Post-tenure Review Implimentation*
PSF 21/93-94

 

I. Context for review

This implementation process reconceptualizes the posttenure review in the context of a boarder, comprehensive evaluation and review agenda. It affects the time between reviews and the selection process for faculty to be reviewed. A review is scheduled every 6 years. (With an "update" about half-way through the review period).** Under this process, posttenure reviews will be conducted each year for faculty in departments that have undertaken program reviews in the previous year.

II. Review standards of evaluation

The outcome of the review will be approval, qualified approval or withholding of approval of a faculty member's record during the review period and development plan for the next review period. Evaluations will fall into the following categories:

1. Approval (meets expectations or exceeds expectations).
2. Qualified approval (below expectations).
3. Approval withheld (below expectations, proposal for corrective action required).

Where approval is withheld, it will be reconsidered prior to the mid-cycle update.

III. Dossiers

A posttenure review dossier should not be modeled on the dossier of a major personnel action. It should, however, include the following materials.

1. Current curriculum vitae.
2. Annual summaries for the period since the last review or since tenure. Evidence of accomplishments in teaching, research or creative activity and service, as appropriate.
3. Previous posttenure review evaluation (where applicable).
4. Faculty member's statement of accomplishments during the review period.
5. Faculty member's development plan of activities for the upcoming period. The plan should identify personal goals in the context of departmental/institutional mission and goals.


IV. Process

1. The faculty member prepares a dossier and submits it to department executive committee (or designee).

2. The executive committee (or designee) prepares a draft evaluation memorandum that explicitly addresses the level of approval and the development plan. The executive committee's expectations should be derived from department goals and objectives.

3. The faculty member meets with the executive committee (or designee) to discuss the draft plan and negotiate revisions (if necessary).

4. In the event of a disagreement between the faculty member and the executive committee regarding the level of approval or the development plan, the faculty member will be entitled to append a dissenting statement to the executive committee's evaluation.

5. The posttenure review dossier and evaluation memorandum will be forwarded to the dean for review.

6. Deans will forward posttenure review dossiers to the Vice Chancellor. The dossier will become a part of the faculty member's personnel file.

7. In the mid-cycle update, the faculty member will note any change of plans or activities since the pervious review. The executive committee (or designee) will note whether such changes are consistent with the department's goals and objectives. If approval of the faculty member's record and plan was withheld in the previous review, the executive committee (or designee) will evaluate progress on the corrective action taken to date. The executive committee need not make anew evaluation of approval in the mid-cycle update.

V. Contested evaluations

1. A faculty member has the right to review the dossier and evaluation prior to its submission to each level of consideration or review. The faculty member may append a written response to the dossier at each stage.

2. The faculty member has the right to review posttenure review materials in the personnel file and to add new materials to the file.

3. Actions or decisions that result from disagreements over a faculty member's posttenure review are subject to the university's existing grievance processes.

______
**UWPF 6.15(c) will be revised to agree with the schedule adopted here.
*Adopted by the Faculty Senate, November 23, 1993.