DEPARTMENT POLICY ON ANNUAL REVIEW OF INSTRUCTORS


FROM THE NAU HANDBOOK/CONDITIONS OF FACULTY SERVICE

2.4.1 Membership

The membership of the university Faculty, hereinafter referred to as “the Faculty,” is determined by the definition of “Faculty” in the Conditions of Faculty Service document of the Arizona Board of Regents. The Faculty shall mean all employees of Northern Arizona University in teaching, research, or service, whose notice of appointment is instructor, lecturer, senior lecturer, assistant professor, associate professor, professor,
Regents’ professor or who are otherwise designated as Faculty on the Notice of

7.4.6 Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation Procedures

Annual Faculty Performance Evaluations shall be conducted according to the following guidelines:

1. Every faculty member at NAU (full-time and part-time, tenure-eligible, or nontenure-eligible, including faculty with administrative responsibilities), shall be reviewed and evaluated annually. The appropriate academic unit administrator (chair or dean/director for non-departmentalized units) is responsible for providing the faculty member with a list of essential materials for the annual faculty performance evaluation.

2. Every faculty member shall be evaluated in each of the areas specified in the faculty member’s Statement of Expectations on a four point scale, with one (1) corresponding to an unsatisfactory rating and four (4) corresponding to a rating of highly meritorious. The four categories for rating performance are highly meritorious, meritorious, satisfactory, unsatisfactory.

3. Departments/colleges/schools/academic units determine review and evaluation criteria. The criteria will be made available to the faculty member.

4. The measurement of overall performance shall be based on the three areas of (1) student-related responsibilities, (2) scholarship, creative activity, and/or professional development, and (3) service. No faculty member can be rated unsatisfactory overall
unless he or she is rated unsatisfactory in one or more areas. Whether a rating of unsatisfactory in one or more areas is a basis for an overall evaluation of unsatisfactory will depend upon the percentage of the faculty member’s efforts
assigned to those area(s) in the Statement of Expectations. The results of the evaluation may necessitate a modification of the Statement of
Expectations for the faculty member, which would require the signature of the parties to that document.

5. The Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation shall be conducted during the semester following the year being evaluated.

6. The Annual Review Committee shall provide a written copy of the recommendation to the chair (or dean/director) who shall supply a copy of the decision to the faculty member.

7. The academic unit administrator shall review the accomplishments of each faculty member as well as the recommendation of the review committee and make a decision regarding the performance evaluation for each faculty member.

8. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the committee, the faculty member shall have the option to:
a. Submit a written response to the academic unit administrator within five (5) working days of receipt of the written recommendation; or,
b. Make no response.

9. Upon receipt of the decision of the academic unit administrator, the faculty member shall have the option to:
a. Submit a written appeal to the next level in the administration within five (5) working days; or,
b. Make no response.

FROM THE PERSONNEL ACTION CALENDAR

ANNUAL REVIEWS
NOTE: This calendar is for all faculty except 1st year faculty since they have not fulfilled a previous Statement of Expectation. See the special note regarding 1st year faculty under the calendar for Faculty.