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 write 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 individual will be re-hired 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.