Annual Review Procedures
In keeping with BOT-24, all Media School faculty shall receive annual reviews as follows. These reviews are distinct from merit review, which is unchanged (that procedure is outlined in Section VI of the governance document). This review is also distinct from the promotion and tenure reviews conducted yearly for probationary faculty, as required in Sections IV and V. The workflow for this annual review is the only one of the above to go entirely through the Elements faculty activity reporting platform. The other reviews should rely on the information within Elements, but will be recorded and reported outside of that platform.
Procedure:
- All faculty must input relevant activity for the previous calendar year in the Elements platform by January 15. This includes uploading a CV (mandatory) and a short narrative summary of the preceding calendar year’s activities (optional). It is each faculty member’s responsibility to ensure that their official IUB annual faculty activity report is complete and accurate and that a full account of any work in progress is also provided.
- The relevant elected merit review committee, in addition to doing the merit review described in Section VI, will also conduct this annual review by February 5. Using the discipline-specific criteria in Appendix A, the committee will discuss and assign one rating for each relevant category: exceeds expectations, meets expectations, does not meet expectations, or unsatisfactory. Using these ratings and the faculty member’s approved workload allocation, the committee will also recommend an overall rating using the same scale. Unsatisfactory productivity in all relevant areas will result in an overall “unsatisfactory” rating. A combination of unsatisfactory and does not meet productivity expectations will result in an overall “does not meet expectations” rating. The committee will give their recommended ratings to the unit director.
- Taking into consideration the merit review committee’s recommended ratings, the unit director will input their ratings into the Elements workflow. They will also prepare a standardized annual review letter for each faculty member which includes: the approved allocation of effort for the faculty member, a summary of the rating categories, the ratings for the faculty member in each category and overall, and documentation of any concerns that led to ratings below “meets expectations.”
- In the event of an overall annual review of does not meet expectations or unsatisfactory, the School Dean, in consultation with the faculty member, the AD for Faculty Affairs, and the Unit Director, will develop a performance improvement plan, which is then submitted to the CAO for review. Once approved, the final version will be sent to the Dean, the AD for Faculty Affairs, the UD, and the faculty member. The faculty member will meet regularly during the year with their UD to review the faculty member’s progress toward completing the PIP. At the end of the 12-month period following the approval of the PIP, both the UD and the Dean will provide a written statement to the faculty member about whether the faculty member has met the conditions of the PIP. If a PIP has been successfully completed, the “unsatisfactory” or “does not meet expectations” designation will be removed from the faculty member’s record and cannot be used in a five-year review.