UFPC ANNUAL REPORT AY 2000-2001

TO: General Faculty May 16, 2001

FROM: University Faculty Personnel Committee

The University Faculty Personnel Committee (UFPC) members are pleased to provide our annual report. The Committee read approximately 100 files of candidates this year. We are particularly impressed with the quality of teaching. With few exceptions, we note a high level of performance in this most important obligation of faculty at Humboldt State University.

The UFPC is charged with ensuring that the procedures and standards of Appendix J and Appendix K are met, and we are responsible for evaluating each candidate in Retention, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) or Range Elevation. In carrying out these duties, we have a continuing concern regarding lack of compliance with Appendix J and encourage all RTP candidates, department chairs and personnel committee members to review Appendix J of the Faculty Handbook. Candidates eligible for Range Elevation should follow the guidelines of Appendix K. We offer the following suggestions and concerns regarding the RTP process.

Dr. Susan Bicknell has developed a helpful document titled "Best Practices for Preparation of (Promotional Data Sheet) PDS and (Working Personnel Action File) WPAF for Retention, Promotion and Tenure," which she has shared at many workshops. She will send a copy of this document upon request. We recommend this useful information.

The members of the UFPC are concerned about procedural matters regarding the RTP process and are unclear about whose responsibility it is to clarify these issues. For example, are department chair recommendations to the deans now required also to be sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs? There is a lack of clarity concerning location and movement of the WPAF materials. We are troubled by the introduction of new procedures without appropriate consultation and resolution.

Please note that the required standard for RTP in the area of teaching is excellence. A record of teaching excellence is combined with a reasonable level of performance in the three non-teaching areas and these three non-teaching areas are considered "equally in weight and compensatory in combination." We ask that all evaluating committees and administrators recognize that candidates do not have to perform in all three non-teaching areas in order to receive a positive RTP recommendation and that:

The three areas other than teaching/librarian effectiveness shall be considered equally in weight and compensatory in combination. . . . "Compensatory in combination" is intended to convey that candidates' strengths may be concentrated in one category, even to the almost complete exclusion of others,and that they should not suffer by comparison as a consequence. . . . "Compensatory" means that a candidate may compensate for lack of strength in any of the three non-teaching areas by strength in another of them." (emphases added)

Evaluators must avoid the suggestion that a candidate should increase activity in specific ancillary areas, lest the impression be made that the lack of such activity will adversely affect the candidate's chances for retention, tenure or promotion.

The quality of the presentation of the WPAF varies tremendously from department to department and candidate to candidate. All candidates should become familiar with Appendix J or Appendix K and seek mentoring if any aspect of file preparation is unclear. Departments are urged to ensure that candidates are mentored before and during the process of assembling their files. This mentoring should include file preparation and assistance in letter procurement. Useful letters include frank appraisal of professional performance, and a specific recommendation regarding reappointment, tenure, promotion or range elevation. We encourage candidates to ask UFPC members or the faculty development coordinator for help with their WPAF if they need additional assistance from outside their department.

As a matter of professional responsibility, each faculty member from the initiating unit is strongly encouraged to provide written evaluations of candidates. We expect to see a regular pattern of frequent classroom observations throughout the review cycle.

Student evaluations are important and although the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) requires the evaluation of two classes each year, it is very helpful to RTP evaluators if all classes are evaluated and the summarized results included in the WPAF. If department policy requires more than two evaluations per year, then all of the required evaluations should be part of the WPAF. The Committee remains concerned that collegial and personnel committee letters ignore weaknesses in teaching that are evident from the student evaluations. If these weaknesses are not interpreted and explained by the respective initiating units and by department colleagues, the UFPC members are obliged to proceed without this valuable information.

All materials in the file, including each letter of evaluation by a personnel committee, dean, or chair, must be seen by the candidate prior to being added to the WPAF. Please be certain that each letter is signed or initialed by the candidate to show that the letter has been read, and that there has been an opportunity to respond to its content.

The candidate should use the complete Personnel Data Sheet (PDS) from June 1990, even if some portion is not applicable. If a section is not applicable, note as "N/A."

All emails and letters must be signed.

After the closing date of the file, no one should write in the WPAF. Do not make check marks, circle words, or correct spelling, grammar or typing errors.

No person should ever remove from or add to the WPAF during the review cycle without going through the appropriate procedures.

Candidates should have their name and the action under review (e.g., Reappointment to Fifth Year) on the cover and on the spine of the binder containing the WPAF.

Personnel policies and procedures from the department and the college should be included in Section 3 of the WPAF.

If the department chair is serving on any personnel committee, an explanation for the absence of a chair letter should be included in Section 5 of the WPAF.

A blank copy of all student evaluation forms should be included in Section 7 of the WPAF.

For the reappointment and tenure process, Section 2 of the WPAF should contain all appointment, reappointment, and prior committee recommendations from the date of appointment. Prior to receiving tenure, the WPAF should be a cumulative record of all materials including student and collegial letters.

Do not include such things as manuscripts, copies of articles, or works of art in the WPAF. If the candidate wishes to have these items evaluated, they should be placed in a separate file retained by the IUPC and made available for review by colleagues and personnel committees.

The PDS offers the opportunity to clarify and expand on the file's contents. The inclusion of a teaching philosophy in the PDS is helpful to evaluating committees in understanding pedagogical styles of candidates.

"Early tenure" and "early promotion" are rare and extraordinary and will be recommended only when evidence is presented that establishes a clear advantage to the University.

The IUPCs and the candidates should solicit letters that specifically evaluate the quality of the candidate's work in the ancillary areas.

Candidates receiving service credit should be aware that their opportunity for review is shortened. For example, candidates who have received two years of service credit will not receive a full review from the UFPC until they are well into their fourth year. This means that corrective action recommended by the UFPC must occur quickly because there is a very short time before the candidate submits a WPAF for tenure and promotion. If the service credit that was granted creates a serious problem for the candidate in the RTP process, the candidate may ask the Vice President for Academic Affairs to rescind it.

Please do not ask or imply that the Committee should "read between the lines" of recommendations or evaluations. We are obligated to make our recommendations only on the evidence presented in the file.

Candidates, personnel committee members and staff are encouraged to attend informational meetings of the UFPC.

The Committee is in the process of completing its recommended deadlines for RTP for the coming year, and we are recommending that both the 5^th and 6^th year reappointment files close early in the fall term. All involved in the RTP process will want to examine closely the "RTP Action Dates: 2001-2002" when they are distributed.

In order to assist members of the UFPC in scheduling courses, we are continuing the practice that the UFPC will meet Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 10 to 12.

Mimi Mace, Chair
Phyllis Chinn
Simon Green
Kay LaBahn
John Turner