.
Chapter III
Section 8. Annual Evaluation of Academic Faculty and Administrative Faculty (B/R 3/03)
- 8.1 Guidelines and Procedures. Each department or unit shall establish written guidelines, procedures and criteria for annual evaluation of faculty in scholarship, service and teaching or position effectiveness as appropriate. Guidelines shall include description of minimal duties, the failure to perform any of which shall be seen as nonfeasance of duty which will result in an unsatisfactory rating overall. These may include, but are not limited to, meeting classes regularly, preparation of current class materials, holding office hours, availability for university and community service, and progress in scholarly research or creative activity as required for the rank and academic field of the evaluee. Performance of minimal duties will not preclude unsatisfactory ratings concerning quality of performance. (See Chapter III, Section 8.2.)
- 8.2 Evaluation Rating Terms. Annual evaluations for faculty members who are candidates for tenure shall include overall ratings across a four-point scale as set forth in the Nevada System of Higher Education Code Section 3.4.2.1(b). In annual evaluations, and with reference to the UNLV Bylaws, Chapter III, Section 8.1, the evaluee must be given an "unsatisfactory" rating if performance falls below minimum standards.
- 8.3 Evaluation by Administrator. The department chair or supervisor shall write an annual evaluation and present it to the faculty member for review. For tenure track faculty, the department chair shall meet with the tenured faculty and thereafter incorporate in the chair’s annual evaluation the sense of the tenured faculty on the progress of the candidate towards tenure and promotion. If the faculty member disagrees with the evaluation, then he or she (a) within thirty calendar days after notification, may submit a written response to the evaluation to be incorporated therewith, and (b) within fifteen calendar days after notification, may request in writing to the college dean or appropriate vice president the formation of a committee of peers to conduct a separate annual evaluation. Each college or unit shall establish in its Bylaws procedures for forming an elected peer review committee, and any operational guidelines deemed necessary. In the case of academic faculty, the elected peer review committee shall consist of tenured faculty members regardless of rank. The peer review committee shall be constituted within fifteen calendar days after receipt of a request for peer review. The committee's purpose shall be to file a report, which either recommends upholding the administrator's original evaluation or reversing that evaluation and recommending an alternative one. The committee shall complete its work no later than the end of B-contract period. Both the original evaluation and the recommendation of the peer review committee shall be forwarded to the appropriate dean and vice president or Executive Vice President and Provost and both evaluations shall be placed in the faculty member's master personnel file. The appropriate vice president or Executive Vice President and Provost shall make the final decision on the evaluation to be issued to the faculty member for the year. (B/R 6/08)
- 8.4 Peer Evaluation File. Each evaluee, within thirty calendar days after notification, may establish a Peer Evaluation File to include materials the evaluee judges to be pertinent to the matter being evaluated. Departments shall establish categories of evidence to be included. The department and higher levels of review shall use this file in addition to other sources. (B/R 10/96)
- 8.5 Specifications for Improvement. If an annual evaluation identifies unsatisfactory performance or finds significant need for improvement, a proposed remedial course of action and a reasonable time limit must be added to the evaluation for mutual collegial benefit, and be undertaken during the period before the next evaluation. Both the evaluee and the department will thus have on record the force and content of the shortcoming. In principle this allows a wide range of evaluations and of warnings. (B/R 4/99)