Skip Navigation

Southern Oregon University

bylaws_section5Printer friendly version (MS Word)

5.000

Section 5.   Academic Faculty

5.100

I.      Guidelines for Initial Appointment of Faculty Members

5.110

A.    Description of Faculty Vacancies

 

When a position in a department is to be filled, the Department Chair, in open consultation with all faculty members of the department, will submit in writing to the Dean a description of the position and its duties, as well as a suggested salary range and a list of the necessary and desirable qualifications, which the appointee should possess.

5.120

B.     Search for Candidates

 

The objective is to conduct a thorough search for the best-qualified candidate in cooperation with the Provost and the Affirmative Action Officer for Unclassified Personnel.

The Department Chair is responsible for initiating the search. The first action of the search committee chair shall be to meet with the Affirmative Action Officer who shall advise him/her on how to conduct the search.

5.130

C.    Faculty Appointments

5.131

1.      Appointment Procedure

a.  After consulting with the Department Chair and all department members, the search committee shall submit a written recommendation for hiring and the chosen candidate's file to the Dean through the Department Chair.

b.  The Dean, after consultation with all department faculty members, will forward the final recommendation for hiring to the Provost. In the case of appointments to more than one department, all departments involved must make the recommendation. All appointments are subject to the regulations of the Oregon Administrative Rules. Formal letters of appointment can only be transmitted to the candidate by the President, who alone has authority to appoint a faculty member.

c.  If the Dean, the Provost, or the President disapproves of the candidate, the candidate’s file will be returned to the department with written explanations for reconsideration.

5.132

2.      Initial Rank and Years in Rank (YIR)

Each new appointment of a faculty member will indicate the rank of appointment and the initial YIR for that appointment.

5.132 (a)

a.       Professional Ranks

Normally, professional faculty members are appointed to the entry-level rank of instructor and must meet the criteria outlined below. Appointments to the ranks of senior instructor 1 and 2 shall be guided by the promotion criteria (see section 5.221). Faculty appointed to the ranks of Senior Instructor 1 or 2 receive a one-year renewable appointment and are eligible to apply for a three-year extendable appointment after completing three years of service at SOU (see section 5.223). 

(1)   Educational Background and Teaching Experience

Initial appointment at the rank of Instructor requires a Master’s degree in the discipline taught or equivalent thereof and demonstrated teaching potential. Some departments or programs may require specialized teaching experience.

(2)   Teaching Effectiveness and Service.

A candidate’s application materials should demonstrate potential for excellence in teaching and active participation in the life of the institution (see sections 5.224 and 5.226). The search committee shall only recommend candidates they determine have sufficient potential in each of these areas.

5.132 (b)

b.      Professorial Ranks

Normally, professorial faculty members are appointed to the entry-level rank of assistant professor and must meet the criteria outlined below. Appointments to higher ranks shall be guided by the promotion criteria (see section 5.221).

(1)   Educational Background and Teaching Experience

Initial appointment at the rank of assistant professor requires a terminal degree in the discipline taught, but is permissible when (1) an individual has completed a Master’s degree in the discipline taught and (2) is in the process of completing the appropriate terminal degree (see section 5.230). Candidates should also have at least the equivalent of one academic year of full-time college teaching, frequently combining years of part-time teaching while a graduate student.

 

(2)   Teaching Effectiveness, Scholarship, and Service

A candidate’s application materials should demonstrate the potential for excellence in teaching, developing a record of scholarship suitable for promotion to associate professor, and active participation in the life of the institution and profession (see sections 5.224-5.226). The search committee shall only recommend candidates they determine have sufficient potential in each of these areas.

5.132 (c)

c.       Years in Rank (YIR)

 

The Department Chair, in consultation with the Dean and Provost, will determine the appropriate initial YIR based on the candidate’s previous experience at the same rank or higher.

5.133

3.      Appointments of Temporary Faculty

a.       Appointments to Lecturer ranks require terminal degree (or its professional equivalent for certain adjunct appointments).  Individuals appointed to lecturer ranks must have assignments that include significant mentoring and advising responsibilities and a significant measure of responsibility for graduate education.  Lecturer assignments may also include upper division instruction.  Ranks in this category in ascending order are lecturer, senior lecturer I, senior lecturer II. Salary is negotiable based on professional achievement and should be commensurate with professorial salary rates for the appointment type (term-to-term or annual). 

b.      The adjective “adjunct” may be added to any professorial or professional rank to indicate a faculty member drawn from the community or a regional educational, industrial or governmental institution to temporarily assist an academic department in meeting its teaching, research, or service commitments. Appointments should be at the appropriate professional or professorial rank based on the individual’s academic credentials and assignment (see section 5.132).

c.       The adjective “affiliate” may be added to any professorial or professional rank to indicate a faculty member who does not receive monetary compensation by the institution for services rendered.  They may be unpaid invited guests for a temporary length of time or individuals who, on a consistent basis, lend their expertise and/or collaborate on teaching and research.  Affiliate status is approved for a specified length of time and must be renewed should the association continue.  Appointments should be at the appropriate professional or professorial rank based on the individual’s academic credentials and services rendered.

d.      The adjective “visiting” may be added to any professorial or professional rank to indicate a faculty member drawn from other educational, industrial or governmental institutions who are here by virtue of an exchange agreement or other limited duration appointment. Appointments should be at the appropriate professional or professorial rank based on the individual’s academic credentials and temporary assignment (see section 5.132).

5.134

4.      Faculty Appointments of Administrators

a.       Deans, Provost, and President are normally granted faculty rank and tenure at hire. Other Administrators may also be considered for faculty rank and/or tenure, as appropriate to their administrative position in an academic division.

b.      Administrators may be granted a professorial rank in a discipline offered at SOU if their academic credentials merit such an appointment (see section 5.132(b))

c.       Administrators may be hired with tenure if all the following are satisfied:

(1)   He/she meets the tenure criteria (see section 5.221).

(2)   Based on a departmental interview with the candidate and a review of his/her academic credentials, the department vote endorses granting him/her tenure.

(3)   The Faculty Personnel Committee, after reviewing the departmental recommendation and the administrator’s academic credentials, agrees this candidate meets the criteria for tenure.

5.200

II.   Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure

5.210

A.    Procedure

5.211

1.   The Provost will distribute a schedule of deadlines for personnel actions at the beginning of each academic year. The schedule shall allow sufficient time for evaluation of the personnel action at each of the following levels, in this order: Departmental Personnel Committee, Department Chair, Dean, Faculty Personnel Committee, and Provost.

      If a faculty member holds a split appointment between two or more departments, the department in which he/she holds the major fraction of the appointment will review the individual’s personnel action. In the case of a 50/50 appointment, both concerned departments will review the application.

5.212

2.   The Provost provides directions for assembling and submitting promotion and tenure portfolios, which solicit appropriate and sufficient information upon which to base this evaluation, and include a process for each evaluator to record his/her comments and recommendation or action.

      Portfolios normally include:

a.       Application Information

·         Name

·         Department

·         Current appointment [rank in department/program]

·         Goal [promotion in rank, and/or tenure or three-year extendable appointment]

·         Date of initial academic appointment at SOU

·         Equivalent full-time years of service in an academic appointment at SOU (including current year)

·         Years in rank granted at initial appointment (in rare instances where years in rank were granted upon last promotion or in conjunction with a reappointment, give those and briefly explain circumstances)

·         Current year in rank

·         Inclusive dates of any leaves (including sabbaticals)

b.      Supporting Documentation

·         Department Chair’s seven-year master sheet summarizing student evaluation of teaching effectiveness

·         Most recent Colleague Evaluation (if more than 1 year old, include most recent Annual Evaluation)

·         Current Vita

·         FPARs for each year under review

·         FPAP for current year

c.       Self-evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

Review the teaching expectations (see section 5.224) and the characteristics describing each performance level. Which level best describes your performance during the past five years (acceptable, preferred, or exceptional)? What evidence supports your conclusion?

d.      Self-evaluation of Scholarly Activity

Review the scholarship expectations (see section 5.225) and the characteristics describing each performance level. Which level best describes your performance during the past five years (acceptable, preferred, or exceptional)? What evidence supports your conclusion?

e.       Self-evaluation of Service Activities

Review the service expectations (see section 5.226) and the characteristics describing each performance level. Which level best describes your performance during the past five years (acceptable, preferred, or exceptional)? What evidence supports your conclusion?

5.213

3    The Departmental Personnel Committee will notify department members of all pending promotion and tenure applications.

5.214

4.   At each level the personnel actions will be evaluated. The evaluation report shall include a recommendation or action (in the case of a committee, the vote tally and a separate list of signatures for all members participating in the decision), and sufficient commentary to provide subsequent reviewers with insight into the rationale behind that recommendation or action.

5.215

5.   At each level prior to the Provost’s action, the evaluation report will be sent (or made electronically available) to the applicant at the same time it is added to the portfolio and forwarded to the next evaluator.

5.216

6.   The Faculty Personnel Committee’s principal role is to make recommendations to the Provost that assure the consistent and equitable application of promotion and tenure criteria across campus. They should carefully evaluate applications to assure reviewers based their recommendation on the bylaws criteria, including departmental expectations.

5.217

7.   The Provost shall consult the President prior to taking an action contrary to the majority of evaluators (i.e. at least three evaluations endorsed a different outcome). Such actions must carry the signatures of both the Provost and President.

5.218

8.   The Provost will take final action on all personnel matters, subject to appeal procedures as provided in section 6.100 of these bylaws and OAR chapter 580, division 2l.

5.219

9.   Within one week after the Provost acts, notification of the action will be sent to the applicant and copied to the Department Chair or appropriate supervisor. Following notification of the action, the applicant shall have sole custody of the original application portfolio and evaluation reports.  (A copy of the application portfolio and evaluation reports is placed in the faculty member’s confidential personnel file.)


5.220

B.     Faculty Performance Expectations

Professional faculty members will be measured against the expectations listed under teaching and service (see section 5.224 and 5.226). Professorial faculty members will be measured against the expectations listed under teaching, scholarship and service (see sections 5.224-5.226).

All faculty members should be making progress toward performing at the preferred level in each of the areas applicable to their appointment. The preferred level describes the average or typical performance level for a faculty member making good progress toward final promotion. The exceptional level would characterize and recognize faculty who demonstrated significant achievements, well beyond the preferred level. The acceptable level describes the minimum performance expected for continued employment. Note: unacceptable performance is defined as below an acceptable level and may require a plan for correction (see 5.370).

The bylaws sections 5.224-5.226 describe the university expectations in each area. In addition, tables list characteristics in each area for acceptable, preferred, and exceptional performance. Departments articulate their expectations for faculty in their discipline(s) by additions or clarifications to the University characteristics in the tables for teaching and service. Departments articulate their expectations for scholarship in a discipline-specific scholarship table. See section 5.227 for more information regarding the goals and review process for departmental expectations.

5.221

1.      Promotion and Tenure Criteria

All faculty members must have the educational background required and have completed the required years in rank prior to the effective date of promotion or the required years of service prior to the date of awarding of tenure or a three-year extendable appointment (see section 5.223).

In addition, the faculty member’s performance portfolio must be reviewed and demonstrate that there are sufficient contributions in each of the areas appropriate to the faculty member’s appointment. Faculty must meet or exceed the acceptable performance level in each area applicable to their appointment. The number of areas required to exceed the acceptable level gradually increases (see table below) until all areas must be at the preferred level for final promotion (Senior Instructor 2 or Full Professor). Note: exceptional performance is not expected, nor required for promotion to any rank, however faculty members may elect to replace preferred performance in two areas with acceptable performance in one area and exceptional performance in the other.

 


Minimum Promotion and Tenure Performance Requirements

 

Min Acceptable

Min Preferred

Min Exceptional

SR Instructor 1

(3 year extendable appt.)

1

1

 

SR Instructor 2

 

2

 

 

— OR —

 

1

 

1

Associate

2

1

 

Tenure

1

2

 

 

— OR —

 

2

 

1

Professor

 

3

 

 

— OR —

 

1

1

1

 

5.222

2.      Evaluations and Preparing for Promotion or Tenure

All faculty evaluations provide feedback on a faculty member’s performance in the areas applicable to their appointment. In areas where a faculty member’s performance is not yet meeting the preferred performance level, the evaluation process shall include recommendations for improvement or a discussion of goals. If a faculty member’s performance in an area is not meeting the acceptable performance level, a colleague evaluation may be scheduled by the department chair within one calendar year to provide the faculty member with additional feedback and a more detailed plan for improvement (see section 5.361). See section 5.300 for more information on faculty evaluations.

A colleague evaluation will review the faculty member’s performance in each of the areas applicable to his/her appointment and indicate whether s/he meets the acceptable, preferred, or exceptional performance level. The most recent colleague evaluation report shall be included as part of any promotion or tenure application and must be dated no earlier than two calendar years prior to the date of the application. Faculty receiving annual evaluations (see section 5.350) shall add the most recent annual evaluation to the colleague evaluation when that colleague evaluation is more than 1 year old (dated more than one calendar year prior to application deadline). Alternatively, the Department Chair may schedule a new colleague evaluation to replace the older colleague evaluation. The Department Chair will schedule a new colleague evaluation at the faculty member’s request, provided such a request is made on or before October 1 (of the fall term preceding the application). See section 5.380 for information on conducting colleague evaluations.

A department may facilitate the external review of a faculty member’s scholarship and include that review in the faculty member’s performance portfolio provided the chair and faculty member agree that this would be helpful to internal reviewers evaluating the faculty member’s application. It may be completed in conjunction with the included colleague evaluation or subsequent to that colleague evaluation, but prior to the submission deadline for the promotion application.

5.223

3.      Educational Background and Experience

5.223 (a)

a.       Senior Instructor

Faculty members applying for promotion to Senior Instructor must (1) have at least an appropriate Master’s degree for the discipline taught or its equivalent and (2) have completed at least the equivalent of five academic years of full-time college teaching in the appropriate discipline at the Instructor level or above (see section 5.240). Faculty with permanent part-time appointments who clearly meet all promotion criteria except the years of experience may be considered for promotion if they have completed at least seven academic years of college teaching in the appropriate discipline at the instructor level or above.

5.223 (b)

b.      Three-year Extendable Appointments

Upon promotion to Senior Instructor, a faculty member with at least three years of service is automatically awarded a three-year extendable appointment. Faculty members promoted to Senior Instructor prior to completing three years of service will remain on one-year, renewable appointments and may apply for a three-year extendable appointment upon completion of three years of service.

5.223 (c)

c.       Associate Professor

Faculty members applying for promotion to Associate Professor must (1) have an appropriate terminal degree for the discipline taught (see section 5.230) and (2) have completed at least the equivalent of five academic years of full-time college teaching in the appropriate discipline at the assistant professor level or above (see section 5.240). Faculty with permanent part-time appointments who clearly meet all promotion criteria except the years of experience may be considered for promotion if they have completed at least seven academic years of college teaching in the appropriate discipline at the assistant professor level or above.

5.223 (d)

d.      Tenure

Faculty members applying for tenure must (1) have an appropriate terminal degree for the discipline taught (see section 5.230) and (2) have completed at least the equivalent of five academic years of full-time teaching at Southern Oregon University at a professorial rank. Faculty with full-time appointments may apply for tenure during their fifth year of service and no later than during their sixth year of service. Faculty with permanent part-time appointments may apply during the year they complete the equivalent of five years of full-time service and no later than during the year in which they complete the equivalent of six years of full-time service. If approved, tenure is awarded beginning the following year.

Should a professorial faculty member not be awarded tenure prior to their seventh year of consecutive full-time service in a single department, that faculty member must be placed on a one-year terminal appointment for the seventh year.

There may be exceptional individuals whose abilities warrant waiving the seven-year limitation. In such exceptional cases, the Department Chair, in consultation with the Department Personnel Committee, may recommend the faculty member be continued on one-year, renewable appointments that specify both the length and purpose for the exception. In no case may the faculty member be continued beyond the equivalent of ten years of full-time service on fixed term appointments.

5.223 (e)

e.       Professor

Faculty members applying for promotion to Professor must (1) have an appropriate terminal degree for the discipline taught (see section 5.230) and (2) have at least the equivalent of six academic years of full-time college teaching in the appropriate discipline at the associate professor level or above (see section 5.240). Faculty with permanent part-time appointments who clearly meet all promotion criteria except the years of experience may be considered for promotion if they have completed at least eight academic years of college teaching in the appropriate discipline at the associate professor level or above.

There may be rare situations where individuals are able to accumulate a significant portfolio of achievements that merits waiving the educational background and/or experience criteria above. The Department Chair, in consultation with the Dean and Provost, shall place a notation to this effect in the individual’s personnel file. The notation must be signed by the faculty member and approved by the Department Chair, Dean and Provost. This notation will be made available to the individual for inclusion with any application for promotion or tenure.

5.224

4.      Teaching Expectations

Faculty should demonstrate a deep-seated commitment to excellent teaching.

5.224 (a)

a.       Evidence of Good Teaching

A commitment to excellent teaching is demonstrated by continuous reflection and self-improvement, innovative and engaging teaching methods, and a demonstrable commitment to providing students with meaningful educational experiences both in and out of the classroom.

A commitment to excellent teaching entails paying attention to the effectiveness of curriculum and academic programs, engagement in curricular discussions and healthy debate in an environment of academic freedom. It is often reflected in designing and updating courses to meet changing learning objectives, working with colleagues to improve how courses work together to meet programmatic learning outcomes, and participation in curricular and program design and delivery at the departmental or institutional levels.

A commitment to excellent teaching reaches beyond the classroom and is evidenced by mentoring and providing individualized learning situations, such as reading and conference coursework, capstones, honors projects, community-based learning projects, practicums, undergraduate research projects, and developmental advising regarding graduate studies or career goals.

A commitment to excellent teaching is a commitment to your colleagues growth as teachers, as well as your own. This can be demonstrated through seeking and sharing effective techniques for fostering student learning with your colleagues.

A commitment to excellent teaching also is demonstrated in cooperating as a program faculty to accommodate departmental loading needs and demonstrating an ability to recruit and retain students in departmental programs.

5.224 (b)

b.      Professional Development Activities related to Teaching

This includes all the activities a faculty member undertakes to improve his/her instruction. Activities may include participating in conferences, workshops, or other organized forums, as well as self-study, either individually or with a group of colleagues. Activities tend to focus on new course content, current instructional practices or new pedagogies, emerging technology or other instructional tools, and using campus systems related to instructional activities, communication or record keeping.

5.224 (c)

c.       Teaching Performance Levels

In reviewing the characteristics at each level, no faculty member will exactly fit the description in any one column. The evaluation goal is to identify the column that best describes an individual faculty member’s performance in this area.

Acceptable

Preferred

Exceptional

Student evaluations

·  Rate instructor’s teaching effectiveness “very good” or higher (see section 5.260)

 

Classroom Instruction

·  Evidence of a commitment to improve instruction, such as

o Professional development activities that impacted instruction

o Work with colleagues that impacted instruction

 

·  Evidence of effective practices, such as

o Reflection and self-improvement

o Engaging teaching methods

o Providing meaningful classroom experiences

 

Curricular Development

·  Integrates courses into departmental programs, such as

o Effectively prepares students for subsequent courses

o Effectively builds on students prior learning

o Effectively addresses dept’l learning outcomes

 

Departmental Needs

·  Cooperates with program faculty in meeting departmental loading needs

Student evaluations

·  Rate instructor’s teaching effectiveness at or near “outstanding” (see section 5.260)

 

Classroom Instruction

·  Evidence of a commitment to improve instruction (see acceptable column)

 

·  Beyond evidence of effective practices (see acceptable column), also shares successful and/or innovative practices with colleagues

 

Curricular Development

·  Beyond integrating courses into departmental programs (see acceptable column), also is an effective partner in curricular and program design and delivery

 

Mentoring

·  Actively involved in some student mentoring activities

 

Departmental Needs (see acceptable column)

Student evaluations

·  Rate the instructor’s teaching effectiveness well into the “outstanding” category (see section 5.260)

 

Classroom Instruction

·  Recognized by colleagues as a highly skilled and knowledgeable instructor

 

·  Models excellent teaching

 

·  Demonstrates attention and responsiveness to student needs

 

Curricular Development (see preferred column)

 

Mentoring

·  Significant student mentoring activities (either in quantity or quality of work with students)

 

·  Mentors colleagues to develop their instructional abilities (assessment, curricular design, effective delivery, etc.)

 

Departmental Needs (see acceptable column)

[Department Expectations take the form of added bullets (solid circles) under any or all of the headings above as well as added bullets (open circles) under any or all of the existing bullets above.]

5.225

5.      Scholarship Expectations

Professional development centers on a faculty member receiving new information or gaining new understanding. In contrast, scholarly activity centers on pursuing and sharing new knowledge or insight.

Scholarly activity may vary over a faculty member’s career and be demonstrated in a variety of ways. However, common to all should be:

·         Originality —creating new knowledge, insight or artistic works

·         Meaningfulness — contributing to the profession or the public good

·         Review — affirmation of meaningful contribution by appropriate peers

·         Dissemination — sharing work beyond the University

5.225 (a)

a.       Types of Scholarship

Southern Oregon University has a long tradition of encouraging faculty to be teacher-scholars and giving them the freedom to demonstrate their scholarly activity in a wide variety of ways. As a result, the University readily embraced the four types of scholarship developed in Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered (1990) and Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff’s Scholarship Assessed (1997).

Typical examples of scholarly achievements organized by scholarship type are:

Type of Scholarship

Purpose

Achievement

Discovery

Building New Knowledge

·         Publication of original research

·         Presentation of original research at regional, national, or international conferences

·         Creative or artistic works

·         Innovative new software or patents

Integration

Interpreting Knowledge in Multidisciplinary Ways

·         Publication or presentation that presents new understanding or insight by evaluating issue from multiple perspectives

·         Publication or presentation that presents new connections or linkages between previously unrelated knowledge

·         Publication or presentation that places specialized knowledge into a larger context

Application

Applying Knowledge for Public Good

 

·         External funding obtained for a need in the public or private sector

·         Innovative practical solution or outcome developed (normally as a consultant to an agency, business, or industry)

·         Practitioners in the field adopt resources or techniques developed

·         Original performances or exhibitions

Teaching and Learning

Conveying Knowledge to Students

·         Publication or presentation of original instructional material

·         Publication of Textbook

·         Publication or presentation of original curriculum

·         Publication or presentation of ways to incorporate original knowledge or technology into existing curriculum

·         Publication or presentation of ways to assess instructional materials or pedagogies for effectiveness

·         Publication or presentation of new approach to examining issues or controversies related to current instruction

5.225 (b)

b.      Achievements and Measures

Scholarly activity is demonstrated through various achievements, most frequently:

·         Artistic Performances

·         Books

·         Encyclopedia entries

·         Gallery Exhibits

·         Grants

·         Invited book chapters

·         Journal Articles

·         Monographs

·         Patents

·         Presentations

·         Published poems, plays, recordings, stories, and similar creative works

·         Software Development

Scholarly activity is measured against the following criteria:

(1)   Originality

To demonstrate scholarly activity is original, achievements must contain content developed by the faculty member. See the table above for specific examples within each of the major types of scholarship. The use of the words ‘original’ and ‘new’ in this table denotes content developed by the faculty member.

(2)   Meaningfulness

To demonstrate scholarly activity is meaningful, achievements must contribute to the profession or the public good. Contributing to the profession may include, but is not limited to, looking at how work is cited or used by other scholars. Contributions may also be measured by how they builds new knowledge within the discipline, integrate disciplinary knowledge into a multidisciplinary context, apply disciplinary knowledge in new ways to meet needs in the public or private sector, or convey disciplinary knowledge in new and creative ways to others.

(3)   Review

To demonstrate scholarly activity has been reviewed, achievements must undergo some form of review by appropriate peers. This includes, but is not limited to, the traditional refereed or juried (peer-review) process. The review measure may also be met by other forms of peer review, such as conference program committees, panel chairs, granting agencies, editorial boards, publishers, museums, galleries, or others where submissions undergo some form of evaluation (as opposed to routine or automatic acceptance). This review standard may also be met when faculty members are contacted and invited to work on a particular type of activity (such as invited book chapter, invited keynote, consultant, etc.).

(4)   Dissemination

To demonstrate scholarly activity is disseminated, achievements must be shared with professionals outside the University. Dissemination is normally expected to be at least in a multi-state region (such as Northwest or Pacific Coast), if not national, except in the area of scholarship of application, where the recipient of the work may not have a multi-state presence. However there may be cases where a local or statewide dissemination has sufficient impact to be considered equivalent to multi-state or national dissemination.

5.225 (c)

c.       Professional Development related to Scholarship

This encompasses the learning a faculty member engages in to further his/her scholarly activity. It is typically a mix of self-study, individually or with select colleagues; conference or workshop participation; and learning about new technology, tools, or research methods.

5.225 (d)

d.      Scholarship Performance Levels

In reviewing the characteristics at each level, no faculty member will exactly fit the description in any one column. The evaluation goal is to identify the column that best describes an individual faculty member’s performance in this area.  The characteristics developed by departments refer to an accumulation of evidence across a 5-year timespan (or the full-time equivalent). In such a timespan, a faculty member normally accumulates 3-5 achievements demonstrating scholarly activity, including at least one publication or one creative/artistic work of similar significance. [When evaluating faculty performance in this area during any portion of a 5-year evaluation period (such as annual evaluation or mid-cycle review), consider both the faculty member’s progress-to-date and any anticipated publications, presentations, and/or grant applications during the remainder of the 5-year timespan.]

Acceptable

Preferred

Exceptional

Originality

·          

 

Meaningfulness

·          

 

Review

·          

 

Dissemination

·          

Originality

·          

 

Meaningfulness

·          

 

Review

·          

 

Dissemination

·          

Originality

·          

 

Meaningfulness

·          

 

Review

·          

 

Dissemination

·          

[Department Expectations take the form of bullets under any or all of the existing headings above.]

5.226

6.      Service Expectations

Service takes on many forms, both as an individual and in committees, meeting needs within a program or department, school or college, at the university level, or within the profession. Each faculty member has talents and expertise that lends itself to different types of endeavors, which will vary throughout a career. That variety and commitment by the faculty to advancing the educational endeavor is essential to the institution’s success.

5.226 (a)

a.       Effective Service

Effective service is not only demonstrated by the different individual tasks and committee work engaged in, but also by how one carries out these duties and the accomplishments that result. An “active” participant is an effective contributor to such accomplishments, whether individually or in collaboration with others. “Active” committees are those that meet regularly and produce documentable accomplishments in keeping with their charge.

A good work ethic is highly valued and demonstrated by actions like: a willingness to assume and carry out a reasonable share of the department and University work, reliably following through on assignments, taking part in governance and decision-making, and effectively advising students.

Equally important is encouraging an atmosphere where healthy and productive debate is embraced in an environment of academic freedom, where ideas are examined and challenged, and well thought out decisions result. Support of such an atmosphere may be demonstrated by tolerating contradicting viewpoints while engaging constructively with others in the solution of problems in the common interest of the department and University, showing flexibility and adaptability as needed to move forward, assuming responsibility for one’s own actions and holding reasonable expectations of others, and being respectful in the midst of disagreement.

5.226 (b)

b.      Professional Development related to Service

This primarily focuses on efforts to gather information to further a particular individual task or committee charge. Information may be gained from conferences, workshops, or other organized instructional forums, but also may involve work individually or in small groups researching policy or practices, contacting colleagues on campus or at other institutions, gathering documents from other institutions, etc.

5.226 (c)

c.       Service Performance Levels

In reviewing the characteristics at each level, no faculty member will exactly fit the description in any one column. The evaluation goal is to identify the column that best describes an individual faculty member’s performance in this area.

Acceptable

Preferred

Exceptional

Departmental Service

·         Active participant in dept’l work:

o    Advising students in dept’l programs; writing letters of recommendation; assisting at preview days, registration and orientation activities; and other advising related activities

o    Effective contributor on his/her fair share of dept’l committees

o    Effectively carrying out his/her fair share of individual dept’l tasks

 

University/Professional Service

·         Some activity beyond department or program (e.g. serve on active University committee most years under review). Active service in professional organization or capacity may substitute for a University committee.

Departmental Service (see acceptable column)

 

University/Professional Service

·         University service on active committees (at least one committee every year under review, more if committee(s) is not very active). Active service in professional organization or capacity may substitute for a University committee.

 

·         Effective partner in accomplishing assignments

 

Leadership

·         Some documentable accomplishment in a leadership role at the departmental, institutional or professional level during period under review (department chair, program coordinator, faculty program director, chair active committee, lead taskforce, significant individual task, etc.)

Departmental Service (see acceptable column)

 

University/Professional Service (see preferred column)

 

Leadership

·         Recognized as a faculty leader on campus

 

·         Served in multiple leadership roles

 

·         Significant accomplishments at the institutional level as a faculty leader (either multiple committees or taskforces, as a program director, as a department chair, or other significant leadership responsibilities resulting in multiple documentable achievements that furthered the institutional mission)

[Department Expectations take the form of added bullets (solid circles) under any or all of the headings above as well as added bullets (open circles) under any or all of the existing bullets above.]

5.227

7.      Departmental Expectations (5.227)

5.227 (a)

a.       Goal of Departmental Expectations

Departmental expectations for faculty performance are articulated by adding discipline-specific characteristics to the performance tables for teaching, scholarship, and service (see 5.224-5.226). The combination of institutional and discipline-specific characteristics should provide clear direction to faculty members regarding performance expectations in their discipline at Southern Oregon University.

Institution-wide characteristics are included in the teaching and service tables. Departments may add characteristics under any or all of the headings as well as add characteristics under any or all of the institutional bullets. Due to the differences between disciplines, programs, and departments, no institution-wide characteristics are included in the scholarship table. Departments shall create appropriate bullets under each heading to describe expectations in their discipline(s). In addition, Departments may add footnotes or commentary following any or all of the tables to clarify departmental expectations and/or measures.

5.227 (b)

b.      Periodic Review of Departmental Expectations

Departmental expectations shall be reviewed periodically, subsequent to any substantive change in department policy and at least once every five years. Initial proposals and subsequent changes are not effective until approved.  Should the departmental expectations involve substantive changes, a plan for phasing in the changes shall be included with the proposed changes. 

5.227 (c)

c.       Review Process

(1)   The Provost will publish a timeline for review of departmental expectations that concludes prior to the next promotion and tenure cycle. 

(2)   Departments will develop scholarship characteristics in keeping with the expectations described in section 5.225.  Departments may also add to the institutional characteristics for teaching (see section 5.224) and service (see section 5.226) to clarify expectations for their faculty. 

(3)   Initial proposals and subsequent changes shall be submitted through the Dean to the Faculty Personnel Committee. 

(4)   The Faculty Personnel Committee shall review departmental expectations to assure the consistent and equitable application of promotion and tenure criteria across campus (see sections 5.224-5.226).  While departmental expectations may vary significantly from one discipline to another, every effort should be made to avoid any one department setting significantly higher or lower overall standards for their faculty than other departments across campus.

(5)   When departmental expectations involve substantive changes, the Faculty Personnel Committee will review the phase-in plan to assure it provides faculty with sufficient time to adapt to these changes. 

(6)   The Faculty Personnel Committee will meet with the Department Chair (or designee) as needed to clarify departmental expectations and/or phase-in plans prior to making a recommendation to Faculty Senate.

(7)   Upon the recommendation of Faculty Personnel Committee and the approval of Faculty Senate, departmental expectations shall be forwarded to the Provost for final approval. 

(8)   Once approved, the departmental expectations shall be published with the institutional performance tables (sections 5.224-5.226) and readily available to all faculty.

5.230

C.    Definition of Appropriate Terminal Degree

5.231

1.   At Southern Oregon University the "appropriate terminal degree" in the following fields (programs and curricula) is a doctorate: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art History and Art Education, Biology, Business, Chemistry, Communication, Counseling, Criminology and Criminal Justice, Economics, Education, English, Environmental Studies (or Science), Foreign Languages, Geography, Health and Physical Education, History, Mathematics, Music, Philosophy, Physics, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology and Theatre.

5.232

2.   In the following areas the doctorate is not normally required: Art (design and studio art), Creative Writing, Journalism, Library and Information Science, Radio/Television, Theatre Arts, Theatre Technology.

a.   In Art (design and studio art), Creative Writing, Dance, and Theatre Arts, the "appropriate terminal degree" is the M.F.A. of the two-year variety (i.e., 90 quarter hours or 60 semester hours)

b.   In Computer Science, any of the following satisfies the “appropriate terminal degree” requirement:

1)   Doctorate in Computer Science or Information Science

2)   Doctorate in a closely related field with a strong background in Computer Science or Information Science

c.   In Journalism, Radio/Television, and Theatre Technology, the "appropriate terminal degree" requirement may be satisfied by 135 quarter-hours (90 semester-hours) of graduate work in the discipline and including the Master's degree.

d.   In Library and Information Science the "appropriate terminal degree" requirement is satisfied by an M.L.S. plus a Master's degree in an academic discipline.

e.   In Education and programs with significant teacher preparation missions, the "appropriate terminal degree" requirement is normally satisfied by a doctorate. In these programs, the terminal degree may be waived for applicants with: 1) a Master’s degree in an appropriate discipline, 2) at least 7 years of K-12 teaching or administration experience, and 3) a record of experience indicating excellence in conducting workshops or other training activities for pre-service and/or in-service teachers. This waiver is made at the time of appointment, and is done by the recommendation of the chair, with the consultation of the dean, and with the approval of the Provost. Once made, the waiver satisfies the terminal degree requirement in these Bylaws and the APSOU collective bargaining agreement

5.233

3.   There may be unusual situations where a faculty member does not hold the appropriate terminal degree as defined above, but holds “the equivalent.” The Department Chair, in consultation with the Dean and Provost, shall place a notation to this effect in the individual’s personnel file. The notation must be signed by the faculty member and approved by the Department Chair, Dean, and Provost. This notation will be made available to the individual for inclusion with any application for promotion and tenure.

5.240

D.    Definition of Prior Experience and Years in Rank (YIR)

The years of experience required for promotion to a given rank are based upon the number of years experience in the current rank (YIR) rather than total years of experience. Thus, for example, promotion to associate professor is based upon five years of experience at the assistant professor level. Furthermore, the years of experience must be in the appropriate discipline as determined by the department in consultation with the Dean.

5.241

1.   Normally, faculty promoted at Southern Oregon University start with zero YIR at the new rank. However, there may be extremely unusual circumstances where a faculty member’s prior experience merits being granted 1 or 2 YIR at the new rank. The Department Chair, in consultation with the Dean and Provost, shall place a notation to this effect in the individual’s personnel file. The notation must be signed by the faculty member and approved by the Department Chair, Dean and Provost. This notation will be made available to the individual for inclusion with any application for promotion and tenure.

5.242

2.   Faculty members who are dissatisfied with the YIR assigned at promotion may appeal their case to a hearing committee appointed by the Faculty Senate as provided in section 6.100 of these bylaws.

5.250

E.     Directions for the Administration of the Forms for Student Evaluation of Faculty Teaching Effectiveness

5.251

1.      The online student evaluation is mandatory for all faculty members .

5.252

2.      Online evaluations are generally administered toward the end of each term (for example, after the 8th week of a 10-week term) and shall be conducted so as to encourage student participation and preserve the anonymity of the students responding.

5.253

3.      The online evaluation will contain a limited number of questions asked of all students, including the “all-campus” question, and provide programs and/or departments the opportunity to add questions regarding faculty members’ teaching effectiveness, as perceived by students, that are specific to that program, discipline, or department.

5.254

4.      This evaluation is to be sharply distinguished from and does not replace forms or processes used for purposes of instructional improvement.

5.255

5.      Every faculty member with a term-to-term appointment or in the first year of a fixed-term appointment shall be evaluated in every class taught. All other faculty members with a regular teaching assignment shall be evaluated in at least two-thirds of classes taught each year. The faculty member's immediate supervisor (normally the Department Chair) or that administrator's delegate for this purpose selects the classes to be evaluated. The classes are to be selected in such a way that they (1) represent a cross-section of the faculty member's normal teaching load, (2) have sufficient enrollment to reasonably expect at least ten (10) respondents, and (3) whenever possible, are spread across the year.

5.256

6.      Numerical responses to the "all-campus question" shall be summarized on one master sheet for each faculty member. The master sheets will contain tabulated responses for every class evaluated during the seven (7) most recent calendar years. In addition, the master sheet will report the following summary results:

                                            i.            the percentage, rounded to the nearest tenth, of all respondents who rated the faculty member in one of the bottom three (3) boxes of the seven (7) box scale,

                                          ii.            the percentage, rounded to the nearest tenth, of all respondents who rated the faculty member in one of the top four (4) boxes of the seven (7) box scale,

                                        iii.            the percentage, rounded to the nearest tenth, of all respondents who rated the faculty member in one of the top three (3) boxes of the seven (7) box scale,

                                        iv.            the percentage, rounded to the nearest tenth, of all respondents who rated the faculty member in one of the top two (2) boxes of the seven (7) box scale, and

                                          v.            the resulting overall rating of “competent,” “very good,” or “outstanding” for the period under review. (See section 5.260)

 

The master sheet will be filed in a secure departmental personnel file. A copy of each master sheet on file must be submitted by the Department Chair to accompany any individual faculty member's colleague evaluation, or requests for promotion and tenure.

5.257

7.      In addition, departments shall retain the computer generated summary for each faculty member of the student responses to all the evaluation questions for each course evaluated in the seven most recent calendar years; thereafter each new year's evaluations will replace the oldest year's evaluations, so that there will be a continuing seven-year data base on each faculty member's "teaching effectiveness" as evaluated by students.

5.258

8.      Student evaluation results for individual faculty members are to be regarded as privileged information. They are not to be available to students or other individuals, except the faculty member’s Department Chair and others participating in an official evaluation of that faculty member, such as: a colleague evaluation, promotion and tenure decision, or other established institutional accreditation or personnel process. (See section 5.300)

5.259

9.      The student evaluation results will be returned to the faculty member after the master sheet is updated and the Department Chair has reviewed the results, but not before final grades for the evaluated term have been added to the student’s academic history in the Student Information System.

5.260

F.     Definition of Teaching Effectiveness based on Student Assessment

5.261

1.   In computing the percentages for the purpose of distinguishing teaching effectiveness ratings based on student evaluations, summary percentage shall be based on the most recent seven (7) years or all years at SOU when fewer than seven (7) and rounded to the nearest tenth. The terms "competent," "very good," and "outstanding," as applied to student assessment of teaching effectiveness, are normally defined as follows:

a.   "Competent": 50 percent of all the students responding to the evaluation give the individual a rating of competent or better.

b.   "Very Good": 50 percent of all the students responding to the evaluation give the individual a rating in the top three boxes of the seven box scale, with no less than 30 percent of all responses in the top two boxes.

c.   "Outstanding": 50 percent of all students responding to the evaluation give the individual a rating in the top two boxes, with no more than ten percent of all responses in the bottom three boxes on the scale.

5.262

2.   There may be rare occasions where the terms, as defined above, do not accurately represent a faculty member’s teaching effectiveness, particularly when there has been a significant change in the ratings, such as the most recent three (3) years cumulative ratings being significantly higher than prior years. The Department Chair, in consultation with the Dean and Provost, shall place a notation to this effect in the individual’s personnel file. The notation must be signed by the faculty member and approved by the Department Chair, Dean Director and Provost. This notation will be made available to the individual for inclusion with the teaching evaluation summaries described in section 5.257.

5.263

3.   During a term that a faculty member has instituted a major change in the organization, standards or methods of a course (this could also be a department's curriculum, developing modules or other curricular activities), the faculty member may write a statement that accompanies the student evaluations, that describes the changes that were instituted and perception of the effectiveness of these changes. If there is a reduction in the scoring on the all-campus question, the faculty member should describe what actions if any will be taken.

5.300  

III.           Guidelines for Evaluation and Reappointment of Faculty

5.310

A.    Faculty members shall be evaluated periodically and systematically so that they:

1.   Can set goals and objectives in order to improve their teaching effectiveness and to provide for professional growth.

2.   Can be rewarded and recognized appropriately for excellence and/or exceptional performance (e.g., public recognition, merit pay).

3.   Can receive feedback and direction from a variety of sources regarding strengths and deficiencies, and Departmental and University expectations

4.   Can work cooperatively to address deficiencies.

5.320              

B.     Split appointments

If a faculty member holds a split appointment between two or more departments the individual's evaluation will be conducted by the department chair from the department in which he/she holds the major fraction of appointment in consultation with the chair of the other department(s) in which the faculty member holds an appointment. In the case of a 50/50 appointment, the department chairs of both concerned departments will jointly conduct the faculty member’s evaluation.

5.330              

C.     Recommendation and Evaluation Schedule

1.   Department Chairs, in consultation with the Department Personnel Committee, shall make recommendations regarding reappointment or renewal for those with one-year fixed term, renewable appointments or three-year extendable appointments, respectively. Recommendations are due to the Dean as follows:

a.   For those in the first year of their renewable appointment: by February 1 (3-month notice required)

b.   For those in the second year of their renewable appointment: by November 1 (6-month notice required)

c.   For all others: by May 1 (12-month notice required)

2.   The Department chair shall submit an annual faculty evaluation schedule to the Dean that plans for the following:

a.   All term-to-term faculty members are evaluated at least once every three years or at least once every 45 ELU, whichever is sooner.

b.   All faculty members on one-year fixed term appointments are evaluated annually except when a colleague evaluation is scheduled.

c.   All faculty members planning to apply for promotion have a colleague evaluation within two years of applying for promotion (one year is recommended).

d.   All tenured faculty members and those on three-year extendable appointments have a colleague evaluation at least once every five years.

5.340

D.    Faculty Professional Activity Plans and Reports (FPAP and FPAR)

5.341

1.      Each year all faculty members will report their professional plans for the upcoming year and update the prior year’s plan to report the results. Activities completed during the intervening summer should be included in the report.

5.342

2.      The Faculty Professional Activity Plan (FPAP) and Faculty Professional Activity Report (FPAR) should be prepared at the close of the academic year and will be due early in the fall. See announcement from the Provost’s office for specific deadlines.

5.343

3.      The FPAR [FPAP] shall address each of the following items:

a.       Teaching Effectiveness

Review the teaching expectations (see section 5.224) and the characteristics describing each performance level. What activities, if any, did you accomplish [do you have planned] to further your efforts in this area?

b.      Scholarly Activities (professional faculty may skip this item)

Review the scholarship expectations (see section 5.225) and the characteristics describing each performance level. What activities, if any, did you accomplish [do you have planned] to further your efforts in this area?

c.       Service Activities

Review the service expectations (see section 5.226) and the characteristics describing each performance level. What activities, if any, did you accomplish [do you have planned] to further your efforts in this area?

d.      Goals

The FPAP summarizes key goals for the upcoming year. The FPAR addresses your progress on these goals. If any of your goals were modified during the course of the year, indicate what led to the change and your progress on the modified goal(s).

e.       Summary of Professional Development Fund Expenditures (FPAR only)

The FPAR shall include an accounting of the PPDA expenditure from the prior year (table including date, item, and cost).

f.       Administrative Goals/Achievements (department chairs, faculty program directors, and other faculty members with significant administrative assignments should include activities related to their administrative assignment)

List achievements [goals] related to your leadership position. If any of your goals were modified during the course of the year, indicate what led to the change and your progress on the modified goal(s).

5.344

4.      Faculty member’s prior reports and current plan document a faculty member’s accomplishments and are reviewed in relation to performance evaluations including: annual evaluations, colleague evaluations, and promotion and tenure decisions. If a faculty member is not being evaluated during an academic year, the Department Chair shall still review the FPAP and FPAR. (No report of this review is submitted to the permanent record.) In addition, Department Chairs are encouraged to make time at a department gathering for faculty to share their plans with each other.

5.345

5.      FPAPs shall be submitted to the Dean on an annual basis. The FPAR shall be forwarded annually through the Dean to the Provost.

5.350

E.     Evaluation of Faculty with Term-to-Term or One-Year, Fixed-Term Appointments

Faculty members who are not tenured, nor on 3-year extendable appointments, are reviewed regularly by the Department Chair in consultation with the department’s personnel committee in order to encourage professional growth and development as well as to identify any problem areas in the performance of the faculty member.

The following shall be followed when conducting annual evaluations.

5.351

1.      Frequency of Evaluation (based on appointment type)

a.       Term-to-Term Appointments

All faculty members on term-to-term appointments are evaluated at least once every three years or at least once every 45 credits, whichever is sooner.

b.      One-Year, Fixed-Term Appointments

All faculty members on one-year fixed term appointments are evaluated annually, regardless of whether the appointment is renewable or not.

5.352

2.      Evaluation Materials

a.       Institutional and Departmental Performance Expectations

The university expectations for teaching, scholarship and service as described in the Faculty Bylaws and in the departmental expectations

b.      For each faculty member evaluated —

                                                  i.      Previous year’s FPAR [optional for term-to-term appointments]

                                                ii.      Current year’s FPAP [optional for term-to-term appointments]

                                              iii.      Past year’s student evaluation master sheet [in some cases it may be valuable to review the results of each of the prior year’s student evaluations]

                                              iv.      Evidence from Class visit(s) [recommend visiting at least one session of at least two distinct courses]

                                                v.      Other materials that may assist in evaluating a faculty member’s performance Examples:

·         Course materials (such as syllabi, activities, or assessments)

·         Data (such as class GPA or retention rates, as compared to other faculty teaching the same or similar courses)

5.353

3.      Performance Levels to Evaluate (based on rank and appointment type)

a.       Term-to-term appointments are reviewed against the expectations listed under teaching.

b.      Professional faculty members on fixed term appointments are reviewed against the expectations listed under teaching and service.

c.       Professorial faculty members on fixed term appointments are reviewed against the expectations listed under teaching, scholarship, and service.

Note: A faculty member’s performance is deemed acceptable, preferred, or exceptional if the characteristics listed in that category best describes the faculty member’s performance for the period under review. A faculty member’s performance is “unacceptable” if it is below the acceptable level.

5.354

4.      Evaluation Report

The Department Chair’s report shall include the following:

a.       Who was evaluated

                                                  i.      Name

                                                ii.      Rank

                                              iii.      Department

                                              iv.      Appointment type [term-to-term, non-renewable fixed term, renewable fixed term (1st year), renewable fixed term (2nd or subsequent year)]

b.      What was reviewed

A summary or list of materials reviewed in the course of this evaluation (see section 5.352)

c.       Performance Evaluation for each of the areas applicable (see section 5.353)

For each area, a brief summary statement (normally a paragraph or two) that (1) indicates whether the faculty member’s performance in that area was unacceptable, acceptable, preferred, or exceptional and (2) highlights any particular strengths or areas needing improvement.

d.      Assessment of Overall Performance

·         If the faculty member is or will be eligible for promotion in a future year:

Close the report with a brief paragraph indicating whether this faculty member making good progress toward promotion. If not, at the closing meeting discuss the areas where the faculty member is struggling and set goals for improvement (provided appropriate goals are not already identified in the faculty member’s FPAP).

·         If the faculty member’s position is ineligible for promotion:

Close the report with a brief paragraph indicating whether this faculty member is performing satisfactorily or not. If not, at the closing meeting discuss the areas where the faculty member is struggling and set goals for improvement.

5.355

5.      Closing Meeting

All evaluations end with a face-to-face meeting in which the department chair or designee discusses the results of the evaluation with the faculty member.  The faculty member will sign the report at the closing meeting confirming the report was discussed with him/her. When appropriate, disagreements regarding the finding will be discussed and may result in an amended report. If disagreements remain, the faculty member may write a response to be included with the evaluation report. The report and response shall be forwarded to the Dean and Provost.

5.356

6.      Possible follow-up

·         If a faculty member’s performance is unacceptable in any area, a colleague evaluation may be scheduled within the next academic year.

·         If a faculty member’s performance in teaching is unacceptable or if his/her performance in both scholarship and service is unacceptable, then a colleague evaluation must be scheduled in the next academic year.

5.357

7.      The report of the evaluation, carrying the signature of the Department Chair and the faculty member, is to be forwarded through the Dean and the Provost to the office of the President.

5.360

F.     Colleague Evaluations

Colleague evaluations provide an in-depth review of a faculty member’s performance in the areas applicable to his/her appointment (teaching, scholarship, and service) and render an evaluation of each area in order to encourage professional growth and development as well as to identify any problem areas in the performance of the faculty member. Colleague Evaluations are the primary vehicle for review of faculty holding indefinite tenure or three-year extendable appointments.

When the Department Chair is being evaluated, the role of the Department Chair shall be performed by the Chair of the Department Personnel Committee, the Dean, or a senior faculty member in the department as determined by the Department Personnel Committee in consultation with the Dean.

The following shall be followed when conducting a colleague evaluation:

5.361

1.      Frequency of Colleague Evaluations

a.       When a faculty member plans to apply for promotion or tenure, it is strongly recommended that a colleague evaluation be completed in the year prior to that application.

b.      In the fifth year after the last colleague evaluation of a tenured faculty member or a faculty member on a three-year extendable appointment, the Department Chair shall schedule a new colleague evaluation.

c.       If, during any academic year, fifty percent (50%) of the student evaluations for a faculty member rate the faculty member at less than “competent” or if the average rating in more than one-half of the sections evaluated is less than competent (as defined in section 5.261), the Department Chair shall schedule a colleague evaluation during the next academic year.

d.      If, during any academic year, a faculty member’s annual evaluation finds the faculty member’s performance deficient (see section 5.370), the Department Chair shall schedule a colleague evaluation during the next academic year (if not sooner).

e.       Should concerns arise regarding the performance of a tenured faculty member or a faculty member on a three-year extendable appointment, the Department Chair may schedule a colleague evaluation in advance of the timeline stated in (b). The Department Chair will schedule a colleague evaluation at the faculty member’s request during the next academic year (if not sooner).

5.362

2.      Composition of the Evaluation Panel

The Department Chair will select one faculty representative and the person being evaluated will select a second representative who, together with the Department Chair, will constitute a three-member evaluation panel. Normally, the membership of the panel will be from the department or program to assure familiarity with the individual’s discipline, contributions, and accuracy of content; however, a faculty member may be selected from outside the department. The member selected by the Department Chair will act as chair of the evaluation panel. The faculty member will be notified of the panel’s composition once the panel is selected. The faculty member may veto one choice made by the Department Chair. Within ten days of notification the faculty member may appeal the final composition of the evaluation panel to the Dean, who may replace any or all members of the panel.

If a faculty member holds a split appointment between two or more departments the department chair of the department in which he or she holds the major fraction of appointment will carry out the duties outlined above. In forming the colleague evaluation committee, that department chair shall consult with the faculty member and the chair of the other department where the faculty member holds an appointment to determine if the panel should include a faculty member from the other department. In that case, both department chairs may select members following the directions above, resulting in a 4-member evaluation panel. In the rare instances where a faculty member holds appointments in more than two departments and it is determined that the colleague evaluation panel should include faculty members from all departments, each department chair may select members following the directions above and the size of the evaluation panel will adjust to accommodate these selections. One of the members selected by a department chair will act as chair of the evaluation panel.

In the case of a 50/50 appointment, the faculty member's colleague evaluation panel will consist of 5 members, including department chairs, their selections, and the faculty member's selection. One of the members selected by a department chair will act as chair of the evaluation panel.

5.363

3.      Evaluation Materials

a.       Institutional and Departmental Performance Expectations

The university expectations for teaching, scholarship and service as described in the Faculty Bylaws (see sections 5.224-5.226)  and in the departmental expectations

b.      Departmental Documentation

                                                  i.      Previous Colleague Evaluation (for second and subsequent evaluations)

                                                ii.      Prior 3-5 year FPARs

                                              iii.      Current year’s FPAP

                                              iv.      Past year’s student evaluation master sheet and the results of each of the last 3-5 year’s student evaluations

 

c.       Evidence from Class visit(s)

Committee members should visit each distinct course taught in the term evaluated.  When possible, visiting two different class meetings of each distinct course is recommended.

d.      Evidence from an In-depth Review of Select Courses

The panel, in consultation with the faculty member, will select courses representative of a cross-section of the faculty member's normal teaching load for review. Supportive materials that the faculty member wishes to submit or that the panel requests typically include but are not limited to:

·         Detailed syllabi

·         Additional information clarifying the content and delivery of the course, such as texts, readings, sample lessons, handouts, or assignments.

·         Additional information regarding how learning is assessed, such as term projects, presentations or papers, exams, etc.

e.       Evidence of Scholarship [not required for Professional Faculty]

A faculty member may provide copies of articles (or pre-prints), books, programs of performances, notices of shows, reviews of scholarly activities, papers presented at conferences, or other items described in section 5.225.

f.       Evidence of Service

A faculty member may provide additional documentation of accomplishments, either completed individually or as part of a committee assignment. 

e.   Any other evidence the subject of the evaluation or the panel feels should be examined to better evaluate the faculty member’s performance.

5.364

4.      Performance Levels to Evaluate (based on rank and appointment type)

a.       Professional faculty members are reviewed against the expectations listed under teaching and service.

b.      Professorial faculty members are reviewed against the expectations listed under teaching, scholarship, and service.

Note: A faculty member’s performance is deemed acceptable, preferred, or exceptional if the characteristics listed in that category best describes the faculty member’s performance for the period under review. A faculty member’s performance is “unacceptable” if it is below the acceptable level.

5.365

5.      Evaluation Report

After a careful examination of the evidence, the evaluation panel will prepare a written report of its professional opinion of the performance of the person under evaluation in the areas detailed above (see section 5.364). The report shall include the following:

a.       Who was evaluated

                                                  i.      Name

                                                ii.      Rank

                                              iii.      Department

b.      What was reviewed

A summary or list of materials reviewed in the course of this evaluation (see section 5.363)

c.       Performance Evaluation for each of the areas applicable (see section 5.364)

For each area, the evaluation panel’s assessment of the faculty member’s performance should be summarized (normally in a page) and include (1) a determination that the faculty member’s performance in that area is unacceptable, acceptable, preferred, or exceptional during the period under review and (2) provides insight into the evaluation of the evidence or other rationale that led to the panel’s determination.

5.366

6.      Closing Meeting and Goal Setting

Colleague evaluations conclude with a face-to-face meeting in which (1) the evaluation panel shares their findings with the faculty member and (2) the panel and the faculty member jointly prepare a set of goals and objectives designed to help the faculty member maintain or improve his/her performance. The goals identified for the faculty member through this evaluation process shall, as much as possible, meet the staffing needs of the department. The faculty member will sign the report and goals statement at the closing meeting confirming the report was discussed with him/her and the goals were jointly developed.

5.367

7.      The evaluation panel will forward the final report, and a document addressing the agreed upon goals and objectives, to the Department Personnel Committee. Reports will be kept on file in the Department office.

5.368

8.      A faculty member may appeal the action of the Colleague Evaluation panel. The faculty member shall identify how he/she was wronged in connection with the colleague evaluation. The exercise of unbiased professional judgment that conscientiously followed established guidelines and policies in reaching a decision does not constitute a “wrong.”

The Department Personnel Committee first hears the appeal. Any member of the Colleague Evaluation Panel who is also a member of the Department Personnel Committee must recuse him/herself. Should that process result in fewer than three remaining members, the Dean shall appoint alternates to assure a minimum of three members of the Departmental Personnel Committee hear the appeal. This subcommittee may uphold the original colleague evaluation or recommend corrective action to the Department Chair.

Should the faculty member believe the wrong persists; an appeal may be made to his/her Dean. The Dean may uphold the finding of the subcommittee or institute corrective action.

A grievance may be filed under sections 6.100, should conditions for appeals of that type of grievance be met. The grievance must be filed within ten (10) university days of receipt of the Dean’s final decision and initiates the formal stage of the grievance.

5.370

G.    Deficiencies Requiring Further Review

If a colleague evaluation finds any one of the following

(1)   that a faculty member’s performance in teaching is unacceptable,

(2)   that a professional faculty member’s performance in the service is unacceptable, or

(3)   that a professorial faculty member’s performance in both scholarship and service are unacceptable,

then the report shall clearly indicate that the faculty member’s performance is deficient.

5.371

1.   When the Department Personnel Committee receives such a report, they will note the finding as well as the required corrective action as specified in the goals and objectives developed under 5.366, and notify the Department Chair in writing to schedule a subsequent colleague evaluation for the following year. If the faculty member holds a three-year extendable appointment, the department chair shall recommend against the renewal of that appointment. The faculty member has the remaining two years on the original appointment to correct deficiencies.

5.372

2.   The Department Chair will forward the finding to the Dean. The Dean will review the finding with the faculty member in the presence of the Department Chair, permitting the faculty member to present any information or comment. If the Dean finds that the deficiency is serious enough to warrant sanction, a written reprimand may be issued.

5.373

3.   The Dean will review the next colleague evaluation with the faculty member in the presence of the Department Chair, permitting the faculty member to present any information or comment.

1)   Should that colleague evaluation find that current performance is no longer deficient, the faculty member will return to the normal pattern of colleague evaluations except that the Dean shall review the results of the next regular colleague evaluation. If the faculty member holds a three-year extendable appointment, the department chair, in consultation with the personnel committee, may recommend renewal.

2)   Should that colleague evaluation find current performance remains deficient, but that significant progress has been made toward remedying the deficiencies, the Dean, in consultation with the Chair, may schedule a colleague evaluation take place in two years rather than proceeding with the steps outlined in 3) below. If the faculty member holds a three-year extendable appointment, the department chair, in consultation with the personnel committee, may recommend renewal.

3)   Should that colleague evaluation find that the deficiencies have not been remedied, the Dean, in consultation with the Provost, shall file charges with the President for termination or other sanctions of the faculty member for cause as described in the OARs, sections 580-021-0325 and 580-022-0045. If the faculty member holds a three-year extendable appointment, the remaining year of the original appointment becomes the terminal year of the appointment.

5.400

IV.  Sabbatical Leave Policy and Procedures

 

Sabbatical leaves are a privilege extended to eligible professorial faculty by Southern Oregon University for the purpose of strengthening the academic programs of Southern Oregon University while also strengthening the professional preparation of the individual faculty member.  The institution will make every reasonable effort to provide these privileges in a timely manner to eligible faculty.

5.410

A.    General Policies for Sabbatical Leaves

After six years of service, an eligible faculty member may be granted a sabbatical leave.  The conditions of sabbatical leave are as follows:

5.411

1.      Eligibility

5.411 (a)

a.   Faculty members with 0.5 FTE or higher are eligible for their first sabbatical after six years of service at Southern Oregon University (FTE equivalent is not required).  Upon returning from a sabbatical and completing another six years of service, faculty members are again eligible for a sabbatical. 

5.411 (b)

b.   When Southern Oregon University requires an eligible faculty member to postpone a sabbatical for one or more years, the faculty member may request to have those intervening years of service credited toward the six years of service required for the following sabbatical (up to a maximum of two years of service).  Requests should be addressed to the Provost and carry the endorsement of the department chair/supervisor and dean, as applicable.  If approved, a notation should be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file and copied to all involved parties.

5.411 (c)

c.   Years of service must be accumulated during academic and/or administrative appointments at 0.5 FTE or higher with the rank of Instructor or higher.  Each year a faculty member holds an appointment (whether a 9, 10, 11, or 12-month appointment) is considered one year of service.  Years of service will be accumulated during paid leaves of absence (excluding sabbatical leaves), but not during unpaid leaves of absence.

5.411 (d)

d.   Recommendations for sabbatical leave for professional faculty and persons not otherwise qualified may be made in exceptional cases at the discretion of the institution.

5.411 (e)

e.   Faculty members with part-time appointments or those whose appointments have included a mixture of both full and part-time service are subject to the state board's rules on eligibility for sabbatical leave set forth in OAR 580-21-200 through OAR 580-21-240.

5.411 (f)

f.   Full-time faculty previously on part-time appointments will be given equivalent credit for part-time service (e.g., six years at 1/2 time and three years at full time equate to six years) and will be eligible for sabbatical leave based on current full-time salary.      

5.411 (g)

g.  If a faculty member holds a split appointment between two or more departments, the department in which he/she has the major fraction of appointment will review the individual’s application.  In the case of a 50/50 appointment, both concerned departments will review the application.   

5.412

2.      Duration of Leave and Relative Compensation Rate

5.412 (a)

a.   Faculty members are eligible for any one of the following types of sabbatical leave.  For the purposes of this section, fractions of one year represent the equivalent fraction of the individual’s faculty appointment.  For example, one-third of a year would be a single academic term for a faculty member on a 9 or 10-month appointment, but 4 months for a faculty member on an 11 or 12-month appointment. Additional details regarding sabbatical compensation are set forth in OAR 580-21-200 through OAR 580-21-240.

 

(1) If the sabbatical leave is for one year, the faculty member earns 60 percent of his/her regular annual salary.

(2) If the sabbatical leave is for two-thirds of a year, the faculty member earns 75 percent of his/her regular monthly salary during the months on leave and full salary for the remainder of the year.

(3) If the sabbatical is for one-third of a year, the faculty member earns 85 percent of his/her regular monthly salary during the months on leave and full salary for the remainder of the year.

5.412 (b)

b.   Alternative sabbatical leave structures may be proposed if not prohibited by the Oregon Administrative Rules on sabbatical leaves.

5.412 (c)

c.     Faculty members on sabbatical leave may supplement their sabbatical salaries to a reasonable degree, provided that such supplementation strictly conforms to the stated and approved purposes of the sabbatical leave.

5.413

3.   Each faculty member is obligated to return to the institution for at least one year of service following any sabbatical leave.

5.414

4.   During the period of sabbatical leave, the faculty member shall inform the Provost in writing if any change is made in the sabbatical leave project as outlined in the application.  At the end of the sabbatical leave, the faculty member shall submit a report of the accomplishments and benefits resulting from the leave.  Faculty members may also make a presentation to colleagues at the institution reporting the results of the leave.

5.420

B.     Sabbatical Leaves For Academic Faculty

5.421

1.      Purpose of Sabbatical Leaves for Academic Faculty

5.421 (a)

a.   Sabbatical leave is granted to professorial faculty for scholarly and/or professional activities.

5.421 (b)

b.   Sabbatical leave applications are evaluated in view of the contribution the project will make to the academic programs of Southern Oregon University and to the professional preparation of the individual faculty member.  A sabbatical leave application should not be rejected on fiscal grounds alone nor should the approval of a sabbatical leave application significantly impair the operation of a university program. 

5.421 (c)

c.   The Department Chair and Dean, working with the Provost, will make every reasonable effort to provide sabbaticals in a timely manner to eligible academic faculty.  However sabbatical leave is still a privilege and not a right. The Department Chair and Dean must also make every effort to balance the potential benefit to the institution and the individual faculty member against the associated cost of the sabbatical leave. 

5.422

2.      Procedure for Sabbatical Leave Requests from Academic Faculty

5.422 (a)

a.   The Department Chair will keep department faculty members informed of policies concerning eligibility for sabbatical leave and to advise eligible faculty as to proper and timely application procedures.

5.422 (b)

b.   The Department Chair will plan several years ahead and accurately maintain a sabbatical leave schedule within the department. The Department Chair will communicate with and request from the Dean appropriate relief for staffing problems and replacement needs.

5.422 (c)

c.   By October l5 of the year preceding the sabbatical leave, the applicant shall submit the official request ("Application and Contract for Sabbatical Leave," OSBHE) including two copies of a supplemental statement.  This supplemental statement should specify at least the following: a brief list of goals, outline of project or alternatives projects, anticipated benefits, and budgetary data.  Such specification is not necessarily binding, provided that the applicant files a revised description at the time the proposed changes are developed. Prior to beginning the sabbatical leave, all faculty members must have an accurate supplemental statement on file in the Provost’s office.

5.422 (d)

d.     Under extraordinary conditions, sabbatical leave applications may be considered outside the normal time line specified.

5.422 (e)

e.   The sabbatical leave request from an academic faculty member shall be reviewed by the Department Personnel Committee, the Department Chair, Dean, the Faculty Personnel Committee, and the Provost in order to assure that the project presented is of substantial benefit to the institution and the individual.  However, wide latitude shall be given faculty members in determining what has value to them as long as it also indicates value to the institution and/or profession, directly or indirectly.

5.422 (f)

 f.   Upon completion of a sabbatical leave, a faculty member shall file an appropriate sabbatical leave report, filing copies with the Department Chair, the Dean, the Provost, and the President.  In this report, the faculty member should assess the success of the leave in terms of the objectives and plans stated in the application.  The respective department chairs and deans, along with the Provost, will evaluate the sabbatical leave on the basis of this report and return their findings to the faculty member.

5.500

V.   Guidelines on Emeritus Selection and Status

Faculty members of Southern Oregon University may be honored with emeritus status at retirement in recognition of long and fruitful service.

5.510

A.    Guidelines

The faculty considered for emeritus status should:

1.   ordinarily have at least ten years of active, full-time service to Southern Oregon University,

2.   have reached minimum OUS retirement age,

3.   have served in higher education or in a related professional field not less than 20 years, and

4.   have earned at least the assistant professor rank.

5.520

B.     Selection Procedure

 

Recommendations for faculty must be forwarded from the candidate's department, through the Dean to the Provost. A name is retained on the emeritus list until one year after the death of the faculty member and is appropriately designated in the university catalog.  If a faculty member holds a split appointment, either department may forward the recommendation.

5.530

C.    Honors and Privileges Include the Following:

1.   A listing in the university catalog and campus phone directory.

2.   A mailing address at the university.

3.   Receipt of university publications.

4.   An office (if available and requested).

5.   Account with the SOU LAN computer network.

6.   Faculty library privileges.

7.   Participation in commencement exercises and other university functions.

8.       Courtesy faculty parking privileges.

9.       Faculty admissions privilege to scheduled events.

10.      Consultative participation on faculty committees at request of the university.

11.      Participation in social faculty functions.

12.       Emeritus certificate.

 


End of Section 5