1. By September 30 each year, submit to the chair a statement of goals for teaching, research, and service for the next calendar year. Include in this statement a proposed distribution of effort (for merit increase and Enhancement Review purposes) for the year. Normally, this distribution will be a. 20% for service (normally the minimum for service, except for first-year faculty and faculty on leave), b. 10% for teaching for each course taught during the year (excluding summer), c. 10% for each administrative course release, distributed among teaching, "applied" research, and service, as appropriate, and d. the remainder for research. (Tenure-track faculty should never lose sight of their necessity to build a tenure case showing excellence in one of two ways: [a] excellence in teaching or in research or [b] a balanced case of near-excellence in each of the three areas of teaching, research, and service.) (Because lecturers' job descriptions do not include a research component, the distribution of effort for lecturers should not include a percentage for research. Lecturers who engage in research or creative activity are encouraged either [a] to classify such activity as "teaching" or "service," as appropriate, in their annual reports and attached narratives, or [b] to report such activity as "research," but not as part of the weighted percentage. In the latter case, the department will seek to reward those research achievements through "general merit" consideration within the department and in the school.)
2. Revise this statement, if necessary, as negotiated with the chair. Changes in goals and distribution of effort may be negotiated during the year covered, as circumstances change.
3. By the date announced by the dean each year (normally late January), complete the online Faculty Annual Report form. By the same date, submit to the chair an annual report folder, consisting of (a) a completed Faculty Annual Report form (submitted on paper), (b) a current vita (dated and signed), (c) a copy of the goals statement for the previous year, (d) copies of the past two annual reviews, (e) copies of the summary sheets of all student evaluations, (f) copies of peer reviews of teaching, in the frequency required by current department policy, and (g) appendixes that support the claims made in the narrative. (Both chair and Promotion and Tenure Committee will review these appendixes.) Submit in a file folder (or, if necessary, a small three-ring binder) labeled "Annual Report,
1. By the dates announced each year, submit to the chair an annual review of each faculty member, except full professors, based on his or her annual report folder, rating him or her as a. significantly exceeds department expectations (4) b. exceeds department expectations (3) c. meets department expectations (2) d. below department expectations (1), or e. unsatisfactory (0) in each of the areas of teaching, service, and (if appropriate) research. Write a brief prose rationale for each rating.
2. In assigning the three highest ratings, follow the department's "Standards and Policies for Annual Reviews," dated January 29, 1993, until a revision of that document is adopted by the department. For the rating of use the 1993 standards for the rating of significantly exceeds department expectations (4) Excellent exceeds department expectations (3) Good meets department expectations (2) Satisfactory For the rating of below department expectations (1), use the standard of "less than satisfactory but not unsatisfactory." For the rating of unsatisfactory (0), use the standard of "failing to meet fundamental professional standards of competence and/or responsibility," from the SLA Annual Enhancement Review Guidelines.
3. In making these evaluations, consider all faculty members' performance cumulatively (as required by the 1993 document), not limiting the performance to the last calendar year. 4. After the chair has announced recommended merit increases, consider any appeals not resolved by the chair.
1. In September each year, circulate to all faculty members a list of ten-month salaries by rank in the department. Review any faculty members whose salary is below 90% of the department average for their rank, and any other faculty members who request such a review, and consider requesting equity adjustments from the dean.
2. By the end of the fall semester each year, read faculty goal statements, and meet, for the purpose of reviewing those statements, with all first-year lecturers and all tenure-track faculty members, all faculty members about whose goals or proposed distributions of effort you disagree or have concerns, and all faculty members requesting such a meeting.
3. As annual report folders are submitted, forward them to the Promotion and Tenure Committee; read online copies (and appendixes when possible).
4. As annual reviews are submitted by the Promotion and Tenure Committee, read them. If you disagree with a review, write a separate chair's review. Forward all reviews to the dean as required. Forward to each faculty member a copy of his or her review or reviews.
5. Write an annual review of each full professor, following the procedure described in paragraphs B1, B2, and B3 of this policy.
6. For each faculty member, calculate an overall weighted average rating of significantly exceeds department expectations (4), exceeds department expectations (3), meets department expectations (2), below department expectations (1), or unsatisfactory (0), based on the Promotion and Tenure Committee's annual review ratings (or your ratings, if you have written an annual review of that faculty member) and the faculty member's distribution of effort for the year.
7. For each faculty member, submit to the dean the SLA Faculty Annual Review Form (including the Promotion and Tenure Committee's annual review ratings [or your ratings, if you have written an annual review of that faculty member]) as basis for the required annual Enhancement Review.
8. When the dean announces a percentage increase for chairs to use in making merit salary increase recommendations, distribute equally to all faculty members who have an overall weighted average rating of at least "satisfactory" (a) half of the announced percentage, or (b) the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the Midwest Region (Region V) for the previous calendar year, whichever is greater.
9. Divide the remaining funds, if any, into two "pools": one for lecturers, the other for tenured and tenure-track faculty, in proportion to their total salaries.
10. Distribute each pool among the faculty members represented by that pool who have an overall weighted average of at least "satisfactory," using the overall weighted average ratings as a basis for this distribution. For each faculty member, add this amount to the amount resulting from the equal distribution in Paragraph 8 and submit the resulting merit increase recommendation to the dean. Notify each faculty member of his or her overall rating, his or her recommended merit increase percentage, and the ranking of this recommended merit increase percentage within the department. Circulate a list of salary recommendations, by rank, in order of merit increase percentage, without names, to the department.
11. Consider any appeals. Adopted 9/1999; amended 9/2000, 2/14/2003.