Version
1.0 26 Sept 05
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES ONLY
Post-Tenure Review Policy
Evaluation of Faculty at
Faculty are evaluated
regularly and in many different ways.
The lengthy process of academic preparation, the highly competitive job
market, and the rigorous promotion and tenure process that follows and extended
probationary period ensure that tenured faculty at Auburn have proven their
abilities. Even after tenure is
achieved, faculty undergo continuous evaluation in the classroom, or when
submitting their work for critical evaluation of within the larger community of
which they are a part. Work submitted
for publication, in pursuit of grants, or in the form of design and performance
is evaluated by panels of specialists at the regional, national, and
international levels. These external
evaluations inform annual performance evaluations conducted in each department
for every faculty member, both probationary and tenured.
Annual performance
reviews at
Post-Tenure Review
Post-tenure review is
conceived of as an extension of annual faculty performance reviews.[1] The intent of post-tenure review is to
recognize faculty achievement and promote continuous improvement in faculty
performance. Post-tenure review is
designed 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. The intent is to provide a positive and
systematic process for evaluation over the course of a faculty member’s
career.
Criteria used in
post-tenure reviews should reflect the overall mission of the academic
department or other unit within which the faculty member holds tenure, and
should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate faculty with differing
responsibilities and particular strengths who contribute to the mission of the
institution in distinct ways.
The academic department or other unit within which the faculty member holds tenure shall ensure that the criteria governing faculty review do not infringe on the accepted standards of academic freedom, including the right to pursue novel, unpopular, or unfashionable lines of inquiry. The review shall be carried out free of bias or prejudice by factors such as race, religion, sex, color, national origin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, disability, political affiliation, or veteran status.
Timing
and Documentation
Eight
years after the most recent tenure or promotion decision at
Faculty
applying for promotion in a given year will not be subject to post-tenure
review. If the application for promotion
is successful, that would be equivalent to a successful post-tenure
review. If the application for promotion
is denied, the faculty member will undergo a post-tenure review in the
following year unless they again apply for promotion. If three successive applications for
promotion are denied, the faculty member will undergo post-tenure review even
if they apply for promotion during that fourth year.
Preparation
of post-tenure review materials shall be the joint responsibility of the
faculty member to be reviewed and that faculty member’s supervisor (i.e., the
person who conducts the annual performance evaluation, normally a department
chair/head). The supervisor will
transmit copies of annual performance reviews and supervisor evaluations for
the past six years. The faculty member
will transmit a curriculum vitae and any other written documentation deemed
necessary to understand the material submitted.
Guidelines
Post-tenure
reviews should focus on those same areas of performance as would be covered in
a promotion decision (i.e., teaching, research, extension/outreach, and
service) and be based on the actual assignment of the faculty member under review. Unlike the promotion process, however, the
post-tenure review process will be decentralized to the level of college or
school.
Each
college or school will develop its own procedures for post-tenure review,
consistent with the broad guidelines presented here.
1. Each college or school is expected to
establish written criteria and procedures for post-tenure review through an
open participatory process involving faculty and college or school
administrators.
2. The review should assess the faculty member’s
performance consistent with the faculty responsibilities described in the
annual performance evaluations, with proper weighting being given to those
areas of greater or lesser importance to the faculty member’s assignment, and
understanding that such assignments may have varied across the five year period
under review.
3. Post-tenure review processes should not
require external letters of evaluation.
4. Each college or schools shall establish a
post-tenure review committee (PTRC) to conduct preliminary screening of
materials submitted. The PTRC is
advisory to the dean. Such committees should
contain no fewer than seven tenured professors, at least four of whom should
hold the rank of professor.
5. The process of selecting faculty to serve on
the PTRC shall be college-wide election with all tenure track faculty eligible
to vote.
6. The PTRC will evaluate submitted materials,
identifying faculty whose performance is truly outstanding, those whose
performance is either superior or satisfactory, and those whose performance is
below the level of expectations associated with tenured faculty at
7. Faculty who are identified as truly
outstanding will have their materials sent forward to the Outstanding Faculty
Recognition Committee (OFRC). The OFRC
will be a University committee whose members will be nominated by the University
Senate Rules Committee, with every college and school represented. The OFRC will be chaired by the Provost. The PTRC of each college can send forward up
to 20% of all post-tenure review packets for further review. The OFRC will identify the top 10% of all
faculty each year who have undergone post-tenure review. Faculty whose performance is deemed
outstanding will be acknowledged by the university and will receive $5,000 added
to their base salary.[2] In addition, the department and college or school
of a faculty member whose performance was judged to be superior or satisfactory
will consider the post-tenure review outcome in awarding salary increases at
the next available opportunity.
8. The department and college or school of a
faculty member whose performance was judged to be superior or satisfactory will
consider the post-tenure review outcome in awarding salary increases at the
next available opportunity.
9. Faculty whose performance does match the high
expectations associated with their having been tenured may request that the
PTRC reconsider their evaluation. Such
requests should be submitted in writing within 15 days of receipt by the
faculty member of the evaluation. The
faculty member may submit additional documentation if such documentation
provides new information not previously available to the PTRC. The PTRC will conduct such a review within 30
days, and provide the faculty member, the department chair/head, and the dean a
report of their evaluation.
10. A faculty member receiving an evaluation of
“unsatisfactory” will develop, in consultation with their department chair/head
and the review committee a professional development plan. This plan should include definite steps to be
taken to remedy 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 department chair or head. The
plan should specify the resources available to accomplish the goals. Such
resources might include support for scholarly professional activities or a
program for the improvement of teaching.
A copy of the development plan will be sent to the dean of the college
or school.
11. In the event of failure after one year to
make progress towards achieving the goals of the development plan, or failure
at the end of the time stipulated in the plan, the department chair or head, in
consultation with the PTRC, will recommend to the dean what action should next
be taken. The dean may impose certain
sanctions or initiate certain procedures.
Among such actions are redistribution of effort, reassignment within the
unit, reassignment within the university, reduction in rank, reduction in
salary, or the instituting of procedures to terminate the faculty member’s appointment
through the Faculty Dismissal process laid out in the Handbook. Before the dean initiates any sanction, the
proposed sanction shall be reviewed by the PTRC, which will make its
recommendations in writing to the dean, with a copy sent to the Provost. The Provost must concur before any sanction
is imposed.
10. A faculty member may appeal the PTRC’s
evaluation to the Post-Tenure Review Appeals Committee (PTRAC, a Senate
committee to be established). The PTRAC
is advisory to the Provost. PTRAC will
only hear appeals from faculty who have received an evaluation of
“unsatisfactory” and only after the PTRC has been asked to reconsider their
initial evaluation. If a faculty member
then wishes to file an appeal with the PTRAC, s/he must submit a written
request for appeal to the PTRAC stating fully the grounds on which the appeal
is based. This written request must be
filed with the PTRAC within 30 days after a final decision has been rendered by
the dean on advice of the PTRC.
11. The PTRAC will advise the Provost on
questions of fairness of the PTRC evaluation with regard to process,
determination, and the appropriateness of the plan or course of action
suggested by the dean. If the PTRAC
decides that the evaluation process was flawed or that the determination of
unsatisfactory is invalid, the PTRAC may recommend to the Provost that (1) the
matter be reheard by the PTRC as if the matter had not previously been heard
before and as if no decision had previously been rendered, or (2) the decision
of the dean be reversed outright. If the
PTRAC finds that the process was fair and valid but that the suggested plan of
improvement is not appropriate, the PTRAC may recommend that the Provost (1)
meet with the appellant and the dean to reach a satisfactory solution, (2)
remand to the PTRC with recommendations, or (3) recommend outside
mediation.
12. If issues before the PTRAC are being
considered simultaneously by the Faculty Grievance Committee, the Faculty
Grievance proceeding shall be stayed until the PTRAC makes its recommendation
to the Provost and the Provost has issued a determination in writing.
Confidentiality, Appeals,
and Monitoring
The
written reviews, attachments, and professional development plans developed
under this policy are to be regarded as confidential, consistent with
Faculty
members who are dissatisfied with the outcome or the process of the review
should attempt resolution through informal means involving the department
chair/head, dean, and the college or school committee. If no resolution is achieved, the faculty
member may institute formal grievance procedures as laid out elsewhere in the
Faculty Handbook.
The
Senate Steering Committee[3] is
charged with monitoring the post-tenure review process and reporting its
findings annually to the University Senate.
If its findings warrant, the Steering Committee shall recommend
revisions of the post-tenure review policy.
Phase-in and Timing
Post-tenure
review will be phased in over a six year period beginning Fall 2006. Approximately one-sixth of all faculty
subject to post-tenure review in each department shall be evaluated every
year. The year in which each faculty
member is first evaluated shall be determined either randomly or by other means
approved by at least two-thirds of each department’s tenure track faculty. Decisions are to be made during Spring of
each year to identify who within the department will go through a post-tenure
review the following academic year. The
department chair or head is responsible for notifying in writing faculty
members to be reviewed. Department
chairs and heads also will notify their deans by the end of Spring semester
which faculty will be go through post-tenure review.
The
department chair or head is responsible for assisting their faculty through the
process. This includes discussing the
review process and the documentation required.
By January 15, the department chair or head and the faculty member each
will present to the other materials for which they are responsible. In addition, the faculty member will include
the annual performance report for the
calendar year just completed. This
report, and the evaluation of the department chair or head, will be included in
the post-tenure review process.
The
completed packet of materials, including the annual performance report and
evaluation for the previous year, will
be turned into the dean’s office by February 15th. The review committee will complete its work
before March 31st. Whenever
possible, the dean will issue a letter to the faculty member, the faculty
member’s department chair or head, and the Provost by April 30.
[1] This proposed plan is based on a review of
plans at the
[2] Estimate 900 faculty subject to review, 180 reviews per year, 18 awardees = $90,000
[3] Regarding the Steering Committee, the Senate Constitution notes that committee “shall be concerned with the academic affairs of the University, with particular attention given to the need for developing and recommending policies under which these affairs are conducted.”