May 9, 2002

FROM: University Faculty Personnel Committee

RE: Annual Report AY 2001 - 2002

We are pleased to provide our annual report. Some matters in this report are of a perennial concern and therefore reiterated from previous annual reports. All faculty and administrators who are involved in the Retention, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) process are encouraged to review previous annual reports.

It has been a pleasure to read many excellent files this year. We continue to be greatly impressed with the quality of the faculty on this campus and wish to acknowledge the generally thorough effort by faculty and staff in compiling candidates' Working Personnel Action Files (WPAFs).

Before we began our review of each set of files, we reviewed Appendix J and discussed the appropriate criteria for RTP. For lecturers, we reviewed Appendix K and the criteria for Range Elevation. All files were read thoroughly by all committee members. Each file was assigned a primary and secondary reader who had the lead responsibility in determining compliance with all relevant documents and in presenting the file to the entire committee. The primary reader led the often vigorous discussion on each file and wrote the drafts of the letters containing our recommendations.

Criteria for Positive RTP Recommendations

Our recommendations regarding RTP are based upon Appendix J, Section VIII, which requires excellence in teaching. Appendix J is clear that, when a deficiency in teaching exists, no amount of activity in the three ancillary areas will suffice for a positive recommendation from the UFPC for eventual tenure or promotion.

A reasonable performance in the ancillary areas, in addition to excellence in teaching, is necessary for RTP. Appendix J, Section VIII, is clear that a candidate's strengths may be concentrated in one category, even to the almost complete exclusion of the other areas. While the members of the UFPC highly value scholarly activity, we also wish to make very clear that, pursuant to Appendix J, a candidate may concentrate her or his activities within any of the three areas to the almost complete exclusion of the other areas. A candidate also may choose to balance activities throughout the three areas in whatever manner she or he deem appropriate. Evaluators of WPAFs should avoid stating or implying that a candidate must perform in a particular area or complete a particular task to qualify for RTP. A candidate may choose to do such activity and be encouraged by colleagues to do such work, but must not be compelled to do so as long as a reasonable performance is completed in the totality of the ancillary areas. For example, a candidate should not be directed to publish a particular article or to engage in certain scholarly activity, although completion of either of these projects might well make a significant contribution within the totality of the ancillary areas.

Collegial Evaluation of Candidates

Appendix J states that the evaluation of candidates is based primarily on the written statements of colleagues. Such evaluations are the most significant portion of a file if the evaluations include observed and reported assessment of teaching/librarianship/counseling and of activities in the ancillary areas. Letters should be current, especially in cases of tenure and promotion reviews. Letters also should be signed by the author and addressed to the IUPC or department chair, rather than to the candidate.

Collegial and personnel committee letters sometimes ignore weaknesses in teaching that appear from the study of student evaluations. Appendix J requires assessment by colleagues to be substantiated by other evidence, such as student evaluations [Appendix J, Sections VII.B.3.c. and VIII.B.1.a.(1)]. If these weaknesses are not addressed by the respective initiating units and by department colleagues, subsequent reviewing committees will formulate their own interpretation without the benefit of candidate and collegial assistance.

Colleagues also should evaluate the ancillary activities of a candidate. For example, activities based upon assigned time or activities in service to the university or community are often listed in the PDS, but no evaluation of those activities is contained in the WPAF. Reviewers of the file cannot ascertain what the candidate did in those activities.

Personnel Committees

All personnel committee members must be elected. Only tenured faculty members with full time appointments may serve. Faculty who are members of personnel committees evaluating candidates for promotion must be of a higher rank than the candidate being evaluated. Faculty who are participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program cannot serve on personnel committees. If a department chair serves on a committee, the chair must not write a separate letter of recommendation as chair. The fact that the chair is not writing a separate letter should be noted by the chair in a memo placed in the WPAF, section 3. A faculty member shall not serve on more than one level of review. Members of personnel committees may, and should, write separate letters of evaluation based upon observation of the candidate's performance to be included in section 6 of the WPAF. A faculty member may write a letter evaluating a more senior faculty member.

Initiating unit college personnel committees must comply with Appendix J (version issued Fall 1998), the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and department and college procedures. A statement of such compliance should be contained in the committees' letters of evaluation.

Student Evaluations of Teaching

Appendix J requires that at least two classes be evaluated by students each year and encourages all candidates to have all classes evaluated for one year prior to their candidacy. All completed evaluations should be included, rather than the candidates selectively submitting only a portion. We urge all faculty in the RTP process to have all classes evaluated each term and to include those evaluations in the WPAF every year. The information from these evaluations provides a more accurate perspective of teaching upon which to base our recommendations. Student evaluations would be more beneficial if the number of students enrolled in a class and the number of students responding were provided for each set of evaluations in the WPAF.

The initiating unit personnel committee should be certain to request student letters and to attempt to obtain an adequate number of such letters. IUPCs also should explain any low student response rates on classroom evaluations. We have observed class evaluations in which a very small percentage of students enrolled in a class actually completed the classroom evaluations. Without an explanation, we have concerns regarding the reasons for such low response rates.

WPAF

The quality of the presentation of the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) varies tremendously, even though Appendix J is clear on format and content. We encourage all candidates to become familiar with Appendix J and to seek mentoring in file preparation. The following matters are of particular importance:

- 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 such letter contains the signature or initials of the candidate. This signature indicates that the candidate has seen the letter and has had the opportunity to respond to its contents. A candidate has the right to request the deletion or removal of material that is not accurate, relevant, or timely (Appendix J, Section V.D.2.).

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

- Candidates should explain thoroughly the contents of their files. Mere listings of items cause difficulties for subsequent evaluating committees. The PDS offers the opportunity to clarify and expand on the file's contents. Also, the inclusion of a teaching philosophy in the PDS is helpful to evaluating committees in understanding the pedagogical styles of candidates.

- Section II.c. of the PDS refers to "assigned time." Please note that "assigned time" responsibilities are different from assigned responsibilities. The latter belong in Section IV.a.2. of the PDS. Assigned time responsibilities are accompanied by some number of weighted teaching units in lieu of some teaching responsibility and are given to the individual for carrying out the assigned task, beyond the 3 WTUs normally given for collateral duties.

- MidSemester Evaluation Program materials were not intended nor are they appropriate for inclusion in the WPAF. The candidate may include written verification of participating in the program and may comment on how teaching effectiveness is enhanced, but, under no circumstances, shall any documentation in the WPAF contain details of the evaluation process itself or of its conclusions or recommendations.

- Do not "double-count" activities in the WPAF. If an activity falls within more than one category (e.g., service to the university and service to the community), list the item in only one place and make cross references in other sections if necessary for clarity.

- 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, the items should be placed in a separate file under the control of the file custodian, reviewed and held by the IUPC, and made available for review at the request of other colleagues and other personnel committees.

- The WPAF should contain all appointment, reappointment, prior committee, and prior student letters from the date of appointment or from the date of last promotion. Section 2 of the WPAF should contain all letters from personnel committees and administrators from prior years, including IUPC letters. Section 5 should contain only the letters from the current year. The candidate should place no materials in Section 5 because this section is reserved for the current year evaluations.

- Section 3 of the WPAF should contain personnel procedures and policies for only the current year. It is not necessary to include policies that do not relate to RTP, such as policies for periodic review or temporary faculty review.

- No one should write on or otherwise mark materials contained in the WPAF. Do not make check marks, highlight areas, or otherwise make any notes or corrections on materials contained in the WPAF.

Miscellaneous Matters

The UFPC will conduct informational meetings early in the fall term for personnel committee members and department chairs on dates to be announced. All faculty and staff involved in the RTP process are invited and encouraged to attend.

In order to assist members of the UFPC in scheduling courses, we are continuing the practice that the UFPC will meet on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 10 to 12 for AY 2002-2003.

Respectfully submitted,

Ben T. Allen
Linda Anderson
Phyllis Chinn
Simon R. Green
Jack Turner

ufpc\ufpcar.01