Faculty Handbook 2012-2013

III. Promotion and Tenure (Committee on Faculty Affairs)

Pre-Promotion Review
Promotion 
Pre-Tenure Review
Tenure
Promotion and Tenure Procedures 
Post-Tenure Review

Pre-Promotion Review

The purpose of pre-promotion review is to assist in the development of excellent faculty who may qualify for promotion. It is intended that the pre-promotion review will help the faculty member understand what she or he has accomplished and what he or she must accomplish in order to receive favorable consideration for promotion. The pre-promotion review does not produce a decision regarding promotion but should produce a plan that would give the faculty member the best possible chance for favorable consideration for promotion. The pre-promotion review process should provide guidance to faculty members concerning the likelihood of presenting a successful application for promotion.1Lecturers as well as tenure track faculty will be eligible for pre-promotion review..

1 Approved by GSW Faculty 12/03/10

Schedule

A faculty member who is nearing eligibility for promotion should request a pre-promotion review from their immediate supervisor during the year before they expect to apply. The review process must be initiated during the fall term of the year in which the review is conducted and should be finalized at the same time as the annual evaluation of the faculty member during that year.

Responsibilities

Once requested, the academic unit head (department chair, academic dean, or Director of Library Services) is responsible for insuring that the pre-promotion review occurs on schedule and is responsible for the written summary of the review. The unit head should include peer input prior to the final summary of the review.

Procedure

The following steps will insure that pre-promotion review is conducted in an orderly fashion and in a manner that will be most helpful to the development of the faculty member being reviewed and to the needs of the University.

  1. During the fall term of the year in which pre-promotion review will occur, the academic unit head should request in writing to the faculty member that a dossier be prepared that will include the following:

    • a. Accomplishments relating to the criteria in the three broad areas of achievement in the section of this handbook entitled “Faculty Evaluation.”

    • b. A current curriculum vita.

    • c. A listing of development activities in which the faculty member has participated.

    • d. A plan for future development activities.

    All materials should relate to the mission of the University, to the mission of the academic unit, and to the achievement of excellence in teaching at the University.
  2. The academic unit head will prepare a written summary of peer input to include in the dossier for consideration in the pre-promotion review.
  3. The academic unit head will schedule a conference with the faculty member and discuss contributions made as of the date of the conference and develop a plan for future accomplishments that will enhance the ability of the faculty member to achieve promotion.
  4. The conference must be summarized by the academic unit head in writing and presented to the faculty member who must acknowledge by signature having read the summary. The faculty member may then provide in writing any additional information he or she wishes to include in the record. The written comments of the faculty member will be attached to the written summary.
  5. The written summary must include any steps that the academic unit head feels are necessary for the faculty number to complete in order to be considered for promotion.
  6. A copy of the final written summary and any attachments must be forwarded through the academic dean to the Vice President for Academic Affairs where the documents will be permanently filed.

Promotion

Promotion presents an opportunity to encourage, recognize, and promote excellence in the performance and accomplishments of faculty members. The progression of its faculty through the ranks serves as a measure of the excellence of the University.

2Promotion Criteria for Tenure Track Faculty

Faculty will be considered for promotion according to the following criteria.

  1. Rank: Each rank has requirements in terms of terminal degrees and years in rank. Terminal degree refers to the highest degree awarded in a discipline; the doctorate is the terminal degree for most disciplines within the University except for a few areas including studio and performing arts and library science.

    • a.   Instructor: Candidates will hold at least a master’s degree appropriate to their discipline.

    • b.   Assistant Professor: Candidates will hold at least a master’s degree appropriate to their discipline; candidates do not need a minimum number of years in a lower rank.

    • c.   Associate Professor: Candidates are expected to have the terminal degree or its equivalent; candidates must have served four full academic years as an Assistant Professor before becoming eligible to apply for promotion to Associate Professor.

    • d.   Professor: Candidates are required to have the terminal degree appropriate to their discipline or its equivalent in training, ability, or experience; candidates must have served five full academic years as an Associate Professor before they are eligible to apply for promotion to Professor.

    Requests for exceptions must be recommended by the dean of the respective school and approved by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Requests must be accompanied by strong supporting documentation and the recommendation of the appropriate dean.
  2. Areas of Achievement: All faculty members must excel in the Teaching area of achievement and in one of the other two areas — Scholarship or Service to the Institution. The faculty member must document satisfactory performance in the third area. 1Individual academic units will establish criteria for annual evaluation which will be used for promotion. Annual evaluations for each year of service will be considered.
  3. While the cumulative record will be considered, it is required that accomplishments be significant in each rank before progressing to the next higher rank.
  4. Length of service in the University shall be considered in promotions; however, longevity of service will not guarantee promotion.

2 Approved by GSW Faculty 12/03/10

3 Promotion Criteria for Lecturers

  1. Rank: Lecturers who have served six years within the University may for promotion to Senior Lecturer. Candidates for Senior Lecturer do not require the terminal degree for their discipline.
  2. Areas of Achievement: All Lecturers must document excellence in the Teaching area of achievement to be promoted to Senior Lecturer. The faculty member must also document excellence in one of two other areas for promotion-Scholarship or Service to the Institution. Individual academic units will establish clear criteria for annual evaluation which will be used for consideration of promotion. Academic unit annual evaluations will presume the pursuit of excellence in Teaching plus excellence in one of the other areas of achievement, but will not penalize extra activity in the third area of achievement. Annual evaluations for each year of service will be considered for the purposes of promotion.
  3. The cumulative record for the three areas of achievement will be considered. Years of service spent focused on excellence in the Area of Scholarship will be taken into consideration if the lecturer switches to focusing on excellence in the Area of Service as the basis of meeting the criteria for promotion. Years of service spent focused on excellence in the Area of Service will be taken into consideration if the lecturer switches to focusing on excellence in the Area of Scholarship as the basis of meeting the criteria for promotion.

3 Approved by GSW Faculty 12/03/10

Pre-Tenure Review

The purpose of pre-tenure review is to assist in the development of excellent faculty who may qualify for tenure. It is intended that the pre-tenure review will help the faculty member understand what she or he has accomplished and what he or she must accomplish in order to receive favorable consideration for tenure. The pre-tenure review does not produce a decision regarding tenure but should produce a plan that would give the faculty member the best possible chance for favorable consideration for tenure. The pre-tenure review process should provide guidance to faculty members concerning the likelihood of presenting a successful application for tenure.

1Approved by GSW Faculty 5/1/2009

Responsibilities

The academic unit head (department chair, academic dean, or Director of Library Services) is responsible for insuring that the pre-tenure review occurs on schedule and is responsible for the written summary of the review. The unit head should include peer input prior to the final summary of the review.

Schedule

A tenure track faculty member who was granted probationary credit toward tenure upon appointment should be provided a pre-tenure review during the first year of appointment. All other tenure track faculty must be provided a pre-tenure review during the third year of appointment. The review process must be initiated during the fall term of the year in which the review is conducted and should be finalized at the same time as the annual evaluation of the faculty member during that year.

Procedure

The following steps will insure that pre-tenure review is conducted in an orderly fashion and in a manner that will be most helpful to the development of the faculty member being reviewed and to the needs of the University.

  1. During the fall term of the year in which pre-tenure review will occur, the academic unit head should request in writing from the faculty member that a dossier be prepared that will include the following:

    • a.   Accomplishments relating to the criteria in the three broad areas of achievement in the section of this handbook entitled “Faculty Evaluation.”

    • b.   A current curriculum vita.

    • c.   A listing of development activities in which the faculty member has participated.

    • d. A plan for future development activities.

    All materials should relate to the mission of the University, to the mission of the academic unit, and to the achievement of excellence in teaching at the University. Faculty appointed to positions in the Library should indicate how their service contributes to the teaching process.
  2. The academic unit head will prepare a written summary of peer input to include in the dossier for consideration in the pre-tenure review.
  3. The academic unit head will schedule a conference with the faculty member and discuss contributions made as of the date of the conference and develop a plan for future accomplishments that will enhance the ability of the faculty member to achieve tenure.
  4. The conference must be summarized by the academic unit head in writing and presented to the faculty member who must acknowledge by signature having read the summary. The faculty member may then provide in writing any additional information he or she wishes to include in the record. The written comments of the faculty member will be attached to the written summary.
  5. The written summary must include any steps that the academic unit head feels are necessary for the faculty member to complete in order to be considered for tenure.
  6. A copy of the final written summary and any attachments must be forwarded through the academic dean to the Vice President for Academic Affairs where the documents will be permanently filed.

Tenure

The University affirms the importance of tenure in providing the highest quality system of higher education. Tenure is a part of the rich tradition of our nation’s leading institutions and serves many functions that undergird the democratic society of which we are a part.

Academic tenure is a status that is granted to university faculty after they serve a probationary period in the profession. It protects them from dismissal except for a financial exigency, for program modification, or for cause as specified in Board policy; cause for dismissal must be determined by a formal hearing process. The purpose of tenure is to assure faculty members’ academic freedom and protection against improper restrictions of the freedom of inquiry as it may occur in teaching, scholarship, research, and creative activities. It also protects the right to publish or otherwise present scholarly work publicly without the threat of political or other confining orthodoxies. Academic freedom and tenure sustain and support the transmission and advancement of knowledge and understanding, which stand central in the mission of colleges and universities.

Those who hold the status of tenure also bear responsibilities associated with that status. Those who are tenured should engage in continuous professional growth and be vital and contributing members of the faculty of which they are a part. Tenured faculty members also have a responsibility to facilitate, support, defend, and preserve an environment of academic integrity.

Tenure protection provides considerable freedom for the faculty member to conduct classes and express views in the class that may be controversial. However, it also carries the responsibility that information presented in class be accurate and that the viewpoints presented by a faculty member bear a reasonable relationship to the expertise of the faculty member.

With respect to expression beyond the classroom, faculty members should not be or feel bound by the institution in their speech. The faculty member should, however, be aware that members of the sponsoring society might judge them and other faculty members by their speech. Faculty members should exercise their responsibility by being accurate, exercising restraint, respecting the opinions of others, and making an effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.

The following is the tenure policy of the Board of Regents as stated in the Policy Manual. It is the tenure policy for Georgia Southwestern State University.

  1. The requirements listed below shall be the minimum standard for award of tenure, but they are to be sufficiently flexible to permit an institution to make individual adjustments to its own peculiar problems or circumstances. These policies are to be considered a statement of general requirements which are capable of application throughout the System and are not a limitation upon any additional standards and requirements which a particular institution may wish to adopt for its own improvement. Such additional standards and requirements, which must be consistent with the Regents' policies and approved by the Board of Regents, shall be incorporated into the statutes of an institution. (BOR Policy Manual 803.9 A.)
  2. Tenure resides at the institutional level. Institutional responsibility for employment of a tenured individual is to the extent of continued employment on a one hundred percent workload basis for two out of every three consecutive academic terms until retirement, dismissal for cause, or release because of financial exigency or program modification as determined by the Board.
  3. Normally, only assistant professors, associate professors, and professors who are employed full-time (as defined by Regents' policies) by an institution are eligible for tenure. Faculty members with adjunct appointments shall not acquire tenure. The award of tenure is limited to the above academic ranks and shall not be construed to include honorific appointments. (BOR Policy Manual 803.9 C.)  The term "full-time" is used in these tenure regulations to denote service on a 100% work load basis for at least two out of three consecutive academic terms. (BOR Policy Manual 803.9 C.)
  4. Tenure may be1applied for at the beginning of the fifth year of the five-year probationary period of full-time service at the rank of assistant professor or higher. The five-year period must be continuous except that a maximum of two years interruption because of a leave of absence or part-time service may be permitted, provided, however that an award of credit for the probationary period of an interruption shall be at the discretion of the President. In all cases in which a leave of absence, approved by the President, is based on birth or adoption of a child, or serious disability or prolonged illness of the employee or immediate family member, the five-year probationary period may be suspended during the leave of absence. A maximum of three years’ credit toward the minimum probationary period may be allowed for service in tenure track positions at other institutions or for full-time service at the rank of instructor or lecturer at the same institution. Such credit for prior service shall be approved in writing by the president at the time of the initial appointment at the rank of assistant professor or higher. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Policy Manual, in exceptional cases an institution president may approve an outstanding distinguished senior faculty member for the award of tenure upon the faculty member’s initial appointment; such action is otherwise referred to as tenure upon appointment. Each such recommendation shall be granted only in cases in which the faculty member, at a minimum, is appointed as an associate or full professor, was already tenured at a prior institution, and brings a demonstrably national reputation to the institution (BR Minutes, 1983-84, p. 94; May, 1996, p. 52; April 2000, pp. 31-32). If the person is being appointed to an administrative position and has not previously held tenure, the award of tenure must be approved by the Chancellor. (BOR Policy Manual 803.9 D.)
  5. Except for the approved suspension of the probationary period due to a leave of absence, the maximum time that may be served at the rank of assistant professor or above without the award of tenure shall be seven years, provided, however, that a terminal contract for an eighth year may be proffered if a recommendation for tenure is not approved by the president. The maximum time that may be served in combination of full-time instructional appointments (instructor or professorial ranks) without the award of tenure shall be 10 years, provided, however, that a terminal contract for the 11th year may be proffered if a recommendation for tenure is not approved by the president (BR Minutes, 1992 - 93, p. 188; April 2000, pp. 31-32). (BOR Policy Manual 803.9 F.)
  6. Except for the approved suspension of the probationary period due to a leave of absence, the maximum period of time that may be served at the rank of full-time instructor shall be seven years (BR Minutes, April 2000, pp. 31-32). (BOR Policy Manual 803.9 G.)
  7. Tenure or probationary credit towards tenure is lost upon resignation from an institution, or written resignation from a tenured position in order to take a non-tenured position, or written resignation from a position for which probationary credit toward tenure is given in order to take a position for which no probationary credit is given. In the event such an individual is again employed as a candidate for tenure, probationary credit for the prior service may be awarded in the same manner as for service at another institution.
  8. Upon approval of the award of tenure to an individual by the president, that individual shall be notified in writing by the president of his/her institution, with a copy of the notification forwarded to the University System chief academic officer. (BOR Policy Manual 803.9 I.)

1Approved by GSW Faculty 5/1/2009

Tenure Criteria

After fulfilling the probationary period, a faculty member may be considered for the award of tenure according to the following criteria.

  1. A faculty member whose primary responsibility is teaching must excel in the Teaching area of achievement and a least one of the other two areas – Scholarship or Service to the Institution. 1 The faculty member must document satisfactory performance in the third area. Specific criteria for each broad area of achievement are found in the previous section under “Annual Evaluation.”

  2. A faculty member’s expertise must be compatible with the mission of the University and the academic unit in which tenure will be awarded.

1 Approved by GSW Faculty 5/1/2009

Promotion and Tenure Procedures

The procedure for promotion or tenure must allow the process to be completed in time for the recommendation to the University to reach the Office of the Board of Regents by the required deadline. Therefore, applications for promotion or tenure must be submitted by the date determined by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, generally in early fall. Faculty members who are seeking promotion or tenure should seek the advice of experienced faculty to help develop an accurate application. Deans and chairpersons are expected to provide advice and assistance in this process. Pre-promotion and pre-tenure reviews should be made available to respective faculty members by deans and chairpersons.

Eligibility

It is the responsibility of each individual faculty member to keep his or her file complete, to provide the academic unit head with all information relevant to the criteria for promotion and tenure, and to be aware of eligibility at all times through periodic (at least annual) discussion with the academic unit head. If, at any time, a faculty member has a question about eligibility, he or she should schedule a conference with the Vice President for Academic Affairs to discuss this matter. If, after the conference, the faculty member is not clearly eligible according to policies, he or she may file a formal written request with supporting data to the Vice President for Academic Affairs that he or she be declared eligible. The Vice President will review the data and render a decision with copies to the academic dean and to the President. The faculty member must make the request in sufficient time to be considered with all other school faculty. Being declared eligible for tenure or promotion does not insure that a faculty member will be tenured or promoted.

Procedure

Academic deans, academic department heads, and the Dean of Library must insure faculty input into the process of screening eligible candidates for promotion and tenure. While each unit should determine the extent of faculty involvement, a peer review committee will review credentials and make recommendations to the unit head at each level. Faculty should be informed of the members of the review committee at each level. The following mandatory steps in the Promotion and Tenure process will insure an orderly process.

  1. The faculty member, with the assistance of the academic unit head, will prepare a dossier for the faculty member’s consideration for promotion and tenure. The dossier must include the following:

    • a. A cover sheet as prescribed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

    • b. Clear documentation of teaching excellence to include student evaluations and results of classroom observations.

    • c. A summary of specific accomplishments in each of the broad areas of achievement indicated in the criteria for promotion, tenure and evaluations.

    • d. A current curriculum vita.

    • e. A summary of annual evaluations.

    • f. A record of participation in development activities.

    • g. Any other information which the faculty member wishes to have reviewed in the process.

  2. Faculty of each department or school will establish a peer review committee. The dossier will be reviewed by the department peer review committee. In schools where departments do not exist, the first review will be by a school-wide review committee.

  3. The departmental peer review committee will make a written recommendation to the department head clearly for approval or clearly for disapproval.

  4. The department head will review the complete dossier and the recommendation of the departmental review committee and make a written recommendation to the academic dean for appropriate action. The dossier of each faculty member initially considered will be forwarded to the academic dean whether or not the recommendation is for approval.

  5. The dossier, along with departmental peer review committee recommendations and department head recommendations, will be reviewed by a school peer review committee appointed by the dean of each school. In the case of the Library, the Dean of Library Services will appoint the peer review committee.

  6. The school peer review will consider all dossiers forwarded and make a written recommendation to the respective academic deans (or Dean of Library Services) insuring that there is clearly a recommendation to approve or a recommendation to disapprove.

  7. The academic deans and the Director of the Library Services will consider all dossiers and all previous recommendations for their respective units and make a recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. All dossiers will be forwarded to the Vice President for Academic Affairs whether or not the recommendation at any level is for approval or not.

  8. The Vice President for Academic Affairs will present all dossiers to the Institution-wide Committee on Promotion and Tenure for review. The Institution-wide Committee will be composed of tenured faculty preferably of professor rank, elected to two-year terms by the faculty of each school. There will be two members from the school of Arts and Sciences and one from each of the other schools.

  9. The Institution-wide Committee will make a written recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs for approval or disapproval of each case under consideration.

  10. The Vice President for Academic Affairs will review all dossiers and the recommendations from each level and make a recommendation to the President on each case being considered, whether the recommendation is for approval or non-approval.

  11. The President will consider all dossiers and recommendations at each level before making a decision to approve or disapprove.

  12. After each step in the review process, the appropriate committee chair or unit head must inform each applicant reviewed whether or not the faculty member has been recommended. An applicant will receive a copy of the recommendations at each level of review and be given the opportunity to respond or withdraw the application.

  13. Any faculty member who is aggrieved concerning promotion or tenure may appeal by the following procedure.

    • a. Write a letter to the academic dean appealing the action and stating that the letter is an appeal that the individual wishes to be considered without prejudice. Also, he or she should specifically identify the matters to be considered and why. This should be submitted within ten days after announcement of the promotion or tenure recommendations forwarded to the Board of Regents by the President.

    • b. Provide with the letter the material referred to in paragraph 1. immediately above.

    • c. The academic dean may write a letter of endorsement, may write a letter of explanation, or may pass it to the Vice President for Academic Affairs without comment.

    • d. The appeal will be referred by the Vice President to an Institution-wide Committee on Promotion and Tenure Appeals for consideration. The appeals committee shall be appointed by the President.

    • e. The Vice President will consider the appeal, comments of the academic dean, and the recommendation of the Institution-wide Committee in making a recommendation to the President.

    • f. The President will consider all the materials mentioned in paragraph e. above in making a decision. The President’s decision will be final for this institution. The President will notify the candidate of his/her actions with copies to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and academic dean.

    • g. If the faculty member is not satisfied with this decision, he or she may appeal to the Board of Regents in accordance with the Policies of the Board of Regents.

Post-Tenure Review

Purpose

The purpose of post-tenure review is to examine, recognize, and enhance the performance of tenured faculty members at the University and to improve the quality of the University. The review process will focus upon career development by identifying opportunities for faculty to reach their full potential in service to the University.

Relationship to Present Reviews

The University presently provides several reviews of faculty performance after faculty members are awarded tenure. These include the annual performance review, review for promotion to higher professorial ranks after receipt of tenure, plus review of faculty for special professorships and special faculty awards. The post-tenure review procedures established by this policy are designed to provide a longer term perspective than is usually provided by the annual review. Post-tenure review provides both retrospective and prospective reviews of performance, taking into account that a faculty member probably will have different emphases at different points in his or her career.

Coverage

All tenured faculty members whose primary responsibility is teaching will be reviewed periodically. Ordinarily this review should begin five years after the granting of tenure and continue at five-year intervals. A faculty member who is on leave during the year he or she would ordinarily be reviewed would be reviewed the year after returning from a leave-of-absence. The post-tenure review may be combined with other reviews that already take place, such as promotion for higher ranks after receipt of tenure, reviews of faculty for special professorships, and reviews for special faculty awards. If another review is as comprehensive as the post-tenure review, that review may substitute for post-tenure review. When the review for other matters is not so comprehensive as that required for post-tenure review, the materials prepared for the other review may be used in the post-tenure review with additional materials provided as necessary. In the case of tenured faculty members whose primary assignment is administration without major teaching responsibilities, that faculty member shall be subject to the evaluation procedures for senior-level administrators. When that person returns to a position where the major responsibility is teaching, he or she will be subject to post-tenure review, with the first review to take place no later than five years after returning to the faculty position. Librarians who do not hold administrative positions will be reviewed on the same schedule as a faculty member whose major responsibility is teaching.

Responsibility for Review

The post-tenure review will be conducted by a committee of faculty peers with the composition determined by the academic unit head. The committee should be composed of at least three tenured faculty members, all of whom must be able to render a fair and objective assessment of the faculty member.

Criteria for Review

The post-tenure review will be based on the same criteria in the three broad areas of achievement listed in the faculty handbook in the section entitled Faculty Evaluations. However, emphasis should be placed on increased productivity during the period covered by the review. In case of faculty whose primary responsibility is teaching, special emphasis should be placed on activities to improve teaching performance during the period covered by the review.

Documentation of the performance of the faculty member being reviewed must include the following:

  1. An up-to-date curriculum vita or resume.
  2. Copies of the faculty member’s annual evaluations for the years covered by the review.
  3. For faculty whose major responsibility is teaching, a summary of written student evaluations, peer observations, and unit head observations with special emphasis on teaching effectiveness during the period of the review. Other faculty should prepare a written summary of accomplishments relating to the other broad areas of achievement.
  4. A summary prepared by the faculty member of his or her accomplishments for the period under review.
  5. Projected goals of the faculty member for the next five year period and development plans to insure reaching those goals.
  6. Other documentation specified by the academic unit head.

The faculty member and the academic unit head are responsible for developing this documentation and providing it to the post-tenure review committee. The faculty member shall have access at any time to the review file. The faculty member shall also have the right to add material including statements and additional documents at any time during the review process.

Requirements for Review

The committee conducting the review must provide informed and candid feedback in its report on the quality of the faculty member’s performance, accomplishments, and contributions. The committee may also offer guidance on improving performance.

In any review in which the committee finds that the overall level of performance is unsatisfactory because of major, severe, or chronic deficiencies, the committee shall indicate that the performance is unsatisfactory and identify the reasons why the performance is unsatisfactory.

The committee must provide a written summary of its findings and any recommendations for faculty development to the head of the faculty member’s administrative unit. The unit head is responsible for transmitting this written summary to the faculty member and discussing its contents with the faculty member. The unit head must sign the document indicating that he or she has discussed it with the faculty member. The faculty member must sign the report indicating that he or she has received the document and discussed it with the unit head. In cases where the faculty member being reviewed is a department head, the responsibilities of the unit head in the post-tenure review will be exercised by the academic dean. The faculty member may prepare a written response to the report of the review committee. A copy of the committee’s report and any written response to it by the evaluated faculty member will then be sent to the administrative head at least one level above the faculty member’s administrative unit. The same material should also be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file at the administrative unit level. The administrative unit head shall also preserve in the faculty member’s personnel file all documents that played a substantive part in the review other than documents (such as publications) that are readily available elsewhere.

Faculty Development

Following post tenure review and based on the recommendation of the review committee, the unit head and the faculty member will prepare a plan for continued development of the faculty member.

Unsatisfactory Performance

In cases where faculty members have been identified in the post-tenure review as having an unsatisfactory performance, the academic unit head, in consultation with the faculty member, must establish a formal plan of development. A formal plan includes identifying appropriate sources of faculty development, whether they be located on campus, on other campuses of the University System, or in other locations. The plan for faculty development should a) define specific goals or outcomes that the plan is designed to achieve, b) outline the activities that can be undertaken to achieve the goals or outcomes, c) set appropriate times within which the goals or outcomes should be accomplished, and d) indicate appropriate criteria by which the faculty member should monitor progress. The faculty member’s administrative unit head is responsible for forwarding the formal faculty development plan resulting from a post-tenure review to the appropriate administrative office at least one level above the faculty member's unit. The unit head and the administrative officer at least one level above the faculty member’s administrative unit are jointly responsible for arranging for appropriate funding for the development plans, if required. At the time of each annual review, the administrative unit head will meet with each faculty member whose post-tenure review concluded that performance was unsatisfactory to review progress toward achieving the goals of a formal faculty development plan. A progress report will be included in the annual review.

It is the responsibility of the unit head and a peer-review committee to determine if, after a period of three years, a faculty member whose performance was deemed unsatisfactory in the post-tenure review has been successful, through the development plan, in changing the unsatisfactory performance. The unit head must report that finding to the appropriate administrative office at the next level. The appropriate dean and the Vice President for Academic affairs will determine what options are available. One option is dismissal for cause under Board of Regents Policy 803.09K2.

Other Provisions

  1. Academic unit heads must maintain a record of reviews completed, including the names of all members of review committees.
  2. At the end of each academic year, each unit head must forward to the Vice President for Academic Affairs a report listing the names of faculty members reviewed during the academic year and listing the names of the review committee for each faculty member reviewed.

Appeal

A faculty member who disagrees with the results of a post–tenure review, including the plan for faculty development, shall have the right to appeal through administrative channels.