B4: Faculty Reviews
(*Approved by Regents December 8, 1998)
(**Approved by Faculty December 7, 1998)
(a) One of the most important responsibilities of tenured faculty and department chairs is their participation in the procedures for formal review of colleagues. It is a fundamental principle that, when a faculty member’s academic performance and qualifications are reviewed, the process is to be conducted objectively by their peers and the faculty are guaranteed due process as set forth in this Policy. There are six types of review: (1) the annual review of probationary faculty, (2) the mid-probationary review, (3) tenure review, (4) the review for advancement in rank (promotion), (5) the annual review of tenured faculty (i.e., post-tenure review), and (6) the annual review of continuing non-tenure-track faculty (i.e., clinician educators and lecturers). Mid-probationary, tenure, and promotion reviews, in contrast to annual reviews, necessarily involve evaluation of performance at three levels: department, college/school, and the University (i.e., Offices of the Provost/VPHS).
(b) Tenure and promotion recommendations made by the department, through the department chair, will be given primary consideration in this procedure (see Introductory Note #2). These recommendations are reviewed by academic officers and forwarded with their recommendations to the Provost/VPHS who makes the decision on tenure and promotion. Ultimate decisions in matters of appointment and promotion in rank are made on the authority of the Board of Regents.
4.2 ANNUAL REVIEW OF PROBATIONARY FACULTY
The purpose of the annual review is to provide the probationary faculty member written information about his or her performance in the department, identifying both strengths and weaknesses. The review entails cumulative evaluation of the faculty member's achievements and progress toward tenure.
The annual review for each probationary faculty member must be initiated and completed by the department chair during the Spring semester of each academic year of probationary appointment. An annual review will not be conducted during the academic year designated for mid-probationary or tenure review. Faculty members whose appointments begin in the Spring semester will have their first annual reviews during the following Spring semester so that annual reviews of all faculty occur at the same time of year.
(a) The annual review is conducted by the department chair, in consultation with at least the tenured members in the department and, where appropriate, with any other faculty who are well acquainted with the probationary member's work.
(b) In preparation for the annual review, the faculty member shall assemble a file including:
- curriculum vitae
- classroom materials, teaching evaluations, and other materials reflecting on teaching performance
- copies of scholarly works completed or submitted during the previous year and other materials reflecting on scholarly work
- statement of self evaluation based upon goals set for the previous year
- statement setting goals for the coming year
(c) As part of the review, the chair shall review the faculty member's assembled file and obtain written evaluations of the member's performance from at least those tenured members of the department who are best acquainted with the probationary faculty member's work. Whether all tenured members of the department will be required to participate in the annual reviews and whether peer evaluations of teaching are to be included in the review shall be matters of consistent departmental policy and not decided on a case-by-case basis (see Sec. 4.4.8). If peer evaluations of teaching are to be included, the chair shall arrange for the faculty member's teaching to be observed. The evaluation of all components (teaching, scholarly work, service, and personal characteristics) shall be summarized by the chair in the written annual review provided to the probationary faculty member. If earlier reviews have identified specific deficiencies, special attention should be paid to the progress made toward remedying them. The chair shall discuss each annual review report with the probationary member before the end of the Spring semester. The probationary member shall acknowledge receipt of the report and may provide a written response. This report and any response shall be filed with the department and college/school.
4.2.4 Discontinuance of Probationary Appointment
Probationary faculty members serve on annual contracts. A decision as to whether the contract will be renewed is made as the result of a review of the faculty member’s performance. In case of a recommendation of non-renewal made at a point other than at the mid-probationary or tenure review, the faculty member must be notified immediately in writing by the chair who shall include a statement of the reasons. This recommendation, and any response of the faculty member, shall be reviewed by the dean. The dean’s recommendation is forwarded to the office of the Provost/VPHS and the final decision is made by the Provost/VPHS. The faculty member shall have 10 working days from receipt of the chair’s recommendation and statement of reasons to respond for consideration by the dean. The faculty member shall also have 10 working days from receipt of the dean’s recommendation to respond for consideration by the Provost/VPHS. The probationary faculty member whose appointment is to be discontinued is entitled to the notice periods and terminal contract requirement specified in Sec. 3.2 (c). (See Sec. 5.4 for termination of employment of a probationary faculty member during a contract year.)
4.2.5 Appeal to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee or President
The faculty member may appeal the final decision by the Provost/VPHS to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee on grounds that the decision to discontinue the probationary appointment involved academic freedom violations, improper considerations or prejudicial violation of Policy procedures (Sec. 6). The faculty member may appeal a negative decision to the President on any other grounds.
4.3 GENERAL SEQUENCE AND PROCEDURES FOR MID-PROBATIONARY, TENURE AND PROMOTION REVIEWS
The sequence and procedures for mid-probationary, tenure and promotion reviews are set forth below.
4.3.1 Departmental Review and Recommendations
(a) The department chair, in consultation with at least the tenured members of the department, conducts a formal review of the faculty member's achievements in teaching, scholarly work, service, and personal characteristics. The criteria are presented in this Policy and in any supplemental policies within academic units. This review shall take account of the annual reviews of the faculty member. Tenured members of the department are expected to submit written evaluations of the candidate and indicate either a positive or negative mid-probationary, tenure, and/or promotion recommendation.
(b) The chair shall prepare a report that is included in the member's dossier. The report shall summarize the faculty evaluations of the candidate, external letters as required, teaching evaluations and other documented evidence. Information acquired from interviews shall be summarized in writing and verified by the interviewee prior to inclusion in the dossier. The chair includes his or her personal observations and evaluation and, based upon documented information, the chair makes a positive or negative recommendation.
(c) The chair shall discuss the review and recommendation with the faculty member. Thereafter, the department chair shall forward the candidate's dossier, written documentation of the department's review, including copies of all evaluations received from faculty members, any external evaluations, and the chair's report and recommendation to the dean of the college/school. At the same time, the faculty member shall be advised in writing whether the recommendation is positive or negative. If the recommendation is negative, a copy of the chair’s report, the internal peer reviews and external letters (all redacted as necessary to preserve confidentiality), if requested by the candidate, shall be furnished to the candidate.
4.3.2 Review by the Dean
The college dean is to review the candidate's dossier and the chair's recommendation and shall provide a written assessment and recommendation for promotion, continuation (mid-probationary review), or tenure and promotion. The dean shall normally abide by the chair’s recommendation. The dean shall forward the assessment and recommendation together with the entire dossier to the office of the Provost/VPHS. If the dean’s recommendation is negative, or conflicts with the chair’s recommendation, a copy of the dean’s letter (redacted as necessary to preserve confidentiality) shall be provided to the candidate and the department chair. In a case where the dean decides not to follow the chair’s recommendation, the chair shall have 10 working days to present an appeal to the Associate Provost (for faculty in the Health Sciences Center, this does not apply [Sec. 4.3.4—4.3.6]).
4.3.3 Review by the Associate Provost
The associate provost for academic affairs reviews the candidate’s dossier and the recommendations of the chair and the dean. The associate provost shall provide a written recommendation to the Provost. If the associate provost’s recommendation is negative, a copy of the recommendation (redacted as necessary to preserve confidentiality) shall be concurrently provided to the faculty member, the dean, and the chair. (This step is omitted for faculty in the Health Sciences Center.)
4.3.4 Review and Decision by the Provost
(a) The Provost reviews the faculty member's dossier and the recommendations of the chair, dean, and associate provost. The final decision shall be made by the Provost. If the Provost considers not following a recommendation in which the associate provost, the dean and the chair have concurred (or if there is a conflict in the recommendations made by these officers), the Provost shall immediately, and in writing, inform the faculty member and the officers involved in the decision and include a written statement of reasons. The faculty member and the officers involved have 10 working days to present their views to the Provost before the Provost makes a final decision.
(b) The Provost provides written notification of the decision to the faculty member no later than June 30 of the review year, exercising the personnel authority of the Regents delegated by them for this purpose. In the case of mid-probationary and tenure reviews, if the decision by the Provost is negative, a terminal contract is issued for the following year. If a negative decision is not made by June 30, the faculty member is entitled to an additional terminal year contract.
4.3.5 Review and Decision by the Vice President for Health Sciences
The VPHS reviews faculty dossiers and the recommendations of the chair and dean for faculty in the Health Sciences Center. The VPHS makes the final decision. In all other aspects, the review is identical to the process described in Sec. 4.3.4 for the Provost.
4.3.6 Negative Recommendations
If at any level of review, the recommendation is negative, the faculty member shall be given a copy of the negative recommendation and may request a copy of all other reports, recommendations and internal peer reviews and external letters (all redacted as necessary to preserve confidentiality). The faculty member shall have 10 working days after receipt of such materials, if requested, to present his/her views to the next level of review before the next recommendation, or the final decision, is made. In addition, if the Provost/VPHS makes a negative decision, the faculty member may request reconsideration by the Provost/VPHS. Such request shall be made in writing by July 15. The Provost/VPHS shall respond within 10 working days of receiving the request.
4.3.7 Appeal to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee or President
The faculty member may appeal the final decision by the Provost/VPHS to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee on grounds that the mid-probationary, tenure, or promotion review involved academic freedom violations, improper considerations or prejudicial violation of the Policy procedures (Sec. 6). The faculty member may appeal a negative decision to the President on any other grounds.
4.4 GENERAL POLICIES RELATING TO FACULTY REVIEWS
The following general policies apply to mid-probationary, tenure, and promotion reviews, unless otherwise specified in this Policy.
4.4.1 Confidential Materials
Internal peer evaluations of a faculty member, student evaluations, and letters received from reviewers outside the University are added to the faculty member's dossier by the department chair, and they shall be kept confidential from the faculty member to the extent allowed by law and by University policy (see "Confidentiality of Faculty Records Policy" in the Faculty Handbook).
4.4.2 Evaluations by Untenured Faculty
At the discretion of the tenured faculty of the department, untenured faculty may participate in reviews. The chair's report shall distinguish between the evaluations and votes of the tenured faculty, on the one hand, and those of the untenured faculty, on the other. Untenured faculty members may decline to participate in the review without penalty.
4.4.3 Absent Faculty
Faculty absent from campus at the time of a mid-probationary, tenure, or promotion review of a departmental colleague shall be informed of the upcoming review by the department chair with sufficient time to participate if they so choose.
4.4.4 Other Sources of Relevant Information
Academic officers with responsibilities for the review of faculty members may consult any person or call upon their own personal knowledge of the candidate in formulating their recommendations or decisions. To the extent that they rely on information not already documented in the dossier, they shall so state in their written report and explain the nature and source of such information and obtain written confirmation of orally transmitted information for inclusion in the dossier. Sec. 4.5.4 also applies.
4.4.5 Faculty Advisory Committees
Academic officers with responsibilities for the review of faculty members are encouraged to appoint experienced faculty advisory committees. If advisory committees are used, they shall have access to the complete dossier of the faculty member. Advisory committees shall communicate with the candidate or chairs only through the academic officer whom they advise and shall not discuss the consideration outside committee meetings.
4.4.6 Statement of Reasons
All written recommendations shall include a statement of supporting reasons.
4.4.7 Directing Questions Arising During Review to Chair
Academic officers and advisory committees considering matters of promotion and tenure shall communicate with the chair if there are major faults or omissions in the dossier or if significant questions or possible misunderstandings arise. In such circumstances, the chair shall discuss substantive problems with the candidate and department faculty as appropriate.
4.4.8 Procedural Consistency
Where departments are given discretion to choose among alternative procedures in this Policy, such discretion shall be exercised as a matter of department policy and not on a case-by-case basis.
4.5 PREPARATION OF THE DOSSIER FOR MID-PROBATIONARY, TENURE, AND PROMOTION REVIEWS
(a) The dossier is a collection of documents that summarize and evaluate a faculty member's accomplishments in teaching, scholarly work, and service and contain evidence of personal and professional effectiveness. It is the foundation for evaluation at each level of the review process. The organization of the dossier shall be standardized within each unit, combining clarity, convenience, and effectiveness in a manner appropriate to the discipline. The faculty member shall provide the following elements:
- statement by the faculty member of professional goals and progress toward achieving them,
- complete and current curriculum vitae, and
- systematic collection of professional materials documenting the faculty member's achievements in the evaluation categories of teaching; scholarly work; and service.
(b) Student teaching evaluations shall be included and organized to reflect the various types of courses or students taught. Peer evaluations of teaching shall also be included. The dossier shall include those books, offprints, manuscripts, research proposals, and papers presented at professional meetings that best represent scholarly contributions. Reviews of such materials, including reviews of juried creative works, may also be included. The faculty member shall provide a table of contents, which the chair signs to acknowledge that materials received from the faculty member are complete and appropriate.
4.5.2 External Letters
When external review letters are required (i.e., for tenure or promotion, or for mid-probationary review in some departments), the candidate shall suggest potential reviewers to the chair. The chair, in consultation with tenured faculty, shall identify additional reviewers. The chair shall select reputable scholars, researchers, or creative artists and critics who can evaluate the candidate's contributions to scholarship, research, or creative work. The materials supplied to external reviewers shall include written instructions and a curriculum vitae. Such external review letters shall be added to the dossier by the chair. External reviewers shall be advised that the University will endeavor to keep the reviewer's identity confidential, to the extent permitted by law.
In the Spring semester before the faculty member is scheduled for mid-probationary, tenure or promotion review, the department chair shall meet with the faculty member to discuss the assembly of the dossier. Early in the Fall semester of the review year, the candidate shall submit the dossier to the chair. During the confidential evaluation process, peer evaluators within the University shall have access to the dossier and to the external reviews.
4.5.4 Adding Material to the Dossier
The substantive record for the faculty candidate is the material consolidated by the department chair in the dossier. As the review proceeds, the University officer at each level adds any written response received from the faculty candidate or officer(s) at lower level(s) to the dossier as well as his or her own recommendation. If any substantive material is introduced at a higher administrative review, the candidate, chair and dean (if appropriate) shall be furnished copies. If necessary to preserve confidentiality, material provided to the candidate shall be redacted and the candidate shall have 5 working days to submit written comments if desired.
4.6 SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR MID-PROBATIONARY REVIEW
4.6.1 Purpose and Standards
(a) The purpose of the mid-probationary review is to enable the department to evaluate progress towards tenure, to inform the probationary faculty member of his or her strengths and weaknesses, and to decide whether or not to continue the faculty member's appointment. The review entails evaluation of the faculty member's achievements in the four categories of teaching, scholarly work, service, and personal characteristics, according to the standards specified in this Policy and the criteria of the academic unit.
(b) The mid-probationary review requires identification of the specific areas of strength and weakness demonstrated by the faculty member and the evidence supporting conclusions to that effect. The aim of the required identification of areas of strength and weakness is to give the faculty member a clear picture of the performance levels by which he or she is to be judged and offer the opportunity to correct any noted deficiencies prior to subsequent reviews. The existence of some identified deficiencies in this review are considered normal, as it is not anticipated that the probationary member will have fully attained the standards required for the award of tenure by the time of the mid-probationary review.
(c) For a positive mid-probationary review there should be demonstration of, or at least clear progress toward, the competence or effectiveness in all four evaluation categories expected of tenured faculty, as well as promise of excellence in either teaching or scholarly work. If the University concludes that insufficient progress towards tenure has been made and that deficiencies are unlikely to be corrected in the time remaining before the tenure decision, then a negative mid-probationary decision is both appropriate and necessary.
This review shall occur at the approximate mid-point of the faculty member's probationary period at the University. The year of a probationary faculty member's mid-probationary review shall be specified in writing at the time of appointment to probationary status. If, as a result of a mid-probationary review, it is decided that a faculty member should not be continued, written notice shall be provided by June 30 and the faculty member shall be given a terminal contract for an additional year.
The sequence and procedures for the mid-probationary review are as set forth in Sec. 4.3 above.
4.6.4 External Letters
If a department requires external letters of evaluation for mid-probationary reviews, this must be stated in a written departmental policy.
4.6.5 Fiscal and Programmatic Contingencies
(a) The mid-probationary review process may take into account the programmatic and fiscal needs of the department, the college/school, and the University. Should programmatic changes or fiscal emergency be the sole reason for a decision not to continue the appointment of a probationary faculty member, then the department, college/school, and the University shall explain in writing the exact nature of these circumstances.
(b) Should the concerned unit's circumstances require that a faculty member judged worthy of retention be released from service, the Provost/VPHS shall notify the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee in writing and explain the unit's or the administration's plans for the academic and fiscal disposition of the position held by the faculty member under review.
(c) A faculty member who is released from service because a position is being discontinued, shifted within a department or to another department or college/school is issued a notice contract for one additional year of employment.
4.7 SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR TENURE REVIEW
4.7.1 Purposes of the Tenure System
The academic freedom of teachers and scholars is the means by which society is protected from hindrances to the search for knowledge and from limits on the dissemination of knowledge. The system of tenure for faculty members is the preeminent means of fostering and protecting academic freedom of the faculty. The tenure system consists of rules and procedures that establish an essentially self-regulated body of scholars, researchers, and creative artists enjoying the continuity of existence and economic security within which academic freedom is both fostered and protected. The protection of academic freedom shall be extended to all members of the faculty during their terms of appointment. The tenured faculty of a university serve the institution by providing continuity to the university and to its mission of instruction, scholarly work, and service. The awarding of tenure carries both benefits and responsibilities to the individual so recognized. As the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) notes, "freedom and economic security, hence tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society." It is the responsibility of faculty members, supported by the tenure system, to use the opportunities thus provided for the advancement of the purposes of the University and of the community it serves. These purposes include teaching, scholarly work, and service.
4.7.2 Purpose of the Tenure Review and Standards for Tenure
The awarding of tenure is the most serious commitment the department, college/school, and University make to a faculty member. Tenure is a privilege, not a right, and is awarded only after the most serious deliberation and review. The tenure review consists of evaluation of the faculty member’s teaching, scholarly work, service, and personal characteristics, according to the standards specified in this Policy and the criteria of the academic unit. For a positive tenure review, the faculty member shall have demonstrated competence or effectiveness in all four areas, and excellence in either teaching or scholarly work. Faculty in the School of Medicine are required to demonstrate excellence in two of the following categories of teaching, scholarly work, or service/administration as described in the Medical School tenure and promotion guidelines.
A review and report on a candidate's acceptability for tenure is initiated by the department in the Fall semester of the final year of the faculty member's probationary period. The faculty member's contract identifies the year for tenure review. Notification of the tenure review decision by the Provost/VPHS shall be made no later than June 30 of that year.
The sequence and procedures for the tenure review are as set forth in Sec. 4.3. The mid-probationary review report and annual reviews must be taken into consideration during this process.
4.7.5 External Letters
External letters of evaluation are required as part of tenure reviews. Procedures for obtaining external letters are provided above in Sec. 4.5.2.
4.8 SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR ADVANCEMENT IN RANK: PROMOTIONS
(a) The promotion process is the mechanism by which the University promotes and recognizes the professional development of faculty members, and thereby maintains the quality of the University. A description of the faculty ranks is provided in this policy (Sec. 2) to set a framework for the promotion process. The promotion review consists of evaluation of the faculty member’s teaching, scholarly work, service, and personal characteristics (Sec. 1), according to the standards specified in this Policy and the criteria of the academic unit, both as appropriate for the promotion level.
(b) Decisions to promote a faculty member are made after a thorough evaluation of his or her performance in all the areas of faculty professional activities and the corresponding categories of performance evaluation specified in this Handbook. The candidate’s performance is judged by all recommending parties in the light of the categories and definitions set forth in this Policy, the assignments of the candidate, and any special conditions pertaining to the candidate's appointment.
4.8.2 Promotion to Associate Professor
(a) It is the policy of the University that tenure and promotion to the rank of associate professor will normally be granted together. A candidate for tenure who does not already hold the rank of associate professor shall simultaneously be considered for promotion to the associate professor rank. A favorable decision on promotion to associate professor rank shall normally be a basic prerequisite for the awarding of tenure. Requests for departures from this policy must be made prior to the initiation of the tenure or promotion review process with the concurrence of the department, the dean, and the Provost/VPHS.
(b) Timetable for promotion to associate professor: The anticipated length of service in the rank of assistant professor is six years, with review for promotion to the rank of associate professor occurring in the sixth year. The review process for advancement to associate professor is normally conducted at the same time as the review for tenure (i.e., Fall semester of the final academic year of the probationary period). Recommendations for promotion in less time are to be carefully weighed and justified. Notification of the outcome of the review shall be made during the Spring semester no later than June 30 of that year.
4.8.3 Promotion to Professor
(a) Qualifications for promotion to the rank of professor include attainment of high standards in teaching, scholarly work, and service to the University or profession. Promotion indicates that the faculty member is of comparable stature with others in his or her field at the same rank in comparable universities. Service in a given rank for any number of years is not in itself a sufficient reason for promotion to professor.
(b) Timetable for promotion to professor: The anticipated length of service in the rank of associate professor prior to consideration for promotion to the rank of professor is at least five years. Recommendations for promotion in less time must be carefully weighed and justified. The review for advancement in rank to that of professor is initiated during the Fall semester. Notification of the outcome of the review is made during the Spring no later than June 30 of that year.
4.8.4 Procedures for Advancement in Rank
(a) The sequence and procedures for the review of advancement in rank (promotion) are as set forth in Sec. 4.3, with the following additions:
- The process begins in the Fall semester when the candidate requests consideration by the department chair. A dossier is presented by the candidate for consideration according to department policy. The candidate has the right to withdraw his or her dossier from consideration at any point in the review process.
- The chair secures written evaluations from at least the full professors within the department and from distinguished persons in the field outside the department.
- The chair discusses the outcome of the review with the faculty member. After this discussion, the faculty member may choose to withdraw his or her request. If not, the chair forwards the recommendation and member's dossier to the dean (Sec. 4.3.1).
- The Provost/VPHS shall communicate in writing the final decision to the faculty member, the department chair and college dean. If promotion is awarded, it is effective immediately upon the faculty member's acceptance of the next contract.
4.9 POST-TENURE REVIEW
(Approved by the Faculty Senate, February 13, 1996, and May 6, 1997; approved by the Regents, April 11. 1996, and May 16, 1997, and included in the Policy on AF&T in the version approved by the Faculty on December 6, 1998 and by the Board of Regents on December 8, 1998.)
The Post Tenure Review Policy ensures that all tenured faculty members will receive an annual review and that those with either exceptionally good performance or deficiency in one or more areas will be identified. Special achievement shall be rewarded in a manner determined by each college/
school. For a faculty member who receives two successive annual reviews with identified uncorrected deficiencies, the Post-Tenure Review policy provides a mechanism to either (a) overturn the findings of deficiency in the annual reviews or (b) establish a remedial program for correcting the deficiencies.
4.9.2 General Principles
A tenured professor who performs well should be rewarded, and one who performs inadequately should seek or accept help and improve or be subject to dismissal. The purpose of UNM’s post-tenure review is to determine levels of performance efficiently, equitably, and in conformity with tenure rights expressed in the Policy on Academic Freedom and Tenure and guaranteed by the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
4.9.3 Data Collection
Biographical updates, student evaluations of teaching (supplemented by periodic but not necessarily annual peer evaluations of teaching), and (with necessary exceptions, as in the Medical School) evaluations for salary recommendations shall be required annually of all faculty, including tenured professors. Some departments and divisions may also wish to require information more detailed than in the current biographical update form. The biographical update shall include space for objectives for the coming year.
4.9.4 Performance Criteria
Deans shall require each department or division to file a statement of criteria and procedures for annual evaluation of the performance of tenured faculty members. The criteria and procedures shall be consistent with the Faculty Handbook, reflect the standards of excellence and appropriate balance of teaching, research, or other creative activity, and service prevailing in the discipline and department or division, and have the approval of the department or division faculty and the dean. At a minimum, the procedures shall include an annual written evaluation, as described below. Sec. 1 (of this Policy) describes good teaching and good research at some length, including the importance of one’s original research in imparting new ideas in the classroom and inspiring students to engage in original research. Sec. 1 also stresses the need for service in the department, the University, and one’s discipline, particularly by senior members of the faculty. (Reviews from outside the University, as suggested in Sec. 1, shall not normally be included in annual and more formal post-tenure reviews [Sec. 4.9.5 and 4.9.7].)
4.9.5 Annual Reviews
(a) Each department shall conduct an annual review of each tenured faculty member’s teaching, scholarly work, and service. This review, which may be combined with salary review and may be performed by the chair or the chair and a committee of tenured faculty, shall be in writing (normally 50 to 100 words for most faculty, more for those with special achievements or identified deficiencies) and contain a description and critique of performance during the past year and performance goals for the coming year. It shall be discussed with the faculty member if there are deficiencies. Two copies of the annual review, signed by the chair, shall be given to the faculty member, one to be signed as acknowledgment of receipt and returned to the chair. A faculty member who disagrees with the review may add a comment or rebuttal. The review and any such statement shall be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file. The faculty member, in addition, may appeal the chair’s evaluation to the dean. At any point in these or subsequent proceedings, the faculty member shall have access to aggregate information concerning the teaching evaluations, publications, grants, etc., of the department as a whole for purposes of comparison. Aggregate information shall be determined by each department and will contain, at a minimum, summary data of faculty activities in the areas of teaching, scholarly work and service. In the dissemination of aggregate data, confidentiality shall be protected to the extent provided by law.
(b) Administrators who hold tenured faculty rank shall also be reviewed on the performance of their faculty duties (teaching, research, and service). The manner in which the chair and other administrators are reviewed shall be decided by an agreement between the dean and tenured faculty in the unit, in a manner consistent with the intent of this document. Administrators who have no assigned faculty duties within the department will not be reviewed under this policy.
4.9.6 Reports to Deans
Each department shall annually provide the dean with summaries of the reviews of all faculty members (normally no more than 50 words for most faculty, more for those with special achievements or identified deficiencies) and the full text of any comment or rebuttal. The summaries shall include the special achievements or identified deficiencies of individual faculty members. Merit, as determined in annual salary reviews, shall be the primary criterion for raises. In the case of special achievement, the summary shall state the rewards to be provided. The dean or a college committee shall participate in the merit award for special achievement. In the case of deficiency, the summary shall suggest remedies, and the chair and the dean shall monitor improvements. If the dean disagrees with the chair’s evaluation, he or she shall so inform the chair and the faculty member.
4.9.7 More Complete Reviews
If in the judgment of the chair the annual review for any faculty members shows a serious deficiency that has continued for two consecutive years, the chair shall inform the faculty member. One of two possible courses of action shall follow:
- The faculty member may request that the chair submit his or her findings to the other tenured faculty members for consideration in a more complete review during the following year, or
- If the faculty member does not request the review, the chair may initiate such a review with the concurrence of a majority of the tenured faculty in the department.
The more complete review shall be similar to the mid-probationary review described in the Faculty Handbook, with the aim of identifying strengths and weaknesses. This review shall be undertaken by the chair with a committee of at least three tenured faculty members chosen by the tenured faculty. If they find that the faculty member’s performance is not seriously deficient, the member shall be so informed and a statement of the decision placed in the file. If serious deficiency is found, a specific remedial program shall be developed in consultation with the faculty member, including procedures, criteria for evaluating progress, and a reasonable timetable. The results of the program shall be reported by the chair to the dean. If the dean concludes, after consulting the college promotion and tenure committee, or other advisory committee, if any, that serious deficiencies persist, he or she shall so inform the Provost/VPHS.
4.9.8 Enhancement Programs
Whether or not a tenured faculty member accepts a recommendation to participate in a teaching or scholarly work enhancement program, and whether or not the member performs well in the program, he or she shall be judged, after a reasonable period of time, on subsequent classroom and scholarly work performance.
4.9.9 Individual Request for Review
Any faculty member who feels that two or more consecutive annual reviews have inaccurately conveyed his or her professional accomplishments or have contained other substantial deficiencies shall have the option of initiating the more complete review described above.
4.9.10 Frequency of Review
The more complete review shall not be initiated for any faculty member more frequently than once every five years.
4.9.11 Review by the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure
If a tenured faculty member’s professional deficiencies are considered by the Provost/VPHS to be very serious and to have been uncorrected at the conclusion of the agreed time period, and, further, if there is evidence that the faculty member’s performance has deteriorated since the award of tenure and that his or her academic performance is now typically unsatisfactory, the President of the University shall initiate the process specified in Sec. 6 for removing a faculty member for cause under the procedures and standards set forth in that section, including "If the faculty member’s academic competence is questioned, the proof before the Committee shall be insufficient unless it includes testimony of teachers and other scholars, either from the University or from other institutions, and it shows that the faculty member’s academic performance (1) has deteriorated since receipt of tenure and (2) is now typically unsatisfactory" (Sec. 6.4.3 (k)), and "[T]he burden of proof resides with the President and University administration" Sec. 6.4.3 (a)).
4.9.12 Limitation on Applicability
This policy does not apply to proposed terminations of tenured faculty for alleged misconduct or violation of University policy or law, which is provided for in Sec. 6.
4.10 ANNUAL REVIEW OF CONTINUING NON-TENURE-TRACK FACULTY
Continuing non-tenure-track faculty (lecturers and clinician educators) shall be reviewed annually following procedures adopted by each department.
*Approved by Regents: January 11, 1964; January 18, 1969; March 15, 1969; November 8, 1969; January 9, 1971; April 16, 1971; December 20, 1974; February 1, 1975; September 27, 1975; June 13, 1977; August 29, 1978; June 1, 1979; August 12, 1983, August 6, 1985; December 8, 1998.
**Approved by Faculty: February 11, 1964; December 10, 1968; March 11, 1969; September 23, 1969; December 8, 1970; April 20, 1971; December 10, 1974; September 9, 1975; May 11, 1977; May 11, 1978; May 9, 1979; October 14, 1980; March 8, 1983; January 18, 1985; December 7, 1998.