DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY STATEMENT ON POST-TENURE REVIEW (7/17/97)

Introduction

In the summer of 1996, in response to legislative concerns about tenure, President John C. Buechner appointed an ad hoc committee of faculty and administrators from the four campuses of the University of Colorado. In April of 1997, the Committee on Tenure and Post-tenure Review submitted its report and recommendations on post-tenure review (PTR) to the President. This policy implements the Committee's major recommendations for revising the PTR process. If adopted, it will supersede the Administrative Policy Statement on Post-tenure Review of 10/11/83.

A. Post-Tenure Review Purposes and Processes

1. The purposes of PTR are: (1) to facilitate continued faculty development, consistent with the academic needs and goals of the University and the most effective use of institutional resources; and (2) to ensure professional accountability by a regular, comprehensive evaluation of every tenured faculty member's performance.

2. The PTR evaluation will be conducted by appropriate faculty peers within the campus, either the primary unit faculty or the faculty of the appropriate college personnel review committee. Other units may be consulted as appropriate. Each campus will develop procedures for appropriate peer evaluation during PTR and for appeals of the PTR evaluation. Each faculty member shall be informed orally and in writing of the results of the evaluation.

3. Existing PTR procedures (of the campuses, colleges/schools, and primary units) must be amended to conform to this administrative policy statement and must be approved by the appropriate dean and the vice chancellor for academic affairs.

4. PTR will evaluate faculty performance in teaching, research/creative work, and service, the same areas of professional competence and achievement that are used in tenure and promotion reviews and in annual merit evaluations. The primary unit's written standards for reappointment, tenure, and promotion describe the nature and measures of achievement in teaching, research/creative work, and service within the discipline (as required by the administrative policy statement, "Procedures for Written Standards and Criteria for Pre-Tenure Faculty," 7/1/89) that should be employed in PTR evaluations.

5. The level of review to be undertaken--Regular or Extensive--will be determined by the record of annual "Performance Ratings for Faculty," the non-confidential summaries of annual merit evaluations (mandated by the administrative policy statement, "Performance Ratings for Faculty, Unclassified Staff/Administrators, and Officers," 7/1/89). The annual merit evaluation, which is based on peer review, remains the basic tool of faculty evaluation. Because the annual Performance Rating summary is the document that may trigger an Extensive Review, faculty who do not agree with their annual Performance Ratings may appeal the rating through established grievance procedures in the college/school.

B. Regular Review

1. Faculty who have achieved evaluations of "meeting expectations" or better since the last PTR (or since receiving tenure if this is their first PTR) will undergo Regular Review, as will faculty who have received a single "below expectations" evaluation in the five-year review cycle. Faculty who receive an evaluation of "below expectations" are encouraged to meet informally with members of their primary unit and/or the unit head to identify the causes of the unsatisfactory evaluation and to plan and implement professional activities to remedy their problems.

2. In a Regular Review, the primary unit examines the five previous annual performance evaluation reports, including the FCQs, and the faculty member's Professional Plan(s) from that PTR cycle. In addition, the faculty member will provide the primary unit with an updated Professional Plan for the next five years.

The primary unit will write a brief report summarizing the unit's findings regarding the faculty member's adherence to the previous Professional Plan(s) (taking into account the differentiated workload, where present) and conclusions about his/her productivity and contributions to the University in teaching, research/creative work, and service. These reports will be forwarded to the dean, who will report to the academic vice chancellor on the results of all the post-tenure reviews in the college/school. A copy of the PTR report will be placed in the faculty member's personnel file.

C. Extensive Review

1. Faculty who have received two "below expectations" ratings in the years since the previous PTR (or since receiving tenure, if this is their first PTR) will undergo Extensive Review. As soon as a faculty member receives a second rating of "below expectations" (in the current post-tenure review cycle), he/she will be subject to Extensive Review whether or not the five-year cycle is complete. A faculty member may appeal a "below expectation" evaluation to the primary unity head and/or dean and then to the dean's review committee or another suitable college committee. No action will be taken to begin an Extensive Review until this appeal process, if invoked, is completed. This appeal process should be completed within six weeks or less.

2. Because Extensive Review is designed to assist faculty who are falling below the level of satisfactory professional performance, it takes place whenever a faculty member establishes a pattern of unsatisfactory performance, i.e., two evaluations of performance "below expectations" in the PTR cycle. The faculty member, the department, and the students of the University all benefit from promptly addressing emerging deficiencies in professional performance.

3. For an Extensive Review, the primary unit will examine: (1) the five previous annual performance evaluation reports; (2) the FCQs from those years and at least one other type of student input on teaching; (3) the faculty member's previous Professional Plan (and any amendments to the plan, and differentiated workload agreements, where present); (4) the faculty member's self-evaluation of performance as it relates to the professional plan(s); and (5) any other material the faculty member would like the unit to consider.

4. The primary unit prepares an evaluative report of the faculty member's teaching, research/creative work, and service based upon its review of the materials and information covering the period in question. If there is disagreement about the faculty member's performance in research/creative work, or if the faculty member under review or the primary unit so requests, the review will also include evaluations from qualified persons external to the University. The faculty member and the primary unit shall jointly develop a list of external reviewers who will be asked evaluate the faculty member's performance in research/creative work.

5. Primary units, colleges/schools, and campuses may require other materials for Extensive Reviews, if appropriate, but the aim should be to keep the process efficient and effective.

D. The Development Plan

1. Based upon the evaluative report, the faculty member, working with the primary unit, shall write a Development Plan for the next one or two years with specific goals and actions designed to address the areas of deficiency identified in the Extensive Review process. The Development Plan must address the teaching, research/creative work, and service assignments anticipated during the period of the plan. It must describe performance goals in light of identified deficiencies, strategies for improvement, and the time frame (up to two years) in which the problems are to be solved. The Plan must contain definite means of measuring progress in achieving the goals and periodic monitoring of progress. The primary unit head must approve the Development Plan.

2. While the individual faculty member is responsible ultimately for the successful outcome of the Development Plan, the primary unit has an obligation to assist the faculty member who seeks guidance in developing a realistic plan to remedy the identified areas of deficiency.

3. Assessments of professional competence depend upon peer review. At the conclusion of the Development Plan, the faculty of the primary unit and the primary unit head assesses the progress of the faculty member and forward their conclusions to the dean. After consultation with the dean's review committee, the dean determines whether the faculty member has achieved the goals of the Development Plan and thus has returned his/her professional performance to the level of competence. Those who are judged to have achieved professional competence (meeting expectations or better) begin a new PTR cycle in the next academic year. Those who are judged not to have achieved professional competence will face sanctions, including the possibility of revocation of tenure and dismissal. Copies of the Extensive Review Development Plan and the primary unit's assessment of the progress achieved by the end of the development period will be added to the faculty member's personnel file.

E. Sanctions

1. In cases where the Development Plan (drawn up as a result of the Extensive Review process) has not produced the desired results, sanctions shall be imposed. Possible sanctions include reassignment of duties, loss of eligibility for sabbaticals or for campus travel funds, salary freeze, salary reduction, demotion in rank, and revocation of tenure and dismissal. Each campus shall establish a schedule of sanctions, appropriate to its environment and calibrated to various levels of performance deficiency. An appropriate faculty committee shall recommend sanctions. The chancellor makes the final determination of sanctions. If the Chancellor's decision is to revoke tenure and dismiss the faculty member, the Laws of the Regents provide the faculty member with an opportunity for a hearing and set other conditions for handling such cases. (See Laws of the Regents, Article 5.C.1 and 5.C.4; and 8/27/866 Regent Action adopting 1940 AAUP Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure).

Revocation of tenure and dismissal for the cause of demonstrable professional incompetence has long been recognized policy at the University of Colorado, and across higher education in the United States. Professional incompetence is defined to mean the failure to perform teaching, research/creative works, and service duties in a consistent and satisfactory professional manner. A judgment of professional incompetence is based upon peer review of the faculty member's performance. (Other causes for dismissal also exist and are outlined in Article 5.C.1 of the Laws of the Regents.)

F. Assessment of PTR

1. After one complete year of implementation, the vice president for academic affairs and research shall report to the Board on the effectiveness of the revised PTR process. If serious problems are identified, they should be remedied at this time. Thereafter, assessments of the effectiveness of the PTR process will be made at the discretion of the Regents.