CHAPTER THREE: 3320
EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION CONCERNING FACULTY AND STAFF
July 2009
3320
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS AND SALARY DETERMINATION
OF FACULTY MEMBERS
AND
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF
ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS
PREAMBLE: This section contains
those policies and their attendant procedures for those periodic reviews of
performance that affect faculty members and academic administrators. Policies
concerning performance evaluation were part of the original 1979
Handbook, but
were completely rewritten in July 2002 and further refined in 2003.
In July
2007 Form 1 and in January 2008 Form 2A & B (C was eliminated) underwent substantial revisions to address enforcement and
accountability issues in the UI promotion and tenure process as well as align
the form with the Strategic Action Plan. In January 2008 Form 1 was again
revised to include a Disclosure of Conflicts statement to comply with
FSH 6240. In 2009 this section was again revised
to reflect recent changes to the faculty position description and evaluation
forms to better integrate faculty interdisciplinary activities. Further information may be obtained from the Provost’s Office (208-885-6448). [ed. 7-03, rev. 7-07,
1-08, 7-09]
CONTENTS:
A. Annual Performance
Evaluation and Salary Determination for Faculty Members
B. Performance Below
Expectations of Tenured Faculty Members
C. Performance Evaluation of
Academic Administrators
D. Sequence of Evaluation of
Faculty Members and Administrators.
A.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND SALARY DETERMINATION 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 his/her unit
administrator. The provost is responsible for preparing supplementary
instructions each year, including the schedule for completion of the successive
steps. The form to be used, “Annual Performance Evaluation Form 1: Evaluation of
Faculty,” is appended to this section. Personnel on international assignment see
FSH
3380 C. [rev.
7-03, 7-09]
a. Forms Distributed. Supplies of the form to be used in the evaluation process
are procured by deans and unit administrators. The immediate administrative
officer is responsible for ensuring that each faculty member receives the proper
form together with a copy of the supplementary instructions. [rev. 7-01]
b. Performance levels in each criterion evaluated
are described as follows:
i. Exceptional Performance (5) is extraordinary performance well
beyond that required relative to the position description.
ii. Above Expectations (4) represents performance which is better
than expected relative to the position description. [ed. 7-09]
iii. Meets Expectations (3)
is the performance expected of a faculty member relative to the position
description that can be defined as normative.
iv. Below Expectations (2) denotes performance that is less than expected of a faculty member relative to the position description and means improvement is necessary. A rating of this type triggers
procedures outlined in
3320 B. [rev. 7-09]
v. Unacceptable Performance (1) is performance that is not
acceptable relative to the position description and/or is inconsistent with the conditions for continued employment
with the institution. Failure to meet these standards in any of the following
ways will result in a rating of unacceptable performance: [rev. 7-09]
a) received a “1” rating the previous period but did not make the
improvements required;
b) consistently violated one or more of the institution’s standards for
meeting the expectations of the position; or
c) violated one or more standards of conduct as specified in the
Faculty/Staff Handbook
c. Annual Report of Efforts and Accomplishments by Faculty
Member. Each faculty
member shall provide his or her unit administrator with the following materials
for use in the annual performance evaluation:
(1) Current Curriculum Vitae
(2) UI Faculty Position Description for Annual Performance Review
(3) 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 period under review [rev. 7-09]
(4) Other materials deemed necessary to document efforts and
accomplishments for the period under review. [add. 7-01]
d. Evaluation of Faculty by Unit Administrators.
Unit administrators evaluate their faculty members; the performance of each
faculty member during the review period covered by the evaluation is judged on the basis
of the position description(s) in effect during that period. In the case of
faculty members 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.][rev. 7-09]
Ratings are
determined by comparing the faculty member’s performance to the position
description. The results of the student evaluation of teaching are carefully weighed and used
as a factor in this evaluation. For each area of responsibility, the
unit administrator shall describe the basis for her/his evaluation in assessing
the faculty member's performance. The ratings and narrative are entered as indicated on the
form. The annual evaluation score for a faculty member in
Form 1 relates to the faculty member’s performance evaluation
relative to his/her position description. The overall unit average is provided
to the faculty member upon request so
that each faculty member can gauge his/her performance relative to other faculty
members within the unit. After the unit administrator has completed ratings and
narratives for all faculty for the review period, he or she shall provide the
following items to each reviewed individual as they
become available: [rev. 7-03, 7-09]
(1) a copy of the individual's annual evaluation form and narrative, [rev.
7-09]
(2) if requested, comparative information to help assess performance evaluation
and numerical ratings, including, but not limited to: [rev. 7-09]
(a) Frequency distribution for overall ratings for the unit
(b) Frequency distribution for overall ratings for the college
[rev.
7-97, ren. and rev. 7-01]
e. Self-Evaluation and Conference. Each faculty member is given an opportunity to use the
evaluation form (FSH 3320 Form 1) to make an evaluation of his or her own performance. The unit
administrator shall provide each faculty member with the opportunity to meet to
discuss the unit administrator’s evaluation. (Suitable alternate
arrangements are made for off-campus personnel.) The purpose of this meeting is
to review and discuss the administrator’s evaluation and the self-evaluation, if
any. The unit administrator explains his or her ratings and narrative providing
a formative assessment on progress towards tenure, promotion, and/or continued
satisfactory performance related to
the faculty member’s performance during the year and any revisions in
professional goals and objectives for the coming year. The faculty member and
the unit administrator work to identify strategies to help the
individual improve performance. The ratings 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 disagrees with the contents
of the review, the faculty member shall be permitted to append a report to the
unit administrators’ evaluation, detailing the nature of the dissent. A copy of
the administrator’s final evaluation is given to the faculty member.
[ren. and rev. 7-01, rev. 7-09]
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: [rev. 7-09]
-
a narrative
evaluation on progress towards tenure, promotion and/or continued satisfactory
performance, [rev. 7-09]
-
any evaluative
comments provided by interdisciplinary/center administrators or from those
administrators of faculty holding joint appointments, and [rev. 7-09]
-
the evaluation form
[rev. 7-09]
If the narrative
evaluation and evaluative comments are not attached, the materials will be
returned to the department by the college. [add. 7-09]
If a dissent is filed by the faculty member,
it shall be provided to the dean. The
dean shall arrange a meeting with the unit administrator and the faculty member
to attempt to resolve the relevant issues. The dean enters an evaluation in the
space provided on the evaluation form. A copy of that form is given to the
faculty member and the original is forwarded to the Provost's Office for
permanent filing [see FSH 1470
and APM 65.02]
A copy of the evaluation form is retained in the college
office. If the dean concurs with the overall evaluation and rating of the
faculty member by the unit administrator, no additional signature is required
from the faculty member. [rev. 7-09]
If there are any
differences in any rating between the unit administrator and college dean, a
narrative prepared by the dean shall be attached stating the reasons for these
differences and a second and subsequent signature
by the faculty member, acknowledging receipt of the dean’s evaluation and
rating, is required.
The original evaluation form and narrative are forwarded to the Provost's Office
for permanent filing. If the narrative is not attached the form will be returned
to the college by the provost. A copy of the evaluation form is retained in the
college office. If the faculty member disagrees with the Dean’s evaluation
and the disagreement cannot be resolved at the college level, either party may
choose to refer the matter to the University Ombuds (FSH
3820). If the matter remains
unresolved at the college level, the Provost shall be notified of the
disagreement.
[ren. and rev. 7-01, 12-06, rev. 7-09]
A-2. SALARY DETERMINATION. This process is carried out at the departmental and higher levels of academic
administration. [See
3420.] [rev. 7-09]
B. PERFORMANCE BELOW EXPECTATIONS OF TENURED FACULTY MEMBERS
(See also FSH
3190)
B-1. If the unit administrator determines that a faculty member is performing
below expectations, the unit administrator should consider the variety of
possible causes, other than inadequate effort on the faculty member’s
part, that might be responsible for the change. [ed. 7-09]
It is not the unit administrator’s role to diagnose the cause of the
problem but to suggest sources of appropriate professional help and to encourage
the employee to seek such help
[http://www.hr.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=70192]. Faculty
members and unit administrators may obtain referral information and advice from
the University Ombuds and Human Resources. [ed. 12-06]
B-2. FIRST ANNUAL OCCURRENCE.
a. In the event that a faculty member receives an annual
evaluation concluding that the faculty member has performed below expectations
(2 or lower) within one area of responsibility, the unit administrator will offer to meet with
the faculty member to identify the reasons for evaluating the performance as below expectations.* [rev.
7-09]
(1) The faculty member and the unit administrator will review the current
Position Description and examine strategies that would permit the faculty member
to improve his or her performance. [rev. 7-09]
b. In the
event that a faculty member receives an annual evaluation concluding that the
faculty member has performed below expectations (2 or below) in the overall
score, the unit administrator will offer to meet with the faculty member to
identify the reasons for evaluating the performance as below expectations.*
[add. 7-09]
(1) The unit administrator will appoint a mentoring committee by
selecting three individuals from a list of five faculty members nominated by the
faculty member, or if the faculty member makes no nominations, will appoint
three faculty members of her/his choosing. The mentoring committee’s purpose is to help the faculty member
improve performance. The members of the committee need not be drawn from the
same unit as the faculty member.
The faculty member or unit administrator may request that the University Ombuds attend meetings
of the mentoring committee and faculty member. [ed. 12-06, ren. & rev. 7-09]
c. In the event that a faculty member receives an overall score of 1,
the provost may determine that further review of a faculty member’s performance
is required. This review will be conducted in accordance with the procedures
prescribed in
3320 B-4. [ren. & rev. 7-09]
*These steps will be taken within sixty days of the annual evaluation.
B-3. TWO CONSECUTIVE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS OF BELOW
EXPECTATIONS. In the
event of two consecutive annual evaluations concluding that the faculty member
has performed below expectations overall or within one or more areas of
responsibility (2 or lower) the unit
administrator will arrange a meeting of the faculty member, the unit
administrator and the Dean of the College. The faculty member or the unit
administrator may request that the University Ombuds attend the meeting. [ed.
12-06, rev. 7-09]
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. [ed. 7-09]
b. the strategies implemented in the previous year and
to identify why the strategies did not result in the faculty member meeting
expectations. The parties should re-examine strategies that would permit the
faculty member to improve his or her performance. [ed. 7-09]
*These steps will be taken within sixty days of the annual evaluation.
B-4. THREE CONSECUTIVE ANNUAL EVALUATION ASSESSMENTS OF
BELOW EXPECTATIONS. In
the event of three consecutive annual evaluations below expectations overall or
within one or more areas of responsibility, or a
pattern of below expectations evaluations over five years (a summary
score of 2 or lower), the Dean shall initiate a formal peer review. [rev.
7-09]
a. Composition of the Review Committee. The Review Committee will
consist of six (6) members, appointed as follows:
(1). The faculty member will submit to the unit administrator a list of the
names of three faculty members from within the unit and three tenured faculty
members from outside of the unit. The unit administrator will submit a similar
list to the faculty member. From the list given to the faculty member, he/she
will select one person from inside of the unit and one from outside the unit.
From the list given to the unit administrator, he/she will select one person
from inside of the unit and one from outside the unit.
(2). The committee members will select as chair another faculty member
from within the unit.
(3). The Ombuds or his/her designee shall be an ex-officio member of
the committee. [ed. 12-06]
b. Timing of the Review. The review and recommendation(s)
will 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 and the unit administrator’s evaluation of
that performance. To that end, the committee shall assess the reasonableness of
the previous evaluations and the appropriateness of the development plans, as
well as any material submitted by the faculty member and the unit.
The faculty member and chair will provide the following materials to the
committee:
-
Updated Curriculum Vitae of the
faculty member
-
Position Descriptions for the
past four years
-
Annual evaluation materials
submitted by the faculty member for the past three years
-
Annual Evaluations of the faculty
member by the unit head and the Dean for the past three years
-
Student and peer evaluations (if
any) of teaching for the past four years
-
A self-evaluation of teaching
-
A self-assessment summary of what
the faculty member has learned and achieved during the past four (4) years,
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 faculty member, chair, and dean will receive the report and will have
fifteen days from the report’s date to submit written responses to the review
committee. The review committee will send the report and all responses to the
provost.
e. Provost. The Provost will be responsible for determining the appropriate
resolution, which may include: [rev. 7-09]
(1) continuing the
status quo;
(2) mentoring to
address area(s) of concern;
(3) termination
for cause;
(4) consideration
of other recommended resolution(s). [1-4 add. 7-09]
C. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF
ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS. [See also FSH 1420 E-6] [ed.
7-09]
C-1. EVALUATION BY FACULTY MEMBERS.
Opportunity is provided for an annual performance evaluation of college deans,
assistant and associate deans, and administrators of academic departments and
other intracollege units by the faculty members of the respective units. The
provost sends each faculty member an appropriate number of copies of the form,
“Annual Faculty Evaluation of Academic Administrators” [form is appended to this
section] to be used for evaluation of the departmental or intracollege-unit
administrator, one to be used for evaluation of the dean, and one to be used for
evaluation of each assistant or associate dean in the college.
C-2. EVALUATION OF DEPARTMENTAL OR INTRACOLLEGE-UNIT
ADMINISTRATORS AND ASSISTANT AND ASSOCIATE DEANS.
Completed copies of the form are sent directly to the dean. The dean furnishes
the administrator evaluated a summary of the evaluations in such a way that the
confidentiality of individual evaluations is preserved. The dean may arrange
conferences with the administrator to discuss the evaluation. After these steps
have been completed, individual faculty members’ evaluations are destroyed by
the dean and the written summary is filed in the dean’s office.
C-3. EVALUATIONS OF DEANS.
Completed copies of the evaluation form are sent directly to the provost. The
provost furnishes each dean evaluated a summary of the evaluations in such a way
that the confidentiality of individual evaluations is preserved and confers with
the dean about the evaluation. After these steps have been completed, individual
faculty members’ evaluations are destroyed by the provost and the written
summary is filed in the Office of Academic Affairs.
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. It will provide that
faculty members’ evaluations of departmental or intracollege-unit administrators
and assistant and associate deans are in the hands of 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 are in
the hands of the provost before the deans’ recommendations on salary, promotion,
and tenure are made known to the faculty. Conversely, the summaries of faculty
evaluations of departmental or intracollege-unit administrators, assistant and
associate deans, and deans will be communicated to the persons evaluated after
their recommendations on salary, promotion, and tenure have been transmitted to
the provost.
Evaluation of Faculty for Calendar Year 2008:
Annual
Performance Evaluation Form (Word)
Annual
Performance Evaluation Form (pdf)
Annual
Performance Evaluation Form (Word Perfect)
Evaluation of Faculty for Calendar Year 2009*:
Annual Performance Evaluation Form (Word)*
*NOTE: The 2009 evaluation form to be used in 2010
IF the 2009 Position Description was used last year. Otherwise, this annual evaluation form will be applicable
to ALL faculty in 2011. (See FSH 3050 note)
Evaluation of Administrators for Calendar Year 2008:
Form 2A - Dean's Annual Evaluation of
Department/Division/Unit Administrators (Word)
Form 2A -
Dean's Annual Evaluation of Department/Division/Unit Administrators
(pdf)
Form 2B - Faculty Evaluation of Administrators'
Administrative Responsibilities (Word)
Form 2B - Faculty Evaluation of Administrators'
Administrative Responsibilities (pdf)
Back to Table of Contents
Forward to 3340
