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 III of this Handbook). The FAC, in consultation with the Chair, assigns one or more tenured faculty members to visit the classes of each probationary faculty member and generally evaluate the faculty member’s teaching performance. A written peer review is submitted to the Chair for placement in the faculty member’s reappointment file. Probationary faculty will also create an updated file that is presented 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 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 probationary faculty of the committee's recommendation and provides a copy of the Departmental ballots and 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. This progress can be evaluated through review of the candidate’s published (or “accepted for publication”) peer reviewed papers and articles, including an assessment of the quality of the publication and / or the impact of the article using citation indexes appropriate to the field; grant activity (proposals submitted, grants received); graduate students advised; teaching evaluations and peer reviews; university and professional service; and other professional activity. Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and / or the Chair should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reappointment reviews. Finally, the overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must include consideration of the faculty member's professional behavior as recognized by the University community. A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession is expected of all who seek reappointment in the Department.
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, 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.
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 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)