2009-2010 FACULTY SENATE
The first regular meeting of the
2009-2010
FULL AGENDA
I. Call to Order
II. Approval
of Minutes
III. Special Order of the Day
A.
Roll
Call
C.
Steve
Ballard, Chancellor
D.
Marilyn
Sheerer, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs
E.
Marianna
Walker, Chair of the Faculty
F. Brad Congleton,
Student Government Association President
G. Larry Boyer, Dean,
Academic Library Services
Information on
the Library Budget, including a Budget
Reduction Plan and 17.9%
budget cut breakdown
H. Austin
Bunch, Associate Provost
Chris Locklear, Interim Assistant Vice Chancellor for Policy
Summary of the University Policy Manual
Link to: University
Policy Development Committee
Link to: Management
Letter-University Policies Procedures and Training (dated 11-15-07)
Link to University
Policy Development Committee’s power point presentation (dated
9-9-09)
I. Question
Period
IV. Unfinished Business
V.
Report of Committees
A. Faculty Governance Committee, Puri
Additional Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix B. Policy
for the Cumulative
Review of Permanently Tenured Faculty
of ECU (attachment 1).
B. Academic Awards Committee, Sue Steinweg
Revisions to the
procedures for the Lifetime and Five Year Research Awards (attachment
2).
VI. New Business
September 15, 2009
Attachment 1
FACULTY GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
REPORT
Additional Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix B.
Please
note these additional revisions follow those already adopted by the
Proposed additions are noted in bold print
and deletions are noted in strikethrough.
ECU Faculty Manual
APPENDIX B
POLICY FOR PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF
TENURED FACULTY
OF
CONTENTS
I. Preamble
II. Description
of Policy
A. Timing
B. Performance
Standards for the Review
C. Performance
Review Committee (PRC)
D. Review
Process
E. Rewards
F. Reconsideration
G. Faculty
Development Plan
H. Subsequent
Evaluation
III. Form
POLICY FOR PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF
TENURED FACULTY
OF
I. Preamble
On May 16,
1997, the Board of Governors mandated the review of performance of tenured
faculty in the
On March
10, 2008, the UNC Board of Governors revised its Guidelines
on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty (The UNC Policy Manual: 400.3.3.1(G)). On October 15,
2008, this ECU performance review policy was revised accordingly.
II. Description of Policy
A. Timing
At
five-year intervals, beginning with academic year 1998-1999, each permanently
tenured faculty member shall have a review of all aspects of his or her
professional performance during the review interval. A review leading to promotion in rank
qualifies as a performance review. A
faculty member granted permanent tenure shall be reviewed within five years of
the granting of tenure.
Probationary-term faculty members are excluded because other review
mechanisms exist to evaluate their performance.
Unit* administrators, deans, and administrators at the division or
university level shall be excluded from this policy. After returning to full-time
teaching/research responsibilities, administrators shall be evaluated in their
fifth year and following five-year intervals.
Each
academic unit’s tenure committee shall decide whether all of its tenured
faculty will be reviewed in the same year or whether its tenured faculty will
be reviewed according to a serial plan.
Those units choosing a serial plan shall also determine the method of
serialization.
B. Performance Standards for the Review
For the
cumulative review of performance for the five-year period, the unit’s Tenure
Committee shall review current standards of
“exemplary,” “satisfactory,” and “deficient” performance and revise as necessary. These standards will comply with the
provisions of Appendix C, Section I, C and D of the ECU Faculty Manual, the unit’s code provisions, and the primacy of
teaching/advising within the UNC system institutions. These standards should be consistent with
changing goals of the unit and the university, while also considering varying
expectations at the time of the granting of permanent tenure for individual
faculty members and should address the faculty member’s teaching, research,
service and other duties, including contributions to the departmental
college/school and university goals, contributions to the academic programs in
which the faculty member teaches and any other professional activities bearing
on the faculty member’s performance of his or her duties during the period
under review.
The Tenure
Committee shall submit the proposed standards to the unit administrator for
concurrence or nonconcurrence. At that
point, two possible actions may occur.
(1) If the unit administrator concurs, he or she shall forward the
standards to the next higher administrator.
If the next higher administrator does not agree with the standards
developed by the Tenure Committee and concurred with by the unit administrator,
every effort (including discussion and negotiation) shall be made to resolve
the disagreement. If the effort fails,
the matter shall be referred to the next higher administrator who may accept
the standards or return them for revision.
(2) When the unit administrator and Tenure Committee disagree, every
effort (including discussion and negotiation) shall be made to resolve the
disagreement within the unit. If the
effort fails, the matter shall be referred to the next higher administrator who
may accept the standards or return them for revision. In either case, any amendment to these
standards must be approved by a vote of at least 2/3 of the Tenure Committee
and follow the same process for initially proposed standards.
C. Performance
Review Committee (PRC)
The Tenure Committee will elect a minimum of three faculty members
and one alternate from the permanently tenured voting faculty (ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix L, Section
A. Voting Faculty Member) not holding administrative status to serve on the
Performance Review Committee. The
alternate shall serve when a member is unable to serve. Members on the Performance Review Committee
shall serve for one academic year.
When a unit is unable to elect three permanently tenured
voting faculty members not holding administrative status, the next higher
administrator above the unit level shall appoint permanently tenured voting
faculty not holding administrative status from other units to increase the
committee’s membership to three members and one alternate. These appointments to the committee must be
from one list of candidates selected by a vote of the permanently tenured and
probationary-term faculty of the unit.
The list forwarded to the next higher administrator by the appropriate
faculty will contain at least twice the number of faculty members required to
complete the membership of the committee.
Before voting on the list to be forwarded to the next higher
administrator, the voting faculty will ascertain that faculty members nominated
to have their names placed on the list are willing and able to serve in this
important capacity. The list of faculty
names recommended to the next higher administrator may not be returned for
revision.
D. Review Process
Performance
Review of Tenured Faculty shall cover all aspects of the faculty member’s
professional performance. The review will be informed by the faculty member’s
annual reports and annual evaluations (ECU
Faculty Manual, Appendix C, Section III. Evaluations), but primarily shall
be based on a comprehensive assessment of the faculty member’s teaching,
research, service and other duties, including contributions to the departmental
college/school and university goals, contributions to the academic programs in
which the faculty member teaches and any other professional activities bearing
on the faculty member’s performance of his or her duties during the period
under review. Permanently tenured full-time
faculty members who have received University approved leaves of absence shall
not have such leave time counted as part of the performance review period.
Should a
subsequent academic unit administrator disagree with the annual reviews and
annual reports of an individual faculty member composed before the term of
office of the incumbent administrator, the administrator shall not dismiss,
alter, or argue against the body and conclusions of the earlier annual reviews
and reports.
The initial
review shall be conducted by the unit administrator who, using the attached
Form, shall prepare a performance review report which shall consist of a
narrative evaluation of the overall performance of the candidate that takes
into account the relative weights assigned to each duty during each of the
years being reviewed and the amount of reassigned time from teaching to the
performance of other duties for each year under review. This evaluation shall
conclude with an overall ranking that categorizes each faculty member’s
performance as exemplary, satisfactory, or deficient. A negative review must include a statement of the faculty member’s
primary responsibilities and specific descriptions of shortcomings as they
relate to the faculty member’s assigned duties.
The evaluative report, together with the faculty
member’s annual reports and annual performance evaluations for the period under
review, a copy of the faculty member’s current curriculum vita, and any other
material the faculty member wishes to provide to the review committee in support of his/her professional
performance over the review period, shall be forwarded to the Performance
Review Committee. Any additional
supporting material provided by the faculty member to the Performance Review
Committee shall become part of the permanent personnel file. For each faculty
member, the Performance Review Committee shall either agree or disagree with
the findings of the unit administrator.
When the
unit administrator and the Performance Review Committee agree, the Performance
Review Committee shall report this agreement on the Form. The unit administrator
shall provide a copy of the report to the faculty member and to the next higher
administrator, and place a copy of the report in the faculty member’s personnel
file.
When the
unit administrator and Performance Review Committee disagree, every effort
(including discussion and negotiation) shall be made to resolve the
disagreement within the unit. If the
effort to resolve the disagreement fails, the
Performance Review Committee shall prepare its own report. The unit administrator shall provide copies
of both reports to the faculty member and the matter will be referred to the
next higher administrator, who after reviewing both reports and the faculty
member’s supporting materials, shall make the final decision, which shall be
reported in writing to the faculty member.
A copy of the final decision shall be placed in the faculty member’s
personnel file and provided to both the Performance Review Committee and the
unit administrator.
A faculty member may provide the
unit administrator with a written response within 20 calendar days of receiving
his or her performance review. A copy of
the faculty member’s response will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel
file and provided to the Performance Review Committee. A faculty member’s
response to a negative review will also be shared at the next highest
administrative level.
E. Rewards
The first
priority of the revised UNC Guidelines on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty
is that faculty whose performance review reflects exemplary performance shall
be recognized and rewarded. A faculty
member whose review reflects exemplary performance may be recognized in ways
including, but not limited to, nomination for awards, merit salary increases,
research leaves, and/or revisions of work load. Additional support for this form of recognition may be provided by the
department, school, college or division.
F. Reconsideration
A faculty
member whose review process determines a deficient performance level shall have
the opportunity to respond within 20 calendar days. The faculty member may request that the unit
administrator and Performance Review Committee reconsider the evaluation based
on additional substantive information provided by the faculty member. In reconsidering the evaluation, the unit administrator
and Performance Review Committee shall have the
opportunity to nullify, modify, or reconfirm the original evaluation (or
evaluations, in the case of disagreement between the committee and the unit
administrator). The response of the faculty member to the report of deficient
performance and the decision of the committee and the unit administrator shall
be reported to the next higher administrator.
When the
committee and the unit administrator disagree on the appropriate action after a
reconsideration initiated by the faculty member under review, every effort
(including discussion and negotiation) shall be made to resolve the
disagreement within the unit. If the
effort fails, the conflicting responses to the reconsideration appeal by the
faculty member under review shall be referred to
the next higher administrator for final decision.
The final
decision of a higher administrator shall be reported in writing to the faculty
member and a copy of the final decision shall be placed in the faculty member’s
personnel file and provided to both the Performance Review Committee and the
unit administrator.
G. Faculty Development Plan
A faculty
member whose performance review reflects deficient performance shall negotiate
a formal development plan with the Performance Review Committee and the unit
administrator. The development plan must: (a) identify specific shortcomings as
they relate to the faculty member’s performance of his or her assigned duties;
(b) state any modification of duties due to a less than satisfactory rating and
take into account the new allocation of responsibilities; (c) include specific
steps designed to lead to the required degree of improvement; (d) specify a
time line, not to exceed three academic years, in which improvement is expected
to occur; (e) schedule and require written records of progress meetings between
the faculty member, the unit administrator and the chair of the Performance
Review Committee at regular intervals no less frequently than twice each
academic term; (f) state the consequences for the faculty member should
improvement not occur within the designated timeline. The use of mentoring
peers is encouraged.
The description of specific steps designed to
lead to improvement shall identify specific strengths and deficiencies and also define
specific goals or outcomes that would help the faculty member overcome the
identified deficiencies. It should also
outline activities,
set state guidelines, indicate
approved present criteria by
which the faculty member could monitor his or her progress, and identify the
source of any institutional commitments, if required. The development plan shall set reasonable
time limits, not to exceed three academic years from the implementation of the
plan. The plan shall represent
is a commitment by the faculty
member, the Performance Review Committee, and the unit administrator to improve
the faculty member’s performance. and
provide Adequate resources shall be provided to support the
plan. The plan shall be consistent with
the faculty member’s academic freedom (as defined by the ECU Faculty Manual, Part III), shall be self-directed by the
faculty member, and shall be sufficiently flexible to allow for subsequent
amendment, if necessary. Such amendment
will follow the same process as the development of the original plan. If the unit administrator, Performance Review
Committee, and faculty member cannot agree on a formal development plan, each
party’s draft of a plan will be forwarded to the next higher administrator, who
will make the final decision. The
faculty member’s development progress shall be reviewed in a meeting that
occurs at least semiannually twice each academic term by the
Performance Review Committee and the unit administrator, who shall provide a
written evaluation of progress to the faculty member. A copy of this evaluation will be provided to the faculty member and
placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.
H. Subsequent Evaluation
If the
faculty member’s cumulative performance level is satisfactory within the
designated period of time, the unit administrator shall report the results of
the performance review in writing to the faculty member and place a copy of the
written evaluation in the faculty member’s personnel file. The faculty member will undergo another
performance review at the beginning of the next performance review
interval. If the faculty member’s
cumulative performance level remains deficient after the designated period, the
unit administrator may recommend that serious sanctions be imposed as governed
by Appendix D, Section VI, “Due Process Before Discharge or Imposition of
Serious Sanction,” of the ECU Faculty
Manual and Chapter VI of The Code
of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina.
*With respect to personnel matters relating to Performance
Review, academic units are defined as departments described in the codes of
operation of professional schools, the departments in the College of Arts and
Sciences, professional schools without departments, Academic Library Services,
Health Sciences Library, and any other units in which faculty appointments are
made. In the
III. Form: Report on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty
Approved:
15 April
1998
Amended:
Interpretation
made to Section II., October 1998
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Review of Tenured
Faculty
Faculty member:
_____________________
School/department:
____________________Date:
__________________
______________________________________________________________________
I. Narrative Evaluation of most
recent 5 years of faculty performance:
II. Summary Performance Review
Evaluation: _______ Exemplary
_______
Satisfactory
_______
Deficient
_______________________________________________________________
Submitted by: ____________________________ __________________
Unit
Administrator Date
Performance
Review Committee Response: _______
Agree
_______Disagree
_____________________________________ ____________
Committee
Chair
Date
September 15, 2009
Attachment 2
ACADEMIC AWARDS COMMITTEE REPORT
Proposed Revisions
to the Procedures for Annual Lifetime
and
Proposed additions are noted in bold print
and deletions are noted in strikethrough.
Title
Procedures for Annual Lifetime and Five-Year Achievement University
Research/Creative Activity Awards
Objective
To reward
originality and excellence in research and creative activities as evidenced by
sustained high quality work performed while contributing to the academic
functions of East Carolina University at any rank or status.
Awards
Per Year
Two
A maximum of one Lifetime
Achievement Research/Creative Activity Award
A maximum of two Five-Year
Achievement Research/Creative Activity Awards
Review
Procedures
In early
September, all academic units will be notified of the opportunity to nominate
applicants for either a Lifetime or a Five-Year Achievement University
Research/Creative Activity Award.
Department-level academic units (to include ‘areas of concentration’ in
the
Each nomination
must include a cover letter detailing the contributions of the nominee to his
or her field of work over the period of the intended award. The nominating letter must specify for which
award the candidate is to be considered (Lifetime or Five-Year). Consideration for the five-year award must
focus on the candidate's research or creative achievements during five years of
continuous service at
Nominations
arising from academic units must be put in perspective of the unit's stated
criteria for evaluating faculty research and creative activities. Independent nominations must include a
similar statement of perspective, specifying criteria against which the
applicant may wish to be judged. The core
of the submission will be the presented evidence of the candidate's productivity
and of the value and influence of the work according to peer review and any
other help that can be provided for the committee's considerations.
The
nominator must request and include three letters of recommendation from outside
of ECU, on institutional stationery, providing evaluations of the candidate’s
accomplishments and contributions to the field of work for purposes of these
award considerations. Recommendation letters should describe and
emphasize the impact of the body of work on the applicant's field of
scholarship. The request for outside
reference letters must require that any present or past relationships between
the referee and the candidate be specified.
The
nominating letter, the nominee's complete curriculum vitae, and three letters
from outside referees must be submitted to the Academic Awards Committee on or
before November 1st of each year.
The
selection committee (composed of members of the Academic Awards Committee) will
review applicants' materials in the perspective of the criteria governing
evaluation of research or creative activity in the academic unit/s most closely
representing the candidates' respective fields of work. The primary criterion of the committee's
evaluation will be the impact of the body of work on the applicant's field of
scholarship.
In February
December, the Academic Awards
Committee will forward the names of those selected for the four awards (two
Lifetime Achievement and two Five-Year Achievement) to the Vice
Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies.
The Vice Chancellor for Research will review the candidates’ research
materials and make the prior to the public announcement of these awards.