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, their compliance with CCS policies, and the needs of the College. The reappointment process involves assessments by the faculty member’s Department Chair, the appropriate Dean, and the President. Department Chairs are reviewed for reappointment by the appropriate Dean and the President. Recommendations by Chairs and Deans are advisory in nature. Final decisions on reappointments are made by the President.
- The Dean of Academic Affairs 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 Dean of Academic Affairs provides the entire list of faculty eligible for renewal to the academic Deans.
- The Department Chair submits a letter to the appropriate Dean with their 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 their recommendation with specific information and conclusions. The letter should be submitted according to the schedule provided by the Dean of Academic Affairs. In the case of the renewal of a Department Chair’s own faculty appointment, the Department Chair’s letter is omitted.
- Upon receiving the recommendations of the Department Chair, the appropriate Dean formulates and submits to the President 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 Chair.
- The President reviews and approves or disapproves each of the Dean’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 Director of Human Resources and Dean of Academic Affairs. The Human Resources office sends the reappointment letter to the faculty member and copies the Dean of Academic Affairs who then informs the relevant Chair and the appropriate Dean. 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:
- One-year contracts
- Chair’s recommendations by March 1
- Appropriate Dean’s recommendation and President’s decision by March 31
- Two-year contracts
- Chair’s recommendations by December 1 of the second year of the contract
- Appropriate Dean’s recommendation and President’s decision by February 1 of the second year of the contract
- Three-year contracts
- Chair’s recommendations by June 1 of the second year of the contract
- Appropriate Dean’s and 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 Dean of Academic Affairs will inform the faculty member of the delay, the reason for it, and the date by which the review will be completed.
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 instructional quality and department contributions to service 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.
- For faculty members on three-year contracts:
- 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, artist, designer, or scholar; and is expected to continue to perform at this level.
- 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 the 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.
- 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.
- For faculty members on one- or two-year contracts:
- The appropriate Dean will determine the length of reappointment for which the faculty member is eligible.
- A recommendation for reappointment for the longest period possible would be made if the faculty member demonstrates high-quality performance in all areas of responsibility. A recommendation for a shorter length would be made if there are areas of responsibility in which there are performance concerns. Recommendations for non-renewal would be made if there are areas of responsibility that raise serious concerns.
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 after completing five years as an assistant professor. Faculty at the associate level may apply to be full professor after their sixth year as associate professor. The faculty member must meet all the criteria for the higher rank. In exceptional circumstances, an advancement may be considered after a shorter time interval, although not until after the completion of a faculty member’s first contract.
Procedures for Advancement in Rank
The procedure for advancement in rank is similar to reappointment.
- A faculty member eligible for advancement in rank submits a request letter to the appropriate Dean
- The FRC reviews the faculty member’s application for promotion according to the College’s guidelines.
- The Department Chair submits a letter to the appropriate Dean with their own non-binding recommendation regarding the faculty member’s promotion. The letter should be submitted according to the same schedule as the FRC recommendation.
- Upon receiving the recommendation of the FRC and Department Chair, the Dean formulates and submits to the President 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.
- The President reviews and approves or disapproves each of the Dean’s recommendations. The President may also request additional information or clarification from any of the parties involved in the promotion procedure.
- Upon approval of advancement in rank, faculty members may be eligible for additional compensation, consistent with CCS’s salary policy. The faculty member may schedule a meeting with the appropriate Dean to discuss compensation and other matters.
- A faculty member who is denied promotion may reapply the following academic year.
- The schedule for consideration of advancement in rank is as follows:
- Faculty member’s request letter to the appropriate Dean by January 15.
- Chair’s and FRC’s recommendations by June 1.
- Appropriate Dean’s recommendation and President’s decision by
If a decision cannot be rendered by September 1, the Dean of Academic Affairs will inform the faculty member of the delay, the reason for it, and the date by which a decision will be made.
Criteria for Advancement in Rank
- Recommendations for advancement are made when a faculty member is deemed to be performing at the highest level of quality in all areas of faculty responsibility and to be capable of fulfilling the performance expectations inherent in a higher rank.
- In considering the advancement of a faculty member, documentation in addition to the faculty file is reviewed. This may include, but is not limited to:
- Evidence of professional accomplishments, including:
- Newly earned academic credentials
- Portfolio of published material / projects
- Exhibition catalogs, reviews, and awards
- Scholarly or literary publications
- Lectures, participation in panels, symposia, etc.
- Curating or jurying of exhibitions
- Guest critiques at other institutions
- Guest teaching/artist residencies
- Community service activity in relation to the art and design disciplines
- Introduction of new programs, courses, curricula
- Published research
- Client relationships and projects completed
- Inclusion of films in accredited festivals and juried screening
- A letter of support from the faculty member’s Department Chair, or in the case of a department Chair seeking rank advancement, a letter of support from their Dean.
- A letter of support from a teaching colleague in another academic department at the College.
- A letter of support from a professional educator in the faculty member’s discipline at another institution of higher education. The faculty member must supply the evaluator with a complete professional history, as well as the respective department’s mission statement and goals.
- Evidence of professional accomplishments, including:
Faculty Review Committee
Faculty Review Committee
The Faculty Review Committee (FRC) is an elected standing committee of the Faculty Assembly. It makes non-binding recommendations to the administration regarding advancement in the rank of full-time faculty. It is the desire and intent of the administration to work in a collaborative fashion with the FRC on the 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 restructuring plans) but which has a direct bearing on a faculty member’s eligibility for advancement in rank, or by performance-related events that occur after completion of the FRC review.
For the advancement in rank reviews, the Committee recommends one of the following:
- Advancement to the next rank.
- No advancement.
The Committee will base its considerations upon the contents of the faculty member’s “faculty file,” maintained by the Academic Affairs Office. Among the items included in the file are:
- The “Full-Time Faculty Annual Self-Appraisal” and any other faculty review of the Chair that has occurred) which includes the following information.
- Teaching performance/departmental activities including courses taught, initiating new courses, hanging shows, serving on departmental committees, team projects, interviews, independent studies, and student mentoring and advising duties.
- Professional/creative work including exhibitions, commissions, publications, lectures, consultations, and workshops.
- 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.
- Professionally related external activities, including jurying/judging, donated professional services, working with other institutions, serving on grant panels, and workshops.
- Research including peer-reviewed publications/conference presentations, academic textbooks, and practice-led research.
- The faculty member’s current professional resume/CV.
- Other documentation relating to the faculty member’s performance.
The Committee will review student evaluations from courses taught by the faculty member, as well as any other pertinent evaluative materials from the contract period. 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.
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 reflects the review criteria. The form will remain in the faculty member’s file. The faculty member will be notified in writing by the Dean of Academic Affairs of the recommendation made by the Committee.
Confidentiality of FRC Process
- All information assembled or used by the Committee will be confidential and will be contained within the Academic Affairs office.
- Members of the FRC must respect and observe the confidentiality of the faculty review process. They should discuss their recommendations and the process leading to those recommendations only with the faculty member directly affected, other FRC members, personnel in the Academic Affairs office, the Director of Human Resources, and personnel in the Executive Office.
The recommendation of the Faculty Review Committee may be appealed to the Faculty Concerns Committee within sixty days of notification. Such appeals will be reviewed according to the guidelines of the Faculty Concerns Committee. The Faculty Concerns Committee does not have the authority to handle discrimination and harassment matters.