4.7 Post-Tenure Review

(Last Modified August 10, 2023)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR POLICY 8.3.5.4, Post-Tenure Review

Post-Tenure Review
The post-tenure review process shall support the further career development of tenured faculty members as well as ensure accountability and continued strong performance from faculty members after they have achieved tenure. The primary purpose of the post-tenure review process is to assist faculty members with identifying opportunities that will enable them to reach their full potential for contribution to the academic discipline, institution, and the institution’s mission. Post-tenure review is intended to provide a longer-term and broader perspective than is usually provided by an annual review. The review should be both retrospective and prospective, encouraging a careful look at possibilities for different emphases at different points of a faculty member’s career.

Timeline: All tenured faculty who have rank and tenure with an academic unit must undergo post-tenure review (PTR) five years after the award of tenure and subsequently every five years unless it is interrupted by a further review for promotion to a higher academic rank (Associate/Full Professor) or academic leadership promotion (e.g. department chair, Dean, Associate Provost). A tenured faculty member may voluntarily elect to go up for a post-tenure review before the five-year time limit. This enables a faculty member to take full advantage of the feedback and insight provided by their colleagues at a strategic moment in their career, rather than having to wait for the usual 5-year cycle. Early post-tenure reviews should include a review of the faculty member’s accomplishments since they were last evaluated for tenure or a previous post-tenure review, whichever was most recent. If the faculty member has a successful review, the next PTR will be five years from the voluntary PTR date. If the faculty member is unsuccessful, the 5-year PTR review date remains in place.

Areas of Evaluation: The evaluation must address the faculty’s accomplishments related to teaching, student success activities, research/scholarship, and service. Annual reviews encompassing the previous five years for the 5-year span must be incorporated in the post-tenure review processes. Tenured faculty members are expected to document successive contributions to furthering the mission of the institution through their teaching, student success activities, scholarship/research, and service. Contributions should be dated from previous tenure and promotion milestones and encompass the previous 5-year period.

Outcomes & Consequences of Post Tenure Review
The results of a positive post-tenure review should be linked to recognition or reward. Faculty members who are performing at noteworthy levels should receive recognition for their achievements. Each institution will prescribe how the review results will be related to possible rewards such as formal recognition, merit pay, promotion, educational leave, etc.

In the event of a post-tenure review that does not meet expectations or needs improvement, the faculty member’s appropriate supervisor(s) and faculty member will work together to develop a formal Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in consultation with the PTR committee based around the deficiencies found by the committee. Consistent with the developmental intent of the PTR, the PIP must be designed to assist the faculty member in achieving progress towards remedying the deficiencies identified in the post-tenure review. The PIP must contain clearly defined goals or outcomes, an outline of activities to be undertaken, a timetable, available resources and supports, and an agreed-upon monitoring strategy. The PIP’s goals or outcomes must be reasonable, achievable with the time frame, and reflect the essential duties of the faculty member. The PIP must be approved by the Dean and submitted to the institution’s Office of Academic Affairs. Formal meetings for assessing progress on the PIP should be scheduled no less than twice per semester during the fall and spring semesters. The institution should create appropriate due process mechanisms for a faculty member to appeal an unfavorable post-tenure review as outlined below.

The assessment of the PIP will take the place of that year’s annual review. Failure to successfully remediate the identified deficiencies, or failure to demonstrate substantive progress towards remediation, within one year subjects the faculty member to disciplinary actions up to and including, but not limited to, reallocation of effort, salary reduction, and tenure revocation and dismissal. The institution will follow appropriate due process mechanisms for a faculty member to appeal the final assessment of their PIP and the resulting remedial actions as outlined below.

The appropriate supervisor must meet with each faculty member to discuss the results of PTR. Each faculty member must receive a letter documenting the summary of the findings of the PTR. In the event of an unsuccessful PTR the letter must also include next steps, due process rights, and the potential ramifications if the faculty member does not remediate or demonstrate substantive progress towards remediation in the areas identified as unsatisfactory. The faculty member can provide a written rebuttal that will be attached to the final document; however, no action is required by the appropriate supervisor.

Corrective Post-Tenure Review

A tenured faculty member evaluated as deficient in any one of the elements of teaching, student success activities, research/scholarship, and/or service for two consecutive annual evaluations will participate in a corrective post-tenure review. Note that the deficiency does not have to be in the same area; but could be a different area from one year to the next. This review will be initiated prior to the normally scheduled five-year review. The faculty member will follow the institution’s guidelines and procedures for post-tenure review. If the outcome of the Corrective Post-Tenure Review is successful, the faculty member will reset the post-tenure review clock. If the outcome of a corrective post tenure review does not meet expectations or needs improvement, the same process for an unsuccessful PTR will be followed. The institution should follow appropriate due-process mechanisms for a faculty member to appeal a corrective post-tenure review as outlined below.

Due Process Following an Unsuccessful Post-Tenure Review or an Unsuccessful Corrective Post-Tenure Review

If, after conducting a final review of appropriate materials and allowing the faculty member an opportunity to be heard at the conclusion of the Performance Improvement Plan, the department chair and dean determine that the faculty member has failed to make sufficient progress in performance as outlined in the Performance Improvement Plan (or has refused to engage reasonably in the process), the department chair and dean will propose appropriate remedial action corresponding to the seriousness and nature of the faculty member’s deficiencies.

Upon request by the faculty member, the PTR committee will review the materials that attest to Performance Improvement Plan progress and the proposed remedial action and make their recommendation. If the faculty member does not request a review by the PTR committee, the Provost will make the final determination on remedial action. If the faculty member does want to request a review by the PTR committee, the faculty member has 10 calendar days from receiving the recommendations of the dean/dept. chair to request the PTR committee review. If received within 10 calendar days, the request will be granted.

The following due process will be followed for the PTR Committee review:

1. The PTR committee will review the recommendation of the department chair and dean. The PTR committee may exercise its judgment as to whether an in-person hearing is necessary. The recommendation of the PTR committee may be based solely on a review of the record. The PTR committee will issue its recommendation to the Provost and the faculty member within 20 calendar days of the request for review by the faculty member.
2. Within 5 calendar days of receiving the recommendation(s) from the PTR committee, the Provost shall send an official letter to the faculty member notifying him or her of the remedial action.

The Provost’s remedial action may include, but not be limited to, suspension of pay, salary reduction, revocation of tenure, and separation from employment. If the remedial action is separation from employment, and only in that case, the faculty member has the right to request a final faculty hearing for the purpose of confirming that due process was followed in reaching the decision of separation of employment. If the faculty member requests a formal hearing within 5 calendar days of receiving the Provost’s official letter, the Provost will grant that request.

The following procedures will be followed for the final faculty hearing:

1. If the institution does not have a final dismissal hearing committee as a standing committee of its faculty’s legislative body, a PTR final dismissal faculty hearing should be formed within 5 calendar days of receiving the faculty member’s request and consist of not fewer than three, but not more than five, impartial faculty members appointed by the executive committee (or its equivalent) of the highest legislative body of the faculty, from among the members of the entire faculty of the institution. Members of the hearing committee may serve concurrently on other committees of the faculty. The hearing committee should elect a chair from its membership. The entire process of the hearing and written recommendation from the final hearing committee to the President must be completed within 30 calendar days from the date of the faculty member’s request for a hearing.
2. The hearing committee will notify the faculty member recommended for dismissal in writing at least 15 calendar days prior to the hearing.
3. Prior to the hearing, the hearing committee will review all documentation relevant to the post-tenure review of the faculty member.
4. During the hearing, the faculty member should have the opportunity to make a statement to the committee, respond to the documentation reviewed by the committee, and answer any questions from the committee
5. The President and the faculty member shall be notified in writing of the recommendation of the hearing committee within 10 calendar days of the hearing, whether that recommendation be dismissal or any penalty less than dismissal, providing supporting reasons.
6. The President may or may not follow the recommendation of the committee, but, within 10 calendar days of receiving the recommendation, the President should notify the faculty member and the hearing committee regarding the decision and the supporting reasons. The President should also notify the faculty member of the discretionary review process as provided for in the Board of Regents Policy: BoR POLICY 6.26 APPLICATION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.
7. If the remedial action taken by the President is dismissal, the semester during which a final decision is issued will be the last semester of employment in the faculty member’s current role, with the President outlining the faculty assignments to be completed prior to the dismissal date.

Academic Administrators

Academic administrators who hold faculty rank and are tenured at the institution will receive an annual review by their appropriate supervisor and will undergo a comprehensive evaluation, including a 360° feedback assessment every five years. Each institution should specify the process and procedures for a comprehensive evaluation of academic administrators. It is intended that an academic administrator’s annual and comprehensive evaluation include a review of traditional faculty activities (teaching, student success, research/scholarship, and service) that align with the responsibilities of the administrator.

(Note that while this section of the Handbook pertains to administrators who are tenured faculty members, the annual review process described in the current paragraph will also apply to academic administrators who hold a faculty rank but are not tenured.)

Elements of the Performance Remediation Plan (PRP) and the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)

There are two different plans for addressing faculty performance: a Performance Remediation Plan and a Performance Improvement Plan. For faculty who do not meet annual performance expectations a Performance Remediation Plan is put in place. The purpose of this plan is to scaffold faculty growth and development and strengthen tenure and promotion possibilities. The second, a Performance Improvement Plan, is developed subsequent to an unfavorable PTR or corrective PTR. The components of the PIP and the PRP plans must include the following:

1. Clearly defined goals or outcomes,
2. An outline of activities to be undertaken,
3. A timetable,
4. Available resources and supports,
5. Expectations for improvement,
6. Monitoring strategy

Performance Remediation Plan (PRP)
The Performance Remediation Plan is used to document faculty deficiencies based on the outcomes from the annual review. The purpose of the PRP is to enable the faculty member to correct unsatisfactory performance in some aspect of their roles or responsibilities. The plan must be approved by the Dean and submitted to the institution’s Office of Academic Affairs or Human Resources, wherever the permanent faculty files are housed. Two meetings during the fall and during the spring must be held to review progress, document additional needs/resources, planned accomplishments for the upcoming quarter. After each meeting, the academic administrator should summarize the meeting and indicate if the faculty member is on track to complete the PRP. Consequences for failure to meet the expectations of the PRP must be stated at the conclusion of each meeting. Each institution should standardize their processes, procedures and forms across all academic units and provide professional development for appropriate personnel.

Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)
The Performance Improvement Plan is used to document deficiencies based on an unfavorable Post-Tenure Review. The plan must be approved by the Dean and submitted to the institution’s Office of Academic Affairs or Human Resources, wherever the permanent faculty files are housed. Two meetings during the fall and during the spring must be held to review progress, document additional needs/resources, planned accomplishments for the upcoming time period. After each meeting, the academic administrator should summarize the meeting and indicate whether the faculty member is on track to complete the PIP. At the conclusion of the academic year the faculty member’s progress will be determined by the department chair and dean after taking into account feedback from a committee of faculty colleagues. Each institution should standardize their processes, procedures and forms across all academic units and provide professional development for appropriate personnel.

If the faculty member successfully completes the performance improvement plan, then the faculty member’s next post-tenure review will take place on the regular five-year schedule.

If the faculty member fails to make sufficient progress in performance, then the institution shall take appropriate remedial action corresponding to the seriousness and nature of the faculty member’s deficiencies. The President will make the final determination on behalf of the institution regarding appropriate remedial action. An aggrieved faculty member may seek discretionary review of the institution’s final decision pursuant to the Board Policy on Applications for Discretionary Review.

(Note that while this section of the Handbook pertains to tenured faculty members, tenure-track faculty members will also be evaluated annually on the elements of teaching, student success activities, research/scholarship, and service, following the procedures described above. In the case of deficiency identified through an annual evaluation, they will be put on a Performance Remediation Plan (PRP). If there is deficiency over two consecutive annual evaluations, institutions will determine specific consequences ranging from being put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to correct deficiencies, to possible separation of employment. For non-tenured faculty members, the PRP and subsequent steps are suggested for developmental purposes, but completing all these steps is not necessary for non-renewal. For guidance on non-renewal, please see BOR Policy 8.3.4 Notice of Employment and Resignation.)

Interruptions to the Post-Tenure Review Timeline
Institutions should follow existing processes to allow faculty the opportunity to pause the post-tenure review timeline as are already in place at the institution.

Implementation Process and Timeline

Institutions are approaching the process to make changes to their institutional policies in a variety of ways. In order to support the various processes, the USG will have one submission deadline for all revisions with two status updates in April and in September:

Submission Deadlines	Dates
Status Report on Changes to PTR and Annual Review Policies	April 1, 2022
Status Report on Changes to PTR and Annual Review Policies	September 1, 2022
Institutions submit updated PTR and Annual Review policies to USG Chief Academic Officer for approval	No later than October 17, 2022*
USO staff review institutional submissions and provide feedback	No later than November 18, 2022
Institutions take final PTR policies through the formal shared governance process	November and December 2022
Institutional Policy Implementation
Annual Reviews	The new annual review should be utilized during the first full cycle following its adoption. For example if an institution evaluates on a calendar year cycle, 2023 will be the first year the faculty member will be evaluated on the new standards. If the institution evaluates on the academic calendar, the next cycle will be AY2023-2024.
Post-Tenure Review	No later than AY 2023-2024*
Reporting to the Board of Regents
Preliminary Report	August 2022
Annual Review	August 2023
PTR	August 2024
Training and Development
Opportunities for institution collaboration/Q & A	January 2022
Department Chairs, Deans, Academic leadership: 1) Using the new annual evaluation process for development, 2) Recognizing and eliminating bias in the annual review process.	February and March 2022, January every year following
*We encourage institutions to send forward annual review and PTR plans as they are ready for USG review.
Note: Faculty who go up for post-tenure review during the first two years of implementation should be given flexibility based on the adoption of new expectations.

---

↑ Top