3.3.9.1 Post Tenure Review

3.3.9.1 Post Tenure Review Rhett Mayor

Purpose 
The post-tenure review (PTR) process supports the further career development of tenured faculty members as well as ensures accountability and continued strong performance from faculty members after they have achieved tenure. The primary purpose of the PTR process is to assist faculty members with identifying opportunities that shall enable them to reach their full potential for contribution to the academic discipline, the Institute, and the Institute’s mission. PTR is intended to provide a longer-term and broader perspective than is usually provided by an annual performance evaluation.  

PTR facilitates faculty development and ensures intellectual vitality and competent levels of performance by all faculty throughout their professional careers. In both regards, the goal is to maximize the talents of tenured faculty within the broad array needed for effective performance of the Institute and its units. The Institute recognizes that the granting of tenure for faculty is an important protection of free inquiry and open intellectual debate. This PTR policy defines a system of periodic peer evaluation of all tenured faculty, which is intended to enhance and protect the guarantees of tenure and academic freedom. PTR shall be conducted by a committee of faculty peers. 

The review should be both retrospective and prospective because it recognizes past contributions and provides the means for continuing intellectual and professional growth. As a faculty development tool, PTR provides an opportunity to assist tenured faculty members in formulating a multi-year plan of professional growth and activity in teaching, scholarship and creative activities, student success activities, and service based on their interests and the needs and mission of the unit and the Institute. It is recognized that, within the traditional mix of professional activities, different emphases may be appropriate at different stages in a faculty member's career, therefore it encourages a careful look at possibilities for different emphases at different points of a faculty member’s career. The review encourages a careful look at the mix of professional activities that are appropriate at the time of review. 

To assure professional competence, PTR provides an opportunity to assess the tenured faculty member's effectiveness in teaching, scholarship and creative activities, student success activities, and service, and over a multi-year period. Assessment of professional activities over a relatively long timespan encourages faculty members to undertake projects and initiatives that do not readily lend themselves to annual evaluation. 

The outcome of a PTR may be either a recommendation for a five (5) year review if the faculty member’s performance is partially successful or better, or a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) if the faculty member’s performance does not meet expectations or needs improvement. 

Timeline 
All tenured faculty members who have rank and tenure with an academic unit must undergo PTR five years after the award of tenure and subsequently every five years unless it is interrupted by a further review for promotion to a higher academic rank (Associate/Full Professor) or academic leadership promotion (e.g., School Chair, Dean, Associate Provost), or for other acceptable reasons, discussed below. 

Consistent with University System of Georgia policies, a tenured faculty member may voluntarily elect to go up for PTR before the five-year time limit. This enables a faculty member to take full advantage of the feedback and insight provided by their colleagues at a strategic moment in their career, rather than having to wait for the usual five-year cycle. Early PTR should include a review of the faculty member’s accomplishments since the last evaluation for tenure or a previous PTR, whichever was the most recent. If the faculty member has a successful review, the next PTR shall be five years from the voluntary PTR date. If the faculty member is unsuccessful, the five-year PTR review date remains in place.  

Areas of Evaluation 
The evaluation must address the faculty’s accomplishments related to teaching, scholarship and creative activities, and service, including student success activities. Evaluative criteria, and any changes to these criteria, must be approved by a vote of the unit’s tenured faculty using any applicable unit-level faculty governance procedures. Faculty undergoing PTR must receive a copy of any criteria at least 30 days before the due date of their PTR package. Tenured faculty members are expected to document successive contributions to furthering the mission of the Institute through their teaching, student success activities, scholarship and creative activities, and service. Contributions should be dated from previous tenure and promotion milestones and encompass the previous five-year period.  

Any deviations from the review criteria must be stated explicitly and in writing. Examples of such deviations include faculty members who have no interactions with students and administrators who have no teaching responsibilities. The School Chair is responsible for formulating individualized alternative criteria, after consultation with the faculty member; an understanding regarding such criteria must be reached and confirmed in writing prior to documentation submission. If there is no agreement on criteria, the faculty member may request a hearing by the unit’s PTR committee. The committee's decision on criteria is final. 

Submission of PTR Package by the Faculty Member 
The Faculty member shall submit a PTR package that contains: 

  • A cover sheet. 

  • A copy of the approved individualized evaluation criteria, if applicable. 

  • A current curriculum vitae. 

  • A statement from the faculty member, of up to five (5) pages. If the faculty member is undergoing a second or subsequent PTR, the statement must include information on how goals from the previous review have been met. The faculty member should state their goals for the next five (5) years. 

  • The faculty member's teaching evaluations. For the faculty member’s first PTR, all evaluations should be included. For subsequent reviews, only course evaluations from courses taught since the last evaluation should be included. 

  • Annual performance evaluations for the previous five (5) years. 

  • If desired, a rebuttal of the School Chair’s assessment letter (see School Chairs Assessment Letter section, below) may be included.  

 

School Chair’s Assessment Letter 
After receipt of the PTR package, the School Chair shall prepare a summary and assessment based upon the agreed criteria.  

  • The letter shall be supported by the Faculty member’s annual evaluations and rebuttals, if any. If it is not, the faculty member should be given the opportunity to comment on the summary.  

  • The letter should also include a detailed assessment of the faculty member's goals for the next five (5) years.  

  • The faculty member’s annual performance evaluations (to include rebuttals) for the years under consideration shall be appended to the unit head’s letter.  

  • The School Chair shall provide these documents to the faculty member for review and possible rebuttal (see Submission of PTR Package section, above).  

  • When complete, the School Chair shall deliver these documents (School Chair’s summary and assessment letter, faculty member’s annual evaluations and rebuttals, and Faculty member’s rebuttal to School Chair’s letter) to the unit PTR committee. 

 

Unit-Level PTR Committee 

Composition 
The unit’s faculty shall determine the composition of the committee, with the following limitations: 

  • The committee must have at least three (3) members. 

  • The committee shall be composed of tenured academic faculty from the unit of the faculty member's primary appointment.  

  • The committee shall be elected by secret ballot vote of the unit's tenured faculty.  The unit may establish procedures for the committee election using its own applicable faculty governance rules and procedures. The unit’s FAC (Faculty Advisory Committee) shall conduct and be the final arbiter of the election. 

  • If a candidate has a joint appointment with budget sharing, then the majority of the committee members for such faculty members shall be from the primary unit; and at least one (1) member of the committee must be from the non-primary unit.  

  • The School Chair shall not be a member of the committee. Whether to include administrative faculty members other than the unit head is up to unit faculty. This decision shall be reviewed every five (5) years. 

  • A single committee may review all PTR cases or, if approved by a majority vote of the unit faculty, a subcommittee of at least three (3) of the elected members may review a PTR case.   

  • The faculty of the unit will adopt a replacement plan by faculty vote, which ensures a sub-committee of at least three (3) members. 

 

The Faculty member to be reviewed may: 

  • Provide input on the composition of the committee or subcommittee for consideration by the unit faculty. 

  • Select a member of the committee to serve as an "advocate" or choose to add another tenured faculty member who meets committee membership criteria to serve as "advocate", with voice and vote. 

  • Remove one (1) person from the committee without cause. 

  • Request the removal of any other committee member in the case of a documented conflict or issue. The members of the PTR committee, without the member subject to the objection, will determine whether to honor the request to remove the member.  

 

Review Process 
The committee shall: 

  • Examine the documentation provided by the Faculty member and the School Chair.  

  • Assess faculty member’s past performance and goals for the next five (5) years. The assessment should be written, contain the information specified below, and support the committee’s recommendation. 

 

A Successful Evaluation Resulting in a Five (5) Year Review Recommendation 
The committee's report shall contain: 

  • Narrative text listing rating and commending partially successful or better performance. 

  • Identification of and recommendation for necessary improvements (if any). 

  • Recommendations for necessary improvements (if any). 

  • Recommendation for five (5) year review. 

  • Record of committee's vote by numbers of votes in each of these categories (Yes, No, Abstain). Names of the committee members are not to be attached to each vote. 

  • The signatures of all members of the PTR committee. 

  • Comments on faculty development and resources appropriate for execution. For associate professors, this should include activities to enhance prospects for successful promotion. 

 

An Unsuccessful Evaluation where the Faculty Member Needs Improvement 
The committee's report shall contain: 

  • Narrative text listing not successful evaluation and containing both critique of not successful performance and commendation of positive aspect of performance. 

  • Identification of and recommendation for necessary improvements (if any). 

  • Record of committee's vote by numbers of votes in each of these categories (Yes, No, Abstain). Names of the committee members are not to be attached to each vote. 

  • The signatures of all members of the PTR committee. 

  • Comments on faculty development and resources appropriate for execution. For associate professors, this section should include activities to enhance prospects for successful promotion. 

 

Communication of Outcome of Reviews 
The committee shall submit one package to the School Chair containing:  

  • PTR Committee report, 

  • Supporting documentation, and 

  • School Chair’s assessment of faculty member’s goals and performance. 

The School Chair will forward the package to the Dean of the Faculty member’s college. The Dean of the faculty member’s College will review the results of the PTR and communicate its results to the faculty member. This shall include the package and a letter summarizing the findings of the PTR. In the event of an unsuccessful PTR, the letter must also include next steps, due process rights, and the potential ramifications if the faculty member does not remediate or demonstrate substantive progress towards remediation in the areas identified as unsatisfactory. The Faculty member can provide a written rebuttal that shall be attached to the final document; however, no action is required by the School Chair. In the case of an unsuccessful PTR, the School Chair shall meet with each faculty member to discuss its results and the subsequent steps.  Faculty members may request a meeting with their School Chairs to discuss the results of the PTR. 

The Dean shall provide a copy of all documents to the office of the Vice Provost for Faculty. The Vice Provost for Faculty’s office, through Faculty Affairs, maintains all files of reviews. 

Outcomes and Consequences of Post-Tenure Review 

The results of a positive PTR should be linked to recognition or reward. Faculty members who are performing at noteworthy levels should receive recognition for their achievements. Examples of these include one-time monetary rewards, merit pay increases, and Institute-supported leaves. 

Performance Improvement Plan 
The Performance Improvement Plan is used to document deficiencies based on an unfavorable PTR. In the event of an unsuccessful PTR, the faculty member’s School Chair shall work with the faculty member to develop a formal Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in consultation with the PTR committee based upon the deficiencies found by the committee. Consistent with the developmental intent of the PTR, the PIP must be designed to assist the faculty member in achieving progress towards remedying the deficiencies identified in the PTR, so as to scaffold faculty growth and development and to strengthen future promotion possibilities. The PIP must contain the following: 

  1. Clearly defined goals or outcomes, 

  1. An outline of activities to be undertaken,  

  1. A timetable,  

  1. Available resources and support,  

  1. Expectations for improvement, and 

  1. Monitoring strategy. 

The PIP’s goals or outcomes must be reasonable, achievable within the timeframe, and reflect the essential duties of the faculty member. A PIP must also reflect the timing of a faculty member’s contract; remediation cannot be required of a faculty member outside of the contract period. The PIP must be approved by the Dean and submitted to the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty where permanent faculty files are housed. The School Chair and the Faculty member must meet formally twice during each of the fall and spring semesters to review progress, document additional needs/resources, and planned accomplishments for the upcoming time period. After each meeting, the School Chair shall summarize the meeting and indicate whether the faculty member is on track to complete the PIP; this summary shall be provided to the faculty member and placed in the faculty member’s file within the School or unit. 

(Note that while this section of the Handbook pertains to tenured faculty members, untenured, tenure-track faculty members will also be evaluated annually on the elements of teaching, student success activities, research/scholarship, and service, following the procedures described above. In the case of deficiency identified through an annual evaluation, they will be put on a Performance Remediation Plan (PRP). If there is deficiency over two consecutive annual evaluations, institutions will determine specific consequences ranging from being put on a performance improvement plan (PIP) to correct deficiencies, to possible separation from employment. For non-tenured faculty members (i.e., non-tenure-track faculty and untenured, tenure-track faculty), the PRP and subsequent steps are suggested for developmental purposes, but completing all these steps is not necessary for non-renewal. For guidance on non-renewal of non-tenured faculty, please see BOR Policy 8.3.4 Notice of Employment and Resignation and GT Faculty Handbook section 3.2.2.)  

Review of the Performance Improvement Plan 
At the conclusion of the academic year, the PTR committee shall convene to review the Faculty member’s progress and submit the committee’s feedback to the School Chair and Dean. 

The PTR committee shall review the faculty member’s progress as recorded by the School Chair and any information provided by the faculty member. The PTR committee may exercise its judgement as to whether an in-person meeting is necessary. The recommendation of the PTR committee may be based solely on a review of the record. The PTR committee shall issue its recommendation based solely on a review of the record and the results of any meetings to the School Chair, Dean, and the Faculty member by the end of the spring semester. 

After considering feedback from the PTR committee’s review of the faculty member’s progress and recommendation, the School Chair and Dean shall determine if the Faculty member has remediated the deficiencies identified by the committee or made substantive progress towards remediation, which shall be considered successful completion of the PIP.  

The School Chair and Dean’s assessment of the PIP shall take the place of that year’s annual performance evaluation. Failure to successfully remediate the identified deficiencies, or demonstrate substantive progress towards remediation, within one year subjects the faculty member to disciplinary actions up to and including, but not limited to, reallocation of effort, salary reduction, and tenure revocation and dismissal. 

If the Faculty member successfully completes the performance improvement plan, then the Faculty member’s next PTR shall take place on the regular five-year schedule.  

If the Faculty member fails to make sufficient progress in performance, then the School Chair and Dean may recommend appropriate remedial action corresponding to the seriousness and nature of the faculty member’s deficiencies. If the School Chair and Dean recommend remedial action, the Faculty member may request due process as explained below. If the School Chair and the Dean do not agree on their assessment of sufficient progress in performance, the Provost will make the final assessment. The President shall make the final determination on behalf of the Institute regarding appropriate remedial action. An aggrieved Faculty member may seek discretionary review of the Institute’s final decision pursuant to the Board of Regents Policy on Applications for Discretionary Review 6.26.