Policies and Procedures for Reappointment of Tenure-Track Faculty

  1. General Policies and Procedures for Tenure Promotion

    1. The policies and procedures for reappointment are included, in Section 6-16 (University Policy and Procedures Regarding Faculty Reappointment) of the University Policy Register, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement
    2. Reappointment reviews are conducted annually in accordance with the reappointment and tenure document. Each academic year, reappointment guidelines are distributed by the Office of the Provost. 
    3. Probationary tenure-track faculty members are reviewed by the College's ad hoc RTP Committee and the Dean. (Refer to Section III.1 (Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion of Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty) of this Handbook.)  
    4. Reappointment File
      1. The candidate will develop the reappointment file over time as the basis for the tenure and initial promotion review file. Specific guidelines for the preparation of the file are found in the instructions issued each August by the office of the Provost. 
      2. A candidate for reappointment should consult with the Coordinator or Program Director of the corresponding Academic Program Area as he or she prepares the reappointment files. The Coordinator or Program Director of the corresponding Academic Program Area will provide feedback to the candidate regarding the completeness, organization, and accuracy of the file. The completed file should be submitted via FlashFolio to the Dean for certification of completeness.
      3. Late submission: Candidates who wish to submit their files after the deadline must request and obtain permission in writing from the Dean of the CAE.
    5. The RTP Committee is chaired by the CAE Dean. Each probationary faculty member is discussed by the RTP committee which then votes on the faculty member’s reappointment. The Reappointment committee votes on reappointment recommending: 1) reappointment (without reservations); 2) reappointment with reservations about progress toward tenure; or 3) against reappointment. 
    6. Probationary faculty members will be provided with a summary of the reappointment committee’s recommendation, copies of the RTP committee members’ signed evaluation forms (ballots), and the RTP committee's vote tally, as well as the recommendation of the Dean, according to the time schedule established in the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register. The results of the committee’s review will be provided in FlashFolio in accordance with the Tenured/Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register provisions. 
    7. An informal third-year progress-check review will be conducted immediately following a probationary candidate's third-year review and an RTP reappointment recommendation for reappointment to a fourth year. The RTP committee will use the candidate's third-year tenure file to review the candidate's record to identify overall progress and trends, and will provide the candidate with a summary report identifying strengths, weaknesses, and any areas of concern. The report will also provide prescriptive comments and a course of action to the candidate to serve as constructive feedback. The three-year progress check review is an informal review, and the review report may be included as part of the candidate's tenure evaluation file for subsequent reviews only if it is added to the file by the candidate. The review information may not be used for any purpose other than that granted by the candidate. 
    8. From time to time, personal and/or family circumstances may arise that require an untenured faculty member to need 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 referred to as “tolling” or “stopping the tenure clock.”  The University policy and procedures governing modification of the faculty probationary period is included in policy 6-13 and policy 6-15.2 of the University Policy Register. 
  2. Benchmarks and Criteria for Reappointment

    1. Reappointment of probationary faculty is contingent upon demonstration of satisfactory progress toward the requirements of tenure. The candidate must provide evidence of successful and improving teaching effectiveness, evidence of continued and consistent professional growth, and evidence of a sustained and improving record of scholarship, teaching, and service.  Moreover, the individual must have established and articulated short- and long-term plans for achieving these goals. Progress is to be judged relative to the number of years of service of the candidate and will be based upon the specific criteria for earning tenure.
    2. In the event that concerns about the candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the ad hoc committee and its Chairperson shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback. Specific concerns expressed by the ad hoc committee and/or Dean at this juncture of the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reviews. 
    3. The overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must include consideration of the individual’s professional behavior as recognized by the university community. A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession are expected of all who seek reappointment in the College.
    4. The hallmark of a successful candidate is a record of evidence of significant progress in making an impact upon the discourse of her/his discipline, a strong record of teaching, and a record of service commensurate with assignments. The performance criteria used in assessing the quality of scholarship, teaching, and service in the review of faculty seeking reappointment shall conform to the tenure guidelines in this document provided in Section III.1.4.2; Section III.1.4.5.1.a; and by Tables 3-1, 3-2A, 3-2B, 3-3A, 3-3B, 3-4A, and 3-4B of this Handbook.