91ÊÓƵ

Each year, the 91ÊÓƵ assesses its faculty through a formal evaluation process to determine eligibility for promotion, tenure, merit increases, salary adjustments, or retention recommendations. These assessments consider appropriate university standards and the respective academic units' standards. 

Since the 2023-2024 academic year, this process has been facilitated through the Interfolio system. The evaluation process is outlined in section 10.000 of the Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) as part of the faculty contract at UM. 
 

Unit Standards 

All faculty members who meet certain criteria must be evaluated. This includes full, associate, and assistant professors and any faculty member who received a less-than-normal evaluation last year. Non-tenurable faculty (such as adjunct, clinical, and lecturers) who are part of the bargaining unit (0.5 FTE or more for two consecutive semesters, excluding summer) must also be evaluated.  

Research faculty are evaluated each year according to their academic unit’s standards, per the established faculty evaluation procedures and timelines outlined for tenure-track faculty in the CBA. 

Tenured/tenure-track and research full professors are evaluated every three years, tenured/tenure-track and research associate professors are evaluated every two years, and Tenure-track assistants and research professors are evaluated annually, except in their first year at UM. 

(CBAs UFA 10.210; MCFA 10.340) 

The following faculty may be evaluated. 

1. Any faculty member who: 
   • Requests an evaluation; 
   • Applies for tenure; 
   • Seeks a merit increase; 
   • Seeks a promotion.
2. Non-tenured faculty outside of the bargaining unit may be evaluated any year. 
3. Those exempted from evaluation will not normally be evaluated until their alphabetical group is required to undergo the evaluation process, except that the Provost, Dean and/or Department Chair/Director agree to require a performance review during any year(s) of the cycle.  

(CBAs UFA 10.210; MCFA 10.340) 

The following faculty members can request exemption from evaluation if they seek a normal increase, have not received a less-than-normal evaluation in the last three (3) years, and for whom the FEC, department chair/director, dean, or Provost do not wish to initiate consideration for anything other than a normal recommendation. 

The following faculty are automatically exempt: 

1. First-year assistant professors (tenure-track & research); 
2. Non-tenurable faculty employed over 0.5 FTE for only one semester; 
3. Non-tenurable faculty employed under 0.5 FTE for less than two consecutive semesters (excluding summer); 
4. Faculty on terminal year contracts. 

(CBAs UFA 10.210; 10.340)

Staff in the Office of the Provost coordinate the faculty evaluation process by managing the Interfolio system, supporting faculty evaluation managers to meet deadlines, and processing all faculty evaluation records received for the provost’s review and recommendation. They are responsible for the timely delivery of the Provost's letters communicating their decisions to the Board of Regents, faculty candidates, and the transmission of faculty evaluation documents to Human Resource Services for retention in the faculty members' personnel files.

The Faculty Evaluation Manager (FE Manager) is responsible for facilitating the faculty evaluation process on behalf of their respective academic unit(s) to meet the deadlines and standards set by the collective bargaining agreement. Generally, FE Managers support the process by creating faculty evaluation cases in Interfolio, assist faculty with document uploads, assist reviewers with recommendation uploads, move cases through the review steps, and notify faculty candidates when to take action throughout the process. They also maintain confidentiality and uphold the integrity of the process.

Faculty Candidates are expected to be active participants in the faculty evaluation process. Faculty submit documentation of their teaching, research and creative scholarship, and service during their evaluation period. They are expected to respond to feedback from their reviewers in a timely manner and remain fully engaged throughout the process. Through these efforts, faculty candidates uphold institutional and unit standards and contribute to a transparent and constructive evaluation system.

The Student Evaluation Committee (SEC) consists of three (3) to seven (7) student majors or graduate students, plus one non-voting tenured or tenurable faculty observer. Members elect a chair. The SEC reviews course evaluations and gathers input from students who have taken courses or received advising from the faculty member. Faculty must have at least one course evaluated each semester and share the results with the SEC.

The Student Evaluation Committee (SEC) Chair is responsible for writing the committee’s recommendation and coordinating with the FE Manager to upload the final recommendation to the faculty candidate’s evaluation case.

The Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC) is elected annually and includes at least three (3) tenured or tenure-track faculty and one (1) non-voting student observer. Members elect a chair. If a unit lacks enough members, the committee can include faculty from related fields with Dean approval.  

The FEC evaluates faculty based on unit standards and provides written recommendations on retention, salary adjustments, promotion, and tenure. It may gather additional evidence while maintaining confidentiality and must share solicited evidence with the faculty being evaluated. In case of an appeal, the FEC must respond promptly. 

The Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC) Chair is responsible for writing the committee’s recommendation and coordinating with the FE Manager to upload the final recommendation to the faculty candidate’s evaluation case.

Individual units may opt to solicit external peer review for the FEC to use to assist the FEC in decisions for promotion and tenure. Academic units are responsible for specifying in their unit standards how these letters will be used with respect to anonymity or confidentiality and who in the unit will solicit these letters.

The Department Chair/Director prepares a written evaluation of each faculty member based on unit standards, the CBA, and on consideration of the evidence submitted by the faculty member, the SEC recommendation, the FEC recommendation, and any additional evidence solicited or received. This evaluation will include the Department Chair/Director's recommendations for retention, salary increment (less-than-normal, normal, and merit), promotion, and tenure. The Department Chair/Director makes confidential ranked recommendations to the Dean on merits based on faculty performance in teaching, research, and service. The Department Chair/Director is responsible for making their signed evaluation of each faculty member 91ÊÓƵ to them. In the case of an appeal, the Department Chair/Director is responsible for a timely response.

The Dean prepares a written evaluation of each faculty member based on unit standards, the CBA, and on consideration of the evidence submitted by the faculty member, the SEC recommendation, the FEC recommendation, the Department Chair/Director's recommendation, and any additional evidence solicited or received. This evaluation will include the Deans recommendations for retention, salary increment (less-than-normal, normal, and merit), promotion, and tenure. The Dean shall also prepare a summary list of those he/she has recommended for promotion, merit, or tenure. The Dean will rank those recommended for merit in order of priority. The Dean is responsible for making a faculty member's entire evaluation record 91ÊÓƵ to them. In the case of an appeal, the Dean is responsible for a timely response.

The total evaluation record, including any findings and recommendations from the Appeals Committee, informs the Provost's recommendation to the Board of Regents for faculty retention, salary increment (less-than-normal, normal, and merit), promotion, and tenure.

To log into Interfolio, you can use the or follow the instructions below. 

1. Go to the webpage . 
2. On the right, under Other Sign In Options, click the Sign in with Partner Institution button. 
3. In the search bar, search for Montana or 91ÊÓƵ, then select the 91ÊÓƵ option to make it appear in the search bar. 
4. Click the blue Sign In button. 
5. Enter your UM Single Sign-On credentials (NetID and Password). 

If you are unable to log in, please contact Nicole Krause (nicole.krause@umontana.edu) in the Office of the Provost for assistance. 

Interfolio has a robust resource library and training courses for all its products, including Review, Promotion & Tenure (RPT).