AFUM Contract Administrative Guidelines
Evaluation and Evaluation Criteria
Article 10

Article 10, Evaluation, of the AFUM contract requires that all unit members be evaluated by a peer committee annually, except as shown below.  Any unit member having the rank of Professor with tenure and any unit member having the rank of Extension Educator with continuing contract shall be evaluated by the department, division or other appropriate unit every four (4) years, or more frequently upon written request of the unit member.  Any unit member having the rank of Associate Professor with tenure, any unit member having the rank of Associate Extension Educator with continuing contract and any Lecturer or Instructor with over six (6) years of continuous service in the same department, division or other appropriate unit shall be evaluated by the department, division or other appropriate unit every four (4) years, or more frequently upon written request of the unit member.  

Peer Committee Evaluation Schedule

Professor with tenure or Extension Educator with continuing contract	Every 4 years
Associate Professor with tenure or Associate Extension Educator with continuing contract	Every 4 years
Lecturer or Instructor with over 6 years of continuous service in the same department, division or other appropriate unit	Every 4 years
All other AFUM unit faculty	Every year

All unit members (with the exceptions cited in the chart above), including first and second year faculty who have previously been considered for reappointment, should be evaluated at this time by both the peer committee and department chairperson.  In addition, departments should review annually their evaluation criteria and student evaluation forms.  If revisions are made, they should be submitted for administrative approval in accordance with Article 10, Section B.3 of the faculty contract.  

Procedure

The department chairperson is responsible for convening the peer evaluation committee.  The chairperson may be an observer of the deliberations of the committee evaluation.  The chairperson will provide the peer committee access to the personnel file, including student evaluation results.  The peer committee or the chairperson of the peer committee must meet with the faculty member who is being evaluated for a a frank discussion of the faculty member's performance, if such a meeting is requested by the faculty member.  This meeting should occur before the peer committee puts its evaluation in writing.  Once the evaluation is in writing, the faculty member has one week in which to comment, also in writing, if he/she so desires.  The response must be attached to the evaluation and both placed in the personnel file.  

The peer committee need not evaluate any faculty member whose service will cease at the end of the current year.  That is, any faculty member who has stated in writing an intent to resign or retire, any faculty member completing a terminal year, or any faculty member with a fixed-length or soft-money appointment which will expire this year and will not be renewed.

To conform to Board of Trustee Review policy, the department chairperson (dean in units without chairpersons) must annually evaluate all employees, including faculty, including those as shown above who are evaluated by the peer committee less frequently.  This evaluation is part of the administrative review of faculty which is distinct from the peer review process outlined in the contract.

Following receipt of the peer committee evaluation and after the period in which faculty may comment in writing, chairpersons will prepare their evaluations which will be discussed with the dean (vice president in units without deans) according to college practice prior to being communicated, also in writing, to the faculty member.

Deadlines

The deadlines suggested below are for the annual spring evaluation of all faculty.

April 30

Peer committees' recommendations regarding reappointment of third and subsequent year probationary faculty must be made by April 30.  The evaluation which accompanies reappointment consideration can constitute an annual evaluation.

April/May

All other unit members, including first and second year faculty who have previously been considered for reappointment, should be evaluated at this time by both the peer committee and by the department chairperson.

In the case of the second-year unit members, at the time of the spring evaluation the department may recommend that the third year be designated as a terminal year.  If the department does not wish to designate the third year as terminal, then no further reappointment recommendation for the second year unit member is necessary and the unit member is, in effect, guaranteed a fourth year of employment.

Within one Week of Receipt of the Peer Committee Evaluation by the Chairperson

Deadline for receipt of the unit member=s written comments, if any.  Only at this time should the peer committee evaluation be placed in the personnel file.  If the faculty member has submitted a written response, it should be attached to the evaluation.

Mid-May

Chairpersons (deans or directors in units without chairpersons) should prepare their own evaluations of unit members.  The dean may wish to discuss evaluations prepared by chairpersons prior to transmittal to faculty.  In addition, the dean may wish to see all or a portion of the peer committee evaluations and responses.  Please consult with the dean for details.

Late May

Deadline for placing the chairperson's evaluation (dean=s or director's evaluation in units without chairpersons) in the personnel file and for sending the faculty member a copy of the evaluation.  Faculty members should be asked to acknowledge receipt of the evaluation in writing.  Probationary faculty should at this time be informed of any conditions Abeyond the control of the department, division or other appropriate unit or of the unit member which might make reappointment unlikely despite fulfillment of the primary criteria.  (Article 7, B.2)

June 1

Date by which suggested revisions to the departmental evaluation criteria should be submitted for administrative review.  (See next section)

Evaluation Criteria and Student Evaluation Forms

Each peer committee should annually review departmental evaluation criteria and student evaluation forms and procedures to consider revisions.  Any revision is subject to administrative review and becomes effective at the beginning of the following academic or fiscal year.  Proposed revisions to criteria should be submitted for administrative review by June 1.

Evaluation Procedures for Faculty With Joint Appointments

For those faculty holding joint appointments, both administrative units (the primary department and the secondary department) must evaluate and make a recommendation.  Please note that a cooperating (unsalaried) appointment is not a joint appointment.  The following should be used as a guide for joint evaluations.

The primary unit (Department and/or College) has the responsibility to insure that the faculty member is evaluated in accordance with the AFUM Agreement and that a written evaluation involving both units is forwarded for administrative review.  The evaluation process may be handled in one of the following ways:

A letter of evaluation jointly signed by the heads of both departments may be forwarded to the next level (usually a dean's office), or individual letters from the chairs/directors may be forwarded to the next level simultaneously.

Both the primary department and secondary department should maintain official personnel files.  Each file should clearly identify the location of the other portion of the file.  Care should be taken to consider all available information when personnel actions are initiated