College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures, Department of Computational Biology Program
To articulate the criteria and procedures for post-tenure review for faculty within the Computational Biology.
Tenured faculty in the Computational Biology.
General Principles: In accordance with Board of Regents requirements (II.C.8), Article 7 Section 4 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, and the University Policy on Post-tenure Review, the Computational Biology Program, hereafter referred to as the Program, has adopted these expectations and procedures for conducting post-tenure review. 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.
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.
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 dean of the College will notify faculty members scheduled for post-tenure review no later than March 15th in the spring semester preceding the academic year of review.
Unit 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 Program has defined its standards and expectations for teaching/advising, scholarship, and service in its annual evaluation procedures. The expectations for post-tenure review are consistent with these standards, with overall productivity commensurate to the seven-year period under review. The following specific criteria shall apply for purposes of post-tenure review.
Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Teaching/Advising: All tenured faculty members are expected to be effective teachers, foster student learning, and carry their share of the departmental teaching load as specified in the Computational Biology Faculty Performance Evaluation Policy and Procedures document. Refer to the sections Unit Expectations for teaching and Standards for Acceptable Performance for Faculty Members in that document. The faculty member’s teaching record must demonstrate that his/her teaching reflects knowledge of the field, and that he/she is effective in encouraging students' interest, helping them to think critically and to apply their knowledge, pointing them toward the broader implications of their study, and generally encouraging their development as perceptive readers and articulate writers. The record must also give indication of responsible fulfillment of all duties associated with teaching, including prompt and regular holding of class sessions and office hours, timely and sufficient grading and comments on assignments, acceptable and fair expectations and criteria for student work (as judged by disciplinary standards), adequate class preparation and effective use of class time. The record must reflect mastery of the subject matter as well as continued success in the classroom.
Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Research and Creative Activity: All tenured faculty members are expected to remain active in research as specified in the Computational Biology Faculty Performance Evaluation Policy and Procedures document. Refer to the sections Unit Expectations for research and Standards for Acceptable Performance for Faculty Members in that document. The faculty member’s research record must demonstrate an established scholarly career, as reflected in such factors as a substantial and ongoing pattern of publication, national and international reputation, and other evidence of an active and productive scholarly career.
Criteria for Meeting Expectations in Service: All faculty members are expected to engage in service as specified in the Computational Biology Faculty Performance Evaluation Policy and Procedures document. Refer to the sections Unit Expectations for service and Standards for Acceptable Performance for Faculty Members in that document. The faculty member’s record must demonstrate an ongoing pattern of service reflecting substantial contributions to the University at one or more levels, to the discipline or profession, and/or to the local, state, national, or international communities.
Relation to the Annual Evaluation: The Computational Biology Promotion and Tenure Committee will be responsible for conducting the post tenure review in conjunction with and in full accordance with the Computational Biology Faculty Performance Evaluation Policy and Procedures. The committee report will be considered as part of the regular annual evaluation process and the director will discuss the review with the faculty member as part of 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 Performance Evaluation Policy and Procedures must be taken under that policy.
Joint Appointments. The faculty member will provide both units with copies of the Faculty Member’s 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: Post-tenure review is conducted by the Computational Biology Promotion and Tenure Committee, which shall consist of three tenured faculty members, and will be responsible for conducting the post tenure review in conjunction with and in full accordance with the Computational Biology Faculty Performance Evaluation Policy and Procedures. If fewer than three tenured faculty members are available, the director shall consult with the contact associate dean in the selection of tenured faculty members from other units.
No person may serve on the committee if his or her spouse or partner is scheduled for review. If the chair/director is the spouse or partner of the faculty member under review, the “Chair or Director Evaluation Summary” shall be conducted by the Divisional Associate Dean. A committee member who believes that there may be a conflict of interest should withdraw from the committee. If a faculty member who is undergoing review believes that there is a conflict of interest, he or she 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 director will name a replacement.
Preparation of the File: 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.
Using the Faculty Member Statement, the faculty member under review shall provide a brief narrative statement of his or her accomplishments in teaching/advising, scholarship, and service during the review period as they relate to his or her long-term career path and goals. In addition, the faculty member shall submit a current curriculum vitae and a list of additional activities not covered on the curriculum vitae. The director will furnish copies of the faculty member’s annual evaluation letters for the six years during the review period.
Evaluation and Report: The committee will review the file and evaluate the faculty member’s overall performance and his or her contributions in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Applying the expectations defined above, the committee will determine whether the faculty member’s performance in each area, as well as whether his or her 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 Program, the College, and the University; (2) a faculty member’s activities vary over time according to his or her strengths, interests, and career path; and (3) innovative work may take time to reach fruition and may sometimes fail.
Using the Unit Committee Report, the committee will prepare a written report summarizing its evaluation. 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 director.
Consideration by the Chair/Director: The committee’s report (along with any faculty response) will be provided to the director. Using the Chair/Director Evaluation Summary, If the director agrees with the report, he or she will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member and place a copy in the post-tenure review file. If the director disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, he or she shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member and the committee. The director may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. If the director disagrees with a positive evaluation by the committee, the faculty member may submit a written response. The director will forward the file to the dean of the College. Post-tenure review files are due in the College Dean’s Office by no later than noon, on the second Friday of March.
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 director’s agreement or disagreement, is forwarded to the dean. 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 using the Dean’s Evaluation Summary, express his or her agreement or disagreement in the same manner as the director. Following the completion of review by the dean, if the dean agrees with the report, he or she will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member and place a copy in the file. If dean disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, he or she shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, 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. The dean will forward a summary of post-tenure review outcomes and copies of the post-tenure review files to the Provost, to ultimately be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.
Appeals: Following the completion of the review by the dean, if a disagreement between the committee and the 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 any category of responsibility, the matter will be handled as an appeal under the Computational Biology Program annual 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.
Center for Computational Biology
University of Kansas
2030 Becker Drive
Lawrence, KS 66045
09/09/2021: Removed broken links.
10/12/2015: Per the Interim Dean of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, the following was added to the template under Committee Review: If the chair/director is the spouse or partner of the faculty member under review, the “Chair or Director Evaluation Summary” shall be conducted by the Divisional Associate Dean. Also added Dean’s review/acceptance under “Rank/Status/Change/History.”
08/28/2015: Added new template language to “Period for Review.”
08/17/2015: Updated links to CLAS PtR Forms
04/24/2015: Updated CLAS PtR forms and added links to each form within the policy statement.
04/03/2015: Fixed broken link to Board of Regents Policy Manual.
02/23/2015: Technical edit to policy title.
02/16/2015: Changed name to Center for Computational Biology and updated joint appointment section to include new boilerplate text.
12/18/2014: Updated to provide the current link to the Board of Regents Policy Manual.
11/21/2014: Updated to provide the current link to the Board of Regents Policy Manual.
05/22/2014: Reviewed and accepted by the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Dean’s Office
05/22/2014: Approved by vote of the Bioinformatics Program faculty.