It is the obligation of the faculty at the University to strive for continued excellence in teaching, scholarship and service. Each faculty member will be reviewed annually for the purposes of evaluation, development, and available pay increases. Reviews of tenure-track faculty also will focus on the faculty member’s progress towards tenure. Reviews of professional track and instructor track faculty also will be based on the current and projected needs of the University.
The annual review will apply those criteria described in this section and those further developed by each school as described in the school-specific sections of this handbook. Each school will provide specific guidelines for review of faculty members; however, such guidelines will not conflict with the department, school or University accreditation standards.
The criteria for promotion from assistant professor to associate professor or associate professor to professor within the individual schools are outlined in the school-specific sections of this handbook.
Each school is responsible for relevant evaluative criteria in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service:
The applicable criteria will be made available to each new faculty member at the time of his or her appointment and the criteria at the time of appointment will remain part of the tenure and/or promotion and review dossier. Each department and/or school should review and, if necessary, revise the criteria at least every five years.
By July 1 of each year, the Office of the Provost will publish a University Faculty Calendar (UFC) which will include deadlines for the annual review and the periodic review process for the year starting July 1 and ending the following June 30.
By the deadline specified on the UFC, each faculty member must submit an annual report to his or her department chair. The annual report must include a summary of relevant accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and service for the covered academic year, a reflection on all teaching evaluations from the two most recent semesters, a current CV, and any other materials that the faculty member considers germane to the evaluation. The department chair and/or school dean may require additional information to aid in the annual review.
The specific review process of each school is detailed in the school-specific sections of this handbook.
1. The Role of the Chair and Dean
The chair and/or dean will, after reviewing the annual report, meet with the faculty member and discuss his or her assessment of the faculty member’s performance based on the annual report including:
2. Report to Provost
After reviewing the annual report and evaluation, the dean or his or her designee will produce a recommendation to the provost regarding each faculty member including:
In all cases including when a faculty member is on a continuous appointment or a multi-year term appointment that is not expiring, the dean will make a recommendation regarding any pay increase and communicate that recommendation to the provost.
3. Final Determination
The provost will review the recommendations of the dean and after consulting with the dean will make a final determination on reappointments and/or pay increases. Based on that review and the anticipated needs of the University, the provost will direct the dean to issue:
In all cases in which an appointment is renewed or continued, a faculty member will receive an annual appointment letter reflecting, in addition to those items required in Section Three, the faculty member’s salary for the next academic year including any pay increases.
Any faculty member, upon request, is entitled to meet with the chair and/or dean to discuss his or her annual report, evaluation and any resulting pay increase.
It is the responsibility of every teacher-scholar to strive for constant improvement in the classroom; stay current in his or her discipline and area of specialty; continue the production of research, creative and/or professional work; and remain an asset in the work of the department, school and University. Students, the University and society at large benefit from Suffolk faculty members who remain resourceful teachers and active scholars. The periodic review of faculty members who have continuous or long term appointments is intended as a supportive and developmental process, matching faculty members with the resources they need to remain vibrant contributing members of the University community.
Paragraph C applies to faculty who attain tenure and those on the professional faculty who have been awarded presumptively renewable five-year contracts. Every five years, each such faculty member will engage in a review based on criteria developed by the department or school as outlined in the school-specific sections of this handbook.
1. Periodic Review Process
No later than the fifth year after being granted tenure, or in the fourth year of a five-year presumptively renewable appointment, a faculty member will participate in a review using the criteria outlined in this handbook and particularly those described in the school-specific sections of this handbook. At the end of the review process, the faculty member will be rated as “Exceeds Expectations,” “Meets Expectations,” “Partially Meets Expectations” or “Does Not Meet Expectations.”
To initiate the periodic review, a faculty member will prepare a portfolio as described in Section Seven, Paragraph F of this handbook, covering the five years prior to the review. The portfolio must include a self-evaluation by the faculty member seeking review which will include a self-rating of “Exceeds Expectations,” “Meets Expectations,” “Partially Meets Expectations” or “Does Not Meet Expectations” for each of the areas of teaching; research, creative and/or professional activity; and service. The faculty member will then submit this portfolio to the department office or the law school dean’s office by the date specified on the University Faculty Calendar.
2. Decanal Review of Faculty
The dean or designee will review the faculty member’s portfolio based on the departmental and/or school criteria and procedures as required in the school-specific sections of this handbook. After consultation with the department chair and other appropriate sources, a report will be created that includes a rating regarding the faculty member reviewed. This report and rating will be sent to the faculty member. The faculty member may respond in writing to the recommendation within twenty-one days after the delivery of the review. Any written response of the faculty member will become a part of the review file.
After receiving a response or after the time for responding is over, the dean shall submit his or her report and ranking, together with any relevant material and any response by the faculty member under review, to the provost.
3. Effect of Review
A rating of “Exceeds Expectations” is reserved for those faculty members who consistently excel during the review period. This rating should result in a pay increase and other recognition based on the merits of each individual case awarded at the discretion of the dean and provost.
A rating of “Meets Expectations” may result in a pay increase and may result in other recognition based on the merits of each individual case awarded at the discretion of the dean and provost.
A rating of “Partially Meets Expectations” will result in no change to the faculty member’s status.
A rating of “Does Not Meet Expectations” requires the faculty member to meet with the department chair and/or dean and/or school committee to structure a development plan. The specifics of each school’s procedures for those who receive a rating of “Does Not Meet Expectations” is further outlined in the school-specific sections of this handbook.
The development plan will be in effect for a maximum of three years and will contain explicit expectations regarding teaching success; scholarly, creative or professional accomplishments; and service contributions that should lead to a “Meets Expectations” review. The department chair and/or dean will provide reasonable resource support to assist the faculty member in meeting the requirements of the development plan. The development plan that is crafted for a faculty member who receives a rating of “Does Not Meet Expectations” is reported to the provost.
Each year, the faculty member will again be reviewed according to the process outlined in this section. If the faculty member receives any rating other than “Does Not Meet Expectations,” then the review is concluded. The faculty member’s next review will take place after an additional five complete years of service.
If the faculty member receives a “Does Not Meet Expectations” rating by the dean during the period of the development plan, then the file will be forwarded to the provost for review and for any actions consistent with this handbook.