PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWS

The Process

Faculty in their first or second year of service at Eastern will be reviewed by the School Dean with a formal consultation with the School Personnel Committee and recommendation to the Provost, who will forward a recommendation to the President. The President will inform the faculty member of the decision by March 15 of the first year and by December 15 of the second year.

Procedures for biennial post-tenure review are described separately, appearing elsewhere in this handbook. The procedures described in this section may be employed as a component of the post-tenure review processes when necessary; conditions leading to a need for this more intense post-tenure review are described in the policy on post-tenure review.

The procedure for each of the other types of review is initiated somewhat differently but then each type of review follows the same basic steps.

• Step 1: Initiating the Process

  1. Promotion: The Deans of the Schools meet with their respective School Personnel Committee and develop a list of nominees for promotion. The list of nominees for promotion considered will consist of those faculty who either apply for consideration or who are proposed by a member or members of the School Personnel Committee or who are proposed by the School Dean.

  2. Tenure: Faculty members on annual tenure appointments who have begun their fifth year of service at Eastern will be automatically reviewed for tenure during their fifth year.

  3. Third-Year (Retention) Review: Faculty members who are in their third year of service at Eastern will be automatically reviewed.

  4. Continuance: Faculty not on annual or indefinite tenure appointments are reviewed for continuation in their fifth year and every four years thereafter.

• Step 2: Notification

  At the start of Fall Term, the Provost will inform faculty who will be evaluated for promotion, tenure, or continuance.

• Step 3: Preparation of the Review Portfolio

  Faculty being reviewed prepare a portfolio with contents as described below. (Faculty undergoing their first or second year review do not prepare a portfolio; their review utilizes the "green sheet" prepared annually by all teaching faculty.)

• Step 4: Submission of the Portfolio

  The portfolio is returned to the Dean of the School by a date mutually agreed upon in the School. At this point the file is shared by the School Personnel Committee (SPC) and Dean of the School. A portfolio that is incomplete when judged by the portfolio specifications in the Faculty/Staff Handbook may be returned to the candidate by the Dean or the SPC without action but with identification of the deficiencies and a request that the deficiencies in completeness be addressed and that the portfolio then be resubmitted.

• Step 5: School-Level Review

  The Deans of the Schools will then consult with their School Personnel Committees and, after that, write a comprehensive evaluation of each candidate based upon the four major categories taking into consideration the faculty member's past assignments and future potential as well as tenure criteria and general considerations. The SPC may concur with the Dean of the School or, if not, they must submit a separate evaluation(s). The results of the peer evaluation of teaching and the survey of alumni become part of the portfolio at this step (see Policy on the Evaluation of Instruction).

• Step 6: School-Level Consultation with the Candidate

  The Deans of the Schools will review their written evaluation with the faculty member at this point. As a result of this discussion, modification can be made and sent to the Assembly Personnel Committee.

• Step 7: Submission to the Assembly Personnel Committee

  The portfolio, along with recommendations and evaluations added in prior steps, is forwarded from the School to the Assembly Personnel Committee (APC). A portfolio that is incomplete when judged by the portfolio specifications in the Online Faculty/Staff Handbook may be returned to the School Dean by the APC without action but with identification of the deficiencies and a request that the deficiencies in completeness be addressed and that the portfolio then be resubmitted to the APC for further consideration.

• Step 8: APC Consideration

  The APC, as a whole, should then discuss each candidate and make a recommendation. It is expected that the recommendation will be accompanied by a rationale. Any minority positions should be included along with rationale.

• Step 9: Addressing Differences in the Recommendations at the School and University.

  Should the APC take a position contrary to the Dean of the School, the SPC will meet with the Dean of the School to discuss the difference. As a result of this conference, the Dean of the School may request a meeting with the APC. Following this the APC will notify the faculty member of the recommendation made.

• Step 10: The Possibility of Appeal

  In the case of a negative recommendation, the faculty member will be given a chance to meet with the Assembly Personnel Committee. This is the sole appeal point with this Committee or the School Personnel Committee.

• Step 11: The Decision

  The portfolio, containing all information and all recommendations, will then be submitted to the Provost. Prior to making a decision, the Provost will consult with the APC whenever, based upon her/his initial review of the portfolio, the Provost is unclear as to how the APC reached its recommendation. The Provost's decision will be reviewed by the President.

• Step 12: Evaluation of the Process

  Upon completion of the review procedures, the Provost meets with the APC to critically analyze the functioning of the University's review procedures. Recommendations for improving the procedures are formed with the expectation that they will be implemented for the following year.

  Schedule for Completion of the Steps in the Review Process

  Each year, the Provost's Office develops a schedule for completion of the steps in the academic personnel review procedures. This is shared with the School Deans prior to the beginning of the academic year and is made available online to all faculty.

  Portfolios

  The various academic personnel review procedures of the University have, at their core, a portfolio prepared by the colleague being reviewed. It is essential that this portfolio paint a complete, coherent, and up-to-date portrait. Based upon many years of experience, the APC and Provost advise that:

  • Coherence: It is essential that the portfolio provide an integrated view of the candidate. The framing statements are the mechanism for achieving this objective. In a well-designed portfolio, the framing statements themselves should, alone, be sufficient for understanding the case developed by the candidate. While supporting evidence is an important part of the portfolio, the information only verifies the points made in framing statements.
  • Relevance: Each type of review has, associated with it, explicit criteria that are to be used by those conducting the review. The portfolio must adequately address each of the relevant criteria. For those reviewers from disciplines other than the discipline of the candidate, the connection may not always be clear between evidence provided and a particular review criterion. Here, the framing statement can again be very helpful by connecting evidence with the review criterion upon which it bears. Familiarity with the relevant criteria can also help determine what is irrelevant, what does not need to be in a portfolio. That leads to the next point.
  • Succinctness: A portfolio need not be long. Succinct portfolios are, in the experience of the APC, far better than lengthy documents arriving with boxes of supporting materials. Portfolios present the evidence that is strongest and most relevant to the criteria for the review being conducted. Swamping such critical information in vast amounts of tangential information only dilutes the focus of the portfolio and may weaken the case.
  • Timeliness: The portfolio must be up-to-date and framing statements should emphasize the more recent achievements.
  • Completeness: The portfolio must be complete. Significantly deficient portfolios will be returned without action and with a request that the deficiencies of completeness be addressed prior to further consideration. Carefully review the outline of the portfolio -- including the teaching portfolio component -- to understand what should be in a portfolio.
  • Consultation: When in doubt about what to include, never hesitate to ask for guidance from your Dean, members of the APC or SPC, or the Provost.

  A Portfolio Outline:

  1. Introduction

     The Introduction should be a general framing statement describing

     • The focus or general direction of your career; and
     • The range of your responsibilities at Eastern (e.g., teaching three dimensional studio art and art history).

  2. Instruction

     Follow the description of the Teaching Portfolio in Eastern's Policy on the Evaluation of Instruction.

  3. Scholarship/Commitment to Subject Discipline

     The purpose of this section is to describe your work as a member of your profession. It should include:

     1. Framing Statement which describes your understanding of where your own professional interests fit into your broader discipline. The purpose of this framing statement is to help reviewers understand how the things you have done contribute to your profession.

     2. Standard Vita information should be provided including:

        1. Lists of publications or their equivalent

        2. Lists of papers presented at professional meetings or their equivalent

        3. Service on editorial boards or its equivalent

        4. Offices, etc. in professional associations

     Generally reviewers are not equipped to evaluate your professional work directly. Thus, while you may include copies of articles, slides of art work, etc., the reviewers generally will not read or evaluate them. Comments about your scholarship by professionals in your field away from Eastern are valuable to reviewers and should be included if available.

  4. Contribution to the Institution

     This section describes your involvement in the broader University community. Service on committees is most generally listed here. Other things you do for the University (e.g., serve as public address announcer for home basketball games) are also important here. Include:

     1. Framing Statement describing in particular any focus in your activities.

     2. List committees, etc. that you have served on.

     3. Most importantly, be sure to describe what you have done -- in the nature of your contribution to Eastern.

  5. Outreach to the General Public

     Eastern serves the educational and cultural needs of the ten eastern-most counties in Oregon. We all are expected to contribute to that mission in some way. Include in this section:

     1. A Framing Statement which describes how you see your own activities contributing to the University's outreach to eastern Oregon.

     2. A list of specific activities which you have undertaken which contribute to the University's outreach to eastern Oregon. Your list might include, among other things, a list of "regional classes" you have taught, research or other scholarly projects you have undertaken which have a direct impact on eastern Oregon, service on boards, etc.