Perhaps the most visible feature of the contract, one that each year affects un-tenured faculty and the many tenured faculty who serve on Department Personnel Committees (DPCs), is the provisions for evaluation. In the following paragraphs I plan to highlight some of the main aspects of the evaluation process for probationary faculty and discuss some of the principles that underlie the process.

Why do we do all of this complex evaluation? The contract itself lays out the purposes: "to judge
the effectiveness of an employee's performance, to identify areas of strength and weakness, and to improve employee performance;" and, of course, to "provide a basis to make decisions concerning retention, promotion, tenure or professional achievement awards." (Article 20.1) The UPI and the university take seriously the protections and responsibilities of tenure, and the faculty and administration scrutinize the performance of newer faculty in the probationary period before tenure is granted.

Three of the principles of our process are worth discussion. First, the process balances uniformity across the university with a respect for the ethos, priorities, and traditions of individual departments. The bargaining agreement specifies such things as the evaluation periods, the areas of evaluation, elements required in Department Criteria, the requirement for student course
evaluations, and factors to be considered in the evaluation of teaching, professional activity, and service. The agreement leaves up to Department Criteria such things as specific material that will be used in evaluations, the weight given to various activities, the role of student evaluations in the evaluation, and the way standards are articulated. We recognize that research in the sciences is different from that in the humanities, and that teaching methods differ from business to the fine arts, while, at the same time, fairness requires some uniform treatment for all probationary faculty.

A second principle is that evaluation goes on at various levels. The DPC and department chair evaluate first, writing separate recommendations, since they are in the best position to evaluate discipline-specific teaching effectiveness and professional activities. Next is evaluation by the dean. The University Personnel Committee (UPC) evaluates only those portfolios in which a faculty member has received a negative recommendation from the DPC, chair, or dean. The academic vice president reviews all applications with the university president, and the president makes a decision. Personnel decisions are at the heart of shared governance, and our process ensures that faculty and academic administrators at all levels share in the deliberations and decisions.

A third principle requires that all evaluators, from the DPC to the president, use the methods and standards in Department Criteria in making recommendations and decisions. No evaluator may substitute his or her own standards for those in the Department Criteria.

What if the evaluation process doesn't go smoothly? If the DPC, chair, or UPC makes a negative recommendation, a faculty member has five calendar days to make a written request for reconsideration of the decision. A negative recommendation by the DPC, chair, or dean triggers a review of the application by the UPC. A negative decision by the president may give rise to a grievance, especially if there has been a misapplication of the Department Criteria or a procedural error.  Faculty should contact the UPI grievance officer in the case of a negative decision. Notification for non-renewal must be given according to the contract's time-table: by April 1 of PY1 or PY2; by December 15 of PY3 or PY4 (to give the applicant time to seek another position); and at least 12 months before the expiration of appointment in PY5 and PY6 (in other words, a terminal contract for the next year).

All probationary faculty should be familiar with certain documents pertaining to evaluation: Articles 17, 19, and 20 of the 2001-2007 Agreement; the Department Criteria; the annual time-table, instructions, and transmittal form provided by the Provost's office; one's own ACE sheets for each semester; one's own Personnel File (kept in the Provost's office); the written recommendations from the DPC, chair, dean, UPC, and president for all probationary years; and the department student course evaluation instrument specified in the Department Criteria.

Editor's note: The preceding article is intended to help acquaint bargaining unit members with the
bargaining agreement. It does not replace or supercede the contract, nor does it necessarily constitute
a definitive interpretation of contract language.

Text only (no graphics) version