Criteria (1) Annual Evaluation Criteria. All performance evaluations shall be based upon assigned duties, and shall carefully consider the nature of the assignment in terms, where applicable, of:
a. Teaching effectiveness, including effectiveness in presenting knowledge, information, and ideas by means or methods such as lecture, discussion, assignment and recitation, demonstration, laboratory exercise, practical experience, supervision of interns, theses, professional projects and/or dissertations, and direct consultation with students. The evaluation shall include consideration of effectiveness in imparting knowledge and skills, and effectiveness in stimulating students' critical thinking and/or creative abilities, the development or revision of curriculum and course structure, and adherence to accepted standards of professional behavior in meeting responsibilities to students. The evaluator may take into account class notes, syllabi, student exams and assignments, and any other materials relevant to the employee's teaching assignment. The teaching evaluation must take into account any relevant materials submitted by the employee, including the results of peer evaluations of teaching, and may not be based solely on student evaluations when this additional information has been made available to the evaluator.
b. Contribution to the discovery of new knowledge, development of new educational techniques, and other forms of creative activity. Evidence of research and other creative activity shall include, but not be limited to, published books; articles and papers in professional journals; musical compositions, paintings, sculpture; works of performing art; papers presented at meetings of professional societies; funded grant activities; and research and creative accomplishments that have not yet resulted in publication, display, or performance. The evaluation shall include consideration of the employee's productivity, including the quality and quantity of the employee's research and other creative programs and contributions during the year, as well as recognition by the academic or professional community of what has been done.
c. Public service that extends professional or discipline-related contributions to the community, the State, public schools, and/or the national and international community. This public service includes contributions to scholarly and professional organizations, governmental boards, agencies, and commissions that are beneficial to such groups and individuals.
d. Participation in the governance processes of the University through significant service on committees, councils, and senates, beyond that associated with the expected responsibility to participate in the governance of the University through participation in regular departmental or college meetings.
e. Other assigned University duties, such as attending University events, advising, counseling, and academic administration, or as described in a Position Description, if any, of the position held by the employee. Other assigned duties may include entrepreneurial activities that contribute to the further development of the University with an end result of creating a new venture. Evidence of entrepreneurial contributions shall include, but not be limited to, creation of self- supporting centers or institutes, development of multi- disciplinary research partnerships, and applications of research to implementations in society. To provide guidelines for the establishment, maintenance and use of employee evaluation files within the employee’s respective academic unit.
Scope of Service Interconnection Service shall be provided to the Interconnection Customer at the Point of Interconnection (a), in the case of interconnection of the Customer Facility of a Generation Interconnection Customer, up to the Maximum Facility Output, and (b), in the case of interconnection of the Customer Facility of a Transmission Interconnection Customer, up to the Nominal Rated Capability. The location of the Point of Interconnection shall be mutually agreed by the Interconnected Entities, provided, however, that if the Interconnected Entities are unable to agree on the Point of Interconnection, the Transmission Provider shall determine the Point of Interconnection, provided that Transmission Provider shall not select a Point of Interconnection that would impose excessive costs on either of the Interconnected Entities and shall take material system reliability considerations into account in such selection. Specifications for the Customer Facility and the location of the Point of Interconnection shall be set forth in an appendix to the Interconnection Service Agreement and shall conform to those stated in the Facilities Study.
Classification Review Grand Valley State University and APSS shall jointly determine the review assessment survey instrument to be used at Grand Valley State University. The parties shall maintain a Joint Review Committee, composed of three members appointed by the Human Resources Office and three members appointed by the Alliance. Bargaining unit members questioning the assigned classification of their position may do so by using the following procedure:
A. Meet with the Employment Manager in the Human Resources Office to discuss the review process, changes in their job responsibilities, duties and any other process questions they may have.
B. PSS member will fill out the assessment survey and email to the Employment Manager along with any other documentation that supports the request. The survey instrument will be jointly administered/reviewed by the Assessment Team (consisting of the Employment Manager and an Alliance member of the Joint Review Committee). A meeting with the PSS is scheduled for a verbal review of the documentation and to answer any questions the Assessment Team may have. The supervisor or appointing officer is encouraged to attend. If the Assessment Team believes a job site visit is warranted as a result of the survey information, they will schedule a time for a joint visit.
C. The completed survey instrument shall be coded. The survey results, as determined by the Assessment Team, shall be shared with the survey participant.
D. After receiving the survey results, the survey participant, if they so choose shall have the opportunity to meet with the Joint Review Committee for additional input and appeal. Any additional information shall be reviewed by the Committee, and where the Committee feels it is necessary, the survey will be recoded, in a manner mutually agreeable.
E. The Joint Review Committee shall then deliberate as to the merit of the upgrade requested by the participant. If the Committee is not able to reach a consensus, the University will decide on the classification. The Alliance may appeal that decision through the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. Professional Support Staff members may engage in the review process no more than once per year. Supervisors questioning the assigned classification of a staff member’s position shall provide supporting rationale, complete an assessment survey instrument and discuss with Manager of Employment. The Manager of Employment shall notify an Alliance Representative that a Supervisor is reviewing a staff member’s classification. The review and outcome shall be completed within 45 working days unless the Alliance Representative and Manager of Employment mutually agreed to an extension. The Alliance will be provided with the scored instrument and any supporting rationale.
