Chapter III: Evaluation and Promotion

Evaluation and Promotion of Academic Employees is covered by Article 30 of the Agreement and Article XII of the Policies of the Board of Trustees.

1. Evaluation
   The evaluation of an academic employee shall be the appraisal of the extent to which the employee has met his/her professional obligation. The evaluation, if any, is made by the President or designee. Such evaluation may be considered by the President and appropriate administrative officers in making decisions or recommendations with respect to continuing appointments, renewal of term appointments, promotions, discretionary adjustments to basic annual salary and for any other purpose where an academic employee's performance may be a relevant consideration.
    
2. Promotion/Reappointment Criteria
   Recommendations of academic employees may include, but shall not be limited to, consideration of the following:
   1. Mastery of subject matter - as demonstrated by such things as advanced degrees, licenses, honors, awards and reputation in the subject matter field.
       
   2. Effectiveness in teaching - as demonstrated by such things as judgment of colleagues, development of teaching materials or new courses and student reaction, as determined from surveys, interviews and classroom observation. As appropriate, effective teaching is the most important of the criteria for personnel evaluation at SUNY Potsdam.
      
      With respect to effectiveness in teaching, such supporting documentation as statistically valid student evaluations, peer on or off campus review and statements of professional goals and objectives should be provided. Advising should also be included as an important element of teaching.
       
   3. Scholarly ability - as demonstrated by such things as success in developing and carrying out significant research work in the subject matter field, contribution to the arts, publications and reputation among colleagues.
      
      The definition of, and requirements for, scholarship can be expanded beyond the traditional concept of original research. In Ernest L. Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered, (Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990) now considered the foundation work on the subject, the head of the Carnegie Foundation, and former SUNY Chancellor, calls for "a broader, more capacious meaning" for scholarship. Boyer describes "four separate, yet overlapping functions" constituting the "work of the professoriate."
      
      The scholarship of discovery is disciplined investigation closest to the traditional meaning of research. The emphasis is on discovery of new knowledge. Those engaged in discovery ask, "What is to be known, what is yet to be found?"
      
      The scholarship of integration gives meaning to isolated facts, putting them in perspective. Closely related to the discovery, the scholarship of integration is about "making connections across disciplines." It involves "fitting one's own research -- or the research of others -- into larger intellectual patterns." Those engaged in integration ask, "What do the findings mean?"
      
      The scholarship of application is about serving the "interests of the larger community." Distinguished from mere citizenship, the scholarship of application is not just about doing good. "To be considered scholarship, service activities must be tied directly to one's special field of knowledge and relate to, and grow directly out of, this professional activity." It applies to, as well as contributes to, human knowledge. Those engaged in application ask, "How can knowledge be responsibly applied to consequential problems? ...How can it be helpful to individuals as well as institutions? ...Can social problems themselves define an agenda for scholarly investigation?"
      
      The scholarship of teaching recognizes that teaching is not a "routine function, tacked on, something almost anyone can do." It recognizes that knowing and learning are communal acts. "Great teachers create a common ground of intellectual commitment. They stimulate active, not passive learning and encourage students to be critical, creative thinkers, with the capacity to go on learning after their college days are over." The scholarship of teaching requires that pedagogical procedures be "carefully planned, continuously examined, and relate directly to the subject taught." And teaching at its best also means "not only transmitting knowledge, but 'transforming' and 'extending' it as well. Faculty are pushed in creative new directions."
      
      The College believes that the scholarship of teaching also may involve students, by including students in research projects.
      
      While evidence of scholarly productivity need not require extensive publications, and special consideration may, as indicated above, be given to the most senior faculty, evidence of scholarly activity must extend beyond the classroom to include peer on or off campus review. Peer review should include publications and presentations beyond the campus, in regional and national forums, but may in exceptional circumstances, with special consideration to the most senior faculty, include presentation to a campus audience.
       
   4. Effectiveness of university service - for example, as demonstrated by such things as college and university public service, committee work, administrative work and work with students or the community in addition to formal teacher-student relationships.
       
   5. Continuing growth - as demonstrated by such things as reading, research or other activities to keep abreast of current developments in the academic employee's fields and being able to handle successfully increased responsibility.
       
3. Promotions
   1. Instructor to Assistant Professor: Promotion to Assistant Professor requires evidence of excellence in teaching and promise as a scholar. An academic employee who is appointed at the rank of Instructor prior to the completion of a terminal degree in the appropriate discipline will receive promotion to the rank of Assistant Professor effective on the first day of the semester following the receipt by Human Resources of verification of the completion of the terminal degree, upon recommendation of the department.
       
   2. Assistant Professor to Associate Professor: Promotion to Associate Professor requires both a high and consistent level of performance based on the Trustees' Policies criteria. More specifically, the candidate should hold the terminal degree appropriate to the academic discipline or possess professional qualifications in the field equivalent to the terminal degree. To be promoted to Associate Professor requires evidence of excellence in teaching, substantial university service, and continuing scholarly productivity as demonstrated by publications in scholarly journals, presentation of papers at conferences, performances of the faculty member's work, or other comparable work appropriate to the mission of the College.
      
      Recommendation for promotion to Associate Professor and for continuing appointment will normally take place within the same cycle of departmental, faculty, and administrative considerations. Although the Trustees' Policies do not permit continuing appointment being made contingent upon promotion to Associate Professor, or vice versa (these are two separate and distinct recommendations), a recommendation for one substantially reinforces a recommendation for the other.
       
   3. Associate Professor to Professor: Promotion to Professor indicates very substantial and sustained performance on all of the Trustees' criteria. Of particular importance to teaching faculty is the possession of a record of sustained teaching excellence and continuing scholarly productivity as demonstrated by publications in scholarly journals, presentation of papers at conferences, performances of the faculty member's work, or other comparable work appropriate to the mission of the College.
      
      The College does not believe that a faculty member who cannot demonstrate clear, reliable, and consistent evidence of excellence in teaching should be promoted to Professor. Excellence in teaching should be the sine qua non of promotion to Professor.
      
      The absence of an earned doctorate should not in and of itself preclude promotion to full Professor. Faculty who, over an extended career of perhaps 20 or more years, have demonstrated scholarly and/or creative productivity of major regional or national significance (e.g. a major novel, numerous award-winning art works invited for national-level exhibit, guest performances within the region) may appropriately be considered.
      
      Similarly, faculty with the doctorate, many years of service, and documented excellence in teaching, but without major scholarly productivity, should not be precluded from consideration for promotion to full Professor. Length of service, in itself, is not a qualification for promotion.
       
   4. Assistant to Senior Assistant Librarian: Promotion to Senior Assistant Librarian requires evidence of excellence in librarianship and promise as a scholar.
       
   5. Senior Assistant Librarian to Associate Librarian: Promotion to Associate Librarian requires both a high and consistent level of performance based on the Trustees' criteria. More specifically, the candidate should hold the terminal degree appropriate to the academic discipline or possess professional qualifications in the field equivalent to the terminal degree. To be promoted to Associate Librarian requires evidence of excellence in librarianship, consistent scholarship, substantial university service and an established outstanding record in either scholarship or service.
      
      Recommendation for promotion to Associate Librarian and for continuing appointment will normally take place within the same cycle of departmental, faculty, and administrative considerations. Although the Trustees do not permit continuing appointment being made contingent upon promotion to Associate Librarian, or vice versa (these are two separate and distinct recommendations), a recommendation for one substantially reinforces a recommendation for the other. With respect to "evidence of excellence in librarianship," such supporting documentation as peer on or off campus review, an assessment by the library director, evidence of growth in nature, scope, and complexity of job responsibilities, and a professional self-evaluation and growth plan should be provided.
      
      With regard to librarianship, scholarship, service, and all other criteria stated or unstated at each stage of the reappointment process, library faculty without continuing appointment should be informed of any deficiencies which, at the time of review for each reappointment, are apparent to the reviewing person or group. While deficiencies could become apparent late in the cycle of reappointments leading to the continuing appointment decision, such instances should be the exception.
       
   6. Associate Librarian to Librarian: Promotion to Librarian indicates very substantial and sustained performance on all of the Trustees' criteria. Of particular importance to library faculty is the possession of a record of sustained excellence in librarianship and continuing scholarly productivity as demonstrated by publications in scholarly journals, presentation of papers at conferences, or other comparable work appropriate to the mission of the College.
       
4. Procedures for Personnel Decisions
   The President of the College, after seeking consultation, may appoint, promote, reappoint, or recommend to the Chancellor for appointment or reappointment such persons as are, in the judgment of the president, best qualified. Such appointments shall be consistent with the operating requirements of the College. The term "consultation" means consideration of recommendations of academic or professional employees, including the committees, if any, of the appropriate department or professional area, and other appropriate sources in connection with appointment or reappointment of a specified employee. Normally, such consultation consists of consideration of the recommendation of the employee's (as appropriate) Department, Chair, Dean, and Vice President.
   
   Criteria: Recommendations for continuing appointments, renewal of term appointments, promotions, discretionary adjustments and other personnel actions may include, but are not limited to, consideration of the criteria listed in this document.
   
   Local Guidelines: The standard form, "Personnel Action: Academic Employee," is to be used for all reappointments, continuing appointments and promotions. The following guidelines are intended to assist employees and their evaluators in assembling the required dossiers.
   1. In addition to a listing of all publications and other creative work in an up-to-date curriculum vitae, the dossier should include copies of all major publications, representative examples of work in progress, and other relevant materials.
       
   2. When listing college committees and other pertinent activities, the curriculum vitae should include relevant dates.
       
   3. The form stipulates that the report of the initial (first stage) academic review should include "evidence of teaching ability, scholarly competence, relations with students, service to colleagues, research activity, other service to the University, etc." The operative word here is "evidence." The dossier should include all of the basic information and materials that went into the initial academic review. Under normal circumstances, these materials should include letters, testimonials, and other evidence from inside the department or from other parts of the College or beyond, addressing the candidate's competence and service.
       
   4. Evidence of teaching ability should be sufficiently comprehensive to afford an overview of the breadth of subject matter taught by the candidate and his or her competence in teaching it. It may consist of testimonials from students, the results of surveys or questionnaires carried out in the individual classes either by the department or by the candidate, reports from colleagues, or any other suitable material. In the case of surveys, a copy of the questionnaire or instrument should be included and the size of the return should be indicated. In the case of testimonials from students, the testimonials should indicate which courses the students took with the candidate. A representative sample from several different courses at several different levels would, of course, be ideal. Teaching faculty are encouraged to use a statistically valid evaluative instrument, such as the IDEA system.
       
   5. Evidence of teaching ability might also include, but should not be limited to, syllabi and other materials generated in courses.
       
   6. All applications must be accompanied by a letter from the chair of the department explaining the department's overall plans, its teaching and advising needs, and the anticipated role of the candidate in satisfying these plans and needs. This letter should be accompanied by a similar letter from the dean explaining how the candidate will contribute to the overall program and mission of the school, including the candidate's contribution to general education. The dean should also forward an up-to-date Academic Faculty Information Form and any earlier form(s) covering the period since the last personnel action.
       
   7. In the case of term appointments, departments and deans must indicate the length of the renewal that they would prefer. Normally reappointments are for a term of one or two years.
       
   8. At all stages in the reappointment process, the College reserves the right to request additional information from the candidate or from the candidate's department, or from other departments or qualified individuals on or off campus. In all such instances, the candidate will be notified and will be given an opportunity to respond in writing to all documents and appraisals so acquired.
       
   9. With regard to teaching, scholarship, service, and all other criteria, at each stage of the reappointment process faculty without continuing appointment should be informed of any deficiencies which, at the time of review for reappointment, are apparent to the reviewing person or group. While deficiencies could become apparent late in the cycle of reappointments leading to the continuing appointment decision, such instances should be exceptions.
       
   10. Regular assessment using the criteria in this document is essential. It is not unreasonable for untenured faculty members who have not been informed of any deficiencies during prior personnel action reviews to assume that they are making normal progress and, when the time comes for the decision to be made on continuing appointment, that they would receive a positive recommendation from the department.
5. Provost's Advisory Committee
   In the event that there is concern over a reappointment or promotion recommendation, after a recommendation of the Dean (or equivalent administrative officer), the Provost with the written concurrence of the faculty member or the faculty member may request that a Provost's Advisory Committee be established. This ad hoc committee will be made up of three members of the voting faculty of the College. The Provost and the employee shall each designate a member to serve on the Committee. The third member shall be selected by the two designated members and shall serve as chair.
   
   The Committee shall review the recommendations and shall report its recommendations to the Provost and the faculty member.
   
   Following receipt of the Committee's recommendations, the Provost shall take such action as may be deemed appropriate and shall notify, in writing, the employee, the ad hoc committee, and the College President.

Evaluation and promotion of professional employees is covered by Article 30 of the Agreement and Article XII of the Policies of the Board of Trustees. Detailed procedures for evaluation and promotion are contained in the Memorandum of Understanding between the State University of New York and United University Professions, copies of which are available from the UUP Chapter Office on campus or the Office of Human Resources.

1. Evaluation
   Each professional employee will have his/her performance evaluated by his/her immediate supervisor formally, in writing, once each year during the term of appointment. Such evaluations will be based on a performance program determined by the immediate supervisor after consultation with the employee. The performance must be characterized, in summary, as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
   
   The performance program is the document which forms the basis for the annual evaluation of a professional employee. It should include a discussion of specific duties and responsibilities, objectives and evaluative criteria applicable to a particular position for a specific evaluative period. The performance program can, and should when appropriate, be modified and updated by the immediate supervisor in discussion with the professional employee.
    
2. Promotion
   The President, after consideration of the supervisory evaluation and recommendations from appropriate personnel, may promote or recommend for promotion to the Chancellor any professional employee.
   
   Promotions are an increase in a professional employee's basic annual salary and a change in title to a higher rank:
   1. Resulting from a permanent significant increase or change in his/her duties and responsibilities as a consequence of movement from one position to another of greater scope and complexity of function at the same or different college; or
   2. Resulting from a permanent significant increase or change in his/her duties and responsibilities as a consequence of a permanent increase in the scope and complexity of function of his/her position. The schedule of submission dates pertaining to promotion are given in Appendix XIII.
       
3. Criteria
   As they relate to the duties, responsibilities and objectives of the position in which a professional employee is being evaluated or for which such employee is being considered for promotion, the following criteria may include but not be limited to:
   1. Effectiveness in Performance - as demonstrated, for example, by success in carrying out assigned duties and responsibilities, efficiency, productivity, and relationship with colleagues.
   2. Mastery of Specialization - as demonstrated, for example, by degrees, licenses, honors, awards, and reputation in professional field.
   3. Professional Ability - as demonstrated, for example, by invention or innovation in professional, scientific, administrative, or technical areas; i.e., development or refinement of programs, methods, procedures, or apparatus.
   4. Effectiveness in University Service - as demonstrated, for example, by such things as college and university public service, committee work, and involvement in college or university related student or community activities.
   5. Continuing Growth - as demonstrated, for example, by continuing education, participation in professional organizations, enrollment in training programs, research, improved job performance and increased duties and responsibilities.
       
4. Internal Promotion Policy
   1. Purpose
      In accordance with the Agreement between the State of New York and United University Professions, and after discussion in Faculty Senate, a joint/labor management committee was appointed to develop and further review an internal promotion plan within the Professional Services Negotiating Unit of SUNY Potsdam.
      
      The College recognizes the need for a career development program for its employees and the need to provide equal employment opportunity for all qualified persons. As a means of addressing these needs, the College will notify all professionals of vacancies in the Professional Services Negotiating Unit (bargaining unit 08) or management/ confidential positions and consider internal candidates.
       
   2. Effect -- The effect of this internal promotion policy is:
      1. to establish a mechanism for informing professional employees of all professional vacancies and
      2. to ensure consideration for internal candidates.
          
   3. Procedures
      The College has established the following procedures as the method of providing promotional opportunities for its professional employees. These procedures are applicable to appointments to professional vacancies.
      1. As an opening becomes available for any professional position, the responsible Leadership Council member will review the job description and responsibilities listed.
      2. The Administrative Cabinet member will determine whether the position is to be filled or held vacant.
      3. Any exceptions to this policy must be reviewed by the College President or designee.
      4. If a search is approved:
         1. Human Resources will notify all professional employees, by electronic mail, when a professional vacancy occurs. A copy of said notice will also be directed to the local UUP office.
         2. A professional employee interested in being considered for the vacancy must submit a letter of application and resume to the Search Committee Chair.
         3. The Search Committee Chair must take one of the three actions listed below on the application of internal candidates and notify each candidate to his/her status:
         • Recommend appointment to the position.
         • Find the applicant(s) qualified to be considered for the appointment but recommend the employee be considered along with external candidates.
         • Find the applicant(s) unqualified.

1. Evaluation
   The performance of each Managerial/Confidential employee, with the exception of the Campus President, is evaluated annually. The normal period for evaluation is from July 1 through June 30 of the succeeding calendar year. Such evaluation will be based on a performance program determined by the employee's immediate managerial/confidential supervisor after consultation with the employee.
    
2. Criteria
   The criteria may include, but are not limited to, such of the following factors as are deemed appropriate to the individual employee's assigned responsibilities:
   1. The manner in which the employee's performance helped attain the University's goals during the evaluation time period.
   2. The degree to which the employee's performance program objectives were achieved.
   3. The ability to establish priorities consistent with the University's and College's objectives.
   4. The ability to exercise sound judgment in the decision making process.
   5. The ability to apply creativity in accomplishing assigned responsibilities.
   6. The willingness and effectiveness with which the employee assists colleagues, particularly those in other offices, where the work performed may require effective interaction.
   7. Communication and interaction with staff, students and other constituencies.
   8. Relations with the public.
   9. Adherence to and furtherance of the University's Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action policies.

1. Performance Review
   Each Chair shall have a review of her or his performance as chair on a regular basis by the appropriate committee or department in consultation with the members of the department. The Chair will have the opportunity to discuss the results of the review in a meeting with the committee. The results of the review will then be given to the Dean of the School, who also will review the chair's performance and discuss it with the Chair. There shall be no final evaluation required for chairs not seeking reappointment.
   1. Assessment
      For chairs with multi-year terms, the dean shall coordinate an assessment of the chair's performance at the end of the first year or in the fall of the second year of the chair's term. The dean shall consult with individual faculty members in the department through written surveys and/or interviews and share the results of the assessment with the chair for the purpose of performance improvement. There shall be no assessment required for chairs with a single year term appointment or for chairs who have been evaluated and appointed for an additional term in accordance with the evaluation procedures in section III-1-b.
   2. Evaluation
      At the end of the term of appointment there shall be a final evaluation of the Chair's performance for the purpose of reappointment. The evaluation shall be conducted by the appropriate Personnel Committee in consultation with the members of the Department. Performance shall be characterized, in summary as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory, and the evaluation shall include a recommendation regarding reappointment. The review should evaluate the candidate in regards to performance of the duties outlined in the roles and responsibilities described in Chapter II, Section F, of the Faculty Handbook. The Chair will have the opportunity to review his or her evaluation in a meeting with the committee. The evaluation will then be given to the Dean of the School, who will write his or her own evaluation of the Chair. In a meeting with the Dean, the Chair will have the chance to discuss the materials that he or she prepared, and the evaluation done by members of the appropriate Personnel Committee and by the Dean. He or she may add a statement of commentary and will sign all reviews that he or she has read. The Dean will assemble the materials and send them to the Provost, who will make a recommendation to the President.

For at least two decades, SUNY Potsdam deans have undergone periodic reviews soliciting feedback from faculty and staff in their schools, as a supplement to the annual evaluation process for professional employees mandated by the SUNY Board of Trustees. However, there was no explicit statement of policy or written documentation of those procedures. This policy statement describes and formalizes these procedures.
In the fifth year of service, feedback will be solicited from faculty members regarding the dean's activities and effectiveness.

• Using the dean's position description and performance programs, the dean will work with the Provost to develop a survey instrument that explains each element of the position or program and asks faculty members their opinions of the dean's effectiveness.
  • The dean will consult with faculty members or a faculty committee on the construction of the survey, as well.
  • The survey should contain both quantitative questions and opportunity for written comments.
  • Dean assessment surveys used recently will serve as models for a standard format that is under development, on which some items will be standard for all deans and others may be added tailored to the needs of the school or periodic circumstances.
• The survey will be administered to all employees of the school by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness in such a way that responses are anonymous.
• IE will prepare summary statistics and make the data available to the dean to analyze further, including numerical responses and written comments.
• The dean will prepare a summary of the findings from the review, a narrative reflecting on conclusions to be drawn, and a description of activities to be undertaken to respond to issues revealed by the surveys.
• This, along with the data and statistical reports, will be submitted to the Provost for the dean's next annual Performance Review. (The President may also review these materials.)
• In response to the findings from the review, the dean will report to the faculty of the school about plans to address issues that were identified.