Ohio Admin. Code 3339-7-05 - Annual review of probationary members of the instructional staff
(A) Each department
will establish a committee to initiate tenure recommendations. The membership
of this committee is to be determined by the department. In each year of the
probationary period, the instructional staff member submits to the department a
report of professional activities that addresses the tenure criteria.
Subsequently, the department chair or program director (when appropriate),
after consultation with the department tenure committee, prepares an annual
written evaluation of the member's accomplishments; an evaluation that will
provide an assessment of the member's progress toward tenure, including
strengths and weaknesses and specific recommendations for improvement. The
evaluation prepared by the department chair or program director (when
appropriate) must be reviewed and formally acknowledged by the department
tenure committee, and the probationer before forwarding to the dean, so that
errors of fact and omission might be eliminated. Tenure eligible faculty with a
dual appointment must elect their tenure initiating department and division
(Oxford or regional) by December 31, 2016. The initiating department and
division will be responsible for preparing the annual evaluation. The
evaluation must be reviewed and formally acknowledged by both the Oxford and
regional deans.
(B) Concerns
regarding professional collegiality should be shared as promptly as possible
with the person whose behavior is questioned. Notice of uncollegiality must be
given to that person in writing no later than his or her next annual evaluation
after occurrence of the behavior considered uncollegial.
(C) In the event the tenure committee's
evaluation differs from that of the chair or program director (when
appropriate), the tenure committee shall forward its evaluation to the
probationer, with a copy to the dean of the regional campuses (when
appropriate). Such evaluations are subsequently reviewed by the dean, and then
officially transmitted to the probationer. Whenever the dean's evaluation
differs from that of the department chair, the program director (when
appropriate) or the department tenure committee, the dean must so inform the
staff member, the chair, the program director (when appropriate), the
committee, and the dean of the regional campuses (when appropriate), in
writing, citing the basis for the judgment.
(D)
In
Begining the third year of qualifying service
and continuing throughout the candidate's probationary
period, the department tenure committee will also prepare a separate
written evaluation of the instructional staff member's progress toward tenure,
including strengths and weaknesses and specific recommendations for
improvement, and share that evaluation with the probationer and the department
chair or program director (when appropriate). The chair or program director
(when appropriate) will also write an evaluation of the probationer's progress
toward tenure.
(E) The provost
reviews the evaluations in the third, fourth, and fifth years of a candidate's
probationary period. Whenever the provost's evaluation differs from what has
already been recorded, this judgment, with reasons, will be reported in writing
to the candidate, the department tenure committee, the department chair, the
program director (when appropriate), and the dean. The complete documentation
should also be distributed to the dean of the regional campuses (when
appropriate).
(F) Early in the
candidate's final year of probationary service, the department tenure committee
undertakes a review of his or her cumulative professional record and makes a
positive or negative recommendation for tenure to the department chair or
program director (when appropriate). After receiving the department tenure
committee's recommendation, the department chair or program director (when
appropriate) makes a positive or negative recommendation. The candidate's
application is then advanced to the dean, who makes a positive or negative
recommendation. The university promotion and tenure committee then considers
all candidates who have received a positive recommendation from the department
committee, the department chair, the program director (when appropriate), or
the dean. Candidates who receive a positive recommendation from the university
promotion and tenure committee are advanced to the provost for consideration.
Candidates who receive the provost's positive recommendation are advanced to
the president. Candidates receiving the positive recommendation of the
president are advanced to the board of trustees for final action.
Notes
Promulgated Under: 111.15
Statutory Authority: 3339.01
Rule Amplifies: 3339.01
Prior Effective Dates: 10/14/2005, 10/31/2006, 11/14/2009, 09/17/2010, 10/14/2011, 09/13/2012, 09/12/2013, 11/03/2016
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
No prior version found.