ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS
FOR ACADEMIC STAFF
Chardin S. Claybourne
Wayne State University
March 21, 2013
PURPOSE OF ANNUAL
REVIEW
“The purpose of the annual review process is to assess
each member of the academic staff in terms of his/her
performance in contributing to the overall goal of making
Wayne State University the best possible teaching and
research institution
it can be.” (Article XXIV – Professional Duties)
PURPOSE OF ANNUAL
REVIEW (CONT.)
1.
To identify and reward excellent performance of all academic
staff
2.
To identify and remedy performance substantially below
disciplinary norms and unit factors of tenured/ESS academic
staff
PARTICIPATION IN ANNUAL
REVIEW
 Is mandatory for all academic staff:
“Each member of the academic staff must participate in the annual review process.”
(Article XXIV – Professional Duties)
 This is a change from the previous contract, where tenured/ESS
academic staff were exempt from annual reviews.
 All faculty also must participate in annual review.
YOUR ANNUAL REPORT
 Consists of:
a)
b)
c)
An updated professional record
A summary of the last three (3) years of your activities
(professional assignments, professional
development/achievement, and service)
A presentation of current activities and expected results of said
activities
NONPARTICIPATION
 Failure to submit your annual report and participate in the annual
review process:
• You will not receive the selective-salary increase (up to 1.375% (201314); thereafter up to 1.25% to base salary) for that year
NONPARTICIPATION
 Failure to submit your annual report and participate in the annual
review process for two (2) times in any five (5) year period:
• You will not receive the across-the-board increase (1.25% to base
salary) for that year
COMPENSATION
 Outstanding performance shall be rewarded through contractual
salary increases as provided in Article XII. (up to 1.375% (2013-14);
thereafter up to 1.25% to base salary)
PEER EVALUATION
 Unit
• Applicable salary committee
 No salary committee in your unit?
• Goes up a level to School/College/division salary committee
 No salary committee in your School/College/division?
• Goes up to the University Academic-Staff Tenure and Promotion
Committee
CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATION
 Based on:
• Unit factors and norms
• Existing School/College/division norms
• Information in your annual report
ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS
1.
Salary Committee determines AS member is substantially below
unit factors/norms
1.
Salary committee may recommend formation of peer mentoring
committee for remediation
MENTORING COMMITTEE
 Formed through recommendation of Salary Committee
 Consists of three (3) academic staff of equal or higher rank to
member in question:
• One (1) member chosen by Salary Committee
• One (1) member chosen by chair/dean/director of unit
• One (1) member chosen by academic-staff being mentored
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
 To rectify deficiencies determined by Salary Committee and
communicated to mentoring committee
 Administered by mentoring committee, and reported back to
Salary Committee after each year
 Salary Committee makes judgment on effectiveness of
improvement program
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
 Salary Committee finds improvement program sufficient:
• Review ends.
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
 Salary Committee finds improvement program has not been
effective in assessment of any year-end review:
• Sends report to mentoring committee
• Mentoring committee can respond to Salary Comm.
• Salary Comm. can recommend
1.
Continuation of improvement program
2.
Referral of the matter to chair/dean/director for further
action.
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
 If decided by the chair/dean/director, in consultation w/ the
unit’s policy/personnel/other applicable committee, and the
academic-staff member:
• University activity may be substituted for all/portion of workload,
OR
• A transfer may be recommended to another unit
• No transfer may take place without agreement of all units and the
academic-staff member
CHANGE IN DUTIES
 Must be followed immediately, after being notified personally in
writing or by certified mail
 Can be disputed by scheduling a meeting within five (5) days of
notification. Meeting must be scheduled within five (5) working days
of request
 Meeting will include academic staff, applicable administrator and
AAUP-AFT rep, if requested
CHANGE IN DUTIES
 Meeting occurs
• Solution is agreed upon by parties
• New job description written
• New job description provided within five (5) working days of meeting
• Academic-staff member signs description, it is effective on date to which
parties agree
CHANGE IN DUTIES
 Meeting occurs, solution not met or member does not agree to new job
description:
• AAUP-AFT may refer matter to Appeals Committee
• Appeals Committee will meet, review, and submit recommendations within
fifteen (15) working days of its appointment to President or designee
• President/designee agrees with recommendation:
•
Will implement any further changes within five (5) working days of decision
• President designee disagrees with recommendations:
•
•
•
Will meet with Appeals Committee to discuss
Will advise academic-staff member of decision within five (5) working days
AAUP-AFT can go to binding arbitration, or if academic-staff member is not notified
within thirty (30) days after recommendation is given
ARTICLE XXIII:
A N N UA L R E V I E W
 For Academic staff without ESS
 Must be given at least two weeks notice prior to review
 Must contain, at the least:
(a) standards of performance for the particular position
(b) identification of the specific appraisal factors
(c) accomplishments in job performance, professional achievement, and, at the option of the staff
member, scholarly achievement
(d) identification of areas of growth and major strengths
(e) identification of future expectations and areas of improvement
(f) unexpected changes in job status that affected performance
 After receiving the written review, the staff member may, within two (2) weeks, attach
for the file any areas of disagreement with the review.