UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA
LIBRARIES FACULTY PROCEDURAL MANUAL
February 3, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
PREFACE ............................................................................................................................ 2
FACULTY APPOINTMENTS AND SEARCHES .......................................................... 3
1.1 Request to Fill a Faculty Vacancy ................................................................................... 3
1.2 Procedures in the University Libraries ............................................................................ 3
1.3 Interview Process and Guidelines .................................................................................... 4
ANNUAL LIBRARIES FACULTY EVALUATION PROCESS .................................... 6
2.1 Basis of Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Annual Faculty Report (AFR) ......................................................................................... 6
2.3 Faculty Member’s Annual Self-Evaluation ..................................................................... 7
2.4 Supervisory Evaluation Process ...................................................................................... 7
2.5 Annual Peer Review ........................................................................................................ 7
2.6 Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) Weights & Weighting Factors ...................................... 8
2.7 Rating Process ................................................................................................................. 9
PROMOTION IN RANK .................................................................................................. 10
3.1 Promotion Review Committee ...................................................................................... 10
3.2 Promotion Criteria ......................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Portfolio for Promotion ................................................................................................. 11
3.4 Promotion Review Process ............................................................................................ 11
TENURE ............................................................................................................................. 11
4.1 Tenure Review Committee ............................................................................................ 11
4.2 Initiation of the Tenure Review Process ........................................................................ 12
4.3 Portfolio for Tenure ....................................................................................................... 12
4.4 Tenure Review Procedures ............................................................................................ 12
4.5 Mid-Tenure Review ....................................................................................................... 13
REAPPOINTMENT AND SEVERANCE ....................................................................... 14
5.1 Reappointment ............................................................................................................... 14
5.2 Criteria for Reappointment ............................................................................................ 14
5.3 Procedure for Reappointment ........................................................................................ 14
5.4 Severance ....................................................................................................................... 14
UPDATING THE LIBRARIES FACULTY PROCEDURAL MANUAL .................... 15
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 16-42
A. Faculty Evaluation Calendar .......................................................................................... 17
B. Annual Faculty Report ................................................................................................... 21
C. Goal Statement ............................................................................................................... 23
D. Supervisor’s Evaluation Outline .................................................................................... 25
E. Peer Reviewer Request ................................................................................................... 27
F. Request for Change in AAP Weighting Factors ............................................................. 29
G. AAP Evaluation of Faculty Form................................................................................... 31
H. AAP Faculty Evaluation Guidelines .............................................................................. 34
I. AAP Departmental Rating Scale ..................................................................................... 38
J. Guidelines for Promotion/Tenure Portfolio Presentations .............................................. 41
1
PREFACE
Because the University Libraries’ organizational and reporting structure crosses academic division and college
lines, 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/or Vice
President for Health Sciences, and the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. It also specifies the
procedures for library supervisors relative to library administration 1 .
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.
2
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’s search committee appointed by the Dean of
University Libraries, the interview process and guidelines, recommendation process, appointment, and postappointment/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 Description 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 position
description/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
3
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 and select at least the top 3-5 candidates and request references for
these 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 oncampus 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. It is customary for
library administration to be 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.
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
4
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.
The libraries faculty will have timely access to the files of all applicants being interviewed and are expected to
keep the information confidential. The files are kept in the Dean’s office.
Although it is normally the responsibility of each candidate to make travel arrangements to and from the Mobile
area, library administration may do so to maintain fiscal control when warranted.
It is the responsibility of library administration to make local arrangements for lodging, transportation, and
meals for the candidates, as well as to pay for such costs.
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/
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.
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 shall direct 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. See http://www.southalabama.edu/recordsmanagement/USArda.pdf
5
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 of 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 Faculty 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 increments. 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 Appendix A of this manual. 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, and the like.
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 (see Appendix C)
correlating to the departmental goals, and/or libraries objectives. Personal objectives, action plan, and a selfevaluation 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 for the
purpose of coming to agreement on the 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 then
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 Faculty Report (see Appendix B).
2.2
Annual Faculty Report (AFR)
Each faculty member must structure an Annual Faculty Report as outlined in Appendix B for the appropriate
evaluation period. The tenured faculty evaluation period is April 1 – March 31, and the non-tenured faculty
evaluation period is January 1 – December 31. Bring one complete paper copy of the AFR (including all
attachments, exhibits, copies of articles, etc.) in a binder to the Dean’s office by the due date, and submit an
electronic copy (email, or use a flash drive if file is larger than 15.6 MB) of the AFR to the Dean’s office, the
6
supervisor, and to the peer reviewers for use in the Annual Peer Review process. Only that part of the AFR,
which concerns the year under consideration, is used in the Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) and supervisory
evaluation process.
2.3
Faculty Member's Annual Self-Evaluation
All faculty members will prepare their Annual Faculty Report, which will include their vita, goal statement, and
annual self-evaluation (see Appendix B, and Appendix C). The reviewee will submit the complete AFR,
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. The Dean’s office will send reminders of deadlines to faculty members;
therefore, 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 AFR 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 and AAP Departmental Rating Scale (See
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 D, the supervisor prepares the final evaluation copy, which will become part of the Annual
Faculty 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 Faculty
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 AFR, which the supervisor and faculty member has access. The Director of the
Biomedical Library will send the completed AFR to the Dean. The dates by which these actions occur are
listed in Appendix A.
7
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 non-tenured faculty based
on the calendar dates in Appendix A, 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. No more than one non-tenured libraries faculty member may be named (see Appendix
E). 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 responsibilities, such as teaching or faculty development
activities. The peer reviews are included in the AFR. All letters of evaluation will be requested by the
library administration including those which faculty wish to be solicited for their portfolios.
(3)
All letters of evaluation shall be available to the library administration and to the appropriate review
committee but will otherwise be confidential.
(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.
(5)
The Dean will publish a list of the peer reviewers for non-tenured and those 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.
(6)
The Dean is responsible for ensuring the confidentiality of the peer reviews submitted and for providing a
summary of the evaluations to the faculty member without identifying the reviewer.
2.6
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 librarian’s evaluation year, the librarian must decide
whether to request a change in weighting factors or accept the default weights (see Appendices F and G). The
defaults apply if the librarian fails to request a change in them. 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.
8
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
The primary supervisor will meet with the appropriate library administrator and develop a consensus concerning
the quantitative scores for the period April 1 through March 31 for tenured librarians, and January 1 through
December 31 for non-tenured librarians (see 2.2). 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 (see Appendix 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
distribution. 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 (see Appendix 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:
Performance consistently fulfills requirements; work is frequently beyond that
expected as measured against national professional standards.
5.0
Adequate:
Performance is consistently adequate and satisfactory, as measured against
national professional standards.
2.5
Needs improvement: Performance occasionally meets requirements; while work is not totally
unacceptable, performance is below that which is expected as measured against
national professional standards.
1.0
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.
0
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.
9
Proper documentation in the AFR, 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. 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
recorder 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, which will be
attached 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.
If there are no candidates up for promotion in the coming academic year, the November meeting to select the
chair and secretary will be postponed until spring semester, when it is time to begin the review of the annual
reports for the non-tenured library faculty.
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
consistent quality performance in all three categories over the years of service being considered.
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
10
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. 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.”
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 promotion. The Dean will publish a list of individuals eligible for first-time promotion
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
those 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 librarian, associate librarian, 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 recorder at this first meeting. Rank is not a
consideration in the selection of the chair. 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.
11
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 subsequent meetings and is responsible
for ensuring reports and recommendations are made in accordance with the requirements of this document.
If there are no candidates up for tenure in the coming academic year, the fall meeting to select the chair and
secretary will be postponed until spring semester, when it is time to begin the review of the Annual Faculty
Reports for the untenured library faculty.
The Tenure Review Committee shall meet annually to review all untenured faculty and provide library
administration with recommendations for 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 may prepare 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” (see Appendix J). For those up for
tenure, the AFR is submitted to the supervisor.
4.3
Portfolio for Tenure
The candidate applying for tenure will prepare a portfolio consisting of all previous Annual Faculty Reports and
the documentation outlined in Appendix J. If the candidate is also applying for promotion, the documentation
should be titled “Portfolio for Tenure and Promotion.” The complete Portfolio, including supervisor’s
evaluations, should be submitted to the Dean. Library administration may make optional responses to
supervisory evaluations for those up for tenure.
4.4
Tenure Review Procedures
Documentation to be used for review is prepared during the evaluation process as outlined in the section
"Annual Libraries Faculty Evaluation” (see 2.0 LFPM). The complete set of annual report documents will be
made available to the Promotion and Tenure Review Committees and to the library administration (see
Appendix B). All documentation 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 are to 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 preemployment record, personal financial data, medical records, police and court records, and records of political
activity are to be excluded from the Annual Faculty Report.
(1) Internal and external reviews of the candidate’s research/professional development and service
contributions are to be included in all applications, per the following guidelines.
Internal –
(Promotion and Tenure) Up to three reviews by USA Libraries faculty members to be
chosen by the candidate.
University – (Promotion and Tenure) Up to three reviews from faculty of the University, but outside
reviews may be chosen by the candidate.
12
External –
(Tenure) Three to five reviews from outside the University are required, based on
3.11.4.3 of the Faculty Handbook.
(2) All letters of recommendation, both from within and outside the University, will be requested by library
administration. The requests will be mailed with curriculum vita, relevant documentation, i.e. published
articles, criteria, etc., prior to the end of the fall semester. This will allow timely response in order that such
letters may be included in the promotion and/or tenure review process.
(3) All such letters of recommendation shall be available to library administration and the appropriate review
committee, but will otherwise be confidential.
The Dean will notify the members of the faculty review committees and the Biomedical Library Director that
the documentation for the review process has been compiled. The chairs of the review committees will
establish dates for their meetings and notify committee members the documentation is ready and the date of the
scheduled meeting. The committees will convene by the date suggested in Appendix A.
The Biomedical Library Director will submit a written recommendation, with rationale, as well as request a
recommendation (optional) from the Vice President for Health Sciences and Dean of the College of Medicine.
For USABC, the unit Director will be considered the department head in consideration of promotion and tenure
recommendations, and will submit a written recommendation.
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 will be shown 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
Summary Form and submits it to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Recommendations concerning
Biomedical Library faculty will be submitted to the VP for Health Sciences/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 Appendix A 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 Faculty 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.
13
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. Specifically for
Biomedical Librarians, the approval of the Dean of the College of Medicine is required. For the USABC
Librarian, the approval of the Director of the Baldwin County program and the Dean of the College of
Continuing Education and Special Programs is required. For dates, see “The Standards for Notice of NonReappointment” in the Faculty Handbook (3.15.2).
5.2
Criteria for Reappointment
General criteria for reappointment include the following:
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.
14
6.0
UPDATING THE LIBRARIES FACULTY PROCEDURAL MANUAL
All changes to this document will be made by the Dean of the University Libraries 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. Nontenured faculty members may also provide feedback to the Chair of the Tenure and Promotion Faculty
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.
15
Appendix A
Faculty Evaluation Calendar
16
Appendix A
Faculty Evaluation Calendar
Deadline
Faculty Goals and Annual Report
Promotion and Tenure
Aug. 1
P.A. forms due to payroll on individuals promoted
Aug. 15
Promotion/tenure appointments (from previous
year’s cycle) are effective
Sept. 1
Faculty submit names of reviewers (2.5[1])
October
Mid-year review of individual goals
Oct. 1
Dean sends intent form to those eligible for
promotion (see 3.4)
Nov. 1
Intent forms due to Library Administration
Nov. 3
Library Administration will publish list of those
eligible for tenure consideration (see 4.2)
Nov. 3
Library Administration will publish list of those
eligible for promotion consideration for the first
time (see 3.4)
Dean calls first meeting of P & T committees.
Charges committees to perform pre-tenure, tenure,
& promotion reviews. Gives list of candidates in
each category. Chair(s) elected (see 3.1 and 4.1)
Nov. 15
Dean sends peer evaluator request form to nontenured Libraries Faculty (see 2.5)
Dec. 5
Dean notifies non-tenured Libraries Faculty to
update their Faculty Annual Report by Jan 15th (see
2.5)
Dec. 5
For non-tenured Libraries Faculty, latest date to
submit names for peer review to Dean (see 2.5)
For those up for promotion and/or tenure, latest date
to submit names for peer reviewers to the Dean (see
2.5)
Potential external reviewers are due to Tenure
Committee chair (see 4.4)
Dec. 5
Dec. 10
Chair of Tenure Committee selects external
reviewers from the candidate’s list and provides this
to Library Administration (see 4.4)
Dec. 12
Faculty member submits written statement for
promotion/tenure consideration (see 3.4 and 4.2)
Dec. 13
For non-tenured Libraries Faculty, Dean publishes
preliminary roster of peer reviewers (see 2.5)
For those up for promotion and/or tenure, latest date
for Dean to publish preliminary roster of peer
reviewers
Dec. 16
Deadline for Faculty to petition the Dean to be
relieved of responsibility for preparing individual
peer evaluations for non-tenured faculty
Deadline for Faculty to petition the Dean to be
relieved of responsibility for preparing individual
peer evaluations for those up for promotion and/or
tenure
Dec. 20
Dean requests additional evaluations as requested
by non-tenured faculty member for their annual
reports
Library Administration will request
recommendation letters for promotion/tenure
17
Appendix A
Deadline
Faculty Goals and Annual Report
Promotion and Tenure
Jan. 15
For non-tenured librarians, Annual Faculty Report
is submitted to supervisor
For those up for promotion and/or tenure, Annual
Report Portfolio is submitted to supervisor.
Jan. 15
Dean sends peer evaluator request form to tenured
Libraries Faculty
Jan. 25
For non-tenured Library Faculty, Supervisor’s
evaluation is completed and discussed
Supervisor’s evaluation for those up for promotion
and/or tenure is completed.
Jan. 25
Completed peer reviews for non-tenured Library
Faculty are submitted to Library Administration
Completed peer reviews for those up for promotion
and/or tenure are submitted to Library
Administration
Feb. 1
Dean notifies tenured Libraries Faculty to update
the Annual Faculty Report by April 7th
Feb. 1
Tenured Library Faculty submits names for peer
review to Dean of University Libraries
Feb. 1
For non-tenured librarians, the complete Annual
Faculty Report is submitted to the Dean
For those up for promotion and/or tenure, the
complete Annual Report Portfolio is submitted to
the Dean
Feb. 6
Library Administration makes optional response to
supervisory evaluations for non-tenured librarians
Library Admin makes optional response to
supervisory evaluations for those up for promotion
and/or tenure.
Feb. 7
Dean adds transmittal form and notifies P & T
committee chair(s) that documentation is ready
Feb. 8
Dean publishes preliminary roster of peer reviewers
for tenured Libraries Faculty member
P & T Committee Chair(s) will establish dates and
locations for the committee meetings. The chair(s)
will notify committee members that the
documentation is ready and the date of the
scheduled meeting.
Feb. 12
Latest date to petition the Dean to be relieved of
responsibility for preparing individual peer
evaluations for tenured faculty
Feb. 18
Dean publishes final roster of optional peer
reviewers for tenured Library Faculty member
Feb. 18
Dean requests additional evaluations as requested
by individual tenured faculty member for their
annual reports
Feb. 22
Latest date to convene P & T Committees
Feb. 24
P & T Committees’ recommendations made to the
Dean
Mar. 1
Dean gives recommendations for reappointment or
non-reappointment of non-tenured faculty to Vice
President for Academic Affairs
18
Dean gives recommendations for promotion and/or
tenure to Vice President for Academic Affairs.
Appendix A
Deadline
Faculty Goals and Annual Report
Promotion and Tenure
Recommendations for promotion or tenure due to
University President
April
April 7
Annual Faculty Report (April-March) for tenured
Library Faulty is submitted to supervisor
April 30
Supervisor’s evaluation completed and discussed
with tenured Faculty member
April 30
Completed peer reviews for tenured Library Faculty
are submitted to Library Administration
May 7
For tenured librarians, the complete Annual Faculty
Report submitted to Dean
May 14
Faculty agrees on next year’s goals with supervisor
May 21
Library Administration makes optional response to
supervisory evaluations
May 30
Faculty goals for next year submitted to Library
Administration
May 30
Appropriate library administrator and supervisor
meet to develop consensus concerning AAP Scores
May/June
Promotion/tenure recipients notified
June 1
Latest date for agreement on changes in evaluation
weights for next year
June 11
Library Administration provides faculty member
with a copy of his or her AAP rating form and the
high, low, and median scores for the year
June 15
Faculty receive compilation of comments from peer
evaluations
19
Appendix A
Appendix B
Annual Faculty Report
20
APPENDIX B
Annual Faculty Report
(Section 2.2)
The Annual Faculty Report will consist of the following:
A.
Curriculum Vita
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
21
Appendix B
Appendix C
Goal Statement
22
APPENDIX C
Goal Statement
Tenured Faculty: April 1 – March 31, Year:
Non-tenured Faculty: January 1 – December 31, 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 (Optional):
5.
Final self-evaluation:
23
Appendix C
Appendix D
Supervisor’s Evaluation
24
APPENDIX D
Supervisor’s Evaluation
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__________________________________________
25
APPENDIX D
Appendix E
Peer Evaluator Request
26
APPENDIX E
PEER EVALUATOR REQUEST
Requester’s Name:_
Current Position:
Library Assigned:
Department Assigned:
Peer Reviewers: Annual Faculty Report
2.5. (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. No more than one non-tenured libraries faculty member may be named (see Appendix E). 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.
1.
Position:
2.
Position:
3.
Position:
Additional Reviewers: Annual Faculty 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:
27
Appendix E
Appendix F
Request for Change in AAP Weighting Factors
28
APPENDIX F
University of South Alabama Libraries Faculty
Request for Change in AAP Weighting Factors
Name:
Position:
I request that my weighting factors for the ___________year be changed as follows:
Job Performance
Professional Development
University Service
1.
3.*
8.
2.
4.
9.
5.
10.
6.
11.
7.
Justification (required, use other side, if necessary):
*(3) Publication must be privileged, i.e., weighted higher than 4, 5, or 6.
Requesting Faculty Member
Date
Approval Signatures:
Supervisor (If applicable)
Date
Director of Biomedical Library (If applicable)
Date
Dean of University Libraries (Required)
Date
29
Appendix F
Appendix G
Affirmative Action Plan Evaluation of Faculty Form
30
APPENDIX G
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN EVALUATION OF FACULTY
Modified for Libraries Faculty
Rank
Name
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.
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.
Date
Faculty Member’s Signature
Faculty Member’s Comments:
31
Appendix G
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN EVALUATION OF FACULTY
Modified for Libraries Faculty
Rank
Name
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
Rating
X
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.
Date
Faculty Member’s Signature
Faculty Member’s Comments:
32
Appendix G
Appendix H
AAP Evaluation of Faculty Guidelines
33
APPENDIX H
University of South Alabama
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
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; and University Service, 10 percent. These weights are
flexible and may be negotiated individually by faculty members with the Dean in advance 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 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.
34
Appendix H
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 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, & 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.
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.
35
Appendix H
Appendix I
AAP Departmental Rating Scale
University Libraries
Listed by Points
36
APPENDIX I
AAP Departmental Rating Scale
University Libraries
Listed by Points
Professional Development (The maximum points within a category (3-11) is 10 points.)
3. Publications
Author of brief, non-peer reviewed, non-research article
Book or media review author
Byline contribution in newsletter
Invited article reviewer
Non-peer-reviewed, brief article, column, review
Authors of non-peer reviewed, research article
Non-peer-reviewed, research article
Peer-reviewed journal brief research article, column, review article
Peer-reviewed, brief article, column, review
Referee/editorial board member of state or regional newsletter
Editor/co-editor of state or regional newsletter
Column editor/co-editor of national/international newsletter
Newsletter editorship at state or regional level
Peer-reviewed journal author research article
Professionally published book author/editor/co-author/co-editor
Referee/editorial board member of national newsletter
National journal editor
Newsletter editorship at national/international level
Single author of professionally published book
Two peer-reviewed research articles
4. Research grant activity
Key personnel
Proposal reviewer for grant agency/organization
Grant applied
Principle investigator/Co-Investigator
Article based on grant, submitted
Article based on grant, accepted
1-3 pts
1-3 pts
1-3 pts
1-3 pts
1-3 pts
5-7 pts
5-7 pts
5-7 pts
5-7 pts
5-7 pts
7-9 pts
7-9 pts
7-9 pts
7-9 pts
7-9 pts
7-9 pts
9-10
pts
9-10
pts
9-10
pts
10 pts
5-7 pts
5-7 pts
6-7 pts
7-9 pts
7-8 pts
9 pts
5. Participation in professional institutes, workshops, conferences, etc.
Local and state conference attendee
Member of professional association
Active committee member of local or state organization
Regional and national conference attendee
Active committee member of regional or national organization
Committee chair/co-chair of local or state organization
Committee chair/co-chair of regional or national organization
Office/director/board/executive committee member of state or national organization
President of national professional association
37
1-3 pts
1-3 pts
3-5 pts
3-5 pts
5-7 pts
5-7 pts
7-9 pts
7-9 pts
9-10 pts
Appendix I
6. Presentations to professional organizations
Facilitated or moderated a paper or panel discussion at professional meeting
Roundtable facilitator or recorder at professional meeting
Exhibitor at local, state, or regional meeting
Guest Lecturer to other library-related organization
Poster presenter at University Research Forum
Workshop presenter at local level
Conference speaker/paper presenter at local or state meetings
Poster presenter at state meeting
Conference speaker/paper presenter at regional or national meetings
Poster presenter at regional or national meeting
Conference speaker/paper presenter at 2 regional or national meetings
1-3 pts
1-3 pts
3-5 pts
3-5 pts
3-5 pts
3-5 pts
5-7 pts
5-7 pts
7-9 pts
7-9 pts
10 pts
7. Other (specify)
Attend university workshops, webinars, e-conferences
Facilitator/coordinator of displays (art, traveling exhibits, etc.)
Journal club participant
Web, Wiki, or blog editor at local level
Moderator of a local or state professional listserv
Web, Wiki, or blog editor at state level
Moderator of a regional or national professional listserv
Web, Wiki, or blog editor at regional or national level
1-3 pts
1-3 pts
1-3 pts
3-5 pts
5-7 pts
5-7 pts
7-9 pts
7-9 pts
University Service
8. Committee service
Member of USA Libraries Committee
Chair or Secretary of USA Libraries Committee
Member of Faculty Senate
Active Faculty Senate committee member
Active member of 1-2 USA-institutional committee(s)
Faculty Senate web site manager
Active member of 3 or more USA-institutional committees
Chair of Faculty Senate committee
Vice-chair/Chair-elect of USA Faculty Senate
Chair of national accreditation committee, etc.
Chair of USA Faculty Senate
Secretary of USA Faculty Senate
1-3 pts
3-5 pts
3-5 pts
5-7 pts
5-7 pts
5-7 pts
7-9 pts
7-9 pts
7-9 pts
9-10 pts
9-10 pts
9-10 pts
9. Extracurricular participation (Library-related community service, etc.)
Faculty advisor for student organizations
Faculty advisor for two student organizations
5-7 pts
9-10 pts
10. University-related community service
Active in one event
Active in two events
5 pts
10 pts
11. Other (Specify)
Advisory board member for local or state organization
Advisory board member for regional or national organization
38
5-7 pts
7-9 pts
Appendix I
Appendix J
Guidelines for Promotion/Tenure Portfolio Presentations
Adapted for Libraries Faculty
39
APPENDIX J
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
•
Senior Vice President for Academic Affair
•
President
The portfolio should be submitted in a three-ring binder and should be 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, a
cover letter justifying qualifications to be awarded tenure
This request is supported by the following sections:
SECTION I:
Current Curriculum Vita/Biographical Data
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 Faculty Reports
A. For promotion, include all years since last promotion
B.
For tenure, include all years
C.
Only one copy of vita required for the portfolio
SECTION III: Evaluations
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
40
Appendix J
SECTION IV: Job Performance & Effectiveness
A. Job Performance and Effectiveness
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; Grand 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:
•
•
•
•
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)
41
Appendix J