Reappointment | Chemistry Faculty Handbook | Kent State University

Reappointment

The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty reappointment (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-16).  Each academic year, reappointment guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus Faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost.  Probationary tenure-track Faculty members are reviewed by the Department’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee (See, Section I.B of this Handbook).  The FAC, in consultation with the Chair, normally assigns one or more Faculty members each academic year to visit the classes of each probationary Faculty member and generally evaluate the probationary Faculty member’s teaching performance.  A written report of the evaluation is submitted to the Chair for placement in the Faculty member’s reappointment file.  Probationary Faculty will create or update their reappointment file and submit the file to the Chair who will make these materials available to the Ad Hoc RTP Committee.  Each probationary Faculty member is discussed by the committee which then votes on the Faculty member’s annual reappointment.  The Chair independently assesses the accomplishments of each probationary Faculty member and forwards her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation to the Dean.  The Chair informs each probationary Faculty member of the committee's recommendation and provides her/him with a copy of her/his recommendation to the Dean.  Probationary Faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.  For Faculty members whose appointment is in the Regional Campuses, recommendations on reappointment from the Chair are forwarded to the Dean and the appropriate Regional Campus Dean.

For probationary Faculty, reappointment is contingent upon demonstration of adequate progress toward the requirements for tenure.  Moreover, the Faculty member must have established and articulated short- and long-term plans for achieving these goals.  For Faculty members following the traditional tenure clock for Assistant Professors, the review after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period at Kent State University is particularly critical. Upon completion of the third year of the probationary period, the Ad Hoc RTP Committee should consider the record of the candidate’s achievements to date.  This record should be considered a predictor of future success.  The hallmark of a successful candidate is a record of compelling evidence.  This record can be demonstrated through review of the candidate’s grant proposals, peer reviewed publications, as well as an assessment of scholarly impact (as measured by journal impact factors, citation indexes, and other measures of journal quality).  Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and/or the Chair during this stage of the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reappointment reviews.  Finally, the overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment should consider the Faculty member's professional integrity and behavior as recognized by the University community.  Ethical lapses have their greatest impact on students, but may also affect Departmental staff and Faculty colleagues as well as the larger research community.  Professional behavior and integrity shall be evaluated in the context of University Policy regarding the Faculty code of professional ethics (see University Policy Register 3342-6-17), the KSU Code of Conduct (see University Policy Register 3342-6-01), and giving consideration to any Faculty sanctions (see CBA Article VIII) that may have been applied.

In the event that concerns about a candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Chair shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback.  If such concerns arise during a review that occurs after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period, the Chair, in consultation with the FAC, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the Department’s tenure and promotion expectations; however, the candidate is solely responsible for her/his success in implementing this plan.  A candidate who fails to demonstrate likely success in the tenure process will be notified promptly that she/he will not be reappointed.

Personal and/or family circumstances may arise that require an untenured Faculty member to request that her/his probationary period be extended.  Upon request, a Faculty member may be granted an extension of the probationary period which has been traditionally called “tolling” or “stopping the tenure clock.”  The University policy and procedures governing modification of the faculty probationary period is included in the University Policy Register. (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-13)