This is the re-write of the Stanislaus academic senate PTR policy that Don Bowers of the HR department sent to M. Hughes and R. Curry. The material underlined is what HR proposes be added to the senate document. The material that is struck through is what HR proposes be deleted from the senate document. In this version I have inserted in blue my responses to HR’s proposed changes.
Some big questions here are
1) Does the contract language requre an independent review by “the appropriate administrator?” I think not. We should find out if the PTR policies at all other CSU’s include this kind of provision and we should ask CFA legal staff if they think we have to give in on this.
2) Is there anything in the contract that requires “all areas of assigned responsibility” to be examined in the review? I think not.
-- js
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,STANISLAUS
PERIODIC EVALUATION OF TENURED FACULTY UNIT EMPLOYEES
POST TENURE REVIEW POLICY
Policies and Procedures for the periodic evaluation of tenured faculty unit employees who are not subject to a performance review for promotion (cf. MOU 15.18c)
1.0 Introduction
"For the purpose of maintaining and improving a tenured faculty unit employee's effectiveness, tenured faculty unit employees shall be subject to periodic performance evaluations at intervals of no greater than five (5) years. Such periodic reviews shall be conducted by a peer review committee of the department or equivalent unit and the appropriate administrator. For those with teaching responsibilities consideration shall include student evaluations of teaching performance." (MOU 15.29).
The text above that HR has proposed to add is correctly quoted from the contract. I don’t see any need to add it here. Perhaps we should simply include section 15 of the contract by reference.
The principles guiding post-tenure review (PTR) are these:
1.1 It is an academic peer review process
1.2 Consistent with the MOU and AAUP guidelines, it must be conducted according to standards that protect academic freedom and the quality of education.
1.3 Consistent with the MOU and AAUP guidelines, it must not be use as grounds for dismissal or other disciplinary sanctions.
1.4 It must be flexible enough to acknowledge different expectations in different disciplines and and changing expectations at different stages of a faculty unit member’s career.
1.5 It should engender collaborative dialogue, discussion, a feedback.
1.6 Deliberations and recommendations must be confidential, except that the affected faculty unit employee, department chair, appropriate administrator , the President, and the department peer review committee members shall have access to written recommendations. (cf. MOU 15.10,15.11)
I think we can readily agree to the change above.
In a university setting, it is desirable and necessary to foster the self-determination of each academic department and equivalent unit. A department unit is usually the only body on a campus qualified to evaluate the performance of its members. In addition, the The total amount , of work required to perform post-tenure review (PTR)is significant and so the work must be divided among many groups and individuals. Therefore PTR will be decentralized to the individual departments and colleges, as outlined in the paragraphs below
What is objectionable here?
Every report recommendation resulting from the review shall contain coherent rationales for all findings and conclusions. This includes, but is not limited to, the reports of the departmental post-tenure review committee and the dean. A faculty unit employee who undergoes review will have the opportunity and option to respond orally and in writing to every such report, and to place a copy of any of the all rebuttal statements and written responses into his or her personnel action file within seven (7) days following receipt of the recommenations. (PAF) (cf. MOU 15.5,15.8)
The reviewee must be allowed to refute what is stated in the report, whether what is said is in the form of a recommendation or not. It seems reasonable that we should negotiate some time limit to enter here. Seven days seems not to be enough time.
The post-tenure review process will in no way abrogate the rights of a faculty unit employee for procedural protection regarding the terms and conditions of employment.
2.0 Eligibility and Review Intervals
2.1 Faculty unit employees not being considered for promotion are subject to review every five years following the awarding of tenure (cf. MOU 15.18 and MOU 15.29).
2.2 Tenured faculty unit employees on sabbatical or leave of absence during the scheduled year of review shall undergo post-tenure review upon return to campus through the regular cycle.
What does the phrase above mean?
2.3 Tenured faculty unit employees who are participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP) shall maintain their five-year review cycle.
3.0 Procedures
3.1 Each academic department and equivalent unit shall may elaborate upon the criteria and procedures it wishes to use to evaluate its members. The departmental elaborations shall be in addition to the requirements put forth in this resolution.
This may be quibbling. If the department has no elaborations it would be good if it were to assert that.
Each department shall make and save a written record of its elaborations, give a copy to each of its members, and give a copy to the office of the appropriate dean and Academic Resources.
I see no problem with doing this for the convenience of Academic Resources.
“Evaluation criteria and procedures shall be made available to the faculty unit employee, evaluation committee, and to the academic administrators prior to the commencement of the evaluation process."(MOU 15.3) The department shall give notice to all parties to the evaluation of a faculty unit employee as to the nature of all of the evaluation criteria and Procedures to be used at least four weeks in advance of the due date of the employee’s report to the post-tenure review committee, (cf. MOU 15.3)
What HR has added above is a quote from the MOU. This passage of the MOU applies generally to “evaluation” which includes PTR (a form of “periodic evaluation”) and RPT review (termed “performance review” in the MOU) Savini and I used it as a guideline here. We think the four weeks advance notice is necessary so the reviewee knows what to prepare for. If the intent of the underlined passage is to serve as a replacement for what is immediately below it, then I would say that this should not be accepted. If the statement is really being suggested purely as an addition, then I’d say it’s redundant.
Pertaining to one particular evaluation of one particular faculty unit employee, there shall be no changes made to any of the criteria or procedures after the notice described has been given. “Once the evaluation process has begun, there shall be no changes in criteria and procedures used to evaluate the faculty unit employee during the evaluation process” (cf.MOU 15.3)
The substitution proposed here seems to me to be a simple re-phrasing unless the intent is to allow a change of the criteria right up to the moment the “process” starts. That would not strike me as fair. I think my original wording is more clear.
Departments may modify their elaborations as needed annually provided they disseminate the revised rules and give proper notice in the manner described above. Departments, however, shall be vigilant with regard to providing fair and evenhanded treatment to al1 their members.
I don’t see why we have to limit departments to changing elaborations annually. It may be convenient for the administration, but inconvenient for departments.
3.2 The tenured faculty unit employee under review shall compose his/her PTR Report. For those with teaching responsibilities, the report shall include student evaluations of teaching performance (cf. MOU 15.29).
The report shall include a current vitae, review areas of responsibilities (teaching, scholarly activities, service) and shall also conform respond to any the department elaborations.
This is a major revision. According to my reading of the contract, it does not require this. Note that HR did not insert a reference to a section of the contract here. I think it is appropriate to leave the decision about whether to require vita, information about scholarly activities and so on up to the individual departments. I believe further that it is unwise for the faculty to agree to terms not required by the contract, especially if they receive nothing in return. If faculty agree to such things then the legal interpretation of the contract may come to be colored by it and faculty may be held to the agreement later as if it were a part of the contract even if they wish to make a change.
3.3 The faculty unit employee shall submit the post-tenure review report to the departmental post-tenure peer review committee.(cf. MOU 15.29).
3.3.1 The department's post-tenure peer review committee shall be chosen in accordance with the department elaborations procedures. Only tenured full-time faculty unit employees shall be eligible for membership in the committee, (cf. MOU 15.2) If the department head chair makes a separate report on the review, recommendation s/he may not participate as a member of the committee (cf. MOU 15.19)
The first proposed change is just a semantic problem we have to work out. As far as the second -- aren’t there department units that don’t have chairs? What do we need to say here? As far as the third, I’d say if the head/chair makes a separate report, regardless of whether it contains specific recommendations, that person should not participate as a member of the committee. Therefore I think the original language should stand.
3.4 The departmental post-tenure peer review committee shall review the faculty unit employee's PTR Report, and draft a PTR committee report according to the criteria and procedures in this document and also in accordance with an assessment report based upon the committees evaluation of the materials submitted by the faculty member, peer and student evaluations, research/scholarly activities, service, and the departmental elaborations. The committee's report shall contain coherent rationales for all findings and conclusions (cf. MOU 15.20) If the employee has teaching responsibilities, the report shall consider the student evaluations of teaching performance submitted by the employee. (cf. MOU 15.29) A tenured faculty unit employee who is participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP) shall I be evaluated only in the area of teaching unless s/he also chooses to be reviewed in one or more of the other areas specified in the department elaborations.
The first change proposed in this section puts it in accordance with the change proposed to section 3.2. This is a major change and my argument will be found at the end of section 3.2. The second proposed change above seems unnecessary. It is spelled out below what evaluations are to be submitted.
3.4.1 All faculty unit employees under review shall have an opportunity to work with the departmental peer review committee in a collaborative effort (cf. MOU 15.30). The tenured faculty unit employee shall be provided a copy of the peer review committee's summary report (cf. MOU 15.30). Before it is finalized s/he shall have an opportunity to review it and provide an oral and/or written response within seven (7) days following receipt of the recommendation. (cf. MOU 15.5,15.8)
The first change would be fine with me. I don’t agree that the reference to MOU 15.30 should be deleted. I won’t quibble as to whether it’s important to refer to the report as “summary” or not here. As mentioned above, I agree we should negotiate a time limit but I don’t know if seven days is enough. We should consider that the reviewees will be less familiar with the rules, and so it is they who should have the more generous time limits rather than management.
3.5 The post-tenure peer review committee chair and the dean shall meet with the tenured faculty unit employee for a collaborative discussion of the PTR report to discuss his/her strengths and weaknesses along with suggestions, if any for his/her improvement. (cf. MOU 15.30)
This is another case where HR is insisting on deleting language approved by the faculty and substituting the language of the contract. The language HR wants to delete does not contradict the contract. There is no need to delete it. I think it would be OK to include all of section 15 of the contract at the beginning or end of this document if HR wants to. I don’t see any reason to agree to HR “seasoning” passages of the senate document at will.
3.5.1 The dean shall consider the written report of the review committee and the written response(s), if any, of the faculty unit employee. The primary responsibilities of the The dean shall be firstly to verify that the peer review has been conducted according to the requirements of the contract and college-wide standards., secondly to verify that the peer review has been fair and evenhanded, and lastly, in the case of a review of a faculty unit member with teaching responsibilities, to determine that an evaluation of teaching has been performed by the peer review committee.I’d like to know what HR objects to here.
3.5.2 The dean shall The dean shall make an independent review of each candidate (cf. MOU 15.29). provide written comments for each criteria and draft a written summary report of the deans findings (cf. MOU 15.31). The report shall not make findings on departmental peer-review issues or on other issues that require academic or discipline specific expertise. The dean’s report shall contain coherent rationales for all findings and conclusions. (cf. MOU 15.20) Except for rare and compelling reasons, the dean’s summary report shall reflect the views of the peer review committee as expressed in the committee’s report.I’d like to know what HR objects to here. This proposed change seems rather ominous to me. It suggests that it’s “OK” for deans to make judgements in areas where they lack knowledge and/or adequate expertise. Also, and not less important, despite the reference to MOU 15.29 the contract does not state that the dean shall make an independent review.
As I said above it would be “unwise for the faculty to agree to terms not required by the contract, especially if they receive nothing in return. If faculty agree to such things then the legal interpretation of the contract may come to be colored by it and faculty may be held to the agreement later as if it were a part of the contract even if they wish to make a change.”
Can it be demonstrated that the contract requires an independent review by, in the words of the contract, “the appropriate administrator?” If not, we should not agree to this.
3.5.3 The faculty unit employee shall have the opportunity to read and make oral and written responses to the dean's report before the dean’s report within seven (7) days following receipt of the recommendation is and prior to it being_entered into the employee's personnel action file (PAF) (cf. MOU 15.5, 15.8)
I agree we should negotiate a time limit.
3.6 A copy of the peer review committee's summary report and the dean's summary report shall be placed in the tenured faculty unit employee's personnel action file (PAF) (cf. MOU 15.31).
3.6.1 The faculty unit employee may choose to add his or her written response to any of the review reports placed in the PAF (cf. MOU 15.5,15.8).
4.0 Criteria for Evaluation
4.1 The periodic evaluation of tenured faculty employees will review areas of assigned responsibilities which will generally include teaching effectiveness, research/scholarly creative activities, and university/community services. In his or her PTR report to the departmental post-tenure peer review committee, the faculty unit member will furnish the items required by the review criteria and the departmental elaborations.
The first change proposed in this section puts it in accordance with the change proposed to section 3.2. This is a major change and my argument will be found at the end of section 3.2.
4.2 If the faculty unit employee has teaching responsibilities, the faculty unit_employee's PTR report shall include student evaluations of teaching performance for the preceding five years. For years that the employee taught full time, tThere must be a minimum of the two (2) mandated IDEA course evaluations per academic year. (MOU 15.14) (or in lieu of that, in case the University requirements shall change, there must be the required number of the required evaluation instrument.)Do the proposed changes take into account the fact that some of the faculty under review will have FERP’d or will have been on leave? Perhaps two course evaluations will not be possible for some years. Section 15.14 of the contract requires all faculty to do at least 2 evaluations per academic year, but that’s impossible if they don’t teach two courses that year. There should be some way to word this to take these possibilities into account.
Mid February: The Department will Nnotify the following persons of the as to what criteria and procedures that will be used for the review: the tenured faculty unit member to be reviewed, the members of-the department post-tenure peer review committee, the dean, other persons charged with placing reports in the member's PAF in connection with the evaluation.
I have no objection to these changes.
Mid April March: Submission of tenured faculty unit employee's post-tenure review report to departmental post-tenure peer review committee.
I have no strong objection to this. However it must be kept in mind that the reviewee should have no less than four weeks advance notice of what the criteria and procedures are. Also others should have a chance to scrutinize the time table looking for possible problems with it.
Mid April: Departmental post-tenure peer review committee's review of faculty member's post-tenure review report. Consultation with faculty member under review and with departmental colleagues. Collaborative effort between faculty member and peer review committee on the latter's summary report.
Mid April: Submission of departmental PTR summary report to faculty member.
End April: Submission of faculty member's written response, if any, to departmental post-tenure peer review committee.
End April: Submission of departmental post-tenure peer review committee's summary report and faculty member's written response, if any, to dean.
End April - mid May: Collaborative meetings between faculty members under review, peer review committee chairs, and deans.I’d like to know what HR objects to here.
Mid
End April-mid May: Collaborative meetings between faculty members under review, peer review committee chairs, and deans to discuss his/her strengths and weaknesses along with suggestions for continued professional development. (cf. MOU 15.30)
I’d like to know what reason there is for this change from the sequence as originally planned. Is there any contractual reason why we have to do it this way?
End-Mid May: Submission of faculty member's written response, if any, to dean.
This could have the effect of rushing a reviewee who has barely had time to assimilate the dean’s report and the outcome of the meetings.
End May: Placement of peer committee's and dean's summary reports in personnel action file (PAF). Also, at faculty member's option, placement of his/her written response s, if any, in the PAF.
6.0 Implementation:
Because in many departments there is a "backlog" of faculty members eligible for post-tenure review, it will be impossible to review all candidates during the program's early years and still maintain the integrity of the PTR peer review program. Therefore, each department will be expected to apportion the reviews so that it can catch up within a maximum of five years. The first tenured faculty members to undergo PTR shall be those who have been in rank the longest.
Each year the Office of Academic and Human Resources shall issue the PTR calendar by September 1. Upon receipt of the calendar, each department shall submit to said office the names of those faculty members who are to be reviewed during the spring term of the current academic year.
Approved by the Academic Senate on February 27, 2001