Section 4.9: Faculty Planning & Evaluation

4.9.1 Annual Performance Review

The annual faculty planning and evaluation process, also known as the Annual Performance Review process, is conducted in the spring semester. The department chair manages the Annual Performance Review process to ensure compliance with all deadlines for submission of the review forms to the dean and provost. In academic units without departments, the dean will fulfill the functions of the department chair in the Annual Performance Review process. The Annual Performance Review process has three levels of review: by the department chair, the dean, and the provost.

Any review of a faculty member's professional performance should be conducted with the full knowledge of the faculty member, should allow the faculty member to be informed of the findings prior to the transmittal of the conclusions of the review, and should allow the faculty member to verify that the review has been based on the information that the faculty member provided. To ensure that the evaluation is based upon full and complete information, the faculty member is responsible for submitting the requested information by the specified deadline. The standard faculty evaluation instrument and planning document can be accessed on the university website.

The Annual Performance Review process exists to provide fair, objective, constructive feedback, and relevant support to faculty members. At each successive level of the Annual Performance Review process, the faculty member shall be given an opportunity to review the Annual Performance Review, meet with the administrator that conducted the review, and submit a written response. The faculty member's signature indicates that she or he has read the entire review, but the signature does not necessarily imply agreement with its findings. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to prohibit a faculty member under review from

1. consulting with the faculty ombudsperson, as described in Appendix D, or
   
   
2. consulting with representatives of the Office of Institutional Equity.
   
   

Annual Performance Reviews are used as a basis for decisions relating to tenure, promotion, workload assignments, recommendations for salary increases and other personnel actions, including decisions regarding renewal of tenure track faculty appointments.

Except as provided in Section 4.9.2 of this handbook as is related to tenured faculty members undergoing post-tenure performance review, every tenure-track and tenured faculty member who is not on leave is reviewed annually.

Performance Goals: 

The goals of these performance reviews are to:

1. review accomplishments as compared to previously set specific objectives for the faculty member by the faculty member and the chair consistent with this handbook and academic unit and departmental guidelines;
   
   
2. establish new objectives for the coming year, as appropriate, using clearly understood standards that are consistent with this handbook, academic unit guidelines, and departmental guidelines;
   
   
3. provide the necessary support (resources, environment, personal and official encouragement) to achieve these objectives;
   
   
4. fairly and honestly assess the performance of the faculty member by the department chair; and
   
   
5. recognize and reward outstanding achievement.
   
   

The department chair will inform the departmental faculty of the schedule for the reviews, any materials that should be prepared and submitted for the reviews and schedule an annual review conference with each tenured and tenure-track faculty member at least two weeks in advance of the date of the conference to allow faculty adequate notice to prepare the required materials.

Faculty Performance Ratings:

Faculty performance must be evaluated in a manner consistent with all applicable university, academic unit, and/or departmental policies and procedures, and must apply the following performance ratings:

• 0-Not Evaluated
• 1-Failure to Meet Responsibilities
• 2-Improvement Needed
• 2.5-Good Performance/Improvement Needed
• 3.0-Good Performance
• 3.5-Very Good/Good Performance
• 4.0-Very Good Performance
• 4.5-Exceptional/Very Good Performance
• 5.0-Exceptional Performance

A faculty member who receives an overall performance rating less than 3.0 (Good Performance) is not eligible for any merit-or performance-based pay increases until the next Annual Performance Review cycle is concluded. A faculty member who receives an overall performance rating of 1 (Failure to Meet Responsibilities) is not eligible for any across-the-board salary increase until the next Annual Performance Review cycle is concluded.

Within 30 days of receipt of the fully executed Annual Performance Review from the dean, any faculty member whose overall performance rating is less than 3.0 (Good Performance) will receive notice from the dean that they must collaborate with the department chair to develop a performance improvement plan unless the performance rating triggers a Post-tenure Review, as described in Section 4.9.2. For academic units without departments, the provost shall fully execute the Annual Performance Review and provide notice within 30 days that the faculty member must collaborate with the dean to develop a performance improvement plan unless the performance rating triggers a Post-tenure Review, as described in Section 4.9.2. The performance improvement plan is to be reviewed and approved by the dean. The annual evaluation of the subsequent year must describe improvements in any focal areas with ratings that fell short of Good Performance that necessitated the improvement plan.

In addition to the annual faculty performance review process stated herein, tenure track faculty will also receive a Mid-Tenure-Track Review as described in Section 4.9.5.

A faculty member has the right to general appeal of an Annual Performance Review as described in Appendix B.1. A faculty may appeal an Annual Performance Review once the evaluation is fully executed by the dean.