1. Position Descriptions and Performance Evaluations Department Administrators Session October 7, 2015

2. Key faculty processes Position Description (“PD”)—foundation for performance evaluations Performance Evaluation (“PE”)—foundation for employment decisions

3. FSH 3050 Position Descriptions A. GENERAL. The position description establishes each faculty member's specific responsibilities in the four major responsibility areas identified in FSH 1565 C, Teaching and Advising, Scholarship and Creative Activities, Outreach and Extension, and University Service and Leadership. The position description serves a variety of important functions; in particular, it constitutes the essential frame of reference in annual performance evaluation of faculty members [see 3320], and consideration of faculty members for tenure and promotion [see 3520 and 3560]. [rev. 7-98, ed. 7-00, 7-02, 7-09, 1-12]1565332035203560 B. PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS. Expectations designated for individual faculty members to achieve tenure or promotion in rank or satisfactory performance evaluation must be compatible with the criteria of the department or other unit concerned. Each faculty member is to be advised of these expectations in writing by the departmental or unit administrator at the time of appointment. [7-09 - original text from 3140 A] B-1. Expectations are specified in the current faculty position description and are the basis for the annual performance evaluation. Expectations must not be greater than those that can be reasonably supported in the department or unit by providing sufficient time and resources. [rev. 7-09 - partial text from 3140 B-1, 4 & 5] B-2. Except by written agreement between the faculty member and the appropriate administrator, expectations for individual faculty members are in effect for a period of one calendar year. [rev. 7-09 - original text from 3140 B-2] C. PROCEDURE. C-1. The calendar year position description is recorded on the form at the bottom of this section with a due date established by the provost. [rev. 7-98, 1-08, 7-09, ed. 7-01] C-2. The form should be filled out in collaboration with the unit administrator. Faculty members involved in interdisciplinary activities should check the box on the position description form and attach a narrative explaining their activities and listing units and members involved. For faculty involved in interdisciplinary activities or with centers, the unit administrator is to solicit comments regarding the position description and discuss it with all interdisciplinary/center administrator(s) listed on the faculty member's narrative attached to the form. The form is then to be signed by the faculty member, approved by the unit administrator and dean, and sent to the Provost's Office. [rev. 7-01, 7-02, 1-08, 7-09] C-3. Any change in duties or responsibilities that represents a significant departure from the position description is permitted only with the written consent of the faculty member and administrator involved. A revised position description should be filed in this event. [7-09 - original text from 3140 B-3] C-4. When the personnel activity report form (PAR) (see APM 45.09) is completed, the unit administrator should compare the data obtained for each faculty member with the corresponding position description. Perfect agreement between the position description and the record of actual performance is not necessarily expected, but it is desirable that any discrepancy between them be as small as is feasible. [ed. 7-01, 7-09]APM 45.09

4. Evaluations Are the basis for important employment decisions, such as non- renewal, tenure and promotion, and raises.

5. Regents Policy Idaho State Board of Education GOVERNING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SECTION: II. HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Subsection: G. Policies Regarding Faculty (Institutional Faculty Only) December 2012 4. Performance Evaluation a. Annual Evaluation - Each year the chair of a department must submit to the dean of the chair’s college an evaluation of each faculty member in the department. This evaluation, together with the input of higher administrators, will be used as the basis for the final recommendation relative to reappointment, non-reappointment, acquisition of tenure, or other personnel action, whichever is appropriate. The chairman must communicate an assessment of strengths and weaknesses to each faculty member evaluated.

6. FSH 3320, Annual Performance Evaluations and Salary Determination of Faculty Members Annual Performance Evaluations and Salary Determination of Faculty Members A-1 d. Evaluation of Faculty by Unit Administrators. Unit administrators evaluate their faculty members. The performance of each faculty member during the review period is judged on the basis of the position description(s) in effect during that period.

7. FSH 3320, Performance Evaluations, con’t FSH 3320 A-1.b Performance levels for each criterion are described as follows: Exceptional Performance (5) is extraordinary performance well beyond that required relative to the position description. Above Expectations (4) represents performance that is better than expected relative to the position description. Meets Expectations (3) is the performance expected of a faculty member relative to the position description that can be defined as normative. Below Expectations (2) denotes performance that is less than expected of a faculty member relative to the position description and means improvement is necessary. A rating of below expectations in one or more criteria triggers procedures outlined in 3320 B or C. Unacceptable Performance (1) is performance that is not acceptable relative to the position description and/or is inconsistent with the conditions for continued employment with the institution. Failure to meet these standards in any of the following ways will result in a rating of unacceptable performance: [rev. 7-09] a) received a “1” rating the previous period but did not make the improvements required; b) consistently violated one or more of the institution’s standards for meeting the expectations of the position; or c) violated one or more standards of conduct as specified in the Faculty-Staff Handbook.

8. FSH 3320, Annual Performance Evaluations and Salary Determination of Faculty Members Annual Performance Evaluations and Salary Determination of Faculty Members B. PERFORMANCE BELOW EXPECTATIONS OF NON-TENURED FACULTY MEMBERS B-1. If the unit administrator determines that a non-tenured faculty member is performing below expectations, the unit administrator should consider the variety of possible causes, other than inadequate effort on the faculty member’s part, that might be responsible for the performance. It is not the unit administrator’s role to diagnose the cause of the problem but to suggest sources of appropriate professional help and to encourage the employee to seek such help Faculty members and unit administrators may obtain referral information and advice from the University Ombuds and Human Resources. B-2. FIRST ANNUAL OCCURRENCE. a. In the event that a non-tenured faculty member receives an annual evaluation concluding that he or she has performed below expectations (2 or lower) within one or more areas of responsibility, the unit administrator will, at the same time he or she delivers the performance evaluation, offer to meet with the faculty member to identify the reasons for the performance below expectations. At this meeting the faculty member and the unit administrator will review the current Position Description and examine strategies that would permit the faculty member to improve his or her performance. b. In the event that a non-tenured faculty member receives an annual evaluation concluding that he or she has performed below expectations (2 or below) in the overall score, the unit administrator will at the same time he or she delivers the performance evaluation, offer to meet with the faculty member to identify the reasons for evaluating the performance as below expectations. At this meeting the unit administrator will appoint a mentoring committee by selecting three individuals from a list of five faculty members nominated by the faculty member, or if the faculty member makes no nominations, will appoint three faculty members of her/his choosing. The mentoring committee’s purpose is to help the faculty member improve performance. The members of the committee need not be drawn from the same unit as the faculty member. The faculty member or unit administrator may request that the University Ombuds attend meetings of the mentoring committee and faculty member.

9. FSH 3320, Annual Performance Evaluations and Salary Determination of Faculty Members Annual Performance Evaluations and Salary Determination of Faculty Members B-3. TWO CONSECUTIVE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS OF BELOW EXPECTATIONS. In the event of two consecutive annual evaluations concluding that the non-tenured faculty member has performed below expectations overall or within one or more areas of responsibility (2 or lower) the unit administrator will, at the same time he or she delivers the performance evaluation, arrange a meeting of the faculty member, the unit administrator and, in the unit administrator's discretion, the Dean of the College. The faculty member or the unit administrator may request that the University Ombuds attend the meeting. The intent of the meeting is to review a. the current position description and revise it if necessary to address the issues identified during the discussion. b. the strategies implemented in the previous year and to identify why the strategies did not result in the faculty member meeting expectations. The parties should re-examine strategies that would permit the faculty member to improve his or her performance.

10. FSH 3320, Annual Performance Evaluations and Salary Determination of Faculty Members Annual Performance Evaluations and Salary Determination of Faculty Members C. PERFORMANCE BELOW EXPECTATIONS OF TENURED FACULTY MEMBERS C-1. ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF BELOW EXPECTATIONS. In the event a tenured faculty member receives an annual evaluation of below expectations, the procedures described in B-1 through B-3 above will apply. In the event of an overall score of 1, the provost may determine that further review of the faculty member’s performance is required. This review will be conducted in accordance with the procedures prescribed in 3320 C-2. C-2. THREE CONSECUTIVE ANNUAL EVALUATION ASSESSMENTS OF BELOW EXPECTATIONS. In the event of three consecutive annual evaluations below expectations overall or within one or more areas of responsibility, or a pattern of below expectations evaluations over five years (a summary score of 2 or lower), the Dean shall initiate a formal peer review.

11. Collegiality, Collaboration, and Other Intangibles… If it’s not in the PD, can an administrator consider it in the evaluation?

12. Collegiality, Collaboration, and Other Intangibles… If an expectation is not in the PD, can an administrator consider it in the evaluation? YES

13. Collegiality, Professionalism, and Other Intangibles… Possible Sources: FSH 1565, Academic Ranks and Responsibilities A-1: “Faculty members shall conduct themselves in a civil and professional manner (see FSH 3160 and 3170).”

14. Collegiality, Professionalism, and Other Intangibles… Possible Sources: FSH 3160, Academic Freedom, Rights and Responsibilities B-3a: “Membership in the academic community imposes on teachers, administrators, other institutional employees and students an obligation to respect the dignity of others, to acknowledge the right of others to express differing opinions…”

15. Collegiality, Professionalism, and Other Intangibles… Possible Sources: FSH 3170, University Ethics A. Ethics. “Within the university community, all participants have rights and obligations to uphold the functionality, dignity and harmony of the university…They respect the rights of students and fellow employees.”

16. Collegiality, Professionalism, and Other Intangibles… Possible Sources: College and Department Bylaws may have provisions addressing collegiality or other workplace expectations.

17. Academic Freedom/Freedom of Speech Concerns “It’s not what you said, it’s how you said it.” (E.g., raised voice, slamming table, criticism in front of others…) Academic freedom traditionally applies in context of teaching and publication; Ad hominem (personal) attack on peers and administrators is not generally considered legally-protected speech; 1 st Amendment analysis looks at whether the speech addresses matters of public concern, or internal workplace concerns. Former is protected speech, latter is not.

18. Recommendations --Evaluations Follow Regents and University policy and college/unit guidelines Relate to the PD—but can also reference policies, bylaws or general concerns Have specific examples (e.g, “collegiality;” what actions have been shown— mentoring others, assisting colleagues with workload?) Accurately assess strengths and weaknesses Avoid speculation (generalized statements like “I’m sure she can improve in the future”) Gather input over time and from a broad range of sources Avoid references to protected class (e.g., age, disability, leaves)