FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
SUSTAINED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (SPE)
PROCEDURES

ELIGIBLE FACULTY: Every regular tenured faculty member who has been in rank for at least seven years since being promoted or since achieving tenure shall be reviewed once every seven years to document sustained performance during the previous six years of assigned duties and to encourage continued professional growth and development. Tenured faculty members with administrative appointments of chairperson and above will be reviewed once every seven years after resuming regular faculty status.

Untenured faculty members, adjunct instructors, research associates, and other non-tenure earning members of the professional staff are not eligible for evaluation in this process.

PROCEDURES:

1. Each department (or college, where there are no departments) shall elect an evaluation committee (which may be an existing committee) that will, in concert with the Department Chair or Dean (where there are no departments), review the annual evaluations of any regular tenured faculty member of the department who has been in rank as an associate or full professor for seven or more years after the last promotion or after receiving tenure. The annual evaluations shall include all material included in the evaluation file for the faculty member.
2. The departmental committee will recommend to the Dean one of the following for each person considered under the SPE. The person evaluated shall be given the opportunity to append a concise response to the evaluation before it is sent to the next level.
   1. Any person whose annual evaluations have been satisfactory and without notices of “official concern” for that period (previous six years) shall be judged satisfactory in the SPE and shall not be subject to a performance improvement plan. (Note that “official concern” is a satisfactory evaluation with a warning that performance must improve in specific ways before the next evaluation in order to avoid an “inadequate” rating, thus those with notices of “official concern” will be judged satisfactory in the SPE but may be required to develop a performance improvement plan as explained below.)
   2. A person whose record includes a pattern of “official concern” in any area of assignment during those years (previous six years) and who has not shown improvement may be required by the committee to develop a performance improvement plan in consultation with the supervisor. Annual reviews by the departmental evaluation committee may be required as part of the performance improvement plan.
   3. A person whose record includes a pattern of “unsatisfactory” (inadequate) ratings in any area of assignment during these years (previous six years) and who has not met previous requirements for improvement shall develop a performance improvement plan in concert with his/her supervisor. The performance improvement plan shall include specific performance targets and a time period for achieving the targets. Annual reviews by the departmental evaluation committee shall be required. In the event that the faculty member and his/her supervisor cannot agree upon the elements to be included in the performance improvement plan, the faculty member may appeal to the Dean or the Vice President for Academic Affairs in the case of colleges without departments.
   4. A person who is dissatisfied with the results of the SPE may file an appeal under the Annual Evaluation Appeal procedures of Section 9.4.4 of Faculty Handbook.
3. The President of the University (or a designated representative) shall consider each recommended performance improvement plan. The President or representative shall give final approval for each performance improvement plan. Specific resources identified in an approved performance improvement plan shall be provided by the University.
4. After the performance improvement plan has been approved, the faculty member's supervisor shall meet periodically with him or her to review progress toward meeting the performance targets. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to attain the performance targets specified in the performance improvement plan. Progress shall be reviewed by the evaluation committee and reported to the dean on an annual basis until such time as the faculty member has achieved the performance targets. If the faculty member does not meet the performance targets in the specified time period, the supervisor shall initiate appropriate action.
5. These procedures took effect in the Spring Semester, 1997-1998, and at that time, all eligible faculty were reviewed.