I. Introduction

Policies relevant to post-tenure review are part of the University System Collected Rules and Regulations 310.015 and are at this URL: https://www.umsystem.edu/ums/rules/collected_rules/faculty/ch310/310.015_procedures_for_review_of_faculty_performance 

Nothing in the Department’s policy reduces, in any way, the rights that any faculty member enjoyed under the tenure regulations of the university in effect at the time he/she was awarded tenure.

II. Standards for Satisfactory Performance

The department applies the same standards and procedures, and uses the same materials, to evaluate performance for the five-year period that it uses to conduct annual evaluations for salary adjustments.

The department uses performance benchmarks to establish rating scales in the three areas. A benchmark rating of 1 will be used for each of research, teaching, and service. The relevant overall bench mark for a faculty member is simply his/her weighted rating, based on his/her official weights for each area as defined by Departmental “Procedures and Criteria for Annual Faculty Evaluation for Salary Adjustments”.

It is to be expected that all or nearly all faculty will exceed them.

Annual performance is satisfactory overall if and only if (1) the weighted rating is 1.0 or above, or (2) there is an overriding assessment by chair of satisfactory in light of such things as promising but unpublished research projects.

After July 1, 2018, performance during a five-year period of post-tenure review is satisfactory if and only if at least four of the five annual overall evaluations are satisfactory. Before that date, performance during a five-year period of post-tenure review is satisfactory if and only if at least three of the five annual overall evaluations are satisfactory.

III. The Review Process

In the statement of procedures "the Dean" refers to the Dean of Arts and Science and "the Chair" to the chair of the Philosophy Department at the time an individual is reviewed; "the individual" and "the faculty member" to the faculty member whose performance is reviewed; "the Committee" to the committee which reviews the Chair's negative evaluation of the individual; and "the Mediator" to the outsider who is appointed to participate in development programs of an individual whose performance has been found unsatisfactory.

1. Performance Review

1. Every tenured faculty member other than the Chair, including those with part-time administrative positions, will submit an annual report describing activities in research, teaching, and service. The annual report will be reviewed by the Chair. The Chair will be reviewed annually by the Dean.

2. For the purposes of the next five-year review, the Chair will provide an overall evaluation of the faculty member's performance as satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the year. If the performance is evaluated as unsatisfactory , then individual will receive this information in a written evaluation.

3. If the annual overall evaluation is unsatisfactory, the faculty member and the Chair discuss the evaluation. The faculty member will sign the written evaluation to acknowledge its receipt and may provide a written response to the evaluation.

4. A faculty member may request participation in a formal development plan after an unsatisfactory annual evaluation. This may include changing the his/her weights for researching, teaching, and service, with a corresponding change in duties.

5. At five-year intervals, the Chair will review the annual reports and evaluation statements for the individual for the past five years. The individual will provide a concise summary of research, teaching, and service activities for the five-year period, as well as a currentcurriculum vitae.

6. The individual's first five-year review will be conducted at the end of five calendar years beginning with the first full year after the tenure has been awarded, or the last formal review of the faculty member for promotion to associate professor or full professor or the last time the five-year review has been conducted. Faculty hired with tenure will be reviewed five years after they are hired.

7. Based on the five-year record, the Chair will evaluate the faculty member's performance as satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The five-year evaluation process will be complete with a satisfactory evaluation.

8. If the evaluation is unsatisfactory, a report will be sent to a Committee composed of all tenured faculty of the Department other than the Chair at the same or higher rank as the individual and whose work has not been judged unsatisfactory by the Chair in the review process of the current year.

9. The Committee will perform its own full review of the performance of the faculty member over the five-year period and provide an independent evaluation.

10. A two-thirds vote of the Committee is required to find the performance unsatisfactory. The five-year evaluation process will be complete if the Committee does not judge the performance to be unsatisfactory.

11. In the event that both the Chair and the Committee determine the performance to be unsatisfactory, the Chair and Chair of the Committee will prepare reports for the Dean.

12. The Dean will review the reports and provide an assessment of the performance of the faculty member. The five-year evaluation process will be complete if the Dean judges the performance of the faculty member to be satisfactory.

13. At every level of review, the faculty member will be provided a copy of written reports that are part of these proceedings and will have the right of appeal of evaluations, decisions, or recommendations to the next level of the process.

2. Formulation of Development Plan and Assessment of Progress

1. If the Dean concurs that the performance of the faculty member has been unsatisfactory, a plan for professional development will be formulated by the faculty member, the Committee or a designated subcommittee, and a Mediator from outside the department selected by mutual agreement between the individual, Chair, Committee, and Dean.

2. The development plan will have clear and attainable objectives for the faculty member. It may include a reallocation of the faculty member's effort. It may include a commitment of institutional resources to the plan. This plan will be signed by the faculty member, the Chair, the Mediator, and the Dean.

3. The development phase will start at the beginning of the calendar year following the completion of a development plan acceptable to all involved and the provision of any resources described in the development plan.

4. A faculty member who has received an unsatisfactory five-year evaluation may not appeal the process of developing a professional plan. If the faculty member is not satisfied with the plan that has been developed, he or she may appeal to the next administrative level for help in the formulation of an acceptable plan.

5. A faculty member with a plan for professional development will submit an annual progress report to the Chair for three successive years after the plan has been initiated. The Chair will review the report and provide a written annual evaluation on the progress of the faculty member toward the objectives stated in the development plan.

6. If the Chair finds satisfactory progress for any two of the three years, then the process will cease and the faculty member will return to regular status and begin a new five-year cycle.

7. If the Chair does not find satisfactory progress in two of the three years of the development plan, the Chair will provide the annual reports and evaluations to the Committee and the Mediator.

8. If the Committee and Mediator find satisfactory progress in two of the three years of the development plan, the process ceases and the faculty member will return to regular status and begin a new five-year cycle.

9. If the Chair, Committee, and Mediator do not find satisfactory progress in two of the three years of the development plan, the Chair will provide annual reports and evaluations to the Dean.

10. If the Dean finds satisfactory progress in two of the three years of the development plan, the process ceases and the faculty member returns to regular status begin a new five-year cycle.

11. If the Chair, the Committee, Mediator, and Dean do not find satisfactory progress in two of the three years, then the five-year evaluations plus the three years of progress reports and evaluations by the Chair on the development plan will be forwarded to the campus committee on Tenure and Promotion and to the Provost or Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

12. Each of these will review the reports and will recommend separately to the Chancellor that: (i) an additional two-year development plan be written and implemented in consultation with the faculty member and the departmental Committee, or (ii) the faculty member be considered for dismissal of cause proceedings.

13. The same procedure will be followed after a second, two-year development plan, except that the only recommendation in case of unsatisfactory performance will be that the faculty member be considered for dismissal for cause.

3. Dismissal for Cause

1. If it is deemed by the Chancellor that the performance of the faculty member during the periods covered in section 2 constitutes sufficient grounds for termination for cause, dismissal for cause will be initiated. It will proceed in accordance with the procedures for dismissal for cause described in section 310.060 of the University Procedures.

2. This procedure for review and development of faculty performance does not substitute for the dismissal for cause procedures stated in section 310.060.

3. This procedure does not impose additional requirements upon the University prior to initiating dismissal for cause procedures as stated in section 310.060.

IV. Data Available to the Individual, Chair and Committee

The university rules specify the minimum information that must be available to the Chair and Committee to reach their judgments.

1. The Chair will review the individual's performance ratings assigned by chairs and the individual's annual reports for the five-year period of service, plus any other relevant data to which he or she has access without breach of confidentiality. The Chair will normally consult prior chairs who were in office during the period under review. In cases where the performance of the individual has been problematic, Chair will invite the individual to submit data and discuss the issues with the individual.

2. The Chair will provide the Committee all of the annual reports and other information mentioned in (a.) that he or she has taken into consideration. The Committee will interview the Chair and the individual separately before making its determination. Both may submit additional data.

3. In the case of a positive decision by the Chair at the end of a development period, the individual will resume regular tenured status and all references to the development process will be removed from his or her file.

V. Timing of the Reviews

1. Individuals whose tenure or promotion to higher rank takes effect in the academic year following the time the policies and procedures become operative and individuals tenured before that date will be reviewed after five calendar years of service after the procedure becomes operative.

2. Individuals whose performance has been judged satisfactory after the first five years will be reviewed after each subsequent five-year period. If an individual is promoted in the middle of a cycle, a new cycle will begin at the beginning of the first calendar year at the higher rank regardless of the time since tenure was awarded.

3. Development periods will begin with the calendar year following the time at which the development plan is agreed upon.

Adopted: Sometime 2003-2005

Revised: May 3, 2013