Skip to main content

OM 5.4.0 Procedures and Documentation for the Appointment, Reappointment and Continuing Evaluation of Faculty

About This Policy

Effective Date: September 2010
Last Updated: February 2022
Responsible University Office: President's Office
Responsible University Administrator: President

Policy Contact:

Office of the Provost
provost@clarkson.edu

A. EVALUATIVE DOCUMENTATION AND ITS AVAILABILITY

Access to the various files that contain documentary evidence pertaining to individual faculty members is governed by the following guidelines:

  1. Personnel Files 
    1. The Human Resources Office, department offices, and the deans= offices maintain personnel files appropriate to their administrative functions. The information in the personnel file is available to the individual faculty member, the appropriate dean and department chair, Provost, and the president. It is also available to such internal groups as the University Tenure Committee, the University Promotions Committee, and the Office of Institutional Planning when their duties require such access. (Salary information will be removed from documents included in tenure and promotion files.) Others may see selected contents of personnel files on a need-to-know basis as determined by the Director of Human Resources. 
    2. Information in the personnel file is available as required by law to governmental agencies and to accrediting organizations in accordance with accepted professional practices. 
    3. Other groups or individuals, be they internal or external, who request information from a personnel file, will be referred to the individual faculty member. 
    4. Salary information is available only to the faculty member, to appropriate administrative officers, and to those authorized by the same. 
  2. Annual Performance Reviews, Third-Year Reviews, Tenure Files, and Promotion Files 
    1. Faculty performance review files such as faculty annual review files, third-year review files, tenure files, promotion files, and any other personnel files which include professional evaluation material of a confidential nature from external or internal sources, are available only to appropriate administrative officers (i.e., the file preparer, chair, director, dean, provost, president and trustees) to the University Tenure or the University Promotions Committees (as appropriate), and to any advisory or special review committees assembled by the chair, director, dean, provost, or president. 

      When a tenure or promotion review has been completed and the relevant file has been secured by the president, all other copies of the professional evaluation materials of a confidential nature, specifically, the individual depositions from both external and internal sources, must be either forwarded to the president or destroyed. 
  3. University Counsel Access
    1. The University's legal counsel may have access to any materials in the personnel, third-year review, tenure or promotion files when such access is deemed by the president to be necessary for the purpose of representing the University.

B. INITIAL APPOINTMENT PROCEDURES

  1. Search Procedures 
    1. The initiative for the recruitment of faculty is primarily the responsibility of the department chair, director or dean upon approval by the provost. 
    2. Searches for tenure-track faculty at any rank should be at least national in scope, and should be conducted in a fashion that attracts candidates who meet the standards described in 5.3. 
    3. Recruitment and hiring should conform to the University's Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action policies, as well as to such other procedures as the administration may from time to time implement. 
    4. A candidate for a faculty position should normally spend at least a full day on campus and lecture at a departmental seminar. The candidate should be interviewed by as many departmental faculty members as practicable, as well as by academic administration including staff in sponsored research services. 
    5. Before recommending a candidate for appointment, the person directing the search should consult broadly with appropriate faculty for their assessment of the candidate. When possible, these assessments should be submitted in writing. The resulting recommendation prepared by the person conducting the search should reflect both internal as well as external assessments of the candidate.
  2. Appointment Procedures and the Initial Appointment Letter 
    1. The decision to appoint is made by the Provost. This decision should rely substantially on the recommendation received from the person conducting the search. 
    2. After a decision to appoint has been made, the chair (or other appropriate academic administrator) shall prepare and seek approval for all those documents required by the appointment implementation procedures that shall from time to time be established by the president. Necessary documents must include an initial appointment letter, and may include such other items as an Affirmative Action Report, a US government visa/citizenship status form (I-9), and a payroll authorization form. 
    3. An offer of employment is not valid until the President or Provost has approved the initial appointment letter and signed the payroll authorization form. 
    4. Those preparing and approving the initial appointment letter must ensure that its provisions conform to the requirements of these "faculty policies." Any agreement involving special responsibilities which may bear on reappointment, promotion, or tenure review must be stated in writing in the initial appointment letter. The initial appointment letter must also include a statement regarding the appointee's tenure status, specifically, an indication of the last academic year during which a third-year review and tenure review should be completed. Likewise, this appointment letter shall inform the prospective faculty member of any restrictions on the granting of tenure not appearing in these "faculty policies". When conveyed to the appointee, the initial appointment letter should be accompanied by a copy of Section 5.0 of the Operations Manual: "Faculty Policies."

C. CONTINUING EVALUATION PROCEDURES

  1. Annual Reviews
    1. Faculty evaluation is an on-going process. At least once a year each full-time faculty member, regardless of rank or career track, shall have an evaluation conference with the department chair, director, or other designee per the dean and/or provost or the person designated by the dean to perform this function. This assessment is designed to help faculty identify their strengths and weaknesses and is supportive of their continued success. At this conference, the faculty member's professional progress for the year, in accordance with the unit's workload equity policy, in terms of teaching, scholarship and service, and cumulative progress to date shall be reviewed. The evaluative standards, by rank, employed will be those described in sections 5.3. (tenure track), 5.7 (clinical track), 5.8 (research track), and 5.9 (teaching track). Immediately following this review, the person who conducted it shall prepare a record of this discussion in writing. This "annual faculty conference report" shall be read and acknowledged, in writing, by the faculty member before being placed in their personnel file. The faculty member's written acknowledgement merely indicates that the faculty member has seen the supervisor's evaluation. If the faculty member refuses to acknowledge, in writing, the annual conference report, the person conducting the annual evaluation conference must note that fact at the bottom of the report before placing it in the faculty member's personnel file. Each faculty member may submit for inclusion in the personnel file a written response to the annual conference report. This response shall be appended to the conference report, and shall be treated as part of the latter. 
    2. One important datum for formative and summative evaluation purposes is information about how students view the teaching of a faculty member. Every semester each student should be given the opportunity to make an anonymous evaluation of teaching of every class and instructor in which the student is enrolled. This evaluation (referred to as 'student teaching evaluation') should be collected in a systematic, quantitative and, as far as possible, uniform way, and a report of the results included in the faculty member's personnel file. 
    3. Another important formative evaluative measure is the assessment of teaching by a faculty member's colleagues. Classroom visits should be carried out on a regular basis (a minimum of three times prior to first promotion and/or tenure decision year) for all full-time instructional faculty. Peer teaching assessment visits are mandatory for full-time instructional faculty who are within the first five years of appointment at the university regardless of career track. Peer teaching assessment is strongly encouraged for all instructional faculty, regardless of tenure status, rank, or career track to support successful professional development. Arrangements for peer teaching assessment visits will be ensured and coordinated by the chair, director, dean, or a delegated individual (not delegated by the faculty member under review). Preferably faculty strong teaching experience and expertise will be appointed for the assessment visit with the visit planned in consultation with the to-be-assessed faculty member. Peer assessors shall submit a written report to the reviewed faculty member and to the chair, director, dean, or person responsible for conducting the annual evaluations. The report should include detailed suggestions for improvement of teaching. Before a written report of a peer teaching assessment is included in a faculty member's personnel file, the faculty member should initial the report as evidence of having read it. If the faculty member refuses to initial the report of a classroom visit, the person conducting the annual evaluation should note that fact at the bottom of the report before placing it in the personnel file.
    4. Parenthetically it should be noted that, while the results of the annual conferences, peer teaching evaluations, and student teaching evaluations are crucial, these formative assessments may not be decisive in such matters as third-year review, tenure review and promotion. For example, the faculty member being considered for tenure is not guaranteed tenure even with entirely favorable annual reviews during the pre-tenure period. 
  2. Third-Year Review
    1. Pre-Tenured Tenure Track Faculty
      1. Timing

The third-year review is a summative review that compares a faculty member’s performance against the standard for tenure. This review must take place, for pre-tenure faculty, in the actual third year of service as a faculty member at Clarkson University in the semester (Fall or Spring) in which they began work as a member of the tenure track faculty at Clarkson University. There is no such thing as an “early” third-year review.

A review cannot be conducted in any year other than the actual third year except in the circumstances stated below:

a) Formally approved prior service credit: The years of prior service credit are added to the years of Clarkson University service to determine when or if a third-year review will occur. A faculty member who was not considered for accelerated tenure upon hire may be awarded sufficient prior service credit such that tenure could happen within two or less years from the start date.

b) Extended pre-tenure period due to a part-time appointment: The third-year review may be postponed beyond the actual third year of service but must occur at least two calendar years prior to the mandatory tenure review year.

c) Exclusion of time from the pre-tenure period to the actual third year of service: The third-year review is postponed by each year excluded from the tenure clock (e.g., FMLA, COVID-19 automatic extension). If the third-year review has already taken place when an extension of time was granted, it is not repeated. Rather, the time to tenure decision year is extended.

d) Return to original timing: If a faculty member is granted a tenure extension and results in the third-year review occurring after the third-year of employment, the time gap between the third-year review and tenure review may be less than two years.

ii. Process

a) The purpose of the third-year review is to provide pre-tenured faculty summative evaluation of progress toward tenure. The evaluation is to identify areas where the faculty member is on a trajectory of excellence in the categories of teaching, scholarship, and service as well as identification of opportunities for improvement. Importantly, the evaluation should provide the faculty member with importance guidance in the preparation of the tenure dossier.

b) The process largely follows the process for tenure review with the exceptions that (1) the third-year dossier is not subject to external evaluation, except in smaller departments or units where it may be necessary for the candidate and the unit head to agree on faculty outside the department or external reviewers to complete the evaluation, (2) that tenured faculty of rank equal to or above that of the candidate either individually or as a committee provide a review of the candidate’s third-year dossier to the unit head, (3) that the candidate’s third-year review dossier is evaluated by the unit head (e.g., chair), and (4) the unit head’s evaluation reviewed and approved by the dean/director.

c) Materials for inclusion in the third-year review dossier will include much of what is listed in OM Section 5.5 B with the exception of material specific to external reviewers.

d) Since the evaluation by individual tenured faculty at rank or a committee thereof is advisory to the unit head, this evaluation will only be shared with the candidate at the discretion of the unit head or that advisory committee. The third-year review is done to provide actionable feedback to the candidate and so the unit head’s evaluation will be provided to the candidate for their review. The candidate may rebut any factual errors in the review or provide clarification to the unit head prior to the file moving to the dean/director approval level. The dean/director does not provide, a separate review of the candidate. The dean will review the unit head’s evaluation and approve the recommendation for reappointment/non-reappointment.

iii. Limitations
The faculty member being considered for tenure is not guaranteed tenure even with an entirely favorable third year review. Although the third-year review plays an important part in the tenure decision, it does not have a preemptive role.

B. Full-time Clinical, Research, and Teaching Track Faculty

a. Exceptions
This policy does not apply to faculty who are appointed at the rank of instructor but who, upon conferral of the terminal degree contractually transition to a pre-tenured tenure tack faculty position.

b. Timing
The third-year review is a summative review that compares a faculty member’s performance against the standard for promotion in rank specific to the career track appointment of that faculty member (e.g., clinical, research, or teaching track). This review should take place in the actual third year of service as a faculty member at Clarkson University in the semester (Fall or Spring) in which they began work as a member of the full-time faculty at Clarkson University. There is no such thing as an “early” third-year review.


A review cannot be conducted in any year other than the actual third year except in the circumstances stated below:


c. Formally approved prior service credit: The years of prior service credit are added to the years of Clarkson University service to determine when or if a third-year review will occur. A career track faculty member may be awarded sufficient prior service credit such that the third-year review could happen within two or less years from the start date or within two or less years from promotion to the next highest rank.

d. Extended pre-review period due to a part-time appointment: The third-year review may be postponed beyond the actual third year of service but must occur at least two calendar years prior to a promotion year.

e. Exclusion of time from the probationary period: The third-year review is postponed by each year excluded from the probationary period (e.g., FMLA, COVID-19 automatic extension).

iv. Process
The process will follow that outlined of OM Section 5.4.C.2 (Third-Year Review Pre-Tenured Tenure Track Faculty)

v. Limitations
It should be noted that while the third-year review is crucial, it may not be decisive in such matters as promotion. For example, the faculty member being considered for promotion is not guaranteed promotion even with an entirely favorable third year review. Although the third-year review plays an important part in a promotion decision, it does not have a preemptive role.

D. REAPPOINTMENT PROCEDURES AND REAPPOINTMENT LETTERS

  1. Reappointment decisions and salary changes should reflect the conclusions of the annual evaluation conferences, and when appropriate the third-year review. These decisions should also consider such other evidence as is available to the person responsible for reappointment decisions. 
  2. Reappointment letters must indicate the faculty member's status with respect to preparation for tenure and/or promotion. In the case of pre-tenured faculty, reappointment letters should indicate the last academic year during which a third-year review and tenure review must be completed.

E. NON-REAPPOINTMENT PROCEDURES 

Pre-tenured Tenure Track Faculty are appointed to continuing annual contracts (see Term of Appointment Standards for relevant career track in the Operations Manual) until the tenure decision year. Clinical, Teaching, and Research track faculty serve on continuing annual contracts (see Term of Appointment Standards for relevant career track in the Operations Manual). 

The unit or school/institute may recommend, prior to the university award of tenure for tenure track faculty or at the end of an appointment term for other career track full-time faculty, not to reappoint the faculty member. Non-reappointment may be justified by a continued sustained failure of the faculty member in carrying out the responsibilities of one’s faculty position, including teaching/advising (or professional performance), research or scholarly productivity, or service. The normal procedure for forwarding recommendations for non-reappointment shall be from the unit head to the dean/director of the school/institute to the provost. Prior to forwarding any recommendation of non-reappointment to the president, the provost shall notify the faculty member in writing of the recommendation and the reasons for it.

F. JOINT APPOINTMENT PROCEDURES

    1. Overview
      This document provides guidance for the appointment and review of faculty members with appointments in more than one unit. The critical aspects of managing joint appointments are commitment to mutual cooperation, open sharing of views, and fairness to the faculty member. The goal of this document is to ensure that all of the relevant issues are presented at the time of appointment or review, that effective communications are promoted between units and with the faculty member, and that there is a clear and orderly process for making decisions affecting faculty members with joint appointments. 
    2. Initial Appointment 
      1. New Faculty
        For an initial appointment, the heads of the appointing units must execute a joint letter to their dean if the units are within the same school or to the Provost if the appointment bridges between schools and/or institutes. The letter must describe the terms of the appointment, the individual’s responsibilities in each unit (e.g., instructional load, advising, committee service), the rights of the faculty in the units (e.g., voting) and which is the designated home unit (for administrative purposes). The letter must provide an option for any of the parties involved to request a reconsideration of the terms and conditions of the joint appointment. The designated home unit must be able to host tenure-track appointments and normally will be the unit with the larger percentage of the individual’s appointment, or that represents the individual’s primary discipline. In the case of appointments split equally between multiple units, the units will decide by mutual agreement, having taken the faculty member’s preferences into account, which unit will be designated as the home unit. The designated home unit will initiate the third-year review and the subsequent promotion and tenure reviews. The home unit also will initiate the processing of changes of status and other administrative actions. If the appointing units are housed in different schools or institutes, the appropriate deans and/or directors must approve the proposed appointment. The offer letter will describe the terms of the appointment, the individual’s responsibilities to each unit, and will indicate which of the units has been designated the “home unit.”
      2. Existing Faculty
        To create a joint appointment in another unit for a current faculty member, the heads of the units involved must write a joint letter to the dean is the appointments are within a school or to the Provost if between schools/institutes requesting the additional appointment. The deans/ directors must approve the proposed additional appointment. The letter must describe the terms of the appointment, the individual’s responsibilities in each unit (e.g., instructional load, advising, committee service), and certify the faculty member’s acceptance of the proposed additional appointment and division of responsibilities between the units. The letter must also describe any financial arrangements the units have agreed to concerning the proposed additional appointment. The letter must provide an option for any of the parties involved to request a reconsideration of the terms and conditions of the joint appointment.
    3. Mentoring
      The designated home unit will initiate a mentoring arrangement. This mentoring arrangement will involve the participation of and will represent the views of all appointing units. A collaborative mentoring process will be developed in consultation with the faculty member, and would employ mentors from each appointing unit. This arrangement should follow faculty mentoring procedures agreed to by the unit officers, typically adopting either those procedures of one unit or an amalgamation of procedures from multiple units. 
    4. Third-Year Review
      For all initial joint appointments of a faculty member to a tenure track position, there must be a third-year review, whether or not this appointment is made with tenure. The designated home unit will initiate the third-year review. The review will involve the participation of and will represent the views of all appointing units. The appointing units would conduct a collaborative review, employing a committee comprised of members from all appointing units and jointly charged by the heads of the appointing units. The findings of the joint committee will be sent to the units for evaluation, and the units will confer about the report to be issued. A single joint report signed by the heads of the appointing units will be prepared and provided to the faculty member. If considerable discrepancies exist in the evaluations of appointing units at this stage of a faculty member’s career, the possibility of restructuring the appointment will be considered by the appropriate dean or by the provost (see Section 5.4.F.b). 
    5. Annual Reviews and Salary Recommendations
      Each appointing unit should conduct an annual review of the performance of the faculty member using its regular evaluative procedures. The unit heads should then discuss the results of the reviews in order to ensure that pertinent information about performance in each unit is shared across the units. The unit heads should convey their assessment to the faculty member in a joint memo. The unit heads should confer on a recommended salary increment that is appropriate for the performance. If the units do not agree on the salary increment, one unit may provide a higher increment to be applied at the appropriate percentage with the understanding that the underlying percentage split in the appointment will not be changed. The unit providing the higher increment will continue to be responsible for the additional increment at such time as the faculty’s joint appointment ends unless some other agreement is made between the units. 
    6. Promotion and Tenure Recommendations
      The recommended guidelines for promotion and tenure review procedures parallel those of the third-year review. The designated home unit has the primary responsibility for initiating and overseeing the review process, but the review should involve the participation and represent the views of all appointing units. In developing their assessment, units must cooperate in securing external evaluations. The units should construct an ad hoc joint review procedure that uses a committee comprised of members from all appointing units and jointly charged by the unit heads. The appointing units then make their recommendations, jointly if they are in agreement and separately if they are not. These procedures also apply in cases of initial joint appointment with immediate tenure review.
      Every effort should be made to come to a joint position by all units taking account of each other’s assessments. If there is a recommendation for promotion, or for promotion and the awarding of indefinite tenure, the designated home unit will have the primary responsibility for preparing the dossier, in consultation with and representing the views of all appointing units. A joint recommendation to the dean(s) will be signed by all heads of the appointing units. Individual statements may be prepared by each unit officer or a joint statement can be prepared collaboratively. In either case, authorship of these statements must be clearly identified.
      If the appointing units differ with respect to their recommendation regarding promotion and/or tenure, the possibility of restructuring the appointment and then continuing the promotion and/or tenure review will be considered by the appropriate dean or by the Provost (see Section 5.4.F.b). 
    7. Leaves
      Any request for a leave, e.g., sabbatical, educational, or personal, shall be reviewed and jointly approved by all appointing units.

back to top

History

Approved by Administrative Council, September 1995

Approved by Faculty Senate, October 1995

Approved by Faculty Senate, September 2010

Approved by Administrative Council, November 2010

Approved by Administrative Council, December 2019

Approved by Faculty Senate, February 2022

Approved by Faculty Senate & Admin Council, January 2023

back to top

Back to top