3.3.3 Reappointment of Tenure-Track Faculty without Tenure

General Principles All non-tenured Tenure-Track Faculty who have been awarded academic rank (Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor), are employed under written contract, and who served full-time for the entire previous year have the presumption of renewal for the next academic year unless notified in writing, by the President, of the Institute’s intent not to renew. Instructors are not eligible for tenure but have the same expectations and procedures for reappointment as the above.   Notice (Board of Regents Policy Manual 8.3.4.2) Written notice of intent not to renew shall be delivered by hand or by certified mail, return-receipt requested. Notice of intention not to renew shall be given according to the following schedule: At least three (3) months before the date of termination of an initial one-year contract. At least six (6) months before the date of termination of a second one-year contract. At least nine (9) months before the date of termination of a contract after two (2) or more years of service in the institution. This schedule does not apply to persons holding temporary, limited-term, or part-time positions, or persons with courtesy appointments such as adjunct appointments. Recommendations of non-reappointment made to the President may be referred by him for consideration and recommendation to the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee.

Procedures on Reappointment 

Administrative Evaluations 

Tenure-track faculty without tenure shall be evaluated annually by their Unit Head(s). These annual evaluations of tenure-track faculty without tenure shall encompass the following: a) teaching; b) student success activities, as evidenced by activities within teaching and instruction, academic achievement, and service; c) research/scholarship; d) professional service; and e) professional growth appropriate to the Institute, college, or school. These annual evaluations must conform to the procedures detailed in 3.1.2.1.  All administrative reviews must utilize the following Likert scale:  

1 — Does Not Meet Expectations 

2 — Needs Improvement 

3 — Meets Expectations 

4 — Exceeds Expectations 

5 — Exemplary 

Noteworthy achievement is reflective of a 4 or 5 on the above Likert scale. Deficient and unsatisfactory are reflective of a 1 or 2 on the above Likert scale. 

For the first three (3) reappointment cycles, the Unit Head(s) shall review the credentials and work of the individual Faculty member and make a recommendation regarding reappointment. If the recommendation is positive, the Dean(s) (where not the Unit Head) shall review the recommendation and documentation. If the Dean's recommendation is positive, then the President shall review the recommendations and make a decision. 

In the event that any of these decisions is not to reappoint, the appropriate Unit Committee, the College Committee (where appropriate), and the Provost's Advisory Committee shall be convened and a complete review by all committees shall be conducted and forwarded to the President. 

It is expected that this process will be completed at the Unit level in time to coincide with the annual evaluation process and the recommendation of salary increases. Each unit will publish, no later than the mid-point of the summer semester, the schedule for the reappointment, promotion, and tenure process for the following academic year. 

For joint appointments, this process shall be modified so that the elected committee established shall include at least one individual from each Unit where the Faculty member holds an appointment, as well as all Unit Heads involved. 

Critical Reviews 

The purpose of the third year Critical Review is to provide a rigorous analysis and detailed feedback of the faculty member’s body of work in the areas of teaching, student success activities, research/scholarship, and service towards tenure. All previous annual evaluations must be part of the review. The overall evaluation must indicate whether the faculty member is making satisfactory progress toward tenure and promotion. 

In the spring of the third year, a complete review of the Faculty member's credentials and intellectual contributions shall be conducted by the appropriate elected Faculty committee at the Unit level (or in the case of a joint appointment, the appropriate joint committee), the Unit Head(s), the Dean's Committee and the Dean (in those units having organizational elements such as schools or departments), and then by the Provost's Committee. Each recommendation will specify one (1) of four (4) outcomes: 

• 'Reappointment'. 

• 'Reappointment with counseling' which implies that academic performance, in most respects, is positive and appropriate, but that some 'mid-course corrections' are needed prior to the tenure decision. 

• 'Reappointment with warning' which implies that, as the candidate moves toward the tenure decision, some substantial adjustments must be made in the academic performance if the outcome of that decision is to be positive. 

• 'Non-reappointment' which means that the candidate should expect no contract to be offered beyond the following academic year. 

All these recommendations shall be forwarded to the President who shall make the decision and then inform the appropriate individuals. This review should coincide with the annual salary review at the Unit level. A complete review may be conducted during the fifth year at the request of the candidate. 

If the Critical Review at the end of the third year (as described above) results in a positive reappointment decision, the fourth year and fifth year reviews will be processed in the same way that the Administrative Reviews are conducted. If the decision is 'reappoint with warning' then the fourth-year review process will be the same as the third year Critical Review. Similarly, if the fourth-year decision is 'reappoint with warning' then the fifth-year review process will be the same as the third year Critical Review. 

The committee appointed to review the Faculty member's contributions will avail itself of the opportunity to review carefully the materials submitted by the individual and to comment in detail on the intellectual products of the candidate. Because this committee will be comprised of individuals who are knowledgeable in the field, the committee will have the responsibility of placing the candidate's contributions in context and to comment on the importance of the work. The Unit Head(s) should also obtain input from other Faculty members in the Unit regarding the candidate's contribution to teaching and service. This may include a Unit-wide committee to ensure consistency within the Unit across all candidates under review. 

In the event that the Faculty member's service is interrupted by a leave of absence, then that particular year of absence or extension shall not be counted as contributing to the service periods stated in any of the above procedures. In any year of absence or extension, the Faculty member will be reviewed according to regular procedures, except that if a Critical Review would be called for as described above, that review shall be postponed until the next normal year of service. 

Candidate’s Responsibility 

The candidate has the responsibility to prepare, review, and submit all required documentation and materials, except for evaluation letters, if applicable. However, the list provided by the candidate for external evaluators should be included in the package. When this documentation is complete and in the proper format, the candidate will sign a statement that it is both accurate and complete. 

Should the candidate fail to meet the deadlines established by the Unit for submission of the required documentation, the Faculty member will receive a letter of non-reappointment. 

Feedback to Faculty Members 

It is important for the Faculty member to receive feedback regarding the assessments involved. The appropriate person for the individual Faculty member to receive this feedback is from the Unit Head(s). The Unit Head shall receive a copy of the recommendations prepared by each committee and by all other administrators with direct responsibility for reviewing the candidate, including the Dean (for those units where the Dean does not serve as the Unit Head), the Provost, and the President. The Unit Head shall review each recommendation, including their own, with the candidate, and counsel the candidate appropriately in a scheduled conference.  

A written report of the faculty member’s progression towards achieving future milestones of tenure must be provided to the faculty member after the conference. The faculty member must sign a statement to the effect that they have been apprised of the content of the Critical Review evaluation.  

The faculty member may respond in writing within ten (10) business days to the Critical Review evaluation. This written response is then attached to the evaluation. The Unit Head(s) must acknowledge in writing within 10 business days receipt of the response, noting changes, if any, in the written Critical Review evaluation made because of either the conference or the faculty member’s written response.