August 25, 1997

TO: Members of the Board of Regents

FROM: Regent Norwood Robb

SUBJECT: Amendment to the Laws of the Regents Regarding Evaluation of Faculty

Initial notice of motion dated August 5 was given at the August 7 Board of Regents meeting. The motion has now been revised to change in item (B)(2) the phrase faculty development plan to performance improvement agreement. Also, the request for action date has been adjusted to take into account my statement at the August meeting that the timeline for adoption of the amendment can be extended if more discussion is needed. In addition, the statement of information has been changed to reference an accompanying resolution directing the administration to establish a faculty development budget.

I. REQUEST FOR ACTION (at the October 1997 meeting or later meeting if subsequently deemed more appropriate)

RESOLVED that Section 5.B.4.(B) of the Laws of the Regents, 1990, be amended as follows (deletions lined through; additions bold italics):

(B) Tenured Faculty

In order to facilitate continuing faculty development, each faculty member shall be subject to comprehensive peer review and evaluation at least once every five to seven years after the award of tenure. The evaluation may be conducted in conjunction with existing program review procedures or as a part of the annual review for salary determination; however, the faculty evaluation must be comprehensive in scope. The faculty member, the dean of the college or school, and other appropriate administrative officers shall be informed by the department chair or the equivalent administrator of the results of the evaluation.

After award of tenure, a comprehensive performance evaluation that emphasizes performance based measurements shall be completed every 5 years. The purposes of this regular comprehensive evaluation process 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 to the University community, to the Board of Regents, and to the public.

(1) Annual Merit Performance Evaluation

Annual merit performance evaluations for all tenured faculty members shall be conducted by each campus using a peer evaluation process. A faculty member's performance shall be evaluated based upon performance standards developed by each academic unit and any written expectations agreed to between the faculty member and the unit.

(2) Performance Improvement Agreement

A faculty member who is determined to be performing inadequately or with deficiencies (as indicated by the annual merit performance evaluation process) shall be required to participate in developing and implementing a performance improvement agreement (PIA) designed to improve his or her performance; the PIA shall include specific goals, timelines, and benchmarks that shall be used to measure progress at periodic intervals. It is anticipated that improvement shall be realized within one year for teaching and service and up to two years for research deficiency.

During the time of the PIA, annual merit performance evaluations for the faculty member shall take into account the specific goals of the PIA. If the faculty member's performance is judged inadequate, i.e., failing to meet the goals of the PIA at the next annual merit evaluation, an extensive review process shall be initiated.

(3) Extensive Review

An extensive review process shall be developed that applies to faculty who have received two successive "below expectation" ratings during the annual merit performance evaluation process. The purpose of this extensive review process shall be to determine if the faculty member has maintained professional competency. Those who are judged not to have achieved professional competence shall face sanctions, including the possibility of revocation of tenure and dismissal. Any action to revoke tenure and dismiss a faculty member shall follow the provisions of Article 5.C of the Laws of the Regents.

(4) Post-Tenure Review (Five-Year Review)

Post-tenure review shall 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. A regular review process shall be developed that applies to faculty who have met or exceeded expectations during a five-year period.

II. STATEMENT OF INFORMATION

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 Resolution updates the Laws of the Regents to be consistent with recommended policy changes by the Colorado Legislature and the Ad Hoc Committee on Tenure and Post-Tenure Review.

The administration is directed to develop Administrative Policy Statements consistent with these revisions to the Laws of the Regents. The Administrative Policy Statements are to be reviewed by the Board of Regents prior to implementation.

There will also be an accompanying resolution directing the administration to establish a faculty development budget providing resources for faculty development during the 1998-99 and subsequent budget cycles. No notice of motion is required for that resolution but it is intended to be acted on at the same meeting as this amendment to the Laws.