Reappointment Guidelines

The College requires 2^nd and 4^th year reappointments to involve formal evaluations; evaluations may be required in other years if requested by the appointing unit or described in an offer or reappointment letter.

The second-year reappointment evaluation will take place in the fall semester of the candidate’s second full academic year. A successful evaluation will result in a recommendation for extension of the contract through the end of the fourth year. Documentation requirements are relatively modest. See Reappointment and Promotion Files.

The fourth-year reappointment evaluation is a rigorous review of progress towards continuous appointment (tenure) and requires documentation identical to that required for consideration for tenure except that external reviews are not required; see Reappointment and Promotion Files. Three outcomes are possible:

A determination of strong progress towards tenure will typically result in a recommendation for a two-year reappointment.

Uncertainty about progress towards tenure may result in a recommendation for a one-year reappointment; this outcome mandates an additional reappointment during the candidate’s fifth year.

Serious concerns about progress towards tenure may result in a recommendation of non-reappointment. If this recommendation is sustained, the faculty member’s appointment would end in May of the following academic year.

Note: The designated reappointment year (example, “2^nd year”) is based upon a six-year tenure “clock”, e.g., a faculty member working towards a tenure evaluation in the sixth year of UNL appointment. The schedule will be moved forward for faculty who are hired with tenure credit and delayed for those who receive extensions of the tenure clock.

Reappointment evaluations other than in year 2 or year 4 will be required if described in the offer letter, mandated in the previous reappointment, or requested by the appropriate faculty committee. These reappointments will be due to the college in early February (see CAS Administrative Tools Reappointment section for exact dates).

Reappointments in the third year are typically handled administratively; the faculty member undergoing reappointment should contact the unit director to discuss necessary documentation.

A fifth-year reappointment may be required based upon departmental request and/or the outcome of the fourth-year review. The documentation required is equivalent to those used for the 4^th year reappointment evaluation: P & T Candidate File Preparation.

A request for a previously unscheduled reappointment evaluation (for example, if a full evaluation is requested as part of the third-year reappointment) must be communicated to the candidate by mid-September of the academic year in which the reappointment will take place. The unit must schedule the evaluation to comply with CAS deadlines for submission: Due dates for faculty reappointment.

 The document file is constructed cooperatively by the candidate and the department, with the candidate formally responsible for an updated CV, a statement or statements encompassing areas of apportioned effort, and any desired appendix materials. See Reappointment and Promotion Files and P & T Candidate File Preparation.

The candidate may include a COVID impact statement, either as a stand-alone section or as a component within other portions of the statement. Promotion and Tenure.

Efforts and achievement related to diversity, equity, and/or inclusion (DEI), as well as engagement, may be incorporated as part of the sections on research, teaching, and service or as separate sections of the statement.

Units need to ensure that candidates have adequate mentoring on necessary file components, including which components are to be provided by the candidate, and the deadlines for submission.

It is the responsibility of the unit director to ensure that all relevant documents and materials have been included in the file prior to the evaluation of the review committee.

Apart from the COVID impact statement, the combined statements may not exceed 15 pages.

Files for reappointment must be submitted through the Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure (RPT) System, available at online. Connection from off campus requires use of the UNL VPN.

For a description of needed file components, see Reappointment and Promotion Files and P & T Candidate File Preparation.

Electronic (vs. scanned) versions of documents should be used whenever possible. If scanned copies must be included, consider using Adobe Optimizer or a similar application to process scanned pages.

The RPT system is used for all reappointment evaluations and existing file components may be reused or updated (for example, annual evaluations).

Contact Brenda Ensor (bensor2@unl.edu) in the Dean’s Office with any questions.

Files are ready for candidate review when all components have been loaded into the RPT system. The candidate is entitled to access all materials in the file. The candidate has up to five (5) working days to review, object to, and respond in writing to any such added material with the response becoming a part of the documentation file prior to any further consideration. The process of handling objections is defined in the next paragraph.

At any stage of review, anyone with relevant information for inclusion into the file may proffer that information to the person responsible for managing that portion of the review. This person, after consultation with the candidate, will decide whether to include the material. The candidate must be informed of the content and source of any substantive new evidence to be added to the existing file. The candidate has up to five (5) working days to review, object to, and respond in writing to any such added material with the response becoming a part of the documentation file prior to any further consideration.

The only anonymous materials that may be included in reappointment files are student evaluations. These are typically solicited in anonymous form and using a standardized evaluation from all students enrolled in courses taught by the faculty member. If additional or customized student evaluations are desired or collected, the process for gathering these evaluations must be described in writing and becomes part of the record. Any candidate response to comments in student evaluations must come within the teaching statement or the appendices.

The candidate has the right to know the identity of everyone who reviews the file.

Following the candidate’s window of opportunity to review and respond to file contents, the file is opened to the faculty review committee(s), comprising the tenured faculty of the appointing unit(s). The committee(s) must be allowed at least five (5) working days to inspect the file in advance of any meeting to consider the question(s) of reappointment; some unit bylaws require a longer reading period.

The discussion by the review committee must be over the file. Requests to introduce new material into the file must comply with the procedures described above; in some cases, this may require tabling discussion to allow time for review and response by the candidate as described abo e.

The chair or director will attend the review committee discussion and take careful notes on the discussion and recommendations. The chair or director should refrain from participation other than to make sure discussion focuses on the file or to seek clarification over a stated opinion or the lack of such (for example, the lack of any criticism supporting negative votes).

The evaluation by the review committee must include each of the following:

•  a discussion of progress towards tenure;
• identification of areas where improvement is needed to be successful;
• an adjective for performance within each area of nonzero apportionment;
• a formal recommendation on the question of reappointment, and, if relevant, reappointment term;
• A description of the faculty electorate and the actual number and nature (e.g., “Yes”, “No”, ‘Abstain”) of recommendations received.

For a reappointment review prior to the fourth year, the committee’s recommendations may be communicated in a separate letter or via the letter from the chair or director (below). However, in the case of a formal recommendation against reappointment, the review committee must generate and share a written evaluation which becomes part of the file.

For reappointment evaluations in the fourth year or beyond, the review committee must provide a separate letter which becomes part of the file. The letter must be signed by the author and must make clear whether the text of the letter has been reviewed by the committee.

The final version of the letter, along with any candidate response or request for reconsideration, is then uploaded into the College RPT system and released for review by the unit director. The reconsideration process, described below, must be completed as expeditiously as possible to comply with submission deadlines to the next level of consideration. No negative recommendation shall be forwarded until the reconsideration process has been completed.

The faculty review committee recommendation(s) and votes must be shared with the candidate in the form of a draft letter to the unit director. The candidate has up to five (5) working days to respond to the draft and/or to request reconsideration of a negative decision. Any request for reconsideration must explicitly describe the assessment or recommendation that is contested. The response or request becomes part of the candidate’s file.

The faculty review committee may choose to modify the letter in response to corrections of fact. It is suggested that any changes be summarized and explained in a brief addendum. In response to a request for reconsideration, the faculty review committee must first vote on whether to accept the request. If the review committee chooses not to reconsider the evaluation, this must be reported to the candidate in a separate signed communication, which along with the candidate’s request for reconsideration, must be added to the file. If the faculty review committee chooses to reconsider the evaluation, the outcome must be reported in a dated document which includes votes and assessments over any questions or areas reconsidered. This document may be appended to the original evaluation and must be accompanied by the candidate’s request for reconsideration.

The unit director will next review the candidate’s complete file, including the recommendations of the review committee, and prepare an independent recommendation in the form of a draft letter to the Dean. The recommendation must include the same components noted above for the faculty review committee. In addition, the letter should summarize opinions voiced in the review committee discussion; this is particularly important in understanding negative votes and abstentions.

If the review committee will not be providing a separate written recommendation, the letter from the chair or director must relay information otherwise conveyed in the letter from the review committee (see section above).

Processes for candidate review of the recommendation and for requesting correction or reconsideration are analogous to those described in relation to the evaluation from the faculty review committee.

The Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences will next conduct an evaluation based upon the file, which now includes input from the faculty review committee, the chair or director, and any responses filed by the candidate during the evaluation process. While expectations will vary with a particular reappointment, the focus of the reappointment will be progress towards tenure. The evaluation by the Dean will result in a recommendation for or against reappointment, and, depending upon the specific evaluation, the term of the reappointment.

Processes for candidate review of the recommendation and for making a response or requesting reconsideration are analogous to those described for the evaluation by the faculty review committee. The reappointment evaluation process stops with the Dean. Procedures related to non-reappointment are discussed below.