University of Maine at Machias
Policy & Procedures Manual
SUBJECT: FACULTY PERSONNEL POLICIES SECTION III
DATE: 05/02, 04/07, 02/11
SECTION: Environmental & Biological Sciences – Peer Evaluations
____________________________________________________________




1.  Peer Evaluation  A. Composition of Peer Committees
§ Peer review committees for the Division will be composed of four or more division
  members. (5/29/96 and 11/15/00)
 
§  Peer review for untenured faculty in the Division will be conducted by a committee-of-
  the-whole for the fifth-year reappointment, the sixth-year appointment, and the
  tenure application. (5/29/96 and 5/22/02)
 
§  In its review of an untenured faculty member, the peer review committee can
  recommend, in the review letter, that the next year’s reappointment peer review
committee be a committee-of-the whole. (5/29/96)
 
§  For years when the committee is not a committee-of-the-whole, the chair of the peer
  committee and two of the other three members will be chosen randomly from the
  peer group; however the fourth member will be assigned by the chair of the
  division. (11/15/00)
 
§  The committee size for post-tenure evaluation will be four except peer review for
  promotion requires a review committee of the whole division.  (9/30/96)
 
§  All full-time, fixed-length faculty will be peer evaluated according to the same schedule
  as tenure-track faculty. (5/17/99)
 
 B.   Selection of Peer Committee Chairs (9/30/96 and 9/10/97)
  The following conditions apply to the chairs of peer committees:
 
·  People in their first three semesters of employment at UMM shall not be chairs of peer
    committees.
 
·  Chairs shall be selected from a random process (with those not serving as chair the
    previous year being first to fill the slots).
 
·  No person shall serve as chair of a peer committee for the same person in two
    consecutive peer review periods.
 
·  No member shall be the chair of two peer committees during any one peer review period.
 
·  For promotion and tenure applications, the chair must be a tenured faculty member.
    (9/9/98)
 
C.  Criteria for Peer Evaluation (04/07)
  Full time teaching faculty being evaluated will provide information to the Chair of the
    Division Peer Committee that addresses the following criteria and fits the
    following outline:
 
  1. Supporting evidence of performance in instruction, scholarly activity and service.
    This does not imply that activity will be required in each subcategory.
    Excellence in instruction is of paramount importance.
 
  a. Instruction
  1. Classroom Teaching (including summaries of those portions of
  student evaluations as requested by the committee and
  the collection of all signed student comments)
  2. Student Advising
  3. Independent Study, Guided Study, and Direction of Student
  Research
  4. New Course Development and Existing Course Revision
  5. Other
 
  b. Scholarly Activity
  1. Research Activity, Publications, Editing and Reviewing
  Manuscripts
  2. Presentations or Attendance at Conferences and Workshops
  3. Memberships and Service to Professional Organizations
  4. Coursework
  5. General Creative Activity
  6. Other
 
  c. Service
  1. Service to Division
  2. Service to UMM
  3. Service to UMS
  4. Service in Discipline (community, state, and beyond)
  5. Non-disciplinary Service (community, state, and beyond)
  6. Other
 
  2. A summary of activities associated with any reassigned time during the period of
    the review.
 
  3. A summary of how previous recommendations from the peer committee were
    addressed and/or how the individual met the goals and objectives stated
    in their previous evaluation.
 
  4. A synopsis of major goals and objectives planned for the period before the next
    evaluation.
 
Adjunct faculty will submit a letter notifying the Division Chair of their intent to
apply for promotion.  In that letter, the adjunct faculty member will include the
sections of supporting evidence (in Instruction, Scholarly Activity, and Service) to
be used in the application.  The adjunct faculty member will choose those sections
most appropriate to their position.  The Peer Committee will review the sections of
proposed supporting evidence in the letter, and within two weeks will advise the
adjunct faculty member on any changes.  The application format for an adjunct
faculty member will be the same as is used by fulltime faculty when applying for
promotion. (2/9/11)

  Faculty with split teaching and research appointments being evaluated will provide
    information to the Chair of the Division Peer Committee that addresses the
    following criteria and fits the following outline:
 
  1. Supporting evidence of performance in instruction, scholarly activity and service.
    This does not imply that activity will be required in each subcategory.
    Evaluation will place equal emphasis on the areas of instruction and
    scholarly activity.
 
  a. Instruction
  1. Classroom Teaching (including summaries of those portions of
  student evaluations as requested by the committee and
  the collection of all signed student comments)
  2. Student Advising
  3. Independent Study, Guided Study, Direction of Student Research
  (inclusion of students in the faculty’s research projects is
  particularly important)
  4. New Course Development and Existing Course Revision
  5. Other
 
  b. Scholarly Activity (evidence of activity in the first two subcategories is
  particularly important)
  1. Research Activity, Publications, Grants Submitted and Funded,
  Editing and Reviewing Manuscripts
  2. Presentations or Attendance at Conferences and Workshops
  3. Memberships and Service to Professional Organizations
  4. Coursework
  5. General Creative Activity
  6. Other
 
  c. Service
  1. Service to Division
  2. Service to UMM
  3. Service to UMS
  4. Service in Discipline (community, state, and beyond) (This
  subcategory is of higher importance if specified in the
  individuals initial appointment.)
  5. Non-disciplinary Service (community, state, and beyond)
  6. Other
 
  2. A summary of activities associated with any reassigned time during the period of
    review.
 
  3. A summary of how previous recommendations from the peer committee were
    addressed and/or how the individual met the goals and objectives stated
    in their previous evaluation.
 
  4. A synopsis of major goals and objectives planned for the period before the next
    evaluation.
 
D.   Peer Committee Process
·The committee chair will attempt to schedule meetings at times when all
  members can attend.  If a member can not meet at one or more of the
  scheduled times, the member is responsible for meeting with the chair, or
  submitting written material to the committee, prior to the meeting.
  (5/16/98)
 
· The peer committee may confer with any resource it needs to best complete
  its evaluation, including soliciting information or assistance from other
  professional colleagues within the institution. (5/16/98)
 
· The peer committee will conduct a class observation with a written report.
  Prior to conducting the observation, the observer will review the recent
  student evaluations and last peer class observation. The report will become
  part of the peer letter. If the adjunct faculty member applying for
  promotion has a current teaching responsibility, the peer committee will
  conduct a class observation with a written report that will become part
  of the peer letter. (1/31/01, 5/22/02, and 2/9/11)
 
·The peer committee will review the most recent division chair and VPAA
  evaluations. (5/22/02)
 
·  The chair of each peer committee will complete the draft of the evaluation no
  later than 72 hours prior to the day it is due to the division chair. Further,
  each committee member will have 48 hours to respond to the draft.
  Further, all peer committee members will initial the final evaluation prior
  to its submission to the division chair. (9/12/94)
 
· A committee member’s initialing of the peer letter signifies that the member
  was a part of the process and that the letter reflects the general opinion of
  the committee. (5/16/98)
 
E.  Peer Voting at Professional Relations (11/4/91)
  No member of the peer committee shall cast more than one vote during the entire
  process of peer review, chair’s evaluation, and Professional Relations Committee
  review concerning either tenure or promotion or both. Where applicable, a
  member may choose whether to vote as part of the divisional peer committee or
  as part of the Professional Relations Committee. That person must then abstain
  from voting about a candidate’s application for promotion and/or tenure in any
  other forum.

Share |