University Handbook,
Appendix Q:
Guidelines for Evaluating Faculty and Unclassified Professionals
Guidelines for Evaluating
Faculty and Unclassified Professionals
(FSM 12-11-90; revised 11-12-91)
A. Development and Revisions
of the Evaluation System
- Each unit must have a system for annual evaluation of faculty and
unclassified professionals. The system of evaluation must include
a statement of the unit's criteria. The evaluation will provide the
basis for annual merit salary recommendations.
- The responsibility for developing an annual evaluation system for
faculty and unclassified professionals rests primarily with the department's/unit's
faculty and unclassified professionals in consultation with the unit's
administrative head and the dean concerned. At the time of initial
consideration or later revision of the system, faculty and unclassified
professionals are expected to provide written opinions about the unit's
evaluation system. The system that it developed shall be consistent
with the university's goals as well a those of the unit.
- The evaluation period will be the same for all individuals in the
department/unit, with the possible exception of first-year appointees
and individuals who have been on leave for all or part of the year.
The unit's evaluation system will normally be based on performance
during the 12-month evaluation period ending December 31. However,
departments/units may, on the basis of a majority vote, choose any
other 12-month period for evaluation (e.g., the fiscal year from July
1 to June 30). Depending on its goals and objectives, a department/unit's
evaluation system may include consideration of accomplishments that
have occurred over a period of time longer than one year. It may also
specify that a rolling average of the person's annual evaluation results
for several preceding years may be used to determine relative salary
recommendations so as to minimize inequities due to variable Legislative
actions from year to year. Faculty members in such units will receive
merit salary adjustments up to 12 months after the conclusion of the
evaluation period.
Special rules apply to two categories of faculty and unclassified
professionals: first-year appointees and individuals who have been
on leave for all or part of the year, either sabbatical or leave
without pay. For first-year appointees, units have the option of
(a) recommending an increase based on the individual's evaluation
(adjusted proportionally to encompass the entire year), (b) recommending
an average increase, or (c) recommending the larger of the above,
since the length of time for evaluating performance was limited.
Such individuals are also eligible for a salary adjustment on bases
outside the annual evaluation (e.g., market, equity). The unit may
evaluate individuals who were on sabbatical leave or on leave without
pay for a portion of the year on the basis of their performance
during the period they were engaged in University assignments, and,
if so, merit recommendations should be consistent with this evaluation
(adjusted proportionally to encompass the entire year). If the leave
was for the entire year, the individual's average evaluation for
recent years, not to exceed six years, may serve as the basis of
the merit increase recommendation. Such individuals are also eligible
for salary adjustments on bases outside the annual evaluation.
- A unit's evaluation system must be mutually approved by a majority
vote of the faculty or unclassified professionals in the unit, by
the unit's administrative head, and by the dean concerned. The date
of final approval must appear on the first page.
Provision must be made for review of the system at least once
every five years or more frequently if it is determined to be necessary
by any of the three aforementioned parties. Revisions must also
be approved by the process described in A3 above. Dates of revision
(or the vote to continue the system without revision) must appear
on the first page.
B. Responsibilities of Those
Who Are Evaluated
- Each faculty or unclassified professional will meet annually
with the unit head to jointly establish personal goals and objectives
for the upcoming evaluation period and to discuss their relative importance
within the context of the unit's goals. It is expected that the previous
year's statement will be considered during the annual evaluation and
goal setting process.
- Each faculty or unclassified professional will provide an annual
written summary of accomplishments and activities in accordance with
the guidelines provided by the unit's statement of criteria and procedures.
- Each faculty and/or unclassified professionals will review, and
must have the opportunity to discuss, his/her written evaluation with
the individual who prepared it. Before the unit head submits it to
the next administrative level, each faculty and/or unclassified professionals
must sign a statement acknowledging the opportunity to review and
to discuss the evaluation and his/her relative position in the planned
assignment of merit salary increases within the unit. Because the
amount of funds available for merit increases is generally not known
at this time, specific percentage increases will not normally be discussed.
Within seven working days after the review and discussion, faculty
and/or unclassified professionals have the opportunity to submit written
statements of unresolved differences regarding their evaluations by
the unit head to the unit head and to the next administrative level.
C. Responsibilities of Evaluators
- The unit head will prepare, by January 31, a written evaluation
for each regularly appointed faculty and/or unclassified professionals.
Quantitative ratings may be used to summarize evaluative judgments,
but the basis for these judgments must be explained by a narrative
account. The evaluation shall provide succinct assessments of effectiveness
in performing each responsibility and these statements must include
summaries of the achievements/evidence which support these assessments.
- The unit head will recommend a salary adjustment for each person
evaluated. The recommended percentage increases based on the annual
evaluation for persons with higher levels of accomplishment shall
exceed those for persons with lower levels of accomplishment.
If merit salary categories are utilized, then the percentage recommended
for persons in the first category will be higher than those for
the second category, which in turn shall exceed those for persons
the third category, etc. As a rough guide, average percentage increases
in the highest category are expected to be about twice those in
the lowest category; this ratio is expected to fluctuate both with
the degree to which members of the unit differ in effectiveness
and with the degree to which funds are available.
- The unit head will ensure that each faculty and/or unclassified
professional has had the opportunity to review and discuss his/her
written evaluation. Within seven working days after the review and
discussion, faculty and unclassified professionals have the opportunity
to submit written statements of unresolved differences regarding their
evaluations, which will only then be forwarded to the next administrative
level.
- The unit head who prepared the evaluations must submit the following
items to the appropriate dean (or, for support units, the appropriate
administrator): (See schedule as published by the provost each October.)
- A copy of the evaluation system used to prepare the evaluations.
- A written evaluation for each regularly appointed faculty or
unclassified professional employed for at least three months during
the calendar year.
- A recommended merit salary adjustment for each faculty or unclassified
professional. These recommendations should be based directly on
the person's evaluation.
- Documentation (e.g., a statement signed by the individual evaluated)
establishing that there was an opportunity to examine the written
evaluation and to discuss with the evaluator the individual's
resulting relative standing for the purpose of merit salary increase
in the unit.
- Any written statement submitted by faculty or unclassified
professionals of unresolved differences regarding their evaluations.
- Any recommendations for salary adjustments on bases outside
of the annual evaluation, together with documentation which supports
these recommendations.
D. Responsibilities of Deans/Comparable
Administrators
- The dean will review evaluation materials and recommendations
to insure that: (a) the merit evaluations are consistent with the
criteria and procedures approved for the unit, (b) there are no inequities
in the recommendations based upon gender, race, religion, national
origin, age or handicap, (c) merit salary recommendations are consistent
with merit evaluation, and (d) recommendations for salary adjustments
on bases outside of the annual evaluation are adequately and rationally
documented.
- A dean who does not agree with recommendations for merit salary
increases made by a unit head must attempt to reach consensus through
consultation. If this fails, the dean's recommendation will be used.
If any change has been made the dean must notify, in writing, the
individual of the change and its rationale. Within seven working days
after notification, such individuals have the opportunity to submit
written statements of unresolved differences regarding their evaluations
to the dean and to the provost. All statements of unresolved differences
will be included in the documentation to be forwarded to the next
administrative level. All recommendations are forwarded to the provost.
- The dean should provide guidelines for making salary adjustments
on bases outside of the annual evaluation and for justifying these
requests through appropriate documentation. Approved requests are
forwarded to the provost.
- The dean must forward to the provost all salary recommendations
and supporting documentation (written evaluation; written statements
of unresolved differences, recommended actions; justifications for
salary adjustments on bases outside the annual evaluation process).
(See schedule as published by the provost each October.)
E. Responsibilities of the
Provost
- The provost will review evaluation materials and recommendations
to insure that: (a) the evaluation process was conducted in a manner
consistent with the criteria and procedures approved by the unit,
(b) there are no inequities in the recommendations based upon race,
color, ethnic or national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity, religion, age, ancestry, disability, military status, or
veteran status, (c) merit salary recommendations are consistent with
merit evaluations, and (d) recommendations for salary adjustments
on bases, outside the annual evaluation, are adequately documented.
- If the provost does not agree with recommendations for salary increases
made by subordinate administrators, an attempt must be made to reach
consensus through consultation. If this fails, the provost's recommendation
will be used. The individual affected by the disagreement must be
notified by the provost, in writing, of the change and its rationale.
- The provost will issue to each continuing faculty and/or unclassified
professionals a contract which includes the individual's salary for
the next fiscal year.
¨Each teaching department is considered to be a separate unit and is,
therefore, responsible for developing an evaluation system. At other administrative
levels the appropriate administrator is responsible for seeing that a
system for evaluating subordinate administrators (e.g., department heads,
assistant deans) is developed and implemented following the principles
described in A.1. through A.3. Because many support units, which report
to the president, a vice president, or the provost, have only a small
number of unclassified professionals, the principal administrator may
choose to consolidate some or all of them for purposes of developing and
implementing an evaluation system. If a consolidated system is used, care
should be taken to ensure that it is applied uniformly by all units.
¨Those appointed to a regular part-time position
must be evaluated. Evaluations are not required for an individual on
a term appointment (as defined in C11),
even if that appointment will be renewed for another year.
¨These recommendations must
be made before the Legislature has appropriated funds to support salary
increases. Therefore, percentage increases should be projected and identified
for each individual or each merit salary category, if used, based upon
the governor's budget recommendations. Recommendations of dollar and
percentage increases should not be communicated to individuals until
the appropriate for salary increases is known.