Procedures for Faculty Evaluation and Reappointment

Introduction

• 1. Each employee must be evaluated annually per 4.6 of the Bylaws of the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska and 2.3.1 of the Bylaws of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The evaluation process consists of a written performance evaluation and an evaluation conference.
  
  
• 2. Duties assigned to the Associate Dean for Administration in this document may be delegated to a designee at the discretion of the Associate Dean for Administration.
  
  
• 3.The reviewer is the next higher supervisor, except for faculty reporting directly to the Dean of Libraries. The Associate Dean for Administration, or his/her designee, serves as the reviewer for faculty reporting directly to the Dean of Libraries. The other Associate Dean serves as the reviewer for the Associate Dean for Administration.
  
  
• 4. Procedures for all faculty evaluations are similar. However, there are some differences that fall into three categories. These are described below.
  
  
  • 4.1 Non-tenured faculty. In addition to an annual evaluation, all non-tenured faculty must go through a reappointment process each year. This takes place at the same time as the evaluation process.
    
    
    • 4.1.1 A faculty member's first evaluation/reappointment is usually in January/February.
      
      
    • 4.1.2 The second year evaluation/reappointment takes place the following October/November.
      
      
    • 4.1.3 The next three evaluations/reappointments are held in March/April.
      
      
    • 4.1.4 In addition an evaluation (not a reappointment) is conducted three months after a faculty member begins a new position, if that does not coincide with the normal time period.
      
      
    • 4.1.5 Also, a faculty member is evaluated (not a reappointment) in October before going through the Continuous Appointment and Promotion process.
      
      
    • 4.1.6 The Associate Dean for Administration notifies the evaluatee and evaluator when the evaluation/reappointment is to be held.
  • 4.2 Tenured but not fully promoted faculty. In addition to an annual evaluation, for all tenured but not fully promoted faculty members, a peer review is required at least every third year following the granting of tenure until the evaluatee is fully promoted. This takes place at the same time as the evaluation process. Faculty members may request a peer review in years other than the third year.
    
    
    • 4.2.1 Tenured but not fully promoted faculty members are evaluated in March/April each year. The Associate Dean for Administration notifies the evaluatee and evaluator when a peer review is to be held.
  • 4.3 Tenured and fully promoted faculty members are evaluated in March/April each year.

Procedures

• 5. The Associate Dean for Administration notifies the evaluator and the evaluatee in writing of upcoming dates for the evaluation and reappointment processes, as determined by COART. The Associate Dean for Administration also announces a deadline for completion of the evaluation and reappointment processes and reminds staff involved in the process where the electronic evaluation and reappointment forms are located.
  
  
• 6. Pre-evaluation conference: Prior to writing the evaluation and/or meeting of any reappointment or peer review committee, the evaluatee may request a pre-evaluation conference with the evaluator. The evaluatee and evaluator arrange a time for the meeting.
  
  
  • 6.1 The pre-evaluation conference is NOT an evaluation of the employee. However, it offers the evaluator an opportunity to review criteria for measuring job performance with the evaluatee, and it also offers the evaluatee an opportunity to highlight professional activities of which the supervisor may not be aware. Either party may ask the Associate Dean for Administration and/or the next higher supervisor to be present during the pre-evaluation conference.
• 7. Preparing folders: The Associate Dean for Administration prepares a folder for each non-tenured and tenured but not fully promoted faculty member who is undergoing reappointment or peer review. This folder contains all of the evaluatee's position descriptions, previous performance evaluations, and for untenured faculty any previous reappointment statements.
  
  
  • 7.1 Using this folder all non-tenured and peer review candidates are encouraged to prepare folders following the Library Faculty's Continuous Appointment and Promotion Procedures and Deliberations document for review by their committee. Others items to include are an up-to-date vita, Professional Developments Contribution sheets, letters of commendation, copies of publications, and other documents deemed appropriate. The folder prepared is cumulative.
• 8. Soliciting information for evaluation: The evaluator solicits information from evaluatee's supervisees and colleagues.
  
  
  • 8.1 The evaluator announces an upcoming evaluation to all staff and asks for information relevant to the evaluation from all who may have information to contribute.
    
    
  • 8.2 are to be completed by all employees directly supervised by the evaluatee. The Associate Dean for Administration sends notification concerning the deadline, location of the electronic form to be used, and directions for submitting the form. By University guidelines, the Supervisory Performance Evaluation- Employee Input Forms are confidential, but not anonymous. The evaluator shares the information from the confidential evaluations with any Reappointment or Peer Review Committee and incorporates it into the performance evaluation with any Reappointment or Peer Review Committee and incorporates it into the evaluation and any reappointment recommendation. The evaluatee does not see the Supervisory Performance Evaluation- Employee Input Forms. The evaluator and the reviewer each review these forms.
    
    
  • 8.3 Supervisory Performance Evaluation - Employee Input Forms are to be completed by all other faculty and managerial/professional line employees in the department who are not directly supervised by the Department Chair. The Associate Dean for Administration sends notification concerning deadline, location of electronic form to be used, and directions for submitting the completed form. By University guidelines, these Evaluations of Department Chair forms are confidential, but not anonymous. The evaluator shares the information from the confidential evaluations with any Reappointment or Peer Review Committee and incorporates it into the performance evaluation and any reappointment recommendation. The evaluatee does not see the Supervisory Performance Evaluation- Employee Input Forms. The evaluator and the reviewer each review the forms.
    
    
  • 8.4 Evaluation of assistant and associate deans: Supervisory Performance Evaluation- Employee Input Forms are sent to all department chairs-level faculty. The Associate Dean for Administration sends notification concerning deadline, location of electronic form to be used, and directions for submitting the form. By University guidelines, these Evaluations of assistant and associate deans forms are confidential, but not anonymous. The evaluator shares the information from the confidential evaluations with any Reappointment or Peer Review Committee and incorporates it into the performance evaluation and any reappointment recommendations. The evaluatee does not see the Evaluation of assistant and associate deans forms. The evaluator and the reviewer review the forms.
    
    
  • 8.5 Completion of these evaluations of supervisor, chair, assistant, or associate dean forms is optional.
    
    
  • 8.6 The evaluator is required to convene and chair a Reappointment Committee for non-tenured faculty members to gather input for the evaluatee's evaluation and reappointment recommendation.
    
    
    • 8.6.1 The evaluator convenes and chairs a Reappointment Committee to review the evaluatee's folders and other relevant information. The Committee discusses the candidate's progress towards tenure. The Committee chair has an obligation to indicate to the Committee when advice being offered differs and/or conflicts from previous years and to seek an understanding of why the advice differs. The Committee chair summarizes the major points of discussion that will be relayed to the evaluatee. The Committee then makes a recommendation of reappointment or non-reappointment. If the Committee is split on whether to reappoint or not, a vote is taken. While the evaluator considers the recommendation of the Committee, the recommendation of reappointment or non-appointment ultimately reflects the judgment of the evaluator.
      
      
    • 8.6.2 The Reappointment Committee consists of all tenured faculty members in the evaluatee's department. In addition, the evaluator and the evaluatee each must choose one to five tenured faculty members from outside the department. The Committee must consist of at least three tenured faculty members. Some overlap of committee membership from one year to the next is encouraged.
      
      
    • 8.6.3 If the evaluatee is at the department chair level, the evaluator convenes and chairs a Reappointment Committee of all tenured faculty members at the department chair level. In addition, the evaluator and the evaluatee each must choose a tenured faculty member from the evaluatee's department. If there are less than three tenured members of the department, all tenured faculty members in the department must serve. If there are less than two tenured faculty members in the department, tenured faculty from other departments are chosen.
      
      
    • 8.6.4 If the evaluatee is an assistant or associate dean, the evaluator convenes and chairs a committee of all tenured faculty members at the department chair level.
      
      
    • 8.6.5 If the evaluatee is an executive assistant to the dean, the evaluator convenes and chairs a committee of all tenured faculty members at the department chair level. In addition, the evaluator and the evaluatee each must choose an additional tenured member of the library faculty.
  • 8.7 If the evaluatee is tenured but not fully promoted, a peer review is required to be held at least every third year following the granting of tenure until the evaluatee is fully promoted.
    
    
  • 8.7.1 The evaluator convenes and chairs a Peer Review Committee consisting of faculty members with the rank of associate professor or professor, chosen by the evaluatee. The number of faculty chosen is at the discretion of the evaluatee. The evaluatee may choose to attend the peer review committee.
• 9. The evaluator prepares and completes the Performance Evaluation form, and for non-tenured faculty, a Recommendation for Reappointment form.
  
  
  • 9.1 Non-tenured faculty member. The evaluator completes the evaluation form and reappointment form.
    
    
    • 9.1.1 For a non-tenured faculty member issues raised by the Reappointment Committee members and comments solicited from staff are incorporated into the written evaluation and reappointment form. If any of the new comments are negative and would be a surprise to the evaluatee, they should be placed in the Comment section as an area for growth and should not be incorporated into the numerical ranking. If the Committee has recommended an area for the candidate to work on, this recommendation is to be indicated in the evaluation.
      
      
    • 9.1.2 The purpose of the completed reappointment form is to explain the rationale for the recommendation to reappoint or to not reappoint. Issues are to be clearly spelled out, including strengths and areas where improvement is needed. The evaluator is to be explicit in expressing the Reappointment Committee's expectations.
      
      
    • 9.1.3 The completed reappointment form is to also serve as a guide to upcoming reappointment committees and the promotion and tenure committee. The form is to address whether or not the evaluatee has made progress in meeting the expectations of the Reappointment Committee from year to year so that there is a track record for the candidate. Issues must be in writing rather than only handled orally at the conference.
      
      
    • 9.1.4 The completed reappointment form should reflect areas where growth is needed. When the evaluatee is making good progress overall, constructive criticism is beneficial. The form is to indicate whether the evaluatee has made progress in meeting the recommendations from the previous year. If no improvement was evident, the problem must be addressed explicitly. Expectations are to be stated clearly. If the form indicates that the latest Committee's recommendations disagree with the previous recommendations, the form must state why the advice has changed.
      
      
    • 9.1.5 In completing the reappointment form, the evaluator is to use precise language. For example, if committee "recommends," the word "suggests" should not be used.
      
      
    • 9.1.6 The completed reappointment form is to be reviewed by at least one other member of the Reappointment Committee to insure that important issues have been addressed and addressed clearly.
  • 9.2 Tenured but not fully promoted faculty member. The evaluator completes the evaluation form.
    
    
    • 9.2.1 For a tenured but not fully promoted faculty member, the evaluation form incorporates issues raised by the Peer Review Committee members and comments solicited from staff. If any of the new comments are negative and would be a surprise to the evaluatee, they should be placed in the Comment section as an area for growth and should not be incorporated into the numerical ranking. If the Committee has recommended an area for the candidate to work on, this recommendation is to be indicated in the evaluation. The Committee is also to provide guidance on how to achieve promotion.
  • 9.3 Tenured and fully promoted faculty member. The evaluator completes the evaluation form.
    
    
    • 9.3.1 For a tenured and fully promoted faculty member, the evaluation form incorporates comments solicited from staff. If any of the new comments are negative and would be a surprise to the evaluatee, they should be placed in the Comment section as an area for growth and should not be incorporated into the numerical ranking.
  • 9.4 If the evaluatee has had a change in supervisors within three months of the date of the current evaluation, the evaluator should read the evaluatee's exit evaluation, if one is available.
• 10. The evaluation form is processed and an evaluation conference is held.
  
  
  • 10.1 The evaluator gives a copy of the completed evaluation form to the evaluatee at least five working days prior to the scheduled evaluation conference. For non-tenured this would include the completed reappointment form. At the same time, the evaluator gives a copy of the completed evaluation form, completed reappointment form for non-tenured faculty members, and all originals of any confidential Evaluation of Supervisor and/or Evaluation of Department Chairs forms to the reviewer.
    
    
  • 10.2 The evaluatee meets with the evaluator and the reviewer to discuss the evaluation, and for non-tenured faculty members, the reappointment recommendation. For the protection of both parties, no formal oral evaluation is to take place without the reviewer present.
    
    
    • 10.2.1 The evaluator discusses the evaluation and his/her recommendation for reappointment or non-reappointment and summarizes the discussion from the Reappointment Committee, including their recommendation. If a recommendation for non-reappointment is made, the evaluator schedules a meeting for the evaluatee to be counseled by the Associate Dean of Administration about available options.
      
      
    • 10.2.2 The reviewer may not add comments to the completed evaluation form prior to the evaluation conference.
      
      
    • 10.2.3 The role of the reviewer in the evaluation conference includes any of the following activities:
      
      
      • 10.2.3.1 Ensuring that the information from the Supervisory Performance Evaluation- Employee Input Forms is kept strictly confidential and is incorporated fairly into the completed evaluation form.
        
        
      • 10.2.3.2 Clarifying comments not understood.
        
        
      • 10.2.3.3 Moderating when the discussion strays from the central points of the evaluation.
        
        
      • 10.2.3.4 Promoting clear communication in cases of misunderstanding.
        
        
      • 10.2.3.5 Serving as a witness of record.
  • 10.3 After the evaluation conference is completed, the written evaluation form, reappointment form for non-tenured faculty members, and any confidential Supervisory Performance Evaluation- Employee Input Forms are handled as follows:
    
    
    • 10.3.1 The evaluatee signs the evaluation form, indicating thereby that he/she has seen the form and that an evaluation conference was held. The signature of the evaluatee does not necessarily indicate concurrence with the evaluation.
      
      
    • 10.3.2 The reviewer also signs the evaluation form, indicating thereby that a conference relating to the evaluatee's work was held and that the evaluatee saw the evaluation form.
      
      
    • 10.3.3 Should the evaluatee wish to submit a commentary on the written evaluation, recommendation for reappointment, or on the conference, such written commentary must be delivered to the Associate Dean for Administration within three (3) working days following the evaluation conference. The Associate Dean for Administration includes it with the evaluation form or recommendation for reappointment form. The evaluatee also sends copies to the evaluator and to the reviewer.
      
      
    • 10.3.4 Should the evaluator and/or the reviewer wish to submit a commentary on the written evaluation or on the conference, such written commentary must be delivered to the Associate Dean for Administration within three (3) working days following the evaluation conference. The Associate Dean for Administration attaches it to the evaluation form or recommendation for reappointment form. The evaluator and/or reviewer also sends copies to each participant at the evaluation conference.
      
      
      • 10.3.4.1 The evaluatee may respond in writing to the commentary within three (3) working days of receipt thereof, by sending such response to the Associate Dean for Administration. The Associate Dean for Administration attaches it to the evaluation form or recommendation for reappointment. The evaluatee also sends copies to the evaluator and to the reviewer.
    • 10.3.5 The reappointment recommendation is to be attached to the evaluation form before it is sent to the Dean of Libraries.
      
      
    • 10.3.6 The reviewer sends all confidential Evaluation of Supervisor or Chairs forms to the Associate Dean for Administrator who shreds the forms after three months, unless a grievance has been filed. In that case, the documents are retained until the situation is resolved.
  • 10.4 The reviewer forwards the evaluation form with the recommendation for or against reappointment to the Dean of Libraries. The Dean makes the final reappointment recommendation and sends a letter with that information to the evaluatee and the evaluator. The original evaluation form with the attached reappointment recommendation and the letter with the reappointment recommendation are placed in the evaluatee's personnel file. The Reappointment Form is an internal document that does not leave the Libraries.
    
    
    • 10.4.1 The Dean of Libraries may reconvene the reappointment committee if he/she has questions or seeks clarification and information.
• 11. Timing of evaluations.
  
  
  • 11.1 Non-tenured faculty members are evaluated in time to give the faculty member notice of the Dean's reappointment recommendation as specified in 4.4.2 of Bylaws of the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.
    
    
  • 11.2 Confidential Supervisory Performance Evaluation- Employee Input Forms are completed at the time of the supervisor's evaluation.
    
    
  • 11.3 When a supervisee transfers to another supervisor or when a supervisor leaves a position, the original supervisor conducts exit evaluations for supervisees who have not been evaluated within the last three months.
    
    
  • 11.4 An individual will not be evaluated until he/she has been on the faculty for at least three months.
• 12. Role of the evaluator in the Reappointment process.
  
  
  • 12.1 By the second reappointment, the evaluatee is advised to select and begin working on their areas of professional contributions as described in the University Libraries' Promotion and Continuous Appointment Criteria, latest version.
    
    
  • 12.2 The evaluator is responsible for mentoring a faculty member through the reappointment and continuous appointment process, clarifying expectations, and offering guidance for improved performance. If the evaluatee does not respond to recommendations nor does not meet expectations, it is appropriate to counsel the evaluatee about career options.
• 13. Retention of documents
  
  
  • 13.1 The signed evaluation form and the reappointment form for non-tenured faculty are placed in the evaluatee's personnel file in the Libraries. No copy is sent to the Vice-Chancellor's office or any other administrator's office. When a faculty member puts together his/her file for continuous appointment and/or promotion, the evaluations and reappointment letters do become part of that file for the review of the Continuous Appointment and Promotion Committee. The evaluations are sent to the Vice-Chancellor's office as part of the file in Folder 1.
    
    
  • 13.2 A copy of the Dean's recommendation for reappointment letter is placed in the evaluatee's personnel file in the Libraries. No copy is sent to the Vice-Chancellor's office or any other administrator's office.
    
    
  • 13.3 All copies of the Evaluation of Supervisor and Supervisory Performance Evaluation- Employee Input Forms are shredded by the Associate Dean for Administration three (3) months following the evaluation conference, unless a grievance is filed. In that case, the documents are retained until the situation is resolved.