5.5 Post-Tenure Review
5.5.1 Policy Statement – Post-Tenure Review
The university post-tenure review process follows the guidelines of the USG BOR Policy Manual. The purpose of post-tenure review is to examine, recognize, and enhance the performance of tenured faculty members. The post-tenure review is directed toward multi-year accomplishments and plans for professional development. It is retrospective as well as prospective and takes into account that faculty will have different emphases and assignments at various points in their careers. The post-tenure review is not a reconsideration of tenure, but rather a constructive five-year performance review which serves to highlight contributions and future opportunities as well as identify any deficiencies in performance and, in those cases, provide a plan for addressing concerns.
With the exception of tenured administrators whose majority of duties are administrative (as determined by the provost), all tenured faculty will be reviewed. The five-year review cycle will start again after any successful review for promotion. Administrators who return to a full-time teaching load will have a post-tenure review in their fifth year following the return to full-time faculty status.
5.5.2 Post-Tenure Review Structure
Each faculty member’s post-tenure portfolio will be reviewed by two levels, the departmental level and the college post-tenure review committee (“Post-TRC”). Final decisions will be made by the dean of each college based upon review of these recommendations. The portfolio will be reviewed in the following order: departmental post-TRC, department head/coordinator, college post-TRC, and dean. The post-TRC letter written at each level above will be added to the faculty member’s portfolio for inclusion in the review by those completing the review at subsequent levels. All committee deliberations should be held in confidence. Small departments are authorized to include a faculty member from a related discipline on the departmental post-TRC to ensure an adequate review.
At the departmental level, faculty will be issued a letter by both the department head/coordinator and a letter by the departmental post-TRC. The letters will provide an overview of reviewer’s (committee’s) assessment of the faculty member’s accomplishments during the previous five years and describe specific deficiencies, if any. The departmental post-TRC will make a judgment on whether the faculty member under review has met the expectations of the department and university. The department head/coordinator's letter will provide an overview of the previous five years' annual reports, pointing out specific accomplishments as well as deficiencies, if any. The department head/coordinator will render a judgment on whether the faculty member's performance described in the annual reviews met the expectations of the department and university. If the departmental post-TRC or the department head/coordinator find deficiencies, they must be clearly delineated within their post-TRC letters. Each letter must make a clear recommendation for either a satisfactory or unsatisfactory evaluation.
The college post-TRC will make a clear determination of satisfactory or unsatisfactory based on the information received from the candidate’s file and the previous post-TRC departmental reviews. If the college post-TRC finds deficiencies, they must be clearly delineated within their letter. To assist in their decision-making, post-TRC’s are empowered to request additional information or clarification, upon approval of the provost, from the department head/coordinator or faculty member. Such requests should typically be limited to documents that were incomplete or under review at the time of original submission.
5.5.3 Criteria for Post-Tenure Review
A determination of satisfactory requires that satisfactory performance has been sustained over the last five years, as documented in the faculty member’s annual reviews and portfolio. Faculty must illustrate continued effectiveness in teaching and student engagement; service to the institution, profession and community; and continued professional growth & development/scholarship/academic achievement, which may be broadly defined. Units with specific guidelines relative to their accreditation status may have additional criteria.
If a faculty member fails to receive a satisfactory evaluation by the dean, the faculty member in consultation with the department head/coordinator and dean will formulate plans and timelines (“Development Plan”) to clearly resolve the issues identified in the post-TRC letters. [For appeals, see section 8.5.8]
Failure by a faculty member to submit a portfolio for review after official notification of the requirement will result in an automatic unsatisfactory evaluation. Official notification requires an email with timestamp on or before the deadline.
5.5.4 Procedure for Post-Tenure Review - Please see the Master Calendar for P&T dates.
- Official notification of post-tenure review shall be sent from the dean to the faculty member by the second Monday in September, and access to the online portfolio provided. Example: If the most recent positive promotion or tenure action occurred in August of 2010, the post-tenure notification would occur by the second Monday in September 2014.
- The portfolio shall be completed by the faculty member by the first day of Spring semester. The composition of the post-TRC’s shall also be determined by this date.
- The post-TRC letter from the department post-TRC shall be added to the online portfolio by the fourth Monday in February after the review, and the letter from the department head/coordinator shall be added to the online portfolio by the second Monday in April after the review. Letters should be signed by all committee members (or, in extenuating circumstances, may be confirmed by separate signed letter). Signing the letter is an indication of participation in the review process and not an indication of concurrence with the recommendation.
- The post-TRC letter from the college post-TRC shall be added to the portfolio by the fourth Monday in April after the review. Letters should be signed by all committee members (or, in extenuating circumstances, may be confirmed by separate signed letter).
- A letter from the dean stating the outcome of the evaluation, either satisfactory or unsatisfactory, shall be sent to the faculty member by the fourth Monday in April after the review, and access to the portfolio provided to the faculty.
The following documentation will be presented in a university electronic portfolio system:
- Cover Sheet
- Name of college and department
- Faculty Name
- Degrees earned
- Years, dates, and current rank and title in tenure-track position
- Current CV
- Description of activities that were not evaluated during most recent promotion or tenure decision but occurred prior the earliest annual review included in the current post tenure portfolio.
- Letter from primary campus supervisor if other than department head/coordinator.
- Summary of major accomplishments achieved during the years under review in the areas of teaching, research/creative/scholarly endeavors, and service to the University, College, department, profession, and community (up to a total of six pages) [For the purposes of post-tenure review, the years under review are the five most recent full calendar years prior to the evaluation (i.e., an evaluation conducted in spring 2015 will include accomplishments from CY2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014).]
- Previous five annual performance evaluations – annual self-reports with department head’s/coordinator’s evaluations for years under consideration.
- Complete sets of student evaluations with students’ comments from all the years under consideration.
- Brief statement of projected plans for contributions over the next five years.
5.5.6 Actions after Satisfactory Determination
If a faculty member receives a satisfactory post-tenure review, the dean, in communication with the department head/coordinator, will recommend a salary enhancement.
In exceptional cases, the college post-TRC (at their sole discretion) may opt to draft a letter indicating meritorious recognition. Declarations of meritorious performance must be restricted to those few individuals who, on a consistent basis, greatly exceed normal expectations in the execution of their professional responsibilities. This letter will remain in the faculty member’s personnel file and may be used in future applications for honors, awards, merit raises and support for innovative projects.
5.5.7 Actions after Unsatisfactory Determination
Upon an unsatisfactory review, the faculty member and department head/coordinator will create a development plan designed to remedy the specific deficiencies found in the review. If the faculty member submits an appeal as outlined below (Section 1.7), the creation of a development plan will be postponed until final disposition of the appeal. The development plan will include (i) clearly defined goals and outcomes, (ii) activities designed to achieve the outcomes, (iii) a timeline for the activities, (iv) a monitoring strategy that includes criteria for measuring progress, and (v) sources of support to assist the faculty member. The dean must approve the plan that will be signed by the faculty member, the department head, and the dean.
The department head and dean are jointly responsible for providing necessary support to implement the plan. This support may include funding for specific activities, rearrangement of duties and commitments, or other necessary resources. The department head will include an assessment of progress on the development plan as a supplement to each year’s annual evaluation, and forward the report to the dean. The department head’s annual report should address any obstacles to successful completion of the plan and any additional resources required.
After three years, the faculty member will undergo a review of the development plan. The faculty member may choose to undergo post-tenure review after only one or two years if the goals of the development plan are completed prior to the three-year period. The portfolio must include the original development plan, materials supporting the measurement of outcomes delineated in the plan, and any additional documents that the faculty member may wish to include.
The college post-TRC, informed by evaluations from the department post-TRC and department head/coordinator, will determine whether the plan's goals were met, and forward its findings to the dean. If the goals were met, the dean will formally declare that the plan is complete. If the post-TRC finds that the goals were not met within the three years, the provost, with approval of the president, will determine the appropriate action, which could include include (i) university colleagues continuing to work with the individual toward completion of the plan, (ii) reassignment if it appears that the individual will not successfully complete the original plan, or (iii) other personnel actions in accordance with the University System of Georgia Academic Affairs Handbook Section 4.6.
5.5.8 Appellate Process and Timeline
188.8.131.52 Right to Appeal
Any faculty member who receives an unsatisfactory review may appeal that determination. Faculty may not appeal based solely upon a difference in professional assessment of the portfolio. To exercise the right to appeal, faculty members must submit their written letters indicating the desire to appeal (the “Notice of Appeal”) to the provost within five business days of official notification of the dean’s post-tenure decision. Failure to submit a notice of appeal within five business days will constitute a waiver of the right to appeal. The provost, in his/her sole discretion, may grant an extension to this deadline.
184.108.40.206 Process for Appeal
After submitting a notice of appeal, a faculty member must prepare a written response to the post-TRC Letter (the “Appeal”) and submit it to the provost within an additional five business days (for a total of ten business days) after official notification of the dean's post-tenure decision.
220.127.116.11 Review by the University Post-TRC
The provost will form and charge a university post-TRC. The purpose of the university post-TRC is to recommend whether the recommendation of the dean should be upheld or overturned. The university post-TRC will review the portfolio, the post-TRC letters and the faculty member’s appeal. The university post-TRC may ask for additional documentation from the faculty member, upon approval of the Provost, for items that may have been incomplete or under review at the time of the original submission. After review and discussion, the university post-TRC will, by secret ballot and simple majority, judge the faculty member’s performance and forward their recommendation to the president of the university who will make the final determination.
18.104.22.168 Review by President
The president will review all post-TRC letters received by the faculty member and the submitted appeal. The president shall advise the faculty member, in writing, of the final disposition of the appeal by the end of the faculty member’s contract year. The president’s decision is final and binding and may not be appealed.