POL 05.25.01 - Post-Tenure Review Policy

About this Policy

Authority:
Board of Trustees
Responsible Office:
Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Date Established:
01-30-1997
Last Revised:
11-08-2024

1. Principles and Criteria

1.1 All phases of this evaluation process are to be guided by the principles set forth in the UNCP Faculty Evaluation Model (UNCP Faculty Handbook). Thus all “Principles and Criteria” relevant to faculty evaluation detailed in that document are also relevant to the post-tenure evaluation process and consequently are not repeated in this present document. These include principles and definitions, criteria, and documentation for the evaluation of teaching, scholarship, and service.

1.2 Tenured faculty must undergo a cumulative review process every five years, following the award of tenure (or following the award of promotion if such review occurs within the five-year period after tenure review). Post-tenure review evaluates all aspects of performance including teaching, scholarship, and service.

1.3 Faculty members' performance will be evaluated relative to the mission of UNCP. The purpose of this review is to support and encourage excellence among tenured faculty by (a) continuing tenure for faculty whose performance has been found to “meet or exceed expectations,” (b) providing a clear plan and a specified time line of not more than three years for improvement of performance of faculty whose performance has been found to “not meet expectations,” and (c) for those whose performance continues to “not meet expectations,” providing for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which may include a recommendation for discharge in the most serious cases of incompetence.

1.4 Written feedback from the Department Chair and Dean should include recognition for exemplary performance. A performance review that includes a recommendation for recognition of performance that exceeds expectations shall include a statement of the faculty member's primary responsibilities and specific descriptions of how the faculty member exceeded assigned duties and the directional goals established. A negative review must include a statement of the faculty member's primary responsibilities and specific descriptions of shortcomings as they relate to the faculty member's assigned duties. Any faculty response to a negative review will be forwarded with the packet to all subsequent levels of review.

1.5 In situations where a faculty member has received a rating of “does not meet expectations,” an individual development or career plan will be created that includes (a) specific steps designed to lead to improvement, (b) a specified timeline in which improvement is expected to occur, and (c) a clear statement of consequences should adequate improvement not occur within the designated timeline. These consequences may include dismissal as allowed by the UNC Code, 603 (1). During the period allowed for improvement, the Department Chair or Dean (in the case of a Department Chair) will meet with the faculty member on at least a semi-annual basis to review progress toward meeting the development plan's specifications. If the faculty member's duties are modified as a result of a “does not meet expectations” rating, the revised duties are specified in the development plan.

1.6 In consultation with department chairs, faculty shall develop five-year goal(s) or plans that should include milestones that are aligned with annual performance evaluation. These plans can be modified annually by the faculty member, in consultation with the department chair.

1.7 Waiver of the periodic performance evaluation review may be granted by the Provost for faculty who have made an official decision to retire within two years from the date the review is scheduled to begin. Request for the waiver should be made in writing by the faculty member and must include notice of the confirmed date of retirement. In the event that personal or departmental exigencies create circumstances that warrant a delay in the planned retirement date, the faculty member must complete the performance evaluation review in the next year. If the faculty member's retirement date needs to be changed for personal or departmental reasons, they must complete the performance evaluation review by the following year.

1.8 The institution will provide ongoing support and training for all post-tenure evaluators, including peer review committee members, department chairs or deans. It will use the training provided by the UNC System for all post-tenure review evaluators.

2. Principles Governing the Roles of Individuals and Groups for Post-tenure Review

2.1 The Faculty Member Being Evaluated

2.1.1 All tenured faculty will undergo a cumulative review process every five years following the award of tenure. If during that period, the tenured faculty member is promoted, this cumulative review will not be necessary until the fifth year following the promotion review. When tenured faculty apply for promotion and undergo post-tenure review at the same time, separate decisions will be made on each using the appropriate forms to record those decisions. As indicated in the UNCP Faculty Evaluation Model, the faculty member's self-evaluations should be “a primary source of information about the goals, methods, and degrees of success associated with his or her performance.” As is also stated therein, the annual weights assigned to each area by the individual being evaluated and the appropriate Disciplinary Statements are to be taken into account by subsequent evaluators. Furthermore, the candidate has the right to submit a rebuttal pertaining to any aspect of the reports submitted by the Department Chair or the Peer Evaluation Committee or Dean.

2.1.2 If a faculty member is reassigned to other duties (e.g., department chair or academic unit head) for .50 FTE or more, or is occupying a leave-earning position (e.g., SAAO), that faculty member shall not be required to undergo post-tenure review until having completed a five-year cycle following the reassignment.

2.2 Students

 

2.2.1 As is the case with all evaluation procedures at UNCP, student evaluations play a prominent role in evaluating the faculty member's teaching. However, they do not by themselves provide sufficient information to judge fully a faculty member's performance as a teacher.

2.3 The Peer Evaluation Committee

2.3.1 The department or unit selects the Peer Evaluation Committee of three members by a process agreed upon by the tenured faculty within the department or unit. The faculty member being evaluated cannot make the final selection of Committee members. The Peer Evaluation Committee is responsible for evaluating submitted materials, assessing their implications, and formulating a coherent evaluation of the faculty member's performance. The Peer Evaluation Committee is responsible for preparing and submitting a Peer Evaluation Report using the Format for Peer Evaluation Committee Report for Post-Tenure Evaluation Review. This report will include a narrative and an overall performance rating. In the case of a negative review, specific detailed descriptions of shortcomings as they relate to the faculty member's assigned duties must be provided in the narrative. The Chair of the Peer Evaluation Committee obtains the evaluated faculty member's signature on the report and submits the report to the Dean of the faculty member's college or school. Following the delivery of the Peer Evaluation Committee's report to the evaluated faculty member, the Department Chair (or Dean for the evaluation of the Department Chair) must consult with the Committee before sending the materials to the next level of review. In all cases, the faculty member being reviewed may submit a rebuttal to the Dean within fourteen calendar days of having received these reports.

2.4 The Department Chair (or Dean for Department Chairs)

2.4.1 The Department Chair (Dean of the Chair's school or college for Department Chairs), subsequent to the completion of the Peer Evaluation Committee Evaluation and in consultation with the Peer Evaluation Committee, is responsible for writing his/her own recommendations (see Format for Chair's Report for Post-Tenure Evaluation Review), obtaining the evaluated faculty member's signature on the report and submitting this document to the Dean of the faculty member's college or school. This report will include a narrative and an overall performance rating. In the case of a negative review, specific detailed descriptions of shortcomings as they relate to the faculty member's assigned duties must be provided in the narrative. The Chair (or Dean for the evaluation of Department Chairs) must consult with the Peer Evaluation Committee before submitting their report.

2.4.2 It will be responsibility of the Department Chair (or Dean if the faculty member concerned is the Department Chair), in collaboration with the faculty member evaluated, to draw up an individual success plan. The plan will include steps designed to lead to improvement in the faculty member's performance to a “meets expectations” level, a specified time frame of not more than three academic years in which this improvement is to occur, and a clear statement of consequences should improvement to a “meets expectations” level of performance not occur within the specified time frame. After review and concurrence by the Dean of the faculty member's college or school, the plan will be submitted to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, who must approve the plan, taking into account the need for institutional resources to support the faculty member's efforts to remediate identified deficiencies in his or her performance.

2.5 The Dean of the Faculty Member's School or College

2.5.1 The Dean will review the reports from the Chair and from the Peer Evaluation Committee as well as any supporting materials and rebuttals. The Dean will assess the performance of the faculty member based on the materials presented and will complete the. Dean's Report using the Format for Dean's Report for Post-Tenure Review. The Dean will make available to the faculty member a copy of the Dean's, report and share that report, with all attached materials, to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. If the Dean does not agree with the evaluation of the Chair and/or the Peer Evaluation Committee, the Dean must justify that judgment with appropriate comments. The faculty member has the right to submit a rebuttal to the Dean's evaluation within fourteen calendar days of signing the report.

2.6 The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

2.6.1 Based on the materials submitted by the Dean, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is responsible for taking appropriate actions concerning the status of each tenured faculty member who has undergone the cumulative review process.

2.6.2 The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the faculty member, the faculty member's Department Chair (or Dean for Department Chairs), and the Dean of the relevant college or school, will also be responsible for constructing, monitoring, and evaluating a “meets or exceeds expectations” level of completion of any plan for improvement of performance for any faculty member whose performance has been judged to “not meet expectations.”

2.6.3 If the provisions of the remediation plan have not been met and the required improvement not occurred, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall recommend sanctions to the Chancellor, under the provisions of university policy on Discharge and the Imposition of Serious Sanctions and The Code of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina . Such sanctions may include reduction in rank, discharge, or other disciplinary action.

2.6.4 The Provost must certify that all aspects of the post-tenure review process are in compliance with policy and guidelines.

2.7 The Chancellor

2.7.1 After reviewing the materials produced by this evaluation process, the Chancellor takes actions as deemed appropriate. In situations where a tenured faculty member has received a rating of “does not meet expectations” and the identified deficiencies are not removed in the specified period of time, the Chancellor may impose sanctions, which may include discharge as allowed by The Code of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina, Section 603 (1).

Related Policies:

Additional References: