FACULTY/STAFF POLICY & PROCEDURE MANUAL

MENU

2.10.3. Performance Assessment: Types and Procedures


2.10.3.1 The Formative Evaluation

2.10.3.2 The Process for the Formative Evaluation

2.10.3.3 The Formative Evaluation Appeals Process

2.10.3.4 The Summative Evaluation

2.10.3.5 The Process for the Summative Evaluation

2.10.3.5.1 Peer Review Committee

2.10.3.5.2 Notifications

2.10.3.5.3 Presentation of Credentials

2.10.3.5.4 Peer Review Committee Agenda

2.10.3.5.5 Timelines for Committee Evaluation

2.10.3.5.6 Department Head Timelines

2.10.3.5.7 Faculty Member’s Response

2.10.3.5.8 Timelines for the Deans

2.10.3.5.9 Timelines for the Vice President for Academic Affairs

2.10.3.5.10 Timelines for the President

2.10.3.5.11 Board Approval and Summative Dossiers

2.10.3.6 Consideration for Department Heads and Other Administrative Faculty

2.10.3.7 Appeals in the Summative Process

2.10.3.7.1 Appeal Frequency and Levels

2.10.3.7.2 Review of Files

2.10.3.7.3 Campus–wide Review

2.10.3.7.4 Definition of Campus–wide Committee

2.10.3.7.5 Committee Selection

2.10.3.8 Appeals and Grievances

2.10.3.9 Promotion and Tenure Timetable

Important Note on Confidentiality: Administrators and faculty who are involved with performance assessment duties should remember that such proceedings are confidential. The committee guidelines described in Section 2.10 should be strictly followed to insure that employee rights to confidentiality are protected. Public records laws determine what documents are available for public scrutiny. In general, the following are usually open:

  • the fact that employee evaluations took place;
  • the positive results of employee evaluation proceedings (for instance, a promotion was granted).

The details of personnel performance assessment (letters, rebuttals, and so forth) are usually not available for public scrutiny.

Important Note on Meeting Deadlines: A faculty member’s failure to meet deadlines described in the promotion and tenure policies of the University shall mean automatic termination of the application process. If Department Heads, Review Committees, Personnel Committees, Deans, the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, or the President fail to meet deadlines, the applicant shall not be penalized or the candidacy jeopardized. Faculty may use such administrative failures as evidence in grievances dealing with violations of due process.

Performance assessment occurs in two (2) forms, the formative evaluation and the summative evaluation. Each of these has distinct purposes and procedures. “The Common Form” is the annual assessment instrument used for formative evaluations. “The Common Form” is also used for merit pay determinations and is also a primary evidential document in summative evaluations that are used for promotion and tenure determinations.

2.10.3.1 The Formative Evaluation

The Performance Review known as the formative evaluation of all instructors and probationary and tenure contract academic faculty shall be conducted by the Department Head in the spring and shall be based upon evidence of performance in the prior calendar year. (For the purpose of faculty development, faculty who have only served one semester before the beginning of the formative cycle shall also be reviewed and shall submit the proper forms and evidence as described in Section 2.10.3.2 below.) “The Common Form,” is the annual assessment instrument used for formative evaluations. The Head (or as appropriate, the Dean) shall prepare a formative evaluation report containing the following:

  • an evaluation of the faculty member’s effectiveness in each of the performance review categories (Section 2.10 );
  • recommendations for

o    merit salary increase,

o    reappointment of term and probationary faculty (except as noted in Section 5.12.2),

o    initiating Board–mandated remediation (Section 2.11.3) for tenured faculty once there have been multiple unsatisfactory reviews by the department head, and

o    participation in faculty development programs.

Though separate forms can be used for merit pay determinations, all merit pay determinations are part of the formative process. Because the formative evaluation involves an assessment of a calendar year, only faculty who have been employed for a calendar year (excluding the summer session) shall be eligible for merit pay. All forms are subject to the approval methods given in Section 2.10.2. Though standards can be established by each academic unit, these standards must use the percentage guidelines mentioned in Section 2.9.2. All formatives must be accompanied by evidence as described in Section 2.10.2.

Each department shall have its own discipline–specific criteria and shall have its own formative evaluation form that was discussed and recommended by majority vote of at least a quorum of the instructors, probationary, and tenure contract academic faculty within the department with approval of the Department Head and Dean to ensure the criteria shall contain the appropriate rubrics and comply at least minimally with the criteria and evidence in the Common Form. Issues not resolved at the Department Head or Dean’s level are subject to review by the Vice President Academic Affairs. In addition to any departmental forms, the evaluating department head must complete the Common Form.

Back to Top

2.10.3.2 The Process for the Formative Evaluation

Using “The Common Form” as a vehicle for an annual self–report, the process for the formative evaluation shall be as follows:

  1. Peer review in the formative evaluation process is not required but may be used in some colleges and/or departments. If colleges and/or departments elect to use the peer review, the process must be incorporated in step c below. Peer review shall always be treated as a recommendation to the Department Head or Dean or Director of the University Library. The peer review recommendation does not relieve the administrator from the responsibility of making the evaluative decision.
  2. On or before January 25, the faculty member shall submit an annual self–report (“The Common Form”) to the Department Head, or in the case of Department Heads, to the Dean or Director of the University Library. This self-report shall include identification of activities in the performance review categories and may include a self–assessment of performance.
  3. On or before March 15, the Head (or, as appropriate, the Dean) shall prepare a written formative evaluation report and meet with the faculty member to review the report and to provide the faculty member with a copy; the report shall indicate the following:
  • the Head’s (or Dean’s) evaluation of the faculty member’s effectiveness in each of the performance review categories;
  • the Head’s (or Dean’s) recommendation on salary increases subject to the availability of funds (Section 2.12 );
  • the Head’s (or Dean’s) recommendation on reappointment for probationary faculty;
  • the Head’s (or Dean’s) recommendation, if any, on participation in Faculty development programs;
  • the Head’s (or Dean’s) recommendation for Board–mandated remediation of tenured faculty once there have been multiple unsatisfactory reviews (Section 2.11);
  • the Head’s (or Dean’s) recommendation on any revision of the development plan currently in effect by March 25.
  1. The faculty member shall read and sign the Head’s report to indicate that the annual review meeting was held and that the faculty member has read the report.
  2. The faculty member has the right to prepare a written response to the report to be submitted to the Head (or Dean) within five (5) working days of the date of the annual review meeting.
  3. The Head shall submit copies of the faculty member’s self–report, the formative evaluation report, and (if one exists) the faculty member’s written response to the Dean on or before March 25. Materials that clarify previously submitted evidence may be included with the written response.
  4. If the Dean concurs with the recommendation of the Head and the faculty member has not disagreed with those recommendations, the Dean shall forward those recommendations to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs on or before March 30. A copy of the final recommendation is also submitted to the Director of Assessment and Institutional Research. If the Dean disagrees with the recommendations of the Head or if the faculty member has disagreed with those recommendations (through the letter of response described in e above), the Dean shall convene a meeting with the faculty member and the Head on or before March 30 to attempt to resolve disagreements. Unsupported appeals will not be accepted for review.
  5. If all of the parties agree on a resolution, the Dean shall submit, on or before April 15, final recommendations to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, with copies to the faculty member and the Head. A copy of the final recommendation is also submitted to the Director of Assessment and Institutional Research. If all parties do not agree on a resolution, The Dean shall call the Appeals Committee within six working days of the meeting scheduled to attempt resolution as noted in Number 7 above and specified in Section 2.10.3.3 The Formative Evaluation Appeals Process.
  6. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs may review all formative documents or merit ratings at any time during the process described in a through h above, but the Vice President for Academic Affairs shall not initiate changes to these documents or ratings.

Back to Top

2.10.3.3 The Formative Evaluation Appeals Process

The formative evaluation itself may be appealed. Non–reappointment of probationary or term faculty may not be appealed. Faculty may review their file at any stage of the process by contacting the Chair of the reviewing committee. Candidates may withdraw their appeal at any time by filing a notice of intent with the Dean of the College or with the Director of the Library.

Attempts at resolving the appeal shall first be made at the department and college level (see 2.10.3.2 d–f above). If no resolution can be reached, the Dean shall call the Appeals Committee within six working days of the meeting.

The College Appeals Committee shall consist of the College Peer Review Committee as specified in Section 2.10.3.5.1.

  1. The Dean shall supply the Chair of the Appeals Committee with a file of all appropriate documentation.
  2. The Appeals Committee shall convene and shall conclude its work within ten (10) working days following the receipt of the appeal.
  3. The documentation shall be examined.
  4. The Committee shall interview the appellant and Department Head and/or the Dean.
  5. The Appeals Committee Chair shall communicate in writing to the Dean the Committee’s recommendation. This communication shall be signed by all Committee members and placed in the faculty file (with a copy of the recommendation going to the faculty member). The recommendation and all material shall be forwarded to the Dean of the College for his or her acceptance or rejection.
  6. After reviewing the recommendation of the Appeals Committee, the Dean shall communicate in writing his or her recommendation to the faculty member. If the faculty member is not satisfied with the Dean’s recommendation, the faculty member may ask for a university–wide appeal by communicating the request in writing to the Dean within five (5) working days after receiving the Dean’s recommendation. The Dean shall then forward all material to the Chair of the University–wide Appeals Committee within six working days. If the Dean does not receive a request for further appeal from the faculty member, the Dean shall forward all material to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs with a copy going to the Office of Assessment and Institutional Research.
  7. The University–wide Appeals Committee shall be the same committee described in Section 1.14.2.11 (the University–wide Promotion and Tenure Appeals Committee). After receiving the documentation from the Dean, the Committee, acting as a Formative Evaluations Appeal Committee, shall convene and shall conclude its work within ten (10) working days. The Committee Chair shall communicate in writing to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs the Committee’s recommendation. This communication shall be signed by all Committee members and placed in the faculty file (with a copy of the recommendation going to the faculty member). The recommendation and all other material shall be forwarded to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.
  8. The Provost shall communicate his or her decision in writing to the faculty member within six working days of receipt of the Appeals Committee decision. The decision of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs shall be final. A copy of the Provost’s decision and all other documents shall be returned to the Dean for filing. A copy of the final recommendation is also submitted to the Director of Assessment and Institutional Research.

Back to Top

2.10.3.4 The Summative Evaluation

Peer review at Nicholls State University shall always be treated as a recommendation to the Department Head, Dean or Director of the University Library, or the Provost. The peer review recommendation does not relieve the administrator from the responsibility of making the evaluative decision.

The Performance Review known as the summative evaluation shall be conducted in the fall semester. The review shall be based upon cumulative evidence of performance subsequent to the last formative evaluation (including all activities since the last formative evaluation) and shall result in decisions with regard to promotion and/or tenure.

Summative evaluations shall be scheduled at the discretion of the Department Head and/or Dean or may be scheduled in response to a request by the faculty member (for example, in the application for promotion). In all cases, a summative evaluation shall be performed before formal consideration for promotion and tenure.

Department Heads who also function as faculty shall be evaluated as tenured faculty.

In the following sections the term “summative dossier” refers to all of the documents that are passed from one level of review to a higher level. A checklist for the dossier is available on the internal administrators’ drive (V drive). A summative dossier may contain forms, a professional portfolio, appropriate letters and responses, and acceptable clarifying documents. A candidate may review the summative dossier at any stage in the process by making the appropriate contacts and scheduling an appointment.

Note: While reviewing the summative process described below, faculty should keep the following points in mind:

  • there is only one appeal per year
  • there are three levels of appeal
  • appeals may be made at any level, regardless of the outcome(s) of the previous level(s)

Back to Top

2.10.3.5 The Process for the Summative Evaluation

The process for the summative evaluation shall be as follows:

Back to Top

2.10.3.5.1 Peer Review Committee

The Deans and Director of the University Library shall appoint a Peer Review Committee on or before September 15. The Committee shall be composed of not more than five (5) full–time tenured professors. Deans and Department Heads cannot serve on this committee; faculty directors and coordinators who are contracted at 50% or more teaching duties are eligible. If there are an insufficient number of professors, the highest ranking tenured faculty shall serve. There shall be adequate representation of women and minority groups in the selection of the committee members.

The Peer Review Committee shall function in those reviews concerning promotion and tenure. For policy review, the committee shall use the most current version of the Policy & Procedure Manual. The committee shall also consult and have at hand all appropriate departmental promotion and tenure policies.

See also the charge for the college-level peer review committee from the report of the first promotion and tenure committee, available on the internal administrators’ drive (V drive).

Back to Top

2.10.3.5.2 Notifications

A Department Head and/or Dean or a faculty member may initiate the summative evaluation. A Department Head and/or Dean or a faculty member may initiate the summative evaluation. The faculty member may schedule a summative evaluation by either (1) making such a request in the faculty member’s Faculty Development Plan in November or by (2) submitting a letter of intent to the Department Head on or before March 25.

Note: Faculty should be aware that Peer Review Committees will not accept self–initiated faculty requests for a summative review unless there is evidence of (1) or (2) above.

By September 15 of each year, the Department Head will notify the faculty who requested a summative evaluation in the faculty development plan or by letter of intent, but whose requests have been denied.

Also by September 15 of each year, the Department Head will notify the faculty who are being considered for promotion and/or tenure and shall submit to the Peer Review Committee a summative initiation form for each faculty being considered for promotion and/or tenure. A separate form shall be submitted for promotion and for tenure.

In the case of promotion, the initiation form shall be considered a recommendation by the Department Head for promotion. Department Heads shall not fill out an initiation form unless they are recommending a candidate for promotion.

In the case of tenure, the initiation form is required to begin the review and shall not be considered a recommendation for or against tenure.

Back to Top

2.10.3.5.3 Presentation of Credentials

The faculty member shall provide the Peer Review Committee with the required professional portfolio for promotion and/or tenure before October 5 of the review year. The faculty member being considered is responsible for providing evidence of accomplishment, including a cover letter, vita, and other appropriate supporting documentation within the portfolio. The Department Head is responsible for making the appropriate formative reviews available to the Peer Review Committee so that the committee can comply with the requirements of Section 2.10.3.5.5 (2).

Faculty may refer to the internal administrators’ drive (V drive) for forms and other portfolio preparation materials.

Faculty who requested a summative evaluation in their development plans or by a letter of intent but whose names were not submitted to the Peer Review Committee by the Department Head may submit their portfolios to the Peer Review Committee on or before October 5. Such faculty may submit their names provided they have not been considered during the preceding three years. If such faculty have been considered during the preceding three years, they may submit their names if their portfolios evidence significant change.

Candidates must not discuss their candidacy with any committee member. The candidate should discuss the review with the chair or with the committee as a whole; no other person may approach the committee in the candidate’s behalf. The Chair shall notify candidates in writing acknowledging the receipt of the portfolio, and the candidates shall reply. The Chair shall prepare a summative dossier that contains the portfolio and all the appropriate forms prepared by the Dean’s office or the office of the Director of the Library according to University guidelines. The dossier contains an itemized list of the contents of the summative dossier. This itemized list shall be accurately updated as it accompanies the file during the summative process.

If a candidate withdraws from the summative process after the Peer Review Committee officially receives the portfolio (October 5), the candidate’s application shall count as a full summative application.

Back to Top

2.10.3.5.4 Peer Review Committee Agenda

The Peer Review Committee shall convene on or before September 30 at the call of the Committee Chair and, based on initiation forms submitted by Department Heads or Deans, shall establish an agenda for the fall semester to permit completion of the committee’s report on or before November 5. The agenda will include a timeline for handling 1) performance review summative that result in recommendations for promotion and tenure and 2) those summative reviews called for in Section 2.11.2.

The agenda will also include the names of faculty members who have submitted their own credentials but who have not had summative initiation forms submitted by Department Heads or Deans. (Section 2.10.3.5.2, Paragraph 1 contains information about the notifications faculty members should have made before submitting their own credentials to the committee.) The committee shall begin consideration for a full summative review that shall continue through all of levels of review mentioned in Sections 2.10.3.5.6 – 2.10.3.5.11 below. Wherever necessary with these self–submitted candidates, the committee will make immediate determinations of significant change (see Paragraph 3, Section 2.10.3.5.3). If significant change is found, the committee shall begin consideration for a full summative review that shall continue through all of levels of review mentioned in Sections 2.10.3.5.6 – 2.10.3.5.11 below. If significant change is not found, the portfolio shall be immediately returned to the candidate and no further consideration shall be given.

Back to Top

2.10.3.5.5 Timelines for Committee Evaluation

The Peer Review Committee shall submit to the Department Head (or Dean, in the case of Department Heads) a written report that will indicate the following:

  • The committee’s recommendation on promotion and/or tenure (deadline November 5);
  • The committee’s summative assessment of the faculty member’s effectiveness in the review categories as documented in the annual performance reviews and (in accordance with approved applicable standards) during the years covered by the review (deadline November 5);
  • Any additional evidence employed by the committee.

All appropriate documents shall be added to the summative dossier and the list of contents updated.

In the case of promotion, the candidate may withdraw at any time by filing notice with the college Dean or Director of the Library.

The report of the Peer Review Committee is a recommendation only and does not preclude the Department Head’s responsibility for evaluative decisions.

Back to Top

2.10.3.5.6 Department Head Timelines

On or before November 20,the Department Head (or, as appropriate, the Dean) shall meet with the faculty member to review the report and to provide the faculty member with a copy. Attached to the report shall be the following:

  • The Department Head’s recommendation on promotion and tenure, or post tenure review activities;
  • The Department Head’s summative assessment of the faculty member’s effectiveness in the performance review categories (in accordance with approved applicable standards) during the years covered by the review;
  • Any additional evidence employed by the Department Head.

All appropriate documents shall be added to the summative dossier and the list of contents updated.

Back to Top

2.10.3.5.7 Faculty Member’s Response

The faculty member shall read and sign the Department Head’s report to indicate that the review meeting was held and that the faculty member has read both reports. The faculty member has the right to prepare a written response to the reports to be submitted to the Department Head within ten (10) working days of the summative review meeting. In the case of negative reviews, a faculty member may choose to initiate an appeal (Section 2.10.3.7) by stating intentions in the response; the Department Head shall notify the Chair of the University–wide Promotion and Tenure Appeals Committee.

All appropriate documents shall be added to the summative dossier and the list of contents updated.

If no appeal is requested, the Department Head shall submit the updated summative dossier —recommendations, performance reviews, reports, and (if one exists) the faculty member’s written response—to the Dean on or before November 30.

Back to Top

2.10.3.5.8 Timelines for the Deans

On or before January 15 (or the date closest after the official return of faculty to the spring semester) the Dean shall inform faculty members in writing of the decision, stating reasons for any negative recommendations. The faculty member has the right to prepare a written response to the report within ten (10) working days after receiving notification of the Dean’s decision. In the case of negative reviews, a faculty member may choose to initiate an appeal by stating his or her intentions in the response; the Dean shall notify the Chair of the University–wide Promotion and Tenure Appeals Committee

All appropriate documents shall be added to the summative dossier and the list of contents updated.

If no appeal is requested, the Dean shall submit the updated summative dossier—recommendations, performance reviews, reports, and (if one exists) the faculty member’s written response, etc. — to the Vice President for Academic Affairs on or before February 10.

Back to Top

2.10.3.5.9 Timelines for the Vice President for Academic Affairs

On or before March 10 the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs shall inform faculty members in writing of his or her decision, stating reasons for any negative recommendations. The faculty member has the right to prepare a written response to the report within ten (10) working days after receiving notification of the Provost’s decision. In the case of negative reviews, a faculty member may choose to initiate an appeal by stating his or her intentions in the response; the Vice President shall notify the Chair of the University–wide Promotion and Tenure Appeals Committee.

If no appeal is requested, the Vice President shall submit the updated summative dossier—recommendations, performance reviews, reports, and (if one exists) the faculty member’s written response, etc. — to the President on or before March 30

Back to Top

2.10.3.5.10 Timelines for the President

The President will review all materials, recommendations, and supporting documents. Following the review, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs shall inform the faculty members in writing of any negative reviews. The President shall submit any positive recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Final approval of recommendations on promotion and tenure rests with the Board of Supervisors. The President shall notify each candidate in writing of the results of the Board of Supervisors action within fifteen (15) days after the Board of Supervisors action takes place; the notification shall be sent to each candidate at the address listed in the candidate’s official personnel file.

Back to Top

2.10.3.5.11 Board Approval and Summative Dossiers

All promotions are subject to Board approval and availability of funds. Upon completion of all action, the candidate shall review the contents of the summative dossiers and shall sign all appropriate forms. The candidate’s original portfolio shall be returned to the candidate. All other documents in the candidate’s summative dossier shall be filed in the appropriate office (Dean or Director of the University Library). These files shall be marked confidential.

Back to Top

2.10.3.6 Consideration for Department Heads and Other Administrative Faculty

Because of the role of the Department Head in the above procedures, it is not possible to apply these processes to a Department Head in matters of promotion and tenure. The following is an adaptation for this purpose:

The timetable for notification and decisions will be the same as that for any faculty member, with the Dean of the College serving as the Department Head.

All Department Heads and other administrators who teach (administrative faculty) must be reviewed annually, as are faculty, by following the formative evaluation process. Department Heads (including the Director of the University Library) and administrators who apply for promotion or tenure must go through the same summative review processes as do other faculty. In the summative process, it is the responsibility of administrators to support with adequate evidence their being qualified for promotion and tenure in all three areas (teaching, research, service)

Back to Top

2.10.3.7 Appeals in the Summative Process

Back to Top

2.10.3.7.1 Appeal Frequency and Levels

Candidates will be afforded only one appeal per year. Candidates may appeal a decision at any one of the following levels:

  • Department’s recommendation to the Dean;
  • Dean’s recommendation to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs;
  • Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs’ recommendation to the President.
  • There is no further appeal of denial of promotion.

An appeal can be made at any of the levels above (a, b, and c) regardless of earlier decisions at other levels.

Back to Top

2.10.3.7.2 Review of Files

Candidates may review their summative dossier at any stage of the appeals process, but the contents shall not be changed in any way. Candidates may withdraw their appeal at any time by filing a notice of intent with the Chair of the University–wide Promotion and Tenure Appeals Committee.

Back to Top

2.10.3.7.3 Campus–wide Review

Appeals will be reviewed by the University–wide Promotion and Tenure Appeals Committee.

Peer review at Nicholls State University shall always be treated as a recommendation to the Department Head, Dean or Director of the University Library, or the Provost. The peer review recommendation does not relieve the administrator from the responsibility of making the evaluative decision.

Back to Top

2.10.3.7.4 Definition of Campus–wide Committee

The University–wide Promotion and Tenure Appeals Committee will be composed of membership as described in section 1.14.2.11. See also the charge for the committee from the report of the first promotion and tenure committee, available on the internal administrators’ drive (V drive).

Back to Top

2.10.3.7.5 Committee Selection

The Faculty Senate shall oversee the election and formation of the University–wide Promotion and tenure Appeals Committee according to the guidelines in Section 1.14.2. This election shall be completed before any college–level peer reviewed committees are formed.

Faculty on the University–wide Promotion and Tenure Appeals Committee shall not serve on any college–level peer review committees.

The Faculty Senate shall be responsible for notifying faculty of the results of the election and shall properly charge the committee and advise the elected faculty to meet. The committee will elect a chair.

The appellant should not discuss his or her appeal with any potential committee member. The appellant may discuss the review only with the chair or the committee as a whole; no other person may approach the committee in the appellant’s behalf.

The Chair and the committee should review the minutes of the work of previous committees. The Chair and the committee should make every effort to ensure confidentiality (Section 2.10.3) of all proceedings and should take care to discuss personnel matters in closed executive session. For policy review, the committee shall use the most current version of the Policy & Procedure Manual. The committee shall also consult and have at hand all appropriate departmental promotion and tenure policies.

In general, the committee is charged with determining whether a negative decision of a particular level of administrative review is justified according to the evidence presented, according to established policy, and according to the standards of academia. Committee members are free to interpret evidence, standards, and policies, but should be prepared to support their interpretations.

Refer to the 1996 report of the first university–wide appeals committee, which contains suggested procedures that previous committees have found effective. This document is available on the internal administrators’ drive (V drive).

For each appeal, the committee shall be guided by the following:

  1. The Committee shall convene within ten (10) working days following the receipt of the appeal. Minutes shall be taken with copies going to the members of the committee, the President’s office, and University Archives.
  2. The appellant’s summative dossier shall be reviewed by each committee member. Each committee member shall sign the proper form stating that the dossier has been examined to the best of his or her ability. No new documentation shall be added to the file; candidates may add clarifying material to evidence already in the file by contacting the Chair of the committee. The committee shall make an immediate determination as to whether the material is appropriate. If the material is determined to be acceptable, copies of this material shall be sent to the appropriate level of review (the level where the appeal was initiated).
  3. The Committee may interview the appellant and appropriate administrator. The Committee may also choose to interview administrators below the level involved in the appeal.
  4. Within ten (10) working days after receiving the summative dossier(s), each committee member will forward a written signed recommendation (negative or positive) to the level of review above the level which gave the negative recommendation. The Chair shall also update the contents list in the summative dossier and deliver the complete summative dossier to the level of review above the level that gave the negative recommendation.
  5. The level of review will notify the candidate of the committee’s findings within five working days after receiving the letters. The letters will be added to the appellant’s summative dossier and the list of contents will be updated. After the administrator reaches a decision concerning the appellant’s candidacy, the administrator shall notify the Chair of the University–wide Promotion and Tenure Appeals Committee of the results of the decision.

Back to Top

2.10.3.8 Appeals and Grievances

Faculty should always be aware of the differences between appeals and grievances. The appeal processes outlined and described thus far and in later sections of this Manual are considered “due process.” As mentioned before, appeals can begin at many levels—department or college, for instance—and must follow the course of due process as mapped in the Policy & Procedure Manual. But in the case of appeals, the Board of Supervisors has stipulated that the decision of the President (the final stage of due process) is final. Beyond the President’s role in appeal–level due process, faculty members have recourse only in the filing of a grievance.

The grievance process is outlined in Section 2.10.3.8. Again, there is a procedure for filing and proceeding with grievances, just as there is a procedure to be followed with each appeal. The reasons for filing a grievance, however, are very specific; certain occurrences are “grievable” and some are not. Statements of policy, for instance, are not grievable. Violations of policy (due process) are grievable. Certain prejudicial or selective decisions by supervisors against employees (where these decisions seem to violate past practice not clearly covered by policy) may also be grievable. The main difference between a grievance and an appeal is in Board of Supervisors practice: After the President’s decision in the process, the Board of Supervisors will hear a grievance; the Board will usually not hear an appeal.

Back to Top

2.10.3.9 Promotion and Tenure Timetable

The following are important dates in the promotion and tenure process.

Spring Semester: Faculty may initiate summative reviews by making such a request in a letter of intent to the Department Head by March 25. This notification could also have been given in last November’s Faculty Development Plan. University–wide Promotion and Tenure Appeals Committee selected by May 15 (to be functional by September 1).

Sept. 1: University–wide Promotion and Tenure Appeals Committee functional.

Sept. 15: College Peer Review Committee named; Department Head notifies faculty who are being considered and submits a list of those being considered to the Peer Review Committee.

Sept. 30: The Peer Review Committee shall convene and establish an agenda.

Oct. 5: Faculty not being considered may appeal to the Peer Review Committee; faculty being considered must present credentials to the   Peer Review Committee.

Nov. 5: Peer Review makes recommendations to Department Head

Nov. 20  : On or before this date, the Department Head meets with faculty member to review reports; faculty member reviews the Peer Review report and the Department Head’s report; faculty member has ten working days from the meeting to prepare written response; faculty member may initiate appeal in the response.

Nov. 30: If no appeal is requested, the Department Head sends summative dossier to the Dean.

Jan. 15: On or before this date (or date closest after the official return of faculty to the spring semester) Dean shall inform faculty members in writing of the decision; faculty member can prepare a written response to the report within 10 working days; faculty member may initiate an appeal in the response.

Feb. 10: If no appeal is requested, the Dean sends summative dossier to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

Mar. 10: The Provost shall inform faculty members in writing of his or her decision; faculty member can prepare a written response to the report within 10 working days; faculty member may initiate an appeal in the response

Mar. 30: If no appeal is requested, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs sends summative dossier to the President

The President reviews all materials; the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs informs faculty members in writing of any negative reviews; the President submits positive recommendations to the Board of Supervisors; the President informs each candidate in writing of the results of the Board action within 15 days after the Board action takes place.

May 15: University–wide Promotion and Appeals Committee elected by this date

Level of review will notify candidate of committee findings within five working days after receiving all files. Campus–wide Appeals Committee has ten working days after receiving all files to make a recommendation

Back to Top

 

 

Changes to Section of Manual
Effective Date Origin Change Form
N/A