Common use of External Evaluation Clause in Contracts

External Evaluation. In cases involving tenure and promotion to Associate or (Full) Professor, the quality and significance of the work must be evaluated by full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the department as well as the Department Chairperson, or in academic units without Chairpersons, the Xxxx. In addition, the department must solicit evaluations from acknowledged scholars and practitioners in the discipline of the candidate at other institutions, nationally or internationally. The materials submitted for external review shall include, within reasonable quantitative limits set by the Chair, all those selected by the faculty member. These scholars and practitioners should be at “arm’s length” with the candidate and be capable of providing an objective, informed assessment of the candidate’s work. Typically the external evaluators will have an academic rank equal to or above the rank of the promotion sought. Evaluators will be selected according to procedures outlined in department or school RPT guidelines. Whatever procedures are adopted, candidates will be given an opportunity to object, in writing, to proposed evaluators for cause, meaning actual bias or prejudice toward the candidate or lack of qualifications to review the candidate’s record. The candidate also has the responsibility to communicate to the Chair or Xxxx in writing any factor that might prejudice the “arm’s length” standing. The authority to name the final list of evaluators rests with the Chairperson or Xxxx, but in cases where the Chair or Xxxx chooses evaluators challenged for cause by the candidate, he or she must provide a written statement explaining why he/she did not sustain the written objections of the candidate. The final list of evaluators must be chosen in a way that ensures that the candidate cannot identify who has been asked to serve as an external evaluator. An “arm’s length” evaluator is a person who is not compromised in his or her ability to provide an objective evaluation of the professional performance and reputation of the individual being evaluated. The following are examples of the professional or personal relationships that are commonly perceived to put in question the objectivity of an external evaluator: • having acted as the thesis or dissertation advisor for the candidate • having been a faculty or student colleague at a previous institution • having been a co-investigator on grants, a co-author on publications or a co-inventor of intellectual property • having related to the candidate by birth or marriage • having a financial partnership or consulting arrangement with the candidate • having a close personal or family friend (vacation together, godparents etc.) Evaluators who are personally known to the candidate are not, per se, excluded from eligibility, nor are persons with whom the faculty member being evaluated may have discussed a project, attended a conference or participated on a professional committee. External evaluators should be solicited in confidence. The evaluators should be informed as to who will see their letters of evaluation once submitted. In addition to providing the representative selection of the candidate’s publications, the Chair will provide the outside evaluators with the candidate’s C.V. and the RPT guidelines for the school, college, unit or department to aid the reviewer in his/her assessment of the candidate’s work. The faculty member being considered for reappointment, promotion or tenure has the right to see the evaluators’ letters but in such a form that the identity of the evaluator will be protected by eliminating all identifying material such as letterheads, names and titles and references. While the candidate is not entitled to know the identity of the external evaluators, faculty members and administrators who are reviewing the candidate’s dossier are entitled to such information.

External Evaluation. In cases involving tenure and promotion to Associate or (Full) Professor, the quality and significance of the work must be evaluated by full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the department as well as the Department Chairperson, or in academic units without Chairpersons, the Xxxx. In addition, the department must solicit evaluations from acknowledged scholars and practitioners in the discipline of the candidate at other institutions, nationally or internationally. The materials submitted for external review shall include, within reasonable quantitative limits set by the Chair, all those selected by the faculty member. These scholars and practitioners should be at “arm’s length” with the candidate and be capable of providing an objective, informed assessment of the candidate’s work. Typically the external evaluators will have an academic rank equal to or above the rank of the promotion sought. Evaluators will be selected according to procedures outlined in department or school RPT guidelines. Whatever procedures are adopted, candidates will be given an opportunity to object, in writing, to proposed evaluators for cause, meaning actual bias or prejudice toward the candidate or lack of qualifications to review the candidate’s record. The candidate also has the responsibility to communicate to the Chair or Xxxx in writing any factor that might prejudice the “arm’s length” standing. The authority to name the final list of evaluators rests with the Chairperson or Xxxx, but in cases where the Chair or Xxxx chooses evaluators challenged for cause by the candidate, he or she must provide a written statement explaining why he/she did not sustain the written objections of the candidate. The final list of evaluators must be chosen in a way that ensures that the candidate cannot identify who has been asked to serve as an external evaluator. An “arm’s length” evaluator is a person who is not compromised in his or her ability to provide an objective evaluation of the professional performance and reputation of the individual being evaluated. The following are examples of the professional or personal relationships that are commonly perceived to put in question the objectivity of an external evaluator: • having acted as the thesis or dissertation advisor for the candidate • having been a faculty or student colleague at a previous institution • having been a co-investigator on grants, a co-author on publications or a co-inventor of intellectual property • having related to the candidate by birth or marriage • having a financial partnership or consulting arrangement with the candidate • having a close personal or family friend (vacation together, godparents etc.) Evaluators who are personally known to the candidate are not, per se, excluded from eligibility, nor are persons with whom the faculty member being evaluated may have discussed a project, attended a conference or participated on a professional committee. External evaluators should be solicited in confidence. The evaluators should be informed as to who will see their letters of evaluation once submitted. In addition to providing the representative selection of the candidate’s publications, the Chair will provide the outside evaluators with the candidate’s C.V. and the RPT guidelines for the school, college, unit or department to aid the reviewer in his/her assessment of the candidate’s work. The faculty member being considered for reappointment, promotion or tenure has the right to see the evaluators’ letters but in such a form that the identity of the evaluator will be protected by eliminating all identifying material such as letterheads, names and titles and references. While the candidate is not entitled to know the identity of the external evaluators, faculty members and administrators who are reviewing the candidate’s dossier are entitled to such information.

External Evaluation. In cases involving tenure and promotion to Associate or (Full) Professor, the quality and significance of the work must be evaluated by full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the department as well as the Department Chairperson, or in academic units without Chairpersons, the Xxxx. In addition, the department must solicit evaluations from acknowledged scholars and practitioners in the discipline of the candidate at other institutions, nationally or internationally. The materials submitted for external review shall include, within reasonable quantitative limits set by the Chair, all those selected by the faculty member. These scholars and practitioners should be at “arm’s length” with the candidate and be capable of providing an objective, informed assessment of the candidate’s work. Typically the external evaluators will have an academic rank equal to or above the rank of the promotion sought. Evaluators will be selected according to procedures outlined in department or school RPT guidelines. Whatever procedures are adopted, candidates will be given an opportunity to object, in writing, to proposed evaluators for cause, meaning actual bias or prejudice toward the candidate or lack of qualifications to review the candidate’s record. The candidate also has the responsibility to communicate to the Chair or Xxxx in writing any factor that might prejudice the “arm’s length” standing. The authority to name the final list of evaluators rests with the Chairperson or Xxxx, but in cases where the Chair or Xxxx chooses evaluators challenged for cause by the candidate, he or she must provide a written statement explaining why he/she did not sustain the written objections of the candidate. The final list of evaluators must be chosen in a way that ensures that the candidate cannot identify who has been asked to serve as an external evaluator. An “arm’s length” evaluator is a person who is not compromised in his or her ability to provide an objective evaluation of the professional performance and reputation of the individual being evaluated. The following are examples of the professional or personal relationships that are commonly perceived to put in question the objectivity of an external evaluator: •  having acted as the thesis or dissertation advisor for the candidate •  having been a faculty or student colleague at a previous institution •  having been a co-investigator on grants, a co-author on publications or a co-inventor of intellectual property •  having related to the candidate by birth or marriage •  having a financial partnership or consulting arrangement with the candidate •  having a close personal or family friend (vacation together, godparents etc.) Evaluators who are personally known to the candidate are not, per se, excluded from eligibility, nor are persons with whom the faculty member being evaluated may have discussed a project, attended a conference or participated on a professional committee. External evaluators should be solicited in confidence. The evaluators should be informed as to who will see their letters of evaluation once submitted. In addition to providing the representative selection of the candidate’s publications, the Chair will provide the outside evaluators with the candidate’s C.V. and the RPT guidelines for the school, college, unit or department to aid the reviewer in his/her assessment of the candidate’s work. The faculty member being considered for reappointment, promotion or tenure has the right to see the evaluators’ letters but in such a form that the identity of the evaluator will be protected by eliminating all identifying material such as letterheads, names and titles and references. While the candidate is not entitled to know the identity of the external evaluators, faculty members and administrators who are reviewing the candidate’s dossier are entitled to such information.

External Evaluation. In cases involving tenure and promotion to Associate or (Full) Professor, the quality and significance of the work must be evaluated by full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the department as well as the Department Chairperson, or in academic units without Chairpersons, the Xxxx. In addition, the department must solicit evaluations from acknowledged scholars and practitioners in the discipline of the candidate at other institutions, nationally or internationally. The materials submitted for external review shall include, within reasonable quantitative limits set by the Chair, all those selected by the faculty member. These scholars and practitioners should be at “arm’s length” with the candidate and be capable of providing an objective, informed assessment of the candidate’s work. Typically Typically, the external evaluators will have an academic rank equal to or above the rank of the promotion sought. Evaluators will be selected according to procedures outlined in department or school RPT guidelines. Whatever procedures are adopted, candidates will be given an opportunity to object, in writing, to proposed evaluators for cause, meaning actual bias or prejudice toward the candidate or lack of qualifications to review the candidate’s record. The candidate also has the responsibility to communicate to the Chair or Xxxx in writing any factor that might prejudice the “arm’s length” standing. The authority to name the final list of evaluators rests with the Chairperson or Xxxx, but in cases where the Chair or Xxxx chooses evaluators challenged for cause by the candidate, he the Chair or she Xxxx must provide a written statement explaining why he/she they did not sustain the written objections of the candidate. The final list of evaluators must be chosen in a way that ensures that the candidate cannot identify who has been asked to serve as an external evaluator. An “arm’s length” evaluator is a person who is not compromised in his or her their ability to provide an objective evaluation of the professional performance and reputation of the individual being evaluated. The following are examples of the professional or personal relationships that are commonly perceived to put in question the objectivity of an external evaluator: • having acted as the thesis or dissertation advisor for the candidate • having been a faculty or student colleague at a previous institution • having been a co-investigator on grants, a co-author on publications or a co-inventor of intellectual property • having related to the candidate by birth or marriage • having a financial partnership or consulting arrangement with the candidate • having a close personal or family friend (vacation together, godparents etc.) Evaluators who are personally known to the candidate are not, per se, excluded from eligibility, nor are persons with whom the faculty member being evaluated may have discussed a project, attended a conference or participated on a professional committee. External evaluators should be solicited in confidence. The evaluators should be informed as to who will see their letters of evaluation once submitted. In addition to providing the representative selection of the candidate’s publications, the Chair will provide the outside evaluators with the candidate’s C.V. and the RPT guidelines for the school, college, unit or department to aid the reviewer in his/her their assessment of the candidate’s work. The faculty member being considered for reappointment, promotion or tenure has the right to see the evaluators’ letters but in such a form that the identity of the evaluator will be protected by eliminating all identifying material such as letterheads, names and titles and references. While the candidate is not entitled to know the identity of the external evaluators, faculty members and administrators who are reviewing the candidate’s dossier are entitled to such information.