When your institution grants or denies tenure and/or promotion, does the candidate see the documents generated, and are they given a reason for the decision?
At one of my former institutions, for instance, you had to be good in research and teaching and at least adequate in service. They told you ahead of time how “good” and “adequate” were defined and then at the time of the decision, how you were considered to meet, exceed, or fall short of these standards.
In some places reasons are not given and it is said that this is so as not to furnish candidates with ammunition they could use in lawsuits. I am told that universities nationwide are moving to this model.
I think this custom suggests the existence of unclear policies and arbitrary decisions, and an effort to cover one’s tracks.
What do you think? What does your institution do?
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
We see some of the documents but not all of them. Expectations are spelled out pretty clearly and communicated well, I think. I serve on a college-level committee that deals with personnel issues above the department level, so I have seen a lot of governance documents and a lot of tenure/promotion cases. Some departments are clearer than others, but the college and university encourage moving in the direction of greater transparency and clarity. This is a big factor in why I (mostly) like workng where I do. We have a strong tradition of shared governance, and by and large it works well. Not perfectly. But, thinking about some borderline cases I have known, I think “playing by the book” has worked out well. Is X or Y a great colleague who excels in multiple areas? No, but X and Y are decent colleagues who get the job done. Was Z so stellar in one area that we ought to have overlooked deficiencies in another? Some argued so, but I think that would have set a dangerous precedent, and would not have been good for the program.
Very interesting and once again, this proves that my institution is aspiring downward.