Post-Tenure Review Implementation Guidelines
The post-tenure review is normally a unit-level process that occurs every five years for each tenured faculty member. However, in the case of tenured associate professors, a college-level interim review or a formal evaluation for promotion may be substituted for the normal post-tenure review if conducted within the five-year span. The department or unit head, or the faculty member may also request a peer committee post-tenure evaluation at any time if it is considered to be beneficial to the professional development of the faculty member.
The review will consist of the following steps:
An overall performance rating for the five-year review period will be determined using the following three levels: Extraordinary Performance, Strong and Positive Performance, or Unsatisfactory Performance. It is expected that only five-year performance records that stand out from the rank group and which are conspicuously marked by distinction will be considered "Extraordinary." This rating would require high levels of sustained performance per faculty member's position description. Similarly, faculty performance that shows a sustained record of deficient performance per faculty member's job description will be considered "Unsatisfactory."
"Extraordinary" Performance: The department and/or college will publicly acknowledge faculty whose performance is deemed Extraordinary and will consider the post-tenure review outcome in awarding merit raises at the next available opportunity for such raises. In addition, faculty receiving a rating of Extraordinary will receive a one-time monetary supplement of $3,000.
"Strong and Positive" Performance: The department and/or college will consider the post-tenure review outcome in awarding merit and fully satisfactory performance raises at the next available opportunity.
"Unsatisfactory" Performance: Should the peer committee and the unit head agree that the results of a five-year review indicate that a faculty member's record is unsatisfactory, the unit head in consultation with the peer committee and the faculty member under review, will draft a professional development plant. This plan will include definite steps to be taken to remedy the specific deficiencies and to provide realistic support for accomplishing the goals of the development plan. The plan shall be approved by the responsible dean(s). A timetable of no longer than three years will be provided to accomplish the goals of the plan, with annual monitoring by the unit head and peer review committee to measure progress.
Discipline or dismissal for cause, are not part of the post-tenure review. The consequences of continued unsatisfactory performance are outlined in The Faculty Handbook. The unit head and the dean bear the responsibility for documenting a case of continued unsatisfactory performance and/or failure to achieve the goals of the development plan resulting from a post-tenure review.
|| Agendas | Bylaws | Committees/Councils | Faculty Forum Papers | Handbook | Meetings/Locations | Membership | Minutes ||