SCHOOL OF PUBLIC, NONPROFIT, AND
HEALTHADMINISTRATION
GUIDELINES FOR PERSONNEL REVIEWS
INTRODUCTION
Faculty personnel reviews have both contractual and developmental functions. While the reviews provide
information necessary for faculty members to decide whether to recommend contract renewal, tenure,
and/or promotion, they also provide the candidate with information about her or his performance,
identifying areas of strength and providing feedback on areas where continued growth is needed.
Faculty members working toward tenure should not see their reviews as their sole source of information
about their performance and professional development. Those working toward tenure are encouraged
(indeed, they have the responsibility) to seek guidance from their colleagues through visiting classrooms,
reviewing syllabi, discussing pedagogy, discussing research, reading manuscripts, and related activities.
Our goals in developing these guidelines were:
1. To provide consistency of evaluation and feedback across all candidates and reviews.
2. To maximize the efficiency of the system by minimizing the effort required from individual faculty,
while still maintaining avenues for individual faculty to have input.
3. To provide timely, specific, and comprehensive feedback to candidates.
4. To conform to all requirements set forth in the personnel policies approved by the Board of Trustees.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The evaluation criteria described below are based upon the personnel policies and criteria approved by the
Board of Trustees, and they include a number of additions intended to clarify these criteria. These
additions are intended solely to clarify and amplify the criteria approved by the Board of Trustees, and the
additions are not to change the meaning of these criteria in any way.
All regular faculty members shall be evaluated on the same criteria and shall be expected to demonstrate
that they meet the same level of performance expectations. The burden of proving that performance rests
with the regular faculty member to be reviewed. It is the University's responsibility to process the
requested personnel action.
Faculty duties and responsibilities are outlined in Sections III and IV of the Faculty Handbook. Teaching,
as described in Section III, constitutes the primary responsibility of faculty [p. 2]. There are, however,
"other faculty duties and responsibilities", as described in Section IV of the Faculty Handbook [p. 6].
Evaluation Criteria for Renewal of Probationary Appointments, Promotion, Tenure, and Period
Performance Reviews are set forth in the Administrative Manual and are presented in Section XVII,
Faculty Personnel Policies, in the Faculty Handbook (XVII, 2. 9 [p. 46]). These criteria roughly
correspond to faculty duties and responsibilities outlined in Sections III and IV. As described in the
Faculty Handbook, each of the criteria listed below must be demonstrated to some degree. In evaluating
faculty on these criteria, the extent to which faculty members have fulfilled each of the duties and
responsibilities will be considered.
Teaching
At GVSU, teaching is the most important aspect of your evaluation as a faculty member. An excellent
teacher is one who is able to apply appropriate teaching methods and technologies to a topic area and
successfully engage students in the learning enterprise. All faculty members should strive for excellence
in teaching, which means that both students and colleagues recognize that your teaching methods and
course content are effective, innovative, and up-to-date or even at the cutting edge of your field. Student
advising is an aspect of this dimension of faculty performance. Effective advising entails keeping regular
office hours, staying well informed of the curricula and university requirements, and helping students select
courses that fit their interests and career goals.
Criteria of effective teaching include, but are not limited to:






Knowledge of the field taught
Classroom performance (e.g. clarity, pacing, breadth and depth of coverage)
Communication skills
Evaluation skills
Course development
Performance as an academic advisor
Faculty members should maintain a careful, complete, and consistent record of their course design,
activities, and methods. The ability to articulate one’s teaching methods is critical to faculty evaluation
(see section below on candidate portfolio).
Scholarship
Scholarship is an integral part of the mission of the School of Public, Nonprofit, and Health Administration
(SPNHA) at GVSU. SPNHA faculty members demonstrate their professional development by contributing
scholarly articles, books, and reports to the peer reviewed academic literature in their fields of expertise,
and to organizations that serve the public. Examples and types of scholarship include, but are not limited
to:




Original research (creation of knowledge)
Integration of knowledge (synthesis and reorganization). Review articles and books, metaanalyses, and well-crafted texts that bring diverse findings together, including theoretical analyses,
surveys, analyses of archival data, outcome research, qualitative and case studies
Application of knowledge (e.g. research reports, program audits, program evaluation)
Scholarship of pedagogy and teaching in public affairs and administration.
While the form of scholarly work may vary, all scholarship will be evaluated using the same framework.
To qualify as scholarship, the critical elements of scholarship outlined above will be considered. For
purposes of determining professional achievement and excellence, work must reflect a high level of
expertise through substantive content and contribution to the field beyond those involved in other faculty
duties (e.g. teaching and service). In order to reach this determination, the work should involve a product
that is peer reviewed by qualified professionals using the following criteria:





Theoretical conceptualizations conveyed by the work
Methodological considerations reflected in the work
Appropriateness of analytical methods used and conclusions reached
Implications for professional practice
Ethical considerations and professional integrity.
Community Service
Serving the community is an important part of the career of faculty members in SPHNA. The expertise
developed in scholarship and teaching ought to be made available to the organizations that provide services
to the public. Faculty members do this by serving on boards of directors, by consulting, by participating in
public forums and speaking to organizations on current affairs, providing interviews with the media,
writing columns in local newspapers, etc. Faculty must demonstrate that their community service is
related to or flows from their academic expertise and interests. Community can also include one’s
professional community, and activities such as reviewing journal articles, serving on conference program
committees, moderating panels at professional conferences, etc., are among examples of service to one’s
professional community.
Unit and University Service
Service to the unit and university involves curricular development for SPNA, course development for
general education, proposal writing, and serving on unit, divisional, and university-wide committees.
Examples include:






Committee assignments
Curricular development
Special unit assignments
Writing letters of recommendation
Mentoring colleagues
Enhancing public relations
REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULAR WORKLOAD, CONTRACT RENEWAL, PROMOTION,
TENURE, AND SABBATICAL LEAVE
Regular workload (see chapter 3.01 of the faculty handbook) consists of baseline requirements and a
significant area of focus.
In the area of teaching, the baseline expectation shall normally be 9 credit hours per semester over the
course of the academic year, in addition to other teaching-related work. All tenure track faculty members
are also expected to engage in basic, applied, or pedagogical scholarship. A faculty member’s workload
includes service to the unit, college, and university as well as to the community and the profession. In
addition to the nine credit hour teaching load, the baseline requirement will normally require at least one
scholarly product* and substantive service to the school, college, or university, and, depending on rank,
some service to the community and profession.
Significant area of focus means that every faculty member is required to select an area of professional
achievement in teaching, scholarship, or service that exceeds baseline expectations. A combination of
these areas of focus can be specified in the annual work plan with the director’s approval. This focus should
require about the same amount of time as teaching a 3-hour course and not counted as part of the baseline
requirement or have been compensated externally or additionally. Faculty members that select teaching as
their area of focus will normally teach 12 hours per semester (but are not released from the baseline
scholarship and service requirements). Faculty members that select scholarship will normally be expected
to produce more than one scholarly product per year or make significant progress on a book project or
funded research. Those that choose service must document their work for a public or nonprofit agency and
produce a written report or work product submitted to both the school and the organization served.
*Scholarly products include: presenting a paper at a professional conference, a peer reviewed journal article or book chapter,
a book review essay for a professional journal, an applied research report, and/or a published book.
Renewal of contract normally occurs in the winter semester of the faculty member’s third year of
service and requires meeting regular workload requirements and competent teaching performance during
the previous contract period with evidence of improvement and professional development, including
scholarship and/or service to the university, community, or profession that demonstrates progress towards
tenure and promotion. From section 2.7 of the administrative manual: “If allowance for prior service is not
granted, a faculty member will be appointed for an initial four (4) year period and the first formal review
for this appointment will occur in the winter semester of the third year. If the first formal review is
successful, the faculty member will be eligible for a three (3) year renewal appointment.
The second
formal review occurs during the winter semester of the sixth year of the probationary period. The second
formal review will be the tenure decision.” Faculty members should consult the faculty and administrative
handbooks for details on renewal, tenure, and promotion processes and schedules.
Tenure and/or Promotion to Associate Professor requires a consistent record (normally for six years) of
excellence in teaching and the equivalent of four scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed journals
(equivalents may include applied research reports, book chapters, book review essays, and/or a published
book). All scholarship must be subject to peer review. The successful candidate for promotion to
associate professor will also have begun a record of service to the university, community, and profession.
Promotion to Professor requires a continuing record of excellence in teaching together with significant
contributions to one’s discipline, profession, and community. Such contributions include, but are not
limited to: peer reviewed journal articles, applied research reports for public and nonprofit agencies, a
published book, completed subsequent to promotion to associate professor. All scholarship must be subject
to peer review. The successful candidate for full professor will also have an established record of vital
service to the university, community, and profession.
Early tenure and promotion is understood to be the granting of tenure or promotion to an individual
faculty member before his or her seventh year of service to the university, and in the absence of previous
experience at this or other institutions that can be counted towards the completion of the required
probationary period. “Early” tenure and promotion, as defined above, should only be granted in those rare
cases where an individual faculty member presents an overall record of exceptional professional
achievement and potential for future achievements.
Sabbatical leave is granted based on the conditions and criteria set forth in the Faculty Handbook. It is
expected that sabbatical activities will result in professional development and be of a scholarly nature, as
described in the Faculty Handbook and elsewhere in this document. Under these criteria, a wide range of
sabbatical activities is acceptable. Faculty members are strongly encouraged to develop a carefully
conceived plan following guidelines as outlined on the “Instructions for Preparation of Sabbatical leave
Requests” form in the Faculty Handbook. Sabbatical proposals are due the first day of classes in the fall
semester.
Due Dates for Candidate Materials
GVSU policy states, “Materials shall be submitted by the candidate to the unit by the first day of class in
the Winter Semester for renewals, tenure, or promotion.”
Candidate's Portfolio
Candidate portfolios will be due by the first day of class in winter semester for renewals, tenure, or
promotion, except for promotion to full professor, which takes place in the fall semester.
The candidate’s portfolio should include:
1. A personal statement that contains a self-assessment of the candidate's performance in each of the
categories specified in the evaluation criteria. (It is expected that there will be much overlap between the
personal statement and the annual Faculty Activity Reports.)
2. Current curriculum vitae.
3. Course syllabi.
4. Departmental copies of student evaluations of teaching.
5. Samples of in-class activities, when applicable.
6. Samples of lecture notes.
7. Samples of examinations.
8. Samples of grade distributions.
9. Peer evaluations of teaching, when applicable.
10. All other scholarly work, including papers, grant applications, consulting reports, etc.
11. Peer evaluations of scholarly work, when applicable.
12. Faculty Activity Reports
13. Any additional, supporting documents, including samples of other relevant work.
GVSU's policy states, "While no limit is placed on the material submitted by a candidate, the amount of
materials should be tailored to the action under consideration." Except in very unusual circumstances,
effective personal statements in SPNHA can be kept to six pages or less.
School Review Process
1.
All unit regular faculty members will be notified of the access to the materials pertaining to the
candidate for the personnel action under consideration.
2.
All unit faculty members will be invited, upon their review of the materials, to provide written
comments to the Unit Head (or Designate).
3.
The Unit Head (or Designate) will prepare an agenda for the unit meeting and will review the
candidate's materials and also the written comments from unit faculty. The agenda will take the
form of a report about the candidate's achievements, as well as questions, issues, and concerns,
under the established criteria.
4.
In advance of the unit meeting the agenda will be made available for review by the candidate and
the unit regular faculty, who may then comment and propose revisions to the agenda. The Unit
Head (or Designate) may revise the agenda/report to reflect comments. The revised agenda (if
any) will be distributed to the candidate and to all regular faculty members in the unit.
5.
A meeting will be called for the purpose of addressing the personnel actions under consideration.
Only unit regular faculty may attend and participate in the meeting. The candidate being reviewed
shall participate in the discussion part of the meeting unless the candidate waives the opportunity
to participate by signing a waiver.
Audio or videotape or other type of mechanical or electronic recording is not permitted during this meeting.
However, minutes shall be taken and shall include the date, time, and place of the unit discussion, the
names of those who were in attendance, and the results of the unit vote. The minutes will also have the
candidate's waiver attached, if the candidate has waived participation in the meeting.
The meeting will begin with a unit discussion on the personnel action under consideration. This discussion
will provide an opportunity for questions, exchanges of opinions, and discussion. At the conclusion of the
unit discussion, the candidate will leave the meeting (unless the candidate has waived the right to
participate). The Unit Head (or Designate) will then summarize the discussion that has taken place. The
unit regular faculty members may comment on the candidate's performance. This discussion should be
limited to information and issues raised previously. If new information or issues are raised, the Unit Head
or Designate, in his or her sole discretion, shall determine whether the new information or issues raised
warrant the recalling of the candidate to the unit discussion to allow the candidate to respond.
6.
Once the unit discussion has been completed, the unit will take a vote by secret ballot on the
personnel action under consideration. In the case of promotion or tenure, the vote will be on a
motion to recommend the action. In the case of contract renewal, the unit vote will be on a motion
for renewal for either two (2) years or (1) year, consistent with the time limits for probationary
appointments. Only unit regular faculty in attendance may vote. No proxy or absentee ballots
will be accepted. A vote means a yea or nay vote, with abstentions counted as non-votes.
7.
At least two thirds of the members of the unit regular faculty must be present for a valid vote on a
motion regarding a personnel action to be taken. For the purpose of determining the required
quorum or majority, the count of the number of the members of the unit regular faculty will not
include the candidate or those absent because they are on sabbatical or approved leave of absence.
To pass, the personnel vote must be carried by a majority of the members of the unit regular
faculty. If a vote does not obtain the required majority for any reason, this will be reflected in the
minutes of the meeting, and the process will continue to the Division Personnel Committee.
8.
Following the unit discussion meeting, the unit regular faculty will be provided the opportunity to
submit comments to the Unit Head (or Designate), using a form that is provided which sets forth
the evaluation criteria, providing reasons supporting or not supporting the unit vote under these
criteria. Each member may also indicate on these post meeting comments whether the questions,
issues, and concerns that they raised under the evaluation criteria concerning the initial agenda
were adequately reflected in the agenda used at the unit discussion meeting, and whether the items
on the agenda were adequately addressed at the unit discussion meeting. Forms that are unsigned
will be destroyed and not used in this process.
9.
The Unit Head (or Designate) will use the unit discussion and faculty comments to prepare a draft
unit recommendation report or, if necessary, call for further discussion. The Unit Head will
provide a copy of this draft report to the candidate and make a copy available for review for the
unit regular faculty.
10. Suggestions for changes in the draft of the unit report must be submitted to the Unit Head (or
Designate) within three business days of the issuance of the draft report. Thereafter, the Unit
Head (or Designate) shall issue the final unit recommendation report, with a copy to the candidate,
and a copy will also be made available for review by the unit regular faculty.
11. The Unit Head (or Designate) will then forward the final unit recommendation report to the Dean.
The Unit Head (or Designate) will also forward to the Dean the unit discussion meeting agenda,
minutes of the unit discussion meeting, copies of any post-meeting comments, the candidate's
materials, and any other material provided by the Unit Head (or Designate) to the unit regular
faculty for their review. The Dean will then forward the final unit recommendation report and the
supporting material to the Division Personnel Committee.