6.2 ANNUAL EVALUATION POLICY AND PROCEDURES
6.2.1 The Role of the Department The chair of each department will be responsible to ensure that a specific evaluation plan is approved by the department and the dean. The plan must evaluate the individual faculty member in the areas of teaching, professional activity, and service. It must also include the following elements:
.1 All tenured, tenure-track, renewable term appointments (lecturers and senior lecturers), and any other faculty on continuing multi-year contracts will be reviewed. Each faculty member will set a percentage weighting for each of the areas of evaluation according to the following limits:
Teaching: 40 – 70%
Professional Activity: 20 – 50%
Service: 10 – 35%
The annual total must add up to 100%.
These weights will be communicated directly to the department chair via the Annual Performance Weighting Form (APWF, see Appendix A). The APWF should be turned in directly to the department Chair and should not be included with the FAAR or used with peer review if a department has a peer review process. The APWF will be submitted by September 1, when August 16 is the start date of the contract period for that APWF review period. As appropriate and justified, any faculty member can request that his/her APWF be amended for that review period. All changes to the APWF must be approved by the department chair and the dean. Any modifications must be approved no later than May 15 of the review period. Chairs will submit their own APWF directly to the dean.
Each chair will set a percentage weighting for each of the areas of evaluation according to the following limits:
Teaching: 35 – 45%
Professional Activity: 20 – 35%
Service: 10 – 25%
Chair Responsibilities: 20 – 30%
Faculty members with special assignments (such as program directors) will set a percentage weighting for each of the areas of evaluation according to the following limits:
Teaching: 35 – 45%
Professional Activity: 20 – 35%
Service: 10 – 25%
Special Assignment: 10 – 30%
.2 Each departmental faculty member, including the chair (see §6.2.1 – .3), will make available to fellow department members for peer review the Faculty Annual Activities Report (FAAR, see Appendix A), syllabi for all courses taught in the evaluation period, and other materials designated by the department, but excluding data from student course evaluations (see §18.104.22.168). These materials will help to ensure transparency of the review process and may be used for peer review if peer review is part of an approved department evaluation plan.
.3 In accordance with the approved department evaluation procedures the chair will write an annual performance review (APR) for each faculty member that includes the assignment of the faculty member to one of the four levels (0 – 3) listed above in §6.1, determined according to the department’s defined procedure. In addition to assigning an overall level, the APR should include individual numbers (0 – 3) indicating evaluation levels for teaching, professional activity, and service. In each instance, a copy of the review shall be provided to, reviewed with, and signed by the faculty member prior to the chair’s consultation with the dean. Any changes made to the merit level assigned to a faculty member by the dean in accordance with §22.214.171.124 will be identified and appended to the faculty member’s APR.
.4 When the University awards sabbatical or other leave to a person for a semester or a year, it recognizes the person’s contribution to the institution. The merit level of a person on leave shall be the whole number rounded average of her or his last three merit awards. If there are fewer than three such merit awards, the person will be placed at merit level 1. The person may, however, elect to participate in the annual evaluation process for consideration of higher merit. In such cases, the person must complete the departmental requirements for peer review and include a report on progress made and accomplishments completed during the leave period. The department will determine the precise means of evaluation of the person on leave. The final annual performance review, including placement on level 0 – 3, will be produced by the chair and submitted to the dean. Participation of the person on sabbatical leave in the annual evaluation process does not replace the report requirements attached to the awarding of the sabbatical leave.
.5 If no money is appropriated for salary increments in a year or in successive years, the next salary adjustment will be based on the average merit level attained since the last year in which salaries were adjusted.
.6 In departments using a peer review process, the chair reviews all members of the department after the peer review process is concluded; therefore, the chair should not participate in the departmental peer review process as a peer. Department members will review their chair anonymously in the areas of teaching, professional activity, service, and administration on a separate form distributed from and collected by the dean. (See Appendix A, “Department Chair Evaluation Commentary” form.) The chair will provide each of the documents specified in §126.96.36.199, which department members will then consult for their evaluation of the chair.
.7 In order to provide formative feedback for tenure track faculty, two years prior to applying for tenure, departments will conduct a pre-tenure review on that individual. The exact procedures for this review will be developed by the department and approved by the dean.
.8 The teaching, professional activity and service percentages an individual faculty member chooses for merit pay consideration may not reflect the criteria that are used in that person’s college for tenure and promotion deliberations. Individuals who will be applying for tenure and promotion in the future should keep this in mind as they select their percentages.
.9 Different disciplines, departments, and colleges may have varying definitions of what constitutes professional activity. Individuals should familiarize themselves with these expectations.
.1 The individual department plan, approved by the dean, offers the most accurate means for assigning individual faculty members within the department to the various levels of 0 to 3. Except for rare instances, it is not the dean’s responsibility to adjust the rankings within the department.
.2 The dean’s primary function in the evaluation process is to ensure equitable scoring across departments and in rare circumstances within a department. When the dean determines that a department is out of line with the college norm, the dean will, in consultation with the chair, raise or lower the department’s score, retaining internal departmental ranking. While recognizing that level 3 merit will likely be spread across departments, the dean will not use a quota system to limit the number of 3s in any one department. Part of the dean’s role is to ensure that individual faculty members are compared with their colleagues across campus to determine their merit level and they are not penalized if they happen to be in a department with many outstanding colleagues. Should the chair disagree with the dean’s recommendation, the Provost will review the materials and rule in the case. In rare cases, should the dean determine an inequitable ranking within the department, the dean will discuss the matter with the chair. Should they fail to reach agreement, the matter will be presented to the Provost, who will rule in the case.
.3 The dean will incorporate results from department chair evaluation commentaries submitted by department members in the writing of special assignment performance reviews (SAPR) for chairs and others with special assignments.
.4 If, as a result of actions described in §§188.8.131.52–3, an individual’s score is changed after the individual has signed the APR completed by the chair (§184.108.40.206), the dean will write to that individual, explaining the change.
.1 Any faculty member may submit to the dean, with a copy to the chair, a letter of exception regarding any portion or all of the APR completed by the chair, and/or any portion or all of the dean’s letter of explanation. The individual is entitled to a written reply from the dean. If dissatisfied with any portion or all of the written reply, the individual may submit a further letter of exception to the Provost, with copies to the dean and chair. The individual is entitled to a written reply from the Provost.
.2 Any chair or other person with a special assignment may submit to the Provost, with a copy to the dean, a letter of exception regarding any portion or all of the SAPR completed by the dean. The individual shall be entitled to a written reply from the Provost. If any individual’s APR or SAPR is not received by the stipulated deadline (see §6.6), the individual retains the right to file a letter of exception once the evaluation is received. The deadline for submitting letters of exception in these cases will be set by the dean or Provost as appropriate.
.3 In a case where the dean has changed a faculty member’s merit evaluation score from what was submitted by the department chair, the faculty member may appeal by writing a letter of exception to the Provost. The individual is entitled to a written reply from the Provost.
.4 At the request of a faculty member, department chair, the dean, or the Provost, the dean or Provost shall schedule a conference with the parties to examine the causes of their differing judgments. The dean or Provost shall summarize in writing the points discussed in the conference and outline the positions taken by the parties, including the dean and/or Provost, with respect to those points. All parties shall sign and retain copies of the summary. Nothing in this provision shall preclude an individual’s right to pursue appeal through the letter of exception provision (§§220.127.116.11–3).