Post-Tenure Review

The purposes of post-tenure review are:

• to recognize outstanding achievement;
• to provide opportunities for mentoring and professional development;
• to help identify and remedy, from a developmental point of view, any deficiencies in teaching, service, and research/scholarly productivity.

Post-tenure review builds on and complements other aspects of the tenure process to develop faculty capacity and strengthen and promote the public benefits of tenure. The review should be appropriately linked to the merit process and should not involve the creation of unnecessary additional bureaucracy.

Post-tenure review is not a re-evaluation of tenure and is not undertaken for the purposes of discipline or dismissal. Just cause is required for discipline or dismissal (see Faculty Policies and Procedures Chapter 9 ). Reviews and remediation plans are not subject to grievance processes (pursuant to Regent Policy Document 20-9 sec. 16).

Departments, schools, and colleges may not use post-tenure reviews as the basis for budgetary decisions or for decisions regarding program discontinuance, curtailment, modification, or redirection.

Each department has established a written policy defining the criteria and procedures for post-tenure review.

Nothing in the criteria or application of post-tenure review policies allows a review to be prejudiced by factors proscribed by applicable state or federal law, such as race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, and handicap.

The basic standard for review is whether the faculty member conscientiously and competently fulfills professional duties that are appropriately associated with the position.

Departmental criteria should:

• measure progress in teaching, service, outreach/extension, and research/scholarly productivity as appropriate to the field;
• be consistent with Faculty Policies and Procedures 8.02.;
• reflect the department’s overall mission;
• be sufficiently flexible to accommodate faculty with differing responsibilities;
• recognize that scholarly projects take varying amounts of time to come to fruition;
• recognize that careers and levels of productivity may change over time, and;
• not infringe on accepted standards of academic freedom of faculty, including the freedom to pursue novel, unpopular, or unfashionable lines of inquiry or innovative methods of teaching.

Departments should take special care to ensure that the scholarly productivity of jointly appointed and interdisciplinary faculty is appropriately evaluated. When a faculty member has a joint appointment, the department chairs will agree in writing on procedures for conducting the review.

The departmental executive committee and the school or college academic planning council (APC) periodically review these criteria.

Reviews occur at least once every five years. Typically, reviews start in the fall semester and are completed by March 1.

Reviews may incorporate the annual merit review process and may encompass promotion, retention, salary, or other reviews, including but not limited to nominations for named chairs and professorships, major teaching awards, and national professional honors or awards.

A review may be deferred, by approval of the provost, for unusual circumstances (e.g., coinciding with an approved leave, significant life event, promotion review, or other appointment). The provost may then determine a new review schedule.

The department executive committee forms a departmental review committee of at least two tenured faculty, who may be drawn from outside the department, and notifies the faculty member to be reviewed.

The faculty member may file a formal confidential objection to one or more reviewers with the department chair. The department chair then identifies other appropriate reviewers, in consultation with the dean, and notifies the faculty member.

If a department does not conduct a required review by the end of the academic year, the dean will appoint reviewers to conduct a review using the department’s criteria.

The faculty member under review provides qualitative and quantitative documentation of productivity to the Departmental Review Committee, including:

• Curriculum vitae
• Annual activity reports
• Peer and student teaching evaluations
• Brief summary of future career plans
• External letters (optional). Letters from outside the university would not ordinarily be a part of the review process, however the faculty member may choose to include them.
• Other relevant materials

The review makes appropriate consideration of a faculty member’s contributions outside the department to interdisciplinary and other programs, governance, and administration.

The faculty member or reviewers may request a meeting to discuss the faculty member’s contributions to the profession, department, and university.

Reviewers examine materials to the degree needed to accomplish the purposes of the review, and may take other steps they find useful in making a fair and informed judgment, including but not limited to consultation with individuals who have knowledge of the faculty member’s work.

Reviewers give the faculty member a written summary of the review. The faculty member has a right to prepare a written response to the summary within calendar 30 days of receipt.

The review committee gives a copy of the summary and any written response to the department chair and appropriate dean. A copy will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file, along with all documents that played a substantive role in the review (that are not available elsewhere), and a record of any action taken as a result of the review.

The summary and review outcome are confidential, released only at the discretion of, or with the explicit consent of, the faculty member, or as otherwise required by business necessity or law.

The dean conducts a sufficiency review after receiving the departmental summary and any faculty member response. The dean may send questions or concerns about the review to the the executive committee, in writing, within 14 calendar days. The executive committee may provide a written response to the dean within 14 calendar days.

The dean then determines whether the faculty member “meets expectations.”

1. The post-tenure review process ends if both the department and dean find that the faculty member “meets expectations.” The dean reports a positive outcome to the provost. Every effort should be made to offer tangible recognition to faculty whose work “exceeds expectations” (e.g., nominations for awards or salary increases).
2. If the department and dean determine that the faculty member “does not meet expectations,” the remediation process (described in the Remediation Plan panel below) begins immediately. The dean reports the outcome to the provost.
3. If the department determines that the faculty member “meets expectations” but the dean disagrees, the dean must provide written reasons to the faculty member, with a copy to the department chair within 14 calendar days. The faculty member may provide a response to the dean that may include new evidence of accomplishment, in writing, within 14 calendar days. Following this deadline, within 5 business days, the dean reports their finding to the provost, along with the departmental review and any written response from the faculty member.
4. If the department determines that the faculty member “does not meet expectations” but the dean disagrees, the dean reports their finding to the provost, along with the departmental review and any written response from the faculty member.

If the review process does not end at the dean’s level, the provost performs their own review and requests advice from the Divisional Committee Review Council (DCRC) within 5 business days of receiving the dean’s recommendation. The DCRC receives all materials provided to the provost and responds within 30 calendar days.

1. If the provost finds that the faculty member “meets expectations,” then the review ends.
2. If the provost finds that the faculty members “does not meet expectations,” then the remediation process begins.

The department chair and the faculty member develop a written plan for mentoring and professional development, in consultation with the appropriate dean(s), within 30 calendar days.

This remediation plan will:

• be developed through discussion and mutual negotiation
• address all issues identified in the review
• respect academic freedom and professional self-direction, and,
• be flexible enough to allow for subsequent alteration

The plan could include:

• review and adjustment of the faculty member’s responsibilities
• development of a new research program or teaching strategy
• referral to campus resources
• assignment of a mentoring committee
• institution of mandatory annual reviews for a specified period
• written performance expectations

The faculty member may provide a written response to the plan’s formulation and content, and to any subsequent evaluations.

The faculty member will have three academic semesters to complete the remediation plan. If the remediation plan includes research, an extension of one academic semester may be granted by the chancellor.

The faculty member documents efforts to complete the remediation plan. At any time, but no later than 4 weeks before the remediation plan period ends, the faculty member provides this documentation to the departmental executive committee.

Within 30 calendar days of receipt, the executive committee determines whether the faculty member has completed all elements of the remediation plan and sends their finding and the documentation to the dean.

The dean reviews the faculty member’s performance, in consultation with the faculty member, the department chair, and the chancellor, and determines whether further action must be taken.

1. If the dean determines that the faculty member has satisfied all elements of the remediation plan, the process ends.
2. If the dean determines that the faculty member has not satisfied all elements of the remediation plan, the dean provides written reasons for this decision to the faculty member and the provost, with a copy to the department chair, within 14 calendar days.
   The faculty member may send a written statement to the provost within 14 calendar days of receiving the dean’s decision.

Continuing and persistent performance problems may lead to discussion about modification of duties, other solutions, or separation. If the parties cannot agree, the University Committee will appoint an ad hoc committee of faculty to review proposed sanctions consistent with Faculty Policies & Procedures (FPP).

Just cause remains the standard for discipline or dismissal (FPP 9.02. and 9.03). Post-tenure review records are admissible, but may be rebutted. The university must show just cause following procedures outlined in FPP 9 and bears the ultimate burden of proof. The faculty member retains all protections guaranteed in FPP, including, but not limited to, the right to appeal and the right to appeal disciplinary action to the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities as described in FPP 9.07.