6.3 Faculty Appointment and Evaluation [CR]

The institution publishes and implements policies regarding the appointment, employment, and regular evaluation of faculty members, regardless of contract or tenure status.

Judgment

x Compliance o Non-Compliance o Partial Compliance

Narrative

UL Lafayette publishes and implements policies regarding the appointment, employment, and regular evaluation of all faculty members.

Appointment and Employment

The University’s Faculty Personnel Policies published in the Faculty Handbook provide the policies regarding appointment for all types of faculty. Faculty appointments are broadly divided into Regular Continuing appointments (non-tenure track, tenure track, or tenured) and Special Appointments (Temporary, Adjunct, Visiting, Lecturers, Off-Campus, and Research Scientist/Research Associate Faculty). The specific conditions of appointments are explained for each of these categories.

In practice, the faculty appointment process begins with the Department Head entering a requisition for a position in Cornerstone. The Office of Faculty Affairs reviews each vacancy announcement submitted for full-time continuing faculty appointments to ensure that the qualifications align with the Teaching Qualifications Tables and the Teaching Qualifications Policy. Candidates apply for a position through Cornerstone, at which time the Office of Human Resources confirms that the applicant meets minimum qualifications defined in the vacancy announcement by reviewing application materials and searching the National Student Clearinghouse.

The Department Head normally names a Qualifications Screening and Nominating (QSN) Committee (which may consist of the entire continuing faculty in small departments) to review each applicant and select finalists. After preliminary interviews, the Department Head submits a list of finalists for on-campus interviews for the Dean’s approval. Once a candidate has been chosen, the Dean authorizes an offer letter to be extended to the applicant. When an offer letter is signed by the candidate, the Department Head initiates a Personnel Action Form (PAF) to begin the appointment process. The PAF serves as the verification mechanism for many of the appointment policies spelled out in the Faculty Personnel Policies, including qualifications, duration of appointment, probationary period, and course load. Once signed by the chain of command through the Provost, signed copies of the PAF are distributed to the college and department, but the finalist is not considered employed until the UL System BOS has formally approved the applicant, rank, salary, and period of employment.

During the 2019 calendar year, the paper PAF is being replaced by an electronic requisition to hire submitted through Cornerstone. In this new system, the approval process is streamlined because the credential verification and requisition approval processes are separated.

The following documents show appointments at all faculty levels:

· Sample Filled PAF Continuing Instructor

· Sample Filled PAF Tenure Track

· Sample Filled PAF Tenured

· Sample Filled PAF E-T Instructor

· Sample Filled PAF Adjunct

· Sample Filled PAF Visiting Assistant Professor

· Sample Filled PAF Lecturer

· Sample Filled PAF Research Scientist/Research Associate

Evaluation

The University employs regular processes to evaluate the effectiveness of both continuing and non-continuing faculty members. Continuing faculty members are evaluated annually by their immediate supervisors and peers during the tenure and promotion process, and by their students via the University Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) administered in every course. Non-continuing faculty are evaluated through SEI and, beginning in Fall 2019, through a new performance evaluation process in Cornerstone. In addition, in some colleges, Department Heads or peer committees regularly observe faculty classes and provide an evaluation.

Annual Performance Evaluation

In keeping with best practices and BOS regulations, UL Lafayette conducts an annual evaluation through Cornerstone of the effectiveness of all full‐time faculty members in three specific areas: teaching, research and professional activities, and university and community service. Below are sample annual performance evaluations for each college:

· Arts, Instructor

· B.I. Moody III College of Business Administration, Senior Instructor

· Education, Master Instructor

· Engineering, Assistant Professor

· Liberal Arts, Associate Professor

· Nursing and Allied Health, Professor

· Ray P. Authement College of Sciences, Department Head

The University’s policy for faculty evaluations includes definite and stated criteria, consistent with policies and procedures of the BOS and the institution. The composite description of the “Ideal University Professor” provides benchmarks for assessing faculty performance in annual evaluations and merit raise considerations, as well as in tenure and promotion decisions. Detailed procedures included in the Faculty Handbook are summarized in the following paragraphs.

The “Faculty Workload Policy” provides the framework for understanding the University’s expectations regarding faculty roles and performance, and structures the eventual evaluation process:

This workload policy document attempts to be structured enough to serve as a management tool to assist administrators at the department and college levels in setting faculty loads and responsibilities, but flexible enough to allow description of the myriad activities of different faculty and departments. While it does not specifically prescribe workloads, it does provide detailed guidance as to the University’s expectations of its faculty. This policy and the Goals and Evaluation of actual workload are essential components by which the University accounts for the work efforts of its faculty to its management boards. Equally importantly, these documents ensure consistency in the construal of work efforts from one department to the next and from one faculty member to the next.

The document defines four workload tracks for faculty, with differing expectations in the areas of teaching, research, and service. The primary factors determining the track to which faculty are assigned are the mission and needs of the department and/or college in which they reside, and the faculty member’s alignment with those needs. Until 2019, faculty used a paper evaluation system comprised of a Workload Document and Annual Performance Evaluation. The following sample evaluations are representative of this process:

· Annual Performance Evaluation - Instructor

· Annual Performance Evaluation - Assistant Professor

· Annual Performance Evaluation - Associate Professor

· Annual Performance Evaluation - Professor

In the Spring of 2019, the University adopted Cornerstone’s evaluation module and implemented it for the evaluation of calendar year 2018 performance. Under this system, at the beginning of the year, faculty members enter goals into their Cornerstone profile, detailing anticipated activities in teaching, research, and service. At the end of the year, faculty members report their actual activities during the evaluation process in Cornerstone, and the evaluation is routed to the Department Head or immediate supervisor, who then evaluates the faculty member’s performance. The faculty evaluation instructions make it clear that “descriptions of workload expectations do not equate to subsequent performance evaluation; performance evaluation is driven by the quality of one’s work, not the fact that it meets the percentage expectations of the workload track to which one is assigned.”

Evaluators assign scores to faculty according to the following merit scale: Exemplary (5), Accomplished (4), Very Good/Good (3), Below Expectations (2), and Significantly Below Minimum Expectations (1). Only faculty members receiving a score between Exemplary (5) and Below Expectations (2) are eligible for merit-based salary increases. Merit evaluations are conducted using a department-based rubric, and each department is awarded a merit raise pool based on the salary total in that department. The Department Head’s evaluation of the faculty member is then reviewed by the college Dean, and then by the Provost, who reviews a report of merit scores of all University faculty. Both Dean and Provost may adjust, within defined limits, a faculty member’s overall evaluation.

According to the Faculty Handbook, a rating that falls lower than Below Expectations (2) twice in any consecutive three‐year period indicates continuing failure to meet expected standards in teaching and/or research, and must be addressed by the faculty member, the Department Head, and the Dean. In compliance with the UL System Policy and Procedures Memorandum FS-III.X.D-1, procedures are in place for remediation of unsatisfactory performance. The “Remediation Procedures for UL Lafayette Personnel with Category 1 Merit Evaluations” were formulated by the Faculty Senate and were approved by both the Provost and the University President.

Tenure and Promotion

The policies of UL Lafayette regarding tenure and promotion are described in the current edition of the Faculty Handbook, and follow prescriptions contained in the Board of Regents “Statement on Academic Freedom, Tenure and Responsibility.” Additionally, the University’s tenure policies are in accord with BOS rules for the UL System. As per these rules, faculty members are not eligible for tenure at the Instructor of Lecturer level.

Full-time academic personnel at the rank of Assistant Professor serve a probationary period not to exceed six years of continuous service. Faculty members hired at the rank of Associate Professor serve a probationary period approved by the President of the University, but not less than one year or more than four years. Faculty members initially employed at the rank of Professor may be granted tenure upon appointment or, at the discretion of the University, may be required to serve a probationary period not to exceed four years. Thus, the probationary period for hires at the Associate and Full Professor ranks is always specified in the Hiring Requisition. The final evaluation for tenure usually occurs during the penultimate year in the probationary term. In all cases, faculty are notified by the University administration of the results of their evaluations.

As with faculty evaluations, the composite description of the “Ideal University Professor” provides benchmarks for assessing faculty performance in tenure and promotion decisions. A faculty member’s academic department or unit may conduct periodic evaluations during the probationary period, in accordance with that department’s usual practice. The University requires all departments to conduct at least a mid‐tenure review of all eligible faculty members.

Tenured faculty and department heads initiate recommendations for tenure and promotion. The process of tenure review at the departmental level varies depending on department size and mission and may include a vote of all tenured faculty members or a recommendation of a personnel committee within the department. Those recommendations are transmitted to the appropriate academic dean, who forwards them with his or her own separate recommendation to the Provost, who in turn submits them with a recommendation to the President. The President endorses and forwards all such recommendations to the BOS, which has final authority for granting or denying tenure.

The promotion process is described in the Faculty Handbook. Advancement in academic rank is not automatic but is based on the faculty member’s performance. In recommending a faculty member for promotion in rank, several factors are considered, including: (1) effectiveness as a teacher and advisor; (2) research and professional attainments, such as continued study, refereed publications, presentations, or suitable equivalents; (3) service to the department, college, university; and (4) service to the community. In evaluating a faculty member for promotion, the department and University administration may also consider other factors, such as the Board of Supervisors guidelines (Chapter 3) regarding rank distribution of faculty.

In addition to the criteria described above, all colleges and a number of departments have written tenure and promotion guidelines that reflect expectations based on their respective missions.

Student Evaluation of Instruction

The University uses several instruments to assess the effectiveness of its educational, administrative, and student support programs, including the Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI), which is distributed each semester in all classes with enrollment of five students or more. Results of the SEI are distributed to the class instructor, Department Head, and Dean.

The Student Evaluation of Instruction Committee is charged with providing effective, efficient, and meaningful mechanisms for the periodic student evaluation of instruction. Primarily, the committee is concerned with the review and revision, when necessary, of the evaluation form, but can make recommendations for changes in the mechanism of the student evaluation, such as who should review the evaluation, when it should be administered, and other areas.