PERIODIC MULTI-YEAR REVIEW OF FACULTY (PMYR)
Amherst campus
February 1, 1999
PREAMBLE
The practice of regular annual review of faculty performance based upon an
annual faculty report (AFR) and involving peer review by departmental
personnel committees and administrative review by chairs and deans is well
established on the Amherst campus. The AFR serves as the primary basis for
the award of merit monies when they are available and is intended to be a
mandatory yearly review of faculty performance even in the absence of
merit. Because faculty members continue to review their professional
activity every year of their careers at the University, including after
tenure and promotion, the AFR must be a principal ingredient of any
process of post-tenure review.
In addition, significant multi-year reviews of faculty performance are
conducted at the time of major personnel actions: appointment through the
tenure decision year, tenure, and promotion to full professor. These
reviews evaluate the performance of the faculty member in the three
mandatory categories of teaching, research, and service in regard to
established standards for the personnel actions, including the expectation
of continued professional development and performance.
A multi-year review of all faculty, which is distinct from the annual and
major personnel action reviews, serves a number of internal purposes.
First, such a review expands the narrow time window of the annual reviews
into an overview of a faculty member's interests, capabilities, and
performance that will both inform evaluations and rewards and aid academic
planning. Second, such periodic overviews make possible timely
consultation, intervention, and assistance that will stimulate and
encourage professional development, new initiatives, and/or changes in
direction that will benefit both the faculty member and the institution.
The multi-year review will also effectively account for faculty members'
professional activity to external constituencies.
In adopting a PMYR policy, the university and the tenured faculty,
represented by the Massachusetts Society of Professors, MTA/NEA, address
the external concern for accountability, while upholding the integrity of
tenure and academic freedom. PMYR addresses accountability by fostering
continued professional development.
PURPOSE
The primary purpose of Periodic Multi-Year Review (PMYR) is to assist
tenured faculty in their continuing professional development. A faculty
member who has been awarded tenure has demonstrated excellent performance
and represents a large investment on the part of the University. Tenure is
awarded on the basis of an expectation that the faculty member will
continue to develop professionally and demonstrate a continued high level
of performance. PMYR evaluates performance over a number of years and
assures that the talents of faculty members and their contributions to the
University are maximized throughout their careers.
PRINCIPLES
- Our present review procedures encourage short-term assessment of
individual accomplishment. PMYR should foster a longer term view of an
individual's performance and contributions to the University.
- PMYR must assure the protection of the faculty member's academic
freedom, and right to full and free inquiry, as prescribed in the
contract.
- PMYR is neither retenuring nor a major personnel action as defined in
the collective bargaining agreement.
- PMYR should be appropriately linked to the annual faculty reviews
[AFRs] and should not involve the creation of additional unnecessary
bureaucracy.
- PMYR should include both self-assessment and internal peer review, as
well as assessment by the department chair and dean.
- Standards of evaluation in each department will be fair and consistent
with departmental, college, and campus practice.
- PMYR is intended to recognize that individual interests and abilities
of faculty members may change over time, and that faculty members may meet
their professional responsibilities to their department in varied and
changing ways.
TIMING OF PROCESS
- PMYR is to be conducted every seven years for all tenured faculty
members. Persons who have indicated, in writing, their intention to retire
within a three-year period will not be subject to PMYR.
- The first formal consideration of an associate professor for promotion
to full professor may be substituted for the initial PMYR unless such
promotion consideration is delayed beyond seven years past the promotion
to associate professor. If a person is formally considered for promotion
to full professor but not promoted and is not subsequently reconsidered
for promotion in the interval before the next sabbatical, PMYR will take
place two years before the scheduled year of that sabbatical.
- The time of the PMYR may be altered, upon written agreement between the
individual and the department chair, in the following circumstances:
- a. When the faculty member is named to a full-time administrative
appointment, the faculty member will have the option of delaying the
review for up to three years following the return to normal faculty
assignments.
- b. When the faculty member is granted a leave without pay for an academic
year. A leave of less than one academic year in duration shall not affect
the time of the PMYR.
- c. When the faculty member expresses in writing his or her intention to
retire within three years of the time of the scheduled review, the review
shall be canceled. If the intention to retire is rescinded, the faculty
member shall undergo PMYR in the next annual cycle or during the annual
cycle in which the faculty member had originally been scheduled to undergo
PMYR, whichever is later.
- d. Upon request initiated by the faculty member and approved by the
department chair and the dean.
REVIEW MATERIALS
The foundation of the review will include a brief statement, typically
between 1000-2000 and not to exceed 2500 words, submitted by the faculty
member that summarizes and assesses his/her principal activities during
the period since the last PMYR or promotion review, and his/her goals and
approach to achieving such goals in the areas of teaching,
research/scholarship, creative and/or professional activity and service in
the coming years . If the individual's statement calls for a major new
initiative or change in the direction of her/his work, the statement will
include any requests for additional developmental support needed for that
initiative or change in direction. In addition, the faculty member will
submit a current curriculum vitae, and the annual faculty evaluation
reports (AFRs) for the prior six years and the current year, including any
supplemental materials that normally accompany AFRs. The department chair
will supply all evaluations of the faculty member's teaching performance
carried out during the previous six years.
REVIEW PROCESS
The Departmental Personnel Committee or other elected committee [hereafter
referred to as DPC] and the Department Chair will review the individual's
AFRs, curriculum vitae, teaching evaluations, and the submitted statement.
After review of the materials, the DPC and the Chair will each recommend
that the statement submitted by the faculty member be either:
(1) Accepted, with further comments or suggestions optional, or
(2) Revised.
A recommendation to accept the submitted statement will be made when the
individual's past performance and future goals, as documented in the
materials submitted, indicates that no changes in the faculty member's
work or plans are seen as required in order to promote the continued
contribution to the University and professional progress of the faculty
member. A recommendation to revise the submitted statement will be made
when the individual's past performance and future goals, as documented in
the materials submitted, suggests that a significant change in the faculty
member's work or goals (one that is substantially different from that
proposed by the faculty member) is indicated in order to promote the
faculty member's continued effective contribution and professional
progress.
In making either recommendation, the DPC and the Chair may also suggest
revisions in the faculty member's statement and will also recommend
whether or not to provide the resources for professional development
requested in the faculty member's statement, whether it is an accepted or
revised statement. In deciding whether to recommend development support,
the DPC and Chair would typically consider such factors as:
-
(i) whether the individual's past performance and future goals indicate
that she/he is likely to be successful in achieving the goals if she/he is
given the necessary support;
-
(ii) whether the individual's statement involves a substantial change in
the nature of the individual's work;
-
(iii) the extent to which the individual's statement represents a
contribution to departmental, college, or campus directions and
priorities.
If development support is recommended, the recommendation will be
submitted to the dean who would consider the award of development funds
from a college development fund established by a faculty-count pro-rata
distribution of such funds from the provost. The dean will be aided in
this activity by a three-person faculty committee elected from faculty in
the college. If the funds available are inadequate to meet the demand,
decisions will be based on a combination of need and merit so as to ensure
that funds are available to both solve problems and stimulate new
initiatives, as well as to respond to the most pressing needs.
No aspect of the PMYR process, including but not limited to informal
discussion, written recommendations, or the fact or details of modified
faculty development plans generated as part of the process shall be
considered as an initial stage in any disciplinary process or be
introduced as evidence or otherwise referred to in any later disciplinary
procedures. This exclusion does not apply to any document or record
originally intended for a use other than the PMYR, e.g. the AFR, nor to
any aspect of a faculty member's performance which may have been
considered in the PMYR process and may be separately considered in a
subsequent disciplinary process. Nothing in this policy changes the "just
cause" standard set forth in the collective bargaining agreement under
which a faculty member may be considered for dismissal.
If both the DPC and the Chair recommend "Statement accepted" and the dean
concurs, then no further action will be taken, and the review will be
concluded. If the dean does not concur, the statement along with specific
comments from the dean explaining the nonconcurrence will be returned to
the faculty member, personnel committee, and chair for revision.
If either the DPC or the Chair recommends "Statement revised," or the dean
indicates nonconcurrence, the DPC and Chair both shall meet with the
individual to discuss ways of optimizing the faculty member's professional
contribution through a revised statement. The faculty member shall be
allowed to present any supplemental documentation about his or her
performance at this time. The intent of the revised statement is to
support and encourage the faculty member's effective contribution and
professional development, and it shall in no way impinge on the faculty
member's academic freedom. Opportunities to develop professionally may
include, but are not limited to, consultation with colleagues to assist in
problem areas, a change in department assignments to facilitate
improvement in teaching, research or service, the design of a sabbatical
leave which is crafted to address the identified needs, and referral to
the Center for Teaching, if appropriate.
If a revised statement agreeable to the faculty member, the DPC and the
chair cannot be achieved, the situation will be referred to a five-person
college level appeal committee, two members of which are to be nominated
and elected by the members of the faculty member's college to serve for a
staggered period of two years, two members of which are to be appointed by
the dean to serve for a staggered period of two years, and one member of
which will be selected by the faculty member to serve as his or her
representative. In smaller colleges [name them here], the committee will
include one member elected by the faculty of the college, one appointed by
the dean, and one selected by the faculty member. The faculty member
shall have the right to remove any committee members (up to six) whose
participation he or she deems inappropriate. The committee including the
faculty member's representative will draft a statement in consultation
with the chair, the DPC and the faculty member. This will be the revised
statement when adopted by majority vote of the committee.
The revised statement will address the issues identified, will include a
timetable and criteria for a follow-up review to take place in three
years, and will be signed by the faculty member, the department chair and
the dean to signify that all parties have received copies. The revised
statement may include a reallocation of the faculty member's effort and
such reallocation will itself not diminish the faculty member's
entitlement to merit funds; nor shall it impinge on his/her academic
freedom. Any proposed reallocation of duties should not be designed,
intended or used for the purposes of controlling, restricting or
redirecting the nature of the faculty member's research or scholarship in
his or her area of expertise. The revised statement also will indicate
what resources or other support will be devoted to promoting the success
of the revised statement.
During this three-year period, the DPC and the chair will consult as
needed with the faculty member, and at least annually will comment in
writing on the faculty member's progress toward the goals set forth in the
expanded statement. The dean will review these comments and may comment as
well. At the end of this three-year period, the DPC, the chair, and the
dean each will evaluate in writing the extent to which the goals of the
revised statement have been achieved. If the parties concur that the goals
have been achieved, the recommendation will be that a subsequent PMYR will
take place in four years, restoring the seven-year cycle. If they do not
concur, other possibilities may be discussed. The dean may determine that
no further efforts at faculty development are warranted and may refer the
matter to the provost for disciplinary action or dismissal, consistent
with the requirements of the Union contract.
ASSESSMENT
Each dean will prepare an annual report to the Provost on the PMYR process
in his or her college. This report, which will be reviewed by the Provost
to ensure that the PMYR process is being appropriately and consistently
carried out across the campus, will include a summary of the number of
PMYR conducted and their results and relevant details about all instances
in which a revised plan was developed.
Periodically after implementation of PMYR, the parties will jointly
evaluate and report to the campus on how the policy is working.
SIDE LETTER
PMYR normally will take place two years prior to the next scheduled
sabbatical, beginning in the 1999-2000 academic year for those who are
eligible for sabbatical in the 2001-2002 academic year. Faculty members
who take half-sabbaticals on a 3-3 rather than 6 year cycle will undergo
PMYR two years before the second half-sabbatical in each 3-3 interval.
PMYR will not normally take place less than seven years after a successful
promotion or tenure review.
Jenny Spencer
English Dept.
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
413-545-5506 (office)
413-545-2206 (MSP)
|
