The evaluation process for Continuing Contract and Promotion is multifaceted and thorough. It is a faculty driven process that draws together insights from the candidate, mentors, department colleagues, and the chair which are then amalgamated by the Continuing Contract and Promotion Committee, an elected group of faculty drawn from across the institution. The CC&P's recommendations are reviewed by the Provost and the President before being passed on to the College Board of Trustees for final approval.
Please note that the granting of Continuing Contract and Promotion are two separate decisions. A faculty member may be granted Continuing Contract but turned down for promotion. However, Continuing Contract is required in order to be promoted. If a faculty member is turned down for Continuing Contract and granted an additional year of Annual Contract, they MUST re-apply for Continuing Contract the following year.
The Committee of Three (CO3) is a group of advisers at the core of the process. This group guides, encourages, and eventually evaluates each faculty member participating in the continuing contract and promotion process. One member is selected by the chair, one member by the faculty member, and one member by the College-Wide Continuing Contract and Promotion Committee.
Once a candidate has formally submitted his or her Application, they can call for a formal interview by the CO3. It is the candidate's responsibility to organize and hold this meeting before the deadline of January 31st. The candidate should bring supporting documentation for major evidence included in the Application to the interview. Additional information or documentation of activities may be requested from the candidate after the meeting. Candidates must be granted a minimum of forty-eight hours to satisfy a CO3 request, and additional time may be granted by the CO3 as long as time permits.
After the Interview and the review of any additional documentation requested, the CO3 will collaboratively create a consensus recommendation, verifying that the candidate has or has not met all criteria for both the Primary Areas of Responsibility and the Secondary Areas of Specialization for Continuing Contract and / or the rank being sought. If the candidate has not met the criteria for Continuing Contract, the CO3 may still recommend an additional year for the candidate to correct any deficiencies. The CO3 may choose to write a letter or use the template below which was developed by the Mentor Model Committee. All CC&P recommendations and all supporting documentation will be made available to the Chief Academic Officer (Provost or Vice President) for review by the established deadline for the current year.
The Chair Recommendation should focus on the candidate's teaching effectiveness, including any professional development activities that have contributed, and to the candidate's service to and support of the department. This document should not be a summary of the candidate's application letter, but should provide the Chair's unique insights into the candidate's qualifications. If the chair feels the candidate has not met the criteria for Continuing Contract, he or she may still recommend an additional year for the candidate to correct any deficiencies. Chairs may choose to write a letter or use the template below which was developed by the Mentor Model Committee. All Chair Recommendations should be received by the CC&P Committee by January 31st.
The Department Vote allows individual continuing contract faculty members within a department to evaluate their colleagues readiness for Continuing Contract or promotion. Voting faculty should focus on the professionalism, collegiality, and service to the department and college of the candidate they are evaluating. Department voting will be concluded no later than January 31st of each year. Collected ballots will be forwarded by the Department Chair to the CC&P committee and will remain confidential, just as the Chair and CO3 Recommendations are confidential.
*Voting will occur within the same groups and through the same methods employed by the senatorial elections for Faculty Senate. This senatorial apportionment joins some smaller schools together for the purposes of electing a senator to represent them, and those same groups will vote together on candidates going up for continuing contract or promotion.
Due to COVID-19, Department Spring Planning Meetings will be held virtually in 2021. This will require a temporary adjustment to the method of collection for Department Ballots this year as indicated below.
(Passed by Faculty Senate 2020-12-1)
Additional ballot processing instructions have been provided from DSC College Council Brian Babb:
CC&P Chair(s) have the right and duty to discard any vote that is based (via comments provided on the ballot) on the protected classification of that applicant (age, sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc). An example might be “Professor X is too old to serve in this department and should not be promoted.”
In addition, if an allegation of serious misconduct is alleged via the comments on a ballot, this should be reported to campus authorities by the Chair(s) of the CC&P committee. An example might be “Professor X sexually harassed me and does not deserve to be promoted.”
The primary role of the College-wide CC&P Committee as a full group is to manage the logistics of the Mentor Model system, to provide a review all documentation including the Application, CO3 Recommendation, Chair Recommendation, and Department Vote, and to reconcile any discrepancies. CC&P Committee members from each CO3 will present their candidates’ application to the full CC&P Committee for discussion and a final vote. Additional information or documentation of activities may be requested from the candidate prior to the vote. Candidates must be granted a minimum of forty-eight hours to satisfy a request, and additional time may be granted as long as time permits. Committee members will only consider information in the provided documentation or shared during the CO3 Interview and should not consider any personal knowledge of individual candidates. This vote is by secret ballot. and recommendation before sending the applications on to the Chief Academic Officer.
The Chief Academic Officer (Provost or Vice President of Academic Affairs) will review all recommendations and inform faculty members of final continuing contract or promotion recommendations. At the request of individual faculty members, the vice president may convene an appeals committee.
The President will make recommendations to the Board of Trustees for approval of continuing contract and promotion.