REG 05.20.04 - Post Tenure Review of Faculty
Authority: Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
History: First Issued: Fall 1998. Last Revised: January 4, 2012.
UNC Policy 400.3.3 - Performance Review of Tenured Faculty
UNC Policy 400.3.3.1[G] - Guidelines on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty
NCSU POL05.20.01 - Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure
NCSU POL05.25.01 – Faculty Grievance and Non-Reappointment Review Policy
NCSU REG05.20.13 - Joint and Associate Faculty Appointments
NCSU REG05.20.20 - Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Dossier Format Requirements
Contact Info: Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs (919-513-7741)
1.1 This regulation establishes procedures for comprehensive, periodic, cumulative review of the performance of all tenured faculty. This regulation meets the requirements of UNC Policy 400.3.3 - Performance Review of Tenured Faculty and UNC Policy 400.3.3.1[G] - Guidelines on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty.
1.2 The purpose of this regulation is to establish procedures to ensure that post-tenure review is conducted in a manner that protects academic freedom and the quality of education. These procedures further ensure that post-tenure review is not a reevaluation of tenure, nor may it be used to shift the burden of proof from the administration to faculty peers to show cause for dismissal, or to the individual faculty member to show cause why he or she should be retained.
2.1 Every tenured faculty member shall be reviewed through the post tenure review process every five (5) years after having been tenured. Exceptions may be granted at the discretion of the Dean for faculty members who have submitted a letter of intent to retire, resign or apply for the Phased Retirement Program to be effective within two (2) years from July 1 of the academic year of their review. An extension of up to one (1) year may be granted at the discretion of the Dean when circumstances place an undue burden on the faculty member and/or department to complete the review during the fifth year.
2.2 A positive Departmental Voting Faculty (DVF) vote for promotion (as defined by a simple majority vote) shall be considered a meets expectations for post tenure review regardless of the outcome of the promotion process. A negative vote for promotion by the DVF does not qualify as a post tenure review and does not change the faculty member’s post tenure review schedule.
2.3 If a post tenure review finds that the faculty member meets expectations, the next post tenure review shall not occur in fewer than five (5) years. However, pursuant to NCSU POL05.20.01 - Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Permanent Tenure section 6.5 academic administration may schedule a review with peer involvement when deemed appropriate.
3. DEPARTMENTAL RULES
3.1 Individual departments shall have Departmental Rules describing the standards and procedures used to carry out post tenure review. The Departmental Rules shall include the composition of the peer review committee and a procedure to select the committee by a process agreed upon by the tenured faculty in that unit. These Departmental Rules shall be supplemental to and consistent with this regulation.
4. JOINT APPOINTMENTS
4.1 Reviews of faculty with joint appointments shall be conducted in each department according to duly established Departmental Rules developed within each department.
4.2 For peer reviews, the Department Head of the primary department will add the votes from the respective reviews to determine results per Section 5.4 and inform the other head(s)/chair(s) and dean(s) for the departments involved. For college and university reports, the results will be reported only once by the primary department.
4.3 If the faculty member has requested and been approved for an administrative review (see Section 5.3), the Department Head of the primary department must consult with the other head(s) or chair(s) for the departments involved.
4.4 Departments not having primary responsibility for a faculty member with a joint appointment have the option of not conducting a post tenure review. The circumstances of when a department chooses to exercise this option are to be stipulated in the Department Rules.
Post tenure review shall be conducted according to the following procedures:
5.1 As part of the annual review process, the Department Head will inform each faculty member of the projected date of their next post tenure review.
5.2 To assess faculty member’s cumulative performance, the following materials or documents with equivalent content shall be provided to the review committee:
5.2.1 A current CV;
5.2.2 The Statement of Mutual Expectations (SME);
5.2.3 Each annual activity report since the last review;
5.2.4 Peer teaching evaluations since the last review; and
5.2.5 An optional 2-page candidate statement
5.3 A peer review committee shall be selected in accordance with Departmental Rules. According to UNC Policy 400.3.3.1[G] - Guidelines on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty, the faculty member being reviewed will not have the option of selecting members of the peer review committee.
5.4 In lieu of a review by the peer review committee, the faculty member to be reviewed may request an administrative review to be conducted by the Department Head. All requests for administrative review must be approved by the Department Head and the peer review committee.
5.5 The Department Head will communicate the results of all administrative reviews to the peer review committee. In the event of a negative administrative review, an evaluation by the peer review committee shall be conducted within the same review period. All subsequent evaluations responding to a negative review must be conducted by the faculty peer review committee.
5.6 The post tenure review will provide a comprehensive, cumulative, written assessment of the faculty member undergoing post tenure review to determine whether the tenured faculty member meets or does not meet the performance standards, as defined in Departmental Rules, for each realm of responsibility described in the SME and an overall determination of whether the faculty member meets or does not meet performance standards. The determination of meets or does not meet expectations shall be based on a simple majority vote of the peer review committee. A tie vote shall be understood to meet expectations.
5.7 The Department Head shall provide to the faculty member being reviewed the written assessment of the review including the numerical vote (vote not applicable for an administrative review), as well as an option for a written faculty response to the evaluation which becomes part of the review record. The Department Head shall discuss the post tenure review report and optional faculty member response with the faculty member. Upon receipt of the written assessment, the faculty member will document receipt by signature.
5.8 If the result is that the faculty member’s performance meets expectations, the review is concluded. The documentation and findings of the review should be taken into account in the determination of appropriate rewards, such as annual salary increases, nomination for awards and other recognitions.
5.9 If the result is that the faculty member’s performance does not meet expectations, the Department Head will prepare a written development plan in conjunction with the faculty member and relevant peers in the department that prescribes what the faculty member must do to meet expectations in the following year(s) including specific descriptions of shortcomings and areas for improvement as they relate to the realms of responsibility described in the faculty member’s Statement of Mutual Expectations. The plan will serve as the basis for the subsequent review. Reviews by the peer review committee will be conducted annually until such time as the faculty member is found to meet expectations.
5.9.1 The individual development plan must include specific expectations, actions and consequences designed to lead to improvement, and a specified time line in which improvement is expected to occur.
5.9.2 The Department Head shall meet with the faculty member at least twice annually to assess progress toward meeting the development plan. There will be a written summary of these meetings provided to the faculty member and placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.
5.9.3 A peer mentor shall be assigned to meet with the faculty member at least twice annually to facilitate progress toward meeting the development plan. There will be a written summary of each of these meetings provided to the faculty member and placed in his or her personnel file.
5.9.4 When reviewing the progress toward meeting the development plan, the annual review by the peer review committee shall determine:
184.108.40.206 Is the faculty member meeting (or not) the expected progress of the development plan?
220.127.116.11 Does the faculty member now meet expectations of the performance standards for the realms of responsibility described in their SME?
5.9.5 The response to these shall be communicated to the Department Head to be taken into account in the annual performance evaluation of the candidate. If the faculty member meets expectations (see section 5.8), the post tenure review is complete.
6. REPORTING AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
6.1 The outcome of the review shall be provided to the Dean, including recommendations for any administrative action. In cases resulting in does not meet expectations, the Department Head will send a copy of all annual reviews conducted during the period of the post tenure review to the Dean along with the results and assessment report by the Post Tenure Review Committee, the faculty member’s response to the review (if any), and recommendations for any administrative action.
6.2 The Dean shall review the information provided by the Department Head per section 6.1 and provide to the Provost an acknowledgment of the completion of the post-tenure review and the Dean's recommendations for any administrative action.
6.3 A negative post tenure review decision may be grieved in accordance with procedures set forth in NCSU POL05.25.01 – Faculty Grievance and Non-Reappointment Review Policy.
6.4 For faculty members whose performance does not meet expectations for multiple consecutive years, the post-tenure review process may support an administrative action under the University’s existing disciplinary procedures.
6.5 The Department Head will ensure that the documentation submitted by the faculty member, the written assessment by the PTRC or the Department Head (in the case of an administrative review), the faculty member’s response (if any), and other documents related to the review are placed in the faculty member’s personnel file. The post tenure review written assessment and any documentation or materials considered as part of the review process are confidential and not open for inspection except as provided by state law (N. C. Gen Stat. 126-24).
6.6 This regulation does not preclude an administrative judgment of professional performance at any time based on evaluations other than post tenure review.