FAC motion concerning Post Tenure Review

Fac motion concerning Post Tenure Review

The following document was provided by the Secretary of the Senate. It contains information about the creation of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on PTR

MOTION

The University Senate shall appoint a committee to study the motion proposed by the Faculty Advisory Council concerning post tenure review and to consult widely with the University community on all aspects of the matter, including the financial implications. The committee shall report back to the senate by the last senate meeting of the fall term 1998, and the senate shall take action on the committee's recommendation by the end of winter term 1999.

BACKGROUND

On April 8, 1998, the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) gave notice that it intended to move, at the May 13, 1998 Senate meeting, that the Senate approve a post-tenure review policy statement. A copy of that statement is appended to this Motion. In making the motion, the FAC noted the following language from the University of Oregon's 1997 Accreditation Report from the Commission on Colleges:

"The committee recommends that institutional administrators take immediate action to ensure campus-wide compliance with the requirements of Standard VII and Commission Policy 26 for the continuing review of faculty. Commission Policy 26 requires that every faculty member at every institution must be subject to some type of substantive performance evaluation at least every third year. The committee found much unevenness across campus in the implementation of campus policies for faculty review, especially review of tenured faculty. Furthermore, 1996 Faculty Handbook requires post-tenure review for tenured faculty at the rank of full professor only every five years. Hence, the institution needs to be sure it complies with Standard VII - Instructional Staff and Commission Policy 26 - Faculty Evaluation."

The FAC further noted that "[d]uring the 1997-98 Academic Year, the Faculty Advisory Council has worked on revision of the university's policy for post-tenure review. The impetus for this review and revision grew out of the 1994 report of the Commission on Faculty Rewards and Development. The need for revision in our existing policy was also emphasized during the recent accreditation review and recommendation (above)."

In response to the FAC's motion, the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) indicated that it wished to move to refer the post-tenure review policy to a Senate committee for consideration. The FPC's proposed motion was as follows:

[Preamble]: The FPC is charged with giving advice regarding personnel matters. The FPC feels that the motion to come before the Senate in May 1998 concerning Post Tenure Review deals not only with process but also with significant personnel policy issues. The FPC feels that this proposal requires further study and debate before being placed to a vote. The FPC therefore respectfully submits the following motion for consideration by the University Senate: [Motion]: The Senate shall appoint a committee to study the motion proposed by the FAC concerning Post Tenure Review and to consult widely with the University community on all aspects of the matter, including the financial implications. The committee shall report back to the Senate during Fall 1998 and final action by the Senate on the matter shall be postponed until that time.

The FAC concurs with the referral and hereby moves as indicated above.

APPENDIX Title: Post-Tenure Review

PURPOSE: To state the University's policy and to outline 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 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.

CRITERIA The procedure for post-tenure review relates closely to the regular academic review process for faculty. In addition to the thorough reviews associated with the promotion and tenure process, a faculty member's performance is documented through informal yearly evaluations and formal evaluations conducted every three years. The following criteria (elaborated in the Faculty Handbook) are to be used in all post-tenure reviews:

1.Maintenance of high quality teaching at all levels.
2.Continuing professional growth, scholarly activities, creative and artistic achievement.
3.Exercise of leadership in academic and administrative service.
4.Service and activities on behalf of the larger community.

The information to be considered in decisions concerning post-tenure review will include the faculty memberís statement of scholarly, scientific, professional or artistic accomplishments, goals and plans; an up-to-date vita and bibliography; accumulated annual faculty evaluation reports; faculty memberís responses, if any. Additional information including any of the following may be requested: Ý 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. Student evaluations, peer evaluations and other materials relating to the quality of teaching, supervision of graduate students and advising. 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. 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. Other evaluative 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 department's and the University's 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.Ý A key aspect of this program is therefore establishment of the professional expectations for individual faculty members.

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.

Departments are encouraged to design simple one-page forms for faculty to use in this evaluation. 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 member's departmental personnel file.

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 Professor's progress toward establishing a record commensurate with promotion. For full Professors, the third-year review provides a mechanism by which the individual's contributions to the institution can be evaluated, how their own careers are progressing, and how they are meeting the needs and expectations of the department and university. In addition to guiding the faculty member in his or her professional development, these reviews constitute the primary, formal basis for recommending merit- and equity-based salary adjustments.

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 (In cases where a faculty member is on sabbatical leave during that term, the review shall be conducted during the first term following the sabbatical) . 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 Professor's accomplishments may include evaluation by external experts in the candidate's field of expertise. The departmentÝ 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 department's personnel/promotion committee in addition to the department head.

The comprehensive review for promotion to full Professor shall be substituted for the third-year review as appropriate. 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 review known as the "sixth-year review". This process shall begin with a thorough, peer review conducted by an elected standing committee of the academic department including two or more tenured faculty members, one of whom 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. 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 shall make arrangements for post-tenure review.

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. 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 member's personnel file.

USE OF REVIEWS

A. Post-Tenure Review and Recognition of Excellence -- A Post-Tenure Incentive Program

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 member's 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 provost's decision within 30 days of receipt of notification.

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, exceptionally strong evaluations 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. Such rewards may include, but need not be limited to the following: (1) provision of opportunities for the 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.

B. Career Support Program 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 the faculty member opportunities to improve performance such as the following: Ý Consultation with colleagues for purposes of assistance in problem areas. Appropriate reallocation of department assignments to facilitate updating and improving in teaching or research. Access to a center for improvement of instruction or scholarly effort. 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 appropriate committee, 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, early retirement opportunities, or actions resulting in reduction in pay, or in extreme cases, termination may occur.