3320 - Annual Performance Evaluations and Salary Determination of Faculty Members and Performance Evaluation of Academic Administrators
- Name: Diane Kelly-Riley
- Position: Vice Provost for Faculty
- Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Last updated: July 01, 2019
A. Annual Performance Evaluation for Faculty Members
B. Faculty Performance that does not Meet Expectations
C. Annual Performance Evaluation and Review of Administrators Holding Faculty Appointments
D. Sequence of Evaluation of Faculty Members and Administrators
A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR FACULTY MEMBERS.
A-1. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Annual evaluation of the performance of each member of the faculty is primarily the responsibility of the faculty member and unit administrator. The provost is responsible for preparing supplementary instructions each year, including the schedule for completion of the annual performance evaluation. Personnel on international assignment see FSH 3380 C.
a. Forms. The Annual Performance Evaluation Form is available below. The form may not be altered without following the appropriate governance process (see FSH 1460). The unit administrator is responsible for ensuring that each faculty member uses the proper form together with the supplementary instructions as provided by the Provost Office.
b. Performance expectations are described below. The narrative in the evaluation form shall provide evidence to support the evaluation.
i. Performance that Meets or Exceeds Expectations is at least satisfactory performance during the review period of a faculty member relative to the position description.
ii. Performance that does not Meet Expectations denotes performance during the review period that is less than expected of a faculty member relative to the position description and means improvement is necessary. An evaluation of not meeting expectations in one or more responsibility areas triggers procedures outlined in FSH 3320 B below.
c. Annual Report of Efforts and Accomplishments by Faculty Member. Each faculty member shall provide his or her unit administrator with the following materials in preparation for the annual performance evaluation:
- Current Curriculum Vitae
- UI Faculty Position Description for Annual Performance Review
- Written detailed summary report of faculty activity for the period of the annual performance review that compares accomplishments to expectations in the Position Description for the review period. This report may be in the form of a self-evaluation using the annual evaluation form included in this policy.
- Other materials necessary to document efforts and accomplishments for the review period.
d. Evaluation of Faculty by Unit Administrators. Unit administrators evaluate the faculty members in their unit. The performance of each faculty member during the review period is judged on the basis of the position description(s) in effect during that period. In the case of a faculty member holding joint appointments and/or involved in interdisciplinary activities, as described in the position description, in two or more academic or administrative units, it is the responsibility of the administrator in the faculty member’s primary academic discipline to solicit and consider relevant information on job performance from other administrators with responsibility for the faculty member’s work. (See also 3080 E-3.)
Whether a faculty member’s performance meets expectations is determined by comparing the faculty member’s performance to the position description for the review period. For each area of responsibility, the unit administrator shall describe the basis for her/his evaluation of the faculty member’s performance in the narrative on the form. After the unit administrator has completed the narrative evaluation for all faculty for the review period, the unit administrator shall provide the following items to each reviewed individual as they become available:
- a copy of the individual’s annual evaluation form
- if requested, comparative information to help assess performance evaluation
The unit administrator shall also include comments and recommendations for the faculty member’s progress toward tenure, promotion or continued satisfactory performance in the appropriate place on the annual evaluation form.
e. Conference. It is strongly recommended that the unit administrator meet with each faculty member. The unit administrator shall provide each faculty member with the opportunity to meet to discuss the unit administrator’s evaluation. (Suitable alternate arrangements shall be made for off-campus personnel.) The purpose of this meeting is to review and discuss the administrator’s evaluation and the faculty member’s detailed report of activities. The unit administrator should explain the narrative providing a formative assessment on progress towards tenure, promotion, and/or continued satisfactory performance. The faculty member and the unit administrator should work to identify strategies and goals to help the faculty member improve performance. The evaluation may be modified as a result of the discussion. At the conclusion of the review process, each faculty member shall sign the evaluation form indicating that she/he has had the opportunity to read the evaluation report and to discuss it with the unit administrator. If the faculty member wishes to respond to the contents of the review, he/she shall be permitted to append a response to the unit administrator’s evaluation. A copy of the administrator’s final evaluation shall be given to the faculty member.
f. College-Level Action. Copies of the performance evaluation materials forwarded by the unit administrator to the appropriate dean(s), for evaluation at the college(s) level, shall include:
- the evaluation form with the complete narrative and the comments and recommendations on progress towards tenure, promotion, and/or continued satisfactory performance, and
- any comments provided by interdisciplinary/center administrators or from those administrators of faculty holding joint appointments provided pursuant to subsection A-1. d., above.
g. If the unit administrator fails to include the required narrative and comments/recommendations, the college shall return the materials to the unit administrator.
h. If the faculty member has attached a response to the evaluation, the response shall be provided to the dean with the annual evaluation form. The dean shall arrange a meeting with the unit administrator and the faculty member to attempt to resolve the relevant issues.
i. If the college dean disagrees with the unit administrator’s evaluation, the dean shall attach a narrative stating the reasons for the disagreement. A copy of the dean’s narrative shall be provided to the faculty member. The faculty member may respond to the dean’s evaluation before the evaluation is forwarded to the provost. The faculty member, unit administrator, and dean are encouraged to resolve the disagreement before forwarding the evaluation to the provost. If the matter remains unresolved at the college level, the provost shall be notified of the disagreement.
j. The college shall forward all evaluation material at the unit and college level, including the dean’s narrative and faculty responses, if any, to the provost for permanent filing.
A-2. Relationship to Promotion and Tenure Process. The faculty annual performance evaluation is an administrative review. Annual evaluations are one component of the independent promotion and tenure process.
B. FACULTY PERFORMANCE THAT DOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS.
B-1. If the unit administrator determines that a faculty member is not meeting expectations, the unit administrator should consider the reasons for and explanations of the performance (see FSH 3190).
The unit administrator, in consultation with the faculty member, should address the possible causes of the problem, should suggest appropriate resources and encourage the employee to seek such help. Faculty members and unit administrators may obtain referral information and advice from the Ombuds, Human Resources, or the Provost’s Office.
B-2. PROVOST INVOLVEMENT. In the event of an overall evaluation of “does not meet expectations” where the faculty member’s performance is so far below expectations that it is not acceptable in relation to the position description, the provost may, in consultation with the dean and unit administrator, determine that further review of the faculty member’s performance is required pursuant to FSH 3320 B-5 below.
B-3. FIRST OCCURRENCE. In the event that a faculty member has not met expectations overall or within one or more areas of responsibility, the unit administrator shall offer to meet with the faculty member. At this meeting, the faculty member and the unit administrator shall review the faculty member’s Position Description and examine strategies that would permit the faculty member to improve performance. A mentoring committee shall be formed upon the request of either the faculty member or the unit administrator. The committee shall be composed of two or more faculty members agreed upon by the unit administrator and faculty member.
B-4. TWO OCCURRENCES WITHIN THREE YEARS. In the event of two annual evaluations within three years concluding that the faculty member has not met expectations overall or within one or more areas of responsibility, the unit administrator shall arrange a meeting of the faculty member, the unit administrator and the college dean.
The intent of the meeting is to review:
a. the current position description and revise it if necessary to address the issues identified during the discussion.
b. the strategies implemented in the previous year(s) and to identify why the strategies did not result in the faculty member meeting expectations. The parties should re-examine strategies that would support improved performance by the faculty member.
B-5. THREE OCCURRENCES WITHIN FIVE YEARS. In the event of three annual evaluations of “does not meet expectations” within a five-year period, either overall or within one or more areas of responsibility, the dean shall initiate a formal peer review.
a. Composition of the Review Committee. The Review Committee shall consist of at least four (4) members, appointed as follows:
- The faculty member may submit to the unit administrator a list of the names of three faculty members from within the unit and at least one faculty member from outside of the unit. If the faculty member is tenured or on the tenure track, faculty on the committee should be tenured faculty unless no tenured faculty are available. The unit administrator shall appoint the committee, including at least two names from the faculty member’s list.
- The committee members shall select a chair.
b. Report and Timing. The committee report includes the review and possible recommendation(s), and shall be completed within sixty days of the annual evaluation.
c. The Review. The purpose of the review is to assess the level of performance of the faculty member, the reasonableness of the previous evaluations, and the appropriateness of the strategies put in place to assist the faculty member.
The faculty member and the unit administrator shall provide the following materials for the review period to the committee:
- Updated Curriculum Vitae of the faculty member,
- Position Descriptions,
- Annual evaluation materials submitted by the faculty member,
- Annual Evaluations of the faculty member by the unit administrator and the dean,
- Student and peer evaluations (if any) of teaching,
- A summary of the strategies put in place to assist the faculty member,
- A self-assessment summary of each area of the faculty member’s responsibility and what the faculty member has learned and achieved during the review period, including contributions to the department, university, state, nation, and field (about 2 pages).
The faculty member may submit any additional information he or she desires, and the committee may request additional materials as it deems necessary.
d. Responses to Committee Report. The committee chair shall submit the report to the faculty member, unit administrator, and dean. Each recipient shall have fifteen days from the report’s date to submit written responses to the review committee. The committee chair shall send the report and all responses to the provost.
e. Provost. The provost shall be responsible for determining the appropriate resolution, which may include:
- continuing the status quo;
- mentoring to address area(s) of concern;
- termination for cause;
- consideration of other recommended resolution(s).
B-6. Non-Tenured Faculty. Pursuant to Regent’s policy, non-tenured faculty do not have an expectation of contract renewal beyond that stated in FSH 3900 B-2, absent a specific written multi-year contract. The process set forth in FSH 3320 B does not require the University to renew a non-tenured faculty contract. The process set forth in FSH 3320 B shall not be required for a non-tenured faculty member who has been given notice of non-renewal.
C. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATORS HOLDING FACULTY APPOINTMENTS. This policy applies to all administrators holding faculty appointments including, but not limited to, those reporting directly to the provost and deans.
C-1. Annual Performance Evaluation of Administrators. Each administrator holding an appointment as a faculty member shall complete a position description pursuant to FSH 3050, and shall complete the annual performance evaluation process described above. The performance evaluation shall be conducted by the person to whom the administrator directly reports. The evaluator shall seek input from the unit administrator of the unit in which the administrator holds a faculty appointment regarding the evaluation of Teaching and Advising, Scholarship and Creative Activities and Outreach and Extension to the extent the administrator’s position description includes expectations in these areas. The evaluator shall also review the administrator’s performance in the area of University Service and Leadership. An administrator’s annual performance evaluation shall be completed using the Faculty Annual Performance Evaluation form appended to this policy. The review shall state whether the administrator met or did not meet expectations.
C-2. This annual evaluation of administrators in the area of University Service and Leadership shall focus on the responsibilities set forth in FSH 1420, if applicable, the responsibilities set forth in the unit bylaws, if applicable, and the expectations set forth in the administrator’s position description. The evaluator shall ensure that faculty and staff interacting with the administrator have the opportunity to provide confidential feedback regarding the administrator’s performance to the evaluator. All feedback will be collected by Institutional Effectiveness and Accreditation (IEA) to maintain confidentiality. Identifying information will be redacted from the feedback by IEA before the feedback is provided to the evaluator.
C-3. No Expectation of Continued Service. Administrators do not have an expectation of continued service in their administrative appointments. The President, Provost and/or Dean may determine at any time that it is not in the best interest of the university, college or unit that the administrator continue to serve in his or her administrative capacity.
C-4. Review Initiated by Faculty. An administrator review may be initiated through a petition signed by at least 50% of the faculty members in the unit and delivered to the provost. The names and percentages of faculty signing the petition shall be maintained in confidence by the provost.
a. A review under this sub-section shall be conducted by a three person committee appointed by the provost or dean composed of at least one individual in similar positions to the administrator as well as at least one tenured faculty member from the unit. The review shall focus on the administrator’s performance of the responsibilities.
b. The committee shall consider the following information:
- Any report submitted by the administrator regarding their performance;
- Input from the administrator’s supervisor regarding their performance;
- Input from the faculty and staff in the unit;
- Input from other constituencies that engage with the administrator.
c. The committee shall prepare a written report summarizing its findings and recommendations regarding the administrator’s performance. This report shall be provided to the administrator. The administrator shall have the opportunity to respond to the committee report. The committee report, and any response, shall be forwarded to administrator’s supervisor and the provost.
d. The supervisor and provost may provide further feedback and performance recommendations to the administrator based on the report.
e. Upon completion, the supervisor or provost shall notify the faculty and staff in the unit of the review.
D. SEQUENCE OF EVALUATION OF FACULTY MEMBERS AND ADMINISTRATORS. The provost prepares the schedule for completion of steps in the performance evaluation and salary determination process each year. The schedule will ensure that faculty members’ evaluations of unit or center administrators and assistant and associate deans have been received by the dean before the administrators’ recommendations on salary, promotion, and tenure are made known to the faculty and, similarly, that faculty members’ evaluations of deans have been received by the provost before the deans’ recommendations on salary, promotion, and tenure are made known to the faculty. Likewise, the summaries of faculty evaluations of unit or center administrators, assistant and associate deans, and deans will be communicated to the persons evaluated after their recommendations on faculty salary, promotion, and tenure have been transmitted to the provost.
Evaluation of Faculty and/or Administrators for the Calendar Year:
Amended July 2019. Section C. was completely rewritten and all faculty will now use one form.
Amended July 2018. The words “and goals” to FSH 3320 A-1. e were added to encourage a discussion.
Amended July 2018. Revised A-1 e and B-2.
Amended January 2018. An emergency revision (rewrite of the faculty section, not the administrator section) to this policy was put in place to address the new narrative evaluation process so as to be effective before the next evaluation process.
Amended January 2017. A temporary fix to this policy was put in place to allow for a pilot narrative evaluation process for 2016 and ensure that existing policy would apply.
Amended July 2014. Changes were incorporated to ensure all faculty go through a review by their peers.
Amended July 2010. B was added and FSH 1420 E-6 was incorporated into D to consolidate the evaluation process into one policy.
Amended July 2009. Revised to reflect recent changes to the faculty position description and evaluation forms to better integrate faculty interdisciplinary activities.
Amended January 2008. Form 1 was revised to include a Disclosure of Conflicts statement to comply with FSH 6240.
Amended July 2007. Form 1 underwent substantial revisions to address enforcement and accountability issues in the UI promotion and the tenure process as well to align the form with the Strategic Action Plan.
Amended January 2007. Revised A-1 j, B-1, and B-4
Amended July 2001. Revised A-1 a, e, and j. Added A-1 c. 4.
Amended July 2003. Revised A-1 and A-1 d.
Amended July 2002. Policies concerning performance evaluation were completely rewritten.