School of Business Post-tenure Review Criteria and Procedures

General Principles: In accordance with Board of Regents requirements, Article 7, section 4 of the Faculty Senate Rules and Regulations, and the  University Policy on Post-tenure Review, the School of Business, hereafter referred to as the School, has adopted these expectations and procedures for conducting post-tenure review. Post-tenure review is a process for periodic peer evaluation of faculty performance that provides an opportunity for a long-term assessment of a faculty member’s accomplishments and future directions in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Post-tenure review must be conducted in a manner that respects the rights of faculty members, including academic freedom, tenure, and due process. In addition, all those involved in the evaluation process must recognize that it is a confidential personnel matter and take appropriate steps to protect confidentiality.

 

Period for Review: Post-tenure review is conducted on a seven-year cycle and covers the seven-year period leading up to the review. The cycle is restarted if a faculty member is evaluated for promotion or is awarded a distinguished professorship. Some years may be excluded from the period in accordance with the University policy, and the review may be postponed if the faculty member is on leave during the year of review. The dean of the School will notify faculty members scheduled for post-tenure review no later than March 15 in the spring semester preceding the academic year of review.

 

Expectations: All tenured faculty members must meet academic responsibilities in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Unless otherwise specified by the job description or differential allocation of effort, the ordinary allocation of effort is 40% teaching, 40% scholarship, and 20% service.

The School has defined its standards and expectations for teaching, scholarship, and service in its annual evaluation procedures in the School of Business Faculty Evaluation Plan approved May 2013 (G:BSchool_Shares/Policies/Faculty Eval FAC Eval Plan Rev 5 10 13.doc). The expectations for post-tenure review are consistent with these standards, with overall productivity commensurate to the seven-year period under review.

 

Review Committee: Post-tenure review is conducted by a committee of at least three members appointed annually by the dean and approved through a consent agenda item. Preferably, but not necessarily, the committee will include one representative each from the P&T Committee, RED Team and FAC. In addition, the Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Research will be a non-voting member of the committee. No person may serve on the committee if his or her spouse or partner is scheduled for review. A committee member who believes that there may be a conflict of interest should withdraw from the committee. If a faculty member who is undergoing review believes that there is a conflict of interest, he or she may object to the inclusion of a member. If the member declines to withdraw, the remaining committee members shall consider the basis for the alleged conflict and decide the matter. If a committee member withdraws or is removed based on a conflict of interest, the dean will name a replacement. 

 

Preparation of the File: Review will be conducted on the basis of a file that summarizes a faculty member’s teaching, scholarship, and service. In contrast to evaluation for promotion and tenure, copies of publications and original student evaluations are not required. Also, outside reviews of scholarship should not be submitted. The faculty member under review should provide a brief narrative statement of his or her accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and service during the review period as they relate to his or her long-term career path and goals (no more than two pages). In addition, the faculty member should submit a curriculum vitae including all relevant activity. These items should be submitted to the dean’s office by March 15 of the year of the review. The dean will furnish copies of the faculty member’s annual evaluation letters, RED team evaluations, and summary course evaluations for the years covering the review period.

 

Evaluation and Report: The committee will review the file and evaluate the faculty member’s overall performance and his or her contributions in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. The committee will rely on the expectations defined in the Faculty Evaluation Plan as applied in the annual Faculty Performance Evaluations and tri-annual RED Team evaluations to determine whether the faculty member’s performance meets expectations, exceeds expectations, or fails to meet expectations in each area and overall over the seven year review period. In making its evaluations, the committee must bear in mind that (1) faculty members have differing responsibilities and make different kinds of contributions to the mission of the

School and the University; (2) a faculty member’s activities vary over time according to his or her strengths, interests, and career path; and (3) innovative work may take time to reach fruition and may sometimes fail. It is expected that a faculty member will be rated “exceeds expectations” in a given area only if the faculty member has been rated outstanding in that area for most of the years under review and that an overall assessment of “exceeds expectations” will be given only if the ratings in all three areas are “exceeds expectations” The committee will prepare a written report summarizing its evaluation. The report should provide a narrative description of the faculty member’s activities, an explanation of the committee’s ratings, and recommendations or suggestions for acknowledgement of contributions and future development of the faculty member. A template for this report is provided below. The committee will provide a copy of the report to the faculty member, who may submit a written response for inclusion in the post-tenure review file before it is forwarded to the dean.

 

Consideration by the Dean: The committee’s report (along with any faculty response) will be provided to the dean. If the dean agrees with the report, s/he will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member and place a copy in the file. If the dean disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, s/he shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member and the committee. The dean may ask the committee to provide additional information or reconsider the review. If the dean disagrees with a positive evaluation by the committee, the faculty member may submit a written response. The dean will forward a summary of post-tenure review outcomes and copies of the posttenure review files to the Provost to be placed in the faculty members’ personnel files.

 

Relation to Annual Evaluations and Possible Consequences: The committee report will be considered part of the annual evaluation process and the dean will discuss the review with the faculty member in conjunction with that process. This discussion should concentrate on the future professional development of the faculty member with an aim toward enhancing meritorious work and improving less satisfactory performance, including adoption of a performance improvement plan, if necessary. Any action on the review that is within the scope of the Faculty Evaluation Policy must be taken under that policy (see G:BSchool_Shares/Policies/Faculty Eval FAC Eval Plan Rev 5 10 13.docx).

 

Appeals: If a disagreement between the committee and the dean cannot be resolved or if the faculty member wishes to appeal an evaluation of “fails to meet expectations,” the matter will be handled as an appeal under the School’s Faculty Evaluation Policy.