Shield Shield
JavaScript disabled or chat unavailable.
Home
Help  |  Search  |  Contact Us 
   
Procedures for Annual Review of Faculty

I.       Introduction

The procedures described below are illustrative only and provide a general overview of the annual faculty review process. The information is intended to aid Library faculty in understanding the process and not as a guarantee of procedure. Every situation is unique, which may necessitate variations in procedure.

II.    General Description

        A.         Objectives

The objectives of the annual review process are that it be:

1. Understood by all participants.

2. Perceived as fair.

3. Regarded as an accurate assessmentof each faculty member's performance in librarianship, professional service, scholarship/creative activity, and program involvement.

        B.         Performance Expectations

Library faculty are expected to meet the specific expectations and responsibilities detailed in their individual position descriptions as well the general performance expectations developed for the programs in which they participate (Cataloging, Collection Management, Instruction, Reference, etc.).

Faculty are also expected to participate actively in professional service and scholarship/creative activity. The level of participation will vary from individual, depending upon overall Library responsibilities, professional goals, and personal interests.

III.     Evaluation Process

A.     Library faculty are evaluated annually by the evaluation criteria developed for each of the programs in which they have assigned responsibilities. Evaluations are based on the information provided in the Faculty Activity Record and supplementary documentation.

B.     The Faculty Activity Record (FAR) is an important document that serves as an integral part of the evaluation process. It records activities and program improvements and documents how the year's goals were met. It also chronicles activities in a way that will be useful in developing tenure and promotion dossiers.

Faculty Activity Records for the previous calendar year will be completed and forwarded to the University Librarian by the end of the first week in January. Copies of FARs will be made and distributed to relevant team leaders.

C.     Narrative evaluations will be written by team leaders for faculty participating in the programs they oversee. Narrative evaluations will:

a. Indicate the level of performance in the area for which faculty have assigned responsibilites.

b. Assess both the QUALITY and QUANTITY of work.

c. Indicate whether performance expectations and goal were met.

d. Include, where appropriate, specific recommendations for improvement.

Team leaders will meet individually with faculty to discuss the narrative evaluation and determine goals for the coming year.

D.     The University Librarian will evaluate the performance of team leaders, the collection management, faculty liaison, and subject specific instruction performance of subject bibliographers, and the professional service, scholarship/creative activities of all faculty. She will meet individually with faculty to discuss the evaluations and to finalize goals for the coming year.

E.     Faculty will review and discuss their evaluations with relevant team leaders and the University Librarian and will have the opportunity to make a written response to the evaluation, should they wish to do so.

F.     A copy of the FAR and the written evaluation are placed in the faculty member's personnel file. A copy of the written evaluation will be forwarded to the Provost.

IV.    Salary Increases

        A.         Satisfactory Performance

The Legislature allocates annually a percentage of the University's budget for satisfactory performance increases. The amount varies from year to year, but is most often between three and five percent. The intent is that the money be used to reward satisfactory performance rather than an across the board, cost of living increase. All faculty whose performance was satisfactory during the previous year will receive this increase. If an individual's performance was not satisfactory, the University Librarian may recommend to the Provost that the satisfactory performance increase not be awarded.

        B.          Merit Pay

For the past several years, approximately one percent of the Library's total faculty salary budget has been made available for merit salary increases. The intent is that the money be used to reward meritorious performance, which is defined as performance that exceeds expectations. The amount of the merit salary increase that will be awarded to a faculty member is determined by the University Librarian, in consultation with the Provost, and is based on the overall performance of the faculty member during the previous year.

        C.          Equity Adjustments

The University allocates annually an amount of money to address faculty salary equity. The amount and the procedure varies from year to year. For the past three years, a formulaic approach has been used to determine faculty salary equity. The formula includes numerous factors; the most significant being market data supplied by the College and University Personnel Association (CUPA), rank, number of years in rank, and highest degree.

During the annual budgeting process, data indicating actual faculty salary, market salary, formula salary, and plus/minus equity for each faculty member is provided to the University Librarian. Whatever equity money that is made available to the Library is then used to increase the salaries of faculty whose salaries show a minus equity, assuming their overall performance has been satisfactory. If an individual's performance has not been satisfactory, the University Librarian may recommend to the Provost that equity funds not be awarded.

In Spring 1995, the Faulty Senate Salary, Benefits, Budget, and Fiscal Planning Committee was given the broad charge to, "Explore salary schedules and other alternatives for determining starting salaries and other compensations and make recommendations to the Faculty Senate." A sub-charge of the Committee is to, "Identify the most reasonable and comparative factors in making appropriate equity adjustments." Depending upon the findings of the Committee and the recommendations it makes to the Faculty Senate, the process for addressing faculty salary equity may change.

V.     Timeframe

        January/February:

State Legislature convenes and budgets for the various institutions of higher education are presented.

Faculty Activity Records are completed and forwarded to the University Librarian. Copies of the completed FAR's are made and forwarded to relevant team leaders.

Narrative evaluations and suggested goals of the coming year are drafted by team leaders and the University Librarian.

Team leaders and the University Librarian meet individually with faculty to discuss the evaluations and to finalize goals.

Faculty wishing to provide written responses to the written evaluations will do so before the end of February.

        March/April:

State Legislature concludes its work and budgets for the various institutions of higher education are finalized.

Preliminary base budget amounts are determined and distributed to each college and the Library.

University Librarian meets with the Provost to determine merit and equity salary adjustments for Library faculty and staff.

University budgeting process concludes and the budgets of each of the academic units is finalized.

        May/June:

Copies of faculty evaluations are forwarded to the Provost.

Human Resources Department forwards to the Library copies of faculty and staff "contracts" for the coming year, which includes salary and benefit information.

"Contracts" are distributed to faculty and staff.

Updated July 27, 2011 . Please send comments to Joan Hubbard, University Librarian.
Weber State University, Stewart Library. Copyright © 2014 All Rights Reserved.

Stewart Library - Weber State University - Ogden, Utah 84408. (801) 626-6403 - Copyright © 2008 ALL Rights Reserved