Policies and Procedures on Post-Tenure Review
Approved: April 12, 2001; Revised April 12, 2002; Revised April 22, 2022; June 12, 2026
Scheduled Review Date: June 2031
The faculty and administrators of 黑料不打烊 are dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in teaching, research, service, and clinical care. It is the role of the department/school chair/director and the dean to conduct annual evaluations of tenured faculty members and to identify the areas in which a tenured faculty member has not met expectations. If deficiencies are identified, the chair/director must explain the rationale for that assessment and facilitate faculty development as needed to improve faculty performance. To this end, the post-tenure review process is intended to be developmental rather than punitive.
Post-tenure review cannot be activated unless the pattern of serious deficiency has been noted in two consecutive annual reviews. (See the Policy and Procedures on Evaluation of Tenured Faculty in the 黑料不打烊 Teaching and Research Faculty Handbook.) If the post-tenure review policy is activated, the faculty member must be notified in writing by the chair/director and dean.
A tenured faculty member may receive an annual review from the chair/director and dean stating that their performance in teaching, research, service, and/or clinical care (if applicable) is seriously deficient relative to the written criteria of the department/school or college/school. In such cases, the faculty member should be made aware that a second annual evaluation from the chair/director and dean, which states that a faculty member鈥檚 performance is seriously deficient in one or more of the areas of responsibility, could activate the post-tenure review process.
It is the responsibility of the chair/director to meet with the faculty member who has received such an evaluation, within 30 days of posting the evaluation letter, to discuss the deficiencies identified in the evaluation.
The chair/director and dean should also outline in writing the steps to be taken, the required outcomes, and the points in time at which progress will be assessed for the faculty member to correct identified deficiencies and thus meet expectations in subsequent annual reviews.
Following this meeting and discussion, the proposed plan for improvement should be communicated in writing to the faculty member.
All individuals involved in the plan must agree to respect the confidentiality of the post-tenure review process. The faculty member retains the right to consult with other individuals as they desire.
The chair/director must recommend initiation of post-tenure review no later than May 17, and the recommendation of the dean must be made no later than June 30.
The decision of the appropriate executive vice president on whether to support the post-tenure review process for the faculty member must be made no later than July 25.
The procedures for post-tenure review as outlined in this section shall apply unless the college/school has established a different written process for post-tenure review that has been approved by the appropriate executive vice president.
When the post-tenure review process has been activated, the chair/director and the dean will conduct an in-depth evaluation. In addition to examining the teaching, research, service, and, if appropriate, the faculty member鈥檚 clinical care performance from previous evaluations, the chair/director and dean should evaluate the overall contribution of the faculty member to the University. Consideration and assessment of faculty performance in a post-tenure review process must include all areas of evaluation. With respect to teaching, the comprehensive evaluation of teaching must include teaching portfolio reviews and at least one other method (e.g., peer observation). If requested by the faculty member, the chair/director, or the dean, one or more external evaluators may be consulted with the approval of the appropriate executive vice president.
In addition to a thorough assessment of faculty performance, a major outcome of this process is a development plan indicating a clear expectation of sustained performance. Where deficiencies or areas for improvement are noted, the development plan should address ways of dealing with these problems, measures of expected outcomes, and a timetable for accomplishing these outcomes. The development plan will be written by the faculty member under review in consultation with the chair/director and/or dean. The development plan, including measures of expected outcomes, if appropriate, will be detailed in the agreement signed by the faculty member, the chair/director, and the dean by August 15. The full text of this agreement is submitted to the appropriate executive vice president. The implementation of the development plan is expected to take place by September 1.
If the dean and the chair/director are unable to solicit the cooperation of the faculty member in the preparation of the development plan, the dean and the chair/director will prepare a plan to which the faculty member will be expected to agree by September 1.
If the individuals involved (dean, chair/director, faculty member) are unable to reach an agreement on a development plan by September 1, the dean will report to the appropriate executive vice president that an agreement has not been reached. In such an instance, if the dean and the appropriate executive vice president concur, a major sanction, as described in Board of Visitors Policy 1450: Faculty Sanctions, may be initiated at this time.
If the faculty member refuses to agree to or sign the development plan and elects instead to grieve the post-tenure process, the faculty member must file a formal grievance by October 15 and follow the approved timeline for grieving the post-tenure review process.
Annual evaluations in succeeding years will specifically address progress toward meeting the goals outlined in the agreement on the development plan. A faculty member who fails to achieve the outcomes identified in the in-depth evaluation within the agreed-upon timetable may be subject to disciplinary actions up to and including a major sanction as described in Board of Visitors Policy 1450: Faculty Sanctions.
- Appeal of Post-Tenure Review
A faculty member who disagrees with the administrative decision to initiate a post-tenure review and develop a strategic plan with a timetable may file a grievance after the conclusion of the appeal process described below (see Board of Visitors Policy 1470: Faculty Grievance Policy).- To appeal the initial decision of the chair/director recommending post-tenure review, the faculty member must provide supporting documentation to rebut the evaluation to the dean by August 15.
- The dean reviews all available information, makes a decision, and notifies the appropriate executive vice president and the faculty member by September 1.
- If the faculty member objects to the dean鈥檚 decision, they may appeal to the appropriate executive vice president. This appeal must be made by September 15.
- The appropriate executive vice president must act on the faculty member鈥檚 appeal and approve or reject the initiation of post-tenure review by October 1. The decision of the appropriate executive vice president is final.
- Grievance of Post-Tenure Review
If a faculty member is placed on post-tenure review, then they must combine and respond to, in one grievance, all issues related to the dispute over post-tenure review. The annual evaluation, the decision to place the faculty member on post-tenure review, the requirements of the development plan, and the imposition of a major sanction, if issued. Regardless of the provisions of the Board of Visitors Policy 1470: Faculty Grievance Policy, the faculty member must file this grievance by October 15.
The appropriate executive vice president will present an annual report to the deans and the Faculty Senate on the number of new and continuing post-tenure review cases and on their general outcome.