(a) Each General Faculty member, tenured and non-tenured, shall be evaluated at least once annually on the basis of his or individual total performance in fulfilling responsibilities to the University. The basic purpose of the evaluation is General Faculty improvement in the functions of teaching, research, service, and any other duties that may be assigned, with the resulting enhancement of learning, cultural advancement and the production of new knowledge. Those persons responsible for supervising and evaluating shall endeavor to assist the person being evaluated in correcting any performance deficiencies reflected in the evaluation. This evaluation shall precede and be considered in recommendations and final decisions on tenure, promotions, salary increments, and retention or termination.
(b) When first employed, each General Faculty member shall be apprised, through his or her assignment of responsibilities, of what is expected of him or her, generally, in terms of teaching, research and other creative activities, and service, and specifically if there are specific requirements and/or duties involved. If and when these expectations change during the period of service of the General Faculty member, that General Faculty member shall be apprised of the change in written form.
(c) The performance of each General Faculty member shall be evaluated in accordance with the policy of the Board of Regents expressed in Board of Regents Rules, FAC 6C-5.221, Florida State University procedures for implementation of Board of Regents policy, school and departmental criteria and procedures on annual evaluation of faculty.
(d) The evaluation of each General Faculty member with respect to teaching, research or creative activity and service shall be the responsibility of each departmental chairman (or equivalent) in accordance with Board of Regents Rules. The following minimum procedures shall be employed by the departmental chairman (or equivalent) in arriving at the General Faculty evaluation:
Evidence of Performance--Implementing SUS policy, the departmental chairman (or equivalent) shall request each member of the faculty to submit to him or her annually, evidence of performance in teaching, research or creative activities, and service (and other University duties where appropriate), together with any interpretive comments or supporting data which the General Faculty member deems appropriate in evaluating his or her performance.
When appropriate, each faculty member shall submit annually to the departmental chairman (or equivalent) the results of the administration of SIRS student evaluation instrument or any equivalent tool subsequently adopted by the University. In conjunction with this submission, the General Faculty member may also present such other evidence of teaching effectiveness as deemed to be appropriate in the circumstances. Such evidence may include alternative evaluations by students, General Faculty or administrators. The departmental chairman (or equivalent) may also devise alternative means of assessing teaching effectiveness.
Faculty and staff members on leave, sabbatical, professional development, and compensated or uncompensated if for professional purposes, are to be evaluated. The member on leave is to be requested to submit a report on the progress made in accomplishing purposes of leave; a copy of the evaluation made thereupon is to be sent to the employee for signature and comment. Departmental evaluation guidelines shall insure that members on approved leave are not penalized in the evaluation process.
(a) A written summary of the evaluation of the faculty member will be prepared annually and discussed with the faculty member concerned. The Faculty Annual Evaluation Summary Form based upon the Board of Regents Rules shall be used. This Faculty Evaluation Summary shall be prepared annually prior to the end of the Spring Semester of each academic year for each member of the faculty. All faculty members (classification codes 9001-9179) shall be evaluated. Faculty members shall be notified at least two weeks in advance of the date, time, and place of any direct classroom observation or visitation made in connection with the annual evaluation.
(b) The evaluator will normally be the departmental chairman (or equivalent). In those schools and colleges designated by the Academic Vice President, the evaluator will be the Dean. Each evaluator shall be familiar with FAC 6C-5.221 of the Board of Regents Rules for a definition of procedures and data to be used in the annual evaluation of the faculty. The Faculty Evaluation Summary will be reviewed by the appropriate administrative officer which will normally be the Dean of the College or School in which the faculty member holds the faculty position. When the Dean of a School or College is designated the evaluator, the Faculty Evaluation Summary will be reviewed by the Dean of the Faculties.
(c) The BOR/UFF Collective Bargaining Agreement provides in Article 15.3 that each employee eligible for tenure shall be apprised in writing once each year of the employee's progress toward tenure in order to provide assistance and counseling to the employee.
(d) Personnel holding joint appointments in other areas, departments or divisions shall be evaluated using the same form but such summary shall be marked concurrent. Each departmental chairman (or equivalent) shall evaluate the faculty member only with respect to principal duties within that unit. Such concurrent summaries shall be forwarded to the Dean of the School or College in which the faculty member holds a faculty position. This procedure is to insure that each person holding a faculty position is evaluated annually and that all factors are considered in such an evaluation.
(e) Departmental chairmen (or equivalent) shall be evaluated by their respective Deans.
(f) A special report may be required in cases where the Dean disagrees with his departmental chairman (or equivalent) as outlined below. In the event of the termination of a faculty member, whether it be voluntary or involuntary, at a date other than May, a special report will be prepared. A special report may also be required when directed by the President, Provost and Academic Vice President, or the Dean of the Faculties.
(g) The provision under TEACHING for certification of Spoken English Competency is to be utilized only to certify competency following completion of options for remediation specified with an "Official Concern" in this area given either in the previous annual evaluation or with an original appointment, or to call into question a previous certification of competency. If "Official Concern" is noted in Spoken English Competency, options for remediation are to be in writing with a copy attached to the General Faculty Evaluation Summary form.
(h) The annual performance evaluation shall be based upon assigned duties and shall take into account the nature of the assignments in terms, where applicable, of:
After completion of the Faculty Evaluation Summary by the departmental chairman (or equivalent) such summary will be discussed with the faculty member concerned by the evaluator. The faculty member may attach to the summary any statement he or she desires. In addition, in the case of an unsatisfactory evaluation, the departmental chairman (or equivalent) shall fully document the unsatisfactory performance prior to discussion with the faculty member. The departmental chairman (or equivalent) will propose in written form to the faculty member specific recommendations to assist the faculty member in achieving at least a satisfactory rating. The recommendation should be implemented within an academic year. Examples of recommendations could include: study at another university or even study on the campus of FSU (course titles and particular professors should be specified); provision to work with or to observe the work of an outstanding professor; participation in departmental staff development programs, etc. After discussion is completed and attachments made (if any), the faculty member will indicate that the evaluation has been reviewed by signing the Summary and indicating the number of pages attached to it.
(i) Upon the completion of the discussion with the faculty member, the Faculty Evaluation Summary will be forwarded to the Dean. If the Dean agrees with it, he or she shall so indicate by affixing his or her signature. In the event he or she disagrees, the Dean may discuss the area of disagreement with the preparer of the summary at which time two courses of action are available to the Dean:
(a) When the overall performance of a faculty member is satisfactory or better and the Summary has been reviewed by the Dean, the Faculty Evaluation Summary will be filed in the faculty member's departmental personnel file together with any attachments. The contents of the faculty evaluation file shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed except to the faculty member evaluated and those whose duties require access.
(b) When the overall performance is less than satisfactory, the Faculty Evaluation Summary shall be forwarded to the President of the University through the Dean of the Faculties with appropriate recommendation as to action to be taken as outlined in Board of Regents Rules.
(a) In the event that a faculty member is dissatisfied with the Faculty Evaluation Summary, this procedure allows the faculty member to register his or her disagreement in writing. In addition, review may be sought through normal administrative channels.
(b) If the faculty member is not satisfied with the summary prepared by the departmental chairman or equivalent, he or she may present his or her request for review in writing to the Dean within ten (10) days after being informed of the chairman's evaluation. Unless a request for review is in writing, the faculty member will have no right to insist on time limits, but nothing should preclude a Dean from acting on all complaints. The Dean, like the departmental chairman (or equivalent), should have complete freedom of action in seeking to settle or resolve differences concerning evaluation summaries and presumably his or her efforts will be largely conciliatory. The Dean shall within ten (10) days of receipt of the written request for review meet with the faculty member to discuss the request, and the Dean shall within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the written request reach his decision.
(c) If the faculty member is not satisfied with the Dean's decision, he or she may request in writing a review from the Dean of the Faculties within ten (10) days after the dean's decision. The Dean of the Faculties shall within ten (10) days of receipt of the written request meet with the member to discuss the request. The Dean of the Faculties shall within twenty (20) days of the written request reach a decision.
(d) The appeal of the decision of the Dean of the Faculties may be made to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. Such a request for review shall be made in writing within ten (10) days after the Dean of the Faculties' decision. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs shall within twenty (20) days of the receipt of the written request reach a decision.