PS-10.A.05 - Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty Performance Evaluations

3.1.1 The evaluation of each tenured/tenure-track faculty member's performance is based upon an assessment of activities in three areas:

Faculty members are responsible for providing sufficient evidence of activities in all three areas to allow for evaluation according to criteria detailed in departmental evaluation rubrics.

Faculty who took approved leave during the period covered by a performance evaluation will not be penalized in areas of scholarship, service and teaching during the time in which they took the approved leave.

3.1.2 Development and Review of Departmental Evaluation Criteria and Rubrics

In each department, the department chair and all tenured and tenure-track faculty shall be involved in developing the criteria and corresponding rubrics used to assess performance in each of the three areas. Developed criteria and corresponding rubrics should be approved by a majority of tenured and tenure- track faculty within the department. Individual departments/colleges may decide whether or not lecturers may vote on evaluation criteria. In the annual self-evaluation process, a faculty member must clearly articulate activity in each of the three areas and provide supporting evidence of that activity to the chair and faculty reviewers.

To ensure consistency, each chair submits the department's criteria and determinations concerning the three areas to be used for the following year to the faculty of the department, to the appropriate dean, and to the Vice President for Academic Affairs by December 15.

For example, in December 2015, the chair submits the criteria and the corresponding rubric that will be used to assess the performance of faculty for calendar year 2016; individual reports are submitted in January 2017. If such updated criteria and corresponding departmental rubrics have not been submitted, the faculty shall use the criteria and corresponding departmental rubric in effect the previous year.

3.1.3 Review Committee and Chair Review of Faculty Performance

The evaluation of each full-time faculty member's performance is based upon assessment of faculty activities in teaching, scholarly/creative activities, and service/professional activities according to criteria detailed in departmental evaluation rubrics. Each evaluation is carried out by the department chair and a review committee composed of department Rank and Tenure Committee members elected by the tenured and tenure-track faculty. Review committees must consist of a minimum of three tenured faculty members. Alternates to the elected members of the review committee will be chosen by the Department Chair to review the faculty performance of the elected members of the review committee. When necessary, the department chair may request multiple review committees be constituted to ease workload in departments with large numbers of faculty. When only one review committee is constituted, all members of the review committee, as well as the Department Chair, must evaluate each and every faculty member to ensure consistency and fairness in the appraisal process. In instances where multiple review committees are constituted, all members of a particular review committee, as well as the Department Chair, must evaluate each faculty member assigned to that review committee. In instances where a department does not have enough tenured faculty members to constitute the minimum subcommittee, the department chair may constitute a review committee appropriate to the makeup and size of the department.

3.1.4 Assigning of Faculty Merit Rating Scores

The faculty evaluation subcommittee consults with the department chair concerning the performance of each faculty member, according to the evaluation criteria and rubrics created by the department. The department chair assigns whole-number numerical ratings ranging from 0 to 7 for each of the three areas of assessment. Scores for teaching, scholarly/creative activities, and service/professional activities are based upon the criteria established by the individual departments, and articulated in evaluation rubrics. As noted in 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, these scores must be based on detailed evidence submitted by the faculty member in each area of activity. The process of consultation between the department chair and the subcommittee will be determined by, and distributed to the department.

Ratings assigned for the three areas are combined using the weight factors specified in 3.1.1 to place each faculty member in merit-rating categories. A score of 7 is assigned for faculty significantly exceeding expectations; a score of 4-6 is assigned for faculty members who exceed expectations to varying degrees; a score of 3 is assigned for faculty members who meet expectations; a score of 2 is assigned for faculty members who are performing below expectations; a score of 1 is assigned for faculty members who are significantly below expectations; and a score of 0 is assigned for faculty members who have demonstrated professional misconduct, or for faculty members who are derelict in their duty. See Merit Categories, Corresponding Merit Factors and Merit Raise Formulas, and Example Case for more information. Faculty who receive a rating of 2 or lower for teaching or whose overall evaluation is 2 or lower will begin the development plan specified in the Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty, PS 10.1.16, Section 2.2.1.

3.1.5 Awarding of Merit Raises to Meritorious Faculty

Merit raises are awarded in compliance with all applicable state laws and in accordance with the directives of the UH System Board of Regents (BOR). Specifically, faculty raises shall only be awarded based upon merit; cost-of- living adjustments are not awarded.

Merit raises are calculated from three-year arithmetic mean of annual merit ratings for faculty.

In years when merit raises are to be awarded, the Provost and President shall determine the total pool of merit money available for award. The Provost will allocate a percentage of the total faculty salaries to each department as that department's merit pool. Each department will be allocated an equal percentage. For example, in a particular year, each department will be distributed 3% of the total faculty salaries in their respective department. This will ensure that departments that have faculty of higher salary are not appropriated a disproportionate amount of the total merit pool.

The chairs and Deans are responsible for ensuring that the distribution of merit is guided by the evaluation process and that the process of awarding merit is fair and transparent. The chairs and Deans will also address issues of equity in the Department and ensure that faculty with higher salaries are not appropriated a disproportionate amount of the total merit pool for the Department. Within 30 days of merit being assigned, the Provost will present to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee the non-identified relationship between merit raises and evaluation scores for each department.

The Department Chairs and Dean of each college will work with the Provost to determine the awarding of merit to individual faculty members within their college according to a three-year arithmetic mean of annual merit ratings from the three previous annual appraisals.

When faculty members do not have three continuous years of service for evaluation under the 7-point merit scale articulated in this policy, a pro-rated model will be used:

3.1.6 Merit Rating Categories and Example Merit Calculation

Merit Categories and Corresponding Ratings contains the specific merit categories.

3.1.7 Faculty Annual Reports

All tenured and tenure-track faculty members write an annual report detailing activities performed in the three areas of teaching, scholarly/creative activities, and service/professional activities (see Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and Faculty Evaluation Reports for report guidelines). The faculty member should consult the appropriate department chair for specific departmental guidelines for preparing the report. Faculty should articulate activities in these three areas in a manner consistent with the criteria established by the individual departments, and with evaluation rubrics in mind. Additional evidence for reported activities beyond what is provided in annual reports must be provided upon request to ensure that Chairs and departmental subcommittees can conduct an informed evaluation.

3.1.8 Department Chair Evaluation Reports to Faculty

The department chair will submit written reports to faculty members explaining the overall merit rating and scores assigned to them in all three areas according to the timeline specified in section 3.5. Reports to faculty should clearly articulate where deficiencies in performance and/or report preparation exist and where improvement is needed.

In the case of faculty undergoing two- and four- year review, Department Chairs and Review Committees shall review the evaluation report and write a letter so that candidates may have it by the first Monday in March.

3.1.9 Evaluation Meetings between Chairs and Faculty

The department chair schedules meetings with individual faculty members to discuss assigned evaluation scores, merit rating, and contents of the department chair report. Meetings between individual faculty members and department chairs may be waived by written, mutual consent. Probationary faculty members and chairs may discuss progress toward tenure at these meetings. Faculty that do not schedule a meeting or request to waive their meeting with the Chair within two weeks after receiving their report from the Chair are assumed to have waived their meeting with the Chair.

3.1.10 Appeal of Faculty Performance Evaluation

Any faculty member who is dissatisfied with the rating assigned by the chair, or believes that the evaluation criteria outlined in the departmental rubric(s) were not followed may request a performance review by an appeals committee of at least three tenured faculty members in the department. This appeals committee must exclude the members of the departmental Rank and Tenure Committee that served on the review committee for the initial review of that faculty member's performance. If a department has an insufficient number of tenured faculty members, then those eligible to serve on this committee must have a minimum of three years of tenure-track service at UH-Downtown. This appeals committee is elected by each department's tenured and tenure-track faculty excluding those with administrative ranks of chair or higher, with the election held prior to December 15 in the semester before the evaluation process begins. This committee reviews the faculty member's performance and evaluation and makes its recommendation to the dean separate from that of the Department Chair. A faculty member dissatisfied with the dean's resolution of the issue, or who still believes that the evaluation criteria outlined in the departmental rubric(s) were not followed may undertake formal grievance procedures.