|
|
|
|
3.b ANNUAL REVIEW DEFINITIONS |
ANNUAL REVIEW
The period for each annual review will be January 1 to December 31, with documentation submitted for the annual review received by the department in a timely manner. The basic policy is stated in the WSU Faculty Manual (Section III. D. 3c: Faculty Personnel Policies, Annual Review). Within the Libraries, additional policies and procedures have been established.
Unit heads are expected to meet with each faculty member in her/his unit mid-year to review goals and discuss overall performance. Supervisors are expected to give frequent feedback on each faculty member’s performance throughout the year.
The faculty member will prepare annual review documentation consisting of a curriculum vitae, explication not to exceed two pages, and documentation to reflect his/her accomplishments during the previous year, and a copy of goals for the previous year and the faculty member's goals for the coming year. This Annual Review should be organized according to the Libraries' CRITERIA FOR MERIT INCREASES, PROMOTION, AND GRANTING OF TENURE (see Sec. 3.b.1, Library Faculty Handbook). For a more detailed narrative of the annual review process, refer to the WSU Faculty Manual (Section III, D. 3c.).
WSU LIBRARIES PROCEDURES
1. Faculty member compiles annual review documents (vita, goals, an explication relating significant achievements to the Libraries' Criteria not to exceed two pages, and documentation).
2. Faculty member gives documents to supervisor for review (in the Libraries this will be unit or department head, or other acting in that capacity).
3. Supervisor reviews document, writes evaluation, and recommends a merit rating. Supervisor will give the faculty member the written evaluation and merit rating document a minimum of two working days prior to meeting with the faculty member.
4. Supervisor discusses the evaluation and merit rating with faculty member. Faculty member has a minumum of two working days after discussing the evaluation with the supervisor to sign it. Faculty member may append a dissent to the evaluation regarding the contents of the evaluation.
5. The supervisor sends signed evaluation and attachments to the Director/ADs for review and assignment of the Director/ADs' merit rating.
6. The Director/ADs must send a written acknowledgement of a dissent to the faculty member within 30 working days of its receipt. Reviews with a dissent are forwarded to the Provost. See WSU Faculty Manual (Section III, D. 3c.).
7. Merit rating will be calculated for each faculty member based on the established weighting scale for each category. Supervisor's merit rating may be changed by the Director/ADs.
8. If commensurate merit ratings assigned by the supervisor are identical to those assigned by the Director/ADs, no additional signature is needed. If the Director/ADs’ rating is different, a second signature is required on the form.
For the definitions of numerical ratings and their calculations, see Sec. 3.b.2, Library Faculty Handbook.
A copy of the final annual review, signed by the Director of Libraries and including any comments made by the Director, will be sent to the faculty member.
The Director of Libraries prepares recommendations for merit increases and submits them according to University procedures.
In the distribution of salary money, the Library Faculty recommend that the Library Administration not allow any tenure-track librarian salary to fall below the WSU minimum salary reported to ARL. To improve retention of experienced library faculty, it is highly desirable that their salaries be above the minimum starting salary. [4/22/91 Library Faculty Meeting]
ANNUAL REVIEW DEFINITIONS
The following definitions were approved [12/16/91 Library Faculty Meeting] for use when writing the Annual Review to describe the various stages of research, scholarly, creative and professional achievements and activities (See Criteria -- Category II, Sec 3.b.1):
CONSULTING consists of the provision of professional expertise to groups or individuals outside of WSU and its branch campuses, including representatives from government, industry, and public or private organizations.
When reporting consulting activities, the following information should be included to assist reviewers in evaluating the activity:
1. Organization for which the consulting was done.
2. Topic or subject of the consultation.
3. Amount of time spent on the project.
4. Contract or payment involved, if applicable.
5. Form of the final product.
IN PROGRESS: Initial stages of an activity including planning and conducting research, practicing for a presentation, preparing for an exhibit, writing, etc.
SUBMITTED: The stage at which a project is submitted to an agency for review and possible publication, funding, or presentation.
ACCEPTED: The stage at which a project, proposal or artistic creation is accepted for publication, funding, or presentation. Minimum documentation at this stage is a statement of acceptance in the curriculum vitae accompanied by a letter of acceptance from the agency or a contract.
PUBLISHED/FUNDED/EXHIBITED/PRESENTED: The stage at which a project, proposal or artistic creation is published, funded, exhibited, or presented. Minimum documentation at this state is a statement of publication, funding, exhibition, or presentation in the curriculum vitae accompanied by a copy of the publication, the contract, or a program of the event.
Credit in the form of increased merit rating should be awarded at the time of publication, funding, exhibition, or presentation.
Sec. 3.b
Rev. 2/21/03