Renewal of Appointment, Performance Reviews, and Promotion of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track (FTNTT) Faculty

  1. Overview and General Information

    1. The role of the College in matters of renewal of appointment, performance reviews, and promotion in rank is defined by policies stated in the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and in the annual Procedures and Policies Governing Review of Faculty. 
    2. The Dean’s office shall assign a full-time non-tenure track faculty member as a mentor to each full-time non-tenure track candidate upon their initial appointment. The mentor shall be responsible for providing guidance and advice to the candidate regarding renewal/reappointment and promotion policies and processes. The mentor will also provide advice to the candidate to assist in his/her teaching and professional development.
    3. Faculty are strongly encouraged to seek out institutional resources (e.g., workshops, seminars, conferences, etc.) that are periodically made available by the University to obtain further information regarding faculty professional development; file organization and construction; and, where applicable, research and grant opportunities. 
    4. During a candidate's review period, expectations are defined by the version of the College Handbook that was in place at the beginning of that review period. Candidates may alternatively elect to use the currently approved version as their benchmark for evaluation. In any case, candidates should clearly specify in their file which College Handbook version they are adhering to, and perhaps include copies of relevant pages in their documentation.
    5. Evaluation of full-time non-tenure track faculty shall focus on the role(s) for which they are employed. Typically, that role is primarily instruction, but a faculty member’s responsibilities may be directed in another area. If a faculty member is assigned time per workload statement allocation for a secondary function (e.g., research, service/citizenship, grant writing, curriculum development, etc.), then that function will be evaluated in proportion to which it was assigned as part of the aggregate assignment. The areas of criteria, the dimensions of those criteria, and the scales of measurement used for faculty evaluation will be used in the evaluation, where applicable, as described in this section of this Handbook. 
    6. For FTNTT faculty who are in a primarily instructional role, emphasis will be placed on the demonstrated quality of instruction and demonstrated maintenance of currency in the field. Currency may be demonstrated by participation in documented learning opportunities relevant to the teaching assignment, professional presentations and scholarship, maintenance of, or acquisition of relevant certifications and licenses, etc. 
  2. Policies and Procedures for FTNTT Renewal of Appointment

    The following information is supplemental to the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register, and is specific to the CAE.

     

    1. Appointments for full-time non-tenure track (FTNTT) faculty are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement and are made annually. Renewal of appointment is contingent upon programmatic need, satisfactory performance of previously assigned responsibilities, and budgeted resources to support the position.
    2. Full Performance Reviews
      The Full Performance Reviews of FTNTT faculty members who are in their third or sixth year of consecutive employment are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each academic year, guidelines for the Full Performance Reviews for FTNTT faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. The Full Performance Review concludes with the College’s level of review and determination. The period of performance to be reviewed is the three full academic years of consecutive appointments including that portion of the third appointment which is subject to evaluation and assessment at the time of the review. Each FTNTT candidate who must complete a Full Performance Review will submit a dossier as described in the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement. The file should contain at least an updated curriculum vitae, self-evaluation of performance, syllabi for courses taught during the review period, SSI summaries for courses taught during the review period, and supporting documents as necessary for other accomplishments such as citizenship, if it exists. SSIs are only evaluated relative to the faculty member’s performance regarding assessing information from the SSIs and incorporating changes if necessary.
    3. “Simplified” Performance Review 
      FTNTT faculty members who are in their ninth year, 12th year, and 15th year of consecutive employment must successfully complete a “simplified” performance review as described in the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each academic year, guidelines for the “simplified” performance reviews for FTNTT faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. The “simplified” performance review concludes with the College’s level of review and determination. The period of performance to be reviewed is the three full academic years of consecutive appointments including that portion of the third appointment which is subject to evaluation and assessment at the time of the review. FTNTT faculty who must complete a “simplified” performance review will submit documentation as described in the Collective Bargaining Agreement in effect at the beginning of the review period unless the faculty member chooses to use the current CBA. SSIs are only evaluated relative to the faculty member’s performance regarding assessing information from the SSIs and incorporating changes if necessary.
    4. Administrative Performance Review
      After completion of the Simplified Review required at the 15th year, and each 3-year renewal period thereafter, FTNTT faculty will undergo an Administrative Performance Review in place of the Simplified or Full reviews. The CAE Dean will schedule a meeting with the FTNTT Faculty member who will submit a current Vitae and 1-3 page narrative to the Dean, prior to the meeting, describing his/her professional activities in the last three years. After the meeting and/or consultation with the CAE Dean, the Dean will provide the FTNTT Faculty member with a written summary of the outcome and conclusions of the meeting. The written summary will provide either a notice of the expectation of renewal of appointment and the conditions as of the renewal per the requirements of the CBA, or it will provide a notice of non-renewal and the associated circumstances/conditions per the requirements of the CBA.
    5. Performance Review Criteria and Policies
      1. Full-time non-tenure track (FTNTT) faculty are reviewed by a committee comprised of FTNTTs from the CAE. The committee will be selected by the Dean from volunteers. The Dean can assign FTNTTs to the committee if there are no volunteers. Every attempt will be made to have at least five members on the committee but in no case less than three members. Evaluation will be on the specific criteria outlined in their letter of appointment and annual load letter, including consideration of the track (Instructional, Clinical, Practitioner or Research) to which the FTNTT faculty member is assigned. 
      2. An inherent part of the review process is to provide feedback to the FTNTT faculty member based on clear and consistent performance criteria. Renewals of appointment and salaries for FTNTT faculty will be tied to performance within the parameters established in the FTNTT Collective Bargaining Agreement. Rubrics for the assessment of teaching performance, recruitment and/or retention, and research if on a research track, etc. will be developed and shared with the candidate, and used to evaluate performance. Evaluation of Student Assessment of Instruction is only with respect to how the FTNTT addressed the information from the SSIs and any changes made. Faculty are encouraged to demonstrate this in the narrative of their renewal file. FTNTT faculty under simplified reviews, i.e. years 9 and continuing, are encouraged to submit peer reviews to document performance but do so at their own discretion.
      3. The College’s FTNTT Review committee will discuss each FTNTT faculty member who is under review. The FTNTT faculty member’s dossier will serve to document the faculty member’s performance. Performance reviews should ensue with a holistic approach which reflects the highest standard of professional integrity and ethics. 
      4. The College's FTNTT Review committee will forward via FlashFolio its recommendation on renewal of appointment to the College Dean who will make an independent assessment of the candidate’s performance. The review process should be as transparent as possible with the candidate receiving information from the Dean as to the committee deliberations and the recommendation made to the Dean according to the time schedule established in the Full-Time Non-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 FTNTT Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register provisions. 
      5. A statement of performance will be issued by the Dean for those faculty members in their first and second year of appointment, followed by a meeting with the Dean which will occur within sufficient time for any noted deficiencies to be corrected prior to the review. The intent is to prepare the faculty member for a successful first full performance review. Nonrenewal of an appointment which results from programmatic or fiscal needs should be distinguished from nonrenewal of appointment which results from performance issues when communicated to the candidate. FTNTT faculty members whose appointments will not be renewed must be notified by the timelines established in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement whether lack of satisfaction with performance or the absence of anticipated continuing programmatic need or budgeted resources to support the position is the reason. 
  3. Policies and Procedures for FTNTT Promotion

    1. General Policies and Procedures for Promotion

      1. Beginning in academic year 2011-12, FTNTT faculty members who have completed at least six consecutive years of service and at least two successful Full Performance Reviews may apply for promotion at the time of their second Full Performance Review or any year thereafter. The criteria, guidelines and procedures for full-time non-tenure track (FTNTT) promotions are included in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. As required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, evidence of significant accomplishments in performance and professional development is required. Accomplishments and/or contributions in University Citizenship, when they exist, will contribute to the FTNTT faculty member’s overall record of accomplishment however absence of University Citizenship will not detract from the promotion evaluation. The College’s ad hoc Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Promotion Advisory Board (NPAB) shall be composed as outlined in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement. If the CAE does not have sufficient numbers of faculty as outlined in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement and faculty from other Colleges may serve on NPAB. The CAE Dean will coordinate these NPAB actions with the Office of Faculty Affairs in the Provost’s Office. 
      2. Full-time non-tenure track faculty may self-nominate for promotion in accordance with the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement and the University Policy Register.
    2. Benchmarks and Criteria for Promotion

      1. If there has been no previous promotion in the candidate's history, then the review period extends back to whatever time period since the candidate's initial appointment that the candidate chooses. 
      2. Promotion is recognition based on a candidate’s accomplishments completed during the review period chosen by the candidate, and promotion decisions are based on performance and professional development pertinent to a candidate’s assigned FTNTT track. Evidence of significant accomplishments in performance and professional development is required for promotion. Accomplishments and/or contributions in University Citizenship, when they exist, will contribute to the FTNTT faculty member’s overall record of accomplishment however absence of University Citizenship will not detract from a promotion consideration. 
      3. Many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, are considered in recommending a faculty member for advancement in academic rank. The overall evaluation of a candidate for promotion shall include consideration of the faculty member's professional behavior as recognized by the University community. A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching and/or other assigned duties is expected of all who seek promotion.
      4. Promotion considerations are based upon the criteria for evaluation, described in the subsections below. The NPAB committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance when making recommendations on promotion: 1) Performance (track-related); and, 2) Professional Development. The tables and text below are designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those candidates who are being evaluated for promotion. These guidelines and criteria should be used for developmental assistance and projection of future success in achieving promotion.
      5. The Section III Tables 3-5A, 3-5B, 3-6A, 3-6B, 3-7A, 3-7B, 3-8A, and 3-8B, shown below, provide guidelines for the assessment of a faculty member’s performance and a rating scale for use in the evaluation of FTNTT candidates. The Faculty Performance Standards/Criteria for Promotion are shown in Tables 3-5A and 3-5B.
      1. Table 3-5A. Faculty Performance Criteria Table for Promotion - NTT Lecturer Ranks

         

         

        Minimum Required Performance

        Category

        Faculty

        Performance

        Professional Development

        University Citizenship

        Promotion from Lecturer to Associate Lecturer

        NTT-I

        Very Good

        Very Good

        As related to the assigned track when service is submitted for consideration per related addendum in the current CBA

        NTT-P

        Very Good

        Very Good

        As Above

        Promotion from Associate Lecturer to Senior Lecturer

        NTT-I

        Excellent

        Excellent

        As Above

        NTT-P

        Excellent

        Excellent

        As Above

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

        NTT-I: Instructional Track: faculty whose primary role is to deliver instruction 

        NTT-P: Practitioner Track: faculty whose primary role is to deliver instruction or service in professional programs and applied areas

      2. Table 3-5B. Faculty Performance Criteria Table for Promotion – NTT Professor Ranks

         

         

        Minimum Required Performance

        Category

        Faculty

        Performance

        Professional Development

        University Citizenship

        Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor

        NTT-I

        Very Good

        Very Good

        As related to the assigned track when service is submitted for consideration per related addendum in the current CBA

        NTT-P

        Very Good

        Very Good

        As Above

        Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor

        NTT-I

        Excellent

        Excellent

        As Above

        NTT-P

        Excellent

        Excellent

        As Above

         

         

         

         

         

         

        NTT-I: Instructional Track: faculty whose primary role is to deliver instruction 

        NTT-P: Practitioner Track: faculty whose primary role is to deliver instruction or service in professional programs and applied areas

  4. Performance Assessment for FTNTT Promotion

    1. Performance - Practitioner Track

      1. The primary determination of performance for faculty in the practitioner track will be evidence of success relative to their assigned duties. Documented facilitation of student learning, meeting completion objectives, managerial and supervisory tasks, facilitation of unit functions specific to the area of practice, contributions to the operation of the academic unit specific to assigned duties, teaching evaluations if they exist, and overall effectiveness in carrying out their practice. 
    2. Performance - Instructional Track

      1. Performance criteria for the evaluation of the teaching/instructional track are listed in Tables 3-6A and 3-6B. Course revision is defined as making a substantial modification to a course such as developing several new laboratories, addition of distance learning options, formally proposing to change course content/format, etc. 
      2. Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Academic Program Area, College or University administrators shall be considered. Peer reviews, when required or as submitted, and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for renewal of appointment and promotion. The faculty performance regarding information from SSIs is only relative to what actions the faculty member took regarding ratings and comments about assigned courses taught. Copies of representative syllabi must be available for review. Other documentation related to graduate student, undergraduate student, and post-doctoral student training, if submitted, by the candidate for renewal of appointment and promotion will be considered as well. Evaluation of performance of instructional track faculty shall include all assigned duties, including non-teaching. If submitted, activities considered university citizenship and professional activities will be considered as part of the faculty member’s performance.
      1. Table 3-6A. Instructional Track Evaluation Components for Assessment of Performance for Promotion

        Teaching

        Definition

        Excellent

        Exemplary level of accomplishment. Innovative teacher. Provides leadership in instructional development.

        Very Good

        Exceptional level of accomplishment.

        Innovative teacher.

        Good

        Substantial level of accomplishment.

        Meets obligations well.

        Fair

        Few accomplishments; Below minimum performance. Substandard teacher.

        Poor

        No accomplishments.

        Substandard, ineffective teacher.

      2. Table 3-6B. Instructional Track Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

        CAE Guidelines

        Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

        Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty

         

        Teaching

         

        Note: Reviewers will evaluate based upon the documented degree of excellence achieved within any given category for those activities that are related to their discipline. The candidate is expected to provide a clear explanation of the nature and importance of accomplishments, initiatives taken, leadership roles, etc. Reviewers will be looking for specifics. For those cases where activities might be considered "exemplary," it is the candidate's responsibility to document and make that case to the review committee.

         

        The criteria listed below are not all inclusive and the committee may consider items submitted by the faculty member that are not listed, but are considered relevant. Reviewers should note that unless it is part of an FTNTT’s track or workload, scholarship, research and grant writing activities are not required.

        Viewed as exemplary performance:

        • Consistent good performance relative to assessing information from SSIs
        • University or External Teaching Award or Award Nominee
        • Consistently exceptional Peer Reviews based on actual classroom observation
        • Accomplishing dramatic improvements based on prior review feedback
        • Recipient of University or External Teaching Award
        • Documented application of emerging subjects/materials into courses and curricula
        • Documented and effective innovation in pedagogy and/or use of instructional technology
        • Authorship of new course or major revision of existing course
        • Initiation and leadership in creation of a new degree
        • Initiation and pursuit of successful grant application resulting in lab development, equipment, software, or other instructional materials.
        • Participation in program Advisory Board (documentation provided for the degree of participation, accomplishments, etc.) 
        • Maintaining generally favorable/good SSIs etc. while teaching an exceptional variety of preparations and/or new courses requiring a significant learning curve, creation of significant new course materials etc. (These might include, for example, having to learn/teach a new programming language, development of extraordinary online learning tutorials, etc.)
        • Developing research projects for students
        • Instructional creativity
        • Actively participating in curricular revisions
        • Extensive lab development
        • Thesis direction

         

        Viewed favorably:

        • Thoughtful statement of teaching philosophy & self-assessment
        • Mid-level performance regarding assessment of SSIs and incorporation of student comments etc.
        • Favorable Peer Reviews, if required or submitted, based on actual classroom observation.
        • Evidence of responding to unfavorable SSIs or Peer Review; evidence of course improvement over time
        • Nomination for, or recipient of, Campus Teaching Award; Nomination for University or External Teaching Award
        • Documented and effective innovation in pedagogy and/or use of instructional technology
        • Initiation and leadership in the redesign or restructuring of a degree or concentration
        • Initiation and leadership in the creation of a new certificate
        • Lab development or management
        • Serving on theses, honors, or dissertation committees
        • Advising a student organization related to one's discipline (e.g., a student chapter of a professional organization).
        • Participation in program Advisory Board (document degree of participation, accomplishments, etc.)
        • Authorship in pedagogical research or scholarship
           

        Viewed unfavorably and/or not considered:

        • No statement of teaching philosophy and self-assessment
        • Notably poor performance on SSIs and little or no effort in assessing information from SSIs
        • Unimpressive reviews by peers
        • No evidence of responding to unfavorable SSIs or Peer Review; no evidence of course improvement
        • Lack of representative syllabi and other supporting documentation
        • Poorly explained and/or appropriately documented citations in any teaching activities; No evidence (or poorly documented evidence) of curricular activity or leadership
        • Poorly documented citations of: innovation in pedagogy and/or use of instructional technology; lab development or management; participation in program Advisory Board; role as advisor to a student organization that's related to one's discipline; course/certification/degree authorship; etc.
        • No evidence of exemplary performance in any form of teaching scholarship if required by assigned track or workload assignment

         

  5. Assessment of Professional Development for FTNTT Promotion

    1. Professional Development is an essential and critical component of University activity. Professional Development includes those activities that contribute to the individual’s ability to excel in teaching and contribute to the advancement of their discipline. The candidate must provide the college's review committee with ample descriptive evidence of his/her Professional Development activity. 
    2. Faculty members are encouraged to hold membership in professional societies, attend and participate in institutes and seminars, organize institutes, seminars, and workshops, insofar as such activities enhance their professional competency and advance their discipline. 
    3. Professional Development – Instructional Track
      Professional development for instructional track faculty are activities to keep the member current in his/her field including conferences, seminars, symposiums, work-shops, flight training, consulting, obtaining additional certifications or degrees, professional presentations or any activity that advances the faculty member’s teaching and/or knowledge. 
    4. Professional Development – Practitioner Track
      Professional development for faculty in the practitioner track will be evaluated based on maintenance of certificates and licensures necessary for the practice, obtaining additional certificates or licensures, maintaining or obtaining any special professional designations, membership and participation in professional organizations, attendance and/or presentations at professional conferences or organizations, facilitating public outreach, developing or organizing specialized learning opportunities such as camps and lecture series (for collegiate, secondary or elementary) students and developing, revising and/or implementing new operational workplace procedures enhancing performance or safety in the area of practice relative to assigned duties. 
    5. Standards for the Evaluation of Professional Development
      1. Indicators on which the assessment of the quality of Professional Development activity is based are provided in Tables 3-7A and 3-7B. Table 3-7B provides a list of the Professional Development activities recognized by the CAE that should be used as criteria for evaluating a candidate's performance in Professional Development for promotion. These activities are largely those that result in increased content knowledge and skills associated with their subject matter; Improved pedagogical knowledge and skills; increased knowledge and use of Instructional technology, media, and materials to improve classroom management, communication, and instruction.
      2. Indicators of the quality of a faculty member’s Professional Development record include the quality and quantity of Professional Development activities. All FTNTT-Instructional Track faculty members in the College are expected to produce records of Professional Development that reflect their disciplinary focus. The attributes of an individual faculty member’s Professional Development activity will vary across disciplines.
      3. To achieve “excellent” in the category of scholarship at the time a faculty member stands for promotion, she/he should have established a record which demonstrates an impact upon his/her discipline. Unless stated in the candidate’s annual workload statement, formal publications, grant writing, and presentations are not required for promotion within FTNTT ranks. Reviewers will evaluate promotion according to criteria listed in the related addendum of the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement. Within this context, each faculty member who will seek promotion is obligated to provide evidence supporting his/her record. In turn, the members of the College's NPAB and the Dean shall evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the College's expectations for a successful promotion decision.
    1. Table 3-7B. Criteria for Evaluation of Performance in Professional Development

      CAE Guidelines

      Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

      Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty

       

      Professional Development

       

      Note: Reviewers will evaluate based upon the documented degree of excellence achieved within any given category for those activities that are related to their discipline. The candidate is expected to provide a clear explanation of the nature and importance of accomplishments, initiatives taken, leadership roles, etc. Reviewers will be looking for specifics.

       

      Documentation should demonstrate the degree of application to Professional Development such as impact on the profession, professional growth, etc. Reviewers will note that authorship/publication of books and articles, and/or grant writing activities, unless required by an FTNTT’s track or workload, are not required. When related activities as listed below exist, they are supplementary and absence of them does not disqualify an FTNTT from exemplary or favorable performance.

       

      The criteria listed below are not all inclusive and the committee may consider items submitted by the faculty member that are not listed, but are considered relevant.

       

      Viewed as exemplary performance:

      • Upgrade or acquisition of additional professional credentials (Including advanced degrees, certifications, licensures, etc.)
      • Significant Upgrade or new academic credentials related to the discipline
      • Funded proposals (RFPs)
      • Professional experience as necessary to maintain currency in the faculty member’s field.
      • Study and/or training (formal or informal) of emerging subjects/materials which can be incorporated into courses and curriculum. Integration of emerging subjects/materials into courses and curricula.
      • Authorship of technical/professional book
      • Authorship of technical/professional refereed article in professional publication, including professionally affiliated e-journal
      • Authorship of technical/professional refereed article in conference proceedings
      • Editorship of a refereed journal or reviewer of refereed journal articles and/or textbook chapters
      • Awards (outstanding scholar award, membership by invitation in honor societies)
      • Awarding of patents through the university
      • Peer-reviewed papers in the peer-reviewed journals in discipline
      • Peer-reviewed papers in the proceedings of conferences in discipline
      • Extramural/externally funded research or development grants; research or development seed grants except for Research Track
      • Presentations at regional, national/international conferences
      • Research-related service to federal/state organizations
      • Awards, recognition from national and international scientific societies
      • Participating with industry related government bodies as a presenter, collaborator or consultant

       

      Viewed favorably:

      • Maintenance of professional credentials (Including advanced degrees, certifications, licensures, etc., as evidence of maintaining currency in technical/professional obligations)
      • Authorship of chapter(s) in technical/professional books
      • Authorship of technical/professional non-refereed articles (technical reports and contractor reports)
      • Authorship in other categories, e.g., book reviews, professional newsletters, professional websites, and other professional publications
      • Presentations in professional meetings (oral or poster) in own discipline
      • Technical presentations at other departments or institutions
      • Contributions to professional newsletters, websites, and other professional publications.
      • Unfunded or pending proposals (RFPs)
      • Professional experience (e.g. consulting, paid or unpaid), w/documentation vis-à-vis resultant professional growth
      • Professional development (attending courses, conferences, or workshops; internship; chairing sessions)
      • Awarding of patents outside one's discipline
      • Textbook reviewer or author of supplemental materials for an existing textbook
      • Presentations at state and local conferences
      • Papers in the middle tier peer-reviewed journals in discipline
      • Papers in the lower middle tier journals in discipline
      • Papers, articles, professional publications, and other scholarly publications in discipline (non-peer reviewed)

       

      Viewed unfavorably and/or not considered:

      • Irrelevant, poorly explained, and/or inappropriately documented citations of any activity.

       

  6. University Citizenship

    1. Accomplishments and/or contributions in University Citizenship are neither required nor expected of full-time non-tenure track faculty. However, when a candidate has University Citizenship-related accomplishments, those accomplishments may be considered and will contribute to the bargaining unit member’s overall record of accomplishments. Accomplishments in this area can help improve the rating in Teaching and Professional Development at the discretion of the college's review committee. 
    2. University Citizenship activities include service to the Academic Program Area, the Campus, the College, and the University as outlined in Tables 3-8A and 3-8B. The merits of University Citizenship should be evaluated as to (1) whether the candidate chaired the committee or was a contributing member and (2) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served. Less tangible components of citizenship include active participation in program area events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, program area meetings and seminars, etc. Contributions will be assessed as it relates to the assigned track of the candidate. 
    3. Other components of citizenship are also considered (including public outreach and public and professional service) in promotion decisions and may differ in their importance among faculty members depending on each faculty member’s duties and responsibilities within the College. 
    4. University Citizenship – Instructional Track
      While university citizenship is not required of non-tenure track faculty, if the member elects to perform service and include materials for consideration the following types of activities will be considered. Service on unit and/or college committees, university level committees, state and national level committees, advising student organizations, hosting of workshops and/or conferences, community involvement representing Kent State University or the CAE, service to the AAUP; and related activities. 
    5. University Citizenship – Practitioner Track
      While university citizenship is not required of non-tenure track faculty, if the member elects to perform service and include materials for consideration the following types of activities will be considered. Service on unit and/or college committees, university level committees, state and national level committees, advising student organizations, hosting of workshops and/or conferences, community involvement representing Kent State University or the CAE, service to the AAUP; and related activities. 
    1. Table 3-8A. Assessment of University Citizenship for Promotion

      Rating

      Citizenship Assessment

      Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

      Excellent

      Meets or exceeds

      obligation

      Significant role in Academic Program Area, College, Campus, and/or University as evidenced by productive service on committees, active participation in significant events, effectively chairing committees, specific administrative assignments, meaningful public outreach.

      Very Good

      Good

      Meets obligation

      Meets status quo for general participation in Academic Program Area, College, Campus, and/or University service.

      Fair

      Poor

      Does not meet obligation

      Does not meet obligations as defined by the candidate’s workload statement.

    2. Table 3-8B. Criteria for Evaluation of Performance for University Service

      CAE Guidelines

      Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

      Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty

       

      University Citizenship

       

      Note: Reviewers will evaluate based upon the documented degree of excellence achieved within any given category. The candidate is expected to provide a clear explanation of the nature and importance of accomplishments, initiatives taken, leadership roles, etc. Reviewers will be looking for specifics.

       

      University Citizenship is not required of faculty for promotion, however, when it exists, the items in the list below and similar items at the discretion of the committee will be considered and will aid the promotion effort. Accomplishments in this area can help improve the rating in Teaching and/or Professional Development at the discretion of the college's review committee.

       

      The criteria listed below are not all inclusive and the committee may consider items submitted by the faculty member that are not listed, but are considered relevant.

       

      Viewed as exemplary performance:

      • Committee membership citations, accompanied by documentation of candidate's contributions, accomplishments, leadership roles, etc.
      • Service awards (outside field of discipline)
      • Leadership in planning/organizing campus recruiting event, with clear documentation of candidate's role and impact of the event
      • Leadership role and extraordinary participation in successful internship and/or co-op and/or practicum programs for a campus or discipline. Documentation of candidate's activity and impact of the program required.
      • Organization of a professional conference at a regional or state level; serving as a section chair or higher at a national or international conference
      • Participation in community development activities and grants integrated with one’s discipline
      • Organization of consortia to articulate with and perpetuate one’s program or discipline
      • Service to the American Association of University Professors
      • Service on Provost Level advisory committees such as the NPAC and/or as a Provost Fellow

       

      Viewed favorably:

      • Presentations for service or professional organizations outside of area of expertise
      • Active and regular participation in successful internship and/or co-op and/or practicum programs. Projects integrating and engaging students with businesses/industry/government.
      • Advising student organization inside or outside of one's discipline
      • Participation in campus linkage with Advisory Board (document degree of participation, accomplishments, etc.)
      • Participation in campus/program recruiting event
      • Participation in campus/program marketing initiative, e.g., creation/design of marketing materials
      • Participation in the integration of community with program activities.

       

      Viewed unfavorably and/or not considered:

      • Poorly documented citations in any University Citizenship activities; citations without evidence of candidate's contributions, accomplishments, leadership roles