Tenure serves both the individual and the institution, and by serving the institution it especially serves the citizens of the State of Oregon. With the award of tenure, the University commits itself to a faculty member in a unique way, and the faculty member acquires a vested interest in the well being of the institution. Tenure is awarded only after an extensive probationary period, during which the highest standards of scholarship, teaching, and service must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of local peers as well as internationally recognized experts. The granting of tenure is not a license for lifetime employment but an acknowledgment of the likelihood of continued excellence, and post–tenure review can assure that this high level of performance is sustained.
The University recognizes that faculty renewal, development and improvement are of critical importance in its pursuit of excellence. To that end, the University provides for post–tenure review of its faculty to recognize and foster excellence, to help good faculty become better, and to identify and help underachieving faculty fulfill the potential that was recognized upon hiring and reaffirmed upon the award of tenure. Post–tenure review, the philosophy and motivation of which are described in a report adopted by the OSU Faculty Senate on May 7, 1998, provides a positive and systematic process for evaluation and development of professional and scholarly activities involving the faculty member and a supportive group of peers. Under this system of post–tenure review, outstanding performance by a faculty member will be recognized and rewarded. If the review process identifies areas in which a faculty member is not fulfilling the expectations of his or her position, a professional development plan will be drafted and implemented. Thus, the process provides effective evaluation, useful feedback, appropriate intervention, and timely and affirmative assistance to ensure that every faculty member establishes and maintains a record of professional development and accomplishment during the various phases of his or her career.
The review and evaluation process must uphold the highest standards of academic freedom. Faculty must be encouraged to take risks, to ask inconvenient questions, and to challenge prevailing views, in research and scholarly pursuits as well as in teaching, without the fear of suffering the consequences of failure in the review process. It is the responsibility of administrators to promote and secure the academic freedom of faculty in their units, and it is the responsibility of senior and tenured faculty to protect the academic freedom of junior and untenured faculty.
The written reviews, attachments, and professional development plans described in these procedures are to be regarded as confidential according to the OSU policy on faculty employment records summarized previously in this Chapter.
Faculty members who are dissatisfied with the outcome or the process of the review should attempt resolution through informal means involving the unit head and the unit–level peer committee. If no resolution is achieved, the faculty member may institute formal grievance procedures as described in Chapter 20 of this Handbook.
Heads of academic units (usually the department head or chair, but possibly the dean in colleges with no departments or the staff chair in off–campus Extension offices) shall be responsible for conducting an annual review of all tenured faculty in their units. This review shall be based on guidelines and procedures developed by the faculty of the academic unit. The review will result in an evaluation of the faculty member’s performance in comparison with expectations based on the current position description. Peer involvement in the review process is strongly encouraged; for example, a committee of peers may review the dossiers and the written evaluations with the unit head. It is the responsibility of the faculty in each academic unit to decide on the level of peer involvement. The purpose of peer participation is to ensure fairness, balance, and conformity with the unit’s mission, and to provide faculty input to the unit head regarding the effectiveness and quality of the review process.
The unit head will provide a written evaluation to the faculty member, who may attach a rebuttal or explanation. A copy of the evaluation and any such attachments will be kept in the faculty member’s personnel file.
The unit head will periodically meet with the Dean of the College or the appropriate academic supervisor to review the written evaluations, in order to provide early notice regarding individuals deemed worthy of recognition for their outstanding performance as well as regarding individuals whose professional development may be falling short of the expectations of the position.
At intervals of no longer than five years, in addition to the annual review by the unit head, a peer committee of faculty from the academic unit will review each tenured faculty member. (A promotion or tenure review that leads to a full peer evaluation at the unit level will satisfy this requirement.) Where appropriate, the unit head may include faculty members from outside the unit on the peer committee, at the request of the faculty member; this option might be especially appropriate for faculty whose work has a significant interdisciplinary component that involves other OSU units. Written evaluations from the peer committee and the unit head will be provided to the faculty member, who may attach comments, explanations, or rebuttal. A copy of the review and any such attachments will be kept in the faculty member’s personnel file.
If a faculty member or unit head so requests, at any time during the five–year interval between regularly scheduled peer committee reviews, a peer committee review will take place.
Faculty whose performance is deemed excellent will be acknowledged by the University and the appropriate academic units through public recognition and remuneration programs established for this purpose. Each academic unit is required to have a policy for rewarding outstanding performance of its tenured faculty members.
Should the peer committee or unit head conclude that a faculty member’s record is less than satisfactory in teaching, scholarship, or service, the unit head, in consultation with the peer committee and the faculty member under review will draft a professional development plan. This plan should include definite steps to be taken to remedy the specific perceived deficiencies. A timetable of no longer than three years should be provided to accomplish the goals of the plan, with annual monitoring by the unit head and peer committee to measure progress. The plan should specify the resources to be made available to accomplish the goals. Such resources might include support for scholarly professional activities (travel, time released from teaching, equipment, clerical or technical support, graduate assistants, laboratory or other workspace, etc.) or a program for the improvement of teaching. A copy of the development plan will be sent to the Dean of the College or to the appropriate academic supervisor.
In the event of an unsatisfactory annual review and failure to achieve the goals of development plan, the unit head (in consultation with the peer committee) may recommend redistribution of effort, reassignment within the unit, reduction in salary, or the imposition of sanctions, including, but not limited to: reduction in rank, reassignment within the institution, or termination of appointment in accordance with OAR 580–21–320 to 580–21–385. Any recommendation for sanctions made by the academic unit must be reviewed by a standing faculty committee elected for that purpose at the level of the college. The review committee shall forward the results of its review and the units recommendation to the Dean or corresponding academic supervisor, and to the Provost. The Provost may determine whether to take appropriate action under procedures specified in OAR 580–21–320 through 580–21–385.
Until a faculty member has been given adequate opportunity to achieve the improvements specified in the professional development plan (given the availability of the resources necessary to effect the improvements), and until a full faculty review of any recommendations for sanctions has taken place as specified in these procedures, no action based on post–tenure review will be taken by the University under OAR 580–21–330. This policy is not intended to limit the ability of the University to pursue the imposition of sanctions for cause unrelated to the post–tenure review process in accordance with OAR 580–21–330.
The Faculty Senate will periodically review the effectiveness of the post–tenure review process.
Document 2:
[The review process requires each academic unit to develop its own set of standards and criteria, consistent with broad University guidelines for approval by the Provost’s office. This document presents model guidelines that units can use in developing their policies.]
All academic units are responsible for drafting their own specific guidelines. In those guidelines, the following should be included:
Approved by the Faculty Senate on December 3, 1998
Approved by President Risser with revisions on May 29, 1999
Approved by the OUS Academic Council on March 16, 2000
The University established a post–tenure review system to "...recognize and foster excellence, to help good faculty become better, and to identify and help underachieving faculty fulfill the potential that was recognized upon hiring and reaffirmed on the awarding of tenure." The process is intended to provide effective evaluation, useful feedback, appropriate intervention and timely assistance to ensure that every faculty member establishes and maintains an acceptable record of professional development and accomplishment during the various phases of his or her career.
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 four 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.
"Satisfactory" Performance: The department and/or college will consider the post–tenure review outcome in awarding 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.
Established 11/12/01 Revised 12/9/03
