UW Colleges Senate Policy
Faculty Personnel Policy #503
Faculty Merit Policy and Procedures
============================================================
Adopted by the Senate, May 9, 1992, p.4. app. 7
Revision adopted by the Senate, November 13, 1993, p.6, app. 5
Revision adopted by the Senate, March 9, 1996, p.4; att. 5
Revision adopted by the Senate, January 14, 2000, p. 9
Revision adopted by the Senate, January 10, 2001, p. 26
Revision adopted by the Senate, March 2, 2001, p. 37
Reorganized and Renumbered, March 15, 2002
Revised by the Senate, October 15, 2004
Revised by the Senate, April 29, 2005
The performance of every continuing faculty member will be reviewed annually by a committee of peers. This review will be based on evidence of teaching effectiveness, professional development, and professional service to the university and/or wider community. As a result of this review, each faculty member will be assigned to a merit category for the purpose of determining salary adjustments and provided with a brief written performance evaluation.
I. General Procedures
A. Merit evaluations will be done by academic departments and campuses in alternate years, with each committee reviewing Activity Reports, student evaluations, and any other evidence of achievement, over a two-year period. The campus dean must be included in the discussion of campus merit evaluations, but will be excused prior to final deliberations. The department chair will serve ex officio on the department merit committee.
B. Merit Determination
1. Each year, the relevant committee will commence by determining whether each faculty member is satisfactorily meeting the basic expectations for the position. Individuals who receive an unsatisfactory rating shall not receive either across-the-board or merit salary increases.
2. All faculty performing satisfactorily will then be separated into three categories: the majority will be in a group considered Meritorious; a smaller number will be judged to be Highly Meritorious; and a few may be judged to have earned Exceptional Merit for the two year period. The latter two groups together will normally include no more than 40% nor less than 25% of the faculty in the campus or department.
3. Individual Performance Evaluation
Each faculty member will be provided with a written individual performance evaluation, indicating areas of achievement as well as areas of possible concern, and including suggestions for improvement or further development if relevant.
a. In departmental years, the written evaluation will be provided by the department chair, in consultation with the department merit evaluation committee.
b. In campus years, the written evaluation may be provided by the dean or the merit committee, as the campus merit committee determines.
c. The written evaluation shall include a statement that a follow-up meeting, conducted either via telephone or in person, may occur at the request of either the faculty member or the chair of the committee which provided the written evaluation. When a follow-up meeting occurs, the committee chair shall prepare a written summary of the meeting, to be signed also by the faculty member, and provide signed copies of the summary to the faculty member and to the personnel files of the department, the campus, and the vice chancellor's office. If the faculty member declines to sign the chair's summary, the faculty member will provide her/his own written summary of the meeting to the committee chair and to the personnel files of the department, the campus, and the vice chancellor's office.
4. Evidence
a. Committees shall consider the results of any student evaluations required during the two-year period. Student evaluations for merit purposes will be scheduled in all UW Colleges classes at least every third semester.
b. Committees shall also consider an Activity Report covering the preceding two years. Faculty shall submit their reports to the relevant committee each year by January 4; any faculty not submitting an Activity Report shall not be eligible for merit consideration.
c. The committees may, in the course of their evaluations, seek or use other information, including the results of class visitations when available.
5. Criteria
All department chairs and campus deans shall provide copies of their unit's criteria for merit evaluation to all department or campus members. Campus or departmental policies must adhere to the following general guidelines, although they may include additional specific criteria.
a. Teaching effectiveness shall be given primary consideration. Student evaluations shall be considered as part of the evaluation process, in addition to peer reviews where available and other information provided by the faculty members. Participation in Colleges-wide and department assessment activities will be expected. Note: Data from assessment activities may not be used when considering merit or promotion.
b. Other areas to be considered include:
1. Professional growth, such as active participation in professional societies, progress toward or attainment of a terminal degree, scholarly or professional publication or research, course development, discipline related performance, or other types of professional creativity;
2. Non-teaching University service at the campus, department, UW Colleges, or UW System levels;
3. Public service to the community in areas related to the faculty member's academic expertise or professional competence.
6. Special Circumstances
(Revisions adopted by the Senate 1/14/00 and 1/10/01)
a. In the case of split appointments, the home campus or home department will be responsible for the evaluation, after consultation with the other departments or campuses involved.
b. Faculty members on professional leave will be evaluated by the relevant merit committees based on available information. Faculty on full leave for personal reasons will not be part of the merit process. (Determination of the nature of leave or other details of implementation shall rest with the Vice Chancellor, on the recommendation of the department chair and in consultation with the dean.)
c. First year faculty appointees will be given a salary increase commensurate with a meritorious merit rating provided that their retention decisions are positive. This policy applies to initial probationary appointees who have served fractional years.
II. Allocation of Faculty Pay Plan Money
A. The Chancellor shall set aside an amount necessary to bring faculty to rank minimum from the merit increment dollar pool.
B. The merit increment pool shall be allocated to meritorious faculty in the following manner:
70% as a Percentage of Current Salary
30% as Fixed Awards
C. The 70% to percentage merit shall be applied as a percentage of current salary to all continuing faculty, judged at least meritorious.
D. The 30% fixed awards to meritorious faculty shall be awarded as a fixed dollar amount to all continuing faculty, judged at least meritorious. Ten percent of the merit increment pool shall be allocated to Highly and Exceptionally Meritorious faculty. The fixed award for exceptionally meritorious faculty shall be 50% larger than the fixed award for highly meritorious faculty. The amount allocated and the fixed awards shall be determined in accordance with current Senate Budget Committee procedures.
III. Dissemination and Implementation
A. Upon adoption by the Senate, a copy of this policy shall be sent to all faculty presently subject to merit evaluation. Subsequently, copies shall be distributed by campus deans to all new faculty at the time of appointment.]
B. Each year the Vice Chancellor shall provide campus deans or department chairs with a detailed set of instructions, including deadlines, implementation details, and a complete list of faculty in the department or campus merit pool.
C. Merit recommendations shall be forwarded to the Chancellor by the department or campus dean in the appropriate year.