This document shows the proposed changes in post-tenure review at the University of Oregon.  Current material is in normal font.   Material to be deleted is shown as strike-through text.  New material is shown in boldface type.  My emphases are shown in italics and color.
 
 

University of Oregon Policy Statement

3.150 Employee Status

Title: Post-Tenure Review

Purpose: To state the University's policy and to outline the procedures for implementing post-tenure review of the faculty as directed by OAR 580-21-140.

Policy:

The University provides for a regular post-tenure review of its faculty to encourage, to reward, and to support the continuous development of tenured members of the faculty, and through the process of peer review to identify faculty members who merit special recognition or need special assistance.

Procedure:

CRITERIA

The procedure for post-tenure review relates closely to the regular academic review process for faculty. In addition to the thorough reviewsforassociated with the promotion and tenure process by the University Personnel Committee, a faculty memberís performance is documented through informal yearly evaluations and formal evaluations conducted every three yearsof faculty members are made by many department heads, deans, or other supervising officers. [Italics added for emphasis]

The following criteria (elaborated in the Faculty Handbook) willare to be used in theall post-tenure reviews:

1. Maintenance of high quality of teaching at all levels.

2. Continuing professional growth, scholarly activities, creative and artistic achievement.

3. Exercise of leadership in academic and administrative service.

 In addition, special criteria established by individual departments and schools shall may be used.

The information to be considered in decisions concerning post-tenure review will include the faculty member's statement of scholarly, scientific, professional or artistic accomplishments, goals, and plans; an up-to-date vita and bibliography; accumulated annual faculty evaluation reports; faculty member's responses, if any. Additional information including any of the following may be requested:

1. A statement from the department head, dean or provost summarizing the past duties and responsibilities of the faculty member, including pertinent information concerning the conditions of appointment and expectations in the areas of teaching, research and service.[Italics added for emphasis]

2. Student evaluations, peer evaluations and other materials relating to the quality of teaching, supervision of graduate students and advising or administration.

3. In appropriate instances, letters of evaluation from individuals both on and off campus, with particular attention to evaluations by persons specially qualified to judge the contributions of the faculty member over the period of review.

4. Supportive documents such as copies of publications, manuscripts, photographs of art objects, musical compositions, or reviews of performance.

Documents demonstrating leadership in service to the University and/or larger community, including outreach service to the State of Oregon.

5. Other evaluation statements.

 The nationally recognized criteria for obtaining indefinite tenure place approximately equal emphasis on demonstrated excellence in teaching and research, and considerably less emphasis on service. As tenured faculty progress through their professional careers, some may redirect their focus in the broad areas of research, teaching, administration and service. Consequently, expectations for, and goals of, individual faculty members may change throughout their careers. For the purpose of post-tenure review, the fundamental criterion is demonstrated excellence in meeting the expectations and goals established by the department for the individual faculty member. If it is in the departmentís and the Universityís best interests to have a tenured faculty member focus more on teaching and administration/service, post-tenure review for that individual should emphasize, acknowledge and reward demonstrated excellence in those areas. A key aspect of this program is therefore establishment of the professional expectations forindividual faculty members. [Italics added for emphasis]

PROCEDURE

A. Annual Reviews

All tenured faculty, including those on 600-hour appointments, shall provide their department head with summary review material on a yearly basis. This annual review shall be self-evaluative in nature and consist of the following:

An updated vita and bibliography.

A statement summarizing recent activities and accomplishments, together with a summary of success in meeting previously defined goals in research, teaching and service .

An outline of goals for the next academic year.  [Italics added for emphasis]

 The purpose of these self-evaluations is to define expectations and goals for individual faculty members, and in the process document specific accomplishments. The process should be initiated by the faculty member, with materials described above submitted to the department head during April of each year.

Departments are encouraged to design simple one-page forms for faculty to use in this evaluation (Appendix I provides an example). The annual reports shall be submitted to the department head for review,and if necessary, for comment. The reports shall be filed in the faculty memberís departmental personnel file.  [Italics added for emphasis]

B. Third-Year Reviews

Third-year reviews shall be conducted for all tenured faculty members except those on 600-hour appointments. The normal expectation for tenured faculty with rank of Associate Professor is that continued professional development warrants consideration for promotion to full professor after six years. The third-year review therefore provides a useful mid-point gauge for monitoring an Associate Professorís progress toward establishing a record commensurate with promotion. For full Professors, the third-year review provides a mechanism by which the individualís contributions to the institution can be evaluated, how their own careers are progressing, and how they are meetingthe needs and expectations of the department and university. In addition toguiding the faculty member in his or her professional development, these reviews constitute the primary, formal basis for recommending merit- and equity-based salary adjustments. [Italics added for emphasis]

The third-year review process parallels that of the annual reviews, and is normally conducted during spring term of the third year following the last review. The emphasis of these reviews is on accomplishments made since the last third-year review, and evaluation should be based on new material and progress in response to the previous two annual reviews. The faculty member submits to the department head, no later than March 15, an updated vita and bibliography and a summary statement of activities and accomplishments in the areas of research, teaching and service. When deemed appropriate by the department head, review of an Associate Professorís accomplishments may include evaluation by external experts in the candidateís field of expertise. The department head reviews this material as well as the annual reports submitted by the faculty member covering the previous two years. The department head then prepares a post-tenure review evaluating the performance of the faculty member and, for Associate Professors, .commenting on the degree to which the faculty member is on target for promotion. At the option of the faculty member or the department head, the record of achievement may be reviewed by the departmentís personnel/promotion committee in addition to the department head. [Italics added for emphasis]

The Department Headís report of the post-tenure review shall be given to the faculty member no later than June 1 of the year in which the review is conducted. It shall be signed by the faculty member to indicate that he or she has read the report. The faculty member may submit a written response to the report within thirty days. A copy of the report and any response by the faculty member shall be filed in the faculty memberís departmental personnel file. In cases where the review indicates insufficient progress toward promotion, or less-than-expected professional development,the department head and the faculty member should discuss corrective action and establish expectations for future activities. [Italics added for emphasis]

Any review for promotion The comprehensive review for promotion to full Professor shall be substituted for the post-tenurethird-year review as appropriate.  A tenured member of the faculty or administration may request, in lieu of the post-tenure review, a special review by the University Personnel Committee conducted through the regular review process.   Associate Professors shall continue to be reviewed every three years, using the procedure described above, until promotion to full Professor. For full Professors, the sixth-year review (below) substitutes for every other third-year review.

C. Sixth-Year Reviews

Every other third-year review for full Professors shall be replaced by a comprehensive Post-tenure reviews shall be conductedknown as the "sixth-year review". This process shall begin with a thorough, peer review conducted by an elected standing committee of the unit (school, college or department) academic department including threetwo or more tenured faculty members, one of whom one may be from outside the unit. The total number of members shall be determined by the unit. The committee shall include no department head or dean.

Each school or college must have an elected, standing oversight committee. In the case of those schools or colleges which have formal departments, post-tenure review shall be conducted by an elected committee of the department. In the case of those schools or colleges which do not have formal departments, the sixth-year, post-tenure review shall be conducted by the elected, standing oversight committee of that school or college, which may be an existing committee or one newly devised for that purpose. In the case of units so small that a post-tenure review committee is impractical, the larger unit's oversight committee willshall make arrangements for post-tenure review.

In addition to any other annual evaluation of tenured faculty, a post-tenure review will be required at least every five years. The post-tenure review is to be conducted at regular intervals regardless of the rank of the faculty member, except for persons within three (3) years of retirement if that is the policy of the school or college. At the option of the faculty member, the department head, or the dean, an earlier review may be requested. The request for review, submitted in writing, shall include reasons for the earlier consideration. The sixth-year review should be scheduled to occur during the winter and spring terms during the sixth year following the last review. The evaluation by the committee of peers is submitted to the department head who then reviews all relevant information and prepares a summary post-tenure report. The report of the post-tenure review shall be given to the faculty member and signed by the faculty member to indicate that he or she has read the report. The faculty member may submit a written response to the report within thirty days. Copies shall be sent to the faculty member, the department head, and the dean. The time for review shall be determined by the review committee. A copy of the report and any response by the faculty member shall be forwarded to the appropriate dean no later than March 15th of the review year. A copy of the report shall also be filed in the faculty memberís personnel file.

[Note:  Next paragraphlargely replaced by paragraphs above;  some are moved around.]

Copies of the report of the post-tenure review shall be sent to the faculty member, and to the appropriate administrative officials. The faculty member may submit a written response to the report within thirty days; the response shall be attached to the report of the committee.

USE OF REVIEWS

(1) A. Post-Tenure Review and Recognition of Excellence?A Post-Tenure Incentive Program

Each sixth-year review provides an opportunity for the University to acknowledge and reward outstanding performance in meeting the expectations defined in the areas of teaching, research and service. Each school or college shall have an elected, standing oversight committee charged with evaluating the sixth-year reviews. This committee may be the Personnel Committee, or one newly devised for this purpose. In the College of Arts and Sciences, the evaluation may be performed by the Deanís Advisory Committee, or by one of three newly formed committees, each representing one of the three major subdivisions of the college. The evaluation from the school or college committee(s) shall include a recommendation to the appropriate dean for recognizing and rewarding the faculty member through a Post-Tenure Incentive Program. Four broad categories of performance evaluation include 1) exceptional performance, 2) above average performance, 3) satisfactory performance and 4) performance indicating areas where improvement is needed. [Italics  in original]

The dean, in consultation with the department head if necessary and appropriate, shall make recommendations to the provost for recognizing and rewarding outstanding performance. Faculty members receiving sixth-year-reviews of exceptional and above average will be rewarded with a financial incentive commensurate with the evaluation of their performance. This financial incentive will consist of a merit increase to be added to the faculty memberís base salary. These special merit increases shall be conferred by the provost during the summer following the sixth-year review. Faculty members shall have the right to appeal the provostís decision within 30 days of receipt of notification.[Italics in original.]

The individual steps and recommended timeframe for sixth-year reviews are summarized in Appendix II.

In addition to salary enhancement resulting directly from a given sixth-year review, An unusuallyexceptionally strong evaluations resulting from post-tenure review should also result in an appropriate recommendation for base-salary increase at the next university-wide distribution of regular merit increase funds. Furthermore, Other faculty rewards should be considered by the department head and post-tenure review committee for recommendation to the Dean or Department Head. FacultySuch rewards may include, but need not be limited to the following: (1) reallocation of departmental resources on a temporary basis to allow provision of opportunityies for development of new courses to enrich the curriculum, or to allow additional research opportunity; (2) additional research or clerical support; (3) university recognition of individual faculty members for outstanding achievement.

(2) B. Career Support Program

Upon the recommendation of the post-tenure review committee,In cases where a sixth-year review indicates a need for improvement in performance, the University based on recommendations of the post-tenure review committee and the department head shall provide to the faculty member such opportunities to improve performance as the following:

1. Consultation with colleagues for purposes of assistance in problem areas.

2. Appropriate reallocation of department assignments to facilitate updating and improvement in teaching or research.

3. Access to a center for improvement of instruction or scholarly effort.

4. Personal counseling.

Until a faculty member has been given adequate opportunities for improvement including the provision of appropriate career support opportunities, and an additional post-tenure review by the College or School Post-Tenure Review appropriate Committee has been conducted, no action resulting or derived from post-tenure review may be taken under OAR 580-21-320 (Termination and Other Sanctions for Cause).

However, If an additional post tenure review finds the faculty member unwilling or unable to perform at acceptable levels, altered career plan counseling or early retirement opportunities may be provided by the University or other actions resulting in reduction in pay, or in extreme cases, termination may occur.  [Italics added for emphasis]
 
 

Faculty Legislation April 6, 1977 as amended April 10, 1985.
Date: January 22, 1986
Reviewed and Adoption Recommended by: University Senate
Reissued by: The President

Office of Academic Affairs (March, 1998)

This document presented by John E. Bonine, Professor of Law, University of Oregon 17, 1998.

2.0