ACD 507–08: Annual Performance Evaluation of Academic Professionals
To define annual performance evaluation for academic professionals
Arizona Board of Regents Policy Manual - 6–301, 302
Office of the Provost of the University
All academic professionals shall have annual performance evaluations, which may also be used as the basis for merit increases. Performance evaluations should promote the effectiveness of academic professionals by articulating the actions that will enhance professional contributions, recognizing applications of relevant talents and capabilities, and identifying issues of position effectiveness that were below expectations and should be addressed during the next evaluation period. Each performance evaluation shall document that position effectiveness, professional contributions, and institutional, professional, and/or community service, in accordance with the academic professional’s job description during the evaluation period, were considered. (See ACD 202–02, “Academic Professional Responsibilities” for more information about position effectiveness, professional contributions, and service.)
Annual performance evaluations do not cumulate into continuing appointment or promotion decisions. Annual feedback on progress toward continuing appointment may occur at the same time and be based upon the same material as the annual performance evaluation, but probationary reviews are prospective and reflect the library’s or academic unit’s estimate of the candidate’s future promise. Thus, the procedures and standards used in annual performance evaluations are different from those used in promotion and continuing appointment reviews. Annual performance evaluations are retrospective and summarize performance over the past evaluation period.
Even though annual performance evaluations differ significantly from probationary, continuing appointment, and promotion reviews, there are some common elements. Annual performance evaluations should be as similar as possible to the other reviews in terms of the categories of work that are evaluated, the definitions and scope of each of these kinds of work, and the types of evidence that academic professionals are expected to provide for the review.
The library or academic unit may develop additional procedures for monitoring progress throughout the year, such as a six-month review, especially for new employees.
An academic professional on a fixed-term appointment may receive a notice of nonreappointment in accord with ACD 503, “Conditions of Professional Service.” An academic professional with continuing appointment may be dismissed for just cause or released for financial exigency or reorganization. See also ACD 507–09, “Post-Continuing Appointment Review.”
The annual performance evaluation may be appealed to the next administrative level above the library or academic unit administrator. The request for the appeal must be made within 30 working days of the evaluation discussion. The administrator, to whom the appeal is made, must respond within 30 days after the request is received. The final decision lies with the administrator who conducts the appeal. The academic professional may ask that his or her written request for the appeal become part of the record of the performance evaluation.
Individuals may also file a grievance regarding their annual performance evaluation in accord with ACD 509–03, “Grievance Policy for Academic Professionals.”