Click here to go to AAUP-WSU's home page.

Negotiations: Article 11, Annual Evaluation

Wright State University Chapter

American Association of University Professors

The administration put forth the article shown in the right column of the table below at the April 15, 2013 negotiating session. Our negotiating team presented a counterproposal on June 21, 2013, as shown in the left column of the table below.

Reports about the status of this article will be found below the article itself.

See our CBA Negotiations page for a roster of the AAUP-WSU negotiating team, brief reports about each Monday's negotiation session, and an article-by-article summary table with links to detailed information about each individual article that either the administration or AAUP-WSU proposes to include in the CBA.

Article 11

Annual Evaluation

11.1 The purpose of the University evaluation procedure described herein is twofold: to help Bargaining Unit Faculty improve their professional development; and to inform decisions regarding merit pay, reappointment, dismissal, tenure, and promotion. In this Article, whenever a reference to “department” is made, it shall be understood that this refers to the college in the College of Nursing and Health and the Lake Campus. For jointly appointed Bargaining Unit Faculty, “department” refers to the Member’s “primary” department, which is the academic unit in which a Member is appointed more than 50% (see Section 11.2.6). 11.1 The purpose of the University evaluation procedure described herein is twofold: to help Bargaining Unit Faculty improve their professional development; and to inform decisions regarding merit pay, reappointment, dismissal, tenure, and promotion. In this Article, whenever a reference to “department” is made, it shall be understood that this refers to the college in the College of Nursing and Health and the Lake Campus. For jointly appointed Bargaining Unit Faculty, “department” refers to the Member’s “primary” department, which is the academic unit in which a Member is appointed more than 50% (see Section 11.2.6).

11.2 Except as noted in Sections 11.2.3-5 and 31.6.2, the Department Chair shall conduct an annual evaluation of every Bargaining Unit Faculty Member in accordance with the Departmentís faculty evaluation criteria taking into account the following criteria:

Teaching:

∑ Essential teaching-related behaviors include, but are not limited to the following:

  1. preparation and distribution of syllabi
  2. meeting class on a consistent basis, including on-time arrival and dismissal
  3. professional classroom behavior
  4. organization of course content and lectures
  5. effective communication
  6. effective delivery of appropriate content material
  7. effective processes and materials for evaluating student learning
  8. availability to students during scheduled office hours and appointments
  9. teaching material that is current with the discipline

∑ Positive teaching-related activities include, but are not limited to the following:

  1. creating innovative projects and assignments
  2. teaching a larger than normal number of preparations or teaching section sizes that are larger than normal
  3. conducting review sessions outside of normal class time
  4. effective use of educational technology for students
  5. serving as a teaching mentor for other faculty
  6. being readily available to students beyond required office hours
  7. developing a new course
  8. developing a new teaching area
  9. mentoring students
  10. effectively supervising independent study projects
  11. incorporating projects that involve service learning

Service:

For all Bargaining Unit Members positive service related activities include but are not limited to:

  • Attending and participating in department meetings

For Instructors starting in their third year and Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Clinical Instructors and Clinical Assistant Professors who have a reduced teaching load additional service is expected: The following are examples of positive service related activities, however this list is not intended to be exhaustive:

  • Attending and participating in department and college meetings
  • Serving and participating on department, college and university committees
  • Chairing committees at a department, college or university level
  • Participating in a professional capacity in community activities
  • Serving in a professional organization at a local, state or national level
  • Serving in the faculty Senate
  • Advising student organizations
  • Serving as a program director
  • Mentoring other Bargaining Unit Members

specified in its bylaws pursuant to Section 10.4.4.2.

11.2 Except as noted in Sections 11.2.3-5 and 31.6.2, the Department Chair shall conduct an annual evaluation of every Bargaining Unit Faculty Member in accordance with the Department’s faculty evaluation criteria specified in its bylaws pursuant to Section 10.4.4.2.

 

11.2.1 Except for those covered under Sections 11.2.3-6, for each area -- teaching, scholarship, and service -- the Chair will provide a written evaluation and assign an integer ranging from 0 to 4 with 0 = “unsatisfactory,” 1 = “adequate,” 2 = “meritorious,” 3 = “outstanding” and 4 = “extraordinary.” The University will then calculate an overall score rounded to the nearest 10th, based on the relative weights assigned to teaching, scholarship, and service as specified in the department bylaws.

11.2.2 Course releases. Course releases granted by the university for research or service shall normally be reflected in the Chair’s assignment of weights in teaching, scholarship, and service. Course releases granted for work with the AAUP-WSU pursuant to Section 8.7 shall not affect the Chair’s assignment of weights in teaching, scholarship, and service.

11.2.3 For Members who became Bargaining Unit Faculty Members or returned to the Bargaining Unit on or after July 1 of the preceding year, the provisions of 11.2 and 11.2.1 will not apply unless –

the Member’s teaching was unsatisfactory according to the department’s faculty evaluation criteria, or

the Member requests in writing to have integers assigned in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.2.1

In all cases, the chair will provide a written evaluation of the Member’s teaching, scholarship, and service to the extent it is feasible to do so.

11.2.4 For Members with academic appointments who were on approved sick or military leave for one or more semesters or Members with fiscal appointments who were on such leave for two or more semesters, the provisions of 11.2 and 11.2.1 will not apply. Instead, the Member’s merit score will be the average of his or her merit scores for the previous three years.

11.2.5 The Provost will conduct the annual evaluation of Members who are budgeted 75% or more outside their home department and who report directly to a provost or a vice president for more than one academic semester of the year being evaluated. Each evaluation will be conducted in accordance with criteria that are contained in the Member’s job description and that are described in annual goals signed by the Bargaining Unit Faculty Member and the provost or vice president to whom she or he reports. Any modification of these annual goals must be agreed to by the Bargaining Unit Faculty Member. A signed copy of the goals for each year will be kept on file in the Office of the Provost, with copies distributed to the Member and to the AAUP-WSU.

11.2.5.1 The Members evaluated by the Provost pursuant to Section 11.2.5 shall be considered as a department for purposes of annual evaluation and distribution of merit raises pursuant to Section 11.6. The provost or vice president to whom each Member reports shall submit to the Provost a written evaluation of that Member based on the job description and signed goals. The Provost will assign merit scores (0.0-4.0) that are consistent with these evaluations.

11.2.6 When evaluating Members who are jointly appointed (11.1), Department Chairs of the Member’s primary department should solicit information from the Chair of the department in which a Member’s appointment is less than 50%. Information received shall be considered in the Chair’s evaluation pursuant to criteria set forth in the bylaws of the primary department. Information received is subject to Section 11.3.2.

11.3 In preparation for the Chair’s evaluation, all Members of the Bargaining Unit will submit to the Chair a report of their teaching, scholarship, and service during the preceding year.

11.3.1 In addition to any materials required by this Agreement, by Department bylaws, or by the Department Chair, Bargaining Unit Faculty may include whatever material will provide evidence of successful teaching, scholarship or service.

11.3.2 The Department Chair may use other written materials if they document the Chair’s direct observation or are from identifiable sources. The Bargaining Unit Faculty Member shall be given a complete copy of such materials and provided the opportunity to respond to them in writing, and the Chair shall consider the Member’s response in writing her or his annual evaluation.

11.2.1 Except for those covered under Sections 11.2.3-6, for each area -- teaching, scholarship, and service -- the Chair will provide a written evaluation and assign an integer ranging from 0 to 4 with 0 = “unsatisfactory,” 1 = “adequate,” 2 = “meritorious,” 3 = “outstanding” and 4 = “extraordinary.” The University will then calculate an overall score rounded to the nearest 10th, based on the relative weights assigned to teaching, scholarship, and service as specified in the department bylaws.

11.2.2 Course releases. Course releases granted by the university for research or service shall normally be reflected in the Chair’s assignment of weights in teaching, scholarship, and service. Course releases granted for work with the AAUP-WSU pursuant to Section 8.7 shall not affect the Chair’s assignment of weights in teaching, scholarship, and service.

11.2.3 For Members who became Bargaining Unit Faculty Members or returned to the Bargaining Unit on or after July 1 of the preceding year, the provisions of 11.2 and 11.2.1 will not apply unless –

the Member’s teaching was unsatisfactory according to the department’s faculty evaluation criteria, or

the Member requests in writing to have integers assigned in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.2.1

In all cases, the chair will provide a written evaluation of the Member’s teaching, scholarship, and service to the extent it is feasible to do so.

11.2.4 For Members with academic appointments who were on approved sick or military leave for one or more semesters or Members with fiscal appointments who were on such leave for two or more semesters, the provisions of 11.2 and 11.2.1 will not apply. Instead, the Member’s merit score will be the average of his or her merit scores for the previous three years.

11.2.5 The Provost will conduct the annual evaluation of Members who are budgeted 75% or more outside their home department and who report directly to a provost or a vice president for more than one academic semester of the year being evaluated. Each evaluation will be conducted in accordance with criteria that are contained in the Member’s job description and that are described in annual goals signed by the Bargaining Unit Faculty Member and the provost or vice president to whom she or he reports. Any modification of these annual goals must be agreed to by the Bargaining Unit Faculty Member. A signed copy of the goals for each year will be kept on file in the Office of the Provost, with copies distributed to the Member and to the AAUP-WSU.

11.2.5.1 The Members evaluated by the Provost pursuant to Section 11.2.5 shall be considered as a department for purposes of annual evaluation and distribution of merit raises pursuant to Section 11.6. The provost or vice president to whom each Member reports shall submit to the Provost a written evaluation of that Member based on the job description and signed goals. The Provost will assign merit scores (0.0-4.0) that are consistent with these evaluations.

11.2.6 When evaluating Members who are jointly appointed (11.1), Department Chairs of the Member’s primary department should solicit information from the Chair of the department in which a Member’s appointment is less than 50%. Information received shall be considered in the Chair’s evaluation pursuant to criteria set forth in the bylaws of the primary department. Information received is subject to Section 11.3.2.

11.3 In preparation for the Chair’s evaluation, all Members of the Bargaining Unit will submit to the Chair a report of their teaching, scholarship, and service during the preceding year.

11.3.1 In addition to any materials required by this Agreement, by Department bylaws, or by the Department Chair, Bargaining Unit Faculty may include whatever material will provide evidence of successful teaching, scholarship or service.

11.3.2 The Department Chair may use other written materials if they document the Chair’s direct observation or are from identifiable sources. The Bargaining Unit Faculty Member shall be given a complete copy of such materials and provided the opportunity to respond to them in writing, and the Chair shall consider the Member’s response in writing her or his annual evaluation.

11.3.3 For purposes of this Agreement, evaluations in a department will be done in a uniform manner and will be consistent with past practice. After conducting the evaluations, the Department Chair will send to each Member of the Bargaining Unit a copy of his or her evaluation.

11.3.3 After conducting the evaluations, the Department Chair will send to each Member of the Bargaining Unit a copy of his or her evaluation.

11.4 The Member who disagrees with the Chair’s evaluation may send a written response to the Chair. This rebuttal shall be stapled to the original evaluation, forwarded to all other entities which receive a copy of the evaluation, and kept in the Department or College office as described in Section 13.3

11.5 Annual Review for Untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Members

11.5.1 Included in the Chair’s annual evaluation of all untenured Members of the Bargaining Unit shall be a statement reflecting peer evaluation of the individual’s teaching effectiveness. The Chair and the tenured Members of the Bargaining Unit in the Department share joint responsibility for ensuring that peer evaluation is conducted each year.

11.5.2 Included with the Chair’s annual evaluation of all untenured Members of the Bargaining Unit shall be a statement from the Chair summarizing the individual’s cumulative progress toward obtaining tenure. (13.7.1)

11.5.3 Independent of the Chair’s annual evaluation, the Department Promotion and Tenure Committee shall provide all untenured Members of the Bargaining Unit with an annual statement summarizing the individual Member’s cumulative progress toward obtaining tenure. (13.7.1)

11.6 The merit raise mi for an individual Bargaining Unit Faculty Member will be determined as follows.

[image with formula deleted]

where:

M is the total merit pool for the Members department [image with formula deleted]

r is the percentage merit increase

n is the number of Bargaining Unit Faculty in the Members department

pi is the Members overall score rounded to the nearest 10th as specified in Section 11.2.1

bi is the Members base salary

pj and bj are the overall score and base salary, respectively, for all the Bargaining Unit Faculty in the Members department. (Here, j is equal to 1,2,3, and so forth, up to n.)

11.6.1 In departments where some faculty are on academic year appointments and some faculty are on fiscal year appointments, merit raises mi will be calculated as follows:

The base salary of each fiscal year faculty will be converted to an academic equivalent by multiplying each fiscal base salary bi by 9/11ths to obtain an adjusted base salary bi*.

These adjusted base salaries bi* will be used in place of the corresponding fiscal base salaries bi to compute an adjusted total merit pool M*.

The adjusted base salaries and the adjusted total merit pool M* will be used to compute the merit raise mi of each faculty member on an academic year appointment and the adjusted merit raise mi* of each faculty member on a fiscal year appointment.

For each faculty member on a fiscal year appointment, this adjusted merit raise mi* will be multiplied by 11/9ths to determine the Members actual merit raise mi.

In the event that the merit pool M calculated in accordance with Section 11.6 using the actual base salaries of all Bargaining Unit Faculty (fiscal and academic) is insufficient to cover the total of merit raises when calculated using the procedure outlined in 11.6.1, then the University will adjust the pool to provide sufficient funds.

11.6.2 The merit raise for a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member who has no calculated overall score pursuant to Section 11.2.3 shall be computed by assigning the Member the average of the overall scores in her or his department pursuant to Section 11.2.1.

11.6.3 A Member who begins employment January 1 or later shall not be eligible for a salary increase during that calendar year. A statement in or attached to the offer letters for such Members will confirm that the base salary continues through the end of the first academic year (or, if applicable, fiscal year) of employment.

11.7 Annual Evaluation Grievances.

11.7.1 Grievances alleging that a Department Chair’s annual evaluation of a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member did not reasonably comply with a specific provision(s) of this Agreement or with a specific provision(s) of the Department or College Bylaws may be filed relating to a single year’s evaluation.

11.7.1.1 Grievances pursuant to 11.7.1 must be filed not later than forty (40) days after a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member receives her or his annual evaluation or by June 1, whichever is later. Otherwise, procedures for such grievances are as specified in Article 16.

11.7.2 Grievances alleging that a Department Chair’s annual evaluations of a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member have been inconsistent with evaluations of other Members or in any other way involved a pattern of faulty judgment or prejudicial treatment, must refer to a period of at least three years, beginning no more than five years prior to the filing of the grievance.

11.7.2.1 Upon receiving a grievance pursuant to Section 11.7.2 the AAUP-WSU and the University shall form a four-member Evaluation Appeals Committee consisting of two members selected by the AAUP-WSU and two members selected by the University. None of the Committee members may be from the appellant’s department.

11.7.2.2 The appellant’s current department chair will be given an opportunity to submit a written response to the grievance, and the appellant will be given an opportunity to comment on or rebut the department chair’s statement.

11.7.2.3 The Evaluation Appeals Committee shall review materials submitted by the appellant and any response submitted by the appellant’s department chair. In addition, the Committee may request that the appellant or other persons with knowledge of the case appear before the Committee or respond to the Committee’s questions in writing.

11.7.2.4 Following the review of materials and testimony relevant to the case, the Evaluation Appeals Committee will send to the Provost and to the AAUP-WSU a report stating whether or not a significant pattern of inconsistent evaluations is substantiated, the basis for its findings, and its determination of revised evaluations for the affected years.

11.7.2.5 If the Evaluation Appeals Committee revises any annual evaluations for the grievant, the University and the AAUP-WSU will jointly calculate the grievant’s current base salary as it would have been if the revised evaluations had been awarded in the affected years.

11.7.2.6 Because the decisions of the Evaluations Appeals Committee are final, grievances submitted to that committee are not subject to arbitration by an external arbitrator.

11.4 The Member who disagrees with the Chair’s evaluation may send a written response to the Chair. This rebuttal shall be stapled to the original evaluation, forwarded to all other entities which receive a copy of the evaluation, and kept in the Department or College office as described in Section 13.3.
11.5 Annual Review for Untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Members

11.5.1 Included in the Chair’s annual evaluation of all untenured Members of the Bargaining Unit shall be a statement reflecting peer evaluation of the individual’s teaching effectiveness. The Chair and the tenured Members of the Bargaining Unit in the Department share joint responsibility for ensuring that peer evaluation is conducted each year.

11.5.2 Included with the Chair’s annual evaluation of all untenured Members of the Bargaining Unit shall be a statement from the Chair summarizing the individual’s cumulative progress toward obtaining tenure. (13.7.1)

11.5.3 Independent of the Chair’s annual evaluation, the Department Promotion and Tenure Committee shall provide all untenured Members of the Bargaining Unit with an annual statement summarizing the individual Member’s cumulative progress toward obtaining tenure. (13.7.1)

11.6 The merit raise mi for an individual Bargaining Unit Faculty Member will be determined as follows.

[formula from existing CBA stricken]

where:

M is the total merit pool for the Members department

[formula from existing CBA strike]

r is the percentage merit increase

n is the number of Bargaining Unit Faculty in the Members department

pi is the Members overall score rounded to the nearest 10th as specified in Section 11.2.1

bi is the Members base salary

pj and bj are the overall score and base salary, respectively, for all the Bargaining Unit Faculty in the Members department. (Here, j is equal to 1,2,3, and so forth, up to n.)

11.6.1 In departments where some faculty are on academic year appointments and some faculty are on fiscal year appointments, merit raises mi will be calculated as follows:

The base salary of each fiscal year faculty will be converted to an academic equivalent by multiplying each fiscal base salary bi by 9/11ths to obtain an adjusted base salary bi*.

These adjusted base salaries bi* will be used in place of the corresponding fiscal base salaries bi to compute an adjusted total merit pool M*.

The adjusted base salaries and the adjusted total merit pool M* will be used to compute the merit raise mi of each faculty member on an academic year appointment and the adjusted merit raise mi* of each faculty member on a fiscal year appointment.

For each faculty member on a fiscal year appointment, this adjusted merit raise mi* will be multiplied by 11/9ths to determine the Members actual merit raise mi.

In the event that the merit pool M calculated in accordance with Section 11.6 using the actual base salaries of all Bargaining Unit Faculty (fiscal and academic) is insufficient to cover the total of merit raises when calculated using the procedure outlined in 11.6.1, then the University will adjust the pool to provide sufficient funds.

11.6.2 The merit raise for a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member who has no calculated overall score pursuant to Section 11.2.3 shall be computed by assigning the Member the average of the overall scores in her or his department pursuant to Section 11.2.1.

11.6.3 A Member who begins employment January 1 or later shall not be eligible for a salary increase during that calendar year. A statement in or attached to the offer letters for such Members will confirm that the base salary continues through the end of the first academic year (or, if applicable, fiscal year) of employment.

11.7 Annual Evaluation Grievances.

11.7.1 Grievances alleging that a Department Chair’s annual evaluation of a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member did not reasonably comply with a specific provision(s) of this Agreement or with a specific provision(s) of the Department or College Bylaws may be filed relating to a single year’s evaluation.

11.7.1.1 Grievances pursuant to 11.7.1 must be filed not later than forty (40) days after a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member receives her or his annual evaluation or by June 1, whichever is later. Otherwise, procedures for such grievances are as specified in Article 16.

11.7.2 Grievances alleging that a Department Chair’s annual evaluations of a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member have been inconsistent with evaluations of other Members or in any other way involved a pattern of faulty judgment or prejudicial treatment, must refer to a period of at least three years, beginning no more than five years prior to the filing of the grievance.

11.7.2.1 Upon receiving a grievance pursuant to Section 11.7.2 the AAUP-WSU and the University shall form a four-member Evaluation Appeals Committee consisting of two members selected by the AAUP-WSU and two members selected by the University. None of the Committee members may be from the appellant’s department.

11.7.2.2 The appellant’s current department chair will be given an opportunity to submit a written response to the grievance, and the appellant will be given an opportunity to comment on or rebut the department chair’s statement.

11.7.2.3 The Evaluation Appeals Committee shall review materials submitted by the appellant and any response submitted by the appellant’s department chair. In addition, the Committee may request that the appellant or other persons with knowledge of the case appear before the Committee or respond to the Committee’s questions in writing.

11.7.2.4 Following the review of materials and testimony relevant to the case, the Evaluation Appeals Committee will send to the Provost and to the AAUP-WSU a report stating whether or not a significant pattern of inconsistent evaluations is substantiated, the basis for its findings, and its determination of revised evaluations for the affected years.

11.7.2.5 If the Evaluation Appeals Committee revises any annual evaluations for the grievant, the University and the AAUP-WSU will jointly calculate the grievant’s current base salary as it would have been if the revised evaluations had been awarded in the affected years.

11.7.2.6 Because the decisions of the Evaluations Appeals Committee are final, grievances submitted to that committee are not subject to arbitration by an external arbitrator.

Status of Negotiations about the Above Article

August 20, 2013 update

The parties reached tentative agreement on this article, and they initialed the TA'd article on August 19, 2013.

June 21, 2013

Our negotiating team presented a counterproposal as shown in the left column of the table above.

The administration noted that we had deleted "merit pay" from section 11.1 and reminded us that, although the existing CBA for tenure-eligible and tenured (TET) faculty provides for no merit pay, the parties continue to mention it as a reason for annual evaluation. Thus our team agreed to un-do this deletion.

We called the administration's attention to our deleting reference to "the Department’s faculty evaluation criteria" from section 11.2 (since in general such written criteria do not exist), offering instead lists of essential and positive teaching-related behaviors that would guide chairs in annual evaluation. The parties agreed that item a in the essential list could be modified to read "preparation and distribution of suitable (or appropriate) syllabi".

The administration then stated that it wanted to add language about grading to one of the lists. Our team objected strenuously to the idea, taking the basic position that making grading to the CBA in this way would be highly perilous, pressuring faculty to give higher-than-warranted grades. The parties engaged in a very long discussion, more like a scholarly debate than a negotiating session.

Our team noted the addition we had made to section 11.3.3. The administration did not seem to object; but, it did want to clarify the phrase "For purposes of this Agreement", writing it instead (for example) as "For evaluations conducted in 2014 that pertain to a Member's performance in the calendar year 2013", and our team agreed.

The parties then returned to section 11.2, this time discussing our two lists of service criteria.

Let us note that the two lists are predicated upon a development in the workload discussions, specifically the proposal for a higher teaching load but lower service expectations during the first two years (per AAUP-WSU) or five years (per the administration) of an Instructor's appointment, with the lower teaching load applying to all other non-visiting NTE faculty who maintain a record of "Significant Service".

The administration stated that the shorter list (that would apply to beginning Instructors) should be lengthened. Our team replied that both lists were meant to give examples of factors that a chair should consider in annual evaluations, and that we were open to expanding the lists -- but that it must remain very clear that beginning Instructors bear a much lower service expectation.

April 15, 2013

The administration's proposal in the right column of the table above shows changes in comparison to the existing CBA for tenure-eligible and tenured (TET) faculty. Our team suggested that for this agreement (to last one year), the annual evaluations should be done in accordance with past practice. The parties understand that the annual evaluation system specified in the existing CBA must be overhauled, and they will presumably attend to annual evaluation criteria and procedures -- and the effects of annual evaluation (e.g., on salaries) -- when they negotiate a successor to the first NTE CBA and to the existing CBA. Let us note that there may be one successor agreement (or two) according to whether the two bargaining units have been merged into a single one (or not) when negotiations for a successor begin early in 2014.


Return to the AAUP-WSU home page.

This page was last modified on Tuesday, August 20, 2013. Corrections, comments, and suggestions are most welcome. Contact the webmaster for this page (Jim Vance) at jimvance.wsu@gmail.com, telephone 937-775-2206. To contact the chapter, please see our Staff, Officers, and Committees page.