Schedule for FRC Reviews

The Committee conducts reappointment reviews of full-time faculty members according to the following schedule:

  1. For faculty on one-year contracts, in the winter semester after completion of the departmental annual review process, with recommendations being submitted by March 1.
  2. For faculty on two-year contracts, in the fall semester of the second year of the contract, with recommendations being submitted by December 1.
  3. For faculty on three-year contracts, in the spring semester of the second year of the contract, following completion of the departmental annual review process, with recommendations being submitted by June 1.

 

Review Documents

The Committee will base its considerations upon the contents of the faculty member’s “faculty file,” maintained in the Office of the Provost. Among the items included in the file are:

  1. The “Summary and Response for Continuous Improvement” (or, for Department Chairs, the Department Chair Self Assessment Form” and any faculty review of the Chair that has occurred).
  2. The “Summary and Response for Continuous Improvement” (or “Department Chair Annual Report”) written by the faculty member which includes information about:
    1. Teaching performance/departmental activities including courses taught, initiating new courses, hanging shows, serving on departmental committees, team projects, interviews, independent studies, student mentoring and advising duties.
    2. Professional/creative work including exhibitions, commissions, publications, lectures, consultations, workshops
    3. Service to the College, other than departmental activities, including membership on and substantial attendance at standing and ad hoc Committees of the faculty or College, release time duties, recruitment, arranging events, shows, etc.
    4. Professionally related external activities, including jurying/ judging, donated professional services, working with other institutions, serving on grant panels, workshops.
  3. The faculty member’s professional résumé/vita and a yearly update as necessary (with appropriate documentation).
  4. Other documentation relating to the faculty member’s performance.

The Committee may review student evaluations from courses taught by the faculty member as well as any other pertinent evaluative materials. If the Committee desires clarification on any of the items in the file, it may request interviews with the faculty member, Department Chair or appropriate Dean.

 

Recommendations

On reappointment reviews, the Committee recommends either reappointment or non- reappointment and provides its assessment of the quality of the faculty member’s performance.

On advancement in rank reviews, the Committee recommends one of the following:

  1. Advancement to the next rank.
  2. No advancement.

In the event the Committee cannot reach a decision, the Committee reports “no recommendation.”

Recommendation Procedures

  1. The Committee’s recommendation is given to the appropriate Dean on a standard recommendation form that includes the Committee’s written statement on how its recommendation comports with the review criteria. The form will remain in the faculty member’s file.
  2. The faculty member will be notified in writing by the Dean of the recommendation made by the Committee.

Reappointment Procedures

  1. The Office of the Provost informs each faculty member who is to be reviewed for contract renewal of their eligibility, as well as the Chair of the faculty member’s department. The Provost’s Office provides the entire list of faculty eligible for renewal to the Faculty Review Committee (FRC)
  2. The FRC reviews the faculty member’s reappointment according to the schedule and guidelines set forth in Section 3.9.6.
  3. The Department Chair submits a letter to the appropriate Dean with his/her own non-binding recommendation regarding the faculty member’s reappointment. The letter should summarize the strengths and weaknesses noted in the Chair’s evaluations conducted during the current contract period. The Chair supports his/her recommendation with specific information and conclusions. The letter should be submitted according to the same schedule as the FRC recommendations. In the case of the renewal of a Department Chair’s own faculty appointment, the Department Chair’s letter is omitted.
  4. Upon receiving the recommendations of the FRC and Department Chair, the appropriate Dean formulates and submits to the Provost a recommendation on each faculty member’s reappointment, including length of reappointment, if any, and rank. In doing so, the Dean may request additional information from or a meeting with the faculty member and may request clarification or elaboration from the FRC or Chair.
  5. The Provost reviews the Dean’s recommendation. The Provost may also request additional information or clarification from any of the parties involved in the reappointment procedure. The Provost then submits his own recommendation regarding reappointment to the President.
  6. The President reviews and approves or disapproves each of the Provost’s recommendations. The President may also request additional information or clarification from any of the parties involved in the reappointment procedure. The President communicates the decisions to the Provost who is responsible for informing the faculty member, Chair, the appropriate Dean, FRC, and Director of Human Resources.
  7. In order to accept the reappointment and complete the process, the faculty member signs a copy of the appointment letter and returns it to the Director of Human Resources.

The schedule of the reappointment process is as follows:

  1. One-year contracts
    • Chair’s and FRC’s recommendations by March 1
    • Appropriate Dean’s and Provost’s recommendations and President’s decision by March 31
  2. Two-year contracts
    • Chair’s and FRC’s recommendations by December 1 of the second year
      of the contract
    • Appropriate Dean’s and Provost’s recommendations and President’s decision by February 1 of the second year of the contract
  3. Three-year contracts
    • Chair’s and FRC’s recommendations by June 1 of the second year of the contract
    • Appropriate Dean’s and Provost’s recommendations as well as President’s decision due ninety days thereafter

CCS understands the need to give full-time faculty ample notice of the status of their appointments. While all parties to the reappointment procedure will make their best efforts to meet the schedule described above, circumstances may occasionally prevent that from happening. In an instance when a decision will not be rendered by the target date, the Provost’s office will inform the faculty member of the delay, the reason for it, and the date by which the review will be completed.

 

Procedures for Advancement in Rank

The procedure for advancement in rank is similar to reappointment.

  1. A faculty member eligible for advancement in rank submits an application to the appropriate Dean
  2. The FRC reviews the faculty member’s application for promotion according to the guidelines set forth in Section 3.9.6.
  3. The Department Chair submits a letter to the appropriate Dean with his/her own non-binding recommendation regarding the faculty member’s promotion. The letter should be submitted according to the same schedule as the FRC recommendation.
  4. Upon receiving the recommendation of the FRC and department Chairs, the Dean formulates and submits to the Provost a recommendation on each faculty member’s promotion. In doing so, the Dean may request additional information from, or a meeting with, the faculty member and may request clarification or elaboration from the FRC or Department Chair.
  5. The Provost reviews each of the appropriate Dean’s recommendations. The Provost may also request additional information or clarification from any of the parties involved in the reappointment procedure. The Provost then submits his own recommendation regarding reappointment to the President
  6. The President reviews and approves or disapproves each of the Provost’s recommendations. The President may also request additional information or clarification from any of the parties involved in the promotion procedure.
  7. The President communicates the decisions to the Provost, who is responsible for informing the Dean, faculty member, Chair, FRC, and Director of Human Resources
  8. Upon approval of advancement in rank, faculty members may be eligible for additional compensation, consistent with CCS’s salary policies. The faculty member may schedule a meeting with the appropriate Dean to discuss compensation and other matters.
  9. A faculty member who is denied promotion may reapply the following academic year.
  10. The schedule for consideration of advancement in rank is as follows:
    • Faculty member’s application to appropriate Dean by January 15.
    • Chair’s and FRC’s recommendations by June 1.
    • Appropriate Dean’s and Provost’s recommendation and President’s decision by September 1.

If a decision cannot be rendered by September 1, the Provost’s office will inform the faculty member of the delay, the reason for it, and the date by which a decision will be made.

 

General Principles on Reappointment

Full-time faculty members who are under contract with CCS must be reviewed for reappointment. Contract renewal is not automatic and is based on a multitude of factors, including the previous performance of the faculty member, his or her compliance with CCS policies and the needs of the College. The reappointment process involves assessments by the following: faculty member’s peers, as represented by the Faculty Review Committee, the Department Chair, the appropriate Dean, the Provost, and the President. Recommendations at each step of the review process are advisory in nature. Final decisions on reappointments are made by the President.

General Principles on Advancement in Rank

Advancement to higher faculty ranks is based on performance and not automatic with time. Advancement occurs only when a faculty member is performing at the highest level of quality in all areas of faculty responsibility and is deemed to be capable of fulfilling the performance expectations inherent in a higher rank.

Faculty members at the assistant professor level may apply for promotion to associate professor in their fifth year as assistant professor. Faculty at the associate level may apply to be full professors in their sixth year as associate professor. The faculty member must meet all the criteria for the higher rank, as outlined in Section 3.8.3. In exceptional circumstances, advancement may be considered after a shorter time interval, although not until after completion of a faculty member’s first contract.

Faculty Review Committee

The Faculty Review Committee (FRC) is an elected standing committee of the Faculty Assembly. It makes non-binding recommendations to the appropriate Dean regarding reappointment and advancement in rank of full-time faculty. It is the desire and intent of the administration to work in collaborative fashion with the FRC in the reappointment and promotion process. However, the extent of the FRC’s influence in the process is contingent upon its adherence when making its recommendations to the schedule and criteria set forth in this handbook. There will be occasions when the administration’s ultimate decision will be influenced by the existence of confidential information to which the FRC does not have access (e.g. misconduct, budget or business restructuring issues) but which has a direct bearing on a faculty member’s eligibility for reappointment or advancement in rank, or by performance-related events that occur after completion of the FRC review.

Criteria for Reappointment

CCS and the faculty of the College collectively place a high value on excellence in all areas of faculty responsibility, the principal ones being teaching, service to the College, and professional practice, development, and research. All participants in the reappointment process are expected to observe the following criteria in arriving at their recommendations.

  1. For faculty members on three-year contracts:
    1. Recommendation for a three-year reappointment would ordinarily be made if the faculty member is performing at a high level of quality in all major areas of responsibility; is making significant contributions as a teacher, mentor, colleague, and artist, designer, or scholar; and is expected to continue to perform at this level.
    2. Recommendation for a renewal of fewer than three years (i.e., two years or one year) would be made if performance in one or more areas of responsibility is below the expected high level of quality. The recommendation for length of reappointment would depend on the assessment of the seriousness of the faculty member’s deficiencies and the likelihood that they can be corrected.
    3. Recommendation for non-renewal would be made if there are serious performance issues in one or more areas of responsibility and if the faculty member has shown either a lack of inclination or an inability to correct the deficiencies.
  2. For faculty members on one- or two-year contracts:
    1. The Provost, in consultation with the appropriate Dean, will determine the length of reappointment for which the faculty member is eligible.
    2. Recommendation for reappointment for the longest period possible would be made if the faculty member demonstrates high quality performance in all areas of responsibility. Recommendation for a shorter length would be made if there are areas of responsibility in which there are performance concerns. Recommendation for non-renewal would be made if there are areas of responsibility that raise serious concerns.