Section 5: Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Policies

5.4 Non-Tenure Track Faculty Review and Evaluation

Clear documentation of responsibilities and assigned workload is critical to the evaluation, reappointment, and promotion process for all full-time, non-tenure-track faculty members. As is the case for tenured and tenure-track faculty, the performance of all teaching, research, clinical faculty, and faculty of practice will be evaluated annually, with a written record of the evaluation maintained by the academic unit, department, and human resources. Each non-tenure-track faculty member will be informed, in writing, of the percentage of effort that they are expected to devote to teaching, service, and research/professional development as well as whether the faculty member’s position is contingent upon their ability to secure external funding. This documentation will be provided by the hiring unit to the non-tenure-track faculty member at the time of initial appointment and again each time the faculty member is reappointed. As needed throughout their terms of appointment, faculty members will have the opportunity to discuss their responsibilities with the department chair and request adjustments in their assigned workloads. This annually updated written record of workload distribution and assignments will become part of the non-tenure-track faculty’s evaluation records.

5.4.1 Annual Performance and Planning Review for Non-Tenure Track Faculty

All non-tenure-track faculty who are not on leave are subject to annual performance and planning reviews, also known as the Annual Performance Review process. 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 may also fulfill the functions of the department chair. 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 full and complete information. The faculty member shall have the opportunity to include in the transmittal of the review an explanation of why they disagree with the conclusions of the review if they disagree with the conclusions of the review. 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, and constructive feedback and relevant support to faculty members. As a means of preserving the integrity of the process until the process have been completed by the provost, neither the faculty member under review nor any administrator managing or conducting the review is permitted to communicate substantive information about the review with others involved in the review process, especially those charged with making a recommendation at subsequent stages of review. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to prohibit a faculty member under review from (a) consulting with the faculty ombudsperson, (b) consulting with representatives of the Office of Institutional Equity, or (c) pursuing possible rights of appeal available.

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

The goals of the Annual Performance Review 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/departmental guidelines;
   
   
2. establish new objectives for the coming year, as appropriate, using clearly understood standards that are consistent with this handbook and academic unit and departmental guidelines;
   
   
3. provide the necessary support (resources, environment, personal and official encouragement) to achieve the specified 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 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 must be evaluated in a manner consistent with all applicable campus, academic unit, and/or departmental policies, procedures, and bylaws, 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 non-tenure-track faculty member that receives an overall performance rating less than 3.0 (Good Performance) is not eligible for any merit- or performance-based pay increases.  A non-tenure-track faculty member that receives an overall performance rating of 1 (Failure to Meet Responsibilities) is not eligible for any across-the-board salary increase.

The non-tenure-track faculty member has the right to a general appeal of an Annual Performance Review as described in Appendix B.1. A faculty Annual Performance Review appeal may begin once the evaluation is fully executed.