Common use of Merit Review Clause in Contracts

Merit Review. A. Annual Merit Review for NTT Faculty. In addition to review for renewal, NTT faculty, like all instructional staff including tenure-track faculty, must be evaluated annually according to Article VIII: Merit Evaluation. These evaluations of performance will take the form of standard faculty review procedures. The chair of the department is responsible for annual evaluation of the NTT faculty member for teaching, service and scholarship according to department criteria. Departmental/unit criteria for merit must be developed by departmental/unit faculty and be approved by them, and the departmental/unit chair, xxxx, and xxxxxxx. The official department criteria must include the date of faculty approval. Since NTT faculty have responsibility primarily for teaching, peer review by senior faculty should be utilized by the department chair. Evaluations will be kept on file as one basis for decisions regarding reappointment. The general criteria for annual review for merit (salary) raises of NTT faculty are shown below, but the specific criteria will be developed by departmental/unit faculty and be approved by them, and the departmental/unit chair, respective xxxx, and xxxxxxx and may vary depending on department and college needs. Teaching and teaching-related activities and professional development 70% Service to the faculty member’s profession, FHSU and the community 20% Scholarship 10% B. Appeal. Any NTT who is not satisfied with his or her annual merit review, or who has not been reappointed and believes the decision did not follow the procedures required by this policy may file an appeal using the grievance procedure (Article XXIII) of the MOA. The grievance procedure may not be used to simply challenge the decision to not reappoint NTT faculty.