DRAFT
2/15/16
Evolution of the ACD from Task Force I Academic Senate Personnel Committee  ACD PAC-20 Subcommittee
The following table lists the Task Force I charges, summarizes Task Force and Academic Senate Personnel Committee (ASPC) recommendations and comments,
and lists the sections in the proposed ACD manual draft relevant to carrying out the recommendations of the Task Force and the ASPC.
Task Force 1
Charge
1. Review and
codify the
various
university
reports created in
recent years
including those
on
compensation,
teaching, and
service and post
tenure review.
2. Examine
current ACD
promotion and
tenure policies
and procedures
(ACD 506-07)
Task Force Recommendations
AS Personnel Committee
ACD Revision Document
1.1 ACD provisions are scattered into different
section. Reorganize and revise ACD 506.
Supported reorganization and
revision.
1.2 Change 506-6 to make policy on peer
review consistent.
Believed that peer review should be
included in the annual performance
review process.
Agrees that pursuit of excellence in
both research/creative activities and
teaching/instruction should be
required. Units must communicate
thresholds and evidence patterns to
objectively describe excellence in the
context of their unit’s expectations.
Extensive reorganization and
revision evident in proposed
document.
ACD 507-01
1.3 Teaching should be as important as
research.
1.4 Service is an integral part of faculty
responsibilities
Agreed that service should be
evaluated as an integral part of
faculty responsibilities and evaluated
in accordance with negotiated
workload agreements.
2,1 ASU continues to expect excellence in
research/creative activities for the tenure and
promotion to associate, but also requires
excellence in teaching/instruction.
Agreed that promotion to Associate
Professor should be based on
meeting expectations for excellence
in both teaching/instruction and
research/creative activity
1
ACD 506-05: Promotion
And
ACD 506-06 Evaluation for
Tenure and Promotion:
Promotion and Tenure
Evaluation Criteria
And
ACD: 507-01
ACD 506-02: key Terms:
Definitions of Faculty
Responsibilities: Service
And
ACD 506-06 Evaluation for
Tenure and Promotion
And
ACD 506-01 Annual
Evaluation of the Faculty
ACD 506-06 Evaluation for
Tenure and Promotion:
Promotion and Tenure
Evaluation Criteria
And
ACD 507-01
DRAFT
and recommend
changes to
achieve desired
university
flexibility and
adaptability.
3. Clarify the
relationship
between annual
reviews,
probationary
2/15/16
ACD 506-02 Key terms:
Definitions of Faculty
Responsibilities
And
506-06 Evaluation for tenure
and Promotion: promotion and
tenure evaluation criteria
2.2 ACD 506-07 should be amended to clarify
the role of other factors that are taken into
account in tenure, promotion, and retention (of
probationary faculty).
Agreed that P & T decisions should
consider affirmative action/equal
opportunity goals and the service
contributions of the individual.
2.3 ASU needs to insure that all professional
responsibilities faculty undertake on behalf of
their unit must be considered in all faculty
evaluation processes, including tenure and
promotion decisions as well as annual
performance evaluation. In addition, ASU
policy should insure that all forms of scholarly
activity including the scholarship of
instruction, discovery, application, and
integration, must be considered in all faculty
evaluation processes.
2.4 Common elements among all of the various
faculty evaluations, the definitions of these, the
expectations of continued excellence or
continued professional development need to be
placed in one overview section or they need to
be repeated within the section on P & T and
retention
Agreed that these contributions
should be considered in accordance
with annually negotiated workload
agreements.
ACD 506-02 Key terms:
Definitions of Faculty
Responsibilities
And
506-06 Evaluation for tenure
and Promotion: promotion and
tenure evaluation criteria
And
ACD 507-01
Agreed to establich commons
definitions and consistent procedures
among various faculty evaluations.
Entire rewrite of ACD 506 and
reorganization to split out ACD
507 as well.
2.5 Definitions drafted
No statement
Definitions adopted in rewrite
3.1 Lack of clarity about the connection (if
any) between annual performance evaluation
and the P & T and promotion evaluations
Agreed that annual reviews and P &
T and promotion serve different
purposes. It is desirable to create
common definitions, but requiring a
direct link is not.
ACD 507 became a separate
section. References to annual
evaluation converged in this
section.
2
DRAFT
reviews, and
tenure reviews.
4. Examine the
concept of
excellence and
the number of
areas of
excellence
required in
promotion and
tenure cases.
3.2 Organization is confusing about the
different types of reviews
Covered above
2/15/16
Reorganization of the ACD
3.3 ASU policies refer to 6 types of faculty
evaluations when there is only 4
No statement
ACD 507 organization
3.4 An entirely seamless process for all types
of review is not possible without significant
changes in processes, criteria, definitions,
scope, and purposes. Do not recommend
linking performance reviews with P & T and
promotion.
4.1 The term excellence should be retained
Agreed
ACD 506 separate from ACD
507
Agreed with keeping the term
excellence. Units should evaluate
excellence within the context of the
unit’s goals and the individual’s
negotiated workload agreements.
Furthermore, pursuit of excellence
and continuous improvement should
support the expectation of continued
excellence. Units must communicate
and clarify expectations for
excellence in their by-laws or other
documents that are available to the
faculty.
See box directly above
ACD 506-01 Preamble
And
506-02 Key Terms
And
506-04 Appointments with
Tenure
And
506-05 Promotion
And
506-06 Evaluation for tenure
and Promotion
And
507-01 Annual Evaluations
ACD 506-06
Agreed, but achieving a national
reputation in anything other than
research/creative activity is expected
to be unusual.
506-06 Evaluation for tenure
and Promotion: Promotion to
Associate and Full Professor
4.2 Tenure and Promotion should require an
overall record of excellence and the promise of
continued excellence; but should specifically
state that excellence in teaching and
instructional activities; as well as in research
and creative activities is required.
4.3 Maintained the requirement for a national
reputation for scholarly work as part of the
standard expectation for promotion to full
professor
3
DRAFT
5. Recommend
changes in the
evidence
structure for
tenure and
promotion.
5.1 Specify common evidentiary elements for
evaluation of faculty work.
Agreed
5.2 Common evidence requires common
definition of terms
Agreed
5.3 Improve the evaluation system for
teaching. Multiple tools are needed here,
including the suggested changes in language
and evidence.
Equal emphasis on
teaching/instruction and
research/creative activity requires
high quality evidence and
documentation in each area (e.g.
student evaluations alone are not
sufficient to document excellence in
teaching).
Agreed that a process for updating
and maintaining personnel decision
processes requires clarification and
refinement. The development of an
Advisory Committee (PAC-20) is
viewed as a positive step. Senate
and ASPC review of the ACD
Manual is essential for legitimacy of
this process.
Agreed that faculty performance
evaluations reviews in nontraditional appointments should
continue under normal guidelines,
and that specific agreements about
workload allocations should be
sufficient to improve consistency.
The development of workload
agreements and memos of
understanding that clearly identify
the home unit, participating units,
Additional recommendations regarding
diversity, responsibility of university review
committee, weighing teaching and research,
committees should not deliberate extensively
on unanimous approvals, and reviewing
college policy and practice handbooks.
6. Address issues
of joint
appointments,
work in centers,
and
interdisciplinary
activities.
And
7. Addresses the
6.1 Traditional processes are based on a model
that does not adequately reflect certain
organizational and programmatic realities of a
modern university.
6.2 Evaluations in the case of joint
appointments should be based on a
Memorandum of Understanding
6.3 The option of having any work performed
as an affiliated faculty member included in any
home-unit evaluation should rest with the
concerned faculty member.
4
2/15/16
ACD 506-02 Key Terms
And
ACD 506-06 Evaluation for
Tenure and Promotion:
Promotion and Tenure
Evaluation Criteria
PAC-20 ACD writing group
And
ACD 506-06 Evaluation for
Tenure and Promotion:
Promotion and Tenure
Evaluation Criteria
Still being revised.
DRAFT
issue of multiple
career paths.
8. Recommend
ways in which
schools and
departments can
most effectively
adhere to
university
policies while at
the same time
capitalizing on
their own
uniqueness.
2/15/16
6.4 There is a need to ensure that contributions
in interdisciplinary work are suitably evaluated
and weighed in reaching overall conclusions
about faculty performance.
For a variety of reasons, it is not unusual for
individuals to seek faculty appointments at
levels less than full-time. Expectations must
be suitably weighed in a manner that reflects
the individual’s official level of appointment.
6.5 Ensure that contributions as a faculty
member and as an administrator of faculty in
administrative roles should be suitably
evaluated and weighed in reaching overall
conclusions about performance.
Consider the changes to the ACD manual
proposed by this task force.
Units and colleges should review its personnel
policies for tenure and promotion as well as for
annual reviews, incorporating any changes
mandated by the Senate or other changes
suggested by this task force.
and performance expectations are
required to facilitate effective and
fair evaluations.
Units and colleges must update
personnel policies for faculty
performance evaluation decisions,
make any changes needed for
consistency with university policies,
and actively communicate
performance expectations to faculty.
The Vice Provost should undertake a
comprehensive review of the revised
documents from each unit and college to insure
consistency and compliance with university
and ABOR policy.
5
ACD manual revision was
started with the Task Force
edited draft.
DRAFT
2/15/16
Also, Several new items appear in the Proposed ACD Manual
1. Change in Probationary reviews from tow (Year 2 and Year 4) to only one review at Year 3..
NEW
ITEMS
INTRODUCED
2. 506-06: “Tenure review is a cumulative process conducted by the personnel committee in the academic unit, th head of
the academic unit, the college personnel committee, supervising dean, campus personnel committee, campus provost,
University Provost, nd the President of the University.”
3. Statement of workload distribution was removed from promotion and tenure section (ACD 506) and now only exists in
Annual Evaluations (ACD 507)
4. ACD 506-08: “Upon completion of the probationary review, the executive vice president and provost of the university
or designee will notify each dean in writing whether the faculty member will be retained, retained conditionally, or given
a terminal contract for the succeeding year”.
6