The annual review process is intended to assist faculty on continuous appointment (tenured faculty) in achieving professional goals and maximizing contributions to the University throughout their professional careers. In cases where goals are not being met or contributions should be markedly improved, a post-tenure review under this policy will be conducted. This post-tenure review will emphasize the pattern of past performance, current interests of the faculty member, and the objectives for future contributions of the faculty member. The review will be based upon the principle of peer review and provide added assurance that faculty on continuous appointment are accountable for their performance.
2. Applicability of Review Process
All members of the faculty who have been on a continuous appointment pursuant to the Bylaws of the Board of Regents 4.4.3 for a period of three or more years may elect or be required to undergo post-tenure review. A faculty member shall not be subject to or eligible for review under this policy more frequently than once every four years. A faculty member shall undergo a post-tenure review in either of the following circumstances:
- A faculty member receives (after the third year of a continuous appointment):
- A written annual evaluation that identifies a substantial and continuing deficiency in the faculty member’s performance which clearly states that, if substantial and acceptable progress toward removing the deficiency by the time of the next annual evaluation has not occurred, a periodic review will be initiated; and
- Notification after the next annual review that the substantial and continuing deficiency in the previous evaluation has not been remedied and that a post-tenure review is required.
- A faculty member may request a review in accordance with the post-tenure peer review process. The purpose of such a review would be to provide helpful evaluation and assistance to the faculty member in planning a prospective program by which the faculty member can maximize his/her contributions to the University and more fully realize her/his professional goals.
3. Nature of the Review
For a review initiated under Section 2.a of this policy, a special peer review file shall be developed, containing a clear identification and description of the deficiency or deficiencies, copies of the faculty member’s last three annual reviews, and such other materials as are relevant. This file may be supplemented by the faculty member by including information the faculty member believes to be relevant, including a proposed plan to remove the deficiency.
For a review under Section 2.b of this policy, a file containing copies of the faculty member’s previous three annual reviews and such other material as may be relevant will be developed. One component of a post-tenure review under Section 2.a or 2.b shall be an evaluation by peers external to the campus when research productivity is an issue. Evaluation by peers external to the campus may be used when teaching and/or service/outreach productivity is in question.
4. Outcome of the Post-Tenure Review Process
A written appraisal with recommendations (as appropriate) will be developed, including a plan outlining the expectations as to how the faculty member can remedy any deficiency in performance or enhance the faculty member’s professional goals and contribution to the University. Any sanction to be imposed on the faculty member related to his/her performance shall be governed by the Regents' Bylaws and must follow procedures prescribed in the Bylaws. All relevant University appeal mechanisms and procedures are available to faculty members being evaluated under this policy.
5. Each campus Chancellor shall insure that appropriate written procedures are developed to implement this policy.
Reference: BRUN, Minutes, 62, p. 1 5 (February 28, 1998)