History Department Personnel Procedures (Revised 10/10/00)

According to the Faculty Code, Sections 5.15 and 8.66, all personnel decisions concerning faculty members--merit, promotion, reappointment and tenure--are based (though not exclusively) on evaluations of teaching effectiveness; research and scholarship; public service. In judging any individual for reappointment, merit, tenure and promotion, teaching effectiveness will receive the greatest emphasis, with research and scholarship and service ranked second and third in emphasis respectively.

Contributions in each area can be documented by any combination of the following criteria:

Teaching Effectiveness

• Anonymous student evaluations (mandatory);
• Written reports of class observations by colleagues;
• A new preparation: course outline, statement of rationale and documentation of research support, if relevant;
• A new or re-designed course: course outline, statement of rationale and documentation of research support, if relevant;
• A narrative description of the effort to coordinate or implement changes to address a curricular problem;
• Evidence of upgrading of teaching to enhance student learning;
• Evidence of advising support and excellence.

Research and Scholarship

• Copies of academic papers and books published. For the achievement of tenure, the candidate shall supply evidence of acceptance for publication of at least one article in a refereed journal. For promotion to full professor, the candidate shall supply evidence of acceptance for publication of at least one additional article in a refereed journal;
• Papers or summaries for workshops presented at conferences;
• Scholarly work in progress or circulation;
• Copies of published book reviews by or about the faculty member;
• Evidence of organizing or directing conferences of national or regional professional organizations;
• Evidence of editing or service on editorial boards of national or regional publications (including Internet scholarly services);
• Evaluations of manuscripts for publishers, periodicals or organizations;
• Attendance at seminars, conferences and other development activities relevant to professional responsibilities.

Service to University and Community

• Evidence of holding office or committee membership in national and regional professional organization;
• Evidence committee work relating to professional expertise at all levels (university, local, regional, national);
• Copies of papers presented to the university or community;
• A copy of any grant proposal funded that enriches the curriculum or supports the university/community liaison;
• Letters of support or appreciation from institutions and groups who have benefited from a faculty member's expertise.

Procedures for Personnel Decisions

The department chair shall appoint a personnel committee to make recommendations concerning reappointment, merit, and promotion. The personnel committee shall consist of three tenured faculty members and one junior faculty member. The chair shall appoint an alternate(s) to serve when a member of the personnel committee is under review or when it is necessary to substitute for an absent member.

In the event that fewer than three members of the department are tenured, the tenured members of the department shall invite, with the approval of the dean, faculty from outside the department to participate in making personnel decisions. Such invitation shall occur in order to promote reasonable consistency in personnel decisions.

Personnel committees reach a consensus concerning the decision under review and forward their recommendations to the chair and to the dean.

Procedures for all personnel decisions:

Candidates maintain public files, including the following items as minimum requirements, and submit them to the chair:

1. Vita
2. A current professional service record
3. Three sets of student evaluations from the two quarters preceding the evaluation for reappointment
4. At least three syllabi from courses taught during the two quarters preceding the evaluation for reappointment, tenure, merit and promotion. The syllabi should include at least one general education and one upper-division course
5. At least five graded papers representing a range of grades from at least three classes, including a general education and an upper-division course. The rationale, context and grading standards for the assignments should be clear. Additional innovative or creative assignments or exams may also be included.

The chair, the personnel committee, and the tenured/tenure-track members of the department shall, in addition, be guided by the published university merit criteria and the Faculty Code when making recommendations for reappointment, tenure, merit and promotion (See Appendix I, Merit Criteria, updated May 26, 2004).

Reappointment and Tenure

New faculty meet with the chair prior to the opening of classes for a detailed discussion of department policies and procedures and the departmental curricula. Candidates for reappointment continue to meet periodically, and at least once a year before recommendations concerning reappointment are sent to the dean, with the chair.

For tenure decisions, only he tenured members of the department as well as tenured faculty from other departments, if necessary according to Faculty Code Section 5.30 B, shall participate in making the decision. The tenure committee reviews the file and meets with the chair, commenting on the candidate's collegiality (defined as cooperativeness, courtesy and exercise of professional ethics [or see Appendix II] and contributions particularly with regard to service to the department and the university.

Members of the tenure committee reach a consensus (defined as an agreement of most of those concerned) regarding the candidate's professional contributions and make recommendations for or against tenure. Tenured faculty members may make individual written recommendations concerning the grant of tenure, but such written recommendations shall be submitted to the chair, who forwards copies to the members of the tenure committee and to the dean (Faculty Code sections 5.10 A and 5.30A). Non-tenured members of the department may send their recommendations regarding tenure to the chair, who sends copies to the tenure committee and to the dean of the college.

The chair drafts the recommendation for or against tenure and forwards it to the candidate and tenured members of the department before sending it to the dean. The chair sends the recommendations of the tenured members of the department, including her/his own, to the dean of the College of Arts and Humanities.

The faculty member is informed in writing of the chair's recommendation and, in the event of a negative recommendation, can request the reasons for it.

The candidate for tenure shall receive an interview with the tenured members of the department in the event that the recommendation is negative. Candidates may also submit their own responses to the recommendation to be forwarded to the dean.

Post-Tenure Review

The history department will conduct reviews of the performance of tenured faculty members every three years, beginning during winter quarter, 1999. In conducting the review, history faculty will use the departmental and university criteria for reappointment, awards of tenure, merit and promotion.

If, during any academic year, a tenured member of the history faculty is reviewed for merit or promotion, that review will satisfy the requirements of post-tenure review for the next three years.

Tenured faculty members will maintain a public file containing the professional record and other materials needed for the review and will update the file annually. Updated materials should be placed in the file no later than the end of fall quarter of each academic year.

All tenured and tenure-track faculty will be encouraged to read the public file and write a letter to the Dean of the College of Arts and Humanities, with a copy to the department chair, who forwards them to the personnel committee, that evaluates the performance of tenured faculty members.

The post-tenure review is a tool for encouraging professional improvement and should not be construed as an instrument for the revocation of tenure.

History Department Procedures for Evaluating Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Appointees

According to the policy issued by the provost on June 10, 1997 the performance of full-time, non-tenure track appointees must be evaluated by a faculty committee and independently by the department chair each year before a decision to issue a subsequent full-time, non-tenure track contract is made. A copy of the result of the performance evaluation shall be provided to the faculty member and to the dean.

Review of full-time non-tenure track faculty will focus only on the contracted assignments and must include, at a minimum, evaluation of teaching effectiveness.

1. Evidence of teaching effectiveness; combination of the following:
   1. Anonymous student evaluations (mandatory)
   2. Written reports of class observations by other full-time faculty
   3. Course outlines
   4. A narrative description of the effort to coordinate or implement changes to address a pedagogical problem
2. Procedures
   1. Normally evaluation will occur and a written report will be given to the appointee and sent to the dean by March 1
   2. The committee to evaluate the appointee will consist of three full-time, tenure-track faculty members (e. g. departmental personnel committee), at least one of whom must be acceptable to the person being evaluated
   3. In order to ensure a timely evaluation by the committee and the chair, the full time non-tenure track appointee will normally submit to the chair by February 1 the following items:
      1. Vita
      2. Three sets of student evaluations from the preceding quarter(s) preceding the evaluation
      3. Syllabi from courses representative of classes taught during the preceding quarter(s)
      4. At least five graded papers representing a range of grades from at least three classes representative of the courses taught by the appointee. The rationale, context and grading standards for the assignments should be clear. Additional innovative or creative assignments or exams may also be included.
   4. In their evaluations, the committee and the chair will take into account the appointee's cooperativeness, courtesy, and exercise of professional ethics.

History Department Procedures for Evaluating Part-Time Non-Tenure Track Appointees

Consistent with the policy issued by the provost on June 10, 1997 the performance of part-time, non-tenure track appointees must be evaluated by the departmental personnel committee and, independently, by the department chair a minimum of once each year. Review of part-time non-tenure track faculty will focus only on the contracted assignments and must include, at a minimum, evaluation of teaching effectiveness. A copy of the result of the performance evaluation shall be provided to the part-time appointee and to the dean.

1. Evidence of teaching effectiveness; combination of the following:
   1. Anonymous student evaluations (mandatory)
   2. Written reports of class observations by full-time faculty
   3. Course outlines
   4. A narrative description of the effort to coordinate or implement changes to address a pedagogical problem
2. Procedures
   1. Evaluation will occur at any time during the academic year but must occur before June 1 or before the expiration of a contract if the part-time non-tenure track appointee is not scheduled to teach the following quarter.
   2. In order to ensure a timely evaluation by the personnel committee and the chair, part-time non-tenure track appointees will submit to the chair by June 1 or by the eighth week of a quarter preceding one in which they are not scheduled to teach the following items:
      1. Vita
      2. Student evaluations from all classes taught
      3. Syllabi from courses taught during the year or quarter
      4. At least five graded papers representing a range of grades from classes representative of the courses taught by the appointee during the year or quarter. The rationale, context and grading standards for the assignments should be clear. Additional innovative or creative assignments or exams may also be included.
   3. In the evaluation, the personnel committee and the chair will take into account the appointee's cooperativeness, courtesy and exercise of professional ethics.

APPENDIX I
Merit Criteria
(Updated May 25, 2004)

LEVEL I

For the criteria listed below, the faculty member, in order to qualify for a Level I award, must meet and be able to document all accomplishments listed under teaching criteria and two accomplishments each in either this scholarship or or service criteria or one in each. See faculty code section 8.75A.1.

Teaching Criteria - Core Accomplishments - ALL:

• Student evaluation of instruction, demonstrating accomplishments in accord with departmental criteria for items and level of proficiency;
• Course evaluation by peers that may include review of classroom teaching;
• Teaching reflects stated philosophy and mission statement consistent with department and philosophy;
• Advising support and excellence.

AND/EITHER

Research and Artistic Accomplishment Criteria - ANY ONE OR TWO Accomplishments:

• Serve as referee or on editorial board for scholarly journal;
• Review texts or other materials for a publishing firm;
• Submission of a grant or proposal;
• Evidence of substantial activity on works in progress;
• Creation of an artistic work;
• Development or dissemination of new or innovative technology;
• Consultant to improve one's academic status or scholarship;
• Engage students in productive undergraduate or graduate research projects with the faculty member;
• Attend seminars, conferences, and other development activities relevant to professional responsibilities;
• Local performance or presentation of an artistic work;
• Publish articles in scholarly, but non-referred journals.

OR

Service Criteria - ANY ONE OR TWO Accomplishments:

• Serve on juries related to field of expertise;
• Serve on a university/senate/college/department committee;
• Consultation where the primary emphasis is community service;
• Presentations for community good.

LEVEL I - Department Chairs

Department chairs with teaching duties shall meet the same teaching criteria as other faculty. Full-time department chairs shall perform all duties of the department chair as a substitute for the teaching criteria.

________________________________________________________________

LEVEL II

Before faculty members can qualify for a level II merit award, they must first qualify to receive a Level I award. The following criteria are in addition to Level I.

Teaching Criteria - ANY ONE Accomplishment:

• Course or program development in response to published departmental mission;
• Upgrading of teaching to enhance student learning;
• Contributions to other classes;
• Proportional participation on undergraduate and graduate thesis or project committees;
• Teaching recognition awards.

AND/EITHER

Research and Artistic Accomplishment Criteria - ANY ONE Accomplishment:

• Author or co-author of a textbook;
• Author or co-author of a chapter in a textbook;
• Editor of a textbook;
• Author or co-author of an article published in a refereed journal;
• Creation and extra-local performance, presentation, or publication of a major artistic work;
• Guide undergraduate and graduate student(s) in developing, designing, conducting, analyzing and understanding a complete and genuine research effort or creative enterprise of their own;
• Major scientific discovery or innovation;
• Major grant submitted and/or funded;
• Present paper at extra-local conference.

OR

Service Criteria - ANY ONE Accomplishment:

• Professional expertise in community service;
• Serve as officer or committee member of extramural, scholarly or governmental organization;
• Provide continuing service to university students in non-university settings;
• Serve as faculty mentor;
• Serve as advisor of student organizations;
• Chair an active university/senate/college/department committee;
• Serve as Faculty Legislative Representative
• Chair or serve as director of a community service organization.

LEVEL II - Department Chairs

Department chairs, both full-time and part-time, shall meet any two of the criteria in the combined teaching, scholarship or service categories with at most one in any category.

APPENDIX II

Definition of Collegiality

* Pulling one's weight in the department

• assuming and carrying out a reasonable and appropriate share of department's business
• reliably following through on departmental assignments
• taking part in departmental governance and decision making
• advising and providing support and assistance for students

* Fostering supportive and cooperative climate in department

• collective ethic rather than competitive--good of department along with good of self
• willingness to compromise
• constructive and positive attitude
• flexibility and adaptability
• treating colleagues, chair, and staff with civility and respect
• assuming responsibility for one's own actions
• holding appropriate expectations for others' contributions

* Relating primarily to department but including the university and the profession

* Conducting oneself in a professionally ethical way when relating to colleagues and students