Appendix E.4 | Procedures for Post-Tenure Review Improvement Plan

E.4.A Notification

If the provost concludes that a post-tenure improvement plan should be developed, the provost must promptly notify in writing the faculty member under review that a post-tenure improvement plan must be implemented with copies sent to the department chair, dean, president, and peer review committee.

Only one improvement plan may be offered to a faculty member during a given Post-tenure Review process; however, the Post-tenure Review process may be implemented more than once during a faculty member’s career. A Post-tenure Review improvement plan may extend no more than 18 months from the time it is implemented by the provost.

E.4.B Development of the Post-Tenure Improvement Plan

The department chair is responsible for drafting the post-tenure improvement plan in close collaboration with the peer review committee, dean, and provost. In drafting the improvement plan, the department chair should attempt to address any written concerns raised by the faculty member during the relevant annual review cycles.

Within 30 days of notice that an improvement plan must be developed, the department chair is expected to produce a plan approved by the dean, provost, and at least three (3) members of the peer review committee. Once such an improvement plan is developed, the provost shall forward the proposed plan to the faculty member. If the department chair fails to produce within 30 days an improvement plan approved by the provost, dean, and at least three (3) members of the peer review committee, then the peer review committee must assume responsibility for drafting an improvement plan. In such a case, the committee must complete the plan within 14 additional days. Upon approval by at least three (3) members of the peer review committee, the proposed plan must be provided to the dean and provost for review and approval. In either case, the provost must ensure that an improvement plan is approved by the dean, and at least (3) members of the peer review committee. The provost will send the approved improvement plan to the faculty member for review and response.

The faculty member under review must be given an opportunity to review and respond to the proposed improvement plan within 14 days. The peer review committee must review and consider the faculty member’s response, including any modifications requested by the faculty member within another 14 days. At its discretion, the peer review committee may revise the proposed plan after considering the faculty member’s response. The committee must then forward the proposed improvement plan to the provost for review and approval. The approved improvement plan will be sent to the department chair, dean, and faculty member for implementation.

E.4.C Committee Review After Post-Tenure Review

At the end of the time allotted for the Post-tenure Review improvement plan, the peer review committee must reconvene to review performance under the plan, and to determine whether such performance during the review period has satisfied expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank.

The peer review committee must vote anonymously and provide a written report of its conclusions and recommendations, including majority and minority reports (if applicable), to the faculty member, department chair, and dean, and provost.  The faculty member may submit a written response to the peer review committee’s report to the provost within 14 days of receiving the report.

E.4.D Review and Action by the Provost

The provost will make an independent evaluation of the performance under the improvement plan during the review period. The provost will provide a written explanation of the rationale for any conclusions, decisions, or further actions to be taken to the faculty member with copies sent to the department chair, dean, president, and members of the peer review committee. 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 shall impose disciplinary actions, in accordance with Section 4.11, or consider tenure termination based on Adequate Cause for Unsatisfactory Performance as defined in Section 4.10.2A.