The evaluation process is designed to achieve three objectives:
- It provides faculty members with information about their performance and promotes excellence in all aspects of their work.
- It furnishes part of the evidence for formulating recommendations and decisions on tenure and promotion.
- It enhances professional and collegial interactions among faculty members. Specific elements of the evaluation process are set forth below, and a summary chart is in Table 2.5.3-2.
Standards for faculty performance vary based upon the level and rank that faculty members seek to obtain. While the following criteria are intended as general guidelines for annual reviews and persons on non-tenure tracks, the standards for teaching, scholarship and service are higher for persons applying for tenure or for ranks above Assistant Professor. For example, the criteria for tenure include “superior ability and effectiveness in teaching,” “contributions to the professional literature of one’s discipline,” and “effective participation” in College/community service. For specific requirements, see Sections 2.6.1 (Promotion Policy) and 2.7.1(2) Criteria for Tenure.
Subject to specific requirements for promotion and tenure referenced in Sections 2.6 and 2.7, general performance as a faculty member will be evaluated according to the criteria listed in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, which are arranged in order of overall importance to the Wilmington College community. No specific numerical weight is assigned to any single criterion in order to provide sufficient flexibility for each faculty member to consider individual circumstances, contributions, interests and/or abilities.
In terms of total evaluation faculty may weigh their teaching effectiveness between 60% and 80%, scholarship should account for between 10% and 20% and general service should account for between 10% and 20%. Each criterion is important and meeting each of the criteria at a minimum level defines satisfactory performance.
Standards of Performance
The three areas considered in the evaluation of faculty effectiveness are teaching, scholarly growth and service. Each criterion is important, with satisfactory performance defined as meeting each of the criteria at a minimum level.
Adequate teaching involves careful and consistent preparation for classes, clear and stimulating presentation of materials, recognition of the worth of students as individual persons, the use of creative approaches in dealing with individual differences, the evaluation of student work by fair and just standards clearly understood by students and the development in students of some enthusiasm for the course.
Evaluation of teaching will be based on instructional delivery, instructional design, content expertise and course management. For this purpose, instructional delivery refers to the effectiveness of faculty performance in the classroom. Instructional design refers to the structure of syllabi, assignments, examinations and other course materials. Content expertise refers to substantive knowledge about one's teaching discipline. Course management refers to compliance with administrative deadlines for class rosters, academic difficulty information, attendance data, and final grades. The following ranges provide examples of possible weighting for how faculty can stress various aspects of their teaching:
- Instructional Delivery (Student evaluations 10% - 20% and classroom visit 5% - 15%)
- Instructional Design (20% - 40%)
- Content Expertise (25% - 45%)
- Course Management (5% - 15%)
Faculty members should show evidence of continuing scholarly growth and achievement in the profession through participation in regional and national meetings, service as expert consultants, research and writing, and/or recognition by authorities in the particular discipline. Each area will provide the standards by which a faculty member may meet or exceed expectations.
Service involves participation in area and College-wide committees, professional service and general community service.
Effective Faculty Activity
- Teaching effectiveness as evidenced by:
- Instructional delivery and classroom performance
- Instructional design
- Content expertise
- Course management
- Interaction with students
- Development of new course materials, new approaches to teaching, etc.
- Contemporary practices and course content as appropriate to discipline
- Attendance at teaching workshops
- Other indicators, as deemed useful by areas and/or individual faculty members, including but not limited to, evidence of implementation of suggestions for improvement of teaching from previous evaluations, alumni ratings, exit interviews with graduating seniors and other structured student interviews
Multiple types of information are essential in judging an activity as elusive as "good teaching.” Judgments on teaching effectiveness for decisions on retention, tenure or promotion will be based on more than one source of information. Student ratings, colleague ratings and administrative ratings will constitute the minimum types of information on which teaching effectiveness will be based.
- Scholarly effectiveness as evidenced by:
- Professional authorship of books or articles
- Submission of articles under consideration for publication
- Presentation at professional conferences
- Productive research
- Invited lectures
- Published book or performance reviews
- Professional recognition, honors and awards
- Appropriate consulting activities
- Recitals, exhibits and performances in disciplines where this is appropriate (e.g., fine arts)
- Grant proposals submitted to external agencies (whether funded or not)
- Effectiveness in general service as evidenced in the following possible areas:
- College Service:
- Performance as a faculty advisor, including availability to advise students and accuracy of advice.
- Committee work on the college campus
- Involvement in Faculty Meeting
- Area and program duties and contributions
- Participation in special programs, events, lectures, and performances
- Involvement in academic student activities (adviser to a student organization)
- Involvement in student activities
- Contributions to branch campus programs
- Informal relationships with faculty and students (e.g., entertaining student groups)
- Positive involvement in the continuing effort to improve the quality of life and programs at Wilmington College
- Involvement in student recruitment
- Representing the college at events
- Involvement with alumni
- Professional Service
- Election to position in a professional organization
- Consulting or counseling
- Peer reviewing or editing of a professional journal
- Service to a professional committee
- Organizing and/or chairing professional conference panels
- Membership and participation in professional societies and their meetings
- Attendance at workshops, summer institutions, etc.
- Community and Public Service
- Participation in community organizations and public service such as social justice or environmental issues.
Evaluation Procedures
Annual Evaluations
The following methods will be used to evaluate the performance of faculty members annually:
- Evaluation by Students
Normally, all faculty members will conduct student evaluations using a standardized evaluation instrument on a regular basis as outlined below and reflected in Tables 2.5.3.1-1 and 2.5.3.1-2. Course selection for student evaluation will be made by the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty in consultation with the faculty member and Area Coordinator. If faculty members are not satisfied with the course selected, they may request that the questionnaire be given to students in an additional course or courses.
If recommended by the Area Coordinator as part of the yearly evaluation report or by the Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee as part of third year review, the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty may require more frequent evaluation of a faculty member’s classes. The Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty may also recommend more frequent evaluation after consultation with the appropriate Area Coordinator.
Table 2.5.3.1-1 defines minimum use of student evaluations. More frequent administration will be conducted under circumstances noted above or when requested by the faculty member.
| Table 2.5.3.1-1. Student Evaluation Schedule |
|---|
|
All faculty (of any rank, and tenured or non-tenured) have student evaluations in the following manner:
Of course, faculty may choose to have more classes evaluated by students if they wish. |
Approved by the Faculty 5-13
Faculty members will take care to protect the privacy of student responses to the questionnaire. They also will inform students that they will not examine copies of the individual questionnaires until the semester is over. Faculty members will leave the classroom when students are filling out the questionnaires and will ask a student to collect the responses and return them to office of the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty.
After the questionnaires have been compiled and analyzed, the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty will place a summary report in the faculty member's official file and provide a copy to the faculty member. The Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty may choose to discuss the report with the faculty member. The faculty member may ask to discuss the report with the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty and may ask to submit written comments to be placed in his/her official file. He/she may also choose to discuss the results with their Area Coordinator.
The Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty will provide the results of the student questionnaires to the Promotion, Tenure and Review Committee if requested. The Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty or Vice President for External Programs will take care to assure that the student evaluation results are properly interpreted.
- Unit Evaluations & Classroom Visitations
By the date specified in Table 2.5.3-2, faculty will annually submit a copy of their Faculty Activity Report, the report of a peer classroom teaching visit (if not done by the Area Coordinator), and copies of student evaluations (if not received by the Area Coordinator from the Academic Affairs Office) to the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty and the Area Coordinator.
All faculty (of any rank, and tenured or non-tenured) must be peer evaluated once per academic year. (approved by the faculty 5-13)
The evaluation will include either a visit to the faculty member's class or a videotape of the class, at a mutually agreed upon time. Prior to the visit or the taping session, the faculty member will discuss with the Area Coordinator or other evaluator the objectives and methods for that particular class. Class visits will take place as indicated in Table 2.5.3-2. If a member of the faculty other than the Area Coordinator is selected, s/he must file a written report of the intended date of the classroom visit with the Area Coordinator by February 15th of the year of evaluation. If this does not occur, the Area Coordinator will conduct the evaluative visit and prepare the report. After completion of the classroom evaluation, the evaluator will meet with the faculty member to discuss her or his findings.
Another member of the faculty with suitable disciplinary background will evaluate the Area Coordinators, using a process identical to that outlined above. For Area Coordinator evaluation in the years before application for third year review, tenure or promotion, the selection of the peer reviewer must be approved by the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty in consultation with the Clerk of the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee.
All evaluators will write a qualitative narrative that shows consideration of the following elements:
Clarity of instruction as evidenced by:- Command of content
- Keeping discussion focused
- Presenting multiple examples of each concept
- Presenting definitions of new or unfamiliar terms
- Making connections to content from previous classes
- Answering students' questions thoroughly
- Delivering content coherently
- Maintaining students' attention and involvement
- Interaction between students and faculty such that
- Students are comfortable asking questions, and the faculty member is responsive to the students.
- Students are comfortable expressing opinions and the instructor is tolerant of other points of view.
- There is mutual respect in the classroom.
- The instructor is addressing and is aware of all students in the class, and all are treated equally.
- The instructor asks questions to encourage students to extend their thinking. Students are responsive.
- The instructor monitors student understanding of content and provides feedback.
Upon completion of these and other methods of gathering information, the Area Coordinator or Peer Evaluator will prepare a written report on the faculty member's classroom performance. The Area Coordinator or Peer Evaluator will then meet with the faculty member to discuss the contents of the report. The faculty member will sign a copy of the report to indicate that the faculty member has read the report. If the faculty member is satisfied with the accuracy and fairness of the report, s/he will sign it to indicate consent. If the faculty member is not satisfied with the report, s/he may prepare a response and submit it directly to the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty.
The Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty will place the report and response (if any) in the faculty member's official file. This material is available only to the faculty member, senior academic administrators, the president and, when appropriate for review, promotion or tenure considerations, the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee.
When a class visit is required as a part of the Faculty evaluation system, the visit must be evaluative in nature. We encourage faculty to invite or participate in visits of any of the following types:
- An Evaluation Visit which can be conducted by either a Peer or an Area Coordinator. Such visits are conducted at periodical intervals as part of the evaluation system, after which the evaluator writes a report first shared with the faculty member.
- A Mentoring Visit where the mentor may be a faculty member's official mentor or another trusted member of the faculty. The mentor will give the faculty member feedback, but nothing will be in writing. The advice and suggestions of a mentor are confidential at the discretion of the one being mentored.
- A Learning Visit is one in which a faculty member visits the classroom of another in order to gain insights and ideas to benefit their own teaching. One engages in a learning visit when new to the Wilmington Culture in order to better understand how this faculty teaches our students. After a long career at Wilmington one may engage in a learning visit in order to stay current with teaching practices.
- Annual Faculty Activity Report
Each faculty member will submit an Annual Faculty Activity Report to the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty and the Area Coordinator, using either the long form or short form (Appendix 1.7), depending on their current year of service (Table 2.5.3.1-2).
Under appropriate circumstances, in consultation with Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee, the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty may require more frequent review of a faculty member’s performance.
The evaluation forms have been prepared to give specific direction to the faculty member, based on the criteria in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2. Special care should be given to assess progress on personal goals set the year before and identify goals for the coming year. Faculty members may submit additional data and comments beyond that called for on the self-evaluation form.
The short form Annual Faculty Activity Report is submitted to the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty and the Area Coordinator by May 30.
The long form Annual Faculty Activity Report is submitted to the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty and the Area Coordinator by May 30 and responded to in writing by: the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty, the Area Coordinator and by a Peer Evaluator if a third reader is so desired by the faculty member. The Report and copies of all letters will be placed in the faculty member's official file. It is also made available to the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee, and academic administrators for use in promotion, tenure and merit pay determinations. However, its primary use is to help the faculty member identify areas of strength and weakness and set goals for the coming year.
Table 2.5.3.1-2. Overview of Faculty Evaluation System
FOR TENURE-TRACK FACULTY:
|
Year of Service |
Evaluation Components |
Due |
|---|---|---|
|
1-2 |
Long form, class visit (once per academic year), student evaluations (every course) |
May 30 |
|
3 |
Third-Year Review Portfolio, class visit (once per academic year), student evaluations (every course) |
January 15 |
|
4 |
Short form, class visit (once per academic year), student evaluations (every course) |
May 30 |
|
5 |
Long form, class visit (once per academic year), student evaluations (every course) |
May 30 |
|
6 |
Tenure Review Portfolio, beginning in year 6 and after: class visit (once per academic year), student evaluations (one course per year) |
Oct 1 |
|
Years post-tenure |
*Note – student and peer evaluations are determined by years of service |
|
|
1-2 |
Short form/CV |
May 30 |
|
3 |
Long form |
May 30 |
|
4 |
Short form/CV |
May 30 |
|
5 (not seeking promotion) |
Short form/CV |
May 30 |
|
If Seeking Promotion |
Notify Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty & clerk of TPR |
Dec 15 |
|
5 (seeking promotion) |
Long form |
May 30 |
|
6 (not seeking promotion) |
Short form/CV |
May 30 |
|
6 (seeking promotion) |
Promotion Portfolio |
Jan 15 |
|
Years post-promotion |
*Note – student and peer evaluations are determined by years of service |
|
|
1-2 |
Short form/CV |
May 30 |
|
3 |
Short form/CV |
May 30 |
|
4-5 |
Short form/CV |
May 30 |
|
6 |
Long form |
May 30 |
FOR NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY:
|
Year of Service |
Evaluation Components |
Due |
|---|---|---|
|
1-2 |
Long form, class visit (once per academic year), student evaluations (every course) |
May 30 |
|
3 |
Third-Year Review Portfolio, class visit (once per academic year), student evaluations (every course) |
Jan 15 |
|
4 |
Short form, class visit (once per academic year), student evaluations (every course) |
May 30 |
|
5 |
Long form, class visit (once per academic year), student evaluations (every course) |
May 30 |
|
If Seeking Promotion |
Notify Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty & clerk of TPR |
Dec 15 |
|
6 |
Sixth-Year Review Portfolio, Beginning at year 6 and after - class visit (once per academic year), student evaluations (every course) |
Oct 1 |
|
Post-6 (3-year cycle) |
*Note – student and peer evaluations are determined by years of service |
|
|
1 |
Short from/CV |
May 30 |
|
2 |
Long form |
May 30 |
|
3 |
Short form/CV |
May 30 |
|
Continuous Part-time |
Class visit (once per academic year), student evaluations (every course for first five years, one course per year at sixth year and beyond) |
May 30 |
|
Adjunct |
Class visit (once per academic year), student evaluations (every course for first five years, one course per year at sixth year and beyond) |
May 30 |
Special Evaluations
At the final faculty meeting during the prior spring semester and the first faculty meeting during the fall semester, the Clerk of the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will distribute a list of faculty members eligible for third-year review, tenure review and sixth-year review, as well as a schedule for the various steps in the evaluation. The Clerk of the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will also personally contact each eligible faculty member.
-
Third-Year Review
During their third year of service, full-time faculty members with term and probationary contracts receive a separate evaluation process in lieu of the annual evaluation process. For those faculty members serving under term contracts, the third-year review process provides a more in-depth evaluation of their performance than is available through the annual evaluation process. It also provides a foundation for possible consideration for tenure in the event they are later placed on a probationary (i.e., tenure-track) contract. However, nothing about the third-year review process will be tantamount to receiving tenure-track designation.
For faculty members serving under a probationary contract, the third-year review serves a very important function as a first stage toward consideration in their sixth year for tenure. The report of the third-year review identifies areas of growth and improvement needed for a favorable tenure decision. A positive review in the third year does not assure later granting of tenure. That decision is made based on the faculty member's effectiveness at the time of tenure review in the sixth year.
The following procedures are used for third-year reviews:- Faculty members under review will prepare a portfolio containing information and supporting documentation on faculty performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service. Guidelines for materials to be placed in the portfolio are found in Appendix 1.21. The portfolio will be submitted to the Clerk of the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee by January 15.
- The Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty will provide the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee with a file on each faculty member being evaluated, consisting of materials such as past selfevaluations, student evaluations and annual faculty evaluations.
- The Office of Academic Affairs will collect written evaluations from ten students and/or graduates who have taken courses from the faculty member and/or have been their advisee. The faculty member being evaluated will submit the names of five students and the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will select the remainder. The students will be asked for their evaluation of teaching, advising and overall faculty effectiveness. The letter requesting the evaluation will include a copy of the criteria of evaluation in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2.
- The Office of Academic Affairs will collect open-ended written evaluations from six faculty colleagues who have worked closely with the faculty member at Wilmington College. These evaluators will include the Area Coordinator and, for faculty whose primary assignment is to an external program, should include the Vice President for External Programs. The faculty member being evaluated will submit the names of three colleagues and the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will select the remainder. The letter requesting the evaluation will include a copy of the criteria of evaluation in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2. The Clerk of the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will also accept letters from unsolicited faculty.
- The Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will invite the faculty member’s Area Coordinator (and/or the Vice President for External Programs if applicable) to meet with the Committee to discuss the overall effectiveness of the faculty member under review.
- The Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee may invite the faculty member under review for a discussion should the need arise.
- When these steps have been completed, the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will review the materials and send a report of the results to the faculty member, the President, the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty and the Vice President for External Programs (if applicable).
- The Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty notifies the candidate in writing about the results of the review, copying the President on the letter.
- After the candidate receives the letter from the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty, s/he may meet with the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee to discuss its recommendations. The faculty member will also be given the opportunity to respond to the committee report in writing and attach his/her response to the report.
- After the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee meets with the faculty member (if requested), it will place the materials it has gathered in the faculty member’s official file in the Office of Academic Affairs.
- Throughout this third-year review process and especially in the final report, care will be taken to make it clear that nothing in the evaluation process suggests that those serving under a term contract are being converted to tenure-track status.
-
Tenure Review
See Section 2.7 - Evaluation for three-year term contracts
- Sixth-Year Review
Faculty members who are not in tenure-track positions may be eligible to receive renewable three-year term contracts, provided the faculty member meets the eligibility requirements and receives a favorable sixth-year review. Renewable three-year term contracts are reserved for positions that will have a reasonably secure source of funding over the term of the contract.
Each year, the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty identifies non- tenured faculty who are in their sixth year of service and determines who is eligible based on the following criteria:- the financial stability of the position
- academic quality
- other institutional priorities
The Academic Dean/Dean of Faculty, in consultation with the appropriate Area Coordinator, will identify eligible faculty and notify the Clerk of Tenure, Promotion and Review of eligible faculty. The Clerk will be notified prior to the last faculty meeting of the year in the eligible faculty’s member’s fifth year.
The following procedures are used for sixth-year reviews:- Eligible faculty members under review will prepare a portfolio containing information and supporting documentation on faculty performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service. Guidelines for materials to be placed in the portfolio are found in Appendix 1.21. The Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will conduct the sixth-year review using the Criteria for Faculty Effectiveness outlined in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2. The portfolio will be submitted to the Clerk of the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee by October 1.
- The Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty will provide the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee with a file on each faculty member being evaluated, consisting of materials such as past self-evaluations, student evaluations and annual faculty evaluations.
- The Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will collect written evaluations from ten students and/or graduates who have taken courses from the faculty member and/or have been their advisee. The faculty member being evaluated will submit the names of five students and the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will select the remainder. The students will be asked for their evaluation of teaching, advising and overall faculty effectiveness. The letter requesting the evaluation will include a copy of the criteria of evaluation in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2.
- The Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will collect open-ended written evaluations from six faculty colleagues who have worked closely with the faculty member at Wilmington College. These evaluators will include the Area Coordinator, and for faculty whose primary assignment is to an external program, should include the Vice President for External Programs. The faculty member being evaluated will submit the names of three colleagues and the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will select the remainder. The letter requesting the evaluation will include a copy of the criteria of evaluation in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2. The Clerk of the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will also accept letters from unsolicited faculty.
- The Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will invite the faculty member’s Area Coordinator (and/or the Vice President for External Programs if applicable) to meet with the Committee to discuss the overall effectiveness of the faculty member under review.
- The Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee may invite the faculty member under review for a discussion should the need arise.
- When these steps have been completed, the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will review the materials and send a report of the results to the faculty member, the President, the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty and the Vice President for External Programs (if applicable). The Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee makes one of the following recommendations to the President:
- Recommend faculty member for three-year term contract
- Recommend faculty member for one-year term contract
- Recommend faculty receive a severance contract
- The Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee must inform the applicant of its recommendation within five business days after the recommendation is sent to the President.
- If the President disagrees with the recommendation made by the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee, the President will meet with the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee and the Vice President for External Programs (if applicable) to discuss the case.
- The President makes the final decision and informs the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee and the applicant by January 30.
- Three-Year Term Contract Renewal Review
The Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty will determine faculty eligible for renewal of three-year notice contracts. At the first faculty meeting during the fall semester, the Clerk of the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will distribute a list of faculty members eligible for threeyear term contract renewal, as well as a schedule for the various steps in the evaluation. The Clerk will also personally contact each eligible faculty member.
The following procedures are used for three-year term contract renewal reviews:- The faculty member will submit a long form annual evaluation by January 15 to the Academic Dean/Dean of Faculty, the Vice President for External Programs (if applicable) and the Area Coordinator. The Academic Dean/Dean of Faculty will share the contents of the file with the members of the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee. The Clerk of the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will also accept letters from unsolicited faculty. The Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will base its review on the Criteria for Faculty Effectiveness outlined in sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 3.
- The Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee may invite the faculty member’s Area Coordinator (and/or Vice President for External programs if applicable) to meet with the Committee to discuss the faculty member under review.
- The Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee may invite the faculty member under review for a discussion should the need arise.
- When these steps have been completed, the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee will send a report of the results of the review to the faculty member, the President, the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty and the Vice President for External Programs (if applicable). The Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee makes one of the following recommendations to the President:
- Recommend renewal of the three-year term contract
- Recommend replacing three-year term contract with one-year term contract
- Recommend not renewing the contract and terminating employment at the end of the third year of the contract
- The Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee must inform the applicant of its recommendation within five business days after the recommendation is sent to the President.
- If the President disagrees with the recommendation made by the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee, the President will meet with the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee, the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty and the Vice President for External Programs (if applicable) to discuss the case.
- The President makes the final decision and informs the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee and the applicant by April 1.
- Appeal Procedure
A faculty member whose application for a multi-year contract has been turned down may appeal the decision within 14 calendar days on one or more of the following grounds:- information of importance to the decision was not considered
- discrimination on a prohibited ground was involved in the original decision
The first step in the appellate process is for the faculty member to notify the Clerk of the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee of the basis for appeal. The Clerk will then take the matter to the Tenure, Promotion and Review Committee for referral and possible reconsideration. In the event the faculty member is dissatisfied with the outcome of the referral process, s/he may file a grievance by following the procedures outlined in Section 2.17.
The administration has the burden of demonstrating adequacy of cause for terminating the services of a faculty member who has been in a full-time position for more than seven years.
If a faculty member remains or is placed on a one-year term contract after the sixth-year review or three-year contract renewal review (respectively) , the faculty member is eligible for evaluation for a three-year term contract any time as determined by the Academic Dean/Dean of the Faculty in consultation with the appropriate Area Coordinator. The review will follow the procedures as for a sixth-year review.
- Sixth-Year Review