Administrative Policies

KCTCS Performance Review

KCTCS has a system-wide standardized process of annual performance review for regular full-time KCTCS faculty and staff. The performance review process includes the following reviews:

• a regular process for performance evaluation, and
• an additional, optional process of evaluation of significant accomplishments for determination of eligibility for a merit bonus.

The purpose of the annual performance review is to set forth job expectations and corresponding goals, to measure individual performance related to goals, to achieve individual employee improvement through constructive feedback, and to achieve organizational improvement.

The annual performance review cycle corresponds with the fiscal and academic years from July 1 through June 30 of each year, and consists of the following:

• Planning Process for current and new employees
• Initial Employment Period Evaluation for new employees 
• Optional Mid-year Review
• Annual Performance Evaluation for regular full-time and regular part-time employees.

The annual performance review cycle includes deadlines for each step to occur no later than on or before the last working day of the following dates:

• May-August – Supervisors shall conduct the performance evaluation Planning Process by meeting with employees to establish performance evaluation goals and optional significant accomplishment goals for the upcoming fiscal year. The planning process for new employees and employees who change positions shall be completed within one month of their employment/change in position.
  
  
• August 31 – Supervisors shall conduct the planning process and submit the completed performance evaluation planning document and the optional significant accomplishment planning document to the college president/ceo or designee. 
  
  
• December/January – Supervisors shall conduct the optional Mid-Year Progress Report/meeting with employees, at the discretion of supervisors and/or the college president/ceo.
  
  
• January/early February – Annual performance evaluations for faculty promotion candidates must be completed and signed by all parties no later than the first week of February in order to meet the deadline for submitting promotion folders to the review committees.
  
  
• May 15 – Supervisors shall complete the annual performance evaluation by the supervisor (excluding the evaluations of faculty promotion candidates), including conducting the evaluation meeting with the employee.
  
  
• June 7 – Parties of the local review process shall review employee outcomes related to goals for significant accomplishments and make an approval determination regarding eligibility for merit bonuses; college officials shall submit completed PPE forms to the KCTCS Human Resources office.
  
  
• June 30 – Nonrecurring merit bonuses are awarded.

Note: Within 6 months of the initial employment of new employees, supervisors shall conduct the Initial Employment Period performance evaluation.

Performance planning and evaluation shall also be addressed in accordance with applicable KCTCS policies and human resources procedure(s) related to performance evaluation.

2.5.1 Performance Planning and Evaluation

As part of a continuing program of improvement and growth both in the instructional and non-instructional areas, KCTCS utilizes a periodic performance review for all regular full-time faculty and staff. The Performance Planning and Evaluation (“PPE”) process is used to establish annual individual goals and to report outcomes.

KCTCS evaluations shall designate individual duties, goals, and outcomes in the following areas:

• Position Responsibilities (including instruction and student guidance/advising activities for faculty),
• Internal Service – institutional service,
• External Service – community service,
• Professional Development activities, and
• Educational Leadership/Leadership.

The particular areas in which an individual employee is active and therefore is to be evaluated in is dependent upon the employee’s individual position and job duties as determined by college/system priorities. All five areas may not apply to all employees.

The KCTCS Performance Planning and Evaluation Program form shall be completed in performing the evaluation by the immediate supervisor, chief academic officer, division chairperson, and the faculty member. To serve this purpose, input from students, colleagues and administrators are to be used as applicable. In the assessment of teaching and advising, student appraisal is to be included for at least one (1) semester each year.

The purpose of performance review is individual and institutional improvement. To help in achieving this purpose, the performance review process shall determine, for each faculty member, both a quantitative assessment and a qualitative judgment of the faculty member's activities during the review period in the areas as outlined in the individual's KCTCS PPE form. 

2.5.1.1 Criteria for Evaluation of Faculty for Appointment and Promotion; Criteria for Evaluation of Staff

In addition, the following areas of activity are considered in the annual, optional mid-year, and initial employment period evaluations, as well as for faculty in the appointment and promotion processes.

Since all faculty appointments and promotions shall be made on the basis of performance, a detailed statement on each of these areas shall serve as a guide to promotion review committees evaluating the expectations and accomplishments of a faculty member.

2.5.1.1.1 Position Responsibilities

1. Faculty Position Responsibilities
   
   Faculty Instruction
   
   The primary function of a faculty member in aKCTCS college is to provide instruction of superior quality. Superior teaching is recognized as a distinct value and must be used as evidence for appointment and promotion of faculty. Objective evidence of the quality of teaching must be obtained and considered. Such evidence shall consist of reports by colleagues, evaluation by students, and, if available, evaluation by graduates of theKCTCS college. Evidence of superior teaching also can be demonstrated by competence in the following:
   1. Course objectives that are clearly defined. The relationship to prerequisites and courses which follow should be well conceived, and the relationship of the course to the field of study in general should be articulated.
      
      
   2. The organization of the course is in the form of an outline and assignments reflect a logical and imaginative approach to the subject.
      
      
   3. The course content is kept up to date and is consistent with the level at which the course is offered in the curriculum.
      
      A faculty member establishes the proper level of instruction in the course. The capacity and background of the students are not irrelevant in this regard, but the objectives of the course and its usefulness in preparing students for more advanced work are not compromised. The level of instruction does not make undue concessions to the limitations of students, but is not so advanced that if not comprehended the course fails to fulfill its purpose.
      
      
   4. The faculty member is aware of and, where appropriate, uses newer educational media in teaching, including e-learning or “blended” instruction.
      
      
   5. The faculty member teaches in such a manner that the students work to the level of their abilities, i.e., enrichment of opportunity for students to achieve at significantly different levels.
      
      
   6. The faculty member is skillful in evaluating student progress. The faculty member also has the ability to devise and use valid instruments for evaluation which are pertinent to the learning experiences provided by the course.
      
      
   7. The faculty member is effective in presentation and interpretation of subject matter. Effective techniques of instruction vary with individuals but certain standards of performance have general applicability.
      1. The faculty member is poised and always in command of self and the classroom situation;
      2. The faculty member's presentations are always organized in a manner conducive to learning and always reflect thorough preparation;
      3. The faculty member's manner of presentation and substance of presentation holds the attention and interest of students;
      4. The faculty member establishes a rapport with the class that is conducive to sustained and enthusiastic pursuit of the subject;
      5. The faculty member gains the respect of students for knowledge of the subject and ability to communicate and stimulate interest in the subject; and
      6. The faculty member establishes a reputation as a teacher who is fair and thorough in evaluation and as a person who is interested in the progress of students. 
         
         
   8. The faculty member carries an appropriate share of the total instructional load of a division or department in aKCTCS college and contributes to the maintenance of a vigorous tone in the division's or department’s instructional program.
      1. There is both a quantitative, and a qualitative, dimension to instruction. Consideration is given to a person who teaches a variety of courses, or to the faculty member who can teach effectively a large number of students;
      2. The positive tone of an instructional program is obviously an intangible property. A poor tone, however, is easy to discern; disinterested students, lack of rapport between the faculty member and students, and casual presentations in class are some of the more apparent characteristics. A most telling indication of "tone" is an atmosphere in which the student feels that the instructor and the student are working together on the problem, as contrasted to an atmosphere in which there is a cold war tension between the two parties; and
      3. The faculty member has the respect of colleagues as a teacher.
         
         

         Faculty Student Guidance-Advising Activities

         
         KCTCS colleges strive to project a student-centered image by emphasizing, as one of their functions, the comprehensive attempt to meet the needs of students who vary widely in academic potential and academic interest. Academic advising is a more important function in KCTCS colleges than in four-year institutions due to the heterogeneity of the student body, the variety and complexity of decisions which the students must make, and the need for developmental programs to prepare students for collegiate work.
         1. Faculty members are concerned with the opportunities to serve as advisers to students. For effective contributions as a student adviser the faculty member:
            1. Demonstrates an interest in working with students as an adviser;
            2. Demonstrates the ability to deal effectively with students in a one-to-one relationship;
            3. Demonstrates a willingness to learn the fundamentals of advising responsibility;
            4. Has the knowledge and ability to refer students to other resource persons in finding solutions to specific problems; and
            5. Develops a rapport with students which leads them to seek counsel and advisement.
               
               
         2. Faculty members in KCTCS colleges have responsibility for extending the teacher-student relationship beyond the classroom in a way that is conducive to the maturing of the intellect and emotions of the student. This responsibility involves more than formal advising.
            
            
2. Staff Position Responsibilities
   
   Staff shall be evaluated based on their assigned responsibilities, including those applicable duties specified in the job specification for their position and based on the job analysis questionnaire and additional duties assigned by the supervisor.

2.5.1.1.2 Internal Service – Institutional Service

The demonstration and evaluation of employees’ institutional service shall be based upon evidence of effective participation in college activities appropriate to the growth and viability of the institution and educational programs therein. Activities include, but are not limited to, committee involvement, workshop facilitation, continuing education instruction, development of new program proposals, program accreditation efforts, recruitment and marketing, grant proposal preparation, and mentoring of new faculty.

2.5.1.1.3 External Service - Community Service

KCTCS colleges have responsibility for service across the broad spectrum of the community to meet those needs not met by formal degree programs. Some staff members and most faculty members in a KCTCS college share this responsibility, and it is recognized that while the specific roles and responsibilities of individual faculty members in this area shall vary, community service shall be reflected in the overall responsibility (as noted on the performance planning and evaluation form) and evaluation of an employee’s contribution to the college.

Community service might include planning or directing such activities as:

1. Serving on community boards, foundations, committees, commissions;
2. Workshop facilitation;
3. Continuing education or customized industry courses;
4. Forums and community meetings;
5. Delivering lectures or seminars;
6. Arranging fine arts events, cultural events and recreational events;
7. Professional assistance; and
8. Working with K-12 schools.

2.5.1.1.4 Professional Development Activities

The demonstration and evaluation of the professional activities and service shall be based upon evidence of professional growth and development in areas of primary responsibility.

2.5.1.1.5 Educational Leadership/ Leadership

The demonstration and evaluation of the educational leadership and service of a faculty or leadership of a staff member shall be based upon evidence of effective participation in activities appropriate to the formation of educational policy and organization, effective performance of supervisory and/or administrative duties where applicable, and recognition of educational leadership.

2.5.1.2 Standardized Performance Planning and Evaluation Form

The standardized KCTCS performance planning and evaluation form shall be used for reporting the employee’s performance for the rating period. This form shall include the following:

• space for written evaluations of each area,
• a legend explaining the descriptive rating categories for the overall official performance evaluation rating,
• space for an overall written evaluation and recommendations for improvement, and
• spaces for the signatures of the employee, the supervisor, and the reviewer.

Copies of the signed completed form shall be made available to the employee, for the files of the division chairperson and the chief academic officer (for faculty), and for the employee personnel file which are maintained by the college president/ceo. The original completed form shall be maintained by the KCTCS Human Resources office.

2.5.1.2.1 Descriptive Performance Rating Categories

The following five (5) descriptive performance rating categories shall be used for the overall official evaluation

1. Consistently Exceeded Expectations of Job Requirements (EE) Job performance was continuously performed in an exceptional manner. Contributions significantly and consistently exceeded expectations and requirements based on established success criteria, with exceptional quality, quantity and timeliness of work. Consistently achieved outstanding results well beyond those expected of the position, and helped accomplish the KCTCS strategic plan by aligning action plans with the strategic goals. 
   
   
2. Met and Frequently Exceeded Job Requirements (ME) Job performance consistently met and frequently exceeded the expectations and requirements for the position based on established success criteria. Contributions consistently met and frequently exceeded expected criteria for quality, quantity and timeliness of work. Frequently achieved results beyond those expected for the position and helped accomplish the KCTCS strategic plan by aligning action plans with the strategic goals. 
   
   
3. Fully Met Job Requirements (M) Job performance consistently met the expectations and requirements for the position based on established success criteria. Contributions occasionally exceeded expected criteria for quality, quantity and timeliness of work and helped accomplish the KCTCS strategic plan by aligning action plans with the strategic goals.
   
   
4. Some Improvement Needed to Meet Job Requirements (NI) Certain job duties were performed capably; however, improvement in quality, quantity and/or timeliness of work is required in order to fully meet expectations and requirements for the position based on established success criteria.
   
   A Performance Improvement Plan may be developed by the supervisor to facilitate improvement by the employee. Performance shall be evaluated again in six months. Significant and immediate improvement in quality, quantity, and timeliness of work is necessary in order to avoid disciplinary action and/or termination of employment in accordance with KCTCS policies and procedures regarding employee termination and disciplinary action.
   
   
5. Did Not Meet Job Requirements (F) Performance throughout the rating period did not meet the job requirements and expectations for the position based upon established success criteria. A Performance Improvement Plan shall be immediately developed by the supervisor to facilitate improvement by the employee. Performance shall be re-evaluated based on the Performance Improvement Plan and the evaluation goals in at least three months, in six months, and again thereafter if determined necessary. Significant and immediate improvement in quality, quantity and timeliness of work is necessary in order to avoid disciplinary action and/or termination of employment in accordance with KCTCS policies and procedures regarding employee termination and disciplinary action.

2.5.1.3 Performance Planning and Evaluation Process 

Planning Process

During the planning process the supervisor and employee shall work jointly to identify specific position duties and activities for the employee’s performance plan using the PPE form as the planning document(s). For staff employees these duties and activities shall normally correspond with the duties listed on the employees’ job specification and job analysis questionnaire. The planning process for the ensuing academic year shall be completed by August 31. The distribution of effort of faculty members shall be determined during the planning process.

When there is a significant change in position duties or an employee makes a change in position during the course of a performance year, a revised planning document shall be prepared.

The planning process for new employees and employees who change positions shall be completed within one month of employment/change in position.

For faculty, the chief academic officer, with the advice of the division chairperson and faculty members of that unit, shall recommend the distribution of the faculty effort and other resources among the major functions for the ensuing year, taking into account instructional needs, indicated enrollment trends, potential resources available, and any other relevant indicators. This recommendation on distribution of effort for each division shall be forwarded to and discussed with the college president/ceo, and agreement reached on distribution of effort within the college or division or department. In any case of disagreement that is not readily resolved, the decision of the college president/ceo shall be final. Following these discussions, the chief academic officer and/or division chairperson shall formalize with each faculty member an agreement on the distribution of effort expected of each faculty member in each major function for the upcoming academic year.

The evaluation reviewer shall review the proposed planning document and approve it prior to it being finalized. The reviewer is normally the supervisor’s immediate supervisor, or another individual as designated by the college president/ceo.

Employees shall put their signatures on the completed planning documents(s), acknowledging their understanding of the planned duties/activities and the corresponding goals/results expected.

Initial Employment Period Performance Evaluation

Supervisors shall conduct two review meetings with their new employees during the course of the Initial Employment Period for the purpose of reviewing, providing feedback, and requesting input from new employees regarding their progress.

In addition, An Initial Employment Period performance evaluation for new employees shall be completed immediately prior to the end of the 6-month Initial Employment Period using the regular PPE form.

Mid-year Review

The mid-year review is an optional process to be conducted by supervisors with employees at the discretion of the college president/ceo or individual supervisors.

Supervisors shall conduct a mid-year review for individual employees who have work performance issues that need to be addressed.

Annual Performance Evaluation Process

Information assembled in the process of evaluating each faculty member should be utilized by the division chairperson, chief academic officer, or the college president/ceo in assisting the faculty member in a program of self-improvement in relation to the faculty member's anticipated responsibilities for the forthcoming year. After the completion of the performance review process, the chief academic officer (and other faculty or staff members) may also be involved in assisting the faculty member in a program of self-improvement.

The standard form shall provide opportunity for a written evaluation of performance in each active area that is listed on the PPE. Employees shall participate in identifying accomplishments related to their planned goals/results expected that were designated during the planning process. Supervisors shall be responsible for designating performance outcomes related to each activity listed on the PPE form during the planning process.

The standard form shall provide a space for a written overall evaluation of performance and recommendations for improvement. A written overall evaluation is required. 

Recommendations for improvement are required on the evaluation form as determined by the supervisor. Specific activities which would help the employee improve performance should be listed.

Employees shall put their signature on the completed evaluation document(s), acknowledging that the evaluation information was communicated to them.

1. Faculty Evaluation Process
   
   Division Chairperson’s Role
   
   The division chairperson, using the various inputs described above, shall make a recommendation to the chief academic affairs officer regarding the evaluation of each faculty member in the division using the PPE form. In the overall performance rating process, the division chairperson and the chief academic officer (and the college president/ceo) select the evaluation rating category which best describes the judgment about the faculty member's overall performance. While relative weighting among any and all of the activities of a faculty member shall be based on the PPE form, the determination of an overall judgment of performance shall not be mathematically based on weighting of PPE form categories or numerical ratings. A summative judgment is made taking into consideration the goals and expectations specified on the PPE form during the planning process, unique opportunities pursued, quantity and quality of efforts made, and significance of the faculty member's overall contribution to meeting the goals of the division or department, the college, and KCTCS.
   
   The chief academic officer shall review the evaluation completed by the division chair and recommend an evaluation category to the college president/ceo. After approval of the evaluation by the college president/ceo, the division chairperson and/or chief academic officer shall meet with each individual faculty member in the division or department. This meeting shall focus on the faculty member's performance in the effort reflected in the PPE form for the review period. The chief division chairperson and/or chief academic officer shall discuss the various inputs used, the written evaluations of the individual areas of the PPE form, the overall performance review rating, and any appropriate recommendations on how to improve performance in areas needing improvement. The official rating shall be communicated to the faculty member by the division chairperson and/or the chief academic officer during this meeting.
   
   Chief Academic Officer’s Role
   
   The chief academic officer shall review the evaluation form and completed by the division chairperson. The chief academic officer shall also use the various inputs and process described above in reviewing the recommendation.
   
   The chief academic officer shall recommend an evaluation category to the college president/ceo. After approval by the college president/ceo, the chief academic officer, along with or in lieu of the division chairperson, shall meet with each individual faculty member in the division or department to communicate the evaluation as described above.
   
   College President/CEO's Role
   
   The college president/ceo is responsible for the communication of the procedures to be used in the performance planning and evaluation to the college faculty and staff members prior to the beginning of each review process. Any supplemental evaluation forms (e.g., evaluations by students, customers, or peers) to be used by the college shall be developed by the college president/ceo, involving consultation with the appropriate faculty and staff. The college president/ceo shall review and finalize performance evaluations recommended by the chief academic officer. Where there are differences of opinion regarding a rating to be given, a conference shall then be held between the college president/ceo and the chief academic officer to discuss the rating of each individual and to attempt to resolve any differences in judgment. There shall be only one (1) official rating, that being assigned by the college president/ceo.
   
   
2. Staff Evaluation Process
   
   For staff evaluations the evaluation reviewer shall review the proposed evaluation form and approve it prior to it being finalized.
   
   The evaluator shall then conduct a meeting with the employee in which the completed PPE form is presented to the employee.

2.5.1.3.1 Faculty Biennial Ratings

The performance of faculty shall normally be reviewed annually.

However, at the discretion of the college president/ceo, faculty members with a faculty rank of Associate Professor or higher who were reviewed and rated in the middle category entitled "Fully Meets Job Requirements" during the first year of the biennium have the option to have the rating during the first year of the biennium apply for the second year of the biennium as well.

Also at the discretion of the college president/ceo, faculty members at a rank of Associate Professor or higher who receive one of the top two ratings during the first year of the biennium have the option of carrying forward the middle rating to the second year of the biennium, or being reviewed annually.

Faculty members at a rank of Associate Professor or higher who receive a rating below the middle rating during the first year of the biennium shall be reviewed during the second year of the biennium.

2.5.1.4 Evaluation Appeals

The faculty member shall be provided opportunities for appeal of a PPE rating at both the individual KCTCS college and the KCTCS System levels. After consultation with appropriate faculty member, each college president/ceo shall annually appoint a college Faculty Performance Review Appeals Committee to hear appeals made by a faculty member, who, after a conference with the college president/ceo, remains in disagreement with the rating received. After a hearing, the college Faculty Performance Review Appeals Committee shall make a recommendation to the college president/ceo, and the college president/ceo shall accept or reject the recommendation of the college Faculty Performance Review Appeals Committee and advise the faculty member of the decision. If the faculty member remains in disagreement with the decision, the faculty member may appeal to the KCTCS Chancellor for a hearing before a system Faculty Performance Review Committee appointed by the KCTCS Chancellor. The system Faculty Performance Review Committee shall meet in a central location to hear the appellant, the college president/ceo, and the division chairperson and/or chief academic officer. The system Faculty Performance Review Committee shall make a recommendation to the KCTCS Chancellor. The KCTCS Chancellor shall accept or reject the recommendation of the system Faculty Performance Review Committee, and advise the faculty member and the college president/ceo of the decision.

Staff who choose to appeal their evaluation rating shall do so in accordance with the Staff Appeals of Performance Ratings, Administrative Procedure 2.5.1.4-P.

2.5.1.4.1 Evaluation Appeals Schedule

The faculty evaluation appeals schedule for the appeal of an assigned evaluation includes deadlines for each step to occur no later than on or the last working day before the following dates:

Faculty Promotion Candidates

• March 31 Individual faculty appeals shall be submitted to the college president;
• May 1 Appeals response from the college president shall be completed;
• May 16 Faculty appeals shall be submitted to the KCTCS Chancellor; and
• May 31 System appeals to the KCTCS Chancellor shall be processed

Faculty Non-Promotion Candidates

• May 31 Individual faculty appeals shall be submitted to the college president;
• August 15 Appeals response from the college president shall be completed;
• September 15 Faculty appeals shall be submitted to the KCTCS Chancellor; and
• October 15 System appeals to the KCTCS Chancellor shall be processed.

The above schedules may be changed by the KCTCS Chancellor.

2.5.1.5 Evaluation Input/Outcome

Relevant input from students, colleagues, and administrators regarding faculty performance shall be used. If letters or written comments are submitted by colleagues, these documents must be signed by the individual(s) providing the information. In the assessment of teaching and advising, student evaluations are to be included for at least one (1) semester each year.

The quantitative data shall be provided at least once annually by the faculty member to the division chairperson/chief academic officer through the Academic Personnel Report, which shall cover activities, functions, and time. The distribution of effort, is designated in the quantitative data or through a substitute instrument approved by the KCTCS Chancellor.

The outcome of this process is both a comprehensive review of the performance of the individual faculty member and a plan of action for any needed improvements. At the end of the formal performance review process, the faculty member should have a good understanding of strengths and weaknesses in the areas of responsibility and of specific actions to take to make needed improvements.

1. Innovation and Experimentation
   
   In those instances when the pedagogical techniques employed are planned and documented; are clearly innovative and exploratory in nature; and the effort of the faculty member is an initial one of experimentation, the impact of any negative student evaluation of teaching shall be minimized. In addition, other indications of effort to improve instruction, such as suitable uses of technology, self-examination, and innovative and experimental approaches shall be recognized.
   
   
2. Scholarship and Creative Work
   
   Scholarship and creative work appropriate to the various fields are to be recognized in performance review.
   
   
3. Teamwork and Collaboration
   
   Teamwork and collaboration appropriate to the various fields (such as interdisciplinary courses, continuing education/community service offerings, professional development, and so forth) are to be recognized in performance review.

2.5.1.6 English Language Assessment

In accordance with KRS 164.297(3), each college shall institute English language proficiency assessment for all faculty members, including teaching assistants, for whom English is not their primary language, except for the teaching of foreign language courses. The instructors shall be evaluated periodically to demonstrate their ability to deliver all lectures and oral presentations in an English speech pattern which the students understand. If a faculty member receives an unsatisfactory assessment, the faculty member shall have one (1) semester to demonstrate English language proficiency. If the faculty member receives a second unsatisfactory assessment, the faculty member’s employment shall be terminated.

2.5.1.7 Librarian Evaluation

Professional Librarians are evaluated under the same criteria as other ranked faculty as set forth in policy 2.5, as applicable. KCTCS colleges recognize that excellence in job performance is one of the most important attributes of a professional Librarian. The attributes and qualifications to be considered and documented in assessing job effectiveness must be related to the appropriate position and classification, and should include, but not necessarily be limited to, performing the following actions:

1. Assist with the planning, organization, and evaluation of library and information services;
2. Offer quality library and information services;
3. Instruct library users to access and evaluate information;
4. Remain informed on current trends for library and information services;
5. Participate in professional organizations and professional development opportunities;
6. Serve on assigned college and KCTCS committees; and
7. Meet professional standards and ethics that are in accordance with state regulatory statutes and/or the American Library Association (ALA) standards.

2.5.2 Evaluation of Significant Accomplishments

When funded, as determined by the KCTCS Board of Regents, KCTCS shall have a performance-based merit pay system with the goal of recognizing and rewarding outstanding employee performance. Furthermore, the expected outcome of a performance-based merit pay system is to maintain and improve overall employee performance.

The process for the determination of eligibility for merit bonuses shall be consistent throughout KCTCS. Merit bonuses shall be based on a two-tier process that includes both the performance planning and evaluation (PPE) and an additional systematic review process at the college level. This college level review shall incorporate the PPE overall evaluation relative to locally developed criteria. The determination of merit bonus award recipients shall be based on an internal college review process to ensure consistency in the awarding of merit bonuses throughout the college.

Individual colleges and the system office shall develop standards to further define what constitutes significant accomplishments for their employees. These shall be developed with input from faculty and staff relative to the strategic plan goals for the college and system.

For faculty and staff the process of determining individual planned “significant accomplishments relative to KCTCS system-wide, or college goals” shall be an inclusive process based on  meetings with their supervisor during the PPE planning process. This provides faculty and staff with the opportunity to provide input in defining the outcomes that shall constitute significant accomplishments and how they can contribute to achieving KCTCS or college strategic plan goals.

Merit bonuses are to be awarded to regular full-time faculty and staff who have been determined to have made significant accomplishments relative to KCTCS system-wide, or college goals as articulated through KCTCS or college strategic plans. Merit bonus award recipients shall have documentable significant accomplishments in one or more of the goals outlined in the KCTCS or college strategic plans.

Each college president/ceo shall submit the college’s written proposed systematic review process for merit bonus determination and criteria for significant accomplishments for an approval determination by the KCTCS President, in consultation with the KCTCS System Human Resources Office. Colleges shall award merit bonuses to those employees who qualify for a merit bonus, in accordance with the college’s approved process.

Candidates eligible for consideration for merit bonus shall be identified based on the following:

• Overall performance rating of “Consistently Exceeded Expectations of Job Requirements (EE)”;
• Overall performance rating of “Met and Frequently Exceeded Job Requirements (ME)”;
• Overall performance rating of “Excels (E)” on pilot three-point scale;
• Recommendations of the supervisor and evaluation reviewer;
• Predetermined criteria establishing “significant accomplishments relative to KCTCS or college strategic plan goals,” representing achievement of extraordinary contributions;
• Employee self-assessment of achievements; and
• Supervisor assessment of employee achievements.

Each college president/ceo shall establish a college review process to consider merit bonuses for faculty and staff who have been recommended for consideration by their immediate supervisor and PPE reviewer.