Review Procedures for One-year Contracts

Annually the dean shall meet with the faculty member to conduct a review, based on the Domains for Faculty Performance. In the first semester the program director conducts a class visit and meets with the faculty member for review the Class Visit Form. The form will be submitted to the dean’s office. The dean shall place a summary of the review in the faculty member’s personnel file in the office of the provost. The faculty member is notified by March 15 of the contract renewal decision for the 2nd and 3rd one-year contracts.

Review Procedures for Tenure Track Faculty

Three- and Six-Year Contracts & Promotion

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

• Faculty candidates prepare a portfolio for 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 three domains and provide individual and group responses.

• The Colleague Review Committee chair writes a summary and the dean adds their 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. The Provost's Office, in collaboration with the deans' offices, will identify faculty members eligible for contract review and/or promotion. In April, 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 program director.

2. Prior to the end of the contract year (in May), the provost conducts a “process overview” workshop for faculty undergoing the process.

3. The dean, in consultation with faculty candidates, appoints the school’s Colleague Review Committee (CRC) no later than May 31 with at least one member from each of that year’s candidates’ respective programs.  If a candidate has concerns about the composition of the CRC, they may consult with the dean and seek a mutually agreeable solution. In extraordinary circumstances (for example, an unusually high number of candidates in a given year) a dean may appoint more than one CRC within a school. After the CRC is finalized, all faculty members in the school are informed of the CRC appointments.

4. Promotion to full professor only: The faculty member, in consultation with their dean, initiates a review for promotion to full professor by submitting a letter of request for promotion consideration to the dean, with a copy to the program director, no later than May 31. Request for promotion to full professor may occur in any year after six years of service at the rank of associate professor.

5. By May 31, faculty candidates undergoing tenure review and/or requesting promotion to Associate Professor or Professor provide the dean a list of four or more faculty or professional colleagues external to EMU who could write letters on their behalf.

6. External peer reviewers should be contacted by the Dean by June 30, before the CRC begins work.  A total of three letters are required. At least two of the three are selected from the list of names provided by the candidate. External review letters are provided to the CRC for use in its deliberations. 

7. The Dean’s Office in collaboration with the Provost’s Office will provide names of faculty candidates up for review and/or promotion and the chair of each Colleague Review Committee to IR for data-gathering purposes.

Dossier Preparation Procedures 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. The faculty candidate compiles the dossier and submits it to the CRC chair by October 1. The dossier is stored in a location that ensures confidentiality.

Dossier Documents Submitted by the Faculty Candidate

1. Cover Letter indicating the purpose of the review: tenure, contract renewal, and/or promotion.

2. Self Evaluation Form: In September, the faculty candidate completes the Self-evaluation Form (SEF).  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 their professional development and contributions to the school/university.

3. Curriculum vitae

4. Class Visit Form: By September 15, the faculty candidate invites a minimum of 2 tenure-track colleagues  (at least one colleague must be from within the candidate’s program) 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 CRC Chair and a copy to the faculty candidate.  The faculty candidate places two class visit forms in the dossier.

5. Course Evaluation Summaries: the faculty member provides quantitative and/or qualitative summaries of course evaluation results since their previous review, along with a representative and helpful sample of course evaluation reports.

6. Personal Statement of Faith and Life (depth of updating is at the discretion of the applicant)

7. Annual goals reports from prior 3 years

8. 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 their 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. See the Faith Integration Guidelines for more information.

9. 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:

   1. evidence of teaching strategies or curriculum development

   2. sample syllabi

   3. evidence of student learning

   4. published scholarship

   5. evidence of service assignments

   6. reports generated by consulting or other professional service

   7. internal/external letters of recommendation

   8. evidence of public critique or adoption of one’s scholarly work

Dossier Preparation Procedures for 6-year Contract Post Tenure and No Promotion: Post Tenure Review Process & Dossier Documents

Dossier Documents Submitted by Others

The Provost's Office solicits evaluation forms from all students in the candidate’s program who have completed at least one course taught by the candidate. The Office of Institutional Research summarizes the data and results are forwarded to the CRC chair and the Dean to include in the dossier.

The Colleague Review Committee chair adds a summary of the committee report to the faculty candidate dossiers and confirms that student evaluation results, individual colleague response forms, external letters (not for post-tenure, no promotion), and faith integration paper (for the initial tenured six-year contract only) are in the google drive and notifies the dean by November 30.

The Dean adds their recommendation letter and notifies the Provost’s Office that the completed dossier is ready to be shared with the Faculty Status Committee.

Colleague Review

Colleagues review the faculty candidate’s performance in the three domains. The CRC consists of at least five tenure-track faculty members and may include up to two EMU tenure-track colleagues from outside of the particular school. The CRC elects its own chair from among its members.

The faculty candidate may request that one additional tenure-track colleague be added to the CRC for review of their particular case. The faculty candidate nominates a colleague who has at least six years of EMU faculty experience and who has insight into an area of scholarship, teaching, or service that their school colleagues may have not had opportunity to observe (e.g. cross-disciplinary co-teaching, research, etc.). The dean approves such requests. 

The colleague review process includes:

1. In October, each member of the colleague review committee (CRC) reviews the dossier using the Colleague Review Response form. All members of the committee complete Part I of the colleague review response form prior to the meeting of the colleague review committee. Program colleagues of the candidate who are not members of the CRC may also choose to review the dossier and submit their feedback via Part I of the response form to the CRC.

2. By November 7, the chair convenes the CRC 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 CRC meeting, all members complete and sign Part II of their individual colleague response forms. Individual members submit their form to the CRC chair by November 15. The faculty candidate does not see the individual response forms.

4. The CRC chair reviews the results of the response forms and drafts a summary report. The report summarizes the discussion of the CRC, the performance ratings in each domain, and the level of support for the contract renewal/promotion.

5. The CRC chair submits the summary report, completed dossier, student evaluation results, colleague response forms, and faith integration paper (for the initial tenured six-year contract only) to the respective dean by November 30. The summary may be viewed by any member of the colleague review committee, upon request.

The CRC chair 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 their letter of recommendation, evaluating the information that has come forward from the CRC. The faculty candidate may meet with the dean to discuss any aspect of their candidacy.

3. By January 15, the dean informs the chair of the CRC of their recommendation to the Faculty Status Committee.

4. The dean forwards the completed dossier, with the summary report, student evaluation results, response forms, dean’s letter of recommendation, and faith integration paper (for the initial tenured six-year contract only) 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. For a three-year contract, the committee may decide to approve, to disapprove, or to delay the three-year contract for no more than one provisional year accompanied by a performance improvement plan with measurable outcomes.  At the end of the provisional year, the dean may award a three-year contract based upon successful completion of the performance improvement plan.

2. For the initial six-year contract, which includes application for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, the Faculty Status Committee may only approve or deny.  Applicants who are denied tenure and promotion may, at the discretion of the respective dean and with the approval of the provost, be offered a non-tenure-track appointment For continuing post-tenure six year contracts, renewal is the presumptive outcome.  If the Faculty Status Committee determines that there has been a significant shortfall in performance standards, they may renew the contract for six years or a lesser period, accompanied by a performance improvement plan, or they may decide on non-renewal.  In the case of non-renewal, the faculty member may, at the discretion of the dean and with the approval of the provost, be offered a continuing non-tenure-track appointment The process and timetable for the Faculty Status Committee’s deliberations are as follows:

1. January 15-February 15: The Faculty Status Committee reviews the completed dossier, the attached reports, student evaluation results, and colleague response forms.

2. About mid-February, the Faculty Status Committee convenes and decides on the contract renewal/promotion request.

3. By the end of February, the Faculty Status Committee reports in writing the resulting decision and the rationale to the faculty member, and copies the program director and respective dean.

4. The chair of the FSC forwards the decisions for promotion and for tenured six-year contracts to the Board of Trustees, along with the minutes of the FSC meeting.  The provost presents the decisions of the FSC as motions to the Board of Trustees for confirmation at the board’s March meeting. The decision of the board is communicated by the Provost’s Office to the faculty candidate in writing. Dossier is archived. 

Filing

The summary report, response forms, student evaluation results, and letter of recommendation are filed securely by the provost’s office for 6 years.

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.

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.

Responsible Party

Responsibility for this policy lies with the Provost.

Policy Review

This policy is to be reviewed every three years.

Distribution

Faculty/Staff Handbook

Review and promotion procedures for faculty in Three year, non-tenure track contracts

Contract Review Process for Faculty in Three-year Non-tenure Track Contracts