|
Post-Tenure Review
Introduction
In order to promote the professional development of
faculty and a culture of continuous improvement, Texas Woman's University
has, for many years, evaluated the performance of all faculty. The annual
performance review, as delineated in the Faculty Handbook, is designed
to assess the faculty member's contributions to and competencies in
teaching, service, and scholarship. Its purposes are to 1) provide a
basis for professional growth and development, 2) recognize past
professional performance and provide feedback to faculty who demonstrate
a need for improvement, and 3) provide a structure for systematically
measuring progress toward achieving promotion and tenure.
This annual evaluation of tenured and non-tenured
faculty members involves a formal procedure incorporating
self-evaluation, student evaluations, administrator evaluation, and, in
many academic components, peer evaluation The review is based on the
Faculty Role Profile and Performance Goals, which have been mutually
agreed upon by the faculty member and academic administrator and the
Annual Performance Review Portfolio, which includes an updated curriculum
vitae. These materials receive thorough and careful consideration by the
department chair, associate dean or program director, by the dean of the
college or school, and by the Provost and Vice President for Academic
Affairs.
In addition to the established annual evaluation,
faculty members applying for promotion and/or tenure are required to
submit comprehensive documentation of their accomplishments in each area
of professional responsibility. The performance of the faculty member is
evaluated by a component peer review committee, the department chair,
associate dean or program director, the dean of the college or school,
the University Promotion and Tenure Committee, the Provost and Vice
President for Academic Affairs, and the President. This performance
review results in a decision either to promote and/or grant tenure or to
deny promotion and/or tenure.
Faculty members seeking associate or full membership
on the Graduate Faculty must meet the criteria established by both the
Graduate Council and the component. In order to maintain graduate faculty
membership, faculty members undergo a rigorous review every seven years.
Since many programs are accredited by professional
associations and agencies, the faculty members who teach in those
programs are expected to meet the demanding criteria required for
accreditation or reaffirmation of accreditation, usually at intervals of
five to ten years. Regularly scheduled examinations of the entire
institution by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools, the major regional accrediting body, consistently
produce praise for the faculty for their effective teaching, advising,
and service to students.
Texas Woman's University has fostered a culture of
regular, systematic evaluation at all levels. Each year faculty evaluate
the performance of administrators--President, Provost and Vice President
for Academic Affairs, Associate Vice Presidents, Deans, Associate Deans,
Program Directors, and Department Chairs. The results of these
evaluations accompany the other material employed by supervisors in
assessing the effectiveness of the administrators who report to them.
Recognizing the value of comprehensive evaluation in
identifying both strengths and areas needing improvement, Texas Woman's University
welcomes the continuation of a system of performance review of tenured
faculty. Noting the Legislature's stipulation that "the process be
directed toward the professional development of the faculty member,"
this policy will strengthen faculty performance, enable faculty members
and academic administrators to determine those areas in which each person
can contribute most significantly to the achievement of the component's
mission, and promote a productive use of the faculty's various skills and
talents.
Purpose and Standards
The purpose of all evaluation is to recognize
achievement and provide a basis for professional growth and development
so that all persons can successfully fulfill their professional responsibilities.
The post-tenure review process applies to all individuals in the
University who hold tenure, including those with primarily administrative
assignments. The posttenure review process is designed to be an integral
component of the ongoing annual performance review and the promotion and
tenure process for faculty, and the annual evaluation process for
administrators. This will provide a single, comprehensive faculty
development and evaluation process.
All tenured faculty, including administrators, are
to be evaluated in relation to the individual's assigned professional
responsibilities. It should be noted that individuals serve in
administrative positions at the pleasure of the immediate supervisor and
can be removed from those positions at any time by the supervisor. The
post-tenure review policy relates only to the individual's tenure as a
faculty member.
The standards by which tenured faculty are evaluated
are the same standards established by the component faculty for annual
review. The time schedule for the review process is the annual review
time schedule.
Peer Review Committee
For purposes of this policy, peers are defined as
those individuals who have similar professional responsibilities. The
peer review committee (PRC), for those individuals in faculty positions,
is the committee utilized by the component in the promotion and tenure
process. For the post-tenure review of department chairs, program
directors and associate deans, the dean will appoint a PRC of three
individuals holding similar positions. For the post-tenure review of
deans and associate vice presidents, the Provost and Vice President for
Academic Affairs will appoint a PRC of three individuals with similar
levels of responsibility. The President will appoint an appropriate PRC
for those administrators who report directly to her.
In those circumstances, as described below, in which
a Professional Development Plan (PDP) is required, the faculty member may
nominate one additional tenured faculty member from any TWU academic
component for membership on the PRC for the construction and evaluation
of the PDP.
Process
Annual performance review of faculty and
administrators will continue under the guidelines already established.
Post-tenure review by a peer review committee will be conducted at a
minimum of every six years for each individual who holds tenure. Peer
review will occur earlier if unsatisfactory performance is documented in
the annual review.
For those components that currently conduct annual
faculty performance review using an elected PRC, the annual faculty
evaluation may constitute the post-tenure review in those components that
so choose. Those faculty will be subject to the sequence and the time
limits of both the informal and formal development plans described below
if either their overall performance rating or their performance rating in
the area of teaching is "Does Not Meet Standards."
Annual Review
If an annual review, using the established component
process, results in a performance rating of "Does Not Meet
Standards" in the area of teaching or if the over all rating is
"Does Not Meet Standards," the academic administrator will
establish with the faculty member a mutually agreeable plan to ameliorate
the identified area(s) of concern. During the next annual review process
(end of year one), the PRC and the academic administrator(s) will
evaluate the faculty member's performance and progress toward correcting
the area(s) of concern. If this evaluation results in a rating of
"Satisfactory" or above, the faculty member will continue to be
evaluated annually using the usual component process.
If the PRC and administrator(s) agree that the
performance of the faculty member continues to merit a rating of
"Does Not Meet Standards" either in teaching or as an overall
rating, a formal professional development plan will be developed. The PDP
will be designed jointly by the faculty member, the academic
administrator(s), and the PRC. The plan will include, at a minimum,
specific deficiencies to be addressed, mutually agreed upon goals to
remedy the deficiencies, actions to be taken to achieve the goals, and a
time frame to correct the identified deficiencies. The faculty member is
obligated to participate in developing the PDP and to make a good faith
effort to implement the plan.
During the next annual review process (end of year
two), the faculty member will be evaluated again by the PRC and the
academic administrator(s) to determine if the terms of the PDP have been
met. If the PRC and academic administrator(s) agree that the faculty
member's performance is satisfactory, the faculty member will continue to
be evaluated annually using the usual component process.
If the PRC and academic administrator(s) determine
that the individual's performance is still below standards, the PDP will
be reviewed and renewed or revised. One additional year will be allowed
before further action is taken. During the next annual review (end of
year three), the faculty member will be evaluated by the PRC and academic
administrator(s). If, at that time, the individual's performance is still
evaluated as below standards, the PRC and the appropriate academic
administrator(s) will recommend to the Provost and Vice President for
Academic Affairs appropriate disciplinary action which might include
revocation of tenure and/or employment.
A faculty member may be subject to revocation of
tenure or other appropriate disciplinary action if incompetency, neglect
of duty, or other good cause is determined to be present. The Provost
will, in consultation with the PRC and the appropriate academic
administrator(s), determine the appropriate disciplinary action(s) under
this Post-Tenure Review Policy, which might include termination of tenure
and/or employment, and will notify the faculty member and the dean of the
component of the disciplinary decision in writing.
The same general process will be followed for
tenured academic administrators. Annual review will be conducted using
the established procedures. If the overall evaluation during the annual
review is less than satisfactory, the supervisor and administrator will
develop a plan to correct deficiencies. During the next annual review
(end of year one), the PRC and the supervisor will evaluate the
administrator. If there is agreement that the performance is less than
satisfactory, a formal PDP will be developed and annual peer review will
be used to determine progress. If the performance meets standards during
the next annual review, the administrator will continue to be reviewed
annually using the usual procedures. If, after two years of peer
evaluation, the performance is still determined to be below standards,
the administrator will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action,
which might include revocation of tenure.
Sixth Year Review
Those tenured faculty and administrators who receive
satisfactory evaluations each year during the annual review will be
reviewed by the PRC every six years after the granting of tenure, except
in those components that choose to use the elected PRC for annual review.
Subsequent to gaining tenure, if an individual is reviewed for promotion
by a peer review committee in less than six years, that will be
considered a post-tenure review and the next six-year cycle will be from
the date of the promotion review.
For purposes of the post-tenure review, faculty need
only submit the 1) Annual Performance Review Portfolio, 2) Annual
Performance Review: Evaluation and Recommendations, and 3) Annual
Performance Review: Summary of Recommendations, for the preceding five
years. Additional materials may be submitted at the faculty member's
discretion. Administrators will submit a current curriculum vitea and any
other material deemed appropriate by the individual and the supervisor.
If the PRC and the academic administrator(s) give a
performance rating of "Does Not Meet Standards" in the area of
teaching or as an overall rating, a PDP will be developed. The PDP will
be designed jointly by the faculty member, the academic administrator(s),
and the PRC. The plan will include, at a minimum, specific deficiencies
to be addressed, mutually agreed upon goals to remedy the deficiencies,
actions to be taken to achieve the goals, and a time frame to correct the
identified deficiencies. The faculty member is obligated to participate
in developing the PDP and to make a good faith effort to implement the
plan.
During the next three years, the faculty member will
be evaluated annually by the PRC and academic administrator(s) to
determine if the terms of the PDP have been met. At any time that the PRC
and academic administrator(s) agree that the faculty member's performance
is satisfactory, the faculty member will then continue to be evaluated
annually using the usual component process.
If, after three years from the time of the
initiation of the PDP, the PRC and academic administrator(s) determine
that the individual's performance is still below standards, the PRC and
the appropriate academic administrator(s) will recommend to the Provost
appropriate disciplinary action which might include revocation of tenure
and/or employment.
A faculty member may be subject to revocation of
tenure or other appropriate disciplinary action if incompetency, neglect
of duty, or other good cause is determined to be present. The Provost
will, in consultation with the PRC and the appropriate academic
administrator(s), determine the appropriate disciplinary action(s) under
this Post-Tenure Review Policy, which might include termination of tenure
and/or employment, and will notify the faculty member and the dean of the
component of the disciplinary decision in writing.
Appeal Process
For disciplinary actions under this policy, other
than revocation of tenure and/or employment, the faculty member may
appeal the decision of the Provost to the Faculty Grievance Committee (FGC)
under the procedures described in the Faculty Handbook for faculty
grievances. The written appeal must be received by the Office of the
Provost within ten days after the faculty member received the written
decision of the Provost. The findings of the Faculty Grievance Committee,
which may include modification of the disciplinary action, excluding
termination, shall be final on this subject and shall not become a
recommendation to the President.
If the decision of the Provost under this policy is
for termination of the faculty member's tenure and/ or employment, the
faculty member may, within ten days after receiving the written decision
of the Provost, elect non-binding alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as
described in Chapter 154, Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The
Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs must
receive the faculty member's election for ADR within the ten-day period.
Days when the University is closed during holidays (Thanksgiving,
Christmas, Spring Break) are not counted in computing the time periods
under this policy.
The ADR is to be completed within sixty days after
such election by the faculty member is received by the Provost, unless
the time is extended in writing by mutual agreement of the parties. Further,
the parties may mutually agree to another type of ADR in place of the one
described above, which also must be completed within the sixty-day
period.
If ADR was elected and does not resolve the matter,
the faculty member, within ten days after receiving written
acknowledgment from the Provost that ADR has not been successful, may
appeal to the TWU University Review Committee (URC), as described below.
If ADR was not elected, the faculty member, within ten days after
receiving in writing the determination of the Provost that the
appropriate disciplinary action is termination of tenure and/or
employment, may appeal to the URC as described below. The Office of the
Provost must receive the appeal to the URC within the ten-day period.
The appeal to the URC involves a hearing before a
hearing committee of the URC. The URC members hearing the appeal may not,
however, include any member of the faculty member's department or any
person who has been involved in the dismissal process. The URC must set a
date for its hearing and notify the parties. The University will present
the principal reasons for the termination to the URC in writing a week
prior to the hearing, with a copy of the reasons to the person being
terminated. In any part of the hearing process, at least three-fourths of
the members of the URC shall be required to constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business. Decisions of the URC must be reached on a
majority vote, with the number of yes, no, and abstention votes recorded
without designating the person who cast the vote.
The faculty member whose termination is being
considered may choose to be represented at the hearing by a fellow
faculty member or by an attorney. The University will be represented by a
faculty member or an administrative official chosen by the President. The
University may also be represented by an attorney, if the person being
heard chooses to be represented by an attorney. The hearing process will
involve due regard for the responsibility for giving advance notice of hearings,
notice of reasons relied upon for the termination, an opportunity for
hearing on those reasons, and other commonly recognized academic due
process rights. The strict judicial rules of evidence will not be
applied, and the URC may receive all evidence felt to be relevant and
material to the issues in the hearing that reasonable persons are
accustomed to reply upon.
The URC will be asked to rule on whether adequate
cause exists for the termination and to report its findings to the
President and to the Board of Regents, with a copy to the faculty member.
If the finding in the URC's report to the President and to the Board of
Regents is that the cause or causes for termination of tenure and
employment are not adequate, this determination shall be final. If the
finding in the URC's report to the President and to the Board of Regents
supports the position that the cause or causes are adequate for
termination of tenure and/or employment, the termination will be
considered final, subject only to a request for an appeal to the Board of
Regents. The URC's report to the President and to the Board of Regents
must give specific written reasons for its determination.
Within ten days after the faculty member receives
written notification of a URC decision supporting termination of tenure
and/or employment, the faculty member may request an appeal to the Board
of Regents by delivering a written request to the Office of the
President. The Board of Regents may either consider the case on its
merits or decline to do so. If the Board of Regents declines to consider
the case on its merits, it will notify the faculty member of such
decision in writing, giving the specific reasons that were cited by the
URC for the decision to terminate the faculty member. Should the Board of
Regents elect to consider the case on its merits, it will render its
decision on the merits in writing, either finding in favor of the faculty
member or giving specific reasons for any decision to terminate the
faculty member on the basis of the evaluation(s) conducted pursuant to
this Post-Tenure Review Policy.
APPROVED: 12/97
EDITED: 8/07
|
