Faculty Mentoring and Enhancement Review Committee (FMERC) Charge & Standing Rules

Faculty Mentoring and Enhancement Review Committee (FMERC) Charge & Standing Rules

The Faculty Mentoring and Enhancement Review Committee (FMERC) Charge

The FMERC conducts performance evaluations of faculty members voluntarily seeking peer feedback or a change in career focus, and reviews faculty members receiving overall evaluations of unsatisfactory in two successive years.

According to SLA bylaws, the Faculty Mentoring and Enhancement Review Committee shall:

  1. help faculty anticipate and plan for promotion and career advancement
  2. provide individualized guidance, counsel, and performance evaluation to help faculty develop a fulfilling career or a change in work focus
  3. conduct required enhancement reviews of faculty members receiving evaluations of less than satisfactory (below 1 on the SLA Faculty Annual Review Form) in one or more areas of faculty work (teaching, research, or service) twice in any four-year period.

Standing Rules

 When performing required enhancement reviews:

  1. The Committee shall conduct a thorough evaluation of the faculty member and shall specify at the end of their review whether the faculty professional productivity is rated within one of the following categories:
    • some strengths, no deficiencies,
    • some strengths, some deficiencies (but deficiencies are not substantial or chronic), and
    • substantial chronic deficiencies.
  2. If substantial chronic deficiencies are found, the Committee and the faculty member shall work together to create a development plan. The plan becomes final once the faculty member, the Dean, and the department chair have signed the document. The plan should:
    • identify specific strengths that should be enhanced;
    • identify the specific deficiencies to be addressed;
    • define specific goals or outcomes that are needed to remedy the deficiencies;
    • outline the specific activities and programs that should be completed to achieve these goals and outcomes;
    • set appropriate timelines for the completion of these activities;
    • indicate appropriate benchmarks to be used in monitoring progress;
    • indicate the criteria for annual progress reviews; and
    • identify the source of any funding or institutional support, such as assigned time or new research equipment, based on discussions with the Dean, the Associate Dean for Research and/or the School’s Grant Specialist.