VI. Evaluation Of Faculty
A. Third-year Review, Tenure and Promotion of Tenure-Track and Tenured Instructional Faculty
(Rev. April 2012)
The President retains the power of approval for third-year review determinations, conferrals of tenure, and promotions. The Provost, acting in accordance with the provisions stated in this Faculty/Administration Manual, is responsible for making the final recommendation to the President in respect to all such matters.
Tenure and promotion require substantial evidence of consistently high professional competence in teaching, research and professional development, and service. In addition, evidence of either exemplary performance in at least one of the three specified professional competency areas or significant achievement in the two areas of teaching and research and professional development is required. Tenure is a long-term commitment by the College; it is not merely a reward for work accomplished, but it is an award given with the expectation that consistently high professional competence will continue. (Rev. April 2009)
A third-year review should substantiate whether satisfactory progress toward tenure has been made. There should be evidence of effective teaching, a continuing research program, and active participation in service. A candidate should be informed in detail of any weakness that, if not corrected, might lead to a negative tenure decision. If there are serious doubts as to whether the candidate will be able to meet the criteria prior to a required tenure decision, a recommendation against retention should be given.
A tenure decision is made only once, no later than the sixth year. Up to two years credit toward tenure and promotion may be awarded at the time of initial appointment for teaching and research on a full-time basis at other four-year and graduate colleges and universities or for full-time employment at faculty positions of special status at the College of Charleston. A person receiving the maximum of two years credit would be eligible for consideration for tenure during the fourth year at the College. A person receiving one year of credit would be eligible for consideration for tenure during the fifth year at the College. (Rev. April 2007)
Six years in rank is normally required for an Assistant Professor to be eligible for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor. Seven years in rank is normally required for an Associate Professor to be eligible for promotion to Professor.
In exceptional cases a faculty member may wish to petition for early tenure or promotion provided the action has the prior written approval of the Provost, the Dean and the Departmental Chair.
Faculty are evaluated in the three categories of Teaching Effectiveness, Research and Professional Development, and Professional Service to the Community. Because teaching is the primary responsibility of any faculty member, evidence of effective teaching is expected for tenure and for promotion. Because research and professional development are essential to the mission of the College, evidence of a sustained research program and a continuing scholarly commitment must be provided for tenure and for promotion. Because faculty should be contributing members of the College community and, where appropriate, the community at large, evidence of service to the community is expected.
While quantifiable data (numerical items from student evaluations, numbers of papers published, number of committees, etc.) are important, decisions about tenure and promotion must ultimately rely on sound professional judgment.
What follow are the general standards and evidence that remain constant throughout the four levels of institutional evaluation, namely third-year review, tenure, and promotion to Associate Professor and Professor. A separate evaluation process, with its own standards and evidence, is used for the honorary rank of University Professor (see Art. VI, Sect. I). (Rev. Aug. 2015)
- Teaching Effectiveness
- a.Standard
Effective teaching is the primary responsibility of faculty, as well as the hallmark of the institution, and reflects three broad elements: a student-focused approach, appropriate disciplinary or interdisciplinary content, and reflective practices. It fosters intellectual curiosity and motivation, promotes inclusivity, encourages deep learning, and nurtures active listening, all of which promote lifelong learning. As teachers and academic advisors, faculty members are expected to meet the needs of diverse learners by designing courses with transparent expectations and in a format that is accessible and easily navigated by all types of students. Students should be exposed to current and past developments in the field if appropriate, be taught to access and analyze relevant disciplinary information, and be provided opportunities to prepare for subsequent courses in the curriculum. Instructors should engage peer and student feedback and the scholarship of teaching and learning in their disciplines, regularly reflecting on and evaluating current practices and implementing alternative approaches in response. (Rev. Aug. 2023)
Departments and programs that expect faculty members to demonstrate specific characteristics of effective teaching that are aligned with this standard should articulate those in their departmental or program guidelines. (Ins. Aug. 2023)
b. Evidence (while in rank at the College of Charleston)
The faculty member should provide a narrative that includes a critical self-reflection of their teaching philosophy and methodology, as well as their accomplishments in teaching and in related efforts, including advising and mentoring, as appropriate. The candidate should provide evidence in support of their narrative, associated with courses taught during the review period, including the following:
Syllabi, including course objectives and student learning outcomes, grading policy, and other required content, per Policy 7.6.10, Policy on Course Syllabi.
Samples of course materials, including assessments (such as tests, exams, essays, or other assignments), and as appropriate, evaluation rubrics, materials from course websites, projects, and evaluated student work.
Chair’s evaluations since the faculty member has been in rank. Chair must provide an annual evaluation the year prior to the candidate being considered for promotion or tenure.
Student reviews of teaching:
(i) Student Course-Instructor Evaluation quantitative ratings from all course sections for which they were administered. These surveys will be administered for every section of every course, every semester, with the exception of a course that has only one student enrolled. A faculty member undergoing review may also choose to include student free responses as part of the packet, having explained in the written narrative about teaching whether all the comments or a selection of the comments have been included. Departments may require inclusion of the student free responses. Any such requirement should be articulated in approved departmental guidelines. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
(ii) An aggregate rating for each semester for all courses in the department will be included in the evidence submitted by the candidate. (Rev. Apr. 2007)
The chair of the Departmental Evaluation Panel will also collect the following evidence:
Departmental colleague letters evaluating teaching, which are required.
Optional letters on teaching, from extra-departmental colleagues at the College of Charleston and/or at other institutions, if the candidate elects or if department or program requires. (Ins. Apr. 2007; Rev. Aug. 2023)
Recent graduate evaluations on teaching: either all majors or a sample of at least 40 students selected randomly from among all majors in the department who have graduated within the past five years and whom the candidate has taught; additional students whom the candidate has taught, who need not be majors in the department, may be added by the candidate in consultation with the Chair.
Recent Graduate Evaluations are optional for Third-Year Review and may be requested by the departmental evaluation panel or the candidate. (Rev. Apr. 2007)
Additional evidence submitted by the candidate may include but is not limited to:
Samples of evaluatee-prepared and/or supplementary course materials;
Participation in curriculum development;
Participation in interdisciplinary courses and programs;
Participation in peer coaching activities and/or observation of classroom performance by colleagues;
Participation in pedagogical conferences, workshops and field trips (Rev. Aug. 2023)
- a.Standard
Research and Professional Development
a. Standard
Research and professional development are essential to a professor’s ability to carry out the College’s educational mission. Research and professional development involve the various activities that increase the faculty member’s knowledge and that exemplify scholarly or artistic expertise. It includes, but is not limited to, original contributions to the discipline, creative activities in practice and performance in the fine arts, research in pedagogy, and appropriate studies within and outside one’s specialties. The professional educator undertakes research for scholarly or creative production, to maintain currency in the content of courses taught, and to improve pedagogical techniques. The professional educator sustains professional contact with colleagues and engages in continuing professional activities to upgrade and augment existing skills or develop new ones.
b. Evidence (while in rank at the College of Charleston) should include:
Evaluatee’s narrative of research and professional development activities.
Colleague letters (departmental and optional external)
(i) Departmental colleague letters evaluating research and professional development are required.
(ii) Optional evaluation of research and professional development includes:
(a) letters from extra-departmental colleagues at the College of Charleston evaluating research and professional development and (Rev. Apr. 2012)
(b) independent external reviews of research. Departments that choose to conduct such external reviews must follow the process outlined here.
Instructions for External Reviews of Research:
The external reviewers chosen should be appropriately qualified to conduct an independent review of the candidate’s research and/or creative achievements. Candidates should submit the names of at least three professionals from outside the College by late August. Evaluation panel chairs, in consultation with departmental panel members, should present additional names of external reviewers in order to obtain no fewer than two independent reviews of the quality of the candidate's research and/or creative achievements. The Departmental Evaluation Panel chair may solicit names of potential additional reviews from people named on the candidate’s list. No more than half of the reviews should be secured from the candidate's own list. The candidate is allowed to strike one name from the panel chair's list. Under no circumstances and at no point in time shall a candidate contact a potential or actual reviewer about any aspect of such a review. Panel Chair should specify in writing, for inclusion in the packet, how each reviewer was selected. (Rev. Apr. 2012; Rev. Aug. 2015)
After the external reviewers have been determined, a cover letter from the panel chair should accompany the review materials sent to them, stating that the College seeks a review of the quality of a candidate's research and professional development, rather than an overall assessment of whether the candidate would meet research expectations at the reviewer’s own institution. A copy of the candidate's academic curriculum vitae and copies of the relevant scholarly and/or creative works agreed upon by the candidate and evaluation panel chair should be sent to each of the outside reviewers. Letters to external reviewers may also reflect any quantitative or qualitative research expectations set by college-wide or approved school or departmental guidelines. For instance, the following excerpts from the Faculty/Administration Manual
could be included in such letters, “Because research and professional development are essential to the mission of the College, evidence of a sustained research program and a continuing scholarly commitment must be provided for tenure and promotion,” and for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, candidates must present “...clear evidence of high promise for continued quality scholarship and professional activity. Since peer refereeing is one criterion of scholarly quality, the evidence must include scholarly books or journal articles or otherwise juried publications, or professionally evaluated performances or exhibits in the arts). All evidence must be evaluated rigorously.” Additional supporting review materials may also be submitted by the panel chair or the candidate, provided that these materials are included in the packet.(Rev. Sept. 2021)
Reviewers should be asked to identify what relationship, if any, they have with the candidate and to return their review in a timely manner for the deliberations of the departmental panel. To make it possible that reviews are available prior to those deliberations, external reviews must be solicited sufficiently in advance of panel deliberations.The panel chair must include in the candidate's packet: 1.) a description of the process by which the outside letters were obtained, 2.) each reviewer's institutional and departmental affiliation, and rank or other institutional title, a description of the academic specialization of the reviewer, and other relevant information about the reviewer, which may be useful to those unfamiliar with the field, 3.) a copy of the letter of solicitation by the panel chair, and 4.) the confidential outside reviews. (Ins. Apr. 2007)
Chair’s evaluations since faculty member has been in rank. Chair must provide an annual evaluation the year prior to the candidate’s being considered for promotion/tenure.
Evidence of scholarship may include but is not limited to:
professionally published scholarly books
academic journal articles
chapters in scholarly books
edited volumes
review essays
creative literary and artistic works and other creative works
research grants
conference papers
reviews of candidate’s books, performances, etc.
scholarly reviews by candidate of books, performances, etc.
invited or juried exhibits, concerts, performances, etc.
technical reports
textbooks, workbooks, study guides and other published pedagogical materials
draft manuscripts
professional bibliographies
The professional activities listed below can be included as evidence either in the category of Research and Professional Development , or in the category of Service.
Evidence of professional activities may include but is not limited to:
serving as an officer or a member of a board or committee of an international, national, regional or state professional organization
serving on an editorial board of a scholarly journal
reviewing manuscripts for journals and publishers; evaluating proposals for granting agencies
chairing or serving as a discussant on a panel at a professional meeting
preparing grant proposals and reports
conducting professional workshops, seminars, and field trips
participating in professional meetings, seminars, workshops, field trips, etc.
undertaking post-doctoral studies
receiving fellowships and awards
serving as a professional consultant
serving as Department Chair, Program Director, or Associate Dean (Ins. Aug. 2015) (Rev. Sept 2021)
Professional Service to the Community
a. Standard
Service to the College and/or community falls within the responsibilities of a faculty member and is essential to the fulfillment of the College’s responsibilities to the academic community and to the attainment of institutional goals. Each faculty member is expected to cooperate in supporting the mission and the goals of the department and the College. Service includes involvement in standing or ad hoc committees of the College faculty, in departmental committees or offices, and in special committees or task forces.
Service includes working with student organizations and non-academic advising; working with community, state, regional or national organizations; utilizing professional expertise; and working on institutional advancement projects. Service can also include those professional activities listed in Section VI.A.2.b.(5), which addresses evidence of professional development. (Rev. Sept. 2021)
b. Evidence (while in rank at the College of Charleston) should include but is not limited to:
Evaluatee’s narrative of service activities.
Departmental and extra-departmental colleague letters:
(i)Departmental colleague letters evaluating service are required.
(ii) Letters from extra-departmental colleagues at the College of Charleston and/or at other institutions evaluating service are required. (Ins. Apr. 2007)
- Chair’s evaluations since the faculty member has been in rank. Chair must provide an annual evaluation the year prior to the candidate’s being considered for promotion/tenure.
- Specific Criteria for Tenure and Promotion
What follow are minimum criteria for tenure and promotion. Departments and schools may develop additional criteria. Any such proposed criteria will require review and approval by the appropriate academic dean and Provost’s Office to ensure consistency with college-wide guidelines and procedures. Additionally, they shall be reviewed by the originating body every five years and will require review and approval by the dean and the Provost’s Office when modified. (Rev. Apr. 2012)
a. Tenure and Promotion to the Rank of Associate Professor
Promotion to the rank of Associate Professor is normally awarded simultaneously with tenure. The following criteria are necessary, though not sufficient, for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor. The Associate Professor will normally hold the highest appropriate terminal degree. Evidence of exemplary performance in at least one of the specified professional competency areas or significant achievement in the two areas of teaching and research and professional development is required. (Ins. Apr. 2007; Rev. Apr. 2009)
Tenure and promotion to the rank of Associate Professor require sustained effectiveness in teaching.
There must be clear evidence of high promise for continued quality scholarship and professional activity. Since peer refereeing is one criterion of scholarly quality, the evidence must include scholarly books or journal articles (or otherwise juried publications, or professionally evaluated performances or exhibits in the arts). All evidence should be evaluated rigorously.
There should be active and sustained service to the College or there should be active and sustained service in the candidate’s professional role to the local, state, regional, or national community.
b. Tenure for Associate Professors
A faculty member hired as an untenured Associate Professor must meet the same criteria for tenure as in section a (immediately above). Evidence of exemplary performance in at least one of the specified professional competency areas or significant achievement in the two areas of teaching and research and professional development is required. (Ins. Apr. 2007; Rev. Apr. 2009)
c. Promotion to the Rank of Professor
Promotion to the rank of Professor requires evidence of continuing quality teaching, research and service. The following criteria are necessary, though not sufficient, for promotion to Professor. The Professor must hold the highest appropriate terminal degree. Evidence of either exemplary performance in at least one of the specified professional competency areas or significant achievement in all three areas is required. (Ins. Apr. 2007; Rev. Apr. 2009)
Promotion to the rank of Professor requires sustained high quality and effective teaching. (Rev. Apr. 2009)
Because Professor is the highest rank, there must be clear evidence of continuing quality scholarship. Peer refereeing is one criterion of scholarly quality; therefore the evidence must include scholarly books or journal articles (or otherwise juried publications, or professional evaluated performances or exhibits in the arts). In addition to scholarship, sustained professional activity is expected. All evidence should be rigorously evaluated.
There should be active and sustained service to the College. Leadership should be demonstrated either in college service or in the candidate’s professional role to the local, state, regional, or national community.
d. Tenure for Professors
A faculty member hired as an untenured Professor must meet the same criteria for tenure as in section a (above). (Rev. Apr. 2012)
Nomination of Instructional Faculty to a Higher Rank
When a faculty member becomes eligible for nomination to a higher rank, a nomination may be submitted in the form of a petition from one or more of the following:
a. the Department Chair, after consultation with the tenured members of the department, to the Provost;
b. a majority of the tenured members of the department to the Provost;
c. the individual faculty member to the Provost;
d. the Provost to the Department Chair;
e. the Dean to the Department Chair.
Normally, a petition nominating a faculty member to a higher rank should be made not later than August 15 of the academic year in which a decision on promotion is to be made. The faculty member will then be evaluated under the provisions outlined in Art. VI.D. entitled “Procedures for Third-Year Evaluation, Tenure and Promotion of Instructional and Library Faculty.” (Rev. Apr. 2007)
It should be clearly understood by all faculty members that promotion does not come automatically after the passage of a fixed period of time, but it is recognition of outstanding performance and service at the College.
B. Third-Year Review and Promotion of Instructors and Renewal of Senior Instructors
The President retains the power of approval for third-year review determinations, promotions, and renewals. The Provost, acting in accordance with the provisions stated in this Faculty/Administration Manual, is responsible for making the final recommendation to the President in respect to all such matters.
A third-year review should substantiate whether satisfactory progress toward promotion to Senior Instructor has been made. A candidate should be informed in detail of any weakness that, if not corrected, might lead to a negative promotion decision. If there are serious doubts as to whether the candidate will be able to meet the criteria prior to a required promotion decision, a recommendation against retention should be given.
Promotion to Senior Instructor is awarded to eligible instructors at the College of Charleston for meritorious achievement in the three areas: teaching, professional development and service. A promotion decision is made only once normally in the sixth year. A review for renewal as Senior Instructor normally takes place every seventh year31. (Inst. Apr. 2011; Rev Aug. 2014)
Specific Criteria for Promotion to Senior Instructor (Rev. Apr. 2011; Aug. 2023)
The following criteria are necessary, though not sufficient, for promotion to Senior Instructor. Evidence of exemplary performance in teaching or performance at the level of significant achievement in the two areas of teaching and professional development is also required. (Rev. Aug. 2023)
a. Promotion to the rank of Senior Instructor requires sustained effectiveness in teaching. (Rev. Aug. 2023)
b. Continued vitality as a teacher is intimately related to professional development. There must be clear evidence of promise for continued development in pedagogy.
c. There should be active and sustained participation in service to the College, and, where appropriate, to the community.
Specific Criteria for Renewal as Senior Instructor (Ins. Aug. 2023)
The following criteria are necessary, though not sufficient, for renewal as Senior Instructor. Additionally, evidence of one of the following is required: exemplary performance in teaching; performance at the level of significant achievement in teaching and professional development; or performance at the level of significant achievement in teaching and professional service.
a. Renewal at the rank of Senior Instructor requires sustained effectiveness in teaching.
b. Continued vitality as a teacher is intimately related to professional development. There must be clear evidence of promise for continued development in pedagogy.
c. There should be active and sustained participation in service to the College, and, where appropriate, to the community.
Teaching Effectiveness
a. Standard
Effective teaching is the primary responsibility of faculty, as well as the hallmark of the institution, and reflects three broad elements: a student-focused approach, appropriate disciplinary or interdisciplinary content, and reflective practices. It fosters intellectual curiosity and motivation, promotes inclusivity, encourages deep learning, and nurtures active listening, all of which promote lifelong learning. As teachers and academic advisors, faculty members are expected to meet the needs of diverse learners by designing courses with transparent expectations and in a format that is accessible and easily navigated by all types of students. Students should be exposed to current and past developments in the field if appropriate, be taught to access and analyze relevant disciplinary information, and be provided opportunities to prepare for subsequent courses in the curriculum. Instructors should engage peer and student feedback and the scholarship of teaching and learning in their disciplines, regularly reflecting on and evaluating current practices and implementing alternative approaches in response. (Rev. Aug. 2023)
Departments and programs that expect faculty members to demonstrate specific characteristics of effective teaching that are aligned with this standard should articulate those in their departmental or program guidelines. (Ins. Aug. 2023)
b. Evidence (while in rank at the College of Charleston)
The faculty member should provide a narrative that includes a critical self-reflection of their teaching philosophy and methodology, as well as their accomplishments in teaching and in related efforts, including advising and mentoring, as appropriate. The candidate should provide evidence in support of their narrative, associated with courses taught during the review period, including the following:
Syllabi, including course objectives and student learning outcomes, grading policy, and other required content, per Policy 7.6.10, Policy on Course Syllabi;
Samples of course materials, including assessments (such as tests, exams, essays, or other assignments), and as appropriate, evaluation rubrics, materials from course websites, projects, and evaluated student work;
Chair’s evaluations since the faculty member has been in rank. Chair must provide an annual evaluation the year prior to the candidate being considered for promotion/tenure;
Student reviews of teaching:
(i) Student Course-Instructor Evaluation quantitative ratings from all course sections for which they were administered. These surveys will be administered for every section of every course, every semester, with the exception of a course that has only one student enrolled. A faculty member undergoing review may also choose to include student free responses as part of the packet, having explained in the written narrative about teaching whether all the comments or a selection of the comments have been included. Departments may require inclusion of the student free responses. Any such requirement should be articulated in approved departmental guidelines. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
(ii) An aggregate rating for each semester for all courses in the department will be included in the evidence submitted by the candidate. (Rev. Apr. 2007).
The chair of the Departmental Evaluation Panel will also collect the following evidence:
Departmental colleague letters evaluating teaching, which are required.
Optional letters on teaching, from extra-departmental colleagues at the College of Charleston and/or at other institutions, if candidate elects or if department or program requires. (Ins. Apr. 2007; Rev. Aug. 2023)
Recent graduate evaluations on teaching: either all majors or a sample of at least 40 students selected randomly from among all majors in the department who have graduated within the past five years and whom the candidate has taught; departments may choose to use a sample of at least 40 graduates selected randomly from among students in service courses taught by the evaluate. Additional students whom the candidate has taught, who need not be majors in the department, may be added by the candidate in consultation with the Chair.
Recent Graduate Evaluations are optional for Third-Year Review and may be requested by the departmental evaluation panel or the candidate. (Rev. Apr. 2007)
Additional evidence submitted by the candidate may include but is not limited to:
Samples of evaluatee-prepared and/or supplementary course materials.
Participation in curriculum development.
Participation in interdisciplinary courses and programs.
Participation in peer coaching activities and/or observation of classroom performance by colleagues.
Participation in pedagogical conferences, workshops and field trips.
Participation in departmental advising as directed by the Department Chair. (Rev. Aug. 2023)
Professional Development
a. Standard
Professional development is essential to an instructor’s ability to carry out the College’s educational mission. Professional development involves the various activities that increase the faculty member’s knowledge and exemplify pedagogical or artistic expertise. It includes, but is not limited to, research in pedagogy, appropriate studies within and outside one’s specialties, and creative activities in practice and performance in the fine arts. Instructors maintain currency in the content of courses taught and in pedagogical techniques. They sustain professional contact with colleagues and engage in continuing professional activities to maintain, upgrade, and augment existing skills or develop new ones.
b. Evidence (while in rank at the College of Charleston) should include:
Evaluatee’s narrative of professional development activities.
Internal and/or external colleague statements on professional activities.
Chair’s evaluations since faculty member has been at the College.
Evidence of professional development may include but is not limited to:
(a) serving as an officer or a member of a board or committee of a local, state, regional, national or international professional organization;
(b) chairing or serving as a discussant on a panel at a professional meeting;
(c) preparing grant proposals and reports;
(d) conducting professional workshops and seminars;
(e) participating in professional meetings, seminars, workshops, et cetera;
(f) completing graduate studies or course work relevant to professional competency;
(g) receiving fellowships and awards;
(h) serving as a professional consultant;
(i) attending workshops, symposia, meetings of regional and national organizations, et cetera;
(j) producing scholarly and creative works that are pedagogical in nature, such as media productions, and compiling significant bibliographies, guidebooks, catalogs, study guides, textbooks or workbooks;
(k) all activities appropriate at the professorial ranks.
Professional Service to the Community
a. Standard
Service to the College and/or the community falls within the responsibilities of a faculty member and is essential to the fulfillment of the College’s responsibilities to the academic community and to the attainment of institutional goals. Each faculty member is expected to cooperate in supporting the mission and the goals of the department and the College. Service includes holding departmental offices, serving on departmental committees, and participating in campus and community activities related to the College and to one’s professional role. It also includes involvement with standing or ad hoc committees of the College, and special committees or task forces. Service includes working with student organizations and non-academic advising; working with community, state, regional or national organizations; utilizing professional expertise; and working on institutional advancement projects.
b. Evidence (while in rank at the College of Charleston) should include but is not limited to:
Evaluatee’s narrative of accomplishments in service while in the rank of Instructor or Senior Instructor.
Internal and/or external colleague statements and letters of testimony. The letters shall be solicited by the panel chair. Authors of letters shall be agreed upon by both the panel chair and the evaluatee.
Chair’s evaluations since the faculty member has been at the College.
C. Third-Year Review, Tenure and Promotion of the Library Faculty
(Rev. Apr. 2011)
The President retains the power of approval for third-year review determinations, conferrals of tenure and promotions. The Provost, acting in accordance with the provisions stated in this Faculty/Administration Manual, is responsible for making the final recommendation to the President in respect to all such matters.
Tenure and promotion require substantial evidence of consistently high performance in professional competency, professional growth and development, and service. In addition, evidence of exemplary performance is required in the professional competency area. Tenure is a long-term commitment by the College; it is not merely a reward for work accomplished, but it is an award given with the expectation that consistently high performance will continue.
Promotion to the rank of Librarian II (if necessary) is awarded simultaneously with the third-year review. A third-year review should substantiate whether satisfactory progress toward tenure has been made. There should be evidence of effective professional competency, a continuing research and development program, and active participation in service. A candidate should be informed in detail of any weakness that, if not corrected, might lead to a negative tenure decision. If there are serious doubts as to whether the candidate will be able to meet the criteria prior to a required tenure decision, a recommendation against retention should be given.
A tenure decision is made only once, no later than the sixth year. Up to two years credit toward tenure and promotion may be awarded at the time of initial appointment for previous professional library experience elsewhere, or for full-time employment at professional library positions of special status at the College of Charleston. A person receiving the maximum of two years credit would be eligible for consideration for tenure during the fourth year at the College. (Rev. Apr. 2007)
Three years in rank is normally required for a Librarian I to be promoted to a Librarian II (which is done simultaneously with the Third-year Review). Six years in rank is normally required for a Librarian II to be promoted to a Librarian III. Seven years in rank is normally required for a Librarian III to be promoted to a Librarian IV. In exceptional cases a librarian may wish to petition for early tenure or promotion provided that action has the prior written approval of the Provost and the Dean.
Librarians are evaluated in the three categories of professional competency, professional growth and development, and professional service to the community. Because professional competency is the primary responsibility of any librarian, evidence of exemplary professional competency is expected for tenure and promotion. Because professional growth and development are essential to the mission of the College, evidence of a sustained quality research program and a continuing scholarly commitment must be provided for tenure and promotion. Because librarians should be contributing members of the College community and, where appropriate, the community at large, evidence of service to the community is expected.
While quantifiable data are important, decisions about tenure and promotion must ultimately rely on sound professional judgment.
What follow are the general standards and evidence that remain constant throughout the five levels of institutional evaluation, namely third-year review, tenure and promotion to Librarian II, III and IV. A separate evaluation process, with its own standards and evidence, is used for the honorary rank of University Librarian IV (see Art. VI, Sect. I). (Rev. Aug. 2015)
- Professional Competency
a. Standard
The successful librarian contributes to the educational mission and priorities of the College and the Library by providing and promoting quality services and operations to the academic community. Professional competency includes a mastery of requisite professional skills and knowledge within each librarian’s specific job description. Professional competency for librarians is the achievement of and commitment to intellectual freedom, accessibility of information (which includes the selection, acquisition, organization, preservation, instruction in the use of, and promotion of appropriate collections to support teaching and other educational activities), and supporting the curricular and research efforts of the academic community.
b. Evidence (while in rank at the College of Charleston) should include, but is not limited to:
Evaluatee’s statement of accomplishments based on annual goals and objectives;
Annual evaluations;
Letters addressing the criteria from departmental colleagues, from non-library faculty, from person(s) supervised (directly or indirectly) by evaluatee, from extra-College librarians, and, in the case of the Marine Resources Librarian, additionally from administrators and research associates of the South Carolina Marine Resources Center; (Rev. Aug. 2015)
Support materials, such as reports, working documents, statistical measures, policy statements, procedure manuals, annual reports, Library 105 and other instructional materials (to include syllabi, policy statements, grading procedures, tests, sample assignments, study or research guides), student evaluations, in-house publications, brochures, media, et cetera.
Professional Growth and Development
a. Standard
The professional growth and development of librarians is essential to the College’s ability to carry out its educational mission. A librarian’s continued vitality is intimately related to professional growth and development. Therefore, librarians are expected to conduct research or engage in other creative forms of professional growth and development. Professional growth and development involves the various professional activities that increase the librarian’s knowledge and that exemplify scholarly or artistic expertise. It includes, but is not limited to, original contributions to the discipline, creative activities in librarianship, research in pedagogy, and appropriate studies within and outside one’s specialties.
b. Evidence (while in rank at the College of Charleston) should include but is not limited to:
Evaluatee’s narrative of professional growth and development activities;
Both internal and external colleague statements on professional growth and development activities;
Dean’s evaluations since librarian has been in rank. Dean must provide an annual evaluation the year prior to the candidate’s being considered for promotion or tenure.
Evidence of scholarship includes:
professionally published scholarly books;
academic journal articles
chapters in scholarly books;
edited volumes;
review essays;
creative works, including media production, compilation of significant bibliographies, guidebooks, catalogs, study guides, textbooks or workbooks;
research grants;
conference papers;
reviews of candidate’s books, et cetera;
reviews by candidate of books, et cetera;
exhibits exemplifying scholarly endeavors;
technical reports;
draft manuscripts.
Evidence of professional activities include:
serving as an officer or a member of a board or committee of an international, national, regional, state or local professional organization;
serving on an editorial board of a scholarly journal;
reviewing manuscripts for journal and publishers;
chairing or serving as a discussant on a panel at a professional meeting;
preparing grant proposals and reports;
conducting professional workshops and seminars;
participating in professional meetings, seminars, workshops, et cetera;
completing graduate studies or course work relevant to professional competency;
receiving fellowships and awards;
serving as a professional consultant
Professional Service to the Community
a. Standard
Service to the College and/or the community falls within the responsibilities of a librarian and is essential to the fulfillment of the College’s responsibilities to the academic community and to the attainment of institutional goals. Each librarian is expected to cooperate in supporting the mission and the goals of the Library and the College. Service includes involvement in standing or ad hoc committees of the College faculty, in departmental committees or offices, and in special committees or task forces. Service includes working with student organizations and academic advising; working with community, state, regional or national organizations; utilizing professional expertise; and working on institutional advancement projects.
b. Evidence should include but is not limited to:
Evaluatee’s narrative of service activities.
Internal and/or external colleague statements on service activities.
Chair’s evaluations since the faculty member has been in rank. Chair must provide an annual evaluation the year prior to the candidate’s being considered for promotion or tenure.
Specific Criteria for Tenure and Promotion
a. Promotion to the Rank of Librarian II/Third-year Review
Promotion to the rank of Librarian II is awarded simultaneously with the third-year review. A third-year review should substantiate whether satisfactory progress toward tenure has been made. A third-year review may be conducted for untenured librarians at other ranks. The following criteria are necessary, though not sufficient, for promotion to Librarian II and/or third-year review.
Promotion to the rank of Librarian II requires evidence of progress toward meeting the tenure requirement of exemplary performance in the area of professional competency. (Rev. Apr. 2011)
Continued vitality as librarians is intimately associated with scholarship and related professional activities. There must be clear evidence of progress toward meeting the tenure requirement for professional growth and development. (Rev. Apr. 2011)
There should be active and sustained service to the College or there should be active and sustained service in the candidate’s professional role to the local, state, regional, or national community. (Rev. Apr. 2011)
b. Tenure for Librarians
The following criteria are necessary, though not sufficient, for tenure for library faculty.
Tenure for library faculty requires exemplary performance in the area of professional competency. (Rev. Apr. 2011)
Continued vitality as librarians is intimately associated with scholarship and related professional activities. Traditional publication is not the only medium through which the library profession exchanges information and research findings, although librarianship possesses a growing body of scholarly literature. Workshops, symposia, seminars, meetings of regional and national organizations, et cetera, are also major means of communication within the discipline. Therefore, a candidate’s contributions in these areas should be considered the equivalent of traditional scholarship. In addition, there must be clear evidence of promise for continued professional growth and development.
There should be active and sustained service to the College or there should be active and sustained service in the candidate’s professional role to the local, state, regional, or national community. (Rev. Apr. 2011)
c. Promotion to the Rank of Librarian III
The following criteria are necessary, though not sufficient, for promotion to Librarian III. Evidence of exemplary professional competency and significant achievement in the area of professional growth and development, or service is required. (Rev. Apr. 2011)
Promotion to the rank of Librarian III requires sustained and exemplary performance in the area of professional competency. (Rev. Apr. 2011)
There must be clear evidence of high promise for continued quality of scholarship and professional activities. Since peer refereeing is one criterion of scholarly quality, typically the evidence must include scholarly books or journal articles (or otherwise juried publications). All evidence should be evaluated rigorously. (Rev. Apr. 2011)
There should be active and sustained service to the College or there should be active and sustained service in the candidate’s professional role to the local, state, regional, or national community. (Rev. Apr. 2011)
d. Promotion to the Rank of Librarian IV
Promotion to the rank of Librarian IV requires evidence of continuing quality professional competency, professional growth and development, and service. The following criteria are necessary, though not sufficient, for promotion to Librarian IV. Evidence of exemplary performance in the area of professional competence and significant achievement in the areas of professional growth and development, and service is required. (Rev. Apr. 2011)
Promotion to the rank of Librarian IV requires exemplary professional competency.
Because Librarian IV is the highest rank, there must be clear evidence of continuing quality scholarship. Peer refereeing is one criterion of scholarly quality; therefore, the evidence must include scholarly books or journal articles (or otherwise juried publications). In addition to scholarship, sustained professional activity is expected. All evidence should be rigorously evaluated. (Rev. Apr. 2011)
There should be active and sustained service to the College. Leadership should be demonstrated either in college service or in the candidate’s professional role to the local, state, regional, or national community. (Rev. Apr. 2011)
e. Nomination of Library Faculty to a Higher Rank
It should be clearly understood by all library faculty members that promotion does not come automatically after the passage of a fixed period of time, but is a recognition of outstanding performance and service at the College.
Source of Nomination. When a library faculty member becomes eligible for nomination to a higher rank, a nomination may be submitted in the form of a petition from:
the Dean of Libraries, after consultation with the tenured members of the library faculty, to the Provost;
a majority of the tenured members of the library faculty to the Provost;
a majority of the members of the library faculty to the Provost;
the individual library faculty member to the Provost;
the Provost to the Dean of the library.
- Deadline for Nomination. Normally, a petition nominating a library faculty member for promotion to a higher rank should be made not later than August 15 of the academic year in which a decision on promotion is to be made.
D. Procedures for Third-Year Evaluation, Tenure and Promotion of Instructional and Library Faculty
Introduction
The third-year evaluation is a significant decision point in a faculty member’s career at the College of Charleston. The result of the third-year evaluation is a decision whether to reappoint a faculty member. For a faculty member with two years of credit toward tenure, a third-year evaluation will take place in the fall semester of the third year, and the evaluation for tenure will take place in the fall of the fourth year. For a faculty member with one year of credit toward tenure, a third-year evaluation will take place in the fall semester of the third year, and the evaluation for tenure will take place in the fall of the fifth year. (Rev. Apr. 2007)
Candidates hired at mid-year will undergo the third-year review during the fall semester of the third academic year, and the evaluation for tenure will take place during the fall semester of the sixth academic year. The evaluations for third-year review and for tenure will be adjusted accordingly for candidates hired at mid-year and granted credit for prior experience. (Ins. Apr. 2007)
Tenure and promotion are awarded to eligible faculty at the College of Charleston for meritorious achievement in the three areas of teaching (for library faculty, “professional competence”), research and professional development, and service. Tenure is awarded to faculty to assure that they have freedom in teaching, research and extramural activities and a sufficient degree of economic security to make teaching at the College of Charleston attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and society.32
After the expiration of a probationary period, which is stated in the initial employment and is normally six years (some faculty are hired with up to two years credit for teaching in other institutions of higher education), faculty should become eligible for consideration for tenure and, upon its reward, should be terminated only for adequate cause. (Rev. Apr. 2007)
Eligibility requirements and nomination procedures are described in Section VI.A. Candidates are reminded that these time-in-rank requirements are minimal. The established criteria for promotion to the various ranks are also minimal requirements. In particular, faculty are encouraged to seek promotion to professor when they feel confident about their eligibility and performance, not merely because minimal requirements are met.
By August 15, each Department Chair should provide the appropriate Academic Dean and the Provost with a list of faculty members to be considered. The Dean of Libraries should provide a list of eligible library faculty members to the Provost. (Rev. Apr. 2007)
The faculty member undergoing third-year evaluation must prepare and submit a packet of evidence to demonstrate that the faculty member has met the standards and criteria for this level of evaluation during that individual’s first two years at the College. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
- Preparation and Submission of the Faculty Member’s Contribution to the Packet
A faculty member shall submit to the Chair of the Departmental Evaluation Panel by the announced deadline a packet containing a current curriculum vitae and evidence assembled to demonstrate that the standards and criteria have been met. The review process begins once the faculty member’s contribution to the packet has been formally submitted for departmental evaluation.
Standards, Criteria and Evidence. See Faculty/Administration Manual, Art. VI, Sect. A (for Tenure-Track and Tenured Instructional Faculty), Sect. B (for Instructors and Senior Instructors) and Sect. C (for Library Faculty). (Rev. Apr. 2011)
Composition of the Departmental Evaluation Panel
For each faculty member to be evaluated, an appropriate departmental evaluation panel will be formed to make a summary presentation to the appropriate Academic Dean or Dean of Libraries concerning the candidate. The Chair of the department will provide the appropriate Academic Dean with the names of the panel members and Chair as soon as possible. Any member of the department who is being considered for promotion is disqualified from serving on that member’s own review panel or that of a colleague who is being considered for promotion to the same or higher rank within the department. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
The Departmental Evaluation Panel will be composed of at least five tenured faculty members. All tenured departmental faculty will serve on the evaluation panel. Exceptions for faculty on sabbatical or leave are described in Art. X.A. The appropriate Academic Dean or Dean of Libraries may sit with the Departmental Evaluation Panel throughout the review process; however, the Dean not required to sit with the Departmental Evaluation Panel. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
Where the department consists of five or more tenured faculty members, one tenured faculty member from outside the department shall be added to the panel. If a department is reviewing more than one candidate for tenure, promotion or third-year evaluation, the same individual from outside the department sits with the departmental panel members for all cases, unless the department has six or more candidates due for panel evaluation. In such cases, departmental members of the panel may appoint no more than two extra-departmental panel members to sit with the panel in different cases, with the cases divided such that a single extra-departmental panel member shall serve in all cases under review for the same rank. If a department’s membership is such that the panel has fewer than five members, additional tenured members of the faculty, from related fields if possible, will be selected to give the panel a total membership of five. In all cases, each year vacancies in the evaluation panel will be filled by having the departmental members of the panel provide a slate of potential evaluation panel members to each of the candidates for third-year reappointment, tenure and promotion who will rank order the slate first to last. The slate will consist of at least five names or twice the number of positions on the panel to be filled (whichever is larger). The rankings of all candidates will be averaged and the panel will be completed by offering the positions to the highest ranked candidates until the panel is completed. (Rev. Aug. 2011; Mar. 2012)
Where there are no members of the department eligible to serve on the panel, all members of the department will meet and select by majority vote a slate of 10 tenured faculty (from related fields if possible) and present it to the appropriate Academic Dean or Dean of Libraries. The appropriate Academic Dean or Dean of Libraries will appoint the five members of the panel from the slate and will designate one of the five to serve as the panel chair.
When unusual circumstances justify and where requested by the Department Chair, the evaluatee, the evaluation panel, the appropriate Academic Dean or Dean of Libraries or the Provost, the Provost may appoint an outside advisor to assist the evaluation panel in its task. Ideally, said advisor will be a tenured faculty member in the evaluatee’s discipline from another institution of higher education.
After consultation with the evaluatee, Department Chair, all members of the panel, and the appropriate Academic Dean or Dean of Libraries, the Provost will define in writing the role and extent of participation in the process of their outside advisor and furnish copies to all parties.
Departmental Evaluation Panel Chair
If the Department Chair is a member of the panel, then the Department Chair is the panel chair. If the Department Chair is not a panel member, the panel chair will be the senior departmental member serving on the panel. The senior departmental member is the one of highest rank who has held that rank longest while at the College. Because the Library does not have a Department Chair, the tenured Library faculty will elect a Departmental Evaluation Panel Chair. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
Procedures of the Departmental Evaluation Panel
The departmental evaluation panel will base its recommendation on the following information:
a. Faculty member’s contribution to the packet, as assembled by the candidate, to provide evidence that the faculty member meets the criteria for teaching, research and development, and service. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
b. Letters by the departmental colleagues addressing whether the evaluatee has met the stated criteria. Normally, all tenured faculty members in a department, excluding the department chair, must provide colleague evaluation letters; however, any member of the department may submit a colleague letter, except that candidates do not write letters of evaluation on their departmental colleagues who are being evaluated for the same purpose. Colleagues should study thoroughly the candidate’s contributions to the packet before writing their colleague letters. Colleague letters should be explicit and detailed and should address the criteria. To say “the candidate meets the criteria” is inadequate. College of Charleston personnel are to treat these colleague letters as confidential. They shall be available only to those authorized to use them as part of the evaluation process. (Rev. Apr. 2007; Apr. 2012)
c. Student Rating Averages from all courses evaluated and Summary Ratings for all courses in the Department or Program. (Normally, course evaluation ratings are included by the candidate in the packet; however, some or all of these documents may be provided by the department chair in the event the candidate is unable to do so.) (Rev. Apr. 2007)
d. Letters of evaluation from extra-departmental College of Charleston colleagues and, where appropriate, from colleagues at other institutions familiar with the candidate’s teaching, and/or research and professional development, and/or service; these letters are solicited by the department chair at the request of the candidate.
An independent external review of the candidate’s scholarly work by experts in the candidate’s field of work is optional, and the required protocol for this review is included in Section VI.A.2.b.(2).
Extra-departmental colleague letters are optional for third-year review and may be requested by the departmental evaluation panel or the candidate. (Rev. Apr. 2007)
e. All annual evaluation narratives and rating letters, as well as any letters that the evaluatee has written in response to the annual evaluations.
f. Recent graduate evaluations addressing the criteria shall be solicited by the panel Chair. Each department shall have established procedures to be used by evaluation panels for the solicitation of recent graduate evaluations. A written statement of this procedure shall be on file in the appropriate Academic Dean and the Provost’s office. Recent graduate evaluations are optional for Third-Year Review and may be requested by the departmental evaluation panel or the candidate. (Rev. Apr. 2007)
g. A personal interview of the candidate by the department evaluation panel.
h. Such other data and interviews as the panel feels would be valuable.
Reporting Procedures of the Departmental Evaluation Panel
After due deliberation, the panel shall take its vote by written ballot. The chair shall draft a statement for the members of the panel to sign that reports the recommendation and vote of the panel. This statement should include justification for the panel’s recommendation. While maintaining the confidentiality of any meetings, the statement will summarize the discussion that took place among panel members, including positive and negative deliberations.
The chair of the panel shall meet with the faculty member being evaluated to provide the faculty member with a copy of the panel’s written statement, which shall include actual vote splits and the signatures of all the panel members. The signatures of the panel members acknowledge only that the panel members participated in panel deliberation and had the opportunity to contribute to the development of the written statement. The faculty member shall sign a copy of the statement, with the signed copy to be retained by the chair of the panel for submission to the appropriate Academic Dean. The signature of the faculty member acknowledges only that a copy of the statement has been received by the faculty member. (Rev. Apr. 2009)
If the panel’s written statement provided to the candidate contains an error of fact, the panel chair may correct this error through an addendum to the original panel statement (with notice to the candidate) or the candidate may provide a written correction for the inclusion in the packet for consideration at higher levels of review within five working days of the provision of the recommendation. The written correction should be forwarded to the Dean with a copy to the chair of the departmental panel. The written correction should not address matters of professional judgment and cannot alter the record presented in the packet or submit new evidence.33 (Ins. Apr. 2012)
The panel chair shall forward the panel’s statement to the appropriate Academic Dean by the announced deadline. In the case of tenure and promotion recommendations, this deadline is typically at the end of October. In the case of third-year reappointment recommendations, this deadline is typically near mid-January. (Rev. Apr. 2007; Rev. Apr. 2009)
Dean’s Role for Third-year Candidates
The appropriate Dean shall review the faculty member’s packet and the departmental evaluation panel’s recommendation. Information concerning factual matters of the record necessary for the determination of a recommendation may be requested by the Dean from the Departmental Evaluation Panel Chair or through that chair to the candidate. Requests should be written and responses should be brief and also in writing, addressing only the requested issues, and shall become part of the packet. The Dean shall interview each candidate before forwarding their recommendation to the provost.
The Dean shall provide the candidate and the chair of the departmental panel a copy of the Dean’s assessment of the merits of the case and recommendation to the Provost. The Dean shall submit all recommendations in writing to the Provost and forward all materials to the Provost’s Office by the announced deadlines, which are typically at the end of January. (Rev. Apr. 2009; Apr. 2012; Aug. 2018)
Dean’s Role for Tenure and Promotion Candidates
The appropriate Dean will review the evaluation panel recommendations and the candidate’s packet. Information concerning factual matters of the record necessary for the determination of a recommendation may be requested by the Dean from the Departmental Evaluation Panel Chair or through that chair to the candidate. Requests should be written and responses should be brief and also in writing, addressing only the requested issue, and shall become part of the packet. The Dean may choose to interview candidates.
The Dean will provide the candidate and the chair of the departmental panel a copy of the Dean’s own assessment of the merits of the case and recommendation to the Provost. The Dean shall provide these recommendations in writing to the Provost and forward all materials to a designated room for review by the Provost and the Advisory Committee on Tenure, Promotion, and Third-year Review by the announced deadlines, which are typically at the end of November. (Rev. Apr. 2007; Apr. 2009; Apr. 2012; Aug. 2018)
Correction of Errors in Dean’s Recommendation
If a recommendation provided to the candidate by a Dean contains an error of fact, the Dean may correct this error through an addendum to the Dean’s original letter of recommendation (with notice to the candidate and chair of the departmental panel) or the candidate may provide a written correction for the inclusion in the packet for consideration at higher levels of review within five working days of the provision of the recommendation. The written correction should be forwarded to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs with a copy to the Dean and chair of the departmental panel. The written correction should not address matters of professional judgment and cannot alter the record presented in the packet or submit new evidence.34 (Ins. Apr. 2012; Rev. Aug. 2018)
Faculty Advisory Committee Action
The Provost shall make packets of all candidates for tenure and promotion available to the members of the Advisory Committee on Tenure, Promotion and Third-Year Review. The Faculty Advisory Committee shall provide the candidate, chair of the departmental panel, Dean, and Provost a copy of their assessment of the merits of the case and recommendation to the President by the announced deadlines. (Rev. Apr. 2012)
The Committee shall also review third-year candidates on all negative departmental recommendations or if requested to do so by the candidate, any member of the departmental panel, the appropriate Dean or the Provost. In cases where either the Dean’s recommendation or the departmental evaluation panel vote is negative, the Dean shall refer the case to the Faculty Advisory Committee for their recommendations. The Provost and the Faculty Advisory Committee shall interview each candidate for third-year reappointment when the appropriate Academic Dean or Dean of Libraries recommendation is different from the Departmental Evaluation Panel or the Departmental Evaluation Panel vote is negative. The Faculty Advisory Committee’s recommendations in cases where they act shall be submitted in writing to the President by the announced deadlines. (Rev. Apr. 2009; Apr. 2011)
Information concerning factual matters of the record necessary for the determination of a recommendation may be requested by the Chair of the Advisory Committee from the Dean, Departmental Evaluation Panel Chair, or through that chair to the candidate. Requests should be written and responses should be brief and also in writing, addressing only the requested issue, and shall become part of the packet. Both the request for information and the response should also be sent, for information, to levels of review between the Advisory Committee and the responding body. (Ins. Apr. 2012)
If a recommendation provided to the candidate by the Advisory Committee contains an error of fact, the candidate may provide a written correction for inclusion in the packet for consideration at higher levels of review within five working days of the provision of the recommendation. The written correction should be forwarded to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs with a copy to the chair of the Advisory Committee, the Dean and the chair of the departmental panel. The written correction should not address matters of professional judgment and cannot alter the record presented in the packet or submit new evidence.35 (Ins. Apr. 2012)
Provost’s Recommendation for Tenure and Promotion Candidates
After the Advisory Committee has made its written recommendation to the President, the Provost may interview the candidate as part of the Provost’s independent evaluation of the candidate. The Provost’s recommendation shall be submitted in writing to the President by the announced deadlines. In all cases in which the Provost’s recommendation is negative or reverses an earlier decision, the Provost will provide a copy of the Provost’s recommendation to the candidate, chair, Dean, and chair of the Advisory Committee simultaneously with notice to the candidate of the President’s decision. (Rev. Apr. 2009; Apr. 2012; Aug. 2018)
President’s Decision
The President shall make a final determination within twelve working days after the President receives recommendations from all of the following: the department evaluation panel, the appropriate Dean, the Faculty Advisory Committee, and the Provost. All such recommendations shall be submitted to the President no later than March 1 of each year.36 In addition to these recommendations, the President shall also have access to, and may consider, other materials used by any or all of the foregoing during the course of their respective evaluations. Once a final decision is made by the President, and within the twelve working days after the last recommendation is received (listed above), the President shall inform the candidate, the Provost, the Dean, and the evaluation panel chair in writing, of the President’s decision. (Rev. Apr. 2009; Aug. 2018)
Appeal to the Faculty Hearing Committee
a. A denial may only be appealed to the Faculty Hearing Committee when the faculty member alleges that the denial was based upon any of the following three grounds:
Discrimination, defined as differential treatment based upon gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, race, color, religion, national origin, veterans’ status, genetic information, or disability37; or,
Violation of academic freedom, as it relates to freedom of expression; or,
Violation of due process, as provided in the College’s published rules, regulations, policies and procedures.
b. The appeal shall be heard as a grievance before a panel of the Faculty Hearing Committee, and the faculty member should follow the procedures of the Hearing Committee in requesting a hearing. The notice requesting a hearing must be filed with the Hearing Committee within 20 working days of receipt of the President’s written decision. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
c. The President’s decision will be made within ten working days after receipt of the recommendation of the panel of the Faculty Hearing Committee, and receipt of any objections about the conduct of the hearing or correction of errors of fact from the grievant, or notice of waiver of that right by the grievant. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
Discretionary Appeal to College of Charleston Board of Trustees38
a. The President’s decision in cases heard by the Faculty Hearing Committee may be appealed to the College of Charleston Board of Trustees. The decision as to whether or not to accept the appeal is within the sole discretion of the Board.
b. When an appeal to the College of Charleston Board of Trustees is sought, the faculty member must file a Notice of Appeal within 10 working days of receipt of the President’s decision. This Notice must be in writing and sent to the Chair of the Board, with a copy to the President. The Notice of Appeal must identify the issues to be raised in the appeal and the grounds for the appeal.
c. If the Board decides to hear the appeal, the Chair of the Board will establish a reasonable timetable for disposition of the appeal, which will be communicated to all parties
d. At the Chair’s discretion, appeals will be heard by the entire Board or by a committee of not less than three Board members appointed by the Chair for that purpose.
e. Appeals will be heard on the record established in the Faculty Hearing Committee. The Board shall have available for its review all recordings, statements, documents and evidence accumulated during the appeal process. Briefs and oral arguments will be permitted but are not required. Oral arguments may be made by the parties or by their attorneys. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
f. The Board shall submit its decision in writing to the President and the faculty member. The decision of the Board is final.
Disposition of Packet Material
When the evaluation process has resulted in a positive decision, within three months of that decision the packet materials submitted by the faculty member shall be returned to the faculty member; colleague letters will be returned to the authors; and recent graduate evaluation forms will be returned to the Department Chair.
When the decision is negative, the Provost will retain the originals of all packet materials for five years. A faculty member may request and receive from the Provost a copy of the faculty member’s contribution to the packet. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
E. Procedures for the Annual Evaluation of Instructional and Library Faculty
Introduction
In keeping with South Carolina state law (Section 8-17-380: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t08c017.php), all faculty members at the College of Charleston, including tenure-track faculty, librarians, instructors, visitors, and adjunct faculty, will be evaluated annually in accordance with the College’s established standards, criteria and procedures
Annual evaluations will serve two functions: (1) to guide the professional development of the faculty member, and (2) to record part of the evidence upon which personnel decisions and salary recommendations will be based.
Annual evaluations will be completed between February and April each calendar year. A calendar for the evaluation process is published by the Office of the Provost: https://cofc.sharepoint.com/sites/hub-academicaffairs/SitePages/Annual-Evaluations.aspx Department chairs/program directors are responsible for the annual performance evaluation. In the sections that follow, the department chair/program director is referred to as the evaluator.
Standards and Criteria for Annual Evaluation
Schools and departments/programs must use the standard template in Interfolio RPT, but in addition schools and departments may also develop specific policies, criteria and standards for annual evaluation, which must be clearly stated and made available to all members. Please note that teaching is the primary responsibility of most faculty.
Approval of these standards and criteria by the appropriate dean and provost is required before implementation. After initial adoption, any significant changes must be sent to the dean and provost for approval before implementation. All approved school and department annual evaluations criteria will be available to all faculty members.
Annual Evaluation Process
Chairs/program directors must ensure that an evaluation of all instructional faculty is conducted annually, and deans are responsible for reviewing completed evaluations.
At a minimum, faculty members will provide:
a. a current curriculum vitae, and
b. a summary of activities and achievements, consisting of the following:
for tenure-track faculty: teaching; research, scholarship, and creative activity; and professional service.
for instructors: teaching; professional development; and professional service.
for librarians: professional competence; professional growth and development; and professional service.
for visiting faculty: teaching; and if applicable, research, scholarship, and creative activities; and professional service.
for adjunct faculty: teaching.
Using Interfolio RPT, additional documentation required for a performance evaluation may vary by tenure status and rank or by department/program and school. Evidence of the sort typically provided for major reviews should be requested of probationary faculty.
Schools and departments/programs will require the faculty member to include goals for the next one-to-three years. The evaluator will conduct the annual evaluation and have access to additional information, including the faculty member’s:
a. previous annual evaluations,
b. course-instructor evaluations, and
c. information included in any faculty activity system.
Any faculty member who fails to submit the required documentation per the schedule and announced deadline(s) for that individual’s annual evaluation will be ineligible for a salary increase that year.
Review of Annual Evaluation
After reviewing materials submitted by the faculty member, the evaluator will provide the faculty member with a signed and dated evaluation at least one week prior to the evaluation meeting.
Following the required annual evaluation meeting, the faculty member will sign the form to indicate that they reviewed the evaluation and met with the evaluator. If there is disagreement about any part of the evaluation, the evaluator and faculty member will seek a resolution. Records of the evaluation will be retained in the office of the department/program and the office of the respective dean.
Appeal of Annual Evaluation
A faculty member may appeal the annual evaluation by submitting a written request to the appropriate dean within 10 working days of the evaluation meeting. The dean will arrange a meeting with the faculty member and the evaluator to discuss the appeal. At the appeal meeting, the faculty member must state specifically the basis for the appeal and provide appropriate information in support. The dean will attempt to mediate an agreement between the faculty member and the evaluator. If unsuccessful, the dean will reach a decision and inform all parties in writing. The dean’s decision is final. (Rev. 2026)
F. Merit Raises
When available, merit raises are separate from cost-of-living increases and are designed to reward only the highest performing faculty. Merit raises should not be distributed equally among all faculty in a department/program. When recommending merit raises, department chairs/program directors will follow their guidance from the dean. Department chairs/program directors will rely on annual evaluations and may request additional information such as an updated curriculum vitae or a list of accomplishments since the most recent annual evaluation.
Best practice is for the department/program to have established metrics/criteria for the distribution of merit. The dean plays an active role in the development of these metrics/criteria at both the department/program and school levels. The dean is also responsible for ensuring that these standards and criteria are applied by chairs/program directors equitably across departments/programs in the dean’s school. Dean and chair will discuss the raise recommendations before the submission to the provost.
The merit raise appeal process follows the same steps as the annual evaluation process. (Rev. 2026)
G. Tenure-Clock Modification Policy
A tenure decision is made only once. Under normal circumstances, this decision is made no later than the sixth year unless exceptions have been granted in accordance with the College’s FMLA and ADA policies. This also holds for the decision on promotion to Senior Instructor.
A faculty member who uses 120 days or more of paid and/or unpaid disability, family, or other college sanctioned leave during any consecutive two-year period may elect to extend the tenure/probationary period by one year. Examples of such leave would include extended absence or disability due to illness, injury, acute family responsibilities, or military service. Unforeseen circumstances in the completion of a terminal degree, such as the death of a doctoral advisor, would also qualify.
A faculty member who adds a child to the faculty member’s family by either birth or adoption may elect to extend the tenure/probationary period by one year. This option must be exercised by notifying the faculty member’s Chair in writing within 90 days of the birth or adoption of the child, and no later than the Monday following the spring commencement prior to the academic year in which the tenure or promotion to Senior Instructor decision is to be made. If this option is exercised in the first two years of the appointment, the third-year review shall be postponed one year. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
A faculty member who has used fewer than 120 days of paid and/or unpaid disability, family, or other college-sanctioned leave during any consecutive two-year period but who has, nonetheless, taken a significant amount of such leave prior to consideration for an award of tenure or promotion to Senior Instructor, or who has experienced circumstances which, at the faculty member’s election, could have resulted in a significant period of such leave, may petition the Provost for an extension of the probationary period. Such petition must be made no later than the Monday following the spring commencement prior to the academic year in which the tenure decision (or the decision regarding promotion to Senior Instructor) is to be made. The decision to grant such an extension of the probationary period shall be made by the Provost, after consulting with the faculty member’s Dean and Department Chair. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
If at all possible, the decision to delay tenure or promotion to Senior Instructor should be arranged with the Provost prior to the commencement of leave.
If such elections as described above are made or if the Provost grants the petition, the faculty member thereby waives the provisions of the Faculty/Administration Manual requiring that a decision regarding the award of tenure or promotion to Senior Instructor be made within six years. Any such extensions shall not supercede the termination for cause at any point in the probationary period as outlined in the Faculty/Administration Manual.
No faculty member may elect to exercise this option more than twice. (Ins. Sept. 2008; Rev. Aug. 2014)
H. Post-Tenure Review
Post-Tenure Review Schedule
Each tenured faculty member must undergo post-tenure review at least once every sixth year, except that a tenured Associate Professor or Librarian III may elect to undergo review for promotion to Professor or Librarian IV, respectively, instead, with the understanding that the post-tenure review clock is reset by the promotion review.
Faculty members holding the rank of Professor or Librarian IV are eligible to seek a superior post-tenure review rating in their sixth year in rank at the College or any subsequent year subject to two conditions: (1) A faculty member may not receive a superior post-tenure review rating more often than every sixth year, and (2) A faculty member who makes an unsuccessful application for a superior rating may seek a superior again the next year but may not apply for a superior rating more than two years in a row. Additionally, a faculty member seeking a satisfactory rating (who has not subsequently been promoted to Professor) is eligible to pursue a superior rating the following year and the subsequent year should that faculty member’s initial application for a superior rating be unsuccessful.(Rev. Aug. 2017; Aug. 2018)
Rating of Candidates
a. Ratings of a candidate will take one of three forms:
Superior Rating
The superior rating is awarded to candidates who continue to perform at the level expected for the promotion to the rank of Professor, or Librarian IV, in accordance with the standards of the Faculty/Administration Manual.
Unsatisfactory Rating
Candidate has exhibited evidence of habitual neglect of duty, which means consistently and regularly failing to fulfill the terms and conditions of appointment, as laid out in the Faculty/Administration Manual's section on "Termination of Tenured Faculty Members 'for Cause' and Termination Procedure."
Satisfactory Rating
All other candidates.
b. Presumption of Satisfactory Performance
The Post-Tenure Review Committee operates on a presumption of satisfactory performance. That is, the burden of proof (clear and convincing evidence) for a superior performance lies with the candidate, and the burden of proof for an unsatisfactory performance, including with completion of a remediation plan, lies with the Department Chair (or department post-tenure review panel). When a faculty member is not appointed to an academic department, the relevant Program Director shall serve in the role of Department Chair for purposes of the post-tenure review.
The Post-Tenure Review Committee can request additional information at any time during their deliberations. (Rev. Aug. 2017)
Forms of Post-Tenure Review
a. Consideration for Satisfactory Rating
For a tenured faculty member who wishes to be considered for a satisfactory rating, in the spring semester of the sixth year following the previous extra-departmental review, the chair will review with the faculty member the details of the faculty member’s performance evaluations over the last six years, including any evaluation completed in the sixth year. Following the discussion with the faculty member, the Department Chair will discuss the overall summary of those performance evaluations with the Dean. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
A faculty member who has received two or more unsatisfactory ratings in teaching (or, for a librarian, two or more unsatisfactory ratings in professional competence) over that six-year period will be deemed to have received an unsatisfactory rating for post-tenure review. Otherwise, the faculty member will receive a rating of “satisfactory.” Formal written notice from the Department Chair to the faculty member, Dean and Post-Tenure Review Committee of an unsatisfactory rating and need to develop a remediation plan will take place by March 15 of each academic year.
b. Application for Superior Rating
A faculty member at the rank of Professor or Librarian IV is eligible to apply for a superior rating in the fall of the sixth year following a successful extra-departmental review (promotion to professor, or a superior rating on a post-tenure review), provided the faculty member has not received two or more ratings of unsatisfactory in teaching (or professional competence) since the last extra-departmental review. The “superior rating” is awarded to candidates who continue to perform at the level expected for the promotion to the rank of Professor, or Librarian IV, in accordance with the standards of the Faculty/Administration Manual.
In the event that a candidate who is eligible for and has applied for a superior rating fails to receive that rating at a level of review, a rating of satisfactory will be assigned at that level of review.
Deferments
a. Faculty members may petition the Post-Tenure Review Committee for the postponement of their post-tenure reviews based on extenuating personal circumstances or valid medical reasons which must be documented in the petition. Petitions must be endorsed by the faculty member's Chair and Dean. Postponements will be approved only under extraordinary circumstances and will not normally extend more than one academic year. Decisions by the Post-Tenure Review Committee regarding deferments shall be communicated in writing. Decisions by the Committee may be appealed to the Provost within one (1) week of the candidate's notification. The Provost's decision shall be final. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
b. A faculty member who announces a decision to retire within three years of the faculty member’s scheduled time for post-tenure review (by submission of a letter to the Dean of the faculty member’s school and the Provost) may choose not to undergo that review. However, if a faculty member postpones the announced time of retirement for more than one year, the faculty member will be evaluated in the year of that postponement. All letters indicating the faculty member’s desire for a deferment of post-tenure review due to an announced retirement must be copied to the Post-Tenure Review Committee. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
c. A faculty member scheduled for post-tenure review in a given year will not have to undergo that review if the faculty member petitions for promotion that same year. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
d. Administrators who previously held 12-month faculty appointments, such as Deans, and are rejoining the ranks of the faculty will undergo post-tenure review within three years of their return to faculty status.
e. If a faculty member takes a sabbatical leave or a leave of absence in the same academic year the faculty member is scheduled for post-tenure review, the post-tenure review will take place during the following academic year, unless the faculty member decides to undergo the review at the originally scheduled time. (Rev. Aug. 2018) (Rev. Aug. 2017)
Preparation and Submission of the Faculty Member's Packet in Application for Superior Rating
a. A faculty member who wishes to be considered for a superior rating shall submit to the faculty member’s Department Chair by the announced deadline a packet of material that must include: (Rev. Aug. 2018)
Curriculum vitae.
Statement from the candidate on teaching, research and service addressing accomplishments since the last review and future plans and goals.
Annual performance evaluations by the Department Chair during the period under review. In the event that a Department Chair is being evaluated, the Dean's annual evaluations of the Chair will be included instead.
Candidates seeking a superior rating must furnish two letters from intra‐ and/or extra‐departmental peers concerning aspects of the candidate’s teaching (or, for librarians, professional competency). The evaluation of teaching performance will include the peer review of class materials and/or peer observation of classroom performance by two (2) senior faculty colleagues.
Computer-generated student teaching evaluations (summary pages with numbers) for all evaluated courses taught by the candidate during the period under review.
Candidates seeking a superior rating must also furnish clear evidence that they continue to perform at the level expected for the promotion to the rank of Professor, or Librarian IV, in accordance with the criteria of the Faculty/Administration Manual, as indicated in Sect VI.A.4.c. for instructional faculty and VI.C.4.d for library faculty. Evidence is to be compiled for the intervening period between promotion evaluation and/or post-tenure reviews.
b. A late packet will not be considered for a superior rating except in extraordinary circumstances. A letter must accompany the packet to explain these circumstances. (Rev. Apr. 2009, Rev. Dec. 2011)
Specific Criteria for a Superior Rating
Awarding of a superior rating to a faculty member who has previously achieved the rank of Professor, or Librarian IV, requires clear evidence that the candidate has continued to perform at the level expected for that earlier promotion, in accordance with the criteria set forth for such promotions in the Faculty/Administration Manual, as indicated in Section VI.A.4.c for instructional faculty and VI.C.4.d for library faculty.
The specific review process used for the assignment of a superior rating at this career level is consistent with the recognition that, having once satisfied the standard for promotion to the rank of Professor, or Librarian IV, expectations for sustaining this level of achievement might be met in a variety of ways. While sustaining an active and appropriate research or creative record is still a critical element in any successful application for a superior rating, it may be recognized that, while specific departmental policies governing publication standards may exceed the College-wide norm for tenure and for promotion (preamble of Sect. VI.A.4), application of such higher standards may not always be appropriate to require for a superior rating, unless a departmental policy explicitly states that they are. Faculty at the rank of Professor or Librarian IV are occasionally called upon to fulfill time-consuming leadership roles in professional service, sometimes for lengthy periods, either within the College or in their larger professional communities, or to take on extraordinary instructional or professional obligations. Evaluators at the various levels of post-tenure review should be mindful of those realities in the cycle of academic careers. (Ins. Aug. 2018)
Recommendations by the Department Chair or Panel
Post-tenure review is normally conducted by the Department Chair. A departmental post-tenure review panel will be convened only in the case of a Department Chair seeking a superior post-tenure rating. When the Department Chair is to undergo post-tenure review and is seeking a superior rating, the most senior tenured member of the department (other than the Chair) will convene, and normally chair, a departmental post-tenure review panel consisting of three tenured faculty members (including the panel chair). Panel members will normally be drawn from the home department according to seniority. When necessary to complete the panel, additions will be drawn, following the same criteria, from departments with related areas of study. The panel may not include department chairs from external departments. No tenured faculty member concurrently subject to post-tenure review may serve on this panel. The panel will exercise the same responsibility with respect to the Department Chair’s candidacy that the Chair would normally exercise in cases of faculty seeking a superior post-tenure rating. This departmental panel will also review all other cases of faculty seeking a superior post-tenure rating at the same time as the Department Chair. The Department Chair or departmental panel will recommend a rating for each such candidate’s performance. The Department Chair will be responsible for all cases of candidates seeking a satisfactory post-tenure rating, except the Chair’s own case, which will be conducted by the Dean, acting in the capacity of both the Chair and the Dean in such cases. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
In the case of a candidate requesting a superior rating, the Department Chair (or the departmental panel) shall forward to the candidate’s Dean by the announced deadline the candidate’s packet with a letter justifying the Chair’s (or panel’s) concurrence or failure to concur with the candidate’s self-evaluation. At this time a copy of the letter shall be forwarded to the candidate. (Rev. Aug. 2018; Oct. 2020)
In the case of a candidate being considered for a satisfactory rating, the Department Chair shall meet with the Dean to discuss a summary of the candidate’s annual performance evaluations. In addition, the Chair or panel will forward to the candidate’s Dean a written statement that the candidate meets the criteria for a satisfactory rating or a brief summary of the ratings received on annual performance evaluations in the area of teaching and a statement that the candidate receives an unsatisfactory rating. At this time, a copy of the letter shall be forwarded to the candidate. (Rev. Apr. 2009; Aug. 2018; Oct. 2020)
In either case, irrespective of the rating sought by the candidate, if the Chair’s written statement (or the department panel’s written statement) provided to the candidate contains an error of fact, the Chair (or departmental panel chair) may correct this error through an addendum to the original statement, with notice to the candidate, or the candidate may provide a written correction for inclusion in the packet for consideration at higher levels of review within five working days of provision of the recommendation. The written correction should be forwarded to the Dean with a copy to the Chair (or chair of the departmental panel). The written correction should not address matters of professional judgment and cannot alter the record presented in the packet or submit new evidence.
In the case of a candidate requesting a superior rating, the Department Chair (or the departmental panel) shall forward to the candidate’s Dean by the announced deadline the candidate’s packet with a letter justifying the Chair’s (or panel’s) concurrence or failure to concur with the candidate’s self-evaluation. At this time a copy of the letter shall be forwarded to the candidate. (Rev. Aug. 2018; Oct. 2020)
In the case of a candidate being considered for a satisfactory rating, the Department Chair shall meet with the Dean to discuss a summary of the candidate’s annual performance evaluations. In addition, the Chair or panel will forward to the candidate’s Dean a written statement that the candidate meets the criteria for a satisfactory rating or a brief summary of the ratings received on annual performance evaluations in the area of teaching and a statement that the candidate receives an unsatisfactory rating. At this time, a copy of the letter shall be forwarded to the candidate. (Rev. Apr. 2009; Aug. 2018; Oct. 2020)
In either case, irrespective of the rating sought by the candidate, if the Chair’s written statement (or the department panel’s written statement) provided to the candidate contains an error of fact, the Chair (or departmental panel chair) may correct this error through an addendum to the original statement, with notice to the candidate, or the candidate may provide a written correction for inclusion in the packet for consideration at higher levels of review within five working days of provision of the recommendation. The written correction should be forwarded to the Dean with a copy to the Chair (or chair of the departmental panel). The written correction should not address matters of professional judgment and cannot alter the record presented in the packet or submit new evidence.
Recommendations by the Dean
In the case of a candidate seeking a superior rating, the Dean will review the packet and forward both the Chair’s (or departmental panel’s) and their own written recommendation to the Office of the Provost, with a copy of the Dean’s recommendation also provided to the candidate and the Chair. Information concerning factual matters of the record necessary for the determination of a recommendation may be requested by the Dean from the Chair or through that chair to the candidate. Requests should be written and responses should be brief and also in writing, addressing only the requested issue, and shall become part of the packet. The Dean may choose to interview candidates.
If the Dean’s written recommendation contains an error of fact, the Dean may correct this error through an addendum to the Dean’s original letter of recommendation (with notice to the candidate and Chair) or the candidate may provide a written correction for inclusion in the packet for consideration at higher levels of review within five working days of provision of the recommendation. The written correction should be forwarded to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs with a copy to the Dean and Chair. The written correction should not address matters of professional judgment and cannot alter the record presented in the packet or submit new evidence.
In the case of a candidate being considered for a satisfactory rating, if the Dean concurs with the Chair’s summary of the candidate’s annual performance evaluations and the Chair’s written statement that the candidate meets the criteria for a satisfactory rating, then the Dean notifies the candidate and the Provost, in writing, of that decision and the review concludes.
As outlined above, if the candidate has received two or more unsatisfactory ratings in teaching (or, for a librarian, two or more unsatisfactory ratings in professional competence) over the six-year review period, the candidate is deemed to have received an unsatisfactory rating for post-tenure review. Formal written notice from the Department Chair to the faculty member, Dean and Post-Tenure Review Committee of an unsatisfactory rating and need to develop a remediation plan will take place by March 15 of each academic year. In the case of an unsatisfactory rating, the Dean will provide written notice to the Provost, copied to the candidate, Chair, and Post-Tenure Review Committee. (Ins. Oct. 2020)
- Recommendations by the Post-Tenure Review Committee on Superior Ratings
a. The Post-Tenure Review Committee shall review and forward its recommendations on applications for superior ratings to the Provost, Dean, Chair, and candidate by the announced deadline, typically at the end of February. The Provost may make a recommendation and shall forward all recommendations to the President by the announced deadline. (Rev. Apr. 2009; Oct. 2020)
Information concerning factual matters of the record necessary for the determination of a recommendation may be requested by the Chair of the Post-Tenure Review Committee from the Dean, Chair, or through that Chair to the candidate. Requests should be written and responses should be brief and also in writing, addressing only the requested issue, and shall become part of the packet. Both the request for information and the response should also be sent, for information, to levels of review between the Post-Tenure Review Committee and the responding body. (Ins. Oct. 2020)
If a recommendation provided to the candidate by the Post-Tenure Review Committee contains an error of fact, the candidate may provide a written correction for inclusion in the packet for consideration at higher levels of review within five working days of the provision of the recommendation. The written correction should be forwarded to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs with a copy to the chair of the Post-Tenure Review Committee, the Dean, and the Chair. The written correction should not address matters of professional judgment and cannot alter the record presented in the packet or submit new evidence. (Ins. Oct. 2020)
b. The President shall make a final determination on superior ratings within two (2) weeks after the President receives recommendations from all of the following: the Department Chair (or the departmental panel chair), the appropriate Dean, the Post-Tenure Review Committee, and the Provost. All such recommendations shall be submitted to the President no later than March 1 of each year.39 In addition to these recommendations, the President shall also have access to, and may consider, other materials used by any or all of the foregoing during the course of their respective evaluations. Once a final decision is made by the President, and within the two (2) weeks after the last recommendation is received by the President, the President shall inform the candidate, the Provost, the Dean, and the Department Chair (or departmental panel chair), in writing, of that decision. (Rev. Apr. 2009; Aug. 2018)
c. Merit Increase for Superior Rating
Whenever the President assigns a rating of superior, such a rating must be accompanied by a permanent merit increase in pay effective the academic year following the year of evaluation.
Remediation Plan for Unsatisfactory Rating
Whenever a candidate receives a rating of unsatisfactory under post-tenure review, the case will be remanded to the existing departmental post-tenure review panel, or a new one convened for the purpose (in the latter case, including the Department Chair and two (2) other tenured departmental faculty members), to devise a remediation plan in consultation with the candidate. This plan must be approved by the Dean and submitted to the college-wide Post-Tenure Review Committee for approval within twenty (20) working days of the determination of an unsatisfactory rating. The Post-Tenure Review Committee must approve or, in consultation with the departmental panel, modify the plan within fifteen working days.
A component of this plan must involve full annual performance evaluations of the faculty member that address the remediation plan directly. As part of the annual performance evaluation, both the Department Chair and the Dean must describe in writing the faculty member’s progress in meeting the goals of the remediation plan.
a. Ratification of remediation plan
Ultimate ratification of satisfactory completion of a remediation plan rests with the college-wide Post-Tenure Review Committee, as constituted at the time of the deadline originally assigned for completion of remediation, to the extent possible. In the event that the Committee concludes that the candidate has failed to complete the remediation plan to its satisfaction, the Committee will notify the candidate, the Department Chair or panel, the Provost, and the Dean of the candidate’s school that the Committee has concluded that proceeding for revocation of the candidate’s tenure ought to be instituted, in accordance with the guidelines of the Faculty/Administration Manual.
Appeals
a.Appeal of decision on completion or remediation plan
A candidate wishing to appeal a decision of the Post-Tenure Review Committee that the candidate has failed to complete the remediation plan to its satisfaction must submit a written appeal to the Faculty Hearing Committee within ten (10) days of notification of this decision. The decision may only be appealed when the faculty member alleges the Committee’s decision was based upon:
Discrimination, defined as differential treatment based upon gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, race, color, religion, national origin, veterans’ status, genetic information, or disability; or
Violation of academic freedom as it relates to freedom of expression; or
Violation of due process as provided in the College’s published rules, regulations, policies and procedures. (Rev. Aug. 2017)
b. Appealing a Satisfactory Rating
A candidate who receives a satisfactory rating after having sought a superior rating and who alleges that the rating was based upon discrimination, violation of academic freedom or violation of due process may follow the appeals procedure outlined in Art. X.I.
If the candidate feels that the satisfactory rating received is incorrect for reasons other than those listed in the preceding paragraph, a formal appeal is not allowed. However, the faculty member remains eligible to undergo review for a superior rating in the subsequent year or the following year, as outlined above, without waiting six years for the next scheduled review. (Rev. Aug. 2014, Aug. 2016, Aug. 2017, Aug. 2018)
I. Review for Honorary Rank of University Professor or University Librarian IV
Introduction
The permanent honorary rank of University Professor or University Librarian IV may be awarded to faculty already holding the rank of tenured full Professor or Librarian IV. The honorary rank shall be awarded on the basis of outstanding performance to faculty whose records go beyond the expectations described for promotion to tenured full Professor or Librarian IV. This honorary rank is intended to recognize faculty with outstanding records of achievement. Those who screen or recommend the nominees for this rank should apply a rigorous standard of review.
Nominees in these cases ordinarily should have five or more years of previous service at the rank of Professor or Librarian IV. Suitable nominees should have a consistent and career-long pattern of outstanding performance in all dimensions of faculty work, with attainments that clearly and easily exceed the minimum requirements for promotion to Professor or Library IV.
Even if otherwise eligible for this honorary rank, faculty whose current position titles use the word “provost,” “president,” or “dean” shall not be considered for or appointed to this honorary rank. The same exclusion shall apply to an otherwise eligible faculty member who is an administrative officer of the College. Those who give up academic administrative positions and return to roster faculty work shall be eligible for nomination to and appointment to this rank, assuming they qualify for appointment to this rank in all other respects. Faculty who previously have been awarded the honorary rank of University Professor or University Librarian IV may continue to use this title if they subsequently accept appointments as academic administrators.
The honorary rank of University Professor or University Librarian IV shall be awarded in an academic year to no more than three individuals.
Nominations
Nominations to the honorary rank of University Professor or University Librarian IV may be made in writing to the Provost by a Program Director, Department Chair, Academic Dean, the Speaker of the Faculty, or a University Professor or University Librarian IV.
Self-nominations for this honorary rank are not accepted. Faculty should not take any action designed or intended to secure a nomination from an eligible nominator. No matter what their achievements, faculty at the College of Charleston have no right to or expectation of nomination to or consideration for this honorary rank.
Nomination deadlines and all other deadlines to be used in the review process for this honorary rank shall be announced by the Office of the Provost, with the exception of the final decision deadline listed below.
The President may temporarily suspend solicitation and consideration of nominations to this honorary rank. Such a suspension should be conveyed to the faculty in writing, as should any notification that solicitation and consideration of nominations will resume.
Preparation and Submission of the Faculty Member’s Packet
Once the Provost (or the Provost’s designee) has received the nomination of a qualified individual, the Provost should notify the nominee that the nominee may proceed with the nomination process. If the nomination is declined by the nominee, no further action is required. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
If the nominee accepts the nomination, the nominee should then schedule meetings with the relevant Program Director (if applicable), Department Chair (if applicable), and/or Dean(s). If the Program Director, Department Chair, or Dean is unwilling to support the nomination, the nomination shall be withdrawn.
An Academic Dean should support the nominations of no more than two faculty from their school in a single academic year. A Program Director or Department Chair should support the nomination of no more than one faculty from the program or department in a single academic year. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
Once a nominee has received some verbal assurance of support from the Program Director, Department Chair, and/or Dean, the nominee should prepare an executive binder and a supplemental binder, in a fashion consistent with the then-current requirements for those binders in all tenure and promotion reviews. The Program Director or Department Chair shall solicit independent external reviews of research, consistent with the instructions provided elsewhere in the Faculty/Administration Manual.
Once the executive binder and the supplemental binder have been prepared, the Program Director or Department Chair shall submit the binders, a recommendation letter in support of the nomination, and the external reviews of research to the relevant Dean. The binders and the various recommendation and assessment letters will constitute the nomination materials.
Recommendations by the Dean, University Professors, and Provost
Following review of the nomination materials, the Dean shall submit a recommendation letter in support of the nomination, along with all other nomination materials, to an ad hoc review committee composed of current faculty holding the honorary rank of University Professor or University Librarian IV. The form, membership, and process to be followed by this review committee will be determined by the members of the committee, but the review committee shall offer a brief written assessment to the President regarding the strengths and weaknesses of each nominee. The review committee will not rank-order the nominees or advise the President regarding which nominations should be accepted or rejected.
Following review of the nomination materials, the Provost shall offer an assessment to the President regarding the strengths and weaknesses of each nominee.
President
By April 25 of each year (or the first business day thereafter), the President shall contact the University Professor and University Librarian IV nominees, if any, and inform them of their award status. For all nominations under review, the decision of the President is final. The awardees for each year shall be recognized at a spring commencement ceremony or a faculty awards ceremony, at the discretion of the President (or the President’s designee).
When making a new faculty appointment at the rank of full Professor or Librarian IV, the President simultaneously may make an initial appointment at the honorary rank of University Professor or University Librarian IV. Such appointments shall be made following consultations with the Program Director (if applicable), Department Chair (if applicable), the appropriate Academic Dean(s), the faculty already holding the rank of University Professor or University Librarian IV, and the Provost. Such an appointment is appropriate only in cases where the new faculty.
Merit Increase for Honorary Rank of University Professor or University Librarian IV
Whenever the President announces an appointment to the honorary rank of University Professor or University Librarian IV, such an appointment shall be accompanied by a permanent merit increase in pay effective at the beginning of the academic year following the year in which the appointment is announced.
The College shall supply additional research and development funding for use by new and continuing faculty holding this honorary rank.
Re-nomination for University Professor or University Librarian IV
Faculty who are nominated but not selected by the President for the honorary rank of University Professor or University Librarian IV will remain eligible for nomination in future academic years, provided they continue to meet all other requirements for nomination.
Executive and supplemental binders must be updated in any case where materials are re-submitted. Re-submission is acceptable for previously solicited external reviews of research, at the sole discretion of the Program Director or Department Chair, provided that such reviews are no more than three years old at the time of submission.
Named Professorships and Endowed Chairs
A University Professor or University Librarian IV may simultaneously hold a named professorship, endowed chair, or other similar honor. Faculty questions regarding the appropriate use of titles in these cases should be referred to the relevant Academic Dean.
Benefits and Obligations of Appointment as University Professor or University Librarian IV
Faculty appointed to the honorary rank of University Professor or University Librarian IV shall receive salary increases and additional research and professional development funding. In addition, members of the University Faculty shall receive a medallion to be worn with their academic regalia. If an emeritus or emerita title is granted to a University Professor following the University Professor’s retirement, the title “University Professor Emeritus” or “University Professor Emerita” may be used by the faculty colleague. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
University Professors may petition the Provost for permission to use a professorial title unique to the professor’s teaching and research interests, rather than the professor’s academic department or program. For example, a “Professor of English” might become a “University Professor of British Literature.” The Provost should consider such written petitions only after consulting with the relevant Program Director, Department Chair, and/or Dean(s). The Provost may reject the petition for any reason. The decision of the Provost is final in all such cases.
During each academic year, some individuals holding the honorary rank of University Professor or University Librarian IV shall be asked to assess the materials for nominees to that rank.
Faculty who have been awarded this rank may be asked by the President or Provost to represent the College of Charleston at institutional, regional, state, or alumni meetings, or to advise the President or Provost on academic or other matters relevant to the College.
Authorization for University Professor Appointments
At any time and for any reason, the President of the College may temporarily suspend consideration of nominations for the honorary rank of University Professor. Should the President or Board of Trustees permanently discontinue consideration of new nominations for this honorary rank, those previously awarded the rank will retain all uses and privileges of the rank for the duration of their employment by the College. (Ins. Aug. 2015)
31In 2014-15, Senior Instructors eligible for renewal in the fifth year under previous rules and procedures may decide, in consultation with their chair, whether to proceed for renewal in the fifth or to defer renewal till the seventh year. A Senior Instructor formerly eligible for renewal in 2015-16 may request through their chair and dean an evaluation in that year.
32 “On Academic Freedom and Tenure,” (AAUP 1940 Statement of Principle, readopted 1982)
33 This and other changes in procedure to allow for the correction of errors of fact, in place since AY2012-13, will be reviewed every three years by Academic Affairs in consultation with the Advisory Committee on Tenure, Promotion, and Third-Year Review and the Faculty Welfare Committee to assess the extent and appropriateness of their use. These groups will jointly report this analysis to the Faculty Senate.
34 This and other changes in procedure to allow for the correction of errors of fact, in place since AY2012-13, will be reviewed every three years by Academic Affairs in consultation with the Advisory Committee on Tenure, Promotion, and Third-Year Review and the Faculty Welfare Committee to assess the extent and appropriateness of their use. These groups will jointly report this analysis to the Faculty Senate.
35 This and other changes in procedure to allow for the correction of errors of fact, in place since AY2012-13, will be reviewed every three years by Academic Affairs in consultation with the Advisory Committee on Tenure, Promotion, and Third-Year Review and the Faculty Welfare Committee to assess the extent and appropriateness of their use. These groups will jointly report this analysis to the Faculty Senate.
36 Deadlines for earlier stages of the review process are prior to March 1 and are announced by Academic Affairs each year.
37 This list was revised in August 2017 to reflect the College’s policy on Prohibition of Discrimination and Harassment, Including Sexual Harassment and Abuse.
38 The College of Charleston Board of Trustees passed this policy concerning appeals by faculty members in January 1985. This list was revised in August 2017 to reflect the College’s policy Prohibition of Discrimination and Harassment, Including Sexual Harassment and Abuse.
39 Deadlines for earlier stages of the review process typically are prior to March 1 and are announced by Academic Affairs each year.