These principles and expectations serve as the official policy on matters related to post-tenure review in the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences. Nothing contained herein is intended to substitute for University policies and procedures concerning post-tenure review.

The intent of this policy is to ensure that procedures and expectations are articulated clearly, resulting in an impartial application of standards and procedures, and that recommendations are made carefully, based on a thorough examination of the complete record of a faculty member. These procedures set certain common practices that the College and its units shall follow in the review of a faculty member during post-tenure review.

General Principles

In accordance with the Board of Regents Policy Manual (section II.C.8) and Article 7 Section 4 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, hereafter referred to as the College, has adopted these expectations and procedures for conducting post-tenure review in its units. Post-tenure review is a process for periodic peer evaluation of faculty performance that provides an opportunity for a long-term assessment of a faculty member’s accomplishments and future directions in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service. Specifically, post-tenure review supplements annual evaluations by providing a long-term peer assessment of a faculty member’s past accomplishments and future directions. It is a formative and developmental review that facilitates and encourages professional vitality through collaborative discourse concerning the faculty member’s role in the unit, school, or the College, and the University, as well as in the discipline or field. Post-tenure review promotes faculty development and achievement by recognizing and rewarding contributions and accomplishments, identifying the support needed to facilitate faculty success, and addressing areas of performance that need improvement.

Post-tenure review must be conducted in a manner that respects the rights of faculty members involved, including academic freedom, tenure, and due process. In addition, all those involved in the evaluation process must recognize that it is a confidential personnel matter and take appropriate steps to protect confidentiality.

Instructions and Forms

The College Dean’s Office will maintain up-to-date instructions for the Post-tenure Review process in the College on a page at the College website. That page will also include links to up-to-date versions of the forms mentioned in this policy.

Period for Review

Faculty members will be reviewed once every seven years following the receipt of tenure with the review occurring in the unit(s) that conducts their annual evaluation. Post-tenure review covers the seven-year period leading up to the review, including the six prior annual evaluation letters and activities since the last annual evaluation. The cycle is restarted if a faculty member is evaluated for promotion or is awarded a distinguished professorship. The time period when a faculty member is on medical or familial leave or that would otherwise be excluded when computing time in rank does not count toward this period. In addition, time serving as department chair, program director, dean or associate dean, or other administrative position subject to administrative review is excluded. The review may be postponed if it falls in a year when the faculty member is on leave. Faculty members on phased retirement or whose retirement date has been approved by the university will be exempt from review under this policy. The College Dean’s Office will notify faculty members scheduled for post-tenure review no later than March 15^th in the spring semester preceding the academic year of review.

Expectations

All tenured faculty members must meet academic responsibilities in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service. Unless otherwise specified by the job description or differential allocation of effort, the ordinary allocation of effort is 40% teaching/advising, 40% scholarship, and 20% service.

The College specifically does not have a faculty evaluation policy because it recognizes that the University policy dictates that units have the primary responsibility for evaluation of faculty and that units maintain their own faculty evaluation plan policy. Therefore, unit expectations for post-tenure review shall be consistent with the standards in the unit’s faculty evaluation plan, with overall productivity commensurate to the seven-year period under review. Units will define the specific criteria for the purpose of post-tenure review (meeting expectations in teaching/advising, research and creative activity, and service). The College’s standards and expectations for promotion and tenure are located in the Policy Library in the Promotion and Tenure Procedures for the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences.

Development of Unit Expectations and Procedures

Each unit will adopt post-tenure review expectations and procedures following the procedures in its bylaws. The College has established these general procedural provisions to ensure consistency across units. As with other policies for faculty performance, deans shall approve unit procedures and expectations for performance and submit them for posting in the University Policy Library. Each unit will define its expectations in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service. These expectations will reflect the customs and practices of the unit, the professional norms of the discipline, and the overall mission of the unit as part of an international research university. Expectations should be consistent with established criteria for faculty performance, with an overall level of productivity commensurate with the period of review. In view of the many different kinds of contributions made by faculty members during the course of their careers, unit expectations must be sufficiently flexible to take into account the variability of faculty interests, activities, and strengths.

Relation to the Annual Evaluation

A unit’s post-tenure review policy relates to the Faculty Evaluation Policy and annual evaluations in one of two ways:

• If the unit’s faculty evaluation policy provides for evaluation by a faculty committee, the unit may elect to have that committee conduct post-tenure review pursuant to the faculty evaluation policy, in which case the post-tenure review and annual evaluation are combined into a single process.
• In other cases, the post-tenure review will be conducted separately from the annual evaluation, but the post-tenure review file is incorporated into the documentation for the annual evaluation.

Therefore, a unit may elect to combine the post-tenure review with the annual evaluation if the post-tenure review is conducted by the same committee that conducts annual evaluations. Or, the unit may elect that the post-tenure review process will provide the basis for its committee to conduct the annual evaluation in the year it is conducted. The committee will recommend outcomes in accordance with the unit’s policy. The committee report will be considered as part of the annual evaluation process and the chair or director will discuss the review with the faculty member in conjunction with that process. This discussion should concentrate on the future professional development of the faculty member with an aim toward enhancing meritorious work and improving less satisfactory performance, including adoption of a performance improvement plan, if necessary. Any action on the review that is within the scope of the Faculty Evaluation Policy must be taken under that policy.

Joint Appointments

The faculty member will provide both units with copies of the Faculty Member Statement section of the post-tenure review file (reflecting the representative effort in each unit) and a current curriculum vitae. The review goes forward with each unit preparing a separate committee evaluation summary and considerations by each chair and/or director to the dean. Each unit will submit their review materials directly to the College Dean’s Office. In the case of a jointly appointed faculty and unclassified academic staff member outside of the College, the primary unit is responsible for the administrative protocols of engaging the secondary unit in the solicitation and collection of feedback relative to the evaluation of performance expectations in the secondary unit.

Review Committee

Each unit will adopt procedures that establish a Unit Post-tenure Review Committee, comprised of at least three tenured faculty members.

A unit may elect to use a pre-existing committee of tenured faculty to conduct the review or establish a new committee to conduct post-tenure review. Or, the unit may elect that the post-tenure review be conducted by a separate committee, which shall be selected in accordance with the unit’s by-laws. In units with fewer than three tenured faculty members, the unit chair or director shall consult with the College Dean’s Office in the selection of tenured faculty members from other units.

No person may serve on the committee if their spouse or partner is scheduled for review. A committee member who believes that there may be a conflict of interest should withdraw from the committee. If the chair/director is the spouse or partner of the faculty member under review, the “Chair or Director Evaluation Summary” shall be omitted. If a faculty member who is undergoing review believes that there is a conflict of interest, they may object to the inclusion of a member. If the member declines to withdraw, the remaining committee members shall consider the basis for the alleged conflict and decide the matter. If a committee member withdraws or is removed based on a conflict of interest, the chair or director will name a replacement. The unit procedures should also include a means of addressing other conflicts of interest.

Preparation of the File

Using the “Faculty Member Statement” form, the unit’s procedures should provide for the preparation of a confidential file as the basis for review. Review will be conducted on the basis of a file that summarizes a faculty member’s teaching/advising, scholarship, and service. In contrast to evaluation for promotion and tenure, copies of publications and original student evaluations are not required. Also, outside reviews of scholarship should not be submitted.

The faculty member under review should provide a brief narrative statement of their accomplishments in teaching/advising, scholarship, and service during the review period as they relate to their long-term career path and goals. The narrative statement should briefly outline the faculty member’s goals for professional development and describe past accomplishments and future objectives specific to those goals. The faculty member may also identify barriers to or necessary resources for the accomplishment of these objectives. In addition, the faculty member should submit a current curriculum vitae and a list of additional activities not covered on the curriculum vitae. The chair or director will furnish copies of the faculty member’s six prior annual evaluation letters for the years during the review period. Units may provide for the inclusion of additional components to the file.

Unit Evaluation and Report

The unit committee will review the file and evaluate the faculty member’s overall performance and their contributions in the areas of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service. Applying the expectations defined above, the committee will determine whether the faculty member’s performance in each area of responsibility, as well as their overall performance, meets expectations, exceeds expectations, or fails to meet expectations. In making its evaluations, the committee must bear in mind that (1) faculty members have differing responsibilities and make different kinds of contributions to the mission of the unit and the University; (2) a faculty member’s activities vary over time according to their strengths, interests, and career path; and (3) innovative work may take time to reach fruition and may sometimes fail. Units may also request that additional procedural or other specifications be added to the file.

Committee Report

The unit committee will complete the “Unit Committee Report” form summarizing its findings and assessments in the evaluation (exceeds expectations, meets expectations, or fails to meet expectations) regarding the faculty member’s productivity and contributions in each area of responsibility during the review period. The report should provide a narrative description of the faculty member’s activities, an explanation of the committee’s ratings, and recommendations or suggestions for acknowledgement of contributions and future development of the faculty member. The committee will provide a copy of the report to the faculty member, who may submit a written response for inclusion in the post-tenure review file before it is forwarded to the unit chair or director.

Consideration by the Chair/Director

The unit committee’s report (along with any faculty response) will be provided to the chair or director. If the chair or director agrees with the report, they will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member using the “Chair/Director Evaluation Summary” form and place a copy in the post-tenure review file. If the chair or director disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, they shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member and the committee. The chair or director may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. If the chair or director disagrees with a positive evaluation by the committee, the faculty member may submit a written response.

Consideration by the Dean

The faculty member’s post-tenure review file, including the unit committee’s report (along with any faculty response) and the chair’s and/or director’s agreement or disagreement, is forwarded to the dean by the chair or director. Post-tenure review files are due in the College Dean’s Office by no later than noon on the second Friday in March. The dean will consider the report and express their agreement or disagreement in the same manner as the chair/director. Following the completion of review by the dean, if the dean agrees with the report, they will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member using the “Dean’s Evaluation Summary” form, and place a copy in the file. If dean disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, they shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing using the same “Dean’s Evaluation Summary” form, with a copy to the faculty member and the unit committee. The dean may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. If the dean disagrees with a positive evaluation by the unit committee, the faculty member may submit a written response.

Appeals

Following the completion of review by the dean, if a disagreement between the committee and the chair or director or dean cannot be resolved, or if the faculty member wishes to appeal an evaluation of “fails to meet expectations” in the overall evaluation or in any category of responsibility, the matter will be handled as an appeal under the Unit’s Faculty Evaluation Policy.

Report to the Provost

The dean will provide a summary of the results in the College and copies of the post-tenure review file to the Provost. The post-tenure review file will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.