Tenured Faculty (Post-Tenure Review)

The following post-tenure review policy provides a framework for implementation of the Trustee Policy for Review of Tenured Faculty, which was effective September 1, 1998.

Post-tenure review is a systematic process for the periodic, comprehensive review of the performance of all faculty members having permanent tenure and whose primary duties are teaching, research and service. The goals of post-tenure review are to promote faculty development, ensure faculty productivity and provide accountability. The post-tenure review process should respect the basic principles of academic freedom. Post-tenure review does not abrogate, in any way, the due process criteria or procedures for dismissal or other disciplinary action established under the Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure. The policies and procedures presented below incorporate the basic principles of the policies established by the Board of Governors in Memorandum #371.

Each faculty member is subject to post-tenure review no less often than every five years following the conferral of permanent tenure. Reviews must examine all aspects of a faculty member's academic performance and must involve faculty peers. Comprehensive evaluations conducted for other purposes, such as a review for promotion, may be substituted for or combined with post-tenure review. A review may be delayed for compelling reasons approved by the Provost.

The unit head shall notify a faculty member at least six months in advance of an upcoming post-tenure review.

• Each appointing unit has developed written policies and procedures that describe the expectations the unit has of its faculty, the manner in which the post-tenure review process is conducted, and the procedures by which persons will be designated to conduct reviews. In the remainder of this document the designated persons will be referred to as the Post-Tenure Review Committee. The review process must involve faculty peers and should be conducted by a minimum of three persons. The post-tenure review process should be flexible enough to acknowledge different expectations in different disciplines and changing expectations at different stages of faculty careers.
• The review should involve an examination of qualitative and quantitative evidence of all relevant aspects of a faculty member's professional performance over at least the previous five years in relation to the mission of the department, school and institution. Each faculty member being reviewed should provide a concise summary of accomplishments and plans. Additional evidence for the review may include annual merit reviews, a current curriculum vita, copies of publications, evaluations of teaching, and other documentation of contributions and accomplishments.
• The Post-Tenure Review Committee will provide to the faculty member and the unit head a written summary of its conclusions with regard to his or her overall performance and, where appropriate, its recommendations.
• The faculty member being reviewed must be given an opportunity by the unit head to provide a written response to the report of the Post-Tenure Review Committee. The unit head maintains a record of the Committee's report and any response to it is a part of the faculty member's confidential personnel file within the unit. When the unit head is being reviewed, the administrative officer at the next higher level assumes the function of the unit head in the review process.
• The post-tenure review process should identify and recognize outstanding performance by faculty members. The process may also identify specific areas in which faculty members can improve and, in such cases, the process should result in specific recommendations and plans for improvement. For faculty members whose overall performance reflects substantial deficiencies, a more comprehensive plan for improvement (a development plan) should be prepared.
• Development plans should be established jointly by the faculty member being reviewed and the unit head on the basis of the evaluation and recommendations provided by the Post-Tenure Review Committee. Faculty development plans should be individualized and flexible, taking into account the faculty member's intellectual interests, abilities, and career stage, as well as needs of the unit and institution. The development plan should establish clear goals, specify steps designed to achieve those goals, define indicators of goal attainment, establish a clear and reasonable time frame for the completion of goals, identify any resources available for implementation of the plan, and state the consequences of failure to attain the goals. Annual reviews should be used to assess progress toward goals specified in the plan. The unit head should acknowledge in writing a faculty member's clear improvement and the successful completion of a development plan.
• A faculty member whose overall performance has been found to show substantial deficiencies and for whom a development plan has been recommended will have the right to appeal the findings of the Post-Tenure Review Committee and the recommendation for a development plan to the dean or next higher level administrative officer beyond the unit head, whose decision shall be final.
• In the case of a faculty member who fails to complete a development plan successfully and whose performance continues to be deficient, the unit head should notify the dean, who will consider whether grounds for dismissal or other disciplinary action exist under the Trustees Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure. Dismissal or severe sanction may be imposed only in accordance with and on the grounds stated in the Trustees Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure.
  

Copies of each unit's post-tenure review procedures will be filed with the dean or Provost, as appropriate. Unit heads will maintain a list of the faculty members reviewed each year, a record of completed reviews and responses to the reviews, the names of all faculty members for whom a development plan was recommended, and a copy of the development plans. Deans will file annual reports to the Office of the Provost giving the following information:

• Names of faculty members reviewed during the previous year,
• Names of faculty members for whom a development plan was recommended and established, and
• Names of faculty who are subject to review, but for whom a delay was approved along with the reason for the delay.