Annual performance reviews provide an audit trail and feedback on how well the employee does the job (or not), including any problems or failures of the employee. In my case, I have exceptionally good annual performance reviews with consistent statements that clearly show McNeese State University has every interest in keeping me employed. I have never had a complaint filed against me and I have never had issues with any employees, staff, students, or other (with the exception of Patrick Eustis and then I was the one that complained about him).

I will attempt to scan the annual performance reviews, upload them to this server, and add them here.

The APRs use the following rating scale:

• 1 = Fails to meet standards.
• 2 = Needs improvement to meet standards.
• 3 = Fully meets standards.
• 4 = Exceeds standards.
• 5 = Far exceeds standards.

Thus, a person doing their job exactly as requested and without fail should get a 3. A person who goes above and beyond, should get a 4. A person who does something beyond imagine, should get a 5.

The Annual Performance Review process starts with me filling out my own fields on the form. I then hand it over to Stan Hippler, who then fills it out and we meet to discuss. I then sign the form. Stan Hippler then signs it, and eventually sends it off to Chad Thibodeaux for his signature. Once all signatures are made, it is returned to me.

The very last review was never returned to me, but the performance review was very positive (as usual). I never received the Annual Performance Review I had to directly ask Charlene Abbot (from Human Resources) on the date of my Retalitory Termination to receive my performance review (see termination recording and transcript).

I also noticed that the automated calculations of the averages on the form seem to be off. These are manually re-calculated and labeled under the description name of “actual”.

There is inconsistency in which fields and fields are not filled out (in part because it is unclear as to which fields actually need to be filled out). It looks like each year we made different decisions on what to fill out. This also affected the “actual” calculations. Therefore the following fields are the ones used to calculate the “actual” calculations (based on the 2017 decisions, a total of 9 areas):

• 1) Job Skills and Knowledege
• 2) Responsibility
• 3) Customer Service/Collegiality
• 4) Problem Solving
• 5) Initiative
• 7) University Leadership Qualities
• 8) Organization
• 11) Interaction With Others
• 12) Interaction With Supervisor

File: 2012 Annual Performance Review PDF
Job Skills and Knowledge:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 4.00.

Responsibility:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Customer Service/Collegiality:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Problem Solving:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 4.00.

Initiative:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 4.00.

University Leadership Qualities:

• Self: 3.00 (left blank, assumed 3.00).
• Supervisor: 3.00 (left blank, assumed 3.00).

Organization:

• Self: 3.00 (left blank, assumed 3.00).
• Supervisor: 3.00 (left blank, assumed 3.00).

Interaction With Others:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 4.00.

Interaction With Supervisor:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 4.00.

Overall Rating:

• Self: 2.63 (actual: 3.00).
• Supervisor: 3.38 (actual: 3.67).

File: Waiting on FOIA Request.

File: 2014 Annual Performance Review PDF
Job Skills and Knowledge:

• Self: 4.71.
• Supervisor: 4.71.

Responsibility:

• Self: 3.14.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Customer Service/Collegiality:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Problem Solving:

• Self: 3.29.
• Supervisor: 3.14.

Initiative:

• Self: 4.00.
• Supervisor: 4.00.

University Leadership Qualities:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Organization:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Interaction With Others:

• Self: 4.43.
• Supervisor: 4.00.

Interaction With Supervisor:

• Self: 3.00 (left blank, assumed 3).
• Supervisor: 2.80.

Overall Rating:

• Self: 3.83 (actual: 3.50).
• Supervisor: 3.33 (actual: 3.41).

Website is extremely stable; any downtime was outside our control; please continue enhancing the system

Kevin works very hard on the website and underlying technologies.

Note: This review has an incorrect year, but all signatures are dated 2015.
Note: It looks like something went wrong with the scan and pages are missing, will have to re-scan on a later date.
File: 2015 Annual Performance Review PDF
Job Skills and Knowledge:

• Self: 5.00.
• Supervisor: 4.00.

Responsibility:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Customer Service/Collegiality:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Problem Solving:

• Self: 4.00.
• Supervisor: 4.00.

Initiative:

• Self: 5.00.
• Supervisor: 4.00.

University Leadership Qualities:

• Self: 3.00 (left blank, assumed 3).
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Organization:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Interaction With Others:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Interaction With Supervisor:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Average Rating:

• Self: 3.83 (actual: 3.75).
• Supervisor: 3.33 (actual: 3.52)

Good job with diverting the attack. I only hear good things about the Events Management System.

Good job Kevin. Website is stable.

File: 2016 Annual Performance Review PDF
Job Skills and Knowledge:

• Self: 5.00.
• Supervisor: 3.14.

Responsibility:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Customer Service/Collegiality:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Problem Solving:

• Self: 5.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Initiative:

• Self: 5.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

University Leadership Qualities:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Organization:

• Self: 5.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Interaction With Others:

• Self: 5.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Interaction With Supervisor:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Average Rating:

• Self: 4.20 (actual: 3.91).
• Supervisor: 3.35 (actual: 3.01).

Please continue to cleanup and monitor existing systems. The Events Management System is widely used and appreciated, good job.

I appreciate and acknowledge that you actively research related technologies and apply them to your daily work where possible.

File: 2017 Annual Performance Review PDF
Job Skills and Knowledge:

• Self: 3.86.
• Supervisor: 4.14.

Responsibility:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.43.

Customer Service/Collegiality:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Problem Solving:

• Self: 3.43.
• Supervisor: 3.29.

Initiative:

• Self: 3.67.
• Supervisor: 3.44.

University Leadership Qualities:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Organization:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.29.

Interaction With Others Rating:

• Self: 3.86.
• Supervisor: 3.14.

Interaction With Supervisor:

• Self: 3.00.
• Supervisor: 3.00.

Average Rating:

• Self: 3.67 (actual: 3.31).
• Supervisor: 3.30 (actual: 3.30).

I appreciate and respect the efforts you put into making sure your projects run as efficiently as possible. This effort resulted in the identification of the IO wait problem with ultimately resulted in the discovery of a network misconfiguration.

Your projects are well thought out and generally complete. Uptime is outstanding.