UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA
LIBRARIES FACULTY PROCEDURAL MANUAL
MISSION STATEMENT
To support the present and anticipated teaching, research and service goals of the University of
South Alabama, the mission of the University Libraries is to select, acquire, organize, promote and
provide timely and efficient access to information resources, regardless of format or location. This
includes instruction and critical evaluation of those resources.
VISION STATEMENT
Be a comprehensive library of excellence, recognized for its resources and services that positively
impact the lives of those we serve in the University and the community.
GOALS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Educate users about responsible and effective use of informational resources.
Provide access to research materials at a level appropriate for successful academic performance.
Promote information literacy within the University community and the greater Mobile area.
Provide technology sufficient to support the research needs of the academic community.
Develop and contribute our professional skills to better serve the University, the Mobile
community, and the profession.
Updated February 19, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................... 3
FACULTY APPOINTMENTS AND SEARCHES
1.1 Request to Fill a Faculty Vacancy............................................................................................. 4
1.2 Procedures in the University Libraries ...................................................................................... 4
1.3 Interview Process and Guidelines ............................................................................................. 5
ANNUAL LIBRARIES FACULTY EVALUATION PROCESS
2.1 Basis of Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Annual Report (AR) .................................................................................................................. 7
2.3 Faculty Member’s Annual Self-Evaluation............................................................................... 8
2.4 Supervisory Evaluation Process ................................................................................................ 8
2.5 Annual Peer Review .................................................................................................................. 9
2.6 Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) Weights & Weighting Factors ............................................. 10
2.7 Rating Process ......................................................................................................................... 10
PROMOTION IN RANK
3.1 Promotion Review Committee ................................................................................................ 11
3.2 Promotion Criteria ................................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Portfolio for Promotion ........................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Promotion Review Process...................................................................................................... 13
TENURE
4.1 Tenure Review Committee...................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Initiation of the Tenure Review Process ................................................................................. 14
4.3 Portfolio for Tenure................................................................................................................. 14
4.4 Tenure Review Procedures...................................................................................................... 14
4.5 Mid-Tenure Review ................................................................................................................ 15
REAPPOINTMENT AND SEVERANCE
5.1 Reappointment ........................................................................................................................ 16
5.2 Criteria for Reappointment...................................................................................................... 16
5.3 Procedure for Reappointment.................................................................................................. 16
5.4 Severance ................................................................................................................................ 16
UPDATING THE LIBRARIES FACULTY PROCEDURAL MANUAL ............................. 17
APPENDICES
A. Annual Report .......................................................................................................................... 18
B. Goal Statement ......................................................................................................................... 19
C. Supervisor’s Evaluation Outline .............................................................................................. 20
D. Peer Reviewer Request ............................................................................................................ 21
E. Request for Change in AAP Weighting Factors....................................................................... 22
F. AAP Evaluation of Faculty Form (default weights) ................................................................. 23
G. AAP Evaluation of Faculty Form (changes in weights) .......................................................... 24
H. AAP Evaluation of Faculty Guidelines..................................................................................... 25
I. AAP Self-Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 28
J. Guidelines for Promotion/Tenure Portfolio Presentations ........................................................ 33
2
PREFACE
Because the University Libraries’ organizational and reporting structure crosses two academic divisions, it
is necessary to provide a manual outlining procedures and guidelines to implement University policies. For
example, this Libraries Faculty Procedural Manual (LFPM) specifies courses of action for the Dean of
University Libraries, the Director of the Biomedical Library, the Dean of the College of Medicine and the
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. It also specifies the procedures for library supervisors relative
to library administration1.
It must be understood that no procedure or guideline stated in the LFPM may be in conflict with the
University’s Faculty Handbook (http://www.southalabama.edu/academicaffairs/handbook.pdf). It is
vital that all members of the libraries faculty become familiar with first the Faculty Handbook and then the
Libraries Faculty Procedural Manual. Furthermore, it should be noted that the LFPM supersedes all prior
editions of its predecessor document, Criteria and Procedures for the Appointment, Reappointment,
Promotion, and Tenure, including any procedures therein stated.
1
“Library administration” in this document shall refer to the Dean of University Libraries and the Director
of the Biomedical Library. A reference in this document to the “appropriate library administrator” shall
refer to either the Dean of University Libraries for librarians in the Academic Affairs Division, including
the USABC librarian and MCOB business librarian, or to the Director of the Biomedical Library for
librarians in the Health Sciences Division. It should be understood that when the Manual requires
Biomedical Library faculty to submit paperwork to the Dean of University Libraries or library
administration, it normally is submitted first to the Director of the Biomedical Library, who then submits it
to the Dean of University Libraries, hereinafter referred to as Dean.
3
1.0 FACULTY APPOINTMENTS AND SEARCHES
1.1 Request to Fill a Faculty Vacancy
A libraries faculty appointment is the act of initiating the appropriate request by the Dean of University
Libraries or the Director of the Biomedical Library to employ a professional librarian in the libraries faculty
based on Ch.3.18 of the Faculty Handbook (Faculty Recruitment). This University policy covers the
responsibilities of the search committee, and guidelines concerning announcements, advertisements,
candidate files, candidate interviews, unsolicited applications, appointment and other requirements that
must be followed by library administration and search committee members. Librarians appointed to a
faculty search committee need to become familiar with the University’s policy, as well as a number of
additional procedures or guidelines applicable to the libraries as outlined below.
1.2 Procedures in the University Libraries
This section covers the formation and role of the libraries faculty search committee appointed by the Dean
of University Libraries, the interview process and guidelines, recommendation process, appointment, and
post-appointment/mentoring guidelines.
a.
Formation and Role of the Search Committee
The Dean will appoint between three and five members of the libraries faculty to constitute a search
committee of which one will be appointed chair. A majority of the committee will be from the library in
which the vacancy occurs, and if possible, from the area – public or technical services.
The Dean will call the first committee meeting and outline its expectations, responsibilities, anticipated
opening and closing dates of the search, tentative schedule for screening and interviews, budget or other
constraints, and the candidates’ presentation requirements. The successful candidate may also need time to
give proper notice to his or her employer, to buy or sell property, move, etc. Such dates, therefore, should
be kept in mind by the committee in establishing its meeting dates.
The committee chair will call all subsequent meetings, be the sole spokesperson for the committee, and
meet with library administration as appropriate. The Dean will fill any vacancy that occurs on the
committee.
b.
Website and other Job Descriptions and Announcements
Members of the committee will develop a detailed job description for the library’s web site and notices to
graduate schools or other allowable entities such as professional organizations. This announcement will
include a full position description with major duties and responsibilities, as well as all position and
application requirements (education, experience, skills, number of references, letter of application,
submission requirements), and certain University wording regarding affirmative action and equal
opportunity. The statements must be forwarded to the Dean for approval. The Dean will send them to the
appropriate vice president if required for approval or posting on a University website. Such announcements,
therefore, may be posted only with the permission of the Dean.
c.
Correspondence
All correspondence regarding the vacancy is normally directed to the chair of the search committee with all
original documentation being retained in the Dean’s or Director’s files.
See http://www.southalabama.edu/recordsmanagement/USArda.pdf
4
1.3 Interview Process and Guidelines
a.
Ethical Considerations
Committee members will be receptive to all staff and outside comments, but the committee chair will make
all written or oral statements emanating from the committee involving its deliberations. References for the
candidate will be held in strict confidence by the committee and library administration. Additional
professional references (beyond those submitted by applicants) may be requested by the committee chair or
library administration with the permission of the applicant. These may be written or oral. Oral
communications will be summarized in writing and provided to the committee and library administration.
Discretion should be shown when additional references are sought to avoid jeopardizing an applicant's
current position.
Care must be taken by all those who participate in the interview process, in whatever capacity, to avoid
asking questions, which may be construed as discriminatory or of a personal nature. This would include
soliciting information regarding a candidate’s age, race, religion, marital status, children, social and
political affiliations or persuasions, arrest record, medical condition, and sexual orientation.
There is no requirement or obligation to interview internal or local applicants, particularly if it would cause
an otherwise unqualified applicant to think she or he is qualified. The chair should consult with library
administration as appropriate in such cases.
b.
Screening and Telephone Interview Procedures
If a closing date was approved by the Dean, the committee chair will schedule a meeting of the committee
within a week of that date for the purpose of reviewing all applications. The committee should screen out
applicants who do not meet requirements. The committee will then review references in all remaining
applicants. All applications will be screened in an objective and impartial manner using the qualifications
and requirements stated on the position description.
After receiving all of the requested references, the committee will finalize the list of candidates for
telephone interviews. The committee will also develop a set of questions to ask all candidates. The
committee chair will then meet with the appropriate library administrator to review the applicants and the
list of questions. The chair will schedule the telephone interviews based on the availability of the
committee members and the library administration.
Telephone interviews are required for a number of important reasons. The questions asked should help to
screen-out persons who cannot meet the English proficiency requirement, clarify information in the
candidate’s letter of application and curriculum vita, determine if the applicant is still interested, answer
questions the candidate has about the position, and establish the candidate’s relative strengths and
weaknesses vis-à-vis other candidates. Such information may be very important in deciding whether to
invite the candidate for an on-campus interview. For internal and local/regional candidates (where travel
reimbursements are not a consideration), the committee may meet with the candidate face-to-face.
All external and internal/local candidates, however, need to be asked the same set of questions established
by the search committee and approved by library administration. After the last interview, candidates may be
screened out in consultation with the library administrator who was included in this process. If one or more
candidates are screened out, the search committee should reexamine the candidate pool and consult with the
appropriate library administrator to determine whether to include additional applicants for telephone
interviews.
Allowable expenses incurred during an interview at conferences at which both library representative(s) and
the candidates(s) are attendees will be paid by the University of South Alabama if authorized by the Dean.
Such off-campus interviews, however, shall NOT be a substitute for on-campus interviews. For further
details, see USA "Travel and Entertainment Regulations.” See http://www.southalabama.edu/travel/
5
c.
Campus Interview Process
The committee chair, in consultation with library administration, shall finalize an itinerary for each campus
interview. The itinerary should be similar, if not identical, for each candidate while allowing for
adjustments due to the candidate’s or Dean’s schedule or other variables. The committee chair normally
invites the selected candidates for interviews and establishes the itineraries, which are suitable to all parties.
The itinerary will be sent to the candidates, committee members, and library administration as soon as
possible. The Dean normally meets with all candidates at the end of the interview day to answer salary,
rank, and other questions that candidates may have about the University’s appointment process.
Library administration will keep candidates’ files, so that libraries faculty can have timely access to the
applicants being interviewed. It is expected that the information will be kept confidential.
Library administration will arrange air travel and make local arrangements for lodging for the candidates,
as well as pay for the candidates’ out-of-pocket expenses for meals or other necessary expenses.
The committee chair will remind all participants in the interview process of the ethical considerations
discussed above. The committee chair will encourage all participants in the interview process to complete
and return an evaluation form for each candidate. It is appropriate for paraprofessional employees,
particularly from the department involved, to be given the opportunity to meet and question the candidates
and express their opinions by means of an evaluation form as well. The chair will make sure that the results
are considered by the committee as one component of its deliberations leading to a recommendation.
d.
Evaluation of Candidates and Committee Recommendations
Following the conclusion of the final interview, the committee will meet expeditiously to evaluate the
candidates and make a recommendation to library administration. The recommendation will be made in
writing and include a slate of all acceptable candidates along with a summary of the candidates’ strengths
and weaknesses. The committee shall also list all unacceptable candidates who interviewed on campus
along with its rationale. It should be understood that library administration may proceed toward the
appointment of any acceptable candidate. In case the committee cannot recommend a candidate, a written
statement to library administration shall state why and make a recommendation to extend the search, or
reopen it with any suggestions regarding modifying requirements or other aspects of the search to make it
more attractive to potential candidates.
The committee needs to keep in mind that administration will not recommend someone for a tenure-track
position who lacks a track record that is predictive of future success in scholarship, such as presentations at
professional conferences and publications.
Should the Dean disagree with the committee's recommendation(s), the committee shall be extended the
opportunity to discuss the matter.
e.
Library Administration’s Recommendation and Communication with the Candidate
The Dean directs all communications with the recommended candidate, other involved administrators, and
University administration as outlined in the Faculty Handbook or as required by University administration.
Library administration shall make the announcement of the appointment once the candidate has signed an
official letter of appointment issued by the President and will work with the chair of the search committee
to notify the unsuccessful candidates. The search committee is dissolved when this announcement is made.
f.
Records Retention
Documentation for each search will be retained by library administration in accordance with the
University’s Records Disposition Authority:
http://www.southalabama.edu/recordsmanagement/USArda.pdf
6
g.
Mentoring New Faculty Members
The chair of the search committee or a libraries faculty member designated by the search committee will act
as a mentor to the new faculty member and meet with him or her on a timely basis to review the faculty
evaluation, mid-tenure, tenure, and promotion procedures and guidelines, including the Annual Report. The
chair of the search committee will inform library administration of the name of the new faculty member’s
mentor.
2.0
ANNUAL LIBRARIES FACULTY EVALUATION PROCESS
2.1
Basis of Evaluation
The annual faculty evaluation process is a required professional practice established as the basis of faculty
recommendations and management decisions with respect to reappointment, mid-tenure, tenure, promotion,
and merit raises. It is the responsibility of each faculty member to review, understand, and follow the
respective policies outlined in the Faculty Handbook and the procedures outlined in the LFPM, including
the due dates listed in Calendar for Evaluations/Promotions/Tenure. Because the due dates are subject to
change for any number of reasons from year to year, the Dean normally sends email reminders to the
faculty about the dates; nonetheless, it remains the responsibility of each libraries faculty member to
observe the applicable dates.
The annual evaluation is based on a number of important factors including, but not limited to, the following:
•
•
•
•
the faculty member's job responsibilities, goals, and the accomplishment of these goals;
the evaluation of activities in the areas of professional development, research, and scholarly activity;
service to the University; and
subjective criteria such as productivity, communication ability, adaptability, use of technology,
rapport with others, etc.
Each library department is required to have goals and action plans, which support the University Libraries'
mission and goals. Each faculty member is also required to have an annual goal statement (Appendix B)
correlating to the departmental goals, and/or libraries objectives. Personal objectives, action plan, and a
self-evaluation are written for the categories of job performance, research/professional development,
University service, and special service or assignment, if applicable. These statements establish the basis for
the supervisor’s or the library administrator’s evaluation of the libraries faculty member.
Each faculty member assumes the responsibility of scheduling a meeting with his or her supervisor to reach
an agreement on individual goals and action plans. When librarians have more than one supervisor, the
Dean will name one as primary supervisor. The completed statement of goals and action plans is forwarded
to the appropriate library administrator.
The supervisor, when necessary, may schedule a mid-year or more frequent meeting with the evaluated
librarian to review progress and discuss possible modifications in goals and action plans. Anytime such a
discussion occurs, the supervisor will write a summary of the meeting, which is to be signed, dated by both
the librarian and the primary supervisor, and sent to the appropriate library administrator. The evaluated
librarian may attach a written comment, if there is a disagreement with the supervisor’s summary. These
statements are incorporated in the Annual Report (Appendix A).
2.2
Annual Report (AR)
Each faculty member is responsible for submitting an Annual Report as outlined in Appendix A. The
evaluation period for all librarians is January 1 – December 31. Submit a complete paper copy, or an
electronic copy, to the supervisor by the due date recorded on the evaluation calendar. Only that part of the
7
AR that concerns the year under consideration is used in the Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) and supervisory
evaluation process. An electronic copy should always be submitted to the Administrative Assistant in the
Dean’s office. Because of the limitations of Digital Measures for librarians, the Goal Statement (Appendix B)
will continue to be used for Annual Reports.
2.3
Faculty Member's Annual Self-Evaluation
All faculty members will prepare their Annual Report, which will include their vita, goal statement, and
annual self-evaluation (Appendix A, and Appendix I). The reviewee will submit the complete AR,
including supervisor’s evaluation, to the Dean by the due date. Files submitted without all required
materials will be considered incomplete. Late or incomplete files may jeopardize the librarian’s
consideration for merit increases, promotion, or tenure. Unfamiliarity with calendar due dates or procedures
will not be considered justification or a proper defense for late submissions. Unforeseen emergencies should
be referred to the Dean as soon as possible.
2.4
Supervisory Evaluation Process
The supervisor will read the AR and make an independent assessment of the contents, taking into account
the criteria for promotion in rank and tenure. The faculty member should be judged with a rigor relevant to
the level of expectations for the rank held. See Faculty Handbook 3.10. The AAP weighting scale is on the
AAP Self-Evaluation Rating Scale (Appendix I).
Those conducting evaluations should employ the following guidelines:
(1) Understand the requirements, responsibilities, and duties of the particular position held by the librarian,
as well as all of the criteria to be applied both generally and specifically given the librarian’s position
description and faculty rank.
(2) Apply a process of objective reasoning and judgment based on demonstrated performance with respect
to each librarian’s responsibilities, goals, and activities. Bias, favoritism, and the belief that
effectiveness or ineffectiveness in one instance, or during part of the evaluation year, implies the same
in other or all factors, or for the entire rating period should be avoided. Each librarian should be
evaluated on his or her performance as a whole for the entire rating period, as opposed to a few
isolated instances and activities.
(3) Meet with the librarian in a private and professional environment at a time when other matters are not
pressing. Welcome dialog and questions. Remember that the librarian has a right to know how well
she or he is doing, as well as the opportunity to provide a response that is received in an open-minded,
unbiased, and professional manner with the intent of helping the person become more effective and
productive.
(4) The supervisor will subsequently prepare a draft summary of the interview embodying his or her
evaluation and afford the faculty member an opportunity to read and comment on the draft. Using the
form provided in Appendix C, the supervisor prepares the final evaluation copy, which will become
part of the Annual Report. The faculty member will read and sign the supervisor's evaluation form.
The faculty member may choose to prepare a written rebuttal of the supervisor's evaluation. If
submitted, this rebuttal is forwarded directly to the appropriate library administrator, and becomes part
of the Annual Report. In cases when a faculty member reports to more than one supervisor, each
supervisor will conduct a review of the job performance in the appropriate area. The primary
supervisor, however, is responsible for reviewing the librarian’s research/professional development
and University service activities. The completed Supervisory Evaluation narrative is submitted to the
appropriate library administrator, who may write a review (optional) for those eligible for promotion,
tenure and reappointment. If completed, it becomes part of the AR, to which the supervisor and
faculty member have access. The Director of the Biomedical Library will send the completed AR to
the Dean. The dates by which these actions occur are listed in the Calendar for
Evaluations/Promotion/Tenure.
8
(5) For USABC and librarians who have other responsibilities, the primary supervisor should consult with
the appropriate librarian.
2.5. Annual Peer Review
The purpose of annual peer review is to assess and document job performance and effectiveness,
research/professional development and University service from sources other than the supervisory
evaluation. The process of peer review, by other members of libraries faculty, is required only for nontenured faculty based on the calendar dates in the Calendar for Evaluations/Promotion/Tenure, as well as
the following guidelines:
(1) Candidates for promotion and/or tenure will submit to the Dean either two or three names of members
of the libraries faculty who have agreed to evaluate them. Faculty members will not do peer
evaluations for their supervisors. It is recommended that no more than one non-tenured libraries
faculty member may be named (Appendix D). Peer reviewers may be selected from any of the libraries
and should be able to evaluate the individual's job performance, research/professional development,
and/or service. Conflict of interest should be avoided when choosing peer reviewers.
(2)
Peer reviews are not conducted by any member of the library administration. Supervisors will not do
peer reviews for faculty members who report to them. Additional reviews may be requested from
outside the libraries for librarians with other University and external professional responsibilities, such
as teaching or faculty development activities. The peer reviews are included in the AR. All letters of
evaluation will be requested by library administration, including those faculty wish to be solicited for
their portfolios.
(3)
All peer reviews for annual evaluations are considered confidential and will only be available to
library administration and the appropriate review committee. Upon request by the reviewee, the library
administration will make available to said reviewee a compilation of the peer reviews with the names
of the reviewers removed. (See the Calendar for Evaluations/Promotion/Tenure for specific dates.)
(4)
The peer reviewer should be selected for his or her knowledge of the reviewee for a specific area(s).
However, this should not limit the reviewer’s comments in the other areas (i.e., job performance and
effectiveness, research/professional development, and University service).The designated libraries
faculty peer reviewer will evaluate the librarian based on the Annual Review Report, the criteria in 2.1,
and the reviewer’s personal observation and knowledge. The faculty member should be judged
according to the level of expectation for the rank held. It is important to note that the guidelines
required in supervisory evaluations should also characterize peer reviews. Peer reviews should
exemplify candor and serious judgment, because they provide an important additional perspective in
the evaluation process.
• Faculty members may not provide reciprocal peer reviews for each other within the same
evaluation year.
• Faculty members may not provide a peer evaluation for the same person for two years in a
row. Changes to this may be requested from the Dean.
• Peer reviews are not limited within faculty rank.
• Faculty members should provide qualitative comments only on direct knowledge of shared
work or projects.
• Peer evaluations may not be a re-stating of activities listed in a faculty member’s annual
report.
• Comments should be offered on quality of shared work, scholarly output, and service.
(5)
The Dean will publish a list of the peer reviewers for non-tenured faculty up for promotion and/or
tenure. Librarians may review their individual lists for accuracy and may suggest in writing reasons for
changes in the list. An evaluator may petition the Dean to be relieved of responsibility for individual
evaluations. The Dean will consider such requests and will inform the evaluator and the faculty
member of the decision.
9
(6)
2.6
An option: If a faculty member would like a peer reviewer to observe her/his work activity, the
observation period may be random or agreed upon in advance by the individual and the peer reviewer.
Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) - Weights and Weighting Factors
The AAP form as modified for the libraries faculty is used to document the faculty member’s job
performance, professional development, and University service based on the following guidelines:
Within two weeks before or after the beginning of the year, the librarian must decide whether to request a
change in weighting factors (Appendices E) or accept the default weights (Appendix F). The defaults apply
if the librarian fails to request a change by the deadline. These weights are flexible and may be negotiated
individually by faculty members. However, if the requested percentage for job performance exceeds 60%,
the librarian’s primary supervisor must sign the form and agree. Any change from 60% for job performance
requires the faculty member to provide a written justification, that is, reasons for desired change such as a
special assignment. In the event an agreement cannot be reached, the appropriate library administrator will
resolve the differences. The Director of the Biomedical Library will sign the form and submit it to the Dean
of University Libraries for BL faculty. All requests must be signed by the Dean who will either provide
copies to the librarian and supervisor, or call a meeting to discuss the requested changes.
Once the Dean approves a change in weighting factors for the evaluation year, modification may only be
authorized by the Dean due to significant change in job responsibilities.
2.7
Rating Process for AAP
The primary supervisor will meet with the appropriate library administrator and develop a consensus
concerning the quantitative scores for the period. When there is more than one supervisor, a group meeting
will be held for this purpose. In addition, supervisors will be included in all meetings concerning faculty
members under their direction. In the event a consensus cannot be reached, the appropriate library
administrator will make the final decision. The preservation of the confidentiality of the proceedings of
these deliberations is the obligation of all those involved. Each individual participating in the assignment of
numerical ratings, as well as the faculty member being rated, will sign the AAP Numerical Ratings form
(Appendix F or G). The appropriate library administrator will maintain the AAP numerical ratings as a
separate file. Performance evaluations are intended to assess the work of faculty members in relation to the
rank they hold and to serve as a basis for merit raise distributions. Numerical ratings will not be made
available to either the Promotion or Tenure Review Committees for use in their deliberations.
The faculty evaluation process as described above culminates in the AAP Evaluation of Faculty Form
(Modified for Libraries Faculty, Appendix F or G).
a. Job Performance
Levels of job performance are graded on a scale of 0-10 for each of the categories used in the Affirmative
Action Plan (AAP). The following definitions describe the interpretation to be used:
10
Excellent:
Performance is exemplary, exceeds requirements, and obtains the best
possible results as measured against national professional standards.
7.5
Very good:
5.0
Adequate:
2.5
Needs
improvement:
Performance consistently fulfills requirements; work is frequently beyond that
expected as measured against national professional standards.
Performance is consistently adequate and satisfactory, as measured against
national professional standards.
Performance occasionally meets requirements; while work is not totally
unacceptable, performance is below that which is expected as measured
against national professional standards.
10
1.0
0
Unsatisfactory:
Performance is consistently unacceptable; seldom meets position
requirements; exhibits major performance problems as measured against
national professional standards.
No performance
Position requirements are not met.
b. Professional Development and University Service Activities
The list of professional development and University service activities listed in the Faculty Handbook and in
Appendix I of this Manual is not intended to be inclusive. Other activities may be added as agreed upon by
faculty and the appropriate administrator. Activity levels and points listed are suggestions and are not
binding. While criteria are not cumulative, additional activities or the quality and substance of a single
activity may justify a higher level. An activity or accomplishment may only be counted in one category
unless there are clearly delineated multiple components.
Proper documentation in the AR, showing the level of participation in the activity, is the responsibility of
the reviewee. Itemizing and characterizing the activities at the appropriate level is beneficial to the
reviewee, so that a fair evaluation can be made. This is particularly important when there are multiple
authors, team-based projects, etc. Quantity/quality of work completed will determine the number of points
awarded. The philosophy behind this documentation is that of professional achievement, as expressed by
professional organizations.
The faculty member should read and sign the AAP evaluation form. If the faculty member wishes to
prepare a written rebuttal of the AAP evaluation, it should be submitted within ten days directly to the Dean
of University Libraries to become a part of the permanent file.
3.0
PROMOTION IN RANK
3.1
Promotion Review Committee
The Promotion Review Committee is comprised of all tenured Senior Librarians for consideration of
promotions to the senior level, and all tenured Associate and Senior Librarians for consideration of
promotions to the Associate level. Refer to Faculty Handbook 3.4.1 for library ranking and their
instructional counterparts.
Members of the library administration are not eligible to serve on the committee. The Dean convenes the
first meeting of the committee by November, if there are candidates. The committee will select its chair
and secretary from among the members holding the rank of Senior Librarian. A quorum shall consist of one
more than half of the committee members. Recommendations of the Promotion Review Committee are
advisory to library administration. The Promotion Review Committee reviews the candidate’s
documentation and renders a recommendation for or against promotion. The chair and secretary will word
the rationale and attach it to the signature page. All voting is by secret ballot.
The Promotion Review Committee is responsible for reviewing and evaluating, in a fair and objective
manner, all pertinent records, and documents of the candidates under consideration. The preservation of the
confidentiality of all records and deliberations of the committee is the obligation of each committee
member, but especially the duty of the committee chair. Each member is responsible for having a thorough
knowledge of the applicable sections of this document and the Faculty Handbook. The chair calls all
subsequent meetings of the committee and is responsible for ensuring that reports and recommendations are
made in accordance with the requirements of this document.
The members of the promotion committee will review all material submitted by candidates with the
following understanding:
• Evidence and assessment of scholarly publications, professional development, service, collegiality,
and job performance are the essence of tenure and promotion recommendations. Assessment is
expected to consider a wide range of variables as follows:
11
1. The degree to which a candidate’s activities, publications, etc. advance librarianship,
knowledge in the field, his/her own professional growth or skills, etc.
2. The effort that goes into single authored works versus a publication with multiple authors, or
the level of effort and expertise that the various participants exert in grant applications, grant
awards, library projects, committee activities, multi-authored publications, and the like.
3. The feedback from internal and external peer reviews, commentaries, book reviews, and
others.
4. The type of venues where exhibits, posters, workshops, or demonstrations are held
5. The size of the audience reached, readership, etc.
6. The increasing level or quality of work and activities expected of librarians as they advance
from assistant to associate librarian and from associate to senior librarian, or instructor to
senior instructor rank.
3.2
Promotion Criteria
A qualitative evaluation of the candidate's activities is essential for the granting of promotion. (See Section
3.10 of the Faculty Handbook). The Promotion Review committee should focus on the candidate's record
based on performance in the three areas described in the criteria for evaluation for the entire period of
service relevant to promotion to the rank under consideration. However, in its deliberations, the Promotion
Review Committee takes into consideration the information in the annual reports as a whole, and does not
confine its judgment merely to the information in the individual's current or most recent files. The
committee should look for increased quality performance in all three categories over the years of service
being considered.
Candidates for promotion understand that it is their responsibility to update Digital Measures to use for their
vita for inclusion in their portfolio for promotion. Dates must be included in all Digital Measures entries for
activities. The Provost requires the use of Digital Measures (DM) for the vita; however, the Digital
Measures reports will require the use of MS Word or other editing software to assure accuracy,
completeness, proper formatting, and so forth.
Reviewers for Promotion
Candidates for promotion submit to Library Administration:
• One to three names of peer reviewers from the libraries faculty
• One to three names of University faculty
• One or more external (non-USA) reviewers chosen by the candidate (optional)
Library Administration will contact the reviewers to request letters of recommendations. Reviewers must
have personal knowledge of candidate’s qualifications for consideration for promotion.
a.
Promotion from Assistant Librarian to Associate Librarian
An assistant librarian under consideration for promotion to associate librarian should demonstrate maturity
and a quality job performance, and should have begun to make noteworthy contributions in the area of
professional service. The assistant librarian’s record in research/professional development should show a
genuine contribution to the profession and to personal professional growth. She or he should have achieved
a level of competence, which gives evidence of maturity, insight, and credibility in all professional
endeavors. Positions requiring specialized knowledge or skills may require the librarian to have an
additional advanced degree, certification, or course work.
b.
Promotion from Associate Librarian to Senior Librarian
An associate librarian under consideration for promotion to senior librarian should show a sustained career
effort illustrated by sustained superior performance. She or he should have built on prior activities in the
area of job performance, service, and development and may have begun to undertake new initiatives.
12
Promotion from Associate Librarian often is related to significant contributions as a mentor to other
librarians and/or leadership in the University Libraries faculty. Positions requiring specialized knowledge
or skills may require the librarian to have an additional advanced degree, certification, or course work.
3.3
Portfolio for Promotion
The candidate prepares a portfolio applying for promotion according to the guidelines in Appendix J,
"Guidelines for Promotion/Tenure Portfolio Presentations adapted for Libraries Faculty.” A binder for this
purpose, with the appropriate tabs, is prepared by the Administrative Assistant in the Library
Administration office for each candidate. Tab dividers may be moved to a larger binder if necessary.
3.4
Promotion Review Process
When time in service for promotion to the next rank is fulfilled, the faculty member may be nominated by
the supervisor or may petition for consideration. The Dean will send out an intent statement to those faculty
members eligible for first-time promotion, and publish a list of individuals eligible for consideration.
Eligible individuals will indicate their plans to pursue promotion by returning the intent form to library
administration. The candidate’s list of names, internal (required) and external (optional), for professional
references will be provided to library administration. In either case, the faculty member prepares a written
statement outlining his or her fulfillment of the general criteria for promotion in rank (see Faculty
Handbook 3.10.1 and 3.10.2). The complete Promotion/Tenure Portfolio is submitted to the Dean. Library
administration may make optional response to supervisory evaluations for those up for promotion.
4.0
TENURE
For requirements for eligibility for tenure, see Faculty Handbook Sec. 3.11.4.2.
With the exception of years in service, criteria for the award of tenure in the libraries faculty are the same as
criteria cited for promotion in rank. The candidate for tenure is to be evaluated based on the criteria for
promotion to the rank she or he currently holds.
Tenure consideration is mandatory once sufficient years in service have been achieved by tenure-track
faculty. Consideration for promotion in rank and consideration for award of tenure are handled separately.
Tenure-track libraries faculty at the rank of assistant, associate, or senior librarian hold, or have the
potential to hold, tenure. Libraries faculty at the instructor rank are not eligible for tenure.
4.1
Tenure Review Committee
The Tenure Review Committee consists of all tenured members of the libraries faculty, whatever their rank,
excluding members of the library administration. The Dean convenes the first meeting of the committee
according to the calendar. The committee selects a chair and secretary at this first meeting. Rank is not a
consideration in the selection of the chair except when considering promotion to senior librarian. A quorum
for activity shall consist of one more than half of the tenured members of the libraries faculty. The
recommendations of the Tenure Review Committee are advisory to library administration. The Tenure
Review Committee reviews the candidate’s documentation and renders a recommendation for or against the
granting of tenure. The recommendation of the Committee must be written at the time of the meeting and
signed by the faculty members present. The chair and secretary will word the rationale, which will be
attached to the signature page. All voting is by secret ballot.
The Tenure Review Committee is responsible for reviewing and evaluating, in a fair and objective manner,
all pertinent records and documents of the candidates under consideration. The preservation of the
confidentiality of all records and deliberations of the committee is the obligation of each committee
member, but especially the duty of the committee chair. Each member is responsible for having a thorough
knowledge of the applicable sections of this document and the Faculty Handbook. The chair calls all
13
subsequent meetings and is responsible for ensuring reports and recommendations are made in accordance
with the requirements of this document.
The Tenure Review Committee shall meet annually to review all tenure-track faculty and provide library
administration with recommendations for renewal or non-renewal of contracts.
The Committee may consult with the Dean and/or the Director of the Biomedical Library. The
recommendation of the Committee must be written at the time of the meeting and signed by all faculty
members present. Proxy votes for those unable to attend will not be accepted.
4.2
Initiation of the Tenure Review Process
Faculty members are considered for tenure when they have fulfilled the required time in service. The Dean
will publish a list of those eligible for tenure consideration and request names for internal and external
professional references. The candidate for tenure consideration prepares a cover letter to be included in the
portfolio justifying his or her qualifications to be awarded tenure. The candidate should use the "Guidelines
for Promotion/Tenure Portfolio Presentations as adapted for Libraries Faculty” (Appendix J).
4.3
Portfolio for Tenure
The candidate applying for tenure will prepare a “Portfolio for Tenure” in a binder obtained from library
administration consisting of all the documentation outlined in Appendix J. If the candidate is also applying
for promotion, the portfolio should be titled “Portfolio for Tenure and Promotion.” The complete portfolio
is submitted to the Dean. Library administration may make optional responses to supervisory evaluations
for those up for tenure. The Provost requires the use of Digital Measures (DM) for the vita; however, the
Digital Measures reports usually require the use of MS Word or other editing software to assure accuracy,
completeness, proper formatting, and so forth.
4.4
Tenure Review Procedures
The portfolio is retained in the office of the Dean except when in the possession of the faculty review
committees for deliberations. The committee chair is responsible for the security of the files during the
meetings and for returning them to the Dean’s office. Documents that are ambiguous or lacking in detail
will be returned through the Dean for amplification. Items not germane to the consideration of work
performance or academic qualifications, such as letters of recommendation that were part of the candidate's
AAP evaluations, pre-employment record, personal financial data, medical records, police and court
records, and records of political activity should not be included in the annual report or portfolio. Both
internal and external reviews are required for tenure.
Internal Reviews of Candidates for Tenure
Internal reviews of the candidate’s research/professional development and service contributions are to
be included in all tenure applications, per the following guidelines:
• Internal – Two or three reviews by USA Libraries faculty members chosen by the
candidate.
• University – One to three reviews from faculty of the University, but outside reviews may
also be chosen by the candidate.
External Reviews of Candidates for Tenure– Faculty Handbook 3.11.4.3
An external review of the candidate’s scholarship will be included in all tenure applications. Obtaining
the reviews will be the responsibility of library administration in accordance with the following
procedures:
• The candidate, the chair of the Tenure Committee, and all libraries tenured faculty will have
an opportunity to submit a list of names of external referees who are recognized scholars in
the candidate’s field of scholarship.
14
•
The chair of the Tenure Committee will select name(s) from each of the three lists and will
request that these individuals provide a written review of the candidate’s scholarship. The
candidate will be notified of the names of those selected to serve as referees. The external
review will then be included in the candidate’s tenure portfolio and will be a component of
all levels of the tenure review process.
These requests will be mailed or emailed with curriculum vita and relevant documentation. All such letters
of recommendation shall be available to library administration and the appropriate review committee.
The Dean will notify the members of the faculty review committees, and if appropriate, the Biomedical
Library Director that the documentation for the review process is ready. The chairs of the review
committees will establish dates for their meetings and notify committee members of that date when the
documentation is ready. The committees will convene by the date suggested in the Calendar for
Evaluations/Promotion/Tenure.
When a Biomedical Librarian is up for review, the Biomedical Library Director may submit a written
recommendation with rationale, and may request a recommendation (optional) from the Dean of the College
of Medicine.
These recommendations will be submitted to the Dean by the required date. The committee chairs will
prepare a letter/memo to the Dean of University Libraries for each candidate for promotion and/or tenure
stating the recommendations of the committees. The faculty review committee’s report should include the
following items:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The name of the person reviewed.
The recommendation, with rationale, for the committee’s action on each recommendation.
The count of the committee’s vote on each recommendation.
The names and signatures of the committee members as the last item of the report, with the chair so
designated.
The committee chairs will forward the recommendations and documentation of the review committees to
the Dean. For Biomedical Library faculty, the Dean consults with the Director of the Biomedical Library
concerning the recommendations.
The Dean completes the Faculty Promotion and Tenure Recommendation and submits it to the Provost, Sr.
Vice President for Academic Affairs. Recommendations concerning Biomedical Library faculty are
submitted to the Dean of the College of Medicine. In cases of joint appointments in other colleges (as
defined in 3.3.2 of the Faculty Handbook), the Dean of University Libraries consults with the appropriate
dean. See the Calendar for Evaluations/Promotion/Tenure for suggested dates.
After the decision of the Board of Trustees has been released, the candidate whose tenure or promotion
request was denied, may request from the Dean an oral summary of reasons for both the committee’s and
the Dean’s recommendations.
4.5
MID-TENURE REVIEW
Tenure-track faculty will be formally reviewed mid-way through the probationary period by the Tenure
Review Committee. This review is intended to assist the candidate by focusing on issues and criteria related
to the candidate’s progress toward tenure. The tenure committee submits a written evaluation to the
supervisor and the Dean, which becomes a part of the Annual Report. The candidate’s supervisor and
appropriate library administrator will be responsible for ongoing counseling. The candidate will receive a
copy of this evaluation during consultation with the appropriate library administrator.
15
5.0
REAPPOINTMENT AND SEVERANCE
5.1
Reappointment
Reappointment is the annual issuance of a letter of reappointment by the appropriate library administrator
and University Administration, which results in a year's appointment for non-tenured faculty. Biomedical
Librarians approval is from the Dean of the College of Medicine. For dates, see “The Standards for Notice
of Non-Reappointment” in the Faculty Handbook (3.15.2).
5.2
Criteria for Reappointment
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Effective performance of duties
Administrative performance, if applicable
Research and professional development activities
Ability to work effectively with libraries faculty and staff
Potential to grow and develop to meet the needs of the institution
Willingness to assume additional committee and project responsibilities
Continuing education and teaching, if applicable
These criteria state potential areas of professional activities, not absolute performance requirements.
Specific performance criteria for promotion in rank and tenure are outlined elsewhere.
5.3
Procedure for Reappointment
All tenure-track and instructor librarians will be considered for reappointment by the appropriate library
administrator. For appropriate dates, see “The Standards for Notice of Non-Reappointment” in the Faculty
Handbook (3.15.2).
For tenure-track and instructor librarians, documents that may be relevant to reappointment should be in the
faculty member's annual report portfolio. The documents to be used for reappointment may include the
following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.4
Self evaluation
Peer evaluation
Supervisory evaluation
Supplementary material submitted by the faculty member
Additional evaluations, where applicable
Severance
The appropriate library administrator will review the above documents, and in cases of non-reappointment,
the Dean makes a recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs; for Biomedical Librarians,
the recommendation is also forwarded to the Vice President for Health Sciences. The Dean may ask the
Tenure Review Committee to make recommendations in cases where non-reappointment is being
considered. Formal procedures for non-reappointment are contained in section 3.15, ‘Severance Policy and
Procedures’ of the Faculty Handbook.
16
6.0
UPDATING THE LIBRARIES FACULTY PROCEDURAL MANUAL
Dean of the University Libraries will make all changes to this document based on changes in University
policy, the organizational or reporting structure, technology such as electronic portfolios or submission
software, or requests recommended by the chairs of the tenure and promotion committees. Non-tenured
faculty members may also provide feedback to the chair of the tenure and promotion committee at any time.
The Dean shall communicate all changes to the libraries faculty and make certain the latest copy of the
Manual is available on the appropriate website.
17
Annual Report
(Section 2.2)
The Annual Report will consist of the following:
A.
Curriculum Vita from Digital Measures
B.
Faculty Member’s Annual Goal Statement and Self-Evaluation
Professional Responsibilities
1.
Formal job description
2.
Special assignments or projects (if designated with supervisor)
3.
Describe any changes in responsibilities during the year
4.
Annual goal statements
Self Evaluation Summaries
1.
Job performance and effectiveness summary
2.
Research/professional development summary
3.
University service summary
C.
Supervisor’s Evaluation
D.
Any other item, which the reviewee deems of sufficient importance to be brought to the
attention of the committee
18
Appendix A
Goal Statement
Year ___________
Name _________________________________________________Date
Faculty Rank
Library/Dept.
1.
Goal Statement:
2.
State related job responsibilities, departmental goals, and/or libraries objectives supported by this goal:
3.
Action plan:
4.
Comments on progress:
5.
Final self-evaluation:
19
APPENDIX B
Reporting period: _____________________
Supervisor’s Evaluation Outline
Year __________
Faculty Member Being Evaluated:
Current Rank:
Dept.:
Library:
(See Section 2.1)
Supervisor’s Statement of Evaluatee’s Responsibilities:
1. Job Performance and Effectiveness
Accomplishments and contributions:
Areas for improvement and future goals:
2. Professional Development, Research, and Scholarly Activity
Accomplishments & Contributions:
Areas for improvement and future goals:
3. University Service
Accomplishments and contributions:
Areas for improvement and future goals:
SUMMARY:
Signed________________________________________
Supervisor
Date__________________________________________
I acknowledge by my signature that I have read this evaluation and have discussed it with my supervisor. I reserve
the right to submit a rebuttal to the appropriate library administrator within ten (10) days. My signature implies
neither agreement nor disagreement with the evaluation.
Signed________________________________________
Faculty Member
Date__________________________________________
20
APPENDIX C
Peer Reviewer Request
Requester’s Name:_
Current Position:
Library Assigned:
Department Assigned:
Peer Reviewers: Annual Report
1.
Position:
2.
Position:
3.
Position:
Additional Reviewers: Annual Report Section I
For faculty members with other University responsibilities such as teaching, additional evaluations may
be included in the portfolios from academic units outside the libraries.
All letters of evaluation will be requested by Library Administration including those which faculty
members wish solicited for their portfolios.
Name:
Title:
Address:
Reason(s) you wish this person to evaluate you:__
Additional evaluations: (cont’d)
Name:
Title:
Address:
Reason(s) you wish this person to evaluate you:
21
Appendix D
Request for Change in AAP Weighting Factors
(Due within two weeks before or after beginning of evaluation year.)
Name:
Position:
I request that my weighting factors for the ___________year be changed as follows:
Job Performance
Professional Development
Change to:
University Service
Change to:
Change to:
1. Primary (Default 6.0)
3.*Publications (Default 1.0)
8. Committees (Default .75)
2.
4. Research (Default .25)
9. Extracurricular (Default .0)
5. Professional (Default .75)
10. Community (Default .25)
6. Presentations (Default .50)
11. Other (Default .0)
7. Other (Default (.50)
Total Points (Must be 10)
* 3. Publication must be privileged, i.e., weighted higher than #4, 5, or 6.
Justification (required, use other side of this sheet, if additional space needed):
Requesting Faculty Member
Date
Approval Signatures:
Supervisor (If applicable)
Date
Director of Biomedical Library (If applicable)
Date
Dean of University Libraries (Required)
Date
22
APPENDIX E
Affirmative Action Plan Evaluation of Faculty
Modified for Libraries Faculty – Default Weights
Evaluation Year
Rank
Name
Dept.
Rank the faculty member on each of the following criteria, according to national professional standards,
using a scale of 0 – 10 (0=lowest, 5=average, 10=highest). Multiply the ratings by the rating factor for your
particular department, and then add the results to get the overall rating figure.
Rating
x
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Job Performance (Typically 60%)
1. Primary Job Responsibilities
2. Other (specify):
x
x
6.00
x
x
1.00
0.25
x
0.75
x
x
0.50
0.50
x
0.75
x
x
0.25
Professional Development Typically 30%)
3. Publications
4. Research, grant activity
5. Participation in professional institutes,
workshops, courses, conferences, etc.
6. Presentations to professional
organizations
7. Other (specify):
University Service (Typically 10%)
8. Committee service
9. Extracurricular participation
(student organization advisor, etc.)
10. University-related community service
11. Other (specify):
Total:
Rated by
Position
Date
Rated by
Position
Date
This signifies that I have had the opportunity to see and discuss this evaluation, and I reserve the right to
submit a written rebuttal of this evaluation to the dean within ten working days of this date.
Faculty Member’s Signature
Date
Faculty Member’s Comments:
23
Appendix F
Affirmative Action Plan Evaluation of Faculty
Modified for Libraries Faculty – Changes in Weights
Evaluation Year
Name
Rank
Dept. University
Libraries
Rank the faculty member on each of the following criteria, according to national professional standards,
using a scale of 0 – 10 (0=lowest, 5=average, 10=highest). Multiply the ratings by the rating factor for your
particular department, and then add the results to get the overall rating figure.
Weighting
Weighted
x
Rating
Factor
Score
Job Performance (Typically 60%)
1. Primary Job Responsibilities
2. Other (specify):
x
x
Professional Development Typically 30%)
3. Publications
4. Research, grant activity
5. Participation in professional institutes,
workshops, courses, conferences, etc.
6. Presentations to professional
organizations
7. Other (specify):
x
x
x
x
x
University Service (Typically 10%)
8. Committee service
9. Extracurricular participation
(student organization advisor, etc.)
10. University-related community service
11. Other (specify):
x
x
x
x
Total:
Rated by
Position
Date
Rated by
Position
Date
This signifies that I have had the opportunity to see and discuss this evaluation, and I reserve the right to
submit a written rebuttal of this evaluation to the dean within ten working days of this date.
Faculty Member’s Signature
Date
Faculty Member’s Comments:
24
Appendix G
AAP Evaluation of Faculty Guidelines
General Information
1. The AAP Evaluation of Faculty is mandated by the University’s Affirmative Action Plan and must be
done on all libraries faculty each year; it is not optional.
2. This evaluation has as its primary purpose the systematic and objectified improvement of faculty
evaluation procedures. The chosen and mandated method is to rank the libraries faculty according to
the degree of their professional competence and performance, as exemplified in the stipulated criteria,
and to array that ranking against faculty salaries within the department to identify possible
discrepancies.
3. The AAP Evaluation is an evaluation of librarians by the Dean and should be so understood. For
AAP evaluation purposes, the Dean will not be evaluated or ranked. For Biomedical Library (BL)
faculty, the Director will not be evaluated or ranked and shall consult with the Dean of University
Libraries in scoring BL faculty.
4. The Dean should avoid rating the libraries faculty only against itself, i.e., “grading on the curve.”
Rather, they should be evaluated in terms of a standard of excellence based on the profession as a
whole. The Medical Library Association Academy of Health Information Professionals (AHIP) points
system will be used as a guide because it is the only national standard at this time.
5. So that the evaluation will reflect professional experience, the libraries faculty should be evaluated
within their professional ranks.
6. The AAP Evaluation form weights the three basic divisions of the criteria as follows:
•
•
•
Job Effectiveness, 60 percent;
Professional Development, 30 percent;
University Service, 10 percent.
These weights are flexible and may be negotiated individually by faculty members with the Dean in
advance or at the beginning of the evaluation year. In such case, the faculty member and Dean of
University Libraries will mutually agree on a statement of activities and weights. The faculty member
will prepare a written statement justifying the change, including the agreed upon change(s) in
activities. The statement should address, as specifically as possible, the eleven criteria shown on the
Faculty Evaluation Sheet. More specific criteria, relating activities to items on the evaluation form,
may be specified. This description should include a statement of the weighting of individual factors
on the evaluation form. In the event agreement cannot be reached, the differences will be resolved by
the Dean.
Evaluation Procedures
1. Evaluate each librarian using the Faculty Evaluation Sheet for scoring and the guidelines/instructions
below. Identify each faculty member by name and academic rank.
2. The librarian will be evaluated on each criterion using a scale of 0 – 10, with 0 the lowest, 5 the
average, and 10 the highest value for each. Ratings will be assigned on a relative basis to each
25
Appendix H
academic rank, i.e., senior librarians, associate librarians, assistant librarians, instructors, and senior
instructors.
3. After the evaluation is completed, and only then, the evaluation must be reviewed with the individual
faculty member. During the review, the faculty member may request information regarding general
standing relative to other members of the department. Information concerning the relative allocation
of recommended merit increases will be provided when available. Signature on the form indicates
that this review has taken place; it does not necessarily signify agreement with the rating assigned.
4. The back of the form may be used by the faculty member to make any comments.
5. Using the rating figures from the evaluation sheets, the Dean of University Libraries should array the
faculty, from highest to lowest, in each rank. To this array should be added the current salary figures
for each faculty member.
6. The arrays should be examined by the Dean for any possible discrepancies between salaries and
rankings. Should any appear, the Dean should list them together with the explanation of the reasons
therefore or, if appropriate, proposals for remedial action should be sent to the Provost/Senior Vice
President for Academic Affairs.
7. Using the same rating figures, the Dean should rank the entire department faculty in the same way
without regard for professional level.
Guidelines for Using the Faculty Evaluation Form
1. Primary Job Responsibilities. This criterion covers the duties and responsibilities of the librarian as
specified in the position description and others assigned by the supervisor(s).
2. Other (specify). This criterion covers special duties and responsibilities assigned or agreed to by the
Dean and the librarian.
3. Publications. As with research, it is important to discriminate between professional publication and
publication extraneous to the faculty member’s field. In addition, scholarly journals vary in prestige;
a single article in a major publication may be equivalent to three or four articles in lesser ones. This
category must be privileged, i.e., weighted higher than 4, 5, and 6.
4. Research, grant activity. This should reflect all professionally oriented research or creative
activities of the particular faculty member, whether or not they result in publication. Grant activity
should be reflected here.
5. Participation in professional institutes, workshops, conferences, etc. The category should reflect
any participation in professional activities, which enhance skills, and knowledge in professional areas.
6. Presentations to professional organizations. Here again, it is important to consider the element of
professionalism. A talk given to the Rotary Club or the Junior League, for example, would not
properly be subsumed under this criterion.
7. Other (specify). This category of activities should be specified, but may include such activities as
official professional recognition, or commendation, offices held in professional groups, activities such
as serving as an editor, researcher, or abstractor on a continuing basis for a professional journal, or a
prestigious lecture or seminar appointment, etc.
26
Appendix H
8. Committee service. The score here should reflect the faculty member’s participation in and
contribution to the work of the University-wide, collegiate, and departmental committees and
councils, and the Faculty Senate.
9. Extracurricular participation, etc. The librarian should describe the nature of his or her
involvement in extracurricular student organizations and activities.
10. University-related community service. This item reflects University-related community service,
such as providing continuing education, professional consulting, or expert testimony, speaking before
groups on behalf of the University or the profession, career guidance visits to high schools, etc.
11. Other (specify). This category of activities should be specified, but may include such activities as
University-related clinical service, service on advisory boards, etc.
27
Appendix H
AAP Self-Evaluation Rating Scale
University Libraries
Evaluation Period:
Name:
Date Submitted:
Record all pertinent information and explain the extent of your participation.
Remember: If you have requested a change in weighting factors from the default weights for this period,
record the change, and you will be evaluated based on this change.
Scores are entered by the Dean and/or Supervisor only. The maximum score within each category
is 10 points.
Use NA (not applicable) for any items that do not apply to you or delete the rows not applicable.
(Helpful Hint: Use Ctrl/tab to utilize the tab key within a cell.)
JOB PERFORMANCE
(BY SUPERVISOR/DEAN)
(Typically 60%)
Weighting Factor
Default Weighting Factor: 6.00
6.00
1. Primary:
2. Other (Specify):
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
(Typically
30%)
Scores
(Supervisor/Dean
Only)
3. Publications
Default Weighting Factor: 1.00
Author of brief, non-peer reviewed, non-research article (1-3 points)
•
Book or media review author (1-3 points)
•
Byline contribution in newsletter (1-3 points)
•
Invited article reviewer (1-3 points)
•
Non-peer-reviewed brief relevant article (1-3 points)
•
Non-peer reviewed brief research article (3-5 points)
•
Non-peer reviewed lengthy research article (5-7 points)
•
Peer-reviewed journal brief research article, column, review article (5-7 points)
•
Peer-reviewed, brief article, column, review (5-7 points)
•
Referee/editorial board member of state or regional newsletter (5-7 points)
•
28
Weighting Factor
Appendix I
Editor/co-editor of state or regional newsletter (7-9 points)
•
Column editor/co-editor of national/international newsletter (7-9 points)
•
Newsletter editorship at state or regional level (7-9 points)
•
Peer-reviewed journal author research article (7-9 points)
•
Professionally published book author/editor/co-author/co-editor (7-9 points)
•
Referee/editorial board member of national newsletter (7-9 points)
•
National journal editor (9-10 points)
•
Newsletter editorship at national/international level (9-10 points)
•
Single author of professionally published book (9-10 points)
•
Two peer-reviewed research articles (10 points)
•
Other
•
Weighting
Factor
4. Research grant activity
Default Weighting Factor: .25
Key personnel (5-7 points)
•
Proposal reviewer for grant agency/organization (5-7 points)
•
Grant applied (6-7 points)
•
Principle investigator/Co-Investigator (7-9 points)
•
Article based on grant, submitted (7-8 points)
•
Article based on grant, accepted (9 points)
•
Other
•
5. Participation in professional institutes, workshops, conferences, etc.
Default Weighting Factor: .75
Weighting
Factor
Local and state conference attendee (1-3 points)
•
Member of professional association (1-3 points)
•
Active committee member of local or state organization (3-5 points)
•
Regional and national conference attendee (3-5 points)
•
Active committee member of regional or national organization (5-7 points)
•
29
Appendix I
Committee chair/co-chair of local or state organization (5-7 points)
•
Committee chair/co-chair of regional or national organization (7-9 points)
•
Officer/director/board/executive committee member of state or national organization
(7-9 points)
•
President of national professional association (9-10 points)
•
Other
•
Weighting
Factor
6. Presentations to professional organizations
Default Weighting Factor: .50
Facilitated or moderated a paper or panel discussion at professional meeting (1-3
points)
•
Roundtable facilitator or recorder at professional meeting (1-3 points)
•
Exhibitor at local, state, or regional meeting (3-5 points)
•
Guest Lecturer to other library-related organization (3-5 points)
•
Poster presenter at University Research Forum (3-5 points)
•
Workshop presenter at local level (3-5 points)
•
Conference speaker/paper presenter at local or state meetings (5-7 points)
•
Poster presenter at state meeting (5-7 points)
•
Conference speaker/paper presenter at regional or national meetings (7-9 points)
•
Poster presenter at regional or national meeting (7-9 points)
•
Conference speaker/paper presenter at 2 regional or national meetings (10 points)
•
Other
•
Weighting
Factor
7. Other (specify)
Default Weighting Factor: .50
Attend university workshops, webinars, e-conferences (1-3 points)
•
Facilitator/coordinator of displays (art, traveling exhibits, etc.) (1-3 points)
•
Journal club participant (1-3 points)
•
Web, Wiki, or blog editor at local level (3-5 points)
•
Moderator of a local or state professional listserv (5-7 points)
•
30
Appendix I
Web, Wiki, or blog editor at state level (5-7 points)
•
Moderator of a regional or national professional listserv (7-9 points)
•
Web, Wiki, or blog editor at regional or national level (7-9 points)
•
Other
•
UNIVERSITY SERVICE
(Typically 10%)
Weighting
Factor
8. Committee service
Default Weighting Factor: .75
Member of USA Libraries Committee (1-3 points)
•
Chair or Secretary of USA Libraries Committee (3-5 points)
•
Member of Faculty Senate (3-5 points)
•
Active Faculty Senate committee member (5-7 points)
•
Active member of 1-2 USA-institutional committee(s) (5-7 points)
•
Faculty Senate web site manager (5-7 points)
•
Active member of 3 or more USA-institutional committees (7-9 points)
•
Chair of Faculty Senate committee (7-9 points)
•
Vice-chair/Chair-elect of USA Faculty Senate (7-9 points)
•
Chair of national accreditation committee, etc. (9-10 points)
•
Chair of USA Faculty Senate (9-10 points)
•
Secretary of USA Faculty Senate (9-10 points)
•
Other
•
9. Extracurricular participation (Library-related community service, etc.)
Default Weighting Factor: 0
Weighting
Factor
Faculty advisor for student organizations (5-7 points)
•
Faculty advisor for two student organizations (9-10 points)
•
Other
•
31
Appendix I
Weighting
Factor
10. University-related community service.
Default Weighting Factor: .25
Points determined by the quality, value and quantity of activities
•
Weighting
Factor
11. Other (Specify)
Default Weighting Factor: 0
Advisory board member for local or state organization (5-7 points)
•
Advisory board member for regional or national organization (7-9 points)
•
Other
•
32
Appendix I
GUIDELINES FOR PROMOTION / TENURE PORTFOLIO PRESENTATIONS
Adapted for Libraries Faculty
(Section 3.3)
Each faculty member eligible for consideration for promotion and/or tenure shall prepare a portfolio for review by
the following:
•
Library Promotion/Tenure Committee
•
Dean of University Libraries
•
Provost/Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
•
President
The portfolio should be submitted in a three-ring binder obtained from library administration and organized by
sections in the format given below. Supporting documentation, i.e., books, photographs, etc, should not be
forwarded with the portfolio; such documentation should be referenced in the appropriate sections of the portfolio
and made available only upon request by any of the reviewers.
•
•
For promotion, the portfolio begins with a letter of request for consideration for promotion.
For tenure, the portfolio begins with a cover letter justifying qualifications to be awarded tenure.
SECTION I:
Current Curriculum Vita/Biographical Data – Digital Measures Report
A. Name
B.
Academic Rank
C.
Dates of appointment to the University of South Alabama to current rank
D. Educational Credentials
1.
Baccalaureate degree earned, date conferred, granting institution and area of
specialization
2.
Master’s degree earned, date conferred, granting institution, and area
of specialization
3.
Doctorate degree earned, date conferred, granting institution, and area of specialization
E.
Professional designations/licenses
F.
Other credit-earning higher education courses completed
G. Other courses attended for professional development, including course title, date completed,
organization/institution conducting course
SECTION II: Annual Reports
A. For promotion, include all years since last promotion
B.
For tenure, include all years
C.
Only one copy vita, printed from Digital Measures, required for the portfolio
SECTION III: Evaluations - Tenure - all required; Promotion - from last promotion
A. Supervisor’s evaluation
B.
Faculty member’s rebuttal (optional)
C.
Review by the appropriate library administrator (optional)
D. Mid-tenure review
E.
Peer reviews (optional for tenured faculty)
F.
Additional reviews
33
Appendix J
SECTION IV: Job Performance & Effectiveness
A. This section will include self-evaluations discussing the following:
1.
Development of library resources
2.
Use of library resources
3.
Effectiveness in supervision of library personnel
4.
Organizational ability
5.
Knowledge in area of library responsibility
6.
Application of professional knowledge
7.
Willingness to accept the appropriate responsibility
8.
Productive expenditure of time
9.
Rapport with staff, faculty, students
10.
Effectiveness in helping patrons
11.
Objective decision-marking
12.
Ability to communicate verbally
13.
Ability to communicate in writing
14.
Adaptability (adjust to new ideas and changing conditions)
15.
Willingness to improve performance
16.
Teaching or instructional methods
17.
Innovative or creative contributions
18.
Timely completion of annual self-evaluation
19.
Participation in peer review process
B.
Librarians who also teach academic courses at USA would expand this section to include
outline for the “Teaching” section of the Guidelines for Promotion/Tenure Portfolio
Presentations.
SECTION V: Research/Professional Development
A.
Publications and manuscripts accepted for publication (include full bibliographic citations)
B.
Manuscripts submitted for publication (copies attached)
C.
Grant and Contract Awards; Grant and Contract Submissions
D.
Research Activities
E.
Paper Presentations
F.
Concerts, recitals, art shows, design, displays, performances, productions, etc.
G.
Participation in professional organizations (offices held, sessions chaired, etc.) – indicate
national, regional, state, or local organizations and dates of service.
H.
Activities such as professional advisor, consultant, clinician, workshop leader, editor, etc.
I.
Honors and awards earned for professional publications
J.
Participation in short courses, workshops, etc.
SECTION VI: University Service
A.
Service on University-level committees, including Faculty Senate
B.
Service on College-level and Department-level committees
C.
Extracurricular activities, i.e., student organization advisor, counseling, etc.
D.
University-related community services, which involve field expertise, i.e., advisory boards,
expert testimony, career guidance, etc.
SECTION VII:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Recommendations
This section will contain signed recommendations from the various reviewers, i.e.,
Supervisor (if applicable)
Library Promotion/Tenure Committee (signed by all members)
Dean of University Libraries
External Reviewers (required for tenure applications only)
34
Appendix J