BRYN MAWR COLLEGE

The Departmental Review and the Chair's Responsibilities

1. Participating members of the faculty
   1. It is the responsibility of the department chair, in consultation with all department members senior in rank to the candidate, to lead the departmental review of each faculty member in the department who is under consideration for reappointment and/or promotion and to formulate the departmental recommendation. Appropriate members of other departments, as determined by the department chair, the President, and the Provost, may be asked to share in this responsibility.

   2. If the department chair is unable by virtue of rank or special circumstance to carry out the chair's tasks associated with a particular review, the Provost, in consultation with the President. shall designate someone senior to the candidate in rank, whether another member of the department or a faculty member from another department or another institution, to substitute for the chair in conducting the review of the candidate.

2. Consultation with Haverford counterparts
   The chair should consult with the chair of the appropriate counterpart department, if any, at Haverford College, and request a written recommendation on reappointment. The Provost's Office will supply the counterpart department with the candidate's complete dossier, including the curriculum vitae and scholarly work. The Haverford department's recommendation may be either a single statement arrived at through consultation among those members of the Haverford department senior in rank to the candidate or individual letters from those same members of the Haverford department. The Bryn Mawr department should have the Haverford department's recommendation in hand before formulating its own recommendation. The Bryn Mawr chair should forward the Haverford department's letter(s) to the Office of the Provost along with the Bryn Mawr department's own recommendation. The Haverford department members should also feel free to communicate directly with the Bryn Mawr Committee on Appointments in care of the Provost's Office.

3. Submission of materials
   The chair should forward to the Office of the Provost the following materials on or before the deadlines set forth on the Provost's website:
   1. In the cases of (1) reappointment to a term in which tenure becomes effective and (2) College reviews of an Associate Professor, the names and addresses of six persons prominent in the candidate's field, suggested by the senior members of the department, from whom the Committee on Appointments may solicit confidential evaluations of the candidate's scholarly accomplishments and promise. This group of outside readers should not include persons who have had a close association with the candidate previously, or persons nominated by the candidate as outside readers. The names of this group of readers should not be made known to the candidate. The department may honor a request by the candidate that an individual's name not be on the departmental list. No more than one name may be so requested. See the section on outside reviews.

   2. In all cases, a written departmental recommendation concerning the possible reappointment and/or promotion. This recommendation should reflect the full views of those consulted (as specified above). The departmental recommendation should include the information which the chair considers relevant. The chair should inform the individuals responsible for the recommendation that they may write directly to the President to augment the departmental recommendation or to disagree with it. The recommendation should include:
      1. an evaluation of the quality and quantity of research and scholarly publication completed and in progress.
      2. an evaluation of teaching effectiveness, including a description of the means by which such an assessment was made. See the guidelines on student evaluations.
      3. an assessment of the candidate's ability to contribute to the curricular needs of the department, specifying new courses the candidate has added to the curriculum and those the candidate projects adding in the future.
      4. an evaluation of service to the department and the College.
      5. an evaluation of the work done under the candidate's supervision, including honors papers, M.A. papers and Ph.D. dissertations, if pertinent.
      6. a summary statement of the extent of outside consultations, if any, made by the department in developing its recommendation.

   3. any letter(s) of evaluation submitted by a counterpart department at Haverford College as specified above.

   4. and, with respect to CNTT faculty, at the discretion of the Committee on Appointments, outside evaluations of the candidate's pedagogical scholarship or creative/performance record are sought from persons prominent in the candidate's field whose names and addresses have been provided by the candidate and the program chair. The Committee on Appointments may also seek the names of other persons prominent in the candidate's field.

4. Informing the Candidate of the Departmental Recommendation
   After sending the departmental recommendation and other required materials to the Office of the Provost for the Committee on Appointments, the department chair has the responsibility to have a conversation with the candidate to relay orally the substance of the department's recommendation.

5. Commenting on Outside Review Letters
   In those cases involving outside reviews, after submitting the departmental recommendation to the Committee on Appointments, the chair receives copies of the outside review letters. The chair should share these letters with the faculty who have participated in preparing the departmental recommendation. Department members are expected to read the letters from a central file, available in the department office, and prepare a commentary on the letters, which becomes a part of the information the Committee on Appointments considers in reaching its decision.