Appendix E.3 | Procedures for Post-Tenure Review

E.3.A Appointment of the Peer Review Committee

Within 45 days of the written notice that Post-tenure Review will be initiated, the provost must appoint the peer review committee in the manner described below and meet with the committee to review its charge.

Criteria: every member of the peer review committee must be:

• tenured;
• hold the same or higher academic rank as the faculty member undergoing review; and
• have some familiarity with the relevant performance expectations for faculty in that discipline and academic rank.

In the unusual event that an appropriate peer review committee cannot be assembled using these criteria, the provost must provide to the faculty member a written explanation for the deviation from the prescribed criteria.

Nomination Process:

• Consistent with the criteria for service stated above, the provost must appoint the peer review committee of five (5) faculty using the following nomination process:
  
  
• the dean nominates one (1) faculty member to serve both as chair and as a voting member of the peer review committee; when a faculty member has a split appointment across academic units, the dean of the academic unit in which the faculty member holds a majority appointment (that is, the faculty member’s tenure unit) will provide the nomination;
  
  
• the department chair nominates two (2) faculty members from the department who meet the criteria above, from whom one committee member is appointed; If the department does not have faculty who meet the criteria for service as stated above, the department chair may nominate two (2) faculty external to the department who meet the criteria. For academic units without departments, the dean will nominate two (2) additional faculty members from the academic unit who meet the criteria for service as stated above. If the academic unit does not have faculty who meet the criteria for service as stated above, the dean may nominate two (2) faculty external to the academic unit who meet the criteria;
  
  
• the faculty member undergoing review nominates two (2) faculty members who meet the criteria above, from whom one committee member is appointed;
  
  
• the Faculty Senate president nominates two (2) faculty members who meet the criteria above, from whom one (1) committee member is appointed; and
  
  
• the academic unit tenure and promotion committee nominates two (2) actively serving members who meet the criteria above, from whom one (1) committee member is appointed. If the academic unit tenure and promotion committee does not have faculty who meet the criteria for service as stated above, the academic tenure and promotion committee may nominate two (2) faculty external to the committee who meet the criteria.

E.3.B Collection of Records

The provost is responsible for collecting the following records with respect to the faculty member under review:

• all annual performance reviews for the past five (5) annual performance review cycles, including materials submitted by the faculty member (or an administrator) or developed as part of the evaluation process;
  
  
• written performance expectations, which may have been established in the past five (5)  annual performance reviews, in department or academic unit guidelines, in the Faculty Handbook, and/or in Board of Trustees policies.

The faculty member undergoing review may submit additional written materials relevant to the review period for the committee’s consideration. Such materials must be submitted to the provost for distribution to the committee. The peer review committee may also request that the provost collect and provide additional written materials. Reasonable requests for relevant records will be honored when permitted by law and university policy.

E.3.C Review and Recommendations by the Peer Review Committee

The peer review committee is charged to review the available performance information and to conclude, based on that information, whether performance during the review period has satisfied the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank. This review and a written report of the committee’s conclusions and recommendations should be completed within 75 days from the provost’s charge to the peer review committee.

Interviews:

• The peer review committee may conduct a reasonable number of interviews in person or electronically. If the committee chooses to conduct interviews, both the faculty member undergoing review and the administrator who assigned the negative rating(s) must be given the opportunity to be interviewed.
  
  
• All interviews must be conducted separately. Unavailability of the faculty member or administrator for an interview does not constitute grounds for an extension of time to complete the Post-tenure Review.
  
  

Voting:

• Voting must be conducted by anonymous ballots. No member of the committee may abstain or recuse himself or herself from voting.
  
  
• All conclusions and recommendations are adopted upon the vote of a simple majority, except a recommendation that the provost initiate tenure termination proceedings, which requires the support of at least three members of the peer review committee.

E.3.D Conclusions Regarding Performance and Recommended Action(s)

All conclusions and recommendations of the peer review committee must be made in writing, with copies to the faculty member, department chair, dean, and provost. Minority reports may be attached. While the committee is not permitted to share written materials directly with the Faculty Senate, the faculty member under review remains free to do so.

Based on the judgment of its members, the peer review committee must conclude either:

1. That the performance satisfies the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank; or
   
   
2. That the performance does not satisfy the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank. In such a case, the committee must recommend either:
   
   
   1. that a post-tenure improvement plan be developed and implemented; or
      
      
   2. by a vote of at least three (3) committee members, that the provost should initiate proceedings to consider termination of tenure based on Adequate Cause for Unsatisfactory Performance as defined in Section 4.10.2A.

E.3.E Review and Response to the Peer Review Committee’s Report

The faculty member must submit a written response to the committee’s report to the provost within 14 days of receiving the report.

E.3.F Review and Action by the Provost

The provost will make an independent evaluation of the faculty member’s performance and must provide to the faculty member, department chair, dean, president, and members of the peer review committee a written explanation of the rationale for any conclusions, decisions, or further actions to be taken. If the provost concludes that the performance under review has satisfied the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank, the Post-tenure Review process is concluded. In doing so, the provost may overrule previous performance ratings and may adjust the faculty member’s salary to reflect any across-the-board raises.

If the provost concludes that the performance under review does not satisfy the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank, the provost may take the following further actions:

1. Require that a post-tenure improvement plan be implemented for a period of up to 18 months, as further described in Section E.4; and/or
   
   
2. Impose disciplinary sanctions other than Termination for Adequate Cause in accordance with Section 4.11 or consider tenure termination based on Adequate Cause for Unsatisfactory Performance as defined in Section 4.10.2A.