Section 4.9: Faculty Planning & Evaluation

4.9.2 Post-Tenure Review

Post-tenure Review is an expanded and in-depth performance evaluation conducted by a committee of tenured peers and administered by the provost. Procedures for conducting a Post-tenure Review are set forth in Appendix E.

This policy recognizes that the work of a faculty member is not neatly separated into academic or calendar years. To ensure that performance is evaluated in the context of ongoing work, the period of performance subject to Post-tenure Review is the five most recent Annual Performance Review cycles.

Post-tenure Review will be initiated by the provost when a faculty member has:

• received one overall annual performance rating of “Failure to Meet Responsibilities”; or
  
  
• received one annual performance rating of “Failure to Meet Responsibilities” in the subscore of “Faculty Teaching”; or
  
  
• received two overall annual performance ratings of “Improvement Needed” during any four consecutive Annual Performance Review cycles; or
  
  
• received two annual performance ratings of “Improvement Needed” during any four consecutive Annual Performance Review cycles in the subscore of “Faculty Teaching”.

A peer review committee is charged to review the information relevant to the faculty member’s performance during the review period and to conclude whether or not that performance has satisfied the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank. The expectations for faculty performance may differ by campus, academic unit, department, and even among sub-disciplines within a department or program. Those expectations may be commonly held standards in the discipline or sub-discipline. Those expectations may be stated explicitly in the faculty member’s own past Annual Performance Reviews, work assignments, goals, or other planning tools (however identified), as well as department or academic unit guidelines, this handbook, Board policies, and in other generally applicable policies and procedures.

The peer review committee must reach a conclusion as to whether the performance has satisfied expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank. If the peer review committee concludes that the faculty member’s performance has not met the expectations for the discipline and academic rank, the committee must recommend to the provost that either a post-tenure improvement plan be developed or that tenure be terminated for Adequate Cause, in accordance with Section 4.10.1C. The committee must report its conclusions and recommendations in writing, including an explanation for each conclusion or recommendation, and enumerating the anonymously cast vote and a dissenting explanation for any conclusion or recommendation that is not adopted unanimously. The faculty member must have an opportunity to review and respond to the committee’s report and recommendations. All written conclusions, the reasoning upon which they are based, and the recommendations of the peer review committee must be reviewed and considered by the provost.

The provost may accept the conclusions and recommendations of the peer review committee or make different conclusions in a written explanation provided to the faculty member with copies to the dean, department chair, president, and members of the peer review committee. If the provost concludes that a post-tenure improvement plan is warranted, the provost will direct the department chair to develop and implement a post-tenure improvement plan in accordance with the procedures described in Appendix E.4. If the provost concludes that that the faculty member’s tenure be terminated for Adequate Cause, then the Termination Procedures for Adequate Cause for Unsatisfactory Performance, described in Section 4.10.2, shall be followed.

In the case where a Post-tenure Review process is concurrent with annual review process, the department chair will coordinate with post-tenure peer review committee. Coordination will take one of the following forms:

1. In the case where a faculty member is undergoing a Post-tenure Review during the time that an annual faculty evaluation is due, when possible, the department chair will postpone the annual faculty evaluation until the post tenure review committee has issued its report and the report has been accepted by the president. The report will be advisory to the department chair in preparing the annual faculty evaluation. The faculty member has the right to respond to the report. If it is not possible to postpone the annual faculty review until the post-tenure committee’s report has been accepted, then the department chair will perform annual faculty review without input from the committee.
   
   
2. In the case where a faculty member is required to follow a post-tenure improvement plan, the peer review committee will provide a written interim report at the mid-point of the improvement plan to the faculty member and the department chair on the faculty member’s progress in satisfying the expectations established in the post-tenure improvement plan. The report will be advisory to the department chair, and the faculty member has the right to respond to the report.

Any Annual Performance Review materials produced while a faculty member is undergoing Post-tenure Review or under a Post-tenure Review improvement plan will be made available to the post-tenure peer review committee.