Faculty Evaluation Policy Why: Needed to comply with SACS accreditation guidelines Must comply with UL System requirements Needed to improve the quality of the university Current policy does not provide effective feedback and improvement mechanisms

Faculty Evaluation Policy Accelerated Timeline: Implement new policy in spring 2015 Utilize new policy in first use to: Improve the policy Inform faculty members of evaluation expectations for next year Start the new method of evaluation Departmental guidelines Need to be developed prior to spring 2016 Default parameters apply otherwise

Faculty Evaluation Policy Changes: Aligned with UL System Guidelines Aligned with current Faculty Workload Policy Weighted based on workload assignment Utilizes 5 scoring categories Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, Needs Improvement, Unacceptable Asks chairs to provides specific examples of behaviors or skills representative of each score Allows departments to develop discipline specific guidelines Provides a common set of criteria for evaluation

Faculty Evaluation Policy Changes: Provides clear examples of good and bad performance Clearly addresses different roles of faculty in rank, instructors, professors of professional practice, and library faculty members Clearly recognizes different forms of scholarship Research, creativity, scholarly productivity Decreased acceptable length of unsatisfactory performance 3 consecutive years vs 4 Termination can be triggered by deficiency in a single category Current policy only allows for teaching or overall Retains clear remediation requirements

Faculty Evaluation Policy Concerns: Accelerated implementation Plan to revise document with feedback from first use Departments have until spring 2016 to develop their guidelines (default guidelines persist otherwise) Criteria not announced prior to evaluation cycle New criteria are based on current criteria Transition year used to refine policy Fear of termination based on current evaluations Inconsistent with current and proposed evaluation policies Inconsistent with program discontinuation policies Inconsistent with exigency policies

Faculty Evaluation Policy Advantages: Clearer faculty expectations (provided annually) Clearer policy with effective feedback loop Will help UNO focus on continuous improvement Consistent evaluation framework across all programs but utilizes discipline specific criteria Improved gradation of performance rankings

From Employee Handbook: Cause for Terminating Tenured Faculty. Cause for discharge, termination of contract, or demotion in rank of tenured faculty shall consist of conduct seriously prejudicial to the college or university system such as infraction of law or commonly accepted standards of morality, failure to follow proper orders, violation of institutional or Board rules and regulations, neglect of duty, incompetence, or other conditions that impair discharge of duties and the efficiency of the institution. The foregoing enumeration of cause shall not be deemed exclusive. However, action to discharge, terminate, or demote shall not be arbitrary or capricious, nor shall it infringe upon academic freedom. Financial Exigency constitutes cause, as does program discontinuance. 

Tenure Revocation Policy. Administrative Policy AP-AA-18 Tenure Revocation Policy. Administrative Policy AP-AA-18.2, Dismissal of Tenured Faculty entails the written policy for due process concerning dismissal for tenured faculty. This policy provides for hearings before a committee that includes faculty members. Its findings and recommendations shall be forwarded to the chief executive officer of the university who shall make a final determination.

Evaluation in each category (scholarly work, teaching, and service) will result in a category score of excellent (5), very good (4), sufficient (3), needs improvement (2), or unsatisfactory (1). Default guidelines for assigning scores are provided in Tables 1-4, but departments may devise their own guidelines that must be approved as discussed in section 1.1.

For each faculty member, an overall evaluation score will be determined by combining the ratings in each category. Each faculty member’s workload assignment will be used to weight the individual category scores. For example, the overall evaluation score for a faculty member whose workload is 50% teaching, 40% scholarly work, and 10% service will be 0.5 × the teaching evaluation score + 0.4 × the scholarly work evaluation score + 0.1 × the service evaluation score. Overall performance will be judged as excellent (5), very good (4), sufficient (3), needs improvement (2), or unsatisfactory (1).