Post Tenure Review of Faculty

REG05.20.4

Employment - EPA

Print-friendly version

Authority: Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

History: First Issued: Fall 1998. Last Revised: January 24, 2006. Additional History Information.

Contact Info: Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs (919-515-9770)

1. INTRODUCTION

This regulation meets the requirements of UNC Policy 400.3.3. Performance Review of Tenured Faculty and UNC Policy 400.3.3.1[G] Guidelines on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty by providing procedures to conduct post tenure review of faculty at NC State University.

2. Frequency

Every tenured assistant professor, associate professor and professor shall be reviewed no less than every five years after having been tenured. Exceptions may be granted at the discretion of the Dean for faculty members who have submitted a letter of retirement or resignation or application for the Phased Retirement Program to be effective within two years from July 1 of the academic year of their review. An extension of up to one year may be granted at the discretion of the Dean when circumstances place an undue burden on the faculty member and/or department to complete the review during the fifth year.

3. Concurrent post tenure review and promotion to full professor

At the time it occurs a review for promotion to full professor can incorporate a post tenure review. The peer assessment and subsequent vote associated with post tenure review shall precede the departmental vote for promotion to full professor. Only the applicable portion of the package prepared for promotion to full professor shall be used for the post tenure review.

4. Departmental Rules

Individual departments shall have rules describing the standards and procedures used to carryout post tenure review. These rules shall be supplemental to and consistent with this regulation.

5. Peer Involvement

Each department shall establish a Post Tenure Review Committee (PTRC) comprised of members of the tenured faculty within the department. Terms of service shall be developed by the tenured faculty in consultation with the department head and dean. The PTRC is charged with peer assessment of the performance of individual tenured faculty members over the review period.

6. Joint Appointments

Reviews of faculty with joint appointments shall be conducted in each department according to the rules developed within each department and specified in this regulation. The Department Head of the primary department will add the votes in the respective reviews to determine results per Section 7.4.1 and inform the other head(s) and dean(s) for the departments involved. For college and university reports, the results will be reported only once by the primary department.

Departments not having primary responsibility for a faculty member with a joint appointment have the option of not conducting a post tenure review. The circumstances of when a department chooses to exercise this option are to be stipulated in the department rules.

7. ProceDURES

7.1. As part of the annual review process and in consultation with the appropriate dean, the department head will inform each faculty member of the projected date of their next post tenure review. The review can be required by the department head, or by the appropriate dean, at any time but will occur at least as frequently as indicated in Section 2.

7.2. The review is to provide a comprehensive, cumulative assessment to determine whether the tenured faculty member meets or does not meet the performance standards for the realms of responsibility described in the Statement of Mutual Expectations.

7.3. The faculty member develops and submits a dossier following the RPT dossier format or equivalent document as specified by the department, for the period covered by the review. If the Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure (RPT) dossier format is selected, it should consist of Sections 1. Introduction, including the Statement of Mutual Expectations and Brief Resume, 3. Scholarship, 6. Service to the University and Professional Societies, and, as applicable, Sections 2. Teaching and Mentoring of Undergraduate and Graduate Students, 4. Extension and Engagement with Constituencies Outside the University or 5. Technological and Managerial Innovation.

7.4. After reviewing the documentation, the PTRC will provide a written assessment and vote to the department head of whether the faculty member meets or does not meet the performance standards.

7.4.1. The determination of meets or does not meet expectations shall be based on a simple majority. In the event of a tie vote, the results shall be recorded as meets expectations.

7.4.2. When the PTRC presents a third consecutive does not meet, all DVF members of equal and higher rank, including the PTRC members, will vote per 7.4.1. The result of this vote will be the review result.

7.4.3. If the result is a third does not meet, this will constitute evidence of the faculty member's professional incompetence and may justify the imposition of serious sanctions up to and including discharge for cause.

7.5. Following a vote of does not meet expectations:

7.5.1. A written assessment shall be provided as specified in the departmental rule. The written assessment must include:

7.5.1.1. description of the deficiencies;

7.5.1.2. advice regarding improvement, which may be considered by the faculty member for inclusion in the plan for professional development.

7.5.2 The faculty member must meet with the department head and develop a plan for professional development which must include specific steps designed to lead to a meets expectations outcome.

7.5.2.1 The faculty member must be reviewed by the PTRC in accordance with this regulation and a written assessment prepared in each succeeding year until either the vote is meets expectations or the third consecutive does not meet expectations is given.

7.6 Following a vote of meets expectations a written assessment will be required according to departmental rules.

7.7. Following either type of vote, the department head must provide the numerical results of the vote and the written assessment to the faculty member under review. The faculty member has the option to submit a written response. The results of the vote, written assessment and faculty member response will become part of the faculty member's personnel file.

7.8. The written assessment, numerical vote and assessment of the department head shall be provided to the dean, including the head's recommendations for any administrative action.

7.9. The dean shall provide to the provost an acknowledgment of the completion of the review and the dean's recommendations for any administrative action.

8. This regulation does not preclude an administrative judgment of professional incompetence at any time based on evaluations other than post tenure review.

post tenure review, evaluation

Left Navigation