Policy E-14

From Academic Guide

Revision as of 04:49, 8 June 2010 by Admin (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

ANNUAL REVIEWS AND PROMOTION PROCEDURES FOR ACADEMIC APPOINTEES

(Approved: UFC 4/29/76; Amended: BFC 2/20/79; UFC 2/8/77, 10/9/79; 4/23/91; Trustees 6/20/91)

The professional performance of each faculty member at the rank of Associate Professor or below and each librarian at the rank of Associate Librarian or below shall be reviewed annually under procedures adopted by the faculty within the department, school, program or division or library unit in which the individual holds his or her appointment. At that time the appointee shall also be informed of matters relevant to eligibility for promotion.

The appointee shall cooperate with the principal administrator to ensure that the file on which such a review is based contains all relevant materials.

In the case of a non-tenured appointee, a written statement summarizing the substance of each annual review should be kept in the file, and a copy given to the appointee. In the case of a tenured appointee, the principal administrator shall confirm in writing, to the appointee, and to the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs, that an annual review or evaluative discussion with the appointee has taken place. The appointee has the right to request and receive a written statement from the principal administrator summarizing the substance of the review or discussion; the principal administrator may, at his or her discretion, provide such a written statement even though it is unrequested. If a statement is written, copies must both be placed in the file and given to the appointee.

(Approved: BFC 2/15/94)

The Bloomington Faculty Council affirms that current annual reviews of faculty members and librarians, tenured and nontenured, are in general adequate for the purposes of evaluating and documenting faculty performance. In light of the extensive annual review procedures that already exist, we oppose instituting additional review procedures such as five-year reviews.

Personal tools