Common use of External Evaluation Clause in Contracts

External Evaluation. In cases involving tenure and promotion to Associate or (Full) Professor, the quality and significance of the work must be evaluated by full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the department as well as the Department Chairperson, or in academic units without Chairpersons, the Xxxx. In addition, the department must solicit evaluations from acknowledged scholars and practitioners in the discipline of the candidate at other institutions, nationally or internationally. The materials submitted for external review shall include, within reasonable quantitative limits set by the Chair, all those selected by the faculty member. These scholars and practitioners should be at “arm’s length” with the candidate and be capable of providing an objective, informed assessment of the candidate’s work. Typically the external evaluators will have an academic rank equal to or above the rank of the promotion sought. Evaluators will be selected according to procedures outlined in department or school RPT guidelines. Whatever procedures are adopted, candidates will be given an opportunity to object, in writing, to proposed evaluators for cause, meaning actual bias or prejudice toward the candidate or lack of qualifications to review the candidate’s record. The candidate also has the responsibility to communicate to the Chair or Xxxx in writing any factor that might prejudice the “arm’s length” standing. The authority to name the final list of evaluators rests with the Chairperson or Xxxx, but in cases where the Chair or Xxxx chooses evaluators challenged for cause by the candidate, he or she must provide a written statement explaining why he/she did not sustain the written objections of the candidate. The final list of evaluators must be chosen in a way that ensures that the candidate cannot identify who has been asked to serve as an external evaluator. An “arm’s length” evaluator is a person who is not compromised in his or her ability to provide an objective evaluation of the professional performance and reputation of the individual being evaluated. The following are examples of the professional or personal relationships that are commonly perceived to put in question the objectivity of an external evaluator: • having acted as the thesis or dissertation advisor for the candidate • having been a faculty or student colleague at a previous institution • having been a co-investigator on grants, a co-author on publications or a co-inventor of intellectual property • having related to the candidate by birth or marriage • having a financial partnership or consulting arrangement with the candidate • having a close personal or family friend (vacation together, godparents etc.) Evaluators who are personally known to the candidate are not, per se, excluded from eligibility, nor are persons with whom the faculty member being evaluated may have discussed a project, attended a conference or participated on a professional committee. External evaluators should be solicited in confidence. The evaluators should be informed as to who will see their letters of evaluation once submitted. In addition to providing the representative selection of the candidate’s publications, the Chair will provide the outside evaluators with the candidate’s C.V. and the RPT guidelines for the school, college, unit or department to aid the reviewer in his/her assessment of the candidate’s work. The faculty member being considered for reappointment, promotion or tenure has the right to see the evaluators’ letters but in such a form that the identity of the evaluator will be protected by eliminating all identifying material such as letterheads, names and titles and references. While the candidate is not entitled to know the identity of the external evaluators, faculty members and administrators who are reviewing the candidate’s dossier are entitled to such information.

External Evaluation. In cases involving tenure and promotion to Associate or (Full) Professor, the quality and significance of the work must be evaluated by full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the department as well as the Department Chairperson, or in academic units without Chairpersons, the Xxxx. In addition, the department must solicit evaluations from acknowledged scholars and practitioners in the discipline of the candidate at other institutions, nationally or internationally. The materials submitted for external review shall include, within reasonable quantitative limits set by the Chair, all those selected by the faculty member. These scholars and practitioners should be at “arm’s length” with the candidate and be capable of providing an objective, informed assessment of the candidate’s work. Typically the external evaluators will have an academic rank equal to or above the rank of the promotion sought. Evaluators will be selected according to procedures outlined in department or school RPT guidelines. Whatever procedures are adopted, candidates will be given an opportunity to object, in writing, to proposed evaluators for cause, meaning actual bias or prejudice toward the candidate or lack of qualifications to review the candidate’s record. The candidate also has the responsibility to communicate to the Chair or Xxxx in writing any factor that might prejudice the “arm’s length” standing. The authority to name the final list of evaluators rests with the Chairperson or Xxxx, but in cases where the Chair or Xxxx chooses evaluators challenged for cause by the candidate, he or she must provide a written statement explaining why he/she did not sustain the written objections of the candidate. The final list of evaluators must be chosen in a way that ensures that the candidate cannot identify who has been asked to serve as an external evaluator. An “arm’s length” evaluator is a person who is not compromised in his or her ability to provide an objective evaluation of the professional performance and reputation of the individual being evaluated. The following are examples of the professional or personal relationships that are commonly perceived to put in question the objectivity of an external evaluator: • having acted as the thesis or dissertation advisor for the candidate • having been a faculty or student colleague at a previous institution • having been a co-investigator on grants, a co-author on publications or a co-inventor of intellectual property • having related to the candidate by birth or marriage • having a financial partnership or consulting arrangement with the candidate • having a close personal or family friend (vacation together, godparents etc.) Evaluators who are personally known to the candidate are not, per se, excluded from eligibility, nor are persons with whom the faculty member being evaluated may have discussed a project, attended a conference or participated on a professional committee. External evaluators should be solicited in confidence. The evaluators should be informed as to who will see their letters of evaluation once submitted. In addition to providing the representative selection of the candidate’s publications, the Chair will provide the outside evaluators with the candidate’s C.V. and the RPT guidelines for the school, college, unit or department to aid the reviewer in his/her assessment of the candidate’s work. The faculty member being considered for reappointment, promotion or tenure has the right to see the evaluators’ letters but in such a form that the identity of the evaluator will be protected by eliminating all identifying material such as letterheads, names and titles and references. While the candidate is not entitled to know the identity of the external evaluators, faculty members and administrators who are reviewing the candidate’s dossier are entitled to such information.

External Evaluation. In cases involving tenure and promotion to Associate or (Full) Professor, the quality and significance of the work must be evaluated by full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the department as well as the Department Chairperson, or in academic units without Chairpersons, the Xxxx. In addition, the department must solicit evaluations from acknowledged scholars and practitioners in the discipline of the candidate at other institutions, nationally or internationally. The materials submitted for external review shall include, within reasonable quantitative limits set by the Chair, all those selected by the faculty member. These scholars and practitioners should be at “arm’s length” with the candidate and be capable of providing an objective, informed assessment of the candidate’s work. Typically the external evaluators will have an academic rank equal to or above the rank of the promotion sought. Evaluators will be selected according to procedures outlined in department or school RPT guidelines. Whatever procedures are adopted, candidates will be given an opportunity to object, in writing, to proposed evaluators for cause, meaning actual bias or prejudice toward the candidate or lack of qualifications to review the candidate’s record. The candidate also has the responsibility to communicate to the Chair or Xxxx in writing any factor that might prejudice the “arm’s length” standing. The authority to name the final list of evaluators rests with the Chairperson or Xxxx, but in cases where the Chair or Xxxx chooses evaluators challenged for cause by the candidate, he or she must provide a written statement explaining why he/she did not sustain the written objections of the candidate. The final list of evaluators must be chosen in a way that ensures that the candidate cannot identify who has been asked to serve as an external evaluator. An “arm’s length” evaluator is a person who is not compromised in his or her ability to provide an objective evaluation of the professional performance and reputation of the individual being evaluated. The following are examples of the professional or personal relationships that are commonly perceived to put in question the objectivity of an external evaluator: • having acted as the thesis or dissertation advisor for the candidate • having been a faculty or student colleague at a previous institution • having been a co-investigator on grants, a co-author on publications or a co-inventor of intellectual property • having related to the candidate by birth or marriage • having a financial partnership or consulting arrangement with the candidate • having a close personal or family friend (vacation together, godparents etc.) Evaluators who are personally known to the candidate are not, per se, excluded from eligibility, nor are persons with whom the a. For each faculty member being evaluated may have discussed a projectfor tenure or promotion, attended a conference outside evaluators will be asked to assess the quality of his or participated on a her professional committee. External evaluators should be solicited in confidencework. The outside evaluators should be informed as for tenure cases must have professional status comparable to who will see their letters of evaluation once submitted. In addition to providing the representative selection of the candidate’s publicationstenured associate or full professors, the Chair will provide and the outside evaluators for promotion to full professor cases must have professional status comparable to tenured full professors. b. In the spring of the year prior to the tenure or promotion decision, the director of the principal program in which the evaluatee is located, (or, in cases where that program director is the evaluatee, a tenured member of the principal division in which the evaluatee is located, as designated by the chair of that division) will prepare a list of at least five potential outside evaluators, complete with rationales explaining why these individuals are being proposed. At the same time, the evaluatee will also prepare a list of at least five potential outside evaluators, together with rationales for each of these individuals and descriptions of the degree of contact he or she has had with each of them. External reviewers should not have prior close affiliations with the candidate’s C.V. , such as having been collaborators or co-authors on projects or in a direct advisory role. If he or she so wishes, the evaluatee can also submit a list of outside evaluators who he or she thinks could not judge the merit of the file in an impartial manner. The evaluatee will submit their list to the xxxx of the college. The director of the program or the designate of the division will not reveal his or her own list to the evaluatee. c. The director of the program (or the designate of the division) will then meet with the xxxx of the college, and the RPT guidelines two of them will decide which of the ten potential outside evaluators named in the two lists will be invited to serve and in what order they will be invited. There should be at least one outside evaluator from each list. No outside evaluators will be chosen from the list of unsuitable outside evaluators submitted by the evaluatee. d. The xxxx of the college will secure three outside evaluators from the list, for tenure cases, two for promotion to full professor, a process that must be completed no later than the 9th Monday of the fall semester. The outside evaluators will be contacted by the xxxx of the college, who will send the following material: the curriculum vitae, the evaluatee’s assessment of professional work since the last evaluation (or since the initial hiring for the schoolfirst evaluation), collegelong-term plans for future professional work, unit and samples of research or department to aid artistic achievements (selected by the reviewer in his/her assessment evaluatee). The xxxx of the candidate’s work. The faculty member being considered for reappointment, promotion or tenure has college will ask to receive the right to see reports from the evaluators’ letters but in such a form that outside evaluators no later than December 1. e. Should the evaluatee ascertain the identity of an outside evaluator and enter into contact with this person regarding the evaluation prior to the submission of the letter, the letter of that evaluator will automatically be protected stricken from the file. f. External reviews for grant or fellowship application material cannot be included in the file or examined by eliminating all identifying material such as letterheads, names and titles and references. While the candidate is not entitled to know FERC unless placed there by the identity of the external evaluators, faculty members and administrators who are reviewing the candidate’s dossier are entitled to such informationapplicant.

External Evaluation. In cases involving tenure and promotion to Associate or (Full) Professor, the quality and significance of the work must be evaluated by full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the department as well as the Department Chairperson, or in academic units without Chairpersons, the Xxxx. In addition, the department must solicit evaluations from acknowledged scholars and practitioners in the discipline of the candidate at other institutions, nationally or internationally. The materials submitted for external review shall include, within reasonable quantitative limits set by the Chair, all those selected by the faculty member. These scholars and practitioners should be at “arm’s length” with the candidate and be capable of providing an objective, informed assessment of the candidate’s work. Typically the external evaluators will have an academic rank equal to or above the rank of the promotion sought. Evaluators will be selected according to procedures outlined in department or school RPT guidelines. Whatever procedures are adopted, candidates will be given an opportunity to object, in writing, to proposed evaluators for cause, meaning actual bias or prejudice toward the candidate or lack of qualifications to review the candidate’s record. The candidate also has the responsibility to communicate to the Chair or Xxxx in writing any factor that might prejudice the “arm’s length” standing. The authority to name the final list of evaluators rests with the Chairperson or Xxxx, but in cases where the Chair or Xxxx chooses evaluators challenged for cause by the candidate, he or she must provide a written statement explaining why he/she did not sustain the written objections of the candidate. The final list of evaluators must be chosen in a way that ensures that the candidate cannot identify who has been asked to serve as an external evaluator. An “arm’s length” evaluator is a person who is not compromised in his or her ability to provide an objective evaluation of the professional performance and reputation of the individual being evaluated. The following are examples of the professional or personal relationships that are commonly perceived to put in question the objectivity of an external evaluator: •  having acted as the thesis or dissertation advisor for the candidate •  having been a faculty or student colleague at a previous institution •  having been a co-investigator on grants, a co-author on publications or a co-inventor of intellectual property •  having related to the candidate by birth or marriage •  having a financial partnership or consulting arrangement with the candidate •  having a close personal or family friend (vacation together, godparents etc.) Evaluators who are personally known to the candidate are not, per se, excluded from eligibility, nor are persons with whom the faculty member being evaluated may have discussed a project, attended a conference or participated on a professional committee. External evaluators should be solicited in confidence. The evaluators should be informed as to who will see their letters of evaluation once submitted. In addition to providing the representative selection of the candidate’s publications, the Chair will provide the outside evaluators with the candidate’s C.V. and the RPT guidelines for the school, college, unit or department to aid the reviewer in his/her assessment of the candidate’s work. The faculty member being considered for reappointment, promotion or tenure has the right to see the evaluators’ letters but in such a form that the identity of the evaluator will be protected by eliminating all identifying material such as letterheads, names and titles and references. While the candidate is not entitled to know the identity of the external evaluators, faculty members and administrators who are reviewing the candidate’s dossier are entitled to such information.

External Evaluation. In cases involving tenure and promotion to Associate or (Full) Professor, the quality and significance of the work must be evaluated by full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the department as well as the Department Chairperson, or in academic units without Chairpersons, the Xxxx. In addition, the department must solicit evaluations from acknowledged scholars and practitioners in the discipline of the candidate at other institutions, nationally or internationally. The materials submitted for external review shall include, within reasonable quantitative limits set by the Chair, all those selected by the faculty member. These scholars and practitioners should be at “arm’s length” with the candidate and be capable of providing an objective, informed assessment of the candidate’s work. Typically Typically, the external evaluators will have an academic rank equal to or above the rank of the promotion sought. Evaluators will be selected according to procedures outlined in department or school RPT guidelines. Whatever procedures are adopted, candidates will be given an opportunity to object, in writing, to proposed evaluators for cause, meaning actual bias or prejudice toward the candidate or lack of qualifications to review the candidate’s record. The candidate also has the responsibility to communicate to the Chair or Xxxx in writing any factor that might prejudice the “arm’s length” standing. The authority to name the final list of evaluators rests with the Chairperson or Xxxx, but in cases where the Chair or Xxxx chooses evaluators challenged for cause by the candidate, he the Chair or she Xxxx must provide a written statement explaining why he/she they did not sustain the written objections of the candidate. The final list of evaluators must be chosen in a way that ensures that the candidate cannot identify who has been asked to serve as an external evaluator. An “arm’s length” evaluator is a person who is not compromised in his or her their ability to provide an objective evaluation of the professional performance and reputation of the individual being evaluated. The following are examples of the professional or personal relationships that are commonly perceived to put in question the objectivity of an external evaluator: • having acted as the thesis or dissertation advisor for the candidate • having been a faculty or student colleague at a previous institution • having been a co-investigator on grants, a co-author on publications or a co-inventor of intellectual property • having related to the candidate by birth or marriage • having a financial partnership or consulting arrangement with the candidate • having a close personal or family friend (vacation together, godparents etc.) Evaluators who are personally known to the candidate are not, per se, excluded from eligibility, nor are persons with whom the faculty member being evaluated may have discussed a project, attended a conference or participated on a professional committee. External evaluators should be solicited in confidence. The evaluators should be informed as to who will see their letters of evaluation once submitted. In addition to providing the representative selection of the candidate’s publications, the Chair will provide the outside evaluators with the candidate’s C.V. and the RPT guidelines for the school, college, unit or department to aid the reviewer in his/her their assessment of the candidate’s work. The faculty member being considered for reappointment, promotion or tenure has the right to see the evaluators’ letters but in such a form that the identity of the evaluator will be protected by eliminating all identifying material such as letterheads, names and titles and references. While the candidate is not entitled to know the identity of the external evaluators, faculty members and administrators who are reviewing the candidate’s dossier are entitled to such information.