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 § 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.
A. Composition of Peer Committees
