Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Criteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions | University Libraries Faculty Handbook | Kent State University

Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Criteria and the Criteria and Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions

  1. Initial Faculty Appointments

    The following guidelines are meant to assist the College Advisory Committee of University Libraries in recommending to the Dean an academic rank for librarians when they are initially appointed to full- time, tenure-track faculty positions.

    Except in unusual circumstances, librarians selected for full-time, tenure-track faculty positions shall be appointed at the rank of Assistant Professor.

    Initial appointment as an Assistant Professor shall require that the individual hold the Master's degree from a school of library science accredited by the American Library Association in order to assure the breadth of knowledge necessary for the immediate and competent performance of professional duties appropriate to the position in question. An exception may be made if an applicant possesses an advanced degree in another field or has comparable experience in addition to a bachelor's degree which makes her or his expertise especially valuable to the position being filled.

    Appointment to a higher rank requires all the qualifications demanded for promotion to that rank. The period of time spent at a lower faculty rank in another library shall be weighed among the several considerations in making an initial appointment to a rank higher than that of Assistant Professor.

    Approved by UL Faculty: March 26, 1999

  2. Tenure Track Faculty Searches

    1. Determination to Fill a Vacant Position or Create a New Position

      Kent Campus
      The decisions on filling vacant, existing, or new Tenure Track (TT) faculty positions shall be determined by the Dean of University Libraries (UL) after receiving the advice of the College Advisory Committee (CAC). New or existing vacant TT positions shall be consistent with the strategic directions and goals of University Libraries and shall be filled in accordance with appropriate University policies and with the guidelines outlined below.

      Regional Campus
      The decisions on filling vacant, existing, or new TT faculty positions shall be determined by the Campus Dean after consultation with the UL Dean. New or existing vacant TT positions shall be consistent with the strategic directions and goals of the eight-campus library system and shall be filled in accordance with appropriate University policies and with the guidelines outlined below.

    2. Administrative Responsibility

      Kent Campus
      The UL Dean, in consultation with the CAC, will oversee the appointment of a search committee and provide a charge to the search committee with instructions on how hiring recommendations are to be submitted, and ensure that University-required procedures are followed.

      Regional Campus
      The Campus Dean, or their designee, will oversee the appointment of a search committee and provide a charge to the search committee with instructions on how hiring recommendations are to be submitted, and ensure that University-required procedures are followed.

    3. Search Committee Composition and Responsibilities

      Kent Campus
      Search Committee Composition

      The UL Dean will appoint the members of the search committee. The search committee generally will have between three to five members, including the following:

      a. CAC Representative: At least one tenured or TT member of  CAC should be appointed to serve on the search committee.
      b. Position Supervisor: The supervisor of the vacant position will be a member of the search committee. Unless the Dean decides otherwise, the supervisor of the vacant position will serve as chair of the search committee.
      c. Other Members: At least a majority of the search committee shall be composed of tenured or TT CBU Faculty.

      Search Committee Responsibilities

      The search committee (working closely with the UL administrator in charge of personnel matters) will be responsible for the following areas: screening the pool of applicants, interviewing candidates, making a hiring recommendation to the Dean, and maintaining records of the search process. The search committee Chair will coordinate all logistical aspects of the search and the interview, including ensuring that the job description and posting are accurate and published appropriately and keeping search committee members informed throughout the search process.

      Hiring Recommendation

      When the search committee has completed its deliberations and has reached a decision on a hiring recommendation, the Chair of the committee will transmit the following to the UL Dean. The UL Dean will make the hiring decision.

      a. A written recommendation to the UL Dean and to the CAC concerning the candidates who were interviewed. The written recommendation must include a detailed rationale for how all interviewed candidates were evaluated and rank all acceptable candidates.
      b. A written list of all applicants for the position and the reason each was screened out by the search committee.

      Search Committee Records

      The search committee Chair will ensure that appropriate records of the search are created and maintained, including search committee meeting notes or minutes, all candidate application materials, and notes on search committee review. These records should be retained for the period specified in the University Records Retention Policy.

      Regional Campus
      Search Committee Composition

      The Campus Dean, or their designee, will appoint the voting members of the search committee after consultation with the UL Dean. The search committee generally will have between three to five members The Campus Dean shall appoint all members of the search committee except as follows:

      a. UL CAC Representative: One tenured or TT member serving on the UL CAC should be appointed to the committee.
      b. Position Supervisor: The supervisor of the vacant position, or their designee, will be a member of the search committee. Unless the Campus Dean decides otherwise, the supervisor of the vacant position will serve as chair of the search committee.
      c. Other Members: At least a majority of the search committee shall be composed of tenured or TT CBU Faculty, preferably from Regional Campus libraries.

      Search Committee Responsibilities

      The search committee will be responsible for the following areas: screening the pool of applicants, interviewing candidates, making a hiring recommendation to the Campus Dean, and maintaining records of the search process. The search committee Chair will coordinate all logistical aspects of the search and the interview, including ensuring that the job description and posting are accurate and published appropriately and keeping search committee members informed throughout the search process.

      Hiring Recommendation

      When the search committee has completed its deliberations and has reached a decision on a hiring recommendation, the Chair of the committee will transmit the following to the Campus Dean with copies to the UL Dean. The Campus Dean will make the hiring decision.
      a. A written recommendation to the Campus Dean and to the UL CAC concerning the candidates who were interviewed. The written recommendation must include a detailed rationale for how all interviewed candidates were evaluated and rank all acceptable candidates.
      b. A written list of all applicants for the position and the reason each was screened out by the search committee.

      Search Committee Records

      The search committee Chair will ensure that appropriate records of the search are created and maintained, including search committee meeting notes or minutes, all candidate application materials, and notes on search committee review. These records should be retained for the period specified in the University Records Retention Policy.

    4. Offer to Selected Candidate

      Kent Campus
      The UL Dean will offer the position to one of the recommended candidates. If the UL Dean elects not to follow the search committee's recommendation, or not to offer the position to any of the recommended candidates, he or she will notify the search committee and CAC in writing. He or she will then schedule a meeting with the search committee to discuss the search.

      Regional Campus
      The Campus Dean will offer the position to one of the recommended candidates. If the Campus Dean elects not to follow the search committee's recommendation, or not to offer the position to any of the recommended candidates, he or she will notify the search committee and the UL CAC in writing. He or she will then schedule a meeting with the search committee to discuss the search.

       

      Approved UL Faculty Meeting, May 24, 2000
      Revision approved by UL Faculty, 11/16/10
      Receipt acknowledged by the Provost's Office, 11/17/10
      Final approval, 8/31/11

  3. Externally Funded Projects not Initiated by University Libraries

    Faculty members seeking to commit organizational resources to an externally funded project must first submit a written request for authorization from their supervisors and, ultimately, from the Dean of University Libraries.  In cases of externally funded projects which include a provision for purchased time, authorization from their supervisor and the Dean of University Libraries must be secured no later than thirty days prior to the submission date of the grant. In all other cases, authorization from their supervisor and the Dean of University Libraries must be secured no later than ten business days prior to the submission date of the grant.  Before committing to an externally funded project and applying for authorization, UL faculty must carefully evaluate the impact of grant commitments on their primary job responsibilities. The impact on the applicant's unit should be discussed with the unit supervisor as part of the authorization process.

    Faculty members committed to externally funded projects not formally initiated or authorized by University Libraries are expected to fulfill their roles (e.g., principal investigator (PI), research associate, etc.) using research time or personal time outside of their normal work schedules. In cases where purchased time is desired to be a component of an externally funded project, the faculty member must negotiate the amount of purchased time and its use with their immediate supervisor and the Dean of University Libraries as part of the authorization process. Arrangements for purchased time must be made in such a way as to impede the normal operation of the unit as little as possible. Faculty members whose externally funded projects include purchased time are expected to use research time or personal time if their commitment to the externally funded project exceeds the amount of time purchased.

    Approved by UL faculty 5/7/02

  4. Role and Responsibility of the Faculty

    The Nature of Academic Librarianship

    Librarianship is a service profession founded on the principles of intellectual freedom and the right of access to information. The profession has a long history of commitment to meeting the informational, reading, and research needs of diverse library users. In academic libraries, the emphasis on service is complemented by the scholarship of academic librarians. Their endeavors include research that advances knowledge within the discipline and practice within the profession.  

    Academic librarians actively participate in the educational mission of their institution. They are responsible for selecting and making accessible information that supports their institution's needs. The collections are developed to appropriate levels by matching instructional and research needs to institutional resources. Librarians organize and make accessible materials using a variety of technologies. As experts in various aspects of library research methods and strategies, librarians provide a valuable link between the world of scholarly knowledge and the students, faculty, and staff who seek information. They instruct students, faculty, and staff on how to identify, access, utilize, and manage information pertinent to their needs.   

    Librarians maintain a command of established and emerging technologies to benefit library users and enhance the nature of their own scholarly inquiries. This includes the creation of tools to guide users at all levels in navigating and functioning successfully within the information world. Librarians must be well-versed in current resources and information seeking processes in all of the disciplines found at the University; they use this knowledge to support students and faculty in their studies, research, and teaching.  

    Educational Background

    A master's degree is the terminal degree in academic librarianship. Accordingly, a basic requirement for appointment to a faculty position in University Libraries is the master's degree in library and information science from a graduate program that is fully accredited by the American Library Association, or the equivalent. An exception may be made, in accordance with Section IV.A.1, if an applicant possesses an advanced degree in another field or has comparable experience in addition to a bachelor's degree which makes her or his experience especially valuable to the position being filled.

    Approved by University Libraries Faculty, 12/14/11
    Approved by the Provost, 05/02/12

  5. Role of Tenured and Tenure-Eligible Library Faculty

    In addition to their work as academic librarians, tenured and tenure-eligible faculty conduct scholarly inquiry in the fields of librarianship and related disciplines. Their scholarship and professional involvement serves to enrich their practice and engage them professionally. It is important for academic librarians to contribute meaningfully to the profession, the discipline, and the academic life of their institution. Academic librarians value scholarly publishing, presenting at professional meetings and conferences, participating in scholarly and professional organizations, and serving on departmental, college, and university committees. These faculty also provide leadership in developing and articulating the mission and goals of University Libraries.  

    Kent Campus

    Each University Libraries Faculty member has specified responsibilities that are designed to support the mission of University Libraries.  These responsibilities, in addition to the scholarly inquiry and service expected of tenured and tenure-eligible Faculty, create the job of each Faculty librarian.  In order to help UL Faculty succeed, Faculty should regularly receive feedback regarding their responsibilities, scholarship and service.  In addition to the formal review processes of reappointment, tenure and promotion, UL Faculty should also have regular discussions with both the head of his or her library unit and the mentor assigned to him or her regarding these areas.  A Faculty member may request from his or her unit head or assigned mentor a written peer evaluation that could be included in a reappointment, tenure or promotion file. 

    Regional Campus Librarians and Library Directors

    Each Regional Campus has a library with full-time professional librarian staff. All RC directors are librarians with administrative appointment and faculty rank. They manage the RC libraries and may also fulfill other administrative duties. The Regional Campus librarians and library directors are members of the faculty of University Libraries. As such, these faculty members have duties and responsibilities to both their regional campus and to University Libraries. Like all Kent Campus UL faculty, the tenure-eligible and tenured Regional Campus librarians and library directors are expected to demonstrate evidence of scholarly activity, meeting the same tenure and promotion standards as Kent Campus UL faculty.

    Approved by University Libraries Faculty, 05/19/09
    Approved by the Provost, 08/07/09
    Approved by University Libraries Faculty, 12/14/11
    Approved by the Provost, 05/02/12

    Revised and Approved by University Libraries Faculty, 5/8/13

  6. 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

  7. Tenure

    1. Scope

      This section is designed to set forth specific tenure criteria for University Libraries (UL) and as such, works in conjunction with current Kent State University Policy Regarding Faculty Tenure 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

      "Indefinite tenure" is a right of a faculty member to continuous appointment to a professional position of specified locus in the university. The services of a faculty member with tenure may be terminated by the University only under policies stated in the "Sanctions for Cause and Retrenchment" articles of the Tenure Track Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement.

    3. Tenure Timetable

      3.1 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.

      3.2 University policy allows eligible, untenured faculty members to extend their probationary period (toll) if family or other personal circumstances warrant this change. If a faculty member is eligible and opts to toll, the faculty member would stand for tenure a year later than otherwise for each tolled year.

      3.3 In extraordinary circumstances, faculty who are appointed at the rank of Assistant Professor and who are scheduled to serve a full six-year probationary period may elect at their discretion to stand for tenure before the expiration of their probationary period. If a faculty member elects to stand for early tenure and is denied, such denial shall not prejudice a future departmental vote when he or she stands for tenure at the regularly scheduled time.

    4. Expectations for Tenure

      It is expected that faculty standing for tenure 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 tenure 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 administrative 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.

      The decision to grant tenure to a faculty member results from the assessment of the evidence available to determine the candidate's ongoing potential to contribute to University Libraries, the University, and the profession. A candidate's submitted record will be evaluated on the basis of the quality of the work, significance of contribution, and impact. The decision to grant tenure is made separately from the decision to grant promotion in rank.

      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 Tenure

      The following categories, in order of importance, shall form the basis for evaluation of faculty for tenure in UL:

      1. University Libraries places particular value on the quality of its faculty as professional practitioners of librarianship. Accordingly, a candidate for tenure in UL must achieve a rating of "very good" or "excellent" in job performance/teaching according to the measures set forth in Section 6 of this policy.
      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, a candidate for tenure in UL must achieve a rating of "very good" or "excellent" in scholarship according to the measures set forth in Section 7 of this policy.
      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 tenure in UL must achieve a rating of "good" or "excellent" in service according to the measures set forth in Section 8 of this policy.

       

      5.3 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 tenure. 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

       

    5. Assessing Job Performance/Teaching

      A candidate for tenure in UL shall compile a strong 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 tenure a candidate should have achieved either a "Very Good" or "Excellent" rating in the area of job performance/teaching according to the following rubric.

      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.

    6. Assessing Scholarship

      A candidate for tenure in UL shall compile a strong 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. The candidate must demonstrate a cohesive line of inquiry as part of the scholarly record presented.

      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 tenure a candidate should have achieved either a "very good" or "excellent" rating in the area of scholarship according to the following rubric.

      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

      Limited research program

      Little evidence of research activity. Few publications or meeting presentations. Minimal effort to make improvements based on reappointment letters.

      Poor

      No research program

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

    7. 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 tenure a candidate should have achieved a level of with "Good" or "Excellent" according to the following rubric.

      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.

      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.

    8. Peer Evaluation Procedure

      9.1 (Step One) Each Spring Semester, the Dean of University Libraries shall notify candidates who are entering the final year of their probationary period that they shall stand for tenure in the fall.

      9.2 (Step Two) The candidate shall identify external reviewers in compliance with the requirements and timeline specified in Section V.D. of this Handbook.

      9.3 (Step Three) The candidate shall compile a file covering the entirety of the probationary period up to and including the day the file is submitted to support the tenure application. 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.

      9.4  (Step Four)  The Dean shall review the file the candidate prepared with the candidate in order to insure that the file is complete and shall prepare a statement indicating that the file is complete. Both the candidate and the Dean shall sign the completed file statement. Thereafter, the candidate must be informed of anything that is added to or removed from the file and provided the opportunity to insert written comments concerning that new or removed material.

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

      9.6 (Step Six) The Dean shall appoint an ad hoc Tenure Review Committee. The Committee shall be comprised of at least five (5) voting members.

      a.     All tenured members of the College Advisory Committee shall serve as full, voting members.

      b.     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.

      c.     Additional tenured Faculty may be nominated by the College Advisory Committee so that the committee has at least five (5) voting members. These Faculty shall serve as full, voting members.

      d.     If there are insufficient tenured UL Faculty members to meet the requirement of at least five (5) voting members, the College Advisory Committee may nominate tenured Faculty outside of UL. These Faculty shall be full voting members of the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee.

      e.     CAC may nominate additional tenured faculty, such as a Regional Campus Library Director, to the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee if it feels it is necessary for the full and fair evaluation of the tenure candidate. These faculty shall be full voting members of the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee.

      f.      The Dean shall be the nonvoting chair of the Committee.

      g.     The administrator who serves as the liaison in faculty personnel matters of UL shall be a nonvoting member of the Committee.

      h.     If the vote concerns the spouse, domestic partner, or relative of a member of the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee, that member of the ad hoc Tenure Review 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 five (5) voting members.

      i.      If the vote concerns a faculty member of higher rank than a member of the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee, that member of the ad hoc Tenure Review 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 equivalent or higher rank to the committee for the review of that particular file to guarantee that the committee has at least five (5) voting members.

      9.7 (Step Seven)

      a. The Dean shall convene a meeting of the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee.

      b. The members of the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee shall discuss each individual candidate for tenure. The
      Dean shall initiate discussion by sharing his/her estimate of the strengths and weaknesses of each individual candidate with the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee.

      c. At the conclusion of the deliberations of the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee, there shall be a preliminary voice vote of all members, who shall vote yea or nay on each candidate under consideration.

      d. Abstentions are permitted only if a member of the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee is on an approved leave of absence and has received the right to abstain from the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee. Members of the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee on approved leave of absence may vote by absentee ballot rather than requesting permission to abstain.

      9.8 (Step Eight)

      a. After the adjournment of the meeting of the ad hoc Tenure Review 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.

      b. When completing the ballot form, the Committee member should give careful consideration to fully supporting his/her vote on a particular candidate. The ballot should be written in such a way that reviewers at other levels of the tenure process can clearly understand the requirements of the UL tenure 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 tenure candidacy.

      c. In order to be recommended for tenure by the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee, a candidate must receive approval from at least three fourths of the written ballots of committee members who vote.

      d. Abstentions are permitted only if a member of the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee is on an approved leave of absence and has received the right to abstain from the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee. Members of the ad hoc Tenure Review Committee on approved leave of absence may vote by absentee ballot rather than requesting permission to abstain.

      9.9 (Step Nine) 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 tenure 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 tenure 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 tenure policy when drafting this memo.

      9.10 (Step Ten) The Dean shall place a copy of this memo in the candidate's tenure and personnel file and shall send a copy of this memo to the candidate and to all members of the ad hoc Tenure Review 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 Tenure Review Committee. These documents shall be placed in each candidate's tenure file.

      9.11 (Step Eleven)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 Tenure Review 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 Tenure Review 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.

      9.12 (Step Twelve) The Dean shall forward, in a timely fashion, the tenure file of each candidate to the Provost or his/her designee for the Regional Campuses, as appropriate.

       

    9. Timetable for Implementation

      The revised guidelines for tenure 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 the revised criteria.

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

      Approved by the UL Faculty, 09/16/08
      Approved by the Provost, 01/30/09
      Revision approved by UL Faculty, 9/14/10

      Receipt acknowledged by the Provost's Office, 9/1710

      Final approval, 8/31/11

  8. Promotion

    1. Scope

      This section is designed to set forth specific promotion criteria for University Libraries (UL) and as such, works in conjunction with current Kent State University Policy Regarding Faculty Promotion 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

      "Promotion" is the elevation of a faculty member to the next highest faculty rank within the University. Promotion shall be viewed as recognition of a faculty member having contributed sustained and distinguished service to the University, the academic unit, and campus to which the faculty member belongs.

       

    3. Promotion Timetable

      3.1 University policy for promotion requires that a candidate possess the terminal degree in his/her discipline in order to be promoted to Associate Professor or Professor. All UL faculty members possess the Master of Library Science (MLS) degree or equivalent, the terminal degree in librarianship.

      3.2 In accordance with University policy, promotion to the rank of Associate Professor should not be ordinarily expected until a candidate has completed four years as an Assistant Professor.

      3.3 In accordance with University policy, promotion to the rank of Professor should not ordinarily be expected until a candidate has completed five years as an Associate Professor.

       

    4. General Principles Regarding Faculty Promotion

      The mission and goals of University Libraries support the mission and strategic plan of Kent State University. In alignment with these, the UL criteria for promotion are based on the need to recognize a faculty member who has: provided quality service to his/her user community; contributed to the body of scholarly knowledge; and positively impacted UL, the University, and the profession. As the responsibilities of UL faculty positions do not conform to a single pattern, faculty are expected to contribute to the unit and the University in accordance with both specific position responsibilities and the expectations of the University and UL policies for promotion.

    5. Expectations for Promotion

      It is expected that faculty standing for promotion in rank 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 promotion 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.

      The decision to promote a faculty member results from the assessment of the evidence available to determine the candidate's contributions to University Libraries, the University, and the profession. A candidate's submitted record will be evaluated on the basis of the quality of the work, significance of contribution, and impact. The promotion decision is made separately from the decision to grant 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 Promotion

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

      1. University Libraries places particular value on the quality of its faculty as professional practitioners of librarianship. Accordingly, a candidate for promotion in UL must achieve a rating of "very good" or "excellent" in job performance/teaching according to the measures set forth in Section 6 of this policy.
      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, a candidate for promotion in UL must achieve a rating of "very good" or "excellent" in scholarship according to the measures set forth in Section 7 of this policy.
      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 promotion in UL must achieve a rating of "good" or "excellent" in citizenship according to the measures set forth in Section 8 of this policy.

      Promotion to the rank of Associate Professor requires an assessment of "excellent" in either the category of job performance/teaching or scholarship, with the assessment in the other category being at least "very good." The candidate must also achieve a rating of "good" or "excellent" in the category of service.

      Promotion to the rank of Professor requires an assessment of "excellent" in job performance/teaching, scholarship, and service.

      5.3 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 promotion. 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 promotion in UL shall compile a strong 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 promotion to Associate Professor, a candidate should have achieved an "excellent" assessment rating in either the category of job performance/teaching or the category of scholarship. The rating in the other category should be at least "very good." Promotion to the rank of Professor requires an assessment of "excellent."
      The rubric for job performance/teaching follows. The rubric for scholarship will be found in Section 7 below. 

      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. 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. 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 innovation. Maintains a positive yet modest impact on the department, UL, and the University. Modest effort to make improvements based on yearly performance evaluations. 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. 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. No evidence of sharing new insights and approaches within the profession or campus through publications or presentations.

    7. Assessing Scholarship

      A candidate for promotion in UL shall compile a strong 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. The candidate must demonstrate a cohesive line of inquiry as part of the scholarly record presented.

      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 promotion to Associate Professor, a candidate should have achieved an "excellent" assessment rating in either the category of job performance/teaching or the category of scholarship. The rating in the other category should be at least "very good."

      Promotion to the rank of Professor requires an assessment of "excellent."

      The rubric for scholarship follows.

      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

      Limited research program

      Little evidence of research activity. Few publications or meeting presentations. Minimal effort to make improvements based on reappointment letters.

      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 promotion to Associate Professor a candidate should have achieved a level of "good" or "excellent" according to the following rubric. To be successful for promotion to Professor a candidate should have achieved a level of "excellent" according to the following rubric.

      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.

      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 (Step One) Each Spring Semester, the Dean of University Libraries shall advise UL faculty members who meet the time in rank requirements that they are eligible for promotion. All UL faculty shall be notified in writing of the promotion deadline so that faculty members may, if they wish, notify the Dean in writing that they plan to stand for early promotion.

      9.2 (Step Two) Eligible faculty members shall notify the Dean's office by a specified date whether or not they choose to stand for promotion.

      9.3 (Step Three) A candidate standing for promotion to Associate Professor or to Professor shall identify external reviewers in compliance with the requirements and timeline specified in Section V.D. of this Handbook.

      9.4 (Step Four) The candidate shall compile a file covering the period since initial appointment at current rank or since the last successful application for promotion, as applicable. The candidate shall complete and submit the file for review in compliance with the deadline set by the University.

      9.5  (Step Five) The Dean shall review the file the candidate prepared with the candidate in order to insure that the file is complete and shall prepare a statement indicating that the file is complete. Both the candidate and the Dean shall sign the completed file statement. Thereafter, the candidate must be informed of anything that is added to or removed from the file and provided the opportunity to insert written comments concerning that new or removed material.

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

      9.7 (Step Seven) The Dean shall appoint an ad hoc Promotion Review Committee. The Committee shall be comprised of at least five (5) voting members.

      a. Promotion to Associate Professor:

      1. All senior Faculty members of the College Advisory Committee shall serve as full, voting members of the ad hoc Promotion Committee hearing promotions to Associate Professor. All faculty who are tenured and hold the rank of either Associate Professor or full Professor are senior faculty. 
      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 senior Faculty may be nominated by the College Advisory Committee so that the committee has at least five (5) voting members. These Faculty shall serve as full, voting members.
      4. CAC may nominate additional senior faculty, such as a Regional Campus Library Director, to the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee if it feels it is necessary for the full and fair evaluation of the candidate standing for promotion. These faculty shall be full voting members of the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee.
      5. If there are insufficient UL senior Faculty members to meet the requirement of at least five (5) voting members, the College Advisory Committee may nominate tenured Faculty who hold the rank of Associate Professor or Professor from outside of UL. These Faculty shall be full voting members of the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee.

      b. Promotion to Professor:

      1. Only College Advisory Committee members who hold the rank of Professor may serve on the ad hoc Promotion Committee hearing promotions to full Professor.
      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. If additional full Professors are needed to get the Committee to at least five (5) voting members, the College Advisory Committee should select from the following options, in order of preference:

      a.    Regional Campus Library Directors who holds the rank of Professor, who shall serve as full voting members of the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee.
      b.    Assistant or Associate Deans of University Libraries who are tenured, hold the rank of Professor and who do not serve as the liaison in faculty personnel matters of UL, shall serve as full voting members of the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee.
      c.    Tenured Faculty who hold the rank of Professor from outside of UL, shall serve as full voting members of the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee.

      c.      The Dean shall be the nonvoting chair of the Committee.

      d.     The administrator who serves as the liaison in faculty personnel matters of UL shall be a nonvoting member of the Committee.

      e.     If the vote concerns the spouse, domestic partner, or relative of a member of the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee, that member of the ad hoc Promotion Review 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 five (5) voting members.

      9.8 (Step Eight)

      a. The Dean shall convene a meeting of the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee.

      b. The members of the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee shall discuss each individual candidate for promotion. The Dean shall initiate discussion by sharing his/her estimate of the strengths and weaknesses of each individual candidate with the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee.

      c. At the conclusion of the deliberations of the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee, there shall be a preliminary voice vote of all members, who shall vote yes or no on each candidate under consideration.

      d. Abstentions are permitted only if a member of the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee is on an approved leave of absence and has received the right to abstain from the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee. Members of the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee on approved leave of absence may vote by absentee ballot rather than requesting permission to abstain.

      9.9 (Step Nine)

      a. After the adjournment of the meeting of the ad hoc Promotion Review 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.

      b. When completing the ballot form, the Committee member should give careful consideration to fully supporting his/her vote on a particular candidate. The ballot should be written in such a way that reviewers at other levels of the promotion process can clearly understand the requirements of the UL promotion 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 promotion candidacy.

      c. In order to be recommended for promotion by the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee, a candidate must receive approval from at least three fourths of the written ballots of committee members who vote.

      d. Abstentions are permitted only if a member of the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee is on an approved leave of absence and has received the right to abstain from the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee. Members of the ad hoc Promotion Review Committee on approved leave of absence may vote by absentee ballot rather than requesting permission to abstain.

      9.10 (Step Ten) 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 promotion 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 promotion 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 promotion policy when drafting this memo.

      9.11 (Step Eleven) The Dean shall place a copy of this memo in the candidate's promotion and personnel file and shall send a copy of this memo to the candidate and to all members of the ad hoc Promotion Review 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 Promotion Review Committee. These documents shall be placed in each candidate's promotion file.

      9.12 (Step Twelve) 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 Promotion Review 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 Promotion Review 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.

      9.13 (Step Thirteen) The Dean shall forward, in a timely fashion, the promotion file of each candidate to the Provost or his/her designee for the Regional Campuses, as appropriate.
       

    10. Timetable for Implementation

      The revised guidelines for promotion 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 the revised criteria.

      b.     For any promotion sought prior to January 2012, tenured or tenure-track faculty who were employed by UL prior to the final approval of the revised guidelines will have the choice of using either the previous criteria (6.04b) or revised criteria. These faculty must provide notification in the promotion file of the guidelines being followed.

      c.     For any promotion sought after January 2012, all faculty must use these revised guidelines.

      Approved by the UL Faculty, 12/18/08
      Approved by the Provost, 03/21/09
      Revision approved by UL Faculty, 9/14/10
      Receipt acknowledged by the Provost's Office, 9/1710

      Final approval, 8/31/11

  9. External Letters for Tenure and Promotion

    Three external letters are required by University policy for Faculty seeking tenure or promotion to full professor. UL policy also requires three external letters for faculty seeking promotion to associate professor. When a candidate is standing for both tenure and promotion to associate professor, the same external reviewers should be used. They will be asked to write two letters-one for each candidacy.

    The candidate for tenure and/or promotion provides the names of five or more potential external reviewers to the Dean along with the needed information (see chart below) that will be forwarded to the selected external reviewers. In accordance with University policy, the Dean will select at least three external reviewers from the names submitted by the candidate.  The Dean will notify the candidate of the selections that were made, and will solicit evaluations from the selected external reviewers.  The Dean may also solicit external reviews from other individuals, not suggested by the candidate, but who are also qualified to evaluate the candidate's achievements objectively.  In such case, the Dean must inform the candidate of the persons contacted and inform the candidate of the receipt of these letters.

    In all cases, the candidate shall be given a copy of the letter to be sent to external reviewers and have the opportunity to comment on it before the letter is mailed.

    A calendar and more specific information follow at the end of this section.

    Criteria for reviewers include:

    • If the reviewer is in a similar faculty status environment with reappointment/tenure/promotion requirements, the person should be tenured and have the same or higher rank as that sought by the candidate applying for promotion.
    • In all cases, the reviewer should be a well-established individual in an appropriate discipline or profession positioned to evaluate the candidate's record.


    The individuals identified to write external letters are peer reviewers, not references. Their task is to critically review the candidate's record in light of University and UL criteria and provide a specific recommendation, either positive or negative. Specifically, the reviewer will be asked to provide a two- to three-page review that evaluates the candidate's overall record of scholarship and professional leadership, including:

    • The quality and significance of the candidate's scholarly work and impact on the field.
    • The contribution represented by the candidate's professional service activities.
    • An assessment, if possible, of the candidate's national or international reputation in the field.
    • For tenure: A statement of the candidate's potential contribution to the profession in the future.


    Other supporting letters are optional and should be seen as references in that they are written in support of the candidate. Because these are optional they should be placed with supplementary materials in the file.

    Calendar and Procedures Relating to External Letters

    Spring

    Notification of eligibility for promotion from CAC/Dean's Office Candidate's decision; notifies Dean

    April - May

    FPDC workshop

    PDSC workshop

    June 15

    Candidate identifies five or more potential external 3 or 4 reviewers, confirms their willingness to serve in this capacity, and sends list of potential reviewers to Dean. Dean selects at least three reviewers from the names provided by the candidate.

    June 30
       
    Candidate supplies information to Dean to be sent to reviewers:

    1. Candidate provides introduction to materials
    2. Curriculum vitae
    3. Representative evidence of scholarship and service

    Dean's office supplies appropriate policies:

    1. UL Faculty Handbook, Section IV.D.1. "The Role of Tenured and Tenure-Eligible Library Faculty"
    2. abbreviated University document ("IV. General Observations"-not procedures)
    3. UL Handbook language regarding tenure or promotion criteria.

    July 15

    Dean sends out material to reviewers with a descriptive outline of the kind of review that is sought and a deadline for receipt of their letters by August 31.

    Dean's office adds external letters to the candidate's file as received.

    Sept. 30
       
    Dean sends thank you note to reviewers.

    Approved by the UL Faculty, 02/07/2008
    Final approval July 15, 2008
    Revision approved by UL Faculty September 14, 2010
    Receipt acknowledged by the Provost's Office, 9/1710

    Final approval, 8/31/11

  10. Research Time for Kent Campus Faculty

    1. Preface

      Tenure track University Libraries faculty members are evaluated in part by the contributions they make in job performance/teaching, scholarship, and service. All areas are components of University librarianship and as such are factors in reappointment, tenure, and promotion decisions and merit recommendations. While it is ultimately the decision of individual faculty members as to how best to maintain a balance among these areas, it is incumbent upon Kent State University and University Libraries to provide the environment and opportunities conducive to scholarly contributions.

       

    2. Purpose

      Research time is provided to support Faculty scholarship, including that required for reappointment, tenure, and promotion, in spite of the constraints of a twelve-month contract that includes maintaining library operations during weekends, evenings, summer, seasonal breaks, and intersessions.

       

    3. Eligibility and Time Available

      The following categories of University Libraries faculty are eligible to use research time. Research time shall not carry over from one fiscal year to the next. At the end of a given fiscal year, research time not used is forfeited

      CATEGORY
      MAXIMUM HOURS OF RESEARCH TIME AVAILABLE PER FISCAL YEAR
      1. Full-time tenured or tenure-track Faculty.
      200 hours; time prorated in the first
      year for those hired after July 1

      2. Full-time tenured or tenure-track administrator with faculty rank.
      100 hours

      3. Those in categories 1 or 2 on 136-day or one semester of professional improvement leave.
      50 percent of normally allotted time

      4. Those in categories 1 or 2 on a 272-day or two semester of professional improvement leave.
      No research time for that year

      5. Those in categories 1 or 2 on other types of authorized leave (i.e., University Child Care Leave, Family Medical Leave Act, leave without pay), excluding sick leave.

      Hours reduced proportionately (e.g. Taking 12 weeks of University Child Care Leave would proportionally reduce Research Time to 150 hours for that year)

       

    4. Activities Supported

      Research time shall be used by eligible faculty of University Libraries to support activities related to scholarship.

      Research time is to be used to support work along a research path from preliminary exploration/investigation toward an intended final product.

      Step One: Complete a Research Time Request form. Faculty may complete one Research Time Request form at the beginning of the fiscal year to request all of their research time for that academic year.

      A. In addition, research time may be used for the following:

      1. for dissertation and thesis work, as well as for course-related research papers
      2. voluntarily for work-related projects designed to create, improve upon, test, or otherwise study work methods, policies, or new service initiatives
      3. external grant commitments that are in compliance with the Guidelines on Participation in Externally Funded Projects

      B. Research time shall not be used for the following activities:

      1. attendance at meetings or conferences of professional associations
      2. professional service (see Handbook section on Professional Development Leave Policy)
      3. performance of routine job duties or work related to other paid jobs, including course preparation for adjunct teaching appointments
      4. class attendance
      5. file preparation for reappointment, tenure, promotion
    5. Application Process

      The application process is intended to insure the faculty member's eligibility, compliance with approved use guidelines, and provision of project description and time estimate. faculty members who wish to use research time should follow these steps:

      Step One: Complete a Research Time Request Form, including specific project description(s) and estimate(s) of time to be used. Any amount of available time may be specified. Multiple forms may be submitted in one year.

      Step Two: Faculty member submits the Research Time form to the Dean's Office for placement on the College Advisory Committee meeting agenda.

      Step Three: The College Advisory Committee will review the application to confirm that it is complete and meets the criteria for use of research time.

      Step Four: The Dean makes the final decision, and the faculty member and supervisor are notified. The faculty member schedules the research time with the supervisor to minimize impact on the unit.

       

    6. Reporting of Research Time

      It is the faculty member's responsibility to track the number of hours of research time used each year and to file an annual report as specified in the Handbook section on Annual Faculty Research Time Report.

      Approved by the UL Faculty 9/11/01
      Revision approved by the UL Faculty on 5/6/08
      Receipt acknowledged by the Provost's Office on 5/12/08
      Final approval, 9/24/08
      Revision approved by UL Faculty, 9/14/10

      Receipt acknowledged by the Provost's Office, 9/1710

      Final approval, 8/31/11

  11. Annual Research Time Report

    Every year, UL faculty who have submitted notification of research time are required to submit a research time report. The report informs the Dean of University Libraries about how the use of research time is benefiting UL faculty, including administrators with faculty rank. It is not evaluative.

    Research time reports will be available to those working within UL.

    The report includes the number of research time hours taken, descriptions of activity carried out on research time, and, if applicable, citations to finished or forthcoming work. A standard form will be used.

    The Professional Development and Standards Committee is responsible for the exact procedures to be used. The CAC Secretary is responsible for marshaling the process to completion each year.

    Approved by UL faculty December 20, 2005.

  12. Release Time for Regional Campus Library Faculty

    1. Introduction

      At Kent State University, faculty are evaluated in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Regional Campus faculty are evaluated in these areas, but special emphasis is given to the teaching dimension in recognition of the Regional Campus mission. Over time, departments have come to accommodate, accept, and recognize the Regional Campus mission as it relates to the evaluation of their faculty colleagues. While teaching is important, scholarship is not devalued. Regional Campus faculty are expected to engage in professional growth and development, publication, and related scholarly activities. They are expected to be current in their discipline and active in inquiry. The recent University discussions and acceptance of the concepts presented in Scholarship Reconsidered are particularly appropriate to the professional development expectations for Regional Campus faculty.

      Since University Libraries faculty fulfill 12-month contract requirements, a research time policy was developed at the Kent Campus to assist Kent University Libraries faculty in meeting University requirements for professional development and scholarship activities. This policy provides them with the opportunity to secure release time up to approximately 10 percent of their regularly scheduled hours. There is no such policy presently in place at the Regional Campuses.

    2. Purpose

      Responsibility for satisfactory performance in the areas of job performance, scholarship, and service lies with the individual Regional Campus Librarian. The Regional Campus Administration and the University Libraries foster an environment which supports the individual's efforts in all these areas.

      This proposal adapts the Kent University Libraries research time for individual professional development activities. Because librarianship is practice oriented and because of the Regional Campus emphasis on teaching and service, conventional or traditional academic research and publication are not the only forms of professional development appropriate for Regional campus Library faculty. Librarianship has many facets including subject expertise, administrative or managerial competence, knowledge of library and information technologies, and teaching skills as well as customary concerns such as collection development, reference work, and technical services. For librarians, scholarship may reflect any or all of these concerns.

      This policy supports both Regional Campus Library faculty and the instructional mission of the Regional Campuses and their libraries.

    3. Eligibility and Activities Supported

      Release time is provided to facilitate faculty progress in research, writing, and related scholarly activities. It is available to tenure-track and tenured members of the Regional Campus Library faculty. It supports activities such as the preparation of manuscripts, media, papers, proposals, reviews, and other intellectual endeavors that may contribute to improved service at the Regional Campus Libraries or to advances in the field of librarianship or in subject disciplines. Activities for which release time is requested will be directly or indirectly related to library service at a Regional Campus. Release time does not include time spent attending meetings and conferences of professional associations.

    4. Scheduling Release Time

      Eligible faculty can apply for up to 200 hours of release time during each fiscal year. Since the nature of any project varies, time may be requested in increments ranging from a minimum of one-half day blocks (i.e. four hours) to a maximum of the total time allotted. When initiating a request, faculty members will take into account library service needs and other special scheduling considerations, particularly during peak periods of activity. Release time does not accrue and any time not taken by the end of the fiscal year is forfeited.

    5. Application and Approval Process

      Using the attached form, a eligible faculty member will initiate a request that includes the project proposal to the dean of University Libraries at least six weeks prior to the projected release time. The College Advisory Committee and the Dean of University Libraries will make a recommendation which will be forwarded together with the original application to the appropriate Campus Dean. The final decision on approval or disapproval of release time rests with the Campus Dean.

      Actual scheduling of release time is subject to approval by Regional Campus Library Directors or Deans.

      If a request for release time is disapproved, the reason(s) will be stated on the form which is then returned to the faculty member. The faculty member may then modify the proposal, provide additional information, and/or meet with the Dean to discuss the proposal. The Campus Dean in consultation with the Dean of University Libraries, and the Regional Campus Dean for Academic Affairs is obliged to reconsider the modified proposal. The Campus Dean will provide the faculty member, the Dean of University Libraries, and the Vice Provost with a written statement of the reconsidered decision.

    6. Reporting Procedures

      At the end of each fiscal year, a report to the Dean of University Libraries and the Campus Dean and Vice Provost must be filed by all faculty members who used any or all of their release time during the year. This report shall contain the amount of time utilized, a description of the project(s), and the progress made in the area of release time used.

    7. Evaluation

      Three years from the time the proposal is accepted, the Vice Provost for Regional Campuses will appoint a committee of Regional Campus Library Faculty to evaluate this policy. The committee will consult with the Dean of University Libraries, the CAC, and Campus Deans in making its evaluation. The committee will submit its written report to the Vice Provost for Regional Campuses, the University Libraries faculty, and the Campus Deans.

      Effective: July 1, 1994.

  13. Faculty Professional Improvement Leave

    1. Intent

      This document is intended to serve as a supplement to University Policies 3342-6-12 (University policy regarding faculty professional improvement leave) and 3342-6-12.101 (Operational procedures regarding faculty professional improvement leaves). It specifically addresses terms of leaves, application and review processes, and post-leave reporting for Faculty in University Libraries. Before applying for Professional Improvement Leave, the Faculty member should review both the University Policies noted above and the guidelines that follow.

       

    2. Eligibility

      All regular, full-time tenured members of the Faculty at the rank of assistant professor or higher who are in their seventh year of regular tenure-track appointment by the university are eligible to apply for a Faculty Professional Improvement Leave. Any faculty member granted Faculty Professional Improvement Leave is not eligible for another Faculty Professional Improvement leave for a period of seven years after the Faculty Professional Improvement Leave has been completed.

      The granting of such leaves is not automatic. In applying for such leaves, UL Faculty should be mindful of the following principles:

      1. The proposed activity (or activities) should be a well-defined scholarly project(s) with a specific end-product(s).
      2. The project(s) should fit within the mission/goals of UL or the University, and contribute significantly to the professional growth of the individual.
      3. The Faculty member should be able to complete the project(s) successfully within the time allotted.
    3. Leave Terms

      UL Faculty may take Professional Improvement Leave in one of the following ways.

      Option #1: 136 calendar days in length with full benefits and 100% of the Faculty member's salary.

      Option #2: 272 calendar days in length with full benefits and 50% of the Faculty member's salary.

      3.1 These leaves can begin no earlier than the beginning of the fiscal year which encompasses the academic year for which the sabbatical was granted. They must conclude no later than seven calendar days before the beginning of the next academic year.

      3.2 Leave days within UL do not need to be taken consecutively. A Faculty member may request flexible scheduling through discussion with the supervisor. Final approval must be obtained from the Dean.

       

    4. Application Process

      4.1 The applicant for a Professional Improvement Leave should submit the following materials to the Dean of University Libraries by the date specified by the Provost's Office (usually mid-October) of the academic year prior to the intended leave period. Regional campus applicants must also submit copies of these materials to their Campus Dean and the Executive Dean for Regional Campuses.

      1. Current curriculum vitae
      2. Reports of outcomes of previous leaves taken including prior Professional Improvement Leaves or leave for participation in exchange programs.
      3. Proposal for Professional Improvement Leave
      4. Statement on proposed coverage of the applicant's job responsibilities, as discussed with his or her supervisor.

      4.2 The Proposal for Professional Improvement Leave (no longer than 1,000 words) should include the following elements:

      1. Name of applicant
      2. Date of proposal
      3. Dates of intended Professional Improvement Leave
      4. Academic year in which applicant was appointed as a tenure-track Faculty member and start and end dates of any prior Professional Improvement Leave(s)
      5. Description of the proposed project including a discussion of how it would contribute to scholarship
      6. Statement of how the proposed project would advance the mission/goals of UL or the University
      7. Statement of how the proposed project would advance the applicant's professional growth and development
      8. Statement of anticipated end-products
      9. Identification of other appointments to be held during the proposed leave period, if any
    5. Review Process

      5.1 Applications received by the Dean's office are reviewed by CAC which will consider the following criteria in its assessment of each application:

      1. Confirmation of the applicant's eligibility for Faculty Professional Improvement Leave
      2. Value of the proposed project to the mission/goals of UL or the University
      3. The extent to which the proposed project has a clearly defined end product
      4. The feasibility of completing the proposed project within the time period of the leave


      5.2 CAC will advise the Dean of University Libraries as to the merits and acceptability of each proposal.

      5.3 In the case that multiple applications are received from Kent campus Faculty, CAC should rank applications by considering all the following criteria:

      1. How well the proposal meets the review criteria
      2. Applicants who have the greatest years of service to the University at the time of submission
      3. Applicants for whom the interval since the last award of a faculty professional improvement leave has been greatest.


      5.4 The Dean of University Libraries, after consulting with the CAC, will determine for each proposal the budget and staffing capability of the department to cover the job responsibilities of the Kent campus Faculty member requesting the leave. The Dean will then make a decision based on both the merits of the proposal and the capacity of the department to provide the staffing support required by the proposal.

      5.5 The Dean will forward the proposal(s) and a recommendation memorandum for Kent campus Faculty to the Office of Faculty Affairs and Curriculum. The memorandum should address the following points:

      1. Confirmation of eligibility of the applicant and the completeness of the application
      2. Comments on the value of the proposed leave project to both University Libraries and to the applicant's professional growth
      3. A report on ranking of applications if more than one is being submitted by University Libraries
      4. A report on staffing implications if leave is granted


      5.6 In the case of Regional Campus Faculty, the Dean of University Libraries will forward a recommendation based only on the merits of the proposal to the Executive Dean for Regional Campuses. The memorandum should address the following points:

      1. Confirmation of eligibility of the applicant and the completeness of the application
      2. Comments on the value of the proposed leave project to both University Libraries and to the applicant's professional growth


      5.7 After forwarding the recommendation and proposal to the appropriate office, the Dean of University Libraries shall inform the faculty member of the status of the proposal.
       

    6. Post-Leave Report

      No later than two months following completion of a Faculty Professional Improvement Leave, the Faculty member must submit a summary report of the outcomes of the leave. This report should include a discussion of how the objectives of the leave were met and expected future outcomes that might result from the leave. This report should be submitted to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs & Provost, with copies going to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs and Curriculum, the Dean of UL, and the secretary of UL CAC. A copy of any end-product(s) should also be included with the report sent to the Dean of UL and the secretary of the UL CAC. The secretary of UL CAC will distribute copies to the members of CAC. In the case of regional campus faculty, copies must also be sent to the Executive Dean for Regional Campuses and the campus Dean.

      1/2/98 (original policy)
      Revision approved by UL Faculty, 2/7/2008
      Revision approved by UL Faculty, 9/14/10

      Receipt acknowledged by the Provost's Office, 9/1710

      Final approval, 8/31/11

  14. Non-Tenure Track Faculty Searches

    1. Determination to Fill a Vacant Position or Create a New Position

      Kent Campus
      The decisions on filling vacant, existing, or new Non-Tenure Track (NTT) faculty positions shall be determined by the Dean of University Libraries (UL) after receiving the advice of the College Advisory Committee (CAC). New or existing vacant NTT positions shall be consistent with the strategic directions and goals of University Libraries and shall be filled in accordance with appropriate University policies and with the guidelines outlined below.

      Regional Campus
      The decisions on filling vacant, existing, or new NTT faculty positions shall be determined by the Campus Dean after consultation with the UL Dean. New or existing vacant NTT positions shall be consistent with the strategic directions and goals of the eight-campus library system and shall be filled in accordance with appropriate University policies and with the guidelines outlined below.

       

    2. Administrative Responsibility

      Kent Campus
      The UL Dean, in consultation with the CAC, will oversee the appointment of a search committee and provide a charge to the search committee with instructions on how hiring recommendations are to be submitted, and ensure that University-required procedures are followed.

      Regional Campus
      The Campus Dean, or their designee, will oversee the appointment of a search committee and provide a charge to the search committee with instructions on how hiring recommendations are to be submitted, and ensure that University-required procedures are followed.

       

    3. Search Committee Composition and Responsibilities

      Kent Campus
      Search Committee Composition

      The UL Dean will appoint the members of the search committee. The search committee generally will have between three to five members, including the following:

      a. CAC Representative: The CAC representative to the search committee will usually be the NTT faculty member currently elected to the CAC. If that person cannot serve, another CAC member should be appointed to the search committee.
      b. Position Supervisor: The supervisor of the vacant position will be a member of the search committee. Unless the Dean decides otherwise, the supervisor of the vacant position will serve as chair of the search committee.
      c. NTT Faculty Member: If the NTT faculty member currently elected to CAC is unable to serve on the search committee, at least one NTT faculty member should be appointed to serve on the committee.

      Search Committee Responsibilities

      The search committee (working closely with the UL administrator in charge of personnel matters) will be responsible for the following areas: screening the pool of applicants, interviewing candidates, making a hiring recommendation to the Dean, and maintaining records of the search process. The search committee Chair will coordinate all logistical aspects of the search and the interview, including ensuring that the job description and posting are accurate and published appropriately and keeping search committee members informed throughout the search process.

      Hiring Recommendation

      When the search committee has completed its deliberations and has reached a decision on a hiring recommendation, the Chair of the committee will transmit the following  to the UL Dean. The UL Dean will make the hiring decision.

      a. A written recommendation to the UL Dean and to the CAC concerning the candidates who were interviewed. The written recommendation must include a detailed rationale for how all interviewed candidates were evaluated and rank all acceptable candidates.
      b. A written list of all applicants for the position and the reason each was screened out by the search committee.

      Search Committee Records

      The search committee Chair will ensure that appropriate records of the search are created and maintained, including search committee meeting notes or minutes, all candidate application materials, and notes on search committee review. These records should be retained for the period specified in the University Records Retention Policy.

      Regional Campus
      Search Committee Composition

      The Campus Dean, or their designee, will appoint the voting members of the search committee after consultation with the UL Dean. The search committee generally will have between three to five members The Campus Dean shall appoint all members of the search committee except as follows:

      a. UL CAC Representative: One faculty member serving on the UL CAC should be appointed to the committee.
      b. Position Supervisor: The supervisor of the vacant position, or their designee, will be a member of the search committee. Unless the Campus Dean decides otherwise, the supervisor of the vacant position will serve as chair of the search committee.

      Search Committee Responsibilities

      The search committee will be responsible for the following areas: screening the pool of applicants, interviewing candidates, making a hiring recommendation to the Campus Dean, and maintaining records of the search process. The search committee Chair will coordinate all logistical aspects of the search and the interview, including ensuring that the job description and posting are accurate and published appropriately and keeping search committee members informed throughout the search process.

      Hiring Recommendation

      When the search committee has completed its deliberations and has reached a decision on a hiring recommendation, the Chair of the committee will transmit the following  to the Campus Dean with copies to the UL Dean. The Campus Dean will make the hiring decision.
      a. A written recommendation to the Dean and to the UL CAC concerning the candidates who were interviewed. The written recommendation must include a detailed rationale for how all interviewed candidates were evaluated and rank all acceptable candidates.
      b. A written list of all applicants for the position and the reason each was screened out by the search committee.

      Search Committee Records

      The search committee Chair will ensure that appropriate records of the search are created and maintained, including search committee meeting notes or minutes, all candidate application materials, and notes on search committee review. These records should be retained for the period specified in the University Records Retention Policy.

       

    4. Offer to Selected Candidate

      Kent Campus
      The UL Dean will offer the position to one of the recommended candidates. If the UL Dean elects not to follow the search committee's recommendation, or not to offer the position to any of the recommended candidates, he or she will notify the search committee and CAC in writing. He or she will then schedule a meeting with the search committee to discuss the search.

      Regional Campus
      The Campus Dean will offer the position to one of the recommended candidates. If the Campus Dean elects not to follow the search committee's recommendation, or not to offer the position to any of the recommended candidates, he or she will notify the search committee and the UL CAC in writing. He or she will then schedule a meeting with the search committee to discuss the search.

       

      Approved by UL Faculty, 6/29/10
      Revision approved by UL Faculty, 11/16/10
      Receipt acknowledged by the Provost's Office, 11/17/10
      Final approval, 8/31/11

  15. Role of Non-Tenure Track Library Faculty

    In addition to their work as academic librarians, NTT faculty members meet the University Libraries' need for specialized training and experience in a wide range of library operations. Their managerial and supervisory responsibilities include depend on establishing effective working relationships with faculty, students, University Libraries support staff, university offices, and external vendors. NTT faculty meet specified goals and commitments, and ensure effective operation of assigned units with an emphasis on operational responsibilities. NTT faculty play an integral role in the attainment of University Libraries goals.

    NTT faculty are members of the Fulltime Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Unit. The Non-Tenure Track Collective Bargaining Agreement defines specific tracks for NTT faculty. University Libraries' NTT faculty typically have appointments in the Practitioner track (see NTT CBA, Article IX, Section 2, B2)

    Kent Campus

    UL NTT faculty have position descriptions and receive annual written performance evaluations based upon performance standards that are directly related to job duties and responsibilities. The demonstration of effective job performance by meeting or exceeding performance standards is the main criterion for continued employment. These annual performance evaluations are of primary importance when an NTT faculty member is being considered for continued employment through the Full Performance Review or simplified Performance Review processes. 

    UL and the University also value professional development activities and, as such, may provide funding to faculty who qualify. Unpaid leaves of absence may also be granted to eligible faculty to pursue professional development activities if approved according to the criteria set forth in the FT NTT CBA (Addendum C).

    Regional Campus Librarians and Library Directors

    Each regional campus has a library with full-time professional staff. Some regional campus libraries employ NTT faculty who are members of the faculty of UL. As such, these faculty members have duties and responsibilities to their regional campus. In addition, regional campus faculty librarians collaborate with UL colleagues at all campuses to provide quality library service across the University. Regional campus NTT faculty are evaluated annually and must complete Full Performance Reviews or simplified Performance Reviews. Funding of professional development activities and approved unpaid leaves of absence are also available to regional campus NTT faculty who are members of the FT NTT collective bargaining unit, as set forth in the FT NTT CBA (Addendum C).

     Adopted by UL Faculty 9/11/01 (original policy)
    Approved by UL Faculty, 5/13/10
    Approved by the Provost, 9/25/10
    Revision approved by UL Faculty, 9/14/10

    Receipt acknowledged by the Provost's Office, 9/1710

    Final approval, 8/31/11
    Approved by UL Faculty, 12/14/11
    Approved by the Provost, 05/02/12
     

  16. Renewal of Appointment and Third-Year Full Performance Reviews of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty

    Full-time NTT Performance Reviews and Reappointment - Kent Campus       

    1. Definitions

      This section addresses the various types of reviews of Non-Tenure Track faculty:

      Annual reappointment: Appointments can be renewed annually. The renewal decision is primarily based on past job performance and need for the position.

      Full Performance Review: During the third year of employment, NTT faculty members undergo a Full Performance Review. The same level of review takes place again during the sixth year of employment.

      Performance Review: After six years of employment and two successful Full Performance Reviews, NTT faculty members undergo a simplified Performance Review which takes place every three years.

       

    2. Full Performance Reviews and Reappointment

      1. Scope

        The current NTT Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provides that bargaining unit members who have received appointments for three consecutive academic years shall be subject to a Full Performance Review during the third year of appointment before a fourth annual appointment can be anticipated or authorized. The current CBA further provides that, upon completion of a second three-year term of annually renewable appointments, a bargaining unit member is eligible for consideration of another three-year term of annually renewable appointments upon successful completion of a second Full Performance Review. These guidelines set forth specific Full Performance Review and Reappointment criteria and procedures for NTT faculty in University Libraries (UL) and as such, work in conjunction with current provisions in the NTT Collective Bargaining Agreement.

         

      2. Reappointment Timetable

        Members of the bargaining unit in year one, two or three of employment may expect to be notified by the Dean as early as possible, but no later than May 1, if they will be reappointed for the coming year. Members of the bargaining unit in years four, five and six of employment may expect to be notified by the Dean as early as possible, but no later than March 1, if they will be reappointed for the coming year. Absent timely written notification as specified in this section that the appointment is not to be renewed for the next academic year, the appointment for the next academic year shall be regarded as renewed.

      3. Full Performance Review Timetable

        An NTT faculty member shall be subject to a Full Performance Review in her/his third and sixth year of consecutive employment. For bargaining unit members who are hired between January 1 and June 30, the following academic year first full academic year will be considered the bargaining unit member's first year for the purposes of the Full Performance Review.

         

      4. Purpose

        The Full Performance Review has as its primary purpose the reaffirmation of the appointment of the NTT faculty member through a review of her/his job performance during the preceding three years. The Full Performance Review is expected to be part of a three-year term of annually renewable appointments, providing that continuing programmatic need and budgeted resources supporting the position can be anticipated for the term in question.

      5. Criteria

        NTT faculty members successful in standing for Full Performance Review in UL shall have demonstrated effective job performance that meets or exceeds the performance standards established for the position, as primarily documented in annual performance evaluations.

         

      6. Full Performance Review Procedure

        6.1. By May 31st, the Dean of University Libraries shall notify NTT faculty members who will be subject to a Full Performance Review during the following academic year and shall provide review guidelines and timetable.

        6.2. The NTT faculty member is responsible for submitting a file containing the following to the Dean by the specified date:

            a. A self-evaluation providing an assessment of the NTT faculty member's job performance during the period under review;
            b. An up-to-date curriculum vitae;
            c. A current job description;
            d. Performance standards for the position(s) held; and
            e. The performance evaluations for the period under review.

        At her/his discretion, the NTT faculty member may include other materials that further demonstrate effective job performance.

        6.3. Guidelines for the submission of materials for review will be issued annually by the Office of Faculty Affairs.

        6.4. The Dean shall review the file with the NTT faculty member in order to insure that the file is complete. Both the dean and the candidate shall sign a certificate of file completeness, which shall be added to the file.

        6.5. The Dean shall convene an ad hoc Review Committee to review and make recommendations regarding the Full Performance Review. The ad hoc Review Committee shall be made up of three UL tenure track Faculty members and two UL NTT faculty members not standing for review. The committee shall be appointed by the Dean in consultation with the College Advisory Committee (CAC).

        6.6. Deliberations and voting. The Dean shall initiate a candid and confidential discussion by sharing her/his estimate of the performance strengths and weaknesses of each NTT faculty member undergoing Full Performance Review with the ad hoc Review Committee. At the conclusion of the deliberations, there shall be a vote of all members, who shall vote yea or nay on each NTT faculty member under consideration.  Each voting member of the ad hoc Review Committee shall indicate on a signed ballot either to recommend or not recommend the candidate, along with written comments. In order to be recommended for renewal of appointment, the NTT faculty member must receive a simple majority positive vote.  A tabulation of the final count shall be included in the Dean's written summary provided for in Section 6.7 below.

        6.7. After carefully reviewing the recommendation of the committee, the Dean shall weigh and assess the NTT faculty member's record and arrive at a final conclusion regarding the review. The Dean shall prepare a written summary of performance which incorporates the Dean's assessment and conclusions. The Dean shall review the written summary of performance with the CAC. The Dean shall transmit a copy of the summary to the NTT faculty member with the renewal of appointment decision. A negative decision will include an explanation of whether lack of adequate satisfaction with performance or the absence of programmatic need or budgeted resources to support the position is the reason. A negative decision based on performance will be supported by a discussion of the shortcomings of the NTT faculty member's performance based on the performance standards for that position and as evidenced by the NTT faculty member's annual performance reviews.

        6.8. The Dean shall place a copy of this memo in the NTT faculty member's personnel file and shall transmit a copy to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs.
         

      7. Reconsideration of Review

        In addition to providing written comments in response to the review for the personnel file, the NTT faculty member may request a reconsideration of the review by the CAC within 30 days of receipt of the Dean's written summary of performance.

    3. Reappointment After Six Years of Consecutive Employment

      1. Scope

        These guidelines set forth procedures for reappointment after the bargaining unit member has completed six consecutive years of employment and two Full Performance Reviews.

         

      2. Reappointment Timetable

        Absent written notification prior to October 1 that the appointment is not to be renewed for the next academic year, the bargaining unit member's appointment for the next academic year within the three-year term shall be regarded as renewed. Upon completion of a three-year term of annually renewable appointments beginning in year seven of continuous employment, a bargaining unit member becomes eligible for consideration for another three-year term of annually renewable appointments based upon successful completion of a performance review as outlined in the FT-NTT CBA, continuing programmatic and/or staffing needs within the unit, and budgetary resources sufficient to support the position.

         

      3. Contents of Notification of Non-Reappointment

        Any notification that the appointment is not to be renewed for the next academic year shall set forth the basis for failure to reappoint, which may be the absence of one or more of the following: continuing satisfactory job performance; continuing programmatic and/ or staffing needs within the unit; or anticipated budgeted resources sufficient to support the position for another year.

      4. Reconsideration of Non-Reappointment

        The bargaining unit member may request that any notice of non-reappointment be reviewed by the College Advisory Committee. The request for review must be filed with the College Advisory Committee, with a copy to the Dean, by the bargaining unit member within 30 days of receipt of the notice of non-reappointment.

    4. Performance Reviews After Nine Years of Consecutive Employment

      1. Scope

        The current NTT CBA provides that bargaining unit members who have completed two Full Performance Reviews shall, after nine years of consecutive employment and every three years thereafter, undergo a performance review.  These guidelines set forth specific criteria and procedures for such performance reviews for NTT faculty in University Libraries (UL) and as such, work in conjunction with the FT-NTT CBA

      2. Performance Review Timetable

        The performance review will follow the procedures and timelines established by the Office of Faculty Affairs.

      3. Performance Review Procedure

        3.1. UL faculty members undergoing performance reviews in their ninth consecutive year of employment, and every three years thereafter, will submit to the Dean the following materials electronically:

        a. an up-to-date curriculum vitae;
        b. a narrative of up to five pages describing job performance, including how the performance standards of the position have been met, and professional development activities for the past three years; and
        c. performance evaluations for the three-year period under review.
        At her/his discretion, the NTT faculty member may include other materials that further demonstrate effective job performance.

        3.2. The Dean shall convene an ad hoc Review Committee to review and make recommendations regarding the performance review. The ad hoc Review Committee shall be made up of three UL tenure track faculty members and two UL NTT faculty members not standing for review. The committee shall be appointed by the Dean in consultation with the College Advisory Committee (CAC).

        3.3. Deliberations and voting. The Dean shall initiate a candid and confidential discussion by sharing his or her estimate of the performance strengths and weaknesses of each NTT faculty member undergoing performance review with the ad hoc Review Committee. At the conclusion of the deliberations, there shall be a vote of all members, who shall vote yea or nay on each NTT faculty member under consideration. Each voting member of the ad hoc Review Committee shall indicate on a signed ballot either to recommend or not recommend the candidate, along with written comments. In order to be recommended for renewal of appointment, the NTT faculty member must receive a simple majority positive vote.  A tabulation of the final count shall be included in the Dean's written summary provided for in Section 3.4 below.

        3.4. After carefully reviewing the recommendation of the committee, the Dean shall weigh and assess the NTT faculty member's record and arrive at a final conclusion regarding the review. The Dean shall prepare a written summary of performance which incorporates the Dean's assessment and conclusions. The Dean shall review the written summary of performance with the College Advisory Committee. The Dean shall transmit a copy of the summary to the NTT faculty member with the renewal of appointment decision. A negative decision will include an explanation of whether lack of adequate satisfaction with performance or the absence of continuing programmatic need or budgeted resources to support the position is the reason.  A negative decision based on performance will be supported by a discussion of the shortcomings of the NTT faculty member's performance based on the performance standards for that position and as evidenced by the NTT faculty member's annual performance reviews.

        3.5. The Dean shall place a copy of this memo in the NTT faculty member's personnel file and shall transmit a copy to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs.

         

      4. Reconsideration of Review

        In addition to providing written comments in response to the review for the personnel file, the NTT faculty member may request a reconsideration of the review by the College Advisory Committee within 30 days of receipt of the Dean's written summary of performance.

        Approved at the UL Special Faculty Meeting of April 2, 2007 (formerly "Third-Year Review")
        Revision approved, UL Faculty, December 13, 2007 (formerly "Third-Year Review")
        Revision approved by UL Faculty, 6/29/10
        Receipt acknowledged by the Provost's Office, 9/1710

        Final approval, 8/31/11

  17. Full-time NTT Faculty Promotion - Kent Campus

    1. Scope

      This section sets forth promotion guidelines for University Libraries (UL) Full-Time Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Faculty. As such, they work in conjunction with provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement currently in effect between Kent State University and the Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty Unit of the American Association of University Professors, Kent State Chapter (CBA).

    2. Definition

      "Promotion" is the elevation of a faculty member to the next highest faculty rank within the University. Promotion shall be viewed as recognition of a faculty member having contributed sustained and distinguished service to the University, the academic unit, and the campus to which the faculty member belongs.

      Promotion is distinguished from reconsideration of rank, the guidelines for which are set forth in the FT-NTT CBA

       

    3. Eligibility

      Bargaining unit members may stand for promotion in the third year of a cycle of three (3) one-year annually renewable appointments.  Only bargaining unit members who have successfully passed one (1) Full Performance Review are eligible to stand for promotion.  Promotion is from rank to rank, and is sequential.

    4. Criteria

      University policy for promotion requires that a candidate possesses the terminal degree in his/her discipline in order to be promoted to Associate Professor or Professor.  All UL faculty members possess the Master of Library Science (MLS) degree or equivalent, the terminal degree in librarianship.  The expectation is that initial appointments in UL are made at the level of Assistant Professor.

      Recommendation for promotion shall be based on the following criteria:

      a. Performance: To be assessed on the performance of assigned duties and responsibilities associated with the assigned track of the candidate. An NTT faculty member standing for promotion shall have demonstrated consistently strong job performance and UL job-related service, which meet or exceed the performance standards established for his or her position as primarily documented in annual performance evaluations (written by the candidate's supervisor) and all three-year performance reviews (as required by  the FT-NTT CBA). This is the primary criterion for promotion.

      b. Professional development: To be assessed as it relates to the assigned track of the candidate. An NTT faculty member standing for promotion shall demonstrate a consistent record of professional development that has enhanced job performance or understanding of the field.

      c. University and UL citizenship:  To be assessed as it relates to the assigned track of the candidate. For NTT faculty members, it includes service activities not necessarily tied directly to one's job responsibilities, but which contribute to the overall mission of UL and the University.

      Evidence of significant accomplishments in both performance and professional development is required for promotion. Accomplishments and/or contributions in the area of University and UL citizenship are neither required nor expected, but will, when they exist, contribute to the bargaining unit member's overall record of accomplishments. However, citizenship activities that fulfill a requirement for UL NTT participation, such as NPAC and CAC, are to be given full weight in the evaluation of a faculty member. Prior to engaging in University and UL citizenship that have the potential to impinge on work time, NTT faculty members will confer with their supervisors.

       

    5. Contents of Promotion File

      NTT faculty members who are standing for promotion shall submit a promotion file to the Dean consisting of all of the following materials:

      a. Curriculum vitae or resume;

      b. Narrative supporting the rationale for promotion;

      c. Copy of the UL NTT role document;

      d. Documentation of job performance, including copies of annual performance evaluations (written by the candidate's supervisor) and all three-year performance reviews (as required by Article IX of the CBA).

      e. Documentation of any job-related professional development activities, such as training, workshops, conferences, or other educational opportunities.

      In addition to the foregoing materials, the candidate may submit documentation that describes the nature and extent of any University and UL citizenship activities.

       

    6. Procedure

      a. By October 1st of each year, the Dean shall notify all eligible NTT UL faculty members of their eligibility for promotion.

      b. Eligible NTT faculty members shall notify the Dean within two weeks of receipt of the notice of eligibility whether or not they intend to stand for promotion.

      c. The eligible NTT faculty member shall submit the promotion file by the second week of the spring semester.

      d. The Dean shall review the file with the candidate in order to ensure that the file is complete and shall prepare a statement indicating that the file is complete. Both the candidate and the Dean shall sign the completed file statement.

      e. In accordance with the provisions of the CBA, Addendum D, Section 2, during each fall semester, the Dean of UL shall initiate and oversee the appointment of a Non-Tenure Track Promotion Advisory Board (NPAB). The NPAB shall be made up of all full-time, NTT UL faculty members at all campuses who have successfully completed one annual performance evaluation and who are not standing for promotion during the upcoming academic year. The NPAB must have at least three members. In the event that there are not enough eligible UL NTT faculty members to form the NPAB, NTT faculty members from outside UL will be asked to serve. The Dean of UL shall serve as chair of the NPAB and as a non-voting member.

      f. NPAB Review: The Dean shall convene the NPAB to evaluate the applications for promotion and lead a candid discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. All review and discussion shall be confidential. Each candidate for promotion will be evaluated independently, without regard to the record of other candidates. Each voting member of the NPAB shall indicate on a signed ballot either to recommend or not recommend the candidate for promotion, along with written comments.  Approval of a simple majority is needed for a positive recommendation of promotion. The vote shall be recorded by the Dean or his or her authorized representative.

      g. UL Dean Review: The NPAB recommendation shall be forwarded to the Dean, who shall review the recommendation of the NPAB. The Dean shall then forward his/ her recommendation to the Provost, with a copy to the candidate and the unit administrator.  In the event of an unfavorable recommendation by the Dean, the candidate may file a written appeal with the Provost within ten (10) working days of receipt of the Dean's recommendation.

      h. Provost's Assessment and Determination: The Provost shall review the recommendation of the Dean on each application for promotion, and shall make a final assessment and determination on each.  Each bargaining unit member who applies for promotion shall be notified of the decision on the application no later than the last day of the spring semester in which the promotion application was submitted.

      1. In the case of a positive decision, the President shall notify the candidate.

      In the case of a negative decision by the Provost, the Provost shall notify the candidate. Such notification shall inform the candidate that he or she may appeal the decision of the Provost to the President within ten (10) working days of receipt of the Provost's written decision.
       

    7. Promotion Increments

      Any NTT faculty member who is promoted in rank shall receive a promotion increase as set forth in the CBA, Article X, Section 3.

      Approved by the UL faculty, 2/7/2008 (Formerly "Change In Rank")
      Final approval 7/15/08 (Formerly "Change In Rank")
      Revision approved by UL Faculty, 6/29/10

      Receipt acknowledged by the Provost's Office, 9/1710

      Final approval, 8/31/11

  18. Performance Evaluations of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Library Faculty

    1. Summary

      For NTT faculty, the annual performance evaluations are important documents for the third year review. The performance evaluation will become a part of the faculty member's file.

      JOB DESCRIPTIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

      Job descriptions and performance standards exist for each faculty position. Job descriptions and performance standards should be evaluated annually to ensure consistency with the current scope of job responsibilities. If significant revisions to an individual's job description or performance standards are deemed necessary, then the new description or standards shall be reviewed and approved by CAC.

    2. Process

      Faculty performance evaluations will take place annually according to the following procedures. These guidelines are also recommended for use by library faculty on the Regional Campuses, recognizing that evaluations would go to the appropriate Regional Campus Dean.  Faculty with administrative contracts will be required to follow the guidelines of the university administration. 

      The rating period will be July 1st to June 30th each year. The process begins when each faculty member, in consultation with his or her immediate supervisor, develops a set of objectives based on the performance standards for the position and departmental objectives. These objectives should be completed by September 1. 

      At the close of the rating period, the faculty member will complete a two part self-evaluation of his or her progress toward the objectives and the attainment of performance standards for the position. Part one is a self-evaluation of objectives which will take the form of a personal narrative (between 500-1500 words) that addresses progress toward achievement of each of the objectives and may include discussion of other significant work accomplishments for the year.  For part two, progress in achieving performance standards will be evaluated through completion of a separate checklist with comments on the major areas of responsibility (see example below). The narrative and the checklist/comments on performance standards will be forwarded to the supervisor by June 30. 

      The supervisor will write a narrative evaluation (between 500-1000 words) of the faculty member informed by the self-evaluation materials and other relevant information by August 1.

      By September 1 the supervisor will meet with the faculty member to review the evaluation written by the supervisor and to review the faculty member's performance standards and job description.  The faculty member will have the opportunity to add comments to the supervisor's evaluation.  This evaluation form must be signed by both the faculty member and the supervisor.  A list of the performances standards for the position will be attached to the evaluation (but not with any checklist/comments).  The signed evaluation will be forwarded to the appropriate Associate or Assistant Dean of UL or Regional Campus Dean. The faculty member's self-evaluation and checklist/comments will be returned to the faculty member at this time.

      This entire process must be completed by September 1.  The timetable may need to be adapted for new hires.

      This evaluation, but not the faculty member's self-evaluation or checklist/comments, will become a part of the faculty member's personnel file. When applicable the evaluation will be a part of the faculty member's reappointment, tenure, promotion, or third year review file.

      SAMPLE TIMETABLE

      Sample Review Year

      July 1, 2007 - June 20, 2008

      Objectives for the new year written by

      September 1, 2007

      Faculty self evalution (narrative and checklist) written by

      June 30, 2008

      Supervisor's narrative evaluation written by

      August 1, 2008

      Supervisor and faculty member meet and review/sign supervisor's evaluation and send it to A&A Dean by

      September 1, 2008

      SAMPLE CHECKLIST FORM FOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

      Duties & Responsibilities

      Performance Standards

      Area for growth or improvement

      Standard met

      Area of strength

      Comments (optional)

      1.1 Provide direct reference services, including through daily, evening, and weekend desk duty, office hours, and in response to individual inquiries in person and through phone and mail.

      1.1.1 Be approachable (i.e., ready to engage patrons, acknowledge patron, maintain eye contact).

       

       

       

       

       

      1.1.2 Communicate effectively through listening and inquiring (i.e., allow patron to state need, clarify, avoid jargon, respond objectively).

       

       

       

       

      Revisions approved at Special UL Faculty meeting on 4/2/07.

      Revised and Approved by the University Libraries Faculty, 5/8/13

       

       

  19. Professional Development Leave

    This policy statement is designed to provide a clear distinction between the types of paid time available from work to UL faculty for job-related activities, community service, conference or workshops attendance, and scholarly research. It also places limits on time away from primary job responsibilities and outlines the approval structure.

    In all cases, when a faculty member applies for or is asked to take one of the four types of leave described below, the impact of his/her absence on departmental staffing and service needs will receive a careful review.

    1. Administrative Leave

      Administrative Leave Definition:

      Time required or requested by Supervisor or Dean to improve skills, to receive new training, or to perform job duties off campus.

      Extent:

      Unlimited

      Approval:

      Supervisor and Dean

      Form Required:

      Faculty Absence Authorization

    2. Professional Service Leave

      Professional Service Leave Definition:

      Time taken by a faculty member for the purpose of sharing his/her professional expertise on a volunteer basis, with a professional organization, a local community organization, agency or school.

      Examples: State/National committee work or presentation at a local public school, or before a community group.

      Extent:

      Up to 5 requests within a fiscal year -- should not exceed 5 working days total.

      Approval:

      Supervisor and Dean

      Form Required:

      Faculty Absence Authorization

    3. Conference/Workshop Leave

      Definition:

      Time requested by faculty member to attend a conference or workshop designed to enrich the faculty member's professional life. Examples: ALA, OLC, ALAO, OELMA. This includes presentations at conferences and workshops as well as attendance. Other types of professional activities which are not conference/workshop, i.e. State/National committee work will be considered on a case by case basis.

      Extent:

      Up to 10 working days within fiscal year -- Request begins in department with supervisor. Denial at department level must be accompanied by written justification.

      More than 10 working days within fiscal year -- Request begins in department with supervisor. The supervisor will indicate approval or disapproval. Disapproval requires written justification from the supervisor. Then the request is referred to CAC using Conference/Workshop Leave Request Form. CAC will review and recommend approval or disapproval to the Dean. Denial is at the sole discretion of the Dean.

      Approval:

      As noted above

      Form Required:

      Faculty Absence Authorization

      Conference/Workshop Leave Request (if beyond 10 days)

    4. Research Time Leave

      * (for fuller explanation see the official policy as approved by UL faculty in 12/90)

      Definition:

      Time to facilitate faculty progress toward research, writing, and related scholarly activities. These activities include the preparation of manuscripts, media, papers, proposals, reviews, and other intellectual endeavors that may lead to publication or other professional contributions in the field of librarianship or in subject disciplines. Research time may not be used to attend meetings and conferences of professional associations.

      Extent:

      200 hours within fiscal year

      Approval:

      Department Head, Associate Dean, CAC, Dean

      Form Required:

      Research Time Request

      * It is the responsibility of the individual faculty member and the supervisor of that faculty member to track time used in Service, Conference/Workshop Leave and Research Time Leave.

      Approved: CAC, 9/12/94
      Revision Approved: CAC, 4/3/95
      Approved: UL faculty, 4/12/95
      Revision Approved: UL faculty, 5/2/96
      Editorial Changes: Handbook Committee, 11/13/07

  20. Outside Employment and Other Outside Activities

    1. Consulting and External Employment

      In general, faculty are permitted to engage in consulting and external employment. The following outlines the procedure and approval structure.

      This policy statement is meant to provide guidelines and procedures for UL faculty concerning external employment or consulting activities of a professional nature. When a faculty member wishes to engage in consulting (with or without remuneration) or in other external employment, the faculty member must first meet with his/her supervisor. The purpose of this meeting will be twofold:

      • to review/discuss the impact of the consulting or external employment activity on staffing and workflow.
      • to apprise the supervisor of the nature of the activity, since the faculty member will be identified with the institution.

      This twofold purpose is to ensure that the faculty member and supervisor/dean have the appropriate consultation and arrive at an understanding of what is acceptable in order to avoid any conflict or misunderstanding.

      Following the meeting, the supervisor will confirm in writing to the faculty member the topics discussed and understandings reached during the meeting.

      1. Pro Bono Consulting or Speaking Engagements

        Definition: Consulting or speaking which is done free of charge, except for any directly reimbursed expenses, or as a service. The Professional Service Leave policy addresses this area. It is repeated here for convenience.

        Professional Service Leave Definition: Time taken by a faculty member for the purpose of sharing her/his professional expertise on a volunteer basis, with a professional organization, a local community organization, agency or school.

        Examples: State/National committee work, presentation at a local public school, or before a community group.

        Extent: see Professional Development Leave Policy

        Approval: Supervisor & Dean

        Form Required: Faculty Absence Authorization

      2. Consulting or Speaking Engagements (with remuneration)

        Definition: Consulting or speaking which is done for a fee or honoraria, exclusive of directly reimbursed expenses, paid directly to the faculty member.

        Extent: Vacation time, flex time or a Leave of Absence without pay is required for the faculty member to prepare and pursue this type of consulting or speaking.

        Approval: Approval as required on Faculty Absence Authorization form

        Form Required: Faculty Absence Authorization

      3. External Employment

        Definition: Continued employment on a regular basis for pay. Classes, or other external continuous employment must take place either outside of the faculty member's regular University Libraries work schedule OR during vacation time, flex time or leave of absence without pay as approved by the faculty member's supervisor. Preparation for external employment must also be done outside of the faculty member's regular work schedule.

        Example: Adjunct teaching in another department.

        Approval: If vacation time requested, approval as required on Faculty Absence Authorization form

        Form Required: If vacation time requested, Faculty Absence Authorization

        Approved by CAC, October 10, 1994
        Approved by full faculty, Nov. 15, 1994
        Revision approved by CAC, 4/1/96
        Approved by full faculty, May 2, 1996

  21. Participation in Externally Funded Projects

    Introduction:

    These guidelines are intended to facilitate externally funded projects while simultaneously protecting the daily operational needs of University Libraries.  Only externally funded projects that must be administered by the Division of Research and Graduate Studies Sponsored Programs office (see: University Policy Register 3 - 04.1: ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND PROCEDURES REGARDING SPONSORED PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION) fall under these guidelines.  Smaller personal grants, such as the ALAO Research Grant, are exempt from these guidelines.

    1. University Libraries Initiated Projects

      University Libraries (UL) may initiate externally funded projects through the formal planning process or at the discretion of the Dean, in consultation with the College Advisory Committee (CAC) and the University Libraries Council (ULC). In authorizing individual participation in externally funded projects, every effort should be made to select faculty members with the strongest or most appropriate qualifications (e.g. subject specialty, professional experience). Moreover, initiatives that duplicate existing assignments or organizational commitments should be avoided, unless, through consultation as noted above, such duplication is viewed as supporting desirable expansions in UL service. The impact on the individual's "home" department should also be reviewed and, when necessary, arrangements be made to compensate for that individual's absence during the period of the externally funded project. Such involvement will typically be recognized as an in-kind contribution by the funding agency; identified as part of the individual's workload; and discussed with the individual's supervisor.