(1)
Formal post tenure review. The performance of all
tenured faculty members will be reviewed annually by their department
chair.
(a)
A
formal tenured faculty review ("formal review") by the department chairperson
will be completed not less than every five years from the time of the last
formal review. The formal review will include creating or revising mutually
agreed upon goals, planning for continued professional development and
evaluating performance. The outcomes of these reviews should include continued
improvement of faculty performance and continuous career growth. Tenured
faculty members will be evaluated on the basis of their contributions in
education, scholarship activity and service and in accordance with rule
3364-72-03
of the Administrative Code (faculty workload measurement and reporting
requirements for colleges of UT). If the faculty member fails to cooperate or
comply with the remedies ordered by the dean, the matter may result in
disciplinary action up to and including termination.
(b)
A special post
tenure review ("special review") will be performed when the president,
chancellor and executive vice president for biosciences and health affairs
("chancellor"), provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, dean
or chair have good reason to believe there is a significant problem regarding a
faculty member's performance of duties or a faculty member's workload pursuant
to rule
3364-72-03
of the Administrative Code. The president, chancellor, or dean will meet with
the faculty member and any other appropriate individuals in an attempt to
clarify and if necessary rectify the situation. Special reviews will be
reserved for the situations that may not be rectified by other means. The
president, chancellor, provost or dean will discuss, with the department chair,
and the faculty member the nature of the problem(s) and whether a performance
improvement plan, as set forth in this paragraph, is necessary.
(2)
Performance improvement plan. A performance improvement plan
will be prepared when a department chair determines at a formal review or
special review that a tenured faculty member's performance has been
unsatisfactory. The performance improvement plan, cooperatively developed by
the chair and the faculty member, will describe specific goals, measurable
outcomes and strategies to improve performance. A copy of the performance
improvement plan will be provided to the appropriate dean and to the chancellor
or provost and president. Successful completion of the performance improvement
plan will result in the faculty member attaining the performance required by
the departmental standards. The plan will also describe sources of resources
that will be provided to support the faculty member's improvement. While the
individual faculty member is responsible ultimately for the successful outcome
of the performance improvement plan, the chair has an obligation to assist the
faculty member who seeks guidance in developing a realistic plan to remedy
identified areas of deficiency. If the chair and faculty member are unable to
mutually agree to a reasonable performance improvement plan either party may
request facilitation by the post tenure review committee (in paragraph (D)(3)
of this rule).
A performance improvement plan for a
tenured faculty member will be twenty-four months in length. The chair and
faculty member will meet at least twice every twelve months to review progress
toward the plan. If the faculty member has achieved the performance improvement
goals described in the plan and satisfies the departmental performance
standards at the conclusion of the plan, the faculty member will subsequently
be evaluated according to the regular annual review process. If the chair, the
dean, the chancellor or the president. determines that the faculty member did
not successfully attain the performance improvement goals described in the plan
or comply with the remedies set forth by the dean, a review by the post tenure
review committee is mandatory and the faculty member will be disciplined up to
an including termination.
(3)
Post-tenure
review committee. The primary purpose of the post-tenure review committee will
be to form hearing committees to conduct reviews as described in the following
paragraph entitled "post-tenure review process." The post-tenure review
committee will be a standing committee of UT consisting of eleven full-time
faculty members holding tenured appointments from each college of the
university to which this policy applies. No department chair or administrative
officer will serve on the committee. The faculty of each college will elect the
members for staggered terms of four years with at least four committee members
being elected biennially. The faculty senate will organize the elections. If a
college is not able to field sufficient qualified tenured representatives to
complete its slate, it may elect non-tenured faculty members at the rank of
professor or associate professor.
The members of the committee will
annually elect a chair and vice chair. Chairs and vice-chairs may serve up to
two consecutive terms. The membership of the committee will be communicated to
the general faculty annually by the faculty senate.
Any member of the committee who has
been referred to the committee for review will be removed from all committee
activities until the matter is resolved. Committee members who cease to be
full-time members of the faculty or who are appointed as department chairs,
will be ineligible to continue serving. The faculty senate steering committee
will appoint a new committee member to serve until the next scheduled
election.
For each review, the chair of the
committee will appoint four committee members to a hearing committee. The
post-tenure review committee chair (or vice chair, at the chair's designation),
will chair this five member hearing committee. The chair will strive to see
that at least one of the hearing committee members be from the same college as
the faculty member being reviewed.
(4)
Post-tenure
review process
The department chair will request in
writing a review by the post tenure review committee of a tenured faculty
member who did not achieve the performance outcomes described in a performance
improvement plan. The chair of the post-tenure review committee will appoint a
hearing committee to perform the review. A hearing committee will be appointed
and convened within twenty calendar days from a written request.
The faculty member being reviewed may
select one faculty member to serve as his/her advocate on the hearing
committee. The selected advocate will be invited to attend and participate in
all meetings of the hearing committee as a non-voting member. Faculty members
are ineligible to serve on a hearing committee if a conflict of interest exists
with the faculty member being reviewed. The conflict of interest guidelines for
UT regulatory affairs committee's policy defines what constitutes a conflict of
interest.
The hearing committee will review the
faculty member's performance based upon the written performance standards and
criteria maintained by the department and the performance improvement plan. The
basic standard for appraisal will be whether the faculty member under review
discharges conscientiously and with professional competence the duties
associated with his/her position. The review will acknowledge the different
expectations in different disciplines and changing expectations at different
stages of faculty careers.
The hearing committee
will:
(a)
Request the parties to provide all documents
necessary.
(b)
The faculty member will provide the hearing
committee:
(i)
A
current curriculum vitae,
(ii)
Annual reports
detailing activity and accomplishments for the prior five
years,
(iii)
Annual self-evaluations for the prior five
years,
(iv)
The department standards of performance, and other
documents, materials and statements that he/she wishes to be
considered.
(c)
The faculty member may request, if there is
disagreement about the faculty member's performance in scholarship/research,
that the review also include evaluations from qualified persons external to the
university.
(d)
The department chair will provide the hearing
committee:
(i)
The annual performance review of the faculty member for the
prior five years,
(ii)
All materials that were considered in those performance
reviews,
(iii)
Written summaries that document deficiencies and the
performance improvement plan, and
(iv)
Any other
documents and information that the chair wishes to submit.
(e)
Complete a qualitative and quantitative review of all the
relevant evidence, submitted by the faculty member and department chair, of the
faculty member's performance over the prior twenty-four months.
(f)
Interview both
the faculty member and the department chair, and at its discretion interview
other faculty members as the committee deems necessary.
(g)
Maintain accurate
records of its findings and opinions; the hearing committee members will
maintain confidentiality with regard to all deliberations and recommendations
to the extent permitted by law, and except that items reduced to writing are
subject to section 149.43 of the Revised Code (Ohio
public records act).
(h)
Complete its review within twenty calendar
days.
(i)
Prepare a summary of its findings and conclusions and
report to the appropriate dean and the chancellor or provost. Copies of the
report will be simultaneously provided to the chair and faculty
member.
(j)
The hearing committee's report will find one of the
following:
(i)
Certification of satisfactory performance
The hearing committee may conclude that
the faculty member's performance and professional contributions are
satisfactory to meet the standards set by the performance improvement plan,
thus failing to sustain the assessment of the department chair. The review is
then complete. (Note: should an unsatisfactory annual review occur in any
subsequent year it will be counted as the first in a new
sequence.)
(ii)
Certification of deficiencies
The hearing committee may sustain the
department chair's evaluation that the faculty member's performance was
unsatisfactory to meet the standards set by the performance improvement plan.
The hearing committee may conclude that:
(a)
The performance
deficiencies identified have improved during the twenty-four month plan, are
not substantial or chronic, and may be remedied by extending the improvement
plan for twelve months, or
(b)
The performance
deficiencies identified are substantial, chronic and unlikely to be remedied by
continuing the improvement plan. The case will be referred to the appropriate
dean and the chancellor or provost for further action including possible
sanctions as described in the faculty rules and regulations, if applicable to
that faculty member.
(5)
If at any point
during the process faculty members believe they have not received due process
or were treated unfairly, a grievance can be filed in accordance with rule
3364-72-51
of the Administrative Code (faculty grievance and
appeals).
