Dear Editor:

Because some students have expressed concern about the evaluation of Monmouth College faculty, the faculty Personnel Committee thought it would be helpful to explain how faculty are evaluated for continuation, promotion, and tenure.  A variety of information from multiple sources is evaluated by many individuals.  No faculty member is hired, fired, or promoted by a single person, nor are such decisions based on a narrow slice of information.  Faculty Senate, six faculty elected by their faculty peers, appoints the six members of the Personnel Committee.  Committee members must be tenured, meaning they have normally served at least 7 years at Monmouth College.  Committee members change from year to year as faculty rotate to service on other committees but an effort is made to ensure continuity of faculty experienced in personnel reviews. 

Faculty are evaluated based on three criteria: teaching, professional development and/or scholarship, and service.  While teaching is considered the most important of the three criteria, one must demonstrate superior or excellent performance in the other areas as well.  Each faculty member under evaluation (a “candidate”) accumulates a file that is kept by the Office of the Academic Dean and is open to review by the candidate at any time during regular office hours. 

Various materials are requested of candidates up for review as well as other College constituents.  For a major review (such as tenure or promotion) materials requested and evaluated include: a current vita (resume), a self-evaluation and list of professional activities, student evaluations, course syllabi and exams, letters from faculty outside their department (some chosen by the candidate, some by the Dean), letters from all full-time departmental colleagues including the chair, letters from current students and/or graduates, and a public presentation.  In addition, normally a Personnel Committee member and the department chair visit a class on separate occasions to observe teaching.  The self-evaluation is an important centerpiece of the file and allows the candidate to respond to student evaluations and describe how they meet the standards for the three criteria.  Also, the candidate has two weeks after their file is complete to review and respond to materials therein, especially any criticisms.  After individually reviewing these materials and then collectively discussing them, the Personnel Committee votes on a recommendation and together construct a letter detailing positives and negatives in the candidate’s file and justifying their recommendation to the Dean.  To avoid bias, a member of the Committee who is in the same department as the candidate cannot participate in the discussion or voting.  Because no department can have more than one representative on the committee, all faculty are evaluated by at least five members of Personnel.  The Dean then evaluates the findings of the Committee and makes a recommendation to the President who then recommends action to the Board of Trustees.  Procedures are in place for a candidate to appeal decisions at various stages in the process.

Finally, although the candidate has complete access to his or her file, all deliberations and information in the file are considered confidential by members of the Personnel Committee and others involved in the process.  The candidate may share information as they so wish, but all others must remain mute to protect the candidate and the procedure.  Thus, when information that may be inaccurate (or misrepresented) is presented that implies or states wrongdoing or unfairness by individuals involved in the process, those individuals cannot respond if it would require them to divulge information that is confidential.  While we understand the passion with which students may defend a favorite professor, this is one reason we wish the editors of the paper and Mr. Sauer would have refrained from publishing the names of individuals involved in the process; at this point, those individuals have no recourse to defend themselves or challenge the veracity of the allegations.  Contacting any of the named individuals would have avoided this problem.

Personnel Committee

Ken Cramer (Chair), Steve Buban, Stacy Lotz, Farhat Haq, Lyle Welch, Bill Wallace

Return to Home -- Return to News