News
Clarification of Peer Review Process for Challenged Evaluations
General Counsel for the University ruled that since the code did not specifically state evaluations could be grieved, faculty could no longer do so, as had been the case in the past. As a result of this, the Faculty Senate's Bylaws and Code Committee drafted an interim Peer Review Process to allow faculty to challenge an evaluation with which they disagree. The senate approved the revision and it was brought forward to the Regents.
The interim policy allowed the peer review committee to make a recommendation regarding the evaluation, but no final decision was permitted. The revision now allows for a final determination on the evaluation.
On Friday, March 17, 2006 Senate Chair Leah Wilds presented a request to the Board of Regents to revise UNR's Peer Review Process to include a final decision made by the President or his designee. This policy change was approved by the Regents.
Here is a llink to a copy of the revised policy:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/GovDoc/PeerReview_3.06_.pdf
(Campus Email Anncounement,Linda M. Kuchenbecker, Faculty Senate, 3/22/06)
Further Clarification: Faculty Peer Review Process
Based on inquiries from several faculty regarding the desire for further clarification of the peer review process, we offer the following clarification and details.
Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 4 concerning evaluations was created by the Board in January 2004. This new section resulted from Chancellor Jane Nichols’ work, beginning in 2002, with Faculty Senate chairs on topics that the faculty were interested in seeing added to the Handbook. Subsection 5 of the section created in 2004 provided, in part, as follows:
5. Academic and administrative faculty who disagree with the supervisor’s evaluation may submit a written rejoinder and/or request a peer evaluation as provided in the institution’s bylaws. The supervisor’s official evaluation and the faculty member’s rejoinder and/or peer evaluation will be retained in the faculty member’s personnel file.
The UNR Faculty Senate developed the new peer evaluation process pursuant to the requirements of this subsection (click here for the UNR peer review policy). Recently, the Faculty Senate sought an amendment to Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 4 to clarify that the President may “change” the faculty member’s final evaluation based on the recommendation of the peer evaluation committee by preparing an addendum attached to the front of the evaluation. The Board approved this change at its March meeting. The revised language now reads:
5. Academic and administrative faculty who disagree with the supervisor’s evaluation may submit a written rejoinder and/or request a peer evaluation as provided in the institution’s bylaws. The supervisor’s official evaluation and the faculty member’s rejoinder and/or peer evaluation will be retained in the faculty member’s personnel file. If the peer evaluation results in a recommendation that the initial evaluation be changed, that recommendation shall be forwarded to the President or designee of the institution, who, at his or her discretion, may change the faculty member's evaluation by means of an addendum attached to the front of the evaluation stating how the evaluation is being changed and the reasons for the change. If the President or designee does not change the evaluation, the reasons shall also be stated by means of an addendum attached to the front of the evaluation. The President or designee shall sign the addendum and provide a copy to the faculty member.
(Campus Email Annoucement, Leah M. Wilds, Faculty Senate Chair, 3/31/06)
