A campus of The California State University

Office of the Academic Senate • One Washington Square • San Jose, California 95192-0024 •408-924-2440 Fax: 408-924-2451

SS-S06-1

At its meeting of March 13, 2006, the Academic Senate passed the following Sense of the Senate Resolution presented by Senator Bros for the Professional Standards Committee.

SENSE-OF-THE-SENATE RESOLUTION

PERFORMANCE REVIEW CYCLE

WHEREAS: The Professional Standards Committee requires information on the degree of consensus in the Academic Senate with respect to the four inter-connected key elements proposed in AS 1310; and

WHEREAS: One of the key elements in AS 1310 was the proposal to change the normal performance review cycle from the current 2-4-6 year to a 3-6 year cycle with the stipulation that performance reviews could occur in other years by request; and

WHEREAS: The current 2-4-6 year cycle for performance reviews (retention, tenure and promotion) is not adequate because, in most cases, there is insufficient material and history for an effective evaluation in the second year and, in view of the fact that the manuscript review process is now typically longer than one year, that the time interval between the 4^th and 6^th year review is insufficient to allow a faculty member to respond to a request from reviewing bodies for additional scholarly, artistic, or professional achievements; and

WHEREAS: The proposed 3-6 year cycle for performance reviews also reduces workload for RTP reviewing bodies;

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate supports the concept that performance reviews would normally be conducted in the candidates’ third and sixth year with the provision that the candidate, the Department RTP Committee, the Department Chair, the College RTP Committee, or the Dean may request a performance review to occur earlier than the regularly scheduled performance review.