Ch. III - Evaluation of Career Faculty

FACULTY CODE
Revised: October 2, 1997

CHAPTER III - EVALUATION OF TENURE-LINE FACULTY

Section 1 - The Purpose of Evaluation

The purposes of evaluation are to develop and maintain university excellence and a high degree of professional excellence in the individual faculty member. The evaluation process shall provide documentation necessary for (1) maintenance of professional competence of the faculty member and improvement of areas of weakness; (2) a fair and impartial decision when the faculty member is eligible for a change of status; and (3) timely and accurate feedback to the evaluee.

Section 2 - When Faculty are Evaluated

Tenure-line faculty shall be evaluated at certain points in their careers with the university, in the manner provided in this chapter.

Evaluation shall occur prior to all decisions to: (1) promote a faculty member; (2) grant or deny tenure to a non-tenured faculty member; and (3) not reappoint a non-tenured faculty member.
An evaluation by the head officer shall be made at the conclusion of each year for the first two years of a non-tenured faculty member's appointment. A copy of the head officer's report shall be sent to the individual under evaluation, to the dean, and to the Faculty Advancement Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Advancement Committee) for their information.
Persons in the rank of assistant and associate professors shall be evaluated every three years, and professors shall be evaluated every five years unless an earlier evaluation is requested by the faculty member, the head officer, or the dean.

Section 3 - Evaluation Procedure

Evaluation begins at the department, school, or program level (Chapter III, Section 4 - p.11) and proceeds through the Faculty Advancement Committee and the dean (Chapter III, Section 5 - p.13) to the president. When Board action is required, the president forwards his recommendation and all material to the Instruction Committee of the Board of Trustees (Chapter III, Section 6 - p.14).
The Professional Standards Committee, in consultation with the Advancement Committee and the dean shall (1) agree upon and publish periodically guidelines for evaluation procedures and substantive comments; and (2) approve departmental procedures, criteria, and standards.

Section 4 - Evaluation by the Department, School, or Program

The departmental evaluation process should ensure that adequate consideration be given the faculty member involved. Adequate consideration shall consist of the criteria and procedures outlined in Chapter III, Section 4, a, c, d, e, f, g, and h (p.11).

Departments shall state in writing the criteria, standards and needs of the department used in the deliberative process in relation to the University's standards and needs.
Responsibility for demonstrating he or she meets the standards for tenure or promotion rests with the evaluee. The evaluee is responsible for providing a statement of professional goals and objectives, pertinent documents, and materials prior to the departmental valuation. Prior to the review of the Advancement Committee, the faculty member is responsible, upon notification by the dean, for inventorying the contents of the evaluation file.
The department evaluation process should be an ongoing one. Faculty should become familiar with (1) the evaluee's professional objectives and philosophy; (2) teaching, including course organization and construction and pedagogical skill; (3) students' perceptions of the evaluee's teaching through an ongoing process of class visitation, discussion and review of student evaluations; (4) professional growth; and (5) university service and community service related to professional interests and expertise. The candidate's file, when considered as a whole, must indicate that faculty involved in the evaluation process had a sufficient degree of familiarity with these aspects of the candidate's professional performance. The evaluation process is designed to provide a substantial body of credible evidence in writing (materials and documentation which can be reviewed) as a basis for a fair and impartial decision.
The head officer shall gather information in writing about the faculty member being evaluated from colleagues in the department, school, or program, from the faculty member, and other sources if they seem relevant. If the head officer wishes, he or she may appoint two faculty members from the department, school, or program to assist in the departmental evaluation. In small departments one or both of these assistants may be appointed from the faculty of a related department or school. When the head officer is the subject of the evaluation, the other tenure-line faculty of that unit shall select some person to perform the functions the head officer performs. Such person may be a member of that unit or may, in the case of a small department, be a faculty member of a related department.
When the information has been assembled and evaluated by the department, a departmental recommendation shall be reached by members of the department other than the evaluee through a deliberative procedure based upon the above information considered in light of departmental and university needs (tenure cases only) and standards. There should be evidence that the department had available the necessary materials and documentation and that adequate consideration has been given to the candidate's qualifications.
The departmental recommendation shall be forwarded by the head officer to the dean, together with all written materials used in reaching that recommendation. The criteria used in the deliberative process shall be stated in writing and also forwarded to the dean to become part of the faculty file.
Included with the recommendation shall be a listing of the individuals participating in the deliberative process and those who submitted letters to the head officer. If the head officer disagrees with the department, school, or program recommendation, that individual shall submit a minority recommendation. Individual faculty members may send their observations and recommendations directly to the dean.
At the time the file and departmental recommendations are forwarded to the dean and the Advancement Committee, the head officer, in writing, shall provide the faculty member who has chosen confidential letters (see Chapter III, Section 9, e, - p.17) with: (1) a list of those individuals participating in the department's deliberations and those who submitted letters to the head officer; (2) a summary of the substance of the letters; and (3) a summary of the department's deliberations. The faculty member with non-confidential letters has access to the summaries identified in (1) and (3) above. The office of the dean shall notify the faculty member when the file is complete and ready for review. The faculty member shall have five (5) working days from the date of notification to review the file.
If, within ten (10) working days of reviewing the file (non-confidential letters) or reviewing the file and receiving the head officer's report (confidential letters) the individual faculty member feels that he or she has been unfairly or inadequately evaluated by the department, school or program, that individual has the right to notify, in writing, the Advancement Committee. The processing of this claim shall be done under Chapter III, Section 5, b. (p.13).

Section 5 - Evaluation by the Advancement Committee, including the Dean

The Advancement Committee shall review carefully the recommendations of that department, school, or program. If the Advancement Committee is not assured that the department, school, or program gave adequate consideration of the faculty member involved, or feels that additional information is needed, it shall consult with representative(s) of the department, school, or program. The Advancement Committee shall raise its concerns regarding the department/school evaluation process and remedies shall be suggested in writing. The department may then respond.
In cases with confidential letters, including a claim under Chapter III, Section 4, i. (p.13) the Advancement Committee must make the affirmative determination that the head officer's summary of the departmental letters is a fair and accurate reflection of the letters involved. If necessary, the Committee may consult with the head officer and evaluee concerning changes in the summary, and shall inform the evaluee when the summary is determined to be fair and adequate. The Committee shall also provide the evaluee with the revised summary and a summary of letters sent directly to the Advancement Committee.
When the Advancement Committee believes it has the materials and documentation necessary for making a fair and impartial evaluation, it shall proceed to a recommendation based on the evidence at hand. The committee's recommendation shall be based on the criteria for reappointment, tenure, and promotion, as called for in Chapter II, Part A, Section 5 (p.9), Part B, Section 3 (p.10), and Chapter IV, Section 4 (p.18) and be made in light of department/school/program needs, criteria and standards and their consistency with university standards. The recommendation of the Advancement Committee shall be based upon the candidate's record of performance as measured against appropriate University and department/school standards for reappointment/tenure/promotion, and whether the faculty member has been given adequate consideration. That recommendation shall reflect the independent judgment of the Committee.
If the conclusions of the majority of the Advancement Committee are contrary to those of the department, school, or program, department representative(s) shall be consulted formally. If the consultation leads to a unified position, no further action is necessary. If, after consultation, the Committee and the department, school, or program continue to disagree, all recommendations, including minority reports, and all information gathered in Chapter III, Section 4 (p.11) shall be forwarded to the president.
If the Advancement Committee's majority opinion is negative, the dean shall notify the evaluee of the right to request a meeting with the Advancement Committee prior to the transmittal of the recommendation of the Advancement Committee to the president.
The Advancement Committee shall then transmit to the president and the evaluee a final recommendation. In addition, the president shall receive any minority recommendation(s) and all information gathered in the evaluation process.
Since the primary function of the evaluation is to develop and maintain a high degree of professional excellence in the individual faculty member, timely and accurate feedback is essential. Within one month of receiving the report of the evaluation from the Advancement Committee, the head officer shall review with each evaluee the results of the evaluation and agree upon goals and objectives for the coming three or five years, in light of the standards and needs of the department, school, program and the university.

Section 6 - Evaluation and Decision by the President

If the evaluation was not made for the purpose of altering the status of the evaluated faculty member's appointment, no presidential action shall be called for. In that event, the President shall take note of the evaluation report and accompanying information and shall return the same to the dean, to be included in the faculty member's file.
If the particular case requires a recommendation on promotion, or tenure, and if the president believes that there is inadequate information upon which to base the recommendation, the president may return the file to the Advancement Committee with the request that additional materials be secured. Otherwise, the president shall notify the evaluee of the recommendation the president intends to submit to the Board of Trustees. Within five working days of notification, the evaluee may request a conference with the president.
If the evaluee believes that the provisions of this code have been violated after meeting with the president, the evaluee must inform the president, in writing, within five (5) working days, of the intent to initiate the appeals procedure. Upon receipt of such notification, the president shall hold in abeyance a recommendation to the Board of Trustees until the conclusion of the appeals procedure. The evaluee must submit a list specifying alleged violations of the code to the chairperson of the Professional Standards Committee within ten (10) working days of the notification of the president of the intention to appeal.
If there is no appeal within the specified time, the recommendations and evaluation materials are then forwarded to the Board of Trustees.

Section 7 - Appeals Procedure⁵

Upon request for an appeal, the chairperson of the Professional Standards Committee shall form within five (5) working days a hearing board composed of five (5) members. The board will be selected at random from a hearing board roster to be established annually by the Faculty Senate executive officers. The board will consist of 42 tenured faculty members selected at random, subject to their consent. Members will serve staggered three year terms with 14 members selected each year. Excluded from the hearing board will be members of the appellant's department and all others with direct interest in the matter as determined jointly by the chairperson of the Professional Standards Committee and chairperson of the Faculty Senate or a designated member of the above mentioned bodies if the
chairperson(s) may be affected by the exclusion principle). If either of the chairpersons or designees votes for elimination, the faculty member is not selected. Also exempt from selection are members of the hearing board roster in current service on a hearing board.
Before the hearing commences, the parties may challenge any member of the board on account of interest or bias and each may exercise no more than two challenges without stating cause. The order of challenge shall be determined by lot, with each side alternating. Challenges on account of interest or bias shall be ruled upon jointly by the chairperson of the Professional Standards Committee and the chairperson of the Faculty Senate. If either votes for elimination, the person is eliminated. If a vacancy exists because of disqualifications for cause, the chairperson of the Professional Standards Committee shall replace that member by the process provided in Section 7. a.
The hearing board shall hold its first meeting within five (5) working days of its selection following challenges as specified in Section 7. b. and shall elect a chairperson. The board shall also select a secretary to record the actions of the board. The board shall perform a preliminary screening of the request for the appeal. The board shall have access to all files and records involved in the evaluation process together with a list of violations alleged by the evaluee and any response by the department or school, the Advancement Committee, or the president.
Within ten (10) working days of the first meeting of the Hearing Board, the Board shall determine whether, based on the record and the allegations of violations, there apparently exists probable cause for an appeal.
If the hearing board decides that probable cause for an appeal does not exist, it shall so notify the appellant and the president, at which time the president will forward his recommendation to the Board of Trustees.
If two (2) or more members of the hearing board determine that probable cause for an appeal exists, a hearing will be held by the hearing board pursuant to Chapter III, Section 8 (p.15).

Section 8 - Procedure for a Hearing

The chairperson of the board shall preside and shall handle administrative duties, such as giving notices and speaking for the committee. He or she shall rule on matters of procedure and evidence, subject to being overruled by a majority of the committee.
In proceedings before the board, the University shall be represented by a person or persons designated by the dean. The appellant may attend all hearings in person and may be assisted by an academic advisor and acted for by lawyer or non-lawyer counsel chosen by the faculty member.
Hearings shall not be open to the public, and the only persons present shall be those persons whose presence is allowed by these sections of this chapter pertaining to the appeal. However, at the request of either party, a representative of an educational association or other appropriate association shall be allowed to observe hearings with the concurrence of the board.
In all cases, the university shall provide an electronic record and, if requested by either party, a verbatim transcript of the proceedings paid for by the requesting party. Records made of the hearings shall be retained by the university for six years after the committee makes its report.
The function of the hearing board shall be to determine whether there have been violations of the code, as alleged by the appellant.
The evidence on review shall be substantially confined to the written record that has been compiled in the matter up through review by the president. This is the material upon which the decision has been made to this point, and it should not be significantly expanded at the hearing by the admission of testimony and information not previously considered. Parties may offer to present additional evidence that they deem relevant and the hearing board in its discretion may hear or decline to hear such additional evidence. The hearing board shall base its decision preponderantly upon the written record on which the matter has earlier been decided by the department or school, the Advancement Committee and the president. If witnesses testify, they may be cross-examined by other parties present. Testimony of witnesses by signed written statements may be allowed if, in the Board's discretion, that is the most feasible way of presenting their evidence and if the opposing party is not substantially prejudiced by lack of the ability to cross examine. The board shall have no duty to seek or to present evidence but may do so if, in its judgment, justice requires.
The hearsay rule or the other exclusionary rules of evidence used in courts of law shall not apply.
Insofar as practicable, each party shall assist the other in obtaining witnesses and evidence when the party's assistance is necessary or helpful. Each party shall make specifically requested and relevant documents or other tangible evidence in its possession available to the other for presentation to the Board.
No person involved in the hearing shall make public statements, directly or indirectly, about matters presented in the hearing.
Within ten (10) working days after completion of the hearing, the Board shall make its decision. The decision shall be based on whether the evidence in the record and that received at the hearing clearly shows that there have been violations of the code as alleged by the appellant.⁶
The decision of the majority of the hearing board, and any dissent, shall be transmitted in writing to the president. That decision may include a recommendation that the matter be returned to the department and/or Advancement Committee for correction of deficiencies. The board shall send the president exhibits received in the hearing and the electronic record. The president may return the matter to the Advancement Committee and/or department for further consideration. If not, the president shall submit the entire hearing board report.
Upon receiving the report of the board, the president shall submit the entire report together with a recommendation to the Instruction Committee for review and recommendation to the Board of Trustees. The review by the Instruction Committee shall be based on the record of the hearing board. The committee shall provide opportunity for written statements to be submitted by the parties to the hearing and may, at its discretion, have oral argument. The Board of Trustees, after receiving the recommendation of the instruction committee and reviewing the record of the case shall make a final decision.

Section 9 - Faculty Evaluation Files

The dean shall maintain an evaluation file on each faculty member.
This file shall be used only in the evaluation process and shall contain only information pertinent to that process, such as (1) information on the faculty member's teaching; (2) information on the faculty member's research, publication, and professional activities; (3) information on the faculty member's participation in university service; (4) summaries and raw data on student course evaluations; (5) the Advancement Committee's recommendation to the president; and (6) other material clearly relevant to the faculty member's role as a professional educator, including department, school or program recommendations.
The file shall not include unattributed materials except for student course evaluations.
The file shall not accumulate materials for more than two consecutive evaluations.
All materials in the faculty member's file shall be open to the Advancement Committee, the dean, the president, and the Board of Trustees. It shall be open to the faculty member involved, except when the purpose of the evaluation is to grant or deny tenure. Such faculty shall be considered in the same manner as those who waive access to letters of evaluation as provided for in this section. Without the express consent of the faculty member, the file shall be closed to all others. A faculty member shall have the right to waive access to letters of evaluation but may, if requested, have access to a summary of the contents of such letters and a listing of all contributors to the file. The decision of the faculty member to waive or not waive confidentiality shall not be a factor in evaluating the faculty member.

⁵ Revision adopted 3/30/93 by Faculty; 5/7/93 by Trustees.

⁶ Revision adopted 4/19/84 by Faculty; 12/10/84 by Trustees.

Back to Index

FACULTY CODE Revised: October 2, 1997

CHAPTER III - EVALUATION OF TENURE-LINE FACULTY

FACULTY CODE
Revised: October 2, 1997