3320 - Annual Performance Evaluations and Salary Determination of Faculty Members and Performance Evaluation of Academic Administrators

CONTENTS:

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 set forth in FSH 1460. The supervisor is responsible for ensuring that each faculty member uses the proper form together with the supplementary instructions as provided by the Provost’s Office.

b. Evaluation ratings. Performance evaluation ratings 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 is 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 section B.

c. Annual report of efforts and accomplishments by faculty member. Each faculty member shall provide their supervisor with the following materials in preparation for the annual performance evaluation:

1. Current curriculum vitae

2. Position description for the time under review.

3. Written 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.

4. Other materials necessary to document efforts and accomplishments for the review period.

d. Evaluation of faculty by supervisors. Supervisors shall 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 in effect during that period. In the case of a faculty member holding a joint appointment or involved in interdisciplinary activities in two or more academic or administrative units, it is the responsibility of the supervisor 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.

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 supervisor shall describe the basis for their evaluation of the faculty member’s performance in the narrative on the form. The supervisor shall also describe the basis for their overall evaluation of the faculty member’s performance. The overall evaluation is not weighted by the percentage and rating of each responsibility area in the position description; rather, the overall evaluation is a holistic assessment of the faculty member’s performance. The supervisor shall also include comments and recommendations for the faculty member’s progress toward tenure, promotion, and continued satisfactory performance, as applicable, in the appropriate place on the annual evaluation form. The supervisor may confer with the Dean as needed. After the supervisor has completed the narrative evaluation for all faculty for the review period, the supervisor shall provide to each reviewed individual a copy of the individual’s annual evaluation form prior to the conference described in A-1.e.

e. Conference. The supervisor shall provide each faculty member with the opportunity to meet to discuss the unit administrator’s evaluation, either in person or by remote meeting technology and the faculty member’s detailed report of activities. The supervisor should explain the narrative providing a formative assessment on progress toward tenure, promotion, and continued satisfactory performance, as appropriate. The faculty member and the supervisor 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.

f. Signature. At the conclusion of the review process, each faculty member shall sign the evaluation form indicating that they have had the opportunity to read the evaluation report and to discuss it with the supervisor. The supervisor shall give the faculty member a copy of the supervisor’s final evaluation signed by both parties. The employee’s signature does not signify agreement with the content of the evaluation; it signifies that the employee has had the opportunity to review the evaluation and to meet with the supervisor.

g. Opportunity for response. If the faculty member wishes to respond to the contents of the review, they shall be permitted to append a response to the supervisor’s evaluation within five days of receipt of the supervisor’s evaluation.

h. Forwarding to dean. The supervisor shall forward to the dean the following materials for evaluation at the college level:

1. The evaluation form with the complete narrative and the comments and recommendations on progress towards tenure, promotion, and-continued satisfactory performance, as appropriate, and

2. Any comments provided by interdisciplinary administrators or administrators of faculty holding joint appointments provided pursuant to subsection A-1.d.

If the supervisor fails to include the required narrative comments, recommendations, or the signed copy of the evaluation, the college shall return the materials to the supervisor .

i. Responses to evaluation of a faculty member. If the faculty member has attached a response to the evaluation, the unit administrator shall provide the response to the dean with the annual evaluation form. The dean shall meet with the unit administrator and the faculty member to attempt to resolve the relevant issues. If the 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 within five days of receipt. The faculty member, unit administrator, and dean are encouraged to resolve the disagreement at the college level. If the matter cannot be resolved, the dean shall notify the provost of the disagreement.

j. Responses to evaluation of a direct report to dean. If a direct report to a dean has attached a response to the evaluation, the dean shall meet with the direct report to attempt to resolve the relevant issues. The dean and direct report are encouraged to resolve the disagreement at the college level. If the matter cannot be resolved, the dean shall attach a narrative stating the reasons for the disagreement. A copy of the dean’s narrative shall be provided to the direct report. The direct report may respond to the dean’s narrative and the dean shall notify the provost of the disagreement.

k. Signed copies of evaluation to faculty member and provost. At the conclusion of the evaluation process, the college shall forward to both the faculty member and the provost all evaluation material at the unit and college level, including the dean’s narrative and faculty responses, if any, with the signatures of the faculty, supervisor, and dean.

A-2. Relationship to promotion and tenure process. The faculty annual performance evaluation is an administrative review. Annual evaluations are but one component of the independent promotion and tenure procedure set forth in FSH 3500 and do not guarantee a successful promotion or tenure decision.

B. FACULTY PERFORMANCE THAT DOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS.

B-1. IN GENERAL. 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, 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. Additional required procedures are set forth below.

B-2. 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-3. 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 purpose 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-4. 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. 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 dean shall first consult with the provost’s office to obtain guidance regarding the review process.

a. Composition of the Review Committee. The Review Committee shall comprise four members from within the unit and one member from outside of the unit. If the faculty member is tenured or tenurable, the committee shall include tenured faculty unless no tenured faculty are available. The faculty member may submit to the unit administrator a list of the names of up to three faculty members from within the unit and up to one faculty member from outside of the unit. The faculty member may also submit the names of up to two faculty members who shall be excluded from serving on the committee. The unit administrator shall appoint the committee, including, if provided, at least two names from the faculty member’s list. The committee members shall select a chair from their membership.

b. Timing. The committee shall complete its review and report, as described below, within 60 days of the submission of the evaluation to the Office of the Provost.

c. Materials. The review shall be based on the materials described below.

1. Materials submitted by faculty member. The faculty member shall provide the following materials to the committee:

a. Updated curriculum vitae.

b. 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, not to exceed five pages.

2. Materials submitted by unit administrator. The unit administrator shall provide the following materials to the committee:

a. Position descriptions for the period under review.

b. The official record, as maintained by the provost’s office, of annual evaluation materials for the period under review.

c. Student and any peer evaluations of teaching for the period under review.

d. A summary of the strategies put in place to assist the faculty member.

3. Additional materials requested by committee. The committee may request additional materials from the faculty member or unit administrator 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 15 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:

1. Continuing the status quo

2. Mentoring to address areas of concern

3. Termination for cause

4. Other recommended resolutions.

B-5. CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING IMMEDIATE REVIEW BY PROVOST. In the event of an overall evaluation of “does not meet expectations” where the faculty member’s performance is so far below expectations that immediate corrective action is deemed necessary to protect the interests of the university, the provost may, in consultation with the dean and unit administrator, determine that immediate further review of the faculty member’s performance is required. In such a case, the review will follow the procedure set forth in B-4.a. through e.

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 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 have a position description pursuant to FSH 3050, and shall undergo the annual performance evaluation process described above. The performance evaluation shall be conducted by the administrator’s direct supervisor. When the administrator holds a faculty appointment in a unit not under the supervision of the evaluator, the evaluator shall seek input from the unit administrator of that unit 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. The 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. An administrator’s annual performance evaluation shall be completed using the Faculty Annual Performance Evaluation Form or the Annual Performance Self-Evaluation Form for Direct Reports to the Provost and Executive Vice President, as appropriate, appended to this policy. The review shall state whether the administrator met or did not meet expectations.

C-2. Faculty and staff feedback. 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 Research to maintain confidentiality. Identifying information will be redacted from the feedback by Institutional Research 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 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 their 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 a similar position 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:

1. Any report submitted by the administrator regarding their performance

2. Input from the administrator’s supervisor regarding their performance

3. Input from the faculty and staff in the unit

4. 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 within five business days. 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. The supervisor or provost shall notify the faculty and staff of the relevant unit that the review has been completed.

C-5. Periodic review as required by unit bylaws. Unit bylaws may require review of administrators at prescribed intervals, provided the review follows the process set forth in section C-4.a. through e.

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 faculty 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 faculty 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:

Annual Performance Evaluation of Faculty - Word

Annual Performance Evaluation of Faculty - PDF

Version History

Amended January 2024. Revised A-1.d.

Amended July 2022. Language clarified throughout and conflicting information resolved. New provision introduced allowing bylaws to require regular review of administrators but requiring such review to follow the same process as faculty-initiated review, to avoid disparities in review process across units. Review committee reconfigured.

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.

Adopted 1979.