What the Colleges Say About Annual Reviews

P1

1. The dean and the department chair shall meet annually with each non-tenured member of the faculty to provide a performance review.
2. During the meeting, the non-tenured faculty member shall be given a full opportunity to discuss the appraisals made by the department and by the dean, and also to explore ways in which colleagues might help improve subsequent performance.
3. Within two weeks following the meeting, the dean shall prepare a written summary of the annual performance review. A copy shall be given to the individual under review and to the department chair. This summary, along with any written response that the individual or the department chair chooses to make, shall be available to appropriate committees during subsequent reappointment and promotion reviews

P2

1. Each non-tenured assistant professor must have a formal performance review by the Chair at least every twelve months. This includes a discussion followed by a written summary.
2. When the assistant professor is in his/her reappointment review year (normally the third year), the reappointment documentation will constitute the annual performance review for that year, and must include a discussion involving at least the faculty member and the chair, and a written letter from the chair to the faculty member (in addition to the dossier review process).
3. It is expected that the Chair will seek input and advice from the tenured faculty as
   appropriate before meeting with the faculty member being reviewed. Input from the mentoring committee is encouraged, although it should be remembered that the mentoring committee is not evaluative in nature; the mentoring committee may be particularly able to help structure advice for guiding the future focus of the faculty member.
4. Following the meeting between the Chair and the faculty member, a written summary of the evaluation shall be sent to the faculty member. One copy of the letter is to be signed by the faculty member, acknowledging receipt, and returned to the Chair. The faculty member may write a response letter if there are points of disagreement with statements made by the chair, if any important substantive information was omitted from the chair’s letter. It is recommended that the Chair’s letter encourage the faculty member to discuss any differences in perception immediately with the Chair, rather than relying only on the written reply.
5. A signed copy of each annual performance evaluation shall be sent to the Senior Associate Dean (electronically) after the evaluation is received and acknowledged by the faculty member.
6. Copies of any other substantive correspondence between the Chair and the faculty member being evaluated regarding the evaluation are to be sent to the Senior Associate Dean.
7. Copies of each annual review must be included in the documentation prepared for review for reappointment or for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure.