Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost

5.1 Evaluation and Review

Approved by Faculty Senate (3/24/98)

Approved by the General Faculty (5/1/98)

Incorporating editing and revisions as approved by

Faculty Senate Executive Board (9/18/98)

Approved by the Faculty Senate (10/13/98)

Approved by University Administration Provost and President (11/2/98)

Approved by Board of Regents (12/3/98)

Note: In this document the term "department" is understood to include any academic unit designated as a "school."

5.1.1. Evaluation of Faculty Members

5.1.1.1. General Policies and Procedures.

For purposes of evaluating performance, Iowa State University uses the following forms of faculty review:

• annual review
• preliminary review of probationary faculty
• promotion and/or tenure review

5.1.1.2. Annual Reviews.

Faculty members are reviewed annually for performance appraisal and development on the basis of their position responsibility statement. (see Position Responsibility Statement) This review may serve as a basis for determining merit salary increases.

Annual faculty reviews are conducted by the department chair. In some departments it may be desirable for the chair to select other persons from the department to aid in this evaluation.

Following the review, the chair discusses the results with the faculty member, thus providing an opportunity for exchange of ideas that would be of benefit to the individual and the department.

Similar procedures apply to faculty holding administrative positions, such as the department chair and dean. These reviews are conducted by their immediate supervisors.

5.1.1.3. Preliminary Review of Probationary Faculty.

Probationary faculty members are typically reviewed by their departments in the second or third year of their appointments. The purpose of this review is to provide constructive, developmental feedback to probationary faculty regarding progress in meeting departmental criteria for promotion and/or tenure. This review also informs the decision to reappoint during the probationary period. (see 3. Appointment Policies and Procedures)

The review should be based upon departmental criteria and standards used for promotion and/or tenure. The review process must include peer review and an evaluation by the chair. External letters are not normally expected as part of the process. Additional reviews may be conducted at the discretion of the department.

5.1.1.4. Promotion and/or Tenure Review.

The evaluation for promotion and/or award of tenure initially takes place within the department, with review at each administrative level above the department. Review of departmental recommendations at the college level must involve faculty from outside the department concerned. For college procedures related to faculty involvement see the section on College Review in "Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Review." The evaluation procedures for award of tenure are those used for evaluation for promotion. For full descriptions of the standards, qualifications, and procedures see 5.2.2. Standards for Promotion and Tenure, 5.2.3. Qualifications for Academic Rank and Tenure, and 5.2.4. Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Review.

5.1.1.5. Position Responsibility Statement.

It is the policy of Iowa State University that these evaluations are based on the position responsibilities of faculty members and other activities that relate to faculty appointments. The results of all reviews must be shared with the individual faculty members.

A position responsibility statement is a tool that allows for a flexible and individualized system of faculty review, particularly within the promotion and tenure process. The description itself should be general and only include the significant responsibilities of the faculty member that are important in evaluating faculty accomplishments in the promotion and tenure process. The position responsibility statement shall not violate the faculty member's academic freedom in teaching, in the selection of topics or methods of research, or in extension/professional practice.

The statement must be subject to regular review by the faculty member and his/her chair, and allow for flexibility in responsibilities over time and for the changing nature of faculty appointments. The statement should allow both faculty members and their administrative and peer evaluators to understand the basis of the academic appointment and to place that into context with the promotion and tenure criteria. The descriptions should be brief but may include detail important to the department and/or faculty member. The position responsibility statement cannot be changed unilaterally by either the chair or the faculty member. A department governance document may specify the procedure by which a position responsibility statement can be changed.

At the time of appointment, the chair and the new faculty member will agree on a position responsibility statement that should be based on the job advertisement. This should stand for the first three years of appointment. In most cases, this initial statement will remain in effect until the tenure review. Any changes in the expectations for the untenured faculty member must be made in consultation between the chair and the faculty member.

When tenure is granted, the faculty member and his/her chair should review the details of the position responsibility statement and make any necessary changes.

At least every seven years as part of the annual review process, tenured faculty members should re-evaluate their position responsibilities with their chairs. The statement may be reviewed and/or changed more frequently as part of the annual review process, but this is not mandated. Any changes in the statement must be made in consultation between the chair and the tenured faculty member.

5.1.1.6. Joint Appointment.

Evaluation of a person holding rank in more than one department should be initiated and conducted by the primary department, with advice from the secondary department. The individual's Letter of Intent (for new appointments) and the position responsibility statement will specify the primary department. Prior to the review, the two chairs should decide on the role to be played by the secondary department, including the preparation of the documentation from the secondary department and the process for including that documentation in the review. In cases with an equal division of responsibilities, the departments may agree to conduct separate reviews.

5.1.2. Evaluation of Department Chairs

Periodically each department chair is evaluated on the basis of his or her administrative responsibilities and accomplishments. This review is normally initiated by the college dean as part of a reappointment decision. Mechanisms for department faculty input are provided within the evaluation process. Policies and procedures regarding these reviews are contained in college governance documents and may be included in departmental governance documents.

5.1.3. Evaluation of College and Central Administrators

For information regarding the evaluation of a college dean, see Policy for Faculty Involvement in Evaluation.

For information regarding faculty review of central administrators, see 5.6. Evaluation of Central Administrators.

5.2. Promotion and Tenure

Approved by Faculty Senate (3/24/98)

Approved by the General Faculty (5/1/98)

Incorporating editing and revisions as approved by

Faculty Senate Executive Board (9/18/98)

Approved by the Faculty Senate (10/13/98)

Approved by University Administration Provost and President (11/2/98)

Approved by Board of Regents (12/3/98)

Note: In this document the term "department" is understood to include any academic unit designated as a "school."

5.2.1. General Policies on Tenure

Academic freedom is the freedom to discuss all relevant matters in the classroom, to explore all avenues of scholarship, research, and creative expression and to speak or write as a public citizen without institutional discipline or restraint. Academic responsibility implies the faithful performance of academic duties and obligations, the recognition of the demands of the scholarly enterprise, and the candor to make it clear that the individual is not speaking for the institution in matters of public interest.

Tenure is the keystone for academic freedom; it is essential for safeguarding the right of free expression and for encouraging risk-taking inquiry at the frontiers of knowledge. Both tenure and academic freedom are part of an implicit social compact, which recognizes that tenure serves important public purposes and benefits society. The public is best served when faculty are free to teach, conduct research, provide extension/ professional practice services, and engage in institutional service without fear of reprisal or without compromising the pursuit of knowledge and/or the creative process.

In return, faculty have the responsibility of furthering high-quality programs of research, teaching, and extension/professional practice, and are fully accountable for their performance of these responsibilities. Additionally, a well-designed tenure system attracts capable and highly qualified individuals as faculty members, strengthens institutional stability by enhancing faculty members' institutional loyalty, and encourages academic excellence by retaining and rewarding the most meritorious people. Tenure and promotion imply selectivity and choice; they are granted for scholarly and professional merit. The length and intensity of the review leading to the granting of tenure ensures the retention of only productive faculty; periodic performance reviews ensure the continuance of a commitment to excellence.

The system of academic tenure at Iowa State University emphasizes (1) recruitment of the most highly qualified candidates available, (2) creation of an opportunity for scholarly performance in teaching, research/creative activity, and extension/professional practice, (3) continuing evaluation of performance on the basis of areas of responsibilities in the employment agreement, and (4) the positive evaluation of performance resulting in the award of tenure. The awarding of tenure requires an affirmative decision, based upon an explicit judgment of qualifications resulting from continuous evaluation of the faculty member during the probationary period in light of the applicable criteria.

After the award of tenure, faculty members undergo annual reviews and, as appropriate, reviews for promotion. A tenured faculty member may be dismissed only for adequate cause as defined in section 7.2. Faculty Misconduct. Denial of faculty appointment or reappointment, or removal or suspension from office, or censure, or other penalty must not be based upon any belief, expression, or conduct protected by law or by the principles of academic freedom.

Affirmative action and tenure are compatible concepts. Both seek to ensure the hiring and retention of those who are most qualified. In the appointment process, affirmative action operates to ensure that the most qualified available person is identified and is offered the opportunity to join the faculty. After the initial appointment, the affirmative action program ensures that irrelevant considerations, such as race and gender, play no role in tenure, promotion, and salary decisions.

5.2.1.1. Eligibility for Tenure.

All regular full-time continuous A- or B-base appointments to the rank of instructor or higher accrue rights to tenure. Tenure is associated with the faculty appointment in an academic department.

Tenure accompanies appointment to the rank of associate professor or professor unless a probationary period for the new appointee is clearly specified in advance, or unless it is indicated that the appointment does not carry tenure. The latter is used rarely and is limited to instances of term appointments of a special nature or character. For initial appointments at the rank of associate professor or professor without immediate tenure, the departmental recommendation as to tenure specifies the length of the probationary period.

After the awarding of tenure, the appointment is continuous. Except for resignation, retirement, or death of the faculty member, such appointments are terminable only for adequate cause.

5.2.1.2. Tenure for Faculty Members in Administrative Positions.

At Iowa State University, the appointment of an individual to an administrative position does not automatically guarantee tenure in a department.

An individual who has been a faculty member at another institution and who is appointed to an administrative position at Iowa State University may be proposed for rank in an academic department appropriate for his or her area of professional expertise. That department shall, in turn, determine whether that individual should be awarded tenure by a review consistent with the individual's academic rank and previous experience. Thus, the department that agrees to award academic rank to the person must also make a recommendation regarding tenure.

Department-level administrators are encouraged to remain actively involved in professional activities within the department in the interests of administrative effectiveness and ease of return to regular faculty duties at the termination of administrative responsibilities. Similarly, tenured faculty members who are appointed to administrative positions that require full-time service outside their departments are encouraged to continue to be involved in their academic disciplines.

When a person relinquishes a full-time administrative position after substantial absence from the department, every effort shall be made to assign duties within the university commensurate with his or her professional qualifications. Even though the person might be tenured in an academic department, the decision as to whether it would be most appropriate for the person to return to that department as an active faculty member will be mutually decided by the department and the individual concerned, in consultation with other appropriate administrative officials. Where necessary and appropriate, a reasonable period of transition, usually one year or less, may be allowed during which the person can prepare himself or herself to undertake whatever responsibilities have been determined to be most appropriate.

5.2.1.3. Terms of Probationary Service.

The date that a non-tenured faculty member actually begins the performance of his or her duties at or on behalf of Iowa State University marks the beginning of the probationary period, except for mid-year appointments. The length of the probationary period must be specified at the time of the initial appointment and should ordinarily be no longer than seven years.

In some instances the beginning date of an appointment does not coincide with the beginning of the academic year. In order to give the probationary faculty member the full opportunity to achieve the credentials required for tenure, the full probationary period for a person whose appointment begins during the academic year may extend a few months beyond seven calendar years. The ending date of the probationary period shall coincide with the end of the academic year in the case of B-base appointments, or the end of the fiscal year in the case of A-base appointments, so that the individual's tenure review can take place during a regular review cycle.

Tenure normally is conferred on an individual after seven consecutive years of continuous faculty service in a regular appointment at Iowa State University. A faculty member, therefore, is ordinarily reviewed for tenure in the sixth year. Recommendations for earlier awarding of tenure require documentation of truly exceptional accomplishments.

A faculty member may request an additional review during the final year of the probationary period if there has been a substantial change in the record.

5.2.1.4. Extension of the Probationary Period

Section 5.2.1.4. was approved by the Faculty Senate on March 26, 2002 and by the administration on April 29, 2002.

Ordinarily the probationary period will provide sufficient time for the faculty member to demonstrate his or her qualifications for tenure. On occasion, however, special circumstances may occur that interfere significantly with the faculty member's opportunity to develop the qualifications necessary for tenure in the time allowed. It is the intent of this policy to describe legitimate circumstances in which a faculty member might be granted an extension of the probationary period.

A faculty member may request an extension of the probationary period based upon such circumstances. The request for an extension should be submitted in writing to the department chair, the dean of the college, and the provost as soon as possible but no later than April 1 before the academic year in which the third-year review or tenure review is scheduled to be conducted. Requests should clearly explain the reasons for granting an extension of the probationary period and will be acted upon promptly. Requests for extension due to the birth of a child or the adoption of a child under age five will be submitted to and approved by the chair, dean of the college, and provost. The chair, dean of the college, and provost, must approve requests based on other circumstances.

If the faculty member requests an extension, the faculty member must acknowledge that tenure cannot be claimed on the basis that the total length of employment has by then extended beyond seven years. A faculty member may be granted only two one-year extensions during the probationary period.

Scholarship accomplished by a tenure-track faculty member during an extension period shall be counted as part of a candidate's record. Standards regarding what constitutes a record deserving of tenure shall not be raised to adjust for any granted extension.

5.2.1.4.1. Extending the Probationary Period for the Birth of a Child or the Adoption of a Child under the Age of Five.

A faculty member who serves as the primary or coequal caregiver will be granted, upon request, a one-year extension of the probationary period if the faculty member becomes a parent during the first three years of probationary service or within two years prior to appointment at the University. If the faculty member has not previously had more than one extension, a request for extension based upon the arrival of a child will be granted.

A faculty member who serves as the primary or coequal caregiver will be granted, upon request, a one-year extension of the probationary period if the faculty member becomes a parent after the third-year review. If the faculty member has not previously had more than one extension, a request for extension based upon the arrival of a child will be granted.

Requests for an extension based upon becoming a parent should be made within two years of the arrival of a child. The faculty member will be granted an extension, upon request, even if he or she does not take leave for the arrival of the child.

5.2.1.4.2. Extending the Probationary Period for Significant Responsibilities Related to Elder, Spousal or Partner, or Dependent Care.

Elder or dependent care may be the care of a spouse, domestic partner, mother, father, sister, brother, daughter, son, grandparent, grandchild, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, grandparent-in-law, grandchild-in-law, or corresponding relatives of the employee's partner, other persons for whom the employee is legally responsible, and anyone who stood in loco parentis to the employee as a child. Such circumstances are those in which the dependent person is in need of special medical or living assistance.

A faculty member may request an extension of the probationary period when the tenure-track faculty member has significant responsibilities with respect to elder, spousal or partner, or dependent care obligations when those circumstances significantly impede progress of the faculty member toward achieving tenure.

Requests for an extension based upon elder or dependent care should be made within two years of the onset of any condition requiring care, or within two years of the faculty member's becoming responsible for care. The request should contain documentation of any medical or other condition that requires special assistance from the faculty member together with a discussion of the need for that faculty member to provide assistance. The documentation will be maintained in a confidential manner.

5.2.1.4.3. Extension of the Probationary Period for Medical Condition of the Faculty Member.

A faculty member may request an extension of the probationary period for appropriate medical reasons.

Requests for an extension based upon medical condition should be based upon a medical condition arising or reappearing after accepting a position. The request should contain medical documentation of the illness or disability and a description of the effect upon the faculty member's work. The documentation will be maintained in a confidential manner.

5.2.1.4.4. Extension of the Probationary Period for Other Reasons.

• A faculty member may request an extension of the probationary period because of a major shift in the departmental mission or in the faculty member's position responsibility statement. When exceptional circumstances require a major shift in criteria for the awarding of tenure, a department may request an extension of the probationary period for a faculty member who would not otherwise have adequate opportunity to qualify under the new criteria but who has demonstrated the potential to do so.
• A faculty member who requests a leave of absence from Iowa State University during the probationary period may, in appropriate circumstances, also request an extension of the probationary period for the length of the leave of absence.

5.2.1.5. Credit for Prior Service.

When a faculty member with prior experience in a faculty position at another academic institution is appointed on a probationary faculty appointment at Iowa State University, a probationary period is established for the individual as part of the employment agreement. For the faculty member this could result in a total probationary period in his/her discipline that may exceed seven years.

A faculty member's usual probationary period of seven years at Iowa State University may be reduced through credit for prior faculty service at other academic institutions. The amount of time credited will be determined by the specific relevance of the prior service to the needs and criteria of Iowa State University. Evidence of the quality of prior service should be secured from the institution or institutions in which the individual has served.

Up to one year of time served on a visiting appointment at Iowa State University may be credited as probationary time for tenure purposes, provided that service in such visiting status is followed, without interruption, by service in a position for which tenure eligibility accrues.

5.2.1.6. Criteria for Awarding Tenure.

It is the policy of Iowa State University that all faculty of the university shall be clearly informed as to the personnel policies of the institution. Personnel policies of the institution are contained in the Faculty Handbook, the Office Procedure Guide, http://www.adp.iastate.edu/vpbf/prod/docs/opg/chap3toc.htm, and in departmental and college governance documents as well as in additional supplemental information provided to departmental administrative officers. For each faculty member, the conditions of employment, including the length of appointment, shall be clearly stated in writing, along with a statement specifying tenure status and length of probationary period.

The criteria by which probationary faculty in a department are evaluated for tenure shall be stated in writing as clearly and specifically as possible as part of the department's promotion and tenure document. A central component of each review is a written position responsibility statement for each candidate. Criteria will be consistent with a commitment to excellence in scholarship and apply to the position responsibilities of probationary faculty. Such criteria and position responsibilities must not impinge upon the academic freedom of the probationary faculty.

5.2.2. Standards for Promotion and Tenure

5.2.2.1. Introduction.

Iowa State University is a public land-grant institution where liberal and professional education is merged with basic and applied research in pursuit of advancing society's potentials and assisting in solving its problems. The university serves the people of Iowa, the nation, and the world through its interrelated programs of teaching, research/creative activities, and extension/professional practice.

Evaluation of a faculty member for promotion and/or tenure is based primarily on evidence of scholarship in the faculty member's teaching, research/creative activities, and/or extension/professional practice. In all areas of professional activity, a faculty member is expected to uphold the values and follow the guidelines in the Statement of Professional Ethics found in "Professional Policies and Procedures."

A key tool in the promotion and tenure review process is the position responsibility statement, which describes the individual's current position responsibilities and activities in the following areas: (1) teaching, (2) research/creative activities, (3) extension/ professional practice, and (4) institutional service. This statement is used by all evaluators to interpret the extent, balance, and scope of the faculty member's scholarly achievements.

The following sections define and provide examples of scholarship and the four central areas of faculty responsibilities and activities.

5.2.2.2. Scholarship.

All tenured and probationary faculty members are expected to engage in scholarship in their teaching, research/creative activities, and extension/professional practice. Scholarship is creative, systematic, rational inquiry into a topic and the honest, forthright application or exposition of conclusions drawn from that inquiry. It builds on existing knowledge and employs critical analysis and judgment to enhance understanding. Scholarship is the umbrella under which research falls, but research is just one form of scholarship. Scholarship also encompasses creative activities, teaching, and extension/professional practice.

Scholarship results in a product that is shared with others and is subject to the criticism of individuals qualified to judge the product. This product may take the form of a book, journal article, critical review, annotated bibliography, lecture, review of existing research on a topic, or speech synthesizing the thinking on a topic. Also falling under the umbrella of scholarship are original materials designed for use with the computer; inventions on which patents are obtained; codes and standards; art exhibits by teacher-artists; musical concerts with original scores; novels, essays, short stories, poems; and scholarly articles published in non-research based periodicals, newspapers, and other publications; etc. In short, scholarship includes materials that are generally called "intellectual property."

Scholarship generally implies that one has a solid foundation in the professional field addressed and is current with developments in that field. However, it must be noted that significant advances sometimes accrue when a scholar extends her or his scope of topics beyond those traditional to a particular discipline.

The following Table 1 describes the broad continuum of scholarship. It is adapted from Conrad J. Weiser, "The Value of a University - Rethinking Scholarship," draft version; and Ernest L. Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered - Priorities of the Professoriate (Princeton, New York, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990).

Table 1. The Nature of Scholarship

Table 1 describes the parameters to be used when judging the scholarly nature of a faculty member's achievements in all evaluation reviews.

The nature of scholarly work at a diverse university necessarily varies. In the promotion and tenure review process, however, evidence that a significant portion of a faculty member's scholarship has been documented (i.e., communicated to and validated by peers beyond the university) is required of all.

In some fields, refereed journals and monographs are the traditional media for documenting scholarship; in others, exhibitions and performances are the appropriate form. In still other fields, emerging technologies are creating (and will continue to create) entirely new media. Finally, scholarship may be validated and communicated through conference presentations and invited lectures.

Faculty also may submit evidence of scholarship that has not been documented by peers in the discipline, even though this evidence alone would not be sufficient to justify promotion and tenure. Evidence regarding both documented and undocumented scholarship provides a holistic portrayal of the candidate's scholarly work. For example, course materials in and of themselves do not constitute scholarship. However, if an individual's course materials reveal that he/she "communicates new understandings and insights" (Table 1) effectively to students or "synthesizes, interprets, and communicates new knowledge" (Table 1) for students, this material may be submitted as supporting evidence of scholarship, even though it may not have been communicated to peers outside the university.

Scholarship often requires teamwork and other collaborative relationships, particularly because of the growth of interdisciplinary and collaborative programs. When work that is a result of joint effort is presented as evidence of scholarship, clarification of the candidate's role in the joint effort must be provided.

In the promotion and tenure review process, the emphasis is on the critical evaluation of the scholarly nature of the candidate's achievements by professional peers, including peers external to the university. Evidence should be presented as to the impact of the scholarship in terms of its depth, duration, and/or persistence of influence or use (e.g., citations, adaptations or use by others), as well as its public and critical appreciation. Table 1 provides the framework for the evaluation.

5.2.2.3. Areas of Position Responsibilities and Activities.

In carrying out their responsibilities and activities, faculty will support the university's commitment to diversity by fostering an environment of mutual respect.

The following paragraphs provide examples of activities that may be documented in each area of faculty responsibility as well as methods by which scholarship within these areas is communicated and evaluated. Teaching, research/creative activities, and extension/professional practice are central to the mission of Iowa State University. Institutional service is an important contribution that faculty members make to ensure effective governance at all levels of the university.

5.2.2.3.1. Teaching.

Most faculty have significant teaching responsibilities, and the quality of their teaching is a major factor in evaluating their accomplishments and performances. Teaching is a scholarly and dynamic endeavor and covers a broad range of activities. Some examples of teaching activities include the following:

• presenting resident credit courses, extension and international programs and courses, non-credit seminars and workshops, and continuing-education and distance-learning programs
• directing undergraduate and graduate projects, internships, theses, and dissertations
• serving on masters and doctoral committees
• advising and mentoring undergraduate students, graduate students, and post-doctoral associates

Particular expressions of effective teaching vary widely, and teachers may demonstrate their pedagogical skills in a variety of ways. Some may display their pedagogical abilities in organized lectures, others may promote collaborative learning or may improvise in the classroom in response to the dynamics of a specific group, while still others may be adept in facilitating group discussion.

When teaching is part of the faculty assignment, effectiveness is an essential criterion for advancement. Faculty must demonstrate command of their subject matter, continuous growth in the subject field, and an ability to create and maintain instructional environments to promote student learning.

Examples of activities that provide evidence of a faculty member's particular commitment to effective teaching include the following:

• contributions to curricular development, including collaborative courses and programs and service on curriculum committees
• pedagogical innovation, including the incorporation of new technologies and approaches to learning and assessment
• documented study of curricular and pedagogical issues, and incorporation of this information into the classrooms
• development of teaching materials
• pedagogically oriented research
• involvement in student research projects
• contributions to professional societies and organizations that seek to improve teaching
• commitment to advising, which will include knowledge about curricular and extracurricular matters as well as an ability to aid students in using university resources

A portfolio format is used to document faculty teaching activities beyond what is contained in the candidate's vita. The faculty portfolio includes materials such as teaching philosophy, student ratings of teaching, teaching materials and forms of assessment, peer evaluations based on both classroom observations and review of teaching materials, and evidence of student learning.

The effectiveness of the candidate's teaching activities is determined by evaluating the character of the scholarship of these activities using the criteria described in the scholarship section and in Table 1.

The scholarship resulting from teaching is documented through such means as peer-reviewed publications, textbooks, videos, software, workbooks, lab manuals, invited lectures and conference papers. Evaluation of scholarship in teaching considers its originality, significance, and/or impact as evidenced by its influence, use, or adoption by peers. While production of teaching materials and surveys of student attitudes about classes are valuable indicators of the scholarship of teaching, peer evaluation of both a faculty member's and her/his students' performances in classes and in subsequent coursework are also appropriate assessments. Such assessments of performance need not be published or disseminated to publics outside the university.

5.2.2.3.2. Research /Creative Activities.

Faculty members who engage in research/creative activities are expected to make original contributions that are appropriate to their chosen area of specialization and that are respected by peers within and outside the university.

Some examples of research/creative activity include the following:

• conduct of experimental research
• creative performance or exhibition
• conceptualizing and theorizing in an original way
• synthesis, criticism, and clarification of extant knowledge and research
• innovative collection or analysis of empirical data
• seeking and obtaining competitive grants and contracts
• relating research to the solution of practical problems
• leadership in professional societies or organizations

A portfolio format is used to document faculty research/creative activities beyond what is contained in the candidate's vita. The faculty portfolio includes materials such as summaries of completed, current, and future research projects; descriptions of applied use of research; summaries of grants, patents, and inventions; exhibition catalogs and other non-juried creative works.

The effectiveness of the candidate's research/creative activities is determined by evaluating the character of the scholarship of these activities using the criteria described in the scholarship section and in Table 1.

Scholarship resulting from research/creative activities is documented through means appropriate to the specialty, such as peer-reviewed publications, lectures, performances, exhibits, invited lectures, conference papers. Evaluation of scholarship considers its impact as judged by its influence, use, or adoption by peers; its originality, richness, breadth and/or depth of expression.

5.2.2.3.3. Extension/Professional Practice.

Extension/professional practice distinguishes Iowa State as a land-grant university. Faculty members may engage in extension/professional practice activities by utilizing their professional expertise to disseminate information outside of the traditional classroom to help improve the knowledge and skills of their clientele (i.e., the publics they serve) or the environment in which they live and work. This work should be related to the faculty member's position responsibilities.

Examples of activities that fall within extension/professional practice include the following:

• organizing/leading workshops or training sessions
• engaging in clinical and diagnostic practice
• acquiring, organizing, and interpreting information resources
• engaging in technology transfer
• consulting
• serving on agencies or boards because of individual expertise
• serving as a referee for journals, books, grants, exhibitions, etc.
• serving as an editor for a journal or serving on editorial boards
• leadership in professional societies or organizations

Since extension/professional practice activities vary greatly among departments, it is the responsibility of each department to identify faculty activities that fall under this category and the appropriate evaluation methods.

Faculty who engage in extension/professional practice are knowledgeable about current research and new developments in their discipline and demonstrate an ability to interpret and apply this knowledge to meet their clients' requirements. When appropriate, they develop and maintain professional relationships with their clientele in order to identify and serve their needs. They display leadership and initiative, are creative in the practical application of knowledge, and demonstrate a high level of disciplinary expertise as well as the ability to instruct, inform, and assist clients. In addition, a faculty member's professional practice reputation may be reflected by leadership in professional societies and organizations or by significant editorial-related activities.

A portfolio format is used to document faculty extension/professional practice activities beyond what is contained in the candidate's vita. The faculty portfolio includes materials such as descriptions of appointment responsibilities in extension/professional practice, representative workshop, seminar, and training materials; book reviews; unpublished reports, studies, etc.; newsletters and brochures; peer evaluations or ratings of extension/professional practice effectiveness; and client assessments.

The effectiveness of the candidate's extension/professional practice activities is determined by evaluating the character of the scholarship of these activities using the criteria described in the scholarship section and in Table 1. The scholarship resulting from extension/professional practice activities is documented through means appropriate to the professional specialty, such as peer-reviewed publications, lectures, videos, software, hardware, workbooks, manuals, standards, bibliographies, book reviews, and casebooks. Evaluation of scholarship should consider breadth, depth, and duration of influence or use; public appreciation and benefit; and applicability or adoption by peers.

5.2.2.3.4. Institutional Service.

Faculty members are expected to play a vital role in the functioning of the university at all levels by participating effectively in faculty governance and in the formulation of department, college, and/or university policies; or by carrying out administrative responsibilities. Therefore, to be promoted and/or tenured, faculty members are expected to have been involved in institutional service. The level and amount of service are expected to be higher for those seeking promotion to the rank of professor. However, institutional service alone shall not serve as the central basis for promotion and/or tenure. As citizens of the university, faculty members may also make other direct and indirect contributions to their departments, colleges, and university communities.

5.2.3. Qualifications for Academic Rank and Tenure

Recommendations for initial appointment and promotion are based on evidence that the individual has met the qualifications for the faculty rank to which he/she is to be appointed or promoted.

5.2.3.1. Assistant Professor.

An assistant professor should have a strong academic record and ordinarily should have earned the accepted highest degree in his/her field. The assistant professor rank is recognition that the faculty member has exhibited the potential to grow in an academic career. Appointment at or promotion to this rank should be based on evidence that the faculty member can be expected to become qualified for promotion to associate professor in due course.

5.2.3.2. Associate Professor and/or Tenure

An associate professor should have a solid academic reputation and show promise of further development and productivity in his /her academic career. The candidate must demonstrate the following:

• excellence in scholarship that establishes the individual as a significant contributor to the field or profession, with potential for national distinction
• effectiveness in areas of position responsibilities
• satisfactory institutional service

Furthermore, a recommendation for promotion to associate professor and granting of tenure must be based upon an assessment that the candidate has made contributions of appropriate magnitude and quality and has a high likelihood of sustained contributions to the field or profession and to the university.

5.2.3.3. Professor.

A professor should be recognized by his/her professional peers within the university, as well as nationally and/or internationally, for the quality of the contribution to his /her discipline. The candidate must demonstrate the following:

• national distinction in scholarship, as evident in candidate's wide recognition and outstanding contributions to the field or profession
• effectiveness in areas of position responsibilities
• significant institutional service

Furthermore, a recommendation for promotion to professor must be based upon an assessment, since the last promotion, that the candidate has made contributions of appropriate magnitude and quality and has demonstrated the ability to sustain contributions to the field or profession and to the university.

5.2.4. Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Review

The following three sections describe the general expectations for promotion and tenure review processes as well as the notification procedures to be followed by departments, colleges, the provost, and the president.

5.2.4.1. Department Review.

Review for promotion and/or tenure begins at the department level.

5.2.4.1.1. Promotion and Tenure Document.

Each department must have a document that sets forth the standards and procedures governing promotion and tenure of faculty within that department. The department document may specify standards that exceed those of the university or college, provided that they do not conflict with the standards of either, and provided the procedures are consistent with those described in the Faculty Handbook.

The department's promotion and tenure document must, at a minimum, specify the following with respect to the department's review procedures:

• how faculty members are selected for departmental review for promotion and/or tenure
• the composition and means of selection of the department promotion and tenure committee and of any other department committees that may be involved in the review process
• the definition of conflict of interest operative in departmental review
• the procedures to be followed by the department promotion and tenure committee and related committees in conducting the reviews
• the role of the chair in the department promotion and tenure review process
• the process and circumstances under which a review may be postponed
• the types and sources of information that the department review committee will consider in conducting its review
• the means by which persons being considered submit information and documentation for the review process
• the procedures for obtaining any external evaluations used by the department in evaluating the performance of candidates
• the definition of the factual information in the dossier subject to review by the faculty member before it is advanced from the department
• the procedures for the notification of the results of the reviews

The document must be approved by the tenured and tenure-eligible faculty of the department, by the dean, and by the provost.

5.2.4.1.2. Joint Appointment Procedures.

Evaluation of a person holding rank in more than one department should be initiated and conducted by the primary department, with advice from the secondary department. The individual's Letter of Intent (for new appointments) and the position responsibility statement will specify the primary department. Prior to the review, the two chairs, in consultation with department promotion and tenure committees, should decide on the role to be played by the secondary department, including the preparation of the documentation from the secondary department and the process for including that documentation in the review. In cases with an equal division of responsibilities, the departments may agree to conduct separate reviews and forward separate recommendations to the dean(s). A coordinated recommendation will be made at the dean's level with a single recommendation forwarded to the provost.

5.2.4.1.3. Promotion and Tenure Committee.

Each candidate must be reviewed by a promotion and tenure review committee, which will examine information relevant to the evaluation of the candidate for promotion and/or tenure. An individual promotion and tenure review committee may include faculty who are not members of the candidate's department. Any member of the promotion and tenure review committee who has a conflict of interest with respect to a candidate shall not participate in the consideration of that individual or have access to review materials. The chair must inform the candidates in writing of the identity of the members of the department review committee and any other departmental committees that will be involved in the evaluation.

The promotion and tenure review committee reports in writing to the chair the results of its review, including all formal votes.

5.2.4.1.4. Department Chair.

The department chair prepares a Recommendation for Promotion and Tenure form for each person who is recommended by the review committee for promotion and/or tenure. The chair also may prepare a Recommendation for Promotion and Tenure form for a candidate who is not recommended for promotion and/or tenure by the review committee. The form includes the chair's evaluation of the candidate; the votes and reports of all departmental reviews; and the chair's recommendation.

The chair forwards recommendation forms to the college dean and informs the promotion and tenure review committee of his or her recommendations. In addition, the chair must prepare and forward to the college dean negative departmental recommendations for persons for whom tenure decisions are mandatory.

5.2.4.1.5. Notification Procedure.

The chair will inform each candidate in writing before the department's recommendations are submitted to the college, whether a recommendation will be forwarded and, if so, the nature of the recommendation or recommendations. Persons who are not being recommended by either the promotion and tenure review committee or the chair, or both, will be informed by the chair in writing of the reasons. This information should be presented in a constructive manner and, where appropriate, should include guidance for improving performance in terms of the department's criteria for promotion and tenure.

5.2.4.1.6. Right to Review Factual Information.

Each person for whom a recommendation is being forwarded to the college will be given the opportunity to review the factual information therein, and to inform the chair of any ways in which he or she believes this information to be incomplete or inaccurate.

5.2.4.2. College Review.

Review for promotion and/or tenure continues at the college level.

5.2.4.2.1. Promotion and Tenure Document.

Each college must have a document that sets forth the standards and procedures governing promotion and tenure of faculty within that college. The college document may specify standards that exceed those of the university, provided that they do not conflict with the standards of the university, and provided the procedures are consistent with those described in the Faculty Handbook. The document must be approved by the tenured and tenure-eligible faculty of the college, by the dean, and by the provost.

5.2.4.2.2. Promotion and Tenure Committee.

A college promotion and tenure advisory committee, composed of faculty members from the college, shall review all positive departmental and/or chair recommendations for promotion and/or tenure. In addition, the committee will review negative recommendations for persons for whom a tenure decision is mandatory. The votes and recommendations of this committee are forwarded to the dean of the college. Selection procedures for committee membership are defined in the college promotion and tenure document. Selection procedures will incorporate input from the faculty or their elected representatives.

5.2.4.2.3. Dean.

Each dean reviews the promotion and tenure recommendations from the departments and from the college committee and presents his/her recommendations to the provost, along with the recommendations and votes of the college and department committees, the chair reports, and supporting material and documentation.

The dean will inform in writing each candidate and the respective chair and the college committee of the recommendation he/she is forwarding to the provost. If this recommendation is contrary to the departmental, chair, and/or college committee recommendations, the dean will summarize in writing the reasons as part of his/her recommendation. The chair will forward the dean's recommendation and summary to the department promotion and tenure committee.

5.2.4.3. University Review.

Review for promotion and/or tenure concludes at the university level.

5.2.4.3.1. Provost.

The provost makes his/her recommendations to the president of the university. The provost will inform in writing each candidate and the respective chair and dean of the recommendation he/she is forwarding to the president. If the provost's recommendation is contrary to the dean's recommendation, the provost will summarize in writing the reasons as part of his/her recommendation. The chair will forward the provost's recommendation and summary to the departmental promotion and tenure committee.

5.2.4.3.2. President.

The president makes his/her recommendations for the university to the Board of Regents. The president will inform in writing each candidate, the respective chair and dean, and the provost of the recommendation he/she is forwarding to the Board of Regents. If the presidential recommendation is contrary to the provost's recommendation, the president will summarize the reasons for his/her recommendation in writing. The chair and dean will forward the president's recommendation and summary to the respective promotion and tenure committees.

5.2.4.3.3. Final Notification.

Following the Regents' action, the provost provides official notification to the candidates and their chairs and deans.

5.2.4.3.4. Effective Dates for Promotions.

Promotions in rank for B-base faculty ordinarily take effect at the beginning of the next academic year. Promotions for A-base faculty ordinarily take effect at the beginning of the next fiscal year; exceptions to these dates may be granted by the provost.

5.2.4.3.5. Appeals.

Following administrative actions, a faculty member has the right to appeal an adverse decision through administrative channels or through the Faculty Senate Appeals Committee and may pursue other appropriate courses of action.

5.3. Documentation Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure

Approved by Faculty Senate (3/24/98)

Approved by the General Faculty (5/1/98)

Incorporating editing and revisions as approved by

Faculty Senate Executive Board (9/18/98)

Approved by the Faculty Senate (10/13/98)

Approved by University Administration Provost and President (11/2/98)

Approved by Board of Regents (12/3/98)

Note: In this document the term "department" is understood to include any academic unit designated as a "school."

The following types of documentation represent what the candidate, the department, and the chair are responsible for within the promotion and tenure process.

5.3.1. Candidate Responsibilities

The candidate is responsible for submitting a promotion and tenure vita; a faculty portfolio, which contains supplementary materials provided by the candidate related to the four areas of faculty activity; the current position responsibility statement and any prior statements for the period under review; and names of potential references, as specified by department and college promotion and tenure guidelines.

5.3.1.1. Promotion and Tenure Vita.

The promotion and tenure vita uses the following format and is based upon the candidate's position responsibilities and faculty activities. This vita is a listing of information about the candidate, the candidate's accomplishments in scholarship, and the candidate's activities and accomplishments in the areas of his/her responsibilities.

5.3.1.2. Candidate Information.

This includes name, current rank, degrees held (when, where), and record of professional experience (including Iowa State University).

5.3.1.3. Scholarship.

This includes a listing of documented activities from the areas of teaching, research/creative activities and/or extension/professional practice. These activities must include appropriate accomplishments such as the following:

• publications (including monographs, textbooks, journal articles, book chapters, etc.)
• exhibits and performances
• creative published literary works
• computer programs, videos, software, hardware
• workbooks, lab manuals, manuals, standards, casebooks, etc.
• annotated bibliographies and book reviews
• invited lectures
• conference papers

In addition, the candidate should list any honors, awards, prizes, etc. received as evidence of his/her scholarship.

5.3.1.4. Areas of Position Responsibilities and Activities:

5.3.1.4.1. Teaching.

This section includes a listing of teaching activities such as the following:

• teaching assignment and responsibilities
• advising activities
• direction of masters and doctoral candidates
• service on masters and doctoral committees
• training and mentoring activities for post-doctoral associates
• curricular development activity
• grant activity
• leadership positions
• service in professional societies, organizations and events

5.3.1.4.2. Research/Creative Activities.

This section includes a listing of research/creative activities such as the following:

• completed projects and programs
• current projects and programs
• future projects and programs
• patent awards and inventions
• grant activity
• leadership positions
• service in professional societies, organizations and events

5.3.1.4.3. Extension/Professional Practice.

This section includes a listing of extension/professional practice activities such as the following:

• relevant accomplishments and activities including consulting; acquiring, organization, and interpreting information resources; and engaging in clinical diagnostic practice
• workshops, seminars, training sessions, etc.
• service on agencies or boards because of individual expertise
• work in the area of technology transfer
• editorial responsibilities for journals (e.g., service on an editorial board or editorship for a journal)
• service as a referee for journals, books, grants, exhibitions, etc.
• grant activity
• leadership positions
• service in professional societies, organizations and events

5.3.1.4.4. Institutional Service.

This section includes a listing of memberships on department, college, and/or university committees and organizations as well as descriptions of responsibilities and leadership roles within these service positions. The candidate's role should be indicated.

5.3.2. Faculty Portfolio

The faculty portfolio includes important and supplemental materials that provide a clear understanding of the candidate's accomplishments within scholarship and his or her areas of faculty activities.

5.3.2.1. Scholarship.

Required for all candidates. This section provides the opportunity for the candidate to demonstrate excellence in scholarship. It begins with an overall statement of the candidate's accomplishments in scholarship as they relate to teaching, research/creative activities, and extension/professional practice. It must include representative scholarly materials that have been validated by peers.

The section also includes material that document peer recognition and impact of the candidate's scholarly accomplishments such as professional reviews, citation counts, use of scholarship by peers, and awards.

5.3.2.2. Areas of Position Responsibilities and Activities.

This section provides the opportunity for the candidate to demonstrate effectiveness in those areas he/she has appointment responsibilities.

5.3.2.2.1. Teaching.

This section may include material such as the following:

• ratings of teaching effectiveness
• peer evaluations (based on classroom observations and a review of teaching materials)
• representative teaching materials and forms of assessment
• evidence of student learning
• candidate's teaching philosophy

5.3.2.2.2. Research/Creative Activities.

This section may include material such as the following:

• summaries of completed, current and future research or creative projects and programs
• summaries of grants and contracts applied for and disposition
• summaries of current grant and contract support
• summaries of potential future grant work
• summaries of patents and descriptions of inventions
• exhibit catalogs
• creative works that are not juried
• laboratory management descriptions
• candidate's research/creative activities agenda

5.3.2.2.3. Extension/Professional Practice.

This section may include material such as the following:

• descriptions of extension/professional practice appointment responsibilities
• representative workshop, seminar, training materials
• unpublished reports, studies, etc.
• representative newsletters, brochures, reviews, journals, etc.
• peer evaluation or ratings of extension/professional practice effectiveness
• client assessments
• candidate's extension/professional practice philosophy

5.3.2.2.4. Institutional Service.

This section includes materials the candidate has written or to which he/she has been a primary contributor. This could include such materials as institutional reports or studies.

5.3.3. Department and Department Chair Responsibilities

5.3.3.1. Letters of Evaluation (provided by the department).

The chair and/or the department review committee solicits letters from qualified reviewers with the understanding that, insofar as possible, access to them will be limited to persons involved in the promotion and tenure decision. All solicited letters are treated as part of the evaluation process and must be forwarded on to college and university review levels.

Solicited Letters of Evaluation from Professionals in the Field, outside the Institution (six maximum). Letters should be solicited from appropriate professionals in the field and chosen for their ability to evaluate the candidate's activities and accomplishments impartially. They should generally be tenured professors at peer institutions or individuals of equivalent stature outside of academe who are widely recognized in the field. Letters should primarily focus on the aspects of the candidate's work that qualify as scholarship. While in some cases this might mean a focus on one area such as teaching or research, in others it might entail a focus on a mixture of scholarship in teaching, research/creative activities and/or extension/professional practice. At least one of the reviewers, but not all, should be suggested by the candidate.

Letters from Co-authors, Co-principal Investigators, etc. In general, reviewers should not be colleagues with whom the candidate has frequently collaborated. When necessary, however, these individuals should be solicited to detail the nature of collaborative projects or to respond to specific questions.

Letters from ISU Department, College, and University Colleagues. Although not required, letters from department, college, and university colleagues may be important. This may be appropriate for activities related to interdisciplinary research and teaching programs, joint projects, and services provided to other colleagues or in cases where a fuller understanding of specific activities is warranted.

5.3.3.2. Evaluations (provided by the department and chair).

Evaluations from each level of review will serve as a summary of the case. They should not be statements of advocacy but should address both the strengths and relative weaknesses in the candidate's record of performance. When appropriate they should summarize the primary points made by external evaluators. The evaluations should include the following:

• evaluation of the candidate's accomplishments in scholarship
• evaluation of the candidate's performance in his/her areas of responsibility: teaching, research/creative activities, extension/professional practice, and/or institutional service
• evaluation of the candidate's prospects for future contributions to the field and department
• assessment of the candidate's role and contributions to department and college missions

5.3.3.3. A Recommendation for Promotion and Tenure Form (provided by the chair)

5.3.4. Implementation Dates

Effective Dates

The implementation dates referred to in this section apply to "Evaluation and Review," Promotion and Tenure," and "Documentation Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure."

Promotion and Tenure.

• An untenured tenure-track faculty member whose appointment began before July 1, 1999 may choose to seek tenure and promotion under the pre-1999 P&T Document (see 1998 Faculty Handbook, http://www.provost.iastate.edu/handbook/person.html#policy) until the tenure decision date specified in his/her Letter of Intent. This decision should be made in consultation with the chair and the appropriate departmental committee. The decision to elect the pre-1999 P&T Document must be conveyed in writing to the chair within 30 days after completion of the Preliminary Review of Probationary Faculty (see 5.1.1. Evaluation of Faculty Members) or, if this review has already been held, by August 1, 1999.

• A tenured faculty member seeking promotion on or after July 1, 1999 may choose the pre-1999 P&T Document (see 1998 Faculty Handbook, http://www.provost.iastate.edu/handbook/person.html#promo) for a review to be completed before July 1, 2002. This choice must be conveyed to the chair in writing by July 1 of the year in which the review process is undertaken. Consultation with the chair and the appropriate departmental committee is expected. If the faculty member does not elect the pre-1999 document, this handbook will apply.

Position Responsibility Statement. A position responsibility statement for each faculty member is to be completed during the annual review process that occurs during the 1998/99 academic year. Beginning July 1, 1999 this statement or its revisions should guide all subsequent reviews (annual, promotion, tenure) regardless of the P&T document chosen.

5.3.5. Post Tenure Review Policy

Approved by Faculty Senate (3/23/99)

Approved by Faculty Vote (4/30/99)

Approved by Board of Regents (6/16/99)

Faculty in each department are charged with developing and implementing a plan for review of each tenured faculty member in the unit. Such review should be done periodically, at least once every seven years. The review should address the quality of the faculty member's performance in the areas of teaching, research/creative activities, extension/professional practice, and institutional service, consistent with the faculty member's position responsibility statement. Ideally, the review shall result in recommendations for enhancing performance and provide a plan for future development.

This review does not change the university's commitment to academic freedom, nor the circumstances under which tenured faculty can be dismissed from the university. Grounds for dismissal remain those listed in the Faculty Handbook under 7. Faculty Conduct Policy.

The plan for review should designate the following:

• the review participants
• review procedures and timelines
• materials to be reviewed
• distribution and use of the results of the review including communication beyond the department
• mechanisms for the faculty member to respond

The departmental post-tenure review plan shall be reviewed, approved, and revised in accordance with the collegiate governance approval process that applies to departmental promotion and tenure documents.

5.4. Evaluation of a College Dean

Approved by Faculty Senate (11/13/90)

5.4.1. Policy for Faculty Involvement in Evaluation

A systematic and constructive review program shall be established whereby college offices and officers are evaluated by their respective faculties. This review program should serve the following two purposes:

• provide constructive and systematic faculty evaluation of college deans and their administrative organizations
• provide faculty opinion for the provost's evaluation of deans

The results of a review should be an improved capacity by the college offices and deans for maintaining academic programs, attaining goals established for the college, and securing resources that support the teaching, research, and service of the university.

5.4.2. Schedule

Reviews, in accordance with college governance documents, will be initiated at least once every five years by the provost in consultation with the appropriate elected collegiate governance organization. In the absence of such an elected organization, the provost will consult the appropriate collegiate caucus of the Faculty Senate.

5.4.3. Enabling Procedures

Each elected college governance organization shall develop written review procedures for their respective college dean. Reviews should result in the following outcomes:

• a self-assessment by the dean
• a performance evaluation of the dean
• provision for formal consultation involving the dean, the provost and the college faculty

Review procedures adopted by each college shall become part of that college's governance document, after review by the provost. Review procedures should be developed by each college before April 30, 1991.

5.5. Evaluation of a Teaching Assistant

Approved by Faculty Senate (5/7/91)

5.5.1. Policy and Procedures for Evaluating Proficiency

The supervision of teaching assistants and the maintenance of teaching proficiency standards are the responsibilities of the departments in which teaching assistants perform their duties. To that end departments will evaluate the teaching proficiency of teaching assistants at the end of each academic period. The nature and scope of these evaluations will vary with the instructional setting and the materials being taught.

Evaluations of teaching assistants will encompass the following aspects of teaching as mandated by the Regents policy:

• knowledge of the subject material at a level appropriate for the course being taught
• proficiency in oral and written communication in formal and informal instructional settings
• ability to evaluate student performance appropriately
• facility with appropriate instructional materials and equipment

The departmental faculty has the responsibility to mentor and arrange instructional assistance for students who teach. Policies for evaluation need to be developed at that level to ensure both the quality of instruction and the sustained development of the teaching assistants' professional skills. Written standards and procedures for these evaluations should be developed in a collegial way at the department level and be provided to teaching assistants at the outset of their teaching appointments. Special attention should be paid to assuring that the standards, review procedures, and the evaluations themselves are fully communicated to the teaching assistants involved. Evaluations should take into account the assistants' knowledge of the subject matter, their ability with written and spoken English, and the social dynamics of the classroom including matters of age, gender, and cultural diversity. Student input will be included in evaluation.

The department chair and program directors, college deans, and the provost are responsible for the implementation of this policy and for ensuring that adequate standards of teaching proficiency are maintained among departmental teaching assistants.

(Also see 10.6.1. Oral Communication Competence)

5.6. Evaluation of Central Administrators

Section 5.6. was approved by the Faculty Senate on 1/23/90.

5.6.1. Purposes

This review program has the following two primary purposes:

• to provide an occasion for central administrative officers to evaluate their programs and subunits and, in return, to explain the roles, procedures, and activities of their offices to the university community
• to provide a means for constructive and systematic faculty evaluation of central administrative offices and officers

The review procedure is intended to improve the capacity of administrative offices and officers to provide system maintenance, goal attainment and resource development efforts that support the teaching, research, and service functions of the university. Moreover, the conduct of a review should facilitate communication between central administrators and the faculty, and promote the concept of responsible shared governance in the university.

5.6.2. Scope of Review Program

Central administrative officers are defined as the vice presidents, provost, and above. Under the present administrative structure, the offices of the following officers are to be served by this review program: president of the university, provost, vice president for business and finance, and vice president for student affairs.

Each review will have the following three parts:

• a self-study by the office to be reviewed
• a faculty review of the office and its subunits
• a faculty review of the administrator's performance

Three reports will be issued and a follow-up conference scheduled one year after completion of the review.

5.6.3. Preparatory Office Self-Study

In preparation for a review, an office will conduct a self-study. A Self-Study Report will include, but not be limited to, the office's goals, programs, services, staffing, resources, internal evaluation processes, and relations with other offices. The document should describe how the office and its responsibilities have changed over the past five years and what the impact has been on the university. Within the general categories indicated, the following questions should be addressed:

• Goals. What are the purposes and goals of the office and its subunits? How are goals established and what is the faculty's role in this process? What priorities are given to the principal goals, and what changes in priorities are envisioned? How do the goals of the office support the university's mission statement?
• Programs. What are the program activities of the office? What subordinate administrative units are involved in these programs? Exactly how is the program effectiveness of the office evaluated? How are the programs administered by the office responding to the needs of the faculty, staff, students, and the people of Iowa?
• Services. What services are provided by the office and its subunits? How effective are these services? What plans for discontinuing or adding services are being considered? What priorities are attached to present services?
• Staffing. What is the table of organization for the office? How are staff persons recruited and evaluated? Is the present staff adequate to provide the programs and services of the office? What are future staffing plans?
• Resources. What is the budget for the office? What priorities govern the allocation of budget resources administered by the office? What have been the changes in budgetary support for the office in recent years? How does the office evaluate its budget success? Are administrative costs too high, or too low? What facilities does the office have at its disposal and are changes needed or planned?
• Internal Evaluation. What are the procedures and timetable used for on-going self-review of subordinate administrative units? Have there been external reviews of subunits? What areas in the office's performance need improvement? How does the office intend to improve its performance? What development plans are being pursued? Are annual or planning reports available?
• Relations with Other Offices. How are the office's goals and purposes coordinated with those of other university offices and agencies, with the other Regents institutions, and with the Board of Regents? Is there overlap of functions and responsibilities with other offices? Where appropriate, what are the relationships between the office and the Governor's office, the Iowa General Assembly, and other sources of support for the university?

Finally, the report should mention any other activities or functions that are not addressed in this list, but which the faculty should recognize as important aspects of the office's responsibilities.

In preparing the Self-Study Report, the emphasis should be on evaluation and analysis of activities that directly support the university's mission statement in terms of maintaining the basic academic system, attaining the goals established for the university, and developing the resources necessary to advance the multifaceted purposes of a land-grant university. This report will become a public document.

The office is also encouraged to provide the review committee with the names of faculty members who, because of their interactions with the office, may be able to provide insights about the operations and performance of the office.

5.6.4. Appointment of Review Committee

A separate review committee will be appointed for each office to be evaluated. Before establishing any review committee, the president of the Faculty Senate, in consultation with the president of the university, will provide an appropriate budget so that the committee can effectively perform its duties.

Review committee members will be appointed by the Senate president with suggestions from the Faculty Senate and approval of the Senate Executive Board. Normally, a review committee will consist of seven persons as follows:

• chairperson appointed with the approval of the Senate
• two members from the Faculty Senate's councils appointed one each from the Academic Affairs Council and the Faculty Development and Administrative Relations Council
• three additional faculty members appointed after due consideration is given to the representation of various faculty concerns, and to the needs of the review committee for particular kinds of expertise, depending upon the office to be reviewed
• one or more external reviewers appointed from among off-campus persons nominated by the review committee after consultation with the administrator of the office to be evaluated. An external reviewer should have expertise relevant to the office being evaluated and should have experience at a higher educational institution comparable to ISU. External reviewer(s) should be consulted about the design of the review and visit campus to gather information before preparing a report evaluating the operation of the office under review.

5.6.5. General Review Procedures

Specific procedures for conducting a review will be designed by each committee in collaboration with the Executive Board of the Faculty Senate as appropriate for the office being evaluated. The following policies pertain to all reviews.

5.6.5.1. Schedule.

Usually a single administrative office will be reviewed each year, establishing a five-year cycle for the review of all offices. However, the Faculty Senate can call for the evaluation of more than one office in a year or for the evaluation of an office more than once every five years, but never more than once every three years. A majority vote of the Senate is required to initiate the review process each year. As turnover of personnel occurs, first reviews should be scheduled about three years into the appointment so as to provide timely constructive advice.

The following order of review is established, subject to considerations of timeliness and annual Senate confirmation:

• Office of the University President
• Office of the Vice President for Business and Finance
• Office of the Provost
• Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs

5.6.5.2. Conduct of Reviews.

In conducting a review, a review committee will confer with persons responsible for framing or approving policies that affect the relationship between the office and the faculty. In addition to the Self-Study Report prepared by the office under review, the committee will have access to all necessary documents and administrative information unless the requested information is considered confidential under state or federal laws. Opinions concerning the performance of the office and officer under review shall also be solicited by at least the following means:

• publication in Inside Iowa State of a call for such opinions
• notification of the request for such opinions through the channels of administrative organization
• deans to request responses from chairs;
• chairs to urge individual faculty to submit comments; all responses should be sent directly to the review committee
• solicitation of comments from faculty and others who, because of their interaction with the office being reviewed, may have especially useful information

All responses sent to a review committee will be treated as confidential correspondence, subject to applicable laws.

5.6.5.3. Review Committee Reports.

The review committee will prepare two written reports. The first, or Office Evaluation Report, is a public document and should not contain confidential information related to the evaluation of the administrative officer. The second, or Officer Evaluation Report, is a confidential evaluation of the performance of the administrative officer. Both reports will summarize the findings of the review committee, and will include any recommendations it deems appropriate.

Office Evaluation Report. This report will address the issues listed above. A draft of this report will be submitted to the administrator of the office under review, primarily to allow an opportunity for corrections to assertions of fact. The committee will confer with the administrator under review and with the university president (or, if the office of the university president is under review, with the president of the Board of Regents) to discuss the draft report.

Once these processes have been completed, a final report will be written and forwarded to the president of the Faculty Senate who will inform the Senate about the major recommendations. Copies of the final report will also be submitted to the administrator of the office under review (who may make copies for subordinates), to the president (or, if the president's office is under review, to the Board of Regents), and to the Faculty Senate Executive Board. A brief summary will be published in Inside Iowa State to alert the faculty to the fact that a review is completed.

Appropriate provision will be made to have reading copies of the office's Self-Study Report and the review committee's Final Office Evaluation Report accessible by all university faculty members.

Officer Evaluation Report. The review committee will solicit from all members of the university community written and/or oral evaluations concerning the performance of administrators under review. The Iowa State faculty members of the review committee will summarize the results of this survey in writing and prepare recommendations.

This report will be distributed to the administrator being evaluated, to the university president or Board of Regents depending on to whom the administrator being evaluated directly reports, and to the president of the Faculty Senate. The Faculty Senate president will, in turn, summarize the recommendations before the Faculty Senate Executive Board, meeting in closed session, subject to the requirements of applicable laws.

Follow-up Conference. The Senate president shall instruct the chairperson to reconvene the review committee approximately one year after the two evaluation reports are submitted to determine to what extent the recommendations contained in these reports are being adopted. The committee will solicit, through Inside Iowa State, perceptions of the effectiveness with which the recommendations of the Final Office Evaluation Report have been implemented. The committee will request that the reviewed administrator provide a statement indicating how the recommendations in the Office and Officer Evaluation Reports are being addressed. The review committee will prepare a brief perceived progress report and forward it to the officer of the office which was reviewed. The chairperson of the committee will then schedule a follow-up conference.

When the review was of the provost's or a vice president's office, this conference will include the president of the university, the official of the office that was reviewed, and the president of the Faculty Senate. When the review was of the president's office, this conference will include the president of the Board of Regents, the president of the university, and the president of the Faculty Senate.

The Senate president will report to the Senate on the outcomes of these follow-up conferences.

Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost, 1550 Beardshear Hall, Ames, Iowa 50011-2021
Phone 515-294-9591, Fax: 515-294-8844