[Duplicated text of Board of Regents Policy RP 9.213, Evaluation of Board of Regents’ Appointees]
R-02, BOR Policy RP 9.213, Evaluation of Board of Regents’ Appointees
Regents Policy RP 9.213 Evaluation of Board of Regents’ Appointees
I. Purpose
To set forth policy on evaluations of Board of Regents’ appointees.
II. Definitions
No policy specific or unique definitions apply.
III. Policy
A. Board appointees will be evaluated periodically in accordance with the guidelines below and the specific procedures developed by the appropriate administrative offices to implement this policy. These performance evaluations shall be conducted in order:
1. To provide assurance to the university and its constituents that professional staff resources and particular areas of expertise are being used to the best advantage;
2. To provide for the systematic recognition of excellence and develop incentives for superior performance; and
3. To provide means for the improvement of performance in furtherance of the university’s mission.
B. In recognition of the special role of the faculty in the academic mission of the university, procedures for periodic review of faculty performance must provide safeguards for academic freedom and shall provide the opportunity for participation of faculty peers in the review process. Accordingly, each chancellor or provost, in consultation with appropriate faculty governance organizations, shall develop procedures for such review which incorporate these principles. The procedure shall include a requirement for evaluation of every faculty member at least once every five years, and may provide for exempting faculty who have undergone a review for reappointment, tenure, or promotion, or who have received a merit salary increase during this period. Faculty review procedures shall be submitted by the chancellor or provost for approval by the president.
The foundation of assessment of faculty performance shall be in accordance with guidelines for faculty teaching and scholarship developed by divisions and departments. Accordingly, each campus shall utilize the written guidelines described in EP 9.203 for addressing faculty who fail to meet performance requirements. These guidelines articulate a process whereby faculty, whose performance is not meeting expectations, may be provided with an opportunity to improve their performance to meet expectations. Continued failure to meet expectations may trigger an off-cycle periodic review process.
C. Administrative, professional, and technical (APT) employees shall be evaluated at least once every three years according to procedures approved by the president.
D. Employees in the executive and managerial classifications shall be evaluated annually as specified in RP 9.212.
IV. Delegation of Authority
There is no policy specific delegation of authority.
V. Contact Information
Office of the Vice President for Administration, 956-6405, vpadmin@hawaii.edu
Office of the Vice President for Academic Strategy, 956-6897, ovpas@hawaii.edu
VI. References