Executive Policy 9.203 Executive Policy 9.203

Evaluation of Faculty and Administrative, Professional & Technical Employees

Executive Policy Chapter 9, Human Resources
Executive Policy EP 9.203, Evaluation of Faculty and Administrative, Professional & Technical Employees.
Effective Date:  December 2023
Prior Dates Amended:  October 1981; October 2013, October 2014, November 2017
Responsible Office: Vice President for Administration, Office of Human Resources
Governing Board of Regents Policy RP 9.213, Evaluation of Board of Regents Appointees
Review Date:  December 2026

This Executive Policy directs implementation of Regents Policy (RP) 9.213, Evaluation of Board of Regents  Appointees. This policy provides for the systematic evaluation of the performance of the faculty and other professional staff of the University of Hawai‘i (“University”) and calls upon the appropriate administrative offices of the University to define the specific procedures for implementation.

The objective of this Executive Policy is to provide procedures to be used in reviewing faculty for programs that do not have evaluation procedures in accordance with this policy.

EP 5.221 establishes which faculty positions are eligible for tenure.

1. Faculty evaluation procedures (may also be referred to as periodic review)  shall be developed and maintained by the University Chancellors/Provost for their respective campuses and by the Vice President for Community Colleges on behalf of the community colleges system, in consultation with appropriate faculty governance organizations and the exclusive collective bargaining representative.



2. Procedures for review of Administrative, Professional and Technical (APT) employees will be maintained for system wide application by the Vice President for Administration in consultation with the exclusive collective bargaining representative.



3. For those campuses/programs which do not have their own faculty evaluation procedure, faculty will be evaluated using the procedures indicated in paragraph D.



4. Procedures for Tenured Faculty Periodic Review
   
   
   
   1. The Chancellor/Provost, Vice Chancellor/Vice Provost, Dean, or administrative head of each college or comparable organizational unit shall develop a schedule to evaluate all faculty who have not undergone review for promotion, tenure, contract review, or a similar in-depth review during the preceding five years. Faculty who have received a merit pay increase during this period shall also be exempt from this additional review. Faculty whose time since the last such review exceeds five years will be phased in to the schedule over a five-year period in order of length of time since last evaluation.
   
   
   2. Each faculty member scheduled for review shall submit to the Department/Division Chair (DC), or comparable program head:
      
      1. Evidence of teaching performance including peer evaluations, teaching awards, and/or all available student evaluations of courses taught and/or workshops taught or similar assessments of student learning during the preceding five years, and/or
      
      
      2. Citations to scholarly research or other contributions to professional literature published during the preceding five years, and/or
      
      
      3. A list of other major accomplishments and/or honors received related to the faculty member’s professional responsibilities during the preceding five years.
      
      
   3. The DC will compile a list of all courses taught during the preceding five years and the number of students enrolled in each course.
   
   
   4. Prior to making their assessment, the DC will poll the members of the Department/Division Personnel Committee (DPC) to determine whether or not the DPC wishes to participate in the review process.
   
   
   5. If the DPC elects to participate in the review process, the DC shall transmit the materials to the DPC, which shall make a written assessment of the faculty member’s strengths and weaknesses. The DPC will transmit this assessment, along with its recommendations, to the DC.
   
   
   6. The DC shall make their independent assessment and recommendations.
   
   
   7. Either the DC or the DPC may solicit additional information, such as copies of published work, and conduct further study, such as classroom visitation, as may be appropriate.
   
   
   8. If there are specific weaknesses identified in the evaluation, the DPC and DC recommendations should address means of improving performance. The DC shall discuss these recommendations with the faculty member before transmitting them to the Dean or Vice Chancellor/Vice Provost.
   
   
   9. As appropriate, the DC and DPC shall include recommendations for recognition and reward of superior performance.
   
   
   10. The Dean or Vice Chancellor/Vice Provost shall consider the DPC and DC recommendations and, subsequent to an independent evaluation of the record, shall direct that appropriate measures be taken.
   
   
   11. After completion of the evaluation process, the Dean or Vice Chancellor/Vice Provost will notify the faculty member of its outcome and establish the date for the next evaluation, which shall be scheduled no later than five years hence and may be scheduled sooner if necessary.
   
   
   12. If the faculty member believes that any action taken pursuant to this policy is unwarranted or inappropriate, they may appeal to the Chancellor/Provost or an official designated by the Chancellor/Provost to review the appeal, whose decision shall be final. Any allegation that such an action violates or denies a right granted under the Unit 7 collective bargaining agreement shall be subject to challenge in accordance with the grievance procedures contained in said agreement.



5. Process for identifying and addressing substandard performance when it emerges
   
   While the procedure above describes the normal periodic review process, off-cycle periodic reviews may be called when the Department Chair and/or Dean identifies performance concerns that must be addressed. It is recommended that a review commence upon identifying concerns over a faculty’s substandard performance. This review is an opportunity to engage with the individual whose performance has raised concerns so that they may be guided towards achieving satisfactory performance standards. A review for substandard performance may include the following: 
   
   
   1. Faculty will be assessed against their campus, college, and department criteria as applicable, in accordance with the campus’ existing policy on periodic reviews or the periodic review process described above.
   
   
   2. As the person responsible for the initial phases of periodic review, Department Chairs will notify their Dean/Director/Supervisor of substandard performing faculty in their unit. If there is no Department or Division Chair, then the person responsible for periodic review may initiate the initial phases of an off-cycle review.
      
      1. The Chair should intervene at the informal, non-managerial/academic guidance stage, by communicating to a faculty member that they are not meeting their performance requirements and expectations. Guidance can include providing resources, mentoring, training, and tools and other feedback on how to get their performance back on track.
      
      
      2. If the Chair believes that informal guidance is not working, the Chair should discuss their concerns with the Dean or appropriate administrative authority. Addressing substandard performing faculty is an essential duty and responsibility of the Dean or appropriate administrative authority.
   
   
   3. The Dean or appropriate administrative authority will discuss with the Chair if a faculty member is identified as failing to meet performance expectations and requires a Professional Development Plan (PDP).
      
      1. Each Dean or appropriate administrative authority is responsible for addressing faculty substandard performance at the time it is raised and will need to work with the Chair to ensure that this concern is appropriately handled.
      
      
      2. The areas in which a faculty member is not meeting expectations should immediately be communicated to them.
      
      
      3. The faculty member, in turn, may respond to the determination of substandard performance and explain their perspective during the initial inquiry and prior to the creation of a PDP.
      
      
      4. If there are disagreements about areas of substandard performance, each campus should follow their respective process for resolving such disagreements or follow the above procedure.
      
      
      5. If areas of substandard performance are confirmed, a PDP will be created by the Chair in consultation with the faculty member.
      
      
      6. A PDP will articulate the goals of the PDP, specific actions that will be taken to address substandard performance, and objective measurable outcomes that will determine a successful outcome. The Dean or appropriate administrative authority shall approve the PDP.
      
      
      7. Once a PDP has been established (see appendix for template), there will be an annual review and update on progress made towards the goals of the plan. When the articulated goals have been met, the PDP is completed.
   
   
   4. If a PDP is determined to be unsuccessful and the faculty member continues to fail to meet performance requirements, the University may explore other available options, including:  
      
      1. The Dean or appropriate administrative authority may extend a PDP, establishing new milestones and deadlines to work towards improvement. Included in any extension may be opportunities to reassign faculty to administrative positions or special projects, or engage in additional faculty development.
      
      
      2. The Dean or appropriate administrative authority may also recommend to their respective Provost or Chancellor separation from the University for failure to meet performance requirements and expectations. If a faculty member disagrees with the separation, the faculty member can appeal to a performance judge to challenge the conclusion of separation from the University, as articulated in Article XXIV, Grievance Procedure, Section C. Procedures, 2.d., Step 3A. Procedures for non-tenure track faculty job security will be developed with the exclusive bargaining representative.

Delegate to the University Chancellors/Provost and the Vice President for Community Colleges, on behalf of the community college system, responsibility for development of faculty evaluation procedures in consultation with the faculty governance organization and the exclusive collective bargaining representative pursuant to R-20. The Vice President for Community Colleges will also consult with the community college chancellors when developing the community colleges’ faculty evaluation procedures.

Delegate to the Vice President for Administration responsibility for development of system-wide procedures to be used in evaluating Administrative, Professional, and Technical (APT) employees.

Office of the Vice President for Administration
Office of the Vice President for Academic Strategy

Office of Human Resources
Telephone: (808) 956-8458
OHR Website

AP 9.170: Performance Evaluation of Administrative, Professional & Technical Employees
Superseded Executive Policies in old format

Link to Administrative Procedures in old format

Appendix: Professional Development Plan (PDP) Status Report Template

    President