TrialBlue

V. STATEMENTS OF EVALUATION OF THE CANDIDATE
BY REVIEW COMMITTEES AND ADMINISTRATORS

Section Described by Blue Divider Card

NOTE: This must be paginated E-1, E-2, E-3, etc.

Arrangements of Materials in this Section

Dossier Intended for PROMOTION ONLY:

(1) Blue Divider Card.

(2) For faculty holding a joint appointment with another department, current promotion evaluation by the Department Head of that department.

(3) Current promotion evaluation by Department Head.

(4) Current promotion evaluation by Department Promotion and Tenure Committee.

(5) For faculty involved in an interdisciplinary research unit, current promotion evaluation by Program Director or appropriate faculty member(s). (Blue divider)

NOTE: Previous promotion and tenure evaluations are NOT to be included for promotion only dossiers.

Dossiers Intended for TENURE AND PROMOTION:

(1) Blue Divider Card.

(2) Actual copies (not abstracts) of all previous tenure evaluations, presented in chronological order, with the earliest date immediately behind the Blue Divider Card.

(3) For faculty involved in an interdisciplinary research unit, current tenure and promotion evaluation by Program Director or appropriate faculty member(s). (Blue Divider) *

(4) For faculty holding a joint appointment with another department, current tenure and promotion evaluation by the Department Head of that department. *

(5) Current tenure and promotion evaluation by Department Promotion and Tenure Committee.

(6) Current tenure and promotion evaluation by Department Head.

Dossiers Intended for TENURE ONLY:

(1) Blue Divider Card.

(2) Actual copies (not abstracts) of all previous tenure evaluations, presented in chronological order, with the earliest date immediately behind the Blue Divider Card.

(3) For faculty involved in an interdisciplinary research unit, current tenure evaluation by Program Director or appropriate faculty member(s). (Blue Divider) *

(4) For faculty holding a joint appointment with another department, current tenure evaluation by the Department Head of that department. *

(5) Current tenure evaluation by Department Promotion and Tenure Committee.

(6) Current tenure evaluation by Department Head.

* For faculty involved in an interdisciplinary research unit (such as the Environmental Consortium, Materials Research Institute, or Applied Research Laboratory) or holding a joint appointment with another department, the following procedure will apply:

(1) The Unit Director or other Department Head will receive a copy of the dossier before the Department Committee letter is inserted;

(2) Unit Director's or other Department Head's letters will be placed in the dossier before the Department Committee's review commences. It is not considered
to be part of the factual information in the dossier, i.e., not to be reviewed by the candidate.

(3) Home Department Head and Research Unit Director/other Department Head will confer if their findings differ.

GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING STATEMENTS OF EVALUATION

(1) If the Candidate is being proposed for both promotion and tenure, evaluation statements should address tenure and promotion in the same statement. (Administrative Guidelines III.C.12.c)

(2) Internal departmental peer review evaluations belong in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning section.

(3) Evaluation statements reporting decisions and recommendations at each level of review must:

(a)       Be dated. (Administrative Guidelines V.H.3.b)

(b)       Be signed by Committee Chairperson, and list names and academic rank of all committee members. (Administrative Guidelines V.H.3.b) (Blue Divider Card)

(c)        Report numerical committee vote. (Administrative Guidelines V.H.3.c) (Blue Divider Card) Do not report simply by statement of unanimous vote.

(d)        Indicate relative emphasis for each criterion. (Blue Divider Card)

(e)        Summarize in writing the evaluation of the candidate on each of the three criteria; avoid unnecessary technical jargon which may not be clear to non-technical University-level reviewers.

(f)        Include discussion of reasons for any divergent opinions. A clear explanation of the reasons for any negative votes must be written as part of committee statements. Separate minority opinions are not to be written and included in the dossier. (Administrative Guidelines V.H.3.d) (Blue Divider Card)

(g)       It has been, and will continue to be, the practice of this College to include in the department head's letter a statement of the candidate's distinct contributions to teaching, research, and scholarship. Department heads' letters should also include comments on any negative statements and the candidate's expertise.

(h)        If the candidate is being proposed in an early tenure time frame for either promotion or tenure, the department head's written evaluation must state clearly why the early action is appropriate. The Department Promotion & Tenure Committee's evaluation should also address the reason for the early action

(i)    Statements of evaluation should be supported by information contained in the dossier. No new factual data should be introduced in statements of evaluations with the exception that a department head may address additional factual information pertaining to other aspects of a candidate's performanceavailable to an administrator as a result of his/her normal administrative duties.

(4) Outstanding strengths and contributions in at least one of the three criteria should be clearly identified for each candidate.

(5) In arriving at a decision and recommendation, committees and administrators should not base decisions on assumptions of what later levels of review will recommend. (Administrative Guidelines V.G.2)

(6) All levels of review, particularly departmental, are expected to make honest, candid recommendations; difficult decisions should not be avoided and deferred for later review levels.

(7) Time-in-rank is not a factor; however, persuasive documentation must be provided for promotion recommendations that differ significantly from normal promotion patterns. (Administrative Guidelines V.H.7)

(8) Departments should be aware that both external and review level letters play an extremely important role in decisions at later levels of review; they are often a deciding factor.

(9) External reviewers must not be identified in any way in the evaluation statements prepared by department heads and P&T committees.

(10) Tenure will not normally be recommended in Engineering unless the faculty member is already an Associate Professor or simultaneously being recommended for this rank (HR-23, Sect. II; and Dean's Criteria).

(11) Faculty and members of promotion and tenure committees should be well-informed on criteria. (Administrative Guidelines II.E.1, II.E.2)

(12) Department Heads and the Dean may serve as resource persons to committees but must render independent judgments. The academic administrator shall not be present during peer review discussions or when votes are being taken.
(Administrative Guidelines) Administrators may be invited for consultation if the committee deems it appropriate, and they must be invited if there is the possibility of a divergence of opinion.

(13) Where the findings of review committees and the Dean differ, there is an implicit responsibility to explore reasons for divergence. Consultation should be initiated by the next higher review level (e.g., a department head consults with the departmental review committee, the College committee consults with the department head). The Dean shall meet with the College committee to discuss cases in which he/she has made a decision contrary to the recommendation of the College committee.(Administrative Guidelines V.G.3)

(14) A previous level of review (committee or administrator) may not change its recommendation as a result of consultation with the next level of review. This procedure is intended to prevent any pressure (or the appearance of such pressure) on the previous level. (R. Secor to College Executive Committee and Committee Chairs on September 22, 1997)