Date: 1 February 2003

To: Dr. W. Sanborn Pfeiffer

Vice President for Academic Affairs

From: President Lisa A. Rossbacher

Re: Faculty personnel packages in 2002-03

I appreciate the work that has been done to help faculty develop stronger personnel packages this year. I see a real improvement over previous years, and I want to be sure to thank you, the deans, and your colleagues for your good work in this area. The thoughtfulness of the narratives, the inclusion of outside letters of reference, the improved accuracy in use of SIRS data, and copies of recent publications were all very helpful.

We still have some areas for improvement; I offer these observations for your consideration, and you are welcome to forward this memo to deans and others involved in the faculty personnel process.

The University Peer Committee forwarded some divided recommendations this year, with no explanation of the basis for negative votes. When the committee's recommendation is not unanimous, I look for information about the issues that concerned the committee members. Each committee member's perspective is valuable, and I want to be able to consider all the input, not just a "majority" opinion.

Some of the promotion packages included supporting letters that pre-dated the previous promotion. In my view, this weakened the overall package.

Some of the packages included letters that were clearly written by close friends; because of the obvious relationship, these letters did not provide the type of objective support that is most useful. Indeed, the most valuable support letters were often those from people who had worked with the faculty member in some off-campus context: as part of a professional organization, as a colleague on a project, or as a co-author.

Although two narratives mentioned that the faculty member's teaching had been observed by colleagues, not one package includes any peer evaluations of teaching. Not one. I continue to believe that evidence of outstanding teaching should come from a variety of sources, only one of which comes from the SIRS.

Some of the narratives contained an excellent overview of what motivates the faculty member to engage in teaching, service, and scholarship, and this information was very helpful. Other packages simply listed what the faculty member had done, but without the framework that would help me understand why. A little information about the larger perspective would have made a big difference in my understanding of the faculty member's work.

Some of the individual decisions about linking activities with categories needed more explanation. Why, for example, does it make sense to consider teaching continuing-education classes as professional development – rather than as teaching or as service? Why would a publication be listed under service rather than academic achievement? There may be excellent arguments for such categorization, but the arguments need to be made so that the package is understandable.

Some packages included excerpts from informal student comments. Although these are interesting, they are not very helpful in making the overall case for teaching excellence. In general, either all the student comments should be included (and the point made clearly that these are all the comments), or they can be omitted.

Two other problems surfaced that relate to the cover sheet for the packages, which I understand you will correct this spring, in preparation for the 2003-04 review process:

· The cover sheet needs to include information about whether the faculty member being reviewed is a member of the graduate faculty (different tenure criteria apply to graduate faculty)

· The cover sheet asks faculty to include the current year in calculating their years of service, but the current policy says that faculty are "…normally considered for tenure after having completed the fifth year of probationary service at the rank of assistant professor or higher." Thus, a "5" on the cover sheet is not the same as having completed the full five years of service.