School of Engineering Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures

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 School of Engineering, hereafter referred to as the SOE, 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, 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

Post-tenure review is conducted on a seven-year cycle and covers the seven-year period leading up to the review. The cycle is restarted if a faculty member is evaluated for promotion or is awarded a distinguished professorship. In the first seven years of implementation of the post-tenure review policy, the department chair, with approval of the dean, will determine the year for a faculty member to be reviewed if it has been more than seven years since last promotion or review. 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. The types of leave and the circumstances which may lead to an approved interruption of the post-tenure review clock and the procedures for seeking an extension of that period will match the policies, procedures, and spirit of the University’s Policy on the Interruption of the Probationary period (Tenure Clock).

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 SOE will notify faculty members scheduled for post-tenure review no later than March 15 in the spring semester preceding the academic year of review.

Expectations

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

Each Department has defined its standards and expectations for teaching, 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.

Review Committee

Post-tenure review is conducted by the Departmental Post-tenure Review Committee.

No person may serve on the committee if he or she has a perceived conflict of interest. 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 Chair of the department member being evaluated will name a replacement, if possible.

Preparation of the File

Review will be conducted on the basis of a file that summarizes a faculty member’s teaching, 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 his or her accomplishments in teaching, 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 should submit a current curriculum vitae and may submit a list of additional activities not covered on the curriculum vitae. The faculty member’s Chair will furnish copies of the faculty member’s annual evaluation letters for the years during the review period, including the six prior annual evaluation letters (the summary letters provided by the chair to each faculty member).

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 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 Department, School, 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.

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 faculty member’s Chair.

Consideration by the Chair

The committee’s report (along with any faculty response) will be provided to the chair. If the chair 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 the chair 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, and the faculty member may submit a written response for inclusion in the file. The chair may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. The chair will forward the file to the dean, who will consider the report and express his or her agreement or disagreement in the same manner as the chair. The dean will explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member and the committee, and the faculty member may submit a written response for inclusion in the file.

The dean will forward a summary of post-tenure review outcomes and copies of the post-tenure review files to the Provost to be placed in the faculty members’ personnel files.

Relation to Annual Evaluations

The committee report will be considered as part of the annual evaluation process and the chair 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.

Appeals

If a disagreement between the committee and the chair or dean cannot be resolved, or if the faculty member wishes to appeal an evaluation of “fails to meet expectations,” the matter will be handled as an appeal under the Department Faculty Evaluation Policy.