7.1       The District, represented by an appropriate administrator, retains responsibility for the evaluation and assessment of performance of each faculty member. Such responsibility shall be exercised in a manner consistent with the following procedural guidelines.

7.2       The evaluation process shall follow the administrative regulations (Appendices M, N, and O).

7.3       District and Association approval shall be required before changes to the evaluation process, as outlined in the Administrative Regulations, and/or changes to evaluation forms are made.  If the District and Association deem it necessary, a joint District Administration and Faculty Association Evaluation Committee composed of three members from each group shall consult and attempt to agree upon procedures, objectives, standards, forms and assessment methods to be used for tenured, probationary and part-time faculty. 

7.3.1                Evaluation Committee.  The Faculty Association and the District will form a joint committee to develop a new peer evaluation form which may include new criteria for evaluation of probationary, tenured, and part-time faculty.  The Evaluation Committee shall be comprised of three members appointed by each group.

The committee shall bring a recommendation to the Association and the District by the end of spring semester 2008 for inclusion in the contract as an MOU.

In developing its recommendation(s), the committee shall:

(a)        Study evaluation forms of other California community colleges and identify best practices.
(b)        Jointly obtain input from interested parties; teaching and non-teaching faculty, department chairs, and academic administrators.

7.4       Techniques of evaluation may include observation, peer review, self‑appraisal, and student appraisal, except that peer review must be used as a component of tenured, probationary and part-time faculty evaluation.  Peer review is defined as input to the evaluation process by an academic member of the faculty.

7.5       Each evaluator shall be encouraged to make formal recognition of areas of exemplary performance on the part of the faculty member being evaluated in the written evaluation.  Should the evaluator note specific deficiencies in the evaluation, reasonable assistance shall be provided the faculty member being evaluated in developing a plan to correct the deficiencies.

7.6       Upon completion of the written evaluation and prior to the time such evaluation is placed in the file of the faculty member being evaluated, the faculty member shall be provided an opportunity to meet with each evaluator and discuss the evaluation.

7.6.1                The faculty member being evaluated shall be provided a copy of the written evaluation prior to the meeting.

7.6.2                Each evaluator and the faculty member being evaluated shall sign the final evaluation as an indication that the meeting took place.

7.6.3                The faculty member being evaluated shall be provided up to ten (10) days to prepare a written response to the evaluation.  Such response shall be attached to the personnel file copy of the evaluation.

7.6.4                A report of student evaluation shall be available to department chairs and appropriate academic administrators as an input to the overall evaluation process.  No later than the second week of the semester following the semester the student evaluation takes place, the student evaluation report shall be returned to the faculty member.  Student evaluation reports shall not be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file unless requested by the faculty member.

7.7       The subjective decisions of the evaluators shall not be subject to Article 12, Grievance Procedures.

7.8       Evaluation forms (Committee/Department Chair Evaluation Report of Certificated Personnel and Certificated Personnel Evaluation Report) shall be found in Appendix S.

7.9       The procedure for evaluation shall be found in Appendices M, N, and O and in Administrative Regulations pertaining to Human Resources.