English Department Policy Statement on Personnel

PREAMBLE

In all personnel matters, the English Department follows all-college procedures specified in the Skidmore College Faculty Handbook. This document, “English Department Personnel Policy,” is intended as a supplement to all-college procedures. It is intended to ensure a fair and equitable review process in our department, to guide faculty through their careers, and to provide key information related to both personnel review and labor conditions and expectations.

Two committees assist the Chair in conducting personnel business. The Personnel Committee is a standing committee charged with review and implementation of personnel policy and the review of candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. A Search Committee engages in the hiring process for a particular tenure-track position or a position as Writer-in-Residence.

THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE

Function: To advise the Chair on personnel decisions, especially those requiring a recommendation to ATC, Promotions Committee, and/or the Dean of the Faculty. Discussions on this committee should remain confidential.

Composition: Four elected full-time tenure-track members of the department, each to serve a two-year renewable term. Ideally, terms of office will overlap to ensure continuity: two members will be in their second year of service when two new members come to the committee. The committee will whenever possible include faculty with diverse perspectives and from diverse backgrounds, including women and underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. No more than one untenured faculty member shall serve in any given year. A committee member shall not participate in deliberations about their own case or about the case of a domestic partner or family member.

SEARCH COMMITTEES

Function: To read applications for tenure-track positions, Writer-in-Residence positions, and positions subject to a national search; select candidates for interviews; participate in interviews; select candidates for campus visits; and advise the Chair on hiring decisions. The Chair and/or Search Committee members will convey information to the department in a timely manner throughout a search, including sharing the names of interviewees.

Composition: Search committees will consist of at least three members and will, whenever possible, include faculty with diverse perspectives and from diverse backgrounds, including women and underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. Committees will be chosen through a process of election and selection. Eligible faculty will vote from among those who express willingness to serve. The Chair will balance the election results with other factors, including, but not limited to, diversity; field/expertise; rank. All tenure-track faculty and Writers-in-Residence are eligible to serve on search committees. Though three is the minimum number required to comprise a committee, the Chair may appoint four or more members in the interest of balance and range.

PROCESS AND CALENDAR FOR REVIEWS OF FACULTY ON TENURE-TRACK APPOINTMENTS

In assessing a candidate’s credentials, the department applies the criteria for teaching, scholarship, and service specified in the Faculty Handbook. All faculty should familiarize themselves with the Faculty Handbook. The department Chair, in consultation with the Personnel Committee, will assist the individual candidate in understanding the specific expectations derived from the Handbook criteria. Mentoring and guidance from the Chair for both developmental and evaluative purposes will be steady and regular. A “Statement of Expectations” will be communicated in writing through evaluation letters supplied by the Chair annually to pre-tenure candidates. The ”Statement of Expectations” will be shared with members of the department whenever procedures call for their participation in a review.

The Personnel Committee will provide the department with the names of all candidates for reappointment or tenure at the start of the academic year, along with the due dates for letters of recommendation to be forwarded to PC and/or ATC/Promotions Committee. 

N.B. Years designated below refer to a standard six-year tenure clock, and may not coincide with actual years of employment at Skidmore.

Third-year Reappointment:

The Chair and the Personnel Committee will hold an informational meeting for candidates for reappointment that follows the timing of ATC’s annual informational meeting (usually held in March).

Third-Year Reappointment: The Chair will invite full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty in at least their third year of service, and those on renewable half-time appointments, to indicate clearly support or lack of support for reappointment in letters that will be forwarded to the PC and the Chair. These letters are not forwarded to the Dean’s Office. The PC conducts its review, informing the Chair of its support or lack of support, and the Chair writes a consensus letter, which is made available for eligible faculty to review and sign. This letter is due to the appropriate Associate Dean of the Faculty on or before January 15* of the appointee’s third year, and must be made available to department faculty to read and to sign prior to that date. Faculty who do not wish to sign the Chair’s consensus letter for any reason must submit an individual letter of recommendation to the appropriate Associate Dean of the Faculty on or before January 15*. (*Specific date determined by ATC each year and published in its Annual Calendar.)

Files for candidates in their third year must normally be completed by November 1. The precise date will be set each year by the Chair, in consultation with the Personnel Committee, and communicated in a timely fashion to the candidate(s). Student evaluations for the current semester will be added after they are collected.

Candidates for reappointment will be notified of decisions by the Dean of the Faculty/Vice President for Academic Affairs on or before March 1 (see FHB Part One, VIII.D.1.a.v & vi).

Tenure Review:

The Chair and the Personnel Committee will hold an informational meeting for tenure candidates and newly reappointed faculty that follows the timing of ATC’s annual informational meeting (usually held in March).

Tenure candidates will submit to the Chair, according to the deadline established by the ATC calendar (typically May of the candidate's fifth year), two lists of names of external referees: 1. reviewers external to the college who speak primarily to the candidate’s scholarly and/or creative profile, and 2. Skidmore faculty and/or staff outside the department who speak primarily to the candidate’s college service and/or teaching. The Chair writes directly to all referees to solicit letters.

Additionally, after informing candidates, the Chair or the committee may elect to consult other referees, particularly experts in the candidate's field of interest. In these cases, the list of potential outside referees from which letters may be requested will be compiled by the Chair and the Personnel Committee in consultation with the candidate. The Chair will apprise the candidate of the final list of outside referees from whom letters will be requested.

Files for tenure candidates must be completed by the date set down in the current ATC calendar.

The Personnel Committee will review the previous year’s PC observations based on fifth-year class visits.

All department faculty who are not on leave and are defined by the Faculty Handbook as sources of information on tenure candidates shall meet as a group to discuss and exchange evaluations of tenure candidates at the start of the fall semester. Faculty on sabbatical or research leave are invited but not expected to attend these meetings. During that meeting, the Chair will offer a preliminary assessment of each candidate from the Personnel Committee, including their perceptions of class visits that occurred during the candidate’s fifth year (per #4 under “Guidelines for Class Visits”). Following that meeting, the Chair will ask eligible department faculty to indicate clearly support or lack of support for the candidate in written statements that will be forwarded to the Personnel Committee and to ATC according to the committees’ respective deadlines.

Candidates for tenure will be advised of ATC procedures and deadlines by the Chair of that committee. Eligible members of the department will receive invitations to write recommendations by the Chair of the department. All written recommendations in tenure cases are delivered to the Dean of the Faculty by the Chair of the department.

Candidates for tenure will be notified of the President’s recommendation to the Board of Trustees according to the ATC calendar. The Chair of the department will have no communication with candidates regarding the department’s recommendation until that time.

Tenure Expectations for Scholarly/Creative Work

Expectations for Tenure: Literary Scholarship

For tenure candidates in literature, the English department expects a significant record of scholarly publication. There is no requirement that this record include a “tenure book.” A significant record of publication could be demonstrated in one of the following ways:

1. A book published by, or a completed manuscript under contract with, a scholarly or commercial press that employs peer review. The importance of peer review is in keeping with the Faculty Handbook: “scholarship in particular invites the critical scrutiny of peers” (Part One.VIII.A.2).
2. Publication of 4 or more essays in peer-reviewed journals, or in edited collections by presses that use peer review. 
3. Publication of fewer than 4 peer-reviewed essays, combined with a book manuscript at an advanced stage of development or another substantial scholarly effort (such as editing a collection of essays, publishing a translation or edition of a primary text, or creating a digital archive). Admittedly, this scenario comes with the greatest uncertainty: The lower the number “fewer than 4,” the greater the risk the candidate is accepting.

Other work, including fiction, creative nonfiction, poetry, editorial work at a journal, and essays for a popular audience, is relevant, but will not substitute for peer-reviewed scholarly publication. This is also true for conference papers, invited talks, book reviews, and committee work for professional organizations.

Given that delays in publication are frequent and often beyond the candidate’s control, work that has received final acceptance from the publisher will be treated as if it were published. In addition, recognizing changes in modes of publishing, the department makes no distinction between digital and print publication.

Work published before Skidmore is relevant and will be considered for tenure, but successful candidates’ files will show a consistent, ongoing record of productivity after arrival.

None of the above scenarios obligate the department to recommend tenure based on quantity of production. In all cases, the department (assisted by the external reviewers) must judge the quality of the work and the reputation of the publication venue to be sufficiently high in order to recommend tenure.

Since it is possible to imagine acceptable records of publication different from the ones outlined above, we urge all candidates for tenure to consult with the Chair. And, per our procedures, the Chair and the Personnel Committee will hold informational meetings for tenure candidates that follow the timing of ATC’s informational meeting.

Expectations for Tenure: Creative Writing

For tenure candidates in creative writing, the English department expects a significant record of publication. There is no requirement that this record include a “tenure book.” A significant record of publication could be demonstrated in one of the following ways:

1. A book (short story collection, novel, essay collection, nonfiction work, or poetry collection) published by, or under contract with, a university, commercial, or respected small press.
2. Publication of 5 or more stories or novel excerpts, 5 or more essays or other nonfiction excerpts, or 20 or more poems of substantial length in nationally and/or internationally distributed reputable journals or in edited collections published by university, commercial, or respected small presses.
3. Publication of fewer than 5 stories or essays, or 20 poems, combined with a book manuscript (short story collection, novel, essay collection, other nonfiction, or poetry collection) at an advanced stage of development. Admittedly, this scenario comes with the greatest uncertainty: The lower the number “fewer than 5 stories or essays, or 20 poems,” the greater the risk the candidate is accepting.

Other work, including self-published and hybrid “co-operative” publications, scholarly essays and conference presentations, as well as items such as encyclopedia entries and brief book reviews, is relevant, but will not substitute for the required creative work. This is also true for readings, invited talks, and committee work for professional organizations.

As with scholarly work, creative pieces accepted will be treated as if they were published. In addition, recognizing changes in modes of publishing, the department makes no distinction between digital and print publication. In both cases, the reputation of the venue must be established by the department (assisted by external reviewers).

Work published before Skidmore is relevant and will be considered for tenure, but successful candidates’ files will show a consistent, ongoing record of productivity after arrival.

None of the above scenarios obligate the department to recommend tenure based on quantity of production. In all cases, the department (assisted by the external reviewers) must judge the quality of the work to be sufficiently high in order to recommend tenure.

Since it is possible to imagine acceptable records of publication different from the ones outlined above, we urge all candidates for tenure to consult with the Chair. And, per our procedures, the Chair and the Personnel Committee will hold informational meetings for tenure candidates that follow the timing of ATC’s informational meeting.

Tenure Expectations for Teaching and Service

The English Department is guided by the Faculty Handbook in evaluating Teaching and Service in personnel reviews.

The Handbook cites “high-quality teaching [as] the principal criterion” in tenure decisions and defines excellence in teaching in broad terms, specifying course design, mentoring, the fostering of student learning, and faculty expertise as four categories in which faculty may demonstrate success. Evidence of effective teaching may include (but is not limited to): syllabi; exams, essay prompts, and other course handouts; products of student research or creative work; a teaching statement; and student evaluations. Co-curricular activity such as advising and directing independent study is also understood to be part of a faculty member’s facilitation of students’ “intellectual or artistic development,” and may be included as part of a teaching portfolio. Peer evaluation is expected by the College and required by current department policy as detailed in our Personnel Policies. (See FHB VIII.A.1)

The Handbook defines service as “applying one’s time, talents, and energy to perform or assist others in performing the necessary work of advising; faculty governance; departmental or programmatic administration; oversight of adjunct faculty and other personnel; development, assessment and oversight of curriculum; and other extra-curricular activities such as attending community events.” Participation in traditional committee work is only one way that faculty may demonstrate community engagement. The Handbook understands service in multiple ways: service to students, service to the department or other academic programs, service to the College (which includes service to communities beyond the campus), and service to the academic profession. As the Handbook explains, faculty may “assume responsibility for the common life of the institution in ways that are commensurate with their interests and roles and with the institution’s purpose and needs,” including “contributions that directly stimulate the intellectual atmosphere of the college” and “exchanging ideas and debating issues of common concern.” (See FHB VIII.A.3)

Promotion Review:

Department policy on time of review for promotion is as follows: for the rank of assistant professor, in the year of or immediately following completion of the Ph.D. or its equivalent; for the rank of associate professor, normally in the sixth year of service as an assistant professor at the time of tenure consideration. For the rank of professor, faculty may request to stand for promotion at their discretion. Service in a professional rank at other institutions may be considered in determining the time of review. Review does not imply recommendation: promotion at Skidmore is granted on the basis of merit and not guaranteed by years of service.

Members of the department may request review for promotion by the committee and the Chair in any year.

Files for candidates applying for promotion to Full Professor must normally be completed in early December. The precise date will be set each year by the Chair, in consultation with the Personnel Committee and to align with the Promotions Committee’s calendar for that year—and communicated in a timely fashion to the candidate(s). Student evaluations for the current semester will be added after they are collected.

Candidates for promotion to Full Professor will be notified of the President’s recommendation to the Board of Trustees according to the Promotions Committee calendar. The Chair of the department will have no communication with candidates regarding the department’s recommendation until that time.

FULL-TIME NON-TENURE-TRACK EMPLOYMENT [this section is under review]

1. This is a non-tenure track position renewable indefinitely in three-year periods upon the recommendation of the Department Chair and the approval of the Dean of the Faculty.  When possible, the position will be filled through a national search, conducted according to our procedures for tenure-track and Writer-in-Residence searches. If a national search isn't possible, the Chair will consult with the PC during the hiring process.
2. Hiring, reappointment, and teaching assignments will be based on departmental need, as well as the candidate's experience and qualifications. 
3. Non-tenure-track faculty are not required to serve as faculty advisors or to participate in other forms of departmental service, including the direction of independent student work.
4. The teaching load for non-tenure-track faculty is determined by the Dean of the Faculty, and is currently 20 hours per academic year.
5. During the initial three-year appointment, the Personnel Committee shall conduct second- and third-year reviews by procedures analogous to those observed for reappointment candidates on the tenure track, as set forth in the Faculty Handbook, the English Department Policy Statement on Personnel, and the ATC calendar, with two exceptions: a) the second-year review will be conducted entirely by the Personnel Committee, with no letters required from the department, and b) the standards for advancement are specific to non-tenure-track employment. Excellence in teaching is the primary criterion for reappointment. Expectations for professional involvement (i.e., writing, publication, participation in the discipline, etc.) will be shaped by the structural differences between non-tenure-track and tenure-track appointments, and will be communicated to candidates in annual letters from the Chair.
6. In the third year of each subsequent contract cycle, the Department Chair and the Personnel Committee shall review student evaluations of the candidate's teaching and evidence of professional involvement. Class visits may take place at the discretion of the committee and/or the candidate. On the basis of this review, the Chair shall submit to the Dean of the Faculty a recommendation either to offer or to deny an additional three-year contract. This recommendation must be submitted by the date set for full-time reappointment recommendations.
7. For interdisciplinary appointments in which the majority of the candidate's responsibilities are in English, the procedures in #5 and #6 above will be followed, with this addition: the Chair will request input from the candidate's other supervisor(s), and will incorporate that input into the English department's review.
8. A candidate who is denied an additional three-year contract beyond six years of service may be offered an additional one-year contract if departmental need is demonstrated.
9. For the first five years of the candidate's appointment, the Chair shall write annual letters of evaluation. Subsequently, the Chair shall follow the pattern for tenured faculty members and write a letter of evaluation every three years at the time of the Personnel Committee's review.
10. In situations involving short-term need, appointments will be for one year, renewable twice. After the second renewal, the candidate can be offered a three-year, indefinitely renewable position, if long-term departmental need is determined. Absent such need, the candidate is no longer eligible for full-time appointment. 

PART-TIME NON-TENURE-TRACK FACULTY

1. The Chair will maintain regular communication with faculty holding these positions, and will be available for mentoring when desired by the faculty member or the Chair. The Chair will manage any overload issues.
2. Hiring, reappointment, and teaching assignments will be based on departmental need, as well as the candidate's experience and qualifications. 
3. Non-tenure-track faculty are not required to serve as faculty advisors or to participate in other forms of departmental service, including the direction of independent student work.
4. The teaching load for part-time non-tenure-track faculty varies according to need and is approved by the Dean of the Faculty, after consulting with the Chair.

TENURED FACULTY

1. The Chair will maintain regular communication with tenured faculty, recognizing their contributions and providing support for both teaching and scholarly/creative work. Mentoring around professional development, including but not limited to the decision to stand for promotion to Full Professor, leadership training, and identifying workplace opportunities, will be ongoing. 
2. The Chair will write evaluation letters every three years for tenured faculty at the Associate Professor rank, every six years for tenured faculty at the Professor rank. The Dean’s Office provides a list every year of who is owed a letter.

WRITERS-IN-RESIDENCE 

1. This is a non-tenure track position renewable indefinitely in three-year (and, eventually, alternating three and four year) periods upon the recommendation of the department Chair and the approval of the Dean of the Faculty.
2. After the initial appointment, the department shall conduct second- and third-year reviews by procedures analogous to those observed for reappointment candidates on tenure track, as set forth in the Faculty Handbook, the English Department Personnel Policy, and the ATC calendar. The Chair shall establish the calendar appropriate to each review.
3. In the third year of the second contract cycle (sixth year of service), the Personnel Committee shall conduct a review to determine whether or not the candidate shall be reappointed for a subsequent, three-year contract, following the standard explained in the Faculty Handbook, Part V: "Evaluative Criteria for Continued Service." Candidates for reappointment will submit to the Chair names of five referees outside the department or the college by June l of the fifth year. In the sixth year, the Chair will invite tenured members of the department to indicate clearly support or lack of support for reappointment in written statements which will be forwarded to the Personnel Committee.
4. After the initial six years, Writers-in-Residence who are reappointed will receive contracts of alternating lengths of four and three years with reviews in the penultimate year of each contract. At that time, the department Chair and the Personnel Committee shall review student evaluations of the candidate's teaching and the candidate's record of publications and college service. Class visits may take place at the discretion of the committee and/or the candidate. The Chair shall solicit the advice of the Director of Creative Writing and of such other department members as either the Personnel Committee or the candidate recommends.
   
   On the basis of this review, the Chair shall submit to the Dean of the Faculty a recommendation either to offer or to deny an additional three-year contract. This recommendation must be submitted by the date set for full-time reappointment recommendations, if the candidate teaches during the fall term; or by April 15, if the candidate teaches during the spring term.
5. A candidate who is denied an additional three-year contract receives a terminal one-year contract.
6. For the first five years of the candidate's appointment, the Chair shall write annual letters of evaluation. Subsequently, the Chair shall follow the pattern for tenured faculty members and write a letter of evaluation every three years at the time of the departmental review.
7. In the event of a disagreement between the Chair and the Dean of the Faculty over the decision to offer an additional contract, the case shall be concluded as specified in the Faculty Handbook.
8. Promotion reviews shall be conducted according to departmental procedures.

DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION

The Faculty Handbook specifies that evidence of “commitment to Skidmore’s mission” and “sharing in the communal work” of the College “will … be taken into account” in personnel reviews. (see FHB VIII preamble and sections D, E, F.) The department recognizes contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives as important components of that mission and communal work, and encourages faculty to include evidence of this work in their Teaching and Service portfolios. The department further recognizes that mentoring and advising burden some faculty disproportionately. DEI work both in and out of the classroom may be offered as evidence toward meeting teaching and service expectations. Teaching efforts may include promotion of accessible and inclusive pedagogy; fostering an inclusive classroom environment that values a broad range of backgrounds and learning styles; mentoring of students from traditionally underrepresented groups; creation of diverse and representative syllabi; and offering students opportunities to develop and enhance their ability to engage with a diverse society. Service efforts may include contribution to campus programs that foster inclusivity, diversity, and access to liberal education; outreach efforts to reduce barriers to success in education for underrepresented students; participation in off-campus programs that support and extend opportunities to disadvantaged communities; and mentoring and educational efforts directed to faculty colleagues.

GUIDELINES FOR CLASS VISITS

Both in the department and at the College, peer observation plays an evaluative role. To ensure that such evaluation is as fair and productive as possible, the following guidelines govern the Chair’s and the Personnel Committee’s process for classroom observation.

Note: The evaluative role of peer observation works best when there is also a developmental model in place, by which all faculty are striving to become better teachers. Peer observation is an opportunity for all faculty to improve their teaching by learning from one another. Thus, the department encourages a culture in which instructors across ranks and positions invite one another into their classrooms. These invitations can come in response to particular difficulties or issues being experienced in the classroom, or, more generally, simply as an opportunity to learn from different perspectives. A culture of reciprocity fosters a genuine exchange of ideas and methods, and such a culture has the added benefit of enhancing the value and strengthening the legitimacy of evaluative observation.

1. The Chair will observe first-year faculty once in either fall or spring semester (as selected by the faculty), and may choose, or be invited, to visit classes at any other time.
2. The Chair and members of the Personnel Committee will visit the classes of candidates for reappointment once during their second year of service.
3. Only new members of the Personnel Committee will visit the classes of reappointment candidates once in the fall semester of their third year of service.
4. The Chair and all members of the Personnel Committee will observe tenure candidates once in their fifth year of service. 
5. Instructors may invite members of the department other than Personnel Committee members to visit their classes at any time. Those visitors are encouraged to incorporate their observations about class visits in letters of recommendation at the time of reappointment, tenure, and promotion.
6. The Personnel Committee members should confer with the instructor being observed to schedule visits so as to cover as wide a range of courses, instructional methods, and materials as possible, while also respecting the instructor’s wishes to concentrate visits in as few classes as practicable.
7. Class observations will be scheduled and visitors will not appear at a class unannounced.
8. Instructors will supply visitors with copies of the syllabus, any relevant assignments, and any relevant information they wish to provide about the design and goals of the course and the particular class meeting. Instructors and visitors are encouraged to communicate before the observation to discuss the context for, and goals of, the observation. Possible prompts for that discussion can be found here.
9. Visitors will remain for the duration of the class.
10. Visitors should not participate directly in the class unless invited to do so by the instructor.
11. Visitors shall report to the instructor either orally or in writing shortly after the class visits.
12. In order to continue a dialogue on pedagogy, the instructor may request to observe the classes of the visitor. 
13. Additional class observations may be requested at the discretion of the Chair, the Personnel Committee, or the instructor.
14. If, at any point, the faculty member being observed has concerns about the process, they should share those concerns with the Chair.
15. All members of PC who observe a candidate in their fifth year of service shall report their observations in writing to the Chair shortly after the class visit. 

SEARCH PROCESS

Guidelines for the composition of search committees are stated above. One member of each committee will be designated the Diversity Advocate.

After an initial review of applications, Search Committee members meet with the Chair to determine a list of candidates from whom to request additional materials. From that list, the Committee then devises and shares with the Chair an interview list. The finalized interview list is vetted by the Dean’s Office with particular attention to the diversity of the candidate pool. Interviews may be conducted in person at the annual MLA convention or online, as preferred by the department and approved by the Dean. Invitations for on-campus visits are typically extended to 3-4 candidates as approved by the Dean. The Chair will inform the department of the names of all interviewees, and will make finalists’ materials available to the department prior to on-campus visits.

While Search Committees and the Chair may modify expectations for on-campus visits in any given search process, past practice has included individual meetings with the Dean’s Office, the department Chair, the Associate Chair, the Chair of Expository Writing, and the college Ambassador; a tour of campus and town; lunch with students; a presentation in which candidates are asked to demonstrate their pedagogy and to discuss their research and writing; and a meal with the Search Committee and Chair. All department members are invited to candidates’ presentations; selected students may also be encouraged to attend. The department meets to discuss candidates’ materials and presentations at the conclusion of all visits for a particular position; at this meeting, the Search Committee may offer details from the interviews and other impressions informed by their thorough review of materials. Recommendations from the department are solicited by the Chair and sent to both Chair and Search Committee. Guidelines for preparing for campus visits and for debrief meetings may be found below.

The Chair and Search Committee meet to review department members’ recommendations; the Committee recommends a final candidate to the Chair. The Chair then meets with the Dean to review candidates’ materials and to request approval to hire. The Chair informs the department once an offer has been made to the candidate.

JOB SEARCH GUIDELINES

As one reads the candidates’ files, meets candidates, and attends their presentations, please keep in mind that departmental debrief meetings will be guided by the following criteria:

• Evidence of success and demonstrated experience in teaching
• Evidence of success and demonstrated experience in conducting research and writing
• Evidence of interest in and awareness of the particulars of a Small Liberal Arts College career
• Evidence of experience in or commitment to teaching students from a diverse range of backgrounds
• Opportunity to contribute to both department and college efforts toward inclusive hiring

At each debrief meeting, the department will discuss these criteria in relation to the specific expectations outlined in the job advertisement.

THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT CHAIR

The Department follows the Faculty Handbook for appointment and review of the Chair. See Part One, XII.A, B, & C.

The duties of the Chair are those stipulated as "Obligations Pertaining to Department Chairs" in the Faculty Handbook, Part One. XII.D.

THE ASSOCIATE CHAIR

ELIGIBILITY:

The Associate Chair must hold a full-time, tenure-line position in the department.

PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF THE AC:

The Chair will solicit nominations and self-nominations of English faculty willing to become candidates for Associate Chair, and appoints the Associate Chair after consulting with the Personnel Committee and the Dean.

TERM:

Appointments to the Associate Chair are for one year and are renewable.

DUTIES:

The Associate Chair helps the Chair to ensure the smooth functioning of the department. In particular, the Associate Chair works with the Chair to determine each semester’s course schedule, including proofreading of the Prospectus. The AC is responsible for handling transfer and study-abroad credit, for updating the English Department section of the college catalog, for reassigning advisees among faculty as needed, and for maintaining regular office hours. In the event that the Chair is unable to lead a department meeting or to attend an academic staff meeting, the Associate Chair will stand in for the Chair.

POLICY ON ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE

All members of the department are eligible to vote at department meetings. Only those present at the meeting may vote. Faculty who must miss a meeting may still make their opinions known to the department for the purposes of discussion. Student reps are eligible to vote except in the instance of personnel matters; they will also be asked to leave prior to discussions of personnel matters.

Last revised - 2/2024