Skip to main content

Faculty Guidelines

Continuing Contract and Promotion

For convenience, the full document describing the continuing contract and promotion procedure is reproduced here in full. The official document resides with Faculty Senate.

Academic Affairs note: Full-time faculty members hired after July 1, 2013 are required to follow the new mentor model plan developed by the faculty, which includes promotion from one rank to another requiring 5 years in the previous rank. In addition, continuing contract can only be acquired at the end of the 5th year of continuous annual contract following the procedure below. Those full-time faculty members hired before July 1, 2013 should have completed the Mentoring Model: Transitional Declaration of Intent for grandfathering in from the old plan by date May 1, 2014. If not completed, they will default to the new plan.

Note: This process is governed by all relevant college procedures and policies and all pertinent state rules and laws, particularly SBE Rules 6A-14.041 and 6A-14.0411. References to “faculty members” and “teaching” refer to everyone who holds faculty rank.


The Continuing Contract and Promotion (CC&P) Procedure defines a process to report on individual effectiveness in one’s primary responsibility, such as teaching or librarianship (for those librarians who hold faculty positions), and secondary responsibilities, such as service, pedagogy and scholarship. It offers an opportunity for self-reflection, planning, and evaluation, facilitated by ongoing mentoring, and culminating in an interview with colleagues who have the opportunity to develop an in-depth understanding of the candidate’s work. The process is composed primarily of three elements: selection of areas of specialization, selection of a Committee of Three, and the application (see Appendix B) for continuing contract or promotion.


All faculty members must fulfill their primary responsibility in a satisfactory manner. For classroom faculty, this evaluation would include examination of syllabi, classroom observation, and discussions. They also must engage in appropriate ongoing professional development. Specialization allows for choices to be made in secondary responsibilities. While everyone must provide service to the college, faculty may also choose to direct their energies toward pedagogy and/or scholarship.

Specialization allows faculty members the flexibility to focus on secondary responsibilities that best meet their individual needs and interests. The three areas are service, pedagogy, and scholarship. These can be mixed and matched in several ways:

100% Service

66% Service and 33% Pedagogy or Scholarship

33% Service and 66% Pedagogy or Scholarship

33% Service and 33% Pedagogy and 33% Scholarship

Details on primary and secondary responsibilities are provided in Appendix A.

An area of specialization will be declared when a faculty member submits a Declaration of Intent and Tracking Form for continuing contract or promotion. However, the area of specialization may be modified at a later time with the approval of the CO3 and the Chair via the submission of a new declaration of intent with all appropriate signatures.


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.

The first member of the CO3, the mentor, is chosen during the first year of a faculty member’s candidacy. The candidate should nominate three possible committee members from among the continuing contract faculty of the candidate’s own department. The chair may not be nominated. Nominees may be selected from other departments when chairs of those departments approve. Candidates may nominate faculty members who have already served on a CO3 at a previous stage in the candidate’s career. The chair selects one of the faculty members nominated by the candidate and this person becomes the first member of the CO3.

A second member of the CO3 is chosen two years before the candidate applies for promotion. The chair of the candidate’s department nominates three faculty members who hold continuing contract and emails these names to the candidate, the candidate selects one to serve as the chair’s representative on the CO3.

The final member of the CO3 is assigned by the chair of the CC&P Committee. This assignment occurs at the start of the academic year during which the candidate applies for continuing contract or promotion. Except under extraordinary circumstances, a faculty member should not serve simultaneously on more than three (3) CO3s.

If a member of the CO3 becomes unable to serve, or if a candidate or department chair wants to replace a member, a new member will be selected following the same process described previously.

Time will be made available during Spring Planning each year for all candidates to meet with their CO3s to discuss the candidate’s recent activities and overall progress toward continuing contract or promotion. This meeting, scheduled by the candidate, represents the minimum expectation for interactions between a candidate and the CO3; additional meetings may be scheduled as desired on the part of either candidates or committee members.

Note: Any faculty initially turned down for continuing contract but granted a 6th or 7th year of Annual Contract MUST resubmit the following year for Continuing Contract. Faculty who are not recommended for promotion will work with their CO3 to correct any documented deficiencies and determine when to resubmit an application.


The new State Board Rules for Continuing Contract require 5 continuous years of employment before being eligible for a Continuing Contract. Beginning with all new hires as of July 2013, the Assistant Professor and Associate Professor ranks will match this new 5-year time frame. Basically, Time in Rank will be 5 years for each promotion. This system is designed around a multi-year process; it essentially has “time in rank” built in. See Appendix D.


During a faculty member’s first year of employment, or when a faculty member with Continuing Contract is ready to seek promotion, he/she will complete a Declaration and Tracking Form. This form indicates the faculty member’s intention to seek continuing contract or promotion and will define the faculty member’s Area of Specialization. This form officially starts the process and can be made as soon as the faculty member receives continuing contract and/or a promotion. Once a faculty member is granted continuing contract, he/she is not required to seek further promotion. However, if the candidate changes his/her mind, the 5-year process begins when he/she submits the Declaration and Tracking Form (See Appendix D). (Note: exemptions to this 5-year process will be granted to those in the current system as part of the transition).


The application is the document submitted in the fall of the academic year in which a faculty member seeks continuing contract or applies for promotion (the final year of the 5-year process).

Use of the Application

  • To determine continuing contract. Faculty members on annual contract must submit an application in the fall of the year they are seeking continuing contract.
  • To determine promotion. Only faculty members on continuing contract who wish to apply for a promotion need to submit the application.
  • To improve individual performance by allowing candidates to summarize and communicate their key work as a member of Daytona State’s faculty.
  • To provide a structure for goal setting and planning.
  • To present an overview of work in primary and secondary responsibilities.
  • To provide the CO3 a point of reference for reviewing and interviewing the candidate.
  • To provide the department and candidate’s chair an overview of the candidate’s work.
  • To provide the College-wide Promotion and Continuing Contract Committee an overview of the candidate’s work and a starting point for review of disputed applications, if necessary.

Contents of the Application

  • Cover letter. A one- to two-page letter from candidates addressed to those reviewing their application that points out what the candidates believe are the key reasons they should be granted continuing contract or promotion in relation to their primary responsibilities (teaching, librarianship, counseling, etc.) and the area(s) of specialization chosen for secondary responsibilities.
  • C.V. A summary of the faculty member’s accomplishments, akin to what is generally used by professors nationally and is kept updated with HR every year.
  • Summary Faculty Activity Report. A collection of all pertinent reports from each year’s FAR under consideration for continuing contract/promotion, pared down to the key accomplishments as necessary to stay within the 10-page limit for CV and FAR combined.

Format of the Application (not to exceed 12 pages)

  • Part I Cover Letter 1-2 pages
  • Part II Curriculum Vita
  • Part III Summary Faculty Activity Report

Frequency of Application Submissions

  • Faculty members on annual contracts will be required to submit their application in the fall of the year in which they are seeking continuing contract.
  • Faculty members on continuing contract wishing to seek promotion need to submit an application in the fall of the year in which they are seeking promotion.

Record Keeping

It is the responsibility of faculty members to keep documentation of all accomplishments listed in the application for review as requested during the continuing contract and promotion application process. A copy of the Declaration and Tracking form will be maintained by the faculty member, the Chair or supervisor of their department, and the Chair of the Continuing Contract and Promotion Committee.

Evaluation of the Application

Each candidate’s department chair and mentor will provide the faculty member with appropriate advice and commentary on the application progress each year. Each member of the CO3 is responsible for assisting and advising the candidate on appropriate progress. In the candidate’s evaluation year, the application will be evaluated according to the faculty member’s overall teaching effectiveness, accomplishment in area(s) of specialization, and the Guidelines for Appointment and Promotion to Academic Ranks. This review will be conducted by the CO3 (in conjunction with the interview), the candidate’s department, the candidate’s chair, and the College-wide Continuing Contract and Promotion Committee, all of which will make recommendations.

Guidelines for appointment and promotion to academic ranks remain unchanged and can be found below.

Evaluation for Faculty Seeking Continuing Contract

  • Faculty members on annual contract must submit an application for evaluation every year to be reviewed by the members of their CO3 and Chair annually. To achieve continuing contract, faculty members must demonstrate performance consistent with the rank for which they were hired.
  • When faculty members apply for continuing contract, they will submit the application to their CO3, their school/department, their Chair, and the college-wide Continuing Contract and Promotion Committee.
  • Faculty members on annual contract generally receive continuing contract by the end of the fifth year of employment. However, the Chair, Committee of Three or CC&P Committee, with the approval of the Vice-President of Academic Affairs, may recommend a sixth year on annual contract. (These are based on new FLDOE standards; those grandfathered into the old timeline will use the pertinent parts of the transition plan).
  • Review Process for Applications
  1. Committee of Three
  2. Department Vote
  3. Chair Recommendation
  4. College-wide Committee Recommendation
  5. Administrators Committee Recommendation (Joint Committee if required)
  6. Vice President of Academic Affairs/College Provost (Appeals Committee if required)
  7. President
  8. Board of Trustees

1. Committee of Three

For a candidate who has applied for continuing contract or promotion, the spring planning meeting will include a formal interview followed by a CO3 discussion of the candidate’s work and a vote on whether to support the candidate or not. Additional information or documentation of activities may be requested from the candidate prior to the CO3 vote. 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 a vote no later than January 31.

2. Department Vote

By the end of Spring Planning, candidates’ applications will be posted online by the Faculty Senate Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee will then provide the appropriate* continuing contract faculty the information about where to review these materials and how to submit their votes regarding candidates. Voting faculty should take special note of the professionalism, collegiality, department and college fit of the candidate they are evaluating, as this vote will be seen as the primary judgment on those issues. Department voting will be concluded no later than January 31st of each year.

*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.

3. Chair Recommendation

Chairs will write a letter with their recommendation which they will forward to the CC&P Committee by January 31st.

4. College-wide CC&P Committee

The primary role of the College-wide CC&P Committee as a full group is to manage the logistics of the system and to resolve any disputes in the application process. CC&P Committee members from each CO3 will present their candidates’ application to the full CC&P Committee for a final review before sending the applications on to the Administrators Committee.

If any of the previous votes for a candidate have been negative in their overall judgment, the CC&P Committee may request information from the candidate. The CC&P Committee reviews all disagreements and then makes their recommendation to the Administrators Committee (See Appendix C for more information about logistics and role of the CC&P Committee).

5. Administrators Committee

The Administrators Committee will review all recommendations from the College-wide Committee and make recommendations for CC&P to the Vice President of Academic Affairs/College Provost.

6. Vice President for Academic Affairs/College Provost

The Vice President of Academic Affairs/College Provost 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 of Academic Affairs/College Provost may convene an appeals committee.

7. President

The President will make recommendations to the Board of Trustees for approval of continuing contract and promotion.

8. The Board of Trustees

The Board of Trustees will vote on the President’s recommendations for continuing contract and promotion.

Appendix A: Primary and Secondary Responsibilities


All faculty must fulfill their primary responsibility in a satisfactory manner. Specialization allows for choices to be made in our secondary responsibilities; those interested in professional development have the opportunity to also direct their energies toward pedagogy (e.g. Master Faculty) and/or scholarship (e.g. contribution to our fields), or additional service.

Specializing within secondary responsibilities allows for faculty to choose between additional Service, Pedagogy, and/or Scholarship. The definitions of and the minimum suggested benchmarks for fulfilling each of these areas are explained below. However, each department is encouraged to develop and record their own functional equivalencies to meet their unique needs. These equivalencies should be shared with the CC&P Committee when developed or updated so they are aware of what to consider.

Because teaching is the most common primary responsibility for faculty, this document focuses on setting benchmarks for the teaching element of the continuing contact and promotion process. The goal is to focus on the work candidates do in and for the classroom.


All faculty are to engage in activities which benefit their classrooms (Teaching). Criteria for assessing faculty positions for which a teaching load is not the primary responsibility will be determined by the supervisor and the faculty member in that situation. Additionally, departments may choose to create more specific benchmarks that are relevant to their specific areas.

I.1. Teaching

The process of determining whether the faculty member is engaged in effective and innovative teaching will involve:

  • Examination of syllabi and teaching materials (assignment sheets, course shells, etc.)
  • Observation of the classroom (in person or online)
  • Discussion of teaching goals and practices between candidate and evaluators (CO3, etc.)

These examinations, observations, and discussions determine if the candidate accomplishes the following:

  • Revises and (re)organizes elements of a course (e.g. syllabi, assignments, class/online activities, etc.) based on feedback from students or colleagues or ideas from research/professional development
  • Demonstrates a commitment to student success (this might be shown through meeting with students individually or in small groups, providing timely feedback to students to help them avoid failing a course, volunteering in tutoring support locations such as the ASC or Writing Center, etc.)
  • Prepares for teaching sessions (this might be shown through lecture notes, daily schedules of activities, modules in Falcon Online, etc.)
  • Maintains currency in one’s field or other areas pertinent to teaching (in accordance with the new rules governing professional development in FLDOE Rule 6A-14.0411)

As appropriate, Candidates and Committees of Three may also consider Rule 6A-14.0411 from the Florida Department of Education, which is available at

For rank-specific expectations, see section VI.9 of the existing Faculty Guidelines



At a glance:

100% Service: 3 meaningful service activities per year, on average, or equivalent.

66% Service: 2 meaningful service activities per year, on average, or equivalent.

33% Service: 1 meaningful service activity per year, on average, or equivalent (minimum service requirement for all faculty).

faculty service graph

Candidates for continuing contract or promotion must demonstrate their commitment to the college through service, where service is defined as work that benefits the department, college or, where appropriate, the larger community. Candidates are expected to demonstrate a pattern of consistent commitment to service. This may involve a range of activities including, but not limited to: participation in departmental business and activities, serving on college committees and in college governance, involvement in student activities, participation in interdisciplinary programs, mentoring of other colleagues, service to the larger community outside the college and, more generally, active participation in the college’s intellectual and cultural life. Candidates for promotion, who are subject to a higher level of expectations, must show evidence of continued commitment to college service beyond that achieved for continuing contract (See Section VI.9 of existing Faculty Guidelines).

A meaningful service activity is ultimately defined at the departmental level, based on the needs and activities of that area. CO3s and departments, in determining whether or not an activity represents meaningful service, are encouraged to consider the amount of time required for the activity (for example, serving as faculty senate president might be considered as equivalent to 3 activities a year given the large time commitment it requires) and the ways in which the activity benefits the department and/or college. Additionally, the specific requirements of that department should be considered. For example, in departments where faculty do clinicals or teach 30 hours per week, rather than the standard 15, as part of their department work, meaningful service might look quite different. This determination can be made democratically within each department. Candidates are encouraged to communicate with their Chairs and CO3s ahead of time about their activities to ensure they are meeting expectations.


At a Glance:

66% Pedagogy: 1 meaningful activity per year, on average, or equivalent for the period under evaluation.

33% Pedagogy: 1 meaningful activity every other year, on average, or equivalent for period under evaluation. Candidates in this specialty complete an applied study of teaching and teacher training not aimed at professional publication. Candidates for promotion, who are subject to a higher level of expectations, must show evidence of continued commitment to pedagogy beyond that achieved for continuing contract (See Section VI.9 of existing Faculty Guidelines).

Candidates choosing a 66% specialization in pedagogy will complete at least one internal or external program per year. To satisfy a 33% specialization, candidates need to satisfactorily complete an internal or external program every other year. Examples of applicable pedagogical development include, but are not limited to, the Master Faculty program, WAC/WID, the Writing Center professional development program, and/or conferences, workshops, institutes and speaker series on teaching.


At a Glance:

66% Scholarship: 2 National/Regional Conference presentation or 1 Peer-Reviewed publication or book in discipline in promotion period, or equivalent.

33% Scholarship: 1 National/Regional Conference presentation or 1 Peer-Reviewed publication or book in discipline in promotion period, or equivalent.

Scholarship is defined as the production of theoretical, conceptual, or creative work within one's discipline. The successful scholar is one who is actively engaged in making an impact in his/her field of study. This specialization is very individuated and housed in home departments. Publishing and conference presentations, or the disciplinary equivalent thereof, is the main expectation of this specialty.

We recognize the value not only of scholarship in a particular academic discipline, but also in the production of interdisciplinary scholarship, applied work and pedagogy. Accomplishments in this area may be demonstrated, as appropriate, by the following: scholarly writings submitted for review by one's peers, presentation of papers at professional meetings, creation of art or performance, serving as a session organizer or discussant at professional conferences, participation in scholarly activities such as seminars in which written scholarly work is required, service as a referee or reviewer for professional journals and/or publishers or professional conferences, invited lectures and performances, the receipt of grants or fellowships from which scholarly writing is expected, public performance, dissertation completion and/or the publication of journal articles or books. What counts as “equivalent” in evaluating scholarship will inevitably be a matter of judgment made by the CO3 and Chair in consultation with the candidate, or through pre-determined equivalencies established by the full department. These activities must represent a pattern of professional development, suggesting an intellectual and scholarly life that will continue after the awarding of Continuing Contract or promotion. Candidates for promotion, who are subject to a higher level of expectations, must show evidence of continued commitment to scholarship beyond that achieved for continuing contract (See Section VI.9 of Faculty Guidelines). Consideration should be given to candidates that submit reasonable papers to low-acceptance-rate journals and who receive positive feedback, but not acceptance. Such candidates can be considered having met the criteria for Continuing Contract or promotion if such efforts are deemed to exemplify the qualities of an active scholar intent on making an impact in their field of study.  

Appendix B: Documents that are part of the process

Candidate Creates:

The cover letter will be addressed to the candidate’s department and the CC&P Committee and will discuss how the expectations for the candidate’s primary and secondary responsibilities have been met; the letter will assert what area of specialization the candidate has chosen for this evaluation period and offer highlights from the candidate as to why s/he thinks the goals for this area have been met or exceeded. Similar to the kind of cover letter one might include in an application for a position, the candidate can use this letter to introduce their application for Continuing Contract and/or promotion and help highlight for the department and CC&P how the candidate views his or her role and achievements within the college. As is common to cover letters, this document should not exceed 1-2 pages.

The C.V. will include the information typically included in a C.V.: degrees earned, courses taught, publications, honors, and so on. The C.V. plus F.A.R. will be limited to 10 pages to encourage candidates to highlight only the most recent and/or most important achievements.

The Cumulative Faculty Activity Report can remain the same as it already is, with the candidate simply compiling all relevant F.A.R.s into one document that covers the entire time frame under evaluation (for continuing contract, the time since date of hire, for promotion, the time within the promotion period), or the candidate may choose to condense the report into only the most significant activities in order to more easily meet the combined C.V./F.A.R. 10-page limit.

Declaration / tracking form: Candidates will complete or update a declaration and tracking form each year to indicate the current members of their CO3 and their chosen area of specialization. They will keep one copy, provide the signed original to their Chair, and provide a third copy to the college-wide CC&P Committee.

CO3 Creates:

The CO3 Recommendation Letter is addressed to the CC&P committee and will discuss if a candidate has met the qualifications necessary for continuing contract or promotion. The letter will indicate the reasons for this conclusion by highlight the areas of service, pedagogy, and scholarship which either support/deny the candidate the position under consideration.

Chairs Create:

The Chair Recommendation Letter approves or rejects a candidate’s qualifications. Like the CO3 letter, this letter will highlight the areas which either support/deny the candidate the position under consideration.

Appendix C: The Role of the Continuing Contract and Promotion (CC&P) Committee in the Mentor Model

CC&P Committee members will be assigned to Committees of Three (CO3) by the Chair of the CC&P Committee, who will ensure that, whenever possible, these members are not from the same department as the candidate. The Chair will not serve on any Committees of Three directly, since s/he will oversee the entire process and serve as the contact person for any questions from administrators or faculty members about the process. In the new system, the CC&P Committee has two primary roles: overseeing the logistics to ensure a smooth process and evaluating any disputed applications.

I. Logistics

Logistics for the Chair of the College Wide CC&P Committee:

The role for the Chair of the College Wide CC&P Committee is considerably different under the Mentor Model than it is under the Portfolio. As such his/her main duties can be divided into four main tasks: Coordination, Training, Contact, and Scheduling.

  • Coordination: First of all, given that members of the CC&P Committee go out to serve on candidates’ CO3s rather than having portfolios come to them, the Chair must coordinate the distribution of CC&P Committee members onto CO3s, making sure that none serve on a CO3 from their own departments. The selection for CC&P Committee members to each CO3 must be completed by November. Near the end of the process, after all CO3s and the full CC&P Committee has voted, the Chair is responsible for getting all Applications to the Administrators Council for review.
  • Training: Second, the Chair is also in charge of the training for the new system letting candidates, CO3 members and supervisor know about the deadlines for the system as well as the system’s requirements.
  • Contact: Third, the chair serves as contact person for the college in regard to the Mentor Model. As such they must also keep all paperwork and a running tally of who is on what which CO3, etc., including a master excel sheet documenting the following for each faculty member:
    • Name
    • Rank
    • Time in Rank
    • Secondary Responsibilities
    • CO3 Members o Chairs
    • AVP
  • Once the CO3s are set, the Chair should compile six email lists of all: (1) Candidates; (2) CO3 Members; (3) Candidate’s Chairs; (4) AVPs; (5) CC&P Committee Members; and then (6) one big master list.
  • Scheduling: Fourth, the Chair is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all Candidates and CO3s have a formal interview scheduled during Spring Planning or shortly thereafter. He/she is also in charge of working with the Administrator’s Council to scheduling all joint meetings.

Logistics for Members of the College Wide CC&P Committee:

Each CC&P Committee Member is responsible for:

  • Serving on up to 3 CO3s.
  • Participating in the formal interview and letter-writing process with the other members of the CO3.
  • Collecting the official version of each of the Candidate’s Applications and presenting them to the full CC&P Committee when it meets in February.
  • Ensuring they do not meet one-on-one with the Candidate to discuss their Application and only meet in the presence of the other two CO3 members.

II. Evaluation

As mentioned, individual members of the CC&P Committee, with the exception of the Chair, participate in up to 3 CO3s per year. Joining the committee for the first time during fall planning of the candidate's evaluation year, CC&P Committee members have the opportunity to offer an outside perspective on what the candidate has done to fulfill primary and secondary responsibilities and offer feedback on the application. The CC&P Committee member will then participate in the official interview and the subsequent CO3 vote and recommendation letter for or against the candidate. The CC&P Committee member will then present their candidates’ applications to the full CC&P Committee for a final vote before the application proceeds to the Administrators’ Committee.

If any of the previous votes for a Candidate have been negative, the CC&P Committee may request information from the candidate. The CC&P Committee reviews all disagreements and then makes a final recommendation.  

Appendix D: Detailed Timeline for New CC&P Process

Note: This timeline will be condensed for all current faculty to fit their existing timeline so that no-one will be delayed in going up for continuing contract or promotion.

New Hire or First Year of 5 Year Promotion Process

  • Candidate completes new Declaration and Tracking form
  • Candidate determines area of specialization
  • Candidate and Chair work to appoint mentor for CO3
  • Candidate and mentor meet at least once to review goals

Year 2

  • Candidate and mentor meet at least once to review goals (Spring Planning)
  • Note: Faculty on Annual Contract must submit a complete Application to their Chair each year until they are granted Continuing Contract.

Year 3

  • Candidate and Chair work to appoint chair designee for CO3
  • Candidate, mentor, and chair designee meet at least once to review candidate’s goals and, if applicable, progress (Spring Planning)

Year 4

  • Candidate, mentor, and chair designee meet at least once to review candidate’s progress (Spring Planning)

Year 5


  • CC&P Committee appoints third member of CO3 to each candidate’s committee
  • Candidates and CO3s meet to review progress.
  • Candidates submit their Application for Continuing Contract or Promotion by the end of the semester.


  • CO3 interviews take place.
  • CO3 votes or requests further information.
  • Candidate responds to requests by CO3 for additional information.
  • CO3 Letter of recommendation is sent to the CC&P Committee by the end of the month
  • The Faculty Senate Nominating Committee coordinates School votes on candidates.
  • School Chair writes his or her Recommendation Letter to CC&P Committee.

First two weeks of February

  • CC&P Committee certifies all uncontested recommendations.
  • CC&P Committee investigates all negative judgments and may ask for further information from candidates.
  • Candidates supply any additional information to CC&P Committee. Last two weeks of February:
  • CC&P Committee makes final recommendation on candidates with negative judgments.
  • CC&P Committee sends all final recommendations to Administrative Committee
  • CC&P Committee and Administrative Committee meet jointly if necessary.

First two weeks of March

  • Final recommendations submitted to Vice President of Academic Affairs/College Provost.
  • Candidates who have not been recommended for Continuing Contract or Promotion are contacted.
  • Candidates who have been recommended for Continuing Contract or Promotion are submitted to Board of Trustees for approval.