7.3.4 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 extradepartmental 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:

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • All annual evaluation narratives and rating letters, as well as any letters that the evaluatee has written in response to the annual evaluations.
  • 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)
  • A personal interview of the candidate by the department evaluation panel.
  • 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. (Rev. Apr. 2009; Rev. Apr. 2012)

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. (Rev. Apr. 2007; Rev. Apr. 2009; Rev. Apr. 2012)

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 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:
    1. 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,
    2. Violation of academic freedom, as it relates to freedom of expression; or,
    3. Violation of due process, as provided in the College’s published rules, regulations, policies and procedures.
  • 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)
  • 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

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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)
  • 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)

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. 

Related Policies, Documents or Forms

7.3.4 Procedures for Third-year Evaluation, Tenure and Promotion of Instructional and Library Faculty (FAM VI.D) PDF

Revision Log

Web Publication Date: 1/20/2026