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 regular post-tenure review of its faculty to encourage, to reward, and to promote the continuous development of tenured members of the faculty.

PREAMBLE

The Charter of the University of Oregon, adopted in 1872, places the governance of the University in the hands of its faculty, with the President at its head. According to the Charter, "The Faculty, consisting of the President and professors, shall be intrusted with the immediate government and discipline of the University." This system of governance imposes a solemn collective responsibility on the professors of the University of Oregon that is in addition to their individual responsibility to their students, their profession, and the larger society. The procedures described here are prepared with that responsibility of faculty governance in mind. Commitment to faculty governance requires substantial service obligations that must be recognized. The procedures are designed to help each professor, as an educator, more effectively discharge her or his individual responsibilities toward students, profession, and society.

B. The Responsibility of Educators, Academic Freedom, and Tenure

1. Individual Professional Responsibility. Society entrusts individual professors in its institutions of higher education with tasks of immense sensitivity: the education of its young people; the search for knowledge, wherever that search may lead; and the use of knowledge to help individuals and institutions in society progress and improve. To perform these tasks well requires a lifetime commitment to the profession of the scholar.

2. Academic Freedom. To persuade the best scholars to devote their lives to this profession, the University guarantees a healthy measure of freedom in their professional lives. The protection of that freedom -- which is called academic freedom -- is both the precondition to excellence in the professoriate and the precondition to the education of continuing generations of free citizens, in a free society. Therefore, academic freedom is guaranteed not primarily to benefit the professors, but to ensure benefits to society as a whole.

3. Academic Tenure. The primary method by which academic freedom is guaranteed is through a conditional grant of tenure with indefinite term. This grant of tenure is offered only to those professors who make it through a rigorous, probationary period. During that period, they bear the burden of proving their potential for lifelong excellence in teaching, research, and service. Those who sustain this burden of proof are then offered, in return, a commitment that the University will not later dismiss them without itself bearing a burden of proof that they are not performing as expected. Tenured professors are not guaranteed their jobs. They are, however, guaranteed that they will not be dismissed without academic due process. This guarantee is central to academic freedom and the societal benefits that it generates.

4. Evaluation. In addition to the rigorous evaluation undergone by professors who obtain tenure, professors are continually evaluated by their students, by their local peers, and by a wide range of peers in their profession on a national or international basis after they have obtained tenure. Few professions are practiced as "publicly" as the profession of a university professor. Evaluation and review is therefore a continuing feature of the life of every professor.

5. The Dynamics of Professorial Careers. It is also recognized that the focus of a faculty member1s professional activities may shift over time. 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 careers, however, some may redirect their energies. Some may, for example, devote proportionately more time to teaching, advising, administration, and university service than they did as assistant professors. Consequently, expectations for, and the goals of, individual faculty members may also change. For the purpose of post-tenure review, the fundamental criterion is demonstrated excellence in meeting the expectations and goals established jointly by the faculty member and his or her department or program. If, for example, it is in the department1s and University1s best interest to have a tenu! red faculty member focus more on teaching and service than upon research, post-tenure review for that faculty member should emphasize, acknowledge, and reward demonstrated excellence in those areas. A key aspect of this program is therefore the establishment of professional expectations for each faculty member under review.

5. 6. Collective Professional Responsibility for Faculty Development. In addition to their individual responsibilities, the faculty members in each administrative unit (department, program, school, or college) of the University of Oregon have a collective responsibility to help individual colleagues achieve excellence. The purpose of this procedure is to promote a high level of dialogue between individual faculty members, their colleagues, and heads of administrative units, so that each faculty member can draw upon the advice and resources of others in her or his pursuit of professional excellence.

PROCEDURE

Each administrative unit department or program at the University of Oregon will shall establish procedures for developmental post-tenure reviews in accordance with the policies outlined here. These policies are regarded as a minimum, and are not intended to preclude individual departments or programs from instituting additional criteria, guidelines or procedures, so long as they do not conflict with the policies detailed herein. In order to ensure that such procedures are created in each administrative unit, a memorandum will be submitted by each administrative unit to the appropriate Dean in a timely fashion within 60 days of the adoption of this policy, stating that the unit has faculty members have created such procedures. The procedures require the approval of the Dean. In the case of a professional school or college with no internal departments or divisions, the Dean of that school or college shall be responsible for the establishment of such procedures.

Each administrative unit will department or program shall distribute a copy of its post-tenure review procedures to each member of the faculty at the beginning of each academic year. Alternatively, faculty can may receive a reminder of the electronic site where such information is maintained.

Two Three levels of regular, developmental review are required of all tenured faculty:

 
• (1) a major review every six years after a prior major review or promotion of rank, and
• (1) an annual submissions of an up-dated curriculum vita to the department or program head at the end of each academic year
• (2) a comprehensive review at the three-year point after a major, six-year review or a promotion to the rank of Associate Professor or after a prior major review. Other reviews (such as those undertaken for regular salary or merit-pay adjustments) may contribute to the third-year review, but may not be substituted for it. and
• (3) a major review every six years after a prior major review or promotion of rank.

It is the responsibility of the appropriate Dean governing the administrative unit to ensure that the procedures described in this policy are followed each year. The evaluation of Deans shall include reference to their success in ensuring that their faculties conduct timely post- tenure reviews.

B. The Role of the Department or Program Head and Faculty Peer Committees

In each unit, faculty peer committees comprising a minimum of two tenured faculty members will be responsible for both third-year comprehensive reviews and sixth-year major reviews. The process for formation of committees will be decided by the faculty of an administrative unit. Options that may be considered include (1) the use of existing personnel committees of the unit, (2) election of committee members by the unit as a whole, (3) appointment of committee members by the unit's chair on a rotating basis so as to cover all faculty members, or (4) another basis that ensures both fairness and excellence in the process. This committee should be formed by the end of the academic year prior to its taking responsibility for reviews described herein.

The peer committee review process is intended to be cooperative and developmental. It is not a disciplinary, sanctioning, or termination process, for which procedures are established elsewhere under OAR 580-021-0321, OAR 580-021-0325, and OAR 580-022-0045 and University policy.

The third-year comprehensive review occurs within the faculty member1s department or program, and shall be managed by the department or program head. In the case of larger departments or programs, the head (or in the case of a school or college without internal divisions, the Dean) may appoint on an ad hoc basis a small peer committee, consisting of a minimum of two tenured faculty members, to manage the review. Alternatively, the review may be conducted by a standing departmental personnel committee. In either case, the committee, when required, should be formed by the end of the academic year prior to its taking responsibility for reviews described herein.

The sixth-year major review shall be conducted by a standing Post-Tenure Review Committee elected from the tenured members of the faculty member1s school or college (or, in the case of the College of Arts and Sciences, from the appropriate division). This committee will consist of no less than three tenured faculty.

It is the responsibility of the appropriate Dean to ensure that both the third-year and six-year reviews are conducted in a way that ensures both excellence and fairness in the process.

Both third-year and sixth-year reviews are intended to be cooperative and developmental. Post-Tenure Review is not a disciplinary, sanctioning, or termination process, for which procedures are established elsewhere under OAR 580-021-0321, OAR 580-021-0325, and OAR 580-022-0045 and University policy.

C. The Annual Review

By the end of each academic year, every faculty member must submit to his or her department or program head an updated curriculum vitae. The major activities or accomplishments of that year should be clearly indicated.

C. D. The Third-Year Comprehensive Review

Third-year comprehensive reviews will be jointly conducted by each individual faculty member and a committee of her or his colleagues from the administrative unit. the department or program head.

Before the end of the academic year, the head of the administrative unit department or program will identify each faculty member who will need a third year comprehensive review in the following academic year and will notify those faculty members. Notification also shall be sent to the appropriate Dean and , if applicable peer review committee.
 

1. Self-Study. Each faculty member will review his or her teaching, research, and service contributions over the last previous three years (or more often, if the unit so chooses), in a written evaluative letter comprehensive self-study . This self-study consists of materials assembled by the faculty member that include at least :

* A narrative including comments on goals set out by the faculty member in the previous 6-year sixth-year review and any changes of direction or goals that the professor has instituted.

* An updated curriculum vitae.

* Copies of peer teaching evaluations , when applicable and such student evaluations as are required by University policies and policies of the administrative unit.

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

* Other evaluative information.

2. Review by Peers. The self-study review will be submitted to the faculty peer committee, which will review the document. This review must be submitted by December 1 of the academic year in which the faculty member is being reviewed.

3. 2. Filing or and Consultation. The peer review committee will forward the self-study to the head of the administrative unit with a recommendation to The self-study shall be submitted to the department or program head or to the appropriate faculty peer committee by December 1 of the academic year in which the faculty member is being reviewed.

In cases where the review is conducted by the department or program head, the head may either:

 

a) file accept the self-study , file it in the faculty member's personnel file , and notify the faculty member, the appropriate Dean, and Provost of its acceptance or

b) initiate a process of consultation with the faculty member if the committee or individual faculty member deems it to be appropriate in order to address any concerns the head may have . If the head of the administrative unit so chooses, after receiving the self-study with a recommendation to file the documents under a), she or he can request that the peer review committee initiate consultation. In any case, The process of consultation will shall begin by January 15 of the academic year in which the faculty member is being reviewed , and shall be completed by March 15 of that same year . The consultation process will be completed by March 15 of that academic year. A letter outlining the results of the consultation shall be sent to the faculty member by April 15 of that same year. The faculty member shall have the opportunity to respond in writing to this letter within 30 days of receipt, if she or he so chooses.

In cases where the review of the self-study is conducted by a departmental or program peer committee, that committee shall forward the self-study to the head of the department or program with a recommendation to either:

 

a) accept the self-study, file it in the faculty member's personnel file, and notify the faculty member, Dean, and Provost of its acceptance or

b) initiate a process of consultation with the faculty member if the committee deems it to be appropriate. The process of consultation shall involve the individual faculty member, the peer committee, and the department or program head. It shall begin by January 15 of the academic year in which the faculty member is under review. The consultation process shall be completed by March 15 of that academic year. A letter outlining the results of the consultation shall be sent to the faculty member by April 15 of that same year. The faculty member shall have the opportunity to respond in writing to this letter within 30 days of receipt.

4. 3. Purpose of any Consultation. If a consultation ensues, is deemed appropriate its purpose is shall be to provide constructive feedback to the faculty member regarding her or his review, to address resource issues, or to negotiate changes in plans or priorities. The process is to be cooperative and beneficial, not disciplinary.

5. Post-consultation Process. The peer review committee shall report the result of the consultation process to the head of the administrative unit by April 15. The faculty member shall be given a copy of this post-consultation report, and have the opportunity to attach a written statement to the peer review committee report within 30 days if she or he so chooses.

6. 4. Notification. Upon conclusion of the third-year review, the head of the administrative unit department or program then shall send these documents and any written statement prepared by the faculty member under the post-consultation process to the appropriate Dean, along with a summarizing cover letter the self-study, supporting documents, and any letters written by the head, peer committee or faculty member during the consultation process to the appropriate Dean, along with a summarizing cover letter. Copies of all such documents prepared by the peer review committee and a copy of the letter to the Dean shall be provided to the peer review committee and the faculty member undergoing review placed in the faculty member's personnel file. . Copies of the self-study, recommendation and post-consultation reports by the peer review committee, any written statement prepared by the faculty member following consultation, and the letter to the Dean shall be placed in the faculty member's personnel file.

Sixth-year major post-tenure reviews will be jointly conducted by each individual faculty member and a committee of her or his colleagues from the administrative unit the elected Post-Tenure Review Committee of her or his school or college, with the assistance of the department or program head .

Before the end of the academic year, the department or program head of the administrative unit will identify each faculty member who will need a sixth year major post-tenure review in the following academic year and will shall notify those faculty members. Notification also shall be sent to the appropriate Dean and peer review committee to the Post-Tenure Review Committee .
 

1. Initial Meeting. No later than October 15 of the academic year in which the faculty member is being reviewed, the peer committee Post-Tenure Review Committee, and the faculty member , and the department or program head shall meet and design a mutually agreeable plan and schedule for the developmental review. The purpose of this initial meeting is to agree upon a process for assessing the professor's teaching, research, and service.

2. Self-Study. Each faculty member will review his or her teaching, research, and service contributions over the last six years, in a written evaluative letter, submitted to his or her faculty peer committee department or program head by December 1 of the academic year in which the faculty member is being reviewed.

The self-study will consist of an extensive and self-reflective analysis of the course of the professor's career, focusing specifically on the previous six years. The faculty member will provide:

* An updated curriculum vitae.

* A narrative including comments goals set in prior reviews, and whether they have been altered; achievement of the original or altered goals, and areas where more work is planned; goals for professional development in the areas of research, teaching, and service at all levels for the next six-year period and for her or his career; resource-related problems or other matters which appear to be limiting factors in reaching such goals.

* An updated curriculum vitae.

* Copies of peer teaching evaluations (see below "Classroom Visits") and such student evaluations as are required by University policies and policies of the administrative unit department, school, or college .

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

* Other evaluative information.

3. Classroom Visits. Each administrative unit will ensure that it uses an effective method of peer observation of teaching, including classroom visits, in addition to its processes for peer review of research. Peer classroom visits will ensure that a faculty member is observed in a variety of settings, a condition that may be satisfied by a program of regular visits in various years.

4. Second Meeting with Committee. The peer review committee , and the faculty member , and the department or program head shall meet again after peer observation of teaching and review of research and service have taken place, in order to discuss their impressions and initial conclusions. The emphasis shall be on a collegial discussion about accomplishments, hopes, plans, and resources needed. Such a meeting shall be scheduled prior to the committee's evaluation of the faculty member.

5. Evaluation. The peer review committee shall complete an evaluative report of the faculty member by March 1 of the academic year in which the faculty member is being evaluated. The report shall include a summary evaluation of the faculty member's performance during the previous six years and recommendations of rewards (see "Reward for Performac" below) . The following criteria shall be used:

* Maintenance of high quality of teaching.

* Continuing professional growth, scholarly activities, creative and artistic achievement.
* Exercise of leadership in academic and administrative service
* Service and activities on behalf of the larger communities
* Any special criteria agreed upon by the peer review committee and the faculty member undergoing review.

6. Notification. The faculty member , the appropriate department or program head, the appropriate Dean, and the Provost shall be given an unsigned copy of the peer review committee report. The faculty member then shall:

a) sign the report and return it to the committee for countersignature,

b) attach a written statement and sign and return the report, or

c) proceed to mediation.

7. Mediation Process. Within 30 days of the receipt of the unsigned committee report, the faculty member may request in writing that a process of mediation be used to resolve issues in the report with which the faculty member does not agree. After such a request, the committee members and the faculty member will move expeditiously to jointly select a mediator. The mediator shall use her or his best efforts to revise the review so that it is mutually acceptable to the peer review committee and faculty member. If so, all parties shall sign the revised review. If the mediator, after using best efforts and a reasonable period of time, finds that the differences cannot be reconciled, she or he will provide a final notification to all parties that mediation has failed. At this point, the faculty member may attach a written statement and will sign the original review and return it to the peer review committee for countersignature. In those cases when the faculty member under review disputes the conclusions or outcomes of the committee report, he or she may initiate informal mediation and seek resolution under guidelines already established in the University of Oregon Faculty Handbook (Informal Resolution of Complaints) and under OAR 571-003-0004 (Faculty Informal Grievance Procedure). It is the University1s goal that an informal process be used to resolve disagreements expeditiously and to the satisfaction of all interested parties.

8. Appeal Process. Within a period specified in OAR 571-03-0000 et. seq. the faculty member may appeal to the University Faculty Grievance Appeal Committee, beginning either when the mediator notifies the faculty member that the mediation process was unsuccessful, or 30 days after the receipt of the unsigned committee report, if the mediation process was not used.

8. Formal Appeal Process. Should informal procedures fail to resolve disputes, the faculty member may formally appeal to the University Faculty Grievance Appeal Committee, under guidelines already established in the University of Oregon Faculty Handbook (Formal Grievance Processes) and under OAR 571-003-005 (``Faculty Formal Grievance Procedure).

Appropriate unit heads will Department or program heads shall determine the years in which faculty will shall undergo this post-tenure review in accordance with these guidelines: the guidelines outlined in this document, noting the following: determine the years in which faculty will undergo this review in accordance with these guidelines:
 

1. For Associate Professors, review will be timed so that a third-year review takes place in the third year after the awarding of tenure.

2. For Full Professors, review will be timed so that those faculty who have served the longest since their last review will be the first to have their sixth-year reviews. In any year where the faculty member is reviewed for promotion to Full Professor, promotion review will substitute for the sixth-year review.

3. For those without reviews in the last six years, on a randomly-assigned basis. In practice, some deviations from normal scheduling may occur for a variety of reasons, including hiring and promotion cycles.

4. In any year where the faculty member is reviewed for promotion to Full Professor, promotion review will substitute for this review. In addition, any faculty member within three years of retirement or on the 600-hour program can choose not to undergo review.

5. Any faculty member at the rank of Associate Professor who has not attained the rank of Full Professor by the end of his or her sixth year after the awarding of tenure shall undergo the sixth-year major review during the seventh year after the awarding of tenure.

Thus, it is expected that approximately one-sixth of the faculty will perform sixth-year reviews in the first year of this program, and approximately one-sixth will perform third-year reviews in the first year of the program. In practice, however, some deviations from this approach will occur for a variety of reasons, including hiring and promotion cycles. In addition, any faculty member within three years of retirement or on the 600-hour program can choose not to undergo review.

USE OF REVIEWS

1. Any faculty member at the rank of Full Professor undergoing a sixth year review who is recommended by the peer review committee will receive a $2000 supplement to his or her base salary. Such funds are not to come from monies earmarked for other salary increases for merit, cost-of-living, administrative support accounts (ASAs), and other university-wide adjustments.

2. Third year comprehensive reviews shall be an element of annual salary adjustment decisions.

1. In accordance with OAR 580-021-0140 (2b and c), the purposes of post-tenure review are to ``offer appropriate feedback and professional development opportunities to tenured faculy'' and to ``clearly link remuneration (i.e., increases, stasis, or decreases) to faculty performance. In accordance with IMD 4.002, post-tenure review must be related to the faculty reward system, so that salary-adjustment decisions will reflect the results of performance evaluations.

2. Consequently, any faculty member at the rank of Full Professor who, in the opinion of the Post-Tenure Review Committee, completes a sixth-year major review with distinction shall receive a $2000 supplement to his or her base salary, beginning in the following academic year. Such funds are not to come from monies earmarked for other regular salary increases for merit, cost-of-living, and administrative support accounts (ASAs). Faculty who is the opinion of the Post-Tenure Review Committee, complete the sixth-year review satisfactorily but without distinction may have their base salary adjusted at a level below $2000, or not at all. Faculty whose sixth-year review identifies serious problems or deficiencies in performance may have their salary adjusted accordingly.

3. The third-year comprehensive review shall be a factor in regular salary or merit-pay decisions, but shall not in itself lead to a separate adjustment of base salary.

B. Faculty Resource Support

In order to support the goals set out in a faculty member's developmental review, the Provost shall allocate funds to administrative units for this purpose. Such funds are not to come from monies earmarked for salary or ASAs, nor are they to be used to increase the faculty member's salary or ASA. Rather, their purpose is to assist the faculty member in achieving professional goals set out in his or her six-year plan. So, for example, resources could be made available to support the preparation of new classes, the acquisition of technological capabilities, the pursuit of new research initiatives, or a number of other goals that might be outlined in the faculty member's developmental review. Faculty will be allocated funds up to $1000 for pursuing his or her research and teaching goals.

Since one of the goals of both the third- and sixth-year reviews is to identify areas in which the faculty member may improve or develop, the appropriate Dean may request an allocation of additional funds from the Office of the Provost to assist the faculty member in achieving specific goals identified during the review process. Such funds are not to come from monies already earmarked for salary increases or ASAs, nor are they to be used to increase the faculty member's salary, though they may be used to augment already funded ASAs. So, for example, resources could be made available to support the preparation of new classes, the acquisition of technological capabilities, the pursuit of new research initiatives, the pursuit of research abroad, or a number of other goals that might be outlined in the faculty member's developmental reviews.

C. Career Support Program

Upon recommendation of the peer review committee Post-Tenure Review Committee , the University shall provide to the faculty member with such opportunities to improve performance as the following:

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

2. Appropriate reallocation of assignments within the administrative unit 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 and unless the faculty member has been given adequate opportunities for improvement and an additional post-tenure review by the administrative unit's peer review committee has been conducted, no action resulting or derived from post-tenure review may be taken under statutes of OAR 580-021-0321, OAR 580-021-0325, and OAR 580-022-0045 and University policy. Such action may be may be initiated only after appropriate career support opportunities have been provided.

If an additional sixth year 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.