The job of the reconsideration request committee is to determine whether there are any reasons why a negative tenure outcome should be reconsidered by the Promotion and Tenure committee. If they do agree there should be a reconsideration, then the case goes back to the Promotion and Tenure committee who can then do whatever they want; again with no real requirements or accountability for their actions.
If, as in my case, a candidate receives only positive reviews before being denied tenure, a positive outcome from the reconsideration request committee is the only chance a candidate has to respond to concerns raised about his or her case. If the reconsideration request is denied, as in my case, then the candidate is never given a chance to respond to concerns raised about his or her case. Their only recourse at that point is to shut up and leave quietly, or perhaps alternatively to create a web-site or something to try to communicate their distress and confusion to the world.
Officially, reconsideration can only be granted if there is evidence that the candidate's academic freedom was violated, that the candidate was discriminated against, or that the institution's procedures were not properly followed during the tenure process. The last category is the "catch-all" that would be the focus of most requests for reconsideration. The reconsideration committee is not allowed to award a reconsideration merely because they feel the Promotion and Tenure committee used bad judgment (even if they feel that this is true). They are also apparently not allowed to find fault with any of the existing procedures. Rather, they must cast any objections in terms of irregularities in the existing procedures.
In practice, it ought to be possible to cast most perceived errors in judgment as procedural errors (for example, labeling them as using inconsistent, inappropriate, or discriminatory evaluation criteria or methods). Thus, one should expect to receive an award of reconsideration if the reconsideration request committee in fact believes (and cares) that the candidate's case was considered badly. Like with the P&T committee, there is no accountability for the actions of the reconsideration committee. This ought to free them to "do the right thing" if they feel a candidate has been wronged. Unfortunately, it also frees them to "defend the system" if they do not agree or do not care that the candidate has been judged badly.
Because of the lack of accountability, there is really no telling what a particular reconsideration committee will decide. Unless there were clear procedural violations (sometimes there are), getting a positive outcome is a grab-bag that depends mostly on how strictly the particular people assigned to the candidate's committee choose to interpret what counts as "procedure" and what counts as "judgment". There is again no room for consistency or accountability in this committee's proceedings. They can vote any way they want to, and there is no requirement that they do a good or careful job.
Whether you get a "friendly" reconsideration request committee depends largely on the luck of the draw. The tenure candidate is allowed to pick one representative (my representative was David Suchoff), but the rest is prescribed by the rules: the three people who most recently served on the Promotion and Tenure committee (in my case Scheck, de Sherbinin, and Bluhm), and the candidate's division chair (in my case Cole).
My committee voted 3-2 against awarding me a reconsideration, because the majority decided to adopt an extremely narrow view of what counts as procedure and what counts as judgment. In addition, they decided not to give me any benefit of the doubt. In much of my case there is plenty of evidence that something odd happened, but not necessarily any obvious proof (proof would be extremely difficult to find given the secrecy of all the proceedings). But in spite of the evidence, the majority appeared to want "proof", and so decided not to award me reconsideration. It seems clear to me that in such a case the college would want to err on the side of giving the candidate a chance to present additional information to the Promotion and Tenure committee, but there have been lots of things that are clear to me that do not seem to be clear to the other people involved in this process.
As with the Promotion and Tenure voting, I cannot be sure who voted which way, but I do again have some educated guesses.
I have tried to get some questions answered about the decision-making behind the rejection, but have mostly met with the types of stonewalling and secrecy that have turned out to be the hallmark of Colby's tenure proceedings. I am thankful that one member of the reconsideration committee was willing to discuss some of my concerns with me. Others have been more guarded in their discussions with me. One member of the committee responded briefly to one of my emails, but subseqently appears to have "thought better" of carrying on any discussion with me. Another committee member first ignored my email, but answered my second request only to say that they were refusing to discuss things with me (once again invoking the "confidentiality" of the proceedings). This apparently included answering questions about Colby's policies and procedures in general, as opposed to questions specifically about my case. One member of this committee has ignored me completely. Once again, personal relationships bite the dust.
Randolph M. Jones
People involved in my tenure case
How (not) to get tenure at Colby College