans, Pro Vice-Chancellors who are responsible for academic staff, and applicants’ supervisors will attend some of the meeting, as per the meeting schedule:

1. to provide advice to the committee as outlined in clause (53)a, and
2. to ensure they are well informed to provide feedback to applicants.

Committee servicing

(55) The Academic Promotion team will schedule promotion committee meetings, invite members and advisers and provide the application documentation and prepare recommendations for approval.

(56) A staff member from the office of the committee chair will be the promotion committee secretary, and will:

1. take notes of decisions and the feedback that the committee agrees should be given to each applicant, and
2. within five working days after the committee completes its promotion recommendation for the academic promotion round, send the reviewed feedback to the Academic Promotion team and to each staff member responsible for discussing feedback with the applicant, in accordance with clause (72).

Conflicts of interest

(57) Where a committee member has a conflict of interest in relation to an application, they will immediately inform the Academic Promotion team. The Academic Promotion team will advise the chair of the committee, who will handle the conflict of interest in accordance with the University’s Conflict of Interest Procedure.

1. Committee members are expected to declare conflicts of interest as soon as the Academic Promotion team informs the committee of the applicants under consideration.
2. If time permits, managing a conflict of interest may involve a replacement committee member for the consideration of that application, or else merely excluding the member from the meeting while the committee considers the application.

Preliminary assessment of applications

(58) Committee members with voting rights will be asked to complete their assessment of applications three business days before the committee meeting using the assessment template provided:

1. where an applicant exceeds the word/page limits of a particular field or section within the application form, to be fair to other applicants and encourage concision, committee members will not consider anything stated beyond the word limit.

Discussion with applicants

(59) A promotion committee may contact a promotion applicant for a short video conference or phone discussion where the committee needs to clarify an aspect of the application.

(60) Applicants should ensure they are available for a video conference or at least a phone discussion at the times advised to them by the Academic Promotion team.

(61) If the applicant cannot be contacted or is unable to participate by video conference or phone, the promotion committee may make the promotion decision without a discussion with the applicant.

Evidence for assessing promotion applications

(62) An application for promotion will be assessed based on the following:

1. The applicant’s written promotion application.
2. The applicant’s supervisor report(s) and any responding applicant comments to the reports(s):
   1. the supervisor’s report will indicate whether they have seen evidence of achievements claimed by the applicant in the application, other than the reports of (as relevant), the applicant’s Research Institute Director, subject experience survey ratings, research outputs and funding, and peer review of teaching. The committee will not have to read the evidence other than these reports.
3. Where the applicant is affiliated to a research institute, the Research Institute Director’s report on their research performance for the institute.
4. Where the applicant’s position includes teaching/or they have engaged in teaching practice:
   1. a report of subject experience survey ratings for previously identified subjects (for previous 5 years),
   2. a recent (within the past two years of teaching) University summative peer review report of their teaching practice.
5. A University research report of the applicant’s research outputs and any research funding (excluding teaching focused staff and staff who had zero research allocation during the promotion period being claimed).
6. A report of the applicant's position history at the University including work function and employment fraction.
7. Evaluator reports.
8. A statement explaining the discipline context of the applicant’s claimed achievements.
9. Where the committee has had a video conference or phone discussion with the applicant, the committee will consider that discussion in making its decision.
10. Where the applicant has previously applied for the promotion unsuccessfully, the record of the feedback that the committee provided for the applicant at that time.

(63) Committee members and advisers will, after the meeting, return any material handed out for the meeting to the Academic Promotion team and delete the promotion applications and their attachments from their computers and devices.

(64) The Academic Promotions team will retain and dispose of the applications and attachments in accordance with the Records Management Policy.

Promotion committees’ decisions

(65) Promotion decision-makers will apply the Academic Promotion Guidelines in assessing promotion applications and deciding whether (as relevant) to recommend or approve promotion.

(66) The committee will discuss each application and then voting members will vote on whether to recommend the applicant for promotion:

1. for a committee to recommend promotion, 65% of the voting committee members present (rounded to the nearest whole number, or rounded up where 65% results in a 0.5) must have voted in favour,
2. after the vote, the committee will discuss and agree on the written feedback to be provided to the applicant, and
3. where the decision is not to promote an applicant, the committee will decide whether:
   1. it is willing to consider another application from that applicant in the following year, or
   2. the applicant must wait at least until the second following year to apply again.

Promotion by more than one academic level

(67) Where an applicant has applied for promotion by two academic levels, a promotion committee may recommend such a promotion, if the committee has authority to consider promotion to both levels:

1. where the Promotion Committee supports an application from a lecturer (level B) for promotion to associate professor (level D), the committee will:
   1. recommend the promotion to senior lecturer to the relevant Executive Dean, and
   2. forward the application to the Professorial Promotion Committee to consider recommendation the applicant for promotion to associate professor, to the Vice-Chancellor.

Notification and effective date of promotion decisions

(68) The Academic Promotion team will:

1. within two business days of receiving the relevant decision-makers’ determination on all promotion applications at the end of each promotion committee round, arrange for the Head of School (or their delegate) to phone the applicants to tell them the outcome of their application, and
2. within five business days of the same date, notify the applicant of the outcome in writing.

(69) An academic promotion will take effect:

1. for promotions resulting from the annual promotion round, from the first full pay period after 1 December each year (other than outcomes of appeal applications), or
2. for out-of-round promotions, from the first pay period after the Academic Promotion team notifies the applicant in writing that the promotion has been approved.

(70) From commencement of that pay period, the applicant will use the title appropriate to their new academic level.

Feedback to applicants

(71) A promotion committee secretary will record:

1. the written feedback that the committee agrees should be given to each applicant, and
2. where the decision is not to promote, whether the committee is willing to consider another application from the applicant in the following year’s promotion round.
3. The feedback will be on the applicant’s application and the set of information that accompanied it to the committee.
4. The feedback will:
   1. identify any gaps in the evidence the application provided to substantiate their claimed achievements,
   2. identify the strengths of the application and aspects in need of improvement, and
   3. if the applicant was unsuccessful, suggest achievements that would have strengthened the application, and indicate whether the committee is willing to consider another application from the applicant in the following year’s promotion round.

(72) The secretary will provide applicant feedback to the following staff, who will provide the written feedback to the applicant and discuss it with them.

(73) In all cases, the applicant’s supervisor will notify the Academic Promotion team when the feedback has been provided to the applicant.

(74) Where the application was unsuccessful, the Academic Promotion team will keep the feedback on file so it can be part of the set of information provided to promotion decision-makers if the applicant applies for the promotion again:

1. where an applicant has followed the suggestions in the feedback, this will be considered in assessing a subsequent promotion application but is not a guarantee of future promotion.

Appeals

(75) The Academic Promotion Policy states the grounds on which the Vice-Chancellor may consider a promotion applicant’s appeal against a decision not to promote them.

(76) For an appeal to be considered, the applicant must submit the appeal application to the Academic Promotion team (email address: academicpromotions@csu.edu.au) within 20 working days after the day the notification of the decision not to promote them was sent to them.

(77) The Vice-Chancellor may decline to consider an appeal that they consider does not meet the ground of appeal.

(78) Where the Vice-Chancellor upholds an appeal, they will either:

1. for an appeal against a decision by an Executive Dean, refer the appeal to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) to convene the Promotion Committee to consider the promotion application afresh, or
2. for an appeal against a decision the Vice-Chancellor has made, convene the committee to consider the promotion application afresh.
3. The committee that considers a promotion application afresh, as the outcome of an appeal, will be convened with a different chair and as far as practicable with different members from the membership of the committee that made the original decision.

(79) After the relevant promotion committee has considered the promotion application, the chair of the committee (where the Vice-Chancellor is not the chair) will advise the Vice-Chancellor of the committee’s decision and the reasons for it.

(80) The further decision of the promotion committee will be final: there will be no further appeal against or review of the decision within the University.

(81) The Vice-Chancellor will advise the applicant of the decision as soon as possible.

Section 5 - Guidelines

(82) The Academic Promotion Guidelines and their attachments:

1. provide advice on applying for promotion, and
2. set out the University’s framework and criteria for decision-making on an academic staff member’s promotion application.