Work at Georgia State Law

Approved Nov. 13, 2014

I. INTRODUCTION

The College of Law’s ability to achieve its educational, academic and professional missions requires a committed faculty dedicated to excellence in teaching and service. The college regularly assesses faculty achievement in these areas through reappointment and promotion reviews. This document sets forth the criteria, standards and procedures for conducting such reviews of College of Law lecturers, who are non-tenure track faculty (“NTT”). The policies and procedures contained in this document must be read in conjunction with the Georgia State University Promotion Manual for Non-Tenure Track Faculty, as approved on Oct. 10, 2013, and the bylaws and policies of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.

As aptly noted in the University’s Promotion Manual, “[p]romotion decisions for NTT faculty are extremely important to the professional life of the faculty member and the institution.” This document is meant to safeguard these interests and afford NTT faculty members notice, fairness, and the opportunity and resources needed for successful promotion and ongoing professional development.

II. CATEGORIES OF NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY

The following NTT Faculty positions are eligible for promotion within the College of Law:

1. Clinical Faculty (Clinical Assistant Professor, Clinical Associate Professor, Clinical Professor)
2. Lecturer (Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Principal Senior Lecturer)
3. College of Law Library (Librarian I, Librarian II, Librarian III, Librarian IV)

The standards and procedures governing the promotion and reappointment of clinical faculty and College of Law librarians are articulated in separate documents. Hereinafter, all references to NTT faculty in this document refer exclusively to lecturers.

III. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LECTURERS

The following is a description of the duties and responsibilities of lecturers listed in the order of importance.

A. Teaching

The primary responsibility of lecturers is teaching.

B. Service

Lecturers also are expected to engage in service activities. These activities may include advising and serving the academic needs of students, serving on committees, or participating in other forms of academic service. Service may be at the college and/or university level. Service also may involve activities related to the professional and greater communities.

C. Research

Lecturers are not required to engage in research activities. Nonetheless, Lecturers are expected to be familiar with current trends and methods in their discipline.

IV. TIMING POLICIES FOR PROMOTION

A. Promotion to Senior Lecturer

A lecturer is eligible to apply and be considered for promotion to senior lecturer in the fifth year of service, to be effective at the beginning of the seventh year of service. A maximum of three years’ credit toward the minimum period may be allowed for service at another institution or within Georgia State University in a faculty rank. Such credit for prior service shall be defined in writing and approved by the provost.

B. Promotion to Principal Senior Lecturer

A senior lecturer is eligible to apply and be considered for promotion to principal senior lecturer in the fifth year of service in rank.

V. PROMOTION STANDARDS

A. General

Promotion recommendations of lecturers shall be based on demonstrated excellence in teaching and high quality service. It is necessary to meet the standards in both. Promotion decisions entail not only an evaluation of a candidate’s existing contributions and accomplishments, but a predictive assessment of the candidate’s commitment to continued excellence in teaching and high quality service.

Each year, the associate dean for research and Faculty Development will convene a meeting to explain promotion policies and answer questions about any and all phases of the promotion process. This meeting shall be open to all interested faculty members.

B. Standards for Evaluation by Rank and Job Classification

1. General

Each level of review for promotion entails a comprehensive assessment of a candidate’s performance, progress, and potential future performance with respect to teaching and service. A candidate must meet more rigorous standards and expectations at successive promotion levels.

a. Promotion to Senior Lecturer

To qualify for promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer, the faculty member must demonstrate excellence in teaching. This will include an assessment of (a) the quality of pedagogy and instruction in the classroom; (b) the quality of feedback provided to students in written and oral assignments, where appropriate; (c) the development of effective teaching and training materials; and (d) the ability to work collaboratively and professionally with other faculty members, where appropriate. In addition, the faculty member seeking promotion must demonstrate a commitment to high quality service commensurate with the candidate’s experience and a record overall that shows unmistakable promise of continued productivity.

b. Promotion to Principal Senior Lecturer

Attainment of principal senior lecturer reflects recognition that a faculty member has attained a significant level of achievement as a teacher and professionally engaged colleague. Specifically, to qualify for promotion to principal senior lecturer, the faculty member must demonstrate: 1) a sustained high level of excellence and continued growth in teaching responsibilities, including a demonstrated record of commitment to the students and the quality of his or her pedagogy; and 2) regular and significant high quality service. Assessment of one’s application for promotion to Principal Senior Lecturer entails not only a judgment about a faculty member’s record to date but the ability to predict that the candidate will continue to perform at a high level on into the future.

VI. SUPPORT, EVALUATION, AND REAPPOINTMENT OF LECTURERS

A. Support

Upon the arrival of each newly hired Lecturer, the associate dean for research and faculty development will designate a member of the faculty to serve as a mentor for the new faculty member. Faculty mentors will provide support and guidance that will aid the new colleague in the development of his or her teaching and service, as appropriate. At the same time, faculty mentors are not meant to be the only source of communication, but to facilitate the faculty’s commitment to providing regular, constructive and candid advice.

B. Annual Evaluation and Reappointment

1. Reappointment Review

All lecturers are hired on an annual basis in accordance with Section 8.3.4.3 of the Board of Regents’ Policy Manual.

During the first five years of full-time employment at the College of Law, lecturers shall be reviewed annually by the Promotion Committee (outlined in Section VII.A.) in order to make a reappointment and contract recommendation to the dean. These reviews shall consist of an evaluation of teaching excellence conducted by tenure-track or clinical faculty members based in part on in-class observations, the quality of written feedback provided to students, as well as a review of service activities.

Beginning in the sixth year of full-time service, the annual reappointment review need not include an in-class observation of the applicant’s teaching skills, with the exception of those years in which a Lecturer has applied for promotion or undergoes a review in Section VI.B.3. Notwithstanding this provision, the Dean and/or chairs of the Promotion Committee retain the discretion to require an in-class observation for any Lecturer as part of the reappointment process.

2. Criteria for Reappointment

To qualify for reappointment, a Lecturer must establish that he or she is meeting the teaching and service goals identified in section III. Reappointment shall be at the sole discretion of the dean or his or her representative.

All lecturers who have served full-time for the entire previous academic year have a presumption of reappointment for the subsequent academic year unless notified in writing to the contrary as follows:

For lecturers with less than three years of full-time service, The College of Law will provide notice of non-reappointment as early as practicable.

For lecturers with three or more, but less than six, years of full-time service, notice of non-reappointment must be made at least 30 calendar days prior to the College of Law’s first day of classes in the semester.

For lecturers with six or more years of full-time employment, notice of non-reappointment will be made at least one hundred and eighty calendar days prior to the College of Law’s first day of classes in the semester.

lecturers with six or more years of full-time service at the College of Law who have received timely notice of non-reappointment are entitled to a review of the decision in accordance with the appeal procedures contained in Section VIII of the Bylaws of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.

3. Structured Reviews for Professional Development and Planning:

Lecturers shall be reviewed during their third year of full-time employment to provide them with guidance on whether they are making progress toward promotion and to identify opportunities that will enable them to reach their full potential in terms of their contribution to the University. The procedure for this review shall follow the process as set forth in the in College’s Guidelines for Structured Reviews of Lecturers, attached as Appendix B. In their fifth year, the structured review is also the review for promotion to Senior Lecturer and will be conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section VII.

Once promoted to Senior Lecturer, such reviews shall take place every five years of continued employment, unless her or she is promoted, in which case subsequent reviews will occur every five years after the promotion. The purpose of such a review is to examine the individual’s contributions and achievements since his or her last review and to assist the faculty member in developing professional goals for the next five years. In years in which the lecturer is seeking promotion, the process shall be governed by Section VIII of this document. Otherwise, the process to be used is attached at <a href=”#B”>Appendix B.</a>

VII. THE PROMOTION PROCESS

A. Promotion Committee

In the case of applications for promotion or reappointment relating to lecturers, the Committee shall consist of all tenured, tenure-track and clinical faculty members. Also serving on the Committee shall be lecturers above the current rank of the lecturer applying for promotion or being reviewed for reappointment.

B. Co-Chairs

The Committee shall be headed by the two faculty co-chairs elected annually by majority vote of the faculty at a regularly scheduled faculty meeting in March or April of the academic year. The term of appointment, which is renewable, shall run through the ensuing academic year. Co-chairs must be tenured full professors. They shall convene meetings of the Committee, coordinate its proceedings, and serve as its representative with regard to all required and appropriate communications. The co-chairs also will serve as co-chairs of the Faculty Review Subcommittee.

C. Faculty Review Subcommittee

The college also will have a Faculty Review Subcommittee (Subcommittee) to consider promotion for lecturers. This Subcommittee will be comprised of five members of the full Promotion and Tenure Committee as follows: (1) two members appointed by the Dean; (2) one general member elected by the faculty; and (3) the two co-chairs of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, as well as one lecturer member appointed by the Dean, where possible. Lecturers of the same or higher rank than that to which the candidate is seeking promotion are eligible to serve on the Subcommittee. The purpose of the Subcommittee is to aid the Promotion Committee in presiding over the review process. Under the leadership of the co-chairs, the Subcommittee’s responsibilities generally entail overseeing and managing the stages of the process as set out in the timeline in <a href=”#A”>Appendix A.</a>

The subcommittee also will review each lecturer’s completed dossier under the applicable standards set forth in this document, and prepare a written report and recommendation to the full Promotion Committee. This report and recommendation is advisory only and is not binding on the full committee, which is ultimately responsible for making a recommendation on each candidate to the dean.

D. General Rules Governing Promotion Committee Meetings

1. Meetings of the Committee shall be preceded by five business days’ notice to all members eligible to vote on the matters raised at that meeting. When it is anticipated that a meeting will include a vote on reappointment or promotion, the co-chairs shall make every effort to schedule that meeting at a time when all faculty eligible to vote are able to attend.
2. A quorum for all purposes shall be 80% of the members eligible to vote on the particular matter according to the membership criteria defined in Section VII.A. In the absence of such a quorum, the Promotion Committee may not act on that matter. Every effort shall be made to include faculty members who are on leave in reappointment and promotion decisions on which they are eligible to vote. However, any faculty member who is on leave and is unavailable to participate in any reappointment or promotion decision shall not be counted for quorum or voting purposes.
3. Voting shall be by secret ballot. In reappointment matters, a simple majority of yea and nay votes cast shall be sufficient, and in promotion matters, a two-thirds majority of yea and nay votes cast shall be sufficient to make a recommendation to the dean. In promotion matters, when the number of members present and voting is not an integer multiple of three, the number of yea and nay votes cast closest to two-thirds shall be sufficient.

VIII. PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION REVIEW

A. Notification and Calendar within the College

The formal review, recommendation and decision-making process within the College of Law will be conducted primarily during the fall semester of the academic year. The information gathering process by the Faculty Review Subcommittee and the candidates should begin the preceding spring and should conform generally to the calendar set forth in Appendix A.

B. Contents of the Dossier

All applications for promotion will be supported by a dossier that contains a record of the candidate’s professional achievements relating to teaching and service. The contents of the dossier will include:

1. Provided by the Candidate

a. A current curriculum vita

b. A statement that summarizes accomplishments and goals in teaching and service, including:

1) A statement of the candidate’s pedagogical goals and methods for each course currently taught. The candidate should submit evidence relating to teaching effectiveness, which may include, where relevant, peer assessments, the development of instructional materials or new courses/programs, innovative pedagogy, technology or methods of assessment, integration of skills and values, and evidence of student accomplishments. In addition, the candidate should address, where appropriate, methods and examples of providing feedback to students on written assignments; and

2) A statement about the candidate’s institutional service and professional engagement. The candidate should address and/or provide examples, where appropriate, of the ability to work collaboratively and professionally with other faculty members in programs of study;

c. At the candidate’s discretion, copies of any letters, memoranda, etc. that document public service, professional engagement, leadership positions, awards, or other forms of professional recognition;

d. Any other letters, statements, documents or information the candidate deems relevant and material.

2. Prepared or Solicited by the Subcommittee

a. A written summary of the candidate’s student course evaluations; and

b. Faculty reviews of the candidate’s teaching based on class visitations.

C. Evaluation of Teaching

1. General

Evaluation of a candidate’s teaching will be based primarily on: class visits and faculty review of the candidate’s classes, student evaluations, the candidate’s statement of teaching goals and methods, and any submitted materials or other submissions evidencing teaching dedication, effectiveness or innovation.

2. Class Visitation and Faculty Review

The co-chairs of the Promotion Committee or their designees will assign two-person faculty teams to conduct class observations for all lecturers: (1) in each of their first five years of employment; (2) in years in which a lecturer has applied for promotion or is subject to a review identified in Section VI.B.3; and(3) as deemed necessary in the discretion of the Dean or co-chairs. Each faculty team will conduct observations of at least two full 75 minute classes of the same course.

3. Student Evaluations

The Faculty Review Subcommittee will review the student evaluations of a candidate’s classes during the promotional period and prepare a summary report of the evaluations for the candidate’s dossier. A copy of this summary will be provided to the candidate for review and comment prior to its finalization, and the candidate will have the opportunity to place a responsive statement in the file within five business days of receipt of the summary.

D. Evaluation of Service

Evaluation of a candidate’s service should consider: the nature and extent of the candidate’s service activities, the candidate’s engagement in an appropriate level of the faculty’s institutional responsibilities, the candidate’s capacity to assume leadership responsibilities, and other related information.

To evaluate these factors, the subcommittee will review the candidate’s own statement and solicit input from the Director of Lawyering Foundations, the chairs of faculty committees on which the candidate has served during the promotional period, and other faculty where applicable. The committee also may contact external constituencies associated with the candidate’s public or professional service activities and make all other inquiries as the committee deems appropriate.

IX. DELIBERATION PROCEDURES FOR THE COMMITTEE AND THE DEAN RELATING TO PROMOTION

A. Subcommittee Review

In cases relating to promotion, the subcommittee will carefully review the candidate’s application and meet to discuss it upon completion of the dossier.

B. Report

Following its review and deliberations, the subcommittee will prepare a written report of its assessment and recommendation. The report should assess the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching and service based on the dossier and the standards contained in this Promotion Document. The purpose of the report is to aid the work of the Promotion Committee and is advisory only.

C. Timing of Report

The report must be completed and made available to the candidate no later than eight business days before the Promotion Committee meeting on the candidate. The candidate may submit a written response to the report within three business days of its receipt. The written response must be submitted to the dean.

D. Availability to Faculty

The report, the candidate’s response (if any), and the candidate’s dossier must be made available to faculty eligible to vote at least five business days before the Promotion Committee vote on the candidate.

E. Promotion Committee Meeting on Candidates

The Promotion Committee will meet to discuss and evaluate the merits of each candidate’s application for promotion in light of the dossier and the Subcommittee’s report and recommendation. The co-chairs of the committee will preside. In accordance with the voting rules set forth in VII.D, the committee will make a recommendation to the dean on each candidate’s application.

F. Notice to Candidates

All candidates will receive notice in writing of the Committees’ recommendations and a copy of any report(s) that are made of the candidate’s credentials within the timeframe outlined in the calendar set forth in Appendix A. All candidates have the right to respond in writing to the Committees’ recommendations within three business days. The response must be submitted to the Dean. Copies of any such response will be included in the material reviewed at all higher levels.

G. Dean’s Review

Upon receiving recommendations for promotion, the Dean will conduct a review of the candidate’s application based on the Promotion Committee’s recommendation and the candidate’s dossier. The Dean will make an independent assessment of whether to support the recommendation. In all instances of a positive recommendation, the Dean will notify the candidate and will forward the candidate’s record to the Provost for the next stage of review within the timeframe outlined in the calendar set forth in <a href=”#A”>Appendix A.</a>

Candidates that are not recommended by the dean must receive a written decision and rationale no later than ten business days after the dean’s decision.

H. Provost’s Review

The provost will conduct an independent review of the materials forwarded by the dean and any other related materials directly relevant to the lecturer’s candidacy for promotion. The provost will make a recommendation in each case, forward the recommendations to the president, and notify the dean. Within three business days after receiving notice of the provost’s recommendation, the dean will notify the candidate of the provost’s recommendation.

Before forwarding a negative recommendation to the president, the provost will consult with the dean. In response to the query from the provost, the dean may gather additional information from the candidate and other materials directly related to the lecturer’s candidacy. The dean will notify the candidate of his/her reply to the provost.

I. President’s Review

The president will conduct an independent review of the candidate’s dossier and related materials and recommendations. The decision will be communicated to the dean, who will notify the candidate within three business days after receiving notice of the president’s decision.

J. Appeals

Lecturers may appeal a negative recommendation of the dean regarding promotion to the provost in the manner provided by the Promotion Manual for Non-Tenure Track Faculty (Section VII. Appeals) within ten business days of receipt of the dean’s decision. Candidates may appeal to the president a negative recommendation by the provost or a decision by the provost rejecting the candidate’s appeal to the provost in accordance with the Promotion Manual for Non-Tenure Track Faculty (Section VII. Appeals).

X. AMENDMENTS

This document may be amended at any meeting of the faculty by a majority vote of the members present, provided there is a quorum and that the proposed amendment has been presented to the faculty at least seven days in advance of the meeting at which it is to be voted upon. All substantive changes must be reviewed and approved by the Provost.

Appendix A

Calendar for Promotion Review within the College

The timeline identified below is intended as a general guide only. The specific dates for promotion in any given year will be governed by the schedule issued by the Office of the Provost.

March-April: Associate dean for research and faculty development holds meeting regarding promotion policies for all interested faculty members. The co-chairs of the Promotion Committee notify lecturers who are eligible to apply for promotion in the following academic year and seek confirmation of whether they intend to move forward with their application.

April: Candidates intending to apply for promotion in the upcoming academic year notify the co-chairs and director of Lawyering Foundations of their plans to do so.

April/May: Co-chairs meet with each of these faculty candidates to review the evaluation process and the materials that must be included in a candidate dossier.

Early September: Candidates’ written statements in support of their application for promotion are due.

Second Week in September: Candidate dossiers should be completed and made available to the subcommittee.

Second Week in September – Second Week in October: The subcommittee should review the candidate’s application and formulate its recommendation and written report.

Third week in October: The subcommittee will provide candidates with copies of its report within three business days. Candidates will have three business days to submit a written response.

Late October/early November: Completed candidate dossiers made available to full Promotion Committee

November: Full Promotion Committee meeting to discuss and vote on the candidates for promotion and reappointment. Candidates notified of committee recommendations within three business days. Candidates will have three business days to submit a written response.

March: Dean completes written review of each candidate’s application and notifies the candidates. The dean will forward all positive recommendations to the provost for further review in accordance with the timeline issued by her office.

Appendix B

I. Guidelines for Third-Year Structured Reviews of Lecturers

A. Time of Review

Each lecturer will be reviewed in the spring semester of the faculty member’s third academic year at the College of Law. This review will coincide with the annual spring reappointment process. In the case of persons with prior teaching credit at other institutions, the structured review will occur in the spring semester one full year prior to the first year in which they would first be eligible to seek promotion. A lecturer hired with three years of probationary credit may waive this review with written approval of the dean.

B. Reviewing Committee

The Lecturer Reviewing Committee shall be comprised of a Co-Chair of the Promotion Committee or a designee, the Director of Lawyering Foundations, and two lecturers (where possible) of the same or higher rank than the candidate under review.

C. Purpose of Review

The review will provide each lecturer with a clear idea of how adequately he or she is progressing toward successfully achieving promotion. The review should identify strengths and accomplishments and pinpoint areas in need of improvement.

D. Scope of Review

The Lecturer Reviewing Committee will review the annual reports submitted by the faculty member to the dean for the years in question and report on the faculty member’s progress in the areas of teaching and service. The committee will also review both the student evaluations and the annual faculty teaching evaluations of the lecturer. No additional class visitation will be necessary for the structured review. The committee will also interview the faculty member in order to gain information as to the faculty member’s achievements and goals.

E. Report of the Committee

The reports generated for all lecturers under review from year to year will be uniform and in substantially the format which follows. The Lecturer Reviewing Committee is to compile a report based on a review of annual reports (copies of which should be appended to the Lecturer Reviewing Committee Report), faculty teaching evaluations, the Lecturer Reviewing Committee discussion and the interview with the lecturer. The lecturer will be given a copy of the draft report and be given the opportunity to suggest additions or corrections to the report. However, the content of the final report remains within the sole discretion of the Lecturer Reviewing Committee.

The form of the report shall be as follows:

1. Overview of the Review Period: Listing of the faculty member’s activities for each semester (including summer semesters) during the period, limited to: full-time teaching at GSU College of Law; reduced or expanded teaching loads; and summer teaching.

2. Evaluations of Teaching:

a. Listing of courses taught by the faculty member in the College of Law for the review period, including the approximate number of students enrolled in each course and any independent study courses supervised by the faculty member.

b.  Listing of any teaching awards or other recognition for teaching.

c.  Student course evaluations.

d.  Other evidence of teaching effectiveness.

3. University Service: at the College and University levels including committees, task forces, advising student organizations, etc.

4. Professional Service: participation in professional or academic meetings, conferences and workshops; advisory or drafting roles for public officials or entities, professional association participation and/or leadership roles, etc.

5. Public and Community Service: including appointed or elective office, leadership roles in community organizations, etc.

6. Other Evidence of Achievements

7. Lecturer Reviewing Committee Evaluation: the evaluation should discuss the faculty member’s progress toward promotion, including strengths and achievements and suggestions as to areas of improvement for the faculty member. The suggestions for improvement should identify areas in which the faculty member can improve performance in pursuit of promotion and/or reach their full potential as a faculty member of the University.

8. Current vita of lecturer; copies of faculty member’s annual reports for the review period; and copies of evaluations of classroom teaching based on annual class visitations that are conducted by other faculty members for the annual reappointment process.

F. Faculty Discussion of Report

Following the Lecturer Reviewing Committee’s completion of the third year structured review, the committee shall make it available for review and discussion by the full Promotion Committee, which consists of tenure-track and clinical faculty members. This review and discussion shall take place at the spring Promotion Committee meeting in the year of the review after a vote on renewal of the candidate’s teaching contract.

G. Role of Faculty Member

In addition to the lecturer’s consultative role in the review process, if the faculty member disagrees with any portion of the committee report or the dean’s review, he or she may submit a written response which will be attached to the report and made a part thereof. The faculty member is to be given three business days to prepare the response prior to submission of the report to the dean and prior to the submission of the dean’s review.

H. Role of the Dean

The dean will review the Lecturer Reviewing Committee report and, as necessary, consult with the lecturer on his or her progress toward promotion.

II. Guidelines for Subsequent Structured Reviews of Senior Lecturers and Principal Senior Lecturers

A. Time of Review

Each lecturer will be reviewed in the spring semester of the fifth anniversary of the academic year in which the faculty member’s most recent promotion became effective. Subsequent reviews will occur on every fifth anniversary of the first review unless interrupted by a further review for promotion or leave of absence.

B. Reviewing Committee

In years in which the candidate is seeking a promotion, the structured review will be conducted by the Faculty Review Subcommittee referenced in Section VII.C. of this document. In all other circumstances, the review shall be conducted by the Lecturer Reviewing Committee.

C. Purposes

There are two purposes to the five-year review of lecturers: first, to assess and summarize the faculty member’s contributions and achievements since his or her last review; and second, to assist the faculty member in creating a statement of professional goals for the next five years. The review is intended to assist faculty members with identifying opportunities that will enable them to reach their full potential for contribution to the university and College of Law.

D. Review Process

The review period will cover the years since the faculty member’s last review or, in case of initial reviews, the years since the last promotion decision regarding the faculty member. In the case of five-year reviews that also constitute a request for promotion, the review shall follow the format identified in Section VIII.B. in this document. In all other years, the five year reviews will take place as follows.

1. Summary of Review Period: The faculty member will prepare a report listing:

a. Teaching:

1.semester by semester, the courses taught by the faculty member during the review period;

2. Listing of courses taught by the faculty member in the College of Law for the review period, including the approximate number of students enrolled in each course and any independent study courses supervised by the faculty member.

3. Brief description of any courses that were redesigned or developed by the faculty during the review period.

4. Listing of any teaching awards or other recognition for teaching.

5. Student course evaluations;

6. Other evidence of teaching effectiveness and/or growth in the classroom.

b. committee and other administrative assignments in the College of Law and service at the University or professional level;

c. a summary of the faculty member’s contributions to professional organizations and public service;

d. a draft of the faculty member’s professional plans for the next five years; and

e. any other information the faculty member deems relevant to the review period.

2. Report of the Committee

Using the faculty member’s report as well as other sources of information, the committee will compile its own report. The form of the report shall be as follows:

a. Overview of the Review Period: Listing of the faculty member’s activities for each semester (including summer semesters) during the period, limited to: full-time teaching at GSU College of Law.

b. Evaluation of Teaching: The College of Law is dedicated to maintaining the highest levels of classroom performance and teaching standards. Apart from any review process, faculty members are encouraged to continually improve their teaching through ongoing, long term collaboration with other faculty and responsiveness to student comments.

In evaluating teaching proficiency, the committee shall consult, in addition to the candidate’s report:

1.The Faculty, particularly those teaching related courses or upper division courses for which the reviewed faculty member teaches prerequisites;

2. The dean and associate dean concerning any complaints or reports they may have received from students and alumni;

3. Any earlier written reports of classroom visitations;

4. Course syllabi;

5. Students enrolled in the faculty member’s course(s);

6. Student evaluation forms; and

7. Any other evidence reflective of teaching proficiency.

c. University Service: at the College or University levels including committees, task forces, advising student organizations, etc.

d. Professional Service: participation in professional or academic meetings, conferences and workshops; advisory or drafting roles for public officials or entities, professional association participation and/or leadership roles, etc.

e. Public and Community Service: including appointive or elective office, leadership roles in community organizations, etc.

f. Awards and Honors

g. Other Evidence of Achievements

h. Committee Evaluation: Evaluation by the committee discussing a faculty member’s strengths and achievements and suggestions as to areas of improvement for the faculty member. If the committee believes there may be a teaching problem, at least two members of the committee shall visit the faculty member’s classes. The committee shall review any potential problems with the faculty member and identify how to address such problems.

i. Current vita of faculty member; copies of faculty member’s annual reports for the review period; and copies of any evaluations of classroom teaching.

3. Faculty Member’s Report

Within ten business days of receiving a copy of the committee’s Summary of the Review Period, the faculty member shall submit a report to the committee including: any corrections or additions to the committee’s report. The committee shall incorporate any additional relevant information provided by the faculty member in its Summary of the Review Period.

4. Meeting

The committee shall meet with the lecturer to discuss the report and the faculty member’s plans for the next five years. The committee should share their general assessment of the faculty member’s contributions in the areas of teaching and service and the lecturer’s five-year plan.

5. Faculty Member’s Professional Plan

Within one week after meeting with the committee, the faculty member will send the committee a final statement of his or her professional plan for the next five years. The plan should address any deficiencies in teaching or service that were raised by the committee. If the committee identified significant deficiencies in teaching, the lecturer will include in his or her five-year plan a specific course of action for addressing the identified deficiencies.

6. Committee Report to the Dean

The committee shall send to the dean its Summary of the Review Period and the lecturer’s five-year professional plan.

E. Role of Faculty Member

In addition to the lecturer’s consultative role in the review process, if the faculty member disagrees with any portion of the committee report or the dean’s review, he or she may submit a written response which will be attached to the report and made a part thereof. The lecturer is to be given ten business days to prepare the response prior to submission of the report to the dean and prior to the submission of the dean’s review and the committee report to the provost.

F. Role of the Dean

The dean will review the committee report and provide feedback to the lecturer where appropriate.

G. Impact of Review

1. The results of the review will be linked to rewards and professional development. Lecturers who are performing at a high level should receive recognition for their achievements.

2. When a lecturer’s review reflects that he or she has not met or maintained the standards of teaching and service expected of that rank of lecturer, the dean will work with the faculty member to create a formal plan for faculty development that identifies clearly defined goals and outcomes, an outline of activities to be undertaken, timetables, and an agreed-upon monitoring strategy.

Approved Nov. 13, 2014

I. INTRODUCTION

The College of Law’s ability to achieve its educational, academic and professional missions requires a committed faculty dedicated to excellence in teaching, research and service. The college regularly assesses faculty achievement in these areas through reappointment and promotion reviews. This document sets forth the criteria, standards and procedures for conducting such reviews of College of Law clinical faculty, who are non-tenure track faculty (“NTT”). The policies and procedures contained in this document must be read in conjunction with the Georgia State University Promotion Manual for Non-Tenure Track Faculty, as approved on Oct. 10, 2013, and the bylaws and policies of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.

As aptly noted in the University’s Promotion Manual, “[p]romotion decisions for NTT faculty are extremely important to the professional life of the faculty member and the institution.” This document is meant to safeguard these interests and afford NTT faculty members notice, fairness, and the opportunity and resources needed for successful promotion and ongoing professional development.

II. CATEGORIES OF NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY

The following NTT Faculty positions are eligible for promotion within the College of Law:

1. Clinical Faculty (Clinical Assistant Professor, Clinical Associate Professor, Clinical Professor)
2. Lecturer (Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Principal Senior Lecturer)
3. College of Law Library (Librarian I, Librarian II, Librarian III, Librarian IV)

The standards and procedures governing the promotion and reappointment of lecturers and College of Law Librarians are articulated in separate documents. Hereinafter, all references to NTT faculty refer exclusively to clinical faculty.

III. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF NON-TENURE-TRACK FACULTY

The following is a description of the duties and responsibilities of clinical faculty listed in the order of importance.

A. Teaching

The primary responsibility of clinical faculty is teaching, related to one or more of the following in the College of Law:

• teaching, coordinating, supervising and/or advising clinics, externships, or similar out-of-class educational opportunities for students;
• teaching courses related to professional practice or substantive law;
• supervising and teaching in a clinical or practice setting;
• teaching and/or supervising applied clinical courses;
• providing academic instruction in skills relevant to the practice of law;
• training and supervising students to help them acquire clinical skills for the profession.

B. Research

Clinical faculty also are expected to engage in some form of research that develops expertise in and advances the field of skills, clinical education or substantive areas of law. Research activities for this purpose include, although are not limited to, the following: significant participation in symposia and conferences; formal presentations; practice-focused and professionally oriented writing; engagement with academic and professional audiences; leadership roles in the profession and on professional committees; and research on pedagogy, the scholarship of teaching and learning, law practice, substantive law or clinical practice. Research may, but need not, include the publication of scholarly articles.

C. Service

Clinical faculty also are expected to engage in service activities. These activities may include, but are not limited to, the following: advising and serving the academic needs of students; serving on committees; or participating in other forms of service to the clinic/program, college and/or university. Service also includes activities related to the legal or greater community.

IV. TIMING POLICIES FOR PROMOTION

A. Promotion to Clinical Associate Professor

A clinical assistant professor is eligible to apply and be considered for promotion to clinical associate professor in the fifth year of service. A maximum of three years’ credit toward the minimum period may be allowed for service at another institution or within Georgia State University in a faculty rank. Such credit for prior service shall be defined in writing at the time of initial appointment and approved by the provost.

B. Presumptively Renewable Annual Contracts

A clinical faculty member will be considered for continued employment based on a presumptively renewable annual contract in the fifth year of full-time service, as referenced in Section V.A.2.a. A maximum of three years’ credit toward the minimum period may be allowed for service at another institution or within Georgia State University in a faculty rank. Such credit for prior service shall be defined in writing at the time of initial appointment and approved by the Provost. A clinical assistant professor should apply for promotion to clinical associate professor and the award of a presumptively renewable contract concurrently.

C. Promotion to Clinical Professor

A clinical associate professor is eligible to apply and be considered for promotion to full clinical professor in the fifth year of service in rank. An earlier application for promotion in the fourth year of service in rank requires strong justification.

V. PROMOTION STANDARDS

A. General

Each level of review for promotion entails a comprehensive assessment of a candidate’s performance, progress, and potential future performance with respect to teaching, research, and service, as appropriate to the particular job classification. Standards and expectations are applied with greater rigor at each successive rank. For newly appointed NTT faculty, teaching loads may be adjusted as needed to support both their ability to focus on their pedagogy and develop a professional agenda. Similarly, while NTT faculty are expected to engage in institutional and professional service, institutional demands, to the extent possible, should be assigned in a manner that does not undermine the development of their teaching and professional agenda.

B. Clinical Faculty

1. Promotion to Clinical Associate Professor; Presumptively Renewable Contracts

To qualify for promotion from clinical assistant professor to clinical associate professor, the faculty member must demonstrate excellence in teaching. This will include an assessment, where appropriate, of (a) the quality of teaching; and (b) the development of effective teaching and training materials. In addition, the faculty member seeking promotion must demonstrate (1) a record of high quality research; and (2) a record of high quality service at the clinic/program, law school, and university level commensurate with the candidate’s experience and a record overall that shows unmistakable promise of continued productivity. Promotion may, but need not, be based in part on scholarship and the publication of scholarly research.

These same substantive standards apply to qualify for continued employment based on a presumptively renewable contact following five years of full-time service.

2. Promotion to Clinical Professor

Attainment of clinical professor status is not simply the next step on the promotion ladder. It reflects recognition that a clinical faculty member has attained a significant level of achievement as a teacher and professionally engaged colleague. Both the quantity and quality of the record required for this review should substantially surpass that required for the rank of clinical associate professor.

Specifically, to qualify for promotion to clinical professor, the faculty member must demonstrate:

1. a sustained level of excellence and continued growth in teaching and clinic/program responsibilities, including a demonstrated record of commitment to the students and the quality of his or her pedagogy;

2. high quality research overall, focusing on the time period since the candidate’s attainment of the rank of clinical associate professor, that has achieved significant standing and recognition in the field for its high quality and its contributions to the area of study; and

3. high quality service to the clinic/program, law school, university, community and/or profession. Assessment of one’s application for promotion to Clinical Professor entails not only a judgment about a faculty member’s record to date but the ability to predict that the candidate will continue to perform at a professor level on into the future.

VI. SUPPORT, EVALUATION, AND REAPPOINTMENT OF NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY

A. Support

Upon the arrival of each newly hired NTT faculty member, the associate dean for research and faculty development will designate a member of the faculty to serve as a mentor for the new faculty member. Faculty mentors will provide support and guidance that will aid the new colleague in the development of his or her teaching, research and service, as appropriate. At the same time, faculty mentors are not meant to be the only source of communication, but to facilitate the faculty’s commitment to providing regular, constructive and candid advice.

Another source of support is provided by the associate dean for research and faculty development. This office oversees a series of programs designed for junior faculty development and enrichment. NTT faculty members are encouraged to participate in these programs.

B. Annual Evaluation and Reappointment

1. Five-Year Probationary Period

Clinical faculty shall serve a five-year probationary period during which time they will be reviewed annually by the Promotion Committee (outlined in Section VII.A.) for reappointment and contract renewal based on the applicant’s teaching, research, and service activities. This annual process requires the committee to assess the NTT faculty’s incremental and cumulative progress toward satisfying the standards for an award of a presumptively renewable annual contract after the probationary period (Section IV. B).

2. Structured Reviews for Professional Development and Planning

Clinical faculty members shall be reviewed during their third probationary year after appointment to provide them with guidance on their progress in advance of their formal five-year review. The procedure for this review shall follow the process set forth in Appendix B. At least one clinical faculty member of higher rank will be appointed as part of the review committee if possible.

Clinical faculty members who have successfully completed their five-year review shall undergo reviews thereafter every five years, unless the faculty member is promoted, in which case subsequent reviews will occur every five years after the promotion. The purpose of such a review is to examine the individual’s contributions and achievements since his or her last review and to assist the faculty member in developing professional goals for the next five years. The process to be used in years in which the candidate is not seeking promotion is attached as Appendix B. At least one clinical faculty member of the same rank or higher will be appointed as part of the review team if available. In years in which the candidate is seeking promotion, the process shall be governed by Section VIII of this document.

a. Five-Year Review and Continued Employment

In the fifth year of a clinical faculty member’s probationary period, the faculty member will undergo a formal five-year review to determine if he or she will be eligible for continued employment and an annual contract that is presumptively renewable absent cause for non-renewal on specified grounds. No clinical faculty member may be reappointed beyond the probationary period without undergoing a successful five-year review and being found eligible for the award of presumptively renewable annual contracts.

A clinical faculty member who undergoes a successful five-year review shall be offered annual contracts that may cease only because of dismissal for good cause (see BOR Policy 8.3.9) or the closing or material modification of the clinical program in accordance with ABA Standard 405.

1. Procedure and Evaluation Process

The procedure and evaluation process for the five-year review is outlined in Section VIII of this document.

2. Reappointment After the Five-Year Evaluation Period

Following a successful five-year review, a clinical faculty member will be subject to annual evaluation conducted as part of the Dean’s annual review of all faculty, and will be presumptively eligible for annual contract renewal absent cause for non-renewal on specified grounds.

3. Non-Renewal for Unsatisfactory Job Performance After the Five-Year Review Period

If, after successful completion of the five year review period, the dean seeks to dismiss or non-renew a clinical faculty member for good cause related to the faculty member’s job performance or fitness as a clinical teacher, the dean shall notify the chair of the Promotion Committee so that the committee can review the dean’s assessment. For purpose of this review, the Promotion Committee shall consist of the tenured members of the faculty and those clinical faculty who hold a presumptively renewable annual contract at the same or higher rank than the clinical faculty member, if possible. The chair of the Promotion Committee shall appoint a 3-person subcommittee consisting of the associate dean for academic affairs, one tenured professor and one clinical faculty member who holds a presumptively renewable annual contract at the same or higher rank than the clinical faculty member, if possible, to conduct a review of the clinical faculty member’s job performance and submit a written report to the Promotion Committee. Following receipt of the report, the Promotion Committee will meet to consider whether good cause has been established to terminate the clinical faculty member and whether by majority vote to recommend to the dean the renewal or non-renewal of his or her contract. The final decision on non-renewal shall rest with the dean.

b. Notification of Renewal and Dean’s Review

After receiving the committee’s recommendations, the dean will timely notify all clinical faculty on the issue of their reappointment. In addition, each spring the dean will meet with each clinical faculty member to review the faculty member’s performance and progress towards a five-year presumptively renewable contract, noting accomplishments, areas of strength, and any areas of concern. The dean will conduct these reviews based on the reappointment dossier compiled by the Promotion Committee, and the annual report document that each faculty member is required to complete each year. The review will include discussion of any significant issues evident from the record or that surfaced during the Promotion Committee’s review.

VII. THE PROMOTION PROCESS

A. Promotion Committee

In the case of applications for promotion, reappointment, or a presumptively renewable annual contract relating to clinical faculty (outlined in Section VI.B.), the committee shall consist of all tenured and tenure-track faculty members. The committee shall also consist of clinical faculty members with respect to promotion and reappointment issues concerning clinical faculty members who are of a lower rank than the voting member. If the voting member has a presumptively renewable contract, he or she is also eligible to vote on clinical faculty of the same rank who do not have this status.

B. Co-Chairs

The committee shall be headed by two faculty co-chairs elected annually by majority vote of the faculty at a regularly scheduled faculty meeting in March or April of the academic year. The term of appointment, which is renewable, shall run through the ensuing academic year. Co-chairs must be tenured full professors. They shall convene meetings of the Committee, coordinate its proceedings, and serve as its representative with regard to all required and appropriate communications. The co-chairs also will serve as co-chairs of the Faculty Review Subcommittee.

C. Faculty Review Subcommittee

The college also will have a Faculty Review Subcommittee (Subcommittee) to consider promotion and five-year presumptively renewable contracts for clinical faculty. This Subcommittee will be comprised of five members of the full Promotion and Tenure Committee as follows: (1) two members appointed by the Dean; (2) one general member elected by the faculty; and (3) the two co-chairs of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, as well as one clinical faculty member appointed by the Dean, where possible. Clinical faculty members of the same or higher rank than that to which the candidate is seeking promotion are eligible to serve on the Subcommittee. The purpose of the Subcommittee is to aid the Promotion Committee in presiding over the review process. Under the leadership of the co-chairs, the Subcommittee’s responsibilities generally entail overseeing and managing the stages of the process as set out in the timeline in Appendix A.

The Subcommittee also will review each clinical candidate’s completed dossier under the applicable standards set forth in this document, and prepare a written report and recommendation to the full Promotion Committee. This report and recommendation is advisory only and is not binding on the full committee, which is ultimately responsible for making a recommendation on each candidate to the dean.

D. General Rules Governing Promotion Committee Meetings

1. Meetings of the committee shall be preceded by five business days’ notice to all members eligible to vote on the matters raised at that meeting. When it is anticipated that a meeting will include a vote on reappointment or promotion, the co-chairs shall make every effort to schedule that meeting at a time when all faculty eligible to vote are able to attend.
2. A quorum for all purposes shall be 80% of the members eligible to vote on the particular matter. In the absence of such a quorum, the Promotion Committee may not act on that matter. Every effort shall be made to include faculty members who are on leave in reappointment and promotion decisions on which they are eligible to vote. However, any faculty member who is on leave and is unavailable to participate in any reappointment and promotion decision shall not be counted for quorum or voting purposes.
3. Voting shall be by secret ballot. In reappointment matters, a simple majority of yea and nay votes cast shall be sufficient, and in promotion matters, a two-thirds majority of yea and nay votes cast shall be sufficient to make a recommendation to the dean. In promotion matters, when the number of members present and voting is not an integer multiple of three, the number of yea and nay votes cast closest to two-thirds shall be sufficient.

VIII. PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION REVIEW

A. Notification and Calendar within the College

The formal review, recommendation and decision-making process within the College of Law will be conducted primarily during the fall semester of the academic year. The information gathering process by the co-chairs and the candidates should begin the preceding spring and should conform generally to the calendar set forth in Appendix A.

B. Contents of the Dossier

All applications for promotion will be supported by a dossier that contains a record of the candidate’s professional achievements relating to teaching, research and service to the extent appropriate to the classification in question. The contents of the dossier will include:

1. Provided by the Candidate

a. A current curriculum vita
b. A statement that summarizes accomplishments and goals in teaching, research and service. This document should include:

.1. A statement of the candidate’s pedagogical goals and methods for each class currently taught. The candidate should submit evidence relating to teaching effectiveness, which may include, where relevant, peer assessments, the development of instructional materials or new courses/programs, innovative pedagogy, technology or methods of assessment, integration of skills and values, and evidence of student accomplishments;

2. A statement about the candidate’s research, including evidence of recognition within one’s field, and the candidate’s existing record and plans going forward. If the candidate’s record includes multi-authored written articles or publications, the candidate should indicate his or her specific contributions to each article in question; and

3. A statement about the candidate’s service.

c. Reprints or other copies of written articles or publications, where applicable;

d. Any other letters, statements, documents or information the candidate deems relevant and material.

2. Prepared or Solicited by the Committee or Subcommittee

.1. A statement of the clinical faculty member’s duties, responsibilities, and work load distribution;

2. A written summary of the candidate’s student course evaluations;

3. Faculty reviews of the candidate’s teaching based on class visitations;

4. External reviews of the candidate’s research; and e. Subcommittee Report that reviews the candidate’s record and makes a recommendation to the Promotion Committee in the case of clinical faculty.

C. Evaluation of Teaching

1. General

Evaluation of a candidate’s teaching will be based primarily on: class visits and faculty review of the candidate’s classes, student evaluations, the candidate’s statement of teaching goals and methods, and any submitted materials or other submissions evidencing teaching dedication, effectiveness or innovation. This evaluation will take into account information relating to the faculty member’s teaching load, student advisement, the creation of new courses, and where possible and practicable, teaching methods that integrate, or introduce students to, skills and professional values in their doctrinal courses.

2. Class Visitation and Faculty Review

Consistent with the practice for review of tenure-track faculty, the Chair of the Promotion Committee shall assign a team of two committee members to observe the teaching of a clinical faculty member who is the subject of reappointment, promotion, or a five-year review. Where possible, at least one of these evaluators should be a clinical faculty member of a higher rank to the candidate.

This two-member team shall visit the clinic or program, and, where applicable, observe its administration generally, observe small group teaching or a small class component of the clinic/program and review teaching materials.

Prior to each class visit, the two-person team will meet with the faculty member to discuss the subject matter and goals of the upcoming class. The faculty member will furnish a copy of any material to be discussed in the class to the members of the team. After the team has made its class visits but before any final evaluation report is written, the team members will meet with the faculty member to discuss their observations and the faculty member’s response.

The co-chairs will provide a copy of the visitation report(s) to the observed faculty member within ten business days of the second visit. Within five business days of receiving a copy of the visitation report(s), the observed faculty member may request that a second team be assigned for observation and report before any action is taken on the observed faculty member’s reappointment, promotion, or presumptively renewable contract. The original visitation report shall be filed in the observed faculty member’s portfolio in the Dean’s office, a copy being retained in a duplicate file kept by the co-chairs of the Promotion Committee during the period prior to the faculty decision on the member’s candidacy for reappointment, promotion, or presumptively renewable contract.

3. Student Evaluations

The co-chairs or their designees on the subcommittee are expected to review the student evaluations of a candidate’s classes during the reappointment or promotional period and prepare a summary report of the evaluations for the candidate’s dossier. A copy of this summary will be provided to the candidate for review and comment prior to its finalization, and the candidate will have the opportunity to place a responsive statement in the file within five business days of receipt of the summary.

In addition, co-chairs or their designees on the subcommittee will collect the student evaluations of the candidate and make them available in a secure location for review by any faculty member eligible to vote on the promotion, reappointment, or presumptively renewable contract.

D. Evaluation of Research and External Reviews of Clinical Faculty

The dean will solicit peer evaluations from experts in the candidate’s field addressing the candidate’s performance and record of research as defined in Section III.B. A candidate’s dossier should be supported by no less than three external letters.

The names of the external reviewers should be drawn from lists of those recommended by the candidate and the dean (who may consult with the co-chairs and the associate deans). External reviewers should not have a close relationship with the candidate (e.g. co-author, co-worker). Accompanying each external review letter should be a brief resume or bio showing the reviewer’s accomplishments, standing in the field, and a statement of the nature of his/her relationship with the candidate.

External review letters shall be kept confidential from all persons other than those individuals involved in some aspect of the candidate’s promotion application.

E. Evaluation of Institutional and Professional Service

Evaluation of a candidate’s Institutional and Professional Service should consider: the nature and extent of the candidate’s service activities, the candidate’s engagement in an appropriate level of the faculty’s institutional responsibilities, the candidate’s capacity to assume leadership responsibilities, and the degree to which research has served to buttress the candidate’s teaching and enhance the candidate’s reputation among his peers.

To evaluate these factors, the committee will review the candidate’s own statement and solicit input from clinic/program directors (where applicable) and the chairs of faculty committees on which the candidate has served during the promotional period. The committee also may contact external constituencies associated with the candidate’s public or professional service activities and make all other inquiries as the committee deems appropriate.

IX. DELIBERATION PROCEDURES FOR THE COMMITTEE, THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND THE DEAN RELATING TO PROMOTION

A. Subcommittee Review

In cases relating to the promotion or application for an award of a presumptively renewable contract for clinical faculty members, the subcommittee will carefully review and meet to discuss the candidate’s dossier.

B. Report

Following its review and deliberations, the subcommittee will prepare a written report of its assessment and recommendation. The report should assess the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching, research and service based on the dossier and the standards contained in this Promotion Document. The purpose of the report is to aid the work of the Promotion Committee and is advisory only.

C. Timing of Report

The report must be completed and made available to the candidate no later than eight business days before the Promotion Committee meeting on the candidate. The candidate may submit a written response to the report within three business days of its receipt. The written response must be submitted to the dean.

D. Availability to Faculty

The report, the candidate’s response (if any), and the candidate’s dossier must be made available to eligible faculty at least five business days before the Promotion Committee vote on the candidate.

E. Promotion Committee Meeting on Candidates

The Promotion Committee will meet to discuss and evaluate the merits of each candidate’s application for promotion in light of the dossier and the Subcommittee’s report and recommendation. The co-chairs of the committee will preside. The committee will make recommendations to the dean on each candidate’s application.

F. Notice to Candidates

All candidates will receive notice in writing of the committees’ recommendations and a copy of any report(s) that are made of the candidate’s credentials within the time frame outlined in the calendar set forth in Appendix A. All candidates have the right to respond in writing to the committees’ recommendations within three business days. The response must be submitted to the dean. Copies of any such response will be included in the material reviewed at all higher levels.

G. Dean’s Review

Upon receiving recommendations for promotion, the dean will conduct a review of the candidate’s application based on the Promotion Committee’s recommendation and the candidate’s dossier. The dean will make an independent assessment of whether to support the recommendation. In all instances of a positive recommendation, the dean will notify the candidate and will forward the candidate’s record to the provost for the next stage of review within the time frame outlined in the calendar set forth in Appendix A. Candidates that are not recommended by the dean must receive a written decision and rationale no later than ten business days after the dean’s decision.

H. Provost’s Review

The Provost will conduct an independent review of the materials forwarded by the dean and any other related materials directly relevant to the clinical faculty member’s candidacy for promotion. The provost will make a recommendation in each case, forward the recommendations to the president, and notify the dean. Within three business days after receiving notice of the provost’s recommendation, the dean will notify the candidate of the provost’s recommendation.

Before forwarding a negative recommendation to the president, the provost will consult with the dean. In response to the query from the provost, the dean may gather additional information from the candidate and other materials directly related to the clinical faculty member’s candidacy. The dean will notify the candidate of his/her reply to the provost.

I. President’s Review

The president will conduct an independent review of the candidate’s dossier and related materials and recommendations. The decision will be communicated to the dean, who will notify the candidate within three business days after receiving notice of the president’s decision.

J. Appeals

Clinical faculty members may appeal a negative recommendation of the dean to the provost in the manner provided by the University’s Promotion Manual for Non-Tenure Track Faculty (Section VII. Appeals) within ten business days of receipt of the dean’s decision. Candidates may appeal to the president a negative recommendation by the provost or a decision by the provost rejecting the candidate’s appeal to the provost in accordance with the University’s Promotion Manual for Non-Tenure Track Faculty (Section VII. Appeals).

X. AMENDMENTS

This document may be amended at any meeting of the faculty by a majority vote of the members present, provided there is a quorum and that the proposed amendment has been presented to the faculty at least seven days in advance of the meeting at which it is to be voted upon. All substantive changes must be reviewed and approved by the Provost

Appendix A

Calendar for Promotion Review within the college

The timeline identified below is intended as a general guide only. The specific dates for promotion in any given year will be governed by the schedule issued by the Office of the Provost.

March-April: Associate dean for research and faculty development holds meeting regarding promotion policies for all interested faculty members. Co-chairs of the Promotion Committee notify faculty members who are eligible to apply for promotion in the following academic year and seek confirmation of whether they intend to move forward with their application.

April: Candidates intending to apply for promotion in the upcoming academic year notify the co-chairs of their plans to do so.

April/May: Co-chairs meet with each of these faculty candidates to review the evaluation process and the materials that must be included in a candidate dossier. Co-chairs will solicit names of potential external reviewers from each candidate.

May: Co-chairs will provide to the dean a list of the names of all external reviewers who will be asked to provide evaluations of the candidate.

May/June: External reviewers will be solicited and confirmed by co-chairs. Reviewers will be asked to submit their written evaluations no later than Sept. 15.

Early September: All external and internal reviews should be completed in in the dossier.

Early September: Candidates’ written statements in support of their application for promotion are due.

Second Week in September: Candidate dossiers should be completed and made available to the Subcommittee.

Second Week in September – Second Week in October: The subcommittee should review the clinical candidate’s application and formulate its recommendation and written report.

Third week in October: The Subcommittee will provide clinical candidates with copies of its report within three business days. Candidates will have three business days to submit a written response.

Late October/early November: Completed candidate dossiers made available to full Promotion Committee.

November: Full Promotion Committee meeting to discuss and vote on the candidates for promotion and reappointment. Candidates notified of committee recommendations within three business days. Candidates will have three business days to submit a written response.

March: Dean completes written review of each candidate’s application and notifies the candidates. The dean will forward all recommendations to the provost for further review in accordance with timeline issued by her office.

 

APPENDIX B

I. Procedures for Structured Reviews of Clinical Faculty during the Probationary Period

A. Time of Review:

Each clinical faculty member will be reviewed in the spring semester of the faculty member’s third academic year at the College of Law. This review will coincide with the annual spring reappointment process. In the case of persons with prior teaching credit at other institutions, the structured review will occur in the spring semester one full year prior to the first year in which they would first be eligible to seek promotion. A clinical faculty member hired with three years of probationary credit may waive this review with written approval of the dean.

B. Reviewing Committee:

The Clinical Reviewing Committee shall be comprised of the chairs of the Promotion Committee and two clinical faculty members (where possible) at the clinical associate professor or clinical professor levels.

C. Purpose of Review

The review will provide each clinical faculty member with a clear idea of how adequately he or she is progressing toward successfully achieving promotion and an award of a presumptively renewable annual contract. The review should identify strengths and accomplishments and pinpoint areas in need of improvement.

D. Scope of Review

The Clinical Reviewing Committee will review the annual reports submitted by the faculty member to the dean for the years in question and report on the faculty member’s progress in the areas of teaching, research, and service. The committee will also review both the student evaluations and the annual faculty teaching evaluations of the clinical faculty candidate. No additional class visitation will be necessary for the structured review. The committee will also consider internal faculty evaluations of the candidate’s research as assigned by the Clinical Reviewing Committee, as well as any external letters that are available; provided that no external evaluation shall be required. The committee will also interview the faculty member in order to gain information as to the faculty member’s achievements and goals.

E. Report of the Committee

The reports generated for all clinical faculty members under review from year to year will be uniform and in substantially the format which follows. The Clinical Reviewing Committee is to compile the report after the discussion at the Promotion Committee meeting. The report will be based on the review of annual reports (copies of which should be appended to the Clinical Reviewing Committee Report), faculty teaching evaluations, research reviews, the Promotion Committee discussion and the interview with the clinical faculty member. The clinical faculty member will be given a copy of the draft report and be given the opportunity to suggest additions or corrections to the report. However, the content of the final report remains within the sole discretion of the Clinical Reviewing Committee.

The form of the report shall be as follows:

1. Overview of the Review Period

Listing of the faculty member’s activities for each semester (including summer semesters) during the period, limited to: full-time teaching at GSU College of Law; full-time teaching at another institution; research leaves (including whether paid or unpaid); reduced or expanded teaching loads; summer grants and summer teaching.

2. Evaluations of Teaching

1. Listing of courses taught by the faculty member in the College of Law for the review period, including the approximate number of students enrolled in each course and any independent study courses 2. supervised by the faculty member.
3. Brief description of any courses that were redesigned or developed by the faculty during the review period.
4. Brief description of teaching at any other institution or any other college within the university.
5. Listing of any teaching awards or other recognition for teaching.
6. Student course evaluations.
7. Other evidence of teaching effectiveness.

3. Research

A list of significant participation in symposia and conferences; formal presentations; practice-focused and professionally oriented writing; engagement with academic and professional audiences; leadership roles in the profession and on professional committees; and research on pedagogy, the scholarship of teaching and learning, law practice, substantive law or clinical practice, and/or other forms of research.

4. University Service

At the college or university levels including committees, task forces, advising student organizations, etc.

5. Professional Service

Participation in professional or academic meetings, conferences and workshops; advisory or drafting roles for public officials or entities, professional association participation and/or leadership roles, etc.

6. Public and Community Service

Including appointed or elective office, leadership roles in community organizations, etc.

7. Grants and/or Fellowships Awarded

8. Awards and Honors

9. Other Evidence of Achievements

10. Clinical Reviewing Committee Evaluation

The evaluation should discuss the clinical faculty member’s progress toward promotion or an award of a presumptively renewable annual contract, including strengths and achievements and suggestions as to areas of improvement for the faculty member. The suggestions for improvement should identify areas in which a clinical faculty member can improve performance in pursuit of promotion or an award of a presumptively renewable contract and reach their full potential as a faculty member of the University.

11. Current vita of clinical faculty member

Copies of faculty member’s annual reports for the review period; and copies of evaluations of classroom teaching based on annual class visitations that are conducted by other faculty members for the annual reappointment process.

F. Faculty Discussion of Report

Following the Clinical Reviewing Committee’s completion of the third year evaluation, the committee shall make it available for review and discussion by the tenured faculty and clinical faculty members of a rank higher than the clinical faculty candidate. This review and discussion shall take place at the spring Promotion Committee meeting in the year of the review after a vote on renewal of the candidate’s teaching contract.

G. Role of Faculty Member

In addition to the clinical faculty member’s consultative role in the review process, if the faculty member disagrees with any portion of the committee report or the dean’s review, he or she may submit a written response which will be attached to the report and made a part thereof. The faculty member is to be given fifteen business days to prepare the response prior to submission of the report to the dean and prior to the submission of the dean’s review.

H. Role of the Dean

The dean is to provide promptly a written review of the Clinical Reviewing Committee report, copies of which are to be submitted to the committee and the clinical faculty member.

II. Guidelines for Structured Review of Clinical Faculty with a Presumptively Renewable Annual Contract.

A. Time of Review

Each clinical member of the faculty will be reviewed in the spring semester of the fifth anniversary of the academic year in which the faculty member’s most recent promotion or award of a presumptively renewable contract became effective. Subsequent reviews will occur on every fifth anniversary of the first review unless interrupted by a further review for promotion or leave of absence.

B. Reviewing Committee

The review will be conducted by committee of three full professors. Two full professors will be elected by the full Promotion Committee each spring to serve on the review committee for all five-year structured reviews scheduled for the upcoming academic year. The third member of each reviewing committee will be appointed by the individual faculty member who is being reviewed. No faculty member who has been the subject of a five-year structured review within the previous two years shall serve on a committee to conduct a review of any member of the committee which reviewed such faculty member.

C. Purposes

There are two purposes to the five-year review of clinical faculty: first, to assess and summarize the faculty member’s contributions and achievements since his or her last review; and second, to assist the faculty member in creating a statement of professional goals for the next five years. The review is intended to assist faculty members with identifying opportunities that will enable them to reach their full potential for contribution to the university and college of Law.

D. Review Process

The review period will cover the years since the faculty member’s last review or, in case of initial reviews, the years since the last promotion decision regarding the faculty member. There are six stages to the review:

1. Summary of Review Period: The faculty member will prepare a report listing:

1. Teaching:

a. semester by semester, the courses taught by the faculty member during the review period, including courses taught at other institutions;

b. Listing of courses taught by the faculty member in the College of Law for the review period, including the approximate number of students enrolled in each course and any independent study courses supervised by the faculty member.

c. Brief description of any courses that were redesigned or developed by the faculty during the review period.

d. Brief description of teaching at any other institution or any other college within the university.

e. Listing of any teaching awards or other recognition for teaching.

f. Student course evaluations;

g. Other evidence of teaching effectiveness and/or growth in the classroom.

2. any paid or unpaid leaves of absence for research or other purposes;
3.  research activities completed by the faculty member or in progress during the review period;
4.  committee and other administrative assignments in the College of Law and service at the University or professional level;
5.  any awards or grants, including summer research grants, received;
6.  a summary of the faculty member’s contributions to professional organizations and public service;
7.  a draft of the faculty member’s professional plans for the next five years; and
8.  any other information the faculty member deems relevant to the review period.

2. Report of the Committee

Using the clinical faculty member’s report as well as other sources of information, the committee will compile its own report. The form of the report shall be as follows:

a. Overview of the Review Period: Listing of the faculty member’s activities for each semester (including summer semesters) during the period, limited to: full-time teaching at GSU College of Law; full-time teaching at another institution; research leaves (including whether paid or unpaid); reduced or expanded teaching loads; summer grants and summer teaching.

b. Evaluation of Teaching: The College of Law is dedicated to maintaining the highest levels of classroom performance and teaching standards. Apart from any review process, faculty members are encouraged to continually improve their teaching through ongoing, long term collaboration with other faculty and responsiveness to student comments.

In evaluating teaching proficiency, the committee shall consult, in addition to the candidate’s report:

1. The faculty, particularly those teaching related courses or upper division courses for which the reviewed faculty member teaches prerequisites;

2. The dean and associate dean concerning any complaints or reports they may have received from students and alumni;

3. Any earlier written reports of classroom visitations;

4. Course syllabi;

5. Students enrolled in the faculty member’s course(s);

6. Student evaluation forms; and

7. Any other evidence reflective of teaching proficiency.

c. Research: A list of significant participation in symposia and conferences; formal presentations; practice-focused and professionally oriented writing; interactive engagement with academic and professional audiences; leadership roles in the profession and on professional committees; research on pedagogy, the scholarship of teaching and learning, law practice, substantive law or clinical practice; and any other relevant activities.

d. University Service: at the college or university levels including committees, task forces, advising student organizations, etc.

e. Professional Service: participation in professional or academic meetings, conferences and workshops; advisory or drafting roles for public officials or entities, professional association participation and/or leadership roles, etc.

f. Public and Community Service: including appointive or elective office, leadership roles in community organizations, etc.

g. Grants and/or Fellowships Awarded

h. Awards and Honors

i. Other Evidence of Achievements

j. Committee Evaluation: Evaluation by the committee discussing a faculty member’s strengths and achievements and suggestions as to areas of improvement for the faculty member.

If the committee believes there may be a teaching problem, at least two members of the committee shall visit the faculty member’s classes. The committee shall review any potential problems with the faculty member and identify how to address such problems.

k. Current vita of faculty member; copies of faculty member’s annual reports for the review period; and copies of any evaluations of classroom teaching.

3. Faculty Member’s Report

Within ten business days of receiving a copy of the committee’s Summary of the Review Period, the faculty member shall submit a report to the committee including: any corrections or additions to the committee’s report. The committee shall incorporate any additional relevant information provided by the clinical faculty member in its Summary of the Review Period.

4. Meeting

The committee shall meet with the clinical faculty member to discuss the report and the faculty member’s plans for the next five years. The committee should share their general assessment of the clinical faculty member’s contributions in the areas of teaching, research, and service and the clinical faculty member’s five-year plan.

5. Faculty Member’s Professional Plan

Within one week after meeting with the committee, the clinical faculty member will send the committee a final statement of his or her professional plan for the next five years. The statement should cover current projects and responsibilities and whether the faculty member plans to continue them, as well as new projects and specific research, teaching, and service goals for the next five years. The clinical faculty member’s plan also should address any deficiencies in research, teaching, or service that were raised by the Committee. If the committee identified significant deficiencies in teaching, the clinical faculty member will include in his or her five-year plan a specific course of action for addressing the identified deficiencies.

6. Committee Report to the Dean

The committee shall send to the dean its Summary of the Review Period and the clinical faculty member’s five-year professional plan.

For each clinical faculty member, the committee shall prepare a written review summarizing the strengths and accomplishments or weaknesses and plans for improvement in teaching, scholarship and service. The committee may incorporate relevant sections of the Summary of Review Period and the clinical faculty member’s professional plan where relevant to its summary.

E. Role of the Dean

The dean is to provide promptly a written review of the committee report, copies of which are to be submitted to the committee and the faculty member.

F. Role of Faculty Member

In addition to the clinical faculty member’s consultative role in the review process, if the faculty member disagrees with any portion of the committee report or the dean’s review, he or she may submit a written response which will be attached to the report and made a part thereof. The clinical faculty member is to be given ten business days to prepare the response prior to submission of the report to the dean and prior to the submission of the dean’s review and the committee report to the provost.

G. Impact of Review

1. The results of the review will be linked to rewards and professional development. Clinical faculty members who are performing at a high level should receive recognition for their achievements. This may include merit pay increases, and study and research leave opportunities.

2. When a clinical faculty member’s review reflects that he or she has not met or maintained the standards of teaching, research, and service expected of that rank of professor, the dean will work with the clinical faculty member to create a formal plan for faculty development that identifies clearly defined goals and outcomes, an outline of activities to be undertaken, timetables, and an agreed-upon monitoring strategy.

Approved September 12, 2019

I. INTRODUCTION

The College of Law’s ability to achieve its educational, academic, and professional missions requires a committed faculty dedicated to excellence in teaching, research, and service. The College regularly assesses faculty achievement in these areas through reappointment and promotion reviews. This document sets forth the criteria, standards, and procedures for conducting such reviews of College of Law librarians, who are non-tenure track faculty (“NTT”). The policies and procedures contained in this document must be read in conjunction with the Georgia State University Promotion Manual for Non-Tenure Track Faculty, as approved on April 19, 2018, and the bylaws and policies of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.

As aptly noted in the University’s Promotion Manual, “[p]romotion decisions for NTT faculty are extremely important to the professional life of the faculty member and the institution.” This document is meant to safeguard these interests and afford law librarians with notice, fairness, and the opportunity and resources needed for successful promotion and ongoing professional development.

 

II. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF COLLEGE OF LAW LIBRARIANS

A. In General

The primary mission of the Law Library is to provide faculty, students, and staff of the College of Law with the information resources and services that are necessary to support effective legal instruction and research. Additionally, law librarians instruct students in information-seeking skills for their academic success and for use in their legal career. They also provide resources and services to the larger legal community of Atlanta.

The Law Library fulfills its mission by pursuing the following objectives: (i) selecting, maintaining, and providing access to materials that are best suited for faculty and student instructional and research needs; (ii) providing high-quality research assistance and (iii) instructing students, faculty, and other library users in methods for evaluating and using library resources. College of Law students must have excellent legal research skills as they enter the job market. Thus, the library has an educational mission and is where the law student learns to use the tools of the profession.

B. Specific Duties and Responsibilities

1. Teaching

The primary responsibility of College of Law Library NTT faculty is teaching, defined broadly to encompass professional librarianship as well as teaching as traditionally defined, where applicable. Professional librarianship includes professional library service for students, faculty, and staff in support of the College of Law’s educational and research mission, as well as library service for members of the public, including members of the Georgia Bar, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of Georgia.

Professional librarianship includes a variety of activities listed in the American Association of Law Libraries Competencies of Law Librarianship.[1] These competencies may include core competencies, applicable to all librarians, and specialized competencies related to individual librarian job duties. Examples include, but are not limited to, providing research assistance to library users, evaluating materials for possible acquisition or weeding, teaching, and the organization and delivery of information within its technological context.

[1] American Association of Law Libraries, Competencies of Law Librarianship

2. Service

Librarians at the College of Law also are expected to perform internal and external service. Specific areas of internal library service may include:  Serving on Law Library, College of Law, or University committees; participating in the life of the law school; serving as an advisor or mentor; presentations for, or tours of, College of Law or University affiliates. Specific areas of external library service may include: guest lecturing; serving on committees, task forces, or boards of library associations or related groups; mentoring other librarians, either informally or formally; and supervising interns.

3. Research

Law librarians are not required to engage in research or scholarship activities, although such efforts are welcome and encouraged. Law librarians are expected to be familiar with current trends and methods in the discipline. Research or scholarship may include:  Publication of articles, book reviews, bibliographies, etc., in print or electronic format; creating Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction lessons; serving on an editorial board; serving on an advisory committee/board; seeking additional training or education, including continuing education courses or trainings as well as seeking an additional, relevant degree.

 

III. QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT

Librarians at Georgia State University College of Law Library must hold a Master’s degree in librarianship granted by a program accredited by the American Library Association. The degree in librarianship constitutes the librarian’s fundamental professional and academic credentials.

A. Qualifications for Appointment in Specific Ranks

1. Law Librarian Instructor requires completion of professional training, marked by the Master’s degree in Librarianship from a library school program accredited by the American Library Association or the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, and recommendations from references.

2. Law Librarian Assistant Professor requires a record of successful performance and evidence of ability to sustain a broad range of professional responsibility and activity. However, a librarian who has special competence required for the position under consideration, but who lacks previous experience at the professional level, may be appointed to the rank of Law Librarian Assistant Professor.

3. Law Librarian Associate Professor requires a record of substantial accomplishment, both in the librarian’s specific area of professional responsibility and in contributions to the profession.

4. Law Librarian Professor requires a record of outstanding accomplishment, both in job-related performance and in contributions to the profession.

 

IV. SUPPORT, EVALUATION, AND REAPPOINTMENT

A. In General

Upon the arrival of each newly-hired law librarian, the Associate Dean for Library & Information Services (hereinafter Associate Dean) will designate a law librarian to serve as a mentor for the new law librarian. Mentors will provide support and guidance that will aid the new colleague in his or her professional development. At the same time, mentors are not meant to be the only source of communication, but to facilitate the faculty’s commitment to providing regular, constructive, and candid advice.

This document will be presented to each new law librarian soon after employment begins. During the new law librarian’s orientation session with the Associate Dean, the Promotion and Reappointment Manual will be distributed and discussed. In addition, the Associate Dean will be responsible for reviewing the promotion process with the librarian and discussing opportunities and means to progress toward fulfilling the requirements.

Another source of support is provided by the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development. This office oversees a series of programs designed for junior faculty development and enrichment. Law librarians are encouraged to participate in these programs.

B. Evaluation and Reappointment

1. Annual Review

Librarians are evaluated on an annual basis for their performance and accomplishments in the three areas of teaching, service, and research (as defined in §II.B. above). Librarians will also be evaluated according to the schedule in §IV.B.2 for the entirety of their work toward promotion.

2. Structured Reviews for Professional Development and Planning

Law Librarians shall receive a structured review during their second year of employment to provide them with guidance on their progress toward promotion and to identify opportunities that will enable them to reach their full potential in terms of their contribution to the University. If a Law Librarian Instructor chooses to apply for promotion during the second year of employment, the structured review is also the review for promotion to Law Librarian Assistant Professor. Law Librarians shall undergo a similar review every five years thereafter, unless a law librarian requests a review earlier. If a law librarian is promoted, subsequent reviews will occur every five years after the promotion. The purpose of these reviews is to examine the individual’s contributions and achievements since his or her last review and to assist the law librarian in developing professional goals for the next five years.

Procedures for the structured review are in Appendix B of this document.

 

V. TIMING POLICIES FOR PROMOTION

A. In General

A maximum of three years’ credit toward the minimum periods identified below may be allowed for service at another institution or within Georgia State University. Such credit for prior service shall be defined in writing at the time of the initial appointment and approved by the Provost.

B. Promotion from Law Librarian Instructor to Law Librarian Assistant Professor

A candidate is eligible to apply and be considered for promotion to Law Librarian Assistant Professor beginning in the second year of service and no later than the fifth year of service. If promotion is not received after five years of service, a terminal appointment of one year will be granted.

C. Promotion from Law Librarian Assistant Professor to Law Librarian Associate Professor / Law Librarian Associate Professor to Law Librarian Professor

For promotion to all other ranks, candidates must wait a minimum of 4 years between applications for promotions at Georgia State University, other than from Law Librarian Instructor to Law Librarian Assistant Professor.

 

VI. PROMOTION STANDARDS

A. In General

Promotion recommendations of law librarians shall be based on demonstrated excellence in teaching and high quality institutional and professional service (as defined in §II.B. above). It is necessary to meet the standards in both of the areas. Promotion decisions entail not only an evaluation of a candidate’s existing contributions and accomplishments, but a predictive assessment of the candidate’s commitment to continued excellence and productivity in these areas. More rigorous standards and expectations are applied at successive promotion levels.

If a law librarian serves an additional role in the law school, such as IT Director, activities in that professional area, for example law school technology, which parallel the activities in law librarianship required for promotion will be considered as part of the promotion process.

Each year, the Associate Dean will convene a meeting to explain promotion policies and answer questions about any and all phases of the promotion process. This meeting shall be open to all interested Law Library faculty members.

B. Standards for Evaluation

1. Promotion from Law Librarian Instructor to Law Librarian Assistant Professor

To qualify for promotion from Law Librarian Instructor to Law Librarian Assistant Professor, the law librarian must demonstrate excellence in teaching (as defined in §II.B.1. above) as well as high quality internal service (as defined in §II.B.2. above) and high quality research, if performed (as defined in §II.B.3. above). The committee may look to AALL competencies for guidance.

Examples of activities that may be used to qualify for promotion to Law Librarian Assistant Professor include:

• Teaching as a guest lecturer in College of Law or University courses; creating, selecting, and managing catalog records according to national standards and accepted practices; or providing skilled and customized reference services
• Serving as a member of a Law Library committee, a College of Law Committee, or a University committee
• Attending internal or local meetings, trainings, or other continuing education opportunities

2. Promotion from Law Librarian Assistant Professor to Law Librarian Associate Professor

To qualify for promotion from Law Librarian Assistant Professor to Law Librarian Associate Professor, the law librarian must demonstrate excellence in teaching (as defined in §II.B.1. above), high quality internal and external service (as defined in §II.B.2. above), high quality research, if performed (as defined in §II.B.3. above). The committee may look to AALL competencies for guidance.

Examples of activities that may be used to qualify for promotion to Law Librarian Associate Professor include:

• Teaching as a guest lecturer or course instructor in College of Law or University courses; creating, selecting, and managing catalog records according to national standards and accepted practices; or providing skilled and customized reference services
• Serving as a member or leader of a committee in the Law Library, College of Law, or University, as well as in a professional association or organization
• Attending or presenting as a speaker at a local or regional professional meeting, webinar, or conferences; publishing book reviews or short articles in professional magazines or newsletters

3. Promotion from Law Librarian Associate Professor to Law Librarian Professor

Attainment of Law Librarian Professor status is not simply the next step on the promotion ladder. It reflects recognition that a law librarian has attained a national reputation for achievement and standing in the profession as a teacher, librarian, and professionally-engaged colleague. Both the quantity and quality of the record required for this review should substantially surpass that required for the rank of Law Librarian Associate Professor.

To qualify for promotion from Law Librarian Associate Professor to Law Librarian Professpr, the law librarian must demonstrate teaching (as defined in §II.B.1. above) which has a sustained level of competence and effectiveness that is evaluated as excellent with continued growth in the time period since the last promotion; high quality service (as defined in §II.B.2. above) to the department, college and/or university , and/or to the professional and practice community; and high quality research (as defined in §II.B.3. above), if performed. The committee may look to AALL competencies for guidance.

Examples of activities that may be used to qualify for promotion to Law Librarian Professor include:

• Teaching courses in the College of Law or University, including proposing or planning new courses; creating, selecting, and managing catalog records according to national standards and accepted practices; or providing skilled and customized reference service
• Serving as a member or leader of a committee in the Law Library, College of Law, or University, as well as in a professional association or organization; this may also be demonstrated through librarian-mentorship activities including recruitment to the profession and supervision of library interns; service on an editorial or advisory board
• Producing scholarly publications such as articles in professional journals, whether or not peer-reviewed, authoring CALI lessons, book chapters, bibliographies, and serving as an editor for a newsletter or other publication; presenting as a speaker at a national meeting, webinar, or conference; taking workshops or courses in professional development

 

VII. COMMITTEE ON PROMOTION

A. Function

The Committee on Promotion will review the professional competence and contributions of the law librarian being considered for promotion. The Committee is responsible for recommending action regarding promotion to the Associate Dean.

B. Composition and Eligibility

The Committee, appointed by the Associate Dean, will be composed of four members: a College of Law Associate Dean   (other than the Associate Dean for Library & Information Services), a non-library tenure track or non-tenure track College of Law faculty member, and two law librarians holding rank at or above the current rank of the librarian being considered for promotion. The Associate Dean will serve ex-officio. If there are not enough librarians holding rank at or above the current rank of the librarian being considered, then the Associate Dean in consultation with the Dean of the College of Law will appoint law librarian faculty members to round out the Committee. If there are not enough qualified law librarian faculty to round out the committee then committee members will be selected from the College of Law tenure track or non-tenure track faculty. Only persons who have been employed at Georgia State University Law Library at least one full year will be eligible to serve on the Committee. Persons serving on the Committee may not be considered for promotion during their tenure on the Committee. The Committee will be formed only during a fiscal year in which a law librarian will go up for promotion.

 

VIII. PROCEDURES RELATING TO PROMOTION

A. Process

1. Provision of Notice

In the spring of each academic year (see calendar in Appendix A), law librarians who wish to be considered for promotion will give the Associate Dean a letter requesting consideration for promotion. After the Associate Dean appoints the Committee on Promotion, the letters are sent to the chair of the Committee.

2. Documentation

Documentation demonstrating a candidate’s readiness for promotion may come from any relevant source. All documentation of a candidate’s readiness for promotion should be organized into a dossier. A typical dossier includes the following components:

a.  A letter of application that explains why the candidate believes that he/she is qualified for promotion;

b.  A curriculum vitae;

c.  Letters of recommendation, if applicable;

d.  The candidate’s current job description and all evaluations from the promotion period under consideration, including College of Law or University teaching evaluations if applicable;

e.  Highlights of the candidate’s professional experience;

f.  A review of the candidate’s teaching (as defined in §II.B.1. above) including job-related products produced such as original cataloging records, finding aids, instructional handouts, bibliographies, brochures, electronic products such as web pages and computer programs, policies drafted, etc.;

g.  A review of the candidate’s service to the Law Library, University, and the profession (as defined in §II.B.2. above) including committee activities, internal or external professional service, workshops or training presented, external evaluations from workshops or trainings, etc.;

h.  A review of the candidate’s contribution to research (as defined in §II.B.3. above), if performed, including continuing education courses, professional organization affiliations, contributions to research, and other creative activities.

Descriptions of items listed in §f-h above should include the charge of the committee, the goal of the workshop, the audience or potential impact of the publication, the candidate’s role in the committee, or how the activity is relevant to the Library, University, or the profession.

If the candidate desires, the following may be included:

i.  Letters of appreciation;

j.  Examples of work product.

Candidates may wish to consult with their supervisor and colleagues on the preparation of their dossier. Dossiers are returned to the candidate after the promotion process is completed.

3. References

Letters of recommendation are required for some promotions and optional for others, as outlined below. Letters of recommendation are part of the dossier, and it is the responsibility of the candidate to seek letters of recommendation and include them in the dossier. The letters of recommendation should address the candidate’s teaching, service, and research, (as defined in §II.B. above) to the degree possible. Potential references to request letters of recommendation from include: co-presenters, co-authors, committee chairs, executive board members, past supervisors, librarians with similar job responsibilities, or other such colleagues.

a.  Promotion to Law Librarian Assistant Professor

Letters of recommendation are not required at this level.

b.  Promotion to Law Librarian Associate Professor

A minimum of three external letters of recommendation are required. Promotion candidates should solicit letters from recommenders directly and letters should be sent to the candidate. Letter writers must state the nature of their relationship with the candidate. The candidate is responsible for including copies of the letters in the dossier.

c.  Promotion to Law Librarian Professor

A minimum of five external letters of recommendation are required. The letters must be submitted with the dossier. Promotion candidates should solicit letters from recommenders directly and letters should be sent to the candidate. Letter writers must state the nature of their relationship with the candidate. The candidate is responsible for including copies of the letters in the dossier.

4. Evaluation of Teaching

Teaching (as defined in §II.B.1. above) includes instruction in small groups in library sponsored programs, class visits as guest lecturer, and other similar tasks. The following may be considered in evaluating a candidate’s teaching in the promotion period:

• Sample work product, such as original cataloging, research guides, instructional handouts and bibliographies, brochures, electronic products such as web pages and computer programs, or other pertinent evidence of job performance
• Candidate’s statement of teaching goals and methods, student evaluations of teaching, or any evidence of teaching dedication, effectiveness, or innovation
• Supporting documents, such as syllabi, assignments, or workshop or program handouts
• Student advisement, teaching load, or creation of new courses
• Documentation of instruction, such as handouts, syllabi, or presentation materials

5. Evaluation of Service

Evaluation of a candidate’s service (as defined in §II.B.2. above) should consider both internal and external service, with an expectation that a librarian performs an increasing level of external service as progressing through the ranks. Factors include: the nature and extent of the service activities, the candidate’s engagement in an appropriate level of institutional responsibility, and the candidate’s capacity to assume leadership responsibilities.

To evaluate these factors, the committee will review the candidate’s own statement; record of service including committee activities, workshops presented, publications, etc.; input from the Associate Dean; any letters of recommendation included in the dossier; and input from chairs of Law Library, College of Law, or University committees on which the candidate has served during the promotional period.

6. Evaluation of Research

Evaluation of a candidate’s research (as defined in §II.B.3. above) should consider the candidate’s demonstrated commitment to professional and continuing education activities. Further, as a librarian progresses through the ranks, there is a heightened expectation that a librarian engage in scholarship activities that produce print or electronic publications such as books, book chapters, journal/magazine/newsletter articles, book reviews, bibliographies, blogs, CALI lessons, or born-digital publications.

When evaluating these contributions, the committee will consider the candidate’s chronological description of contributions to research and other creative activities, the candidate’s chronological description of professional activities including continuing education courses, citation frequency reports, input from the Associate Dean, and any letters of recommendation included in the dossier.

 

B. Decision

The Committee on Promotion, in strict confidence, will review all documentation, vote on all candidates, and forward written recommendations with supporting evidence to the Associate Dean. Voting will be by written ballot, and decisions will be determined by majority vote. In the case of a tie, each side will forward a written recommendation, with supporting evidence, to the Associate Dean. After the promotion procedures are completed, the chair will destroy all ballots. If a Committee member resigns or becomes unable to serve for the entire year, the Associate Dean will appoint a replacement.

It will forward in writing its recommendations, the vote of the Committee, and a paragraph of justification for each candidate to the Associate Dean. The candidate will receive a copy of the paragraph of justification outlining the Committee’s decision. Candidates have three business days from receipt of the recommendation in which to submit a written response to the Associate Dean.

The Associate Dean will review the documentation and notify the candidate in writing of his/her decision. The candidate will have three business days to submit a written response. The Associate Dean will also inform the Committee on Promotion of his/her recommendation regarding each candidate. The Associate Dean will forward the candidate’s file to the Dean of the College of Law for review.

 

C. Dean’s Review

Upon receiving a recommendation from the Associate Dean, the Dean will conduct a review of the candidate’s application and make an independent assessment of whether to support the recommendation. The Dean will forward the candidate’s record to the Provost for the next stage of review for all positive recommendations.

Candidates must receive a written decision and rationale no later than ten business days after the Dean’s decision.

 

D. Appeals

Candidates may appeal a negative recommendation of the Dean to the Provost in the manner provided by the University’s Promotion Manual for Non-Tenure Track Faculty (Section VII. Appeals) within ten business days of receipt of the Dean’s decision.

Candidates may appeal to the president a negative recommendation by the Provost or a decision by the Provost rejecting the candidate’s appeal to the Provost in accordance with the University’s Promotion Manual for Non-Tenure Track Faculty (Section VII. Appeals).

 

IX. REVISIONS TO THIS DOCUMENT

Any GSU College of Law librarian can suggest changes to this document. Any revisions must be approved by at least two thirds of the law librarians and be consistent with the University’s Promotion Manual for Non-Tenure Track Faculty and Board of Regent’s policies. Substantive changes also must be reviewed and approved by the Dean of the College of Law and the Provost.

Appendix A

Calendar for Promotion Review Within the College

The timeline identified below is intended as a general guide only. The specific dates for promotion in any given year will be governed by the schedule issued by the Office of the Provost.

March-April:  Associate Dean holds meeting regarding promotion policies for all interested library faculty members.

April:  Candidates intending to apply for promotion in the upcoming academic year notify the Associate Dean of their plans to do so.

Early October:  Candidates’ written statements, dossier, and references (if applicable) in support of their application for promotion are due. Committee for Promotion is appointed.

Late October/early November:  Promotion Committee meeting to discuss and vote on the candidates for promotion. Candidates and Associate Dean notified of Committee recommendations within three business days. Candidates will have three business days to submit a written response.

Late November/early December:  Candidate notified of the Associate Dean’s recommendation. Candidate will have three business days from the date of notification to submit a written response.

March: Dean completes written review of each candidate’s application, notifies the candidates, and forwards all recommendations to the Provost for further review.

 

Appendix B

Procedures for Structured Review

I. Time of Review

Each law librarian will be reviewed in the Fall Semester of the law librarian’s second full academic year at the College of Law. Law librarians will also be reviewed every five years following a promotion and every five years thereafter, or earlier at the librarian’s request.

II. Reviewing Committee

The review will be conducted by a Committee, appointed by the Associate Dean, which will be composed of four members: an Associate Dean or College of Law Administrator (other than the Associate Dean for Library & Information Services), a non-library tenure track or non-tenure track College of Law faculty member, and two law librarians holding rank at or above the current rank of the librarian undergoing the structured review. The Associate Dean will serve ex-officio. If there are not enough librarians holding rank at or above the current rank of the librarian being considered, then the Associate Dean in consultation with the Dean of the College of Law will appoint law librarian faculty members to round out the Committee. If there are not enough qualified law librarian faculty to round out the committee then committee members will be selected from the College of Law tenure track or non-tenure track faculty.

III. Purpose of Review

The review will provide each law librarian with a clear idea of how adequately he or she is progressing toward successfully achieving promotion. The review should identify strengths and accomplishments and pinpoint areas in need of improvement in which law librarians may provide assistance to colleagues.

IV. Scope of Review

The Committee will review the annual reports submitted by the law librarian to the Dean for the years in question and report on the law librarian’s progress in the areas of teaching, service, and research (as defined in §II.B. above). The Committee will conduct its evaluation in accordance with the guidance in §VIII.B.4-6. The Committee will also interview the Associate Dean to gain information as to the law librarian’s progress and the law librarian to gain information as to the law librarian’s achievements and goals.

V. Report of the Committee

The reports generated for all law librarians under review from year to year will be uniform and in substantially the format which follows. The report will be based on the review of annual reports (copies of which should be appended to the Committee Report), the interviews with the law librarian and Associate Dean, and the factors considered pursuant to VIII.B.4-6. The law librarian will be given a copy of the draft report and be given the opportunity to suggest additions or corrections to the report. However, the content of the final report remains within the sole discretion of the Committee. Copies of the Associate Dean’s review and of any reports from the Committee will be included in the law librarian’s personnel file in the library.

The form of the report shall be as follows:

1. Summary Recommendation of Committee: Taking into account the subsequent components, the Summary Recommendation shall include advice for the law librarian about what further preparation, if any, should be made for the law librarian to be ready to apply for promotion.
2. Evaluation of Teaching (as defined in §II.B.1 above): The evaluation should follow the guidance set forth in VIII.B.4.
3. Evaluation of Service (as defined in §II.B.2. above): The evaluation should follow the guidance set forth in VIII.B.5 above.
4. Evaluation of Research (as defined in §II.B.3 above): The evaluation should follow the guidance set forth in §VIII.B.6 above.
5. Detailed Recommendation of Committee: Evaluation by the Committee, reflecting its discussion of the candidate’s progress toward promotion, including strengths and achievements and suggestions as to areas of improvement for the law librarian. The suggestions for improvement should, in the spirit of the Law Librarian Promotion and Reappointment Manual, identify areas in which a law librarian can change orientation and activity in pursuit of promotion.
6. Appendix: Copies of any documents considered by the Committee as evidence of the law librarian’s teaching, service, or research, shall be appended to the recommendation, including current vita of law librarian; copies of law librarian’s annual reports for the review period; and copies of applicable evaluations of classroom teaching.

VI. Role of Law Librarian

In addition to the law librarian’s consultative role in the review process, he or she may submit a written response to the Committee report or the Associate Dean’s review which will be attached to the report and made a part thereof. The law librarian is to be given ten business days to prepare the response prior to submission of the report to the Associate Dean.

VII. Role of the Associate Dean

The Associate Dean is to provide promptly a written review of the Committee report, copies of which are to be submitted to the Committee and the law librarian.

As Amended Oct. 15, 2015

I. INTRODUCTION

The College of Law’s ability to achieve its educational, academic and professional missions requires a committed faculty dedicated to excellence in teaching, scholarship and service. The college regularly assesses faculty achievement in these areas through reappointment and promotion and tenure reviews. This document sets forth the criteria, standards and procedures for conducting such reviews of College of Law faculty. The policies and procedures contained in this document must be read in conjunction with the Georgia State University Promotion and Tenure Manual, as approved in January 2012, and the bylaws and policies of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.

As aptly noted in the University’s Promotion and Tenure Manual, “promotion and tenure decisions are extremely important to the life of the institution,” and “are also among the most important events in a faculty member’s professional life.” This document is meant to safeguard these interests and afford faculty members notice, fairness, and the opportunity and resources needed for successful promotion and tenure review and ongoing professional development.

II. TIMING POLICIES FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE

A. Promotion to Associate Professor of Law

Pre-tenure: An assistant professor is eligible to apply and be considered for promotion to associate professor in the fourth year of service. Earlier application in the third year requires a showing of highly exceptional achievement. A promotion awarded under these time periods would not come with tenure.

With tenure: An assistant professor may elect to be considered for promotion to associate professor and the award of tenure concurrently. These concurrent applications would ordinarily occur in the fifth or sixth year of service.

B. Tenure

Tenure may be awarded upon completion of a probationary period of at least five (5) years of service. A maximum of three years’ credit toward the minimum period may be allowed for service in full-time tenure-track faculty positions at other institutions. Such credit for prior service shall be defined in writing at the time of initial appointment and approved by the president.

A candidate for promotion and tenure may relinquish some or all probationary credit received, with the approval of the dean. When a candidate with probationary credit is first eligible for consideration for promotion and tenure, he/she must notify the dean if he/she will keep or relinquish some or all of the awarded credit.

The maximum time that may be served as a tenure track faculty member without the award of tenure is seven (7) years. However, a maximum of two (2) years’ suspension of the probationary period may be granted due to a leave of absence based on birth or adoption of a child, or serious disability or prolonged illness of the employee or immediate family member. Such interruption must be approved by the president.

C. Promotion to Professor of Law

An associate professor is eligible to apply and be considered for promotion to full professor in the fifth year of service in rank. An earlier application for promotion in the fourth year of service in rank requires strong justification. A candidate hired initially as an associate professor may elect to apply for promotion to full professor and the award of tenure concurrently. These concurrent applications would ordinarily occur in the fifth or sixth year of service in rank.

III. PROMOTION AND TENURE STANDARDS

A. General

Promotion and tenure recommendations of tenure track and tenured faculty shall be based on demonstrated excellence in teaching, scholarship, and institutional and professional service. It is necessary to meet the standards in each of these three areas. Promotion and tenure decisions entail not only an evaluation of a candidate’s existing contributions and accomplishments, but a predictive assessment of the candidate’s commitment to continued excellence and productivity in these areas.

Each year, the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development will convene a meeting to explain promotion and tenure policies and answer questions about any and all phases of the promotion and tenure process.nThis meeting shall be open to all interested faculty members.

B. Specific Standards

1. Teaching

Central to the mission of the College of Law is educating students in the study of law and preparing them for entry into the legal profession. To achieve this mission the College of Law faculty is committed to teaching excellence. Accordingly, demonstrated excellence, commitment, and effectiveness in teaching will be a necessary component of promotion and tenure review.

Faculty members may be effective teachers in different ways, and it is not possible to define each of the essential components of teaching effectiveness. The following factors, however, are extremely important: ability to communicate; enthusiasm for teaching and for engagement with students; effective preparation for class; breadth and depth of relevant knowledge; thoughtful organization of both individual class sessions and overall course organization; ability to motivate students to engage with the subject matter of the course; and availability to students beyond the classroom environment for advisement and other academic purposes. Equally important are a faculty member’s efforts to integrate professional values and skills with knowledge and doctrine, establish clear course objectives, and devise effective methods of assessing student achievement.

Assessment of teaching quality is based on three primary, though not exclusive, sources of information: 1) faculty peer evaluations based on class visits, 2) student evaluations, and 3) the candidate’s own statement of pedagogical goals and methodologies.

2. Scholarship

The central mission of the College of Law also requires a faculty committed to scholarly pursuits directed to academic and professional audiences. These pursuits should lead to publications that make important contributions to the development of the law, such as scholarship relating to doctrinal analysis and policy, law reform, legal practice, the improvement of legal institutions, legal education, and research that ventures beyond the law and offers empirical and interdisciplinary perspectives.

Engaging in such research is important for two reasons. First, scholarship is a critical component of effective teaching. Teaching informs scholarship and scholarship informs the important ingredients of good teaching: rigorous analysis, creativity, and the lifelong development and enhancement of one’s area of expertise. Second, scholarship is about the study of problems that result in the dissemination of knowledge. It is not enough for faculty to acquire knowledge and develop expertise if they do not apply it and share it both for further study within the academy and for the use and benefit of professional communities and institutions.

The quality of a candidate’s scholarship, as judged by peers at this and other institutions, is thus a substantial factor in any promotion and tenure recommendation. Towards this end, it is a faculty member’s responsibility to pursue, and the College of Law’s responsibility to support, the development of a scholarly agenda that steadily gains significant recognition and standing in one’s field of study. Factors relevant in demonstrating the recognition and impact of a faculty member’s work include, without limitation, assessments in external review letters by peers in the field; invitations to present work at important conferences, workshops, symposia; citations to, or re-publication of, the candidate’s work; scholarly and professional responses to articles; recognition of a candidate’s work by scholarly, professional or governmental organizations; and impact on policy, practice or the development of the law.

Recognizing that legal journals are typically run by law students rather than academic peers, the quality of the candidate’s scholarship is of primary importance in assessing whether standards under this section have been met. The identity of the journal in which a work of scholarship is published, although in some cases reflective of the particular distinction of the piece, is secondary. While the methodology and focus of legal scholarship varies widely, excellent work must demonstrate intellectual rigor, sophisticated analysis, and originality. Quality research that possesses these attributes may take a variety of forms, such as articles and essays in law reviews and other significant academic journals, books, book chapters, treatises, casebooks, high-quality professional journals, and the published results of grant-funded research. Relevant as well are quality publications resulting from law reform and policy work with government agencies, commissions and task forces.

The use of online publication outlets also is becoming more prevalent as a form for discussion and dissemination of ideas among scholars and the professional community. As this trend advances, these vehicles also may be included in one’s overall research portfolio, to be given weight commensurate with their length, scholarly content and rigor of the research outlet. Participation in forms of online publication also can serve to enhance a faculty member’s visibility and the recognition of his or her work, much in the way it does through attendance at conferences and other forms of conventional networking.

3. Service and Professional Engagement

The success and effectiveness of the College of Law also requires the faculty to be engaged in the affairs of the law school and the university, and to contribute to the advancement of the legal profession and related academic/professional initiatives and organizations. With respect to the law school and university, faculty service includes such responsibilities as taking on an appropriate share of committee responsibilities, assisting and advising student organizations, attending an appropriate share of law school and faculty-related events, and performing other duties as assigned that relate to and further the mission of the college and university.

With respect to professional and academic activity, such engagement includes assuming leadership responsibilities in bar associations and other professional and academic organizations; participation in professional and academic meetings, conferences and workshops; and involvement in law reform, public policy, and pro bono work. These forms of professional and academic engagement not only serve to advance the college’s connections to important constituencies, they further our teaching and research missions. They do so by reinforcing faculty efforts to be creative and relevant in their teaching and writing, and by helping to promote the recognition of their work among their academic peers.

4. Composite Measure Across the Faculty

The College of Law is strongest as an institution when its faculty as a whole is contributing significantly to the education of our law students, the production of scholarship, and to serving the University, professional and other external communities. While every faculty member must satisfy standards in each of these areas to achieve promotion and tenure, this does not require every faculty member to make an identical contribution to each of these endeavors every year. Thus, the promotion and tenure review process should take into account each individual’s strengths and consider his or her portfolio development over the course of the promotional period, assessing his or her unique ability to contribute to the law school’s holistic mission of excellence in all areas.

C. Standards for Evaluation by Rank and For Tenure

1. General

Each level of review for promotion and for tenure entails a comprehensive assessment of a candidate’s performance, progress, and potential future performance with respect to teaching, scholarship and service. Standards and expectations are applied with greater rigor at successive levels of review. For pre-tenure faculty, teaching loads are adjusted to support both their ability to focus on their pedagogy and develop a research agenda and routine. Similarly, while pre-tenure faculty are expected to engage in institutional and professional service, institutional demands, to the extent possible, should be assigned in a manner that does not undermine the development of their teaching and scholarship.

With respect to scholarship expectations at each level of review, a faculty member’s record should reflect the results of an ongoing and active research agenda that significantly contributes to the development of law or policy and that is consistent with the typical cycle necessary to produce a quality law review article or equivalent piece of legal or interdisciplinary scholarship. Given that, the quantitative expectations noted below reflect a productivity assumption, common in legal education, that faculty will produce at a rate that averages a quality publication per year, noting of course the need to make adjustments for books and other projects of different length and complexity.

2. Promotion to Associate Professor

Pre-tenure: To qualify for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor without tenure, the faculty member must demonstrate: 1) a high level of competence and effectiveness in teaching, or growth leading towards attaining such a level, including a demonstrated commitment to the students and the quality of his or her pedagogy; 2) a record of growing scholarly achievement and recognition in one’s field, supported by publications of high quality; 3) a commitment to institutional and professional service at a level commensurate with the candidate’s experience; and 4) a record overall that shows unmistakable promise of tenure.

Quantitatively, achievement of the scholarship standard for pre-tenure promotion to Associate Professor normally will require the completion and external review of at least three significant articles in law reviews, academic journals or equivalent products of research of substantial quality and academic merit. This is meant as a guide and not as a precise formula. The larger point is that candidates for promotion are expected to present a publication record that reflects sustained output, evidenced by a body of scholarly work commensurate with experience and rank. In determining the components of a scholarly portfolio under review, a work may be included when it has been published or accepted for publication in time to be included in the external review process.

With tenure: To qualify for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor of Law with tenure, the faculty member must satisfy the standards for tenure.

3. Tenure

Because tenure represents a career-long commitment by the institution towards a faculty member, it carries with it the expectation of ongoing productivity and the continued pursuit of excellence on the part of a tenured faculty member. Thus, a tenure assessment under the standards that follow involves a judgment not only of a faculty member’s performance to date but the likelihood of a continued upward trajectory in terms of work quality, scholarly productivity, teaching effectiveness, and professional growth.

To qualify for tenure, the faculty member must demonstrate: 1) a high level of competence in teaching, including a demonstrated record of commitment to the students and the quality of his or her pedagogy; 2) significant scholarly achievement supported by publications of high quality and which are recognized as contributing to the advancement and development of the candidate’s area of research; and 3) significant service contributions institutionally and professionally.

Quantitatively, achievement of the scholarship standard for an award of tenure normally will require a body of work that consists of at least four externally reviewed, significant articles in law reviews, academic journals or equivalent products of research of substantial quality and academic merit. This is meant as a guide and not as a precise formula. The larger point is that candidates for tenure are expected to produce a body of work that reflects a sustained and ongoing scholarly engagement, evidenced by several examples of scholarly work commensurate with experience and rank. In determining the components of a scholarly portfolio under review, a work may be included when it has been published or accepted for publication in time to be included in the external review process.

A candidate who seeks tenure combined with promotion to full professor must also satisfy all full professor standards.

4. Promotion to Professor

Attainment of professor status is not simply the next step on the promotion ladder. It reflects recognition that a faculty member has attained a significant level of achievement and national/international standing in the profession as a scholar, teacher and engaged colleague. Both the quantity and quality of the record required for this review should substantially surpass that required for the rank of associate professor.

Specifically, to qualify for promotion to professor, the faculty member must demonstrate: 1) a sustained high level of competence and continued growth in teaching, including a demonstrated record of commitment to the students and the quality of his or her pedagogy; 2) sustained and significant scholarly achievement overall, focusing on the time period since the candidate’s attainment of the rank of associate professor, that has achieved significant standing and recognition in the field for its high quality and its contributions to the area of study; and 3) regular and significant service both institutionally and professionally.

Achievement of the scholarship standard for promotion to professor will require a productivity record that reflects a continuing and active scholarly agenda during the current promotion review period. In addition, as with the tenure decision, assessment of one’s application for promotion to professor entails not only a judgment about a faculty member’s record to date but the ability to predict that the candidate will continue to perform at a professor level on into the future.

IV. REAPPOINTMENT

During their pre-tenure years, faculty members will be reviewed annually to determine their eligibility for reappointment. This review requires an assessment of the faculty member’s incremental and cumulative progress toward satisfying the standards for tenure and promotion noted above.

V. ROLE OF COMMITTEES IN THE PROMOTION AND TENURE PROCESS

A. Promotion and Tenure Committee

The Promotion and Tenure Committee (Committee) shall work with the dean in a cooperative system of faculty evaluation and make recommendations to the dean on matters of reappointment, promotion and tenure.

The Committee shall consist of all tenure-track faculty members in the College except as follows:

1. In cases of promotion to the rank of Associate Professor, only those members of the Committee who hold the rank of Professor or Associate Professor shall participate;
2. In cases, of promotion to the rank of Professor, only those members of the Committee who hold the rank of Professor shall participate;
3. In cases where tenure is under consideration, only those members of the Committee who are tenured shall participate;
4. In cases of reappointment, only those persons who are tenured or who are not tenured but who are of higher rank than the rank of the person under consideration shall participate.

The Committee shall also consist of Clinical faculty members with respect to (1) all issues relating to RWA lecturers; and (2) issues relating to clinical faculty members who are of a lower rank than the voting member. If the voting member has a presumptively renewable contract, he or she is also eligible to vote on clinical faculty of the same rank who do not have this status.

B. Co-Chairs

The Promotion and Tenure Committee shall be headed by two faculty co-chairs elected annually by majority vote of the faculty at a regularly scheduled faculty meeting in March or April of the academic year. The term of appointment, which is renewable, shall run through the ensuing academic year. Co-chairs must be tenured full professors. They shall convene meetings of the Committee, coordinate its proceedings, and serve as its representative with regard to all required and appropriate communications. The co-chairs also will serve as co-chairs of the Faculty Review Subcommittee.

C. Faculty Review Subcommittee

The college also will have a Faculty Review Subcommittee (Subcommittee) for promotion and tenure but not reappointment cases. This Subcommittee will be comprised of five members of the full Promotion and Tenure Committee as follows:

1. two members appointed by the Dean;
2. one general member elected by the faculty; and
3. the two co-chairs of the Promotion and Tenure Committee.

The purpose of the Subcommittee is to aid the Promotion and Tenure Committee in presiding over the review process. Under the leadership of the co-chairs, the Subcommittee’s responsibilities generally entail overseeing and managing the stages of the process as set out in the timeline in Appendix A.

The Subcommittee also will review each candidate’s completed dossier under the applicable standards set forth in this document, and prepare a written report and recommendation to the full Promotion and Tenure Committee. This report and recommendation is advisory only and is not binding on the full Committee, which is ultimately responsible for making a recommendation on each candidate to the dean.

D. General Rules Governing Promotion and Tenure Committee Meetings

1. Meetings of the Committee shall be preceded by five business days’ notice to all members eligible to vote on the matters raised at that meeting. When it is anticipated that a meeting will include a vote on reappointment, promotion, or tenure, the Co-Chairs shall make every effort to schedule that meeting at a time when all faculty eligible to vote are able to attend.
2. A quorum for all purposes shall be 80% of the members eligible to vote on the particular matter according to the membership criteria defined in Section II.A.1. In the absence of such a quorum, the Promotion and Tenure Committee may not act on that matter. Every effort shall be made to include faculty members who are on leave in reappointment, promotion, and tenure decisions on which they are eligible to vote. However, any faculty member who is on leave and is unavailable to participate in any reappointment, promotion, or tenure decision shall not be counted for quorum or voting purposes.
3. Voting shall be by secret ballot. In reappointment matters, a simple majority of yea and nay votes cast shall be sufficient, and in promotion and tenure matters, a two-thirds majority of yea and nay votes cast shall be sufficient to make a recommendation to the Dean. In promotion and tenure matters, when the number of members present and voting is not an integer multiple of three, the number of yea and nay votes cast closest to two-thirds shall be sufficient. Voting shall be by secret ballot.

VI. PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE REVIEW

A. Notification and Calendar within the College

The formal review, recommendation and decision-making process within the College of Law will be conducted primarily during the fall semester of the academic year. To meet the University deadline for the dean to submit materials to the provost, the information gathering process by the co-chairs and the candidates should begin the preceding spring and should conform generally to the calendar set forth in Appendix A.

B. Contents of the Dossier

All applications for promotion and tenure will be supported by a dossier that contains a record of the candidate’s professional achievements relating to teaching, scholarship and service. The contents of the dossier will include:

1. Provided by the Candidate

1. A current curriculum vita
2. A statement that summarizes accomplishments and goals in teaching, scholarship and service. This document should include:

1. A statement of the candidate’s pedagogical goals and methods for each class currently taught. The candidate should submit evidence relating to teaching effectiveness, which may include, where relevant, peer assessments, the development of instructional materials or new courses/programs, innovative pedagogy, technology or methods of assessment, integration of skills and values, and evidence of student accomplishments;
2. A statement about the candidate’s scholarship record, including evidence of recognition within one’s field, and the relationship between the candidates existing record and plans going forward. If the candidate’s record includes multi-authored works of scholarship, the candidate should indicate his or her specific contributions to each article in question; and
3. A statement about the candidate’s institutional service and professional engagement.

c. Reprints or other copies of scholarly writings that will comprise the scholarship review.
d. At the candidate’s discretion, copies of any letters, memoranda, etc. that document public service, professional engagement, leadership positions, awards, or other forms of professional recognition,
e. Any other letters, statements, documents or information the candidate deems relevant and material.

2. Prepared or Solicited by the Subcommittee

1. A written summary of the candidate’s student course evaluations;
2. Faculty reviews of the candidate’s teaching based on class visitations;
3. External and internal reviews of the candidate’s scholarship; and
4. Subcommittee Report that reviews the candidate’s record and makes a recommendation to the Promotion and Tenure Committee

C. Evaluation of Teaching

1. General

Evaluation of a candidate’s teaching will be based primarily on: class visits and faculty review of the candidate’s classes, student evaluations, the candidate’s statement of teaching goals and methods, and any submitted materials or other submissions evidencing teaching dedication, effectiveness or innovation. Relevant as well is information relating to the faculty member’s teaching load, student advisement, the creation of new courses, supervision of independent study, and where possible and practicable, teaching methods that integrate, or introduce students to, skills and professional values in their doctrinal courses.

2. Class Visitation and Faculty Review

1. Class visitation and peer evaluation of a faculty member’s classes are important vehicles for evaluating and promoting effective teaching. Annually, the co-chairs or their designees on the Subcommittee will assign two-person faculty teams to conduct class observations for all pre-tenured faculty as well as for candidates for promotion to professor.
2. Each faculty team will conduct observations of at least two full 75 minute classes of the same course. When a candidate is teaching different courses during the year, the two-person team will decide, after consultation with the faculty member, which course will be visited.
3. Prior to each class visit, the two-person team will meet with the faculty member to discuss the subject matter and goals of the upcoming class. The faculty member will furnish a copy of any material to be discussed in the class to the members of the team. After the team has made its class visits but before any final evaluation report is written, the team members will meet with the faculty member to discuss their observations and the faculty member’s response.
4. The co-chairs will promptly provide a copy of the visitation report(s) to the observed faculty member who may promptly request that a second team be assigned for observation and report before any action is taken on the observed faculty member’s reappointment, promotion or tenure. The original visitation report shall be filed in the observed faculty member’s portfolio in the Dean’s office, a copy being retained in a duplicate file kept by the co-chairs of the Promotion and Tenure Committee during the period prior to the faculty decision on the member’s candidacy for reappointment, promotion or tenure.

3. Student Evaluations

The co-chairs or their designees on the Subcommittee are expected to review the student evaluations of a candidate’s classes during the promotional period and prepare a summary report of the evaluations for the candidate’s dossier. A copy of this summary will be provided to the candidate for review and comment prior to its finalization, and the candidate will have the opportunity to place a responsive statement in the file.

In addition, co-chairs or their designees on the Subcommittee will collect the student evaluations of the candidate and make them available in a secure location for review by any faculty member eligible to vote on the promotion or tenure decision.

D. Evaluation of Scholarship and External Reviews

To assist the Promotion and Tenure Committee in its assessment of a candidate’s scholarship, the dean will solicit peer evaluations, both internal and external, from experts in the candidate’s field. With respect to the number of external reviewers, a candidate’s dossier generally should be supported by five external letters and at least two internal letters.

The names of the external reviewers should be drawn from lists of those recommended by the candidate and the dean (who may consult with the co-chairs and the associate deans). At least half of the external letters must come from reviewers on the dean’s list. External reviewers from academic institutions must hold the rank of associate or full professor and should be affiliated with research universities in which the emphasis on research and scholarship is of a rigor similar to aspirational peers in legal education. The primary consideration in selecting reviewers should be their reputation and standing in the candidate’s field of expertise. In appropriate circumstances, external reviewers may be drawn from relevant non-academic, professional settings. External reviewers cannot be closely affiliated with the candidate (e.g. co-author, co-worker, dissertation chair). Accompanying each external review letter should be a brief resume or bio showing the reviewer’s accomplishments, standing in the field, and past relationship, if any, with the candidate.

In communicating with the external reviewers, the dean will provide the candidate’s vita along with copies of the selected or multiple publications the reviewer has been asked to evaluate. External reviewers will be asked to evaluate the quality and significance of the scholarly work or works under review and the contributions it makes to the candidate’s discipline.

External review letters shall be kept confidential from all persons other than those individuals involved in some aspect of the candidate’s promotion or tenure application. Upon receipt of an external review, the co-chairs will provide a copy to the faculty member under consideration for promotion and tenure.

E. Evaluation of Institutional and Professional Service

Evaluation of a candidate’s Institutional and Professional Service should consider: the nature and extent of the candidate’s service activities, the candidate’s engagement in an appropriate level of the faculty’s institutional responsibilities, the candidate’s capacity to assume leadership responsibilities, and the degree to which professional engagement has served to buttress the candidate’s teaching and scholarly activities and enhance the candidate’s reputation among his peers.

To evaluate these factors, the committee will review the candidate’s own statement and solicit input from the chairs of faculty committees on which the candidate has served during the promotional period. The committee also may contact external constituencies associated with the candidate’s public or professional service activities and make all other inquiries as the committee deems appropriate.

VII. DELIBERATION PROCEDURES FOR THE COMMITTEE, THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND THE DEAN

A. Subcommittee Review

Once the candidate’s dossier is complete, the Subcommittee will carefully review the candidate’s application and meet to discuss it.

B. Report

Following its review and deliberations, the Subcommittee will prepare a written report of its assessment and recommendation. The report should assess the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service based on the dossier and the standards contained in this Promotion and Tenure Document. The purpose of the report is to aid the work of the Promotion and Tenure Committee and is advisory only.

C. Timing of Report

The report must be completed and made available to the candidate no later than 12 business days before the Promotion and Tenure Committee meeting on the candidate. The candidate may submit a written response to the report within seven business days of its receipt.

D. Availability to Faculty

The report, the candidate’s response (if any), and the candidate’s dossier must be made available to eligible faculty at least 5 business days before the Promotion and Tenure Committee vote on the candidate.

E. Promotion and Tenure Committee Meeting on Candidates

The Promotion and Tenure Committee will meet to discuss and evaluate the merits of each candidate’s application in light of the dossier and the Subcommittee’s report and recommendation. The co-chairs of the Committee will preside. In accordance with the voting rules set forth in Section V.D., the Committee will make recommendations to the dean on each candidate’s application.

F. Dean’s Review

Upon receiving recommendations for promotion and tenure and reappointment, the dean will conduct a review of the candidate’s application based on the Promotion and Tenure Committee’s recommendation and the candidate’s dossier. The dean will make and independent assessment of whether to recommend favorable action, and forward all positive recommendations for promotion and tenure to the provost, accompanied by the dean’s written letter in support of the recommendation and the candidate’s file.

Candidates that are not recommended by the dean must receive a written decision and rationale no later than ten working days after the dean’s decision. Candidates who are not recommended by the dean may appeal the dean’s decision to the provost in the manner provided by the University Promotion and Tenure Manual.

G. Notice to Candidates

All candidates will receive timely notice in writing of the Committees’ and the Dean’s recommendations and a copy of any report(s) that are made of the candidate’s credentials. All candidates have the right to respond in writing to these decisions. Copies of any such response will be included in the material reviewed at all higher levels.

VIII. SUPPORT, EVALUATION, AND REAPPOINTMENT OF PRE-TENURE FACULTY

A. Support

Upon the arrival of each newly hired pre-tenure faculty member, the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development will designate a member of the tenured faculty to serve as a mentor for the new faculty member. Faculty mentors will provide support and guidance that will aid the new colleague in the development of his or her teaching, scholarship and service. At the same time, faculty mentors are not meant to be the only source of communication, but to facilitate the faculty’s commitment to providing regular, constructive and candid advice.

Another source of support is provided by the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development. This office oversees a series of programs designed for junior faculty development and enrichment. Pre-tenure faculty members are encouraged to participate in these programs.

B. Annual Evaluation and Reappointment

1. Committee Review: Annually, each spring, the Promotion and Tenure Committee will meet to review the performance and progress of each pre-tenure faculty member and make a recommendation to the dean in support of or against reappointment.

2. Standards: This annual process requires the Committee to assess the pre-tenure faculty’s incremental and cumulative progress toward satisfying the standards for promotion and tenure by the end of the probationary period. Thus, the promotion and tenure standards of Section C. of this document should guide faculty members in their planning and pacing during the pre-tenure period. Depending on the particular circumstances, the Committee may choose to recommend reappointment while also noting particular areas that need improvement.

3. Dossier: All reappointment reviews will be supported by a dossier that contains a cumulative record of the faculty member’s professional achievements relating to teaching, scholarship and service. The contents of the dossier will be similar but not identical to that described in section II.B. for promotion and tenure, and will not include external reviews of scholarship.

4. Notification of Renewal and Dean’s Review: After receiving the Committee’s reappointment recommendations, the dean will timely notify all pre-tenured faculty on the issue of their reappointment.

In addition, each spring the dean will meet with each pre-tenure faculty member to review the faculty member’s performance and progress towards tenure, noting accomplishments, areas of strength, and any areas of concern. The dean will conduct these reviews based on the reappointment dossier compiled by the Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the annual report document that each faculty member is required to complete each year. The review will include discussion of any significant issues evident from the record or that surfaced during the Promotion and Tenure Committee’s review.

IX. PRE AND POST TENURE REVIEW

A. Pre-tenure Review

Each pre-tenure faculty member will undergo a formal pre-tenure review during the spring of the third academic year of service. When a faculty member is hired with one or two years of probationary credit towards tenure and promotion, he or she also will undergo a pre-tenure review. A faculty member hired with three years of probationary credit may waive pre-tenure review with written approval of the dean.

The pre-tenure review will be more substantial than annual reappointment review. Its purpose is to assess progress toward tenure, and provide tenure track faculty members with a constructive evaluation of their progress. The review should identify strengths and accomplishments and pinpoint areas in need of improvement in which tenured faculty may provide assistance to tenure track colleagues.

Guidelines for this pre-tenure review process are set forth in a separate document entitled, “Guidelines for Cumulative Reviews of Tenure-track and Tenured Faculty,” which is attached here as Appendix B.

B. Post-Tenure Review

The Promotion and Tenure Committee will conduct a post-tenure review of tenured faculty. The primary purpose of the review is to assist faculty members with identifying opportunities that will enable them to reach their full potential for contributing to the College and University. Guidelines for this post-tenure review process are set forth in a separate document entitled, “Guidelines for Cumulative Reviews of Tenure-track and Tenured Faculty,” which is attached here as Appendix B.

X. Amendments

This document may be amended at any meeting of the faculty by a majority vote of the members present, provided there is a quorum and that the proposed amendment has been presented to the faculty at least seven days in advance of the meeting at which it is to be voted upon.

Appendix A

Calendar for Promotion and Tenure Review within the College

The timeline identified below is intended as a general guide only. The specific dates for promotion and tenure in any given year will be governed by the schedule issued by the Office of the Provost.

March-April: Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development holds meeting regarding promotion and tenure policies for all interested faculty members. Co-chairs of the Subcommittee notify faculty members who are eligible to apply for promotion or tenure in the following academic year and seek confirmation of whether they intend to move forward with their application.

April: Candidates intending to apply for promotion or tenure in the upcoming academic year notify the Co-Chairs of their plans to do so.

April/May: Co-chairs meet with each of these faculty candidates to review the evaluation process and the materials that must be included in a candidate dossier. Co-chairs will solicit names of potential external reviewers from each candidate.

May: Co-chairs will provide to the dean a list of the names of all external and internal reviewers who will be asked to provide evaluations of the candidates’ scholarship. Reviewers will be asked to submit their written evaluations no later than Sept. 15.

Early September: All external and internal reviews of scholarship should be completed in in the dossier.

Early September: Candidates’ written statements in support of their application for promotion or tenure are due.

Second Week in September: Candidate dossiers should be completed and made available to the Subcommittee.

Second Week in September – Second Week in October: The subcommittee should review the candidate’s application and formulate its recommendation and written report.

Third week in October: The Subcommittee will provide the candidates with copies of its report. Candidates will have seven working days to submit a response.

Late October/early November: Completed candidate dossier made available to full Promotion and Tenure Committee.

November: Full Promotion and Tenure Committee meeting to discuss and vote on the candidates for promotion and tenure. Candidates notified of Committee recommendations.

December/January: Dean completes written review of each candidate’s application, notifies the candidates, and forwards all positive recommendations to the Provost for further review.

APPENDIX B

Guidelines for Cumulative Reviews of Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty

A. Time of Review

With the exception of tenured administrators whose majority of duties is administrative, each tenured member of the faculty will be reviewed in the fall or spring semester of the fifth anniversary of the academic year in which the faculty member’s most recent promotion or tenure decision became effective. Subsequent reviews will occur on every fifth anniversary of the first review unless interrupted by a further review for promotion or leave of absence.

B. Reviewing Committee

The review will be conducted by a committee of three Full Professors. All will be elected by the full Promotion and Tenure Committee each spring to serve on the review committee for all post-tenure reviews scheduled for the upcoming academic year. No committee member who has been the subject of a post-tenure review within the previous two years shall participate in the post-tenure review of any member of the Committee which reviewed such faculty member. The Associate Dean for Faculty Development will be in charge of the procedural aspects of the review

C. Purposes

There are two purposes to the five-year review of tenured faculty: first, to assess and summarize the faculty member’s contributions and achievements since his or her last review; and second, to assist the faculty member in creating a statement of professional goals for the next five years. The review is intended to assist faculty members with identifying opportunities that will enable them to reach their full potential for contribution to the University and College of Law.

D. Review Process

The review period will cover the years since the faculty member’s last post-tenure review or, in case of initials reviews, the years since the last promotion or tenure decision regarding the faculty member. There are six stages to the review:

1. Summary of Review Period: The faculty member will prepare a report listing:

• Teaching:

• • • semester by semester, the courses taught by the faculty member during the review period, including courses taught at other institutions;
    • Listing of courses taught by the faculty member in the College of Law for the review period, including the approximate number of students enrolled in each course and any independent study courses supervised by the faculty member.
    • Brief description of any courses that were redesigned or developed by the faculty during the review period.
    • Brief description of teaching at any other institution or any other College within the University.
    • Listing of any teaching awards or other recognition for teaching.
    • Short summary of student course evaluations;
    • Other evidence of teaching effectiveness and/or growth in the classroom.

• any paid or unpaid leaves of absence for research or other purposes;
• scholarship published by the faculty member or in progress during the review period;
• committee and other administrative assignments in the College of Law and service at the University or professional level;
• any awards or grants, including summer research grants, received;
• a summary of the faculty member’s contributions to professional organizations and public service;
• a draft of the faculty member’s professional plans for the next five years; and
  any other info

2. Report of the Committee

Using the faculty member’s report as well as other sources of information, the Committee will compile its own report and evaluation.  The form of the report shall be as follows:

1. 1. 1. 1. Evaluations of Teaching:

The College of Law is dedicated to maintaining the highest levels of classroom performance and teaching standards.  Apart from any post-tenure review process, faculty members are encouraged to continually improve their teaching through ongoing, long term collaboration with other faculty and responsiveness to student comments.

In evaluating teaching proficiency, the Committee shall consult, in addition to the candidate’s report:

The Dean and Associate Dean concerning any complaints, commendations, or reports they may have received from students and alumni;

Any written reports of classroom visitations since the faculty member’s last promotion or award of tenure;

Course syllabi;

Student evaluation forms; and

Any other evidence reflective of teaching proficiency

c. Scholarship: publications in press or published; manuscripts submitted; research in progress; grant applications pending.

d. University Service: at the College or University levels including committees, task forces, advising student organizations, etc.

e. Professional Service: including papers or presentations at conferences, advisory or drafting roles for public officials or entities, bar association participation and/or leadership roles, etc.

f. Public and Community Service: including appointive or elective office, leadership roles in community organizations, etc.

g. Grants and/or Fellowships Awarded

h. Awards and Honors

i. Other Evidence of Achievements

j. Committee Evaluation: Evaluation by the Committee discussing a faculty member’s strengths and achievements and suggestions as to areas of improvement for the faculty member.

If the Committee believes there may be a teaching problem, at least two members of the Committee shall visit the faculty member’s classes. The Committee shall review any potential problems with the faculty member and identify how to address such problems.

k. Current vita of faculty member; copies of faculty member’s annual reports for the review period; and copies of any evaluations of classroom teaching.

3. Faculty Member’s Report:

Within two weeks of receiving a copy of the Committee’s report, the faculty member shall submit a report to the Committee including: any corrections or additions to the Committee’s report. The Committee shall incorporate any additional relevant information provided by the faculty member in his or her report.

4. Meeting:

The Committee shall meet with the faculty member to discuss the report and the faculty member’s plans for the next five years. The Committee should share their general assessment of the faculty member’s contributions in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service and the faculty member’s five-year plan.

5. Faculty Member’s Professional Plan:

Within one week after meeting with the Committee, the faculty member will send the Committee a final statement of his or her professional plan for the next five years. The statement should cover current projects and responsibilities and whether the faculty member plans to continue them, as well as new projects and specific scholarship, teaching, and service goals for the next five years. The faculty member’s plan also should address any deficiencies in scholarship, teaching, or service that were raised by the Committee.   If the Committee identified significant deficiencies in teaching, the faculty member will include in his or her five-year plan a specific course of action for addressing the identified deficiencies.

6. Committee Report to the Dean:

The Committee shall send to the Dean its report and the faculty member’s five-year professional plan.

E. Role of Faculty Member

In addition to the faculty member’s consultative role in the review process, if the faculty member disagrees with any portion of the Committee report or the Dean’s review, he or she may submit a written response which will be attached to the report and made a part thereof. The faculty member is to be given fifteen (15) calendar days to prepare the response prior to submission of the report to the Dean and prior to the submission of the Dean’s review and the Committee report to the Provost.

F. Role of the Dean

The Dean is to provide promptly a written review of the Committee report, copies of which are to be submitted to the Committee and the faculty member. The Dean is then to submit the report, along with the Dean’s review, to the Provost of the University.

G. Impact of Post-Tenure Review

1. The results of post-tenure review will be linked to rewards and professional development. Faculty members who are performing at a high level should receive recognition for their achievements.  This may include merit pay increases, and study and research leave opportunities.
2. When a faculty member’s review reflects that he or she has not met or maintained the standards of teaching, research and service expected of that rank of professor, the dean will work with the faculty member to create a formal plan for faculty development that identifies clearly defined goals and outcomes, an outline of activities to be undertaken, timetables, and an agreed-upon monitoring strategy.

II. Guidelines for Review of Tenured Faculty

A. Time of Review

With the exception of tenured administrators whose majority of duties is administrative, each tenured member of the faculty will be reviewed in the fall or spring semester of the fifth anniversary of the academic year in which the faculty member’s most recent promotion or tenure decision became effective. Subsequent reviews will occur on every fifth anniversary of the first review unless interrupted by a further review for promotion or leave of absence.

B. Reviewing Committee

The review will be conducted by a committee of three Full Professors. All will be elected by the full Promotion and Tenure Committee each spring to serve on the review committee for all post-tenure reviews scheduled for the upcoming academic year. No committee member who has been the subject of a post-tenure review within the previous two years shall participate in the post-tenure review of any member of the Committee which reviewed such faculty member. The Associate Dean for Faculty Development will be in charge of the procedural aspects of the review.

C. Purposes

There are two purposes to the five-year review of tenured faculty: first, to assess and summarize the faculty member’s contributions and achievements since his or her last review; and second, to assist the faculty member in creating a statement of professional goals for the next five years. The review is intended to assist faculty members with identifying opportunities that will enable them to reach their full potential for contribution to the University and College of Law.

D. Review Process

The review period will cover the years since the faculty member’s last post-tenure review or, in case of initials reviews, the years since the last promotion or tenure decision regarding the faculty member. There are six stages to the review:

1. Summary of Review Period: The faculty member will prepare a report listing:

1. 1. 1. • • • Teaching:
               • semester by semester, the courses taught by the faculty member during the review period, including courses taught at other institutions;
               • Listing of courses taught by the faculty member in the College of Law for the review period, including the approximate number of students enrolled in each course and any independent study courses supervised by the faculty member.
               • Brief description of any courses that were redesigned or developed by the faculty during the review period.
               • Brief description of teaching at any other institution or any other College within the University.
               • Listing of any teaching awards or other recognition for teaching.
               • Short summary of student course evaluations;
               • Other evidence of teaching effectiveness and/or growth in the classroom.
             • any paid or unpaid leaves of absence for research or other purposes;
             • scholarship published by the faculty member or in progress during the review period;
             • committee and other administrative assignments in the College of Law and service at the University or professional level;
             • any awards or grants, including summer research grants, received;
             • a summary of the faculty member’s contributions to professional organizations and public service;
             • a draft of the faculty member’s professional plans for the next five years; and
               any other information the faculty member deems relevant to the review period.

2. Report of the Committee

Using the faculty member’s report as well as other sources of information, the Committee will compile its own report and evaluation. The form of the report shall be as follows:

a. Evaluation of Teaching

The College of Law is dedicated to maintaining the highest levels of classroom performance and teaching standards. Apart from any post-tenure review process, faculty members are encouraged to continually improve their teaching through ongoing, long term collaboration with other faculty and responsiveness to student comments.
In evaluating teaching proficiency, the Committee shall consult, in addition to the candidate’s report:

The Dean and Associate Dean concerning any complaints, commendations, or reports they may have received from students and alumni;

Any written reports of classroom visitations since the faculty member’s last promotion or award of tenure;

Course syllabi;

Student evaluation forms; and

Any other evidence reflective of teaching proficiency.

c. Scholarship: publications in press or published; manuscripts submitted; research in progress; grant applications pending.

d. University Service: at the College or University levels including committees, task forces, advising student organizations, etc.

e. Professional Service: including papers or presentations at conferences, advisory or drafting roles for public officials or entities, bar association participation and/or leadership roles, etc.

f. Public and Community Service: including appointive or elective office, leadership roles in community organizations, etc.

g. Grants and/or Fellowships Awarded

h. Awards and Honors

i. Other Evidence of Achievements

j. Committee Evaluation: Evaluation by the Committee discussing a faculty member’s strengths and achievements and suggestions as to areas of improvement for the faculty member.

If the Committee believes there may be a teaching problem, at least two members of the Committee shall visit the faculty member’s classes. The Committee shall review any potential problems with the faculty member and identify how to address such problems.

k. Current vita of faculty member; copies of faculty member’s annual reports for the review period; and copies of any evaluations of classroom teaching.

3. Faculty Member’s Report

Within two weeks of receiving a copy of the Committee’s report, the faculty member shall submit a report to the Committee including: any corrections or additions to the Committee’s report. The Committee shall incorporate any additional relevant information provided by the faculty member in his or her report.

4. Meeting

The Committee shall meet with the faculty member to discuss the report and the faculty member’s plans for the next five years. The Committee should share their general assessment of the faculty member’s contributions in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service and the faculty member’s five-year plan.

5. Faculty Member’s Professional Plan

Within one week after meeting with the Committee, the faculty member will send the Committee a final statement of his or her professional plan for the next five years. The statement should cover current projects and responsibilities and whether the faculty member plans to continue them, as well as new projects and specific scholarship, teaching, and service goals for the next five years. The faculty member’s plan also should address any deficiencies in scholarship, teaching, or service that were raised by the Committee. If the Committee identified significant deficiencies in teaching, the faculty member will include in his or her five-year plan a specific course of action for addressing the identified deficiencies.

6. Committee Report to the Dean

The Committee shall send to the Dean its report and the faculty member’s five-year professional plan.

E. Role of Faculty Member

In addition to the faculty member’s consultative role in the review process, if the faculty member disagrees with any portion of the Committee report or the Dean’s review, he or she may submit a written response which will be attached to the report and made a part thereof. The faculty member is to be given fifteen (15) calendar days to prepare the response prior to submission of the report to the Dean and prior to the submission of the Dean’s review and the Committee report to the Provost.

F. Role of the Dean

The Dean is to provide promptly a written review of the Committee report, copies of which are to be submitted to the Committee and the faculty member. The Dean is then to submit the report, along with the Dean’s review, to the Provost of the University.

G. Impact of Post-Tenure Review

1. 1. The results of post-tenure review will be linked to rewards and professional development. Faculty members who are performing at a high level should receive recognition for their achievements. This may include merit pay increases, and study and research leave opportunities.
   2. When a faculty member’s review reflects that he or she has not met or maintained the standards of teaching, research and service expected of that rank of professor, the dean will work with the faculty member to create a formal plan for faculty development that identifies clearly defined goals and outcomes, an outline of activities to be undertaken, timetables, and an agreed-upon monitoring strategy.

Approved Nov. 13, 2014

I. INTRODUCTION

The College of Law’s ability to achieve its educational, academic and professional missions requires a committed faculty dedicated to excellence in teaching and service. The college regularly assesses faculty achievement in these areas through reappointment and promotion reviews. This document sets forth the criteria, standards and procedures for conducting such reviews of College of Law Lecturers and Academic Professionals, who are non-tenure track faculty (“NTT”). The policies and procedures contained in this document must be read in conjunction with the Georgia State University Promotion Manual for Non-Tenure Track Faculty, as approved on Oct. 10, 2013, and the bylaws and policies of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.

As aptly noted in the University’s Promotion Manual, “[p]romotion decisions for NTT faculty are extremely important to the professional life of the faculty member and the institution.” This document is meant to safeguard these interests and afford NTT faculty members notice, fairness, and the opportunity and resources needed for successful promotion and ongoing professional development.

II. CATEGORIES OF NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY

The following NTT Faculty positions are eligible for promotion within the College of Law:

1. Clinical Faculty (Clinical Assistant Professor, Clinical Associate Professor, Clinical Professor)
2. Lecturer (Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Principal Senior Lecturer)
3. Academic Professional (Academic Professional, Senior Academic Professional)
4. College of Law Library (Librarian I, Librarian II, Librarian III, Librarian IV)

The standards and procedures governing the promotion and reappointment of Clinical Faculty and College of Law Librarians are articulated in separate documents.  Hereinafter, all references to NTT faculty in this document refer exclusively to Lecturers and Academic Professionals.

III. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LECTURERS

The following is a description of the duties and responsibilities of lecturers listed in the order of importance.

A. Teaching:

The primary responsibility of Lecturers is teaching.

B. Service:

Lecturers also are expected to engage in service activities. These activities may include advising and serving the academic needs of students, serving on committees, or participating in other forms of academic service. Service may be at the college and/or university level.  Service also may involve activities related to the professional and greater communities.

C. Research:

Lecturers are not required to engage in research activities. Nonetheless, Lecturers are expected to be familiar with current trends and methods in their discipline.

IV. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS

Pursuant to Board of Regents Policy and the University NTT Manual, the faculty designation of Academic Professional applies to a variety of academic assignments that call for academic background similar to that of a faculty member with professional rank, but which are distinctly different from professorial positions. Accordingly, the Academic Professional must have an appropriate terminal degree and may not be assigned to a position where teaching and research responsibilities total 50% or more of the total assignment (BOR Policy Manual, Section 8.3.8.3).

The following is a description of the duties and responsibilities of academic professionals.

The primary responsibility of Academic Professionals is to provide service to the COL.  However, their duties and responsibilities may encompass teaching and/or research as well.  The duties and responsibilities of each Academic Professional will be determined by the Dean, in consultation with the Academic Professional’s faculty supervisors, on a case-by-case basis.  The following describes the scope of duties and responsibilities that may be expected of Academic Professionals.

A. Service:

The primary responsibility of Academic Professionals is service, which may include activities such as:

1. Administrative management within the College of Law;
2. Oversight of academic programs (particularly those responsibilities falling outside the expectation of tenure-track faculty members);
3. Academic, curricular, and professional advising;
4. Provision of specialized skill acquisition training as support for academic programs; and,
5. Working in conjunction with other faculty members on course and curriculum development.

Service may also include advising and serving the academic needs of students, serving on committees, or participating in other forms of academic service. Service may be at the college and/or university level.  Service also may involve activities related to the professional and greater communities.

B. Teaching:

Academic Professionals may be expected to engage in teaching.

C. Research:

Academic Professionals may be expected to engage in some form of research related to their professional responsibilities. These research activities may include, although are not limited to, participation in symposia and conferences; formal presentations; practice-focused and professionally oriented writing; engagement with academic and professional audiences and leadership roles in the profession and on professional committees and/or any other relevant activities.  Research need not include the publication of scholarly articles.

V. TIMING POLICIES FOR PROMOTION

A. Promotion to Senior Lecturer

A lecturer is eligible to apply and be considered for promotion to senior lecturer in the fifth year of service, to be effective at the beginning of the seventh year of service.  A maximum of three years’ credit toward the minimum period may be allowed for service at another institution or within Georgia State University in a faculty rank.  Such credit for prior service shall be defined in writing and approved by the Provost.

B. Promotion to Principal Senior Lecturer

A senior lecturer is eligible to apply and be considered for promotion to principal senior lecturer in the fifth year of service in rank.

C. Promotion to Senior Academic Professional

An academic professional is eligible to apply and be considered for promotion to senior academic professional in the fifth year of service in rank.

VI. PROMOTION STANDARDS

A. General

Promotion recommendations of lecturers shall be based on demonstrated excellence in teaching and high quality service. It is necessary to meet the standards in both. Promotion decisions entail not only an evaluation of a candidate’s existing contributions and accomplishments, but a predictive assessment of the candidate’s commitment to continued excellence in teaching and high quality service.

Promotion recommendations of academic professionals shall be based on demonstrated excellence in service and, if applicable, high quality teaching and/or research. Promotion decisions entail not only an evaluation of a candidate’s existing contributions and accomplishments, but a predictive assessment of the candidate’s commitment to sustained excellence and continued growth in service and, if applicable,  high quality teaching and/or research.

Each year, the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development will convene a meeting to explain promotion policies and answer questions about any and all phases of the promotion process.  This meeting shall be open to all interested faculty members.

B. Standards for Evaluation by Rank and Job Classification

1. General

Each level of review for promotion entails a comprehensive assessment of a candidate’s performance, progress, and potential future performance with respect to teaching and service.  A candidate must meet more rigorous standards and expectations at successive promotion levels.

a. Promotion to Senior Lecturer

To qualify for promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer, the faculty member must demonstrate excellence in teaching.  This will include an assessment of (a) the quality of pedagogy and instruction in the classroom; (b) the quality of feedback provided to students in written and oral assignments, where appropriate; (c) the development of effective teaching and training materials; and (d) the ability to work collaboratively and professionally with other faculty members, where appropriate.  In addition, the faculty member seeking promotion must demonstrate a commitment to high quality service commensurate with the candidate’s experience and a record overall that shows unmistakable promise of continued productivity.

b. Promotion to Principal Senior Lecturer

Attainment of Principal Senior Lecturer reflects recognition that a faculty member has attained a significant level of achievement as a teacher and professionally engaged colleague.

Specifically, to qualify for promotion to principal senior lecturer, the faculty member must demonstrate: 1) a sustained high level of excellence and continued growth in teaching responsibilities, including a demonstrated record of commitment to the students and the quality of his or her pedagogy; and 2) regular and significant high quality service.  Assessment of one’s application for promotion to Principal Senior Lecturer entails not only a judgment about a faculty member’s record to date but the ability to predict that the candidate will continue to perform at a high level on into the future.

c. Promotion to Senior Academic Professional

Attainment of Senior Academic Professional reflects recognition that a faculty member has attained a significant level of achievement in the area of service and, if applicable, teaching and/or research.

Specifically, to qualify for promotion to senior academic professional, the faculty member must demonstrate a sustained high level of excellence and continued growth in service responsibilities. If applicable, the faculty member must also demonstrate high quality teaching and/or research.  Assessment of one’s application for promotion to Senior Academic Professional entails not only a judgment about a faculty member’s record to date but the ability to predict that the candidate will continue to perform at a high level on into the future.

VII. SUPPORT, EVALUATION, AND REAPPOINTMENT OF LECTURERS AND ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS

A. Support

Upon the arrival of each newly hired Lecturer and Academic Professional, the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development will designate a member of the faculty to serve as a mentor for the new faculty member.  Faculty mentors will provide support and guidance that will aid the new colleague in the development of his or her teaching, service, and research as appropriate. At the same time, faculty mentors are not meant to be the only source of communication, but to facilitate the faculty’s commitment to providing regular, constructive and candid advice.

B. Annual Evaluation and Reappointment

1. Reappointment Review
All Lecturers are hired on an annual basis in accordance with Section 8.3.4.3 of the Board of Regents’ Policy Manual.

During the first five years of full-time employment at the College of Law, Lecturers shall be reviewed annually by the Promotion Committee (outlined in Section VIII.A.)  in order to make a reappointment and contract recommendation to the Dean.  These reviews shall consist of an evaluation of teaching excellence conducted by tenure-track or clinical faculty members based in part on in-class observations, the quality of written feedback provided to students, as well as a review of service activities.

Beginning in the sixth year of full-time service, the annual reappointment review need not include an in-class observation of the applicant’s teaching skills, with the exception of those years in which a Lecturer has applied for promotion or undergoes a review in Section VII.B.3.  Notwithstanding this provision, the Dean and/or chairs of the Promotion Committee retain the discretion to require an in-class observation for any Lecturer as part of the reappointment process.

During the first five years of full-time employment at the College of Law, Academic Professionals shall be reviewed annually by the Promotion Committee (outlined in Section VIII.A.)  in order to make a reappointment and contract recommendation to the Dean.  These reviews shall consist of an evaluation of service excellence conducted by tenure-track or clinical faculty members (including the Center Director under whom the Academic Professional works, if applicable), based on a written report of the service activities accomplished and, if applicable, an in-class observation of the applicant’s teaching skills, the quality of assessment of student performance, and/or a written research review.

2. Criteria for Reappointment:
To qualify for reappointment, a Lecturer must establish that he or she is meeting the teaching and service goals identified in section III.  To qualify for reappointment, an Academic Professional must establish that he or she is meeting the service, teaching and/or research goals identified in section IV and applicable to his or her specific appointment.  Reappointment shall be at the sole discretion of the Dean or his or her representative.

All Lecturers who have served full-time for the entire previous academic year have a presumption of reappointment for the subsequent academic year unless notified in writing to the contrary as follows:

For Lecturers with less than three years of full-time service, the College of Law will provide notice of non-reappointment as early as practicable.

For Lecturers with three or more, but less than six, years of full-time service, notice of non-reappointment must be made at least 30 calendar days prior to the College of Law’s first day of classes in the semester.

For Lecturers with six or more years of full-time employment, notice of non-reappointment will be made at least one hundred and eighty calendar days prior to the College of Law’s first day of classes in the semester.

Lecturers with six or more years of full-time service at the College of Law who have received timely notice of non-reappointment are entitled to a review of the decision in accordance with the appeal procedures contained in Section VIII of the Bylaws of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.

All Academic Professionals who have served full-time for the entire previous academic year have the presumption of reappointment for the subsequent academic year unless notified in writing to the contrary at least three (3) months before the date of termination.

Previous years of service in positions other than the faculty positions with academic rank listed above shall not be included in the calculation to determine the schedule for notice of intention not to renew an Academic Professional’s contract.

3. Structured Reviews for Professional Development and Planning
Lecturers and Academic Professionals shall be reviewed during their third year of full-time employment to provide them with guidance on whether they are making progress toward promotion and to identify opportunities that will enable them to reach their full potential in terms of their contribution to the University. The procedure for this review shall follow the process as set forth in the College’s Guidelines for Structured Reviews of Lecturers and Academic Professionals, attached as Appendix B. In their fifth year, the structured review is also the review for promotion to Senior Lecturer or Senior Academic Professional and will be conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section VIII.

Once a Lecturer is promoted to Senior Lecturer, such reviews shall take place every five years of continued employment, unless he or she is promoted, in which case subsequent reviews will occur every five years after the promotion.  The purpose of such a review is to examine the individual’s contributions and achievements since his or her last review and to assist the faculty member in developing professional goals for the next five years. In years in which the lecturer is seeking promotion, the process shall be governed by Section IX of this document.  Otherwise, the process to be used is attached at Appendix B.

Once promoted to Principal Senior Lecturer or Senior Academic Professional, such reviews shall take place every five years of continued employment. The purpose of such a review is to examine the individual’s contributions and achievements since his or her last review and to assist the faculty member in developing professional goals for the next five years.

VIII.  THE PROMOTION PROCESS

A. Promotion Committee

In the case of applications for promotion or reappointment relating to lecturers and academic professionals, the Committee shall consist of all tenured, tenure-track and clinical faculty members. Also serving on the Committee for promotion or reappointment relating to Lecturers shall be Lecturers above the current rank of the Lecturer applying for promotion or being reviewed for reappointment. Likewise, also serving on the Committee for promotion or reappointment relating to academic professionals shall be academic professionals above the current rank of the academic professional applying for promotion or being reviewed for reappointment, to the extent there are any such individuals.

B. Co-Chairs

The Committee shall be headed by the two faculty co-chairs elected annually by majority vote of the faculty at a regularly scheduled faculty meeting in March or April of the academic year.  The term of appointment, which is renewable, shall run through the ensuing academic year. Co-chairs must be tenured full professors.  They shall convene meetings of the Committee, coordinate its proceedings, and serve as its representative with regard to all required and appropriate communications. The co-chairs also will serve as co-chairs of the Faculty Review Subcommittee.

C. Faculty Review Subcommittee

The College will have a Faculty Review Subcommittee to consider promotion for lecturers.  This Subcommittee will be comprised of five members of the full Promotion and Tenure Committee as follows: (1) two members appointed by the Dean; (2) one general member elected by the faculty; and (3) the two co-chairs of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, as well as one lecturer member appointed by the Dean, where possible.  Lecturers of higher rank than that to which the candidate is seeking promotion are eligible to serve on the Subcommittee.

Likewise, the College also will have a Faculty Review Subcommittee to consider promotion for academic professionals.  This Subcommittee will be comprised of five members of the full Promotion and Tenure Committee as follows: (1) two members appointed by the Dean; (2) one general member elected by the faculty; and (3) the two co-chairs of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, as well as one academic professional member appointed by the Dean, where possible.  Academic Professionals of the higher rank than that to which the candidate is seeking promotion are eligible to serve on the Subcommittee.

The purpose of the Subcommittee is to aid the Promotion Committee in presiding over the review process.  Under the leadership of the co-chairs, the Subcommittee’s responsibilities generally entail overseeing and managing the stages of the process as set out in the timeline in Appendix A.

The Subcommittee also will review each Lecturer‘s or Academic Professional’s completed dossier under the applicable standards set forth in this document, and prepare a written report and recommendation to the full Promotion Committee.  This report and recommendation is advisory only and is not binding on the full Committee, which is ultimately responsible for making a recommendation on each candidate to the Dean.

D. General Rules Governing Promotion Committee Meetings

1. Meetings of the Committee shall be preceded by five business days’ notice to all members eligible to vote on the matters raised at that meeting. When it is anticipated that a meeting will include a vote on reappointment or promotion, the Co-Chairs shall make every effort to schedule that meeting at a time when all faculty eligible to vote are able to attend.
2. A quorum for all purposes shall be 80% of the members eligible to vote on the particular matter according to the membership criteria defined in Section VIII.A. In the absence of such a quorum, the Promotion Committee may not act on that matter. Every effort shall be made to include faculty members who are on leave in reappointment and promotion decisions on which they are eligible to vote. However, any faculty member who is on leave and is unavailable to participate in any reappointment or promotion decision shall not be counted for quorum or voting purposes.
3. Voting shall be by secret ballot. In reappointment matters, a simple majority of yea and nay votes cast shall be sufficient, and in promotion matters, a two-thirds majority of yea and nay votes cast shall be sufficient to make a recommendation to the Dean. In promotion matters, when the number of members present and voting is not an integer multiple of three, the number of yea and nay votes cast closest to two-thirds shall be sufficient.

IX. PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION REVIEW OF LECTURERS

A. Notification and Calendar within the College

The formal review, recommendation and decision-making process within the College of Law will be conducted primarily during the fall semester of the academic year.  The information gathering process by the Faculty Review Subcommittee and the candidates should begin the preceding spring and should conform generally to the calendar set forth in Appendix

B. Contents of the Dossier

All applications for promotion will be supported by a dossier that contains a record of the candidate’s professional achievements relating to teaching and service.  The contents of the dossier will include:

1. Provided by the Candidate

a. A current curriculum vita
b. A statement that summarizes accomplishments and goals in teaching and service, including:

1. A statement of the candidate’s pedagogical goals and methods for each course currently taught. The candidate should submit evidence relating to teaching effectiveness, which may include, where relevant, peer assessments, the development of instructional materials or new courses/programs, innovative pedagogy, technology or methods of assessment, integration of skills and values, and evidence of student accomplishments.  In addition, the candidate should address, where appropriate, methods and examples of providing feedback to students on written assignments; and
2. A statement about the candidate’s institutional service and professional engagement.  The candidate should address and/or provide examples, where appropriate, of the ability to work collaboratively and professionally with other faculty members in programs of study;

c. At the candidate’s discretion, copies of any letters, memoranda, etc. that document public service, professional engagement, leadership positions, awards, or other forms of professional recognition;

d. Any other letters, statements, documents or information the candidate deems relevant and material.

2. Prepared or Solicited by the Subcommittee

a. A written summary of the candidate’s student course evaluations; and
b. Faculty reviews of the candidate’s teaching based on class visitations.

C. Evaluation of Teaching

1. General
Evaluation of a candidate’s teaching will be based primarily on: class visits and faculty review of the candidate’s classes, student evaluations, the candidate’s statement of teaching goals and methods, and any submitted materials or other submissions evidencing teaching dedication, effectiveness or innovation.

2. Class Visitation and Faculty Review
The co-chairs of the Promotion Committee or their designees will assign two-person faculty teams to conduct class observations for all lecturers: (1) in each of their first five years of employment; (2) in years in which a lecturer has applied for promotion or is subject to a review identified in Section VII.B.3; and (3) as deemed necessary in the discretion of the Dean or co-chairs.  Each faculty team will conduct observations of at least two full 75 minute classes of the same course.

3. Student Evaluations
The Faculty Review Subcommittee will review the student evaluations of a candidate’s classes during the promotional period and prepare a summary report of the evaluations for the candidate’s dossier. A copy of this summary will be provided to the candidate for review and comment prior to its finalization, and the candidate will have the opportunity to place a responsive statement in the file within five business days of receipt of the summary.

D. Evaluation of Service

Evaluation of a candidate’s service should consider: the nature and extent of the candidate’s service activities, the candidate’s engagement in an appropriate level of the faculty’s institutional responsibilities, the candidate’s capacity to assume leadership responsibilities, and other related information.

To evaluate these factors, the subcommittee will review the candidate’s own statement and solicit input from the Director of Lawyering Foundations or, in the case of a lecturer who is not teaching in the Lawyering Foundations Program, the Director of the program in which the lecturer teaches, the chairs of faculty committees on which the candidate has served during the promotional period, and other faculty where applicable.  The committee also may contact external constituencies associated with the candidate’s public or professional service activities and make all other inquiries as the committee deems appropriate.

X. PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTION REVIEW OF ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS

A. Notification and Calendar within the College

The formal review, recommendation and decision-making process within the College of Law will be conducted primarily during the fall semester of the academic year.  The information gathering process by the Faculty Review Subcommittee and the candidates should begin the preceding spring and should conform generally to the calendar set forth in Appendix A

B. Contents of the Dossier

All applications for promotion will be supported by a dossier that contains a record of the candidate’s professional achievements relating to service and, if applicable, teaching and/or research. The contents of the dossier will include:

1. Provided by the Candidate

a. A current curriculum vita
b. A statement that summarizes accomplishments and goals in service and, if applicable, teaching and/or research, including:

1)  A statement that summarizes the candidate’s specific service responsibilities, the candidate’s accomplishments with respect to these responsibilities; and the candidate’s goals in the area of service. The candidate should submit evidence relating to job knowledge, productivity, accuracy and quality, adaptability, organizational skills, communication skills, initiative, professional relationships, supervisory skills, College of Law and University service, professional service, and community engagement;

2)  A statement that summarizes accomplishments and goals in teaching, where applicable, including the candidate’s pedagogical goals and methods for each course currently taught.  The candidate should submit evidence relating to teaching effectiveness, which may include, where relevant, peer assessments, the development of instructional materials or new courses/programs, innovative pedagogy, technology or methods of assessment, integration of skills and values, and evidence of student accomplishments.  In addition, the candidate should address, where appropriate, methods and examples of providing feedback to students on written assignments;

3)  A statement about the candidate’s research, where applicable, including evidence of recognition within one’s field, and the candidate’s existing record and plans going forward. If the candidate’s record includes multi-authored written articles or publications, the candidate should indicate his or her specific contributions to each article in question.

c. At the candidate’s discretion, copies of any letters, memoranda, etc. that document public service, professional engagement, leadership positions, awards, or other forms of professional recognition.

d. Any other letters, statements, documents or information the candidate deems relevant and material.

2. Prepared or Solicited by the Subcommittee

a. A statement of the academic professional’s duties, responsibilities, and work load distribution;

b. A written summary of the candidate’s student course evaluations, if applicable;

c. Faculty reviews of the candidate’s teaching based on class visitations, if applicable;

d. Internal reviews of the candidate’s research, if applicable; and

e. A Subcommittee Report summarizing the candidate’s record and making a recommendation to the Promotion Committee.

C. Evaluation of Service

Evaluation of a candidate’s service should consider the candidate’s College of Law and University service, professional service, and community engagement in light of his or her specific service responsibilities, and include and any other evidence of effective service.

To evaluate these factors, the Subcommittee will review the candidate’s own statement and solicit input from the Center Director, the chairs of faculty committees on which the candidate has served during the promotional period, and other faculty where applicable.  The Subcommittee also may contact external constituencies associated with the candidate’s public or professional service activities and make such other inquiries as it deems appropriate.

D. Evaluation of Teaching (if applicable)

1. General
Evaluation of a candidate’s teaching, if applicable, will be based primarily on: class visits and faculty review of the candidate’s classes, student evaluations, the candidate’s statement of teaching goals and methods, and any submitted materials evidencing teaching dedication, effectiveness or innovation.

2. Class Visitation and Faculty Review
The co-chairs of the Promotion Committee or their designees will assign two-person faculty teams to conduct class observations for all academic professionals whose duties include teaching: (1) in each of their first five years of employment; (2) in years in which an academic professional has applied for promotion or is subject to a review identified in Section VIII.B.3; and (3) as deemed necessary in the discretion of the Dean or co-chairs.  Each faculty team will conduct observations of at least two full 75 minute classes of the same course.

3. Student Evaluations
The Subcommittee will review the student evaluations of a candidate’s classes during the promotional period and prepare a summary report of the evaluations for the candidate’s dossier. A copy of this summary will be provided to the candidate for review and comment prior to its finalization, and the candidate will have the opportunity to place a responsive statement in the file within five business days of receipt of the summary.

E. Evaluation of Research (if applicable)

Evaluation of a candidate’s research, if applicable, should consider participation in symposia and conferences; formal presentations; practice-focused and professionally oriented writing; engagement with academic and professional audiences; and leadership roles in the profession and on professional committees.

In evaluating research, the Subcommittee will also consider internal faculty evaluations of the candidate’s research as assigned by the Academic Professional Reviewing Committee.

XI. DELIBERATION PROCEDURES FOR THE COMMITTEE AND THE DEAN RELATING TO PROMOTION

A. Subcommittee Review

In cases relating to promotion, the Subcommittee will carefully review the candidate’s application and meet to discuss it upon completion of the dossier.

B. Report

Following its review and deliberations, the Subcommittee will prepare a written report of its assessment and recommendation. The report should assess the candidate’s performance in the areas of teaching and service based on the dossier and the standards contained in this Promotion Document.  The purpose of the report is to aid the work of the Promotion Committee and is advisory only.

C. Timing of Report

The report must be completed and made available to the candidate no later than eight business days before the Promotion Committee meeting on the candidate. The candidate may submit a written response to the report within three business days of its receipt. The written response must be submitted to the Dean.

D. Availability to Faculty

The report, the candidate’s response (if any), and the candidate’s dossier must be made available to faculty eligible to vote at least five business days before the Promotion Committee vote on the candidate.

E. Promotion Committee Meeting on Candidates

The Promotion Committee will meet to discuss and evaluate the merits of each candidate’s application for promotion in light of the dossier and the Subcommittee’s report and recommendation. The co-chairs of the Committee will preside. In accordance with the voting rules set forth in VIII.D, the Committee will make a recommendation to the Dean on each candidate’s application.

F. Notice to Candidates

All candidates will receive notice in writing of the Committees’ recommendations and a copy of any report(s) that are made of the candidate’s credentials within the timeframe outlined in the calendar set forth in Appendix A.  All candidates have the right to respond in writing to the Committees’ recommendations within three business days. The response must be submitted to the Dean. Copies of any such response will be included in the material reviewed at all higher levels.

G. Dean’s Review

Upon receiving recommendations for promotion, the Dean will conduct a review of the candidate’s application based on the Promotion Committee’s recommendation and the candidate’s dossier. The Dean will make an independent assessment of whether to support the recommendation. In all instances of a positive recommendation, the Dean will notify the candidate and will forward the candidate’s record to the Provost for the next stage of review within the time frame outlined in the calendar set forth in Appendix A.

Candidates not recommended by the Dean must receive a written decision and rationale no later than ten business days after the Dean’s decision.

H. Provost’s Review

The Provost will conduct an independent review of the materials forwarded by the Dean and any other related materials directly relevant to the Lecturer’s or Academic Professional’s candidacy for promotion.  The Provost will make a recommendation in each case, forward the recommendations to the President, and notify the Dean.  Within three business days after receiving notice of the Provost’s recommendation, the Dean will notify the candidate of the Provost’s recommendation.

Before forwarding a negative recommendation to the President, the Provost will consult with the Dean.  In response to the query from the Provost, the Dean may gather additional information from the candidate and other materials directly related to the lecturer’s or academic professional’s candidacy.  The Dean will notify the candidate of his/her reply to the Provost.

I. President’s Review

The President will conduct an independent review of the candidate’s dossier and related materials and recommendations.  The decision will be communicated to the Dean, who will notify the candidate within three business days after receiving notice of the president’s decision.

J. Appeals

A Lecturer or Academic Professional may appeal a negative recommendation of the Dean regarding promotion to the Provost in the manner provided by the Promotion Manual for Non-Tenure Track Faculty (Section VII. Appeals) within ten business days of receipt of the Dean’s decision.

Candidates may appeal to the President a negative recommendation by the Provost or a decision by the Provost rejecting the candidate’s appeal to the Provost in accordance with the Promotion Manual for Non-Tenure Track Faculty (Section VII. Appeals).

K. AMENDMENTS

This document may be amended at any meeting of the faculty by a majority vote of the members present, provided there is a quorum and that the proposed amendment has been presented to the faculty at least seven days in advance of the meeting at which it is to be voted upon.  All substantive changes must be reviewed and approved by the Provost.

Appendix A

Calendar for Promotion Review within the College

The timeline identified below is intended as a general guide only.  The specific dates for promotion in any given year will be governed by the schedule issued by the Office of the Provost.

March-April: Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development holds meeting regarding promotion policies for all interested faculty members.  The Co-Chairs of the Promotion Committee notify lecturers and/or academic professionals who are eligible to apply for promotion in the following academic year and seek confirmation of whether they intend to move forward with their application.

April: Lecturers intending to apply for promotion in the upcoming academic year notify the Co-Chairs and Director of Lawyering Foundations or, in the case of a Lecturer who is not teaching in the Lawyering Foundations Program, the Director of the program in which the lecturer teaches of their plans to do so.  Academic Professionals intending to apply for promotion in the upcoming academic year notify the Co-Chairs and their faculty supervisors of their plans to do so.

April/May: Co-chairs meet with each of these faculty candidates to review the evaluation process and the materials that must be included in a candidate dossier.

Early September: Candidates’ written statements in support of their application for promotion are due.

Second Week in September: Candidate dossiers should be completed and made available to the Subcommittee.

Second Week in September – Second Week in October: The subcommittee should review the candidate’s application and formulate its recommendation and written report.

Third week in October: The Subcommittee will provide candidates with copies of its report within three business days.  Candidates will have three business days to submit a written response.

Late October/early November: Completed candidate dossiers made available to full Promotion Committee

November:  Full Promotion Committee meeting to discuss and vote on the candidates for promotion and reappointment.  Candidates notified of Committee recommendations within three business days. Candidates will have three business days to submit a written response.

March:  Dean completes written review of each candidate’s application and notifies the candidates.  The Dean will forward all positive recommendations to the Provost for further review in accordance with the timeline issued by her office.

Appendix B

I. Guidelines for Third-Year Structured Reviews of Lecturers and Academic Professionals

A. Time of Review:

Each Lecturer and Academic Professional will be reviewed in the Spring Semester of the faculty member’s third academic year at the College of Law. This review will coincide with the annual spring reappointment process. In the case of persons with probationary credit based upon their experience at other institutions, the structured review will occur in the spring semester one full year prior to the first year in which they would first be eligible to seek promotion.  A lecturer or academic professional hired with three years of probationary credit may waive this review with written approval of the Dean.

B. Reviewing Committee:

The Lecturer Reviewing Committee shall be comprised of a Co-Chair of the Promotion Committee or a designee, the Director of Lawyering Foundations or, in the case of a Lecturer who is not teaching in the Lawyering Foundations Program, the Director of the program in which the lecturer teaches, and two lecturers (where possible) of higher rank than the candidate under review. The Academic Professional Reviewing Committee shall be comprised of a Co-Chair of the Promotion Committee or a designee, the Director of the Center to which the Academic Professional is assigned, and two academic professionals (where possible) of higher rank than the candidate under review.

C. Purpose of Review:

The review will provide each Lecturer and Academic Professional with a clear idea of how adequately he or she is progressing toward successfully achieving promotion. The review should identify strengths and accomplishments and pinpoint areas in need of improvement.

D. Scope of Review:

The Lecturer Reviewing Committee will review the annual reports submitted by the faculty member to the Dean for the years in question and report on the faculty member’s progress in the areas of teaching and service. The Lecturer Reviewing Committee will also review both the student evaluations and the annual faculty teaching evaluations of the lecturer. No additional class visitation will be necessary for the structured review. The Lecturer Reviewing Committee will also interview the faculty member in order to gain information as to the faculty member’s achievements and goals. The Academic Professional Reviewing Committee will review the annual reports submitted by the faculty member to the Dean for the years in question and report on the faculty member’s progress in the area of service and, if applicable, teaching and/or research. If teaching is required, the Committee will also review both the student evaluations and the annual faculty teaching evaluations of the academic professional. No additional class visitation will be necessary for the structured review. If research is required, the Committee will also consider internal faculty evaluations of the candidate’s research as assigned by the Academic Professional Reviewing Committee. The Academic Professional Reviewing Committee will also interview the faculty member in order to gain information as to the faculty member’s achievements and goals.

E. Report of the Lecturer Reviewing Committee:

The reports generated for all lecturers under review from year to year will be uniform and in substantially the format which follows. The Lecturer Reviewing Committee is to compile a report based on a review of annual reports (copies of which should be appended to the Lecturer Reviewing Committee Report), faculty teaching evaluations, the Lecturer Reviewing Committee discussion and the interview with the lecturer. The lecturer will be given a copy of the draft report and be given the opportunity to suggest additions or corrections to the report. However, the content of the final report remains within the sole discretion of the Lecturer Reviewing Committee.

The form of the report shall be as follows:

1. Overview of the Review Period: Listing of the faculty member’s activities for each semester (including summer semesters) during the period, limited to: full-time teaching at GSU College of Law; reduced or expanded teaching loads; and summer teaching.

2. Evaluations of Teaching:

a. Listing of courses taught by the faculty member in the College of Law for the review period, including the approximate number of students enrolled in each course and any independent study courses supervised by the faculty member.
b. Listing of any teaching awards or other recognition for teaching.
c. Student course evaluations.
d. Other evidence of teaching effectiveness.

3. University Service: at the College and University levels including committees, task forces, advising student organizations, etc.
4. Professional Service: participation in professional or academic meetings, conferences and workshops; advisory or drafting roles for public officials or entities, professional association participation and/or leadership roles, etc.
5. Public and Community Service: including appointed or elective office, leadership roles in community organizations, etc.
6. Other Evidence of Achievements
7. Lecturer Reviewing Committee Evaluation: the evaluation should discuss the faculty member’s progress toward promotion, including strengths and achievements and suggestions as to areas of improvement for the faculty member. The suggestions for improvement should identify areas in which the faculty member can improve performance in pursuit of promotion and/or reach their full potential as a faculty member of the University.
8. Current vita of lecturer; copies of faculty member’s annual reports for the review period; and copies of evaluations of classroom teaching based on annual class visitations that are conducted by other faculty members for the annual reappointment process.

F. Report of the Academic Professional Reviewing Committee:

The reports generated for all academic professionals under review from year to year will be uniform and in substantially the format which follows. The Academic Professional Reviewing Committee is to compile a report based on a review of annual reports (copies of which should be appended to the Academic Professional Reviewing Committee Report) and the interview with the academic professional. If applicable, the Committee also will review faculty teaching evaluations and/or research reviews. The academic professional will be given a copy of the draft report and be given the opportunity to suggest additions or corrections to the report. However, the content of the final report remains within the sole discretion of the Academic Professional Reviewing Committee.

The form of the report shall be as follows:

1. Overview of the Review Period: Listing of the faculty member’s activities for each semester (including summer semesters) during the period, limited to: service responsibilities and, if applicable, teaching at GSU College of Law; reduced or expanded teaching loads; and summer teaching.

2. Evaluations of Service, as appropriate to the faculty member’s duties and responsibilities:

a. A statement of the academic center’s mission, if applicable, and the candidate’s specific service responsibilities.
b. Evidence of knowledge, skills, and abilities as they relate to performing job requirements;
c. Evidence of work successfully accomplished while maintaining standards and meeting deadlines;
d. Evidence of professionalism and thoroughness of the work produced;
e. Evidence of committee and other administrative assignments in the College of Law and service at the University level;
f. Evidence of contributions to professional organizations and public service;
g. Evidence of community engagement in fulfilling the mission and meeting the needs of the center, College and/or University;
h. Other evidence of effective service.

3. Evaluations of Teaching (if applicable):

a. Listing of courses taught by the faculty member in the College of Law for the review period, including the approximate number of students enrolled in each course and any independent study courses supervised by the faculty member.
b. Listing of any teaching awards or other recognition for teaching.
c. Student course evaluations.
d. Other evidence of teaching effectiveness.

4. Research (if applicable): A list of participation in symposia and conferences; formal presentations; practice-focused and professionally oriented writing; engagement with academic and professional audiences; and leadership roles in the profession and on professional committees and/or any other relevant activities.

5. Other Evidence of Achievements

6. Academic Professional Reviewing Committee Evaluation: the evaluation should discuss the faculty member’s progress toward promotion, including strengths and achievements and suggestions as to areas of improvement for the faculty member. The suggestions for improvement should identify areas in which the faculty member can improve performance in pursuit of promotion and/or reach their full potential as a faculty member of the University.

7. Current vita of academic professional; copies of faculty member’s annual reports for the review period; and, if applicable, copies of evaluations of classroom teaching based on annual class visitations that are conducted by other faculty members for the annual reappointment process.

G. Faculty Discussion of Report

Following the Lecturer Reviewing Committee’s or the Academic Professional Reviewing Committee’s completion of the third year structured review, the Committee shall make it available for review and discussion by the full Promotion Committee, which consists of tenure-track and clinical faculty members. This review and discussion shall take place at the spring Promotion Committee meeting in the year of the review, after a vote on renewal of the candidate’s contract.

H. Role of Faculty Member:

In addition to the lecturer’s or academic professional’s consultative role in the review process, if the faculty member disagrees with any portion of the Committee report, he or she may submit a written response which will be attached to the report and made a part thereof. The faculty member is to be given three business days to prepare the response prior to submission of the report to the Dean and prior to the submission of the Dean’s review.

I. Role of the Dean:

The Dean will review the Lecturer Reviewing Committee report or the Academic Professional Reviewing Committee report and, as necessary, consult with the lecturer or academic professional on his or her progress toward promotion.

II. Guidelines for Subsequent Structured Reviews of Senior Lecturers, Principal Senior Lecturers, and Senior Academic Professionals

A. Time of Review:

Each lecturer will be reviewed in the spring semester of the fifth anniversary of the academic year in which the faculty member’s most recent promotion became effective. Subsequent reviews will occur on every fifth anniversary of the first review unless interrupted by a further review for promotion or leave of absence. Each academic professional will be reviewed in the spring semester of the fifth anniversary of the academic year in which the faculty member’s promotion became effective. Subsequent reviews will occur on every fifth anniversary of the first review unless interrupted by a leave of absence.

B. Reviewing Committee:

In years in which the candidate is seeking a promotion, the structured review will be conducted by the Faculty Review Subcommittees referenced in Section VII.C. of this document.  In all other circumstances, the review shall be conducted by the Lecturer Reviewing Committee or the Academic Professional Reviewing Committee.

C. Purposes:

There are two purposes to the five-year review of lecturers and academic professionals: first, to assess and summarize the faculty member’s contributions and achievements since his or her last review; and second, to assist the faculty member in creating a statement of professional goals for the next five years.  The review is intended to assist faculty members with identifying opportunities that will enable them to reach their full potential for contribution to the University and College of Law.

D. Review Process for Lecturers:

The review period will cover the years since the faculty member’s last review or, in case of initial reviews, the years since the last promotion decision regarding the faculty member.  In the case of five-year reviews that also constitute a request for promotion, the review shall follow the format identified in Section IX.B. in this document.  In all other years, the five year reviews will take place as follows.

1. Summary of Review Period: The faculty member will prepare a report listing:

a. Teaching:

1. semester by semester, the courses taught by the faculty member during the review period;
2. Listing of courses taught by the faculty member in the College of Law for the review period, including the approximate number of students enrolled in each course and any independent study courses supervised by the faculty member.
3. Brief description of any courses that were redesigned or developed by the faculty during the review period.
4. Listing of any teaching awards or other recognition for teaching.
5. Student course evaluations;
6. Other evidence of teaching effectiveness and/or growth in the classroom.

b. committee and other administrative assignments in the College of Law and service at the University or professional level;

c. a summary of the faculty member’s contributions to professional organizations and public service;

d. a draft of the faculty member’s professional plans for the next five years; and

e. any other information the faculty member deems relevant to the review period.

2. Report of the Committee

Using the faculty member’s report as well as other sources of information, the Committee will compile its own report.  The form of the report shall be as follows:

a. Overview of the Review Period: Listing of the faculty member’s activities for each semester (including summer semesters) during the period, limited to: full-time teaching at GSU College of Law.

b. Evaluation of Teaching:

The College of Law is dedicated to maintaining the highest levels of classroom performance and teaching standards.  Apart from any review process, faculty members are encouraged to continually improve their teaching through ongoing, long term collaboration with other faculty and responsiveness to student comments.

In evaluating teaching proficiency, the Committee shall consult, in addition to the candidate’s report:

The Faculty, particularly those teaching related courses or upper division courses for which the reviewed faculty member teaches prerequisites;

The Dean and Associate Dean concerning any complaints or reports they may have received from students and alumni;

Any earlier written reports of classroom visitations;

Course syllabi;

Students enrolled in the faculty member’s course(s);

Student evaluation forms; and

Any other evidence reflective of teaching proficiency.

c. University Service: at the College or University levels including committees, task forces, advising student organizations, etc.

d. Professional Service: participation in professional or academic meetings, conferences and workshops; advisory or drafting roles for public officials or entities, professional association participation and/or leadership roles, etc.

e. Public and Community Service: including appointive or elective office, leadership roles in community organizations, etc.

f. Awards and Honors

g. Other Evidence of Achievements

h. Committee Evaluation: Evaluation by the Committee discussing a faculty member’s strengths and achievements and suggestions as to areas of improvement for the faculty member.

If the Committee believes there may be a teaching problem, at least two members of the Committee shall visit the faculty member’s classes.  The Committee shall review any potential problems with the faculty member and identify how to address such problems.

i. Current vita of faculty member; copies of faculty member’s annual reports for the review period; and copies of any evaluations of classroom teaching.

3. Faculty Member’s Report:

Within ten business days of receiving a copy of the Committee’s Summary of the Review Period, the faculty member shall submit a report to the Committee including: any corrections or additions to the Committee’s report. The Committee shall incorporate any additional relevant information provided by the faculty member in its Summary of the Review Period.

4. Meeting:

The Committee shall meet with the lecturer to discuss the report and the faculty member’s plans for the next five years. The Committee should share their general assessment of the faculty member’s contributions in the areas of teaching and service and the lecturer’s five-year plan.

5. Faculty Member’s Professional Plan:

Within one week after meeting with the Committee, the faculty member will send the Committee a final statement of his or her professional plan for the next five years. The plan should address any deficiencies in teaching or service that were raised by the Committee.   If the Committee identified significant deficiencies in teaching, the lecturer will include in his or her five-year plan a specific course of action for addressing the identified deficiencies.

6. Committee Report to the Dean:
The Committee shall send to the Dean its Summary of the Review Period and the lecturer’s five-year professional plan.

E. Review Process for Academic Professionals:

The review period will cover the years since the faculty member’s last review or, in case of initial reviews, the years since the last promotion decision regarding the faculty member.  In the case of five-year reviews that also constitute a request for promotion, the review shall follow the format identified in Section IX.B. of this document.  In all other years, the five year reviews will take place as follows

1. Summary of Review Period: The faculty member will prepare a report listing, as appropriate:

a. Service:

1. A statement of the academic center’s mission, if applicable, and the candidate’s specific service responsibilities.
2. Evidence of knowledge, skills, and abilities as they relate to performing job requirements;
3. Evidence of work successfully accomplished while maintaining standards and meeting deadlines;
4. Evidence of professionalism and thoroughness of the work produced;
5. Evidence of committee and other administrative assignments in the College of Law and service at the University level;
6. Evidence of contributions to professional organizations and public service;
7. Evidence of community engagement in fulfilling the mission and meeting the needs of the center, College and/or University;
8. Other evidence of effective service.

b. Teaching (if applicable):

1. Semester by semester listing of courses taught by the faculty member in the College of Law for the review period, including the approximate number of students enrolled in each course and any independent study courses supervised by the faculty member.
2. Brief description of any courses that were redesigned or developed by the faculty during the review period.
3. Listing of any teaching awards or other recognition for teaching.
4. Student course evaluations.
5. Other evidence of teaching effectiveness and/or growth in the classroom.

c. Research (if applicable):

1. A list of participation in symposia and conferences; formal presentations; practice-focused and professionally oriented writing; engagement with academic and professional audiences; and leadership roles in the profession and on professional committees and/or any other relevant activities.
2. A draft of the faculty member’s professional plans for the next five years.
3. Any other information the faculty member deems relevant to the review period.

2. Report of the Committee

Using the faculty member’s report as well as other sources of information, the Committee will compile its own report.  The form of the report shall be as follows:

a. Overview of the Review Period: Listing of the faculty member’s activities for each semester (including summer semesters) during the period, limited to: service responsibilities and, if applicable, teaching or research responsibilities at GSU College of Law.

b. Service:

1. A statement of the academic center’s mission, if applicable, and the candidate’s specific service responsibilities.
2. Evidence of knowledge, skills, and abilities as they relate to performing job requirements;
3. Evidence of work successfully accomplished while maintaining standards and meeting deadlines;
4. Evidence of professionalism and thoroughness of the work produced;
5. Evidence of committee and other administrative assignments in the College of Law and service at the University level;
6. Evidence of contributions to professional organizations and public service;
7. Evidence of community engagement in fulfilling the mission and meeting the needs of the center, College and/or University;
8. Other evidence of effective service.

c. Evaluation of Teaching (if applicable):

The College of Law is dedicated to maintaining the highest levels of classroom performance and teaching standards.  Apart from any review process, faculty members are encouraged to continually improve their teaching through ongoing, long term collaboration with other faculty and responsiveness to student comments.

In evaluating teaching proficiency, the Committee shall consult, in addition to the candidate’s report:

The Faculty, particularly those teaching related courses or upper division courses for which the reviewed faculty member teaches prerequisites;

The Dean and Associate Dean concerning any complaints or reports they may have received from students and alumni;

Any earlier written reports of classroom visitations;

Course syllabi;

Students enrolled in the faculty member’s course(s);

Student evaluation forms; and

Any other evidence reflective of teaching proficiency.

d. Research (if applicable): A list of participation in symposia and conferences; formal presentations; practice-focused and professionally oriented writing; engagement with academic and professional audiences; and leadership roles in the profession and on professional committees and/or any other relevant activities.

e. Awards and Honors

f. Other Evidence of Achievements

g. Committee Evaluation: Evaluation by the Committee discussing a faculty member’s strengths and achievements and suggestions as to areas of improvement for the faculty member.

If teaching is required and the Committee believes there may be a teaching problem, at least two members of the Committee shall visit the faculty member’s classes.  The Committee shall review any potential problems with the faculty member and identify how to address such problems.

h. Current vita of faculty member; copies of faculty member’s annual reports for the review period; and, if applicable, copies of any evaluations of classroom teaching.

3. Faculty Member’s Report:

Within ten business days of receiving a copy of the Committee’s Summary of the Review Period, the faculty member shall submit a report to the Committee including: any corrections or additions to the Committee’s report. The Committee shall incorporate any additional relevant information provided by the faculty member in its Summary of the Review Period.

4. Meeting:

The Committee shall meet with the academic professional to discuss the report and the faculty member’s plans for the next five years. The Committee should share their general assessment of the faculty member’s contributions in the areas of service and, if applicable, teaching and/or research and the academic professional’s five-year plan.

5. Faculty Member’s Professional Plan:

Within one week after meeting with the Committee, the faculty member will send the Committee a final statement of his or her professional plan for the next five years. The plan should address any deficiencies in service and, if applicable, teaching and/or research that were raised by the Committee.   If the Committee identified significant deficiencies, the academic professional will include in his or her five-year plan a specific course of action for addressing the identified deficiencies.

6. Committee Report to the Dean:

The Committee shall send to the Dean its Summary of the Review Period and the academic professional’s five-year professional plan.

F. Role of Faculty Member:

In addition to the lecturer’s or academic professional’s consultative role in the review process, if the faculty member disagrees with any portion of the Committee report or the Dean’s review, he or she may submit a written response which will be attached to the report and made a part thereof. The lecturer or academic professional is to be given ten business days to prepare the response prior to submission of the report to the Dean and prior to the submission of the Dean’s review and the Committee report to the Provost.

G. Role of the Dean:

The Dean will review the Committee report and provide feedback to the lecturer or academic professional where appropriate.

H. Impact of Review

The results of the review will be linked to rewards and professional development. Lecturers and academic professionals who are performing at a high level should receive recognition for their achievements.
When a lecturer’s review reflects that he or she has not met or maintained the standards of teaching and service expected of that rank of lecturer or, in the case of an academic professional, the review reflects that he or she has not met or maintained the standards of service and, if applicable, teaching and/or research expected of that rank of academic professional, the Dean will work with the faculty member to create a formal plan for faculty development that identifies clearly defined goals and outcomes, an outline of activities to be undertaken, timetables, and an agreed-upon monitoring strategy.