Left Navigation

Comprehensive Review of Tenured Faculty

REG 715.00.17

Fall 1998 Archived Version (Effective Fall 1998 through January 22, 2006)

Employment - EPA

Authority: Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

History: First Issued: Fall 1998. Additional History Information.

Related Policies: POL05.20.1 Academic Tenure Policy

Additional References: UNC Admin Memo 371, Departmental Procedures on Provost Website

Contact Info: Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Development (919-513-0206)

1. Board Policy Academic Tenure Policy, requires regular periodic reviews of all faculty.  UNC Administrative Memorandum 371 requires that tenured faculty benefit from comprehensive review at least every five years.  This regulation provides the guideline for conducting these reviews.
   
   
2. Guidelines
   
   
1. Frequency. Every tenured associate professor shall be reviewed no less than every three years after having been tenured; every professor shall be reviewed no less than every five years after promotion or appointment to professor. ^{1, 2}
   
   
2. Peer Involvement. Each department shall establish a Comprehensive Review Committee (CRC) 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 CRC is charged with peer assessment of the performance of individual tenured faculty members over the review period.
   
   
3. Process
   
   
1. Each department must establish and maintain criteria and procedures consistent with these guidelines and pertinent to evaluation of scholarly and professional accomplishment in the discipline(s) of the department. (See Office of the Provost CRTF site)
   
   
2. Each year, as a 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 the next comprehensive, periodic review. The review can be required by the department head, or by the appropriate dean, at any time based on annual reviews, but will occur at least as frequently as indicated above (2.a.).
   
   
3. At the beginning of each year, in consultation with the CRC, the department head will develop a schedule for the reviews to be conducted during the year with deadlines for:
   
   
1. submission by the faculty to be reviewed of materials supporting the review,
   
   
2. completion of assessments by the CRC, and
   
   
3. completion of reviews by the head.
   
   
4. The faculty member provides, for the period covered by the review, the statement of mutual expectations, written statement of professional activities and achievements, departmental teacher/course evaluations, results of any peer reviews of teaching, a current curriculum vitae, and other pertinent information. The written statement may take the form of a summary statement and accompanying copies of annual activity reports of professional activities and achievements for the period and the current plan for professional development.
   
   
5. After reviewing relevant information, the CRC will provide a written assessment to the faculty member and the department head of whether the faculty member meets or does not meet the performance criteria.
   
   
6. When the CRC finds that the faculty member does not meet the performance criteria:
   
   
1. The CRC will provide to the faculty member and the department head:
   
   
1. a written description of the deficiencies;
   
   
2. written advice regarding improvement, which may be considered by the faculty member for inclusion in the plan for professional development; and,
   
   
3. opportunity for the faculty member to consult with the CRC regarding its assessment of performance and its advice regarding improvement.
   
   
2. The comprehensive performance of the faculty member will assessed by the CRC in each succeeding year until the CRC assessment changes.
   
   
7. The department head will complete the review and communicate with the faculty member regarding the results. The department head will provide a written summary and the individual may provide a written response. The written summary and any response will become part of the personnel file.
   
   
8. The department head will provide the dean the assessment of the CRC, the department head's assessment  when it differs in any respect from that of the CRC, any written summaries and responses, the individual's plan for professional development, and the head's recommendations for any administrative action.
   
   
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.
   
   
4. Imposition of Serious Sanctions. Following an initial assessment by the CRC of an individual not meeting the performance criteria, the recurrence of similar assessments for two years in sequence, or for three years in five, will constitute evidence of the professional incompetence of the individual and may justify the imposition of serious sanctions up to or including discharge for cause³.
   
   

¹ In the review of jointly-appointed faculty, the head of the department of primary appointment will consult with the head(s) of the department(s) in which the faculty member is jointly appointed.  The department of primary appointment will be decided at the time of the joint appointment in determining voting rights.  See "Joint and Associate Faculty Appointments."

² Tenured assistant professors shall be reviewed no less frequently than are tenured associate professors.

³ The existence of this guideline shall not preclude an administrative judgment of professional incompetence at any time based on evaluations other than those of the CRC.