Tenured Faculty Performance Review Policy

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

 

 

I.  Purpose

 

      The purpose of tenured faculty performance review is to provide for the periodic and comprehensive review of the performance of all faculty members who have tenure and whose primary duties are teaching, research, and service.  The goals of such a review are to promote faculty development and productivity and provide additional accountability.

 

II.    Applicability of Review Process

 

      The Tenured Faculty Performance Review process is applicable to all tenured members of the faculty who have been on a continuous contract for a period of five years or more since their last cumulative review.  A faculty member shall not be subject to a mandatory Tenured Faculty Performance Review more than once every five years.  A faculty member may request postponement of a scheduled Tenured Faculty Performance Review for extenuating personal circumstances, such as health problems.  The request for a postponement must be in writing and submitted for approval by the faculty member’s Chairperson and Dean.

 

III. Relationship Between Tenured Faculty Performance Review and Review for Promotion

 

      Tenured Faculty Performance Review will be coordinated with the review of a faculty member for promotion in the following ways: (1) Any departmental consideration for promotion five years after a faculty member receives tenure satisfies the requirements for the faculty member’s Tenured Faculty Performance Review.  One outcome of the promotion review could be a requirement that the faculty member prepare a development plan as described below. (2) If a faculty member postpones the application for promotion five years after receiving tenure, he or she will undergo a Tenured Faculty Performance Review.  The Tenured Faculty Performance Review, in this case, would satisfy the requirement of a promotion review five years after the award of tenure.

 

IV.   Procedures

 

A.       Step One: Initiating the Review Process

 

Whenever a Tenured Faculty Performance Review is initiated, the chairperson shall first consult with the faculty member and then shall establish a schedule for the conduct of the review by the Review Committee (see definition below).  Ordinarily, a faculty member should be given at least four months notice that one is to be reviewed.

 

1.      Review File.  To initiate the review process, the department chairperson, in cooperation with the faculty  member, shall construct a Tenured Faculty Performance Review file containing only: (a) copies of the faculty member’s last five written Departmental-level annual reviews; (b) a current curriculum vitae; and (c) an optional statement describing his or her professional accomplishments in teaching, research and service.  If necessary for clarification, the Chair or review committee may request further information.

 

2.      The Review Committee.  The Department Review Committee or a special committee elected by the tenured members of the department, shall conduct the review of the faculty member’s performance.  The Committee shall be elected according to the department, college and University procedures.  The Review Committee shall review the file and may meet with the chairperson and the faculty member, either together or separately.  The Committee may consult other sources of information not included in the file, if deemed appropriate, with the approval of the chairperson.  In accordance with the schedule for the review established by the chairperson, the Review Committee shall make a written assessment of the faculty member’s performance, including, where appropriate, recommendations to the chairperson intended to enhance the faculty member’s contributions to the unit and the University.  The Review Committee Report is advisory to the chairperson.  The Report shall include an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member’s performance.  This written assessment shall conclude with one of the following findings:

 

a.      “Seriously Deficient” – The faculty member has substantial and chronic performance deficiencies.  The Review Committee shall state and describe the performance deficiencies in its Report.  The Committee shall forward its findings to the chairperson.

 

b.      “Satisfactory”:  The faculty member has no substantial and chronic performance deficiencies.

 

 The chairperson shall provide the faculty member being reviewed a copy of both the Review Committee report and the chair’s recommendation.  The faculty member will be provided an opportunity to respond in writing.  The Report and any response from the faculty member shall be made a part of the faculty member’s permanent personnel record.

 

B.       Step Two: Review by Chair and Dean

 

1.      Review by the Chair.  The Review Committee submits its written evaluation to the Chairperson.  The Chair may accept or reject the recommendation of the Review Committee.  The Chair may reject the Review Committee’s recommendation only with compelling evidence, communicated in writing to the faculty member, the Dean and the department Review Committee.  The chairperson’s written appraisal shall include a statement on the extent to which the chairperson accepts or rejects the findings and recommendations of the Review Committee Report and include the reasons and evidence for such a conclusion.  Any recommendation for sanctions to be imposed on the faculty member related to his or her lack of performance under the terms and expectations of a previously agreed upon performance improvement plan will be described in the chair’s written statement.

 

2.      Review by the Dean.  The Chair submits her/his written appraisal to the Dean.  The Dean may accept or reject the Chair’s recommendation.  The Dean may reject the Chair’s recommendation only with compelling evidence.  In the event that the dean’s appraisal of the Tenured Faculty Performance Review outcome differs from that provided by the Department Review Committee or the chairperson, the dean will submit the faculty member’s review materials to the College Review Committee for an advisory review, and the dean’s objections, reasons and evidence will be communicated in writing.  The dean’s response shall be provided to the faculty member, the chairperson, and the Provost.

 

3.      Faculty Appeals.  A faculty member dissatisfied with the results of the Tenured Faculty Performance Review and the chairperson’s subsequent appraisal, or the dean’s acceptance, modification or rejection of it, may pursue any appeal or remedy otherwise available to faculty members relating to matters that affect their employment status.  University regulations contained in the Tenure Policies, Procedures, and Regulations of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.  This process would be unaffected by the regulations governing Tenured Faculty Performance Review.

 

C.       Step Three:  Development Plan

 

When the chairperson and the dean agree that the faculty member’s performance is seriously deficient, the chair will require that the faculty member have a written development plan designed to improve the faculty member’s performance in clearly identified areas over a specified time period.  The development plan will be prepared jointly by the chairperson and faculty member and will include at a minimum: (a) the expectations of the chairperson as to how the faculty member can remedy the deficiency or deficiencies in performance or enhance the faculty member’s professional accomplishments and contribution to the unit; (b) specific performance goals and objectives, timetables for achieving such goals over a two-to-three year period, and the criteria to be used in measuring progress toward the performance goals; (c) the resources or development support, if any, the chairperson is willing and able to provide the faculty member to assist in implementing the plan; (d) any adjustment in workload, assignments or responsibilities of the faculty member in order to enhance his or her performance and contribution to the mission of the unit; (e) consequences that might follow if deficiencies are not corrected.

 

The development plan will be reviewed by the dean, who may make suggestions for improving the plan.  When the plan has received the final approval of the faculty member, the chairperson, and the dean, it will be implemented by the faculty member.

 

D.       Step Four:  Monitoring and Re-Evaluation of Performance

 

Progress towards achieving the goals and timetables set out in the development plan will be reviewed in subsequent annual reviews by the chairperson, who will provide detailed feedback to the faculty member and a copy to the dean.  At the end of the time period specified in the development plan, the chair, in consultation with the Department Review Committee, will review the faculty member’s performance and make one of the following recommendations: (1) the faculty member has improved his or her performance, and no further action is necessary pending the next regularly scheduled Tenured Faculty Performance Review; (2) the faculty member’s performance has improved but not at the expected level.  The chair may require an adjustment in the development plan or in the faculty member’s workload in order to improve further the faculty member’s performance; (3) the faculty member’s performance remains seriously deficient.  The chairperson may recommend the imposition of appropriate sanctions.  Any decision to recommend imposition of serious sanctions should occur only after the widest consultation with the tenured faculty in the department; whether this involves a poll or other mechanism is left up to the department.  However, the department is expected to transmit the outcome of such consultation with the senior faculty to the Dean.  The chairperson’s recommendation is forwarded to the faculty member, and the dean.

 

E.        Step Five:  Dean’s Review and the Possible Imposition of Sanctions

 

The dean reviews the recommended action:

1.      If the dean agrees with a departmental recommendation that no further action is necessary, the review process stops pending the next regularly scheduled tenured faculty performance review;

2.      If the dean agrees with a recommendation for a workload adjustment, the adjustment is implemented and the review stops pending the next regularly scheduled tenured faculty performance review.

3.      If the dean agrees with a departmental recommendation for the imposition of serious sanctions, he/she forwards this recommendation to the Provost.  Serious sanctions may be imposed only in accord with Section VI, of the Tenure Policies, Regulations and Procedures of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (pp 17-19) become operational.

 

Serious sanctions that may be imposed include demotion, salary reduction and, in the most serious cases, may include a recommendation for discharge.  A faculty member retains full rights to seek a hearing if the decision is made to impose serious sanctions Neither a negative review nor an insufficient improvement from a development plan will necessarily result in the imposition of sanctions; such sanctions may be imposed only upon grounds specified in Section VI of the Tenure Policies.  In the imposition of serious sanctions, the burden of proof is on the University to prove that the serious deficiencies on the developmental plan constitute incompetence or neglect of duty.

 

4.      If the dean disagrees with the departmental decision, the departmental and dean’s recommendation are forwarded to the Provost for review.

STEPS OF THE TENURED FACULTY PERFORMANCE REVIEW (TFPR)

 

STEP 1

Performance Review

 

STEP II

Review by Chair and Dean

STEP III

Developmental Plan

STEP IV

Monitoring and

Re-evaluation

STEP V

Completion and

Possible Sanctions

1. One-fifth of tenured faculty selected for TFPR;

 

**Persons being considered for promotion do not also have to complete a TFPR; however one outcome of a promotion review may be a developmental plan; persons undergoing a TFPR may waive promotion review.

 

2.  An elected departmental committee of tenured faculty examines the gathered materials and recommends one of two evaluations:

 

Seriously Deficient: substantial and chronic performance deficiencies; criteria defined at departmental level; such an evaluation normally includes a recommendation for a developmental plan.

 

Satisfactory: no substantial and chronic performance deficiencies.

 

3.  Department committee sends recommendations to Chair

1.  Chair reviews Committee recommendations and:

a. Agrees that performance is seriously deficient, notifies the faculty member and submits recommendation to Dean for review.

b. Agrees that performance is not seriously deficient and submits to Dean for review.

c. If Chair disagrees with the recommendation, notifies committee and faculty and sends to Dean for review. The Chair’s appraisal should include the reasons and compelling evidence for conclusion.

 

2. Dean reviews departmental recommendations.

a. If Dean agrees performance is seriously deficient, returns recommendation to department for developmental plan;

b. If Dean agrees that performance is not seriously deficient, recommendation returned to Dept and process stops

c. If Dean disagrees with the recommendation of the Department, consults with College review committee.  The Dean’s written appraisal should include the reasons and compelling evidence for the disagreement.

 

3. Disagreements between the Dean and the Chair are forwarded to Provost.

1. Chair and faculty member negotiate a development plan to correct seriously deficient performance.

 

2. Developmental plan includes at least the following:

a. Deficiencies to be corrected

b. Outcomes needed to correct situation;

c. Activities to achieve agreed upon outcomes;

d. A time line to achieve goals

e. Criteria used to indicate satisfactory progress;

f. Resources, if any, to implement development plan

g. Consequences if deficiencies are not corrected

 

3. The developmental plan may include an adjusted workload (e.g. increased teaching or service responsibilities), but the faculty member is still expected to perform in a satisfactory manner.

 

4. The developmental plan is reviewed and approved by Dean.

 

5. Faculty member begins implementation of the developmental plan.

1. Chair annually monitors progress of developmental plan.

 

2. At end of developmental plan, Chair reevaluates faculty performance and after consulting with review committee decides:

a. Performance remains seriously deficient; Chair may recommend imposition of serious sanctions.  Any decision to recommend imposition of serious sanctions should involve active consultation with the tenured faculty of the department.

b. Performance has improved but not at expected level; chair may suggest workload adjustment (e.g., increase in teaching/service responsibilities).

c. Performance is satisfactory; decision is shared with faculty member and submitted to Dean for review.

1. Dean reviews recommended action from the Chair and:

a. If Dean agrees with recommendation for no further action, process stops pending next TFPR;

b. If Dean agrees with recommendation for workload adjustment, Chair directs implementation

c. If Dean agrees with recommendation for imposition of serious sanctions, existing tenure protections become operational (Section VI of UNCC Tenure); recommendation sent to Provost and Chancellor for action.

d. If Dean disagrees with departmental decision, the case goes to the Provost.

 

2. Sanctions that may be imposed include demotion, salary reduction and dismissal.

 

3. Faculty member retains full rights to seek hearing if decision is made to impose serious sanctions

 

4. In the imposition of serious sanctions, the burden of proof is on the University to prove incompetence/neglect of duty.