MINUTES
Faculty of the College of Forest Resources
1 June 2004
PRESENT: Allan, Bradley, Briggs, Brown, Brubaker, Doty, Eastin, Edmonds, Ewing, Fridley,
Gara, Greulich, Gustafson, Halpern, Harrison, Johnson, Lippke, Manuwal, Marzluff, McKean,
Perez-Garcia, Ryan, Schiess, Sprugel, Strand, Turnblom, Vogt D, Vogt K, West, Wott
EXCUSED: Bolton, Franklin, Hinckley, Hodgson, Lee, Northey, Peterson, Reichard, Schreuder,
Wolf, Zabowski
ABSENT: Bare, Paun, Raedeke, Wagar
PMT COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
Briggs presented a proposal from the current PMT committee suggesting how the PMT
Committee should be configured in the future (see Attachment 1). He stated that the committee
feels that having representation by interest group is a reasonable approach to continue to use. He
stated that it is helpful to have people who are closer to what individuals are doing. The larger
committee can be accommodated by conference calls, email, etc. The present committee also
feels strongly that there needs to be continuity from year to year. Terms should be limited to 3
years and should be staggered. Four existing members will not continue because of sabbaticals
so there will be a partial turnover this year. Faculty must vote on replacements for the individuals
leaving and on representatives for interest groups that have formed since last March. The
committee must be in place in September to begin addressing promotion recommendations,
which will be due to the Dean November 1st.
Gustafson stated that if the faculty approve this approach, he will ask new interest groups and
interest groups who are losing their current representatives to nominate a new representative in
the next few days. The faculty will vote the new slate up or down in the CFR faculty meeting
scheduled for June 8th.
Motion: to accept the PMT Committee recommendation as presented (Manuwal; seconded
Edmonds)
Ten interest groups are currently in place. Concern was expressed about the PMT Committee
being so large. Also, in that some interest groups are small and some are large, there may be
some imbalance in representation and the imbalance might be quite large. Gustafson pointed out
that one person might be elected to represent several interest groups and that the question of
imbalance can be examined when the proposed slate is known. Others commented that the size
of the group shouldn’t be a problem and that it is better to have people well represented. In fact,
it could be useful given the history of two divisions to have a larger group at this time.
The motion was approved with 26 approve, 0 oppose, 19 abstain of 45 eligible votes.
PROMOTION PROCEDURE
Gustafson reviewed the promotion procedure and stressed that this vote is not on promotion itself
but on whether or not non-mandatory promotion candidates appear to have adequate credentials
to go forward so that referee letters can be requested. Faculty voted on this for assistant
professors in the last meeting.
MABBERLY REVOTE PROCESS
For personnel matters, decisions must be by a positive vote from a majority of eligible faculty
members. An earlier vote on this issue was a positive vote of a those attending, but not of all
eligible.
Motion: to approve the appointment of Dr. Mabberly (Sprugel; second __). Approved by vote of
26 approve, 0 oppose, 19 abstain of 45 eligible votes.
POTENTIAL MEETING JUNE 11
A faculty meeting is scheduled for June 8th and there may be an additional meeting on June 11th
to vote on the Precision Forestry Director position if the dean decides to go ahead with a
candidate.
2004 MERIT PROCESS OVERVIEW
Briggs provided an overview on the process used by the PMT Committee in making merit
recommendations for this year (see Attachment 2 for PMT Committee recommendation letter).
Dave reviewed the PMT Committee document “Evaluation of CFR Faculty for Merit Pay” dated
May 26, 2004, page by page. He pointed out that the PMT Committee had a very short time
frame in which to conduct this review and because of this short time frame, they determined they
could only deal with some things this year: teaching and research, not service (data was not
collected in the service area, again because of time restraints). He pointed out that each faculty
member received a print-out with the various data categories, and that each faculty member had
an opportunity to correct this data and to amend the corrections. Spread sheets that resulted from
this data collection were emailed to everybody. The key thing the PMT Committee would like
people to realize is these numbers were not all that was used. PMT Committee members looked
at the statements provided and other factors. This is why they like greater representation to the
committee. Dave also pointed out that this vote is advisory to the Chair.
A comment was made about how important teaching is in the evaluation and the disparities
inherent in people teaching courses that are required for a major but are relatively small. Dave
pointed out that the committee did not use straight SCH counts but gave all faculty members a
double count of SCH associated with required courses and with courses that were team taught
(because they want to reward team teaching). It was pointed out that in the future, when the new
curriculum is fully implemented, only four courses will count as required.
A concern was expressed about the relative ranking between teaching and research (it was felt
that the teaching component has overwhelmingly determined who will be in the top ranking).
Dave commented that this is an issue (particularly where there are very large service courses) to
be addressed by the new PMT Committee. It was pointed out that this year only, again because
of time restraints, the committee elected to pick the high leaders in each category for high merit
which does not consider balance in an individual’s program. Again, this is an issue that will
require consideration by the new committee through the next year. Rick commented that this is a
work in progress and that the merger of the two divisions in January created a less than ideal
situation for this year’s merit review however the new committee will have more time to better
address these issues. The procedure used this year is not locked in place. Dave pointed out that
this is another advantage in having a larger committee so that more minds are involved in
coming up with a better method. It was also pointed out that because service data was not
collected, the service component also skewed results and needs to be considered as well.
Rick stated that it is not his intention to vote on the procedure the present committee used.
Faculty voted on timetables and criteria in earlier meetings and he would like to take the
comments offered today to the new committee for consideration for improvements to the process
for next year. What needs to be accomplished today is a vote on the merit recommendations for
individual faculty members as presented by the PMT Committee. It was pointed out the it is very
important for the committee to get this input from the faculty at large and that even the concept
of weightings needs further consideration.
Rick stated that he would like to thank Dave and the committee for their hard work in pulling
this together under difficult circumstances. The assistant professors were excused for the merit
recommendation discussion and vote on assistant professors.
ASSISTANT MERIT
Rick pointed out that in a previous meeting, CFR faculty approved a procedure to vote on the
assistants as a group rather than to vote on an individual basis. Bob Edmonds moved to accept
the merit recommendations for assistant professors as presented by the PMT Committee. John
Marzluff seconded the motion. The motion was approved with 27 votes to approve, 0 votes to
oppose and 1 vote to abstain of 40 eligible votes.
ASSOCIATE MERIT
The associate professors were excused for the merit recommendation discussion and vote on
associate professors. John Wott moved to accept the merit recommendations for associate
professors as presented by the PMT Committee. Kristiina Vote seconded the motion. The motion
was approved with 22 votes to approve, 0 votes to oppose and 1 vote to abstain of 31 eligible
votes.
ASSOCIATE PROMOTABILITY
Rick stated that the final piece of business for this meeting is to vote on PMT Committee
recommendations for the promotability of associate professors as he briefly reviewed with the
faculty at the beginning of this meeting. He commented that we do not need to vote on Susan
Bolton or Ivan Eastin as they have been recently promoted to full professor. He also stated that
there are three associates who do not require a lot of discussion and he would like to start with
them:
Bob Edmonds moved to accept the recommendation of the PMT Committee that Clare Ryan not
be considered for promotion in the next year as she was just recently promoted from assistant
professor to associate professor. The motion was seconded by John Marzluff. The motion was
approved with 23 votes to approve, 0 votes to oppose and 0 votes to abstain of 31 eligible votes.
Dave Manuwal moved to accept the recommendation of the PMT Committee that Eric Turnblom
not be considered for promotion in the next year as he was recently promoted from assistant
professor to associate professor. The motion was seconded by John Marzluff. The motion was
approved with 23 votes to approve, 0 votes to oppose and
Bob Edmonds moved to accept the recommendation of the PMT Committee that Dan Vogt not
be considered for promotion in the next year. The motion was seconded by Rob Harrison. Rick
commented that he has completed work planning with Dan and they have discussed the things he
would need to do to position himself well for promotion. The motion was approved with 23
votes to approve, 0 votes to oppose and 0 votes to abstain of 31 eligible votes.
Rob Harrison pointed out that Darlene Zabowski was inadvertently left off of the PMT
Committee recommendation. He moved that Darlene Zabowski not be considered for promotion
in the next year. The motion was seconded by Bob Edmonds. Darlene is aware of the things she
needs to do to prepare for promotion and is not ready at this time. The motion was approved with
23 votes to approve, 0 votes to oppose and 0 votes to abstain of 31 eligible votes.
Bob Edmonds moved to accept the PMT Committee recommendation for Dorothy Paun that she
is not ready at this time for promotion. Kristiina Vogt seconded the motion. Dave Briggs
summarized the PMT Committee position: Dorothy’s weakness in the past has been mentoring
grad students to completion, her research funding is low, her publication record is at the average.
The PMT Committee felt that her record is not strong enough to recommend that she go forward
this year. The motion was approved with 22 votes to approve, 0 votes to oppose and 1 vote to
abstain.
John Marzluff moved to accept the recommendation of the PMT Committee that John PerezGarcia not be considered for promotion in the next year. The motion was seconded by Bob
Edmonds. Dave Briggs summarized the PMT Committee position: John need to get a package
together to present a strong case for himself. This has been an issue in the past and he has heard
this message before. The motion was approved with 23 votes to approve, 0 votes to oppose and 0
votes to abstain of 31 eligible votes.
Bob Edmonds moved to accept the recommendation of the PMT Committee that Ken Raedeke
not be considered for promotion in the next year. The motion was seconded by Dave Manuwal.
Dave Manuwal commented that Ken has his own business and hasn’t come around to
acknowledging what is required to be approved for promotion. Rick stated that he has completed
a work planning session with Ken and that he informed Ken that he would have to go through the
CFR faculty group to get promoted and so would need to meet the group’s criteria for promotion.
The motion was approved with 19 votes to approve, 0 votes to oppose and 0 votes to abstain of
31 eligible votes.
The meeting was adjourned.
University of Washington Correspondence
INTERDEPARTMENTAL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------DATE: May 28, 2004
TO: Rick Gustafson, Chair, CFR Faculty
FROM: CFR PMT Committee: David Briggs, Chair; Kern Ewing, Rob Harrison, David
Peterson, John Marzluff, Clare Ryan, John Wott
RE: Future PMT Committee Configuration
The present committee, formed during Winter Quarter 2004 was charged with developing a
promotion and merit pay evaluation procedure, conducting merit evaluations in Spring 2004, and
to offer suggestions as to how the PMT Committee should be configured in the future. The
purpose of this memo is to address this last task. This is organized under 4 topics below.
Representation
Each PMT Committee member was chosen to represent his/her interest group. Although this
leads to a larger committee than typical of the past, we feel that this is a reasonable approach.
While scheduling face-to-face meetings is more difficult, much of the committee’s work can be
conducted electronically or via conference calls. Apparently there are new interest groups so the
size of the committee should be expanded.
Term
We feel that terms should be limited to 3 years and they should be staggered such that 1/3 of the
committee changes each year. We feel that it is important to maintain a strong core who knows
the faculty code and the procedures adopted by the CFR faculty. It should be noted that 4 of the
present committee members (Briggs, Ewing, Ryan and Wott) will be on sabbatical during next
year and need to be replaced; this would achieve some of the recommended staggered terms
assuming the others are willing to remain and provide leadership.
Timing
The PMT changes should be completed at the end of Spring Quarter so the new committee is
ready to begin immediately in Fall Quarter. Procedure requires that complete packages for
promotion and tenure candidates be ready on September 15 and final decisions for mandatory
cases are due during Fall Quarter. Waiting until Fall Quarter to form the PMT Committee will
delay the start of this important work and make it difficult for the Committee to meet deadlines
imposed by the Provost and Dean.
Issues for the Future Committee to Deliberate
There are a number of remaining issues for the committee to deliberate and prepare for the
faculty regarding the merit evaluation process. One of the most important is to address the
Service area; determining what is to be included, how it should be categorized, and how overall
service is to be given some type of rating. A number of criteria were suggested as measures for
the Teaching and Research areas but we were unable to include this Spring due to lack of data
and lack of agreement as to how these measures would be integrated with the others within
Teaching or Research. Finally, the method for producing combines scores across all criteria and
areas should receive further review and improvement if possible.
University of Washington Correspondence
INTERDEPARTMENTAL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------DATE: May 26, 2004
TO: Rick Gustafson, Chair, CFR Faculty
FROM: CFR PMT Committee
(David Briggs, Chair; Kern Ewing, Rob Harrison, David Peterson, John Marzluff, Clare Ryan,
John Wott)
RE: Evaluation of CFR Faculty for Merit Pay
Merit Recommendations
The PMT Committee met on May 11 to consider the spreadsheet summaries of each individual’s
Teaching and Research activities, their 500 word statements, and other pertinent factors in
assessing each for merit. At this time, we did not have detailed spreadsheet data available
regarding Service; however, each faculty received a service score equivalent to the level of effort
indicated in his/her work plan. Assuming the actual effort corresponded closely with the work
plan, the committee felt that this score would be fair for most.
In examining the spreadsheet summaries, we examined results obtained when individuals were
scaled relative to the mean effort and when scaled relative to the median. After completing these
evaluations, the committee was unanimous in its determination that, due to the clustering of final
scores, there is no strong case for assigning No Merit to any faculty based on performance with
the following exception that No Merit was assigned to those individuals who have been denied
promotion and tenure.
After further examination of the records, the committee felt that the following should be
considered for High Merit.
ü The individual with the highest overall score
ü Those individuals with the highest rating in the categories of total student credit hours, student
evaluations, total graduate students, individual research funding, programmatic research funding,
and peer-reviewed publications.
The recommendations for Tenure-track faculty are summarized in Table 1.
The Committee made a similar assessment of Research/WOT faculty and recommendations are
presented in Table 2. In assessing High Merit we did not consider teaching as a prime factor.
Procedure:
Documents pertaining to procedures used are attached.
Table 1. Merit Recommendations for Tenure Track CFR Professors
Name
Rank
Merit
Comment
Recommendation
Agee
Full
Merit
Allan
Full
Merit
Bolton
Associate
Merit
Bradley
Full
Merit
Briggs
Full
High Merit
Top programmatic research funding
Brubaker
Full
Merit
Edmonds
Full
Merit
Ewing
Full
High Merit
Top in total graduate student committees
Ford
Full
Merit
Franklin
Full
High Merit
Tied for top student evaluations
Fridley
Full
Merit
Gara
Full
Merit
Greulich
Full
Merit
Gustafson
Full
Merit
Harrison
Full
High Merit
Top overall; top SCH
Hinckley
Full
Merit
Hodgson
Full
Merit
Johnson
Full
Merit
Lee
Full
Merit
Manual
Full
Merit
Marzluff
Full
High Merit
Top individual research funding & publications
McKean
Full
Merit
Northey
Assistant
No Merit
Paun
Associate
Merit
Reichard
Assistant
Merit
Ryan
Associate
Merit
Schiess
Full
Merit
Schreuder
Full
High Merit
Tied for top student evaluations
Turnblom
Associate
Merit
Vogt, D
Associate
Merit
Vogt, K
Full
Merit
West
Full
Merit
Wott
Full
Merit
Zabowski
Associate
Merit
Table 2. Merit Recommendations for CFR Research and WOT Faculty
Name
Rank
Merit Decision
Comment
Brown
Assistant
High Merit
Top in refereed & total publications
Doty
Assistant
Merit
Eastin
Halpern
Kearney
Lippke
Perez Garcia
Peterson
Raedeke
Sprugel
Strand
Wagar
Wolf
Name
Bolton
Northey
Paun
Reichard
Ryan
Turnblom
Vogt, D
Name
Brown
Doty
Eastin
Kearney
Perez Garcia
Raedeke
Wolf
Associate
Full
Assistant
Full
Associate
Full
Associate
Full
Full
Full
Assistant
Merit
High Merit
Merit
High Merit
Merit
Merit
Merit
Merit
Merit
Merit
No Merit
Top in total graduate student committees
Top in Individual & Programmatic Research
Likelihood of Promotion Success in 2004: Tenure-Track Faculty
Rank
Recommendation
Associate
Promotion approved at CFR; awaiting Provost’s Office
Assistant
Denied promotion & tenure; June 2005
Associate
Promoted to Associate in 1999; weak research $ & completed Masters & PhD
students
Assistant
Mandatory; promotion package must be developed by Sept 15, 2004
Associate
Promoted to Associate on Sept 15, 2003; too early
Associate
Promoted to Associate on Sept 15, 2002; too early
Associate
Too early
Likelihood of Promotion Success in 2004: Research & WOT Faculty
Rank
Recommendation
Assistant
Mandatory; promotion package must be developed by Sept 15, 2004
Assistant
Hired Aug, 2003; too early
Associate
Promotion approved at CFR; awaiting Provost’s Office
Assistant
0.65 time; on leave; too early
Associate
Promoted to Associate in 1996; needs to organize materials
Associate
Needs to organize materials
Assistant
Denied promotion & tenure; June 2005
Appendix A. CFR Merit Evaluation Timetable
Spring 2004
17 March Email to faculty with instructions to correct and submit completed merit information
package on April 2 to staff
2 April Staff updates database with new information & prepares completed files and summaries
for PMT committee
19 April PMT Committee Meeting: Review database summaries & develop Merit
Score procedure for implementation by office staff
27 April PMT Committee Meeting: Review results of Merit Score implementation
3 May PMT Committee Meeting: Prepare Merit Score materials for discussion at faculty meeting
4 May Faculty Meeting: Present Merit Score procedure for approval: (22 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain)
11 May PMT Committee Meeting: Develop merit recommendations using approved procedure.
Develop recommendations concerning Assistant and Associate Professors who should prepare
materials by Sept 15 for promotion evaluation in Fall 2004.
12 May Committee recommendations sent to Faculty Chair
18 May Faculty Meeting: Vote on Promotion Package recommendations concerning Assistant
Professors
12 May PMT Committee recommendations on merit pay send to Division Chair
Division meeting to discuss and vote on Merit Pay recommendations
Recommendation to Dean
Promotion Evaluation Procedure and Timetable
In compliance with Faculty Handbook, section 24-54
Presented at CFR Faculty meeting on March 2, 2004.
Motion to accept approved è 26 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain.
Spring Quarter
At the time of merit review, PMT informs faculty of mandatory promotion reviews for junior
faculty or recommends junior faculty to be considered for promotion in the following year. In the
case of non-mandatory review, recommendations are made at a regular faculty meeting. Faculty
members senior in rank to the candidate discuss and vote upon the recommendations. Candidates
are informed of the vote by letter written by the Faculty Chair. An individual faculty member
may respond by accepting the recommendation, requesting that promotion be deferred to a future
year, or requesting a promotion review regardless of the faculty vote. Mandatory reviews,
recommendations endorsed by the faculty, and individual requests for promotion result in
requests by Faculty Chair for confidential outside letters of review.
Junior faculty submit dossier to Chair by June 30 for request for outside letters of review. All
files must be complete for PMT review by September 15, including outside letters of review per
above.
Fall Quarter
Early in the fall quarter, PMT reviews all cases for promotion and makes recommendations by
letter to the Faculty Chair who summarizes PMT recommendation in a letter to the candidate,
preserving confidentiality of the materials. Candidate has seven days to reply in writing to the
Chair’s letter. The candidate’s letter is included in the candidate’s file.
At a regular faculty meeting, the Faculty Chair or PMT Chair presents individual cases for
promotion to the faculty. Discussion and voting by faculty senior in rank to the candidate is by
paper ballot. Junior faculty can choose to attend promotion discussion meetings for other
assistant and associate professors but will be excused from promotion discussion involving
themselves. Faculty Chair transmits by letter the faculty vote and his or her independent
recommendation to the Dean. Faculty Chair summarizes the faculty discussion and vote in a
letter to the candidate, who has seven days to reply in writing. The candidate’s letter is included
in the candidate’s file. Recommendations for mandatory promotion and tenure decisions are due
in the Dean’s Office by November 15. Recommendations for non-mandatory promotions are due
in the Dean’s Office by January 15.
Faculty Chair transmits complete favorable and contended files to the Dean, and certifies that the
foregoing process of evaluation has been followed. Dean decides the matter and, if favorable,
transmits his or her recommendation to the President. Recommendations for mandatory and
tenure decisions are due in the President’s Office by December 1. Recommendations for nonmandatory promotions are due in the President’s Office by March 1.
Merit Evaluation Procedure and Timetable
In compliance with Faculty Handbook, section 24-55
Presented at CFR Faculty meeting on March 2, 2004.
Motion to accept approved è 25 yes, 0 no, 2 abstain
Winter Quarter
Faculty materials for merit review are acquired and collated during the latter part of winter
quarter. Each faculty is responsible for ensuring that the portfolio of materials includes all
activities through the end of the previous calendar year (Autumn Quarter).
Spring Quarter
All faculty members are reviewed for merit annually. Faculty materials are transmitted to the
PMT Committee in early spring quarter. The PMT Committee reviews these materials and makes
merit recommendations for every faculty member (Assistant, Associate and Full Professors).
For the purposes of merit, cumulative review includes the individual’s full record since
appointment to the faculty. However, heaviest emphasis is placed on the most recent 3 calendar
years.
At a regular faculty meeting, the Faculty Chair or PMT Chair presents individual cases for merit.
Individual merit recommendations will be grouped by level (assistant, associate and full) into
three PMT Committee proposals for voting purposes. Faculty will vote on each of the three
proposals to approve or oppose the complete group of individual recommendations by level
(rather than voting on each individual recommendation). Discussion and voting by paper ballot is
by faculty senior in rank. Faculty Chair transmits faculty and PMT recommendations to the
Dean, and additionally may submit his or her own recommendations. The Dean decides upon
merit and salary for all faculty.
The Dean reviews recommendations and forwards his or her recommendations for merit and
salary to the President.
Promotion Merit and Tenure Criteria
Feb 27, 2004 draft presented at CFR Faculty meeting on April 20, 2004.
Version below incorporated changes suggested during meeting
Motion to accept revised version approved è 24 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain
Merit Evaluation
Data is gathered for the most recent 3 calendar years & stored in Access database. Items in bold,
underline are gathered from UW & CFR sources; a complete printout (example attached) of the
last 3 years record is sent to each individual at the end of Winter Quarter for verification,
corrections and additions
I. Teaching
A. UW courses taught
1. course number, name, year and quarter,
2. # credits, enrollment, student credit hours; per course & totaled
3. student evaluations; use the unadjusted median of items 1-4 for each course
4. teaching assistants
B. Indicate if courses are REQUIRED or part of CFR CORE
C. Indicate % involvement in each course; block, module, interdisciplinary or team teaching
activities
D. Undergraduate projects
E. Teaching Awards
F. Other – e.g., training through workshops, CIDR, etc.
II. Research
A. Grants
1. Funding (project name, funding source, begin date, end date, total dollars, PI or co PI).
Individual verifies the following
a) Individual grant (includes gift funding)
b) Center, Cooperative, Programmatic grant
c) Extensions and supplements should be listed separately
2. # Quarters Funding of students
a) Graduate students
b) Undergraduates
3. Proposals submitted
B. Number of graduate student committees (for each year, list names, indicate Masters or PhD,
chair or member, home department, and date of completion)
C. Non-funded Research Activities; could include assisting on grants for other organizations that
do not go through UW
D. Interdisciplinary Research Activities
E. Publications (indicate refereed, edited, non-refereed) from latest CV’s
1. Appeared or accepted (give complete citation)
a. Refereed
· Journal Articles
· Conference Proceedings
· Reports
· Book Chapters
a) Non-refereed
· Journal Articles
· Conference Proceedings
· Reports
· Book Chapters
b. Books
c. Editorships
2. Submitted & in review
3. Science citations
4. Other evidence of application of research
F. Post-doc or other research scientists and technicians
G. Research Awards
H. Patents
III. Service (these areas need further definition and clarification)
A. Academic/ Educational
1. Academic committees (name, member or chair, term, area
a) CFR
b) UW
2. Advising and recruiting
3. Guest lectures
4. Contributions to development of core courses, large classes, etc.
5. Continuing Education events
a) Planning committee activity
b) Instructional activity
B. Public/ Professional Service & Activities
1. Committees: name of organization, size, scope (local, regional, national, international), term
of appointment, function, if chair or member
2. Participation in conferences, symposia, workshops, professional meeting: give date, topic/title,
location, organization, attendees.
3. Professional Awards
C. Consulting, Expert Witness, etc.
D. Reviewer Activity (proposals, publications)
IV. Personal Statement
As part of the information provided annually for merit evaluation, each individual is asked to
submit a statement in which they may wish to add further explanation of activities or events that
may influence interpretation of their portfolio by the committee. Statement is limited to 1 page
with 1 inch margins and Century 10 or equivalent font.
V. Work Plan
The workload distribution and any other written agreements with the Chair that affect
interpretation of merit information should be provided.
Promotion Evaluation
The individual will be requested by the Faculty Chair to submit a complete portfolio package.
This should document all activities since employment with breakdowns by year. Much of this is
similar to the information provided for the annual merit evaluations but other pertinent
information may be included and emphasized; examples could include foreign assignments,
consulting, science citations, etc. that bolster the case for national & international recognition..
The individual prepares a statement of justification for promotion, provides examples of
significant publications, etc.
The Faculty Chair also requests confidential reviews from discipline peers at comparable
institutions. These review letters must be received before promotion evaluations begin.
Merit Score Calculations
Presented at CFR Faculty meeting on May 4, 2004.
Motion to accept approved è 22 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain.
I. Calculation of Merit Scores
Comment: the following describes the procedure based on normalization to the faculty means.
Calculations are also done using the median. The committee can use both in its deliberations.
The attached table shows a data table with the information used in evaluating Teaching and
Research. The top row presents data for a hypothetical faculty member; only those summary
columns with bold headings are used in the following procedural steps.
1. Normalize each bold column value by dividing the individual’s score by the corresponding
faculty average and multiply by 100. A person with a score exactly equal to the average would
have a score of 100; someone who did 3 times the average would have a score of 300, etc.
2. Sum the individual’s scores within the teaching area, within the research area, and within the
service area (presently, due to lack of consistent data framework; everyone is assigned a 100).
3. Obtain the faculty average scores for Teaching, Research, and Service.
4. Normalize the individual’s score in each area to the faculty average for that area.
5. Multiply the individual’s normalized scores from Step 4 by that individual’s workload
percentages.
6. Sum the workload-weighted percentages.
The result will be a list of workload-weighted scores by faculty
II. Assignment of High Merit, Merit & No Merit
The Merit Scores, Personal Statements and intangible factors for each faculty member are
examined by the committee is developing a merit recommendation for each faculty member. The
recommendations are forwarded to the Faculty Chair and presented to the faculty for discussion
and vote.
Data Table
[s1]We
need discussion and agreement on the period for evaluation. It may be that this varies
upon the categories, or we may choose annual time frames only…