Academic Senate Committee on Guidance for Personnel Committees

1
Academic Senate Committee on Guidance for
Personnel Committees

• January 21, 2005

2
Committee Members

• Steve Benton, Mathematics
• Suzanne Hardebeck, Business Administration
• John McCabe, Allied Health
• David Pearson, Behavioral Sciences (chair)
• Sylvia Peña, Education
• Olivia Rivas, Education
• Rodney Sullivan, Biological Sciences
• Terry Tomlin, Fine Arts

3
Activities

• Solicitation of Faculty Input, Oct. 14
• Meeting, Oct. 21
• Meeting, Nov. 4
• Meeting, Nov. 18
• Meeting, Dec. 1
• Faculty Focus Group, Dec. 3
• Meeting, Dec. 15
• Faculty Presentation, Jan. 12

4
Concerns

• Faculty at UTB/TSC hold both technical and
  academic ranks.
• The standards used for hiring faculty today
  differ from what they were in the past.
• Exemplary performance involves more than
  publications. It can be achieved in any of three
  areas instruction, scholarship, or service.

5
Concerns, (cont.)

• Individual departments are the best judges of
  exemplary performance, yet do not have specified
  criteria for evaluation.
• Annual merit pay increases represent a pay cut in
  real terms, whereas exceptional merit represents
  an actual pay increase.
• Exceptional merit involves about ten percent of
  FTEs each year. A mechanism is required to ensure
  that it is available to the maximum number of
  faculty over time.

6
Concerns, (cont.)

• The current system for evaluating exceptional
  merit contains biases and conflicts of interest.
• Faculty applying for exceptional merit should be
  informed why their application was approved or
  disapproved.

7
Recommendations

• All departments should establish criteria for
  exemplary performance.
• Faculty applying for exceptional merit should
  submit a written statement identifying those
  areas in which performance has been exemplary.
• Department personnel committees, Chairs, and
  College/School personnel committees should
  produce a written rationale for their decision.

8
Recommendations (cont.)

• A separate Chairs merit process should be
  established.
• Faculty who are themselves applying for
  exceptional merit should not participate in the
  evaluation of exceptional merit applications.
• Exceptional merit may be received no more than
  once in any three-year period.
• Exceptional merit may not be received during the
  three years following successful application for
  tenure and/or promotion.

9
Recommendations (cont.)

• Tenure-track faculty may receive exceptional
  merit no more than once prior to applying for
  tenure.
• Applications for exceptional merit may not be
  made simultaneously with applications for tenure
  and/or promotion.
• Applications for exceptional merit may be made
  simultaneously with applications for post-tenure
  review.

10
Proposed HOOP Language

• A. The University of Texas at Brownsville has a
  two-tiered system for the evaluation of faculty
  merit. The merit system evaluates and rewards
  faculty for achievement in the performance of
  their responsibilities and workload based upon
  established faculty evaluation procedures.

11
HOOP (cont.)

• B. The determination of meritorious service may
  result in an increase in the annual salary base
  of faculty. Faculty holding only an
  administrative appointment are not eligible for
  the faculty merit process. Department Chairs are
  not eligible for the faculty merit process, but
  may participate in the Chairs merit process. All
  other non-tenure track faculty (i.e., part-time,
  adjunct, teaching assistants, term contract
  holders, etc.) are not eligible for the faculty
  merit process.

12
HOOP (cont.)

• Two types of merit will be recognized merit and
  exceptional merit.

13
HOOP (cont.)

• 1. Evaluation for a merit salary increase will
  take place as part of the annual professional
  planning/evaluation process each Spring and shall
  involve the faculty member and the Chair. Merit
  evaluation is tied to the performance of faculty
  responsibilities and workload (instruction,
  scholarship, service) as defined by University
  policies.

14
HOOP (cont.)

• 2. Exceptional merit evaluation is initiated by
  the individual faculty member. It is based upon
  performance at an exemplary level in at least one
  area (instruction, scholarship, service),
  involves a written statement identifying the
  specific area(s) in which exemplary performance
  was achieved, and is informed by a portfolio
  developed by the faculty member.

15
HOOP (cont.)

• 3. Evaluation for exceptional merit will be made
  in competition with other faculty, and
  recommendations will be made by the Chair, and by
  department and College/School committees and
  administrators.

16
HOOP (cont.)

• a. Department personnel committee and Chair
  recommendations for exceptional merit should each
  include a written rationale identifying the
  specific area(s) of performance that are
  exemplary relative to other departmental faculty,
  based on departmentally specified criteria.
• b. College/School personnel committee and Dean
  recommendations for exceptional merit should each
  include a written rationale identifying the
  specific area(s) of performance that are
  exemplary relative to other College/School
  faculty.

17
HOOP (cont.)

• D. All faculty are eligible to receive a merit
  salary increase in a given year. The merit
  evaluation system shall follow established time
  lines, review levels and procedures.

18
HOOP (cont.)

• E. The number of faculty receiving exceptional
  merit in a given year is subject to fund
  availability, but will normally be 10 percent of
  the total number of eligible faculty. The
  exceptional merit evaluation system shall follow
  established time lines, review levels and
  procedures. It shall also be governed by the
  following

19
HOOP (cont.)

• Faculty may receive exceptional merit no more
  than once during any three-year period.
• Faculty may not receive exceptional merit during
  the three years following successful applications
  for tenure and/or promotion.
• 3. Tenure-track faculty may receive exceptional
  merit no more than once prior to applying for
  tenure.

20
HOOP (cont.)

• 4. Applications for exceptional merit shall not
  be made simultaneously with applications for
  tenure and/or promotion.
• 5. Applications for exceptional merit may be made
  simultaneously with applications for post-tenure
  review.

21
HOOP (cont.)

• F. Departments shall specify the criteria that
  will be used in judging exceptional merit of
  their faculty.

22
HOOP (cont.)

• G. Faculty who are themselves applying for
  exceptional merit shall not participate in
  evaluation of exceptional merit applications
  either at the department or the College/School
  level.

23
HOOP (cont.)

• H. Exceptional merit for department Chairs shall
  involve a separate administrative process and
  decision.

24
HOOP (cont.)

• I. The salary increases associated with this
  merit evaluation system are subject to fund
  availability, Regents Rules or policies, and
  state law.

25
HOOP (cont.)

• J. This policy and related procedures shall be
  subject to periodic review.

26
Agenda

• Tenure and Promotion
• Review of Untenured Faculty
• Post-Tenure Review