Common use of Evaluation Committee - Composition and General Rules Clause in Contracts

Evaluation Committee - Composition and General Rules. 15.1.7.1 Faculty Evaluation Committees shall be composed of the appropriate immediate manager or their designee, the Department/Program Chair or their designee, and a peer evaluator. Retired tenured faculty who are serving in a pro-rata contract capacity may be considered for the peer role. Each evaluation committee member may serve in only one of these roles. The peer selected in the first year of a probationary faculty member’s evaluation cycle shall endeavor to remain on the evaluation committee for each year of the probationary faculty member’s subsequent evaluation cycles unless the peer is no longer an active District employee. In exceptional cases where this cannot be accommodated, a peer shall be selected from the two remaining potential peers submitted by the evaluee at the start of their probationary evaluation process. In every other three (3)-year cycle, starting with the first triennial evaluation, the evaluation committee for Professor triennial evaluations may consist of a peer only, provided there is mutual agreement of the evaluee and the appropriate manager. In these cases, the xxxx and chair shall sign the evaluation form as having been received only, without any further commentary, except in the area of responsiveness to administrative requests. The appropriate manager’s or department chair’s designee must be acceptable to the faculty member being evaluated. If the designee is not acceptable, the appropriate manager or department chair shall serve on the committee. In cases where the evaluee believes that the appropriate manager or department chair may not be able to perform an objective evaluation due to perceived bias, the evaluee may ask the appropriate Vice President to consult with the Site Compliance Officer to determine whether or not the appointment of a replacement of that evaluator from that committee is warranted. The evaluee’s claim of perceived bias must be verifiable with concrete evidence. The burden of proof of alleged bias remains with the evaluee. 15.1.7.2 Hereafter, all references in this Article to “appropriate manager” or "chair" shall be understood to include "or their designee.” 15.1.7.3 Prior to the first committee meeting, each faculty member who is scheduled for evaluation must submit to their appropriate manager a list of three (3) tenured faculty members acceptable as peer evaluators. The appropriate manager will select one (1) peer evaluator from this list of three (3), in consultation with the Department Chair. If, after written request of the appropriate manager, the faculty member who is scheduled for evaluation fails to submit this list of three (3) peer evaluators within ten (10) working days of the request, the appropriate manager will select the peer evaluator, provided this is done in consultation with the Department Chair. All those recommended or selected as peer evaluators must be willing to serve. 15.1.7.4 The peer evaluators must be specialists in the subject area in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned or in a subject area reasonably related to that in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned. All peer evaluators must be tenured (or tenure-track, in the cases of adjunct faculty evaluations) or retired faculty serving in a pro-rata capacity and in active status in this District. The subject matter specialist shall have the major role in evaluating the criterion of "Subject Matter Knowledge." 15.1.7.5 If there are not three (3) appropriate faculty within the District, the faculty member being evaluated may include in their list of three (3) evaluators, evaluators from outside the District. In such cases, the outside peer evaluator must be a subject area specialist or a specialist in a subject area reasonably related to that in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned. It will be the responsibility of each campus Faculty Evaluation Coordinator to make the arrangements for external evaluators and to provide training on the evaluation criteria and process.

Evaluation Committee - Composition and General Rules. 15.1.7.1 Faculty Evaluation Committees shall be composed of the appropriate immediate manager or their his/her designee, the Department/Program Department Chair or their his/her designee, and a peer evaluator. Retired tenured faculty who are serving in a pro-rata contract capacity may be considered for the peer role. Each evaluation committee member may serve in only one of these roles. The peer selected in the first year of a probationary faculty member’s evaluation cycle shall endeavor to remain on the evaluation committee for each year of the probationary faculty member’s subsequent evaluation cycles unless the peer is no longer an active District employee. In exceptional cases where this cannot be accommodated, a peer shall be selected from the two remaining potential peers submitted by the evaluee at the start of their probationary evaluation process. In every other three (3)-year cycle, starting with the first triennial evaluation, the evaluation committee for Professor triennial evaluations may consist of a peer only, provided there is mutual agreement of the evaluee and the appropriate manager. In these cases, the xxxx and chair shall sign the evaluation form as having been received only, without any further commentary, except in the area of responsiveness to administrative requests. The appropriate manager’s or department chair’s designee must be acceptable to the faculty member being evaluated. If the designee is not acceptable, the appropriate manager or department chair shall serve on the committee. In cases where the evaluee believes that the appropriate manager or department chair may not be able to perform an objective evaluation due to perceived bias, the evaluee may ask the appropriate Vice President to consult with the Site Compliance Officer to determine whether or not the appointment of appoint a replacement of that evaluator from that committee is warrantedreplacement. The evaluee’s claim of perceived bias must be verifiable with concrete evidence. The burden of proof of alleged bias remains with the evaluee. 15.1.7.2 Hereafter, all references in this Article to “appropriate manager” or "chair" shall be understood to include "or their his/her designee.” 15.1.7.3 Prior to the first committee meeting, each faculty member who is scheduled for evaluation must submit to their his/her appropriate manager a list of three (3) tenured faculty members acceptable as peer evaluators. The appropriate manager will select one (1) peer evaluator from this list of three (3), in consultation with the Department Chair. If, after written request of the appropriate manager, the faculty member who is scheduled for evaluation fails to submit this list of three (3) peer evaluators within ten (10) working days of the request, the appropriate manager will select the peer evaluator, provided this is done in consultation with the Department Chair. All those recommended or selected as peer evaluators must be willing to serve. 15.1.7.4 The peer evaluators must be specialists in the subject area in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned or in a subject area reasonably related to that in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned. All peer evaluators must be tenured (or tenure-track, in the cases of adjunct faculty evaluations) or retired faculty serving in a pro-rata capacity and in active status in this District. The subject matter specialist shall have the major role in evaluating the criterion of "Subject Matter Knowledge." 15.1.7.5 If there are not three (3) appropriate faculty within the District, the faculty member being evaluated may include in their her/his list of three (3) evaluators, evaluators from outside the District. In such cases, the outside peer evaluator must be a subject area specialist or a specialist in a subject area reasonably related to that in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned. It will be the responsibility of each campus Faculty Evaluation Coordinator to make the arrangements for external evaluators and to provide training on the evaluation criteria and process.three

Evaluation Committee - Composition and General Rules. 15.1.7.1 Faculty Evaluation Committees shall be composed of the appropriate immediate manager or their his/her designee, the Department/Program Department Chair or their his/her designee, and a peer evaluator. Retired tenured faculty who are serving in a pro-rata contract capacity may be considered for the peer role. Each evaluation committee member may serve in only one of these roles. The peer selected in the first year of a probationary faculty member’s evaluation cycle shall endeavor to remain on the evaluation committee for each year of the probationary faculty member’s subsequent evaluation cycles unless the peer is no longer an active District employee. In exceptional cases where this cannot be accommodated, a peer shall be selected from the two remaining potential peers submitted by the evaluee at the start of their probationary evaluation process. In every other three (3)-year cycle, starting with the first triennial evaluation, the evaluation committee for Professor triennial evaluations may consist of a peer only, provided there is mutual agreement of the evaluee and the appropriate manager. In these cases, the xxxx and chair shall sign the evaluation form as having been received only, without any further commentary, except in the area of responsiveness to administrative requests. The appropriate manager’s or department chair’s designee must be acceptable to the faculty member being evaluated. If the designee is not acceptable, the appropriate manager or department chair shall serve on the committee. In cases where the evaluee believes that the appropriate manager or department chair may not be able to perform an objective evaluation due to perceived bias, the evaluee may ask the appropriate Vice President to consult with the Site Compliance Officer to determine whether or not the appointment of appoint a replacement of remove that evaluator from that committee is warrantedcommittee. The evaluee’s claim of perceived bias must be verifiable with concrete evidence. The burden of proof of alleged bias remains with the evaluee. 15.1.7.2 Hereafter, all references in this Article to “appropriate manager” or "chair" shall be understood to include "or their his/her designee.” 15.1.7.3 Prior to the first committee meeting, each faculty member who is scheduled for evaluation must submit to their his/her appropriate manager a list of three (3) tenured faculty members acceptable as peer evaluators. The appropriate manager will select one (1) peer evaluator from this list of three (3), in consultation with the Department Chair. If, after written request of the appropriate manager, the faculty member who is scheduled for evaluation fails to submit this list of three (3) peer evaluators within ten (10) working days of the request, the appropriate manager will select the peer evaluator, provided this is done in consultation with the Department Chair. All those recommended or selected as peer evaluators must be willing to serve. 15.1.7.4 The peer evaluators must be specialists in the subject area in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned or in a subject area reasonably related to that in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned. All peer evaluators must be tenured (or tenure-track, in the cases of adjunct faculty evaluations) or retired faculty serving in a pro-rata capacity and in active status in this District. The subject matter specialist shall have the major role in evaluating the criterion of "Subject Matter Knowledge." 15.1.7.5 If there are not three (3) appropriate faculty within the District, the faculty member being evaluated may include in their her/his list of three (3) evaluators, evaluators from outside the District. In such cases, the outside peer evaluator must be a subject area specialist or a specialist in a subject area reasonably related to that in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned. It will be the responsibility of each campus Faculty Evaluation Coordinator to make the arrangements for external evaluators and to provide training on the evaluation criteria and process. 15.1.7.6 If there is a disagreement between the appropriate manager and the faculty member regarding peer selection, the disagreement will be resolved in a timely manner by the College President, or Continuing Education President regarding a Continuing Education Counselor, or his/her designee, and the College Faculty Evaluation Coordinator. The resolution shall be in writing and shall be sent to both the appropriate manager and the affected faculty member. 15.1.7.7 Upon mutual agreement between the appropriate manager and the evaluee, At the option of the evaluee, a second peer evaluator may serve on the evaluation committee following the selection process of submitting the names of three potential peers as outlined above. This second peer must be a tenured faculty member in active status in this District and but need not be a subject matter specialist. 15.1.7.8 In cases where the evaluee has a split assignment such that he/she reports to more than one manager and/or academic supervisor, the manager/academic supervisor under whom the evaluee has the greatest percentage of assignment shall be the “appropriate manager.” In the case that the second manager and/or appropriate academic supervisor also wishes to serve on the committee, Sections 15.1.7.1 through 15.1.7.7 above shall again be followed with the second manager and/or appropriate academic supervisor becoming an additional “appropriate manager,” in addition to an additional chair and an additional peer(s) being appointed following these above procedures.

Evaluation Committee - Composition and General Rules. 15.1.7.1 Faculty Evaluation Committees shall be composed of the appropriate immediate manager or their his/her designee, the Department/Program Department Chair or their his/her designee, and a peer evaluator. Retired tenured faculty who are serving in a pro-pro rata contract capacity may be considered for the peer role. Each evaluation committee member may serve in only one of these roles. The peer selected in the first year of a probationary faculty member’s member‟s evaluation cycle shall endeavor to remain on the evaluation committee for each year of the probationary faculty member’s member‟s subsequent evaluation cycles unless the peer is no longer an active District employee. In exceptional cases where this cannot be accommodated, a peer shall be selected from the two remaining potential peers submitted by the evaluee at the start of their probationary evaluation processcycles. In every other three (3)-year 3) year cycle, starting with the first triennial evaluation, the evaluation committee for Professor triennial evaluations may consist of a peer only, provided there is mutual agreement of the evaluee and the appropriate manager. In these cases, the xxxx and chair shall sign the evaluation form as having been received only, without any further commentary, except in the area of responsiveness to administrative requests. The appropriate manager’s manager‟s or department chair’s chair‟s designee must be acceptable to the faculty member being evaluated. If the designee is not acceptable, the appropriate manager or department chair shall serve on the committee. In cases where the evaluee believes that the appropriate manager or department chair may not be able to perform an objective evaluation due to perceived bias, the evaluee may ask the appropriate Vice President to consult with the Site Compliance Officer to determine whether or not the appointment of appoint a replacement of that evaluator from that committee is warrantedreplacement. The evaluee’s xxxxxxx‟s claim of perceived bias must be verifiable with concrete evidence. The burden of proof of alleged bias remains with the evaluee. 15.1.7.2 Hereafter, all references in this Article to “appropriate manager” or "chair" shall be understood to include "or their his/her designee.” 15.1.7.3 Prior to the first committee meeting, each faculty member who is scheduled for evaluation must submit to their his/her appropriate manager a list of three (3) tenured faculty members acceptable as peer evaluators. The appropriate manager will select one (1) peer evaluator from this list of three (3), in consultation with the Department Chair. If, after written request of the appropriate manager, the faculty member who is scheduled for evaluation fails to submit this list of three (3) peer evaluators within ten (10) working days of the request, the appropriate manager will select the peer evaluator, provided this is done in consultation with the Department Chair. All those recommended or selected as peer evaluators must be willing to serve. 15.1.7.4 The peer evaluators must be specialists in the subject area in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned or in a subject area reasonably related to that in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned. All peer evaluators must be tenured (or tenure-track, in the cases of adjunct faculty evaluations) or retired faculty serving in a pro-rata capacity and in active status in this District. The subject matter specialist shall have the major role in evaluating the criterion of "Subject Matter Knowledge." 15.1.7.5 If there are not three (3) appropriate faculty within the District, the faculty member being evaluated may include in their her/his list of three (3) evaluators, evaluators from outside the District. In such cases, the outside peer evaluator must be a subject area specialist or a specialist in a subject area reasonably related to that in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned. It will be the responsibility of each campus Faculty Evaluation Coordinator to make the arrangements for external evaluators and to provide training on the evaluation criteria and process.three

Evaluation Committee - Composition and General Rules. 15.1.7.1 Faculty Evaluation Committees shall be composed of the appropriate immediate manager or their his/her designee, the Department/Program Department Chair or their his/her designee, and a peer evaluator. Retired tenured faculty who are serving in a pro-rata contract capacity may be considered for the peer role. Each evaluation committee member may serve in only one of these roles. The peer selected in the first year of a probationary faculty member’s evaluation cycle shall endeavor to remain on the evaluation committee for each year of the probationary faculty member’s subsequent evaluation cycles unless the peer is no longer an active District employee. In exceptional cases where this cannot be accommodated, a peer shall be selected from the two remaining potential peers submitted by the evaluee at the start of their probationary evaluation process. In every other three (3)-year cycle, starting with the first triennial evaluation, the evaluation committee for Professor triennial evaluations may consist of a peer only, provided there is mutual agreement of the evaluee and the appropriate manager. In these cases, the xxxx and chair shall sign the evaluation form as having been received only, without any further commentary, except in the area of responsiveness to administrative requests. The appropriate manager’s or department chair’s designee must be acceptable to the faculty member being evaluated. If the designee is not acceptable, the appropriate manager or department chair shall serve on the committee. In cases where the evaluee believes that the appropriate manager or department chair may not be able to perform an objective evaluation due to perceived bias, the evaluee may ask the appropriate Vice President to consult with the Site Compliance Officer to determine whether or not the appointment of a replacement of that evaluator from that committee is warranted. The evaluee’s claim of perceived bias must be verifiable with concrete evidence. The burden of proof of alleged bias remains with the evaluee. 15.1.7.2 Hereafter, all references in this Article to “appropriate manager” or "chair" shall be understood to include "or their his/her designee.” 15.1.7.3 Prior to the first committee meeting, each faculty member who is scheduled for evaluation must submit to their his/her appropriate manager a list of three (3) tenured faculty members acceptable as peer evaluators. The appropriate manager will select one (1) peer evaluator from this list of three (3), in consultation with the Department Chair. If, after written request of the appropriate manager, the faculty member who is scheduled for evaluation fails to submit this list of three (3) peer evaluators within ten (10) working days of the request, the appropriate manager will select the peer evaluator, provided this is done in consultation with the Department Chair. All those recommended or selected as peer evaluators must be willing to serve. 15.1.7.4 The peer evaluators must be specialists in the subject area in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned or in a subject area reasonably related to that in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned. All peer evaluators must be tenured (or tenure-track, in the cases of adjunct faculty evaluations) or retired faculty serving in a pro-rata capacity and in active status in this District. The subject matter specialist shall have the major role in evaluating the criterion of "Subject Matter Knowledge." 15.1.7.5 If there are not three (3) appropriate faculty within the District, the faculty member being evaluated may include in their her/his list of three (3) evaluators, evaluators from outside the District. In such cases, the outside peer evaluator must be a subject area specialist or a specialist in a subject area reasonably related to that in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned. It will be the responsibility of each campus Faculty Evaluation Coordinator to make the arrangements for external evaluators and to provide training on the evaluation criteria and process.three

Evaluation Committee - Composition and General Rules. 15.1.7.1 Faculty Evaluation Committees shall be composed of the appropriate immediate manager or their designee, the Department/Program Department Chair or their designee, and a peer evaluator. Retired tenured faculty who are serving in a pro-rata contract capacity may be considered for the peer role. Each evaluation committee member may serve in only one of these roles. The peer selected in the first year of a probationary faculty member’s evaluation cycle shall endeavor to remain on the evaluation committee for each year of the probationary faculty member’s subsequent evaluation cycles unless the peer is no longer an active District employee. In exceptional cases where this cannot be accommodated, a peer shall be selected from the two remaining potential peers submitted by the evaluee at the start of their probationary evaluation process. In every other three (3)-year cycle, starting with the first triennial evaluation, the evaluation committee for Professor triennial evaluations may consist of a peer only, provided there is mutual agreement of the evaluee and the appropriate manager. In these cases, the xxxx and chair shall sign the evaluation form as having been received only, without any further commentary, except in the area of responsiveness to administrative requests. The appropriate manager’s or department chair’s designee must be acceptable to the faculty member being evaluated. If the designee is not acceptable, the appropriate manager or department chair shall serve on the committee. In cases where the evaluee believes that the appropriate manager or department chair may not be able to perform an objective evaluation due to perceived bias, the evaluee may ask the appropriate Vice President to consult with the Site Compliance Officer to determine whether or not the appointment of a replacement of that evaluator from that committee is warranted. The evaluee’s claim of perceived bias must be verifiable with concrete evidence. The burden of proof of alleged bias remains with the evaluee. 15.1.7.2 Hereafter, all references in this Article to “appropriate manager” or "chair" shall be understood to include "or their designee.” 15.1.7.3 Prior to the first committee meeting, each faculty member who is scheduled for evaluation must submit to their appropriate manager a list of three (3) tenured faculty members acceptable as peer evaluators. The appropriate manager will select one (1) peer evaluator from this list of three (3), in consultation with the Department Chair. If, after written request of the appropriate manager, the faculty member who is scheduled for evaluation fails to submit this list of three (3) peer evaluators within ten (10) working days of the request, the appropriate manager will select the peer evaluator, provided this is done in consultation with the Department Chair. All those recommended or selected as peer evaluators must be willing to serve. 15.1.7.4 The peer evaluators must be specialists in the subject area in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned or in a subject area reasonably related to that in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned. All peer evaluators must be tenured (or tenure-track, in the cases of adjunct faculty evaluations) or retired faculty serving in a pro-rata capacity and in active status in this District. The subject matter specialist shall have the major role in evaluating the criterion of "Subject Matter Knowledge." 15.1.7.5 If there are not three (3) appropriate faculty within the District, the faculty member being evaluated may include in their list of three (3) evaluators, evaluators from outside the District. In such cases, the outside peer evaluator must be a subject area specialist or a specialist in a subject area reasonably related to that in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned. It will be the responsibility of each campus Faculty Evaluation Coordinator to make the arrangements for external evaluators and to provide training on the evaluation criteria and process.

Evaluation Committee - Composition and General Rules. 15.1.7.1 Faculty Evaluation Committees shall be composed of the appropriate immediate manager or their his/her designee, the Department/Program Department Chair or their his/her designee, and a peer evaluator. Retired tenured faculty who are serving in a pro-rata contract capacity may be considered for the peer role. Each evaluation committee member may serve in only one of these roles. The peer selected in the first year of a probationary faculty member’s evaluation cycle shall endeavor to remain on the evaluation committee for each year of the probationary faculty member’s subsequent evaluation cycles unless the peer is no longer an active District employee. In exceptional cases where this cannot be accommodated, a peer shall be selected from the two remaining potential peers submitted by the evaluee at the start of their probationary evaluation process. In every other three (3)-year cycle, starting with the first triennial evaluation, the evaluation committee for Professor triennial evaluations may consist of a peer only, provided there is mutual agreement of the evaluee and the appropriate manager. In these cases, the xxxx and chair shall sign the evaluation form as having been received only, without any further commentary, except in the area of responsiveness to administrative requests. The appropriate manager’s or department chair’s designee must be acceptable to the faculty member being evaluated. If the designee is not acceptable, the appropriate manager or department chair shall serve on the committee. In cases where the evaluee believes that the appropriate manager or department chair may not be able to perform an objective evaluation due to perceived bias, the evaluee may ask the appropriate Vice President to consult with the Site Compliance Officer to determine whether or not the appointment of appoint a replacement of that evaluator from that committee is warrantedreplacement. The evalueexxxxxxx’s claim of perceived bias must be verifiable with concrete evidence. The burden of proof of alleged bias remains with the evaluee. 15.1.7.2 Hereafter, all references in this Article to “appropriate manager” or "chair" shall be understood to include "or their his/her designee.” 15.1.7.3 Prior to the first committee meeting, each faculty member who is scheduled for evaluation must submit to their his/her appropriate manager a list of three (3) tenured faculty members acceptable as peer evaluators. The appropriate manager will select one (1) peer evaluator from this list of three (3), in consultation with the Department Chair. If, after written request of the appropriate manager, the faculty member who is scheduled for evaluation fails to submit this list of three (3) peer evaluators within ten (10) working days of the request, the appropriate manager will select the peer evaluator, provided this is done in consultation with the Department Chair. All those recommended or selected as peer evaluators must be willing to serve. 15.1.7.4 The peer evaluators must be specialists in the subject area in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned or in a subject area reasonably related to that in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned. All peer evaluators must be tenured (or tenure-track, in the cases of adjunct faculty evaluations) or retired faculty serving in a pro-rata capacity and in active status in this District. The subject matter specialist shall have the major role in evaluating the criterion of "Subject Matter Knowledge." 15.1.7.5 If there are not three (3) appropriate faculty within the District, the faculty member being evaluated may include in their her/his list of three (3) evaluators, evaluators from outside the District. In such cases, the outside peer evaluator must be a subject area specialist or a specialist in a subject area reasonably related to that in which the evaluee teaches or is assigned. It will be the responsibility of each campus Faculty Evaluation Coordinator to make the arrangements for external evaluators and to provide training on the evaluation criteria and process.three