HAW 9.203 Faculty Five-Year Review

Issued: August 25, 1999
Revised: February 25, 2016 
Download PDF (Includes Attachment)

Evaluation can be a positive force when used to encourage HawCC faculty members to continue their professional growth and thereby improve the delivery of their professional services. To this end, institutional resources must be committed to incentive programs, which support faculty development in the areas of teaching and service. Resources should also be made available to encourage appropriate forms of community college-based research.

Evaluation of HawCC faculty must not undermine the concepts of academic freedom and tenure. There is a presumption of competence on the part of each tenured faculty member. Thus, the evaluation process must operate independently of an individual faculty member's tenured status.

The review undertaken within the evaluation process must reflect the nature of the faculty member's field of expertise and must conform to fair and reasonable expectations as recognized by faculty peers in each Division or Discipline. The evaluation will not be conducted in an arbitrary or capricious manner and will be in accordance with agreed-upon procedures.

HawCC faculty members should strive for excellence in the performance of their primary responsibilities. Where appropriate, faculty members design measurable or observable learning outcomes and assess and provide evidence of student learning. Above all, faculty members work to improve student achievement and success. However, critical assessment and evaluation of excellence will be conducted with due consideration for individual assignments and institutional needs.

It is recognized that in certain situations, a faculty member's responsibilities may encompass a combination of instruction, academic support, and economic development and customized training. In such instances, documentation of performance over the previous five years should include a combination of performance and accomplishment in the four areas.

Purpose:

The purpose of the five-year faculty evaluation process is to achieve the following goals:

1. improve overall instruction of students, and service to and academic support for students;
2. evaluate faculty members' performance of their primary duties;
3. evaluate faculty members' performance in meeting the needs of the department, division, unit and/or the college;
4. evaluate faculty members' contributions to the future planning of the department, division, unit or college;and
5. increase awareness among students and the community regarding the faculty resources available to them.

 In addition, the purpose of this policy is to have a five-year faculty evaluation process that complies with University of Hawai'i (UH) System and Board of Regent (BOR) policies.

Background:

In September 2013, the University of Hawai 'i Community Colleges System (UHCC) approved revisions to UHCCP 9.203, Faculty Five-Year Review, which superseded CCCM 7200, Faculty Evaluation Procedures. During Spring 2014, HawCC's Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (VCAA) requested a revision to HAW 9.203, Evaluation of Faculty, in order to meet the changes in the revised UHCCP. The Faculty Policy Committee (FPC) reviewed the proposed revisions to the policy and on April 30, 2014 the Academic Senate approved the revised policy.

During Fall 2015, HawCC's VCAA requested a revision to HAW 9.203 to make the various due dates congruent with the UHCCP 9.203. The FPC reviewed the proposed revision to the policy and on January 29, 2016 the Academic Senate approved the revised policy.

Relevant Policies:

• Section 9-13 of the UH BOR Bylaws and Policies, Evaluation of Board of Regents' Appointees
• UH Executive Policy E 5.221, Classification of Faculty
• UH Executive Policy E 9.203, Evaluation of Board of Regents Appointees
• UHCCP #9.203, Faculty Five-Year Review

Policy:

HawCC faculty are evaluated at least once every five years. The evaluations are based on the [UH] Community College [faculty] (UHCC) Classification Plan and Compensation Policy contained in Section IV.A.4.a.of UH Executive Policy E 5.221. The UHCC Classification Plan documents expectations of faculty at each rank. In addition, E 5.221 identifies the primary responsibilities of faculty including, "[where appropriate, they design measurable or observable learning outcomes and assess and provide evidence of student learning." (Section IV.A.4.c.)

Faculty members whose contracts are subject to the provisions of the contract renewal or tenure and/promotion processes shall be evaluated at least once every five (5) years through one of those two processes. The procedures for each process are defined in the current guidelines issued by the UHCC System and therefore, are not specifically covered by this policy.

Faculty members who have not submitted dossiers for contract renewal or tenure and/or promotion in the preceding five years are subject to the five-year evaluation process as described in this policy.

Faculty who retire during the academic year he/she is eligible for a five-year review will be exempt from the five-year review process. The faculty must complete Attachment I indicating the date he/she intends to retire. If the faculty does not retire on the date as indicated, he/she must submit a document for a five-year evaluation within 30 days of the intended retirement date.

Unsuccessful promotions are not considered an evaluation for purposes of this policy, however the unsuccessful promotion document may be submitted for the five-year evaluation.

Responsibilities and Procedures:

1. The Chancellor shall:
   1. oversee the maintenance of the five-year faculty evaluation process
      1. Before April of each academic year, the Deans and Directors, in consultation with the Chancellor and Personnel Officer will determine the list of faculty members whose work has not been evaluated for contract renewal or tenure and/or promotion or who have not received a merit salary increase during the preceding five (5) years.
      2. Each year at least 20% of the eligible faculty within the College will be evaluated in order of length of time since their last evaluation, with faculty not being evaluated for the longest period of time being evaluated first. Faculty members wishing to complete a self-assessment may do so prior to their scheduled evaluation. Such an assessment and evaluation will meet the requirement that a faculty member must be being evaluated every five (5) years.
   2. make available the forms required for the five-year faculty evaluation;
   3. establish and annually publish the schedule of faculty who are eligible for the five-year evaluation process;
   4. make available the most current UHCC Guidelines for Contract Renewal and the UHCC Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion, which includes the UHCC faculty Classification Plan; and
   5. consult with faculty members who believe that the results of their evaluation were unwarranted or inappropriate.
2. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (VCAA) shall:
   1. notify faculty members, with a copy to the respective Division/Department Chair (DC) or equivalent, when they are eligible for the scheduled five-year evaluation. Notification shall be by September I during the academic year in which the evaluation is scheduled; and
   2. submit a completion report to the Chancellor about the year's evaluation including the following information: an indication that the schedule was met; any deviations, if any that were found; and planned follow-up actions as applicable. The completion report is due by February 28 of each year.
3. Faculty members who have been notified that they are scheduled for a five-year evaluation shall submit the appropriate document to the respective DC or equivalent no later than December I. The specifics for the documentation are described in a separate section.
4. The DC* or equivalent shall:
   1. review the requirements of the five-year evaluation with all faculty members in the Division including those newly hired;
   2. review the five-year document submitted by eligible faculty members;
   3. meet with the faculty member to share his/her recommendations prior to submitting his/her report to VCAA
      1. If the evaluation reveals meritorious performance, the DC or equivalent informs the faculty member of the availability of programs designed to recognize meritorious performance, e.g. annual merit awards, excellence in teaching award, internship, fellowship, etc.
      2. If the evaluation recalls a need for improvement, the faculty member and DC or equivalent shall jointly develop a professional improvement pan. Follow-up reviews on the progress being made may be scheduled for any year prior to the next five-year evaluation cycle, if appropriate. The plan may call for a variety of activities that require special resources, e.g., leaves of various types, attendance at special workshops or institutes, assistance in the preparation of grant applications, availability of computer hardware or software or training in the use of the same or special assistance in new approaches to teaching. A successful plan will require both initiative on the part of the faculty member and the assurance from the College or Division that every effort is made to provide the necessary support out of available University resources.
   4. Submit by February 15, a completion report to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs or equivalent on the year's five-year evaluations, noting that the schedule was met, reporting any deviations and reporting planned follow-up actions as applicable.

 *If the DC or equivalent is undergoing a five-year evaluation, the person immediately above him/her shall perform the responsibilities of DC or equivalent.

Appeal Procedure:

1. If the faculty member believes that the results of the evaluation or the professional improvement plan are unwarranted or inappropriate, he/she may appeal to the Chancellor or his/her designee. The Chancellor will convene a Campus Faculty Review Committee which will consist of three members, appointed as follows: Chancellor shall appoint one member (who also shall Chair the Committee); the faculty member shall appoint one member; and the President of the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly (UHPA) shall appoint one member. The Committee will review the documents, meet with the faculty member and appropriate administrators, if necessary, and make a recommendation to the Chancellor. If the Chancellor does not accept the Committee's recommendation, the Chancellor will meet with the Committee prior to the rendering a final decision. Should the decision of the Chancellor result in any disciplinary action, such action shall be subject to the provisions of the UHPA/BOR Agreement n effect at that time.
2. Any allegation that such an action violates or denies a right granted under a collective bargaining agreement shall be considered in accordance with the grievance procedures contained in said agreement.