ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR ACADEMIC STAFF Chardin S. Claybourne Wayne State University March 21, 2013 PURPOSE OF ANNUAL REVIEW “The purpose of the annual review process is to assess each member of the academic staff in terms of his/her performance in contributing to the overall goal of making Wayne State University the best possible teaching and research institution it can be.” (Article XXIV – Professional Duties) PURPOSE OF ANNUAL REVIEW (CONT.) 1. To identify and reward excellent performance of all academic staff 2. To identify and remedy performance substantially below disciplinary norms and unit factors of tenured/ESS academic staff PARTICIPATION IN ANNUAL REVIEW Is mandatory for all academic staff: “Each member of the academic staff must participate in the annual review process.” (Article XXIV – Professional Duties) This is a change from the previous contract, where tenured/ESS academic staff were exempt from annual reviews. All faculty also must participate in annual review. YOUR ANNUAL REPORT Consists of: a) b) c) An updated professional record A summary of the last three (3) years of your activities (professional assignments, professional development/achievement, and service) A presentation of current activities and expected results of said activities NONPARTICIPATION Failure to submit your annual report and participate in the annual review process: • You will not receive the selective-salary increase (up to 1.375% (201314); thereafter up to 1.25% to base salary) for that year NONPARTICIPATION Failure to submit your annual report and participate in the annual review process for two (2) times in any five (5) year period: • You will not receive the across-the-board increase (1.25% to base salary) for that year COMPENSATION Outstanding performance shall be rewarded through contractual salary increases as provided in Article XII. (up to 1.375% (2013-14); thereafter up to 1.25% to base salary) PEER EVALUATION Unit • Applicable salary committee No salary committee in your unit? • Goes up a level to School/College/division salary committee No salary committee in your School/College/division? • Goes up to the University Academic-Staff Tenure and Promotion Committee CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION Based on: • Unit factors and norms • Existing School/College/division norms • Information in your annual report ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS 1. Salary Committee determines AS member is substantially below unit factors/norms 1. Salary committee may recommend formation of peer mentoring committee for remediation MENTORING COMMITTEE Formed through recommendation of Salary Committee Consists of three (3) academic staff of equal or higher rank to member in question: • One (1) member chosen by Salary Committee • One (1) member chosen by chair/dean/director of unit • One (1) member chosen by academic-staff being mentored IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM To rectify deficiencies determined by Salary Committee and communicated to mentoring committee Administered by mentoring committee, and reported back to Salary Committee after each year Salary Committee makes judgment on effectiveness of improvement program IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Salary Committee finds improvement program sufficient: • Review ends. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Salary Committee finds improvement program has not been effective in assessment of any year-end review: • Sends report to mentoring committee • Mentoring committee can respond to Salary Comm. • Salary Comm. can recommend 1. Continuation of improvement program 2. Referral of the matter to chair/dean/director for further action. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM If decided by the chair/dean/director, in consultation w/ the unit’s policy/personnel/other applicable committee, and the academic-staff member: • University activity may be substituted for all/portion of workload, OR • A transfer may be recommended to another unit • No transfer may take place without agreement of all units and the academic-staff member CHANGE IN DUTIES Must be followed immediately, after being notified personally in writing or by certified mail Can be disputed by scheduling a meeting within five (5) days of notification. Meeting must be scheduled within five (5) working days of request Meeting will include academic staff, applicable administrator and AAUP-AFT rep, if requested CHANGE IN DUTIES Meeting occurs • Solution is agreed upon by parties • New job description written • New job description provided within five (5) working days of meeting • Academic-staff member signs description, it is effective on date to which parties agree CHANGE IN DUTIES Meeting occurs, solution not met or member does not agree to new job description: • AAUP-AFT may refer matter to Appeals Committee • Appeals Committee will meet, review, and submit recommendations within fifteen (15) working days of its appointment to President or designee • President/designee agrees with recommendation: • Will implement any further changes within five (5) working days of decision • President designee disagrees with recommendations: • • • Will meet with Appeals Committee to discuss Will advise academic-staff member of decision within five (5) working days AAUP-AFT can go to binding arbitration, or if academic-staff member is not notified within thirty (30) days after recommendation is given ARTICLE XXIII: A N N UA L R E V I E W For Academic staff without ESS Must be given at least two weeks notice prior to review Must contain, at the least: (a) standards of performance for the particular position (b) identification of the specific appraisal factors (c) accomplishments in job performance, professional achievement, and, at the option of the staff member, scholarly achievement (d) identification of areas of growth and major strengths (e) identification of future expectations and areas of improvement (f) unexpected changes in job status that affected performance After receiving the written review, the staff member may, within two (2) weeks, attach for the file any areas of disagreement with the review.