I. REVIEW OF APPOINTMENT A. ACADEMIC STAFF All academic staff remunerated on the university scales are appointed initially on fixed-term contract and will be considered for substantiation (with the exception of Assistant Lecturers) subject to a period of observation and an overall percentage of "substantiable appointment". The current percentage is set at 85% but this percentage is subject to review from time to time. Performance Review will be conducted at different stages of appointment of an academic staff with the University. Specifically during the period of observation before substantiation, the staff member concerned will be subject to annual review. Thereafter, at the end of the initial contract, there will be an interim review for contract renewals at the Faculty/School level by a Faculty/School Review Panel. Recommendations for contract renewals, or in some cases, substantiation or completion of contract will then be forwarded to the University Appointment Review Panel for consideration. The procedures, time schedules, and criteria for review of different ranks of academic staff for the purpose of contract renewal/bar crossing/substantiation are set out in the ensuing paragraphs. 1. Annual Review during the Non-substantiated/Contract Period With the implementation of a performance management process beginning in the 1999/2000 academic year, all academic staff, irrespective of their substantiated or non-substantiated status, would need to document their annual work performance in teaching, scholarly work and service in an Annual Activity Report and file the Report with their Head of Department. The Head of Department concerned shall arrange an Annual Consultative Meeting with the staff member and in the case of staff on contracts/non- substantiated appointment, the Head will complete an Annual Performance Review Report to be endorsed by the Dean of Faculty/ School and sent to the Personnel Office. 2. Review by the Faculty/School Review Panel Towards the end of the contract, consideration for contract renewal/substantiation/completion of service will be reviewed first at the Faculty/School level by a Faculty/School Review Panel. The recommendations will then be forwarded to the University Appointment Review Panel for consideration. The process of review at the Faculty/School level will commence early at the beginning of each academic year in the months of October and November. To prepare for the review at the Faculty/School level, the Personnel Office will provide Deans and Heads of Departments with a list of staff due for review. The Faculty/School Office will then invite the Head of Department to complete the Appraisal Report on the staff member under review; and the staff member concerned to submit a self-statement of his/her duties and achievements during the period under review, his/her updated curriculum vitae (c.v.), and samples of 3 representative publications/scholarly works. External assessment may be sought, as an additional piece of evidence, by the Faculty/School at the discretion of the Dean as Chairman of the Faculty/School Review Panel. On the basis of the performance review/appraisal reports, supporting materials submitted by the staff member concerned, and external assessment if applicable, the Faculty/School Review Panel will make recommendations to the University Appointment Review Panel. 3. Review by the University Appointment Review Panel On the basis of the performance review/appraisal reports provided by the Dean of Faculty/School, the self-statement submitted by the staff member concerned, external assessment if applicable, the recommendations made by the Faculty/ School Review Panel, and any additional input provided by the relevant Dean of Faculty/ School at the time of the Panel meeting in January/February, the University Appointment Review Panel will recommend one of the following courses of action to the President & Vice-Chancellor for approval : a. that, subject to the permissible percentage for substantiable appointment, the staff member be offered a substantive appointment and be allowed to cross the salary bar; OR b. that the appointment/contract of the staff member be terminated/ completed; OR c. that the non-substantiated appointment/contract period of the staff member be extended/renewed. 4. Review Panel Composition a. Faculty/School Review Panel The Faculty/School Review Panel will be formed with the Dean of relevant Faculty/School as the Chairman, and the Head(s) of relevant Department(s), and may comprise members including senior teaching staff member(s) from within the Faculty/School, a Dean or senior teaching staff member(s) from outside the Faculty/School, to be invited at the Chairman’s discretion. b. University Appointment Review Panel for Academic Staff (other than Chair Professors) Core Members i. The Academic Vice-President as Chairman; ii. The Chairman of the Research Committee; iii. A Dean of Faculty by rotation on an annual basis. Other Members i. Dean of the relevant Faculty (or Dean of another Faculty should the relevant Dean be a core member); ii A senior teaching staff member from the relevant Faculty; iii. A senior teaching staff member from outside the Faculty. (Note: Core Member recommended by the Chairman of the Review Panel will be appointed by the President & Vice-Chancellor while other members will be invited by the Chairman) c. University Appointment Review Panel for Chair Professors i. The President & Vice-Chancellor as Chairman; ii. The Academic Vice-President; iii. The Vice-President (Research & Support Services); iv. The relevant Dean of the Faculty/School; v. The Dean of another Faculty/School; and vi. A Chair Professor who is not a Dean of Faculty/ School. 5. Criteria for Substantiation & Bar Crossing Members of the Review Panel shall consider all the evidences provided and discuss the performance of the staff member concerned with respect to the criteria for the various ranks as set out below. a. Review for continuation of appointment i. a minimum of 3 years in rank is expected; ii. evidences of effective teaching; iii. identified continuous research activities, and publications in refereed academic/professional journals commensurate with these activities and/or creative/scholarly/recognized and appropriate professional activities or performances, with appropriate evaluations/critical appraisals being provided; iv. contributions to the professional work of the Department; v. relationship with colleagues and students; and vi. understanding and support of the educational goals of the University. b. Review for Substantiation For Senior/Principal Instructor i. a minimum of three years, and normally five years, in rank is expected; ii. well-established and independent teaching performance as evidenced by : the development of quality course materials of all kinds; of student, peer and Head of Department appraisals of good teaching; of continuous upgrading of approaches to teaching and learning; and a demonstration of leadership in the individual's teaching specialism; iii. continuing contributions to and demonstration of leadership in curriculum development, course planning and management; and iv. continuing contributions to the academic and professional work of the Department with strong commitments to the educational goals of the Institution. For Assistant/Associate Professor (Scale B) i. a minimum of three years, and normally five years, in rank is expected; ii. well-established and independent teaching performance as evidenced by : the development of quality course materials of all kinds; of student, peer and Head of Department appraisals of good teaching; of continuous upgrading of approaches to teaching and learning; and of an emerging demonstration of leadership in the individual's teaching specialism; iii. a track record of scholarship which results in the promulgation of the results of these efforts, which should have shown a sustainable independence of action and a level of confidence that reveals a growing scholarly maturity, and a quantity and quality of output that is sufficient to determine this maturity; and iv. continuing contributions to the academic and professional work of the Department, with strong commitments to the educational goals of the Institution. [For Assistant Professors who have satisfied the above criteria and have reached Scale B point 10 (or exceptionally Scale B point 9 for those who enter at Scale B point 5), they will normally be considered at the same time for promotion in title to the Associate Professor (Scale B) rank when recommended for substantiation.] For Associate Professor (Scale A) i. a minimum of three years in rank is expected; ii. sustained good teaching performance with continuous commitment to upgrading the quality of performance both in teaching material development and the use of new teaching approaches; iii. scholarship gaining maturity with the staff member gradually assuming a leadership role in the relevant discipline as evidenced by the growing recognition from colleagues and professional peers, along with a substantial track record of scholarly promulgation; iv. increasing participation in administrative matters in departmental and higher levels with on-going commitment to the educational goals of the Institution. For Professor i. a minimum of three years in rank is expected; ii. clearly recognized as a specialist and an academic/ teaching leader in the relevant discipline, with strong commitment to the continual upgrading of quality teaching performance in curriculum development and introduction of innovative approaches at the personal as well as departmental level; iii. clearly established as a scholar in the relevant discipline, as evidenced by a solid record of quality scholarly publications, increasing invitations to participate in high-level scholarly activities, and having an important impact on the profession and community through application of his/her research work and scholarship; iv. demonstrating solid and mature leadership in academic management matters, and playing a leading role in defining and communicating the educational goals of the University to students, colleagues and outsiders. For Chair Professor i. a minimum of three years in rank is expected; ii. clearly established and recognized as a specialist/ teacher in the relevant discipline; iii. continuous record of outstanding contribution and academic achievement in research and scholarship, with successful application in the community and in the introduction of innovative methods of academic/professional practices; iv. proven abilities in academic leadership within the University's philosophy, mission and role in higher education. c. Good Performance Criteria To give a better idea of how a staff member’s performance will be reviewed in teaching, scholarly work and service, Deans, Heads of Departments, and Members of Review Panels could refer to the following list of "good performance criteria" for guidance: i. Effective Teaching, as demonstrated by * the quality of course organization * mastery of course content * preparations of instructional materials * student feedbacks * supervisor’s/peer’s reviews, in a general sense but not necessarily involving classroom visitation (these may include reference letters, previous supervisors'/employers' testimonial letters, University supervisor's assessments, etc.) * assignments and evaluation methods employed * course development skills and content of courses developed * quality of specialized or professional practice (for selected disciplines, where appropriate) * invitations to lectures in other institutions of good standing (on the individual's academic or professional discipline but not for part-time teaching) * teaching leadership ii. Scholarship, as demonstrated by: * categories and ranking order of acceptable scholarship in different specialty areas (as in the Research Grants Council approach) * articles in refereed journals * books * book chapters * other published manuscripts * creative works/performances/exhibitions (as appropriate to various professional disciplines) * conference papers/proceedings papers * successes in obtaining project support (grants) * citations in journals and books * articles in non-refereed journals * supervision of postgraduate research students and undergraduate/postgraduate students' projects * invitations to deliver lectures on personal achievements in scholarly areas * research-based consultancies, appointments, and fellowships * research leadership iii. Service, as seen in commitments to * profession * the community of scholars * University/Faculty/School/Department administration * institutional committees/boards * the wider community of Hong Kong and beyond (include service on government and other boards and committees of significance) * writings in more popular publications that communicate professional, academic and University issues to a wider audience (public education) * relations with colleagues * counselling/advising/supervision of students * the achievement and fostering of the University's educational goals * administrative/service leadership * consultancies on academic administration For the review exercise, the Dean of Faculty/School will provide the Panel with Teaching Evaluation Results of the staff member under review, as part of the evidences of student response to the staff member's teaching. The University Appointment Review Panel may request for additional information or evidences from the Dean of Faculty/School or the staff member concerned before making a recommendation to the President & Vice-Chancellor, or it may choose to interview the staff member who is given a negative a negative recommendation by his/her Dean of Faculty/School. 6. Communication of the Result of Review a. The University Appointment Review Panel will submit reports on their respective discussion and recommendations to the President & Vice-Chancellor, and subject to the President & Vice-Chancellor's approval, results of the review will be communicated to the staff members concerned in writing by the Personnel Office. b. The Dean of Faculty/School and Head of Department concerned should also communicate clearly the result of the review and any advice of the Panel back to an appointee, and should continue to monitor the performance of the staff concerned to see if desired improvements have been made. 7. Appeal Procedures A staff member who is dissatisfied with the outcome of the review may write to appeal against the result within one month of the date of letter of notification. a. The staff member concerned who wish to appeal against the result of the review could write direct to the President & Vice-Chancellor giving all the reasons and evidences for such an appeal; b. The President & Vice-Chancellor, after examining the reasons for the appeal, could either authorize the Review Panel to be re-convened to re-consider the case on ground of any newly submitted evidences, or to convene a different Panel, or to adopt other appropriate measures at his own discretion; c. The President & Vice-Chancellor should have the absolute discretion to interview the staff member concerned and/or to accept or not to accept the re-considered view of the Review Panel before communicating the result to the staff; d. The President & Vice-Chancellor’s decision on the re- considered view of the Review Panel should be final. B. REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF ON TERMS OF SERVICE A All administrative staff remunerated on the university scales (i.e. on Terms of Service A) are appointed initially on fixed- term contract of three years with a floating salary bar placed at the end of contract. 1. Annual Review during the Non-substantiated/Contract Period As part of the Performance Management Process for Non-teaching Staff, annual performance plan and reviews are conducted regularly on an administrative staff member following a performance management cycle throughout his/her employment with the University. Specifically for administrative staff member serving a non-substantiated/fixed-term contract period of appointment, annual performance review will be conducted to enable appropriate advice, and/or guidance to be given in an appropriately early time to the appointee under review. The Faculty Dean/Head of Office concerned is advised to arrange an appraisal interview with the staff member under review for the purpose of clearly communicating to him/her the overall review of his/her performance. Annual Performance Review Reports to be completed by the Faculty Dean/Head of Office concerned will need to be filed with the Personnel Office at appropriate times of the year. 2. Review for Substantiation/Contract Renewal The process of review for substantiation of appointment/renewal of contract will begin a few months before the appointee is due to complete the three-year period of non-substantiated/contract appointment. The appointee will, at the same time, be reviewed for crossing the salary bar which synchronizes with the end of the non-substantiated/contract period. a. Permissible Percentage of Substantiable Appointment i. With effect from the 1997/98 year, the University has agreed that the overall percentage of "substantiable appointments" of academic and equivalent administrative staff should be 85% of the approved regular staff establishment, while the remaining 15% will be employed on fixed-term renewable contracts. There is henceforth a limit to substantive appointment which could only be offered to an administrative staff member with good quality performance, subject to the permissible percentage. ii. The permissible percentage of "substantiable appointments" for the administrative staff will be based on individual Office, with a grouping according to the reporting lines of Offices to the President & Vice-Chancellor or one of the Vice- Presidents to allow for minor adjustments across the Offices within the same grouping. At the time when a staff member is due for consideration of substantiation, information on the respective numbers and percentages of substantive appointments in each Office and the number of places available for considering further "sub- stantiation" will be provided by the Personnel Office. iii. In the event that in any given year, a particular Department has already filled all its places of "substantiable appointments", and that temporary "borrowing" of "substantiable appointment" within the same group of offices within the same reporting relationship also proves not feasible, no substantive appointment will be offered for the time being. Only contract renewal/extension of appointment will be considered. It would be up to the Head of Office to decide which staff to be put forward for consideration of substantiation when a vacancy for substantiable appointment subsequently becomes available. 3. Review Process a. The Faculty Dean/Head of Office will be invited by the Personnel Office to submit a confidential Appraisal Report to the Review Panel on the appointee's performance, and to make a recommendation regarding the appointment status of the staff member under review. As a good management practice, appraisal interview is again encouraged to convey to the appointee concerned an overall review of his/her performance. b. The appointee under review will also be invited by the Personnel Office to submit to the Review Panel a self statement of his/her duties and achievements during the period of non-substantiated/contract employment to date. He/She may furnish any information in support of his/her desire to be substantiated or otherwise and such a statement shall be considered by the Panel. c. With a view to collecting more objective evidences on the performance of the staff member concerned, additional input from the users will be solicited in the form of "Service Evaluation Surveys" for the review of administrative staff at or above the Assistant Secretary and equivalent ranks, and as and when required, for the review of administrative staff below the Assistant Secretary rank. d. Upon receipt of the recommendations from the Faculty Dean/Head of Office regarding the appointment status of the staff member under review, the self-statement from the staff member concerned on his/her duties and achievements and, as appropriate, results of the Service Evaluation Survey, the Review Panel shall then be convened to consider all the evidences provided, and recommend one of the following courses of action to the President & Vice-Chancellor for approval : i. that, subject to the permissible percentage for substantiable appointment, the staff member be offered a substantive appointment and be allowed to cross the salary bar; OR ii. that the appointment of the staff member be terminated at the end of the non-substantiated/ contract employment; OR iii. that the non-substantiated/contract employment of the staff member be extended. 4. Review Panel Composition a. Membership of the Review Panel for Administrative Staff (other than Heads of Offices) comprises: i. The Vice-President (Administration) & Secretary as Chairman; ii. The relevant Faculty Dean/Head of Office; iii. A senior non-teaching staff member from outside the Office, (preferably at the Head of Office level if the appointee under review is at the Assistant Secretary/Senior Assistant Secretary or equivalent level); iv. A senior teaching staff member from the Senate; v. The Director of Personnel. b. Membership of the Review Panel for Heads of Offices comprises: i. The President & Vice-Chancellor as Chairman; ii. Vice-Presidents; iii. One to two senior staff member(s) at the Dean/ Head of Office level to be co-opted at the discretion of the Chairman. 5. Criteria for Substantiation & Bar Crossing a. Members of the Review Panel shall consider all the evidences provided and discuss the performance of the staff member concerned with respect to the criteria as set out below: - i. administrative abilities and effectiveness ii. seriousness towards responsibilities iii. initiation and devotion iv. involvement in committee work v. co-operation with general regulations vi. relationship with colleagues/students and the public vii. commitment to the University's educational goal b. The Panel may request for additional information or evidences from the Faculty Dean/Head of Office or the staff member concerned before making a recommendation to the President & Vice-Chancellor, or it may choose to interview the staff member who is given a negative recommendation by his/her Faculty Dean/Head of Office. 6. Communication of the Result of Review a. A Report of the Review Panel’s discussion and recommendation will be presented to the President & Vice- Chancellor, and subject to the President & Vice-Chancellor's approval, result of the review will be communicated to the staff member concerned in writing. b. The Faculty Dean/Head of Office concerned should also communicate clearly the advice of the Panel back to an appointee whose substantiation has been deferred, and should continue to monitor the performance of the staff concerned to see if desired improvements have been made. 7. Appeal Procedures A staff member who is dissatisfied with the outcome of the review may write to appeal against the result within one month of the date of letter of notification. a. The staff member concerned who wish to appeal against the result of the review could write direct to the President & Vice-Chancellor giving all the reasons and evidences for such an appeal; b. The President & Vice-Chancellor, after examining the reasons for the appeal, could either authorize the Review Panel to be re-convened to re-consider the case on ground of any newly submitted evidences, or to convene a different Panel, or to adopt other appropriate measures at his own discretion; c. The President & Vice-Chancellor should have the absolute discretion to interview the staff member concerned and/ or to accept or not to accept the re-considered view of the Review Panel before communicating the result to the staff; d. The President & Vice-Chancellor’s decision on the re- considered view of the Review Panel should be final. C. SERVICE EVALUATION SURVEY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF ON TERMS OF SERVICE A Administrative staff are mostly involved in the delivery of service in one way or another in support of the University's academic functions. With the University's emphasis on "quality service", Service Evaluation Surveys are conducted to collect more information/feedback on the service quality of an administrative staff on the following occasions: * at the juncture of appointment reviews, including substantiation, contract renewals, promotion, bar-crossing, consideration of extension of appointment beyond normal retirement age etc., for administrative staff at Assistant Secretary or above ranks, (or staff below the Assistant Secretary rank as and when required by the relevant panels); and * at the juncture of every three years since substantiation for Heads of Administrative Offices; Survey conducted within one year prior to any personnel-related appointment review will be considered valid for the purpose. 1. Objectives of the Survey Service Evaluation Survey is considered useful in the following ways: a. It stresses the University's concern for "quality service" and ensures that this concern is shared and put into practice by the administrative staff; b. On a formative aspect, the survey results will provide feedback or service assessment, and enable continuous improvement to be made towards providing better quality service; c. In the case of surveys conducted for appointment review purpose, the results provide useful additional input, and enable members of the Review Panel to have a fuller picture of the work performance of the staff member under review, thus enhancing the rigour of the review, and ensuring a more objective basis for making judgemental d ecisions. 2. Process of the Survey For the purpose of collecting feedback, a list of user departments/ offices will be constructed after due consultation with the respective Vice-President/Dean/Head of Office to whom the staff member reports. These users will then be invited to provide feedback on identified areas of work of the staff member concerned by completing a Service Evaluation Survey. In the case of surveys conducted on Heads of Administrative Offices, focus will also be made on the service rendered by the respective Office as a whole. The respective supervisor of the Head concerned will be consulted in drawing up the questions to be asked in the Service Evaluation Survey which will then be sent out to Deans & Heads of Departments/Offices for their feedback. 3. Results of the Survey In the case of survey conducted for appointment review purpose, comments and feedback received from users will be typed and presented anonymously to the relevant Review Panel for reference. In the case of survey conducted on Heads of Administrative Offices on a 3-year regular basis, the survey results will be typed and presented anonymously to the supervisor and the Head concerned for reference, and appropriate follow-up action. D. REVIEW OF SUPPORT STAFF 1. Support staff are appointed on fixed-term contract/subject to a one-year probationary period of appointment. Renewal of contract/ confirmation of appointment at the end of the contract/probationary period will be subject to performance review. 2. At the time of appointment, Heads of Departments/Offices are advised to give their staff clear job specifications and proper guidance on work performance. A copy of job specifications should be given to the staff member concerned; and another copy to be filed with the Personnel Office at the time of completing the Appraisal Form. 3. Heads of Departments/Offices are advised to follow the guidelines and procedures below for review of appointment of support staff: a. During the contract/probationary period, the Heads of Departments/Offices are encouraged to conduct a half-yearly informal review on the new staff member's performance. b. In case substantial improvement is required from the staff member concerned, the Head should convey his/her comments in writing to the staff and copy it to the Personnel Office for record. c. At about three months before the end of the contract/ probation period, an Appraisal Form will be provided to the Heads of Departments/Offices for the purpose of careful assessment on the overall performance of the staff member concerned. The Appraisal Form is divided into two parts: Part A on the staff member's general work attitude and language proficiency; Part B on the staff member's work ability and performance. The Head will be requested to make a clear recommendation on whether the contract should be renewed or the appointment be confirmed. It is generally expected that staff who could be recommended for contract renewal/confirmation of appointment must have demonstrated good to very good performance. The completed Appraisal Form, together with a copy of the job description of the staff member concerned, should be returned to the Personnel Office within two weeks from the date of receipt of the Form. d. For better communication and mutual understanding, the Head of Departments is encouraged to communicate to the staff member concerned comments and recommendations he/she has made in the Appraisal Form, so that the staff member would know the Head's appreciation/recognition and/or expectations ofimprovement with regard to his/her attitude or performance. e. If in the view of the Head of Department/Office, the performance and working attitude of a staff member on probationary appointment have not yet reached a standard good enough for confirmation and more time is required for observation, the Head could recommend to extend the probation period of his/her staff for 3 months. If the first extension of 3 months is still not enough for the Head to make a decision about the confirmation or otherwise of the staff member’s appointment, a further extension of 3 months' probation could be considered. This further extension is the last one, and the Head will need to make a final decision on whether or not to confirm the staff member’s appointment. f. In the event of the Head recommending not to confirm the appointment of the staff member concerned at the end of probationary period, the Personnel Office must have received, prior to the time due for review, at least one written warning from the Head concerned identifying the staff member’s weaknesses and areas for improvement during the period of probationary appointment. g. The recommendation on the contract renewal/confirmation of the staff member’s appointment or otherwise should be forwarded to the Vice-President/Dean to whom the staff's Department/Office reports for endorsement. In case of exceptions to stated policies/procedures being recommended for a particular staff member, the view of the Vice-President (Administration) & Secretary should be sought and his decision shall be final. E. REVIEW OF ANCILLARY STAFF 1. Ancillary Staff are appointed on fixed-term contract. Heads of Offices/Supervisors should provide clear job specifications and guidance to the staff member concerned, and monitor his/her performance closely during the contract period. 2. In case substantial improvement is needed, the Head of Office should convey his/her comments in writing to the staff member, and send a copy to the Personnel Office for record. At about three months before the end of the contract period, an Appraisal Form will be provided to the Heads of Department/Office for the purpose of assessment on the overall performance of the staff member concerned. The Head will be requested to make a clear recommendation on whether the contract should be renewed or not. .