Academic Faculty Evaluation Workshop November 7, 2005

The evaluation and merit process provides the means for improving and building a strong reputation for quality within each department, college, and division of the university.

3 Workshop Agenda Policies What’s New / What’s the Same What information is Available Timeline (Due Dates) General Guidelines Avoiding Legal Situations Key Points To Remember PANEL DISCUSSION

4 Current Policies / Plan for Future Board of Regents Handbook  Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 4, Part II of the NSHE Code. University Administrative Manual University Bylaws Board of Regents Handbook, Title 5, Chapter 7, Part III, Chapter 3, February 2006: Formulation of Evaluation Task Force

5 Overview of Current Policies All faculty members should receive an annual evaluation and have a current role statement. All completed evaluations need to be discussed and signed by employees. One of four evaluation ratings (Excellent, Commendable, Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory) needs to be noted on the evaluation. Faculty who have received a promotion between July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 are ineligible for July 1, 2006 merit. Those hired after September 1, 2005 are ineligible for merit. Evaluation is still required.

6 What’s New? Timeline: All signed evaluations are due into the Provost office (academic) or VP’s office (admin) by March 1. Each college/division should establish an internal timeline to meet the March 1, 2006 due date. General Guidelines, FAQs and other materials on the evaluation process are available on the HR web-site, click “Employee Management Program” Workshops will be held November 7& 9 and Q & A sessions will be held December 5 & 8. Workshops will be video taped and can be viewed on the HR web-site at (Posted by Nov. 16th) Questions can be submitted by to unr-

7 What’s the Same? Conduct discussions with employees before evaluations go up the chain and after it has been returned to the chair if any changes are made. Merit Steps: Commendable (1,2); Excellent (3,4) and Extraordinary (6). Faculty can appeal evaluation and/or merit through their supervisor or through the Faculty Senate Office; must be requested within 15 days of receiving the evaluation or notice of merit award. Timelines are enforced. *Faculty can get questions answered through from November 16 th through April 1, 2006 by writing to unr- COLA – July 1, 2006: 4 % legislative proposed amount.

8 What Information is Available on the Web: ? (by Nov. 10 th ) Click “Employee Performance Management” Timeline General Guidelines Evaluation Process Process Flowchart Policies Evaluation Form Role Statement Explanation FAQs Workshop Video General Guidelines – Promotion & Tenure

9 Timeline “Due Dates”: March 1, 2006: COMPLETION OF EVALUATION PROCESS - Final signed evaluation forms, conflict of interest form (academic) and merit step recommendations due to Provost or VP March 15, 2006: Evaluation ratings and merit data sheets to Planning, Budget & Analysis April 1, 2006: Merit step amounts determined. Campus-wide announcement April 15, 2006: Supervisor notifies employee of merit amount April 15, 2006: Provost/VP submit completed evaluations to Faculty HR Office July 1, 2006: Merit/COLA Effective Date

10 HR Website:

11 General Guidelines The information is intended to be used as a guide for administering the evaluation process. Thank you to all who contributed! Changing Culture Importance of Role Statements Administering the Evaluation Roles in the Evaluation & Merit Process General Comments General Guidelines regarding Promotion & Tenure

12 Changing Culture Faculty evaluations should align with the strategic mission of the department. The issues of quantity and quality are relative to the department overall. Individuals are expected to do good work. Merit is for great work. Merit recognizes excellence in performance; it is not to be used to resolve equity concerns or as an adjustment for cost of living. Constructive feedback is expected. There is a direct connection between evaluation ratings and merit steps. Leaders in this university are challenged to make tough decisions and to discriminate among different levels of performance. When chairs/deans make difficult, but appropriate decisions, the provost and deans will support these decisions.

13 Importance of Role Statements Each faculty member should have an annual role statement including any cross-department or college responsibilities. Role statements are not a check list; e.g., a “laundry list” of activities. Connection between individual goals and department/college goals is essential. Everyone in the department or program must contribute to the established programmatic goals of the department. Achieving listed goals on the role statement does not guarantee meritorious performance; goals provide a baseline for measurement of overall performance. One key part of the role statement is the weightings that indicate the percent of effort in each category of teaching, research, and service.

14 Importance of Role Statement Continue... Statement should be clear about the department or program expectations of a faculty member’s teaching load. Instruction is a given for state funded faculty. The language in the role statement addressing research and service needs to be concise. Statement should be changed when a faculty member’s role in a department or program changes; e.g. a major change in role due to a major change in assignment, sabbatical, leave and/or, grant-buy outs.

15 Administering the Evaluation  Evaluation must be justified, fair, honest, and consistent between faculty. Evaluations should not be inflated.  Chair’s narrative should support one of the four ratings in evaluation and among the merit steps within the “Commendable” and “Excellent” ratings.  “Satisfactory” rating does not mean performance is unacceptable. “Satisfactory” means that one has done their job.  Faculty on sabbatical or professional development leave are merit eligible.  The provost does not make decisions on individual evaluations except for faculty who directly report to him.  The evaluation for faculty serving in more that one department should be completed in collaboration.

16 Merit There should be a rational and known process for allocating merit; the process must be fair to all. There should be consistency in the criteria used; for example, articles in press versus articles published. The dollar value of the merit step is determined by dividing the total amount of dollars available for merit by the total number of merit steps.

17 Performance Ratings: Excellent: Met the requirements for “Commendable”: Significantly surpasses expectations in teaching, research and service. Examples are: National publications, major research achievement, national recognition, made exceptional contributions Commendable: Met the requirements for “Satisfactory”: Successfully met, and in some areas, significantly exceeded established goals and objectives. Achieved high levels of achievements and competence in the areas of teaching, research and service. Satisfactory: Met the established goals and objectives for the evaluation period; in a few instances, may have missed some and exceeded others but, on balance performs competently. Unsatisfactory: Did not meet established goals and objectives for the evaluation period; has not performed competently or consistently.

18 Avoid Legal Situations / Minimize Grievances Evaluation ratings must be job-related. Be prepared to provide examples. Be able to defend rating. Not providing evaluations in a timely manner can cause legal challenges just as inaccurate evaluations will. Evaluations must be discussed openly with faculty and when appropriate, counseling or corrective guidance offered.

19 Key Points To Remember 1. Meet with your faculty: Don’t have faculty “chasing for answers” 2. Maintain a clear and consistent process: Don’t change the rules now. 3. The main concern people have is the fairness of the process and the accuracy of the determinants of their performance. 4. Remember the “intent” of the merit allocation. 5. Start now, meet timelines! March 1, 2006

Panel Discussion Faculty Member, Chair Personnel Committee, Chair, Dean