Schedule for Tenure with Post-tenure Review System

Schedule for Contract Renewal

Long-term faculty appointments at EMU are based on a system of tenure with post-tenure review. The terms of the contract period shall be negotiated in all cases (exceptions by mutual agreement of the faculty member and his/her dean) by March 15 preceding the new contract period. The initiative for negotiating the next contract period shall come from the respective dean.  Tenure-track contracts are offered on the following schedule:

...

Note Regarding Annual Faculty Assessment: All faculty members complete an annual assessment of performance and set goals for growth. An annual interview with the chair/program Director occurs so that the faculty member may gauge his/her own progress toward the review criteria, as well as toward goals for professional development and contribution to the department.  Annual review documents are maintained in the faculty person’s official file in the Provost’s office.

Schedule for Promotion

Promotion by Rank requires:  a specified length of EMU service attained, as well as specific ratings (Competent, Proficient, or Outstanding) across the domains of Teaching, Scholarship, and Service.

...

Timing of Application for Promotion: Application for promotion typically occurs at the time of contract renewal. In extraordinary cases in which the faculty member demonstrates excellence in advance of, or following, the scheduled period of review for contract renewal, the respective dean and department chair may approve special requests for early/delayed promotion reviews.  Once the out-of-schedule promotion is granted, another full contract (3 year or 6 year) will commence at the time of the promotion/contract review in order to maintain the regularity of the review cycle.

Review Procedures for One-year Contracts

After the first semester in the first and second years, and prior to signing another one-year contract, the department chair shall meet with the faculty member to conduct a review, based on the Domains for Faculty Performance. The dean shall place a summary of the review in the faculty member’s personnel file in the office of the provost. Faculty member is notified by March 15 of contract renewal decision for the 2nd and 3rd one-year contracts.

Review Procedures for: Three- and Six-Year Contracts & Promotion

Procedures for contract review and/or promotion consideration involve several steps:

• Faculty candidate prepares for the review by completing the steps in the initial and preparation procedures, listed below.
• Selected colleagues and peers review the performance of the faculty candidate in the 3 domains and provide individual and group response.
• The chair/director writes a summary and the dean adds his/her recommendation.
• The Faculty Status Committee reviews the dossier, interprets the data, and makes the decision on contract renewal/promotion.
• The Board of Trustees takes action to confirm all promotions and renewal of six-year contracts.

Initial Procedures

1. Faculty member is eligible for contract review, and/or promotion.
2. Prior to the end of the contract year (in May), the Provost conducts a “process overview” workshop for faculty undergoing the process.
3. In May, prior to the review process, the dean initiates the review process via letter to the faculty member indicating eligibility for contract review, and/or promotion to Associate Professor. The letter is copied to the respective chair/director. The faculty member in consultation with his/her chair initiates requests for promotion to Professor.
4. By May 15, the faculty candidate submits a list of names to be contacted for external letters of recommendation from professional colleagues.
5. Promotion only: If requesting a promotion, the faculty candidate submits a letter of request for promotion consideration to the Chair/Director and respective dean by September 1.

Preparation Procedures

1. By September 15, the faculty candidate invites a minimum of 2 tenure-track colleagues  (one colleague must be from within department) to conduct class visits. The colleague observer meets with the faculty candidate to review the results; the observer submits the class-visit evaluation form to the chair/director and a copy to the faculty candidate.
2. When a department consists of fewer than 4 members, the faculty candidate submits to the department chair by September 15, the names of three other faculty colleagues to be considered for appointment to the colleague review committee. The dean may also make additional appointments to the committee in special circumstances; the faculty candidate may also request the addition of a colleague who has insight into his/her performance in a domain (see Colleague Review Procedures).
3. In September, the faculty candidate completes the Self-evaluation Form (SEF).
4. The faculty candidate compiles the dossier and submits it to the chair by October 1. The dossier is stored in a location that ensures confidentiality.
5. The dean solicits evaluation forms from all students in the major/program who have had at least one course with the professor. The Office of Institutional Research summarizes the data and results are forwarded to the colleague review committee.

Colleague review

Colleagues review the faculty candidate’s performance in the three domains. The colleague review committee consists of all tenure-track departmental members and may include up to 2 additional tenure-track colleagues from outside of the department, as outlined below. The colleague review committee is chaired by the chair/ director (in the case of the review of the chair/ director’s performance as a faculty member, the dean appoints a departmental faculty member or another department chair/program director to lead the colleague review committee).

Procedure for expanding the colleague review committee:

• In departments with fewer than 4 members, the colleague review committee will be expanded to include at least four members with tenure-track faculty colleagues from outside of the department/program. The faculty candidate submits the names of three other EMU colleagues. Ordinarily, external additions to the committee will be at the same or higher rank as that to which the candidate aspires. The chair/director may also nominate a colleague. The chair selects external faculty members to join the colleague review committee, at least one of whom was nominated by the faculty candidate.
• Even if there are already 4 members in a department, the faculty candidate may also request that one additional colleague be added to the colleague review committee. The faculty candidate may wish to nominate a colleague, who has at least six years of EMU faculty experience, who has insight into an area of scholarship, teaching, or service that the departmental members may have not had opportunity to observe (e.g. cross-disciplinary co-teaching, research, etc.).  The chair/program director and the respective dean must approve such requests. Anyone added to the committee must be a tenure-track faculty member.
• In other special circumstances, the respective dean may appoint up to 2 additional colleagues from outside of the department, after consulting with the faculty candidate and chair/director.

...

1. In October, each member of the colleague review committee reviews the dossier. All members of the committee, except those in their first semester at EMU, complete Part I of the colleague review response form prior to the meeting of the colleague review committee.
2. By November 7, the chair convenes the colleague review committee to discuss the candidate’s performance (Not Achieved, Competent, Proficient, or Outstanding) in each of the three domains. Discussions during the meeting are confidential.
3. Following the colleague review meeting, all participants, except those in their first semester at EMU, complete and sign Part II of their individual colleague response forms. Individuals submit the form to the committee chair by November 15. The faculty candidate does not see the individual response forms.
4. The committee chair reviews the results of the response forms and drafts a summary report. The report summarizes the discussion of the colleague review committee, the performance ratings in each domain, and the level of support for the contract renewal/promotion. In circumstances where the chair of the committee has privileged/confidential information relevant to the renewal/promotion, the chair may also write an accompanying letter and attach it to the summary report.
5. The chair of the colleague review committee submits the summary report, completed dossier, student evaluation results, and colleague response forms to the respective dean by November 30. The summary may be viewed by any member of the colleague review committee, upon request.
6. The chair of the colleague review committee meets with the faculty candidate for an oral  summary of the faculty review by November 30. No individual data are revealed.

Dean’s Review

1. By December 15, the dean reviews the dossier, the summary report, student evaluation results, and the individual colleague response forms. The summary report and the response forms are not placed into the dossier.
2. The dean writes his/her letter of recommendation, evaluating the information that has come forward from the colleague review committee. The faculty candidate may meet with the dean to discuss any aspect of his/her candidacy.
3. By January 15, the dean informs the chair of the colleague review committee his/her recommendation to the FSC.
4. The dean forwards the completed dossier, with the summary report, student evaluation results, the response forms, and the dean’s recommendation to the Faculty Status Committee.

Faculty Status Committee Review

The Faculty Status Committee performs the final review of the dossier and all related materials.  The Faculty Status Committee’s discretion varies with the type of contract being requested.

...

1. At the March Board of Trustees meeting, the Board of Trustees takes action on all promotions, and post-tenure six-year contracts.
2. The Provost issues a letter communicating the action to the faculty candidate, no later than April 1st.

Appeals Procedure

• If a faculty member wishes to appeal the decision of the Faculty Status Committee, it must be done in writing to the president within ten working days of notification of the committee’s decision. If the appeal to the president is denied, the faculty member may make a second appeal to the Academic Excellence Committee of the Board of Trustees. The second appeal must be done in writing to the chair of the trustee committee within ten working days of notification of the president’s decision.
• All appeal procedures shall provide a fair hearing for all interested parties.

Dossier Preparation for 3- and 6-year Contracts & Promotion

The dossier is prepared to provide appropriate evidence of the faculty candidate’s performance in the areas of Teaching, Scholarship, and Service.

Dossier Documents Submitted by the Faculty Candidate

• Cover Letter indicating the purpose of the review: tenure contract renewal and/or promotion
• Self-evaluation form: The faculty candidate identifies a rating of own performance (Not Achieved, Competent, Proficient, or Outstanding) for each domain, with a supporting explanation of the evidence. The candidate may also speak to current areas of focus in his/her professional development and contributions to the department/university.
• Curriculum vitae
• Class Visit Forms: the faculty member places two signed class visit forms in the dossier; a departmental/program faculty member must complete one form.
• Course Evaluation Summaries
• Statement of Faith and Life (depth of updating is at the discretion of the applicant)
• Annual goals reports from prior 3 years
• Faith integration paper (for the initial tenured six-year contract only). The integration paper is 5-10 pages in length and is also shared with peers at an appropriate venue, as arranged by the Provost (not a part of the review process). The faculty candidate addresses how his/her teaching and scholarship is influenced by serving at Eastern Mennonite University, a Christian institution in the Anabaptist tradition. In addition, it should explore the question of affinity with the university mission. A guidelines document is available from the Provost and the Faculty Employee webpage.
• Supporting Evidence at Faculty Discretion: optional supporting evidence may be offered to assist in demonstrating the level of performance. Duplication of evidence is unnecessary. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to:
  • evidence of teaching strategies or curriculum development
  • sample syllabi
  • evidence of student learning
  • published scholarship
  • evidence of service assignments
  • reports generated by consulting or other professional service
  • internal/external letters of recommendation
  • evidence of public critique or adoption of one’s scholarly work

Documents Submitted by Others

The colleague review committee:

...

Approved by Faculty Senate May 7, 2010
Approved by Academic Cabinet & President's Cabinet May 12, 2010
Approved by Board of Trustees June 19, 2010
Approved by Board of Trustees, March 24, 2012
Edited & revised by faculty senate academic committee, May 3, 2013
Revised to reflect new Board of Trustees committee structure, March 10, 2020

Discrimination and Grievance Procedures

The university’s Non-Discrimination Policy and Conflict and Grievance Policy and Procedure are in place throughout the entire review process. The main concern in any grievance procedure is to bring reconciliation and growth in ways that enhance community. To implement this goal, the American Council on Education definition of grievance is adopted: “Grievable issues are those in which there is the possibility of an error in the institutional policies (or lack of them), in its prescribed procedures for carrying out the policies, in the administration of those procedures, or in varying combinations of these.”  If it is determined that an institutional error has occurred, the second function of the grievance procedure is to provide a process to determine appropriate redress for the grievant.