Internal Management Memoranda

 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2008

INTERNAL MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM NUMBER: 6C1-6.30-1-5

SUBJECT: IFAS; Sustained Performance Evaluation Program (SPEP); and IFAS Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)
 

1. IFAS Sustained Performance Evaluation Program (SPEP)
    
   1. General Description of the SPEP
      
      The Sustained Performance Evaluation Program (SPEP) for tenured and permanent status faculty requires that the long term performance of tenured and permanent status faculty members be reviewed for sustained adequacy once every seven (7) years for no more than the previous six (6) years following the award of tenure/permanent status and/or most recent promotion. The purpose of this evaluation is not only to document adequacy of sustained performance, but also to encourage continued professional growth and development by faculty.
      
      Tenured/ Permanent Status faculty with administrative appointments of Chair, Center Director, District Extension Director, or above shall not be eligible for this review until they resume faculty duties for a full six (6) year period.
      
      Please note that if performance issues are identified through the annual performance evaluation process and prior to the scheduled seven (7) year Sustained Performance Review, a unit leader may proceed with the requirement of a Performance Improvement Plan (Section II below)
       
   2. Review Schedule
      
      The review process will be initiated during the spring of each year. Tenured/Permanent Status faculty will be subject to a required Sustained Performance Evaluation following one of the following conditions:
       
      1. the faculty member has completed six (6) academic years of work since being awarded tenure/permanent status or promotion.
          
      2. the faculty member has completed six (6) academic years of work since his/her last SPEP review.
          
   3. Method of Evaluation
      
      Each year, faculty who are due a scheduled SPEP review are identified by the Academic Affairs office. The unit administrator prepares necessary information for the review. This information includes the faculty member's evaluations from the previous six years and any related evaluative or other information relative to the faculty member during this period of time (i.e., student evaluations, etc).
       
   4. Unit Administrator Responsibility
      
      Following the collection and review of the necessary information, the unit administrator evaluates the faculty member's sustained performance. The results of the SPEP review are incorporated in the faculty member's annual evaluation as appropriate. The unit administrator must rate the faculty member according to one of the following two Sustained Performance evaluation categories:
      
       

      Rating 1	Sustained Performance is satisfactory
      Rating 2	Sustained Performance is below satisfactory (Improvement Required, Unacceptable, etc.,) in one or more areas of assigned duties and responsibilities. Example, the faculty could be rated as below satisfactory if the assessment is that their overall performance OR their performance within one functional area (i.e. Teaching, Research, Extension) is below satisfactory

      
      The unit administrator communicates the rating of the sustained performance evaluation during the regularly scheduled annual evaluation meeting. The faculty member may attach a concise response to the evaluation; any response will be attached to the evaluation and become part of the faculty member's personnel record.
      
      Following the review and sustained performance rating with each identified faculty member, the unit administrator forwards the sustained performance ratings to the IFAS Human Resources office. In turn, the Human Resources office will report to Academic Affairs for all of IFAS.
      
      For faculty whose sustained performance is rated with Rating 1 (Satisfactory), this completes the process.
      
      For faculty whose sustained performance is rated with Rating 2 (Below Satisfactory), the faculty member shall receive a written reprimand indicating that his/her sustained performance has been below satisfactory in this analysis. Then the process continues with a Peer Advisory Committee Review as noted in Section E.
       

   5. Summary of Accomplishments and Peer Advisory Committee
      
      A faculty member who receives a sustained performance rating of below satisfactory by his/her unit administrator as a result of the SPEP review shall develop a comprehensive summary of accomplishments, using the University's tenure, permanent status and promotion guidelines, for the six (6) year period of time in question. The summary of accomplishments is due to the unit administrator within two (2) months following the formal notice within the written reprimand.
      
      The faculty member may also include information in this summary regarding any extenuating circumstances that he/she believes had a significant impact on his/her performance.
      
      The summary of accomplishments is submitted by the unit administrator to a Peer Advisory Committee (PAC). The PAC will consist of three faculty from the faculty member's tenure department or extension district or from a closely related subject matter discipline. (For example, a weed scientist could be in Agronomy or Horticultural Sciences.) The PAC faculty must be tenured or hold permanent status and hold the rank of professor, Extension Agent IV or above. The unit administrator designates two members that meet these criteria and the faculty member designates one. The selection of a PAC should begin as soon as the written reprimand is received and needs to be in place when the summary of accomplishments is completed.
      
      [If the faculty member chooses, the review of the summary of accomplishments by the PAC can be waived. In this event, the faculty member would proceed directly with the development of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).]
      
      The PAC conducts an in-depth review of the summary of accomplishments. Following the review, the PAC has the following options:
       
      1. The PAC agrees with the unit administrator that based on the performance during the review period, improvement is required. The PAC proceeds to recommend that the faculty member and the unit administrator develop a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). The guidelines for the IFAS PIP are in Section II below.
          
      2. The PAC disagrees with the unit administrator and finds that the faculty member's summary of accomplishments reflects appropriate work performance.
         
         The PAC proceeds to recommend to the unit administrator that a PIP is not needed. This information is advisory only; the unit administrator is still responsible for the final determination of the action to be taken. Since there is disagreement between the PAC and the administrator, the IFAS Deans may be involved to assist in determining the final course of action. In any event, the unit administrator can still require a PIP.
         
         If the unit administrator requires a PIP, the guidelines are in Section II below.
         
         If the unit administrator agrees with the PAC and does NOT require a PIP, he/she essentially reverses the earlier evaluation.
          
   6. Appeal Process
      
      If the faculty member does not agree with the results of the review, or if the details of the Performance Improvement Plan cannot be agreed upon, the faculty member may appeal to his/her appropriate Dean(s). The Dean(s) decision on the matter is final.
      
      Discipline imposed as a result of any component of the SPEP must follow the standard Rules regarding faculty grievances.
       
2. IFAS Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)
    
   1. General Guidelines
      
      The IFAS Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is designed to allow tenured and/or permanent status faculty to develop individual Performance Improvement Plans (PIP) in order to address performance deficiencies or weaknesses. Although not prohibited, the use of this process is not designed for faculty who have not been tenured or achieved permanent status. A faculty member may be required to formulate a PIP as a result of a Sustained Performance Evaluation of below satisfactory or as a result of annual performance evaluation(s) in which less than acceptable performance is documented in one or more areas of assigned duties and responsibilities. If the PIP is not part of the Sustained Performance Program, unit administrators are encouraged to have a peer advisory committee review the faculty accomplishment reports for the year(s) in question and provide feedback; however, the use of a peer advisory committee in a non-SPEP matter is completely at the unit leader's discretion. In any event, the requirement for a PIP is communicated in writing to the faculty member in a written reprimand.
      
      UF Regulation 6C1-7.048 provides procedures for faculty discipline. The purpose of this section is to provide guidelines for how Regulation 6C1-7.048 is to be used generally in performance related situations and specifically within the IFAS PIP. However, these guidelines do not restrict a unit administrator's discretion in determining more stringent discipline on a case by case basis as long as it is within the stipulations of 6C1-7.048. Any correspondence with the faculty member should include reference to these rules and the notice of potential and/or further disciplinary action.
      
      The faculty member is expected to provide a draft of a PIP within two (2) months following the written reprimand. This PIP should contain specific performance goals and a time period for meeting the goals. Before finalizing the PIP, the unit administrator must have the PIP approved by the IFAS Deans to ensure that it meets IFAS-wide standards.
       
   2. Required Notifications and Disciplinary Actions
       
      1. When a tenured and/or permanent status faculty member receives a performance evaluation rating that is below satisfactory ("Improvement Required", "Unsatisfactory", etc.) or has a Sustained Performance Evaluation rating of "Below Satisfactory", he/she also receives a written reprimand. The letter of reprimand is to outline the critical importance of performing at an acceptable level. The letter also notifies the faculty member that he/she has two (2) months within which to draft a PIP. Failure to submit an acceptable draft PIP within the noted time period will result in further discipline.
          
      2. If a draft PIP is not submitted at the end of two (2) months, a letter of reprimand will be issued and one (1) more month will be given within which the faculty member is to submit an acceptable draft PIP. Failure to meet this deadline will be considered insubordination and dismissal procedures will begin.
          
      3. If a draft PIP is submitted within the required time limits, the unit administrator is expected to review it with the Deans and gain their approval of the draft PIP within two (2) months.
          
      4. If a PIP is submitted and approved, the unit administrator is expected to conduct another performance evaluation of the faculty member at the end of a six month period. Failure to meet the performance expectations within the plan will result in further discipline. This discipline would likely be a letter of reprimand but depending on circumstances such as insubordination, could be dismissal.
          
      5. If a letter of reprimand is the discipline in step 4 above, up to an additional six month period will be given for the faculty member to meet the performance expectations. Then, another performance evaluation will be conducted. Failure to have met the requirements sufficiently at this point will result in the initiation of dismissal procedures.