Senate Document Number 3701S

Date of Senate Approval 05/03/01

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Statement of Faculty Senate Action:

EC 3:   Procedure and documents for reappointment, tenure or promotion (References: SD1092S; UNCA Faculty Handbook, Section 3.5, pp. 34-39)

Background Information

The Tenure Committee Task Force was established by the Senate Executive Committee and charged with evaluating all existing UNCA policies and documents regarding reappointment, tenure and promotion. During its meetings this semester, the Task Force divided its activities into the following tasks:

(1) Revising the description of procedures and documents for evaluation of faculty.

(2) Revising the guidelines for making reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions in tandem with revising UNCA's Tenure Policies and Regulations.

The first task requires only internal approval. The second task, which involves the UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations, requires additional approval by both the UNCA Board of Trustees and the UNC Board of Governors. This document revises the description of the procedures and documents for evaluation of faculty, the first task in the list above.

Structure of Current Faculty Handbook

The description of procedures and documents for evaluating faculty members is found in Section 3.5 (pp.34-39) of the Faculty Handbook. The complete list of current subsections is as follows:

Section 3.5 Tenure, Reappointment, Promotion - Procedures

3.5.1 Policy

3.5.2 Granting of Rank and Tenure to Administrators

3.5.3 Guidelines for Making Recommendations for Reappointment, Tenure and

Promotion for Faculty (SD1092S)

3.5.4 Department Chair/Program Director's Evaluation and Recommendation

3.5.4.1 Procedure for Evaluation of Faculty Members (SD1092S)

3.5.4.2 Documents to Submit (SD1092S)

3.5.4.3 Issues Chair Should Address (SD1092S)

3.5.4.4 Issues Candidate Should Address (SD1092S)

Requested Senate Action: New titles for Section 3.5

The titles used throughout this section are ineffective descriptions of the section contents. The Task Force recommends changing section titles as follows:

Section 3.5 Policies and Procedures Governing Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion

3.5.1 Institutional Policies on Personnel Decisions

3.5.2 Policy on the Granting of Rank and Tenure to Administrators

3.5.3 Guidelines for the Awarding of Reappointment, Tenure and

Promotion to Faculty

3.5.4 Procedure for Evaluating Faculty Members for Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion

3.5.4.1 Summary of the Evaluation Procedure

3.5.4.2 Documents for Evaluation by the Office of Academic Affairs

3.5.4.3 Guidelines for Preparation of Documents by Candidates

3.5.4.4 Guidelines for Preparation of Documents by Chairs/Directors

Requested Senate Action: New contents for Section 3.5.4

Because this section is out of date and difficult to follow, the Task Force recommends deleting the current section and replacing it with the new Section 3.5.4 described below. Sections 3.5.4.2 through 3.5.4.4 are derived from SD1092S and in those sections the Task Force has limited its editing to reorganization and updating of information.

Although the Handbook identifies Section 3.5.4.1 (Procedures) as derived from SD1092S, the actual document does not include any of this information. In fact, we have been unable to locate a Senate document generating this section. It also is seriously incomplete and the Task Force has proposed significant revision of its contents.

The proposed text for each element is followed by an italicized description of how the new contents differ from the existing section, for the Senate's information.

Proposed Revision of Section 3.5.4:

3.5.4 Procedure for Evaluating Faculty Members for Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion [new title]

3.5.4.1 Summary of the Evaluation Procedure (new title)

1. The evaluation procedure is applied to all faculty members on nine or twelve month contracts who are eligible for reappointment, tenure or promotion. The term "candidate" in subsequent items refers to the faculty member undergoing evaluation. The term "Chair" refers to the Department Chair or Program Director responsible for evaluating the candidate.

[The existing section limits evaluation to faculty teaching at least a half-time load. In practice, faculty teaching less than a half-time load are brought to the Committee of Tenured Faculty for evaluation.]

2. For faculty whose contracts begin in August, the evaluation process begins in Fall of the year of review. Faculty whose contracts begin at other times should consult with the VCAA for their specific review timelines.

A. In the case of a contractually required review (i.e., a reappointment or tenure review), the VCAA begins the process by sending a notice of review to each candidate with a copy to the faculty member's Chair. The notice of review specifies the documents to be prepared and the timetable for the review process.

[The existing section omits reference to the VCAA notice currently sent to each faculty member up for a required review, inaccurately identifying the Chair as the person who starts the process. In addition, the existing section and makes reference to a nonexistent form that each candidate must complete.]

B. In the case of a requested review (i.e., a promotion or early tenure review), the candidate initiates the process, notifying his/her Department Chair of the request for review. Faculty members are encouraged to meet with their Chairs to discuss the request and to consider the likelihood of Chair and Department support before pursuing the request. If the faculty member decides to pursue the request, he/she notifies the VCAA who then sends the candidate a notice of review as described above. Faculty members considering early tenure reviews or promotion reviews prior to the awarding of tenure should note the following information:

[The existing section does not specify any process for requested reviews. We believe this is important to include in a statement of procedure. We further believe that the process should be initiated by the faculty member and should involve consultation with the Chair.]

1) If a faculty member requests an early tenure review and is denied tenure, the consequence is the same as being denied tenure at a contractually scheduled review (see UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations, Section III-D-3).

2) A request for promotion prior to the awarding of tenure automatically requires an early tenure review (UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations, Section III-B-2). If the faculty member is denied tenure, the consequence is the same as being denied tenure at a contractually scheduled review. However, the faculty member may be awarded tenure and denied promotion, in which case he/she may request promotion again at a later date.

[The existing section omits discussion of the potential consequences of requesting early reviews for tenure or promotion prior to tenure. We believe this is important to include in a statement of procedure.]

3. Each faculty member under review prepares an evaluation file including a Candidate's Statement, a Fall semester Faculty Record and an up-to-date curriculum vitae of his/her professional career. (Information about the format and contents of the Candidate's Statement is available in Section 3.5.4.3.) If the candidate desires, letters of recommendation from students and/or colleagues and samples of professional work may be collected for submission at this time. All materials must be submitted to the Chair by the deadline specified in the notice of review.

[The existing section omits reference to the now required Fall semester Faculty Record and to the practice of permitting candidates to submit additional materials to the Chair for review at the Department level.]

4. The Chair adds copies of the candidate's annual Faculty Records and Merit Evaluations, student evaluation rating summaries and comments, and peer reviews of the faculty member's teaching to this file. These additional materials should cover the full period of time between the faculty member's last review and the current review. The Chair makes these materials available to the tenured members of the Department for their review.

[The existing section makes no reference to this phase of the process although it is standard procedure at UNCA and necessary for a thorough departmental review.]

5. In certain circumstances, this process is modified as described below to ensure a fair and comprehensive evaluation.

A. When the faculty member under review is a Chair or Program Director

When the faculty member under review is a Chair, the UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations specify that the VCAA execute the tasks normally assigned to the Chair in the review process (footnote 4). This modification also applies in cases where the candidate is a Program Director.

[The existing section makes no reference to this aspect of the process, something we believe is a significant oversight. The information included here is taken from footnote 4 in the UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations, p. 232 in the current Faculty Handbook.]

B. When the Department has fewer than three tenured faculty members

When the Department has fewer than three tenured faculty members, the Chair may include other faculty members in the departmental review process. The UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations (section III-D-1-a) specify that the Chair may include other Department members senior in length of service to the faculty member under review. In addition, with prior approval from the VCAA, faculty outside the Department may be included. The following are faculty appropriate to consider for inclusion:

1) Tenured faculty members in Departments where the faculty member has taught courses.

2) Chairs or Program Directors in Departments where the faculty member has taught courses.

3) Tenured faculty members in other Departments who are familiar with the faculty member's work.

Subsequent references to the "tenured Department members" in this document include all faculty who participate in the departmental review process.

[This is a rewording and elaboration of the existing section. The information included here is a summary of points in Section III-D-1-a of the UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations, p. 222 in the current Faculty Handbook.]

C. When the faculty member has taught courses outside the Department

When the faculty member has taught courses outside the Department, the Chair should request written evaluations of the faculty member's performance from the Chairs/Directors of those Departments/Programs. The Chair in his/her statement regarding the candidate's performance should address these evaluations.

[This is a rewording and elaboration of the existing section.]

D. When the faculty member has reassigned time for administrative duties

When the faculty member has reassigned time for administrative duties, the Chair should request a written evaluation of the faculty member's performance from the person who supervises these administrative activities. The Chair in his/her statement regarding the candidate's performance should address this evaluation.

[The existing section makes no reference to this element of the process although it is standard procedure at UNCA and necessary for a thorough review of the candidate's performance.]

6. After all tenured Department members have reviewed these materials, the Chair assembles these faculty for a vote on the candidate's reappointment, tenure or promotion request.

[The existing section makes no reference to this element of the process although it is mentioned in a later section on the Chair's evaluation of the candidate. We believe it is important to include in the statement on procedure.]

7. After consulting with the tenured Department members, and reviewing all materials in the evaluation file, the Chair writes an evaluation of the faculty member under review, including the vote of the assembled tenured Department members, and the date of that meeting, as well as the Chair's own recommendation regarding the faculty member. (Information about the format and contents of the Chair's Statement is available in Section 3.5.4.4.)

[The existing section makes no reference to this element of the process although it is mentioned in a later section on the Chair's evaluation of the candidate. We believe it is important to include in the statement on procedure.]

8. The Chair must submit his/her statement to the faculty member at least 5 days prior to its submission to the Office of Academic Affairs and, if the faculty member so desires, meet with him/her to discuss the recommendation.

[The existing section notes that candidates have the right to see this evaluation but does not specify a deadline for its delivery to the candidate. We have selected 5 days prior to the submission date to be consistent with Section III-D-1-b of the UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations. Section III-D-1-b, on p. 222 of the current Faculty Handbook, specifies a candidate's rights in the event of a negative Chair recommendation and requires 5 days for a candidate to respond.]

A. In all cases, the faculty member may write a supplementary statement including explanatory or clarifying information after reviewing the Chair's Statement. This supplementary statement should be sent to the Chair and included in the candidate's evaluation file.

[This is an edited and relocated version of the existing section.]

B. In cases where the Chair makes a negative recommendation, the UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations (Section III-D-1-b) delineate a specific procedure to be followed:

1) In addition to submitting the Chair's Statement to the candidate, the Chair simultaneously communicates the intention to issue a negative recommendation to the VCAA and the faculty member in a separate simple, unelaborated written statement.

2) Within 5 days of receipt of that notice, the faculty member may request a conference with the Chair and the opportunity to provide additional written evidence or views bearing on the faculty member's demonstrated professional competence and potential for future contributions. This statement of rebuttal is included in the faculty member's evaluation file.

3) If the faculty member does not request a conference or provide additional written materials bearing on the case during this 5 day interval, the Chair's evaluation and recommendation are added to the candidate's evaluation file.

[The existing section makes no reference to this aspect of the process, something we believe is a significant oversight. The information included here is a summary of points in Section III-D-1-b of the UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations, p. 222 in the current Faculty Handbook.]

9. The candidate and Chair submit copies of only the following materials to the Office of Academic Affairs by the deadline specified in the notice of review: the Candidate's Statement, the Curriculum Vitae, the Fall semester Faculty Record, the student comments, the Chair's Evaluation and, if written, the candidate's statement of clarification or rebuttal.

[The existing section makes no reference to what is/is not submitted although it is mentioned in a later section on "completed applications". We believe it is important to include in the statement on procedure.]

10. The materials listed in #9, along with the faculty member's annual Faculty Records and Merit Evaluations (provided by the Office of Academic Affairs) and student evaluation rating summaries (provided by the Office of Institutional Research) are made available to the Committee of Tenured Faculty. The Committee of Tenured Faculty reviews the materials and sends to the VCAA a vote on their recommendation regarding the faculty member's reappointment, tenure or promotion.

[The existing section makes no reference to the Committee of Tenured Faculty in this process, an oversight that we believe has led to confusion about the actual role of the Committee. We believe it is important to include in the statement on procedure.]

11. After reviewing all materials, including the Chair's statement and the recorded vote of the assembled tenured Department members, and the vote of the Committee of Tenured Faculty, the VCAA makes a decision regarding the faculty member's reappointment, tenure or promotion.

[The existing section makes no reference to the VCAA's role in this process. We believe it is important to include in the statement on procedure.]

12. The UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations specify the subsequent actions required by the VCAA, the Chancellor, the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors. In the case of a favorable VCAA recommendation, the decision is communicated to the faculty member and the Chancellor, and the process continues. In the case of an unfavorable VCAA recommendation, the faculty member has the right to conferences with the VCAA and the Committee of Tenured Faculty, and the right to seek review of the VCAA decision before the Faculty Hearings Committee. Candidates should consult the UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations (Section 14.2 of the Faculty Handbook) for a more detailed description of all aspects of the process.

[The existing section makes no reference to this aspect of the process. The information included here is a summary of points in Section III-D-3 of the UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations, p. 222 in the current Faculty Handbook.]

3.5.4.2 Documents for Evaluation by the Office of Academic Affairs [new title]

An evaluation folder must be established in the Office of Academic Affairs for each candidate under review for reappointment, tenure or promotion. Documents in this folder are reviewed by the Committee of Tenured Faculty and the VCAA. The Academic Affairs folder contains only the following documents:

1. The Candidate's Statement (submitted by the candidate)

2. The Professional Vitae (submitted by the candidate)

3. The Fall semester Faculty Record (submitted by the candidate)

4. The Candidate's Statement of Clarification, Explanation or Rebuttal, if written (submitted by the candidate)

5. The Chair/Director's Evaluation and Recommendation (submitted by the Chair/Director)

6. Comments from Student Evaluation Forms (submitted by the Chair/Director)

7. Student Evaluation Rating Form Summaries (provided by the Office of Institutional Research)

8. All appropriate annual Faculty Records (collected by VCAA)

9. All appropriate annual Merit Evaluations (collected by VCAA)

[In the existing document, the actual contents of the evaluation folder are presented at the end of the section. We believe that it is more effective to place this list at the beginning. Items have been added to make the contents consistent with current practice.]

3.5.4.3 Guidelines for Preparation of Documents by Candidates [new title]

Candidates are required to prepare three documents: the Candidate's Statement, the Professional Vitae and the Fall Semester Faculty Record. These documents first are submitted for review by the Chair and Department and then are forwarded to the Office of Academic Affairs where they are reviewed by the Committee of Tenured Faculty and the VCAA. Candidates should not forward other supporting materials such as syllabi, course outlines, sample exams, and samples of scholarly or artistic work, testimonials, or letters from other Chairs/Directors or colleagues.

[This is a new introductory statement.]

1. The Candidate's Statement

A. Purpose: The Candidate's Statement should be viewed as a cover letter to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Statement provides an opportunity for the candidate to integrate, expand, explain, and draw attention to information in the Annual Faculty Records. In addition, the statement can be used to discuss factors affecting the candidate's performance, factors not ordinarily covered in the listing of activities by categories.

B. Format: The Candidate's Statement should be written in narrative form. The specific orientation or focus of the statement is the candidate's choice. Statements typically are 4-6 pages in length.

C. Issues to Address: The Candidate's Statement should address performance in the areas of teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service. What follows are some possible issues to address in the various categories of evaluation. The lists in no way imply that lengthy statements are expected. They are suggestive but not prescriptive.

1) Teaching: As an undergraduate, liberal arts-oriented institution, UNCA values outstanding teaching above all other faculty accomplishments. Teaching is the art of helping students to learn. Consequently, it extends beyond the classroom to include individual teacher-student interaction, availability to students, and readiness to assist them. The following are suggested issues to address concerning teaching:

* philosophy of teaching

* methods employed (examples can be given)

* significant curricular or pedagogical contributions

* interdisciplinary teaching activities

* involvement of students in special academic projects

* mentorship of undergraduate research projects

* grants for pedagogical innovation

* awards for teaching given in open competitions

* future plans

* factors to consider regarding performance in these areas (e.g., required v. elective courses, lower v. upper division courses, teaching within discipline v. teaching outside discipline, major v. service course, advising freshmen v. majors, etc.)

2) Scholarly and Creative Activity: Members of the faculty are expected to engage in scholarly or creative activity. These activities should be evaluated by their contribution to an academic area. Scholarly and creative activity that involves students and/or interdisciplinary work is noteworthy. In an undergraduate, liberal arts-oriented institution, research and scholarship can be especially valuable as they enhance teaching. The following are suggested issues to address concerning scholarly and creative activity:

* participation in ongoing research or creative activity, including production or performance of art, music, literature, or drama

* submission of grant proposals and grant-funded activities

* publications in journals (indicate if refereed), review articles, and scholarly books

* other writings such as textbooks, book reviews, or software; or non-print instructional materials

* attendance and participation in professional meetings, presentation of oral/poster papers, chairing of paper sessions, participation in symposia

* awards for scholarly or creative work

* editorships and peer reviews

* professional development activities

* work completed (but not yet published or presented) or in progress

* future plans

* factors to consider regarding performance in these areas (e.g., competitiveness/stature of journals/conferences in one's discipline, changes in one's line of research, obligations in other areas, etc.)

3) Service: Members of the faculty are expected to participate actively in university and community life. Advising is a service activity that is considered an essential part of the teaching-learning process. Other outstanding service activities that involve the faculty member's professional competence will be most relevant to the evaluation. The following are suggested issues to address concerning service:

* administration of programs and tasks that contribute to the cultural, educational, and social welfare of the university and community

* election or appointment to committees, task forces, commissions, boards, or public offices

* advising activities

* development of resources

* professional activity as judged by election or appointment to boards, offices in societies, and committees

* awards and prizes given in recognition of service

* positions of leadership

* public lectures, workshops, and consultations

* benefits to student-faculty relations, to one's department, to the University, and to the local, regional, national, or international community

* factors to consider regarding performance in these areas (e.g., opportunities for service, obligations in other areas)

[In each domain, the existing document separates discussion of the purpose and format of the statement from discussion of issues to address within the statement. In addition, the existing document includes sections describing indicators of superior teaching, scholarly and creative activity and service. The proposed text is a reorganized and edited version of the existing section. The most significant edit is the deletion of the description of indicators of superior performance. We believe that indicators are most effectively presented in the section on guidelines for awarding reappointment, tenure and promotion. We propose moving them to a revised "guidelines" section that we anticipate submitting to Senate in Fall 2001.]

2. The Professional Vitae

A. Purpose: The complete vita puts the candidate's professional work at UNCA into perspective relative to the individual's career in general. This permits the committee to assess the individual's activities at UNCA in light of his/her previous level of activity. This is particularly useful for candidates new to UNCA.

B. Format: The vita should be written in the format appropriate to applying for an academic position. It should include information about the candidate's education, degrees, awards and honors, professional employment, as well as the candidate's most important papers, publications, artistic activities; grant activities, professional consultancies, or service activities.

[This is an edited version of the existing section.]

3. The Fall Semester Faculty Record

A. Purpose: The Fall semester Faculty Record summarizes the candidate's current and ongoing activities.

B. Format: The Fall semester Faculty Record should be written in the same format used for the year-end Faculty Record.

[This item has been added to make the contents consistent with current practice.]

3.5.4.4 Guidelines for Preparation of Documents by Chairs [new title]

Chairs are responsible for writing an evaluation of the candidate's performance, including a specific recommendation regarding reappointment, tenure or promotion, and for assembling all comments from annual student evaluation forms administered since the candidate's last review. These documents are forwarded to the Office of Academic Affairs where they are reviewed by the Committee of Tenured Faculty and the VCAA. Chairs should not forward other supporting materials such as syllabi, course outlines, sample exams, and samples of scholarly or artistic work, testimonials, or letters from other Chairs/Directors or colleagues.

[This is a new introductory statement.]

1. Chair's Evaluation

A. Purpose: The Chair's Evaluation has always been central to decisions concerning reappointment, tenure, and promotion. It is a summary evaluation which, when viewed together with the evaluations appended to the Annual Faculty Record, provides an historical account of the candidate's progress in the eyes of his or her Chair.

B. Format: The Chair's Evaluation should be written in simple narrative form, addressing all issues listed in the guidelines for evaluation that are relevant for the candidate in question. (For example, comments on supervision of student projects may not be relevant for all candidates.)

C. Issues to Address: The Chair's Statement should address performance in the areas of teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service.

1) Required issues: The Chair is required to address the following points in the Chair's Statement. Statements failing to cover these points will be returned for revision.

* The statement must report the results of the vote taken at the meeting of the tenured faculty in the department and the date of that meeting.

* If the candidate is a Lecturer or holds any other special faculty appointment, the Chair should make clear why such an appointment is appropriate and the specific expectations of this individual as previously established in consultation with the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Chairs should review the description of special faculty appointments in the UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations (Section 14.2 of the Faculty Handbook, Part III-C-5, p. 221).

* If the candidate has reassigned time from teaching, the Chair should make clear the amount of reassigned time awarded and the specific departmental expectations in view of this reassigned time.

* The UNC Board of Governors requires peer evaluation of teaching. The statement should provide a brief description of the department peer evaluation process and summarize the results of peer evaluation of the candidate.

[This is a new section designed to specify required elements of the Chair's evaluation.]

2) Evaluation of teaching: Chairs should address the appropriate points regarding teaching from the following list in the Chair's Statement.

* appropriateness of candidate's training and expertise to departmental and institutional needs

* trends, patterns or tendencies in student evaluations interpreted in light of the nature of the courses surveyed (e.g., major/service/general education, required/elective, upper division/lower division

* teaching effectiveness as indicated by peer review, senior exit interviews, information from Chairs/Directors of other departments/programs in which the candidate has taught, or other methods by which the candidate's teaching has been evaluated. (Comparison may be made to others in the department or others teaching similar courses with similar loads.)

* class materials such as textbooks, exams; syllabi/course policies

* curricular/pedagogical innovations by the candidate

* supervision of student projects by candidate

* utilization of reassigned time for teaching

* when problems exist in teaching, factors likely to be influencing performance (e.g., types of courses, types of students)

3) Evaluation of scholarly and creative activity: Chairs should address the following points regarding scholarly and creative activity in the Chair's Statement. It is imperative that the Chair evaluate these activities in a clear and comprehensive manner because members of the Committee of Tenured Faculty, and the VCAA, often are individuals outside of the discipline.

* basis on which the candidate's work is being evaluated (e.g., Chair's appraisal, consultation with colleagues familiar with the work within or outside the institution)

* quality of the candidate's work, along with corroborative data and/or specific examples

* significance of candidate's activities to his/her teaching, to the Department, to the University, to knowledge in his or her field

* utilization of reassigned time for scholarly and creative activity

* when activities in this area are minimal, factors likely to be influencing productivity (e.g., competitiveness of journals, conferences, etc. in the candidate's scholarly or professional area, teaching obligations

4) Evaluation of service: Chairs should address the following points regarding service in the Chair's Statement.

* basis on which candidate's work is being evaluated (e.g., Chair's appraisal, interviews of colleagues and/or community members with whom the candidate has worked)

* significance of the candidate's work to the Department, the institution, the community

* candidate's performance in advising, including corroborative data and/or specific examples

* quality of the candidate's other service activities, including corroborative data and/or specific examples

* when activities in this area are minimal, factors likely to be responsible (e.g. opportunities for service, obligations in other areas)

[In each of these domains, the existing document separates discussion of the purpose and format of the statement from discussion of issues to address in the statement. The proposed text is a reorganized and edited version of the existing section.]

D. Recommendation: The Chair's Statement should conclude with a clear recommendation and a summary of the department/program's expectations, past and future, for the candidate. If the Chair requests reappointment, tenure, or promotion for the candidate, there should be no equivocation. Half-hearted statements will be interpreted as an indication of lack of support for the candidate. In turn, a Chair's recommendation for denial of reappointment, tenure, or promotion should be firm and well reasoned. Courtesy to the candidate requires no less.

Before preparing his/her recommendation the Chair consults with the assembled tenured faculty of the department/program. The Chair should weigh the opinion of the tenured faculty carefully. In cases where the tenured faculty does not concur with the Chair or expresses serious reservations with the Chair's recommendation, the Chair in the recommendation should delineate these.

[This is a new section designed to clarify a required element of the Chair's Statement.]

2. Comments from Student Evaluation Forms

The Chair is required to provide all comments from annual student evaluation forms administered since the candidate's last review. These comments should be typed but unedited. (The Office of Institutional Research provides numerical summaries of the student evaluation ratings to the Office of Academic Affairs.)

[This is a new section designed to specify a required element of the Chair's Statement.]