Personnel Issues and the Department Team

Personnel Management structure

“Nothing could possibly be as boring… …as reading another Department’s Personnel Document.” -Dallas Rhodes, 2005

The CSUF Context Each Department commanded to create own personnel document –governed by very general University policy –approved by University Personnel Committee Personnel actions are based solely on materials included by candidate in their portfolio –no external letters/comments allowed Geology faculty unanimous in the desire to make requirements as quantitative as possible

General Framework of “Shorty” Categories of geology-specific evaluation criteria are specified for Teaching, Scholarly and Creative Activities, and Service A. Teaching –A.1 Student Responses to Instruction –A.2 Classroom Peer-Reviews –A.3 Student Research (undergraduate required; graduate encouraged) –A.4 Expectations regarding student achievement –A.5 Pedagogical approach and method –A.6 On-going professional development as a teacher –A.7 On-going professional development in the discipline Examples of each type of activity, and appropriate types of evidence, are listed for each category –e.g. for category A.5 –innovative teaching techniques –original curricular development

Standards of Performance Specific, typically quantitative, standards of performance in Teaching and SCA are listed for each review period –e.g. years 2, 4, 6, and promotion to Full Professor –possible rankings are Excellent, Sufficient and Insufficient A. e.g. Teaching--Year 4 –Excellent – Minimum requirements are: SRI score (average of class averages) exceeding 3.50; (2) classroom peer reviews must average excellent for all categories for the period; (3) supervisor for one completed student thesis proposal; (4) excellent rating in A.4; (5) one contribution from two different categories among A.5 – 7. –Sufficient – Minimum requirements are: SRI score of 3.20 (average of class averages); (2) classroom peer reviews must average sufficient for all categories; (3) supervisor for one completed student thesis proposal; (4) sufficient rating in A.4; (5) one contribution from among A.5 – 7 during the period (fourth year). –Insufficient – Failure to meet the criteria for Sufficient shall be deemed Insufficient.

Grid forassessing Teaching RTPranking InsufficientSufficientExcellent Scholarly Insufficient second year termination possible; fourth year termination recommended Insufficient termination at end of fourth year may be recommended Insufficient termination at end of fourth year may be recommended and Activities SufficientInsufficient termination at end of fourth year may be recommended Sufficient Creative ExcellentInsufficient termination at end of fourth year may be recommended SufficientExcellent

Grid forassessing Teaching (from and Table SCA 1) Tenure/early tenure InsufficientSufficientExcellent Insufficient second year termination possible; fourth year termination recommended Insufficient termination at end of fourth year may be recommended Insufficient termination at end of fourth year may be recommended Service SufficientInsufficient termination at end of fourth year may be recommended Sufficient ExcellentInsufficient termination at end of fourth year may be recommended SufficientExcellent

PositivesNegatives Probationary faculty like having specific goals Personnel Committee appreciates guidance Shorty has enhanced Department reputation with some administrators Some tendency towards “bean- counting” Quantity vs. quality issues Equal weight given to some activities of apparent differing significance Grants vs. contracts Peer-reviewed journals Shorty’s second-year evaluation

Who would you vote for?