Evaluation of performance advances three distinct purposes:

1. faculty members can effectively fulfill their responsibilities when their performance is assessed,
2. this information is required in decisions concerning rank and step in rank, retention and non­retention, tenure, and similar status decisions,
3. evaluation can aid faculty and administrators in planning jointly for the best use of University resources.

Evaluation is understood as an ongoing process that addresses the conduct of class sessions, advising appointments, research, and a variety of other activities. At times of contractual decision--initial placement, retention decisions, tenure, promotion, advancement, annual review, third-year review, post-tenure review, or special review--the criteria and evidence requirements become more formal.

The following principles apply to all participants in evaluation of performance, especially those who participate in tenure and promotion decisions [applicant, mentor, colleagues, departmental review committees, dean, Faculty Status Committee, Vice President for Academic Affairs, President, and Board of Trustees]:

1. Because mutual respect of participants and concern for personal and institutional needs are significant undergirding values, these decisions will be based on principles of inquiry rather than on adversarial principles.
2. Rationale for recommendations and decisions will be directly supportable with respect to the published standards.
3. All persons at the same level in these processes shall have equal access to the evidence used in evaluation.
4. At each level, participants have the obligation to assure that the evidence used is relevant and substantial.
5. Before the file is forwarded to each decision level, its full content shall be disclosed to the applicant (maintaining confidentiality of sources).
6. Evaluators who have not studied the evidence in a given case will disqualify themselves from voting for recommendations or decisions in that case.
7. To encourage candid evaluation, protect individual reputations, and allow for objectivity and fairness, all participants will use discretion in communication.
8. Information considered, discussion and vote(s) will be kept confidential.
9. Communication of the recommendations and decisions to those directly affected will be direct and candid, yet sensitive to personal issues.

Applicant

1. shall provide full documentation as required for each decision process,
2. shall avoid discussion of the application with members of the departmental review committee and the Faculty Status Committee, and
3. shall provide additional information promptly if requested.

Mentor and Colleagues

1. may help the applicant in building an effective case,
2. shall avoid improper contact with those directly involved in the evaluation and recommendation.

Departmental review committee members

1. shall engage in frank and thoroughgoing discussion of the applicant and application in relation to the standards for the decision to be made, the applicant’s discipline, and the program of the school,
2. shall approve a written communication for the Faculty Status Committee which summarizes fairly the committee’s assessment of the applicant and the application (separate majority and minority reports are not required, but would be appropriate if the vote is not unanimous).

Dean

1. shall serve as
   1. a counselor for the applicant (through such activities as annual evaluations of PDPs, ongoing discussions of the applicant's professional development, and interpretation of institutional standards),
   2. a facilitator in application procedures (such as collecting of evidence, calling together the departmental review committee’s recommendation, and forwarding evidence and recommendations through the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs to the Faculty Status Committee),
   3. reporter of departmental review committees’ recommendation and concerns to the applicant.
2. may speak for or against the case before the departmental review committee and may be invited to meet with the Faculty Status Committee,
3. evaluates the application in terms of the ongoing program and development of the school, and may, but need not, be an advocate of the applicant,
4. shall submit a separate recommendation to the Faculty Status Committee,
5. may present tenure cases in person to the Faculty Status Committee, who will notify the dean in advance of any significant questions or reservations, to allow for appropriate response,
6. at appropriate times, shall report to the departmental review committee the outcomes and rationales of decisions made at higher levels.

Faculty Status Committee members

1. shall refrain from informally discussing any case with persons outside the Committee at any stage of the process except that the committee may delegate to one of its members the task of interviewing a dean to seek additional information,
2. may participate in departmental review committee decisions which will be forwarded to the Faculty Status Committee, including discussions and votes, without conflict of interest,
3. may excuse themselves from discussion and voting in the Faculty Status Committee when they believe that objectivity would be extremely difficult,
4. shall produce a written summary of the rationale for the Committee's recommendation, to be kept in the applicant's personnel file,
5. shall submit their recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

The Vice President for Academic Affairs

1. may speak before the Faculty Status Committee for or against the application,
2. shall convey the recommendations of the Faculty Status Committee to the President,
3. shall submit a separate recommendation to the President, i.e. either accepting or rejecting the recommendation of the committee,
4. shall report to the Faculty Status Committee any recommendation at variance with that of the Committee,
5. shall report to the Faculty Status Committee communications with the applicant (including copies of letters sent to the applicant) concerning the tenure or promotion decision.

The President
shall report in writing to the Vice President for Academic Affairs that the President has supported the recommendations of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, or the reason(s) for overturning the recommendations of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and shall report the President’s recommendations to the Board of Trustees. If the President rejects the application, the report of reasons shall end the process.

The Board of Trustees
shall adhere to rules of evidence including those established in this Code of Ethics, shall keep evidence and information confidential, and shall report back to the President its deliberations and decisions.

The ability of Seattle Pacific University to accomplish its mission is dependent upon maintaining a strong and effective faculty. Just as our mission is holistic–seeking to promote the intellectual, personal, and spiritual growth of our students–the dimensions involved in faculty evaluation are holistic. These dimensions divide naturally into two sets. The first set involves considerations of the faculty member’s character and of his or her congruence with the mission of the University. The second set gathers considerations of the faculty member’s competence and of his or her contribution to the University, the broader academy, and culture at large.

This first set of evaluative considerations must be considered foundational in nature. The concern here is not to rank a faculty member in comparison with anyone else, but to insure that basic standards and core commitments are upheld by all faculty. Evidence of conformity to these criteria is prerequisite for any new hire, as well as for the yearly renewal of term contract and notice contract faculty (Sections 2.1 & 2.2). Assessment of conformity to these criteria will be a particular focus of tenure decisions. Continuing conformity to these criteria will be an expectation of tenured faculty. A negative evaluation on these foundational criteria cannot be compensated for by a faculty member's strengths in the criteria related to competence and contribution.

In keeping with our holistic approach to education, Seattle Pacific University faculty are expected to serve as models of vital, growing Christian life. We welcome to our faculty persons from the range of theologically orthodox Christianity who affirm the Seattle Pacific University Statement of Faith, and are aware of the spectrum of worship styles, theological expressions, and formative practices found in this family. One conviction shared across this range of Christian communions is the centrality of active participation in a local church to the nurture of vital Christian life, which is why we consider such participation a foundational expectation of all our faculty. Recognizing that such participation is only one aspect of vital Christian life, we encourage our faculty to participate as well in broader dimensions of Christian formation and mission.

Among the vital dimensions of Christian mission is the enterprise of Christian higher education. Since this is the unique focus of our institution, we seek faculty who understand and affirm the goals of this enterprise. We expect this commitment to remain strong, and for faculty to cultivate progressively their appreciation for the nature of Christian higher education and its implications for their specific vocation.

As professionals, faculty are expected to be self-monitoring and to make all reasonable efforts to fulfill the responsibilities of their roles (Section 9.1). They are also expected to conform to the guidelines on Professional Ethics (Section 9.3). More broadly, faculty members are expected to model respectful interaction in their dealings with students, staff persons, fellow faculty, and administrators.

As influential members in our community, faculty are expected to exhibit public and personal moral integrity. Specific failures that can result in dismissal are listed in Section 8.6.2 of this Handbook.

The remaining set of considerations in faculty evaluation are necessarily relative and dynamic. They concern the individual faculty person’s professional competence and his or her contribution to department or school, the University, the larger academy, and our broader mission of engaging the culture around us. These evaluative questions are directed to the three major areas of faculty responsibility: Teaching, Scholarship, and Service.

It would be unreasonable to expect all faculty to be outstanding in every dimension of each of the three areas of responsibility. However, strong faculty will have demonstrated interest, competence, and activity in several dimensions. All three major areas will be considered seriously in the evaluation of any faculty member. An individual performing well in only one area, while hardly at all in the other areas, is unlikely to receive favorable evaluation. What is desired is good performance in all major areas with excellence in at least one of them.

Since teaching is the paramount responsibility of faculty at Seattle Pacific University, effectiveness in this area will be weighted most heavily in evaluation of faculty competence and contribution. This evaluation will consider the various dimensions of the teaching enterprise. Classroom instruction remains the central dimension of teaching for most faculty, but not the only dimension. Effective faculty also provide students with assistance for coursework outside of class, by a variety of means. Moreover, all teaching faculty are expected to carry a share of responsibility in providing broad academic advising and vocational guidance to students.

We look for at least the following qualities in evaluating teaching effectiveness:

1. command of one's academic discipline, and ongoing practices that maintain currency with developments in that discipline;
2. awareness of the relationships of one's discipline to the liberal arts, other academic disciplines, and the professions;
3. insight into–and ability to communicate–possible implications of Christian convictions for one's discipline, and possible implications of central claims in one's discipline for Christian faith and life;
4. skills in the craft of teaching, and a commitment to ongoing assessment and cultivation of one's skills in this craft; and
5. concern to insure accessibility and competence for advising students on academic and vocational matters.

The second major area of faculty responsibility at Seattle Pacific University is scholarship. Although portrayed in some settings as opposing entities, we see teaching and scholarship as inherently connected. That is why we expect scholarship to be part of every full-time tenure-track and tenured faculty member’s vocation. In keeping with a growing consensus in the academy, we encourage, support, and reward any of the four distinct yet overlapping types of scholarship–the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of teaching, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of synthesis. Each of these requires intelligence, training, discipline, and hard work. Each also finds formal expression in the production of scholarly products, which we define as work that is publicly disseminated and subject to careful peer review.

1. Scholarship of Discovery. The scholarship of discovery is what academics have traditionally meant when they speak of original research. It involves the creation, discovery, or advancement of new knowledge by means of the tools and disciplined practices of one’s academic field. We understand this type of scholarship to include producing new bodies of creative material in the literary, visual, and performing arts. It also occurs during consulting work as academics interact with professionals to expand a field of knowledge. Scholarship of discovery is directed toward one’s peers in the discipline or profession. The primary venues for its products include peer-reviewed academic journals or conference presentations, public exhibitions or performances, university presses, and professional adjudication panels.
2. Scholarship of Teaching. The scholarship of teaching must not be confused with ongoing study of one’s discipline, which is expected of all faculty. This specialized scholarship, which only some faculty will pursue, involves sustained inquiry into teaching practices and students’ learning in ways that allow other educators to build on one’s findings. Scholarship of teaching is directed toward other teachers, in one’s field and beyond. Venues for its products will range from conference and workshop presentations to professional journals and books.
3. Scholarship of Application. The scholarship of application must, in turn, not be confused with the service role of faculty offering consultation on the existing state of knowledge in their field. This scholarly enterprise is devoted specifically to investigating how existing knowledge in one’s field can be responsibly applied to new problems. This type of scholarship is particularly appropriate in, though not limited to, the professional schools. Scholarship of application is directed both to the immediate setting of the issues addressed and, through the scholarly product which results, to one’s peers as an instructive example. Venues for its products run the gamut from professional journals and conferences to adoption for actual applications in business and industry.
4. Scholarship of Synthesis. The scholarship of synthesis focuses investigation on possible connections within and across disciplines. This can be done in a variety of ways, such as: by reviewing the current findings of an entire field and highlighting the pattern that emerges, by conducting interdisciplinary and collaborative work, or by articulating a larger vision by which isolated facts in one’s field can be conveyed to non-specialists. All of these efforts attempt to overcome the isolation and fragmentation of academic disciplines, as well as their oftenperceived irrelevance for contemporary civic and church life. At Seattle Pacific we place a particular value on that scholarship of synthesis which investigates the relationship of Christian theology and tradition to particular disciplinary issues. The audience for scholarship of synthesis includes both the academic world, across the scholarly disciplines, and the general public. In keeping with this broad audience, its products will find a range of appropriate venues.

In practice, certain types of scholarship will be more prominent in some schools than in others. Likewise, forms of peer-valued public dissemination will vary some among the disciplines and professions. To insure sufficient flexibility and integrity in the evaluative process, each department (or school) is expected to develop and maintain a description of: 1) the types of scholarship, 2) the particular kinds of public scholarly products, and 3) the types of peer review that are most common and valued within their discipline; as well as 4) a sense of the trajectory of a productive scholar in their discipline at institutions like SPU. Distinctions between undergraduate and graduate faculty should be included in the description. The description must be approved by the Faculty Affairs Committee before it is used as a standard for evaluating faculty in that department (or school).

While course instruction and the scholarship that undergirds it are the primary expectations of regular faculty, it is also legitimate to expect that they will contribute service within the institutional networks that support their vocation.

1. In the University. All full-time faculty members are expected to assume reasonable service roles in the operation of the University. Specific roles will differ some by individual and over the course of one's career, but a general standard is clear.
   1. As a baseline, they are expected to attend specified department, school, and University faculty meetings.
   2. Another shared expectation is participation on committees and task forces at the various levels of the University—department, school, faculty, and campus-wide.
   3. A few faculty are needed each year in faculty leadership positions.
   4. Also valued are such roles as assisting the Office of Admissions in student recruitment, being an advisor to student organizations, participating in student enrichment activities like Cadre, and serving as a mentor to faculty colleagues [see particularly Section 5.7].
2. In the larger academy. Seattle Pacific University is connected to the web of larger scholarly, professional, and accrediting bodies that support higher education. Individual faculty members may be selected at times to take leadership roles in these bodies. Depending on the role, this service may be reckoned as part of their service to the University.
3. In the community, including the church. In keeping with our mission of engaging the culture, Seattle Pacific encourages all of its members, including faculty, to find ways of being of service in our surrounding communities and in the churches that minister to these communities. In some schools this type of service has particular institutional benefit and may be reckoned as part of the person’s service to the University.

Librarians with faculty rank are evaluated by the same criteria as other teaching faculty (Section 5.2), with two exceptions. First, since they are in non-tenure-track positions, contributions to scholarship will be encouraged and rewarded but not required. Second, the following paragraph replaces 5.2.2.1 (Teaching).

Items to be considered in assessing effectiveness of a librarian are related to the individual's position classification document. But overall, the following attributes and qualities are desired in effective librarians:

1. command of one's specialty areas, and ongoing practices that maintain currency with developments in these areas;
2. fulfillment of specified responsibilities–e.g., providing aid and instruction to students and faculty in research, guiding and implementing acquisitions in one's area, and so on;
3. ability, when appropriate, to direct the activities of subordinate library staff and/or student workers; and
4. commitment to ongoing assessment and cultivation of one's skills in librarianship.

A significant document in ongoing evaluation of professional activity and development at Seattle Pacific University is the individual's Professional Development Plan, supplemented by the annual self-assessment. Taken together, these documents allow the individual to plan a course of professional development fitting to one's individual talents and disciplinary needs and can help faculty committees and University administrators to plan effective use for faculty development resources.

Evaluation is an ongoing process. As professionals, faculty monitor the results of individual class sessions, advising appointments, and discussions with colleagues; they read of pedagogical and curricular developments in their fields; they discuss these and other matters with colleagues; they critique one another's writings. Evaluation will include some way for students to evaluate the faculty member’s commitment to integration of faith and learning and spiritual formation. It is expected that each school will provide for continuous informal review of each member's performance, e.g., through regular consultations between the dean and individual faculty. At specified intervals, however, the evaluation process is more formal and more predictably scheduled. Some parts of the process occur on a scheduled quarterly basis; some are annual; some are fundamental to decisions concerning awards and individual status; and some may be undertaken in response to allegations of behavior which may lead to disciplinary action. Section 5.5 deals with quarterly and annual scheduled evaluations, third-year reviews, and post-tenure reviews; Section 5.6 details procedures for special reviews; Section 6 and Section 7 include the evaluation processes respectively for promotion and tenure; Section 10 addresses evaluation in the context of individual awards and development.

The faculty of each school will recommend a systematic method of collecting evaluative data for their courses. Although systems may vary from school to school and within a school, they must include a means to guarantee that students' confidentiality and the security of completed forms are protected. Full-time faculty must evaluate at least three classes each year. The student evaluations will be gathered using approved forms, and may also include informal student commendations or complaints. A copy of the summarized data from these forms will be given to the individual; another will be kept in the individual's official file in the dean's office (Section 4.1.2).

Each faculty member is responsible to file a copy of each course syllabus with the dean's office. These data provide a basis for appraisal as they also show a broad-spectrum growth pattern for each faculty member. Failure to file student evaluations and syllabi regularly may be considered a breach of commitment to an expectation of continuing professional growth.

The primary purpose of third-year review is formative—to allow candidates to assess their strengths and weaknesses in the company of their colleagues. This process is intended to be an encouragement to the faculty member while at the same time clarifying our standards of professional and personal performance. Candidates should be aware, however, that the Faculty Status Committee is also required by Handbook policy to ask whether it is probable that candidates will meet the standards for tenure. In extraordinary circumstances, the Faculty Status Committee is further mandated and required to recommend discontinuance.

Non-tenured faculty shall receive a formal review no later than their third year of employment. (Note: Ordinarily this review shall occur during the candidate’s third year of employment, but when previous experience counts as years toward tenure, the review process may begin earlier at the discretion of the candidate’s dean, so as to allow appropriate time between the initial review and the tenure review).

The candidate will prepare an application file that addresses the criteria for evaluation (Section 5.2) by including the following items:

1. a curriculum vitae;
2. a current PDP, and the candidate’s immediately prior PDP, (both with dean or chair response);
3. a narrative that describes the development of the candidate’s faith over the years, reflects the candidate’s affirmation of the central claims of historic Christian teaching, and provides some indication of the current practices that form and sustain the candidate’s faith and life–including participation in a local church;
4. an articulation of the candidate’s sense of vocation as a faculty member—touching on the interplay of the three major areas of teaching, scholarship, and service—that indicates congruence with SPU’s mission of Christian higher education, conveys the candidate’s philosophy of education, and includes some reflection on how the candidate understands Christian convictions to affect his or her work in each of the three areas;
5. representative syllabi from courses taught at SPU;
6. student evaluations of courses the candidate has offered since coming to SPU;
7. peer-review assessments of the candidate’s teaching, including at least one by a member of the candidate’s department and one by a peer from outside of the candidate’s department;
8. the candidate’s self-reflections on teaching strengths and areas needing cultivation, interacting with both the student and peer input;
9. samples of scholarly products the candidate has produced (particularly since coming to SPU), noting the role of peer review in their publication or reception;
10. a description of the types of service roles the candidate has taken on since coming to SPU;
11. a self-assessment of expertise and availability for the specific service role of academic and vocational advising; and
12. any further supporting documents (reference letters, commendations, reviews, and so on) which the candidate may wish to include that attest to the candidate’s character, congruence with our mission, competence, or contribution.

The application file shall be submitted in a loose-leaf binder, with pages numbered and a table of contents.

The candidate’s mentor shall complement the candidate’s department chair (or designee) in guiding the candidate’s preparation of a third year review file.

The candidate’s dean (or dean’s designee) will form a third-year review committee composed of the candidate’s department chair (or designee) and at least three (3) tenured faculty members. Priority for membership on this committee will belong to tenured members of the candidate’s academic department (schools will function as a department). In cases of small departments, additional members will be drawn from closely related departments.

The candidate’s department chair (or designee) shall ensure that an evaluative instrument has been supplied to all tenured faculty in the department (or school), which gives them an opportunity to provide written comments concerning the candidate, for the candidate’s file. In addition, all members of the committee will observe the candidate teach at least one class session. They will then jointly review the file submitted by the candidate. The candidate’s department chair will draft a report based on this deliberation, which will be circulated among committee members for approval. Before submitting the report, the committee will review its findings and suggestions with the candidate, guarding confidentiality of evaluators.

The report of the departmental thirdyear review committee will include suggestions concerning the mutual responsibilities of the individual and the institution. These suggestions may include references to continuance or non-continuance of the individual’s relationship to the institution, activities and/or evidence which may be appropriate in leading the individual toward promotion and/or tenure, descriptions of institutional support which may help the individual’s development, and other matters which the committee may choose to address. The candidate will be invited to append a response. The committee will forward its report (along with the candidate’s file) to the dean not later than the end of winter quarter of the candidate’s third year at SPU.

The dean will append a separate recommendation and forward the departmental review committee evaluation and the candidate's file to the Faculty Status Committee by the beginning of Spring quarter.

The Faculty Status Committee will, in turn, make a recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, noting the candidate’s strengths and any relevant weaknesses. In addition, the Faculty Status Committee will include a statement about whether it is probable that the candidate will meet the standards for tenure. In extraordinary cases, the Faculty Status Committee’s report may include a recommendation of discontinuation. The report of Faculty Status Committee will become part of the candidate’s official personnel file.

The candidate’s dean will take account of the results of the third-year review in subsequent annual reviews. The candidate’s mentor will also be given a report of these results, to aid in helping the candidate prepare the best possible case for tenure.

Faculty hired into non-tenure track full-time positions shall be evaluated by a departmental review committee in the third year of their full-time employment to determine their continuing status at the institution. This review will evaluate both issues of fit and competence for their particular position. Periodic reviews after this point are at the discretion of their department chair.

The primary purpose of post-tenure review is to provide faculty members with a continuing context for collegial support and accountability in the various dimensions of their work. This process is also intended to contribute to departmental planning by providing regular occasions for reflecting on the mutual implications of the faculty person’s activities and plans and the needs/goals established by the department.

Tenured faculty are expected to participate in some form of collegial review at least once every five years. A special review (see Section 5.6) or promotion review (see Section 6.4) would fulfill this expectation. When neither of these is planned, the following procedure should be followed. This procedure is intended to provide a review that is primarily formative, rather than summative, in nature.

While deans will regularly remind faculty of their review status, individual faculty members are responsible for initiating a post-tenure review. They will inform their dean (or dean’s designee) by January 1 of their desire for such a review, and provide the appropriate portfolio. Departments are encouraged to develop a pattern of staggering post-tenure reviews over the five-year cycle.

For purposes of this review the faculty person will provide to his or her dean (or dean's designee) a portfolio that evidences performance over the last five years in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service (as described in Section 5.2). This portfolio should include at least the following items:

1. current curriculum vitae,
2. summary report from their last formal review (tenure, promotion, post-tenure, etc.),
3. their most recent past PDP with the response of their dean (or dean's designee),
4. a draft of a new PDP that describes progress and projects five years ahead in conjunction with departmental priorities and needs,
5. a reflection on current developments in the faculty person's life and career in light of his or her Christian faith and calling,
6. representative student evaluations of teaching and advising,
7. appropriate peer-review of teaching as defined by the dean (or dean's designee).

Each department will determine the form of collegial review to be used—including the make up of the committee, components of the peer-review, and the contribution of the committee to the formative report. Deans will submit to the Office of Vice President for Academic Affairs a brief description of the process adopted by the departments in their college or school.

The goal of this review is for the committee to provide the faculty member with additional perspective on their areas of strength and on any areas that might need further strengthening in fulfilling their faculty role. They are also encouraged to counsel the faculty members on matters of future priority in their teaching, scholarship, and service. In light of this counsel the faculty member will make appropriate revisions to the initial draft of their PDP and submit it to their department chair (or dean, as appropriate).

The department chair (or designee) will compose a brief summary of the commendations, suggestions, and recommendations of the review committee, and circulate this to the other members of the committee (including the person being reviewed) for their approval. Upon approval this summary will be shared with the faculty member’s dean (if the dean was not part of the committee) and placed in the faculty member’s file. The dean will send to the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs a notification that the faculty member has completed participation in a post-tenure review along with a copy of the summary. If an area has been identified where development is needed, the dean (or dean’s designee) will work with the faculty member to locate appropriate resources and opportunities. The university will assist in providing developmental resources and opportunities.

No formal summative action will be taken from this specific review. However, the faculty member’s dean retains the discretion to call for a special review if issues emerge that are deemed to warrant this action. Likewise, positive information found in these reports can be cited by the faculty member in subsequent applications for promotion and for institutional competitive funding for faculty scholarship. Finally, failure of faculty members to participate in periodic post-tenure review can be considered as a negative factor in subsequent applications for promotion and institutional competitive funding for faculty scholarship; repeated failure to participate can be grounds for a faculty member’s dean calling a special review.

From time to time, special review of any faculty member may be required in response to perceived difficulties. No individual shall be evaluated through special review more frequently than once in three years, except in follow-up of an earlier review or when special review is requested in response to a different alleged problem with the individual's performance. Special review will not substitute for other regular evaluations. A special review may be instituted upon written request to the Faculty Status Committee by:

1. the faculty member,
2. the faculty member's dean,
3. two faculty members who carry full-time instructional duties, or
4. the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

When special review is initiated, the Faculty Status Committee coordinates appointment of a three-member evaluation panel, naming one member (designated as convener) and inviting the faculty member and the faculty member's dean each to select another panel member (if a dean is under review, the Vice President for Academic Affairs selects the third panel member). All members shall be tenured Seattle Pacific faculty. At least one shall be chosen from within the individual's school, and at least one shall be from outside the individual's school. The individual's own dean and any faculty member originally requesting the evaluation shall be excluded. No one will serve on more than one special evaluation panel in any one year. Other qualified persons, as determined by the evaluation panel and with concurrence of the faculty member under review, including persons not affiliated with the University, may also be consulted.

The special review will evaluate performance with the goal of renewing the commitment and accountability of the individual and the University to each other. The evaluation panel will consider the progress of the individual, as revealed in various evaluation reports, and the success of the institution in providing the necessary material support for that progress. The panel initially will invite the faculty member to prepare a documented self-assessment summarizing the individual's progress and contributions and evaluating institutional support. At the individual's option, the most recent self-assessment from a regular review may serve as a response to this invitation.

The panel will then consider relevant evidence of individual performance (e.g. syllabi, PDPs and self-assessments), and institutional support (such as course loads, committee responsibilities, awards, sabbaticals). The panel will draft a report consisting of a summary evaluation, an explanatory narrative identifying strengths and weaknesses of the individual and the institution, and a packet of supporting documents. The faculty member will be shown the report (not including materials which identify the evaluators) and invited to append a response.

The Faculty Status Committee, upon receipt of the panel report, will convene to recommend appropriate action to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The recommendation could, in an extreme case, call on the one hand for a dismissal hearing or, on the other, for a faculty censure hearing vis a vis the University or one or more of its administrative officers. Less extreme recommendations might entail, for example, a memorandum of understanding between the faculty member and the University specifying actions to be taken and objectives to be met, a one-year probationary period with a follow-up review, or no action whatever in acknowledgment of satisfactory findings.

The report and recommendations will be kept confidential, as provided for other confidential documents in Section 4.3, and shall be available as evidence in any subsequent grievance, censure, or dismissal hearing. The Vice President for Academic Affairs will personally consult with the faculty member (in the presence, if either party wishes, of the dean and/or the convener of the evaluation panel), to develop a course of action consonant with the recommended actions.

All untenured persons in tenure-track faculty positions will have a faculty mentor, in addition to their department chair, to offer support and guidance through the tenure process. This mentor will typically be tenured and from a department (or school) other than that of the tenure-track candidate. The Office of Vice President for Academic Affairs will assist in identifying a pool of faculty who are interested in serving as mentors, and in providing these mentors with appropriate training. Their work as mentor will be regarded as a significant form of their service to the university.