Reappointment | Kent State University

Reappointment

  1. Scope

    This section is designed to set forth specific reappointment criteria and procedures for University Libraries (UL) and as such, works in conjunction with current Kent State University Policy and Procedures Regarding Faculty Reappointment as adopted by the Faculty Senate and as approved by the Board of Trustees. In any case where there is conflict between the language of the University Policy or the Tenure Track Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and the UL Handbook, the conflicting UL Handbook language will be superseded by the University Policy or CBA language. According to University policy, University Libraries is an "independent college" and as such operates on the University timeline as an academic unit.

  2. Definition

    "Reappointment" is an annual review of a probationary faculty member's progress on the tenure track.

  3. Reappointment Timetable

    3.1  All tenure-track faculty members are considered to hold probationary appointments for one year, subject to annual renewal.

    3.2   Faculty members with probationary appointments in the tenure track shall be reviewed annually until the academic year in which they are considered for tenure.  Faculty appointed at the rank of Assistant Professor shall in most cases stand for tenure following five successful reappointment reviews. Faculty appointed at ranks higher than that of Assistant Professor may serve a shorter probationary period.

    3.3  University policy allows eligible, untenured faculty members to extend their probationary period (toll) if family or other personal circumstances warrant this change.

    3.4  Regardless of the date of hire, UL faculty members will undergo an expedited reappointment review in the first December of their appointment. They will thereafter undergo reappointment according to the regular University schedule.

  4. Purpose

    4.1  The reappointment process has as its primary purpose the preparation of probationary faculty members for a successful tenure review. Probationary faculty members shall be provided with the following guidance during the tenure-track period:

    • They shall be given information about UL goals, the role of UL Faculty, and professional and collegial standards and expectations, including scholarship and citizenship;
    • They shall undergo annual job performance evaluations written by their direct supervisor. They shall have the opportunity to discuss the evaluations and to respond to suggestions for improvement, and they shall receive a timely and fair response;
    • They shall have the opportunity to establish mentoring relationship(s), in part through the UL Mentor Program;
    • They shall have the opportunity to establish a clear and consistent record from which UL may confidently draw conclusions about their future performance.

    4.2   Probationary faculty members shall undergo an annual reappointment review during their probationary period to foster their scholarship and citizenship. During the course of reappointment reviews, the Dean and the ad hoc Reappointment Committee shall communicate to the candidate a clear understanding about the requirements and conditions of tenure and provide a critical evaluation of the candidate's progress toward building a strong record for a successful tenure review. (See sections 9.2.G.2 and 9.2.H of this document).

  5. Expectations for Reappointment

    It is expected that faculty standing for reappointment in University Libraries will demonstrate an appropriate level of accomplishment in job performance/teaching, scholarship, and service as defined by the subsequent rubrics. Given that the nature of faculty work varies widely within UL, and that teaching is not the primary job responsibility of most UL faculty members, UL defines the teaching aspect of reappointment to include both job performance and teaching, with emphasis on the candidate's job performance. "Scholarship" is broadly defined to include research, scholarly and creative work. "Service" is broadly defined to include service to the university, professional service to the faculty member's discipline, and the provision of professional expertise to public and private entities beyond the university.  University Libraries' faculty is comprised of experts active in numerous areas of librarianship and related fields. In addition to their specific specializations, it is expected that individuals will demonstrate a broad knowledge of the field of librarianship. Likewise, in their scholarship UL faculty shall demonstrate clarity of goals and sound methods.

    A candidate's submitted record will be evaluated on the basis of the quality of the work, significance of contribution, and impact on University Libraries, the University, and the profession. The decision to reappoint a faculty member results from the assessment of the evidence available to determine the candidate's contribution to University Libraries, the University, and the profession. Reappointment decisions precede the decision to grant tenure and are intended to provide guidance to the candidate in progressing toward submitting an application for tenure.

    A faculty member's appointment may include operational or administrative responsibilities that may impact scholarly productivity. This will be taken into consideration in evaluating candidates.

    5.1 Criteria for Reappointment

    The following categories shall form the basis for evaluation of faculty for reappointment in UL:

    1. University Libraries places particular value on the quality of its faculty as professional practitioners of librarianship. Accordingly, to be successful for reappointment, a candidate should have achieved a "good," "very good," or "excellent" assessment rating in the category of job performance/teaching as set forth in Section 6 of this policy. As a candidate moves closer to the tenure decision, the candidate should progress to the "very good" or "excellent" rating required for a positive tenure decision.
    2. University Libraries also values the engagement of its faculty in research on the diverse areas of knowledge applicable to the goals and mission of UL, the University, and the profession.  Accordingly, to be successful for reappointment, a candidate should have achieved a "good," "very good," or "excellent" assessment rating in the category of scholarship as set forth in Section 7 of this policy. As a candidate moves closer to the tenure decision, the candidate should progress to the "very good" or "excellent" rating required for a positive tenure decision.
    3. Service which makes significant positive contributions to the advancement of the educational, scholarly, and governance goals and mission of UL, the University, the profession, or the community is expected of all faculty members. Kent State University also values service activities not necessarily tied to one's special field of knowledge. Accordingly, a candidate for reappointment in UL must achieve a rating of "fair," "good," or "excellent" in service according to the measures set forth in Section 8 of this policy. As a candidate moves closer to the tenure decision, the candidate should progress to the "good" or "excellent" rating required for a positive tenure decision.

    5.2 Assessment of Scholarly Products

    Only materials compiled, finished (including work "in press"), or presented since initial appointment at current rank or since the last successful application for reappointment are to be considered in the evaluation of a candidate's qualifications for reappointment. A candidate must supply official documentation for materials that are "in press."

    A regular pattern of scholarly activity is more important than achieving a specific number of scholarly products. A candidate's works will be evaluated on the basis of the quality of the work, significance of contribution, and impact on University Libraries, the University, and the profession.

    Works are more highly valued when they are:

    Invited - Such invitations reflect recognition of the candidate within the scholarly community. High profile invitations (for example, keynote speaker) are more valued than roles such as featured speaker or panel member.

    Peer reviewed - Peer reviewed or refereed works reflect a positive assessment by external experts of the value and quality of the work.

    Associated with publishers, publications, or organizations of high repute or high impact. (NOTE: UL does not maintain a list of core journals.) National and international venues are valued more highly than state and regional venues.

    Scholarly products can take many forms. There is no preference regarding the physical or electronic format of the work. When a work is repackaged (for example, reprinted), this should be clearly indicated by the candidate on all relevant materials in the file. Content posted on institutional repositories and blogs is not viewed as scholarly, unless it is also published or presented in a manner itemized below.

    The following list is a partial survey of types of valued scholarly output. The types are in alphabetical order. The categories under each type are in order with most highly valued listed first.

    1.     Articles in scholarly or professional journals

    a.     invited
    b.     peer reviewed

    c.     non-peer-reviewed

    2.     Bibliographies in scholarly or professional publications

    a.     critically annotated

    b.     descriptively annotated

    c.     unannotated

    3.     Book chapters in scholarly or professional books

    4.     Book reviews

    a.     review essay

    b.     evaluative

    5.     Book series - editor

    6.     Books from scholarly or professional presses

    a.     author

    b.     editor

    7.    Columns in scholarly or professional journals
    a.     author
             
    i.     invited
             
    ii.     proposed / submitted

    b.     column editor

    8.     Editorial role for scholarly or professional journal or book series

    a.     journal editor

    b.     guest editor

    c.     editorial board / reviewer of manuscripts

    9.     Exhibits

    a.     curated

    b.     catalog published

    10.   Grants for scholarly or professional research
    a.     funded grants

    b.     proposals

    11.   Indexing and abstracting

    12.   Presentations at scholarly or professional conferences
    a.     keynote

    b.     invited
    c.     selected

    d.     poster session

    13.   Proceedings from scholarly or professional conferences

    14.   Products of advanced degree work

    a.     dissertation

    b.     thesis

    c.     research studies

    15.   Reference book entries

    a.     author

    b.     editor

    16.  Review panel for funding agencies

    17.  Subject, name or series authority work contributed through nationally recognized professional organizations

    18.  Other scholarly activity - candidate must describe / summarize

  6. Assessing Job Performance/Teaching

    A candidate for reappointment in UL shall demonstrate a satisfactory record in job performance/teaching. For UL, teaching is the sharing of professional expertise and specialized knowledge, primarily with students, in individual or group settings. Consideration shall be given to the varying emphases on teaching responsibilities among UL faculty positions when assessing this area.

    In addition to opportunities to engage in teaching that come with one's position within UL, job performance, pedagogical practice, and professional awareness may be enriched by adjunct teaching for other departments. For the purposes of this document, adjunct teaching is defined as that done under a separate contract for additional compensation. In such cases, a candidate may choose to describe the connection between the adjunct teaching and the teaching that is part of job responsibilities, but student evaluations of instruction for an adjunct appointment will not be considered.

    To be successful for reappointment, a candidate should have achieved a "good," "very good," or "excellent" assessment rating in the category of job performance/teaching. As a candidate moves closer to the tenure decision, the candidate should progress to the "very good" or "excellent" rating required for a positive tenure decision.

    Assessment

    Definition

    Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment

    Excellent

    Exemplary job performance: innovative, exemplary problem solver, possesses a strong sphere of influence, actively engaged

    Demonstration of creativity, leadership, and innovation and of problem solving. Significant impact on the department, UL, and the University. Thoroughly addresses any improvements needed based on yearly performance evaluations and reappointment letters. Significant evidence of sharing new insights and approaches within the profession and on campus through publications and presentations.

    Very Good

    Good job performance, engaged

    Evidence of innovation and contributions toward problem solving. Positive impact on the department, UL, and the University. Significant effort demonstrated to make improvements based on yearly performance evaluations and reappointment letters. Evidence of sharing new insights and approaches within the profession or on campus through publications or presentations.

     Good

     Satisfactory job performance, moderately engaged

    Some evidence of innovations. Maintains a positive yet modest impact on the department, UL, and the University. Modest effort to make improvements based on yearly performance evaluations and reappointment letters. Some evidence of sharing new insights and approaches within the profession or campus through publications or presentations.

     Fair

     Marginal job performance, little engagement

     Little evidence of innovation or impact on the department, UL, or University. Minimal effort to make improvements based on yearly performance evaluations and reappointment letters. Little evidence of engagement within the profession.

     Poor

     Unsatisfactory job performance, no engagement

    Lack of initiative. Documented negative impact on patrons or colleagues. No effort to make improvements based on yearly performance evaluations and reappointment letters. No evidence of sharing new insights and approaches within the profession or campus through publications or presentations.

  7. Assessing Scholarship

    A candidate for reappointment in UL shall demonstrate a satisfactory record of scholarship. For UL, scholarship may include, but is not limited to, structured scholarly investigation that utilizes appropriate and sound research methods in the search for new knowledge. It may be typified by descriptive, relational, or causal research questions. One of the sought-after goals is the development of a cohesive agenda within a faculty member's scholarly endeavors.

    Scholarship should be conducted either (a) within the discipline of library science or (b) in relation to the responsibilities of one's position or (c) based on one's grounding as a librarian. A candidate who undertakes scholarly activity outside these areas must persuasively explain the appropriateness of the research in their reappointment file. In addition to the more traditional means of pursuing research, significant advanced degree work is also valued when it relates to one or more of the three areas listed above. See Appendix 2.C. of the UL Faculty Handbook for a statement on graduate study by faculty members in University Libraries.

    To be successful for reappointment, a candidate should have achieved a "fair," "good," "very good," or "excellent" assessment rating in the category of Scholarship of Integration/Discovery. In the first full year review, fair is acceptable in recognition of the candidate's developing line of inquiry. As a candidate moves closer to the tenure decision, the candidate should progress to the "very good" or "excellent" rating required for a positive tenure decision.

    Assessment

    Definition

    Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment

    Excellent

    Wide recognition of active research program

    Demonstrated evidence of a clear line of inquiry. Consistent record of publication. Invitations to give presentations to national, regional, or state organizations. Thoroughly addresses any improvements needed based on reappointment letters.

    Very Good

    Growing recognition of active research program

    Emerging line of inquiry. Active record of publication. Evidence of presentations to national, regional, or state organizations. Significant effort demonstrated to make improvements based on reappointment letters.

    Good

    Active research program

    Evidence of some research activity. Some publications or presentations. Modest effort to make improvements based on reappointment letters.

    Fair

    Developing research program

    Limited record of research activity consistent with a candidate at the start of their career. Few publications or meeting presentations.

    Poor

    No research program

    No evidence of research activity. No publications or presentations. No effort to make improvements based on reappointment letters.

  8. Assessing Service

    A candidate is expected to participate in service which may include contributions to University Libraries, as a University citizen, to the profession, and of library expertise to the community. The merits of the candidate's service should be evaluated as to the role of the candidate, the importance of the service to the entity served, and on the extent of effort associated with the activity.

    Consideration will be given to candidates with administrative appointments, who have fewer opportunities to participate on UL governance bodies as described.

    To be successful for reappointment a candidate should have achieved a level of "fair," "good," or "excellent" according to the following rubric. In the first full year review, fair is acceptable in recognition of the candidate's developing record of citizenship and service to the profession. As a candidate moves closer to the tenure decision, the candidate should progress to the "good" or "excellent" rating required for a positive tenure decision.

    Assessment

    Definition

    Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment

    Excellent

    Established leadership across multiple service roles.

    Record of consistent significant contribution on UL and University committees. Leadership roles in UL or University citizenship activities, such as committees. Leadership roles in professional service activities at the local, state, regional, national, or international level. Consistent record of effective performance and participation regardless of specific role.

    Good

    Well-developed and consistent record of service.

    Record of consistent contribution on UL and University committees. Active roles in professional service activities at the local, state, regional, national, or international level. Record of effective performance and participation regardless of specific role.

    Fair

    Developing record of service.

    Limited record of service consistent with a candidate at the start of their career. May be limited to service within University Libraries.

    Poor

    Poor or negligible record of service.

    Few or no UL or University service activities. Little professional service activity at the local, state, regional, national, or international level. Ineffective performance and participation.

  9. Peer Evaluation Procedure

    9.1 Initial reappointment review:

    (A) The Dean of University Libraries shall inform each newly-hired probationary faculty member that he/she will stand for an expedited first year review.

    (B) In accordance with University practice, the expedited first year review will take place late in the fall semester that immediately follows initial appointment, regardless of the duration of employment as a probationary UL faculty member.

    Examples:

    1. A newly hired probationary faculty member who begins in late December or January would stand for expedited review the following fall semester.
    2. A newly hired probationary faculty member who begins in September would stand for expedited review later that same fall semester.

    (C) For the expedited first year review, the probationary faculty member shall submit a curriculum vita, a letter describing his/her accomplishments to date and plans related to scholarly activity and university citizenship/professional service for the remainder of the academic year, and a performance evaluation submitted by the supervisor.

    (D) The Dean and the College Advisory Committee acting as the Reappointment Committee shall review the candidate's letter, vita, and performance evaluation looking for evidence that the candidate has begun work in or has plans for scholarly activity and university citizenship/professional service that satisfies the requirements of this policy.  If such evidence is present, the Dean and the College Advisory Committee will reappoint the candidate for the next academic year.

    9.2 All subsequent reappointment reviews:

    (A) For faculty in the remaining years of the probationary period: Near the end of the spring semester, the Dean shall notify probationary tenure-track faculty members in the unit that a reappointment review will begin early in the fall semester of the next academic year.

    (B) The candidate shall compile a file covering the period since the last reappointment review. The candidate is permitted to use a reasonable amount of work time in compiling this file. The candidate shall complete and submit the file for review in compliance with the deadline set by the University.

    (C) The Dean shall review the file the candidate prepared with the candidate in order to insure that the file is complete.  Both the candidate and the Dean shall sign the completed file statement.

    (D) The Dean shall appoint an ad hoc Reappointment Committee.  The committee shall be comprised of at least four (4) voting members.

    1. All tenured members of the College Advisory Committee shall serve as full, voting members.
    2. Any tenured full professor who is a member of the Tenure-Track Collective Bargaining Unit and who is not a member of the College Advisory Committee shall serve as a full, voting member.
    3. Additional tenured Faculty may be nominated by the College Advisory Committee so that the committee has at least four (4) voting members. These Faculty shall serve as full, voting members.
    4. CAC may nominate additional tenured faculty to the ad hoc Reappointment Committee if it feels it is necessary for the full and fair evaluation of the candidate for reappointment. These faculty shall be full voting members of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee.
    5. If there are insufficient tenured UL Faculty members to meet the requirement of at least four (4) voting members, the College Advisory Committee may nominate tenured Faculty outside of UL. These Faculty shall be full voting members of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee.
    6. The Dean shall be the nonvoting chair of the Committee.
    7. The administrator who serves as the liaison in faculty personnel matters of UL shall be a nonvoting member of the Committee.
    8. If the vote concerns the spouse, domestic partner, or relative of a member of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee, that member of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee shall not vote nor shall he/she be present during deliberations or voting. In such a situation, the College Advisory Committee may, if necessary, nominate an additional tenured Faculty member to the committee for the review of that particular file to guarantee that the committee has at least four (4) voting members.
    9. If the vote concerns a faculty member of higher rank than a member of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee, that member of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee shall not vote nor shall he/she be present during deliberations or voting. In such a situation, the College Advisory Committee may, if necessary, nominate an additional tenured Faculty member of the same or higher rank as the candidate to the committee for the review of that particular file to guarantee that the committee has at least four (4) voting members.

    (E) Before convening the ad hoc Reappointment Committee, the Dean shall inform all tenured faculty that the files are available for inspection and shall formally invite written comments from all tenured faculty members who are not members of the Reappointment Committee.  The unit administrator shall provide those comments to the Reappointment Committee, copy the candidate, and place the comments in the file.

    (F) Deliberations:

    1. The Dean shall convene a meeting of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee.
    2. The members of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee shall discuss each individual candidate for reappointment. The Dean shall initiate discussion by sharing his/her estimate of the strengths and weaknesses of each individual candidate with the ad hoc Reappointment Committee.
    3. At the conclusion of the deliberations of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee, there shall be a preliminary voice vote of all members, who shall vote "yes," "yes with reservations," or "no" on each candidate under consideration.
    4. Abstentions are permitted only if a member of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee is on an approved leave of absence and has received the right to abstain from the ad hoc Reappointment Committee. Members of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee on approved leave of absence may vote by absentee ballot rather than requesting permission to abstain.


    (G) Voting:

    1. After the adjournment of the meeting of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee, each voting member of the Committee shall promptly record his/her vote and the reasons for the vote on the appropriate University form. This written vote shall be the final vote. Each voting member shall return the completed form(s) to the Dean or his/her designee.
    2. When completing the ballot form, the Committee member should give careful consideration to fully supporting his/her vote on a particular candidate as such peer evaluations are crucial to the reappointment process. The ballot should be written in such a way that the candidate can clearly understand the requirements of the UL reappointment policy in particular and the candidate's success or failure at meeting those requirements. The Committee member must be sure to provide, using the language of other sections of this policy and examples from the submitted file itself, a clear indication of the Committee member's assessment of that particular reappointment candidacy, including an assessment of the performance necessary to achieve a positive tenure decision.
    3. In order to be recommended for reappointment by the ad hoc Reappointment Committee, a candidate must receive approval from a simple majority of the written ballots of committee members who vote.  A vote of "yes with reservations" will count as a positive vote, but it shall carry an additional message of concern.
    4. Abstentions are permitted only if a member of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee is on an approved leave of absence and has received the right to abstain from the ad hoc Reappointment Committee. Members of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee on approved leave of absence may vote by absentee ballot rather than requesting permission to abstain.


    (H) After carefully reviewing the recorded votes and comments submitted by all voting members of the Committee, the Dean shall weigh and assess each candidate's record as represented in the candidate's reappointment file and in other relevant information that the Committee has reviewed. The Dean shall conclude his/her deliberations on each candidate by preparing a memo to the Provost or his/her designee for the Regional Campuses. In this memo, the Dean shall reference the numerical Committee vote on each candidate, indicate whether or not he/she concurs with the Committee's recommendation on each candidate, and outline his/her reasons for recommending or not recommending the candidate. The Dean should focus on the requirements of the UL reappointment policy in particular and the candidate's success or failure at meeting those requirements. As with the committee members, the Dean is encouraged to use the language of the UL reappointment policy when drafting this memo.

    (I) The Dean shall place a copy of this memo in the candidate's personnel file and shall send a copy of this memo to the candidate and to all members of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee. The Dean shall assemble his/her written recommendation on each candidate and the written recommendation on each candidate submitted by the voting members of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee. These documents shall be placed in each candidate's personnel file.

    (J) The Dean shall notify the candidate by sending the candidate a copy of his/her letter of recommendation and copies of the written ballots of the ad hoc Reappointment Committee at the same time the recommendation is submitted to the Provost or his/her designee for the Regional Campuses. This notification letter shall also include a statement informing the candidate that she/he has the right to include, within five working days, a letter in the file responding to any errors of fact that the candidate believes are in any of the recommendations and supporting documents from the Dean or the ad hoc Reappointment Committee or other advisory committees. The letter shall also indicate that if the candidate wishes to appeal a negative decision, notification of such intent shall be sent in writing within ten working days of receipt of the Dean's letter.

  10. Timetable for Implementation

    The revised guidelines for reappointment will be implemented as follows:
    a.     These guidelines will be effective for all new tenure-track faculty hired after the date of final approval of this revision.

    b.     Faculty in tenure-track status prior to the final approval of this revision will have the choice of using either the previous or these revised criteria. These faculty must provide notification in the reappointment file of the guidelines being followed.

    1. Once a faculty member uses these revised criteria when standing for reappointment, the revised criteria must be used in every subsequent reappointment.


    Approved by UL Faculty, 2/12/09

    Approved by the Provost, 03/21/09
    Revision approved by UL Faculty, 5/12/11
    Sent to Provost's Office, 9/1/11
    Final approval, 1/14/12