3.07.03.6 Pre & Post-Tenure Review
Policy: Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 8.3.5.4, http://www.usg.edu/policymanual/section8/
USG Academic Affairs Handbook, Section 4.6, http://www.usg.edu/academic_affairs_handbook/section4/
Guidelines for Conducting Pre-tenure Reviews at GCSU
I. Statement of Purpose:
"The purpose of the evaluation is to review thoroughly the individual's achievements and performance on criteria established by the institution for promotion and/or tenure" in the third year of appointment in a tenure-track position (p. 42). Persons hired with prior credit for service are evaluated at approximately the mid- point of the probationary period. The results of the review are to be used only for the purpose of providing the tenure-eligible colleague with a peer review of the progress made thus far toward tenure and promotion.
II. Faculty members submitting to Pre-tenure Review (PTR):
Tenure-eligible non- tenured employees of GCSU are subject to evaluation. The policy described herein applies to faculty members who, as of 9/1/97, have served in a tenure track position for three or fewer years and new employees. Exempt from pre-tenure reviews are administrators subject to senior administrative review as defined by Regents' and institution's policies, including department chairs.
III. Relation of Pre-tenure Review to the Annual Review of Faculty Performance:
Since the PTR covers activities spanning approximately three years, the results of the evaluation are to have no bearing on intra-departmental determinations of faculty merit. That is, the faculty member undergoing PTR also submits an "Individual Faculty Report" to his or her immediate supervisor (e.g., Department Chair, Unit Head, Dean, etc.) at the end of the calendar year in which PTR is accomplished, and the supervisor conducts a "Department Chairperson's Evaluation of Faculty Performance" (form 3.04 B). The PTR does not replace the annual evaluation.
IV. Limitations:
Obtaining a favorable PTR does not bind the University to recommend the non-tenured individual for promotion or tenure when the requisite years in rank, or requisite years of probationary service have been achieved. Likewise, an unfavorable result via the pre-tenure process will have no bearing on subsequent tenure and promotion decisions.
V. Responsibility for notification of eligibility for Pre-tenure Review:
It is the responsibility of the Office of Academic Affairs to notify tenure- eligible individuals in the Fall of the third year of service or at the midpoint of the probationary period that s/he is required to submit documents for PTR. Copies of the message should also be sent to the immediate supervisor.
VI. Responsibility for conducting Pre-tenure Reviews:
The Tenure and Promotion Committee (TPC) within the faculty member's home department or unit is charged with the responsibility of conducting the evaluation and providing a written report to both the individual faculty member and the immediate supervisor. The "Rating form for Pre-tenure Review" will be used for this purpose. The pre-tenure review committee will consist of at least three tenured individuals appointed by the department Chair from the home department if possible, or from discipline related departments if necessary. It is important that all members of a PTR committee practice circumspection when evaluating a colleague's performance. It is equally important that appraisals of "Needs Improvement" and "Unsatisfactory" be applied judiciously. In particular, an appraisal of "unsatisfactory" must be reserved for those cases in which problems related to the colleague's performance are sufficiently severe to constitute grounds for dismissal. "Needs Improvement" implies that the faculty member's performance in a particular area is considered grounds for rejection of an application for tenure. The criteria used to evaluate an untenured faculty member must be consistent with the missions of the University, College, and Department, and the criteria must be consistent with the faculty member's official duties. Feedback from the TPC should be returned to the faculty member and immediate supervisor no later than March 1. Confidentiality of the results of all pre-tenure reviews is the ethical responsibility of the members of the TPC. The results are to be shared only with the non-tenured individual and his or her immediate supervisor. It is to be understood by all parties that the results of pre-tenure review are to be used for career development purposes only. Therefore, the results of the PTR must not be included in the faculty member's personnel file.
VII. Discussion of the results:
It is the responsibility of the immediate supervisor and chair of the TPC committee to discuss the report candidly with the tenure-eligible colleague. In the event of an unfavorable result, a formal plan for faculty development, including clearly defined goals and outcomes, will be derived by the faculty member and the immediate supervisor. Both parties must sign the report to acknowledge having received and discussed the results. The final repository of the report resides with the faculty member. Following the meeting, the supervisor must transfer his copy of pre- tenure Form 1 to the faculty member. Recommendations concerning possible faculty development activities that might improve or maintain performance should be discussed at this time. Faculty development plans will be developed following both favorable and unfavorable evaluations. Assigning a senior member of the department to work with the untenured faculty member as a mentor might also be entertained. The immediate supervisor, chair of the TPC/PTR, and the untenured faculty member being reviewed must sign Pre-tenure form 2 acknowledging discussion of the results. This letter must be placed in the faculty member's personnel file.
VIII. Limitations on the materials submitted by the non-tenured individual:
The following items must be submitted. No other materials will be accepted.
1. A summary of major accomplishments achieved at GCSU thus far in the areas of teaching, research/creative/scholarly/practitioner- based endeavors, and service to the University, College, department, profession, and community.
2. Copies of the immediate supervisor's evaluation of job performance and Individual Faculty Report during all previous years of service at GCSU.
3. Results obtained via student, Chair, Unit Head, and/or peer evaluations (normally included as part of #2; for non-teaching faculty, Unit Head and peer evaluations or other appropriate tools are required).
4. A current Curriculum Vita.
Guidelines for Conducting Post-tenure Reviews at GCSU
(The following process is based upon guidelines published in the report by members of the task force on faculty and staff development titled "CHANGING THE RESULTS OF HIGHER EDUCATION -- FACULTY AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT," Spring, 1996 and the deliberations of the Select Faculty Committee charged with the task of developing and recommending policies for pre-tenure and post-tenure reviews).
I. Statement of Purpose:
"The University System of Georgia establishes post-tenure review to examine, recognize, and enhance performance of tenured faculty in the system and increase the quality of system institutions. The review process will focus upon career development by identifying opportunities for faculty to reach their full potential in service to the institutions in the System" (p. 50).
II. Faculty members submitting to Post-tenure Review:
All tenured faculty members are subject to periodic review in accordance with the guidelines adopted here. Exempt from post-tenure reviews are administrators subject to senior administrative review as defined by Regents' and institution's policies, including department chairs.
III. Relation of Post-tenure Review (PTR) to the Annual Review of Faculty Performance:
PTRcovers activities spanning five years since the most recent promotion, tenure, or PTR. The results of the evaluation are to have no bearing on intra departmental determinations of faculty merit. That is, the individual undergoing post-tenure review also submits an "Individual Faculty Report" to his or her immediate supervisor at the end of the calendar year in which post-tenure review is accomplished. PTR does not replace annual evaluation procedures.
IV. Limitations:
Obtaining a favorable result in one five-year cycle will have no bearing on the outcomes of subsequent post-tenure reviews.
V. Responsibility for notification:
It is the responsibility of the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs to notify tenured persons with academic appointments that a PTR must be conducted during the academic year. Copies of the letter of notification will also be sent to the individual's immediate supervisor. During the initial five years of PTR, 20% of the tenured employees with five or more post-tenure years will be selected for review in order of seniority.
VI. Timetable:
The letter of notification will be sent no later than November 1 of the fifth year since the most recent personnel decision (e.g., granting of tenure or promotion) or PTR. The composition of the PTR committee will be determined by January 15, and all materials will be delivered to the chair of the PTR committee by February 1. Feedback from the Post-tenure Review Committee will be returned to the faculty member and the faculty member's immediate supervisor no later than March 1.
VII. Materials submitted by the tenured faculty member:
The faculty member will submit the following: 1. a summary of major accomplishments achieved during the interval under review in the areas of teaching, research/creative/scholarly endeavors, and service to the University, College, department, profession, and community, 2. copies of the Department Chairperson's Evaluation of Faculty Performance and Individual Faculty Report during the previous five years, 3. results obtained via student, Chair, or peer evaluations (normally included as part of #2), and 4. a current Curriculum Vitae. In accordance with BOR guidelines, "the faculty member will have access at any time to review the file. The faculty member will also have the right to add any material, including statements and additional documents, at any time during the review process". The file will be maintained in the office of the immediate supervisor.
VIII. Composition of the PTR committee:
The committee will consist of three tenured faculty members within the individual's department or unit and/or from related departments at GCSU. The faculty member under review may identify two members of the committee, and the immediate supervisor selects the third member. The tenured faculty member is permitted one preemptive challenge to the PTR committee member selected by the supervisor. The immediate supervisor and the supervisor's supervisors are not eligible to serve on the PTR committee.
IX. Responsibilities of the PTR committee:
It is important that all members of a PTR Committee practice circumspection when evaluating a colleague's performance. It is equally important that appraisals of "unsatisfactory" be applied judiciously. In particular, an appraisal of "unsatisfactory" must be reserved for those cases in which problems related to the colleague's performance are sufficiently severe to constitute grounds for the revocation of tenure and cause for dismissal. The criteria used to evaluate a tenured faculty member must be consistent with the missions of the University, College, and Department, and the criteria must be consistent with the faculty member's official assignments. If appropriate, the immediate supervisor may provide the committee with a description of special conditions within the department or unit that deserve consideration when evaluating a particular colleague's performance during the previous five years. In cases where satisfactory performance is identified, Form 1A must be completed by the committee. In cases where unsatisfactory performance is evident, the committee must provide an informed and candid written report of their findings using Form 1B. Additional pages may be added if deemed necessary. Observing confidentiality with respect to the results of PTR is an ethical responsibility of all members of the committee. Copies of the evaluation are to be shared only with the immediate supervisor and the individual faculty member.
X. Discussion of the results:
It is the responsibility of the immediate supervisor to discuss the report candidly with the faculty member. Both parties must acknowledge receipt of the report by signing both copies. Signing the report does not represent acceptance of the committee's conclusions by the faculty member. As indicated in item XIII, the faculty member has the right, under the guidelines established in this document, to appeal a decision.
XI. Optional commendation of the PTR committee for noteworthy achievement:
In cases of noteworthy merit, the committee may choose to commend the faculty member for special meritorious recognition. Declarations of "noteworthy" performance must be restricted to those few individuals who greatly exceed normal expectations in the execution of their professional responsibilities. In addition to Form 1 A, Form 2 may be completed and returned to both the individual faculty member and the immediate supervisor. The tenured colleague, in collaboration with the immediate supervisor, may elect to utilize this review to support requests for Faculty Development assistance to support further career development or other meritorious recognition. Examples of avenues that might be pursued to further motivate the faculty member's continued pursuit of excellence in career development include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. A leave of absence with pay to pursue scholarly, research, professional, or creative endeavors. 2. An award to facilitate the execution of faculty development or faculty research projects. The receipt of Form 2 does not guarantee that a Faculty Development allocation will be granted or that meritorious recognition will follow.
XII. Instances of Unsatisfactory results:
In the event of an unsatisfactory outcome, avenues must be explored by the immediate supervisor and individual faculty member to enhance the quality of the faculty member's performance. A formal plan for faculty development including clearly defined goals and outcomes must be derived. The plan must outline the specific activities to be undertaken, a timetable for achieving the goals, and a monitoring strategy that is approved by both parties. Both parties must sign the plan, and it must be stored within the faculty member's personnel file within the immediate supervisor's office. The faculty member must once again undergo PTR three calendar years after being notified of an unsatisfactory review. The new committee will be selected in accordance with the policies addressed above. If the faculty member has not successfully remedied the deficiencies, according to the new PTR committee review, s/he may be subject to dismissal for cause under USG Board of Regents Policy 803.09K2. Should the results of the second review prove satisfactory, the initial review may be destroyed or replaced by the more recent review at the option of the faculty member. Recommendations concerning additional faculty development activities that might continue to improve or maintain performance will be discussed at this time. The faculty member will be required to undergo PTR five years after receiving a satisfactory evaluation. All unsatisfactory results must be delivered to both the faculty member and the immediate supervisor via registered mail.
XIII. Appeal procedures:
In the event of an unfavorable review, the faculty member may appeal to the department chair for a second evaluation by a new PTR committee. Should the latter evaluation also result in an unfavorable review, no additional appeals will be entertained. These procedures apply to both the initial PTR and the PTR three years after receiving an unfavorable result. The appeal to the department chair for a second review must be made in writing within 30 days of receipt of an unsatisfactory evaluation. The department chair has 10 working days to either deny the appeal or appoint a second PTR committee. The second PTR committee shall render its recommendation to the department chair within 60 days from the time of the appointment.