B. Unit and Program Personnel Review Committees

A. The Faculty Handbook

The Faculty Handbook contains all of the information about GVSU's personnel policies, including performance review, grievance procedures and academic freedom. Each faculty member should become familiar with these policies, as well as other important information contained in the GVSU Faculty Personnel Policy Workbook (updated Fall 2006). What follows is an elaboration of the personnel procedures developed within CoIS in accordance with the policies outlined in the Faculty Handbook.

B. Unit and Program Personnel Review Committees

For the purposes of unit level personnel review in CoIS, units and programs (Liberal Studies, Women and Gender Studies, Africa/African American Studies, East Asian Studies, Latin American Studies, Middle Eastern Studies, Honors College) will determine a Review Committee within the first year of each regular faculty member’s initial appointment which will, within practical limits, serve in that capacity through the tenure decision for that faculty person. All regular faculty with primary appointments (at least 60%) in a CoIS unit or program will be reviewed by that unit or program with input from colleagues in secondary units and colleges. The Review Committee will consist of at least five members, including all regular faculty in the CoIS unit or program, plus additional tenured members chosen by the Chair of the Review Committee in consultation with the Dean of CoIS. At least one member of the Review Committee will have expertise in the candidate’s academic discipline.

The Chair of the Review Committee will be the Chair or Coordinator of the unit or program (or designate). The Chair takes responsibility for calling meetings of the committee and conducting the review meetings. The Review Committee summarizes relevant material, analyzes course evaluations, identifies issues requiring discussion, drafts and revises the unit recommendation, and in general ensures that the review process is conducted in a timely and fair manner.

A. Overview of Review Process

By the first week of September, the Dean of CoIS informs the candidate about an upcoming personnel action. When the review is optional (i.e., promotion), the candidate will notify the Dean on or before October 1 of the year during which the requested review will take place. The candidate prepares a review portfolio in accordance with the published guidelines. The Review Committee assesses the file including teaching evaluations, andprepares a draft agenda. Both the candidate and individual faculty may make suggestions for changes to the draft agenda.

Before the review meeting, the Chair of the Review Committee meets with the candidate to discuss the agenda. The candidate may elect to be absent from the review meeting by signing a waiver and providing written responses to agenda questions.

The Chair of the Review Committee conducts the review meeting during which brief summaries of the candidate's achievements in each of the review categories are presented and discussed. The candidate responds to questions/comments on the agenda and from the floor. The faculty thoroughly and candidly discusses the candidate’s performance in each review area. The candidate leaves the meeting room and the unit discussion continues. If new information or issues arise, the Chair may elect to recall the candidate to respond.

The faculty determines a unit recommendation. The unit votes on the recommendation according to the guidelines on voting (see below). The faculty submits post review comments to the Chair of the Review Committee (optional).The Chair of the Review Committee prepares the unit recommendation report. It is reviewed by the faculty and revised as necessary. The candidate's file, including unit recommendation, peer observation reports, and course evaluations, are made available for review by the CoIS Personnel Committee (CPC) by the published date.

B. Review File

The candidate makes the file available to the faculty by the first day of class in thewinter semester. The file will be available for review in the Dean’s office.

Each candidate for personnel action is reviewed in four evaluation areas: Teaching (the most important), Scholarly/Creative Activity, Unit and University Service and Community Service. Please see the section on CoIS Performance Expectations for an elaboration of the four areas. The review file should include evidence of activity in each of the four review areas including, but not limited to, the following:

1. A personal statement that contains a self-assessment of the candidate’s performance in each of the evaluation categories. Particular attention should be given to teaching, the most important review category.

2. Curriculum vitae.

3. Course syllabi and other teaching materials.

4. Samples of student work, if practical (with instructor's comments).

5. Materials documenting scholarly achievement.

The following are the responsibility of the unit:

1. All student evaluations for the entire period under review.

2. Reports of peer observations of teaching.

3. Unit recommendation report (added after review meeting).

C. Agenda/Preparation for Review Meeting

After their review of the candidate's file and at least three days before the scheduled meeting, faculty forward questions/agenda items to the Chair of the Review Committee. The faculty reviews the agenda and makes suggestions for changes before the review meeting.

D. Review Committee Recommendation and Report

At the end of the review meeting, the Review Committee determines its recommendation to the CoIS Personnel Committee, which recommends to the Dean of CoIS. According to the Faculty Handbook, "If a candidate for reappointment, tenure, or promotion has the support of the members of the unit, the Personnel Committee will normally be expected to accept the recommendation of the unit.” The recommendation varies with the type of personnel action being considered (twoyear contract, oneyear contract, tenure and/or promotion, or not to renew). The review report, including recommendation, is drafted by the Chair of the Review Committee and approved by the other faculty on the committee. The report summarizes the candidate's achievements in each of the review areas and all of the issues discussed in the review meeting as succinctly and accurately as possible. It also documents those faculty members in attendance and the outcome of the ballot vote.

E. Voting

The review meeting concludes with a secret ballot vote. Ballots are distributed to faculty presentat the meeting. Completed ballots are passed to the Chair of the Review Committee for tallying. Only regular faculty in attendance may vote. No proxy or absentee ballots will be accepted. At least two thirds of the members of the Review Committee must be present for a valid vote. The Chair announces the outcome of the vote at the meeting. In the absence of a valid vote, the personnel action is forwarded to the CPC which makes a recommendation to the Dean.

F. Post review meeting comments

After the review meeting, faculty may submit additional comments to the Chair of the Review Committee providing reasons supporting or not supporting the unit vote based on the evaluative criteria. Faculty may also comment on whether issues and questions were adequately reflected on the agenda and discussed in the review meeting. These forms are forwarded with the recommendation report to the Dean and CPC. Unsigned forms will be destroyed and not included in this process.

Peer Observation of Teaching

Two peer observers are assigned by the chair of the Review Committee to each candidate under review. The observers will meet with the candidate and establish an appropriate visiting schedule. The observers will each visit at least one and preferably two classes in the period leading up to the review. At least one observer will have discipline expertise.

A report of the peer observations should be placed in the candidate’s file when it is made available for review by faculty (the first day of class in the winter semester). The report should include the following:

1. Name and discipline of the candidate

2. Name and discipline of the peer observer

3. Course number and title

4. Date and time of peer observation

5. Number of students present in the class

6. Description of the class: subject, objectives, methods, organization, etc.

7. Description of any pre- and post-observation meetings

8. Evaluation of the instructor’s teaching: organization and preparation, rapport with students, ability to stimulate critical thinking and analysis, etc.

9. Evaluation of any course materials connected to the class including syllabus, readings, films, PowerPoint, etc.