DEPARTMENT OF BROADCASTING AND CINEMA

Performance Review and Salary Increase Policy

Approved 28 February 2002

1. The performance review of faculty is an on-going process and consists of the following:
   1. Review of the Annual Personnel Report Form (appendix A) for University Faculty. This report form is used as a major source of information on academic and other EPA personnel by the College and Department. It affords faculty an opportunity to list and evaluate their achievements in teaching, service, research, scholarship, and creative activity.
      1. Each Annual Personnel Report Form will contain detailed information on the calendar year prior to the due date of the form.
      2. Each Annual Personnel Report Form will contain a brief, preliminary assessment of the current semester in which the Form is submitted.
   2. Review of Student Course Evaluation Forms.
   3. Review of supplemental materials (i.e., course syllabi, peer teaching reports, articles, books, papers, creative work, awards, testimonials, reviews, etc.) documenting and supplementing materials presented in a and b above.
   4. Review of faculty member's job description and annual work load assignment.
   5. Peer Review Committee
      1. Each year a Committee of three faculty members (excluding the Department Head) reviews the materials enumerated above for each faculty member.
         1. Committee members must be tenured or tenure track EPA faculty.
         2. After the initial Committee is appointed, a rotation of faculty will be established (appendix B).
            1. By volunteer action, or appointment of the Head, one of the Committee members is designated as the Chair.
            2. At the beginning of each new academic year, the outgoing Chair drops off the Committee and is replaced by the next person on the rotation list.
            3. New tenure tract appointments are added, in an order consistent with section 5) below, at what was the original “end” of the list.
      2. When review focuses on a member of the Committee, that member of the Committee excuses him or herself from those deliberations.
      3. The Department Head will hold an orientation session with each Committee at the initiation of its work to review criteria as related to specific job profiles as noted in the criteria section below.
      4. The Committee completes a Faculty Evaluation Form (appendix C) for each member of the Departmental faculty (including nontenure/nontenure track).
      5. In order to ensure diversity, the original rotation for the Committee will be established and thereafter maintained so that each year there will be--based on the profile of faculty members available--at least one each MFA, nontenured (but tenure track), woman, minority, etc., member of the Committee.
   6. Annual personnel conference.
      1. Preparation
         1. By the announced deadline, each faculty member will ensure that the documents enumerated above in section I a-d have been supplied to the Department Head for distribution to the Peer Review Committee.
         2. Prior to the annual personnel conference, each faculty member will be provided with a copy of the Peer Review Committee’s completed Faculty Evaluation Form (appendix C).
      2. Execution
         1. The Department Head and the Faculty member will meet in person and review the materials supplied, including the Peer Review Committee’s Faculty Evaluation Form.
         2. The Department Head will report his or her independent evaluation of the faculty member.
      3. Followup
         1. The Department Head will draft and supply in a timely manner to each faculty member a summary statement encompassing the review of materials, Peer Review Committee’s Faculty Evaluation Form, and the Head’s evaluation.
         2. The faculty member will respond in a timely manner to the draft statement.
         3. The Department Head will draft a final statement to be supplied to the faculty member and to be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.
         4. The faculty member will review the final statement and may, at his or her initiative, place a response in the relevant personnel file to be attached to the Department’s Head’s statement.
         5. When the evaluation of the Department Head and that of the Peer Review Committee differ significantly (that is, by one full category), the Peer Review Committee will be informed and may, if it wishes, place a response to the Department Head’s evaluation in the faculty member’s file.
2. Evaluative criteria
   1. Factors relevant to each dimension (each dimension below may include the following, but not all factors may be relevant to a particular candidate):
      1. Teaching
         1. Peer evaluation
         2. Student evaluation (If it is decided to evaluate BCN 699, a new form will be devised to provide feedback to faculty.)
         3. Course materials and textbooks
         4. Curricular and program development
         5. Pedagogical writing and/or presentation
         6. Student performance
         7. Mentoring
      2. Scholarship and creative work.
         1. For major career advancement decisions (i.e., tenure and promotions) the basic operational process is that work to be recognized for evaluation must be completed, selected (preferably in a documented peer reviewed process), distributed, and--if appropriate to the avenue of distribution (see below)--reviewed.
            1. Publication
               1. Articles, essays, short stories, etc., published in reputable relevant regional, national, and international journals are evaluated on their merits as published. No additional review is expected. Authors are encouraged to keep and submit, as appropriate, reactions from the journal’s peer review process. For articles published in journals whose peer review process is not clear or rigorous, authors are encouraged--in consultation with the Department Head and with Departmental financial assistance if necessary--to have the item independently reviewed well before the deadline for submission of credentials.
               2. There is a general expectation that books will be reviewed in relevant professional periodicals, on appropriate web sites, etc. In addition to collecting these reviews, authors are encouraged to keep and submit as appropriate reactions from the publisher’s peer review process. For books issued by publishers whose review process is not clear or rigorous (or in instances in which a book is not reviewed by at least two competent reviewers subsequent to publication) authors are encouraged - in consultation with the Department Head and with Departmental financial assistance if necessary--to have the work independently reviewed well before the deadline for submission of credentials.
            2. Film and electronic media distribution (i.e., “publication” of films, videos, CDs, DVDs, etc.)
               1. Acceptance for broadcast, screening, Internet distribution, home sales, or performance/evaluation in the case of a script, is considered as part of the selection process. Creators are encouraged to keep and submit as appropriate reactions from selection committees, juries, program directors, etc.
               2. Nomination for, and/or awarding of, prestigious awards, prizes, certificates, are accepted as prima facie evidence of positive review.
               3. It is expected that works distributed regionally, nationally, and internationally will be reviewed in appropriate professional periodicals, on appropriate web sites, etc. When this is not the case, creators are encouraged--in consultation with the Department Head and with Departmental financial assistance if necessary--to submit works for independent review by competent external reviewers well before the deadline for submission of credentials.
               4. Creators are encouraged to collect, preserve, and submit collateral review evidence, which may consist of audience size and composition, including rating data for cable and television distribution, repetition of broadcasts or screenings, citations, reports of focus groups, etc.
            3. Conference, museum, public screenings, etc.
               1. Creators are encouraged to collect, preserve, and submit selection data (reviewers’ comments, invitation rationales, etc.).
               2. Creators are encouraged to collect, preserve, and submit collateral review evidence, which may consist of audience size and composition, print or electronic transcripts of audience reaction, unsolicited comments, etc.
               3. Creators for whom these venues are a major means of distribution are encouraged--in consultation with the Department Head and with Departmental financial assistance if necessary--to have external reviewers present to review the works.
         2. Given the complexity and length of time that it takes to bring major publication or creative works to fruition, the Department of Broadcasting and Cinema recognizes thereview of works in progress as part of its yearly faculty assessment and posttenure review processes.
            1. For the purposes of assessment of works in progress, selection and review processes may be, if appropriate, combined.
            2. Relevant criteria for review of works in progress are noted as appropriate in the sections below
         3. Appropriate avenues of distribution include:
            1. Publication
            2. Electronic media dissemination
            3. Commercial and/or educational sales/rental release
            4. Theatrical distribution, including film festival screenings
            5. Museum/gallery exhibition
            6. Conference presentations and/or screenings
            7. Public presentations and/or screenings, including public oral readings of screenplays in development
            8. Invitational screenings
         4. Appropriate reviews include:
            1. Final assessment
               1. Published reviews
               2. Awards, commendations, formal letters of acceptance
               3. Transcripts or electronic recordings of audience reactions and responses
               4. Solicited evaluations [highly recommended for dissemination in media or venues that are seldom formally reviewed (e.g., public access television); but for full veracity, these should be planned in advance in consultation with the Department Head or a faculty mentor]
            2. Works in progress
               1. Optioning or contracting of a work for publication or release
               2. Awarding of grants, fellowships, stipends, etc., including, as available, the evaluations available from peer review processes (e.g., grant reviewers).
               3. Written evaluations from the selection process (peer reviewers, judges, etc.) for works in-press or works ccepted for distribution but not yet released or screened
               4. Documented responses to previews, test screenings, focus groups, etc.
               5. Acceptance for conference, convention, workshop, etc., dissemination, for works to be further developed
               6. Solicited evaluations [highly recommended for dissemination in media or venues that are seldom formally reviewed (e.g., public access television); but for full veracity, these should be planned in advance in consultation with the Department Head or a faculty mentor]
      3. Service
         1. Service to professional associations
            1. Membership
            2. Attendance (conventions, conferences, etc.)
            3. Leadership (officer, committee chair, etc.)
            4. Editorial service (editor, reviewer, etc.)
            5. Professional services (accreditation boards, review panels, judge of competition or festival, promotion/tenure reviewer, grant consultant, etc.)
         2. Departmental service
            1. Unit leadership (e.g., Director of Graduate Studies, etc.)
            2. Committee service
            3. External representation (e.g., University Station Advisory Board, etc.)
            4. External support (e.g., solicitation of funding, grants applied for, etc.)
            5. Attendance and participation in Departmental activities
            6. Collegial support (e.g. crewing, reviewing, etc., a colleague’s creative work)
         3. College and University service
            1. Membership (of committees, symposia, etc.)
            2. Leadership (e.g., committee or commission chair, special administrative assignments, etc.)
            3. External representation (e.g., visiting scholar or teacher), recruitment (e.g., Phone-a-thon), community service.
            4. Nondepartmental MA, MFA, or PhD committee service
            5. Attendance and participation in College and University activities
   2. Contextual factors. In reviewing both individual dimensions (i.e., teaching, scholarship/creative work, and service) and in deriving a global evaluation (summary of the three dimensions), the following contextual factors should be considered:
      1. The degree of difficulty
         1. Length of the project or assignment
         2. Amount of responsibility assumed or required
         3. Complexity of the project (e.g., size of crews, etc.)
         4. Relative availability of funding
         5. Amount of travel involved
         6. The distribution channels available to academic producers
      2. The effort required (person hours required)
      3. The focus of the project or assignment (i.e., is it consistent with the person’s long-range career planning)
      4. Project sequencing (i.e., is the work part of a longer effort or series or a one-shot effort)
      5. The degree of authorship involved in works involving one or more collaborators
      6. Relation of the project to the faculty member’s position description
         1. Job performance expectations are unique to each EPA position.
         2. The expectations for tenure-track faculty are not necessarily the same for visiting appointments or nontenure track positions.
   3. Determinants of quality. In reviewing both individual dimensions (i.e., teaching, scholarship/creative work, and service) and in deriving a global evaluation (summary of the three dimensions), the following qualitative factors should be considered:
      1. The merit, skill, craftsmanship, expertise, depth of research, etc., of the work as can be observed and documented by competent colleagues
      2. Number and quality of awards
      3. The level of dissemination (national, regional, local).
      4. The expertise, reputation, and significance of the publisher, journal, distributor, festival, station or channel or web site, etc.
      5. The number of editions, reprints, rescreenings, invited presentations or screenings, etc.
      6. The number and quality of secondary citations, quotation, notices, reviews, etc.
      7. The tone, evaluative direction (i.e., excellent, good, average, etc.) and projected impact of reviews, notices, responses, etc.
      8. The documented expertise of reviewers, judges, solicited evaluators, etc.
      9. The size and relevance of the audience reached
      10. The significance of the work or effort as measured by artistic, social, and ethical criteria.
   4. Application of mandated categories
      1. Exemplary. The ranking of “exemplary” will be assigned to faculty whose work is evaluated to exceed in quality and/or quantity the average productivity (adjusted for their unique job descriptions, work load assignments, and contextual factors) for faculty members in the Department.
      2. Satisfactory. The ranking of “satisfactory (very good, good, or fair),” will be assigned to faculty whose work is evaluated in terms of quality and/or quantity as average productivity (adjusted for their unique job descriptions, work load assignments, and contextual factors) for faculty members in the Department. The evaluation of “satisfactory” ordinarily is given based on documented peer review of a work in process; the evaluation of “exemplary” is usually granted only to a work that is completed, distributed or published, and reviewed.
      3. Unsatisfactory. The ranking of “unsatisfactory” will be assigned to faculty members whose work is evaluated in terms of quality and/or quantity as below the average productivity (adjusted for their unique job descriptions, work load assignments, and contextual factors) for faculty members in the Department.
   5. Summary evaluations (i.e., averaging across the categories of teaching, scholarship/creative work, and service) will take into account a weighing of the three areas (teaching, scholarship/creative work, service) in terms of the faculty member’s job description, rank, and professional goals. (For example, a junior faculty member might be expected to have less service than a senior faculty member.)
3. Determination of salary increases for faculty are made by the Department Head based on the results of the process outlined above. Departmental salary recommendations are forwarded to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences for review and action.
   1. Merit awards, when available, will be made to faculty members who receive a global evaluation of “exemplary” or a “exemplary” in one category with at least “satisfactory” in the other two categories.
   2. The recommendation of “no salary increase” may be forwarded for a faculty member who receives a global evaluation of “unsatisfactory,” or who has evaluations of “unsatisfactory” in two of the three relevant categories.
4. After accounting for merit increases, salary increases will be awarded in equal dollar amounts rather than percentages of base salaries whenever the total salary package is 2% or lower. Increases above 2% will be distributed as a percentage of base salary.
5. Faculty who have been on research leaves for two semesters will be evaluated for salary increases on the basis of their leave achievements. Faculty on one semester leaves will be evaluated on a combination of their leave achievements and standard work assignment.
6. Faculty on medical disability will be evaluated for the work they have completed during the evaluation period.
7. Calendar
   • 1 March: Final deadline for submission of Annual Personnel Report Form
   • 1 April: Final deadline for Peer Review Committee to submit Faculty Evaluation Forms
   • 1-20 April Personnel reviews with Department Head
   • 21 April-10 May Negotiation of draft annual evaluative statement by the Head
   • 15 May Final date for submission to faculty member of Head’s final statement
   • 1 June Suggested date for faculty submission of a reaction to the Head’s final statement (though, in fact, this is an open deadline. The faculty member may access the file and provide written responses at any time.)

Appendix: Peer Committee Faculty Evaluation Form

Person being reviewed: _________________________________________________

Peer Review Committee membership:    ___________________________________
                                     ___________________________________
Date: __________________             ___________________________________

The committee will provide a brief summary and place the faculty member in
one of the mandated categories--Exemplary; Satisfactory (Very Good, Good,
Fair), Unsatisfactory--for each of the following:

Teaching








Scholarship/Creative Work








Service








Other








Signed by _____________________________________ Committee Chair for 20____.